Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 03:54 AM - Re: Fuel tank coating (Fox5flyer)
2. 04:16 AM - Re: John King (dwight purdy)
3. 04:59 AM - Re: Fuel tank coating (Lowell Fitt)
4. 05:25 AM - Re: Fuel tank coating (Fox5flyer)
5. 05:31 AM - Re: Fuel tank coating (Mark Schindler)
6. 05:43 AM - MEK, was: Fuel tank coating (Clifford Begnaud)
7. 06:27 AM - Re: Fuel tank coating & MEK (flier)
8. 06:33 AM - Re: MEK, was: Fuel tank coating (flier)
9. 06:36 AM - Re: MEK, was: Fuel tank coating (flier)
10. 07:01 AM - MEK (Fox5flyer)
11. 07:05 AM - Re: Fuel tank coating & MEK (Lowell Fitt)
12. 07:37 AM - MEK Myths (Steve Zakreski)
13. 09:31 AM - Re: MEK, was: Fuel tank coating (Clifford Begnaud)
14. 11:30 AM - Re: MEK, was: Fuel tank coating (Clem Nichols)
15. 01:10 PM - Anyone know a Jim Fahey (kitfoxjunky)
16. 01:16 PM - Re: Kitfox cross country flying - For Gil (kitfoxjunky)
17. 01:26 PM - Re: Anyone know a Jim Fahey (Marc Arseneault)
18. 01:55 PM - Re: MEK, was: Fuel tank coating (flier)
19. 03:17 PM - Flying in Canada (Bruce Lina)
20. 06:29 PM - THANKS! for the response to Fuel tank coating ()
21. 07:15 PM - Re: Fuel tank coating (Grant Fluent)
22. 08:11 PM - valve clearance on NSI Subaru EA 81 (Clem Nichols)
23. 08:29 PM - Re: MEK Myths (KITFOXZ@aol.com)
24. 09:41 PM - Re: valve clearance on NSI Subaru EA 81 (Rick)
25. 10:08 PM - New Kitfox Owner (Guy Buchanan)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fuel tank coating |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Fox5flyer" <morid@northland.lib.mi.us>
Being one of those who has been there and done that, let me just add a
little to this. First, don't trash those tanks. They're very expensive and
somebody on the list will take them off your hands. Second, I echo what Don
said below. I chose to use MEK (outside in the breeze) because it's a
better solvent than acetone and cleans out the tanks quickly, although
acetone is somewhat cheaper and easier to obtain. Fortunately my local
hardware store was able to get MEK for around $12 a gallon or so. I capped
everything off, sloshed, then after I was sure that all the old flakey Kreem
was disolved completely and the tank was clean inside, I then recoated the
tanks with a 50/50 Kreem/MEK mix that gave the tanks a thin overall coating
that is virtually bonded to the tank inner surface. The reason for using
MEK as a thinner is that the Kreem is (or was) MEK based and seemed to be a
no brainer to me. The whole operation only took a couple of hours or so and
wasn't a real big deal. About the only problem I encountered was how to
dispose of the old MEK/Kreem mix that was removed from the tanks as it's not
exactly environmentally friendly. This same problem woud be there even if
acetone was used. This was back in 1997 and no problems to date. Hope this
helps a little.
Also, a search of the archives using Kreem as a keyword should bring up tons
of stuff on this as it's been the topic of discussion here many times in the
past.
Darrel
KF5
> Brett,
> Congratulations and welcome to the "Kreem" club. The peeling has happened
to
> 100s of tanks, and has been the topic of discussion for years. The problem
> was that the Kreem was never supposed to be used for fiberglass tanks. It
> was formulated for metal motorcycle tanks. Skystar said that a supplier
> improperly coated the tanks. They probably coated the tanks without
cleaning
> them of wax and fiberglass release agents.
>
> But you need to dissolve the old Kreem, leak check, and possibly reseal
the
> tanks again.
>
> 1. Use MEK to slosh the inside of the tanks. About 1 gallon per tank
should
> be enough. Slosh by tumbling the tank with the MEK inside. The MEK will
gas
> out, so make sure you release the pressure often.
>
> 2. Leak check by filling with water and observing any leaks.
>
> 3. If you do have leaks, you can seal with any of the tank coatings that
are
> made for fiberglass.
>
> Others on the list may be able to recommend some good sealers and methods.
>
> Don Pearsall
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: dwight purdy <dpurdy@comteck.com>
I am up to Karens also.
Dwight Model ll
At 04:45 PM 7/5/2004 -0400, you wrote:
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Alan Blind" <alanblind@hotmail.com>
>
>John
>
>I hope you mean Rochester, Indiana??? There is a nice, home cooking,
>restaurant on the southwest side of the field. You can taxi right up
>to the road next to the restaurant. If you are inclined, I can come
>down from Michigan and join you for lunch.
>
>If you want cheap gas, suggest Knox, Starke County, Indiana, KOXI. Knox
>is about 20 miles west of Rochester. Cheapest gas in the mid-west.
>There is a nice Kitfox on the field also.
>
>Alan Blind
>N61AB
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jeffrey
>Puls
>To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: John King
>
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jeffrey Puls"
><pulsair@mindspring.com>
>
>Thanks John. Jeff
>
>
> > [Original Message]
> > From: John E. King <kingjohn@erols.com>
> > To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> > Date: 6/30/2004 7:49:02 PM
> > Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: John King
> >
> > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "John E. King "
><kingjohn@erols.com>
> >
> > Jeff,
> >
> > From Marion, OH I fly direct to Rochester, IA (RCR), to Joliet, IL
> > (JOT), to Dekalb, IL (DKB), to Poplar Grove, IL (C77), to Juneau, WI
> > (UNU) and then to Oshkosh (OSH). You must enter Oshkosh via the towns
>
> > of Ripon and Fisk. Go to the EAA website and download the Oshkosh
> > NOTAMs for the approach procedures and frequencies. I can usually
>make
> > it from Marion to Oshkosh without a fuel stop, but it is smart not to
> > enter Oshkosh low on fuel. You may have to go into a holding pattern
> > over Ripon if the air show is going on, or there is a lot of traffic.
>
> > As a result I usually stop for fuel at Juneau or Poplar Grove.
> >
> > --
> > John King
> > Warrenton, VA
> >
> >
> > Jeffrey Puls wrote:
> >
> > >--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jeffrey Puls"
><pulsair@mindspring.com>
> > >
> > >John,
> > >I'm planning on flying my Fox to Oshkosh this year. Once you departed
>Marion, Ohio, what was your routing? Thanks, Jeff Classic IV Columbus,
>Ohio
> > >
> > >
> > >Jeffrey Puls
> > >pulsair@mindspring.com
> > >Why Wait? Move to EarthLink.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>==
>==
>==
>==
>
>
>---
>Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>Version: 6.0.711 / Virus Database: 467 - Release Date: 6/25/2004
---
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fuel tank coating |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@inreach.com>
Good info Darrel. Some have mentioned the hazard of MEK. Would you please
be more specific.
Lowell
----- Original Message -----
From: "Fox5flyer" <morid@northland.lib.mi.us>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Fuel tank coating
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Fox5flyer" <morid@northland.lib.mi.us>
>
> Being one of those who has been there and done that, let me just add a
> little to this. First, don't trash those tanks. They're very expensive
and
> somebody on the list will take them off your hands. Second, I echo what
Don
> said below. I chose to use MEK (outside in the breeze) because it's a
> better solvent than acetone and cleans out the tanks quickly, although
> acetone is somewhat cheaper and easier to obtain. Fortunately my local
> hardware store was able to get MEK for around $12 a gallon or so. I
capped
> everything off, sloshed, then after I was sure that all the old flakey
Kreem
> was disolved completely and the tank was clean inside, I then recoated the
> tanks with a 50/50 Kreem/MEK mix that gave the tanks a thin overall
coating
> that is virtually bonded to the tank inner surface. The reason for using
> MEK as a thinner is that the Kreem is (or was) MEK based and seemed to be
a
> no brainer to me. The whole operation only took a couple of hours or so
and
> wasn't a real big deal. About the only problem I encountered was how to
> dispose of the old MEK/Kreem mix that was removed from the tanks as it's
not
> exactly environmentally friendly. This same problem woud be there even if
> acetone was used. This was back in 1997 and no problems to date. Hope
this
> helps a little.
> Also, a search of the archives using Kreem as a keyword should bring up
tons
> of stuff on this as it's been the topic of discussion here many times in
the
> past.
> Darrel
> KF5
>
> > Brett,
> > Congratulations and welcome to the "Kreem" club. The peeling has
happened
> to
> > 100s of tanks, and has been the topic of discussion for years. The
problem
> > was that the Kreem was never supposed to be used for fiberglass tanks.
It
> > was formulated for metal motorcycle tanks. Skystar said that a supplier
> > improperly coated the tanks. They probably coated the tanks without
> cleaning
> > them of wax and fiberglass release agents.
> >
> > But you need to dissolve the old Kreem, leak check, and possibly reseal
> the
> > tanks again.
> >
> > 1. Use MEK to slosh the inside of the tanks. About 1 gallon per tank
> should
> > be enough. Slosh by tumbling the tank with the MEK inside. The MEK will
> gas
> > out, so make sure you release the pressure often.
> >
> > 2. Leak check by filling with water and observing any leaks.
> >
> > 3. If you do have leaks, you can seal with any of the tank coatings that
> are
> > made for fiberglass.
> >
> > Others on the list may be able to recommend some good sealers and
methods.
> >
> > Don Pearsall
>
>
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fuel tank coating |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Fox5flyer" <morid@northland.lib.mi.us>
Lowell, the only info I have about MEK is anecdotal at best. I've heard how
it'll rot your lungs, eat your liver, and poison your blood. These are all
warnings that have come over the list, but I have no idea what is factual.
What I do know is that the Polyfiber system is based on MEK and Ray Stits is
still kicking (I think), but that also means absolutely nothing. I only
threw in the "out in the breeze" thing because I figured someone else would
chime in with a warning about it if I didn't add something. I also added
the disposal warning because it probably isn't something to throw out on
your driveway or flush down the toilet.
Does anybody have any verifiable information from a reliable source about
the dangers of MEK and what they are?
Darrel
>
> Good info Darrel. Some have mentioned the hazard of MEK. Would you
please
> be more specific.
>
> Lowell
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Fox5flyer" <morid@northland.lib.mi.us>
> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Fuel tank coating
>
>
> > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Fox5flyer"
<morid@northland.lib.mi.us>
> >
> > Being one of those who has been there and done that, let me just add a
> > little to this. First, don't trash those tanks. They're very expensive
> and
> > somebody on the list will take them off your hands. Second, I echo what
> Don
> > said below. I chose to use MEK (outside in the breeze) because it's a
> > better solvent than acetone and cleans out the tanks quickly, although
> > acetone is somewhat cheaper and easier to obtain. Fortunately my local
> > hardware store was able to get MEK for around $12 a gallon or so. I
> capped
> > everything off, sloshed, then after I was sure that all the old flakey
> Kreem
> > was disolved completely and the tank was clean inside, I then recoated
the
> > tanks with a 50/50 Kreem/MEK mix that gave the tanks a thin overall
> coating
> > that is virtually bonded to the tank inner surface. The reason for
using
> > MEK as a thinner is that the Kreem is (or was) MEK based and seemed to
be
> a
> > no brainer to me. The whole operation only took a couple of hours or so
> and
> > wasn't a real big deal. About the only problem I encountered was how to
> > dispose of the old MEK/Kreem mix that was removed from the tanks as it's
> not
> > exactly environmentally friendly. This same problem woud be there even
if
> > acetone was used. This was back in 1997 and no problems to date. Hope
> this
> > helps a little.
> > Also, a search of the archives using Kreem as a keyword should bring up
> tons
> > of stuff on this as it's been the topic of discussion here many times in
> the
> > past.
> > Darrel
> > KF5
> >
> > > Brett,
> > > Congratulations and welcome to the "Kreem" club. The peeling has
> happened
> > to
> > > 100s of tanks, and has been the topic of discussion for years. The
> problem
> > > was that the Kreem was never supposed to be used for fiberglass tanks.
> It
> > > was formulated for metal motorcycle tanks. Skystar said that a
supplier
> > > improperly coated the tanks. They probably coated the tanks without
> > cleaning
> > > them of wax and fiberglass release agents.
> > >
> > > But you need to dissolve the old Kreem, leak check, and possibly
reseal
> > the
> > > tanks again.
> > >
> > > 1. Use MEK to slosh the inside of the tanks. About 1 gallon per tank
> > should
> > > be enough. Slosh by tumbling the tank with the MEK inside. The MEK
will
> > gas
> > > out, so make sure you release the pressure often.
> > >
> > > 2. Leak check by filling with water and observing any leaks.
> > >
> > > 3. If you do have leaks, you can seal with any of the tank coatings
that
> > are
> > > made for fiberglass.
> > >
> > > Others on the list may be able to recommend some good sealers and
> methods.
> > >
> > > Don Pearsall
> >
> >
>
>
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fuel tank coating |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Mark Schindler <mtschindler@yahoo.com>
Darrell
Read the warning on the can - it's the best cleaner - but it's pretty mean.
Here is the link to more info http://www.tapplastics.com/uploads/pdf/MSDS_MEKS.pdf
Mark
Fox5flyer <morid@northland.lib.mi.us> wrote:
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Fox5flyer"
Lowell, the only info I have about MEK is anecdotal at best. I've heard how
it'll rot your lungs, eat your liver, and poison your blood. These are all
warnings that have come over the list, but I have no idea what is factual.
What I do know is that the Polyfiber system is based on MEK and Ray Stits is
still kicking (I think), but that also means absolutely nothing. I only
threw in the "out in the breeze" thing because I figured someone else would
chime in with a warning about it if I didn't add something. I also added
the disposal warning because it probably isn't something to throw out on
your driveway or flush down the toilet.
Does anybody have any verifiable information from a reliable source about
the dangers of MEK and what they are?
Darrel
>
> Good info Darrel. Some have mentioned the hazard of MEK. Would you
please
> be more specific.
>
> Lowell
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Fox5flyer"
> To:
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Fuel tank coating
>
>
> > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Fox5flyer"
> >
> > Being one of those who has been there and done that, let me just add a
> > little to this. First, don't trash those tanks. They're very expensive
> and
> > somebody on the list will take them off your hands. Second, I echo what
> Don
> > said below. I chose to use MEK (outside in the breeze) because it's a
> > better solvent than acetone and cleans out the tanks quickly, although
> > acetone is somewhat cheaper and easier to obtain. Fortunately my local
> > hardware store was able to get MEK for around $12 a gallon or so. I
> capped
> > everything off, sloshed, then after I was sure that all the old flakey
> Kreem
> > was disolved completely and the tank was clean inside, I then recoated
the
> > tanks with a 50/50 Kreem/MEK mix that gave the tanks a thin overall
> coating
> > that is virtually bonded to the tank inner surface. The reason for
using
> > MEK as a thinner is that the Kreem is (or was) MEK based and seemed to
be
> a
> > no brainer to me. The whole operation only took a couple of hours or so
> and
> > wasn't a real big deal. About the only problem I encountered was how to
> > dispose of the old MEK/Kreem mix that was removed from the tanks as it's
> not
> > exactly environmentally friendly. This same problem woud be there even
if
> > acetone was used. This was back in 1997 and no problems to date. Hope
> this
> > helps a little.
> > Also, a search of the archives using Kreem as a keyword should bring up
> tons
> > of stuff on this as it's been the topic of discussion here many times in
> the
> > past.
> > Darrel
> > KF5
> >
> > > Brett,
> > > Congratulations and welcome to the "Kreem" club. The peeling has
> happened
> > to
> > > 100s of tanks, and has been the topic of discussion for years. The
> problem
> > > was that the Kreem was never supposed to be used for fiberglass tanks.
> It
> > > was formulated for metal motorcycle tanks. Skystar said that a
supplier
> > > improperly coated the tanks. They probably coated the tanks without
> > cleaning
> > > them of wax and fiberglass release agents.
> > >
> > > But you need to dissolve the old Kreem, leak check, and possibly
reseal
> > the
> > > tanks again.
> > >
> > > 1. Use MEK to slosh the inside of the tanks. About 1 gallon per tank
> > should
> > > be enough. Slosh by tumbling the tank with the MEK inside. The MEK
will
> > gas
> > > out, so make sure you release the pressure often.
> > >
> > > 2. Leak check by filling with water and observing any leaks.
> > >
> > > 3. If you do have leaks, you can seal with any of the tank coatings
that
> > are
> > > made for fiberglass.
> > >
> > > Others on the list may be able to recommend some good sealers and
> methods.
> > >
> > > Don Pearsall
> >
> >
>
>
---------------------------------
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Fuel tank coating |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clifford Begnaud" <shoeless@barefootpilot.com>
My wife has PhD's in both Physiology and Toxicology; she won't let me go
near MEK without gloves and a respirator. She says it is highly toxic and
collects in the liver, subsequently destroying your liver. Nuff said?
Cliff
guess she's not ready to get rid of me yet ;-)
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fuel tank coating & MEK |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "flier" <FLIER@sbcglobal.net>
Folks,
MEK has gotten a really bad rep due to a lot of
misinformation and rumors. I'm not saying that to
convince anyone to drink it for cripes sake but for
tasks that would be easier or require it, use it with
ventilation and the protection used with any other
solvent and you'll be fine. If you don't believe me,
go out and read the haz-mat and MSDS information
that's readily available. Lots of wives tales abound
about MEK...
Regards,
Ted
--- Original Message ---
From: "Fox5flyer" <morid@northland.lib.mi.us>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Fuel tank coating
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Fox5flyer"
<morid@northland.lib.mi.us>
>
>Being one of those who has been there and done that,
let me just add a
>little to this. First, don't trash those tanks.
They're very expensive and
>somebody on the list will take them off your hands.
Second, I echo what Don
>said below. I chose to use MEK (outside in the
breeze) because it's a
>better solvent than acetone and cleans out the tanks
quickly, although
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fuel tank coating |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "flier" <FLIER@sbcglobal.net>
Hey Cliff,
Literature I've seen indicates MEK ends up being
metabolized and ejected like most other things and
that it doesn't collect in any vital organs. I've
got some ref material somewhere at home and I'll look
for it. Would you mind having your wife look into
this and let us know a source of specific info?
I did some research a few years ago that convinced me
(for whatever that's worth) that MEK used with normal
precautions isn't the boogey man a lot of people
think. Clearly though, if you're in poor health,
have respiratory problems, or use the stuff every day
in large qtys without proper precautions, you'll
likely have a problem.
Thanks in advance,
Ted
--- Original Message ---
From: "Clifford Begnaud" <shoeless@barefootpilot.com>
Subject: MEK, was: Kitfox-List: Fuel tank coating
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clifford
Begnaud" <shoeless@barefootpilot.com>
>
>My wife has PhD's in both Physiology and Toxicology;
she won't let me go
>near MEK without gloves and a respirator. She says
it is highly toxic and
>collects in the liver, subsequently destroying your
liver. Nuff said?
>Cliff
>guess she's not ready to get rid of me yet ;-)
>
>
>_-
======================================================
==================
Contributions
any other
Forums.
>_-
======================================================
==================
>_-
======================================================
==================
http://www.matronics.com/subscription
http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/Kitfox-List.htm
http://www.matronics.com/browse/kitfox-list
http://www.matronics.com/digest/kitfox-list
http://www.matronics.com/archives
http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
list
http://www.matronics.com/emaillists
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>_-
======================================================
==================
>
>
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fuel tank coating |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "flier" <FLIER@sbcglobal.net>
Here's the MSDS. You just don't want to breath or
wash in the stuff...
http://www.jtbaker.com/msds/englishhtml/m4628.htm
--- Original Message ---
From: "flier" <FLIER@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: MEK, was: Kitfox-List: Fuel tank coating
>Hey Cliff,
>
>Literature I've seen indicates MEK ends up being
>metabolized and ejected like most other things and
>that it doesn't collect in any vital organs. I've
>got some ref material somewhere at home and I'll
look
>for it. Would you mind having your wife look into
>this and let us know a source of specific info?
>
>I did some research a few years ago that convinced
me
>(for whatever that's worth) that MEK used with
normal
>precautions isn't the boogey man a lot of people
>think. Clearly though, if you're in poor health,
>have respiratory problems, or use the stuff every
day
>in large qtys without proper precautions, you'll
>likely have a problem.
>
>Thanks in advance,
>
>Ted
>--- Original Message ---
>From: "Clifford Begnaud" <shoeless@barefootpilot.com>
>To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: MEK, was: Kitfox-List: Fuel tank coating
>
>>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clifford
>Begnaud" <shoeless@barefootpilot.com>
>>
>>My wife has PhD's in both Physiology and
Toxicology;
>she won't let me go
>>near MEK without gloves and a respirator. She says
>it is highly toxic and
>>collects in the liver, subsequently destroying your
>liver. Nuff said?
>>Cliff
>>guess she's not ready to get rid of me yet ;-)
>>
>>
>>_-
>=====================================================
=
>==================
>Contributions
or
>any other
>Forums.
>>_-
>=====================================================
=
>==================
http://www.matronics.com/chat
>>_-
>=====================================================
=
>==================
>http://www.matronics.com/subscription
>http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/Kitfox-List.htm
>http://www.matronics.com/browse/kitfox-list
>http://www.matronics.com/digest/kitfox-list
>http://www.matronics.com/archives
>http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
http://www.matronics.com/kitfox-
>list
>http://www.matronics.com/emaillists
>>_-
>=====================================================
=
>==================
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Fox5flyer" <morid@northland.lib.mi.us>
Thanks for the input Mark. I just read the article you provided and the
best I can make of it is that it's no worse than gasoline, maybe not even as
bad. Don't get it in your eyes, don't drink it, and make sure you wash your
hands before eating, duh. It's non-carcinogenic and and the article said
nothing about liver problems other than it can agravate existing problems.
Then again, so can too much beer! On a good note, it's completely
biodegradable and doesn't accumulate in the enviornment. I guess what it
all means (IMO) is to use good common sense and judgement when handling it,
the same as you would any other solvent. There's tons of misinformation on
the net about nearly anything you can think of so you have to weed through
it all and decide for yourself.
Have a great day y'all.
Darrel
> Darrell
>
> Read the warning on the can - it's the best cleaner - but it's pretty
mean.
> Here is the link to more info
http://www.tapplastics.com/uploads/pdf/MSDS_MEKS.pdf
>
> Mark
>
> Fox5flyer <morid@northland.lib.mi.us> wrote:
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Fox5flyer"
>
> Lowell, the only info I have about MEK is anecdotal at best. I've heard
how
> it'll rot your lungs, eat your liver, and poison your blood. These are all
> warnings that have come over the list, but I have no idea what is factual.
> What I do know is that the Polyfiber system is based on MEK and Ray Stits
is
> still kicking (I think), but that also means absolutely nothing. I only
> threw in the "out in the breeze" thing because I figured someone else
would
> chime in with a warning about it if I didn't add something. I also added
> the disposal warning because it probably isn't something to throw out on
> your driveway or flush down the toilet.
> Does anybody have any verifiable information from a reliable source about
> the dangers of MEK and what they are?
> Darrel
>
> >
> > Good info Darrel. Some have mentioned the hazard of MEK. Would you
> please
> > be more specific.
> >
> > Lowell
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Fox5flyer"
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Fuel tank coating
> >
> >
> > > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Fox5flyer"
>
> > >
> > > Being one of those who has been there and done that, let me just add a
> > > little to this. First, don't trash those tanks. They're very expensive
> > and
> > > somebody on the list will take them off your hands. Second, I echo
what
> > Don
> > > said below. I chose to use MEK (outside in the breeze) because it's a
> > > better solvent than acetone and cleans out the tanks quickly, although
> > > acetone is somewhat cheaper and easier to obtain. Fortunately my local
> > > hardware store was able to get MEK for around $12 a gallon or so. I
> > capped
> > > everything off, sloshed, then after I was sure that all the old flakey
> > Kreem
> > > was disolved completely and the tank was clean inside, I then recoated
> the
> > > tanks with a 50/50 Kreem/MEK mix that gave the tanks a thin overall
> > coating
> > > that is virtually bonded to the tank inner surface. The reason for
> using
> > > MEK as a thinner is that the Kreem is (or was) MEK based and seemed to
> be
> > a
> > > no brainer to me. The whole operation only took a couple of hours or
so
> > and
> > > wasn't a real big deal. About the only problem I encountered was how
to
> > > dispose of the old MEK/Kreem mix that was removed from the tanks as
it's
> > not
> > > exactly environmentally friendly. This same problem woud be there even
> if
> > > acetone was used. This was back in 1997 and no problems to date. Hope
> > this
> > > helps a little.
> > > Also, a search of the archives using Kreem as a keyword should bring
up
> > tons
> > > of stuff on this as it's been the topic of discussion here many times
in
> > the
> > > past.
> > > Darrel
> > > KF5
> > >
> > > > Brett,
> > > > Congratulations and welcome to the "Kreem" club. The peeling has
> > happened
> > > to
> > > > 100s of tanks, and has been the topic of discussion for years. The
> > problem
> > > > was that the Kreem was never supposed to be used for fiberglass
tanks.
> > It
> > > > was formulated for metal motorcycle tanks. Skystar said that a
> supplier
> > > > improperly coated the tanks. They probably coated the tanks without
> > > cleaning
> > > > them of wax and fiberglass release agents.
> > > >
> > > > But you need to dissolve the old Kreem, leak check, and possibly
> reseal
> > > the
> > > > tanks again.
> > > >
> > > > 1. Use MEK to slosh the inside of the tanks. About 1 gallon per tank
> > > should
> > > > be enough. Slosh by tumbling the tank with the MEK inside. The MEK
> will
> > > gas
> > > > out, so make sure you release the pressure often.
> > > >
> > > > 2. Leak check by filling with water and observing any leaks.
> > > >
> > > > 3. If you do have leaks, you can seal with any of the tank coatings
> that
> > > are
> > > > made for fiberglass.
> > > >
> > > > Others on the list may be able to recommend some good sealers and
> > methods.
> > > >
> > > > Don Pearsall
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fuel tank coating & MEK |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@inreach.com>
Thanks Ted. I did do a brief search on Google. It is good to hear a voice
of reason. Some might be surprised to find that MEK is used as a flavoring
in food. the following is a snip from the Canadian National Occupational
Health and Safety Resource.
"MEK does not accumulate in the body. It is rapidly absorbed by inhalation,
skin contact and ingestion and transferred into the blood and other tissues.
MEK is metabolized in the liver, mainly to 3-hydroxy-2-butanone and
2,3-butanediol which are eliminated in urine. Most MEK probably enters the
general metabolism in the body and is converted to acetate which is
eventually broken down to carbon dioxide and water which are then eliminated
in exhaled air and urine. Small amounts of MEK itself are also eliminated in
exhaled air and urine. MEK and its metabolites are mostly cleared from the
body within 24 hours."
Come on guys, this is not too hard to find.
Lowell
----- Original Message -----
From: "flier" <FLIER@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Fuel tank coating & MEK
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "flier" <FLIER@sbcglobal.net>
>
> Folks,
>
> MEK has gotten a really bad rep due to a lot of
> misinformation and rumors. I'm not saying that to
> convince anyone to drink it for cripes sake but for
> tasks that would be easier or require it, use it with
> ventilation and the protection used with any other
> solvent and you'll be fine. If you don't believe me,
> go out and read the haz-mat and MSDS information
> that's readily available. Lots of wives tales abound
> about MEK...
>
> Regards,
>
> Ted
>
> --- Original Message ---
> From: "Fox5flyer" <morid@northland.lib.mi.us>
> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Fuel tank coating
>
> >--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Fox5flyer"
> <morid@northland.lib.mi.us>
> >
> >Being one of those who has been there and done that,
> let me just add a
> >little to this. First, don't trash those tanks.
> They're very expensive and
> >somebody on the list will take them off your hands.
> Second, I echo what Don
> >said below. I chose to use MEK (outside in the
> breeze) because it's a
> >better solvent than acetone and cleans out the tanks
> quickly, although
>
>
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
1.0 FAKE_HELO_SHAW_CA Host HELO did not match rDNS": shaw.ca@matronics.com
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Steve Zakreski <szakreski@shaw.ca>
You can fool all of the people some of the time...
Or some of the people all the of the time...
But you can never fool all of the people all of the time.
Good work Darrel, Lowell, Mark, Ted, and others.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Lowell Fitt
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Fuel tank coating & MEK
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@inreach.com>
Thanks Ted. I did do a brief search on Google. It is good to hear a voice
of reason. Some might be surprised to find that MEK is used as a flavoring
in food. the following is a snip from the Canadian National Occupational
Health and Safety Resource.
"MEK does not accumulate in the body. It is rapidly absorbed by inhalation,
skin contact and ingestion and transferred into the blood and other tissues.
MEK is metabolized in the liver, mainly to 3-hydroxy-2-butanone and
2,3-butanediol which are eliminated in urine. Most MEK probably enters the
general metabolism in the body and is converted to acetate which is
eventually broken down to carbon dioxide and water which are then eliminated
in exhaled air and urine. Small amounts of MEK itself are also eliminated in
exhaled air and urine. MEK and its metabolites are mostly cleared from the
body within 24 hours."
Come on guys, this is not too hard to find.
Lowell
----- Original Message -----
From: "flier" <FLIER@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Fuel tank coating & MEK
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "flier" <FLIER@sbcglobal.net>
>
> Folks,
>
> MEK has gotten a really bad rep due to a lot of
> misinformation and rumors. I'm not saying that to
> convince anyone to drink it for cripes sake but for
> tasks that would be easier or require it, use it with
> ventilation and the protection used with any other
> solvent and you'll be fine. If you don't believe me,
> go out and read the haz-mat and MSDS information
> that's readily available. Lots of wives tales abound
> about MEK...
>
> Regards,
>
> Ted
>
> --- Original Message ---
> From: "Fox5flyer" <morid@northland.lib.mi.us>
> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Fuel tank coating
>
> >--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Fox5flyer"
> <morid@northland.lib.mi.us>
> >
> >Being one of those who has been there and done that,
> let me just add a
> >little to this. First, don't trash those tanks.
> They're very expensive and
> >somebody on the list will take them off your hands.
> Second, I echo what Don
> >said below. I chose to use MEK (outside in the
> breeze) because it's a
> >better solvent than acetone and cleans out the tanks
> quickly, although
>
>
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fuel tank coating |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clifford Begnaud" <shoeless@barefootpilot.com>
Ok, looks like I'll have to eat a little crow this morning (mmmm, taste
like chicken).
When my wife and I had the conversation about MEK it was several years ago
and I forgot the context. At the time I had several other things going on in
the shop that involved glue and probably some other chemicals. Anyway,
here's a follow-up about MEK that my wife Patti just emailed to me
Quote:
"With prolonged exposure, MEK alone causes increased liver weights (does not
collect in the liver) and is a potent inducer of liver metabolic enzymes
(cytochrome P450) and can result in increases in ALT and AST (signifies
leaky hepatocytes). The biggest concern with MEK is its use with other
solvents. The co-solvent effect (enhanced liver enzymes causing metabolism
of the other solvent) can lead to severe toxicities including, but not
limited to, neurotoxicity. For example, exposure to n-hexane AND MEK can
lead to enhanced production of the metabolite of n-hexane, 2,5 hexanedione,
which causes a peripheral neuropathy that can be irreversible. Accidental
ingestion can lead to acute, severe liver tox.
As to tissue accumulation, the top 5 organs for accumulation of plain MEK is
brain, lung, kidney, heart, and liver
Another type of MEK, that aircrafters DO NOT use, can cause severe liver tox
with sustained inhalation."
end quote
So, while MEK may not be the ultimate boogie man, it still makes good sense
to protect yourself from skin contact and inhalation. Especially if exposed
to other solvents!!
Cliff
that crow doesn't taste too bad
> Hey Cliff,
>
> Literature I've seen indicates MEK ends up being
> metabolized and ejected like most other things and
> that it doesn't collect in any vital organs. I've
> got some ref material somewhere at home and I'll look
> for it. Would you mind having your wife look into
> this and let us know a source of specific info?
>
> I did some research a few years ago that convinced me
> (for whatever that's worth) that MEK used with normal
> precautions isn't the boogey man a lot of people
> think. Clearly though, if you're in poor health,
> have respiratory problems, or use the stuff every day
> in large qtys without proper precautions, you'll
> likely have a problem.
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Ted
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fuel tank coating |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clem Nichols" <cnichols@scrtc.com>
Hey, guys:
Notice that one of the synonyms for MEK is methyl acetone. MEK may be worse
than plain old acetone, but the symptoms caused are the same. It's absorbed
through the skin, and also through the lungs. Like most organic solvents it
crosses the blood-brain barrier, and cause anything from headaches to coma
or death if in high enough concentration. That's why the dopers inhale
fumes from glue, gasoline, etc (not to die; just enough to get high,
although now and then you read where some younger child overdoes it and
doesn't recover) To be on the safe side, any precaution used when working
with MEK should also be used with acetone. Obviously it isn't Sarin,
however, and a drop or two on the skin or a faint odor when working with it
outside isn't going to put you 6 feet under.
Clem Nichols
From: "flier" <FLIER@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: MEK, was: Kitfox-List: Fuel tank coating
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "flier" <FLIER@sbcglobal.net>
>
> Here's the MSDS. You just don't want to breath or
> wash in the stuff...
>
> http://www.jtbaker.com/msds/englishhtml/m4628.htm
>
> --- Original Message ---
> From: "flier" <FLIER@sbcglobal.net>
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: MEK, was: Kitfox-List: Fuel tank coating
>
> >Hey Cliff,
> >
> >Literature I've seen indicates MEK ends up being
> >metabolized and ejected like most other things and
> >that it doesn't collect in any vital organs. I've
> >got some ref material somewhere at home and I'll
> look
> >for it. Would you mind having your wife look into
> >this and let us know a source of specific info?
> >
> >I did some research a few years ago that convinced
> me
> >(for whatever that's worth) that MEK used with
> normal
> >precautions isn't the boogey man a lot of people
> >think. Clearly though, if you're in poor health,
> >have respiratory problems, or use the stuff every
> day
> >in large qtys without proper precautions, you'll
> >likely have a problem.
> >
> >Thanks in advance,
> >
> >Ted
> >--- Original Message ---
> >From: "Clifford Begnaud" <shoeless@barefootpilot.com>
> >To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> >Subject: MEK, was: Kitfox-List: Fuel tank coating
> >
> >>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clifford
> >Begnaud" <shoeless@barefootpilot.com>
> >>
> >>My wife has PhD's in both Physiology and
> Toxicology;
> >she won't let me go
> >>near MEK without gloves and a respirator. She says
> >it is highly toxic and
> >>collects in the liver, subsequently destroying your
> >liver. Nuff said?
> >>Cliff
> >>guess she's not ready to get rid of me yet ;-)
> >>
> >>
> >>_-
> >=====================================================
> > >==================
> >Contributions
> or
> >any other
> >Forums.
> >>_-
> >=====================================================
> > >==================
> http://www.matronics.com/chat
> >>_-
> >=====================================================
> > >==================
> >http://www.matronics.com/subscription
> >http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/Kitfox-List.htm
> >http://www.matronics.com/browse/kitfox-list
> >http://www.matronics.com/digest/kitfox-list
> >http://www.matronics.com/archives
> >http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
> http://www.matronics.com/kitfox-
> >list
> >http://www.matronics.com/emaillists
> >>_-
> >=====================================================
> > >==================
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Anyone know a Jim Fahey |
04:10:06 PM
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "kitfoxjunky" <kitfoxjunky@decisionlabs.com>
I need some parts for my Aerocet 1100 anphib floats...specifically the nose
gear assembly. I was told that one of the people involved in the
construction of these, Jim Fahey, may still have some parts available.
Wondering if anyone on the list has contact info for him.
Gary Walsh
C-GOOT
www.decisionlabs.com/kitfox
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Kitfox cross country flying - For Gil |
04:16:16 PM
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "kitfoxjunky" <kitfoxjunky@decisionlabs.com>
Hi Gil
I have a Kitfox IV hangered in Brantford. Sounds like we are in roughly the
same geometry. Be nice to meet some of the local Kitfox crowd. Maybe can
can hook up and do some flying some day.
Gary Walsh
C-GOOT
www.decisionlabs.com/kitfox
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Anyone know a Jim Fahey |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Marc Arseneault" <northernultralights@hotmail.com>
Hi Gary,
Trycontacting Sam Goodall at (608) 835-5603. His fax # is (608) 835-0051. He is
located in Oregon, Wisconsin and might be able to help you out.
Best Regards,
Marc Arseneault
Ontario Canada
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fuel tank coating |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "flier" <FLIER@sbcglobal.net>
Thanks Cliff. I wouldn't want anyone to take any
solvent for granted 'cause if it eats paint is sure
as heck will harm tissues! On the other hand, a
crappy or too involved job done using some
alternative is a waste of time and money.
My rule of thumb is if I smell anything more than a
wiff of that sweet smell then I need more air or my
filter mask. If I'm covering, I use
either 'invisible gloves' or regular ones and I
personally think I'll be OK. If one ever gets light
headed from using the stuff (which I've NEVER done)
then you ain't got enough ventilation!
Regards,
Ted
--- Original Message ---
From: "Clifford Begnaud" <shoeless@barefootpilot.com>
Subject: Re: MEK, was: Kitfox-List: Fuel tank coating
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clifford
Begnaud" <shoeless@barefootpilot.com>
>
> Ok, looks like I'll have to eat a little crow this
morning (mmmm, taste
>like chicken).
>When my wife and I had the conversation about MEK it
was several years ago
>and I forgot the context. At the time I had several
other things going on in
>the shop that involved glue and probably some other
chemicals. Anyway,
>here's a follow-up about MEK that my wife Patti just
emailed to me
>Quote:
>"With prolonged exposure, MEK alone causes increased
liver weights (does not
>collect in the liver) and is a potent inducer of
liver metabolic enzymes
>(cytochrome P450) and can result in increases in ALT
and AST (signifies
>leaky hepatocytes). The biggest concern with MEK is
its use with other
>solvents. The co-solvent effect (enhanced liver
enzymes causing metabolism
>of the other solvent) can lead to severe toxicities
including, but not
>limited to, neurotoxicity. For example, exposure to
n-hexane AND MEK can
>lead to enhanced production of the metabolite of n-
hexane, 2,5 hexanedione,
>which causes a peripheral neuropathy that can be
irreversible. Accidental
>ingestion can lead to acute, severe liver tox.
>As to tissue accumulation, the top 5 organs for
accumulation of plain MEK is
>brain, lung, kidney, heart, and liver
>
>Another type of MEK, that aircrafters DO NOT use,
can cause severe liver tox
>with sustained inhalation."
>
>end quote
>
>So, while MEK may not be the ultimate boogie man, it
still makes good sense
>to protect yourself from skin contact and
inhalation. Especially if exposed
>to other solvents!!
>Cliff
>that crow doesn't taste too bad
>
>
>> Hey Cliff,
>>
>> Literature I've seen indicates MEK ends up being
>> metabolized and ejected like most other things and
>> that it doesn't collect in any vital organs. I've
>> got some ref material somewhere at home and I'll
look
>> for it. Would you mind having your wife look into
>> this and let us know a source of specific info?
>>
>> I did some research a few years ago that convinced
me
>> (for whatever that's worth) that MEK used with
normal
>> precautions isn't the boogey man a lot of people
>> think. Clearly though, if you're in poor health,
>> have respiratory problems, or use the stuff every
day
>> in large qtys without proper precautions, you'll
>> likely have a problem.
>>
>> Thanks in advance,
>>
>> Ted
>
>
>_-
======================================================
==================
Contributions
any other
Forums.
>_-
======================================================
==================
>_-
======================================================
==================
http://www.matronics.com/subscription
http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/Kitfox-List.htm
http://www.matronics.com/browse/kitfox-list
http://www.matronics.com/digest/kitfox-list
http://www.matronics.com/archives
http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
list
http://www.matronics.com/emaillists
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>_-
======================================================
==================
>
>
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Flying in Canada |
1.9 DATE_IN_FUTURE_03_06 Date: is 3 to 6 hours after Received: date
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bruce Lina" <airlina@usadatanet.net>
I am planning my Oshkosh trip and the most direct flight routing for me from my
base in Western New York is through Ontario ( Overflight only-no landings) .
Other than the necessity to file a flight plan, does anyone know if there are
any special requirements to fly a US registered experimental aircraft through
Canadian airspace with no landings on Canadian soil. Thanks Bruce
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | THANKS! for the response to Fuel tank coating |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: <brettandsandy@numail.org>
This place is great!!
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fuel tank coating |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Grant Fluent <gjfpilot@yahoo.com>
Brett,
I'll echo Darrel's advice about recoating your tanks
with the 50/50 mixture of Kreem and MEK. Mine came
uncoated and the kit included two cans of Kreem. If
you follow the directions on the can, the stuff is so
thick all of it will stay in the tank and nothing will
drain out. I ended up sloshing it out with MEK and
doing it over with the 50/50 mixture. I coated the
tanks and let them sit for a day or so and then gave
them a second coat. I ended up with a nice thin
translucent coating. The Kreem that came with my kit
is the newer alcohol resistant formula. I don't know
if it adheres any better than the old stuff? My Kitfox
isn't flying yet so that's still to be determined.
Grant Fluent
Newcastle, NE
Classic IV w/912S
--- Fox5flyer <morid@northland.lib.mi.us> wrote:
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Fox5flyer"
> <morid@northland.lib.mi.us>
>
> Being one of those who has been there and done that,
> let me just add a
> little to this. First, don't trash those tanks.
> They're very expensive and
> somebody on the list will take them off your hands.
> Second, I echo what Don
> said below. I chose to use MEK (outside in the
> breeze) because it's a
> better solvent than acetone and cleans out the tanks
> quickly, although
> acetone is somewhat cheaper and easier to obtain.
> Fortunately my local
> hardware store was able to get MEK for around $12 a
> gallon or so. I capped
> everything off, sloshed, then after I was sure that
> all the old flakey Kreem
> was disolved completely and the tank was clean
> inside, I then recoated the
> tanks with a 50/50 Kreem/MEK mix that gave the tanks
> a thin overall coating
> that is virtually bonded to the tank inner surface.
> The reason for using
> MEK as a thinner is that the Kreem is (or was) MEK
> based and seemed to be a
> no brainer to me. The whole operation only took a
> couple of hours or so and
> wasn't a real big deal. About the only problem I
> encountered was how to
> dispose of the old MEK/Kreem mix that was removed
> from the tanks as it's not
> exactly environmentally friendly. This same problem
> woud be there even if
> acetone was used. This was back in 1997 and no
> problems to date. Hope this
> helps a little.
> Also, a search of the archives using Kreem as a
> keyword should bring up tons
> of stuff on this as it's been the topic of
> discussion here many times in the
> past.
> Darrel
> KF5
>
> > Brett,
> > Congratulations and welcome to the "Kreem" club.
> The peeling has happened
> to
> > 100s of tanks, and has been the topic of
> discussion for years. The problem
> > was that the Kreem was never supposed to be used
> for fiberglass tanks. It
> > was formulated for metal motorcycle tanks. Skystar
> said that a supplier
> > improperly coated the tanks. They probably coated
> the tanks without
> cleaning
> > them of wax and fiberglass release agents.
> >
> > But you need to dissolve the old Kreem, leak
> check, and possibly reseal
> the
> > tanks again.
> >
> > 1. Use MEK to slosh the inside of the tanks. About
> 1 gallon per tank
> should
> > be enough. Slosh by tumbling the tank with the MEK
> inside. The MEK will
> gas
> > out, so make sure you release the pressure often.
> >
> > 2. Leak check by filling with water and observing
> any leaks.
> >
> > 3. If you do have leaks, you can seal with any of
> the tank coatings that
> are
> > made for fiberglass.
> >
> > Others on the list may be able to recommend some
> good sealers and methods.
> >
> > Don Pearsall
>
>
>
> Contributions
> any other
> Forums.
>
> http://www.matronics.com/chat
>
> http://www.matronics.com/subscription
> http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/Kitfox-List.htm
> http://www.matronics.com/archives
> http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
> http://www.matronics.com/emaillists
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | valve clearance on NSI Subaru EA 81 |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clem Nichols" <cnichols@scrtc.com>
As part of my plane's annual, I wanted to check the valve clearance on my NSI Subaru
EA 81 engine. The manual from NSI says that both the exhaust and intake
valves should have .012" clearance between the tappet and the valve stem with
the piston at top dead center on the compression stroke. My problem is, I don't
know for certain how to tell which is the compression stroke. My only guides
are the mark on the flywheel and the arrow in the bell-housing window. With
the marks lined up, I have the correct gap, but if I rotate the flywheel 360
degrees, the gap is too large. The engine has electronic ignition, so I can't
use the distributor as a guide. Furthermore, with the NSI PSRU I can only
rotate the engine in the opposite direction it turns when running. The prop free-wheels
when turned in the direction it does with the engine running. The
engine was running just fine when I began adjusting on the valve clearance. I'm
afraid that now I may have completely screwed things up. On 2 or 3 of the
cylinders I have the correct clearance at TDC only with the adjustment screws
turned all the way out. Then if I rotate the engine 360 degrees I have way too
much clearance. I'm thinking that I should adjust the clearance when the gap
is the greatest because that would be more in line with the way it was to begin
with. Can anyone help me through this predicament? I would have gladly turned
the whole thing over to the local A&P, but he seemed more interested in
Continentals and Lycomings than Subarus. Any help will be greatly appreciated.
Clem Nichols
Message 23
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: KITFOXZ@aol.com
Hello Guys,
I don't post to the list much lately but, I had to repeat my post of some
years back on this subject. You can believe what you want about the hazards of
some of our aviation chemicals including MEK but, please err on the side of
safety. I use MEK today with due caution. The below article I wrote several
years back explains it all pretty well. Read labels and obey the
precautions.
(note: the liver produces enzymes for digestion in the stomach)
Dear chapter 292 members:
My name is John Marzluf and I thoroughly love aviation! When a bird lands
on a tree branch, a cat will crouch down and study it carefully, twitching=20its
tail to and fro, eyes big and focused, well=E2=80=A6 that cat is me! I have been
eating, drinking, and sleeping aviation my whole life. You know what I am
talking about, its in your blood, its in your very soul!
I am building a Kitfox (she=E2=80=99s a series five tail dragger with a Rotax 912S)
and I belong to the Internet billboard list group for fellow Kitfox builders.
Here we post building and flying questions, opinions, and so forth for all
to see.
Your chapter newsletter editor, Mike Pongracz, saw a posting that I made to=20
my list members concerning the safe use of aviation chemicals. He asked me=20
to repeat it here for everyone to read:
My younger brother, Tom grew up with the same aviation enthusiasm that I
did. Dad was a WW 11 Naval Aviator flying PBY5A Catalinas. (I still think =20the
PBY is the most graceful war bird ever built) We all built model aircraft=20of
all sorts.
I served in the United States Marine Corps from 1970 to 1980 working as an
avionics technician. While in Japan in 1975, I sent Tom his first radio
control system and an airplane kit with the promise that as soon as I got home
on
leave, we would build and fly it together. Tom was 12 or 13 at the time.
When I got home, boy was I surprised! Not only did he have it built and
flying, but he had already cut the wing in half and rejoined it with no dihedral
so
that it would roll better.
I finished my days working for Uncle Sam and went home for good in July 1980.
Tom was building bigger, better, and faster airplanes and dreaming about
building a full scale someday. We talked about pooling our time and money=20for
a
Cub or Champ project. He graduated from High school and enrolled in the
local community college aviation technology program. A couple of years later
he
earned his A&P license. I tell you the kid was in hog heaven!
Our new A&P got a job right away working for a local aircraft service group.
He honed his skills in every phase of aviation maintenance and soon gained
the respect of many for his fine work.
The spring of 1991 found him working for the largest aviation maintenance
group in our area. He worked evening shift with the responsibilities of
continuing the round the clock progress of annuals or engine changes or emergency
repairs. His group had contracts with several of the non-hub airlines to do
emergency troubleshooting for flights that would have to cancel without an=20A&P=E2=80=99
s sign off. The job was stressful at times and he started to tell me about
his heartburn problems.
Some evenings I would stop by the hanger to visit for a few minutes (had to=20
get my hands on a bird=E2=80=A6 feel its cold metallic skin). Tom would be=20tearing
down a fuel injection system and soaking the pieces in the parts washing tub
with MEK (Methyl Ethyl Keytone). He would scrub the parts with a brush and=20
bare hands and then blow them all clean and dry with shop air. MEK is great
for this because it will cut through almost any deposit and dry residue free.
I can still see the gleam in his eye as he hooked up each injector to the
test bench and watched it produce that perfect conical spray pattern.
Other nights I would walk in through the hanger door and be hit with a wall=20
of MEK fumes, while Tom did one of the things he liked best, the repair of
hanger rash on spinners, wingtips, wheel pants, etc. He wiped the work down
with an MEK soaked rag, filled and sanded as necessary, a final MEK wipe down
before painting, and then of course the clean up of all spray equipment with,
you guessed it, MEK. All of the hanger exhaust fans were running but what=20a
stench this all made. At quitting time he would wash up first with MEK at
the parts wash tub and then with some skin conditioning cleaner to replace=20some
of the moisture in his hands. MEK is great to clean those dirty fingernails
of all of that black grease!
He confided in me in the summer of 1991 that he found the airline emergency=20
calls to be very stressful (holding a 737 full of late passengers and an angry
flight crew to be sure their bird was air worthy). He said the heartburn
was getting to be a real problem and that over the counter antacids didn=E2=80=99t
work
much anymore.
The smell of avgas used to make his day, he said, but now he found he couldn=E2=80=99
t stomach it any more. Filling his car gas tank made him sick, he would
stick his nose in his sleeve and squeeze the trigger hard to get it over with.
Driving behind a city bus was impossible without a dry heave or two.
I told him to see a doctor and stop eating those Beanie Weenies out of the
snack machine at work. The heartburn persisted and one night he left the
hanger and went to the emergency room with his throat =E2=80=9COn fire!=E2=80=9D.
The doctors ran some tests and finally agreed that he may have an ulcer
starting up. They gave him some antacid medication to take and he said it=20worked
great!
The fall of 1991 was bad for us. Tom wanted to sleep a lot and had no
interest in our airplane fun anymore. His belly was getting big and we joked
about whose was the biggest.
The winter of 1991-92 was terrible. I looked at my little brother and saw=20a
young man with sunken dark circles under his eyes and a thinning face that
was way out of character for him. His belly was too large for anyone to
mistake it for a beer gut, and it was lopsided on the right side! This was=20
a guy
who two years before, was doing handstands on a skateboard going down a
sidewalk hill. We got him into the doctor and they did a biopsy right away.
The
test results took a couple of days.
On April fools=E2=80=99 day 1992 the doctor came into his hospital room and=20said:
=E2=80=9C
I have bad news.=E2=80=9D We all figured it could be bad like cancer or something
and that some treatment would soon follow. Tom, always the jokester and sci-fi
movie buff said: =E2=80=9CLay it on me doc, I can go flat-line for a while!=E2=80=9D.
The
doctor said: =E2=80=9CI have very bad news=E2=80=9D. He kept apologizing to us
for having
to tell us this. Tom wiped the smile off his face. The biopsy tests showed
that Tom=E2=80=99s liver was destroyed by Mucin producing Adeno Carcinoma.=20
That meant
that the cancer cells produce a liquid buffer around them as they grow and
his liver was an ever-growing sponge like mass of cancer. No treatment would
reverse it or cure him. His liver was swelling to enormous proportions.
The doctor said that his liver may have become cancerous from a blood borne=20
contaminate or maybe there was some primary cancer site that sent the cancer
to his liver through his vascular system. He suggested some tests that could
be done to see if there was a primary site somewhere. This seemed to give
us some hope. The plan was to do a complete gastrointestinal study and to
prep for that; he had to cleanse his system that night by drinking a gallon=20of
=E2=80=9C
Go lightly=E2=80=9D to flush his system out. The doctors would scope him in the
morning.
Guys, I spent ten years in the United States Marine Corps working on our
fine Naval Aircraft. I was a real man in my little brother=E2=80=99s eyes,=20but
I wish
more than anything else that I could relive the night of April 1st 1992. I
was the last one to leave his room that night. He poured himself a tall glass
of that Go Lightly, raised it to me and said: =E2=80=9CCheers mate!=E2=80=9D in
his pretend
Ausie accent.
I turned away to hide my burning eyes, tried to swallow an apple sized lump=20
in my throat and somehow managed to say =E2=80=9CSee ya later man=E2=80=9D.=20
I stormed out
of his room like Judas himself and ran down the hall to the private safety of
my truck. You can=E2=80=99t know how much I regret those few minutes. I so wish
we
could have stayed up together that night pouring drinks for each other over=20
and over, pretending to be getting drunk like a couple of old war aces.
Instead, he stayed up that night drinking that horrible stuff all alone!
Sarah, Tom and Doreen=E2=80=99s daughter was born that month sixteen days later.
Tom was with his wife through 22 hours of labor before the doctor decided to do
a caesarian. The Morphine got him through that I guess.
May was a blur and June had us all taking shifts to watch over him as he lay
in the spare bedroom at mom=E2=80=99s house. We pushed the bed against the=20
wall and
I slept on the floor during my shift beside his bed so that if he got up in
the night, he would have to step on me to get out of the room. We couldn=E2=80=99t
allow him to roam around and hurt himself in the night. The morphine was
turning him into a monster. Strange to think back on it all now and remember
how
being stepped on was such an honor to me at the time.
My beloved little brother Tommy passed away early in the morning of his 30th
birthday, June 19th 1992 with all of us at his bedside. He is buried in our
family plot beside Dad and I am just sure that they are skimming a heavenly
lake somewhere, cranking on the flap handle, trying to get that PBY up on its
step.
Tom's widow, myself, and the rest of the family, were too grief stricken to=20
have my little brother's body autopsied. Many questions remain unanswered =20to
this day. Although no conclusive study has yet been conducted to prove a
solid link between MEK and liver cancer, MEK and other aviation chemicals are
known to cause irreversible damage to the liver, brain, and nervous system if
not used correctly and safely. Use a fresh air-supplied-mask and hood.
These chemicals will get into your blood and tissues through your skin, lungs,
and even your eyes. Your body cannot deal with them. Please build and fly
safely. I sure wish Tom could be here to see my Fox.
I know he would twitch his tail watching all of your birds!
Sincerely,
John P. Marzluf
_Kitfoxz@aol.com_ (mailto:Kitfoxz@aol.com)
Message 24
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | valve clearance on NSI Subaru EA 81 |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Rick" <turboflyer@comcast.net>
Just put you finger in the spark plug hole. When you feel the pressure you
on the compression stroke. Yep the engine is being rotated backwards so the
regular firing order is reversed because your turning the engine backwards.
You can put a socket on the pulley bolt and turn it the right direction
however. Let me know if I can help further.
Rick
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Clem Nichols
Subject: Kitfox-List: valve clearance on NSI Subaru EA 81
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clem Nichols" <cnichols@scrtc.com>
As part of my plane's annual, I wanted to check the valve clearance on my
NSI Subaru EA 81 engine. The manual from NSI says that both the exhaust and
intake valves should have .012" clearance between the tappet and the valve
stem with the piston at top dead center on the compression stroke. My
problem is, I don't know for certain how to tell which is the compression
stroke. My only guides are the mark on the flywheel and the arrow in the
bell-housing window. With the marks lined up, I have the correct gap, but
if I rotate the flywheel 360 degrees, the gap is too large. The engine has
electronic ignition, so I can't use the distributor as a guide.
Furthermore, with the NSI PSRU I can only rotate the engine in the opposite
direction it turns when running. The prop free-wheels when turned in the
direction it does with the engine running. The engine was running just fine
when I began adjusting on the valve clearance. I'm afraid that now I may
have completely screwed thi!
ngs up. On 2 or 3 of the cylinders I have the correct clearance at TDC only
with the adjustment screws turned all the way out. Then if I rotate the
engine 360 degrees I have way too much clearance. I'm thinking that I
should adjust the clearance when the gap is the greatest because that would
be more in line with the way it was to begin with. Can anyone help me
through this predicament? I would have gladly turned the whole thing over
to the local A&P, but he seemed more interested in Continentals and
Lycomings than Subarus. Any help will be greatly appreciated.
Clem Nichols
Message 25
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | New Kitfox Owner |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Guy Buchanan <bnn@nethere.com>
Hello,
My name is Guy Buchanan. I fairly recently purchased Bob Ducar's exquisite
K-IV. From the list traffic I imagine that many of you know Bob and his
Kitfox and can therefore understand my excitement at the opportunity to
finish his project, hopefully in the same manner that it was started. As
you may know, Bob's K-IV was nearly complete, missing only some detailing,
about half the electrical system, and of course final inspection and test.
I'll be on the list, but unfortunately will not be able to contribute much
as I did not do much of the work. I will, however, offer that my
professional background was in structural design, specifically in advanced
composite structures, primarily for the yachting industry. I say was
because for the last six years I've been a full time parent, taking care of
my two kids. I can therefore entertain most questions having to do with
child rearing and child care, as well as what I can remember of structural
design. I will, of course, be asking lots of questions and will keep the
list informed as I finish Bob's Kitfox. Thanks.
Guy Buchanan
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|