Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:34 AM - Re: Flapperon friction. (kurt schrader)
2. 12:37 AM - Re: Digital camera sound problem (kurt schrader)
3. 01:07 AM - Re: Fuel return line and My Model 5 (Jim Crowder)
4. 01:07 AM - Fuel level sighting (Rex & Jan Shaw)
5. 01:33 AM - Tail Wheel Chatter-- Attention: Peter Graichen (Jim Crowder)
6. 02:28 AM - [Off Topic] Old is best (Michel Verheughe)
7. 04:04 AM - Re: Flapperon friction. (Fox5flyer)
8. 04:12 AM - Re: Fuel return line and My Model 5 (Fox5flyer)
9. 04:52 AM - Re: rudder hinge (Mark Schindler)
10. 04:52 AM - Re: Tail Wheel Chatter-- Attention: Peter Graichen (DC91840@aol.com)
11. 05:24 AM - Re: Fuel return line and My Model 5 (Clifford Begnaud)
12. 05:57 AM - Re: Tail Wheel Chatter-- Attention: Peter Graichen (Bob Unternaehrer)
13. 06:27 AM - Electronic or points (David Savener)
14. 07:17 AM - Re: Spark Plugs (Lowell Fitt)
15. 07:18 AM - Re: Spark Plugs (Lowell Fitt)
16. 07:20 AM - Re: Fuel return line (Lowell Fitt)
17. 07:31 AM - Re: Fuel return line (Paul)
18. 07:57 AM - Re: sparkplugs, 912, avgas (jdmcbean)
19. 08:05 AM - Re: Tail Wheel Chatter-- Attention: Peter Graichen (Peter Graichen)
20. 08:11 AM - Re: Fuel return line and My Model 5 (Norm Beauchamp)
21. 08:17 AM - Re: Fuel return line and My Model 5 (kurt schrader)
22. 09:01 AM - Re: Tail Wheel Chatter-- Attention: Peter Graichen (roger augenstein)
23. 09:22 AM - All Kitfox lists (FHowes@aol.com)
24. 10:37 AM - Re: Fuel return line (Bob Robertson)
25. 10:45 AM - Re: Propeller (joe)
26. 10:49 AM - Re: Electronic or points (Bob Robertson)
27. 10:57 AM - Re: Electronic or points (Torgeir Mortensen)
28. 11:45 AM - Re: Fuel return line (Bob Unternaehrer)
29. 11:50 AM - Re: Fuel return line and My Model 5 (Bob Unternaehrer)
30. 11:52 AM - Re: Re: Propeller (kurt schrader)
31. 12:07 PM - Re: Re: Propeller (Fox5flyer)
32. 01:20 PM - Re: Fuel return line (Kerry Skyring)
33. 02:10 PM - Re: Electronic or points (Bob Robertson)
34. 03:01 PM - Re: Tail Wheel Chatter-- Attention: Peter Graichen (Peter Graichen)
35. 03:44 PM - Re: Fuel level sighting (jareds)
36. 03:51 PM - Rudder Rod Ends (AlbertaIV@aol.com)
37. 05:04 PM - Re: Fuel return line (Paul)
38. 06:11 PM - Re: Tail Wheel Chatter-- Attention: Peter Graichen (Lowell Fitt)
39. 06:17 PM - Re: Fuel return line (Lowell Fitt)
40. 07:03 PM - Re: Fuel return line (Rick)
41. 07:11 PM - Re: Fuel return line (Rick)
42. 07:23 PM - Re: rudder hinge : Mark (Ceashman@aol.com)
43. 07:44 PM - Re: sparkplugs, 912, avgas To John and John (Ceashman@aol.com)
44. 08:42 PM - Re: Electronic or points (David Savener)
45. 09:52 PM - Re: Kitfox-List Digest: 23 Msgs - 08/16/04( Kerry's header tank dilemma) (Stu Bryant)
46. 11:54 PM - Tail Wheel Shimmy and Return Fuel Line (Jim Crowder)
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: Flapperon friction. |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
Thanks Darrel,
I was way past that part of construction when I heard
that there were problems with those bearing blocks. I
had them installed and decided then to leave them in
unless I actually saw a problem.
To me, they seem like a good idea to keep the verticle
load from the flaperon pushrods from feeding into the
inboard wing/flapperon bearings. And it seems that
very little of the lift bending occurs inboard of the
wing struts, so the bearings shouldn't bind much.
But what I "heard" is that someone had the flapperon
torque tube shear at the bearing block??? So I am
just cautious, but not ready to fix a rumor.
Anyway, thanks for the backup opinion.
Kurt S. S-5/NSI turbo
--- Fox5flyer <morid@northland.lib.mi.us> wrote:
> Kurt, as I recall it, SS stated that they weren't
> necessary on the later models. However, those
> things weigh next to nothing and do add some
> strenght and rigidity so if you already have them
> you should probably leave them alone. Personally,
> I wouldn't operate without them.
> Darrel
>
> > So does this mean that the bearings should be
> > removed from -5 1550's and newer? Or are they to
> > be taken off only if binding? All I have ever
> > heard about this were rumors.
> >
> > Kurt S.
__________________________________
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Digital camera sound problem |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
Great idea. It is an mpeg file, so I should be able
to edit it. Just haven't tanke the time to learn that
yet.
Thanks,
Kurt S.
Do not archive
--- Solar <solar56@comcast.net> wrote:
> you could record the sound with another device, then
> match the two with any computer based editing
system.
> I think that even the one that comes from
> microsoft in Windows XP will do that.
__________________________________
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 return line and My Model 5 |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Jim Crowder <jimlc@att.net>
At 09:30 AM 8/16/2004, you wrote:
>Turning to the list again for advice.
>Our technical inspector has cast doubt on the practice of routing the fuel
>return line from the carburettors (S5 912ULS) back to the header tank. His
>thinking is that the tank is constantly under pressure thus prohibiting the
>return function. If we can't convince him otherwise we have to route
>it to one of the wing tanks. A lot of trouble when we want to get this thing
>flying.
>
>Could listers comment?
>Thanks
>Kerry
Today we flew my Model 5 Turbo NSI CAP for the first time in about three
years. N64026 now has about 11 total hours on it. During that last long
ago flight, it ran very hot, lost coolant, but was landed with no
damage. I debated what to do, and with no deliberate intent, moved on to
other projects that demanded my attention. In the end I simply removed the
thermostat which was bypassing significant coolant around the radiator,
replaced the exhaust crossover with Tom Anderson's Dawley SS unit. (Some
of these spellings may be incorrect and I don't want to take the time to
look them up.)
After three full power climb-outs of over three minutes duration with near
full weight and at a density altitude of about 7,000 feet on a hot Colorado
afternoon; the oil, water, and transmission temperatures were always in the
green. The over-heating problem is definitely solved. I plan to add a
flap at the back of my radiator scoop to preserve heat for winter operation.
We did extensive ground runs prior to today, and with automotive fuel
containing about 8% alcohol, and when shutting down a very hot engine, if
we did not quickly restart it, the fuel system would vapor lock and resist
most attempts to restart, until allowed to cool down. Of course this is
not a normal flight situation, but I believe it can be improved
upon. Lance at NSI suggested we switch to 100 LL for summer operation,
which we did for todays flights. I still suspect that if I allowed a hot
engine to heat soak, I would still get vapor lock.
My current thinking is to do just what you propose, install a valve
controlled return line that will allow the pump to quickly flush hot fuel
and vapor back to the header tank. Some vapor can be eliminated with the
primer, but we have found that the small opening is only of limited value
with a very hot engine.
My knowledge of fluids is that the header tank, wing tanks, and connecting
fuel lines can be viewed as a single, vertical, fluid column, with a height
of the distance between the bottom of the header tank to the top of the
fuel in the wing tanks. A return line to the bottom of the header tank
will need to overcome the head pressure at the connection point. The facet
fuel pump achieves 4 to 5 pounds per square inch. I will do some
calculations, but I think it is more than enough.
Another way to think of it is that the fuel to the pump is already being
supplied at the maximum head pressure from the column I described above,
and all the pump is actually doing is circulating the fuel within that
column. It simply needs to overcome the friction loss from the hose,
etc. I would only open the valve controlling the return line when
needed. I also see no reason why the line could not be connected to the
feed line from the wing tank to the header tank. I think I would select
the one from the tank that includes the header tank vent, or for that
matter it, could even connect to the vent. One caveat is that if I connect
to one of these lines, I would need to be careful not to pump too much fuel
to a single wing tank! When doing this, operation would need to be for a
short duration and that tank not already full. I am still thinking this out
and a consideration is the ease of connecting that return line.
A separate posting will include a different issue from today's flights.
Jim Crowder
Model 5 Turbo NSI CAP
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: | Fuel level sighting |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Rex & Jan Shaw" <rexjan@bigpond.com>
Does anyone please have any suggestions for being able to see the fuel level
through the ends of the fibre glass tanks in a MKIV. I wonder if it's that
Kreem coating or is it aging of the fibre glass. The ends of the tanks are
very brownish yellow.
I thought about putting a wad of rag on the end of a stick through the
filler neck and if I could reach and clean the inside of the tank in that
area it might work. However before I try and mess up that Kreem coating that
everyone has been talking about it peeling off anyway I thought I'd better
ask some questions. Thanks for any input,
Rex.
rexjan@bigpond.com
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: | Tail Wheel Chatter-- Attention: Peter Graichen |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Jim Crowder <jimlc@att.net>
I have been experiencing significant tail-wheel chatter when N64026 is
landed with a heavy load. I am also aware that the current angle of the
tail wheel pivot is a problem. I was trying to get by until the cooling
issue and others were solved. On the third and final landing today, the
chatter became so bad that one link spring was ejected, tail wheel steering
was lost, the wheel when wild providing both a braking effect and a severe
threat to control. My son was able to bring the plane under control, but
the problem is now number one.
Peter Graichen, in a long ago post, addressed this same problem. I have
the same Scott 3200 tail wheel and a plane only somewhat lighter than
his. He at that time solved the problem with the longer of two springs he
ordered. The Grove aluminum spring was bent to 41.5 degrees. I have the
original taller Skystar aluminum spring gear which may make some difference
in the angle needed, as I believe Peter has the newer shorter spring
gear. I may need a little less angle as the taller front legs will tilt
the pivot to my advantage. I plan to call Grove in the AM.
Peter, if you read this posting, do you still recommend this same Grove
spring? Do you have any other comments for me?
Jim Crowder
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: | [Off Topic] Old is best |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
> From: Jerry Liles [wliles@bayou.com]
> Michael,
> Your Mod III with the older type rudder mount is much less likely to
> become a problem than the rodend mounts of the later models. The pins
> in nylon bushings is pretty foolproof.
Thanks Jerry. That's what I keep telling my young lady secretary at work: Older
types are best! Not sure she gets the message, though. :-)
Cheers,
Michel
do not archive
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: Flapperon friction. |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Fox5flyer" <morid@northland.lib.mi.us>
I've been on this list for more than twelve years and I've never heard of a
problem with the flaperon support bearings, but then again I could have
missed something. As I recall there was just a point somewhere in time (I
think midway during production of the S5) where Skystar decided that they
weren't necessary and stopped supplying them. If installed correctly and
carefully aligned there should be no binding nor increase in friction. I
always felt it a mistake to remove this from the design as it increases the
strength of the flaperon assembly, especially when placed under high g loads
with steep turns, etc. Ever watch that flaperon bend out there? Watch what
it does when you get up thru 3g+. The bearing keeps everything in alignment
during this time. Dean Wilson and Dan Denney (original designers) put it
there for a good reason.
Darrel
> I was way past that part of construction when I heard
> that there were problems with those bearing blocks. I
> had them installed and decided then to leave them in
> unless I actually saw a problem.
>
> To me, they seem like a good idea to keep the verticle
> load from the flaperon pushrods from feeding into the
> inboard wing/flapperon bearings. And it seems that
> very little of the lift bending occurs inboard of the
> wing struts, so the bearings shouldn't bind much.
>
> But what I "heard" is that someone had the flapperon
> torque tube shear at the bearing block??? So I am
> just cautious, but not ready to fix a rumor.
>
> Anyway, thanks for the backup opinion.
>
> Kurt S. S-5/NSI turbo
>
> --- Fox5flyer <morid@northland.lib.mi.us> wrote:
>
> > Kurt, as I recall it, SS stated that they weren't
> > necessary on the later models. However, those
> > things weigh next to nothing and do add some
> > strenght and rigidity so if you already have them
> > you should probably leave them alone. Personally,
> > I wouldn't operate without them.
> > Darrel
> >
> > > So does this mean that the bearings should be
> > > removed from -5 1550's and newer? Or are they to
> > > be taken off only if binding? All I have ever
> > > heard about this were rumors.
> > >
> > > Kurt S.
>
>
> __________________________________
>
>
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 return line and My Model 5 |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Fox5flyer" <morid@northland.lib.mi.us>
Jim, congrats on getting back in the saddle again. I always thought that
the return line would be a good idea if you could keep up enough pressure at
the throttle body for normal flying. I'm normally not eager to add anything
that increases complexity, but if you come up with something ensure you
share it with us. What I do on warm days is to pop open the oil inspection
hole when I park. A lot of heat escapes from the cowling quickly and keeps
a good flow of cooling air going thru there. Another thing is to not have
the fuel pump in the engine compartment. Mine is under the seat and I
seldom have problems with vapor lock except when it's really hot. When that
happens I just give the primer a couple shots that seems to release the
flow. Then again, your's being the turbo probably is significantly hotter
under the hood than mine. Put some hours on that rocket Jim and keep us
updated.
Darrel
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Crowder" <jimlc@att.net>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Fuel return line and My Model 5
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Jim Crowder <jimlc@att.net>
>
> At 09:30 AM 8/16/2004, you wrote:
> >Turning to the list again for advice.
> >Our technical inspector has cast doubt on the practice of routing the
fuel
> >return line from the carburettors (S5 912ULS) back to the header tank.
His
> >thinking is that the tank is constantly under pressure thus prohibiting
the
> >return function. If we can't convince him otherwise we have to route
> >it to one of the wing tanks. A lot of trouble when we want to get this
thing
> >flying.
> >
> >Could listers comment?
> >Thanks
> >Kerry
>
> Today we flew my Model 5 Turbo NSI CAP for the first time in about three
> years. N64026 now has about 11 total hours on it. During that last long
> ago flight, it ran very hot, lost coolant, but was landed with no
> damage. I debated what to do, and with no deliberate intent, moved on to
> other projects that demanded my attention. In the end I simply removed
the
> thermostat which was bypassing significant coolant around the radiator,
> replaced the exhaust crossover with Tom Anderson's Dawley SS unit. (Some
> of these spellings may be incorrect and I don't want to take the time to
> look them up.)
>
> After three full power climb-outs of over three minutes duration with near
> full weight and at a density altitude of about 7,000 feet on a hot
Colorado
> afternoon; the oil, water, and transmission temperatures were always in
the
> green. The over-heating problem is definitely solved. I plan to add a
> flap at the back of my radiator scoop to preserve heat for winter
operation.
>
> We did extensive ground runs prior to today, and with automotive fuel
> containing about 8% alcohol, and when shutting down a very hot engine, if
> we did not quickly restart it, the fuel system would vapor lock and resist
> most attempts to restart, until allowed to cool down. Of course this is
> not a normal flight situation, but I believe it can be improved
> upon. Lance at NSI suggested we switch to 100 LL for summer operation,
> which we did for todays flights. I still suspect that if I allowed a hot
> engine to heat soak, I would still get vapor lock.
>
> My current thinking is to do just what you propose, install a valve
> controlled return line that will allow the pump to quickly flush hot fuel
> and vapor back to the header tank. Some vapor can be eliminated with the
> primer, but we have found that the small opening is only of limited value
> with a very hot engine.
>
> My knowledge of fluids is that the header tank, wing tanks, and connecting
> fuel lines can be viewed as a single, vertical, fluid column, with a
height
> of the distance between the bottom of the header tank to the top of the
> fuel in the wing tanks. A return line to the bottom of the header tank
> will need to overcome the head pressure at the connection point. The
facet
> fuel pump achieves 4 to 5 pounds per square inch. I will do some
> calculations, but I think it is more than enough.
>
> Another way to think of it is that the fuel to the pump is already being
> supplied at the maximum head pressure from the column I described above,
> and all the pump is actually doing is circulating the fuel within that
> column. It simply needs to overcome the friction loss from the hose,
> etc. I would only open the valve controlling the return line when
> needed. I also see no reason why the line could not be connected to the
> feed line from the wing tank to the header tank. I think I would select
> the one from the tank that includes the header tank vent, or for that
> matter it, could even connect to the vent. One caveat is that if I
connect
> to one of these lines, I would need to be careful not to pump too much
fuel
> to a single wing tank! When doing this, operation would need to be for a
> short duration and that tank not already full. I am still thinking this
out
> and a consideration is the ease of connecting that return line.
>
> A separate posting will include a different issue from today's flights.
>
> Jim Crowder
> Model 5 Turbo NSI CAP
>
>
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: rudder hinge |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Mark Schindler <mtschindler@yahoo.com>
Eric
I don't know what the new setup looks like but Avid and earlier Kitfoxes had tubing
with nylon inserts in them which I guess has been working without any problems
- is it not possible to go back to that system?
My new Avid Plus is using it and I see no reason to change it - wonder why Skystar
needed the change?
Mark
Ceashman@aol.com wrote:
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Ceashman@aol.com
Darrel and Don.
I also believe that the hinge problem rests with the cheap "Aurora" bearings
that were sent with the kit.
I also kind of remember the manual stating one should screw in the bearing as
close as possible and when you have the first one correctly positioned, then
get a straight edge and tighten each other to align with the first. Not
forgetting to keep the same distance from the vertical fin post. And then tighten
the lock nut.
The breakage could have happened because there was too much thread showing or
the bearings were out of alignment / combination of both.
I am building a Skybolt and recently purchase the "bearing assortment" from
Steen Aero Lab, and they cost a fortune! But as Steen said, "The bearings,
your joints should be the best available on the market" your ride is relying on
them. They are made by Torrington Fafnir and some of them cost over $60.00 each.
Now what am I going to do with the $18.00 worth of bearings I have holding my
rudder on? First look for around for an $$$ alternative (they say the more
money, the better the quality)!
Until I find the alternative. I will make a very thorough check up on the
rear end before every take off.
Good subject matter gentlemen.
Eric. Classic IV, Atlanta.
e-mail; ceashman@aol.com
---------------------------------
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Tail Wheel Chatter-- Attention: Peter Graichen |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: DC91840@aol.com
I am not Peter but I have some experience with tailwheel
flying. The first thing to check is the angle of the pivot
on the assembly. That angle must be close to 90deg..
with the ground. Anything else changes the castor/camber
and will do bad things with the tracking of the wheel.
I also have had a spring jump off do to shimmy. Not fun.
This angle is adjustable only by the bend of the spring or
shimming the front of the spring with washers at the
mounting bolt.
Good luck
Don
p.s. Had a Citabria and also have a Classic IV
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 return line and My Model 5 |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clifford Begnaud" <shoeless@barefootpilot.com>
Jim,
Congrats on getting your bird flying again. I look forward to seeing your
plane and flying with you.
When figuring a solution for the vapor lock problem, also consider what the
effect will be of accidentally leaving the return flow valve open!
Lets face it, we humans are apt to do such things no matter how vigilant. So
make sure the engine will run fine at take-off power with the return valve
open.
I don't know diddly about fluid dynamics, but it seems like dumping the
return line back into the header tank would be a reasonable idea. Wouldn't
the flow being returned more or less equal the flow being drawn out of the
tank? (not necessarily the pressure) If true then there would be no worry
about moving fuel from one tank to the other. Also, if dumped into the top
of the header tank instead of the bottom would that mean less head pressure
to overcome? I guess that would only be true if you were able to keep the
return line higher than the bottom of the header tank. Also dumping into the
top of the header would avoid stirring up any junk in the bottom of the
header tank.
If the return line had a significantly smaller inside diameter than the fuel
feed line, would this not help assure that under power the fuel would follow
the path of least resistance to the carb instead of flowing back through the
return line (if accidentally left open)? Or would that cause problems
getting larger bubbles to go through the return line?
Good luck solving this one!
Cliff
Erie, CO
> Today we flew my Model 5 Turbo NSI CAP for the first time in about three
> years. N64026 now has about 11 total hours on it. During that last long
> ago flight, it ran very hot, lost coolant, but was landed with no
> damage. I debated what to do, and with no deliberate intent, moved on to
>
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Tail Wheel Chatter-- Attention: Peter Graichen |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bob Unternaehrer" <shilohcom@c-magic.com>
You might need to look at the angle of the steering cables, relative to the
tailwheel spring angle. These need to be very nearly parallel in the
unloaded & loaded condition to prevent changing the spring tension from
loaded to unloaded condition. Remember the tailwheel becomes completely
unloaded when in the air,,, so tension in the cables and // or springs need
to be the same from loaded to unloaded. What angle of the tailwheel to the
ground are you thinking is correct??? Bob U.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Crowder" <jimlc@att.net>
Subject: Kitfox-List: Tail Wheel Chatter-- Attention: Peter Graichen
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Jim Crowder <jimlc@att.net>
>
> I have been experiencing significant tail-wheel chatter when N64026 is
> landed with a heavy load. I am also aware that the current angle of the
> tail wheel pivot is a problem. I was trying to get by until the cooling
> issue and others were solved. On the third and final landing today, the
> chatter became so bad that one link spring was ejected, tail wheel
steering
> was lost, the wheel when wild providing both a braking effect and a severe
> threat to control. My son was able to bring the plane under control, but
> the problem is now number one.
>
> Peter Graichen, in a long ago post, addressed this same problem. I have
> the same Scott 3200 tail wheel and a plane only somewhat lighter than
> his. He at that time solved the problem with the longer of two springs he
> ordered. The Grove aluminum spring was bent to 41.5 degrees. I have the
> original taller Skystar aluminum spring gear which may make some
difference
> in the angle needed, as I believe Peter has the newer shorter spring
> gear. I may need a little less angle as the taller front legs will tilt
> the pivot to my advantage. I plan to call Grove in the AM.
>
> Peter, if you read this posting, do you still recommend this same Grove
> spring? Do you have any other comments for me?
>
> Jim Crowder
>
>
> ---
>
>
---
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: | Electronic or points |
Seal-Send-Time: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 08:26:47 -0500
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "David Savener" <david_savener@msn.com>
I cranked my 532 without grounding the plug wires during maintenance(Don't do that).
I have no spark. I'm told I need a coil kit. Can't find a coil kit in
catalogs.
I emailed three Rotax suppliers. One emailed me asking whether I have electronic
ignition or points.
I have to pull my engine to remove the back plate to look at it. Is there an easier
way to tell??
My engine serial # is 3798800, if that helps!!
Dave Savener
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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@inreach.com>
Kirk, this was one of the mysteries of the whole experience. We took off
one of the coils and took it to the Lockwood booth at OSH. I don't remember
the man's name, but he conducted the forum along side Eric Tucker at the
Rotax engine presentation. Anyway, he put an OHM meter across leads ?? and
pronounced it defective. $250 later we were back at Larry's airplane and
since no one could remember which leads he checked - he said the primary
winding was the most common failure point - we compared the old with the new
at all leads and it checked exactly the same. Go figure. Further checking
traced the fault to the module and since Lockwood has the common no return
on electrical components, it was an additional $600 or so for the module.
One thing to consider here is that Larry's problem was on one "mag" only.
It affected two cylinders - each coil serves two plugs.
Unfortunately there were so many guys crowded around the airplane helping, I
decided to let the others handle the problem, so except the info reported
above, I can't be of much help in the exact diagnostic process, except to
add that they had loaner parts from other 912s that they could wire into the
system to help isolate the difficulty.
Lowell
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kirk Martenson" <kirk@mninter.net>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Spark Plugs
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Kirk Martenson" <kirk@mninter.net>
>
> Lowell:
>
> My engine roughness is present all the time, even when I shut either of
the
> mags off during the mag check at 3800 rpm. How did the tech at Oshkosh
> check the coils? Did your friend have to take the coil off the engine, or
> can a person check the coil with an ohmmeter?
>
> Also, I was told by many Rotax techies, that the CDI module either works,
or
> it doesn't. Not true with your friend? He had one that half worked?
>
>
> Kirk Martenson
> Classic IV
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@inreach.com>
> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Spark Plugs
>
>
> > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@inreach.com>
> >
> > Kirk, I just changed out the wires and got a little relief from a
> roughness
> > that occurred between 42 and 4400 rpm
> >
> > The wires are 7 mm diameter and are available from any of the Rotax
> > distributors or elsewhere if you search. They have a stranded copper
> > conductor. They unscrew from the ends of the caps and the coils. Use a
> > dielectric grease when reassembling to prevent corrosion. The rubber
> outer
> > sheath can be removed if you want to. It is held to the wire by a dab
of
> > adhesive that dried and hardened in use. Try pulling on the rubber
sheath
> > to find the adhesive blob and then knead (twist) that area until the
stuff
> > lets go. I didn't use any adhesive when putting the sheath on the new
> > wires.
> >
> > You will have to disassemble the modules / coils assembly to gain access
> to
> > the lower coils. It took about 2 hours or so for the job.
> > You don't want to replace the coils. they come at $250 a pop.
> >
> > One of the guys in our group flight to Oshkosh developed serious
ignition
> > roughness during the last leg into OSH. It was at first traced to a
> coil -
> > got a new coil from Lockwood (you can indeed find anything at
Airventure)
> > One of the Lockwood techies tested the old coil - bad. The new coil
> didn't
> > help - apparently not bad after all - makes you wonder. From the
techie,
> > the coil is the most common point of failure in the system. We went
back
> to
> > work and determined that an ignition module had failed in an unusual
mode.
> > One side only failed affecting only two of the cylinders that module
> > serviced, hence the original coil diagnosis. After a $600 module was
> > installed the problem was solved. There was also a wire break in the
> bundle
> > from the stator. It is thought that this intermittent wire is what
fried
> > half the module. The wires in the system are, as Gary V. once a member
of
> > the list, called "crap" wires, and are very vulnerable to breaking
> somewhere
> > in the insulation due to engine vibration.
> >
> > Advice: Either move the modules to the firewall or oil tank supports
or
> > bundle them so as to reduce their vulnerable to vibration.
> >
> > Lowell
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Kirk Martenson" <kirk@mninter.net>
> > To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> > Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Spark Plugs
> >
> >
> > > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Kirk Martenson" <kirk@mninter.net>
> > >
> > > Jim Burke:
> > >
> > > Do you have a Rotax 912 in your Kitfox? I have had a very slight
rough
> > > running engine (Rotax 912UL). I changed the spark plugs, and rebuilt
> the
> > > carburetors. Still rough, but only slightly, no rpm drop. I would
like
> > > change out the plug wires as well, but I don't know if you can just
> change
> > > the wires. Do you have to buy the whole coil?
> > >
> > >
> > > Kirk Martenson
> > > Classic IV
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Jim Burke" <jeburke94je@direcway.com>
> > > To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> > > Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Spark Plugs
> > >
> > >
> > > > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Jim Burke
> <jeburke94je@direcway.com>
> > > >
> > > > Curious you should bring spark plugs up Don, I had a similar problem
a
> > > > couple of weeks ago. I changed out the new plugs and the miss went
> away
> > > for
> > > > a couple of flights (about three hours). Then it came back. So I
> > replaced
> > > > the plugs wires and have put eight hours on the plane with no Miss.
I
> > > guess
> > > > it could have been a bag of mixed tricks but it runs great now.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > James E. Burke
> > > > (N94JE)
> > > > -------Original Message-------
> > > >
> > > > From: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> > > > Date: 08/09/04 14:34:07
> > > > To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> > > > Subject: Kitfox-List: Spark Plugs
> > > >
> > > > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: AlbertaIV@aol.com
> > > >
> > > > I experienced a slight miss in my 582 engine. This started less
> > than
> > > 5
> > > > hours after putting in new BR8ES plugs. I replace the plugs again
> today
> > > and
> > > > the miss went away. Old plugs looked brand new and color was
> excellent.
> > > > Has anyone ever had a new plug go bad in a short time? This is
my
> > > first
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Don Smythe
> > > > DO NOT ARCHIVE
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@inreach.com>
This was recommended by Rotax at the seminar.
Lowell
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeffrey Puls" <pulsair@mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Spark Plugs
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jeffrey Puls" <pulsair@mindspring.com>
>
> Jim,
> You may want to unscrew your caps and snip off a very little piece off the
> end. Screw the caps back on and tie wrap with a very small tie wrap. This
> sometimes helps. Jeff Classic IV.
>
>
> > [Original Message]
> > From: Kirk Martenson <kirk@mninter.net>
> > To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> > Date: 8/11/2004 11:20:34 PM
> > Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Spark Plugs
> >
> > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Kirk Martenson" <kirk@mninter.net>
> >
> > Jim Burke:
> >
> > Do you have a Rotax 912 in your Kitfox? I have had a very slight rough
> > running engine (Rotax 912UL). I changed the spark plugs, and rebuilt
the
> > carburetors. Still rough, but only slightly, no rpm drop. I would like
> > change out the plug wires as well, but I don't know if you can just
change
> > the wires. Do you have to buy the whole coil?
> >
> >
> > Kirk Martenson
> > Classic IV
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Jim Burke" <jeburke94je@direcway.com>
> > To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> > Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Spark Plugs
> >
> >
> > > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Jim Burke
<jeburke94je@direcway.com>
> > >
> > > Curious you should bring spark plugs up Don, I had a similar problem a
> > > couple of weeks ago. I changed out the new plugs and the miss went
away
> > for
> > > a couple of flights (about three hours). Then it came back. So I
> replaced
> > > the plugs wires and have put eight hours on the plane with no Miss. I
> > guess
> > > it could have been a bag of mixed tricks but it runs great now.
> > >
> > >
> > > James E. Burke
> > > (N94JE)
> > > -------Original Message-------
> > >
> > > From: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> > > Date: 08/09/04 14:34:07
> > > To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> > > Subject: Kitfox-List: Spark Plugs
> > >
> > > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: AlbertaIV@aol.com
> > >
> > > I experienced a slight miss in my 582 engine. This started less
> than
> > 5
> > > hours after putting in new BR8ES plugs. I replace the plugs again
today
> > and
> > > the miss went away. Old plugs looked brand new and color was
excellent.
> > > Has anyone ever had a new plug go bad in a short time? This is my
> > first
> > >
> > >
> > > Don Smythe
> > > DO NOT ARCHIVE
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
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: Fuel return line |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@inreach.com>
I'm with you on this one, Jim. I have over 600 hours and 5 years on mine
and Summer temps often hit 100 here - never a hint at vapor lock.
Lowell
----- Original Message -----
From: "jimshumaker" <jimshumaker@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Fuel return line
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "jimshumaker"
<jimshumaker@sbcglobal.net>
>
> Bob
>
> I have been flying with my 912 UL for several years and this is the first
I
> have heard of a vapor return line. I can not even concieve of one being
> after the fuel pump. What am I missing?
>
> Jim Shumaker
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bob Robertson" <aerocon@telusplanet.net>
> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Fuel return line
>
>
> > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bob Robertson"
> <aerocon@telusplanet.net>
> >
> > Kerry,
> > Seening as the return lines are there to eliminate vapor lock you will
> need
> > a return line with at least a low enough pressure to allow the vapor
(gas
> > bubbles) to travel back to the tank. I guess the best bet is to put
the
> > open end of the return lines into the highest possible part of the fuel
> > system to allow the vapor to escape. I doubt this would happen of you
> were
> > attempting to vent these lines into a sealed header tank that is lower
> than
> > the carbs/fuel distribution block.
> >
> > Hope this helps
> >
> > Bob Robertson
> > Light Engine Services Ltd.
> > Rotax Service Center
> > St. Albert, Alberta
> >
> >
> > --- Original Message -----
> > From: "Kerry Skyring" <kerryskyring@hotmail.com>
> > To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> > Subject: Kitfox-List: Fuel return line
> >
> >
> > > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Kerry Skyring"
> > <kerryskyring@hotmail.com>
> > >
> > > Turning to the list again for advice.
> > > Our technical inspector has cast doubt on the practice of routing the
> fuel
> > > return line from the carburettors (S5 912ULS) back to the header tank.
> His
> > > thinking is that the tank is constantly under pressure thus
prohibiting
> > the
> > > return function. If we can't convince him otherwise we have to route
> > > it to one of the wing tanks. A lot of trouble when we want to get this
> > thing
> > > flying.
> > >
> > > Could listers comment?
> > > Thanks
> > > Kerry
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
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: | Re: Fuel return line |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Paul <pwilson@climber.org>
Hi Jim,
Its just good engineering to have a fuel return line. The header tank is designed
for that feature, but Skystar only shows its use with the FI IO240. We owe
the mature design to our buddy who was a NASA engineer. He is no longer with
us. His design uses a Facet like Jim Crowder uses and it had a tee at each carb
on his 912S. The return lines from each carb combine into a 3/8" return line
and pass thru an orifice to the header tank via the port provided. (The design
refered to was more complex than described here with redundant pumps, etc).
The primary purpose for this design was not vapor lock but was to allow complete
filling of the 912S dual carbs before starting. The result was a much smoother
start of the engine since both sides of the engine would then be fully fueled.
This was very important when the 912S first came out due to cracking and
breakage of the engine mount caused by engine shake.
Of course the secondary purpose of the design was the elimination of vapor lock
caused by heat soak of the carbs.
In any event the system was passive and fuel always flowed back to the header.
Testing is required to size the small orifice in the return line to assure that
the engine gets adequate fuel with both the electric pump as well as the engine
driven pump.
It is true that a return to a main tank is preferred but that design would involve
more complex plumbing and a reduction in reliability. The return to the header
is adequate for most engines and requires minimal testing.
And yes, the fuel pump and filter S/B located at the fuel system low point under
the seat with this proper design.
If more info on the system is desired I am sure it is in the archives as it was
discussed to death long ago.
Paul
==============
At 9:57 PM -0700 8/16/04, jimshumaker wrote:
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "jimshumaker" <jimshumaker@sbcglobal.net>
>
>Bob
>
>I have been flying with my 912 UL for several years and this is the first I
>have heard of a vapor return line. I can not even concieve of one being
>after the fuel pump. What am I missing?
>
>Jim Shumaker
--
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: | sparkplugs, 912, avgas |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "jdmcbean" <jdmcbean@cableone.net>
John,
It is a 16 oz container and one uses 1/2 oz per 10 gallons. The container
has a measuring cup on the side.. loosen the cap over the measuring cup and
give the bottle a squeeze until you have the amount you want.
Blue Skies
John & Debra McBean
"The Sky is not the Limit... It's a Playground"
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of John E. King
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: sparkplugs, 912, avgas
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "John E. King " <kingjohn@erols.com>
John,
If you do not use a syringe to dispense the TCP, how do you know how
much to use at a filling? What size of container is used for the
$19.50 container?
--
John King
Warrenton, VA
jdmcbean wrote:
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "jdmcbean" <jdmcbean@cableone.net>
>
>I am a distributor for Decalin TCP. It is a competitior to Alcor but much
>safer, can be carried in the cockpit and is easy to dispense... Syringe not
>needed. If you are burning 100LL you really do want to use a Lead
Scavenger.
>I am only operating with 100LL and using the Decalin TCP. Plugs currently
>have 80 hours..
>
>Not sure about the 912.. but isn't .020 a small gap... ?
>
>Ps.. the TCP is $19.50 +S&H and treats up to 320 gallons.
>
>
>Blue Skies
>John & Debra McBean
>"The Sky is not the Limit... It's a Playground"
>
>
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: | Tail Wheel Chatter-- Attention: Peter Graichen |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Peter Graichen" <n10pg@neo.rr.com>
Hi Jim:
Yes, I still use the Grove aluminum tail wheel spring. I have a "long one"
and a "short one"; the difference is only a couple of inches.
Recently I experienced a little tail wheel chatter. Upon closer inspection I
found that the horizontal leg of the spring, i.e. the leg that lays up
against the bottom of the fuselage, had yielded a little. In other words, it
was bowed. I talked to
Robie Grove and he said to send it back to him for refurbishing. It came
back about a week later like new. Actually they annealed it, rebent it, and
then heat treated it. While at it, I had the bend increased to 45 degrees.
The spring has pounded itself up into the bottom of the fuselage by a small
amount. The increase in angle compensates for that.
At other times when I have experienced tail wheel chatter I have found:
1. Loose attachment bolt between spring and tail wheel. It seems that one of
the washer will "dish", loosening the whole shebang.
2. Stretched steering spring chain. My experience with tail wheels (1200 hrs
Christen Eagle + 850 hrs Kitfox) dictates that the chain of the steering
springs should be preloaded by one link. No loose steering springs!!!
3. Although in my opinion, it is very desirable to have differential
steering springs (one longer and heavier than the other), it does not work
out too well with the Scott 3200 on a kitfox, because the short spring will
be completely compressed before the free swivel mechanism will release. This
means you can make pivot turns in only one direction.
4. Use only compression springs, not tension springs for steering.
Peter Graichen
http://home.neo.rr.com/n10pg/kitfox.htm
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Jim Crowder
Subject: Kitfox-List: Tail Wheel Chatter-- Attention: Peter Graichen
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Jim Crowder <jimlc@att.net>
I have been experiencing significant tail-wheel chatter when N64026 is
landed with a heavy load. I am also aware that the current angle of the
tail wheel pivot is a problem. I was trying to get by until the cooling
issue and others were solved. On the third and final landing today, the
chatter became so bad that one link spring was ejected, tail wheel steering
was lost, the wheel when wild providing both a braking effect and a severe
threat to control. My son was able to bring the plane under control, but
the problem is now number one.
Peter Graichen, in a long ago post, addressed this same problem. I have
the same Scott 3200 tail wheel and a plane only somewhat lighter than
his. He at that time solved the problem with the longer of two springs he
ordered. The Grove aluminum spring was bent to 41.5 degrees. I have the
original taller Skystar aluminum spring gear which may make some difference
in the angle needed, as I believe Peter has the newer shorter spring
gear. I may need a little less angle as the taller front legs will tilt
the pivot to my advantage. I plan to call Grove in the AM.
Peter, if you read this posting, do you still recommend this same Grove
spring? Do you have any other comments for me?
Jim Crowder
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: | Re: Fuel return line and My Model 5 |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Norm Beauchamp <nebchmp@wcc.net>
With my installation which includes shut off valves in both wing tank
fuel lines. I found I needed a check valve in the fuel return line to
the header tank to prevent fuel siphoning into the engine through the
header tank vent lines. fwiw Norm
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 return line and My Model 5 |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
Jim,
Before you do the drastic changes...
I was worried about this problem when I first started
testing my plane. With a fuel flow meter, I didn't
want to have a return line to throw it off. I used a
cheap indoor/outdoor thermometer with the outdoor
probe on my gascolator or pump to see what temps they
got to after shutdown. That can help trace your heat
soaking component(s).
(A side note: I also used it to determine if I need
carb heat. With the cowl on, the carb increased in
temp above ambient by about 20 degrees rather than
cooling below ambient. So far I haven't needed any
more heat.)
In my case, I have the reflective wrap on all fuel
parts under the cowl and they never got too hot. Now
I also open my inspection doors for cooling after
shutdown, just in case. I still haven't tested in
really hot conditions though.
As a backup plan, since I still use the gascolator, I
can drain it with the inspection cup and refill it
with gravity or the pump before start. All that is
left is the line up to the carb with hot fuel, if the
reflective material is insufficient. Hopefully the
primer will take care of any vapor in that.
Do you have your fuel parts wrapped? Don't use the
dark wrap. That heat soaks and then holds the heat
in. Reflective wrap may be the simpilest solution.
Just an idea befoe you make big changes.
Kurt S. S-5/NSI turbo
--- Jim Crowder <jimlc@att.net> wrote:
> Today we flew my Model 5 Turbo NSI CAP for the first
> time in about three years.
> ...........
> We did extensive ground runs prior to today, and
> with automotive fuel containing about 8% alcohol,
> and when shutting down a very hot engine, if
> we did not quickly restart it, the fuel system would
> vapor lock and resist most attempts to restart,
> until allowed to cool down. Of course this is
> not a normal flight situation, but I believe it can
> be improved upon. Lance at NSI suggested
> we switch to 100 LL for summer operation,
> which we did for todays flights. I still suspect
> that if I allowed a hot engine to heat soak, I would
> still get vapor lock.........
>
> Jim Crowder
> Model 5 Turbo NSI CAP
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: | Re: Tail Wheel Chatter-- Attention: Peter Graichen |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "roger augenstein" <raugenstein@fuse.net>
Peter,
What size or number and where did you purchase the compression spring?
Thanks
Roger KY Series 5 EJ 22
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Graichen" <n10pg@neo.rr.com>
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Tail Wheel Chatter-- Attention: Peter Graichen
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Peter Graichen" <n10pg@neo.rr.com>
>
> Hi Jim:
> Yes, I still use the Grove aluminum tail wheel spring. I have a "long one"
> and a "short one"; the difference is only a couple of inches.
> Recently I experienced a little tail wheel chatter. Upon closer inspection
I
> found that the horizontal leg of the spring, i.e. the leg that lays up
> against the bottom of the fuselage, had yielded a little. In other words,
it
> was bowed. I talked to
> Robie Grove and he said to send it back to him for refurbishing. It came
> back about a week later like new. Actually they annealed it, rebent it,
and
> then heat treated it. While at it, I had the bend increased to 45 degrees.
> The spring has pounded itself up into the bottom of the fuselage by a
small
> amount. The increase in angle compensates for that.
> At other times when I have experienced tail wheel chatter I have found:
> 1. Loose attachment bolt between spring and tail wheel. It seems that one
of
> the washer will "dish", loosening the whole shebang.
> 2. Stretched steering spring chain. My experience with tail wheels (1200
hrs
> Christen Eagle + 850 hrs Kitfox) dictates that the chain of the steering
> springs should be preloaded by one link. No loose steering springs!!!
> 3. Although in my opinion, it is very desirable to have differential
> steering springs (one longer and heavier than the other), it does not work
> out too well with the Scott 3200 on a kitfox, because the short spring
will
> be completely compressed before the free swivel mechanism will release.
This
> means you can make pivot turns in only one direction.
> 4. Use only compression springs, not tension springs for steering.
>
> Peter Graichen
> http://home.neo.rr.com/n10pg/kitfox.htm
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Jim Crowder
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Kitfox-List: Tail Wheel Chatter-- Attention: Peter Graichen
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Jim Crowder <jimlc@att.net>
>
> I have been experiencing significant tail-wheel chatter when N64026 is
> landed with a heavy load. I am also aware that the current angle of the
> tail wheel pivot is a problem. I was trying to get by until the cooling
> issue and others were solved. On the third and final landing today, the
> chatter became so bad that one link spring was ejected, tail wheel
steering
> was lost, the wheel when wild providing both a braking effect and a severe
> threat to control. My son was able to bring the plane under control, but
> the problem is now number one.
>
> Peter Graichen, in a long ago post, addressed this same problem. I have
> the same Scott 3200 tail wheel and a plane only somewhat lighter than
> his. He at that time solved the problem with the longer of two springs he
> ordered. The Grove aluminum spring was bent to 41.5 degrees. I have the
> original taller Skystar aluminum spring gear which may make some
difference
> in the angle needed, as I believe Peter has the newer shorter spring
> gear. I may need a little less angle as the taller front legs will tilt
> the pivot to my advantage. I plan to call Grove in the AM.
>
> Peter, if you read this posting, do you still recommend this same Grove
> spring? Do you have any other comments for me?
>
> Jim Crowder
>
>
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 |
|
| Subject: | All Kitfox lists |
kitfoxmod3@juno.com
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: FHowes@aol.com
Please delete fhowes@aol.com from your Kitfox list, since he passed away on
August 9, 2004. Thank you.
Mrs. Fred Howes
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: | Re: Fuel return line |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bob Robertson" <aerocon@telusplanet.net>
Lowell,
We don't see these units on the U/L engine very often... They are installed
cooling through the cowl you are not likely to see any problems. The Zenair
701 with a 100hp is notorious for vapor lock.
We have had to cut large vents in the tops of cowls to get good cooling
there. The return line is a real help with this appliction.
Kit-Foxers don't seem to have a problem.
Bob R
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@inreach.com>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Fuel return line
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@inreach.com>
>
> I'm with you on this one, Jim. I have over 600 hours and 5 years on mine
> and Summer temps often hit 100 here - never a hint at vapor lock.
>
> Lowell
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "jimshumaker" <jimshumaker@sbcglobal.net>
> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Fuel return line
>
>
> > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "jimshumaker"
> <jimshumaker@sbcglobal.net>
> >
> > Bob
> >
> > I have been flying with my 912 UL for several years and this is the
first
> I
> > have heard of a vapor return line. I can not even concieve of one being
> > after the fuel pump. What am I missing?
> >
> > Jim Shumaker
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Bob Robertson" <aerocon@telusplanet.net>
> > To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> > Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Fuel return line
> >
> >
> > > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bob Robertson"
> > <aerocon@telusplanet.net>
> > >
> > > Kerry,
> > > Seening as the return lines are there to eliminate vapor lock you will
> > need
> > > a return line with at least a low enough pressure to allow the vapor
> (gas
> > > bubbles) to travel back to the tank. I guess the best bet is to put
> the
> > > open end of the return lines into the highest possible part of the
fuel
> > > system to allow the vapor to escape. I doubt this would happen of you
> > were
> > > attempting to vent these lines into a sealed header tank that is lower
> > than
> > > the carbs/fuel distribution block.
> > >
> > > Hope this helps
> > >
> > > Bob Robertson
> > > Light Engine Services Ltd.
> > > Rotax Service Center
> > > St. Albert, Alberta
> > >
> > >
> > > --- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Kerry Skyring" <kerryskyring@hotmail.com>
> > > To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> > > Subject: Kitfox-List: Fuel return line
> > >
> > >
> > > > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Kerry Skyring"
> > > <kerryskyring@hotmail.com>
> > > >
> > > > Turning to the list again for advice.
> > > > Our technical inspector has cast doubt on the practice of routing
the
> > fuel
> > > > return line from the carburettors (S5 912ULS) back to the header
tank.
> > His
> > > > thinking is that the tank is constantly under pressure thus
> prohibiting
> > > the
> > > > return function. If we can't convince him otherwise we have to route
> > > > it to one of the wing tanks. A lot of trouble when we want to get
this
> > > thing
> > > > flying.
> > > >
> > > > Could listers comment?
> > > > Thanks
> > > > Kerry
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "joe" <joe@arin.k12.pa.us>
I have a GSC three blade on a kitfox 3 with 912.
one blade is about 4/10 deg. different than the others.
if I twist it to correct the angle the track will be out
more.
the track is out about 1/16" now.
which is more important, pitch angle or track.?
regards,
Joe
Message 26
| 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: Electronic or points |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bob Robertson" <aerocon@telusplanet.net>
Dave,
If you have a 532 it is a points engine unless it has been converted to CDI
by an aftermarket company. CDI engines are the only ones you do not want
to cranks over without grounding the plugs. Pointes engines do not have a
problem with that.
If you have zero spark from both cylinders you have a problem with
one of the following:
1. Ignition (or shorting switch is faulty)... This is always a good place
to start.
2. Ignition dampening box is faulty (this is the oblong shaped yellow zinc
plated box that us mounted (usually) to the electric starter housing or the
manual start houning...it has two wires going to the ignition coils)....
disconnect the two wires and check for spark.. If you re-gain spark this is
the problem. This will have to be replaced as it is necessary. If you hook
it up backwards you will not have and spark...l note the color wires going
to the dampner before disconnecting it.)
3. The coil inside the startor is faulty and will require replacement.
This is the last thing you check for as it is the hardest to replace.
4. Both the ignition coils are faulty at the same time... A really unlikely
senario as these things are as reliable as can be.
The above is assuming that you had a ground to the spark plugs when you were
looking for spark.
Hope this helps
Bob Robertson
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Savener" <david_savener@msn.com>
Subject: Kitfox-List: Electronic or points
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "David Savener" <david_savener@msn.com>
>
> I cranked my 532 without grounding the plug wires during maintenance(Don't
do that). I have no spark. I'm told I need a coil kit. Can't find a coil
kit in catalogs.
>
> I emailed three Rotax suppliers. One emailed me asking whether I have
electronic ignition or points.
>
> I have to pull my engine to remove the back plate to look at it. Is there
an easier way to tell??
>
> My engine serial # is 3798800, if that helps!!
>
> Dave Savener
>
>
Message 27
| 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: Electronic or points |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Torgeir Mortensen <torgemor@online.no>
Hi Dave,
Tried to answer this one earlier, but msg. disappeared somehow..
The latest 532 was delivered with the CDI ignition (the first Rotax with
CDI?), the old models with a single spark plug on each cyl. is the one
with points (breakers).
So if your engine has two spark pug on each cyl. you have the electronic
coils.
Hmm. As far as I'll remember, the electronic CDI will fail if turned
without loads (spark plugs), but the older will do without spark plugs.
Torgeir.
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 08:26:47 -0500, David Savener <david_savener@msn.com>
wrote:
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "David Savener"
> <david_savener@msn.com>
>
> I cranked my 532 without grounding the plug wires during
> maintenance(Don't do that). I have no spark. I'm told I need a coil
> kit. Can't find a coil kit in catalogs.
>
> I emailed three Rotax suppliers. One emailed me asking whether I have
> electronic ignition or points.
>
> I have to pull my engine to remove the back plate to look at it. Is
> there an easier way to tell??
>
> My engine serial # is 3798800, if that helps!!
>
> Dave Savener
>
>
--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
Message 28
| 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 return line |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bob Unternaehrer" <shilohcom@c-magic.com>
I'm wondering why the system you describe would n't work on a 2 stroke 503
on my Challenger,,I'm on both list. I have had trouble a few times with
over flow of the carb bowls when using the facet pump in series with the
Bing 54's on the 503. On time I shot gas overboard for quite a while,,, i
think, and it was in the air, but the engine never faltered. Others said
the engine should have flooded and quit , but it didn't. Others say the
facet shouldn't put out enough pressure to flood the carbs. I accurately
checked the deadhead pressure to be under 4 psi, but have concluded that
when you put 4 psi on the input of the Mikuni engine pump you might over
pressurize the carbs. The carbs are very close to the tank on the
challenger and the bleed line could go back into the tank or back into the
suction line to the facet pump with a check valve. Cutting another hole in
the tank and getting a fitting installed and sealed might be a problem but I
bet other challenger owners have done it. I wanted the facet pump as a
backup, to the engine pump, since the tank is below the engine, but now I'm
afraid to use it regularly on takeoff and landings as I wanted to. Bob U.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul" <pwilson@climber.org>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Fuel return line
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Paul <pwilson@climber.org>
>
> Hi Jim,
> Its just good engineering to have a fuel return line. The header tank is
designed for that feature, but Skystar only shows its use with the FI IO240.
We owe the mature design to our buddy who was a NASA engineer. He is no
longer with us. His design uses a Facet like Jim Crowder uses and it had a
tee at each carb on his 912S. The return lines from each carb combine into a
3/8" return line and pass thru an orifice to the header tank via the port
provided. (The design refered to was more complex than described here with
redundant pumps, etc).
> The primary purpose for this design was not vapor lock but was to allow
complete filling of the 912S dual carbs before starting. The result was a
much smoother start of the engine since both sides of the engine would then
be fully fueled. This was very important when the 912S first came out due to
cracking and breakage of the engine mount caused by engine shake.
> Of course the secondary purpose of the design was the elimination of
vapor lock caused by heat soak of the carbs.
> In any event the system was passive and fuel always flowed back to the
header. Testing is required to size the small orifice in the return line to
assure that the engine gets adequate fuel with both the electric pump as
well as the engine driven pump.
> It is true that a return to a main tank is preferred but that design
would involve more complex plumbing and a reduction in reliability. The
return to the header is adequate for most engines and requires minimal
testing.
> And yes, the fuel pump and filter S/B located at the fuel system low
point under the seat with this proper design.
> If more info on the system is desired I am sure it is in the archives as
it was discussed to death long ago.
> Paul
> ==============
>
> At 9:57 PM -0700 8/16/04, jimshumaker wrote:
> >--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "jimshumaker"
<jimshumaker@sbcglobal.net>
> >
> >Bob
> >
> >I have been flying with my 912 UL for several years and this is the first
I
> >have heard of a vapor return line. I can not even concieve of one being
> >after the fuel pump. What am I missing?
> >
> >Jim Shumaker
>
> --
>
>
> ---
>
>
---
Message 29
| 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 return line and My Model 5 |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bob Unternaehrer" <shilohcom@c-magic.com>
I would think most of the below recommendation make sense, but would add
that I would go ahead and use regular "orange" certified fire sleeves and
get the benifit of temperature insulation and the fire protection of
firesleeve. I did this on my C-150 with the lycoming 0 - 320 engine and it
U. '
----- Original Message -----
From: "kurt schrader" <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Fuel return line and My Model 5
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader
<smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
>
> Jim,
>
> Before you do the drastic changes...
>
> I was worried about this problem when I first started
> testing my plane. With a fuel flow meter, I didn't
> want to have a return line to throw it off. I used a
> cheap indoor/outdoor thermometer with the outdoor
> probe on my gascolator or pump to see what temps they
> got to after shutdown. That can help trace your heat
> soaking component(s).
>
> (A side note: I also used it to determine if I need
> carb heat. With the cowl on, the carb increased in
> temp above ambient by about 20 degrees rather than
> cooling below ambient. So far I haven't needed any
> more heat.)
>
> In my case, I have the reflective wrap on all fuel
> parts under the cowl and they never got too hot. Now
> I also open my inspection doors for cooling after
> shutdown, just in case. I still haven't tested in
> really hot conditions though.
>
> As a backup plan, since I still use the gascolator, I
> can drain it with the inspection cup and refill it
> with gravity or the pump before start. All that is
> left is the line up to the carb with hot fuel, if the
> reflective material is insufficient. Hopefully the
> primer will take care of any vapor in that.
>
> Do you have your fuel parts wrapped? Don't use the
> dark wrap. That heat soaks and then holds the heat
> in. Reflective wrap may be the simpilest solution.
>
> Just an idea befoe you make big changes.
>
> Kurt S. S-5/NSI turbo
>
> --- Jim Crowder <jimlc@att.net> wrote:
>
> > Today we flew my Model 5 Turbo NSI CAP for the first
> > time in about three years.
> > ...........
> > We did extensive ground runs prior to today, and
> > with automotive fuel containing about 8% alcohol,
> > and when shutting down a very hot engine, if
> > we did not quickly restart it, the fuel system would
> > vapor lock and resist most attempts to restart,
> > until allowed to cool down. Of course this is
> > not a normal flight situation, but I believe it can
> > be improved upon. Lance at NSI suggested
> > we switch to 100 LL for summer operation,
> > which we did for todays flights. I still suspect
> > that if I allowed a hot engine to heat soak, I would
> > still get vapor lock.........
> >
> > Jim Crowder
> > Model 5 Turbo NSI CAP
>
>
> ---
>
>
---
Message 30
| 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: kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
Joe,
Pitch is more important.
If the pitch is different, it will pull the blade out
of track, even if it is "right on" statically. If you
are lucky, the furthist aft blade will have that
slightly greater pitch and pull into track. If you are
unlucky, the most forward blade will also have the
most pitch pulling it further out of track.
It is good that you are getting things so exact. I'm
still shooting for "pretty good."
Good vibes to you.
Kurt S. S-5/NSI turbo
--- joe <joe@arin.k12.pa.us> wrote:
> I have a GSC three blade on a kitfox 3 with 912.
>
> one blade is about 4/10 deg. different than the
> others. if I twist it to correct the angle the
> track will be out more. the track is out about
> 1/16" now.
>
> which is more important, pitch angle or track.?
>
> regards,
>
> Joe
__________________________________
Message 31
| 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>
Joe, 1/16" out of track is pretty good actually and nothing to be concerned
over. Getting the blades all the same pitch angle is something I'd work
for. One blade slightly out of pitch from the rest will cause vibration.
Darrel
----- Original Message -----
From: "joe" <joe@arin.k12.pa.us>
Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Propeller
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "joe" <joe@arin.k12.pa.us>
>
> I have a GSC three blade on a kitfox 3 with 912.
>
> one blade is about 4/10 deg. different than the others.
>
> if I twist it to correct the angle the track will be out
> more.
>
> the track is out about 1/16" now.
>
> which is more important, pitch angle or track.?
>
> regards,
>
> Joe
>
>
Message 32
| 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 return line |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Kerry Skyring" <kerryskyring@hotmail.com>
Paul thanks very much for this reply and to others who replied. The manual
does show a return line to the header tank on the S5 with 912S. An inlet is
provided on the side of the header tank for this line. We do have a Facet
pump installed as a back up to the engine driven pump. It seems to me that
the fuel system is "enclosed" and that the pressure from the engine driven
pump will ensure that the return system does operate and will vent back into
the header tanks despite the gravity pressure from the wing tanks. It's
interesting to hear from Paul that this was designed to assist smooth
starting as well as to prevent vaporisation. If vaporisation is suspected
then we would turn on the facet pump. All fuel lines have fire sleeve
protection and the whole firewall forward design seems well designed for
keeping heat away from fuel lines. Anyway this is the way we intend to go if
we can convince our technical inspector. We really do not want to open up
the wings and plumb a line back to the wing tanks. I will go back and check
the archieves for more info. In Alpine Austria vaporisation should not be a
major problem. But who knows where this Kifox will take us? Kerry.
>From: Paul <pwilson@climber.org>
>Reply-To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
>To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Fuel return line
>Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 08:40:52 -0600
>
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Paul <pwilson@climber.org>
>
>Hi Jim,
> Its just good engineering to have a fuel return line. The header tank is
>designed for that feature, but Skystar only shows its use with the FI
>IO240. We owe the mature design to our buddy who was a NASA engineer. He is
>no longer with us. His design uses a Facet like Jim Crowder uses and it had
>a tee at each carb on his 912S. The return lines from each carb combine
>into a 3/8" return line and pass thru an orifice to the header tank via the
>port provided. (The design refered to was more complex than described here
>with redundant pumps, etc).
> The primary purpose for this design was not vapor lock but was to allow
>complete filling of the 912S dual carbs before starting. The result was a
>much smoother start of the engine since both sides of the engine would then
>be fully fueled. This was very important when the 912S first came out due
>to cracking and breakage of the engine mount caused by engine shake.
> Of course the secondary purpose of the design was the elimination of
>vapor lock caused by heat soak of the carbs.
> In any event the system was passive and fuel always flowed back to the
>header. Testing is required to size the small orifice in the return line to
>assure that the engine gets adequate fuel with both the electric pump as
>well as the engine driven pump.
> It is true that a return to a main tank is preferred but that design
>would involve more complex plumbing and a reduction in reliability. The
>return to the header is adequate for most engines and requires minimal
>testing.
> And yes, the fuel pump and filter S/B located at the fuel system low
>point under the seat with this proper design.
> If more info on the system is desired I am sure it is in the archives as
>it was discussed to death long ago.
> Paul
>==============
>
>At 9:57 PM -0700 8/16/04, jimshumaker wrote:
> >--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "jimshumaker"
><jimshumaker@sbcglobal.net>
> >
> >Bob
> >
> >I have been flying with my 912 UL for several years and this is the first
>I
> >have heard of a vapor return line. I can not even concieve of one being
> >after the fuel pump. What am I missing?
> >
> >Jim Shumaker
>
>--
>
>
Message 33
| 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: Electronic or points |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bob Robertson" <aerocon@telusplanet.net>
Torgeir
To the best of my knowledge, we never had any 532 CDI's delivered to
N.America. We went directly from the points 532 to the CDI 582.
(and was that ever a welcome thing!!!)
Bob R
----- Original Message -----
From: "Torgeir Mortensen" <torgemor@online.no>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Electronic or points
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Torgeir Mortensen <torgemor@online.no>
>
> Hi Dave,
>
> Tried to answer this one earlier, but msg. disappeared somehow..
>
> The latest 532 was delivered with the CDI ignition (the first Rotax with
> CDI?), the old models with a single spark plug on each cyl. is the one
> with points (breakers).
> So if your engine has two spark pug on each cyl. you have the electronic
> coils.
>
> Hmm. As far as I'll remember, the electronic CDI will fail if turned
> without loads (spark plugs), but the older will do without spark plugs.
>
> Torgeir.
>
>
> On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 08:26:47 -0500, David Savener <david_savener@msn.com>
> wrote:
>
> > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "David Savener"
> > <david_savener@msn.com>
> >
> > I cranked my 532 without grounding the plug wires during
> > maintenance(Don't do that). I have no spark. I'm told I need a coil
> > kit. Can't find a coil kit in catalogs.
> >
> > I emailed three Rotax suppliers. One emailed me asking whether I have
> > electronic ignition or points.
> >
> > I have to pull my engine to remove the back plate to look at it. Is
> > there an easier way to tell??
> >
> > My engine serial # is 3798800, if that helps!!
> >
> > Dave Savener
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
>
>
Message 34
| 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: | Tail Wheel Chatter-- Attention: Peter Graichen |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Peter Graichen" <n10pg@neo.rr.com>
For compression type connector spring kit see AS&S catalog, page 220
Peter Graichen
http://home.neo.rr.com/n10pg/kitfox.htm
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of roger augenstein
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Tail Wheel Chatter-- Attention: Peter Graichen
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "roger augenstein" <raugenstein@fuse.net>
Peter,
What size or number and where did you purchase the compression spring?
Thanks
Roger KY Series 5 EJ 22
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Graichen" <n10pg@neo.rr.com>
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Tail Wheel Chatter-- Attention: Peter Graichen
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Peter Graichen" <n10pg@neo.rr.com>
>
> Hi Jim:
> Yes, I still use the Grove aluminum tail wheel spring. I have a "long one"
> and a "short one"; the difference is only a couple of inches.
> Recently I experienced a little tail wheel chatter. Upon closer inspection
I
> found that the horizontal leg of the spring, i.e. the leg that lays up
> against the bottom of the fuselage, had yielded a little. In other words,
it
> was bowed. I talked to
> Robie Grove and he said to send it back to him for refurbishing. It came
> back about a week later like new. Actually they annealed it, rebent it,
and
> then heat treated it. While at it, I had the bend increased to 45 degrees.
> The spring has pounded itself up into the bottom of the fuselage by a
small
> amount. The increase in angle compensates for that.
> At other times when I have experienced tail wheel chatter I have found:
> 1. Loose attachment bolt between spring and tail wheel. It seems that one
of
> the washer will "dish", loosening the whole shebang.
> 2. Stretched steering spring chain. My experience with tail wheels (1200
hrs
> Christen Eagle + 850 hrs Kitfox) dictates that the chain of the steering
> springs should be preloaded by one link. No loose steering springs!!!
> 3. Although in my opinion, it is very desirable to have differential
> steering springs (one longer and heavier than the other), it does not work
> out too well with the Scott 3200 on a kitfox, because the short spring
will
> be completely compressed before the free swivel mechanism will release.
This
> means you can make pivot turns in only one direction.
> 4. Use only compression springs, not tension springs for steering.
>
> Peter Graichen
> http://home.neo.rr.com/n10pg/kitfox.htm
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Jim Crowder
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Kitfox-List: Tail Wheel Chatter-- Attention: Peter Graichen
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Jim Crowder <jimlc@att.net>
>
> I have been experiencing significant tail-wheel chatter when N64026 is
> landed with a heavy load. I am also aware that the current angle of the
> tail wheel pivot is a problem. I was trying to get by until the cooling
> issue and others were solved. On the third and final landing today, the
> chatter became so bad that one link spring was ejected, tail wheel
steering
> was lost, the wheel when wild providing both a braking effect and a severe
> threat to control. My son was able to bring the plane under control, but
> the problem is now number one.
>
> Peter Graichen, in a long ago post, addressed this same problem. I have
> the same Scott 3200 tail wheel and a plane only somewhat lighter than
> his. He at that time solved the problem with the longer of two springs he
> ordered. The Grove aluminum spring was bent to 41.5 degrees. I have the
> original taller Skystar aluminum spring gear which may make some
difference
> in the angle needed, as I believe Peter has the newer shorter spring
> gear. I may need a little less angle as the taller front legs will tilt
> the pivot to my advantage. I plan to call Grove in the AM.
>
> Peter, if you read this posting, do you still recommend this same Grove
> spring? Do you have any other comments for me?
>
> Jim Crowder
>
>
Message 35
| 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 level sighting |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: jareds <jareds@verizon.net>
I've got two inserts top and bottom of tank glued in with barbed
fittings for small hose.
I come out a few inches with clear hose then put a small elbow in top n
bottom. Clear line with black tick marks tells me how full i am in
level flight!
[
shaped like bracket above!
curved makes it more inacccurate!
Jared
Rex & Jan Shaw wrote:
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Rex & Jan Shaw" <rexjan@bigpond.com>
>
>Does anyone please have any suggestions for being able to see the fuel level
>through the ends of the fibre glass tanks in a MKIV. I wonder if it's that
>Kreem coating or is it aging of the fibre glass. The ends of the tanks are
>very brownish yellow.
>I thought about putting a wad of rag on the end of a stick through the
>filler neck and if I could reach and clean the inside of the tank in that
>area it might work. However before I try and mess up that Kreem coating that
>everyone has been talking about it peeling off anyway I thought I'd better
>ask some questions. Thanks for any input,
>
>Rex.
>rexjan@bigpond.com
>
>
>
>
Message 36
| 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: AlbertaIV@aol.com
I managed to inspect my rudder rod ends today. I first reported I had 4
bearings but, only have 3 (all with 1/4" threads). I found no problems at all.
I
have noticed that the threads on most of the rod ends tend to rust easily.
On my rudder rod ends, I applied a material called Tectal 503. It a highly
anti-corrosive substance that turns to a liquid when heated and back to a peanut
butter consistency when cooled. The threads on my rudder were nice and new
looking with a nice coating of Tectal (no rust).
Classic IV (September 95)
Don Smythe
DO NOT ARCHIVE
Message 37
| 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 return line |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Paul <pwilson@climber.org>
I hope the write up helps. Your system sounds like it is on track. Make a good
schematic for your inspector to emphasize that the header tank is at ambient
pressure and is not pressurized. This design came about from the desert of the
southwest near Pheonix AZ. But the shake was determined to be unequal filling
of the carb bowls. This for sure was exaggerated by the high ambients he encountered.
Lately the shake has become a symptom of issues but the balanced fuel
at start sure helped.
Regards Paul
=============
At 9:31 PM +0200 8/17/04, Kerry Skyring wrote:
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Kerry Skyring" <kerryskyring@hotmail.com>
>
>Paul thanks very much for this reply and to others who replied. The manual
>does show a return line to the header tank on the S5 with 912S. An inlet is
>provided on the side of the header tank for this line. We do have a Facet
>pump installed as a back up to the engine driven pump. It seems to me that
>the fuel system is "enclosed" and that the pressure from the engine driven
>pump will ensure that the return system does operate and will vent back into
>the header tanks despite the gravity pressure from the wing tanks. It's
>interesting to hear from Paul that this was designed to assist smooth
>starting as well as to prevent vaporisation. If vaporisation is suspected
>then we would turn on the facet pump. All fuel lines have fire sleeve
>protection and the whole firewall forward design seems well designed for
>keeping heat away from fuel lines. Anyway this is the way we intend to go if
>we can convince our technical inspector. We really do not want to open up
>the wings and plumb a line back to the wing tanks. I will go back and check
>the archieves for more info. In Alpine Austria vaporisation should not be a
>major problem. But who knows where this Kifox will take us? Kerry.
>
>
>>From: Paul <pwilson@climber.org>
>>Reply-To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
>>To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
>>Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Fuel return line
>>Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 08:40:52 -0600
>>
>>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Paul <pwilson@climber.org>
>>
>>Hi Jim,
>> Its just good engineering to have a fuel return line. The header tank is
>>designed for that feature, but Skystar only shows its use with the FI
>>IO240. We owe the mature design to our buddy who was a NASA engineer. He is
>>no longer with us. His design uses a Facet like Jim Crowder uses and it had
>>a tee at each carb on his 912S. The return lines from each carb combine
>>into a 3/8" return line and pass thru an orifice to the header tank via the
>>port provided. (The design refered to was more complex than described here
>>with redundant pumps, etc).
>> The primary purpose for this design was not vapor lock but was to allow
>>complete filling of the 912S dual carbs before starting. The result was a
>>much smoother start of the engine since both sides of the engine would then
>>be fully fueled. This was very important when the 912S first came out due
>>to cracking and breakage of the engine mount caused by engine shake.
>> Of course the secondary purpose of the design was the elimination of
>>vapor lock caused by heat soak of the carbs.
>> In any event the system was passive and fuel always flowed back to the
>>header. Testing is required to size the small orifice in the return line to
>>assure that the engine gets adequate fuel with both the electric pump as
>>well as the engine driven pump.
>> It is true that a return to a main tank is preferred but that design
>>would involve more complex plumbing and a reduction in reliability. The
>>return to the header is adequate for most engines and requires minimal
>>testing.
>> And yes, the fuel pump and filter S/B located at the fuel system low
>>point under the seat with this proper design.
>> If more info on the system is desired I am sure it is in the archives as
>>it was discussed to death long ago.
>> Paul
>>==============
>>
>>At 9:57 PM -0700 8/16/04, jimshumaker wrote:
> > >--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "jimshumaker"
>><jimshumaker@sbcglobal.net>
>> >
>> >Bob
>> >
>> >I have been flying with my 912 UL for several years and this is the first
>>I
>> >have heard of a vapor return line. I can not even concieve of one being
>> >after the fuel pump. What am I missing?
>> >
>> >Jim Shumaker
>>
>>--
>>
>>
>
>
--
Message 38
| 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: Tail Wheel Chatter-- Attention: Peter Graichen |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@inreach.com>
I think the important issue here is the point of contact of the wheel with
the ground and it's relationship to the pivot axis. In a heavily loaded
airplane or if held on the ground with full back stick, the spring is
compressed moving the axis of pivot closer to the contact point and in
extreme cases can be at the contact point. This would eliminate the natural
tendency of the wheel to follow resulting in shimmy. Vertical is best, but
an aft tilt (top aft of the bottom) will give some leeway to prevent shimmy.
Lowell
----- Original Message -----
From: <DC91840@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Tail Wheel Chatter-- Attention: Peter Graichen
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: DC91840@aol.com
>
> I am not Peter but I have some experience with tailwheel
> flying. The first thing to check is the angle of the pivot
> on the assembly. That angle must be close to 90deg..
> with the ground. Anything else changes the castor/camber
> and will do bad things with the tracking of the wheel.
> I also have had a spring jump off do to shimmy. Not fun.
> This angle is adjustable only by the bend of the spring or
> shimming the front of the spring with washers at the
> mounting bolt.
> Good luck
> Don
> p.s. Had a Citabria and also have a Classic IV
>
>
Message 39
| 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 return line |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@inreach.com>
Paul good explanation. One question. I have a facit pump just below the
header tank. could I expect the pressure from this pump filling the float
bowls without a return line?
Lowell
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul" <pwilson@climber.org>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Fuel return line
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Paul <pwilson@climber.org>
>
> Hi Jim,
> Its just good engineering to have a fuel return line. The header tank is
designed for that feature, but Skystar only shows its use with the FI IO240.
We owe the mature design to our buddy who was a NASA engineer. He is no
longer with us. His design uses a Facet like Jim Crowder uses and it had a
tee at each carb on his 912S. The return lines from each carb combine into a
3/8" return line and pass thru an orifice to the header tank via the port
provided. (The design refered to was more complex than described here with
redundant pumps, etc).
> The primary purpose for this design was not vapor lock but was to allow
complete filling of the 912S dual carbs before starting. The result was a
much smoother start of the engine since both sides of the engine would then
be fully fueled. This was very important when the 912S first came out due to
cracking and breakage of the engine mount caused by engine shake.
> Of course the secondary purpose of the design was the elimination of
vapor lock caused by heat soak of the carbs.
> In any event the system was passive and fuel always flowed back to the
header. Testing is required to size the small orifice in the return line to
assure that the engine gets adequate fuel with both the electric pump as
well as the engine driven pump.
> It is true that a return to a main tank is preferred but that design
would involve more complex plumbing and a reduction in reliability. The
return to the header is adequate for most engines and requires minimal
testing.
> And yes, the fuel pump and filter S/B located at the fuel system low
point under the seat with this proper design.
> If more info on the system is desired I am sure it is in the archives as
it was discussed to death long ago.
> Paul
> ==============
>
> At 9:57 PM -0700 8/16/04, jimshumaker wrote:
> >--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "jimshumaker"
<jimshumaker@sbcglobal.net>
> >
> >Bob
> >
> >I have been flying with my 912 UL for several years and this is the first
I
> >have heard of a vapor return line. I can not even concieve of one being
> >after the fuel pump. What am I missing?
> >
> >Jim Shumaker
>
> --
>
>
Message 40
| 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 return line |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Rick" <turboflyer@comcast.net>
I am just joining this thread. I don't think I ever saw a return line in
any automotive application. The fuel pressures we see are small, 1.5 too 6
psi and are adequately regulated by the float bowl seat or similar seat
found in the TBIs. The return line, as I understand it, comes into play is
electronic fuel injection where excessive pressure not needed to the
injectors or injector rail is returned to the fuel tank. I like the concept
of the return line in the float bowl type configuration. I don't think at
this point in the game I am going to redesign my fuel delivery system to
accommodate one. Just guessing but I think the fuel flow requirement are a
bit to dynamic unless you have some type of pressure regulator on the return
bypass circuit to keep the feed line pressure constant. Just my thoughts on
the subject.
Rick N6
-----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 return line
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@inreach.com>
Paul good explanation. One question. I have a facit pump just below the
header tank. could I expect the pressure from this pump filling the float
bowls without a return line?
Lowell
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul" <pwilson@climber.org>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Fuel return line
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Paul <pwilson@climber.org>
>
> Hi Jim,
> Its just good engineering to have a fuel return line. The header tank is
designed for that feature, but Skystar only shows its use with the FI IO240.
We owe the mature design to our buddy who was a NASA engineer. He is no
longer with us. His design uses a Facet like Jim Crowder uses and it had a
tee at each carb on his 912S. The return lines from each carb combine into a
3/8" return line and pass thru an orifice to the header tank via the port
provided. (The design refered to was more complex than described here with
redundant pumps, etc).
> The primary purpose for this design was not vapor lock but was to allow
complete filling of the 912S dual carbs before starting. The result was a
much smoother start of the engine since both sides of the engine would then
be fully fueled. This was very important when the 912S first came out due to
cracking and breakage of the engine mount caused by engine shake.
> Of course the secondary purpose of the design was the elimination of
vapor lock caused by heat soak of the carbs.
> In any event the system was passive and fuel always flowed back to the
header. Testing is required to size the small orifice in the return line to
assure that the engine gets adequate fuel with both the electric pump as
well as the engine driven pump.
> It is true that a return to a main tank is preferred but that design
would involve more complex plumbing and a reduction in reliability. The
return to the header is adequate for most engines and requires minimal
testing.
> And yes, the fuel pump and filter S/B located at the fuel system low
point under the seat with this proper design.
> If more info on the system is desired I am sure it is in the archives as
it was discussed to death long ago.
> Paul
> ==============
>
> At 9:57 PM -0700 8/16/04, jimshumaker wrote:
> >--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "jimshumaker"
<jimshumaker@sbcglobal.net>
> >
> >Bob
> >
> >I have been flying with my 912 UL for several years and this is the first
I
> >have heard of a vapor return line. I can not even concieve of one being
> >after the fuel pump. What am I missing?
> >
> >Jim Shumaker
>
> --
>
>
Message 41
| 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 return line |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Rick" <turboflyer@comcast.net>
One last thing. I would think the fuel bowls are vented to the atmosphere.
They have to be or the bowls cant fill. Not a sealed system. If they
overfill they should have a vent for that which may be one in the same. The
circulating fuel again is a function of fuel injected engines, e.g., the
IO240. Yes the facit pump will supply all the fuel you need. Check the
sportflight photos.
Rick N6
-----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 return line
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@inreach.com>
Paul good explanation. One question. I have a facit pump just below the
header tank. could I expect the pressure from this pump filling the float
bowls without a return line?
Lowell
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul" <pwilson@climber.org>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Fuel return line
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Paul <pwilson@climber.org>
>
> Hi Jim,
> Its just good engineering to have a fuel return line. The header tank is
designed for that feature, but Skystar only shows its use with the FI IO240.
We owe the mature design to our buddy who was a NASA engineer. He is no
longer with us. His design uses a Facet like Jim Crowder uses and it had a
tee at each carb on his 912S. The return lines from each carb combine into a
3/8" return line and pass thru an orifice to the header tank via the port
provided. (The design refered to was more complex than described here with
redundant pumps, etc).
> The primary purpose for this design was not vapor lock but was to allow
complete filling of the 912S dual carbs before starting. The result was a
much smoother start of the engine since both sides of the engine would then
be fully fueled. This was very important when the 912S first came out due to
cracking and breakage of the engine mount caused by engine shake.
> Of course the secondary purpose of the design was the elimination of
vapor lock caused by heat soak of the carbs.
> In any event the system was passive and fuel always flowed back to the
header. Testing is required to size the small orifice in the return line to
assure that the engine gets adequate fuel with both the electric pump as
well as the engine driven pump.
> It is true that a return to a main tank is preferred but that design
would involve more complex plumbing and a reduction in reliability. The
return to the header is adequate for most engines and requires minimal
testing.
> And yes, the fuel pump and filter S/B located at the fuel system low
point under the seat with this proper design.
> If more info on the system is desired I am sure it is in the archives as
it was discussed to death long ago.
> Paul
> ==============
>
> At 9:57 PM -0700 8/16/04, jimshumaker wrote:
> >--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "jimshumaker"
<jimshumaker@sbcglobal.net>
> >
> >Bob
> >
> >I have been flying with my 912 UL for several years and this is the first
I
> >have heard of a vapor return line. I can not even concieve of one being
> >after the fuel pump. What am I missing?
> >
> >Jim Shumaker
>
> --
>
>
Message 42
| 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: rudder hinge : Mark |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Ceashman@aol.com
> Kitfox-List message posted by: Mark Schindler <mtschindler@yahoo.com>
Hi Mark.
I received my Classic IV in December 76. I do not know when Skystar changed
to the rod-end bearing system for the rudder hinges.
I will try to explain the setup. In the vertical tube of the stabilizer there
are 3 holes drilled and small tubes are inserted and welded in place. One
near the top, one in the center and one near the bottom.
In the tubes, 1/4-28 thread is tapped to take the bearing. A nut is threaded
on the bearing shaft and the bearing is then screwed into the prethreaded
tubes ending with the hole in line with the tube, and finally the nut is used to
lock everything in place.
(one person explained that he noticed this nut was loose! The manual doesn't
show the use of a lock washer. This could be a good idea) But I feel that the
bearing would be loose but not unthread itself because the tabs that sandwich
the bearing would prevent that.
Now, the rudder has tabs strategically welded, that when you place the rudder
to the vertical stabilizer. You in fact sandwich the bearing of the rod-end
between these metal tabs and insert an AN 3 bolt through the holed tabs and
the hole in the bearing.
I think it a nifty idea and should work like a charm. But as we have heard,
there are some week areas. After hearing the comments I looked at a spare
Aurora bearing I have and I notice some side slop at the swivel bearing. To explain
this; say you hold the rudder underneath and try to lift up, there would be a
little movement. I am not saying there is, only an example of where I notice
the free play. I don't like that and therefor I am in search of a better
quality bearing.
I feel what could cause the bearing thread (shaft) to fracture is the
misalignment of the little tubes that were welded into the main vertical tube.
When
covering/painting, if the bearings were left in place, the fuselage could have
been resting on them and bending the shafts. Too much threaded shaft
protruding out of the nest.
Maybe coupled with something like above, an aggressive foot is used on the
rudder pedals, heck' I still do that occasionally but much less then when I
started to learn to taxi, you know when trying to make a tight turn. You would
break the tail wheel and have a free castering wheel. A little embarrassing and
to get the thing to stop revolving you would mash the opposing foot through the
firewall. No effect on the bloody tail wheel but very much stress to the old
rudder hinge bearings.
OK! these are my ideas (not facts).
Eric Ashman. Classic IV, Atlanta
from Mark:
Eric
I don't know what the new setup looks like but Avid and earlier Kitfoxes had
tubing with nylon inserts in them which I guess has been working without any
problems - is it not possible to go back to that system?
My new Avid Plus is using it and I see no reason to change it - wonder why
Skystar needed the change?
e-mail; ceashman@aol.com
Message 43
| 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: sparkplugs, 912, avgas To John and John |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Ceashman@aol.com
OK... where do I get this stuff?
John McBean, you said you are the distributor is that for the entire country
or is there someone near Atlanta. GA. Who sells "Decalin TCP"
Sometimes I feel tethered to my home airport because I don't want to risk
using 100LL in my 912 UL. But if I can keep a bottle of this led scavenger in the
baggage area, I can fillerup wherever.
Any side effects that you can think off?
Thanks in advance. Eric. Classic IV, Atlanta
e-mail; ceashman@aol.com
Message 44
| 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: Electronic or points |
Seal-Send-Time: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 22:41:53 -0500
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "David Savener" <david_savener@msn.com>
My 582 has single ignition, so I guess it has points. It has 207 hours on it.
I have a fresh 582 Blue Head setting on my bench. I guess I'll change engines.
I'll feel more confident in my fresh engine with dual ignition and oil injection!
If anyone is interested in a used 532 with 207 hrs., I am in Central Texas and
will have no use for this engine. My understanding is that it is pretty much
a throw-away engine at 300 hours. Someone might need it for parts, etc.
Thanks for the input on the ignition!
Dave S.
----- Original Message -----
From: Bob Robertson<mailto:aerocon@telusplanet.net>
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com<mailto:kitfox-list@matronics.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2004 5:02 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Electronic or points
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bob Robertson" <aerocon@telusplanet.net<mailto:aerocon@telusplanet.net>>
Torgeir
To the best of my knowledge, we never had any 532 CDI's delivered to
N.America. We went directly from the points 532 to the CDI 582.
(and was that ever a welcome thing!!!)
Bob R
----- Original Message -----
From: "Torgeir Mortensen" <torgemor@online.no<mailto:torgemor@online.no>>
To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com<mailto:kitfox-list@matronics.com>>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Electronic or points
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Torgeir Mortensen <torgemor@online.no<mailto:torgemor@online.no>>
>
> Hi Dave,
>
> Tried to answer this one earlier, but msg. disappeared somehow..
>
> The latest 532 was delivered with the CDI ignition (the first Rotax with
> CDI?), the old models with a single spark plug on each cyl. is the one
> with points (breakers).
> So if your engine has two spark pug on each cyl. you have the electronic
> coils.
>
> Hmm. As far as I'll remember, the electronic CDI will fail if turned
> without loads (spark plugs), but the older will do without spark plugs.
>
> Torgeir.
>
>
> On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 08:26:47 -0500, David Savener <david_savener@msn.com<mailto:david_savener@msn.com>>
> wrote:
>
> > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "David Savener"
> > <david_savener@msn.com<mailto:david_savener@msn.com>>
> >
> > I cranked my 532 without grounding the plug wires during
> > maintenance(Don't do that). I have no spark. I'm told I need a coil
> > kit. Can't find a coil kit in catalogs.
> >
> > I emailed three Rotax suppliers. One emailed me asking whether I have
> > electronic ignition or points.
> >
> > I have to pull my engine to remove the back plate to look at it. Is
> > there an easier way to tell??
> >
> > My engine serial # is 3798800, if that helps!!
> >
> > Dave Savener
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/<http://www.opera.com/m2/>
>
>
Message 45
| 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-List Digest: 23 Msgs - 08/16/04( Kerry's header |
tank dilemma)
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Stu Bryant" <s.j.bryant@sbcglobal.net>
Kerry,
First a big caveat- I have not ever yet seen the arrangement of how the
header is fed by the wing tanks nor how the (excess fuel, not vapor) return
is routed. I make a few assumptions which may or may not be valid. So this
might be good for some hysterical laughter if nothing else. But it seems to
me...
This is interesting logic on the part of your inspector. Ask him what
pressurizes the header tank in the first place. Let him ruminate on that a
bit. Give him a couple minutes. Maybe you might just see a light bulb light
up over his head! The back pressure (as seen by the return line) to feed the
wing tank would virtually if not exactly equal the pressure built up inside
the header, at least in a static system. Dynamic could be worse. The wing
tanks cannot exert any more force on the header than the equivalent column
between the two actual levels. If the return fuel is pumped back uphill to
the wing tank it still has that back pressure to overcome- the very same
gravitational force which pressurizes the header. Six of one and a half
dozen of the other. The header is closed in a sense, but unless there is a
check valve or regulator isolating them the pressure as seen by the return
line should only differ from a wing tank return line by the flow resistance
caused by the added length of whichever is longer (in essence induced drag)-
essentially no difference at all I'm guessing.
If we are talking a return line then we are talking about some sort of
active fuel pump- not gravity feed alone. It is common practice with
industrial pumps of many sorts to loop the return line back to the inlet
side. The inlet has a relative negative pressure so the discharge stays
happy and the outlet pressure can be kept as low as desired by a regulator
or throttling valve in that loop. The fuel pump/carb return line could be
routed this way (teed back into the inlet side) so long as provision for
maintaining enough pressure at the carb float bowl is made. Seems easier to
just keep the present header routing. Unless measured backpressure is
outside the established normal range as stated by the manufacturer, anyway.
Stu Bryant
Message 46
| 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: | Tail Wheel Shimmy and Return Fuel Line |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Jim Crowder <jimlc@att.net>
Thanks for all of the thoughtful replies. I've been a little slow reading
all, but Sunday night I began to have a bad tooth experience. I go in for
a root cannel job at 10:30 AM tomorrow and at this time I am even looking
forward to it!
I did call Grove and talked to Robbie Grove--a real nice person. They are
out of the tail wheel spring business for lack of volume orders. His best
suggestion is for me to go to a truck spring shop and have mine re bent. I
don't think they have sagged, but were just not correct for my application
from the beginning. Robbie says it is best that they position the pivot
point at 90 degrees to the ground and that being far off of that in either
direction invites shimmy. He did say that up to 5 degrees positive castor
is usually acceptable. I will attempt to have them bent within that range.
Regarding the return fuel line, I feel this is less pressing. Particularly
since my temps in the air were so good, it seems to be a ground issue only,
and then only after hard ground running. We did extensive ground testing
before yesterdays flights to assure ourselves that the engine was safe to
fly. We even ran it at the red line for three minutes both with and
without cowling. It was after these hard runs and allowing heat soaking,
that we encountered the vapor lock. We did open both of our top access
doors, but to little avail. Generally we could stop and restart even then,
if we did so at once.
The return line is still only a thought, as I do not wish to add complexity
without a determined need. As has been pointed out, even at best, a return
line would introduce its own problems. If I do install one, I will only
open it to clear a vapor lock. At this point I suspect I have a solution
looking for a real problem. I plan to meter fuel flow, which I believe is
of more value, and full time return flow operation would defeat that.
I also have some wiring problems I need to work through. I had Accipiter
(I think they are out of business) install my engine and instruments and
now have had to fix numerous problems. Remaining known squawks are relay
wires from my stick switches that run through raw unprotected holes in the
aluminum sticks, with cuts in the insulation already presenting
themselves. Also, the Skystar provided low fuel warning remains non
working. I do not have the wiring instructions so that I can trouble
shoot. Can anyone help me with this?
My encoder was not properly wired to the transponder and of course it
reported no altitude. Accipiter furnished me with an inspection
certificate indicating that all was working even though it could not have
been. My integrated power backup system was improperly connected so that
the status lights functioned incorrectly. The backup itself would have
functioned, however. Numerous functions on the Rocky Mountain Engine
Monitor do not work correctly, and we have installed steam gages to monitor
critical engine operations for now. I have friends who have this
instrument on air cooled engines and love it. I think most of my problems
could be quickly resolved, but I have decided it is not a good match for a
water cooled engine, as it is not what it was designed for. If anyone on
the list is interested, I plan to offer it for sale at half of what I paid,
built and ready to install. I strongly recommend using it only on an air
cooled engine.
Also, as to appearance, N64026 has all fabric painted white with final
painting to await successful operations. I think we had a grey ghost, I
wonder what mine should be called? I look forward to joining you in the
air later this year.
Saturday, Beth and I are leaving for Kentucky for my 50th high school class
reunion and will be away for about two weeks. Who would have thought?
Thanks to all for your very good suggestions. I will report my progress
when I return. In the meantime, when able, I will keep up with the list.
Jim Crowder
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! --
|