Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:19 AM - Re: Side air outlets (Michel Verheughe)
2. 12:24 AM - Re: Fw: Jabiru for sale (Michel Verheughe)
3. 01:04 AM - [Off Topic] European scenes (Michel Verheughe)
4. 03:34 AM - Re: [Off Topic] European scenes (kitfox@chrisbates.co.uk)
5. 04:26 AM - Re: [Off Topic] European scenes (Fox5flyer)
6. 05:35 AM - Re: Side air outlets (AlbertaIV@aol.com)
7. 05:57 AM - KITFOX 3 AND 4 (Chet & Marylu Richer)
8. 06:18 AM - Re: Side air outlets (Fox5flyer)
9. 06:47 AM - Re: KITFOX 3 AND 4 (AlbertaIV@aol.com)
10. 08:41 AM - Re: Side air outlets (Jerry Liles)
11. 08:48 AM - Re: KITFOX 3 AND 4 (Jerry Liles)
12. 10:25 AM - Re: KITFOX 3 AND 4 (Grant Fluent)
13. 10:28 AM - Re: KITFOX 3 AND 4 (Rex)
14. 10:46 AM - New product announcement: affordable VG's (Land Shorter)
15. 10:58 AM - Re: Kitfox Wings (Rex)
16. 11:17 AM - Re: New product announcement: affordable VG's (Don Pearsall)
17. 11:19 AM - Re: Side air outlets (Norm Beauchamp)
18. 11:36 AM - Re: Side air outlets (AlbertaIV@aol.com)
19. 11:44 AM - Re: Side air outlets (Michel Verheughe)
20. 11:50 AM - Model II Wings (David Savener)
21. 12:31 PM - Re: New product announcement: affordable VG's (Land Shorter)
22. 01:45 PM - Spam and Jabiru (Michel Verheughe)
23. 02:12 PM - Re: Stolen Rotax 912 ULS Engine (Jeffrey Puls)
24. 04:34 PM - Re: KITFOX 3 AND 4 (LeRoy staley)
25. 05:37 PM - Re: Side air outlets (kurt schrader)
26. 06:00 PM - Has anyone heard more about how Mike is doing since the crash? (Rex & Jan Shaw)
27. 06:09 PM - Re: Side air outlets (Steve Cooper)
28. 06:35 PM - Re: Side air outlets (kurt schrader)
29. 06:38 PM - Re: Side air outlets (kurt schrader)
30. 06:40 PM - Re: Has anyone heard more about how Mike is doing since the crash? (kurt schrader)
31. 07:10 PM - Re: Side air outlets (kurt schrader)
32. 07:14 PM - Do you know what modifications where done to the earlier fuselages (Rex & Jan Shaw)
33. 07:30 PM - Re: Side air outlets (Rick)
34. 07:33 PM - Re: Has anyone heard more about how Mike is doing since the crash? (jdmcbean)
35. 08:28 PM - Re: Side air outlets (kurt schrader)
36. 08:33 PM - Re: New product announcement: affordable VG's (kurt schrader)
37. 08:37 PM - Re: Has anyone heard more about how Mike is doing since the crash? (Marc Arseneault)
38. 09:41 PM - Re: Kitfox Wings (Jose M. Toro)
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: Side air outlets |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
Fox5flyer wrote:
> Did I make something simple sound difficult? I sometimes do that...
thank you for your answer, Darell. It was not difficult and it describe pretty
well what I think I understand from what I read elsewhere. The only thing I
wonder is the 1/3 and 2/3. In plain area calculation does that mean that the
outlet has to be twice (2/3) as big as the inlet (1/3)?
Furthermore, if I have also an oil radiator inlet (see photo link of my
previous email) that is not part of the Jabiru baffle design, do I need to
include that inlet area in the calculation of the outlet?
> Howard's side scoop should work pretty well in that the side of the cowling
> is generally a low pressure area.
Interesting. This is a discussion we have had in our flight simulator group.
Some maintain that a fuselage creates also lift. In that case, the belly of the
cowling would be a slightly high pressure area. This would then advocate for
the sides of even better, the top outlet. Yet Kurt has a very good point there:
in case of fire, we don't want to see the flames lick our windscreen.
Cheers,
Michel
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: Fw: Jabiru for sale |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
Fox5flyer wrote:
> I just noticed that the engine below is located in Norway. Michael?
Thanks Darell. Interesting and cheap ... if it is a latest Jabiru model. I was
told that the 2200 is at its third generation and that only the latest is worth
bying because the previous ones have much oveheating problems.
The interesting point is that the seller is located in Stavanger, Norway. This
is where the Norwegian Jabiru retailer is located and Stavanger's airport
(Sola) is the home of a lot of Jabiru aircraft and Jabiru equipped homebuilt.
What is strange is that the engine is not for sale on our own Norwegian
microlight web pages.
I wonder if this person is not trying to sell an older Jabiru in order to
install a new one. I'll call the retailer on Monday, he surely knows about it.
Thanks a lot for the link.
Cheers,
Michel
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: | [Off Topic] European scenes |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
Entirely off-topic: here are two links:
http://home.online.no/~michel/tmp/Flystevne.mov
This is my video of the airshow at my airfield last Sunday. If you want to see
Norway on a rainy day! :-)
http://math.univ-mlv.fr/~chauveau/xp/ULM_Blois.html
These are the photos from a French friend taken at the Blois microlight
exhibition. Please look at the plane called "Brousse" and note the airbrushed
fuselage paint. Cool, isn't it? :-)
Then look also at "ULM camping." Note that it is a microlight, i.e. MTOW under
450 kg. A fat lady but ... you can sleep aboard!
Entirely off-topic but I wanted to share it with you guys.
Cheers,
Michel
do not archive
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: | [Off Topic] European scenes |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "kitfox@chrisbates.co.uk" <kitfox@f2s.com>
Michel,
Hopefully my email is now working and I will attract no more spam from
being on the group.
If it helps we have two members in the UK who have installed the early
Jabiru in their MKII's. \Both have the cooling under control. One of
them has a really good combination with a two blade propeller and the
optima wing conversion which climbs at 700 foot per minute 2 up with
full fuel and cruises on 11 litres per hour at 70 knots. The other
aircraft is being upgraded to the new Jabiru.
If you want their contact details I can forward them off line?
Chris Bates
Kitfox Owners Club of Great Britain
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Michel
Verheughe
Subject: Kitfox-List: [Off Topic] European scenes
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
Entirely off-topic: here are two links:
http://home.online.no/~michel/tmp/Flystevne.mov
This is my video of the airshow at my airfield last Sunday. If you want
to see Norway on a rainy day! :-)
http://math.univ-mlv.fr/~chauveau/xp/ULM_Blois.html
These are the photos from a French friend taken at the Blois microlight
exhibition. Please look at the plane called "Brousse" and note the
airbrushed fuselage paint. Cool, isn't it? :-) Then look also at "ULM
camping." Note that it is a microlight, i.e. MTOW under 450 kg. A fat
lady but ... you can sleep aboard!
Entirely off-topic but I wanted to share it with you guys.
Cheers,
Michel
do not archive
==
direct advertising on the Matronics Forums.
==
==
==
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: [Off Topic] European scenes |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Fox5flyer" <morid@northland.lib.mi.us>
> Then look also at "ULM camping." Note that it is a microlight, i.e. MTOW
under
> 450 kg. A fat lady but ... you can sleep aboard!
> Cheers,
> Michel
This isn't exactly off topic because it's Kitfox related. Unless I'm
mistaken that airplane was designed by Dean Wilson, the designer of the
Avid. The prototype was at Oshkosh some years back. He and Dan Denny were
partners until they split and Denny opened the doors to the new Avid cousin,
the Kitfox.
Darrel
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: | Re: Side air outlets |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: AlbertaIV@aol.com
In a message dated 9/5/04 12:20:06 AM Pacific Daylight Time, michel@online.no
writes:
> thank you for your answer, Darell. It was not difficult and it describe
> pretty
> well what I think I understand from what I read elsewhere. The only thing I
> wonder is the 1/3 and 2/3. In plain area calculation does that mean that the
> outlet has to be twice (2/3) as big as the inlet (1/3)?
>
All this 1/3, 2/3 stuff has brought up a question in my mind. I have a
feeling that many of these cowl flow formulas are primarily based on "air" cooled
engines where air flow is of the utmost importance. Most of our engines are
"water" cooled. Wouldn't that make the air flow formula different for the water
cooled engine?
Don Smythe
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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Chet & Marylu Richer" <mricher@linkny.com>
CAN ANYONE TELL ME THE DIFFERENCE IN A KITFOX 3 AND 4 ? PLEASE DON'T SAY ONE.
CHET
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: Side air outlets |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Fox5flyer" <morid@northland.lib.mi.us>
No. (IMO) it doesn't matter whether it's air or water cooled. The problem
is to get enough air moving through (whatever it is) to provide the cooling
needed. The 1/3 - 2/3 is simply a rule of thumb, as I said. It's not cast
in stone, but in general it works fairly well.
Additionally, it's important that the rad is sealed inside the cowling so
that the air can't escape around it anywhere. Same thing applies to air
cooled.
Darrel
>
> > thank you for your answer, Darell. It was not difficult and it describe
> > pretty
> > well what I think I understand from what I read elsewhere. The only
thing I
> > wonder is the 1/3 and 2/3. In plain area calculation does that mean that
the
> > outlet has to be twice (2/3) as big as the inlet (1/3)?
> >
>
> All this 1/3, 2/3 stuff has brought up a question in my mind. I have a
> feeling that many of these cowl flow formulas are primarily based on "air"
cooled
> engines where air flow is of the utmost importance. Most of our engines
are
> "water" cooled. Wouldn't that make the air flow formula different for the
water
> cooled engine?
>
> Don Smythe
> DO NOT ARCHIVE
>
>
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: KITFOX 3 AND 4 |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: AlbertaIV@aol.com
In a message dated 9/5/04 5:58:12 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
mricher@linkny.com writes:
>
> CAN ANYONE TELL ME THE DIFFERENCE IN A KITFOX 3 AND 4 ? PLEASE DON'T SAY
> ONE. CHET
>
>
Chet,
Basic: The 3 has smaller tail surfaces (less control) and missing
several improvements that Skystar later came up with. Also, less gross weight.
The
4 has the latest larger tail surfaces (more control) and a higher gross
weight (1050 I believe). Then along came the Classic IV (present design) that
increased the gross weight to 1200 by installing heavier wing struts and carry
thru tubes.
There are numerous other differences between the 3's, 4's and Classic
4's. In many cases there are differences between the Classic 4's (depending on
which year and time of year they were produced at the factory. Skystar is and
has been continuously reaching for a better design (that's a good thing).
They will make changes in the middle of a production year that sometimes aren't
advertised or properly documented.
I'm sure that others can point out many other differences.
Don Smythe
DO NOT ARCHIVE
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: Side air outlets |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Jerry Liles <wliles@bayou.com>
The formula is a "rule of thumb" designed to insure adequate airflow
through the cowling without air "daming up" at the inlet. It
presupposes the inlet is at higher pressure than the outlet. The
greater the differential the better the airflow. I would use the same
rule of thumb for watercooled as aircooled. Inlet should form a plenum
with the cavity behind the innlet expanding to slow airflow and increase
pressure to insure the airflow through the radiator is optimal with
heated air allowed to expand and accelerate in the space behind the
radiator to escape out the cowling. A radiator just hanging in the
slipstream is not going to work at best efficiency as air just tends to
go around it with poor flow through the radiator. Radiators close to
the belly are even worse as they are in turbulent air. If you are using
a belly radiator it would work best with a cowling of its own with an
inlet, plenum chamber, and aft or exhaust chamber like the P51. You
could also rig it to take air from the aft chamber and plumb it to the
cabin for cabin heat.
Jerry Liles
AlbertaIV@aol.com wrote:
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: AlbertaIV@aol.com
>
>In a message dated 9/5/04 12:20:06 AM Pacific Daylight Time, michel@online.no
>writes:
>
>
>
>
>>thank you for your answer, Darell. It was not difficult and it describe
>>pretty
>>well what I think I understand from what I read elsewhere. The only thing I
>>wonder is the 1/3 and 2/3. In plain area calculation does that mean that the
>>outlet has to be twice (2/3) as big as the inlet (1/3)?
>>
>>
>>
>
>All this 1/3, 2/3 stuff has brought up a question in my mind. I have a
>feeling that many of these cowl flow formulas are primarily based on "air" cooled
>engines where air flow is of the utmost importance. Most of our engines are
>"water" cooled. Wouldn't that make the air flow formula different for the water
>cooled engine?
>
>Don Smythe
>DO NOT ARCHIVE
>
>
>
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: KITFOX 3 AND 4 |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Jerry Liles <wliles@bayou.com>
Kitfox III has the under camber Dean Wilson wing and his flapperon mixer
bellcrank that allows the wings to be folded without disconnecting
controls. Kitfox IV has the Riblet designed airfoil with a convex wing
belly, and a different mixer bellcrank that gives differential action to
the ailerons but requires the controls to be disconnected to fold the
wing. It also has heavier guage tubes in the wing spars and liftstruts
for a higher gross weight. Model IV weighs considerably more than the
III. these are the main differences. There are several minor ones.
Jerry Liles
Chet & Marylu Richer wrote:
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Chet & Marylu Richer" <mricher@linkny.com>
>
>CAN ANYONE TELL ME THE DIFFERENCE IN A KITFOX 3 AND 4 ? PLEASE DON'T SAY ONE.
CHET
>
>
>
>
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: KITFOX 3 AND 4 |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Grant Fluent <gjfpilot@yahoo.com>
Chet,
Here's a link to the Skystar website which should
answer your questions:
http://www.skystar.com/history.htm
Grant Fluent
Newcaslte, NE
Classic IV 912S
--- Chet & Marylu Richer <mricher@linkny.com> wrote:
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Chet & Marylu
> Richer" <mricher@linkny.com>
>
> CAN ANYONE TELL ME THE DIFFERENCE IN A KITFOX 3 AND
> 4 ? PLEASE DON'T SAY ONE. CHET
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: KITFOX 3 AND 4 |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Rex <rex@awarenest.com>
Chet & Marylu Richer wrote:
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Chet & Marylu Richer" <mricher@linkny.com>
>
>CAN ANYONE TELL ME THE DIFFERENCE IN A KITFOX 3 AND 4 ? PLEASE DON'T SAY ONE.
CHET
>
>
>
Check this page for differences on all Kitfoxes through series 5:
http://www.sportflight.com/kfb/history.htm
Rex
M2 - 582
N750GP
Colorado, USA
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | New product announcement: affordable VG's |
homebuilt-list@matronics.com, jabiru-list@matronics.com,
kitfox-list@matronics.com, kolb-list@matronics.com, kr-list@matronics.com,
l29-list@matronics.com, l39-list@matronics.com, lancair-list@matronics.com
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Land Shorter <landshorter2@yahoo.com>
Hey folks,
I double checked and Matt Dralle's earlier post says it's OK to post about new
aviation products as long as the message doesn't come off as having a "flavor"
of "traditional spam". Don't worry I'm not going to try to sell you anything
that supposedly makes any of your body parts larger (or smaller) and this product
is directly aviation related :) I'm just an airplane builder, owner, pilot,
and aviation nut who wants to tell you where you can find more information about
a great new product.
I've been selling kits of vortex generators (VG's) for only $95 and my customers are telling me they really like the performance gains they're seeing. VG's are great for reducing stall speeds and allow you to land slower, shorter, and safer. I invite you to check out my site at www.landshorter.com and see what you think. My VG's can be quickly installed for testing using removable double-stick tape and come with a 100% money-back guarantee so why not try them out on your plane? You'll be really glad you did :)
Thanks and let's keep 'em flying!
Joa Harrison
The VG Guy
www.landshorter.com
1-877-272-1414 (toll free)
---------------------------------
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Kitfox Wings |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Rex <rex@awarenest.com>
Jose,
I am rebuilding a Model II wing on which I am upgrading the spars to
the Model IV spar design. The old Model II spar extrusions are not
available from skystar which is why you ask I suspect. My repair is not
the complete model IV wing design, as you asked, but I know that the
wing struts are not the same length due to a different spar attachment
location. If one were to use both Model IV wings and struts on a Model
II it may be possible to fit them without too much trouble, however I
have not researched this subject that far. The flaperon controls are
different and that could have an effect on fitment as well.
Please keep us informed if you learn information off this list.
Rex
Colorado, USA
Jose M. Toro wrote:
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jose M. Toro" <jose_m_toro@yahoo.com>
>
>Hi Guys:
>
>Has any of you converted a Kitfox II to Kitfox IV wings? Will this increase gross
weight? Do you know what modifications where done to the earlier fuselages
to increase gross weight?
>
>Jose
>
>
>
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: | New product announcement: affordable VG's |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Don Pearsall" <donpearsall@comcast.net>
Joa,
Thank you for posting your info about the Vg's. We have always had a policy
that vendors are free to post (and even encouraged to post) their info, as
long as it is useful to the Kitfox builder/owner. And your VG's certainly
qualify.
We have known for years now that VG's really do help the KF's slow flight.
Many owners have reported here that their stall speed has been reduced by
5-7 mph.
I hope we will get more real world reports of VG's, as they really are an
important product.
Don Pearsall
Admin
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Land Shorter
homebuilt-list@matronics.com; jabiru-list@matronics.com;
kitfox-list@matronics.com; kolb-list@matronics.com; kr-list@matronics.com;
l29-list@matronics.com; l39-list@matronics.com; lancair-list@matronics.com
Subject: Kitfox-List: New product announcement: affordable VG's
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Land Shorter <landshorter2@yahoo.com>
Hey folks,
I double checked and Matt Dralle's earlier post says it's OK to post about
new aviation products as long as the message doesn't come off as having a
"flavor" of "traditional spam". Don't worry I'm not going to try to sell you
anything that supposedly makes any of your body parts larger (or smaller)
and this product is directly aviation related :) I'm just an airplane
builder, owner, pilot, and aviation nut who wants to tell you where you can
find more information about a great new product.
I've been selling kits of vortex generators (VG's) for only $95 and my
customers are telling me they really like the performance gains they're
seeing. VG's are great for reducing stall speeds and allow you to land
slower, shorter, and safer. I invite you to check out my site at
www.landshorter.com and see what you think. My VG's can be quickly installed
for testing using removable double-stick tape and come with a 100%
money-back guarantee so why not try them out on your plane? You'll be really
glad you did :)
Thanks and let's keep 'em flying!
Joa Harrison
The VG Guy
www.landshorter.com
1-877-272-1414 (toll free)
---------------------------------
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: Side air outlets |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Norm Beauchamp <nebchmp@wcc.net>
While on the subject of side air outlets, should they be with the scoops
pushed in, such as Howards. Or such as a cowl flap, flared outwards
with the opening to the rear? Will this creat a low pressure aera and
pull air from inside the cowl? Or maybe it makes no difference on our
birds. Just a thought.
Norm.
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Side air outlets |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: AlbertaIV@aol.com
In a message dated 9/5/04 11:19:35 AM Pacific Daylight Time, nebchmp@wcc.net
writes:
>
> While on the subject of side air outlets, should they be with the scoops
> pushed in, such as Howards. Or such as a cowl flap, flared outwards
> with the opening to the rear? Will this creat a low pressure aera and
> pull air from inside the cowl? Or maybe it makes no difference on our
> birds. Just a thought.
> Norm.
>
Norm,
I'm glad you asked that question. My original concern/question was the
use of side exhaust and all the pro's/con's. However, the side exhaust seemed
to quickly go to other areas and somewhat sidestep the original question. I
would still be interested in hearing more about the "design" nature of side
exhaust.
I'm prepared to cut but still need a bit more reassurance as to the
design in's and out's.
For your question, I "think" the outward flare would tend to help suck
the air out of the cowl. I think this is a good thing but have learned over the
years that for ever good idea, there is something overlooked that will bite
you in the rear.
Don Smythe
DO NOT ARCHIVE
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: | Re: Side air outlets |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
Fox5flyer wrote:
> The 1/3 - 2/3 is simply a rule of thumb, as I said.
Thanks Darrel, I just wanted to get the math correct. My question was rather: A
third of what? If it is a third of all openings in the cowling and say, I have
a total inlet (two cylinder rows and an oil cooler) of 20 square inches, the
total openings in the cowling should be 60 square inches, where the outlet is
40 square inches, also twice the inlet. Is that correct?
Cheers,
Michel
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 |
|
Seal-Send-Time: Sun, 5 Sep 2004 13:41:44 -0500
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "David Savener" <david_savener@msn.com>
Are there any model two wings, preferably with flaperons, for sale out there?
I have a friend whose airplane got damaged by wind!!
Central Texas
Dave Savener
Do not archive
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: New product announcement: affordable VG's |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Land Shorter <landshorter2@yahoo.com>
Thanks for the feedback Don, glad to know it's OK to spread the "VG
Gospel" (on a Sunday no less :) ).
Yes, Kitfoxes really do well with VGs. I've sold a bunch to Kitfox
owners and have had really good responses. I'm working on a "Testimonials"
page that will have some quotes.
Just like you said, most folks are telling me they are seeing around 6 mph
reduction in stall. This gives you really solid handling when you're low and
slow and need it most. Plus since I have a really generous returns policy
it's pretty low-risk to give them a try.
Thanks again and if any of you KF owners get up to N. ID give me a shout, I'd love
to hop in my plane and join you to go out and play on some of the local strips.
Joa
www.landshorter.com
_+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Don Pearsall" <donpearsall@comcast.net>Joa,Thank
you for posting your info about the Vg's. We have always had a policythat
vendors are free to post (and even encouraged to post) their info, aslong as
it is useful to the Kitfox builder/owner. And your VG's certainlyqualify. We
have known for years now that VG's really do help the KF's slow flight.Many owners
have reported here that their stall speed has been reduced by5-7 mph.I hope
we will get more real world reports of VG's, as they really are animportant
product.Don PearsallAdmin
---------------------------------
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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
"kitfox@chrisbates.co.uk" wrote:
> Hopefully my email is now working and I will attract no more spam from
> being on the group.
Glad to hear you are winning on the demons of spam, Chris!
> If you want their contact details I can forward them off line?
Thank you very much for your kind offer, which I will take when the time comes
to compare notes. I still have 40 hours on my 582, before meeting the fatal 300
hours and the thought of having my plane being grounded for a new engine at
this time of the year freaks me out! :-) It will be around Christmas time, I
guess. I have alread warned my wife that I will spend Christmas eve in the
cellar, working with epoxy and fiberglass! :-)
Cheers,
Michel
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: | Re: Stolen Rotax 912 ULS Engine |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jeffrey Puls" <pulsair@mindspring.com>
Gary,
Your wife is correct. We enter or stuff through LEADS for NCIC. Sorry about
that. In needs to be in NCIC. If I run a NCIC hit in Columbus, Ohio and
your Rotax comes up stolen, I'll know who to contact. Jeff
> [Original Message]
> From: <KITFOXPILOT@att.net>
> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> Date: 9/3/2004 12:48:21 AM
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Stolen Rotax 912 ULS Engine
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: KITFOXPILOT@att.net
>
>
> -------------- Original message from "RICHARD HUTSON" : --------------
>
> > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "RICHARD HUTSON"
> >
> > Jeff is this system part of NCIC? My wife is in charge of the
> > communications division of a police dept. she is also the Primary TAC
and
> > she has never heard of it. Every thing she uses is NCIC based.
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Jeffrey Puls"
> > To:
> > Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Stolen Rotax 912 ULS Engine
> >
> >
> > > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jeffrey Puls"
> > >
> > > Gary,
> > > Contact the officer in your department that is doing the follow up,
not
> > > the
> > > preliminary investigation. Ask him if he entered it in LEADS. LEADS
is a
> > > data system run by the FBI. Everybody uses it. Officers use it when
they
> > > run in to something suspicious and want run a serial number or
something.
> > > If the information is entered, they will get a hit, no matter where
they
> > > are. If your police department didn't enter it or they can't for some
> > > reason, I'll enter it. Jeff Puls Columbus, Ohio Division of Police
Classic
> > > IV
> > > Hi,
>
> Ref NCIC, a police report must be written first, then the officer will
enter the serial number into NCIC. The only way it would be discovered as
stolen, is if a Law Enforcement officer ran the S/N through NCIC. Have no
idea what LEADS is.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> <!-- BEGIN WEBMAIL STATIONERY -->
> <style type='text/css'>
> p {
> margin: 0px;
> }
> </style>
>
> <!-- WEBMAIL STATIONERY noneset -->
>
>
> -------------- Original message from "RICHARD HUTSON"
<RHUTSON@MIDSOUTH.RR.COM>: --------------
>
> -- Kitfox-List message posted by: "RICHARD HUTSON"
<RHUTSON@MIDSOUTH.RR.COM>
>
> Jeff is this system part of NCIC? My wife is in charge of the
> communications division of a police dept. she is also the Primary TAC
and
> she has never heard of it. Every thing she uses is NCIC based.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jeffrey Puls" <PULSAIR@MINDSPRING.COM>
> To: <KITFOX-LIST@MATRONICS.COM>
> Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Stolen Rotax 912 ULS Engine
>
>
> -- Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jeffrey Puls"
<PULSAIR@MINDSPRING.COM>
>
> Gary,
> Contact the officer in your department that is doing the follow up, not
> the
> preliminary investigation. Ask him if he entered it in LEADS. LEADS is
a
> data system run by t
> he FBI. Everybody uses it. Officers use it when they
> run in to something suspicious and want run a serial number or
something.
> If the information is entered, they will get a hit, no matter where
they
> are. If your police department didn't enter it or they can't for some
> reason, I'll enter it. Jeff Puls Columbus, Ohio Division of Police
Classic
> IV
> Hi,
>
>
> Ref NCIC, a police report must be written first, then the officer will
enter the serial number into NCIC. The only way it would be discovered as
stolen, is if a Law Enforcement officer ran the S/N through NCIC. Have no
idea what LEADS is.
>
>
> nics.com/subscription
>
>
> <!-- END WEBMAIL STATIONERY -->
>
>
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: KITFOX 3 AND 4 |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: LeRoy staley <itis50@yahoo.com>
The only difference that I have heard is that they
kept on improving the wings ie: the handling there of.
The four wings are supposed to handle better at low
speed or stall. The cabin are the same. Big difference
is that the 3's were 1050 gross and the original foru
was also. The later fours or the classic's went to
1200 gross.
--- Chet & Marylu Richer <mricher@linkny.com> wrote:
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Chet & Marylu
> Richer" <mricher@linkny.com>
>
> CAN ANYONE TELL ME THE DIFFERENCE IN A KITFOX 3 AND
> 4 ? PLEASE DON'T SAY ONE. CHET
>
>
>
> Contributions
> any other
> Forums.
>
> http://www.matronics.com/chat
>
> http://www.matronics.com/subscription
> http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/Kitfox-List.htm
> http://www.matronics.com/archives
> http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
> http://www.matronics.com/emaillists
>
>
>
>
>
>
__________________________________
Message 25
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Side air outlets |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
Before cutting any side outlets on my plane, I thought
I would do some more testing and report to you all....
Today I tested my plane again, but with an extra 50
sqin of outlet openings. I added a 1/2 size exhaust
flap to the back of my scoop (like the P-51) to give
an additional 25 sqin of suction out the scoop. I
built the scoop with this option to see what outflow
was "required" via testing different sizes of fixed
flaps. An adjustable flap of a given size and travel
may be the end result.
I then removed my rear upper cowl inspection hatch,
which is centered almost directly in front of the
windscreen, for an additional 25 sq in. This had no
adverse problems in flight for my plane because there
is no object near it to be adversly infleuenced. It
looked like an easy test to run.
2 notes: This was to see the effects of the extra
opening on top of the cowl. It does give some fire
hazard IMHO. Second, the area right in front of the
windscreen is a high pressure area, so outflow is
reduced by back pressure.
I flew in 80-82 F wx for 1:15 hrs. Results? I
couldn't see any difference in cruise. ??? My engine
oil temp was still 220 and my GB oil temp was still
190. Both higher than I like. My radiator temp
stayed steady at 160, which seems to show the scoop is
good, but the flap didn't help the radiator?
GB temps are the controlling factor now for climb and
speeds over 95 mph for me. I saw no change there.
The extra openings did however help on the ground with
better oil and GB temperatures for taxi and it lowered
temps faster on descent. So I still have to reduce GB
and oil heat somehow at higher power.
For my next flight, I am going to close the cowl and
keep the scoop flap and see if that causes a change.
The higher pressure at the windscreen might be enough
to reverse the flow there. (Some may remember cars
and trucks having the vent air intake in front of the
windshield for that reason.)
I may also install a radiant heat deflector between
the turbo and GB, which are quite close together.
Since my scoop is doing very well for radiator
cooling, I can say that the 1/3 opening is adequate.
I have a 2" high, full radiator width opening for the
scoop. That is carefully expanded to 6" high at the
radiator face. I am really happy with how steady the
coolant temps are staying right now under all flight
conditions.
My scoop pics didn't seem to post on SportFlight, so I
can send them individually to whomever is interested.
For Michel, yes, the outflow must include all inflow
sources to figure the size. But I can not confirm the
2/3 rds rule for you at this time. :-(
Kurt S. S-5/NSI turbo
--- Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no> wrote:
> Fox5flyer wrote:
> > The 1/3 - 2/3 is simply a rule of thumb, as I
said.
>
> Thanks Darrel, I just wanted to get the math
> correct. My question was rather: A third of what?
> If it is a third of all openings in the cowling and
> say, I have a total inlet (two cylinder rows and an
> oil cooler) of 20 square inches, the total openings
> in the cowling should be 60 square inches, where the
> outlet is 40 square inches, also twice the inlet. Is
> that correct?
>
> Cheers,
> Michel
__________________________________
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: | Has anyone heard more about how Mike is doing since the crash? |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Rex & Jan Shaw" <rexjan@bigpond.com>
Is anyone smart enough to somehow set up an E'card or something we could all
sign in some fashion. Perhaps just our name, brief description of where we
live and what we fly. Then if after 2days or something they could send it on
to Mike for us, I think that might give him a boost and let him know we
care. Any ideas ?
Rex.
rexjan@bigpond.com
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: Side air outlets |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Steve Cooper" <spdrflyr@earthlink.net>
...just a thought Kurt, On my Jabiru, I have trouble getting my oil temps up
past 180. The way my induction is designed, I have high velocity low
pressure air enter the cowl inlets, then the air hits a baffle and is then
brought down through the oil cooler via differential pressure. I don't know
if you have a way to try this method or not...but it's sure working for
me...OAT here has been in the high 90s or better.
Steve Cooper
Avid Mark IV HH STOL
Jabiru 2200/Tailwheel
N919SC
----- Original Message -----
From: "kurt schrader" <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Side air outlets
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader
<smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
>
> Before cutting any side outlets on my plane, I thought
> I would do some more testing and report to you all....
>
> Today I tested my plane again, but with an extra 50
> sqin of outlet openings. I added a 1/2 size exhaust
> flap to the back of my scoop (like the P-51) to give
> an additional 25 sqin of suction out the scoop. I
> built the scoop with this option to see what outflow
> was "required" via testing different sizes of fixed
> flaps. An adjustable flap of a given size and travel
> may be the end result.
>
> I then removed my rear upper cowl inspection hatch,
> which is centered almost directly in front of the
> windscreen, for an additional 25 sq in. This had no
> adverse problems in flight for my plane because there
> is no object near it to be adversly infleuenced. It
> looked like an easy test to run.
>
> 2 notes: This was to see the effects of the extra
> opening on top of the cowl. It does give some fire
> hazard IMHO. Second, the area right in front of the
> windscreen is a high pressure area, so outflow is
> reduced by back pressure.
>
> I flew in 80-82 F wx for 1:15 hrs. Results? I
> couldn't see any difference in cruise. ??? My engine
> oil temp was still 220 and my GB oil temp was still
> 190. Both higher than I like. My radiator temp
> stayed steady at 160, which seems to show the scoop is
> good, but the flap didn't help the radiator?
>
> GB temps are the controlling factor now for climb and
> speeds over 95 mph for me. I saw no change there.
> The extra openings did however help on the ground with
> better oil and GB temperatures for taxi and it lowered
> temps faster on descent. So I still have to reduce GB
> and oil heat somehow at higher power.
>
> For my next flight, I am going to close the cowl and
> keep the scoop flap and see if that causes a change.
> The higher pressure at the windscreen might be enough
> to reverse the flow there. (Some may remember cars
> and trucks having the vent air intake in front of the
> windshield for that reason.)
>
> I may also install a radiant heat deflector between
> the turbo and GB, which are quite close together.
>
> Since my scoop is doing very well for radiator
> cooling, I can say that the 1/3 opening is adequate.
> I have a 2" high, full radiator width opening for the
> scoop. That is carefully expanded to 6" high at the
> radiator face. I am really happy with how steady the
> coolant temps are staying right now under all flight
> conditions.
>
> My scoop pics didn't seem to post on SportFlight, so I
> can send them individually to whomever is interested.
>
> For Michel, yes, the outflow must include all inflow
> sources to figure the size. But I can not confirm the
> 2/3 rds rule for you at this time. :-(
>
> Kurt S. S-5/NSI turbo
>
> --- Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no> wrote:
>
> > Fox5flyer wrote:
> > > The 1/3 - 2/3 is simply a rule of thumb, as I
> said.
> >
> > Thanks Darrel, I just wanted to get the math
> > correct. My question was rather: A third of what?
> > If it is a third of all openings in the cowling and
> > say, I have a total inlet (two cylinder rows and an
> > oil cooler) of 20 square inches, the total openings
> > in the cowling should be 60 square inches, where the
>
> > outlet is 40 square inches, also twice the inlet. Is
> > that correct?
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Michel
>
>
> __________________________________
>
>
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: Side air outlets |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
Good questions. Think I better write my guesses after
your questions for clarity... See below.
Kurt S.
--- AlbertaIV@aol.com wrote:
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: AlbertaIV@aol.com
> writes:
> >
> > While on the subject of side air outlets, should
> > they be with the scoops pushed in, such as
> > Howards. Or such as a cowl flap, flared outwards
> > with the opening to the rear? Will this creat a
> > low pressure aera and pull air from inside the
> > cowl? Or maybe it makes no difference on our
> > birds. Just a thought.
> > Norm.
> >
>
> Norm,
> I'm glad you asked that question......
> I would still be interested in hearing more about >
"the design" nature of side exhaust.....
> .... there is something overlooked that will bite
> you in the rear.
>
> Don Smythe
------------------------------
Good questions...
The answer is definately.....
"Maybe"
The problem is knowing what is going on inside and
outside of the cowl. And then we have different
shapped cowls too, so the answer may be different.
The main high pressure areas on a cowl are right at
the front where you get ram air and at the windscreen
junction where the air is compressed trying to get
around the windscreen.
The low pressure areas are just like for a wing. Even
though facing forward, the parts curving to the rear
act like the upper part of a wing just behind the
leading edge - low pressure. That means that on my
smooth cowl, the smilyface opening is in a low
pressure area. The nose of the cowl acts like an
inverted wing. I believe this is primarily why I have
trouble getting air to my oil cooler from the
smilyface opening. It is in a low pressure area.
Howard is using an enlarged ram air opening for his
oil cooler. Very effective for hot wx.
On the round cowl, you have more ram air opening to
the front and less curviture back for low pressure.
It is easy to see where you want the inlet. But the
outlet design is a little different.
The trick it to put your intakes in the high pressure
places and the outlet in the low pressure places. The
external bubble Don S. likes may be necessary to
create the low pressure place, if your location is
poor. If you have a good low pressure place, you
shouldn't need it and I think Howard's design is less
draggy. But...
What is happening on the inside? If there is an
engine part right in your best low pressure location,
you can still use that outward bubble.
And you also have to consider how the air is flowing
inside. You don't want it to go right from your
intake straight to the outlet on the side without
cooling anything. That may dictate a different
location, or baffles.
In Howard's design, the major airflow at the upper
back of the cowl is probably to the engine intake.
Unless he has baffles, the air goes from the front to
the sides. For NSI engines, this may not be too bad,
but you have to look at how you cool your engine.
Howard does have that big oil cooler intake for center
airflow below the engine. That air still has some
cooling capacity to blow on the lower engine parts
after the cooler and before exiting to the sides.
So the answer is not universal as to which outlet is
best. You need to look at your cowl, engine cooling
needed for certain parts, and at least imagine the
internal and external airflows to see what works.
If anyone wants to make a clear lexan cowl for
testing....
I believe Tom Anderson was doing the best thermocouple
testing of the round cowl. If he is around, maybe he
could give us the "real scoop".
On my cowl, the best airflow might be with the intakes
in front or at the windscreen and the outlets where my
smileyface is, but turned aft. Then I need baffles to
direct the cooling air. That would be a lot of
changes for me... The side vents are easier.
So guys, we are experimenting...
You could have Howard's kind, but with outer cowl
flaps too, if needed.
Kurt S. S-5/NSI turbo
__________________________________
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: Side air outlets |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
Very well said Jerry,
Kurt S.
Do not archive
--- Jerry Liles <wliles@bayou.com> wrote:
> The formula is a "rule of thumb" designed to insure
> adequate airflow
> through the cowling without air "daming up" at the
> inlet. It
> presupposes the inlet is at higher pressure than the
> outlet. The
> greater the differential the better the airflow. I
> would use the same
> rule of thumb for watercooled as aircooled. Inlet
> should form a plenum
> with the cavity behind the innlet expanding to slow
> airflow and increase
> pressure to insure the airflow through the radiator
> is optimal with
> heated air allowed to expand and accelerate in the
> space behind the
> radiator to escape out the cowling. A radiator just
> hanging in the
> slipstream is not going to work at best efficiency
> as air just tends to
> go around it with poor flow through the radiator.
> Radiators close to
> the belly are even worse as they are in turbulent
> air. If you are using
> a belly radiator it would work best with a cowling
> of its own with an
> inlet, plenum chamber, and aft or exhaust chamber
> like the P51. You
> could also rig it to take air from the aft chamber
> and plumb it to the
> cabin for cabin heat.
>
> Jerry Liles
__________________________________
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Has anyone heard more about how Mike is doing since the |
crash?
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
Maybe there is someone locally to Mike who can do it
for us?
Kurt S.
--- Rex & Jan Shaw <rexjan@bigpond.com> wrote:
> Is anyone smart enough to somehow set up an E'card
> or something we could all
> sign in some fashion. Perhaps just our name, brief
> description of where we
> live and what we fly. Then if after 2days or
> something they could send it on
> to Mike for us, I think that might give him a boost
> and let him know we
> care. Any ideas ?
>
> Rex.
> rexjan@bigpond.com
__________________________________
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Side air outlets |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
Thanks Steve,
Your cooling is like complaining about having too much
money, right? :-)
I caused part of my problem designing for lighter
weight and cooler wx. I put my oil cooler at the cowl
outlet and plan to use the hot exhaust for cabin heat.
This meant I could leave off the entire heavy coolant
cabin heater system for weight. It also meant shorter
oil cooler hoses and less weight there too.
The other part is the turbo sure adds heat to the oil.
I origionally used front intake ram air to the cooler,
but it was open flow and not ducted. Worked poorly.
I planned as a backup for ducting the smilyface air to
the cooler and did that. It does work better, but is
still marginal.
If I could get better pressure up front and lower
pressure behind it with this application, it would
surely work better. I am still looking for that.
One answer would be to add a duct to the back side and
to a lower pressure area with scat hose. Trying to
keep it simple though.
Then there is the window washer squirting on to my oil
cooler option for high power ops? Weight gain?
Or maybe add a NACA duct on the cowl bottom in front
of the cooler. That may be easiest. The pressure
should be a little higher there than into the
smilyface.
Or just open the smilyface more?
Working on it....
Kurt S. S-5/NSI turbo
--- Steve Cooper <spdrflyr@earthlink.net> wrote:
> ...just a thought Kurt, On my Jabiru, I have trouble
> getting my oil temps up past 180. The way my
> induction is designed, I have high velocity low
> pressure air enter the cowl inlets, then the air
> hits a baffle and is then brought down through the
> oil cooler via differential pressure. I don't know
> if you have a way to try this method or not...but
> it's sure working for me...OAT here has been in
> the high 90s or better.
>
> Steve Cooper
> Avid Mark IV HH STOL
> Jabiru 2200/Tailwheel
> N919SC
__________________________________
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: | Do you know what modifications where done to the earlier |
fuselages
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Rex & Jan Shaw" <rexjan@bigpond.com>
From Kitfox Pilots Guide by Ed Downs just taking out the relavent little
bits to your question it states re MTOW inreases.
From Mod 2 to 3= larger vert stab & rudder, larger stronger lift struts and
spar carry through tubes in the fuselage. He also states that the Mod 3 was
the last to use the original airfoil and control system.
From Mod 3 to 4 / 1050 = Ed first states this was a completely new
aircraft. He then states the MTOW or gross weight is the same as the Mod 3 .
The vert fin area remained the same.
From Mod 4 / 1050 to 4 / 1200 The final evolution = heavier lift struts and
gear legs, beefed up carry through tubes in the fuselage to allow for higher
MTOW / Gross weight than earlier Mod 4's. Height of vert stab & rudder
increased 10" & depth by 2"
I think that's all. I hope I haven't missed anything. Note the control area
and geometery changes are just as important as the structural strength
changes in order to have proper control at increased MTOW / Gross weight.
I would also recommend Ed's book to any Kitfox owner or even just anyone
interested in Kitfox's or similar planes. The book can be got from Skystar
for $19:95. It's easy and at times fun reading. About 200 pages. No I'm not
on a commission but it is one of the best book purchases I have made and if
your'e interested especially in the changes along the line and why they were
made it's about the only source of that info I know.
Rex
Australia.
PS
I had posted some of this info on the Skystar message board about 2
weeks ago. However as soon as I had done that the message board was lost. It
seems they are trying to reset it up but I wonder if it will have all the
old messages on or are they just lost. Thank goodness we have this Matronics
list. Let's hope Skystar comes good again !
rexjan@bigpond.com
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: | Side air outlets |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Rick" <turboflyer@comcast.net>
Kurt and other EA-81 turbo folks. I think one thing we need to consider is
the hot exhaust gas on the radiator. I think I am going to make a light
weight aluminum exhaust from the bottom of the cowl back past the rear of
the radiator. Has anyone done that? I have seen a similar setup on some real
old planes.
Rick (saving lots of gas money)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of kurt
schrader
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Side air outlets
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader
<smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
Good questions. Think I better write my guesses after
your questions for clarity... See below.
Kurt S.
--- AlbertaIV@aol.com wrote:
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: AlbertaIV@aol.com
> writes:
> >
> > While on the subject of side air outlets, should
> > they be with the scoops pushed in, such as
> > Howards. Or such as a cowl flap, flared outwards
> > with the opening to the rear? Will this creat a
> > low pressure aera and pull air from inside the
> > cowl? Or maybe it makes no difference on our
> > birds. Just a thought.
> > Norm.
> >
>
> Norm,
> I'm glad you asked that question......
> I would still be interested in hearing more about >
"the design" nature of side exhaust.....
> .... there is something overlooked that will bite
> you in the rear.
>
> Don Smythe
------------------------------
Good questions...
The answer is definately.....
"Maybe"
The problem is knowing what is going on inside and
outside of the cowl. And then we have different
shapped cowls too, so the answer may be different.
The main high pressure areas on a cowl are right at
the front where you get ram air and at the windscreen
junction where the air is compressed trying to get
around the windscreen.
The low pressure areas are just like for a wing. Even
though facing forward, the parts curving to the rear
act like the upper part of a wing just behind the
leading edge - low pressure. That means that on my
smooth cowl, the smilyface opening is in a low
pressure area. The nose of the cowl acts like an
inverted wing. I believe this is primarily why I have
trouble getting air to my oil cooler from the
smilyface opening. It is in a low pressure area.
Howard is using an enlarged ram air opening for his
oil cooler. Very effective for hot wx.
On the round cowl, you have more ram air opening to
the front and less curviture back for low pressure.
It is easy to see where you want the inlet. But the
outlet design is a little different.
The trick it to put your intakes in the high pressure
places and the outlet in the low pressure places. The
external bubble Don S. likes may be necessary to
create the low pressure place, if your location is
poor. If you have a good low pressure place, you
shouldn't need it and I think Howard's design is less
draggy. But...
What is happening on the inside? If there is an
engine part right in your best low pressure location,
you can still use that outward bubble.
And you also have to consider how the air is flowing
inside. You don't want it to go right from your
intake straight to the outlet on the side without
cooling anything. That may dictate a different
location, or baffles.
In Howard's design, the major airflow at the upper
back of the cowl is probably to the engine intake.
Unless he has baffles, the air goes from the front to
the sides. For NSI engines, this may not be too bad,
but you have to look at how you cool your engine.
Howard does have that big oil cooler intake for center
airflow below the engine. That air still has some
cooling capacity to blow on the lower engine parts
after the cooler and before exiting to the sides.
So the answer is not universal as to which outlet is
best. You need to look at your cowl, engine cooling
needed for certain parts, and at least imagine the
internal and external airflows to see what works.
If anyone wants to make a clear lexan cowl for
testing....
I believe Tom Anderson was doing the best thermocouple
testing of the round cowl. If he is around, maybe he
could give us the "real scoop".
On my cowl, the best airflow might be with the intakes
in front or at the windscreen and the outlets where my
smileyface is, but turned aft. Then I need baffles to
direct the cooling air. That would be a lot of
changes for me... The side vents are easier.
So guys, we are experimenting...
You could have Howard's kind, but with outer cowl
flaps too, if needed.
Kurt S. S-5/NSI turbo
__________________________________
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: | Has anyone heard more about how Mike is doing since the |
crash?
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "jdmcbean" <jdmcbean@cableone.net>
Update regarding Mike....... He is doing very well.. should be released in
a couple of days.
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 kurt schrader
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Has anyone heard more about how Mike is doing
since the crash?
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader
<smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
Maybe there is someone locally to Mike who can do it
for us?
Kurt S.
--- Rex & Jan Shaw <rexjan@bigpond.com> wrote:
> Is anyone smart enough to somehow set up an E'card
> or something we could all
> sign in some fashion. Perhaps just our name, brief
> description of where we
> live and what we fly. Then if after 2days or
> something they could send it on
> to Mike for us, I think that might give him a boost
> and let him know we
> care. Any ideas ?
>
> Rex.
> rexjan@bigpond.com
__________________________________
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: | Side air outlets |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
Hey Rick,
I think there are many Euro aircraft with outside
mufflers that do that to deal with their noise rules.
Maybe one of our Euro friends can say better.
In your case, you could make the aluminum extension
larger diameter than the exhaust and have the exhaust
blow into it like an augmenter. This would keep the
aluminum cooler and reduce noise too.
That is another option for my oil cooler - an
extractor pipe with the exhaust blowing out it and
drawing air from the back of the cooler. More power more airflow for oil cooling.
Right now I have my exhaust as long as it can be and
still get the lower cowl on. I used a straight pipe
since the turbo makes it quiet enough. As soon as I
finalize my scoop, I'll shorten it. My scoop intake
is about 6" directly inboard and out of the way of the
exhaust. I just want it long enough to keep my paint
clean and cool.
Kurt S. S-5/NSI turbo
--- Rick <turboflyer@comcast.net> wrote:
> Kurt and other EA-81 turbo folks. I think one thing
> we need to consider is the hot exhaust gas on the
> radiator. I think I am going to make a light
> weight aluminum exhaust from the bottom of the
> cowl back past the rear of the radiator. Has anyone
> done that? I have seen a similar setup on some real
> old planes.
>
> Rick (saving lots of gas money)
_______________________________
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: New product announcement: affordable VG's |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
Hey Joa,
Do you have any connection to CCI in New Jersey?
Kurt S.
--- Land Shorter <landshorter2@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hey folks,
........
> I've been selling kits of vortex generators (VG's)
> for only $95 and my customers are telling me they
> really like the performance gains they're seeing.
> VG's are great for reducing stall speeds and allow
> you to land slower, shorter, and safer. I invite you
> to check out my site at www.landshorter.com and see
> what you think. My VG's can be quickly installed for
> testing using removable double-stick tape and come
> with a 100% money-back guarantee so why not try them
> out on your plane? You'll be really glad you did :)
>
> Thanks and let's keep 'em flying!
>
> Joa Harrison
>
> The VG Guy
>
> www.landshorter.com
>
> 1-877-272-1414 (toll free)
_______________________________
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: | Has anyone heard more about how Mike is doing since the |
crash?
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Marc Arseneault" <northernultralights@hotmail.com>
Excellentidea Rex!
I am not the smart guy to make the card but hopefully somebody on the list can.
Very glad to hear from John that he will be released in a couple of days.
Best Regards,
Marc Arseneault
Ontario Canada
Send junk mail straight into your Recycle Bin with MSN Premium: Join now and
get the first two months FREE*
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: Kitfox Wings |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jose M. Toro" <jose_m_toro@yahoo.com>
Rex:
What I'm looking for is to be able to replace the 582 with a Jabiru 2200, be able
to carry 20 gallons of gas as opposed to 9 gals, being able to replace the
original landing gear with a grove, and still being able to carry a 170 pounds
person. I estimate that combination will take a gross weight of 1050 pounds
as opposed to 950 pounds for the KF II.
I have had the opportunity to compare my KF II wings with the wings of a KF IV
under construction. The most significant difference is that the new wings have
more camber. I suppose that the additional camber is required to handle heavier
loads.
I don't care about the bigger rudder or the differential ailerons on the KF IV.
What I'm considering is to replace the KF II wings with new KF IV wings, lift
struts, jury struts and wingtips. I'm not considering to do any modification
to the fuselage. I supposed it should not be that difficult to attach the model
IV flaperons with the model II linkage.
Do you think this will work? Do you think that the new wings will be able to carry
100 extra pounds?
If anybody knows a good reason why I should not attempt this combination, this
is an ideal time to speak. I haven't spent a cent on new goodies and am still
alive!!!
Jose
Rex <rex@awarenest.com> wrote:
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Rex
Jose,
I am rebuilding a Model II wing on which I am upgrading the spars to
the Model IV spar design. The old Model II spar extrusions are not
available from skystar which is why you ask I suspect. My repair is not
the complete model IV wing design, as you asked, but I know that the
wing struts are not the same length due to a different spar attachment
location. If one were to use both Model IV wings and struts on a Model
II it may be possible to fit them without too much trouble, however I
have not researched this subject that far. The flaperon controls are
different and that could have an effect on fitment as well.
Please keep us informed if you learn information off this list.
Rex
Colorado, USA
Jose M. Toro wrote:
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jose M. Toro"
>
>Hi Guys:
>
>Has any of you converted a Kitfox II to Kitfox IV wings? Will this increase gross
weight? Do you know what modifications where done to the earlier fuselages
to increase gross weight?
>
>Jose
>
>
>
Jos M. Toro, P.E.
Computer Systems Validation Engineer
Eli-Lilly PR05
---------------------------------
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! --
|