Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 03:36 AM - Re: Alberta is cut (AlbertaIV@aol.com)
2. 07:42 AM - Re: Alberta is cut (Rick)
3. 08:13 AM - Re: More on mass balance weights (kerrjohna@comcast.net)
4. 09:26 AM - Re: Alberta is cut (kurt schrader)
5. 10:42 AM - Re: Alberta is cut (jareds)
6. 11:26 AM - Re: More on mass balance weights (Lynn Matteson)
7. 02:45 PM - Re: even more on mass balance weights (Ted Palamarek)
8. 02:59 PM - Re: Alberta is cut (AlbertaIV@aol.com)
9. 03:15 PM - Re: Alberta is cut (AlbertaIV@aol.com)
10. 03:20 PM - Re: Alberta is cut (Rick)
11. 03:25 PM - FIRST FLIGHT --- As a FLOATFOX --- Landing Help ()
12. 08:25 PM - ZERO oil temp? (Raystuff7@aol.com)
13. 11:14 PM - Re: ZERO oil temp? (Ted Palamarek)
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: Alberta is cut |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: AlbertaIV@aol.com
In a message dated 9/8/04 8:36:59 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com writes:
>
> Where did you decide to put your outlets? Just
> wondered what the NASA engineer had to say....
>
> Kurt S.
>
Actually, he said the best place to put them would be to duct them up and
sit them on a wing top. Great low pressure but awful bad for the wing.
They will go low on the sides just fwd of the firewall. Almost off the
ends of the muffler. He pointed out that in "theory", the P-51 type cowl
(faired back to aft carry thru tube) will act as a jet engine and probably give
me
.000374 MPH extra speed.
Don Smythe
DO NOT ARCHIVE
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Rick" <turboflyer@comcast.net>
I must have not paid enough attention, but it is my understanding that the
NACCA type scoop is for getting air in not out. Did I miss the knock on the
door. I would agree on the low pressure point on top of the wing, though it
would most likely destroy some lift dont you think. Just my thoughts.
Rick
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of
AlbertaIV@aol.com
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Alberta is cut
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: AlbertaIV@aol.com
In a message dated 9/8/04 8:36:59 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com writes:
>
> Where did you decide to put your outlets? Just
> wondered what the NASA engineer had to say....
>
> Kurt S.
>
Actually, he said the best place to put them would be to duct them up
and
sit them on a wing top. Great low pressure but awful bad for the wing.
They will go low on the sides just fwd of the firewall. Almost off the
ends of the muffler. He pointed out that in "theory", the P-51 type cowl
(faired back to aft carry thru tube) will act as a jet engine and probably
give me
.000374 MPH extra speed.
Don Smythe
DO NOT ARCHIVE
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: More on mass balance weights |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kerrjohna@comcast.net
From another John, were the 2 mass counter weights introduced when the flaperon
was split for the Speedster?
John Kerr
-------------- Original message --------------
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson
>
> John, do you suppose the reason for dividing the total weight required
> (for one flaperon) between two weights was to alleviate the problem
> that Brett envisioned...that if the single weight coming off? In other
> words to distribute the load over more mounting surface, thereby
> reducing the potential for such a concentrated weight to go flying off?
> I'm not an engineer, so my thoughts and wordage are not coming from
> that discipline...obviously : )
> Lynn
>
> On Tuesday, September 7, 2004, at 11:23 PM, John King wrote:
>
> > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: John King
> >
> > Lynn,
> >
> > The single weight is heavier than one of the weights where two are
> > required. They started out with a single heavier weight and later
> > distributed the weight by using two lighter weights.
> >
> > --
> > John King
> > Warrenton, VA
> >
> >
> > Lynn Matteson wrote:
> >
> >> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson
> >>
> >> I was told that the two weights that I have for my Speedster (one on
> >> each flaperon) was enough, although the manual calls for two on each
> >> wing. Any thoughts?
> >> Lynn
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > _-
> > =======================================================================
> > _-
> > =======================================================================
> > _-
> > =======================================================================
> > _-
> > =======================================================================
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
From another John, were the 2 mass counter weights introduced when the flaperon
was split for the Speedster?
John Kerr
-------------- Original message --------------
-- Kitfox-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson <LYNNMATT@JPS.NET>
John, do you suppose the reason for dividing the total weight required
(for one flaperon) between two weights was to alleviate the problem
that Brett envisioned...that if the single weight coming off? In other
words to distribute the load over more mounting surface, thereby
reducing the potential for such a concentrated weight to go flying off?
I'm not an engineer, so my thoughts and wordage are not coming from
that discipline...obviously : )
Lynn
On Tuesday, September 7, 2004, at 11:23 PM, John King wrote:
-- Kitfox-List message posted by: John King <KINGJOHNE@ADELPHIA.NET>
Lynn,
The
single weight is heavier than one of the weights where two are
required. They started out with a single heavier weight and later
distributed the weight by using two lighter weights.
--
John King
Warrenton, VA
Lynn Matteson wrote:
-- Kitfox-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson <LYNNMATT@JPS.NET>
I was told that the two weights that I have for my Speedster (one on
each flaperon) was enough, although the manual calls for two on each
wing. Any thoughts?
Lynn
_-
=======================================================================
_-
===========================================
============================
_-
=======================================================================
_-
=======================================================================
>
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Alberta is cut |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
Don,
Holy Cowl?
Hummm. Wings? Sounds like he was even less help to
you than I am. Ha ha. It is all a compromise. It is
a bit hard to just say, "Put 'em there."
The furthest aft cowl point, cooling all the way back
to the firewall, is good for inside the cowl. That is
what I am looking at too.
Don, your origional idea of outside blisters (or doors
that pop out) are better there than Howards inward
vents, which have to be put more forward. At the aft
end I think you have less low pressure to draw the air
out, so you may have to create it. Howard's should
draw pretty well where they are, but he will have to
tell us how they work in flight for cooling.
I haven't decided yet. Inward forward or outward aft
seems to be the best choices. Taking my cowl off and
putting it back on is a consideration too.
There are two articles in Sept Sport Aviation about
NSI engine cooling and cockpit vents. Again they
don't give much help on location. As in the "Ulterior
Motors" article, I thought of using the Rotax 914 in
my engine choices too. What the article missed is
that the 914 had a lot of initial problems as well.
When I made my choice, the 914 was my worse risk with
a low TBO and a really expensive rebuild.
In fact, as I search the archives, I haven't found the
Soob overheat problems yet, but I found a lot of 912
overheat problems. I think this is a common problem
without a particular engine bias. It is just better
to buy the engine/cowl combination that has the
problems already worked out. Or maybe it is the cowl,
not the engine?
It looks like the overheat problem could apply to us
all with any engine. Some get it right away with the
same engine others have trouble with. In my case,
everything is usable now. Marginal on oil temps, but
usable. I like the middle of the green better though.
And the full radiator scoop that could at least zero
out its drag is what I was after too. I got 9+ mph.
You take the air in, expand, slow and compress it (by
expansion here) heat it, and accellerate it aft. Jets
and scoops have that in common, but radiators don't
add that much heat compared to their drag. Breaking
even would be nice enough. Bare radiators are like
speed brakes. I looked at putting my radiator inside
the cowl, but then I bet everything would now be hot.
It works for some though.
I am flight planning for 28 times 10 to the minus 53
power sublight speed. After all, I have Warp prop
blades.
Kurt S. S-5/NSI turbo
--- AlbertaIV@aol.com wrote:
> Actually, he said the best place to put them
> would be to duct them up and sit them on a wing top.
> Great low pressure but awful bad for the wing.
> They will go low on the sides just fwd of the
> firewall. Almost off the ends of the muffler.
> He pointed out that in "theory", the P-51 type cowl
> (faired back to aft carry thru tube) will act as a
> jet engine and probably give me .000374 MPH extra
> speed.
>
> Don Smythe
__________________________________
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: Alberta is cut |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: jareds <jareds@verizon.net>
Don,
FYI mine is lowered 4.5 inches and but follows the line of the belly.
AlbertaIV@aol.com wrote:
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: AlbertaIV@aol.com
>
> I started today by cutting the bottom out of the cowl and fabricated a
>new piece of semi-rigid sheet fiberglass re-fill the hole. I can tell already
>that the radiator is going to do better just by looking at the profile. About
>that time, my old instructor (Tappscott shuffle) also a retired NASA Engineer
>came by. He is always excited about good modifications to an airplane. We
>discussed airflow, high/low pressure areas and finally came up with an approved
>drawing (including side vents) which we drew on the hanger wall. Time will
>tell.
> The other day (forgive me, I forgot who) somebody posted that he had
>faired the radiator but it would not cool tucked up into the belly. He had to
>lower the rad and tilt the fairing. Can whoever that was come back to me off
>list and tell me how much he had to lower the radiator and which way he tilted
>the thing. Helps to have a little tried and proven design.
>
>Thanks,
>Don Smythe
>DO NOT ARCHIVE
>
>
>
>
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: More on mass balance weights |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net>
That could have been, John. I'm just getting into this Kitfox thing, so
I can't answer that question, but maybe you're right. Anybody know? Any
history buffs out there?
Lynn
On Thursday, September 9, 2004, at 11:12 AM, kerrjohna@comcast.net
wrote:
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kerrjohna@comcast.net
>
> From another John, were the 2 mass counter weights introduced when the
> flaperon was split for the Speedster?
> John Kerr
>
> -------------- Original message --------------
>
>> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson
>>
>> John, do you suppose the reason for dividing the total weight required
>> (for one flaperon) between two weights was to alleviate the problem
>> that Brett envisioned...that if the single weight coming off? In other
>> words to distribute the load over more mounting surface, thereby
>> reducing the potential for such a concentrated weight to go flying
>> off?
>> I'm not an engineer, so my thoughts and wordage are not coming from
>> that discipline...obviously : )
>> Lynn
>>
>> On Tuesday, September 7, 2004, at 11:23 PM, John King wrote:
>>
>>> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: John King
>>>
>>> Lynn,
>>>
>>> The single weight is heavier than one of the weights where two are
>>> required. They started out with a single heavier weight and later
>>> distributed the weight by using two lighter weights.
>>>
>>> --
>>> John King
>>> Warrenton, VA
>>>
>>>
>>> Lynn Matteson wrote:
>>>
>>>> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson
>>>>
>>>> I was told that the two weights that I have for my Speedster (one on
>>>> each flaperon) was enough, although the manual calls for two on each
>>>> wing. Any thoughts?
>>>> Lynn
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _-
>>> =====================================================================
>>> ==
>>> _-
>>> =====================================================================
>>> ==
>>> _-
>>> =====================================================================
>>> ==
>>> _-
>>> =====================================================================
>>> ==
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> From another John, were the 2 mass counter weights introduced when the
> flaperon was split for the Speedster?
>
>
> John Kerr
>
>
> -------------- Original message --------------
>
> -- Kitfox-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson <LYNNMATT@JPS.NET>
>
> John, do you suppose the reason for dividing the total weight required
> (for one flaperon) between two weights was to alleviate the problem
> that Brett envisioned...that if the single weight coming off? In other
> words to distribute the load over more mounting surface, thereby
> reducing the potential for such a concentrated weight to go flying
> off?
> I'm not an engineer, so my thoughts and wordage are not coming from
> that discipline...obviously : )
> Lynn
>
> On Tuesday, September 7, 2004, at 11:23 PM, John King wrote:
>
> -- Kitfox-List message posted by: John King <KINGJOHNE@ADELPHIA.NET>
>
> Lynn,
>
> The
> single weight is heavier than one of the weights where two are
> required. They started out with a single heavier weight and later
> distributed the weight by using two lighter weights.
>
> --
> John King
> Warrenton, VA
>
>
> Lynn Matteson wrote:
>
> -- Kitfox-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson <LYNNMATT@JPS.NET>
>
> I was told that the two weights that I have for my Speedster (one on
> each flaperon) was enough, although the manual calls for two on each
> wing. Any thoughts?
> Lynn
>
>
> _-
>
> =======================================================================
> _-
> ===========================================
> ============================
> _-
>
> =======================================================================
> _-
>
> =======================================================================
>
>
> >
>
>
> _-
> =======================================================================
> _-
> =======================================================================
> _-
> =======================================================================
> _-
> =======================================================================
> >
>
>
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: | even more on mass balance weights |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Ted Palamarek" <temco@telusplanet.net>
Lynn
The 2.5 pound weights are what I have for my model IV-1200.
One for each flaperon as laid out in the model IV-1200
instruction manual. Therefore I can only assume that the 2.5
pound units are the "two per plane size".
Ted
Edmonton, Ab
<<<<SNIP>>>>
Subject: Kitfox-List: even more on mass balance weights
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson
<lynnmatt@jps.net>
My mass balance weights...IV Speedster...weigh 2.5 pounds
each, just
for the record. Are these the "two per plane" size?
Lynn
==============
Contributions
other
==============
==============
http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/Kitfox-List.htm
http://www.matronics.com/browse/kitfox-list
http://www.matronics.com/digest/kitfox-list
==============
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: Alberta is cut |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: AlbertaIV@aol.com
In a message dated 9/9/04 7:44:44 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
turboflyer@comcast.net writes:
>
> I must have not paid enough attention, but it is my understanding that the
> NACCA type scoop is for getting air in not out. Did I miss the knock on the
> door. I would agree on the low pressure point on top of the wing, though it
> would most likely destroy some lift dont you think. Just my thoughts.
>
> Rick
>
Rick,
I must admit stupidity here because I don't know exactly what a NACCA
vent is. I fabricated a scoop that will attach on the side of the cowl back
close to the firewall. The scoop will mount with the opening facing aft which
should help to draw air out of the cowl. BTW, it don't look too bad either.
Placing the outlet on top of the wing was in jest. It would be a good
low pressure spot but of course, would kill the wing.
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: Alberta is cut |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: AlbertaIV@aol.com
Kurt
> Hummm. Wings? Sounds like he was even less help to
> you than I am. Ha ha. It is all a compromise. It is
> a bit hard to just say, "Put 'em there."
That part was a joke
>
> The furthest aft cowl point, cooling all the way back
> to the firewall, is good for inside the cowl. That is
> what I am looking at too.
That's where they are going
>
> Don, your origional idea of outside blisters (or doors
> that pop out) are better there than Howards inward
> vents, which have to be put more forward. At the aft
> end I think you have less low pressure to draw the air
> out, so you may have to create it. Howard's should
> draw pretty well where they are, but he will have to
> tell us how they work in flight for cooling.
I went for the outward blister just for the purpose of pulling air out. They
actually look good. Sort of gives the old Fox a mean look.
>
> I haven't decided yet. Inward forward or outward aft
> seems to be the best choices. Taking my cowl off and
> putting it back on is a consideration too.
I don't think the side vents will affect removing the cowl. However, my cowl
is a different from whatever you have.
>
> And the full radiator scoop that could at least zero
> out its drag is what I was after too. I got 9+ mph.
> You take the air in, expand, slow and compress it (by
>
I think the radiator and engine cowls are two different animals. The engine
cowl has already proved itself to be a terrible design for any form of 3:1
ration. I said this the other day and will venture to suggest it again. For the
most part, our engines are water cooled. Because they are water cooled, we
can get away with having a less than desirable designed engine cowl. I wonder
what would be the results if our cowls were "perfectly" designed for air flow
and equipped with baffling like used in aircooled engines????
Don Smythe
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Rick" <turboflyer@comcast.net>
See I was asleep. I had that NACCA on my mind. Its that sleek looking one
that goes below the surface of the mounting area. I think the rear facing
scoop is a good idea. I too am working on extracting and moving heat away
from things. Aside from moving or rather rerouting my exhaust away from my
radiator I was thinking of maybe a large panel of louvered aluminum or
fiberglass on the port and starboard side of the cowl.
Rick
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of
AlbertaIV@aol.com
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Alberta is cut
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: AlbertaIV@aol.com
In a message dated 9/9/04 7:44:44 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
turboflyer@comcast.net writes:
>
> I must have not paid enough attention, but it is my understanding that the
> NACCA type scoop is for getting air in not out. Did I miss the knock on
the
> door. I would agree on the low pressure point on top of the wing, though
it
> would most likely destroy some lift dont you think. Just my thoughts.
>
> Rick
>
Rick,
I must admit stupidity here because I don't know exactly what a NACCA
vent is. I fabricated a scoop that will attach on the side of the cowl back
close to the firewall. The scoop will mount with the opening facing aft
which
should help to draw air out of the cowl. BTW, it don't look too bad either.
Placing the outlet on top of the wing was in jest. It would be a good
low pressure spot but of course, would kill the wing.
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: | FIRST FLIGHT --- As a FLOATFOX --- Landing Help |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: <barryhuston@adelphia.net>
There are a number of folks from the "LIST" that I want to individually thank,
but will wait until all of the testing is complete before I expound on the accomplishment
-- i.e. not sure if the step location is ideal and the gear and retract
system not connected inside yet.
My "Test" pilot has only 10 hours on wheels in the Fox and is looking for Float
Landing suggestions --- He is using the 15 degrees of flaps approach but feels
that he should be carrying more power.???
So --- John Mc, Gary, Paul and the rest of the "List" any suggestions??
Thanks
Barry
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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Raystuff7@aol.com
My oil temp guage goes to zero many times when we are cruising. I checked the
wiring, and the ground, but find no problems. I don't want to order a sending
unit or quad guage set until I find which it is. I fly a Kitfox 6 with a
Rotax 912S engine and oil cooler.
We made it back from Oshkosh (1300 miles) in one day to the Houston area. The
gauge dropped to zero many times; we just ignored it.
Any body have this problem, or ideas to try?
Thanks, Ray and Ann Ward N23AW
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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Ted Palamarek" <temco@telusplanet.net>
Ray
Ray do you have the quad gauge with a temp indicator for the
liquid coolant as well. If so, then just swap the oil and
liquid coolant gauge inputs. If the problem moves to the
liquid coolant gauge then you can assume the oil temp gauge
is okay and your problem is either the sender or somewhere
in your oil temp wiring. However if the problem remains with
the oil temp gauge after the swap then your gauge is most
likely intermittent. Hope this helps.
Ted
Edmonton, Ab
Subject: Kitfox-List: ZERO oil temp?
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Raystuff7@aol.com
My oil temp guage goes to zero many times when we are
cruising. I checked the
wiring, and the ground, but find no problems. I don't want
to order a sending
unit or quad guage set until I find which it is. I fly a
Kitfox 6 with a
Rotax 912S engine and oil cooler.
We made it back from Oshkosh (1300 miles) in one day to the
Houston area. The
gauge dropped to zero many times; we just ignored it.
Any body have this problem, or ideas to try?
Thanks, Ray and Ann Ward N23AW
==============
Contributions
other
==============
==============
http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/Kitfox-List.htm
http://www.matronics.com/browse/kitfox-list
http://www.matronics.com/digest/kitfox-list
==============
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! --
|