Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:20 AM - SV: More on the Jabiru (Michel Verheughe)
2. 12:46 AM - SV: Accident Update (Michel Verheughe)
3. 02:03 AM - SV: Kitfox crash (Michel Verheughe)
4. 04:09 AM - Re: More on the Jabiru (Fox5flyer)
5. 04:22 AM - Re: More on the Jabiru (AlbertaIV@aol.com)
6. 05:06 AM - Re: More on the Jabiru (Jose M. Toro)
7. 05:26 AM - Re: SV: More on the Jabiru (Jose M. Toro)
8. 05:41 AM - Re: Heater Install - For John King (kitfoxjunky)
9. 05:41 AM - Re: Accident Update (Jose M. Toro)
10. 05:45 AM - SV: SV: More on the Jabiru (Michel Verheughe)
11. 06:20 AM - Re: TCP in 582 with AV-2 CPS (Harris, Robert)
12. 07:03 AM - Re: Accident Update (Lowell Fitt)
13. 07:06 AM - Re: Kitfox crash (Lowell Fitt)
14. 07:10 AM - Re: Classic IV - Problem with 912 Oil Tank (Grant Fluent)
15. 08:09 AM - Re: SV: Accident Update (Roger L)
16. 08:52 AM - Re: SV: Accident Update (Michel Verheughe)
17. 10:20 AM - Re: Old CPS dual strobe system (Marco Menezes)
18. 10:42 AM - Re: N2BH IS FLYING! (Steve Cooper)
19. 12:08 PM - Re: SV: Accident Update (u2drvr@dslextreme.com)
20. 01:05 PM - Re: SV: Accident Update (Roger L)
21. 01:35 PM - Re: SV: Accident Update (u2drvr@dslextreme.com)
22. 01:54 PM - Re: SV: Accident Update (Roger L)
23. 02:14 PM - Re: N2BH IS FLYING! (Randy Daughenbaugh)
24. 02:18 PM - Re: Kitfox crash I have a question .... (Michael Gibbs)
25. 02:19 PM - Re: Accident Update (Michael Gibbs)
26. 02:20 PM - Re: Accident Update (Michael Gibbs)
27. 02:26 PM - Re: SV: Accident Update (Michel Verheughe)
28. 02:35 PM - Re: Kitfox crash I have a question .... (Aerobatics@aol.com)
29. 03:00 PM - Re: Heater Install - For John King (John King)
30. 04:59 PM - Re: More on the Jabiru (Jerry Liles)
31. 05:01 PM - Re: More on the Jabiru (Jerry Liles)
32. 05:11 PM - Re: Heater Install - For John King (AlbertaIV@aol.com)
33. 06:59 PM - Re: SV: Accident Update (jdmcbean)
34. 07:03 PM - Re: TCP in 582 with AV-2 CPS (jdmcbean)
35. 07:59 PM - 582 cruise RPM (Ron)
36. 09:50 PM - Re: 582 cruise RPM (aerocon1@telusplanet.net)
37. 09:52 PM - Re: N2BH IS FLYING! (Bruce Harrington)
38. 10:47 PM - Re: 582 cruise RPM (Ron)
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: | More on the Jabiru |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
Jose M. Toro wrote:
>My research on using a Jabiru 2200 on my Kitfox II shows that it is too slow to
>provide proper cooling.
Jose, there is a Kitfox II with Jabiru for sale, right now, in Norway. Maybe you
could ask its owner what he thinks. It's a beautiful Kitfox, by the way.
Go here:
http://www.nak.no/mikro/index.html
Then click the "Medlemsider" button,
Then click the "Selges" button,
You'll see the Kitfox as the top entry (20 Sep 2004).
Click on the thumbnail to see the plane and the nice panel.
Click on the bottom line link (a Yahoo email address, like you) to send an email
to the owner.
Let me know if you need help.
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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
> From: Roger L [yiotta@yahoo.com]
> I am not a physicist but I don't understand why you think the light weight
> of the kitfox is a factor in windsheer performance.
I am not a physicist either, Roger, and I know very little about aviation. But
if I compare with the maritime world, I can say this:
A sailboat that is twice as long as another, will carry four times as much sail
(square), 8 times as heavy (cubic) and 5.6 times more inertia (4 x Square(2)
since the max speed of a vessel is to the square root of its lenght).
This means that e.g. a larger sailboat will have more weight to sail surface ratio
and will sail in stronger wind without reefing (reducing sail surface).
I guess something similar can be said about aircraft, the heavier they are, their
inertia will pull them through a "air hole" where a lighter plane will just
"fall in." In return, the load on the airframe will be less with a light plane.
I try to think of it as a small dinghy moving up and down in the waves, and the
larger vessel cutting its way through them.
Cheers,
Michel
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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
> From: Michael Gibbs [MichaelGibbs@cox.net]
> If I were to do it over again, I'd have built a much softer
> instrument panel :-)
Mike, does this mean that your safety belt attachment broke? Do you know where?
Get well soon, friend and for your Kitfox ... you can still build a new one but
you can't build a new human being. Take care of yourself.
Cheers,
Michel
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: More on the Jabiru |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Fox5flyer" <morid@northland.lib.mi.us>
What is happening with that venturi? Looks like it would work great for
vertical takeoffs, but not very effective for cruise. :-)
Darrel
> Go here:
> http://www.nak.no/mikro/index.html
>
> Then click the "Medlemsider" button,
> Then click the "Selges" button,
> You'll see the Kitfox as the top entry (20 Sep 2004).
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: More on the Jabiru |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: AlbertaIV@aol.com
In a message dated 9/21/04 8:19:29 PM Pacific Daylight Time, wliles@bayou.com
writes:
>
> I suspect with the Jabiru 2200 you'll get a cruise of at least 80mph
> even with the long wing. You can help things by fairing the lift struts
> if not already done and making simple fairings for the drag producing
> parts. What is your airspeed at 5800 and 6000 rpm with the 582?
>
> Jerry Liles
>
Jerry,
I haven't been following this thread but I get 85-90 cruise at 6000 RPM
(long wing). I bought my 582 engine (used) from Amy Laboda (aviation writer).
The engine was on her Kitfox and she changed it out to a Jab 2200. She
reported to me a 15 MPH cruise increase with the Jab over the 582.
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 the Jabiru |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jose M. Toro" <jose_m_toro@yahoo.com>
Jerry: At 6000 rpm it is very close to 80 mph. Struts already has fairings.
Jerry Liles <wliles@bayou.com> wrote:--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Jerry Liles
I suspect with the Jabiru 2200 you'll get a cruise of at least 80mph
even with the long wing. You can help things by fairing the lift struts
if not already done and making simple fairings for the drag producing
parts. What is your airspeed at 5800 and 6000 rpm with the 582?
Jerry Liles
Jose M. Toro wrote:
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jose M. Toro"
>
>Hi Again:
>
>My research on using a Jabiru 2200 on my Kitfox II shows that it is too slow to
provide proper cooling. Wth the 582, it cruises 65 mph at 5500 rpm. I've been
told that I need a cruise of 80 mph to provided adequate cooling. The only thing
that I could think about to make it faster is to use "Speedster" wings. I
have many questions on this "under evaluation" alternative:
>
>Has any of you used Speedster wings on a Kitfox II?
>What increase in speed could I expect?
>Would this wing switch change the airplane's gross weight?
>
>Thanks for your support!
>
>
>Jose M. Toro, P.E.
>Kitfox II/582
>"A slow flight in the Caribbean..."
>
>
>
>---------------------------------
>
>
>
Jose M. Toro, P.E.
Kitfox II/582
"A slow flight in the Caribbean..."
---------------------------------
vote.yahoo.com - Register online to vote today!
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: More on the Jabiru |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jose M. Toro" <jose_m_toro@yahoo.com>
Michel: I will try to reach the owner. Hope he understands english... Will let
you know.
Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no> wrote:--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel
Verheughe
Jose M. Toro wrote:
>My research on using a Jabiru 2200 on my Kitfox II shows that it is too slow to
>provide proper cooling.
Jose, there is a Kitfox II with Jabiru for sale, right now, in Norway. Maybe you
could ask its owner what he thinks. It's a beautiful Kitfox, by the way.
Go here:
http://www.nak.no/mikro/index.html
Then click the "Medlemsider" button,
Then click the "Selges" button,
You'll see the Kitfox as the top entry (20 Sep 2004).
Click on the thumbnail to see the plane and the nice panel.
Click on the bottom line link (a Yahoo email address, like you) to send an email
to the owner.
Let me know if you need help.
Cheers,
Michel
Jose M. Toro, P.E.
Kitfox II/582
"A slow flight in the Caribbean..."
---------------------------------
vote.yahoo.com - Register online to vote today!
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: Heater Install - For John King |
08:41:13 AM,
Serialize complete at 09/22/2004 08:41:13 AM
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kitfoxjunky <kitfoxjunky@decisionlabs.com>
Hey John...was that radiator cowl flap something you fabricated, or did
you purchase it off the shelf?
Gary Walsh
C-GOOT
www.decisionlabs.com/kitfox
John King <kingjohne@adelphia.net>
Sent by: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
09/21/2004 08:19 PM
Please respond to kitfox-list
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
cc:
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Heater Install
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: John King <kingjohne@adelphia.net>
Floran & George,
I installed a radiator cowl flap controllable from the cockpit which
ensures that I have adequate engine temperatures and sufficient heat
available for the cabin heater during the winter seasons.
--
John King
Warrenton, VA
Floran Higgins wrote:
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Floran Higgins" <CliffH@outdrs.net>
>
>Unless you have a thermostat, the water heater will not put out much heat
>when the weather gets cold.
>Floran H.
>----- Original Message -----
>
>
>From: "George Wells" <georgewells@adelphia.net>
>To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: Kitfox-List: Heater Install
>
>
>>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "George Wells"
>>
>>
><georgewells@adelphia.net>
>
>
>>I presently have a KF 4 without a heater. I am looking for info on
>>installing either a Heat Muff type or a unit using radiator water. Any
>>
>>
>info
>
>
>>on both the pros and cons will be appreciated. My KF has a Rotex 912 80
HP
>>engine.
>>Thanks, Sorry if this is a double post !!
>>George
>>
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: Accident Update |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jose M. Toro" <jose_m_toro@yahoo.com>
I would guess that they didn't hit the panel, but the panel hitted them.
Aerobatics@aol.com wrote:--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Aerobatics@aol.com
my other 1/2 asked.......
Did you have shoulder straps?
Hmm great question....
Dave
Jose M. Toro, P.E.
Kitfox II/582
"A slow flight in the Caribbean..."
---------------------------------
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: | More on the Jabiru |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
> From: Jose M. Toro [jose_m_toro@yahoo.com]
> Michel: I will try to reach the owner. Hope he understands english...
> Will let you know.
All Norwegian (especially if they fly) will speak some English, Jose. But the reason
he sells the plane is that he is moving abroad and he may be late in answereing
you if he is moving. Be patient.
Darrel, yes, strange venturi. I guess it is for his turn coordinator or/and artificial
horizon. But ... a strange angle, indeed! We'll have to ask him!
Cheers,
Michel
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: | TCP in 582 with AV-2 CPS |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Harris, Robert" <Robert_Harris@intuit.com>
Thanks John.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of jdmcbean
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: TCP in 582 with AV-2 CPS
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "jdmcbean" <jdmcbean@cableone.net>
Robert,
I will do some checking.. but I have been told not to use TCP in 2
strokes.
Never did get a good reason....
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 Harris, Robert
Subject: Kitfox-List: TCP in 582 with AV-2 CPS
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Harris, Robert"
<Robert_Harris@intuit.com>
John McBean and others,
Can TCP be used with AV-2? Does AV-2 already have a lead scavenger built
into it?(AV-2 is two cycle oil from California Power supply which is
designed to prevent Carbon build up.) I only use 100LL in my Rotax 582 and
want to minimize the carbon.
Robert
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of jdmcbean
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: 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 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: Accident Update |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@inreach.com>
Roger, Wind shear can also be traversing into an air mass of different
velocity. In other words consider a flight into a head wind of 20 mph that
suddenly drops to 5 mph. Your effective airspeed can drop almost instantly
by 15 mph.
We experienced a similar phenomenon while returning from Oshkosh. We were
flying under a high cloud layer with a definite edge that extended to the
horizon. When we gradually exited the area under the clouds, the 30 mph
headwind virtually disappeared.
Lowell
----- Original Message -----
From: "Roger L" <yiotta@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Accident Update
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Roger L <yiotta@yahoo.com>
>
> Michael,
> I am indeed quite sorry for your loss but thankful that you survived the
crash.
> Your passenger is equally lucky as a pelvic fracture can be a life
threatening injury.
> I am not a physicist but I don't understand why you think the light weight
> of the kitfox is a factor in windsheer performance.
> It is my understanding that windsheer is a rapid down draft that would
> effect all flying objects equally, regardless of weight, is this not true.
> Roger L
>
>
> Michael Gibbs <MichaelGibbs@cox.net> wrote:
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michael Gibbs
>
> Hi all,
>
> Sorry for taking so long to write, but there's something about
> hospital life that sucks up all of your time and leaves your mind too
> groggy to put together a sentence. The good news is that, after a 3
> week stay, I was released from the hospital last Saturday evening and
> am resting at a friend's house. They have not yet put my legs back
> together so I cannot walk and am not self-sufficient (and probably
> won't be for many more weeks).
>
> As I mentioned last time, there are parts of what happened that I
> don't remember but based on what my passenger (also an experienced
> pilot) and I each recall I'd have to say that the accident was caused
> by a low-level windshear. The air was warm and choppy. I remember
> glancing at the airspeed indicator and seeing it drop abruptly from
> mid-speed cruise to well below stall speed. As you'd expect, the
> nose dropped immediately and the plane rolled a little to the left (I
> may not have had the ball quite centered).
>
> I advanced the throttle and pulled back on the stick as we regained
> flying speed but the ground rose up and smite us. I think another
> 100 feet of altitude would have allowed us to make it--we impacted in
> a level attitude with our sink rate almost completely arrested.
>
> I'm not sure what lessons for others there may be in this story
> except to remember to respect how incredibly light the Kitfox/Avid
> machines are and how much they can be affected by mother nature.
>
> As I'm sure many of you have guessed, one of the most painful aspects
> of this entire adventure has been the loss of my Kitfox. My father
> and I put 11 years of our lives into building that machine and,
> although he never got the chance to fly it, I spent 70 magnificent
> flight hours falling head-over-heals in love with her. I feel like
> I've lost a family member. I've tried not to think about it much
> because I need to stay focused on my recovery, but every time I do,
> it brings tears to my eyes.
>
> Once again I want to thank everyone for the kind and encouraging
> thoughts both on and off the list.
>
> Mike G.
> N728KF
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
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 crash |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@inreach.com>
Michael, Thanks for the report and glad to hear you are on the mend. I
have found that the shoulder harness constantly slips off my shoulders. Do
you think this might have happened in this instance.
Lowell
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Gibbs" <MichaelGibbs@cox.net>
Subject: Kitfox-List: Kitfox crash
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michael Gibbs <MichaelGibbs@cox.net>
>
> Michel asks:
>
> >...I'd appreciate your comments on the injuries you and your friend
> >suffered and how you see it could be prevented in a Kitfox. As you
> >know, I fly with the compulsory helmet in Norway. Do you think a
> >helmet would have helped you? Is there other things in the kockpit
> >that need more securing, padding?
>
> If I were to do it over again, I'd have built a much softer
> instrument panel :-)
>
> Both of us suffered facial injuries caused by hitting our faces on
> the instrument panel. I think a helmet would only have helped if it
> had a shatter-proof face shield of some type.
>
> I suffered two broken legs below the knee while my passenger has a
> fractured lumbar vertebrae and fractured pelvis. It seems that these
> injuries were a result of how the airplane hit the ground. Both
> seats had under-seat storage compartments that looked like accordions
> after the crash--they had obviously absorbed a lot of energy. The
> aircraft was equipped with Grove gear for the mains and SkyStar's
> nosewheel, all of which did a good job of absorbing energy as well.
>
> I'm not sure what the individual builder can do to improve the
> crashworthiness of their 'fox, but the key to survival is for the
> structure to absorb the impact energy to the extent possible, rather
> than passing that energy on to the occupants.
>
> I hope this helps, Michel.
>
> Mike G.
> N728KF
>
>
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Classic IV - Problem with 912 Oil Tank |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Grant Fluent <gjfpilot@yahoo.com>
Torgeir,
Thanks for the pictures. Do you know what kind of
fitting your friend used on the tank? Is it a 37
degree AN fitting?
I looked at the fitting that was supplied with the
tank and I don't think I can shorten it enough without
also having to heat it with a torch. I am going to try
to find a different fitting first.
Grant Fluent
Newcastle, NE
Classic IV 912S
do not archive
--- Torgeir Mortensen <torgemor@online.no> wrote:
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Torgeir Mortensen
> <torgemor@online.no>
>
> Hi Grant,
>
>
> Just uploaded two pictures of the "oil tank"
> problem. This is another
> solution my friend Arnulf made on his Kitfox model
> 4.
>
> Have a look here:
>
>
http://www.sportflight.com/cgi-bin/uploader.pl?action=view&epoch=1095805686
>
>
> Torgeir.
>
>
> On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 14:57:39 -0700 (PDT), Grant
> Fluent
> <gjfpilot@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Grant Fluent
> <gjfpilot@yahoo.com>
> >
> > Thanks to John and Eric for responding to my
> question
> > about the oil tank fitting. I tried to call
> Skystar
> > today but couldn't reach anyone as their summer
> hours
> > are only until 3:30.
> > As for heating the fitting with a torch, I think
> I
> > can do a neater job if I cut out a section and
> weld it
> > back together.
> > Grant Fluent
> > Newcastle, NE
> > Classic IV 912S
> >
> > Do not archive
> >
> >
> > --- Ceashman@aol.com wrote:
> >
> >> --> Kitfox-List message posted by:
> Ceashman@aol.com
> >>
> >> Yes.
> >> If I remember well. I had the same problem. I
> think
> >> everyone has this problem!
> >>
> >> It was either Skystar or someone I met at Sun &
> Fun,
> >> and they said heat that
> >> steel tube until cherry red and carefully bend.
> All
> >> this is done in the vice.
> >>
> >> It worked! But is painful, you'd think that there
> >> would be a fitting
> >> available that would allow for the close space.
> >>
> >> Best of luck...It can be done.
> >> Eric Ashman Classic IV Atlanta.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 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
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client:
> http://www.opera.com/m2/
>
>
>
> 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 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: Accident Update |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Roger L <yiotta@yahoo.com>
Nice Analogy, and it makes perfect sense...
Thanks
Roger L
--- Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no> wrote:
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
>
> > From: Roger L [yiotta@yahoo.com]
> > I am not a physicist but I don't understand why you think the light weight
> > of the kitfox is a factor in windsheer performance.
>
> I am not a physicist either, Roger, and I know very little about aviation. But
if I
> compare with the maritime world, I can say this:
> A sailboat that is twice as long as another, will carry four times as much sail
> (square), 8 times as heavy (cubic) and 5.6 times more inertia (4 x Square(2)
since the
> max speed of a vessel is to the square root of its lenght).
> This means that e.g. a larger sailboat will have more weight to sail surface
ratio and
> will sail in stronger wind without reefing (reducing sail surface).
>
> I guess something similar can be said about aircraft, the heavier they are, their
> inertia will pull them through a "air hole" where a lighter plane will just "fall
in."
> In return, the load on the airframe will be less with a light plane.
> I try to think of it as a small dinghy moving up and down in the waves, and the
larger
> vessel cutting its way through them.
>
> Cheers,
> Michel
>
> 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: Accident Update |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
Roger L wrote:
> Nice Analogy, and it makes perfect sense...
Thanks Roger but, when I read again my email, I see that I did a mistake: The
mass (weight, or displacement) would be 8 times bigger and the inertia: square
root of 2, times 8, which is 11.2 and not 5.6, as I wrote. This is much. And
this is why the size of the wires that stays the mast of say, a 35 feet
sailboat are considerably thicker than a 25 footer.
Cheers,
Michel
do not archive - maritime stuff! :-)
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: Old CPS dual strobe system |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Marco Menezes <msm_9949@yahoo.com>
Thanks, Torgeir. I'll try the continuity test tonight.
Marco
do not archive
Torgeir Mortensen <torgemor@online.no> wrote:
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Torgeir Mortensen
Hi Marco,
The strobes 3 leads (red, white and black): Red is high voltage positive
+(350-400)VDC, the black is ground and the white is the trigger signal to
the strobe lamp. The trigger start the (discharge) flash.
For the input, it's normally red i.e. +12 VDC input. Also black is
normally ground.
The blank could be a general trigger, this is used to link several units
together for synchronization.
Just use an ohm meter to check if the black input wire is connected to
strobe chassis, if so, thats OK.
Also check the blank wire to see if this one is connected to chassis or
ground, if not -this wire "might" be a general trigger line. Then isolate
(endcap) it.
Sometimes, the black is isolated from chassis, this is to prevent squeal
(in the radio) from the strobe when used.
If the latter is true, then the white wire is to be connected to ground at
the strobe unit and the black is to be routed together (twisted) with the
red input wire. By using twisted shielded wire, eventually radio noise
might be suppressed.
This is an approach, IF you have noise from the strobe system.
Just checked my old building manual. This manual show a dual strobe system
with red + 12VDC and black ground. The output to the strobes is just named
"3 cond cable".
However, the above is kind of standard for most of the systems I've seen
over the years.
Torgeir.
On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 13:59:37 -0700 (PDT), Marco Menezes
wrote:
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Marco Menezes
>
> My "partially completed" KF2 came with a CPS dual strobe system. There
> is no documentation for the unit, nor is there a model number evident.
> It was probably manufactured in the late 80's or early 90's. I'm unsure
> as to how the power unit should be wired. Each of the wingtip mounted
> strobes has 3 leads (red, white and black) which plug into the power
> unit's output. The power unit also has 3 input leads, red black and
> bare. CPS is no help, they "haven't sold it in 10 years."
>
> Presumably, the red input would be wired to a 12 volt positive (overload
> protected) power source. But are black and bare both grounds? I'd
> appreciate any advice.
>
> Marco Menezes
> N99KX
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> vote.yahoo.com - Register online to vote today!
>
>
--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
---------------------------------
vote.yahoo.com - Register online to vote today!
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: N2BH IS FLYING! |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Steve Cooper" <spdrflyr@earthlink.net>
...ahhhh. I guess the title of your post led me to believe that this was a
"completion" and that "N2BH was now flying". I guess you bought it and did a
little fixing etc and now it is flying? Good luck with it.
Steve
N919SC
----- Original Message -----
From: <KITFOXPILOT@att.net>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: N2BH IS FLYING!
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: KITFOXPILOT@att.net
>
>
> -------------- Original message from "Steve Cooper" : --------------
>
> > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Steve Cooper"
> >
> > How is it that you are getting dual instruction in your Kitfox during
Phase
> > I? Or is it an aircraft that has already completed the 40 hour phase I
> > testing. Just curious as the rules state that no flight instruction will
be
> > given in an aircraft in Phase I.
> > Never said it was going through a 40 hrs test period!! Also never said I
built the Kitfox!
> Ray
> > Steve
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From:
> > To:
> > Subject: Kitfox-List: N2BH IS FLYING!
> >
> >
> > > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: KITFOXPILOT@att.net
> > >
> > > Just thought I woulld let the list know, that my Kitfox is flying
great!
> > two days in row and no problems. Today I was able to practice my first
> > landings with my tail wheel instructor I did great. Also played with the
> > flapperons and did some mid field take offs. I will say this, the 912S
> > pulls my Model IV 1200 like a rocket!! this was the best toy I ever
payed
> > for.
> > >
> > > Ray
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Just thought I woulld let the list know, that my Kitfox is flying
great!
> > two days in row and no problems. Today I was able to practice my first
> > landings with my tail wheel instructor I did great. Also played with the
> > flapperons and did some mid field take offs. I will say this, the 912S
pulls
> > my Model IV 1200 like a rocket!! this was the best toy I ever payed for.
> > >
> > >
> > > Ray
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> <!-- BEGIN WEBMAIL STATIONERY -->
> <style type='text/css'>
> p {
> margin: 0px;
> }
> </style>
>
> <!-- WEBMAIL STATIONERY noneset -->
>
>
> -------------- Original message from "Steve Cooper"
<SPDRFLYR@EARTHLINK.NET>: --------------
>
> -- Kitfox-List message posted by: "Steve Cooper" <SPDRFLYR@EARTHLINK.NET>
>
> How is it that you are getting dual instruction in your Kitfox during
Phase
> I? Or is it an aircraft that has already completed the 40 hour phase I
> testing. Just curious as the rules state that no flight instruction will
be
> given in an aircraft in Phase I.
> Never said it was going through a 40 hrs test period!! Also never said I
built the Kitfox!
>
>
> Ray
> Steve
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <KITFOXPILOT@ATT.NET>
> To: <KITFOX-LIST@MATRONICS.COM>
> Subject: Kitfox-List: N2BH IS FLYING!
>
>
> -- Kitfox-List message posted by: KITFOXPILOT@att.net
>
> Just thought I woulld let the list know, that my Kitfox is flying great!
> two days in row and no problems. Today I was able to practice my first
> landings with my tail wheel instructor I did great. Also played with the
> flapperons and did some mid field take offs. I will say this, the 912S
> pulls my Model IV 1200 like a rocket!! this was the best toy I ever payed
> for.
>
> Ray
>
> <!-- BEGIN WEBMAIL STATIONERY -->
>
> <STYLE type=text/css>
>
> > > p {
>
> > > margin: 0px;
>
> > > }
>
> > > </STYLE>
>
>
> <!-- WEBMAIL STATIONERY noneset -->
>
>
> Just thought I woulld let the list know, that my Kitfox is flying great!
> two days in row and no problems. Today I was able to practice my first
> landings with my tail wheel instructor I did great. Also played with the
> flapperons and did some mid field take offs. I will say this, the 912S
pulls
> my Model IV 1200 like a rocket!! this was the best toy I ever payed for.
>
>
> Ray
>
>
> <!-- END WEBMAIL STATIONERY -->
>
>
> e Matronics Forums.
> cs.com/emaillists
>
>
> <!-- END WEBMAIL STATIONERY -->
>
>
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: Accident Update |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: u2drvr@dslextreme.com
I don't call myself a physicist, but I do have a degree in physics and
teach high school physics; however, the answer has more to do with
aerodynamics. Aircraft with light wing loading (i.e. pounds per square
foot of lift generated) are more susceptible to turbulence and windshear
upset.
I fly the T-38 which is very fast with small wings and has very high wing
loading. In this aircraft, turbulence and wind shear are not a big problem
and the ride is almost always smooth. I also fly the U-2 which is slow
with very large wings and light wing loading. I get bounced around a lot
in this aircraft and wind shear, thermals and turbulence have a big
effect.
The Kitfox has very light wing loading and therefore does not handle
turbulence particularly well. The large and highly effective control
surfaces allow us to deal with turbulence well however.
All that being said, wind shear is a very dangerous phenomena that can
bring down any aircraft. The have been several airline mishaps attributed
to wind shear and commercial aircraft have procedures for detecting and
recovering from wind shear conditions. Wind shear is of particular concern
when it is associated with thunderstorms (microburts) and with terrain
(mountain wave). The slow speed, low wing loading and limited excess power
of our aircraft make recovering from a significant wind shear difficult,
so avoidance of these conditions are critical. A large number of Kitfox
accidents have occurred while flying at very low altitudes and I'm sure
many of them have been due to hazardous wind conditions.
Be careful out there and fly safe!
Cheers,
Brian Peck
Kitfox V, IO-240B
T-38A, J-79
U-2S, GE F-118
Michel Verheughe
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
>
>> From: Roger L [yiotta@yahoo.com]
>> I am not a physicist but I don't understand why you think the light
>> weight
>> of the kitfox is a factor in windsheer performance.
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: Accident Update |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Roger L <yiotta@yahoo.com>
Brian, That also makes perfect sense, now for the obvious question...
how does a high school teacher still fly in the U2 and T38, nice job!
I am also blessed with some "fast mover" seat time, I am a flight
doc for the Air Guard and get to back seat in the F-15 eagle frequently.
I am likely going to build a kitfox, still trying to decide between
2 very different airplanes, either the kitfox or the glasair.
Roger L
--- u2drvr@dslextreme.com wrote:
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: u2drvr@dslextreme.com
>
> I don't call myself a physicist, but I do have a degree in physics and
> teach high school physics; however, the answer has more to do with
> aerodynamics. Aircraft with light wing loading (i.e. pounds per square
> foot of lift generated) are more susceptible to turbulence and windshear
> upset.
> I fly the T-38 which is very fast with small wings and has very high wing
> loading. In this aircraft, turbulence and wind shear are not a big problem
> and the ride is almost always smooth. I also fly the U-2 which is slow
> with very large wings and light wing loading. I get bounced around a lot
> in this aircraft and wind shear, thermals and turbulence have a big
> effect.
>
> The Kitfox has very light wing loading and therefore does not handle
> turbulence particularly well. The large and highly effective control
> surfaces allow us to deal with turbulence well however.
>
> All that being said, wind shear is a very dangerous phenomena that can
> bring down any aircraft. The have been several airline mishaps attributed
> to wind shear and commercial aircraft have procedures for detecting and
> recovering from wind shear conditions. Wind shear is of particular concern
> when it is associated with thunderstorms (microburts) and with terrain
> (mountain wave). The slow speed, low wing loading and limited excess power
> of our aircraft make recovering from a significant wind shear difficult,
> so avoidance of these conditions are critical. A large number of Kitfox
> accidents have occurred while flying at very low altitudes and I'm sure
> many of them have been due to hazardous wind conditions.
>
> Be careful out there and fly safe!
>
> Cheers,
>
> Brian Peck
> Kitfox V, IO-240B
> T-38A, J-79
> U-2S, GE F-118
>
>
> Michel Verheughe
> > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
> >
> >> From: Roger L [yiotta@yahoo.com]
> >> I am not a physicist but I don't understand why you think the light
> >> weight
> >> of the kitfox is a factor in windsheer performance.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
__________________________________
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: Accident Update |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: u2drvr@dslextreme.com
Roger,
I'm currently an active duty AF test pilot for the U-2 and fly the T-38 as
a companion trainer. I am just now finishing up my teaching credential and
am doing student teaching at a local High School. I plan to teach after I
retire from the AF in a couple of years.
Cheers,
BP
Do Not Archive
Roger L
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Roger L <yiotta@yahoo.com>
>
> Brian, That also makes perfect sense, now for the obvious question...
> how does a high school teacher still fly in the U2 and T38, nice job!
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: Accident Update |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Roger L <yiotta@yahoo.com>
Brian,
Well, I would say that is the best endorsement for the kitfox a guy
could ask for.... "currently flown and enjoyed by AF Test Pilot"...
you are making me lean even harder towards the kitfox :)
You have any pics of your kitfox?
Roger L
--- u2drvr@dslextreme.com wrote:
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: u2drvr@dslextreme.com
>
> Roger,
>
> I'm currently an active duty AF test pilot for the U-2 and fly the T-38 as
> a companion trainer. I am just now finishing up my teaching credential and
> am doing student teaching at a local High School. I plan to teach after I
> retire from the AF in a couple of years.
>
> Cheers,
>
> BP
>
> Do Not Archive
>
>
> Roger L
> > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Roger L <yiotta@yahoo.com>
> >
> > Brian, That also makes perfect sense, now for the obvious question...
> > how does a high school teacher still fly in the U2 and T38, nice job!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 23
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Randy Daughenbaugh" <rjdaugh@rapidnet.com>
Just a question: Is N2BH orange?
Or do I have it mixed up with another Fox?
Randy
.
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 crash I have a question .... |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michael Gibbs <MichaelGibbs@cox.net>
Hi Dave,
>Do you think a BRS might have made a difference?
I can only speak to my accident, of course. In this case I think
that things happened so fast that I would not have had the presence
of mind to have pulled the handle before we hit the ground.
Mike G.
N728KF
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: Accident Update |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michael Gibbs <MichaelGibbs@cox.net>
Hi Dave,
>my other 1/2 asked.......
>Did you have shoulder straps?
Yes, we were both wearing the factory standard dual shoulder straps.
Mike G.
N728KF
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: Accident Update |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michael Gibbs <MichaelGibbs@cox.net>
Hi Roger,
>I am not a physicist but I don't understand why you think the light weight
>of the kitfox is a factor in windsheer performance.
>It is my understanding that windsheer is a rapid down draft that would
>effect all flying objects equally, regardless of weight, is this not true.
A windsheer can be oriented in any direction, not just downward. It
is basically a very abrupt change in wind speed or direction. In my
case, I believe it was oriented horizontally, manifesting itself as a
loss of headwind (or an increase in tailwind).
The light weight is a factor because it allows the 'fox to operate at
lower speeds. A 10 knot horizontal windsheer doesn't mean much to a
Piper Cherokee flying at 140 knots, but to a Kitfox flying at 50
knots it could put you below stall speed almost instantly.
Mike G.
N728KF
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: Accident Update |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
u2drvr@dslextreme.com wrote:
> A large number of Kitfox
> accidents have occurred while flying at very low altitudes and I'm sure
> many of them have been due to hazardous wind conditions.
Excellent reading, thanks Brian. Low altitude is a killer. Much like, coast is
a killer for small vessels in bad weather.
Have you seen the movie "The Perfect Storm?" Based on a true story it tells the
storm of the fall 1991 that sank a fishing vessel on the Great Banks. But it
also relates the story of a sailing vessel, with an experienced skipper and two
female crew who wanted to make for the Bermuda as the storm was nearing. "Not
quite so," answered the skipper, "we'll ride the storm at high sea!"
After a B2 knockdown (technical term for the mast going under the water) the
girls sent a mayday and they were all picked up by a US Coast Guard helicopter.
Unfortunately a second helicopter involved in the search didn't made it and was
lost with two USCG pilots killed.
The movie makes the two females the heroes of the action. How unfair! The
skipper's decision to seek high-sea was right. Just like the first of the four
Cs for airmen meeting bad weather is for CLIMB, a sailor seeks a smoother ride
in deep water, not the rock-ridden shallow waters of Bermuda. Furthermore, only
the skipper (correction called the ship Master) can send a distress signal. By
doing so the two females are indirectly responsible for the lost of the two
USCG pilots. Because, a few days later, the sailing boat was still floating and
towed back in harbour by a passing fishing vessel.
(I got the details of the story from Bob Makowsky, a pilot in the USCG.)
The bottom line is: At sea or in the air, when meeting bad weather, stay away
from anything that's hard, like ... earth! And when on earth, in bad weather,
stay away from anything that floats or flies! :-)
Cheers,
Michel
do not archive - smells too much salt water! :-)
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: Kitfox crash I have a question .... |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Aerobatics@aol.com
Wow......
Thats scarey!
This can happen to anyone and wish you the very best..
Dave
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: Heater Install - For John King |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: John King <kingjohne@adelphia.net>
Gary,
I built it myself to fit the radiator of the 912S in my Series 6. I
also built a different one for the radiator scoop of my 912UL in my
Model IV. The below link has four pictures of the one I made for my
Series 6.
<http://www.sportflight.com/cgi-bin/uploader.pl?action=view&epoch=1059091684>
--
John King
Warrenton, VA
kitfoxjunky wrote:
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kitfoxjunky <kitfoxjunky@decisionlabs.com>
>
>Hey John...was that radiator cowl flap something you fabricated, or did
>you purchase it off the shelf?
>
>Gary Walsh
>C-GOOT
>www.decisionlabs.com/kitfox
>
>
>John King <kingjohne@adelphia.net>
>Sent by: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
>09/21/2004 08:19 PM
>Please respond to kitfox-list
>
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> cc:
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Heater Install
>
>
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: John King <kingjohne@adelphia.net>
>
>Floran & George,
>
>I installed a radiator cowl flap controllable from the cockpit which
>ensures that I have adequate engine temperatures and sufficient heat
>available for the cabin heater during the winter seasons.
>
>
>
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: More on the Jabiru |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Jerry Liles <wliles@bayou.com>
Don that's about what I'd expect, and a bit more, from a properly fared
Kitfox II. That should be plenty good enough to keep a Jabiru cool.
Jerry Liles
AlbertaIV@aol.com wrote:
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: AlbertaIV@aol.com
>
>In a message dated 9/21/04 8:19:29 PM Pacific Daylight Time, wliles@bayou.com
>writes:
>
>
>
>
>>I suspect with the Jabiru 2200 you'll get a cruise of at least 80mph
>>even with the long wing. You can help things by fairing the lift struts
>>if not already done and making simple fairings for the drag producing
>>parts. What is your airspeed at 5800 and 6000 rpm with the 582?
>>
>>Jerry Liles
>>
>>
>>
>
>Jerry,
> I haven't been following this thread but I get 85-90 cruise at 6000 RPM
>(long wing). I bought my 582 engine (used) from Amy Laboda (aviation writer).
>The engine was on her Kitfox and she changed it out to a Jab 2200. She
>reported to me a 15 MPH cruise increase with the Jab over the 582.
>Don Smythe
>DO NOT ARCHIVE
>
>
>
>
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: More on the Jabiru |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Jerry Liles <wliles@bayou.com>
Jose, then I suspect you should do just fine with a Jabiru 2200.
Jerry Liles
Jose M. Toro wrote:
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jose M. Toro" <jose_m_toro@yahoo.com>
>
>Jerry: At 6000 rpm it is very close to 80 mph. Struts already has fairings.
>
>Jerry Liles <wliles@bayou.com> wrote:--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Jerry
Liles
>
>I suspect with the Jabiru 2200 you'll get a cruise of at least 80mph
>even with the long wing. You can help things by fairing the lift struts
>if not already done and making simple fairings for the drag producing
>parts. What is your airspeed at 5800 and 6000 rpm with the 582?
>
>Jerry Liles
>
>Jose M. Toro wrote:
>
>
>
>>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jose M. Toro"
>>
>>Hi Again:
>>
>>My research on using a Jabiru 2200 on my Kitfox II shows that it is too slow
to provide proper cooling. Wth the 582, it cruises 65 mph at 5500 rpm. I've been
told that I need a cruise of 80 mph to provided adequate cooling. The only
thing that I could think about to make it faster is to use "Speedster" wings.
I have many questions on this "under evaluation" alternative:
>>
>>Has any of you used Speedster wings on a Kitfox II?
>>What increase in speed could I expect?
>>Would this wing switch change the airplane's gross weight?
>>
>>Thanks for your support!
>>
>>
>>Jose M. Toro, P.E.
>>Kitfox II/582
>>"A slow flight in the Caribbean..."
>>
>>
>>
>>---------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
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: Heater Install - For John King |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: AlbertaIV@aol.com
In a message dated 9/22/04 3:01:20 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
kingjohne@adelphia.net writes:
> I built it myself to fit the radiator of the 912S in my Series 6. I
> also built a different one for the radiator scoop of my 912UL in my
> Model IV. The below link has four pictures of the one I made for my
> Series 6.
>
John,
That is about what I need to finish my cowl mods but don't have time to
build one. I would appreciate if you fabricated one right quick and deliver it
to Newport News by the weekend. That is, if you don't have any other
pressing matters.
Don Smythe
DO NOT ARCHIVE
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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "jdmcbean" <jdmcbean@cableone.net>
Brian,
You are very correct. There are some rules that apply whenever flying
in
mountain or canyon terrain and they should not be broken. One of which is
regarding winds. Believe it or not.. there are those that have flown into a
canyon when there were high winds present and could not break back above the
ridge line...
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
u2drvr@dslextreme.com
Subject: Re: SV: Kitfox-List: Accident Update
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: u2drvr@dslextreme.com
I don't call myself a physicist, but I do have a degree in physics and
teach high school physics; however, the answer has more to do with
aerodynamics. Aircraft with light wing loading (i.e. pounds per square
foot of lift generated) are more susceptible to turbulence and windshear
upset.
I fly the T-38 which is very fast with small wings and has very high wing
loading. In this aircraft, turbulence and wind shear are not a big problem
and the ride is almost always smooth. I also fly the U-2 which is slow
with very large wings and light wing loading. I get bounced around a lot
in this aircraft and wind shear, thermals and turbulence have a big
effect.
The Kitfox has very light wing loading and therefore does not handle
turbulence particularly well. The large and highly effective control
surfaces allow us to deal with turbulence well however.
All that being said, wind shear is a very dangerous phenomena that can
bring down any aircraft. The have been several airline mishaps attributed
to wind shear and commercial aircraft have procedures for detecting and
recovering from wind shear conditions. Wind shear is of particular concern
when it is associated with thunderstorms (microburts) and with terrain
(mountain wave). The slow speed, low wing loading and limited excess power
of our aircraft make recovering from a significant wind shear difficult,
so avoidance of these conditions are critical. A large number of Kitfox
accidents have occurred while flying at very low altitudes and I'm sure
many of them have been due to hazardous wind conditions.
Be careful out there and fly safe!
Cheers,
Brian Peck
Kitfox V, IO-240B
T-38A, J-79
U-2S, GE F-118
Michel Verheughe
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
>
>> From: Roger L [yiotta@yahoo.com]
>> I am not a physicist but I don't understand why you think the light
>> weight
>> of the kitfox is a factor in windsheer performance.
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: | TCP in 582 with AV-2 CPS |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "jdmcbean" <jdmcbean@cableone.net>
Robert,
Regarding the TCP here was the response that I got....
The real solution to this is to know what is causing any fouling of the
plugs or cylinder head.
Two strokes either use oil mixed with the fuel, or use oil injection to
provide lubrication, so if the oil is causing the deposits then TCP will do
nothing to help and if fact may make them worse.
If the deposits are caused by lead, then TCP will help. Auto gas users
should not use TCP.
A cautious approach for someone using leaded fuel might help, if an owner
was willing to experiment. The first step is to look at the plugs, if the
center electrode or body is black and sooty, forget the TCP. If they are
tan in color it might be worth a try.
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 Harris, Robert
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: TCP in 582 with AV-2 CPS
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Harris, Robert"
<Robert_Harris@intuit.com>
Thanks John.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of jdmcbean
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: TCP in 582 with AV-2 CPS
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "jdmcbean" <jdmcbean@cableone.net>
Robert,
I will do some checking.. but I have been told not to use TCP in 2
strokes.
Never did get a good reason....
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 Harris, Robert
Subject: Kitfox-List: TCP in 582 with AV-2 CPS
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Harris, Robert"
<Robert_Harris@intuit.com>
John McBean and others,
Can TCP be used with AV-2? Does AV-2 already have a lead scavenger built
into it?(AV-2 is two cycle oil from California Power supply which is
designed to prevent Carbon build up.) I only use 100LL in my Rotax 582 and
want to minimize the carbon.
Robert
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of jdmcbean
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: 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 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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Ron" <rliebmann@comcast.net>
Hey Bob Robertson and List,
I balanced my GSC prop and accidently repitched it with a slightly bigger
bite than I had on it. As a result my static full throttle RPM is 5910. I
decided to try flying like that and I am really pleased with the results but
I want to know if it is ok to cruise at 5700 RPM. Someone told me that the
582 is better off cruising at 6000RPM. The performance is good and the fuel
flow is at 4GPH. The water temp stays at 180 deg. and the EGT's are easily
kept at 1100/1150 with the Arctic Sparrow in flight mixture adjustments.
The 5700RPM gives me an airspeed of 80mph and 6000 gives 90mph as checked
with my GPS.
What do you think.
Thanks for your input. Ron N55KF
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: 582 cruise RPM |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: aerocon1@telusplanet.net
Hi Ron,
I would guess that the person who told you the engine was better off crusing
at 6G was relating to getting the most hp out of your engine. From a
maintenance/longevity standpoint there is no problem in cruising at the lower
rpm.
We generally use 6250 as a "standard" static rpm set-up. We use that static
rpm because the engine will tend to speed past the static rpm as the prop
unloads in level flight at WOT. I like to see around 6500-6600 rpm at WOT in
level flight. This is where we get the "most" out of the engine. A WOT throttle
setting (in level flight) of 6500 would net us a good cruise around 5800-6000
rpm.
By setting the prop a bit coarser you require a slightly more advanced
throttle setting to get the required rpm. This, under normal conditions,
would result in diminished egt temps and increased fuel useage. You have an
adjustable carb so you can lean out a bit to get the temps up to an acceptable
level. Those without the adjustable carbs might find the egt's a bit low for
their liking.
Now comes the hard part...Lower rpm equals lower power..there is no way around
this. With the coarser prop dragging down the rpm (and hp) you may be creating
a performance problem when the plane is heavily loaded or the air density gets
low.
Overall, from an engine stand point, keep the egt's in line and you should
have no problems. From a flight performance standpoint, you might need to be
cautious when heavily loaded or in low desnity air.
just my 2.5 cents worth.
Bob Robertson
Setting the static rpm lower (
Quoting Ron <rliebmann@comcast.net>:
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Ron" <rliebmann@comcast.net>
>
> Hey Bob Robertson and List,
>
> I balanced my GSC prop and accidently repitched it with a slightly bigger
> bite than I had on it. As a result my static full throttle RPM is 5910. I
> decided to try flying like that and I am really pleased with the results but
> I want to know if it is ok to cruise at 5700 RPM. Someone told me that the
> 582 is better off cruising at 6000RPM. The performance is good and the fuel
> flow is at 4GPH. The water temp stays at 180 deg. and the EGT's are easily
> kept at 1100/1150 with the Arctic Sparrow in flight mixture adjustments.
> The 5700RPM gives me an airspeed of 80mph and 6000 gives 90mph as checked
> with my GPS.
> What do you think.
>
> Thanks for your input. Ron N55KF
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: N2BH IS FLYING! |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bruce Harrington" <aerowood@mcsi.net>
Hi Randy,
You may be thinking of my N194KF, Old Orange, participant at 6 SkyStar
fly-ins.
Cheers, bh
ex-N194KF, 582ed, 800+ hrs
N321SX, Jab 3300ed Sonex, 95.7 hrs
> Just a question: Is N2BH orange?
>
> Or do I have it mixed up with another Fox?
>
> Randy
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: 582 cruise RPM |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Ron" <rliebmann@comcast.net>
Hi Bob,
Thanks much for replying to my post. I gather from what you say that I'm ok
flying as I am. I do see a rate of climb that is about 500fpm less when I
have a passenger on board. Most of the time I fly alone so I am happy with
the performance that I now get. Does the 180 deg. water temp. sound ok? I
am thinking of adding heater core to the cooling system in the form of a
chin radiator to cool things down more if you think that it is a necessity.
What are your thoughts on that? A Rotax guy up at AirVenture said that the
582 is the happiest running at a max temp of 160 deg F.....
I appreciate the help that you give us. Ron
> Hi Ron,
>
> I would guess that the person who told you the engine was better off
crusing
> at 6G was relating to getting the most hp out of your engine. From a
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! --
|