Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 02:03 AM - Re: Kitfox crash (broschart)
2. 04:07 AM - SV: Kitfox crash (Michel Verheughe)
3. 04:30 AM - Re: 582 cruise RPM (AlbertaIV@aol.com)
4. 04:35 AM - Re: 582 cruise RPM (Fox5flyer)
5. 04:51 AM - Re: 582 cruise RPM (AlbertaIV@aol.com)
6. 05:26 AM - Re: SV: Kitfox crash-shoulder straps (Jose M. Toro)
7. 05:45 AM - 912ul vs 912s in a Model IV ()
8. 05:47 AM - Re: 582 cruise RPM (Jose M. Toro)
9. 06:08 AM - SV: SV: Kitfox crash-shoulder straps (Michel Verheughe)
10. 06:27 AM - Re: More on the Jabiru (Jose M. Toro)
11. 06:42 AM - Re: 582 cruise RPM (Don Gantt)
12. 06:53 AM - Re: SV: Kitfox crash (kurt schrader)
13. 06:59 AM - Re: CAP-140 prop settings (kurt schrader)
14. 07:08 AM - Re: VG's - first flight test FYI (kurt schrader)
15. 07:25 AM - Re: Kitfox crash (Lowell Fitt)
16. 07:34 AM - Newbie (Don Gantt)
17. 07:48 AM - Re: 912ul vs 912s in a Model IV (jdmcbean)
18. 07:56 AM - Re: SV: Kitfox crash/belt position (Fred Shiple)
19. 08:06 AM - Re: SV: Kitfox crash (Fred Shiple)
20. 08:11 AM - Re: SV: Kitfox crash/belt position (Roger L)
21. 08:13 AM - Re: SV: Kitfox crash/belt position (fluff) (Fred Shiple)
22. 08:41 AM - Re: Newbie (Randy Daughenbaugh)
23. 08:46 AM - Re: CAP-140 prop settings (Rick)
24. 08:49 AM - Re: Newbie (Rick)
25. 08:54 AM - Re: SV: Kitfox crash/belt position (Rick)
26. 08:55 AM - Re: 582 cruise RPM (Ron)
27. 08:58 AM - Re: Newbie (Mdkitfox@aol.com)
28. 09:01 AM - Re: Newbie (kerrjohna@comcast.net)
29. 09:24 AM - Re: Newbie (Clem Nichols)
30. 09:30 AM - Re: N2BH IS FLYING! (KITFOXPILOT@att.net)
31. 09:35 AM - Re: N2BH IS FLYING! (KITFOXPILOT@att.net)
32. 09:56 AM - Re: Newbie (W Duke)
33. 10:05 AM - Re: N2BH IS FLYING! (Randy Daughenbaugh)
34. 10:07 AM - Re: VG's - first flight test FYI (W Duke)
35. 10:09 AM - Cowl mods Turbo EA-81 (Rick)
36. 10:24 AM - Re: Newbie (Jimmie Blackwell)
37. 10:27 AM - Re: Accident Update (Mdkitfox@aol.com)
38. 10:40 AM - Re: Newbie (W Duke)
39. 10:45 AM - Re: Heater Install - For John King (John King)
40. 11:13 AM - Re: Newbie (jdmcbean)
41. 11:19 AM - Re: SV: Kitfox crash (John King)
42. 11:25 AM - Re: 912ul vs 912s in a Model IV (John King)
43. 11:27 AM - Re: SV: SV: Kitfox crash-shoulder straps (John King)
44. 11:35 AM - Re: SV: Kitfox crash/belt position (Michel Verheughe)
45. 11:40 AM - Belt position and shoulder straps (Michel Verheughe)
46. 12:00 PM - Re: Newbie (Clem Nichols)
47. 12:10 PM - Re: Newbie (John King)
48. 12:20 PM - Re: Cowl mods Turbo EA-81 (NSI AERO)
49. 12:38 PM - Re: Newbie (jdmcbean)
50. 12:39 PM - Re: Newbie (Jose M. Toro)
51. 12:47 PM - Model IV fuel caps (Clem Nichols)
52. 12:47 PM - Re: Newbie (Steve Cooper)
53. 01:13 PM - Re: Newbie (Roger L)
54. 01:15 PM - Re: 912ul vs 912s in a Model IV (Floran Higgins)
55. 01:26 PM - Pre-paint finish (Joel Mapes)
56. 01:40 PM - Re: Newbie (John Bonewitz)
57. 01:53 PM - Re: Pre-paint finish (Mdkitfox@aol.com)
58. 02:10 PM - Re: Engine Monitors? (Mdkitfox@aol.com)
59. 02:20 PM - Re: Model IV fuel caps (neflyer48)
60. 02:55 PM - Re: Kitfox crash Harnessing the harness! (Ceashman@aol.com)
61. 03:38 PM - Re: Pre-paint finish (Steve Cooper)
62. 04:28 PM - Re: 582 cruise RPM (Bruce Harrington)
63. 04:35 PM - Shoulder Belts - was Kitfox crash (Bruce Harrington)
64. 04:48 PM - Re: CAP-140 prop settings (Peter Graichen)
65. 04:55 PM - Re: Pre-paint finish (W Duke)
66. 04:59 PM - Sonex- Low/Slow Kitfox (Harris, Robert)
67. 05:37 PM - Re: Sonex- Low/Slow Kitfox (Dee Young)
68. 05:59 PM - Re: CAP-140 prop settings (Fox5flyer)
69. 06:02 PM - Re: VG's - first flight test FYI (Fox5flyer)
70. 06:18 PM - Re: SV: Kitfox crash (Jerry Liles)
71. 06:25 PM - Re: More on the Jabiru (Jerry Liles)
72. 06:35 PM - Re: More on the Jabiru (AlbertaIV@aol.com)
73. 06:38 PM - Re: Heater Install - For John King (AlbertaIV@aol.com)
74. 06:44 PM - Re: 582 cruise RPM (AlbertaIV@aol.com)
75. 06:51 PM - Re: Model IV fuel caps (Jim Hakes)
76. 06:58 PM - Re: Pre-paint finish (AlbertaIV@aol.com)
77. 07:06 PM - Cure for 912S Carbs Shaking Off? (Grant Fluent)
78. 07:32 PM - Skis (Pete Gow)
79. 07:51 PM - Re: Newbie (jdmcbean)
80. 07:51 PM - Re: Pre-paint finish (jdmcbean)
81. 08:17 PM - Re: Newbie (kurt schrader)
82. 08:59 PM - Re: CAP-140 prop settings (Jeff Smathers)
83. 09:27 PM - Re: CAP-140 prop settings (kurt schrader)
84. 09:38 PM - Re: CAP-140 prop settings (kurt schrader)
85. 09:51 PM - Re: VG's - first flight test FYI (kurt schrader)
86. 10:16 PM - Re: REMOVE (Kirby Cramer)
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: Kitfox crash |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: broschart <cfbflyer@localnet.com>
i had that problem so used the center anchored strap for the left shoulder and
outside one for the right shoulder
Have a good day - Charlie
Lowell Fitt wrote:
> --> 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.
>
> L
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: broschart [cfbflyer@localnet.com]
> i had that problem so used the center anchored strap for the left shoulder and
> outside one for the right shoulder
Good thinking, Charlie! Like Lowell, I also have the problems of falling shoulder
strap. (maybe we are not as broad shouldered as John Wayne! :-)
I solve it by pulling the straps up so that the buckle comes up to the middle of
my chest. But it's a bad idea, I think, because in case of a strong chock, it
is my liver and my spleen that will pay for it. I think the lower belt should
hold the pelvis. Again, I am not a doctor and know nothing about this. I'd appreciate
any opinion from someone who knows about the human body and how best
it absorbs chocks.
Anyway, I think I'll try crossing my shoulder straps, Charlie. Thanks for the tip.
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: | Re: 582 cruise RPM |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: AlbertaIV@aol.com
In a message dated 9/22/04 7:59:56 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
rliebmann@comcast.net writes:
> 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
>
Ron,
I have heard that flying with an overpitched prop is over stressing the
engine. Yes, you get more speed but at the price of lugging the engine.
Again, I have only heard this but seem to remember it coming from someone with
good
knowledge. I think it was Bob R. that made the statement that the 582 loves
6000 RPM's as a cruise setting.
Also, did the overpitched condition cause the coolant temps to run at
180? Were they lower before you did the repitch? 180 is max and I personally
wouldn't want to run day after day at a max condition. If the repitch caused
the temps to go up, that might be an indication that you are in fact
overstressing the engine a bit.
Don Smythe
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: 582 cruise RPM |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Fox5flyer" <morid@northland.lib.mi.us>
Ron, although I sold it a few years ago, I always pitched my 582 and GSC
prop for 5900 static and cruised at 5900 which equated to about 80mph in a
model II. The pitch I used gave me good takeoff performance and great
cruise with excellent economy. Getting the airplane to jump off the ground
in 150 feet is impressive for the crowd, but you suffer in cruise and high
EGTs. A 200 foot takeoff roll was fine for me. I experimented with this
over a 400 hour period and found that it also kept my EGTs lower and much
more stable. Another thing, I always ran my EGTs at 1200 during cruise and
water temp at 180. Everything seemed to work in harmony. At about 350
hours I pulled the head and the bores looked like new. Never had a problem
using those numbers. Then again, my model II was fairly light (520lbs) so
you have to use the numbers that work best for you. Also, pitching and
jetting was something I had to do about three times a year because ambient
air temp has a large effect on it, and here in northeast Michigan we have
wide swings.
I know that some people use "cookie cutter" numbers when flying these
things, but it's my opinion that the numbers are way to conservative. Sure,
you can pitch for 6250 static, but you'll have problems with high EGTs, high
noise, higher engine wear, higher fuel consumption, and low cruise.
Last I heard the engine (early 582 B-box) had over 500 hours on it and doing
fine.
Darrel
Also, you need a handful of various main and idle jets if you live in an
area with wide seasonal temp swings. Frequent plug readings will tell you
when it's time to change.
> --> 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 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: 582 cruise RPM |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: AlbertaIV@aol.com
In a message dated 9/22/04 9:51:10 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
aerocon1@telusplanet.net writes:
> 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.
>
Bob,
Good to hear your voice. I've listened to the 8 million post put out on
this subject and read every page on the internet concerning this.
I put together a simple approach to what I thought it all said. Sorry
for using your name in my last post.
1. Jet for 1100-1150 at full throttle
2. Pitch for 6799 RPM's (as near to 6800) in level flight with full
throttle.
Did I maybe misunderstand that engine longevity could be decreased by
running with an overpitched prop?? Then again, is Ron's prop maybe considered
not really overpitched.
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: Kitfox crash-shoulder straps |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jose M. Toro" <jose_m_toro@yahoo.com>
I think this shoulder strap problem could be fixed by having, for each person,
both sides attached to a single point aligned with the neck.
Jose
Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no> wrote:
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe
> From: broschart [cfbflyer@localnet.com]
> i had that problem so used the center anchored strap for the left shoulder and
> outside one for the right shoulder
Good thinking, Charlie! Like Lowell, I also have the problems of falling shoulder
strap. (maybe we are not as broad shouldered as John Wayne! :-)
I solve it by pulling the straps up so that the buckle comes up to the middle of
my chest. But it's a bad idea, I think, because in case of a strong chock, it
is my liver and my spleen that will pay for it. I think the lower belt should
hold the pelvis. Again, I am not a doctor and know nothing about this. I'd appreciate
any opinion from someone who knows about the human body and how best
it absorbs chocks.
Anyway, I think I'll try crossing my shoulder straps, Charlie. Thanks for the tip.
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 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: | 912ul vs 912s in a Model IV |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: <av8rps@tznet.com>
Question for the group;
Has anyone converted a Kitfox IV from a 912ul to a 912s that can tell me the
real difference in performance? I may an opportunity to upgrade to a 912s
on my IV, but haven't flown it yet. Is going through all that worthwhile?
I've heard the 912ul is a lot less headaches, and therefore more reliable.
Opinions? Can you tell me the performance improvement by number?
Paul S
Model IV-1200 Longwing Speedster 912ul
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: 582 cruise RPM |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jose M. Toro" <jose_m_toro@yahoo.com>
Ron:
The static full power RPM on mine is 6200. At this pitch, the prop is performing
as a climb prop. I typically cruise at 5500 rpm (trying to be gentle on the
engine until I get a Jabiru). At this power setting, cruise is 65 mph. The
engine runs ok at this power setting. The water temp is typically 170 degrees.
On climb it goes to 180 degrees, and on very hot and humid days, has gone
close to 190 degrees. When this happens, the cure is to fly straight and level
for a while...it soon goes back to 180. The EGTs show 1100. I think my fuel
consumption is about 4.5 gal per hour.
Ron <rliebmann@comcast.net> wrote:
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Ron"
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
Jose M. Toro, P.E.
Kitfox II/582
"A slow flight in the Caribbean..."
---------------------------------
vote.yahoo.com - Register online to vote today!
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: | Kitfox crash-shoulder straps |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
> From: Jose M. Toro [jose_m_toro@yahoo.com]
> I think this shoulder strap problem could be fixed by having, for each person,
both
> sides attached to a single point aligned with the neck.
Good idea too but it would require to weld a new attachment point that has twice
the strenght of the existing ones.
Cheers,
Michel
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: More on the Jabiru |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jose M. Toro" <jose_m_toro@yahoo.com>
Jerry:
It looks like, if I want to try the Jabiru, I will need to "byte the bullet".
If I don't get an appropriate speed with the Jabiru and the current configuration,
I will need to do some modifications to reduce drag. The major of the modification
could be to use short, speedster wings. Another suggestion I received
was to increase the slant of the windshield, like in the Kitfox IV. I could
also use wheelpants.
Jose
Jerry Liles <wliles@bayou.com> wrote:
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Jerry Liles
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"
>
>Jerry: At 6000 rpm it is very close to 80 mph. Struts already has fairings.
>
>Jerry Liles 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..."
---------------------------------
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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Don Gantt" <DGantt@millionairdallas.com>
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jose M.
Toro
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 582 cruise RPM
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jose M. Toro"
--> <jose_m_toro@yahoo.com>
Ron:
The static full power RPM on mine is 6200. At this pitch, the prop is
performing as a climb prop. I typically cruise at 5500 rpm (trying to
be gentle on the engine until I get a Jabiru). At this power setting,
cruise is 65 mph. The engine runs ok at this power setting. The water
temp is typically 170 degrees. On climb it goes to 180 degrees, and on
very hot and humid days, has gone close to 190 degrees. When this
happens, the cure is to fly straight and level for a while...it soon
goes back to 180. The EGTs show 1100. I think my fuel consumption is
about 4.5 gal per hour.
Ron <rliebmann@comcast.net> wrote:
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Ron"
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
Jose M. Toro, P.E.
Kitfox II/582
"A slow flight in the Caribbean..."
---------------------------------
vote.yahoo.com - Register online to vote today!
==
direct advertising on the Matronics Forums.
==
==
==
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 crash |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
Michel,
In accident investigations we find that people with
raised or lose belts are dragged under their belts by
the impact force on their legs and lower body. This
just about breaks everything above the belt as you
slide out under it. It is really bad when the neck
reaches the buckle.
You need the belt low across your hips and tight.
Then you fold around it if you crash. The upper
harness then has the job of keeping you upright and
not letting you get thrown forward.
You need to come up with a different way of keeping
the shoulder harness on and aligned. To work, it
should also be as tight as you can keep it and still
reach everything. Perhaps a center web above the
buckle pulling the straps together might help. Some
cars use them. But it has to be strong so that it
doesn't pop open on impact and release the shoulder
belts just when you need them.
Kurt S. S-5/NSI turbo
--- Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no> wrote:
> Good thinking, Charlie! Like Lowell, I also have the
> problems of falling shoulder strap. (maybe we are
> not as broad shouldered as John Wayne! :-)
> I solve it by pulling the straps up so that the
> buckle comes up to the middle of my chest. But it's
> a bad idea, I think, because in case of a strong
> chock, it is my liver and my spleen that will pay
> for it. I think the lower belt should hold the
> pelvis. Again, I am not a doctor and know nothing
> about this. I'd appreciate any opinion from someone
> who knows about the human body and how best it
> absorbs chocks.
>
> Anyway, I think I'll try crossing my shoulder
> straps, Charlie. Thanks for the tip.
>
> Cheers,
> Michel
_______________________________
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.com
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: CAP-140 prop settings |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
Just a question for CAP-140 or other in-flight
adjustable prop users.
How do you set your prop pitch for landing and for
doing practice stalls?
I find that I drag the engine down too low in RPM at
idle, or float a lot, if I leave the prop set for go
around and stall recovery. If I set the pitch low
enough for no thrust, I have to be slow on go around
or stall recovery while I readjust the prop and power
together.
Any hints?
Kurt S. S-5/NSI turbo w/CAP-140
__________________________________
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: VG's - first flight test FYI |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
I installed 60 new VG's yesterday and test flew them.
I made a comparison flight before hand and did both
tests at about 1300# in the center of the CG range.
Test weights were within 12 # of each other, but the
OAT was higher on the second flight.
Results: My high speeds were lower by 2 knots and my
stalls were higher by a few knots too. :-(
The good news is that my stalls were much more a mush
and controllable throughout. Even having the ball far
off center was still safe. The nose bobbed
considerably on the no flap stall with ASI going up
and down around 5 knots in the mid 40's.
More testing to be done today and tomorrow with more
VG's (I have 104 provided) and different positions.
Kurt S. S-5/NSI turbo w/CAP-140
_______________________________
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.com
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 crash |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@inreach.com>
Michael, I made a cross strap that is secured with Velcro that holds the
shoulder harness across my chest. My only concern with it is the
possibility of not being able to undo it quickly enough in the event of a
fiery crash. Until Charlie's post, I didn't consider putting the cross
strap behind my head.
It has been my understanding that the lap belt should be tightly across the
pelvis to avoid the injuries you suggest.
Lowell
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michel Verheughe" <michel@online.no>
Subject: SV: Kitfox-List: Kitfox crash
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
>
> > From: broschart [cfbflyer@localnet.com]
> > i had that problem so used the center anchored strap for the left
shoulder and
> > outside one for the right shoulder
>
> Good thinking, Charlie! Like Lowell, I also have the problems of falling
shoulder strap. (maybe we are not as broad shouldered as John Wayne! :-)
> I solve it by pulling the straps up so that the buckle comes up to the
middle of my chest. But it's a bad idea, I think, because in case of a
strong chock, it is my liver and my spleen that will pay for it. I think the
lower belt should hold the pelvis. Again, I am not a doctor and know nothing
about this. I'd appreciate any opinion from someone who knows about the
human body and how best it absorbs chocks.
>
> Anyway, I think I'll try crossing my shoulder straps, Charlie. Thanks for
the tip.
>
> Cheers,
> Michel
>
>
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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Don Gantt" <DGantt@millionairdallas.com>
This one's basic guys, so I hope it's not a time-waster and blog-waster
for everybody: I'm getting ready to pull-the-trigger on a pre-owned
Kitfox (not selected yet.) Naturally there's a million questions, but
here's the basic one: Can anybody tell me the "real" practical
operational differences between the Model-IV and Model-V airframes, as
well people's "experienced" differences between the 912UL and 912S
engines? (which reflects a previous question here, and responses for
which I'll be looking.) Should I expect to pay more for a "V" with a
"912S"? Should I really care about any of these differences? (as I'm
just going to be doing "local" flying.) Thanks so much guys (and gals.)
I'm trying to keep from doing something stupid. Help.
Don Gantt
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: | 912ul vs 912s in a Model IV |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "jdmcbean" <jdmcbean@cableone.net>
By the numbers... it is a 25% increase in HP. I think the 912UL and 912ULS
are great engines. The UL will burn less fuel and still give you great
performance (3 GPH vs 5 gph). The cost difference between the two is small
in regards to HP. As far as reliability... I don't feel one is anymore
reliable then the other.. The S has higher compression therefore the starts
and stops are a little harder.. which created some issues.. but the slipper
clutch has helped that. Is going through all what ? worth it. Only you
know what it is going to cost you. IMHO, if the cost is what I felt
reasonable then I absolutely think it is worthwhile.
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 av8rps@tznet.com
Subject: Kitfox-List: 912ul vs 912s in a Model IV
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: <av8rps@tznet.com>
Question for the group;
Has anyone converted a Kitfox IV from a 912ul to a 912s that can tell me the
real difference in performance? I may an opportunity to upgrade to a 912s
on my IV, but haven't flown it yet. Is going through all that worthwhile?
I've heard the 912ul is a lot less headaches, and therefore more reliable.
Opinions? Can you tell me the performance improvement by number?
Paul S
Model IV-1200 Longwing Speedster 912ul
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: Kitfox crash/belt position |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Fred Shiple <fredshiple@sbcglobal.net>
Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no> wrote:--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel
Verheughe
> From: broschart [cfbflyer@localnet.com]
> i had that problem so used the center anchored strap for the left shoulder and
> outside one for the right shoulder
Good thinking, Charlie! Like Lowell, I also have the problems of falling shoulder
strap. (maybe we are not as broad shouldered as John Wayne! :-)
I solve it by pulling the straps up so that the buckle comes up to the middle of
my chest. But it's a bad idea, I think, because in case of a strong chock, it
is my liver and my spleen that will pay for it. I think the lower belt should
hold the pelvis. Again, I am not a doctor and know nothing about this. I'd appreciate
any opinion from someone who knows about the human body and how best
it absorbs chocks.
Anyway, I think I'll try crossing my shoulder straps, Charlie. Thanks for the tip.
Cheers,
Michel
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: Kitfox crash |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Fred Shiple <fredshiple@sbcglobal.net>
Michel,
The belt should be positioned over the pelvic prominences you can feel just to
the front of the hips. The pelvis is much better suited to absorb impacts. Allowing
the belt to ride up exposes the abdominal soft tissues to significant injury
(liver/spleen ruptures, severe vascular damage and more). Keep the belt low
over the pelvis. We see too much preventable trauma in the E.R. due to misused
seat belts.
Fred
Good thinking, Charlie! Like Lowell, I also have the problems of falling shoulder
strap.
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: Kitfox crash/belt position |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Roger L <yiotta@yahoo.com>
OK, call me nieve, but why dont you just install some nice 4-5 point auto racing
harnesses? You can still set them loose enough to easily reach your controls.
Roger L
--- Fred Shiple <fredshiple@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Fred Shiple <fredshiple@sbcglobal.net>
>
>
> Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no> wrote:--> Kitfox-List message posted by:
Michel
> Verheughe
>
> > From: broschart [cfbflyer@localnet.com]
> > i had that problem so used the center anchored strap for the left shoulder
and
> > outside one for the right shoulder
>
> Good thinking, Charlie! Like Lowell, I also have the problems of falling shoulder
> strap. (maybe we are not as broad shouldered as John Wayne! :-)
> I solve it by pulling the straps up so that the buckle comes up to the middle
of my
> chest. But it's a bad idea, I think, because in case of a strong chock, it is
my liver
> and my spleen that will pay for it. I think the lower belt should hold the pelvis.
> Again, I am not a doctor and know nothing about this. I'd appreciate any opinion
from
> someone who knows about the human body and how best it absorbs chocks.
>
> Anyway, I think I'll try crossing my shoulder straps, Charlie. Thanks for the
tip.
>
> Cheers,
> Michel
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
_______________________________
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.com
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: Kitfox crash/belt position (fluff) |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Fred Shiple <fredshiple@sbcglobal.net>
Sorry for the double reply. Some of us should not be allowed near a key board.
Fred
do not archive
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: "Randy Daughenbaugh" <rjdaugh@rapidnet.com>
Don,
I will address just one difference. I am 6' 5" and don't fit in a Model IV.
The Series 5 fits well.
So, if you are tall......
OK, one more. I fly from a strip at 4400'. At this altitude the 912S puts
out about 82 hp. - So is about equivalent to a 912 at sea level.
Randy Series 5/7 912S
.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Don Gantt
Subject: Kitfox-List: Newbie
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Don Gantt" <DGantt@millionairdallas.com>
This one's basic guys, so I hope it's not a time-waster and blog-waster
for everybody: I'm getting ready to pull-the-trigger on a pre-owned
Kitfox (not selected yet.) Naturally there's a million questions, but
here's the basic one: Can anybody tell me the "real" practical
operational differences between the Model-IV and Model-V airframes, as
well people's "experienced" differences between the 912UL and 912S
engines? (which reflects a previous question here, and responses for
which I'll be looking.) Should I expect to pay more for a "V" with a
"912S"? Should I really care about any of these differences? (as I'm
just going to be doing "local" flying.) Thanks so much guys (and gals.)
I'm trying to keep from doing something stupid. Help.
Don Gantt
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: | CAP-140 prop settings |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Rick" <turboflyer@comcast.net>
Kurt,
I always set for go around/take off. The trick is to have your approach
speed stabilized at 65 too 70 mph depending on your comfort level, and of
course add headwind to the above. I know you can float if there is a
considerable head wind but I find it safer where I fly with long runways.
You can play it closer to stall speed depending on the headwind or crosswind
component but it can be a problem.
You might try a new approach. Come in hot, get close and go beta and add
power.....lots of fun, continue to add power and then be prepared for all
the question on how you installed that turbine in a kitfox. :) I have about
500 hours in mine. Maybe others will have a different approach.
Rick
-----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: CAP-140 prop settings
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader
<smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
Just a question for CAP-140 or other in-flight
adjustable prop users.
How do you set your prop pitch for landing and for
doing practice stalls?
I find that I drag the engine down too low in RPM at
idle, or float a lot, if I leave the prop set for go
around and stall recovery. If I set the pitch low
enough for no thrust, I have to be slow on go around
or stall recovery while I readjust the prop and power
together.
Any hints?
Kurt S. S-5/NSI turbo w/CAP-140
__________________________________
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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Rick" <turboflyer@comcast.net>
Go with a model 6 or 7 for the added gross weight. The more power the
better, you can alway pull the power back. But you cant use what you dont
have.
Rick
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Randy
Daughenbaugh
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Newbie
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Randy Daughenbaugh"
<rjdaugh@rapidnet.com>
Don,
I will address just one difference. I am 6' 5" and don't fit in a Model IV.
The Series 5 fits well.
So, if you are tall......
OK, one more. I fly from a strip at 4400'. At this altitude the 912S puts
out about 82 hp. - So is about equivalent to a 912 at sea level.
Randy Series 5/7 912S
.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Don Gantt
Subject: Kitfox-List: Newbie
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Don Gantt" <DGantt@millionairdallas.com>
This one's basic guys, so I hope it's not a time-waster and blog-waster
for everybody: I'm getting ready to pull-the-trigger on a pre-owned
Kitfox (not selected yet.) Naturally there's a million questions, but
here's the basic one: Can anybody tell me the "real" practical
operational differences between the Model-IV and Model-V airframes, as
well people's "experienced" differences between the 912UL and 912S
engines? (which reflects a previous question here, and responses for
which I'll be looking.) Should I expect to pay more for a "V" with a
"912S"? Should I really care about any of these differences? (as I'm
just going to be doing "local" flying.) Thanks so much guys (and gals.)
I'm trying to keep from doing something stupid. Help.
Don Gantt
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: | Kitfox crash/belt position |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Rick" <turboflyer@comcast.net>
For all on this topic. I have called AMSAFE and waiting a call back
reference seatbelt air bags. This was discussed some time ago and looks like
we need to take a closer look. Nice inertia real chest strap and airbag in
the seatbelt. Looks like a fairly simple install. Now if we can get it,
that's another thing.
Rick
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Roger L
Subject: Re: SV: Kitfox-List: Kitfox crash/belt position
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Roger L <yiotta@yahoo.com>
OK, call me nieve, but why dont you just install some nice 4-5 point auto
racing
harnesses? You can still set them loose enough to easily reach your
controls.
Roger L
--- Fred Shiple <fredshiple@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Fred Shiple <fredshiple@sbcglobal.net>
>
>
> Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no> wrote:--> Kitfox-List message posted
by: Michel
> Verheughe
>
> > From: broschart [cfbflyer@localnet.com]
> > i had that problem so used the center anchored strap for the left
shoulder and
> > outside one for the right shoulder
>
> Good thinking, Charlie! Like Lowell, I also have the problems of falling
shoulder
> strap. (maybe we are not as broad shouldered as John Wayne! :-)
> I solve it by pulling the straps up so that the buckle comes up to the
middle of my
> chest. But it's a bad idea, I think, because in case of a strong chock, it
is my liver
> and my spleen that will pay for it. I think the lower belt should hold the
pelvis.
> Again, I am not a doctor and know nothing about this. I'd appreciate any
opinion from
> someone who knows about the human body and how best it absorbs chocks.
>
> Anyway, I think I'll try crossing my shoulder straps, Charlie. Thanks for
the tip.
>
> Cheers,
> Michel
>
>
_______________________________
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.com
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: 582 cruise RPM |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Ron" <rliebmann@comcast.net>
Hi Bob Robertson,
Two particular questions here. Should I attempt to lower my water temp
from the 180 deg that it maintains? Is 1150/1200 deg. good as far as the
EGT's go?
Thanks again, Ron Model 2/582
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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Mdkitfox@aol.com
Don,
I think the question you ask is a tough one to answer since both airframes
are excellent and the choices are basically personal ones. The Model V is
quite a bit larger than the IV, so if you need the increased size for personal
comfort or other reasons, then the V is the way to go. If a smaller aircraft
meets your needs the IV will work just fine. Both aircraft are designed for
great utility and not necessarily for speed. The V also has more amenities
and better systems design (IMHO).
The engine choice really depends on where you live, want to go, and what you
want from the aircraft. They're both excellent engines. If flat terrain
and medium to low altitudes are where you are going to operate then maybe the
912 is fine. If you want better climb and speed then go with the 912S. From
what I hear and have seen, the 912 performs just fine on both aircraft, with
the IV going faster and climbing better, The 912S seems better suited for the
V. Everyone I talk to recommends the slipper clutch mod and heavy duty
starter upgrade for the 912S (about $770). ( I just did the change.)
There are folks on this list who should jump in as they are expert on the
prop combinations available for the 912/912S and this decision can greatly
affect the performance. I will be using the Warp Drive tapered, fixed pitch prop.
One last thought. I know you seem locked into the 912 engines, but if you
look at all available preowned Foxes, you may find a good or even better buy,
but without the Rotax. I think Danny Melnick's aircraft is an awesome
machine and it still may be on the market -- it's worth a look! (I have no
financial interest in this recommendation. I've seen his plane and the workmanship
is outstanding.)
I think you're in a great position, whatever choice you make, you won't be
disappointed.
Rick Weiss
Series V Speedster, 912S, SkyStar Serial Number 1
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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kerrjohna@comcast.net
ULS 100 hp
UL 80 hp
IV 1200 #gross
V 1500 #gross
Ergo, same wt/hp relationship
John Kerr
-------------- Original message --------------
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Rick"
>
> Go with a model 6 or 7 for the added gross weight. The more power the
> better, you can alway pull the power back. But you cant use what you dont
> have.
>
> Rick
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Randy
> Daughenbaugh
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Newbie
>
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Randy Daughenbaugh"
>
>
> Don,
> I will address just one difference. I am 6' 5" and don't fit in a Model IV.
> The Series 5 fits well.
>
> So, if you are tall......
>
> OK, one more. I fly from a strip at 4400'. At this altitude the 912S puts
> out about 82 hp. - So is about equivalent to a 912 at sea level.
>
> Randy Series 5/7 912S
>
> .
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Don Gantt
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Kitfox-List: Newbie
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Don Gantt"
>
> This one's basic guys, so I hope it's not a time-waster and blog-waster
> for everybody: I'm getting ready to pull-the-trigger on a pre-owned
> Kitfox (not selected yet.) Naturally there's a million questions, but
> here's the basic one: Can anybody tell me the "real" practical
> operational differences between the Model-IV and Model-V airframes, as
> well people's "experienced" differences between the 912UL and 912S
> engines? (which reflects a previous question here, and responses for
> which I'll be looking.) Should I expect to pay more for a "V" with a
> "912S"? Should I really care about any of these differences? (as I'm
> just going to be doing "local" flying.) Thanks so much guys (and gals.)
> I'm trying to keep from doing something stupid. Help.
>
> Don Gantt
>
>
>
>
>
>
ULS 100 hp
UL 80 hp
IV 1200 #gross
V 1500 #gross
Ergo, same wt/hp relationship
John Kerr
-------------- Original message --------------
-- Kitfox-List message posted by: "Rick" <TURBOFLYER@COMCAST.NET>
Go with a model 6 or 7 for the added gross weight. The more power the
better, you can alway pull the power back. But you cant use what you dont
have.
Rick
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Randy
Daughenbaugh
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Newbie
-- Kitfox-List message posted by: "Randy Daughenbaugh"
<RJDAUGH@RAPIDNET.COM>
Don,
I will address just one difference. I am 6' 5" and don't fit in a Model IV.
The Series 5 fits well.
So, if you
are tall......
OK, one more. I fly from a strip at 4400'. At this altitude the 912S puts
out about 82 hp. - So is about equivalent to a 912 at sea level.
Randy Series 5/7 912S
.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Don Gantt
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Subject: Kitfox-List: Newbie
-- Kitfox-List message posted by: "Don Gantt" <DGANTT@MILLIONAIRDALLAS.COM>
This one's basic guys, so I hope it's not a time-waster and blog-waster
for everybody: I'm getting ready to pull-the-trigger on a pre-owned
Kitfox (not selected yet.) Naturally there's a million questions, but
here's the basic one: Can anybody tell me the "real" practical
operational differences between the Model-IV and Model-V ai
rframes, as
well people's "experienced" differences between the 912UL and 912S
engines? (which reflects a previous question here, and responses for
which I'll be looking.) Should I expect to pay more for a "V" with a
"912S"? Should I really care about any of these differences? (as I'm
just going to be doing "local" flying.) Thanks so much guys (and gals.)
I'm trying to keep from doing something stupid. Help.
Don Gantt
http://www.matronics.com/chat
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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clem Nichols" <cnichols@scrtc.com>
Don:
One very important consideration...do you plan on flying the plane with a
private pilot ticket or under the new Sport Pilot regs? The IV qualifies
under the new regs. The V does not.
----- Original Message -----
From: <Mdkitfox@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Newbie
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Mdkitfox@aol.com
>
> Don,
>
> I think the question you ask is a tough one to answer since both airframes
> are excellent and the choices are basically personal ones. The Model V is
> quite a bit larger than the IV, so if you need the increased size for
> personal
> comfort or other reasons, then the V is the way to go. If a smaller
> aircraft
> meets your needs the IV will work just fine. Both aircraft are designed
> for
> great utility and not necessarily for speed. The V also has more
> amenities
> and better systems design (IMHO).
>
> The engine choice really depends on where you live, want to go, and what
> you
> want from the aircraft. They're both excellent engines. If flat terrain
> and medium to low altitudes are where you are going to operate then maybe
> the
> 912 is fine. If you want better climb and speed then go with the 912S.
> From
> what I hear and have seen, the 912 performs just fine on both aircraft,
> with
> the IV going faster and climbing better, The 912S seems better suited for
> the
> V. Everyone I talk to recommends the slipper clutch mod and heavy duty
> starter upgrade for the 912S (about $770). ( I just did the change.)
>
> There are folks on this list who should jump in as they are expert on the
> prop combinations available for the 912/912S and this decision can greatly
> affect the performance. I will be using the Warp Drive tapered, fixed
> pitch prop.
>
> One last thought. I know you seem locked into the 912 engines, but if
> you
> look at all available preowned Foxes, you may find a good or even better
> buy,
> but without the Rotax. I think Danny Melnick's aircraft is an awesome
> machine and it still may be on the market -- it's worth a look! (I have
> no
> financial interest in this recommendation. I've seen his plane and the
> workmanship
> is outstanding.)
>
> I think you're in a great position, whatever choice you make, you won't
> be
> disappointed.
>
> Rick Weiss
> Series V Speedster, 912S, SkyStar Serial Number 1
>
>
>
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: N2BH IS FLYING! |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: KITFOXPILOT@att.net
-------------- Original message from "Bruce Harrington" : --------------
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bruce Harrington"
>
> 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
> Mine is yellow with red and blue burst on the wings! 912S speedster options
grove gear and full IFR set upincluding two GPS
Ray
>
>
>
>
>
<!-- BEGIN WEBMAIL STATIONERY -->
<style type='text/css'>
p {
margin: 0px;
}
</style>
<!-- WEBMAIL STATIONERY noneset -->
-------------- Original message from "Bruce Harrington" <AEROWOOD@MCSI.NET>: --------------
-- 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
Mine is yellow with red and blue burst on the wings! 912S speedster options grove
gear and full IFR set upincluding two GPS
Ray
http://www.matronics.com/digest/kitfox-list
<!-- END WEBMAIL STATIONERY -->
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: N2BH IS FLYING! |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: KITFOXPILOT@att.net
-------------- Original message from "Steve Cooper" : --------------
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Steve Cooper"
>
> ...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
> Yea, built by another builder and had a minor mishap! I did all required repairs
as well as updates to weld mount, exhaust and gearbox and starter upgrade!
I will post photo's soon!
Ray, N2BH
Model IV 1200, speedster option
912S
---- Original Message -----
> From:
> To:
> 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
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -------------- 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > e Matronics Forums.
> > cs.com/emaillists
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
<!-- 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>
...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
Yea, built by another builder and had a minor mishap! I did all required repairs
as well as updates to weld mount, exhaust and gearbox and starter upgrade!
I will post photo's soon!
Ray, N2BH
Model IV 1200, speedster option
912S
---- Original Message -----
From: <KITFOXPILOT@ATT.NET>
To: <KITFOX-LIST@MATRONICS.COM>
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
&g
t;
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 -->
ox-List Email Forum -
ves: http://www.matronics.com/archives
<!-- END WEBMAIL STATIONERY -->
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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: W Duke <n981ms@yahoo.com>
Don,
I think you will find everyone loves their airplane especially if they built
it. I like mine too. I cannot compare as I have never been in a Model IV or
flown behind a Rotax.
I also agree with Rick. At least look at the Melnick's plane. I flew it and
subsequently tried to build one just like it. It is a great airplane at a great
price.
Maxwell
S6 TD/IO 240
Mdkitfox@aol.com wrote:
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Mdkitfox@aol.com
Don,
I think the question you ask is a tough one to answer since both airframes
are excellent and the choices are basically personal ones. The Model V is
quite a bit larger than the IV, so if you need the increased size for personal
comfort or other reasons, then the V is the way to go. If a smaller aircraft
meets your needs the IV will work just fine. Both aircraft are designed for
great utility and not necessarily for speed. The V also has more amenities
and better systems design (IMHO).
The engine choice really depends on where you live, want to go, and what you
want from the aircraft. They're both excellent engines. If flat terrain
and medium to low altitudes are where you are going to operate then maybe the
912 is fine. If you want better climb and speed then go with the 912S. From
what I hear and have seen, the 912 performs just fine on both aircraft, with
the IV going faster and climbing better, The 912S seems better suited for the
V. Everyone I talk to recommends the slipper clutch mod and heavy duty
starter upgrade for the 912S (about $770). ( I just did the change.)
There are folks on this list who should jump in as they are expert on the
prop combinations available for the 912/912S and this decision can greatly
affect the performance. I will be using the Warp Drive tapered, fixed pitch prop.
One last thought. I know you seem locked into the 912 engines, but if you
look at all available preowned Foxes, you may find a good or even better buy,
but without the Rotax. I think Danny Melnick's aircraft is an awesome
machine and it still may be on the market -- it's worth a look! (I have no
financial interest in this recommendation. I've seen his plane and the workmanship
is outstanding.)
I think you're in a great position, whatever choice you make, you won't be
disappointed.
Rick Weiss
Series V Speedster, 912S, SkyStar Serial Number 1
---------------------------------
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: "Randy Daughenbaugh" <rjdaugh@rapidnet.com>
Yup. I thought this might be Bruce's Old Orange based on the N number -
with a new engine.
Looking forward to seeing your pictures Ray.
Randy
.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
KITFOXPILOT@att.net
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: N2BH IS FLYING!
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: KITFOXPILOT@att.net
-------------- Original message from "Bruce Harrington" : --------------
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bruce Harrington"
>
> 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
> Mine is yellow with red and blue burst on the wings! 912S speedster
options grove gear and full IFR set upincluding two GPS
Ray
>
>
>
>
>
<!-- BEGIN WEBMAIL STATIONERY -->
<style type='text/css'>
p {
margin: 0px;
}
</style>
<!-- WEBMAIL STATIONERY noneset -->
-------------- Original message from "Bruce Harrington" <AEROWOOD@MCSI.NET>:
--------------
-- 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
Mine is yellow with red and blue burst on the wings! 912S speedster options
grove gear and full IFR set upincluding two GPS
Ray
http://www.matronics.com/digest/kitfox-list
<!-- END WEBMAIL STATIONERY -->
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: | Re: VG's - first flight test FYI |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: W Duke <n981ms@yahoo.com>
I love VG information. Keep it coming. I am disappointed and surprised in your
first results. I feel sure they will improve. Every posting previously with
regard to VGs have been lower stall speeds and little to no effect on cruise.
The more positive results I hear the closer I get to joining the VG crowd.
Maxwell
S6 TD/IO 240
kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com> wrote:
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader
I installed 60 new VG's yesterday and test flew them.
I made a comparison flight before hand and did both
tests at about 1300# in the center of the CG range.
Test weights were within 12 # of each other, but the
OAT was higher on the second flight.
Results: My high speeds were lower by 2 knots and my
stalls were higher by a few knots too. :-(
The good news is that my stalls were much more a mush
and controllable throughout. Even having the ball far
off center was still safe. The nose bobbed
considerably on the no flap stall with ASI going up
and down around 5 knots in the mid 40's.
More testing to be done today and tomorrow with more
VG's (I have 104 provided) and different positions.
Kurt S. S-5/NSI turbo w/CAP-140
_______________________________
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.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: | Cowl mods Turbo EA-81 |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Rick" <turboflyer@comcast.net>
Is Bill Ray still around. I was hoping to see how the mods mad have worked
out.
Rick
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of
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"
>
> ...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
> Yea, built by another builder and had a minor mishap! I did all required
repairs as well as updates to weld mount, exhaust and gearbox and starter
upgrade! I will post photo's soon!
Ray, N2BH
Model IV 1200, speedster option
912S
---- Original Message -----
> From:
> To:
> 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
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -------------- 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > e Matronics Forums.
> > cs.com/emaillists
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
<!-- 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>
...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
Yea, built by another builder and had a minor mishap! I did all required
repairs as well as updates to weld mount, exhaust and gearbox and starter
upgrade! I will post photo's soon!
Ray, N2BH
Model IV 1200, speedster option
912S
---- Original Message -----
From: <KITFOXPILOT@ATT.NET>
To: <KITFOX-LIST@MATRONICS.COM>
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
&g
t;
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 -->
ox-List Email Forum -
ves: http://www.matronics.com/archives
<!-- END WEBMAIL STATIONERY -->
Message 36
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jimmie Blackwell" <jablackwell@ev1.net>
What model is the Melnick plane.
Thanks
Jimmie
----- Original Message -----
From: "W Duke" <n981ms@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Newbie
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: W Duke <n981ms@yahoo.com>
>
> Don,
> I think you will find everyone loves their airplane especially if they
built it. I like mine too. I cannot compare as I have never been in a
Model IV or flown behind a Rotax.
> I also agree with Rick. At least look at the Melnick's plane. I flew
it and subsequently tried to build one just like it. It is a great airplane
at a great price.
>
> Maxwell
> S6 TD/IO 240
>
> Mdkitfox@aol.com wrote:
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Mdkitfox@aol.com
>
> Don,
>
> I think the question you ask is a tough one to answer since both airframes
> are excellent and the choices are basically personal ones. The Model V is
> quite a bit larger than the IV, so if you need the increased size for
personal
> comfort or other reasons, then the V is the way to go. If a smaller
aircraft
> meets your needs the IV will work just fine. Both aircraft are designed
for
> great utility and not necessarily for speed. The V also has more amenities
> and better systems design (IMHO).
>
> The engine choice really depends on where you live, want to go, and what
you
> want from the aircraft. They're both excellent engines. If flat terrain
> and medium to low altitudes are where you are going to operate then maybe
the
> 912 is fine. If you want better climb and speed then go with the 912S.
From
> what I hear and have seen, the 912 performs just fine on both aircraft,
with
> the IV going faster and climbing better, The 912S seems better suited for
the
> V. Everyone I talk to recommends the slipper clutch mod and heavy duty
> starter upgrade for the 912S (about $770). ( I just did the change.)
>
> There are folks on this list who should jump in as they are expert on the
> prop combinations available for the 912/912S and this decision can greatly
> affect the performance. I will be using the Warp Drive tapered, fixed
pitch prop.
>
> One last thought. I know you seem locked into the 912 engines, but if you
> look at all available preowned Foxes, you may find a good or even better
buy,
> but without the Rotax. I think Danny Melnick's aircraft is an awesome
> machine and it still may be on the market -- it's worth a look! (I have no
> financial interest in this recommendation. I've seen his plane and the
workmanship
> is outstanding.)
>
> I think you're in a great position, whatever choice you make, you won't be
> disappointed.
>
> Rick Weiss
> Series V Speedster, 912S, SkyStar Serial Number 1
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
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: Accident Update |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Mdkitfox@aol.com
In a message dated 9/22/2004 12:45:10 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
MichaelGibbs@cox.net writes:
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.
Michael,
I just got back to reading emails recently and was shocked and saddened to
hear of your accident. I am pleased to hear you are on the road to recovery.
No matter how painful the loss of the aircraft, the fact that you are around
and can possibly even build another Fox is really the most important factor.
Get well quick!
Rick Weiss
Series V Speedster, 912S, SkyStar Serial Number 1
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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: W Duke <n981ms@yahoo.com>
The Melnick's is a V with an IO 240. You can see it at http://www.aero-kids.com/kitfox.htm
Maxwell
Jimmie Blackwell <jablackwell@ev1.net> wrote:
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jimmie Blackwell"
What model is the Melnick plane.
Thanks
Jimmie
----- Original Message -----
From: "W Duke"
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Newbie
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: W Duke
>
> Don,
> I think you will find everyone loves their airplane especially if they
built it. I like mine too. I cannot compare as I have never been in a
Model IV or flown behind a Rotax.
> I also agree with Rick. At least look at the Melnick's plane. I flew
it and subsequently tried to build one just like it. It is a great airplane
at a great price.
>
> Maxwell
> S6 TD/IO 240
>
> Mdkitfox@aol.com wrote:
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Mdkitfox@aol.com
>
> Don,
>
> I think the question you ask is a tough one to answer since both airframes
> are excellent and the choices are basically personal ones. The Model V is
> quite a bit larger than the IV, so if you need the increased size for
personal
> comfort or other reasons, then the V is the way to go. If a smaller
aircraft
> meets your needs the IV will work just fine. Both aircraft are designed
for
> great utility and not necessarily for speed. The V also has more amenities
> and better systems design (IMHO).
>
> The engine choice really depends on where you live, want to go, and what
you
> want from the aircraft. They're both excellent engines. If flat terrain
> and medium to low altitudes are where you are going to operate then maybe
the
> 912 is fine. If you want better climb and speed then go with the 912S.
From
> what I hear and have seen, the 912 performs just fine on both aircraft,
with
> the IV going faster and climbing better, The 912S seems better suited for
the
> V. Everyone I talk to recommends the slipper clutch mod and heavy duty
> starter upgrade for the 912S (about $770). ( I just did the change.)
>
> There are folks on this list who should jump in as they are expert on the
> prop combinations available for the 912/912S and this decision can greatly
> affect the performance. I will be using the Warp Drive tapered, fixed
pitch prop.
>
> One last thought. I know you seem locked into the 912 engines, but if you
> look at all available preowned Foxes, you may find a good or even better
buy,
> but without the Rotax. I think Danny Melnick's aircraft is an awesome
> machine and it still may be on the market -- it's worth a look! (I have no
> financial interest in this recommendation. I've seen his plane and the
workmanship
> is outstanding.)
>
> I think you're in a great position, whatever choice you make, you won't be
> disappointed.
>
> Rick Weiss
> Series V Speedster, 912S, SkyStar Serial Number 1
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
---------------------------------
Message 39
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Heater Install - For John King |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: John King <kingjohne@adelphia.net>
Don,
My son and I are flying to Haverhill, NH (Dean Memorial 5B9) Friday for several
days to visit his in-laws. Otherwise I would jump right on it. Now that you
are retired, other than that three hour a day job you just acquired, shouldn't
you have the time to whip one out?
--
John King
Warrenton, VA
DO NOT ARCHIVE
AlbertaIV@aol.com wrote:
>--> 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 40
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "jdmcbean" <jdmcbean@cableone.net>
Don,
There are several other questions.... Are you acting as Sport pilot or
Private Pilot ?... do you fly mostly solo or with a passenger ? Tail Wheel
or Tri-gear ?
Both aircraft are fine aircraft. Both can qualify for Sport aircraft...
with the Rotax engines and fixed pitch prop.
The Classic IV is up to a 1200 # gross and the Series 5, 6 and 7 are up to
1550 # gross
(Early Model IV's had a 1050 # gross and early 5's had a 1400 # gross)
The Classic IV is a narrower aircraft.. I relate to about the side to side
size of a Cessna 150 and the Series 5, 6 and 7 are closer to the 172.. side
to side.
Classic IV has a smaller baggage area and is rated to 40 lbs and the Series
5 , 6 and 7 are rated to 150 lbs... CG limited
They are two different aircraft.. It is sort of like explaining the
difference between a Cessna 150 and a Cessna 172.. They are the same type of
aircraft with various differences. The cost between the 2 are significantly
different as well.
Yes you can expect to pay significantly more for a Series 5, 6 or 7 then a
Classic IV.
The Rotax 912UL = 80 HP and the 912ULS = 100 HP
A Series 5 or 6 powered with 80 HP has a restricted gross weight.. Max gross
= 1400 lbs. I do not believe SS supports the 912UL for the Series 7
aircraft.
The Series 6 and 7 have the convertible gear option. The Classic IV / Lite
as of 2002 also have the convertible gear option. Any of the Series 5
aircraft could be either tail wheel or tri-gear. Most of the Model IV's are
tail wheel.. There are some that have converted them although SkyStar has
not had a tri-gear IV until 2002.
Visit www.aero-kids.com/kitfox.htm Danny and Laura Melnick built a fine
aircraft. I have spent some time in this aircraft and it is very nice.
Definitely worth a look.
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 Don Gantt
Subject: Kitfox-List: Newbie
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Don Gantt" <DGantt@millionairdallas.com>
This one's basic guys, so I hope it's not a time-waster and blog-waster
for everybody: I'm getting ready to pull-the-trigger on a pre-owned
Kitfox (not selected yet.) Naturally there's a million questions, but
here's the basic one: Can anybody tell me the "real" practical
operational differences between the Model-IV and Model-V airframes, as
well people's "experienced" differences between the 912UL and 912S
engines? (which reflects a previous question here, and responses for
which I'll be looking.) Should I expect to pay more for a "V" with a
"912S"? Should I really care about any of these differences? (as I'm
just going to be doing "local" flying.) Thanks so much guys (and gals.)
I'm trying to keep from doing something stupid. Help.
Don Gantt
Message 41
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Kitfox crash |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: John King <kingjohne@adelphia.net>
Fred & Others,
On my Model IV there was only one seat belt tie down point (for the
center straps) behind the seat and that was centered between the pilot
and the co-pilot. Both the pilot and the co-pilot shared that single
tie down point for the inside straps. As a result, the inside seat
belt straps kept sliding off our shoulders. However, on my Series 6
there are two seat belt tie down points behind the seat each centered
behind each person. The left and right seat belt straps for each person
tie down together at one point. I now have no problems with the seat
belt straps sliding off my shoulders. You Series 6, 7 and maybe 5
drivers should not have problems with shoulder straps sliding off your
shoulder, unless you have a sever case of rounded shoulders. ;-)
--
John King
Warrenton, VA
Fred Shiple wrote:
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Fred Shiple <fredshiple@sbcglobal.net>
>
>Michel,
>The belt should be positioned over the pelvic prominences you can feel just to
the front of the hips. The pelvis is much better suited to absorb impacts. Allowing
the belt to ride up exposes the abdominal soft tissues to significant injury
(liver/spleen ruptures, severe vascular damage and more). Keep the belt
low over the pelvis. We see too much preventable trauma in the E.R. due to misused
seat belts.
>Fred
>
>
>Good thinking, Charlie! Like Lowell, I also have the problems of falling shoulder
strap.
>
Message 42
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 912ul vs 912s in a Model IV |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: John King <kingjohne@adelphia.net>
Paul,
Contact Ray Gignac at <KITFOXPILOT@att.net>. He just did that.
--
John King
Warrenton, VA
av8rps@tznet.com wrote:
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: <av8rps@tznet.com>
>
>Question for the group;
>
>Has anyone converted a Kitfox IV from a 912ul to a 912s that can tell me the
>real difference in performance? I may an opportunity to upgrade to a 912s
>on my IV, but haven't flown it yet. Is going through all that worthwhile?
>I've heard the 912ul is a lot less headaches, and therefore more reliable.
>Opinions? Can you tell me the performance improvement by number?
>
>Paul S
>Model IV-1200 Longwing Speedster 912ul
>
>
>
>
Message 43
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Kitfox crash-shoulder straps |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: John King <kingjohne@adelphia.net>
Michael,
They did that on the Series 6.
--
John King
Warrenton, VA
Michel Verheughe wrote:
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
>
>
>
>>From: Jose M. Toro [jose_m_toro@yahoo.com]
>>I think this shoulder strap problem could be fixed by having, for each person,
both
>>sides attached to a single point aligned with the neck.
>>
>>
>
>Good idea too but it would require to weld a new attachment point that has twice
the strenght of the existing ones.
>
>Cheers,
>Michel
>
>
Message 44
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Kitfox crash/belt position |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
Rick wrote:
> For all on this topic. I have called AMSAFE and waiting a call back
> reference seatbelt air bags. This was discussed some time ago and looks like
> we need to take a closer look. Nice inertia real chest strap and airbag in
> the seatbelt. Looks like a fairly simple install. Now if we can get it,
> that's another thing.
If I remember correctly, Rick, the result of our previous discussion on the
list was: yes they can make it but the price of testing and type-approval is so
high that we should order tons of them to get them at a decent price.
... mind you, my memory is not what it used to be, and then, it was never very
good anyway! :-)
Cheers,
Michel
Message 45
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Belt position and shoulder straps |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
kurt schrader wrote:
> You need the belt low across your hips and tight.
Thanks Kurt, Lowell, Fred and Roger. I'll have a look at what can be done to
keep my shoulder straps from sliding down. Crossing them, a rubber band across
them, I'll find a way that can keep the lower belt as low a possible. You
confirmed my fears of internal rupture if up my chest.
Cheers,
Michel
Message 46
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clem Nichols" <cnichols@scrtc.com>
John:
How can the Series V be considered an ELSA with a gross weight of from 1400
to 1550 pounds? It's my understanding that the regs state that maximum
gross weight for a land plane is 1320 pounds, and once that gross weight has
been established it can't be moved down at the whim of the owner.
Clem Nichols
----- Original Message -----
From: "jdmcbean" <jdmcbean@cableone.net>
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Newbie
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "jdmcbean" <jdmcbean@cableone.net>
>
> Don,
> There are several other questions.... Are you acting as Sport pilot
> or
> Private Pilot ?... do you fly mostly solo or with a passenger ? Tail Wheel
> or Tri-gear ?
>
> Both aircraft are fine aircraft. Both can qualify for Sport aircraft...
> with the Rotax engines and fixed pitch prop.
>
> The Classic IV is up to a 1200 # gross and the Series 5, 6 and 7 are up to
> 1550 # gross
> (Early Model IV's had a 1050 # gross and early 5's had a 1400 # gross)
>
> The Classic IV is a narrower aircraft.. I relate to about the side to side
> size of a Cessna 150 and the Series 5, 6 and 7 are closer to the 172..
> side
> to side.
>
> Classic IV has a smaller baggage area and is rated to 40 lbs and the
> Series
> 5 , 6 and 7 are rated to 150 lbs... CG limited
>
> They are two different aircraft.. It is sort of like explaining the
> difference between a Cessna 150 and a Cessna 172.. They are the same type
> of
> aircraft with various differences. The cost between the 2 are
> significantly
> different as well.
>
> Yes you can expect to pay significantly more for a Series 5, 6 or 7 then a
> Classic IV.
>
> The Rotax 912UL = 80 HP and the 912ULS = 100 HP
>
> A Series 5 or 6 powered with 80 HP has a restricted gross weight.. Max
> gross
> = 1400 lbs. I do not believe SS supports the 912UL for the Series 7
> aircraft.
>
> The Series 6 and 7 have the convertible gear option. The Classic IV /
> Lite
> as of 2002 also have the convertible gear option. Any of the Series 5
> aircraft could be either tail wheel or tri-gear. Most of the Model IV's
> are
> tail wheel.. There are some that have converted them although SkyStar has
> not had a tri-gear IV until 2002.
>
> Visit www.aero-kids.com/kitfox.htm Danny and Laura Melnick built a fine
> aircraft. I have spent some time in this aircraft and it is very nice.
> Definitely worth a look.
>
> 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 Don Gantt
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Kitfox-List: Newbie
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Don Gantt"
> <DGantt@millionairdallas.com>
>
> This one's basic guys, so I hope it's not a time-waster and blog-waster
> for everybody: I'm getting ready to pull-the-trigger on a pre-owned
> Kitfox (not selected yet.) Naturally there's a million questions, but
> here's the basic one: Can anybody tell me the "real" practical
> operational differences between the Model-IV and Model-V airframes, as
> well people's "experienced" differences between the 912UL and 912S
> engines? (which reflects a previous question here, and responses for
> which I'll be looking.) Should I expect to pay more for a "V" with a
> "912S"? Should I really care about any of these differences? (as I'm
> just going to be doing "local" flying.) Thanks so much guys (and gals.)
> I'm trying to keep from doing something stupid. Help.
>
> Don Gantt
>
>
>
Message 47
| 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: John King <kingjohne@adelphia.net>
Jimmie,
Melnick has a well equipped Series V award winner. My Model IV had a
912UL with a 500 lb payload. My Series 6 has a 912S with a 700 lb
payload. I loved my Model IV, but desired a larger payload for long
trips with a passenger. Computing fuel burn by total fuel consumed over
the life if the aircraft dived by total time flown, I consumed an
average of 3.7 gal/hr with the Model IV / 912UL and an average of 4.1
gal/hr with the Series 6 / 912S. The Model IV had a cruise speed of
105 mph while the Series 6 cruises at 120 mph.
--
John King
Warrenton, VA
Jimmie Blackwell wrote:
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jimmie Blackwell" <jablackwell@ev1.net>
>
>What model is the Melnick plane.
>
>Thanks
>
>Jimmie
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "W Duke" <n981ms@yahoo.com>
>To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Newbie
>
>
>
>
>>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: W Duke <n981ms@yahoo.com>
>>
>>Don,
>> I think you will find everyone loves their airplane especially if they
>>
>>
>built it. I like mine too. I cannot compare as I have never been in a
>Model IV or flown behind a Rotax.
>
>
>> I also agree with Rick. At least look at the Melnick's plane. I flew
>>
>>
>it and subsequently tried to build one just like it. It is a great airplane
>at a great price.
>
>
>>Maxwell
>>S6 TD/IO 240
>>
>>
Message 48
| 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: | Cowl mods Turbo EA-81 |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "NSI AERO" <info@nsiaero.com>
They cowl mod's did not work, just made thing worse. Talk to Nol Simmons
www.noel@blueskyaviation.net at Blue Sky Aviation. He was the tech at
Accipiter when Doug sold it to Bill Ray. Bill sold out to Noel and came to
work for NSI. Unfortunately that did not work out and we let him go a few
weeks latter.
Noel is on line with this group quit often.
Tom Anderson as done an excellent job of fine tuning the cowl, intake and
oil cool for the Turbo Fox. He has 165 plus HP and coolant never exceeds
200, with oil staying below 220. His cruse with the 73" diameter CAP
140/Warp Drive blades is 125 MPH at 3600 RPM. Climb rate is 2000 fpm plus.
Lance
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rick
Subject: Kitfox-List: Cowl mods Turbo EA-81
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Rick" <turboflyer@comcast.net>
Is Bill Ray still around. I was hoping to see how the mods mad have worked
out.
Rick
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of
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"
>
> ...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
> Yea, built by another builder and had a minor mishap! I did all
> required
repairs as well as updates to weld mount, exhaust and gearbox and starter
upgrade! I will post photo's soon!
Ray, N2BH
Model IV 1200, speedster option
912S
---- Original Message -----
> From:
> To:
> 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
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -------------- 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > e Matronics Forums.
> > cs.com/emaillists
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
<!-- 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>
...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
Yea, built by another builder and had a minor mishap! I did all required
repairs as well as updates to weld mount, exhaust and gearbox and starter
upgrade! I will post photo's soon!
Ray, N2BH
Model IV 1200, speedster option
912S
---- Original Message -----
From: <KITFOXPILOT@ATT.NET>
To: <KITFOX-LIST@MATRONICS.COM>
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
&g
t;
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 -->
ox-List Email Forum -
ves: http://www.matronics.com/archives
<!-- END WEBMAIL STATIONERY -->
advertising on the Matronics Forums.
Message 49
| 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>
This is a topic for argument.. but as the manufacture of the aircraft could
I not change the gross weight of my aircraft.. submit to the FSDO.. put it
back into the phase 1 fly-off for whatever fly-off time required for
re-cert. It may be asked what the useful load would be at the new gross
weight and if the aircraft was built with the Rotax engines then the empty
weight comes in at less then 800 lbs then you have a 530+ useful which is
more then any of the certified 2 seat initial training aircraft.
If it were a certified aircraft an STC with a form 337 (aircraft alteration
form) can be used to increase a gross weight. Of course testing has to be
done so there a lot more to it.
If I were building the aircraft I can establish the gross at whatever I
choose... If I exceed the kit manufactures recommendation then I may have to
justify how I got the increase but restricting the gross would be easily
justified.
I know it could be done... it may take some work but it could be done.
Now it could be difficult to increase it once it has been lowered. So it
would not be at the WHIM of the owner.. it would be an effort.
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 Clem Nichols
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Newbie
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clem Nichols" <cnichols@scrtc.com>
John:
How can the Series V be considered an ELSA with a gross weight of from 1400
to 1550 pounds? It's my understanding that the regs state that maximum
gross weight for a land plane is 1320 pounds, and once that gross weight has
been established it can't be moved down at the whim of the owner.
Clem Nichols
----- Original Message -----
From: "jdmcbean" <jdmcbean@cableone.net>
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Newbie
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "jdmcbean" <jdmcbean@cableone.net>
>
> Don,
> There are several other questions.... Are you acting as Sport pilot
> or
> Private Pilot ?... do you fly mostly solo or with a passenger ? Tail Wheel
> or Tri-gear ?
>
> Both aircraft are fine aircraft. Both can qualify for Sport aircraft...
> with the Rotax engines and fixed pitch prop.
>
> The Classic IV is up to a 1200 # gross and the Series 5, 6 and 7 are up to
> 1550 # gross
> (Early Model IV's had a 1050 # gross and early 5's had a 1400 # gross)
>
> The Classic IV is a narrower aircraft.. I relate to about the side to side
> size of a Cessna 150 and the Series 5, 6 and 7 are closer to the 172..
> side
> to side.
>
> Classic IV has a smaller baggage area and is rated to 40 lbs and the
> Series
> 5 , 6 and 7 are rated to 150 lbs... CG limited
>
> They are two different aircraft.. It is sort of like explaining the
> difference between a Cessna 150 and a Cessna 172.. They are the same type
> of
> aircraft with various differences. The cost between the 2 are
> significantly
> different as well.
>
> Yes you can expect to pay significantly more for a Series 5, 6 or 7 then a
> Classic IV.
>
> The Rotax 912UL = 80 HP and the 912ULS = 100 HP
>
> A Series 5 or 6 powered with 80 HP has a restricted gross weight.. Max
> gross
> = 1400 lbs. I do not believe SS supports the 912UL for the Series 7
> aircraft.
>
> The Series 6 and 7 have the convertible gear option. The Classic IV /
> Lite
> as of 2002 also have the convertible gear option. Any of the Series 5
> aircraft could be either tail wheel or tri-gear. Most of the Model IV's
> are
> tail wheel.. There are some that have converted them although SkyStar has
> not had a tri-gear IV until 2002.
>
> Visit www.aero-kids.com/kitfox.htm Danny and Laura Melnick built a fine
> aircraft. I have spent some time in this aircraft and it is very nice.
> Definitely worth a look.
>
> 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 Don Gantt
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Kitfox-List: Newbie
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Don Gantt"
> <DGantt@millionairdallas.com>
>
> This one's basic guys, so I hope it's not a time-waster and blog-waster
> for everybody: I'm getting ready to pull-the-trigger on a pre-owned
> Kitfox (not selected yet.) Naturally there's a million questions, but
> here's the basic one: Can anybody tell me the "real" practical
> operational differences between the Model-IV and Model-V airframes, as
> well people's "experienced" differences between the 912UL and 912S
> engines? (which reflects a previous question here, and responses for
> which I'll be looking.) Should I expect to pay more for a "V" with a
> "912S"? Should I really care about any of these differences? (as I'm
> just going to be doing "local" flying.) Thanks so much guys (and gals.)
> I'm trying to keep from doing something stupid. Help.
>
> Don Gantt
>
>
Message 50
| 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: "Jose M. Toro" <jose_m_toro@yahoo.com>
John:
I read in the EAA site that, if the plane has not been previously certified, it
can be certified with the lower gross weight of 1320 pounds, and qualify for
sport plane. If it has been already certified, there are no re-certifications
considered in the rule.
Jose
Clem Nichols <cnichols@scrtc.com> wrote:
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clem Nichols"
John:
How can the Series V be considered an ELSA with a gross weight of from 1400
to 1550 pounds? It's my understanding that the regs state that maximum
gross weight for a land plane is 1320 pounds, and once that gross weight has
been established it can't be moved down at the whim of the owner.
Clem Nichols
----- Original Message -----
From: "jdmcbean"
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Newbie
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "jdmcbean"
>
> Don,
> There are several other questions.... Are you acting as Sport pilot
> or
> Private Pilot ?... do you fly mostly solo or with a passenger ? Tail Wheel
> or Tri-gear ?
>
> Both aircraft are fine aircraft. Both can qualify for Sport aircraft...
> with the Rotax engines and fixed pitch prop.
>
> The Classic IV is up to a 1200 # gross and the Series 5, 6 and 7 are up to
> 1550 # gross
> (Early Model IV's had a 1050 # gross and early 5's had a 1400 # gross)
>
> The Classic IV is a narrower aircraft.. I relate to about the side to side
> size of a Cessna 150 and the Series 5, 6 and 7 are closer to the 172..
> side
> to side.
>
> Classic IV has a smaller baggage area and is rated to 40 lbs and the
> Series
> 5 , 6 and 7 are rated to 150 lbs... CG limited
>
> They are two different aircraft.. It is sort of like explaining the
> difference between a Cessna 150 and a Cessna 172.. They are the same type
> of
> aircraft with various differences. The cost between the 2 are
> significantly
> different as well.
>
> Yes you can expect to pay significantly more for a Series 5, 6 or 7 then a
> Classic IV.
>
> The Rotax 912UL = 80 HP and the 912ULS = 100 HP
>
> A Series 5 or 6 powered with 80 HP has a restricted gross weight.. Max
> gross
> = 1400 lbs. I do not believe SS supports the 912UL for the Series 7
> aircraft.
>
> The Series 6 and 7 have the convertible gear option. The Classic IV /
> Lite
> as of 2002 also have the convertible gear option. Any of the Series 5
> aircraft could be either tail wheel or tri-gear. Most of the Model IV's
> are
> tail wheel.. There are some that have converted them although SkyStar has
> not had a tri-gear IV until 2002.
>
> Visit www.aero-kids.com/kitfox.htm Danny and Laura Melnick built a fine
> aircraft. I have spent some time in this aircraft and it is very nice.
> Definitely worth a look.
>
> 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 Don Gantt
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Kitfox-List: Newbie
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Don Gantt"
>
>
> This one's basic guys, so I hope it's not a time-waster and blog-waster
> for everybody: I'm getting ready to pull-the-trigger on a pre-owned
> Kitfox (not selected yet.) Naturally there's a million questions, but
> here's the basic one: Can anybody tell me the "real" practical
> operational differences between the Model-IV and Model-V airframes, as
> well people's "experienced" differences between the 912UL and 912S
> engines? (which reflects a previous question here, and responses for
> which I'll be looking.) Should I expect to pay more for a "V" with a
> "912S"? Should I really care about any of these differences? (as I'm
> just going to be doing "local" flying.) Thanks so much guys (and gals.)
> I'm trying to keep from doing something stupid. Help.
>
> Don Gantt
>
>
>
Jose M. Toro, P.E.
Kitfox II/582
"A slow flight in the Caribbean..."
---------------------------------
Message 51
| 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: | Model IV fuel caps |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clem Nichols" <cnichols@scrtc.com>
Can anyone on the list tell me if the fuel caps on a Model IV Kitfox are proprietary
items...ie, are they available only from Skystar? The cork gasket on one
of mine no longer gives a good seal, and in-flight I'm getting some gas stains
on that wing. I purchased some cork gasket material only to realize afterwards
that it won't stretch enough to go over the locking tangs without tearing.
The truth is, I've never been favorably impressed with the cap's design in
the first place. The vent tube points directly forward instead of down, and it's
always seemed to me that this would allow water to enter the gas tank when
flying in the rain. Thanks for your help.
Clem Nichols
Message 52
| 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: "Steve Cooper" <spdrflyr@earthlink.net>
The Series V can easily be registered and Air worthied to meet ELSA
parameters. You, as the manufacturer establish Gross weight of 1320lbs. A
word or two about Registration...one more very important aspect of the
process...make sure you indicate on your paperwork that the plane was built
from parts and not a kit. In other words...if you had to go out and buy
anything that wasn't included in kit form to build the plane then you built
it from parts. The reason this is important is the State Tax element. If you
call it a Kitfox Kit...the state will look at a chart and tax you
accordingly, If you built it from parts and it's called a Model "IV
Wiz-Bang" there will be nothing on the State Tax chart to compare it
to...you will ultimately set the value AND the subsequent TAX.
Steve
----- Original Message -----
From: "Clem Nichols" <cnichols@scrtc.com>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Newbie
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clem Nichols" <cnichols@scrtc.com>
>
> John:
>
> How can the Series V be considered an ELSA with a gross weight of from
1400
> to 1550 pounds? It's my understanding that the regs state that maximum
> gross weight for a land plane is 1320 pounds, and once that gross weight
has
> been established it can't be moved down at the whim of the owner.
>
> Clem Nichols
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "jdmcbean" <jdmcbean@cableone.net>
> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Newbie
>
>
> > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "jdmcbean" <jdmcbean@cableone.net>
> >
> > Don,
> > There are several other questions.... Are you acting as Sport
pilot
> > or
> > Private Pilot ?... do you fly mostly solo or with a passenger ? Tail
Wheel
> > or Tri-gear ?
> >
> > Both aircraft are fine aircraft. Both can qualify for Sport aircraft...
> > with the Rotax engines and fixed pitch prop.
> >
> > The Classic IV is up to a 1200 # gross and the Series 5, 6 and 7 are up
to
> > 1550 # gross
> > (Early Model IV's had a 1050 # gross and early 5's had a 1400 # gross)
> >
> > The Classic IV is a narrower aircraft.. I relate to about the side to
side
> > size of a Cessna 150 and the Series 5, 6 and 7 are closer to the 172..
> > side
> > to side.
> >
> > Classic IV has a smaller baggage area and is rated to 40 lbs and the
> > Series
> > 5 , 6 and 7 are rated to 150 lbs... CG limited
> >
> > They are two different aircraft.. It is sort of like explaining the
> > difference between a Cessna 150 and a Cessna 172.. They are the same
type
> > of
> > aircraft with various differences. The cost between the 2 are
> > significantly
> > different as well.
> >
> > Yes you can expect to pay significantly more for a Series 5, 6 or 7 then
a
> > Classic IV.
> >
> > The Rotax 912UL = 80 HP and the 912ULS = 100 HP
> >
> > A Series 5 or 6 powered with 80 HP has a restricted gross weight.. Max
> > gross
> > = 1400 lbs. I do not believe SS supports the 912UL for the Series 7
> > aircraft.
> >
> > The Series 6 and 7 have the convertible gear option. The Classic IV /
> > Lite
> > as of 2002 also have the convertible gear option. Any of the Series 5
> > aircraft could be either tail wheel or tri-gear. Most of the Model IV's
> > are
> > tail wheel.. There are some that have converted them although SkyStar
has
> > not had a tri-gear IV until 2002.
> >
> > Visit www.aero-kids.com/kitfox.htm Danny and Laura Melnick built a
fine
> > aircraft. I have spent some time in this aircraft and it is very nice.
> > Definitely worth a look.
> >
> > 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 Don Gantt
> > To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> > Subject: Kitfox-List: Newbie
> >
> > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Don Gantt"
> > <DGantt@millionairdallas.com>
> >
> > This one's basic guys, so I hope it's not a time-waster and blog-waster
> > for everybody: I'm getting ready to pull-the-trigger on a pre-owned
> > Kitfox (not selected yet.) Naturally there's a million questions, but
> > here's the basic one: Can anybody tell me the "real" practical
> > operational differences between the Model-IV and Model-V airframes, as
> > well people's "experienced" differences between the 912UL and 912S
> > engines? (which reflects a previous question here, and responses for
> > which I'll be looking.) Should I expect to pay more for a "V" with a
> > "912S"? Should I really care about any of these differences? (as I'm
> > just going to be doing "local" flying.) Thanks so much guys (and gals.)
> > I'm trying to keep from doing something stupid. Help.
> >
> > Don Gantt
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Message 53
| 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: Roger L <yiotta@yahoo.com>
Just an FYI regarding the sport rule
1320 seems like a funny number, but is actually based on a european
standard and is actually: 600KG = 1320lbs
Now, what is the difference between sport pilot and recreational pilot?
Roger L
--- Clem Nichols <cnichols@scrtc.com> wrote:
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clem Nichols" <cnichols@scrtc.com>
>
> John:
>
> How can the Series V be considered an ELSA with a gross weight of from 1400
> to 1550 pounds? It's my understanding that the regs state that maximum
> gross weight for a land plane is 1320 pounds, and once that gross weight has
> been established it can't be moved down at the whim of the owner.
>
> Clem Nichols
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "jdmcbean" <jdmcbean@cableone.net>
> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Newbie
>
>
> > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "jdmcbean" <jdmcbean@cableone.net>
> >
> > Don,
> > There are several other questions.... Are you acting as Sport pilot
> > or
> > Private Pilot ?... do you fly mostly solo or with a passenger ? Tail Wheel
> > or Tri-gear ?
> >
> > Both aircraft are fine aircraft. Both can qualify for Sport aircraft...
> > with the Rotax engines and fixed pitch prop.
> >
> > The Classic IV is up to a 1200 # gross and the Series 5, 6 and 7 are up to
> > 1550 # gross
> > (Early Model IV's had a 1050 # gross and early 5's had a 1400 # gross)
> >
> > The Classic IV is a narrower aircraft.. I relate to about the side to side
> > size of a Cessna 150 and the Series 5, 6 and 7 are closer to the 172..
> > side
> > to side.
> >
> > Classic IV has a smaller baggage area and is rated to 40 lbs and the
> > Series
> > 5 , 6 and 7 are rated to 150 lbs... CG limited
> >
> > They are two different aircraft.. It is sort of like explaining the
> > difference between a Cessna 150 and a Cessna 172.. They are the same type
> > of
> > aircraft with various differences. The cost between the 2 are
> > significantly
> > different as well.
> >
> > Yes you can expect to pay significantly more for a Series 5, 6 or 7 then a
> > Classic IV.
> >
> > The Rotax 912UL = 80 HP and the 912ULS = 100 HP
> >
> > A Series 5 or 6 powered with 80 HP has a restricted gross weight.. Max
> > gross
> > = 1400 lbs. I do not believe SS supports the 912UL for the Series 7
> > aircraft.
> >
> > The Series 6 and 7 have the convertible gear option. The Classic IV /
> > Lite
> > as of 2002 also have the convertible gear option. Any of the Series 5
> > aircraft could be either tail wheel or tri-gear. Most of the Model IV's
> > are
> > tail wheel.. There are some that have converted them although SkyStar has
> > not had a tri-gear IV until 2002.
> >
> > Visit www.aero-kids.com/kitfox.htm Danny and Laura Melnick built a fine
> > aircraft. I have spent some time in this aircraft and it is very nice.
> > Definitely worth a look.
> >
> > 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 Don Gantt
> > To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> > Subject: Kitfox-List: Newbie
> >
> > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Don Gantt"
> > <DGantt@millionairdallas.com>
> >
> > This one's basic guys, so I hope it's not a time-waster and blog-waster
> > for everybody: I'm getting ready to pull-the-trigger on a pre-owned
> > Kitfox (not selected yet.) Naturally there's a million questions, but
> > here's the basic one: Can anybody tell me the "real" practical
> > operational differences between the Model-IV and Model-V airframes, as
> > well people's "experienced" differences between the 912UL and 912S
> > engines? (which reflects a previous question here, and responses for
> > which I'll be looking.) Should I expect to pay more for a "V" with a
> > "912S"? Should I really care about any of these differences? (as I'm
> > just going to be doing "local" flying.) Thanks so much guys (and gals.)
> > I'm trying to keep from doing something stupid. Help.
> >
> > Don Gantt
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 54
| 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: 912ul vs 912s in a Model IV |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Floran Higgins" <CliffH@outdrs.net>
I changed the 912UL to a 912ULS in my 1993 Model 4 Speedster.
The altitude at my home base is 3882 ft.
It cut my takeoff roll by about 50 ft. The 912UL would climb out at 60 mph
indicated at 700 FPM. The 912ULS will climb out at 70 MPH indicated at 1100
FPM. At the power setting that I use for cruise I gained about 10 MPH.
I really like the way the aircraft performs with the 912ULS but I have had
several problems with the shaking the airframe gets during startup breaking
various things.
I followed Skystar's service bulletins on reforcing the engine mount and
muffler, and still had problems with:
1. engine mount
2. muffler
3.oil cooler radiator
4. rudder hinges
Floran H.
----- Original Message --
From: <av8rps@tznet.com>
Subject: Kitfox-List: 912ul vs 912s in a Model IV
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: <av8rps@tznet.com>
>
> Question for the group;
>
> Has anyone converted a Kitfox IV from a 912ul to a 912s that can tell me
the
> real difference in performance? I may an opportunity to upgrade to a 912s
> on my IV, but haven't flown it yet. Is going through all that worthwhile?
> I've heard the 912ul is a lot less headaches, and therefore more reliable.
> Opinions? Can you tell me the performance improvement by number?
>
> Paul S
> Model IV-1200 Longwing Speedster 912ul
>
>
Message 55
| 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: | Pre-paint finish |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Joel Mapes" <foxfloatflyer@hotmail.com>
I'm getting ready for cover and paint. How soon after cover and poly-brush
does poly-spray need to be applied? We have hit the cool and wet season in
Western Washington and I may not get a warm enough day for quite awhile.
Also, any advice on filling the small holes in my epoxy lite filler on the
wingtips would be appreciated.
Joel
Model 5 912 GTA CS prop Aerocomp amphibs
Message 56
| 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: "John Bonewitz" <foxflyer@verizon.net>
Don,
As you've learned, size is the big difference. The IV is very tight compared
to the 5, and just won't fit some folks. The 5 has a generous amount of
shoulder room, and, I believe, a higher baggage load limit. Other advantages
of the 5 is that it came with a factory formed acrylic windshield rather
than the cold bent Lexan that many IV's came with. Flaperon mixer is
engineered a little different and better able to correct for adverse yaw
tendencies. Molded instrument panel, etc.
Regarding the 912UL, it is also a newer engine with higher horsepower. This
would come in particularly handy if you plan to operate off of floats,
and/or high elevation. If I were in the market, I'd go for the Series 5 (or
higher) with the big Rotax. Just make sure the slipper clutch mod has been
performed.
Hope this helps,
John Bonewitz
----- Original Message -----
From: "Don Gantt" <DGantt@millionairdallas.com>
Subject: Kitfox-List: Newbie
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Don Gantt"
> <DGantt@millionairdallas.com>
>
> This one's basic guys, so I hope it's not a time-waster and blog-waster
> for everybody: I'm getting ready to pull-the-trigger on a pre-owned
> Kitfox (not selected yet.) Naturally there's a million questions, but
> here's the basic one: Can anybody tell me the "real" practical
> operational differences between the Model-IV and Model-V airframes, as
> well people's "experienced" differences between the 912UL and 912S
> engines? (which reflects a previous question here, and responses for
> which I'll be looking.) Should I expect to pay more for a "V" with a
> "912S"? Should I really care about any of these differences? (as I'm
> just going to be doing "local" flying.) Thanks so much guys (and gals.)
> I'm trying to keep from doing something stupid. Help.
>
> Don Gantt
>
>
>
Message 57
| 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: Pre-paint finish |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Mdkitfox@aol.com
In a message dated 9/23/2004 4:26:58 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
foxfloatflyer@hotmail.com writes:
I'm getting ready for cover and paint. How soon after cover and poly-brush
does poly-spray need to be applied? We have hit the cool and wet season in
Western Washington and I may not get a warm enough day for quite awhile.
Joel,
I don't believe there is a time limit for applying the poly-spray. There
are temp and humidity limits. I started painting my Model V last summer and
didn't finish until Dec. 31. I live near Washington D.C. When I started (did
this in my garage) I ran into all the problems associated with high temps and
humidity, but as I neared completion the cold temps proved to be more of an
issue. You can use blush retarder (or a little extra reducer) to take care of
the humidity. I believe the instructions say not to paint below 55, but I
did it down to about 35. The drying time is quite extended when it gets cold,
and the potential for runs increases, but it can be done. If you keep your
work horizontal it's a lot easier. One nice feature is that Poly-tone will
actually dry with a shine at the colder temps. If you can heat your workspace
(without blowing yourself up) a lot of the problems go away. I used an
electric heater to get the temp up to 35, then removed the heater from the paint
room and painted. It stayed at 35 for about an hour before cooling off. I
say, go for it and enjoy the adventure.
Rick Weiss
Series V Speedster, 912S, SkyStar Serial Number 1
Message 58
| 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: Engine Monitors? |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Mdkitfox@aol.com
In a message dated 9/19/2004 11:37:00 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
shoeless@barefootpilot.com writes:
We're planning a new instrument panel right now and are seriously
considering ditching all the analog gauges and going with an integrated
Engine Monitor. I've looked into the EIS, Rocky Mountain Instruments, IK
2000, ACS 2002, Vision Micro and the New Grand Rapids color monitor.
Cliff,
I've had experience with the Vision Micro system. It was installed on the
EAA Glastar and performed flawlessly. I do know the owners of the company and
they are first class individuals who have spent years developing the
product. It performs as advertised!
Rick Weiss
Series V Speedster, 912S, SkyStar Serial Number 1
Message 59
| 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: Model IV fuel caps |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "neflyer48" <neflyer48@cableone.net>
I lost one of mine for a while and made one from the local John Deere
dealer. I drilled it and welded a piece of brake line on it. Seals good and
looks just like the original. As for getting water in the tanks, I have gone
through some heavy rains and expected to have some water in the gascolator.
I never have detected any.
Jerry Kohles
M3 912
----- Original Message -----
From: "Clem Nichols" <cnichols@scrtc.com>
Subject: Kitfox-List: Model IV fuel caps
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clem Nichols" <cnichols@scrtc.com>
>
> Can anyone on the list tell me if the fuel caps on a Model IV Kitfox are
proprietary items...ie, are they available only from Skystar? The cork
gasket on one of mine no longer gives a good seal, and in-flight I'm getting
some gas stains on that wing. I purchased some cork gasket material only to
realize afterwards that it won't stretch enough to go over the locking tangs
without tearing. The truth is, I've never been favorably impressed with the
cap's design in the first place. The vent tube points directly forward
instead of down, and it's always seemed to me that this would allow water to
enter the gas tank when flying in the rain. Thanks for your help.
>
> Clem Nichols
>
>
Message 60
| 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 Harnessing the harness! |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Ceashman@aol.com
In a message dated 9/23/2004 10:26:39 AM Eastern Standard Time,
lcfitt@inreach.com writes:
Michael, I made a cross strap that is secured with Velcro that holds the
shoulder harness across my chest. My only concern with it is the
possibility of not being able to undo it quickly enough in the event of a
fiery crash. Until Charlie's post, I didn't consider putting the cross
strap behind my head.
This harness strap has been a problem all along. I don't know why Skystar has
not fixed the belt attach brackets years ago.
My solution for this slipping off the shoulder issue (which I felt as
"insecure") Is to get some seat belt strapping, I got mine from the hardware store,
and made a loop. I tried Velcro, but the system could easily come open and the
belts would slide off.
This loop is wrapped around the two harness straps behind the diagonal tube
(where the fuel line comes down behind your head).
The loop holds the shoulder straps close enough together that there is no
fear of the belts coming off the shoulders. It does not get in the way because
the loop is behind the tube. and I can still fit the buckle at my pelvic area.
Most importantly, there is no change when buckling or unbuckling the system. I
made a loop for myself and for the passenger, my wife demanded I do something.
She is quite happy with the results.
If you ask how I made a loop out of the webbing material? I made a hole in
both ends and used a small nut and bolt, with washers.
Sometimes in rough air, I strap that sucker tight!
Message 61
| 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: Pre-paint finish |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Steve Cooper" <spdrflyr@earthlink.net>
Don't worry about warm...at 86 degrees I had to add a bunch of reducer to
slow down the dry time. Wish it had been 60. Remember...the slower it dries
the less blush and the shinier it will be. If it sits there for 8 hours
drying you'll get a nice finish...If it were mine I'd get right with the
program and get it covered and painted.
Steve Cooper
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joel Mapes" <foxfloatflyer@hotmail.com>
Subject: Kitfox-List: Pre-paint finish
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Joel Mapes"
<foxfloatflyer@hotmail.com>
>
> I'm getting ready for cover and paint. How soon after cover and poly-brush
> does poly-spray need to be applied? We have hit the cool and wet season in
> Western Washington and I may not get a warm enough day for quite awhile.
> Also, any advice on filling the small holes in my epoxy lite filler on the
> wingtips would be appreciated.
>
> Joel
> Model 5 912 GTA CS prop Aerocomp amphibs
>
>
Message 62
| 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: "Bruce Harrington" <aerowood@mcsi.net>
Hi Ron,
My "Gurus" recommended 180F coolant temps as better, but stay below the
max.
Cheers,
bh
> 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
Message 63
| 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: | Shoulder Belts - was Kitfox crash |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bruce Harrington" <aerowood@mcsi.net>
Hi Lowell,
I used a piece of string around the shoulder belts, located behind the seat
top.
This also helped keep the belts out of the way when loading/unloading
camping gear from the baggage sack on my old IV-1200. String was still
going strong when N194KF was sold last year.
Cheers, bh
> Michael, I made a cross strap that is secured with Velcro that holds the
> shoulder harness across my chest. My only concern with it is the
> possibility of not being able to undo it quickly enough in the event of a
> fiery crash. Until Charlie's post, I didn't consider putting the cross
> strap behind my head.
>
> It has been my understanding that the lap belt should be tightly across
> the
> pelvis to avoid the injuries you suggest.
>
> Lowell
Message 64
| 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: | CAP-140 prop settings |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Peter Graichen" <n10pg@neo.rr.com>
Hello Kurt:
I have no prop pitch angle indicator installed in my model 5. As part of my
preflight run-up I go to full throttle and adjust prop pitch to result in
5200 engine rpm (static). This results in 5600 rpm at lift-off. After climb
out I reduce throttle to 26.5" mp and increase prop pitch to result in 4000
rpm. For landing I reduce throttle all the way back abeam of the numbers and
decrease prop pitch for three seconds (one thousand and one, one thousand
and two, one thousand and three) This speeds up the engine, slows down the
airplane, increases the descend rate and results again in 5600 rpm with full
throttle in case of a required go around.
Peter Graichen
http://home.neo.rr.com/n10pg/kitfox.htm
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of kurt schrader
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: CAP-140 prop settings
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader
<smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
Just a question for CAP-140 or other in-flight
adjustable prop users.
How do you set your prop pitch for landing and for
doing practice stalls?
I find that I drag the engine down too low in RPM at
idle, or float a lot, if I leave the prop set for go
around and stall recovery. If I set the pitch low
enough for no thrust, I have to be slow on go around
or stall recovery while I readjust the prop and power
together.
Any hints?
Kurt S. S-5/NSI turbo w/CAP-140
__________________________________
Message 65
| 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: Pre-paint finish |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: W Duke <n981ms@yahoo.com>
I put my Poly spray and Poly tone in the refrigerator overnight before spraying.
I think it helped the gloss. I also had the luxury of spraying in an airconditioned
shop with low humidity (thanks to the AC).
Maxwell
Steve Cooper <spdrflyr@earthlink.net> wrote:
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Steve Cooper"
Don't worry about warm...at 86 degrees I had to add a bunch of reducer to
slow down the dry time. Wish it had been 60. Remember...the slower it dries
the less blush and the shinier it will be. If it sits there for 8 hours
drying you'll get a nice finish...If it were mine I'd get right with the
program and get it covered and painted.
Steve Cooper
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joel Mapes"
Subject: Kitfox-List: Pre-paint finish
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Joel Mapes"
>
> I'm getting ready for cover and paint. How soon after cover and poly-brush
> does poly-spray need to be applied? We have hit the cool and wet season in
> Western Washington and I may not get a warm enough day for quite awhile.
> Also, any advice on filling the small holes in my epoxy lite filler on the
> wingtips would be appreciated.
>
> Joel
> Model 5 912 GTA CS prop Aerocomp amphibs
>
>
---------------------------------
vote.yahoo.com - Register online to vote today!
Message 66
| 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: | Sonex- Low/Slow Kitfox |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Harris, Robert" <Robert_Harris@intuit.com>
Hi Bruce and others,
Do you miss your Kitfox? Sometimes I want to go faster and think about
buying a Sonex, Pulsar etc but I wonder if I'll miss the barnstorm flying I
do in my KFII. Any comments on this would be appreciated.
Robert
KFII San Diego
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bruce
Harrington
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 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 67
| 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: Sonex- Low/Slow Kitfox |
Seal-Send-Time: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 18:36:38 -0600
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Dee Young" <henrysfork1@msn.com>
Robert, I have a friend who flies a Long Easy and it flies around 130 which is
fast enough that he is unable to enjoy his time in the air as much as he would
like. He crosses the fence at 95mph and eats up lots of runway on landing. He
is considering stepping down to a low slow flight just so he can enjoy it more.
That is his thoughts on the matter. Thought that might interest you.
Dee Young
Model II
Do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: Harris, Robert<mailto:Robert_Harris@intuit.com>
To: 'kitfox-list@matronics.com'<mailto:'kitfox-list@matronics.com'>
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2004 5:59 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Sonex- Low/Slow Kitfox
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Harris, Robert" <Robert_Harris@intuit.com<mailto:Robert_Harris@intuit.com>>
Hi Bruce and others,
Do you miss your Kitfox? Sometimes I want to go faster and think about
buying a Sonex, Pulsar etc but I wonder if I'll miss the barnstorm flying I
do in my KFII. Any comments on this would be appreciated.
Robert
KFII San Diego
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com<mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com>
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bruce
Harrington
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com<mailto:kitfox-list@matronics.com>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: N2BH IS FLYING!
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bruce Harrington" <aerowood@mcsi.net<mailto: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 68
| 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: CAP-140 prop settings |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Fox5flyer" <morid@northland.lib.mi.us>
Kurt, my procedure is slightly different than Peter's. During runup prior
to takeoff I increase pitch to maximum and set throttle to 2050rpm. Then
start reducing pitch until rpm reaches 2650. This gives me a takeoff rpm of
about 5200 which I find is my best thrust setting. I've never been a fan of
running up to full power on the ground as my strip is grass and it just
sucks up a ton of bugs that get splatted all over the right side of the
airplane. It also seems to put a lot of stress on the airplane.
The rest of the procedure for arrival is just like Peter's. Also like
Peter, I don't have a pitch gauge either and have never felt that I needed
one. My cruise settings are according to MAP, rpm, and fuel flow. Typical
cruise is 3900, 22.5map, 4gph which gives about 107mph. This is with the
normally aspirated EA81 so the numbers probably won't do you much good being
yours is turboed.
Darrel
S5/NSI/CAP
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Peter Graichen" <n10pg@neo.rr.com>
>
> Hello Kurt:
> I have no prop pitch angle indicator installed in my model 5. As part of
my
> preflight run-up I go to full throttle and adjust prop pitch to result in
> 5200 engine rpm (static). This results in 5600 rpm at lift-off. After
climb
> out I reduce throttle to 26.5" mp and increase prop pitch to result in
4000
> rpm. For landing I reduce throttle all the way back abeam of the numbers
and
> decrease prop pitch for three seconds (one thousand and one, one thousand
> and two, one thousand and three) This speeds up the engine, slows down the
> airplane, increases the descend rate and results again in 5600 rpm with
full
> throttle in case of a required go around.
>
> Peter Graichen
> http://home.neo.rr.com/n10pg/kitfox.htm
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of kurt schrader
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: CAP-140 prop settings
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader
> <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
>
> Just a question for CAP-140 or other in-flight
> adjustable prop users.
>
> How do you set your prop pitch for landing and for
> doing practice stalls?
>
> I find that I drag the engine down too low in RPM at
> idle, or float a lot, if I leave the prop set for go
> around and stall recovery. If I set the pitch low
> enough for no thrust, I have to be slow on go around
> or stall recovery while I readjust the prop and power
> together.
>
> Any hints?
>
> Kurt S. S-5/NSI turbo w/CAP-140
>
>
> __________________________________
>
>
Message 69
| 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: VG's - first flight test FYI |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Fox5flyer" <morid@northland.lib.mi.us>
Keep testing Kurt and keep us in the loop. If I can feel that my stall will
reduce while holding my cruise speed I'll be installing them myself. I'm
just waiting for more good input before I make the plunge.
Darrel
S5, NE Michigan
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader
<smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
>
> I installed 60 new VG's yesterday and test flew them.
> I made a comparison flight before hand and did both
> tests at about 1300# in the center of the CG range.
> Test weights were within 12 # of each other, but the
> OAT was higher on the second flight.
>
> Results: My high speeds were lower by 2 knots and my
> stalls were higher by a few knots too. :-(
>
> The good news is that my stalls were much more a mush
> and controllable throughout. Even having the ball far
> off center was still safe. The nose bobbed
> considerably on the no flap stall with ASI going up
> and down around 5 knots in the mid 40's.
>
> More testing to be done today and tomorrow with more
> VG's (I have 104 provided) and different positions.
>
> Kurt S. S-5/NSI turbo w/CAP-140
>
>
> _______________________________
> Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
> http://vote.yahoo.com
>
>
Message 70
| 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: Jerry Liles <wliles@bayou.com>
Michael,
You are correct that the seatbelt should be around the waist otherwise
with the way you are doing it, as you surmised, the liver and spleen may
be injured by the belt in an accident as well as the rib cage and
lungs. It may also allow you to slip under the seat belt into the foot
well - a very undesirable thing. The shoulder straps are as important
as they will keep your face out of the instrument panel and will absorb
a lot of the shock by spreading it over a much larger body area than
just the seat belt. A seat belt that doesn't fix you to the seat and
shoulder straps that slip off are as useless as tits on a boar hog and
must be fixed!
Jerry Liles
Michel Verheughe wrote:
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
>
>
>
>>From: broschart [cfbflyer@localnet.com]
>>i had that problem so used the center anchored strap for the left shoulder and
>>outside one for the right shoulder
>>
>>
>
>Good thinking, Charlie! Like Lowell, I also have the problems of falling shoulder
strap. (maybe we are not as broad shouldered as John Wayne! :-)
>I solve it by pulling the straps up so that the buckle comes up to the middle
of my chest. But it's a bad idea, I think, because in case of a strong chock,
it is my liver and my spleen that will pay for it. I think the lower belt should
hold the pelvis. Again, I am not a doctor and know nothing about this. I'd
appreciate any opinion from someone who knows about the human body and how best
it absorbs chocks.
>
>Anyway, I think I'll try crossing my shoulder straps, Charlie. Thanks for the
tip.
>
>Cheers,
>Michel
>
>
>
Message 71
| 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,
I think you'll get plenty of speed without major modifications to your
airplane. Just a few simple fairings at the wing and fuselage attach
points for the landing gear and lift struts will help, as will wheel
pants but even that is probably not a necessity. Raking the windshield
is a lot of work and I don't believe at all needed. There are too many
Mod IIs flying perfectly satisfactoraly without major surgery for me to
believe it is necessary. Also remember all modifications tend to add
weight and Weight is the enemy!
My 2 cents.
Jerry Liles
Jose M. Toro wrote:
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jose M. Toro" <jose_m_toro@yahoo.com>
>
>Jerry:
>
>It looks like, if I want to try the Jabiru, I will need to "byte the bullet".
If I don't get an appropriate speed with the Jabiru and the current configuration,
I will need to do some modifications to reduce drag. The major of the modification
could be to use short, speedster wings. Another suggestion I received
was to increase the slant of the windshield, like in the Kitfox IV. I could
also use wheelpants.
>
>Jose
>
>Jerry Liles <wliles@bayou.com> wrote:
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Jerry Liles
>
>Jose, then I suspect you should do just fine with a Jabiru 2200.
>
>Jerry Liles
>
>Jose M. Toro wrote:
>
>
>
>
Message 72
| 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
> It looks like, if I want to try the Jabiru, I will need to "byte the
> bullet". If I don't get an appropriate speed with the Jabiru and the current
> configuration, I will need to do some modifications to reduce drag. The major
of
> the modification could be to use short, speedster wings. Another suggestion
> I received was to increase the slant of the windshield, like in the Kitfox
> IV. I could also use wheelpants.
>
> Jose
>
Jose,
You can do everything in the world to a Kitfox and each thing will make
it go a little faster. At the end, you might pick up a few miles per hour.
However, when it's all done and over with, you will be able to "walk" faster
than the speed you gained. If you need that much more speed, you will have to
go
to a different airplane.
IMHO
Don Smythe
DO NOT ARCHIVE
Message 73
| 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 9/23/04 10:46:29 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
kingjohne@adelphia.net writes:
> Don,
>
> My son and I are flying to Haverhill, NH (Dean Memorial 5B9) Friday for
> several days to visit his in-laws. Otherwise I would jump right on it. Now
that
> you are retired, other than that three hour a day job you just acquired,
> shouldn't you have the time to whip one out?
>
John,
Yes, I could whip one out but would rather get one of your nice ones.
Cancel this in-law stuff and get your priorities right.
Don Smythe
DO NOT ARCHIVE
Message 74
| 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: AlbertaIV@aol.com
In a message dated 9/23/04 4:29:26 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
aerowood@mcsi.net writes:
>
> My "Gurus" recommended 180F coolant temps as better, but stay below the
> max.
>
> Cheers,
> bh
>
Bruce,
I have to question your gurus on this one... You say, they think 180 is
best but, stay under the max. 180 is the max. How do your gurus fly at 180
and stay under 180 at the same time?
Just curious old buddy.
Don Smythe
DO NOT ARCHIVE
Message 75
| 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: Model IV fuel caps |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jim Hakes" <jhakes@emily.net>
Try the fuel cap gasket for Mercedes. The part number for the gasket is :
140-471-00-79.
----- Original Message -----
From: "neflyer48" <neflyer48@cableone.net>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Model IV fuel caps
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "neflyer48" <neflyer48@cableone.net>
>
> I lost one of mine for a while and made one from the local John Deere
> dealer. I drilled it and welded a piece of brake line on it. Seals good
and
> looks just like the original. As for getting water in the tanks, I have
gone
> through some heavy rains and expected to have some water in the
gascolator.
> I never have detected any.
>
> Jerry Kohles
> M3 912
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Clem Nichols" <cnichols@scrtc.com>
> To: "kitfox list" <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Kitfox-List: Model IV fuel caps
>
>
> > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clem Nichols" <cnichols@scrtc.com>
> >
> > Can anyone on the list tell me if the fuel caps on a Model IV Kitfox are
> proprietary items...ie, are they available only from Skystar? The cork
> gasket on one of mine no longer gives a good seal, and in-flight I'm
getting
> some gas stains on that wing. I purchased some cork gasket material only
to
> realize afterwards that it won't stretch enough to go over the locking
tangs
> without tearing. The truth is, I've never been favorably impressed with
the
> cap's design in the first place. The vent tube points directly forward
> instead of down, and it's always seemed to me that this would allow water
to
> enter the gas tank when flying in the rain. Thanks for your help.
> >
> > Clem Nichols
> >
> >
>
>
Message 76
| 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: Pre-paint finish |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: AlbertaIV@aol.com
In a message dated 9/23/04 1:26:58 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
foxfloatflyer@hotmail.com writes:
> I'm getting ready for cover and paint. How soon after cover and poly-brush
> does poly-spray need to be applied? We have hit the cool and wet season in
> Western Washington and I may not get a warm enough day for quite awhile.
> Also, any advice on filling the small holes in my epoxy lite filler on the
> wingtips would be appreciated.
>
> Joel
> Model 5 912 GTA CS prop Aerocomp amphibs
>
Joel,
I think the Poly Spray should go on as soon after the Poly Brush as you
can. The only reason I say that is the Poly Brush might start to pick up dust
and other contaminates. The Poly Brush is more of a glue than Poly Spray so,
you might want to get the softer surface covered up as soon as you can.
I did some painting when the OAT's were in the 30's-40's. I'd get the
shop up to 60 degrees using electric heaters and temporary insulation as
necessary. Kill the heat and spray like mad. Once the dust settled, put back
the
heat and hope for no small nuclear explosions. My paint came out fine. Use
Blush @ 4 oz per quart of paint to reduce drying time and eliminate roughness of
overspray.
BTW, just a personal opinion but I would think twice about using a
Kerosene type blower as a heat source. I have heard that these Kerosene heaters
can
leave a residue on the paint surface and cause problems. Don't know if its
true but seemed reasonable to me.
Don Smythe
DO NOT ARCHIVE
Message 77
| 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: | Cure for 912S Carbs Shaking Off? |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Grant Fluent <gjfpilot@yahoo.com>
Hello All,
I am building a Classic IV with the 912S. The
problem with the carbs shaking off has always been a
concern of mine. I have the new slipper clutch and
have shortened the engine mount bushings to the
Skystar recommended length. I searched the archives
to see if anyone with my identical setup has had their
carbs come loose but I did not find anything only
the engines without the slipper clutch as far as I can
tell.
Has anyone ever thought of making a bracket to
support the back end of the carbs? There is a
threaded boss on top of each cylinder head that could
be used for mounting the bracket along with one of the
intake manifold bolts if necessary. This bracket
would extend rearward just clearing the bottom of the
float bowls and then turn upward and fasten to the
hose clamp for the air filter. It could be made of
chrome moly tubing or aluminum. I have started
designing this with a 3-D CAD program and plan to do a
computer stress analysis when its complete.
After watching a 912UL (80hp) run with the cowling
off, I noticed that the carbs oscillate up and down
about twice the distance that the intake manifold
moves. I can see now how the rubber boots develop
cracks and air leaks. In my opinion, a bracket that
would prevent this carb oscillation would prevent them
from coming loose and make the rubber boots last much
longer.
Any thoughts or suggestions are welcome.
Thanks,
Grant Fluent
Newcastle, NE
Classic IV 912S
Message 78
| 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: "Pete Gow" <PGow@CharterMI.Net>
Hi List, Does anyone know where I can buy or get plans for penetration skis for
my kitfox-IV with balloon tires? Thanks Pete
Message 79
| 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>
Interesting...... I have read the same thing... I'll still bet it can be
done..... but one needs to be familiar with the regulations outside of the
LSA rule.
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 Jose M. Toro
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Newbie
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jose M. Toro" <jose_m_toro@yahoo.com>
John:
I read in the EAA site that, if the plane has not been previously certified,
it can be certified with the lower gross weight of 1320 pounds, and qualify
for sport plane. If it has been already certified, there are no
re-certifications considered in the rule.
Jose
Clem Nichols <cnichols@scrtc.com> wrote:
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clem Nichols"
John:
How can the Series V be considered an ELSA with a gross weight of from 1400
to 1550 pounds? It's my understanding that the regs state that maximum
gross weight for a land plane is 1320 pounds, and once that gross weight has
been established it can't be moved down at the whim of the owner.
Clem Nichols
----- Original Message -----
From: "jdmcbean"
To:
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Newbie
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "jdmcbean"
>
> Don,
> There are several other questions.... Are you acting as Sport pilot
> or
> Private Pilot ?... do you fly mostly solo or with a passenger ? Tail Wheel
> or Tri-gear ?
>
> Both aircraft are fine aircraft. Both can qualify for Sport aircraft...
> with the Rotax engines and fixed pitch prop.
>
> The Classic IV is up to a 1200 # gross and the Series 5, 6 and 7 are up to
> 1550 # gross
> (Early Model IV's had a 1050 # gross and early 5's had a 1400 # gross)
>
> The Classic IV is a narrower aircraft.. I relate to about the side to side
> size of a Cessna 150 and the Series 5, 6 and 7 are closer to the 172..
> side
> to side.
>
> Classic IV has a smaller baggage area and is rated to 40 lbs and the
> Series
> 5 , 6 and 7 are rated to 150 lbs... CG limited
>
> They are two different aircraft.. It is sort of like explaining the
> difference between a Cessna 150 and a Cessna 172.. They are the same type
> of
> aircraft with various differences. The cost between the 2 are
> significantly
> different as well.
>
> Yes you can expect to pay significantly more for a Series 5, 6 or 7 then a
> Classic IV.
>
> The Rotax 912UL = 80 HP and the 912ULS = 100 HP
>
> A Series 5 or 6 powered with 80 HP has a restricted gross weight.. Max
> gross
> = 1400 lbs. I do not believe SS supports the 912UL for the Series 7
> aircraft.
>
> The Series 6 and 7 have the convertible gear option. The Classic IV /
> Lite
> as of 2002 also have the convertible gear option. Any of the Series 5
> aircraft could be either tail wheel or tri-gear. Most of the Model IV's
> are
> tail wheel.. There are some that have converted them although SkyStar has
> not had a tri-gear IV until 2002.
>
> Visit www.aero-kids.com/kitfox.htm Danny and Laura Melnick built a fine
> aircraft. I have spent some time in this aircraft and it is very nice.
> Definitely worth a look.
>
> 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 Don Gantt
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Kitfox-List: Newbie
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Don Gantt"
>
>
> This one's basic guys, so I hope it's not a time-waster and blog-waster
> for everybody: I'm getting ready to pull-the-trigger on a pre-owned
> Kitfox (not selected yet.) Naturally there's a million questions, but
> here's the basic one: Can anybody tell me the "real" practical
> operational differences between the Model-IV and Model-V airframes, as
> well people's "experienced" differences between the 912UL and 912S
> engines? (which reflects a previous question here, and responses for
> which I'll be looking.) Should I expect to pay more for a "V" with a
> "912S"? Should I really care about any of these differences? (as I'm
> just going to be doing "local" flying.) Thanks so much guys (and gals.)
> I'm trying to keep from doing something stupid. Help.
>
> Don Gantt
>
>
Jose M. Toro, P.E.
Kitfox II/582
"A slow flight in the Caribbean..."
---------------------------------
Message 80
| 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: | Pre-paint finish |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "jdmcbean" <jdmcbean@cableone.net>
Joel,
Mine sat for several months in brush prior to painting.... I think the
only
worry is you do not have UV protection.... Prior to paint you should clean
with the c2210 solvent, tak rag just prior to spraying your poly brush
coats...
Looking forward to visiting with you in October.. I'll be hear for the
weekend. We put off leaving until Sunday.. Maybe Monday.
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 Joel Mapes
Subject: Kitfox-List: Pre-paint finish
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Joel Mapes" <foxfloatflyer@hotmail.com>
I'm getting ready for cover and paint. How soon after cover and poly-brush
does poly-spray need to be applied? We have hit the cool and wet season in
Western Washington and I may not get a warm enough day for quite awhile.
Also, any advice on filling the small holes in my epoxy lite filler on the
wingtips would be appreciated.
Joel
Model 5 912 GTA CS prop Aerocomp amphibs
Message 81
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
When I went to the FAA office to warm them up to doing
my inspection, I told them that I wanted it for VFR,
day/night, land and water. The FAA rep asked what
weight I was going to certify it for, considering
floats. I said SS uses 1550 and I wanted to go to
1650. He immediately and strongly recommended I go to
1750! (I thought he was going to hold me to SS's
limits.)
After the shock I learned that he meant that if I
certify, test and insure it for the MAX weight I would
ever use, I was protected. But if I flew one lb over
any lower weight, I was not protected.
Likewise, you should be able to certify YOUR plane
that you built for the weight you want it to be. If
you like 1320, do that. Just never get caught over
that weight.
Kurt S. S-5/NSI turbo
--- jdmcbean <jdmcbean@cableone.net> wrote:
> Interesting...... I have read the same thing...
> I'll still bet it can be done.....
> but one needs to be familiar with the
> regulations outside of the
> LSA rule.
>
> Blue Skies
> John & Debra McBean
> "The Sky is not the Limit... It's a Playground"
__________________________________
Message 82
| 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: CAP-140 prop settings |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Jeff Smathers <jsmathers@cybcon.com>
Hi Kurt,
I have an NSI EA-81 100Hp engine and the CAP140 prop system.
KF5 @ 853 lbs empty 1550 GW
I usually set:
18 degrees full power ( 5900 RPM ) @ sea level 50kts Climb ( 47 Vy )
22 - 24 degrees cruise 3800 - 4200 RPM 70 - 80 kts Cruise
18 degrees 2200 RPM wheel landing ( Cessna approach )
14 degrees 1800 RPM short and sweet KF 3 pt. landing (Full flaps)
10 degrees 1100 RPM between goal posts ! No go around ! ( overspeed
)
I can't utilise the 26 degree position of my prop as I don't develop enough power.
Also, my radiator is hanging out as a big airbrake ( 1' sq. foot area ) and I
will
build a radiator scoop this winter.
Jeff Smathers N456JT Molalla, Or.
kurt schrader wrote:
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
>
> Just a question for CAP-140 or other in-flight
> adjustable prop users.
>
> How do you set your prop pitch for landing and for
> doing practice stalls?
>
> I find that I drag the engine down too low in RPM at
> idle, or float a lot, if I leave the prop set for go
> around and stall recovery. If I set the pitch low
> enough for no thrust, I have to be slow on go around
> or stall recovery while I readjust the prop and power
> together.
>
> Any hints?
>
> Kurt S. S-5/NSI turbo w/CAP-140
>
>
> __________________________________
>
Message 83
| 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: CAP-140 prop settings |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
Thanks for the replies Rick, Peter and Darrel,
I have kept the NSI performance advise given for the
last several years I have been on this list, and it
has been very useful in testing. I am now just over
32 hrs on the Hobbs with about 8 of them from ground
testing. Here is what I have been doing and the
problem I have run into.
I usually use reduced power for takeoff now. This is
by setting max pitch at 2000 rpm, then reducing the
pitch until I get 2600 rpm. 4000 rpm is about 100 hp
for me. I go a little higher on hot days for more
power. This gives me 4000-4500 rpm for takeoff and
1350 egt at full rich. With this engine, I can not
set full static power without a steap hill or being
tied down.
If I set to achieve 5600 rpm for max takeoff, the
accelleration increase is noticibally greater,
especially from that last 400 rpm, but I don't need
it, so I save the engine.
After safely airborne, I reset pitch for 4000 rpm if I
used more power, or even 3600 for a cruise climb.
Then I adjust the mixture for 1450. I find my engine
doesn't like to be too rich, or it shakes. I almost
always have to lean for taxi and runup, but I am full
rich for takeoff. I think I need to reset the idle
mixture more lean.
I am still cruising around at or 90 mph or less. This
is still a draggy airplane. My prop is smoothest and
the engine humms in the 3200-3400 range. It is
actually peaceful. There is hot spot, egt wise, in
the 3700 to 4200 rpm range where I need full rich to
keep egts at or below 1450. That worries me. I need
more high altitude testing to see if that affects it.
But when I do stalls, or set for approach, idle rpm
can drop to 700. The engine seems to run fine there,
but I don't let it stay long due to oil pressure.
For stall tests, I accept the momentary low idle just
to get real stall numbers. I can lower the stall
speed considerably with not much power, but that
throws the test off. Guess I'll just do it this way
for now, since I probably won't ever be doing idle
stalls again after the tests.
On approach, when I set for a 2000 rpm idle, which is
my ground static flat pitch idle, I am too flat for go
around. It has a little pitch due to the speed, but
almost all I get is rpm with throttle up. For
approach, I have been using the heavier pitch and just
keeping 1800+ rpm with throttle. Then I have go
around pitch, some float, but the low rpm on idle for
touchdown. I pitch the prop finer on rollout.
Unlike stalls, I do plan to keep doing landings after
testing, so I better get that one right. :-) Maybe
the trick is to keep go around pitch and use throttle
as necessary to maintain rpm. Control the float with
flaps. And for touchdown, run the prop flat in the
flare to kill the float instead of pulling throttle?
Guess I better give it a try. Kind'a like Rick's
idea. Throttle to go around, or pitch finer to stop.
How's that sound?
Kurt S. S-5/NSI turbo
--- Fox5flyer <morid@northland.lib.mi.us> wrote:
> Kurt, my procedure is slightly different than
> Peter's. During runup prior
> to takeoff I increase pitch to maximum and set
> throttle to 2050rpm. Then
> start reducing pitch until rpm reaches 2650. This
> gives me a takeoff rpm of
> about 5200 which I find is my best thrust setting.
> I've never been a fan of
> running up to full power on the ground as my strip
> is grass and it just
> sucks up a ton of bugs that get splatted all over
> the right side of the
> airplane. It also seems to put a lot of stress on
> the airplane.
> The rest of the procedure for arrival is just like
> Peter's. Also like
> Peter, I don't have a pitch gauge either and have
> never felt that I needed
> one. My cruise settings are according to MAP, rpm,
> and fuel flow. Typical
> cruise is 3900, 22.5map, 4gph which gives about
> 107mph. This is with the
> normally aspirated EA81 so the numbers probably
> won't do you much good being
> yours is turboed.
> Darrel
> S5/NSI/CAP
>
>
> > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Peter
> > Hello Kurt:
> > I have no prop pitch angle indicator installed in
> my model 5. As part of
> my
> > preflight run-up I go to full throttle and adjust
> prop pitch to result in
> > 5200 engine rpm (static). This results in 5600 rpm
> at lift-off. After
> climb
> > out I reduce throttle to 26.5" mp and increase
> prop pitch to result in
> 4000
> > rpm. For landing I reduce throttle all the way
> back abeam of the numbers
> and
> > decrease prop pitch for three seconds (one
> thousand and one, one thousand
> > and two, one thousand and three) This speeds up
> the engine, slows down the
> > airplane, increases the descend rate and results
> again in 5600 rpm with
> full
> > throttle in case of a required go around.
> >
> > Peter Graichen
> > http://home.neo.rr.com/n10pg/kitfox.htm
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> > [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On
> Behalf Of kurt schrader
> > To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> > Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: CAP-140 prop settings
> >
> > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader
> > <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
> >
> > Just a question for CAP-140 or other in-flight
> > adjustable prop users.
> >
> > How do you set your prop pitch for landing and for
> > doing practice stalls?
> >
> > I find that I drag the engine down too low in RPM
> at
> > idle, or float a lot, if I leave the prop set for
> go
> > around and stall recovery. If I set the pitch low
> > enough for no thrust, I have to be slow on go
> around
> > or stall recovery while I readjust the prop and
> power
> > together.
> >
> > Any hints?
> >
> > Kurt S. S-5/NSI turbo w/CAP-140
__________________________________
Message 84
| 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: CAP-140 prop settings |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
AH HA Jeff!
I can use those other numbers to fit the applications
even though I don't have the prop pitch gauge. Those
are all very helpful to me and still fit in and around
my needs with this engine.
I'll start studying them for my testing tomorrow.
Thanks!
Kurt S. S-5/NSI turbo
--- Jeff Smathers <jsmathers@cybcon.com> wrote:
> Hi Kurt,
>
> I have an NSI EA-81 100Hp engine and the CAP140 prop
> system.
> KF5 @ 853 lbs empty 1550 GW
> I usually set:
>
> 18 degrees full power ( 5900 RPM ) @ sea level
> 50kts Climb ( 47 Vy )
> 22 - 24 degrees cruise 3800 - 4200 RPM 70 -
> 80 kts Cruise
> 18 degrees 2200 RPM wheel landing (
> Cessna approach )
> 14 degrees 1800 RPM short and sweet KF
> 3 pt. landing (Full flaps)
> 10 degrees 1100 RPM between goal posts
> ! No go around ! ( overspeed
> )
>
> I can't utilise the 26 degree position of my prop as
> I don't develop enough power.
>
> Also, my radiator is hanging out as a big airbrake
> ( 1' sq. foot area ) and I
> will build a radiator scoop this winter.
>
> Jeff Smathers N456JT Molalla, Or.
Message 85
| 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: VG's - first flight test FYI |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
W Duke and Darrel,
I did one more test today with a slightly more forward
VG position. Only did a few stalls after checking
cruise speeds and a few other details. No real
improvement in stalls. I have set the next test up
for tomorrow am. This should make a change, I think.
I now have 90 VG's on it.
One thing that is coming out of the tests. After
stalls, I can recover to altitude and do clearing
turns power on at 42-50 KIAS no problem. Even 30
degrees AOB and the ball pretty far off center are no
problem. The plane feels solid and not scary at all.
Kurt S. S-5/NSI turbo
I love VG information. Keep it coming. I am
disappointed and
surprised in your first results. I feel sure they
will improve. Every
posting previously with regard to VGs have been lower
stall speeds and
little to no effect on cruise. The more positive
results I hear the closer
I get to joining the VG crowd.
Maxwell
S6 TD/IO 240
--- Fox5flyer <morid@northland.lib.mi.us> wrote:
> Keep testing Kurt and keep us in the loop. If I can
> feel that my stall will
> reduce while holding my cruise speed I'll be
> installing them myself. I'm
> just waiting for more good input before I make the
> plunge.
> Darrel
> S5, NE Michigan
__________________________________
Message 86
| 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: "Kirby Cramer" <kitfox@mcn.org>
Kirby Cramer
Commercial Broker Associate & Realtor
Prudential California Realty
Bonsall, California
760-505-3173 cell
760-454-4567 fax
Kirby@PruSD.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kitfox-List
Digest Server
Subject: Kitfox-List Digest: 38 Msgs - 09/22/04
*
==================================================
Online Versions of Today's List Digest Archive
==================================================
Today's complete Kitfox-List Digest can also be found in either of the
two Web Links listed below. The .html file includes the Digest
formatted
in HTML for viewing with a web browser and features Hyperlinked Indexes
and Message Navigation. The .txt file includes the plain ASCII version
of the Kitfox-List Digest and can be viewed with a generic text editor
such as Notepad or with a web browser.
HTML Version:
http://www.matronics.com/digest/kitfox-list/Digest.Kitfox-List.2004-09-2
2.html
Text Version:
http://www.matronics.com/digest/kitfox-list/Digest.Kitfox-List.2004-09-2
2.txt
================================================
EMail Version of Today's List Digest Archive
================================================
Kitfox-List Digest Archive
---
Total Messages Posted Wed 09/22/04: 38
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
_____________________________________
Time: 12:20:58 AM PST US
From: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
Subject: SV: Kitfox-List: 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
_____________________________________
Time: 12:46:07 AM PST US
From: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
Subject: SV: Kitfox-List: Accident Update
--> 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
_____________________________________
Time: 02:03:14 AM PST US
From: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
Subject: SV: Kitfox-List: Kitfox crash
--> 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
_____________________________________
Time: 04:09:18 AM PST US
From: "Fox5flyer" <morid@northland.lib.mi.us>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 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
_____________________________________
Time: 04:22:46 AM PST US
From: AlbertaIV@aol.com
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 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
_____________________________________
Time: 05:06:26 AM PST US
From: "Jose M. Toro" <jose_m_toro@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 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
_____________________________________
Time: 05:26:51 AM PST US
From: "Jose M. Toro" <jose_m_toro@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: SV: Kitfox-List: 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
_____________________________________
Time: 05:41:27 AM PST US
From: kitfoxjunky <kitfoxjunky@decisionlabs.com>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 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
_____________________________________
Time: 05:41:32 AM PST US
From: "Jose M. Toro" <jose_m_toro@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 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
____________________________________
Time: 05:45:32 AM PST US
From: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
Subject: SV: SV: Kitfox-List: 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
____________________________________
Time: 06:20:16 AM PST US
From: "Harris, Robert" <Robert_Harris@intuit.com>
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 12
____________________________________
Time: 07:03:12 AM PST US
From: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@inreach.com>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 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
____________________________________
Time: 07:06:53 AM PST US
From: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@inreach.com>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 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
____________________________________
Time: 07:10:25 AM PST US
From: Grant Fluent <gjfpilot@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 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=1095805
686
>
>
> 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
____________________________________
Time: 08:09:20 AM PST US
From: Roger L <yiotta@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: SV: Kitfox-List: 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
____________________________________
Time: 08:52:54 AM PST US
From: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
Subject: Re: SV: Kitfox-List: 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
____________________________________
Time: 10:20:53 AM PST US
From: Marco Menezes <msm_9949@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 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
____________________________________
Time: 10:42:03 AM PST US
From: "Steve Cooper" <spdrflyr@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 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
____________________________________
Time: 12:08:49 PM PST US
Subject: Re: SV: Kitfox-List: Accident Update
From: u2drvr@dslextreme.com
--> 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
____________________________________
Time: 01:05:42 PM PST US
From: Roger L <yiotta@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: SV: Kitfox-List: 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
____________________________________
Time: 01:35:10 PM PST US
Subject: Re: SV: Kitfox-List: Accident Update
From: u2drvr@dslextreme.com
--> 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
____________________________________
Time: 01:54:47 PM PST US
From: Roger L <yiotta@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: SV: Kitfox-List: 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
____________________________________
Time: 02:14:34 PM PST US
From: "Randy Daughenbaugh" <rjdaugh@rapidnet.com>
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: N2BH IS FLYING!
--> 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
____________________________________
Time: 02:18:40 PM PST US
From: Michael Gibbs <MichaelGibbs@cox.net>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 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
____________________________________
Time: 02:19:09 PM PST US
From: Michael Gibbs <MichaelGibbs@cox.net>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 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
____________________________________
Time: 02:20:50 PM PST US
From: Michael Gibbs <MichaelGibbs@cox.net>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 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
____________________________________
Time: 02:26:54 PM PST US
From: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
Subject: Re: SV: Kitfox-List: 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
____________________________________
Time: 02:35:15 PM PST US
From: Aerobatics@aol.com
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 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
____________________________________
Time: 03:00:29 PM PST US
From: John King <kingjohne@adelphia.net>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 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=105909
1684>
--
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
____________________________________
Time: 04:59:58 PM PST US
From: Jerry Liles <wliles@bayou.com>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 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
____________________________________
Time: 05:01:22 PM PST US
From: Jerry Liles <wliles@bayou.com>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 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
____________________________________
Time: 05:11:48 PM PST US
From: AlbertaIV@aol.com
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 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
____________________________________
Time: 06:59:03 PM PST US
From: "jdmcbean" <jdmcbean@cableone.net>
Subject: RE: SV: Kitfox-List: Accident Update
--> 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
____________________________________
Time: 07:03:41 PM PST US
From: "jdmcbean" <jdmcbean@cableone.net>
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: 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
____________________________________
Time: 07:59:06 PM PST US
From: "Ron" <rliebmann@comcast.net>
Subject: Kitfox-List: 582 cruise RPM
--> 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
____________________________________
Time: 09:50:28 PM PST US
From: aerocon1@telusplanet.net
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 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
____________________________________
Time: 09:52:08 PM PST US
From: "Bruce Harrington" <aerowood@mcsi.net>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 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
____________________________________
Time: 10:47:08 PM PST US
From: "Ron" <rliebmann@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 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! --
|