Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:49 AM - A New Temperature Control System (Guy Buchanan)
2. 01:29 AM - SV: A New Temperature Control System (Michel Verheughe)
3. 02:23 AM - faa saftey site (BROSCHART)
4. 03:02 AM - Re: Location of Fuel Filter and starvation: Fuel fil ters (AlbertaIV@aol.com)
5. 03:14 AM - Re: A New Temperature Control System (AlbertaIV@aol.com)
6. 03:35 AM - Re: A New Temperature Control System (jim)
7. 04:05 AM - [off-topic] Meeting. WAS: airfilter on my 582 (Michel Verheughe)
8. 04:29 AM - Re: A New Temperature Control System (AlbertaIV@aol.com)
9. 04:45 AM - Re: Different plugs=smoother running down low. (AlbertaIV@aol.com)
10. 05:26 AM - Potential Fuel System Problems; was: Location of Fuel Filter... (Clifford Begnaud)
11. 06:05 AM - 912 bad ignition sw (Paul Peerenboom)
12. 06:20 AM - Re: 912 bad ignition sw (flier)
13. 06:20 AM - Re: Potential Fuel System Problems; was: Location of Fuel Filter... (AlbertaIV@aol.com)
14. 06:23 AM - Re: My 912 Won't Stop (flier)
15. 06:29 AM - Re: 912 bad ignition sw (flier)
16. 06:41 AM - Re: 912 bad ignition sw (Steve Magdic)
17. 06:42 AM - Re: 912 bad ignition sw (dave)
18. 06:58 AM - Re: SV: SV: Coating on Inside of Cowl To Lowell (Jerry Liles)
19. 06:58 AM - Rotax two Stroke in-flight failure question. (Harris, Robert)
20. 07:02 AM - Re: Different plugs=smoother running down low. (Gill Levesque)
21. 07:03 AM - "Dub" William McFarland (Harris, Robert)
22. 07:18 AM - Re: Location of Fuel Filter and starvation: Fuel fil (Jerry Liles)
23. 07:28 AM - Re: Different plugs=smoother running down low. (Jerry Liles)
24. 07:54 AM - Re: Fuel filter Questions Re: Location of Fuel Filte r an d starvation: Fuel fil ters (Lowell Fitt)
25. 08:28 AM - Re: Different plugs=smoother running down low. (jareds)
26. 08:55 AM - Re: Potential Fuel System Problems; was: Location of Fuel Filter... (Lowell Fitt)
27. 09:16 AM - Re: Rotax two Stroke in-flight failure question. (Bruce Harrington)
28. 09:22 AM - Model 5 Landing Gear (Jim Corner)
29. 09:36 AM - Re: Different plugs=smoother running down low. (AlbertaIV@aol.com)
30. 09:48 AM - Re: : REPLY: Wood Props/ Float Planes ()
31. 10:18 AM - Re: Potential Fuel System Problems; was: Location of Fuel Filter... (Clifford Begnaud)
32. 10:28 AM - Re: Coating on Inside of Cowl To Lowell (Michel Verheughe)
33. 10:32 AM - bh radiator flapRe: Rotax two Stroke in-flight (Harris, Robert)
34. 10:38 AM - Re: : REPLY: Wood Props/ Float Planes (Harris, Robert)
35. 11:12 AM - Re: SV: A New Temperature Control System (Guy Buchanan)
36. 11:12 AM - Re: A New Temperature Control System (Guy Buchanan)
37. 11:12 AM - Re: Different plugs=smoother running down low. (Guy Buchanan)
38. 11:20 AM - Re: 912 bad ignition sw (Jimmie Blackwell)
39. 12:03 PM - Model 5 Door latches (Jim Corner)
40. 12:13 PM - Re: Model 5 Door latches (LeRoy staley)
41. 12:30 PM - Re: Cold Seizure (Gary Algate)
42. 02:14 PM - Re: Rotax two Stroke in-flight failure question. (chad lively)
43. 02:33 PM - Re: Model 5 Door latches (Fred Shiple)
44. 02:35 PM - Re: Rotax two Stroke in-flight failure question. (Gary Algate)
45. 02:43 PM - Re: Other Rotax engines. (Bob Robertson)
46. 03:02 PM - Re: Model 5 Door latches (John King)
47. 03:20 PM - Re: Rotax two Stroke in-flight failure question. (Harris, Robert)
48. 03:28 PM - Re: Other Rotax engines. (Steve Magdic)
49. 04:06 PM - Rotax Thermostat (Lmar)
50. 04:30 PM - Re: Other Rotax engines. (Bob Robertson)
51. 05:07 PM - Re: Rotax two Stroke in-flight failure question. (jim rodenkirk)
52. 06:44 PM - Re: 912 bad ignition sw (neflyer48)
53. 07:31 PM - Re: Rotax two Stroke in-flight failure question. (Bruce Harrington)
54. 07:34 PM - Re: Coating on Inside of Cowl To Lowell (Jerry Liles)
55. 07:42 PM - Re: A New Temperature Control System (Jerry Liles)
56. 07:45 PM - Re: Coating on Inside of Cowl To Lowell (AlbertaIV@aol.com)
57. 07:50 PM - Re: bh radiator flapRe: Rotax two Stroke in-flight failu re question. (Bruce Harrington)
58. 07:51 PM - Re: Different plugs=smoother running down low. (AlbertaIV@aol.com)
59. 08:38 PM - Thanks BruceRe: bh radiator flapRe: Rotax two (Harris, Robert)
60. 09:47 PM - Re: Coating on Inside of Cowl To Lowell (Ceashman@aol.com)
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: | A New Temperature Control System |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Guy Buchanan <bnn@nethere.com>
Hi all!
Given the problems of shock cooling and seizure described on the
list for the 582, I thought that if I removed the existing thermostat, then
cowled my radiator, then contrived some kind of system that opened the cowl
flap based on the coolant temperature, I might eliminate the shock cooling
problem. The water would always circulate throughout the system, and it
would be maintained at the proper temperature by the automatic action of
the cowl flap. Has anyone tried this system? Do you think it would work?
Does anyone have a line on a thermostatically controlled actuator that
could drive a cowl flap?
Thanks,
Guy Buchanan
K-IV 1200 / 582 / 99% done, thanks to Bob Ducar.
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | A New Temperature Control System |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
> From: Guy Buchanan [bnn@nethere.com]
> Does anyone have a line on a thermostatically controlled actuator that
> could drive a cowl flap?
How about this, Guy: Remove the thermostat, install a cockpit-activated butterfly
valve, before your radiator. For safety, the valve should be spring loaded
to keep it open if the control wire breaks.
I am thinking of something similar for the oil cooler of my new Jabiru 2200.
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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: BROSCHART <cfbflyer@localnet.com>
i started to sine up for the faa safety bulletins but they want all your
data including driver liensce number
sure sounds like a scam site to me
Have a good day - Charlie
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: Location of Fuel Filter and starvation: Fuel fil ters |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: AlbertaIV@aol.com
In a message dated 10/28/04 5:49:57 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
morid@northland.lib.mi.us writes:
<< the drain is in the bottom center. Any debris entering the tank falls to
the bottom to be drained out with the belly quick drain. Unlike the wing
tanks, it does have a sump. >>
I agree that there is an attempt to have a sump in the bottom of the
header and, it's better than nothing. I took one of my eye balls out and dropped
it down into the tank. I found some loose poly where the machining was done.
If I remember, there is a lip of some sort at the bottom to prevent an
"absolute" low point. In other words, small debris can remain trapped during the
sump check only to have it float around once motion starts.
It's on my list to one day fabricate a new header with these ideas.
Smaller area at the bottom with a defined low point. Extend the fuel lines to
the bottom of the header through a large screen located above the low point
capture area. Have the outlet above the screen. Design it so it can be taken
apart during a condition and cleaned.
Let me rephrase my original post, the header works but I think it could
be much better.
Just wild thinking,
Don Smythe
N-998DS Classic IV W/ 582
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: A New Temperature Control System |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: AlbertaIV@aol.com
In a message dated 10/29/04 12:49:40 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
bnn@nethere.com writes:
<< Hi all!
Given the problems of shock cooling and seizure described on the
list for the 582, I thought that if I removed the existing thermostat, then
cowled my radiator, then contrived some kind of system that opened the cowl
flap based on the coolant temperature, I might eliminate the shock cooling
problem. The water would always circulate throughout the system, and it
would be maintained at the proper temperature by the automatic action of
the cowl flap. Has anyone tried this system? Do you think it would work?
Does anyone have a line on a thermostatically controlled actuator that
could drive a cowl flap?
Thanks,
Guy Buchanan
K-IV 1200 / 582 / 99% done, thanks to Bob Ducar.
>>
Guy,
The thought of an automatic vent door has crossed my mind but would be
afraid of it having a failure. Also control and monitoring systems might be
difficult to come up with. On removing the thermostat, you might have a problem
being able to keep the temps up.
Speaking of seizures, I know I'm wrong but only one seizure comes to
mind. One of our members had one due to failing to put back the sieve sleeves.
I
can't recall other seizures???? Either way, proper operating and
controlling the temps should greatly reduce seizures.
Don Smythe
N-998DS Classic IV W/ 582
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: A New Temperature Control System |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: jim <jimrody@wi.rr.com>
AlbertaIV@aol.com wrote:
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: AlbertaIV@aol.com
>
>In a message dated 10/29/04 12:49:40 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
>bnn@nethere.com writes:
>
><< Hi all!
> Given the problems of shock cooling and seizure described on the
> list for the 582, I thought that if I removed the existing thermostat, then
> cowled my radiator, then contrived some kind of system that opened the cowl
> flap based on the coolant temperature, I might eliminate the shock cooling
> problem. The water would always circulate throughout the system, and it
> would be maintained at the proper temperature by the automatic action of
> the cowl flap. Has anyone tried this system? Do you think it would work?
> Does anyone have a line on a thermostatically controlled actuator that
> could drive a cowl flap?
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> Guy Buchanan
> K-IV 1200 / 582 / 99% done, thanks to Bob Ducar.
> >>
>
>Guy,
> The thought of an automatic vent door has crossed my mind but would be
>afraid of it having a failure. Also control and monitoring systems might be
>difficult to come up with. On removing the thermostat, you might have a problem
>being able to keep the temps up.
> Speaking of seizures, I know I'm wrong but only one seizure comes to
>mind. One of our members had one due to failing to put back the sieve sleeves.
I
>can't recall other seizures???? Either way, proper operating and
>controlling the temps should greatly reduce seizures.
>
>Don Smythe
>N-998DS Classic IV W/ 582
>
>
>
>
Speaking as a newbie.... I have a 582 mod99 (blue head). The first thing
I was told to do when I purchased my plane was to drill a hole in the
thermostat. I spoke with one of the Rotax gurus at LEAF and he
recommended the same thing. For awhile Rotax was selling them with the hole,
now I guess there isn't one? The whole idea of course was to circulate a
bit of water at all times, with thermostat opened or closed. I drilled
a1/8" hole on the very top in the kinda recessed area. It takes a good
10 minutes for operating temps to come up, summer in Wi. Don't know how
winter will be. Sorry I can't comment about the results of this, but in
theory, it sounds good....
Rody
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: | [off-topic] Meeting. WAS: airfilter on my 582 |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
> From: Torgeir Mortensen [torgemor@online.no]
> One day we have to meet..
We will, Torgeir. And my new Jabiru will increase the chances to see me flying
longer northward.
BTW, as I sorted out my "to keep" folder with old tips on the 582, I came across
something you wrote to me, in Norwegian, nearly two years ago, about taking-off
with the Kitfox. Very good stuff, I still enjoy reading it and ...will keep
it in the folder, of course!
Med vennlig hilsen,
Michel
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: A New Temperature Control System |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: AlbertaIV@aol.com
In a message dated 10/29/04 3:37:04 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
jimrody@wi.rr.com writes:
<< bit of water at all times, with thermostat opened or closed. I drilled
a1/8" hole on the very top in the kinda recessed area. It takes a good
10 minutes for operating temps to come up, summer in Wi. Don't know how
winter will be. Sorry I can't comment about the results of this, but in
theory, it sounds good....
Rody
>>
Rody,
Many use the OMC outboard motor thermostat and have to drill the hole. I
put 3 1/8" holes in mine and works good. I had to trim the Rotax gasket
because was covering the holes. I think the holes also provide a path for air
to
escape?
Don Smythe
N-998DS Classic IV W/ 582
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Different plugs=smoother running down low. |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: AlbertaIV@aol.com
In a message dated 10/28/04 4:51:29 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
rexjan@bigpond.com writes:
<< been running resistor caps and B8ES plugs. I swapped to non resistor caps
and resistor plugs because the plugs [ BR8EIX ] that I wanted only came in
resistor type. They really are running a lot better down low, 2 to 3,000 RPM
>>
Rex,
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong. I have been running both
resistor caps and plugs with no known problems. Seems I read or heard somewhere
that
this is OK to do.
When I first started operating, I had massive RFI interference in the
radio. I had moved my ignition modules to the firewall and that seemed to have
created an even worse RFI problem. I did every fix in the book and ended up
with no noise. That included Resistive plugs and caps. I don't know which
single fix I did (if any) made the biggest reduction in RFI.
Don Smythe
N-998DS Classic IV W/ 582
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: | Potential Fuel System Problems; was: Location of Fuel Filter... |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clifford Begnaud" <shoeless@barefootpilot.com>
Here are a few things to consider about your Kitfox fuel system, especially
if you have recently made the first flight or are about to do so!
Be absolutely sure that the finger strainers are in place!! If not in place,
a leaf or some other debris could easily block the 5/16" exit port causing
fuel starvation. If no finger strainers are used AND you have the glass
filters, they can be blocked even more easily than the exit port of the
tanks!
Many wing tanks have not had all of the fiberglass "Release Agent"
completely removed. This release agent could then work it's way through your
fuel system if finger strainers are not in place. Even if they are in place,
some small pieces could still get by them. You can recognize the release
agent easily as it looks like bits of clear silicon caulk. Removing the
finger strainers at about 100 hours and cleaning the tanks is a good idea.
Be certain that the fuel lines make an uninterrupted downhill run from the
wing tanks to the header tank. NO rises allowed.
The next potential problem is fiberglass. The tanks have baffles built into
them with holes punched in the baffles to allow fuel through. The edges of
the holes are NOT sealed. This leaves the raw fiberglass exposed to the
fuel. You can get LOTS of fibers passing through your fuel system! The glass
filters placed inline before the header tank will do a good job of capturing
most of the fibers. These fibers are small and mostly transparent and you
really CANNOT SEE THEM!!
What you will notice with the glass filters is that they become slightly
discolored by the fiberglass fibers. They can become covered enough to
restrict fuel flow, so replace the filter element at the first sign of
discoloration. In fact, in a new airplane, replace them every 25-50 hours
for the first 250 hours; no kidding, the fiberglass can continue to be an
issue for that long.
In my opinion, this is probably the best reason for using the glass filters.
If one of them get blocked by fiberglass, the other one will likely still
allow some fuel flow. If you have no filters before the header tank, the
fiberglass can make it's way through the header tank and block your final
filter . Bad thing, very bad thing.
On a new airplane, the glass filters give instant feedback to fuel condition
and TANK condition. You can always remove them after a few hundred hours and
after you feel comfortable that all the junk is out of your tanks.
If you use the glass filters, you will need to be aware that the rubber
o-rings could be a potential problem, particularly if you use auto fuel. In
some parts of the country the additives in auto fuel do bad things to
rubber. Keep spares in the plane & change the O-rings when you change the
filters.
As for having extra fittings and restrictions in the fuel system as Darrel
mentioned, I generally agree. But I have found that the glass filters do not
pose a noticeable restriction problem. You can, and should test this by
checking gravity fed fuel flow at the carb(s).
As for making a mess when changing filters, I placed fuel shutoff valves
above the filters. This makes changing filters mess-free and gives you and
easy way to drain a tank if needed. (not an unlikely event with a new plane)
Once you feel comfortable that all the fiberglass and other junk has been
washed out of your tanks, the valves and filters can be removed.
One last thing. On our first kitfox we had no fuel pressure gauge and flew
it that way for 1000 hours. Our new kitfox has one and it has signaled fuel
restrictions problems twice now. You can bet that any plane I own from now
on will have a fuel pressure gauge. It needs to be one sensitive enough to
accurately read the low pressures of a gravity fed fuel system. Without the
fuel pump running, readings will be from 1/3 to 1-1/4 psi depending upon
sensor location and fuel level.
In summary, I think the glass filters are a tool and can serve a useful
purpose, especially for new planes. However, it is entirely possible that
glass filters located prior to the header tanks may be subject to blockage
from some type of fuel contamination that otherwise might be captured by the
header tanks. I don't know what that contamination would be, it's up to you
to weigh the possibilities.
Cliff
Erie, CO
Kitfox 5, Lyc 0-235
PS. the info about the punched baffles was told to me by another kitfoxer. I
have not opened up a tank to verify this. In any case, lots of fiberglass
will be released by new tanks.
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | 912 bad ignition sw |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Paul Peerenboom" <ppeerenbo@charter.net>
Has anyone else tried to start a 912 by hand propping? I did its imposable. Not
to say that its a bad ignition sw is ok, its just a 912 will not produce spark
until 1200 plus RPM.
Paul
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: 912 bad ignition sw |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "flier" <FLIER@sbcglobal.net>
I've hand started several times. As long as the
battery isn't completely dead mine fires right up.
--- Original Message ---
From: "Paul Peerenboom" <ppeerenbo@charter.net>
Subject: Kitfox-List: 912 bad ignition sw
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Paul Peerenboom"
<ppeerenbo@charter.net>
>
>Has anyone else tried to start a 912 by hand
propping? I did its imposable. Not to say that its a
bad ignition sw is ok, its just a 912 will not
produce spark until 1200 plus RPM.
>
>Paul
>
>
>_-
======================================================
==================
Contributions
any other
Forums.
>_-
======================================================
==================
>_-
======================================================
==================
http://www.matronics.com/subscription
http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/Kitfox-List.htm
http://www.matronics.com/browse/kitfox-list
http://www.matronics.com/digest/kitfox-list
http://www.matronics.com/archives
http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
list
http://www.matronics.com/emaillists
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>_-
======================================================
==================
>
>
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: Potential Fuel System Problems; was: Location of Fuel |
Filter...
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: AlbertaIV@aol.com
Cliff,
Excellent summary of the whole situation.......
>> Be certain that the fuel lines make an uninterrupted downhill run from the
wing tanks to the header tank. NO rises allowed.>>
Even a short horizontal section can cause an obvious flow rate through clear
tubing.
>>PS. the info about the punched baffles was told to me by another kitfoxer.
I
have not opened up a tank to verify this. In any case, lots of fiberglass
will be released by new tanks. >>
I have and you are 100% correct. The holes in the baffles looked like they
were punched out with a dull cookie cutter. Fragments hanging everywhere. I
used a Dremel tool with round sanding drum to clean all the edges then
carefully coated each edge with a thin application of gas proof epoxy resin. Even
with all that and perfectly clean tanks, I still had to clean my filters every
few hours during the first days. I got what looked like a clear slime for at
least 3 tanks of fuel.
Don Smythe
N-998DS Classic IV W/ 582
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: My 912 Won't Stop |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "flier" <FLIER@sbcglobal.net>
That's why I personally don't like the dual mag
switch. My ignitions ground when the ignition (key)
switch is turned off then I use the toggles which are
parallel to check the 'mags' so to speak. That way
there's redundancy. It's cheaper too.
Regards,
Ted
--- Original Message ---
From: "Jimmie Blackwell" <jablackwell@ev1.net>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: My 912 Won't Stop
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jimmie
Blackwell" <jablackwell@ev1.net>
>
> Turns out I have a bad switch. Talked to Bob at
ACS today. Bob was very
>helpful and guided be through a test procedure. In
my case the contact
>points in the switch have worn to the point whereby
I lost the ground to one
>of the ignition systems. Anyone that has one of
these switches and has the
>first hint of trouble should open it up (easy to do)
and check the contacts
>for excessive wear. Mine were worn beyond repair.
Eight years old but only
>about 200 hours on the switch. Indeed a very
dangerous situation. The prop
>would have been hot, but I took the precaution of
disconnecting the battery
>while I was working on it.
>
>Hope to have a new switch in tomorrow from Spruce.
>
>Thanks
>
>Jimmie
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "flier" <FLIER@sbcglobal.net>
>To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>; <kitfox-
list@matronics.com>
>Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: My 912 Won't Stop
>
>
>> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "flier"
<FLIER@sbcglobal.net>
>>
>> You really should have individual ground toggles in
>> order to be able to check each ignition during
>> runup. Then there is redundant grounding through
the
>> ignition switch as well as the toggles. Sounds
like
>> you've got one ignition that isn't grounding --
VERY
>> DANGEROUS.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Ted
>>
>> --- Original Message ---
>> From: "jdmcbean" <jdmcbean@cableone.net>
>> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
>> Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: My 912 Won't Stop
>>
>> >--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "jdmcbean"
>> <jdmcbean@cableone.net>
>> >
>> >Jimmie,
>> > Could the switch have gone bad.. maybe.
Most
>> likely you have made the
>> >ground continuous.. be very careful around the
prop
>> right now it is most
>> >likely hot...
>> >You need to re-check your grounds.. The switch
>> should take the ignition to
>> >ground..
>> >
>> >Blue Skies
>> >John & Debra McBean
>> >www.sportplanellc.com
>> >"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 Jimmie Blackwell
>> >To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
>> >Subject: Kitfox-List: My 912 Won't Stop
>> >
>> >--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jimmie
>> Blackwell" <jablackwell@ev1.net>
>> >
>> >Darn it. If something was to go right with my
912 I
>> would be delighted.
>> >Today, after improving the ground wires for the
>> ignition switch and master
>> >switch my engine would not shut down. Had to shut
>> off the fuel to get the
>> >engine to stop.
>> >
>> >I did note that when starting I had to hold the
key
>> in just the right place
>> >to get the starter to engage. What you folks
think,
>> did my ACS ignition
>> >switch go bad suddenly or did my tinkering go bad.
>> >
>> >One of these days I just might be an asset to this
>> list after I get done
>> >making all the mistakes.
>> >
>> >Please someone help. I can't stand it anymore, I
>> need to fly a little, not
>> >work on it all the time.
>> >
>> >Thanks
>> >
>> >Jimmie
>> >
>> >
>> >_-
>>
======================================================
>> ==================
>> Contributions
>> any other
>> Forums.
>> >_-
>>
======================================================
>> ==================
>> >_-
>>
======================================================
>> ==================
>> http://www.matronics.com/subscription
>> http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/Kitfox-List.htm
>> http://www.matronics.com/archives
>> http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
>> list
>> http://www.matronics.com/emaillists
>> >_-
>>
======================================================
>> ==================
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
>_-
======================================================
==================
Contributions
any other
Forums.
>_-
======================================================
==================
>_-
======================================================
==================
http://www.matronics.com/subscription
http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/Kitfox-List.htm
http://www.matronics.com/browse/kitfox-list
http://www.matronics.com/digest/kitfox-list
http://www.matronics.com/archives
http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
list
http://www.matronics.com/emaillists
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>_-
======================================================
==================
>
>
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
<kitfox-list@matronics.com>
| Subject: | Re: 912 bad ignition sw |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "flier" <FLIER@sbcglobal.net>
By the way, I have a friend (Tom Street for any who
know him) that has the dual kill switches on his 912
Speedster. Couple of yrs ago, at a flyin, just
standing around the plane talking and he pulled the
prop over to move a blade outta the way. THE ENGINE
FIRED. Thankfully he wasn't directly in the way and
it shut down almost immediately. We never did figure
out what happened. Checked all the grounds and
everything was good.
DON'T EVER THINK A 912 WON'T START BY HAND BECAUSE
I'VE SEEN IT HAPPEN BY ACCIDENT as well as on
purpose...
Regards,
Ted
--- Original Message ---
From: "flier" <FLIER@sbcglobal.net>
list@matronics.com>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 912 bad ignition sw
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "flier"
<FLIER@sbcglobal.net>
>
>I've hand started several times. As long as the
>battery isn't completely dead mine fires right up.
>
>
>--- Original Message ---
>From: "Paul Peerenboom" <ppeerenbo@charter.net>
>To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: Kitfox-List: 912 bad ignition sw
>
>>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Paul
Peerenboom"
><ppeerenbo@charter.net>
>>
>>Has anyone else tried to start a 912 by hand
>propping? I did its imposable. Not to say that its a
>bad ignition sw is ok, its just a 912 will not
>produce spark until 1200 plus RPM.
>>
>>Paul
>>
>>
>>_-
>=====================================================
=
>==================
>Contributions
>any other
>Forums.
>>_-
>=====================================================
=
>==================
>>_-
>=====================================================
=
>==================
>http://www.matronics.com/subscription
>http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/Kitfox-List.htm
>http://www.matronics.com/browse/kitfox-list
>http://www.matronics.com/digest/kitfox-list
>http://www.matronics.com/archives
>http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
>list
>http://www.matronics.com/emaillists
>>_-
>=====================================================
=
>==================
>>
>>
>
>
>_-
======================================================
==================
Contributions
any other
Forums.
>_-
======================================================
==================
>_-
======================================================
==================
http://www.matronics.com/subscription
http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/Kitfox-List.htm
http://www.matronics.com/browse/kitfox-list
http://www.matronics.com/digest/kitfox-list
http://www.matronics.com/archives
http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
list
http://www.matronics.com/emaillists
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>_-
======================================================
==================
>
>
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | 912 bad ignition sw |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Steve Magdic" <steve.magdic@1psg.com>
I beg to differ. I had a low battery situation which would barely turn the 912UL
over.
I flipped the mags to off and went to hand turn the prop to get the oil out of
the crankcase
and back into the reservoir hoping that would let the engine turn over easier.
When I grabbed
the prop and pulled it through it fired right up! One of the mag switches didn't
stay down.
Needless to say, I was VERY luck that day. I immediately ran around and hit the
mags. No damage
or injury... thank the Good Lord.
It CAN be done.
Steve M.
Mod.3 912UL
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Peerenboom [mailto:ppeerenbo@charter.net]
Subject: Kitfox-List: 912 bad ignition sw
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Paul Peerenboom" <ppeerenbo@charter.net>
Has anyone else tried to start a 912 by hand propping? I did its imposable. Not
to say that its a bad ignition sw is ok, its just a 912 will not produce spark
until 1200 plus RPM.
Paul
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 912 bad ignition sw |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "dave" <dave@cfisher.com>
503 582 will hand prop
differnt reduction tho but a 2 stroker
eat mo wheaties LOL
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Peerenboom" <ppeerenbo@charter.net>
Subject: Kitfox-List: 912 bad ignition sw
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Paul Peerenboom"
<ppeerenbo@charter.net>
>
> Has anyone else tried to start a 912 by hand propping? I did its
imposable. Not to say that its a bad ignition sw is ok, its just a 912 will
not produce spark until 1200 plus RPM.
>
> Paul
>
>
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: Coating on Inside of Cowl To Lowell |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Jerry Liles <wliles@bayou.com>
Michael
I think the tank would be stiffer because it would be thicker. Cured
epoxy is a solid and rigid and thicker solids are stiffer or more
rigid. Glass fibers only supply tensile strength and require a rigid
matrix - epoxy or polyester - to hold a shape and provide rigidity.
Jerry Liles
Michel Verheughe wrote:
>--- snip ---
>
>
>>That tank seemed much stiffer when complete. Maybe it was my imagination??
>>
>>
>
>I don't know, Don, but I fail to see how the tank can be stiffer. Unless, of course,
there was a lot of dry glassfiber that could flex on the surface.
>
>Cheers,
>Michel
>
>do not archive
>
>
>
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Rotax two Stroke in-flight failure question. |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Harris, Robert" <Robert_Harris@intuit.com>
Bruce H,
Did you have any in-flight engine failures with your 582?
Chad L,
What caused your in-flight engine failures?
I fly in rugged mountain terrain with my 582 and do not look forward to an
engine failure.
Robert
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of chad lively
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Other Rotax engines.
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "chad lively" <chadl@compu.net>
I have some experience with Rotax 583, 500+ hours in a IV 1200, that
included 3 inflight engine failures. I'm going with a 912 now.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Torgeir Mortensen" <torgemor@online.no>
Subject: Kitfox-List: Other Rotax engines.
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Torgeir Mortensen <torgemor@online.no>
>
> Hi Folks,
>
> We've often been discussing about the "other" Rotax combinations, most
> often without much references.
>
> Here is an "interesting" site, maybe not the one we'll prefer -but gives
> some answer to us.
>
> What about a two stroke Rotax delivering 105 HP, weight 110 lbs. (only one
> ignition system (: ).
>
> well it's kind of interesting, have a look:
>
> http://www.rdaerosports.com/
>
>
> Torgeir.
>
>
> --
> Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
>
>
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: Different plugs=smoother running down low. |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Gill Levesque <canpilot03@yahoo.ca>
Don,
Regarding the changes you made to eliminate RF noise, canyou tell us what they
were!! Ihave severe noise unless I squelch full at rpm's above 3000!! I use a
panel mount Delcom radio! What's the fix!!!
Gil Levesque
C-IGVL
AlbertaIV@aol.com wrote:
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: AlbertaIV@aol.com
In a message dated 10/28/04 4:51:29 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
rexjan@bigpond.com writes:
<< been running resistor caps and B8ES plugs. I swapped to non resistor caps
and resistor plugs because the plugs [ BR8EIX ] that I wanted only came in
resistor type. They really are running a lot better down low, 2 to 3,000 RPM
>>
Rex,
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong. I have been running both
resistor caps and plugs with no known problems. Seems I read or heard somewhere
that
this is OK to do.
When I first started operating, I had massive RFI interference in the
radio. I had moved my ignition modules to the firewall and that seemed to have
created an even worse RFI problem. I did every fix in the book and ended up
with no noise. That included Resistive plugs and caps. I don't know which
single fix I did (if any) made the biggest reduction in RFI.
Don Smythe
N-998DS Classic IV W/ 582
Still alive and flyin!!!!
Gil
---------------------------------
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: | "Dub" William McFarland |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Harris, Robert" <Robert_Harris@intuit.com>
Lowell,
Did you (or anyone else know) or do you know "Dub" William McFarland that
lived in Central California? He built the KFII I now own. I'm very happy
with the plane and would like to contact him and let him know.
Robert
Message 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Location of Fuel Filter and starvation: Fuel fil |
ters
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Jerry Liles <wliles@bayou.com>
That's a good way to clean the filters. I completely drain the fuel
system at each condition inspection (it helps to fly a bit before hand
so the level is low). It makes it very easy to completely go over the
fuel system and replace filters and any hoses required. If I need to
clean the filters before that I use Lowell's method, however, I haven't
needed to do that since the first 50 hours. The glass filters really do
work well and it is nice to be able to see if they become contaminated
but they do require maintenance.
Jerry Liles
Lowell Fitt wrote:
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@inreach.com>
>
>Hi Darrel,
>
>How do I clean them? I clamp the hoses above the filters and after draining
>a little fuel from the header tank, the filters are dry. A fuel spill from
>the filters has never occurred to me before your post. I use this method
>from time to time to check on my low fuel indicator unit.
>
>Lowell
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Fox5flyer" <morid@northland.lib.mi.us>
>To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Location of Fuel Filter and starvation: Fuel fil
>ters
>
>
>
>
>>-
>>
>
>
Message 23
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Different plugs=smoother running down low. |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Jerry Liles <wliles@bayou.com>
I'm running resistor caps and BR8ES plugs in my inverted 582. The
combination fixed a bad problem with radio noise and is good for about
25 hours on my inverted 582.
Jerry Liles
AlbertaIV@aol.com wrote:
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: AlbertaIV@aol.com
>
>In a message dated 10/28/04 4:51:29 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
>rexjan@bigpond.com writes:
>
><< been running resistor caps and B8ES plugs. I swapped to non resistor caps
> and resistor plugs because the plugs [ BR8EIX ] that I wanted only came in
> resistor type. They really are running a lot better down low, 2 to 3,000 RPM
>
>
>
>Rex,
> Someone please correct me if I'm wrong. I have been running both
>resistor caps and plugs with no known problems. Seems I read or heard somewhere
that
>this is OK to do.
> When I first started operating, I had massive RFI interference in the
>radio. I had moved my ignition modules to the firewall and that seemed to have
>created an even worse RFI problem. I did every fix in the book and ended up
>with no noise. That included Resistive plugs and caps. I don't know which
>single fix I did (if any) made the biggest reduction in RFI.
>
>Don Smythe
>N-998DS Classic IV W/ 582
>
>
>
Message 24
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Location of Fuel Filte r an |
d starvation: Fuel fil ters
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@inreach.com>
No, Never met Dub.
Lowell
----- Original Message -----
From: "Harris, Robert" <Robert_Harris@intuit.com>
starvation : kitfox-list@matronics.com>
Subject: RE: Fuel filter Questions RE: Kitfox-List: Location of Fuel Filte r
an d starvation: Fuel fil ters
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Harris, Robert"
<Robert_Harris@intuit.com>
>
> Thanks Lowell,
>
> Did you know "Dub" William McFarland from the Sacramento/Fresbi area? He
> built the KFII I have. He built it in the late 90's and originally had a
BMW
> engine in it but took it out due to poor performance. I'll check back
> tomorrow. Got go
>
> Robert
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lowell Fitt
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Fuel filter Questions RE: Kitfox-List: Location of Fuel
Filter
> an d starvation: Fuel fil ters
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@inreach.com>
>
> Robert, I bought mine locally. They are 5/16" OD for the Auto hose. Yes
I
> do yes auto hose form the wing tanks to the header tank. Then aluminum
the
> rest of the way to the gascolator.
>
> Lowell
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Harris, Robert" <Robert_Harris@intuit.com>
> To: <"'kitfox-list@matronics.com'" <kitfox-list@matronics.com> an d
> starvation : kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Fuel filter Questions RE: Kitfox-List: Location of Fuel Filter an
d
> starvation: Fuel fil ters
>
>
> > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Harris, Robert"
> <Robert_Harris@intuit.com>
> >
> > Hi Lowell,
> > Did you buy glass filters from CPS? Who manufactures the filter you use?
> Do
> > you use black auto fuel hose (5/16?)from the wing tank to the header
tank?
> >
> > I have auto fuel hose but the new filter I have is for 1/4 hose.
> >
> > I bought my glass filters from California Power Supply (CPS) and they
are
> a
> > different brand than what I took out. Did you buy yours from CPS?
> >
> > Robert
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> > [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lowell Fitt
> > To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> > Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Location of Fuel Filter and starvation: Fuel
fil
> > ters
> >
> > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@inreach.com>
> >
> > Not to beat this to death, but.... I remember long ago when I was
> building
> > and thinking about fuel filters the glass ones were discussed. Among
the
> > objections was the glass enclosure. I have waited for this to come up
in
> > this discussion. The crux of that objection was the possibility of
> > ingesting something through the front of the cowl that might break the
> > glass. We had a report on the list a couple of years ago of a bird
strike
> > in the engine compartment that tore out the primer line that did cause
an
> > engine compartment fire.
> >
> > The early discussion encouraged me to remove the one I had put in the
> engine
> > compartment. I still have the two in the lines that feed between the
wing
> > tanks and header tank. I guess the plastic ones are OK, but I like the
> > metal tube that connects the inlet barb to the outlet barb. Somehow
with
> > the plastic barbs, I can't get the image from my mind of fuel affected
> > plastic barbs becoming brittle and separating from the filter body.
> >
> > To each his own. I guess it deals a lot with what we are already used
to.
> >
> > Lowell
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Harris, Robert" <Robert_Harris@intuit.com>
> > To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> > Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Location of Fuel Filter and starvation: Fuel
fil
> > ters
> >
> >
> > > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Harris, Robert"
> > <Robert_Harris@intuit.com>
> > >
> > > I was going to go to a plastic but now I'm not sure. --r
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> > > [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of david
> yeamans
> > > To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> > > Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Location of Fuel Filter and starvation: Fuel
> > > filters
> > >
> > > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "david yeamans" <dafox@ckt.net>
> > >
> > > I agree with Don Smythe,
> > >
> > > I've had mine installed for over 4 years, and check them at
the
> > > annual
> > > conditioning inspection. I've replaced the filters each inspection
> because
> > > of
> > > a slight fiberglass fuzz from the wingtanks. This last inspection
they
> > were
> > > clear and no sign of contamination, so I didn't touch them. I've
never
> > > replaced any of the O rings, as they've always sealed just fine. One
> thing
> > > about the inline purolator filters between the wing tanks and the
header
> > > tank,
> > > Is, you can always inspect them for fuel flow and contamination
before,
> > > during, and after when you fly. I think there are the best you can
get.
> > >
> > > David
> N317DY
> > > IV 1200 250 hrs
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: AlbertaIV@aol.com
> > > To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> > > Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 5:11 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Location of Fuel Filter and starvation:
Fuel
> > > filters
> > >
> > >
> > > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: AlbertaIV@aol.com
> > >
> > > In a message dated 10/27/04 8:56:31 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
> > > r.thomas@za.pwc.com writes:
> > >
> > > << I guess I should have mentioned these ones were fitted to trikes
> and
> > > not a
> > > KF. (I fly trikes too)
> > >
> > > With my experience with them on the trike, I don't think I would be
> > happy
> > > to put one on my KF. My thinking is that if these glass ones have
to
> be
> > > well cared for, I would rather take my chances with a clear
plastic,
> > > throw
> > > away one, and change it every 25 hours to be safe. Excessive, yes
> > maybe,
> > > but I like the insurance.
> > >
> > > Regards
> > > Roger >>
> > >
> > > Roger,
> > > This might be all apples and oranges situation. One thing you
> might
> > > consider. The Purolators will show you if you have any water
> collected.
> > > A paper
> > > filter will "clog" if saturated with water. There is no special
care
> > > required
> > > with the glass Purolator filters. You can see what's happening at a
> > > glance.
> > > If there is water or debris in the filter, it's easy to see and take
> > care
> > > of.
> > > IMHO, the glass Purolators are the insurance you're looking for.
> > >
> > > Don Smythe
> > > N-998DS Classic IV W/ 582
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
Message 25
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Different plugs=smoother running down low. |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: jareds <jareds@verizon.net>
On the advice of Don 2 years ago, my first fix for the RFI prob i had
with my Microair was to change out the plugs only and I added a sheet of
aluminum under the seat to improve reception and have a grounding point.
NO NOISE even with cheap headphones and nickle and dime wiring from a
582 scenario.
Jared
AlbertaIV@aol.com wrote:
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: AlbertaIV@aol.com
>
>In a message dated 10/28/04 4:51:29 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
>rexjan@bigpond.com writes:
>
><< been running resistor caps and B8ES plugs. I swapped to non resistor caps
> and resistor plugs because the plugs [ BR8EIX ] that I wanted only came in
> resistor type. They really are running a lot better down low, 2 to 3,000 RPM
>
>
>
>Rex,
> Someone please correct me if I'm wrong. I have been running both
>resistor caps and plugs with no known problems. Seems I read or heard somewhere
that
>this is OK to do.
> When I first started operating, I had massive RFI interference in the
>radio. I had moved my ignition modules to the firewall and that seemed to have
>created an even worse RFI problem. I did every fix in the book and ended up
>with no noise. That included Resistive plugs and caps. I don't know which
>single fix I did (if any) made the biggest reduction in RFI.
>
>Don Smythe
>N-998DS Classic IV W/ 582
>
>
>
>
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: Potential Fuel System Problems; was: Location of Fuel |
Filter...
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@inreach.com>
Cliff, A couple of ideas.
First, I agree wholeheartedly about the advisability of finger strainers. I
have checked them at each annual for five years. I have found occasional
debris on the strainers, but the most significant was a piece of rubber just
the right size to block the line at the filter if it had been allowed to
pass. I always run my fuel through a Mr. Filter when fueling at home. The
rubber had to have come from an FBO somewhere when filling with 100LL. My
presumption was that the FBO's system was serviced and when reassembling a
piece of rubber was scraped from a hose by a fitting.
That said, it is my belief that the tanks are built from a female mold and
the mold release would be on the outside. This was discussed during a thread
on Kreem and mold release was suggested as a possible contaminant reducing
Kreem adhesion.
The fiberglass fibers is definitely an issue. There was one long ago report
of fuel starvation in flight and a forced landing. After a minute or two
the engine ran fine again. What was found was that a mat of fine fiberglass
particles had formed in the gascollator and when the engine was shut down
the glass fiber mat settled to the bottom freeing up the screen for normal
fuel flow.
I have found that the rebuild kits for the Purolator filters - new element
and "o-ring" - have a newly designed ring seal. It is no longer an o-ring
but a square cross section with a cupped depression that fits the edge of
the glass tube essentially centering it in the seal. My guess is that these
are formulated for the newer formulations of auto fuel and since they are
primarily directed at the auto market would be fine for auto fueled
airplanes.
Lowell
----- Original Message -----
From: "Clifford Begnaud" <shoeless@barefootpilot.com>
Subject: Kitfox-List: Potential Fuel System Problems; was: Location of Fuel
Filter...
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clifford Begnaud"
<shoeless@barefootpilot.com>
>
>
> Here are a few things to consider about your Kitfox fuel system,
especially
> if you have recently made the first flight or are about to do so!
> Be absolutely sure that the finger strainers are in place!! If not in
place,
> a leaf or some other debris could easily block the 5/16" exit port causing
> fuel starvation. If no finger strainers are used AND you have the glass
> filters, they can be blocked even more easily than the exit port of the
> tanks!
> Many wing tanks have not had all of the fiberglass "Release Agent"
> completely removed. This release agent could then work it's way through
your
> fuel system if finger strainers are not in place. Even if they are in
place,
> some small pieces could still get by them. You can recognize the release
> agent easily as it looks like bits of clear silicon caulk. Removing the
> finger strainers at about 100 hours and cleaning the tanks is a good idea.
>
> Be certain that the fuel lines make an uninterrupted downhill run from the
> wing tanks to the header tank. NO rises allowed.
>
> The next potential problem is fiberglass. The tanks have baffles built
into
> them with holes punched in the baffles to allow fuel through. The edges of
> the holes are NOT sealed. This leaves the raw fiberglass exposed to the
> fuel. You can get LOTS of fibers passing through your fuel system! The
glass
> filters placed inline before the header tank will do a good job of
capturing
> most of the fibers. These fibers are small and mostly transparent and you
> really CANNOT SEE THEM!!
> What you will notice with the glass filters is that they become slightly
> discolored by the fiberglass fibers. They can become covered enough to
> restrict fuel flow, so replace the filter element at the first sign of
> discoloration. In fact, in a new airplane, replace them every 25-50 hours
> for the first 250 hours; no kidding, the fiberglass can continue to be an
> issue for that long.
> In my opinion, this is probably the best reason for using the glass
filters.
> If one of them get blocked by fiberglass, the other one will likely still
> allow some fuel flow. If you have no filters before the header tank, the
> fiberglass can make it's way through the header tank and block your final
> filter . Bad thing, very bad thing.
> On a new airplane, the glass filters give instant feedback to fuel
condition
> and TANK condition. You can always remove them after a few hundred hours
and
> after you feel comfortable that all the junk is out of your tanks.
>
> If you use the glass filters, you will need to be aware that the rubber
> o-rings could be a potential problem, particularly if you use auto fuel.
In
> some parts of the country the additives in auto fuel do bad things to
> rubber. Keep spares in the plane & change the O-rings when you change the
> filters.
> As for having extra fittings and restrictions in the fuel system as Darrel
> mentioned, I generally agree. But I have found that the glass filters do
not
> pose a noticeable restriction problem. You can, and should test this by
> checking gravity fed fuel flow at the carb(s).
>
> As for making a mess when changing filters, I placed fuel shutoff valves
> above the filters. This makes changing filters mess-free and gives you and
> easy way to drain a tank if needed. (not an unlikely event with a new
plane)
> Once you feel comfortable that all the fiberglass and other junk has been
> washed out of your tanks, the valves and filters can be removed.
>
> One last thing. On our first kitfox we had no fuel pressure gauge and flew
> it that way for 1000 hours. Our new kitfox has one and it has signaled
fuel
> restrictions problems twice now. You can bet that any plane I own from now
> on will have a fuel pressure gauge. It needs to be one sensitive enough to
> accurately read the low pressures of a gravity fed fuel system. Without
the
> fuel pump running, readings will be from 1/3 to 1-1/4 psi depending upon
> sensor location and fuel level.
>
> In summary, I think the glass filters are a tool and can serve a useful
> purpose, especially for new planes. However, it is entirely possible that
> glass filters located prior to the header tanks may be subject to blockage
> from some type of fuel contamination that otherwise might be captured by
the
> header tanks. I don't know what that contamination would be, it's up to
you
> to weigh the possibilities.
> Cliff
> Erie, CO
> Kitfox 5, Lyc 0-235
> PS. the info about the punched baffles was told to me by another kitfoxer.
I
> have not opened up a tank to verify this. In any case, lots of fiberglass
> will be released by new tanks.
>
>
Message 27
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Rotax two Stroke in-flight failure question. |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bruce Harrington" <aerowood@mcsi.net>
Hi Robert,
I'm the one who forgot to install the carb float bowl sieve sleeves after
installing winter time jets. What then happens is air bubbles in the float
bowl at full throttle cause a super lean condition which, in my case,
resulted in a seizure over my airport. The sieve sleeves nock the air
bubbles out of the fuel flow.
Cheers,
bh
> Bruce H,
> Did you have any in-flight engine failures with your 582?
>
> Chad L,
> What caused your in-flight engine failures?
>
> I fly in rugged mountain terrain with my 582 and do not look forward to an
> engine failure.
>
> Robert
Message 28
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Model 5 Landing Gear |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Jim Corner <jcorner@shaw.ca>
I am considering an alternate landing gear for my model 5 (i.e.: spring
steel) and for comparison sake would like to know the distance from the
bottom of the fuselage to the axle of the Skystar aluminum gear. Can
anyone help me out?
Jim Corner
Message 29
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Different plugs=smoother running down low. |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: AlbertaIV@aol.com
In a message dated 10/29/04 7:04:00 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
canpilot03@yahoo.ca writes:
<<
Don,
Regarding the changes you made to eliminate RF noise, canyou tell us what
they were!! Ihave severe noise unless I squelch full at rpm's above 3000!! I
use a panel mount Delcom radio! What's the fix!!!
Gil Levesque
>>
Resistive plugs, Resistive plug caps, addition of wire mesh sleeve on plug
wires (grounded at ign end only), plug wire separation. I think there was more
but I'm in a hurry to leave for the day and I can't think.
My plug wires are about 2' long going to the modules on the firewall.
Don Smythe
N-998DS Classic IV W/ 582
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: : REPLY: Wood Props/ Float Planes |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: <av8rps@tznet.com>
Robert:
I had two different Avids of my own that I flew on floats, plus another that
belonged to a friend (I test flew it and then flew the 40 hour test time off
for him). None were amphibs, just straight floats. All used the Avid
fibreglass float. I don't have a particular preference for a wood prop. I
would think most any reputable brand would suffice.
My first one was the Avid (a.k.a. Kitfox) prototype with a 43hp Cuyuna
snowmobile engine (that particular airplane is shown in the info on the
sportflight site). It used a 2 blade wood fixed pitch wooden prop made by
Ted Hendrickson. I believe it is a 72" diameter, 36" pitch if I remember
correctly. Btw - this was a great little two seat float plane. Flew
countless numbers of passengers of all weights (it was Avid's first demo, so
it gave lots of rides besides all I did later in it's life). Empty weight
of that Avid on wheels was 364 pounds. It would climb about 1000 fpm solo on
floats on a average summer day.
My second Avid was an A-model that was powered by a 532 Rotax liquid, using
a 71-37 Perry two blade fixed pitch wood prop. Absolutely an awesome
performer. Weighs 396 pounds on wheels. Would consistently climb at 2500
fpm in the winter on wheel-skis, around 2200 in summer on wheels, and about
2000 on floats. For any of you that don't know him, John Knapp of North
Carolina flies an airplane pretty much the same as this airplane, and he
holds a world record for the shortest water takeoff. 2.7 seconds from idle
to liftoff! (Really) It is so quick off the water that they've asked him
to stop competing at the Greenville Maine seaplane fly in contest because if
he shows up people wouldn't bother to enter the contest. He uses a set of
Zenair (750?) floats that are extremely light (but underfloated). And he
has tried every two stroke under the sun, but ultimately went back to the
532 Rotax. For overall hp, the early 532 develops the most hp per pound due
to large ports (mine dyno'd with a stock muffler at 74 hp). He also has fun
at Oshkosh every now and then by seeing how big of a person he can take up
with him. I have seen him load a 280 pound guy in it, and still only need
around 10 seconds to get off (incidentally, 10 seconds is good for a
Supercub operated solo).
The latest Avid I flew on floats was a 618 Rotax powered Mark IV. Had a
Warp Drive 2 blade ground adjustable 70" prop. It weighed 625 pounds on
wheels. It too was a nice two seat floatplane, but nowhere near the short
takeoff capability of the earlier and lighter 532 powered aircraft. In
fact, it performed on par with the 43 hp prototype on floats. On land, the
lighter prototype was superior in STOL capabilities compared to the 618 Mark
IV. The best climb in the Mark IV was around 1,000 fpm. However, the Mark
IV flew 10 mph faster than the prototype, was more comfortable, had more
range, could carry more, and offered space for baggage. The 532 powered
airplane was slightly faster however.
So, if you haven't already figured it out, seaplanes perform best if kept
light. The floats are bad enough, but extra airframe weight will kill
performance. It's all about power loading and wing loading numbers. You
compare those numbers between all these models and you will find the 532
Avids will have the lowest combined numbers of the airplanes discussed
(adding wing loading numbers and hp loading numbers together [based on empty
weight only, no people, baggage, or fuel] the 43 hp Prototype is a 12, the
75 hp Mark IV is a 14, and the 74 hp 532 A-model is a 9. The lower the
number, the better they will perform) I've learned a long time ago the
secret to seaplane (or landplane) performance is not necessarily to add more
power. It is the best combination of horsepower with the lightest overall
weight. At least that's my take on it...
Hopefully this info can help any of you considering the float option.
Paul Seehafer
Central Wisconsin
----- Original Message -----
From: "Harris, Robert" <Robert_Harris@intuit.com>
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: : REPLY: Wood Props/ Float Planes
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Harris, Robert"
> <Robert_Harris@intuit.com>
>
> Paul,
> What type and size of motor was on your Amphib Avid? What brand of wood
> prop
> do you recommend?
>
> Robert
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> av8rps@tznet.com
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: : REPLY: Wood Props/ Float Planes
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: <av8rps@tznet.com>
>
> Wood props are fine on seaplanes as long as they utilize some sort of
> leading edge protection (metal, epoxy, etc). In reality, they are
> probably
> the best prop in the water (for aircraft around 100 hp) if they have
> leading
>
> edge protection. They will need occasional maintenance varnishing so that
> water never seeps in through a nick or scratch, but overall they hold up
> very well. And one generally can do his own maintenance and upkeep, which
> is generally not possible with a metal or composite prop. Plus, they are
> just soooo pretty!
>
> I put more than a thousand hours on Avids with wood props, mostly on
> floats.
>
> No significant prop erosion or damage ever. Usually late fall I would
> remove the prop and revarnish it due to minor nicks (which probably
> happened
>
> when operating on wheels, incidentally). That kept them very nice. The
> props I used all had epoxy leading edges. And fwiw, I wouldn't buy a
> wood
> prop without leading edge protection, even for a land plane. Flying in
> the
> rain without leading edge protection is tempting fate (IMHO).
>
> Even aluminum props sustain damage if they are exposed to a lot of water
> spray. My Lake amphibians' aluminum Hartzell has more water erosion
> damage
>
> after 5 years of use (500+ hours) than all three of my wood props suffered
> in 1000+ hours combined. And a Lake gets very little water mist/spray
> through the prop compared to a regular float plane. So don't discount a
> good wood prop when making your decision for a seaplane prop.
>
> Paul Seehafer
> Central Wisconsin
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Barry Huston" <barryhuston@adelphia.net>
> To: "Kitfox List" <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Kitfox-List: : REPLY: Wood Props/ Float Planes
>
>
>> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Barry Huston"
>> <barryhuston@adelphia.net>
>>
>>
>>> Doug
>>> Your point on wood props is right on --- Im starting to nibble the tips
>>> off.
>>>
>>> Barry
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: <DPREMGOOD@aol.com>
>>> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
>>> Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 9:19 AM
>>> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: IVO PROP --- More Questions
>>>
>>>
>>>> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: DPREMGOOD@aol.com
>>>>
>>>> Barry,
>>>>
>>>> My understanding is that a wooden prop on floats is a no no.
>>>>
>>>> If any waterspray hits that prop, it is like kicking up stones. It will
>>>> do
>>>> damage to your prop.
>>>>
>>>> As for the IVO, there are many more people on the list that can answer
>>>> that
>>>> question better than I could.
>>>>
>>>> Take care,
>>>>
>>>> Doug Remoundos
>>>> Classic IV
>>>> Montreal, Canada
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
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: Potential Fuel System Problems; was: Location of Fuel |
Filter...
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clifford Begnaud" <shoeless@barefootpilot.com>
Lowell wrote:
snip> That said, it is my belief that the tanks are built from a female mold
and
> the mold release would be on the outside. This was discussed during a
> thread
> on Kreem and mold release was suggested as a possible contaminant
> reducing
> Kreem adhesion.
> end snip
Lowell,
I don't know what kind of mold is used, I only know that I had a bunch of
mold release in my tanks...A BUNCH! I sloshed them with MEK and that seems
to have fixed the problem.
snip
> I have found that the rebuild kits for the Purolator filters - new
> element
> and "o-ring" - have a newly designed ring seal. It is no longer an o-ring
> but a square cross section with a cupped depression that fits the edge of
> the glass tube essentially centering it in the seal. My guess is that
> these
> are formulated for the newer formulations of auto fuel and since they are
> primarily directed at the auto market would be fine for auto fueled
> airplanes.
end snip
Yep, that's one reason that I bought them from JC Whitney. Figured the
o-rings would be made for auto gas. They are just as you describe.
Here's the link:
http://www.jcwhitney.com/autoparts/ProductDisplay/s-10101/p-1675/c-10101
Note that this link has the filter assembly and filter replacement kits. The
replacement kit has 3 filters and 6 O-rings.
These units are on my plane now. No leaks yet after about 75 hours.
Best Regards,
Cliff
Message 32
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Coating on Inside of Cowl To Lowell |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
Jerry Liles wrote:
> Michael
> I think the tank would be stiffer because it would be thicker. Cured
> epoxy is a solid and rigid and thicker solids are stiffer or more
> rigid. Glass fibers only supply tensile strength and require a rigid
> matrix - epoxy or polyester - to hold a shape and provide rigidity.
I don't know, Jerry, because I am not a chemist nor an engineer. All I know is
that I was, together with a friend, a yacht designer for 5 years, and that, on
our designs, the class societies did the tests I mentioned. I do hope Lloyd's
and DnV know what they are doing otherwise there are a lot of vessels on the
seven seas that are in an immediate danger.
Cheers,
Michel
do not archive
Message 33
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
failu re question.
| Subject: | Rotax two Stroke in-flight |
failu re question.
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Harris, Robert" <Robert_Harris@intuit.com>
Hi Bruce, out of the 800+ hours on your 582 is that the only in-flight
engine failure you had?
By the way how did you make your radiator flap device? Do you have any
pictures? My water temps are going to low.
Robert
-----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: Rotax two Stroke in-flight failure question.
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bruce Harrington" <aerowood@mcsi.net>
Hi Robert,
I'm the one who forgot to install the carb float bowl sieve sleeves after
installing winter time jets. What then happens is air bubbles in the float
bowl at full throttle cause a super lean condition which, in my case,
resulted in a seizure over my airport. The sieve sleeves nock the air
bubbles out of the fuel flow.
Cheers,
bh
> Bruce H,
> Did you have any in-flight engine failures with your 582?
>
> Chad L,
> What caused your in-flight engine failures?
>
> I fly in rugged mountain terrain with my 582 and do not look forward to an
> engine failure.
>
> Robert
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: | : REPLY: Wood Props/ Float Planes |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Harris, Robert" <Robert_Harris@intuit.com>
Paul,
Thanks for the nice e-mail. I really enjoyed reading it and will go look at
the website.
Robert
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
av8rps@tznet.com
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: : REPLY: Wood Props/ Float Planes
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: <av8rps@tznet.com>
Robert:
I had two different Avids of my own that I flew on floats, plus another that
belonged to a friend (I test flew it and then flew the 40 hour test time off
for him). None were amphibs, just straight floats. All used the Avid
fibreglass float. I don't have a particular preference for a wood prop. I
would think most any reputable brand would suffice.
My first one was the Avid (a.k.a. Kitfox) prototype with a 43hp Cuyuna
snowmobile engine (that particular airplane is shown in the info on the
sportflight site). It used a 2 blade wood fixed pitch wooden prop made by
Ted Hendrickson. I believe it is a 72" diameter, 36" pitch if I remember
correctly. Btw - this was a great little two seat float plane. Flew
countless numbers of passengers of all weights (it was Avid's first demo, so
it gave lots of rides besides all I did later in it's life). Empty weight
of that Avid on wheels was 364 pounds. It would climb about 1000 fpm solo on
floats on a average summer day.
My second Avid was an A-model that was powered by a 532 Rotax liquid, using
a 71-37 Perry two blade fixed pitch wood prop. Absolutely an awesome
performer. Weighs 396 pounds on wheels. Would consistently climb at 2500
fpm in the winter on wheel-skis, around 2200 in summer on wheels, and about
2000 on floats. For any of you that don't know him, John Knapp of North
Carolina flies an airplane pretty much the same as this airplane, and he
holds a world record for the shortest water takeoff. 2.7 seconds from idle
to liftoff! (Really) It is so quick off the water that they've asked him
to stop competing at the Greenville Maine seaplane fly in contest because if
he shows up people wouldn't bother to enter the contest. He uses a set of
Zenair (750?) floats that are extremely light (but underfloated). And he
has tried every two stroke under the sun, but ultimately went back to the
532 Rotax. For overall hp, the early 532 develops the most hp per pound due
to large ports (mine dyno'd with a stock muffler at 74 hp). He also has fun
at Oshkosh every now and then by seeing how big of a person he can take up
with him. I have seen him load a 280 pound guy in it, and still only need
around 10 seconds to get off (incidentally, 10 seconds is good for a
Supercub operated solo).
The latest Avid I flew on floats was a 618 Rotax powered Mark IV. Had a
Warp Drive 2 blade ground adjustable 70" prop. It weighed 625 pounds on
wheels. It too was a nice two seat floatplane, but nowhere near the short
takeoff capability of the earlier and lighter 532 powered aircraft. In
fact, it performed on par with the 43 hp prototype on floats. On land, the
lighter prototype was superior in STOL capabilities compared to the 618 Mark
IV. The best climb in the Mark IV was around 1,000 fpm. However, the Mark
IV flew 10 mph faster than the prototype, was more comfortable, had more
range, could carry more, and offered space for baggage. The 532 powered
airplane was slightly faster however.
So, if you haven't already figured it out, seaplanes perform best if kept
light. The floats are bad enough, but extra airframe weight will kill
performance. It's all about power loading and wing loading numbers. You
compare those numbers between all these models and you will find the 532
Avids will have the lowest combined numbers of the airplanes discussed
(adding wing loading numbers and hp loading numbers together [based on empty
weight only, no people, baggage, or fuel] the 43 hp Prototype is a 12, the
75 hp Mark IV is a 14, and the 74 hp 532 A-model is a 9. The lower the
number, the better they will perform) I've learned a long time ago the
secret to seaplane (or landplane) performance is not necessarily to add more
power. It is the best combination of horsepower with the lightest overall
weight. At least that's my take on it...
Hopefully this info can help any of you considering the float option.
Paul Seehafer
Central Wisconsin
----- Original Message -----
From: "Harris, Robert" <Robert_Harris@intuit.com>
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: : REPLY: Wood Props/ Float Planes
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Harris, Robert"
> <Robert_Harris@intuit.com>
>
> Paul,
> What type and size of motor was on your Amphib Avid? What brand of wood
> prop
> do you recommend?
>
> Robert
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> av8rps@tznet.com
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: : REPLY: Wood Props/ Float Planes
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: <av8rps@tznet.com>
>
> Wood props are fine on seaplanes as long as they utilize some sort of
> leading edge protection (metal, epoxy, etc). In reality, they are
> probably
> the best prop in the water (for aircraft around 100 hp) if they have
> leading
>
> edge protection. They will need occasional maintenance varnishing so that
> water never seeps in through a nick or scratch, but overall they hold up
> very well. And one generally can do his own maintenance and upkeep, which
> is generally not possible with a metal or composite prop. Plus, they are
> just soooo pretty!
>
> I put more than a thousand hours on Avids with wood props, mostly on
> floats.
>
> No significant prop erosion or damage ever. Usually late fall I would
> remove the prop and revarnish it due to minor nicks (which probably
> happened
>
> when operating on wheels, incidentally). That kept them very nice. The
> props I used all had epoxy leading edges. And fwiw, I wouldn't buy a
> wood
> prop without leading edge protection, even for a land plane. Flying in
> the
> rain without leading edge protection is tempting fate (IMHO).
>
> Even aluminum props sustain damage if they are exposed to a lot of water
> spray. My Lake amphibians' aluminum Hartzell has more water erosion
> damage
>
> after 5 years of use (500+ hours) than all three of my wood props suffered
> in 1000+ hours combined. And a Lake gets very little water mist/spray
> through the prop compared to a regular float plane. So don't discount a
> good wood prop when making your decision for a seaplane prop.
>
> Paul Seehafer
> Central Wisconsin
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Barry Huston" <barryhuston@adelphia.net>
> To: "Kitfox List" <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Kitfox-List: : REPLY: Wood Props/ Float Planes
>
>
>> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Barry Huston"
>> <barryhuston@adelphia.net>
>>
>>
>>> Doug
>>> Your point on wood props is right on --- Im starting to nibble the tips
>>> off.
>>>
>>> Barry
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: <DPREMGOOD@aol.com>
>>> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
>>> Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 9:19 AM
>>> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: IVO PROP --- More Questions
>>>
>>>
>>>> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: DPREMGOOD@aol.com
>>>>
>>>> Barry,
>>>>
>>>> My understanding is that a wooden prop on floats is a no no.
>>>>
>>>> If any waterspray hits that prop, it is like kicking up stones. It will
>>>> do
>>>> damage to your prop.
>>>>
>>>> As for the IVO, there are many more people on the list that can answer
>>>> that
>>>> question better than I could.
>>>>
>>>> Take care,
>>>>
>>>> Doug Remoundos
>>>> Classic IV
>>>> Montreal, Canada
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Message 35
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: A New Temperature Control System |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Guy Buchanan <bnn@nethere.com>
At 10:28 AM 10/29/2004 +0200, you wrote:
>How about this, Guy: Remove the thermostat, install a cockpit-activated
>butterfly valve, before your radiator. For safety, the valve should be
>spring loaded to keep it open if the control wire breaks.
At the very least! But I think I should be able to couple a thermocouple to
a servo to make it automatic. You're right, though, I'll need some way to
force the door open if the control system fails. (Or make it single failure
tolerant.)
Guy Buchanan
K-IV 1200 / 582 / 99% done, thanks to Bob Ducar.
Message 36
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: A New Temperature Control System |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Guy Buchanan <bnn@nethere.com>
At 06:11 AM 10/29/2004 -0400, you wrote:
> Speaking of seizures, I know I'm wrong but only one seizure comes to
>mind. One of our members had one due to failing to put back the sieve
>sleeves. I
>can't recall other seizures???? Either way, proper operating and
>controlling the temps should greatly reduce seizures.
I thought, for some reason, that cold seizure was one of the dreaded things
living with a 582. Maybe it is not that big of a problem. Does anyone else
think it's a problem worth addressing?
Guy Buchanan
K-IV 1200 / 582 / 99% done, thanks to Bob Ducar.
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: Different plugs=smoother running down low. |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Guy Buchanan <bnn@nethere.com>
At 12:36 PM 10/29/2004 -0400, you wrote:
>My plug wires are about 2' long going to the modules on the firewall.
Don,
Why are your modules on the firewall? Mine are on the side of the
engine.
Guy Buchanan
K-IV 1200 / 582 / 99% done, thanks to Bob Ducar.
Message 38
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 912 bad ignition sw |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jimmie Blackwell" <jablackwell@ev1.net>
Yep I know Tom and had the opportunity to fly a couple of hours in his
Kitfox. A great pilot, I understand why he is an airline Captain. Best
flying skills I ever experienced.
----- Original Message -----
From: "flier" <FLIER@sbcglobal.net>
<kitfox-list@matronics.com>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 912 bad ignition sw
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "flier" <FLIER@sbcglobal.net>
>
> By the way, I have a friend (Tom Street for any who
> know him) that has the dual kill switches on his 912
> Speedster. Couple of yrs ago, at a flyin, just
> standing around the plane talking and he pulled the
> prop over to move a blade outta the way. THE ENGINE
> FIRED. Thankfully he wasn't directly in the way and
> it shut down almost immediately. We never did figure
> out what happened. Checked all the grounds and
> everything was good.
>
> DON'T EVER THINK A 912 WON'T START BY HAND BECAUSE
> I'VE SEEN IT HAPPEN BY ACCIDENT as well as on
> purpose...
>
> Regards,
>
> Ted
>
>
> --- Original Message ---
> From: "flier" <FLIER@sbcglobal.net>
> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>, <kitfox-
> list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 912 bad ignition sw
>
> >--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "flier"
> <FLIER@sbcglobal.net>
> >
> >I've hand started several times. As long as the
> >battery isn't completely dead mine fires right up.
> >
> >
> >--- Original Message ---
> >From: "Paul Peerenboom" <ppeerenbo@charter.net>
> >To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> >Subject: Kitfox-List: 912 bad ignition sw
> >
> >>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Paul
> Peerenboom"
> ><ppeerenbo@charter.net>
> >>
> >>Has anyone else tried to start a 912 by hand
> >propping? I did its imposable. Not to say that its a
> >bad ignition sw is ok, its just a 912 will not
> >produce spark until 1200 plus RPM.
> >>
> >>Paul
> >>
> >>
> >>_-
> >=====================================================
> > >==================
> >Contributions
> >any other
> >Forums.
> >>_-
> >=====================================================
> > >==================
> >>_-
> >=====================================================
> > >==================
> >http://www.matronics.com/subscription
> >http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/Kitfox-List.htm
> >http://www.matronics.com/browse/kitfox-list
> >http://www.matronics.com/digest/kitfox-list
> >http://www.matronics.com/archives
> >http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
> >list
> >http://www.matronics.com/emaillists
> >>_-
> >=====================================================
> > >==================
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >_-
> ======================================================
> ==================
> Contributions
> any other
> Forums.
> >_-
> ======================================================
> ==================
> >_-
> ======================================================
> ==================
> http://www.matronics.com/subscription
> http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/Kitfox-List.htm
> http://www.matronics.com/archives
> http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
> list
> http://www.matronics.com/emaillists
> >_-
> ======================================================
> ==================
> >
> >
>
>
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: | Model 5 Door latches |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Jim Corner <jcorner@shaw.ca>
What is the experience with the door latches on the model 5.
Acceptable, or should I fabricate a dual latch system instead of the
supplied single latch at the bottom?
Jim Corner
Message 40
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Model 5 Door latches |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: LeRoy staley <itis50@yahoo.com>
My exp. has shown me that with only the one latch I
can with my knee open the door in flight. Happend and
unexpectedly it is a shock to hear the wind and noise
in the cockpit. I like the extra latch up front as it
holds even better than the one in the middle.
LeRoy
--- Jim Corner <jcorner@shaw.ca> wrote:
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Jim Corner
> <jcorner@shaw.ca>
>
>
> What is the experience with the door latches on the
> model 5.
> Acceptable, or should I fabricate a dual latch
> system instead of the
> supplied single latch at the bottom?
>
> Jim Corner
>
>
>
> 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 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: Cold Seizure |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Gary Algate" <algate@attglobal.net>
Although we hear about cold seizures in two stroke engines these are more
related to snow machines than aviation use. Although the parameters for cold
seizure exists in both applications most aviation users monitor egt's and
coolant temps and therefore make sure they keep the temps in the
green.(Below 1200 degF EGT and above 150deg for coolant
The worst scenario for a cold seizure is a long descent in sub Zero temps
as in an extended final and then a sudden application of throttle as in a
missed approach and go-round.
Basically the engine is cooled during the descent and coolant temps can drop
below 140 deg and the cylinders contract around the piston. This is not a
huge problem but when there is a sudden application of throttle the pistons
heat up with the flash heat of combustion and start scraping the walls off
the cylinder - sometimes you will get away with it, other times the pistons
seize in the cylinders greatly reducing the noise output of the engine....
The best way to prevent this is by
a) controlling the coolant temp by using adjustable rad cowls or masking off
the radiator in winter months to ensure the temps are raised to normal
operating levels
b) control EGT's by monitoring and adjusting mixture and pitch accordingly
c) Planning flightpath so long descents at low RPM are avoided
This is another great feature of in-flight adjustable props as when I see my
temps dropping I go to fine pitch and increase engine RPM to keep coolant
temps in the green.
When buying a 2 stoke engine it is a good idea to pop the carbs and look at
the piston skirts to see if there is any sign of cold seizer (vertical
grooves and scratches and bluing)
Gary Algate
Lite2/582
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: Rotax two Stroke in-flight failure question. |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "chad lively" <chadl@compu.net>
My inflight engine failures were with Rotax 583, not 582. All three were
the result on the failure of the rear rod bering. Why? Who knows, but I'm
not flying 2 stroke engines anymore. Chad
----- Original Message -----
From: "Harris, Robert" <Robert_Harris@intuit.com>
Subject: Kitfox-List: Rotax two Stroke in-flight failure question.
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Harris, Robert"
<Robert_Harris@intuit.com>
>
> Bruce H,
> Did you have any in-flight engine failures with your 582?
>
> Chad L,
> What caused your in-flight engine failures?
>
> I fly in rugged mountain terrain with my 582 and do not look forward to an
> engine failure.
>
> Robert
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of chad lively
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Other Rotax engines.
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "chad lively" <chadl@compu.net>
>
> I have some experience with Rotax 583, 500+ hours in a IV 1200, that
> included 3 inflight engine failures. I'm going with a 912 now.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Torgeir Mortensen" <torgemor@online.no>
> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Kitfox-List: Other Rotax engines.
>
>
> > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Torgeir Mortensen
<torgemor@online.no>
> >
> > Hi Folks,
> >
> > We've often been discussing about the "other" Rotax combinations, most
> > often without much references.
> >
> > Here is an "interesting" site, maybe not the one we'll prefer -but gives
> > some answer to us.
> >
> > What about a two stroke Rotax delivering 105 HP, weight 110 lbs. (only
one
> > ignition system (: ).
> >
> > well it's kind of interesting, have a look:
> >
> > http://www.rdaerosports.com/
> >
> >
> > Torgeir.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
> >
> >
>
>
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: Model 5 Door latches |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Fred Shiple <fredshiple@sbcglobal.net>
You might want to look at Skystar's latch upgrade (from the series 7). I'll do
the mod this winter when I'm down for the condition inspection. It's a much better
seal. Look on the web site under upgrades/modifications.
Fred
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: | Rotax two Stroke in-flight failure question. |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Gary Algate" <algate@attglobal.net>
I believe the aviation version of the 582 is a lot different from the 583.
The 582 Blue head uses the 618 crank which is a lot more sturdy - also the
aviation 582 is basically de-rated (especially with the Kitfox exhaust
system) so you are not pushing the engine anywhere near its self destruct
capacity. - Bob from light engines can shed light on these facts.
You still can't beat a 2 stroke for HP to weight ratio and with aircrafts
our weight a 582 produces a heck of a lot of performance.
Like everything else aviation you have to mitigate the risks so you stay
within the safety envelope and carry out maintenance and checks according to
the equipment you are using. Based on this philosophy 2 strokers are as safe
as you make them.
Knock on Wood, Knock on Wood
Gary Algate
Lite2/582
-----Original Message-----
My inflight engine failures were with Rotax 583, not 582. All three were
the result on the failure of the rear rod bering. Why? Who knows, but I'm
not flying 2 stroke engines anymore. Chad
----- Original Message -----
Message 45
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Other Rotax engines. |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bob Robertson" <aerocontrols@clearwave.ca>
Hi Steve..
You probably know that Slipstream no longer support the MZ line of engines.
I guess the reason is the same type of things you mentioned in your post.
Bob R
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Magdic" <steve.magdic@1psg.com>
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Other Rotax engines.
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Steve Magdic" <steve.magdic@1psg.com>
>
> I have many, many hours flying the MZ202 in the single engine(SlipStream
Revelation)and twin configuration(SlipStream SkyBlaster).
> I also have some time with the use of the MZ302(SlipStream Genesis).
> All I can say is that I hope they have fixed all the little "problems"
> that made for some very interesting forced emergency landings.
> Some time I'll tell you the story of flying cross country while holding
the
> fiberglass engine fairing on so it wouldn't push the spark plug wires off
> the plugs and stop the engine (MZ202 inverted installation).
> Steve M.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: chad lively [mailto:chadl@compu.net]
> Sent: Thu 10/28/2004 7:59 PM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Cc:=09
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Other Rotax engines.
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "chad lively" <chadl@compu.net>
>
> I have some experience with Rotax 583, 500+ hours in a IV 1200, that
> included 3 inflight engine failures. I'm going with a 912 now.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Torgeir Mortensen" <torgemor@online.no>
> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Kitfox-List: Other Rotax engines.
>
>
> > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Torgeir Mortensen
<torgemor@online.no>
> >
> > Hi Folks,
> >
> > We've often been discussing about the "other" Rotax combinations, most
> > often without much references.
> >
> > Here is an "interesting" site, maybe not the one we'll prefer -but gives
> > some answer to us.
> >
> > What about a two stroke Rotax delivering 105 HP, weight 110 lbs. (only
one
> > ignition system (: ).
> >
> > well it's kind of interesting, have a look:
> >
> > http://www.rdaerosports.com/
> >
> >
> > Torgeir.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
> >
> >
>
>
Message 46
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Model 5 Door latches |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: John King <kingjohne@adelphia.net>
JIm,
My experience in the Series 6 door latch (same as the Series 5) is that
the space between the the door latch and that of the bottom door frame
is critical.. If too great, the door will sometime open unexpectedly
on its own in turbulence or at the higher speeds. My pilot side door
did that until I built up the striker plate a few thousands.. If you
build it up too much the latch will not latch all the way on its own. I
made a small hook to pull the door latch completely shut. and it works fine.
I also noticed that the pilot side door has a tendency to pull open a
little bit at the front edge in flight and I have to close it up by
pushing on the rear of the door slightly. My guess is that it might be
affected by prop wash. The left door does not do that.. It is my
opinion that at least the pilot side door should have a door latch at
the front, as well as at the bottom.
--
John King
Warrenton, VA
Jim Corner wrote:
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Jim Corner <jcorner@shaw.ca>
>
>
>What is the experience with the door latches on the model 5.
>Acceptable, or should I fabricate a dual latch system instead of the
>supplied single latch at the bottom?
>
>Jim Corner
>
>
>
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 |
|
| Subject: | Rotax two Stroke in-flight failure question. |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Harris, Robert" <Robert_Harris@intuit.com>
I don't blame you. I hope to get another plane with a 912 someday.
Robert
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of chad lively
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Rotax two Stroke in-flight failure question.
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "chad lively" <chadl@compu.net>
My inflight engine failures were with Rotax 583, not 582. All three were
the result on the failure of the rear rod bering. Why? Who knows, but I'm
not flying 2 stroke engines anymore. Chad
----- Original Message -----
From: "Harris, Robert" <Robert_Harris@intuit.com>
Subject: Kitfox-List: Rotax two Stroke in-flight failure question.
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Harris, Robert"
<Robert_Harris@intuit.com>
>
> Bruce H,
> Did you have any in-flight engine failures with your 582?
>
> Chad L,
> What caused your in-flight engine failures?
>
> I fly in rugged mountain terrain with my 582 and do not look forward to an
> engine failure.
>
> Robert
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of chad lively
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Other Rotax engines.
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "chad lively" <chadl@compu.net>
>
> I have some experience with Rotax 583, 500+ hours in a IV 1200, that
> included 3 inflight engine failures. I'm going with a 912 now.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Torgeir Mortensen" <torgemor@online.no>
> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Kitfox-List: Other Rotax engines.
>
>
> > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Torgeir Mortensen
<torgemor@online.no>
> >
> > Hi Folks,
> >
> > We've often been discussing about the "other" Rotax combinations, most
> > often without much references.
> >
> > Here is an "interesting" site, maybe not the one we'll prefer -but gives
> > some answer to us.
> >
> > What about a two stroke Rotax delivering 105 HP, weight 110 lbs. (only
one
> > ignition system (: ).
> >
> > well it's kind of interesting, have a look:
> >
> > http://www.rdaerosports.com/
> >
> >
> > Torgeir.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
> >
> >
>
>
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: | Other Rotax engines. |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Steve Magdic" <steve.magdic@1psg.com>
Yes Bob. I do not mean to give SlipStream a bad name.
The aircraft themselves are some of the most comfortable,
easy to fly/handle that I have flown.
The 912 powered Genesis can't be beat in the tricycle,
pusher catagory.
Steve M.
-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Robertson [mailto:aerocontrols@clearwave.ca]
Cc:=09
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Other Rotax engines.
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bob Robertson" <aerocontrols@clearwave.ca>
Hi Steve..
You probably know that Slipstream no longer support the MZ line of engines.
I guess the reason is the same type of things you mentioned in your post.
Bob R
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Magdic" <steve.magdic@1psg.com>
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Other Rotax engines.
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Steve Magdic" <steve.magdic@1psg.com>
>
> I have many, many hours flying the MZ202 in the single engine(SlipStream
Revelation)and twin configuration(SlipStream SkyBlaster).
> I also have some time with the use of the MZ302(SlipStream Genesis).
> All I can say is that I hope they have fixed all the little "problems"
> that made for some very interesting forced emergency landings.
> Some time I'll tell you the story of flying cross country while holding
the
> fiberglass engine fairing on so it wouldn't push the spark plug wires off
> the plugs and stop the engine (MZ202 inverted installation).
> Steve M.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: chad lively [mailto:chadl@compu.net]
> Sent: Thu 10/28/2004 7:59 PM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Cc:09
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Other Rotax engines.
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "chad lively" <chadl@compu.net>
>
> I have some experience with Rotax 583, 500+ hours in a IV 1200, that
> included 3 inflight engine failures. I'm going with a 912 now.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Torgeir Mortensen" <torgemor@online.no>
> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Kitfox-List: Other Rotax engines.
>
>
> > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Torgeir Mortensen
<torgemor@online.no>
> >
> > Hi Folks,
> >
> > We've often been discussing about the "other" Rotax combinations, most
> > often without much references.
> >
> > Here is an "interesting" site, maybe not the one we'll prefer -but gives
> > some answer to us.
> >
> > What about a two stroke Rotax delivering 105 HP, weight 110 lbs. (only
one
> > ignition system (: ).
> >
> > well it's kind of interesting, have a look:
> >
> > http://www.rdaerosports.com/
> >
> >
> > Torgeir.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
> >
> >
>
>
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 |
|
| Subject: | Rotax Thermostat |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Lmar <my93avid@yahoo.com>
A few years ago someone suggested using a Bombardier "Evinrude/Johnson" thermostat
part # 3853799. It is rated at 160F instead of out 130F. I have been using
it in the winter only(changing to the Rotax in the spring). I have found that
it keeps the temps at operating value more easily than the 130F one. With
the 130F, as I powered back, it was almost like water temp came down in direct
response with the throttle. With the hotter thermostat, I still cover the rad
on cold days, but engine temp management is much easier.
Larry
---------------------------------
Express yourself with Y! Messenger! Free. Download now.
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Other Rotax engines. |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bob Robertson" <aerocontrols@clearwave.ca>
Steve...I didn't mean to imply that you were putting Slipstream down.
Just that they had dropped that line of engines due to "technical problems".
I agree with the flight characteristics of their aircraft.
regards
Bob
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Magdic" <steve.magdic@1psg.com>
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Other Rotax engines.
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Steve Magdic" <steve.magdic@1psg.com>
>
> Yes Bob. I do not mean to give SlipStream a bad name.
> The aircraft themselves are some of the most comfortable,
> easy to fly/handle that I have flown.
> The 912 powered Genesis can't be beat in the tricycle,
> pusher catagory.
>
> Steve M.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bob Robertson [mailto:aerocontrols@clearwave.ca]
> Sent: Fri 10/29/2004 5:33 PM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Cc:=09
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Other Rotax engines.
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bob Robertson"
<aerocontrols@clearwave.ca>
>
> Hi Steve..
> You probably know that Slipstream no longer support the MZ line of
engines.
> I guess the reason is the same type of things you mentioned in your post.
> Bob R
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Steve Magdic" <steve.magdic@1psg.com>
> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Other Rotax engines.
>
>
> > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Steve Magdic"
<steve.magdic@1psg.com>
> >
> > I have many, many hours flying the MZ202 in the single engine(SlipStream
> Revelation)and twin configuration(SlipStream SkyBlaster).
> > I also have some time with the use of the MZ302(SlipStream Genesis).
> > All I can say is that I hope they have fixed all the little "problems"
> > that made for some very interesting forced emergency landings.
> > Some time I'll tell you the story of flying cross country while holding
> the
> > fiberglass engine fairing on so it wouldn't push the spark plug wires
off
> > the plugs and stop the engine (MZ202 inverted installation).
> > Steve M.
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: chad lively [mailto:chadl@compu.net]
> > Sent: Thu 10/28/2004 7:59 PM
> > To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> > Cc:09
> > Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Other Rotax engines.
> >
> > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "chad lively" <chadl@compu.net>
> >
> > I have some experience with Rotax 583, 500+ hours in a IV 1200, that
> > included 3 inflight engine failures. I'm going with a 912 now.
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Torgeir Mortensen" <torgemor@online.no>
> > To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> > Subject: Kitfox-List: Other Rotax engines.
> >
> >
> > > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Torgeir Mortensen
> <torgemor@online.no>
> > >
> > > Hi Folks,
> > >
> > > We've often been discussing about the "other" Rotax combinations, most
> > > often without much references.
> > >
> > > Here is an "interesting" site, maybe not the one we'll prefer -but
gives
> > > some answer to us.
> > >
> > > What about a two stroke Rotax delivering 105 HP, weight 110 lbs. (only
> one
> > > ignition system (: ).
> > >
> > > well it's kind of interesting, have a look:
> > >
> > > http://www.rdaerosports.com/
> > >
> > >
> > > Torgeir.
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client:
http://www.opera.com/m2/
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
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: | Re: Rotax two Stroke in-flight failure question. |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: jim rodenkirk <jimrody@wi.rr.com>
I'm a newbie at this flying stuff. I have a mod99. I'd would'nt haveta
think to hard to not wanna do this!!!
I fly in rugged mountain terrain with my 582 and do not look forward to an
> engine failure
Harris, Robert wrote:
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Harris, Robert" <Robert_Harris@intuit.com>
>
>I don't blame you. I hope to get another plane with a 912 someday.
>Robert
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of chad lively
>To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Rotax two Stroke in-flight failure question.
>
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "chad lively" <chadl@compu.net>
>
>My inflight engine failures were with Rotax 583, not 582. All three were
>the result on the failure of the rear rod bering. Why? Who knows, but I'm
>not flying 2 stroke engines anymore. Chad
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Harris, Robert" <Robert_Harris@intuit.com>
>To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: Kitfox-List: Rotax two Stroke in-flight failure question.
>
>
>
>
>>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Harris, Robert"
>>
>>
><Robert_Harris@intuit.com>
>
>
>>Bruce H,
>>Did you have any in-flight engine failures with your 582?
>>
>>Chad L,
>>What caused your in-flight engine failures?
>>
>>I fly in rugged mountain terrain with my 582 and do not look forward to an
>>engine failure.
>>
>>Robert
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
>>[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of chad lively
>>To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
>>Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Other Rotax engines.
>>
>>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "chad lively" <chadl@compu.net>
>>
>>I have some experience with Rotax 583, 500+ hours in a IV 1200, that
>>included 3 inflight engine failures. I'm going with a 912 now.
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: "Torgeir Mortensen" <torgemor@online.no>
>>To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
>>Subject: Kitfox-List: Other Rotax engines.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Torgeir Mortensen
>>>
>>>
><torgemor@online.no>
>
>
>>>Hi Folks,
>>>
>>>We've often been discussing about the "other" Rotax combinations, most
>>>often without much references.
>>>
>>>Here is an "interesting" site, maybe not the one we'll prefer -but gives
>>>some answer to us.
>>>
>>>What about a two stroke Rotax delivering 105 HP, weight 110 lbs. (only
>>>
>>>
>one
>
>
>>>ignition system (: ).
>>>
>>>well it's kind of interesting, have a look:
>>>
>>>http://www.rdaerosports.com/
>>>
>>>
>>>Torgeir.
>>>
>>>
>>>--
>>>Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: 912 bad ignition sw |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "neflyer48" <neflyer48@cableone.net>
My 912 starts fine by hand proping, but I have to pull it through 2
compression strokes at once. I have found that when the battery is not
turning the engine fast enough, there is a slight kickback near the top of
each compression stroke. It won't start unless it turns fast enough to get
past that point. I have a good battery now, but it always started good by
pulling the prop.
Jerry Kohles
Norfolk Ne.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Peerenboom" <ppeerenbo@charter.net>
Subject: Kitfox-List: 912 bad ignition sw
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Paul Peerenboom"
> <ppeerenbo@charter.net>
>
> Has anyone else tried to start a 912 by hand propping? I did its
> imposable. Not to say that its a bad ignition sw is ok, its just a 912
> will not produce spark until 1200 plus RPM.
>
> Paul
>
>
>
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Rotax two Stroke in-flight failure question. |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bruce Harrington" <aerowood@mcsi.net>
To all 582 wana-bes!
With adequate maintenance and proper care, I had 800+ hrs on my 582ed
IV-1200, with many flights across the Cascade Mountains and all the other
mountain ranges around Roseburg, OR. There are mountains here everywhere
within 10-20 minutes flight in every direction! A straight route on a
compass heading in any direction involves flight across mountains!
Typically, a 2-stroke will give some indication of impending failure, well
in advance of complete loss of power. So follow the Rotax manuals, and go
have fun!
Cheers,
bh
ex-N194KF, 582ed IV-1200, 800+ hrs
N321SX Sonex, Jab 3300ed, 97.3 hrs
> I believe the aviation version of the 582 is a lot different from the 583.
> The 582 Blue head uses the 618 crank which is a lot more sturdy - also the
> aviation 582 is basically de-rated (especially with the Kitfox exhaust
> system) so you are not pushing the engine anywhere near its self destruct
> capacity. - Bob from light engines can shed light on these facts.
>
> You still can't beat a 2 stroke for HP to weight ratio and with aircrafts
> our weight a 582 produces a heck of a lot of performance.
>
> Like everything else aviation you have to mitigate the risks so you stay
> within the safety envelope and carry out maintenance and checks according
> to
> the equipment you are using. Based on this philosophy 2 strokers are as
> safe
> as you make them.
>
> Knock on Wood, Knock on Wood
>
> Gary Algate
> Lite2/582
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: Coating on Inside of Cowl To Lowell |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Jerry Liles <wliles@bayou.com>
Michael
You are entirely correct about the utltimate strength of fiberglass
being in the glass and about the desirability of just enough epoxy to
support the glass. I also do not dispute your credentials as a designer,
in fact I find them quite impressive, and I'm certainly not going to
dispute Loyd's about strength and safety of vessels. My own boating is
limited to pirogues and John boats on the Louisiana bayous and
occassionally trolling for alligators (water skiing). My point was only
that the tanks might be more rigiid, or less flexible, because there
was a thicker layer of epoxy present I did not say the tanks would be
stronger or even that the extra epoxy was desirable from a structural
point. In fact since it is not supported by a web of glass fibers it is
more likely to crack if too thick.
Jerry Liles
Michel Verheughe wrote:
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
>
>Jerry Liles wrote:
>
>
>>Michael
>>I think the tank would be stiffer because it would be thicker. Cured
>>epoxy is a solid and rigid and thicker solids are stiffer or more
>>rigid. Glass fibers only supply tensile strength and require a rigid
>>matrix - epoxy or polyester - to hold a shape and provide rigidity.
>>
>>
>
>I don't know, Jerry, because I am not a chemist nor an engineer. All I know is
>that I was, together with a friend, a yacht designer for 5 years, and that, on
>our designs, the class societies did the tests I mentioned. I do hope Lloyd's
>and DnV know what they are doing otherwise there are a lot of vessels on the
>seven seas that are in an immediate danger.
>
>Cheers,
>Michel
>
>do not archive
>
>
>
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: | Re: A New Temperature Control System |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Jerry Liles <wliles@bayou.com>
Cold seizure of the 582 is more likely due to incomplete warm up of the
engine before flight. On really cold days there is a risk of over
cooling on prolonged descent at speed or, even, flying at low throttle
settings. I make certain I have a good part of the radiator masked off
on cold days for this reason. I also tend to descend at very slow
speeds sort of hanging on the prop to keep the engine warm until I get
low enough that I want a bit of extra speed for stall protection if the
engine does quit. I keep thinking some kind of cockpit adjustable
radiator louvers would be useful, like cowl flaps on air cooled engines.
Jerry Liles
Guy Buchanan wrote:
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Guy Buchanan <bnn@nethere.com>
>
>At 06:11 AM 10/29/2004 -0400, you wrote:
>
>
>
>
>> Speaking of seizures, I know I'm wrong but only one seizure comes to
>>mind. One of our members had one due to failing to put back the sieve
>>sleeves. I
>>can't recall other seizures???? Either way, proper operating and
>>controlling the temps should greatly reduce seizures.
>>
>>
>
>I thought, for some reason, that cold seizure was one of the dreaded things
>living with a 582. Maybe it is not that big of a problem. Does anyone else
>think it's a problem worth addressing?
>
>
>Guy Buchanan
>K-IV 1200 / 582 / 99% done, thanks to Bob Ducar.
>
>
>
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Coating on Inside of Cowl To Lowell |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: AlbertaIV@aol.com
In a message dated 10/29/04 10:29:18 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
michel@online.no writes:
<< I don't know, Jerry, because I am not a chemist nor an engineer. All I
know is
that I was, together with a friend, a yacht designer for 5 years, and that,
on
o >>
Michel,
Since I made the statement, I need to support it a bit. Not to argue
but, if you look inside the cowl with a magnifying glass you will see a small 4
sided square hole (the back side of the cloth that is not filled). That
little 4 sided hole is multiplied by the thousands over the inside surface. If
you
fill up that one hole, you will strengthen the area around that one hole.
Now, add that by thousands and it adds some strength. By design, it might not
supposed to do it but, it does. It kind of only makes sense that it would add
something.
Don Smythe
N-998DS Classic IV W/ 582
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: Rotax two Stroke in-flight failu |
re question.
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bruce Harrington" <aerowood@mcsi.net>
Hi Robert,
#1. Yes.
#2. No pictures. I riveted a piano hinge on the rear bottom of the
radiator.
Riveted a flap to the hinge (opened to about 75)(flap ends had 90 flanges
for strength).
Riveted a flange at the top center of the flap for attaching a control
cable.
Made a bracket to hold cable housing on the top of the radiator and riveted
it there.
Ran the cable to a home made bellcrank attached to the lower horizontal
firewall plate (1:2 ratio to increase throw at flap).
Ran a vernier control cable from the bellcrank up then back and thru the
vertical firewall.
Made a bracket to hold the control cable vernier end.
Attached the bracket to the diagonal brace that goes from the front
floorboards to the top of the front of the seat truss.
This worked flawlessly for many hours of flying. Full open in summer,
usually fully closed in winter.
I also used the 160F OMC thermostat. Even then, coolant temps dropped to
or below 140F on descents to land.
I started with plastic wrapped around the radiator for winter flying, but
had to have different lengths depending on the expected air temps. Flap
cured this problem.
Hope this helps,
bh
> Hi Bruce, out of the 800+ hours on your 582 is that the only in-flight
> engine failure you had?
>
> By the way how did you make your radiator flap device? Do you have any
> pictures? My water temps are going to low.
>
> Robert
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: Different plugs=smoother running down low. |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: AlbertaIV@aol.com
In a message dated 10/29/04 11:13:23 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
bnn@nethere.com writes:
<< Don,
Why are your modules on the firewall? Mine are on the side of the
engine.
Guy Buchanan >>
Guy,
Back when I was installing the engine, there were reports going around
about the 912 engines breaking wires on their modules. Not knowing for sure
whether that applied to the 582's or not, I decided to perform the same fix. Get
the modules off the engine. I also did some web searching on the subject and
found an article stating, the 582 modules do not like heat and vibration.
Getting them off the engine and onto the firewall fixed all the concerns. They
work nice and are shockmounted. I came close to putting them on the backside
of the firewall but running the wires was too much a hassle.
Don Smythe
N-998DS Classic IV W/ 582
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 |
|
Stroke in-flight failu re question.
Stroke in-flight failu re question.
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Harris, Robert" <Robert_Harris@intuit.com>
Thanks Bruce. I want to make a flap like you did. I also want to put 800 hrs
on my 582 like you did.
I saw your e-mail a few weeks ago about putting plastic on the radiator so I
duct taped some card board on my radiator but as soon as it got warm I had
to land and take it off.
Robert
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bruce
Harrington
Subject: Re: bh radiator flapRE: Kitfox-List: Rotax two Stroke in-flight
failu re question.
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bruce Harrington" <aerowood@mcsi.net>
Hi Robert,
#1. Yes.
#2. No pictures. I riveted a piano hinge on the rear bottom of the
radiator.
Riveted a flap to the hinge (opened to about 75)(flap ends had 90 flanges
for strength).
Riveted a flange at the top center of the flap for attaching a control
cable.
Made a bracket to hold cable housing on the top of the radiator and riveted
it there.
Ran the cable to a home made bellcrank attached to the lower horizontal
firewall plate (1:2 ratio to increase throw at flap).
Ran a vernier control cable from the bellcrank up then back and thru the
vertical firewall.
Made a bracket to hold the control cable vernier end.
Attached the bracket to the diagonal brace that goes from the front
floorboards to the top of the front of the seat truss.
This worked flawlessly for many hours of flying. Full open in summer,
usually fully closed in winter.
I also used the 160F OMC thermostat. Even then, coolant temps dropped to
or below 140F on descents to land.
I started with plastic wrapped around the radiator for winter flying, but
had to have different lengths depending on the expected air temps. Flap
cured this problem.
Hope this helps,
bh
> Hi Bruce, out of the 800+ hours on your 582 is that the only in-flight
> engine failure you had?
>
> By the way how did you make your radiator flap device? Do you have any
> pictures? My water temps are going to low.
>
> Robert
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: Coating on Inside of Cowl To Lowell |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Ceashman@aol.com
Jerry Liles wrote:
> Michael
> I think the tank would be stiffer because it would be thicker. Cured
> epoxy is a solid and rigid and thicker solids are stiffer or more
> rigid. Glass fibers only supply tensile strength and require a rigid
> Matrix - epoxy or polyester -- to hold a shape and provide rigidity.
.
>I don't know, Jerry, because I am not a chemist nor an engineer. All I know
is
>that I was, together with a friend, a yacht designer for 5 years, and that,
on
>Our designs, the class societies did the tests I mentioned. I do hope Lloyd's
>and dn. know what they are doing otherwise there are a lot of vessels on the
>Seven seas that are in an immediate danger.
>Cheers,
>Michel
Is there an engineer in the house?
I am not but I have worked with fiberglass on new work and on repairs. And if
you don't mind, I would like to share my comments base purely on experience
and not science
I thought tensile strength was related to the stresses as if you were pulling
the component apart. Like in stretching a rubber band or two Dutch men
fighting over a penny and making copper wire.
I don't think a fuel tank or cowling requires tensile strength built into it
as an engineering factor.
If any composite component, whether made from epoxy or polyester is cured
through and you apply the correct resin (epoxy for epoxy and polyester for
polyester) over the unsanded (You should sand with P60, P80 to P120 grit). Then
you
will have adhesion problems. It aint goin to stick, the more thickness you
apply, the more it will fall off, through flexing or constant vibration. So I
would not try to coat the inside of the fuel tank, 'cause I can't get in there
to
sand.
As to the fabric lay-up, The fiberglass or carbon fiber, sheets (laminates)
by the time you have finished should have enough resin to completely wet the
woven material but not so much as to run off if the piece is vertical or "lake"
puddle if the piece is horizontal. Any more resin than complete wetting is a
waste (no added strength without the extra sheet of glass or carbon).
If you inspect the cured article and close up you find minute square pocket
holes. This tells you that the fabric lay-up was not wet enough. Is it a bad
thing? not necessarily. As long as the first layer or two had sufficient wetting
you should be OK. Unless this is a wing! The mistake has been made. Good
fiberglass work should look pretty. The same as welding, welding should also look
pleasing to the eye!
Could you try to smooth things out and wet the system after full curing? Lets
say that the pocket holes are 100% clean, no dust, no oils etc. You could get
some adhesion but I would not trust it. As to wetting the glass or carbon
fiber and getting better structural integrity = No. You may even try to laminate
a new sheet of glass but that would be like using the original like a mold
with very poor release qualities.
Regards. Eric Ashman
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! --
|