Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:24 AM - 582 cooling (AlbertaIV@aol.com)
2. 04:36 AM - Re: Smart Tool level (Lynn Matteson)
3. 05:28 AM - Re: 582 cooling (Fox5flyer)
4. 05:59 AM - Re: 582 cooling (AlbertaIV@aol.com)
5. 07:19 AM - Re: 582 cooling (Paul)
6. 07:32 AM - Re: 582 cooling (Rick)
7. 09:13 AM - Re: Kitfox radiator and cooling (EMAproducts@aol.com)
8. 09:52 AM - aircraft plywood question (Lynn Matteson)
9. 10:37 AM - Re: Does anyone know what happened to the Skystar website? (RICHARD HUTSON)
10. 10:40 AM - Re: aircraft plywood question (customtrans@qwest.net)
11. 11:35 AM - Re: aircraft plywood question (flier)
12. 12:17 PM - Re: 582 cooling (AlbertaIV@aol.com)
13. 12:37 PM - Re: aircraft plywood question (kerrjohna@comcast.net)
14. 01:09 PM - Re: 582 cooling (Guy Buchanan)
15. 01:48 PM - Re: wings (Michael Gibbs)
16. 02:11 PM - Re: 582 cooling (Michel Verheughe)
17. 03:59 PM - Re: 582 cooling (Paul)
18. 03:59 PM - Re: 582 cooling (Paul)
19. 03:59 PM - Re: 582 cooling (Paul)
20. 04:07 PM - Cold Seizures Re: 582 cooling (dave)
21. 04:26 PM - Re: Cold Seizures Re: 582 cooling (AlbertaIV@aol.com)
22. 04:50 PM - Re: Cold Seizures Re: 582 cooling (shortnaked)
23. 05:17 PM - Re: Cold Seizures Re: 582 cooling (AlbertaIV@aol.com)
24. 06:27 PM - Austin Area Foxfliers (Norm Beauchamp)
25. 07:19 PM - MicroairCom vs Sigtronics SPA-400/400N (Bruce Harrington)
26. 09:04 PM - Re: Re: radiator and cooling (kurt schrader)
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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: AlbertaIV@aol.com
To you guys that have run with rad fairings and door flaps...Do you think
it possible or probable that you could run a 582 in the dead of winter with a
tight rad system, good linear door on back side and "NO" thermostat?
To me, a system like this would be a good answer to coolant control for
year round operation. Good unobstructed water flow and taking out one point of
failure (thermostat). Would also help to control the inlet/outlet temps to
the engine???
Don Smythe
N-998DS Classic IV W/ 582
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Smart Tool level |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net>
Thanks for all the input, guys....I've decided on getting just the
module, as the vendors keep insisting that if I get the 48" (and I
assume the 24"), that the module cannot be removed...makes you wonder
how it got in there in the first place. At any rate, I'll use it in
conjunction with my 48" bubble level when necessary. I looked at many
websites, but couldn't find any local dealers who carry this product,
finally settling on Amazon.com., whose catalog arrived the other day,
and they had it listed in there. I'd much rather drive 100 miles and
be able to touch, handle and smell the products I intend to
buy....sheeesh!
Lynn
do not archive
On Thursday, November 4, 2004, at 04:02 PM, kerrjohna@comcast.net
wrote:
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kerrjohna@comcast.net
>
> I have used the 48" Smarttool level, both in the rail and the module
> itself after removing 4 socket head countersunk screws that your
> vendors may not be aware of. It does require holding the 9v battery
> while in use.
>
> I have at the hangar a friends digital level that is about 9" long and
> self-contained.
>
> With any of them you need to go through check the calibration before
> using because they are susceptible to drift. Either should be
> available for under $100.
>
> -------------- Original message --------------
>
>> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Brett Walmsley"
>>
>> Lynn,
>> Two words: e-bay, oops I guess that's one word.
>> Anyway you can find good bargins there on this kind of stuff but as
>> always
>> be careful who you buy from.
>> Sears also has a nice "digital Protractor" ($200)that is about 6
>> inches
>> long and goes to the tenth of a degree with amazing repeatability.
>> Don't
>> know how I lived without it. Had to get the first one replaced it was
>> about .6 degree off all of the time. I will routinely set it on top
>> of my
>> 4' bubble level to keep everyone honest.
>>
>>> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson
>>>
>>> I'm getting near the point where I'll be needing to do some serious
>>> leveling, and angle checking. I'm a bit confused by the finite degree
>>> of accuracy required by the rigging instructions, namely the 11.4
>>> degrees of angle between the "belly of the aircraft and the #15049
>>> bellcrank"....this is in the Rigging of the Flaperons section of the
>>> building manual for the IV of 1994. The manual suggests that "a Smart
>>> Level is invaluable for this". My question is why does that angle
>>> have
>>> to be so darn accurate if the fuselage has been leveled with a simple
>>> bubble level? My thinking is that if this is such a critical angle,
>>> then we'd better be using the Smart Level right from the get-go,
>>> hadn't
>>> we? If a bubble level is all right for the leveling of the fuse,
>>> shouldn't a bubble protractor set to 11 or 12 degrees be accurate
>>> enough for the rigging of that bellcrank? What am I missing here?
>>>
>>> Second question: In checking out the Smart Tools, I see that they are
>>> available in the whole level, either 24" or 48", with module, or just
>>> as the module alone. I've been told that the module can be used
>>> alone,
>>> or placed on a normal 48" level, for instance, but if I were to
>>> purchase the 48" Smart Tool level, that the module cannot be removed,
>>> as it is wired in, and doing so would void the warranty. Anybody up
>>> to
>>> speed on these tools?
>>>
>>> Lynn
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> I have used the 48" Smarttool level, both in the rail and the module
> itself after removing 4 socket head countersunk screws that your
> vendors may not be aware of. It does require holding the 9v battery
> while in use.
>
> I have at the hangar a friends digital level that is about 9" long and
> self-contained.
>
> With any of them you need to go through check the calibration
> beforeusing because they are susceptible to drift. Either should be
> available for under $100.
>
> -------------- Original message --------------
>
> -- Kitfox-List message posted by: "Brett Walmsley"
> <KITFOX4@NUMAIL.ORG>
>
> Lynn,
> Two words: e-bay, oops I guess that's one word.
> Anyway you can find good bargins there on this kind of stuff but as
> always
> be careful who you buy from.
> Sears also has a nice "digital Protractor" ($200)that is about 6
> inches
> long and goes to the tenth of a degree with amazing repeatability.
> Don't
> know how I lived without it. Had to get the first one replaced it was
> about .6 degree off all of the time. I will routinely set it on top
> of my
> 4' bubble level to keep everyone honest.
>
> -- Kitfox-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson <LYNNMATT@JPS.NET>
>
> I'm getting near the point where I'll be needing to do some serious
>
> leveling, and angle checking. I'm a bit confused by the finite degree
> of accuracy required by the rigging instructions, namely the 11.4
> degrees of angle between the "belly of the aircraft and the #15049
> bellcrank"....this is in the Rigging of the Flaperons section of the
> building manual for the IV of 1994. The manual suggests that "a Smart
> Level is invaluable for this". My question is why does that angle
> have
> to be so darn accurate if the fuselage has been leveled with a simple
> bubble level? My thinking is that if this is such a critical angle,
> then we'd better be using the Smart Level right from the get-go,
> hadn't
> we? If a bubble level is all right for the leveling of the fuse,
> shouldn't a bubble protractor set to 11 or 12 degrees be accurate
> enough for the rigging of that bellcrank? What am I missing here? <
> BR>
> Second question: In checking out the Smart Tools, I see that they are
> available in the whole level, either 24" or 48", with module, or just
> as the module alone. I've been told that the module can be used
> alone,
> or placed on a normal 48" level, for instance, but if I were to
> purchase the 48" Smart Tool level, that the module cannot be removed,
> as it is wired in, and doing so would void the warranty. Anybody up
> to
> speed on these tools?
>
> Lynn
>
>
> s Terrific Free Incentive Gifts provided by the
> _
> -= Search Engine: http://www.matronics.com/search
>
>
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: "Fox5flyer" <morid@northland.lib.mi.us>
IMO that's the ideal way to do it, however there will always be a point of
potential failure.
Darrel
----- Original Message -----
From: <AlbertaIV@aol.com>
Subject: Kitfox-List: 582 cooling
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: AlbertaIV@aol.com
>
> To you guys that have run with rad fairings and door flaps...Do you
think
> it possible or probable that you could run a 582 in the dead of winter
with a
> tight rad system, good linear door on back side and "NO" thermostat?
> To me, a system like this would be a good answer to coolant control
for
> year round operation. Good unobstructed water flow and taking out one
point of
> failure (thermostat). Would also help to control the inlet/outlet temps
to
> the engine???
>
> Don Smythe
> N-998DS Classic IV W/ 582
>
>
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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: AlbertaIV@aol.com
In a message dated 11/5/04 5:29:32 AM Pacific Standard Time,
morid@northland.lib.mi.us writes:
<< IMO that's the ideal way to do it, however there will always be a point of
potential failure.
Darrel >>
Darrel,
I agree that failure is always present somewhere. I would just like to
have more positive control over temps. There are times descending and climbing
that I'm at the mercy of the thermostat and temps will go in both directions
toward something undesirable. I like the idea of having more pilot control.
Don Smythe
N-998DS Classic IV W/ 582
Do Not Archive
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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Paul <pwilson@climber.org>
Has any body mentioned the use of a high and low temperature switches to light
a light to tell the pilot that the coolant temp is a concern? These switches
are passive and if installed correctly wont create a critical failure mode. I
have these switches on my off road truck to keep me informed and tell me when
to revise my driving technique. These switches are widely available from the car
nut catalogs.
With all due respect to all the ingenious methods of engine coolant temp control.
The only method that has withstood the test of time is the simple thermostat.
Back in the '30s cars has dampers or louvers that had wax cylinder to open/close
the radiator cover. Some even had manual control. These systems were eventually
discarded due to unreliability and lack of driver control to pay attention.
All were heavy and had mechanical issues due to the method of construction.
Having said that a thermostat is a failure mode that could ruin your day. I would
consider a thermostat with a pilot controlled bypass valve and the mentioned
lights to tell the pilot of a stat failure.
The real challenge would be to make these plumbing changes that are aircraft quality.
Meaning light weight and not failure prone. Looks like a pretty simple
issue to me.
Last time I worked this issue, Peter Gretchen would sell a person a first class
custom thermostat housing that would accept a state of the art, high reliability
thermostat. Peter designed his housing for the Sub so it has slightly larger
fittings, 1.25" instead of 1" the Rotax uses. This should not be much of an
issue for the typical home builder. (Sorry Peter I dont remember how to spell
your last name).
Another solution is the use the BMW stat which comes built into its own housing.
Available at NAPA. The BMW unit is not of the latest design but several Foxers
are flying with this unit with no reported issues. Read the archives for details
on both systems.
Maybe this would be worth considering???
Paul
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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Rick" <turboflyer@comcast.net>
Just a quick note. There are, and I have used, thermostats that are referred
to as failsafe, may even be the brand. They fail in the open position so
failure is not a critical issue.
Rick
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Paul
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 582 cooling
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Paul <pwilson@climber.org>
Has any body mentioned the use of a high and low temperature switches to
light a light to tell the pilot that the coolant temp is a concern? These
switches are passive and if installed correctly wont create a critical
failure mode. I have these switches on my off road truck to keep me informed
and tell me when to revise my driving technique. These switches are widely
available from the car nut catalogs.
With all due respect to all the ingenious methods of engine coolant temp
control. The only method that has withstood the test of time is the simple
thermostat. Back in the '30s cars has dampers or louvers that had wax
cylinder to open/close the radiator cover. Some even had manual control.
These systems were eventually discarded due to unreliability and lack of
driver control to pay attention. All were heavy and had mechanical issues
due to the method of construction.
Having said that a thermostat is a failure mode that could ruin your day. I
would consider a thermostat with a pilot controlled bypass valve and the
mentioned lights to tell the pilot of a stat failure.
The real challenge would be to make these plumbing changes that are
aircraft quality. Meaning light weight and not failure prone. Looks like a
pretty simple issue to me.
Last time I worked this issue, Peter Gretchen would sell a person a first
class custom thermostat housing that would accept a state of the art, high
reliability thermostat. Peter designed his housing for the Sub so it has
slightly larger fittings, 1.25" instead of 1" the Rotax uses. This should
not be much of an issue for the typical home builder. (Sorry Peter I dont
remember how to spell your last name).
Another solution is the use the BMW stat which comes built into its own
housing. Available at NAPA. The BMW unit is not of the latest design but
several Foxers are flying with this unit with no reported issues. Read the
archives for details on both systems.
Maybe this would be worth considering???
Paul
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Kitfox radiator and cooling |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: EMAproducts@aol.com
Liquid cooled Kitfox builders,
I'm attempting to get some photos of what was FAA approved for a liquid
cooled engine in '39. There is no reason to reinvent the wheel! As soon as I
get
the photos will put a note on the list. Simple, light, worked fine and lasts
a long time :-) nothing automatic in it so very very little to go wrong. I
tried scanning the photos I have but weren't clear enough. Those who would be
interested send me a note off line.
Elbie
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: | aircraft plywood question |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net>
I'm ready to begin building ribs for my vertical fin/rudder airfoiling
project, and the guys out at the local EAA chapter told me to use
aircraft ply with the plies at 45 degrees to each other. Is this
necessary for the ribs in the vert fin and rudder at the speeds that
I'll be flying in a Model IV, INSIDE the fabric covering? They were
telling me horror stories of plywood blowing up when 90 degree plies
were used. They didn't say whether the "blown up ply" was on the
exterior of the plane or not. I see that Aircraft Spruce has it both
ways...90 and 45.
Lynn
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: Does anyone know what happened to the Skystar website? |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "RICHARD HUTSON" <rhutson@midsouth.rr.com>
WORKS FINE FOR ME!!!
Subject: Kitfox-List: Does anyone know what happened to the Skystar website?
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Rex & Jan Shaw" <rexjan@bigpond.com>
>
> Does anyone know what happened to the Skystar website?
>
> Did they close down?
>
> No they are just having a lot of trouble. The site came straight up for
> me
> too but they did have something posted the other day apologising that one
> couldn't reply to postings. They were saying several weeks to a cure when
> they get a new system. Unfortunately I think it's a great resource that's
> useless in the meantime but maybe it will all be ok in the long run.
> I generally check it out each day and some strange things have been
> happening.
>
> Rex.
> rexjan@bigpond.com
>
> DO NOT ARCHIVE
>
>
>
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | aircraft plywood question |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: customtrans@qwest.net
Not sure what to do with the plywood, I just went and ordered all the ribs
for horizontal and elevator from skystar, I do know you need good
ventilation back there. On my damaged horizontal, there was plenty of rust
and the ribs were warped very badly and just sitting inside out of position.
Make sure the covering has plenty of holes and I would also suggest drilling
lightening holes in the ribs, not only for weight but also for air
circulation.
steve a
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Lynn
Matteson
Subject: Kitfox-List: aircraft plywood question
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net>
I'm ready to begin building ribs for my vertical fin/rudder airfoiling
project, and the guys out at the local EAA chapter told me to use
aircraft ply with the plies at 45 degrees to each other. Is this
necessary for the ribs in the vert fin and rudder at the speeds that
I'll be flying in a Model IV, INSIDE the fabric covering? They were
telling me horror stories of plywood blowing up when 90 degree plies
were used. They didn't say whether the "blown up ply" was on the
exterior of the plane or not. I see that Aircraft Spruce has it both
ways...90 and 45.
Lynn
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: aircraft plywood question |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "flier" <FLIER@sbcglobal.net>
I used the same ply I used to use in my giant scale
RC aircraft (available at the local hobby shop).
Epoxy varnished of course. It's done me well for 8
yrs and 400 hrs now.
Considering the airfoiling isn't necessary for the
aircraft to fly correctly I'd be hard pressed to
figure out how the stresses could multiply so much by
adding the airfoil as to cause a failure of any ply
configuration!
--- Original Message ---
From: Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net>
Subject: Kitfox-List: aircraft plywood question
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson
<lynnmatt@jps.net>
>
>I'm ready to begin building ribs for my vertical
fin/rudder airfoiling
>project, and the guys out at the local EAA chapter
told me to use
>aircraft ply with the plies at 45 degrees to each
other. Is this
>necessary for the ribs in the vert fin and rudder at
the speeds that
>I'll be flying in a Model IV, INSIDE the fabric
covering? They were
>telling me horror stories of plywood blowing up when
90 degree plies
>were used. They didn't say whether the "blown up
ply" was on the
>exterior of the plane or not. I see that Aircraft
Spruce has it both
>ways...90 and 45.
>
>Lynn
>
>
>_-
======================================================
===============
Click on the
this
by the
Admin.
>_->_-
======================================================
===============
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 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: AlbertaIV@aol.com
Paul,
See below
<< Has any body mentioned the use of a high and low temperature switches to
light a light to tell the pilot that the coolant temp is a concern? These
switches are passive >>
What temp ranges can you get in these switches? I would think something
around 170 for high and 155 low. I would want these to indicate well within the
max/min coolant limits as "caution" limits not "warning" limits.
<<The only method that has withstood the test of time is the simple
thermostat. Back>>
Agree, the thermostat has stood the test of time and a great invention but,
not so much in airplanes. I believe it was BH that had one come apart and
jam????
<<consider a thermostat with a pilot controlled bypass valve and the
mentioned lights to tell the pilot of a stat failure.>>
Now your cooking on a fail safe system. It adds a couple more parts but I
would feel better knowing I could bypass that thermostat in case of a failure.
Throw in the lights and it's even getting better.
<<Last time I worked this issue, Peter Gretchen would sell a person a first
class custom thermostat housing that would accept a state of the art, high
reliability thermostat.>>
I remember that issue. I wondered back then if mounting an external
thermostat housing (not in the head) would affect the temp range of the required
thermostat?? It seems the temp felt at the external housing might be quite
different from the temp felt just inside the head???
All the above ideas are great but still may not keep the engine in the
"comfort" zone without a well designed rad/door system. When I reduce power for
a
long decent to landing, I can see my temps drop down in the 140 range (cold
weather). The thermostat alone is not going to correct this small problem. I
like the idea of "no" thermostat with a good cowl door design and the "lights"
for controlling temps. Just not sure if it's possible to control with a door
only???
Don Smythe
N-998DS Classic IV W/ 582
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: aircraft plywood question |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kerrjohna@comcast.net
aircraft grade plywood, maybe. 45 degree definitely not (IMO) it is too flexible.
I believe that the material supplied with the kit option was the liteply (poplar)
plywood.
-------------- Original message --------------
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson
>
> I'm ready to begin building ribs for my vertical fin/rudder airfoiling
> project, and the guys out at the local EAA chapter told me to use
> aircraft ply with the plies at 45 degrees to each other. Is this
> necessary for the ribs in the vert fin and rudder at the speeds that
> I'll be flying in a Model IV, INSIDE the fabric covering? They were
> telling me horror stories of plywood blowing up when 90 degree plies
> were used. They didn't say whether the "blown up ply" was on the
> exterior of the plane or not. I see that Aircraft Spruce has it both
> ways...90 and 45.
>
> Lynn
>
>
>
>
>
>
aircraft grade plywood, maybe. 45 degree definitely not (IMO) it is too flexible.
I believe that the material supplied with the kit option was the liteply (poplar)
plywood.
-------------- Original message --------------
-- Kitfox-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson <LYNNMATT@JPS.NET>
I'm ready to begin building ribs for my vertical fin/rudder airfoiling
project, and the guys out at the local EAA chapter told me to use
aircraft ply with the plies at 45 degrees to each other. Is this
necessary for the ribs in the vert fin and rudder at the speeds that
I'll be flying in a Model IV, INSIDE the fabric covering? They were
telling me horror stories of plywood blowing up when 90 degree plies
were used. They didn't say whether the "blown up ply" was on the
exterior of the plane or not. I see that Aircraft Spruce has it both
ways...90 and 45.
Lynn
=============================================
====
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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Guy Buchanan <bnn@nethere.com>
At 08:20 AM 11/5/2004 -0700, you wrote:
> With all due respect to all the ingenious methods of engine coolant temp
> control. The only method that has withstood the test of time is the
> simple thermostat. Back in the '30s cars has dampers or louvers that had
> wax cylinder to open/close the radiator cover. Some even had manual
> control. These systems were eventually discarded due to unreliability and
> lack of driver control to pay attention. All were heavy and had
> mechanical issues due to the method of construction...
>
> Paul
Cars don't have cold seizure problems and as such a thermostat works quite
well for them. I suspect the cold seizure problem is very engine specific
and involves not having enough thermal mass near the water inlet to dampen
the shock effect of cold water entry. Cold seizure is probably also not an
issue for snowmobiles or other vehicles that don't do 10 minute descents
that sub-cool the radiator fluid. Or maybe they do? I don't know. I know
that nobody has been able to say: "Ignore the cold seizure question; it's a
non-issue," so I'm trying to find a way around it. It seemed that using an
air based thermostat, though more complex and probably not as efficient,
had the prospect of achieving adequate thermal management with none of the
cold-seizure issues. (It's worth noting that the P-51 used a similar
system. Why?)
Guy Buchanan
K-IV 1200 / 582 / 99% done, thanks to Bob Ducar.
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 message posted by: Michael Gibbs <MichaelGibbs@cox.net>
Steve,
>Should I turn the plane into a speedster...the manual...says the
>speedster has no dihedral, mine does. ...will it cause any problems?
I built my Model IV-1200 with Speedster wings (clipped one rib bay on
each side) and wing tips but used the standard dihedral. It flew
beautifully. Stalls barely broke and you really had to aggravate it
to get a spin to start. Even then, it wanted to just fly out of the
spin even if you held it in deliberately.
Mike G.
N728KF
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
Rick wrote:
> Just a quick note. There are, and I have used, thermostats that are referred
> to as failsafe, may even be the brand. They fail in the open position so
> failure is not a critical issue.
Excuse my ignorance, I know nothing about aviation and even less about
automobiles but I am pretty sure no diesel marine engines run with thermostats
that are not failsafe. BTW, why would any manufacturer make a thermostat that,
when broken, keeps itself in closed position?
Cheers,
Michel
do not archive
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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Paul <pwilson@climber.org>
Maybe you do not understand how the suggested stats work? Cold seizure you describe
would not be an issue with the thermostat I described as all the coolant
is closed loop to the engine and so all the heat heat the engine generates is
preserved (except for losses). That is if the stat is fully closed it sends all
the coolant back to the water pump inlet, that is the best one can do. If that
is too cold then find a place to land because there is no device to add the
necessary heat except to open the throttle an raise the power level.
Paul
=========
At 12:59 PM -0800 11/5/04, Guy Buchanan wrote:
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Guy Buchanan <bnn@nethere.com>
>
>At 08:20 AM 11/5/2004 -0700, you wrote:
>
>> With all due respect to all the ingenious methods of engine coolant temp
>> control. The only method that has withstood the test of time is the
>> simple thermostat. Back in the '30s cars has dampers or louvers that had
>> wax cylinder to open/close the radiator cover. Some even had manual
>> control. These systems were eventually discarded due to unreliability and
>> lack of driver control to pay attention. All were heavy and had
>> mechanical issues due to the method of construction...
>>
>> Paul
>
>Cars don't have cold seizure problems and as such a thermostat works quite
>well for them. I suspect the cold seizure problem is very engine specific
>and involves not having enough thermal mass near the water inlet to dampen
>the shock effect of cold water entry. Cold seizure is probably also not an
>issue for snowmobiles or other vehicles that don't do 10 minute descents
>that sub-cool the radiator fluid. Or maybe they do? I don't know. I know
>that nobody has been able to say: "Ignore the cold seizure question; it's a
>non-issue," so I'm trying to find a way around it. It seemed that using an
>air based thermostat, though more complex and probably not as efficient,
>had the prospect of achieving adequate thermal management with none of the
>cold-seizure issues. (It's worth noting that the P-51 used a similar
>system. Why?)
>
>
>Guy Buchanan
>K-IV 1200 / 582 / 99% done, thanks to Bob Ducar.
--
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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Paul <pwilson@climber.org>
Don. All kinds of switch settings are available. My truck has a 180 Green and a
250 red both on the tranny. The 180 turns on an electric fan. The ones I use
are made for big over the road trucks But just do a Google search and get the
switches from a big name company that deals with the truckers. They wont stand
for a chincy unreliable part.
The two suggestions I made, both Peter's & the BMW will totally eliminate the radiator
& its plumbing and recirculate the coolant from the outlet to inlet of
the engine. Very little heat loss will occur for this flow path. Just mount the
stat close to the engine. If the engine gets to cool with these stats then
there is nothing more you can do but add power. A device on the radiator is of
no value when the thing is bypassed.
Please note that every automobile and truck on the road or off the road uses a
bypass thermostat like I describe. Surely they know it will work. A large truck
is much like a small 582 in that to protect the engine at high outputs the
radiator must be very large. Then when the temps drop below zero the thermostat
just bypasses the radiator. Passive and reliable.
Paul
========
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: AlbertaIV@aol.com
>
>Paul,
>See below
>
><< Has any body mentioned the use of a high and low temperature switches to
>light a light to tell the pilot that the coolant temp is a concern? These
>switches are passive >>
>
>What temp ranges can you get in these switches? I would think something
>around 170 for high and 155 low. I would want these to indicate well within the
>max/min coolant limits as "caution" limits not "warning" limits.
>
><<The only method that has withstood the test of time is the simple
>thermostat. Back>>
>
>Agree, the thermostat has stood the test of time and a great invention but,
>not so much in airplanes. I believe it was BH that had one come apart and
>jam????
>
><<consider a thermostat with a pilot controlled bypass valve and the
>mentioned lights to tell the pilot of a stat failure.>>
>
>Now your cooking on a fail safe system. It adds a couple more parts but I
>would feel better knowing I could bypass that thermostat in case of a failure.
>Throw in the lights and it's even getting better.
>
><<Last time I worked this issue, Peter Gretchen would sell a person a first
>class custom thermostat housing that would accept a state of the art, high
>reliability thermostat.>>
>
>I remember that issue. I wondered back then if mounting an external
>thermostat housing (not in the head) would affect the temp range of the required
>thermostat?? It seems the temp felt at the external housing might be quite
>different from the temp felt just inside the head???
>
>All the above ideas are great but still may not keep the engine in the
>"comfort" zone without a well designed rad/door system. When I reduce power for
a
>long decent to landing, I can see my temps drop down in the 140 range (cold
>weather). The thermostat alone is not going to correct this small problem. I
>like the idea of "no" thermostat with a good cowl door design and the "lights"
>for controlling temps. Just not sure if it's possible to control with a door
>only???
>
>Don Smythe
>N-998DS Classic IV W/ 582
>
>
--
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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Paul <pwilson@climber.org>
Well they are very reliable but not "fail safe" - for sure. Good enough to last
for over a 100,000 miles in a new car/truck which is pretty good.
They say "fail safe" and that is a crock. They just have redundant seals and that
makes them much better than before.
I have never examined a stat the fails open, but I am sure they are out there.
I have cut apart many stats and when the cartridge leaks the spring closes the
thing. All my failures on cars failed to open causing overheating. Never had
one fail open. The new cars/trucks are much better these days because of longer
warrantees. So, the stats are built better. When choosing a stat for your plane
be sure it was designed for late model auto/truck that has a long warrantee.
That make Peter's design better than the BMW since the BMW unit is sealed
and made for a vintage car. Peter's design does accept the latest stats which
is why he went to all the trouble to make a custom housing for his Sub.
Paul
===========
At 11:07 PM +0100 11/5/04, Michel Verheughe wrote:
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
>
>Rick wrote:
>> Just a quick note. There are, and I have used, thermostats that are referred
>> to as failsafe, may even be the brand. They fail in the open position so
>> failure is not a critical issue.
>
>Excuse my ignorance, I know nothing about aviation and even less about
>automobiles but I am pretty sure no diesel marine engines run with thermostats
>that are not failsafe. BTW, why would any manufacturer make a thermostat that,
>when broken, keeps itself in closed position?
>
>Cheers,
>Michel
--
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "dave" <dave@cfisher.com>
Guys Cold Seizures are from one thing.......
not warming up your engine before seeing over 3 to 4000 RPM at full
thottle.
Aluminum piston + Steel SLEeeve
AL ezpands quicker thatn STeel
HENCE : ALUMINUM WILL JAM INTO STEEL SLEEVE IF NOT WARMED TO 140 F
MIN.
NO FULL THROTTLE BEFORE 140 F
and NO cold SEIZURES..
Anyone like to challenge my facts ?
Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: "Guy Buchanan" <bnn@nethere.com>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 582 cooling
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Guy Buchanan <bnn@nethere.com>
>
> At 08:20 AM 11/5/2004 -0700, you wrote:
>
> > With all due respect to all the ingenious methods of engine coolant
temp
> > control. The only method that has withstood the test of time is the
> > simple thermostat. Back in the '30s cars has dampers or louvers that had
> > wax cylinder to open/close the radiator cover. Some even had manual
> > control. These systems were eventually discarded due to unreliability
and
> > lack of driver control to pay attention. All were heavy and had
> > mechanical issues due to the method of construction...
> >
> > Paul
>
> Cars don't have cold seizure problems and as such a thermostat works quite
> well for them. I suspect the cold seizure problem is very engine specific
> and involves not having enough thermal mass near the water inlet to dampen
> the shock effect of cold water entry. Cold seizure is probably also not an
> issue for snowmobiles or other vehicles that don't do 10 minute descents
> that sub-cool the radiator fluid. Or maybe they do? I don't know. I know
> that nobody has been able to say: "Ignore the cold seizure question; it's
a
> non-issue," so I'm trying to find a way around it. It seemed that using an
> air based thermostat, though more complex and probably not as efficient,
> had the prospect of achieving adequate thermal management with none of the
> cold-seizure issues. (It's worth noting that the P-51 used a similar
> system. Why?)
>
>
> Guy Buchanan
> K-IV 1200 / 582 / 99% done, thanks to Bob Ducar.
>
>
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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: AlbertaIV@aol.com
<< NO FULL THROTTLE BEFORE 140 F
and NO cold SEIZURES..
Anyone like to challenge my facts ?
Dave
>>
Well, ah yes but, just a little. You left out one other good scenario for a
cold seizure. You mention full power before 140 degrees warm up. You can also
see that same 140 degrees on a long decent. Giving full power before a good
warmup or giving full power after a long "cool" decent (go around) can give
you a seizure. Also bringing power back to a cruise setting after a full power
run.
Don Smythe
N-998DS Classic IV W/ 582
Message 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "shortnaked" <shortnaked@golden.net>
Maybe in that case Don -- you should use cowl flaps as part of your pre
decent.
keeping 4 k rpm prolly will be just as well and not hammer happy (
applying full Throttle) right after a long desent. you can shock cool a
continental or lycoming as well you know.
easier than adding one more thing for some to make part of their operation.
beside who ever flys over 250 feet off the deck anyways :-) long cold
decent not a problem. :_)
Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: <AlbertaIV@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Cold Seizures Re: Kitfox-List: 582 cooling
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: AlbertaIV@aol.com
>
> << NO FULL THROTTLE BEFORE 140 F
>
> and NO cold SEIZURES..
>
> Anyone like to challenge my facts ?
>
>
> Dave
> >>
>
> Well, ah yes but, just a little. You left out one other good scenario for
a
> cold seizure. You mention full power before 140 degrees warm up. You can
also
> see that same 140 degrees on a long decent. Giving full power before a
good
> warmup or giving full power after a long "cool" decent (go around) can
give
> you a seizure. Also bringing power back to a cruise setting after a full
power
> run.
>
> Don Smythe
> N-998DS Classic IV W/ 582
>
>
Message 23
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: AlbertaIV@aol.com
In a message dated 11/5/04 4:51:10 PM Pacific Standard Time,
shortnaked@golden.net writes:
<< Maybe in that case Don -- you should use cowl flaps as part of your pre
decent.>>
What cowl flaps? That's what I'm working on now so that I will have cowl
flaps just for that reason.
<< keeping 4 k rpm prolly will be just as well and not hammer happy (
applying full Throttle) right after a long desent. you can shock cool a >>
Ahhh, Keeping about 4K is exactly what I do for normal decents now. I'll
hold it until the numbers are made then slowly decrease to idle. Go arounds
start at tail up (high speed taxi) then add more and more power slowly. No
abrupt FULL THROTTLE go arounds for me (unless an emergency).
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: | Austin Area Foxfliers |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Norm Beauchamp <nebchmp@wcc.net>
Hey guys, a feller has contacted me who will be in your area this coming
Tues and Wed. He is interested in seeing a Kitfox. He plans to look at
mine when he is in this area, but I thought if someone there would like
to show him theirs also it could give him more to look at. If you wish
to contact me off list with directions, phone number, ect, I'll pass
them on. Or I can give you his e-mail address. What ever works.
Thanks Norm
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 |
|
"Sonexlist" <sonexbuilders@egroups.com>, <Sonexplans@yahoogroups.com>
| Subject: | MicroairCom vs Sigtronics SPA-400/400N |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bruce Harrington" <aerowood@mcsi.net>
Hi Guys,
If you have a Microair 760 com radio and a Sigtronics SPA-400 or SPA-400N,
and the headset volume is low with the radio on, see the fix below sent me
by Sigtronics Tech support. Forget the "Mod. Adj." note, as this is radio
headset output problem.
Cheers,
Bruce
ex-N194KF 582ed Kitfox IV-1200
N321SX Sonex, Jab 3300ed, Microair radio and Sigtronics intercom
Bruce,
The "Mod Adj" is for the transmit level to the radio. The Microair 760 has a
low headphone output impedance. Click on
http://www.sigtronics.com/air/pdf/spams6.pdf to download a load modification
sheet.
Sincerely,
Mark Kelley
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: radiator and cooling |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
Two years ago I crawled under a P-51 and looked up
into the scoop to see how it worked. I was amazed to
find that the space was big enough to fit a person
easliy in front of the radiator and it took up most of
the fuselage space vertically behind the pilot. The
radiator and oil cooler were stacked vertically, but I
forgot which was on top. I think the oil cooler was
on the bottom.
The air really gets a chance to slow down and build up
pressure in front and then re-accellerate behind to
flow out the small exit. Small is relative to the
chamber inside. A person could easily crawl in either
end of the scoop, front or back.
Sorry, I didn't have a digital camera to take pictures
then and it would have taken a fisheye lense to see
the inside if I did.
If you could imagine a scoop leading to your baggage
bay and the radiator about 2x2 ft square behind you,
that would be how it looked compared to the plane to
me.
Kurt S.
--- AlbertaIV@aol.com wrote:
> I would like to see how the P-51 did
> it and I have never seen a
> picture that showed anything on the output door.
>
> Don Smythe
> N-998DS Classic IV W/ 582
> Do Not Archive
__________________________________
www.yahoo.com
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! --
|