---------------------------------------------------------- Kitfox-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Mon 11/08/04: 18 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 02:09 AM - Re: TAIL WHEEL SPRING? (AlbertaIV@aol.com) 2. 02:09 AM - List Fund Raiser - What Listers Are Saying... (Matt Dralle) 3. 04:09 AM - 582 cooling (FREDERICKSON, JOHN L [AG/2067]) 4. 04:36 AM - SV: 582 cooling (Michel Verheughe) 5. 04:52 AM - Re: 582 cooling (AlbertaIV@aol.com) 6. 06:34 AM - Re: series 7 performance (Jim Carriere) 7. 07:06 AM - Re: series 7 performance (Lowell Fitt) 8. 07:08 AM - Re: series 7 performance (Jim Carriere) 9. 08:10 AM - Re: series 7 performance (customtrans@qwest.net) 10. 10:37 AM - 912ULS carburetors (Kaufjm@aol.com) 11. 01:04 PM - Re: 582 cooling (Glenn Horne) 12. 01:07 PM - Skyfox cowling (Michel Verheughe) 13. 03:55 PM - Re: Skyfox cowling (AlbertaIV@aol.com) 14. 04:59 PM - Re: Skyfox cowling (Lowell Fitt) 15. 05:01 PM - Re: 912ULS carburetors (Lowell Fitt) 16. 05:03 PM - Re: series 7 performance (Lowell Fitt) 17. 06:41 PM - Reduction drive gear ratios (Rick) 18. 08:08 PM - Re: series 7 performance (customtrans@qwest.net) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 02:09:41 AM PST US From: AlbertaIV@aol.com Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: TAIL WHEEL SPRING? --> Kitfox-List message posted by: AlbertaIV@aol.com In a message dated 11/7/04 5:39:54 PM Pacific Standard Time, KITFOXPILOT@att.net writes: << Can ayone advise on how tight the support bracket bolt and lock nuts are suppose to be on the tail wheel spring? Mine has some play still in it from side to side! Ray >> Ray, Do you have the Grove tail spring? Mine had the same movement from side to side. If you have the SS provided bolts on either side, they might be too small. Take a look and see if you can make the bolts one size larger. On mine, one size larger bolts took up the space and prevented side to side movement. That also gives you a little more bolt for side to side loads. You asked about the tightness of the bolts but it sounds like you're talking about the side slop Don Smythe N-998DS Classic IV W/ 582 ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 02:09:41 AM PST US From: Matt Dralle Subject: Kitfox-List: List Fund Raiser - What Listers Are Saying... --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Matt Dralle Dear Listers, First, I'd like say *thank you* to everyone that has already made a Contribution to this year's List Fund Raiser! Thank you! If you haven't made your Contribution, won't you show your support for these valuable services today? Since there's no advertising or other forms of direct commercialism on the forums to support the Lists, its solely YOUR GENEROSITY that keeps them running!! Members have been including some very nice comments along with their Contributions this year. Please take a minute to read over some of the thoughts your fellow Listers have expressed regarding the Lists and what they mean to them. What do the Lists mean to you...? http://www.matronics.com/contribution Thank you! Matt Dralle Matronics Email List Admin The amount of information and simple entertainment I derive from the lists you administer is enormous. -Chris R. The [List] digest is the one message in my inbox that I look forward to reading every day. -Brian U. [The Lists] are a major asset for the homebuilder. -Gary K. I use, and enjoy the List all the time. It is a fantastic tool. -Patrick M. [The List] has already paid for itself by answering two questions that I had concerning construction of my [Homebuilt]. -Mike L. [The List] has provided me with very useful information and helpful building tips. -Michael E. Thanks for keeping this text-only and commercial free for all us dial-up users! Your Lists are the best... -Mark P. Great service, I have learned many valuable lessons from others on the [List]... -Malcolm T. ...great List service [for] the many and varied within the aviation community. -David P. ...great service. -Terry B. ...enjoy monitoring the lists. -Ed A. ...I do enjoy the Matrix (List). -Galen H. Thanks for a great listserve! -Gary S. ...GREAT lists...! -Ray M. It is a great service. -Robert K. Invaluable! -Larry M. [The Lists are] the backbone (along with a UK list for Europa) of my building program. -Fergus K. Thanks for supporting aviation in this way. -Reade G. ...wonderful source of info! -Lynn M. [The] List has certainly helped me along the way. -Kevin S. ...excellent list. -Ed A. I enjoy the [the] List, and find it useful. -John G. An indispensable part of my day every day! -Owen B. A great source of help, encouragement and "partners in crime"! -Richard T. Great List. -Ed K. Couldn't have [finished my project] without your site and the help of the guys on the List. -Larry M. ...great service! -Walt S. I enjoy the [the] List everyday. -John B. Thank you for keeping everyone in line :) Its a great list to stay subscribed to. -Janet D. ...the most important resource I have to support my hobby. -Jeff D. Thank you for all the great features. -Brian U. Very valuable resource. -Thomas S. ...great service. -William C. Matt G Dralle | Matronics | PO Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551 925-606-1001 V | 925-606-6281 F | dralle@matronics.com Email http://www.matronics.com/ WWW | Featuring Products For Aircraft do not archive ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 04:09:14 AM PST US From: "FREDERICKSON, JOHN L [AG/2067]" Subject: Kitfox-List: 582 cooling --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "FREDERICKSON, JOHN L [AG/2067]" I recently got an airbubble in my 582 cooling system after removing the hose going to the head (so I could replace the oil hose). So, it overheats! How can I get rid of the bubble? I've tried running with the cap off, but that didn't work. ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 04:36:31 AM PST US From: Michel Verheughe Subject: SV: Kitfox-List: 582 cooling --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe > From: FREDERICKSON JOHN L [AG/2067] [john.l.frederickson@monsanto.com] > I recently got an airbubble in my 582 cooling system after removing the hose going to the head (so I could replace the oil hose). So, it overheats! How can I get rid of the bubble? I've tried running with the cap off, but that didn't work. John, I also got air bubbles and overheating the first time I opened the cylinder head, after draining the coolant. What I do now, is to open the refill cap, press hard, several times, on the coolant hose and I can see bubbles coming in the filler. I add coolant fluid, all to the top (but not to overspill when I press the hose) and do it again, until there are no more bubbles. I hope it helps. Cheers, Michel ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 04:52:33 AM PST US From: AlbertaIV@aol.com Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 582 cooling --> Kitfox-List message posted by: AlbertaIV@aol.com << I recently got an airbubble in my 582 cooling system after removing the hose going to the head (so I could replace the oil hose). So, it overheats! How can I get rid of the bubble? I've tried running with the cap off, but that didn't work. >> John, First, loosen the top vent plug on the water pump housing and bleed any air. Then, take the small steam line (top/front of engine) loose at the filler cap assy end and temporarily plug the 1/4" metal tube on the filler...Attach a 3' piece of clear 1/4" tubing to the end of the line you disconnected and run it to the floor into a clean container (use a 1/4 to 1/4 plastic hose adapter).... Top off the filler assy with 50/50 antifreeze mix and start a syphon into the clean container on the floor. Shake the engine side to side and look for air bubbles in the clear line.. Keep the filler assy near full during the process.. Once all the air is gone, let the mixture in the filler assy drop just below the fitting you temporarily plugged. Disconnect all the rig and rehook the steam line. This has worked great for me on several occasions. I always get an abundance of air after a coolant change. I've never had an overheat problem since using this method. Only takes a few minutes and seems to be fool proof. BTW, when you connect the two lines with the 1/4" adapter, it might be helpful to get one without barbed fittings or, sand the barbed fitting down some. It is sometimes difficult to remove a barbed fitting from the hose without damaging the rubber. Or, you might put some lube on the barb or, all the above... Once you make up the temp line and plug, you always have it for future coolant changes. Don Smythe N-998DS Classic IV W/ 582 ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 06:34:18 AM PST US DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; b=sqV5+6w0wgsjqSFX+0GtAHRk0YBRvrouon6eQhO5ccYBEUuV9LJwXAViMEMHNp5uHjkwz5a8+BQcAYlL+wNNsftIaRNPvUDcNzc4FZjGJCabzY1Wutf/0koy15wbLVDXVbW7OGlYZFM0aOQy3HrGUjmjF42ijLUYCS7W0f0z6YA= ; From: Jim Carriere Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: series 7 performance --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Jim Carriere > Time: 12:45:59 PM PST US > From: "William J. Applegate" > Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: series 7 performance > > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "William J. Applegate" > > > Hi Troops, > > At 5000' you will only get 75% of the rated horsepower out of an > engine > due to the air density at that altitude, (standard atmosphere). > The > turbo gives a boost at 16,000' that increases air density to > regain lost > horsepower that would not be available otherwise. Consequently, I > don't > believe that you will get 160/170 horsepower out of the engine > that is > only rated a 115. This is my understanding of the effect of turbo > > charging an engine. If you overboost at lower altitudes you > increase > horsepower and HEAT which really can cause serious problems. Have > I got > this right or am I missing something here? I think you misunderstood what I meant. The 914 makes 100 hp from sea level up to approximately 16,000 feet (then it drops off). I set aside the 115, since that is a time limited takeoff rating. A non-turbo engine rated between 160-170hp will drop off with altitude and make a similar figure to the Rotax at (and above) approximately 16,000 feet. What would an engine such as O-360 produce at 16,000 feet? Pretty close to 100hp. Is an O-360 a good fit in a Kitfox, size and weight? Absolutely not. I made that comparison to show where the 914 really shines- up high like any turbo engine. Somebody already pointed out the disadvantage- $$$ and maintenance, and at the altitudes that normal people fly, you can fly almost as fast with the O-235 and IO-240 engines (and not require supplemental oxygen). The point is that there is a lot of cross country potential in the turbo, but you need to fly very high to exploit it. If you always fly at more "normal" altitudes, then the 914 is a lot of money up front and in maintenance. Jim (reading the digest list) in NW FL Series 7 in progress __________________________________ www.yahoo.com ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 07:06:33 AM PST US From: "Lowell Fitt" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: series 7 performance --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" Hi Steve, I just looked at an old brochure and the original Speedster claimed a cruise "near" 130 mph. I am sure that would suggest a VNE at 140 or so. 140 comes to mind, but I couldn't find anything in my records. I suspect, though that if you tested to 150 mph during testing, you could claim that. -caution- Question, what plans do you have to modify the airframe or configuration to get that kind of speed? What engine are you planning on using? These things are pretty draggy, but I have no doubt it can be done, however there are a whole bunch of Model IVs out there and it hasn't been done yet. As far as suggestions are concerned, I believe the best ways to reduce drag in cruise is: 1. Trim tab for cruise instead of using flaperon trim 2. Lift strut fairings 3. Smooth Cowl rather than bump cowl. 4. All the other things guys have tried - gas cap fairings, wheel pants, jury strut fairings, cuffs at both ends of the lift struts, Radiator shroud, fairing the bottom of the fuselage to get the landing gear cross member out of the airstream, closing the tail gap in the fuselage, closing the gaps in the tail surfaces, etc. Good Luck Lowell ----- Original Message ----- From: Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: series 7 performance > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: customtrans@qwest.net > > So Jim, > Would it be a good assumption that if a person "clips his wings" and stays > low, he will achieve a faster top speed. I for one don't like to fly above > 8000ft. except to get over a mountain. More like 100agl is my height(I > guess I still do that when clearing a mountain). Now that being said, when > flying in high density, the question will probably arise again about > clipping and not clipping the wings. I suppose we could beat this to death > and then again maybe not, my choice is going to be with the shorter wings. > Now that being said, how about the vne with shorter wings? is that raised > up? what is the difference in the larger aircraft skystar has that raises > the vne? my 4 is suppose to be 125, I would like that higher, what can I do > to achieve this? all I really want is an extra 10. am I just dreaming or > is it impossible? Your probably saying, the model 4 will not cruise at 135, > I'm interested in decents at this speed and a cruise close to 120, I like a > better buffer than 125. > > steve a > kitfox4 1200 912ul > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Jim Carriere > To: kitfox-list@matronics.com > Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: series 7 performance > > > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Jim Carriere > > > Time: 10:46:25 AM PST US > > From: Ackerman Laurens > > Subject: Kitfox-List: series 7 performance > > > > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Ackerman Laurens > > > > > > What is the experience of series 7 owners. Are you > > able to cruise at 150 mph as claimed by Skystar? > > Maximum cruise? > > At what conditions, altitude and what type of engine? > > Other thoughts? > > Thanks in advance. > > I remember reading this message a few days ago, and realize that no > one has answered it yet. > > I can't speak from experience, as I am still building my kit, but I > asked the same question to Skystar early this year. The claimed > performance is with the 914 engine, at approximately its critical > altitude (16,000 feet IIRC). I also asked about speedster wings, > and was told these weren't a good match to a turbo. > > I suspect at more normal altitudes (below 10,000 feet) the average > 914 powered aircraft would see between 0 and 10mph advantage over a > similar 912 powered model. > > I think all of the aerodynamic improvements are implied (wheel and > strut fairings, false wing ribs, tail feather ribs), and a constant > speed prop (or VERY coarse cruise prop). I don't know how effect > tri gear vs taildragger has, probably 1-2 mph at the most. > > A few notes- the 914 will put out 100hp up there, while a non-turbo > engine will give approximately 60% of its sea level power. Now stop > and consider the reverse- if a naturally aspirated engine produces > 100hp at 16,000 feet, it will produce between 160-170hp at sea > level. > > For the aerodynamicists out there, you do some napkin math to tell > you that at this altitude and airspeed regime, the profile drag and > induced drag are in the same ballpark. You can do some more math to > determine the effects of changing the wingtips on induced drag. > > In layman's terms, changing the fiberglass wingtip extensions for > the clipped speedster wingtips will likely reduce top speed at that > altitude. This is because the shorter span makes the wings much > less efficient (and more induced drag- drag due to lift) in that > thin air, outweighing the small savings in weight and profile drag. > > What is the fuel flow? The engine is at full throttle- my bet is > 7-8gph. Can any Rotax owners out there comment? > > > Jim in NW FL > Series 7 in progress > > > __________________________________ > www.yahoo.com > > ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 07:08:09 AM PST US DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; b=g4jEMRD34bXVcfDRH+l3lPyuxauAFQ/N7g4pH70tPIYyvAt7JeTLDkmJUiFDMm48w5yCxZbXhfFWGAatpCd9akOG1htkzxTjeB9BQIRrmzPnZXln4YBbdHt1Qw6qXZJweJwlAAo7ugOsnB3lM9ER7ZZmQ6mcNp61MMv7msZy4sE= ; From: Jim Carriere Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: series 7 performance --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Jim Carriere > Time: 07:44:29 AM PST US > From: customtrans@qwest.net > Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: series 7 performance > > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: customtrans@qwest.net > > So Jim, > Would it be a good assumption that if a person "clips his wings" > and stays > low, he will achieve a faster top speed. I for one don't like to > fly above > 8000ft. except to get over a mountain. More like 100agl is my > height(I > guess I still do that when clearing a mountain). Now that being > said, when > flying in high density, the question will probably arise again > about > clipping and not clipping the wings. I suppose we could beat this > to death > and then again maybe not, my choice is going to be with the > shorter wings. My bet is yes, it would be a good assumption as you state, but the top speed gain I think would turn out to be very small. Here's some basic aero theory, without getting into the details too much- two major types of drag- profile and induced. Profile is what we normally think of, the wind pushing against you, and it pushes a lot harder the faster you go. If you go twice as fast, you have four times as much (and so on). Induced drag is where the airspeed "bucket" comes from- if you fly too slow you may need more power, it is why there is a best speed for max rate of climb, and a minimum sink speed when you are gliding. Air swirls around your wingtips, and this makes drag. It is worst when you are slow, heavy, have short wings, and are in thin air. If you go twice as fast, you have one quarter as much (and so on). If you are twice as heavy, you have four times as much, if you double your wingspan, you have one quarter as much. Every airplane is subject to both. Depending mainly on whatever particular speed you are flying, but also weight, air density, etc, they may be close to equal, one type of drag will be greater than the other, or one type may be very great and the other very little. So, the best answer the theory can give you is, "probably." Does that help? Jim in NW FL Series 7 in progress __________________________________ www.yahoo.com ________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________ Time: 08:10:51 AM PST US From: customtrans@qwest.net Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: series 7 performance --> Kitfox-List message posted by: customtrans@qwest.net lowell, The way the plane was, mark with his speedster had a hard time going faster than me. That's with identical engine, prop, and fairings. He did gain speed, slight, but noticeable. One thing he had over me was the trim. I can't say that is what caused the increase, but sure would be nice to have so as to releive the forces. My plan for the plane is simple(k.i.s.s) keep it simple stupid, basically. I want the wings clipped, if anything to prevent hanger damage, next it just makes sense to reduce drag, I'm not a big person and neither is the wife, so gross weight is not a factor. I'm putting in the elevator trim and I believe the extra speed that I want will be with the IVO prop. 912 ul engine. The plans that I'm using is the original builders manual for the airframe. When I strip the left wing I'll be using a heat gun and removing the glue on the outer two ribs and reinstalling the outer rib. It will as the plans show. One more thing that I noticed on the right wing, most of the glue was broke free, and I'm talking about the ribs on the outer section, this section was not touched by the accident, and... any part that I took and saved, the glue came off very easy. My plan on the left wing is to check carefully all gluing and remove and reinstall new glue. I don't know if Hysol was used back in the early 90's my guess is it is deferent. I'm not looking for a speed record here, just a nice safety margin. 150 I will not do with this airplane, 140 no as well. Just want a good feel that 135 will be ok, on occasion, if ever. I believe that engineers factor in a safe margin and this small amount should be ok. steve a -----Original Message----- From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Lowell Fitt Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: series 7 performance --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" Hi Steve, I just looked at an old brochure and the original Speedster claimed a cruise "near" 130 mph. I am sure that would suggest a VNE at 140 or so. 140 comes to mind, but I couldn't find anything in my records. I suspect, though that if you tested to 150 mph during testing, you could claim that. -caution- Question, what plans do you have to modify the airframe or configuration to get that kind of speed? What engine are you planning on using? These things are pretty draggy, but I have no doubt it can be done, however there are a whole bunch of Model IVs out there and it hasn't been done yet. As far as suggestions are concerned, I believe the best ways to reduce drag in cruise is: 1. Trim tab for cruise instead of using flaperon trim 2. Lift strut fairings 3. Smooth Cowl rather than bump cowl. 4. All the other things guys have tried - gas cap fairings, wheel pants, jury strut fairings, cuffs at both ends of the lift struts, Radiator shroud, fairing the bottom of the fuselage to get the landing gear cross member out of the airstream, closing the tail gap in the fuselage, closing the gaps in the tail surfaces, etc. Good Luck Lowell ----- Original Message ----- From: Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: series 7 performance > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: customtrans@qwest.net > > So Jim, > Would it be a good assumption that if a person "clips his wings" and stays > low, he will achieve a faster top speed. I for one don't like to fly above > 8000ft. except to get over a mountain. More like 100agl is my height(I > guess I still do that when clearing a mountain). Now that being said, when > flying in high density, the question will probably arise again about > clipping and not clipping the wings. I suppose we could beat this to death > and then again maybe not, my choice is going to be with the shorter wings. > Now that being said, how about the vne with shorter wings? is that raised > up? what is the difference in the larger aircraft skystar has that raises > the vne? my 4 is suppose to be 125, I would like that higher, what can I do > to achieve this? all I really want is an extra 10. am I just dreaming or > is it impossible? Your probably saying, the model 4 will not cruise at 135, > I'm interested in decents at this speed and a cruise close to 120, I like a > better buffer than 125. > > steve a > kitfox4 1200 912ul > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Jim Carriere > To: kitfox-list@matronics.com > Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: series 7 performance > > > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Jim Carriere > > > Time: 10:46:25 AM PST US > > From: Ackerman Laurens > > Subject: Kitfox-List: series 7 performance > > > > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Ackerman Laurens > > > > > > What is the experience of series 7 owners. Are you > > able to cruise at 150 mph as claimed by Skystar? > > Maximum cruise? > > At what conditions, altitude and what type of engine? > > Other thoughts? > > Thanks in advance. > > I remember reading this message a few days ago, and realize that no > one has answered it yet. > > I can't speak from experience, as I am still building my kit, but I > asked the same question to Skystar early this year. The claimed > performance is with the 914 engine, at approximately its critical > altitude (16,000 feet IIRC). I also asked about speedster wings, > and was told these weren't a good match to a turbo. > > I suspect at more normal altitudes (below 10,000 feet) the average > 914 powered aircraft would see between 0 and 10mph advantage over a > similar 912 powered model. > > I think all of the aerodynamic improvements are implied (wheel and > strut fairings, false wing ribs, tail feather ribs), and a constant > speed prop (or VERY coarse cruise prop). I don't know how effect > tri gear vs taildragger has, probably 1-2 mph at the most. > > A few notes- the 914 will put out 100hp up there, while a non-turbo > engine will give approximately 60% of its sea level power. Now stop > and consider the reverse- if a naturally aspirated engine produces > 100hp at 16,000 feet, it will produce between 160-170hp at sea > level. > > For the aerodynamicists out there, you do some napkin math to tell > you that at this altitude and airspeed regime, the profile drag and > induced drag are in the same ballpark. You can do some more math to > determine the effects of changing the wingtips on induced drag. > > In layman's terms, changing the fiberglass wingtip extensions for > the clipped speedster wingtips will likely reduce top speed at that > altitude. This is because the shorter span makes the wings much > less efficient (and more induced drag- drag due to lift) in that > thin air, outweighing the small savings in weight and profile drag. > > What is the fuel flow? The engine is at full throttle- my bet is > 7-8gph. Can any Rotax owners out there comment? > > > Jim in NW FL > Series 7 in progress > > > __________________________________ > www.yahoo.com > > ________________________________ Message 10 ____________________________________ Time: 10:37:32 AM PST US From: Kaufjm@aol.com Subject: Kitfox-List: 912ULS carburetors --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Kaufjm@aol.com Friends; In the process of putting on fuel filters on my KitFox IV and in the process of draining the fuel out of my fuel system I noticed after a few days that there was a chalky powder in the bottom of the carburetor bowls. Could it be fiberglass from the fuel tanks? Jon ________________________________ Message 11 ____________________________________ Time: 01:04:31 PM PST US From: "Glenn Horne" Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: 582 cooling --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Glenn Horne" Don Smythe, Tell him how to do it. Glenn -----Original Message----- From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of FREDERICKSON, JOHN L [AG/2067] Subject: Kitfox-List: 582 cooling --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "FREDERICKSON, JOHN L [AG/2067]" I recently got an airbubble in my 582 cooling system after removing the hose going to the head (so I could replace the oil hose). So, it overheats! How can I get rid of the bubble? I've tried running with the cap off, but that didn't work. ________________________________ Message 12 ____________________________________ Time: 01:07:02 PM PST US From: Michel Verheughe Subject: Kitfox-List: Skyfox cowling --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe Jose and wannabe Kitfox 1-2-3 Jabiru owners: I am sorry to say that the Skyfox cowling doesn't fit these Kitfoxes. It does, almost. But around the windshield and the firewall, those two have entirely different shape. The original Kitfox needs a perfectly round section. Also, the curve is constant. The Skyfox is rather flat on the top and increase the curve as it comes to the side. Now that I have removed the prop and I can do a proper test, what looked like a fit is not any longer. I'll have to go for plan B: Make an entirely new cowling from moulding the old one into something that matches the Jabiru nose. Cheers, Michel ________________________________ Message 13 ____________________________________ Time: 03:55:35 PM PST US From: AlbertaIV@aol.com Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Skyfox cowling --> Kitfox-List message posted by: AlbertaIV@aol.com In a message dated 11/8/04 1:07:35 PM Pacific Standard Time, michel@online.no writes: << Now that I have removed the prop and I can do a proper test, what looked like a fit is not any longer. I'll have to go for plan B: Make an entirely new cowling from moulding the old one into something that matches the Jabiru nose. Cheers, Michel >> Michel, There is an old American saying, "If it don't fit, force it". Besides, you are an old boat builder. Cut, piece, fiberglass, fill in and paint. Good Luck Don Smythe N-998DS Classic IV W/ 582 ________________________________ Message 14 ____________________________________ Time: 04:59:04 PM PST US From: "Lowell Fitt" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Skyfox cowling --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" Michel, Might it be easier to make a new firewall and fit a new windshield? Lowell ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michel Verheughe" Subject: Kitfox-List: Skyfox cowling > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe > > Jose and wannabe Kitfox 1-2-3 Jabiru owners: > > I am sorry to say that the Skyfox cowling doesn't fit these Kitfoxes. It does, > almost. But around the windshield and the firewall, those two have entirely > different shape. The original Kitfox needs a perfectly round section. Also, the > curve is constant. The Skyfox is rather flat on the top and increase the curve > as it comes to the side. > Now that I have removed the prop and I can do a proper test, what looked like a > fit is not any longer. I'll have to go for plan B: Make an entirely new cowling > from moulding the old one into something that matches the Jabiru nose. > > Cheers, > Michel > > ________________________________ Message 15 ____________________________________ Time: 05:01:19 PM PST US From: "Lowell Fitt" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 912ULS carburetors --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" Jon, I doubt it. Fiberglass fibers when wetted by the fuel are nearly invisible. They would have the appearance of fine short fibers when dry, but I doubt they would appear chalky. Lowell ----- Original Message ----- From: Subject: Kitfox-List: 912ULS carburetors > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Kaufjm@aol.com > > Friends; > In the process of putting on fuel filters on my KitFox IV and in the > process of draining the fuel out of my fuel system I noticed after a few days that > there was a chalky powder in the bottom of the carburetor bowls. Could it be > fiberglass from the fuel tanks? > Jon > > ________________________________ Message 16 ____________________________________ Time: 05:03:45 PM PST US From: "Lowell Fitt" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: series 7 performance --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" Steve, I flew alongside Mark for many hours the past four years with him in TY and only to Oshkosh and back alongside the Speedster. I did get the feeling the Speedster was faster, but not as good in climb. Lowell ----- Original Message ----- From: Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: series 7 performance > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: customtrans@qwest.net > > lowell, > The way the plane was, mark with his speedster had a hard time going faster > than me. That's with identical engine, prop, and fairings. He did gain > speed, slight, but noticeable. One thing he had over me was the trim. I > can't say that is what caused the increase, but sure would be nice to have > so as to releive the forces. My plan for the plane is simple(k.i.s.s) keep > it simple stupid, basically. I want the wings clipped, if anything to > prevent hanger damage, next it just makes sense to reduce drag, I'm not a > big person and neither is the wife, so gross weight is not a factor. I'm > putting in the elevator trim and I believe the extra speed that I want will > be with the IVO prop. 912 ul engine. The plans that I'm using is the > original builders manual for the airframe. When I strip the left wing I'll > be using a heat gun and removing the glue on the outer two ribs and > reinstalling the outer rib. It will as the plans show. One more thing that > I noticed on the right wing, most of the glue was broke free, and I'm > talking about the ribs on the outer section, this section was not touched by > the accident, and... any part that I took and saved, the glue came off very > easy. My plan on the left wing is to check carefully all gluing and remove > and reinstall new glue. I don't know if Hysol was used back in the early > 90's my guess is it is deferent. I'm not looking for a speed record here, > just a nice safety margin. 150 I will not do with this airplane, 140 no as > well. Just want a good feel that 135 will be ok, on occasion, if ever. I > believe that engineers factor in a safe margin and this small amount should > be ok. > > steve a > > -----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: series 7 performance > > > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" > > Hi Steve, > > I just looked at an old brochure and the original Speedster claimed a cruise > "near" 130 mph. I am sure that would suggest a VNE at 140 or so. 140 comes > to mind, but I couldn't find anything in my records. I suspect, though that > if you tested to 150 mph during testing, you could claim that. -caution- > > Question, what plans do you have to modify the airframe or configuration to > get that kind of speed? What engine are you planning on using? These > things are pretty draggy, but I have no doubt it can be done, however there > are a whole bunch of Model IVs out there and it hasn't been done yet. > > As far as suggestions are concerned, I believe the best ways to reduce drag > in cruise is: > 1. Trim tab for cruise instead of using flaperon trim > 2. Lift strut fairings > 3. Smooth Cowl rather than bump cowl. > 4. All the other things guys have tried - gas cap fairings, wheel pants, > jury strut fairings, cuffs at both ends of the lift struts, Radiator shroud, > fairing the bottom of the fuselage to get the landing gear cross member out > of the airstream, closing the tail gap in the fuselage, closing the gaps in > the tail surfaces, etc. > > Good Luck > > Lowell > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: > Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: series 7 performance > > > > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: customtrans@qwest.net > > > > So Jim, > > Would it be a good assumption that if a person "clips his wings" and stays > > low, he will achieve a faster top speed. I for one don't like to fly > above > > 8000ft. except to get over a mountain. More like 100agl is my height(I > > guess I still do that when clearing a mountain). Now that being said, > when > > flying in high density, the question will probably arise again about > > clipping and not clipping the wings. I suppose we could beat this to > death > > and then again maybe not, my choice is going to be with the shorter wings. > > Now that being said, how about the vne with shorter wings? is that raised > > up? what is the difference in the larger aircraft skystar has that raises > > the vne? my 4 is suppose to be 125, I would like that higher, what can I > do > > to achieve this? all I really want is an extra 10. am I just dreaming or > > is it impossible? Your probably saying, the model 4 will not cruise at > 135, > > I'm interested in decents at this speed and a cruise close to 120, I like > a > > better buffer than 125. > > > > steve a > > kitfox4 1200 912ul > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com > > [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Jim Carriere > > To: kitfox-list@matronics.com > > Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: series 7 performance > > > > > > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Jim Carriere > > > > > Time: 10:46:25 AM PST US > > > From: Ackerman Laurens > > > Subject: Kitfox-List: series 7 performance > > > > > > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Ackerman Laurens > > > > > > > > > What is the experience of series 7 owners. Are you > > > able to cruise at 150 mph as claimed by Skystar? > > > Maximum cruise? > > > At what conditions, altitude and what type of engine? > > > Other thoughts? > > > Thanks in advance. > > > > I remember reading this message a few days ago, and realize that no > > one has answered it yet. > > > > I can't speak from experience, as I am still building my kit, but I > > asked the same question to Skystar early this year. The claimed > > performance is with the 914 engine, at approximately its critical > > altitude (16,000 feet IIRC). I also asked about speedster wings, > > and was told these weren't a good match to a turbo. > > > > I suspect at more normal altitudes (below 10,000 feet) the average > > 914 powered aircraft would see between 0 and 10mph advantage over a > > similar 912 powered model. > > > > I think all of the aerodynamic improvements are implied (wheel and > > strut fairings, false wing ribs, tail feather ribs), and a constant > > speed prop (or VERY coarse cruise prop). I don't know how effect > > tri gear vs taildragger has, probably 1-2 mph at the most. > > > > A few notes- the 914 will put out 100hp up there, while a non-turbo > > engine will give approximately 60% of its sea level power. Now stop > > and consider the reverse- if a naturally aspirated engine produces > > 100hp at 16,000 feet, it will produce between 160-170hp at sea > > level. > > > > For the aerodynamicists out there, you do some napkin math to tell > > you that at this altitude and airspeed regime, the profile drag and > > induced drag are in the same ballpark. You can do some more math to > > determine the effects of changing the wingtips on induced drag. > > > > In layman's terms, changing the fiberglass wingtip extensions for > > the clipped speedster wingtips will likely reduce top speed at that > > altitude. This is because the shorter span makes the wings much > > less efficient (and more induced drag- drag due to lift) in that > > thin air, outweighing the small savings in weight and profile drag. > > > > What is the fuel flow? The engine is at full throttle- my bet is > > 7-8gph. Can any Rotax owners out there comment? > > > > > > Jim in NW FL > > Series 7 in progress > > > > > > __________________________________ > > www.yahoo.com > > > > > > ________________________________ Message 17 ____________________________________ Time: 06:41:24 PM PST US From: "Rick" Subject: Kitfox-List: Reduction drive gear ratios --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Rick" I recently finished the rebuild on my EA-81 turbo CAP 140. It is turning a three blade warp drive set of blades 72". The old gears were 2.34 and I thought the new gears I installed of around 2.0 would be better. Not so. I spoke with Lance and he believes the 2.12 or 2.23 would be a better set. He mentioned Tom Anderson had use a different ration than the 2.34 possibly the 2.12 or 2.23. If so I would appreciate any feed back on performance. Some time ago I talked with Warp Drive. The indicated best thrust was developed at 16.5 degrees at about 2650 prop RPMs. That was my hope but even the turbo will not pull 16.5 at the 5200 engine rpm I had hoped for. I also learned from Lance that the digital prop gage is only accurate at the extremes of its readings, full pitch beta or forward. In a nutshell, not a linear readout; I was surprised. SO not sure what I have it set at , other than at 3.5 indicated it will pull to 5200 engine RPMs. Zero is actually about 8 degrees beta. So now I will need a mechanical prop pitch gage and construct a deviation table. Unless of course someone has done that already. That would be swell. The new engine is running strong and has not blow up in almost 6 hours, fingers crossed for awhile. Rick ________________________________ Message 18 ____________________________________ Time: 08:08:44 PM PST US From: customtrans@qwest.net Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: series 7 performance --> Kitfox-List message posted by: customtrans@qwest.net I have to agree, but... the prop was set at .085 at that time and he has lowered it to around .075. when we went to johnson creek he changed it there and had better take off after that. steve a -----Original Message----- From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Lowell Fitt Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: series 7 performance --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" Steve, I flew alongside Mark for many hours the past four years with him in TY and only to Oshkosh and back alongside the Speedster. I did get the feeling the Speedster was faster, but not as good in climb. Lowell ----- Original Message ----- From: Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: series 7 performance > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: customtrans@qwest.net > > lowell, > The way the plane was, mark with his speedster had a hard time going faster > than me. That's with identical engine, prop, and fairings. He did gain > speed, slight, but noticeable. One thing he had over me was the trim. I > can't say that is what caused the increase, but sure would be nice to have > so as to releive the forces. My plan for the plane is simple(k.i.s.s) keep > it simple stupid, basically. I want the wings clipped, if anything to > prevent hanger damage, next it just makes sense to reduce drag, I'm not a > big person and neither is the wife, so gross weight is not a factor. I'm > putting in the elevator trim and I believe the extra speed that I want will > be with the IVO prop. 912 ul engine. The plans that I'm using is the > original builders manual for the airframe. When I strip the left wing I'll > be using a heat gun and removing the glue on the outer two ribs and > reinstalling the outer rib. It will as the plans show. One more thing that > I noticed on the right wing, most of the glue was broke free, and I'm > talking about the ribs on the outer section, this section was not touched by > the accident, and... any part that I took and saved, the glue came off very > easy. My plan on the left wing is to check carefully all gluing and remove > and reinstall new glue. I don't know if Hysol was used back in the early > 90's my guess is it is deferent. I'm not looking for a speed record here, > just a nice safety margin. 150 I will not do with this airplane, 140 no as > well. Just want a good feel that 135 will be ok, on occasion, if ever. I > believe that engineers factor in a safe margin and this small amount should > be ok. > > steve a > > -----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: series 7 performance > > > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" > > Hi Steve, > > I just looked at an old brochure and the original Speedster claimed a cruise > "near" 130 mph. I am sure that would suggest a VNE at 140 or so. 140 comes > to mind, but I couldn't find anything in my records. I suspect, though that > if you tested to 150 mph during testing, you could claim that. -caution- > > Question, what plans do you have to modify the airframe or configuration to > get that kind of speed? What engine are you planning on using? These > things are pretty draggy, but I have no doubt it can be done, however there > are a whole bunch of Model IVs out there and it hasn't been done yet. > > As far as suggestions are concerned, I believe the best ways to reduce drag > in cruise is: > 1. Trim tab for cruise instead of using flaperon trim > 2. Lift strut fairings > 3. Smooth Cowl rather than bump cowl. > 4. All the other things guys have tried - gas cap fairings, wheel pants, > jury strut fairings, cuffs at both ends of the lift struts, Radiator shroud, > fairing the bottom of the fuselage to get the landing gear cross member out > of the airstream, closing the tail gap in the fuselage, closing the gaps in > the tail surfaces, etc. > > Good Luck > > Lowell > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: > Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: series 7 performance > > > > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: customtrans@qwest.net > > > > So Jim, > > Would it be a good assumption that if a person "clips his wings" and stays > > low, he will achieve a faster top speed. I for one don't like to fly > above > > 8000ft. except to get over a mountain. More like 100agl is my height(I > > guess I still do that when clearing a mountain). Now that being said, > when > > flying in high density, the question will probably arise again about > > clipping and not clipping the wings. I suppose we could beat this to > death > > and then again maybe not, my choice is going to be with the shorter wings. > > Now that being said, how about the vne with shorter wings? is that raised > > up? what is the difference in the larger aircraft skystar has that raises > > the vne? my 4 is suppose to be 125, I would like that higher, what can I > do > > to achieve this? all I really want is an extra 10. am I just dreaming or > > is it impossible? Your probably saying, the model 4 will not cruise at > 135, > > I'm interested in decents at this speed and a cruise close to 120, I like > a > > better buffer than 125. > > > > steve a > > kitfox4 1200 912ul > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com > > [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Jim Carriere > > To: kitfox-list@matronics.com > > Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: series 7 performance > > > > > > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Jim Carriere > > > > > Time: 10:46:25 AM PST US > > > From: Ackerman Laurens > > > Subject: Kitfox-List: series 7 performance > > > > > > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Ackerman Laurens > > > > > > > > > What is the experience of series 7 owners. Are you > > > able to cruise at 150 mph as claimed by Skystar? > > > Maximum cruise? > > > At what conditions, altitude and what type of engine? > > > Other thoughts? > > > Thanks in advance. > > > > I remember reading this message a few days ago, and realize that no > > one has answered it yet. > > > > I can't speak from experience, as I am still building my kit, but I > > asked the same question to Skystar early this year. The claimed > > performance is with the 914 engine, at approximately its critical > > altitude (16,000 feet IIRC). I also asked about speedster wings, > > and was told these weren't a good match to a turbo. > > > > I suspect at more normal altitudes (below 10,000 feet) the average > > 914 powered aircraft would see between 0 and 10mph advantage over a > > similar 912 powered model. > > > > I think all of the aerodynamic improvements are implied (wheel and > > strut fairings, false wing ribs, tail feather ribs), and a constant > > speed prop (or VERY coarse cruise prop). I don't know how effect > > tri gear vs taildragger has, probably 1-2 mph at the most. > > > > A few notes- the 914 will put out 100hp up there, while a non-turbo > > engine will give approximately 60% of its sea level power. Now stop > > and consider the reverse- if a naturally aspirated engine produces > > 100hp at 16,000 feet, it will produce between 160-170hp at sea > > level. > > > > For the aerodynamicists out there, you do some napkin math to tell > > you that at this altitude and airspeed regime, the profile drag and > > induced drag are in the same ballpark. You can do some more math to > > determine the effects of changing the wingtips on induced drag. > > > > In layman's terms, changing the fiberglass wingtip extensions for > > the clipped speedster wingtips will likely reduce top speed at that > > altitude. This is because the shorter span makes the wings much > > less efficient (and more induced drag- drag due to lift) in that > > thin air, outweighing the small savings in weight and profile drag. > > > > What is the fuel flow? The engine is at full throttle- my bet is > > 7-8gph. Can any Rotax owners out there comment? > > > > > > Jim in NW FL > > Series 7 in progress > > > > > > __________________________________ > > www.yahoo.com > > > > > >