Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 06:58 AM - Re: NSI CAP beta (Fox5flyer)
2. 07:23 AM - NSI EA81 question (msg.03.05.04.23:58:57.16097 msg.03.12.04.23:58:55.10542 msg.04.01.04.23:58:44.3779 msg.05.03.04.23:58:54.20080 msg.05.31.04.23:59:08.12138 msg.09.29.04.23:59:48.23909 msg.11.18.04.23:59:09.26538 msg.11.30.04.23:58:58.21130 msg.12.04.03.23:59:58.12870 msg.12.06.03.23:58:57.10517 msg.12.28.04.06:58:36.10983 msg.12.28.04.07:23:26.21258 msg.12.28.04.08:14:08.25830 msg.12.28.04.08:27:24.19004 msg.12.28.04.08:36:22.10513 msg.12.28.04.10:06:21.21985 msg.12.28.04.10:23:06.25516 msg.12.28.04.10:33:53.8482 msg.12.28.04.10:49:16.30905 msg.12.28.04.10:53:31.5142 msg.12.28.04.13:30:43.1866 msg.12.28.04.13:41:42.20697 msg.12.28.04.14:34:53.18136 msg.12.28.04.15:10:36.770 msg.12.28.04.15:19:52.11298 msg.12.28.04.16:12:11.22619 msg.12.28.04.17:53:20.407 msg.12.28.04.17:55:35.8775 msg.12.28.04.18:47:25.18273 msg.12.28.04.19:30:44.3184 msg.12.28.04.20:13:18.27248 msg.12.28.04.20:19:16.5741 msg.12.28.04.21:38:12.24800 web_browse.day.0 web_browse.day.1 web_browse.day.2 web_browse.day.3 web_browse.day.4 web_browse.day.5 web_browse.day.6)
3. 08:14 AM - Re: NSI EA81 question (Fox5flyer)
4. 08:27 AM - KF III vs KF IV (kitfoxjunky)
5. 08:36 AM - Re: Series 7 cowl (Joel Mapes)
6. 10:06 AM - Re: KF III vs KF IV (Bruce Harrington)
7. 10:23 AM - Re: KF III vs KF IV (shortnaked)
8. 10:33 AM - Re: KF III vs KF IV (shortnaked)
9. 10:49 AM - Re: KF III vs KF IV (kitfoxjunky)
10. 10:53 AM - Re: Series 7 cowl (Michel Verheughe)
11. 01:30 PM - Re: NSI EA81 question (kurt schrader)
12. 01:41 PM - Re: NSI CAP beta (kurt schrader)
13. 02:34 PM - Mikuni pump - cracks. (Torgeir Mortensen)
14. 03:10 PM - Re: NSI CAP beta (Fox5flyer)
15. 03:19 PM - Re: NSI CAP beta (kurt schrader)
16. 04:12 PM - Re: NSI CAP beta (Steve Zakreski)
17. 05:53 PM - Re: NSI CAP beta (Fox5flyer)
18. 05:55 PM - Re: NSI CAP beta (Fox5flyer)
19. 06:47 PM - Kit Fox needed (Clifford Dow)
20. 07:30 PM - Re: Kit Fox needed (Jimmie Blackwell)
21. 08:13 PM - 0-235 (roncarolnikko@webtv.net (Ron Schick))
22. 08:19 PM - Re: KF III vs KF IV (Clint Bazzill)
23. 09:38 PM - Re: 0-235 (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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: NSI CAP beta |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Fox5flyer" <morid@northland.lib.mi.us>
Thanks Rick. Actually this is my first tear down after about 280 hours of
use. I just wanted to see how things were looking inside and give the
sliders some grease.
Wiring is fine as it goes beta fine when not spinning. Something to do with
the internal counter weights or some such thing.
I'll try to make contact with Lance.
Darrel
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rick" <turboflyer@comcast.net>
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: NSI CAP beta
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Rick" <turboflyer@comcast.net>
>
> I would ask Lance but my guess is something didn't go back the way it came
> out, possible a wiring thing. I don't think you need to tear it down each
> annual, maybe 500hrs or so. There were no adjustments other than the
initial
> settings on the screw and I cant remember what that was. Maybe that's not
> right or got out of wack.
>
> Rick
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Fox5flyer
> To: Kitfox List
> Subject: Kitfox-List: NSI CAP beta
>
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Fox5flyer" <morid@northland.lib.mi.us>
>
> To any out there who are well versed, I have the NSI electric prop
> (CAP)......snip
>
>
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: | NSI EA81 question |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "*" <caseclosed66@hotmail.com>
Hi all,
I am among the may who sit quietly and learn a great deal from this list.
I am in the process of, well not really rebuilding, but more like refreshing
a Classic IV with an NSI EA81 with in flight adjustable prop.
One question, the engine I have was originally installed in 1995, has 120
hours on it. The specifications say the H.P is 98. Now if I buy the same
(or similar) engine package today is looks like it is rated for 108 H.P.
My question is, is this the same engine package? if so where did the extra
10 H.P. come from, and can I get it???
I am thinking about sending the engine back to NSI for a good refreshing as
well, has anyone done this??? Cost? Time?
The engine is in very good shape, but I was not sure if there were any
upgrades since 95 when it was first installed.
Thanks All
greg
Classic IV w/ NSI CAP 140 prop
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: NSI EA81 question |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Fox5flyer" <morid@northland.lib.mi.us>
If I were you, I'd just fly it, put some hours on it and see how it goes.
I don't have any answer on the hp difference other than Lance may have done
some tweaking in later models to squeeze a few more ponies out of it.
Darrel
----- Original Message -----
From: "*" <caseclosed66@hotmail.com>
Subject: Kitfox-List: NSI EA81 question
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "*" <caseclosed66@hotmail.com>
>
> Hi all,
>
> I am among the may who sit quietly and learn a great deal from this list.
>
> I am in the process of, well not really rebuilding, but more like
refreshing
> a Classic IV with an NSI EA81 with in flight adjustable prop.
>
> One question, the engine I have was originally installed in 1995, has 120
> hours on it. The specifications say the H.P is 98. Now if I buy the same
> (or similar) engine package today is looks like it is rated for 108 H.P.
>
> My question is, is this the same engine package? if so where did the
extra
> 10 H.P. come from, and can I get it???
>
> I am thinking about sending the engine back to NSI for a good refreshing
as
> well, has anyone done this??? Cost? Time?
>
> The engine is in very good shape, but I was not sure if there were any
> upgrades since 95 when it was first installed.
>
> Thanks All
>
> greg
>
> Classic IV w/ NSI CAP 140 prop
>
>
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 |
|
11:25:58 AM,
Serialize complete at 12/28/2004 11:25:58 AM
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kitfoxjunky <kitfoxjunky@decisionlabs.com>
I have a chance to purchase a nearly completed KF III. I own a IV at this
time, and I understand the difference between the two is a beefed up
structure to allow for the higher gross weight of 1200 lbs. The kit is
covered and painted through to silver, and I was wondering if it was worth
it to upgrade it to get the higher gross weight when it is this far along
in the build process. If I only have to remove some of the covering to
weld in larger tubes, then that would be ok. If there are fuse, wing and
tail mods, and much of the covering has to be torn off, then it may not be
worth it.
Any advice?
Gary Walsh
C-GOOT
www.decisionlabs.com/kitfox
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Series 7 cowl |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Joel Mapes" <foxfloatflyer@hotmail.com>
Hi Michel,
I place the photos in http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
Joel
Model 5 912 GTA CS prop Aerocomp amphibs
do not archive
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: KF III vs KF IV |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bruce Harrington" <aerowood@mcsi.net>
The H. Stab and rudder had about a 20% increase in size.
The fuse carry thru tubes and lift struts were bigger diameter.
The spars may have been thicker tubing.
Cheers, bh
> I have a chance to purchase a nearly completed KF III. I own a IV at this
> time, and I understand the difference between the two is a beefed up
> structure to allow for the higher gross weight of 1200 lbs. The kit is
> covered and painted through to silver, and I was wondering if it was worth
> it to upgrade it to get the higher gross weight when it is this far along
> in the build process. If I only have to remove some of the covering to
> weld in larger tubes, then that would be ok. If there are fuse, wing and
> tail mods, and much of the covering has to be torn off, then it may not be
> worth it.
>
> Any advice?
>
>
> Gary Walsh
> C-GOOT
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: KF III vs KF IV |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "shortnaked" <shortnaked@golden.net>
Gary,
check that link out or sportflight has some of same info.
http://www.kitfox.flyer.co.uk/HTM%20pages/kitfox_Models.htm
Spar tubes I believe are thicker on the Model IV but the Ser III still
has a gross of 1050 .
1050 will give you a MT weight around 500 or less
add in 15 gal fuel 110 lbs you got left still 440 lbs enough for 2 220
lbs ers and you will most likely with a 582 still get 700 to 1000 fpm
climb.
I see some talk of these NSI convsions at 800 + empty unreal
Shorty
----- Original Message -----
From: "kitfoxjunky" <kitfoxjunky@decisionlabs.com>
Subject: Kitfox-List: KF III vs KF IV
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kitfoxjunky
<kitfoxjunky@decisionlabs.com>
>
> I have a chance to purchase a nearly completed KF III. I own a IV at this
> time, and I understand the difference between the two is a beefed up
> structure to allow for the higher gross weight of 1200 lbs. The kit is
> covered and painted through to silver, and I was wondering if it was worth
> it to upgrade it to get the higher gross weight when it is this far along
> in the build process. If I only have to remove some of the covering to
> weld in larger tubes, then that would be ok. If there are fuse, wing and
> tail mods, and much of the covering has to be torn off, then it may not be
> worth it.
>
> Any advice?
>
>
> Gary Walsh
> C-GOOT
> www.decisionlabs.com/kitfox
>
>
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: KF III vs KF IV |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "shortnaked" <shortnaked@golden.net>
Kf for ale or trade nice
http://www.cessna140.com/forums/showthread.php?s=2e71ad39d9389bc320576665fca77ac3&postid=24493#post24493
----- Original Message -----
From: "shortnaked" <shortnaked@golden.net>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: KF III vs KF IV
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "shortnaked" <shortnaked@golden.net>
>
> Gary,
>
> check that link out or sportflight has some of same info.
>
> http://www.kitfox.flyer.co.uk/HTM%20pages/kitfox_Models.htm
>
> Spar tubes I believe are thicker on the Model IV but the Ser III still
> has a gross of 1050 .
>
> 1050 will give you a MT weight around 500 or less
> add in 15 gal fuel 110 lbs you got left still 440 lbs enough for 2
220
> lbs ers and you will most likely with a 582 still get 700 to 1000 fpm
> climb.
>
> I see some talk of these NSI convsions at 800 + empty unreal
>
>
> Shorty
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "kitfoxjunky" <kitfoxjunky@decisionlabs.com>
> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Kitfox-List: KF III vs KF IV
>
>
> > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kitfoxjunky
> <kitfoxjunky@decisionlabs.com>
> >
> > I have a chance to purchase a nearly completed KF III. I own a IV at
this
> > time, and I understand the difference between the two is a beefed up
> > structure to allow for the higher gross weight of 1200 lbs. The kit is
> > covered and painted through to silver, and I was wondering if it was
worth
> > it to upgrade it to get the higher gross weight when it is this far
along
> > in the build process. If I only have to remove some of the covering to
> > weld in larger tubes, then that would be ok. If there are fuse, wing
and
> > tail mods, and much of the covering has to be torn off, then it may not
be
> > worth it.
> >
> > Any advice?
> >
> >
> > Gary Walsh
> > C-GOOT
> > www.decisionlabs.com/kitfox
> >
> >
>
>
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: KF III vs KF IV |
01:47:52 PM,
Serialize complete at 12/28/2004 01:47:52 PM
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kitfoxjunky <kitfoxjunky@decisionlabs.com>
800 LBS is what my IV weighs on Anphib floats. I cannot imagine anyone
putting in a NSI "upgrade" to get to that kind of weight. I had one guy
on the list reply back to me that he saw no problem with the NSI firewall
forward for a KF IV..that it was a good combination, even though he flew
100 LBS over gross most of the time.
Geez
Gary Walsh
C-GOOT
www.decisionlabs.com/kitfox
"shortnaked" <shortnaked@golden.net>
Sent by: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
12/28/2004 01:24 PM
Please respond to kitfox-list
To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
cc:
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: KF III vs KF IV
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "shortnaked" <shortnaked@golden.net>
Gary,
check that link out or sportflight has some of same info.
http://www.kitfox.flyer.co.uk/HTM%20pages/kitfox_Models.htm
Spar tubes I believe are thicker on the Model IV but the Ser III still
has a gross of 1050 .
1050 will give you a MT weight around 500 or less
add in 15 gal fuel 110 lbs you got left still 440 lbs enough for 2 220
lbs ers and you will most likely with a 582 still get 700 to 1000 fpm
climb.
I see some talk of these NSI convsions at 800 + empty unreal
Shorty
----- Original Message -----
From: "kitfoxjunky" <kitfoxjunky@decisionlabs.com>
Subject: Kitfox-List: KF III vs KF IV
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kitfoxjunky
<kitfoxjunky@decisionlabs.com>
>
> I have a chance to purchase a nearly completed KF III. I own a IV at
this
> time, and I understand the difference between the two is a beefed up
> structure to allow for the higher gross weight of 1200 lbs. The kit is
> covered and painted through to silver, and I was wondering if it was
worth
> it to upgrade it to get the higher gross weight when it is this far
along
> in the build process. If I only have to remove some of the covering to
> weld in larger tubes, then that would be ok. If there are fuse, wing
and
> tail mods, and much of the covering has to be torn off, then it may not
be
> worth it.
>
> Any advice?
>
>
> Gary Walsh
> C-GOOT
> www.decisionlabs.com/kitfox
>
>
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Series 7 cowl |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
Joel Mapes wrote:
> I place the photos in http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
Thanks Joel, still not there but, as they say, it may take some days for the
photos to appear. Will try later on.
Cheers,
Michel
do not archive
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: NSI EA81 question |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
Hi Greg,
I have a friend with the same plane/engine combo. He
has some 1000 or so hours on it out near Portland.
According to him, your engine isn't even broken in
until 300 hrs and it is a noticable change when it
happens.
My friend had Lance do somne work on it a few years
back and NSI automatically upgraded it then. I don't
know if that is their standard practice, but I do know
NSI is always upgrading their designs. The turbo
models are more powerful now then before too.
I agree that you should talk to Lance about it, but
there is no hurry for HP. Just make sure you have the
best upgrades for safety. Ask Lance.
Kurt S. S-5/NSI turbo (small 140 hp)
--- * <caseclosed66@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I am in the process of, well not really rebuilding,
> but more like refreshing a Classic IV with an NSI
> EA81 with in flight adjustable prop.
> Thanks All
>
> greg
>
> Classic IV w/ NSI CAP 140 prop
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: NSI CAP beta |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
Hi Darrel,
I can't imagine that you upset the flyweights somehow.
That is the only planned beta stop I know of. Did
you even take the font motor section apart? Probably
not.
Have you checked the prop for full throw timing and
for binding since the rebuild?
I found that poor brush contacts will work statically,
but not always when running, when there is just a bit
of binding. It won't pass the extra current. You
might clean the brushes and tracks to make sure they
have flat, full surface contact.
Hopefully there is no binding on the wire protector
copper tubes.
That is all I can think of,
Kurt S.
__________________________________
http://my.yahoo.com
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Mikuni pump - cracks. |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Torgeir Mortensen <torgemor@online.no>
Hi Folks,
Found this one in the Matronics "photoshare" area, posted by Jim Gerken
(from the Kolb-List).
______________________________
Mikuni fuel pump found to have radial cracks inside, this pump is of
vintage 1996. .........
........... Check your pumps gentlemen! Please forward to all pilots. -Jim
Gerken
______________________________
Go here, read and see the pictures:
http://www.matronics.com/photoshare/gerken@us.ibm.com.12.29.2002/
(just roll a little down.)
Torgeir.
--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: NSI CAP beta |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Fox5flyer" <morid@northland.lib.mi.us>
Thanks for the feedback Kurt. More below
> I can't imagine that you upset the flyweights somehow.
> That is the only planned beta stop I know of. Did
> you even take the font motor section apart? Probably
> not.
No, I didn't upset the flyweights. It's always been this way and since I
have it apart for inspection I thought I'd ask if anybody had any experience
with this stuff so that if it's a simple adjustment I could just take care
of it now.
>
> Have you checked the prop for full throw timing and
> for binding since the rebuild?
There was no rebuild. Just a grease job. No binding and wiring is fine.
>
> I found that poor brush contacts will work statically,
> but not always when running, when there is just a bit
> of binding. It won't pass the extra current. You
> might clean the brushes and tracks to make sure they
> have flat, full surface contact.
The prop works fine through all its range and will go into beta when not
turning. However when the engine is running everything works fine except it
won't go beta. Not sure what to do. For now, it's not a big problem
because I don't really use beta anyway, but I'd like it to work like it's
supposed to.
>
> Hopefully there is no binding on the wire protector
> copper tubes.
> That is all I can think of,
> Kurt S.
No binding anywhere. Works smoothly on the bench and when static.
Thanks for the help. I tried to call Lance, but they're down for the
holidays. No hurry right now as I'm snowed in anyway.
Deke
NE Michigan
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: NSI CAP beta |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
OK, now I understand better. Mine will only go into
beta below some rpm in the 2000+ range. Your fly
weights must be set wrong if you can't get beta below
2200 rpm or less. I don't know exactly what the set
point is, but I sometimes run it up, then reduce pitch
to the stop before shutdown to get a good pitch angle
check. If I don't ahve my rpm up, it goes beta.
Kurt S.
> No, I didn't upset the flyweights. It's always been
> this way ......
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: Steve Zakreski <szakreski@shaw.ca>
I'm sure you've checked, but I seem to recall (manual not handy) a jumper
on the power module that can lock out the beta. Or am I confusing that with
the slow/fast jumper?
SteveZ
Calgary
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Fox5flyer
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: NSI CAP beta
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Fox5flyer" <morid@northland.lib.mi.us>
Thanks for the feedback Kurt. More below
> I can't imagine that you upset the flyweights somehow.
> That is the only planned beta stop I know of. Did
> you even take the font motor section apart? Probably
> not.
No, I didn't upset the flyweights. It's always been this way and since I
have it apart for inspection I thought I'd ask if anybody had any experience
with this stuff so that if it's a simple adjustment I could just take care
of it now.
>
> Have you checked the prop for full throw timing and
> for binding since the rebuild?
There was no rebuild. Just a grease job. No binding and wiring is fine.
>
> I found that poor brush contacts will work statically,
> but not always when running, when there is just a bit
> of binding. It won't pass the extra current. You
> might clean the brushes and tracks to make sure they
> have flat, full surface contact.
The prop works fine through all its range and will go into beta when not
turning. However when the engine is running everything works fine except it
won't go beta. Not sure what to do. For now, it's not a big problem
because I don't really use beta anyway, but I'd like it to work like it's
supposed to.
>
> Hopefully there is no binding on the wire protector
> copper tubes.
> That is all I can think of,
> Kurt S.
No binding anywhere. Works smoothly on the bench and when static.
Thanks for the help. I tried to call Lance, but they're down for the
holidays. No hurry right now as I'm snowed in anyway.
Deke
NE Michigan
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: NSI CAP beta |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Fox5flyer" <morid@northland.lib.mi.us>
Yup, that's it. I think the weights are set too tight or something, but I
can't figure out how to set 'em. I'm sure there's a procedure for it and
was hoping somebody on the list might know about it, but best leave this on
the shelf until after Lance returns from vacation.
D
>
> OK, now I understand better. Mine will only go into
> beta below some rpm in the 2000+ range. Your fly
> weights must be set wrong if you can't get beta below
> 2200 rpm or less. I don't know exactly what the set
> point is, but I sometimes run it up, then reduce pitch
> to the stop before shutdown to get a good pitch angle
> check. If I don't ahve my rpm up, it goes beta.
>
> Kurt S.
>
> > No, I didn't upset the flyweights. It's always been
> > this way ......
>
>
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: NSI CAP beta |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Fox5flyer" <morid@northland.lib.mi.us>
Yeah, I think you're referring to the slow/fast jumper Steve. I'm not
positive, but I think what I have is a mechanical issue. I don't think
there's anything wrong with the prop, just an adjustment.
Deke
> I'm sure you've checked, but I seem to recall (manual not handy) a jumper
> on the power module that can lock out the beta. Or am I confusing that
with
> the slow/fast jumper?
>
> SteveZ
> Calgary
>
>
> Thanks for the feedback Kurt. More below
>
> > I can't imagine that you upset the flyweights somehow.
> > That is the only planned beta stop I know of. Did
> > you even take the font motor section apart? Probably
> > not.
>
> No, I didn't upset the flyweights. It's always been this way and since I
> have it apart for inspection I thought I'd ask if anybody had any
experience
> with this stuff so that if it's a simple adjustment I could just take care
> of it now.
>
> >
> > Have you checked the prop for full throw timing and
> > for binding since the rebuild?
>
> There was no rebuild. Just a grease job. No binding and wiring is fine.
>
> >
> > I found that poor brush contacts will work statically,
> > but not always when running, when there is just a bit
> > of binding. It won't pass the extra current. You
> > might clean the brushes and tracks to make sure they
> > have flat, full surface contact.
>
> The prop works fine through all its range and will go into beta when not
> turning. However when the engine is running everything works fine except
it
> won't go beta. Not sure what to do. For now, it's not a big problem
> because I don't really use beta anyway, but I'd like it to work like it's
> supposed to.
>
> >
> > Hopefully there is no binding on the wire protector
> > copper tubes.
> > That is all I can think of,
> > Kurt S.
>
> No binding anywhere. Works smoothly on the bench and when static.
> Thanks for the help. I tried to call Lance, but they're down for the
> holidays. No hurry right now as I'm snowed in anyway.
> Deke
> NE Michigan
>
>
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: Clifford Dow <cdowjr@yahoo.com>
Hello
I'm looking to buy a Kitfox - east of the Missisippi - anywhere from florida to
Maine - i'm in Maine. Anyone know of any out there?
I had an RV-7A I built - sold recently - just too much airplane for me -i was
on my way to a short life. I have a nice 1500 foot runway on my land and want
something affordable I can fly in and out of this strip - something with folding
wings - just like a kitfox so I don't have to build an expensive hanger.
Ideally a Kitfox project that's finished just does not have motor -that I'd be
right into - but it would need to have fabric finished - I need minimal fabrication
time to get it flying.
Thanks for your help.
cliff
cdowjr@yahoo.com
cell - 207-329-9468/ wk 1 800-442-6375
---------------------------------
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Kit Fox needed |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jimmie Blackwell" <jablackwell@ev1.net>
Ronnie Smith of South Mississippi Light Aircraft Company had a Model IV for
sale a few weeks ago. As I recall he had just overhauled the engine. His
email is
<flysmla@datasync.com>
My experience is that Ronnie is a good guy to deal with. He has always
treated me right on parts and advice.
Jimmie
----- Original Message -----
From: "Clifford Dow" <cdowjr@yahoo.com>
Subject: Kitfox-List: Kit Fox needed
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Clifford Dow <cdowjr@yahoo.com>
>
> Hello
> I'm looking to buy a Kitfox - east of the Missisippi - anywhere from
florida to Maine - i'm in Maine. Anyone know of any out there?
> I had an RV-7A I built - sold recently - just too much airplane for me -i
was on my way to a short life. I have a nice 1500 foot runway on my land
and want something affordable I can fly in and out of this strip - something
with folding wings - just like a kitfox so I don't have to build an
expensive hanger.
> Ideally a Kitfox project that's finished just does not have motor -that
I'd be right into - but it would need to have fabric finished - I need
minimal fabrication time to get it flying.
> Thanks for your help.
> cliff
> cdowjr@yahoo.com
> cell - 207-329-9468/ wk 1 800-442-6375
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
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: roncarolnikko@webtv.net (Ron Schick)
I have a chance to look at a Lycoming 0-235 this weekend and was
wondering if anyone had put that heavy of a motor on a kf4. With all the
discussion about over gross I could register mine over 1200. Plenty of
power to pull it I would think even with lead in the tail. Thanx in
advance Ron
Message 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: KF III vs KF IV |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clint Bazzill" <clint_bazzill@hotmail.com>
I think that an NSI on a Model IV with amphib floats and full fuel, you
would have to be a 10 lb pilot to be legal. Clint
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: kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
Hi Ron,
That engine is too much for a IV in weight and HP,
IMHO. I don't think you can really use much over 100
hp on a IV, unless you are compensating for high
altitude airports. You'd like the results of the 100
hp Rotax or 6 cyl Jabaru engines better, if you want
that much power. You can get shorter takeoffs and
more climb, but no KitFox will go much faster, except
up high.
Kurt S.
--- Ron Schick <roncarolnikko@webtv.net> wrote:
> I have a chance to look at a Lycoming 0-235 this
> weekend and was wondering if anyone had put that
> heavy of a motor on a kf4.....
Thanx in advance
Ron
__________________________________
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
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! --
|