Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 01:53 AM - AW: antifreeze (Werner Keiper)
2. 04:45 AM - antifreeze (Fox5flyer)
3. 06:26 AM - Re: antifreeze (AlbertaIV@aol.com)
4. 07:29 AM - Re: antifreeze (Floran Higgins)
5. 07:30 AM - antifreeze (Fox5flyer)
6. 07:56 AM - Re: antifreeze (AlbertaIV@aol.com)
7. 08:00 AM - Re: Another Engine Choice. (Mark Scott)
8. 08:40 AM - Re: Re:K7forsale (John Larsen)
9. 08:40 AM - Re: antifreeze (paul wilson)
10. 08:46 AM - Re: Another Engine Choice. (Norm Beauchamp)
11. 08:59 AM - Re: antifreeze (AlbertaIV@aol.com)
12. 11:15 AM - KF IV GW increase, Cert. engines use (Roberto Canino)
13. 12:07 PM - Re: Re:K7forsale (Clint Bazzill)
14. 12:13 PM - Jabiru installation. WAS Prop to Jabiru (Michel Verheughe)
15. 12:46 PM - Re: KF IV GW increase, Cert. engines use (roncarolnikko@webtv.net (Ron Schick))
16. 01:25 PM - Drag/anti-drag tubes (jim cantrell)
17. 01:47 PM - Re: Drag/anti-drag tubes (jim cantrell)
18. 01:59 PM - Re: [ Michael Gibbs ] : New Email List Photo Share (Michael Gibbs)
19. 02:37 PM - Re: Drag/anti-drag tubes (AlbertaIV@aol.com)
20. 02:51 PM - Re: Drag/anti-drag tubes (jim cantrell)
21. 03:29 PM - Bankruptcy (Rex & Jan Shaw)
22. 03:52 PM - Re: Jabiru installation. WAS Prop to Jabiru (kurt schrader)
23. 04:06 PM - Re: Pitch/prop-angle/rpm (Bruce Harrington)
24. 04:19 PM - Re wooden propeller for Jabiru motor (Rex & Jan Shaw)
25. 04:37 PM - Re: Re wooden propeller for Jabiru motor (Steve Cooper)
26. 04:54 PM - Re: Drag/anti-drag tubes (Tom Jones)
27. 05:08 PM - Re: Jabiru installation. WAS Prop to Jabiru (Jose M. Toro)
28. 05:33 PM - Re: Jabiru installation. WAS Prop to Jabiru (Lynn Matteson)
29. 05:49 PM - Re: Re wooden propeller for Jabiru motor (Lynn Matteson)
30. 05:51 PM - Re: antifreeze (Randy Daughenbaugh)
31. 05:59 PM - Re: Jabiru installation. WAS Prop to Jabiru (Steve Cooper)
32. 06:05 PM - Re: Prop to Jabiru. WAS: another Jabiru question (Lynn Matteson)
33. 06:05 PM - Used Equipment (jdmcbean)
34. 06:11 PM - Re: antifreeze (Wwillyard@aol.com)
35. 06:25 PM - Re: Used Equipment (Tc9008@aol.com)
36. 06:53 PM - antifreeze (Fox5flyer)
37. 07:55 PM - Re: antifreeze Link Broken ! (Jeff Smathers)
38. 09:21 PM - Re: Re stall speed and angle of attack (Guy Buchanan)
39. 09:21 PM - Re: KF7 For Sale (Guy Buchanan)
40. 09:21 PM - Re: Re:K7forsale (Guy Buchanan)
41. 10:08 PM - Re: ordering security (Tc9008@aol.com)
42. 10:08 PM - Re: Re:K7forsale (John Larsen)
43. 10:24 PM - Re: Pitch/prop-angle/rpm (r.thomas@za.pwc.com)
44. 10:51 PM - Re: antifreeze (r.thomas@za.pwc.com)
45. 11:50 PM - Re: Pitch/prop-angle/rpm (David Savener)
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: "Werner Keiper" <Werner@keiper-koerdorf.de>
Hi Kurt,
This absolut correct. In most cases antifreeze is changed too often and that
causes corrosion any time you change.
Change every 2 or 3 years is fine. Also in cars it is changed to often. That
is different with oil.
Werner K / Kitfox 3
-----Ursprngliche Nachricht-----
Von: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] Im Auftrag von kurt schrader
Gesendet: Sonntag, 13. Februar 2005 08:25
An: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Betreff: Re: Kitfox-List: antifreeze
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader
--> <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
Hi Deke,
I am not sure which is the best, but I know you can change it too often.
Antifreeze is somewhat opposite of oil in this. Oil breaks down and loads
up with pollutants rather quickly over time. It becomes acidic too. That
is why it is good to change it with calander time as well as engine time, 90
days being suggested if you haven't run it much.
Antifreeze comes not quite pure and sets up electrolosis when fresh. This
causes corrosion. Over time the small impurities are used up and the
corrosion stops, so it is better with a little aging.
The amount of corrosion is slight and goes away quickly, but begins again
every time you change it.
On the other hand, it takes longer for the antifreeze to weaken with age
than oil, since it isn't exposed to combustion gasses.
So the bottom line is that manufacturers suggest 2 years between changes.
Sorter and you get more corrosion. Longer and you get more breakdown.
That is my understanding of it.
Kurt S. S-5/NSI with the Green cooling stuff
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Fox5flyer" <morid@northland.lib.mi.us>
Thanks Kurt, et al,
I think this is a good topic because most of us use liquid cooled engines
and probably don't think too much about which is best (or worst) for our
engines.
I recall reading sometime in the past exactly what you just posted below,
but never placed much credibility in it. However, it makes sense.
Currently I'm using the orange stuff--Havoline Dextron--and since it's been
in there a little over 3 years I felt it was time to change it. However, I
remember reading that the stuff was supposed to be good for 100,000 miles in
a car and after reading your post I'm wondering if I should just pour it
right back in the engine. It still looks clean. This isn't about money.
It's about what is best for the engine. I wonder what Subaru recommends?
What does Rotax say?
Deke
> I am not sure which is the best, but I know you can
> change it too often. Antifreeze is somewhat opposite
> of oil in this. Oil breaks down and loads up with
> pollutants rather quickly over time. It becomes
> acidic too. That is why it is good to change it with
> calander time as well as engine time, 90 days being
> suggested if you haven't run it much.
>
> Antifreeze comes not quite pure and sets up
> electrolosis when fresh. This causes corrosion. Over
> time the small impurities are used up and the
> corrosion stops, so it is better with a little aging.
>
> The amount of corrosion is slight and goes away
> quickly, but begins again every time you change it.
> On the other hand, it takes longer for the antifreeze
> to weaken with age than oil, since it isn't exposed to
> combustion gasses.
>
> So the bottom line is that manufacturers suggest 2
> years between changes. Sorter and you get more
> corrosion. Longer and you get more breakdown.
>
> That is my understanding of it.
>
> Kurt S. S-5/NSI with the Green cooling stuff
>
> --- Fox5flyer <morid@northland.lib.mi.us> wrote:
>
> > I've just pulled my radiator to clean the bugs out
> > of it and before reinstalling and putting new
> > anti-freeze in it I was wondering if any on the
> > list have input on what is the best type to use with
> > an aluminum engine.
> > How often is considered optimum for changing it out?
> > Can it be changed too often?
> > All opinions welcome!
> > Deke
> > S5/NSI/CAP
>
>
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: AlbertaIV@aol.com
In a message dated 2/13/2005 7:46:05 AM Eastern Standard Time,
morid@northland.lib.mi.us writes:
a car and after reading your post I'm wondering if I should just pour it
right back in the engine. It still looks clean. This isn't about money.
It's about what is best for the engine. I wonder what Subaru recommends?
What does Rotax say?
Deke,
I must admit, it never crossed my mind that you could change it too
often. Speaking of money, if you decide to change yours, can I have the old so
I
don't have to buy any? Will you pay shipping?
Do Not Archive
Don Smythe
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Floran Higgins" <cliffh@outdrs.net>
Rotex just reciently came out with a service bulletin with a recomnded
waterless anti-freeze.
I don't remember the brand name.
Floran H.
----- Original Message -----
From: <AlbertaIV@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: antifreeze
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: AlbertaIV@aol.com
>
>
> In a message dated 2/12/2005 10:02:10 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> turboflyer@comcast.net writes:
>
> Try Evans web site. Water free coolant and decide for yourself
>
>
> I went to the site and took a gander....No offense, but what I decided
> was,
> a Company that is trying to sell a product and I couldn't find a single
> comment that was "against" the product. I'm not yet ready to pour some
> magic
> juice in my aircraft engine.
> I did not take time to read it carefully but, it looked like it was
> referring to mostly, " Keeps things cool". None of that speaks to
> "lubricating"
> my precious parts and, the compatibility with alum/rotary valves, etc.
> There are too many quick fix additives on the market these days and
> I'm
> not going to start putting them in my engine. Having said that, I admit,
> I
> did not study this product and it might be the best thing since sliced
> bread.
> Right now, I would like to see a good standard antifreeze solution. In
> the
> mean time, I'll stick with Havoline Dex Cool and change twice a year.
>
> Don Smythe
>
>
>
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: "Fox5flyer" <morid@northland.lib.mi.us>
Nope, but if YOU pay shipping I'd be glad to box it up and send it to you
:-)
Anybody else out there have some input? I'm walking the fence here and
having trouble sleeping at night.
Deke
> Deke,
> I must admit, it never crossed my mind that you could change it too
> often. Speaking of money, if you decide to change yours, can I have the
old so I
> don't have to buy any? Will you pay shipping?
>
> Do Not Archive
> Don Smythe
>
>
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: AlbertaIV@aol.com
In a message dated 2/13/2005 10:31:09 AM Eastern Standard Time,
morid@northland.lib.mi.us writes:
Anybody else out there have some input? I'm walking the fence here and
having trouble sleeping at night.
Deke
Deke,
Below is a short article that covers some of the basics of antifreeze.
The article promotes the orange extended life stuff. I stick with it because
of the certain additives that aren't in there that might damage our engines.
Now that Rotax has suggested a "waterless" coolant, it might be worth
looking at. If I were in a hurry to get airborne, I'd go with the orange extended
life stuff. However, the article talks about drawbacks when switching from
regular antifreeze to the extended life type in older engines.
BTW, what have you been using in the past?
_http://www.delanet.com/~pparish/antifreeze.htm_
(http://www.delanet.com/~pparish/antifreeze.htm)
Don Smythe
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: Another Engine Choice. |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Mark Scott" <scottm@dol.net>
Norm, what's a typical firewall forward weight for the corvair install?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Norm Beauchamp" <nebchmp@wcc.net>
Subject: Kitfox-List: Another Engine Choice.
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Norm Beauchamp <nebchmp@wcc.net>
>
> Some time ago one of the fellows who was on the Kitfox list at that time
> mentioned the Corvair engine and the web site. I was already into my
> project with a Subaru EA-81 wishing I had considered the Corvair after
> checking it out. After I started flying with the Subaru engine I found
> a Corvair engine. Shortly after I discovered a problem with the PSRU on
> the EA-81 in my Series 5. I had 32 hrs. on my initial 40. My thought
> was to build the Corvair engine while flying with the EA-81, but that
> has all changed now. Rather than purchase another PSRU (prop speed
> reduction unit) which now cost almost as much as building up an engine,
> I am going with the Corvair. Going here
>
>> www.FlyCorvair.com - Home of the Recognized Authority on Corvair
>> Powered Flight <http://www.flycorvair.com/>
>
> and looking for yourself is much better than me trying to tell you about
> it. So far I have noticed one or two Foxers who are interested. I've
> sent a firewall layout to WW hoping he will have time to look at it to
> get an idea of how to attach the engine to my fire wall. He's pretty
> busy. Anyway for your consideration. Norm
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
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: RE:K7forsale |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: John Larsen <jopatco@mindspring.com>
I was at the factory when the Series 4 was being produced, and the plane
did have problems. It was mainly caused by Avid. This came about because
dan Denny had just come out with the Series 3 KF. I had designed the D
model Avid and Jimbob Metzger got the inspiration to call it the Avid Mk
IV just to get one up on KF. When Dan saw it at SnF he immediately saw
this as competition to his plane. Did you ever notice that there were
very few Series 3 KF. Dan was working on the Ruble wing and the
redesigned mixer system with MacFarlane the engineer at this time, so
Dan introduced the Series 4 just to keep up with Avid. The problem was
he sold his wine before it's time, and the first run on Series 4 planes
were full of short comings. There were some kits where 4 different lift
struts were sent out before they got it right. The back orders and
reshipments were killing them. That is the reason Phil Reid did a
redesign on the plane and called it the Series 5 to correct the short
comings of the Series 4. Dan would have been much better off to not rush
to production.
Marc Hightower wrote:
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Marc Hightower" <skyhightower@earthlink.net>
>
> I can't say that I'm a real SkyStar fan. Building my Classic IV-1200 was a
case of making a silk purse from a sows ear. The kit that I received was of very
poor quality. Nothing ever fit properly and my friends would joke about how
every time they would come by my shop I was screaming about what a piece of junk
this or that part was and how much work it took to put things together. I
finally took a welding class at the local college and learned to fabricate parts
myself, because in some cases that was the only way to get parts to fit. So
I share the frustration of the guy waiting for his engine.
> But, Boycotting or getting a lawyer and suing SkyStar is not the the answer.
Frank seems to be doing his best to clean up the mess left to him. When a set
of the old style wing struts rusted through after hanging on the wall of my
shop for four years, he sent me a new pair of the seaplane struts for free, including
shipping!
> Before buying the KItfox, I purchased the first kit from a new company called
MoHawk, short for Missouri Hawk. It was a total piece of junk. An IA looked
at it and told me the welds were so bad that it would probably break and he would
never sign it off. In an attempt to clean up some of the worst welds they
took a grinder to them and made it worse by grinding into the tubes. I didn't
receive half of the parts for the kit and the instructions were incomplete. I
returned the kit and demanded my money back. He ended up selling the kit to someone
else and never returned my money. I got an Attorney, sued him and won.
His response was to fold up the company an thumb his nose at me. I not only lost
the price of the kit, but also the cost of an Attorney and years of frustration
while attempting to collect.
> While building my Kitfox, I wanted to sell it many a time, but here is a light
at the end of the tunnel. After six years and 3300 hours of construction I
discovered that flying a Kitfox is a lot more fun than building it and I'm glad
that I hung in there.
>
>
>
>
>
>Marc Hightower
>skyhightower@earthlink.net
>
>
>
>
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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: paul wilson <pwilson@climber.org>
The devil is in the details. The Evans web site does give comparison
between 50/50 EG vs the PG product. The comparison shows Evans to be
inferior as a coolant. The main advantage is a higher boiling point.
Rotax apparently has tested the stuff for the 91x engines and has decided
that the reduction in cooling properties is not bad enough to cause a
problem and they want the higher boiling point.
The Corvette discussion is a case in point where there was disagreement
on the use of the product. Apparently this engine is like the Rotax in the
need for boiling point protection. However the water pump was redesigned to
bring the heat transfer to acceptable levels while using a PG product.
Further notice that Evans has a product with a mix of PG and EG plus
other unknown stuff. This is done to improve the heat transfer properties
and still have some increase in boiling point. A compromise to satisfy the
needs certain engines like the Rotax.
As an aside several auto companies warn against using PG as a replacement
for the 50/50 EG we all normally use.
As far as the silicate in some EG products. I would recommend reading the
engine manufacturers specs for the coolant . Be especially wary of new
products that have hit the market since the engine was designed. Some want
silicate free others dont care. Don picked up on that right away. Having
said that "Havoline Dex" is one of those new products that is not
recommended by some auto companies.
I contacted several auto racer teams about what they use for coolant. The
result was "no comment" I guess they dont want others to know what they do.
I did find out that they change the stuff after very short usage times.
Some cahnge after every race! With all the advertising hype in the race
journals. Something called "wetter water" seems to being pushed. I did not
bother to look into the stuff.
Paul
============
At 10:47 PM 2/12/05 -0500, you wrote:
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: AlbertaIV@aol.com
>
>
>In a message dated 2/12/2005 10:02:10 PM Eastern Standard Time,
>turboflyer@comcast.net writes:
>
>Try Evans web site. Water free coolant and decide for yourself
>
>
>I went to the site and took a gander....No offense, but what I decided was,
>a Company that is trying to sell a product and I couldn't find a single
>comment that was "against" the product. I'm not yet ready to pour some magic
>juice in my aircraft engine.
> I did not take time to read it carefully but, it looked like it was
>referring to mostly, " Keeps things cool". None of that speaks to
>"lubricating"
>my precious parts and, the compatibility with alum/rotary valves, etc.
> There are too many quick fix additives on the market these days and I'm
>not going to start putting them in my engine. Having said that, I admit, I
>did not study this product and it might be the best thing since sliced bread.
>Right now, I would like to see a good standard antifreeze solution. In the
>mean time, I'll stick with Havoline Dex Cool and change twice a year.
>
>Don Smythe
>
>
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: Another Engine Choice. |
mailadmin.wcc.net
version=3.0.2-wcn_w9f4wgtp
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Norm Beauchamp <nebchmp@wcc.net>
Mark,
It is said to be in the 220lb range.
I would also like to reply to Rick and thank him for his direction to
the information concerning automotive crankshaft in a direct drive
application. For anyone interested in this engine I strongly suggest
you throughly check the site I sent to the list. Check for the number
of forged steel crank failures in the last 40 years, check the RPMs you
will be turning, check for the number of failed thrust bearings, check
how this engine has been used in the past in the racing field. When you
do you will find there are only certain engines that are suitable for
aircraft use because of certain features of the engine. If you haven't
got deep pockets, don't mind getting your hands dirty, have the patients
to look until you find an engine. This could be an alternative. Just
my word and I'm stickin to it.
If it is the feeling of the list that this shouldn't be discussed
further on list, then it can be discussed off list. You have my
address. Thanks. - Later-. Norm
Mark Scott wrote:
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Mark Scott" <scottm@dol.net>
>
>Norm, what's a typical firewall forward weight for the corvair install?
>
>
>
>
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: AlbertaIV@aol.com
In a message dated 2/13/2005 11:41:34 AM Eastern Standard Time,
pwilson@climber.org writes:
journals. Something called "wetter water" seems to being pushed. I did not
bother to look into the stuff.
Paul
============
Paul,
That's Water Wetter but who cares. The Water Wetter sounds like it
works on the same principal as Evans. According to them, water can vaporize near
the hot interior surface of the head causing it to pick up less heat as it
passes through the system. Evans and Water Wetter seem to advertise that
their product will cling to the metal and help eliminate vaporizing therefore
picking up more heat.
I tried Water Wetter and I saw no difference in coolant temps. Out it
came....The main thing I didn't like about Water Wetter was the fact that it
was better if no antifreeze at all was in the system. Just straight distilled
water and Water Wetter (summer use). I talked with the manufacturer and
they assured me that adequate lubrication would be present with just distilled
water and their product.
I'm just leary of new ideas especially in the air.
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: | KF IV GW increase, Cert. engines use |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Roberto Canino <robertocannino@yahoo.com>
Questions RE:
- mods necc to increase GW in KFIV
- use of certified engine (C-65, C-90, O-235)once GW
is increased
I am the new owner of a KF IV, the earlier, lighter
gross version and I sure would like some clarification
on what I have and what I can do with it.
As I understand it the gear is the big issue in
increasing GW and my plane already has the recommended
Grove gear. From there things get a little hazy;
- heavier duty struts for the tail and a
- solid rod inserted into a hollow, horizontal cross
member. Does that make any sense?
My big question is, once the GW is increased can the
IV handle a certificated engine, say a C-90
Continental? Can the KF IV wing be extended with tips
to add lift?
Is there anyone out there that has successfully
used a certificated engine with a mod IV?
Any thoughts would be most appreciated!
B
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: RE:K7forsale |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clint Bazzill" <clint_bazzill@hotmail.com>
I think Marc Hightower is wrong,
The Kitfox Model IV-1200 is not a mark 4. Or a series 4 it is a model IV.
I think it is the best airplane in the Kitfox fleet. If you think that
these airplane are bolt together, then you better get an ultra light. The
wing is the same on all the models after the IV-1200. The horiz stab is
different. You could not get the trim necessary with the new weight so the
horiz stab had to be used for trim, you ran out with the heavy airplane.
Its hard to imagine a 4 place kitfox IV. Thats what you get when you add
another 350 lbs to a wing. I have flown every model except the 7. Belive
me the IV is just about the perfect Kitfox. Clint 1000 hours Model IV-1200
912ULS since 1999
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: | Jabiru installation. WAS Prop to Jabiru |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
"Jose M. Toro" wrote:
> What your planes' new weight?
243 kg, including the new battery. That is only 8 kg more than with the 582!
> Is it the battery located right behind the seat?
Yes, right behind. The Odyssey PC680 fits exactly on the center line, one edge
resting on the back of the seat.
> How many gallons of gas is your maximum?
I have 2 X 47 liter in the two wing tanks and 4 liter in the header tank.
Here are a few photos I took today, with notes, hoping it can help you:
http://home.online.no/~michel/tmp/JabInstall/
> Saludos y xito el martes!!!
Gracias, Jose. Martes o miercoles ya que el tiempo esta cambiando mucho aqui.
Hasta pronto,
Michel
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: KF IV GW increase, Cert. engines use |
Feb 2005 11:14:49 -0800 (PST)
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: roncarolnikko@webtv.net (Ron Schick)
Robert I am also looking at different power plants. There are vw,
subaru, continentals and others flying. The one thing I have learnd is
that the heavier engine requires lead in the tail to get the cg right.
That puts more load on everything from your wings to your fusalage. Some
of these engines have no more power and less thrust than the 582. I have
a 92 1200 lb speedster that sounds like it would handle most of the
engines, but will fly differantly than the lighter, agile aircraft.
There is a lycoming o-235 that I could get vey reasonable, but I haven't
found the weight on that model yet. Good luck and take your time
learning. Ron
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Drag/anti-drag tubes |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: jim cantrell <jcant1@direcway.com>
Can anyone remember if they had to shorten the drag/anti-drag tubes in the wings?,
mine seem to be about a 1/2" too long.
Jim Cantrell
Kitfox S5TD about 50%
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: Drag/anti-drag tubes |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: jim cantrell <jcant1@direcway.com>
I guess I had better explain myself, I am talking about the precut
drag/anit-drag tubes that were shipped with the wings kit from the factory.
Jim Cantrell
5TD 50%
----- Original Message -----
From: "jim cantrell" <jcant1@direcway.com>
Subject: Kitfox-List: Drag/anti-drag tubes
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: jim cantrell <jcant1@direcway.com>
>
> Can anyone remember if they had to shorten the drag/anti-drag tubes in the
wings?, mine seem to be about a 1/2" too long.
> Jim Cantrell
> Kitfox S5TD about 50%
>
>
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: [ Michael Gibbs ] : New Email List Photo Share |
Available!
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michael Gibbs <MichaelGibbs@cox.net> Available!
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Rick" <turboflyer@comcast.net>
>
>Is that the Jolly green Giant holding that panel? Or is that a miniature
>mock up?
No, that's Murle Williams. Model IV panels aren't very big... :-)
Mike G.
N728KF
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Drag/anti-drag tubes |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: AlbertaIV@aol.com
In a message dated 2/13/2005 4:48:01 PM Eastern Standard Time,
jcant1@direcway.com writes:
I guess I had better explain myself, I am talking about the precut
drag/anit-drag tubes that were shipped with the wings kit from the factory.
Jim Cantrell
Jim,
I have the Classic IV and don't know what a drag tube is? Can you
explain further? I used the quick build wings so maybe there is something that
I
didn't have to install
Don Smythe
Do Not Archive
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: Drag/anti-drag tubes |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: jim cantrell <jcant1@direcway.com>
Don,
Yes, the drag tubes are already installed in the quick build wings between
the front and rear spars for bracing. I bought a third hand kit and am
having to build the wings from spars,ribs, etc.
Thanks for the reply.
Jim Cantrell
Do Not Archive
----- Original Message -----
From: <AlbertaIV@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Drag/anti-drag tubes
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: AlbertaIV@aol.com
>
>
> In a message dated 2/13/2005 4:48:01 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> jcant1@direcway.com writes:
>
> I guess I had better explain myself, I am talking about the precut
> drag/anit-drag tubes that were shipped with the wings kit from the
factory.
> Jim Cantrell
>
>
> Jim,
> I have the Classic IV and don't know what a drag tube is? Can you
> explain further? I used the quick build wings so maybe there is
something that I
> didn't have to install
>
> Don Smythe
> Do Not Archive
>
>
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: "Rex & Jan Shaw" <rexjan@bigpond.com>
It is quite easy to express the opinion that they should declare bankruptcy
and start over when you are looking back at your experiences with SS. It is
not as acceptable of an idea for those of us who have payed up but are still
waiting for delivery. The thought of bankruptcy is immoral, wrong, and
screws people who hold faith in SS during tough times. I am convinced that
(fortunately), those at SS are trying to honor their obligations to those
whom they owe kits/product rather than give in to the sleeze escape of
bankruptcy.
Wade
I totally agree. From a pure business point of view bankruptcy probably does
have merit but I am very strongly with Wade on this and while Skystar are
trying to do the right thing and slowly coming good I support them and
Frankly I think it would be good if we all did. Before I learnt the
situation I was not so inclined to support them but we are now seeing a more
transparent Skystar. Consider this if Skystar declared bankruptcy versus
working their way out of trouble and at the same time being transparent,
which way do you think they will gain the most respect ? Obviously this will
improve their business so it may not be as good a business decision as it
might appear to go bankrupt. Still what would I know ? I did however build a
business up from scratch and ran it for 30 years successfully before selling
it to retire.
Rex.
rexjan@bigpond.com
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: Jabiru installation. WAS Prop to Jabiru |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
Michel and Jose,
We all can't wait to hear how your fox's perform with
the new engines. Gaining less than 18 lbs, and with a
bigger battery too, over a 2 cycle is quite an
achievement. Maintenance, fuel used, smoothness, and
comfidence are all improtant as well as climb and
cruise speed.
This is like Christmas with a family of over 300
watching 2 kids open presents. :-)
Kurt S.
--- Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no> wrote:
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe
> <michel@online.no>
>
> "Jose M. Toro" wrote:
> > What your planes' new weight?
>
> 243 kg, including the new battery. That is only 8 kg
> more than with the 582!
>
> > Is it the battery located right behind the seat?
>
> Yes, right behind. The Odyssey PC680 fits exactly on
> the center line, one edge
> resting on the back of the seat.
>
> > How many gallons of gas is your maximum?
>
> I have 2 X 47 liter in the two wing tanks and 4
> liter in the header tank.
>
> Here are a few photos I took today, with notes,
> hoping it can help you:
>
> http://home.online.no/~michel/tmp/JabInstall/
>
>
> > Saludos y xito el martes!!!
>
> Gracias, Jose. Martes o miercoles ya que el tiempo
> esta cambiando mucho aqui.
>
> Hasta pronto,
>
> Michel
Message 23
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Pitch/prop-angle/rpm |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bruce Harrington" <aerowood@mcsi.net>
Hi Dave,
I used to run my 582 (on IV-1200) GSC prop with about as much pitch as I
could get during the winter months. I set for around 6000-6200 static.
Adjust at 1/2 to 1 degree increments ubtil you get what you want.
Cheers,
bh
ex-N194KF 582ed IV-1200, 800+ hrs
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "David Savener" <david_savener@msn.com>
>
> I installed my 68 inch diameter 3 blade GSC prop on my 582 with a 3.0 to 1
> reduction model C gearbox. My GSC Prop broshure says I should have a
> 12.75 degree prop angle to give me a 36 inch pitch. I tied the tail to my
> Nissan and WOW! I saw the RPM go past 7000 rpm once(Nearly paniced). I
> thought that setting would give me close to 6200 rpm static rpm. So I
> re-pitched it to 14 degrees and I'm still getting 6800 rpm still tied to
> my old Nissan. Is it OK to go up to 20 degrees or more to get that
> static rpm down to 6200? Around what prop angle do I run into the law of
> diminishing returns. ie more prop angle-less lift?
>
> Oh yea! I am measuring the prop angle at 25.5 inches from the center of
> the prop hub which is 75% of the 34 inch length of one blade.
>
> Dave S.
Message 24
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re wooden propeller for Jabiru motor |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Rex & Jan Shaw" <rexjan@bigpond.com>
Attention Lynn,
I urge you to carefully seek out the right answers re
the right type of prop for the Jabiru 2200 motor. As you know I live in
Australia where the Jabiru planes and motors are made so I am close to the
action. The word around here is Do not use a composite prop on these motors.
This is a very definite rule. I believe one failed and Jabiru are interested
to solve the problem as are Bolly Props here. Apparently the firing pulses
are too much for the root of the blades and one let go. I don't know what
happened but bear in mind that in this situation the motor might well get
torn out of the plane in a second and then due to a dramatic C of G shift
you will have no control at all.
I am not prepared to say more than this or make any definite statements
but please check the matter out thouroughly before you make your decision. I
think the fact a composite prop might out perform a wooden one is of little
point considering in the circumstances. I know a composite prop does not
worry in the rain and a wooden one does so it would be nice to be able to
run composite but it's no good if it breaks.
I suggest you go through Jabiru Australias website and talk to them. You
could also try asking questions of Les Bolenhagen of Bolly props here in
Australia. Last I heard he had tested a specially made composite prop with
rubber in the hub for 600 hours. So he will know the story acurately.
The fact you can find a test with a composite prop on a Jabiru 2200 motor
pointing out perfomance figures does nothing at all to address the failure
question.
Some one mentioned the other day that Jabiru used to have a lower
horsepower version and said they thought it was 65 HP. In actual fact that
would be the old 1600 motor and I am pretty sure it was only 55HP. Also of
interest is the 2200 was 80HP but is now 85HP. This as been achieved by
remachining the combustion chamber and interestingly enough the compression
has been reduced. Therefore I wonder if this will help the prop problem by
reducing the sharpness of the firing pulses making it smoother.
I have flown a Jabiru 2200 plane for about 50 hours and can say that the
motors are very nice as Michel has found out. Not that I'm ready to chuck my
582 mind you.
Rex. Shaw.
rexjan@bigpond.com
Message 25
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re wooden propeller for Jabiru motor |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Steve Cooper" <spdrflyr@earthlink.net>
Thanks for the report Rex. Thank you very much. I will NOT use my Warp
Composite until I hear more information regarding this problem. But, alas, I
do need to change props...the little Prince P-tip simply just isn't enough
prop. If it had a couple more degrees of pitch it would probably be
fine...but at 3760rpm, management through the vernier just isn't fast enough
to keep the rpm below red line. Maybe I'll try a Jabiru wood prop. My 58 X
40 is too much pitch. Thanks again for the report.
Steve
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rex & Jan Shaw
Subject: Kitfox-List: Re wooden propeller for Jabiru motor
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Rex & Jan Shaw" <rexjan@bigpond.com>
Attention Lynn,
I urge you to carefully seek out the right answers re
the right type of prop for the Jabiru 2200 motor. As you know I live in
Australia where the Jabiru planes and motors are made so I am close to the
action. The word around here is Do not use a composite prop on these motors.
This is a very definite rule. I believe one failed and Jabiru are interested
to solve the problem as are Bolly Props here. Apparently the firing pulses
are too much for the root of the blades and one let go. I don't know what
happened but bear in mind that in this situation the motor might well get
torn out of the plane in a second and then due to a dramatic C of G shift
you will have no control at all.
I am not prepared to say more than this or make any definite statements
but please check the matter out thouroughly before you make your decision. I
think the fact a composite prop might out perform a wooden one is of little
point considering in the circumstances. I know a composite prop does not
worry in the rain and a wooden one does so it would be nice to be able to
run composite but it's no good if it breaks.
I suggest you go through Jabiru Australias website and talk to them. You
could also try asking questions of Les Bolenhagen of Bolly props here in
Australia. Last I heard he had tested a specially made composite prop with
rubber in the hub for 600 hours. So he will know the story acurately.
The fact you can find a test with a composite prop on a Jabiru 2200 motor
pointing out perfomance figures does nothing at all to address the failure
question.
Some one mentioned the other day that Jabiru used to have a lower
horsepower version and said they thought it was 65 HP. In actual fact that
would be the old 1600 motor and I am pretty sure it was only 55HP. Also of
interest is the 2200 was 80HP but is now 85HP. This as been achieved by
remachining the combustion chamber and interestingly enough the compression
has been reduced. Therefore I wonder if this will help the prop problem by
reducing the sharpness of the firing pulses making it smoother.
I have flown a Jabiru 2200 plane for about 50 hours and can say that the
motors are very nice as Michel has found out. Not that I'm ready to chuck my
582 mind you.
Rex. Shaw.
rexjan@bigpond.com
Message 26
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Drag/anti-drag tubes |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Tom Jones <tomfromlapine@peoplepc.com>
Jim,
I had to file a little off the ends just to make them look and fit like
the picture in the manual. Maybe someone that hasn't covered their wing
yet can measure some for you to compare to before you cut them. It
might be that something else is not in the correct place instead.
Tom Jones
jim cantrell wrote:
>
> Can anyone remember if they had to shorten the drag/anti-drag tubes in the wings?,
mine seem to be about a 1/2" too long.
> Jim Cantrell
> Kitfox S5TD about 50%
Message 27
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Jabiru installation. WAS Prop to Jabiru |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jose M. Toro" <jose_m_toro@yahoo.com>
Kirt:
That's exactly how I feel, like a kid with a new bicycle that requires assembly!
Michel:
These pictures are excellent references. Thanks!
Jose
kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com> wrote:
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader
Michel and Jose,
We all can't wait to hear how your fox's perform with
the new engines. Gaining less than 18 lbs, and with a
bigger battery too, over a 2 cycle is quite an
achievement. Maintenance, fuel used, smoothness, and
comfidence are all improtant as well as climb and
cruise speed.
This is like Christmas with a family of over 300
watching 2 kids open presents. :-)
Kurt S.
--- Michel Verheughe wrote:
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe
>
>
> "Jose M. Toro" wrote:
> > What your planes' new weight?
>
> 243 kg, including the new battery. That is only 8 kg
> more than with the 582!
>
> > Is it the battery located right behind the seat?
>
> Yes, right behind. The Odyssey PC680 fits exactly on
> the center line, one edge
> resting on the back of the seat.
>
> > How many gallons of gas is your maximum?
>
> I have 2 X 47 liter in the two wing tanks and 4
> liter in the header tank.
>
> Here are a few photos I took today, with notes,
> hoping it can help you:
>
> http://home.online.no/~michel/tmp/JabInstall/
>
>
> > Saludos y xito el martes!!!
>
> Gracias, Jose. Martes o miercoles ya que el tiempo
> esta cambiando mucho aqui.
>
> Hasta pronto,
>
> Michel
Jose M. Toro, P.E.
Kitfox II/582
"A slow flight in the Caribbean..."
---------------------------------
Message 28
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Jabiru installation. WAS Prop to Jabiru |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net>
On Sunday, February 13, 2005, at 06:51 PM, kurt schrader wrote:
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader
> <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
>
> Michel and Jose,
>
> We all can't wait to hear how your fox's perform with
> the new engines. Gaining less than 18 lbs, and with a
> bigger battery too, over a 2 cycle is quite an
> achievement.
To say nothing of NO ANTIFREEZE problems...one less thing to worry
about. : )
Lynn
do not archive
> Maintenance, fuel used, smoothness, and
> comfidence are all improtant as well as climb and
> cruise speed.
>
> This is like Christmas with a family of over 300
> watching 2 kids open presents. :-)
>
> Kurt S.
>
> --- Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no> wrote:
>
>> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe
>> <michel@online.no>
>>
>> "Jose M. Toro" wrote:
>>> What your planes' new weight?
>>
>> 243 kg, including the new battery. That is only 8 kg
>> more than with the 582!
>>
>>> Is it the battery located right behind the seat?
>>
>> Yes, right behind. The Odyssey PC680 fits exactly on
>> the center line, one edge
>> resting on the back of the seat.
>>
>>> How many gallons of gas is your maximum?
>>
>> I have 2 X 47 liter in the two wing tanks and 4
>> liter in the header tank.
>>
>> Here are a few photos I took today, with notes,
>> hoping it can help you:
>>
>> http://home.online.no/~michel/tmp/JabInstall/
>>
>>
>>> Saludos y xito el martes!!!
>>
>> Gracias, Jose. Martes o miercoles ya que el tiempo
>> esta cambiando mucho aqui.
>>
>> Hasta pronto,
>>
>> Michel
>
>
Message 29
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Re wooden propeller for Jabiru motor |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net>
Thanks for the alert, Rex. Yes, I do plan on looking into this prop
matter very carefully. Your mention of the motor leaving the plane
really got my attention. Has anybody thought of engine retention
cables? Some of us used these in our model planes.
Of course, right now my first decision is to decide on what engine to
use, and Jabiru right now is leading. As soon as Jose and Michel "open
their presents" we'll all get an early (or late) Christmas. : )
Lynn
On Sunday, February 13, 2005, at 07:21 PM, Rex & Jan Shaw wrote:
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Rex & Jan Shaw"
> <rexjan@bigpond.com>
>
> Attention Lynn,
> I urge you to carefully seek out the right
> answers re
> the right type of prop for the Jabiru 2200 motor. As you know I live in
> Australia where the Jabiru planes and motors are made so I am close to
> the
> action. The word around here is Do not use a composite prop on these
> motors.
>
********
> the motor might well get
> torn out of the plane in a second and then due to a dramatic C of G
> shift
> you will have no control at all.
> Rex.
> Shaw.
> rexjan@bigpond.com
>
>
Message 30
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Randy Daughenbaugh" <rjdaugh@rapidnet.com>
You are right Floran. And it is the Evans waterless that Rotax recommends.
Randy
.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Floran Higgins
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: antifreeze
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Floran Higgins" <cliffh@outdrs.net>
Rotex just reciently came out with a service bulletin with a recomnded
waterless anti-freeze.
I don't remember the brand name.
Floran H.
----- Original Message -----
From: <AlbertaIV@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: antifreeze
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: AlbertaIV@aol.com
>
>
> In a message dated 2/12/2005 10:02:10 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> turboflyer@comcast.net writes:
>
> Try Evans web site. Water free coolant and decide for yourself
>
>
Message 31
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Jabiru installation. WAS Prop to Jabiru |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Steve Cooper" <spdrflyr@earthlink.net>
Hi guys, this is the reply I got from the Norwegian Jabiru dealer that
performed the prop test on the Kitfox listed here earlier by Michael. Paul
talks about a Kitfox with a Warp Composite prop and Jabiru engine. His reply
is below:
Hi Steve Cooper.
The propeller test was taking in 1998 with the old Jabiru engine serie no
308. Warp Drive 2 blade, tarpet blade.
This Kit Fox flying 600 houre. He normaly flies in about 2500 rpm 85 mph
and vas happy. With 1700 rpm he fly 70 MPH wit only 4,7 liter pr. Hour.
To day he has change the engine with the new 85 HP. He is flying 90 MPH with
cruise, and climb 1100 ftm , 90 ft take off.
Paul Garstad
Jabiru Scandinavia A/S
Message 32
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Prop to Jabiru. WAS: another Jabiru question |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net>
Thanks for the input, Michel....I for one, can't wait until Tuesday....
Lynn
do not archive
On Saturday, February 12, 2005, at 01:44 PM, Michel Verheughe wrote:
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
>
> Lynn Matteson wrote:
>> That last part, "low inertia" may be the key phrase.
>
> Lynn, I have a Jabiru 60 x 38 prop on my Kitfox 3. It is what was
> recommended
> by my Norwegian dealer. Today I have finished the engine installation
> and I
> went for a few high-speed taxi on the runway. It was slightly snowing
> and no
> one was flying so I had the runway all for myself.
> I am so pleased, all the figures are right on the spot, my CG right in
> the
> middle, the plane feels light, the tail lifts easily, very little need
> to
> correct yaw with the right pedal (CW prop!) and the engine hums nicely
> and
> evenly. I have now ordered the inspector for Tuesday, the first decent
> WX day
> on the forecast, and we will then take the plane up for some tests.
>
> So far, I can't say anything about my prop, other than it feels good
> on the
> ground. I have also heard that the Jab should have a wooden prop as
> carbon
> fiber might just disintegrate due to the direct drive and harmonic
> vibration,
> as you say.
> I can't give you any advice nor do I want to, I know nothing about
> prop and
> engine tuning. But the Norwegian agent has made some prop tests on a
> Kitfox (in
> fact, Morten's Kitfox that I saw last summer) and here are the
> results. He uses
> a Warp Drive.
>
> http://www.jabiru.no/PropTest.htm
>
> (scroll down for the Kitfox test).
>
> Cheers,
> Michel
>
>
Message 33
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "jdmcbean" <jdmcbean@cableone.net>
Wanted to give the list a chance first. I have a few used items for sale
The links are for reference.
Bendix King SkyMap IIIC with antenna and panel mount brackets - $1500
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/avpages/skymap3.php
King KX-125 Nav / Comm with tray and connectors - $1650
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/avpages/kx125dig.php
PS-Engineering PM-1000 - $200
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/avpages/pm1000.php
Buy both the Nav/Comm and the Intercom and the harness is already done.
Arplast in-flight adjustable prop only about 25 hours on a Rotax 912S
http://www.avnet.co.uk/lts/pages/pv50.htm sells for about $6000 new. Make
an Offer.
If interested please contact me off-list jdmcbean@cableone.net
<mailto:jdmcbean@cableone.net>
Do not Archive.
Fly Safe !!
John & Debra McBean
www.sportplanellc.com <http://www.sportplanellc.com/>
"The Sky is not the Limit... It's a Playground"
Message 34
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Wwillyard@aol.com
Here is an interesting and informative link regarding coolants. I did note a
very interesting point regarding the new extended life (orange) coolants,
they are intended to provide added protection of aluminum and are intended for
use in systems with aluminum radiators.
_http://www.angelfire.com/ia2/vmax/coolantnotes.htm_
(http://www.angelfire.com/ia2/vmax/coolantnotes.htm)
Bill W.
Message 35
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Used Equipment |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Tc9008@aol.com
Looking for the left flaperon on Kitfox model IV
Travis
Message 36
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Fox5flyer" <morid@northland.lib.mi.us>
Wow, talk about too much information! The more I read the more confused I
got. I think (not positive) that the Prestone Extended Life will do just
fine in the aluminum engines. That seems to be the consensus of the
information I gleaned so I just bought a gallon.
Anybody else see it differently?
Deke
----- Original Message -----
From: <Wwillyard@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: antifreeze
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Wwillyard@aol.com
>
> Here is an interesting and informative link regarding coolants. I did note
a
> very interesting point regarding the new extended life (orange) coolants,
> they are intended to provide added protection of aluminum and are
intended for
> use in systems with aluminum radiators.
>
> _http://www.angelfire.com/ia2/vmax/coolantnotes.htm_
> (http://www.angelfire.com/ia2/vmax/coolantnotes.htm)
>
> Bill W.
>
>
Message 37
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: antifreeze Link Broken ! |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Jeff Smathers <jsmathers@cybcon.com>
I tried to go there and it said the link was no longer there???
Jeff Smathers
Fox5flyer wrote:
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Fox5flyer" <morid@northland.lib.mi.us>
>
> Wow, talk about too much information! The more I read the more confused I
> got. I think (not positive) that the Prestone Extended Life will do just
> fine in the aluminum engines. That seems to be the consensus of the
> information I gleaned so I just bought a gallon.
> Anybody else see it differently?
> Deke
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <Wwillyard@aol.com>
> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: antifreeze
>
> > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Wwillyard@aol.com
> >
> > Here is an interesting and informative link regarding coolants. I did note
> a
> > very interesting point regarding the new extended life (orange) coolants,
> > they are intended to provide added protection of aluminum and are
> intended for
> > use in systems with aluminum radiators.
> >
> > _http://www.angelfire.com/ia2/vmax/coolantnotes.htm_
> > (http://www.angelfire.com/ia2/vmax/coolantnotes.htm)
> >
> > Bill W.
> >
> >
>
Message 38
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re stall speed and angle of attack |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Guy Buchanan <bnn@nethere.com>
At 11:45 PM 2/8/2005 -0600, Giovanni Day wrote:
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Giovanni Day" <gde01@bellsouth.net>
>...
>You stated "If you fly level at max AoA and somehow add weight while
>maintaining that same AoA, you don't stall, but you do go down hill." I
>thought that when wing loading increased, so did stall speed. Weight/Wing
>area = Clmax x 1/2 x density x velosity
>2stall. Clmax and density held
>constant, weight increased, v
>2stall also has to increase. Or is my equation
>wrong?
>
>Giovanni Day
>Do Not Archive
You are correct, as is your equation, though it's in an odd format. When
you add the weight at a constant AoA you go down hill, and guess what? When
you go down hill you go faster and you don't stall. If you want to hold
altitude AND AoA, you must add velocity (power) and you therefore go faster
and you don't stall. If you hold velocity constant and instead increase AoA
to hold altitude you stall. All this shows that per your equation
increasing wing loading requires increasing stall speed.
Guy Buchanan
K-IV 1200 / 582 / 99% done, thanks to Bob Ducar.
Do not archive
Message 39
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Guy Buchanan <bnn@nethere.com>
At 08:40 PM 2/10/2005 -0800, Gary Randall wrote:
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Gary Randall" <gryfz450@hotmail.com>
>
>Hello Roger,
>I talked to Crystal today, she stated SS will pickup the shipping charges.
>...
>So lets put another 7 in the air!
>Gary Randall
>S7 hopefully in a year:)
Well it looks like the real thing, and Skystar is even going to help out!
What a wonderful offer. It's really made my day.
Guy Buchanan
K-IV 1200 / 582 / 99% done, thanks to Bob Ducar.
Do not archive
Message 40
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RE:K7forsale |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Guy Buchanan <bnn@nethere.com>
At 06:22 AM 2/9/2005 -0600, Marc Hightower wrote:
>...never returned my money. I got an Attorney, sued him and won. His
>response was to fold up the company an thumb his nose at me. I not only
>lost the price of the kit, but also the cost of an Attorney and years of
>frustration while attempting to collect.
>...
>Marc Hightower
>skyhightower@earthlink.net
Well. You did a public service and I, for one, am grateful for it. Someone
has to get the charlatans off the street. (Not that Skystar even remotely
qualifies as a charlatan.) Your other options were to walk, leaving the
charlatan in business to bilk others; or publish and risk him suing you for
libel. I think you did the right thing. Besides, I suspect you put one heck
of a serious dent in his retirement budget as well.
Guy Buchanan
K-IV 1200 / 582 / 99% done, thanks to Bob Ducar.
Do not archive
Message 41
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: ordering security |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Tc9008@aol.com
How do I get in touch with Airedale? I can't seem to locate any flaperons in
stock for a model IV?
Travis
Message 42
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RE:K7forsale |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: John Larsen <jopatco@mindspring.com>
Oooops! I did not notice that spell check changed Riblett into Ruble.
John Larsen wrote:
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: John Larsen <jopatco@mindspring.com>
>
>I was at the factory when the Series 4 was being produced, and the plane
>did have problems. It was mainly caused by Avid. This came about because
>dan Denny had just come out with the Series 3 KF. I had designed the D
>model Avid and Jimbob Metzger got the inspiration to call it the Avid Mk
>IV just to get one up on KF. When Dan saw it at SnF he immediately saw
>this as competition to his plane. Did you ever notice that there were
>very few Series 3 KF. Dan was working on the Ruble wing and the
>redesigned mixer system with MacFarlane the engineer at this time, so
>Dan introduced the Series 4 just to keep up with Avid. The problem was
>he sold his wine before it's time, and the first run on Series 4 planes
>were full of short comings. There were some kits where 4 different lift
>struts were sent out before they got it right. The back orders and
>reshipments were killing them. That is the reason Phil Reid did a
>redesign on the plane and called it the Series 5 to correct the short
>comings of the Series 4. Dan would have been much better off to not rush
>to production.
>
>Marc Hightower wrote:
>
>
>
>>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Marc Hightower" <skyhightower@earthlink.net>
>>
>> I can't say that I'm a real SkyStar fan. Building my Classic IV-1200 was a
case of making a silk purse from a sows ear. The kit that I received was of very
poor quality. Nothing ever fit properly and my friends would joke about how
every time they would come by my shop I was screaming about what a piece of junk
this or that part was and how much work it took to put things together. I
finally took a welding class at the local college and learned to fabricate parts
myself, because in some cases that was the only way to get parts to fit. So
I share the frustration of the guy waiting for his engine.
>> But, Boycotting or getting a lawyer and suing SkyStar is not the the answer.
Frank seems to be doing his best to clean up the mess left to him. When a set
of the old style wing struts rusted through after hanging on the wall of my
shop for four years, he sent me a new pair of the seaplane struts for free, including
shipping!
>> Before buying the KItfox, I purchased the first kit from a new company called
MoHawk, short for Missouri Hawk. It was a total piece of junk. An IA looked
at it and told me the welds were so bad that it would probably break and he would
never sign it off. In an attempt to clean up some of the worst welds they
took a grinder to them and made it worse by grinding into the tubes. I didn't
receive half of the parts for the kit and the instructions were incomplete. I
returned the kit and demanded my money back. He ended up selling the kit to someone
else and never returned my money. I got an Attorney, sued him and won.
His response was to fold up the company an thumb his nose at me. I not only lost
the price of the kit, but also the cost of an Attorney and years of frustration
while attempting to collect.
>> While building my Kitfox, I wanted to sell it many a time, but here is a light
at the end of the tunnel. After six years and 3300 hours of construction I
discovered that flying a Kitfox is a lot more fun than building it and I'm glad
that I hung in there.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Marc Hightower
>>skyhightower@earthlink.net
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
Message 43
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Pitch/prop-angle/rpm |
06:24:23,
Serialize complete at 14/02/2005 06:24:23
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: r.thomas@za.pwc.com
Hi Dave S
I recently did a re-pitch on my GSC 3 blade also on a 582. Initially it
was at 12.5 degrees and I was able to break over red line in flight (In
fact on the take off roll).
I re-pitched to 13.75 degrees measured at 1 inch from the blade tips. It
has brought my static to about 6150. In flight it has come down to 6700
which I am happy with.
As Bruce said, it is advisable to do it a degree or even half at a time. 1
degree of pitch makes a huge difference.
Regards
Roger
The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to
which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged
material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or
taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or
entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you
received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material
from any computer.
Message 44
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
06:50:42,
Serialize complete at 14/02/2005 06:50:42
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: r.thomas@za.pwc.com
I have been using the green milky stuff. Temps have been in a good range,
and no scaling or deposit build up in the motor.
After recently doing a 300 hour rebuild on the 582, I shared this
experience with some of my local flyers. I was reminded that it is also
important, for the water mixed options, that distilled water be used. This
also assists in keeping the build up low, owing to the chemicals we find
in our tap water causing deposits.
I also hear what some say about the intervals between changing their
solution, but this may not always been an option on a two stroke. If one
had to stick to the recommended intervals between de-carbonising, it is
not possible to leave the solution in place during a de-coke, or do some
drain and re-use the same solution?
Regards
Roger
The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to
which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged
material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or
taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or
entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you
received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material
from any computer.
Message 45
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Pitch/prop-angle/rpm |
Seal-Send-Time: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 01:48:30 -0600
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "David Savener" <david_savener@msn.com>
I had to set mine at 18 degrees to get 6200 rpm with the airplane sitting still.
Haven't flown it with that configuration yet. I measured mine at 3/4 of the
distance from the center to the tip, which is 25.5 inches out or 8.5 inches
in from the tip.
Dave S
----- Original Message -----
From: r.thomas@za.pwc.com<mailto:r.thomas@za.pwc.com>
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com<mailto:kitfox-list@matronics.com>
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2005 12:16 AM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Pitch/prop-angle/rpm
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: r.thomas@za.pwc.com<mailto:r.thomas@za.pwc.com>
Hi Dave S
I recently did a re-pitch on my GSC 3 blade also on a 582. Initially it
was at 12.5 degrees and I was able to break over red line in flight (In
fact on the take off roll).
I re-pitched to 13.75 degrees measured at 1 inch from the blade tips. It
has brought my static to about 6150. In flight it has come down to 6700
which I am happy with.
As Bruce said, it is advisable to do it a degree or even half at a time. 1
degree of pitch makes a huge difference.
Regards
Roger
The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to
which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged
material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or
taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or
entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you
received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material
from any computer.
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! --
|