Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:24 AM - C-90 in Kitfox IV (Roberto Canino)
2. 12:37 AM - Re: Water out of exhaust (kurt schrader)
3. 01:04 AM - Re: Fuel Tank Pick-ups (kurt schrader)
4. 01:52 AM - Re: Transponder (Jeff)
5. 03:59 AM - Re: C-90 in Kitfox IV (Lyle Persels)
6. 04:06 AM - Engines (Michel Verheughe)
7. 04:23 AM - SV: Transponder (Michel Verheughe)
8. 04:29 AM - SV: Static Ports (Michel Verheughe)
9. 05:13 AM - Re: SV: Static Ports (Lynn Matteson)
10. 05:43 AM - Re: Kitfoxes to Alaska 2005 (chad lively)
11. 06:32 AM - Re: Water out of exhaust (jareds)
12. 06:38 AM - Re: Water out of exhaust (jareds)
13. 07:01 AM - Re: SV: Static Ports (paul wilson)
14. 07:02 AM - Re: SV: Transponder (paul wilson)
15. 07:16 AM - Re: Transponder (Guy Buchanan)
16. 07:17 AM - Re: Use six wraps.Re: Landing Gear Bungee (kitfoxjunky)
17. 07:44 AM - Re: Fuel Tank Pick-ups (Napier, Mark)
18. 08:27 AM - V speeds (jareds)
19. 08:45 AM - Re: V speeds (Tom Jones)
20. 09:03 AM - Re: Static Ports (Torgeir Mortensen)
21. 09:18 AM - Static ports (EMAproducts@aol.com)
22. 01:50 PM - Re: SV: Transponder (Michel Verheughe)
23. 01:55 PM - Re: Static Ports (Michel Verheughe)
24. 04:03 PM - Static Ports (Rex & Jan Shaw)
25. 04:19 PM - Kitfox down in WY ? (John Perry)
26. 04:25 PM - Re: Static Ports (Torgeir Mortensen)
27. 04:38 PM - Re: Fuel Tank Pick-ups (Herbert R Gottelt)
28. 04:43 PM - Re: Static Ports (AlbertaIV@aol.com)
29. 05:03 PM - Was: Fuel Tank Pick-ups Now: Fuel Warning Light (Steve Cooper)
30. 05:03 PM - Re: Kitfox down in WY ? (Fox5flyer)
31. 05:09 PM - Re: Kitfox down in WY ? (Steve Cooper)
32. 05:44 PM - Re: Kitfox down in WY ? (Fox5flyer)
33. 07:08 PM - Re: Water out of exhaust (Randy Daughenbaugh)
34. 07:51 PM - Re: Static Ports (Lynn Matteson)
35. 09:08 PM - Darrels new toy (VFT@aol.com)
36. 10:07 PM - Re: NSI CAP (NSI AERO)
37. 10:59 PM - Re: Darrels new toy (kurt schrader)
38. 11:05 PM - Re: Kitfoxes to Alaska 2005 (SOURDOSTAN@aol.com)
39. 11:24 PM - Re: Was: Fuel Tank Pick-ups Now: Fuel Warning Light (kurt schrader)
40. 11:52 PM - Official Usage Guideline [Please Read] [Monthly Posting] (Matt Dralle)
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: | C-90 in Kitfox IV |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Roberto Canino <robertocannino@yahoo.com>
Does anyone know of a Kitfox IV with a C-90 or similar engine?
Thanks,
B
---------------------------------
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Water out of exhaust |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
Questions:
Did you wash it since it last flew?
Did it sit out in the rain since it last flew?
Is any part of your exhaust not sloping down hill
where water can lay?
How is your coolant level?
I have definately seen this on cars and it can rust
out the exhaust where the water sits. In these cases
it was condensation.
If you have a header leak you can get more internal
engine damage thru rust. You might need to inspect
the engine internally, if a header leak is suspected.
Otherwise inspect the exhaust for internal rust.
If an exhaust valve is open and there is water sitting
in the exhaust, you can still get substantial engine
rust from all the damp air entering the cylinder. A
good inspection is better than a surprise.
Kurt s.
--- jareds <jareds@verizon.net> wrote:
> Anyone experience water coming out of the exhaust
> pipe after plane has sat for a while?
>
> Is it possible that 1/2 a cup of water could collect
> as condensation in the exhaust?
> Other causes?
__________________________________
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
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: Fuel Tank Pick-ups |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
Hi Don,
I guess I left everyone hanging like in an old school
book report. :-)
First the problem with dual ports is that they must
both go down to the header or engine and not be
connected to each other directly above the lowest
point of the tank. If directly connected, the fuel
will just flow thru the connection and back into the
low end of the wing tank. You will still just get air
to the engine. A front fuel port will still draw
uphill to the rear, then down to the header tank as
long as there is no way to let air in along he way.
I'll try to summerize Tom's flight as best as I
remember it. Tom was on a night descent into an
airport, probably his home field. He had about 4
gallons left, plus the header. He did not have a low
fuel light.
During the descent the engine quit. He saw a car
following a truck down a country road and realized the
car lights made a great approach path to the rear of
the truck. Tom flew the plane over this car to the
road, but clipped power lines prior to landing. The
lines took the main gear and wing fuel caps off as he
luckily flew between the lines. Apparently the lines
did not trip the plane out of control. Before he slid
to a stop a car came the opposite direction and didn't
stop. Tom had to raise the wing to let the car pass
under.
Due to the fast actions of the driver of the car he
passed over, Tom's landing was immediately reported
and his plane was in a hangar some 2 hrs later, locked
up for investigation. Tom estimated his descent was
just long enough to have burned the header tank dry.
That is how I remember it. Appologies for any
mistakes. Tom is one of our best and if he can get
caught so can I.
Tom designed a larger header tank which I copied for
my plane. My concern is that I would have a fuel
problem and the little header wouldn't give me enough
cruise time to get away from mountains to a good
landing spot. I have 16 lbs of fuel after the low
fuel light now. that should give me time to shake
what I can from the wings and at least get to a level
spot.
Kurt S. S-5/NSI turbo
--- AlbertaIV@aol.com wrote:
> smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com writes:
>
>
> His is quite a story and he did a tremendous job of
> night landing on a road between a car and a truck.
>
> Kurt S. S-5/NSI turbo
>
>
> Kurt,
> Thanks for reminding me. I remember that hair
> raising story especially
> about the power lines. The thought of a fwd/aft
> fuel port (Like Cessna) is
> interesting along with getting rid of the
> header????? Hmmmm, thinking.
>
> Do Not Archive.
>
> Don Smythe
__________________________________
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
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: "Jeff" <jeffthomas@ntlworld.com>
Guy
There is a great deal of discussion about transponders in Europe at the
moment. As the new legislation stands, (thanks to EASA), all European
aircraft will have to be transponder equipped by 2008, (including
ultralights, gliders and balloons etc)
Great concern is being expressed over the lack of availability of relatively
inexpensive low power consumption and lightweight transponders being
available particularly for ultralights. also is there a health danger by
being sat so near to an aerial pulsing some pretty high energy signals? Is
this not a problem?
Regards
Jeff
Do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jose M. Toro" <jose_m_toro@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Transponder Antenna Location
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jose M. Toro" <jose_m_toro@yahoo.com>
>
> Yes, the radiator is in the standard location.
>
> Guy Buchanan <bnn@nethere.com> wrote:--> Kitfox-List message posted by:
Guy Buchanan
>
> At 09:35 AM 2/28/2005 -0800, you wrote:
> >--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jose M. Toro"
> >
> >Guy:
> >
> >My transponder antenna is right behind the seats, and it works find.
> >
> >Jose
>
> Thanks Jose. Do you have the standard radiator location forward between
the
> landing gear?
>
>
> Guy Buchanan
> K-IV 1200 / 582 / 99% done, thanks to Bob Ducar.
>
> Do not archive
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: C-90 in Kitfox IV |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Lyle Persels <lpers@mchsi.com>
Don Cully has a C90 in his Model IV Speedster. A nice installation,
signed off, but he hasn't flown it yet. His e-mail:
dcully@cecnet.net.
Lyle Persels
Do not archive
Roberto Canino wrote:
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Roberto Canino <robertocannino@yahoo.com>
>
>Does anyone know of a Kitfox IV with a C-90 or similar engine?
>
>Thanks,
>B
>
>
>
>---------------------------------
>
>
>
>
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: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
This is a link from the Jabiru list: All the aircraft horizontally-opposed piston
(boxer) engines of the world, present and past.
http://home.adelphia.net/~aeroengine/index.html
Cheers,
Michel
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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
Hello Jeff.
> From: Jeff [jeffthomas@ntlworld.com]
> There is a great deal of discussion about transponders in Europe at the
> moment.
Yes, it is. Our glider club had to upgrade to transponder this year too. I understand
that mode Charlie is still good for another 15 years, for us GA pilots.
Apparently you can get some very small units now for the price of about 1,500
Euro.
> also is there a health danger by being sat so near to an aerial pulsing some
pretty
> high energy signals? Is this not a problem?
That can be a problem. My transponder transmitts with 250 watts but it is only
for a very short burst on each radar rotation. If the signal was continuous, my
battery would be empty pretty soon!
I don't think newer and more compact units will send a lesser signal because, after
all, the ATC radar has to pick something in order to work.
The health problem posed by high frequency electro-magnetic pulses is real. We
have heard of the British look-outs who, in WWII, were standing in front of the
radars in order to get ... warm inside. :-(
Recently, we have had the case of a Norwegian Navy ship, equipped with experimental
radio communication, where many of the crew were later father of misshaped
infants. They try to go to court now. It may take some time.
I have my transponder right behind the right seat, the antenna pointing down. On
the top of it, there is a foot's wide disk of aluminium acting as a ground plane.
I believe it aslo protects me from UHF radiations, even if the pulse is
very short. If thin aluminium sheets weren't reflecting the signal, there wouldn't
be aluminium radar reflector, would it? And I have plenty of those on my
sailboat and I know they work pretty well.
Cheers,
Michel
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
> From: Lynn Matteson [lynnmatt@jps.net]
> If the two ports don't average out, what's the benefit of having two?
If they don't average, there is no point, of course, Lynn. But I think Rex is right,
they do average.
> Where is the second static port on the wing-mounted pitot/static combination?
You mean: Where the pitot is the center tube and outside of it, there is the static
one? I never owned such a unit but in my aging memory, I kind of remember
that there are two (if not more) small holes in that "static tube." Am I wrong?
Cheers,
Michel
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: Static Ports |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net>
The ones that I have seen drawings of had a separate tube, a few inches
apart from the pitot, its' "nose" blocked off, then several little
holes drilled around its' periphery, so that it got its' pressure from
the side of the tube.
Lynn
On Tuesday, March 1, 2005, at 07:28 AM, Michel Verheughe wrote:
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
>
> You mean: Where the pitot is the center tube and outside of it, there
> is the static one? I never owned such a unit but in my aging memory, I
> kind of remember that there are two (if not more) small holes in that
> "static tube." Am I wrong?
>
> Cheers,
> Michel
>
>
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: Kitfoxes to Alaska 2005 |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "chad lively" <chadl@compu.net>
Stan,
I live in West Tennessee, which might be a problem with going to Alaska,
fly a IV-1200, 912UL Chad
----- Original Message -----
From: <SOURDOSTAN@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Kitfoxes to Alaska 2005
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: SOURDOSTAN@aol.com
>
> Chad -
>
> It would be great to have you as part of the Alaska trip, especially with
all
> of your experience!!! I will keep you informed and hope you decide to go.
> Where do you live and what Kitfox do you have?
>
> Stan Specht
>
>
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: Water out of exhaust |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: jareds <jareds@verizon.net>
Lynn,
It has been sitting for about 4 months and when i relocated to the ranch
in SD I came through a blizzard so there is definitely more than a half
cup of area for water or snow or condensation to pool in those big 582
mufflers but you know how it goes thinking the worste first.
Lynn Matteson wrote:
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net>
>
>Is there a low point in the exhaust system where condensation could
>have been trapped, then forced out when you started the engine? How
>long since the engine had been last run, prior to when you saw the
>water coming out? I'm trying to troubleshoot from a car mechanics
>experience...somebody's bound to come on board with some good
>answers/questions for you.
>
>Lynn
>
>On Tuesday, March 1, 2005, at 12:55 AM, jareds wrote:
>
>
>
>>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: jareds <jareds@verizon.net>
>>
>>Its a 582 and its really rusty. No green antifreeze look just rusty.
>>Hadn't tasted it yet!
>>
>>Lynn Matteson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net>
>>>
>>>Head gasket leak comes to mind...unless it's a Jabiru, Connie,
>>>Lyc....Does the water look like water, or does it look/taste like
>>>glycol, ie., sweet tasting?
>>>Lynn
>>>On Wednesday, February 23, 2005, at 10:23 AM, jareds wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: jareds <jareds@verizon.net>
>>>>
>>>>Anyone experience water coming out of the exhaust pipe after plane
>>>>has
>>>>sat for a while?
>>>>Is it possible that 1/2 a cup of water could collect as condensation
>>>>in
>>>>the exhaust?
>>>>Other causes?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
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: Water out of exhaust |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: jareds <jareds@verizon.net>
Coolant level was a bit low after 4 months of relocation / rain / snow /
etc..
But the liquid coming out of the exhaust was not green.
Exhaust runs with an elbow under the engine like the diagrams in build
manual.
Mostly a slight downhill.. AFter it sat some last year outside and the
last snow storm I ran it and noticed the same thing.
After a while it cleared up.
Sounds great when i started it in the shop!
kurt schrader wrote:
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
>
>Questions:
>
>Did you wash it since it last flew?
>
>Did it sit out in the rain since it last flew?
>
>Is any part of your exhaust not sloping down hill
>where water can lay?
>
>How is your coolant level?
>
>I have definately seen this on cars and it can rust
>out the exhaust where the water sits. In these cases
>it was condensation.
>
>If you have a header leak you can get more internal
>engine damage thru rust. You might need to inspect
>the engine internally, if a header leak is suspected.
>Otherwise inspect the exhaust for internal rust.
>
>If an exhaust valve is open and there is water sitting
>in the exhaust, you can still get substantial engine
>rust from all the damp air entering the cylinder. A
>good inspection is better than a surprise.
>
>Kurt s.
>
>--- jareds <jareds@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Anyone experience water coming out of the exhaust
>>pipe after plane has sat for a while?
>>
>>Is it possible that 1/2 a cup of water could collect
>>as condensation in the exhaust?
>>Other causes?
>>
>>
>
>
>
>__________________________________
>http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
>
>
>
>
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: Static Ports |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: paul wilson <pwilson@climber.org>
According to my wind tunnel text on how to design a pitot/static probe. The
central pitot tube is surrounded by a second tube with 10 or so static
holes. This is to get an average value of static pressure. The result is a
pitot/static tube that is accurate for high angles with respect to the
wind. Not as accurate as when the unit when it is pointing directly into
the wind which is why one sees the vane controlled pitot/static unit for
test planes.
The separate static tube has the same design with multiple holes
Paul
===============
At 01:28 PM 3/1/05 +0100, you wrote:
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
>
> > From: Lynn Matteson [lynnmatt@jps.net]
> > If the two ports don't average out, what's the benefit of having two?
>
>If they don't average, there is no point, of course, Lynn. But I think Rex
>is right, they do average.
>
> > Where is the second static port on the wing-mounted pitot/static
> combination?
>
>You mean: Where the pitot is the center tube and outside of it, there is
>the static one? I never owned such a unit but in my aging memory, I kind
>of remember that there are two (if not more) small holes in that "static
>tube." Am I wrong?
>
>Cheers,
>Michel
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: paul wilson <pwilson@climber.org>
Correct Michel,
Pulse duration is very short. For more details look at the archives on the
aeroelectric list archives on matronics. Health is not an issue even if you
sit on the antenna.
At 01:22 PM 3/1/05 +0100, you wrote:
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
>
>Hello Jeff.
>
> > From: Jeff [jeffthomas@ntlworld.com]
> > There is a great deal of discussion about transponders in Europe at the
> > moment.
>
>Yes, it is. Our glider club had to upgrade to transponder this year too. I
>understand that mode Charlie is still good for another 15 years, for us GA
>pilots. Apparently you can get some very small units now for the price of
>about 1,500 Euro.
>
> > also is there a health danger by being sat so near to an aerial pulsing
> some pretty
> > high energy signals? Is this not a problem?
>
>That can be a problem. My transponder transmitts with 250 watts but it is
>only for a very short burst on each radar rotation. If the signal was
>continuous, my battery would be empty pretty soon!
>I don't think newer and more compact units will send a lesser signal
>because, after all, the ATC radar has to pick something in order to work.
>The health problem posed by high frequency electro-magnetic pulses is
>real. We have heard of the British look-outs who, in WWII, were standing
>in front of the radars in order to get ... warm inside. :-(
>Recently, we have had the case of a Norwegian Navy ship, equipped with
>experimental radio communication, where many of the crew were later father
>of misshaped infants. They try to go to court now. It may take some time.
>I have my transponder right behind the right seat, the antenna pointing
>down. On the top of it, there is a foot's wide disk of aluminium acting as
>a ground plane. I believe it aslo protects me from UHF radiations, even if
>the pulse is very short. If thin aluminium sheets weren't reflecting the
>signal, there wouldn't be aluminium radar reflector, would it? And I have
>plenty of those on my sailboat and I know they work pretty well.
>
>Cheers,
>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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Guy Buchanan <bnn@nethere.com>
At 09:52 AM 3/1/2005 +0000, you wrote:
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jeff" <jeffthomas@ntlworld.com>
>
>Guy
>...
>Great concern is being expressed over the lack of availability of relatively
>inexpensive low power consumption and lightweight transponders being
>available particularly for ultralights. also is there a health danger by
>being sat so near to an aerial pulsing some pretty high energy signals? Is
>this not a problem?
>
>Regards
>
>Jeff
I don't know about the health issue. I'll be sitting on my antenna, in the
null, so I'll be seeing very little energy. I also sit on a carbon fiber
seat pan so that will also help protect the family jewels. Most transponder
antennas are dipoles located on the bottom of the aircraft, directing most
of the energy laterally.
I do agree about the cost and power consumption. Here in the states you're
looking at a minimum of $1000 for the system. The problem with most systems
is that they're intended for use in all aircraft. Becker was the only
company I found with a "low-power" transponder, still certified to 15,000'.
It pulls 0.7A, which is not too bad. (The Ack-30 encoder pulls only 60mA.)
I'm sure some enterprising individuals will come out with even lower power
units once the requirement sets in.
Guy Buchanan
K-IV 1200 / 582 / 99% done, thanks to Bob Ducar.
Do not archive
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: | Re: Landing Gear Bungee |
10:16:51 AM,
Serialize complete at 03/01/2005 10:16:51 AM
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kitfoxjunky <kitfoxjunky@decisionlabs.com>
Thanks guys. Figured there was a technique involved.
Gary Walsh
C-GOOT
www.decisionlabs.com/kitfox
"John Perry" <eskflyer@pld.com>
Sent by: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
02/28/2005 07:52 PM
Please respond to kitfox-list
To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
cc:
Subject: Re: Use six wraps.RE: Kitfox-List: Landing Gear
Bungee
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "John Perry" <eskflyer@pld.com>
Gary it is really easy just divide the length by 6 and mark with a black
magic marker then get a buddy to help you lay on ground and have buddy to
lay in cockpit . Start on backside top and connect bungee to to tab. When
pull down for first warp you pass the other end back to him and then when
mark lines up on top again use a tye wrap to hold it there then go for
next
wrap and tye wrap it again so it will not slip when get all warps on then
cut off tye wraps and your done. it took me only 30 minutes to do both of
mine including taking off the old ones .
John Perry
kitfox 2 N718PD
eskflyer@pld.com
I have my KF IV on wheels now. First time I have had it off the floats. I
read in the manual that they want six wraps, but I had a hard time just
getting four times around when I was taking the floats off. What are
others doing out there? Is four good enough, or do you really need them
to go around the full six turns? I think the cords I am using are the
standard bungees that came with the kit. Anyone know how long they should
be?
Gary Walsh
C-GOOT
www.decisionlabs.com/kitfox
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: Fuel Tank Pick-ups |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Napier, Mark" <Mark.Napier@sciatl.com>
I wouldn't change the fueling system to two pickups per tank.
The BD-4 has to use two pickups due to the shape of the wing tanks and they
are problematic. Intuition tells you that if one pickup unports the other
will continue to flow. Not true. The air bubble that gets into the line
can block fuel flow. There is a way to arrange the venting that helps but
doesn't really solve the problem.
Check out:
www.bd-4.org
Go to the section on fuel systems and read the articles there.
IMHO the single rear pickup and header w/ warning light is better.
FWIW,
Mark Napier
- - - - - - - Appended by Scientific-Atlanta, Inc. - - - - - - -
This e-mail and any attachments may contain information which is confidential,
proprietary, privileged or otherwise protected by law. The information is solely
intended for the named addressee (or a person responsible for delivering it
to the addressee). If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you
are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy or disseminate this message or
any part of it. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the
sender immediately by return e-mail and delete it from your computer.
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: jareds <jareds@verizon.net>
Doing up an airspeed card for my new panel using my documented speeds
which are a bit higher than SS book.
I'm sure this topic has been covered relentlessly but wondered if
someone would comment on what speeds you plaquard in your respective
planes? Are my V acronyms correct?
Vs Stall Speed 42
Vy Best Angle Climb 60
Vx Best Obstical Climb 55
Vref Landing Final 60
Vg Shallowest Glide 50
Cruise Climb 70
Cruise RPM 6000
>
>
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: Tom Jones <tomfromlapine@peoplepc.com>
Jareds,
Vy is best rate and Vx is best angle. You can see them here
http://www.flightsimaviation.com/rule-of-thumb/27_VSpeeds_Abbreviations_List.html
Tom Jones
jareds wrote:
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: jareds <jareds@verizon.net>
>
> Doing up an airspeed card for my new panel using my documented speeds
> which are a bit higher than SS book.
> I'm sure this topic has been covered relentlessly but wondered if
> someone would comment on what speeds you plaquard in your respective
> planes? Are my V acronyms correct?
>
> Vs Stall Speed 42
>
> Vy Best Angle Climb 60
> Vx Best Obstical Climb 55
>
> Vref Landing Final 60
> Vg Shallowest Glide 50
>
> Cruise Climb 70
> Cruise RPM 6000
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: Static Ports |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Torgeir Mortensen <torgemor@online.no>
Hi There,
If you have a "new" plane with the Skystar "single static" already
installed, leave it as is, this static position is probably found by
"skinmapping" and lots of testing "-as a single point" and it's Skystars
recommendation.
The old method, with cross vent, is a proven "installation" and it is much
easier (as a retrofit) to install as the location is "just under the
flapperon -in mid-ship position. This point is possible to reach. The new
position is for those in the stage "before covering" or close to, and is
not very easy to reach after covering.
So, I'm sure this new position work very well as a single point.
Torgeir.
On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 10:12:53 +1030, Rex & Jan Shaw <rexjan@bigpond.com>
wrote:
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Rex & Jan Shaw" <rexjan@bigpond.com>
>
> I just recently installed my ONE static port per SS's 1994
> instructions. Do I need another on the other side? I know this helps in
> slip/skid encounters, but how necessary is the second port?
> Life-saving, or merely just a little more accurate at these times?
>
> Lynn
>
> Lynn,
> I have talked a lot to Skystar and others on this subject.
> Skystar
> say the port should be on the side of the fuselage and only one side is
> needed. To be honest I didn't agree with the one side bit and have never
> changed mine from just open to cabin pressure. They work fine. Skystar
> say
> they will but usually cause a 5% high ASI reading at the top end. My
> ports
> were originally in front of both doors and were a problem, hence the
> tubes
> just pulled off and open to cabin pressure. Skystar say they don't
> understand why they ever were put there as they never ever suggested that
> placing. However it remains a mystery to me why so many are placed there
> in
> that case. I did not build my plane. I bought it completed and flying.
> If you are placing a port on one side of the fuselage only I would
> expect
> as you say a variation in a slip situation but also it would be
> different on
> each side due to prop rotation. So why then do Skystar always say the
> left
> side I think it is ?
> I have kept E'mails from Skystar on this subject. Here is the relevant
> part of one of them from Ed Downs..
>
> Your comments on the static vent has me confused. I was directly
> involved in the testing that determined the correct position, and a
> forward of the door mounting was never acceptable. This fact was
> determined in early testing. The correct position is about 32 inches
> forward of the fuselage strut attach fitting for the horizontal
> stabilizer, about 2 inches above the lower longeron. That information
> is readily available in service letters posted on our web site. The kit
> we offer is simply for the convenience of our builders. As always, the
> builder of the plane can do anything they like.
>
> I have other bits and pieces but I think this and what I just said
> covers
> the subject fairly well. My final opinion was that it really needed a
> port
> each side up the back but as it is OK as is I just leave it rather than
> cut
> holes etc only to find it's now not right. I remain at a loss to see how
> a
> port on side only of the fuselage is satisfactory though.
>
> Rex.
>
>
> rexjan@bigpond.com
>
>
--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
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: EMAproducts@aol.com
In a message dated 3/1/05 12:00:34 AM Pacific Standard Time,
kitfox-list-digest@matronics.com writes:
However...the more I sit here and think about this two-sided port
thing, though, the more I wonder about the equalizing of the pressures
that are being picked up by those ports. For example, if you are
slipping the plane in (and I hope I'm using the right term...I'm not a
pilot yet), say with the left side "facing" the relative wind, that
increases the static pressure on the left side, but is the pressure on
the right side affected? If not, then why have it there at all? If it
is affected, that is, if having the right side port in a decreased
pressure area (the side away from the relative wind), will the two
pressures average out? I guess that's the whole question. If the two
ports don't average out, what's the benefit of having two? Where is the
second static port on the wing-mounted pitot/static combination? What
am I missing here?
<<<The main thing missing is the major manf. have spent literally hundreds of
thousands of dollars getting the ports in the correct place for their
aircraft, and most have two if they were needed to balance out the pressure. Its
easy to change indicated airspeed by well over 5 mph by moving static port
around. ~~Now what does this do to the encoding altimeter?? It might check out
great on ground, but in flight it agrees with your altimeter, are they both
wrong?? Just another thing to think about.
Elbie
the Old CFI
EM Aviation, LLC
DO NOT ARCHIVE
Message 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
paul wilson wrote:
> Health is not an issue even if you sit on the antenna.
Are you sure, Paul? Antenna tend to be sharp pointed objects ... ouch! :-)
Guy Buchanan wrote:
> Becker was the only company I found with a "low-power" transponder, still certified
to 15,000'.
> It pulls 0.7A, which is not too bad.
I wouldn't know, Guy, I don't even know what mine pulls. It is a "yellow
tagged" old-fashion Cessna transponder. No documentation came with it. I know
that my maritime radar (a very small unit with poor resolution) pulls a bit
more than 2A but that is sending non stop, not in pulses.
I wonder how they make transponder with "low-power" though. There must be a
balance between power and range, don't you think?
As for my "family jewels" I have nothing to worry, I have done my share of
work. Right now, I enjoy the idea that, next summer, my son and daughter-in-law
will give us our first grandchild. ... the jewels are moving one generation! :-)
Cheers,
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: Static Ports |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
Torgeir Mortensen wrote:
> If you have a "new" plane with the Skystar "single static" already
> installed, leave it as is, this static position is probably found by
> "skinmapping" and lots of testing "-as a single point" and it's Skystars
> recommendation.
Well, this is what I am thinking, Torgeir: From your Skystar document
(actually, I had a copy in my files) it looks like the "favourable" position of
the static port is pretty much where I have now one of the two transverse tubes
that make the support of a dorsal finn.
Do you think I could do this: From access ports (I have two on the sides, then
there are those plates under the horizontal stabs) I could drill a hole in that
tube, at the centerline of the plane, from the top. From there, goes a plastic
pipe to the instruments. I say, from the top, so that no water can get in the
pipe. Don't you think that that say, one foot long steel tube has, inside, a
static pressure?
Cheers,
Michel
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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Rex & Jan Shaw" <rexjan@bigpond.com>
However...the more I sit here and think about this two-sided port
thing, though, the more I wonder about the equalizing of the pressures
that are being picked up by those ports. For example, if you are
slipping the plane in (and I hope I'm using the right term...I'm not a
pilot yet), say with the left side "facing" the relative wind, that
increases the static pressure on the left side, but is the pressure on
the right side affected? If not, then why have it there at all? If it
is affected, that is, if having the right side port in a decreased
pressure area (the side away from the relative wind), will the two
pressures average out? I guess that's the whole question. If the two
ports don't average out, what's the benefit of having two? Where is the
second static port on the wing-mounted pitot/static combination? What
am I missing here?
Lynn
Well Lynn,
I guess I'm really out of my depth trying to answer you
here but it seems to me that if you have read that discription of ports both
sides and this is common in real life that that indicates value in the idea.
It also seems to me that in a slip to the side of the single port the
pressure must increase. After all we know this to be so. Read a description
of a slip etc.The aircraft slows due to the drag of the airflow on the side
of the fuselage. Now if we create a positive pressure this side then I
figure the same forces are going to create an opposite negative pressure on
the other side. This seems obvious to me. Connecting the two ports together
will therefore give us the sum of the positive and negative pressures hence
we are back to status quo before we slipped. Exactly what we want.
OK a couple of points to dwell on here. First we will have different
pressure each side anyway due to the rotating slip stream around the
fuselage. Perhaps this is also better handled with a port each side.
Next it occurs to me though that say we used a "T" piece to connect the two
ports that we could get quite a flow from the the positive pressure [ down
side in a slip ] port to the negative pressure port [ up side ]. This flow
past the the take-off junction on the "T" would I think act as a venturi
sucking air out of our static line. Imagine what that would do our readings
!
I used to modify and fit car engines to speed boats and in the water
routing to stop this situation we used to put a hacksaw cut in the middle of
the back side of the "T" towards the perpendicular leg. We then welded a
divider plate in the slot. When we fed water into the "T" perpendicular leg
it would flow equally out each side whereas if without that dividing plate
one line out was longer or faced slightly different flow resistance we got
an uneven flow. So I wonder if with our static system we should do the same
?
You mention a "Y" rather than a "T" perhaps that would suffice to solve the
problem.
However this is all theory by me and when I have a system that is working
OK I am reluctant to try improving it [ which it probably doesn't need
anyway ] and finish up with a problem. If I could see such a system that
works on preferably a Kitfox then that might entice me to change.
One further point is the static port on say a wing you talk about. You ask
where is the second port. Well take a close look and you will see this point
is well addressed. There is a stalk sticking out into the relative air flow
out of any turbulance. On the end of this is a bulb for the air to flow
smoothly around and behind that is three small port holes placed 120 degrees
apart. I imagine this is probably the best solution.
Now as you say you are not yet a pilot and so have to yet do your BAK exam
let me give you a small tip before your instructor or lecturer pulls you up.
You called revalent airflow relavent wind and my experience is that will
cost you 5 minutes of ear burning, so try now before you develop the bad
habit to change your terminology. I am persoally happy with your description
as I understand perfectly what you meant. I think they get upset because we
need to differentiate between wind and airflow.
Rex.
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: | Kitfox down in WY ? |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "John Perry" <eskflyer@pld.com>
Heard today that a KITFOX had crashed in WY around a airport any one heard
anything . It was a fatality .
Thoughts and prayers with the family .
fly safe fly low fly slow
John Perry
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: Static Ports |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Torgeir Mortensen <torgemor@online.no>
I'll think the area under the stab may create error, this as the stab may
have different pressure (positive as well negative) depending on the CG
and load, it "might" work, but not for sure.
Hmm., experimenting in finding a usable static port in this area can take
some time, also other positions than the "known standards" can be
unpredictable at different attitudes.
(Just as a note about this thing. You probably know -the new "reduced
vertical separation minima" (RVSM), valid for IFR flights in the higher
flight levels (above FL 270 I'll think). Such an installation ask for a
two new improved altimeters, -also the static ports is to be re-certified
for such aircrafts, a new complete skin mapping is necessary for each
individual!! This is valid for old aircrafts needing retrofit kit. The
new minimum separation is half of the old separation.)
Use one of the preferred locations for the static port, an alternate is
the combined pitot/static head located in the standard "Fox pitot
location".
Torgeir.
On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 22:48:03 +0100, Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
wrote:
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
>
> Torgeir Mortensen wrote:
>> If you have a "new" plane with the Skystar "single static" already
>> installed, leave it as is, this static position is probably found by
>> "skinmapping" and lots of testing "-as a single point" and it's Skystars
>> recommendation.
>
> Well, this is what I am thinking, Torgeir: From your Skystar document
> (actually, I had a copy in my files) it looks like the "favourable"
> position of
> the static port is pretty much where I have now one of the two
> transverse tubes
> that make the support of a dorsal finn.
> Do you think I could do this: From access ports (I have two on the
> sides, then
> there are those plates under the horizontal stabs) I could drill a hole
> in that
> tube, at the centerline of the plane, from the top. From there, goes a
> plastic
> pipe to the instruments. I say, from the top, so that no water can get
> in the
> pipe. Don't you think that that say, one foot long steel tube has,
> inside, a
> static pressure?
>
> Cheers,
> Michel
>
>
--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
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: | Fuel Tank Pick-ups |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Herbert R Gottelt <gofalke@sbcglobal.net>
Steve,
Tom Anderson did not have a low fuel warning light in the top of his header tank.
During his long descent his header tank ran dry because of unporting.
He now has a larger header tank with low fuel alert installed.
Herbert Gottelt, M4-1200,
Mt. Prospect, IL
Steve Zakreski <szakreski@shaw.ca> wrote:
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Steve Zakreski
Before you all pounce on me... I meant "descent" not "decent".
However after reading the post about Tom Anderson....unporting may... just
possibly... be a wee bit of an issue after all. ;-)
SteveZ
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Steve
Zakreski
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Fuel Tank Pick-ups
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Steve Zakreski
At decent throttle, you probably have at least 15 minutes fuel in the
header. That's lots. A slight bank left or right will refill the header.
The entire fuel system with the header tank was designed specifically to
handle this problem. In the real world, I would say it is a non issue.
IMHO.
SteveZ
Calgary
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Guy Buchanan
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Fuel Tank Pick-ups
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Guy Buchanan
At 03:45 PM 2/28/2005 -0600, you wrote:
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Howard Firm"
>
>A low fuel warning in the header tank will help with this....I still make
an
>occasional low fuel approach and the light catches me by surprise...
>
>Howard Firm
>508 12th St. South
>Virginia MN 55792
I've got a fuel sensor in the top of the header tank. The tank looks pretty
small so I guess it means either pull up and re-fill the tank, or head for
the nearest flat patch ASAP!
Guy Buchanan
K-IV 1200 / 582 / 99% done, thanks to Bob Ducar.
Do not archive
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: Static Ports |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: AlbertaIV@aol.com
In a message dated 3/1/2005 7:27:06 PM Eastern Standard Time,
torgemor@online.no writes:
Hmm., experimenting in finding a usable static port in this area can take
some time, also other positions than the "known standards" can be
unpredictable at different attitudes
Hmmm, Mine is in the cockpit and just fwd of the instrument panel with a
filter to keep the bugs out and I operate fine. I do see a slight difference
with the doors open but the difference is about 2-3 MPH (max). Then again, I
can't really can't detect 2-3 MPH difference. Is this whole thread apples and
oranges? If I saw a difference of 5 or more MPH, I might be a little
concerned I have checked my speed several times with GPS and it's close enough
for
government work. Am I missing something here?
Don Smythe
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: | Was: Fuel Tank Pick-ups Now: Fuel Warning Light |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Steve Cooper" <spdrflyr@earthlink.net>
I have a neat little gadget installed. My electric boost pump uses a
pressure switch to turn it on and off. I've rigged up a red warning lamp
that operates off of the boost pump circuit. If I loose fuel pressure in the
lines my warning lamp is immediately illuminated. Down side is the boost
pump must be turned on in order to function. This has already saved my
bacon. On my first solo flight in my bird I had a fuel line obstruction
which cut fuel flow to about one quarter normal. The flickering warning lamp
gave me some indication of the problem. When I throttled back the warning
light would flicker and then go out as the boost pump would "catch up" and
re-pressurize the lines. As I would throttle up, the warning lamp would soon
flicker and go on steady...and so on. I was able to extend my glide in this
manner until I could set the bird down safely...all for a simple warning
lamp. After this experience I would highly recommend some kind of a warning
gadget someplace in the plane to give you a sense of the fuel situation. I
discovered a small piece of cellophane jammed up inside the 90 degree AN
fitting at the bottom of the tank. I think it was from the package it was
shipped in. Anyway...that's my story and I'm sticking to it! :)
Steve Cooper
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Herbert R
Gottelt
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Fuel Tank Pick-ups
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Herbert R Gottelt <gofalke@sbcglobal.net>
Steve,
Tom Anderson did not have a low fuel warning light in the top of his header
tank. During his long descent his header tank ran dry because of unporting.
He now has a larger header tank with low fuel alert installed.
Herbert Gottelt, M4-1200,
Mt. Prospect, IL
Steve Zakreski <szakreski@shaw.ca> wrote:
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Steve Zakreski
Before you all pounce on me... I meant "descent" not "decent".
However after reading the post about Tom Anderson....unporting may... just
possibly... be a wee bit of an issue after all. ;-)
SteveZ
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Steve
Zakreski
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Fuel Tank Pick-ups
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Steve Zakreski
At decent throttle, you probably have at least 15 minutes fuel in the
header. That's lots. A slight bank left or right will refill the header.
The entire fuel system with the header tank was designed specifically to
handle this problem. In the real world, I would say it is a non issue.
IMHO.
SteveZ
Calgary
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Guy Buchanan
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Fuel Tank Pick-ups
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Guy Buchanan
At 03:45 PM 2/28/2005 -0600, you wrote:
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Howard Firm"
>
>A low fuel warning in the header tank will help with this....I still make
an
>occasional low fuel approach and the light catches me by surprise...
>
>Howard Firm
>508 12th St. South
>Virginia MN 55792
I've got a fuel sensor in the top of the header tank. The tank looks pretty
small so I guess it means either pull up and re-fill the tank, or head for
the nearest flat patch ASAP!
Guy Buchanan
K-IV 1200 / 582 / 99% done, thanks to Bob Ducar.
Do not archive
Message 30
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Kitfox down in WY ? |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Fox5flyer" <morid@northland.lib.mi.us>
> Heard today that a KITFOX had crashed in WY around a airport any one heard
> anything . It was a fatality .
> Thoughts and prayers with the family .
>
> fly safe fly low fly slow
> John Perry
This is an Avid, but do you think it might be the one?
Deke
****************************************************************************
****
** Report created 3/1/2005 Record 1
**
****************************************************************************
****
IDENTIFICATION
Regis#: 94B Make/Model: EXP Description: AVID FLYER MARKIV
Date: 02/28/2005 Time: 1055
Event Type: Accident Highest Injury: Fatal Mid Air: N Missing: N
Damage: Substantial
LOCATION
City: KAYCEE State: WY Country: US
DESCRIPTION
ACFT CRASHED UNDER UNKNOWN CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ONE PERSON ON BOARD WAS
FATALLY INJURED, 4-5 SW OF KAYCEE, WY
INJURY DATA Total Fatal: 1
# Crew: 1 Fat: 1 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:
# Pass: 0 Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:
# Grnd: Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:
WEATHER: UNK
OTHER DATA
Departed: CASPER, WY Dep Date: 02/26/2005 Dep. Time:
0730
Destination: CASPER, WY Flt Plan: NONE Wx Briefing:
N
Last Radio Cont: UNK
Last Clearance: UNK
FAA FSDO: CASPER, WY (NM04) Entry date: 02/28/2005
****************************************************************************
****
** Report created 3/1/2005 Record 2
**
****************************************************************************
****
IDENTIFICATION
Regis#: 231WP Make/Model: PTS1 Description: S-1 SPECIAL
Date: 02/27/2005 Time: 1755
Event Type: Incident Highest Injury: None Mid Air: N Missing: N
Damage: Minor
LOCATION
City: DENTON State: TX Country: US
DESCRIPTION
ACFT TRIED TO EXIT FROM RUNWAY, SPUN AROUND AND TIPPED ON ITS RIGHT WING,
DENTON, TX
INJURY DATA Total Fatal: 0
# Crew: 1 Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:
# Pass: 0 Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:
# Grnd: Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:
WEATHER: VFR
OTHER DATA
Departed: DENTON, TX Dep Date: Dep. Time:
Destination: DENTON, TX Flt Plan: VFR Wx Briefing:
U
Last Radio Cont: T & G TOWER PATTERN
Last Clearance: CLRD TO LAND
FAA FSDO: FORT WORTH, TX (SW19) Entry date: 02/28/2005
****************************************************************************
****
** Report created 3/1/2005 Record 3
**
****************************************************************************
****
IDENTIFICATION
Regis#: 2521B Make/Model: EXP Description: ZENITH
Date: 02/26/2005 Time: 2240
Event Type: Accident Highest Injury: Serious Mid Air: N Missing:
N
Damage: Unknown
LOCATION
City: DOBBERSVILLE State: NC Country: US
DESCRIPTION
ACFT LANDED IN THE TREE TOPS, CIRCUMSTANCES ARE UNKNOWN, DOBBERSVILLE, NC
INJURY DATA Total Fatal: 0
# Crew: 1 Fat: 0 Ser: 1 Min: 0 Unk:
# Pass: 0 Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:
# Grnd: Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:
WEATHER: METAR KGSB262155ZVRB03KT7SMSCT25011/M03A3019
OTHER DATA
Departed: UNK Dep Date: Dep. Time:
Destination: UNK Flt Plan: NONE Wx Briefing:
N
Last Radio Cont:
Last Clearance:
FAA FSDO: WINSTON-SALEM, NC (SO05) Entry date: 02/28/2005
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: | Kitfox down in WY ? |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Steve Cooper" <spdrflyr@earthlink.net>
Clue us into the private post...WHICH ONE?
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Fox5flyer
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Kitfox down in WY ?
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Fox5flyer" <morid@northland.lib.mi.us>
> Heard today that a KITFOX had crashed in WY around a airport any one heard
> anything . It was a fatality .
> Thoughts and prayers with the family .
>
> fly safe fly low fly slow
> John Perry
This is an Avid, but do you think it might be the one?
Deke
****************************************************************************
****
** Report created 3/1/2005 Record 1
**
****************************************************************************
****
IDENTIFICATION
Regis#: 94B Make/Model: EXP Description: AVID FLYER MARKIV
Date: 02/28/2005 Time: 1055
Event Type: Accident Highest Injury: Fatal Mid Air: N Missing: N
Damage: Substantial
LOCATION
City: KAYCEE State: WY Country: US
DESCRIPTION
ACFT CRASHED UNDER UNKNOWN CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ONE PERSON ON BOARD WAS
FATALLY INJURED, 4-5 SW OF KAYCEE, WY
INJURY DATA Total Fatal: 1
# Crew: 1 Fat: 1 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:
# Pass: 0 Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:
# Grnd: Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:
WEATHER: UNK
OTHER DATA
Departed: CASPER, WY Dep Date: 02/26/2005 Dep. Time:
0730
Destination: CASPER, WY Flt Plan: NONE Wx Briefing:
N
Last Radio Cont: UNK
Last Clearance: UNK
FAA FSDO: CASPER, WY (NM04) Entry date: 02/28/2005
****************************************************************************
****
** Report created 3/1/2005 Record 2
**
****************************************************************************
****
IDENTIFICATION
Regis#: 231WP Make/Model: PTS1 Description: S-1 SPECIAL
Date: 02/27/2005 Time: 1755
Event Type: Incident Highest Injury: None Mid Air: N Missing: N
Damage: Minor
LOCATION
City: DENTON State: TX Country: US
DESCRIPTION
ACFT TRIED TO EXIT FROM RUNWAY, SPUN AROUND AND TIPPED ON ITS RIGHT WING,
DENTON, TX
INJURY DATA Total Fatal: 0
# Crew: 1 Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:
# Pass: 0 Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:
# Grnd: Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:
WEATHER: VFR
OTHER DATA
Departed: DENTON, TX Dep Date: Dep. Time:
Destination: DENTON, TX Flt Plan: VFR Wx Briefing:
U
Last Radio Cont: T & G TOWER PATTERN
Last Clearance: CLRD TO LAND
FAA FSDO: FORT WORTH, TX (SW19) Entry date: 02/28/2005
****************************************************************************
****
** Report created 3/1/2005 Record 3
**
****************************************************************************
****
IDENTIFICATION
Regis#: 2521B Make/Model: EXP Description: ZENITH
Date: 02/26/2005 Time: 2240
Event Type: Accident Highest Injury: Serious Mid Air: N Missing:
N
Damage: Unknown
LOCATION
City: DOBBERSVILLE State: NC Country: US
DESCRIPTION
ACFT LANDED IN THE TREE TOPS, CIRCUMSTANCES ARE UNKNOWN, DOBBERSVILLE, NC
INJURY DATA Total Fatal: 0
# Crew: 1 Fat: 0 Ser: 1 Min: 0 Unk:
# Pass: 0 Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:
# Grnd: Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:
WEATHER: METAR KGSB262155ZVRB03KT7SMSCT25011/M03A3019
OTHER DATA
Departed: UNK Dep Date: Dep. Time:
Destination: UNK Flt Plan: NONE Wx Briefing:
N
Last Radio Cont:
Last Clearance:
FAA FSDO: WINSTON-SALEM, NC (SO05) Entry date: 02/28/2005
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: Kitfox down in WY ? |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Fox5flyer" <morid@northland.lib.mi.us>
First one.
> Clue us into the private post...WHICH ONE?
>
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Fox5flyer" <morid@northland.lib.mi.us>
>
> > Heard today that a KITFOX had crashed in WY around a airport any one
heard
> > anything . It was a fatality .
> > Thoughts and prayers with the family .
> >
> > fly safe fly low fly slow
> > John Perry
>
> This is an Avid, but do you think it might be the one?
> Deke
>
****************************************************************************
> ****
> ** Report created 3/1/2005 Record 1
> **
>
****************************************************************************
> ****
>
> IDENTIFICATION
> Regis#: 94B Make/Model: EXP Description: AVID FLYER MARKIV
> Date: 02/28/2005 Time: 1055
>
> Event Type: Accident Highest Injury: Fatal Mid Air: N Missing:
N
> Damage: Substantial
>
> LOCATION
> City: KAYCEE State: WY Country: US
>
> DESCRIPTION
> ACFT CRASHED UNDER UNKNOWN CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ONE PERSON ON BOARD WAS
> FATALLY INJURED, 4-5 SW OF KAYCEE, WY
>
> INJURY DATA Total Fatal: 1
> # Crew: 1 Fat: 1 Ser: 0 Min: 0
Unk:
> # Pass: 0 Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0
Unk:
> # Grnd: Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0
Unk:
>
> WEATHER: UNK
>
> OTHER DATA
>
> Departed: CASPER, WY Dep Date: 02/26/2005 Dep. Time:
> 0730
> Destination: CASPER, WY Flt Plan: NONE Wx
Briefing:
> N
> Last Radio Cont: UNK
> Last Clearance: UNK
>
> FAA FSDO: CASPER, WY (NM04) Entry date: 02/28/2005
>
>
****************************************************************************
> ****
> ** Report created 3/1/2005 Record 2
> **
>
****************************************************************************
> ****
>
> IDENTIFICATION
> Regis#: 231WP Make/Model: PTS1 Description: S-1 SPECIAL
> Date: 02/27/2005 Time: 1755
>
> Event Type: Incident Highest Injury: None Mid Air: N Missing: N
> Damage: Minor
>
> LOCATION
> City: DENTON State: TX Country: US
>
> DESCRIPTION
> ACFT TRIED TO EXIT FROM RUNWAY, SPUN AROUND AND TIPPED ON ITS RIGHT
WING,
> DENTON, TX
>
> INJURY DATA Total Fatal: 0
> # Crew: 1 Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0
Unk:
> # Pass: 0 Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0
Unk:
> # Grnd: Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0
Unk:
>
> WEATHER: VFR
>
> OTHER DATA
>
> Departed: DENTON, TX Dep Date: Dep. Time:
> Destination: DENTON, TX Flt Plan: VFR Wx
Briefing:
> U
> Last Radio Cont: T & G TOWER PATTERN
> Last Clearance: CLRD TO LAND
>
> FAA FSDO: FORT WORTH, TX (SW19) Entry date: 02/28/2005
>
>
****************************************************************************
> ****
> ** Report created 3/1/2005 Record 3
> **
>
****************************************************************************
> ****
>
> IDENTIFICATION
> Regis#: 2521B Make/Model: EXP Description: ZENITH
> Date: 02/26/2005 Time: 2240
>
> Event Type: Accident Highest Injury: Serious Mid Air: N
Missing:
> N
> Damage: Unknown
>
> LOCATION
> City: DOBBERSVILLE State: NC Country: US
>
> DESCRIPTION
> ACFT LANDED IN THE TREE TOPS, CIRCUMSTANCES ARE UNKNOWN, DOBBERSVILLE,
NC
>
> INJURY DATA Total Fatal: 0
> # Crew: 1 Fat: 0 Ser: 1 Min: 0
Unk:
> # Pass: 0 Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0
Unk:
> # Grnd: Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0
Unk:
>
> WEATHER: METAR KGSB262155ZVRB03KT7SMSCT25011/M03A3019
>
> OTHER DATA
>
> Departed: UNK Dep Date: Dep. Time:
> Destination: UNK Flt Plan: NONE Wx
Briefing:
> N
> Last Radio Cont:
> Last Clearance:
>
> FAA FSDO: WINSTON-SALEM, NC (SO05) Entry date: 02/28/2005
>
>
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 |
|
| Subject: | Water out of exhaust |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Randy Daughenbaugh" <rjdaugh@rapidnet.com>
Maybe I missed this, but I gotta mention an obvious source for water. Is it
possibly water of combustion? All internal engines condense water in a cold
exhaust system until the exhaust system warms up. ??
Hey Jared, I can't make your off line address work. It keeps getting
bounced back to me.
Randy
.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of jareds
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Water out of exhaust
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: jareds <jareds@verizon.net>
Coolant level was a bit low after 4 months of relocation / rain / snow /
etc..
But the liquid coming out of the exhaust was not green.
Exhaust runs with an elbow under the engine like the diagrams in build
manual.
Mostly a slight downhill.. AFter it sat some last year outside and the
last snow storm I ran it and noticed the same thing.
After a while it cleared up.
Sounds great when i started it in the shop!
kurt schrader wrote:
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader
<smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
>
>Questions:
>
>Did you wash it since it last flew?
>
>Did it sit out in the rain since it last flew?
>
>Is any part of your exhaust not sloping down hill
>where water can lay?
>
>How is your coolant level?
>
>I have definately seen this on cars and it can rust
>out the exhaust where the water sits. In these cases
>it was condensation.
>
>If you have a header leak you can get more internal
>engine damage thru rust. You might need to inspect
>the engine internally, if a header leak is suspected.
>Otherwise inspect the exhaust for internal rust.
>
>If an exhaust valve is open and there is water sitting
>in the exhaust, you can still get substantial engine
>rust from all the damp air entering the cylinder. A
>good inspection is better than a surprise.
>
>Kurt s.
>
>--- jareds <jareds@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Anyone experience water coming out of the exhaust
>>pipe after plane has sat for a while?
>>
>>Is it possible that 1/2 a cup of water could collect
>>as condensation in the exhaust?
>>Other causes?
>>
>>
>
>
>
>__________________________________
>http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
>
>
>
>
Message 34
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Static Ports |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net>
Rex-
This may be a regional difference in terminology, this relative wind vs
relative airflow, because my book calls it relative wind...over and
over. (Private Pilot Manual...Jeppesen Sanderson) and another book,
"Science of Pre-flight Aeronautics" also calls out relative wind. I'm
not trying to "one-up" you, Rex, just pointing out what the books are
calling it....but the point is well taken, and I'll keep my ears open
for what the folks are calling it as opposed to what the books call it.
Thanks for the tip.
Lynn
On Tuesday, March 1, 2005, at 07:05 PM, Rex & Jan Shaw wrote:
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Rex & Jan Shaw"
> <rexjan@bigpond.com>
> Now as you say you are not yet a pilot and so have to yet do your
> BAK exam
> let me give you a small tip before your instructor or lecturer pulls
> you up.
> You called revalent airflow relavent wind and my experience is that
> will
> cost you 5 minutes of ear burning, so try now before you develop the
> bad
> habit to change your terminology. I am persoally happy with your
> description
> as I understand perfectly what you meant. I think they get upset
> because we
> need to differentiate between wind and airflow.
> Rex.
> rexjan@bigpond.com
>
>
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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: VFT@aol.com
Hey Guts,
Just noticed there's a picture of Darrels new toy on page 106 of the latest Sport
Aviation :)
--
Danny Melnik
F1 #25
Melbourne (FL) Rocket Factory
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: "NSI AERO" <info@nsiaero.com>
Hello John,
It has taken me much longer than expected to review the CAP 140 blade cuff.
(The part that failed on Gary Welsh's CAP) To replace or not to replace the
blade cuff on the Model 140 was a difficult one to call. I asked Gary to
hold off on making a posting until I had finished the review of his failure
and weather their was any connection to 3 other failures reported on the
same model since the beginning of production in 1995.
Of the 4 units in question, 3 were sold for use on 80 HP Rotax 912 UL
engines. The forth unit was installed on a Lycoming O-235 which is not on
or list of approved engine applications for the CAP 140. What they all have
in common is that they were produced prior to 1998 (version 1 production was
1995 to 1998) and 3 of them were later transferred/installed on the 100 HP
912S. One of them (Ray Volk Kitfox) had 720 hours on his 912UL and then an
additional 200 on his replacement 912S engine. Of the 3, two of them had
blade strikes during their history and Gary Welch, who purchased a used
version 1 CAP and operated his engine at 1600 to 1800 RPM during the warm up
period for more than 200 hours. Anyone with a Rotax 912S knows that one
does not let the engine idle below 2100 for fear of the shaking and pounding
that will occur do to the exceptional high torsional vibration that that is
created at lower RPM's, starting and shut down. (The dog fight between the
crankshaft and propeller) To date, their has never been a failure of a
version 2 cuff. (1998 thru 2004)
When Gary first contacted me with news of his failure I outlined the steps
that I would go through in the review process. When the review was
completed I was able to determine that the failure was due to metal fatigue
caused by severe torsional loads created by the Rotax 912S. The review also
showed and that the torsional load capacity of the cuff could be increased,
and combined with some engine operating limits (Starting and idle speed),
would greatly extend the operational life of the cuff when used on the Rotax
912S.
I completed my work in late November and released the version 3 cuff for
production. The new cuffs are now in stock and available to update the
early version 1 and version 2 CAP's to the latest specification.
A service letter will be issued in the near future outlining Gary Welsh's
reported accident and NSI findings and subsequent revisions to the Model 140
propeller.
Our production manager, Craig Woolman, will be calling you to make
arrangements to update your CAP 140 and get you back in the air.
A service letter addressing the version 1 units and there application on the
Rotax 912S engines would have taken care of the safety issue. Gary Welch
and a few others on the Kitfox group have fanned this failure far out of
proportion with inaccurate "facts" and caused a great deal of grief with our
customers and new sales orders that support the compnay. Gary's premature
posting was out of context and lacked key information that would of shead a
different light on the subject.
One last comment, I have been lucking in the background reading the e-mails
that pertain to Gary Welsh's CAP 140 failure. After 24 years of producing
products for the Sport Aviation industry, I still find it amazing and
disheartening that a few uninformed individuals have to jump on the band
wagon and bash a company with inaccurate or misleading comments on a subject
that they know very little, if anything about. Are these people just trying
to sound lake they know more than they really do, or do they have a hidden
agenda against NSI or Subaru powered planes?
I also wonder if these individuals realize just how much time, resources and
money it takes to produce aircraft engines and propellers? The cost to
review and produce enough version 3 cuffs to support the 500 plus CAPs in
the field costs more than $105,000.00. How many of these critics would
invest millions dollars of their own money and 24 years of their life into
Sport Aviation?
As for getting through to use by phone, we do have a problem with to much
traffic for our current phone system. And even if we added more lines, we
do not have the trained staff to handle the calls. Our goal is to have a
new web site up and running by June that will greatly reduce the phone
traffic, making it much easier for the necessary call to get through on the
first try. We have a lot of work ahead of us to make these improvements.
Lance Wheeler
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of joakley@ida.net
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: NSI CAP
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: joakley@ida.net
Ron,
there was a note put out last fall limiting type one hubs to 500 hours on
the 912 ul and grounding all 912s with the type 1 hub there is a type 3 hub
in the works, that Lance had said was going to raise time to 1500 hours. I
would love to up date but also need to fly not set. Ther was quite a thread
this winter untill we were told an update was on its way. this also calmed
me untill now. the price had been set at 500 dollars. a cheep fix if it was
going to really lengthen time.Its is not actually the hub but the blade
attachment with the bearings on it.
John
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Ronald K. Stevens"
> <rkstevens@verizon.net>
>
> John,
>
> What exactly is wrong with your CAP 140 hub?
>
> Ron
> Series 6 - NSI Turbo - Cap 140
>
> joakley@ida.net wrote:
>
>>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: joakley@ida.net
>>
>>Hi Kids,
>>I am giving up on my cap from NSI. I have waited 4 months and I
>>thought I was on a list for a new hub. I have tried to call (mail box
>>full) tried to E mail, (no answer) tried fax last fall (no reply) I
>>would like to fly, and have a problem with the notes and warnings. I
>>did talk last fall to one of Lances people and was to be put on a list
>>for new hubs and it was to be a month or so. can't aford several props
>>laying around. some one may
>>have a good deal if they follow through.
>>\NSI 140 with gage, spinner ect..400 hours
>>
>>John Oakley
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
advertising on the Matronics Forums.
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: Darrels new toy |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
That is one sharp plane Danny! Don't you wish you had
one like it? I do!!! ;-) If I was an A&P or knew I
could get the repairmans certif to cover it, I'd be
more than wishing now.
If it is OK, I would like to talk to you off list
about Florida flying, houses, hangars, etc.
How's the rocket coming?
Kurt S.
--- VFT@aol.com wrote:
> Hey Guts,
>
> Just noticed there's a picture of Darrels new toy on
> page 106 of the latest Sport Aviation :)
>
> --
> Danny Melnik
> F1 #25
> Melbourne (FL) Rocket Factory
__________________________________
http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/
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: Kitfoxes to Alaska 2005 |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: SOURDOSTAN@aol.com
Chad-
I made it from South Carolina to my home in Denver in one day last August, so
you should be able to make it from your place to Denver in one day, or
perhaps with one overnight stop at the most. The daylight will be almost at its
height in June.
I also fly a Model IV Speedster with a 912ul and an IVO cabin adjustable
prop. My friend here in Denver, who most likely will also be going, has the same
airplane, so we should be compatable.
We'll keep you informed.
Stan
Message 39
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Was: Fuel Tank Pick-ups Now: Fuel Warning Light |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
Hey Steve,
That is the same setup I was creating before my life
was OBE this winter. What did you use for a fuel
pressure switch?
Kurt S.
--- Steve Cooper <spdrflyr@earthlink.net> wrote:
> I have a neat little gadget installed. My electric
> boost pump uses a pressure switch to turn it
> on and off. I've rigged up a red warning lamp
> that operates off of the boost pump circuit. If I
> loose fuel pressure in the lines my warning lamp is
> immediately illuminated. Down side is the boost
> pump must be turned on in order to function. This
> has already saved my bacon.......
__________________________________
http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/
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: | Official Usage Guideline [Please Read] [Monthly Posting] |
DNA: do not archive
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Matt Dralle <dralle@matronics.com>
Dear Lister,
Please read over the Kitfox-List Usage Guidelines below. The complete
Kitfox-List FAQ including these Usage Guidelines can be found at the
following URL:
http://www.matronics.com/FAQs/Kitfox-List.FAQ.html
Thank you,
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
******************************************************************************
Kitfox-List Usage Guidelines
******************************************************************************
The following details the official Usage Guidelines for the Kitfox-List.
You are encouraged to read it carefully, and to abide by the rules therein.
Failure to use the Kitfox-List in the manner described below may result
in the removal of the subscribers from the List.
Kitfox-List Policy Statement
The purpose of the Kitfox-List is to provide a forum of discussion for
things related to this particular discussion group. The List's goals
are to serve as an information resource to its members; to deliver
high-quality content; to provide moral support; to foster camaraderie
among its members; and to support safe operation. Reaching these goals
requires the participation and cooperation of each and every member of
the List. To this end, the following guidelines have been established:
- Please keep all posts related to the List at some level. Do not submit
posts concerning computer viruses, urban legends, random humor, long
lost buddies' phone numbers, etc. etc.
- THINK carefully before you write. Ask yourself if your post will be
relevant to everyone. If you have to wonder about that, DON'T send it.
- Remember that your post will be included for posterity in an archive
that is growing in size at an extraordinary rate. Try to be concise and
terse in your posts. Avoid overly wordy and lengthy posts and
responses.
- Keep your signature brief. Please include your name, email address,
aircraft type/tail number, and geographic location. A short line
about where you are in the building process is also nice. Avoid
bulky signatures with character graphics; they consume unnecessary
space in the archive.
- DON'T post requests to the List for information when that info is
easily obtainable from other widely available sources. Consult the
web page or FAQ first.
- If you want to respond to a post, DO keep the "Subject:" line of
your response the same as that of the original post. This makes it
easy to find threads in the archive.
- When responding, NEVER quote the *entire* original post in your
response. DO use lines from the original post to help "tune in" the
reader to the topic at hand, but be selective. The impact that
quoting the entire original post has on the size of the archive
can not be overstated!
- When the poster asks you to respond to him/her personally, DO NOT
then go ahead and reply to the List. Be aware that clicking the
"reply" button on your mail package does not necessarily send your
response to the original poster. You might have to actively address
your response with the original poster's email address.
- DO NOT use the List to respond to a post unless you have something
to add that is relevant and has a broad appeal. "Way to go!", "I
agree", and "Congratulations" are all responses that are better sent
to the original poster directly, rather than to the List at large.
- When responding to others' posts, avoid the feeling that you need to
comment on every last point in their posts, unless you can truly
contribute something valuable.
- Feel free to disagree with other viewpoints, BUT keep your tone
polite and respectful. Don't make snide comments, personally attack
other listers, or take the moral high ground on an obviously
controversial issue. This will only cause a pointless debate that
will hurt feelings, waste bandwidth and resolve nothing.
-------
[This is an automated posting.]
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! --
|