---------------------------------------------------------- Kitfox-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Tue 03/01/05: 40 ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 _____________________________________ Time: 12:24:26 AM PST US From: Roberto Canino Subject: Kitfox-List: C-90 in Kitfox IV --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Roberto Canino Does anyone know of a Kitfox IV with a C-90 or similar engine? Thanks, B --------------------------------- ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 12:37:05 AM PST US From: kurt schrader Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Water out of exhaust --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader 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 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 _____________________________________ Time: 01:04:38 AM PST US From: kurt schrader Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Fuel Tank Pick-ups --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader 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 _____________________________________ Time: 01:52:24 AM PST US From: "Jeff" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Transponder --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jeff" 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" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Transponder Antenna Location > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jose M. Toro" > > Yes, the radiator is in the standard location. > > Guy Buchanan 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 _____________________________________ Time: 03:59:02 AM PST US From: Lyle Persels Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: C-90 in Kitfox IV --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Lyle Persels 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 > >Does anyone know of a Kitfox IV with a C-90 or similar engine? > >Thanks, >B > > > >--------------------------------- > > > > ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 04:06:11 AM PST US From: Michel Verheughe Subject: Kitfox-List: Engines --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe 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 _____________________________________ Time: 04:23:18 AM PST US From: Michel Verheughe Subject: SV: Kitfox-List: Transponder --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe 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 _____________________________________ Time: 04:29:00 AM PST US From: Michel Verheughe Subject: SV: Kitfox-List: Static Ports --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe > 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 _____________________________________ Time: 05:13:31 AM PST US Subject: Re: SV: Kitfox-List: Static Ports From: Lynn Matteson --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson 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 > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 05:43:29 AM PST US From: "chad lively" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Kitfoxes to Alaska 2005 --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "chad lively" Stan, I live in West Tennessee, which might be a problem with going to Alaska, fly a IV-1200, 912UL Chad ----- Original Message ----- From: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:32:24 AM PST US From: jareds Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Water out of exhaust --> Kitfox-List message posted by: jareds 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 > >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 >> >>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 >>> >>>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 >>>> >>>>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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:38:29 AM PST US From: jareds Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Water out of exhaust --> Kitfox-List message posted by: jareds 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 > >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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:01:41 AM PST US From: paul wilson Subject: Re: SV: Kitfox-List: Static Ports --> Kitfox-List message posted by: paul wilson 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 > > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:02:59 AM PST US From: paul wilson Subject: Re: SV: Kitfox-List: Transponder --> Kitfox-List message posted by: paul wilson 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 > >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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:16:43 AM PST US From: Guy Buchanan Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Transponder --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Guy Buchanan At 09:52 AM 3/1/2005 +0000, you wrote: >--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jeff" > >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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:17:06 AM PST US From: kitfoxjunky Subject: Re: Use six wraps.RE: Kitfox-List: Landing Gear Bungee 10:16:51 AM, Serialize complete at 03/01/2005 10:16:51 AM --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kitfoxjunky Thanks guys. Figured there was a technique involved. Gary Walsh C-GOOT www.decisionlabs.com/kitfox "John Perry" Sent by: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com 02/28/2005 07:52 PM Please respond to kitfox-list To: cc: Subject: Re: Use six wraps.RE: Kitfox-List: Landing Gear Bungee --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "John Perry" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:44:12 AM PST US From: "Napier, Mark" Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Fuel Tank Pick-ups --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Napier, Mark" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:27:23 AM PST US From: jareds Subject: Kitfox-List: V speeds --> Kitfox-List message posted by: jareds 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:45:14 AM PST US From: Tom Jones Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: V speeds --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Tom Jones 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 > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:03:11 AM PST US Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Static Ports From: Torgeir Mortensen --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Torgeir Mortensen 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 wrote: > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Rex & Jan Shaw" > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:18:00 AM PST US From: EMAproducts@aol.com Subject: Kitfox-List: Static ports --> 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? << Subject: Re: SV: Kitfox-List: Transponder --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe 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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:55:52 PM PST US From: Michel Verheughe Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Static Ports --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe 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 ____________________________________ Time: 04:03:23 PM PST US From: "Rex & Jan Shaw" Subject: Kitfox-List: Static Ports --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Rex & Jan Shaw" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 04:19:12 PM PST US From: "John Perry" Subject: Kitfox-List: Kitfox down in WY ? --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "John Perry" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 04:25:18 PM PST US Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Static Ports From: Torgeir Mortensen --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Torgeir Mortensen 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 wrote: > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 04:38:19 PM PST US From: Herbert R Gottelt Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Fuel Tank Pick-ups --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Herbert R Gottelt 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 04:43:53 PM PST US From: AlbertaIV@aol.com Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 05:03:34 PM PST US From: "Steve Cooper" Subject: Kitfox-List: Was: Fuel Tank Pick-ups Now: Fuel Warning Light --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Steve Cooper" 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 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 05:03:34 PM PST US From: "Fox5flyer" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Kitfox down in WY ? --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Fox5flyer" > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 05:09:32 PM PST US From: "Steve Cooper" Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Kitfox down in WY ? --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Steve Cooper" 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" > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 05:44:35 PM PST US From: "Fox5flyer" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Kitfox down in WY ? --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Fox5flyer" First one. > Clue us into the private post...WHICH ONE? > > > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Fox5flyer" > > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:08:53 PM PST US From: "Randy Daughenbaugh" Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Water out of exhaust --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Randy Daughenbaugh" 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 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 > >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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:51:05 PM PST US Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Static Ports From: Lynn Matteson --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson 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" > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:08:47 PM PST US From: VFT@aol.com Subject: Kitfox-List: Darrels new toy --> 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:07:19 PM PST US From: "NSI AERO" Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: NSI CAP --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "NSI AERO" 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" > > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:59:06 PM PST US From: kurt schrader Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Darrels new toy --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:05:42 PM PST US From: SOURDOSTAN@aol.com Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:24:31 PM PST US From: kurt schrader Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Was: Fuel Tank Pick-ups Now: Fuel Warning Light --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:52:45 PM PST US From: Matt Dralle Subject: Kitfox-List: Official Usage Guideline [Please Read] [Monthly Posting] DNA: do not archive --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Matt Dralle 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.]