Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:32 AM - Re: SV: SV: Static Ports (Lynn Matteson)
2. 10:47 AM - low fuel sensor revisited (Lynn Matteson)
3. 02:05 PM - Re: Rotax Oil Injection Tank (Rex Hefferan)
4. 03:14 PM - Re: SV: SV: Static Ports (Torgeir Mortensen)
5. 03:14 PM - Re: Rotax Oil Injection Tank (Torgeir Mortensen)
6. 03:24 PM - Re: low fuel sensor revisited (Torgeir Mortensen)
7. 03:42 PM - Re: low fuel sensor revisited (kurt schrader)
8. 03:49 PM - Other sources. (Torgeir Mortensen)
9. 05:17 PM - Re: [off-topic] Terminology (Milt's Kitfox Stuff)
10. 05:23 PM - Re: low fuel sensor revisited (Lynn Matteson)
11. 05:37 PM - Re: low fuel sensor revisited (Lynn Matteson)
12. 05:43 PM - Re: SV: SV: Static Ports (kurt schrader)
13. 05:58 PM - Re: low fuel sensor revisited (kurt schrader)
14. 06:03 PM - Classic IV interior ()
15. 06:05 PM - Re: SV: SV: Static Ports (John Perry)
16. 06:49 PM - Re: Re: Manual Pitch Trim (was Jackscrew) (Cudnohufsky's)
17. 06:52 PM - 582 oil tank (Pete Sigrist)
18. 07:12 PM - New gas tanks - rinse them with MEK (Randy Daughenbaugh)
19. 09:27 PM - Re: Re: Manual Pitch Trim (was Jackscrew) (Don Pearsall)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Static Ports |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net>
Hi Kurt-
I'm confused by part of your description, and it may be that I don't
know anything about how airplane gauges work. I followed your first
three paragraphs, but in the fourth one you lost me. When you said:
"But you should get a drop in altitude that remains with increased
static pressure, or a decrease in altitude that remains with static
source suction. It should not show a leak and return to the original
altitude on your altimeter.", were you still talking about just the
VSI, or were you including the altimeter?
It seems to me that your phrases "a drop in altitude that remains with
increased static pressure" and "a decrease in altitude that remains
with static source suction" are saying that for either a static source
pressure OR a static source suction, a drop or decrease in altitude
occurs. How can this be? I would think that a static pressure reduction
would be indicated by a raise in the VSI, and that a static pressure
increase would indicate a lowering of the VSI needle.
Like I said, I know very little about these gauges, but am trying to
gather all the info I can.
Lynn
On Monday, March 7, 2005, at 12:43 PM, kurt schrader wrote:
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader
> <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
>
> Hi Michel,
>
> Think of it this way. You have a diaphram with a
> closed chamber on both sides. One chamber is
> connected to the static source. The other is sealed.
>
> As the static pressure increases, it pushes the
> diaphram against the other chamber's steady pressure.
> As the static pressure decreases, the other chamber's
> pressure pushes against the diaphram and static
> pressure on the other side.
>
> If there is a small leak in the diaphram, and the
> static pressure stops changing, the other chamber's
> pressures will eventually equal the static pressure.
> Of course the diaphram moves the VSI needle and it
> only moves from zero when the static pressure changes.
> It lags behind a little when you level out as the
> leak pressure catches up to the static pressure.
>
> Only enough air moves into the other (memory chamber)
> to fill it to equal static pressure. It doesn't go
> anywhere else. If the memory chamber is small, it
> will only show a leak for a moment until the VSI goes
> to zero. But you should get a drop in altitude that
> remains with increased static pressure, or a degrease
> in altitude that remains with static source suction.
> It should not show a leak and return to the origional
> altitude on your altimeter.
>
> I recommend using a hose with water in it shaped like
> a "U" attached to the static source where it would
> connect to your static vent at the rear of your plane.
> You raise the hose end a little using gravity to push
> the water up the "U" a bit toward the static pipe to
> give more static pressure, or drop the hose a little
> to produce suction. This keeps you from damaging the
> instruments with too big a change and you can keep the
> hose steady for a steady reading. If there is no
> leak, it should show an increase in altitude with the
> hose raised, or a decrease in altitude with the hose
> lowered. The altitude should not return to your start
> altitude unless there is a leak.
>
> Same but opposite direction with static pressure
> changes for airspeed.
>
> Kurt S.
>
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: | low fuel sensor revisited |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net>
I just read the archives regarding low fuel sensors for the header
tank, and found a McMaster-Carr item # 4949K43 (supersedes the 4949K23
that was suggested in this group). It uses a BSPP attachment....what in
the world is that? I'm very familiar with NPT's and know about British,
Whitworth, etc., but this one threw me. I've got a question posed to
McMaster-Carr, but in the meantime, is there any better way to sense a
low-fuel condition in the header tank? Something that hasn't been
suggested yet in this group? I couldn't find anything in the Aircraft
Spruce catalog...is there one there?
Lynn
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: Rotax Oil Injection Tank |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Rex Hefferan <kitfox-m2@earthlink.net>
Try this link:
http://www.ehow.com/buy_2109_nalgene-bottle.html
Rex
Colorado, not Oz ;
)
Guy Buchanan wrote:
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Guy Buchanan <bnn@nethere.com>
>
>All,
> My K-IV/582 came with a 2l Nalgene bottle for an oil reservoir. It
>has cracked and Skystar doesn't have any in stock; and I'm not really
>hopeful that they'll come up with one soon. Does anyone have a
>recommendation for a replacement?
>
>Thanks,
>
>
>Guy Buchanan
>K-IV 1200 / 582 / 99% done, thanks to Bob Ducar.
>
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Static Ports |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Torgeir Mortensen <torgemor@online.no>
Hi Michel,
Thank You Michel.
> But, what I was wondering is if the "limited leak" from that chamber
> goes into the cockpit or back in the static line.
It goes back to the static line for sure, but if the house is cracked -
"from or to" the cockpit.. Depending if the pressure inside cockpit is
higher or lower our true static pressure, here we are assuming that the
true static pressure is present at your AFT. located static port.
The instruments shall normally always be completely separated from the
cockpit atmosphere, this is the idea about getting the accurate reading.
Think about those biggies, well- some smaller planes too, I'm thinking
about those planes equipped with a pressurized cabin. Here the
differential pressure is quite high, typical 6-8 PSI -, how about that?
One small leakage in such system ruin all the instruments connected to
that system!
> If it goes into the cockpit via the body of the instrument, when then
> connect the VVI at all on the static line? Unless it is a pressurized
> cockpit, the variation of pressure will happen there, even if it is not
> equal to the outside pressure.
Right.. I'll think you've got the idea.
>
> On the other hand, if that "leak" is going back in the static line, it
> surely influences the other instruments, doesn't it? I mean: If I suck
> gently the air at the end of the static line, after a few seconds, the
> pressure will be equal again, won't it?
>
> In any case, I'll do as you say, and check that each instrument is
> working ok, i.e. they are not leaking individually.
>
Same here.
(We have other methods to perform a "very" accurate airspeed -and
altimeter test. Hmm. this is a little out of topics plus some works.. :) )
Cheers,
Torgeir.
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: Rotax Oil Injection Tank |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Torgeir Mortensen <torgemor@online.no>
Found some squared, check this place:
http://www.usplastic.com/catalog/category.asp?catalog%5Fname=USPlastic&category%5Fname=15034&Page=1
Torgeir.
On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 15:04:22 -0700, Rex Hefferan <kitfox-m2@earthlink.net>
wrote:
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Rex Hefferan <kitfox-m2@earthlink.net>
>
> Try this link:
> http://www.ehow.com/buy_2109_nalgene-bottle.html
>
> Rex
> Colorado, not Oz ;
> )
>
>
> Guy Buchanan wrote:
>
>> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Guy Buchanan <bnn@nethere.com>
>>
>> All,
>> My K-IV/582 came with a 2l Nalgene bottle for an oil reservoir.
>> It
>> has cracked and Skystar doesn't have any in stock; and I'm not really
>> hopeful that they'll come up with one soon. Does anyone have a
>> recommendation for a replacement?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>>
>> Guy Buchanan
>> K-IV 1200 / 582 / 99% done, thanks to Bob Ducar.
>>
>
>
--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: low fuel sensor revisited |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Torgeir Mortensen <torgemor@online.no>
Hi Lynn,
Go to this link:
http://www.mcmaster.com/
Then search for: 4949K43 (the check box in the left corner).
Just roll a little down.
The above sensor is based on Polyamid housing.
You can also check out the sensor 4949K33, with polysulfone housing.
Here you can check polysulfone's fuel resistance:
http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=7340836
Both sensors is based on "giving signal" with no fuel.
Good luck
Torgeir.
On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 13:49:08 -0500, Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net> wrote:
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net>
>
> I just read the archives regarding low fuel sensors for the header
> tank, and found a McMaster-Carr item # 4949K43 (supersedes the 4949K23
> that was suggested in this group). It uses a BSPP attachment....what in
> the world is that? I'm very familiar with NPT's and know about British,
> Whitworth, etc., but this one threw me. I've got a question posed to
> McMaster-Carr, but in the meantime, is there any better way to sense a
> low-fuel condition in the header tank? Something that hasn't been
> suggested yet in this group? I couldn't find anything in the Aircraft
> Spruce catalog...is there one there?
>
> Lynn
>
>
--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: low fuel sensor revisited |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
Lynn,
I am glad you are looking at low fuel sensors. I
think they are a good safety item.
My 2003 Aircraft Spruce Catalog has one on page 154
for $27.50. Sorry, I don't have the new book. This
is the float type similar to the one I use. PN is
6905-400. Seems to work fine.
There are several optical sensors too. Can't find my
reference right now. I'll keep looking if you want
and no one comes up with it first. With those you
need to paint the tank and sensor to keep sunlight
out.
Did a Google search on BSPP attachments and it seems
that they mean the sealing surface after the threaded
portion is flat faced. Best as I can tell.
Let's see what the others have...
Kurt S.
S-5/NSI turbo
--- Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net> wrote:
> I just read the archives regarding low fuel sensors
> for the header tank, and found a McMaster
> -Carr item # 4949K43 (supersedes the 4949K23
> that was suggested in this group). It uses a BSPP
> attachment....what in the world is that? ......
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: Torgeir Mortensen <torgemor@online.no>
Hi Folks,
Thought I'll give another interesting site, this time from this side of
the little pond...
This site have lot's of quality bits and pieces, a good place for
references IMHO.
Here is the main site:
http://www.bsr-aerotek.com/index.htm
And here's an example:
http://www.bsr-aerotek.com/fuel19.htm
Here's an example of a fuel cap, low price -but dont know anything about
the quality..
http://www.bsr-aerotek.com/filler.htm
Maybe someone know this company?? Any info here, GB Foxes ?
Torgeir.
Do not archive.
--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
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: [off-topic] Terminology |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Milt's Kitfox Stuff" <flysly@erols.com>
I really didn't use it in my line of work, the course & speed we "made good"
was just a bi-product of blowing stuff up. In fighters we really didn't
quibble with details and put the emphasis on doing what needed to be done
regarding course & speed in order to make an assigned time over target.
However, in recreational flying I enjoy keeping a nav log en route &
figuring ground speed etc the old fashioned way.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michel Verheughe" <michel@online.no>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: [off-topic] Terminology
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
>
> Milt's Kitfox Stuff wrote:
>> I was trained as a US Air Force navigator.
>
> Thank you Milt. I think we have found out that there is a different
> terminology
> on each side of the Atlantic (and down-under). What I wonder, though, is:
> do
> you use the notion: "Made good" as in: "Speed made good" and "course made
> good?"
>
> Cheers,
> Michel
>
> do not archive
>
>
>
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: low fuel sensor revisited |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net>
I found the 6905-400 unit on the Aircraft Spruce website, but not in
the catalog. In either case, I'd like to see a picture of the unit
before I'd buy one. I can't imagine that a float-type unit could fit
into the header tank...does yours?
The optical unit I'm looking at, from McMaster-Carr, was suggested
earlier on the group. It's rather pricey at about $80- $110, depending
on which unit I'd select. The site: www.mcmaster.com Search for
part number 5094K21 or 4949K43 and it will take you to the sensors.
The part # 4949K43 would require an adapter, as the connection is
BSPP...British Standard Pipe Parallel Thread...and would need an
adapter to 1/2" NPT to fit the upper hole in my header tank. This seems
like it would work, but the steel-bodied p/n 5094K21 already has the
required 1/2" NPT threads at a much higher price. Both of these units
are much higher-priced than the float system you suggested.
During my archive search on this group, I found info relating to an
optical sensor that melted in someone's header tank, and this of course
makes me nervous, which is why I'm trying to investigate this matter. I
asked McMaster-Carr about using their sensors in a fuel environment,
and got the expected "no comment-type" reply.
Lynn
On Tuesday, March 8, 2005, at 06:37 PM, kurt schrader wrote:
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader
> <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
>
> Lynn,
>
> I am glad you are looking at low fuel sensors. I
> think they are a good safety item.
>
> My 2003 Aircraft Spruce Catalog has one on page 154
> for $27.50. Sorry, I don't have the new book. This
> is the float type similar to the one I use. PN is
> 6905-400. Seems to work fine.
>
> There are several optical sensors too. Can't find my
> reference right now. I'll keep looking if you want
> and no one comes up with it first. With those you
> need to paint the tank and sensor to keep sunlight
> out.
>
> Did a Google search on BSPP attachments and it seems
> that they mean the sealing surface after the threaded
> portion is flat faced. Best as I can tell.
>
> Let's see what the others have...
>
> Kurt S.
> S-5/NSI turbo
>
> --- Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net> wrote:
>
>> I just read the archives regarding low fuel sensors
>> for the header tank, and found a McMaster
>> -Carr item # 4949K43 (supersedes the 4949K23
>> that was suggested in this group). It uses a BSPP
>> attachment....what in the world is that? ......
>
>
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: low fuel sensor revisited |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net>
Thanks, Torgeir...I had gotten this far (the McMaster link) but wasn't
sure if the 200mA output was right for the job...or for that matter, if
the 18mA of the steel-bodied unit was right either. An email to
McMaster-Carr produced no usable info...their lawyer must've been
looking over their shoulder. : )
Lynn
On Tuesday, March 8, 2005, at 06:27 PM, Torgeir Mortensen wrote:
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Torgeir Mortensen
> <torgemor@online.no>
>
> Hi Lynn,
>
>
> Go to this link:
>
> http://www.mcmaster.com/
>
> Then search for: 4949K43 (the check box in the left corner).
>
> Just roll a little down.
>
> The above sensor is based on Polyamid housing.
>
> You can also check out the sensor 4949K33, with polysulfone housing.
>
> Here you can check polysulfone's fuel resistance:
>
> http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=7340836
>
>
> Both sensors is based on "giving signal" with no fuel.
>
> Good luck
>
>
> Torgeir.
>
>
> On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 13:49:08 -0500, Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net>
> wrote:
>
>> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net>
>>
>> I just read the archives regarding low fuel sensors for the header
>> tank, and found a McMaster-Carr item # 4949K43 (supersedes the 4949K23
>> that was suggested in this group). It uses a BSPP attachment....what
>> in
>> the world is that? I'm very familiar with NPT's and know about
>> British,
>> Whitworth, etc., but this one threw me. I've got a question posed to
>> McMaster-Carr, but in the meantime, is there any better way to sense a
>> low-fuel condition in the header tank? Something that hasn't been
>> suggested yet in this group? I couldn't find anything in the Aircraft
>> Spruce catalog...is there one there?
>>
>> Lynn
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
>
>
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: Static Ports |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
Hi Lynn,
Well, I did make a mistake... :-( Marked it with
((*))
--- Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net> wrote:
> Hi Kurt-
> I'm confused by part of your description, and it may
> be that I don't know anything about how airplane
> gauges work. I followed your first
> three paragraphs, but in the fourth one you lost me.
> When you said:
> "But you should get a drop in altitude that
> remains with increased static pressure, or a
> ((decrease)) in altitude that remains with static
> source suction. It should not show a leak and return
> to the original altitude on your altimeter."
> were you still talking about just the
> VSI, or were you including the altimeter?
Here I was trying to say that the altimeter will be
the system's static leak check. The VSI will always
return to zero with steady suction or pressure
applied, if it is working properly. It is not a good
leak check gauge.
> It seems to me that your phrases "a drop in
> altitude that remains with increased static
pressure"
> and "a (((decrease))) in altitude that remains
> with static source suction" are saying that for
> either a static source pressure OR a static source
> suction, a drop or decrease in altitude
> occurs.
> How can this be? I would think that a static
> pressure reduction would be indicated by a raise
> in the VSI, and that a static pressure
> increase would indicate a lowering of the VSI
> needle.
Good catch! (((*))) I meant that the altimeter (not
VSI) should show a loss of altitude with increased
pressure and an ((increase)) of altitude with loss of
pressure, not "decrease". The VSI will only change
momentarily and is not a good leak check. The
altitimeter is much better because it can remain at a
constant changed altitude with constant pressure or
suction applied.
If you were to put one of those water tubes I
described on your static port, you can apply a
constant pressure or suction by changing the water
height and keeping it there. The altimeter will show
a constant change in altitude accordingly. It should
not move back to the origional altitude, even after 30
minutes, if there is no leak.
The VSI changes, then returns to zero and you can not
get a very good leak check looking at it. You also
won't get a good check by just blowing or sucking on
the static source. You need a measured pressure
change.
Using the water tube I described, you can lower the
tube and create a suction that shows a 500' altitude
loss on the altimeter, for example. Lock the water
tube in place and see what the altimeter does. If it
moves, the rate of movement shows how much leak you
have. It should stay right at the setting you have,
but a small change over a long time isn't going to
hurt much.
The VIS is just no good at this.
The ASI can also show a speed change with pressure at
the pitot tube, or suction at the static port. You
can watch this as well to see if the speed change
stays steady just like the altimeter.
Kurt S.
__________________________________
http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/
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: low fuel sensor revisited |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
Hi again Lynn,
My float sensor fit right in, after I removed the
optical one. They are similar in shape, but the float
probe is longer. I saw the melted optical sensor
report too and changed to the less expensive and fuel
proof float sensor. My optical sensor required
painting the tank and sensor and that left me with no
tank level sight gauge to check it by either. I like
to check it at annuals.
The float switch had to go into the lower of the two
side holes though, so it gives a little less fuel to
flameout. The float goes up from the sensor and when
it drops down, then the light goes on. Seems
up-side-down, but that is how it works.
Kurt S.
--- Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net> wrote:
> I found the 6905-400 unit on the Aircraft Spruce
> website, but not in the catalog. In either case,
> I'd like to see a picture of the unit
> before I'd buy one. I can't imagine that a
> float-type unit could fit into the header tank
> ...does yours?
__________________________________
http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Classic IV interior |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: <brettandsandy@numail.org>
I am looking for feedback on how to finish the interior on my classic IV.
I have talked to Sam Knight and also Skystar. Are there other options?
The full blown all the frills from either is over $1000.
Do y'all have carpet, kick panels, stick covers and so-on or do you just
stay with the basic seat/ baggage and manufacture some of your own pieces.
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Static Ports |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "John Perry" <eskflyer@pld.com>
DO NOT BLOW OR SUCK ON THE STATIC PORT OR IT WILL RUIN YOUR GAUGES .
you can use a fan from a distance and have someone aim the airstream at the
static port but not to close .
Or you can use the water and hose but do not get any water in the static
line . I know this because I is smart lol .
Just my opinion
John Perry
kitfox 2 N718PD
eskflyer@pld.com
The VSI changes, then returns to zero and you can not
get a very good leak check looking at it. You also
won't get a good check by just blowing or sucking on
the static source. You need a measured pressure
change.
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: Manual Pitch Trim (was Jackscrew) |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Cudnohufsky's" <7suds@chartermi.net>
Rick,
Catching this thread in the middle, so if I'm off base I apologize, but if
you are referring to a photo of the manual trim system for the 5-7 series, I
would like to see it and any info you have on trim tab sizes, control etc. I
have a five I'm rebuilding that currently has a damaged electric screw that
I will not be replacing.
Lloyd @ 7Suds@Chartermi.net
----- Original Message -----
From: <Mdkitfox@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: Manual Pitch Trim (was Jackscrew)
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Mdkitfox@aol.com
>
> I've tried to upload a photo of the actuator to Sportflight, but I wasn't
> successful at doing it for some reason. If anyone would like the photo
> let me
> know and I'll email it direct. The alleged defective actuator is a
> Warner
> Electric, part number 812-17A16-04. If you have that actuator, take the
> precautions necessary as outlined in Don's article or other builder's
> suggestions.
>
> Rick Weiss
> Series V Speedster N39RW, 912S
>
>
>
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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Pete Sigrist" <psigrist@cox.net>
On this site you will (after some searching) find a 2.4 liter oil tank for a 582.
Don't jury-rig it, use the proper part.
http://www.leadingedge-airfoils.com/index.htm
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | New gas tanks - rinse them with MEK |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Randy Daughenbaugh" <rjdaugh@rapidnet.com>
About two months ago I reported to the list that both chokes on my new 912S
were sticking very solidly and I got a number of suggestions. For
background, the problem was NOT in the cables. The choke on the Bing 64 is
flat plate that turns against another flat surface and when certain holes
line up they open up what is essentially another carburetor which just
produces a very rich mixture.
Someone (Fred Shipp?) suggested that it was something leaching from the
fiberglass tanks. This seems to be the problem. I drained the gas from the
tanks and burned it in my pickup. I took the choke assemblies apart and
cleaned a yellow "varnish" from the flat surfaces (reported at that time).
Now, 15 hours later, the problem has not reappeared. I did put new fuel
filters in about 5 hours after draining the contaminated fuel.
I suggest that builders with new tanks rinse the tanks with acetone or MEK
several times to get this stuff (incompletely cured resin?) out of the tank
before you put them in the wing. Take precautions to prevent fires! My
tanks were late 1999 vintage, but I suspect that this could happen at any
time.
Randy
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Manual Pitch Trim (was Jackscrew) |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Don Pearsall" <donpearsall@comcast.net>
Ricks photo is now available on Sportflight. Go to
http://www.sportflight.com/upload.html and click "View Files" then
"add-ons/Modifications"
Don
Don Pearsall
Sound Appraisal
Seattle, WA USA
425-392.4627
FAX 425-557-0107
donpearsall@comcast.net
http://www.soundappraisal.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Cudnohufsky's
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: Manual Pitch Trim (was Jackscrew)
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Cudnohufsky's" <7suds@chartermi.net>
Rick,
Catching this thread in the middle, so if I'm off base I apologize, but if
you are referring to a photo of the manual trim system for the 5-7 series, I
would like to see it and any info you have on trim tab sizes, control etc. I
have a five I'm rebuilding that currently has a damaged electric screw that
I will not be replacing.
Lloyd @ 7Suds@Chartermi.net
----- Original Message -----
From: <Mdkitfox@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: Manual Pitch Trim (was Jackscrew)
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Mdkitfox@aol.com
>
> I've tried to upload a photo of the actuator to Sportflight, but I wasn't
> successful at doing it for some reason. If anyone would like the photo
> let me
> know and I'll email it direct. The alleged defective actuator is a
> Warner
> Electric, part number 812-17A16-04. If you have that actuator, take the
> precautions necessary as outlined in Don's article or other builder's
> suggestions.
>
> Rick Weiss
> Series V Speedster N39RW, 912S
>
>
>
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! --
|