---------------------------------------------------------- Kitfox-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Tue 03/08/05: 19 ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 _____________________________________ Time: 04:32:44 AM PST US Subject: Re: SV: SV: Kitfox-List: Static Ports From: Lynn Matteson --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson 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 > > > 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 _____________________________________ Time: 10:47:55 AM PST US Subject: Kitfox-List: low fuel sensor revisited From: Lynn Matteson --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson 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 _____________________________________ Time: 02:05:03 PM PST US From: Rex Hefferan Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Rotax Oil Injection Tank --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Rex Hefferan 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 > >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 _____________________________________ Time: 03:14:49 PM PST US Subject: Re: SV: SV: Kitfox-List: Static Ports From: Torgeir Mortensen --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Torgeir Mortensen 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 _____________________________________ Time: 03:14:58 PM PST US Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Rotax Oil Injection Tank From: Torgeir Mortensen --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Torgeir Mortensen 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 wrote: > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Rex Hefferan > > 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 >> >> 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 _____________________________________ Time: 03:24:25 PM PST US Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: low fuel sensor revisited From: Torgeir Mortensen --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Torgeir Mortensen 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 wrote: > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson > > 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 _____________________________________ Time: 03:42:52 PM PST US From: kurt schrader Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: low fuel sensor revisited --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader 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 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 _____________________________________ Time: 03:49:59 PM PST US Subject: Kitfox-List: Other sources. From: Torgeir Mortensen --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Torgeir Mortensen 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 _____________________________________ Time: 05:17:28 PM PST US From: "Milt's Kitfox Stuff" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: [off-topic] Terminology --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Milt's Kitfox Stuff" 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" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: [off-topic] Terminology > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 05:23:44 PM PST US Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: low fuel sensor revisited From: Lynn Matteson --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson 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 > > > 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 05:37:16 PM PST US Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: low fuel sensor revisited From: Lynn Matteson --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson 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 > > > 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 > wrote: > >> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson >> >> 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 ____________________________________ Time: 05:43:55 PM PST US From: kurt schrader Subject: Re: SV: SV: Kitfox-List: Static Ports --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader Hi Lynn, Well, I did make a mistake... :-( Marked it with ((*)) --- Lynn Matteson 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 ____________________________________ Time: 05:58:40 PM PST US From: kurt schrader Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: low fuel sensor revisited --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:03:16 PM PST US From: Subject: Kitfox-List: Classic IV interior --> Kitfox-List message posted by: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:05:14 PM PST US From: "John Perry" Subject: Re: SV: SV: Kitfox-List: Static Ports --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "John Perry" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:49:43 PM PST US From: "Cudnohufsky's" <7suds@chartermi.net> 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: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:52:01 PM PST US From: "Pete Sigrist" Subject: Kitfox-List: 582 oil tank --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Pete Sigrist" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:12:43 PM PST US From: "Randy Daughenbaugh" Subject: Kitfox-List: New gas tanks - rinse them with MEK --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Randy Daughenbaugh" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:27:41 PM PST US From: "Don Pearsall" Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Re: Manual Pitch Trim (was Jackscrew) --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Don Pearsall" 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: 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 > > >