Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:11 AM - Re: Capacitor (Michel Verheughe)
2. 09:46 AM - Re: mod.IV gross weight increase (1050 - 1200 lb gw) (Jeffrey Puls)
3. 10:21 AM - Model 5 gross weight increase (Ben Baltrusaitis)
4. 11:07 AM - Re: Capacitor (kurt schrader)
5. 11:38 AM - Re: Capacitor (kurt schrader)
6. 11:45 AM - Re: Florida Trip (kurt schrader)
7. 01:35 PM - Re: Capacitor (Michel Verheughe)
8. 03:38 PM - Is this legitimate? (Ron)
9. 04:59 PM - Re: Is this legitimate? (kurt schrader)
10. 05:03 PM - Re: Is this legitimate? (Ted Palamarek)
11. 05:20 PM - Re: Capacitor (kurt schrader)
12. 05:28 PM - Re: CAP 140 / Rotax prop performance (kurt schrader)
13. 06:01 PM - Re: Model 5 gross weight increase (JJProbasco@cs.com)
14. 06:12 PM - Re: CAP 140 / Rotax prop performance (Rick)
15. 07:07 PM - Re: CAP 140 / Rotax prop performance (kurt schrader)
16. 07:16 PM - Re: Model 5 gross weight increase (kurt schrader)
17. 08:50 PM - Re: CAP 140 / Rotax prop performance (Rick)
18. 08:55 PM - Gas cap mount replacement (Rick)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
jareds wrote:
> but .5volts seems like alot and wasnt sure if i even needed the dumb thing?
Jared, on my sailboat, if I measure the tension between say, the engine and a
keel bolt, I read sometimes as much as 3 volts. Sea water and different metals,
works like a battery. Take an oscilloscope and see the nice sinusoid it does
when you hold both terminals in a hand. Induced AC from your home.
A capacitor is a battery in itself and I think it would be strange if you
measured 0 volt over it. I suggest you try to shortcut with a resistor. If the
tension drops to 0, there is no current so to speak. If it is a leak that
drains your battery, you would still read 0.5 volt, though.
Cheers,
Michel
do not archive
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: mod.IV gross weight increase (1050 - 1200 lb gw) |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jeffrey Puls" <pulsair@mindspring.com>
I always thought that the thing that increased the gross weight was the
insertion of those aluminum I-beams in the leading spar. Jeff Puls Classic
IV 1200 gross weight
> [Original Message]
> From: jareds <jareds@verizon.net>
> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com.Gecko/20040804.Netscape/7.2 (ax)>
> Date: 3/11/2005 11:13:24 PM
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: mod.IV gross weight increase (1050 - 1200 lb gw)
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: jareds <jareds@verizon.net>
>
> I inquired heavily about this modification early on once my 1050
> gross was so easily attained. Then when i had to do some frame work i
> thought it would be an opportune time to investigate even more
> thoroughly and the consensus all the way up to Sky Star and some people
> with engineering backgrounds said that there was no "true modification"
> that would allow you to safely obtain the 1200 gross. I was extremely
> disappointed but found that even though i like all the fuel on board
> (for safety), if you have tent / passenger / dog or whatever....
> SOMEONE always has to pee long before you even burn up half a tank!!
> Which means even a heavy plane can still stay around the 1050 area!
>
> Roberto Canino wrote:
>
> >--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Roberto Canino
<robertocannino@yahoo.com>
> >
> >Could anyone who has modified a 1050 lb gw model IV to handle the
increased gross weight of 1200 lbs. detail the neccessary modifications?
I already have Grove gear on my model IV.
> >
> >Thanks,
> >B
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
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: | Model 5 gross weight increase |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Ben Baltrusaitis" <ben@gmpexpress.net>
Hi gang!
As long as we are talking about increasing the gross weight of the model IV, I
thought I would ask about increasing the gross weight of the model V.
What does it take to go from the 1400 gross on the early fives to get the 1550
that was on the later models. From what I understand it involves the wing spar
and a strut attachment bolt. Is this something that can be accomplished on a
flying Kitfox V without tearing apart both wings? Is the wing spar mod a new spar
or just an insertion?
Thanks!
Ben
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
Hi Jareds,
Torgier can check me on this....
Jareds, your description is much more helpful now.
First, if you can make due without it and the noise
isn't bad, you can take it out. Be sure to test
against recieving a weak station while in flight
first. That should be where you encounter the most
noise and is a good test. If the breaker is one you
can push/pull easily, this is an easy test. Find some
ATIS station 100 miles or so away and try it with the
Cap on and off. Then it is a case of how much noise
you can deal with.
Second, if it is on the insolated/equipment side of
the solenoid with the solinoid off and not not the
battery side, you shouldn't have such a big problem
with a little leakage. It can't run the battery down
with the master off. Then it can retain some voltage
like a battery and give you no real problems. With
the breaker in there, you are protected, so if you
need it for noise reduction and keep it, you are OK
too.
If the leakage got very big it would work your
alternator hard like a big load though. If you have
an amp meter, you can see the difference when you pull
the Cap breaker with the power on. If you can't see
the amps change, you are OK.
Your radio equipment may have caps in them to that
give a low voltage reading when switched on, but the
master is off. However, you said that the volts went
to zero when you disconnected this cap, so this Cap
seems to be the source.
It doesn't seem you have a great risk with this wiring
to the Cap as long as you check the amps from time to
time by looking for a drop when you pull the breaker.
No significant change in amps = no big problem.
If the volts with it off bothers you, a high ohm
resistor can be wired across the Cap leads to bleed it
off when the power is off. Any high ohm resister of
say 1/4 amp and 10K (10,000) ohms or higher should do
fine. It should bleed the cap down to zero after
shutdown without being a load by itself.
What do you think Torgier?
Kurt S.
--- jareds <jareds@verizon.net> wrote:
> torgeir and kurt
>
> Vaguely i remember an explanation like that before
> but not as descriptive.
> Yes by secondary I mean it is after the solenoid
> actuated by inst panel master on the side where
> all my instraments are. Cap runs through a breaker
> and has one side connected to ground and the
> other side to the posotive strip. That is where the
> .5 volts resides and disappears when i disconnect
> cap.
>
> With my resistor plugs and everything grounded
> seperately i have little noise in my microair.
> Is the consensus that it needs to be on the
> equipment side with the instraments?
> I do have 5 amp breaker seperating in case it shorts
> out but .5volts seems like alot and wasnt sure if
> i even needed the dumb thing?
__________________________________
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
Sounds right. My father was a radio and TV repairman.
He had to make sure he found and ground out all the
Caps before he did any repairs. Occasionally he might
get a pretty good jolt/burn from a set with the power
off and unplugged because he missed a Cap he should
have ground out. even the picture tube can act as a
Cap and put out thousands of volts.
If you notice when you turn a radio off that it still
stays on for another word or musical note, that is
because the internal Caps are discharging and powering
the radio for that last second.
Kurt S.
--- dwight purdy <dpurdy@comteck.com> wrote:
>
> May be off base but when I had my battery out I
> still had voltage showing. I believe from a cap. in
> the rotax 503. Of course it was gone after grounding
> it out. Had to be one somewhere.
>
> Dwight
__________________________________
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
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: Florida Trip |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
Keep the High pressure areas to your right and the
Lows to your left. Arrive a day ahead of the low and
you should get good winds and maybe good WX.
Now if you can just have what you want when you want
it.... :-)
Kurt S.
Do not archive
--- Fox5flyer <morid@northland.lib.mi.us> wrote:
.......
> I'm planning fuel stops every three
> hours, but don't know where those stops will be
> until I find out what the winds will be doing.
> A 20 mph tailwind would get me all the way home in a
> day! Not much chance of that though.
> Deke
__________________________________
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
kurt schrader wrote:
> If you notice when you turn a radio off that it still
> stays on for another word or musical note, that is
> because the internal Caps are discharging and powering
> the radio for that last second.
... and your Hobbs meter! Man, one day I'll ask mister Hobbs to refund me all
those seconds that are accumulating after each flight! :-)
Kurt, today I did the test with my new static port fittings and your "water
pipe" idea. It works great and I don't leak any more! BTW, here is a way to mix
apples and oranges: A underpressure that reads 60 MPH equal an altitude of 60
feet! :-)
The hard part of the work was to get some water as it was below freezing point
in the hangar. No flight today, it was too windy, but tomorrow ... ! :-)
Cheers,
Michel
do not archive
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Is this legitimate? |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Ron" <rliebmann@comcast.net>
I get this notice every month and I am wondering if everyone gets it and
follows its directions....Or am I the only one to get this? Is this a way
for scammers to get info on us?
Thanks, Ron N55KF
This e-mail has been sent to inform you that your
web site URL has been submitted to our search engine
database. This is the URL that will be included.
URL : www.sportflight.com/kitfoxlistmembers
DATE : 03/12/2005 18:12:17
USER IP : Unknown IP. User had used an automated software for url
submission
In order to complete this request we require that you
click on the web site link below. This will confirm
that you wish to be included in our search engine
database at no fee to you.
http://www.mardox.com/confirm.cgi?T944365R702996
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: Is this legitimate? |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
Hi Ron,
That notice should be ignored IMHO.
I get an e-mail delivery failure notice every day or
two when I reply to this list too. I know mine go
thru because they appear on the list. I'd say your's
is just another scam like that. If you click on the
site, you will probably download something you don't
want.
And why do we want to be on someone's unknown search
engine even if it is ligit?
Kurt S.
--- Ron <rliebmann@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> I get this notice every month and I am wondering if
> everyone gets it and follows its directions....
> Or am I the only one to get this? Is this a way
> for scammers to get info on us?
>
> Thanks, Ron N55KF
>
>
> This e-mail has been sent to inform you that your
> web site URL has been submitted to our search engine
> database. This is the URL that will be included.
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: | Is this legitimate? |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Ted Palamarek" <temco@telusplanet.net>
Ron
I haven't seen this before. But, by just looking at it, I
think it is some type of phishing, (Phishing -- a new term
to mean some one is fishing for information from you) --
that is looking for confirmation that there is a Kitfox
members list --- if they get a positive response then they
bombard you with all kinds of Spam and junk mail. Just
delete it.
DO NOT ARCHIVE
Ted Palamarek
Edmonton, Ab
<<<SNIP>>>
Subject: Kitfox-List: Is this legitimate?
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Ron"
<rliebmann@comcast.net>
I get this notice every month and I am wondering if everyone
gets it and
follows its directions....Or am I the only one to get this?
Is this a way
for scammers to get info on us?
Thanks, Ron N55KF
This e-mail has been sent to inform you that your
web site URL has been submitted to our search engine
database. This is the URL that will be included.
URL : www.sportflight.com/kitfoxlistmembers
DATE : 03/12/2005 18:12:17
USER IP : Unknown IP. User had used an automated software
for url
submission
In order to complete this request we require that you
click on the web site link below. This will confirm
that you wish to be included in our search engine
database at no fee to you.
http://www.mardox.com/confirm.cgi?T944365R702996
===========
Contributions
other
===========
http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/Kitfox-List.htm
http://www.matronics.com/browse/kitfox-list
http://www.matronics.com/digest/kitfox-list
===========
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
Well michel,
It isn't "my" idea. That came from this list too. I
just spoke up first.
But I should have said to try it with rubbing alcohol
instead of water. It might take a little more since
it is lighter, but it will evaporate off and not
freeze or harm your instruments if a little gets into
the line, as far as I know. Gets a little colder if
you get it on your hands though.
Interesting how little - 60 feet of altitude - gives
you 60 mph worth of pressure.
--- Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no> wrote:
> Kurt, today I did the test with my new static port
> fittings and your "water pipe" idea. It works great
> and I don't leak any more! BTW, here is a way to mix
> apples and oranges: A underpressure that reads 60
> MPH equal an altitude of 60 feet! :-)
> The hard part of the work was to get some water as
> it was below freezing point in the hangar. No flight
> today, it was too windy, but tomorrow ... ! :-)
>
> Cheers,
> Michel
>
> do not archive
__________________________________
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
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: CAP 140 / Rotax prop performance |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
Just two questions for you Rotax 912 guys who have the
CAP 140 props.
1. How well does your prop perform compared to other
props on your engine? Takeoff, climb and cruise?
2. At what rpm does the prop turn in cruise for you?
I don't know your GB ratio so I can't tell.
The reason I ask is that I think our Soobs turn this
prop a bit too slowly to be in its most efficient
range. I am around 1400 to 1700 rpm in cruise. Just
wanted to compare to the Rotax's.
Kurt S. S-5/NSI turbo w/CAP-140
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: Model 5 gross weight increase |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: JJProbasco@cs.com
If memory serves me correctly, a few years back Skystar told me for the
increase to 1550# gross weight you need to replace the original 0.058" wall
thickness spar tubes with the new 0.625" wall thickness spars, and replace the
bottom strut AN bolt with a NASA version. I don't remember the exact bolt
designation. If you already have your 1400# wings built, it pretty much means
you
need to build another set.
Jeff Probasco
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: | CAP 140 / Rotax prop performance |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Rick" <turboflyer@comcast.net>
Kurt,
That cant be right. Sounds way to slow. The engine should be between 3400
and 4600 for the best torque. I would say your lugging the engine. Are those
really your cruie RPMs?
Rick
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of kurt
schrader
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: CAP 140 / Rotax prop performance
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader
<smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
Just two questions for you Rotax 912 guys who have the
CAP 140 props.
1. How well does your prop perform compared to other
props on your engine? Takeoff, climb and cruise?
2. At what rpm does the prop turn in cruise for you?
I don't know your GB ratio so I can't tell.
The reason I ask is that I think our Soobs turn this
prop a bit too slowly to be in its most efficient
range. I am around 1400 to 1700 rpm in cruise. Just
wanted to compare to the Rotax's.
Kurt S. S-5/NSI turbo w/CAP-140
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: | CAP 140 / Rotax prop performance |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
Yes Rick,
I have a 2.23:1 GB, so my prop rpm at 3400 engine rpm
is only 1525. Though my limits say 4800, I use 4400
as max continuous/climb engine rpm, which is still
only 1975 on the prop.
My engine won't stay below 1450 egt between 3800 and
4400 rpm. Lance says that is not a problem and holds
with the higher egt's as being all right. But I want
to install the SS valves before I go there. You
understand.
And since I rebuilt my prop, it vibrates more higher
where it used to vibrate more at lower rpm before.
Part of that is that I do run rich to hold the egt's
down.
I have been using around 4400-4800 eng rpm for takeoff
at full throttle to save the engine. That seems to be
plenty. I have tested to 5600 and find that the rpm
change from 5200 to 5600 has a dramatic effect on
thrust. I wonder if this is not because the prop is
just getting up to it's best rpm range? At 5600
engine rpm I am just finally up to 2500 prop rpm and
maybe .80 mach.
But the cruise performance is still a bit slow for me
without using a lot of gas. More drag reductions to
follow, but I wonder about the prop rpm/efficiency.
The good news is that it is quiet! I wore ear plugs
with my headset for about 60 seconds on one flight and
had to take them back out. It was scarry. Couldn't
hear anything. :~)
Kurt s.
--- Rick <turboflyer@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> Kurt,
> That cant be right. Sounds way to slow. The engine
> should be between 3400 and 4600 for the best torque.
> I would say your lugging the engine. Are those
> really your cruie RPMs?
>
> Rick
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> Subject: CAP 140 / Rotax prop performance
>
> Just two questions for you Rotax 912 guys who have
> the CAP 140 props.
>
> 1. How well does your prop perform compared to
> other props on your engine?
> Takeoff, climb and cruise?
>
> 2. At what rpm does the prop turn in cruise for
> you? I don't know your GB ratio so I can't tell.
>
> The reason I ask is that I think our Soobs turn this
> prop a bit too slowly to be in its most efficient
> range. I am around 1400 to 1700 rpm in cruise.
> Just wanted to compare to the Rotax's.
>
> Kurt S. S-5/NSI turbo w/CAP-140
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: Model 5 gross weight increase |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
I think that is probably right, but I know the upper
strut to wing bolt is the hardened one on my S-5.
Can't remember if the lower one is too. But I agree
that you need the new wings.
Kurt S. S-5 1550
--- JJProbasco@cs.com wrote:
>
> If memory serves me correctly, a few years back
> Skystar told me for the increase to 1550# gross
> weight you need to replace the original 0.058" wall
> thickness spar tubes with the new 0.625" wall
> thickness spars, and replace the bottom strut AN
> bolt with a NASA version. I don't remember the exact
> bolt designation. If you already have your 1400#
> wings built, it pretty much means you
> need to build another set.
> Jeff Probasco
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | CAP 140 / Rotax prop performance |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Rick" <turboflyer@comcast.net>
I misunderstood. Yep your fine. I was thinking you were referring to engine
RPMs, boy I must be way pooped.
I will be changing to about 2:18 or 2:23 soon. The 1:9 in too high. Kind of
a trade off between more tip speed and pitch. The 2:34 were too low so I
hope to hit the mark soon.
You do have the Ellison 3a, correct? If not its a must. I think we could eve
go wit the model 4 or 5 but too pricey. I strive to keep below 1400, but I
modified the stock turbo by installing a larger compressor wheel and some
machining. I was doing fine until I modified the exhaust but addend a
supertrapp and taking the pipe pass the radiator. Now, 1450 on take off is
the best I can do if I too go beyond about 4800 RPMs. This is at appx. 44in
MP.
I think your correct on the SS valves. I did that along with coating the
piston tops and even the valves. Had one go awhile back and it wasn't a
pretty picture. As an aside the turbo jamming from the valve debris most
likely kept the engine in the plane which was a good thing.
Not sure about the vibration due to running rich, but I don't think you said
what you shoot for egt wise in cruise. My limit even with the mods is 1400.
I spoke with warp Drive some time ago and if I remember the thin cord blades
like the high tip speed 2650 I think was the magic number at 16.5 degrees.
My engine wont do that yet. I hope it improves with the new gears, but more
power will require more fuel so the dog may be chasing its tail, hope not.
Rick
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of kurt
schrader
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: CAP 140 / Rotax prop performance
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader
<smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
Yes Rick,
I have a 2.23:1 GB, so my prop rpm at 3400 engine rpm
is only 1525. Though my limits say 4800, I use 4400
as max continuous/climb engine rpm, which is still
only 1975 on the prop.
My engine won't stay below 1450 egt between 3800 and
4400 rpm. Lance says that is not a problem and holds
with the higher egt's as being all right. But I want
to install the SS valves before I go there. You
understand.
And since I rebuilt my prop, it vibrates more higher
where it used to vibrate more at lower rpm before.
Part of that is that I do run rich to hold the egt's
down.
I have been using around 4400-4800 eng rpm for takeoff
at full throttle to save the engine. That seems to be
plenty. I have tested to 5600 and find that the rpm
change from 5200 to 5600 has a dramatic effect on
thrust. I wonder if this is not because the prop is
just getting up to it's best rpm range? At 5600
engine rpm I am just finally up to 2500 prop rpm and
maybe .80 mach.
But the cruise performance is still a bit slow for me
without using a lot of gas. More drag reductions to
follow, but I wonder about the prop rpm/efficiency.
The good news is that it is quiet! I wore ear plugs
with my headset for about 60 seconds on one flight and
had to take them back out. It was scarry. Couldn't
hear anything. :~)
Kurt s.
--- Rick <turboflyer@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> Kurt,
> That cant be right. Sounds way to slow. The engine
> should be between 3400 and 4600 for the best torque.
> I would say your lugging the engine. Are those
> really your cruie RPMs?
>
> Rick
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> Subject: CAP 140 / Rotax prop performance
>
> Just two questions for you Rotax 912 guys who have
> the CAP 140 props.
>
> 1. How well does your prop perform compared to
> other props on your engine?
> Takeoff, climb and cruise?
>
> 2. At what rpm does the prop turn in cruise for
> you? I don't know your GB ratio so I can't tell.
>
> The reason I ask is that I think our Soobs turn this
> prop a bit too slowly to be in its most efficient
> range. I am around 1400 to 1700 rpm in cruise.
> Just wanted to compare to the Rotax's.
>
> Kurt S. S-5/NSI turbo w/CAP-140
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: | Gas cap mount replacement |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Rick" <turboflyer@comcast.net>
Has any one replaced the factory tank fitting yet. Mine are getting pretty
corroded on the inside. I would have thought this would have been made of
stainless steel. Don't necessarily need a fast flush mount but I don't like
the looks of what I have right now. open to any suggestions. BTW thanks for
all the help with the loose rib. Turns out it is a false rib under the fuel
tank, will be a pain to get to but not as worried as I was.
Rick
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Don Pearsall
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Loose Spar Cap
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Don Pearsall" <donpearsall@comcast.net>
Rick,
The only "good" way to fix this is to open up the fabric near your rib so
you can clean the parts and re-glue with more structural adhesive. The rib
cap only touches the spar at a small area, so the looseness you feel may be
the rib and cap separating. Of course the rib attaches to the spar with
adhesive, and that IS structural.
Just injecting more epoxy in the area may not get the right spot, and given
that the parts may be dirty or covered with Poly-tak, poly-brush, etc, the
glue may not stick anyway.
My vote is to open it up and do some surgery.
Don Pearsall
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rick
Subject: Kitfox-List:
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Rick" <turboflyer@comcast.net>
I was hopeful someone on the list could recommend a fix for a loose cap
strip. I think its called that. It comes off the leading edge spar tube and
wraps under the spar and goes to the rear. This one is loose at the spar
attachment point. I thought I might inject some type of epoxy in this area
and then clamp it. Maybe 5 minute epoxy. I am open for suggestion. Is there
a better stronger epoxy. I will only most likely have one shot at this. I
don't think it is structural but definitely not good.
Thanks
Rick
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! --
|