Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:05 AM - Jabiru overflow WAS ellison throttle body fuel pressure (Michel Verheughe)
2. 07:11 AM - Three Point vs. Wheel Landings (Jimmie Blackwell)
3. 08:35 AM - Re: battery selection (Paul Wilson)
4. 08:47 AM - Odyssey batteries (Noel & Yoshie Simmons)
5. 09:05 AM - Re: Three Point vs. Wheel Landings (Michel Verheughe)
6. 10:00 AM - Re: Three Point vs. Wheel Landings (customtrans@qwest.net)
7. 10:40 AM - batteries (hausding, sid)
8. 02:55 PM - Re: Three Point vs. Wheel Landings (Chenoweth)
9. 03:49 PM - Re: Three Point vs. Wheel Landings (Raystuff7@aol.com)
10. 04:51 PM - Re: Three Point vs. Wheel Landings (flier)
11. 05:48 PM - Re: Three Point vs. Wheel Landings (Lowell Fitt)
12. 07:44 PM - Re: Three Point vs. Wheel Landings (Randy Daughenbaugh)
13. 08:35 PM - Re: Three Point vs. Wheel Landings (Alan Daniels)
14. 08:42 PM - Trailer (Alan Daniels)
15. 09:38 PM - Re: Jab report (kurt schrader)
16. 09:52 PM - Re: Kitfox Wings (kurt schrader)
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: | Jabiru overflow WAS ellison throttle body fuel pressure |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
Jim Pekola wrote:
> I had a fuel pressure problem with my Jabiru 2200.
Hello Jim,
If I understand correctly, you have a KF model 3 with a Jabiru 2200. Just like
me! One question please: Apart from the fuel coming out of the air filter, how
did you notice an overflow of the engine?
I ask because I can't remember this being discussed on the yahoo.jabiruengines
list. How old is your engine? Is this a problem that has been changed/solved in
later engines?
Another thing I wonder (I am a mechanic novice) is: isn't the float in the
carburettor supposed to stop overflowing?
Regarding your wings, I have no idea if it can be changed to another profile.
What is you goal? More STOL or more speed? What is your present cruise speed
and Vso? Thanks.
Cheers,
Michel
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: | Three Point vs. Wheel Landings |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jimmie Blackwell" <jablackwell@ev1.net>
Would like to get opinions on advantages/disadvantages of three point and wheel
landings with the Kitfox Model IV. On a couple of occasions I have done wheel
landings with my Speedster,(which usually results in a bounce or two), I much
prefer three point landings. A friend of mine also has a Speedster and he always
does wheel landings. He claims that wheel landings are better for cross
winds. Seems to me that the sooner one can get the tail wheel on the ground
the better control and less likelihood of a ground loop.
Would appreciate opinions and experiences from the list.
Jimmie
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: battery selection |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Paul Wilson <pwilson@climber.org>
A battery worthy of consideration are the Panasonic 17 or 20 amp hr . Both
will start a 300 Hp engine & is a favorite for small planes. Very small and
a great value for poop per pound. Easy to mount with a simple velcro strap
- no need for a battery box no fumes etc. They use a simple reliable bolted
connection.
17ahr P/N LC-RD 1217P, 14.3 lbs
20ahr P/N LC-X1220P or AP, 14.6 Lbs.
They are AGM units. They are not deep cycle units. I have not found a
small battery that is deep cycle. Its is not a technical issue but most
deep cycle applications are just huge and way to heavy for airplanes. The
spec sheets give accurate info and the batteries are consistent from year
to year.
Look on Google for the best prices & for the Panasonic spec. sheets.
Paul
==================
At 07:24 PM 5/21/2005, you wrote:
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Stu Bryant" <s.j.bryant@sbcglobal.net>
>
>One one hand I am amazed at a couple of the boasts on their website which I
>believe are a bit exaggerated, but this Odyssey battery (or equivalent
>competitor's battery- and there ARE a few competitors who have a fully equal
>or functionally equal product) is by all means the right way to go! And as
>they say, NO these are not a GEL CELL.
>Gel cell batteries are NOT nearly as appropriate as an AGM battery in any
>sort of vehicle. While there are some similarities, there are some
>significant differences. And some dealers don't even bother to get the
>terminology straight. You will never regret using this AGM type of battery.
>
>One note: although you MAY indeed mount it any which way including upside
>down, you will lose a little capacity if you do. They still prefer being
>right side up. Get it as close as you can to vertical for best results. And
>if it won't fit that way? Don't worry about it- you won't lose more than
>about 15% capacity at worst.
>
>One other note: particularly since these indeed pack the ability to drain
>more rapidly- in other words more readily able to spin a starter even though
>not a physically large battery- resist the temptation to test it by
>'sparking' your jumper cables together. You might not like the results of
>trying that. It is never a good idea to short circuit any battery, much less
>an AGM. If you weld the cable's clamps together the cable will be white hot
>in a fraction of a second, it the clamps do not weld then you'll at least
>vaporize a bit of them and leave a pit. Won't do the battery any favors
>either, tough as they are.
>
>I may not be building a kitfox yet, but deep cycle batteries IS something
>I've worked with for a number of years. No I do not sell them, though my
>passion for the right battery for the job is much like my passion for using
>the correct tool for the job. I use AGM on my boat and to power my ham radio
>station. I like them for use in autos too, although not with quite the same
>fervor. They are superior for use in RV's also (for those who can afford
>such luxury :-). They are quite popular in solar power systems and are
>basically the only option for the few all electric cars on the road.
>
>These battery people need to get their product names straight- Orbital,
>Optima, Odyssey similar sounding names and all are AGM batteries from
>different manufacturers which do the same thing. There are also a number of
>other AGM manufacturers (Rolls/Surrette, Deka/MK, Trojan, etc. etc.) who
>make from wee small to locomotive starting size, and so long as you don't
>store them drained and do not chronically overcharge you'll be thrilled with
>the results.
>
>
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: | Odyssey batteries |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Noel & Yoshie Simmons" <noel@blueskyaviation.net>
You all will have to excuse me if I am repeating someone else.
I have used the Odyssey batteries on several Lycoming engines from 180 to
210hp Size and power delivery are great I would definitely recommend this
battery.
On a totally off topic but I thought you guys would be the most receptive to
this news.
I flew my Super cub kit prototype today for the first time 945PL
Grand Rapids EFIS (X2)
210 hp Lycoming
Flew great, hands off lots of power and good climb rate!
I'll put some pictures on my web site soon
Noel
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: Three Point vs. Wheel Landings |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
Jimmie Blackwell wrote:
> Would appreciate opinions and experiences from the list.
Well, Jimmie, I am too much of a beginner to tell what are the pros and cons of
both techniques. I am only glad I land at all.
But I have noticed something: If I touch the ground with the two main wheels
first, and the impact is not very smooth, there is a force that will press the
tail down, since my CG is aft of the main wheels. As a result, I get a greater
AoA and the plane is airborne again. Which means: my attempts at main wheel
landings haven't always been very successful.
Does this make sense?
cheers,
Michel
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: | Three Point vs. Wheel Landings |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: customtrans@qwest.net
The thing I found was when doing a wheel landing you land like you would a 3
point, you flare, you touch, you push forward on the stick as soon as
possible and bury the wheels to the surface and apply a little throttle to
keep on the front wheels. After that you pretty much dance on the rudder to
keep it straight down the runway. A good practice for directional control
is to go up about 4000ft and put the plane in a nice slow flight and put it
on the verge of a stall and keep it from falling off, another explanation is
to ride the ball, use left and right rudder and keep from falling off the
ball. This should give you a good idea what it will take to keep the plane
straight on the runway. Another is to come in to land and stay off the
runway about 10ft and keep directional control. You will find the dance on
the rudder(left right, or back and forth, real fast) does a lot of good for
keeping the plane straight down the runway. hope this helps.
steve a
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Michel
Verheughe
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Three Point vs. Wheel Landings
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
Jimmie Blackwell wrote:
> Would appreciate opinions and experiences from the list.
Well, Jimmie, I am too much of a beginner to tell what are the pros and cons
of
both techniques. I am only glad I land at all.
But I have noticed something: If I touch the ground with the two main wheels
first, and the impact is not very smooth, there is a force that will press
the
tail down, since my CG is aft of the main wheels. As a result, I get a
greater
AoA and the plane is airborne again. Which means: my attempts at main wheel
landings haven't always been very successful.
Does this make sense?
cheers,
Michel
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "hausding, sid" <sidh@charter.net>
210 hp? Holy crap Bat Man, that thing should stand on its tail and go
straight up! Got some pics of the plane itself......maybe with you
alongside (on the ground, of course)........ :-)
Sid
Avid Speedwing
Alpena, Mi
-------------------------------
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Noel & Yoshie Simmons"
<noel@blueskyaviation.net>
You all will have to excuse me if I am repeating someone else.
I have used the Odyssey batteries on several Lycoming engines from 180 to
210hp Size and power delivery are great I would definitely recommend this
battery.
On a totally off topic but I thought you guys would be the most receptive to
this news.
I flew my Super cub kit prototype today for the first time 945PL
Grand Rapids EFIS (X2)
210 hp Lycoming
Flew great, hands off lots of power and good climb rate!
I'll put some pictures on my web site soon
Noel
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: | Re: Three Point vs. Wheel Landings |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Chenoweth" <chenoweth@gwi.net>
Jimmie,
Ed Downs writing in Kitfox Pilot's Guide of 2002 (a booklet I strongly
recommend) opts for full stall landings. On page 101 under the heading of
Crosswind Landings he writes "A 15 knot crosswind can be adequately handed
(sic) with a full stall landing, the recommended technique." He goes on to
make the point that the vertical tail has less airspeed when being lowered
after a wheel landing than it does during a full stall landing.
I do three pointers just about always but I'm on the beginner side of the
pilot curve and they are a lot easier for me. The fellow that did my
tailwheel training (a fellow with something like 40,000 hours) strongly
recommended three pointers.
I have to add that all the local Kitfox folk have the exact opposite view
and do wheel landings exclusively.
Bill
IV-1200 with 120 hours.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jimmie Blackwell" <jablackwell@ev1.net>
Subject: Kitfox-List: Three Point vs. Wheel Landings
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jimmie Blackwell"
<jablackwell@ev1.net>
>
> Would like to get opinions on advantages/disadvantages of three point and
wheel landings with the Kitfox Model IV. On a couple of occasions I have
done wheel landings with my Speedster,(which usually results in a bounce or
two), I much prefer three point landings. A friend of mine also has a
Speedster and he always does wheel landings. He claims that wheel landings
are better for cross winds. Seems to me that the sooner one can get the
tail wheel on the ground the better control and less likelihood of a ground
loop.
>
> Would appreciate opinions and experiences from the list.
>
> Jimmie
>
>
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: Three Point vs. Wheel Landings |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Raystuff7@aol.com
Jimmy,
I am the only person who has flown a Kitfox with 3 axle locations. I flew the
Kitfox 6 over
120 hours as a tail dragger, and groundlooped (jacknifed, some say) 4 times
in 120 hours, even though I flew my BD4 20 years and never groundlooped it.
Weighing the level tailwheel weight showed me there is too much weight on the
tail for my use. A heavy tail prevents nose-over on a soft field.; The CG is
11.6 " behind the axles, whereas the BD-4 is only9.6. (Both planes empty).
I turned the LG legs around backwards which moves the axles aft 3". The plane
did much better landings, even good wheel landings. I never groundlooped it,
but my wife still was not comfortable with it.She is used to a pussy cat like
her BD-4, or the Cherokee she had.
I recently bit the bullet and converted it to a nose gear airplane and have
flown it a dozen times. Boy, what a nece landing airplane. I am not
recommending this to everybody. If I ever land on a soft field, I will probably
wish I
had a tail wheel airplane.
Ray and Ann Ward
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: | Three Point vs. Wheel Landings |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "flier" <flier@sbcglobal.net>
This has been discussed on the list before. Personally, I agree with your
friend. I always wheel land. Only exception is really short field. In 3
point, you've got to be well below stall or a gust will pick up a wing.
I've never had that situation occur while holding the mains down/tail up
even in serious xwind.
Regards,
Ted
DO NOT ARCHIVE
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Jimmie
Blackwell
Subject: Kitfox-List: Three Point vs. Wheel Landings
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jimmie Blackwell" <jablackwell@ev1.net>
Would like to get opinions on advantages/disadvantages of three point and
wheel landings with the Kitfox Model IV. On a couple of occasions I have
done wheel landings with my Speedster,(which usually results in a bounce or
two), I much prefer three point landings. A friend of mine also has a
Speedster and he always does wheel landings. He claims that wheel landings
are better for cross winds. Seems to me that the sooner one can get the
tail wheel on the ground the better control and less likelihood of a ground
loop.
Would appreciate opinions and experiences from the list.
Jimmie
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: Three Point vs. Wheel Landings |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@sbcglobal.net>
This is a recurring subject. There is obviously no best or only way. And
I caution to not use the responses like a poll, i.e. that the majority does
it one way or another.
I have flown in loose formation with at least ten other kitfoxes, seven or
eight on a regular basis and in all sorts of conditions - mountain strips
and desert strips and cross winds, up to over 25 mph at 90 in one memorable
occasion, when six of us all safely put them on the ground. I have never
seen a wheel landing on a Kitfox except at the Skystar fly-in when some guys
were demonstrating them.
Lowell
----- Original Message -----
From: "flier" <flier@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Three Point vs. Wheel Landings
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "flier" <flier@sbcglobal.net>
>
> This has been discussed on the list before. Personally, I agree with your
> friend. I always wheel land. Only exception is really short field. In 3
> point, you've got to be well below stall or a gust will pick up a wing.
> I've never had that situation occur while holding the mains down/tail up
> even in serious xwind.
>
> Regards,
>
> Ted
>
> DO NOT ARCHIVE
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Jimmie
> Blackwell
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Kitfox-List: Three Point vs. Wheel Landings
>
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jimmie Blackwell"
> <jablackwell@ev1.net>
>
> Would like to get opinions on advantages/disadvantages of three point and
> wheel landings with the Kitfox Model IV. On a couple of occasions I have
> done wheel landings with my Speedster,(which usually results in a bounce
> or
> two), I much prefer three point landings. A friend of mine also has a
> Speedster and he always does wheel landings. He claims that wheel
> landings
> are better for cross winds. Seems to me that the sooner one can get the
> tail wheel on the ground the better control and less likelihood of a
> ground
> loop.
>
> Would appreciate opinions and experiences from the list.
>
> Jimmie
>
>
>
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: | Three Point vs. Wheel Landings |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Randy Daughenbaugh" <rjdaugh@rapidnet.com>
I will raise an issue from a while back. Ed Downs (referenced below) also
says that the preferred three point landing is one where the tail wheel hits
slightly before the mains. This avoids the problem Michel talked about.
When the tail wheel hits first you lower the angle of attack and the plane
stops flying.
I recently asked an acrobatic pilot about this and he says that he prefers
to have the tail wheel touch first.
I know that there is concern about too much force putting undue wear on the
tailwheel spring. I real doubt that there is very much force on the tail
wheel. It just adds some "up" to the tail to change the angle of attack.
Randy
.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Chenoweth
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Three Point vs. Wheel Landings
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Chenoweth" <chenoweth@gwi.net>
Jimmie,
Ed Downs writing in Kitfox Pilot's Guide of 2002 (a booklet I strongly
recommend) opts for full stall landings. On page 101 under the heading of
Crosswind Landings he writes "A 15 knot crosswind can be adequately handed
(sic) with a full stall landing, the recommended technique." He goes on to
make the point that the vertical tail has less airspeed when being lowered
after a wheel landing than it does during a full stall landing.
I do three pointers just about always but I'm on the beginner side of the
pilot curve and they are a lot easier for me. The fellow that did my
tailwheel training (a fellow with something like 40,000 hours) strongly
recommended three pointers.
I have to add that all the local Kitfox folk have the exact opposite view
and do wheel landings exclusively.
Bill
IV-1200 with 120 hours.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jimmie Blackwell" <jablackwell@ev1.net>
Subject: Kitfox-List: Three Point vs. Wheel Landings
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jimmie Blackwell"
<jablackwell@ev1.net>
>
> Would like to get opinions on advantages/disadvantages of three point and
wheel landings with the Kitfox Model IV. On a couple of occasions I have
done wheel landings with my Speedster,(which usually results in a bounce or
two), I much prefer three point landings. A friend of mine also has a
Speedster and he always does wheel landings. He claims that wheel landings
are better for cross winds. Seems to me that the sooner one can get the
tail wheel on the ground the better control and less likelihood of a ground
loop.
>
> Would appreciate opinions and experiences from the list.
>
> Jimmie
>
>
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: Three Point vs. Wheel Landings |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Alan Daniels <aldaniels@fmtc.com>
In most cases I like 3 point landing because you are done flying when
you touch down. I have landed in lots of wind and if you are full stall
all you have to do is pin the tail down with full back stick and ride it
out. I think it is important to also be proficient at wheel landings for
very gusty conditions or for that very narrow strip. It is also
necessary when landing on a side hill or steep beach. For those that are
interested I posted a very good text on tail wheel flying on
sportfilght.com written by my brother. He has something like 5000 hours
instructing, much of it in tail wheel.
Alan
>
>
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Alan Daniels <aldaniels@fmtc.com>
I am looking for a fully enclosed trailer suitable for long distance
transportation of a tailwheel 5 or my 5 Vixen. I am looking for
information of how well this works and were I can get one new or used if
it works well.
Thanks
Alan
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
Hi Michel,
I like the idea of removing the fixed outlet and
replacing it with a movable door. This gives you more
control of your temps and allows you to reduce your
cooling drag too. You may like that control for
flying in Norway winters and Spanish summers.
I know that the jabbers have to watch their cooling
airflow, but it seems that you gave it more than
enough to work, which is the good way to error.
I suspect that these engines need a critical amount of
cooling, in that you could reduce the airflow quite a
bit, but at some point the temps will rise rapidly
with just a very small airflow reduction. Others
Jabber builders could have been just slightly below
the required airflow and over-temped easily. In your
case, when you close off your doors, you may see
little change until you are close to the critical
point. Then as your temps start to rise, very small
door movements may go from cool to too hot quickly.
25% opening may not show a rise, but 20% opening may
over-heat.
Of course this amount depends upon OAT and the power
you are using. So when you adjust your doors, watch
for the first sign in rising temps. Then be very
careful to catch the rising temp and open the door a
little before it goes too hot. Also lead power
increases with opening the door first.
On your hottest day you may find that you don't need
the door fully open. If so, put a stop just a little
past this point on your control. On the coldest day
you may find that you can close the door all the way
on descent and still keep the temps down. If the
temps rise any, cut off a little door to allow more
airflow, or put a "close stop" on your control. These
limits will mark your full control range needs to fine
toon the size of your door, or the amount you open and
close it. You should then find the right size of
outlet that works for you.
My guess is that you had right about twice the outflow
required when you first made your cowl. Easier to fix
than being 5% too small and getting overheats. :-)
Kurt S.
--- Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no> wrote:
>
> > I am still waiting to see if you can reduce the
> size of
> > your cowl outlet door and fly in summer temps.
>
> This is a very puzzling question, Kurt. I have
> already reduced a couple of
> inches without noticing a higher CHT. I have
> installed a cowl flap that covers
> 75% of the outlet and, once closed, I don't notice a
> difference in the CHT,
> which is pretty low, at the bottom of the green
> sector (100 C) at cruise speed.
> I dare not close entirely the outlet because I read
> about someone who blew open
> his cowling by doing that, since it then gets very
> high pressured.
> My next move (but after my summer southern trip)
> will be to cut entirely the
> outlet scoop and replace it by a moveable one. I
> figure that, while I reduce
> the outlet, the scoop still creates the low pressure
> that sucks air out of the
> 25% left open. The proper way would then be to close
> the entire scoop. What do you think?
>
> Cheers,
> Michel
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: Kitfox Wings |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
Hi Jim,
The factory once tested a KitFox biplane. I know
little about it, but understand that it flew OK. 2
sets of speedster wings would give you a shorter span
with a lot of area. Maybe someone has the info on
this one-of-a-kind biplane?
Changing wings would probably require some tail
changes. But a wider cord would require different
mounts to allow for the wing position to provide a
center of lift compatable with your CG range. You may
have to move the entire leading edge forward to stay
in your CG envelope. A forward sweep may not work
here.
Kurt S.
--- Jim Pekola <jimpekola@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> I have a question for you....does anybody know the
> effect of switching the cambered wing of a Kitfox
> model III to the model IV wing, which is more
> symmetrical? Would I have to change the attachment
> points on the elevator to compensate for the
> different pitching moment?
>
> Next question...has anybody ever completely changed
> the Kitfox wing to an airfoil with a deeper cord,
> such as a Harry Riblett GA 30-613.5 with a 50 inch
> cord? I'm looking for more square footage with less
> wing span.
>
> Any ideas or suggestions would be greatly
> appreciated.
>
> Jim Pekola
> jimpekola@earthlink.net
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! --
|