Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 03:09 AM - Re: Fuel Burn gas cans ... (Chenoweth)
2. 04:52 AM - Re: SV: In-flight prop fuel burn (AlbertaIV@AOL.COM)
3. 05:33 AM - SV: SV: In-flight prop fuel burn (Michel Verheughe)
4. 06:11 AM - Re: A Bargain For You? (kerrjohna@comcast.net)
5. 06:32 AM - Re: SV: SV: In-flight prop fuel burn (AlbertaIV@aol.com)
6. 06:42 AM - Re: SV: In-flight prop fuel burn (Andrew Matthaey)
7. 07:13 AM - Re: SV: In-flight prop fuel burn (AlbertaIV@aol.com)
8. 07:13 AM - SV: SV: In-flight prop fuel burn (Michel Verheughe)
9. 07:35 AM - Recommended static and Takeoff RPM for 912S (Randy Daughenbaugh)
10. 07:38 AM - Re: SV: SV: In-flight prop fuel burn (Andrew Matthaey)
11. 07:41 AM - Re: SV: In-flight prop fuel burn (kitfox@gto.net)
12. 07:54 AM - Re: SV: In-flight prop fuel burn (AlbertaIV@aol.com)
13. 08:16 AM - Re: resistor plugs - Bob Robertson (Bob Robertson)
14. 08:34 AM - Re: SV: SV: In-flight prop fuel burn (Jim Corner)
15. 08:35 AM - Re: Recommended static and Takeoff RPM for 912S (kerrjohna@comcast.net)
16. 08:58 AM - Re: Recommended static and Takeoff RPM for 912S (jdmcbean)
17. 09:01 AM - Re: Recommended static and Takeoff RPM for 912S (jdmcbean)
18. 09:11 AM - Re: A Bargain For You? (Bruce Harrington)
19. 09:31 AM - vent in bubble doors (Fred Shiple)
20. 09:37 AM - NW Ohio fly-in (Fred Shiple)
21. 09:47 AM - Re: Recommended static and Takeoff RPM for 912S (Randy Daughenbaugh)
22. 09:47 AM - Re: Recommended static and Takeoff RPM for 912S (Randy Daughenbaugh)
23. 09:49 AM - Re: resistor plugs - Bob Robertson (kitfox@gto.net)
24. 10:06 AM - Re: NW Ohio fly-in (Andrew Matthaey)
25. 10:13 AM - Re: Recommended static and Takeoff RPM for 912S (kerrjohna@comcast.net)
26. 10:20 AM - Re: Recommended static and Takeoff RPM for 912S (jdmcbean)
27. 10:30 AM - Re: Recommended static and Takeoff RPM for 912S (jdmcbean)
28. 10:31 AM - Re: Recommended static and Takeoff RPM for 912S (jdmcbean)
29. 10:35 AM - Mr. Kirby (AlbertaIV@aol.com)
30. 11:07 AM - Re: vent in bubble doors (Dee Young)
31. 11:07 AM - Re: NW Ohio fly-in (Fred Shiple)
32. 11:31 AM - Plug Gap..... (Aerobatics@aol.com)
33. 11:47 AM - Re: Mr. Kirby (kitfox@gto.net)
34. 12:15 PM - Re: Recommended static and Takeoff RPM for 912S (Lowell Fitt)
35. 01:38 PM - Re: vent in bubble doors (Cudnohufsky's)
36. 01:58 PM - Going Off list (Alan Daniels)
37. 02:06 PM - Re: vent in bubble doors (Fox5flyer)
38. 02:18 PM - Re: vent in bubble doors (Fred Shiple)
39. 05:38 PM - Iridium Plugs (Rex & Jan Shaw)
40. 05:42 PM - Re: Recommended static and Takeoff RPM for 912S (jimshumaker)
41. 05:53 PM - Re: vent in bubble doors (Steve Zakreski)
42. 06:15 PM - Resistor Plugs (Rex & Jan Shaw)
43. 06:19 PM - Re: vent in bubble doors (Rick)
44. 08:42 PM - Re: Resistor Plugs (Andrew Matthaey)
45. 09:22 PM - Re: Plug Gap..... (Bruce Harrington)
46. 11:23 PM - Kitfoxes to Alaska 2005! (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: Fuel Burn gas cans ... |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Chenoweth" <chenoweth@gwi.net>
Andrew,
I agree about checking your tank capacity. My "13 gallon" tank holds only
about 12 1/4.
Bill
----- Original Message -----
From: <kerrjohna@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Fuel Burn gas cans ...
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kerrjohna@comcast.net
>
> Thanks for standing tall, Andrew. You might want to check the capacity of
your "18 gallon" take. It could be just 13 gallon.
>
> John Kerr, with one dead stick on record......
>
> -------------- Original message --------------
>
> > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Andrew Matthaey"
> >
> >
> > I've got a 6 gallon left-wing tank and an 18 gallon right-wing tank...I
> > never use fuel more than a few weeks old...and I always fill the cans
all
> > the way up too. Unfortunately, I have nowhere to put bad fuel!
> >
> > Andrew
> >
> > >From: Aerobatics@aol.com
> > >Reply-To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> > >To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> > >Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Fuel Burn gas cans ...
> > >Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 14:54:39 EDT
> > >
> > >--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Aerobatics@aol.com
> > >
> > >
> > >In a message dated 6/6/2005 1:40:27 PM Central Daylight Time,
> > >spaghettiohead@hotmail.com writes:
> > >
> > >Cruising at 55-5600 I'm sure I'll be burning 4-4.5 gph...the fuel I'd
be
> > >saving far outweighs the extra mile an hour or so I'd gain - Thanks!
> > >
> > >
> > >re: fuel cans.... I rinse out my cans everytime with a bit of fresh gas
> > >from pump and pour that out into the last can for my mower and car...
> > >this
> > >assures clean, water free fuel.... in my plane... Cans are filled to
the
> > >Brim
> > >and kept in garage, in shade... and I dont keep for more than a cpl
months
> > >ever. If so, in my car it goes...
> > >
> > >Maybe thats extreeme.... but I have a big yard....LOL and mower quiting
is
> > >just inconvient ...it never has...
> > >
> > >How big is your fuel tanks?
> > >
> > >Dave
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Dont just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
> > http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> Thanks for standing tall, Andrew. You might want to check the capacity of
your "18 gallon" take. It could be just 13 gallon.
>
> John Kerr, with one dead stick on record......
>
> -------------- Original message --------------
>
> -- Kitfox-List message posted by: "Andrew Matthaey"
> <SPAGHETTIOHEAD@HOTMAIL.COM>
>
> I've got a 6 gallon left-wing tank and an 18 gallon right-wing tank...I
> never use fuel more than a few weeks old...and I always fill the cans all
> the way up too. Unfortunately, I have nowhere to put bad fuel!
>
> Andrew
>
> From: Aerobatics@aol.com
> Reply-To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Fuel Burn gas cans ...
> Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 14:54:39 EDT
>
> -- Kitfox-List message posted by: Aerobatics@aol.com
>
>
> In a message dated 6/6/2005 1:40:27 PM Central Daylight Time,
> spaghettiohead@hotmail.com wri
> tes:
>
> Cruising at 55-5600 I'm sure I'll be burning 4-4.5 gph...the fuel I'd be
> saving far outweighs the extra mile an hour or so I'd gain - Thanks!
>
>
> re: fuel cans.... I rinse out my cans everytime with a bit of fresh gas
> from pump and pour that out into the last can for my mower and car...
> this
> assures clean, water free fuel.... in my plane... Cans are filled to the
> Brim
> and kept in garage, in shade... and I dont keep for more than a cpl
months
> ever. If so, in my car it goes...
>
> Maybe thats extreeme.... but I have a big yard....LOL and mower quiting
is
> just inconvient ...it never has...
>
> How big is your fuel tanks?
>
> Dave
>
>
> Dont just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
> htt
> p://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
>
>
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: In-flight prop fuel burn |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: AlbertaIV@aol.com
In a message dated 6/8/2005 2:48:30 AM Eastern Standard Time,
michel@online.no writes:
From one newbie to another, Andrew, this is what I think:
Assuming that your mixture setting is constant, the volume of air/fuel
entering your cylinders is directly proportional to the RPM. Hence the fuel
consumption is too.
Hmmm. I'm probably gonna mess up here but I think the fuel burn rate is
directly related to the throttle position. Once you put in a set of jets, they
are fixed. As you advance the throttle, the jet needle is pulled up allowing
a bigger hole for fuel to pass. The more throttle, the bigger the hole, the
more fuel that will flow into the engine. Like for instance, on a take off
climb, you have full throttle but the RPM's are down around 6200 or less.
You are using more fuel at this time because the throttle is wide open but the
RPM's are low.
Don Smythe
Classic IV w/ 582
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: | In-flight prop fuel burn |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
> From: AlbertaIV@aol.com
> You are using more fuel at this time because the throttle is wide open but the
> RPM's are low.
Good thinking, Don! I knew I would learn something today too!
But, I was wondering, if the needle is full up, yet there is not plenty of air
entering the carburettor, will the fuel coming out be less, or - if the same -
the mixture must be richer then, right?
I was thinking to make a chart showing RPM and fuel consumption for my Jabiru.
I asked the Jabiru list what was the fuel consumption at a certain RPM and I was
told that it couldn't be calculated because I had first to attach a dynamometer
to my crankshaft, and find out the torque given, then translate it to HP,
then find the fuel consumption given in gallons per PH per hours.
... pfffff! I am not flying with a dyno, period! :-)
Cheers,
Michel
do not archive
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: A Bargain For You? |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kerrjohna@comcast.net
Jeff, there is a IV-1200 listed in trade a plane and located at Logan Utah if you
are interested in a completed kitfox. Lots of extras, under $30 K
John Kerr
-------------- Original message --------------
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jeff Hubbard"
>
> I am VERY interseted! Where do you live? I am in the Denver area and am in
> the market for a KF. If I'm not mistaken, this model can be converted to a
> taildragger as well, correct? i assume there is no engine with this kit?
> ----- Original Message -----
> From:
> To:
> Subject: Kitfox-List: A Bargain For You?
>
>
> > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: srud0fc02@sneakemail.com
> >
> > Somebody Is Going To Get A Bargain!
> >
> > Been wanting to build your own plane but short on dough? Here's your
> > chance.
> >
> > Selling Price $8,250.
> >
> > Total purchase price invested $16,500.00
> >
> > Skystar Vixen Aircraft Kit (Series V)
> > Aircraft Kit Serial # ADV-027
> > Tricycle gear, high wing, STOL performance, two (side-by-side) seating.
> > Folding wings allow towing and easy storage.
> >
> > With purchased optional extras Quick Build Wings, Powder Coated Frame, 13
> > Gallon Wing Tank Kit, Antenna Mount Plate and Tool Kit included at this
> > price.
> > The Quick Build Wings feature (saves approximately 100 hours of
> > construction time) all done by Skystar factory personnel.
> > 1) Wings built to the stage of Inserts being installed
> > 2) Diagonal Braces installed
> > 3) Ribs installed
> > 4) Trailing Edge installed
> > 5) Flaperon Hanger Doublers installed
> > 6) Top False Ribs
> > The Powder Coated Frame is in the white stock color. Powder Coating
> > eliminates the difficult task of properly painting the fuselage of your
> > Vixen. It offers greatly increased durability, chemical resistance (a
> > necessity in coastal regions where salt can ravage) and more through and
> > uniform application because the powder coating is electronically bonded to
> > the metal parts and then fused in an oven.
> >
> > Looking for the ultimate thrill and pride of accomplishment? Dream it,
> > build it, fly it!
> >
> > Before making my purchase decision, I visited the Skystar facilities in
> > Nampa, Idaho as well as their major competitors. I flew a completed
> > example of the Vixen as well as a number of the competing aircraft. The
> > superior responsiveness and performance of the Vixen were noticeable when
> > flown in a close time frame comparison such as I experienced. Those
> > experiences combined with the professionalism and the thoroughness of the
> > engineering, design and production of the Vixen kit did it for me.
> >
> > This kit was shipped to me in Jan 1994 and has been stored in a facility
> > completely sheltered from the elements. I am the original purchaser. The
> > kit is "as delivered" to me with all parts as originally shipped. No work
> > whatsoever has been done on this kit since it left the factory. It is
> > exactly as the Skystar factory in Nampa produced the kit.
> >
> > The kit construction was never started due to a series of events that have
> > culminated in my now needing to sell. I have a deteriorating physical
> > health condition that makes it impossible for me to build the kit.
> >
> > The complete kit is stored at my home here in the midwest USA which should
> > make for easy travel from just about anywhere in the country. The buyer
> > must plan on picking this kit up or having a shipper come in and ship it
> > at buyer's expense.
> >
> > No seller financing is available. I will accept a cashier's check, wire
> > transfer or good, ol' cash. First person here with the money gets the kit.
> >
> > Looking for the perfect father /son project? Here's your opportunity.
> >
> > Selling Price $8,250.
> >
> > Looking forward to hearing from serious interested buyers. Please contact
> > me directly at the below email address or at the phone number.
> > Richard Young
> >
> > Jamesport, Missouri
> >
> > Phone: (660) 684-6226 (Central Time Zone) 1100 - 2200 best
> > Email: srud0fc02@sneakemail.com
> >
> >
> > Note:
> > My decision to sell this aircraft kit in no way reflects negatively on
> > Skystar, Kitfox, on any of their products or people. With my reluctant
> > sale of this kit, I do not desire to take any potential customer away from
> > Skystar who may be contemplating the purchase of a new aircraft. On the
> > contrary I imagine that the sale of my long-stored kit will lead to
> > additional parts sales for the Skystar product line as well as further
> > word-of-mouth advertising from a satisfied builder. It will be far better
> > to have this aircraft-to-be up and flying and producing enjoyment, than to
> > be gathering dust in my garage.
> >
> > I have always found the people at Skystar to be completely professional
> > and quality people in every way. My visits to the factory and the fly-ins
> > have always been wonderful and positive experiences. I have the greatest
> > respect and admiration for the Skystar organization and their product
> > line. I will willingly recommend them and their aircraft to anyone who
> > will be looking for a kit to build. That goes for now and after I have
> > sold my kit. Skystar and Kitfox are the best in the business and have my
> > respect and admiration.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
Jeff, there is a IV-1200 listed in trade a plane and located at Logan Utah if you
are interested in a completed kitfox. Lots of extras, under $30 K
John Kerr
-------------- Original message --------------
-- Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jeff Hubbard" <JHUBBARD65@COMCAST.NET>
I am VERY interseted! Where do you live? I am in the Denver area and am in
the market for a KF. If I'm not mistaken, this model can be converted to a
taildragger as well, correct? i assume there is no engine with this kit?
----- Original Message -----
From: <SRUD0FC02@SNEAKEMAIL.COM>
To: <KITFOX-LIST@MATRONICS.COM>
Subject: Kitfox-List: A Bargain For You?
-- Kitfox-List message posted by: srud0fc02@sneakemail.com
Somebody Is Going To Get A Bargain!
Been wanting to build your own plane but short on dough? Here's your
chance.
Selling Price $8,250.
Total purchase price invested $16,500.00
Skystar Vixen Aircraft Kit (Series V)
Aircraft Kit Serial # ADV-027
Tricycle gear, high wing, STOL performance, two (side-by-side) seating.
Folding wings allow towing and easy storage.
With purchased optional extras Quick Build Wings, Powder Coated Frame, 13
Gallon Wing Tank Kit, Antenna Mount Plate and Tool Kit included at this
price.
The Quick Build Wings feature (saves approximately 100 hours of
construction time) all done by Skystar factory personnel.
1) Wings built to the stage of Inserts being installed
2) Diagonal Braces installed
3) Ribs installed
4) Trailing Edge installed
5) Flaperon Hanger Doublers installed
6) Top False Ribs
The Powder Coated Frame is in th
e white stock color. Powder Coating
eliminates the difficult task of properly painting the fuselage of your
Vixen. It offers greatly increased durability, chemical resistance (a
necessity in coastal regions where salt can ravage) and more through and
uniform application because the powder coating is electronically bonded to
the metal parts and then fused in an oven.
Looking for the ultimate thrill and pride of accomplishment? Dream it,
build it, fly it!
Before making my purchase decision, I visited the Skystar facilities in
Nampa, Idaho as well as their major competitors. I flew a completed
example of the Vixen as well as a number of the competing aircraft. The
superior responsiveness and performance of the Vixen were noticeable when
flown in a close time frame comparison such as I
experienced. Those
experiences combined with the professionalism and the thoroughness of the
engineering, design and production of the Vixen kit did it for me.
This kit was shipped to me in Jan 1994 and has been stored in a facility
completely sheltered from the elements. I am the original purchaser. The
kit is "as delivered" to me with all parts as originally shipped. No work
whatsoever has been done on this kit since it left the factory. It is
exactly as the Skystar factory in Nampa produced the kit.
The kit construction was never started due to a series of events that have
culminated in my now needing to sell. I have a deteriorating physical
health condition that makes it impossible for me to build the kit.
The complete kit is stored at my home here in the midwest USA which shoul
d
make for easy travel from just about anywhere in the country. The buyer
must plan on picking this kit up or having a shipper come in and ship it
at buyer's expense.
No seller financing is available. I will accept a cashier's check, wire
transfer or good, ol' cash. First person here with the money gets the kit.
Looking for the perfect father /son project? Here's your opportunity.
Selling Price $8,250.
Looking forward to hearing from serious interested buyers. Please contact
me directly at the below email address or at the phone number.
Richard Young
Jamesport, Missouri
Phone: (660) 684-6226 (Central Time Zone) 1100 - 2200 best
Email: srud0fc02@sneakemail.com
Note:
>
; My decision to sell this aircraft kit in no way reflects negatively on
Skystar, Kitfox, on any of their products or people. With my reluctant
sale of this kit, I do not desire to take any potential customer away from
Skystar who may be contemplating the purchase of a new aircraft. On the
contrary I imagine that the sale of my long-stored kit will lead to
additional parts sales for the Skystar product line as well as further
word-of-mouth advertising from a satisfied builder. It will be far better
to have this aircraft-to-be up and flying and producing enjoyment, than to
be gathering dust in my garage.
I have always found the people at Skystar to be completely professional
and quality people in every way. My visits to the factory and the fly-ins
have always been wonderful and positive experiences. I have
the greatest
respect and admiration for the Skystar organization and their product
line. I will willingly recommend them and their aircraft to anyone who
will be looking for a kit to build. That goes for now and after I have
sold my kit. Skystar and Kitfox are the best in the business and have my
respect and admiration.
<
BR>
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: In-flight prop fuel burn |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: AlbertaIV@aol.com
In a message dated 6/8/2005 8:34:42 AM Eastern Standard Time,
michel@online.no writes:
Good thinking, Don! I knew I would learn something today too!
But, I was wondering, if the needle is full up, yet there is not plenty of
air entering the carburettor, will the fuel coming out be less, or - if the
same - the mixture must be richer then, right?
Michael,
This requires thinking and it's too early in the morning. In a climb
with full throttle, the mixture is richer as indicated by the cooler EGT's
and, you are using max fuel rate. I think...
Don Smythe
Classic IV w/ 582
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: In-flight prop fuel burn |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Andrew Matthaey" <spaghettiohead@hotmail.com>
So, with the throttle wide-open, would you be stuffing all that fuel/air
mixture into the cylinders which are only doing 5800?
Andrew
>From: AlbertaIV@aol.com
>Reply-To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
>To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: SV: Kitfox-List: In-flight prop fuel burn
>Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 07:51:15 EDT
>
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: AlbertaIV@aol.com
>
>
>In a message dated 6/8/2005 2:48:30 AM Eastern Standard Time,
>michel@online.no writes:
>
>
>From one newbie to another, Andrew, this is what I think:
>Assuming that your mixture setting is constant, the volume of air/fuel
>entering your cylinders is directly proportional to the RPM. Hence the
>fuel
>consumption is too.
>
>
>Hmmm. I'm probably gonna mess up here but I think the fuel burn rate is
>directly related to the throttle position. Once you put in a set of jets,
>they
>are fixed. As you advance the throttle, the jet needle is pulled up
>allowing
>a bigger hole for fuel to pass. The more throttle, the bigger the hole,
>the
>more fuel that will flow into the engine. Like for instance, on a take
>off
>climb, you have full throttle but the RPM's are down around 6200 or less.
>You are using more fuel at this time because the throttle is wide open but
>the
>RPM's are low.
>
>
>Don Smythe
>Classic IV w/ 582
>
>
On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events for advice on how to
get there! http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=Retirement
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: In-flight prop fuel burn |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: AlbertaIV@aol.com
In a message dated 6/8/2005 9:43:44 AM Eastern Standard Time,
spaghettiohead@hotmail.com writes:
So, with the throttle wide-open, would you be stuffing all that fuel/air
mixture into the cylinders which are only doing 5800?
Andrew
Andrew,
I'm getting a little beyond myself on the workings of an engine. Not
sure I understand the question but, if you give the engine full throttle, it's
using "X" amount of fuel. If you were to say, add pitch to the prop so the
resultant RPM's are 5800 (still full throttle). I think the fuel rate is
still "X'. However, I reserve the right to be completely wrong.
I have to go do some work on the plane before I get into trouble with
this thread.
Don Smythe
Classic IV w/ 582
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: | In-flight prop fuel burn |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
> From: Andrew Matthaey [spaghettiohead@hotmail.com]
> So, with the throttle wide-open, would you be stuffing all that fuel/air
> mixture into the cylinders which are only doing 5800?
Well Andrew, the way I see it is a lot of air and fuel molecules, coming in from
two different doors and trying to get into the elevator. As Don says, if the
fuel molecules door is more open, there will be more of them in the elevator
and the mixture is richer. But, on the other hand, I wonder: If the "door" is
wider open, it doesn't mean that more molecules will come, will it? Isn't it the
low pressure generated by the venturi effect that sucks the fuel? If there
is less air passing, there is less low pressure and less fuel coming too, isn't
it?
Just wondering, just wondering!
Cheers,
Michel
do not archive
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: | Recommended static and Takeoff RPM for 912S |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Randy Daughenbaugh" <rjdaugh@rapidnet.com>
This is a very interesting discussion. Unfortunately I have a 912S. What
is the "Recommended static and Takeoff RPM's" for the 912S? The site below
seems to imply that engine manufacturers supply this info. I can not seem
to find it for the 912S. The max toque for the 912S is at 5000 RPM and the
max horsepower is at 5800.
I have so much pitch in my Powerfin prop that I can get only about 5400 RPM
on climb, (at 75 mph) yet it is very easy to go over 5800 RPM in level
flight - at a little over "half throttle" at about 93 mph. I usually cruise
at about 87 mph at 5500 RPM. I have been told that I should pitch the prop
for about 5200 RPM at climb out. But contrary to this, I have been told
that I am "lugging" the engine at 5400 RPM.
I feel that probably the best advice I have gotten is that the prop is not
correct for the plane,,,, but I am not sure what to do next.
Is there is a "Recommended static and Takeoff RPM" for 912S? That would at
least give me something to work toward.
All comments welcome.
Randy - 912S in series 5/7. Fun to fly, but prop not right yet.
.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of kitfox@gto.net
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Fuel Burn
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kitfox@gto.net
Here is one article read this
http://home.clear.net.nz/pages/s.parker/tech_tips.htm
The charts above are for a Rotax 582. Rotax recommend wide open
throttle rpm of around 6500-6800. From the graphs above that puts you
around the peak of the power curve, but past the peak of the torque
curve. It's power you are after for take-off and climb, so that's the
right place to be.
Now suppose you decide to be kind to your engine, and overprop it so
that wide open throttle is 6000 rpm- about 10% down in rpm. You will
be slightly down in power, but not much- that's fine. But you will be
7% up in torque (from 70 to 75 Nm). Back on that stress/life curve,
that 7% increase in stress results in a life reduction of around 50%.
In other words, for every minute you are operating 6000rpm at wide open
throttle, you are consuming twice the engine life that you would if you
pitched your prop for 6500rpm.
But you aren't in the wide open throttle regime for long, so let's also
consider cruise performance, where you spend most of the engine time
It takes a given amount of power to cruise at a given airspeed. You
get that power from rpm and torque. If you save on rpm by overpitching
your prop, you have to make up the horsepower with extra torque, and by
now you can probably guess where that leads you.
Lets say you overpitch your prop a little to give a small (5%)
reduction in cruise rpm. A 5% reduction in cruise rpm is going to
require a 5% increase in engine torque to keep you flying straight and
level at your cruise speed.
>From the Arrhenius stress/life curves, that 5% increase in stress is
going to consume engine life about 35% faster than if you ran the
engine more lightly loaded at higher rpm . And this is in the regime
where you will spend almost all your flying time.
Yes, your revs are down a bit, so it will take slightly longer to use
up those cycles, but nowhere as much gain as you lose in total cycles.
And while we are on the subject, that horrible chattering your hear
when you run up or run down or idle below 2000 rpm is another case of
high stresses eating up your flying time.
Now there are a host of other factors to consider in setting your prop
pitch- take-off, climb and cruise performance; engine cooling; noise;
prop tip speed and efficiency; etc. So you can't take a purist view as
I have above.
But still best in my view to set your prop for recommended static and
takeoff rpm, and let your cruise rpms lie where they fall. The cruise
rpm may be higher than you want, but the engine will not be working so
hard, and you won't be consuming life so quickly. And minimise the
time in that killer under 2000 rpm regime.
Leave the HALT testing to the pointy-headed maniacal white-coated test
engineers in the lab-not recommended for while you are flying.
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: | In-flight prop fuel burn |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Andrew Matthaey" <spaghettiohead@hotmail.com>
I'm sure there is somebody on this list that uses the IVO in-flight prop and
can shed some light for us! Where are you!!!
Andrew
>From: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
>Reply-To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
>To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: SV: SV: Kitfox-List: In-flight prop fuel burn
>Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 16:12:48 +0200 (CEST)
>
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
>
> > From: Andrew Matthaey [spaghettiohead@hotmail.com]
> > So, with the throttle wide-open, would you be stuffing all that fuel/air
> > mixture into the cylinders which are only doing 5800?
>
>Well Andrew, the way I see it is a lot of air and fuel molecules, coming in
>from two different doors and trying to get into the elevator. As Don says,
>if the fuel molecules door is more open, there will be more of them in the
>elevator and the mixture is richer. But, on the other hand, I wonder: If
>the "door" is wider open, it doesn't mean that more molecules will come,
>will it? Isn't it the low pressure generated by the venturi effect that
>sucks the fuel? If there is less air passing, there is less low pressure
>and less fuel coming too, isn't it?
>Just wondering, just wondering!
>Cheers,
>Michel
>
>do not archive
>
>
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: In-flight prop fuel burn |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kitfox@gto.net
at WOT in flight if your RPM is 5800 you are lugging your engine with a
over piutched prop and also using more fue than you would if your prop
was set properly and crusing at 6000 rpm with 1/4 ot 1/.3 throttle.
But this isassuming everying is in order. Maybe a you are not getting
full fuel ?
Run a flow test to know for sure.
Kirby
Subject: Re: SV: Kitfox-List: In-flight prop fuel burn
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Andrew Matthaey"
<spaghettiohead@hotmail.com>
>
> So, with the throttle wide-open, would you be stuffing all that
fuel/air
> mixture into the cylinders which are only doing 5800?
>
> Andrew
>
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: In-flight prop fuel burn |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: AlbertaIV@aol.com
In a message dated 6/8/2005 10:42:28 AM Eastern Standard Time,
kitfox@gto.net writes:
at WOT in flight if your RPM is 5800 you are lugging your engine with a
over piutched prop and also using more fue than you would if your prop
was set properly and crusing at 6000 rpm with 1/4 ot 1/.3 throttle.
But this isassuming everying is in order. Maybe a you are not getting
full fuel ?
Run a flow test to know for sure.
This was meant to be an example not actual situation.
Don Smythe
Classic IV w/ 582
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: resistor plugs - Bob Robertson |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bob Robertson" <aerocontrols@clearwave.ca>
Hi Kirby,
I appreciate you asking about my credentials. There can be a lot of
erroneous information passed around on these lists one should always
question the validity of the information.
First, Kirby, I own one of two Rotax Service Centers in Canada. Second, I
teach the Rotax Overhaul and Preventative Maintenance (two-stroke) courses
for Rotax in Canada. Third, I have been around Rotax engines since the
late 60's (opps...gave away my age!)....
Now.... The OFFICIAL gap on the plugs should be set at .020in.
The SOLID tipped "Aviation" NGK BR8ES plugs come from the factory gapped at
.018in. The "automotive" NGK BR8ES plugs
arrive pre-gapped at .030in. If you are using the automotive plugs you
will have to re-gap the plugs.
We set all the plugs we use to .018 as it seems to do the best job.
The engines seem to idle better, they seem to start easier and of
course....we can use the plug right out of the box without re-gapping
(smile).....
Hope this info helps.
Bob Robertson
Light Engine Services Ltd.
Rotax Service Center
St. Albert, Ab. T8N 1M8
Ph: (Tech Support) 1-780-418-4164
Ph: (Order Line) 1-866-418-4164 (TOLL FREE)
www.rtx-av-engines.ca
----- Original Message -----
From: <kitfox@gto.net>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: resistor plugs - Bob Robertson
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kitfox@gto.net
>
> Bob, are you a rotax Dealer? If so what credentials do you have to tell
> us what the plug gap should be on a 582 with ducati igntion ?
> I want to put this issue to rest .016 or .018 or .020.
>
> you just pointed out that CPS is incorrect,
>
> kirby
>
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bob Robertson"
> <aerocontrols@clearwave.ca>
> >
> > That information in the CPS cataloge re: resistor plugs and caps is
> > ANCIENT....... The book needs to be updated badly.
> > Rotax has been shipping engines with resistor caps AND plugs since
> > 1991......
> > If you have a CDI ignition you can use the resistor cap and the plug
> > together... If you have an ancient points engine you can run either
> one but
> > not both together.
> > I bet I get asked that question at least once a week because of that
> > outdated piece of information.
> >
> > I hope this helps
> >
> > Bob Robertson
> > Light Engine Services Ltd.
> > Rotax Service Center
> > St. Albert, Ab. T8N 1M8
> > Ph: (Tech Support) 1-780-418-4164
> > Ph: (Order Line) 1-866-418-4164 (TOLL FREE)
> > www.rtx-av-engines.ca
> >
>
>
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: | Re: In-flight prop fuel burn |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Jim Corner <jcorner@shaw.ca>
I have an Ivo in-flight and can offer the following comments:
Fuel consumption seems to follow the RPM more directly than the
throttle setting.
Mixture gets richer as you increase pitch, but since the RPM drops so
does the fuel consumption.
I just recently installed a fuel flow meter in my Model 2, 582 Blue
Head and I have the Medium Ivo In-flight.
Weather and commitments have so far prevented data collection but I
will report as soon as data is available.
The ideas that started this thread are what prompted me to install the
flow meter.
I have always believed since my model aviation days that it is very
difficult to harm a 2 stroke engine by lugging it as long as you
maintain a rich mixture, (comments?)
I may have to add a mixture control device in addition to the Ivo to
achieve the ultimate goal of Fuel consumption vs airspeed vs RPM but in
the end it will probably depend on wind and density altitude to get the
most miles per gallon.
Jim Corner
On Jun 8, 2005, at 8:38 AM, Andrew Matthaey wrote:
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Andrew Matthaey"
> <spaghettiohead@hotmail.com>
>
> I'm sure there is somebody on this list that uses the IVO in-flight
> prop and
> can shed some light for us! Where are you!!!
>
> Andrew
>
>
>> From: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
>> Reply-To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
>> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
>> Subject: SV: SV: Kitfox-List: In-flight prop fuel burn
>> Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 16:12:48 +0200 (CEST)
>>
>> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
>>
>>> From: Andrew Matthaey [spaghettiohead@hotmail.com]
>>> So, with the throttle wide-open, would you be stuffing all that
>>> fuel/air
>>> mixture into the cylinders which are only doing 5800?
>>
>> Well Andrew, the way I see it is a lot of air and fuel molecules,
>> coming in
>> from two different doors and trying to get into the elevator. As Don
>> says,
>> if the fuel molecules door is more open, there will be more of them
>> in the
>> elevator and the mixture is richer. But, on the other hand, I wonder:
>> If
>> the "door" is wider open, it doesn't mean that more molecules will
>> come,
>> will it? Isn't it the low pressure generated by the venturi effect
>> that
>> sucks the fuel? If there is less air passing, there is less low
>> pressure
>> and less fuel coming too, isn't it?
>> Just wondering, just wondering!
>> Cheers,
>> Michel
>>
>> do not archive
>>
>>
>
>
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: Recommended static and Takeoff RPM for 912S |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kerrjohna@comcast.net
Randy, it sounds like you need more pitch on your prop. static and vx 5000-5200
should get you where you will just approach red line at wot cruise.
I am getting GPS 92 kts not mph at 5200 cruise with my 921ul
my thoughts
John Kerr
-------------- Original message --------------
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Randy Daughenbaugh"
>
> This is a very interesting discussion. Unfortunately I have a 912S. What
> is the "Recommended static and Takeoff RPM's" for the 912S? The site below
> seems to imply that engine manufacturers supply this info. I can not seem
> to find it for the 912S. The max toque for the 912S is at 5000 RPM and the
> max horsepower is at 5800.
>
> I have so much pitch in my Powerfin prop that I can get only about 5400 RPM
> on climb, (at 75 mph) yet it is very easy to go over 5800 RPM in level
> flight - at a little over "half throttle" at about 93 mph. I usually cruise
> at about 87 mph at 5500 RPM. I have been told that I should pitch the prop
> for about 5200 RPM at climb out. But contrary to this, I have been told
> that I am "lugging" the engine at 5400 RPM.
>
> I feel that probably the best advice I have gotten is that the prop is not
> correct for the plane,,,, but I am not sure what to do next.
>
> Is there is a "Recommended static and Takeoff RPM" for 912S? That would at
> least give me something to work toward.
>
> All comments welcome.
>
> Randy - 912S in series 5/7. Fun to fly, but prop not right yet.
>
> .
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of kitfox@gto.net
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Fuel Burn
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kitfox@gto.net
>
>
> Here is one article read this
> http://home.clear.net.nz/pages/s.parker/tech_tips.htm
>
>
> The charts above are for a Rotax 582. Rotax recommend wide open
> throttle rpm of around 6500-6800. From the graphs above that puts you
> around the peak of the power curve, but past the peak of the torque
> curve. It's power you are after for take-off and climb, so that's the
> right place to be.
>
>
> Now suppose you decide to be kind to your engine, and overprop it so
> that wide open throttle is 6000 rpm- about 10% down in rpm. You will
> be slightly down in power, but not much- that's fine. But you will be
> 7% up in torque (from 70 to 75 Nm). Back on that stress/life curve,
> that 7% increase in stress results in a life reduction of around 50%.
>
>
> In other words, for every minute you are operating 6000rpm at wide open
> throttle, you are consuming twice the engine life that you would if you
> pitched your prop for 6500rpm.
>
>
> But you aren't in the wide open throttle regime for long, so let's also
> consider cruise performance, where you spend most of the engine time
>
>
> It takes a given amount of power to cruise at a given airspeed. You
> get that power from rpm and torque. If you save on rpm by overpitching
> your prop, you have to make up the horsepower with extra torque, and by
> now you can probably guess where that leads you.
>
>
> Lets say you overpitch your prop a little to give a small (5%)
> reduction in cruise rpm. A 5% reduction in cruise rpm is going to
> require a 5% increase in engine torque to keep you flying straight and
> level at your cruise speed.
>
>
> >From the Arrhenius stress/life curves, that 5% increase in stress is
> going to consume engine life about 35% faster than if you ran the
> engine more lightly loaded at higher rpm . And this is in the regime
> where you will spend almost all your flying time.
>
>
> Yes, your revs are down a bit, so it will take slightly longer to use
> up those cycles, but nowhere as much gain as you lose in total cycles.
>
>
> And while we are on the subject, that horrible chattering your hear
> when you run up or run down or idle below 2000 rpm is another case of
> high stresses eating up your flying time.
>
>
> Now there are a host of other factors to consider in setting your prop
> pitch- take-off, climb and cruise performance; engine cooling; noise;
> prop tip speed and efficiency; etc. So you can't take a purist view as
> I have above.
>
>
> But still best in my view to set your prop for recommended static and
> takeoff rpm, and let your cruise rpms lie where they fall. The cruise
> rpm may be higher than you want, but the engine will not be working so
> hard, and you won't be consuming life so quickly. And minimise the
> time in that killer under 2000 rpm regime.
>
>
> Leave the HALT testing to the pointy-headed maniacal white-coated test
> engineers in the lab-not recommended for while you are flying.
>
>
>
>
>
>
Randy, it sounds like you need more pitch on your prop. static and vx 5000-5200
should get you where you will just approach red line at wot cruise.
I am getting GPS 92 kts not mph at 5200 cruise with my 921ul
my thoughts
John Kerr
-------------- Original message --------------
-- Kitfox-List message posted by: "Randy Daughenbaugh" <RJDAUGH@RAPIDNET.COM>
This is a very interesting discussion. Unfortunately I have a 912S. What
is the "Recommended static and Takeoff RPM's" for the 912S? The site below
seems to imply that engine manufacturers supply this info. I can not seem
to find it for the 912S. The max toque for the 912S is at 5000 RPM and the
max horsepower is at 5800.
I have so much pitch in my Powerfin prop that I can get only about 5400 RPM
on climb, (at 75 mph) yet it is very easy to go over 5800 RPM in level
flight - at a little over "half throttle" at about 93 mph. I usually cruise
at about 87 mph at 5500 RPM. I have been told that I should pitch the prop
for about 5200 RPM at climb out
. But contrary to this, I have been told
that I am "lugging" the engine at 5400 RPM.
I feel that probably the best advice I have gotten is that the prop is not
correct for the plane,,,, but I am not sure what to do next.
Is there is a "Recommended static and Takeoff RPM" for 912S? That would at
least give me something to work toward.
All comments welcome.
Randy - 912S in series 5/7. Fun to fly, but prop not right yet.
.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of kitfox@gto.net
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Fuel Burn
-- Kitfox-List message posted by: kitfox@gto.net
Here is one article read this
http://home.clear.net.nz/pages/s.p
arker/tech_tips.htm
The charts above are for a Rotax 582. Rotax recommend wide open
throttle rpm of around 6500-6800. From the graphs above that puts you
around the peak of the power curve, but past the peak of the torque
curve. It's power you are after for take-off and climb, so that's the
right place to be.
Now suppose you decide to be kind to your engine, and overprop it so
that wide open throttle is 6000 rpm- about 10% down in rpm. You will
be slightly down in power, but not much- that's fine. But you will be
7% up in torque (from 70 to 75 Nm). Back on that stress/life curve,
that 7% increase in stress results in a life reduction of around 50%.
In other words, for every minute you are operating 6000rpm at wide open
throttle, you are consuming twice the engine life that you would if you
pitched your prop
for 6500rpm.
But you aren't in the wide open throttle regime for long, so let's also
consider cruise performance, where you spend most of the engine time
It takes a given amount of power to cruise at a given airspeed. You
get that power from rpm and torque. If you save on rpm by overpitching
your prop, you have to make up the horsepower with extra torque, and by
now you can probably guess where that leads you.
Lets say you overpitch your prop a little to give a small (5%)
reduction in cruise rpm. A 5% reduction in cruise rpm is going to
require a 5% increase in engine torque to keep you flying straight and
level at your cruise speed.
From the Arrhenius stress/life curves, that 5% increase in stress is
going to consume engine life about 35% faster than if you ran the
engine more lightl
y loaded at higher rpm . And this is in the regime
where you will spend almost all your flying time.
Yes, your revs are down a bit, so it will take slightly longer to use
up those cycles, but nowhere as much gain as you lose in total cycles.
And while we are on the subject, that horrible chattering your hear
when you run up or run down or idle below 2000 rpm is another case of
high stresses eating up your flying time.
Now there are a host of other factors to consider in setting your prop
pitch- take-off, climb and cruise performance; engine cooling; noise;
prop tip speed and efficiency; etc. So you can't take a purist view as
I have above.
But still best in my view to set your prop for recommended static and
takeoff rpm, and let your cruise rpms lie where they fall. The cruise
rpm may be h
igher than you want, but the engine will not be working so
hard, and you won't be consuming life so quickly. And minimise the
time in that killer under 2000 rpm regime.
Leave the HALT testing to the pointy-headed maniacal white-coated test
engineers in the lab-not recommended for while you are flying.
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: | Recommended static and Takeoff RPM for 912S |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "jdmcbean" <jdmcbean@cableone.net>
Randy,
Depends on what you're looking for... Max climb performance, Max
Cruise, or a compromise. I have not dealt with the Powerfin much.. only
once but...I have found the best way to make prop changes is to a static
thrust. On the ground WOT (clean the prop area before doing this) what is
the indicated RPM ? I usually start with a 5200 rpm static. If I want
better climb then increase the static pitch rpm.. better cruise decrease
static pitch rpm. Seems that most have been between 5000 and 5400 static.
A couple of questions though...
1 Have you verified that your tach is reading correctly ?? prop speed x
gear box ratio.
2 Approximately what is the takeoff roll ? Just normal not pushing or trying
hard...
3 At 75 IAS on climb what is your FPM. Is it possible that your climbing
harder then you think ?
4 Do you have lift strut fairings installed ?
Fly Safe !!
John & Debra McBean
www.sportplanellc.com
"The Sky is not the Limit... It's a Playground"
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Randy
Daughenbaugh
Subject: Kitfox-List: Recommended static and Takeoff RPM for 912S
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Randy Daughenbaugh"
<rjdaugh@rapidnet.com>
This is a very interesting discussion. Unfortunately I have a 912S. What
is the "Recommended static and Takeoff RPM's" for the 912S? The site below
seems to imply that engine manufacturers supply this info. I can not seem
to find it for the 912S. The max toque for the 912S is at 5000 RPM and the
max horsepower is at 5800.
I have so much pitch in my Powerfin prop that I can get only about 5400 RPM
on climb, (at 75 mph) yet it is very easy to go over 5800 RPM in level
flight - at a little over "half throttle" at about 93 mph. I usually cruise
at about 87 mph at 5500 RPM. I have been told that I should pitch the prop
for about 5200 RPM at climb out. But contrary to this, I have been told
that I am "lugging" the engine at 5400 RPM.
I feel that probably the best advice I have gotten is that the prop is not
correct for the plane,,,, but I am not sure what to do next.
Is there is a "Recommended static and Takeoff RPM" for 912S? That would at
least give me something to work toward.
All comments welcome.
Randy - 912S in series 5/7. Fun to fly, but prop not right yet.
.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of kitfox@gto.net
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Fuel Burn
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kitfox@gto.net
Here is one article read this
http://home.clear.net.nz/pages/s.parker/tech_tips.htm
The charts above are for a Rotax 582. Rotax recommend wide open
throttle rpm of around 6500-6800. From the graphs above that puts you
around the peak of the power curve, but past the peak of the torque
curve. It's power you are after for take-off and climb, so that's the
right place to be.
Now suppose you decide to be kind to your engine, and overprop it so
that wide open throttle is 6000 rpm- about 10% down in rpm. You will
be slightly down in power, but not much- that's fine. But you will be
7% up in torque (from 70 to 75 Nm). Back on that stress/life curve,
that 7% increase in stress results in a life reduction of around 50%.
In other words, for every minute you are operating 6000rpm at wide open
throttle, you are consuming twice the engine life that you would if you
pitched your prop for 6500rpm.
But you aren't in the wide open throttle regime for long, so let's also
consider cruise performance, where you spend most of the engine time
It takes a given amount of power to cruise at a given airspeed. You
get that power from rpm and torque. If you save on rpm by overpitching
your prop, you have to make up the horsepower with extra torque, and by
now you can probably guess where that leads you.
Lets say you overpitch your prop a little to give a small (5%)
reduction in cruise rpm. A 5% reduction in cruise rpm is going to
require a 5% increase in engine torque to keep you flying straight and
level at your cruise speed.
>From the Arrhenius stress/life curves, that 5% increase in stress is
going to consume engine life about 35% faster than if you ran the
engine more lightly loaded at higher rpm . And this is in the regime
where you will spend almost all your flying time.
Yes, your revs are down a bit, so it will take slightly longer to use
up those cycles, but nowhere as much gain as you lose in total cycles.
And while we are on the subject, that horrible chattering your hear
when you run up or run down or idle below 2000 rpm is another case of
high stresses eating up your flying time.
Now there are a host of other factors to consider in setting your prop
pitch- take-off, climb and cruise performance; engine cooling; noise;
prop tip speed and efficiency; etc. So you can't take a purist view as
I have above.
But still best in my view to set your prop for recommended static and
takeoff rpm, and let your cruise rpms lie where they fall. The cruise
rpm may be higher than you want, but the engine will not be working so
hard, and you won't be consuming life so quickly. And minimise the
time in that killer under 2000 rpm regime.
Leave the HALT testing to the pointy-headed maniacal white-coated test
engineers in the lab-not recommended for while you are flying.
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: | Recommended static and Takeoff RPM for 912S |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "jdmcbean" <jdmcbean@cableone.net>
Randy,
Depends on what you're looking for... Max climb performance, Max
Cruise, or a compromise. I have not dealt with the Powerfin much.. only
once but...I have found the best way to make prop changes is to a static
thrust. On the ground WOT (clean the prop area before doing this) what is
the indicated RPM ? I usually start with a 5200 rpm static. If I want
better climb then increase the static pitch rpm.. better cruise decrease
static pitch rpm. Seems that most have been between 5000 and 5400 static.
A couple of questions though...
1 Have you verified that your tach is reading correctly ?? prop speed x
gear box ratio.
2 Approximately what is the takeoff roll ? Just normal not pushing or trying
hard...
3 At 75 IAS on climb what is your FPM. Is it possible that your climbing
harder then you think ?
Do you have lift strut fairings installed ?
Fly Safe !!
John & Debra McBean
www.sportplanellc.com
"The Sky is not the Limit... It's a Playground"
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Randy
Daughenbaugh
Subject: Kitfox-List: Recommended static and Takeoff RPM for 912S
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Randy Daughenbaugh"
<rjdaugh@rapidnet.com>
This is a very interesting discussion. Unfortunately I have a 912S. What
is the "Recommended static and Takeoff RPM's" for the 912S? The site below
seems to imply that engine manufacturers supply this info. I can not seem
to find it for the 912S. The max toque for the 912S is at 5000 RPM and the
max horsepower is at 5800.
I have so much pitch in my Powerfin prop that I can get only about 5400 RPM
on climb, (at 75 mph) yet it is very easy to go over 5800 RPM in level
flight - at a little over "half throttle" at about 93 mph. I usually cruise
at about 87 mph at 5500 RPM. I have been told that I should pitch the prop
for about 5200 RPM at climb out. But contrary to this, I have been told
that I am "lugging" the engine at 5400 RPM.
I feel that probably the best advice I have gotten is that the prop is not
correct for the plane,,,, but I am not sure what to do next.
Is there is a "Recommended static and Takeoff RPM" for 912S? That would at
least give me something to work toward.
All comments welcome.
Randy - 912S in series 5/7. Fun to fly, but prop not right yet.
.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of kitfox@gto.net
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Fuel Burn
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kitfox@gto.net
Here is one article read this
http://home.clear.net.nz/pages/s.parker/tech_tips.htm
The charts above are for a Rotax 582. Rotax recommend wide open
throttle rpm of around 6500-6800. From the graphs above that puts you
around the peak of the power curve, but past the peak of the torque
curve. It's power you are after for take-off and climb, so that's the
right place to be.
Now suppose you decide to be kind to your engine, and overprop it so
that wide open throttle is 6000 rpm- about 10% down in rpm. You will
be slightly down in power, but not much- that's fine. But you will be
7% up in torque (from 70 to 75 Nm). Back on that stress/life curve,
that 7% increase in stress results in a life reduction of around 50%.
In other words, for every minute you are operating 6000rpm at wide open
throttle, you are consuming twice the engine life that you would if you
pitched your prop for 6500rpm.
But you aren't in the wide open throttle regime for long, so let's also
consider cruise performance, where you spend most of the engine time
It takes a given amount of power to cruise at a given airspeed. You
get that power from rpm and torque. If you save on rpm by overpitching
your prop, you have to make up the horsepower with extra torque, and by
now you can probably guess where that leads you.
Lets say you overpitch your prop a little to give a small (5%)
reduction in cruise rpm. A 5% reduction in cruise rpm is going to
require a 5% increase in engine torque to keep you flying straight and
level at your cruise speed.
>From the Arrhenius stress/life curves, that 5% increase in stress is
going to consume engine life about 35% faster than if you ran the
engine more lightly loaded at higher rpm . And this is in the regime
where you will spend almost all your flying time.
Yes, your revs are down a bit, so it will take slightly longer to use
up those cycles, but nowhere as much gain as you lose in total cycles.
And while we are on the subject, that horrible chattering your hear
when you run up or run down or idle below 2000 rpm is another case of
high stresses eating up your flying time.
Now there are a host of other factors to consider in setting your prop
pitch- take-off, climb and cruise performance; engine cooling; noise;
prop tip speed and efficiency; etc. So you can't take a purist view as
I have above.
But still best in my view to set your prop for recommended static and
takeoff rpm, and let your cruise rpms lie where they fall. The cruise
rpm may be higher than you want, but the engine will not be working so
hard, and you won't be consuming life so quickly. And minimise the
time in that killer under 2000 rpm regime.
Leave the HALT testing to the pointy-headed maniacal white-coated test
engineers in the lab-not recommended for while you are flying.
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: | Re: A Bargain For You? |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bruce Harrington" <aerowood@mcsi.net>
Hi Jeff,
The Vixen was set up at a tri-gear only.
bh
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Hubbard" <jhubbard65@comcast.net>
> I am VERY interseted! Where do you live? I am in the Denver area and am
> in
> the market for a KF. If I'm not mistaken, this model can be converted to
> a
> taildragger as well, correct? i assume there is no engine with this kit?
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: | vent in bubble doors |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Fred Shiple <fredshiple@sbcglobal.net>
Anybody with experience putting circular vents in the Kitfox bubble doors? Now
that I'm experiencing my first Kitfox summer, I need to move more air thru the
cockpit.Thanks.
Fred
do not archive
Message 20
| 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: Fred Shiple <fredshiple@sbcglobal.net>
EAA Chapter 582 is putting on our annual fly-in on Jun 25th and 26th at Wood County
Airport-1G0-Bowling Green, OH. Pancake breakfast and lunch both days. Anyone
in the group interested in getting together Saturday (or Sunday) for breakfast?
I'm co-chairing so I have a vested interest.
Fred
Message 21
| 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: | Recommended static and Takeoff RPM for 912S |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Randy Daughenbaugh" <rjdaugh@rapidnet.com>
John,
That is with the 80 hp 912 in a series 5/6/7?
What prop are you using?
Randy
.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
kerrjohna@comcast.net
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Recommended static and Takeoff RPM for 912S
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kerrjohna@comcast.net
Randy, it sounds like you need more pitch on your prop. static and vx
5000-5200 should get you where you will just approach red line at wot
cruise.
I am getting GPS 92 kts not mph at 5200 cruise with my 921ul
my thoughts
John Kerr
-------------- Original message --------------
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Randy Daughenbaugh"
>
> This is a very interesting discussion. Unfortunately I have a 912S. What
> is the "Recommended static and Takeoff RPM's" for the 912S? The site below
> seems to imply that engine manufacturers supply this info. I can not seem
> to find it for the 912S. The max toque for the 912S is at 5000 RPM and the
> max horsepower is at 5800.
>
> I have so much pitch in my Powerfin prop that I can get only about 5400
RPM
> on climb, (at 75 mph) yet it is very easy to go over 5800 RPM in level
> flight - at a little over "half throttle" at about 93 mph. I usually
cruise
> at about 87 mph at 5500 RPM. I have been told that I should pitch the prop
> for about 5200 RPM at climb out. But contrary to this, I have been told
> that I am "lugging" the engine at 5400 RPM.
>
> I feel that probably the best advice I have gotten is that the prop is not
> correct for the plane,,,, but I am not sure what to do next.
>
> Is there is a "Recommended static and Takeoff RPM" for 912S? That would at
> least give me something to work toward.
>
> All comments welcome.
>
> Randy - 912S in series 5/7. Fun to fly, but prop not right yet.
>
Message 22
| 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: | Recommended static and Takeoff RPM for 912S |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Randy Daughenbaugh" <rjdaugh@rapidnet.com>
John,
Your questions:
A couple of questions though...
1 Have you verified that your tach is reading correctly ?? prop speed x
gear box ratio.
No, I haven't. Good thought. I will work on it.
2 Approximately what is the takeoff roll ? Just normal not pushing or trying
hard...
About 350 ft at 4400' altitude, solo.
3 At 75 IAS on climb what is your FPM. Is it possible that your climbing
harder then you think ?
1000 fpm. Some times better.
Do you have lift strut fairings installed ?
Yes.
My static RPM is under 5000 RPM now. I feel the pitch is set to favor
cruise, but I am not seeing much for top speed. I have checked the air
speed by GPS numerous times. Guess I need to find strobe and check the RPM.
Thanks,
Randy
.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of jdmcbean
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Recommended static and Takeoff RPM for 912S
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "jdmcbean" <jdmcbean@cableone.net>
Randy,
Depends on what you're looking for... Max climb performance, Max
Cruise, or a compromise. I have not dealt with the Powerfin much.. only
once but...I have found the best way to make prop changes is to a static
thrust. On the ground WOT (clean the prop area before doing this) what is
the indicated RPM ? I usually start with a 5200 rpm static. If I want
better climb then increase the static pitch rpm.. better cruise decrease
static pitch rpm. Seems that most have been between 5000 and 5400 static.
A couple of questions though...
1 Have you verified that your tach is reading correctly ?? prop speed x
gear box ratio.
2 Approximately what is the takeoff roll ? Just normal not pushing or trying
hard...
3 At 75 IAS on climb what is your FPM. Is it possible that your climbing
harder then you think ?
Do you have lift strut fairings installed ?
Fly Safe !!
John & Debra McBean
www.sportplanellc.com
"The Sky is not the Limit... It's a Playground"
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Randy
Daughenbaugh
Subject: Kitfox-List: Recommended static and Takeoff RPM for 912S
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Randy Daughenbaugh"
<rjdaugh@rapidnet.com>
This is a very interesting discussion. Unfortunately I have a 912S. What
is the "Recommended static and Takeoff RPM's" for the 912S? The site below
seems to imply that engine manufacturers supply this info. I can not seem
to find it for the 912S. The max toque for the 912S is at 5000 RPM and the
max horsepower is at 5800.
I have so much pitch in my Powerfin prop that I can get only about 5400 RPM
on climb, (at 75 mph) yet it is very easy to go over 5800 RPM in level
flight - at a little over "half throttle" at about 93 mph. I usually cruise
at about 87 mph at 5500 RPM. I have been told that I should pitch the prop
for about 5200 RPM at climb out. But contrary to this, I have been told
that I am "lugging" the engine at 5400 RPM.
I feel that probably the best advice I have gotten is that the prop is not
correct for the plane,,,, but I am not sure what to do next.
Is there is a "Recommended static and Takeoff RPM" for 912S? That would at
least give me something to work toward.
All comments welcome.
Randy - 912S in series 5/7. Fun to fly, but prop not right yet.
.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of kitfox@gto.net
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Fuel Burn
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kitfox@gto.net
Here is one article read this
http://home.clear.net.nz/pages/s.parker/tech_tips.htm
Message 23
| 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: resistor plugs - Bob Robertson |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kitfox@gto.net
Bob R. Thank you for your input. WOW !! you really a rotax guy. You
teadh rotax? Do you have any course coming in the SW ontario region ?
I would like to attend.
So i guess .18 to .20 is correct. for the BR8ES plugs. I not sure
where others get this .016 stuff. But that is why i asked. I also
asked what the improvement was on the 016 gap but once again no answer.
I too have been around 2 strokes since the early 70s but I do not
own a Rotax service center. I agree with your findings and really
appreciate you setting the record straight. Like you said
information gets distorted on the internet lists and guys like you i
will go by.
Possibly this is why 2 strokes got a bad rap from some ? Because they
may of been their own worst enemy.
I just got in from a flight now and jeessus this KF IV landed well in
80 degree crosswind 10 gusting 20 knots . Although is was very bumpy
over the trees.
Also , what do you think of the Iridium plugs for a 582 ? Are they
worth it ?
Kirby ...
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bob Robertson"
<aerocontrols@clearwave.ca>
>
> Hi Kirby,
> I appreciate you asking about my credentials. There can be a lot of
> erroneous information passed around on these lists one should always
> question the validity of the information.
> First, Kirby, I own one of two Rotax Service Centers in Canada.
Second, I
> teach the Rotax Overhaul and Preventative Maintenance (two-stroke)
courses
> for Rotax in Canada. Third, I have been around Rotax engines since
the
> late 60's (opps...gave away my age!)....
> Now.... The OFFICIAL gap on the plugs should be set at .020in.
> The SOLID tipped "Aviation" NGK BR8ES plugs come from the factory
gapped at
> .018in. The "automotive" NGK BR8ES plugs
> arrive pre-gapped at .030in. If you are using the automotive plugs
you
> will have to re-gap the plugs.
> We set all the plugs we use to .018 as it seems to do the best job.
> The engines seem to idle better, they seem to start easier and of
> course....we can use the plug right out of the box without
re-gapping
> (smile).....
> Hope this info helps.
>
> Bob Robertson
> Light Engine Services Ltd.
> Rotax Service Center
> St. Albert, Ab. T8N 1M8
> Ph: (Tech Support) 1-780-418-4164
> Ph: (Order Line) 1-866-418-4164 (TOLL FREE)
> www.rtx-av-engines.ca
Message 24
| 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: "Andrew Matthaey" <spaghettiohead@hotmail.com>
I am seriously considering flying my Tree Top Flyer from here (Rochester, NH
- DAW) to the extreme SW corner of Indiana that same weekend for a
Quicksilver fly-in...If I do, I would definately like to stop by for the
fun...where can I find more information?
Andrew
>From: Fred Shiple <fredshiple@sbcglobal.net>
>Reply-To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
>To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Kitfox-List: NW Ohio fly-in
>Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 09:36:47 -0700 (PDT)
>
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Fred Shiple <fredshiple@sbcglobal.net>
>
>EAA Chapter 582 is putting on our annual fly-in on Jun 25th and 26th at
>Wood County Airport-1G0-Bowling Green, OH. Pancake breakfast and lunch both
>days. Anyone in the group interested in getting together Saturday (or
>Sunday) for breakfast?
>I'm co-chairing so I have a vested interest.
>Fred
>
>
Message 25
| 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: | Recommended static and Takeoff RPM for 912S |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kerrjohna@comcast.net
series IV Classic with GSC 3-blade
John Kerr
-------------- Original message --------------
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Randy Daughenbaugh"
>
> John,
> That is with the 80 hp 912 in a series 5/6/7?
>
> What prop are you using?
>
> Randy
>
> .
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> kerrjohna@comcast.net
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Recommended static and Takeoff RPM for 912S
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kerrjohna@comcast.net
>
> Randy, it sounds like you need more pitch on your prop. static and vx
> 5000-5200 should get you where you will just approach red line at wot
> cruise.
>
> I am getting GPS 92 kts not mph at 5200 cruise with my 921ul
>
> my thoughts
> John Kerr
>
> -------------- Original message --------------
>
> > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Randy Daughenbaugh"
> >
> > This is a very interesting discussion. Unfortunately I have a 912S. What
> > is the "Recommended static and Takeoff RPM's" for the 912S? The site below
>
> > seems to imply that engine manufacturers supply this info. I can not seem
> > to find it for the 912S. The max toque for the 912S is at 5000 RPM and the
>
> > max horsepower is at 5800.
> >
> > I have so much pitch in my Powerfin prop that I can get only about 5400
> RPM
> > on climb, (at 75 mph) yet it is very easy to go over 5800 RPM in level
> > flight - at a little over "half throttle" at about 93 mph. I usually
> cruise
> > at about 87 mph at 5500 RPM. I have been told that I should pitch the prop
>
> > for about 5200 RPM at climb out. But contrary to this, I have been told
> > that I am "lugging" the engine at 5400 RPM.
> >
> > I feel that probably the best advice I have gotten is that the prop is not
>
> > correct for the plane,,,, but I am not sure what to do next.
> >
> > Is there is a "Recommended static and Takeoff RPM" for 912S? That would at
>
> > least give me something to work toward.
> >
> > All comments welcome.
> >
> > Randy - 912S in series 5/7. Fun to fly, but prop not right yet.
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
series IV Classic with GSC 3-blade
John Kerr
-------------- Original message --------------
-- Kitfox-List message posted by: "Randy Daughenbaugh" <RJDAUGH@RAPIDNET.COM>
John,
That is with the 80 hp 912 in a series 5/6/7?
What prop are you using?
Randy
.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
kerrjohna@comcast.net
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Recommended static and Takeoff RPM for 912S
-- Kitfox-List message posted by: kerrjohna@comcast.net
Randy, it sounds like you need more pitch on your prop. static and vx
5000-5200 should get you where you will just approach red line at wot
cruise.
&g
t;
I am getting GPS 92 kts not mph at 5200 cruise with my 921ul
my thoughts
John Kerr
-------------- Original message --------------
-- Kitfox-List message posted by: "Randy Daughenbaugh"
This is a very interesting discussion. Unfortunately I have a 912S. What
is the "Recommended static and Takeoff RPM's" for the 912S? The site below
seems to imply that engine manufacturers supply this info. I can not seem
to find it for the 912S. The max toque for the 912S is at 5000 RPM and the
max horsepower is at 5800.
I have so much pitch in my Powerfin prop that I can get only about 5400
RPM
on climb, (at 75 mph) yet it is very easy to go over 5800 RPM in level
flight - at a little over "half throttle" at about 93 mph. I usually
crui
se
at about 87 mph at 5500 RPM. I have been told that I should pitch the prop
for about 5200 RPM at climb out. But contrary to this, I have been told
that I am "lugging" the engine at 5400 RPM.
I feel that probably the best advice I have gotten is that the prop is not
correct for the plane,,,, but I am not sure what to do next.
Is there is a "Recommended static and Takeoff RPM" for 912S? That would at
least give me something to work toward.
All comments welcome.
Randy - 912S in series 5/7. Fun to fly, but prop not right yet.
s such as the Subscriptions page,
Message 26
| 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: | Recommended static and Takeoff RPM for 912S |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "jdmcbean" <jdmcbean@cableone.net>
80 or 100.. one needs establish a base line to reference from.
Fly Safe !!
John & Debra McBean
www.sportplanellc.com
"The Sky is not the Limit... It's a Playground"
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Randy
Daughenbaugh
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Recommended static and Takeoff RPM for 912S
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Randy Daughenbaugh"
<rjdaugh@rapidnet.com>
John,
That is with the 80 hp 912 in a series 5/6/7?
What prop are you using?
Randy
.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
kerrjohna@comcast.net
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Recommended static and Takeoff RPM for 912S
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kerrjohna@comcast.net
Randy, it sounds like you need more pitch on your prop. static and vx
5000-5200 should get you where you will just approach red line at wot
cruise.
I am getting GPS 92 kts not mph at 5200 cruise with my 921ul
my thoughts
John Kerr
-------------- Original message --------------
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Randy Daughenbaugh"
>
> This is a very interesting discussion. Unfortunately I have a 912S. What
> is the "Recommended static and Takeoff RPM's" for the 912S? The site below
> seems to imply that engine manufacturers supply this info. I can not seem
> to find it for the 912S. The max toque for the 912S is at 5000 RPM and the
> max horsepower is at 5800.
>
> I have so much pitch in my Powerfin prop that I can get only about 5400
RPM
> on climb, (at 75 mph) yet it is very easy to go over 5800 RPM in level
> flight - at a little over "half throttle" at about 93 mph. I usually
cruise
> at about 87 mph at 5500 RPM. I have been told that I should pitch the prop
> for about 5200 RPM at climb out. But contrary to this, I have been told
> that I am "lugging" the engine at 5400 RPM.
>
> I feel that probably the best advice I have gotten is that the prop is not
> correct for the plane,,,, but I am not sure what to do next.
>
> Is there is a "Recommended static and Takeoff RPM" for 912S? That would at
> least give me something to work toward.
>
> All comments welcome.
>
> Randy - 912S in series 5/7. Fun to fly, but prop not right yet.
>
Message 27
| 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: | Recommended static and Takeoff RPM for 912S |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "jdmcbean" <jdmcbean@cableone.net>
Randy,
I am a dealer for IVO and love the prop. I use the IVO in-flight
adjustable light prop on the 912S and love the performance. For $950.00
it's a tough prop to beat. I cruise about 120 TAS.
Fly Safe !!
John & Debra McBean
www.sportplanellc.com
"The Sky is not the Limit... It's a Playground"
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Randy
Daughenbaugh
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Recommended static and Takeoff RPM for 912S
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Randy Daughenbaugh"
<rjdaugh@rapidnet.com>
John,
That is with the 80 hp 912 in a series 5/6/7?
What prop are you using?
Randy
.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
kerrjohna@comcast.net
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Recommended static and Takeoff RPM for 912S
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kerrjohna@comcast.net
Randy, it sounds like you need more pitch on your prop. static and vx
5000-5200 should get you where you will just approach red line at wot
cruise.
I am getting GPS 92 kts not mph at 5200 cruise with my 921ul
my thoughts
John Kerr
-------------- Original message --------------
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Randy Daughenbaugh"
>
> This is a very interesting discussion. Unfortunately I have a 912S. What
> is the "Recommended static and Takeoff RPM's" for the 912S? The site below
> seems to imply that engine manufacturers supply this info. I can not seem
> to find it for the 912S. The max toque for the 912S is at 5000 RPM and the
> max horsepower is at 5800.
>
> I have so much pitch in my Powerfin prop that I can get only about 5400
RPM
> on climb, (at 75 mph) yet it is very easy to go over 5800 RPM in level
> flight - at a little over "half throttle" at about 93 mph. I usually
cruise
> at about 87 mph at 5500 RPM. I have been told that I should pitch the prop
> for about 5200 RPM at climb out. But contrary to this, I have been told
> that I am "lugging" the engine at 5400 RPM.
>
> I feel that probably the best advice I have gotten is that the prop is not
> correct for the plane,,,, but I am not sure what to do next.
>
> Is there is a "Recommended static and Takeoff RPM" for 912S? That would at
> least give me something to work toward.
>
> All comments welcome.
>
> Randy - 912S in series 5/7. Fun to fly, but prop not right yet.
>
Message 28
| 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: | Recommended static and Takeoff RPM for 912S |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "jdmcbean" <jdmcbean@cableone.net>
Sounds like it is pitched too flat.... Except for the static.. Maybe the
powerfin prop twist and paddle width it is operating a little different in
the static.. try WOT 4800 static..
Fly Safe !!
John & Debra McBean
www.sportplanellc.com
"The Sky is not the Limit... It's a Playground"
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Randy
Daughenbaugh
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Recommended static and Takeoff RPM for 912S
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Randy Daughenbaugh"
<rjdaugh@rapidnet.com>
John,
Your questions:
A couple of questions though...
1 Have you verified that your tach is reading correctly ?? prop speed x
gear box ratio.
No, I haven't. Good thought. I will work on it.
2 Approximately what is the takeoff roll ? Just normal not pushing or trying
hard...
About 350 ft at 4400' altitude, solo.
3 At 75 IAS on climb what is your FPM. Is it possible that your climbing
harder then you think ?
1000 fpm. Some times better.
Do you have lift strut fairings installed ?
Yes.
My static RPM is under 5000 RPM now. I feel the pitch is set to favor
cruise, but I am not seeing much for top speed. I have checked the air
speed by GPS numerous times. Guess I need to find strobe and check the RPM.
Thanks,
Randy
.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of jdmcbean
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Recommended static and Takeoff RPM for 912S
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "jdmcbean" <jdmcbean@cableone.net>
Randy,
Depends on what you're looking for... Max climb performance, Max
Cruise, or a compromise. I have not dealt with the Powerfin much.. only
once but...I have found the best way to make prop changes is to a static
thrust. On the ground WOT (clean the prop area before doing this) what is
the indicated RPM ? I usually start with a 5200 rpm static. If I want
better climb then increase the static pitch rpm.. better cruise decrease
static pitch rpm. Seems that most have been between 5000 and 5400 static.
A couple of questions though...
1 Have you verified that your tach is reading correctly ?? prop speed x
gear box ratio.
2 Approximately what is the takeoff roll ? Just normal not pushing or trying
hard...
3 At 75 IAS on climb what is your FPM. Is it possible that your climbing
harder then you think ?
Do you have lift strut fairings installed ?
Fly Safe !!
John & Debra McBean
www.sportplanellc.com
"The Sky is not the Limit... It's a Playground"
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Randy
Daughenbaugh
Subject: Kitfox-List: Recommended static and Takeoff RPM for 912S
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Randy Daughenbaugh"
<rjdaugh@rapidnet.com>
This is a very interesting discussion. Unfortunately I have a 912S. What
is the "Recommended static and Takeoff RPM's" for the 912S? The site below
seems to imply that engine manufacturers supply this info. I can not seem
to find it for the 912S. The max toque for the 912S is at 5000 RPM and the
max horsepower is at 5800.
I have so much pitch in my Powerfin prop that I can get only about 5400 RPM
on climb, (at 75 mph) yet it is very easy to go over 5800 RPM in level
flight - at a little over "half throttle" at about 93 mph. I usually cruise
at about 87 mph at 5500 RPM. I have been told that I should pitch the prop
for about 5200 RPM at climb out. But contrary to this, I have been told
that I am "lugging" the engine at 5400 RPM.
I feel that probably the best advice I have gotten is that the prop is not
correct for the plane,,,, but I am not sure what to do next.
Is there is a "Recommended static and Takeoff RPM" for 912S? That would at
least give me something to work toward.
All comments welcome.
Randy - 912S in series 5/7. Fun to fly, but prop not right yet.
.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of kitfox@gto.net
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Fuel Burn
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kitfox@gto.net
Here is one article read this
http://home.clear.net.nz/pages/s.parker/tech_tips.htm
Message 29
| 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: AlbertaIV@aol.com
In a message dated 6/8/2005 12:50:25 PM Eastern Standard Time,
kitfox@gto.net writes:
So i guess .18 to .20 is correct. for the BR8ES plugs. I not sure
where others get this .016 stuff. But that is why i asked. I also
asked what the improvement was on the 016 gap but once again no answer.
I too have been around 2 strokes since the early 70s but I do not
own a Rotax service center. I agree with your findings and really
appreciate you setting the record straight. Like you said
information gets distorted on the internet lists and guys like you i
will go by.
Possibly this is why 2 strokes got a bad rap from some ? Because they
may of been their own worst enemy.
You know something Mr. Kirby, You have a way of saying things that could rub
a person a little raw. I'm not going to try and justify the .016" gap or
anything else. You comments like "others" and "they" are being heard by all.
BTW, read your mail. I answered your request on what improvements. BETTER
STARTS and BETTER IDLE. I also saw a nice improvement when I went from .018
to .016. Also, I set the .016 on the loose side so it might be closer to
.017. If .001 makes me a dumb a--, I'm sorry.
Just out of curiosity, how long have you been on this list? I also see
that you have decided that the list tends to distort things but you and Bob
will be OK. At least, that's the way I read your post. Well, I know Bob will
be OK.
List Members. Please excuse this post but sometimes it's just real hard
to keep quite.
Sorry Bob
Do Not Archive
Don Smythe
Classic IV w/ 582
Message 30
| 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: vent in bubble doors |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Dee Young" <henrysfork1@msn.com>
Yes, they work great.
Dee Young
Model II
N345DY
Do Not Archive
----- Original Message -----
From: Fred Shiple<mailto:fredshiple@sbcglobal.net>
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com<mailto:kitfox-list@matronics.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 10:30 AM
Subject: Kitfox-List: vent in bubble doors
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Fred Shiple <fredshiple@sbcglobal.net<mailto:fredshiple@sbcglobal.net>>
Anybody with experience putting circular vents in the Kitfox bubble doors? Now
that I'm experiencing my first Kitfox summer, I need to move more air thru
the cockpit.Thanks.
Fred
do not archive
Message 31
| 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: Fred Shiple <fredshiple@sbcglobal.net>
Andrew,
Check our website EAA582.org and click on Plane Fun
Fred
--- Andrew Matthaey <spaghettiohead@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Andrew Matthaey"
> <spaghettiohead@hotmail.com>
>
> I am seriously considering flying my Tree Top Flyer
> from here (Rochester, NH
>
do not archive
Message 32
| 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: Aerobatics@aol.com
We try to do the right thing....
Its kinda funny in a way ...these engines are closely related to the SeaDoo
and SkiDoo engines.... I remember owning a Super Olylimic SkiDoo ..I think
that was bought new in the Late 60's... ran perfectly with a Rotax single I
have no idea what the gap was! LOL
Fast forward to today and I have about 600 hours between a 503 DCDI in a
Kolb and a 582 BH in a KitFox 2 and the first winter of the Kolb Firestar 2
(503) I had a hell of a time starting it... Then a fellow flyer suggested
tightening the gap a bit. (It was a pull start and you " feel" whats going on..
I check and my gap was right on 020, his was 017, so on the spot, I regapped
to a "tight" 017, some may say 016? who knows.... but it fired up MUCH
easier. Why? I think because when we crank to start, we are at quite low RPM
and the electrical energy may be a bit lower, thus having some difficulty to
jump a wider Gap. Now, in hot or cold weather, starting has never ben an issue.
I also feel that around 25 to 40 hours, the idle seems to get a bit rough,
this is easier to detect buy a "mag check" Fresh pluges fixes that nicely.
Why they dont last longer, I dont know, but the "look" good, something is
happining. In my car they last 100,000 miles, in my Rotax?? hmmmmmm
Well, at least they are cheap and easy to change...
We learn from each other and personal experiences. This is a place to share
with our brothers of the air.
From this exchange, we should collectively be safer and have more fun.
Lets not fall into the trap of putting others down and being neg because
there are differences, as we share the love of flying... :-)
Respectfully,
Dave Patrick
KF2 582 BH
Message 33
| 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: kitfox@gto.net
Don,
I never meant this list but internet message boards in general. you
stated that I had not experienced before and i asked Mr Robertson for
his professional opinion. I will take the opinion from a practically
proven way as I did. And if yours runs better ay 016 --well great. I
have never seen nothing but harder starts on 582 with the smaller gap.
But hey that only in the winter. I don't mean any harder feelings in
any way. I have been on this list afew months maybe as I jus found it
but i am a licensed pilot with several ratings and endorsements and
have bene around aviation going on 30 years. I have flown several
differnt KF es and Avids and they all fly well.
Kirby
> You know something Mr. Kirby, You have a way of saying things that
could rub
> a person a little raw. I'm not going to try and justify the .016"
gap or
> anything else. You comments like "others" and "they" are being
heard by all.
> BTW, read your mail. I answered your request on what improvements.
BETTER
> STARTS and BETTER IDLE. I also saw a nice improvement when I went
from .018
> to .016. Also, I set the .016 on the loose side so it might be
closer to
> .017. If .001 makes me a dumb a--, I'm sorry.
> Just out of curiosity, how long have you been on this list? I
also see
> that you have decided that the list tends to distort things but you
and Bob
> will be OK. At least, that's the way I read your post. Well, I
know Bob will
> be OK.
> List Members. Please excuse this post but sometimes it's just
real hard
> to keep quite.
>
> Sorry Bob
> Do Not Archive
> Don Smythe
> Classic IV w/ 582
Message 34
| 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: Recommended static and Takeoff RPM for 912S |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@sbcglobal.net>
Randy, Mark, my friend that runs a Powerfin pitched his prop to get 5800 at
full throttel cruise. this gave him the best overall performance. He did,
however have Powerfin cut one inch of each blade.
That helped also.
Lowell]
----- Original Message -----
From: "Randy Daughenbaugh" <rjdaugh@rapidnet.com>
Subject: Kitfox-List: Recommended static and Takeoff RPM for 912S
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Randy Daughenbaugh"
> <rjdaugh@rapidnet.com>
>
> This is a very interesting discussion. Unfortunately I have a 912S. What
> is the "Recommended static and Takeoff RPM's" for the 912S? The site
> below
> seems to imply that engine manufacturers supply this info. I can not seem
> to find it for the 912S. The max toque for the 912S is at 5000 RPM and
> the
> max horsepower is at 5800.
>
> I have so much pitch in my Powerfin prop that I can get only about 5400
> RPM
> on climb, (at 75 mph) yet it is very easy to go over 5800 RPM in level
> flight - at a little over "half throttle" at about 93 mph. I usually
> cruise
> at about 87 mph at 5500 RPM. I have been told that I should pitch the
> prop
> for about 5200 RPM at climb out. But contrary to this, I have been told
> that I am "lugging" the engine at 5400 RPM.
>
> I feel that probably the best advice I have gotten is that the prop is not
> correct for the plane,,,, but I am not sure what to do next.
>
> Is there is a "Recommended static and Takeoff RPM" for 912S? That would
> at
> least give me something to work toward.
>
> All comments welcome.
>
> Randy - 912S in series 5/7. Fun to fly, but prop not right yet.
>
> .
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> kitfox@gto.net
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Fuel Burn
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kitfox@gto.net
>
>
> Here is one article read this
> http://home.clear.net.nz/pages/s.parker/tech_tips.htm
>
>
> The charts above are for a Rotax 582. Rotax recommend wide open
> throttle rpm of around 6500-6800. From the graphs above that puts you
> around the peak of the power curve, but past the peak of the torque
> curve. It's power you are after for take-off and climb, so that's the
> right place to be.
>
>
> Now suppose you decide to be kind to your engine, and overprop it so
> that wide open throttle is 6000 rpm- about 10% down in rpm. You will
> be slightly down in power, but not much- that's fine. But you will be
> 7% up in torque (from 70 to 75 Nm). Back on that stress/life curve,
> that 7% increase in stress results in a life reduction of around 50%.
>
>
> In other words, for every minute you are operating 6000rpm at wide open
> throttle, you are consuming twice the engine life that you would if you
> pitched your prop for 6500rpm.
>
>
> But you aren't in the wide open throttle regime for long, so let's also
> consider cruise performance, where you spend most of the engine time
>
>
> It takes a given amount of power to cruise at a given airspeed. You
> get that power from rpm and torque. If you save on rpm by overpitching
> your prop, you have to make up the horsepower with extra torque, and by
> now you can probably guess where that leads you.
>
>
> Lets say you overpitch your prop a little to give a small (5%)
> reduction in cruise rpm. A 5% reduction in cruise rpm is going to
> require a 5% increase in engine torque to keep you flying straight and
> level at your cruise speed.
>
>
>>From the Arrhenius stress/life curves, that 5% increase in stress is
> going to consume engine life about 35% faster than if you ran the
> engine more lightly loaded at higher rpm . And this is in the regime
> where you will spend almost all your flying time.
>
>
> Yes, your revs are down a bit, so it will take slightly longer to use
> up those cycles, but nowhere as much gain as you lose in total cycles.
>
>
> And while we are on the subject, that horrible chattering your hear
> when you run up or run down or idle below 2000 rpm is another case of
> high stresses eating up your flying time.
>
>
> Now there are a host of other factors to consider in setting your prop
> pitch- take-off, climb and cruise performance; engine cooling; noise;
> prop tip speed and efficiency; etc. So you can't take a purist view as
> I have above.
>
>
> But still best in my view to set your prop for recommended static and
> takeoff rpm, and let your cruise rpms lie where they fall. The cruise
> rpm may be higher than you want, but the engine will not be working so
> hard, and you won't be consuming life so quickly. And minimise the
> time in that killer under 2000 rpm regime.
>
>
> Leave the HALT testing to the pointy-headed maniacal white-coated test
> engineers in the lab-not recommended for while you are flying.
>
>
>
Message 35
| 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: vent in bubble doors |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Cudnohufsky's" <7suds@chartermi.net>
Fred,
Cannot help with vent location but here is another thought, on my 4 I made
the door latch with 2 close location so I could latch in the first and hold
the door open about 1/2", second location closed door completely, worked
great for summer flying.
Lloyd
----- Original Message -----
From: "Fred Shiple" <fredshiple@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Kitfox-List: vent in bubble doors
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Fred Shiple <fredshiple@sbcglobal.net>
>
> Anybody with experience putting circular vents in the Kitfox bubble doors?
> Now that I'm experiencing my first Kitfox summer, I need to move more air
> thru the cockpit.Thanks.
> Fred
> do not archive
>
>
>
Message 36
| 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 will be gone from home for the next 2 months or more and will go off
list. I will check back in when I get home. I will be checking my
regular e-mail a few times a week so I can be contacted off list.
Thanks to all
Alan
Message 37
| 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: vent in bubble doors |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Fox5flyer" <morid@northland.lib.mi.us>
I've been using the Vista vents on mine since day one Fred. I think Spruce
has them.
Deke
----- Original Message -----
From: "Fred Shiple" <fredshiple@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Kitfox-List: vent in bubble doors
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Fred Shiple <fredshiple@sbcglobal.net>
>
> Anybody with experience putting circular vents in the Kitfox bubble doors?
Now that I'm experiencing my first Kitfox summer, I need to move more air
thru the cockpit.Thanks.
> Fred
> do not archive
>
>
Message 38
| 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: vent in bubble doors |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Fred Shiple <fredshiple@sbcglobal.net>
Thanks for the feed-back,Dee.
Also thanks to the gentleman who commented on the door
latch. I didn't know the delete button was loaded. If
you get any pictures I'd like to see them
Fred
Message 39
| 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: "Rex & Jan Shaw" <rexjan@bigpond.com>
I might try those new iridium plugs, but have not bought em yet. I got
them in My honda with 120,000 kilometers on em (about 75k miles_) and
they are still originals.
Kirby,
I have been using these plugs BR8EIX for a while now in my blue
head 582. It seems you can only get them with the "R" in the number ie:-
with resistor. This means that you need to use non resistor caps. However
that's a good idea as resistor caps do fail but this way you change the
resistor everytime you change your plugs. I am having good results with
these plugs and would highly reccommend them. My Friend Graeme in Queensland
also fitted them with very good results.
As a matter of interest the numbers and letters stand for :- "B" 14mm
thread diameter "R" resistor for radio interference suppression "8" heat
range "E" thread reach 19mm or 3/4" "I" 0.6mm dia fine iridium centre
electrode. "X" booster gap. This is a gap in the feed to the centre
electrode that lets the voltage build up higher before it fires. With
ordinary coil [ kettering ] ignition this might be a bad idea but it is
ideal with CDI ignition. On the original plugs the "S" was for standard
2.6mm centre electrode.
Note these plugs are used in exotic high performance motors like Porsche
and Ferrari.
Rex.
rexjan@bigpond.com
Message 40
| 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: Recommended static and Takeoff RPM for 912S |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "jimshumaker" <jimshumaker@sbcglobal.net>
Sounds ok for a 912 ul. If it is a model iv.
Jim Shumaker
> I am getting GPS 92 kts not mph at 5200 cruise with my 921ul
>
>
Message 41
| 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: | vent in bubble doors |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Steve Zakreski <szakreski@shaw.ca>
Ditto on the Vista vent. Works 100% perfect. I can shut it off, blast my
face with more air I can handle, or direct it at my body. All I need even on
the hottest day. I'll try and post a photo next opportunity.
SteveZ
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Fox5flyer
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: vent in bubble doors
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Fox5flyer" <morid@northland.lib.mi.us>
I've been using the Vista vents on mine since day one Fred. I think Spruce
has them.
Deke
----- Original Message -----
From: "Fred Shiple" <fredshiple@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Kitfox-List: vent in bubble doors
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Fred Shiple <fredshiple@sbcglobal.net>
>
> Anybody with experience putting circular vents in the Kitfox bubble doors?
Now that I'm experiencing my first Kitfox summer, I need to move more air
thru the cockpit.Thanks.
> Fred
> do not archive
>
>
Message 42
| 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: "Rex & Jan Shaw" <rexjan@bigpond.com>
So I should use the Resistor plugs? I had heard that they shouldn't be used
because they would eat up too much energy from the spark.
Hi ! Andrew,
I think what you are refering to is that you should not
use resistor plugs together with resistor caps. ie:- you need only one
resistor in each plug and if you have a radio you most likely will need
this. As posted elsewhere I feel a resistor plug is better than a resistor
cap and consider the BR8EIX iridium plugs but don't try adjusting the gap as
noted on the box. Just put them in and they work really well with CDI
ignition.
You will find some are claiming using both resistor cap and resistor plug
together is now OK. This is probably because with the high output of CDI
ignitions you can get away with it. Well as far as I know the plug and
ignition manufacturers have not changed their stance on this. As an
electronics technician I feel they wouldn't. However there are those out
there using both together and seemingly getting no problems while reducing
interference problems at the same time so if you wan't to do this it's up to
you to do your homework and decide for yourself. However the only reason
would be if that is the only way you can find to cure an interference
problem. There is no doubt though that with two resistors in circuit you
will get a weaker spark. Strangely though you can get a better spark on some
ignition systems with one resistor in circuit as opposed to none..
I know all this will spark off [ pun intended ] a lot of controversy so
you may finish up just confused. I would suggest rather than going on the
advice of mechanics etc the correct source of info on this subject would be
from ignition and or plug manufactures.
In electronics there is a law we call ohms law. This states that if we
double the resistance we get double the voltage drop across it. It also
states doubling the resistance we get 1/2 the current at the same voltage.
Volts = Amps x Ohms or put another way Amps = Volts divided by Ohms.
Now as above 2 resistors = higher voltage build up by the CDI before
breakdown [ spark occurs ] This is an increase risk of failure to the CDI
module and is verified by the warnings to not run a CDI without a proper
spark gap. High voltage is what causes CDI failure in the main.
I have build and designed quite a number of CDI's both for road use and
racing so I do have an idea what I'm talking about.
Rex.
rexjan@bigpond.com
Message 43
| 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: | vent in bubble doors |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Rick" <turboflyer@comcast.net>
I did the same but with the cost of those doors now I think I would install
the vents else where or a different system.
Rick
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Steve
Zakreski
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: vent in bubble doors
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Steve Zakreski <szakreski@shaw.ca>
Ditto on the Vista vent. Works 100% perfect. I can shut it off, blast my
face with more air I can handle, or direct it at my body. All I need even on
the hottest day. I'll try and post a photo next opportunity.
SteveZ
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Fox5flyer
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: vent in bubble doors
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Fox5flyer" <morid@northland.lib.mi.us>
I've been using the Vista vents on mine since day one Fred. I think Spruce
has them.
Deke
----- Original Message -----
From: "Fred Shiple" <fredshiple@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Kitfox-List: vent in bubble doors
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Fred Shiple <fredshiple@sbcglobal.net>
>
> Anybody with experience putting circular vents in the Kitfox bubble doors?
Now that I'm experiencing my first Kitfox summer, I need to move more air
thru the cockpit.Thanks.
> Fred
> do not archive
>
>
Message 44
| 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: "Andrew Matthaey" <spaghettiohead@hotmail.com>
Thanks for the info Rex - but how do I know if I have Resistor Caps - will
they say on the wires or caps at all?
Andrew
>From: "Rex & Jan Shaw" <rexjan@bigpond.com>
>Reply-To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
>To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: Kitfox-List: Resistor Plugs
>Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2005 10:45:03 +0930
>
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Rex & Jan Shaw" <rexjan@bigpond.com>
>
>So I should use the Resistor plugs? I had heard that they shouldn't be used
>because they would eat up too much energy from the spark.
>
>Hi ! Andrew,
> I think what you are refering to is that you should
>not
>use resistor plugs together with resistor caps. ie:- you need only one
>resistor in each plug and if you have a radio you most likely will need
>this. As posted elsewhere I feel a resistor plug is better than a resistor
>cap and consider the BR8EIX iridium plugs but don't try adjusting the gap
>as
>noted on the box. Just put them in and they work really well with CDI
>ignition.
> You will find some are claiming using both resistor cap and resistor
>plug
>together is now OK. This is probably because with the high output of CDI
>ignitions you can get away with it. Well as far as I know the plug and
>ignition manufacturers have not changed their stance on this. As an
>electronics technician I feel they wouldn't. However there are those out
>there using both together and seemingly getting no problems while reducing
>interference problems at the same time so if you wan't to do this it's up
>to
>you to do your homework and decide for yourself. However the only reason
>would be if that is the only way you can find to cure an interference
>problem. There is no doubt though that with two resistors in circuit you
>will get a weaker spark. Strangely though you can get a better spark on
>some
>ignition systems with one resistor in circuit as opposed to none..
> I know all this will spark off [ pun intended ] a lot of controversy so
>you may finish up just confused. I would suggest rather than going on the
>advice of mechanics etc the correct source of info on this subject would be
>from ignition and or plug manufactures.
> In electronics there is a law we call ohms law. This states that if we
>double the resistance we get double the voltage drop across it. It also
>states doubling the resistance we get 1/2 the current at the same voltage.
>Volts = Amps x Ohms or put another way Amps = Volts divided by Ohms.
> Now as above 2 resistors = higher voltage build up by the CDI before
>breakdown [ spark occurs ] This is an increase risk of failure to the CDI
>module and is verified by the warnings to not run a CDI without a proper
>spark gap. High voltage is what causes CDI failure in the main.
> I have build and designed quite a number of CDI's both for road use and
>racing so I do have an idea what I'm talking about.
> Rex.
>rexjan@bigpond.com
>
>
Message 45
| 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: Plug Gap..... |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bruce Harrington" <aerowood@mcsi.net>
Hi Dave,
Considering that the 582 fires each plug twice per revolution, and cruise is
say 6,000 rpm, thats a lot of firing on a 1-2 hour flight.
Over 25-40 hours, it mounts up, and the temps vary a lot. So after 25
hours, the relibility is not as good as new. I would suspect Rotax ran some
tests which indicated 25 hour replacement time was most reliable.
I replaced mine every 25 hours.
bh
ex-582ed N194KF IV-1200, 800+ hrs
----- Original Message -----
snip
> I also feel that around 25 to 40 hours, the idle seems to get a bit
> rough,
> this is easier to detect buy a "mag check" Fresh pluges fixes that
> nicely.
> Why they dont last longer, I dont know, but the "look" good, something is
> happining. In my car they last 100,000 miles, in my Rotax?? hmmmmmm
>
> Well, at least they are cheap and easy to change...
>
snip
> Respectfully,
>
> Dave Patrick
> KF2 582 BH
>
>
>
Message 46
| 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: | Kitfoxes to Alaska 2005! |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Don Pearsall" <donpearsall@comcast.net>
They went in 1998, they went in 2002, and now follow the adventures of four
aviators as they wind their way to the Far North of Alaska. On June 10,
2005, these four pilots will join up at the annual Cameron Park Kitfox
Fly-in in California to begin their trip north. They will join another
group of Kitfoxes, also departing the fly-in, going to Cavanaugh Bay on
Priest Lake in northern Idaho.
The pilots are Robert Oliver of San Luis Obispo, California, flying a Kitfox
Series, powered by a Rotax 912ULS. Robert first flew to Alaska in 2001 and
returned on the trip organized by John King in 2002. Clint Bazzill, from
Half Moon Bay, California, will fly his Kitfox Model IV-1200, also powered
by a Rotax 912ULS. Clint is an experienced pilot, as well as a Ham radio
operator. Third, is Jim Simmons from Erie, Colorado (near Denver). While
he won't be flying a Kitfox, he will have a little more room for
"necessities" in his C-172K. Jim, also a Ham, originally started the Kitfox
List in the early '90s, so is more than familiar with the whole Kitfox
phenomena. Lastly, is Stan Specht of Lakewood, Colorado (a suburb of
Denver). He has a Kitfox Model IV Speedster, powered by a Rotax 912UL. Stan
lived and flew in Alaska in the 1970's, and was part of the 2002 Alaska
trip, so he is looking forward to possibly seeing some old cronies.
Alter leaving Cavanaugh Bay, the group will cross into Canada and work their
way up the "Trench" toward Watson Lake, B.C., with a probable side trip to
Skagway, Alaska. They will then generally follow the Yukon River from its
headwaters to Dawson City, Yukon Territory, and cross into Alaska. They
hope to reach Deadhorse and Barrow, with a few stops at some hot springs,
and end up in Nome. From Nome, they'll follow the famous Iditarod Trial to
Anchorage. Alter exploring South-central Alaska, its home via the Alaska
Highway and other points south back to the Lower Forty-eight. Look for
pictures of some big fish and stories of other "big ones that got away" from
this group over the next four weeks.
Please tune into http://www.sportflight.com/alaska2005/ and follow along.
Don Pearsall (on behalf of Stan Specht - aka Sourdough Stan)
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! --
|