Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:27 AM - Re: fuel shutoff (Chenoweth)
2. 05:41 AM - Re: fuel shutoff (AlbertaIV@aol.com)
3. 07:18 AM - Re: fuel shutoff (Chenoweth)
4. 08:33 AM - Re: fuel shutoff - Fuel Lube (Napier, Mark)
5. 09:24 AM - Hysol (Rick)
6. 09:39 PM - Kitfox 1 verses Kitfox 3 (Jim_and_Lucy Chuk)
7. 10:36 PM - Re: Kitfox 1 verses Kitfox 3 (Aerobatics@aol.com)
8. 10:59 PM - Re: Kitfox 1 verses Kitfox 3 (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 shutoff |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Chenoweth" <chenoweth@gwi.net>
Don,
Thanks very much. I'll give it a try. As for the valves in the wing
tank/header tank lines - I have a hard time imagining doing much fuel system
maintenance or trouble shooting without them.
Bill
----- Original Message -----
From: <AlbertaIV@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: fuel shutoff
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: AlbertaIV@aol.com
>
>
> In a message dated 6/11/2005 10:01:37 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> chenoweth@gwi.net writes:
>
>
> Don,
> Sounds like my valve. Thanks very much for the great advice. I'll see
what
> I can find at the local Home Depot. The only problem I would anticipate
is
> that in my plane the valve is set up for 3/8 in, 1/4 out, and the primer
> take-off. How did you handle that?
> Bill
>
>
> I have a very similar setup. My input to the valve is 3/8"
(polyurethane)
> with 1/4" out (polyurethane). I purchased a valve that was either 1/4 or
3/8
> (forget) that had female threads on both sides side. I installed a 3/8
barb
> on the input and a 1/4 barb on the output. I cut the 5/16" alum fuel
supply
> line from the header to the valve near the valve. Put a short piece of
3/8"
> Poly over the alum tube with double hose clamps. Then just hook up Poly
to
> barbs. For the primer, I put a "T" in the 1/4" outlet Poly.
> If you have a Spruce catalog, go to the fuel valves and look at part
#
> 05-23325 (1/4"). Listed as "Miniature Fuel Valves" with ball and Teflon
> seats. Notice cost is over $20. This same "type" valve is sold at
Lowes and
> Such for about $4. Problem with these valves is, they don't have a good
way of
> mounting so you would have to get a little creative (maybe an Adel clamp
at
> input/output).
> I think any good ball and seat type valve for "Gasoline" will work.
> Make sure the valve has WOG (water, oil, gas) stamped on the handle.
However, I
> think the G might really stand for natural Gas but mine has never leaked
> with Gasoline. I had two of these installed at the wing tank outlets but
> removed them when doing a weight reduction effort. Wish I had them back.
>
>
> Don Smythe
> Classic IV w/ 582
>
>
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: fuel shutoff |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: AlbertaIV@aol.com
In a message dated 6/12/2005 7:28:25 AM Eastern Standard Time,
chenoweth@gwi.net writes:
Don,
Thanks very much. I'll give it a try. As for the valves in the wing
tank/header tank lines - I have a hard time imagining doing much fuel system
maintenance or trouble shooting without them.
Bill
I agree. I've been looking for a small plastic/nylon valve with 3/8" barbs
like on my lawnmower but I've only found them in 1/4"
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: | Re: fuel shutoff |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Chenoweth" <chenoweth@gwi.net>
It's a lubricant for moving parts, such as primer pumps, shutoff valves, in
the fuel system.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Zakreski" <szakreski@shaw.ca>
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: fuel shutoff
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Steve Zakreski <szakreski@shaw.ca>
>
> What do you mean by fuel lube? If you mean 2-stroke oil, I have a
4-stroke,
> so that could be a culprit.
>
> SteveZ
> IV/NSI/CAP
> Calgary
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Chenoweth
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: fuel shutoff
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Chenoweth" <chenoweth@gwi.net>
>
> Steve,
> Perhaps the fuel but I kinda doubt it. I use 93 octane auto gas from a
high
> volume
> dealer, filter every drop that goes into the tanks, and have a filter
> between the tank and the valve.
> However, this leads me to ask if you are using fuel lube in your valve. I
> have occasionally wondered if some kind of reaction between autogas and
fuel
> lube is my culprit for the stickiness.
> Bill
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Steve Zakreski" <szakreski@shaw.ca>
> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: fuel shutoff
>
>
> > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Steve Zakreski <szakreski@shaw.ca>
> >
> > Hmm. I have had the same valves in my system for 4 years with no hint of
> > stiffness. What kind of fuel are you using? Maybe you could consider
> > changing fuel brands. How about flushing the fuel, cleaning the system,
> and
> > starting with fresh fuel. Something funny going on.
> >
> > SteveZ
> > Calgary
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> > [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Chenoweth
> > To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> > Subject: Kitfox-List: fuel shutoff
> >
> > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Chenoweth" <chenoweth@gwi.net>
> >
> > Here are some questions I hope someone(s) on the list can help me with.
> >
> > For the third or fourth time in four years my fuel shutoff has become so
> > difficult to turn that I've had to disassemble and clean it.
> > It's the one provided in the '95 firewall forward kit with the viton
> o-rings
> > (which I have replaced a couple of times).
> > .
> > I lubricate it with fuel lube but although it operates smoothly for the
> > first weeks/months it gradually becomes stiff. When I cleaned it today
> the
> > gum (residue from the fuel lube, I suppose) was not tan but a blue
green.
> >
> > A year or so ago John McBean suggested that I just leave it in the "On"
> > position and that's what I've been doing. I have the small red-handled
> > shutoffs in the lines from the wing tanks to the header and I used them
> for
> > shutoffs. They don't manifest the stiffness problem and work well.
> >
> > As a further complication the o-ring that seals the intake (or output
> (mine
> > is currently oriented to seal the output)) valve port is getting chewed
a
> > bit by, I presume, the lip of the port.
> >
> > I've essentially "solved" the problem by not considering the valve to be
a
> > functioning part of the fuel system but that isn't a particularly
> > satisfactory solution.
> >
> >
> > Am I the only one with this problem?
> > Does anyone know why this is happening?
> > Is there a cure?
> >
> > Bill in Maine
> > IV-1200
> >
> >
>
>
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 |
|
"'owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com '"
<owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com>
| Subject: | RE: fuel shutoff - Fuel Lube |
1.60 NO_DNS_FOR_FROM DNS: Envelope sender has no MX or A DNS records
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Napier, Mark" <Mark.Napier@sciatl.com>
Hello,
Don't use Fuel Lube as a valve lubricant. It is a great thread sealant but
not a lubricant. It will stiffen up over time.
What you want is the Silicon O-Ring lubricant grease made by Dow Corning.
DC-111 I think. It won't wash away with gas and is made for the job. It
is available from industrial supply or from Lockwood or anyone else who
services Rotax engines. It's used in between the water-pump seals on a 582
model 90.
FWIW,
Mark Napier
Time: 04:48:09 AM PST US
From: Steve Zakreski <szakreski@shaw.ca>
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: fuel shutoff
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Steve Zakreski <szakreski@shaw.ca>
Hmm. I have had the same valves in my system for 4 years with no hint of
stiffness. What kind of fuel are you using? Maybe you could consider
changing fuel brands. How about flushing the fuel, cleaning the system,
and
starting with fresh fuel. Something funny going on.
SteveZ
Calgary
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Chenoweth
Subject: Kitfox-List: fuel shutoff
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Chenoweth" <chenoweth@gwi.net>
Here are some questions I hope someone(s) on the list can help me with.
For the third or fourth time in four years my fuel shutoff has become so
difficult to turn that I've had to disassemble and clean it.
It's the one provided in the '95 firewall forward kit with the viton
o-rings
(which I have replaced a couple of times).
- - - - - - - Appended by Scientific-Atlanta, Inc. - - - - - - -
This e-mail and any attachments may contain information which is confidential,
proprietary, privileged or otherwise protected by law. The information is solely
intended for the named addressee (or a person responsible for delivering it
to the addressee). If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you
are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy or disseminate this message or
any part of it. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the
sender immediately by return e-mail and delete it from your computer.
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Rick" <turboflyer@comcast.net>
Does anyone know for sure if Hysol is fuel proof. I used it to mount the new
fuel fills am considering sealing the underside inside the tank with some
type of sealer.
Rick
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: | Kitfox 1 verses Kitfox 3 |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jim_and_Lucy Chuk" <thesupe@hotmail.com>
Hi all, I don't post here much, mostly just read and try to learn. I have
a Kitfox 3 project that I don't have time to work on and so lately I've been
looking at buying a flying Kitfox. I've found a Kitfox 1 and a Kitfox 3
that I'm interested in. They both have low time on them, they both are in
very good condition, The 1 has a 532, the 3 has a 582. The 3 has a far
better panel but the 1 is somewhat less in price. I know the gross weight
on the 3 is 100 lbs higher but why else should I want the 3 more than the
1??? Thanks Jim
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: Kitfox 1 verses Kitfox 3 |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Aerobatics@aol.com
In a message dated 6/12/2005 11:40:04 PM Central Daylight Time,
thesupe@hotmail.com writes:
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jim_and_Lucy Chuk" <thesupe@hotmail.com>
Hi all, I don't post here much, mostly just read and try to learn. I have
a Kitfox 3 project that I don't have time to work on and so lately I've been
looking at buying a flying Kitfox. I've found a Kitfox 1 and a Kitfox 3
that I'm interested in. They both have low time on them, they both are in
very good condition, The 1 has a 532, the 3 has a 582. The 3 has a far
better panel but the 1 is somewhat less in price. I know the gross weight
on the 3 is 100 lbs higher but why else should I want the 3 more than the
1??? Thanks Jim
well.....
The one was the original...
The 2 had a modified elevator joiner, higher gross wt....
the 3 had a slightly larger fin?
Please anyone can jump in!!
I had a 532... in my 2 with a oldstyle gear box... starter in
rear....single point ign it was OK....
Changed to a 582 Blue head E Box ...WOW! smoother, more powerful more
reliable
See which model of the 582 and , what Gear box and how much time on
engines...
The TBO is about 300 hours..and I would stick to it.....
Just one guys opinion :-)
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: | Kitfox 1 verses Kitfox 3 |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Don Pearsall" <donpearsall@comcast.net>
Don Smythe answered you with some good points. Here are some more:
The 582 has more power, and probably is a more reliable engine. Certainly is
more prevalent.
The resale of the III will be more.
The III will be better performing, more climb, more useful load more speed.
A full panel is a real plus. You can never have too many gauges or switches.
Also check out the workmanship thoroughly. You don't want to buy either one
if you have to spend a lot of time and money fixing any deficiencies
Don Pearsall
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Aerobatics@aol.com
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Kitfox 1 verses Kitfox 3
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Aerobatics@aol.com
In a message dated 6/12/2005 11:40:04 PM Central Daylight Time,
thesupe@hotmail.com writes:
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jim_and_Lucy Chuk"
<thesupe@hotmail.com>
Hi all, I don't post here much, mostly just read and try to learn. I
have
a Kitfox 3 project that I don't have time to work on and so lately I've
been
looking at buying a flying Kitfox. I've found a Kitfox 1 and a Kitfox 3
that I'm interested in. They both have low time on them, they both are in
very good condition, The 1 has a 532, the 3 has a 582. The 3 has a far
better panel but the 1 is somewhat less in price. I know the gross weight
on the 3 is 100 lbs higher but why else should I want the 3 more than the
1??? Thanks Jim
well.....
The one was the original...
The 2 had a modified elevator joiner, higher gross wt....
the 3 had a slightly larger fin?
Please anyone can jump in!!
I had a 532... in my 2 with a oldstyle gear box... starter in
rear....single point ign it was OK....
Changed to a 582 Blue head E Box ...WOW! smoother, more powerful more
reliable
See which model of the 582 and , what Gear box and how much time on
engines...
The TBO is about 300 hours..and I would stick to it.....
Just one guys opinion :-)
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! --
|