Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 02:39 AM - SV: [Off-topic] Western Norway (Michel Verheughe)
2. 04:23 AM - Re: Rotax 912UL Fuel System (Lyle Persels)
3. 04:55 AM - Re: Rotax 912UL Fuel System (Clifford Begnaud)
4. 04:56 AM - SV: [Off-topic] Rjukan (Michel Verheughe)
5. 04:57 AM - Re: Rotax 912UL Fuel System (Don Smythe)
6. 05:25 AM - Re: landings FLapperons (kitfox@gto.net)
7. 05:35 AM - Re: landings FLapperons (kitfox@gto.net)
8. 06:33 AM - Re: Rotax 912UL Fuel System (Steve Zakreski)
9. 06:50 AM - SV: landings FLapperons (Michel Verheughe)
10. 07:31 AM - Re: Rotax 912UL Fuel System (Alan Blind)
11. 07:49 AM - Re: Tail Wheel Spring (Napier, Mark)
12. 07:57 AM - Re: Rotax 912UL Fuel System (Don Smythe)
13. 08:07 AM - Re: wing tanks/ethynol (Randy Daughenbaugh)
14. 08:47 AM - Re: Rotax 912UL Fuel System (Alan Blind)
15. 09:18 AM - Which is the Left tank? Re: Rotax 912UL Fuel (Harris, Robert)
16. 09:50 AM - Re: Which is the Left tank? Re: Rotax 912UL Fuel System (Alan Blind)
17. 10:10 AM - Re: Which is the Left tank? (Harris, Robert)
18. 10:15 AM - Deke's Plane on Front Cover (Harris, Robert)
19. 11:46 AM - Night VFR (Andrew Matthaey)
20. 12:04 PM - Re: SV: landings FLapperons (Andrew Matthaey)
21. 02:07 PM - Re: Rotax 912UL Fuel System (John Anderson)
22. 02:07 PM - Re: Deke's Plane on Front Cover (Fox5flyer)
23. 02:12 PM - Replacing KFox model 2 wing tanks (Bradley M Webb)
24. 02:26 PM - Re: Which is the Left tank? (Michel Verheughe)
25. 02:38 PM - Re: Deke's Plane on Front Cover (Harris, Robert)
26. 02:44 PM - Go look on the Web Re: Deke's Plane on Front Cover (Harris, Robert)
27. 02:52 PM - Re: Re: Which is the Left tank? (Harris, Robert)
28. 03:15 PM - Re: Night VFR (John Perry)
29. 04:25 PM - Re: Night VFR (Chenoweth)
30. 05:00 PM - Matronics Web Server Upgrade Today Tuesday 09/06/05 5pm PDT (Matt Dralle)
31. 05:43 PM - Re: SV: landings FLapperons (kitfox@gto.net)
32. 05:46 PM - Re: Re: Which is the Left tank? (kirk hull)
33. 06:04 PM - Re: Go look on the Web Re: Deke's Plane on Front Cover (Fox5flyer)
34. 06:13 PM - Re: Night VFR (Andrew Matthaey)
35. 10:42 PM - Re: Night VFR (John Perry)
36. 10:44 PM - Re: Night VFR (John Perry)
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: | [Off-topic] Western Norway |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
> From: Jeffrey Puls [pulsair@mindspring.com]
> how do the peopel support themselve?
I am often asking myself the same question, Jeff.
This is definitively off-topic and, please, let me know if I abuse, but I'd like
to answer. Remember, I am originally from Belgium and Norway - which I love
- is my country of adoption.
Apart from the first photo (Rjukan) that is very special, the small villages on
the west coast are living from very small scale agriculture, fishing and state
subsides.
Because of the gulfstream, the west coast has a mild climate and they have very
little frost at sea level. A speciality is apple trees. Nice Norwegian apples.
But because it receives subsides from the state, and according to a GATT agreement,
they are only on the market for a short period of time. It is to give
a chance to e.g. American apples to also find a market in our country.
Healthcare and social infrastructure is extremely well built. It costs a lot of
money. But then, we pay a lot of taxes for it. This is a big political hot potato
in Norway. There is plenty of space for the 4.5 millions Norwegian to live
around the Oslo fjord, where I live. The rest of the country could be a huge
national park. But then, do we want that? I am sure Torgeir who lives up north,
won't agree! :-)
After WWII, it was NATO that pressed the Norwegian government to keep the north
populated, as to keep a front along our common border with what was then the
Soviet Union. Of course, that cost money.
Cheers,
Michel
DO NOT ARCHIVE
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Rotax 912UL Fuel System |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Lyle Persels <lpers@mchsi.com>
Thanks to all who responded to my post reporting fuel system
problemswith my Model IV/912UL. I've thoroughly checked most, but not
all, of the suggested possible problem areas. I'll persevere, and if I
am able to identify the problem sources, I'll report my findings.
Meanwhile, a question:
Cliff, and many previous posts, have emphasized the absolute necessity
of routing the fuel lines from the wing tanks to the header tanks so
that they have a continuous downslope. While I've done this with care,
it doesn't seem to me that it is absolutely necessary, so long as there
is a positive gravity pressure head between the top of the fuel level in
the wing tank and the inlet to the header tank AND so long as no part of
the line is higher than the top of the fuel level in the wing tank.
Comments?
And again, the question on the fuel pump. Does anyone know whether is
any "useful suction" created by the fuel pump. If not, there would be no
fuel flow to the pump in situations where the highest point in the
system fuel supply was below the level of the pump inlet. This would
occur if the aircraft were in a nose-high attitude with fuel in the
header tank only. This condition, of course, would rarely, if ever,
occur. Just trying to get a better handle on the operation of the entire
fuel system.
Lyle
Clifford Begnaud wrote:
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clifford Begnaud" <shoeless@barefootpilot.com>
>
>Lyle,
>Fuel problems can be difficult to diagnose, but there is a long list of
>things to look for. There could have been a blockage that dislodged when you
>moved the plane which could block things again.
>I won't try to specifically address your problem, instead I'm going put up a
>laundry list of things that can affect your fuel system. Start at the
>beginning...
>
>1) Kreme; can block finger strainers, clog up filters, fuel lines, header
>tank ports, fuel pump, carbs or anything in your fuel system. Search
>archives for cure.
>
>2) Mold release; fiberglass mold release is sometimes not completely removed
>from the tanks. It can clog up your fuel system at many points. It can also
>just get stuck in your fuel line making it hard to diagnose unless you
>remove the line and look thru it. It looks like little pieces of clear
>silicon caulk. Requires a cure similar to Kreme.
>
>3) Fiberglass particles; the baffles in the tanks have holes punched in them
>to allow fuel to pass. The edges of these holes are not sealed thus allowing
>fiberglass particles to escape. The particles are very small and cannot be
>seen when wet, but they WILL clog up fuel filters. For the first several
>hundred hours, fuel filters should be changed every 25-50 hours. No kidding,
>this can be a serious problem and you'll never know it if you don't examine
>the inside of a fuel filter. They clogged up my glass purolator filter but I
>couldn't see the particles. However, they did cause a slight brown color to
>be evident on the filter. When I removed and cleaned the filter, you could
>then see and feel the particles. After several hundred hours the release of
>the particles will cease or at least slow to a point where it's no longer a
>problem.
>
>4) MIL-H-6000 fuel line. If you use this hose, which was and may still be
>provided by skystar, and you use auto gas, GET RID OF THIS FUEL LINE!!!.
>This fuel line cannot tolerate the additives in auto gas. There are a few
>parts of the country where it has not been a problem, but for the majority
>of the US you are playing Russian roulette with 5 bullets in a 6 shot
>revolver if you use this fuel line with auto gas. This fuel line can swell
>and restrict fuel flow or even completely cut it off. Also, it degrades so
>much that the inside of the hose can slough off and clog filters and carbs.
>
>5) Finger strainers; first be certain that they are installed. Second,
>check that they are not clogged with debris.
>
>6) Continuous downslope of fuel line from wing to header tank. Allow NO
>point in the fuel line where it goes up hill, including over the root rib of
>the wing.
>
>7) Do you have the proper fuel line diameter for your engine?
>
>8) Pinched fuel lines. Check that your fuel line is not being pinched
>somewhere along the way. Also, look for places where the fuel line is being
>abraded. You don't want to wear a hole in it.
>
>9) Fuel filter installed between header tank and fuel pump?
>
>10) NO paper fuel filters. Paper absorbs water and once saturated can block
>fuel flow.
>
>11) Fuel pump working? I've never heard of a failed mechanical pump on a
>912, but I'm sure it could happen.
>
>12) Fuel line connections secure? If any connection in your fuel line
>between the header tank and carb is not absolutely tight and secure, it
>could disrupt fuel flow. Loose connections between header and pump will
>allow air to enter and likely cause cavitation in fuel pump.
>
>13) Carburetors. There's lots of things that can go wrong with the bing carb
>and I won't try to describe them, but check that the floats are not
>sticking. If you think that the carbs are the problem, there are others here
>on the list that are very knowledgeable about the bing carbs.
>
>14) Excessive engine vibration. This could disrupt the operation of the
>carbs causing the floats or other parts to stick and stop fuel flow.
>Excessive engine vibration can be caused by unsynchronized carbs, improper
>blade alignment (runout) and blades not being pitched the same. Also can be
>caused by broken engine mounts, loose engine mount bolts, worn mount
>bushings, worn out gear boxes and others things I can't think of right now.
>
>15) Throttle cable. Be certain that is not binding, sticking or otherwise
>capable of improper operation.
>
>This is by no means everything that can affect your fuel system, but is a
>good list to start with. These are things that every kitfox owner should
>check. The fuel system on the Kitfox is actually an excellent system, but
>there are many things can go wrong if you don't understand it in it's
>entirety.
>
>Good luck,
>Cliff
>
>
>
>>I have a standard fuel system (28 gallons plus header) and engine
>>installation in my 1994 Model IV/912UL with 400 hours. Last week, while
>>taxiing out for takeoff, the engine sputtered and stopped completely as
>>though it had just run out of gas. After pushing the aircraft back to
>>the hangar, I checked the carburetor float bowls and confirmed that the
>>engine had stopped because of fuel starvation. I then drained between
>>six and seven gallons of fuel out of the aircraft. The flow was free and
>>normal.
>>
>>Other than fuel blockage, what should I look for?
>>
>>Does the fuel pump create any vacuum at all, or must there be a positive
>>gravity feed to the inlet at all times?
>>
>>Lyle
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
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: Rotax 912UL Fuel System |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clifford Begnaud" <shoeless@barefootpilot.com>
Lyle,
Imagine the left tank is down to 3 gallons, you make a left turn which will
cause all the fuel to move away from the wing root. The fuel exit port will
now take in some air; if there is a high point in the fuel line the air will
stop there. When you level the wings again there may not be enough head
pressure to push the air out of the line, so even though you have 3 gallons
left in the tank, no fuel will flow from that wing. Don't ask how I know
this....
cliff
>
> Cliff, and many previous posts, have emphasized the absolute necessity
> of routing the fuel lines from the wing tanks to the header tanks so
> that they have a continuous downslope. While I've done this with care,
> it doesn't seem to me that it is absolutely necessary, so long as there
> is a positive gravity pressure head between the top of the fuel level in
> the wing tank and the inlet to the header tank AND so long as no part of
> the line is higher than the top of the fuel level in the wing tank.
> Comments?
>
>
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: | [Off-topic] Rjukan |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
--- OFF TOPIC - NOT KITFOX RELATED ---
Reference to the first photo on the web page from last Saturday's flight.
The town of Rjukan, in the central southern Norway, was founded exactly 100 years
ago when Samuel Eyde decided to "save the world" from hunger, by producing
chemical fertilizer with nitrogen extracted from the air. He needed electricity,
lots of it, to split the air into its different gases and Rjukan had a magnificiant
waterfall that was very adequate for a powerplant.
My wife was born and grew up in Rjukan and I became very interested by its history.
The town rapidely grew up to become the first Norwegian industrial town.
In the 30s, as a by-product of the production of hydrogen, it became the first
place on earth where "heavy water" was produced.
In 1943, the factory was destroyed by a group of Norwegians, in order to prevent
the Nazis to build an atom bomb, the heavy water being used to enrich uranium.
The story is told in an American movie from 1965 called "The Heroes of Telemark,"
starring Kirk Douglas.
The factory, called Vemork, is at the bottom of the valley, as seen from my photo.
On the left, you can see the mountain top called Gaustatoppen. In the 40s,
my father-in-law used to climb the mountain, with friends, on Sunday, to ski
it down, in the evening. The altidude difference is about 5,000 feet.
I could write pages and pages about Rjukan and its history. But this is a Kitfox
Builder list. If you are interested to know more about the heavy water sabotage,
here is a link that has many other links:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/ops/vemork.htm
Happy readings,
Michel
DO NOT ARCHIVE
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: Rotax 912UL Fuel System |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Don Smythe" <dosmythe@cox.net>
Lyle,
Back during my building process I built a model of a tank and header.
Used a 5 gallon bucket to represent the wing tank and a small sealed vented
container to represent the header. They were plumbed together in a general
configuration of the Kitfox fuel system.
I did a lot of fuel flow testing with the fuel lines in different height
positions. I found basically that when fuel is flowing down the lines, air
is trying to get back up to the tank through both the supply and vent. Any
time I allowed the supply line to be horizontal, there was an obvious
increase in drain time. Even an area of 2"-3" horizontal length made a
difference.
When I was through, it was very obvious to me that getting those lines
going "continuously" down hill was very important to good fuel flow. Just
got an email from a Kitfoxer the other day that had one tank that wouldn't
flow at all. He had put way too much extra line coming from the tank so he
could fold the wings better. He actually made a small coil of the extra
line up near the tank. Now, all this (including the coil) was below the
tank height but would not flow fuel.
Keeping those lines going down hill makes a "big" difference.
Don Smythe
Classic IV W/ 582
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lyle Persels" <lpers@mchsi.com>
> it doesn't seem to me that it is absolutely necessary, so long as there
> is a positive gravity pressure head between the top of the fuel level in
> the wing tank and the inlet to the header tank AND so long as no part of
> the line is higher than the top of the fuel level in the wing tank.
> Comments?
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: landings FLapperons |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kitfox@gto.net
Mike,
I have a series IV 1050 gross that I posted before.
The flapperons are set up as per the contruction manual and I don't
really know how you could get more of an angle without modifying all
the bellcranks.
Maybe you could point me to where is states the maximun flap defletion
angle that you say is in your manual?
Even better yet .. lets get some other IV owners to measure there
flappeon travel.
Mine go 33 degrees down with neutral stick and it works well to Short
field take off but i onl y use 20 degrees for landing. The Kitfox
Flapperons will cut your take off roll and get the weight off the gear
quicker.
Hope someone can add to this.......... or do i have an obsolete case?
kirby......
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michael Gibbs
<MichaelGibbs@cox.net>
>
> Kirby asks:
>
> >Where do you get this stuff about 30 degrees is too much ? I more
> >than interested in fact and where is this written that 30 degrees is
> >too much?
>
> What I said was, "It seems that if your flaperons extend
> significantly beyond what the book calls for, your flaperons are not
> rigged properly."
>
> I don't know what model Kitfox you have, Kirby, and I don't know what
> the SkyStar-produced construction manual for your airplane calls for
> in terms of flaperon deflection. What I do know is that the book
> DOES call for a specific set of linkage measurements and a maximum
> flap deflection angle (at least for the Model IV and later) and that
> it would be prudent to heed what the manufacturer specifies in this
> area.
>
> Keep in mind, your Kitfox doesn't need as much flap deflection as a
> Cessna or Piper because those spam cans don't have full-span flaps
> like we do.
>
> >...maybe you could measure your flapperon deflection and let us know
> >what it is.
>
> Twenty two degrees, which I thought was just what the book called
> for. I don't have my manual here or I would look it up for you.
>
> I don't doubt that there are some benefits to having greater
> deflection but wandering off into uncharted waters puts you back in
> the test pilot seat. That's OK, just be aware of what you're doing.
>
> Mike G.
> N728KF
>
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: landings FLapperons |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kitfox@gto.net
Michel,
Mine is a Series IV and has totally different Flapperon set up with 2
to 1 Differential than the series 1, 2 and 3 .
I am surprised that no one has measured their flapperron deflection yet
and posted their findings.
No where that i seen in the IV manual 1050 gross does it show the
actual defelction in degrees. Just on the POM i find referance as i
posted earlier.
Kirby........
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe
<michel@online.no>
>
> > From: Michael Gibbs [MichaelGibbs@cox.net]
> > Twenty two degrees, which I thought was just what the book called
> > for. I don't have my manual here or I would look it up for you.
>
> I can confirm that 22 degrees is what the manual for the model 3,
says.
>
> Michel
>
> do not archive
>
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Rotax 912UL Fuel System |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Steve Zakreski <szakreski@shaw.ca>
Suction from the fuel pump will only assist the fuel getting between the
header tank and the fuel pump which is why this is the best place to put
your fuel filter. The vent line coming from the header tank negates any
assist the fuel pump may have between the fuel tanks and the header. It is
only gravity which causes fuel to flow between the fuel tank and header.
SteveZ
Calgary
IV/NSI/CAP
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lyle Persels
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Rotax 912UL Fuel System
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Lyle Persels <lpers@mchsi.com>
Thanks to all who responded to my post reporting fuel system
problemswith my Model IV/912UL. I've thoroughly checked most, but not
all, of the suggested possible problem areas. I'll persevere, and if I
am able to identify the problem sources, I'll report my findings.
Meanwhile, a question:
Cliff, and many previous posts, have emphasized the absolute necessity
of routing the fuel lines from the wing tanks to the header tanks so
that they have a continuous downslope. While I've done this with care,
it doesn't seem to me that it is absolutely necessary, so long as there
is a positive gravity pressure head between the top of the fuel level in
the wing tank and the inlet to the header tank AND so long as no part of
the line is higher than the top of the fuel level in the wing tank.
Comments?
And again, the question on the fuel pump. Does anyone know whether is
any "useful suction" created by the fuel pump. If not, there would be no
fuel flow to the pump in situations where the highest point in the
system fuel supply was below the level of the pump inlet. This would
occur if the aircraft were in a nose-high attitude with fuel in the
header tank only. This condition, of course, would rarely, if ever,
occur. Just trying to get a better handle on the operation of the entire
fuel system.
Lyle
Clifford Begnaud wrote:
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clifford Begnaud"
<shoeless@barefootpilot.com>
>
>Lyle,
>Fuel problems can be difficult to diagnose, but there is a long list of
>things to look for. There could have been a blockage that dislodged when
you
>moved the plane which could block things again.
>I won't try to specifically address your problem, instead I'm going put up
a
>laundry list of things that can affect your fuel system. Start at the
>beginning...
>
>1) Kreme; can block finger strainers, clog up filters, fuel lines, header
>tank ports, fuel pump, carbs or anything in your fuel system. Search
>archives for cure.
>
>2) Mold release; fiberglass mold release is sometimes not completely
removed
>from the tanks. It can clog up your fuel system at many points. It can also
>just get stuck in your fuel line making it hard to diagnose unless you
>remove the line and look thru it. It looks like little pieces of clear
>silicon caulk. Requires a cure similar to Kreme.
>
>3) Fiberglass particles; the baffles in the tanks have holes punched in
them
>to allow fuel to pass. The edges of these holes are not sealed thus
allowing
>fiberglass particles to escape. The particles are very small and cannot be
>seen when wet, but they WILL clog up fuel filters. For the first several
>hundred hours, fuel filters should be changed every 25-50 hours. No
kidding,
>this can be a serious problem and you'll never know it if you don't examine
>the inside of a fuel filter. They clogged up my glass purolator filter but
I
>couldn't see the particles. However, they did cause a slight brown color to
>be evident on the filter. When I removed and cleaned the filter, you could
>then see and feel the particles. After several hundred hours the release of
>the particles will cease or at least slow to a point where it's no longer a
>problem.
>
>4) MIL-H-6000 fuel line. If you use this hose, which was and may still be
>provided by skystar, and you use auto gas, GET RID OF THIS FUEL LINE!!!.
>This fuel line cannot tolerate the additives in auto gas. There are a few
>parts of the country where it has not been a problem, but for the majority
>of the US you are playing Russian roulette with 5 bullets in a 6 shot
>revolver if you use this fuel line with auto gas. This fuel line can swell
>and restrict fuel flow or even completely cut it off. Also, it degrades so
>much that the inside of the hose can slough off and clog filters and carbs.
>
>5) Finger strainers; first be certain that they are installed. Second,
>check that they are not clogged with debris.
>
>6) Continuous downslope of fuel line from wing to header tank. Allow NO
>point in the fuel line where it goes up hill, including over the root rib
of
>the wing.
>
>7) Do you have the proper fuel line diameter for your engine?
>
>8) Pinched fuel lines. Check that your fuel line is not being pinched
>somewhere along the way. Also, look for places where the fuel line is being
>abraded. You don't want to wear a hole in it.
>
>9) Fuel filter installed between header tank and fuel pump?
>
>10) NO paper fuel filters. Paper absorbs water and once saturated can block
>fuel flow.
>
>11) Fuel pump working? I've never heard of a failed mechanical pump on a
>912, but I'm sure it could happen.
>
>12) Fuel line connections secure? If any connection in your fuel line
>between the header tank and carb is not absolutely tight and secure, it
>could disrupt fuel flow. Loose connections between header and pump will
>allow air to enter and likely cause cavitation in fuel pump.
>
>13) Carburetors. There's lots of things that can go wrong with the bing
carb
>and I won't try to describe them, but check that the floats are not
>sticking. If you think that the carbs are the problem, there are others
here
>on the list that are very knowledgeable about the bing carbs.
>
>14) Excessive engine vibration. This could disrupt the operation of the
>carbs causing the floats or other parts to stick and stop fuel flow.
>Excessive engine vibration can be caused by unsynchronized carbs, improper
>blade alignment (runout) and blades not being pitched the same. Also can be
>caused by broken engine mounts, loose engine mount bolts, worn mount
>bushings, worn out gear boxes and others things I can't think of right now.
>
>15) Throttle cable. Be certain that is not binding, sticking or otherwise
>capable of improper operation.
>
>This is by no means everything that can affect your fuel system, but is a
>good list to start with. These are things that every kitfox owner should
>check. The fuel system on the Kitfox is actually an excellent system, but
>there are many things can go wrong if you don't understand it in it's
>entirety.
>
>Good luck,
>Cliff
>
>
>
>>I have a standard fuel system (28 gallons plus header) and engine
>>installation in my 1994 Model IV/912UL with 400 hours. Last week, while
>>taxiing out for takeoff, the engine sputtered and stopped completely as
>>though it had just run out of gas. After pushing the aircraft back to
>>the hangar, I checked the carburetor float bowls and confirmed that the
>>engine had stopped because of fuel starvation. I then drained between
>>six and seven gallons of fuel out of the aircraft. The flow was free and
>>normal.
>>
>>Other than fuel blockage, what should I look for?
>>
>>Does the fuel pump create any vacuum at all, or must there be a positive
>>gravity feed to the inlet at all times?
>>
>>Lyle
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
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: | landings FLapperons |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
> From: kitfox@gto.net
> Mine is a Series IV and has totally different Flapperon set up with 2
> to 1 Differential than the series 1, 2 and 3 .
Kirby, my friend! Come and sit on the laps of grandpa Michel, I have something
to tell you:
You are perfectly right to question the list. Discussing every aspect of our aircraft
is what makes us learn and fly safer. Even Lyle's fuel starvation problem,
with a different engine than mine, is worth reading every word of it. It may
safe my life, one day.
Now, about the flaperons: Yes, I know my model 3 has different ones, I wrote that
in my first post, and yes, I measured myself the deflection (it is required
by my annual inspection) to be 10 degrees.
This being said, I have no idea what it would mean in terms of safety to increase
that angle. I read the list avidly and try to learn from it. Is 30 degrees
to much for you? I wouldn't know and even if I had an idea, I would be too afraid
to give you a wrong advice.
I never use the flaps. But, after reading this discussion, I tried it, a few days
ago. Even with only 10 degrees, I found the experience to be awkward. Yet,
I'd like to try more, even increase my flaps to maybe 15 or even 20 degrees. It
would be nice to discover a new side of my plane, I think. But I'll do it very
slowly, step by step.
... ok, now you can get off my laps, you're heavier than I thought! :-) But keep
smiling, my friend! Life is good and flying Kitfoxes is fun!
Cheers,
Michel
do not archive
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: | Rotax 912UL Fuel System |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Alan Blind <alanblind@direcway.com>
Don
Good write up of your testing. Must be the Nuclear Navy training from your
past life.
I would also add that any build up of air inside the header tank is
detrimental to good fuel flows. I have found the smaller diameter vent line
from the header tank to the right wing tank does not work well if you fill
the tank above the vent return entry point.
To address this problem of removing the air from the header tank, on the
initial filling from a fully drained fuel system, I first fill the left
wing tank, then wait several hours before filling the right tank. In the
process of equalizing level from left to right, the air in the header tank
is pushed out from the head of fuel. I also rock the wings to help the air
removal.
After the initial fill and fully venting the air from the header tank,
filling of the wing tanks returns to the normal procedure of filling either
tank in any order.
I agree with others who commented that the KitFox fuel system is the weak
link.
Alan Blind
N61AB
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Don Smythe
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Rotax 912UL Fuel System
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Don Smythe" <dosmythe@cox.net>
Lyle,
Back during my building process I built a model of a tank and header.
Used a 5 gallon bucket to represent the wing tank and a small sealed vented
container to represent the header. They were plumbed together in a general
configuration of the Kitfox fuel system.
I did a lot of fuel flow testing with the fuel lines in different height
positions. I found basically that when fuel is flowing down the lines, air
is trying to get back up to the tank through both the supply and vent. Any
time I allowed the supply line to be horizontal, there was an obvious
increase in drain time. Even an area of 2"-3" horizontal length made a
difference.
When I was through, it was very obvious to me that getting those lines
going "continuously" down hill was very important to good fuel flow. Just
got an email from a Kitfoxer the other day that had one tank that wouldn't
flow at all. He had put way too much extra line coming from the tank so he
could fold the wings better. He actually made a small coil of the extra
line up near the tank. Now, all this (including the coil) was below the
tank height but would not flow fuel.
Keeping those lines going down hill makes a "big" difference.
Don Smythe
Classic IV W/ 582
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lyle Persels" <lpers@mchsi.com>
> it doesn't seem to me that it is absolutely necessary, so long as
> there is a positive gravity pressure head between the top of the fuel
> level in the wing tank and the inlet to the header tank AND so long as
> no part of the line is higher than the top of the fuel level in the wing
tank.
> Comments?
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: Tail Wheel Spring |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Napier, Mark" <Mark.Napier@sciatl.com>
Hello Ray,
I just replaced my spring *again* on my KFIII. I bought a single leaf
spring last year and it failed during a ground loop. Fortunately very
little damage to the airframe. I hope to start taxing again this weekend.
So I bought that 3-spring kit from Skystar. It was in stock.
That "glued in" bolt was easy to get out. I cut an access hole on the left
side just forward of the bolt. There was only one place that the access
ring would fit. I used Skystar's method of Polytak'ing on the ring and
tacking the slit fabric "fingers" over the ring to hold it in place. A few
whacks from a hammer drove the old bolt out.
FWIW,
Mark Napier
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "RAY Gignac" <KITFOXPILOT@msn.com>
I am about to upgrade from a two leaf spring to the three leaf spring from
Skystar. I was reading the builders manual, and I read that the main attach
bolt is epoxied in place before covering! the new spring comes with a
longer bolt. What is the method for removing the old bolt so the new one
can be installed? Oh, I fly a model IV, 1200, scott tail wheel!
Ray
- - - - - - - 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.
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<META NAME"Generator" CONTENT"MS Exchange Server version 5.5.2658.2">
Re: Tail Wheel Spring
Hello Ray,
I just replaced my spring *again* on my KFIII. I bought a single leaf spring last
year and it failed during a ground loop. Fortunately very little damage to
the airframe. I hope to start taxing again this weekend.
So I bought that 3-spring kit from Skystar. It was in stock.
That glued in bolt was easy to get out. I cut an access hole on the left side just
forward of the bolt. There was only one place that the access ring would fit.
I used Skystar's method of Polytak'ing on the ring and tacking the slit fabric
fingers over the ring to hold it in place. A few whacks from a hammer drove
the old bolt out.
FWIW,
Mark Napier
-- Kitfox-List message posted by: RAY Gignac KITFOXPILOT@msn.com
I am about to upgrade from a two leaf spring to the three leaf spring from Skystar.
I was reading the builders manual, and I read that the main attach bolt is
epoxied in place before covering! the new spring comes with a longer bolt. What
is the method for removing the old bolt so the new one can be installed? Oh,
I fly a model IV, 1200, scott tail wheel!
Ray
- - - - - - - 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 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: Rotax 912UL Fuel System |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Don Smythe" <dosmythe@cox.net>
Alan,
See below,
Don Smythe
Classic IV W/ 582
> Don
> Good write up of your testing. Must be the Nuclear Navy training from
> your
> past life.
Thanks, that may have something to do with it. I love testing and looking
at things.
> detrimental to good fuel flows. I have found the smaller diameter vent
> line
> from the header tank to the right wing tank does not work well if you fill
> the tank above the vent return entry point.
When I had my tanks cut open I thought very seriously about extending the
internal vent connection to outboard of the filler cap just so that line
would always vent into a void that was fluid free. However, I couldn't see
any difference in the venting whether it went into a fluid or not. I did
look at this a bit on my test rig.
> To address this problem of removing the air from the header tank, on the
> initial filling from a fully drained fuel system, I first fill the left
> wing tank, then wait several hours before filling the right tank. In the
> process of equalizing level from left to right, the air in the header tank
> is pushed out from the head of fuel. I also rock the wings to help the
> air
> removal.
I have clear Poly lines. When I fill (empty system) I just pour the gas to
it. My header will vent off in just a few minutes. This is where the
"continious" down hill fuel lines really show their worth.
> I agree with others who commented that the KitFox fuel system is the weak
> link.
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: | wing tanks/ethynol |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Randy Daughenbaugh" <rjdaugh@rapidnet.com>
Just a caution. Some of this discussion sounds like it could be creating a
great place to spark. And thus create a real hazard!
Remember, the whole goal here is to allow a place AWAY from the gas fumes
for the spark if there is some static to discharge. Don't make your first
connection near the tank!
Doing nothing and relying on the "too slow to spark" discharge from the
plastic tank may be safer.
Randy
.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Perry
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: wing tanks/ethynol
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "John Perry" <eskflyer@pld.com>
HEHEHEH to funny . Ok i forgot to say you are supposed to attach the ground
/ static wire from the ground stake /or from the fuel pump island . Or you
could attach a wire from your own plastic tanks to a ground on you airplane
and to the earth . I would hide a long ground spike in the tarmac near my
hanger to attach my ground wire to. Just dont tell em i told you to do it .
Fly safe fly low fly slow
John Perry
-------Original Message-------
From: Marco Menezes
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: wing tanks/ethynol
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Marco Menezes <msm_9949@yahoo.com>
So I'm out there on the ramp, filling my tanks from 5 gal plastic cans. I
have a copper rod connected to my gear leg. But how is this set-up grounded?
Doesn't something have to actually penetrate the earth to provide an
effective, static suppressing "ground?" Local airport management frowns
when I pound metal stakes through the tarmac.
John Perry <eskflyer@pld.com> wrote:
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "John Perry"
I attach mine to the gear leg and to the copper rod when refueling . when
pulling out rod leave ground on it then disconnect ground from gear leg
Hope this helps ya .
Fly safe fly low fly slow
Do not archive
John Perry
-------Original Message-------
From: John Anderson
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: wing tanks/ethynol
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "John Anderson" com>
Where best to ground the a/c like a kitfox? Fuel tank neck, exhaust pipe,
funnel? ~j~
From: Jim Crowder
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: wing tanks/ethynol
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Jim Crowder
At 07:31 AM 8/28/2005, you wrote:
>Hi guys
>This idea of attaching a grounding strap should be a must.Some years
>past over at the aurora
>IL. (ARR) airport a mechanic drained fuel from an airplane he was
>working on using a plastic gas can and plastic funnel.The result was
>5 million in damages .The hangar and all the aircraft inside were
>destroyed.The good news was that no one was seriously hurt.
>
>Joe
My nephew, who also happens to be a pilot, owns a recreational
vehicle business in Louisville, Ky. Two of his mechanics had an RV
over a service pit, and as a part of the work needed to drain the
fuel from the tank so the tank could be removed. They had done this
an infinite number of times before. While the fuel was draining, it
ignited in the catch tank from static electricity. To exit the pit
they had to climb a metal latter at one end, and roll out from under
the very large vehicle. It happened so fast, that when I talked with
them a week latter, neither could even remember who went up the latter
first!
By the time they were out from under the vehicle, it was far too late
for fire extinguishers they had on hand. They all exited the
building, shut the overhead doors, and waited for the fire department
to deal with it. The building was gutted and of course the vehicles
within. I always remember that fire when draining fuel.
Jim Crowder
Marco Menezes
Model 2 582 N99KX
---------------------------------
Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.
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: | Rotax 912UL Fuel System |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Alan Blind <alanblind@direcway.com>
Don
Again, very good comments. For the list, allow me to put my engineer hat on
to explain, in my view, why the vent system is not "sailor proof". As Don
says, if you fill both tanks, the header tank will eventually vent, but
everything has to be "just right".
To add to Don's testing;
Think of the fuel system as a "U" tube manometer with the header tank at the
lowest point. If you poor liquid into both ends of the open manometer at
the same time, air will be trapped at the low point. Because the vent
return line on our Kitfox is below the liquid level of the right tank, as
Don points out, the simple U tube model is an accurate representation. If
the vent line was higher in the tank, the trapped air would be easily vented
on initial fill.
Now, how does the trapped air get out? If we have a pump trying to take
suction from this trapped air, we have a problem. Our pumps will NOT move
air. The pump will not move the air and the engine stops running.
The only other way the trapped air has to get out is 1) join the fluid as a
mixture due to the low partial pressure and 2) because of the bouncy effect,
bubbles can and will travel up the small diameter vent tube (which is now
filled with fuel). Bouncy is the most practical transfer mechanism on
initial venting. However, relative to the specific volume of fuel, the
specific volume of air (which is a gas) is very large. That is why
designers always make vent lines much larger then needed strictly for
liquids, unless there is another driving source. The bubbles will
eventually find their way out, but how do you know when this is complete?
Now, go back to the empty manometer example. Fill from one side only. The
head from the filled side will compress the air trapped in the lowest
portion of the manometer, our header tank. Since the vent line and the
larger diameter fuel line is still open to atmosphere on the right side, the
higher pressure in the tank will flow to the lower pressure right side fuel
tank. We will see the rising level of liquid in the clear vent line, not
bubbles! This way we know for certain the air has been fully displaced, even
if the slope of the vent line and the fuel line was not perfect.
However, proper sloping of the vent remains very important. Go back to
partial pressure. When we operate or aircraft, pressure is reduced in the
header tank from the suction of the mechanical pump and the higher velocity
of the moving liquid. When pressure is reduced below the partial pressure,
the trapped gasses in the fuel are released and travel to the top of the
header tank from bouncy. If it were not for the vent line, these gasses
would ultimately blanket the tank, displacing the liquid and causing the
disruption of flow to the mechanical pump. Bouncy up the small vent line is
again required, but the amount of gaseous mixture to be vented is very small
and the design works best, IF THERE IS A CONTINIOUS DOWNHILL SLOPE!
Alan Blind
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Don Smythe
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Rotax 912UL Fuel System
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Don Smythe" <dosmythe@cox.net>
Alan,
See below,
Don Smythe
Classic IV W/ 582
> Don
> Good write up of your testing. Must be the Nuclear Navy training from
> your past life.
Thanks, that may have something to do with it. I love testing and looking
at things.
> detrimental to good fuel flows. I have found the smaller diameter
> vent line from the header tank to the right wing tank does not work
> well if you fill the tank above the vent return entry point.
When I had my tanks cut open I thought very seriously about extending the
internal vent connection to outboard of the filler cap just so that line
would always vent into a void that was fluid free. However, I couldn't see
any difference in the venting whether it went into a fluid or not. I did
look at this a bit on my test rig.
> To address this problem of removing the air from the header tank, on
> the initial filling from a fully drained fuel system, I first fill
> the left wing tank, then wait several hours before filling the right
> tank. In the process of equalizing level from left to right, the air
> in the header tank is pushed out from the head of fuel. I also rock
> the wings to help the air removal.
I have clear Poly lines. When I fill (empty system) I just pour the gas to
it. My header will vent off in just a few minutes. This is where the
"continious" down hill fuel lines really show their worth.
> I agree with others who commented that the KitFox fuel system is the
> weak link.
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 |
|
System
| Subject: | Rotax 912UL Fuel |
System
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Harris, Robert" <Robert_Harris@intuit.com>
Which Left tank should be filled first? The left tank, while sitting in the
plane facing the prop?
Robert
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: | Rotax 912UL Fuel System |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Alan Blind <alanblind@direcway.com>
Robert - Follow your vent line from the header tank to the fuel tank. Fill
the opposite tank first. This only applies if this is the initial fill from
dry conditions. - Alan Blind
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Harris, Robert
Subject: Which is the Left tank? RE: Kitfox-List: Rotax 912UL Fuel System
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Harris, Robert"
--> <Robert_Harris@intuit.com>
Which Left tank should be filled first? The left tank, while sitting in the
plane facing the prop?
Robert
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: | RE: Which is the Left tank? |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Harris, Robert" <Robert_Harris@intuit.com>
Thanks Alan.
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: | Deke's Plane on Front Cover |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Harris, Robert" <Robert_Harris@intuit.com>
Hey Deke,
Your plane is on the front cover of the 2006 Aircraft Spruce Catalog.
By the way do use a gravity fed fuel system. I have an Continental 0200 that
has an electric fuel pump. Should I only use the fuel pump for initial start
up? What do you do? What do you other Continental and Lycoming guys do?
Robert
Model V 0200
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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Andrew Matthaey" <spaghettiohead@hotmail.com>
Does anybody on the list fly their 'Fox night VFR? I would like to, but...Do
I need a field approval? Is there any paperwork? My exterior lighting meets
the requirements of FAR 91.205, but the regs make no mention of interior and
instrument lighting...I will, of course, be lighting my instruments, and
carrying plenty of flashlight and battery power, but...Any comments,
suggestions?
Thanks!
Andrew
http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/
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 |
|
| Subject: | landings FLapperons |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Andrew Matthaey" <spaghettiohead@hotmail.com>
I found I have much less pitch authority while using flaps, and cannot
therefore make a decent three-point landing...I never land with them
anymore, and found that I can approach just about stall speed, babying the
throttle, touchdown tailwheel an instant before the mains, and be stopped in
100 feet. I can't imagine the flaps doing anything better, especially since
they do not increase drag very much...!
Andrew
>From: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
>Reply-To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
>To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: SV: Kitfox-List: landings FLapperons
>Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2005 15:49:58 +0200 (CEST)
>
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
>
> > From: kitfox@gto.net
> > Mine is a Series IV and has totally different Flapperon set up with 2
> > to 1 Differential than the series 1, 2 and 3 .
>
>Kirby, my friend! Come and sit on the laps of grandpa Michel, I have
>something to tell you:
>
>You are perfectly right to question the list. Discussing every aspect of
>our aircraft is what makes us learn and fly safer. Even Lyle's fuel
>starvation problem, with a different engine than mine, is worth reading
>every word of it. It may safe my life, one day.
>
>Now, about the flaperons: Yes, I know my model 3 has different ones, I
>wrote that in my first post, and yes, I measured myself the deflection (it
>is required by my annual inspection) to be 10 degrees.
>
>This being said, I have no idea what it would mean in terms of safety to
>increase that angle. I read the list avidly and try to learn from it. Is 30
>degrees to much for you? I wouldn't know and even if I had an idea, I would
>be too afraid to give you a wrong advice.
>
>I never use the flaps. But, after reading this discussion, I tried it, a
>few days ago. Even with only 10 degrees, I found the experience to be
>awkward. Yet, I'd like to try more, even increase my flaps to maybe 15 or
>even 20 degrees. It would be nice to discover a new side of my plane, I
>think. But I'll do it very slowly, step by step.
>
>... ok, now you can get off my laps, you're heavier than I thought! :-) But
>keep smiling, my friend! Life is good and flying Kitfoxes is fun!
>
>Cheers,
>Michel
>
>do not archive
>
>
Dont just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
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: | Re: Rotax 912UL Fuel System |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "John Anderson" <janderson412@hotmail.com>
Ah ha, if you make a nicely ballanced turn due to G force the fuel stays
exactly where it is and won't uncover the outlet. ~j~
From: "Clifford Begnaud" <shoeless@barefootpilot.com>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Rotax 912UL Fuel System
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clifford Begnaud"
<shoeless@barefootpilot.com>
Lyle,
Imagine the left tank is down to 3 gallons, you make a left turn which will
cause all the fuel to move away from the wing root. The fuel exit port will
now take in some air; if there is a high point in the fuel line the air will
stop there. When you level the wings again there may not be enough head
pressure to push the air out of the line, so even though you have 3 gallons
left in the tank, no fuel will flow from that wing. Don't ask how I know
this....
cliff
>
>Cliff, and many previous posts, have emphasized the absolute necessity
>of routing the fuel lines from the wing tanks to the header tanks so
>that they have a continuous downslope. While I've done this with care,
>it doesn't seem to me that it is absolutely necessary, so long as there
>is a positive gravity pressure head between the top of the fuel level in
>the wing tank and the inlet to the header tank AND so long as no part of
>the line is higher than the top of the fuel level in the wing tank.
>Comments?
>
>
Discover fun and games at @ http://xtramsn.co.nz/kids
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: | Re: Deke's Plane on Front Cover |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Fox5flyer" <morid@northland.lib.mi.us>
You're pulling my leg, right? Which one? Gonna have to check that out.
As for the fuel system, if you're talking about 24ZM, it's fuel injected
(IO240 Continental) with an engine fuel pump and the electric boost pump is
only for startup.
If you're speaking of 148DM with the Subaru, it's gravity for cruise only.
The Facet pump is on during startup, takeoff, climb, and landing.
Thanks for the head up.
Deke
> Hey Deke,
>
> Your plane is on the front cover of the 2006 Aircraft Spruce Catalog.
> By the way do use a gravity fed fuel system. I have an Continental 0200
that
> has an electric fuel pump. Should I only use the fuel pump for initial
start
> up? What do you do? What do you other Continental and Lycoming guys do?
>
> Robert
> Model V 0200
>
>
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: | Replacing KFox model 2 wing tanks |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bradley M Webb" <bmwebb@cox.net>
Hi folks,
I just bought a Model 2, and have a question about removing the fuel
tanks from it, and rplacing them.
THe builder, for whatever reason, put a 12 gal in the right wing (bay 1
and 2), and only a 6 gal in the left (bay 1).
My question is this: In order to put a tank in the left in bays 1 and
2, would it be acceptable to remove the rib and false ribs where the
tank will go?
I assume it would be ok, as the right is this way. Is there any reason
to not remove ribs and structure to match the left wing to the right?
Thanks all,
Bradley
N1836 KF2
Middle Georgia
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Which is the Left tank? |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
"Harris, Robert" wrote:
> Which Left tank should be filled first? The left tank, while sitting in the
> plane facing the prop?
... which is why sailors use two different words: starboard and port. It comes
from the vikings' ship where the steering oar was always on the right hand side
of the ship, hence "steering board" or starbord (styrbord, in Norwegian). The
other side was then the back of the helmsman, or "back board" (babord in
Norwegian ... and in French!). But an English admiral once decided that
"backboard" was to be called the port side in His Majesty the King's Navy.
... ok, ok! I'll shut up! :-)
Cheers,
Michel
do not archive
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: | Deke's Plane on Front Cover |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Harris, Robert" <Robert_Harris@intuit.com>
The plane on the front cover of ACS is the red one you recently bought in
Florida. I'm 95% sure it's your plane.
Robert
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Fox5flyer
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Deke's Plane on Front Cover
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Fox5flyer" <morid@northland.lib.mi.us>
You're pulling my leg, right? Which one? Gonna have to check that out.
As for the fuel system, if you're talking about 24ZM, it's fuel injected
(IO240 Continental) with an engine fuel pump and the electric boost pump is
only for startup.
If you're speaking of 148DM with the Subaru, it's gravity for cruise only.
The Facet pump is on during startup, takeoff, climb, and landing.
Thanks for the head up.
Deke
> Hey Deke,
>
> Your plane is on the front cover of the 2006 Aircraft Spruce Catalog.
> By the way do use a gravity fed fuel system. I have an Continental 0200
that
> has an electric fuel pump. Should I only use the fuel pump for initial
start
> up? What do you do? What do you other Continental and Lycoming guys do?
>
> Robert
> Model V 0200
>
>
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: | Deke's Plane on Front Cover |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Harris, Robert" <Robert_Harris@intuit.com>
Hey Deke,
If you want to see your plane on the cover of the Aircraft Spruce Parts
Catalog you can go to their website www.aircraftspruce.com and click on the
New Aircraft Parts Catalog.
That's yours right?
Robert
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Fox5flyer
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Deke's Plane on Front Cover
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Fox5flyer" <morid@northland.lib.mi.us>
You're pulling my leg, right? Which one? Gonna have to check that out.
As for the fuel system, if you're talking about 24ZM, it's fuel injected
(IO240 Continental) with an engine fuel pump and the electric boost pump is
only for startup.
If you're speaking of 148DM with the Subaru, it's gravity for cruise only.
The Facet pump is on during startup, takeoff, climb, and landing.
Thanks for the head up.
Deke
> Hey Deke,
>
> Your plane is on the front cover of the 2006 Aircraft Spruce Catalog.
> By the way do use a gravity fed fuel system. I have an Continental 0200
that
> has an electric fuel pump. Should I only use the fuel pump for initial
start
> up? What do you do? What do you other Continental and Lycoming guys do?
>
> Robert
> Model V 0200
>
>
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: | Re: Which is the Left tank? |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Harris, Robert" <Robert_Harris@intuit.com>
On that point, I recently learned that Knots was derived from the number of
knots a sailor could tie in a rope and throw overboard to determine their
speed. Also the term aviation as well as other things came from the high
seas.
-Robert
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Michel
Verheughe
Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Which is the Left tank?
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
"Harris, Robert" wrote:
> Which Left tank should be filled first? The left tank, while sitting in
the
> plane facing the prop?
... which is why sailors use two different words: starboard and port. It
comes
from the vikings' ship where the steering oar was always on the right hand
side
of the ship, hence "steering board" or starbord (styrbord, in Norwegian).
The
other side was then the back of the helmsman, or "back board" (babord in
Norwegian ... and in French!). But an English admiral once decided that
"backboard" was to be called the port side in His Majesty the King's Navy.
... ok, ok! I'll shut up! :-)
Cheers,
Michel
do not archive
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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "John Perry" <eskflyer@pld.com>
Yep i do Have strobes and nav lights and instrument lights . Night landings
and flight is beautiful when taken with respect for your surrounding
environment. No clouds and or threat of clouds and its awsome with a full
moon and without any moon .
Take care fly safe fly low fly slow
John Perry
-------Original Message-------
From: Andrew Matthaey
Subject: Kitfox-List: Night VFR
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Andrew Matthaey" <spaghettiohead@hotmail
com>
Does anybody on the list fly their 'Fox night VFR? I would like to, but..Do
I need a field approval? Is there any paperwork? My exterior lighting meets
the requirements of FAR 91.205, but the regs make no mention of interior and
instrument lighting...I will, of course, be lighting my instruments, and
carrying plenty of flashlight and battery power, but...Any comments,
suggestions?
Thanks!
Andrew
http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/
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: "Chenoweth" <chenoweth@gwi.net>
John,
Landing lights?
Bill
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Perry" <eskflyer@pld.com>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Night VFR
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "John Perry" <eskflyer@pld.com>
>
> Yep i do Have strobes and nav lights and instrument lights . Night
landings
> and flight is beautiful when taken with respect for your surrounding
> environment. No clouds and or threat of clouds and its awsome with a full
> moon and without any moon .
> Take care fly safe fly low fly slow
> John Perry
>
> -------Original Message-------
>
> From: Andrew Matthaey
> Date: 09/06/05 13:02:51
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Kitfox-List: Night VFR
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Andrew Matthaey"
<spaghettiohead@hotmail
> com>
>
> Does anybody on the list fly their 'Fox night VFR? I would like to,
but..Do
> I need a field approval? Is there any paperwork? My exterior lighting
meets
> the requirements of FAR 91.205, but the regs make no mention of interior
and
> instrument lighting...I will, of course, be lighting my instruments, and
> carrying plenty of flashlight and battery power, but...Any comments,
> suggestions?
>
> Thanks!
> Andrew
>
> http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/
>
>
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: | Matronics Web Server Upgrade Today Tuesday 09/06/05 5pm PDT |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Matt Dralle <dralle@matronics.com>
Dear Listers,
I will be taking the Matronics Web Server down for a few hours today,
Tuesday September 6 2005 for a chassis upgrade. Archive browsing and
searching along with subscription services will be unavailable for
about 2 hours beginning at 5pm PDT. Incoming and outgoing email will
be processed normally during the upgrade. Please check the Matronics
System Status Page for updates (although this page resides on the web
server and won't be available during the upgrade):
http://www.matronics.com/SystemStatus/
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Admin.
Matt G Dralle | Matronics | PO Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551
925-606-1001 V | 925-606-6281 F | dralle@matronics.com Email
http://www.matronics.com/ WWW | Featuring Products For Aircraft
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: landings FLapperons |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kitfox@gto.net
Andrew, I can see you point on landings as on wheels i rarely use
flaps.
Flying with Amphibs you want to lower your touchdown speed and take as
much load of the wheel gear as possible. hence 15 to 20 degree flaps
.
As well landing on water --lower speed will give you less shock
throughout your floats and airframe with rougher water.
On take off you outta try flaps, if you cannot get off quicker
something is not right.
Hope this helps you ,
Kirby ..........
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Andrew Matthaey"
<spaghettiohead@hotmail.com>
>
> I found I have much less pitch authority while using flaps, and
cannot
> therefore make a decent three-point landing...I never land with them
> anymore, and found that I can approach just about stall speed,
babying the
> throttle, touchdown tailwheel an instant before the mains, and be
stopped in
> 100 feet. I can't imagine the flaps doing anything better, especially
since
> they do not increase drag very much...!
>
> Andrew
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Which is the Left tank? |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "kirk hull" <kirkhull@sbcglobal.net>
IN A&P school every thing was always "Pilots point of view "
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Michel
Verheughe
Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Which is the Left tank?
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
"Harris, Robert" wrote:
> Which Left tank should be filled first? The left tank, while sitting in
the
> plane facing the prop?
... which is why sailors use two different words: starboard and port. It
comes
from the vikings' ship where the steering oar was always on the right hand
side
of the ship, hence "steering board" or starbord (styrbord, in Norwegian).
The
other side was then the back of the helmsman, or "back board" (babord in
Norwegian ... and in French!). But an English admiral once decided that
"backboard" was to be called the port side in His Majesty the King's Navy.
... ok, ok! I'll shut up! :-)
Cheers,
Michel
do not archive
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Deke's Plane on Front Cover |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Fox5flyer" <morid@northland.lib.mi.us>
Thanks Robert. Found it.
Deke
----- Original Message -----
From: "Harris, Robert" <Robert_Harris@intuit.com>
Subject: Go look on the Web RE: Kitfox-List: Deke's Plane on Front Cover
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Harris, Robert"
<Robert_Harris@intuit.com>
>
> Hey Deke,
>
> If you want to see your plane on the cover of the Aircraft Spruce Parts
> Catalog you can go to their website www.aircraftspruce.com and click on
the
> New Aircraft Parts Catalog.
>
> That's yours right?
>
> Robert
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Fox5flyer
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Deke's Plane on Front Cover
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Fox5flyer" <morid@northland.lib.mi.us>
>
>
> You're pulling my leg, right? Which one? Gonna have to check that out.
> As for the fuel system, if you're talking about 24ZM, it's fuel injected
> (IO240 Continental) with an engine fuel pump and the electric boost pump
is
> only for startup.
> If you're speaking of 148DM with the Subaru, it's gravity for cruise only.
> The Facet pump is on during startup, takeoff, climb, and landing.
> Thanks for the head up.
> Deke
>
> > Hey Deke,
> >
> > Your plane is on the front cover of the 2006 Aircraft Spruce Catalog.
> > By the way do use a gravity fed fuel system. I have an Continental 0200
> that
> > has an electric fuel pump. Should I only use the fuel pump for initial
> start
> > up? What do you do? What do you other Continental and Lycoming guys do?
> >
> > Robert
> > Model V 0200
> >
> >
>
>
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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Andrew Matthaey" <spaghettiohead@hotmail.com>
Landing light is required when "for hire" only, inc. training aircraft...
So John, what interior/instrument lighting do you have?
Andrew
>From: "Chenoweth" <chenoweth@gwi.net>
>Reply-To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
>To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Night VFR
>Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2005 19:07:21 -0400
>
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Chenoweth" <chenoweth@gwi.net>
>
>John,
>Landing lights?
>Bill
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "John Perry" <eskflyer@pld.com>
>To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Night VFR
>
>
> > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "John Perry" <eskflyer@pld.com>
> >
> > Yep i do Have strobes and nav lights and instrument lights . Night
>landings
> > and flight is beautiful when taken with respect for your surrounding
> > environment. No clouds and or threat of clouds and its awsome with a
>full
> > moon and without any moon .
> > Take care fly safe fly low fly slow
> > John Perry
> >
> > -------Original Message-------
> >
> > From: Andrew Matthaey
> > Date: 09/06/05 13:02:51
> > To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> > Subject: Kitfox-List: Night VFR
> >
> > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Andrew Matthaey"
><spaghettiohead@hotmail
> > com>
> >
> > Does anybody on the list fly their 'Fox night VFR? I would like to,
>but..Do
> > I need a field approval? Is there any paperwork? My exterior lighting
>meets
> > the requirements of FAR 91.205, but the regs make no mention of interior
>and
> > instrument lighting...I will, of course, be lighting my instruments, and
> > carrying plenty of flashlight and battery power, but...Any comments,
> > suggestions?
> >
> > Thanks!
> > Andrew
> >
> > http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/
> >
> >
>
>
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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "John Perry" <eskflyer@pld.com>
Sorry forgot to mention landing and taxi lights built into the inside of
cowling / engine mount
-------Original Message-------
From: Chenoweth
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Night VFR
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Chenoweth" <chenoweth@gwi.net>
John,
Landing lights?
Bill
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Perry" <eskflyer@pld.com>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Night VFR
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "John Perry" <eskflyer@pld.com>
>
> Yep i do Have strobes and nav lights and instrument lights . Night
landings
> and flight is beautiful when taken with respect for your surrounding
> environment. No clouds and or threat of clouds and its awsome with a full
> moon and without any moon .
> Take care fly safe fly low fly slow
> John Perry
>
> -------Original Message-------
>
> From: Andrew Matthaey
> Date: 09/06/05 13:02:51
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Kitfox-List: Night VFR
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Andrew Matthaey"
<spaghettiohead@hotmail
> com>
>
> Does anybody on the list fly their 'Fox night VFR? I would like to,
but..Do
> I need a field approval? Is there any paperwork? My exterior lighting
meets
> the requirements of FAR 91.205, but the regs make no mention of interior
and
> instrument lighting...I will, of course, be lighting my instruments, and
> carrying plenty of flashlight and battery power, but...Any comments,
> suggestions?
>
> Thanks!
> Andrew
>
> http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/
>
>
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: "John Perry" <eskflyer@pld.com>
Have all led post lights i will try and get some pics into the pic archive
-------Original Message-------
From: Andrew Matthaey
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Night VFR
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Andrew Matthaey" <spaghettiohead@hotmail
com>
Landing light is required when "for hire" only, inc. training aircraft...
So John, what interior/instrument lighting do you have?
Andrew
>From: "Chenoweth" <chenoweth@gwi.net>
>Reply-To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
>To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Night VFR
>Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2005 19:07:21 -0400
>
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Chenoweth" <chenoweth@gwi.net>
>
>John,
>Landing lights?
>Bill
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "John Perry" <eskflyer@pld.com>
>To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Night VFR
>
>
> > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "John Perry" <eskflyer@pld.com>
> >
> > Yep i do Have strobes and nav lights and instrument lights . Night
>landings
> > and flight is beautiful when taken with respect for your surrounding
> > environment. No clouds and or threat of clouds and its awsome with a
>full
> > moon and without any moon .
> > Take care fly safe fly low fly slow
> > John Perry
> >
> > -------Original Message-------
> >
> > From: Andrew Matthaey
> > Date: 09/06/05 13:02:51
> > To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> > Subject: Kitfox-List: Night VFR
> >
> > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Andrew Matthaey"
><spaghettiohead@hotmail
> > com>
> >
> > Does anybody on the list fly their 'Fox night VFR? I would like to,
>but..Do
> > I need a field approval? Is there any paperwork? My exterior lighting
>meets
> > the requirements of FAR 91.205, but the regs make no mention of interior
>and
> > instrument lighting...I will, of course, be lighting my instruments, and
> > carrying plenty of flashlight and battery power, but...Any comments,
> > suggestions?
> >
> > Thanks!
> > Andrew
> >
> > http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/
> >
> >
>
>
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! --
|