Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:47 AM - Aircraft Service issues in QANTAS (Colin Durey)
2. 03:40 AM - Re: Miscellaneous Bend those axles (Ceashman@aol.com)
3. 05:32 AM - Re: 0-200 vs 912 performance (Clifford Begnaud)
4. 05:36 AM - Re: 0-200 vs 912 performance (John Larsen)
5. 05:44 AM - Re: Needing a Tail Wheel Spring for a model II. (John Larsen)
6. 05:58 AM - Re: 0-200 vs 912 performance (Vic Jacko)
7. 08:06 AM - Service bulletins... (Jeremy Casey)
8. 08:07 AM - Re: Heater (kerrjohna@comcast.net)
9. 08:42 AM - Re: Heater (Fred Shiple)
10. 09:20 AM - Re: Service bulletins... (Don Pearsall)
11. 09:51 AM - Re: Service bulletins... (jdmcbean)
12. 09:51 AM - Re: Skystar site gone (jdmcbean)
13. 12:25 PM - Re: Skystar site gone (kerrjohna@comcast.net)
14. 12:44 PM - Re: Skystar OSH display (Mark Miller)
15. 12:46 PM - Re: Skystar site gone (jdmcbean)
16. 12:46 PM - Re: Heater (Lowell Fitt)
17. 12:49 PM - Re: VW Installation (Gary Olson)
18. 02:23 PM - lift strut dia? (glen rowland)
19. 02:39 PM - Flying Series 5,6,7's??? (Jeremy Casey)
20. 02:54 PM - Re: Flying Series 5,6,7's??? (Ceashman@aol.com)
21. 04:48 PM - Re: Flying Series 5,6,7's??? (Brett Walmsley)
22. 04:58 PM - Re: Flying Series 5,6,7's??? (Alan & Linda Daniels)
23. 05:04 PM - 582 coolant (Clem Nichols)
24. 06:40 PM - Re: Heater (John King)
25. 08:23 PM - Re: Cockpit Fumes (david yeamans)
26. 08:23 PM - Re: Registration (david yeamans)
27. 09:51 PM - Floats on Ebay (daniel johnson)
28. 11:02 PM - Re: Cockpit Fumes (Guy Buchanan)
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: | Aircraft Service issues in QANTAS |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Colin Durey" <colin@ptclhk.com>
Hi folks,
I received the following from a friend (also a flying fiend).... enjoy:
""
After every flight, Qantas pilots fill out a form, called a "gripe
sheet," which tells mechanics about problems with the aircraft. The
mechanics correct the problems, document their repairs on the form,
and then pilots review the gripe sheets before the next flight.
Never let it be said that ground crews lack a sense of humour.
Here are some actual maintenance complaints submitted by Qantas'
pilots (marked with a P) and the solutions recorded (marked with an
S) by maintenance engineers.
By the way, Qantas is the only major airline that has never had an
major accident. .. ... Enjoy!
P: Left inside main tire almost needs replacement.
S: Almost replaced left inside main tire.
P: Test flight OK, except auto-land very rough.
S: Auto-land not installed on this aircraft.
P: Something loose in cockpit.
S: Something tightened in cockpit.
P: Dead bugs on windshield.
S: Live bugs on back-order.
P: Autopilot in altitude-hold mode produces a 200 feet per minute
descent.
S: Cannot reproduce problem on ground.
P: Evidence of leak on right main landing gear.
S: Evidence removed.
P: DME volume unbelievably loud.
S: DME volume set to more believable level.
P: Friction locks cause throttle levers to stick.
S: That's what they're for.
P: IFF inoperative.
S: IFF always inoperative in OFF mode.
P: Suspected crack in windshield.
S: Suspect you're right.
P: Number 3 engine missing.
S: Engine found on right wing after brief search.
P: Aircraft handles funny. (I love this one!)
S: Aircraft warned to straighten up, fly right, and be serious.
P: Target radar hums.
S: Reprogrammed target radar with lyrics.
P: Mouse in cockpit.
S: Cat installed.
And the best one for last..................
P: Noise coming from under instrument panel. Sounds like a midget
pounding on something with a hammer.
S: Took hammer away from midget
""
Regards
Colin Durey
Pacific Technology Corporation Ltd
Sydney
+61-418-677073 (M)
+61-2-945466162 (F)
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: Miscellaneous Bend those axles |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Ceashman@aol.com
(Marco responded to the question below)
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Marco Menezes <msm_9949@yahoo.com>
Guy:
1,2 - no help.
3. Before first flight I fretted alot about minor toe-in in tube gear of my
model II. All the cures offered by the list (mostly involving bending the
weldments in place) scared the heck out of me. Since then, I've flown and found
no
problems with ground handling, at least not when my technique is good. But,
then, poor technique will get you in trouble whether you have toe-in or not.
No doubt you'll get other views but I'd say fly it off grass for awhile and
see how it feels to you before you go stressing the airframe and gear to
eliminate the minor toe-in condition you described.
Marco. I could not agree more. Until one notices ground handling problems do
not try to fix what is not broke. No wonder Skystar went out of business, they
could not make a bloody straight landing gear!! ;)
----------------------------> Kitfox-List message posted by: Guy Buchanan
<bnn@nethere.com>
At 04:10 AM 10/26/2005, you wrote:
>I made a spanner to bend my gear from the inboard end of the axle, as I
>was afraid of bending the axle. My gear was also faired and covered before
>the adjustment. All went well with no ill effects.
Thanks Bill. This is a good idea, as I can get 0 toe just by bending the
gear until the spanner points at the opposite gear.
Bill wrote: "I made a spanner"
From my early days in Wales, a spanner is a normal wrench. They come in open
ended on both ends and close ended, ring. You can get little biddy ones and
massive great ones.
But I don't know how a spanner can be used to fix the toe problem. Unless you
slip the ring end (that is big enough to slip over the axle) and use some
tube for leverage on the other side of the spanner and grunt the the axle true.
Would this not bend the axle a little? This would not be good for the roller
bearings?
I am thinking that if I wanted to change the toe in or out. I would need a
round steel bar as close as possible to the axle size. This sucker would be
long, long enough to slip through the axle receiving tube and nearly meet the axle
on the other side and still not disappear into the hole that I am working on.
Now secure the airplane and sit down under the engine, grab the bar like a
row boat slave and pull!
You will know when you are done when the end of the bar is closer to match
the axle end on the side you are not cussing as a mean miserable bugger.
Maybe a lot of useless information, I don't know. But what I do know is that
I have never looked at my toes, in or out. While taxiing and landing I have
had my problems. But I feel that these were pilot driven and not mechanical
issues. Because once in a while I make a happy smooth landing. If it were
mechanical it would be a bugger landing all the time.
Lets all bend some metal. Eric.
Do not archive.
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: 0-200 vs 912 performance |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clifford Begnaud" <shoeless@barefootpilot.com>
This is an interesting discussion and I appreciate your input on this Paul.
But I have a slightly different take on it.
Having owned two model 5 kitfoxes, one with a 912 Xtra (95 hp) and now one
with a Lycoming 0-235, plus having some time in model 4's with the Rotax 912
and a model 7 with 912S and a constant speed prop, I think I can offer a
well rounded evaluation of these plane and engine combinations. What I have
not done however, is fly on floats, amphibious or otherwise. Also, I have
not flown a Kitfox with the 0-200. I generally agree that the 912s would be
a better choice than the 0-200 on a model 5 or later.
First, the model 4 with a 912 is a match made in heaven. It's like the two
were specifically designed for each other. The 912s only sweetens the deal,
especially at high elevation airports like we have here in Colorado. This is
probably the best performing combo of all except for top speed.
A model 5 with an 80 hp 912 is flat out underpowered. With the Masterkraft
pistons bumping the hp up a bit (95 hp claimed) it is passable up here in
Colorado but still leaves you wanting for more power when high, hot and
heavy. Down low, this configuration is just fine and will haul the plane
around at gross.
The model 7 that I've flown with the 912s and Airmaster constant speed prop
(warp drive blades) performs a notch higher than the 5 with the Masterkraft
pistons. In fact the difference is quite noticeable. This combination would
serve you well anywhere including up here in Colorado, (which is where I
have flown it) Even though I haven't done it, I think it would perform well
on floats also.
Then there is the Lycoming 0-235. If the Kitfox is built to be a show plane,
with every conceivable option, full upholstery and linings, a full
instrument panel and a show plane paint job, the plane will still perform
respectably. In fact in most situations it will perform very close to the
aforementioned Model 7 with 912s. But, if you build your kitfox light, and
use Lightspeed electronic ignitions and an Ellison throttle body carb the
difference in performance can be noticeably better.
Our model 5 is one such plane and the performance is truly impressive. I had
the opportunity to compare the performance of our plane with the Model 7 on
the same cool morning and here is what I remember:
Airport elevation 5050'
Temp 50 degrees F
Model 7 takeoff roll- 375' (empty weight 820 lbs)
Model 5 with Lyc 0-235 take off roll- 325' (empty weight 870 lbs)
Best rate of climb observed on Model 7 850-900 fpm
Best rate for model 5 with Lyc 0-235 1050-1100 fpm
Cruise speed of model 7, approximately 115 mph max TAS
Cruise speed of model 5, approximately 130 mph, but will top out close to
140 TAS
At first glance these numbers may not seem too different, but what I have
found is that as you load down the kitfox with the Lycoming, the drop in
performance is much smaller than the drop seen in the model 7 with 912s when
it is loaded.
We have had our kitfox up at 13999', fully loaded, and it was still climbing
over 400 fpm.
On a trip last year we were traveling with the model 7 pilot and at one
point were at about 10,000' and wanted to climb over a cloud layer. We were
both similarly heavily loaded (though he may have had a bit more weight) but
he had trouble climbing at all, we just powered up over the layer with ease.
I have regularly operated out of a 600' strip up here with two on board and
half fuel, even in the summer, and never even came close to using the whole
thing. In our previous model 5 with 912 xtra, I would only go in there solo
except maybe on a very cold day I would take my wife along, but we would use
most of the 600' to get out.
Here's one last thing to consider about this comparison; note the difference
in cruise and top speed. This tells you that the prop on the Lycoming 0-235
is skewed toward the cruise end of the spectrum while the model 7 is able to
change the pitch to suit the flight mode (i.e., take-off vs. cruise). The
prop on our plane is an Aymar-Demuth 72X47. It turns about 2425 rpm static
at 5100' elevation. Imagine instead if I had a 76X40 or something similar
that would allow the engine to turn it's rated 2800 rpm static. The cruise
speed would now be about equal on both planes, but the difference in take
off and climb would be dramatically better with the Lycoming. The reason is
that the Lycoming makes gobs of torque and allows you to turn a propeller
that will generate more static thrust.
What the numbers can't do in these comparisons is give you the "feel" of how
these planes perform. When flying behind our 0-235 you can just FEEL the raw
power that this engine puts out. It's a feeling that you will never get from
the 912 series. In my opinion, if you want the best short field performance,
or you want the best performance when loaded to the gills, or you want the
best performance on floats, the Lycoming 0-235 is the way to go on the
Kitfox models 5, 6 or 7, but I qualify this by stressing that you MUST build
it light. A lightly built plane with the 912s and in flight adjustable prop
will likely have equal or better performance than a heavy one with the
0-235, up to a point.
You might also ask about landing distance. The model 7 with 912s was able to
land slightly shorter than our model 5, but, either of them can land in a
shorter distance than is needed to take-off, so this is not the deciding
factor when judging short field performance, take-off distance rules.
Flame suit on, fire away...
Best Regards,
Cliff Begnaud
Erie, CO
Kitfox 5, Lycoming 0-235
> Kerry,
>
> All you have to do to know which engine is better is to put either
> airplane
> on floats. That is the true test if you want to know which engine will
> provide the most low end power. And if you really want to test an engines
> ability, put amphibious floats on the airplane. That definitely proves
> which engines work best for flat out thrust. Of course, it really boils
> down to the highest horsepower per horsepower, which the 912 excels a, as
> well as the two strokes. While I think the 0-200 is a great engine, it
> would barely get an amphibious kitfox off the water unless extremely
> modified and/or lightened. Even an IO-240 powered Fox at the higher
> horsepower is not going to perform as well as the 912. I believe if you
> look at Skystars specs on their airplanes (on wheels) you will find the
> turbocharged 914 to be the best performer even when compared to the
> IO-240.
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: 0-200 vs 912 performance |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: John Larsen <jopatco@mindspring.com>
Could not have said it better myself. It bears up with what I have
learned in my years of studying engines for the engine beat column for
Kitplanes. If you really want performance, run a good expansion
chambered two stroke. As far as I know, no one has ever beat the takeoff
performance of John Knapp and his Rotax 583 float equipped Avid.
Low rpm direct drive engines are ancient technology even if you paid a
lot of money for it and it was made in Australia. The high rpm
horizontally opposed four cylindr four stroke it the engine to beat if
you dont like two strokes.
Note; I have a lot of air time flying KF products with the 912S and I
get the same performance in my Airdale using the Stratus Subaru for half
the money.
My two cents worth now makes it four cents worth.
JML
Paul Seehafer wrote:
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Paul Seehafer" <av8rps@tznet.com>
>
>Kerry,
>
>All you have to do to know which engine is better is to put either airplane
>on floats. That is the true test if you want to know which engine will
>provide the most low end power. And if you really want to test an engines
>ability, put amphibious floats on the airplane. That definitely proves
>which engines work best for flat out thrust. Of course, it really boils
>down to the highest horsepower per horsepower, which the 912 excels a, as
>well as the two strokes. While I think the 0-200 is a great engine, it
>would barely get an amphibious kitfox off the water unless extremely
>modified and/or lightened. Even an IO-240 powered Fox at the higher
>horsepower is not going to perform as well as the 912. I believe if you
>look at Skystars specs on their airplanes (on wheels) you will find the
>turbocharged 914 to be the best performer even when compared to the IO-240.
>Incidentally, the high horsepower to weight of the two stroke 582 rotax
>powered Model IV kitfox on amphib floats would be a much better performer
>than would any of the aircraft engine versions with the exception of the
>912. How can that be? Simple, lots of power, and lighter than anything
>else out there.
>
>I'm not trying to bash our old tried and true lycoming and continentals, as
>after all I fly one in my Lake Amphibian. But it is very old technology.
>It would be the equivalent to thinking we could modify a Model T engine to
>compete with modern automobile engines of today. No matter how much one
>modified it, I doubt you could do so. Considering, our old aircraft engines
>do pretty well overall. But when tested in grueling environments like
>seaplanes operate regularly in, they just can't compete with the horsepower
>to weight of the newer engines like the 912. When our airplanes are on
>wheels, the performance differences are harder to distinguish, but the
>differences are there none the less. Water opererations better demonstrate
>an aircrafts true performance, and test all things to the max. Engines,
>props, and airframes.
>
>Just my two cents worth...
>
>Paul Seehafer
>Wisconsin
>
>---- Original Message -----
>From: "Kerry Skyring" <kerryskyring@hotmail.com>
>To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: S-7 Cowling
>
>
>
>
>>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Kerry Skyring"
>><kerryskyring@hotmail.com>
>>
>>Just jumping into the cowl discussion again. We have an unused cowl - top
>>and bottom - for an S5 with 0-200. But it is in Vienna Austria so not much
>>good to our US friends. The original idea was to fit an 0-200 to the S5
>>but
>>the sale/purchase of the 0-200 fell through and we ended up with a Rotax
>>912S. We will sell the cowl if we can get some of the money back - it cost
>>around 500 dollars - plus freight. All offers considered. Although we
>>haven't flown yet ( we will soon) we sometimes wonder which is the better
>>engine for the S5 - 0-200 or 912S? A second hand 0-200 is certainly
>>cheaper
>>than a new 912S. Our club has a Cessna 150 which has had the 0-200
>>replaced
>>by a 912S and which I have flown. It's a tough call and I know this is a
>>very subjective debate. We came so close to fitting an 0-200.
>>Kerry
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>From: "Jeremy Casey" <n79rt@kilocharlie.us>
>>>Reply-To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
>>>To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
>>>Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: S-7 Cowling
>>>Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 08:59:14 -0400
>>>
>>>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jeremy Casey" <n79rt@kilocharlie.us>
>>>
>>>Is the cowl still available? I'm in need of a cowl for my "new" Series
>>>5 project...
>>>
>>>Jeremy Casey
>>>jeremy@kilocharlie.us
>>>
>>>P.S. How did you end up with an "extra" cowling , If you don't mind me
>>>asking?
>>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: eccles [mailto:eccles@Chartermi.net]
>>>To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
>>>Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: S-7 Cowling
>>>
>>>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "eccles" <eccles@chartermi.net>
>>>
>>>I have a round cowl off a series V,, anyone interested contact me off
>>>list
>>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
>>>[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Bob
>>>Unternaehrer
>>>To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
>>>Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: S-7 Cowling
>>>
>>>
>>>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bob Unternaehrer"
>>><shilocom@mcmsys.com>
>>>
>>>If you find one ,,I need one also, only for a Mod IV. Bob U.
>>>
>>>----- Original Message -----
>>>From: "Gary Olson" <ofd725@yahoo.com>
>>>To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
>>>Subject: Kitfox-List: S-7 Cowling
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Gary Olson <ofd725@yahoo.com>
>>>>
>>>>I am in need of a cowling for my S7 that has a 2276 Great Plains VW
>>>>
>>>>
>>>engine
>>>with the reduction drive. You may ask why I am using a VW. This is a
>>>fair
>>>question. I live in Oshkosh and have been listening to the Sonex guys
>>>brag
>>>about what a fantastic engine the VW is. Well it maybe a great engine
>>>for
>>>them, but what about a Kitfox? I figured what the heck, lets give it a
>>>shot.
>>>
>>>
>>>>Anyway, I am looking for a cowling for this project. If anyone has a
>>>>
>>>>
>>>lead
>>>or can steer me the right way, I would appreciate it immensely.
>>>
>>>
>>>>VW Flyer
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>---------------------------------
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
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: Needing a Tail Wheel Spring for a model II. |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: John Larsen <jopatco@mindspring.com>
Steve Winder at Airdale has some. 208-459-6254, or cell 208-284-8143
David Savener wrote:
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "David Savener" <david_savener@msn.com>
>
>I broke my tail wheel spring on my Model II that flies, but robbed one off of
a model II that I have been building for years.
>
>Now I need to replace it so I can finish my hanger queen.
>
>Does anyone out there have one for sale or know of a source now that SkyStar is
Tango Uniform??
>
>Dave S
>
>
>
>
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: 0-200 vs 912 performance |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Vic Jacko" <vicwj@earthlink.net>
Cliff,
To bad you don't like the airplane!
As the builder and previous owner of N 88VJ, I can attest to your numbers.
I just wish there was a light weight CS prop available for this package and
I know you do also. You forgot to mention this engine probably produces 130
raw horsepower.
As you reiterated, " build it light and it will fly right."
Now go out and have some more fun!
Vic
Do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "Clifford Begnaud" <shoeless@barefootpilot.com>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 0-200 vs 912 performance
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clifford Begnaud"
> <shoeless@barefootpilot.com>
>
> This is an interesting discussion and I appreciate your input on this
> Paul.
> But I have a slightly different take on it.
> Having owned two model 5 kitfoxes, one with a 912 Xtra (95 hp) and now one
> with a Lycoming 0-235, plus having some time in model 4's with the Rotax
> 912
> and a model 7 with 912S and a constant speed prop, I think I can offer a
> well rounded evaluation of these plane and engine combinations. What I
> have
> not done however, is fly on floats, amphibious or otherwise. Also, I have
> not flown a Kitfox with the 0-200. I generally agree that the 912s would
> be
> a better choice than the 0-200 on a model 5 or later.
>
> First, the model 4 with a 912 is a match made in heaven. It's like the two
> were specifically designed for each other. The 912s only sweetens the
> deal,
> especially at high elevation airports like we have here in Colorado. This
> is
> probably the best performing combo of all except for top speed.
>
> A model 5 with an 80 hp 912 is flat out underpowered. With the Masterkraft
> pistons bumping the hp up a bit (95 hp claimed) it is passable up here in
> Colorado but still leaves you wanting for more power when high, hot and
> heavy. Down low, this configuration is just fine and will haul the plane
> around at gross.
> The model 7 that I've flown with the 912s and Airmaster constant speed
> prop
> (warp drive blades) performs a notch higher than the 5 with the
> Masterkraft
> pistons. In fact the difference is quite noticeable. This combination
> would
> serve you well anywhere including up here in Colorado, (which is where I
> have flown it) Even though I haven't done it, I think it would perform
> well
> on floats also.
>
> Then there is the Lycoming 0-235. If the Kitfox is built to be a show
> plane,
> with every conceivable option, full upholstery and linings, a full
> instrument panel and a show plane paint job, the plane will still perform
> respectably. In fact in most situations it will perform very close to the
> aforementioned Model 7 with 912s. But, if you build your kitfox light, and
> use Lightspeed electronic ignitions and an Ellison throttle body carb the
> difference in performance can be noticeably better.
> Our model 5 is one such plane and the performance is truly impressive. I
> had
> the opportunity to compare the performance of our plane with the Model 7
> on
> the same cool morning and here is what I remember:
> Airport elevation 5050'
> Temp 50 degrees F
> Model 7 takeoff roll- 375' (empty weight 820 lbs)
> Model 5 with Lyc 0-235 take off roll- 325' (empty weight 870 lbs)
> Best rate of climb observed on Model 7 850-900 fpm
> Best rate for model 5 with Lyc 0-235 1050-1100 fpm
> Cruise speed of model 7, approximately 115 mph max TAS
> Cruise speed of model 5, approximately 130 mph, but will top out close to
> 140 TAS
>
> At first glance these numbers may not seem too different, but what I have
> found is that as you load down the kitfox with the Lycoming, the drop in
> performance is much smaller than the drop seen in the model 7 with 912s
> when
> it is loaded.
>
> We have had our kitfox up at 13999', fully loaded, and it was still
> climbing
> over 400 fpm.
> On a trip last year we were traveling with the model 7 pilot and at one
> point were at about 10,000' and wanted to climb over a cloud layer. We
> were
> both similarly heavily loaded (though he may have had a bit more weight)
> but
> he had trouble climbing at all, we just powered up over the layer with
> ease.
>
> I have regularly operated out of a 600' strip up here with two on board
> and
> half fuel, even in the summer, and never even came close to using the
> whole
> thing. In our previous model 5 with 912 xtra, I would only go in there
> solo
> except maybe on a very cold day I would take my wife along, but we would
> use
> most of the 600' to get out.
>
> Here's one last thing to consider about this comparison; note the
> difference
> in cruise and top speed. This tells you that the prop on the Lycoming
> 0-235
> is skewed toward the cruise end of the spectrum while the model 7 is able
> to
> change the pitch to suit the flight mode (i.e., take-off vs. cruise). The
> prop on our plane is an Aymar-Demuth 72X47. It turns about 2425 rpm static
> at 5100' elevation. Imagine instead if I had a 76X40 or something similar
> that would allow the engine to turn it's rated 2800 rpm static. The cruise
> speed would now be about equal on both planes, but the difference in take
> off and climb would be dramatically better with the Lycoming. The reason
> is
> that the Lycoming makes gobs of torque and allows you to turn a propeller
> that will generate more static thrust.
> What the numbers can't do in these comparisons is give you the "feel" of
> how
> these planes perform. When flying behind our 0-235 you can just FEEL the
> raw
> power that this engine puts out. It's a feeling that you will never get
> from
> the 912 series. In my opinion, if you want the best short field
> performance,
> or you want the best performance when loaded to the gills, or you want the
> best performance on floats, the Lycoming 0-235 is the way to go on the
> Kitfox models 5, 6 or 7, but I qualify this by stressing that you MUST
> build
> it light. A lightly built plane with the 912s and in flight adjustable
> prop
> will likely have equal or better performance than a heavy one with the
> 0-235, up to a point.
>
> You might also ask about landing distance. The model 7 with 912s was able
> to
> land slightly shorter than our model 5, but, either of them can land in a
> shorter distance than is needed to take-off, so this is not the deciding
> factor when judging short field performance, take-off distance rules.
> Flame suit on, fire away...
> Best Regards,
> Cliff Begnaud
> Erie, CO
> Kitfox 5, Lycoming 0-235
>
>> Kerry,
>>
>> All you have to do to know which engine is better is to put either
>> airplane
>> on floats. That is the true test if you want to know which engine will
>> provide the most low end power. And if you really want to test an
>> engines
>> ability, put amphibious floats on the airplane. That definitely proves
>> which engines work best for flat out thrust. Of course, it really boils
>> down to the highest horsepower per horsepower, which the 912 excels a, as
>> well as the two strokes. While I think the 0-200 is a great engine, it
>> would barely get an amphibious kitfox off the water unless extremely
>> modified and/or lightened. Even an IO-240 powered Fox at the higher
>> horsepower is not going to perform as well as the 912. I believe if you
>> look at Skystars specs on their airplanes (on wheels) you will find the
>> turbocharged 914 to be the best performer even when compared to the
>> IO-240.
>
>
>
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: | Service bulletins... |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jeremy Casey" <n79rt@kilocharlie.us>
A few days back someone mentioned that they had downloaded all the
service bulletins, etc. from Skystars site and was going to put them up
on his website? Was wondering who that was and if it had happened yet?
I meant to go download all of the them and got sidetracked and then it
slipped my mind (anyone know what I mean? ;-)
Anyway the picture of the mysterious stub in my "new" series 5 cage got
an answer.it was a gear mount for fiberglass gear legs used on VERY
early Vixens.thanks to all that took a look and tried to help.
Jeremy Casey
KiloCharlie Drafting, Inc.
jeremy@kilocharlie.us
http://www.kilocharlie.us/Flying.htm
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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kerrjohna@comcast.net
John King or Lowell Fitt or both came up with a simple design baffle that fits
inside the radiator shroud and is controlled with a bowden cable to the cockpit.
failure mode is to full open and the shroud attachment hardware provides the
necessary stability for the system. I believe they at the design in a format
that can be emailed. That is how I got the information.
John Kerr
-------------- Original message --------------
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Paul Seehafer"
>
> Alan,
>
> I agree that running the 912's that cool concerns me too. I can't say I
> know enough about the 912 to tell you what the answer is to getting coolant
> to run warmer, but I would think there should be a better way than to have
> to put tape over your radiator. Pretty antiquated when you consider how
> complex the engine is otherwise. I know you can get oil line thermostats,
> and heard they work well. Maybe someone else on the list that is a 912
> inner workings expert can help answer these questions better?
>
> I'm not surprised to hear your other engine ran 185 degrees, actually that
> is kind of cool compared to modern automobile engines that use 207 degree
> thermostats. Automakers know they need higher engine temps to make their
> engines run more efficiently, and last longer. So it makes one wonder why
> our engines would be any different? In fact, I would think our cold engine
> temps and no thermostat would encourage shock cooling, plus would cause our
> engines to run inefficiently due to unstable temps causing uneven fuel
> jetting and atomization issues. But then again, like I eluded to earlier,
> I'm not an engine expert.
>
> As far as cabin heat goes, I think Avid came pretty close to having the heat
> thing figured out when they attached a fibreglass scoop to the back of each
> of their cowl cheek radiators, and then directed that warm air to the heat
> muff, where it then entered the cabin. My buddy has a 912ul Avid Mark IV
> with this setup and he gets lots of heat. Probably a lot harder to do on
> our Foxes (unless you could possibly use maybe the oil cooler?) Or maybe we
> could just run a reverse set up? (You know, run the heat-muff heat tube into
> the radiator before it enters the cabin). One way or another, utilize all
> the engine heat one can. The only downside with the Avid heat was that you
> needed to remove the radiator scoops for summer flying so as not to overheat
> the engine. Or at least this was true with the two strokes. I don't know
> if thats the case on the 912, as my friend hasn't flown his 912 yet in real
> hot weather.
>
> For my own airplane I plan on installing a heat muff off both front exhaust
> pipes (or stacks), run a scat tube down to the muffler can heat-muff, and
> then run it into the cabin. I believe I will use the bilge fan idea so I
> can avoid needing heat boxes or ram air from the cowl. I believe with this
> 3 heat-muff setup I should have more heat than I can stand. If for some
> reason that doesn't do it, I can always resort to running the cabin heater
> core setup in addition with that fan. But if the heat muff works like I
> think it will, I will be able to save myself about 5 pounds of weight by
> getting rid of the heater core and fan unit from under the panel. I'm
> hoping it works out like I think it will as my airplane is a 80 hp 912ul
> amphib, so weight is critical.
>
> Anyone else have any ideas for our cabin heat issues, or how to control our
> 912 engine temps better without radiator shutters?
>
> Paul Seehafer
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Alan & Linda Daniels"
> >
> Thanks for responding Paul
> >
> > I noticed that the CT2K Light Sport plane which sells for about 90K uses
> > muff heat. I have had great luck with the CAM 100 water heat as I said,
> > but it keeps the coolant at 185 and I can fly down to zero without
> > discomfort, but the same basic B&M transmission cooler with fans just
> > does not get hot enough to do much good. I am also concerned about
> > running the engine that cool, I just don't think it is good for it. I
> > thought some of the 2 stroke Rotax had thermostats you could put in, but
> > have never seen anything for the 912
> >
> > Alan
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
John King or Lowell Fitt or both came up with a simple design baffle that fits
inside the radiator shroud and is controlled with a bowden cable to the cockpit.
failure mode is to full open and the shroud attachment hardware provides the
necessary stability for the system. I believe they at the design in a format
that can be emailed. That is how I got the information.
John Kerr
-------------- Original message --------------
-- Kitfox-List message posted by: "Paul Seehafer" <AV8RPS@TZNET.COM>
Alan,
I agree that running the 912's that cool concerns me too. I can't say I
know enough about the 912 to tell you what the answer is to getting coolant
to run warmer, but I would think there should be a better way than to have
to put tape over your radiator. Pretty antiquated when you consider how
complex the engine is otherwise. I know you can get oil line thermostats,
and heard they work well. Maybe someone else on the list that is a 912
inner workings expert can help answer these questions better?
I'm not surprised to hear your other engine ran 185 degrees, actually that
is kind of cool compared to modern automobile engines that use 207 deg
ree
thermostats. Automakers know they need higher engine temps to make their
engines run more efficiently, and last longer. So it makes one wonder why
our engines would be any different? In fact, I would think our cold engine
temps and no thermostat would encourage shock cooling, plus would cause our
engines to run inefficiently due to unstable temps causing uneven fuel
jetting and atomization issues. But then again, like I eluded to earlier,
I'm not an engine expert.
As far as cabin heat goes, I think Avid came pretty close to having the heat
thing figured out when they attached a fibreglass scoop to the back of each
of their cowl cheek radiators, and then directed that warm air to the heat
muff, where it then entered the cabin. My buddy has a 912ul Avid Mark IV
with this setup and he gets lots of heat. Probably a lot harder to do on
our Foxes (unles
s you could possibly use maybe the oil cooler?) Or maybe we
could just run a reverse set up? (You know, run the heat-muff heat tube into
the radiator before it enters the cabin). One way or another, utilize all
the engine heat one can. The only downside with the Avid heat was that you
needed to remove the radiator scoops for summer flying so as not to overheat
the engine. Or at least this was true with the two strokes. I don't know
if thats the case on the 912, as my friend hasn't flown his 912 yet in real
hot weather.
For my own airplane I plan on installing a heat muff off both front exhaust
pipes (or stacks), run a scat tube down to the muffler can heat-muff, and
then run it into the cabin. I believe I will use the bilge fan idea so I
can avoid needing heat boxes or ram air from the cowl. I believe with this
3 heat-muff setup I should have more heat than I
can stand. If for some
reason that doesn't do it, I can always resort to running the cabin heater
core setup in addition with that fan. But if the heat muff works like I
think it will, I will be able to save myself about 5 pounds of weight by
getting rid of the heater core and fan unit from under the panel. I'm
hoping it works out like I think it will as my airplane is a 80 hp 912ul
amphib, so weight is critical.
Anyone else have any ideas for our cabin heat issues, or how to control our
912 engine temps better without radiator shutters?
Paul Seehafer
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alan Linda Daniels" <ALDANIELS@FMTC.COM>
Thanks for responding Paul
I noticed that the CT2K Light Sport plane which sells for about 90K uses
muff heat. I have had great luck with the CAM 100 water he
at as I said,
but it keeps the coolant at 185 and I can fly down to zero without
discomfort, but the same basic BM transmission cooler with fans just
does not get hot enough to do much good. I am also concerned about
running the engine that cool, I just don't think it is good for it. I
thought some of the 2 stroke Rotax had thermostats you could put in, but
have never seen anything for the 912
Alan
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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Fred Shiple <fredshiple@sbcglobal.net>
Paul,
Lockwood offers an oil line thermostat. I have no direct experience with it, but
I've had good experiences in all my dealings with them.
Fred
to put tape over your radiator. Pretty antiquated when you consider how
complex the engine is otherwise. I know you can get oil line thermostats,
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: | Service bulletins... |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Don Pearsall" <donpearsall@comcast.net>
You can view the whole Skystar web site at www.sportflight.com/skystar. It
is there for archival and information purposes only, NOT plagiarism.
Don Pearsall
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jeremy Casey
Subject: Kitfox-List: Service bulletins...
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jeremy Casey" <n79rt@kilocharlie.us>
A few days back someone mentioned that they had downloaded all the
service bulletins, etc. from Skystars site and was going to put them up
on his website? Was wondering who that was and if it had happened yet?
I meant to go download all of the them and got sidetracked and then it
slipped my mind (anyone know what I mean? ;-)
Anyway the picture of the mysterious stub in my "new" series 5 cage got
an answer.it was a gear mount for fiberglass gear legs used on VERY
early Vixens.thanks to all that took a look and tried to help.
Jeremy Casey
KiloCharlie Drafting, Inc.
jeremy@kilocharlie.us
http://www.kilocharlie.us/Flying.htm
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: | Service bulletins... |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "jdmcbean" <jdmcbean@cableone.net>
I do have all the SB's and SL's from the SS web and will have them posted
soon on our site... I am making sure that it's OK before I get it done.
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 Jeremy Casey
Subject: Kitfox-List: Service bulletins...
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jeremy Casey" <n79rt@kilocharlie.us>
A few days back someone mentioned that they had downloaded all the
service bulletins, etc. from Skystars site and was going to put them up
on his website? Was wondering who that was and if it had happened yet?
I meant to go download all of the them and got sidetracked and then it
slipped my mind (anyone know what I mean? ;-)
Anyway the picture of the mysterious stub in my "new" series 5 cage got
an answer.it was a gear mount for fiberglass gear legs used on VERY
early Vixens.thanks to all that took a look and tried to help.
Jeremy Casey
KiloCharlie Drafting, Inc.
jeremy@kilocharlie.us
http://www.kilocharlie.us/Flying.htm
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: | Skystar site gone |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "jdmcbean" <jdmcbean@cableone.net>
The last Demo plane SS owned was the Series 7 Sport (Blue/White) It was
sold some time ago and is in Colorado.
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 John Marzulli
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Skystar site gone
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: John Marzulli <john.marzulli@gmail.com>
Looks gone to me.
Will it be possible to buy one of their demo planes via the chapter 7
proceedings?
On 10/26/05, QSS <msm@byterocky.net> wrote:
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "QSS" <msm@byterocky.net>
>
> Just went in to the Skystar site. Its still up and running
>
> Regards
> Graeme Toft
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Paul
> Seehafer
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Kitfox-List: Skystar site gone
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Paul Seehafer" <av8rps@tznet.com>
>
> Hope everyone got all they needed off of Skystars website, because it
> appears to be gone now...
>
> Paul Seehafer
>
>
> --
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> 25/10/2005
>
>
> --
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> 25/10/2005
>
>
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: | Skystar site gone |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kerrjohna@comcast.net
who did the Red & White Series 7 that was at OSH belong to? It was a good looking
plane.
John Kerr
-------------- Original message --------------
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "jdmcbean"
>
> The last Demo plane SS owned was the Series 7 Sport (Blue/White) It was
> sold some time ago and is in Colorado.
>
> 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 John Marzulli
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Skystar site gone
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: John Marzulli
>
> Looks gone to me.
>
> Will it be possible to buy one of their demo planes via the chapter 7
> proceedings?
>
>
> On 10/26/05, QSS wrote:
> >
> > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "QSS"
> >
> > Just went in to the Skystar site. Its still up and running
> >
> > Regards
> > Graeme Toft
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> > [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Paul
> > Seehafer
> > To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> > Subject: Kitfox-List: Skystar site gone
> >
> > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Paul Seehafer"
> >
> > Hope everyone got all they needed off of Skystars website, because it
> > appears to be gone now...
> >
> > Paul Seehafer
> >
> >
> > --
> > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > 25/10/2005
> >
> >
> > --
> > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > 25/10/2005
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
who did the Red White Series 7 that was at OSH belong to? It was a good looking
plane.
John Kerr
-------------- Original message --------------
-- Kitfox-List message posted by: "jdmcbean" <JDMCBEAN@CABLEONE.NET>
The last Demo plane SS owned was the Series 7 Sport (Blue/White) It was
sold some time ago and is in Colorado.
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 John Marzulli
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Skystar site gone
-- Kitfox-List message posted by: John Marzulli <JOHN.MARZULLI@GMAIL.COM>
Looks gone to me.
Will it be possible to buy one of their demo planes via th
e chapter 7
proceedings?
On 10/26/05, QSS <MSM@BYTEROCKY.NET>wrote:
-- Kitfox-List message posted by: "QSS" <MSM@BYTEROCKY.NET>
Just went in to the Skystar site. Its still up and running
Regards
Graeme Toft
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Paul
Seehafer
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Subject: Kitfox-List: Skystar site gone
-- Kitfox-List message posted by: "Paul Seehafer" <AV8RPS@TZNET.COM>
Hope everyone got all they needed off of Skystars website, because it
appears to be gone now...
Paul Seehafer
--
Check
ed by AVG Free Edition.
25/10/2005
--
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
25/10/2005
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: Skystar OSH display |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Mark Miller" <larsonmil3@earthlink.net>
It belongs to Mike D'Amico
One of the 103 builders group
Mark Miller
----- Original Message -----
From: <kerrjohna@comcast.net>
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Skystar site gone
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kerrjohna@comcast.net
>
> who did the Red & White Series 7 that was at OSH belong to? It was a good
> looking plane.
>
> John Kerr
>
> -------------- Original message --------------
>
>> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "jdmcbean"
>>
>> The last Demo plane SS owned was the Series 7 Sport (Blue/White) It was
>> sold some time ago and is in Colorado.
>>
>> 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 John Marzulli
>> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
>> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Skystar site gone
>>
>> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: John Marzulli
>>
>> Looks gone to me.
>>
>> Will it be possible to buy one of their demo planes via the chapter 7
>> proceedings?
>>
>>
>> On 10/26/05, QSS wrote:
>> >
>> > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "QSS"
>> >
>> > Just went in to the Skystar site. Its still up and running
>> >
>> > Regards
>> > Graeme Toft
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
>> > [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Paul
>> > Seehafer
>> > To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
>> > Subject: Kitfox-List: Skystar site gone
>> >
>> > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Paul Seehafer"
>> >
>> > Hope everyone got all they needed off of Skystars website, because it
>> > appears to be gone now...
>> >
>> > Paul Seehafer
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>> > 25/10/2005
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>> > 25/10/2005
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> who did the Red White Series 7 that was at OSH belong to? It was a good
> looking plane.
>
> John Kerr
>
> -------------- Original message --------------
>
> -- Kitfox-List message posted by: "jdmcbean" <JDMCBEAN@CABLEONE.NET>
>
> The last Demo plane SS owned was the Series 7 Sport (Blue/White) It was
> sold some time ago and is in Colorado.
>
> 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 John Marzulli
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Skystar site gone
>
> -- Kitfox-List message posted by: John Marzulli <JOHN.MARZULLI@GMAIL.COM>
>
> Looks gone to me.
>
> Will it be possible to buy one of their demo planes via th
> e chapter 7
> proceedings?
>
>
> On 10/26/05, QSS <MSM@BYTEROCKY.NET>wrote:
>
> -- Kitfox-List message posted by: "QSS" <MSM@BYTEROCKY.NET>
>
> Just went in to the Skystar site. Its still up and running
>
> Regards
> Graeme Toft
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Paul
> Seehafer
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Kitfox-List: Skystar site gone
>
> -- Kitfox-List message posted by: "Paul Seehafer" <AV8RPS@TZNET.COM>
>
> Hope everyone got all they needed off of Skystars website, because it
> appears to be gone now...
>
> Paul Seehafer
>
>
> --
> Check
> ed by AVG Free Edition.
> 25/10/2005
>
>
> --
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> 25/10/2005
>
>
>
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: | Skystar site gone |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "jdmcbean" <jdmcbean@cableone.net>
This year... I believe that was a customers aircraft.. One of the local
builders group planes...
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
kerrjohna@comcast.net
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Skystar site gone
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kerrjohna@comcast.net
who did the Red & White Series 7 that was at OSH belong to? It was a good
looking plane.
John Kerr
-------------- Original message --------------
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "jdmcbean"
>
> The last Demo plane SS owned was the Series 7 Sport (Blue/White) It was
> sold some time ago and is in Colorado.
>
> 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 John Marzulli
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Skystar site gone
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: John Marzulli
>
> Looks gone to me.
>
> Will it be possible to buy one of their demo planes via the chapter 7
> proceedings?
>
>
> On 10/26/05, QSS wrote:
> >
> > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "QSS"
> >
> > Just went in to the Skystar site. Its still up and running
> >
> > Regards
> > Graeme Toft
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> > [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Paul
> > Seehafer
> > To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> > Subject: Kitfox-List: Skystar site gone
> >
> > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Paul Seehafer"
> >
> > Hope everyone got all they needed off of Skystars website, because it
> > appears to be gone now...
> >
> > Paul Seehafer
> >
> >
> > --
> > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > 25/10/2005
> >
> >
> > --
> > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > 25/10/2005
> >
> >
>
>
who did the Red White Series 7 that was at OSH belong to? It was a good
looking plane.
John Kerr
-------------- Original message --------------
-- Kitfox-List message posted by: "jdmcbean" <JDMCBEAN@CABLEONE.NET>
The last Demo plane SS owned was the Series 7 Sport (Blue/White) It was
sold some time ago and is in Colorado.
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 John Marzulli
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Skystar site gone
-- Kitfox-List message posted by: John Marzulli <JOHN.MARZULLI@GMAIL.COM>
Looks gone to me.
Will it be possible to buy one of their demo planes via th
e chapter 7
proceedings?
On 10/26/05, QSS <MSM@BYTEROCKY.NET>wrote:
-- Kitfox-List message posted by: "QSS" <MSM@BYTEROCKY.NET>
Just went in to the Skystar site. Its still up and running
Regards
Graeme Toft
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Paul
Seehafer
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Subject: Kitfox-List: Skystar site gone
-- Kitfox-List message posted by: "Paul Seehafer" <AV8RPS@TZNET.COM>
Hope everyone got all they needed off of Skystars website, because it
appears to be gone now...
Paul Seehafer
--
Check
ed by AVG Free Edition.
25/10/2005
--
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
25/10/2005
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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@sbcglobal.net>
John, The radiator baffle, I think, is a John King idea. I made the oil
cooler flaps.
Lowell
----- Original Message -----
From: <kerrjohna@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Heater
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kerrjohna@comcast.net
>
> John King or Lowell Fitt or both came up with a simple design baffle that
> fits inside the radiator shroud and is controlled with a bowden cable to
> the cockpit. failure mode is to full open and the shroud attachment
> hardware provides the necessary stability for the system. I believe they
> at the design in a format that can be emailed. That is how I got the
> information.
>
> John Kerr
>
> -------------- Original message --------------
>
>> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Paul Seehafer"
>>
>> Alan,
>>
>> I agree that running the 912's that cool concerns me too. I can't say I
>> know enough about the 912 to tell you what the answer is to getting
>> coolant
>> to run warmer, but I would think there should be a better way than to
>> have
>> to put tape over your radiator. Pretty antiquated when you consider how
>> complex the engine is otherwise. I know you can get oil line thermostats,
>> and heard they work well. Maybe someone else on the list that is a 912
>> inner workings expert can help answer these questions better?
>>
>> I'm not surprised to hear your other engine ran 185 degrees, actually
>> that
>> is kind of cool compared to modern automobile engines that use 207 degree
>> thermostats. Automakers know they need higher engine temps to make their
>> engines run more efficiently, and last longer. So it makes one wonder why
>> our engines would be any different? In fact, I would think our cold
>> engine
>> temps and no thermostat would encourage shock cooling, plus would cause
>> our
>> engines to run inefficiently due to unstable temps causing uneven fuel
>> jetting and atomization issues. But then again, like I eluded to earlier,
>> I'm not an engine expert.
>>
>> As far as cabin heat goes, I think Avid came pretty close to having the
>> heat
>> thing figured out when they attached a fibreglass scoop to the back of
>> each
>> of their cowl cheek radiators, and then directed that warm air to the
>> heat
>> muff, where it then entered the cabin. My buddy has a 912ul Avid Mark IV
>> with this setup and he gets lots of heat. Probably a lot harder to do on
>> our Foxes (unless you could possibly use maybe the oil cooler?) Or maybe
>> we
>> could just run a reverse set up? (You know, run the heat-muff heat tube
>> into
>> the radiator before it enters the cabin). One way or another, utilize all
>> the engine heat one can. The only downside with the Avid heat was that
>> you
>> needed to remove the radiator scoops for summer flying so as not to
>> overheat
>> the engine. Or at least this was true with the two strokes. I don't know
>> if thats the case on the 912, as my friend hasn't flown his 912 yet in
>> real
>> hot weather.
>>
>> For my own airplane I plan on installing a heat muff off both front
>> exhaust
>> pipes (or stacks), run a scat tube down to the muffler can heat-muff, and
>> then run it into the cabin. I believe I will use the bilge fan idea so I
>> can avoid needing heat boxes or ram air from the cowl. I believe with
>> this
>> 3 heat-muff setup I should have more heat than I can stand. If for some
>> reason that doesn't do it, I can always resort to running the cabin
>> heater
>> core setup in addition with that fan. But if the heat muff works like I
>> think it will, I will be able to save myself about 5 pounds of weight by
>> getting rid of the heater core and fan unit from under the panel. I'm
>> hoping it works out like I think it will as my airplane is a 80 hp 912ul
>> amphib, so weight is critical.
>>
>> Anyone else have any ideas for our cabin heat issues, or how to control
>> our
>> 912 engine temps better without radiator shutters?
>>
>> Paul Seehafer
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Alan & Linda Daniels"
>> >
>> Thanks for responding Paul
>> >
>> > I noticed that the CT2K Light Sport plane which sells for about 90K
>> > uses
>> > muff heat. I have had great luck with the CAM 100 water heat as I said,
>> > but it keeps the coolant at 185 and I can fly down to zero without
>> > discomfort, but the same basic B&M transmission cooler with fans just
>> > does not get hot enough to do much good. I am also concerned about
>> > running the engine that cool, I just don't think it is good for it. I
>> > thought some of the 2 stroke Rotax had thermostats you could put in,
>> > but
>> > have never seen anything for the 912
>> >
>> > Alan
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> John King or Lowell Fitt or both came up with a simple design baffle that
> fits inside the radiator shroud and is controlled with a bowden cable to
> the cockpit. failure mode is to full open and the shroud attachment
> hardware provides the necessary stability for the system. I believe they
> at the design in a format that can be emailed. That is how I got the
> information.
>
> John Kerr
>
> -------------- Original message --------------
>
> -- Kitfox-List message posted by: "Paul Seehafer" <AV8RPS@TZNET.COM>
>
> Alan,
>
> I agree that running the 912's that cool concerns me too. I can't say I
> know enough about the 912 to tell you what the answer is to getting
> coolant
> to run warmer, but I would think there should be a better way than to have
> to put tape over your radiator. Pretty antiquated when you consider how
> complex the engine is otherwise. I know you can get oil line thermostats,
> and heard they work well. Maybe someone else on the list that is a 912
> inner workings expert can help answer these questions better?
>
> I'm not surprised to hear your other engine ran 185 degrees, actually that
> is kind of cool compared to modern automobile engines that use 207 deg
> ree
> thermostats. Automakers know they need higher engine temps to make their
> engines run more efficiently, and last longer. So it makes one wonder why
> our engines would be any different? In fact, I would think our cold engine
> temps and no thermostat would encourage shock cooling, plus would cause
> our
> engines to run inefficiently due to unstable temps causing uneven fuel
> jetting and atomization issues. But then again, like I eluded to earlier,
> I'm not an engine expert.
>
> As far as cabin heat goes, I think Avid came pretty close to having the
> heat
> thing figured out when they attached a fibreglass scoop to the back of
> each
> of their cowl cheek radiators, and then directed that warm air to the heat
> muff, where it then entered the cabin. My buddy has a 912ul Avid Mark IV
> with this setup and he gets lots of heat. Probably a lot harder to do on
> our Foxes (unles
> s you could possibly use maybe the oil cooler?) Or maybe we
> could just run a reverse set up? (You know, run the heat-muff heat tube
> into
> the radiator before it enters the cabin). One way or another, utilize all
> the engine heat one can. The only downside with the Avid heat was that you
> needed to remove the radiator scoops for summer flying so as not to
> overheat
> the engine. Or at least this was true with the two strokes. I don't know
> if thats the case on the 912, as my friend hasn't flown his 912 yet in
> real
> hot weather.
>
> For my own airplane I plan on installing a heat muff off both front
> exhaust
> pipes (or stacks), run a scat tube down to the muffler can heat-muff, and
> then run it into the cabin. I believe I will use the bilge fan idea so I
> can avoid needing heat boxes or ram air from the cowl. I believe with this
> 3 heat-muff setup I should have more heat than I
> can stand. If for some
> reason that doesn't do it, I can always resort to running the cabin heater
> core setup in addition with that fan. But if the heat muff works like I
> think it will, I will be able to save myself about 5 pounds of weight by
> getting rid of the heater core and fan unit from under the panel. I'm
> hoping it works out like I think it will as my airplane is a 80 hp 912ul
> amphib, so weight is critical.
>
> Anyone else have any ideas for our cabin heat issues, or how to control
> our
> 912 engine temps better without radiator shutters?
>
> Paul Seehafer
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Alan Linda Daniels" <ALDANIELS@FMTC.COM>
>
> Thanks for responding Paul
>
> I noticed that the CT2K Light Sport plane which sells for about 90K uses
> muff heat. I have had great luck with the CAM 100 water he
> at as I said,
> but it keeps the coolant at 185 and I can fly down to zero without
> discomfort, but the same basic BM transmission cooler with fans just
> does not get hot enough to do much good. I am also concerned about
> running the engine that cool, I just don't think it is good for it. I
> thought some of the 2 stroke Rotax had thermostats you could put in, but
> have never seen anything for the 912
>
> Alan
>
>
>
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: VW Installation |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Gary Olson <ofd725@yahoo.com>
Ed,
I am still waiting on the engine mount. I am still researching porp information
yet. I will keep you posted on my progress (including pictures).
Gary
edygert@charter.net wrote:
Hi Gary,
I sure would like to see any and all pictures you have of your engine
installation.
I am interested in doing the same type of setup.
Have you chosen a prop yet?
Thanks.....
Ed Dygert.............
--
---------------------------------
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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "glen rowland" <grav8@mybluelight.com>
Does any one know the 4130 lift strut tube dia and thickness for the kf series
5, 6, or 7. also did the first 1400# series 5 use a smaller strut?
Thanks Glen
Does any one know the 4130lift strut tube dia and thickness for the kf series 5,
6, or 7. also did the first 1400# series 5 use a smaller strut?
Thanks Glen
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: | Flying Series 5,6,7's??? |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jeremy Casey" <n79rt@kilocharlie.us>
Any flying Series 5,6,7's in Al. or GA.? Would like to see what I'm
about to spend all extra time/money on for awhile, up close. I have
actually never even sat in a 5,6,7 Kitfox.
Jeremy Casey
KiloCharlie Drafting, Inc.
jeremy@kilocharlie.us
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: | Re: Flying Series 5,6,7's??? |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Ceashman@aol.com
>Any flying Series 5,6,7's in Al. or GA.? Would like to see what I'm
>about to spend all extra time/money on for a while, up close. I have
>actually never even sat in a 5,6,7 Kitfox.
Jeremy Casey
KiloCharlie Drafting, Inc.
>jeremy@kilocharlie.us
Hi Jeremy.
I know of a couple of Kitfox's in the Atlanta area
Contact me off list and I can put you in contact with one or two.
Cheers. Eric Ashman, Classic IV
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: Flying Series 5,6,7's??? |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Brett Walmsley" <N93HJ@numail.org>
There are three model 5s in Peachtree City, GA
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeremy Casey" <n79rt@kilocharlie.us>
Subject: Kitfox-List: Flying Series 5,6,7's???
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jeremy Casey" <n79rt@kilocharlie.us>
>
> Any flying Series 5,6,7's in Al. or GA.? Would like to see what I'm
> about to spend all extra time/money on for awhile, up close. I have
> actually never even sat in a 5,6,7 Kitfox.
>
>
> Jeremy Casey
> KiloCharlie Drafting, Inc.
> jeremy@kilocharlie.us
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: Flying Series 5,6,7's??? |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Alan & Linda Daniels <aldaniels@fmtc.com>
If you get to easter oregon I can get you in several with different
engines, wing sweeps, and gear. Don't know were you are.
Jeremy Casey wrote:
>--> message posted by: "Jeremy Casey" <n79rt@kilocharlie.us>
>
>Any flying Series 5,6,7's in Al. or GA.? Would like to see what I'm
>about to spend all extra time/money on for awhile, up close. I have
>actually never even sat in a 5,6,7 Kitfox.
>
>
>Jeremy Casey
>KiloCharlie Drafting, Inc.
>jeremy@kilocharlie.us
>
>
>
>
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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clem Nichols" <cnichols@scrtc.com>
Begging your indulgence regarding another repetetive question.
Over the past several months (years?) I remember several postings regarding the
proper way to add coolant to a Rotax 582 engine. At that time, and presently,
I was flying a Kitfox IV with a Subaru engine, so I really didn't pay much attention.
I've recently purchased a second plane, a Rans S14 with a 582, however,
and need to know how to properly add coolant to the system. I've had no
luck with the Matronics Search engine, and would appreciate someone once again
posting the correct way to accomplish this task. When flying the plane today
for the first time the engine overheated, and coolant was lost. Hopefully the
overheating was caused by a low coolant level to begin with, but it was full
at the filler neck before takeoff. Thanks for your help.
Clem Nichols
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: John King <kingjohne@adelphia.net>
John,
I made a radiator cowl flap for my Series 6 / 912S. The radiator on the
series 6 is inside the cowling. My design consisted of a set of three
horizontals shutters that are controlled from the instrument panel. I
can make the CHT any temperature I desire, summer and winter. It
provides full range temperature control. The only time I fly with it
wide open is on takeoff and climb out. At cruise I partially close it
down to maintain at least 180 F. The cowl flap is mounted on the back
side if the radiator itself and is designed fail safe. I do not have
drawings of it , but you can see some of the pictures of it on the Sport
Flight web site:
<http://www.sportflight.com/cgi-bin/uploader.pl?action=view&epoch=1059091684>
I can send more pictures to anyone interested.
On my Model IV-1200 / 912UL I installed a cowl flap inside the radiator
cowl that is mounted under the fuselage. It was much easier to design
and was also effective. Drawings and a description used to be on the
Sport Flight web site, but I cannot fine it now. However I do have
copies of the drawing and description.
--
John King
Warrenton, VA
kerrjohna@comcast.net wrote:
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kerrjohna@comcast.net
>
>John King or Lowell Fitt or both came up with a simple design baffle that fits
inside the radiator shroud and is controlled with a bowden cable to the cockpit.
failure mode is to full open and the shroud attachment hardware provides the
necessary stability for the system. I believe they at the design in a format
that can be emailed. That is how I got the information.
>
>John Kerr
>
>-------------- Original message --------------
>
>
>
>>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Paul Seehafer"
>>
>>Alan,
>>
>>I agree that running the 912's that cool concerns me too. I can't say I
>>know enough about the 912 to tell you what the answer is to getting coolant
>>to run warmer, but I would think there should be a better way than to have
>>to put tape over your radiator. Pretty antiquated when you consider how
>>complex the engine is otherwise. I know you can get oil line thermostats,
>>and heard they work well. Maybe someone else on the list that is a 912
>>inner workings expert can help answer these questions better?
>>
>>I'm not surprised to hear your other engine ran 185 degrees, actually that
>>is kind of cool compared to modern automobile engines that use 207 degree
>>thermostats. Automakers know they need higher engine temps to make their
>>engines run more efficiently, and last longer. So it makes one wonder why
>>our engines would be any different? In fact, I would think our cold engine
>>temps and no thermostat would encourage shock cooling, plus would cause our
>>engines to run inefficiently due to unstable temps causing uneven fuel
>>jetting and atomization issues. But then again, like I eluded to earlier,
>>I'm not an engine expert.
>>
>>As far as cabin heat goes, I think Avid came pretty close to having the heat
>>thing figured out when they attached a fibreglass scoop to the back of each
>>of their cowl cheek radiators, and then directed that warm air to the heat
>>muff, where it then entered the cabin. My buddy has a 912ul Avid Mark IV
>>with this setup and he gets lots of heat. Probably a lot harder to do on
>>our Foxes (unless you could possibly use maybe the oil cooler?) Or maybe we
>>could just run a reverse set up? (You know, run the heat-muff heat tube into
>>the radiator before it enters the cabin). One way or another, utilize all
>>the engine heat one can. The only downside with the Avid heat was that you
>>needed to remove the radiator scoops for summer flying so as not to overheat
>>the engine. Or at least this was true with the two strokes. I don't know
>>if thats the case on the 912, as my friend hasn't flown his 912 yet in real
>>hot weather.
>>
>>For my own airplane I plan on installing a heat muff off both front exhaust
>>pipes (or stacks), run a scat tube down to the muffler can heat-muff, and
>>then run it into the cabin. I believe I will use the bilge fan idea so I
>>can avoid needing heat boxes or ram air from the cowl. I believe with this
>>3 heat-muff setup I should have more heat than I can stand. If for some
>>reason that doesn't do it, I can always resort to running the cabin heater
>>core setup in addition with that fan. But if the heat muff works like I
>>think it will, I will be able to save myself about 5 pounds of weight by
>>getting rid of the heater core and fan unit from under the panel. I'm
>>hoping it works out like I think it will as my airplane is a 80 hp 912ul
>>amphib, so weight is critical.
>>
>>Anyone else have any ideas for our cabin heat issues, or how to control our
>>912 engine temps better without radiator shutters?
>>
>>Paul Seehafer
>>
>>
>>
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: | Re: Cockpit Fumes |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "david yeamans" <dafox@ckt.net>
Guy,
I did two things to stop the fumes and the wind from coming in. First,
with the seat out, I cut
a piece of carpet from what i had left over from covering my floor board, and cut
a piece oversize to
leave room for vellcro, and made a snug fit around the Bungees, and velcro'd It
to the fabric, that helped,
but what helped the most was making what I call a wind deflector out of a piece
of aluminun, about 3 ''
wide and just past the Bungees, and bending it at full length at a 45 degrees .
Locate the tubing and
install the deflector just in front of the bungees. I drilled the tubing and tapped
it so i could screw a bolt
into it to fasten the deflector. It was the best thing I could have done, It stopped
99 % of fumes and Air
David
----- Original Message -----
From: Guy Buchanan
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2005 11:08 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Cockpit Fumes
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Guy Buchanan <bnn@nethere.com>
Hi all!
Does anyone have a recommendation on how to seal the openings
where the gear shock-cord comes through? It seems like a likely entrance
for exhaust fumes.
Thanks,
Guy Buchanan
K-IV 1200 / 582 / 99.9% done, thanks mostly to Bob Ducar.
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: | Re: Registration |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "david yeamans" <dafox@ckt.net>
Guy,
Relax, you have plenty of time. I registered my kitfox three years before
I finished
it. When I received a tax statement, I went to city hall,I told them I applyed
for
my registration to be sure of getting my N number and that my airplane was not
completed,
they said just to let them know when it was.
David
----- Original Message -----
From: Guy Buchanan
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2005 9:46 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Registration
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Guy Buchanan <bnn@nethere.com>
Wow, for a while I thought I had a bunch of time. I sent in my registration
forms a couple of weeks ago, expecting a 2-3 month turnaround. What ho! I
received my registration today! I guess I'll have to finish the plane ASAP.
I was going to put the wings on for the last time last week and realized
that I would never get a baggage box in once the wings were on. Thus I
spent the last week or so building a rigid baggage box behind the seats.
I'm praying now that my weight and balance allows me to use it. I'm hoping
to do my weight and balance at the Nov 19 Kitfox fly-in at Brown, in San Diego.
Guy Buchanan
K-IV 1200 / 582 / 99.9% done, thanks mostly to Bob Ducar.
Do not archive
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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "daniel johnson" <kitfox91je@hotmail.com>
Hi all...i never got to put the floats on my kitfox before i sold. I'm
putting them up on ebay. I was told 1200 was thier rating, but the guys
supporting avids now tell me they had no published rating...but were used up
to 1150 gross. Paul on list tells me you'd have to be gentle with them at
heavy operating weights...he owns a set and would know best. Have a look if
you are interested..they are up for acution but offers are ok too.
Dan...Ohio
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: | Re: Cockpit Fumes |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Guy Buchanan <bnn@nethere.com>
At 08:05 PM 10/27/2005, you wrote:
>I did two things to stop the fumes and the wind from coming in.
Very interesting David. I think I'll try it.
Guy Buchanan
K-IV 1200 / 582 / 99.9% done, thanks mostly to Bob Ducar.
Do not archive
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! --
|