Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:30 AM - Re: 912S vs. O-200 was:S-7 Cowling (Kerry Skyring)
2. 02:36 AM - Re: 582 coolant (Don Smythe)
3. 04:48 AM - Re: Re: VW Installation (edygert@charter.net)
4. 06:16 AM - Re: 0-200 vs 912 performance (Paul Seehafer)
5. 08:32 AM - Re: Kitfox Promotional Videos (fred leinberger)
6. 09:01 AM - Re: 0-200 vs 912 performance (Alan & Linda Daniels)
7. 09:25 AM - Wanted: Wing Towing Braces (Mark Anliker)
8. 09:38 AM - Re: 0-200 vs 912 performance (Clifford Begnaud)
9. 11:51 AM - Dampers Doors ??? (Rich Williamson)
10. 12:09 PM - Re: Dampers Doors ??? (daniel johnson)
11. 02:59 PM - Re: Re: VW Installation (Gary Olson)
12. 03:24 PM - Re: Dampers Doors ??? (Rich Williamson)
13. 04:57 PM - Re: Kitfox Promotional Videos (kalbrecht1221@earthlink.net)
14. 05:40 PM - Re: Dampers Doors ??? (daniel johnson)
15. 06:13 PM - Re: Wanted: Wing Towing Braces (Rick)
16. 06:28 PM - Carb Sync (RAY Gignac)
17. 06:45 PM - Gear attach points (Zimmermans)
18. 07:11 PM - Carb heat (Alan & Linda Daniels)
19. 09:20 PM - Speaking of Carb Sync, 582? (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: | 912S vs. O-200 was:S-7 Cowling |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Kerry Skyring" <kerryskyring@hotmail.com>
Jose a direct comparison is difficult because the Rotax powered C150 has a
constant speed propeller making it climb better than the 0-200. In the
cruise there is little to choose but there seems to be a definite "step"
with the 912S where, if you achieve it, it will go faster. Otherwise get the
power setting and attitude a bit wrong and you are wallowing along at 0-200
speed. The whole set-up looks very neat with a long shapely cowl but that
cowl also gives less visibility especially if you don't get it set up right.
In short, better performance, but a lot of that will be due to the prop.
Landing is interesting because the big blades on the cs propeller mean no
float. This is a very expensive conversion but the club believes that the
high utilisation will repay them. And the Rotax factoy is just down the
road. I am told that the club now has about 9 thousand hours experience with
Rotax and has had no major problems. it has 3 Katana's plus the C150 and
they get high utilisation. I'm off to fly the Rotax C150 this afternoon so
will make notes. Kerry.
>Kerry:
>
>How do you compare the performance of the 912S powered
>C-150 vs the common, O-200 powered. Just curious!
>
>Jose
>
>--- Kerry Skyring <kerryskyring@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > --> 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
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ---------------------------------
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > browse
> > Subscriptions page,
> > FAQ,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>Jose M. Toro, P.E.
>Kitfox II/582->Jabiru 2200
>"A slow flight in the Caribbean..."
>
>
>__________________________________
>http://farechase.yahoo.com
>
>
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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Don Smythe" <dosmythe@cox.net>
Clem,
If you put the water in the system without "burping" the air, it might
have had an air bubble. Air in the system will definitely cause the engine
to overheat but I would have thought it would have overheated well before
you got into the air.
Anyway, take loose the small line at the filler neck that comes from the
top of the engine head and plug the port at the filler neck. Place a 3'
section of clear tubing on the end of the small line and start a siphon to
the hanger floor (from the engine head down to the floor). Keep the filler
neck full while you siphon and shake the engine. When you don't see any
more air bubbles in the clear tubing, you got it. Before you start, bleed
any air at the top screw on the water pump.
This method has worked for me several times without fail. Before I
started doing this I had a couple times where there were air bubbles in the
system. Mine would overheat rather fast before I had a chance to get in the
air.
Don Smythe
----- Original Message -----
From: "Clem Nichols" <cnichols@scrtc.com>
Subject: Kitfox-List: 582 coolant
> --> 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 > Clem Nichols
>
>
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: VW Installation |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: edygert@charter.net
Thanks Gary ...that would be awesome....
Is someone fabricating the engine mount for you?
Ed.................
At 12:49 PM 10/27/2005 -0700, you wrote:
>--> 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 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: "Paul Seehafer" <av8rps@tznet.com>
Good stuff Cliff!
Don't worry about me flaming you. Testing eachothers information and
challenging eachother is what we all need to do to find out what works best
for all of us. You provided some very convincing information, making what I
would say is the best argument for the 0-235 I have ever heard, plus it is
backed by your personal experiences with all the engines in question.
Doesn't get any better than that in my opinion. (it was SO GOOD that I made
a point to save your message in my "Saved Kitfox Stuff" file!)
But getting back to my original statement about operating on floats; The
best example I can give is a Model IV on straight (non-amphibious) floats I
know of that utilizes an 0-235. He did all the lightweight stuff to his
engine to keep weight down (he knew a model IV was never designed to handle
an 0-235), and in the end it resulted in a respectable performing float
plane. But it certainly wasn't the hot rod one might think it should be. A
582 powered IV or a 912ul IV will use the same or less water to takeoff. No
doubt in my mind a 912s or 914 Model IV would reighn superior in the water
takeoff mode, possibly even if on amphibs. However, out of fairness (with
the exception of the 914), I will admit it is likely the aircraft engine
versions will fly faster, and possibly haul more load. But only if they
utilize MORE horsepower. Best example there? Your airplane. If your
weight conscious airplane only weighs 50 pounds more, but is putting out 130
hp, compared to the "heavy" 912s version that technically only has 95
horsepower, it's just proof positive that the horsepower to weight ratio
wins again. I'm sure the inflight prop may help some, but it can't make up
for an almost 40% increase in available horsepower. Typically aircraft
engines weigh so much more than the 912's that they offset their additional
horsepower/thrust. But as yours is built, it is the exception. A more fair
test would be to compare a super lightweight 912s powered airplane with a
super lightweight 0-200 version. I however would still put my money on the
912, as it will have the same horsepower but at still a lighter weight. And
the true test would be to put both aircraft on floats.
Another of my friends flies an Avid Magnum with a 160 hp 0-320 Lycoming on
floats. A superb seaplane in my opinion (better performance than the 0-235
Model IV on floats), but not any better than another friends Rans S-7 with a
912s and a ground adjustable warp drive prop. Oh yeah, and the Rans is an
amphibian, so he is carrying around another 100+ pounds of weight for
landing gear and hydraulics the 0-320 Magnum isn't. I think the Magnum
might be able to outclimb the Rans slightly, but it would be marginal at
best. Cruise speeds are similar. The Magnum might haul more? But out of
fairness, you have to add 100 lbs of weight, plus twice as much fuel (due to
a twice as high fuel burn rate) to bring it up to the Rans payload before
you even start. So even that is questionable. So all in all, the 912
powered airplane really make an all around better seaplane. And a Magnum is
no slouch. It's performance (wheels or floats) is at least equivelant to a
Supercub. And that is saying a lot for the Magnum, as SuperCubs are highly
respected Stol aircraft, as well as seaplanes.
We really never had so many good performing amphibious seaplanes until the
Rotax engines hit the market. Now we have a lot of great choices. The Rans
is a fine airplane, but not necessarily any better or worse than any others.
Put an 0-200 in it and you will go right back to what we used to have,
underperformning seaplanes that would be anemic amphibians, IF they could
even get off the water.
So, like I said earlier, seaplanes (particularly amphibious seaplanes) test
all an airplane and engine and prop can do. Yet these same characteristics
are much more difficult to distinguish when the same airplane is on wheels.
The demands for land operations just aren't there like they are for water
operations. (Eg. - ever see a 300 hp 185 Cessna take off? Pretty
impressive, right? Now watch the same airplane on amphibs take off . 200 ft
land takeoffs will turn into 2,000 foot water takeoffs, with a pretty sickly
climb to follow).
Don't get me wrong with all this banter. I'm really glad to know someone
has figured out how to extract better performance from aircraft engines in
our airplanes. The more choices the better for all of us. Cliff, you make
a really good argument. Thank you for sharing it with all of us. If it
weren't for my overunning desire to land in the water occasionally, I might
be shopping around for an 0-235 right now! <smile>
Paul Seehafer
----- 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 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: Kitfox Promotional Videos |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "fred leinberger" <farmers4@verizon.net>
I would like to buy a copy
pete leinberger
2764 creek rd
elverson,pa 19520
----- Original Message -----
From: "Grant Fluent" <gjfpilot@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Kitfox Promotional Videos
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Grant Fluent <gjfpilot@yahoo.com>
>
> Hello All,
> There appears to be some interest in seeing the
> promotional videos that I have put on two DVD's. For
> anyone that wants to buy one, I will mail them out for
> $5. This will cover the postage, dvd media, my time,
> and wear & tear on my dvd burner.
> If you'd rather watch them and mail them on to the
> next person, we can do that too. Keep in mind it will
> cost over a $1 for postage and your time to package it
> and mail it to the next person.
> Send me an email off list if you'd like to buy the
> dvd's or just watch them and mail them on to the next
> person. I'll keep the two lists and put the names in
> the order that they were received. For the 8 people
> that have already expressed interest, let me know what
> you'd like to do.
> Thanks,
> Grant Fluent
> Newcastle, NE
> Classic IV 912S
>
>
> --- Grant Fluent <gjfpilot@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Grant Fluent
>> <gjfpilot@yahoo.com>
>>
>> Hello All,
>> About a year ago, I completed a video project
>> putting all of the Kitfox promotional videos that I
>> could find on two DVDs. The two completed DVDs were
>> sent to Frank Miller for his approval for me to
>> distribute to the Kitfox list but he never
>> responded.
>> With what has now happened to Skystar, can I legally
>> send these DVDs out? Any lawyers here? If so, is
>> there anyone on here that is interested in viewing
>> them?
>> Thanks,
>> Grant Fluent
>> Newcastle, NE
>> Classic IV 912S
>>
>>
>>
>> browse
>> Subscriptions page,
>> FAQ,
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: Alan & Linda Daniels <aldaniels@fmtc.com>
IMHO the gear reduction really does give a plane good pull. One thing
you notice is that they do not load up and loose RPM like a direct drive
engine. This advantage is not much in cruise, but very noticeable on
takeoff and climb. Weight is the key to performance. I really notice any
extra weight in the plane, especially high and hot. It seems like above
about 1400 pounds or so the performance really degrades, like it is
mushing and not flying cleanly. It would probably be a little higher at
lower density altitude, but you can feel the difference. When I get
really heavy I will sometimes use 1/4 notch of flaps to level it out a
little and help out. I have had to fly my CAM powered 5 at almost 1700
pounds on a hot day, and it was a pig, but it did fine.
>
>
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: | Wanted: Wing Towing Braces |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Mark Anliker <manliker@uiuc.edu>
Looking for the Wing Towing Braces for a Series 5 Taildragger (a.k.a.
Safari). Please contact me (off list preferably) if you have a set to sell.
Mark Anliker
217-898-4766
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 0-200 vs 912 performance |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clifford Begnaud" <shoeless@barefootpilot.com>
Paul wrote: snip>
The best example I can give is a Model IV on straight (non-amphibious)
floats I
> know of that utilizes an 0-235..... and in the end it resulted in a
> respectable performing float
> plane. But it certainly wasn't the hot rod one might think it should be.
This is interesting. No doubt that when you put on an engine that is MUCH
larger than the airframe is designed for, strange things can happen. What
prop is he using? Also, where did the CG end up? Does it have the long wings
or short? All of these things will strongly affect how the plane flies. In
the case of a model 4 the extra weight of the Lycoming is a much larger % of
the total plane weight than it is on a model 5 or later. So in this case I
would agree that the 912s just can't be beat. I also agree with you about
the 912s vs. 0-200.
snip> If it weren't for my overrunning desire to land in the water
occasionally, I might
> be shopping around for an 0-235 right now!
I think you missed my point about the 0-235, it is exactly in this situation
where I believe it will excel. On floats, do you not need raw thrust for
best performance? The high torque of the 0-235 will allow you to turn a prop
that will give far more thrust than could ever be achieved by a 912s (yes I
do mean relative to the weight). I think part of the problem is that most
(if not all) of the kitfoxes flying today with the direct drive engines
(I0-240, 0-235, 0-200) DON'T have the best prop for a kitfox. They all have
a prop that is either a big compromise, or is more geared for cruise than
take-off. This includes my prop. So I don't think anyone has ever seen what
a lightly built kitfox 5 with 0-235 can really do when equipped with the
RIGHT prop!!
The reality is that most people don't do extreme short field op's so these
props are just fine. For most of my flying, even the extensive short field
ops that I mostly do, my current prop is fine. But I would really like to
have a true short field prop, I think the improvement in take-off
performance would be significant. A 912s is not capable of turning a large
diameter broad bladed prop like the Lycoming is. When comparing two model 5
kitfoxes on floats, one with the 912s and one with the 0-235, both very
lightly built, it will be very close when lightly loaded. But as soon as you
load the plane up with fuel, passenger and cargo, I believe the Lycoming
will win by good margin. But this is just my opinion.
A few more points on this topic...the wing on the model 5 and later is a
wing designed for the model 4, a 1200# gross weight plane. This is one
reason that weight is so critical on the model 5. If I ever get the chance,
I would like build a model 5 with a larger, higher lift wing.
Also, one reason Kitfoxes are not able to see full benefit of the extra HP
of the 0-235 is the wings' "angle of incidence". When sitting in the 3 point
attitude, the wings' angle of attack is several degrees BELOW it's critical
angle (stall). This is mainly because the landing gear we use is too short.
If the kitfox had taller gear, taller tires, vg's or slats, and/or the wing
set at a higher angle, the extra power of an 0-235 would be much more
"usable" and the difference in take-off performance much more dramatic. Now
throw in a new wing and you truly have the ultimate bush plane.
Cliff
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: | Dampers Doors ??? |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Rich Williamson" <rwill1@adelphia.net>
Hey List,
Know we just recently had this conversation... But, I have a Model 3 circa
1992, need to replace the AVM dampers on the doors... went the Guden route,
but ended up with wrong ones.. too small...
Does anyone know the OEM part # for the AVM dampers.. Stroke appears to be
4.00 / length ~10.5 , has threaded ends, but if you measure centre to centre
on the fittings , it's more like 12.0... diameter of the plastic piston is
.75 inches...
thanks
Rich
Kennebunk Maine
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: | Dampers Doors ??? |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "daniel johnson" <kitfox91je@hotmail.com>
I had a 1992 model 3...just sold it. I replaced the gas struts with new
ones from KENCON hardware. The phone # is 574-848-5252. The Strut was by
Suspa. The Ken COn part # is GS-35-12. They were very inexpensive...less
than 25 for the both and shipping when i ordered mine...in 03. they are in
Bristol indiana, nice people shipped my struts before they recieved my
check.
Dan Johnson
>From: "Rich Williamson" <rwill1@adelphia.net>
>Reply-To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
>To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: Kitfox-List: Dampers Doors ???
>Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 14:50:41 -0400
>
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Rich Williamson" <rwill1@adelphia.net>
>
>Hey List,
>Know we just recently had this conversation... But, I have a Model 3 circa
>1992, need to replace the AVM dampers on the doors... went the Guden route,
>but ended up with wrong ones.. too small...
>
>Does anyone know the OEM part # for the AVM dampers.. Stroke appears to be
>4.00 / length ~10.5 , has threaded ends, but if you measure centre to
>centre
>on the fittings , it's more like 12.0... diameter of the plastic piston is
>.75 inches...
>
>thanks
>Rich
>Kennebunk Maine
>
>
http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/
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: VW Installation |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Gary Olson <ofd725@yahoo.com>
Ed,
It is being fabricated by Specialty Welding of Neshkoro, WI. I will forward the
Ph. # tomorrow as I don't have it with me. If I am not mistaken, it is the same
company that builds them for Great Plains.
Gary
edygert@charter.net wrote:
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: edygert@charter.net
Thanks Gary ...that would be awesome....
Is someone fabricating the engine mount for you?
Ed.................
At 12:49 PM 10/27/2005 -0700, you wrote:
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Gary Olson
>
>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 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: Dampers Doors ??? |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Rich Williamson" <rwill1@adelphia.net>
Thanks Dan, check it out, made the call, they had them in stock, right size
and should have them next week...
thanks again]
Rich
----- Original Message -----
From: "daniel johnson" <kitfox91je@hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Dampers Doors ???
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "daniel johnson"
> <kitfox91je@hotmail.com>
>
> I had a 1992 model 3...just sold it. I replaced the gas struts with new
> ones from KENCON hardware. The phone # is 574-848-5252. The Strut was by
> Suspa. The Ken COn part # is GS-35-12. They were very inexpensive...less
> than 25 for the both and shipping when i ordered mine...in 03. they are
> in
> Bristol indiana, nice people shipped my struts before they recieved my
> check.
> Dan Johnson
>
>
>>From: "Rich Williamson" <rwill1@adelphia.net>
>>Reply-To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
>>To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
>>Subject: Kitfox-List: Dampers Doors ???
>>Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 14:50:41 -0400
>>
>>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Rich Williamson" <rwill1@adelphia.net>
>>
>>Hey List,
>>Know we just recently had this conversation... But, I have a Model 3 circa
>>1992, need to replace the AVM dampers on the doors... went the Guden
>>route,
>>but ended up with wrong ones.. too small...
>>
>>Does anyone know the OEM part # for the AVM dampers.. Stroke appears to be
>>4.00 / length ~10.5 , has threaded ends, but if you measure centre to
>>centre
>>on the fittings , it's more like 12.0... diameter of the plastic piston
>>is
>>.75 inches...
>>
>>thanks
>>Rich
>>Kennebunk Maine
>>
>>
>
> http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/
>
>
>
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Kitfox Promotional Videos |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "kalbrecht1221@earthlink.net" <kalbrecht1221@earthlink.net>
What kind of promotional videos are they? We're new to the list and have a
Classic IV and may like to purchase them!
Glen and Karen Albrecht
> [Original Message]
> From: fred leinberger <farmers4@verizon.net>
> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> Date: 10/28/2005 11:31:41 AM
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Kitfox Promotional Videos
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "fred leinberger"
<farmers4@verizon.net>
>
> I would like to buy a copy
> pete leinberger
> 2764 creek rd
> elverson,pa 19520
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Grant Fluent" <gjfpilot@yahoo.com>
> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Kitfox Promotional Videos
>
>
> > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Grant Fluent <gjfpilot@yahoo.com>
> >
> > Hello All,
> > There appears to be some interest in seeing the
> > promotional videos that I have put on two DVD's. For
> > anyone that wants to buy one, I will mail them out for
> > $5. This will cover the postage, dvd media, my time,
> > and wear & tear on my dvd burner.
> > If you'd rather watch them and mail them on to the
> > next person, we can do that too. Keep in mind it will
> > cost over a $1 for postage and your time to package it
> > and mail it to the next person.
> > Send me an email off list if you'd like to buy the
> > dvd's or just watch them and mail them on to the next
> > person. I'll keep the two lists and put the names in
> > the order that they were received. For the 8 people
> > that have already expressed interest, let me know what
> > you'd like to do.
> > Thanks,
> > Grant Fluent
> > Newcastle, NE
> > Classic IV 912S
> >
> >
> > --- Grant Fluent <gjfpilot@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Grant Fluent
> >> <gjfpilot@yahoo.com>
> >>
> >> Hello All,
> >> About a year ago, I completed a video project
> >> putting all of the Kitfox promotional videos that I
> >> could find on two DVDs. The two completed DVDs were
> >> sent to Frank Miller for his approval for me to
> >> distribute to the Kitfox list but he never
> >> responded.
> >> With what has now happened to Skystar, can I legally
> >> send these DVDs out? Any lawyers here? If so, is
> >> there anyone on here that is interested in viewing
> >> them?
> >> Thanks,
> >> Grant Fluent
> >> Newcastle, NE
> >> Classic IV 912S
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> browse
> >> Subscriptions page,
> >> FAQ,
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
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: Dampers Doors ??? |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "daniel johnson" <kitfox91je@hotmail.com>
Great...they were really outstanding people..thats why i still remember them
from 03.
>From: "Rich Williamson" <rwill1@adelphia.net>
>Reply-To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
>To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Dampers Doors ???
>Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 18:23:28 -0400
>
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Rich Williamson" <rwill1@adelphia.net>
>
>Thanks Dan, check it out, made the call, they had them in stock, right size
>and should have them next week...
>thanks again]
>Rich
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "daniel johnson" <kitfox91je@hotmail.com>
>To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Dampers Doors ???
>
>
> > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "daniel johnson"
> > <kitfox91je@hotmail.com>
> >
> > I had a 1992 model 3...just sold it. I replaced the gas struts with new
> > ones from KENCON hardware. The phone # is 574-848-5252. The Strut was
>by
> > Suspa. The Ken COn part # is GS-35-12. They were very
>inexpensive...less
> > than 25 for the both and shipping when i ordered mine...in 03. they are
> > in
> > Bristol indiana, nice people shipped my struts before they recieved my
> > check.
> > Dan Johnson
> >
> >
> >>From: "Rich Williamson" <rwill1@adelphia.net>
> >>Reply-To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> >>To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> >>Subject: Kitfox-List: Dampers Doors ???
> >>Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 14:50:41 -0400
> >>
> >>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Rich Williamson"
><rwill1@adelphia.net>
> >>
> >>Hey List,
> >>Know we just recently had this conversation... But, I have a Model 3
>circa
> >>1992, need to replace the AVM dampers on the doors... went the Guden
> >>route,
> >>but ended up with wrong ones.. too small...
> >>
> >>Does anyone know the OEM part # for the AVM dampers.. Stroke appears to
>be
> >>4.00 / length ~10.5 , has threaded ends, but if you measure centre to
> >>centre
> >>on the fittings , it's more like 12.0... diameter of the plastic piston
> >>is
> >>.75 inches...
> >>
> >>thanks
> >>Rich
> >>Kennebunk Maine
> >>
> >>
> >
> > http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/
> >
> >
> >
>
>
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: | Wanted: Wing Towing Braces |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Rick" <wingsdown@comcast.net>
Mark I have a set listed along with many other items. If you like I can send
the pic and the e-mail.
Rick
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Mark Anliker
Subject: Kitfox-List: Wanted: Wing Towing Braces
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Mark Anliker <manliker@uiuc.edu>
Looking for the Wing Towing Braces for a Series 5 Taildragger (a.k.a.
Safari). Please contact me (off list preferably) if you have a set to sell.
Mark Anliker
217-898-4766
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: "RAY Gignac" <KITFOXPILOT@msn.com>
Can anyone tell me how often I should re-sync my carbs on the 912S. What is the
normal interval it should be done?
Ray Gignac, N2BH
Model IV, 1200
912ULS
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: | Gear attach points |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Zimmermans" <jezim@pro-ns.net>
I am building a Series 5 with the Grove gear. Anyone know of a reason not to remove
the bungee gear attachment points from the fuselage? Anyone one on skis
use the rear attachment for the rear ski cable? Thanks
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: Alan & Linda Daniels <aldaniels@fmtc.com>
On my 7 firewall forward I did like John McBean did, and put the air
filter on the air intake instead of down in the radiator scoop. I really
can't tell the difference between the two locations in power. My
question is about carb heat. On the 7 FWF they say to use the second
opening on the air intake as alternate air, which is were I am now
pulling air from to start with. For those of you that are not familiar
with the 7 FWF is uses the 912s with the big Rotax intake that connects
the two carbs and has two intake locations with butterfly valves so one
or the other is open, but not both. The main opening is usually
connected by a scat hose to an air filter inside the air scoop in front
of the radiator. It should give some ram recovery with cool air, but at
the speeds we run I am not so sure it all that different than inside of
the cowl. It would be easy to run a scat hose to a heat muff on the
exhaust if there is any reason to.
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: | Speaking of Carb Sync, 582? |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Guy Buchanan <bnn@nethere.com>
Yes, speaking of carb sync. I've seen nothing about syncing my two 582
Bings. Should I? If so, how should I? (I'm familiar with the venturi sync
used on Dellortos.)
Thanks,
Guy
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! --
|