Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:09 AM - 2005 Matronics Email List Fund Raiser [Please Read]... (Matt Dralle)
2. 02:59 AM - Re: 0-200 vs 912 performance (Kerry Skyring)
3. 06:01 AM - Re: 0-200 vs 912 performance (Paul Seehafer)
4. 06:21 AM - Re: Re: VW Installation (Gary Olson)
5. 06:33 AM - Re: Tall gear (Paul Seehafer)
6. 06:35 AM - Re: 0-200 vs 912 performance (Paul Seehafer)
7. 06:47 AM - Re: Re: VW Installation (cirrus10)
8. 06:57 AM - Re: 0-200 vs 912 performance (Clifford Begnaud)
9. 07:04 AM - Re: 0-200 vs 912 performance (Alan & Linda Daniels)
10. 07:28 AM - Re: Tall gear (Clifford Begnaud)
11. 08:34 AM - need a Classic IV pilot's operating handbook (Margaret Hastedt)
12. 09:17 AM - Re: need a Classic IV pilot's operating handbook (ron schick)
13. 10:50 AM - Re: Certified Rotax 912F3 (Barbara Jones)
14. 11:39 AM - Re: Re: VW Installation (edygert@charter.net)
15. 02:03 PM - Re: Certified Rotax 912F3 (Paul Peerenboom)
16. 03:58 PM - Re: 0-200 vs 912 performance (Flybradair@cs.com)
17. 04:04 PM - Re alcohol in fuel (Rex & Jan Shaw)
18. 04:41 PM - Re: need a Classic IV pilot's operating handbook (Fred Shiple)
19. 04:55 PM - Re: 0-200 vs 912 performance (Vic Jacko)
20. 05:24 PM - Cargo Pod brackets, instructions (Marco Menezes)
21. 05:47 PM - Re: Re alcohol in fuel (Brian Rodgers)
22. 06:03 PM - Re: Peachtree stop (kurt schrader)
23. 06:13 PM - Re: SV: Re: Kitfox - Georgia MoGas (kurt schrader)
24. 06:20 PM - Upholstery (Guy Buchanan)
25. 06:26 PM - Re: Cargo Pod brackets, instructions (flier)
26. 06:27 PM - Re: Re alcohol in fuel (Clem Nichols)
27. 06:32 PM - ethanol in fuel (Clem Nichols)
28. 06:46 PM - Re: need a Classic IV pilot's operating handbook (Jeffrey Puls)
29. 07:50 PM - Ethonal (Lmar)
30. 07:54 PM - Re: Upholstery (Rick)
31. 07:57 PM - streamlined covers (small) (Bob Robertson)
32. 08:09 PM - Kitfox-4 1200 912UL for sale (Jay Fabian)
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: | 2005 Matronics Email List Fund Raiser [Please Read]... |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Matt Dralle <dralle@matronics.com>
Dear Matronics Email Listers,
Each year during the month of November, I hold a PBS-like fund raiser
to support the Email Lists sponsored here. As you have probably
noticed, there is no commercial advertising on any of the
List-related web pages or in any of the email distributions. The
Matronics Lists are supported completely though the generous
Contributions of its members.
Making a Contribution to support the continued operation and upgrade
of the Matronics Aviation Lists is completely voluntary, but I
encourage you to consider making a donation that is equal to the
value and entertainment you have received from these Lists over the past year.
And thanks to a number of extremely generous members/businessmen
found on the Lists, there are some truly awesome Free Gifts to be had
during this year's List Fund Raiser! Andy Gold of the The Builder's
Bookstore, Paul Besing of Aeroware Enterprises, and Jon Croke of
Homebuilt HELP have all contributed products from their respective
catalogs in support of this year's Fund Raiser! Thank you!
Andy, Paul, and Jon are great guys and I really appreciate their
support for the Lists. I encourage each List member to visit their
respective web sites for a closer look at each of their great product
lines. Its guys like these that make this such a great hobby/sport
to be a part of! I have included links to each of their web sites below.
And just like PBS, I will be making pretty regular reminder requests
throughout the month of November. I ask for your kind consideration
and understanding during this time and realize that this Fund Raiser
is the *only* source of financing and support I have for these
Lists. I am continually upgrading and improving the hardware and
systems required in support of the Lists. This year saw a
substantial upgrade to all of the computer room infrastructure
including gigabit networking, dedicated air conditioning, an
equipment rack, and high-performance system chassis upgrades. Yes,
it was expensive, but I feel the Lists are worth it! Hopefully you do too!
All of these upgrades are what add up to the High-Performance,
Highly-Available system that everyone has come to expect of the Email
Lists at Matronics.
Please make a Contribution today to support these upgrades and the
continued operation of the Matronics Email Lists. The Contribution
web site is fast, easy, and secure to use. You can even select a
sweet Free Gift with a qualifying Contribution amount. The
Contribution Site can be found here:
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Thank you for your generous support!!
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
Sponsors of this Year's Matronics List Fund Raiser
Andy Gold - The Builder's Bookstore - http://www.buildersbooks.com
Paul Besing - Aeroware Enterprises - http://www.kitlog.com
Jon Croke - Homebuilt HELP - http://www.homebuilthelp.com
Matt G Dralle | Matronics | PO Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551
925-606-1001 V | 925-606-6281 F | dralle@matronics.com Email
http://www.matronics.com/ WWW | Featuring Products For Aircraft
do not archive
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 0-200 vs 912 performance |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Kerry Skyring" <kerryskyring@hotmail.com>
I inadvertently started this discussion so I would just like to say what a
great contribution the postings by Paul and Cliff have made to our
understanding of how Kitfox perform in the real world.
Thanks guys. I've also taken a couple of shots of our flying clubs C150 with
Rotax 912S so if anyone
wants to see the shape of the cowl, the inlets for coolers and big bladed
Hoffman prop, contact me
off list and I will email them to you. Kerry. Kitfox builders helper.
>>
>The model IV I referred to with the 0-235 has long wings, and fwiw has an
>empty weight on wheels around 800 pounds. He played with a lot of props
>and
>finally ended up having a standard metal prop repitched for max power on
>floats.
>
>
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: "Paul Seehafer" <av8rps@tznet.com>
Cliff,
In the case of the 701 vs the supercub with a 500 lb load....I'd say it
would still be close. The lighter airplanes do very well with loads. I
watched my friend with his 532 powered Avid Flyer take a 270 lb passenger
one day and still only use 10 seconds to takeoff. That would not be the
case with the Supercub. (Incidentally, the Avid Flyer would be a more fair
match up to that Supercub than would that Amphibious 701).
Two model V's? Hmmmm......I suspect you would know that better than me. At
least regarding land planes. But for a seaplane (having the additional drag
and weight, and being affected by scale factor whereas the heavier lycoming
airplane needs more buoyancy/larger and heavier floats) I think the 912
airplane would hold it's own. Especially if one made the same effort to
keep it light as you have with your airplane. But I could be wrong. For
climb and speed, as I said before, horsepower is hard to beat. If we could
do this contest, I'd think it much more fair to use a 914 so the horsepower
was closer. In that case, I'm pretty sure the it would be a close contest
because while the lycoming probably has more torque, the 914 weighs
considerably less and has the ability to run a prop more efficiently due to
use of a gear reduction.
Regarding wing incidence; The Model IV already has more positive wing
incidence than a typical Kitfox float setup in an effort to get it off the
water quicker. While that definitely helps the airplane fly off the water
better, it has a detrimental effect on cruise due to the floats pointing
down when the wing is level for cruise. I'm not positive, but I believe he
already has VG's installed.
So does his airplane balance properly? Due to previously having a Subaru
installed, and the lycoming weighing about the same installed, he had the
weight and balance issue pretty well under control. But I think like most
aircraft engine installations in Kitfoxes, he deals with trying to keep it
in the within the fwd CG range. So it is still probably nose heavy. Is he
running out of elevator? Not sure. But my guess is he probably does as the
Kitfox in it's original design parameters was never designed for the weight
of the Lycoming or Continental. Yes, I realize the 5-7 models will accept
these engines, but traditionally builders are sweeping wings to get W&B to
come out. That tells me we are still battling the fact that our airplane
was designed for a much lighter engine. Unfortunately as our airframe
weight continues to creep up, it is maxing out the hosepower ability of the
912 series engines. So if Rotax were to develop a 125 horsepower version of
a 912, I'm confident our Kitfoxes would perform best.
But as landplanes go, if that 0-235 works like yours does, I wouldn't change
anything. I'm actually surprised that no one has ever tried an 0-320 yet?
With a 15 gallon header tank and a large battery in the tail it might even
balance <grin>
A good debate Cliff!
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>
>
> Good story Paul, no doubt that I have much to learn about how a plane
> performs on floats. I agree that it's just hard to beat light wing
> loading.
> Now what would happen if the 701 and Supercub in the contest each loaded
> up
> with 500 lbs of fuel, passenger and cargo. Who would win that contest?
> How about two models 5's loaded like this, one with 912s and one with
> 0-235?
> I really don't know for sure. Now, once off the water which one will be
> able
> to climb at a steeper angle and clear the trees at the lake edge? In my
> experience, the 0-235 will have a better chance of clearing the trees.
>
> Here's something to consider.... what if your friend with the model 4 and
> Lyc 0-235 would set the plane on the floats so that the wing sat a higher
> angle of incidence and then he installed VG's? Or better yet, leading edge
> slats.
> The raw thrust that this engine is capable of would likely make this work.
> Oh, one other thing, does he really have enough elevator authority to
> rotate
> the plane far enough at a low enough speed? Most kitfoxes with a heavy
> engine don't really have enough elevator authority, especially when
> lightly
> loaded. On floats perhaps the wing doesn't need to have a high angle of
> incidence if the elevator authority is such that it can artifiicially
> create
> it by rotating the plane at a slow speed. I'm sorry if all this is moot in
> relation to floats, I really don't know the physics involved.
> What are the numbers on his prop (length and pitch) and what static rpm
> can
> it turn?
> Cliff
>
>
>
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: VW Installation |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Gary Olson <ofd725@yahoo.com>
Ed,
Sorry I didn't get back sooner, I just got busy. The Name of the company that
is building my engine mount is, Specialty welding N1079 21st Ct., Neshkoro, WI.
54960. Ph#. 920 293-8089.
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 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Paul Seehafer" <av8rps@tznet.com>
All,
One day when I have more money and time, I will contract someone to build me
a true "Bush Gear" for my IV. I would make a 4130 tube gear much like we
have now, but 6 inches taller. And I think I would make the bungees attach
like the Supercub or the Highlander, (externally) so they are easier to
install and inspect, and would make changing over from floats a lot easier
as well. I would also make the outer stance much wider and run large tires
(like the Highlander is now).
So I have horrible forward visibility now right? Well, so I make a longer
(fibreglass or metal?) tailwheel spring with more of an arch in it with a
larger pneumatic tire. I believe without too much trouble you could get the
visibility back to where it was stock.
Why do all this? Better back country off field ops, improved wing incidence
for STOL work, and above all things you will find yourself not hearing
comments about your cute "little airplane". Always drives me crazy. With
just a little boost in the air our airplanes can not only work better, but
also appear much appealing to other pilots.
Let's see, if I was to resurrect Skystar, from a sales standpoint,
lengthening the gear would be the first change I would make to the
taildragger. That alone would increase the number of people interested in
the airplane, as they would be immediately impressed when they walked up the
airplane. I've watched my buddy sell Highlanders to my G.A. friends
because they love how much larger the airplane is than a Kitfox. Yet the
Highlander isn't bigger. It just looks bigger. But even after I show them
Kitfox specs, they still don't believe it. Go figure.
After 25 years in the car business, there is an old saying we used that
really rings true for all things one is trying to market...."Sex appeal
sells". And as pilots go, to many of us there is nothing sexier than a
macho looking boonie basher...
Paul Seehafer
Wisconsin
912 Model IV on Aerocet Amphibs
----- Original Message -----
From: "Fox5flyer" <morid@northland.lib.mi.us>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Tall gear
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Fox5flyer" <morid@northland.lib.mi.us>
>
> It wasn't Grove Cliff, or maybe I should say that I was told it wasn't
> Grove. I've been told that by Skystar and Robbie Grove himself. I once
> heard who it was, but it was a long time ago and I have trouble
> remembering
> what I did this morning let alone years ago. I believe a lot of the early
> Fox 5s were produced with that gear, but as John M. said, it was too tall
> for nose-gear airplanes and I think that Skystar just wanted one type of
> gear to deal with.
> Deke
>
>> Deke,
>> Right, the big stuff is what I'm talking about, a choppy field is not the
>> issue. And I agree that taller is better, I've been touting the virtues
>> of
>> taller gear in other posts for some time.
>> Who, other than Grove and Hammerhead, ever made spring gear for the
> Kitfox?
>> When the tall gear was made, I don't think Hammerhead was in existence.
>> Musta been Grove.
>> Cliff
>>
>> > Cliff,
>> > I can understand your concern about shearing off the gear, and with
>> > extreme
>> > use, your concern probably has merit. Personally, I feel a big reason
> the
>> > Super Cubs don't use spring gear is because of the weight penalty.
>> > However,
>> > my landing/takeoffs are about 90 percent rough field as I'm based at my
>> > own
>> > strip down the middle of a hay field. It was never graded or plowed,
> only
>> > a
>> > strip down the middle was mowed with the dips and hollows remaining.
> That
>> > aluminum tall gear soaks it up nicely and always has with the standard
>> > 6.00x6 tires and wheel pants. IMO, one advantage of the tall gear is
> that
>> > it's more flexible and can handle the rough stuff a little better by
> being
>> > able to bend (give) more readily when hitting a small obstacle.
>> > Admittedly
>> > I haven't had to drive over any 8 inch bolders or tree stumps, but I'm
>> > convinced the tall gear is a better choice. Sure, the airplane sits up
>> > higher in the front and visibility forward is crap, but I've also owned
> a
>> > S5
>> > with the Continental cowling and low gear that was only marginally
> better.
>> > Back to my original question. Anybody know who produced my gear?
>> > Deke
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
>
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: "Paul Seehafer" <av8rps@tznet.com>
Kerry,
Glad to know someone is enjoying our attempt at civilized bantering (smile)
Paul S
> I inadvertently started this discussion so I would just like to say what a
> great contribution the postings by Paul and Cliff have made to our
> understanding of how Kitfox perform in the real world.
> Thanks guys.
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: VW Installation |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "cirrus10" <cirrus10@qwest.net>
Thanks Gary,
You are dealing with 2 Ed's. You actually gave me the # earlier. The other
Ed may need this number. Thanks again.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gary Olson" <ofd725@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: VW Installation
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Gary Olson <ofd725@yahoo.com>
>
> Ed,
>
> Sorry I didn't get back sooner, I just got busy. The Name of the company
> that is building my engine mount is, Specialty welding N1079 21st Ct.,
> Neshkoro, WI. 54960. Ph#. 920 293-8089.
>
> 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 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:
> But for a seaplane (having the additional drag
> and weight, and being affected by scale factor whereas the heavier
> lycoming
> airplane needs more buoyancy/larger and heavier floats)
Both planes would have the same gross weight rating, 1550#, therefore,
wouldn't they use the same floats? The heavier plane would just have a
smaller useful load.
> So if Rotax were to develop a 125 horsepower version of
> a 912, I'm confident our Kitfoxes would perform best.
Funny you mention this... several years ago I approached Eric Tucker, the US
Rotax distributor, at Oshkosh and asked if they would develop a larger
version of the 912 in the 125 hp range. He paused a few seconds then said,
"Think 3 cylinders, in line, think 5 years". That's all he would say. Don't
know if it will be direct drive or geared or what the HP target is. If they
come out with a lightweight, fuel injected, electronic ignition engine in
the 125 hp range I'll be building a new kitfox.
> But as landplanes go, if that 0-235 works like yours does, I wouldn't
change
> anything. I'm actually surprised that no one has ever tried an 0-320 yet?
Vic Jacko, the guy that built my plane and a member of this group, has been
talking about doing just that and I have been trying to talk him out of it.
In my opinion, the 0-235 is at the very limit of the weight that can be
tolerated on the nose of a kitfox. Even though an 0-320 is not a great deal
heavier, maybe 35 lbs, it's not just the 35 lbs that the firewall has to
hold, it's the 35 lbs times whatever "g" load you encounter in turbulence
and on hard landings
Also, every bit of extra weight adversely affects the flying characteristics
of an airplane. With that extra weight on the nose, you would need extra
weight in the tail. With the greater fuel burn of this engine, you need
bigger fuel tanks to carry more fuel. The stall speed would increase which
would cause the landing distance to increase which in my opinion would
negate the benefit of the extra hp. Plus the extra weight would even further
reduce the useful load. I think that with the extra weight of the engine,
extra ballast in the tail, extra weight of additional fuel tankage and the
extra weight of the fuel, the useful load will be unacceptably low. I just
thinks it's a bad idea and I'm a huge proponent of gobs of hp on a kitfox.
Please don't do it Vic!
If the objective is for the best short field performance, use the 125 hp
version of the 0-235 and a prop optimized for take-off. I think in all areas
except top speed, this combination would outperform the same plane with the
0-320. The reason is the wing. With a different, ie. larger wing, then the
0-320 could work.
Paul, this has been a fun and informative thread... please share any other
performance data that you get.
If you are ever in Colorado, be sure to look me up so I can take you flying
in our plane.
Best Regards,
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: | Re: 0-200 vs 912 performance |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Alan & Linda Daniels <aldaniels@fmtc.com>
I know of a 5 on floats with a O-290 in it in Alaska. It was built by
Lee Gilpin and I think the pictures are still on Sportflight under
completions. About the same weight as an O-320. I have not heard from
him in a long time. An update would be nice if you are still on the list
Lee.
>a 912, I'm confident our Kitfoxes would perform best.
>
>But as landplanes go, if that 0-235 works like yours does, I wouldn't change
>anything. I'm actually surprised that no one has ever tried an 0-320 yet?
>With a 15 gallon header tank and a large battery in the tail it might even
>balance <grin>
>
>A good debate Cliff!
>
>Paul Seehafer
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Clifford Begnaud" <shoeless@barefootpilot.com>
>To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 0-200 vs 912 performance
>
>
>
>
>>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clifford Begnaud"
>><shoeless@barefootpilot.com>
>>
>>Good story Paul, no doubt that I have much to learn about how a plane
>>performs on floats. I agree that it's just hard to beat light wing
>>loading.
>>Now what would happen if the 701 and Supercub in the contest each loaded
>>up
>>with 500 lbs of fuel, passenger and cargo. Who would win that contest?
>>How about two models 5's loaded like this, one with 912s and one with
>>0-235?
>>I really don't know for sure. Now, once off the water which one will be
>>able
>>to climb at a steeper angle and clear the trees at the lake edge? In my
>>experience, the 0-235 will have a better chance of clearing the trees.
>>
>>Here's something to consider.... what if your friend with the model 4 and
>>Lyc 0-235 would set the plane on the floats so that the wing sat a higher
>>angle of incidence and then he installed VG's? Or better yet, leading edge
>>slats.
>>The raw thrust that this engine is capable of would likely make this work.
>>Oh, one other thing, does he really have enough elevator authority to
>>rotate
>>the plane far enough at a low enough speed? Most kitfoxes with a heavy
>>engine don't really have enough elevator authority, especially when
>>lightly
>>loaded. On floats perhaps the wing doesn't need to have a high angle of
>>incidence if the elevator authority is such that it can artifiicially
>>create
>>it by rotating the plane at a slow speed. I'm sorry if all this is moot in
>>relation to floats, I really don't know the physics involved.
>>What are the numbers on his prop (length and pitch) and what static rpm
>>can
>>it turn?
>>Cliff
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clifford Begnaud" <shoeless@barefootpilot.com>
Paul wrote:
> One day when I have more money and time, I will contract someone to build
> me
> a true "Bush Gear" for my IV. I would make a 4130 tube gear much like we
> have now, but 6 inches taller. And I think I would make the bungees attach
> like the Supercub or the Highlander, (externally) so they are easier to
> install and inspect, and would make changing over from floats a lot easier
> as well. I would also make the outer stance much wider and run large
> tires
> (like the Highlander is now).
>
Great idea!! this will improve the handling of the plane, especially off
airport.
> So I have horrible forward visibility now right? Well, so I make a longer
> (fibreglass or metal?) tailwheel spring with more of an arch in it with a
> larger pneumatic tire. I believe without too much trouble you could get
> the
> visibility back to where it was stock.
In my opinion this negates one of the biggest benefits of the taller gear;
the increased wing incidence. If you raise the tail at the same time as
raising the main gear, you won't be increasing the wing incidence. In the
model 5/6/7 you can't see over the cowl anyway, so raising the tail when
raising the mains wouldn't help. Just get used to zig zagging while taxiing.
Increasing the wing incidence would give you a nice boost in take-off and
landing performance. Visibility be damned.....
Cliff
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: | need a Classic IV pilot's operating handbook |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Margaret Hastedt" <hastedt@iodp.tamu.edu>
Hi everyone,
I'm back after a several-years absence. My Classic IV is finally finished and
awaiting inspection. Now I need a POH to show the inspector and Skystar just
went out of business!! Can anyone help me here?
Thanks,
Margaret Hastedt
Classic IV, EA-81, Powerfin prop, 814 lbs.
http://www.sportflight.com/cgi-bin/uploader.pl?action=view&epoch=1130798083
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: | need a Classic IV pilot's operating handbook |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "ron schick" <roncarolnikko@hotmail.com>
Margaret I Passed an inspection with a POH that I made myself for an Avid.
It was simple with differring stages that could be used for preflight, run
up, taxiing, pointing into wind, etc.
Look at other poh Ron NB ORE
>From: "Margaret Hastedt" <hastedt@iodp.tamu.edu>
>Reply-To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
>To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: Kitfox-List: need a Classic IV pilot's operating handbook
>Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2005 10:33:10 -0600
>
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Margaret Hastedt"
><hastedt@iodp.tamu.edu>
>
>Hi everyone,
>
>I'm back after a several-years absence. My Classic IV is finally finished
>and awaiting inspection. Now I need a POH to show the inspector and
>Skystar just went out of business!! Can anyone help me here?
>
>Thanks,
>
>Margaret Hastedt
>Classic IV, EA-81, Powerfin prop, 814 lbs.
>http://www.sportflight.com/cgi-bin/uploader.pl?action=view&epoch=1130798083
>
>
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: Certified Rotax 912F3 |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Barbara Jones <nahsikhs@elltel.net>
Jose,
My understanding is no. When my kitfox was inspected by a DAR in 2000,
he asked if there were any certified parts on it. He said certified
components must be maintained according to the "Certified rules" to
maintain their certification. So, the certified engine will lose its
certification if not maintained accordingly. The value of the certified
engine is significantly higher than the uncertified version so you may
want to research what must be done to keep it certified, but you are not
required to do that.
Tom Jones
Jose M. Toro wrote:
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jose M. Toro" <jose_m_toro@yahoo.com>
>
>Guys:
>
>If I build a Kitfox powered by a certified Rotax
>912F3, will I be subject to different rules in
>comparison with using the 912UL.
>
>Jose M. Toro, P.E.
>Kitfox II/582->Jabiru 2200
>"A slow flight in the Caribbean..."
>
>
>
>
>__________________________________
>
>
>
>
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: VW Installation |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: edygert@charter.net
No problem.... Thanks Gary
Ed Dygert.......
At 06:19 AM 11/1/2005 -0800, you wrote:
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Gary Olson <ofd725@yahoo.com>
>
>Ed,
>
>Sorry I didn't get back sooner, I just got busy. The Name of the company
>that is building my engine mount is, Specialty welding N1079 21st Ct.,
>Neshkoro, WI. 54960. Ph#. 920 293-8089.
>
>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 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Certified Rotax 912F3 |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Paul Peerenboom" <ppeerenbo@charter.net>
I'm going to get hammered here but...
I am an A&P (airlines) and helped a IA due an annual on an Avid Magnum with
an O320.
The O320 still had the data plate on the engine which according to the local
FAA meant you had to C/W all AD's etc. because it could go from that
experimental to a certified aircraft. In this case there was an oil pump AD.
Also if you look a the requirements for your sign off on the aircraft the
FAA requires only 25 total hour not 40 total hour if you have a certified
engine.
Paul N102DG
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jose M. Toro" <jose_m_toro@yahoo.com>
Subject: Kitfox-List: Certified Rotax 912F3
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jose M. Toro" <jose_m_toro@yahoo.com>
>
> Guys:
>
> If I build a Kitfox powered by a certified Rotax
> 912F3, will I be subject to different rules in
> comparison with using the 912UL.
>
> Jose M. Toro, P.E.
> Kitfox II/582->Jabiru 2200
> "A slow flight in the Caribbean..."
>
>
> __________________________________
>
>
>
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 0-200 vs 912 performance |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Flybradair@cs.com
In a message dated 11/1/05 9:09:33 AM Central Standard Time,
aldaniels@fmtc.com writes:
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Alan &Linda Daniels <aldaniels@fmtc.com>
>
>
> I know of a 5 on floats with a O-290 in it in Alaska. It was built by
> Lee Gilpin and I think the pictures are still on Sportflight under
> completions. About the same weight as an O-320. I have not heard from
> him in a long time. An update would be nice if you are still on the list
> Lee.
>
Jay C. is another builder on this list that has the 0-290 installed. Do not
know how far along he is in the testing stage.
What say you Jay C? Can you give any info yet?
Brad
Wichita
Outback o-235l2c
22.5 hours and loving it!
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 alcohol in fuel |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Rex & Jan Shaw" <rexjan@bigpond.com>
Re the discussion of alcohol in fuel. My concern is the needle bearings in a
two stroke because this fuel absorbs moisture and the fuel is running
through the bearings. Years ago I raced two strokes in Karts. In one class
we were allowed to run alcohol [ Methanol ] fuel. Those that did had by far
more bearing failures than those that didn't. One of our club members ran
normal petrol through his motor for a few minutes after the meeting by
winding in the jet needles as alcohol needs 3 times the jet size.
Anyway he then got normal life out of his bearings again. All this was
sufficient proof but also if one examined a set of needle rollers out of an
alcohol engine surface etching was apparent that just did not happen in a
petrol engine. Now we are talking 100% alcohol here and the most you will
get in your mogass is about 10% because generally it won't mix above that.
However that !0% has me concerned. Fortunately I don't have to worry about
it as yet but it would be good to know if 10% is a problem and/or if
anything can be done about it. Of course some of you need to be concerned
now.
It's also an interesting fact that because synthetic oil absorbs moisture
it has the same effect in a motor that is left standing a lot rather than
very regular use. It seems natural to assume oil would protect and mineral
oil does. However the fact that synthetic absorbs moisture with detrimental
effect is further reason to my way of thinking that 10% ethanol might be
something to worry about re needle rollers in a two-stroke.
Now this is apart from the fibre glass tank problem. Does anyone know if
tanks were coated in 1993. Also any thoughts or facts on the 10%ethanol
effecting the needle bearings would be good. If it does as I suspect it
will, can we do something like using an additive to help ?
Rex Shaw
Australia
Kitfox Classic MKIV/582
rexjan@bigpond.com
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: need a Classic IV pilot's operating handbook |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Fred Shiple <fredshiple@sbcglobal.net>
ftp://ftp.itsys3.com/operatingchecklist.doc
Try the list from this site. I changed values to
represent the numbers I got from my series 6.
Inspector was satisfied.
Fred
I need a POH to show the inspector and Skystar just
do not archive
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: | Re: 0-200 vs 912 performance |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Vic Jacko" <vicwj@earthlink.net>
Cliff, If I build it will they come! something out of "Field of Dreams"
No, I am not going to build it as I have decided to finish my new house and
try to finish the RV-9A as well.
The 0-320 is only 30 lbs heavier than the 0-235 as you stated. This
equates to only 5 gallons of gasoline. I and my partner can loose the
thirty pounds by packing lighter and eating less. The additional weight
on the nose can be balanced by just extending the tail moment about a foot
as has been done with the avid. I think this combo will climb at 2000 FPM
or better and come close to cruising at Vne if you wanted to.
Least we not forget the Super Cubs with the 0360/ 180 HP. The frame of the
Kitfox is just as sturdy as the Cub's.
O well I guess this is just a dream.
Just a note on my RV-9A: I am shooting at an empty weight of 975 lbs with
the 0-320 . Most of them are coming out 1050 to 1075.
Thanks for your concern and the interesting discussion.
Vic
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 0-200 vs 912 performance
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clifford Begnaud"
> <shoeless@barefootpilot.com>
>
> Paul wrote:
>> But for a seaplane (having the additional drag
>> and weight, and being affected by scale factor whereas the heavier
>> lycoming
>> airplane needs more buoyancy/larger and heavier floats)
>
> Both planes would have the same gross weight rating, 1550#, therefore,
> wouldn't they use the same floats? The heavier plane would just have a
> smaller useful load.
>
>> So if Rotax were to develop a 125 horsepower version of
>> a 912, I'm confident our Kitfoxes would perform best.
>
> Funny you mention this... several years ago I approached Eric Tucker, the
> US
> Rotax distributor, at Oshkosh and asked if they would develop a larger
> version of the 912 in the 125 hp range. He paused a few seconds then said,
> "Think 3 cylinders, in line, think 5 years". That's all he would say.
> Don't
> know if it will be direct drive or geared or what the HP target is. If
> they
> come out with a lightweight, fuel injected, electronic ignition engine in
> the 125 hp range I'll be building a new kitfox.
>
> > But as landplanes go, if that 0-235 works like yours does, I wouldn't
> change
>> anything. I'm actually surprised that no one has ever tried an 0-320
>> yet?
>
> Vic Jacko, the guy that built my plane and a member of this group, has
> been
> talking about doing just that and I have been trying to talk him out of
> it.
> In my opinion, the 0-235 is at the very limit of the weight that can be
> tolerated on the nose of a kitfox. Even though an 0-320 is not a great
> deal
> heavier, maybe 35 lbs, it's not just the 35 lbs that the firewall has to
> hold, it's the 35 lbs times whatever "g" load you encounter in turbulence
> and on hard landings
> Also, every bit of extra weight adversely affects the flying
> characteristics
> of an airplane. With that extra weight on the nose, you would need extra
> weight in the tail. With the greater fuel burn of this engine, you need
> bigger fuel tanks to carry more fuel. The stall speed would increase which
> would cause the landing distance to increase which in my opinion would
> negate the benefit of the extra hp. Plus the extra weight would even
> further
> reduce the useful load. I think that with the extra weight of the engine,
> extra ballast in the tail, extra weight of additional fuel tankage and the
> extra weight of the fuel, the useful load will be unacceptably low. I just
> thinks it's a bad idea and I'm a huge proponent of gobs of hp on a kitfox.
> Please don't do it Vic!
> If the objective is for the best short field performance, use the 125 hp
> version of the 0-235 and a prop optimized for take-off. I think in all
> areas
> except top speed, this combination would outperform the same plane with
> the
> 0-320. The reason is the wing. With a different, ie. larger wing, then the
> 0-320 could work.
>
> Paul, this has been a fun and informative thread... please share any other
> performance data that you get.
> If you are ever in Colorado, be sure to look me up so I can take you
> flying
> in our plane.
>
> Best Regards,
> Cliff
>
>
>
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: | Cargo Pod brackets, instructions |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Marco Menezes <msm_9949@yahoo.com>
Does anyone out there have forward and rear cargo pod mounting brackets (Skystar
p/n 65022.000 and 65023.000) for sale? I also need the instructions from the
cargo pod kit (67003.000). If no spare brackets then how about close-up photos
of the brackets and installation so that I can have some fabricated?
Thanks!
Marco Menezes
Model 2 582 N99KX
---------------------------------
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: Re alcohol in fuel |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Brian Rodgers" <brodg@texas.net>
Rex,
Don't know about Oz, but in the USofA, there is a fuel named "E85" which is
85% ethanol, 15% gasoline and many newer (since 1992?) vehicles ("variable
fuel") are rated for the blended ethanol. E10 (10% ethanol) is much more
common (especially in our plains states) and is approved by all of our major
car manufacturers and does not void warranties. So, gas and ethanol (the
generic term "alcohol" is not specific enough, see below) DO mix well.
Note that the mix above is ETHANOL, not methanol.
Per "ethanolacrossamerica.net", METHANOL is "highly corrosive, more volatile
than ethanol, and more damaging to plastic and rubber fuel system components
known as elastomers."
Perhaps you are confusing the two alcohol types' properties.
Two-strokes may be a bit different, but the concerns over 10% ethanol in our
aircraft fuel would seem unfounded.
Brian
IV/912
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rex & Jan Shaw" <rexjan@bigpond.com>
Subject: Kitfox-List: Re alcohol in fuel
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Rex & Jan Shaw" <rexjan@bigpond.com>
>
> Re the discussion of alcohol in fuel. My concern is the needle bearings in
a
> two stroke because this fuel absorbs moisture and the fuel is running
> through the bearings. Years ago I raced two strokes in Karts. In one class
> we were allowed to run alcohol [ Methanol ] fuel. Those that did had by
far
> more bearing failures than those that didn't. One of our club members ran
> normal petrol through his motor for a few minutes after the meeting by
> winding in the jet needles as alcohol needs 3 times the jet size.
> Anyway he then got normal life out of his bearings again. All this was
> sufficient proof but also if one examined a set of needle rollers out of
an
> alcohol engine surface etching was apparent that just did not happen in a
> petrol engine. Now we are talking 100% alcohol here and the most you will
> get in your mogass is about 10% because generally it won't mix above that.
> However that !0% has me concerned. Fortunately I don't have to worry about
> it as yet but it would be good to know if 10% is a problem and/or if
> anything can be done about it. Of course some of you need to be concerned
> now.
> It's also an interesting fact that because synthetic oil absorbs
moisture
> it has the same effect in a motor that is left standing a lot rather than
> very regular use. It seems natural to assume oil would protect and mineral
> oil does. However the fact that synthetic absorbs moisture with
detrimental
> effect is further reason to my way of thinking that 10% ethanol might be
> something to worry about re needle rollers in a two-stroke.
> Now this is apart from the fibre glass tank problem. Does anyone know if
> tanks were coated in 1993. Also any thoughts or facts on the 10%ethanol
> effecting the needle bearings would be good. If it does as I suspect it
> will, can we do something like using an additive to help ?
> Rex Shaw
> Australia
> Kitfox Classic MKIV/582
> rexjan@bigpond.com
>
>
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: Peachtree stop |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
Well folks, it looks like I am flying tomorrow instead
of Thur or Fri from KY to Fla due to winds. That
means I need to stop in Peachtree to pick up some TCP
to finish the trip. (My shipment probably won't
arrive in time here for me to start with it here and
go more direct.)
Any Fox drivers want to say high while I am passing
thru Peachtree, I should get there noonish +/- an
hour. Otherwise sorry I missed you. No time to stay
too long, or I won't make it to Titusville before
dark.
Just thought I would pass the word. :-)
Kurt S. S-5/NSI turbo
__________________________________
Message 23
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Kitfox - Georgia MoGas |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
Thanks Michel,
I appoligize to everyone for not having more time to
talk on the list yet. I am seldom at home and need to
use hotel, library and friends computers until my life
stabilizes again. Hopefully that will be by years
end???
Well, let's see if I can make it to Fla tomorrow.
Winds are expected to go from tail to head by Thursday
and that would be a 30 mph difference. Take what I
can get this time....
Kurt S.
--- Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no> wrote:
>
> > From: kurt schrader [smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com]
> > I am back on the list.
>
> Welcome back to the list, Kurt, we have missed you.
> Sorry, I can't meet you half way between Kentucky
> and Florida with a truck of mogas but ... have a
> nice flight and stay away from hurricanes Alpha,
> Beta, Gamma and ... :-(
>
> Cheers,
> Michel
>
> do not archive
__________________________________
http://farechase.yahoo.com
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: Guy Buchanan <bnn@nethere.com>
Would anyone recommend an upholsterer in So Cal?
Thanks,
Guy Buchanan
K-IV 1200 / 582 / 99.9% done, thanks mostly to Bob Ducar.
Do not archive
Message 25
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Cargo Pod brackets, instructions |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "flier" <flier@sbcglobal.net>
Hi Marco,
I've got instructions somewhere, I'll have to dig 'em up. I'll also try to
get you a photo of the brackets in a day or so.
Regards,
Ted
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Marco
Menezes
Subject: Kitfox-List: Cargo Pod brackets, instructions
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Marco Menezes <msm_9949@yahoo.com>
Does anyone out there have forward and rear cargo pod mounting brackets
(Skystar p/n 65022.000 and 65023.000) for sale? I also need the instructions
from the cargo pod kit (67003.000). If no spare brackets then how about
close-up photos of the brackets and installation so that I can have some
fabricated?
Thanks!
Marco Menezes
Model 2 582 N99KX
---------------------------------
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: Re alcohol in fuel |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clem Nichols" <cnichols@scrtc.com>
I can't comment on ethanol in 2 strokes, but do know that Ellison which
makes the TBI system used on NSI Subaru engines recommends against using
fuel with ethanol because of possible damage to the TBI's internal
components. Their recommendation is to use only 100 LL, but then this
raises the possibility of lead buildup on the exhaust valves with a possible
loss of compression. This can be avoided by using either TCP or the product
sold by Jim McBeam, but I have chosen to use the water test previously
mentioned to avoid ethanol when burning mogas. I'm still not certain I'm
doing the correct thing, but it's worked so far. NSI further confuses the
situation by stating in their literature than their engine can be run with
anything from 89 octane auto fuel up to and including 100LL.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Rodgers" <brodg@texas.net>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re alcohol in fuel
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Brian Rodgers" <brodg@texas.net>
>
> Rex,
> Don't know about Oz, but in the USofA, there is a fuel named "E85" which
> is
> 85% ethanol, 15% gasoline and many newer (since 1992?) vehicles ("variable
> fuel") are rated for the blended ethanol. E10 (10% ethanol) is much more
> common (especially in our plains states) and is approved by all of our
> major
> car manufacturers and does not void warranties. So, gas and ethanol (the
> generic term "alcohol" is not specific enough, see below) DO mix well.
>
> Note that the mix above is ETHANOL, not methanol.
>
> Per "ethanolacrossamerica.net", METHANOL is "highly corrosive, more
> volatile
> than ethanol, and more damaging to plastic and rubber fuel system
> components
> known as elastomers."
> Perhaps you are confusing the two alcohol types' properties.
>
> Two-strokes may be a bit different, but the concerns over 10% ethanol in
> our
> aircraft fuel would seem unfounded.
> Brian
> IV/912
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Rex & Jan Shaw" <rexjan@bigpond.com>
> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Kitfox-List: Re alcohol in fuel
>
>
>> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Rex & Jan Shaw" <rexjan@bigpond.com>
>>
>> Re the discussion of alcohol in fuel. My concern is the needle bearings
>> in
> a
>> two stroke because this fuel absorbs moisture and the fuel is running
>> through the bearings. Years ago I raced two strokes in Karts. In one
>> class
>> we were allowed to run alcohol [ Methanol ] fuel. Those that did had by
> far
>> more bearing failures than those that didn't. One of our club members ran
>> normal petrol through his motor for a few minutes after the meeting by
>> winding in the jet needles as alcohol needs 3 times the jet size.
>> Anyway he then got normal life out of his bearings again. All this was
>> sufficient proof but also if one examined a set of needle rollers out of
> an
>> alcohol engine surface etching was apparent that just did not happen in a
>> petrol engine. Now we are talking 100% alcohol here and the most you will
>> get in your mogass is about 10% because generally it won't mix above
>> that.
>> However that !0% has me concerned. Fortunately I don't have to worry
>> about
>> it as yet but it would be good to know if 10% is a problem and/or if
>> anything can be done about it. Of course some of you need to be concerned
>> now.
>> It's also an interesting fact that because synthetic oil absorbs
> moisture
>> it has the same effect in a motor that is left standing a lot rather than
>> very regular use. It seems natural to assume oil would protect and
>> mineral
>> oil does. However the fact that synthetic absorbs moisture with
> detrimental
>> effect is further reason to my way of thinking that 10% ethanol might be
>> something to worry about re needle rollers in a two-stroke.
>> Now this is apart from the fibre glass tank problem. Does anyone know
>> if
>> tanks were coated in 1993. Also any thoughts or facts on the 10%ethanol
>> effecting the needle bearings would be good. If it does as I suspect it
>> will, can we do something like using an additive to help ?
>> Rex Shaw
>> Australia
>> Kitfox Classic MKIV/582
>> rexjan@bigpond.com
>>
>>
>
>
>
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: "Clem Nichols" <cnichols@scrtc.com>
Correction on my last posting: the supplier of Decalin TCP is John McBean, not
Jim McBeam. Being from Kentucky I guess I was thinking more about ethanol by
the fifth than ethanol in fuel. Sorry about the mistake, John.
Clem Nichols
Do Not Archive
Message 28
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | need a Classic IV pilot's operating handbook |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jeffrey Puls" <pulsair@mindspring.com>
Did I read that right; your Classic IV weighs 814 pounds empty? Jeff
Classic IV.
> [Original Message]
> From: Margaret Hastedt <hastedt@iodp.tamu.edu>
> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> Date: 11/1/2005 11:34:02 AM
> Subject: Kitfox-List: need a Classic IV pilot's operating handbook
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Margaret Hastedt"
<hastedt@iodp.tamu.edu>
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> I'm back after a several-years absence. My Classic IV is finally
finished and awaiting inspection. Now I need a POH to show the inspector
and Skystar just went out of business!! Can anyone help me here?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Margaret Hastedt
> Classic IV, EA-81, Powerfin prop, 814 lbs.
>
http://www.sportflight.com/cgi-bin/uploader.pl?action=view&epoch=1130798083
>
>
Message 29
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Lmar <my93avid@yahoo.com>
Here is what Rotax says in Service Information 13UL94
I'm sorry that the copy didn't turn out good, but you should be able to get the
gists of what they're saying.
SERVICE INFORMATION 13 UL 94
July 1994
Fuel quality in regards to the operation of a two cycle engine is becoming ever
more important. The basic
steps to follow and things to watch for are as follows:
WARNING: Therefore it is essential that the operator scrutinize each fuel batch
to determine the
fuels overall suitability.
Always buy fuel from a large supplier who openly displays the current octane ratings.
Make all efforts possible to confirm the fuel you are buying is as advertised.
Try and get
basic technical data on the fuel you are using in regards to: Octane ratings, ethanol,
methanol blends as oxygenates, seasonal blend
A WARNING: Your minimum fuel requirement is listed in the current issue of your
operators manual for
your engine type. Make sure you follow it.
A WARNING: Oxygenates (alcohol additives) are to be avoided, any volumes over 5
% cannot be used.
Testing for alcohol is the only safe way to be sure your fuel is ok_ for use in
your ROTAX.
+ NOTE: A simple test fdt for doing this is available thmugh authorized distributors
of Mogas for
aircraft. Contact your local FAA for your nearest Mogas distributor.
WARNING: The alcohol will attract water, this can cause your sediment traps to
flood, plug filters and
restrict fuel flow.
AI~~,andveryimportant,thedcoholcompetesdirecUywi~thelubrication.anddepending
on your oilsa bility to combat such, could cause engine damage.
tmportant also is the alcohol carrfes water which on engine shut down and storage
can
create corrosion on vital engine parts such as crank-, main- and rod bearings as
well as
pins. Once corrosion pits have started, the bearings will fail shortly after.
n ATTENTION:
A WARNING:
l NOTE:
Seasonal blend crossovers can affect your fuels volatility if you use a winter
blend fuel
during a hot summer day. This is a common occurrence with people who buy a fue\
blend
in colder climates in March, but dont use it in their ROTAX until June. Evaporation
temperatures of your fuel must be low enough to minimize crankcase and combustion
chamberdeposits as well as spark plug fouling without fear of vapour locking or
boiling.
Always make sure you buy your fuel from a high volume user. and avoid fuel which
has
been in stotags for long periods of time, especially between seasons.
Loss of octane rating is a common problem on fuel stored incorrectly, which could
lead
directty to entine stoppage.
Current FAA guidelines require that auto fuel approved for aircraft (Mogas) meet
stricter
guidelines than that of regular car gas. This may be the simplest way to maintain
some
control over what you are using. even so scrutinize carefully!
WARNING!
The ill effects of alcohol in your engine are as follows;
Failure to comply with this recommendation could result in engine damage and personal
injury!
Larry
---------------------------------
Message 30
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Rick" <wingsdown@comcast.net>
I have a complete medium dark blue leather set up for a model five. It
includes a covered and carbon fiber reinforced seat. Email off list and I
will send pics. Also have complete set Oregon Aero temper for cusions.
Factory cushions already sold.
Rick
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Guy Buchanan
Subject: Kitfox-List: Upholstery
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Guy Buchanan <bnn@nethere.com>
Would anyone recommend an upholsterer in So Cal?
Thanks,
Guy Buchanan
K-IV 1200 / 582 / 99.9% done, thanks mostly to Bob Ducar.
Do not archive
Message 31
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | streamlined covers (small) |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bob Robertson" <aerocontrols@clearwave.ca>
Hi all,
A few....ok, quite a few, years ago I saw a vendor at Oshkosh that was
selling snap on streamlined covers for flying wires. These were plastic
and simply snapped on over a 3/32" or 1/8" brace cable.
I'm gonna test the memories of a few "old hats" out there by asking if
anyone remembers seeing these and does anyone know if they are still
available?
Thanks in advance for any replies..
regards and be safe..
Bob Robertson
Light Engine Services Ltd.
Rotax Service Center
St. Albert, Ab. T8N 1M8
Ph: (Tech Support) 1-780-418-4164
Ph: (Order Line) 1-866-418-4164 (TOLL FREE)
www.rtx-av-engines.ca
Message 32
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Kitfox-4 1200 912UL for sale |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jay Fabian" <experimental208nd@comcast.net>
Hi List,
I have my Kitfox 4 - 1200 for sale now. Built in 2001, 135 TT, BRS........I have
been back and forth for a year or so. But I have put a whole 5 ish hours total
time this year and maybe 12 last year on it. It needs to fly more. Contact
me off list for details and $$.
I am in Mass.
Thanks
Jay
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! --
|