Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:41 AM - Re: 0-200 vs 912 performance (Paul Seehafer)
2. 04:55 AM - Re: Flying Series 5,6,7's??? (W Duke)
3. 05:02 AM - Re: 0-200 vs 912 performance (Paul Seehafer)
4. 05:12 AM - Re: 0-200 vs 912 performance (Vic Jacko)
5. 05:13 AM - Re: Tall gear (Paul Seehafer)
6. 07:11 AM - Are the 0-200/0-235 KFs quieter than the 912 KF's? (Harris, Robert)
7. 07:39 AM - Re: Are the 0-200/0-235 KFs quieter than the 912 KF's? (Clifford Begnaud)
8. 07:51 AM - Two types Float Pilots? (Harris, Robert)
9. 08:12 AM - Re: Are the 0-200/0-235 KFs quieter than the 912 (Harris, Robert)
10. 09:57 AM - checking fuel for alcohol (ethanol) (Mike Ford)
11. 10:17 AM - Re: Upholstery (Guy Buchanan)
12. 11:43 AM - Re: Two types Float Pilots? (Andrew Matthaey)
13. 03:37 PM - Re: checking fuel for alcohol (ethanol) (Randy Daughenbaugh)
14. 04:26 PM - Re: Prop Pitch (mscotter)
15. 05:33 PM - Re: checking fuel for alcohol (ethanol) (Chuck & Deanna Schieffer)
16. 08:14 PM - Earls Oil Cooler (Kirk Martenson)
17. 08:19 PM - Re: Earls Oil Cooler (jdmcbean)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 0-200 vs 912 performance |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Paul Seehafer" <av8rps@tznet.com>
Vic,
You could just find an Avid Magnum kit to build and make your life easy.
They were designed for the 0-320 or 0-360. Yeah, real cruising
machines...climb 1500 fpm at gross, and cruise at 130+ mph with the full
undercambered high lift wing. (On floats it still will climb at 1,000 fpm,
and cruise at 100-105 mph).
So you don't really have to build that 0-320 Kitfox to find out one would
do. Although, I will admit if you could build the 0-320 Kitfox like Cliffs'
V, it would most likely be a hundred pounds lighter than the Magnum. The
Magnum weighs right around a thousand pounds empty on wheels, but out of
fairness, it is a much larger airplane than a Kitfox.
Just food for thought.
Paul Seehafer
----- Original Message -----
From: "Vic Jacko" <vicwj@earthlink.net>
> 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.
>
> Vic
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: Flying Series 5,6,7's??? |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: W Duke <n981ms@yahoo.com>
S6/TD/IO240 in Dublin GA. Come on over.
Maxwell Duke
Jeremy Casey <n79rt@kilocharlie.us> wrote:
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jeremy Casey"
Any flying Series 5,6,7's in Al. or GA.? Would like to see what I'm
about to spend all extra time/money on for awhile, up close. I have
actually never even sat in a 5,6,7 Kitfox.
Jeremy Casey
KiloCharlie Drafting, Inc.
jeremy@kilocharlie.us
---------------------------------
Message 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,
You are right, technically, that if both airplanes have the same gross
weight rating, then the floats should be same. But that 0-235 powered IV
makes a better example. It has a gross weight of 1200 pounds, but weighs a
thousand pounds on floats. So he needed more floatation in order to fly it
with 2 people. Consequently he went from 1200 lb floats to 1420's. And in
the process gained another 75 lbs of weight and a lot more drag. That's how
it happens with a float plane.
I'm with you on the new Rotax. More horsepower for the same basic weight is
the right deal. I heard talk of a 915, but I heard it was going to be a
turboed 100 hp 912s. (They say a 115 hp 914 is nothing more than a turboed
81 hp 912ul), so if logic applies, a turboed 912s could make 134 hp? Right?
Heck, isn't that essentially what the government is doing with the Rotax
engines in their Predator unmanned aircraft now? (actually I heard those run
two turbos and produce 150+ hp. But that is just what I heard). If
nothing else, it sure is fun to talk about what we have to look forward to.
I sent a post to Vic telling him to build an Avid Magnum (kits come up for
sale at times yet) so he doesn't have to go through all the trouble of
reinventing the Kitfox to handle a large Lycoming (actually, I was kidding
when I suggested someone 0-320 a Fox). The Magnum was designed for the
150-180 hp Lycoming already, and is a great performer. Probably a bit
heavier than a 0-320 Kitfox, but also much larger and stronger. So it would
be the way to go if one wants a larger engined airplane like a Kitfox.
You can bet I will look you up if ever I'm in that area. Same goes for you.
I live in central Wisconsin. Wouldn't it be fun to see how that 0-235 would
do here at our field elevations of 1200 msl? And maybe I could show you a
little about float flying <smirk>
Anyhow, I have truly enjoyed this conversation. And I know I've learned
something too. It's good to challenge one's thinking every now and then.
That's how we all benefit from this forum.
Paul Seehafer
----- Original Message -----
From: "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 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: "Vic Jacko" <vicwj@earthlink.net>
Ok, sounds like a good idea.
Any Magnum projects out there for sale?
Vic
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Seehafer" <av8rps@tznet.com>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 0-200 vs 912 performance
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Paul Seehafer" <av8rps@tznet.com>
>
> Vic,
>
> You could just find an Avid Magnum kit to build and make your life easy.
> They were designed for the 0-320 or 0-360. Yeah, real cruising
> machines...climb 1500 fpm at gross, and cruise at 130+ mph with the full
> undercambered high lift wing. (On floats it still will climb at 1,000
> fpm,
> and cruise at 100-105 mph).
>
> So you don't really have to build that 0-320 Kitfox to find out one would
> do. Although, I will admit if you could build the 0-320 Kitfox like
> Cliffs'
> V, it would most likely be a hundred pounds lighter than the Magnum. The
> Magnum weighs right around a thousand pounds empty on wheels, but out of
> fairness, it is a much larger airplane than a Kitfox.
>
> Just food for thought.
>
> Paul Seehafer
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Vic Jacko" <vicwj@earthlink.net>
>
>
>> 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.
>>
>> Vic
>
>
>
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>
Cliff,
Yeah, I agree. I wouldn't really worry about making my own airplane to sit
at the same angle. I would want the increased angle of attack so I could
take off shorter just like you would. I suggested the longer tailspring for
those who would be concerned about losing over the nose visibility (my IV is
possible to see over the nose when on it's stock bungee gear). The point
was that is was still possible to do even with a taller gear. Probably
should have been a little clearer on that.
Paul Seehafer
----- Original Message -----
From: "Clifford Begnaud" <shoeless@barefootpilot.com>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Tall gear
.... 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 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: | Are the 0-200/0-235 KFs quieter than the 912 KF's? |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Harris, Robert" <Robert_Harris@intuit.com>
Cliff and Paul,
When at cruise speed, is the inside cabin noise and vibration of the
0-200's/0-235 Kitfoxes smoother and quieter than the 912 Kitfoxes?
Robert
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: Are the 0-200/0-235 KFs quieter than the 912 KF's? |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clifford Begnaud" <shoeless@barefootpilot.com>
No, the 912s is quieter and smoother. In fact with the new model 7 firewall
foreward, the 912s with slipper clutch is so smooth you think you are flying
behind a turbine. And it is extremely quiet.
Cliff
> Cliff and Paul,
> When at cruise speed, is the inside cabin noise and vibration of the
> 0-200's/0-235 Kitfoxes smoother and quieter than the 912 Kitfoxes?
> Robert
>
>
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: | Two types Float Pilots? |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Harris, Robert" <Robert_Harris@intuit.com>
Hi Paul, I would like fly on floats but was discouraged when I read that
there are two types of "float pilots." Wet, and those that are going to get
wet. What percentage of Kitfox float pilots end up in the water?
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 |
|
KF' s?
| Subject: | Are the 0-200/0-235 KFs quieter than the 912 |
KF' s?
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Harris, Robert" <Robert_Harris@intuit.com>
WOW
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Clifford
Begnaud
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Are the 0-200/0-235 KFs quieter than the 912 KF's?
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clifford Begnaud"
<shoeless@barefootpilot.com>
No, the 912s is quieter and smoother. In fact with the new model 7 firewall
foreward, the 912s with slipper clutch is so smooth you think you are flying
behind a turbine. And it is extremely quiet.
Cliff
> Cliff and Paul,
> When at cruise speed, is the inside cabin noise and vibration of the
> 0-200's/0-235 Kitfoxes smoother and quieter than the 912 Kitfoxes?
> Robert
>
>
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: | checking fuel for alcohol (ethanol) |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Mike Ford <fordm2003@yahoo.com>
from http://www.safetydata.com/alcohol.htm
-------------------------
Simple Test Procedure for Alcohol in Fuel.
This simple and sensitive test for alcohol in fuel is
based on the affinity of alcohol for water. The gas
treatments commonly sold in the winter season are
usually nothing more than alcohol which when added to
the fuel system will mix with any water present and
prevent it from freezing and blocking the fuel lines
and system. This same process can be used to determine
if there is any alcohol present in your fuel.
The test process is as follows:
1.Pour a measured amount of fuel into a graduated jar
(10 ozs. is fine).
2.Add one (1) oz. of water to the fuel in the jar and
note or mark the level of the water which settles to
the bottom of the jar.
3.Shake the jar vigorously for about 30 seconds and
then set the jar down and let it settle completely.
After settling, note whether the level of water
visible in the jar has decreased or whether it has
disappeared completely.
If there is no water visible in the bottom of the jar
then that would indicate that there was at least 10%
alcohol in the fuel (assuming that you used 10 oz. of
fuel and 1 oz. of water). If only half of the water
remains then you have approximately 5% of alcohol in
your fuel, etc.
This test is fool proof (fuel proof?) test for
detecting alcohol, but should not be relied on to
determine the exact amount of any alcohol present.
This is similar to the testing relied on for any
aircraft which is using an auto fuel STC.
------------------
- Mike
__________________________________
http://farechase.yahoo.com
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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Guy Buchanan <bnn@nethere.com>
At 07:53 PM 11/1/2005, you wrote:
>I have a complete medium dark blue leather set up for a model five.
Thanks Rick, but I'm looking for repairs and mods, rather than installation.
Guy Buchanan
K-IV 1200 / 582 / 99.9% done, thanks mostly to Bob Ducar.
Do not archive
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: | Two types Float Pilots? |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Andrew Matthaey" <spaghettiohead@hotmail.com>
haha...you know they say that about tailwheel pilots too...I dunno if I'd
buy into that ;) I haven't ground-looped yet and I do not plan on joining
the "other side" LoL. Go fly floats!
Andrew
>From: "Harris, Robert" <Robert_Harris@intuit.com>
>Reply-To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
>To: "'kitfox-list@matronics.com'" <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: Kitfox-List: Two types Float Pilots?
>Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2005 07:51:12 -0800
>
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Harris, Robert"
><Robert_Harris@intuit.com>
>
>Hi Paul, I would like fly on floats but was discouraged when I read that
>there are two types of "float pilots." Wet, and those that are going to get
>wet. What percentage of Kitfox float pilots end up in the water?
>
>
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: | checking fuel for alcohol (ethanol) |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Randy Daughenbaugh" <rjdaugh@rapidnet.com>
Mike,
This isn't a criticism of you, but I feel that this can't be left standing
without a correction. Actually that site is proof that anyone can write
anything on the internet.
It is a poor written, misleading and totally incorrect procedure.
The best way to do the test is in a tall cylindrical container like a
graduated cylinder or test tube. Put water in about 10% of the height of
the cylinder. (Put the water in first! Don't put it in after the gas like
this website says because much of the alcohol can be extracted into the
water as the water goes in if you add it later.) Then add the gasoline that
you suspect has ethanol in it to nearly fill the cylinder. Cover and Shake!
The water WILL NOT be absorbed into the gas in any case. (An exception
would be if the fuel is E85 - 85% ethanol. But then we are not talking
gasoline any more!) If there is ethanol in the gasoline the water will
appear to increase a little bit as the ethanol adds to the water layer.
If you have any question of how this works, try it yourself! Get some 10%
ethanol gasoline and run the test. It is very simple and straight forward.
(But not as described in this reference.
The additives that they mention for taking water into the gasoline in the
winter are mostly methanol, and do work as described. But they are for
situations way at the other end of a phase diagram. They may work on a
couple of ounces of water in a tank of gas, but figure out what % of water
that represents. Anytime there is enough water there to give a separate
liquid phase, you are NOT going to get it to go into the gasoline. Just the
opposite will happen - the ethanol will go into the water layer and thus add
volume to the water layer.
I like to run the 10% ethanol in my cars, but for my Fox, I prefer no
ethanol.
Randy
.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mike Ford
Subject: Kitfox-List: checking fuel for alcohol (ethanol)
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Mike Ford <fordm2003@yahoo.com>
from http://www.safetydata.com/alcohol.htm
-------------------------
Simple Test Procedure for Alcohol in Fuel.
This simple and sensitive test for alcohol in fuel is
based on the affinity of alcohol for water. The gas
treatments commonly sold in the winter season are
usually nothing more than alcohol which when added to
the fuel system will mix with any water present and
prevent it from freezing and blocking the fuel lines
and system. This same process can be used to determine
if there is any alcohol present in your fuel.
The test process is as follows:
1.Pour a measured amount of fuel into a graduated jar
(10 ozs. is fine).
2.Add one (1) oz. of water to the fuel in the jar and
note or mark the level of the water which settles to
the bottom of the jar.
3.Shake the jar vigorously for about 30 seconds and
then set the jar down and let it settle completely.
After settling, note whether the level of water
visible in the jar has decreased or whether it has
disappeared completely.
If there is no water visible in the bottom of the jar
then that would indicate that there was at least 10%
alcohol in the fuel (assuming that you used 10 oz. of
fuel and 1 oz. of water). If only half of the water
remains then you have approximately 5% of alcohol in
your fuel, etc.
This test is fool proof (fuel proof?) test for
detecting alcohol, but should not be relied on to
determine the exact amount of any alcohol present.
This is similar to the testing relied on for any
aircraft which is using an auto fuel STC.
------------------
- Mike
__________________________________
http://farechase.yahoo.com
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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "mscotter" <mscotter@comcast.net>
So what are the problems inherent with the Ivoprop? I've got a 3-blade that
came with my project and have been thinking of adding the in-flight
adjustable option when I get it flying.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Clint Bazzill
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Prop Pitch
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clint Bazzill"
<clint_bazzill@hotmail.com>
Hi,\
I have a Ivo inflight adjustable, have had a little problem with it. Would
not be without it for one minute. The problem you are going to find is not
being able to find the right angle, need one for each condition. With the
warp you are going to miss the IVO. I have one of the very origional,
bought it back in 1996. Still have the same gears and the motor had been
replaced. Not because it failed but it lost its torque. I know just how
much and when to adjust it. I don't over use it and have 1100 hours on it.
Clint
From: John Disher <jdisher@intergate.com>
Subject: Kitfox-List: Prop Pitch
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: John Disher <jdisher@intergate.com>
I have a Kitfox IV Speedster powered by a Rotax 912. I have just
finished suffering through an Ivo inflight adjustable pitch prop, tiring
of the problems and switched to a Warp Drive 3 blade ground adjustable
prop and am having problems determining how and where too set the pitch
for starters. Somebody told me 17 degrees measured 1 foot down from the
tip. Warp Drive says meaasure at the tip.
Anybody got any good advice?
--
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: checking fuel for alcohol (ethanol) |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Chuck & Deanna Schieffer" <cdschieffer@starnetdial.net>
For those who are interested, I got a "gasahol tester" for testing the
amount of alcohol in gas from Leading Edge Airfoils, 1-800-532-3462, item #
G 4396 for about $6.50. It is an aircraft style gasoline tester with marks
for adding proper amount of water and gasoline, then shake to determine
alcohol content. Seems to work pretty well.
Chuck S
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Ford" <fordm2003@yahoo.com>
Subject: Kitfox-List: checking fuel for alcohol (ethanol)
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Mike Ford <fordm2003@yahoo.com>
>
> from http://www.safetydata.com/alcohol.htm
> -------------------------
> Simple Test Procedure for Alcohol in Fuel.
>
> This simple and sensitive test for alcohol in fuel is
> based on the affinity of alcohol for water. The gas
> treatments commonly sold in the winter season are
> usually nothing more than alcohol which when added to
> the fuel system will mix with any water present and
> prevent it from freezing and blocking the fuel lines
> and system. This same process can be used to determine
> if there is any alcohol present in your fuel.
>
> The test process is as follows:
>
> 1.Pour a measured amount of fuel into a graduated jar
> (10 ozs. is fine).
>
> 2.Add one (1) oz. of water to the fuel in the jar and
> note or mark the level of the water which settles to
> the bottom of the jar.
>
> 3.Shake the jar vigorously for about 30 seconds and
> then set the jar down and let it settle completely.
>
> After settling, note whether the level of water
> visible in the jar has decreased or whether it has
> disappeared completely.
>
> If there is no water visible in the bottom of the jar
> then that would indicate that there was at least 10%
> alcohol in the fuel (assuming that you used 10 oz. of
> fuel and 1 oz. of water). If only half of the water
> remains then you have approximately 5% of alcohol in
> your fuel, etc.
>
> This test is fool proof (fuel proof?) test for
> detecting alcohol, but should not be relied on to
> determine the exact amount of any alcohol present.
> This is similar to the testing relied on for any
> aircraft which is using an auto fuel STC.
> ------------------
> - Mike
>
>
> __________________________________
> http://farechase.yahoo.com
>
>
>
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: | Earls Oil Cooler |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Kirk Martenson" <kirk@mninter.net>
Anybody out there find a replacement for the Earls (Part Number 20702) oil cooler?
Evidently these oil coolers are in short supply.
Thanks,
Kirk Martenson
Classic IV
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: | Earls Oil Cooler |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "jdmcbean" <jdmcbean@cableone.net>
Kirk,
Visit our web www.sportplanellc.com and go to the products page... It does
not have everything listed yet but we do have a nice oil cooler. I may have
a couple of the Earls but I would have to look.
Fly Safe !!
John & Debra McBean
www.sportplanellc.com
"The Sky is not the Limit... It's a Playground"
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Kirk Martenson
Subject: Kitfox-List: Earls Oil Cooler
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Kirk Martenson" <kirk@mninter.net>
Anybody out there find a replacement for the Earls (Part Number 20702) oil
cooler?
Evidently these oil coolers are in short supply.
Thanks,
Kirk Martenson
Classic IV
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! --
|