Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 02:26 AM - Re: checking fuel for alcohol (ethanol) (dwight purdy)
2. 03:21 AM - SV: checking fuel for alcohol (ethanol) (Michel Verheughe)
3. 04:53 AM - Re: Earls Oil Cooler (Kirk Martenson)
4. 05:11 AM - Re: Earls Oil Cooler (Dee Young)
5. 06:03 AM - Re: Two types Float Pilots? (Paul Seehafer)
6. 06:43 AM - Landing on the Ocean? Re: Two types Float Pilots? (Harris, Robert)
7. 07:06 AM - Re: Landing on the Ocean? Re: Two types Float Pilots? (Jeremy Casey)
8. 08:16 AM - Re: 0-200 vs 912 performance (Michael Gibbs)
9. 09:09 AM - Re: SV: Carb Icing WAS checking fuel for alcohol (ethanol) (Marco Menezes)
10. 09:30 AM - Re: Two types Float Pilots? (matt msg.05.23.05.04:21:08.26754 msg.05.23.05.04:21:08.26790 msg.05.23.05.06:30:00.19402 msg.05.23.05.07:05:35.29938 msg.05.23.05.08:42:28.21575 msg.05.23.05.08:42:28.21582 msg.05.23.05.08:57:10.6698 msg.05.23.05.10:00:04.32377 msg.05.23.05.11:00:42.31353 msg.05.23.05.11:21:06.24674 msg.05.23.05.11:23:26.28832 msg.05.23.05.12:11:57.25083 msg.05.23.05.12:28:45.16902 msg.05.23.05.12:30:46.1343 msg.05.23.05.15:43:11.15724 msg.05.23.05.15:51:21.28004 msg.05.23.05.16:50:42.4473 msg.05.23.05.20:16:01.11220 msg.05.23.05.21:41:19.17147 msg.05.23.05.21:56:05.11810 msg.05.23.05.22:11:26.1600 msg.05.23.05.22:11:29.2888 msg.05.23.05.22:16:47.12967 msg.09.11.05.23:59:51.9550 msg.10.21.05.23:59:54.30931 msg.10.26.05.23:59:24.19170 msg.11.03.05.02:26:46.7142 msg.11.03.05.03:21:10.2725 msg.11.03.05.04:53:25.16253 msg.11.03.05.05:11:36.5253 msg.11.03.05.06:03:38.12775 msg.11.03.05.06:43:54.3390 msg.11.03.05.07:06:21.10725 msg.11.03.05.08:16:13.7441 msg.11.03.05.09:09:06.8941 msg.11.03.05.09:30:55.11840 msg.11.03.05.10:01:31.25050 msg.11.03.05.10:18:14.15674 msg.11.03.05.10:38:38.12719 msg.11.03.05.11:20:06.1076 msg.11.03.05.11:20:07.2137 msg.11.03.05.12:11:37.14510 msg.11.03.05.12:35:31.14160 msg.11.03.05.18:03:31.16679 msg.11.03.05.21:51:31.31075 msg.11.03.05.23:52:50.32504 old_messages web_browse.day.0 web_browse.day.1 web_browse.day.2 web_browse.day.3 web_browse.day.4 web_browse.day.5 web_browse.day.6)
11. 10:01 AM - 914 (Alan & Linda Daniels)
12. 10:18 AM - Re: 914 (jdmcbean)
13. 10:38 AM - Re: Two types Float Pilots? (jdmcbean)
14. 11:20 AM - Re: Re: 0-200 vs 912 performance (Dennis Golden)
15. 11:20 AM - Re: 0-200 vs 912 performance (Jay Carter)
16. 12:11 PM - Please Remove from List (Lee Adcox)
17. 12:35 PM - Re: Two types Float Pilots? (Aerobatics@AOL.COM)
18. 06:03 PM - Re: Two types Float Pilots? (daniel johnson)
19. 09:51 PM - Re: The trouble with gascolators (kurt schrader)
20. 11:52 PM - SV: The trouble with gascolators (Michel Verheughe)
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: checking fuel for alcohol (ethanol) |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: dwight purdy <dpurdy@comteck.com>
It does not work that way! The water line goes up as it has combined with
the alcohol. Not less water.
dwight
At 09:53 AM 11/2/2005 -0800, you wrote:
>--> 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 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: | checking fuel for alcohol (ethanol) |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
> From: dwight purdy [dpurdy@comteck.com]
> It does not work that way! The water line goes up as it has combined with
> the alcohol. Not less water.
That's an interesting question: Will the eventual ethanol, mixed with the water,
show as ... water, or ... fuel? I have no idea. But I can say that, here in
Norway, nearly everybody use, in the winter time, something called (directly translated)
"Condensation remover" that we add to our fuel. It's, I believe, ethanol,
that will mix with the eventual water and the mixture will be "digested"
by the engine. Otherwise, water content can turn to ice in the carburettor.
Yes, I have experienced engine stops, due to that, in winter, and especially when
the temperature is around 0 degrees C.
Mind you, I would never use it in my plane. I have a very dry hangar and I test
the gascolator for water at each preflight. Never seen a drop of water in my
fuel!
Cheers,
Michel
do not archive
do not archive
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Earls Oil Cooler |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Kirk Martenson" <kirk@mninter.net>
John:
Please do look for the Earls. I have one, but I think there is a leak in it.
Thanks,
Kirk Martenson
----- Original Message -----
From: "jdmcbean" <jdmcbean@cableone.net>
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: 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
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> 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
>
>
>
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: | Earls Oil Cooler |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Dee Young" <henrysfork1@msn.com>
I purchased a real nice used motorcycle cooler off EBay. Works very good and
is designed for hard use.
Dee Young
Model II
Do not archive
>From: "Kirk Martenson" <kirk@mninter.net>
>Reply-To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
>To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: Kitfox-List: Earls Oil Cooler
>Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2005 22:13:52 -0600
>
>--> 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 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: Two types Float Pilots? |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Paul Seehafer" <av8rps@tznet.com>
Robert,
Not sure what you mean by "wet", but assume that means the airplane ends up
getting wet as in "sunk". If that is what you mean, it's too bad rumors
like that are spread. I run the Seaplane Base for EAA's annual convention,
and traditionally over the years we have seen a good amount of Avid and
Kitfox float flying (as just one example; one 582 Kitfox III pilot gives 30
to 40 volunteer rides every year), and have never had an incident worth
noting. I do however have to admit this year we had our first Avid / Kitfox
accident when a Subaru powered Mark IV Avid on straight floats flipped over
in rough water during a takeoff run with a large passenger. The airplane
was seriously damaged, but both pilot and passenger were uninjured. Out of
fairness to the pilot and the situation however, I have to tell you that
this pilot had been operating this airplane solely as a floatplane for at
least a decade, with no troubles. So I discount that one as a fluke. And
honestly, in the flying area I live every year there are landplanes that get
wrecked (usually during off airport operations) whereas it is rare to hear
of a seaplane accident. But in fairness, there are less seaplanes than
landplanes, so I'm sure based on percentages seaplane acccidents are
comparable. But it isn't like seaplanes are dangerous. Generally speaking,
a seaplane is safer than a landplane due to the float structure being there
to absorb impact if you need to go down into trees or rough terrain. And if
you can find a swamp or a field, a float plane can land there just fine, not
to mention the obvious option of water.
So don't let sensationalized stories stop you from flying floats. Our
Kitfox and Avid airplanes make some of the very best floatplanes out there,
and that is saying a lot because there are some very good seaplanes out
there. But for flat out inexpensive, fun, recreational seaplane flying you
will be hard pressed to find a better airplane than a Kitfox or Avid on
floats. Our airplanes are probably some of the most versatile aircraft ever
built, but they absolutely come into their own as a seaplane.
Paul Seehafer
ps - I would also suggest that tailwheel airplanes have similar rumors
attached to operating them. You know "Those who have groundlooped, and
those who will". Same theory applies. Learn how to fly your airplane well,
and enjoy it. Tailwheel flying, as well as float flying is worth taking the
time to learn. And if you learn it properly, and exercise good judgement,
you will find the risk to be minimal.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Harris, Robert" <Robert_Harris@intuit.com>
Subject: Kitfox-List: 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 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: | Two types Float Pilots? |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Harris, Robert" <Robert_Harris@intuit.com>
Thanks for the e-mail Paul,
I used to have floats for my Challenger but never got to use them because my
plane burned in the California Wild Fires. I live In California and would
like to land on the open ocean to fish and watch whales.
Would you land there? The ocean is often calm but there are there are always
swells.
How big of ocean swells and how much wind, can an experienced float pilot in
a 912 Model IV Kitfox on floats (like EDO) safely handle?
Robert
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Paul Seehafer
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Two types Float Pilots?
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Paul Seehafer" <av8rps@tznet.com>
Robert,
Not sure what you mean by "wet", but assume that means the airplane ends up
getting wet as in "sunk". If that is what you mean, it's too bad rumors
like that are spread. I run the Seaplane Base for EAA's annual convention,
and traditionally over the years we have seen a good amount of Avid and
Kitfox float flying (as just one example; one 582 Kitfox III pilot gives 30
to 40 volunteer rides every year), and have never had an incident worth
noting. I do however have to admit this year we had our first Avid / Kitfox
accident when a Subaru powered Mark IV Avid on straight floats flipped over
in rough water during a takeoff run with a large passenger. The airplane
was seriously damaged, but both pilot and passenger were uninjured. Out of
fairness to the pilot and the situation however, I have to tell you that
this pilot had been operating this airplane solely as a floatplane for at
least a decade, with no troubles. So I discount that one as a fluke. And
honestly, in the flying area I live every year there are landplanes that get
wrecked (usually during off airport operations) whereas it is rare to hear
of a seaplane accident. But in fairness, there are less seaplanes than
landplanes, so I'm sure based on percentages seaplane acccidents are
comparable. But it isn't like seaplanes are dangerous. Generally speaking,
a seaplane is safer than a landplane due to the float structure being there
to absorb impact if you need to go down into trees or rough terrain. And if
you can find a swamp or a field, a float plane can land there just fine, not
to mention the obvious option of water.
So don't let sensationalized stories stop you from flying floats. Our
Kitfox and Avid airplanes make some of the very best floatplanes out there,
and that is saying a lot because there are some very good seaplanes out
there. But for flat out inexpensive, fun, recreational seaplane flying you
will be hard pressed to find a better airplane than a Kitfox or Avid on
floats. Our airplanes are probably some of the most versatile aircraft ever
built, but they absolutely come into their own as a seaplane.
Paul Seehafer
ps - I would also suggest that tailwheel airplanes have similar rumors
attached to operating them. You know "Those who have groundlooped, and
those who will". Same theory applies. Learn how to fly your airplane well,
and enjoy it. Tailwheel flying, as well as float flying is worth taking the
time to learn. And if you learn it properly, and exercise good judgement,
you will find the risk to be minimal.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Harris, Robert" <Robert_Harris@intuit.com>
Subject: Kitfox-List: 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 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: | Two types Float Pilots? |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jeremy Casey" <n79rt@kilocharlie.us>
Robert,
I've never flown floats, but have a comment...another thing to consider
about landing even on a calm ocean is the salt water. You would have to
take a lot of anti-corrosive measures while building to have any chance
of a good lifespan from an airframe being exposed to direct salt
water...FWIW...
Jeremy Casey
<snip>
Thanks for the e-mail Paul,
I used to have floats for my Challenger but never got to use them
because my
plane burned in the California Wild Fires. I live In California and
would
like to land on the open ocean to fish and watch whales.
Would you land there? The ocean is often calm but there are there are
always
swells.
How big of ocean swells and how much wind, can an experienced float
pilot in
a 912 Model IV Kitfox on floats (like EDO) safely handle?
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: | Re: 0-200 vs 912 performance |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michael Gibbs <MichaelGibbs@cox.net>
Paul sez:
>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?
It's true that the 914 is a turbocharged version of the 80 HP 912,
but in a design decision that I cannot explain, the turbocharger does
not operate all the time--it has a 5 minute limit and is
electronically controlled to prevent over-use. So while the 914 will
give you 115 HP for takeoff and initial climb, you cruise around with
an 80 HP engine and will have trouble keeping up with the
912S-powered planes.
A turbocharged 912S would be sweet, even if it was only a
turbo-normalizer (able to maintain sea-level power as you climb). A
turbo 912S blown to 130 HP would probably be the perfect engine for
the Series 5, 6, and 7 foxes.
Mike G.
N728KF
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: Carb Icing WAS checking fuel for alcohol (ethanol) |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Marco Menezes <msm_9949@yahoo.com>
This topic and onset of winter, for those of us living up North, set me thinking
about carb icing. Has anyone experienced icing problems in the 582 equipped
with Bing 54 carbs? I've heard there are electric carb heaters available. Is
this a worthwhile investment ?
Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no> wrote:
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe
> From: dwight purdy [dpurdy@comteck.com]
> It does not work that way! The water line goes up as it has combined with
> the alcohol. Not less water.
That's an interesting question: Will the eventual ethanol, mixed with the water,
show as ... water, or ... fuel? I have no idea. But I can say that, here in
Norway, nearly everybody use, in the winter time, something called (directly translated)
"Condensation remover" that we add to our fuel. It's, I believe, ethanol,
that will mix with the eventual water and the mixture will be "digested"
by the engine. Otherwise, water content can turn to ice in the carburettor.
Yes, I have experienced engine stops, due to that, in winter, and especially when
the temperature is around 0 degrees C.
Mind you, I would never use it in my plane. I have a very dry hangar and I test
the gascolator for water at each preflight. Never seen a drop of water in my
fuel!
Cheers,
Michel
do not archive
do not archive
Marco Menezes
Model 2 582 N99KX
---------------------------------
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: | Re: Two types Float Pilots? |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "*" <caseclosed66@hotmail.com>
When it comes to floats, or flying in general, the pilot can make all the
difference. I'm up here in Taunton Massachusetts. We had a guy here with
what started out to be a beutiful KF IV on floats he had bought.
1. The first time he flipped it was up on Lake winnipesaukee in New
Hampshire, when he toof off from Laconia and tried to land on the lake with
his land gear still down.
2. After my mechanic spent a few months putting this nice little plane back
together. He flipped it again on long pond in East Taunton, within a few
weeks of it out of the shop. This time is seems that a high speed turn in a
decent cross wind was just too much for this nice little plane.
3. There was consiterible damage to the floats this time and so my mechanic
put the plane on land gear. The instructor doing the guys checkout for tail
wheel, upon landing, litterally jumped out of the plane, exlaiming that if
he ever saw this guy fly this plane agian that he was going to call the FAA.
Within a couple days that poor little plane needed a new wing and a bunch
more TLC after a ground loop.
This was all so painful to watch. I love these little planes and to see
this poor girl go through what she had to was almost unbearable. I belive
she has a good home now.
gc
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: Alan & Linda Daniels <aldaniels@fmtc.com>
I really don't think this is right. I sure can't peddle fast enough to
keep up with the 914 drivers.
>It's true that the 914 is a turbocharged version of the 80 HP 912,
>but in a design decision that I cannot explain, the turbocharger does
>not operate all the time--it has a 5 minute limit and is
>electronically controlled to prevent over-use. So while the 914 will
>give you 115 HP for takeoff and initial climb, you cruise around with
>an 80 HP engine and will have trouble keeping up with the
>912S-powered planes.
>
>
>
>
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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "jdmcbean" <jdmcbean@cableone.net>
The 914 is operating under a continuous boost... it is rated at 100 hp
continuous to 16000 ft. The 5 minute limit is for full power operations.
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 Alan & Linda
Daniels
Subject: Kitfox-List: 914
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Alan & Linda Daniels <aldaniels@fmtc.com>
I really don't think this is right. I sure can't peddle fast enough to
keep up with the 914 drivers.
>It's true that the 914 is a turbocharged version of the 80 HP 912,
>but in a design decision that I cannot explain, the turbocharger does
>not operate all the time--it has a 5 minute limit and is
>electronically controlled to prevent over-use. So while the 914 will
>give you 115 HP for takeoff and initial climb, you cruise around with
>an 80 HP engine and will have trouble keeping up with the
>912S-powered planes.
>
>
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: | Two types Float Pilots? |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "jdmcbean" <jdmcbean@cableone.net>
SNIP - ps- I would also suggest that tailwheel airplanes have similar rumors
attached to operating them. You know "Those who have groundlooped, and
those who will". Same theory applies. Learn how to fly your airplane well,
and enjoy it. Tailwheel flying, as well as float flying is worth taking the
time to learn. And if you learn it properly, and exercise good judgement,
you will find the risk to be minimal.
Paul,
Very well put... I might add that, and you may not agree, if you are
going to fly floats.. fly floats ! If you are going to fly wheels... fly
wheels ! Although amphibs are very useful, they add weight and complexity
and the opportunity to have the gear in the wrong position...
I like amphibs.. maybe someday I'll have some.
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 Paul Seehafer
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Two types Float Pilots?
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Paul Seehafer" <av8rps@tznet.com>
Robert,
Not sure what you mean by "wet", but assume that means the airplane ends up
getting wet as in "sunk". If that is what you mean, it's too bad rumors
like that are spread. I run the Seaplane Base for EAA's annual convention,
and traditionally over the years we have seen a good amount of Avid and
Kitfox float flying (as just one example; one 582 Kitfox III pilot gives 30
to 40 volunteer rides every year), and have never had an incident worth
noting. I do however have to admit this year we had our first Avid / Kitfox
accident when a Subaru powered Mark IV Avid on straight floats flipped over
in rough water during a takeoff run with a large passenger. The airplane
was seriously damaged, but both pilot and passenger were uninjured. Out of
fairness to the pilot and the situation however, I have to tell you that
this pilot had been operating this airplane solely as a floatplane for at
least a decade, with no troubles. So I discount that one as a fluke. And
honestly, in the flying area I live every year there are landplanes that get
wrecked (usually during off airport operations) whereas it is rare to hear
of a seaplane accident. But in fairness, there are less seaplanes than
landplanes, so I'm sure based on percentages seaplane acccidents are
comparable. But it isn't like seaplanes are dangerous. Generally speaking,
a seaplane is safer than a landplane due to the float structure being there
to absorb impact if you need to go down into trees or rough terrain. And if
you can find a swamp or a field, a float plane can land there just fine, not
to mention the obvious option of water.
So don't let sensationalized stories stop you from flying floats. Our
Kitfox and Avid airplanes make some of the very best floatplanes out there,
and that is saying a lot because there are some very good seaplanes out
there. But for flat out inexpensive, fun, recreational seaplane flying you
will be hard pressed to find a better airplane than a Kitfox or Avid on
floats. Our airplanes are probably some of the most versatile aircraft ever
built, but they absolutely come into their own as a seaplane.
Paul Seehafer
ps - I would also suggest that tailwheel airplanes have similar rumors
attached to operating them. You know "Those who have groundlooped, and
those who will". Same theory applies. Learn how to fly your airplane well,
and enjoy it. Tailwheel flying, as well as float flying is worth taking the
time to learn. And if you learn it properly, and exercise good judgement,
you will find the risk to be minimal.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Harris, Robert" <Robert_Harris@intuit.com>
Subject: Kitfox-List: 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 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: 0-200 vs 912 performance |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Dennis Golden <dgolden@golden-consulting.com>
Michael Gibbs wrote:
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michael Gibbs <MichaelGibbs@cox.net>
>
> Paul sez:
>
>
>>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?
>
>
> It's true that the 914 is a turbocharged version of the 80 HP 912,
> but in a design decision that I cannot explain, the turbocharger does
> not operate all the time--it has a 5 minute limit and is
> electronically controlled to prevent over-use. So while the 914 will
> give you 115 HP for takeoff and initial climb, you cruise around with
> an 80 HP engine and will have trouble keeping up with the
> 912
Not exactly true. The 914 will maintain 100 HP to over 16,000 feet.
>
> A turbocharged 912S would be sweet, even if it was only a
> turbo-normalizer (able to maintain sea-level power as you climb). A
> turbo 912S blown to 130 HP would probably be the perfect engine for
> the Series 5, 6, and 7 foxes.
Dennis
--
Dennis Golden
Golden Consulting Services, Inc.
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: 0-200 vs 912 performance |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jay Carter" <valley361@centurytel.net>
Resend. Sent previously, not received.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jay Carter" <valley361@centurytel.net>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 0-200 vs 912 performance
> Brad,
> I have 35 hours to date on the aircraft using a Sensenich prop
that
> I already had. The prop is a 72x52 and was a climb prop for a PA22-135.
> Acceleration and climb are very good. I will be installing a different
> airspeed indicator this weekend. (#3) Indications have been unstable with
> the first two. (same manufacturer) Have had a new 72x58 Sensenich prop on
> order since 8-31. Maybe another two weeks. Sensenich tells me they are
very
> busy with government contracts. I will have more to report after the new
> prop is installed.
>
> Jay C.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <Flybradair@cs.com>> > --> 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 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: | Please Remove from List |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lee Adcox" <ladcox@leasesouth.com>
Please Remove from List
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kitfox-List
Digest Server
Subject: Kitfox-List Digest: 17 Msgs - 11/02/05
*
==================================================
Online Versions of Today's List Digest Archive
==================================================
Today's complete Kitfox-List Digest can also be found in either of the
two Web Links listed below. The .html file includes the Digest formatted
in HTML for viewing with a web browser and features Hyperlinked Indexes
and Message Navigation. The .txt file includes the plain ASCII version
of the Kitfox-List Digest and can be viewed with a generic text editor
such as Notepad or with a web browser.
HTML Version:
http://www.matronics.com/digest/kitfox-list/Digest.Kitfox-List.2005-11-02.ht
ml
Text Version:
http://www.matronics.com/digest/kitfox-list/Digest.Kitfox-List.2005-11-02.tx
t
================================================
EMail Version of Today's List Digest Archive
================================================
Kitfox-List Digest Archive
---
Total Messages Posted Wed 11/02/05: 17
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
_____________________________________
Time: 04:41:42 AM PST US
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 2
_____________________________________
Time: 04:55:46 AM PST US
From: W Duke <n981ms@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 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
_____________________________________
Time: 05:02:41 AM PST US
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>
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
_____________________________________
Time: 05:12:01 AM PST US
From: "Vic Jacko" <vicwj@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 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
_____________________________________
Time: 05:13:19 AM PST US
From: "Paul Seehafer" <av8rps@tznet.com>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Tall gear
--> 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
_____________________________________
Time: 07:11:57 AM PST US
From: "Harris, Robert" <Robert_Harris@intuit.com>
Subject: Kitfox-List: 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
_____________________________________
Time: 07:39:14 AM PST US
From: "Clifford Begnaud" <shoeless@barefootpilot.com>
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 8
_____________________________________
Time: 07:51:51 AM PST US
From: "Harris, Robert" <Robert_Harris@intuit.com>
Subject: Kitfox-List: 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
_____________________________________
Time: 08:12:45 AM PST US
From: "Harris, Robert" <Robert_Harris@intuit.com>
KF' s?
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: 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
____________________________________
Time: 09:57:09 AM PST US
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 11
____________________________________
Time: 10:17:24 AM PST US
From: Guy Buchanan <bnn@nethere.com>
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Upholstery
--> 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
____________________________________
Time: 11:43:19 AM PST US
From: "Andrew Matthaey" <spaghettiohead@hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: 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
____________________________________
Time: 03:37:24 PM PST US
From: "Randy Daughenbaugh" <rjdaugh@rapidnet.com>
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: 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
____________________________________
Time: 04:26:01 PM PST US
From: "mscotter" <mscotter@comcast.net>
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Prop Pitch
--> 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
____________________________________
Time: 05:33:02 PM PST US
From: "Chuck & Deanna Schieffer" <cdschieffer@starnetdial.net>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 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
____________________________________
Time: 08:14:53 PM PST US
From: "Kirk Martenson" <kirk@mninter.net>
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
________________________________ Message 17
____________________________________
Time: 08:19:39 PM PST US
From: "jdmcbean" <jdmcbean@cableone.net>
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: 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
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: Two types Float Pilots? |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Aerobatics@aol.com
In a message dated 11/3/2005 12:39:29 PM Central Standard Time,
jdmcbean@cableone.net writes:
Paul,
Very well put... I might add that, and you may not agree, if you are
going to fly floats.. fly floats ! If you are going to fly wheels... fly
wheels ! Although amphibs are very useful, they add weight and complexity
and the opportunity to have the gear in the wrong position...
Funny you guys are talking about floats just got my float rating............
And have a land KF 2
Great fun,
Dave
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: Two types Float Pilots? |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "daniel johnson" <kitfox91je@hotmail.com>
If any of you are looking for floats the auction for my set of avid
fiberglass floats ends friday on ebay. I'd love to see someone else get some
use of them. I think they'll go pretty cheap for floats.. Its listed under
Ebay motors aviation parts with some photos. Item # is 4585835443. Will
also sell them off ebay but can't end the auction within 12 hours of close.
They have 2 water rudders but no rigging included. Have some data about
rigging to pass on. Meant to put my fox on floats and be ready for spring
but got sidetracked into a biplane project and sold the fox. Sorry to
advertise...but seemed a good thread to mention them....Dan Johnson...Ohio
DO NOT ARCHIVE
http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/
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: The trouble with gascolators |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
OK guys, if you don't like long stories, now is your
chance to delete this.
Wasn't sure how to title it either:
Two days to Florida?
High anxiety?
What's that smell?
Kitfox with fuel dump?
Howard Firm's purple monster-2?
You get the idea...but this is better across
referenced title for the archive.
My trip to Florida came together in a bit of a rush.
The forecast winds were turning against me on the day
I intended to leave and they were expected to be
strong and gusty in KY. Not good for takeoff or
enroute. I decided to leave a day early as I briefly
reported on this list.
By phone call I learned that my intended mogas fuel
stop turned out to have cancelled mogas recently, so I
had to reroute thru Atlanta to stop at Aircraft Spruce
for TCP. Mine wouldn't arrive in time.
I used the EAA aeroplanner websight to flight plan.
It was my first time using it, but it turned out to be
very good and accurate.
A check with FSS just before takeoff was
disheartening. They called for IFR only a few miles
south and headwinds already up. This was not what I
saw on the computer during my pre-dawn flight
planning. I almost cancelled because I don't like
rushing or risks. This was only my second x-cntry
with the fox and it worried me.
Instead I took off with an abort plan and a diversion
plan enroute. It turned out that the FSS was pretty
much wrong. A little morning fog turned into a pretty
day. Blue skys and a tailwind of sorts. I got a good
pic of Chattanooga in fall colors too.
My primary enroute problem was the soob running too
cool. I had duct tapped the radiator, but the oil
temp was around 165 with OAT in the low 60's. Seems
my cowl mods were working. I might need a oil cooler
thermostat? Don't like cream colored oil (or water in
it). I kept scanning the gauges, but nothing else was
wrong.
I held the power back to 5 gph and over 100 knots
ground speed. Passed my contingency fuel stop with a
gallon extra and made Peachtree and Aircraft Spruce
with plenty of fuel. What a nice place! Got a
personal service pickup from ACS and instant service.
Now I could use 100LL. And look at all the toys! I
decided to leave while I still had gas money.
On my way to Alma GA for my next stop I had to dodge
some warning areas, so it was a little longer trip
then direct. I still had some tail wind. Turbulence
below 5500' kept me higher than sightseeing altitude,
but up there I could just occasionally nudge the stick
and fly hands off while I navigated and viewed the
world go by.
These Fox's are just a bit slow for long distances,
but what great and fun flyers. I had my "office" set
up with seperate legs in sepreate folders. Maps, trip
tickets from aeroplanner, water, hat, sunglasses -
darn - I forgot the sun tan lotion! I thought my left
arm might get burnt from the bright sun...
Fourty miles out of Alma I smelled fuel about the same
time I realized it was spraying on my left arm! I
quickly checked the sight guages for leaks, then saw
it was spraying up from the left floorboard corner. A
lot of fuel!
The Soob kept running. Fuel flow was pegged out past
10 gph! Pressure was zero! EGT was high and fuel air
ratio was way low! I wet full rich and it came in
limits. EGT just 1450.
Of course a lot was going thru my mind, but I
remembered that panic was no option. Most accidents
include doing something too fast you shouldn't have.
I checked the ground for landing spots. It was a mile
down! Would the fabric stay intack long enough to
make it if I caught fire?
Don't change anything too quickly....
If I turned off the fuel pumps, would there be an
electrical spark? Would the engine quit? I decided
to go for it. Pumps off. FF dropped to 8 gph - 5 to
the engine and 3 overboard. EGT just in limits.
Engine kept running. Spray diminished a bit. I threw
paper towels into the corner to keep the fuel off me
and grabbed the fire extinguisher to keep it in my
hand.
This is when building your own plane helps you make
informed decisions. I knew this was where my main
fuel pump and gascolator were located just ahead of
the firewall. It was likely a connection there or the
gascolator seal, which I thought most likely. I knew
this was just inches away from my exhaust stack too.
Never liked that location...
I checked behind me for smoke and flames. None. None
I could see below my all glass doors either. Very
thin glass doors if I do say so.
I had decided not to wear my nomex flight suit today.
Looks cool, safer, but I thought it was too
egotistical? The KitFox hat was enough? Hind sight
is 20-20.
Ok, it is time to navigate and communicate. I looked
for the nearest field to land. I called Alma Unicom
because I had it tuned up ahead of time to monitor
traffic. An inbound Skymaster said they were
unmanned, but he was only 10 miles out. I asked about
fire extinguishers. He had 3 onboard and would be
waiting there for me to land. I decided to press on
and plan the landing for a fire.
I dove with power on to keep the fuel spray going aft
as much as possible. Thought it might light off as I
slowed or landed, so I got ready for a rolling bailout
after touchdown. In case of no fire, I would clear
the active and shut the main fuel off. Burn the fuel
out thru the engine.
I flew down the runway to a few hundred feet short of
the taxiway. Landed. Door open. Turned off and fuel
off. The shutdown checklist was a bit briefer than
usual. The skymaster pilot was right in front of me.
His name is Tom.
Tom made a few phone calls for me while I popped the
top off the cowl. The valve stem had blown out of the
gascolator drain! It was just a hole! I've never
seen this failure mode before.... And this was also
the first time the Fox was going to stay outside and
not in a hangar.... I wasn't leaving any time
soon.... And I just left ACS a few hours ago.... Now
where was I going to get parts?... My mind was still
racing....
The Alma city manager is also the airport manager. He
fixed my plane for free. Gave me the curtesy car and
directions as to where it was best to eat, sleep and
change my underware. :-) In just a few minutes I
went from OMG I am gonna die, to isn't Alma a great
place!
I gassed the curtesy car and put air in the tires the
next day. Called the chamber of commerace and told
them how great they were. Took 4 hours to prepare for
the next flight. Now I am in FL and the plane in its
new home... hangared again too.
What a ride!
Now for the flack... Go ahead....
Kurt S. KF S-5/NSI turbo all in one piece. :-)
__________________________________
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: | The trouble with gascolators |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
> From: kurt schrader [smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com]
> What a ride!
A great story by a great aviator! Thanks for sharing, Kurt!
Cheers,
Michel
do not archive
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|