Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:08 AM - "What's my Contribution used for?" [PLEASE READ!] (Matt Dralle)
2. 03:25 AM - [off-topic] Crosswind landing? (Michel Verheughe)
3. 03:40 AM - Re: [off-topic] Crosswind landing? (Rich Williamson)
4. 04:15 AM - The DC ADIZ NPRM (alan@reichertech.com)
5. 04:44 AM - Re: The trouble with gascolators (Fox5flyer)
6. 04:49 AM - Re: Two types Float Pilots? (Paul Seehafer)
7. 04:49 AM - Re: Two types Float Pilots? (Paul Seehafer)
8. 05:06 AM - 912 running bad (carb issues?) (Paul Seehafer)
9. 05:41 AM - Re: streamlined covers (small) (Paul Seehafer)
10. 06:19 AM - Re: 912 running bad (carb issues?) (Fred Shiple)
11. 06:29 AM - Re: 912 running bad (carb issues?) (Paul Peerenboom)
12. 06:35 AM - Re: The trouble with gascolators (Mdkitfox@aol.com)
13. 06:36 AM - Re: [off-topic] Crosswind landing? (Tom Jones)
14. 06:55 AM - Gascolator seal/Safety wire?Re: The trouble with (Harris, Robert)
15. 07:09 AM - Mains are tracking centerline.Re: [off-topic] (Harris, Robert)
16. 07:10 AM - Re: [off-topic] Crosswind landing? (Lowell Fitt)
17. 07:12 AM - Re: The trouble with gascolators (Lowell Fitt)
18. 08:12 AM - Re: The trouble with gascolators (Don Pearsall)
19. 08:14 AM - Re: 912 running bad (carb issues?) (Kirk Martenson)
20. 08:19 AM - Re: 914 (Michael Gibbs)
21. 08:57 AM - Re: 912 running bad (carb issues?) (Paul Seehafer)
22. 09:29 AM - Re: The trouble with gascolators (Steve Zakreski)
23. 09:29 AM - San Diego Kitfox Fly In 11/19/05 (Harris, Robert)
24. 11:18 AM - Carb balance (Alan & Linda Daniels)
25. 11:34 AM - Re: The trouble with gascolators (Alan & Linda Daniels)
26. 01:32 PM - GSC Prop (Napier, Mark)
27. 01:42 PM - Anphibs vs Straight floats? (kitfoxjunky)
28. 02:16 PM - Re: [off-topic] Crosswind landing? (Michel Verheughe)
29. 02:43 PM - Re: 912 running bad (carb issues?) (Fox5flyer)
30. 02:54 PM - Re: The trouble with gascolators (kurt schrader)
31. 02:57 PM - Re: The trouble with gascolators (kurt schrader)
32. 03:31 PM - Re: Gascolator seal/Safety wire?Re: The trouble with gas colators (kurt schrader)
33. 03:56 PM - Re: The trouble with gascolators (kurt schrader)
34. 03:56 PM - Re: streamlined covers (small) (kurt schrader)
35. 04:19 PM - Re: The trouble with gascolators (kurt schrader)
36. 04:48 PM - Re: The trouble with gascolators (kurt schrader)
37. 06:03 PM - Re: The trouble with gascolators (Alan & Linda Daniels)
38. 06:18 PM - Re: The DC ADIZ NPRM (John King)
39. 06:19 PM - Re: The trouble with gascolators (Lowell Fitt)
40. 07:10 PM - Re: The trouble with gascolators (Steve Zakreski)
41. 07:10 PM - Annual Condition Inspection Checklist (John Banes)
42. 07:14 PM - Re: The trouble with gascolators (Steve Zakreski)
43. 07:57 PM - Re: The DC ADIZ NPRM (Alan & Linda Daniels)
44. 08:09 PM - Re: The trouble with gascolators (Alan & Linda Daniels)
45. 08:41 PM - 2001 Kitfox 4 - 1200 with 912 UL For sale (Jay Fabian)
46. 10:40 PM - Re: [off-topic] Crosswind landing? (Michael Laundy)
47. 11:22 PM - Re: The trouble with gascolators (kurt schrader)
48. 11:28 PM - Re: The DC ADIZ NPRM (kurt schrader)
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: | "What's my Contribution used for?" [PLEASE READ!] |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Matt Dralle <dralle@matronics.com>
Dear Listers,
Some have asked, "What's my Contribution used for?", and this is
certainly a valid question. Here are just a few examples of what
your direct List support enables. It provides for the very
expensive, business-class, high-speed T1 Internet connection used on
the List, insuring maximum performance and minimal contention when
accessing List services. It pays for the regular system hardware and
software upgrades enabling the highest performance possible for
services such as the Archive Search Engine and List Browser. It pays
for 16+ years worth of online archive data available for instant
random access. And, it offsets the many hours spent writing,
developing, and maintaining the custom applications that power this
List Service such as the List Browse, Search Engine, and PhotoShare.
But most importantly, your List Contribution enables a forum where
you and your peers can communicate freely in an environment that is
free from moderation, censorship, advertising, commercialism, SPAM,
and computer viruses. How many places on the Internet can you make
all those statements about these days? I will venture to say - next to none...
It is YOUR CONTRIBUTION that directly enables these many desirable
aspects of this most valuable List service. Please support it today
with your List Contribution. Its one of the best investments you can
make in your Sport...
List Contribution Web Site:
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Thank you for your support!
Matt Dralle
Email List Administrator
Matt G Dralle | Matronics | PO Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551
925-606-1001 V | 925-606-6281 F | dralle@matronics.com Email
http://www.matronics.com/ WWW | Featuring Products For Aircraft
do not archive
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | [off-topic] Crosswind landing? |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
OFF-TOPIC. Aviation but not Kitfox building.
Sorry guys but I have a question to answer on another list: Please look at this
video:
http://www.rcuniverse.com/mvp/videolink.cfm?postid=424
Forgot the B-747 but ... that B-777 is doing crosswind landings or is it just a
demonstration from Boeing using forced crabbing? He lands once with a left hand
crab, then a right hand. On the same runway? On the opposite? Next, is the
gear tilting or is it just a perspective illusion?
Thanks in advance,
Michel
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: [off-topic] Crosswind landing? |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Rich Williamson" <rwill1@adelphia.net>
Very cool !!!!
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michel Verheughe" <michel@online.no>
Subject: Kitfox-List: [off-topic] Crosswind landing?
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
>
> OFF-TOPIC. Aviation but not Kitfox building.
> Sorry guys but I have a question to answer on another list: Please look at
> this video:
>
> http://www.rcuniverse.com/mvp/videolink.cfm?postid=424
>
> Forgot the B-747 but ... that B-777 is doing crosswind landings or is it
> just a demonstration from Boeing using forced crabbing? He lands once with
> a left hand crab, then a right hand. On the same runway? On the opposite?
> Next, is the gear tilting or is it just a perspective illusion?
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Michel
>
> do not archive
>
>
>
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: | The DC ADIZ NPRM |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: alan@reichertech.com
Hello, All!
Please pardon this intrusion. This note is not specific to your
particular list, but regardless of what you are building, restoring, or
flying, an issue exists that could potentially affect all of you who fly
in the United States. That issue is the Washington DC ADIZ.
This ADIZ was put into effect as a temporary protective measure for
Washington DC airspace after 9/11. There is now an NPRM out to make this
airspace *permanent*.
The original comment period for this NPRM expired yesterday, November 2.
However, the FAA has now extended the comment period for another 90 days,
so if you did not get your comments in, HERE IS YOUR CHANCE!
Information on the ADIZ, and why we are fighting it, can be found here:
http://www.aopa.org/adizalert/
I live underneath the current DC ADIZ, so I get to play with this every
time I fly. The AOPA page above gives a good summary of what has happened
in this area since it's inception.
Help on formulating comments for this NPRM can be found here:
http://www.aopa.org/adizalert/help.html
Comments on this NPRM can be submitted (online) to the DOT here:
http://dms.dot.gov/submit/
Instructions on how to navigate and fill out the DOT page to submit your
comments are available here:
http://www.aopa.org/adizalert/faa_help.html
There are over 18000 comments against this NPRM at this time. If yours is
not one of them, please take the time now to submit your comments; every
one helps. If this ADIZ becomes permanent, then there could be an ADIZ
coming to an airspace near you in the future!
I thank Matt for allowing me to send this to you. Even if you don't live
near the DC area, please do what you can to protect your flying
priviledges... submit your comments!
Regards,
-- Alan Reichert
C-182 Driver/RV-8 Builder
Do Not Archive
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: The trouble with gascolators |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Fox5flyer" <morid@northland.lib.mi.us>
Wow Kurt. What a story! I'm glad you're able to tell us about it.
However, I can't visualize what valve stem you're referring to.
Deke
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader
<smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
....snip....
>
> 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 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Two types Float Pilots? |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Paul Seehafer" <av8rps@tznet.com>
Congratulations Dave! Now the fun starts.
Paul Seehafer
----- Original Message -----
From: <Aerobatics@aol.com>
>Snip... Funny you guys are talking about floats just got my float
>rating............
>
> And have a land KF 2
>
> Great fun,
>
> Dave
>
>
>
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: Two types Float Pilots? |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Paul Seehafer" <av8rps@tznet.com>
John,
I agree 100%. If you can live without the benefits of amphibs, fly straight
floats and keep your life simple.
But, if you feel you absolutely need the benefits of the amphibs (which most
do), and your airplane can handle the added weight and associated reduced
useful load and performance loss, then at minimum make sure you get good
AMPHIBIAN training. Keeping that landing gear in the right place at the
right time is more than critical. In the wrong place at the wrong time can
be life threatening. After years of flying a Lake amphibian (where a wheels
down water landing is typically fatal) I visually check my landing gear at
least three times prior to any landing, once in the downwind, once on
downwind to base turn (where I can see the nosewheel position better against
the sky in the mirror), and once on short final. And at each visual check I
also say out loud "This is a water landing, the landing gear is up" while I
also verify physically the gear handle position by touching it with my hand.
Of course for an airport landing I say "This is an airport landing, the
landing gear is down". This is how one is taught to fly a Lake Amphibian.
And I personally think it is the best way to do it. No checklists and no
electronic thing-a-majigs to rely on. Just good old common sense and
disciplining oneself to form a good habit that you use religously. I've
flown with many other amphibian pilots that scare the bejesus out of me when
they pull the gear up on short final to the water without having said
anything, or verified visually the gear position. Scary, scary! But maybe
they think just flipping over in the water isn't that big of a deal because
unlike the Lake, they many times survive it. But not always. So if you are
going to fly an amphibian, I strongly recommend the same method I use. Burn
it in your brain, and use it every time. Even when doing splash and dashes
on the water, verify gear position each time. It's not impossible for a
gear uplock to come undone. And that too would ruin your day.
Ok everyone, don't think this amphib thing now is horribly dangerous or
scary, because it's not. Like I said in a previous post, if you train
properly, and use good judjement and common sense, you will experience
flying like you never have before. Everytime I push my amphib back in the
hangar after a day of be-bopping from one lake to another, as well as a few
airports to see buddies in between, it makes me think I have my own magic
carpet. What other kind of vehicle has that much versatility, and the
ability to take you almost anywhere? The only thing I'd like to caution
everyone on is this; once you start water flying, you will be hooked. So
be prepared to do it for a long time <smile>
John, do you want a set of amphibs for your 6? I just saw the model 6 demo
1550 amphibs for sale on the Seaplane Pilots Association website in their
classified section at
http://www.seaplanes.org/cgi-bin/classifieds/display.cgi?Index=2213%26search
= Those would bolt right on your airplane you know :-)
Paul Seehafer
----- Original Message -----
From: "jdmcbean" <jdmcbean@cableone.net>
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Two types Float Pilots?
> 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"
>
>
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: | 912 running bad (carb issues?) |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Paul Seehafer" <av8rps@tznet.com>
All,
Any 912 carb experts out there? I have a 912ul that has been sitting a few
years, and when I went to start it up, it fired right up, idles ok (somewhat
erratic) but when you apply throttle it appears to be running on only 2 or 3
cylinders (it seems to idle on all cylinders and all exhaust pipes get hot,
so I assume it isn't just a spark issue). I cleaned up the float bowls, and
removed the main jets to clean them out too. That helped a little, but not
much.
I seem to recall someone on the list previously stating if a 912 sits for
any length of time there is something that needs to be done to the Bing
carbs. But I can't seem to find that message in the archives. Anyone know
what it is I need to do?
Paul Seehafer
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: streamlined covers (small) |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Paul Seehafer" <av8rps@tznet.com>
Bob,
I believe the vendor that sells those snap on wire covers is Rans aircraft
(Randy Schlitter).
Here's a copy from a forum posting on June 14, 2002 from Bryan Fisher
(subject re; wing fairings and wheel pants)
"Randy with RANS several years ago was surprised by how much speed was
gained that he now manufactures his wing struts out of streamlined tubing
and he has even manufactured clip on plastic fairings for aircraft cable"
Hope this helps you out.
Paul Seehafer
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Robertson" <aerocontrols@clearwave.ca>
Subject: Kitfox-List: streamlined covers (small)
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bob Robertson"
> <aerocontrols@clearwave.ca>
>
> Hi all,
> A few....ok, quite a few, years ago I saw a vendor at Oshkosh that was
> selling snap on streamlined covers for flying wires. These were plastic
> and simply snapped on over a 3/32" or 1/8" brace cable.
> I'm gonna test the memories of a few "old hats" out there by asking if
> anyone remembers seeing these and does anyone know if they are still
> available?
> Thanks in advance for any replies..
>
>
> regards and be safe..
>
> Bob Robertson
> Light Engine Services Ltd.
> Rotax Service Center
> St. Albert, Ab. T8N 1M8
> Ph: (Tech Support) 1-780-418-4164
> Ph: (Order Line) 1-866-418-4164 (TOLL FREE)
> www.rtx-av-engines.ca
>
>
>
Message 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: 912 running bad (carb issues?) |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Fred Shiple <fredshiple@sbcglobal.net>
Paul,
I got debris in the choke/enrichening circuit jets and
it ran very rough. Might be a little different from
your experience though as it would only run well with
the choke knob pulled out about 2/3s until I found the
dirt and cleaned the jet.
Fred
so I assume it isn't just a spark issue). I cleaned
up the float bowls, and
removed the main jets to clean them out too. That
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 912 running bad (carb issues?) |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Paul Peerenboom" <ppeerenbo@charter.net>
Not Sure this will help, but I had a simulator problem with a plugged vent
line.
Paul N102DG
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Seehafer" <av8rps@tznet.com>
Subject: Kitfox-List: 912 running bad (carb issues?)
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Paul Seehafer" <av8rps@tznet.com>
>
> All,
>
> Any 912 carb experts out there? I have a 912ul that has been sitting a
> few
> years, and when I went to start it up, it fired right up, idles ok
> (somewhat
> erratic) but when you apply throttle it appears to be running on only 2 or
> 3
> cylinders (it seems to idle on all cylinders and all exhaust pipes get
> hot,
> so I assume it isn't just a spark issue). I cleaned up the float bowls,
> and
> removed the main jets to clean them out too. That helped a little, but
> not
> much.
>
> I seem to recall someone on the list previously stating if a 912 sits for
> any length of time there is something that needs to be done to the Bing
> carbs. But I can't seem to find that message in the archives. Anyone
> know
> what it is I need to do?
>
> Paul Seehafer
>
>
>
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: The trouble with gascolators |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Mdkitfox@aol.com
Kurt,
No flack from this guy. Nice job getting it down. All business, no panic.
I'd say you handled it as well as anyone should expect.
Was the leak caused by the quick drain on the bottom of the gascolator? I
have the Andair gascolator and installed a quick drain, but after your
adventure, a plug seems like a better idea.
Where in Titusville are you keeping the plane, Tico or Dunn? I used to live
in the Hickory Hill area a long time ago. Long story short, I'll be moving
to Spruce Creek (about 30 miles North) in January. Maybe we can get together
and compare Fox notes.
Rick Weiss
Series V Speedster N39RW, 912S
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: [off-topic] Crosswind landing? |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Tom Jones <nahsikhs@elltel.net>
It looks like a test to see how much side load the landing gear can take.
Tom Jones
Michel Verheughe wrote:
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
>
>OFF-TOPIC. Aviation but not Kitfox building.
>Sorry guys but I have a question to answer on another list: Please look at this
video:
>
>http://www.rcuniverse.com/mvp/videolink.cfm?postid=424
>
>Forgot the B-747 but ... that B-777 is doing crosswind landings or is it just
a demonstration from Boeing using forced crabbing? He lands once with a left hand
crab, then a right hand. On the same runway? On the opposite? Next, is the
gear tilting or is it just a perspective illusion?
>
>Thanks in advance,
>
>Michel
>
>do not archive
>
>
>
>
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 |
|
gas colators
| Subject: | The trouble with |
gas colators
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Harris, Robert" <Robert_Harris@intuit.com>
Great article Kurt,
How likely is it that the gascolator seal will fail? How often should the
seal be replaced? Should the gascalotor bowl/cup be safety wired? Is there a
way to safety wire the quick drain/valve stem? I have the Aircraft Spruce
Gascolator and worry about it failing.
Robert
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of kurt schrader
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 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 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 |
|
Crossw ind landing?
Crossw ind landing?
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Harris, Robert" <Robert_Harris@intuit.com>
That's amazing Michel, the main gear is tracking the centerline.
Robert
> http://www.rcuniverse.com/mvp/videolink.cfm?postid=424
>
>
>
>
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: [off-topic] Crosswind landing? |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@sbcglobal.net>
Michel,
If this was a Boeing test sequence, I suspect it was to test the maxiimum
cross wind component. These large airliners with underslung engines can't
slip into a cross wind like we do as it would probably necessitate an engine
change after every landing.
I have seen footage of a 747 going into Honk Kong in a major cross wind
doing just as these clips depict.
My guess is that if these aircraft were configured like the DC-3 we would
have seen the mother of all groundloops.
Lowell
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michel Verheughe" <michel@online.no>
Subject: Kitfox-List: [off-topic] Crosswind landing?
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
>
> OFF-TOPIC. Aviation but not Kitfox building.
> Sorry guys but I have a question to answer on another list: Please look at
> this video:
>
> http://www.rcuniverse.com/mvp/videolink.cfm?postid=424
>
> Forgot the B-747 but ... that B-777 is doing crosswind landings or is it
> just a demonstration from Boeing using forced crabbing? He lands once with
> a left hand crab, then a right hand. On the same runway? On the opposite?
> Next, is the gear tilting or is it just a perspective illusion?
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Michel
>
> do not archive
>
>
>
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: The trouble with gascolators |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@sbcglobal.net>
Kurt,
Good story, good outcome, good heads-up. As you, I have never heard this
failure mode before. Another thing to check - safety wire?
Lowell
----- Original Message -----
From: "kurt schrader" <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 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 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: | The trouble with gascolators |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Don Pearsall" <donpearsall@comcast.net>
Kurt,
Thanks for the great story, and also thanks for staying alive. Do you know
why the gascolator drain popped out? The kind I am familiar with are just a
brass fitting screwed into the bowl. When the valve stem popped out, could
it have been because the rubber "O" ring shrank because of mogas additives?
Just speculating.
Don Pearsall
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: 912 running bad (carb issues?) |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Kirk Martenson" <kirk@mninter.net>
Paul:
I had the same problem, so I sprayed a little Honda carb cleaner up the main
jet until it ran out the intake of the carb. Put the thing back together and
it ran fine.
Kirk Martenson
Classic IV 912UL
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Seehafer" <av8rps@tznet.com>
Subject: Kitfox-List: 912 running bad (carb issues?)
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Paul Seehafer" <av8rps@tznet.com>
>
> All,
>
> Any 912 carb experts out there? I have a 912ul that has been sitting a
> few
> years, and when I went to start it up, it fired right up, idles ok
> (somewhat
> erratic) but when you apply throttle it appears to be running on only 2 or
> 3
> cylinders (it seems to idle on all cylinders and all exhaust pipes get
> hot,
> so I assume it isn't just a spark issue). I cleaned up the float bowls,
> and
> removed the main jets to clean them out too. That helped a little, but
> not
> much.
>
> I seem to recall someone on the list previously stating if a 912 sits for
> any length of time there is something that needs to be done to the Bing
> carbs. But I can't seem to find that message in the archives. Anyone
> know
> what it is I need to do?
>
> Paul Seehafer
>
>
>
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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michael Gibbs <MichaelGibbs@cox.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.
I will certainly go and check my facts, but my comments were based on
Murle Williams' experience with the 914. Murle liked the idea that
his 'fox could outrun his squadron buddies. When the newer planes
started sporting 912S engines he could no longer keep up with them.
He recently sold his 914 in favor of a 912S.
Mike G.
N728KF
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 912 running bad (carb issues?) |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Paul Seehafer" <av8rps@tznet.com>
Fred,
I'm not familiar enough with this Bing 64 carb to know how to clean the
enrichening circuit. I already cleaned the main jets and need, float bowl,
etc. So can you tell me how you cleaned your choke circuit?
Incidentally, it runs much smoother if I keep applying primer. And the
choke doesn't do anything, including starting the engine (Starts immediately
with 3 shots of primer). So you might be on to something.
Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: "Fred Shiple" <fredshiple@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 912 running bad (carb issues?)
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Fred Shiple <fredshiple@sbcglobal.net>
>
> Paul,
> I got debris in the choke/enrichening circuit jets and
> it ran very rough. Might be a little different from
> your experience though as it would only run well with
> the choke knob pulled out about 2/3s until I found the
> dirt and cleaned the jet.
> Fred
>
> so I assume it isn't just a spark issue). I cleaned
> up the float bowls, and
> removed the main jets to clean them out too. That
>
>
>
Message 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | The trouble with gascolators |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Steve Zakreski <szakreski@shaw.ca>
Kurt
Holy smokes... close one.
Yours is at least the second close call in a Kitfox caused by a gascolator,
although I seem to recall the other time the cup came off. The Kitfox IV
literature describes the header tank as a replacement for the gascolator.
I got rid of mine altogether: header -> pump -> filter -> engine
SteveZ
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lowell Fitt
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: The trouble with gascolators
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@sbcglobal.net>
Kurt,
Good story, good outcome, good heads-up. As you, I have never heard this
failure mode before. Another thing to check - safety wire?
Lowell
----- Original Message -----
From: "kurt schrader" <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 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 23
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | San Diego Kitfox Fly In 11/19/05 |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Harris, Robert" <Robert_Harris@intuit.com>
Does anybody know what time the Brown Field Kitfox Fly on 11/19/05 will
start and end? Do I need to sign up if I want to have my plane weighed?
Robert
Message 24
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Alan & Linda Daniels <aldaniels@fmtc.com>
I don't know about the rest of you that fly planes with two carbs, but I
am getting tired of trying to keep my carbs in balance. At least with
the 7 FWF and the throttle cable that I got from Skystar. I will make
minor changes to get it as smooth as possible, and then after a while I
have to take out a minor vibration again. I don't know which way to move
it so it is trial and error. If I don't get it right the first time I
can never remember which way I move it this time - I knew I should not
have painted all those planes. I am considering installing two MP
gauges, or even one from a twin with two needles, permanently in the
panel. I know I will build it in if I ever build another twin carb plane.
>
>
Message 25
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: The trouble with gascolators |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Alan & Linda Daniels <aldaniels@fmtc.com>
That could have been very very bad. I am sure happy it turned out good.
Fuel systems require the utmost care. I had an exhaust header break on a
7 FWF on the right rear first bent bottom weld. The pipe totally
separated due to a bad weld. The install manual has you put the fuel
line for that carb go over the top of the engine, down the back and up
to the carb. The broken exhaust pipe directed the very hot exhaust - 4
inches out of the head- along side that fuel line. I was not sure what
had happened except a change in sound. By the time we got on the ground
the fire sleeve had clearly saved us from becoming a flaming lawn dart.
You can bet I no longer route the fuel line there anymore. I go farther
than Steve. I go fuel filter to header tank, to fuel pump to engine. I
have nothing on the pressure side of the pump except the carb.
Steve Zakreski wrote:
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Steve Zakreski <szakreski@shaw.ca>
>
>Kurt
>
>Holy smokes... close one.
>
>Yours is at least the second close call in a Kitfox caused by a gascolator,
>although I seem to recall the other time the cup came off. The Kitfox IV
>literature describes the header tank as a replacement for the gascolator.
>
>I got rid of mine altogether: header -> pump -> filter -> engine
>
>
>
>
>
Message 26
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Napier, Mark" <Mark.Napier@sciatl.com>
I have a 3-bladed 68" GSC prop and spinner on my 582 that I am considering
swapping out. It's running OK but I would like to switch to an IVO.
Two of the blades are in excellent condition and one is brand new from GSC.
I sent the other two blades back in when the 3rd was made for inspection and
balancing. Included is a spare set of long and short torque pins, the
protractor and instructions.
Anyone interested in the prop and spinner?
Mark Napier
-----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: 28 Msgs - 10/27/05
*
==================================================
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.2005-10-27.ht
ml
Text Version:
http://www.matronics.com/digest/kitfox-list/Digest.Kitfox-List.2005-10-27.tx
t
================================================
EMail Version of Today's List Digest Archive
================================================
Kitfox-List Digest Archive
---
Total Messages Posted Thu 10/27/05: 28
Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:47 AM - Aircraft Service issues in QANTAS (Colin Durey)
2. 03:40 AM - Re: Miscellaneous Bend those axles (Ceashman@aol.com)
3. 05:32 AM - Re: 0-200 vs 912 performance (Clifford Begnaud)
4. 05:36 AM - Re: 0-200 vs 912 performance (John Larsen)
5. 05:44 AM - Re: Needing a Tail Wheel Spring for a model II. (John
Larsen)
6. 05:58 AM - Re: 0-200 vs 912 performance (Vic Jacko)
7. 08:06 AM - Service bulletins... (Jeremy Casey)
8. 08:07 AM - Re: Heater (kerrjohna@comcast.net)
9. 08:42 AM - Re: Heater (Fred Shiple)
10. 09:20 AM - Re: Service bulletins... (Don Pearsall)
11. 09:51 AM - Re: Service bulletins... (jdmcbean)
12. 09:51 AM - Re: Skystar site gone (jdmcbean)
13. 12:25 PM - Re: Skystar site gone (kerrjohna@comcast.net)
14. 12:44 PM - Re: Skystar OSH display (Mark Miller)
15. 12:46 PM - Re: Skystar site gone (jdmcbean)
16. 12:46 PM - Re: Heater (Lowell Fitt)
17. 12:49 PM - Re: VW Installation (Gary Olson)
18. 02:23 PM - lift strut dia? (glen rowland)
19. 02:39 PM - Flying Series 5,6,7's??? (Jeremy Casey)
20. 02:54 PM - Re: Flying Series 5,6,7's??? (Ceashman@aol.com)
21. 04:48 PM - Re: Flying Series 5,6,7's??? (Brett Walmsley)
22. 04:58 PM - Re: Flying Series 5,6,7's??? (Alan & Linda Daniels)
23. 05:04 PM - 582 coolant (Clem Nichols)
24. 06:40 PM - Re: Heater (John King)
25. 08:23 PM - Re: Cockpit Fumes (david yeamans)
26. 08:23 PM - Re: Registration (david yeamans)
27. 09:51 PM - Floats on Ebay (daniel johnson)
28. 11:02 PM - Re: Cockpit Fumes (Guy Buchanan)
________________________________ Message 1
_____________________________________
Time: 12:47:13 AM PST US
Subject: Kitfox-List: Aircraft Service issues in QANTAS
From: "Colin Durey" <colin@ptclhk.com>
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Colin Durey" <colin@ptclhk.com>
Hi folks,
I received the following from a friend (also a flying fiend).... enjoy:
""
After every flight, Qantas pilots fill out a form, called a "gripe
sheet," which tells mechanics about problems with the aircraft. The
mechanics correct the problems, document their repairs on the form,
and then pilots review the gripe sheets before the next flight.
Never let it be said that ground crews lack a sense of humour.
Here are some actual maintenance complaints submitted by Qantas'
pilots (marked with a P) and the solutions recorded (marked with an
S) by maintenance engineers.
By the way, Qantas is the only major airline that has never had an
major accident. .. ... Enjoy!
P: Left inside main tire almost needs replacement.
S: Almost replaced left inside main tire.
P: Test flight OK, except auto-land very rough.
S: Auto-land not installed on this aircraft.
P: Something loose in cockpit.
S: Something tightened in cockpit.
P: Dead bugs on windshield.
S: Live bugs on back-order.
P: Autopilot in altitude-hold mode produces a 200 feet per minute
descent.
S: Cannot reproduce problem on ground.
P: Evidence of leak on right main landing gear.
S: Evidence removed.
P: DME volume unbelievably loud.
S: DME volume set to more believable level.
P: Friction locks cause throttle levers to stick.
S: That's what they're for.
P: IFF inoperative.
S: IFF always inoperative in OFF mode.
P: Suspected crack in windshield.
S: Suspect you're right.
P: Number 3 engine missing.
S: Engine found on right wing after brief search.
P: Aircraft handles funny. (I love this one!)
S: Aircraft warned to straighten up, fly right, and be serious.
P: Target radar hums.
S: Reprogrammed target radar with lyrics.
P: Mouse in cockpit.
S: Cat installed.
And the best one for last..................
P: Noise coming from under instrument panel. Sounds like a midget
pounding on something with a hammer.
S: Took hammer away from midget
""
Regards
Colin Durey
Pacific Technology Corporation Ltd
Sydney
+61-418-677073 (M)
+61-2-945466162 (F)
________________________________ Message 2
_____________________________________
Time: 03:40:43 AM PST US
From: Ceashman@aol.com
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Miscellaneous Bend those axles
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Ceashman@aol.com
(Marco responded to the question below)
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Marco Menezes <msm_9949@yahoo.com>
Guy:
1,2 - no help.
3. Before first flight I fretted alot about minor toe-in in tube gear of my
model II. All the cures offered by the list (mostly involving bending the
weldments in place) scared the heck out of me. Since then, I've flown and
found
no
problems with ground handling, at least not when my technique is good. But,
then, poor technique will get you in trouble whether you have toe-in or not.
No doubt you'll get other views but I'd say fly it off grass for awhile and
see how it feels to you before you go stressing the airframe and gear to
eliminate the minor toe-in condition you described.
Marco. I could not agree more. Until one notices ground handling problems do
not try to fix what is not broke. No wonder Skystar went out of business,
they
could not make a bloody straight landing gear!! ;)
----------------------------> Kitfox-List message posted by: Guy Buchanan
<bnn@nethere.com>
At 04:10 AM 10/26/2005, you wrote:
>I made a spanner to bend my gear from the inboard end of the axle, as I
>was afraid of bending the axle. My gear was also faired and covered before
>the adjustment. All went well with no ill effects.
Thanks Bill. This is a good idea, as I can get 0 toe just by bending the
gear until the spanner points at the opposite gear.
Bill wrote: "I made a spanner"
From my early days in Wales, a spanner is a normal wrench. They come in open
ended on both ends and close ended, ring. You can get little biddy ones and
massive great ones.
But I don't know how a spanner can be used to fix the toe problem. Unless
you
slip the ring end (that is big enough to slip over the axle) and use some
tube for leverage on the other side of the spanner and grunt the the axle
true.
Would this not bend the axle a little? This would not be good for the roller
bearings?
I am thinking that if I wanted to change the toe in or out. I would need a
round steel bar as close as possible to the axle size. This sucker would be
long, long enough to slip through the axle receiving tube and nearly meet
the axle
on the other side and still not disappear into the hole that I am working
on.
Now secure the airplane and sit down under the engine, grab the bar like a
row boat slave and pull!
You will know when you are done when the end of the bar is closer to match
the axle end on the side you are not cussing as a mean miserable bugger.
Maybe a lot of useless information, I don't know. But what I do know is that
I have never looked at my toes, in or out. While taxiing and landing I have
had my problems. But I feel that these were pilot driven and not mechanical
issues. Because once in a while I make a happy smooth landing. If it were
mechanical it would be a bugger landing all the time.
Lets all bend some metal. Eric.
Do not archive.
________________________________ Message 3
_____________________________________
Time: 05:32:37 AM PST US
From: "Clifford Begnaud" <shoeless@barefootpilot.com>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 0-200 vs 912 performance
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clifford Begnaud"
<shoeless@barefootpilot.com>
This is an interesting discussion and I appreciate your input on this Paul.
But I have a slightly different take on it.
Having owned two model 5 kitfoxes, one with a 912 Xtra (95 hp) and now one
with a Lycoming 0-235, plus having some time in model 4's with the Rotax 912
and a model 7 with 912S and a constant speed prop, I think I can offer a
well rounded evaluation of these plane and engine combinations. What I have
not done however, is fly on floats, amphibious or otherwise. Also, I have
not flown a Kitfox with the 0-200. I generally agree that the 912s would be
a better choice than the 0-200 on a model 5 or later.
First, the model 4 with a 912 is a match made in heaven. It's like the two
were specifically designed for each other. The 912s only sweetens the deal,
especially at high elevation airports like we have here in Colorado. This is
probably the best performing combo of all except for top speed.
A model 5 with an 80 hp 912 is flat out underpowered. With the Masterkraft
pistons bumping the hp up a bit (95 hp claimed) it is passable up here in
Colorado but still leaves you wanting for more power when high, hot and
heavy. Down low, this configuration is just fine and will haul the plane
around at gross.
The model 7 that I've flown with the 912s and Airmaster constant speed prop
(warp drive blades) performs a notch higher than the 5 with the Masterkraft
pistons. In fact the difference is quite noticeable. This combination would
serve you well anywhere including up here in Colorado, (which is where I
have flown it) Even though I haven't done it, I think it would perform well
on floats also.
Then there is the Lycoming 0-235. If the Kitfox is built to be a show plane,
with every conceivable option, full upholstery and linings, a full
instrument panel and a show plane paint job, the plane will still perform
respectably. In fact in most situations it will perform very close to the
aforementioned Model 7 with 912s. But, if you build your kitfox light, and
use Lightspeed electronic ignitions and an Ellison throttle body carb the
difference in performance can be noticeably better.
Our model 5 is one such plane and the performance is truly impressive. I had
the opportunity to compare the performance of our plane with the Model 7 on
the same cool morning and here is what I remember:
Airport elevation 5050'
Temp 50 degrees F
Model 7 takeoff roll- 375' (empty weight 820 lbs)
Model 5 with Lyc 0-235 take off roll- 325' (empty weight 870 lbs)
Best rate of climb observed on Model 7 850-900 fpm
Best rate for model 5 with Lyc 0-235 1050-1100 fpm
Cruise speed of model 7, approximately 115 mph max TAS
Cruise speed of model 5, approximately 130 mph, but will top out close to
140 TAS
At first glance these numbers may not seem too different, but what I have
found is that as you load down the kitfox with the Lycoming, the drop in
performance is much smaller than the drop seen in the model 7 with 912s when
it is loaded.
We have had our kitfox up at 13999', fully loaded, and it was still climbing
over 400 fpm.
On a trip last year we were traveling with the model 7 pilot and at one
point were at about 10,000' and wanted to climb over a cloud layer. We were
both similarly heavily loaded (though he may have had a bit more weight) but
he had trouble climbing at all, we just powered up over the layer with ease.
I have regularly operated out of a 600' strip up here with two on board and
half fuel, even in the summer, and never even came close to using the whole
thing. In our previous model 5 with 912 xtra, I would only go in there solo
except maybe on a very cold day I would take my wife along, but we would use
most of the 600' to get out.
Here's one last thing to consider about this comparison; note the difference
in cruise and top speed. This tells you that the prop on the Lycoming 0-235
is skewed toward the cruise end of the spectrum while the model 7 is able to
change the pitch to suit the flight mode (i.e., take-off vs. cruise). The
prop on our plane is an Aymar-Demuth 72X47. It turns about 2425 rpm static
at 5100' elevation. Imagine instead if I had a 76X40 or something similar
that would allow the engine to turn it's rated 2800 rpm static. The cruise
speed would now be about equal on both planes, but the difference in take
off and climb would be dramatically better with the Lycoming. The reason is
that the Lycoming makes gobs of torque and allows you to turn a propeller
that will generate more static thrust.
What the numbers can't do in these comparisons is give you the "feel" of how
these planes perform. When flying behind our 0-235 you can just FEEL the raw
power that this engine puts out. It's a feeling that you will never get from
the 912 series. In my opinion, if you want the best short field performance,
or you want the best performance when loaded to the gills, or you want the
best performance on floats, the Lycoming 0-235 is the way to go on the
Kitfox models 5, 6 or 7, but I qualify this by stressing that you MUST build
it light. A lightly built plane with the 912s and in flight adjustable prop
will likely have equal or better performance than a heavy one with the
0-235, up to a point.
You might also ask about landing distance. The model 7 with 912s was able to
land slightly shorter than our model 5, but, either of them can land in a
shorter distance than is needed to take-off, so this is not the deciding
factor when judging short field performance, take-off distance rules.
Flame suit on, fire away...
Best Regards,
Cliff Begnaud
Erie, CO
Kitfox 5, Lycoming 0-235
> Kerry,
>
> All you have to do to know which engine is better is to put either
> airplane
> on floats. That is the true test if you want to know which engine will
> provide the most low end power. And if you really want to test an engines
> ability, put amphibious floats on the airplane. That definitely proves
> which engines work best for flat out thrust. Of course, it really boils
> down to the highest horsepower per horsepower, which the 912 excels a, as
> well as the two strokes. While I think the 0-200 is a great engine, it
> would barely get an amphibious kitfox off the water unless extremely
> modified and/or lightened. Even an IO-240 powered Fox at the higher
> horsepower is not going to perform as well as the 912. I believe if you
> look at Skystars specs on their airplanes (on wheels) you will find the
> turbocharged 914 to be the best performer even when compared to the
> IO-240.
________________________________ Message 4
_____________________________________
Time: 05:36:16 AM PST US
From: John Larsen <jopatco@mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 0-200 vs 912 performance
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: John Larsen <jopatco@mindspring.com>
Could not have said it better myself. It bears up with what I have
learned in my years of studying engines for the engine beat column for
Kitplanes. If you really want performance, run a good expansion
chambered two stroke. As far as I know, no one has ever beat the takeoff
performance of John Knapp and his Rotax 583 float equipped Avid.
Low rpm direct drive engines are ancient technology even if you paid a
lot of money for it and it was made in Australia. The high rpm
horizontally opposed four cylindr four stroke it the engine to beat if
you dont like two strokes.
Note; I have a lot of air time flying KF products with the 912S and I
get the same performance in my Airdale using the Stratus Subaru for half
the money.
My two cents worth now makes it four cents worth.
JML
Paul Seehafer wrote:
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Paul Seehafer" <av8rps@tznet.com>
>
>Kerry,
>
>All you have to do to know which engine is better is to put either airplane
>on floats. That is the true test if you want to know which engine will
>provide the most low end power. And if you really want to test an engines
>ability, put amphibious floats on the airplane. That definitely proves
>which engines work best for flat out thrust. Of course, it really boils
>down to the highest horsepower per horsepower, which the 912 excels a, as
>well as the two strokes. While I think the 0-200 is a great engine, it
>would barely get an amphibious kitfox off the water unless extremely
>modified and/or lightened. Even an IO-240 powered Fox at the higher
>horsepower is not going to perform as well as the 912. I believe if you
>look at Skystars specs on their airplanes (on wheels) you will find the
>turbocharged 914 to be the best performer even when compared to the IO-240.
>Incidentally, the high horsepower to weight of the two stroke 582 rotax
>powered Model IV kitfox on amphib floats would be a much better performer
>than would any of the aircraft engine versions with the exception of the
>912. How can that be? Simple, lots of power, and lighter than anything
>else out there.
>
>I'm not trying to bash our old tried and true lycoming and continentals, as
>after all I fly one in my Lake Amphibian. But it is very old technology.
>It would be the equivalent to thinking we could modify a Model T engine to
>compete with modern automobile engines of today. No matter how much one
>modified it, I doubt you could do so. Considering, our old aircraft
engines
>do pretty well overall. But when tested in grueling environments like
>seaplanes operate regularly in, they just can't compete with the horsepower
>to weight of the newer engines like the 912. When our airplanes are on
>wheels, the performance differences are harder to distinguish, but the
>differences are there none the less. Water opererations better demonstrate
>an aircrafts true performance, and test all things to the max. Engines,
>props, and airframes.
>
>Just my two cents worth...
>
>Paul Seehafer
>Wisconsin
>
>---- Original Message -----
>From: "Kerry Skyring" <kerryskyring@hotmail.com>
>To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: S-7 Cowling
>
>
>
>
>>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Kerry Skyring"
>><kerryskyring@hotmail.com>
>>
>>Just jumping into the cowl discussion again. We have an unused cowl - top
>>and bottom - for an S5 with 0-200. But it is in Vienna Austria so not much
>>good to our US friends. The original idea was to fit an 0-200 to the S5
>>but
>>the sale/purchase of the 0-200 fell through and we ended up with a Rotax
>>912S. We will sell the cowl if we can get some of the money back - it cost
>>around 500 dollars - plus freight. All offers considered. Although we
>>haven't flown yet ( we will soon) we sometimes wonder which is the better
>>engine for the S5 - 0-200 or 912S? A second hand 0-200 is certainly
>>cheaper
>>than a new 912S. Our club has a Cessna 150 which has had the 0-200
>>replaced
>>by a 912S and which I have flown. It's a tough call and I know this is a
>>very subjective debate. We came so close to fitting an 0-200.
>>Kerry
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>From: "Jeremy Casey" <n79rt@kilocharlie.us>
>>>Reply-To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
>>>To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
>>>Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: S-7 Cowling
>>>Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 08:59:14 -0400
>>>
>>>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jeremy Casey" <n79rt@kilocharlie.us>
>>>
>>>Is the cowl still available? I'm in need of a cowl for my "new" Series
>>>5 project...
>>>
>>>Jeremy Casey
>>>jeremy@kilocharlie.us
>>>
>>>P.S. How did you end up with an "extra" cowling , If you don't mind me
>>>asking?
>>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: eccles [mailto:eccles@Chartermi.net]
>>>To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
>>>Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: S-7 Cowling
>>>
>>>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "eccles" <eccles@chartermi.net>
>>>
>>>I have a round cowl off a series V,, anyone interested contact me off
>>>list
>>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
>>>[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Bob
>>>Unternaehrer
>>>To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
>>>Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: S-7 Cowling
>>>
>>>
>>>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bob Unternaehrer"
>>><shilocom@mcmsys.com>
>>>
>>>If you find one ,,I need one also, only for a Mod IV. Bob U.
>>>
>>>----- Original Message -----
>>>From: "Gary Olson" <ofd725@yahoo.com>
>>>To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
>>>Subject: Kitfox-List: S-7 Cowling
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Gary Olson <ofd725@yahoo.com>
>>>>
>>>>I am in need of a cowling for my S7 that has a 2276 Great Plains VW
>>>>
>>>>
>>>engine
>>>with the reduction drive. You may ask why I am using a VW. This is a
>>>fair
>>>question. I live in Oshkosh and have been listening to the Sonex guys
>>>brag
>>>about what a fantastic engine the VW is. Well it maybe a great engine
>>>for
>>>them, but what about a Kitfox? I figured what the heck, lets give it a
>>>shot.
>>>
>>>
>>>>Anyway, I am looking for a cowling for this project. If anyone has a
>>>>
>>>>
>>>lead
>>>or can steer me the right way, I would appreciate it immensely.
>>>
>>>
>>>>VW Flyer
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>---------------------------------
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
________________________________ Message 5
_____________________________________
Time: 05:44:54 AM PST US
From: John Larsen <jopatco@mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Needing a Tail Wheel Spring for a model II.
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: John Larsen <jopatco@mindspring.com>
Steve Winder at Airdale has some. 208-459-6254, or cell 208-284-8143
David Savener wrote:
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "David Savener" <david_savener@msn.com>
>
>I broke my tail wheel spring on my Model II that flies, but robbed one off
of
a model II that I have been building for years.
>
>Now I need to replace it so I can finish my hanger queen.
>
>Does anyone out there have one for sale or know of a source now that
SkyStar is
Tango Uniform??
>
>Dave S
>
>
>
>
________________________________ Message 6
_____________________________________
Time: 05:58:53 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>
Cliff,
To bad you don't like the airplane!
As the builder and previous owner of N 88VJ, I can attest to your numbers.
I just wish there was a light weight CS prop available for this package and
I know you do also. You forgot to mention this engine probably produces 130
raw horsepower.
As you reiterated, " build it light and it will fly right."
Now go out and have some more fun!
Vic
Do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "Clifford Begnaud" <shoeless@barefootpilot.com>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 0-200 vs 912 performance
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clifford Begnaud"
> <shoeless@barefootpilot.com>
>
> This is an interesting discussion and I appreciate your input on this
> Paul.
> But I have a slightly different take on it.
> Having owned two model 5 kitfoxes, one with a 912 Xtra (95 hp) and now one
> with a Lycoming 0-235, plus having some time in model 4's with the Rotax
> 912
> and a model 7 with 912S and a constant speed prop, I think I can offer a
> well rounded evaluation of these plane and engine combinations. What I
> have
> not done however, is fly on floats, amphibious or otherwise. Also, I have
> not flown a Kitfox with the 0-200. I generally agree that the 912s would
> be
> a better choice than the 0-200 on a model 5 or later.
>
> First, the model 4 with a 912 is a match made in heaven. It's like the two
> were specifically designed for each other. The 912s only sweetens the
> deal,
> especially at high elevation airports like we have here in Colorado. This
> is
> probably the best performing combo of all except for top speed.
>
> A model 5 with an 80 hp 912 is flat out underpowered. With the Masterkraft
> pistons bumping the hp up a bit (95 hp claimed) it is passable up here in
> Colorado but still leaves you wanting for more power when high, hot and
> heavy. Down low, this configuration is just fine and will haul the plane
> around at gross.
> The model 7 that I've flown with the 912s and Airmaster constant speed
> prop
> (warp drive blades) performs a notch higher than the 5 with the
> Masterkraft
> pistons. In fact the difference is quite noticeable. This combination
> would
> serve you well anywhere including up here in Colorado, (which is where I
> have flown it) Even though I haven't done it, I think it would perform
> well
> on floats also.
>
> Then there is the Lycoming 0-235. If the Kitfox is built to be a show
> plane,
> with every conceivable option, full upholstery and linings, a full
> instrument panel and a show plane paint job, the plane will still perform
> respectably. In fact in most situations it will perform very close to the
> aforementioned Model 7 with 912s. But, if you build your kitfox light, and
> use Lightspeed electronic ignitions and an Ellison throttle body carb the
> difference in performance can be noticeably better.
> Our model 5 is one such plane and the performance is truly impressive. I
> had
> the opportunity to compare the performance of our plane with the Model 7
> on
> the same cool morning and here is what I remember:
> Airport elevation 5050'
> Temp 50 degrees F
> Model 7 takeoff roll- 375' (empty weight 820 lbs)
> Model 5 with Lyc 0-235 take off roll- 325' (empty weight 870 lbs)
> Best rate of climb observed on Model 7 850-900 fpm
> Best rate for model 5 with Lyc 0-235 1050-1100 fpm
> Cruise speed of model 7, approximately 115 mph max TAS
> Cruise speed of model 5, approximately 130 mph, but will top out close to
> 140 TAS
>
> At first glance these numbers may not seem too different, but what I have
> found is that as you load down the kitfox with the Lycoming, the drop in
> performance is much smaller than the drop seen in the model 7 with 912s
> when
> it is loaded.
>
> We have had our kitfox up at 13999', fully loaded, and it was still
> climbing
> over 400 fpm.
> On a trip last year we were traveling with the model 7 pilot and at one
> point were at about 10,000' and wanted to climb over a cloud layer. We
> were
> both similarly heavily loaded (though he may have had a bit more weight)
> but
> he had trouble climbing at all, we just powered up over the layer with
> ease.
>
> I have regularly operated out of a 600' strip up here with two on board
> and
> half fuel, even in the summer, and never even came close to using the
> whole
> thing. In our previous model 5 with 912 xtra, I would only go in there
> solo
> except maybe on a very cold day I would take my wife along, but we would
> use
> most of the 600' to get out.
>
> Here's one last thing to consider about this comparison; note the
> difference
> in cruise and top speed. This tells you that the prop on the Lycoming
> 0-235
> is skewed toward the cruise end of the spectrum while the model 7 is able
> to
> change the pitch to suit the flight mode (i.e., take-off vs. cruise). The
> prop on our plane is an Aymar-Demuth 72X47. It turns about 2425 rpm static
> at 5100' elevation. Imagine instead if I had a 76X40 or something similar
> that would allow the engine to turn it's rated 2800 rpm static. The cruise
> speed would now be about equal on both planes, but the difference in take
> off and climb would be dramatically better with the Lycoming. The reason
> is
> that the Lycoming makes gobs of torque and allows you to turn a propeller
> that will generate more static thrust.
> What the numbers can't do in these comparisons is give you the "feel" of
> how
> these planes perform. When flying behind our 0-235 you can just FEEL the
> raw
> power that this engine puts out. It's a feeling that you will never get
> from
> the 912 series. In my opinion, if you want the best short field
> performance,
> or you want the best performance when loaded to the gills, or you want the
> best performance on floats, the Lycoming 0-235 is the way to go on the
> Kitfox models 5, 6 or 7, but I qualify this by stressing that you MUST
> build
> it light. A lightly built plane with the 912s and in flight adjustable
> prop
> will likely have equal or better performance than a heavy one with the
> 0-235, up to a point.
>
> You might also ask about landing distance. The model 7 with 912s was able
> to
> land slightly shorter than our model 5, but, either of them can land in a
> shorter distance than is needed to take-off, so this is not the deciding
> factor when judging short field performance, take-off distance rules.
> Flame suit on, fire away...
> Best Regards,
> Cliff Begnaud
> Erie, CO
> Kitfox 5, Lycoming 0-235
>
>> Kerry,
>>
>> All you have to do to know which engine is better is to put either
>> airplane
>> on floats. That is the true test if you want to know which engine will
>> provide the most low end power. And if you really want to test an
>> engines
>> ability, put amphibious floats on the airplane. That definitely proves
>> which engines work best for flat out thrust. Of course, it really boils
>> down to the highest horsepower per horsepower, which the 912 excels a, as
>> well as the two strokes. While I think the 0-200 is a great engine, it
>> would barely get an amphibious kitfox off the water unless extremely
>> modified and/or lightened. Even an IO-240 powered Fox at the higher
>> horsepower is not going to perform as well as the 912. I believe if you
>> look at Skystars specs on their airplanes (on wheels) you will find the
>> turbocharged 914 to be the best performer even when compared to the
>> IO-240.
>
>
>
________________________________ Message 7
_____________________________________
Time: 08:06:10 AM PST US
From: "Jeremy Casey" <n79rt@kilocharlie.us>
Subject: Kitfox-List: Service bulletins...
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jeremy Casey" <n79rt@kilocharlie.us>
A few days back someone mentioned that they had downloaded all the
service bulletins, etc. from Skystars site and was going to put them up
on his website? Was wondering who that was and if it had happened yet?
I meant to go download all of the them and got sidetracked and then it
slipped my mind (anyone know what I mean? ;-)
Anyway the picture of the mysterious stub in my "new" series 5 cage got
an answer.it was a gear mount for fiberglass gear legs used on VERY
early Vixens.thanks to all that took a look and tried to help.
Jeremy Casey
KiloCharlie Drafting, Inc.
jeremy@kilocharlie.us
http://www.kilocharlie.us/Flying.htm
________________________________ Message 8
_____________________________________
Time: 08:07:39 AM PST US
From: kerrjohna@comcast.net
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Heater
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kerrjohna@comcast.net
John King or Lowell Fitt or both came up with a simple design baffle that
fits
inside the radiator shroud and is controlled with a bowden cable to the
cockpit.
failure mode is to full open and the shroud attachment hardware provides the
necessary stability for the system. I believe they at the design in a
format
that can be emailed. That is how I got the information.
John Kerr
-------------- Original message --------------
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Paul Seehafer"
>
> Alan,
>
> I agree that running the 912's that cool concerns me too. I can't say I
> know enough about the 912 to tell you what the answer is to getting
coolant
> to run warmer, but I would think there should be a better way than to have
> to put tape over your radiator. Pretty antiquated when you consider how
> complex the engine is otherwise. I know you can get oil line thermostats,
> and heard they work well. Maybe someone else on the list that is a 912
> inner workings expert can help answer these questions better?
>
> I'm not surprised to hear your other engine ran 185 degrees, actually that
> is kind of cool compared to modern automobile engines that use 207 degree
> thermostats. Automakers know they need higher engine temps to make their
> engines run more efficiently, and last longer. So it makes one wonder why
> our engines would be any different? In fact, I would think our cold engine
> temps and no thermostat would encourage shock cooling, plus would cause
our
> engines to run inefficiently due to unstable temps causing uneven fuel
> jetting and atomization issues. But then again, like I eluded to earlier,
> I'm not an engine expert.
>
> As far as cabin heat goes, I think Avid came pretty close to having the
heat
> thing figured out when they attached a fibreglass scoop to the back of
each
> of their cowl cheek radiators, and then directed that warm air to the heat
> muff, where it then entered the cabin. My buddy has a 912ul Avid Mark IV
> with this setup and he gets lots of heat. Probably a lot harder to do on
> our Foxes (unless you could possibly use maybe the oil cooler?) Or maybe
we
> could just run a reverse set up? (You know, run the heat-muff heat tube
into
> the radiator before it enters the cabin). One way or another, utilize all
> the engine heat one can. The only downside with the Avid heat was that you
> needed to remove the radiator scoops for summer flying so as not to
overheat
> the engine. Or at least this was true with the two strokes. I don't know
> if thats the case on the 912, as my friend hasn't flown his 912 yet in
real
> hot weather.
>
> For my own airplane I plan on installing a heat muff off both front
exhaust
> pipes (or stacks), run a scat tube down to the muffler can heat-muff, and
> then run it into the cabin. I believe I will use the bilge fan idea so I
> can avoid needing heat boxes or ram air from the cowl. I believe with this
> 3 heat-muff setup I should have more heat than I can stand. If for some
> reason that doesn't do it, I can always resort to running the cabin heater
> core setup in addition with that fan. But if the heat muff works like I
> think it will, I will be able to save myself about 5 pounds of weight by
> getting rid of the heater core and fan unit from under the panel. I'm
> hoping it works out like I think it will as my airplane is a 80 hp 912ul
> amphib, so weight is critical.
>
> Anyone else have any ideas for our cabin heat issues, or how to control
our
> 912 engine temps better without radiator shutters?
>
> Paul Seehafer
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Alan & Linda Daniels"
> >
> Thanks for responding Paul
> >
> > I noticed that the CT2K Light Sport plane which sells for about 90K uses
> > muff heat. I have had great luck with the CAM 100 water heat as I said,
> > but it keeps the coolant at 185 and I can fly down to zero without
> > discomfort, but the same basic B&M transmission cooler with fans just
> > does not get hot enough to do much good. I am also concerned about
> > running the engine that cool, I just don't think it is good for it. I
> > thought some of the 2 stroke Rotax had thermostats you could put in, but
> > have never seen anything for the 912
> >
> > Alan
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
John King or Lowell Fitt or both came up with a simple design baffle that
fits
inside the radiator shroud and is controlled with a bowden cable to the
cockpit.
failure mode is to full open and the shroud attachment hardware provides the
necessary stability for the system. I believe they at the design in a format
that can be emailed. That is how I got the information.
John Kerr
-------------- Original message --------------
-- Kitfox-List message posted by: "Paul Seehafer" <AV8RPS@TZNET.COM>
Alan,
I agree that running the 912's that cool concerns me too. I can't say I
know enough about the 912 to tell you what the answer is to getting coolant
to run warmer, but I would think there should be a better way than to have
to put tape over your radiator. Pretty antiquated when you consider how
complex the engine is otherwise. I know you can get oil line thermostats,
and heard they work well. Maybe someone else on the list that is a 912
inner workings expert can help answer these questions better?
I'm not surprised to hear your other engine ran 185 degrees, actually that
is kind of cool compared to modern automobile engines that use 207 deg
ree
thermostats. Automakers know they need higher engine temps to make their
engines run more efficiently, and last longer. So it makes one wonder why
our engines would be any different? In fact, I would think our cold engine
temps and no thermostat would encourage shock cooling, plus would cause our
engines to run inefficiently due to unstable temps causing uneven fuel
jetting and atomization issues. But then again, like I eluded to earlier,
I'm not an engine expert.
As far as cabin heat goes, I think Avid came pretty close to having the
heat
thing figured out when they attached a fibreglass scoop to the back of each
of their cowl cheek radiators, and then directed that warm air to the heat
muff, where it then entered the cabin. My buddy has a 912ul Avid Mark IV
with this setup and he gets lots of heat. Probably a lot harder to do on
our Foxes (unles
s you could possibly use maybe the oil cooler?) Or maybe we
could just run a reverse set up? (You know, run the heat-muff heat tube
into
the radiator before it enters the cabin). One way or another, utilize all
the engine heat one can. The only downside with the Avid heat was that you
needed to remove the radiator scoops for summer flying so as not to
overheat
the engine. Or at least this was true with the two strokes. I don't know
if thats the case on the 912, as my friend hasn't flown his 912 yet in real
hot weather.
For my own airplane I plan on installing a heat muff off both front exhaust
pipes (or stacks), run a scat tube down to the muffler can heat-muff, and
then run it into the cabin. I believe I will use the bilge fan idea so I
can avoid needing heat boxes or ram air from the cowl. I believe with this
3 heat-muff setup I should have more heat than I
can stand. If for some
reason that doesn't do it, I can always resort to running the cabin heater
core setup in addition with that fan. But if the heat muff works like I
think it will, I will be able to save myself about 5 pounds of weight by
getting rid of the heater core and fan unit from under the panel. I'm
hoping it works out like I think it will as my airplane is a 80 hp 912ul
amphib, so weight is critical.
Anyone else have any ideas for our cabin heat issues, or how to control our
912 engine temps better without radiator shutters?
Paul Seehafer
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alan Linda Daniels" <ALDANIELS@FMTC.COM>
Thanks for responding Paul
I noticed that the CT2K Light Sport plane which sells for about 90K uses
muff heat. I have had great luck with the CAM 100 water he
at as I said,
but it keeps the coolant at 185 and I can fly down to zero without
discomfort, but the same basic BM transmission cooler with fans just
does not get hot enough to do much good. I am also concerned about
running the engine that cool, I just don't think it is good for it. I
thought some of the 2 stroke Rotax had thermostats you could put in, but
have never seen anything for the 912
Alan
________________________________ Message 9
_____________________________________
Time: 08:42:54 AM PST US
From: Fred Shiple <fredshiple@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Heater
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Fred Shiple <fredshiple@sbcglobal.net>
Paul,
Lockwood offers an oil line thermostat. I have no direct experience with it,
but
I've had good experiences in all my dealings with them.
Fred
to put tape over your radiator. Pretty antiquated when you consider how
complex the engine is otherwise. I know you can get oil line thermostats,
________________________________ Message 10
____________________________________
Time: 09:20:19 AM PST US
From: "Don Pearsall" <donpearsall@comcast.net>
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Service bulletins...
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Don Pearsall" <donpearsall@comcast.net>
You can view the whole Skystar web site at www.sportflight.com/skystar. It
is there for archival and information purposes only, NOT plagiarism.
Don Pearsall
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jeremy Casey
Subject: Kitfox-List: Service bulletins...
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jeremy Casey" <n79rt@kilocharlie.us>
A few days back someone mentioned that they had downloaded all the
service bulletins, etc. from Skystars site and was going to put them up
on his website? Was wondering who that was and if it had happened yet?
I meant to go download all of the them and got sidetracked and then it
slipped my mind (anyone know what I mean? ;-)
Anyway the picture of the mysterious stub in my "new" series 5 cage got
an answer.it was a gear mount for fiberglass gear legs used on VERY
early Vixens.thanks to all that took a look and tried to help.
Jeremy Casey
KiloCharlie Drafting, Inc.
jeremy@kilocharlie.us
http://www.kilocharlie.us/Flying.htm
________________________________ Message 11
____________________________________
Time: 09:51:50 AM PST US
From: "jdmcbean" <jdmcbean@cableone.net>
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Service bulletins...
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "jdmcbean" <jdmcbean@cableone.net>
I do have all the SB's and SL's from the SS web and will have them posted
soon on our site... I am making sure that it's OK before I get it done.
Fly Safe !!
John & Debra McBean
www.sportplanellc.com
"The Sky is not the Limit... It's a Playground"
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Jeremy Casey
Subject: Kitfox-List: Service bulletins...
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jeremy Casey" <n79rt@kilocharlie.us>
A few days back someone mentioned that they had downloaded all the
service bulletins, etc. from Skystars site and was going to put them up
on his website? Was wondering who that was and if it had happened yet?
I meant to go download all of the them and got sidetracked and then it
slipped my mind (anyone know what I mean? ;-)
Anyway the picture of the mysterious stub in my "new" series 5 cage got
an answer.it was a gear mount for fiberglass gear legs used on VERY
early Vixens.thanks to all that took a look and tried to help.
Jeremy Casey
KiloCharlie Drafting, Inc.
jeremy@kilocharlie.us
http://www.kilocharlie.us/Flying.htm
________________________________ Message 12
____________________________________
Time: 09:51:55 AM PST US
From: "jdmcbean" <jdmcbean@cableone.net>
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Skystar site gone
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "jdmcbean" <jdmcbean@cableone.net>
The last Demo plane SS owned was the Series 7 Sport (Blue/White) It was
sold some time ago and is in Colorado.
Fly Safe !!
John & Debra McBean
www.sportplanellc.com
"The Sky is not the Limit... It's a Playground"
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of John Marzulli
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Skystar site gone
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: John Marzulli <john.marzulli@gmail.com>
Looks gone to me.
Will it be possible to buy one of their demo planes via the chapter 7
proceedings?
On 10/26/05, QSS <msm@byterocky.net> wrote:
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "QSS" <msm@byterocky.net>
>
> Just went in to the Skystar site. Its still up and running
>
> Regards
> Graeme Toft
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Paul
> Seehafer
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Kitfox-List: Skystar site gone
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Paul Seehafer" <av8rps@tznet.com>
>
> Hope everyone got all they needed off of Skystars website, because it
> appears to be gone now...
>
> Paul Seehafer
>
>
> --
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> 25/10/2005
>
>
> --
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> 25/10/2005
>
>
________________________________ Message 13
____________________________________
Time: 12:25:30 PM PST US
From: kerrjohna@comcast.net
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Skystar site gone
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kerrjohna@comcast.net
who did the Red & White Series 7 that was at OSH belong to? It was a good
looking
plane.
John Kerr
-------------- Original message --------------
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "jdmcbean"
>
> The last Demo plane SS owned was the Series 7 Sport (Blue/White) It was
> sold some time ago and is in Colorado.
>
> Fly Safe !!
> John & Debra McBean
> www.sportplanellc.com
> "The Sky is not the Limit... It's a Playground"
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of John Marzulli
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Skystar site gone
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: John Marzulli
>
> Looks gone to me.
>
> Will it be possible to buy one of their demo planes via the chapter 7
> proceedings?
>
>
> On 10/26/05, QSS wrote:
> >
> > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "QSS"
> >
> > Just went in to the Skystar site. Its still up and running
> >
> > Regards
> > Graeme Toft
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> > [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Paul
> > Seehafer
> > To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> > Subject: Kitfox-List: Skystar site gone
> >
> > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Paul Seehafer"
> >
> > Hope everyone got all they needed off of Skystars website, because it
> > appears to be gone now...
> >
> > Paul Seehafer
> >
> >
> > --
> > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > 25/10/2005
> >
> >
> > --
> > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > 25/10/2005
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
who did the Red White Series 7 that was at OSH belong to? It was a good
looking
plane.
John Kerr
-------------- Original message --------------
-- Kitfox-List message posted by: "jdmcbean" <JDMCBEAN@CABLEONE.NET>
The last Demo plane SS owned was the Series 7 Sport (Blue/White) It was
sold some time ago and is in Colorado.
Fly Safe !!
John Debra McBean
www.sportplanellc.com
"The Sky is not the Limit... It's a Playground"
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of John Marzulli
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Skystar site gone
-- Kitfox-List message posted by: John Marzulli <JOHN.MARZULLI@GMAIL.COM>
Looks gone to me.
Will it be possible to buy one of their demo planes via th
e chapter 7
proceedings?
On 10/26/05, QSS <MSM@BYTEROCKY.NET>wrote:
-- Kitfox-List message posted by: "QSS" <MSM@BYTEROCKY.NET>
Just went in to the Skystar site. Its still up and running
Regards
Graeme Toft
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Paul
Seehafer
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Subject: Kitfox-List: Skystar site gone
-- Kitfox-List message posted by: "Paul Seehafer" <AV8RPS@TZNET.COM>
Hope everyone got all they needed off of Skystars website, because it
appears to be gone now...
Paul Seehafer
--
Check
ed by AVG Free Edition.
25/10/2005
--
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
25/10/2005
________________________________ Message 14
____________________________________
Time: 12:44:57 PM PST US
From: "Mark Miller" <larsonmil3@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Skystar OSH display
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Mark Miller" <larsonmil3@earthlink.net>
It belongs to Mike D'Amico
One of the 103 builders group
Mark Miller
----- Original Message -----
From: <kerrjohna@comcast.net>
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Skystar site gone
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kerrjohna@comcast.net
>
> who did the Red & White Series 7 that was at OSH belong to? It was a good
> looking plane.
>
> John Kerr
>
> -------------- Original message --------------
>
>> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "jdmcbean"
>>
>> The last Demo plane SS owned was the Series 7 Sport (Blue/White) It was
>> sold some time ago and is in Colorado.
>>
>> Fly Safe !!
>> John & Debra McBean
>> www.sportplanellc.com
>> "The Sky is not the Limit... It's a Playground"
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of John Marzulli
>> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
>> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Skystar site gone
>>
>> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: John Marzulli
>>
>> Looks gone to me.
>>
>> Will it be possible to buy one of their demo planes via the chapter 7
>> proceedings?
>>
>>
>> On 10/26/05, QSS wrote:
>> >
>> > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "QSS"
>> >
>> > Just went in to the Skystar site. Its still up and running
>> >
>> > Regards
>> > Graeme Toft
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
>> > [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Paul
>> > Seehafer
>> > To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
>> > Subject: Kitfox-List: Skystar site gone
>> >
>> > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Paul Seehafer"
>> >
>> > Hope everyone got all they needed off of Skystars website, because it
>> > appears to be gone now...
>> >
>> > Paul Seehafer
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>> > 25/10/2005
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>> > 25/10/2005
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> who did the Red White Series 7 that was at OSH belong to? It was a good
> looking plane.
>
> John Kerr
>
> -------------- Original message --------------
>
> -- Kitfox-List message posted by: "jdmcbean" <JDMCBEAN@CABLEONE.NET>
>
> The last Demo plane SS owned was the Series 7 Sport (Blue/White) It was
> sold some time ago and is in Colorado.
>
> Fly Safe !!
> John Debra McBean
> www.sportplanellc.com
> "The Sky is not the Limit... It's a Playground"
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of John Marzulli
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Skystar site gone
>
> -- Kitfox-List message posted by: John Marzulli <JOHN.MARZULLI@GMAIL.COM>
>
> Looks gone to me.
>
> Will it be possible to buy one of their demo planes via th
> e chapter 7
> proceedings?
>
>
> On 10/26/05, QSS <MSM@BYTEROCKY.NET>wrote:
>
> -- Kitfox-List message posted by: "QSS" <MSM@BYTEROCKY.NET>
>
> Just went in to the Skystar site. Its still up and running
>
> Regards
> Graeme Toft
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Paul
> Seehafer
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Kitfox-List: Skystar site gone
>
> -- Kitfox-List message posted by: "Paul Seehafer" <AV8RPS@TZNET.COM>
>
> Hope everyone got all they needed off of Skystars website, because it
> appears to be gone now...
>
> Paul Seehafer
>
>
> --
> Check
> ed by AVG Free Edition.
> 25/10/2005
>
>
> --
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> 25/10/2005
>
>
>
________________________________ Message 15
____________________________________
Time: 12:46:08 PM PST US
From: "jdmcbean" <jdmcbean@cableone.net>
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Skystar site gone
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "jdmcbean" <jdmcbean@cableone.net>
This year... I believe that was a customers aircraft.. One of the local
builders group planes...
Fly Safe !!
John & Debra McBean
www.sportplanellc.com
"The Sky is not the Limit... It's a Playground"
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of
kerrjohna@comcast.net
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Skystar site gone
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kerrjohna@comcast.net
who did the Red & White Series 7 that was at OSH belong to? It was a good
looking plane.
John Kerr
-------------- Original message --------------
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "jdmcbean"
>
> The last Demo plane SS owned was the Series 7 Sport (Blue/White) It was
> sold some time ago and is in Colorado.
>
> Fly Safe !!
> John & Debra McBean
> www.sportplanellc.com
> "The Sky is not the Limit... It's a Playground"
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of John Marzulli
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Skystar site gone
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: John Marzulli
>
> Looks gone to me.
>
> Will it be possible to buy one of their demo planes via the chapter 7
> proceedings?
>
>
> On 10/26/05, QSS wrote:
> >
> > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "QSS"
> >
> > Just went in to the Skystar site. Its still up and running
> >
> > Regards
> > Graeme Toft
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> > [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Paul
> > Seehafer
> > To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> > Subject: Kitfox-List: Skystar site gone
> >
> > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Paul Seehafer"
> >
> > Hope everyone got all they needed off of Skystars website, because it
> > appears to be gone now...
> >
> > Paul Seehafer
> >
> >
> > --
> > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > 25/10/2005
> >
> >
> > --
> > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > 25/10/2005
> >
> >
>
>
who did the Red White Series 7 that was at OSH belong to? It was a good
looking plane.
John Kerr
-------------- Original message --------------
-- Kitfox-List message posted by: "jdmcbean" <JDMCBEAN@CABLEONE.NET>
The last Demo plane SS owned was the Series 7 Sport (Blue/White) It was
sold some time ago and is in Colorado.
Fly Safe !!
John Debra McBean
www.sportplanellc.com
"The Sky is not the Limit... It's a Playground"
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of John Marzulli
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Skystar site gone
-- Kitfox-List message posted by: John Marzulli <JOHN.MARZULLI@GMAIL.COM>
Looks gone to me.
Will it be possible to buy one of their demo planes via th
e chapter 7
proceedings?
On 10/26/05, QSS <MSM@BYTEROCKY.NET>wrote:
-- Kitfox-List message posted by: "QSS" <MSM@BYTEROCKY.NET>
Just went in to the Skystar site. Its still up and running
Regards
Graeme Toft
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Paul
Seehafer
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Subject: Kitfox-List: Skystar site gone
-- Kitfox-List message posted by: "Paul Seehafer" <AV8RPS@TZNET.COM>
Hope everyone got all they needed off of Skystars website, because it
appears to be gone now...
Paul Seehafer
--
Check
ed by AVG Free Edition.
25/10/2005
--
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
25/10/2005
________________________________ Message 16
____________________________________
Time: 12:46:19 PM PST US
From: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Heater
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@sbcglobal.net>
John, The radiator baffle, I think, is a John King idea. I made the oil
cooler flaps.
Lowell
----- Original Message -----
From: <kerrjohna@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Heater
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kerrjohna@comcast.net
>
> John King or Lowell Fitt or both came up with a simple design baffle that
> fits inside the radiator shroud and is controlled with a bowden cable to
> the cockpit. failure mode is to full open and the shroud attachment
> hardware provides the necessary stability for the system. I believe they
> at the design in a format that can be emailed. That is how I got the
> information.
>
> John Kerr
>
> -------------- Original message --------------
>
>> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Paul Seehafer"
>>
>> Alan,
>>
>> I agree that running the 912's that cool concerns me too. I can't say I
>> know enough about the 912 to tell you what the answer is to getting
>> coolant
>> to run warmer, but I would think there should be a better way than to
>> have
>> to put tape over your radiator. Pretty antiquated when you consider how
>> complex the engine is otherwise. I know you can get oil line thermostats,
>> and heard they work well. Maybe someone else on the list that is a 912
>> inner workings expert can help answer these questions better?
>>
>> I'm not surprised to hear your other engine ran 185 degrees, actually
>> that
>> is kind of cool compared to modern automobile engines that use 207 degree
>> thermostats. Automakers know they need higher engine temps to make their
>> engines run more efficiently, and last longer. So it makes one wonder why
>> our engines would be any different? In fact, I would think our cold
>> engine
>> temps and no thermostat would encourage shock cooling, plus would cause
>> our
>> engines to run inefficiently due to unstable temps causing uneven fuel
>> jetting and atomization issues. But then again, like I eluded to earlier,
>> I'm not an engine expert.
>>
>> As far as cabin heat goes, I think Avid came pretty close to having the
>> heat
>> thing figured out when they attached a fibreglass scoop to the back of
>> each
>> of their cowl cheek radiators, and then directed that warm air to the
>> heat
>> muff, where it then entered the cabin. My buddy has a 912ul Avid Mark IV
>> with this setup and he gets lots of heat. Probably a lot harder to do on
>> our Foxes (unless you could possibly use maybe the oil cooler?) Or maybe
>> we
>> could just run a reverse set up? (You know, run the heat-muff heat tube
>> into
>> the radiator before it enters the cabin). One way or another, utilize all
>> the engine heat one can. The only downside with the Avid heat was that
>> you
>> needed to remove the radiator scoops for summer flying so as not to
>> overheat
>> the engine. Or at least this was true with the two strokes. I don't know
>> if thats the case on the 912, as my friend hasn't flown his 912 yet in
>> real
>> hot weather.
>>
>> For my own airplane I plan on installing a heat muff off both front
>> exhaust
>> pipes (or stacks), run a scat tube down to the muffler can heat-muff, and
>> then run it into the cabin. I believe I will use the bilge fan idea so I
>> can avoid needing heat boxes or ram air from the cowl. I believe with
>> this
>> 3 heat-muff setup I should have more heat than I can stand. If for some
>> reason that doesn't do it, I can always resort to running the cabin
>> heater
>> core setup in addition with that fan. But if the heat muff works like I
>> think it will, I will be able to save myself about 5 pounds of weight by
>> getting rid of the heater core and fan unit from under the panel. I'm
>> hoping it works out like I think it will as my airplane is a 80 hp 912ul
>> amphib, so weight is critical.
>>
>> Anyone else have any ideas for our cabin heat issues, or how to control
>> our
>> 912 engine temps better without radiator shutters?
>>
>> Paul Seehafer
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Alan & Linda Daniels"
>> >
>> Thanks for responding Paul
>> >
>> > I noticed that the CT2K Light Sport plane which sells for about 90K
>> > uses
>> > muff heat. I have had great luck with the CAM 100 water heat as I said,
>> > but it keeps the coolant at 185 and I can fly down to zero without
>> > discomfort, but the same basic B&M transmission cooler with fans just
>> > does not get hot enough to do much good. I am also concerned about
>> > running the engine that cool, I just don't think it is good for it. I
>> > thought some of the 2 stroke Rotax had thermostats you could put in,
>> > but
>> > have never seen anything for the 912
>> >
>> > Alan
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> John King or Lowell Fitt or both came up with a simple design baffle that
> fits inside the radiator shroud and is controlled with a bowden cable to
> the cockpit. failure mode is to full open and the shroud attachment
> hardware provides the necessary stability for the system. I believe they
> at the design in a format that can be emailed. That is how I got the
> information.
>
> John Kerr
>
> -------------- Original message --------------
>
> -- Kitfox-List message posted by: "Paul Seehafer" <AV8RPS@TZNET.COM>
>
> Alan,
>
> I agree that running the 912's that cool concerns me too. I can't say I
> know enough about the 912 to tell you what the answer is to getting
> coolant
> to run warmer, but I would think there should be a better way than to have
> to put tape over your radiator. Pretty antiquated when you consider how
> complex the engine is otherwise. I know you can get oil line thermostats,
> and heard they work well. Maybe someone else on the list that is a 912
> inner workings expert can help answer these questions better?
>
> I'm not surprised to hear your other engine ran 185 degrees, actually that
> is kind of cool compared to modern automobile engines that use 207 deg
> ree
> thermostats. Automakers know they need higher engine temps to make their
> engines run more efficiently, and last longer. So it makes one wonder why
> our engines would be any different? In fact, I would think our cold engine
> temps and no thermostat would encourage shock cooling, plus would cause
> our
> engines to run inefficiently due to unstable temps causing uneven fuel
> jetting and atomization issues. But then again, like I eluded to earlier,
> I'm not an engine expert.
>
> As far as cabin heat goes, I think Avid came pretty close to having the
> heat
> thing figured out when they attached a fibreglass scoop to the back of
> each
> of their cowl cheek radiators, and then directed that warm air to the heat
> muff, where it then entered the cabin. My buddy has a 912ul Avid Mark IV
> with this setup and he gets lots of heat. Probably a lot harder to do on
> our Foxes (unles
> s you could possibly use maybe the oil cooler?) Or maybe we
> could just run a reverse set up? (You know, run the heat-muff heat tube
> into
> the radiator before it enters the cabin). One way or another, utilize all
> the engine heat one can. The only downside with the Avid heat was that you
> needed to remove the radiator scoops for summer flying so as not to
> overheat
> the engine. Or at least this was true with the two strokes. I don't know
> if thats the case on the 912, as my friend hasn't flown his 912 yet in
> real
> hot weather.
>
> For my own airplane I plan on installing a heat muff off both front
> exhaust
> pipes (or stacks), run a scat tube down to the muffler can heat-muff, and
> then run it into the cabin. I believe I will use the bilge fan idea so I
> can avoid needing heat boxes or ram air from the cowl. I believe with this
> 3 heat-muff setup I should have more heat than I
> can stand. If for some
> reason that doesn't do it, I can always resort to running the cabin heater
> core setup in addition with that fan. But if the heat muff works like I
> think it will, I will be able to save myself about 5 pounds of weight by
> getting rid of the heater core and fan unit from under the panel. I'm
> hoping it works out like I think it will as my airplane is a 80 hp 912ul
> amphib, so weight is critical.
>
> Anyone else have any ideas for our cabin heat issues, or how to control
> our
> 912 engine temps better without radiator shutters?
>
> Paul Seehafer
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Alan Linda Daniels" <ALDANIELS@FMTC.COM>
>
> Thanks for responding Paul
>
> I noticed that the CT2K Light Sport plane which sells for about 90K uses
> muff heat. I have had great luck with the CAM 100 water he
> at as I said,
> but it keeps the coolant at 185 and I can fly down to zero without
> discomfort, but the same basic BM transmission cooler with fans just
> does not get hot enough to do much good. I am also concerned about
> running the engine that cool, I just don't think it is good for it. I
> thought some of the 2 stroke Rotax had thermostats you could put in, but
> have never seen anything for the 912
>
> Alan
>
>
>
________________________________ Message 17
____________________________________
Time: 12:49:21 PM PST US
From: Gary Olson <ofd725@yahoo.com>
Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: VW Installation
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Gary Olson <ofd725@yahoo.com>
Ed,
I am still waiting on the engine mount. I am still researching porp
information
yet. I will keep you posted on my progress (including pictures).
Gary
edygert@charter.net wrote:
Hi Gary,
I sure would like to see any and all pictures you have of your engine
installation.
I am interested in doing the same type of setup.
Have you chosen a prop yet?
Thanks.....
Ed Dygert.............
--
---------------------------------
________________________________ Message 18
____________________________________
Time: 02:23:00 PM PST US
From: "glen rowland" <grav8@mybluelight.com>
Subject: Kitfox-List: lift strut dia?
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "glen rowland" <grav8@mybluelight.com>
Does any one know the 4130 lift strut tube dia and thickness for the kf
series
5, 6, or 7. also did the first 1400# series 5 use a smaller strut?
Thanks Glen
Does any one know the 4130lift strut tube dia and thickness for the kf
series 5,
6, or 7. also did the first 1400# series 5 use a smaller strut?
Thanks Glen
________________________________ Message 19
____________________________________
Time: 02:39:02 PM PST US
From: "Jeremy Casey" <n79rt@kilocharlie.us>
Subject: Kitfox-List: Flying Series 5,6,7's???
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jeremy Casey" <n79rt@kilocharlie.us>
Any flying Series 5,6,7's in Al. or GA.? Would like to see what I'm
about to spend all extra time/money on for awhile, up close. I have
actually never even sat in a 5,6,7 Kitfox.
Jeremy Casey
KiloCharlie Drafting, Inc.
jeremy@kilocharlie.us
________________________________ Message 20
____________________________________
Time: 02:54:30 PM PST US
From: Ceashman@aol.com
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Flying Series 5,6,7's???
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Ceashman@aol.com
>Any flying Series 5,6,7's in Al. or GA.? Would like to see what I'm
>about to spend all extra time/money on for a while, up close. I have
>actually never even sat in a 5,6,7 Kitfox.
Jeremy Casey
KiloCharlie Drafting, Inc.
>jeremy@kilocharlie.us
Hi Jeremy.
I know of a couple of Kitfox's in the Atlanta area
Contact me off list and I can put you in contact with one or two.
Cheers. Eric Ashman, Classic IV
________________________________ Message 21
____________________________________
Time: 04:48:29 PM PST US
From: "Brett Walmsley" <N93HJ@numail.org>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Flying Series 5,6,7's???
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Brett Walmsley" <N93HJ@numail.org>
There are three model 5s in Peachtree City, GA
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeremy Casey" <n79rt@kilocharlie.us>
Subject: Kitfox-List: Flying Series 5,6,7's???
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jeremy Casey" <n79rt@kilocharlie.us>
>
> Any flying Series 5,6,7's in Al. or GA.? Would like to see what I'm
> about to spend all extra time/money on for awhile, up close. I have
> actually never even sat in a 5,6,7 Kitfox.
>
>
> Jeremy Casey
> KiloCharlie Drafting, Inc.
> jeremy@kilocharlie.us
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________ Message 22
____________________________________
Time: 04:58:27 PM PST US
From: Alan & Linda Daniels <aldaniels@fmtc.com>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Flying Series 5,6,7's???
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Alan & Linda Daniels <aldaniels@fmtc.com>
If you get to easter oregon I can get you in several with different
engines, wing sweeps, and gear. Don't know were you are.
Jeremy Casey wrote:
>--> message posted by: "Jeremy Casey" <n79rt@kilocharlie.us>
>
>Any flying Series 5,6,7's in Al. or GA.? Would like to see what I'm
>about to spend all extra time/money on for awhile, up close. I have
>actually never even sat in a 5,6,7 Kitfox.
>
>
>Jeremy Casey
>KiloCharlie Drafting, Inc.
>jeremy@kilocharlie.us
>
>
>
>
________________________________ Message 23
____________________________________
Time: 05:04:01 PM PST US
From: "Clem Nichols" <cnichols@scrtc.com>
Subject: Kitfox-List: 582 coolant
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clem Nichols" <cnichols@scrtc.com>
Begging your indulgence regarding another repetetive question.
Over the past several months (years?) I remember several postings regarding
the
proper way to add coolant to a Rotax 582 engine. At that time, and
presently,
I was flying a Kitfox IV with a Subaru engine, so I really didn't pay much
attention.
I've recently purchased a second plane, a Rans S14 with a 582, however,
and need to know how to properly add coolant to the system. I've had no
luck with the Matronics Search engine, and would appreciate someone once
again
posting the correct way to accomplish this task. When flying the plane
today
for the first time the engine overheated, and coolant was lost. Hopefully
the
overheating was caused by a low coolant level to begin with, but it was full
at the filler neck before takeoff. Thanks for your help.
Clem Nichols
________________________________ Message 24
____________________________________
Time: 06:40:06 PM PST US
From: John King <kingjohne@adelphia.net>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Heater
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: John King <kingjohne@adelphia.net>
John,
I made a radiator cowl flap for my Series 6 / 912S. The radiator on the
series 6 is inside the cowling. My design consisted of a set of three
horizontals shutters that are controlled from the instrument panel. I
can make the CHT any temperature I desire, summer and winter. It
provides full range temperature control. The only time I fly with it
wide open is on takeoff and climb out. At cruise I partially close it
down to maintain at least 180 F. The cowl flap is mounted on the back
side if the radiator itself and is designed fail safe. I do not have
drawings of it , but you can see some of the pictures of it on the Sport
Flight web site:
<http://www.sportflight.com/cgi-bin/uploader.pl?action=view&epoch=1059091684
>
I can send more pictures to anyone interested.
On my Model IV-1200 / 912UL I installed a cowl flap inside the radiator
cowl that is mounted under the fuselage. It was much easier to design
and was also effective. Drawings and a description used to be on the
Sport Flight web site, but I cannot fine it now. However I do have
copies of the drawing and description.
--
John King
Warrenton, VA
kerrjohna@comcast.net wrote:
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kerrjohna@comcast.net
>
>John King or Lowell Fitt or both came up with a simple design baffle that
fits
inside the radiator shroud and is controlled with a bowden cable to the
cockpit.
failure mode is to full open and the shroud attachment hardware provides the
necessary stability for the system. I believe they at the design in a
format
that can be emailed. That is how I got the information.
>
>John Kerr
>
>-------------- Original message --------------
>
>
>
>>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Paul Seehafer"
>>
>>Alan,
>>
>>I agree that running the 912's that cool concerns me too. I can't say I
>>know enough about the 912 to tell you what the answer is to getting
coolant
>>to run warmer, but I would think there should be a better way than to have
>>to put tape over your radiator. Pretty antiquated when you consider how
>>complex the engine is otherwise. I know you can get oil line thermostats,
>>and heard they work well. Maybe someone else on the list that is a 912
>>inner workings expert can help answer these questions better?
>>
>>I'm not surprised to hear your other engine ran 185 degrees, actually that
>>is kind of cool compared to modern automobile engines that use 207 degree
>>thermostats. Automakers know they need higher engine temps to make their
>>engines run more efficiently, and last longer. So it makes one wonder why
>>our engines would be any different? In fact, I would think our cold engine
>>temps and no thermostat would encourage shock cooling, plus would cause
our
>>engines to run inefficiently due to unstable temps causing uneven fuel
>>jetting and atomization issues. But then again, like I eluded to earlier,
>>I'm not an engine expert.
>>
>>As far as cabin heat goes, I think Avid came pretty close to having the
heat
>>thing figured out when they attached a fibreglass scoop to the back of
each
>>of their cowl cheek radiators, and then directed that warm air to the heat
>>muff, where it then entered the cabin. My buddy has a 912ul Avid Mark IV
>>with this setup and he gets lots of heat. Probably a lot harder to do on
>>our Foxes (unless you could possibly use maybe the oil cooler?) Or maybe
we
>>could just run a reverse set up? (You know, run the heat-muff heat tube
into
>>the radiator before it enters the cabin). One way or another, utilize all
>>the engine heat one can. The only downside with the Avid heat was that you
>>needed to remove the radiator scoops for summer flying so as not to
overheat
>>the engine. Or at least this was true with the two strokes. I don't know
>>if thats the case on the 912, as my friend hasn't flown his 912 yet in
real
>>hot weather.
>>
>>For my own airplane I plan on installing a heat muff off both front
exhaust
>>pipes (or stacks), run a scat tube down to the muffler can heat-muff, and
>>then run it into the cabin. I believe I will use the bilge fan idea so I
>>can avoid needing heat boxes or ram air from the cowl. I believe with this
>>3 heat-muff setup I should have more heat than I can stand. If for some
>>reason that doesn't do it, I can always resort to running the cabin heater
>>core setup in addition with that fan. But if the heat muff works like I
>>think it will, I will be able to save myself about 5 pounds of weight by
>>getting rid of the heater core and fan unit from under the panel. I'm
>>hoping it works out like I think it will as my airplane is a 80 hp 912ul
>>amphib, so weight is critical.
>>
>>Anyone else have any ideas for our cabin heat issues, or how to control
our
>>912 engine temps better without radiator shutters?
>>
>>Paul Seehafer
>>
>>
>>
________________________________ Message 25
____________________________________
Time: 08:23:21 PM PST US
From: "david yeamans" <dafox@ckt.net>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Cockpit Fumes
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "david yeamans" <dafox@ckt.net>
Guy,
I did two things to stop the fumes and the wind from coming in.
First,
with the seat out, I cut
a piece of carpet from what i had left over from covering my floor board,
and cut
a piece oversize to
leave room for vellcro, and made a snug fit around the Bungees, and velcro'd
It
to the fabric, that helped,
but what helped the most was making what I call a wind deflector out of a
piece
of aluminun, about 3 ''
wide and just past the Bungees, and bending it at full length at a 45
degrees .
Locate the tubing and
install the deflector just in front of the bungees. I drilled the tubing
and tapped
it so i could screw a bolt
into it to fasten the deflector. It was the best thing I could have done,
It stopped
99 % of fumes and Air
David
----- Original Message -----
From: Guy Buchanan
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2005 11:08 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Cockpit Fumes
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Guy Buchanan <bnn@nethere.com>
Hi all!
Does anyone have a recommendation on how to seal the openings
where the gear shock-cord comes through? It seems like a likely entrance
for exhaust fumes.
Thanks,
Guy Buchanan
K-IV 1200 / 582 / 99.9% done, thanks mostly to Bob Ducar.
________________________________ Message 26
____________________________________
Time: 08:23:21 PM PST US
From: "david yeamans" <dafox@ckt.net>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Registration
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "david yeamans" <dafox@ckt.net>
Guy,
Relax, you have plenty of time. I registered my kitfox three years
before
I finished
it. When I received a tax statement, I went to city hall,I told them I
applyed
for
my registration to be sure of getting my N number and that my airplane was
not
completed,
they said just to let them know when it was.
David
----- Original Message -----
From: Guy Buchanan
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2005 9:46 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Registration
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Guy Buchanan <bnn@nethere.com>
Wow, for a while I thought I had a bunch of time. I sent in my
registration
forms a couple of weeks ago, expecting a 2-3 month turnaround. What ho! I
received my registration today! I guess I'll have to finish the plane
ASAP.
I was going to put the wings on for the last time last week and realized
that I would never get a baggage box in once the wings were on. Thus I
spent the last week or so building a rigid baggage box behind the seats.
I'm praying now that my weight and balance allows me to use it. I'm hoping
to do my weight and balance at the Nov 19 Kitfox fly-in at Brown, in San
Diego.
Guy Buchanan
K-IV 1200 / 582 / 99.9% done, thanks mostly to Bob Ducar.
Do not archive
________________________________ Message 27
____________________________________
Time: 09:51:26 PM PST US
From: "daniel johnson" <kitfox91je@hotmail.com>
Subject: Kitfox-List: Floats on Ebay
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "daniel johnson" <kitfox91je@hotmail.com>
Hi all...i never got to put the floats on my kitfox before i sold. I'm
putting them up on ebay. I was told 1200 was thier rating, but the guys
supporting avids now tell me they had no published rating...but were used up
to 1150 gross. Paul on list tells me you'd have to be gentle with them at
heavy operating weights...he owns a set and would know best. Have a look if
you are interested..they are up for acution but offers are ok too.
Dan...Ohio
________________________________ Message 28
____________________________________
Time: 11:02:28 PM PST US
From: Guy Buchanan <bnn@nethere.com>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Cockpit Fumes
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Guy Buchanan <bnn@nethere.com>
At 08:05 PM 10/27/2005, you wrote:
>I did two things to stop the fumes and the wind from coming in.
Very interesting David. I think I'll try it.
Guy Buchanan
K-IV 1200 / 582 / 99.9% done, thanks mostly to Bob Ducar.
Do not archive
- - - - - - - Appended by Scientific-Atlanta, Inc. - - - - - - -
This e-mail and any attachments may contain information which is confidential,
proprietary, privileged or otherwise protected by law. The information is solely
intended for the named addressee (or a person responsible for delivering it
to the addressee). If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you
are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy or disseminate this message or
any part of it. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the
sender immediately by return e-mail and delete it from your computer.
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<META NAME"Generator" CONTENT"MS Exchange Server version 5.5.2658.2">
GSC Prop
I have a 3-bladed 68 GSC prop and spinner on my 582 that I am considering swapping
out. It's running OK but I would like to switch to an IVO.
Two of the blades are in excellent condition and one is brand new from GSC. I sent
the other two blades back in when the 3rd was made for inspection and balancing.
Included is a spare set of long and short torque pins, the protractor and
instructions.
Anyone interested in the prop and spinner?
Mark Napier
-----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: 28 Msgs - 10/27/05
*
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.2005-10-27.html
Text Version:
http://www.matronics.com/digest/kitfox-list/Digest.Kitfox-List.2005-10-27.txt
EMail Version of Today's List Digest Archive
Kitfox-List Digest Archive
---
Total Messages Posted Thu 10/27/05: 28
Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:47 AM - Aircraft Service issues in QANTAS (Colin Durey)
2. 03:40 AM - Re: Miscellaneous Bend those axles (Ceashman@aol.com)
3. 05:32 AM - Re: 0-200 vs 912 performance (Clifford Begnaud)
4. 05:36 AM - Re: 0-200 vs 912 performance (John Larsen)
5. 05:44 AM - Re: Needing a Tail Wheel Spring for a model II. (John Larsen)
6. 05:58 AM - Re: 0-200 vs 912 performance (Vic Jacko)
7. 08:06 AM - Service bulletins... (Jeremy Casey)
8. 08:07 AM - Re: Heater (kerrjohna@comcast.net)
9. 08:42 AM - Re: Heater (Fred Shiple)
10. 09:20 AM - Re: Service bulletins... (Don Pearsall)
11. 09:51 AM - Re: Service bulletins... (jdmcbean)
12. 09:51 AM - Re: Skystar site gone (jdmcbean)
13. 12:25 PM - Re: Skystar site gone (kerrjohna@comcast.net)
14. 12:44 PM - Re: Skystar OSH display (Mark Miller)
15. 12:46 PM - Re: Skystar site gone (jdmcbean)
16. 12:46 PM - Re: Heater (Lowell Fitt)
17. 12:49 PM - Re: VW Installation (Gary Olson)
18. 02:23 PM - lift strut dia? (glen rowland)
19. 02:39 PM - Flying Series 5,6,7's??? (Jeremy Casey)
20. 02:54 PM - Re: Flying Series 5,6,7's??? (Ceashman@aol.com)
21. 04:48 PM - Re: Flying Series 5,6,7's??? (Brett Walmsley)
22. 04:58 PM - Re: Flying Series 5,6,7's??? (Alan Linda Daniels)
23. 05:04 PM - 582 coolant (Clem Nichols)
24. 06:40 PM - Re: Heater (John King)
25. 08:23 PM - Re: Cockpit Fumes (david yeamans)
26. 08:23 PM - Re: Registration (david yeamans)
27. 09:51 PM - Floats on Ebay (daniel johnson)
28. 11:02 PM - Re: Cockpit Fumes (Guy Buchanan)
________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________
Time: 12:47:13 AM PST US
Subject: Kitfox-List: Aircraft Service issues in QANTAS
From: Colin Durey colin@ptclhk.com
-- Kitfox-List message posted by: Colin Durey colin@ptclhk.com
Hi folks,
I received the following from a friend (also a flying fiend).... enjoy:
After every flight, Qantas pilots fill out a form, called a gripe
sheet, which tells mechanics about problems with the aircraft. The
mechanics correct the problems, document their repairs on the form,
and then pilots review the gripe sheets before the next flight.
Never let it be said that ground crews lack a sense of humour.
Here are some actual maintenance complaints submitted by Qantas'
pilots (marked with a P) and the solutions recorded (marked with an
S) by maintenance engineers.
By the way, Qantas is the only major airline that has never had an
major accident. .. ... Enjoy!
P: Left inside main tire almost needs replacement.
S: Almost replaced left inside main tire.
P: Test flight OK, except auto-land very rough.
S: Auto-land not installed on this aircraft.
P: Something loose in cockpit.
S: Something tightened in cockpit.
P: Dead bugs on windshield.
S: Live bugs on back-order.
P: Autopilot in altitude-hold mode produces a 200 feet per minute
descent.
S: Cannot reproduce problem on ground.
P: Evidence of leak on right main landing gear.
S: Evidence removed.
P: DME volume unbelievably loud.
S: DME volume set to more believable level.
P: Friction locks cause throttle levers to stick.
S: That's what they're for.
P: IFF inoperative.
S: IFF always inoperative in OFF mode.
P: Suspected crack in windshield.
S: Suspect you're right.
P: Number 3 engine missing.
S: Engine found on right wing after brief search.
P: Aircraft handles funny. (I love this one!)
S: Aircraft warned to straighten up, fly right, and be serious.
P: Target radar hums.
S: Reprogrammed target radar with lyrics.
P: Mouse in cockpit.
S: Cat installed.
And the best one for last..................
P: Noise coming from under instrument panel. Sounds like a midget
pounding on something with a hammer.
S: Took hammer away from midget
Regards
Colin Durey
Pacific Technology Corporation Ltd
Sydney
+61-418-677073 (M)
+61-2-945466162 (F)
________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________
Time: 03:40:43 AM PST US
From: Ceashman@aol.com
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Miscellaneous Bend those axles
-- Kitfox-List message posted by: Ceashman@aol.com
(Marco responded to the question below)
-- Kitfox-List message posted by: Marco Menezes msm_9949@yahoo.com
Guy:
1,2 - no help.
3. Before first flight I fretted alot about minor toe-in in tube gear of my
model II. All the cures offered by the list (mostly involving bending the
weldments in place) scared the heck out of me. Since then, I've flown and found
no
problems with ground handling, at least not when my technique is good. But,
then, poor technique will get you in trouble whether you have toe-in or not.
No doubt you'll get other views but I'd say fly it off grass for awhile and
see how it feels to you before you go stressing the airframe and gear to
eliminate the minor toe-in condition you described.
Marco. I could not agree more. Until one notices ground handling problems do
not try to fix what is not broke. No wonder Skystar went out of business, they
could not make a bloody straight landing gear!! ;)
---------------------------- Kitfox-List message posted by: Guy Buchanan
bnn@nethere.com
At 04:10 AM 10/26/2005, you wrote:
I made a spanner to bend my gear from the inboard end of the axle, as I
was afraid of bending the axle. My gear was also faired and covered before
the adjustment. All went well with no ill effects.
Thanks Bill. This is a good idea, as I can get 0 toe just by bending the
gear until the spanner points at the opposite gear.
Bill wrote: I made a spanner
From my early days in Wales, a spanner is a normal wrench. They come in open
ended on both ends and close ended, ring. You can get little biddy ones and
massive great ones.
But I don't know how a spanner can be used to fix the toe problem. Unless you
slip the ring end (that is big enough to slip over the axle) and use some
tube for leverage on the other side of the spanner and grunt the the axle true.
Would this not bend the axle a little? This would not be good for the roller
bearings?
I am thinking that if I wanted to change the toe in or out. I would need a
round steel bar as close as possible to the axle size. This sucker would be
long, long enough to slip through the axle receiving tube and nearly meet the axle
on the other side and still not disappear into the hole that I am working on.
Now secure the airplane and sit down under the engine, grab the bar like a
row boat slave and pull!
You will know when you are done when the end of the bar is closer to match
the axle end on the side you are not cussing as a mean miserable bugger.
Maybe a lot of useless information, I don't know. But what I do know is that
I have never looked at my toes, in or out. While taxiing and landing I have
had my problems. But I feel that these were pilot driven and not mechanical
issues. Because once in a while I make a happy smooth landing. If it were
mechanical it would be a bugger landing all the time.
Lets all bend some metal. Eric.
Do not archive.
________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________
Time: 05:32:37 AM PST US
From: Clifford Begnaud shoeless@barefootpilot.com
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 0-200 vs 912 performance
-- Kitfox-List message posted by: Clifford Begnaud shoeless@barefootpilot.com
This is an interesting discussion and I appreciate your input on this Paul.
But I have a slightly different take on it.
Having owned two model 5 kitfoxes, one with a 912 Xtra (95 hp) and now one
with a Lycoming 0-235, plus having some time in model 4's with the Rotax 912
and a model 7 with 912S and a constant speed prop, I think I can offer a
well rounded evaluation of these plane and engine combinations. What I have
not done however, is fly on floats, amphibious or otherwise. Also, I have
not flown a Kitfox with the 0-200. I generally agree that the 912s would be
a better choice than the 0-200 on a model 5 or later.
First, the model 4 with a 912 is a match made in heaven. It's like the two
were specifically designed for each other. The 912s only sweetens the deal,
especially at high elevation airports like we have here in Colorado. This is
probably the best performing combo of all except for top speed.
A model 5 with an 80 hp 912 is flat out underpowered. With the Masterkraft
pistons bumping the hp up a bit (95 hp claimed) it is passable up here in
Colorado but still leaves you wanting for more power when high, hot and
heavy. Down low, this configuration is just fine and will haul the plane
around at gross.
The model 7 that I've flown with the 912s and Airmaster constant speed prop
(warp drive blades) performs a notch higher than the 5 with the Masterkraft
pistons. In fact the difference is quite noticeable. This combination would
serve you well anywhere including up here in Colorado, (which is where I
have flown it) Even though I haven't done it, I think it would perform well
on floats also.
Then there is the Lycoming 0-235. If the Kitfox is built to be a show plane,
with every conceivable option, full upholstery and linings, a full
instrument panel and a show plane paint job, the plane will still perform
respectably. In fact in most situations it will perform very close to the
aforementioned Model 7 with 912s. But, if you build your kitfox light, and
use Lightspeed electronic ignitions and an Ellison throttle body carb the
difference in performance can be noticeably better.
Our model 5 is one such plane and the performance is truly impressive. I had
the opportunity to compare the performance of our plane with the Model 7 on
the same cool morning and here is what I remember:
Airport elevation 5050'
Temp 50 degrees F
Model 7 takeoff roll- 375' (empty weight 820 lbs)
Model 5 with Lyc 0-235 take off roll- 325' (empty weight 870 lbs)
Best rate of climb observed on Model 7 850-900 fpm
Best rate for model 5 with Lyc 0-235 1050-1100 fpm
Cruise speed of model 7, approximately 115 mph max TAS
Cruise speed of model 5, approximately 130 mph, but will top out close to
140 TAS
At first glance these numbers may not seem too different, but what I have
found is that as you load down the kitfox with the Lycoming, the drop in
performance is much smaller than the drop seen in the model 7 with 912s when
it is loaded.
We have had our kitfox up at 13999', fully loaded, and it was still climbing
over 400 fpm.
On a trip last year we were traveling with the model 7 pilot and at one
point were at about 10,000' and wanted to climb over a cloud layer. We were
both similarly heavily loaded (though he may have had a bit more weight) but
he had trouble climbing at all, we just powered up over the layer with ease.
I have regularly operated out of a 600' strip up here with two on board and
half fuel, even in the summer, and never even came close to using the whole
thing. In our previous model 5 with 912 xtra, I would only go in there solo
except maybe on a very cold day I would take my wife along, but we would use
most of the 600' to get out.
Here's one last thing to consider about this comparison; note the difference
in cruise and top speed. This tells you that the prop on the Lycoming 0-235
is skewed toward the cruise end of the spectrum while the model 7 is able to
change the pitch to suit the flight mode (i.e., take-off vs. cruise). The
prop on our plane is an Aymar-Demuth 72X47. It turns about 2425 rpm static
at 5100' elevation. Imagine instead if I had a 76X40 or something similar
that would allow the engine to turn it's rated 2800 rpm static. The cruise
speed would now be about equal on both planes, but the difference in take
off and climb would be dramatically better with the Lycoming. The reason is
that the Lycoming makes gobs of torque and allows you to turn a propeller
that will generate more static thrust.
What the numbers can't do in these comparisons is give you the feel of how
these planes perform. When flying behind our 0-235 you can just FEEL the raw
power that this engine puts out. It's a feeling that you will never get from
the 912 series. In my opinion, if you want the best short field performance,
or you want the best performance when loaded to the gills, or you want the
best performance on floats, the Lycoming 0-235 is the way to go on the
Kitfox models 5, 6 or 7, but I qualify this by stressing that you MUST build
it light. A lightly built plane with the 912s and in flight adjustable prop
will likely have equal or better performance than a heavy one with the
0-235, up to a point.
You might also ask about landing distance. The model 7 with 912s was able to
land slightly shorter than our model 5, but, either of them can land in a
shorter distance than is needed to take-off, so this is not the deciding
factor when judging short field performance, take-off distance rules.
Flame suit on, fire away...
Best Regards,
Cliff Begnaud
Erie, CO
Kitfox 5, Lycoming 0-235
Kerry,
All you have to do to know which engine is better is to put either
airplane
on floats. That is the true test if you want to know which engine will
provide the most low end power. And if you really want to test an engines
ability, put amphibious floats on the airplane. That definitely proves
which engines work best for flat out thrust. Of course, it really boils
down to the highest horsepower per horsepower, which the 912 excels a, as
well as the two strokes. While I think the 0-200 is a great engine, it
would barely get an amphibious kitfox off the water unless extremely
modified and/or lightened. Even an IO-240 powered Fox at the higher
horsepower is not going to perform as well as the 912. I believe if you
look at Skystars specs on their airplanes (on wheels) you will find the
turbocharged 914 to be the best performer even when compared to the
IO-240.
________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________
Time: 05:36:16 AM PST US
From: John Larsen jopatco@mindspring.com
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 0-200 vs 912 performance
-- Kitfox-List message posted by: John Larsen jopatco@mindspring.com
Could not have said it better myself. It bears up with what I have
learned in my years of studying engines for the engine beat column for
Kitplanes. If you really want performance, run a good expansion
chambered two stroke. As far as I know, no one has ever beat the takeoff
performance of John Knapp and his Rotax 583 float equipped Avid.
Low rpm direct drive engines are ancient technology even if you paid a
lot of money for it and it was made in Australia. The high rpm
horizontally opposed four cylindr four stroke it the engine to beat if
you dont like two strokes.
Note; I have a lot of air time flying KF products with the 912S and I
get the same performance in my Airdale using the Stratus Subaru for half
the money.
My two cents worth now makes it four cents worth.
JML
Paul Seehafer wrote:
-- Kitfox-List message posted by: Paul Seehafer av8rps@tznet.com
Kerry,
All you have to do to know which engine is better is to put either airplane
on floats. That is the true test if you want to know which engine will
provide the most low end power. And if you really want to test an engines
ability, put amphibious floats on the airplane. That definitely proves
which engines work best for flat out thrust. Of course, it really boils
down to the highest horsepower per horsepower, which the 912 excels a, as
well as the two strokes. While I think the 0-200 is a great engine, it
would barely get an amphibious kitfox off the water unless extremely
modified and/or lightened. Even an IO-240 powered Fox at the higher
horsepower is not going to perform as well as the 912. I believe if you
look at Skystars specs on their airplanes (on wheels) you will find the
turbocharged 914 to be the best performer even when compared to the IO-240.
Incidentally, the high horsepower to weight of the two stroke 582 rotax
powered Model IV kitfox on amphib floats would be a much better performer
than would any of the aircraft engine versions with the exception of the
912. How can that be? Simple, lots of power, and lighter than anything
else out there.
I'm not trying to bash our old tried and true lycoming and continentals, as
after all I fly one in my Lake Amphibian. But it is very old technology.
It would be the equivalent to thinking we could modify a Model T engine to
compete with modern automobile engines of today. No matter how much one
modified it, I doubt you could do so. Considering, our old aircraft engines
do pretty well overall. But when tested in grueling environments like
seaplanes operate regularly in, they just can't compete with the horsepower
to weight of the newer engines like the 912. When our airplanes are on
wheels, the performance differences are harder to distinguish, but the
differences are there none the less. Water opererations better demonstrate
an aircrafts true performance, and test all things to the max. Engines,
props, and airframes.
Just my two cents worth...
Paul Seehafer
Wisconsin
---- Original Message -----
From: Kerry Skyring kerryskyring@hotmail.com
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: S-7 Cowling
-- Kitfox-List message posted by: Kerry Skyring
kerryskyring@hotmail.com
Just jumping into the cowl discussion again. We have an unused cowl - top
and bottom - for an S5 with 0-200. But it is in Vienna Austria so not much
good to our US friends. The original idea was to fit an 0-200 to the S5
but
the sale/purchase of the 0-200 fell through and we ended up with a Rotax
912S. We will sell the cowl if we can get some of the money back - it cost
around 500 dollars - plus freight. All offers considered. Although we
haven't flown yet ( we will soon) we sometimes wonder which is the better
engine for the S5 - 0-200 or 912S? A second hand 0-200 is certainly
cheaper
than a new 912S. Our club has a Cessna 150 which has had the 0-200
replaced
by a 912S and which I have flown. It's a tough call and I know this is a
very subjective debate. We came so close to fitting an 0-200.
Kerry
From: Jeremy Casey n79rt@kilocharlie.us
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: S-7 Cowling
-- Kitfox-List message posted by: Jeremy Casey n79rt@kilocharlie.us
Is the cowl still available? I'm in need of a cowl for my new Series
5 project...
Jeremy Casey
jeremy@kilocharlie.us
P.S. How did you end up with an extra cowling , If you don't mind me
asking?
-----Original Message-----
From: eccles [mailto:eccles@Chartermi.net]
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: S-7 Cowling
-- Kitfox-List message posted by: eccles eccles@chartermi.net
I have a round cowl off a series V,, anyone interested contact me off
list
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Bob
Unternaehrer
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: S-7 Cowling
-- Kitfox-List message posted by: Bob Unternaehrer
shilocom@mcmsys.com
If you find one ,,I need one also, only for a Mod IV. Bob U.
----- Original Message -----
From: Gary Olson ofd725@yahoo.com
Subject: Kitfox-List: S-7 Cowling
-- Kitfox-List message posted by: Gary Olson ofd725@yahoo.com
I am in need of a cowling for my S7 that has a 2276 Great Plains VW
engine
with the reduction drive. You may ask why I am using a VW. This is a
fair
question. I live in Oshkosh and have been listening to the Sonex guys
brag
about what a fantastic engine the VW is. Well it maybe a great engine
for
them, but what about a Kitfox? I figured what the heck, lets give it a
shot.
Anyway, I am looking for a cowling for this project. If anyone has a
lead
or can steer me the right way, I would appreciate it immensely.
VW Flyer
---------------------------------
________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________
Time: 05:44:54 AM PST US
From: John Larsen jopatco@mindspring.com
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Needing a Tail Wheel Spring for a model II.
-- Kitfox-List message posted by: John Larsen jopatco@mindspring.com
Steve Winder at Airdale has some. 208-459-6254, or cell 208-284-8143
David Savener wrote:
-- Kitfox-List message posted by: David Savener david_savener@msn.com
I broke my tail wheel spring on my Model II that flies, but robbed one off of
a model II that I have been building for years.
Now I need to replace it so I can finish my hanger queen.
Does anyone out there have one for sale or know of a source now that SkyStar is
Tango Uniform??
Dave S
________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________
Time: 05:58:53 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
Cliff,
To bad you don't like the airplane!
As the builder and previous owner of N 88VJ, I can attest to your numbers.
I just wish there was a light weight CS prop available for this package and
I know you do also. You forgot to mention this engine probably produces 130
raw horsepower.
As you reiterated, build it light and it will fly right.
Now go out and have some more fun!
Vic
Do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: Clifford Begnaud shoeless@barefootpilot.com
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 0-200 vs 912 performance
-- Kitfox-List message posted by: Clifford Begnaud
shoeless@barefootpilot.com
This is an interesting discussion and I appreciate your input on this
Paul.
But I have a slightly different take on it.
Having owned two model 5 kitfoxes, one with a 912 Xtra (95 hp) and now one
with a Lycoming 0-235, plus having some time in model 4's with the Rotax
912
and a model 7 with 912S and a constant speed prop, I think I can offer a
well rounded evaluation of these plane and engine combinations. What I
have
not done however, is fly on floats, amphibious or otherwise. Also, I have
not flown a Kitfox with the 0-200. I generally agree that the 912s would
be
a better choice than the 0-200 on a model 5 or later.
First, the model 4 with a 912 is a match made in heaven. It's like the two
were specifically designed for each other. The 912s only sweetens the
deal,
especially at high elevation airports like we have here in Colorado. This
is
probably the best performing combo of all except for top speed.
A model 5 with an 80 hp 912 is flat out underpowered. With the Masterkraft
pistons bumping the hp up a bit (95 hp claimed) it is passable up here in
Colorado but still leaves you wanting for more power when high, hot and
heavy. Down low, this configuration is just fine and will haul the plane
around at gross.
The model 7 that I've flown with the 912s and Airmaster constant speed
prop
(warp drive blades) performs a notch higher than the 5 with the
Masterkraft
pistons. In fact the difference is quite noticeable. This combination
would
serve you well anywhere including up here in Colorado, (which is where I
have flown it) Even though I haven't done it, I think it would perform
well
on floats also.
Then there is the Lycoming 0-235. If the Kitfox is built to be a show
plane,
with every conceivable option, full upholstery and linings, a full
instrument panel and a show plane paint job, the plane will still perform
respectably. In fact in most situations it will perform very close to the
aforementioned Model 7 with 912s. But, if you build your kitfox light, and
use Lightspeed electronic ignitions and an Ellison throttle body carb the
difference in performance can be noticeably better.
Our model 5 is one such plane and the performance is truly impressive. I
had
the opportunity to compare the performance of our plane with the Model 7
on
the same cool morning and here is what I remember:
Airport elevation 5050'
Temp 50 degrees F
Model 7 takeoff roll- 375' (empty weight 820 lbs)
Model 5 with Lyc 0-235 take off roll- 325' (empty weight 870 lbs)
Best rate of climb observed on Model 7 850-900 fpm
Best rate for model 5 with Lyc 0-235 1050-1100 fpm
Cruise speed of model 7, approximately 115 mph max TAS
Cruise speed of model 5, approximately 130 mph, but will top out close to
140 TAS
At first glance these numbers may not seem too different, but what I have
found is that as you load down the kitfox with the Lycoming, the drop in
performance is much smaller than the drop seen in the model 7 with 912s
when
it is loaded.
We have had our kitfox up at 13999', fully loaded, and it was still
climbing
over 400 fpm.
On a trip last year we were traveling with the model 7 pilot and at one
point were at about 10,000' and wanted to climb over a cloud layer. We
were
both similarly heavily loaded (though he may have had a bit more weight)
but
he had trouble climbing at all, we just powered up over the layer with
ease.
I have regularly operated out of a 600' strip up here with two on board
and
half fuel, even in the summer, and never even came close to using the
whole
thing. In our previous model 5 with 912 xtra, I would only go in there
solo
except maybe on a very cold day I would take my wife along, but we would
use
most of the 600' to get out.
Here's one last thing to consider about this comparison; note the
difference
in cruise and top speed. This tells you that the prop on the Lycoming
0-235
is skewed toward the cruise end of the spectrum while the model 7 is able
to
change the pitch to suit the flight mode (i.e., take-off vs. cruise). The
prop on our plane is an Aymar-Demuth 72X47. It turns about 2425 rpm static
at 5100' elevation. Imagine instead if I had a 76X40 or something similar
that would allow the engine to turn it's rated 2800 rpm static. The cruise
speed would now be about equal on both planes, but the difference in take
off and climb would be dramatically better with the Lycoming. The reason
is
that the Lycoming makes gobs of torque and allows you to turn a propeller
that will generate more static thrust.
What the numbers can't do in these comparisons is give you the feel of
how
these planes perform. When flying behind our 0-235 you can just FEEL the
raw
power that this engine puts out. It's a feeling that you will never get
from
the 912 series. In my opinion, if you want the best short field
performance,
or you want the best performance when loaded to the gills, or you want the
best performance on floats, the Lycoming 0-235 is the way to go on the
Kitfox models 5, 6 or 7, but I qualify this by stressing that you MUST
build
it light. A lightly built plane with the 912s and in flight adjustable
prop
will likely have equal or better performance than a heavy one with the
0-235, up to a point.
You might also ask about landing distance. The model 7 with 912s was able
to
land slightly shorter than our model 5, but, either of them can land in a
shorter distance than is needed to take-off, so this is not the deciding
factor when judging short field performance, take-off distance rules.
Flame suit on, fire away...
Best Regards,
Cliff Begnaud
Erie, CO
Kitfox 5, Lycoming 0-235
Kerry,
All you have to do to know which engine is better is to put either
airplane
on floats. That is the true test if you want to know which engine will
provide the most low end power. And if you really want to test an
engines
ability, put amphibious floats on the airplane. That definitely proves
which engines work best for flat out thrust. Of course, it really boils
down to the highest horsepower per horsepower, which the 912 excels a, as
well as the two strokes. While I think the 0-200 is a great engine, it
would barely get an amphibious kitfox off the water unless extremely
modified and/or lightened. Even an IO-240 powered Fox at the higher
horsepower is not going to perform as well as the 912. I believe if you
look at Skystars specs on their airplanes (on wheels) you will find the
turbocharged 914 to be the best performer even when compared to the
IO-240.
________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________
Time: 08:06:10 AM PST US
From: Jeremy Casey n79rt@kilocharlie.us
Subject: Kitfox-List: Service bulletins...
-- Kitfox-List message posted by: Jeremy Casey n79rt@kilocharlie.us
A few days back someone mentioned that they had downloaded all the
service bulletins, etc. from Skystars site and was going to put them up
on his website? Was wondering who that was and if it had happened yet?
I meant to go download all of the them and got sidetracked and then it
slipped my mind (anyone know what I mean? ;-)
Anyway the picture of the mysterious stub in my new series 5 cage got
an answer.it was a gear mount for fiberglass gear legs used on VERY
early Vixens.thanks to all that took a look and tried to help.
Jeremy Casey
KiloCharlie Drafting, Inc.
jeremy@kilocharlie.us
http://www.kilocharlie.us/Flying.htm
________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________
Time: 08:07:39 AM PST US
From: kerrjohna@comcast.net
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Heater
-- Kitfox-List message posted by: kerrjohna@comcast.net
John King or Lowell Fitt or both came up with a simple design baffle that fits
inside the radiator shroud and is controlled with a bowden cable to the cockpit.
failure mode is to full open and the shroud attachment hardware provides the
necessary stability for the system. I believe they at the design in a format
that can be emailed. That is how I got the information.
John Kerr
-------------- Original message --------------
-- Kitfox-List message posted by: Paul Seehafer
Alan,
I agree that running the 912's that cool concerns me too. I can't say I
know enough about the 912 to tell you what the answer is to getting coolant
to run warmer, but I would think there should be a better way than to have
to put tape over your radiator. Pretty antiquated when you consider how
complex the engine is otherwise. I know you can get oil line thermostats,
and heard they work well. Maybe someone else on the list that is a 912
inner workings expert can help answer these questions better?
I'm not surprised to hear your other engine ran 185 degrees, actually that
is kind of cool compared to modern automobile engines that use 207 degree
thermostats. Automakers know they need higher engine temps to make their
engines run more efficiently, and last longer. So it makes one wonder why
our engines would be any different? In fact, I would think our cold engine
temps and no thermostat would encourage shock cooling, plus would cause our
engines to run inefficiently due to unstable temps causing uneven fuel
jetting and atomization issues. But then again, like I eluded to earlier,
I'm not an engine expert.
As far as cabin heat goes, I think Avid came pretty close to having the heat
thing figured out when they attached a fibreglass scoop to the back of each
of their cowl cheek radiators, and then directed that warm air to the heat
muff, where it then entered the cabin. My buddy has a 912ul Avid Mark IV
with this setup and he gets lots of heat. Probably a lot harder to do on
our Foxes (unless you could possibly use maybe the oil cooler?) Or maybe we
could just run a reverse set up? (You know, run the heat-muff heat tube into
the radiator before it enters the cabin). One way or another, utilize all
the engine heat one can. The only downside with the Avid heat was that you
needed to remove the radiator scoops for summer flying so as not to overheat
the engine. Or at least this was true with the two strokes. I don't know
if thats the case on the 912, as my friend hasn't flown his 912 yet in real
hot weather.
For my own airplane I plan on installing a heat muff off both front exhaust
pipes (or stacks), run a scat tube down to the muffler can heat-muff, and
then run it into the cabin. I believe I will use the bilge fan idea so I
can avoid needing heat boxes or ram air from the cowl. I believe with this
3 heat-muff setup I should have more heat than I can stand. If for some
reason that doesn't do it, I can always resort to running the cabin heater
core setup in addition with that fan. But if the heat muff works like I
think it will, I will be able to save myself about 5 pounds of weight by
getting rid of the heater core and fan unit from under the panel. I'm
hoping it works out like I think it will as my airplane is a 80 hp 912ul
amphib, so weight is critical.
Anyone else have any ideas for our cabin heat issues, or how to control our
912 engine temps better without radiator shutters?
Paul Seehafer
----- Original Message -----
From: Alan Linda Daniels
Thanks for responding Paul
I noticed that the CT2K Light Sport plane which sells for about 90K uses
muff heat. I have had great luck with the CAM 100 water heat as I said,
but it keeps the coolant at 185 and I can fly down to zero without
discomfort, but the same basic BM transmission cooler with fans just
does not get hot enough to do much good. I am also concerned about
running the engine that cool, I just don't think it is good for it. I
thought some of the 2 stroke Rotax had thermostats you could put in, but
have never seen anything for the 912
Alan
John King or Lowell Fitt or both came up with a simple design baffle that fits
inside the radiator shroud and is controlled with a bowden cable to the cockpit.
failure mode is to full open and the shroud attachment hardware provides the
necessary stability for the system. I believe they at the design in a format
that can be emailed. That is how I got the information.
John Kerr
-------------- Original message --------------
-- Kitfox-List message posted by: Paul Seehafer AV8RPS@TZNET.COM
Alan,
I agree that running the 912's that cool concerns me too. I can't say I
know enough about the 912 to tell you what the answer is to getting coolant
to run warmer, but I would think there should be a better way than to have
to put tape over your radiator. Pretty antiquated when you consider how
complex the engine is otherwise. I know you can get oil line thermostats,
and heard they work well. Maybe someone else on the list that is a 912
inner workings expert can help answer these questions better?
I'm not surprised to hear your other engine ran 185 degrees, actually that
is kind of cool compared to modern automobile engines that use 207 deg
ree
thermostats. Automakers know they need higher engine temps to make their
engines run more efficiently, and last longer. So it makes one wonder why
our engines would be any different? In fact, I would think our cold engine
temps and no thermostat would encourage shock cooling, plus would cause our
engines to run inefficiently due to unstable temps causing uneven fuel
jetting and atomization issues. But then again, like I eluded to earlier,
I'm not an engine expert.
As far as cabin heat goes, I think Avid came pretty close to having the heat
thing figured out when they attached a fibreglass scoop to the back of each
of their cowl cheek radiators, and then directed that warm air to the heat
muff, where it then entered the cabin. My buddy has a 912ul Avid Mark IV
with this setup and he gets lots of heat. Probably a lot harder to do on
our Foxes (unles
s you could possibly use maybe the oil cooler?) Or maybe we
could just run a reverse set up? (You know, run the heat-muff heat tube into
the radiator before it enters the cabin). One way or another, utilize all
the engine heat one can. The only downside with the Avid heat was that you
needed to remove the radiator scoops for summer flying so as not to overheat
the engine. Or at least this was true with the two strokes. I don't know
if thats the case on the 912, as my friend hasn't flown his 912 yet in real
hot weather.
For my own airplane I plan on installing a heat muff off both front exhaust
pipes (or stacks), run a scat tube down to the muffler can heat-muff, and
then run it into the cabin. I believe I will use the bilge fan idea so I
can avoid needing heat boxes or ram air from the cowl. I believe with this
3 heat-muff setup I should have more heat than I
can stand. If for some
reason that doesn't do it, I can always resort to running the cabin heater
core setup in addition with that fan. But if the heat muff works like I
think it will, I will be able to save myself about 5 pounds of weight by
getting rid of the heater core and fan unit from under the panel. I'm
hoping it works out like I think it will as my airplane is a 80 hp 912ul
amphib, so weight is critical.
Anyone else have any ideas for our cabin heat issues, or how to control our
912 engine temps better without radiator shutters?
Paul Seehafer
----- Original Message -----
From: Alan Linda Daniels ALDANIELS@FMTC.COM
Thanks for responding Paul
I noticed that the CT2K Light Sport plane which sells for about 90K uses
muff heat. I have had great luck with the CAM 100 water he
at as I said,
but it keeps the coolant at 185 and I can fly down to zero without
discomfort, but the same basic BM transmission cooler with fans just
does not get hot enough to do much good. I am also concerned about
running the engine that cool, I just don't think it is good for it. I
thought some of the 2 stroke Rotax had thermostats you could put in, but
have never seen anything for the 912
Alan
________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________
Time: 08:42:54 AM PST US
From: Fred Shiple fredshiple@sbcglobal.net
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Heater
-- Kitfox-List message posted by: Fred Shiple fredshiple@sbcglobal.net
Paul,
Lockwood offers an oil line thermostat. I have no direct experience with it, but
I've had good experiences in all my dealings with them.
Fred
to put tape over your radiator. Pretty antiquated when you consider how
complex the engine is otherwise. I know you can get oil line thermostats,
________________________________ Message 10 ____________________________________
Time: 09:20:19 AM PST US
From: Don Pearsall donpearsall@comcast.net
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Service bulletins...
-- Kitfox-List message posted by: Don Pearsall donpearsall@comcast.net
You can view the whole Skystar web site at www.sportflight.com/skystar. It
is there for archival and information purposes only, NOT plagiarism.
Don Pearsall
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jeremy Casey
Subject: Kitfox-List: Service bulletins...
-- Kitfox-List message posted by: Jeremy Casey n79rt@kilocharlie.us
A few days back someone mentioned that they had downloaded all the
service bulletins, etc. from Skystars site and was going to put them up
on his website? Was wondering who that was and if it had happened yet?
I meant to go download all of the them and got sidetracked and then it
slipped my mind (anyone know what I mean? ;-)
Anyway the picture of the mysterious stub in my new series 5 cage got
an answer.it was a gear mount for fiberglass gear legs used on VERY
early Vixens.thanks to all that took a look and tried to help.
Jeremy Casey
KiloCharlie Drafting, Inc.
jeremy@kilocharlie.us
http://www.kilocharlie.us/Flying.htm
________________________________ Message 11 ____________________________________
Time: 09:51:50 AM PST US
From: jdmcbean jdmcbean@cableone.net
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Service bulletins...
-- Kitfox-List message posted by: jdmcbean jdmcbean@cableone.net
I do have all the SB's and SL's from the SS web and will have them posted
soon on our site... I am making sure that it's OK before I get it done.
Fly Safe !!
John Debra McBean
www.sportplanellc.com
The Sky is not the Limit... It's a Playground
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Jeremy Casey
Subject: Kitfox-List: Service bulletins...
-- Kitfox-List message posted by: Jeremy Casey n79rt@kilocharlie.us
A few days back someone mentioned that they had downloaded all the
service bulletins, etc. from Skystars site and was going to put them up
on his website? Was wondering who that was and if it had happened yet?
I meant to go download all of the them and got sidetracked and then it
slipped my mind (anyone know what I mean? ;-)
Anyway the picture of the mysterious stub in my new series 5 cage got
an answer.it was a gear mount for fiberglass gear legs used on VERY
early Vixens.thanks to all that took a look and tried to help.
Jeremy Casey
KiloCharlie Drafting, Inc.
jeremy@kilocharlie.us
http://www.kilocharlie.us/Flying.htm
________________________________ Message 12 ____________________________________
Time: 09:51:55 AM PST US
From: jdmcbean jdmcbean@cableone.net
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Skystar site gone
-- Kitfox-List message posted by: jdmcbean jdmcbean@cableone.net
The last Demo plane SS owned was the Series 7 Sport (Blue/White) It was
sold some time ago and is in Colorado.
Fly Safe !!
John Debra McBean
www.sportplanellc.com
The Sky is not the Limit... It's a Playground
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of John Marzulli
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Skystar site gone
-- Kitfox-List message posted by: John Marzulli john.marzulli@gmail.com
Looks gone to me.
Will it be possible to buy one of their demo planes via the chapter 7
proceedings?
On 10/26/05, QSS msm@byterocky.net wrote:
-- Kitfox-List message posted by: QSS msm@byterocky.net
Just went in to the Skystar site. Its still up and running
Regards
Graeme Toft
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Paul
Seehafer
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Subject: Kitfox-List: Skystar site gone
-- Kitfox-List message posted by: Paul Seehafer av8rps@tznet.com
Hope everyone got all they needed off of Skystars website, because it
appears to be gone now...
Paul Seehafer
--
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
25/10/2005
--
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
25/10/2005
________________________________ Message 13 ____________________________________
Time: 12:25:30 PM PST US
From: kerrjohna@comcast.net
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Skystar site gone
-- Kitfox-List message posted by: kerrjohna@comcast.net
who did the Red White Series 7 that was at OSH belong to? It was a good looking
plane.
John Kerr
-------------- Original message --------------
-- Kitfox-List message posted by: jdmcbean
The last Demo plane SS owned was the Series 7 Sport (Blue/White) It was
sold some time ago and is in Colorado.
Fly Safe !!
John Debra McBean
www.sportplanellc.com
The Sky is not the Limit... It's a Playground
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of John Marzulli
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Skystar site gone
-- Kitfox-List message posted by: John Marzulli
Looks gone to me.
Will it be possible to buy one of their demo planes via the chapter 7
proceedings?
On 10/26/05, QSS wrote:
-- Kitfox-List message posted by: QSS
Just went in to the Skystar site. Its still up and running
Regards
Graeme Toft
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Paul
Seehafer
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Subject: Kitfox-List: Skystar site gone
-- Kitfox-List message posted by: Paul Seehafer
Hope everyone got all they needed off of Skystars website, because it
appears to be gone now...
Paul Seehafer
--
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
25/10/2005
--
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
25/10/2005
who did the Red White Series 7 that was at OSH belong to? It was a good looking
plane.
John Kerr
-------------- Original message --------------
-- Kitfox-List message posted by: jdmcbean JDMCBEAN@CABLEONE.NET
The last Demo plane SS owned was the Series 7 Sport (Blue/White) It was
sold some time ago and is in Colorado.
Fly Safe !!
John Debra McBean
www.sportplanellc.com
The Sky is not the Limit... It's a Playground
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of John Marzulli
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Skystar site gone
-- Kitfox-List message posted by: John Marzulli JOHN.MARZULLI@GMAIL.COM
Looks gone to me.
Will it be possible to buy one of their demo planes via th
e chapter 7
proceedings?
On 10/26/05, QSS MSM@BYTEROCKY.NETwrote:
-- Kitfox-List message posted by: QSS MSM@BYTEROCKY.NET
Just went in to the Skystar site. Its still up and running
Regards
Graeme Toft
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Paul
Seehafer
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Subject: Kitfox-List: Skystar site gone
-- Kitfox-List message posted by: Paul Seehafer AV8RPS@TZNET.COM
Hope everyone got all they needed off of Skystars website, because it
appears to be gone now...
Paul Seehafer
--
Check
ed by AVG Free Edition.
25/10/2005
--
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
25/10/2005
________________________________ Message 14 ____________________________________
Time: 12:44:57 PM PST US
From: Mark Miller larsonmil3@earthlink.net
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Skystar OSH display
-- Kitfox-List message posted by: Mark Miller larsonmil3@earthlink.net
It belongs to Mike D'Amico
One of the 103 builders group
Mark Miller
----- Original Message -----
From: kerrjohna@comcast.net
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Skystar site gone
-- Kitfox-List message posted by: kerrjohna@comcast.net
who did the Red White Series 7 that was at OSH belong to? It was a good
looking plane.
John Kerr
-------------- Original message --------------
-- Kitfox-List message posted by: jdmcbean
The last Demo plane SS owned was the Series 7 Sport (Blue/White) It was
sold some time ago and is in Colorado.
Fly Safe !!
John Debra McBean
www.sportplanellc.com
The Sky is not the Limit... It's a Playground
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of John Marzulli
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Skystar site gone
-- Kitfox-List message posted by: John Marzulli
Looks gone to me.
Will it be possible to buy one of their demo planes via the chapter 7
proceedings?
On 10/26/05, QSS wrote:
-- Kitfox-List message posted by: QSS
Just went in to the Skystar site. Its still up and running
Regards
Graeme Toft
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Paul
Seehafer
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Subject: Kitfox-List: Skystar site gone
-- Kitfox-List message posted by: Paul Seehafer
Hope everyone got all they needed off of Skystars website, because it
appears to be gone now...
Paul Seehafer
--
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
25/10/2005
--
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
25/10/2005
who did the Red White Series 7 that was at OSH belong to? It was a good
looking plane.
John Kerr
-------------- Original message --------------
-- Kitfox-List message posted by: jdmcbean JDMCBEAN@CABLEONE.NET
The last Demo plane SS owned was the Series 7 Sport (Blue/White) It was
sold some time ago and is in Colorado.
Fly Safe !!
John Debra McBean
www.sportplanellc.com
The Sky is not the Limit... It's a Playground
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of John Marzulli
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Skystar site gone
-- Kitfox-List message posted by: John Marzulli JOHN.MARZULLI@GMAIL.COM
Looks gone to me.
Will it be possible to buy one of their demo planes via th
e chapter 7
proceedings?
On 10/26/05, QSS MSM@BYTEROCKY.NETwrote:
-- Kitfox-List message posted by: QSS MSM@BYTEROCKY.NET
Just went in to the Skystar site. Its still up and running
Regards
Graeme Toft
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Paul
Seehafer
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Subject: Kitfox-List: Skystar site gone
-- Kitfox-List message posted by: Paul Seehafer AV8RPS@TZNET.COM
Hope everyone got all they needed off of Skystars website, because it
appears to be gone now...
Paul Seehafer
--
Check
ed by AVG Free Edition.
25/10/2005
--
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
25/10/2005
________________________________ Message 15 ____________________________________
Time: 12:46:08 PM PST US
From: jdmcbean jdmcbean@cableone.net
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Skystar site gone
-- Kitfox-List message posted by: jdmcbean jdmcbean@cableone.net
This year... I believe that was a customers aircraft.. One of the local
builders group planes...
Fly Safe !!
John Debra McBean
www.sportplanellc.com
The Sky is not the Limit... It's a Playground
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of
kerrjohna@comcast.net
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Skystar site gone
-- Kitfox-List message posted by: kerrjohna@comcast.net
who did the Red White Series 7 that was at OSH belong to? It was a good
looking plane.
John Kerr
-------------- Original message --------------
-- Kitfox-List message posted by: jdmcbean
The last Demo plane SS owned was the Series 7 Sport (Blue/White) It was
sold some time ago and is in Colorado.
Fly Safe !!
John Debra McBean
www.sportplanellc.com
The Sky is not the Limit... It's a Playground
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of John Marzulli
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Skystar site gone
-- Kitfox-List message posted by: John Marzulli
Looks gone to me.
Will it be possible to buy one of their demo planes via the chapter 7
proceedings?
On 10/26/05, QSS wrote:
-- Kitfox-List message posted by: QSS
Just went in to the Skystar site. Its still up and running
Regards
Graeme Toft
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Paul
Seehafer
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Subject: Kitfox-List: Skystar site gone
-- Kitfox-List message posted by: Paul Seehafer
Hope everyone got all they needed off of Skystars website, because it
appears to be gone now...
Paul Seehafer
--
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
25/10/2005
--
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
25/10/2005
who did the Red White Series 7 that was at OSH belong to? It was a good
looking plane.
John Kerr
-------------- Original message --------------
-- Kitfox-List message posted by: jdmcbean JDMCBEAN@CABLEONE.NET
The last Demo plane SS owned was the Series 7 Sport (Blue/White) It was
sold some time ago and is in Colorado.
Fly Safe !!
John Debra McBean
www.sportplanellc.com
The Sky is not the Limit... It's a Playground
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of John Marzulli
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Skystar site gone
-- Kitfox-List message posted by: John Marzulli JOHN.MARZULLI@GMAIL.COM
Looks gone to me.
Will it be possible to buy one of their demo planes via th
e chapter 7
proceedings?
On 10/26/05, QSS MSM@BYTEROCKY.NETwrote:
-- Kitfox-List message posted by: QSS MSM@BYTEROCKY.NET
Just went in to the Skystar site. Its still up and running
Regards
Graeme Toft
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Paul
Seehafer
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Subject: Kitfox-List: Skystar site gone
-- Kitfox-List message posted by: Paul Seehafer AV8RPS@TZNET.COM
Hope everyone got all they needed off of Skystars website, because it
appears to be gone now...
Paul Seehafer
--
Check
ed by AVG Free Edition.
25/10/2005
--
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
25/10/2005
________________________________ Message 16 ____________________________________
Time: 12:46:19 PM PST US
From: Lowell Fitt lcfitt@sbcglobal.net
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Heater
-- Kitfox-List message posted by: Lowell Fitt lcfitt@sbcglobal.net
John, The radiator baffle, I think, is a John King idea. I made the oil
cooler flaps.
Lowell
----- Original Message -----
From: kerrjohna@comcast.net
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Heater
-- Kitfox-List message posted by: kerrjohna@comcast.net
John King or Lowell Fitt or both came up with a simple design baffle that
fits inside the radiator shroud and is controlled with a bowden cable to
the cockpit. failure mode is to full open and the shroud attachment
hardware provides the necessary stability for the system. I believe they
at the design in a format that can be emailed. That is how I got the
information.
John Kerr
-------------- Original message --------------
-- Kitfox-List message posted by: Paul Seehafer
Alan,
I agree that running the 912's that cool concerns me too. I can't say I
know enough about the 912 to tell you what the answer is to getting
coolant
to run warmer, but I would think there should be a better way than to
have
to put tape over your radiator. Pretty antiquated when you consider how
complex the engine is otherwise. I know you can get oil line thermostats,
and heard they work well. Maybe someone else on the list that is a 912
inner workings expert can help answer these questions better?
I'm not surprised to hear your other engine ran 185 degrees, actually
that
is kind of cool compared to modern automobile engines that use 207 degree
thermostats. Automakers know they need higher engine temps to make their
engines run more efficiently, and last longer. So it makes one wonder why
our engines would be any different? In fact, I would think our cold
engine
temps and no thermostat would encourage shock cooling, plus would cause
our
engines to run inefficiently due to unstable temps causing uneven fuel
jetting and atomization issues. But then again, like I eluded to earlier,
I'm not an engine expert.
As far as cabin heat goes, I think Avid came pretty close to having the
heat
thing figured out when they attached a fibreglass scoop to the back of
each
of their cowl cheek radiators, and then directed that warm air to the
heat
muff, where it then entered the cabin. My buddy has a 912ul Avid Mark IV
with this setup and he gets lots of heat. Probably a lot harder to do on
our Foxes (unless you could possibly use maybe the oil cooler?) Or maybe
we
could just run a reverse set up? (You know, run the heat-muff heat tube
into
the radiator before it enters the cabin). One way or another, utilize all
the engine heat one can. The only downside with the Avid heat was that
you
needed to remove the radiator scoops for summer flying so as not to
overheat
the engine. Or at least this was true with the two strokes. I don't know
if thats the case on the 912, as my friend hasn't flown his 912 yet in
real
hot weather.
For my own airplane I plan on installing a heat muff off both front
exhaust
pipes (or stacks), run a scat tube down to the muffler can heat-muff, and
then run it into the cabin. I believe I will use the bilge fan idea so I
can avoid needing heat boxes or ram air from the cowl. I believe with
this
3 heat-muff setup I should have more heat than I can stand. If for some
reason that doesn't do it, I can always resort to running the cabin
heater
core setup in addition with that fan. But if the heat muff works like I
think it will, I will be able to save myself about 5 pounds of weight by
getting rid of the heater core and fan unit from under the panel. I'm
hoping it works out like I think it will as my airplane is a 80 hp 912ul
amphib, so weight is critical.
Anyone else have any ideas for our cabin heat issues, or how to control
our
912 engine temps better without radiator shutters?
Paul Seehafer
----- Original Message -----
From: Alan Linda Daniels
Thanks for responding Paul
I noticed that the CT2K Light Sport plane which sells for about 90K
uses
muff heat. I have had great luck with the CAM 100 water heat as I said,
but it keeps the coolant at 185 and I can fly down to zero without
discomfort, but the same basic BM transmission cooler with fans just
does not get hot enough to do much good. I am also concerned about
running the engine that cool, I just don't think it is good for it. I
thought some of the 2 stroke Rotax had thermostats you could put in,
but
have never seen anything for the 912
Alan
John King or Lowell Fitt or both came up with a simple design baffle that
fits inside the radiator shroud and is controlled with a bowden cable to
the cockpit. failure mode is to full open and the shroud attachment
hardware provides the necessary stability for the system. I believe they
at the design in a format that can be emailed. That is how I got the
information.
John Kerr
-------------- Original message --------------
-- Kitfox-List message posted by: Paul Seehafer AV8RPS@TZNET.COM
Alan,
I agree that running the 912's that cool concerns me too. I can't say I
know enough about the 912 to tell you what the answer is to getting
coolant
to run warmer, but I would think there should be a better way than to have
to put tape over your radiator. Pretty antiquated when you consider how
complex the engine is otherwise. I know you can get oil line thermostats,
and heard they work well. Maybe someone else on the list that is a 912
inner workings expert can help answer these questions better?
I'm not surprised to hear your other engine ran 185 degrees, actually that
is kind of cool compared to modern automobile engines that use 207 deg
ree
thermostats. Automakers know they need higher engine temps to make their
engines run more efficiently, and last longer. So it makes one wonder why
our engines would be any different? In fact, I would think our cold engine
temps and no thermostat would encourage shock cooling, plus would cause
our
engines to run inefficiently due to unstable temps causing uneven fuel
jetting and atomization issues. But then again, like I eluded to earlier,
I'm not an engine expert.
As far as cabin heat goes, I think Avid came pretty close to having the
heat
thing figured out when they attached a fibreglass scoop to the back of
each
of their cowl cheek radiators, and then directed that warm air to the heat
muff, where it then entered the cabin. My buddy has a 912ul Avid Mark IV
with this setup and he gets lots of heat. Probably a lot harder to do on
our Foxes (unles
s you could possibly use maybe the oil cooler?) Or maybe we
could just run a reverse set up? (You know, run the heat-muff heat tube
into
the radiator before it enters the cabin). One way or another, utilize all
the engine heat one can. The only downside with the Avid heat was that you
needed to remove the radiator scoops for summer flying so as not to
overheat
the engine. Or at least this was true with the two strokes. I don't know
if thats the case on the 912, as my friend hasn't flown his 912 yet in
real
hot weather.
For my own airplane I plan on installing a heat muff off both front
exhaust
pipes (or stacks), run a scat tube down to the muffler can heat-muff, and
then run it into the cabin. I believe I will use the bilge fan idea so I
can avoid needing heat boxes or ram air from the cowl. I believe with this
3 heat-muff setup I should have more heat than I
can stand. If for some
reason that doesn't do it, I can always resort to running the cabin heater
core setup in addition with that fan. But if the heat muff works like I
think it will, I will be able to save myself about 5 pounds of weight by
getting rid of the heater core and fan unit from under the panel. I'm
hoping it works out like I think it will as my airplane is a 80 hp 912ul
amphib, so weight is critical.
Anyone else have any ideas for our cabin heat issues, or how to control
our
912 engine temps better without radiator shutters?
Paul Seehafer
----- Original Message -----
From: Alan Linda Daniels ALDANIELS@FMTC.COM
Thanks for responding Paul
I noticed that the CT2K Light Sport plane which sells for about 90K uses
muff heat. I have had great luck with the CAM 100 water he
at as I said,
but it keeps the coolant at 185 and I can fly down to zero without
discomfort, but the same basic BM transmission cooler with fans just
does not get hot enough to do much good. I am also concerned about
running the engine that cool, I just don't think it is good for it. I
thought some of the 2 stroke Rotax had thermostats you could put in, but
have never seen anything for the 912
Alan
________________________________ Message 17 ____________________________________
Time: 12:49:21 PM PST US
From: Gary Olson ofd725@yahoo.com
Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: VW Installation
-- Kitfox-List message posted by: Gary Olson ofd725@yahoo.com
Ed,
I am still waiting on the engine mount. I am still researching porp information
yet. I will keep you posted on my progress (including pictures).
Gary
edygert@charter.net wrote:
Hi Gary,
I sure would like to see any and all pictures you have of your engine
installation.
I am interested in doing the same type of setup.
Have you chosen a prop yet?
Thanks.....
Ed Dygert.............
--
---------------------------------
________________________________ Message 18 ____________________________________
Time: 02:23:00 PM PST US
From: glen rowland grav8@mybluelight.com
Subject: Kitfox-List: lift strut dia?
-- Kitfox-List message posted by: glen rowland grav8@mybluelight.com
Does any one know the 4130 lift strut tube dia and thickness for the kf series
5, 6, or 7. also did the first 1400# series 5 use a smaller strut?
Thanks Glen
Does any one know the 4130lift strut tube dia and thickness for the kf series 5,
6, or 7. also did the first 1400# series 5 use a smaller strut?
Thanks Glen
________________________________ Message 19 ____________________________________
Time: 02:39:02 PM PST US
From: Jeremy Casey n79rt@kilocharlie.us
Subject: Kitfox-List: Flying Series 5,6,7's???
-- Kitfox-List message posted by: Jeremy Casey n79rt@kilocharlie.us
Any flying Series 5,6,7's in Al. or GA.? Would like to see what I'm
about to spend all extra time/money on for awhile, up close. I have
actually never even sat in a 5,6,7 Kitfox.
Jeremy Casey
KiloCharlie Drafting, Inc.
jeremy@kilocharlie.us
________________________________ Message 20 ____________________________________
Time: 02:54:30 PM PST US
From: Ceashman@aol.com
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Flying Series 5,6,7's???
-- Kitfox-List message posted by: Ceashman@aol.com
Any flying Series 5,6,7's in Al. or GA.? Would like to see what I'm
about to spend all extra time/money on for a while, up close. I have
actually never even sat in a 5,6,7 Kitfox.
Jeremy Casey
KiloCharlie Drafting, Inc.
jeremy@kilocharlie.us
Hi Jeremy.
I know of a couple of Kitfox's in the Atlanta area
Contact me off list and I can put you in contact with one or two.
Cheers. Eric Ashman, Classic IV
________________________________ Message 21 ____________________________________
Time: 04:48:29 PM PST US
From: Brett Walmsley N93HJ@numail.org
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Flying Series 5,6,7's???
-- Kitfox-List message posted by: Brett Walmsley N93HJ@numail.org
There are three model 5s in Peachtree City, GA
----- Original Message -----
From: Jeremy Casey n79rt@kilocharlie.us
Subject: Kitfox-List: Flying Series 5,6,7's???
-- Kitfox-List message posted by: Jeremy Casey n79rt@kilocharlie.us
Any flying Series 5,6,7's in Al. or GA.? Would like to see what I'm
about to spend all extra time/money on for awhile, up close. I have
actually never even sat in a 5,6,7 Kitfox.
Jeremy Casey
KiloCharlie Drafting, Inc.
jeremy@kilocharlie.us
________________________________ Message 22 ____________________________________
Time: 04:58:27 PM PST US
From: Alan Linda Daniels aldaniels@fmtc.com
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Flying Series 5,6,7's???
-- Kitfox-List message posted by: Alan Linda Daniels aldaniels@fmtc.com
If you get to easter oregon I can get you in several with different
engines, wing sweeps, and gear. Don't know were you are.
Jeremy Casey wrote:
-- message posted by: Jeremy Casey n79rt@kilocharlie.us
Any flying Series 5,6,7's in Al. or GA.? Would like to see what I'm
about to spend all extra time/money on for awhile, up close. I have
actually never even sat in a 5,6,7 Kitfox.
Jeremy Casey
KiloCharlie Drafting, Inc.
jeremy@kilocharlie.us
________________________________ Message 23 ____________________________________
Time: 05:04:01 PM PST US
From: Clem Nichols cnichols@scrtc.com
Subject: Kitfox-List: 582 coolant
-- Kitfox-List message posted by: Clem Nichols cnichols@scrtc.com
Begging your indulgence regarding another repetetive question.
Over the past several months (years?) I remember several postings regarding the
proper way to add coolant to a Rotax 582 engine. At that time, and presently,
I was flying a Kitfox IV with a Subaru engine, so I really didn't pay much attention.
I've recently purchased a second plane, a Rans S14 with a 582, however,
and need to know how to properly add coolant to the system. I've had no
luck with the Matronics Search engine, and would appreciate someone once again
posting the correct way to accomplish this task. When flying the plane today
for the first time the engine overheated, and coolant was lost. Hopefully the
overheating was caused by a low coolant level to begin with, but it was full
at the filler neck before takeoff. Thanks for your help.
Clem Nichols
________________________________ Message 24 ____________________________________
Time: 06:40:06 PM PST US
From: John King kingjohne@adelphia.net
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Heater
-- Kitfox-List message posted by: John King kingjohne@adelphia.net
John,
I made a radiator cowl flap for my Series 6 / 912S. The radiator on the
series 6 is inside the cowling. My design consisted of a set of three
horizontals shutters that are controlled from the instrument panel. I
can make the CHT any temperature I desire, summer and winter. It
provides full range temperature control. The only time I fly with it
wide open is on takeoff and climb out. At cruise I partially close it
down to maintain at least 180 F. The cowl flap is mounted on the back
side if the radiator itself and is designed fail safe. I do not have
drawings of it , but you can see some of the pictures of it on the Sport
Flight web site:
http://www.sportflight.com/cgi-bin/uploader.pl?actionview
I can send more pictures to anyone interested.
On my Model IV-1200 / 912UL I installed a cowl flap inside the radiator
cowl that is mounted under the fuselage. It was much easier to design
and was also effective. Drawings and a description used to be on the
Sport Flight web site, but I cannot fine it now. However I do have
copies of the drawing and description.
--
John King
Warrenton, VA
kerrjohna@comcast.net wrote:
-- Kitfox-List message posted by: kerrjohna@comcast.net
John King or Lowell Fitt or both came up with a simple design baffle that fits
inside the radiator shroud and is controlled with a bowden cable to the cockpit.
failure mode is to full open and the shroud attachment hardware provides the
necessary stability for the system. I believe they at the design in a format
that can be emailed. That is how I got the information.
John Kerr
-------------- Original message --------------
-- Kitfox-List message posted by: Paul Seehafer
Alan,
I agree that running the 912's that cool concerns me too. I can't say I
know enough about the 912 to tell you what the answer is to getting coolant
to run warmer, but I would think there should be a better way than to have
to put tape over your radiator. Pretty antiquated when you consider how
complex the engine is otherwise. I know you can get oil line thermostats,
and heard they work well. Maybe someone else on the list that is a 912
inner workings expert can help answer these questions better?
I'm not surprised to hear your other engine ran 185 degrees, actually that
is kind of cool compared to modern automobile engines that use 207 degree
thermostats. Automakers know they need higher engine temps to make their
engines run more efficiently, and last longer. So it makes one wonder why
our engines would be any different? In fact, I would think our cold engine
temps and no thermostat would encourage shock cooling, plus would cause our
engines to run inefficiently due to unstable temps causing uneven fuel
jetting and atomization issues. But then again, like I eluded to earlier,
I'm not an engine expert.
As far as cabin heat goes, I think Avid came pretty close to having the heat
thing figured out when they attached a fibreglass scoop to the back of each
of their cowl cheek radiators, and then directed that warm air to the heat
muff, where it then entered the cabin. My buddy has a 912ul Avid Mark IV
with this setup and he gets lots of heat. Probably a lot harder to do on
our Foxes (unless you could possibly use maybe the oil cooler?) Or maybe we
could just run a reverse set up? (You know, run the heat-muff heat tube into
the radiator before it enters the cabin). One way or another, utilize all
the engine heat one can. The only downside with the Avid heat was that you
needed to remove the radiator scoops for summer flying so as not to overheat
the engine. Or at least this was true with the two strokes. I don't know
if thats the case on the 912, as my friend hasn't flown his 912 yet in real
hot weather.
For my own airplane I plan on installing a heat muff off both front exhaust
pipes (or stacks), run a scat tube down to the muffler can heat-muff, and
then run it into the cabin. I believe I will use the bilge fan idea so I
can avoid needing heat boxes or ram air from the cowl. I believe with this
3 heat-muff setup I should have more heat than I can stand. If for some
reason that doesn't do it, I can always resort to running the cabin heater
core setup in addition with that fan. But if the heat muff works like I
think it will, I will be able to save myself about 5 pounds of weight by
getting rid of the heater core and fan unit from under the panel. I'm
hoping it works out like I think it will as my airplane is a 80 hp 912ul
amphib, so weight is critical.
Anyone else have any ideas for our cabin heat issues, or how to control our
912 engine temps better without radiator shutters?
Paul Seehafer
________________________________ Message 25 ____________________________________
Time: 08:23:21 PM PST US
From: david yeamans dafox@ckt.net
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Cockpit Fumes
-- Kitfox-List message posted by: david yeamans dafox@ckt.net
Guy,
I did two things to stop the fumes and the wind from coming in. First,
with the seat out, I cut
a piece of carpet from what i had left over from covering my floor board, and cut
a piece oversize to
leave room for vellcro, and made a snug fit around the Bungees, and velcro'd It
to the fabric, that helped,
but what helped the most was making what I call a wind deflector out of a piece
of aluminun, about 3 ''
wide and just past the Bungees, and bending it at full length at a 45 degrees .
Locate the tubing and
install the deflector just in front of the bungees. I drilled the tubing and tapped
it so i could screw a bolt
into it to fasten the deflector. It was the best thing I could have done, It stopped
99 % of fumes and Air
David
----- Original Message -----
From: Guy Buchanan
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2005 11:08 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Cockpit Fumes
-- Kitfox-List message posted by: Guy Buchanan bnn@nethere.com
Hi all!
Does anyone have a recommendation on how to seal the openings
where the gear shock-cord comes through? It seems like a likely entrance
for exhaust fumes.
Thanks,
Guy Buchanan
K-IV 1200 / 582 / 99.9% done, thanks mostly to Bob Ducar.
________________________________ Message 26 ____________________________________
Time: 08:23:21 PM PST US
From: david yeamans dafox@ckt.net
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Registration
-- Kitfox-List message posted by: david yeamans dafox@ckt.net
Guy,
Relax, you have plenty of time. I registered my kitfox three years before
I finished
it. When I received a tax statement, I went to city hall,I told them I applyed
for
my registration to be sure of getting my N number and that my airplane was not
completed,
they said just to let them know when it was.
David
----- Original Message -----
From: Guy Buchanan
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2005 9:46 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Registration
-- Kitfox-List message posted by: Guy Buchanan bnn@nethere.com
Wow, for a while I thought I had a bunch of time. I sent in my registration
forms a couple of weeks ago, expecting a 2-3 month turnaround. What ho! I
received my registration today! I guess I'll have to finish the plane ASAP.
I was going to put the wings on for the last time last week and realized
that I would never get a baggage box in once the wings were on. Thus I
spent the last week or so building a rigid baggage box behind the seats.
I'm praying now that my weight and balance allows me to use it. I'm hoping
to do my weight and balance at the Nov 19 Kitfox fly-in at Brown, in San Diego.
Guy Buchanan
K-IV 1200 / 582 / 99.9% done, thanks mostly to Bob Ducar.
Do not archive
________________________________ Message 27 ____________________________________
Time: 09:51:26 PM PST US
From: daniel johnson kitfox91je@hotmail.com
Subject: Kitfox-List: Floats on Ebay
-- Kitfox-List message posted by: daniel johnson kitfox91je@hotmail.com
Hi all...i never got to put the floats on my kitfox before i sold. I'm
putting them up on ebay. I was told 1200 was thier rating, but the guys
supporting avids now tell me they had no published rating...but were used up
to 1150 gross. Paul on list tells me you'd have to be gentle with them at
heavy operating weights...he owns a set and would know best. Have a look if
you are interested..they are up for acution but offers are ok too.
Dan...Ohio
________________________________ Message 28 ____________________________________
Time: 11:02:28 PM PST US
From: Guy Buchanan bnn@nethere.com
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Cockpit Fumes
-- Kitfox-List message posted by: Guy Buchanan bnn@nethere.com
At 08:05 PM 10/27/2005, you wrote:
I did two things to stop the fumes and the wind from coming in.
Very interesting David. I think I'll try it.
Guy Buchanan
K-IV 1200 / 582 / 99.9% done, thanks mostly to Bob Ducar.
Do not archive
- - - - - - - Appended by Scientific-Atlanta, Inc. - - - - - - -
This e-mail and any attachments may contain information which is confidential,
proprietary, privileged or otherwise protected by law. The information is solely
intended for the named addressee (or a person responsible for delivering it
to the addressee). If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you
are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy or disseminate this message or
any part of it. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the
sender immediately by return e-mail and delete it from your computer.
Message 27
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Anphibs vs Straight floats? |
Serialize complete at 11/04/2005 04:41:20 PM
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kitfoxjunky <kitfoxjunky@decisionlabs.com>
Saw a posting about not flying anphibs. Something about the complexity
and potential for making a mistake not being worth it. For me, straight
floats simply will not do the job. I have the aerocet anphibs, and the
utility they offer combined with the performance of a KV IV with a 912S is
truly amazing for the price point. I am in the habit of cycling the gear
on every takeoff, to ensure I had a consistent habit forming procedure, so
I do not land in the wrong configuration.
Gary Walsh
KF IV Anphib 912S
C-GOOT
www.decisionlabs.com/kitfox
do not archive
Message 28
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: [off-topic] Crosswind landing? |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
Thanks for your answers, guys.
Lowell Fitt wrote:
> If this was a Boeing test sequence, I suspect it was to test the maxiimum
> cross wind component.
Yes but those are different landings, right? The two first, the wind is then
from the left, the last landing, from the right. Has the pilot then tried both
sides of the same runway?
> I have seen footage of a 747 going into Honk Kong in a major cross wind
> doing just as these clips depict.
Yes, on the now closed Kai Tak airport. Those are really amazing video
footages. No wonder they decided to build a new airport.
Cheers,
Michel
do not archive
Message 29
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 912 running bad (carb issues?) |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Fox5flyer" <morid@northland.lib.mi.us>
> Any 912 carb experts out there? I have a 912ul that has been sitting a
few
> years, and when I went to start it up, it fired right up, idles ok
(somewhat
> erratic) but when you apply throttle it appears to be running on only 2 or
3
> cylinders (it seems to idle on all cylinders and all exhaust pipes get
hot,
> so I assume it isn't just a spark issue). I cleaned up the float bowls,
and
> removed the main jets to clean them out too. That helped a little, but
not
> much.
Paul, I wouldn't assume it's not a spark issue. It could very well be a bad
plug that doesn't act up until under higher pressure. Had it happen to me.
Only acted up on full power takeoffs.
Deke
Message 30
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | The trouble with gascolators |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
Hi Don,
That is the right kind of drain Don. Not sure on why
this happened. The outer fitting was still there but
all internal parts were gone. I have another one in
packup from the move to look at, I think, but I don't
believe it can come out if the O ring is gone. It
would just leak. I checked it right before flight and
it was dry.
We plugged the hole with a brass fitting. (I had to
keep them from putting teflon tape on the interior
threads too.) I'll have to take the bowl off and see
if there are any parts left inside to give the reason.
It would be funny if the ears came off and it went in
from spring pressure....
My "fix" was going to be to attach the carb hose
directly to the pump and bypass the gascolator, but
plugging it was faster and got me on the way.
Actually it came out on my first and only use of
100LL. I've had to change the upper seal already
though. That is what I thought had failed.
Kurt S.
--- Don Pearsall <donpearsall@comcast.net> wrote:
> Kurt,
> Thanks for the great story, and also thanks for
> staying alive. Do you know
> why the gascolator drain popped out? The kind I am
> familiar with are just a
> brass fitting screwed into the bowl. When the valve
> stem popped out, could
> it have been because the rubber "O" ring shrank
> because of mogas additives?
> Just speculating.
>
> Don Pearsall
__________________________________
http://farechase.yahoo.com
Message 31
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: The trouble with gascolators |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
Good point Lowell,
I had the bottom screw fitting safetied to keep the
bowl from coming lose. Don't know any way to safety
the drain though. Do you?
Kurt S.
--- Lowell Fitt <lcfitt@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Kurt,
> Good story, good outcome, good heads-up. As you, I
> have never heard this failure mode before. Another
> thing to check -
> safety wire?
>
> Lowell
__________________________________
Message 32
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: The trouble with gas |
colators
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
Great questions Robert,
I've always worried about that gascolator. Replaced
it already once because I damaged the first one with a
hose fitting. It would only turn in 1.5 threads and I
forced it. Crack!
I replaced the seal once since then. The first was
looking wrinkled after one year's use. I just don't
like the whole assembly myself.
There are better and worse gascolators. Glass is easy
to preflight, but gosh what a risk! Yet some store
bought planes have glass ones. ACS has a much more
substantial one and I think someone here said they
used it. Any comments from the gallery? You might
find a better one at Jeggs, etc too.
I almost took mine off completely before, but every so
often I get a little hose rubber caught in it. The
only black (braided) hose I have is fwd of the
firewall and after the filter, so I kept the
gascolator to save the carb. That is a whole 'nother
problem.
I planned to revamp the entire fuel system this year,
but couldn't get it done before this trip. Got the
parts, but not the time. It works. I just don't like
it per the plans. I plan to have only one hose fwd of
the firewall and use the header tank as the gascolator
trap. It will be the only low point.
So to your questions:
It doesn't take much to cause the seal to fail.
I think the cup seal should be replaced at every
annual, if yours is like mine. And every time you
open it too. It is so easy to squish it out of shape
with that bowl fastening system.
I think that it would be easy to shear off that cup in
a nose over and cause a fire. A busted cowl could
smack it and it isn't held on well in my opinion.
Yes! Safety wire the bowl bottom attachment screw.
Don't know any way to safety the drain yet. Wish it
had a screw on cap over a push drain or valve instead.
I recommend either no gascolator or the ACS kind that
has a metal screw on bowl. Looks like an oil filter.
It is much stronger IMHO.
This is another one of those times when the little
voice in my head said "change it" and I should have
listened.
My header tank drain valve has failed twice already...
not in flight. Just when using it and rolling the o
ring in dirt or something. But it is not near the
engine and will only dump/drip.
Kurt S.
--- "Harris, Robert" <Robert_Harris@intuit.com> wrote:
> Great article Kurt,
> How likely is it that the gascolator seal will fail?
> How often should the
> seal be replaced? Should the gascalotor bowl/cup be
> safety wired? Is there a
> way to safety wire the quick drain/valve stem? I
> have the Aircraft Spruce
> Gascolator and worry about it failing.
>
> Robert
__________________________________
http://farechase.yahoo.com
Message 33
| 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>
Thanks Rick,
Yes the quick drain was the problem. It is plugged
now.
Is the Andair the screw on one in ACS? How do you
like it? My cataloge is still in KY.
Yes, I am at Arthur Dunn Airport now. Be great to see
you, if you rich Spruce Creek types co-mingle with us
lower life forms. :-) I've never rode in a Rotax
Fox. Would be nice to take comparison rides, Rotax vs
Soob and report to folks here, ego's aside.
There is an airport close to my house, but a Dr bought
the runway and is trying to turn it into condos.
Those with potential hangars facing condos have
brought suit... 4 years in the courts already.
kurt S.
--- Mdkitfox@aol.com wrote:
> Kurt,
>
> No flack from this guy. Nice job getting it down.
> All business, no panic.
> I'd say you handled it as well as anyone should
> expect.
>
> Was the leak caused by the quick drain on the bottom
> of the gascolator? I
> have the Andair gascolator and installed a quick
> drain, but after your
> adventure, a plug seems like a better idea.
>
> Where in Titusville are you keeping the plane, Tico
> or Dunn? I used to live
> in the Hickory Hill area a long time ago. Long
> story short, I'll be moving
> to Spruce Creek (about 30 miles North) in January.
> Maybe we can get together and compare Fox notes.
>
> Rick Weiss
> Series V Speedster N39RW, 912S
__________________________________
Message 34
| 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: streamlined covers (small) |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
I remember reading a long time ago that a 1/8" wire
has the same drag at 100 mph as a 1" thick (x 3")
streamlined tube. If you can streamline the wire, do
it. I am thinking about bulsa trailing edge on my
comm antenna. Every free knot counts....
kurt s.
--- Paul Seehafer <av8rps@tznet.com> wrote:
>
> Bob,
>
> I believe the vendor that sells those snap on wire
> covers is Rans aircraft
> (Randy Schlitter).
__________________________________
http://farechase.yahoo.com
Message 35
| 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>
that's OK Deke,
I don't always say it clearly. It is the quick drain
at the bottom of the gascolator bowl. The fitting is
still there, but nothing is inside of it. No spring,
dog-eared twisting parts, o rings - nothing. Just a
big hole where the fuel ran out freely.
I must admit to being amazed at the ability of the
soob to keep running. If the fuel had blown all under
the plane, I wouldn't have known it was gone except by
the gauges. Just hummmmmm as usual. I changed power
and confirmed I could climb or descend before I got to
Alma.
I am glad I did a few other things too. The firewall
seal is very good. No hot part smells or exhaust
fumes. I picked up on the fuel smell immediately.
Fuel can always get thru the smallest holes even if
air didn't.
Also Tuesday I closed off the left cowl side vent to
raise the carb temp for cold ops on this flight. This
meant that the air flow inside the cowl was all aft
around the gascolator. Some fuel would have run
forward with the side vent open if I hadn't changed
it. The air cools the exhaust better, but the fuel
might have gone right there.
During testing, I put a thermometer on the gascolator
and watched the temps during and after flight. With
that vent close, it stayed below 160F on hot days. I
had been looking for vapor lock, but that knowledge
helped me during this flight too.
kurt S.
--- Fox5flyer <morid@northland.lib.mi.us> wrote:
>
> Wow Kurt. What a story! I'm glad you're able to
> tell us about it.
> However, I can't visualize what valve stem you're
> referring to.
> Deke
__________________________________
Message 36
| 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>
Thanks Alan and Steve,
Someone asked me again yesterday why it took me so
long to build my Fox. I told them that it was all the
changes...
As I said in another reply, I don't like my fuel
system. It is "by the book", but it does worry me. I
planned to change it this year, but just couldn't get
to it. It has too many highs and lows for water and
air to accumulate. Too many failure points.
My plan is to hose down to the header tank with a
shutoff valve on the left tank only. Maybe I should
do both tanks? I've had fuel cap seal problems and
have been pinching a hose off if it gets imbalanced.
New seals helped, but sometimes it still leaks at a
cap. When it was bad I blew 3 gal overboard in 45
minutes with 1/2 tanks. Well it was over full on one
side and 2 gal on the other in flight... Swapped caps
changed it. One shutoff keeps any fuel transfer from
occuring, yet I can take off safely with my brains on
dumb and still get fuel flow from the right tank.
From the header I plan to have 2 pumps, 2 filters,
one FF impeller and the shutoff. Then right to the
carb after the firewall. All up hill. Haven't got
the sequence down right just yet. I want the filters
easily accessable. But that will all come soon now
you can bet!
BTW, I have a primary pump and a B/U pump controlled
by a pressure switch. Preflight = B/U on first.
Pressure up and a light on. Then primary pump on and
the B/U and light go off to the armed position. Any
primary failure and all I see is a light and a
pressure drop from the lower B/U pump. I should
always have full power on takeoff. ;-)
This was because of an accident when a wire came off a
pump on T/O on a one pump plane. 100% air and 60%
gravity fuel flow didn't work. Engine quit for a
single wire failure. Crunch! This is my fix anyway.
Kurt S.
--- Alan & Linda Daniels <aldaniels@fmtc.com> wrote:
> That could have been very very bad. I am sure happy
> it turned out good..............
>...... By the time we got on the ground
> the fire sleeve had clearly saved us from becoming a
> flaming lawn dart.
> You can bet I no longer route the fuel line there
> anymore. I go farther
> than Steve. I go fuel filter to header tank, to fuel
> pump to engine. I
> have nothing on the pressure side of the pump except
> the carb.
>
> Steve Zakreski wrote:
>
> >--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Steve Zakreski
> <szakreski@shaw.ca>
> >
> >Kurt
> >
> >Holy smokes... close one.
> >
> >Yours is at least the second close call in a Kitfox
> caused by a gascolator,
> >although I seem to recall the other time the cup
> came off. The Kitfox IV
> >literature describes the header tank as a
> replacement for the gascolator.
> >
> >I got rid of mine altogether: header -> pump ->
> filter -> engine
__________________________________
Message 37
| 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: Alan & Linda Daniels <aldaniels@fmtc.com>
I like the system I have on my CAM 100 powered plane were I have a
shutoff valve for each tank behind the passenger seat were the pilot can
reach it easily, for just he reasons you pointed out. When I get low on
fuel I turn both on. I have the fuel filters behind the seat just above
the header tank on one plane( I cut holes in the seat so all you have to
do is pull the cushion forward to look at the condition of the filters)
and small clear glass filters in view just below the valves on the other
so I can see fuel flowing. I like to run 5 gallons or so more in the
right tank when I fly alone to balance it out. I have the low fuel
sensor in the header to let me know if I am not paying attention.
Changes do take a lot of time. I figure it took me twice as long to
finish the Honda powered plane than using the factory FWF and the 912s.
It really is amazing how many little things you have to work out, and
how many great ideas just don't work that well. After 750 hours I am
still changing things on that plane, mainly cooling. When you do other
than a factory supported engine install you are really into the
experimental area.
kurt schrader wrote:
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
>
>Thanks Alan and Steve,
>
>Someone asked me again yesterday why it took me so
>long to build my Fox. I told them that it was all the
>changes...
>
>
>
>
Message 38
| 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 DC ADIZ NPRM |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: John King <kingjohne@adelphia.net>
Alan,
I live under the Washington ADIZ and my home airport (W66) is just six
miles outside it. Several of our local pilots have been busted for
entering just the outside edges of the ADIZ. There is no forgiveness
for slight penetrations. Most of our first time offenders get a 90 day
suspension of their license. So far none of them have done it twice.
Today when I landed at W66 I saw a Black Hawk helicopter parked next to
the hangers and the crew talking to one of our pilots. I was told they
followed him down. Usually they intercept the offending aircraft while
in the air. He was told to call Potomac Approach immediately. Later I
saw the local police drive up to his hanger .
This is a big waste of out tax dollars and is causing a lot of grief to
general aviation in the Washington area. The AOPA is making a big
effort to not only keep it from being permanent, but eliminating it
entirely. If it can happen here in the Washington area, it can happen
where you live also. All pilots should support the AOPA in this
effort. Thanks for listening.
--
John King
Warrenton, VA
alan@reichertech.com wrote:
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: alan@reichertech.com
>
>
>Hello, All!
>
>Please pardon this intrusion. This note is not specific to your
>particular list, but regardless of what you are building, restoring, or
>flying, an issue exists that could potentially affect all of you who fly
>in the United States. That issue is the Washington DC ADIZ.
>
>This ADIZ was put into effect as a temporary protective measure for
>Washington DC airspace after 9/11. There is now an NPRM out to make this
>airspace *permanent*.
>
>The original comment period for this NPRM expired yesterday, November 2.
>However, the FAA has now extended the comment period for another 90 days,
>so if you did not get your comments in, HERE IS YOUR CHANCE!
>
>Information on the ADIZ, and why we are fighting it, can be found here:
>
> http://www.aopa.org/adizalert/
>
>I live underneath the current DC ADIZ, so I get to play with this every
>time I fly. The AOPA page above gives a good summary of what has happened
>in this area since it's inception.
>
>Help on formulating comments for this NPRM can be found here:
>
> http://www.aopa.org/adizalert/help.html
>
>Comments on this NPRM can be submitted (online) to the DOT here:
>
> http://dms.dot.gov/submit/
>
>Instructions on how to navigate and fill out the DOT page to submit your
>comments are available here:
>
> http://www.aopa.org/adizalert/faa_help.html
>
>There are over 18000 comments against this NPRM at this time. If yours is
>not one of them, please take the time now to submit your comments; every
>one helps. If this ADIZ becomes permanent, then there could be an ADIZ
>coming to an airspace near you in the future!
>
>I thank Matt for allowing me to send this to you. Even if you don't live
>near the DC area, please do what you can to protect your flying
>priviledges... submit your comments!
>
>Regards,
>
>-- Alan Reichert
>C-182 Driver/RV-8 Builder
>
>Do Not Archive
>
>
>
>
Message 39
| 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: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@sbcglobal.net>
I guess it wasn't clear what part was lost.
Loewll
Do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "kurt schrader" <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: The trouble with gascolators
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader
> <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
>
> Good point Lowell,
>
> I had the bottom screw fitting safetied to keep the
> bowl from coming lose. Don't know any way to safety
> the drain though. Do you?
>
> Kurt S.
>
> --- Lowell Fitt <lcfitt@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> Kurt,
>> Good story, good outcome, good heads-up. As you, I
>> have never heard this failure mode before. Another
>> thing to check -
>> safety wire?
>>
>> Lowell
>
>
> __________________________________
>
>
>
Message 40
| 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: Steve Zakreski <szakreski@shaw.ca>
Alan
This has been mentioned on the list before but...
When you fill the right fuel tank, (and every time you bank the plane left)
the fuel level in the right wing tank will be above the fuel vent hose
opening (the hose opening between the wing tank and the header tank), and
some fuel dribbles down this fuel vent hose into the header tank. This
means you have fuel entering the header fairly regularly which completely
bypasses both your fuel strainers and your fuel filter.
If your fuel system is as you describe, with no fuel filter between the
header tank and the engine, the chances of engine stoppage due to
contamination is very high. It is best to think of the header tank as a
dirty environment.
You can put in a downstream fuel filter, or a gascolator, but you can't
delete both.
SteveZ
Calgary
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Alan & Linda
Daniels
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: The trouble with gascolators
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Alan & Linda Daniels <aldaniels@fmtc.com>
That could have been very very bad. I am sure happy it turned out good.
Fuel systems require the utmost care. I had an exhaust header break on a
7 FWF on the right rear first bent bottom weld. The pipe totally
separated due to a bad weld. The install manual has you put the fuel
line for that carb go over the top of the engine, down the back and up
to the carb. The broken exhaust pipe directed the very hot exhaust - 4
inches out of the head- along side that fuel line. I was not sure what
had happened except a change in sound. By the time we got on the ground
the fire sleeve had clearly saved us from becoming a flaming lawn dart.
You can bet I no longer route the fuel line there anymore. I go farther
than Steve. I go fuel filter to header tank, to fuel pump to engine. I
have nothing on the pressure side of the pump except the carb.
Steve Zakreski wrote:
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Steve Zakreski <szakreski@shaw.ca>
>
>Kurt
>
>Holy smokes... close one.
>
>Yours is at least the second close call in a Kitfox caused by a gascolator,
>although I seem to recall the other time the cup came off. The Kitfox IV
>literature describes the header tank as a replacement for the gascolator.
>
>I got rid of mine altogether: header -> pump -> filter -> engine
>
>
>
>
>
Message 41
| 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: | Annual Condition Inspection Checklist |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "John Banes" <JohnBanes@Adelphia.net>
It's that time. I need an Annual Condition Inspection Checklist, preferably
for a Series 6. Is there such a thing? I checked the Sportflight and
Matronics files without success.
Thanks in advance,
John Banes
N854JB S6 912S
Message 42
| 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: Steve Zakreski <szakreski@shaw.ca>
By the way, I put 200 hours on my NSIEA81 (non-turbo) using 100LL with no
noticeable effect. Lance told me it was no big deal. Maybe different with
the turbo though.
SteveZ
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of kurt schrader
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: The trouble with gascolators
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader
<smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
Thanks Alan and Steve,
Someone asked me again yesterday why it took me so
long to build my Fox. I told them that it was all the
changes...
As I said in another reply, I don't like my fuel
system. It is "by the book", but it does worry me. I
planned to change it this year, but just couldn't get
to it. It has too many highs and lows for water and
air to accumulate. Too many failure points.
My plan is to hose down to the header tank with a
shutoff valve on the left tank only. Maybe I should
do both tanks? I've had fuel cap seal problems and
have been pinching a hose off if it gets imbalanced.
New seals helped, but sometimes it still leaks at a
cap. When it was bad I blew 3 gal overboard in 45
minutes with 1/2 tanks. Well it was over full on one
side and 2 gal on the other in flight... Swapped caps
changed it. One shutoff keeps any fuel transfer from
occuring, yet I can take off safely with my brains on
dumb and still get fuel flow from the right tank.
From the header I plan to have 2 pumps, 2 filters,
one FF impeller and the shutoff. Then right to the
carb after the firewall. All up hill. Haven't got
the sequence down right just yet. I want the filters
easily accessable. But that will all come soon now
you can bet!
BTW, I have a primary pump and a B/U pump controlled
by a pressure switch. Preflight = B/U on first.
Pressure up and a light on. Then primary pump on and
the B/U and light go off to the armed position. Any
primary failure and all I see is a light and a
pressure drop from the lower B/U pump. I should
always have full power on takeoff. ;-)
This was because of an accident when a wire came off a
pump on T/O on a one pump plane. 100% air and 60%
gravity fuel flow didn't work. Engine quit for a
single wire failure. Crunch! This is my fix anyway.
Kurt S.
--- Alan & Linda Daniels <aldaniels@fmtc.com> wrote:
> That could have been very very bad. I am sure happy
> it turned out good..............
>...... By the time we got on the ground
> the fire sleeve had clearly saved us from becoming a
> flaming lawn dart.
> You can bet I no longer route the fuel line there
> anymore. I go farther
> than Steve. I go fuel filter to header tank, to fuel
> pump to engine. I
> have nothing on the pressure side of the pump except
> the carb.
>
> Steve Zakreski wrote:
>
> >--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Steve Zakreski
> <szakreski@shaw.ca>
> >
> >Kurt
> >
> >Holy smokes... close one.
> >
> >Yours is at least the second close call in a Kitfox
> caused by a gascolator,
> >although I seem to recall the other time the cup
> came off. The Kitfox IV
> >literature describes the header tank as a
> replacement for the gascolator.
> >
> >I got rid of mine altogether: header -> pump ->
> filter -> engine
__________________________________
Message 43
| 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 DC ADIZ NPRM |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Alan & Linda Daniels <aldaniels@fmtc.com>
The cowards running this country have forgotten what freedom is, and why
we have it, and what it cost. Chicken Little's falling sky is now
official policy. The terrorist can never beat our military, but they
sure whipped our "leadership" and our media. I am so mad now I will have
to pound rivets until midnight. Sorry I will keep to airplanes unless I
loose it again.
Another Alan
John King wrote:
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: John King <kingjohne@adelphia.net>
>
>Alan,
>
>I live under the Washington ADIZ and my home airport (W66) is just six
>miles outside it. Several of our local pilots have been busted for
>entering just the outside edges of the ADIZ. There is no forgiveness
>for slight penetrations. Most of our first time offenders get a 90 day
>
>
>
Message 44
| 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: Alan & Linda Daniels <aldaniels@fmtc.com>
With 750 hours my carb is totally clean inside. I have never gotten any
contamination except a little water out of the header tank. I think I
will put a filter on the vent line. I do have an inline filter on the
912 install, but not the Honda. Thanks for the input.
Steve Zakreski wrote:
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Steve Zakreski <szakreski@shaw.ca>
>
>Alan
>
>This has been mentioned on the list before but...
>
>When you fill the right fuel tank, (and every time you bank the plane left)
>the fuel level in the right wing tank will be above the fuel vent hose
>
>
>
>
Message 45
| 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: | 2001 Kitfox 4 - 1200 with 912 UL For sale |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jay Fabian" <experimental208nd@comcast.net>
Hi List,
I have my Kitfox 4 - 1200 for sale now. Built in 2001, 135 TT, BRS........I have
been back and forth for a year or so. But I have put a whole 5 hours total
time this year and maybe 12 last year on it. It needs to fly more. Contact me
off list for details and $$. Negotiable
I am in Mass.
Thanks
Jay
Message 46
| 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: [off-topic] Crosswind landing? |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michael Laundy <mikelaundy@yahoo.co.uk>
There are different techniques fo different big aircraft, back in the 60s I flew
Victor V bombers with the RAF, we used to land those with the drift on and
let the tyres kick us straight, (Made a pretty good squeal), Flying 767s you
put the wing down into wind and land on 1 wheel (ie side slipping into wind),
crabbing and kicking off the drift is not a good idea ad swept wing and dihedral
rolls you pretty hard. Now I fly a Falcon 2000 with anhedral and wingtips
pretty close to the ground, and its definately a case of crabbing in and kicking
off the drift, roll is not too bad as the anhedral counteracts the swept wing
effect.
Mike
Rich Williamson <rwill1@adelphia.net> wrote:
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Rich Williamson"
Very cool !!!!
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michel Verheughe"
Subject: Kitfox-List: [off-topic] Crosswind landing?
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe
>
> OFF-TOPIC. Aviation but not Kitfox building.
> Sorry guys but I have a question to answer on another list: Please look at
> this video:
>
> http://www.rcuniverse.com/mvp/videolink.cfm?postid=424
>
> Forgot the B-747 but ... that B-777 is doing crosswind landings or is it
> just a demonstration from Boeing using forced crabbing? He lands once with
> a left hand crab, then a right hand. On the same runway? On the opposite?
> Next, is the gear tilting or is it just a perspective illusion?
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Michel
>
> do not archive
>
>
>
---------------------------------
Message 47
| 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: kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
Steve,
Actually I use mogas primarily due to price, but I
don't like to make more than one change at a time.
Changing fuel types while doing some other things for
the first time just leads to too many unknowns for me.
I would think that 100LL is just fine if you get the
lead out. But at barely 60+ hours on the plane, I
still feel like I am testing things.
Lance says to use 89 octane or higher on the turbo. I
tried 87 octane during testing and didn't notice any
problems either. Hadn't tried the 100LL until I had
to on this flight.
I once froze a piston on my 2 cycle motorcycle when I
used high octane in it and it ran too hot... I did
have more power up to that point. ;-)
Kurt S.
--- Steve Zakreski <szakreski@shaw.ca> wrote:
> By the way, I put 200 hours on my NSIEA81
> (non-turbo) using 100LL with no
> noticeable effect. Lance told me it was no big
> deal. Maybe different with the turbo though.
>
> SteveZ
__________________________________
Message 48
| 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 DC ADIZ NPRM |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
OK, why don't we just attack with 100+ kitfox's and
drop a few thousand nail clippers on W66? Ask them if
they want to arrest us all or finally stop acting
silly.
So if terrorists do attack the Capitol, would any
innocent people be hurt?
Gets me grumpy too.
Kurt S.
Do not archive
--- John King <kingjohne@adelphia.net> wrote:
> Alan,
>
> I live under the Washington ADIZ and my home airport
> (W66) is just six
> miles outside it. Several of our local pilots have
> been busted for
> entering just the outside edges of the ADIZ. There
> is no forgiveness
> for slight penetrations. Most of our first time
> offenders get a 90 day
> suspension of their license. So far none of them
> have done it twice.
> Today when I landed at W66 I saw a Black Hawk
> helicopter parked next to
> the hangers and the crew talking to one of our
> pilots. I was told they
> followed him down. Usually they intercept the
> offending aircraft while
> in the air. He was told to call Potomac Approach
> immediately. Later I
> saw the local police drive up to his hanger .
>
> This is a big waste of out tax dollars and is
> causing a lot of grief to
> general aviation in the Washington area. The AOPA
> is making a big
> effort to not only keep it from being permanent, but
> eliminating it
> entirely. If it can happen here in the Washington
> area, it can happen
> where you live also. All pilots should support the
> AOPA in this
> effort. Thanks for listening.
>
> --
> John King
> Warrenton, VA
__________________________________
http://farechase.yahoo.com
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! --
|