---------------------------------------------------------- Kitfox-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Fri 11/04/05: 48 ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 _____________________________________ Time: 12:08:25 AM PST US From: Matt Dralle Subject: Kitfox-List: "What's my Contribution used for?" [PLEASE READ!] --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Matt Dralle 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 _____________________________________ Time: 03:25:51 AM PST US 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 3 _____________________________________ Time: 03:40:45 AM PST US From: "Rich Williamson" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: [off-topic] Crosswind landing? --> 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 4 _____________________________________ Time: 04:15:19 AM PST US Subject: Kitfox-List: The DC ADIZ NPRM From: alan@reichertech.com --> 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 _____________________________________ Time: 04:44:32 AM PST US From: "Fox5flyer" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: The trouble with gascolators --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Fox5flyer" 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 ....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 _____________________________________ Time: 04:49:56 AM PST US From: "Paul Seehafer" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Two types Float Pilots? --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Paul Seehafer" Congratulations Dave! Now the fun starts. Paul Seehafer ----- Original Message ----- From: >Snip... Funny you guys are talking about floats just got my float >rating............ > > And have a land KF 2 > > Great fun, > > Dave > > > ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 04:49:56 AM PST US From: "Paul Seehafer" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Two types Float Pilots? --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Paul Seehafer" 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 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" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 05:06:04 AM PST US From: "Paul Seehafer" Subject: Kitfox-List: 912 running bad (carb issues?) --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Paul Seehafer" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 05:41:18 AM PST US From: "Paul Seehafer" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: streamlined covers (small) --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Paul Seehafer" 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" Subject: Kitfox-List: streamlined covers (small) > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bob Robertson" > > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:19:05 AM PST US From: Fred Shiple Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 912 running bad (carb issues?) --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Fred Shiple 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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:29:56 AM PST US From: "Paul Peerenboom" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 912 running bad (carb issues?) --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Paul Peerenboom" Not Sure this will help, but I had a simulator problem with a plugged vent line. Paul N102DG ----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Seehafer" Subject: Kitfox-List: 912 running bad (carb issues?) > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Paul Seehafer" > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:35:08 AM PST US From: Mdkitfox@aol.com Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:36:49 AM PST US From: Tom Jones Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: [off-topic] Crosswind landing? --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Tom Jones 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 > >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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:55:15 AM PST US From: "Harris, Robert" gas colators Subject: Gascolator seal/Safety wire?RE: Kitfox-List: The trouble with gas colators --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Harris, Robert" 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:09:15 AM PST US From: "Harris, Robert" Crossw ind landing? Subject: Mains are tracking centerline.RE: Kitfox-List: [off-topic] Crossw ind landing? --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Harris, Robert" That's amazing Michel, the main gear is tracking the centerline. Robert > http://www.rcuniverse.com/mvp/videolink.cfm?postid=424 > > > > ________________________________ Message 16 ____________________________________ Time: 07:10:04 AM PST US From: "Lowell Fitt" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: [off-topic] Crosswind landing? --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" 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" 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 17 ____________________________________ Time: 07:12:05 AM PST US From: "Lowell Fitt" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: The trouble with gascolators --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" 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" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: The trouble with gascolators > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader > > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:12:08 AM PST US From: "Don Pearsall" Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: The trouble with gascolators --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Don Pearsall" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:14:18 AM PST US From: "Kirk Martenson" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 912 running bad (carb issues?) --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Kirk Martenson" 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" Subject: Kitfox-List: 912 running bad (carb issues?) > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Paul Seehafer" > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:19:26 AM PST US From: Michael Gibbs Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: 914 --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michael Gibbs >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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:57:05 AM PST US From: "Paul Seehafer" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 912 running bad (carb issues?) --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Paul Seehafer" 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" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 912 running bad (carb issues?) > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Fred Shiple > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:29:30 AM PST US From: Steve Zakreski Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: The trouble with gascolators --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Steve Zakreski 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" 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" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: The trouble with gascolators > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader > > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:29:31 AM PST US From: "Harris, Robert" Subject: Kitfox-List: San Diego Kitfox Fly In 11/19/05 --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Harris, Robert" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:18:26 AM PST US From: Alan & Linda Daniels Subject: Kitfox-List: Carb balance --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Alan & Linda Daniels 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:34:09 AM PST US From: Alan & Linda Daniels Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: The trouble with gascolators --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Alan & Linda Daniels 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 > >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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:32:19 PM PST US From: "Napier, Mark" Subject: Kitfox-List: GSC Prop --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Napier, Mark" 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" --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Colin Durey" 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 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 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" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 0-200 vs 912 performance --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clifford Begnaud" 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 Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 0-200 vs 912 performance --> Kitfox-List message posted by: John Larsen 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" > >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" >To: >Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: S-7 Cowling > > > > >>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Kerry Skyring" >> >> >>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" >>>Reply-To: kitfox-list@matronics.com >>>To: >>>Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: S-7 Cowling >>>Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 08:59:14 -0400 >>> >>>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jeremy Casey" >>> >>>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" >>> >>>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" >>> >>> >>>If you find one ,,I need one also, only for a Mod IV. Bob U. >>> >>>----- Original Message ----- >>>From: "Gary Olson" >>>To: >>>Subject: Kitfox-List: S-7 Cowling >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Gary Olson >>>> >>>>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 Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Needing a Tail Wheel Spring for a model II. --> Kitfox-List message posted by: John Larsen Steve Winder at Airdale has some. 208-459-6254, or cell 208-284-8143 David Savener wrote: >--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "David Savener" > >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" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 0-200 vs 912 performance --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Vic Jacko" 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" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 0-200 vs 912 performance > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clifford Begnaud" > > > 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" Subject: Kitfox-List: Service bulletins... --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jeremy Casey" 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" 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" 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 Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Heater --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Fred Shiple 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" Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Service bulletins... --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Don Pearsall" 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" 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" Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Service bulletins... --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "jdmcbean" 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" 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" Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Skystar site gone --> 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 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 > > ________________________________ 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" 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 th e 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 -- 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" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Skystar OSH display --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Mark Miller" It belongs to Mike D'Amico One of the 103 builders group Mark Miller ----- Original Message ----- From: 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" > > 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 th > e 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 > > > -- > 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" Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Skystar site gone --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "jdmcbean" 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" 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 th e 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 -- 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" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Heater --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" John, The radiator baffle, I think, is a John King idea. I made the oil cooler flaps. Lowell ----- Original Message ----- From: 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" > > 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" > > 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 Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: VW Installation --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Gary Olson Ed, I am still waiting on the engine mount. I am still researching porp information yet. I will keep you posted on my progress (including pictures). Gary edygert@charter.net wrote: Hi Gary, I sure would like to see any and all pictures you have of your engine installation. I am interested in doing the same type of setup. Have you chosen a prop yet? Thanks..... Ed Dygert............. -- --------------------------------- ________________________________ Message 18 ____________________________________ Time: 02:23:00 PM PST US From: "glen rowland" Subject: Kitfox-List: lift strut dia? --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "glen rowland" 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" Subject: Kitfox-List: Flying Series 5,6,7's??? --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jeremy Casey" Any flying Series 5,6,7's in Al. or GA.? Would like to see what I'm about to spend all extra time/money on for awhile, up close. I have actually never even sat in a 5,6,7 Kitfox. Jeremy Casey KiloCharlie Drafting, Inc. jeremy@kilocharlie.us ________________________________ Message 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" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Flying Series 5,6,7's??? --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Brett Walmsley" There are three model 5s in Peachtree City, GA ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeremy Casey" Subject: Kitfox-List: Flying Series 5,6,7's??? > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jeremy Casey" > > Any flying Series 5,6,7's in Al. or GA.? Would like to see what I'm > about to spend all extra time/money on for awhile, up close. I have > actually never even sat in a 5,6,7 Kitfox. > > > Jeremy Casey > KiloCharlie Drafting, Inc. > jeremy@kilocharlie.us > > > > > > ________________________________ Message 22 ____________________________________ Time: 04:58:27 PM PST US From: Alan & Linda Daniels Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Flying Series 5,6,7's??? --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Alan & Linda Daniels 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" > >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" Subject: Kitfox-List: 582 coolant --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clem Nichols" 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 Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Heater --> Kitfox-List message posted by: John King 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: 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" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Cockpit Fumes --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "david yeamans" 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 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" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Registration --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "david yeamans" 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 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" Subject: Kitfox-List: Floats on Ebay --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "daniel johnson" 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 Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Cockpit Fumes --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Guy Buchanan 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. 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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:42:48 PM PST US From: kitfoxjunky Subject: Kitfox-List: Anphibs vs Straight floats? Serialize complete at 11/04/2005 04:41:20 PM --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kitfoxjunky 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 ____________________________________ Time: 02:16:27 PM PST US From: Michel Verheughe Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: [off-topic] Crosswind landing? --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe 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 ____________________________________ Time: 02:43:04 PM PST US From: "Fox5flyer" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 912 running bad (carb issues?) --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Fox5flyer" > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 02:54:42 PM PST US From: kurt schrader Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: The trouble with gascolators --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 02:57:45 PM PST US From: kurt schrader Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: The trouble with gascolators --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:31:25 PM PST US From: kurt schrader Subject: Re: Gascolator seal/Safety wire?RE: Kitfox-List: The trouble with gas colators --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader 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" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:56:16 PM PST US From: kurt schrader Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: The trouble with gascolators --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader 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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:56:44 PM PST US From: kurt schrader Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: streamlined covers (small) --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader 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 wrote: > > Bob, > > I believe the vendor that sells those snap on wire > covers is Rans aircraft > (Randy Schlitter). __________________________________ http://farechase.yahoo.com ________________________________ Message 35 ____________________________________ Time: 04:19:22 PM PST US From: kurt schrader Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: The trouble with gascolators --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 04:48:35 PM PST US From: kurt schrader Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: The trouble with gascolators --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader 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 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 > > > > >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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:03:26 PM PST US From: Alan & Linda Daniels Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: The trouble with gascolators --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Alan & Linda Daniels 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 > >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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:18:11 PM PST US From: John King Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: The DC ADIZ NPRM --> Kitfox-List message posted by: John King 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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:19:20 PM PST US From: "Lowell Fitt" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: The trouble with gascolators --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" I guess it wasn't clear what part was lost. Loewll Do not archive ----- Original Message ----- From: "kurt schrader" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: The trouble with gascolators > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader > > > 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:10:30 PM PST US From: Steve Zakreski Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: The trouble with gascolators --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Steve Zakreski 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 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 > >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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:10:30 PM PST US From: "John Banes" Subject: Kitfox-List: Annual Condition Inspection Checklist --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "John Banes" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:14:24 PM PST US From: Steve Zakreski Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: The trouble with gascolators --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Steve Zakreski 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 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 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 > > > > >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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:57:01 PM PST US From: Alan & Linda Daniels Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: The DC ADIZ NPRM --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Alan & Linda Daniels 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 > >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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:09:22 PM PST US From: Alan & Linda Daniels Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: The trouble with gascolators --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Alan & Linda Daniels 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 > >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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:41:19 PM PST US From: "Jay Fabian" Subject: Kitfox-List: 2001 Kitfox 4 - 1200 with 912 UL For sale --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jay Fabian" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:40:58 PM PST US From: Michael Laundy Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: [off-topic] Crosswind landing? --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michael Laundy 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:22:51 PM PST US From: kurt schrader Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: The trouble with gascolators --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:28:59 PM PST US From: kurt schrader Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: The DC ADIZ NPRM --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader 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 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