Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 01:28 AM - Re: 2001 Kitfox 4 - 1200 with 912 UL For sale (Dave G.)
2. 02:27 AM - Difference between models (Dave G.)
3. 08:14 AM - Re: Difference between models (Jerry Liles)
4. 08:53 AM - Re: The trouble with gascolators (Michael Gibbs)
5. 09:34 AM - Re: Difference between models (Michel Verheughe)
6. 01:21 PM - Re: Annual Condition Inspection Checklist (Fred Shiple)
7. 02:34 PM - Re: streamlined covers (small) (Bob Robertson)
8. 03:11 PM - Re: The trouble with gascolators (Don Smythe)
9. 05:07 PM - Re: Difference between models (Jerry Liles)
10. 05:30 PM - Re: Difference between models (Jeffrey Puls)
11. 06:17 PM - Re: Gascolator seal/Safety wire?Re: The trouble with gas colators (DPREMGOOD@aol.com)
12. 08:45 PM - Re: Re: Fuels, Was The trouble with gascolators (kurt schrader)
13. 08:57 PM - Re: The trouble with gascolators (kurt schrader)
14. 09:03 PM - Re: Gascolator seal/Safety wire?Re: The trouble with gas colators (kurt schrader)
15. 09:26 PM - Re: CAM 100's (kurt schrader)
16. 11:16 PM - Re: CAM 100's (Alan & Linda Daniels)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 2001 Kitfox 4 - 1200 with 912 UL For sale |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Dave G." <occom@ns.sympatico.ca>
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jay Fabian" <experimental208nd@comcast.net>
Subject: Kitfox-List: 2001 Kitfox 4 - 1200 with 912 UL For sale
I'd be interested in a little more information. Thanks.
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Difference between models |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Dave G." <occom@ns.sympatico.ca>
I suppose this is old knowledge among the KF fans. But what are the major differences
in the various incarnations of KF's. I see II's III's and IV's for sale
but have no way to differentiate on the basis of size performance flight characteristics
etc. Is there a resource for this information?
I guess I'm also curious about the AVIDs as they appear to be the same basic design
and they also have various models.
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Difference between models |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Jerry Liles <wliles@bayou.com>
This is a very basic list of the differences. Does not take into
account the short wing versions or engine choices.
Model I - a slightly revised version of the Avid A Model. Very
lightweight, incredible STOL performance, cramped, very basic. A real
hoot to fly if you fit the cabin but don't expect to get anywhere fast.
Model II - slightly modified, has round cowl, gained a bit of weight and
slightly more civilized, still very good STOL, cramped.
Model III - Slightly widened cabin space, gaining weight, a bit more
comfortable with improved amenities, good STOL, increased gross
Model IV - Wing section changed from Wilson's undercamber STOL design to
a slightly more efficient airfoil for increased cruise, gained
considerable weight, more comfortable cockpit, larger tail feathers for
improved directional stability, increased gross up to 1200lbs, changed
flapperon controls to improve differential action, now have to
disconnect controls to fold wings, decreased but still good STOL
performance (unless built heavy as is rather common).
For just plain go out and commit aviation type fun it's really hard to
beat the Model I or II, if you fit and aren't in a hurry to go
anywhere. For maximum comfort and increased cruise speed the model IV.
For an excellent compromise the Model III
Jerry Liles.
Dave G. wrote:
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Dave G." <occom@ns.sympatico.ca>
>
>I suppose this is old knowledge among the KF fans. But what are the major differences
in the various incarnations of KF's. I see II's III's and IV's for sale
but have no way to differentiate on the basis of size performance flight characteristics
etc. Is there a resource for this information?
>
>I guess I'm also curious about the AVIDs as they appear to be the same basic design
and they also have various models.
>
>
>
>
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: The trouble with gascolators |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michael Gibbs <MichaelGibbs@cox.net>
Kurt sez:
>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. ;-)
Higher octane does not produce more power, it reduces the tendency
for the fuel to pre-detonate during the compression stroke. If
anything, the slower combustion rate might cause it to run cooler.
I've been running 100LL in my old 4 stroke motorcycle for years now
because it does not like all the crap they put in modern auto fuels.
The fuel is more stable so the carbs stay cleaner when I don't ride
for long periods.
On the other hand, I know nothing about 2 strokes... :-)
Mike G.
N728KF
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Difference between models |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
Jerry Liles wrote:
> This is a very basic list of the differences.
Jerry, if I am not mistaking, I think the tail surface also increased slightly
from model 1 to 3 (and maybe 4), isn't it?
Cheers,
Michel
do not archive
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Annual Condition Inspection Checklist |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Fred Shiple <fredshiple@sbcglobal.net>
John,
I used the condition inspection procedures in Kitfox's
pilot guide for my Series 6 last spring. It's about 8
pages. Contact me off line if you need that info.
Fred
It's that time. I need an Annual Condition
do not archive
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: streamlined covers (small) |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bob Robertson" <aerocontrols@clearwave.ca>
Paul S and everyone else who helped out.
Thanks...I now have a lead on the snap on wire covers....
Thanks a bundle guys...gawd...this list really helps out....
Bob R
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Seehafer" <av8rps@tznet.com>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: streamlined covers (small)
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Paul Seehafer" <av8rps@tznet.com>
>
> Bob,
>
> I believe the vendor that sells those snap on wire covers is Rans aircraft
> (Randy Schlitter).
>
> Here's a copy from a forum posting on June 14, 2002 from Bryan Fisher
> (subject re; wing fairings and wheel pants)
>
> "Randy with RANS several years ago was surprised by how much speed was
> gained that he now manufactures his wing struts out of streamlined tubing
> and he has even manufactured clip on plastic fairings for aircraft cable"
>
> Hope this helps you out.
>
> Paul Seehafer
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bob Robertson" <aerocontrols@clearwave.ca>
> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Kitfox-List: streamlined covers (small)
>
>
> > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bob Robertson"
> > <aerocontrols@clearwave.ca>
> >
> > Hi all,
> > A few....ok, quite a few, years ago I saw a vendor at Oshkosh that was
> > selling snap on streamlined covers for flying wires. These were
plastic
> > and simply snapped on over a 3/32" or 1/8" brace cable.
> > I'm gonna test the memories of a few "old hats" out there by asking if
> > anyone remembers seeing these and does anyone know if they are still
> > available?
> > Thanks in advance for any replies..
> >
> >
> > regards and be safe..
> >
> > Bob Robertson
> > Light Engine Services Ltd.
> > Rotax Service Center
> > St. Albert, Ab. T8N 1M8
> > Ph: (Tech Support) 1-780-418-4164
> > Ph: (Order Line) 1-866-418-4164 (TOLL FREE)
> > www.rtx-av-engines.ca
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: The trouble with gascolators |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Don Smythe" <dosmythe@cox.net>
Kurt,
Good story with a good ending. Enjoyed the reading. I've looked at
most of the postings and only want to add this. My memory from old postings
on the gascalator situation (which is fading) tells me, "Why have one". If
you have the newer type header, which is the lowest point in the system,
then just get rid of the gascalator altogether. Again, I might be missing
something.
Don Smythe
----- Original Message -----
From: "kurt schrader" <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: The trouble with gascolators
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader
> <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
>
> OK guys, if you don't like long stories, now is your
> chance to delete this.
>
> Wasn't sure how to title it either:
>
> Two days to Florida?
> High anxiety?
> What's that smell?
> Kitfox with fuel dump?
> Howard Firm's purple monster-2?
>
> You get the idea...but this is better across
> referenced title for the archive.
>
> My trip to Florida came together in a bit of a rush.
> The forecast winds were turning against me on the day
> I intended to leave and they were expected to be
> strong and gusty in KY. Not good for takeoff or
> enroute. I decided to leave a day early as I briefly
> reported on this list.
>
> By phone call I learned that my intended mogas fuel
> stop turned out to have cancelled mogas recently, so I
> had to reroute thru Atlanta to stop at Aircraft Spruce
> for TCP. Mine wouldn't arrive in time.
>
> I used the EAA aeroplanner websight to flight plan.
> It was my first time using it, but it turned out to be
> very good and accurate.
>
> A check with FSS just before takeoff was
> disheartening. They called for IFR only a few miles
> south and headwinds already up. This was not what I
> saw on the computer during my pre-dawn flight
> planning. I almost cancelled because I don't like
> rushing or risks. This was only my second x-cntry
> with the fox and it worried me.
>
> Instead I took off with an abort plan and a diversion
> plan enroute. It turned out that the FSS was pretty
> much wrong. A little morning fog turned into a pretty
> day. Blue skys and a tailwind of sorts. I got a good
> pic of Chattanooga in fall colors too.
>
> My primary enroute problem was the soob running too
> cool. I had duct tapped the radiator, but the oil
> temp was around 165 with OAT in the low 60's. Seems
> my cowl mods were working. I might need a oil cooler
> thermostat? Don't like cream colored oil (or water in
> it). I kept scanning the gauges, but nothing else was
> wrong.
>
> I held the power back to 5 gph and over 100 knots
> ground speed. Passed my contingency fuel stop with a
> gallon extra and made Peachtree and Aircraft Spruce
> with plenty of fuel. What a nice place! Got a
> personal service pickup from ACS and instant service.
> Now I could use 100LL. And look at all the toys! I
> decided to leave while I still had gas money.
>
> On my way to Alma GA for my next stop I had to dodge
> some warning areas, so it was a little longer trip
> then direct. I still had some tail wind. Turbulence
> below 5500' kept me higher than sightseeing altitude,
> but up there I could just occasionally nudge the stick
> and fly hands off while I navigated and viewed the
> world go by.
>
> These Fox's are just a bit slow for long distances,
> but what great and fun flyers. I had my "office" set
> up with seperate legs in sepreate folders. Maps, trip
> tickets from aeroplanner, water, hat, sunglasses -
> darn - I forgot the sun tan lotion! I thought my left
> arm might get burnt from the bright sun...
>
> Fourty miles out of Alma I smelled fuel about the same
> time I realized it was spraying on my left arm! I
> quickly checked the sight guages for leaks, then saw
> it was spraying up from the left floorboard corner. A
> lot of fuel!
>
> The Soob kept running. Fuel flow was pegged out past
> 10 gph! Pressure was zero! EGT was high and fuel air
> ratio was way low! I wet full rich and it came in
> limits. EGT just 1450.
>
> Of course a lot was going thru my mind, but I
> remembered that panic was no option. Most accidents
> include doing something too fast you shouldn't have.
>
> I checked the ground for landing spots. It was a mile
> down! Would the fabric stay intack long enough to
> make it if I caught fire?
>
> Don't change anything too quickly....
>
> If I turned off the fuel pumps, would there be an
> electrical spark? Would the engine quit? I decided
> to go for it. Pumps off. FF dropped to 8 gph - 5 to
> the engine and 3 overboard. EGT just in limits.
> Engine kept running. Spray diminished a bit. I threw
> paper towels into the corner to keep the fuel off me
> and grabbed the fire extinguisher to keep it in my
> hand.
>
> This is when building your own plane helps you make
> informed decisions. I knew this was where my main
> fuel pump and gascolator were located just ahead of
> the firewall. It was likely a connection there or the
> gascolator seal, which I thought most likely. I knew
> this was just inches away from my exhaust stack too.
> Never liked that location...
>
> I checked behind me for smoke and flames. None. None
> I could see below my all glass doors either. Very
> thin glass doors if I do say so.
>
> I had decided not to wear my nomex flight suit today.
> Looks cool, safer, but I thought it was too
> egotistical? The KitFox hat was enough? Hind sight
> is 20-20.
>
> Ok, it is time to navigate and communicate. I looked
> for the nearest field to land. I called Alma Unicom
> because I had it tuned up ahead of time to monitor
> traffic. An inbound Skymaster said they were
> unmanned, but he was only 10 miles out. I asked about
> fire extinguishers. He had 3 onboard and would be
> waiting there for me to land. I decided to press on
> and plan the landing for a fire.
>
> I dove with power on to keep the fuel spray going aft
> as much as possible. Thought it might light off as I
> slowed or landed, so I got ready for a rolling bailout
> after touchdown. In case of no fire, I would clear
> the active and shut the main fuel off. Burn the fuel
> out thru the engine.
>
> I flew down the runway to a few hundred feet short of
> the taxiway. Landed. Door open. Turned off and fuel
> off. The shutdown checklist was a bit briefer than
> usual. The skymaster pilot was right in front of me.
> His name is Tom.
>
> Tom made a few phone calls for me while I popped the
> top off the cowl. The valve stem had blown out of the
> gascolator drain! It was just a hole! I've never
> seen this failure mode before.... And this was also
> the first time the Fox was going to stay outside and
> not in a hangar.... I wasn't leaving any time
> soon.... And I just left ACS a few hours ago.... Now
> where was I going to get parts?... My mind was still
> racing....
>
> The Alma city manager is also the airport manager. He
> fixed my plane for free. Gave me the curtesy car and
> directions as to where it was best to eat, sleep and
> change my underware. :-) In just a few minutes I
> went from OMG I am gonna die, to isn't Alma a great
> place!
>
> I gassed the curtesy car and put air in the tires the
> next day. Called the chamber of commerace and told
> them how great they were. Took 4 hours to prepare for
> the next flight. Now I am in FL and the plane in its
> new home... hangared again too.
>
> What a ride!
>
> Now for the flack... Go ahead....
>
> Kurt S. KF S-5/NSI turbo all in one piece. :-)
>
>
> __________________________________
>
>
>
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Difference between models |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Jerry Liles <wliles@bayou.com>
You're correct Michel, the tail feathers steadily increased with each model.
Now for the Avids
The Avid A Model is the direct ancestor of the Model I Kitfox and is
virtually interchangeable. Small, light, incredible STOL, cramped and
slow. A real hoot to fly. Early ones used a 40 hp engine, later going
to the 503 Rotax
Avid B Model. Slightly larger, slightly heavier, 503 or 532 Rotax.
Incredible STOL, cramped, fun.
Avid C Model. Rotax 532 or 582, Slightly increased cabin space, good
STOL, very agile airplane.
Avid MK IV. Redesigned cowling, much more attractive airplane, roomier
and more civilized but heavier. Has a real baggage compartment. Still
a good STOL (mine has a 120ft takeoff roll solo) with good handling.
Very pleasant airplane.
All the Avids used the same flapperon linkage that allowed the wing to
fold without disconnecting the controls. The wing section is the under
cambered STOL design of Dean Wilson. The Speedwing used a semi
symmetric design that allowed light aerobatics. You can see over the
nose of the Avid in three point attitude. You can't in the Kitfox, but
the Fox has a larger instrument panel and more footroom. Kitfoxes of
all models frequently have cooling problems with the water cooled
engines. So do Avids except for the MK IV which got the cooling system
right. Avids tend to be better STOLs while the comparable model Kitfox
tends to be a bit faster in cruise. Avids tend to be lighter than Foxes
and usually not as fancy - for some reason the Avids attracted people
that wanted to fly more than build and the Kitfox attracted the
meticulous builder. I think you would be delighted with either make of
airplane if you find a well built example.
Jerry Liles
Michel Verheughe wrote:
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
>
>Jerry Liles wrote:
>
>
>>This is a very basic list of the differences.
>>
>>
>
>Jerry, if I am not mistaking, I think the tail surface also increased slightly
>from model 1 to 3 (and maybe 4), isn't it?
>
>Cheers,
>Michel
>
>
>
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Difference between models |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jeffrey Puls" <pulsair@mindspring.com>
Dave,
Just watched the DVD's Grant sent me. They explain the whole evolution of
the Kitfox. Only $5.00 for both of them. Excellent !!! Jeff Ohio
> [Original Message]
> From: Dave G. <occom@ns.sympatico.ca>
> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> Date: 11/5/2005 5:27:17 AM
> Subject: Kitfox-List: Difference between models
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Dave G." <occom@ns.sympatico.ca>
>
> I suppose this is old knowledge among the KF fans. But what are the major
differences in the various incarnations of KF's. I see II's III's and IV's
for sale but have no way to differentiate on the basis of size performance
flight characteristics etc. Is there a resource for this information?
>
> I guess I'm also curious about the AVIDs as they appear to be the same
basic design and they also have various models.
>
>
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: The trouble with gas |
colators
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: DPREMGOOD@aol.com
Kurt,
I bought an ACS gascolator for my J3 Kitten. I installed it this past spring
and already have 35 hours on it with no problems.
I'll check it closely next time I fly.
Regards,
Doug Remoundos
Montreal, Canada
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fuels, Was The trouble with gascolators |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
Right Mike,
I am not a fuel expert by any means. My impression on
the 2 stroke was that the higher octane fuel reduced
the oil's lubicration ability and I got better
compression (and spark?) until it froze up. Just my
guess. It froze when I closed the throttle to exit
the freeway. No remaining lube on the cylinder?
Maybe it had a stronger cleaning agent? Locked up my
rear wheel right in front of an 18 wheeler! Clutch
got me rolling again and it restarted on the off ramp,
but I needed a new piston.
My old 87 Dodge van loved "Cocoleen" fuel, which was
10% alcohol. That ran smooth and great until my fuel
pump and filter seals started spewing. They were pre-
alcohol seals.
For some reason that van got the same miles/$ if I ran
higher octane fuel. It got just enough better milage
to match the extra cost. Don't know why though. I
sold it last month with almost 200,000 miles on it.
I think we do have a fuel expert or two on the list,
so I refer to better authority on this.
Kurt S.
Do not archive
--- Michael Gibbs <MichaelGibbs@cox.net> wrote:
> Kurt sez:
>
> >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. ;-)
>
> Higher octane does not produce more power, it
> reduces the tendency
> for the fuel to pre-detonate during the compression
> stroke. If
> anything, the slower combustion rate might cause it
> to run cooler.
> I've been running 100LL in my old 4 stroke
> motorcycle for years now
> because it does not like all the crap they put in
> modern auto fuels.
> The fuel is more stable so the carbs stay cleaner
> when I don't ride
> for long periods.
>
> On the other hand, I know nothing about 2 strokes...
> :-)
>
> Mike G.
> N728KF
__________________________________
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: The trouble with gascolators |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
Nice to hear from you Don,
I agree. This thing is going the way of the
"gas-a-sorous". As I said earlier, it would have been
gone already except for having the time to change it
and for a little bit of black rubber it occasionally
caught from an after-the-filter hose. The hose will
have to go too. In fact, the whole fuel system will
be replaced for a safer design. Not by the book, but
by this list's ideas and experiences.
kurt S.
--- Don Smythe <dosmythe@cox.net> wrote:
> Kurt,
...........................
> on the gascalator situation (which is fading) tells
> me, "Why have one"..................
>
> Don Smythe
__________________________________
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: The trouble with gas |
colators
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
Hi Doug,
Does the Kitten have a header tank? I like the looks
of those planes, but know little about the structure.
My problem might be rare, but if it has a header tank,
you probably can eleminate any chance of failure by
removing the gascolator.
All our fuel systems could be different, so we each
need to determine what best applies, like all the good
advice on this list.
kurt s.
--- DPREMGOOD@aol.com wrote:
> Kurt,
>
> I bought an ACS gascolator for my J3 Kitten. I
> installed it this past spring
> and already have 35 hours on it with no problems.
> I'll check it closely next time I fly.
>
> Regards,
>
> Doug Remoundos
> Montreal, Canada
__________________________________
http://farechase.yahoo.com
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
Hi Alan,
Someone recently told me that you can run the CAM
100's at 5500 rpm all day. Is that true? Did you
have to make extensive cowl changes? How do you like
it otherwise? They were just a little too new for me
to consider when I bought my engine.
Kurt S.
--- Alan & Linda Daniels <aldaniels@fmtc.com> wrote:
> I like the system I have on my CAM 100 powered plane
__________________________________
http://farechase.yahoo.com
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Alan & Linda Daniels <aldaniels@fmtc.com>
The CAM 100 has a max continuous run of 5300 RPM, but that is
conservative. The engine itself is as close to bullet proof as you can
get. Honda made more of that model than all the Rotax engines combined
could ever dream of. I replaced drive and cam belt at 700 hours, along
with the lower alignment bearing on the redrive. I have replaced two
exhausts and rebuilt the alternator bracket a couple of times. My great
idea of doing extensive cowl mods - 7 inches narrowed and shortened
0-200 cowl- has caused most of my problems related to cooling. I just
did not give myself enough room for the radiators. If I were to do it
again I would use the regular 0-200 cowl, ad a prop extension and use
bigger radiators facing more forward. On the downside it is about 70
pounds heavier than the rotax for the same power. I don't think they
make the 100 anymore, but I bet the CAM 125 would we great. It is only a
couple pounds heavier and a lot more power.. I heard they are wanting to
sell the company because the owner has already retired once and want
more time to do things. I really don't know why it is not more popular,
but they really did not do any advertising. It has served us very well.
kurt schrader wrote:
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
>
>Hi Alan,
>
>Someone recently told me that you can run the CAM
>100's at 5500 rpm all day. Is that true? Did you
>have to make extensive cowl changes? How do you like
>it otherwise? They were just a little too new for me
>to consider when I bought my engine.
>
>Kurt S.
>
>--- Alan & Linda Daniels <aldaniels@fmtc.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>I like the system I have on my CAM 100 powered plane
>>
>>
>
>
>
>__________________________________
>http://farechase.yahoo.com
>
>
>
>
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|