Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 01:06 AM - Re: Kitfox Promotional Videos (Brent E Bidus)
2. 04:56 AM - Re: Kitfox Promotional Videos (Rex)
3. 05:56 AM - Re: Kitfox Promotional Videos (Grant Fluent)
4. 06:38 AM - Re: First Flight Report (Donna and Roger McConnell)
5. 07:46 AM - Re: Vortex generators (Michael Logan)
6. 07:51 AM - Re: NSI Isolation Module (Michael Logan)
7. 08:08 AM - Re: Vortex generators (jdmcbean)
8. 08:56 AM - Re: NSI Isolation Module (kurt schrader)
9. 09:59 AM - Re: NSI Isolation Module (Michael Logan)
10. 10:12 AM - Re: engine out (Jerry Liles)
11. 11:42 AM - Re: Odyssey Batterys (dcaofak)
12. 12:16 PM - Re: Re: Odyssey Batterys (ron schick)
13. 12:16 PM - Re: Odyssey Batterys (wingnut)
14. 12:36 PM - Re: Odyssey Batterys (John Banes)
15. 01:11 PM - Re: engine out (Herbert R Gottelt)
16. 01:17 PM - Re: engine out (wingsdown)
17. 01:46 PM - Re: Odyssey Batterys (wingnut)
18. 01:55 PM - Re: engine out (Jerry Liles)
19. 03:09 PM - Re: Re: Odyssey Batterys (Lowell Fitt)
20. 03:09 PM - Diodes (Rex Shaw)
21. 07:55 PM - Re: engine out (Herbert R Gottelt)
22. 08:00 PM - Air start on 912ULS (Clint Bazzill)
23. 09:28 PM - Re: Air start on 912ULS (Andrew Matthaey)
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: Kitfox Promotional Videos |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Brent E Bidus <brentbidus@juno.com>
Anybody know if these are still available? I've tried to get in touch
with Grant with no luck.
Brent Bidus
On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 14:10:23 -0700 (PDT) Grant Fluent
<gjfpilot@yahoo.com> writes:
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Grant Fluent <gjfpilot@yahoo.com>
>
> Hello All,
> There appears to be some interest in seeing the
> promotional videos that I have put on two DVD's. For
> anyone that wants to buy one, I will mail them out for
> $5. This will cover the postage, dvd media, my time,
> and wear & tear on my dvd burner.
> If you'd rather watch them and mail them on to the
> next person, we can do that too. Keep in mind it will
> cost over a $1 for postage and your time to package it
> and mail it to the next person.
> Send me an email off list if you'd like to buy the
> dvd's or just watch them and mail them on to the next
> person. I'll keep the two lists and put the names in
> the order that they were received. For the 8 people
> that have already expressed interest, let me know what
> you'd like to do.
> Thanks,
> Grant Fluent
> Newcastle, NE
> Classic IV 912S
>
>
> --- Grant Fluent <gjfpilot@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Grant Fluent
> > <gjfpilot@yahoo.com>
> >
> > Hello All,
> > About a year ago, I completed a video project
> > putting all of the Kitfox promotional videos that I
> > could find on two DVDs. The two completed DVDs were
> > sent to Frank Miller for his approval for me to
> > distribute to the Kitfox list but he never
> > responded.
> > With what has now happened to Skystar, can I legally
> > send these DVDs out? Any lawyers here? If so, is
> > there anyone on here that is interested in viewing
> > them?
> > Thanks,
> > Grant Fluent
> > Newcastle, NE
> > Classic IV 912S
> >
> >
> >
> > browse
> > Subscriptions page,
> > FAQ,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Kitfox Promotional Videos |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Rex <gypsybee@copper.net>
Hi Brent,
Howzitgoin?
I would guess they should still be available. I got them about 4 months
ago and I'm very happy with them. I was able to buy them using PayPal
and it was very easy that way. I would have to research my account to
see if I still have his account address as I don't seem to have it in my
email archives.
Rex
N740GP, M2 - 582
Colorado (currently in Orlando, FL)
Brent E Bidus wrote:
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Brent E Bidus <brentbidus@juno.com>
>
>Anybody know if these are still available? I've tried to get in touch
>with Grant with no luck.
>
>Brent Bidus
>
>
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: Kitfox Promotional Videos |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Grant Fluent <gjfpilot@yahoo.com>
Hi Brent,
Sorry for the late response. I hadn't checked my
email for a few days. Yes, the videos are still
available. Send me your mailing address off list and
I'll get them out to you. If anyone else is
interested, let me know.
Thanks,
Grant Fluent
Newcastle, NE
Classic IV 912S
--- Brent E Bidus <brentbidus@juno.com> wrote:
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Brent E Bidus
> <brentbidus@juno.com>
>
> Anybody know if these are still available? I've
> tried to get in touch
> with Grant with no luck.
>
> Brent Bidus
>
> On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 14:10:23 -0700 (PDT) Grant
> Fluent
> <gjfpilot@yahoo.com> writes:
> > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Grant Fluent
> <gjfpilot@yahoo.com>
> >
> > Hello All,
> > There appears to be some interest in seeing the
> > promotional videos that I have put on two DVD's.
> For
> > anyone that wants to buy one, I will mail them out
> for
> > $5. This will cover the postage, dvd media, my
> time,
> > and wear & tear on my dvd burner.
> > If you'd rather watch them and mail them on to
> the
> > next person, we can do that too. Keep in mind it
> will
> > cost over a $1 for postage and your time to
> package it
> > and mail it to the next person.
> > Send me an email off list if you'd like to buy
> the
> > dvd's or just watch them and mail them on to the
> next
> > person. I'll keep the two lists and put the names
> in
> > the order that they were received. For the 8
> people
> > that have already expressed interest, let me know
> what
> > you'd like to do.
> > Thanks,
> > Grant Fluent
> > Newcastle, NE
> > Classic IV 912S
> >
> >
> > --- Grant Fluent <gjfpilot@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Grant Fluent
> > > <gjfpilot@yahoo.com>
> > >
> > > Hello All,
> > > About a year ago, I completed a video project
> > > putting all of the Kitfox promotional videos
> that I
> > > could find on two DVDs. The two completed DVDs
> were
> > > sent to Frank Miller for his approval for me to
> > > distribute to the Kitfox list but he never
> > > responded.
> > > With what has now happened to Skystar, can I
> legally
> > > send these DVDs out? Any lawyers here? If so, is
> > > there anyone on here that is interested in
> viewing
> > > them?
> > > Thanks,
> > > Grant Fluent
> > > Newcastle, NE
> > > Classic IV 912S
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > browse
> > > Subscriptions page,
> > > FAQ,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> browse
> Subscriptions page,
> FAQ,
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List
>
> Admin.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: | First Flight Report |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Donna and Roger McConnell" <rdmac@swbell.net>
Thanks Fred,
Yes it seems hard to believe it's been almost four weeks ago sense
that first flight. I've flown it one other time and sense then I've
installed a spinner from Sport Planes, which buy the way looks really sharp,
thanks John. And the rest of the time I've either been at work or the
weather has been crap. Today it's about 15 degrees out side and 1/2 inch of
snow on the ground and more expected. And I tell ya this Okie is a fair
weather pilot. I can't wait till spring to start putting some hours on the
Hobbs.
Roger Mac
DO NOT ARCHIVE
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Fred Shiple
Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 9:18 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: First Flight Report
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Fred Shiple <fredshiple@sbcglobal.net>
Roger,
Just catching up on the mail.
Congratulations on the first flight!
Fred
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: | Vortex generators |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Michael Logan" <michael.logan@cox.net>
John,
Is your kit for the complete airplane including the tail?
Mike Logan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of jdmcbean
Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 7:39 PM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Vortex generators
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "jdmcbean" <jdmcbean@cableone.net>
This is just an opinion...
While the VG's, plastic or aluminum, are going to work essentially the same.
I feel the aluminum is a better way to go. If you paint the plastic ones
they will most likely last a awhile.. but I know the aluminum ones are going
to. Also, while the kit we offer http://sportplanellc.com/Wing.htm is more
expensive it also has the instructions, adhesive, tape, video and templates.
Fly Safe !!
John 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 Clem Nichols
Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 4:32 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Vortex generators
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clem Nichols" <cnichols@scrtc.com>
I received a postcard today from Harison Designs, LLC in Kootenai, Idaho
aimed at Kitfox owners and advertising Affordable Vortex generators for $95
per wing. Needless to say, the claims made sound impressive. Does anyone
in the group have any experience with these, and if so, what is your
impression?
Thanks
Clem Nichols
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: | NSI Isolation Module |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Michael Logan" <michael.logan@cox.net>
We tested all of the diodes in my bad module and they all tested good under
the normal testing. I have not dealt with these high voltage diodes before
so I am sure there is something that I am missing on the tests. There is
probably a special high voltage tester out there somewhere.
The old diodes have a rectangular cross section and the new diodes have a
round cross section. Makes it difficult to mix and match.
Mike Logan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of kurt schrader
Sent: Saturday, February 18, 2006 1:15 AM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: NSI Isolation Module
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader
<smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
Hi Michael,
I haven't dealt with such high tension diodes before,
but it seems to me likely that only one broke down in
the bunch. Do you know of a way to adequately test
these and replace only the bad one?
Obviously they will have to be seperated first for
testing. The problem I think is that it may test well
at low voltage or with a meter and only fail under
higher voltages.
This could be a more economical repair. But then I
wonder if unmatched diodes will cause a weaker one to
break down more quickly? I've not gone beyond 120
volt diodes in my experience.
Kurt S.
--- Michael Logan <michael.logan@cox.net> wrote:
> You can no longer get the original diodes that NSI
> put in the modules. You
> can replace them with mouser electronics part number
> NTE 517 diode. It is a
> higher voltage diode so you only need five rather
> than the six needed with
> the original set-up. They are almost $6 each and
> you will need at least 40
> of them if you are going to rebuild both modules.
>
> Even rebuilt with new diodes, the module is still
> the weakest single point
> failure point in the ignition system.
>
> Mike Logan
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: | Vortex generators |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "jdmcbean" <jdmcbean@cableone.net>
Mike,
Yes it is
Fly Safe !!
John 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 Michael Logan
Sent: Saturday, February 18, 2006 8:44 AM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Vortex generators
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Michael Logan" <michael.logan@cox.net>
John,
Is your kit for the complete airplane including the tail?
Mike Logan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of jdmcbean
Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 7:39 PM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Vortex generators
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "jdmcbean" <jdmcbean@cableone.net>
This is just an opinion...
While the VG's, plastic or aluminum, are going to work essentially the same.
I feel the aluminum is a better way to go. If you paint the plastic ones
they will most likely last a awhile.. but I know the aluminum ones are going
to. Also, while the kit we offer http://sportplanellc.com/Wing.htm is more
expensive it also has the instructions, adhesive, tape, video and templates.
Fly Safe !!
John 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 Clem Nichols
Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 4:32 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Vortex generators
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clem Nichols" <cnichols@scrtc.com>
I received a postcard today from Harison Designs, LLC in Kootenai, Idaho
aimed at Kitfox owners and advertising Affordable Vortex generators for $95
per wing. Needless to say, the claims made sound impressive. Does anyone
in the group have any experience with these, and if so, what is your
impression?
Thanks
Clem Nichols
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: | NSI Isolation Module |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
OK Michael,
I wasn't sure if you were a spark guru or not.
These diodes are probably just like spark plug wires
in that they only show a fault when under high voltage
loads. There is always some voltage under which each
will break down. As they age and wear, that voltage
drops until it reaches the operating voltage and then
they fail. But something lower than that voltage may
still work.
If you were into playing around, you could make a
tester with a spark coil, some spark plug wire, a
little 12 volt wire, a momentary switch, a spark plug,
and a 12 volt battery. All you need to do is rig the
battery to the coil thru a momentary switch. Then,
off the high side, center post of the coil, run your
wire to the plug. Now the plug needs to be grounded
back to the coil with another spark plyug wire. That
is usually done by your engine block, but must be
added on the tester.
The spark will occur only at the moment you turn the
coil on or off from the battery thru the momentary
switch. The coil is AC activated and the battery is
DC, so it only blasts a spark as it turns on or off.
Keeping it on does nothing but run down the battery.
Test it and make sure it works as is first.
The diode should only allow the spark to go in one
direction. If it is failed, it will give a spark in
both directions. To test one, you put it in the line
between the coil and the plug. Test it both ways. If
it sparks only one way and not the other, it should be
good. If you get a spark both ways, it is bad.
Now the problem is that the NSI modules might create a
higher voltage spark than the coil you use, so you
need to get the highest voltage coil you can find.
Otherwise the test is not good for the modules
voltage.
Does any of that make sense? Hope it helps,
Kurt S. S-5/NSI turbo
--- Michael Logan <michael.logan@cox.net> wrote:
> We tested all of the diodes in my bad module and
> they all tested good under
> the normal testing. I have not dealt with these
> high voltage diodes before
> so I am sure there is something that I am missing on
> the tests. There is
> probably a special high voltage tester out there
> somewhere.
>
> The old diodes have a rectangular cross section and
> the new diodes have a
> round cross section. Makes it difficult to mix and
> match.
>
> Mike Logan
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: | NSI Isolation Module |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Michael Logan" <michael.logan@cox.net>
Normally when a diode goes bad, it goes bad as an open which is what is
happening on these. When I was testing originally, I was getting fire on
the number one plug only part of the time which meant it was an open.
Thanks for the test procedure though. Maybe some day I will get up the
gumption to build a test set.
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of kurt schrader
Sent: Saturday, February 18, 2006 11:54 AM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: NSI Isolation Module
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader
<smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
OK Michael,
I wasn't sure if you were a spark guru or not.
These diodes are probably just like spark plug wires
in that they only show a fault when under high voltage
loads. There is always some voltage under which each
will break down. As they age and wear, that voltage
drops until it reaches the operating voltage and then
they fail. But something lower than that voltage may
still work.
If you were into playing around, you could make a
tester with a spark coil, some spark plug wire, a
little 12 volt wire, a momentary switch, a spark plug,
and a 12 volt battery. All you need to do is rig the
battery to the coil thru a momentary switch. Then,
off the high side, center post of the coil, run your
wire to the plug. Now the plug needs to be grounded
back to the coil with another spark plyug wire. That
is usually done by your engine block, but must be
added on the tester.
The spark will occur only at the moment you turn the
coil on or off from the battery thru the momentary
switch. The coil is AC activated and the battery is
DC, so it only blasts a spark as it turns on or off.
Keeping it on does nothing but run down the battery.
Test it and make sure it works as is first.
The diode should only allow the spark to go in one
direction. If it is failed, it will give a spark in
both directions. To test one, you put it in the line
between the coil and the plug. Test it both ways. If
it sparks only one way and not the other, it should be
good. If you get a spark both ways, it is bad.
Now the problem is that the NSI modules might create a
higher voltage spark than the coil you use, so you
need to get the highest voltage coil you can find.
Otherwise the test is not good for the modules
voltage.
Does any of that make sense? Hope it helps,
Kurt S. S-5/NSI turbo
--- Michael Logan <michael.logan@cox.net> wrote:
> We tested all of the diodes in my bad module and
> they all tested good under
> the normal testing. I have not dealt with these
> high voltage diodes before
> so I am sure there is something that I am missing on
> the tests. There is
> probably a special high voltage tester out there
> somewhere.
>
> The old diodes have a rectangular cross section and
> the new diodes have a
> round cross section. Makes it difficult to mix and
> match.
>
> Mike Logan
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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Jerry Liles <wliles@bayou.com>
Very interesting report. Took some nerve to do it. What you've
discovered is that the engine gives quite a bit of thrust at idle,
enough to substantailly streatch a glide and reduce stall speed. Now
you really know what to expect if your engine quits and you'll be better
prepared for it. You also discovered that in air restarts aren't a
given. Really increases the pucker factor, doesn't it?
If you have theRotax C gear box you might consider installing the prop
clutch. The good things about the clutch is every landing can be a
practice for an engine out, you can warm the engine on the ground
without the prop turning, the engine cranks easier, the engine will
smoothly idle under 2000rpms. The bad points are; if the engine does
quit prop drag is much increased due to the windmilling prop, and the
prop will rotate on the ground in a strong wind casusing consternation
in the tower who may think an unattended airplane has its engine running.
Jerry Liles
Chenoweth wrote:
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Chenoweth" <chenoweth@gwi.net>
>
>Here's a description of some engine-out practice, the first ever, I had yesterday.
I found it quite enlightening. Others may find interesting - perhaps useful.
>
>The background goes something like this. I'm a relatively low-time pilot (350
hrs) with about 200 in my Kitfox (IV-1200 582 w/IVO medium) and the rest in 172s.
Recently I've been chasing a vibration that was almost certainly prop, gearbox,
or engine. But, in the interest of thoroughness I decided to fly to 3000',
shut down, and do some gliding to see if, perhaps, the airframe was producing
the problem (it wasn't). I invited my tech counselor along because he's
the coolest person I know under even the most trying circumstances and I can
be excitable.
>
>As an aside, since this is a two-stroke engine I've been very concerned with the
possibility of an engine-induced forced landing so all (I mean All) of my downwind,
base, and finals have been with engine at idle (I have the idle set at
about 2050 - 2100 on the ground). I've figured I might as well be ready in
case I really have an engine out. Wasted effort - see below.
>
>To get to the end of the story, we did four separate climbs to about 3000, shut-downs,
and descents to a landing. My plan now is to enlist this willing victim
in data collection as I go to 3500 and do engine-out glides at speeds from
45 mph to 65 mph to re-calculate the best glide speeds.
>
>Here's the story.
>Yesterday was a perfectly calm day. We climbed to 3000. Overcoming my increasing
reluctance to actually do it, I shut the engine off. But, surprise number
1, there was not an abrupt stop. It ran for a good 15 - 20 seconds as I slowly
pulled the nose up into a stall - then the prop quit turning (except for
a spastic sort of turn as it went jerkily past compression).
>The next surprise was that it wasn't all that quiet - wind noise.
>Next was the stall speed - about 42 mph. All my previous stalls had been at about
34 mph. They were all with the engine idling.
>Finally the descent rate at best glide speed (55 mph but determined with the engine
idling) was pretty fast and we didn't seem to be covering a lot of ground.
There was essentially no wind at 1000 to 2000 AGL. The descent rate was 500+
fpm.
>
>Of my four descents to landing only two were on the runway initially chosen.
One was on a closer runway due to being too low to make the original destination.
One was aborted about 500' AGL due to being too low. There is a story there,
too. When I decided I needed to restart, the engine didn't cooperate. It
took several tries and a hundred or so feet of altitude to get it going. I
had the throttle at idle and with one hand flying and the other cranking there
was no way to give it more gas. After that experience I locked the throttle
at about 1/3 and the engine started fine.
>
>To summarize - this experience was so unlike what I'd expected (and presumably
practiced for) that it was startling.
>
>I'm very interested in comments from any of you. Including criticisms of technique
or action.
>
>Bill
>Albion, Maine
>
>
>
>
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: Odyssey Batterys |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "dcaofak" <dcaofak@acsalaska.net>
Luis,
I recently made a similar change installing a sealed gel battery that was slightly
larger than the original.
I simply fabricated an aluminum battery tray and hold down strap, a little fabric
reinforced rubber sheet for cushioning, and used the mounting points from the
old box.
While I was at it I moved the starter solenoid to the same side of the firewall
as the battery (both in the cabin behind the panel on the left side.). This
eliminated the 'always hot' wire wire running from the battery to the solenoid
from going through the firewall, a poor design decision on my part when building
the plane
Regards,
John Stoner
KF3, 582
Alaska.
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: Odyssey Batterys |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "ron schick" <roncarolnikko@hotmail.com>
John very good idea about solenoid location. Thanks I'll do mine that way.
Ron NB Ore
do not archive
>From: "dcaofak" <dcaofak@acsalaska.net>
>To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Odyssey Batterys
>Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 10:38:22 -0900
>
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "dcaofak" <dcaofak@acsalaska.net>
>
>Luis,
>I recently made a similar change installing a sealed gel battery that was
>slightly larger than the original.
>I simply fabricated an aluminum battery tray and hold down strap, a little
>fabric reinforced rubber sheet for cushioning, and used the mounting points
>from the old box.
>While I was at it I moved the starter solenoid to the same side of the
>firewall as the battery (both in the cabin behind the panel on the left
>side.). This eliminated the 'always hot' wire wire running from the
>battery to the solenoid from going through the firewall, a poor design
>decision on my part when building the plane
>Regards,
>John Stoner
>KF3, 582
>Alaska.
>
>
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: Odyssey Batterys |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "wingnut" <wingnut@spamarrest.com>
Interesting. My airplane has the same 'feature' with the solenoid. I guess I should
take a closer look at that. I ended up going down a size on the battery because
it turned out to be a little too tall as well as wide. I could get it in
there but the terminals would end up a little too close to the frame for comfort.
It was a tough choice though because the smaller battery is just an inch
shorter with the same footprint and only a lb lighter but it gives up over 40%
in capacity. To boot it was $30 more expensive :-(
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=13143#13143
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: | Odyssey Batterys |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "John Banes" <JohnBanes@Adelphia.net>
I trimmed my Odyssey with no apparent ill effects. It's been in service for
over a year with 185+ hours on the Hobbs.
John
S6 912S
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: Herbert R Gottelt <gofalke@sbcglobal.net>
Jerry,
if you had a prop clutch installed, I doubt that you could warm up your engine
without the prop turning. On the other hand, you are going to have a heck of
the time to hand prop it. :-)
Herbert Gottelt,
Mt. Prospect, IL
Jerry Liles <wliles@bayou.com> wrote:
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Jerry Liles
Very interesting report. Took some nerve to do it. What you've
discovered is that the engine gives quite a bit of thrust at idle,
enough to substantailly streatch a glide and reduce stall speed. Now
you really know what to expect if your engine quits and you'll be better
prepared for it. You also discovered that in air restarts aren't a
given. Really increases the pucker factor, doesn't it?
If you have theRotax C gear box you might consider installing the prop
clutch. The good things about the clutch is every landing can be a
practice for an engine out, you can warm the engine on the ground
without the prop turning, the engine cranks easier, the engine will
smoothly idle under 2000rpms. The bad points are; if the engine does
quit prop drag is much increased due to the windmilling prop, and the
prop will rotate on the ground in a strong wind casusing consternation
in the tower who may think an unattended airplane has its engine running.
Jerry Liles
Chenoweth wrote:
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Chenoweth"
>
>Here's a description of some engine-out practice, the first ever, I had yesterday.
I found it quite enlightening. Others may find interesting - perhaps useful.
>
>The background goes something like this. I'm a relatively low-time pilot (350
hrs) with about 200 in my Kitfox (IV-1200 582 w/IVO medium) and the rest in 172s.
Recently I've been chasing a vibration that was almost certainly prop, gearbox,
or engine. But, in the interest of thoroughness I decided to fly to 3000',
shut down, and do some gliding to see if, perhaps, the airframe was producing
the problem (it wasn't). I invited my tech counselor along because he's the
coolest person I know under even the most trying circumstances and I can be excitable.
>
>As an aside, since this is a two-stroke engine I've been very concerned with the
possibility of an engine-induced forced landing so all (I mean All) of my downwind,
base, and finals have been with engine at idle (I have the idle set at
about 2050 - 2100 on the ground). I've figured I might as well be ready in case
I really have an engine out. Wasted effort - see below.
>
>To get to the end of the story, we did four separate climbs to about 3000, shut-downs,
and descents to a landing. My plan now is to enlist this willing victim
in data collection as I go to 3500 and do engine-out glides at speeds from
45 mph to 65 mph to re-calculate the best glide speeds.
>
>Here's the story.
>Yesterday was a perfectly calm day. We climbed to 3000. Overcoming my increasing
reluctance to actually do it, I shut the engine off. But, surprise number 1,
there was not an abrupt stop. It ran for a good 15 - 20 seconds as I slowly
pulled the nose up into a stall - then the prop quit turning (except for a spastic
sort of turn as it went jerkily past compression).
>The next surprise was that it wasn't all that quiet - wind noise.
>Next was the stall speed - about 42 mph. All my previous stalls had been at about
34 mph. They were all with the engine idling.
>Finally the descent rate at best glide speed (55 mph but determined with the engine
idling) was pretty fast and we didn't seem to be covering a lot of ground.
There was essentially no wind at 1000 to 2000 AGL. The descent rate was 500+
fpm.
>
>Of my four descents to landing only two were on the runway initially chosen. One
was on a closer runway due to being too low to make the original destination.
One was aborted about 500' AGL due to being too low. There is a story there,
too. When I decided I needed to restart, the engine didn't cooperate. It took
several tries and a hundred or so feet of altitude to get it going. I had the
throttle at idle and with one hand flying and the other cranking there was no
way to give it more gas. After that experience I locked the throttle at about
1/3 and the engine started fine.
>
>To summarize - this experience was so unlike what I'd expected (and presumably
practiced for) that it was startling.
>
>I'm very interested in comments from any of you. Including criticisms of technique
or action.
>
>Bill
>Albion, Maine
>
>
>
>
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: "wingsdown" <wingsdown@comcast.net>
Yep, that was one of the most surprising aspects of my engine out and
subsequent crash. The descent rate was much higher. If you have a free
wheeling redrive as I did, it is even worse that just having the prop
stop.
Rick
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jerry Liles
Sent: Saturday, February 18, 2006 10:12 AM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: engine out
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Jerry Liles <wliles@bayou.com>
Very interesting report. Took some nerve to do it. What you've
discovered is that the engine gives quite a bit of thrust at idle,
enough to substantailly streatch a glide and reduce stall speed. Now
you really know what to expect if your engine quits and you'll be better
prepared for it. You also discovered that in air restarts aren't a
given. Really increases the pucker factor, doesn't it?
If you have theRotax C gear box you might consider installing the prop
clutch. The good things about the clutch is every landing can be a
practice for an engine out, you can warm the engine on the ground
without the prop turning, the engine cranks easier, the engine will
smoothly idle under 2000rpms. The bad points are; if the engine does
quit prop drag is much increased due to the windmilling prop, and the
prop will rotate on the ground in a strong wind casusing consternation
in the tower who may think an unattended airplane has its engine
running.
Jerry Liles
Chenoweth wrote:
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Chenoweth" <chenoweth@gwi.net>
>
>Here's a description of some engine-out practice, the first ever, I had
>yesterday. I found it quite enlightening. Others may find interesting
>- perhaps useful.
>
>The background goes something like this. I'm a relatively low-time
>pilot (350 hrs) with about 200 in my Kitfox (IV-1200 582 w/IVO medium)
>and the rest in 172s. Recently I've been chasing a vibration that was
>almost certainly prop, gearbox, or engine. But, in the interest of
>thoroughness I decided to fly to 3000', shut down, and do some gliding
>to see if, perhaps, the airframe was producing the problem (it wasn't).
>I invited my tech counselor along because he's the coolest person I
>know under even the most trying circumstances and I can be excitable.
>
>As an aside, since this is a two-stroke engine I've been very concerned
with the possibility of an engine-induced forced landing so all (I mean
All) of my downwind, base, and finals have been with engine at idle (I
have the idle set at about 2050 - 2100 on the ground). I've figured I
might as well be ready in case I really have an engine out. Wasted
effort - see below.
>
>To get to the end of the story, we did four separate climbs to about
>3000, shut-downs, and descents to a landing. My plan now is to enlist
>this willing victim in data collection as I go to 3500 and do
>engine-out glides at speeds from 45 mph to 65 mph to re-calculate the
>best glide speeds.
>
>Here's the story.
>Yesterday was a perfectly calm day. We climbed to 3000. Overcoming
my increasing reluctance to actually do it, I shut the engine off. But,
surprise number 1, there was not an abrupt stop. It ran for a good 15 -
20 seconds as I slowly pulled the nose up into a stall - then the prop
quit turning (except for a spastic sort of turn as it went jerkily past
compression).
>The next surprise was that it wasn't all that quiet - wind noise. Next
>was the stall speed - about 42 mph. All my previous stalls had been at
>about 34 mph. They were all with the engine idling. Finally the
>descent rate at best glide speed (55 mph but determined with the engine
>idling) was pretty fast and we didn't seem to be covering a lot of
>ground. There was essentially no wind at 1000 to 2000 AGL. The
>descent rate was 500+ fpm.
>
>Of my four descents to landing only two were on the runway initially
>chosen. One was on a closer runway due to being too low to make the
>original destination. One was aborted about 500' AGL due to being too
>low. There is a story there, too. When I decided I needed to restart,
>the engine didn't cooperate. It took several tries and a hundred or so
>feet of altitude to get it going. I had the throttle at idle and with
>one hand flying and the other cranking there was no way to give it more
>gas. After that experience I locked the throttle at about 1/3 and the
>engine started fine.
>
>To summarize - this experience was so unlike what I'd expected (and
>presumably practiced for) that it was startling.
>
>I'm very interested in comments from any of you. Including criticisms
>of technique or action.
>
>Bill
>Albion, Maine
>
>
>
>
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Odyssey Batterys |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "wingnut" <wingnut@spamarrest.com>
Hey John. Which model did you get? I was originally looking at the PC625 but went
down to the PC535 because of height constraints. I bought it from a local Batteries
Plus dealer who was very helpful. According to him, the Odyssey is a
mil spec battery and even the smaller 535 has more than twice the starting power
as your typical lead acid motorcycle battery of the same size. I could not
confirm because so few manufacturers will provide real specs for their batteries.
-Luis
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=13161#13161
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Jerry Liles <wliles@bayou.com>
Herbert
I installed the clutch on Tootie Mae during construction and have always
flown with it. The engine starts easily and idles smoother than any
other 582 I've seen. She will warm up at 2200rpms quite nicely except
in coldest winter, and, since the clutch doesn't engage until 2400rpm,
the prop is stopped. Hand propping is a real problem, that's why I have
the rope starter. It's also nice to idle the engine and not have to
stand on the brakes while doing preflight checks and getting clearance
from the tower. Little things, true, but they certainly are nice. The
biggest negative is the windmilling prop if the engine quits. The glide
does suffer, but, since I practice engine out landings every landing I'm
used to it and probably better prepared than the usual pilot.
Jerry Liles
Herbert R Gottelt wrote:
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Herbert R Gottelt <gofalke@sbcglobal.net>
>
>Jerry,
> if you had a prop clutch installed, I doubt that you could warm up your engine
without the prop turning. On the other hand, you are going to have a heck of
the time to hand prop it. :-)
>
> Herbert Gottelt,
> Mt. Prospect, IL
>
>Jerry Liles <wliles@bayou.com> wrote:
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Jerry Liles
>
>Very interesting report. Took some nerve to do it. What you've
>discovered is that the engine gives quite a bit of thrust at idle,
>enough to substantailly streatch a glide and reduce stall speed. Now
>you really know what to expect if your engine quits and you'll be better
>prepared for it. You also discovered that in air restarts aren't a
>given. Really increases the pucker factor, doesn't it?
>
>If you have theRotax C gear box you might consider installing the prop
>clutch. The good things about the clutch is every landing can be a
>practice for an engine out, you can warm the engine on the ground
>without the prop turning, the engine cranks easier, the engine will
>smoothly idle under 2000rpms. The bad points are; if the engine does
>quit prop drag is much increased due to the windmilling prop, and the
>prop will rotate on the ground in a strong wind casusing consternation
>in the tower who may think an unattended airplane has its engine running.
>
>Jerry Liles
>
>Chenoweth wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Odyssey Batterys |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@sbcglobal.net>
John,
I'm a little confused by your post. I don't understand the "always hot"
wiire from the battery to the solenoid. Back in 1993 when my kit came the
wiring diagram called for a master soleniod which I attached to the battery
box and a starter solenoid down line from the master solenoid. The starter
solenoid is mounted near the starter on the engine side of the firewall.
With the master switch off there is no power to anything but the clock and
of course the small pigtail to the master solenoid.
Do I understand from your post that you don't have a master solenoid?
Lowell
----- Original Message -----
From: "dcaofak" <dcaofak@acsalaska.net>
Sent: Saturday, February 18, 2006 11:38 AM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Odyssey Batterys
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "dcaofak" <dcaofak@acsalaska.net>
>
> Luis,
> I recently made a similar change installing a sealed gel battery that was
> slightly larger than the original.
> I simply fabricated an aluminum battery tray and hold down strap, a little
> fabric reinforced rubber sheet for cushioning, and used the mounting
> points from the old box.
> While I was at it I moved the starter solenoid to the same side of the
> firewall as the battery (both in the cabin behind the panel on the left
> side.). This eliminated the 'always hot' wire wire running from the
> battery to the solenoid from going through the firewall, a poor design
> decision on my part when building the plane
> Regards,
> John Stoner
> KF3, 582
> Alaska.
>
>
>
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Rex Shaw" <rexjan@bigpond.com>
I haven't dealt with such high tension diodes before,
but it seems to me likely that only one broke down in
the bunch. Do you know of a way to adequately test
these and replace only the bad one?
Obviously they will have to be seperated first for
testing. The problem I think is that it may test well
at low voltage or with a meter and only fail under
higher voltages.
This could be a more economical repair. But then I
wonder if unmatched diodes will cause a weaker one to
break down more quickly? I've not gone beyond 120
volt diodes in my experience.
Kurt S.
Hi ! Kurt,
I don't know what this box NSI is using is all about, however I can
answer some of your questions on a theoretical basis as an electronics tech.
First high voltage solid state components like doides did tend to be a weak point
but newer versions are dramatically improved so take heart that a repair
or rebuild will likely be effective. Also be aware heat is a big time killer of
solid state components so just a little effort in this regard might also work
wonders.
When relacing your faulty doide[s] find the original doide voltage and current
ratings and at at least equal those figures with your replacements especially
the voltage I think in your case. This may not be a hard task as you might think.
OK lets answer your questions.
[1] to test a diode. Yes you basically need to isolate it but if it is one in a
string that is no problem so long as there is no possible path from the end of
the string back to the start. To test a diode you just use an ohm meter [ ie:-
the ohms scale on a multimeter and personally I prefer an analogue meter for
this purpose] Just measure across the diode you are checking with one meter
lead on each end of the diode and the meter on ohms, then swap the two leads around.
One way around you will have a low ohms reding like probably 30 0hms the
other you will have a very high reading. In fact if you are on the low ohms
scale it should be no reading as if you did not put the leads on the diode at
all. In other words reading open circuit, but if you you swap to a high ohms scale
then you should get a reading. take care not to confuse the issue by putting
your fingers on the leads as you will get a high ohms reading through your
body and this will confuse the issue. Take note roughly of your high and low
readings. Diodes have polarity. In other words putting the leads one way around
gives you a low reading and the other high. In fact it should be that you will
see a band painted around one end of the diode and with your red meter lead
on this end is when you should see your low reading. If not don't panic you just
have your meter setup wrong and this won't matter. However the way around
you put the old diode or a relacement back in circuit definitely does. You won't
get a second chance at this. So the way to know which way around to fit the
diode is by this band or failing that by using your meter as described you can
work it out. It sounds like in your circuit you have a string of diodes one
after the other and they will just go band end to no band end etc down the string.
Back to the testing. Any diode with significantly different reading is faultly.
Typically this will be with low ohms readings both ways around and might
even be a short circuit as if you were putting the meter leads together, however
a fau!
lty diod
e may measure open circuit. Usually however it will be short circuit. Now one final
point here is that some high voltage diodes might need the meter on a higher
than the lowest ohms scale to get a reading even in the low direction. If
you find this that's OK so long as all diodes are similar.
[2] Right if just one diode has failed you can just replace that with no effect
on the others but I would suggest that if one has failed the others might also
be close so consider changing them all especially if you can get better rated
diodes than the originals. Basically if your diodes check OK at lower voltage
[ ie:- on your meter ] they will still be OK at higher voltage as when they
break down they brake down but that is not 100% just 99.99%.
[3] I think I have already answered your third question. A new diode in with
old ones is not really a problem basically. If in doubt just change them all.
It's too complicated to try and explain better.
I hope this helps both you and others that encounter this problem as it seems
to me it should not be much of a problem at all to put right. However if you
are still having difficulty feel free to ask me further.
Rex.
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Herbert R Gottelt <gofalke@sbcglobal.net>
O.K. Jerry,
My apologies, I am familiar with the overrunning clutch or one way clutch that
Tom Anderson has on his Series 5 with the NSI engine. You probably referred
to a friction clutch with spring type fly weights, similar to the clutch on my
chain saw and hopefully stronger and more substantial.
Herbert Gottelt
Jerry Liles <wliles@bayou.com> wrote:
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Jerry Liles
Herbert
I installed the clutch on Tootie Mae during construction and have always
flown with it. The engine starts easily and idles smoother than any
other 582 I've seen. She will warm up at 2200rpms quite nicely except
in coldest winter, and, since the clutch doesn't engage until 2400rpm,
the prop is stopped. Hand propping is a real problem, that's why I have
the rope starter. It's also nice to idle the engine and not have to
stand on the brakes while doing preflight checks and getting clearance
from the tower. Little things, true, but they certainly are nice. The
biggest negative is the windmilling prop if the engine quits. The glide
does suffer, but, since I practice engine out landings every landing I'm
used to it and probably better prepared than the usual pilot.
Jerry Liles
Herbert R Gottelt wrote:
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Herbert R Gottelt
>
>Jerry,
> if you had a prop clutch installed, I doubt that you could warm up your engine
without the prop turning. On the other hand, you are going to have a heck of
the time to hand prop it. :-)
>
> Herbert Gottelt,
> Mt. Prospect, IL
>
>Jerry Liles wrote:
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Jerry Liles
>
>Very interesting report. Took some nerve to do it. What you've
>discovered is that the engine gives quite a bit of thrust at idle,
>enough to substantailly streatch a glide and reduce stall speed. Now
>you really know what to expect if your engine quits and you'll be better
>prepared for it. You also discovered that in air restarts aren't a
>given. Really increases the pucker factor, doesn't it?
>
>If you have theRotax C gear box you might consider installing the prop
>clutch. The good things about the clutch is every landing can be a
>practice for an engine out, you can warm the engine on the ground
>without the prop turning, the engine cranks easier, the engine will
>smoothly idle under 2000rpms. The bad points are; if the engine does
>quit prop drag is much increased due to the windmilling prop, and the
>prop will rotate on the ground in a strong wind casusing consternation
>in the tower who may think an unattended airplane has its engine running.
>
>Jerry Liles
>
>Chenoweth wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
Message 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Air start on 912ULS |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clint Bazzill" <clint_bazzill@hotmail.com>
With all the talk about engine out, decided to try a dead engine condition.
Up to 3500 ft over Half Moon Bay airport. Shut engine down, checked glide
at 65 & 70 mph. At 70 was even 500 ft/min prop stopped. Could not get an
airstart. Air speed up to 140, prop turned through compression about 3
times, down to 1200 feet, started engine with starter. No air start with
those high compression engines. Clint
Message 23
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Air start on 912ULS |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Andrew Matthaey" <spaghettiohead@hotmail.com>
Half Moon Bay?! Would that be in California? I've heard of the airport - if
you take-off and head west from it in FlightSimulator, you'll hit an
aircraft carrier in the Pacific...
Anywho, I routinely shut-down in the air just because I like the feeling of
gliding...don't ever count on air-restart with these engines (and I have a
582). It's starter or ropestart only!
It was a surprise then when I started my Multi-Engine training some months
ago to find that after a complete shut-down of the right engine (including
prop-feather), the engine WILL airstart once you bring the props forward out
of feather!
Andrew
>From: "Clint Bazzill" <clint_bazzill@hotmail.com>
>To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Kitfox-List: Air start on 912ULS
>Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 03:57:49 +0000
>
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clint Bazzill"
><clint_bazzill@hotmail.com>
>
>With all the talk about engine out, decided to try a dead engine condition.
>Up to 3500 ft over Half Moon Bay airport. Shut engine down, checked glide
>at 65 & 70 mph. At 70 was even 500 ft/min prop stopped. Could not get an
>airstart. Air speed up to 140, prop turned through compression about 3
>times, down to 1200 feet, started engine with starter. No air start with
>those high compression engines. Clint
>
>
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! --
|