Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:29 AM - Meeting Kitfoxers at Sun 'n Fun (Rex)
2. 06:00 AM - Re: Top Gun Dave/Fueling the Kitfox (Lynn Matteson)
3. 07:38 AM - Re: cabin heat (kurt schrader)
4. 07:48 AM - Re: cabin heat (kitfoxmike)
5. 08:15 AM - Re: Corvair in a Fox V (Matt Teixeira)
6. 08:34 AM - Re: Top Gun Dave/Fueling the Kitfox (wingnut)
7. 08:40 AM - power to weight (wingsdown)
8. 09:06 AM - Re: Corvair in a Fox V (wingnut)
9. 09:08 AM - Good job norm Re: Corvair in a Fox V (Harris, Robert)
10. 09:48 AM - Re: power to weight (John Marzulli)
11. 09:54 AM - Re: power to weight (wingsdown)
12. 10:08 AM - Re: Top Gun Dave/Fueling the Kitfox (kitfoxmike)
13. 10:20 AM - Re: Re: Top Gun Dave/Fueling the Kitfox (Paul Wilson)
14. 10:26 AM - Re: Re: Top Gun Dave/Fueling the Kitfox (Paul Wilson)
15. 10:39 AM - flaps (kitfoxmike)
16. 10:55 AM - What do I do if no part of my fule system is grounded? (wingnut)
17. 11:21 AM - Re: power to weight (Rueb, Duane)
18. 12:30 PM - Wing tips (Gary Olson)
19. 12:58 PM - Re: Michigan fly-in possibility (wwillyard@aol.com)
20. 01:48 PM - Drooping wing tips (Michel Verheughe)
21. 02:10 PM - Re: power to weight (skyflyte@comcast.net)
22. 02:20 PM - Re: Cadillac Michigan fly-in (Marco Menezes)
23. 02:32 PM - coolant recovery bottle (Donald STEVENSON)
24. 02:32 PM - coolant recovery bottle (Donald STEVENSON)
25. 02:44 PM - Re: Michigan fly-in possibility (Fox5flyer)
26. 02:48 PM - Re: Michigan fly-in possibility (Fox5flyer)
27. 02:53 PM - Rudder Tube Size (David Steade)
28. 03:14 PM - Re: power to weight (Randy Daughenbaugh)
29. 03:52 PM - NSI radiator (John Anderson)
30. 03:52 PM - Michigan Fly-in (jeff puls)
31. 04:00 PM - Re: coolant recovery bottle (Lowell Fitt)
32. 04:15 PM - Re: power to weight (Lowell Fitt)
33. 04:29 PM - Re: power to weight (wingsdown)
34. 06:34 PM - Re: Re: Corvair in a Fox V (Norm Beauchamp)
35. 06:42 PM - Re: Good job norm Re: Corvair in a Fox V (Norm Beauchamp)
36. 06:55 PM - Re: flaps (Norm Beauchamp)
37. 06:55 PM - Re: coolant recovery bottle (Randy Daughenbaugh)
38. 07:28 PM - 04/02/06 (EMAproducts@aol.com)
39. 07:57 PM - Re: Good job norm Re: Corvair in a Fox V (Clem Nichols)
40. 07:57 PM - Re: power to weight (kurt schrader)
41. 08:14 PM - pressure filling tanks..... (Aerobatics@AOL.COM)
42. 08:15 PM - Re: 04/02/06 (kurt schrader)
43. 08:21 PM - Re: power to weight (Sid Hausding)
44. 08:27 PM - Re: pressure filling tanks..... (kurt schrader)
45. 08:43 PM - Re: pressure filling tanks..... (Aerobatics@aol.com)
46. 08:47 PM - Radio replacement (Graeme Toft)
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: | Meeting Kitfoxers at Sun 'n Fun |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Rex <gypsybee@copper.net>
Is there some method in place for us enthusiasts to find each other
while at SnF? I plan to be there Thurs - Fri.
(without my KF, sadly)
--
Rex Hefferan
719-651-9192
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: Top Gun Dave/Fueling the Kitfox |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net>
I am using a Mr. Funnel to direct the fuel/filter the fuel into the
tank. This funnel is supposed to be the conducting model...that is, it
is made with carbon black as I understand it. Now I guess I'll have to
make a resistance check of the funnel. It's gonna seem strange to hook
up an ohmmeter to a piece of plastic, but what the heck?!
So if I make sure the spout of the plastic fuel can contacts the rim of
the (conductive) Mr. Funnel, which is in contact with the metal neck of
the Kitfox's fuel tank, which has (in my case) a bonding strap soldered
to it, and the bonding strap is electrically attached to the exhaust
pipe, and I attach a grounding jumper to the earth's ground (piece of
pipe driven into the dirt floor of the hangar, or any suitable ground
if fueling somewhere other than my hangar), I am safe?
Lynn
On Sunday, April 2, 2006, at 11:50 PM, James Shumaker wrote:
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: James Shumaker
> <jimshumaker@sbcglobal.net>
>
> Lynn
>
> 6 ohms is plenty low. In fact anything below 100 ohms is fine.
> Because the voltage (think pressure) must be very high in order to get
> a spark to jump a gap (normal static sparks are on the order of 10,000
> volts) high resistances can drain off the charge before enough voltage
> builds up. Where you need to be careful is that you use a
> semiconducting funnel or a metal fuel spout when pouring into the
> tank. When the fuel falls into the tank and the little drops seperate
> from the main stream they each carry a charge which can build up a
> differential potential (another way of saying voltage). Thus if you
> had an insulating funnel then the charge differential would be between
> the planes fuel tank and the filling can. A conducting funnel has a
> high resitance that lets the charge leak slowly back to the can.
>
> Jim Shumaker
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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
Just to let you know, I did immediately copy and save
your first posting of this info. I am glad it works
and will keep it for my future mods. As we all know,
our plane is never done, just getting better.
I also have used duct tape on the rad for temp
control, but I need to add something variable yet for
cross countries when the OAT changes a lot. Still
collecting ideas....
Thanks,
Kurt S. S-5/NSI turbo
Do not archive
--- kitfoxmike <kitfoxmike@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I wanted to post this again. It was a response to
> winter flying.
>
> Most of the winter I flew with the shivers. Then I
> figured out a great way for heat. I took an oil
> funnel and strapped it to the back of the radiator
> cooler(wire ties) and then took some of that hose
> with metal wire inside for aircraft(about 1.5 inches
> diameter) and pop rivited it to the funnel, I cut
> the opening to the funnel for good flow. Then I put
> this hose up through the floor and pointed it to the
> front. Works fantastic, will raise the temp inside
> at least 20 degrees f. Under 45 degrees outside I
> add 3 inches of 2inch duck tape to the front of the
> cooler, puts the temp right at 180 degrees. below 35
> outside temp I put on 6 inches of tape. above 60
> degrees you will be opening vents. Took me 15
> minutes to hook this up.
>
> The best thing about this setup is no electrical
> usage, and no taping into the water system. You get
> heat on the ground and the amount of heat is like
> you have the heater on high in your pickup.
>
> --------
> kitfoxmike
> kitfox4 1200 912ul speedster
> http://www.frappr.com/kitfoxmike
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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "kitfoxmike" <kitfoxmike@yahoo.com>
I agree, but then again, a stop and go is fun as well. Along with taking care
of the radiator you can releive yourself as well.
--------
kitfoxmike
kitfox4 1200 912ul speedster
http://www.frappr.com/kitfoxmike
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=26245#26245
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: | Corvair in a Fox V |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Matt Teixeira" <mteixeira@wmlylesco.com>
Congratulations Norm. Keep going; you are leading the way for the rest
of us only considering the Corvair. Very good to hear about the 23#
weight savings.
Matt IV-1200
Fresno, CA
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Norm
Beauchamp
Sent: Saturday, April 01, 2006 4:53 AM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Corvair in a Fox V
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Norm Beauchamp <nebchmp@wcc.net>
Thanks to Don there are some photos of my engine posted at Sport
Flight. Look at the engines section at what is now titled First flight
of my Model IV by 220 East Beck. (There may have been a syber moment at
sometime.) I finally finished the install on thursday, did the w/b
first thing friday morning . The total empty weight is 23# lighter than
the EA81 installed was. It took a while to get start procedures
perfected using the Revmaster Carb. However a friend of mine who is
darn good at these things figured it out. The procedure is, batt
switches on, ignition switches on, throttle a little less than half,
mixture idlel cutoff. Hit the start switch and start pushing the
mixture to rich. Varoom. This was the first engine completion by
myself and those who have done it, know the feeling. Not everything
was perfect though. I have a couple fuel weeps and a slight oil lead.
At this point thats minor. Now to finish the ground run peroid and get
airbone again. I believe I have a good combination. Later Norm
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: Top Gun Dave/Fueling the Kitfox |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "wingnut" <wingnut@spamarrest.com>
Don't you need to ground the gas can first? If there's a charge in the gas can
(or the gas in the can) and the first opportunity for that electricity to dissipate
is through contact with the funnel, wouldn't that be the most likely place
for a spark to occur?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=26252#26252
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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "wingsdown" <wingsdown@comcast.net>
There has to be someone on the list smart enough to figure out what
each pound of weight does to performance. I guess what I mean is if an
engine weighs 50 pounds more but produces 50 HP more is is better or
worse than an engine that is 50 pounds lighter and make 50 HP less. You
know like a chart that has curves that show two lines that cross or
something. It would take the guess work out of engine selection
somewhat. I guess engine torque would have to be considered as well.
Would be nice to see don't you think?
Rick
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: Corvair in a Fox V |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "wingnut" <wingnut@spamarrest.com>
Very cool. Will you be making your own cowl?
> Thanks to Don there are some photos of my engine posted at Sport Flight. Look
at the engines section at what is now titled First flight
> of my Model IV by 220 East Beck.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=26265#26265
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: | Corvair in a Fox V |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Harris, Robert" <Robert_Harris@intuit.com>
Good job Norm. Your engine install looks great. Will you existing
cowling still work? What is your planes empty weight? You should post
some pics on the Corvair Web site.
Rober
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Norm
Beauchamp
Sent: Saturday, April 01, 2006 4:53 AM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Corvair in a Fox V
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Norm Beauchamp <nebchmp@wcc.net>
Thanks to Don there are some photos of my engine posted at Sport
Flight. Look at the engines section at what is now titled First flight
of my Model IV by 220 East Beck. (There may have been a syber moment at
sometime.) I finally finished the install on thursday, did the w/b
first thing friday morning . The total empty weight is 23# lighter than
the EA81 installed was. It took a while to get start procedures
perfected using the Revmaster Carb. However a friend of mine who is
darn good at these things figured it out. The procedure is, batt
switches on, ignition switches on, throttle a little less than half,
mixture idlel cutoff. Hit the start switch and start pushing the
mixture to rich. Varoom. This was the first engine completion by
myself and those who have done it, know the feeling. Not everything
was perfect though. I have a couple fuel weeps and a slight oil lead.
At this point thats minor. Now to finish the ground run peroid and get
airbone again. I believe I have a good combination. Later Norm
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: power to weight |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "John Marzulli" <john.marzulli@gmail.com>
Rotax lists the power to weight ratio on their website.
http://www.rotaxservice.com/rotax_engines/rotax_912S.htm
On 4/3/06, wingsdown <wingsdown@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "wingsdown" <wingsdown@comcast.net>
>
> There has to be someone on the list smart enough to figure out what
> each pound of weight does to performance. I guess what I mean is if an
> engine weighs 50 pounds more but produces 50 HP more is is better or
> worse than an engine that is 50 pounds lighter and make 50 HP less. You
> know like a chart that has curves that show two lines that cross or
> something. It would take the guess work out of engine selection
> somewhat. I guess engine torque would have to be considered as well.
> Would be nice to see don't you think?
>
> Rick
>
>
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "wingsdown" <wingsdown@comcast.net>
Well what I mean is what that weight is worth cost in HP, or rather how
much HP does it take to carry a pound of weight over and above the
airframe weight. Kind of hard to express clearly.
Rick
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John
Marzulli
Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 9:45 AM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: power to weight
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "John Marzulli"
--> <john.marzulli@gmail.com>
Rotax lists the power to weight ratio on their website.
http://www.rotaxservice.com/rotax_engines/rotax_912S.htm
On 4/3/06, wingsdown <wingsdown@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "wingsdown" <wingsdown@comcast.net>
>
> There has to be someone on the list smart enough to figure out what
> each pound of weight does to performance. I guess what I mean is if an
> engine weighs 50 pounds more but produces 50 HP more is is better or
> worse than an engine that is 50 pounds lighter and make 50 HP less.
> You know like a chart that has curves that show two lines that cross
> or something. It would take the guess work out of engine selection
> somewhat. I guess engine torque would have to be considered as well.
> Would be nice to see don't you think?
>
> Rick
>
>
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: Top Gun Dave/Fueling the Kitfox |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "kitfoxmike" <kitfoxmike@yahoo.com>
put the gas can on the cement floor.
--------
kitfoxmike
kitfox4 1200 912ul speedster
http://www.frappr.com/kitfoxmike
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=26273#26273
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: Top Gun Dave/Fueling the Kitfox |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Paul Wilson <pwmac@sisna.com>
Yes ground the items before doing a fuel transfer. Having said that I doubt
if a static charge would be present on a non flowing tank. Its the flow of
liquid in the air that creates a static charge. I assume you filled the
portable can when it was properly grounded. If it has been sitting on the
ground then I would expect no charge to be present.
The sequence is probably not significant. If you have grounded your filler
neck to the spar then I would connect the wing spar to ground. (Connect the
ground to wherever you terminated the ground strap leading from the filler
neck on the tank). And connect the fuel source to ground. Then proceed with
the transfer process making sure all the items are in contact with each
other. A conductive hose, jerry can, or funnel are good for reduced risk.
I would intuitively think that connecting the plane filler neck to ground
would be a risky thing to do.
Paul
===================
At 08:32 AM 4/3/2006, you wrote:
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "wingnut" <wingnut@spamarrest.com>
>
>Don't you need to ground the gas can first? If there's a charge in the gas
>can (or the gas in the can) and the first opportunity for that electricity
>to dissipate is through contact with the funnel, wouldn't that be the most
>likely place for a spark to occur?
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=26252#26252
>
>
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: Top Gun Dave/Fueling the Kitfox |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Paul Wilson <pwmac@sisna.com>
Cement floor like a sidewalk or the concrete at the gas station. But not
the elastomer coated hanger floor.
Paul
==============
At 10:07 AM 4/3/2006, you wrote:
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "kitfoxmike" <kitfoxmike@yahoo.com>
>
>put the gas can on the cement floor.
>
>--------
>kitfoxmike
>kitfox4 1200 912ul speedster
>http://www.frappr.com/kitfoxmike
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=26273#26273
>
>
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: "kitfoxmike" <kitfoxmike@yahoo.com>
I went and saw a friend at spokane international yesterday and he helped me put
some vg's on the back of the windscreen to help the effects of the air coming
off and onto the turdledeck. Well I hardly ever use the flaps and to gain access
to this area I pull full flaps on and went to work. We spaced the vg's 1.5
inches apart with the 15 degree angles. When I went to take off I was cleared
for a 21@f departure with the winds at 120@13, I thought not a problem, then
I called for departure and the tower asked if I wanted to take off 03 because
the winds changed to 090@15, I said I'll take 21 anyway, noticing that the
sock was pretty much going all over the place and the one at the beginning of
21 was still at a cross, which was closer to where I was. I pull on the runway
and put full power and was amazed at how quick the tail came up and pulled back
on the stick and shot up in the air. Soon, well very soon I was up higher
than normal, then I had a hard down stick, so I put on up trim, thinking I did
something with the vg's I called the tower to land on 07 and climbed up to 1000ft
agl, turning was tough and then I thought, oh crap the flaps are on, I put
the flaps back off and things normalized. What did I learn, the biggest, take
off with full flaps is way cool. Next, do my check list with flaps off for
take off, but then again having the flaps on full really make a nice cool take
off, just don't forget to take them off. I did stick around and did a few touch
and go's, kind of cool doing a landing on 07 at the same time a 737 is landing
on 21. I did do a high speed run and one direction I got 105knts(gps).
this was a down wind for 07 and on final I was doing 94knts, Which put me right
over the approach for 07 @ 2000agl, way cool, slipped down to land, droped like
a rock. Need to make more test on top speed, but I do believe there was an
increase of at least 5mph by installing the vg's to the back of the windscreen
to turdledeck.
--------
kitfoxmike
kitfox4 1200 912ul speedster
http://www.frappr.com/kitfoxmike
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=26277#26277
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | What do I do if no part of my fule system is grounded? |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "wingnut" <wingnut@spamarrest.com>
Here's a slightly different twist to all the recent activity on safe refueling.
I didn't build my airplane. I don't know if the previous owner did anything at
all to facilitate a proper ground of the fuel tank or the filler neck to any
other part of the plane. Someone wrote that this is not addressed in the builders
manual so I'm going to assume that it's a stock setup (I'll verify this with
an ohm meter tonight). If this is the case, do I just ground the metal funnel
before I start fueling?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=26279#26279
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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Rueb, Duane" <ruebd@skymail.csus.edu>
Rick
Unlike the other powered vehicles, such as cars, tractors,
boats, with aircraft the weight of anything that is part of the machine
is critical. For a boat it can actually be advantageous to have heavy
engines for the ballast that they contribute. Tractors benefit from
weight also, to a point. Cars will sacrifice handling to a heavy
engine, but if they are judged more on acceleration, then it works.
Dragsters certainly attest to that; but their trip is short.
The first thing that a heavier, more powerful engine has to
carry in an airplane is itself, so the first effect is to reduce the
payload, or useful load. A more powerful engine will also need a
larger, heavier propeller, more weight; not only does this offset the
benefit of having more power, it affects the balance, so now more weight
will be needed in the tail (assuming a conventional layout) to counter
the heavier engine and restore the balance. So now the total weight has
increased even more than by just the heavier engine.
The airframe is what holds all of the major components together
and each of them acts to stress it under turbulent or any high 'G'
maneuvering. The engine's mass is cantilevered out from the main
structure (fuselage) and is always acting to get away from the rest of
the machine by torque, thrust, and the mass that it involves when G
loading is a factor. So here we go again, now you need to beef up the
thrust frame and fuselage to take the extra weight hanging out there, so
now we are stuck with still more total empty weight.
When the thrust developed at cruise power equals the drag
produced by the sum of lift drag and the parasitic drag, the airplane
finds its cruising speed. Since a heavier engine adds weight, the lift
drag factor will be higher with it installed, and the parasitic drag may
also increase, due to a larger cowling or the cooling drag increase that
typically occurs.
Drag reduction is the best way to increase an airplanes speed.
This is borne out time and again by the performance figures of very
clean designs with modest power. On the other hand, airplanes with a
high drag coefficient, such as the Boeing Stearman will not cruise much
faster no matter what engine is doing the towing.
A simple chart to illustrate all of this is just not practical.
You have to take cases and evaluate them as they are defined. All
designs are nested tradeoffs, and this is especially true when they fly.
Small airplanes work best with reliable, not too heavy engines. This
has always been best achieved by using fairly large displacement, low
rotational speed designs that can directly turn the propeller.
Remember the real purpose of that fan turning out front is to
cool the pilot, because when it quits doing that he (she) starts to
perspire almost immediately.
Duane Rueb
Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of wingsdown
Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 8:40 AM
Subject: Kitfox-List: power to weight
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "wingsdown" <wingsdown@comcast.net>
There has to be someone on the list smart enough to figure out what
each pound of weight does to performance. I guess what I mean is if an
engine weighs 50 pounds more but produces 50 HP more is is better or
worse than an engine that is 50 pounds lighter and make 50 HP less. You
know like a chart that has curves that show two lines that cross or
something. It would take the guess work out of engine selection
somewhat. I guess engine torque would have to be considered as well.
Would be nice to see don't you think?
Rick
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: Gary Olson <ofd725@yahoo.com>
Would anyone happen to have the section of the owners manual pertaining to the
installation of the removeable wing tips that they could shoot my way (for the
Series 7)?
Thanks in advance,
Gary Olson
Oshkosh
---------------------------------
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: Michigan fly-in possibility |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: wwillyard@aol.com
I like the Cadillac destination.
Bill W.
do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: Marco Menezes <msm_9949@yahoo.com>
Sent: Sat, 1 Apr 2006 06:11:27 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Michigan fly-in possibility
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Marco Menezes <msm_9949@yahoo.com>
If there's interest in more of an "up-North" experience, Big Rapids and/or
Cadillac would be great locations. Cadillac has the added advantage of several
large nearby lakes for our float flyers.
Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net> wrote: --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Lynn
Matteson
Three Rivers is centrally located? Better have another look at that
Chart, Malcolm. : )
Lynn
On Friday, March 31, 2006, at 07:49 PM, Malcolmbru@aol.com wrote:
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Malcolmbru@aol.com
>
> Mark Berpie in three rivers mi would be a good contact and more
> centrally
> located. our ultralite club is having its 12 annual fathers day fly
> in at
> St Johns mi 30 miles north of Lansing. Or even easier why done we
> have a
> contest to see who can have the most kit fox's in one place at a fly
> in in the
> month of June? mal
>
>
Marco Menezes
Model 2 582 N99KX
---------------------------------
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Drooping wing tips |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
Hello guys,
A French friend of mine installed, this winter, a Jabiru on his Avid
Flyer. He also modified the plane from a tricycle to a taildragger. But
he had no experience in taildragger so he asked me to come and teach
him the skill. Unfortunately (he lives on the French Riviera!) I didn't
had the time and another Norwegian friend, an experienced Avid pilot,
went, instead of me.
All went well but last week, the pilot with only a few hours
instructions, went flying alone and did a ground loop upon landing. He
is fine and so is the engine, but the plane suffered typical damages
that will require welding and fixing the fabric here and there, plus a
new gear. He also sustained damages at the tip of the wing and ... the
tip of the flaperon.
It makes me think: Isn't the drooping wing tip of my Kitfox model 3 a
flaperon protection in case of ground loop and one wing meeting the
ground? I remember seeing a video of the first flight of a Kitfox 3,
and the guy did a ground loop even before he was airborne for the first
time. One of his wing tip was shaven down a few inches but otherwise
the wing and flaperon looked fine.
BTW, has anyone started entering stuff in the new Matronics Wikipedia?
I love Wikipedia, it's simple and it works!
Cheers,
Michel
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: skyflyte@comcast.net
All good points! One more is that the bigger, heavier, more powerful engine will
suck more gas, requiring bigger fuel tanks for the same kind of range performance.
Light weight, low drag aircraft perform the best.
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "Rueb, Duane" <ruebd@skymail.csus.edu>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Rueb, Duane"
>
> Rick
>
> Unlike the other powered vehicles, such as cars, tractors,
> boats, with aircraft the weight of anything that is part of the machine
> is critical. For a boat it can actually be advantageous to have heavy
> engines for the ballast that they contribute. Tractors benefit from
> weight also, to a point. Cars will sacrifice handling to a heavy
> engine, but if they are judged more on acceleration, then it works.
> Dragsters certainly attest to that; but their trip is short.
> The first thing that a heavier, more powerful engine has to
> carry in an airplane is itself, so the first effect is to reduce the
> payload, or useful load. A more powerful engine will also need a
> larger, heavier propeller, more weight; not only does this offset the
> benefit of having more power, it affects the balance, so now more weight
> will be needed in the tail (assuming a conventional layout) to counter
> the heavier engine and restore the balance. So now the total weight has
> increased even more than by just the heavier engine.
All good points! One more is that the bigger, heavier, more powerful engine will
suck more gas, requiring bigger fuel tanks for the same kind of range performance.
Light weight, low drag aircraft perform the best.
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "Rueb, Duane" ruebd@skymail.csus.edu
-- Kitfox-List message posted by: "Rueb, Duane" <RUEBD@SKYMAIL.CSUS.EDU>
Rick
Unlike the other powered vehicles, such as cars, tractors,
boats, with aircraft the weight of anything that is part of the machine
is critical. For a boat it can actually be advantageous to have heavy
engines for the ballast that they contribute. Tractors benefit from
weight also, to a point. Cars will sacrifice handling to a heavy
engine, but if they are judged more on acceleration, then it works.
Dragsters certainly attest to that; but their trip is short.
The first thing that a heavier, more powerful engine has to
carry in an airplane is itself, so the first effect is to reduce the
&g
t; payload, or useful load. A more powerful engine will also need a
larger, heavier propeller, more weight; not only does this offset the
benefit of having more power, it affects the balance, so now more weight
will be needed in the tail (assuming a conventional layout) to counter
the heavier engine and restore the balance. So now the total weight has
increased even more than by just the heavier engine.
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: | Re: Cadillac Michigan fly-in |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Marco Menezes <msm_9949@yahoo.com>
Cadillac (KCAD) has an EAA chapter (they build RV's mostly) that has an annual
fly-in. Do we want to be part of that or schedule our own? If there's interest,
I'll investigate.
do not archive
wwillyard@aol.com wrote:
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: wwillyard@aol.com
I like the Cadillac destination.
Bill W.
do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: Marco Menezes
Sent: Sat, 1 Apr 2006 06:11:27 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Michigan fly-in possibility
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Marco Menezes
If there's interest in more of an "up-North" experience, Big Rapids and/or
Cadillac would be great locations. Cadillac has the added advantage of several
large nearby lakes for our float flyers.
Lynn Matteson wrote: --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Lynn
Matteson
Three Rivers is centrally located? Better have another look at that
Chart, Malcolm. : )
Lynn
On Friday, March 31, 2006, at 07:49 PM, Malcolmbru@aol.com wrote:
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Malcolmbru@aol.com
>
> Mark Berpie in three rivers mi would be a good contact and more
> centrally
> located. our ultralite club is having its 12 annual fathers day fly
> in at
> St Johns mi 30 miles north of Lansing. Or even easier why done we
> have a
> contest to see who can have the most kit fox's in one place at a fly
> in in the
> month of June? mal
>
>
Marco Menezes
Model 2 582 N99KX
---------------------------------
Marco Menezes
Model 2 582 N99KX
---------------------------------
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: | coolant recovery bottle |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Donald STEVENSON <shericom@rogers.com>
Hi guys, I'm building a model M4 speedster (1992) I
just went to install the coolant recovery bottle only
to find that I don't have one, I have all the bracket
material but no bottle. Can anyone give me details on
the bottle as to size etc. I have no idea where to
purchase it, so if you know who would sell them that
would be a great help. Thanks once again for your
help, Don
Don Stevenson Caledon Ontario Canada
M4/1200-912 Speedster
Message 24
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | coolant recovery bottle |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Donald STEVENSON <shericom@rogers.com>
Hi guys, I'm building a model M4 speedster (1992) I
just went to install the coolant recovery bottle only
to find that I don't have one, I have all the bracket
material but no bottle. Can anyone give me details on
the bottle as to size etc. I have no idea where to
purchase it, so if you know who would sell them that
would be a great help. Thanks once again for your
help, Don
Don Stevenson Caledon Ontario Canada
M4/1200-912 Speedster
Message 25
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Michigan fly-in possibility |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Fox5flyer" <morid@northland.lib.mi.us>
Hey guys, didn't somebody say something about centrally located? :-)
Deke
----- Original Message -----
From: <wwillyard@aol.com>
Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 3:56 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Michigan fly-in possibility
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: wwillyard@aol.com
>
> I like the Cadillac destination.
>
> Bill W.
>
> do not archive
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marco Menezes <msm_9949@yahoo.com>
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Sent: Sat, 1 Apr 2006 06:11:27 -0800 (PST)
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Michigan fly-in possibility
>
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Marco Menezes <msm_9949@yahoo.com>
>
> If there's interest in more of an "up-North" experience, Big Rapids and/or
> Cadillac would be great locations. Cadillac has the added advantage of
several
> large nearby lakes for our float flyers.
>
> Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net> wrote: --> Kitfox-List message posted
by: Lynn
> Matteson
>
> Three Rivers is centrally located? Better have another look at that
> Chart, Malcolm. : )
>
> Lynn
> On Friday, March 31, 2006, at 07:49 PM, Malcolmbru@aol.com wrote:
>
> > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Malcolmbru@aol.com
> >
> > Mark Berpie in three rivers mi would be a good contact and more
> > centrally
> > located. our ultralite club is having its 12 annual fathers day fly
> > in at
> > St Johns mi 30 miles north of Lansing. Or even easier why done we
> > have a
> > contest to see who can have the most kit fox's in one place at a fly
> > in in the
> > month of June? mal
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> Marco Menezes
> Model 2 582 N99KX
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
Message 26
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Michigan fly-in possibility |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Fox5flyer" <morid@northland.lib.mi.us>
got it on my calendar Lynn. It's a bit of a haul for me, but if wx
cooperates I'll be there.
Deke
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lynn Matteson" <lynnmatt@jps.net>
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2006 4:03 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Michigan fly-in possibility
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net>
>
> The date for the Jackson Chapter (304) of EAA, pancake breakfast is
> June 11. This would be a perfect time to gather and discuss where we
> could have an actual
> Kitfox/Michigan/Ohio/Indiana/Illinois/Hawaii/Caribbean/Norway, etc.
> fly-in. : ) They always have hot rods, street cars, motorcycles, etc.
> on display at the airport (JXN), as well as all the planes that fly in.
> I'll post more details when the details are known.
>
> Lynn
>
>
Message 27
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Rudder Tube Size |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "David Steade" <steade@btinternet.com>
Hi All
Can anyone help me, I need to know the tube diameter and thickness that is used
for the rudder front post on the Mk 7
Regards
David Steade
Message 28
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Randy Daughenbaugh" <rjdaugh@rapidnet.com>
Duane,
I agree with almost all you said and you said it better than I could, but
there is one statement that I feel is wrong:
"This
has always been best achieved by using fairly large displacement, low
rotational speed designs that can directly turn the propeller."
I suspect that other 912S drivers may disagree too. There is a point where
that large displacement comes at weight cost. You are better off getting
more horsepower out of the engine using RPM. Compare an O-200 and the 912S.
Randy
.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rueb, Duane
Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 12:21 PM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: power to weight
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Rueb, Duane" <ruebd@skymail.csus.edu>
Rick
Unlike the other powered vehicles, such as cars, tractors,
boats, with aircraft the weight of anything that is part of the machine
is critical. For a boat it can actually be advantageous to have heavy
engines for the ballast that they contribute. Tractors benefit from
weight also, to a point. Cars will sacrifice handling to a heavy
engine, but if they are judged more on acceleration, then it works.
Dragsters certainly attest to that; but their trip is short.
The first thing that a heavier, more powerful engine has to
carry in an airplane is itself, so the first effect is to reduce the
payload, or useful load. A more powerful engine will also need a
larger, heavier propeller, more weight; not only does this offset the
benefit of having more power, it affects the balance, so now more weight
will be needed in the tail (assuming a conventional layout) to counter
the heavier engine and restore the balance. So now the total weight has
increased even more than by just the heavier engine.
The airframe is what holds all of the major components together
and each of them acts to stress it under turbulent or any high 'G'
maneuvering. The engine's mass is cantilevered out from the main
structure (fuselage) and is always acting to get away from the rest of
the machine by torque, thrust, and the mass that it involves when G
loading is a factor. So here we go again, now you need to beef up the
thrust frame and fuselage to take the extra weight hanging out there, so
now we are stuck with still more total empty weight.
When the thrust developed at cruise power equals the drag
produced by the sum of lift drag and the parasitic drag, the airplane
finds its cruising speed. Since a heavier engine adds weight, the lift
drag factor will be higher with it installed, and the parasitic drag may
also increase, due to a larger cowling or the cooling drag increase that
typically occurs.
Drag reduction is the best way to increase an airplanes speed.
This is borne out time and again by the performance figures of very
clean designs with modest power. On the other hand, airplanes with a
high drag coefficient, such as the Boeing Stearman will not cruise much
faster no matter what engine is doing the towing.
A simple chart to illustrate all of this is just not practical.
You have to take cases and evaluate them as they are defined. All
designs are nested tradeoffs, and this is especially true when they fly.
Small airplanes work best with reliable, not too heavy engines. This
has always been best achieved by using fairly large displacement, low
rotational speed designs that can directly turn the propeller.
Remember the real purpose of that fan turning out front is to
cool the pilot, because when it quits doing that he (she) starts to
perspire almost immediately.
Duane Rueb
Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of wingsdown
Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 8:40 AM
Subject: Kitfox-List: power to weight
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "wingsdown" <wingsdown@comcast.net>
There has to be someone on the list smart enough to figure out what
each pound of weight does to performance. I guess what I mean is if an
engine weighs 50 pounds more but produces 50 HP more is is better or
worse than an engine that is 50 pounds lighter and make 50 HP less. You
know like a chart that has curves that show two lines that cross or
something. It would take the guess work out of engine selection
somewhat. I guess engine torque would have to be considered as well.
Would be nice to see don't you think?
Rick
Message 29
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "John Anderson" <janderson412@hotmail.com>
Anyone have an NSI radiator for sale or know of a source? The larger
aluminum type. Many thanks, John A.
Read the latest Hollywood gossip @ http://xtramsn.co.nz/entertainment
Message 30
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "jeff puls" <pulsair@mindspring.com>
Cadillac is the same distance as Oshkosh from Columbus, Ohio. If you have it that
far up north will you get a good turnout from Indiana & Ohio? Just a thought.
Jeff Classic IV Columbus, Ohio
Message 31
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: coolant recovery bottle |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@sbcglobal.net>
Hi Don,
The bottle is about 8 oz size with a tube that extends to the bottom of the
bottle. It looks like the chemistry lab bottle that is called a washing
bottle. The nozzle is trimmed and the tubing is attached to that.
With that said, and I don't know other's experience, mine us usually "full"
with a little less than 1" of cooolent in it. My plan is to eventually put
a larger capacity bottle in it so I just don't blow all the coolant out when
the engine warms up. Apparently in my system, the 6 or 7 oz. of available
capacity above the cold engine level is insufficient to conatain the
expanded coolant when hot. My typical coolant temp runs right at 180
degrees.
Unless others don't have my problem, my suggestion would be to use a larger
bottle. As a thought, a large size model airplane fuel tank might work.
Lowell
Lowell
----- Original Message -----
From: "Donald STEVENSON" <shericom@rogers.com>
Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 2:31 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: coolant recovery bottle
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Donald STEVENSON <shericom@rogers.com>
>
> Hi guys, I'm building a model M4 speedster (1992) I
> just went to install the coolant recovery bottle only
> to find that I don't have one, I have all the bracket
> material but no bottle. Can anyone give me details on
> the bottle as to size etc. I have no idea where to
> purchase it, so if you know who would sell them that
> would be a great help. Thanks once again for your
> help, Don
>
> Don Stevenson Caledon Ontario Canada
> M4/1200-912 Speedster
>
>
>
Message 32
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: power to weight |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@sbcglobal.net>
While we are on the subject of weight and power, it should be remembered
that our designs are configured around the typical weights of the Rotax
series engines. The heavier engines will most certainly bring on W&B issues
and in many cases larger heavier batteries or other essential equipment or
even dead weight lead is used to bring the W&B into limits, further adding
to the weight penalty.
This is, I believe, one of the reasons an engine reported to be just a few
pounds heavier than the 912, for example, will result in an airplane
significantly heavier than expected, given the engine weight differential.
Lowell
----- Original Message -----
From: "Randy Daughenbaugh" <rjdaugh@rapidnet.com>
Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 3:13 PM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: power to weight
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Randy Daughenbaugh"
> <rjdaugh@rapidnet.com>
>
> Duane,
> I agree with almost all you said and you said it better than I could, but
> there is one statement that I feel is wrong:
>
> "This
> has always been best achieved by using fairly large displacement, low
> rotational speed designs that can directly turn the propeller."
>
> I suspect that other 912S drivers may disagree too. There is a point
> where
> that large displacement comes at weight cost. You are better off getting
> more horsepower out of the engine using RPM. Compare an O-200 and the
> 912S.
>
> Randy
>
> .
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rueb, Duane
> Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 12:21 PM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: power to weight
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Rueb, Duane" <ruebd@skymail.csus.edu>
>
> Rick
>
> Unlike the other powered vehicles, such as cars, tractors,
> boats, with aircraft the weight of anything that is part of the machine
> is critical. For a boat it can actually be advantageous to have heavy
> engines for the ballast that they contribute. Tractors benefit from
> weight also, to a point. Cars will sacrifice handling to a heavy
> engine, but if they are judged more on acceleration, then it works.
> Dragsters certainly attest to that; but their trip is short.
> The first thing that a heavier, more powerful engine has to
> carry in an airplane is itself, so the first effect is to reduce the
> payload, or useful load. A more powerful engine will also need a
> larger, heavier propeller, more weight; not only does this offset the
> benefit of having more power, it affects the balance, so now more weight
> will be needed in the tail (assuming a conventional layout) to counter
> the heavier engine and restore the balance. So now the total weight has
> increased even more than by just the heavier engine.
> The airframe is what holds all of the major components together
> and each of them acts to stress it under turbulent or any high 'G'
> maneuvering. The engine's mass is cantilevered out from the main
> structure (fuselage) and is always acting to get away from the rest of
> the machine by torque, thrust, and the mass that it involves when G
> loading is a factor. So here we go again, now you need to beef up the
> thrust frame and fuselage to take the extra weight hanging out there, so
> now we are stuck with still more total empty weight.
> When the thrust developed at cruise power equals the drag
> produced by the sum of lift drag and the parasitic drag, the airplane
> finds its cruising speed. Since a heavier engine adds weight, the lift
> drag factor will be higher with it installed, and the parasitic drag may
> also increase, due to a larger cowling or the cooling drag increase that
> typically occurs.
> Drag reduction is the best way to increase an airplanes speed.
> This is borne out time and again by the performance figures of very
> clean designs with modest power. On the other hand, airplanes with a
> high drag coefficient, such as the Boeing Stearman will not cruise much
> faster no matter what engine is doing the towing.
> A simple chart to illustrate all of this is just not practical.
> You have to take cases and evaluate them as they are defined. All
> designs are nested tradeoffs, and this is especially true when they fly.
> Small airplanes work best with reliable, not too heavy engines. This
> has always been best achieved by using fairly large displacement, low
> rotational speed designs that can directly turn the propeller.
> Remember the real purpose of that fan turning out front is to
> cool the pilot, because when it quits doing that he (she) starts to
> perspire almost immediately.
>
> Duane Rueb
>
>
> Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of wingsdown
> Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 8:40 AM
> To: Kitfox
> Subject: Kitfox-List: power to weight
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "wingsdown" <wingsdown@comcast.net>
>
> There has to be someone on the list smart enough to figure out what
> each pound of weight does to performance. I guess what I mean is if an
> engine weighs 50 pounds more but produces 50 HP more is is better or
> worse than an engine that is 50 pounds lighter and make 50 HP less. You
> know like a chart that has curves that show two lines that cross or
> something. It would take the guess work out of engine selection
> somewhat. I guess engine torque would have to be considered as well.
> Would be nice to see don't you think?
>
> Rick
>
>
>
Message 33
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "wingsdown" <wingsdown@comcast.net>
Excellent points on the auxiliary equipment needed for a particular
engine. That would be an interesting line as well. I think it will be
awhile before any manufacturer experimental or otherwise will publish
that real number. Kind of like performance figures. So the total weight
of the engine and support equipment required to run it should also be
weighed. To really understand an engines value to the airframe one must
consider all the weight, even extra fuel for equivalent range as
mentioned earlier. Then, if aircraft A is equal to B, essentially the
same aircraft, how much HP does it take to move a pound of additional
engine weight?
Rick
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lowell Fitt
Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 4:14 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: power to weight
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@sbcglobal.net>
While we are on the subject of weight and power, it should be remembered
that our designs are configured around the typical weights of the Rotax
series engines. The heavier engines will most certainly bring on W&B
issues
and in many cases larger heavier batteries or other essential equipment
or
even dead weight lead is used to bring the W&B into limits, further
adding
to the weight penalty.
This is, I believe, one of the reasons an engine reported to be just a
few
pounds heavier than the 912, for example, will result in an airplane
significantly heavier than expected, given the engine weight
differential.
Lowell
----- Original Message -----
From: "Randy Daughenbaugh" <rjdaugh@rapidnet.com>
Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 3:13 PM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: power to weight
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Randy Daughenbaugh"
> <rjdaugh@rapidnet.com>
>
> Duane,
> I agree with almost all you said and you said it better than I could,
> but there is one statement that I feel is wrong:
>
> "This
> has always been best achieved by using fairly large displacement, low
> rotational speed designs that can directly turn the propeller."
>
> I suspect that other 912S drivers may disagree too. There is a point
> where
> that large displacement comes at weight cost. You are better off
getting
> more horsepower out of the engine using RPM. Compare an O-200 and the
> 912S.
>
> Randy
>
> .
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rueb,
> Duane
> Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 12:21 PM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: power to weight
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Rueb, Duane"
> --> <ruebd@skymail.csus.edu>
>
> Rick
>
> Unlike the other powered vehicles, such as cars, tractors, boats, with
> aircraft the weight of anything that is part of the machine is
> critical. For a boat it can actually be advantageous to have heavy
> engines for the ballast that they contribute. Tractors benefit from
> weight also, to a point. Cars will sacrifice handling to a heavy
> engine, but if they are judged more on acceleration, then it works.
> Dragsters certainly attest to that; but their trip is short. The first
> thing that a heavier, more powerful engine has to carry in an airplane
> is itself, so the first effect is to reduce the payload, or useful
> load. A more powerful engine will also need a larger, heavier
> propeller, more weight; not only does this offset the benefit of
> having more power, it affects the balance, so now more weight will be
> needed in the tail (assuming a conventional layout) to counter the
> heavier engine and restore the balance. So now the total weight has
> increased even more than by just the heavier engine. The airframe is
> what holds all of the major components together and each of them acts
> to stress it under turbulent or any high 'G'
> maneuvering. The engine's mass is cantilevered out from the main
> structure (fuselage) and is always acting to get away from the rest of
> the machine by torque, thrust, and the mass that it involves when G
> loading is a factor. So here we go again, now you need to beef up the
> thrust frame and fuselage to take the extra weight hanging out there,
> so now we are stuck with still more total empty weight. When the
> thrust developed at cruise power equals the drag produced by the sum
> of lift drag and the parasitic drag, the airplane finds its cruising
> speed. Since a heavier engine adds weight, the lift drag factor will
> be higher with it installed, and the parasitic drag may also increase,
> due to a larger cowling or the cooling drag increase that typically
> occurs.
> Drag reduction is the best way to increase an airplanes speed. This
> is borne out time and again by the performance figures of very clean
> designs with modest power. On the other hand, airplanes with a high
> drag coefficient, such as the Boeing Stearman will not cruise much
> faster no matter what engine is doing the towing. A simple chart to
> illustrate all of this is just not practical. You have to take cases
> and evaluate them as they are defined. All designs are nested
> tradeoffs, and this is especially true when they fly. Small airplanes
> work best with reliable, not too heavy engines. This has always been
> best achieved by using fairly large displacement, low rotational speed
> designs that can directly turn the propeller. Remember the real
> purpose of that fan turning out front is to cool the pilot, because
> when it quits doing that he (she) starts to perspire almost
> immediately.
>
> Duane Rueb
>
>
> Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of wingsdown
> Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 8:40 AM
> To: Kitfox
> Subject: Kitfox-List: power to weight
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "wingsdown" <wingsdown@comcast.net>
>
> There has to be someone on the list smart enough to figure out what
> each pound of weight does to performance. I guess what I mean is if an
> engine weighs 50 pounds more but produces 50 HP more is is better or
> worse than an engine that is 50 pounds lighter and make 50 HP less.
> You know like a chart that has curves that show two lines that cross
> or something. It would take the guess work out of engine selection
> somewhat. I guess engine torque would have to be considered as well.
> Would be nice to see don't you think?
>
> Rick
>
>
>
Message 34
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Corvair in a Fox V |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Norm Beauchamp <nebchmp@wcc.net>
I used the 0200 cowl that Skystar sold. I shortened the bottom half by
about four inches where it attaches to the fuselage. Then cut the top
cowl into about four inches in front of the firewall and removed four
inches there. I glued the piece I removed to the bottom of the piece in
front of the windscreen, just in front of the firewall. This gave me a
place to fasten the rest of the cowl on with cam locks. Now I can
remove the engine cover with out removing the part over the
instruments. In other words a boot cowl. I can take a picture if
anyone is interested. Norm
wingnut wrote:
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "wingnut" <wingnut@spamarrest.com>
>
>Very cool. Will you be making your own cowl?
>
>
>
>
>
Message 35
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Corvair in a Fox V |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Norm Beauchamp <nebchmp@wcc.net>
The empty weight is about 28 pounds lighter actually. I forgot to
deduct the weight of the wheel chocks I had on the scales. They were
two and a half pounds apiece. The empty weight is now 920. The cg is
at 10.26. Factory most foward is 9.96. Thanks for the kudos guys. Norm
Harris, Robert wrote:
>-->
>
>What is your planes empty weight?
>
>
Message 36
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Norm Beauchamp <nebchmp@wcc.net>
Good story Mike. Where did you locate the vgs? Closer to the
turtleneck, or to the windscreen? How far in from the outside edge? How
many did you use? Norm
kitfoxmike wrote:
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "kitfoxmike" <kitfoxmike@yahoo.com>
>
>I went and saw a friend at spokane international yesterday and he helped me put
some vg's on the back of the windscreen to help the effects of the air coming
off and onto the turtledeck.
>
>
Message 37
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | coolant recovery bottle |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Randy Daughenbaugh" <rjdaugh@rapidnet.com>
Don,
Check with Lockwood Aviation Supply: www.lockwood-aviation.com
They have a bottle, p/n 922 315 that is square, about 16 oz, with a tube
fitting at the bottom.
Randy
.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Donald
STEVENSON
Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 3:31 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: coolant recovery bottle
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Donald STEVENSON <shericom@rogers.com>
Hi guys, I'm building a model M4 speedster (1992) I
just went to install the coolant recovery bottle only
to find that I don't have one, I have all the bracket
material but no bottle. Can anyone give me details on
the bottle as to size etc. I have no idea where to
purchase it, so if you know who would sell them that
would be a great help. Thanks once again for your
help, Don
Don Stevenson Caledon Ontario Canada
M4/1200-912 Speedster
Message 38
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: EMAproducts@aol.com
In a message dated 4/3/2006 12:02:36 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
kitfox-list-digest@matronics.com writes:
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Pressurized fuel filling tanks?
In the early 60's I had a friend who was flying to Rockford from Tulsa to
the EAA fly-In. He made a small tank shaped like a bomb that was fastened on
the CG of the plane between the gear under the cockpit, 3-5 gal if I remember
correctly so he would have a little more range, He used a hand tire pump to
pump pressure into the belly tank, the fuel was "forced" up through a line
which went to the main fuselage tank. He picked up fuel about 1/2" for from
bottom of tank, had a drain etc in it. he would pump the tire pump till he got
tired and let the fuel slowly go up to the main tank. Used it for several
years if I remember right. Main tank was vented, and he could tell by the
"float" when it was getting full and quit pumping, unhook the fitting and release
pressure if didn't stop in time. Easier to explain than to type how it
worked! The only "vent" in the belly tank was the line going to the main tank.
Elbie
Elbie Mendenhall
EAA 38308
Message 39
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Corvair in a Fox V |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clem Nichols" <cnichols@scrtc.com>
Norm:
If my arithmetic is correct, then with an empty weight of 920 pounds, you
can't weigh more than 124 pounds and carry full fuel of 26 gallons. Is this
correct? The heading indicates you have a Kitfox V, but the uploaded pics
on Sportflight say it's a Model IV.
Clem Nichols
Do Not Archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "Norm Beauchamp" <nebchmp@wcc.net>
Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 8:41 PM
Subject: Re: Good job norm RE: Kitfox-List: Corvair in a Fox V
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Norm Beauchamp <nebchmp@wcc.net>
>
> The empty weight is about 28 pounds lighter actually. I forgot to
> deduct the weight of the wheel chocks I had on the scales. They were
> two and a half pounds apiece. The empty weight is now 920. The cg is
> at 10.26. Factory most foward is 9.96. Thanks for the kudos guys.
> Norm
>
> Harris, Robert wrote:
>
>>-->
>>
>>What is your planes empty weight?
>>
>>
>
>
>
Message 40
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
This has been one of the reversals for turboprops
lately. They are much lighter than piston engines for
the HP, but burn so much more fuel that there is some
movement to convert turboprop airplanes back to
pistons. The decision has to include TBO costs, fuel
costs, normal loads carried, and length of a normal
flight for the plane.
I think the same goes for our engine choices. Weight
isn't the only factor. Initial engine cost, TBO,
reliability, parts costs, etc cause us to chose
different engines that fit our particular missions.
There is a 100 HO turboprop available for us that
weighs around 100 lbs, but it burns 11 gal/hr at idle!
I am sure that is why many have chosen the "heavy"
rotax 912's over the turboprop. Right??? :-)
Kurt S.
Do not archive
--- skyflyte@comcast.net wrote:
> All good points! One more is that the bigger,
> heavier, more powerful engine will suck more gas,
> requiring bigger fuel tanks for the same kind of
> range performance. Light weight, low drag aircraft
> perform the best.
Message 41
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | pressure filling tanks..... |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Aerobatics@aol.com
I bought a KF 2, beautifully built that came with a fantastic fully enclosed
trailer.... I hanger the plane so I stored the trailer.
The builder went all out with this trailer. Has a remote controlled winch to
pull plane in, lights, alarm system, built in dehumidifier, tracks to guide
plane safely in, carpeted, insulated, and even an internal air pump for
tires and fuel .....
There are 3, 5 gallon jerry cans with fittings. What you do is, fill the
cans, then when ready to fuel plane, simply add air pressure hook up hose and
with can on ground, fuel plane. The hose has a valve, so its like going to a
gas station. Very convenient! Much easier than holding a 5 gallon can over
wing and hose is much lighter than at an airport.....
PS since I dont use it.... for sale...
Dave
Message 42
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
The A-4 Jet uses compressed air from the engine to
blow the fuel from the external tanks to the main tank
or engine. Usually works pretty well.... But then
everything is attached and of equal voltage.
Kurt S.
Do not archive
--- EMAproducts@aol.com wrote:
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Pressurized fuel filling
> tanks?
>
> In the early 60's I had a friend who was flying to
> Rockford from Tulsa to
> the EAA fly-In. He made a small tank shaped like a
> bomb that was fastened on
> the CG of the plane between the gear under the
> cockpit, 3-5 gal if I remember
> correctly so he would have a little more range, He
> used a hand tire pump to
> pump pressure into the belly tank, the fuel was
> "forced" up through a line
> which went to the main fuselage tank......
..........................
> Elbie
> Elbie Mendenhall
> EAA 38308
Message 43
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Sid Hausding <avidsid@yahoo.com>
Kurt,
where is the link to the 100hp turbo..........?
Sid
-------------- :-) just curious
kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com> wrote:
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader
This has been one of the reversals for turboprops
lately. They are much lighter than piston engines for
the HP, but burn so much more fuel that there is some
movement to convert turboprop airplanes back to
pistons. The decision has to include TBO costs, fuel
costs, normal loads carried, and length of a normal
flight for the plane.
I think the same goes for our engine choices. Weight
isn't the only factor. Initial engine cost, TBO,
reliability, parts costs, etc cause us to chose
different engines that fit our particular missions.
There is a 100 HO turboprop available for us that
weighs around 100 lbs, but it burns 11 gal/hr at idle!
I am sure that is why many have chosen the "heavy"
rotax 912's over the turboprop. Right??? :-)
Kurt S.
Do not archive
--- skyflyte@comcast.net wrote:
> All good points! One more is that the bigger,
> heavier, more powerful engine will suck more gas,
> requiring bigger fuel tanks for the same kind of
> range performance. Light weight, low drag aircraft
> perform the best.
"Why can't we all just get along?"
---------------------------------
Message 44
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: pressure filling tanks..... |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
Dave,
I have been planning to build an enclosed trailor
myself. Will an S-5 fit it? Please send a pic and a
price.
Kurt S. S-5
--- Aerobatics@aol.com wrote:
> I bought a KF 2, beautifully built that came with a
> fantastic fully enclosed
> trailer.... I hanger the plane so I stored the
> trailer.
>
> The builder went all out with this trailer. Has a
> remote controlled winch to
> pull plane in, lights, alarm system, built in
> dehumidifier, tracks to guide
> plane safely in, carpeted, insulated, and even an
> internal air pump for
> tires and fuel .....
>
> There are 3, 5 gallon jerry cans with fittings.
> What you do is, fill the
> cans, then when ready to fuel plane, simply add air
> pressure hook up hose and
> with can on ground, fuel plane. The hose has a
> valve, so its like going to a
> gas station. Very convenient! Much easier than
> holding a 5 gallon can over
> wing and hose is much lighter than at an
> airport.....
>
> PS since I dont use it.... for sale...
>
> Dave
Message 45
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: pressure filling tanks..... |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Aerobatics@aol.com
In a message dated 4/3/2006 10:28:51 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com writes:
Dave,
I have been planning to build an enclosed trailor
myself. Will an S-5 fit it? Please send a pic and a
price.
Kurt S. S-5
S 5 wont, its tail is a bit too tall......... a friend with a S5 wanted it
so he came over and we looked at it carefully...
Dave
Message 46
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Radio replacement |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Graeme Toft" <msm@byterocky.net>
Hi Guys, its time for me to consider replacing the fried Microair 760 that was
in my Fox 1V. I have been watching Ebay closely and have missed a couple of good
replacement radio's but thought the list might be of help in suggesting reputable
second hand outlets in the states or Canada. Im not necessarily looking
for a Microair, just a reliable second hand replacement that can be hard wired
in. If anyone on the list has anything they believe may be of interest please
drop me an email.
Cheers
Graeme
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! --
|