Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 03:29 AM - Wings on (QSS)
2. 05:04 AM - Re: Re: Jabiru gas WAS: New Web Site (Noel Loveys)
3. 05:04 AM - Re: fabric finishing (Noel Loveys)
4. 05:18 AM - Re: Epoxy (Noel Loveys)
5. 05:54 AM - Re: VW Power-plant (Noel Loveys)
6. 06:12 AM - attachments (kirk hull)
7. 06:17 AM - Re: VW Power-plant (kirk hull)
8. 07:02 AM - Re: Epoxy (Guy Buchanan)
9. 07:02 AM - Re: Epoxy (Guy Buchanan)
10. 07:07 AM - Re: attachments (Michel Verheughe)
11. 07:50 AM - Annual Cameron Park Kitfox Fly-in (alnanarthur)
12. 07:50 AM - Re: fabric finishing (Larry Huntley)
13. 08:05 AM - Re: VW Power-plant (Noel Loveys)
14. 08:25 AM - Re: VW Power-plant (Norm)
15. 08:25 AM - Re: VW Power-plant (Larry Huntley)
16. 08:33 AM - FW: List Enclosure Support (was attachments) (Don Pearsall)
17. 08:53 AM - Re: attachments (Guy Buchanan)
18. 08:53 AM - Re: Annual Cameron Park Kitfox Fly-in (Guy Buchanan)
19. 09:48 AM - Re: VW Power-plant (Noel Loveys)
20. 03:18 PM - Re: Michigan Fly-in this Sunday (Richard Rabbers)
21. 05:43 PM - Re: Re: Michigan Fly-in this Sunday (Lynn Matteson)
22. 06:16 PM - Re: Annual Cameron Park Kitfox Fly-in (Lowell Fitt)
23. 06:51 PM - More 582 Temperature Questions (Guy Buchanan)
24. 06:59 PM - Re: More 582 Temperature Questions (Dave)
25. 07:23 PM - Re: attachments (kirk hull)
26. 11:08 PM - Kay and Lowell's Cameron Park Fly-in (James Shumaker)
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 |
|
Hi Guys, Kitfox 4473 finally has her feathers back on and is looking
very pleased with herself. She is attracting a lot of attention from
passing motorists who cant workout how she landed in the 21/2 acre house
block. Its still a few months before she flies but its great to see her
back in shape awaiting tailoring to the airfield. I know I've said it
before but just in case you missed it, THANKS GUYS, without your help I
think the task of rebuilding would have been beyond me.
Regards
Graeme
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: Jabiru gas WAS: New Web Site |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys@yahoo.ca>
That's not going to happen if the turkeys in power insist on doping the gas
with ethanol.
Noel
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> Michael Gibbs
> Sent: Friday, June 09, 2006 1:21 PM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Jabiru gas WAS: New Web Site
>
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michael Gibbs
> <MichaelGibbs@cox.net>
>
> Michel sez:
>
> >a hangar tale around here says that AVGAS is on its way out.
> >Apparently there is too little of it sold to justify its production.
> >The rumour says they are looking at a new type of gas that will be
> >used by aircraft and cars.
>
> There has been talk about that for well over 10 years now, Michel. I
> wonder if we are getting any closer to that day...
>
> Mike G.
> N728KF
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: | fabric finishing |
I found Randolph to be as inexpensive as it gets but it doesn't stay as
malleable as stits and fire wise.... repairs were reasonably easy as
long as
you separated the butyrate top finish before applying patches with
nitrate.
Hi-Pec worked well for me but it's going to be a while before I trust to
glued ribs.... I like to see stitching, or screws or clips in that
order.
Repairs are easy.
Stits worked well. Is no more difficult to apply and seems to not
support
combustion. The malleability of the finish is a real plus. Bring
money.
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dave G.
Sent: Friday, June 09, 2006 1:46 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: fabric finishing
I will have to put new fabric on my wings after I replace the spar. (No
real
hurry because it's never ever going to stop raining here in Nova Scotia)
I've been looking at all the varieties. The safe bet is Stits. But
standing
in the wings are Loehle and Aircraft Finishing systems. Likely a couple
of
others. The appeal of AFS is that it is all waterbased, much less toxic.
Does anyone have any experience with the others?
Barring any significant input to the contrary, I'll play it safe and use
the
Stits system.
I also need ideas for breaking the bonds between the ribs and the rear
spar
without damaging the ribs.
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 |
|
Do they ? Are the tanks made of HDPE or some other plastic? Are the tanks
vulcanized on the inside??
In this neck of the woods any one buying a service station has to have a
ground toxicity test done. If there are any residues in the ground all the
offending soils have to be dug up and trucked away to a toxic land fill.
Service stations that have been in business since the thirties are closing
in droves. Just wait until one of the plastic cisterns decomposes!!!
Noel
I mean, GAS STATIONS have epoxy tanks.
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 |
|
I would expect the best thing to do is to weigh the plane and work out
the
CG. Then you will know more about how much correction you will have to
design. You may just have to rebuild the engine mount.... That's what
they
did on the turbo prop planes.
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Gary Olson
Sent: Saturday, June 10, 2006 5:48 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: VW Power-plant
Gentlemen,
When I bought my series 7 kit, the original owner planned on installing
the
O-200. So the cowlings/FWF kit was specifically for that engine.
Intending
on flying this in the Sport class, I felt that in order to get under the
gross weight limits, I needed to find a place to lighten the load. The
most
obvious place to start would be the power-plant. After evaluating cost,
weight ease of maintenance, etc. I decided on the VW 2276 w/reduction
drive.
Now that the engine has been mounted, I discovered that it is approx.
4-4
1/2" shorter than the O-200. The problem is this, with the engine being
lighter (approx. 35#), and the engine not cantilevered out as far, how
much
is this going to affect my W/B. I realize that I can offset the W/B
difference with moving the battery under the cowling, etc.. What would
be a
logical solution (extend the mount, prop extension, re-work the
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 |
|
I noticed a picture attached to one of the e-mails . Does matronics support
attachments now ?
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 |
|
MessageWhen I installed the Suberu engine I did just that . found out just
where the CG was and corrected from there. I just had to move the bat to
the tail. much easier then changing the engine mounts. another thought,
prop spacers are cheap and easy
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Noel Loveys
Sent: Sunday, June 11, 2006 7:52 AM
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: VW Power-plant
I would expect the best thing to do is to weigh the plane and work out the
CG. Then you will know more about how much correction you will have to
design. You may just have to rebuild the engine mount.... That's what they
did on the turbo prop planes.
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Gary Olson
Sent: Saturday, June 10, 2006 5:48 PM
To: Builder Hotline
Subject: Kitfox-List: VW Power-plant
Gentlemen,
When I bought my series 7 kit, the original owner planned on installing
the O-200. So the cowlings/FWF kit was specifically for that engine.
Intending on flying this in the Sport class, I felt that in order to get
under the gross weight limits, I needed to find a place to lighten the load.
The most obvious place to start would be the power-plant. After evaluating
cost, weight ease of maintenance, etc. I decided on the VW 2276 w/reduction
drive. Now that the engine has been mounted, I discovered that it is approx.
4-4 1/2" shorter than the O-200. The problem is this, with the engine being
lighter (approx. 35#), and the engine not cantilevered out as far, how much
is this going to affect my W/B. I realize that I can offset the W/B
difference with moving the battery under the cowling, etc.. What would be a
logical solution (extend the mount, prop extension, re-work the
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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Guy Buchanan <bnn@nethere.com>
At 06:39 PM 6/9/2006, you wrote:
>At 06:21 PM 6/9/2006, you wrote:
>>At 03:21 PM 6/9/2006, you wrote:
>>>...to Ethanol??? I mean, GAS STATIONS have epoxy tanks.
>>
>>Actually most chemical tanks, including gas station tanks are made from
>>fiberglass / polyester or vinylester resin. I gave a quick shot at
>>tracking down a resin formulation but didn't get anywhere. I will try
>>some of my industry contacts to see if I can get a source.
>
>OK I've traced down one source for a vinylester resin. Using
>Interplastic's "Resin Wizard" I was able to find six gasoline compatible
>vinylesters. One, 8730, indicates it's particularly suitable for alcohols.
>I'll keep looking.
Forgot the link:
http://www.interplastic.com/html/resinwizard.asp
Guy Buchanan
K-IV 1200 / 582 / 99.9% done, thanks mostly to Bob Ducar.
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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Guy Buchanan <bnn@nethere.com>
At 06:21 PM 6/9/2006, you wrote:
>At 03:21 PM 6/9/2006, you wrote:
>>...to Ethanol??? I mean, GAS STATIONS have epoxy tanks.
>
>Actually most chemical tanks, including gas station tanks are made from
>fiberglass / polyester or vinylester resin. I gave a quick shot at
>tracking down a resin formulation but didn't get anywhere. I will try some
>of my industry contacts to see if I can get a source.
OK I've traced down one source for a vinylester resin. Using Interplastic's
"Resin Wizard" I was able to find six gasoline compatible vinylesters. One,
8730, indicates it's particularly suitable for alcohols. I'll keep looking.
Guy Buchanan
K-IV 1200 / 582 / 99.9% done, thanks mostly to Bob Ducar.
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 |
|
On Jun 11, 2006, at 3:11 PM, kirk hull wrote:
> I noticed a picture attached to one of the e-mails . Does matronics
> support
> attachments now ?
Yes Kirk, but - for the sake of those of us who are still on a slow
modem line - it would be best to keep the size of our attachment as
small as possible. Here is an example: I cropped and rescaled the size
of your photo. The original one was 856 Kb. Mine is now only 68 Kb. Yet
I am pretty sure you will agree that no detail is lost.
Of course, this is easy for me to do because computer graphic is what I
do for a living. Not everyone has that ability. But if anyone wants to
know more about it, I'd gladly explain with examples in a direct email
exchange.
PS: Note that attachments are not kept in the digests or archives.
Cheers,
Michel
do not archive
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: | Annual Cameron Park Kitfox Fly-in |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: alnanarthur <alnanarthur@sbcglobal.net>
Thanks, Lowell and Kay for a great fly-in and BBQ!
There were a lot of beautiful planes there. Nice to see folks we
haven't seen for a year or so. What was the final aircraft count?
Was it an all time high?
Allan & Nancy Arthur
Kitfox 5, N40AA
Rotax 912ULS, Warpdrive 3 blade
Byron Airport, CA (C83) Hanger C8
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: fabric finishing |
MessageNoel ,et al,
Randolph seems cheap ,but I just covered a fuselage and feathers on a
Citabria using the materials and amounts cited by Randolph and now know
I could have done it fir 1/2 the price with other ,much faster and
easier methods.
Check Randolph's manual for materials needed and then check with Poly
or AFS for the same job. The material is cheaper per gallon ,but the
gallonage is much greater for Randolph. Also ,for Randolph or Poly you
have to buy and ship thinner. The thinner for AFS is distilled water.
Less than a dollar/gal at your local grocery. Larry
----- Original Message -----
From: Noel Loveys
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, June 11, 2006 8:00 AM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: fabric finishing
I found Randolph to be as inexpensive as it gets but it doesn't stay
as malleable as stits and fire wise.... repairs were reasonably easy as
long as you separated the butyrate top finish before applying patches
with nitrate.
Hi-Pec worked well for me but it's going to be a while before I trust
to glued ribs.... I like to see stitching, or screws or clips in that
order. Repairs are easy.
Stits worked well. Is no more difficult to apply and seems to not
support combustion. The malleability of the finish is a real plus.
Bring money.
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dave G.
Sent: Friday, June 09, 2006 1:46 PM
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Subject: Kitfox-List: fabric finishing
I will have to put new fabric on my wings after I replace the spar.
(No real hurry because it's never ever going to stop raining here in
Nova Scotia)
I've been looking at all the varieties. The safe bet is Stits. But
standing in the wings are Loehle and Aircraft Finishing systems. Likely
a couple of others. The appeal of AFS is that it is all waterbased, much
less toxic. Does anyone have any experience with the others?
Barring any significant input to the contrary, I'll play it safe and
use the Stits system.
I also need ideas for breaking the bonds between the ribs and the
rear spar without damaging the ribs.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
6/9/2006
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 |
|
The only issue I have with moving a battery to the tail is that you are
putting a big weight right over the tail wheel spring. While the
battery in
the tail does balance the aircraft as a unit it also increased the mass
the
tail spring must endure during the inertial impact of landing.
Compare it to loading a canoe... you can put a good load in a canoe if
it
is mostly based in the centre. If you load a canoe heavily at both ends
it
will still float level on the water but it won't be able endure the same
rough water as a canoe loaded in the centre. A canoe with the bow and
stern
loaded will cut through waves only until the waves are as high as the
gunwales.. The canoe loaded in the centre will allow the bow and stern
to
rise with the waves instead of butting through and so take a much bigger
wave without swamping.
The same thing to an extent is true with a plane. The mass of a big
battery
over the tail wheel must be stopped from falling by the tail spring.
That
same mass in the tail will also change the way the plane recovers from
some
manoeuvres like stalls.
I would certainly move a battery, or any other device to effect a CG but
only to an extent. Perhaps a maximum of 1/3 the distance between the
optimal CG and the tail.
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of kirk hull
Sent: Sunday, June 11, 2006 10:47 AM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: VW Power-plant
When I installed the Suberu engine I did just that . found out just
where
the CG was and corrected from there. I just had to move the bat to the
tail. much easier then changing the engine mounts. another thought,
prop
spacers are cheap and easy
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Noel Loveys
Sent: Sunday, June 11, 2006 7:52 AM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: VW Power-plant
I would expect the best thing to do is to weigh the plane and work out
the
CG. Then you will know more about how much correction you will have to
design. You may just have to rebuild the engine mount.... That's what
they
did on the turbo prop planes.
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Gary Olson
Sent: Saturday, June 10, 2006 5:48 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: VW Power-plant
Gentlemen,
When I bought my series 7 kit, the original owner planned on installing
the
O-200. So the cowlings/FWF kit was specifically for that engine.
Intending
on flying this in the Sport class, I felt that in order to get under the
gross weight limits, I needed to find a place to lighten the load. The
most
obvious place to start would be the power-plant. After evaluating cost,
weight ease of maintenance, etc. I decided on the VW 2276 w/reduction
drive.
Now that the engine has been mounted, I discovered that it is approx.
4-4
1/2" shorter than the O-200. The problem is this, with the engine being
lighter (approx. 35#), and the engine not cantilevered out as far, how
much
is this going to affect my W/B. I realize that I can offset the W/B
difference with moving the battery under the cowling, etc.. What would
be a
logical solution (extend the mount, prop extension, re-work the
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: VW Power-plant |
Gary,
If you haven't made a purchase yet you might check out RevMaster's
latest engine. Its a VW engine modified specifically toward aircraft.
Engineered thrust bearing, no PSRU and some other good points.
Norm.
http://www.revmasteraviation.com/products/under_development/index.htm
<http://www.revmasteraviation.com/products/under_development/index.htm>
<>"I decided on the VW 2276 w/reduction drive".
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: VW Power-plant |
MessageNoel,
I had to but my battery back near the tail and the ELT about on top of
the mainspring. Flattened my tailspring after a few hours. Went to a
Grove aluminum spring and no problems for the last 300+ hours. Larry
Huntley
----- Original Message -----
From: Noel Loveys
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, June 11, 2006 10:59 AM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: VW Power-plant
The only issue I have with moving a battery to the tail is that you
are putting a big weight right over the tail wheel spring. While the
battery in the tail does balance the aircraft as a unit it also
increased the mass the tail spring must endure during the inertial
impact of landing.
Compare it to loading a canoe... you can put a good load in a canoe
if it is mostly based in the centre. If you load a canoe heavily at
both ends it will still float level on the water but it won't be able
endure the same rough water as a canoe loaded in the centre. A canoe
with the bow and stern loaded will cut through waves only until the
waves are as high as the gunwales.. The canoe loaded in the centre will
allow the bow and stern to rise with the waves instead of butting
through and so take a much bigger wave without swamping.
The same thing to an extent is true with a plane. The mass of a big
battery over the tail wheel must be stopped from falling by the tail
spring. That same mass in the tail will also change the way the plane
recovers from some manoeuvres like stalls.
I would certainly move a battery, or any other device to effect a CG
but only to an extent. Perhaps a maximum of 1/3 the distance between
the optimal CG and the tail.
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of kirk hull
Sent: Sunday, June 11, 2006 10:47 AM
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: VW Power-plant
When I installed the Suberu engine I did just that . found out just
where the CG was and corrected from there. I just had to move the bat
to the tail. much easier then changing the engine mounts. another
thought, prop spacers are cheap and easy
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Noel Loveys
Sent: Sunday, June 11, 2006 7:52 AM
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: VW Power-plant
I would expect the best thing to do is to weigh the plane and work
out the CG. Then you will know more about how much correction you will
have to design. You may just have to rebuild the engine mount....
That's what they did on the turbo prop planes.
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Gary Olson
Sent: Saturday, June 10, 2006 5:48 PM
To: Builder Hotline
Subject: Kitfox-List: VW Power-plant
Gentlemen,
When I bought my series 7 kit, the original owner planned on
installing the O-200. So the cowlings/FWF kit was specifically for that
engine. Intending on flying this in the Sport class, I felt that in
order to get under the gross weight limits, I needed to find a place to
lighten the load. The most obvious place to start would be the
power-plant. After evaluating cost, weight ease of maintenance, etc. I
decided on the VW 2276 w/reduction drive. Now that the engine has been
mounted, I discovered that it is approx. 4-4 1/2" shorter than the
O-200. The problem is this, with the engine being lighter (approx. 35#),
and the engine not cantilevered out as far, how much is this going to
affect my W/B. I realize that I can offset the W/B difference with
moving the battery under the cowling, etc.. What would be a logical
solution (extend the mount, prop extension, re-work the
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
6/9/2006
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: | List Enclosure Support (was attachments) |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Don Pearsall" <donpearsall@comcast.net>
Kirk, you must have missed the announcement from last week. I am forwarding
it so you can read the rules and restrictions.
Don Pearsall
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Matt Dralle
Sent: Saturday, June 03, 2006 4:53 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: List Enclosure Support
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Matt Dralle <dralle@matronics.com>
Dear Listers,
Over the years, I have resisted the urge to enable enclosure support on the
Matronics Lists for a number of reasons relating to performance, capacity,
capability, and security. However, its now 2006 and most everyone using
email these days is on an email client that, at some level, supports the
viewing and handling of enclosures. I get a fair amount of email each month
from people on the various Lists asking why their posts of this or that
picture didn't go through.
Back quite a while ago by popular request, I enabled enclosure support for a
few Lists such as the RV10-List, Kolb-List, and the Tailwind-List. Contrary
to my fears, there really hasn't been any significant issues on these Lists
relating to the advent of enclosure support and for the most part, members
have policed themselves well with respect to the size of things they have
posted.
Having enclosures enabled on some Lists and not others has given me a fair
amount of headaches with respect to filtering messages and content since the
formats are often quite different between a typical MIME encoded message and
a generic plain-text message. The spammers are getting more cleaver all the
time and are constantly trying to thwart my best efforts at keeping them
from posting to the Lists.
So, for these reasons, I've have decided to go ahead and enable limited
enclosure posting on all of the email Lists at Matronics. This will not
only increase the utility of the Lists, but will afford me a better
opportunity to filter out the chaff.
Here are some of the features and limits of enclosures on the Matronics
Lists:
1) Enclosures will only be posted to the Real Time version of the
Lists.
2) Enclosures will NOT be included in the Daily Digest version of
the Lists.
3) Enclosures WILL BE forwarded on to the BBS Forum Web site.
4) Enclosures will NOT be appended to the Archives.
5) Enclosures will NOT be available in the List Browse feature.
6) Only the following file types and extensions will be allowed:
jpg, bmp, gif, txt, xls, pdf, and doc
All other enclosures types will be rejected and email returned to
sender. The enclosure types listed above are relatively safe from
a virus standpoint and don't pose a particularly large security
risk.
7) !! All incoming enclosures will be scanned for viruses prior to
posting
to the List. This is done in real time and will not slow down
the process of posting the message !!
Here are some rules for posting enclosures. Failure to abide by these rules
could result in the removal of a subscriber's email address from the Lists.
1) Pay attention to what you are posting!! Make sure that the files
you are enclosing aren't HUGE (greater that 1MB). Remember that
there
are still people checking they're email via dial up modem. If you
post
30MB worth of pictures, you are placing an unnecessary burden on
these
folks and the rest of us, for that matter.
2) SCALE YOUR PICTURES DOWN!!! I don't want to see huge 3000 x 2000
pictures getting posted that are 3 or 4MB each. This is just
unacceptable. Use a program such as Photoshop to scale the picture
down to something on the order of 800 x 600 and try to keep the
file size to less-than 200KB, preferably much less.
Microsoft has a really awesome utility available for free that
allows
you to Right-Click on a picture in Explorer and automatically
scale it down and resave it. This is a great utility - get it, use
it!
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/downloads/powertoys/xppowertoys.mspx
Look for the link "Image Resizer"
3) !! This would seem to go without saying, but I'll say it anyway. Do
not
post anything that would be considered offensive by your
grandmother.
And you know what I'm saying; I don't want to see anything even
questionable. !!
4) REMEMBER THIS: If you post a 1MB enclosure to a List with 1000
members
subscribed, your 1MB enclosure must be resent 1000 times amounting
to 1MB X 1000 = 1 Gigabyte of network traffic!! BE CAREFUL and BE
COURTEOUS!
I hope everyone will enjoy the added functionality of enclosures. Please
police yourself and use good judgement when posting messages with enclosures
using the guidelines I've outlined above.
Best regards,
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
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: Guy Buchanan <bnn@nethere.com>
I love your rig! You'd look great in the Rose Parade!
At 06:11 AM 6/11/2006, you wrote:
>I noticed a picture attached to one of the e-mails . Does matronics support
>attachments now ?
Guy Buchanan
K-IV 1200 / 582 / 99.9% done, thanks mostly to Bob Ducar.
Do not archive
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Annual Cameron Park Kitfox Fly-in |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Guy Buchanan <bnn@nethere.com>
I'm so bummed. I really wanted to go, but it was my daughter's birthday,
(she's 5,) and, you know... Fortunately or unfortunately It wouldn't have
happened for me anyway, as we've been socked in the marine layer for weeks,
and I'm only VFR. Next year I'll be there WITH a Kitfox! (Can you say...
SCUD RUN!)
At 07:48 AM 6/11/2006, you wrote:
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: alnanarthur <alnanarthur@sbcglobal.net>
>
>Thanks, Lowell and Kay for a great fly-in and BBQ!
Guy Buchanan
K-IV 1200 / 582 / 99.9% done, thanks mostly to Bob Ducar.
Do not archive
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 |
|
When my father broke the tail spring on his VJ22 Sportsman countless
times
for the same reason there were no aluminium springs available. He
fitted a
125 Hp lyc tractor in the place of a ~60 Hp Conti pusher. I always said
the
engine was about 9" to a foot too far foreword.
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Larry
Huntley
Sent: Sunday, June 11, 2006 12:55 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: VW Power-plant
Noel,
I had to but my battery back near the tail and the ELT about on top of
the
mainspring. Flattened my tailspring after a few hours. Went to a Grove
aluminum spring and no problems for the last 300+ hours. Larry
Huntley
----- Original Message -----
From: Noel <mailto:noelloveys@yahoo.ca> Loveys
Sent: Sunday, June 11, 2006 10:59 AM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: VW Power-plant
The only issue I have with moving a battery to the tail is that you are
putting a big weight right over the tail wheel spring. While the
battery in
the tail does balance the aircraft as a unit it also increased the mass
the
tail spring must endure during the inertial impact of landing.
Compare it to loading a canoe... you can put a good load in a canoe if
it
is mostly based in the centre. If you load a canoe heavily at both ends
it
will still float level on the water but it won't be able endure the same
rough water as a canoe loaded in the centre. A canoe with the bow and
stern
loaded will cut through waves only until the waves are as high as the
gunwales.. The canoe loaded in the centre will allow the bow and stern
to
rise with the waves instead of butting through and so take a much bigger
wave without swamping.
The same thing to an extent is true with a plane. The mass of a big
battery
over the tail wheel must be stopped from falling by the tail spring.
That
same mass in the tail will also change the way the plane recovers from
some
manoeuvres like stalls.
I would certainly move a battery, or any other device to effect a CG but
only to an extent. Perhaps a maximum of 1/3 the distance between the
optimal CG and the tail.
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of kirk hull
Sent: Sunday, June 11, 2006 10:47 AM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: VW Power-plant
When I installed the Suberu engine I did just that . found out just
where
the CG was and corrected from there. I just had to move the bat to the
tail. much easier then changing the engine mounts. another thought,
prop
spacers are cheap and easy
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Noel Loveys
Sent: Sunday, June 11, 2006 7:52 AM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: VW Power-plant
I would expect the best thing to do is to weigh the plane and work out
the
CG. Then you will know more about how much correction you will have to
design. You may just have to rebuild the engine mount.... That's what
they
did on the turbo prop planes.
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Gary Olson
Sent: Saturday, June 10, 2006 5:48 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: VW Power-plant
Gentlemen,
When I bought my series 7 kit, the original owner planned on installing
the
O-200. So the cowlings/FWF kit was specifically for that engine.
Intending
on flying this in the Sport class, I felt that in order to get under the
gross weight limits, I needed to find a place to lighten the load. The
most
obvious place to start would be the power-plant. After evaluating cost,
weight ease of maintenance, etc. I decided on the VW 2276 w/reduction
drive.
Now that the engine has been mounted, I discovered that it is approx.
4-4
1/2" shorter than the O-200. The problem is this, with the engine being
lighter (approx. 35#), and the engine not cantilevered out as far, how
much
is this going to affect my W/B. I realize that I can offset the W/B
difference with moving the battery under the cowling, etc.. What would
be a
logical solution (extend the mount, prop extension, re-work the
_____
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: | Re: Michigan Fly-in this Sunday |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Richard Rabbers" <rira1950@yahoo.com>
Photo of a proud and happy winner.
I'll leave the explaining to the subject.
I'm guessing he'll be along soon.
I'll include initials - L.M.
It was a beautiful day in Jackson !!!
--------
Richard in SW Michigan
Model 1 / 618 - full-lotus floats (restoration)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=40014#40014
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/lynnmskfwon_344.jpg
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Michigan Fly-in this Sunday |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net>
Shucks, Richard, I wasn't even gonna mention that part of the day.
Actually folks, it was nice to grab some hardware even if I did have to
do a lot of "campaigning" to get out the vote. I have to wonder
though...was it the plane, or is the attraction the big number "3" on
the tail? Whatever, I had a ball....I'm really liking this "airport
rat" life.
We had a great turnout of really nice-looking planes, including 5
Kitfoxes....3 IV's, a 5, and a 3, I believe. I'd like to thank Richard
Rabbers, William Willyard, Rex Phelps, Alan Blind, John May, and one
other 'fox owner who's name I did not catch/recognize...if he sees
this, please get in touch. He lives near Brooklyn, MI....sorry about
not catching your name.
What a great day! Perfect weather, good company, lots of interesting
planes including a 50-year-old 172 Cessna, several AT-6's, a MIG jet
that did some fly-overs....and one nearly fly-under as it appeared from
where I stood...he really zoomed along the runway! Custom cars were in
attendance, as well as motorcycles, antique tractors, a radio-control
display, good food and fun. Even with the competition of several other
fly-ins in lower Michigan, we had a very successful turnout. Several
pilots were planning on attending the other events, and we got some
late arrivals from those other events.
My thanks again for all the 'foxer's that flew in or cruised in, and
hopefully we can have a later-in-the-year get-together for those that
couldn't make this one. Lowell, when are you planning to visit this
area? We could try to plan something around your visit.
Lynn
p.s. I even made my first pavement landing in my 'fox the other night,
with verbal help from my instructor....this time he wasn't swearing! He
also told me that I must be getting better....he doesn't have to change
his underwear as often after our lessons...I think that's a compliment.
On Sunday, June 11, 2006, at 06:13 PM, Richard Rabbers wrote:
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Richard Rabbers"
> <rira1950@yahoo.com>
>
> Photo of a proud and happy winner.
> I'll leave the explaining to the subject.
> I'm guessing he'll be along soon.
> I'll include initials - L.M.
> It was a beautiful day in Jackson !!!
>
> --------
> Richard in SW Michigan
> Model 1 / 618 - full-lotus floats (restoration)
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=40014#40014
>
>
> Attachments:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/lynnmskfwon_344.jpg
>
>
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: Annual Cameron Park Kitfox Fly-in |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@sbcglobal.net>
Allan,
Thank you so much. I think I enjoyed this one more than any of the others.
Maybe it is because I am retired now and the preparations were more
leisurely. I will have to post a more detailed report later wheb I have a
more exact airplane count. I have found that it is almost impossible to
count the airplanes I talked to John McBean about last year which had set
all the records - my recollection was that 22 Kitfoxes were here - his count
was 23. I like his numbers better. My feeling is that we had more
airplanes of all types here than at any other BB-Q, but not sure of the
Kitfoxes.
I would like to thank all who came. We provide a venue and menu basics for
the BB-Q, but the other vulunteers - Three local non Kitfox friends Wayne
and Rick and the Stearman guy, Craig who always run the grill, Terry
Kobylczak, a Model IV builder, who always brings the buns, and especially
all the great people who came, are the ones that really make the whole thing
what it has become.
My greatest disappointment is when I scan the cards that people fill out and
I find some names I would like to have spent more time with - Chris Engler,
who is from Chenango Forks, NY and building a Series 7, Scott and Michelle
Denniston, CO who dropped their trailer off at a neary trucktop and came in
the sleeper tracter that they call home while on the road, and lots of
others who came.
The registration cards suggest a count of about 77 , add the bicyclist we
cornered and forced a hamburger on and assorted neighbors, we had about 90
for lunch. I tried three times to walk the street and count the airplanes
and as usual, found numerous people along the way that I wanted to talk to
and promptly lost count. I also tried three times to photograph all the
airplanes and I think that is going to provide for the final airplane count.
I must say here that a group of Rans folks crashed the party ;-) and they
will be in the final aircraft tally, but definitely not in the important
one. It was good for John's potential customers to see them side-by-side.
Sorry to the Rans folks that might be lurking or participating on the list,
but I am quite proud of this prejudice - again :-).
I am thinking of putting all the photos I can round up on a CD and sent them
out to those interested and can do that for a couple of dollars I think -
let me know if interested - lcfitt@sbcglobal.net .
The Idaho and Nevada contingents went out flying this morning, intending to
fly to Fraser Lake a small private airport near the coast with two runways,
one water and one grass. I started with them and after three stops at
various tempting spots and lots of talk, I was completely out of gas -
adrenaline - and thought it prudent for me to get home and just sit quietly
for a few hours. The others are near home now, as I write, and we have been
invited to dinner at a neighbor and fellow Model IV pilot, Wray Flemming's
home, so enough for now.
Thanks again.
Lowell
----- Original Message -----
From: "alnanarthur" <alnanarthur@sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Sunday, June 11, 2006 7:48 AM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Annual Cameron Park Kitfox Fly-in
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: alnanarthur <alnanarthur@sbcglobal.net>
>
> Thanks, Lowell and Kay for a great fly-in and BBQ!
>
> There were a lot of beautiful planes there. Nice to see folks we haven't
> seen for a year or so. What was the final aircraft count? Was it an
> all time high?
>
> Allan & Nancy Arthur
> Kitfox 5, N40AA
> Rotax 912ULS, Warpdrive 3 blade
> Byron Airport, CA (C83) Hanger C8
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List
> http://wiki.matronics.com
>
>
>
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: | More 582 Temperature Questions |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Guy Buchanan <bnn@nethere.com>
All,
I ran around the airport again yesterday. The running water temp
got up to 184, but ran on up to 214 when I shut it down. I've been told
that I'm frying my rotary valve seal, but if I'm to keep the heat soak temp
below 175, I'm going to have to run much cooler than when I shut it down.
Am I worrying too much? Or should I tear into this thing now?
Guy Buchanan
K-IV 1200 / 582-C / Warp / 99.9% done, thanks mostly to Bob Ducar.
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: | Re: More 582 Temperature Questions |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Dave" <dave@cfisher.com>
Hi Guy,
184 F not out of line but 214 F certainly is .
What is OAT when you get these temps and are you just taxing around ?
If engine is new, it eill run a little hotter for first 10 to 20 hours but
214 F is not good news if that continues.
What temps do you get in air ?
What temps did you get when you broke in the engine ? I assume you ran a
hose on rad while doing this ?
Breaking on new engine should take you about 1 hour 20 mins or so.
Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: "Guy Buchanan" <bnn@nethere.com>
Sent: Sunday, June 11, 2006 9:48 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: More 582 Temperature Questions
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Guy Buchanan <bnn@nethere.com>
>
> All,
> I ran around the airport again yesterday. The running water temp
> got up to 184, but ran on up to 214 when I shut it down. I've been told
> that I'm frying my rotary valve seal, but if I'm to keep the heat soak
> temp below 175, I'm going to have to run much cooler than when I shut it
> down. Am I worrying too much? Or should I tear into this thing now?
>
>
> Guy Buchanan
> K-IV 1200 / 582-C / Warp / 99.9% done, thanks mostly to Bob Ducar.
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List
> http://wiki.matronics.com
>
>
>
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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "kirk hull" <kirkhull@sbcglobal.net>
dont know about the rose parade but it did take a prize in the snake
saturday parade in kansas city
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Guy Buchanan
Sent: Sunday, June 11, 2006 10:48 AM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: attachments
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Guy Buchanan <bnn@nethere.com>
I love your rig! You'd look great in the Rose Parade!
At 06:11 AM 6/11/2006, you wrote:
>I noticed a picture attached to one of the e-mails . Does matronics
support
>attachments now ?
Guy Buchanan
K-IV 1200 / 582 / 99.9% done, thanks mostly to Bob Ducar.
Do not archive
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: | Kay and Lowell's Cameron Park Fly-in |
Lowell and Kay
Thank you so much for hosting the fly-in at Cameron Park. A quick count of the
planes I shot is 25....not counting the Beech Bonanza or the Stinson...but
including the Stearman. Will mail a CD of pictures for the record.
It was immensely enjoyable talking with pilots I get to see so rarely. I wish
there were more time to talk with all the pilots and builders.
Jim Shumaker
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! --
|