Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 01:33 AM - Re: Selling My NSI Subaru EA81-130-Turbo CAP Package (Michel Verheughe)
2. 03:06 AM - Re: Re: Student pilot solo to Oshkosh 2006 (Lynn Matteson)
3. 04:23 AM - Re: Oshkosh 2006? (Fox5flyer)
4. 06:05 AM - OshKosh Bunk House (Dan Billingsley)
5. 06:11 AM - Re: Selling My NSI Subaru EA81-130-Turbo CAP Package (Peter Graichen)
6. 06:14 AM - Re: Low Fuel Warning (Algate)
7. 06:36 AM - Re: Re: Rotax 532 a Boat Anchor? (Algate)
8. 06:37 AM - Re: Selling My NSI Subaru EA81-130-Turbo CAP Package (Floran Higgins)
9. 07:23 AM - Kitfox II left landing gear (Elaine Erickson)
10. 07:55 AM - RG Battery (John King)
11. 09:05 AM - Kitfox write up (Dave)
12. 09:06 AM - Re: Navman (Marco Menezes)
13. 09:12 AM - Re: Low Fuel Warning (Marco Menezes)
14. 09:13 AM - Re: Flight Time (Guy Buchanan)
15. 09:49 AM - Re: Low Fuel Warning (Dave)
16. 10:13 AM - Re: Navman (Clifford Begnaud)
17. 10:27 AM - Re: KingFox Tires (Bouncing Ricky) (kitfoxjunky)
18. 10:36 AM - One for the dodo file.. (kitfoxjunky)
19. 11:30 AM - Re: One for the dodo file.. (Michel Verheughe)
20. 11:38 AM - Re: Flight Time (W Duke)
21. 11:56 AM - Re: Low Fuel Warning (Lowell Fitt)
22. 12:00 PM - Re: Flight Time (Guy Buchanan)
23. 12:09 PM - Re: One for the dodo file.. (kitfoxmike)
24. 12:52 PM - Re: RG Battery (Peter Graichen)
25. 01:22 PM - Re: Low Fuel Warning (Dave)
26. 01:42 PM - Re: Low Fuel Warning (kitfoxmike)
27. 01:43 PM - Re: Low Fuel Warning (kitfoxmike)
28. 02:34 PM - Re: Re: Rotax 532 a Boat Anchor? (Bradley M Webb)
29. 03:12 PM - Re: Re: Rotax 532 a Boat Anchor? (Dave)
30. 03:12 PM - Re: Re: Rotax 532 a Boat Anchor? (Michel Verheughe)
31. 03:28 PM - Re: Re: Rotax 532 a Boat Anchor? (Algate)
32. 03:47 PM - Re: Kitfox II left landing gear (Dee Young)
33. 03:54 PM - Re: KingFox Tires (Bouncing Ricky) (kitfoxmike)
34. 04:29 PM - Re: Re: Rotax 532 a Boat Anchor? (Aerobatics@aol.com)
35. 04:53 PM - Re: Re: Low Fuel Warning (Lynn Matteson)
36. 06:26 PM - Re: RG Battery (jdmcbean)
37. 07:32 PM - Re: Kitfox II left landing gear (Malcolmbru@aol.com)
38. 07:38 PM - Re: Re: Rotax 532 a Boat Anchor? (Malcolmbru@AOL.COM)
39. 07:38 PM - Re: RG Battery (John King)
40. 08:16 PM - Re: Re: Low Fuel Warning (Noel Loveys)
41. 08:24 PM - Re: Re: Rotax 532 a Boat Anchor? (Noel Loveys)
42. 08:30 PM - Re: Re: Rotax 532 a Boat Anchor? (Noel Loveys)
43. 08:52 PM - Re: Re: Rotax 532 a Boat Anchor? (Noel Loveys)
44. 09:29 PM - Re: Re: Rotax 532 a Boat Anchor? (Bradley M Webb)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Selling My NSI Subaru EA81-130-Turbo CAP Package |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
On Jul 11, 2006, at 11:53 PM, QSS wrote:
> Hi Jim, thanks for sharing your battle with cancer with us. <SNIP>
> Please keep us informed of your progress.
Yes, please, do that Jim. Our beloved Kitfoxes are merely machine but
this list consists of people and we care for each other. Best of luck,
Michel
do not archive
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: Student pilot solo to Oshkosh 2006 |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net>
Darin...and others who might be interested....
One kinda major item that I forgot to mention in my earlier posting, is
the fact that I had a 5-way heart bypass done in 2000, and, based on a
friend's history with similar surgery, and his long struggle to get his
private pilot ticket reinstated, I was determined NOT to try to get the
FAA medical. Because of this, the flight training centers that I've
used have told me that their insurance companies would not let me solo
their planes, even if I was ready for solo. In the case of the local
Community College flight center, those bastards kept me buying flight
time, neglecting to tell me that I was NEVER going to be able to solo
their planes. In my annual visit to my heart doc, I asked him what the
FAA treadmill test consisted of, and he told me a 9-minute run on the
mill....(the FAA tests are done at his office)....I inquired what I had
done on his test back in 2002, and he replied... "Nine minutes, 20
seconds" This tempted me to want to take the FAA medical exam, but
I'm no fool, I am NOT going to submit myself to taking a test when all
I want at this stage of my life is to be able to fly the Kitfox under
the Sport Pilot Certificate, and I have no desire to advance any
further...well, maybe floats, but that's another story.
Lynn
Kitfox IV...Jabiru 2200
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Oshkosh 2006? |
Excellent Fred. Give me your cell number and I'll add it to my list.
Mine's 989 736 8264
Deke
----- Original Message -----
From: Fred Shiple
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 10:45 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Oshkosh 2006?
Deke,
I'm working First-Aid at the seaplane base Sat thru Tue (22-25). Hope
we can get together.
Fred
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | OshKosh Bunk House |
Just thought I'd ask the group...Does anyone have a motel room they would like
to split the cost on? This is my first time to OshKosh and my plans are to tent
it. I have talked to a couple veterans lately that said they never got any sleep
due to the humidity. Even to have the option of the floor if the first night
camping is a yawner. Have bedroll...will travel :>)
Dan B. / Kitfox IV
480-227-8958
dan@azshowersolutions.com
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: | Selling My NSI Subaru EA81-130-Turbo CAP Package |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Peter Graichen" <n10pg@neo.rr.com>
Hello Jim:
Sorry to hear about your plight. Been there, done that! Or better, am there
doing that.
Concerning your ignition problems, it most likely is failure of one of the
mag pickups or an ignition isolation module. I can help you with replacement
of either one.
Sincerely,
Peter Graichen
http:/home.neo.rr.com/n10pg/kitfox.htm
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jim Crowder
Sent: Tuesday, 11 July, 2006 17:28
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Jim Crowder <jimlc@att.net>
I will be 70 on the 11th of September and am going through what has seemed
like a very bad year with prostate cancer, treatment, etc...............
Feel free to discus the above including my asking prices. I am sure both I
and any prospective buyers would welcome this.
Jim Crowder
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: | Low Fuel Warning |
Thanks Don
Gary
_____
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Donald
STEVENSON
Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 8:37 PM
Gary, You will find one by going to www.murlewilliamsaviation.com
<http://www.murlewilliamsaviation.com/> in his online catalog for $95.00
US, I am thinking of ordering one my self, let me know if you find anything
better, Don
Don Stevenson, Caledon, Ontario
M4/1200 Speedster-912UL
----- Original Message ----
Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 4:25:41 PM
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Algate" <algate@attglobal.net>
Sorry to rehash old subjects but I know that a lot of the Kitfoxes
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Rotax 532 a Boat Anchor? |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Algate" <algate@attglobal.net>
I believe that the blue head 582 has a number of desirable upgrades over the
grey head ie) thermostat by-pass etc. Probably worth looking into.
Just for the record the 58 has an amazing power to weight ration and
excellent durability due to de-rated power and oversized crank and bearings.
Each engine variation has its own benefits and drawbacks and I don't think
there is any one combination that meets all of our requirements. For some
people TBO and cost is extremely important while for others performance and
durability are critical. I think it's up to each of us to decide what is
best for our personal mission.
I have flown Kitfoxes behind 912's, Jabiru's and 582's each one has its
pros and its cons but they are great and reliable engines.
For what it's worth!
Gary Algate
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bradley M Webb
Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 6:04 PM
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bradley M Webb" <bmwebb@cox.net>
A 912 will not fit. The fuselage tubing up until the 3 (possibly IV) is too
small to support the weight. The Geo, with 65hp and 150#, is at the upper
limit of what I can install on my M2.
I would suggest you go with the Geo, but if you NEED a Rotax, go with the
582. The grey-heads are fine if you can find one, and be prepared to do ALL
that is required to maintain it ($$$). If you aren't, then your choices are
that much more limited on the 1.
Bradley
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of RichWill
Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 11:04 AM
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "RichWill" <rwill1@adelphia.net>
Never had one myself, but know of many who did and failed... Been around
awhile and they did have problems with the rotary values, something to do
with caburation...
I would NOT use it, or offered a price that excludes the engine.. Put in a
582 or go the extra mile and get the 912... you'll be much happier and
safer!!
Rich
N50PC
--------
Semper Fi
15 ITT
G2 HqCo HqBn
1st MarDiv
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=46356#46356
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: Selling My NSI Subaru EA81-130-Turbo CAP Package |
Apparently you have had better luck with the FAA Medical center than I
did.
I had a first class medical until 1988.
I had a double bypass surgery in Nov 1988. The FAA required me to have
$1500 worth of tests every year since.
I would take the tests in Jan and send them to the medical center. I
would not receive my third class medical until Jun or July. Then they
would only make it valid until the next Jan, so I only had a medical for
six months.
Last Jan I decided that I would go with the Sport Pilot route.
Floran H.
----- Original Message -----
From: Fred Shiple
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 8:25 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Selling My NSI Subaru EA81-130-Turbo CAP
Package
Jim,
I think you're possibly making a decision regarding FAA requiremints
with too little information. I'm a 60 y/o semi-retired physician and
have dealt with the FAA and cancer twice in the last 12 years -cured of
both testiculat and prostate cancer.
The hoops I went thru 12 years ago (1st ca surgery) are gone. All I
needed last year (prostate ca) was a knowledgable AME and I was able to
get the approval 3 months after my surgery on the same day I visited the
AME. A friend got his medical approved (cardiac stent) by phone with the
FAA with instructions on where to mail the appropriate medical records.
The FAA has truly streamlined the process, particularly for the more
common serious maladies such as prostate ca where success can be
determined by psa levels. I'd give the FAA a shot before doing something
too radical with my 'Fox
Contact me off line if you need more info. Good luck with your
treatment program.
Fred
I will be 70 on the 11th of September and am going through what has
seemed like a very bad year with prostate cancer, treatment, etc. I
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: | Kitfox II left landing gear |
I have a Kitfox II and the left landing gear cracked on it. I contacted
Kitfox Aircraft about purchasing a replacement and they said they no
longer have the ability to make that part. Does anyone have the left
landing gear for a Kitfox II that they would be willing to sell?
Thanks,
Verne
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 |
|
Has anyone obtained an RG type battery that can fit inside the standard
Kitfox battery box of the type provided by SkyStar? If so I would like
to know the make and model . My current Series 6/912S battery has a 16
amp-hour and 240 cranking amps ratings.
--
John King
Warrenton, VA
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: "Dave" <dave@cfisher.com>
I just read over a terrific article in Kitplanes August 2006 issue.
If you don't have it , go pick it up or maybe someone could scan a copy .
Great support for John Mc Bean at Sportplanes and Steve Winder at Airdale
for Kitfox Suppliers in that article.
Dave
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 |
|
I think I speak for everyone on the list in saying we sincerely appreciate your
insights and experience Cliff. You clearly have a strong opinion on this. As
a builder who has not yet installed a marine transducer into his fuel system (but
is leaning in that direction), I'm very curious as to exactly what your experience
has been with the barbed hose fittings on the NavMan transducer. Have
you had one fail or do you know of one failing either in marine or aviation applications?
Just trying to get the facts.
Thanks.
Clifford Begnaud <shoeless@barefootpilot.com> wrote:
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clifford Begnaud"
Paul,
I would be happy if I had the screw-on fittings (metal)
What I have is the marine plastic push on. The unit works well enough and
will certainly stand up to any fuel that I throw at it. The issue is the
flimsy plastic hose barbs. It for this reason and this reason only that I
made the statement about not being suitable for aviation and I STRONGLY
stand by that statement.
This is experimental aviation so you can use whatever you want. I clearly
gave my reason for my statement in a previous message, but no one has
bothered to address that issue. Instead I get sarcasm about Mil 6000. If you
paid the least bit attention you would know that I was one who suffered mil
6000 destruction when using mogas on our first kitfox and I have been a
strong opponent of that crap for mogas use ever since. Despite the
experience of many on the list there are still those with their head in the
sand about mil 6000. Just because it hasn't happened to them ...it's not a
problem. I have first hand experience with the marine sender with the
plastic hose barb fittings, do you?
I have lots of "experimental" stuff on my plane, but each item is evaluated
for it's suitability for the job and for the environment in which it has to
perform. Despite the insinuation, I am not one of those that only uses
official "aviation" approved parts. But I am one that tries to spot problems
areas BEFORE they become a problem.
The reality is that the marine fuel sender "might" just last a long time in
an airplane, or it might not. In my view the one with the plastic hose barbs
is suspect and there are better options available.
I like my Navman unit, but I want to replace the sender. The fuel mizer unit
might be just the ticket, or I might try a flowscan sender for under $200.
The fuel mizer with the threaded fittings sound like a great unit, but I
still would recommend to those that haven't installed one yet to NOT use the
one with plastic hose barb fittings. It's my opinion and it's likely worth
what you paid for it.
I'm finished venting now, lets go have a beer together... ;-)
Best regards,
Cliff
PS, I've had my share of issues with our kitfoxes over the years and I
always try to share with the list the ones that I think are important
(meaning someone could get hurt) But I have learned that most people will
pay no heed to it until it happens to them. I have no delusion about
changing anyone's mind that already has a marine sender in their plane. I
make these comments for the builder that hasn't installed one yet.
Hey Cliff,
I searched and searched for Fuel Mizer then found out that Navman
took them over same country - Australia. When the list discovered the
Fuel Mizer, way back in time, the guys who bought them said the
aviation on had threaded fittings and the boat one had push-on hose
fittings. Now the aviation one is over USD300 and the boat one is a
little over USD100. The transducer and the head were apparently the
same. It has a small turbine just like the Flowscan. IMO, push-on
connection works just fine, just like the pushon connection on the
Rotax fuel pump. Both were 3/8" fittings. Installation for those who
have not got one should be in a vertical line downstream of your fuel
filter. Per the install manual.
With regard to "not suitable for aviation". I strongly disagree. The
things are made for marine use and they use the same gasoline laced
with bad chemicals that we use in our cars. I think the Coast guard
would ban them if they ever failed and caused a fuel leak. That
feature alone makes it suitable for my use.
Regards, Paul
PS, I guess you use Mil 6000 fuel hose because the stuff is approved
for aviation. Good luck. PW
=================
At 01:34 PM 7/11/2006, you wrote:
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clifford Begnaud"
>
>
>Gary,
>I didn't know they had one for avaition use. Mine is the marine unit and
>not
>really suitable for aviation. I would like to see this aviation unit, I
>couldn't find it on their web site at www.navman.com.
>Cliff
>
>
>Likewise I have the Mizer already installed in my Kitfox with over 300 hrs.
>The Mizer is the Navman with a new Decal and an aviation rating and a new
>price : +$300.00
>
>
>The transducer is carbon reinforced plastic and I have it fitted between
>the
>main filter and the inlet of the fuel pump. Cliff mentioned that he felt
>the plastic transducer might be a problem but I have the same transducer
>and
>it is certified for aviation use so I think in this instance it is fine.
>
>
>After 4500 ltrs of fuel it reads accuracy to within 1 ltr. Pretty amazing.
>
>
>To Dave - Thanks for the info I'll contact them today
>
>
>Gary Algate
>
>
> _____
>
>[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dave
>Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 2:41 PM
>
>
>Hi Marco.
>
>
>It is right below the fuel pump that is mounted to the firewall after the
>gascolator. Only thing I did not like is that the transducer is 3/8" and my
>fuel line is 1/4" I used angle adapters and it seems to work ok. I would
>guess over 100 hours on it now.
>
>
>Dave
>
>----- Original Message -----
>
>
>Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 2:29 PM
>
>
>Dave -
>
>
>Where in your fuel system did you install the transducer for your Navman?
>
>Dave wrote:
>
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Dave"
>
>Gary,
>
>I got mine here for 111 $ shipped to Canada overnight , I think it was 130$
>total and works fine.
>
>
>Marco Menezes
>Model 2 582 N99KX
>
>
> _____
>
>
>Yahoo! Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs. Try
>>/unlimited/%20> it free.
>
>
Marco Menezes
Model 2 582 N99KX
---------------------------------
Want to be your own boss? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business.
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: Low Fuel Warning |
Hi Gary.
I got mine (float type) from ACS. I think it cost about $25. An orange LED indicator
light for the panel was $2-3 from Radio Shack. Easy to install and works
great! Indicator lights up with about 15 min of fuel left. I'm thinking of
adding an audio waring as well.
Donald STEVENSON <shericom@rogers.com> wrote:
Gary, You will find one by going to www.murlewilliamsaviation.com in his online catalog for $95.00 US, I am thinking of ordering one my self, let me know if you find anything better, Don
Don Stevenson, Caledon, Ontario
M4/1200 Speedster-912UL
----- Original Message ----
Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 4:25:41 PM
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Algate" <algate@attglobal.net>
Sorry to rehash old subjects but I know that a lot of the Kitfoxes
Marco Menezes
Model 2 582 N99KX
---------------------------------
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 |
|
Thanks. I may take you up on it!
At 09:50 PM 7/11/2006, you wrote:
>If you are able to get to Houston, TX you can get some time in a KF Series
>V at LaPorte TX. E-mail or call me at 281-480-4461 home if interested.
Guy Buchanan
K-IV 1200 / 582-C / Warp / 100% done, thanks mostly to Bob Ducar.
Do not archive
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: Low Fuel Warning |
Marco the Navman has a alarm setting as well.
You punch in total fuel and set the alarm at where you want it to go off
and it goes off after that amount of fuel has gone through.
I set mine at 14 litres and total fuel at 70 litres and when the fuel
flow hits 14.5 the audible alarm goes off and with a 582 running and
headset on I can clearly hear it .
Now it is not by actual fuel but by virtual fuel calculated by the
Navman which does seem very accurate.
I also have windows in both fuel tanks and the dash tank to be able to
see the fuel level at all times.
I also use a calibrated dip stick for wing tanks that I dip to confirm
the fuel level. But this will do you no good if you leave a gas cap
loose and all of your fuel gets siphoned out.
Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: Marco Menezes
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 12:11 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Low Fuel Warning
Hi Gary.
I got mine (float type) from ACS. I think it cost about $25. An orange
LED indicator light for the panel was $2-3 from Radio Shack. Easy to
install and works great! Indicator lights up with about 15 min of fuel
left. I'm thinking of adding an audio waring as well.
Donald STEVENSON <shericom@rogers.com> wrote:
Gary, You will find one by going to www.murlewilliamsaviation.com in
his online catalog for $95.00 US, I am thinking of ordering one my self,
let me know if you find anything better, Don
Don Stevenson, Caledon, Ontario
M4/1200 Speedster-912UL
----- Original Message ----
From: Algate <algate@attglobal.net>
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 4:25:41 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Low Fuel Warning
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Algate" <algate@attglobal.net>
Sorry to rehash old subjects but I know that a lot of the Kitfoxes
Marco Menezes
Model 2 582 N99KX
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clifford Begnaud" <shoeless@barefootpilot.com>
Marco
It has not failed... yet. I don't know of any that have failed, but then I
don't know who else has it installed. At one point my mil 6000 fuel hose had
not failed, at one point my aluminum tailwheel spring had not failed, at one
point my second aluminum tailwheel spring had not failed, at one point my
two- leaf steel tw spring had not failed, at one point the fuel sight tube
fittings had not failed, at one point my rudder pedals had not failed, at
one point ....well do I really need to go on?
The plastic barbs might NEVER fail. It might outlive the airplane. This is
just about balancing the choices about what you put in your plane. The point
is that it is a potential failure point and if it does fail in flight, what
are the consequences? I'm just balancing the chances of failure with the
consequences of failure. If the only other choice cost $1000 more, that
would certainly change the formula. But the cost difference between the
plastic hose barbs and something better is not that great.
The formula for balancing risk vs reward will be different for each of us.
I'm just sharing the way that I look at things. I have spent my entire life
doing very risky things, aviation being one of the safer ones. I even make
my living balancing risk vs reward every day by trading the futures markets.
I've seen the consequences of poorly balanced risk vs reward far too many
times....
Best regards,
Cliff
I think I speak for everyone on the list in saying we sincerely appreciate
your insights and experience Cliff. You clearly have a strong opinion on
this. As a builder who has not yet installed a marine transducer into his
fuel system (but is leaning in that direction), I'm very curious as to
exactly what your experience has been with the barbed hose fittings on the
NavMan transducer. Have you had one fail or do you know of one failing
either in marine or aviation applications? Just trying to get the facts.
Thanks.
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: KingFox Tires (Bouncing Ricky) |
I am running 8 IBS and have noticed my landings are a bit more of a
challenge. I think it is just something you have to get used to. I was
hopping rides last weekend for a couple of hours, and they got better over
time.
Gary Walsh
KF IV Anphib 912S
C-GOOT
www.decisionlabs.com/kitfox
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: | One for the dodo file.. |
On the theme of "share the bad along with the good", perhaps you can
reference this the next time you park your plane.
Went to a flyin on the weekend. Air Canada Pilot has a pig roast every
year at his place in Southwestern Ontario. Pilots have to hop passengers
for their meal. Weather was excellent. I logged about 3.5 hrs that day.
The runway did not have a lot of parking area, so when we took a break we
parked the planes well back from the takeoff point on the grass strip..
near the threshold. I did not like the layout, as we were on a slight
downslope. I moved my tail perpendicular to the runway..pointing out into
a bean field. I did not have chocks or stakes to tie it down, but I
figured it was safe.The wind was calm. I was only going to be gone for a
few minutes before I started hopping rides again. We were well back of
the other airplanes.
Wouldn't you know it...somone came into the parking area and when turning
around blasted everyone with prop wash. I would never have thought that
the thrust could have that kind of power. My plane weather cocked, then
rolled backwards thru the bean field and about 50 yards down the hill,
with nobody in it. I heard about it on my handheld while I was having
something to eat. Walking up to the plane I could not see anything but
the tracks thru the bean field disappearing down the hill. As I got
closer, I could see the plane was on a funny angle up against some trees
in a ditch at the bottom of the hill with a crowd around it. I figured it
was totalled. Turned out the tailwheel caught a small sapling, and it
bent over and cushioned the impact. There was no damage at all, other than
a slight distortion to the leaf spring on the tail. It missed the wing
of my friend's 170 by inches on it way past. Could have been a disaster,
with two planes damaged.
The lesson...always tie it down.
Gary Walsh
KF IV Anphib (soon) 912S
C-GOOT
www.decisionlabs.com/kitfox
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: One for the dodo file.. |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
On Jul 12, 2006, at 7:31 PM, kitfoxjunky wrote:
> I figured it was totalled. Turned out the tailwheel caught a small
> sapling, and it bent over and cushioned the impact.
Good to hear it went fine, Gary. If you ever have a photo of your
distorted leaf spring, so that we can all see what happens when unusual
forces are exerted on our aircraft. Thanks.
Cheers,
Michel
do not archive
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 |
|
We have 6 with an IO240. We have a CFII on our insurance who I am sure would fly
with you. It may satisfy you insurance but it is a different machine than
a IV with a 582. We are in Dublin, Georgia.
Maxwell
Guy Buchanan <bnn@nethere.com> wrote:
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Guy Buchanan
All,
OK. Now I'm getting desperate. My insurance requires one hour's
dual in a Kitfox IV prior to being insured solo in my aircraft. I'm having
no success in SoCal so I'm inquiring anywhere in the continental US. Any
CFI's out there with access to a Kitfox 3, 4, or 5 I might be able to buy
some time in? I've recently refreshed my tailwheel qual in a Decathlon but
recognize I'll need some work to get comfortable in the Kitfox. Thanks in
advance for your help.
Guy Buchanan
K-IV 1200 / 582-C / Warp / 100% done, thanks mostly to Bob Ducar.
Maxwell Duke
S6/IO240/Phase II Flight Testing
---------------------------------
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: Low Fuel Warning |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@sbcglobal.net>
Sitting here doing something else, I thought of this system and remembered a
recent report from the Lancair list.
First, I like the translucent fuel tanks that show fuel remaining as you
note or the sight gauges or even looking at the transparent vent line. This
would have helped the Lancair pilot avoid his surprise.
The Lancair list story goes like this:
A guy with a fuel monitor reports that he had been using his fuel burn and
hours left for his fuel management. After his last flight - bringing his
airpland home from servicing where it had been for about two weeks. The
long cross country flight was uneventful, and upon arrival at his home field
he refuels. I don't remember his reported fuel capacity, but he loaded fuel
to within a few gallons of that capacity. This amount didn't correspond
with the fuel monitor and after some thinking he realized that the
difference was exactly five gallons. He strongly suspects that during his
airplane's stay at the repair shop, someone short of cash, integrety, and
brains simply drained five gallons of his gas into a can for use elsewhere.
Another list member then reported on an airplane readying for flight that
was discovered during the preflight to be bone dry. Apparently the high
price of fuel has brought out the "Midnight Entrepreneurs".
The Lancair List then had the expected long semi flaming session about what
constitutes a proper fuel assessment during the preflight and the relative
distribution of brains in that group.
Another reason to be careful with too much reliance on fuel totalizers has
to do with the last homeward flight from the Desert Fox fly-in when the line
boy didn't get my fuel cap on squarely and I had almost a full tank of fuel
sucked out before I noticed anything amis.
Be careful with too much reliance on these devices that calculate fuel
remaining based on only what it knows - fuel added and fuel flow - there may
be other factors that may come into play.
Also be careful with to much reliance on others that are servicing our
airplanes. I sure learned from my experience. The cap was on and pointed
in the right direction, but only one tang was engaged.
Lowell
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 9:48 AM
Marco the Navman has a alarm setting as well.
You punch in total fuel and set the alarm at where you want it to go off and
it goes off after that amount of fuel has gone through.
I set mine at 14 litres and total fuel at 70 litres and when the fuel flow
hits 14.5 the audible alarm goes off and with a 582 running and headset on I
can clearly hear it .
Now it is not by actual fuel but by virtual fuel calculated by the Navman
which does seem very accurate.
I also have windows in both fuel tanks and the dash tank to be able to see
the fuel level at all times.
I also use a calibrated dip stick for wing tanks that I dip to confirm the
fuel level. But this will do you no good if you leave a gas cap loose and
all of your fuel gets siphoned out.
Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: Marco Menezes
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 12:11 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Low Fuel Warning
Hi Gary.
I got mine (float type) from ACS. I think it cost about $25. An orange LED
indicator light for the panel was $2-3 from Radio Shack. Easy to install and
works great! Indicator lights up with about 15 min of fuel left. I'm
thinking of adding an audio waring as well.
Donald STEVENSON <shericom@rogers.com> wrote:
Gary, You will find one by going to www.murlewilliamsaviation.com in his
online catalog for $95.00 US, I am thinking of ordering one my self, let me
know if you find anything better, Don
Don Stevenson, Caledon, Ontario
M4/1200 Speedster-912UL
----- Original Message ----
From: Algate <algate@attglobal.net>
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 4:25:41 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Low Fuel Warning
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Algate" <algate@attglobal.net>
Sorry to rehash old subjects but I know that a lot of the Kitfoxes
Marco Menezes
Model 2 582 N99KX
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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Guy Buchanan <bnn@nethere.com>
At 11:37 AM 7/12/2006, you wrote:
>We have 6 with an IO240. We have a CFII on our insurance who I am sure
>would fly with you. It may satisfy you insurance but it is a different
>machine than a IV with a 582. We are in Dublin, Georgia.
Thanks for the offer, Maxwell. You're right that it will be quite a
different flight. I'll keep you in mind if I can't find something more similar.
Guy Buchanan
K-IV 1200 / 582-C / Warp / 100% done, thanks mostly to Bob Ducar.
Do not archive
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: | Re: One for the dodo file.. |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "kitfoxmike" <kitfoxmike@yahoo.com>
I would like to know what the person did that created the mess, was he an ahole
about it.
--------
kitfoxmike
kitfox4 1200 912ul speedster
http://www.frappr.com/kitfoxmike
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=46726#46726
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 |
|
Hello John:
Have you tried Bill Bainbridge at B& C Specialty Products in Newton KS
(316) 283-8000 (http://www.bandcspecialty.com). Say hello for me.
Peter Graichen
http:/home.neo.rr.com/n10pg/kitfox.htm
_____
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John King
Sent: Wednesday, 12 July, 2006 10:54
Has anyone obtained an RG type battery that can fit inside the standard
Kitfox battery box of the type provided by SkyStar? If so I would like to
know the make and model . My current Series 6/912S battery has a 16
amp-hour and 240 cranking amps ratings.
--
John King
Warrenton, VA
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: Low Fuel Warning |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Dave" <dave@cfisher.com>
Lowell,
I learned many years ago as part of my walkaround that when at tail of plane
to look forward and check gas caps and make sure they are there in in right
position visually. After a refueling -same thing walkaround look at tail,
make sure tailwheel still there etc and look forward to gas caps. The low
pressure on top of wings will drain your tanks very quickly if the cap comes
off. I would only gues that a poor sealing cap "might " do the same.
Dave
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 2:55 PM
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@sbcglobal.net>
>
> Sitting here doing something else, I thought of this system and remembered
> a recent report from the Lancair list.
>
> First, I like the translucent fuel tanks that show fuel remaining as you
> note or the sight gauges or even looking at the transparent vent line.
> This would have helped the Lancair pilot avoid his surprise.
>
> The Lancair list story goes like this:
>
> A guy with a fuel monitor reports that he had been using his fuel burn and
> hours left for his fuel management. After his last flight - bringing his
> airpland home from servicing where it had been for about two weeks. The
> long cross country flight was uneventful, and upon arrival at his home
> field he refuels. I don't remember his reported fuel capacity, but he
> loaded fuel to within a few gallons of that capacity. This amount didn't
> correspond with the fuel monitor and after some thinking he realized that
> the difference was exactly five gallons. He strongly suspects that during
> his airplane's stay at the repair shop, someone short of cash, integrety,
> and brains simply drained five gallons of his gas into a can for use
> elsewhere.
>
> Another list member then reported on an airplane readying for flight that
> was discovered during the preflight to be bone dry. Apparently the high
> price of fuel has brought out the "Midnight Entrepreneurs".
>
> The Lancair List then had the expected long semi flaming session about
> what constitutes a proper fuel assessment during the preflight and the
> relative distribution of brains in that group.
>
> Another reason to be careful with too much reliance on fuel totalizers has
> to do with the last homeward flight from the Desert Fox fly-in when the
> line boy didn't get my fuel cap on squarely and I had almost a full tank
> of fuel sucked out before I noticed anything amis.
>
> Be careful with too much reliance on these devices that calculate fuel
> remaining based on only what it knows - fuel added and fuel flow - there
> may be other factors that may come into play.
>
> Also be careful with to much reliance on others that are servicing our
> airplanes. I sure learned from my experience. The cap was on and
> pointed in the right direction, but only one tang was engaged.
>
> Lowell
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 9:48 AM
>
>
> Marco the Navman has a alarm setting as well.
>
> You punch in total fuel and set the alarm at where you want it to go off
> and it goes off after that amount of fuel has gone through.
> I set mine at 14 litres and total fuel at 70 litres and when the fuel
> flow hits 14.5 the audible alarm goes off and with a 582 running and
> headset on I can clearly hear it .
>
> Now it is not by actual fuel but by virtual fuel calculated by the Navman
> which does seem very accurate.
> I also have windows in both fuel tanks and the dash tank to be able to see
> the fuel level at all times.
>
> I also use a calibrated dip stick for wing tanks that I dip to confirm the
> fuel level. But this will do you no good if you leave a gas cap loose and
> all of your fuel gets siphoned out.
>
>
> Dave
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Marco Menezes
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 12:11 PM
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Low Fuel Warning
>
>
> Hi Gary.
>
> I got mine (float type) from ACS. I think it cost about $25. An orange
> LED indicator light for the panel was $2-3 from Radio Shack. Easy to
> install and works great! Indicator lights up with about 15 min of fuel
> left. I'm thinking of adding an audio waring as well.
>
> Donald STEVENSON <shericom@rogers.com> wrote:
> Gary, You will find one by going to www.murlewilliamsaviation.com in
> his online catalog for $95.00 US, I am thinking of ordering one my self,
> let me know if you find anything better, Don
>
> Don Stevenson, Caledon, Ontario
> M4/1200 Speedster-912UL
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Algate <algate@attglobal.net>
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 4:25:41 PM
> Subject: Kitfox-List: Low Fuel Warning
>
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Algate" <algate@attglobal.net>
>
> Sorry to rehash old subjects but I know that a lot of the Kitfoxes
>
>
> Marco Menezes
> Model 2 582 N99KX
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List
> http://wiki.matronics.com
>
>
>
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: Low Fuel Warning |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "kitfoxmike" <kitfoxmike@yahoo.com>
I do one better, I put my hand on each fuel cap and wiggle it to make sure not
only is it on, but that is on proper before climbing into the cockpit. I grab
the vent on the fox and gentley tug on them. It's turned into a habit that I
don't forget. So far I've left the cap off once. Glad I do this.
--------
kitfoxmike
kitfox4 1200 912ul speedster
http://www.frappr.com/kitfoxmike
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=46740#46740
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: | Re: Low Fuel Warning |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "kitfoxmike" <kitfoxmike@yahoo.com>
Oh, and for the reply for the nighttime theifs, I always pull the caps and look
inside for the fuel level, big habit also.
--------
kitfoxmike
kitfox4 1200 912ul speedster
http://www.frappr.com/kitfoxmike
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=46741#46741
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Rotax 532 a Boat Anchor? |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bradley M Webb" <bmwebb@cox.net>
What desirable upgrades? A water bypass? Oooooh.
The grey head is as good as the blue. Trading a grey for a blue is pure
folly (how's that comin' from a Southern boy!). The Bluehead just isn't that
much nicer. Of course, you should go buy a Bluehead if you're shopping new.
Especially since that's all you can get!
It does have a good P/Wt ratio, but it DOES NOT have excellent reliability,
in any sense of the phrase. Sorry, but I have to raise the BS flag here. Can
you name an engine, used for just about anything, that is LESS reliable than
the Rotax UL two-strokes? I can't think of any; production ones, anyway.
That's my .02,
Bradley
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Algate
Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 9:39 AM
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Algate" <algate@attglobal.net>
I believe that the blue head 582 has a number of desirable upgrades over the
grey head ie) thermostat by-pass etc. Probably worth looking into.
Just for the record the 58 has an amazing power to weight ration and
excellent durability due to de-rated power and oversized crank and bearings.
Each engine variation has its own benefits and drawbacks and I don't think
there is any one combination that meets all of our requirements. For some
people TBO and cost is extremely important while for others performance and
durability are critical. I think it's up to each of us to decide what is
best for our personal mission.
I have flown Kitfoxes behind 912's, Jabiru's and 582's each one has its
pros and its cons but they are great and reliable engines.
For what it's worth!
Gary Algate
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bradley M Webb
Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 6:04 PM
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bradley M Webb" <bmwebb@cox.net>
A 912 will not fit. The fuselage tubing up until the 3 (possibly IV) is too
small to support the weight. The Geo, with 65hp and 150#, is at the upper
limit of what I can install on my M2.
I would suggest you go with the Geo, but if you NEED a Rotax, go with the
582. The grey-heads are fine if you can find one, and be prepared to do ALL
that is required to maintain it ($$$). If you aren't, then your choices are
that much more limited on the 1.
Bradley
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of RichWill
Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 11:04 AM
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "RichWill" <rwill1@adelphia.net>
Never had one myself, but know of many who did and failed... Been around
awhile and they did have problems with the rotary values, something to do
with caburation...
I would NOT use it, or offered a price that excludes the engine.. Put in a
582 or go the extra mile and get the 912... you'll be much happier and
safer!!
Rich
N50PC
--------
Semper Fi
15 ITT
G2 HqCo HqBn
1st MarDiv
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=46356#46356
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Rotax 532 a Boat Anchor? |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Dave" <dave@cfisher.com>
Bradley,
I would not let of too much steam till you get some testing done on your
Geo.
Some are ok, some are not.
time will tell.
The Majority of the rotax 582 troubles have stemmed from the operators and
not just the engine.
I think most will agree there.
Dave
Now if you want some facts from a Geo armchair critic with handson
experience, I will give it to you since you like to be critical. :)
...
Dave,
I had a look at the photo and this fellow is heading for trouble. He has
a turbo 3 so the power will be adequate but there are several other
problems. The flywheel is very light so there will be a lot of shaking.
There is no damper as there is in the Russian gearbox, so the only damping
will be by the belt, and this will vary with tension.
The exhaust has a couple of problems. First off it is a waste of effort
and weight to use any sort of muffler. The turbo will quiet the engine down
quite well by itself. There appears to have been a bit of interference
between the cowl and the exhaust elbow, so the builder shaved the exhaust
and welded in a plate. It looks as if the shaving might have caused a
restriction. This could restrict the outflow of exhaust, and if this is the
case there will be a loss of power. The other exhaust problem is that there
appears to be no mount for the muffler. If the engine shakes as much as I
think it will, the muffler will be acting like a pendulum. It will not be
long before the pipe parts from the turbo flange. This will improve the
power output but it could also cause a fire.
The prop extension looks to be very long, and there appears to be only a
very small radius where it meets its mounting flange. This is a recipe for
crack initiation and propagation. If I were in the insurance business I
would not be selling any life insurance to this fellow. ....
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 5:32 PM
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bradley M Webb" <bmwebb@cox.net>
>
> What desirable upgrades? A water bypass? Oooooh.
>
> The grey head is as good as the blue. Trading a grey for a blue is pure
> folly (how's that comin' from a Southern boy!). The Bluehead just isn't
> that
> much nicer. Of course, you should go buy a Bluehead if you're shopping
> new.
> Especially since that's all you can get!
>
> It does have a good P/Wt ratio, but it DOES NOT have excellent
> reliability,
> in any sense of the phrase. Sorry, but I have to raise the BS flag here.
> Can
> you name an engine, used for just about anything, that is LESS reliable
> than
> the Rotax UL two-strokes? I can't think of any; production ones, anyway.
>
> That's my .02,
> Bradley
>
> -----Original Message-----
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Algate
> Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 9:39 AM
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Algate" <algate@attglobal.net>
>
> I believe that the blue head 582 has a number of desirable upgrades over
> the
> grey head ie) thermostat by-pass etc. Probably worth looking into.
>
> Just for the record the 58 has an amazing power to weight ration and
> excellent durability due to de-rated power and oversized crank and
> bearings.
>
> Each engine variation has its own benefits and drawbacks and I don't think
> there is any one combination that meets all of our requirements. For some
> people TBO and cost is extremely important while for others performance
> and
> durability are critical. I think it's up to each of us to decide what is
> best for our personal mission.
>
> I have flown Kitfoxes behind 912's, Jabiru's and 582's each one has its
> pros and its cons but they are great and reliable engines.
>
> For what it's worth!
>
> Gary Algate
>
> -----Original Message-----
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bradley M
> Webb
> Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 6:04 PM
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bradley M Webb" <bmwebb@cox.net>
>
> A 912 will not fit. The fuselage tubing up until the 3 (possibly IV) is
> too
> small to support the weight. The Geo, with 65hp and 150#, is at the upper
> limit of what I can install on my M2.
>
> I would suggest you go with the Geo, but if you NEED a Rotax, go with the
> 582. The grey-heads are fine if you can find one, and be prepared to do
> ALL
> that is required to maintain it ($$$). If you aren't, then your choices
> are
> that much more limited on the 1.
>
> Bradley
>
> -----Original Message-----
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of RichWill
> Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 11:04 AM
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "RichWill" <rwill1@adelphia.net>
>
> Never had one myself, but know of many who did and failed... Been around
> awhile and they did have problems with the rotary values, something to do
> with caburation...
>
> I would NOT use it, or offered a price that excludes the engine.. Put in a
> 582 or go the extra mile and get the 912... you'll be much happier and
> safer!!
>
> Rich
> N50PC
>
> --------
> Semper Fi
> 15 ITT
> G2 HqCo HqBn
> 1st MarDiv
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=46356#46356
>
>
>
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Rotax 532 a Boat Anchor? |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
On Jul 12, 2006, at 11:32 PM, Bradley M Webb wrote:
> Trading a grey for a blue is pure
> folly (how's that comin' from a Southern boy!).
I say, I am rather shocked, old chap, what? :-)
Seriously, the grey top 582 from before 1992 (I think) had a weaker
crankshaft. Mind you, mine did very well up to its 300 hours, but if I
was to buy a second hand grey top, I'd try to get one from after 1992
(or a certain engine number, if anyone remembers which one it is).
Cheers,
Michel
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: Rotax 532 a Boat Anchor? |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Algate" <algate@attglobal.net>
You certainly have a way with words.
I think if you look at the cause of failure of two stroke engines you will
find that 99% of the cases result from incorrect care, maintenance and/or
operation.
When you say the grey head is as good as the blue what logic are you using?
The thermostat by-pass on the blue head is in fact an excellent safety
factor and another step in the logical improvement and development of the
engine. I really don't understand why you would smear a 2 stroke 582 on one
hand for unreliability and on the other, berate a logical improvement like
the bypass system which could save a plane in the event of thermostat
failure. I believe that the Blue head also has a number of other features
over the Grey head and by saying that I don't mean that the grey head is not
an excellent engine - it's just that like our aircrafts the engine
manufacturers are learning and making subtle changes to improve the safety
and performance of their products. I certainly wasn't suggesting that
everybody with a grey head should immediately change to the blue head.
Bob Robertson (Light Engine Services) would have more info on this subject.
As I said in my posting all of the engine options have their place in the
sport and I think it is important that we respect each others choices. For
your interest there are a couple of Challengers flying with the Geo Metro
and I believe their power to weight ration is excellent.
Gary Algate
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bradley M Webb
Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 5:32 PM
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bradley M Webb" <bmwebb@cox.net>
What desirable upgrades? A water bypass? Oooooh.
The grey head is as good as the blue. Trading a grey for a blue is pure
folly (how's that comin' from a Southern boy!). The Bluehead just isn't that
much nicer. Of course, you should go buy a Bluehead if you're shopping new.
Especially since that's all you can get!
It does have a good P/Wt ratio, but it DOES NOT have excellent reliability,
in any sense of the phrase. Sorry, but I have to raise the BS flag here. Can
you name an engine, used for just about anything, that is LESS reliable than
the Rotax UL two-strokes? I can't think of any; production ones, anyway.
That's my .02,
Bradley
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Algate
Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 9:39 AM
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Algate" <algate@attglobal.net>
I believe that the blue head 582 has a number of desirable upgrades over the
grey head ie) thermostat by-pass etc. Probably worth looking into.
Just for the record the 58 has an amazing power to weight ration and
excellent durability due to de-rated power and oversized crank and bearings.
Each engine variation has its own benefits and drawbacks and I don't think
there is any one combination that meets all of our requirements. For some
people TBO and cost is extremely important while for others performance and
durability are critical. I think it's up to each of us to decide what is
best for our personal mission.
I have flown Kitfoxes behind 912's, Jabiru's and 582's each one has its
pros and its cons but they are great and reliable engines.
For what it's worth!
Gary Algate
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bradley M Webb
Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 6:04 PM
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bradley M Webb" <bmwebb@cox.net>
A 912 will not fit. The fuselage tubing up until the 3 (possibly IV) is too
small to support the weight. The Geo, with 65hp and 150#, is at the upper
limit of what I can install on my M2.
I would suggest you go with the Geo, but if you NEED a Rotax, go with the
582. The grey-heads are fine if you can find one, and be prepared to do ALL
that is required to maintain it ($$$). If you aren't, then your choices are
that much more limited on the 1.
Bradley
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of RichWill
Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 11:04 AM
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "RichWill" <rwill1@adelphia.net>
Never had one myself, but know of many who did and failed... Been around
awhile and they did have problems with the rotary values, something to do
with caburation...
I would NOT use it, or offered a price that excludes the engine.. Put in a
582 or go the extra mile and get the 912... you'll be much happier and
safer!!
Rich
N50PC
--------
Semper Fi
15 ITT
G2 HqCo HqBn
1st MarDiv
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=46356#46356
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: Kitfox II left landing gear |
I also have a Model II. I purchased a gear for a model IV as a spare. I h
ave been under the impression they are of the same configuaration but bui
lt with heavier tubing. Mayby John could help us. Are they the same John?
???
Dee Young
Model II
Do not archive
Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 8:36 AM
I have a Kitfox II and the left landing gear cracked on it. I contacted
Kitfox Aircraft about purchasing a replacement and they said they no long
er have the ability to make that part. Does anyone have the left landing
gear for a Kitfox II that they would be willing to sell?
Thanks,
Verne
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: KingFox Tires (Bouncing Ricky) |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "kitfoxmike" <kitfoxmike@yahoo.com>
I believe I have the same tires, big and tundra that is. I had 8 for the longest
time, then I went to 10 and found that I get up and go better and by so doing
get off the ground faster. Most of my strips are asphalt, so I can't speek
for the grass. Once in awhile I bounce, usually once and I put the throttle
to it and land again. I will say that no matter what your experience is, every
landing is different. You just need to know what to do for each one. That's
where the experience thing comes in, the more you do, the more you can determine
what needs be done and do it fast for each landing. Just when you think you
got things down, you get humbled and you hope nobody was watching. Doesn't
mean this is just for the tail wheel pilot either. The other day I watched a
cherokee land 6 times for one, I didn't think he would ever stop bouncing.
Oh and the touch and go's, they are not for the pilot in training, they are just
plain fun to do.
--------
kitfoxmike
kitfox4 1200 912ul speedster
http://www.frappr.com/kitfoxmike
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=46765#46765
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: Rotax 532 a Boat Anchor? |
In a message dated 7/12/2006 4:36:50 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
bmwebb@cox.net writes:
What desirable upgrades? A water bypass? Oooooh.
actually there are many upgrades on the 582 BH. I know, I have had both the
582 and 532. I spent a lot of money on my new 582BH with the E Box and
feel it was well worth the money. I purchased from Lockwood and they have
provided GREAT support.
I have around 550 hours behind various Rotax 2 strokes with excellent
results. I also have a Piper warrior 2 that I love to fly and is kept very
"cherry" but we just spent 27,000 that past 12 months if you include 2 annuals
and a new engine. The old engine made it to 1,600 hours. Do the math.... I
wont!
What ever we do, especially when flying,driving, etc, is part of risk
management. I have no interest in taking unnecessary risks. Knowing we are flying
a 2 stroke VS a certified Lycoming, I fly differently. Like I never fly my
KF at night, over solid cloud and so on....
That's what is supposed to be the great value of the Internet. But, we all
need to filter the strong opinions and try to sort out the facts. Not an easy
thing to do.
We all know there are a lot of 582s around. But, when shopping for an
engine, I called around, went to 3 OSH and a Sun and Fun, spoke pilots and
vendors, I then made my decision. Since then it has been a very smooth and
reliable engine. So for me, that's my reality :-)
All parts are available and reasonable, considering its an airplane. In
fact I am flying mine to Kankakee Ill ( Jim Leon) for scheduled service.
Decarb, check seals etc. He has a great service center with an even better
reputation......
There are a lot of good engines.....and I certainly include the 582.
Dave P KF 2
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: Low Fuel Warning |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net>
Anybody else blow through the vent to be sure no critters are setting
up housekeeping?
Lynn
p.s. yes, I use fuel vent covers, and a pitot cover, but now and then I
forget to put 'em on...and no, I don't blow into the pitot tube. : )
On Wednesday, July 12, 2006, at 04:41 PM, kitfoxmike wrote:
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "kitfoxmike" <kitfoxmike@yahoo.com>
>
> I do one better, I put my hand on each fuel cap and wiggle it to make
> sure not only is it on, but that is on proper before climbing into the
> cockpit. I grab the vent on the fox and gentley tug on them. It's
> turned into a habit that I don't forget. So far I've left the cap off
> once. Glad I do this.
>
> --------
> kitfoxmike
> kitfox4 1200 912ul speedster
> http://www.frappr.com/kitfoxmike
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=46740#46740
>
>
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 |
|
John,
We have a sealed battery that fits into an un-modified Kitfox
battery box.. Been using it for the last 3 years
Fly Safe !!
John & Debra McBean
208.337.5111
www.kitfoxaircraft.com
"The Sky is not the Limit... It's a Playground"
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of John King
Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 8:54 AM
Has anyone obtained an RG type battery that can fit inside the standard
Kitfox battery box of the type provided by SkyStar? If so I would like to
know the make and model . My current Series 6/912S battery has a 16
amp-hour and 240 cranking amps ratings.
--
John King
Warrenton, VA
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: | Re: Kitfox II left landing gear |
you should consider rebuilding the one you have find someone and have it dun
probably save a lot malcolm
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Rotax 532 a Boat Anchor? |
Why would anyone put a $800 motor on a $10,000 air frame? I wouldn't pay
very much for a kit that was so old it had an unused 532. malcolm
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 |
|
John,
Is it a Recombinant Gas (RG) battery? I prefer that to a jell cell type
or a sealed lead acid battery. If so what is the Amp Hour and Cold
Cranking Amps ratings.?
--
John King
Warrenton, VA
jdmcbean wrote:
> John,
>
> We have a sealed battery that fits into an un-modified
> Kitfox battery box.. Been using it for the last 3 years
>
>
>
> Fly Safe !!
>
> John & Debra McBean
>
> 208.337.5111
>
> www.kitfoxaircraft.com
>
> "The Sky is not the Limit... It's a Playground"
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of John King
> Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 8:54 AM
> To: Kitfox List
> Subject: Kitfox-List: RG Battery
>
>
>
> Has anyone obtained an RG type battery that can fit inside the
> standard Kitfox battery box of the type provided by SkyStar? If so I
> would like to know the make and model . My current Series 6/912S
> battery has a 16 amp-hour and 240 cranking amps ratings.
>
>--
>
>John King
>
>Warrenton, VA
>
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Low Fuel Warning |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys@yahoo.ca>
Due to reasons of transporting my plane on floats I defuel the plane after
every flight. On one occasion I forgot to replace the fuel cap on the right
wing. Now I check the caps before flying and before towing.
I have made mention of the next point on other lists. That is the value of
the post flight inspection. As soon after flying as is practical I do a
post flight inspection. That way if there is anything that I noticed not to
be 100% in flight I can fix it before the next flight. This post-flight
inspection is done in addition to, not instead of a pre-flight inspection.
I do the post-flight inspection not as a time saver but as an extra edge on
the side of safety. Some times I have felt a rush to get a pre-flight done.
At that point I usually make a decision to spend a specific period of time
on my pre-flight so nothing will be overlooked.
In Canada, the Department of Transportation publishes the twelve deadly sins
for AMEs (Aircraft Maintenance Engineers) One of those Deadly sins is
pressure to rush a job. When I was doing my flight lessons on just about
every lesson I would find something that required attention before the next
flight. The CFI complimented me on the thoroughness of my inspections.
After several weeks I think the maintenance staff started paying more
attention to the aircraft because it became increasingly difficult to find
faults.
Noel
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> kitfoxmike
> Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 6:11 PM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Low Fuel Warning
>
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "kitfoxmike" <kitfoxmike@yahoo.com>
>
> I do one better, I put my hand on each fuel cap and wiggle it
> to make sure not only is it on, but that is on proper before
> climbing into the cockpit. I grab the vent on the fox and
> gentley tug on them. It's turned into a habit that I don't
> forget. So far I've left the cap off once. Glad I do this.
>
> --------
> kitfoxmike
> kitfox4 1200 912ul speedster
> http://www.frappr.com/kitfoxmike
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=46740#46740
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: | Re: Rotax 532 a Boat Anchor? |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys@yahoo.ca>
As far as I know many earlier grey heads had the cranks replaced with the
spec 99 cranks. Before flying my spec 90, vintage 91 engine I had it
overhauled by a reputable Rotax repair centre. They replaced the crank, the
expensive piece, and worked on the rotary valves. They also upgraded
something to do with harmonic balances.
The long and the short of it is that the grey head engines can be brought up
to spec 99.
Referring to reliability I still have some misgivings about the reliability
of the 2 stroke engine. It's just that you are getting a mammoth energy
from a dwarf package. In the four stroke C172 that I trained on I would
periodically check the engine gauges..... In the 2 stroke it is a bit more
than periodically I've only got about 25 hr on the engine but so far, knock
on wood, no probs.
Noel
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> Michel Verheughe
> Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 7:36 PM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: Rotax 532 a Boat Anchor?
>
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
>
> On Jul 12, 2006, at 11:32 PM, Bradley M Webb wrote:
> > Trading a grey for a blue is pure
> > folly (how's that comin' from a Southern boy!).
>
> I say, I am rather shocked, old chap, what? :-)
>
> Seriously, the grey top 582 from before 1992 (I think) had a weaker
> crankshaft. Mind you, mine did very well up to its 300 hours,
> but if I
> was to buy a second hand grey top, I'd try to get one from after 1992
> (or a certain engine number, if anyone remembers which one it is).
>
> Cheers,
> Michel
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Rotax 532 a Boat Anchor? |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys@yahoo.ca>
The only thing I can disagree here is with the statement that there is more
damping with a loose belt. From what I have learned on other groups there
is zero, nil, zilch damping in belts. Having a belt too loose is an
invitation to a broken belt party. I believe many manufacturers of belt
drives also use a TV damper in their designs.
Noel
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dave
> Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 7:40 PM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: Rotax 532 a Boat Anchor?
>
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Dave" <dave@cfisher.com>
>
> Bradley,
>
> I would not let of too much steam till you get some testing
> done on your
> Geo.
>
> Some are ok, some are not.
>
> time will tell.
>
> The Majority of the rotax 582 troubles have stemmed from the
> operators and
> not just the engine.
>
> I think most will agree there.
>
> Dave
>
> Now if you want some facts from a Geo armchair critic with handson
> experience, I will give it to you since you like to be critical. :)
>
> ...
> Dave,
> I had a look at the photo and this fellow is heading for
> trouble. He has
> a turbo 3 so the power will be adequate but there are several other
> problems. The flywheel is very light so there will be a lot
> of shaking.
> There is no damper as there is in the Russian gearbox, so the
> only damping
> will be by the belt, and this will vary with tension.
> The exhaust has a couple of problems. First off it is a
> waste of effort
> and weight to use any sort of muffler. The turbo will quiet
> the engine down
> quite well by itself. There appears to have been a bit of
> interference
> between the cowl and the exhaust elbow, so the builder shaved
> the exhaust
> and welded in a plate. It looks as if the shaving might have caused a
> restriction. This could restrict the outflow of exhaust, and
> if this is the
> case there will be a loss of power. The other exhaust problem
> is that there
> appears to be no mount for the muffler. If the engine shakes
> as much as I
> think it will, the muffler will be acting like a pendulum. It
> will not be
> long before the pipe parts from the turbo flange. This will
> improve the
> power output but it could also cause a fire.
> The prop extension looks to be very long, and there
> appears to be only a
> very small radius where it meets its mounting flange. This is
> a recipe for
> crack initiation and propagation. If I were in the insurance
> business I
> would not be selling any life insurance to this fellow. ....
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 5:32 PM
>
>
> > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bradley M Webb" <bmwebb@cox.net>
> >
> > What desirable upgrades? A water bypass? Oooooh.
> >
> > The grey head is as good as the blue. Trading a grey for a
> blue is pure
> > folly (how's that comin' from a Southern boy!). The
> Bluehead just isn't
> > that
> > much nicer. Of course, you should go buy a Bluehead if
> you're shopping
> > new.
> > Especially since that's all you can get!
> >
> > It does have a good P/Wt ratio, but it DOES NOT have excellent
> > reliability,
> > in any sense of the phrase. Sorry, but I have to raise the
> BS flag here.
> > Can
> > you name an engine, used for just about anything, that is
> LESS reliable
> > than
> > the Rotax UL two-strokes? I can't think of any; production
> ones, anyway.
> >
> > That's my .02,
> > Bradley
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Algate
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 9:39 AM
> >
> > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Algate" <algate@attglobal.net>
> >
> > I believe that the blue head 582 has a number of desirable
> upgrades over
> > the
> > grey head ie) thermostat by-pass etc. Probably worth looking into.
> >
> > Just for the record the 58 has an amazing power to weight ration and
> > excellent durability due to de-rated power and oversized crank and
> > bearings.
> >
> > Each engine variation has its own benefits and drawbacks
> and I don't think
> > there is any one combination that meets all of our
> requirements. For some
> > people TBO and cost is extremely important while for others
> performance
> > and
> > durability are critical. I think it's up to each of us to
> decide what is
> > best for our personal mission.
> >
> > I have flown Kitfoxes behind 912's, Jabiru's and 582's
> each one has its
> > pros and its cons but they are great and reliable engines.
> >
> > For what it's worth!
> >
> > Gary Algate
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf
> Of Bradley M
> > Webb
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 6:04 PM
> >
> > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bradley M Webb" <bmwebb@cox.net>
> >
> > A 912 will not fit. The fuselage tubing up until the 3
> (possibly IV) is
> > too
> > small to support the weight. The Geo, with 65hp and 150#,
> is at the upper
> > limit of what I can install on my M2.
> >
> > I would suggest you go with the Geo, but if you NEED a
> Rotax, go with the
> > 582. The grey-heads are fine if you can find one, and be
> prepared to do
> > ALL
> > that is required to maintain it ($$$). If you aren't, then
> your choices
> > are
> > that much more limited on the 1.
> >
> > Bradley
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf
> Of RichWill
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 11:04 AM
> >
> > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "RichWill" <rwill1@adelphia.net>
> >
> > Never had one myself, but know of many who did and
> failed... Been around
> > awhile and they did have problems with the rotary values,
> something to do
> > with caburation...
> >
> > I would NOT use it, or offered a price that excludes the
> engine.. Put in a
> > 582 or go the extra mile and get the 912... you'll be much
> happier and
> > safer!!
> >
> > Rich
> > N50PC
> >
> > --------
> > Semper Fi
> > 15 ITT
> > G2 HqCo HqBn
> > 1st MarDiv
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Read this topic online here:
> >
> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=46356#46356
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Rotax 532 a Boat Anchor? |
Malcolm:
Your point should be well taken. Any airframe that old should be gone over
with a fine tooth comb before flying. The engine at the very least should
be completely overhauled..... in this case replaced.
Noel
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Malcolmbru@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 12:08 AM
Why would anyone put a $800 motor on a $10,000 air frame? I wouldn't pay
very much for a kit that was so old it had an unused 532. malcolm
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: Rotax 532 a Boat Anchor? |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bradley M Webb" <bmwebb@cox.net>
The guy that wrote that about the Turbo 'fox is a blithering idiot. The belt
is, in fact, Kevlar, and has no dampening qualities whatsoever. If he knew
the first thing about the issue, he would know that this is actually the
desired state for a belt drive. He would also know that Raven has a very
elaborate, yet simple, dampening system in the upper drive hub that all but
eliminates the natural harmonics of the Suzy 3. Jeron at Raven has spent
over ten years developing this system, and it's a complete package that
deals with all aspects of the design. The "Russian system" uses a BMW donut,
and it does work, but not as well. Raven will idle at 1100 engine rpm, and
the "Russian" won't go below 1500 at all, and 1800 is the norm due to the
shaking. It really doesn't address the issue of the harmonics at all; it
just band-aids the problem.
His prop flange radius issue is absurd. There have been NO breaks, ever.
NONE. ZILCH. NADA. Call Raven and ask.
BTW, the 582 mod 99 has 55ft/lb of torque at 6000rpm. A dead-stock G10 with
a T3 turbo at 5 psi is 107ft/lbs at 5500 rpm. Yeah, it's got enough power.
Go talk to anyone that drives a Metro/Swift, and see if it has been a
reliable car or not.
Bradley
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Noel Loveys
Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 11:29 PM
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys@yahoo.ca>
The only thing I can disagree here is with the statement that there is more
damping with a loose belt. From what I have learned on other groups there
is zero, nil, zilch damping in belts. Having a belt too loose is an
invitation to a broken belt party. I believe many manufacturers of belt
drives also use a TV damper in their designs.
Noel
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dave
> Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 7:40 PM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: Rotax 532 a Boat Anchor?
>
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Dave" <dave@cfisher.com>
>
> Bradley,
>
> I would not let of too much steam till you get some testing
> done on your
> Geo.
>
> Some are ok, some are not.
>
> time will tell.
>
> The Majority of the rotax 582 troubles have stemmed from the
> operators and
> not just the engine.
>
> I think most will agree there.
>
> Dave
>
> Now if you want some facts from a Geo armchair critic with handson
> experience, I will give it to you since you like to be critical. :)
>
> ...
> Dave,
> I had a look at the photo and this fellow is heading for
> trouble. He has
> a turbo 3 so the power will be adequate but there are several other
> problems. The flywheel is very light so there will be a lot
> of shaking.
> There is no damper as there is in the Russian gearbox, so the
> only damping
> will be by the belt, and this will vary with tension.
> The exhaust has a couple of problems. First off it is a
> waste of effort
> and weight to use any sort of muffler. The turbo will quiet
> the engine down
> quite well by itself. There appears to have been a bit of
> interference
> between the cowl and the exhaust elbow, so the builder shaved
> the exhaust
> and welded in a plate. It looks as if the shaving might have caused a
> restriction. This could restrict the outflow of exhaust, and
> if this is the
> case there will be a loss of power. The other exhaust problem
> is that there
> appears to be no mount for the muffler. If the engine shakes
> as much as I
> think it will, the muffler will be acting like a pendulum. It
> will not be
> long before the pipe parts from the turbo flange. This will
> improve the
> power output but it could also cause a fire.
> The prop extension looks to be very long, and there
> appears to be only a
> very small radius where it meets its mounting flange. This is
> a recipe for
> crack initiation and propagation. If I were in the insurance
> business I
> would not be selling any life insurance to this fellow. ....
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 5:32 PM
>
>
> > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bradley M Webb" <bmwebb@cox.net>
> >
> > What desirable upgrades? A water bypass? Oooooh.
> >
> > The grey head is as good as the blue. Trading a grey for a
> blue is pure
> > folly (how's that comin' from a Southern boy!). The
> Bluehead just isn't
> > that
> > much nicer. Of course, you should go buy a Bluehead if
> you're shopping
> > new.
> > Especially since that's all you can get!
> >
> > It does have a good P/Wt ratio, but it DOES NOT have excellent
> > reliability,
> > in any sense of the phrase. Sorry, but I have to raise the
> BS flag here.
> > Can
> > you name an engine, used for just about anything, that is
> LESS reliable
> > than
> > the Rotax UL two-strokes? I can't think of any; production
> ones, anyway.
> >
> > That's my .02,
> > Bradley
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Algate
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 9:39 AM
> >
> > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Algate" <algate@attglobal.net>
> >
> > I believe that the blue head 582 has a number of desirable
> upgrades over
> > the
> > grey head ie) thermostat by-pass etc. Probably worth looking into.
> >
> > Just for the record the 58 has an amazing power to weight ration and
> > excellent durability due to de-rated power and oversized crank and
> > bearings.
> >
> > Each engine variation has its own benefits and drawbacks
> and I don't think
> > there is any one combination that meets all of our
> requirements. For some
> > people TBO and cost is extremely important while for others
> performance
> > and
> > durability are critical. I think it's up to each of us to
> decide what is
> > best for our personal mission.
> >
> > I have flown Kitfoxes behind 912's, Jabiru's and 582's
> each one has its
> > pros and its cons but they are great and reliable engines.
> >
> > For what it's worth!
> >
> > Gary Algate
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf
> Of Bradley M
> > Webb
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 6:04 PM
> >
> > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bradley M Webb" <bmwebb@cox.net>
> >
> > A 912 will not fit. The fuselage tubing up until the 3
> (possibly IV) is
> > too
> > small to support the weight. The Geo, with 65hp and 150#,
> is at the upper
> > limit of what I can install on my M2.
> >
> > I would suggest you go with the Geo, but if you NEED a
> Rotax, go with the
> > 582. The grey-heads are fine if you can find one, and be
> prepared to do
> > ALL
> > that is required to maintain it ($$$). If you aren't, then
> your choices
> > are
> > that much more limited on the 1.
> >
> > Bradley
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf
> Of RichWill
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 11:04 AM
> >
> > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "RichWill" <rwill1@adelphia.net>
> >
> > Never had one myself, but know of many who did and
> failed... Been around
> > awhile and they did have problems with the rotary values,
> something to do
> > with caburation...
> >
> > I would NOT use it, or offered a price that excludes the
> engine.. Put in a
> > 582 or go the extra mile and get the 912... you'll be much
> happier and
> > safer!!
> >
> > Rich
> > N50PC
> >
> > --------
> > Semper Fi
> > 15 ITT
> > G2 HqCo HqBn
> > 1st MarDiv
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Read this topic online here:
> >
> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=46356#46356
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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! --
|