Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 01:15 AM - Re: Rotax 532 a Boat Anchor (Michael Gibbs)
2. 02:06 AM - Re: Re: One for the dodo file.. (kitfoxjunky)
3. 04:03 AM - Re: Re: Rotax 532 a Boat Anchor? (Wayne Cahoon)
4. 05:43 AM - Re: Re: Rotax 532 a Boat Anchor? (Michel Verheughe)
5. 06:23 AM - Re: Re: Rotax 532 a Boat Anchor? (Don Smythe)
6. 06:32 AM - KF 3 loose wing ribs (Michael Laundy)
7. 06:45 AM - Model IV 1200 Dimensions (Ken Arnold)
8. 06:54 AM - Re: Kitfox II left landing gear (Elaine Erickson)
9. 07:01 AM - Re: Kitfox II left landing gear (Elaine Erickson)
10. 07:13 AM - Re: KF 3 loose wing ribs (John King)
11. 07:19 AM - Re: Model IV 1200 Dimensions (Dave)
12. 07:48 AM - Re: Model IV 1200 Dimensions (mdps_mc@swoca.net)
13. 08:15 AM - Re: RG Battery (Napier, Mark)
14. 08:16 AM - Re: Model IV 1200 Dimensions (Ken Arnold)
15. 08:23 AM - Re: Model IV 1200 Dimensions (Ken Arnold)
16. 08:27 AM - Oshkosh 06 (Magdic, Steve)
17. 09:08 AM - Re: Model IV 1200 Dimensions (Guy Buchanan)
18. 09:22 AM - Re: Low Fuel Warning (Guy Buchanan)
19. 09:26 AM - Re: KF 3 loose wing ribs (Michael Laundy)
20. 09:27 AM - Re: KF 3 loose wing ribs (Michael Laundy)
21. 09:27 AM - Re: Model IV 1200 Dimensions (Marco Menezes)
22. 10:29 AM - Doubles? (Randy Daughenbaugh)
23. 10:32 AM - Re: Oshkosh 06 (John King)
24. 10:47 AM - Re: Model IV 1200 Dimensions (Johannes Czernin)
25. 11:03 AM - Re: Doubles? (Richard Rabbers)
26. 11:04 AM - Re: Model IV 1200 Dimensions (flier)
27. 11:28 AM - Re: Re: Rotax 532 a Boat Anchor? (Kerry Skyring)
28. 12:32 PM - Re: Low Fuel Warning - Tank venting (Napier, Mark)
29. 01:11 PM - Re: Re: Rotax 532 a Boat Anchor? - 582 improvements (Napier, Mark)
30. 01:49 PM - Re: Low Fuel Warning - Tank venting (PWilson)
31. 02:27 PM - Re: Low Fuel Warning - Tank venting (Don Smythe)
32. 03:29 PM - broken push rod suberu ea81 (kirk hull)
33. 04:23 PM - Re: Selling My NSI Subaru EA81-130-Turbo CAP Package (Norm)
34. 04:38 PM - ebay Classic IV for sale (Fox5flyer)
35. 04:38 PM - Re: Low Fuel Warning - Tank venting (ron schick)
36. 05:00 PM - Re: Re: Rotax 532 a Boat Anchor (Bradley M Webb)
37. 05:15 PM - Re: Low Fuel Warning - Tank venting (Don Smythe)
38. 05:22 PM - Re: Re: Rotax 532 a Boat Anchor (Don Smythe)
39. 05:24 PM - Re: Model IV 1200 Dimensions (Guy Buchanan)
40. 05:56 PM - Re: Selling My NSI Subaru EA81-130-Turbo CAP Package (Brian Smith)
41. 06:09 PM - Fuel level sensor (Rex Shaw)
42. 06:11 PM - Re: Flight Time (wingsdown)
43. 06:12 PM - Re: broken push rod suberu ea81 (wingsdown)
44. 06:18 PM - Re: broken push rod suberu ea81 (QSS)
45. 06:26 PM - Re: broken push rod suberu ea81 (kirk hull)
46. 06:52 PM - Re: ebay Classic IV for sale (Dave)
47. 06:52 PM - Re: Re: Rotax 532 a Boat Anchor (Dave)
48. 06:54 PM - Re: Low Fuel Warning - Tank venting (Dave)
49. 07:03 PM - Re: Re: Rotax 532 a Boat Anchor (Lowell Fitt)
50. 07:21 PM - Re: Low Fuel Warning - Tank venting (ron schick)
51. 07:36 PM - 541KF AW CERT (ron schick)
52. 07:38 PM - Re: Re: Rotax 532 a Boat Anchor - THIS THREAD IS OUT OF CONTROL (flier)
53. 07:38 PM - Re: broken push rod suberu ea81 (wingsdown)
54. 07:40 PM - Re: Re: Rotax 532 a Boat Anchor malcolm (Malcolmbru@aol.com)
55. 07:42 PM - Re: Re: Rotax 532 a Boat Anchor (Bradley M Webb)
56. 07:45 PM - Re: Selling My NSI Subaru EA81-130-Turbo CAP Package (flier)
57. 08:29 PM - Re: Re: Rotax 532 a Boat Anchor (Bradley M Webb)
58. 08:46 PM - Re: Re: Rotax 532 a Boat Anchor (Guy Buchanan)
59. 08:46 PM - Re: 541KF AW CERT (Guy Buchanan)
60. 09:30 PM - Re: broken push rod suberu ea81 (John Anderson)
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: Rotax 532 a Boat Anchor |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michael Gibbs <MichaelGibbs@cox.net>
Bradley sez:
>The guy that wrote that about the Turbo 'fox is a blithering idiot...
Can we have a break from the belligerent attitude, Bradley? You've
made your opinion on Rotax 2 strokes abundantly clear yet you now
feel the need to resort to personal attacks. It should be obvious by
now that not everyone shares your opinion--live with it.
We know the Geo engine is the finest piece of engineering in the
history of mankind. We know that it produces more power than any
other engine and probably burbs up extra fuel in the process. We
know that if we go to the source of a product we'll always get an
unbiased view of that product's pros and cons. We even know that
there is no controversy at all regarding an engine's history in cars
as an indicator of how well it will perform in airplanes. We get it,
OK?
Can we give it a rest?
Mike G.
N728KF
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: One for the dodo file.. |
He came over and appologized. If I had to lay any blame..it would be on
myself for not taking care to secure the aircraft. He was flying a 172
out of an 1800 ft strip. He was just trying to get all the runway he
could.
Gary Walsh
KF IV Anphib 912S
C-GOOT
www.decisionlabs.com/kitfox
do not archive
"kitfoxmike" <kitfoxmike@yahoo.com>
Sent by: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
12/07/2006 03:08 PM
Please respond to kitfox-list
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
cc:
Subject: Kitfox-List: 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 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: Rotax 532 a Boat Anchor? |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Wayne Cahoon" <wayne@engravers.net>
I'm a 582 operator since 1998, The Rotax gray head was a poor engine to
start with and it's short 300 hour BOH (between Over Hauls) is very short
compared to other engines. I've had three engine outs while flying, one was
an oil seal that let go and cost me over $2000 to fix. All had a successful
landing, but my heart was pumping fast enough that it could have turned the
prop at speed if there was a way to connect the two. My friend has
snowmobile engines that have fuel injection, automatic altitude compisation,
can go 110 MPH over the lakes and cost half of what our engines cost plus
they don't have a 300 TBO time limit. Rotax FOR YEARS knew of the oil seal
problem without doing anything about it, there changes are slower the
Microsoft and they are WAY behind the curve on any technology changes.
Wayne Cahoon
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 6:12 PM
> --> 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 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Rotax 532 a Boat Anchor? |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
On Jul 13, 2006, at 4:02 AM, Wayne Cahoon wrote:
> Rotax FOR YEARS knew of the oil seal problem without doing anything
> about it
Wayne, I know nothing about the Rotax engine and even if I flew 100
hours behind a 582, I didn't even know they had an oil seal problem.
But, like most people, I work for an average company. We have
marketing, R&D, production and customer support. Those guys fight each
other every day: Marketing sells products we don't have, R&D says we
can't produce it, production says, no way for that date, and customer
support ... blame it all on the customers.
I expect it is about the same with Rotax. Why would they refuse to fix
a problem? I miss the company policy point, here.
Today, we can't blame it on the Jews or the Blacks. So, we blame it on
politicians, lawyers, ... and even engine manufacturers. On the Jabiru
list, it is the same thing: no one is pleased with Jabiru customer
support. One has been waiting months for a part, the other one never
got an answer to his email. But there are thousands of Jabiru and Rotax
users who are quite happy. It's unfortunate that we rarely hear from
them.
Cheers,
Michel
do not archive
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Rotax 532 a Boat Anchor? |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Don Smythe" <dosmythe@cox.net>
Wayne,
I'm always interested in hearing reports about engine failures and was
wondering what caused your other two engine outs on the 582. I have a 582
in my Classic IV. The engine has approximately 360 hours with a "total"
rebuild around 300 hours. I had the engine rebuilt to try and fix a
totally unrelated problem (another story). At the 300 hour tear down, the
engine spec'd out to still be within all tolerances. In other words, it
didn't need a rebuild. The total rebuild was around $2400 (new crank,
pistons and all).
I've been on the list for about 10 years and always get interested in
the causes of engine out's or other flight safety issues. I used to
document all such items and posted a "KITFOXSAFE" bulletin. Once an item
was documented on the bulletin, we (the list) beat it to death until a
consensus for a field fix or recommendation was reached.
I'm sitting here and can't remember but only a couple cases where the
582 quit in the air. Two that I remember were one had a seizure due to the
absence of the sieve sleeve in the carb bowls and another guy that had a
pump pulse line rupture.
The only time I've had a problem was once due to excessive slow flight
(I think), and managed to foul the plugs. The engine started to sputter but
cleared up after a few minutes of normal cruise.
Thanks,
Don Smythe
----- Original Message -----
> compared to other engines. I've had three engine outs while flying, one
> was an oil seal that let go and cost me over $2000 to fix. All had a
> successful
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: | KF 3 loose wing ribs |
I bought a KF3 a few months back and I have discovered a couple of the ribs have
movement in them when gently pressed through the fabric. Since I did not build
the plane I don't know exactly how the inside of the wing is set out, but
from the outside it seems there are 2 short ribs between each full chord rib.
It is 2 of those short ones that don't appear to be attached to the upper skin,.
I suspect someone has moved it in the hangar and pushed in the wrong place!
Can anyone give me an idea of how the wing is constructed, or even better a photo
before covering.
Many thanks
Mike
---------------------------------
All new Yahoo! Mail "The new Interface is stunning in its simplicity and ease
of use." - PC Magazine
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: | Model IV 1200 Dimensions |
Listers,
I am looking to acquire Model IV 1200 taildragger. Can someone give me
external dimensions with wings folded back. I am thinking of buying a
trailer to hanger it. Then tow the whole thing to local airport.
Anyone tried this?
Many thanks,
Ken Arnold
Pikeville, NC
do not archive
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: Kitfox II left landing gear |
Thanks for the info. I'll take that into consideration. Verne=0A
----- Original Message ----- =0A From: Malcolmbru@aol.com<mailto:
Malcolmbru@aol.com> =0A To: kitfox-list@matronics.com<mailto:kitfo
x-list@matronics.com> =0A Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 10:29 PM
=0A Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Kitfox II left landing gear=0A
=0A=0A you should consider rebuilding the one you have find someon
e and have it dun probably save a lot malcolm
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Kitfox II left landing gear |
Thanks for your help. So far I haven't been able to find any parts.
=0AVerne=0A ----- Original Message ----- =0A From: Dee Young<m
ailto:henrysfork1@msn.com> =0A To: kitfox-list<mailto:kitfox-list@
matronics.com> =0A Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 6:44 PM=0A S
ubject: Re: Kitfox-List: Kitfox II left landing gear=0A=0A=0A
I also have a Model II. I purchased a gear for a model IV as a spare
I have been under the impression they are of the same configuaration
but built with heavier tubing. Mayby John could help us. Are they the
same John????=0A=0A Dee Young=0A Model II=0A=0A Do
not archive=0A=0A From: Elaine Erickson=0A Sent: Wednesda
y, July 12, 2006 8:36 AM=0A To: kitfox-list@matronics.com=0A
Subject: Kitfox-List: Kitfox II left landing gear=0A=0A 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?
=0A=0A Thanks,=0A Verne=0A
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: KF 3 loose wing ribs |
Mike,
Attached is a picture of how the ribs of a Kitfox wing are arranged and
secured. The smaller false ribs are only attached at two points and
could bent sideways slightly between the two attached points with a
little side pressure. They should not move at their attached points.
It is not important that the false ribs be secured to the fabric
itself. Hope this helps.
--
John King
Warrenton, VA
Michael Laundy wrote:
> I bought a KF3 a few months back and I have discovered a couple of the
> ribs have movement in them when gently pressed through the fabric.
> Since I did not build the plane I don't know exactly how the inside of
> the wing is set out, but from the outside it seems there are 2 short
> ribs between each full chord rib. It is 2 of those short ones that
> don't appear to be attached to the upper skin,. I suspect someone has
> moved it in the hangar and pushed in the wrong place!
>
> Can anyone give me an idea of how the wing is constructed, or even
> better a photo before covering.
>
> Many thanks
>
> Mike
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mail/uk/taglines/default/nowyoucan/pc_mag/*http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=40565/*http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html>
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Model IV 1200 Dimensions |
Ken -- off the top of my head i will say about 7 ' 10 " wide
22 feet long
6 feet high
Now the problem might be finding a trailer that wide inside.
I have seen them loaded with one wing off and tucked underneath between
the mail wheels.
Hope this helps
Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: Ken Arnold
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 9:44 AM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Model IV 1200 Dimensions
Listers,
I am looking to acquire Model IV 1200 taildragger. Can someone give
me external dimensions with wings folded back. I am thinking of buying
a trailer to hanger it. Then tow the whole thing to local airport.
Anyone tried this?
Many thanks,
Ken Arnold
Pikeville, NC
do not archive
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: Model IV 1200 Dimensions |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: mdps_mc@swoca.net
Ken
The length is approx. 21 to 22 feet. I trailered mine one time to the airport
with intentions of doing so everytime. Although fairly easy to do I didn't like
the potential beating tjhe folded wings would take from the road. I have hangered
for ten years. I am thinking about using a trailer as my hanger at the
airport. The cost of hanger space continues to rise. However I'm not sure
I would even be allowed to do this.
Mike
Sent from my BlackBerry wireless device
-----Original Message-----
To:kitfox-list@matronics.com
Listers,
I am looking to acquire Model IV 1200 taildragger. Can someone give me external
dimensions with wings folded back. I am thinking of buying a trailer to hanger
it. Then tow the whole thing to local airport.
Anyone tried this?
Many thanks,
Ken Arnold
Pikeville, NC
do not archive
----------------
This message has been scanned for Viruses and cleared by MailMarshal at SWOCA.
----------------
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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Napier, Mark" <Mark.Napier@sciatl.com>
I didn't like the mounting of the battery box in my KF III so I axed it
and built up one from aluminum angle. Took a little while but it is
very light and goes in the same place. The Odyssey PC-625 now occupies
that place on the firewall and it is very reliable.
After walking off for lunch and somehow leaving my master switch and
Wheeling strobes on for 2 hours (duhh!) there was still enough juice
left to crank the engine. Incredible!
- - - - - Appended by Scientific Atlanta, a Cisco company - - - - - This
e-mail and any attachments may contain information which is confidential, proprietary,
privileged or otherwise protected by law. The information is solely intended
for the named addressee (or a person responsible for delivering it to
the addressee). If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you are
not authorized to read, print, retain, copy or disseminate this message or any
part of it. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender
immediately by return e-mail and delete it from your computer.
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: Model IV 1200 Dimensions |
Thanks Dave, I don't know how difficult it is to remove one wing. I
will have to check with the builder. Removal would require plugs for
electrical, fuel and control cables. Is that a big deal?
I only live 5 miles from airport and was thinking of hangering it in the
trailer. Of course, if I use wife's garage, I could use a flat bed
trailer to move it. Towing the plane behind my truck doesn't sound too
good.
Again, thanks,
Ken
----- Original Message -----
From: Dave
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 10:18 AM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Model IV 1200 Dimensions
Ken -- off the top of my head i will say about 7 ' 10 " wide
22 feet long
6 feet high
Now the problem might be finding a trailer that wide inside.
I have seen them loaded with one wing off and tucked underneath
between the mail wheels.
Hope this helps
Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: Ken Arnold
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 9:44 AM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Model IV 1200 Dimensions
Listers,
I am looking to acquire Model IV 1200 taildragger. Can someone give
me external dimensions with wings folded back. I am thinking of buying
a trailer to hanger it. Then tow the whole thing to local airport.
Anyone tried this?
Many thanks,
Ken Arnold
Pikeville, NC
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: Model IV 1200 Dimensions |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Ken Arnold" <arno7452@bellsouth.net>
Mike,
Many thanks. The width should be slightly less than 8' I would imagine.
So, a trailer with inside dimensions of 8'x8'x24' might work. Now to find
an affordable trailer. I have a pick up truck for towing. I also agree
that towing the plane out in the open does not sound like a good approach.
I live about 5 miles from the airport and the roads are not heavily
traveled. Trailering it would be easy.
Ken
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 1:42 PM
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: mdps_mc@swoca.net
>
> Ken
> The length is approx. 21 to 22 feet. I trailered mine one time to the
> airport with intentions of doing so everytime. Although fairly easy to do
> I didn't like the potential beating tjhe folded wings would take from the
> road. I have hangered for ten years. I am thinking about using a trailer
> as my hanger at the airport. The cost of hanger space continues to rise.
> However I'm not sure I would even be allowed to do this.
>
> Mike
> Sent from my BlackBerry wireless device
>
> -----Original Message-----
> To:kitfox-list@matronics.com
>
> Listers,
> I am looking to acquire Model IV 1200 taildragger. Can someone give me
> external dimensions with wings folded back. I am thinking of buying a
> trailer to hanger it. Then tow the whole thing to local airport.
>
> Anyone tried this?
> Many thanks,
> Ken Arnold
> Pikeville, NC
>
> do not archive
> ----------------
> This message has been scanned for Viruses and cleared by MailMarshal at
> SWOCA.
> ----------------
>
>
>
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 |
|
Hey guys, just thought I'd let you know that I'll be acting as South
Vendor Chairman again this year. If you happen to be stuck "Down on the
farm"
at the South (Ultralight) end of the grounds and need transport to the
KitFox tiedowns or elsewhere look me up. I'll have the use of a Gator
and can get you where
you need to be. The EAA has ordered me to help those in need. I intend
to do just that. My cell number is 262-370-3182. I may not be able to
return calls
immediately but will do my best to answer and help you guys out when I
can. I look forward to meeting some or all of you during the Convention.
Have fun
and fly safe.
Steve Magdic
N490PA
912 Model 3/4 Wing
Sussex Wisconsin
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: Model IV 1200 Dimensions |
Ken,
I'm doing the same thing, since it will cost me only $95/mo for
the trailer spot versus $450/mo for a hangar here in Ramona. The critical
dimensions on my Kitfox IV are the width across the wings when folded,
(95.5") and the height of the prop when you try to push it through the
door. (~73" with 6x6 tires.) My trailer is 96.5" across at the door
opening, which leaves only 1/2" clearance, but it's surprisingly easy to
get it in and out. (I'll put 1/4" neoprene on the internal sides, as well,
for padding.) I've put a 3" C-channel on the floor to guide the tail wheel,
and permanent chocks to guide the mains. I use a 2:1 block and tackle with
a Harken ratchet to pull it in or ease it out.
I looked at a lot of box trailers and found most of them too
narrow at the door. Mine has the tail lights in the door so the opening can
be wider. You can have the trailer made any height, but I was impatient and
bought one off the lot with a 75" door opening. I wish it was 6" or 9"
higher, since I can't put bush wheels on and fit the plane in the trailer.
I also bought a 22' trailer, but a 24' would be better, as my plane fits
with only 3" to spare, length-wise. I bought the 22' because it was a lot
lighter. (7000# gross versus 10000# gross.) Again, you can have lighter
trailers made custom for the same price, but the resale plummets. (These
trailers are typically used to move cars.) I put six tie-downs inside and
my plane seems to ride very comfortably. I also made wing supports, and
will be making a tail support to unload the tail wheel when trailering.
(I'll use the wing supports any time the wings are folded, since the fuel
weighs a lot.)
Let me know if you have any other questions.
At 06:44 AM 7/13/2006, you wrote:
>Listers,
>I am looking to acquire Model IV 1200 taildragger. Can someone give me
>external dimensions with wings folded back. I am thinking of buying a
>trailer to hanger it. Then tow the whole thing to local airport.
>
>Anyone tried this?
>Many thanks,
>Ken Arnold
>Pikeville, NC
>
>do not archive
Guy
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: Low Fuel Warning |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Guy Buchanan <bnn@nethere.com>
At 11:55 AM 7/12/2006, you wrote:
>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.
ROFLOL!
I see you enjoy the Lancair list in much the same way I do. I'm very glad
the Kitfox list has less, ahem, "capable" pilots. (They're certainly more
civil.)
Guy Buchanan
K-IV 1200 / 582-C / Warp / 100% 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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: KF 3 loose wing ribs |
John,
Many thanks for the information and the photo, it was exactly what I needed to
see.
Mike
John King <kingjohne@adelphia.net> wrote:
Mike,
Attached is a picture of how the ribs of a Kitfox wing are arranged and secured.
The smaller false ribs are only attached at two points and could bent sideways
slightly between the two attached points with a little side pressure. They
should not move at their attached points. It is not important that the false
ribs be secured to the fabric itself. Hope this helps.
-- John King Warrenton, VA
Michael Laundy wrote: I bought a KF3 a few months back and I have discovered
a couple of the ribs have movement in them when gently pressed through the fabric.
Since I did not build the plane I don't know exactly how the inside of
the wing is set out, but from the outside it seems there are 2 short ribs between
each full chord rib. It is 2 of those short ones that don't appear to be
attached to the upper skin,. I suspect someone has moved it in the hangar and
pushed in the wrong place!
Can anyone give me an idea of how the wing is constructed, or even better a photo
before covering.
Many thanks
Mike
---------------------------------
---------------------------------
All New Yahoo! Mail Tired of Vi@gr@! come-ons? Let our SpamGuard protect you.
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: KF 3 loose wing ribs |
John,
Many thanks for the information and the photo, it was exactly what I needed to
see.
Mike
John King <kingjohne@adelphia.net> wrote:
Mike,
Attached is a picture of how the ribs of a Kitfox wing are arranged and secured.
The smaller false ribs are only attached at two points and could bent sideways
slightly between the two attached points with a little side pressure. They
should not move at their attached points. It is not important that the false
ribs be secured to the fabric itself. Hope this helps.
-- John King Warrenton, VA
Michael Laundy wrote: I bought a KF3 a few months back and I have discovered
a couple of the ribs have movement in them when gently pressed through the fabric.
Since I did not build the plane I don't know exactly how the inside of
the wing is set out, but from the outside it seems there are 2 short ribs between
each full chord rib. It is 2 of those short ones that don't appear to be
attached to the upper skin,. I suspect someone has moved it in the hangar and
pushed in the wrong place!
Can anyone give me an idea of how the wing is constructed, or even better a photo
before covering.
Many thanks
Mike
---------------------------------
---------------------------------
Now you can scan emails quickly with a reading pane. Get the new Yahoo! Mail.
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: Model IV 1200 Dimensions |
Hi Ken.
I'm attaching a 3 view drawing of my model 2. I don't think the outside dimensions
changed much from M2 to M4. I've been towing from home garage to the airport
(6 miles each way) since last July, using an open trailer and fore/aft wing
trailering braces. I drain fuel to lighten the load and support the tail to
save the tailwheel spring. It seems to work fine. I know there are alot of others
out there who do the same. I think this is what Dan Denney had in mind when
he designed the Fox with folding wings.
Ken Arnold <arno7452@bellsouth.net> wrote:
Thanks Dave, I don't know how difficult it is to remove one wing. I
will have to check with the builder. Removal would require plugs for electrical,
fuel and control cables. Is that a big deal?
I only live 5 miles from airport and was thinking of hangering it in the trailer.
Of course, if I use wife's garage, I could use a flat bed trailer to move
it. Towing the plane behind my truck doesn't sound too good.
Again, thanks,
Ken
----- Original Message -----
From: Dave
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 10:18 AM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Model IV 1200 Dimensions
Ken -- off the top of my head i will say about 7 ' 10 " wide
22 feet long
6 feet high
Now the problem might be finding a trailer that wide inside.
I have seen them loaded with one wing off and tucked underneath between the mail
wheels.
Hope this helps
Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: Ken Arnold
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 9:44 AM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Model IV 1200 Dimensions
Listers,
I am looking to acquire Model IV 1200 taildragger. Can someone give me external
dimensions with wings folded back. I am thinking of buying a trailer to hanger
it. Then tow the whole thing to local airport.
Anyone tried this?
Many thanks,
Ken Arnold
Pikeville, NC
do not archive
---------------------------------
How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messengers low PC-to-Phone call rates.
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: "Randy Daughenbaugh" <rjdaugh@rapidnet.com>
Am I the only one getting two copies of some emails?
It's not all of them. Maybe 1 in 5 comes in twice. And sometimes they are
several minutes apart with other emails coming in between them. ???? It
seems to have started just in the last 5 days.
Randy
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 |
|
Steve,
When I fly in at Oshkosh I arrive late in the day after the air show is over when
arrivals are permitted. Sometimes that is close to the time they shut down
arrival operations for the day. The last two years they have provided golf cart
rides for the arriving pilots and their gear to wherever they needed to go.
In my case I have to go to the bus depot on the grounds which is a long walk,
especially when it is hot and humid with luggage. It has been a big help and
I really appreciate it after seven hours of flying, sometimes in lousy weather.
By the time I arrive at the University dorms I am really beat.
If I do not see any curtsey vehicles when I park my flying machine I may just give
you a call.
--
John King
Warrenton, VA
Magdic, Steve wrote:
> Hey guys, just thought I'd let you know that I'll be acting as South
> Vendor Chairman again this year. If you happen to be stuck "Down on
> the farm"
> at the South (Ultralight) end of the grounds and need transport to the
> KitFox tiedowns or elsewhere look me up. I'll have the use of a Gator
> and can get you where
> you need to be. The EAA has ordered me to help those in need. I intend
> to do just that. My cell number is 262-370-3182. I may not be able to
> return calls
> immediately but will do my best to answer and help you guys out when I
> can. I look forward to meeting some or all of you during the
> Convention. Have fun
> and fly safe.
>
> Steve Magdic
> N490PA
> 912 Model 3/4 Wing
> Sussex Wisconsin
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: | Model IV 1200 Dimensions |
Hi, Ken,
Many years ago I posted a 3-view drawing of the Model IV on the Sportflight.
I just checked there and I can't find it, though I'm sure Don Pearsall would
know where it hides.
Anyhow, since image files can be sent attached to postings these days
perhaps it would help if I mailed you a copy of the drawing right here.
Kind regards,
Johannes
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Ken Arnold
> Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 5:23 PM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Model IV 1200 Dimensions
>
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Ken Arnold" <arno7452@bellsouth.net>
>
> Mike,
> Many thanks. The width should be slightly less than 8' I would imagine.
> So, a trailer with inside dimensions of 8'x8'x24' might work.
> Now to find
> an affordable trailer. I have a pick up truck for towing. I also agree
> that towing the plane out in the open does not sound like a good approach.
>
> I live about 5 miles from the airport and the roads are not heavily
> traveled. Trailering it would be easy.
>
> Ken
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 1:42 PM
>
>
> > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: mdps_mc@swoca.net
> >
> > Ken
> > The length is approx. 21 to 22 feet. I trailered mine one time to the
> > airport with intentions of doing so everytime. Although fairly
> easy to do
> > I didn't like the potential beating tjhe folded wings would
> take from the
> > road. I have hangered for ten years. I am thinking about
> using a trailer
> > as my hanger at the airport. The cost of hanger space
> continues to rise.
> > However I'm not sure I would even be allowed to do this.
> >
> > Mike
> > Sent from my BlackBerry wireless device
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > To:kitfox-list@matronics.com
> >
> > Listers,
> > I am looking to acquire Model IV 1200 taildragger. Can someone give me
> > external dimensions with wings folded back. I am thinking of buying a
> > trailer to hanger it. Then tow the whole thing to local airport.
> >
> > Anyone tried this?
> > Many thanks,
> > Ken Arnold
> > Pikeville, NC
> >
> > do not archive
> > ----------------
> > This message has been scanned for Viruses and cleared by MailMarshal at
> > SWOCA.
> > ----------------
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
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: "Richard Rabbers" <rira1950@yahoo.com>
> Am I the only one getting two copies of some emails?
You're not alone.
--------
Richard in SW Michigan
Model 1 / 618 - full-lotus floats (restoration)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=46923#46923
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: Model IV 1200 Dimensions |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "flier" <FLIER@sbcglobal.net>
Towing a Kitfox on an open trailer is no big deal.
I've done it for years and have seen no degradation
whatsoever to mine. If the trailer is built to
handle the plane correctly it's a piece of cake.
I've also towed long distances of up to 1000 miles
round trip. Friends have used my trailer to retrieve
a couple of Kitfoxes they've purchased out of state.
It's nice to be in a hangar but it's also nice to
avoid that few hundred bucks a month rental!
--- Original Message ---
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Ken Arnold"
<arno7452@bellsouth.net>
>
>Mike,
>Many thanks. The width should be slightly less than
8' I would imagine.
>So, a trailer with inside dimensions of 8'x8'x24'
might work. Now to fin
>d
>an affordable trailer. I have a pick up truck for
towing. I also agree
>that towing the plane out in the open does not sound
like a good approach.
>
>I live about 5 miles from the airport and the roads
are not heavily
>traveled. Trailering it would be easy.
>
>Ken
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 1:42 PM
>
>
>> --> Kitfox-List message posted by:
mdps_mc@swoca.net
>>
>> Ken
>> The length is approx. 21 to 22 feet. I trailered
mine one time to the
>> airport with intentions of doing so everytime.
Although fairly easy to
> do
>> I didn't like the potential beating tjhe folded
wings would take from t
>he
>> road. I have hangered for ten years. I am
thinking about using a trai
>ler
>> as my hanger at the airport. The cost of hanger
space continues to ris
>e.
>> However I'm not sure I would even be allowed to do
this.
>>
>> Mike
>> Sent from my BlackBerry=AE wireless device
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> To:kitfox-list@matronics.com
>>
>> Listers,
>> I am looking to acquire Model IV 1200 taildragger.
Can someone give me
>> external dimensions with wings folded back. I am
thinking of buying a
>> trailer to hanger it. Then tow the whole thing to
local airport.
>>
>> Anyone tried this?
>> Many thanks,
>> Ken Arnold
>> Pikeville, NC
>>
>> do not archive
>> ----------------
>> This message has been scanned for Viruses and
cleared by MailMarshal at
>
>> SWOCA.
>> ----------------
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>_-
=================
======
>==================3
D=======
>==========
browse
Subscriptions page,
FAQ,
List
>_-
=================
======
>==================3
D=======
>==========
Wiki!
>_-
=================
======
>==================3
D=======
>==========
List Admin.
>_-
=================
======
>==================3
D=======
>==========
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: Rotax 532 a Boat Anchor? |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Kerry Skyring" <kerryskyring@hotmail.com>
This seems like a good subject line in which to contribute an experience
with the Rotax 912S in the S5 outback which I have helped build and
(hopefully) will soon be flying. Some may remember I reported earlier in the
year that the plane had done some taxying and short hops along the runway
and all was looking good for a summer of flying off the 40 hour test time.
It was not to be. After a number of runs the motor began running roughly. I
consulted the list and we did the obvious things. Carburettors removed,
cleaned, set to factory spec and remounted. Problem remained and time went
by. Eventually a compression check revealed one cylinder low. Removing the
rocker cap it was found that a valve spring retainer had broken and it was
likely that metal had gone into the cylinder. This was a new engine with
just 2.5 hours running time. That's the bad news. The good news is that
Rotax is replacing it with a brand new engine which will be picked up this
week. It helps that the factory is just a couple of hours down the west
autobahn.
But this is just an anecdote and does not constitute a judgement about
Rotax. The experience of our flying club with Rotax is generally good. But I
don't want to start another discussion about which is best, just to say we
had a problem and the factory has done the right thing. And to say that the
Vienna fox will one day fly and in the meantime I keep the frustrations at
bay with an occasional flight along the Danube in the Motorfalke.
Kerry
>
>
>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List
>http://wiki.matronics.com
>
>
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: Low Fuel Warning - Tank venting |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Napier, Mark" <Mark.Napier@sciatl.com>
Hey Dave,
I've still got the forward header tank and rear selector valves. The
builder got around the fuel feed problem with a header pump and it does
work well. But at some point I install a rear header tank to make room
for a radio in the panel.
However the KF rear header system does have a weak point. Since both
tanks drain to the common header the tanks should be cross vented. It's
a requirement for certified planes if they have a selector with a "both"
position or both tanks just feed together like a C152.
With the suggested system if one wing tank vent becomes blocked then
that tank won't feed. Cross venting solves the problem.
Another problem with no cross venting is that if one tank has a faulty
seal on the gas cap then the pressure from the other vent will blow all
the gas in the system out the bad gas cap. There have been some
accidents like this, yes? With cross venting a bad cap will only suck
gas out until the tank vents on both sides are uncovered and then stop.
Of course the lowered pressure might cause a fuel feed problem....
What I don't know is how to add that new vent line to the top inside of
the left wing tank without causing a brand new leak. I'd love to hear
any good ideas or experiences.
FWIW,
Mark Napier
------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
Time: 01:22:52 PM PST US
--> 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
- - - - - Appended by Scientific Atlanta, a Cisco company - - - - - This
e-mail and any attachments may contain information which is confidential, proprietary,
privileged or otherwise protected by law. The information is solely intended
for the named addressee (or a person responsible for delivering it to
the addressee). If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you are
not authorized to read, print, retain, copy or disseminate this message or any
part of it. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender
immediately by return e-mail and delete it from your computer.
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? - 582 improvements |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Napier, Mark" <Mark.Napier@sciatl.com>
bearings. I replaced the crankshaft assembly in my '91 vintage grey
head for that reason. It already had the newer style harmonic dampener
and starter gear assembly.
The next upgrade was the ceramic water pump seal. For cost reasons I
elected to keep the old style seals along with an extra rubber seal that
is retained by a metal keeper. Both spaces around the shaft are stuffed
with silicon-based grease that keeps the water away from the seals. At
150 hours and counting from the rebuild I've had no problems. It's time
to do a de-carbon and I'll replace them all again then.
The last upgrade was the re-circulating water system. That is supposed
to help reduce the probability of cold-seizing the engine. By
re-circulating the water the inlet temperate to the block is raised. I
have thought about upgrading but the part costs talk me out of it very
quickly. A working solution is to regulate the cooling air to the
radiator to keep the water temps up where they should be. I'm also very
careful about slowly adding in power after a long cold descent until I
see the water temps well above the thermostat opening point.
Anyway, I hear the most single important thing for cold seizures is
making sure the ring and piston clearances are not too tight.
FWIW,
Mark Napier
- - - - - Appended by Scientific Atlanta, a Cisco company - - - - -
This e-mail and any attachments may contain information which is confidential,
proprietary, privileged or otherwise protected by law. The information is solely
intended for the named addressee (or a person responsible for delivering it
to the addressee). If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you
are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy or disseminate this message or
any part of it. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the
sender immediately by return e-mail and delete it from your computer.
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: Low Fuel Warning - Tank venting |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: PWilson <pwmac@sisna.com>
Hello Mark,
Not sure I understand what you are saying. The KF design, with the
back of the seat header tank, has no selector valves and only one
vent is necessary. Flow tanks flow to the header and unless the right
tank becomes sealed from the atmosphere venting would be
accomplished. Sealing of the right tank is certainly a possibility
but IMO, quite remote. As you noted the tank wont feed if the supply
to the header is blocked. But, the other one would feed if the vent
is not blocked. The vent line is an important item and must be routed
to prevent any restriction or loops that could trap a slug of fuel
which could restrict or block the venting. Use of a stiff hose might
be called for.
If you have a tank selector valve then you are not following the KF
design, but if there is no failure in the vent system then the tank
that is selected will still feed. No matter what, the KF design works
unless the right tank becomes sealed or the vent becomes blocked.
When that happens your low level sensor in the header tank will tell
you that you are running out of fuel and you have a finite amount of
time to get to the ground.
And yes a cross feed would protect against a missing cap or gasket
or improperly installed gas cap. With one vent the problem is worse
than with both tanks vented. Cessna's I am familiar with have the
leaky/missing tank cap failure mode. Pretty hard to protect.
Having said all the above its not a big deal to add a vent to the
left tank. Here a sound method. Epoxy a plate on the outside of the
tank drill a hole thru it and the tank. Then get one of those trick
fittings and insert it from inside to out and put the nut on it to
squeeze the internal o-ring. The internal o-ring S/B Viton compatible
with the fuel you are using. If you cannot locate the fitting just
find a machinist and have him make you one. It vaguely looks like a
metal valve stem like the ones you see on alloy auto wheels. It has a
groove under the head to capture the o-ring. The metal plate doubler
is required because the fiberglass is too thin for a fitting, IMO
Then just install a tee at the vent outlet on the header tank.
Install the fitting by letting it slide down a wire.
Lots of trouble and work for such a remote failure. Your prop bolts
probably present a higher risk than the failures that prevent venting
form the header. Its your plane and adding a vent to the other tanks
is pretty low risk.
Regards, Paul
PS, I do not like selector valves, R/L/B or R/L/B/O, because its just
not necessary for safe flight. A passive fuel system if the safest.
Then pilot error is eliminated.
=============================
At 01:31 PM 7/13/2006, you wrote:
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Napier, Mark" <Mark.Napier@sciatl.com>
>
>Hey Dave,
>
>I've still got the forward header tank and rear selector valves. The
>builder got around the fuel feed problem with a header pump and it does
>work well. But at some point I install a rear header tank to make room
>for a radio in the panel.
>
>However the KF rear header system does have a weak point. Since both
>tanks drain to the common header the tanks should be cross vented. It's
>a requirement for certified planes if they have a selector with a "both"
>position or both tanks just feed together like a C152.
>
>With the suggested system if one wing tank vent becomes blocked then
>that tank won't feed. Cross venting solves the problem.
>
>Another problem with no cross venting is that if one tank has a faulty
>seal on the gas cap then the pressure from the other vent will blow all
>the gas in the system out the bad gas cap. There have been some
>accidents like this, yes? With cross venting a bad cap will only suck
>gas out until the tank vents on both sides are uncovered and then stop.
>Of course the lowered pressure might cause a fuel feed problem....
>
>What I don't know is how to add that new vent line to the top inside of
>the left wing tank without causing a brand new leak. I'd love to hear
>any good ideas or experiences.
>
>FWIW,
>
>Mark Napier
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>---
>Time: 01:22:52 PM PST US
>
>--> 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
>
>
> - - - - - Appended by Scientific Atlanta, a Cisco company - -
> - - - This e-mail and any attachments may contain information
> which is confidential, proprietary, privileged or otherwise
> protected by law. The information is solely intended for the named
> addressee (or a person responsible for delivering it to the
> addressee). If you are not the intended recipient of this message,
> you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy or disseminate
> this message or any part of it. If you have received this e-mail in
> error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and
> delete it from your computer.
>
>
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: Low Fuel Warning - Tank venting |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Don Smythe" <dosmythe@cox.net>
I've tried to read all this header venting thing but was lazy and tended to
skip lines so, forgive me if I misread the thread. Standby to throw things
at me. The header vent line only assist in venting off the air in the
header tank and has little or nothing to do with fuel flow from the wing
tanks. Picture this, place a 5 gallon bucket on top of your work bench.
Attach a garden hose via a fitting at the bottom and fill it with water.
The water flows freely on the floor because the top of the bucket is open
and providing air. Gravity does the rest. There is NO vent in this
described system. Take a header that is full of fuel with the vent line
plugged. Fuel will gravity flow down the supply lines as long as the tank
cap is vented to the outside.
I initially installed the second vent to the other tank but removed it
later in a weight reduction binge. Now, if you plug the vent on top of the
wing then you might see some problems but I don't think that's the vent
being discussed.
BTW, I think the Avid used a similar header vent but was closed except for
pre-flight venting or during initial filling of the header. Might be wrong
on that???
Don Smythe
.
----- Original Message -----
> With the suggested system if one wing tank vent becomes blocked then
> that tank won't feed. Cross venting solves the problem.
>
> Another problem with no cross venting is that if one tank has a faulty
> seal on the gas cap then the pressure from the other vent will blow all
> the gas in the system out the bad gas cap. There have been some
> accidents like this, yes? With cross venting a bad cap will only suck
> gas out until the tank vents on both sides are uncovered and then stop.
> Of course the lowered pressure might cause a fuel feed problem....
>
> What I don't know is how to add that new vent line to the top inside of
> the left wing tank without causing a brand new leak. I'd love to hear
> any good ideas or experiences.
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: | broken push rod suberu ea81 |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "kirk hull" <kirkhull@sbcglobal.net>
I had an in flight failure last week of N205AK's Suberu ea81. She was landed
with no problems and everyone is ok. The push rod on the # 4 cylinder (
Front right)snaped. Attached is a picture of the part . it made a clean
break almost dead center on the rod completely in to. With only 20 hrs on
the engine and only 5 in flight this should not have happened. Has anyone
else seen this before and why did it happen? P.S. it is a 100HP Stratus
conversion.
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: Selling My NSI Subaru EA81-130-Turbo CAP Package |
It's my understanding that once an acft. has been registered as a
anything above a LSA . It can't be changed to be a LSA. You should
check to be sure. Norm.
JJProbasco@cs.com wrote:
> I too have an EA81 and cockpit adjustable Prop. The bad news is I
> have not completed building to the point that I have registered the
> aircraft. It's also the good news because I too am contemplating
> building my Model 5 very light and registering it as an ELSA.
>
> Here's my point: It is my understanding that the light sport plane
> rules don't allow an aircraft that has been operated with an
> adjustable prop to be "downgraded" to a LSA, even if the prop is
> replaced with a fixed pitch one. (Do I have it right?)
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: | ebay Classic IV for sale |
If anybody is interested there's a Kitfox Classic IV Kit for sale on
ebay with a couple days left and the high bid is now $5125. It's set up
for a 912 with fwf component kit. Looks like a good deal, maybe...
Deke
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/KITFOX-CLASSIC-IV_W0QQitemZ220006148761QQi
hZ012QQcategoryZ63679QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
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 - Tank venting |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "ron schick" <roncarolnikko@hotmail.com>
Don I have been fighting vaporlock that forms after folding my wings. The
fuel pushing down (2") in tanks, although above the air in the line, is less
than the 18" lift required to get it up and over the firewall and down to
carb. Once bled out it flows freely, but what about after -g or slips.
Ron NB Or
>From: "Don Smythe" <dosmythe@cox.net>
>To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Low Fuel Warning - Tank venting
>Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 17:25:35 -0400
>
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Don Smythe" <dosmythe@cox.net>
>
>I've tried to read all this header venting thing but was lazy and tended to
>skip lines so, forgive me if I misread the thread. Standby to throw things
>at me. The header vent line only assist in venting off the air in the
>header tank and has little or nothing to do with fuel flow from the wing
>tanks. Picture this, place a 5 gallon bucket on top of your work bench.
>Attach a garden hose via a fitting at the bottom and fill it with water.
>The water flows freely on the floor because the top of the bucket is open
>and providing air. Gravity does the rest. There is NO vent in this
>described system. Take a header that is full of fuel with the vent line
>plugged. Fuel will gravity flow down the supply lines as long as the tank
>cap is vented to the outside.
> I initially installed the second vent to the other tank but removed it
>later in a weight reduction binge. Now, if you plug the vent on top of the
>wing then you might see some problems but I don't think that's the vent
>being discussed.
>BTW, I think the Avid used a similar header vent but was closed except for
>pre-flight venting or during initial filling of the header. Might be wrong
>on that???
>
>Don Smythe
>
>.
>----- Original Message -----
>
>
>>With the suggested system if one wing tank vent becomes blocked then
>>that tank won't feed. Cross venting solves the problem.
>>
>>Another problem with no cross venting is that if one tank has a faulty
>>seal on the gas cap then the pressure from the other vent will blow all
>>the gas in the system out the bad gas cap. There have been some
>>accidents like this, yes? With cross venting a bad cap will only suck
>>gas out until the tank vents on both sides are uncovered and then stop.
>>Of course the lowered pressure might cause a fuel feed problem....
>>
>>What I don't know is how to add that new vent line to the top inside of
>>the left wing tank without causing a brand new leak. I'd love to hear
>>any good ideas or experiences.
>
>
>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List
>http://wiki.matronics.com
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Rotax 532 a Boat Anchor |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bradley M Webb" <bmwebb@cox.net>
If an opinion based on actual experience, research, and education is LESS
important to you than a guy giving an UNEDUCATED and PATENTLY WRONG review
of a product he has never actually touched (and from only looking at a
picture, no less), then I invite you to place me on your email snub list. Go
for it. I will not stop calling it as I see it.
My 582 failed on me. I gave it an honest shot, even though I was aware of
the potential for problems. IT FAILED! I would be glad to provide the
pictures of how it failed. There was nothing anyone could have done to
prevent it. A professional NDI technician said the only way for it to fail
the way it did, was a manufacturing defect.
Saying a 582 has "excellent durability" is like a car salesman saying "Trust
me". Do you really believe that? I guess it could - IF you're rich enough to
buy new cranks and jugs at every annual. But that wouldn't be enough. Mine
ran great. And at 50 hours, it ate itself. With me in it. On takeoff.
Through no fault of mine.
How's that for "excellent durability"?
Bradley
P.S. I make no pretenses that the GEO is perfect. But I did my research, and
found it a suitable alternative, with distinct advantages. I would be glad
to share the FACTS on that, but you've made it clear that you won't listen.
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Michael Gibbs
Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 4:09 AM
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michael Gibbs <MichaelGibbs@cox.net>
Bradley sez:
>The guy that wrote that about the Turbo 'fox is a blithering idiot...
Can we have a break from the belligerent attitude, Bradley? You've
made your opinion on Rotax 2 strokes abundantly clear yet you now
feel the need to resort to personal attacks. It should be obvious by
now that not everyone shares your opinion--live with it.
We know the Geo engine is the finest piece of engineering in the
history of mankind. We know that it produces more power than any
other engine and probably burbs up extra fuel in the process. We
know that if we go to the source of a product we'll always get an
unbiased view of that product's pros and cons. We even know that
there is no controversy at all regarding an engine's history in cars
as an indicator of how well it will perform in airplanes. We get it,
OK?
Can we give it a rest?
Mike G.
N728KF
Do not archive.
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: Low Fuel Warning - Tank venting |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Don Smythe" <dosmythe@cox.net>
Ron,
I'm not sure I understand your setup. After folding the wings back and
out again, the system from the wing tanks to the header should drain and
vent the fuel back to normal. I believe it is ideal for the fuel lines
from the header to the carbs be in a continuous up hill direction without
going up and over then down again to the carb. Any high point could cause a
bubble to form in the line. This is just my opinion but it sounds like you
are going over the firewall then down again. In a gravity drain system, the
fuel lines must be routed in a continuous downhill fashion from the wing
tanks to the header then, a continuous uphill fashion to the carbs. That
is, if the header is at the low point of the system. Auto fuel will "gas
off" anytime it passes through a larger chamber in the fuel system (such as
a filter). Aviation fuel does not "gas off" as easily. Auto manufactures
started placing their electric fuel pumps in the fuel tanks as part of the
cure for this problem. Vapor lock used to be a much bigger problem in autos
before they made this change. All this needs to be taken with a grain of
salt since I obtained all this wealth of knowledge (ha...) from reading a
million web sites on the subject. Many web sites can lead you astray.
Don Smythe
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 7:38 PM
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "ron schick"
> <roncarolnikko@hotmail.com>
>
> Don I have been fighting vaporlock that forms after folding my wings. The
> fuel pushing down (2") in tanks, although above the air in the line, is
> less than the 18" lift required to get it up and over the firewall and
> down to carb. Once bled out it flows freely, but what about after -g or
> slips.
> Ron NB Or
>
>
>>From: "Don Smythe" <dosmythe@cox.net>
>>To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
>>Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Low Fuel Warning - Tank venting
>>Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 17:25:35 -0400
>>
>>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Don Smythe" <dosmythe@cox.net>
>>
>>I've tried to read all this header venting thing but was lazy and tended
>>to skip lines so, forgive me if I misread the thread. Standby to throw
>>things at me. The header vent line only assist in venting off the air in
>>the header tank and has little or nothing to do with fuel flow from the
>>wing tanks. Picture this, place a 5 gallon bucket on top of your work
>>bench. Attach a garden hose via a fitting at the bottom and fill it with
>>water. The water flows freely on the floor because the top of the bucket
>>is open and providing air. Gravity does the rest. There is NO vent in
>>this described system. Take a header that is full of fuel with the vent
>>line plugged. Fuel will gravity flow down the supply lines as long as the
>>tank cap is vented to the outside.
>> I initially installed the second vent to the other tank but removed it
>> later in a weight reduction binge. Now, if you plug the vent on top of
>> the wing then you might see some problems but I don't think that's the
>> vent being discussed.
>>BTW, I think the Avid used a similar header vent but was closed except for
>>pre-flight venting or during initial filling of the header. Might be
>>wrong on that???
>>
>>Don Smythe
>>
>>.
>>----- Original Message -----
>>
>>
>>>With the suggested system if one wing tank vent becomes blocked then
>>>that tank won't feed. Cross venting solves the problem.
>>>
>>>Another problem with no cross venting is that if one tank has a faulty
>>>seal on the gas cap then the pressure from the other vent will blow all
>>>the gas in the system out the bad gas cap. There have been some
>>>accidents like this, yes? With cross venting a bad cap will only suck
>>>gas out until the tank vents on both sides are uncovered and then stop.
>>>Of course the lowered pressure might cause a fuel feed problem....
>>>
>>>What I don't know is how to add that new vent line to the top inside of
>>>the left wing tank without causing a brand new leak. I'd love to hear
>>>any good ideas or experiences.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List
>>http://wiki.matronics.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List
> http://wiki.matronics.com
>
>
>
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 |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Don Smythe" <dosmythe@cox.net>
Got my vote. (I'll hate myself for sending this but sometimes, you gotta do
what you gotta do)
Do Not Archive
----- Original Message -----
>>then I invite you to place me on your email snub list. Go for it. I will
>>not stop calling it as I see it.
Message 39
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Model IV 1200 Dimensions |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Guy Buchanan <bnn@nethere.com>
At 10:45 AM 7/13/2006, you wrote:
>Anyhow, since image files can be sent attached to postings these days
>perhaps it would help if I mailed you a copy of the drawing right here.
Johannes,
That's a great drawing. If you have a high-resolution version
would you be so kind as to post the highest resolution you can on Sportflight?
Thanks,
Guy Buchanan
K-IV 1200 / 582-C / Warp / 100% done, thanks mostly to Bob Ducar.
Do not archive
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: | Selling My NSI Subaru EA81-130-Turbo CAP Package |
Here is something that I got from an EAA mailing today. Hopefully I will
not be sued for putting this out. Brian Smith.
07/13/06 - FAA REITERATES STANCE ON LSA DEFINITION
In denying an exemption request from the International Cessna 120/140
Association, the FAA has reiterated its stance against changing weight
limitations for previously certificated aircraft to make them eligible for
sport pilots to fly.
The International Cessna 120/140 Association had requested the FAA allow
owners of Cessna 120/140 operating under the Supplemental Type Certificate
(STC) SA0248AT, which lowers the aircraft's maximum gross weight from 1,450
pounds to 1,320 pounds, to fly the aircraft as sport pilots.
The 120/140 Association cited the economic benefit of allowing its members
to continue to operate aircraft with which they had significant experience
and. The 120/140 Association also noted the FAA granted the STC while it was
developing the sport pilot rule, which the 120/140 Association called
"evidence of its (FAA's) willingness to consider the relief requested.."
In mid-July, the FAA denied the exemption, stating ".The petitioner has not
shown how.the exemption would be in the public interest or provide a level
of safety equivalent to that provided by the regulation.. In the final rule,
the FAA determined existing aircraft are not to be modified to reduce an
aircraft's capabilities to meet the definition of a light-sport aircraft.
Granting the petitioner's request would not be consistent with the intent of
the rule." In the Preamble to the rule the FAA stated, ".in prohibiting
modifications to aircraft to meet the light-sport aircraft definition, the
FAA seeks to ensure that the light-sport aircraft operating characteristics
are consistent with the skills and training for the sport pilot" (69 FR
44792). It added, "The FAA specifically considered the applicant's STC
project in developing the final rule, and the issuance of the STC was a
factor in the FAA's decision to prohibit modifications to existing aircraft
to meet the light-sport aircraft definition."
The FAA agreed with the petition's assertion that using type-certificated
aircraft with a proven safety record benefits sport pilot operations.
However, it asserted that the safety record of type-certificated aircraft is
a reflection of both the quality of the aircraft design and the skill level
of the pilots who have traditionally operated those aircraft.
_____
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Norm
Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 6:22 PM
It's my understanding that once an acft. has been registered as a anything
above a LSA . It can't be changed to be a LSA. You should check to be sure.
Norm.
JJProbasco@cs.com wrote:
I too have an EA81 and cockpit adjustable Prop. The bad news is I have not
completed building to the point that I have registered the aircraft. It's
also the good news because I too am contemplating building my Model 5 very
light and registering it as an ELSA.
Here's my point: It is my understanding that the light sport plane rules
don't allow an aircraft that has been operated with an adjustable prop to be
"downgraded" to a LSA, even if the prop is replaced with a fixed pitch one.
(Do I have it right?)
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: | Fuel level sensor |
Kitfox-List message posted by: "Algate" <algate@attglobal.net>
>
>Sorry to rehash old subjects but I know that a lot of the Kitfoxes with
wing
>tanks only use a low fuel warning device mounted on the small header
tank.
>Can I get info/ pricing and contact for this device.
>
>Regards
>Gary Algate
Garry,
I am in the process of fitting a Gemsensor ELS900/ 205300 this is
only about 3/4" round by 1'' long and this particular one is 1/4" NPT
thread and activates, or as they say sinks current when dry. ie:- the
fuel has dropped below the sensor. It cost $57US plus exchange plus
shipping.
See www.gemsensors.com for current price and details.
Also see www.ppavionics.com as they are doing almost the identical
thing.
The one from Murle Williams for $95 I think is a float switch in a
small tank above the header tank. It should be a reasonable answer but I
think bulkier as it won't fit above my header tank and still be behind
the seat
The Gemsensor can mount in the side of your header tank if you want to
make a thread and hole for it or you can try what I'm doing and put it
in a "T" piece. I am trying mine in the breather line. I can't see why
that won't work and as I don't really have enough clearance above my
header tank it gets it all out of the way. Technically using a "T" might
not be enough clearance from the sensor tip. Look at the website and see
how it works. However my testing to date shows it is fine in a 1/4"
Brass "T" piece. However you will see that PPAV clean out some of the
threads on the sensor port so I may do the same.
I have made a beeper to feed into my intercom audio input so I get a
beep in my phones when I'm down to just my header tank. Also I am
having a flashing LED and the whole system will be switched so I can
turn it off and it doesn't bug me while I'm trying to land under
pressure.
This sensor should feed just a flashing LED without other circuitry if
that's all you want as it is claimed to sink 40ma and a LED is max 20ma.
Rex Shaw
Australia
Message 42
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "wingsdown" <wingsdown@comcast.net>
Yes. Well I sent him an email but it bounced. I will have to drop by the
airport. Who knows maybe he hung it up.
Rick
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Guy
Buchanan
Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 9:50 PM
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Guy Buchanan <bnn@nethere.com>
At 05:56 PM 7/11/2006, you wrote:
>How far from AJO are you. I know a CFI that would most likely do it.
Are you talking about Dave Stevenson? I've been trying to get together
with
him for the past two weeks with no success. Either there are no planes,
or
he's out of town. It may happen, but I'm getting impatient and looking
for
alternatives.
Oh yes. I'm about 1/2 hour away from Corona. If you could set me up
there
it would be great!
Thanks,
Guy Buchanan
K-IV 1200 / 582-C / Warp / 100% done, thanks mostly to Bob Ducar.
Do not archive
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: | broken push rod suberu ea81 |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "wingsdown" <wingsdown@comcast.net>
If it was adjusted to tight, partial bend, stress failure. The are
pretty stout push rods. Did not see the attachment.
Rick
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of kirk hull
Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 3:09 PM
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "kirk hull" <kirkhull@sbcglobal.net>
I had an in flight failure last week of N205AK's Suberu ea81. She was
landed with no problems and everyone is ok. The push rod on the # 4
cylinder ( Front right)snaped. Attached is a picture of the part . it
made a clean break almost dead center on the rod completely in to. With
only 20 hrs on the engine and only 5 in flight this should not have
happened. Has anyone else seen this before and why did it happen? P.S.
it is a 100HP Stratus conversion.
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: broken push rod suberu ea81 |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "QSS" <msm@byterocky.net>
Kirk, when my NSI EA 81 was pulled apart after an accident, 2 of the push
rods were broken at the ball end. The mechanic who did the work for me said
an engine failure was immanent. Also he was convinced the push rods were
home made. Im not a mechanical person so Im taking his work for it but he
did remove all rods and replace them with off the shelf ones. My engine had
only 130 hours on it and the issues that required repairs or replacement
would be expected of an engine with far greater hours. Valves seats were
also clogged with what he suggested was material from the air filter, and
the bore required honing. Several rings were also imbedded into their
groves.
Regards
Graeme
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, July 14, 2006 8:08 AM
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "kirk hull" <kirkhull@sbcglobal.net>
>
> I had an in flight failure last week of N205AK's Suberu ea81. She was
> landed
> with no problems and everyone is ok. The push rod on the # 4 cylinder (
> Front right)snaped. Attached is a picture of the part . it made a clean
> break almost dead center on the rod completely in to. With only 20 hrs on
> the engine and only 5 in flight this should not have happened. Has anyone
> else seen this before and why did it happen? P.S. it is a 100HP Stratus
> conversion.
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
>
>
Message 45
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | broken push rod suberu ea81 |
sorry I must have forgotten to attach the photo so here it is
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of kirk hull
Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 5:09 PM
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "kirk hull" <kirkhull@sbcglobal.net>
I had an in flight failure last week of N205AK's Suberu ea81. She was landed
with no problems and everyone is ok. The push rod on the # 4 cylinder (
Front right)snaped. Attached is a picture of the part . it made a clean
break almost dead center on the rod completely in to. With only 20 hrs on
the engine and only 5 in flight this should not have happened. Has anyone
else seen this before and why did it happen? P.S. it is a 100HP Stratus
conversion.
Message 46
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: ebay Classic IV for sale |
a KF 3 for sale here up to 8k so far
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=260007862
944&fromMakeTrack=true
Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: Fox5flyer
To: Kitfox List
Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 7:37 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: ebay Classic IV for sale
If anybody is interested there's a Kitfox Classic IV Kit for sale on
ebay with a couple days left and the high bid is now $5125. It's set up
for a 912 with fwf component kit. Looks like a good deal, maybe...
Deke
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/KITFOX-CLASSIC-IV_W0QQitemZ220006148761QQi
hZ012QQcategoryZ63679QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
Message 47
| 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,
Thanks for the update on the 582 failure.
Can you helps us out on anything ?
Whgat kind of oil wer you using ?
Was there a cold seizure or overheating going on?
How many hours - TT and since Major
- who did major and what was replaced.
What part failed ?
Do you have pictures ?
what Rotax shop did the NDT testing to evaluate this incident ?
I realize that some get sour over certain topics but hey we all here to help
each other learn from the problems of others.
Best regards,
Dave
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 7:59 PM
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bradley M Webb" <bmwebb@cox.net>
>
> If an opinion based on actual experience, research, and education is LESS
> important to you than a guy giving an UNEDUCATED and PATENTLY WRONG review
> of a product he has never actually touched (and from only looking at a
> picture, no less), then I invite you to place me on your email snub list.
> Go
> for it. I will not stop calling it as I see it.
>
> My 582 failed on me. I gave it an honest shot, even though I was aware of
> the potential for problems. IT FAILED! I would be glad to provide the
> pictures of how it failed. There was nothing anyone could have done to
> prevent it. A professional NDI technician said the only way for it to fail
> the way it did, was a manufacturing defect.
>
> Saying a 582 has "excellent durability" is like a car salesman saying
> "Trust
> me". Do you really believe that? I guess it could - IF you're rich enough
> to
> buy new cranks and jugs at every annual. But that wouldn't be enough. Mine
> ran great. And at 50 hours, it ate itself. With me in it. On takeoff.
> Through no fault of mine.
>
> How's that for "excellent durability"?
> Bradley
>
> P.S. I make no pretenses that the GEO is perfect. But I did my research,
> and
> found it a suitable alternative, with distinct advantages. I would be glad
> to share the FACTS on that, but you've made it clear that you won't
> listen.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Michael Gibbs
> Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 4:09 AM
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michael Gibbs <MichaelGibbs@cox.net>
>
> Bradley sez:
>
>>The guy that wrote that about the Turbo 'fox is a blithering idiot...
>
> Can we have a break from the belligerent attitude, Bradley? You've
> made your opinion on Rotax 2 strokes abundantly clear yet you now
> feel the need to resort to personal attacks. It should be obvious by
> now that not everyone shares your opinion--live with it.
>
> We know the Geo engine is the finest piece of engineering in the
> history of mankind. We know that it produces more power than any
> other engine and probably burbs up extra fuel in the process. We
> know that if we go to the source of a product we'll always get an
> unbiased view of that product's pros and cons. We even know that
> there is no controversy at all regarding an engine's history in cars
> as an indicator of how well it will perform in airplanes. We get it,
> OK?
>
> Can we give it a rest?
>
> Mike G.
> N728KF
>
> Do not archive.
>
>
>
Message 48
| 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 - Tank venting |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Dave" <dave@cfisher.com>
I just got back from flying and before i went I took the advice on someone
here to blow through the cap vents.
I did all 3 and all clear. Thanks for heads up !
Dave
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 7:38 PM
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "ron schick"
> <roncarolnikko@hotmail.com>
>
> Don I have been fighting vaporlock that forms after folding my wings. The
> fuel pushing down (2") in tanks, although above the air in the line, is
> less than the 18" lift required to get it up and over the firewall and
> down to carb. Once bled out it flows freely, but what about after -g or
> slips.
> Ron NB Or
>
>
>>From: "Don Smythe" <dosmythe@cox.net>
>>To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
>>Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Low Fuel Warning - Tank venting
>>Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 17:25:35 -0400
>>
>>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Don Smythe" <dosmythe@cox.net>
>>
>>I've tried to read all this header venting thing but was lazy and tended
>>to skip lines so, forgive me if I misread the thread. Standby to throw
>>things at me. The header vent line only assist in venting off the air in
>>the header tank and has little or nothing to do with fuel flow from the
>>wing tanks. Picture this, place a 5 gallon bucket on top of your work
>>bench. Attach a garden hose via a fitting at the bottom and fill it with
>>water. The water flows freely on the floor because the top of the bucket
>>is open and providing air. Gravity does the rest. There is NO vent in
>>this described system. Take a header that is full of fuel with the vent
>>line plugged. Fuel will gravity flow down the supply lines as long as the
>>tank cap is vented to the outside.
>> I initially installed the second vent to the other tank but removed it
>> later in a weight reduction binge. Now, if you plug the vent on top of
>> the wing then you might see some problems but I don't think that's the
>> vent being discussed.
>>BTW, I think the Avid used a similar header vent but was closed except for
>>pre-flight venting or during initial filling of the header. Might be
>>wrong on that???
>>
>>Don Smythe
>>
>>.
>>----- Original Message -----
>>
>>
>>>With the suggested system if one wing tank vent becomes blocked then
>>>that tank won't feed. Cross venting solves the problem.
>>>
>>>Another problem with no cross venting is that if one tank has a faulty
>>>seal on the gas cap then the pressure from the other vent will blow all
>>>the gas in the system out the bad gas cap. There have been some
>>>accidents like this, yes? With cross venting a bad cap will only suck
>>>gas out until the tank vents on both sides are uncovered and then stop.
>>>Of course the lowered pressure might cause a fuel feed problem....
>>>
>>>What I don't know is how to add that new vent line to the top inside of
>>>the left wing tank without causing a brand new leak. I'd love to hear
>>>any good ideas or experiences.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List
>>http://wiki.matronics.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List
> http://wiki.matronics.com
>
>
>
Message 49
| 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: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@sbcglobal.net>
Brad,
gotta chime in here. One engine failure that most likely was "a
manufacturing defect", does not a trend make. I think I'd wager that if I
wanted to take the time, I could find a Geo engine that failed because of a
manufacturing defect - most likely many have failed.
I have never flown an airplane with a 582, but flew along side one on two
cross country flights to Idaho's back country - close to thirty hours each
time often in very rugged country and several times to the Skystar fly-in -
close to 6 hours each way and up to altitudes exceeding 10,000 ft. He
couldn't match the performance of the others with 912s but had no engine
issues what-so-ever. He flew with us also on numerous trips over the
Sierras as we did our man thing on weekends. I guess you might say, he had
a manufacturing perfect.
Frankly, I can't wait until your airplane is flying. I am almost holding my
breath waiting for some actial performance numbers. Yes, you did your
homework, but you have nothing except others assurances, some theoretical
numbers and some hope. I know of no auto conversion - in a Kitfox - that
has resulted in the expected performance numbers based on the theoritical
numbers.
I do remember "Turbo Jim" in the early 90's Kitfox list who was some sort of
guru and talked up his project with great aplomb also. Then he flew - soon
disappeared from the list and quietly sold his airplane.
Be careful. Lots of us here have been around a long time. We've read a lot
of posts, listened a lot, actually have flown a lot, we've learned a lot and
have pretty good memories.
Frankly, I wouldn't care if you were planning on flying behind a B&S, I
don't have to live with your choices, but if it means anything, and I
suppose to you it doesn't, you're about to lose me too.
Lowell
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 4:59 PM
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bradley M Webb" <bmwebb@cox.net>
>
> If an opinion based on actual experience, research, and education is LESS
> important to you than a guy giving an UNEDUCATED and PATENTLY WRONG review
> of a product he has never actually touched (and from only looking at a
> picture, no less), then I invite you to place me on your email snub list.
> Go
> for it. I will not stop calling it as I see it.
>
> My 582 failed on me. I gave it an honest shot, even though I was aware of
> the potential for problems. IT FAILED! I would be glad to provide the
> pictures of how it failed. There was nothing anyone could have done to
> prevent it. A professional NDI technician said the only way for it to fail
> the way it did, was a manufacturing defect.
>
> Saying a 582 has "excellent durability" is like a car salesman saying
> "Trust
> me". Do you really believe that? I guess it could - IF you're rich enough
> to
> buy new cranks and jugs at every annual. But that wouldn't be enough. Mine
> ran great. And at 50 hours, it ate itself. With me in it. On takeoff.
> Through no fault of mine.
>
> How's that for "excellent durability"?
> Bradley
>
> P.S. I make no pretenses that the GEO is perfect. But I did my research,
> and
> found it a suitable alternative, with distinct advantages. I would be glad
> to share the FACTS on that, but you've made it clear that you won't
> listen.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Michael Gibbs
> Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 4:09 AM
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michael Gibbs <MichaelGibbs@cox.net>
>
> Bradley sez:
>
>>The guy that wrote that about the Turbo 'fox is a blithering idiot...
>
> Can we have a break from the belligerent attitude, Bradley? You've
> made your opinion on Rotax 2 strokes abundantly clear yet you now
> feel the need to resort to personal attacks. It should be obvious by
> now that not everyone shares your opinion--live with it.
>
> We know the Geo engine is the finest piece of engineering in the
> history of mankind. We know that it produces more power than any
> other engine and probably burbs up extra fuel in the process. We
> know that if we go to the source of a product we'll always get an
> unbiased view of that product's pros and cons. We even know that
> there is no controversy at all regarding an engine's history in cars
> as an indicator of how well it will perform in airplanes. We get it,
> OK?
>
> Can we give it a rest?
>
> Mike G.
> N728KF
>
> Do not archive.
>
>
>
Message 50
| 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 - Tank venting |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "ron schick" <roncarolnikko@hotmail.com>
Ahh. Should, but with clear lines it can be seen that the uphill fuel stops
the flow before venting back into wing tank. I installed an electric as a
temporary solution, but need to go forward and down windscreen to alleviate
the low spot beneath seat. Perhaps a vent at the firewal routed up the
windscreen would do. I really would like the gravity system in case of pump
failure. Ron NB Or
>From: "Don Smythe" <dosmythe@cox.net>
>To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Low Fuel Warning - Tank venting
>Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 20:14:16 -0400
>
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Don Smythe" <dosmythe@cox.net>
>
>Ron,
> I'm not sure I understand your setup. After folding the wings back and
>out again, the system from the wing tanks to the header should drain and
>vent the fuel back to normal. I believe it is ideal for the fuel lines
>from the header to the carbs be in a continuous up hill direction without
>going up and over then down again to the carb. Any high point could cause
>a bubble to form in the line. This is just my opinion but it sounds like
>you are going over the firewall then down again. In a gravity drain
>system, the fuel lines must be routed in a continuous downhill fashion from
>the wing tanks to the header then, a continuous uphill fashion to the
>carbs. That is, if the header is at the low point of the system. Auto
>fuel will "gas off" anytime it passes through a larger chamber in the fuel
>system (such as a filter). Aviation fuel does not "gas off" as easily.
>Auto manufactures started placing their electric fuel pumps in the fuel
>tanks as part of the cure for this problem. Vapor lock used to be a much
>bigger problem in autos before they made this change. All this needs to be
>taken with a grain of salt since I obtained all this wealth of knowledge
>(ha...) from reading a million web sites on the subject. Many web sites
>can lead you astray.
>
>Don Smythe
>
>----- Original Message ----- Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 7:38 PM
>
>
>>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "ron schick"
>><roncarolnikko@hotmail.com>
>>
>>Don I have been fighting vaporlock that forms after folding my wings. The
>>fuel pushing down (2") in tanks, although above the air in the line, is
>>less than the 18" lift required to get it up and over the firewall and
>>down to carb. Once bled out it flows freely, but what about after -g or
>>slips.
>> Ron NB Or
>>
>>
>>>From: "Don Smythe" <dosmythe@cox.net>
>>>To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
>>>Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Low Fuel Warning - Tank venting
>>>Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 17:25:35 -0400
>>>
>>>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Don Smythe" <dosmythe@cox.net>
>>>
>>>I've tried to read all this header venting thing but was lazy and tended
>>>to skip lines so, forgive me if I misread the thread. Standby to throw
>>>things at me. The header vent line only assist in venting off the air in
>>>the header tank and has little or nothing to do with fuel flow from the
>>>wing tanks. Picture this, place a 5 gallon bucket on top of your work
>>>bench. Attach a garden hose via a fitting at the bottom and fill it with
>>>water. The water flows freely on the floor because the top of the bucket
>>>is open and providing air. Gravity does the rest. There is NO vent in
>>>this described system. Take a header that is full of fuel with the vent
>>>line plugged. Fuel will gravity flow down the supply lines as long as
>>>the tank cap is vented to the outside.
>>> I initially installed the second vent to the other tank but removed
>>>it later in a weight reduction binge. Now, if you plug the vent on top
>>>of the wing then you might see some problems but I don't think that's the
>>>vent being discussed.
>>>BTW, I think the Avid used a similar header vent but was closed except
>>>for pre-flight venting or during initial filling of the header. Might be
>>>wrong on that???
>>>
>>>Don Smythe
>>>
>>>.
>>>----- Original Message -----
>>>
>>>
>>>>With the suggested system if one wing tank vent becomes blocked then
>>>>that tank won't feed. Cross venting solves the problem.
>>>>
>>>>Another problem with no cross venting is that if one tank has a faulty
>>>>seal on the gas cap then the pressure from the other vent will blow all
>>>>the gas in the system out the bad gas cap. There have been some
>>>>accidents like this, yes? With cross venting a bad cap will only suck
>>>>gas out until the tank vents on both sides are uncovered and then stop.
>>>>Of course the lowered pressure might cause a fuel feed problem....
>>>>
>>>>What I don't know is how to add that new vent line to the top inside of
>>>>the left wing tank without causing a brand new leak. I'd love to hear
>>>>any good ideas or experiences.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List
>>>http://wiki.matronics.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>_________________________________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List
>>http://wiki.matronics.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List
>http://wiki.matronics.com
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Message 51
| 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 |
|
Got the pink slip in the mail today. My inspection was on the 4th of July
and as expected he gave me a small list of fixes to do. After 13 dollars
and a few more spells in the garage I sent an email with pics. Like an
expectant papa I was afraid to see the response. It was a personal favor to
get the inspection and I'm sure he worries about us experimental types. Now
to get my taildragger endorsement in a borrowed Avid and it's Showtime!!!!
Ron NB Ore 541KF MKIV Speedster 1915cc VW 1.6:1 redrive 72" Ivo
_________________________________________________________________
Message 52
| 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 - THIS THREAD IS OUT OF CONTROL |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "flier" <flier@sbcglobal.net>
IMHO. Seems like a long breath before touching the keyboard would be
appropriate...
Message 53
| 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: | broken push rod suberu ea81 |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "wingsdown" <wingsdown@comcast.net>
Humm, that looks like an aluminum custom type. Is it? The stock ones, at
least on the turbo engine are steal, fat, real beefy. I don't have
experience with the non-turbo, maybe someone else can comment. I would
change to the tougher style, not good. Let me know.
Rick
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of kirk hull
Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 6:26 PM
sorry I must have forgotten to attach the photo so here it is
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of kirk hull
Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 5:09 PM
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "kirk hull" <kirkhull@sbcglobal.net>
I had an in flight failure last week of N205AK's Suberu ea81. She was
landed with no problems and everyone is ok. The push rod on the # 4
cylinder ( Front right)snaped. Attached is a picture of the part . it
made a clean break almost dead center on the rod completely in to. With
only 20 hrs on the engine and only 5 in flight this should not have
happened. Has anyone else seen this before and why did it happen? P.S.
it is a 100HP Stratus conversion.
Message 54
| 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 |
Can any body remember how this all started? I think a farley new guy asked
about a motor considering to buy an old kit. I wonder how this guy feels about
the question now. I think the correct answer to his question mite be
something like this a motor that old is not worth very much, almost all the
parts are available a lot of people are still flying them. a kit that old is
not worth a lot of money but almost everyone that fly's them really like
them. mal
Message 55
| 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>
Glad to provide my info...
Remember that the motor ran fine. There was no seizure involved. On this
takeoff, It didn't reach full rpm, maybe 5400 or so. By the time I realized
what was wrong, the speed was high enough to rotate. My pilot instinct was
to deal with the flying first, engine issue second. I made a very short
pattern over an open field, reduced throttle as much as I dared, and came in
to land. On the crosswind, the metal rubbing was burning oil driped on the
case, and I thought I had a fire. There was, oddly enough, a bit of smoke in
the cockpit, but I guessed it was exhaust, so I first thought the muffler
broke away. Not so. I discovered the problem after removing the motor the
next day.
This motor had 430 hours on it, ~120 after rebuild. I flew 50 of those 120.
I do not know who did it, but it ran ok. It vibrated tremendously, but I
figured that was part of it, after asking around. I used the recommended
Pennzoil oil, and after removal, the piston skirts looked fine. I did not
want to disassemble it, as I don't think the problem migrated up to the
crankcase.
The failure was the starter gear at the back of the motor. I simply came
apart, and started grinding the metal off of the inner case. It caught at
the bottom, and broke out a piece about 4 inches by 3 inches. The crack
started at the gear teeth, and moved to the center. Curiously, it was in
between the mounting holes. I could not understand how it didn't fail at the
holes, as this is the natural stress riser. I think the failure occur from
the way the teeth were cut, or maybe damaged at some point in its life. The
gear on the starter showed no sign of malicious contact, but...
The NDT was done at the Air Force base where I work. There was no point in
putting it through the flux machines, as the break was obvious.
Bradley
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dave
Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 9:52 PM
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Dave" <dave@cfisher.com>
Bradley,
Thanks for the update on the 582 failure.
Can you helps us out on anything ?
Whgat kind of oil wer you using ?
Was there a cold seizure or overheating going on?
How many hours - TT and since Major
- who did major and what was replaced.
What part failed ?
Do you have pictures ?
what Rotax shop did the NDT testing to evaluate this incident ?
I realize that some get sour over certain topics but hey we all here to help
each other learn from the problems of others.
Best regards,
Dave
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 7:59 PM
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bradley M Webb" <bmwebb@cox.net>
>
> If an opinion based on actual experience, research, and education is LESS
> important to you than a guy giving an UNEDUCATED and PATENTLY WRONG review
> of a product he has never actually touched (and from only looking at a
> picture, no less), then I invite you to place me on your email snub list.
> Go
> for it. I will not stop calling it as I see it.
>
> My 582 failed on me. I gave it an honest shot, even though I was aware of
> the potential for problems. IT FAILED! I would be glad to provide the
> pictures of how it failed. There was nothing anyone could have done to
> prevent it. A professional NDI technician said the only way for it to fail
> the way it did, was a manufacturing defect.
>
> Saying a 582 has "excellent durability" is like a car salesman saying
> "Trust
> me". Do you really believe that? I guess it could - IF you're rich enough
> to
> buy new cranks and jugs at every annual. But that wouldn't be enough. Mine
> ran great. And at 50 hours, it ate itself. With me in it. On takeoff.
> Through no fault of mine.
>
> How's that for "excellent durability"?
> Bradley
>
> P.S. I make no pretenses that the GEO is perfect. But I did my research,
> and
> found it a suitable alternative, with distinct advantages. I would be glad
> to share the FACTS on that, but you've made it clear that you won't
> listen.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Michael Gibbs
> Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 4:09 AM
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michael Gibbs <MichaelGibbs@cox.net>
>
> Bradley sez:
>
>>The guy that wrote that about the Turbo 'fox is a blithering idiot...
>
> Can we have a break from the belligerent attitude, Bradley? You've
> made your opinion on Rotax 2 strokes abundantly clear yet you now
> feel the need to resort to personal attacks. It should be obvious by
> now that not everyone shares your opinion--live with it.
>
> We know the Geo engine is the finest piece of engineering in the
> history of mankind. We know that it produces more power than any
> other engine and probably burbs up extra fuel in the process. We
> know that if we go to the source of a product we'll always get an
> unbiased view of that product's pros and cons. We even know that
> there is no controversy at all regarding an engine's history in cars
> as an indicator of how well it will perform in airplanes. We get it,
> OK?
>
> Can we give it a rest?
>
> Mike G.
> N728KF
>
> Do not archive.
>
>
>
Message 56
| 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 |
If it was initially constructed and registered with an inflight adjustable
prop then it can never be flown as an LSA. Mr. Blackwell and I firmly
established that a few months ago ;^)
Regards,
Ted
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Norm
Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 6:22 PM
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Selling My NSI Subaru EA81-130-Turbo CAP Package
It's my understanding that once an acft. has been registered as a anything
above a LSA . It can't be changed to be a LSA. You should check to be sure.
Norm.
JJProbasco@cs.com wrote:
I too have an EA81 and cockpit adjustable Prop. The bad news is I have
not completed building to the point that I have registered the aircraft.
It's also the good news because I too am contemplating building my Model 5
very light and registering it as an ELSA.
Here's my point: It is my understanding that the light sport plane
rules don't allow an aircraft that has been operated with an adjustable prop
to be "downgraded" to a LSA, even if the prop is replaced with a fixed pitch
one. (Do I have it right?)
Message 57
| 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>
I agree with you. But I've heard so many various Rotax stories, that the
motor scared me even before I flew it. I had intended on going another way
right from the start. I just hoped it would survive long enough to find a
suitable cliff. It didn't.
One guy flew one clear across Australia. That's gutsy.
90 percent of the time, I had no issues, either. But that 10% could have
been deadly. I was lucky, and had the presence of mind to keep flying the
airplane, even though I had no idea what was wrong. It's pretty frightening,
for those that have not been there. This was my second time, the first being
in a certified airplane a few years before.
I've flown the 912 before, and it was ok, from what I remember. I've heard
they're a good engine to own. They're certified, so maybe Rotax dumped the
dollars and sense into that one.
I don't mean to talk up the Geo as THE ANSWER. Not what I meant. But if
others have interest, I'll gladly give up what I know. I've had some
response from curious people looking for an alternative. Believe me, I hope
it works more than you do. It fits my requirements. Some like it, some
don't. Whatever.
If it doesn't, well the search begins again, but I'll sell the airplane
before a Rotax 2-stroke goes back into it.
You're right. I do not have more than a promise and some hope. Did you have
any more than that when you bought your Kitfox? But I'm betting (real $)
it'll fit the bill nicely. I looked long and hard, and asked lots of
questions. Doesn't mean anything until it's done.
Look, I know I pissed some of you off. Ok. But the comments in that article
were total BS and blatant lies, and I called him on it. I called it because
I saw it. That's just the way I am. I can't stand "experts" who will feed BS
if they don't know the facts. If you fault me for that, so be it.
Bradley
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lowell Fitt
Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 10:02 PM
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@sbcglobal.net>
Brad,
gotta chime in here. One engine failure that most likely was "a
manufacturing defect", does not a trend make. I think I'd wager that if I
wanted to take the time, I could find a Geo engine that failed because of a
manufacturing defect - most likely many have failed.
I have never flown an airplane with a 582, but flew along side one on two
cross country flights to Idaho's back country - close to thirty hours each
time often in very rugged country and several times to the Skystar fly-in -
close to 6 hours each way and up to altitudes exceeding 10,000 ft. He
couldn't match the performance of the others with 912s but had no engine
issues what-so-ever. He flew with us also on numerous trips over the
Sierras as we did our man thing on weekends. I guess you might say, he had
a manufacturing perfect.
Frankly, I can't wait until your airplane is flying. I am almost holding my
breath waiting for some actial performance numbers. Yes, you did your
homework, but you have nothing except others assurances, some theoretical
numbers and some hope. I know of no auto conversion - in a Kitfox - that
has resulted in the expected performance numbers based on the theoritical
numbers.
I do remember "Turbo Jim" in the early 90's Kitfox list who was some sort of
guru and talked up his project with great aplomb also. Then he flew - soon
disappeared from the list and quietly sold his airplane.
Be careful. Lots of us here have been around a long time. We've read a lot
of posts, listened a lot, actually have flown a lot, we've learned a lot and
have pretty good memories.
Frankly, I wouldn't care if you were planning on flying behind a B&S, I
don't have to live with your choices, but if it means anything, and I
suppose to you it doesn't, you're about to lose me too.
Lowell
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 4:59 PM
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bradley M Webb" <bmwebb@cox.net>
>
> If an opinion based on actual experience, research, and education is LESS
> important to you than a guy giving an UNEDUCATED and PATENTLY WRONG review
> of a product he has never actually touched (and from only looking at a
> picture, no less), then I invite you to place me on your email snub list.
> Go
> for it. I will not stop calling it as I see it.
>
> My 582 failed on me. I gave it an honest shot, even though I was aware of
> the potential for problems. IT FAILED! I would be glad to provide the
> pictures of how it failed. There was nothing anyone could have done to
> prevent it. A professional NDI technician said the only way for it to fail
> the way it did, was a manufacturing defect.
>
> Saying a 582 has "excellent durability" is like a car salesman saying
> "Trust
> me". Do you really believe that? I guess it could - IF you're rich enough
> to
> buy new cranks and jugs at every annual. But that wouldn't be enough. Mine
> ran great. And at 50 hours, it ate itself. With me in it. On takeoff.
> Through no fault of mine.
>
> How's that for "excellent durability"?
> Bradley
>
> P.S. I make no pretenses that the GEO is perfect. But I did my research,
> and
> found it a suitable alternative, with distinct advantages. I would be glad
> to share the FACTS on that, but you've made it clear that you won't
> listen.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Michael Gibbs
> Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 4:09 AM
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michael Gibbs <MichaelGibbs@cox.net>
>
> Bradley sez:
>
>>The guy that wrote that about the Turbo 'fox is a blithering idiot...
>
> Can we have a break from the belligerent attitude, Bradley? You've
> made your opinion on Rotax 2 strokes abundantly clear yet you now
> feel the need to resort to personal attacks. It should be obvious by
> now that not everyone shares your opinion--live with it.
>
> We know the Geo engine is the finest piece of engineering in the
> history of mankind. We know that it produces more power than any
> other engine and probably burbs up extra fuel in the process. We
> know that if we go to the source of a product we'll always get an
> unbiased view of that product's pros and cons. We even know that
> there is no controversy at all regarding an engine's history in cars
> as an indicator of how well it will perform in airplanes. We get it,
> OK?
>
> Can we give it a rest?
>
> Mike G.
> N728KF
>
> Do not archive.
>
>
>
Message 58
| 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: Guy Buchanan <bnn@nethere.com>
At 07:42 PM 7/13/2006, you wrote:
>The failure was the starter gear at the back of the motor. I simply came
>apart, and started grinding the metal off of the inner case.
Bradley,
Thanks so much for putting this out, and suffering the flack.
There is a Rotax Service Bulletin or Letter on just this issue. I was going
to skip it, but now I guess I won't.
Guy Buchanan
K-IV 1200 / 582-C / Warp / 100% done, thanks mostly to Bob Ducar.
Do not archive
Message 59
| 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: 541KF AW CERT |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Guy Buchanan <bnn@nethere.com>
At 07:34 PM 7/13/2006, you wrote:
>Got the pink slip in the mail today.
Congratulations Ron. We're in the same boat, though I'm waiting for a
little dual for insurance purposes. I'll bet you're as antsy as I am!
Guy Buchanan
K-IV 1200 / 582-C / Warp / 100% done, thanks mostly to Bob Ducar.
Do not archive
Message 60
| 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: | broken push rod suberu ea81 |
--- MIME Errors - No Plain-Text Section Found ---
A message with no text/plain MIME section was received.
The entire body of the message was removed. Please
resend the email using Plain Text formatting.
HOTMAIL is notorious for only including an HTML section
in their client's default configuration. If you're using
HOTMAIL, please see your email application's settings
and switch to a default mail option that uses "Plain Text".
--- MIME Errors No Plain-Text Section Found ---
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! --
|