Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:12 AM - Re: Kitfox IV and 912ULS installation (Barry West)
2. 04:54 AM - Re: GPS Units (Mike Chaney)
3. 07:23 AM - Re: Kitfox IV and 912ULS installation (Dan Billingsley)
4. 07:39 AM - Michigan Kitfoxers (Fox5flyer)
5. 07:47 AM - Kitfox wanted (Algate)
6. 07:47 AM - Kitfox List (Algate)
7. 07:53 AM - Message Repeats (Lowell Fitt)
8. 08:18 AM - Re: Message Repeats (kerrjohna@comcast.net)
9. 08:23 AM - Re: Ethanol and wing tanksEthanol and wing tanks (Michael Gibbs)
10. 08:26 AM - Re: Message Repeats (Fox5flyer)
11. 08:27 AM - Re: Ethanol and wing tanks (PWilson)
12. 08:27 AM - Re: GPS Units (PWilson)
13. 08:27 AM - Re: Ethanol and wing tanks (PWilson)
14. 08:27 AM - Re: Michigan Kitfoxers (Fred Shiple)
15. 08:30 AM - Re: Kitfox List (Fox5flyer)
16. 08:32 AM - Re: Message Repeats (Don Smythe)
17. 09:21 AM - Re: Kitfox IV and 912ULS installation (wwillyard@aol.com)
18. 09:27 AM - Re: Kitfox List (Algate)
19. 09:30 AM - Re: Message Repeats (Michel Verheughe)
20. 09:45 AM - Re: Kitfox wanted (spudnuts)
21. 09:56 AM - Re: Kitfox wanted (spudnuts)
22. 09:58 AM - renewed lister (John Oakley)
23. 10:50 AM - Re: renewed lister (Lowell Fitt)
24. 10:57 AM - Re: GPS Units (Marco Menezes)
25. 11:48 AM - Re: renewed lister (jdmcbean)
26. 12:04 PM - Re: renewed lister (John Oakley)
27. 12:58 PM - Re: Message Repeats (PWilson)
28. 12:58 PM - Re: Re: Ethanol and wing tanks Ethanol and wing tanks (PWilson)
29. 02:19 PM - Colorado fly-in this weekend (brentbidus@juno.com)
30. 02:25 PM - Re: Classic IV for sale (John Galt)
31. 02:38 PM - Re: Message Repeats (clemwehner)
32. 02:47 PM - Re: Engine quitting (QSS)
33. 03:13 PM - Message Repeats (Jimmie Blackwell)
34. 03:23 PM - Re: Kitfox IV and 912ULS installation (jdmcbean)
35. 04:13 PM - Re: Kitfox-List GPS Units (Jim Carriere)
36. 08:07 PM - Re: Kitfox IV and 912ULS installation (david yeamans)
37. 08:25 PM - Re: Kitfox IV and 912ULS installation (Grant Fluent)
38. 09:59 PM - Re: Classic IV for sale (Marwynne)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Kitfox IV and 912ULS installation |
Terry, I also have a Model IV with the 912 ULS engine. I really don't
know if the oil line is in contact with the cowling but I will check it.
Anyway, if it is in contact it has been that way for 5 years and over
400 hours without a problem or any indication of wear. I will let you
know after I check it.
Barry West
----- Original Message -----
From: Terry Hughes
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 5:56 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Kitfox IV and 912ULS installation
I am in the final stages of installing a 912ULS in a Kitfox IV and I
am having a problem with lack of clearance between the top cowl piece
and the top oil line (the OUT line from the oil tank).
Actually, clearance isn't the right word here -- my oil line is
actually lightly touching the underside of the top cowl piece. I'm using
the Skystar-modified elbow fitting (thanks to John McBean) but that
still isn't providing enough clearance. Although the fitting itself fits
under the cowl, once the oil hose is attached and clamped all clearance
between the oil hose and cowl is gone.
Has anyone else had this problem? What did you do?
I see several solutions, but so far I don't like any of them (or can't
make them work). One, try to find a "lower profile" fitting for the OUT
oil line. I've been looking, but so far no joy.
Two, try to bend the existing elbow beyond 90 degrees, which might get
the oil hose low enough to clear the cowl.
Three, try to lower the oil tank. At best, I think I could lower it
maybe a 1/4 of an inch, which I don't think would be enough.
Four, cut a hole in the top cowl and fabricate a little "power bulge"
to provide adequate oil line clearance. This seems to be the most
drastic approach, particularly given my meager fiberglass-working
skills, but it also gives the most clearance.
Any other suggestions or help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!
Terry Hughes
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 |
|
I purchased the Garman Etrex Legand and although I have only used it once it
really does a nice job. This is not an aviation unit but I really just
wanted a unit to give me point A to point B. This unit does quite a bit.
It has a map, which is updatable, listing citys, towns, and even
unincorporated towns. The screens are able to be customized with the info
you would want displayed. For $150 it was a good fit for me.
Mike Chaney
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Marwynne
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 10:32 PM
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: GPS Units
I have a 2000c . It works great.
Marwynne
Hilltop Lakes Texas
I am considering purchasing a Lowrance 2000c GPS unit.
Steve Wilson
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
This message has been scanned for Viruses and cleared by MailMarshal at
SWOCA.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Kitfox IV and 912ULS installation |
This may sound like a drastic measure, however a few guys have done this in the
Phoenix area and it works great... make the oil tank shorter.
Dan B
KF-IV
Barry West <barry@pgtc.com> wrote:
Terry, I also have a Model IV with the 912 ULS engine. I really don't
know if the oil line is in contact with the cowling but I will check it. Anyway,
if it is in contact it has been that way for 5 years and over 400 hours
without a problem or any indication of wear. I will let you know after I check
it.
Barry West
----- Original Message -----
From: Terry Hughes
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 5:56 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Kitfox IV and 912ULS installation
I am in the final stages of installing a 912ULS in a Kitfox IV and I am having
a problem with lack of clearance between the top cowl piece and the top oil
line (the OUT line from the oil tank).
Actually, clearance isn't the right word here -- my oil line is actually lightly
touching the underside of the top cowl piece. I'm using the Skystar-modified
elbow fitting (thanks to John McBean) but that still isn't providing enough
clearance. Although the fitting itself fits under the cowl, once the oil hose
is attached and clamped all clearance between the oil hose and cowl is gone.
Has anyone else had this problem? What did you do?
I see several solutions, but so far I don't like any of them (or can't make them
work). One, try to find a "lower profile" fitting for the OUT oil line. I've
been looking, but so far no joy.
Two, try to bend the existing elbow beyond 90 degrees, which might get the oil
hose low enough to clear the cowl.
Three, try to lower the oil tank. At best, I think I could lower it maybe a 1/4
of an inch, which I don't think would be enough.
Four, cut a hole in the top cowl and fabricate a little "power bulge" to provide
adequate oil line clearance. This seems to be the most drastic approach, particularly
given my meager fiberglass-working skills, but it also gives the most
clearance.
Any other suggestions or help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!
Terry Hughes
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: | Michigan Kitfoxers |
Hey folks. I have the list of Michigan Kitfoxers compiled, but I still
need a little bit of info from those listed below.
Anybody else who would like to be added to the list, please add your
name and information to this message and reply to me. This isn't
necessarily limited to Michigan residents. Nearby is fine too.
Information needed (everything is optional)
name
phone number
address
email address
type aircraft and info regarding state of completion, flying, hours,
engine, prop, etc
anything else you'd like to add
John Pery (Kansas)
Fred Shiple
Toledo Ohio
Lynn Matteson
As I stated previously, none of this information will be used for any
nefarious purposes to include, advertising, marketing, list sales, spam
of any kind, or anything that I wouldn't want my own name to be used
for. Once it's complete I'll send it out to the people who are on the
list so that we all know who we are, where we are, and can, if needed,
have our collective selves nearby to help with any building, flying,
maintenance issues that might arise. Maybe we can even organize some
sort of flight somewhere.
Thanks,
Deke Morisse
Mikado (NE near Alpena) MI
S5
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
I have a friend looking for a Model 4 with 582 in low $20's if anybody knows
of anything please let me know
Gary Algate
_____
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 |
|
Deke
Did you get my email re setting up George Briggs on the list.
Regards
Gary Algate
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@sbcglobal.net>
Is this only me, but I get as many as a dozen repeats of some messages and
often over a period of a couple of days. It only happens on
kitfox-list@matronics.com messages, never on privately posted messages. It
has actually become quite painful.
Lowell
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: Message Repeats |
Not happening to me.
John Kerr
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@sbcglobal.net>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt"
>
> Is this only me, but I get as many as a dozen repeats of some messages and
> often over a period of a couple of days. It only happens on
> kitfox-list@matronics.com messages, never on privately posted messages. It
> has actually become quite painful.
>
> Lowell
>
>
>
>
>
<html><body>
<DIV>Not happening to me.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>John Kerr</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
t; htt
<pre><b><font size=2 color="#000000" face="courier new,courier">
</b></font></pre></body></html>
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: Ethanol and wing tanksEthanol and wing tanks |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michael Gibbs <MichaelGibbs@cox.net>
Bob sez:
>There are many ways to calculate "octane", but if you do it the same
>way autogas and 100LL are done, Ethanol is over 100 octane.
Autogas and avgas octanes are not calculated the same way. Avgas
octane is measured using the "MON" method, while auto fuels (in the
U.S. anyway) are typically measured using the (R+M/2) method (see
below). Since octane rating represents a ratio, it cannot exceed
100. Values for octane over 100 are really what are called
"performance ratings".
Paul sez:
>An alky engine properly designed will have more horsepower that an
>optimally tuned gas engine due to higher octane.
There may be some rules of thumb for common fuels, but technically,
octane rating has no direct correlation with engine power or
efficiency.
"Octane" is a measure of the fuel's resistance to pre-ignition and
knocking. The Research Octane Number (RON) is determined by running
the fuel through a specific test engine with a variable compression
ratio under controlled conditions, and comparing these results with
those for mixtures of isooctane and n-heptane.
The Motor Octane Number (MON) or the aviation lean octane rating, is
a better measure of how the fuel behaves when under load. MON testing
uses a similar test engine to that used in RON testing, but with a
preheated fuel mixture, a higher engine speed, and variable ignition
timing to further stress the fuel's knock resistance. Depending on
the composition of the fuel, the MON of a modern gasoline will be
about 8 to 10 points lower than the RON. Normally fuel specifications
require both a minimum RON and a minimum MON.
In most countries (including all of Europe and Australia) the
"headline" octane that would be shown on the pump is the RON, but in
the United States and some other countries the headline number is the
average of the RON and the MON, sometimes called the Anti-Knock Index
(AKI), Road Octane Number (RdON), Pump Octane Number (PON), or
(R+M)/2. Because of the 10 point difference noted above, this means
that the octane in the United States will be about 4 to 5 points
lower than the same fuel elsewhere: 87 octane fuel, the "regular"
gasoline in the US and Canada, would be 91-95 (regular) in Europe.
To learn more than you ever wanted to know about aviation fuel
octane, check out
<http://www.chevron.com/products/prodserv/fuels/bulletin/aviationfuel/9_ag_specsandtest.shtm>
or <http://www.prime-mover.org/Engines/GArticles/octane.html>.
Mike G.
N728KF
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: Message Repeats |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Fox5flyer" <morid@northland.lib.mi.us>
It's not happening here at my end Lowell. Everything is normal. If it
continues, let me know and I'll see if Matt has been having any other
complaints about it.
Deke
List Janitor
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 10:51 AM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Message Repeats
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@sbcglobal.net>
>
> Is this only me, but I get as many as a dozen repeats of some messages and
> often over a period of a couple of days. It only happens on
> kitfox-list@matronics.com messages, never on privately posted messages.
It
> has actually become quite painful.
>
> Lowell
>
>
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: | Ethanol and wing tanks |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: PWilson <pwmac@sisna.com>
Of course VW has sold a 1.9L 90 - 100Hp turbo diesel for many years.
I have no idea about its weight, but it is a pretty compact unit. One
can chip the engine for even more power. Probably its use in a plane
would not include the intercooler and the power would be in the range
you want and it would be somewhat lighter.
Have you looked at the rotary diesel in that power range? Probably
lighter than the VW? They have been showing it a Osh for several
years. I have no idea about its status. Having said that there was a
Kitfox with a rotary in it several years back at Osh. Don't know if
it was the diesel?
The HDPE tank design was completed before the Skystar demise. I hope
John Mc et al can resurrect the design and get it into production.
Time will tell.
Paul
===============
At 08:13 PM 8/15/2006, you wrote:
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys@yahoo.ca>
>
>I think you will find the gas station tanks are not epoxy. But HDPE.
>Sloshing compounds seem to eventually come off.... Better to not use
>ethanol fuel or replace the tank with a pre-moulded HDPE like the five
>gallon "Jerry" cans are made of.
>
>I can't wait until I can put all this behind me..... Someone please design
>a nice 70-80 hp turbo diesel!
>
>Noel
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> > [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of PWilson
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 5:04 PM
> > To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> > Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Ethanol and wing tanks
> >
> >
> > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: PWilson <pwmac@sisna.com>
> >
> > Other than the issue of fuel system compatibility, the alk does have
> > higher octane, but when used in a low compression engine that octane
> > goes to waste and the engine produces less horsepower that it would
> > if run on gas. This is true with all ratios of Alky/gas - the octane
> > goes up. An alky engine properly designed will have more horsepower
> > that an optimally tuned gas engine due to higher octane. However the
> > alky engine will deliver less fuel economy since the energy per
> > gallon is less. Of course e85 is pretty rare outside of the mid
> > states. At the 10% level it does not matter much, it just screws up
> > the systems not designed for the stuff.
> > Don't forget that for several years the Kitfox has been sold with
> > Alky compatible wing tanks using the proper epoxy resin. Which is the
> > same resin used in the gas station tanks. To make your Kitfox live
> > with alky and not have to use the sloshing liquids. Just buy the new
> > tanks. I am sure John McBean sells them.
> >
> > Maybe Bob Unternaehrer was talking about premix of the 50:1 2 stroke
> > oil. which probably does reduce the fuel performance since it is not
> > generally known as an engine fuel.
> > Regards, Paul
> > =====================
> >
> > At 12:41 PM 8/15/2006, you wrote:
> > >--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bob Unternaehrer"
> > <shilocom@mcmsys.com>
> > >
> > ><<<<There is a bit of a problem with premixing. Apparently
> > it lowers octane
> > >rating of the fuel>>>
> > >
> > >
> > >There are many ways to calculate "octane", but if you do it
> > the same way
> > >autogas and 100LL are done, Ethanol is over 100 octane. It
> > does other
> > >things, but it doesn't lower the octane. Pure Ethanol in
> > Mo. is currently
> > >in the $2.20 range. 85% ethanol is around $2.50,,,go figure
> > that and 87
> > >octane autogas is a few cents either side of $3.00. What
> > are you paying for
> > >you're auto gas or 100LL in your state. You can check with
> > So. Dakota U to
> > >verify the above. They gave the sminar at OSH and it's on their web
> > >site.Bob U.
> > >
> > >----- Original Message -----
> > >From: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys@yahoo.ca>
> > >To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> > >Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 9:44 AM
> > >Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Ethanol and wing tanks
> > >
> > >
> > > > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Noel Loveys"
> > <noelloveys@yahoo.ca>
> > > >
> > > > I'm another one who hates to keep harping on the dangers
> > of ethanol in
> > > > fibreglass tanks. The worst part of the whole deal is
> > that on this
> > > > continent ethanol is neither green or economical unless
> > you can rate it in
> > > > votes per gallon.
> > > >
> > > > Thee is a fellow flying an Avid on the avid group who was
> > flying in
> > > > California where they have 10% ethanol. He said he
> > didn't have any
> > >problems
> > > > but he was premixing his fuel. Recently he swapped out
> > his trusty R582
> > >for
> > > > a brand spankin' new Jab 2200. He is using a bit of "Top
> > Lube" premixed
> > > > into his tanks with good results so far.
> > > >
> > > > There is a bit of a problem with premixing. Apparently
> > it lowers octane
> > > > rating of the fuel.
> > > >
> > > > BTW the only good thing about ethanol is it does increase
> > the octane
> > >rating
> > > > of gasoline. (oct110)
> > > >
> > > > Noel
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> > > > > [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of WBL
> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 1:18 AM
> > > > > To: kitfox-list@matronics.com; kitfox-list@matronics.com
> > > > > Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Ethanol and wing tanks
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: WBL <aeromer@ix.netcom.com>
> > > > >
> > > > > I have posted this in the past. I had a bad experience
> > > > > several ago whin I put autofuel in my KF-Classic 4, flew for
> > > > > an hour or more then put it in the hangar for a couple of
> > > > > weeks. When I returned from a business trip I went out to
> > > > > the hangar (at a public use airport) and discovered fuel
> > > > > dripping out the tail and beyond the hangar. All of the
> > > > > militar spec hoses had melted and were leaking! I have since
> > > > > replaced all of the mil spec hoses with sae hoses and have
> > > > > had no more problems. Many states are now mandating ethnol
> > > > > to replace MBTE. Be careful! KF-2KM
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > >From: Mark R Miller <markrmiller@cableone.net>
> > > > > >Sent: Aug 14, 2006 7:42 AM
> > > > > >To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> > > > > >Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Ethanol and wing tanks
> > > > > >
> > > > > >--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Mark R Miller"
> > > > > <markrmiller@cableone.net>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Michel
> > > > > >----- Original Message -----
> > > > > >From: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@sbcglobal.net>
> > > > > >To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> > > > > >Sent: Sunday, August 13, 2006 8:51 PM
> > > > > >Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Ethanol and wing tanks
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt"
> > > > > <lcfitt@sbcglobal.net>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Michel,
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Pro seal has been used in the BD-4 since the beginng (of the
> > > > > BD-4And 5) the
> > > > > >fiberglass pannels of the BD-4 were very porris and
> > weeped a lot.
> > > > > >So Proseal was ued to seal the holes and bond the wing
> > > > > panels together.
> > > > > >It is not a sloshing compound.
> > > > > >It is very thick and is applied with a putty knife.
> > > > > >It is also used today to seal the RV fuel tanks and many
> > > > > orther modern kit
> > > > > >aircraft.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Mak Miller
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> My only thought on that is that the military and airlines
> > > > > do not use
> > > > > >> alcohol containing fuels, but jet-(something). I'm pretty
> > > > > sure I wouldn,t
> > > > > >> want to be the Beta tester for the group using alcohol
> > > > > containing mo-gas.
> > > > > >> I have already sloshed one completed wing tank and don't
> > > > > want to do it
> > > > > >> again or make that twice if the Thiakol material
> > doesn't work.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> ' though, I did a quick search on Google and found that
> > > > > there is a BD-4
> > > > > >> thread recommending the material in the metal wing
> > > > > conversion. I don't
> > > > > >> know which fuel they use.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Lowell
> > > > > >> ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > >> From: "Michel Verheughe" <michel@online.no>
> > > > > >> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> > > > > >> Sent: Sunday, August 13, 2006 2:36 PM
> > > > > >> Subject: Kitfox-List: Ethanol and wing tanks
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe
> > > > > <michel@online.no>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> I know, I know, we have already discussed that many times
> > > > > but on the
> > > > > >>> Jabiru list, there is a Bill Evans who writes the following:
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> "The fuel tank problem can be solved. The airlines and
> > > > > Military use a
> > > > > >>> Thiokol Rubber sealant generally known as PRC."
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Then later,
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> "I can buy PRC here from the local aircraft service and
> > > > > maintenance
> > > > > >>> shops. I believe it is manufactured by Pro-Seal now. You
> > > > > might search on
> > > > > >>> the part number PRC-1422 A2 The A is the thin stuff and
> > > > > the 2 is the pot
> > > > > >>> life. Full cure is probably 8 hours at 70F."
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Just to let you know, guys. I don't know the first thing
> > > > > about that
> > > > > >>> product, I am only the go-between, the messenger, the
> > > > > informant, the spy,
> > > > > >>> the turncoat, the ... ok, I'll shut up! :-)
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Cheers,
> > > > > >>> Michel
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
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 |
|
Hi,
I have a L 4900M in my car and I find that the MapCreate 6 software
to be pretty obsolete in so far and depicting the roads. It is also
very inaccurate with regard to the topo data with thousands of feet
error on many summits as compared to the USGS maps.
My question is about the Lowrance database for aircraft. Do you find
it to be accurate or is it cut rate like the auto version.
Thanks, Paul
===================
At 11:31 PM 8/15/2006, you wrote:
>I have a 2000c . It works great. I havn't had it but a short time
>and is easy to learn. Lots of things it will do. The big
>difference that I see is the quality of the drawing is not as sharp
>as the Garmin. If I had to do it again I would buy the 2000c. A
>lot less expensive and leaves a little more money for other toys.
>
>
>If you get it let us know what you think.
>
>Marwynne
>Hilltop Lakes Texas
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Steve Wilson
>Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 11:03 PM
>To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Kitfox-List: GPS Units
>
>I am considering purchasing a Lowrance 2000c GPS unit. Does anyone
>have one or have experience with one. Also, is there another unit
>that you like. I will be using it in my plane, but also in my
>truck. The Garmin price tag is more than I am willing to pay at this time.
>Steve Wilson
>
>
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Ethanol and wing tanks |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: PWilson <pwmac@sisna.com>
Yup, not epoxy, but Atlac
PW
=============
At 09:26 PM 8/15/2006, you wrote:
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@sbcglobal.net>
>
>I don't know about up there, but down here the gas station tanks are
>vinyl ester resin. And this is the resin used in the newer Skystar tanks.
>
>Lowell
>----- Original Message ----- From: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys@yahoo.ca>
>To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
>Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 7:13 PM
>Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Ethanol and wing tanks
>
>
>>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys@yahoo.ca>
>>
>>I think you will find the gas station tanks are not epoxy. But HDPE.
>>Sloshing compounds seem to eventually come off.... Better to not use
>>ethanol fuel or replace the tank with a pre-moulded HDPE like the five
>>gallon "Jerry" cans are made of.
>>
>>I can't wait until I can put all this behind me..... Someone please design
>>a nice 70-80 hp turbo diesel!
>>
>>Noel
>>
>>
>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
>>>[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of PWilson
>>>Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 5:04 PM
>>>To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
>>>Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Ethanol and wing tanks
>>>
>>>
>>>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: PWilson <pwmac@sisna.com>
>>>
>>>Other than the issue of fuel system compatibility, the alk does have
>>>higher octane, but when used in a low compression engine that octane
>>>goes to waste and the engine produces less horsepower that it would
>>>if run on gas. This is true with all ratios of Alky/gas - the octane
>>>goes up. An alky engine properly designed will have more horsepower
>>>that an optimally tuned gas engine due to higher octane. However the
>>>alky engine will deliver less fuel economy since the energy per
>>>gallon is less. Of course e85 is pretty rare outside of the mid
>>>states. At the 10% level it does not matter much, it just screws up
>>>the systems not designed for the stuff.
>>>Don't forget that for several years the Kitfox has been sold with
>>>Alky compatible wing tanks using the proper epoxy resin. Which is the
>>>same resin used in the gas station tanks. To make your Kitfox live
>>>with alky and not have to use the sloshing liquids. Just buy the new
>>>tanks. I am sure John McBean sells them.
>>>
>>>Maybe Bob Unternaehrer was talking about premix of the 50:1 2 stroke
>>>oil. which probably does reduce the fuel performance since it is not
>>>generally known as an engine fuel.
>>>Regards, Paul
>>>=====================
>>>
>>>At 12:41 PM 8/15/2006, you wrote:
>>> >--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bob Unternaehrer"
>>><shilocom@mcmsys.com>
>>> >
>>> ><<<<There is a bit of a problem with premixing. Apparently
>>>it lowers octane
>>> >rating of the fuel>>>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >There are many ways to calculate "octane", but if you do it
>>>the same way
>>> >autogas and 100LL are done, Ethanol is over 100 octane. It
>>>does other
>>> >things, but it doesn't lower the octane. Pure Ethanol in
>>>Mo. is currently
>>> >in the $2.20 range. 85% ethanol is around $2.50,,,go figure
>>>that and 87
>>> >octane autogas is a few cents either side of $3.00. What
>>>are you paying for
>>> >you're auto gas or 100LL in your state. You can check with
>>>So. Dakota U to
>>> >verify the above. They gave the sminar at OSH and it's on their web
>>> >site.Bob U.
>>> >
>>> >----- Original Message -----
>>> >From: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys@yahoo.ca>
>>> >To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
>>> >Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 9:44 AM
>>> >Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Ethanol and wing tanks
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Noel Loveys"
>>><noelloveys@yahoo.ca>
>>> > >
>>> > > I'm another one who hates to keep harping on the dangers
>>>of ethanol in
>>> > > fibreglass tanks. The worst part of the whole deal is
>>>that on this
>>> > > continent ethanol is neither green or economical unless
>>>you can rate it in
>>> > > votes per gallon.
>>> > >
>>> > > Thee is a fellow flying an Avid on the avid group who was
>>>flying in
>>> > > California where they have 10% ethanol. He said he
>>>didn't have any
>>> >problems
>>> > > but he was premixing his fuel. Recently he swapped out
>>>his trusty R582
>>> >for
>>> > > a brand spankin' new Jab 2200. He is using a bit of "Top
>>>Lube" premixed
>>> > > into his tanks with good results so far.
>>> > >
>>> > > There is a bit of a problem with premixing. Apparently
>>>it lowers octane
>>> > > rating of the fuel.
>>> > >
>>> > > BTW the only good thing about ethanol is it does increase
>>>the octane
>>> >rating
>>> > > of gasoline. (oct110)
>>> > >
>>> > > Noel
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > > -----Original Message-----
>>> > > > From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
>>> > > > [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of WBL
>>> > > > Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 1:18 AM
>>> > > > To: kitfox-list@matronics.com; kitfox-list@matronics.com
>>> > > > Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Ethanol and wing tanks
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: WBL <aeromer@ix.netcom.com>
>>> > > >
>>> > > > I have posted this in the past. I had a bad experience
>>> > > > several ago whin I put autofuel in my KF-Classic 4, flew for
>>> > > > an hour or more then put it in the hangar for a couple of
>>> > > > weeks. When I returned from a business trip I went out to
>>> > > > the hangar (at a public use airport) and discovered fuel
>>> > > > dripping out the tail and beyond the hangar. All of the
>>> > > > militar spec hoses had melted and were leaking! I have since
>>> > > > replaced all of the mil spec hoses with sae hoses and have
>>> > > > had no more problems. Many states are now mandating ethnol
>>> > > > to replace MBTE. Be careful! KF-2KM
>>> > > >
>>> > > > -----Original Message-----
>>> > > > >From: Mark R Miller <markrmiller@cableone.net>
>>> > > > >Sent: Aug 14, 2006 7:42 AM
>>> > > > >To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
>>> > > > >Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Ethanol and wing tanks
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > >--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Mark R Miller"
>>> > > > <markrmiller@cableone.net>
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > >Michel
>>> > > > >----- Original Message -----
>>> > > > >From: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@sbcglobal.net>
>>> > > > >To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
>>> > > > >Sent: Sunday, August 13, 2006 8:51 PM
>>> > > > >Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Ethanol and wing tanks
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > >> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt"
>>> > > > <lcfitt@sbcglobal.net>
>>> > > > >>
>>> > > > >> Michel,
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > >Pro seal has been used in the BD-4 since the beginng (of the
>>> > > > BD-4And 5) the
>>> > > > >fiberglass pannels of the BD-4 were very porris and
>>>weeped a lot.
>>> > > > >So Proseal was ued to seal the holes and bond the wing
>>> > > > panels together.
>>> > > > >It is not a sloshing compound.
>>> > > > >It is very thick and is applied with a putty knife.
>>> > > > >It is also used today to seal the RV fuel tanks and many
>>> > > > orther modern kit
>>> > > > >aircraft.
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > >Mak Miller
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > >> My only thought on that is that the military and airlines
>>> > > > do not use
>>> > > > >> alcohol containing fuels, but jet-(something). I'm pretty
>>> > > > sure I wouldn,t
>>> > > > >> want to be the Beta tester for the group using alcohol
>>> > > > containing mo-gas.
>>> > > > >> I have already sloshed one completed wing tank and don't
>>> > > > want to do it
>>> > > > >> again or make that twice if the Thiakol material
>>>doesn't work.
>>> > > > >>
>>> > > > >> ' though, I did a quick search on Google and found that
>>> > > > there is a BD-4
>>> > > > >> thread recommending the material in the metal wing
>>> > > > conversion. I don't
>>> > > > >> know which fuel they use.
>>> > > > >>
>>> > > > >> Lowell
>>> > > > >> ----- Original Message -----
>>> > > > >> From: "Michel Verheughe" <michel@online.no>
>>> > > > >> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
>>> > > > >> Sent: Sunday, August 13, 2006 2:36 PM
>>> > > > >> Subject: Kitfox-List: Ethanol and wing tanks
>>> > > > >>
>>> > > > >>
>>> > > > >>> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe
>>> > > > <michel@online.no>
>>> > > > >>>
>>> > > > >>> I know, I know, we have already discussed that many times
>>> > > > but on the
>>> > > > >>> Jabiru list, there is a Bill Evans who writes the following:
>>> > > > >>>
>>> > > > >>> "The fuel tank problem can be solved. The airlines and
>>> > > > Military use a
>>> > > > >>> Thiokol Rubber sealant generally known as PRC."
>>> > > > >>>
>>> > > > >>> Then later,
>>> > > > >>>
>>> > > > >>> "I can buy PRC here from the local aircraft service and
>>> > > > maintenance
>>> > > > >>> shops. I believe it is manufactured by Pro-Seal now. You
>>> > > > might search on
>>> > > > >>> the part number PRC-1422 A2 The A is the thin stuff and
>>> > > > the 2 is the pot
>>> > > > >>> life. Full cure is probably 8 hours at 70F."
>>> > > > >>>
>>> > > > >>> Just to let you know, guys. I don't know the first thing
>>> > > > about that
>>> > > > >>> product, I am only the go-between, the messenger, the
>>> > > > informant, the spy,
>>> > > > >>> the turncoat, the ... ok, I'll shut up! :-)
>>> > > > >>>
>>> > > > >>> Cheers,
>>> > > > >>> Michel
>>> > > > >>>
>>> > > > >>>
>>> > > > >>>
>>> > > > >>>
>>> > > > >>>
>>> > > > >>>
>>> > > > >>>
>>> > > > >>>
>>> > > > >>>
>>> > > > >>>
>>> > > > >>>
>>> > > > >>>
>>> > > > >>>
>>> > > > >>
>>> > > > >>
>>> > > > >>
>>> > > > >>
>>> > > > >>
>>> > > > >>
>>> > > > >>
>>> > > > >>
>>> > > > >>
>>> > > > >>
>>> > > > >>
>>> > > > >>
>>> > > > >>
>>> > > > >>
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
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: Michigan Kitfoxers |
Fred Shiple
2524 Inlands Ct.
Toledo OH 43615
419.536.6099
fredshiple@sbcglobal.net
Kitfox S6/912S, Amphib floats, In-cockpit adjustable prop (swapping to IVO in
fall 2006). 140 hrs. Hope plane spends part of year on Burt Lake now that it's
on floats.
Hey folks. I have the list of Michigan Kitfoxers compiled, but I still need
a little bit of info from those listed below.
Anybody else who would like to be added to the list, please add your name
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 |
|
Sure did Gary and I set him up immediately. You obviously didn't get my
confirmation?
If he's not receiving any messages, please let me know.
Deke
----- Original Message -----
From: Algate
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 10:51 AM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Kitfox List
Deke Did you get my email re setting up George Briggs on the list.
Regards Gary Algate
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Message Repeats |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Don Smythe" <dosmythe@cox.net>
Lowell,
Not happening on this end...
Don Smythe
Do Not Archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 10:51 AM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Message Repeats
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@sbcglobal.net>
>
> Is this only me, but I get as many as a dozen repeats of some messages and
> often over a period of a couple of days. It only happens on
> kitfox-list@matronics.com messages, never on privately posted messages.
> It has actually become quite painful.
>
> Lowell
>
>
>
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: Kitfox IV and 912ULS installation |
I relocated the drain connection on my tank towards the firewall to incorporate
a quick drain (before they were available for Rotax). This allowed me to lower
the tank enough that I can use the cap supplied by Rotax rather than the SkyStar
version. Makes oil changes much easier as a result.
Bill W.
Classic IV 912ul
I am in the final stages of installing a 912ULS in a Kitfox IV and I am having
a problem with lack of clearance between the top cowl piece and the top oil line
(the OUT line from the oil tank).
________________________________________________________________________
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 |
|
Thanks Deke
I will contact George to confirm
Regards
Gary
_____
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Fox5flyer
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 11:30 AM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Kitfox List
Sure did Gary and I set him up immediately. You obviously didn't get my
confirmation?
If he's not receiving any messages, please let me know.
Deke
----- Original Message -----
From: Algate <mailto:algate@attglobal.net>
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 10:51 AM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Kitfox List
Deke
Did you get my email re setting up George Briggs on the list.
Regards
Gary Algate
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: Message Repeats |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
On Aug 16, 2006, at 4:51 PM, Lowell Fitt wrote:
> Is this only me, but I get as many as a dozen repeats of some messages
It is not happening to me at this very moment, Lowell. But it has
happened, although not that many copies, and it certainly will, in the
future. Why? I don't know, the cyberspace is a strange place with a lot
of things happening and I am not sure I want to know about it.
Yesterday, I wrote an email to a Swedish Kitfox wannabe pilot and it
bounced back. I then used the phone to call him. Since he is a computer
engineer, he explained to me that my address was registered on a
blacklist as a spammer.
Now, I have been called a lot of things in my life, but never a
spammer! It turns out that I am on the internet, with the same address,
since 1994 and that, at the time I had a homepage with my email address
embedded in the HTML codes. Spammers send "robots" on the internet, to
copy anything that is separated by a "@" sign and use that as phoney
return addresses for their shameful business.
... Man, I am getting too old for this stuff. Where do I sign to
retire? :-)
Cheers,
Michel
do not archive
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Kitfox wanted |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "spudnuts" <martan@cstone.net>
Check out barnstormers.com, there is a really sweet one in NY for 18K
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=55198#55198
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: Kitfox wanted |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "spudnuts" <martan@cstone.net>
Also, I'm still looking for a kitfox 5 or later. 704LS was sold before I could
go take a look at her.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=55202#55202
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: "John Oakley" <john@leptron.com>
Hi Guys,
I have renewed my ears onto the list. Having been on the list since the
beginning I have been off for the last eight months or so and dearly missed
the chatter. I sold my hobby shop, my house and started a new business,
importing lipoly batteries, and other supplies for rc hobby people on line.
I sure am happy to be back.
John Oakley
Model 4 speedster
Idaho
Over 1000 hr in kitfox's
Message 23
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: renewed lister |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@sbcglobal.net>
John,
The Idaho back country group is planning on being at Caldwell sometime early
afternoon tomorrow and then on to Smiley Creek for the night. Eventually we
want to get to Cavanaugh Bay and then maybe in to Canada for a short visit.
Lowell
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Oakley" <john@leptron.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 9:56 AM
Subject: Kitfox-List: renewed lister
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "John Oakley" <john@leptron.com>
>
> Hi Guys,
> I have renewed my ears onto the list. Having been on the list since the
> beginning I have been off for the last eight months or so and dearly
> missed
> the chatter. I sold my hobby shop, my house and started a new business,
> importing lipoly batteries, and other supplies for rc hobby people on
> line.
> I sure am happy to be back.
>
> John Oakley
> Model 4 speedster
> Idaho
> Over 1000 hr in kitfox's
>
>
>
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 |
|
I believe Lowrance uses the Jeppsen data base under license. If you keep it current,
it's great.
PWilson <pwmac@sisna.com> wrote: Hi,
I have a L 4900M in my car and I find that the MapCreate 6 software to be pretty
obsolete in so far and depicting the roads. It is also very inaccurate with
regard to the topo data with thousands of feet error on many summits as compared
to the USGS maps.
My question is about the Lowrance database for aircraft. Do you find it to be accurate
or is it cut rate like the auto version.
Thanks, Paul
===================
At 11:31 PM 8/15/2006, you wrote:
I have a 2000c . It works great. I havn't had it but a short time and is easy
to learn. Lots of things it will do. The big difference that I see is the
quality of the drawing is not as sharp as the Garmin. If I had to do it again
I would buy the 2000c. A lot less expensive and leaves a little more money
for other toys.
If you get it let us know what you think.
Marwynne
Hilltop Lakes Texas
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com [ mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Steve Wilson
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 11:03 PM
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Subject: Kitfox-List: GPS Units
I am considering purchasing a Lowrance 2000c GPS unit. Does anyone have one
or have experience with one. Also, is there another unit that you like. I will
be using it in my plane, but also in my truck. The Garmin price tag is more
than I am willing to pay at this time.
Steve Wilson
Marco Menezes
Model 2 582 N99KX
__________________________________________________
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: "jdmcbean" <jdmcbean@cableone.net>
Look forward to seeing you Lowell...
Fly Safe !!
John & Debra McBean
208.337.5111
www.kitfoxaircraft.com www.sportplanellc.com
"The Sky is not the Limit... It's a Playground"
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Lowell Fitt
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 11:49 AM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: renewed lister
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@sbcglobal.net>
John,
The Idaho back country group is planning on being at Caldwell sometime early
afternoon tomorrow and then on to Smiley Creek for the night. Eventually we
want to get to Cavanaugh Bay and then maybe in to Canada for a short visit.
Lowell
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Oakley" <john@leptron.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 9:56 AM
Subject: Kitfox-List: renewed lister
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "John Oakley" <john@leptron.com>
>
> Hi Guys,
> I have renewed my ears onto the list. Having been on the list since the
> beginning I have been off for the last eight months or so and dearly
> missed
> the chatter. I sold my hobby shop, my house and started a new business,
> importing lipoly batteries, and other supplies for rc hobby people on
> line.
> I sure am happy to be back.
>
> John Oakley
> Model 4 speedster
> Idaho
> Over 1000 hr in kitfox's
>
>
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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "John Oakley" <john@leptron.com>
Lowell,
Oh, sure I leave the list for a few minutes and you plan a trip with out me.
:-) I am prepping for a trip in there, I will try to listen in and find
where you guy s are.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lowell Fitt
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 11:49 AM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: renewed lister
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@sbcglobal.net>
John,
The Idaho back country group is planning on being at Caldwell sometime early
afternoon tomorrow and then on to Smiley Creek for the night. Eventually we
want to get to Cavanaugh Bay and then maybe in to Canada for a short visit.
Lowell
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Oakley" <john@leptron.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 9:56 AM
Subject: Kitfox-List: renewed lister
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "John Oakley" <john@leptron.com>
>
> Hi Guys,
> I have renewed my ears onto the list. Having been on the list since the
> beginning I have been off for the last eight months or so and dearly
> missed
> the chatter. I sold my hobby shop, my house and started a new business,
> importing lipoly batteries, and other supplies for rc hobby people on
> line.
> I sure am happy to be back.
>
> John Oakley
> Model 4 speedster
> Idaho
> Over 1000 hr in kitfox's
>
>
>
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: Message Repeats |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: PWilson <pwmac@sisna.com>
Lowell, Complain to your provider. My provider had a similar issue in
the past, but has fixed the problem.
Paul
=====================
At 09:26 AM 8/16/2006, you wrote:
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Fox5flyer" <morid@northland.lib.mi.us>
>
>It's not happening here at my end Lowell. Everything is normal. If it
>continues, let me know and I'll see if Matt has been having any other
>complaints about it.
>Deke
>List Janitor
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@sbcglobal.net>
>To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
>Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 10:51 AM
>Subject: Kitfox-List: Message Repeats
>
>
> > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@sbcglobal.net>
> >
> > Is this only me, but I get as many as a dozen repeats of some messages and
> > often over a period of a couple of days. It only happens on
> > kitfox-list@matronics.com messages, never on privately posted messages.
>It
> > has actually become quite painful.
> >
> > Lowell
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
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: Ethanol and wing tanks Ethanol and wing tanks |
Mike G.,
Kind of off subject which was alcohol in the fiberglass fuel tanks.
Reading on----
I have to explain. When I said:
"An alky engine properly designed will have more horsepower that an
optimally tuned gas engine due to higher octane."
It is a fact that an alky specific engines are always designed to
have a higher compression ratio (CR) than the typical gas engine. And
this is allowed because of the higher octane. There is a direct
relationship between CR and efficiency and horsepower. Higher is better.
By the same token if you put alky (any percentage) in an engine
designed for gas it will have less horsepower because the engine is
not taking advantage of the higher octane AND less fuel economy due
to less energy per gallon. With the engine designed with a CR for
alky and you find some high octane gasoline that has the same octane
as the alky then the power will be the same/similar but when using
alky that engine will have poorer fuel economy compared to the high
test gasoline.
This is all academic because the engines now being produced in the US
are not properly designed for any percentage of alcohol. The result
is lower power and lower fuel economy compared to using gas which is
the design point. The engines are designed of the lowest octane that
the manufacturer expects to be used.
Note: In the US gasoline is posted as (R+M)/2 even though the short
cut way to write it is R+M/2. Trivia to be sure.
You said:
87 octane fuel, the "regular" gasoline in the US and Canada, would
be 91-95 (regular) in Europe."
I thought there was a constant relationship between (R+M)/2 and M but
I was wrong. I just looked up some racing fuels and found one with
110M, 112R, 111 (R+M)/2 and another that was 91M, 103R, 97 (R+M)/2.
Lots of chemistry in these fuels that prevents us from relating the
(R+M)/2 to M.
You said:
"Autogas and avgas octanes are not calculated the same way. Avgas
octane is measured using the "MON" method, while auto fuels (in the
U.S. anyway) are typically measured using the (R+M/2) method (see
below). Since octane rating represents a ratio, it cannot exceed 100.
Values for octane over 100 are really what are called "performance ratings".
Please don't believe everything you read on the Internet.
This contradicts what I know about the subject. The fuel companies
actually do the testing to measure the octane. Yes, it is a ratio but
there is no rule that says the value cannot be better than the
reference. I did not take the time to look up Ethanol but I am sure
it is above 100M.
Here is some trivia for you all :
Reno style air race fuel is 120.3M leaded using the ASTM test method.
Good stuff for the high CR engines and explains the high speeds
achieved with these high power engines. This compares with something
like 80-83M at your local gas station 87(R+M)/2.
Comments below
Regards, Paul
==============================
At 09:22 AM 8/16/2006, you wrote:
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michael Gibbs <MichaelGibbs@cox.net>
>
>Bob sez:
>
>>There are many ways to calculate "octane", but if you do it the
>>same way autogas and 100LL are done, Ethanol is over 100 octane.
>
>Autogas and avgas octanes are not calculated the same way. Avgas
>octane is measured using the "MON" method, while auto fuels (in the
>U.S. anyway) are typically measured using the (R+M/2) method (see
>below). Since octane rating represents a ratio, it cannot exceed
>100. Values for octane over 100 are really what are called
>"performance ratings".
>
>Paul sez:
>
>>An alky engine properly designed will have more horsepower that an
>>optimally tuned gas engine due to higher octane.
>
>There may be some rules of thumb for common fuels, but technically,
>octane rating has no direct correlation with engine power or efficiency.
>
>"Octane" is a measure of the fuel's resistance to pre-ignition and
>knocking. The Research Octane Number (RON) is determined by running
>the fuel through a specific test engine with a variable compression
>ratio under controlled conditions, and comparing these results with
>those for mixtures of isooctane and n-heptane.
>
>The Motor Octane Number (MON) or the aviation lean octane rating, is
>a better measure of how the fuel behaves when under load. MON
>testing uses a similar test engine to that used in RON testing, but
>with a preheated fuel mixture, a higher engine speed, and variable
>ignition timing to further stress the fuel's knock resistance.
You are correct, M method is the best measure of octane. M stands for Motor
>Depending on the composition of the fuel, the MON of a modern
>gasoline will be about 8 to 10 points lower than the RON. Normally
>fuel specifications require both a minimum RON and a minimum MON.
I noted in my research that your 8 to 10 is not a good predictor.
But, I have read that 4-5 is a good difference for Europe vs NA
between (R+M)/2 and M. So I guess that the 91 that Rotax specifies is
87 at sea level here in the US? Any comment on that?
>In most countries (including all of Europe and Australia) the
>"headline" octane that would be shown on the pump is the RON, but in
>the United States and some other countries the headline number is
>the average of the RON and the MON, sometimes called the Anti-Knock
>Index (AKI), Road Octane Number (RdON), Pump Octane Number (PON), or
>(R+M)/2. Because of the 10 point difference noted above, this means
>that the octane in the United States will be about 4 to 5 points
>lower than the same fuel elsewhere: 87 octane fuel, the "regular"
>gasoline in the US and Canada, would be 91-95 (regular) in Europe.
>
>To learn more than you ever wanted to know about aviation fuel
>octane, check out
><http://www.chevron.com/products/prodserv/fuels/bulletin/aviationfuel/9_ag_specsandtest.shtm>
>or <http://www.prime-mover.org/Engines/GArticles/octane.html>.
>
>Mike G.
>N728KF
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: | Colorado fly-in this weekend |
EAA Chapter 72 will be hosting a fly-in at Meadowlake Airport NE of Colo
rado Springs Friday and Saturday. It would sure be nice to see a few Ki
tfoxes there. More info available at www.eaa72.org Brent BidusKitfox 4
<html><PRE><FONT face="courier new,courier" color=#000000 size=2>E
AA Chapter 72 will be hosting a fly-in at Meadowlake Airport NE of Color
ado Springs Friday and Saturday. It would sure be nice to see a few Kit
foxes there. More info available at <A href="http://www.eaa72.org">ww
w.eaa72.org</A></FONT></PRE><PRE> </PRE><PRE>Brent Bidus</PRE><PRE>
Kitfox 4</PRE>
<pre><b><font size=2 color="#000000" face="courier new,courier">
</b></font></pre></body></html>
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: Classic IV for sale |
hate to burst anyone's bubble, but it is the market place that sets the
value.
On 7/28/06, Mark Thompson <kr2@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> this is great,I love it.....awsome guys....wow what sales pitch...lol
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* wingsdown <wingsdown@comcast.net>
> *To: *kitfox-list@matronics.com
> *Sent:* 7/28/2006 9:50:11 PM
> *Subject:* RE: Kitfox-List: Classic IV for sale
>
>
> Roger,
>
> As much as I admire craftsmanship, quality, well thought out design and
> correctly selected components and beauty, you are safe. No one is going to
> match or top your offer expectations. But let me be the first to say I would
> appreciate being placed first on the give it away list since I have nothing
> to fly. The market place is the judgment seat for selling prices, only we
> the builders can place our own intrinsic worth and esoteric value on our
> creations. I agree. It is worth at least $60K.
>
> Rick
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:* owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:
> owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Roger Standley
> *Sent:* Friday, July 28, 2006 6:03 PM
> *To:* kitfox-list@matronics.com
> *Subject:* Re: Kitfox-List: Classic IV for sale
>
>
> I have been on this list for awhile and have heard many things. I have
> seen a good number of Foxes up close. And lets face it, not all builders are
> alike or build or even attempt to build to near factory standards. And for
> than reason, maybe some Foxes aren't worth much. Have you ever seen a KitFox
> that you would not take a ride in? I have!
>
> Well, no one is touching my Model IV-912UL for less than $60K. In fact, if
> I was offered $75K today, I would not take it. I know how it was built and
> how it flies and how I feel when I fly it. If I sold it, I would have to
> build another to feel the same way. When I am not going to fly it any more,
> I will give it away before accepting less than $60K! And mine is nothing
> special next to some of the really nice Foxes I've seen.
>
> Roger
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Dave <dave@cfisher.com>
> *To:* kitfox-list@matronics.com
> *Sent:* Friday, July 28, 2006 1:02 PM
> *Subject:* Re: Kitfox-List: Classic IV for sale
>
>
> It amazes me at the prices of used Kitfoxes. selling for 1/2 or less of
> the cost to build a new one and you can fly it now.
> Imo they should be selling alot higher but market seems to dictate
> pricing.
>
>
> Dave
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Don Smythe <dosmythe@cox.net>
> *To:* Kitfox List <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> *Sent:* Friday, July 28, 2006 3:44 PM
> *Subject:* Kitfox-List: Classic IV for sale
>
>
> While planes are being advertised for sale, I may as well through mine in
> too. I need to sell my Fox Classic IV w/582. Will take $20K (more than
> $30K invested). If anyone is interested, send me a note off list and I'll
> give all the specifics.
>
> Priced to sell (I hope)
> Don Smythe
> dosmythe@cox.net
>
>
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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "clemwehner" <clemwehner@sbcglobal.net>
I'm getting multiple copies of messages (up to 8) on privately posted
messages as well and to messages received on other mail groups.
Something's foul in the crow's nest!
Clem
Oklahoma
-----Original Message-
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@sbcglobal.net>
Is this only me, but I get as many as a dozen repeats of some messages
and
often over a period of a couple of days. It only happens on
kitfox-list@matronics.com messages, never on privately posted messages.
It
has actually become quite painful.
Lowell
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 |
|
I appreciate every ones input into this issue. For the moment I will try
increasing the idle revs to 1600 and see what happens.
Regards
Graeme
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of A Smith
Sent: Monday, 14 August 2006 4:58 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Engine quitting
Mine will do that if the mixture screw on the tbi is not set just right.
Albert
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List
"ttp://forums.matronics.com"http://forums.matronics.com
"ttp://www.matronics.com/contribution"http://www.matronics.com/contribut
ion
--
8/08/2006
--
8/08/2006
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 |
|
Lowell
I am also getting the same message up to five times. Noted that you and I both
have SBCGlobal.net addresses. So perhaps It is something about the kitfox
list and SBC Global. I am not getting repeats from anyone except the list.
Any ideas?
Jimmie
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: | Kitfox IV and 912ULS installation |
Terry,
Just an FYI.. When the engine is ordered the tank is modified
and shortened in house. Sorry I didnt mention that previously thought
maybe the tank was already modified.
Fly Safe !!
John & Debra McBean
208.337.5111
www.kitfoxaircraft.com www.sportplanellc.com
<http://www.sportplanellc.com/>
"The Sky is not the Limit... It's a Playground"
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Terry Hughes
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 4:57 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Kitfox IV and 912ULS installation
I am in the final stages of installing a 912ULS in a Kitfox IV and I am
having a problem with lack of clearance between the top cowl piece and the
top oil line (the OUT line from the oil tank).
Actually, clearance isn't the right word here -- my oil line is actually
lightly touching the underside of the top cowl piece. I'm using the
Skystar-modified elbow fitting (thanks to John McBean) but that still isn't
providing enough clearance. Although the fitting itself fits under the cowl,
once the oil hose is attached and clamped all clearance between the oil hose
and cowl is gone.
Has anyone else had this problem? What did you do?
I see several solutions, but so far I don't like any of them (or can't make
them work). One, try to find a "lower profile" fitting for the OUT oil line.
I've been looking, but so far no joy.
Two, try to bend the existing elbow beyond 90 degrees, which might get the
oil hose low enough to clear the cowl.
Three, try to lower the oil tank. At best, I think I could lower it maybe a
1/4 of an inch, which I don't think would be enough.
Four, cut a hole in the top cowl and fabricate a little "power bulge" to
provide adequate oil line clearance. This seems to be the most drastic
approach, particularly given my meager fiberglass-working skills, but it
also gives the most clearance.
Any other suggestions or help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!
Terry Hughes
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: Kitfox-List GPS Units |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Jim Carriere <jimcarriere@yahoo.com>
Try typing in "lowrance" in the first field (next to where it says
"Search for Keywords").
http://forums.matronics.com/search.php
Some of the other Matronics lists already have discussed the 2000C.
I have also been seriously considering this unit, so I am more than
casually interested in what customers have to say!
Jim in NW FL
Series 7 in progress
__________________________________________________
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: Kitfox IV and 912ULS installation |
Terry,
After transistioning from the 582 to the 912, I also had the
same problem with oil tank clearence. First,
Skystar sent me the modified elbo fiting, that helped a lot, but not
enough, I got the lowest oil cap I could find,
from Napa, I lowered the Oil tank as low as possible, I used a paint
stir stick between the engine and the oil
tank to gauge the clearence, as low as I dared to go without touching,
and tighten the clamps around the oil Tank
as tight as I possibly could so there would be no chance for slippage.
There still was a slight touch to the cowling
from one edge of the oil cap. I had some asbestous from a long time ago
and glued a piece with high temp silicone
where the cap touched. That was the best I could do. That was fifty
hours ago, nothing has slipped, the cowling
still fits snug around the oil cap, ( with the sabestous coushion ).
and I don'i worry about it anymore, however,
I still keep an eye on it.
David
----- Original Message -----
From: Barry West
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 6:13 AM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Kitfox IV and 912ULS installation
Terry, I also have a Model IV with the 912 ULS engine. I really don't
know if the oil line is in contact with the cowling but I will check it.
Anyway, if it is in contact it has been that way for 5 years and over
400 hours without a problem or any indication of wear. I will let you
know after I check it.
Barry West
----- Original Message -----
From: Terry Hughes
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 5:56 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Kitfox IV and 912ULS installation
I am in the final stages of installing a 912ULS in a Kitfox IV and I
am having a problem with lack of clearance between the top cowl piece
and the top oil line (the OUT line from the oil tank).
Actually, clearance isn't the right word here -- my oil line is
actually lightly touching the underside of the top cowl piece. I'm using
the Skystar-modified elbow fitting (thanks to John McBean) but that
still isn't providing enough clearance. Although the fitting itself fits
under the cowl, once the oil hose is attached and clamped all clearance
between the oil hose and cowl is gone.
Has anyone else had this problem? What did you do?
I see several solutions, but so far I don't like any of them (or
can't make them work). One, try to find a "lower profile" fitting for
the OUT oil line. I've been looking, but so far no joy.
Two, try to bend the existing elbow beyond 90 degrees, which might
get the oil hose low enough to clear the cowl.
Three, try to lower the oil tank. At best, I think I could lower it
maybe a 1/4 of an inch, which I don't think would be enough.
Four, cut a hole in the top cowl and fabricate a little "power
bulge" to provide adequate oil line clearance. This seems to be the most
drastic approach, particularly given my meager fiberglass-working
skills, but it also gives the most clearance.
Any other suggestions or help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!
Terry Hughes
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: | Kitfox IV and 912ULS installation |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Grant Fluent <gjfpilot@yahoo.com>
Terry,
I had the same problem as you with my oil tank. I
cut an inch out of the middle and had a welding shop
tig weld it together for $60. The stock fitting will
then work fine.
Grant Fluent
Classic IV 912ULS
--- jdmcbean <jdmcbean@cableone.net> wrote:
> Terry,
> Just an FYI.. When the engine is ordered
> the tank is modified
> and shortened in house. Sorry I didnt mention that
> previously thought
> maybe the tank was already modified.
>
> Fly Safe !!
> John & Debra McBean
> 208.337.5111
> www.kitfoxaircraft.com www.sportplanellc.com
> <http://www.sportplanellc.com/>
> "The Sky is not the Limit... It's a Playground"
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On
> Behalf Of Terry Hughes
> Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 4:57 PM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Kitfox-List: Kitfox IV and 912ULS
> installation
>
> I am in the final stages of installing a 912ULS in a
> Kitfox IV and I am
> having a problem with lack of clearance between the
> top cowl piece and the
> top oil line (the OUT line from the oil tank).
>
> Actually, clearance isn't the right word here -- my
> oil line is actually
> lightly touching the underside of the top cowl
> piece. I'm using the
> Skystar-modified elbow fitting (thanks to John
> McBean) but that still isn't
> providing enough clearance. Although the fitting
> itself fits under the cowl,
> once the oil hose is attached and clamped all
> clearance between the oil hose
> and cowl is gone.
>
> Has anyone else had this problem? What did you do?
>
> I see several solutions, but so far I don't like any
> of them (or can't make
> them work). One, try to find a "lower profile"
> fitting for the OUT oil line.
> I've been looking, but so far no joy.
>
> Two, try to bend the existing elbow beyond 90
> degrees, which might get the
> oil hose low enough to clear the cowl.
>
> Three, try to lower the oil tank. At best, I think I
> could lower it maybe a
> 1/4 of an inch, which I don't think would be enough.
>
> Four, cut a hole in the top cowl and fabricate a
> little "power bulge" to
> provide adequate oil line clearance. This seems to
> be the most drastic
> approach, particularly given my meager
> fiberglass-working skills, but it
> also gives the most clearance.
>
> Any other suggestions or help would be greatly
> appreciated. Thanks!
>
> Terry Hughes
>
>
>
>
>
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: | Classic IV for sale |
I have to agree. I had a Challanger II that I was in love with. Flew good
and looked good. I wanted one price for 2 years. Then I sold it for the
market price.
It is a shame we can't get what we think our planes or worth. "but it is the
market place that sets the value"
Marwynne
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of John Galt
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 4:24 PM
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Classic IV for sale
hate to burst anyone's bubble, but it is the market place that sets the
value.
On 7/28/06, Mark Thompson <kr2@earthlink.net> wrote:
this is great,I love it.....awsome guys....wow what sales pitch...lol
----- Original Message -----
From: wingsdown
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: 7/28/2006 9:50:11 PM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Classic IV for sale
Roger,
As much as I admire craftsmanship, quality, well thought out design and
correctly selected components and beauty, you are safe. No one is going to
match or top your offer expectations. But let me be the first to say I would
appreciate being placed first on the give it away list since I have nothing
to fly. The market place is the judgment seat for selling prices, only we
the builders can place our own intrinsic worth and esoteric value on our
creations. I agree. It is worth at least $60K.
Rick
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Roger Standley
Sent: Friday, July 28, 2006 6:03 PM
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Classic IV for sale
I have been on this list for awhile and have heard many things. I have
seen a good number of Foxes up close. And lets face it, not all builders are
alike or build or even attempt to build to near factory standards. And for
than reason, maybe some Foxes aren't worth much. Have you ever seen a KitFox
that you would not take a ride in? I have!
Well, no one is touching my Model IV-912UL for less than $60K. In
fact, if I was offered $75K today, I would not take it. I know how it was
built and how it flies and how I feel when I fly it. If I sold it, I would
have to build another to feel the same way. When I am not going to fly it
any more, I will give it away before accepting less than $60K! And mine is
nothing special next to some of the really nice Foxes I've seen.
Roger
----- Original Message -----
From: Dave
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Friday, July 28, 2006 1:02 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Classic IV for sale
It amazes me at the prices of used Kitfoxes. selling for 1/2 or
less of the cost to build a new one and you can fly it now.
Imo they should be selling alot higher but market seems to dictate
pricing.
Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: Don Smythe
To: Kitfox List
Sent: Friday, July 28, 2006 3:44 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Classic IV for sale
While planes are being advertised for sale, I may as well through
mine in too. I need to sell my Fox Classic IV w/582. Will take $20K (more
than $30K invested). If anyone is interested, send me a note off list and
I'll give all the specifics.
Priced to sell (I hope)
Don Smythe
dosmythe@cox.net
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! --
|