Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 01:12 AM - Re: Ethanol and wing tanks Ethanol and wing tanks (Michael Gibbs)
2. 03:19 AM - Re: Kitfox IV and 912ULS installation (Barry West)
3. 05:55 AM - Re: Re: Ethanol and wing tanks Ethanol and wing tanks (Noel Loveys)
4. 10:21 AM - 1st solo x-country, and pavement landing (Lynn Matteson)
5. 10:34 AM - Re: Little help with windshield please. (Lynn Matteson)
6. 11:02 AM - Re: renewed lister (kurt schrader)
7. 12:04 PM - Re: 1st solo x-country, and pavement landing (Algate)
8. 12:16 PM - Re: renewed lister (John Oakley)
9. 12:20 PM - Re: 1st solo x-country, and pavement landing (Marco Menezes)
10. 12:56 PM - Re: renewed lister (kurt schrader)
11. 02:00 PM - Re: renewed lister (John Oakley)
12. 02:18 PM - Southern CA Rotax Service Center (Scott Patterson)
13. 02:24 PM - Re: 1st solo x-country, and pavement landing (Lynn Matteson)
14. 02:39 PM - Re: 1st solo x-country, and pavement landing (Lynn Matteson)
15. 02:46 PM - Re: GPS Units (Mark R Miller)
16. 03:34 PM - Re: GPS Units (Steve Wilson)
17. 04:18 PM - Re: 1st solo x-country, and pavement landing (Fox5flyer)
18. 04:49 PM - Rotax Service Bulletin Compliance (Scott Patterson)
19. 04:51 PM - KF 5 Vixen Rudder & Poly-Fiber Material Quantities (Allen Gandy)
20. 05:12 PM - Re: KF 5 Vixen Rudder & Poly-Fiber Material Quantities (Forfun3@AOL.COM)
21. 05:14 PM - Michigan Kitfoxers (Fox5flyer)
22. 05:54 PM - Potential Customer (jdmcbean)
23. 06:11 PM - some Jabiru numbers (Lynn Matteson)
24. 06:11 PM - Re: Michigan Kitfoxers (Lynn Matteson)
25. 06:17 PM - Re: 1st solo x-country, and pavement landing (Lynn Matteson)
26. 06:22 PM - Re: Michigan Kitfoxers (Lynn Matteson)
27. 06:26 PM - Re: some Jabiru numbers (John Marzulli)
28. 06:38 PM - Re: 1st solo x-country, and pavement landing (Fred Shiple)
29. 06:39 PM - Re: Michigan Kitfoxers (Fred Shiple)
30. 07:09 PM - why tailwheel (spudnuts)
31. 07:39 PM - Re: why tailwheel malcolm (Malcolmbru@aol.com)
32. 08:04 PM - Re: why tailwheel (John Oakley)
33. 08:22 PM - Re: why tailwheel (kurt schrader)
34. 08:38 PM - Re: why tailwheel malcolm (spudnuts)
35. 08:43 PM - Re: renewed lister (kurt schrader)
36. 08:54 PM - Re: Re: why tailwheel malcolm (JC)
37. 08:55 PM - Re: Re: why tailwheel malcolm (JC)
38. 09:10 PM - Cover and Finish (Andy Fultz)
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: Ethanol and wing tanks Ethanol and wing tanks |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michael Gibbs <MichaelGibbs@cox.net>
Paul sez:
You're right Paul, we have wandered off into the realm of trivia.
:-) You're also right about the relationship between compression
ratio and efficiency.
>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.
But...it's not about what I read on the Internet, it's about the
definition of octane rating. Octane is the ratio of iso-octane to
heptane that matches the pre-ignition behavior of a given fuel
sample, with iso-octane rated at 100 and heptane rated at 0. A
sample that matched 100% iso-octane would be rated as having 100
octane. There is nothing higher than 100%.
Values above 100 are referred to as "performance ratings."
I would think the folks at Chevron would have a handle on such
things:
<http://www.chevron.com/products/prodserv/fuels/bulletin/aviationfuel/9_ag_specsandtest.shtm%3E>
>...(R+M)/2 even though the short cut way to write it is R+M/2
It is shorter, but mathematically the result is different. :-)
Mike G.
N728KF
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: Kitfox IV and 912ULS installation |
Terry, sorry I didn't remember this before but John McBean's email
reminded me of it. I believe Skystar cut the oil tanks in two, removed
about an inch of it's length and welded it back together. If you got
your engine elsewhere this has probably not been done. I have been
building a Pulsar from Skystar and the muffler would not fit because
they failed to shorten it. I had to get it done myself.
Barry West
----- Original Message -----
From: Dan Billingsley
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 9:21 AM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 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
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: Ethanol and wing tanks Ethanol and wing tanks |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys@yahoo.ca>
There are holes in your argument. First we are talking about a rating not a
ratio. There fore it is possible to have an octane rating of more than 100
without actually having any octane in the solution at all. Ethanol is a
good example of this. Pure ethanol has an octane rating of around 110. too
bad the stuff has no power in it, has such an affinity to water and loves to
munch on composite fuel tanks.
Noel
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> Michael Gibbs
> Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 5:42 AM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Ethanol and wing tanks Ethanol and
> wing tanks
>
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michael Gibbs
> <MichaelGibbs@cox.net>
>
> Paul sez:
>
> You're right Paul, we have wandered off into the realm of trivia.
> :-) You're also right about the relationship between compression
> ratio and efficiency.
>
> >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.
>
> But...it's not about what I read on the Internet, it's about the
> definition of octane rating. Octane is the ratio of iso-octane to
> heptane that matches the pre-ignition behavior of a given fuel
> sample, with iso-octane rated at 100 and heptane rated at 0. A
> sample that matched 100% iso-octane would be rated as having 100
> octane. There is nothing higher than 100%.
>
> Values above 100 are referred to as "performance ratings."
>
> I would think the folks at Chevron would have a handle on such
> things:
> <http://www.chevron.com/products/prodserv/fuels/bulletin/aviat
ionfuel/9_ag_specsandtest.shtm%3E>
>...(R+M)/2 even though the short cut way to write it is R+M/2
It is shorter, but mathematically the result is different. :-)
Mike G.
N728KF
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: | 1st solo x-country, and pavement landing |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net>
Having done my dual x-country the day before, I was sent on my 1st solo
x-country Tuesday....a 109 statute-mile trek up to Mt. Pleasant,
Michigan. I did all the math, plotted a course, filed a flight plan,
and other than being bumpier than I would have liked, it was fun, and
came out as expected...right at the airport...isn't science wonderful?
I had a GPS, but didn't use it for the trip up, but used it on the
return leg, which my instructor had said was alright. On the return
leg, I diverted over the Central Michigan Dragway, where I used to race
in another life. : )....and over a house in which I used to live. I
actually plotted out the diverted return trip, but used the GPS to find
things, as there are few good landmarks in that area. I found that it
was quite difficult to locate a grass airport when you are circling
right over it! Sorry, Marco, Deke, Rex, Richard, and others, you all
live further away than my instructor wanted me to go. : )....next time
for sure. Oh yeah, this was also my first solo shot at a pavement
landing, which went ok as well....about a 20 mph, 30 degree crosswind,
so not too shabby, I guess.
The return trip was longer, and I was able to get a rough figure on
fuel burn over the 168 s. miles. I used about 3.75 US gallons per hour.
This is in a Kitfox IV with Jabiru 2200 engine, and I was running about
2400-2700 rpm for the most part...just cruising around seeing the
sights, and having fun. This is by no means an accurate count. But as I
use fuel up this week, I will have to re-fuel at a "metered" facility
and will get data that will be more meaningful. I usually fuel up at my
hangar, but that tank ran dry, and there is no way to measure...not yet
anyway...the amount that it takes to fill. When the big truck comes to
refill my storage tank, I'll see about getting a flow meter, so I can
get better numbers on how much I'm putting into the plane, and
therefore better numbers on fuel burn.
This just about wraps up the training required for my sport pilot
cert., and I'll be scheduling a checkride in the next week or so.
Lynn
Kitfox IV...Jabiru 2200
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: Little help with windshield please. |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net>
Dave-
I used the heavier 10-32's just to give you Rotax fliers a chance at
keeping up....OH MAN, DID I SAY THAT?...am I gonna be sorry I said
that! :)
Lynn
Kitfox IV...Jabiru 2200
please, please, please do not archive : )
On Tuesday, August 15, 2006, at 09:19 PM, Dave G. wrote:
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Dave G." <occom@ns.sympatico.ca>
>
> I like that idea, perhaps with a smaller nut plate, maybe a 6-32. It
> would be no problem with countersunk rivets on the butt rib. I could
> use regular nuts on the rear attachment.
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lynn Matteson" <lynnmatt@jps.net>
> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 8:46 PM
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Little help with windshield please.
>
>
>> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net>
>>
>> I installed 10-32 nutplates under the butt rib capstrips, using solid
>> rivets to hold them in place. It makes life a lot easier when you
>> install, and a whole lot easier if you have to replace, the
>> windshield/skylight.
>>
>> Lynn
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: renewed lister |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
Great that you are back John.
You have knowledge of things developed first in models
that will eventually show up on 1:1 scale. And they
are lighter in weight too.
Speaking of batteries.... ;-)
Kurt S.
--- John Oakley <john@leptron.com> wrote:
> 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 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: | 1st solo x-country, and pavement landing |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Algate" <algate@attglobal.net>
Hello Lynn
Congrats on your flight. As you know I recently purchased a Model 4 with Jab
2200 and I fitted a fuel flow meter to analyze fuel consumption etc.
At 2740 rpm I am burning 14.00 Ltr/hr (3.6USG) and at 2600 I am burning
under 13 Ltr/hr (3.4USG) so we pretty much agree. One question though what
speed are you cruising at these RPM's?
I have played around with jets etc as I still have a slight problem on take
off where my front cylinder EGT's peak at 3100 rpm. Once I throttle back
even 100 rpm the EGT falls into line. Apart from this anomaly all temps are
absolutely perfect (especially in cruise). The Jabiru dealer told me I am
basically being over concerned and I should not worry about it. I just hate
giving up on a nagging problem.
The other problem I have is related to instrumentation where my VSI is
reading about 400 ft/min low (even when stationary) and my Altimeter reads
about 500ft high when I calibrate with the tower. This plane has a dual
Pitot - one with a forward facing opening and the other (welded to it) has a
side facing orifice. I though it might be a blockage there but even when I
pull the static line from the back of the instruments nothing changes.
I don't really understand the VSI/Air speed/Altimeter circuitry yet as the
Static line is connected to a box with electrical connection behind the
panel and I assume this has something to do with the Engine monitoring
system??
Damn - unless someone can help me I might be forced to read the
instructions.....
Regards
Gary Algate
The return trip was longer, and I was able to get a rough figure on
fuel burn over the 168 s. miles. I used about 3.75 US gallons per hour.
This is in a Kitfox IV with Jabiru 2200 engine, and I was running about
2400-2700 rpm for the most part
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "John Oakley" <john@leptron.com>
Kurt,
Thanks for the welcome, like I said I have felt darn lonely the last few
months. Speaking of batteries, we have been toying with the idea of making
my fox lithium powered, for the fun of it.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of kurt schrader
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 12:03 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: renewed lister
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader
<smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
Great that you are back John.
You have knowledge of things developed first in models
that will eventually show up on 1:1 scale. And they
are lighter in weight too.
Speaking of batteries.... ;-)
Kurt S.
--- John Oakley <john@leptron.com> wrote:
> 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 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: 1st solo x-country, and pavement landing |
Nice going Lynn. Mt. Pleasant is just outside my 40 mile FAA tether or I could
have met you there. I have 5.5 hours to go until the tether is cut. I put in a
NavMan 2100 flow meter (marine model) last week. Haven't checked it for accuracy
yet but it shows a fuel burn of about 2.5 gph at 5000 rpm (cruise) and 7 gph
at full throttle (6200 rpm). I hope it will eliminate the guess work. If so
it will be well worth the price at $111.95.
Looking forward to a Michigan gathering of the Foxes sometime. This Fall maybe?
Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net> wrote:
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson
Having done my dual x-country the day before, I was sent on my 1st solo
x-country Tuesday....a 109 statute-mile trek up to Mt. Pleasant,
Michigan. I did all the math, plotted a course, filed a flight plan,
and other than being bumpier than I would have liked, it was fun, and
came out as expected...right at the airport...isn't science wonderful?
I had a GPS, but didn't use it for the trip up, but used it on the
return leg, which my instructor had said was alright. On the return
leg, I diverted over the Central Michigan Dragway, where I used to race
in another life. : )....and over a house in which I used to live. I
actually plotted out the diverted return trip, but used the GPS to find
things, as there are few good landmarks in that area. I found that it
was quite difficult to locate a grass airport when you are circling
right over it! Sorry, Marco, Deke, Rex, Richard, and others, you all
live further away than my instructor wanted me to go. : )....next time
for sure. Oh yeah, this was also my first solo shot at a pavement
landing, which went ok as well....about a 20 mph, 30 degree crosswind,
so not too shabby, I guess.
The return trip was longer, and I was able to get a rough figure on
fuel burn over the 168 s. miles. I used about 3.75 US gallons per hour.
This is in a Kitfox IV with Jabiru 2200 engine, and I was running about
2400-2700 rpm for the most part...just cruising around seeing the
sights, and having fun. This is by no means an accurate count. But as I
use fuel up this week, I will have to re-fuel at a "metered" facility
and will get data that will be more meaningful. I usually fuel up at my
hangar, but that tank ran dry, and there is no way to measure...not yet
anyway...the amount that it takes to fill. When the big truck comes to
refill my storage tank, I'll see about getting a flow meter, so I can
get better numbers on how much I'm putting into the plane, and
therefore better numbers on fuel burn.
This just about wraps up the training required for my sport pilot
cert., and I'll be scheduling a checkride in the next week or so.
Lynn
Kitfox IV...Jabiru 2200
Marco Menezes
Model 2 582 N99KX
---------------------------------
Stay in the know. Pulse on the new Yahoo.com. Check it out.
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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
John,
What are the most light weight batteries that are used
on electric planes these days - Li?
Make sure it isn't a Dell.... HA ha
I suspect we could cut several battery pounds off,
give enough $.
Kurt S.
--- John Oakley <john@leptron.com> wrote:
> Kurt,
> Thanks for the welcome, like I said I have felt darn
> lonely the last few
> months. Speaking of batteries, we have been toying
> with the idea of making
> my fox lithium powered, for the fun of it.
>
> John
__________________________________________________
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "John Oakley" <john@leptron.com>
Kurt,
The current lipoly batteries are by far the best power per pound. Currently
they are capable of as much as 50C discharge rates and 3 to 4 c charge
rates. For our UAV projects it has moved us away from nitro and gas power to
high horsepower motors. We now can run a 12lb chopper for 45 minutes with a
15lb weight (Computers, cameras, guns ect) on board. Lipo batteries for auto
in Europe now run 144volt systems using lipo's that are the size of a note
book sheet of paper and an 1/8th inch thick and hold 20 amps each. Several
people have flown manned glass airplanes for over 150 miles on battery
alone.
I believe the Dell bat. Problem is in the pack wiring and not the cells.
Lipo battery fires are nasty, but can be controlled with normal equipment.
The future (month or two) is li-nickel; they are capable of 100 C discharge
rates... cool stuff.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of kurt schrader
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 1:55 PM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: renewed lister
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader
<smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
John,
What are the most light weight batteries that are used
on electric planes these days - Li?
Make sure it isn't a Dell.... HA ha
I suspect we could cut several battery pounds off,
give enough $.
Kurt S.
--- John Oakley <john@leptron.com> wrote:
> Kurt,
> Thanks for the welcome, like I said I have felt darn
> lonely the last few
> months. Speaking of batteries, we have been toying
> with the idea of making
> my fox lithium powered, for the fun of it.
>
> John
__________________________________________________
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: | Southern CA Rotax Service Center |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Scott Patterson <scott@lifeseeker.com>
Fellow Kitfox Aviators,
Does anyone know of a southern CA ROTAX service center?
Scott Patterson
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: 1st solo x-country, and pavement landing |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net>
Gary-
Is the "box with electrical connection" possibly the altitude encoder?
When I installed my transponder just recently, it came (used from my
instructor) with an Altitude Digitizer, also known (by me at least) as
an altitude encoder, which needs a source of static pressure to sense
where in the world it is, height-wise. I have installed two static
ports, using the location given by the Skystar instructions. Somebody
here on the list suggested two as opposed to just the one, to offset
any fluctuations during slips. At that time I didn't know a slip from a
lady's undergarment, so I went ahead and installed the second directly
across the fuselage from the first one. Now when I slip (I know what
one is now!) there seems to be no change in airspeed, as was suggested
might happen with only one static port, slipping to the single-ported
side.
When I bought my EIS from Pete Krotje at Jabiru USA, he said to
probably not bother with the fuel flow accessory, as it was used mainly
to sense when the main needle was being pulled out of the jet, and
going into a richer condition, like at higher rpms. (Hope I quoted him
correctly). Now that I've got some time on me and the plane, I think
I'll get the flow meter, as I'd like to see this transition point, and
be able to stay below that fuel-gobbling point if I care to.
In regards to the EGT temps, Pete suggested that I rotate the carb
slightly in its' mounting sleeve, such that the top of the carb is
going towards the rich (cold) side, and the bottom towards the lean
(hot) side....hope I recall those directions correctly. I did this, and
my EGT's settled down from the left side being hotter. At cruise, which
ranges from 85 mph to 100, depending on the wind, and what rpm I decide
is tickling my fancy at that moment, my EGT's are around 1390 to 1420
or so. I'll eventually settle down from looking at the scenery, and do
a better job of recording info, but I'm still learning to fly, so I'm
trying to keep my eyes outside, and not having someone along to record
info (oughtta fire up that little tape recorder I've got at the
hangar), I'm just taking occasional glances at the EIS and other
gauges. Maybe I'll make "number gathering" a priority on tonight's
flight.
I even asked Pete what should the EGT span be and he said there were no
published figures. I set mine at 200, and get an occasional red light
while climbing, I level off and it goes away. Sometimes I get a red
light warning of EGT span when initially climbing out for the first
flight of the day, in the cool mornings of lower Michigan (plug for the
Tourist Commission), but it goes away sometimes before I can reach up
to "acknowledge". During cruise while on my x-cntry, my span was about
20-30 degrees on the EGT's. More info as I get it...
Lynn
p.s. Is your engine new enough to have the factory-fitted lean burn kit
installed? Mine is Serial #2062 ( as I recall) and it has it. I think
they started the lean burn at something around #1800.
On Thursday, August 17, 2006, at 03:06 PM, Algate wrote:
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Algate" <algate@attglobal.net>
>
>
> Hello Lynn
>
> Congrats on your flight. As you know I recently purchased a Model 4
> with Jab
> 2200 and I fitted a fuel flow meter to analyze fuel consumption etc.
>
> At 2740 rpm I am burning 14.00 Ltr/hr (3.6USG) and at 2600 I am
> burning
> under 13 Ltr/hr (3.4USG) so we pretty much agree. One question though
> what
> speed are you cruising at these RPM's?
>
> I have played around with jets etc as I still have a slight problem on
> take
> off where my front cylinder EGT's peak at 3100 rpm. Once I throttle
> back
> even 100 rpm the EGT falls into line. Apart from this anomaly all
> temps are
> absolutely perfect (especially in cruise). The Jabiru dealer told me I
> am
> basically being over concerned and I should not worry about it. I just
> hate
> giving up on a nagging problem.
>
> The other problem I have is related to instrumentation where my VSI is
> reading about 400 ft/min low (even when stationary) and my Altimeter
> reads
> about 500ft high when I calibrate with the tower. This plane has a dual
> Pitot - one with a forward facing opening and the other (welded to it)
> has a
> side facing orifice. I though it might be a blockage there but even
> when I
> pull the static line from the back of the instruments nothing changes.
>
> I don't really understand the VSI/Air speed/Altimeter circuitry yet as
> the
> Static line is connected to a box with electrical connection behind the
> panel and I assume this has something to do with the Engine monitoring
> system??
>
> Damn - unless someone can help me I might be forced to read the
> instructions.....
>
> Regards
>
> Gary Algate
>
>
> The return trip was longer, and I was able to get a rough figure on
> fuel burn over the 168 s. miles. I used about 3.75 US gallons per hour.
> This is in a Kitfox IV with Jabiru 2200 engine, and I was running about
> 2400-2700 rpm for the most part
>
>
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: 1st solo x-country, and pavement landing |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net>
Hi Marco-
Sounds good to me...I should have my "ticket to ride" by then. I
thought about going to yours, Dekes, Bill Willyard's, Richard's...all
just a pinch too far for my instructor's well-being. It was really nice
to see Mid-Michigan by air, but I did get a little nervous and
purposely wandered off-course when I saw a LOT of trees up by Ithaca.
As soon as I get my freedom though, I'll have to get used to having
trees under me if I'm gonna go anyplace. : )
Lynn
On Thursday, August 17, 2006, at 03:19 PM, Marco Menezes wrote:
> Nice going Lynn. Mt. Pleasant is just outside my 40 mile FAA tether or
> I could have met you there. I have 5.5 hours to gountil the tetheris
> cut. I put in a NavMan 2100 flow meter (marine model) last week.
> Haven't checked it for accuracy yet but it shows a fuel burnof about
> 2.5 gph at 5000 rpm (cruise) and 7 gph at full throttle (6200 rpm). I
> hope it will eliminate the guess work. If so it will be well worth the
> price at $111.95.
>
> Looking forward to a Michigan gathering of the Foxes sometime. This
> Fall maybe?
>
>
> Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net> wrote:
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson
>
> Having done my dual x-country the day before, I was sent on my 1st solo
> x-country Tuesday....a 109 statute-mile trek up to Mt. Pleasant,
> Michigan. I did all the math, plotted a course, filed a flight plan,
> and other than being bumpier than I would have liked, it was fun, and
> came out as expected...right at the airport...isn't science wonderful?
> I had a GPS, but didn't use it for the trip up, but used it on the
> return leg, which my instructor had said was alright. On the return
> leg, I diverted over the Central Michigan Dragway, where I used to race
> in another life. : )....and over a house in which I used to live. I
> actually plotted out the diverted return trip, but used the GPS to find
> things, as there are few good landmarks in that area. I found that it
> was quite difficult to locate a grass airport when you are circling
> right over it! Sorry, Marco, Deke, Rex, Richard, and others, you all
> live further away than my instructor wanted me to go. : )....next time
> for sure. Oh yeah, this was also my first solo shot at a pavement
> landing, which went ok as well....about a 20 mph, 30 degree crosswind,
> so not too shabby, I guess.
>
> The return trip was longer, and I was able to get a rough figure on
> fuel burn over the 168 s. miles. I used about 3.75 US gallons per hour.
> This is in a Kitfox IV with Jabiru 2200 engine, and I was running about
> 2400-2700 rpm for the most part...just cruising around seeing the
> sights, and having fun. This is by no means an accurate count. But as I
> use fuel up this week, I will have to re-fuel at a "metered" facility
> and will get data that will be more meaningful. I usually fuel up at my
> hangar, but that tank ran dry, and there is no way to measure...not yet
> anyway...the amount that it takes to fill. When the big truck comes to
> refill my storage tank, I'll see about getting a flow meter, so I can
> get better numbers on how much I'm putting into the plane, and
> therefore better numbers on fuel burn.
>
> This just about wraps up the training
<image.tiff>
>
> Stay in the know. Pulse on the new Yahoo.com. Check it out.
>
>
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 |
|
Steve
I bought a Lowrance 2000C at Arlington last month.
I have only flown with it about an 2 hours in the (Idaho) foothills and
it
worked great.
The terrain in the side view works superb as it tells you how high you
are,
how high the mountain is, how far away from you it is, as well as what
the
terrain is on the other side of the mountain or object is.
I paid $709.00 with a $225.00 rebate from my AirMap 100. Net price of
$484.00.(deal of the year)
Pacific-Coast Avionics 800-353-0370
Mark Miller
----- Original Message -----
From: Mark Thompson
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 10:54 PM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: GPS Units
Hi Steve,I use the same Lorance gps 2000c in my plane and also in my
truck,and boat.....its a nice unit with color graphics and is loaded
with all the current nav sys.........I paid around $800 for it about 6
months ago,some places wanted $1200 for the same thing,so do your
shopping..
I cant remember off hand where I bought mine,but if you need to know
,let me know and I will dig up the reciept.
See Ya Mark
----- Original Message -----
From: Steve Wilson
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: 8/16/2006 12:13:32 AM
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 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 |
|
For anyone interested in the Lowrance 2000c GPS:
I have found that Airplane Gear.com, PilotMall.com and Pilotshop.com all
have the Lowrance 2000c on sale for $695 at this time. I think that
Pilotshop also pays the shipping.
Steve Wilson
----- Original Message -----
From: Mark R Miller
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 3:46 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: GPS Units
Steve
I bought a Lowrance 2000C at Arlington last month.
I have only flown with it about an 2 hours in the (Idaho) foothills
and it
worked great.
The terrain in the side view works superb as it tells you how high you
are,
how high the mountain is, how far away from you it is, as well as
what the
terrain is on the other side of the mountain or object is.
I paid $709.00 with a $225.00 rebate from my AirMap 100. Net price of
$484.00.(deal of the year)
Pacific-Coast Avionics 800-353-0370
Mark Miller
----- Original Message -----
From: Mark Thompson
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 10:54 PM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: GPS Units
Hi Steve,I use the same Lorance gps 2000c in my plane and also in my
truck,and boat.....its a nice unit with color graphics and is loaded
with all the current nav sys.........I paid around $800 for it about 6
months ago,some places wanted $1200 for the same thing,so do your
shopping..
I cant remember off hand where I bought mine,but if you need to know
,let me know and I will dig up the reciept.
See Ya Mark
----- Original Message -----
From: Steve Wilson
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: 8/16/2006 12:13:32 AM
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 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: 1st solo x-country, and pavement landing |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Fox5flyer" <morid@northland.lib.mi.us>
Kudos Lynn. It won't be long before you'll be perusing the Michigan
directory looking for new places to go without having to ask ANYBODY. :-)
I received your bio and will add it to the Michigan list that I'll be
sending it out to you folks soon. I'm a bit hesitant to make it completely
public as some may not like personal info placed on the list, so I'm only
sending it to the people who are actually on it.
This is just a first step without knowing where the second step will go.
I had no idea we had so many Kitfoxes in Michigan and it makes me wonder how
many more there are out there who aren't on the Kitfox List.
Deke
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lynn Matteson" <lynnmatt@jps.net>
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 1:22 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: 1st solo x-country, and pavement landing
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net>
>
> Having done my dual x-country the day before, I was sent on my 1st solo
> x-country Tuesday....a 109 statute-mile trek up to Mt. Pleasant,
> Michigan. I did all the math, plotted a course, filed a flight plan,
> and other than being bumpier than I would have liked, it was fun, and
> came out as expected...right at the airport...isn't science wonderful?
> I had a GPS, but didn't use it for the trip up, but used it on the
> return leg, which my instructor had said was alright. On the return
> leg, I diverted over the Central Michigan Dragway, where I used to race
> in another life. : )....and over a house in which I used to live. I
> actually plotted out the diverted return trip, but used the GPS to find
> things, as there are few good landmarks in that area. I found that it
> was quite difficult to locate a grass airport when you are circling
> right over it! Sorry, Marco, Deke, Rex, Richard, and others, you all
> live further away than my instructor wanted me to go. : )....next time
> for sure. Oh yeah, this was also my first solo shot at a pavement
> landing, which went ok as well....about a 20 mph, 30 degree crosswind,
> so not too shabby, I guess.
>
> The return trip was longer, and I was able to get a rough figure on
> fuel burn over the 168 s. miles. I used about 3.75 US gallons per hour.
> This is in a Kitfox IV with Jabiru 2200 engine, and I was running about
> 2400-2700 rpm for the most part...just cruising around seeing the
> sights, and having fun. This is by no means an accurate count. But as I
> use fuel up this week, I will have to re-fuel at a "metered" facility
> and will get data that will be more meaningful. I usually fuel up at my
> hangar, but that tank ran dry, and there is no way to measure...not yet
> anyway...the amount that it takes to fill. When the big truck comes to
> refill my storage tank, I'll see about getting a flow meter, so I can
> get better numbers on how much I'm putting into the plane, and
> therefore better numbers on fuel burn.
>
> This just about wraps up the training required for my sport pilot
> cert., and I'll be scheduling a checkride in the next week or so.
>
> Lynn
> Kitfox IV...Jabiru 2200
>
>
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: | Rotax Service Bulletin Compliance |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Scott Patterson <scott@lifeseeker.com>
Fellow Kitfox Aviators,
I'm purchasing a Model IV with a Rotax 912UL. Twenty-five service bulletins
exist for that engine. What procedure did most of you follow to ensure
compliance?
I was intending to have a Rotax Airworthiness Representative inspect for
compliance of all such repairs not specifically addressed in the engine
logbook.
--
Scott Patterson
S & P Brokerage, LLC
1339 Playa Azul, PO Box 2588
Avalon, CA 90704
310-510-2392 Office
310-510-2371 Fax
310-433-7728 Cell
scott@spbrokerage.com
Check Out My Recently Published Novel:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1425937810
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: | KF 5 Vixen Rudder & Poly-Fiber Material Quantities |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Allen Gandy" <allen.gandy@ngc.com>
Building KF 5 (Vixen) and have couple of questions that manual doesn't seem to
cover. First, the rudder cable will rub fabric at rear of fuselage. Is there
a different rudder horn to bolt onto rudder to provide clearance or is there
another method? Second, what quantities of Poly-Tak, Brush, Spray, and Tone should
it take?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=55375#55375
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 5 Vixen Rudder & Poly-Fiber Material Quantities |
It does not seem to rub on my vixen, also there is a plastic guide that can
be used at the exit point out of the tale fabric, Aircraft Spruce carries the
guides.
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: | Michigan Kitfoxers |
I've sent out the List of Michigan Kitfoxers to all those who advised
they wanted to be on it. Anyone who was left off, please let me know.
Deke
Message 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Potential Customer |
We have a potential customer in West Illinois that would like to talk to
someone building in the area..
Fly Safe !!
John & Debra McBean
www.kitfoxaircraft.com
"It's not how Fast... It's how Fun!"
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: | some Jabiru numbers |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net>
Hi Gary-
I've got some numbers for you...I'll just post 'em and get going on a
cold one, and we can discuss 'em later...
Wind was 4 knots...maybe different at the 2500-3000 ft I was at. I am
at 960-980-1000' elevation here in Mich. on most of the airports nearby.
Max climb out rpm was 2840...it's always about that.
2640rpm-mph ground speed across wind direction @3200'
2750-60=100mph ground speed across wind direction @3500
Max speed today was 123mph grd spd@ 3120 rpm @ 2200'
Looks like every 5mph costs me about 100rpm, eh?
upwind: 88mph grd spd 2400' @2530 rpm
92mph air spd at same time
downwind: 96mph grd spd 2300' @2500 rpm
86 air spd at same time
288 head temp....1427 EGT...then 271 head and 1404 EGT @ 90 mph and
I didn't record what direction or rpm on that one, or if I loaded or
unloaded the prop.
also: 2360rpm @ 94 mph grd spd, and 2350rpm @ 93 mph grd spd
I tried to stay crosswind at all times except for the above mentioned
upwind and downwind figures.
Well, there you have it...the temp was about 75 F, the baro pressure
was about 31.04 earlier in the day and hadn't changed much as I recall.
I really wasn't paying much attention to what the conditions
were...just nice. : ) These figures were taken at 6:45 to 7:15 PM here
in Michigan, where flying for a sport pilot has to end about 8:40 these
days...gettin' dark.
Lynn
Kitfox IV Speedster...Jabiru 2200
p.s. wheelpants, strut fairings, airfoiled hort stab and fin and rudder
Message 24
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Michigan Kitfoxers |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net>
Deke-
I just sent you everything I know about myself, and the plane. : )
Lynn
On Wednesday, August 16, 2006, at 10:38 AM, Fox5flyer wrote:
> 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'scomplete 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 offlight somewhere.
>
> Thanks,
> Deke Morisse
> Mikado (NE near Alpena) MI
> S5
>
>
>
>
Message 25
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 1st solo x-country, and pavement landing |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net>
Thanks, Deke...I was thinking when I sent it direct to you that it made
me look a bit paranoid, but I figured you'd do the right thing. Share
it with anyone who asks unless it's a stranger with a rather Mid-East
sounding name, maybe looking to buy cellphones. : )
Lynn
do not archive
On Thursday, August 17, 2006, at 07:17 PM, Fox5flyer wrote:
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Fox5flyer"
> <morid@northland.lib.mi.us>
>
> Kudos Lynn. It won't be long before you'll be perusing the Michigan
> directory looking for new places to go without having to ask ANYBODY.
> :-)
> I received your bio and will add it to the Michigan list that I'll be
> sending it out to you folks soon. I'm a bit hesitant to make it
> completely
> public as some may not like personal info placed on the list, so I'm
> only
> sending it to the people who are actually on it.
> This is just a first step without knowing where the second step will
> go.
> I had no idea we had so many Kitfoxes in Michigan and it makes me
> wonder how
> many more there are out there who aren't on the Kitfox List.
> Deke
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Lynn Matteson" <lynnmatt@jps.net>
> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 1:22 PM
> Subject: Kitfox-List: 1st solo x-country, and pavement landing
Message 26
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Michigan Kitfoxers |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net>
Warning to all Kitfox owners: don't invite John May to your
fly-in...his plane is too damn pretty! If he registers, you lose the
trophy. : )
Lynn
On Thursday, August 17, 2006, at 08:13 PM, Fox5flyer wrote:
> I've sent out the List of Michigan Kitfoxers to all those who advised
> they wanted to be on it. Anyone who was left off, please let me know.
> Deke
>
>
>
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: some Jabiru numbers |
What prop are you swinging on the Jabiru?
On 8/17/06, Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net> wrote:
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net>
>
> Hi Gary-
> I've got some numbers for you...I'll just post 'em and get going on a
> cold one, and we can discuss 'em later...
>
> Wind was 4 knots...maybe different at the 2500-3000 ft I was at. I am
> at 960-980-1000' elevation here in Mich. on most of the airports nearby.
>
> Max climb out rpm was 2840...it's always about that.
>
> 2640rpm-mph ground speed across wind direction @3200'
>
> 2750-60=100mph ground speed across wind direction @3500
>
> Max speed today was 123mph grd spd@ 3120 rpm @ 2200'
>
> Looks like every 5mph costs me about 100rpm, eh?
>
> upwind: 88mph grd spd 2400' @2530 rpm
> 92mph air spd at same time
>
> downwind: 96mph grd spd 2300' @2500 rpm
> 86 air spd at same time
>
> 288=B0 head temp....1427=B0 EGT...then 271=B0 head and 1404=B0 EGT @ 90 m
ph and
> I didn't record what direction or rpm on that one, or if I loaded or
> unloaded the prop.
>
> also: 2360rpm @ 94 mph grd spd, and 2350rpm @ 93 mph grd spd
>
> I tried to stay crosswind at all times except for the above mentioned
> upwind and downwind figures.
>
> Well, there you have it...the temp was about 75 F, the baro pressure
> was about 31.04 earlier in the day and hadn't changed much as I recall.
> I really wasn't paying much attention to what the conditions
> were...just nice. : ) These figures were taken at 6:45 to 7:15 PM here
> in Michigan, where flying for a sport pilot has to end about 8:40 these
> days...gettin' dark.
>
> Lynn
> Kitfox IV Speedster...Jabiru 2200
> p.s. wheelpants, strut fairings, airfoiled hort stab and fin and rudder
>
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
>
--
John Marzulli
http://701Builder.blogspot.com/
"Flying a plane is no different than riding a bicycle... it's just a lot
harder to put baseball cards in the spokes.
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: 1st solo x-country, and pavement landing |
Way to go, Lynn. Extend to Toledo when you finish with the FAA hoops.
Fred
do not archive
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: Michigan Kitfoxers |
Thanks for the extra work, Deke.
Fred
do not archive
Message 30
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "spudnuts" <martan@cstone.net>
I've gone from a tri-gear 2002 Symphony to a Cessna 140 that I'm guessing is older
than me (48). Its freaking me out a little, darn that little sucker is squirrelly.
I now have 2 hrs in the 140 and finally did a sorta ok takeoff and got
one of my 5 landings (my first grass strip) uh, reasonable, but man that tail
is twitchy! (And man do I hate a steering wheel)
Why is it again that everyone builds their kitfoxes with tailwheels? I'm sorry,
but all it seems to me is that it only makes landings and takeoffs harder, what
is the utility of tailwheel? Is it only for unimproved strips and grass?
Why is it better? Performance? If this is some sort of blasphemy I speak- forgive
me :)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=55407#55407
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: why tailwheel malcolm |
If we need to explain it you wouldn't understand malcolm michigan tail
wheel pilot
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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "John Oakley" <john@leptron.com>
You will soon forget the pain of tail wheels, they are faster and more
stable in the air, you can carry more snacks and a spare tire :-). They will
always keep you alert but a castering nose is just as bad.
John Oakley
I've gone from a tri-gear 2002 Symphony to a Cessna 140 that I'm guessing is
older than me (48). Its freaking me out a little, darn that little sucker
is squirrelly. I now have 2 hrs in the 140 and finally did a sorta ok
takeoff and got one of my 5 landings (my first grass strip) uh, reasonable,
but man that tail is twitchy! (And man do I hate a steering wheel)
Why is it again that everyone builds their kitfoxes with tailwheels? I'm
sorry, but all it seems to me is that it only makes landings and takeoffs
harder, what is the utility of tailwheel? Is it only for unimproved strips
and grass? Why is it better? Performance? If this is some sort of
blasphemy I speak- forgive me :)
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: why tailwheel |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
This year you will hate it. Next year you will love
it. Like driving your first stick shift with a clutch
after only automatics. Be patient....
Kurt S.
--- spudnuts <martan@cstone.net> wrote:
> I've gone from a tri-gear 2002 Symphony to a Cessna
> 140 that I'm guessing is older than me (48). Its
> freaking me out a little, darn that little sucker is
> squirrelly. I now have 2 hrs in the 140 and finally
> did a sorta ok takeoff and got one of my 5 landings
> (my first grass strip) uh, reasonable, but man that
> tail is twitchy! (And man do I hate a steering
> wheel)
>
> Why is it again that everyone builds their kitfoxes
> with tailwheels? I'm sorry, but all it seems to me
> is that it only makes landings and takeoffs harder,
> what is the utility of tailwheel? Is it only for
> unimproved strips and grass? Why is it better?
> Performance? If this is some sort of blasphemy I
> speak- forgive me :)
__________________________________________________
Message 34
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: why tailwheel malcolm |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "spudnuts" <martan@cstone.net>
Really. Sounds like religion. It seems to be a macho thing more than practical.
Why is it better.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=55422#55422
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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
John,
I know of one group working on a 500 mile range 2
seater, but they will convert to fuel cells in the
final form. Fuel up, turn on, go....quietly. :-)
Way lower maintenance.
If the new bats can be quickly swapped out, have the
range, and can be recharged and operated at low enough
cost, they can compete with fuel cells.
It is not the big guys, but the little guys who
innovate the most.
Kurt S.
--- John Oakley <john@leptron.com> wrote:
> Kurt,
> The current lipoly batteries are by far the best
> power per pound. Currently
> they are capable of as much as 50C discharge rates
> and 3 to 4 c charge
> rates. For our UAV projects it has moved us away
> from nitro and gas power to
> high horsepower motors. We now can run a 12lb
> chopper for 45 minutes with a
> 15lb weight (Computers, cameras, guns ect) on board.
> Lipo batteries for auto
> in Europe now run 144volt systems using lipo's that
> are the size of a note
> book sheet of paper and an 1/8th inch thick and hold
> 20 amps each. Several
> people have flown manned glass airplanes for over
> 150 miles on battery alone.
> I believe the Dell bat. Problem is in the pack
> wiring and not the cells.
> Lipo battery fires are nasty, but can be controlled
> with normal equipment.
> The future (month or two) is li-nickel; they are
> capable of 100 C discharge rates... cool stuff.
>
> John
__________________________________________________
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: why tailwheel malcolm |
It's very practical mate, as soon as you have an engine out landing in a
paddock you will the realise the benifits and safety of a tailwheel, no
furrow plough wheel to dig in and flip you over, it happens more often than
you think, see the info included from my website www.aeropup.com the Pup
Pure Pup Logic The AEROPUP kitplane design ...the logic from the outset
was that it MUST be....
1... Safe 2... Stable 3... Strong 4... practical 5...
Comfortable 6.Fast
To be safe we decided to look at the past Supapups Mk 1, 2 and 3 all of
which have enviable safety records and are always highly spoken of by their
owners. The conclusion was reached that we stay with the "tractor" style
(engine in the front where it should be), the engine itself is a form of
protection in the event of a forced landing that may get ugly, at least you
have something in front of you and not all that weight behind coming at you
!!!
The twin fuel tanks in the wings puts the fuel in the safest place instead
of in the fuselage with the pilot, you don't want to be trapped in an
accident which ends up seeing you inverted. ( it's more common than you
think ! ) inside a "bubble" type canopy with no way out and fuel dripping
just waiting to explode, I personal will not fly in a low wing bubble style
canopy aircraft, what did the old time fighter pilots do ? they would slide
the canopy back when landing so they had a chance of getting out if
something went wrong, you cant do that in most of these "modern" death
traps. Some defend this argument by saying "but I am not going to tip it
over" these dreamers have not thought about the "what if" situation but when
they end up there they will certainly think about it then !!!
The tail wheel design is because you do not always have a choice of where
you are going to HAVE to put down, think about it ...why were all the early
planes taildraggers ? because there weren't a huge number of really good
landing strips around and if you have an engine failure (which happens) and
you are coming down into a paddock... I want to be in a taildragger with no
chance of the nose wheel digging in or breaking off and flipping it over
upside down (it happens)!
The high wing configuration, provides extraordinary stability due to the
fuselage "hanging" off the wing platform, at the same time giving the best
possible vision to see what you are flying over , who wants to be looking at
an empty sky above all the time? In the event of an accident or flip over
the doors fold up under the wing you cannot get trapped inside.
STRENGTH was built in via the CHROMOLY steel tube fuselage which effectively
makes a crash cage around the occupants similar to drag car race frames ,
it's better to "be SAFE than sorry". In the event of a "bingle" it's easy to
repair, damage an all metal plane and see what dramas you'll have repairing
it, or constantly be checking composite constructed planes for delamination,
stress fractures, and sun damage, that is once your health has accepted
dealing with accumulative epoxy resins, have a close look at composite
crashed planes and see how the cabin just disintegrates leaving no
protection, or with timber you need to monitor moisture penetration and wood
rot which can be disastrous.
It's a very PRACTICAL plane because it has fast folding wings that can be
folded to legal trailering width within a few minutes, even the assembly is
practical because it can be done in months not years, no tradesman skills
required.
COMFORT is important if you are on a long haul and a fast 100 knots
180km/phr cruise means you can get places, even if there is a head wind.
The Aeropup Two place recreational kit plane making flying affordable.
www.aeropup.com Ph 1300 724 824 or
08 8552 2882
A/h 08 8552 8986 direct mobile 0427 347 840
John Cotton
-----
From: "spudnuts" <martan@cstone.net>
Sent: Friday, August 18, 2006 1:07 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: why tailwheel malcolm
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "spudnuts" <martan@cstone.net>
>
> Really. Sounds like religion. It seems to be a macho thing more than
> practical. Why is it better.
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=55422#55422
>
>
>
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: why tailwheel malcolm |
It's very practical mate, as soon as you have an engine out landing in a
paddock you will the realise the benifits and safety of a tailwheel, no
furrow plough wheel to dig in and flip you over, it happens more often than
you think, see the info included from my website www.aeropup.com the Pup
Pure Pup Logic The AEROPUP kitplane design ...the logic from the outset
was that it MUST be....
1... Safe 2... Stable 3... Strong 4... practical 5...
Comfortable 6.Fast
To be safe we decided to look at the past Supapups Mk 1, 2 and 3 all of
which have enviable safety records and are always highly spoken of by their
owners. The conclusion was reached that we stay with the "tractor" style
(engine in the front where it should be), the engine itself is a form of
protection in the event of a forced landing that may get ugly, at least you
have something in front of you and not all that weight behind coming at you
!!!
The twin fuel tanks in the wings puts the fuel in the safest place instead
of in the fuselage with the pilot, you don't want to be trapped in an
accident which ends up seeing you inverted. ( it's more common than you
think ! ) inside a "bubble" type canopy with no way out and fuel dripping
just waiting to explode, I personal will not fly in a low wing bubble style
canopy aircraft, what did the old time fighter pilots do ? they would slide
the canopy back when landing so they had a chance of getting out if
something went wrong, you cant do that in most of these "modern" death
traps. Some defend this argument by saying "but I am not going to tip it
over" these dreamers have not thought about the "what if" situation but when
they end up there they will certainly think about it then !!!
The tail wheel design is because you do not always have a choice of where
you are going to HAVE to put down, think about it ...why were all the early
planes taildraggers ? because there weren't a huge number of really good
landing strips around and if you have an engine failure (which happens) and
you are coming down into a paddock... I want to be in a taildragger with no
chance of the nose wheel digging in or breaking off and flipping it over
upside down (it happens)!
The high wing configuration, provides extraordinary stability due to the
fuselage "hanging" off the wing platform, at the same time giving the best
possible vision to see what you are flying over , who wants to be looking at
an empty sky above all the time? In the event of an accident or flip over
the doors fold up under the wing you cannot get trapped inside.
STRENGTH was built in via the CHROMOLY steel tube fuselage which effectively
makes a crash cage around the occupants similar to drag car race frames ,
it's better to "be SAFE than sorry". In the event of a "bingle" it's easy to
repair, damage an all metal plane and see what dramas you'll have repairing
it, or constantly be checking composite constructed planes for delamination,
stress fractures, and sun damage, that is once your health has accepted
dealing with accumulative epoxy resins, have a close look at composite
crashed planes and see how the cabin just disintegrates leaving no
protection, or with timber you need to monitor moisture penetration and wood
rot which can be disastrous.
It's a very PRACTICAL plane because it has fast folding wings that can be
folded to legal trailering width within a few minutes, even the assembly is
practical because it can be done in months not years, no tradesman skills
required.
COMFORT is important if you are on a long haul and a fast 100 knots
180km/phr cruise means you can get places, even if there is a head wind.
The Aeropup Two place recreational kit plane making flying affordable.
www.aeropup.com Ph 1300 724 824 or
08 8552 2882
A/h 08 8552 8986 direct mobile 0427 347 840
John Cotton
-----
From: "spudnuts" <martan@cstone.net>
Sent: Friday, August 18, 2006 1:07 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: why tailwheel malcolm
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "spudnuts" <martan@cstone.net>
>
> Really. Sounds like religion. It seems to be a macho thing more than
> practical. Why is it better.
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=55422#55422
>
>
>
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: | Cover and Finish |
Message
Has anybody on the list used, or do you know anybody that has used,
STEWART'S AIRCRAFT FINISHING SYSTEM to cover and finish their tube and
fabric plane? This system was formerly known as AIRCRAFT FINISHING
SYSTEMS. Thanks.
Andy F.
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! --
|