Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:42 AM - Re: Re: Ethanol and wing tanks Ethanol and wing tanks (Michael Gibbs)
2. 01:16 AM - Re: why tailwheel (Michael Gibbs)
3. 01:58 AM - Re: KF 5 Vixen Rudder (David Steade)
4. 03:45 AM - Re: Re: why tailwheel malcolm (Brian Rodgers)
5. 04:12 AM - Re: 1st solo x-country, and pavement landing (Lynn Matteson)
6. 04:59 AM - Re: why tailwheel (W Duke)
7. 05:11 AM - Re: some Jabiru numbers (Lynn Matteson)
8. 06:13 AM - Re: some Jabiru numbers (Mike Chaney)
9. 06:48 AM - Re: Re: Ethanol and wing tanks Ethanol and wing tanks (Noel Loveys)
10. 06:55 AM - Re: Re: why tailwheel (Noel Loveys)
11. 07:27 AM - Re: Cover and Finish (Stan Bearup)
12. 08:16 AM - Re: why tailwheel (kitfoxmike)
13. 08:26 AM - Re: why tailwheel (kitfoxmike)
14. 08:57 AM - Re: Re: why tailwheel malcolm (Marco Menezes)
15. 09:13 AM - Re: why tailwheel (spudnuts)
16. 09:15 AM - Re: Re: Ethanol and wing tanks Ethanol and wing tanks (PWilson)
17. 09:48 AM - AFS finishes (Fred Shiple)
18. 10:53 AM - Kitfox for sale (Don Smythe)
19. 10:53 AM - Firewall Forward for Sale (Napier, Mark)
20. 11:52 AM - Kitfox IV cowling (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Geir_Olav_=D8ien?=)
21. 11:57 AM - why tailwheels (AMuller589@AOL.COM)
22. 12:36 PM - Re: Firewall Forward for Sale (Bradley M Webb)
23. 01:06 PM - Re: Cover and Finish (kerrjohna@comcast.net)
24. 02:47 PM - Re: Kitfox IV cowling (Michel Verheughe)
25. 03:30 PM - Re: Cover and Finish (Stan Bearup)
26. 04:03 PM - Re: Kitfox IV cowling (Rexster)
27. 04:21 PM - Re: Re: why tailwheel (Lynn Matteson)
28. 04:46 PM - Re: why tailwheels (Richard Rabbers)
29. 04:50 PM - Re: why tailwheel (Richard Rabbers)
30. 05:46 PM - Building a new Fox (spudnuts)
31. 06:11 PM - Re: Re: why tailwheel (Jose M. Toro)
32. 06:55 PM - Re: why tailwheels (flier)
33. 07:28 PM - Re: KF 5 Vixen Rudder (John Anderson)
34. 07:34 PM - Re: Building a new Fox (Dan Billingsley)
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>
Noel sez:
>There are holes in your argument. First we are talking about a
>rating not a ratio.
It's not my "argument" Noel, it's the definition of "octane rating".
From Wikipedia <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octane>:
"...Octane ratings are ratings used to represent the anti-knock
performance of petroleum-based fuels (octane is less likely to
prematurely combust under pressure than heptane), given as the
percentage of 2,2,4-trimethylpentane in an 2,2,4-trimethylpentane /
n-heptane mixture that would have the same performance."
A "percentage" cannot exceed 100, by definition.
>Pure ethanol has an octane rating of around 110.
I am not an expert on fuels. Rather than argue with me, please read
these articles on octane ratings:
<http://www.chevron.com/products/prodserv/fuels/bulletin/aviationfuel/9_ag_specsandtest.shtm%3E>
<http://www.prime-mover.org/Engines/GArticles/octane.html>
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: why tailwheel |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michael Gibbs <MichaelGibbs@cox.net>
Tricycle versus tail wheel issues are definitely religious! That said...
John sez:
>[A tail wheel] will always keep you alert but a castering nose is just as bad.
That's not true, John. With the main gear behind the aircraft's
center of mass, even with a castering nose wheel the plane has
positive longitudinal stability on the ground. A tail dragger is
never directionally stable on the ground.
Here are some of the reasons I like tricycle gear:
1. Aircraft is directionally stable on the ground (hard to
ground loop)
2. The cabin is level for loading and boarding
3. On the ground, fuel & oil tanks are level for quantity checks
4. Preflight is easier because the nose is low and the tail is
up off the ground
5. Over the nose visibility is superior on the ground (no S turns!)
6. Wing is at a zero-lift angle of attack when rolling out
after landing, taxiing, and when tied down
7. You don't need separate taxi and landing lights
8. Full braking is available during the landing roll-out (no
flipping or prop strikes)
9. Folding the wings is easier because they aren't trying to
swing aft all the time
These are every day advantages, not something that might come into
play during an off-field landing. Phil Laker took his nose wheel
Kitfox Vixen to Alaska with a group tail dragger 'foxes and landed at
every single spot that the others did with no difficulty.
Mike G.
N728KF
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: KF 5 Vixen Rudder |
Allen
I noticed the same problem when building my model 7. I have bolted an
extension to the rudder horn to move the cables out by about 0.7" each
side. In the UK I had to get approval for this modification through the
PFA. I don't know what the system is in the States
I did notice that Jim McBean had extended the horn on his aircraft that
was on display at Oshkosh this year.
Regards.
David Steade
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: why tailwheel malcolm |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Brian Rodgers" <brodg@texas.net>
Spud, some of us like the challenge.
If you're not up for it, perhaps you should get a tailwheel-endorsed, macho,
chauffeur...
:o)
Brian
----- Original Message -----
From: "spudnuts" <martan@cstone.net>
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 10:37 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 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: 1st solo x-country, and pavement landing |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net>
I'm planning on it ,Fred.
Lynn
do not archive
On Thursday, August 17, 2006, at 09:37 PM, Fred Shiple wrote:
> Way to go, Lynn. Extend to Toledo when you finish with the FAA hoops.
> Fred
>
> do not archive
>
>
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: why tailwheel |
For me the tail wheel choice was about 3 things. 1. Asthetics. To me just about
any airplane with a prop just looks or would look better with a tail wheel.
2. An IO240 on the nose is heavy. The nose wheel leg on the Fox just looks
a light to my nonengineer eyes. Besides a TW puts the 3rd wheel weight behind
the CG. 3. Maybe a little of the macho thing.
Maxwell S6/TW/IO240
spudnuts <martan@cstone.net> wrote:
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "spudnuts"
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
Maxwell Duke
S6/IO240/Phase II Flight Testing
__________________________________________________
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: some Jabiru numbers |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net>
Sensenich 62HJ46
Lynn
On Thursday, August 17, 2006, at 09:25 PM, John Marzulli wrote:
> 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 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- The Kitfox-List Email Forum - eat content now also
> available via the Web Forums! sp;mail List Wiki!
> sp; - List Cont! &nb=======================
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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 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: | some Jabiru numbers |
If you call the Sensenich company "the wood prop division not the metal prop
division" you should be able to talk to a gentleman that has done quite a
bit of work with the Jabiru. I spoke to him when I was going through the
same process. Sorry I cant remember his name.
Mike Chaney
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of John Marzulli
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 6:26 PM
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 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 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
- The Kitfox-List Email Forum - eat content now also available via
the Web Forums! sp; mail List Wiki! sp; - List Cont!
&nb=======================
--
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
This message has been scanned for Viruses and cleared by MailMarshal at
SWOCA.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
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 tanks Ethanol and wing tanks |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys@yahoo.ca>
Mike:
The first link to chevron was dead so it sent me to their search page. The
second page was a bit better and it said exactly what I've been saying on
this thread. Any fuel that has more resistance to detonation than octane
will have an octane rating higher than 100.
When I was in technical school I had the same argument over volatility and
octane rating. It was the opinion of my class mates that because high
octane fuels were more volatile than they were actually more explosive,
(would flash at a lower temp). I ended up doing a paper on the transitions
of the fuel in the various stages of compression to demonstrate why high
octane fuels were used in high compression engines and the flash points of
some readily available fuels
I guess to try to cut to the quick of it is that it looks to me that you are
trying to compare apples to oranges. They are both fruits, they are both
more or less spherical, they both grow on trees but they are very different.
Noel
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> Michael Gibbs
> Sent: Friday, August 18, 2006 5:11 AM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: Ethanol and wing tanks Ethanol
> and wing tanks
>
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michael Gibbs
> <MichaelGibbs@cox.net>
>
> Noel sez:
>
> >There are holes in your argument. First we are talking about a
> >rating not a ratio.
>
> It's not my "argument" Noel, it's the definition of "octane rating".
> From Wikipedia <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octane>:
>
> "...Octane ratings are ratings used to represent the anti-knock
> performance of petroleum-based fuels (octane is less likely to
> prematurely combust under pressure than heptane), given as the
> percentage of 2,2,4-trimethylpentane in an 2,2,4-trimethylpentane /
> n-heptane mixture that would have the same performance."
>
> A "percentage" cannot exceed 100, by definition.
>
> >Pure ethanol has an octane rating of around 110.
>
> I am not an expert on fuels. Rather than argue with me, please read
> these articles on octane ratings:
>
> <http://www.chevron.com/products/prodserv/fuels/bulletin/aviat
ionfuel/9_ag_specsandtest.shtm%3E>
<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: why tailwheel |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys@yahoo.ca>
You missed the ability of a conventional gear to be installed with bigger
tires offering more prop/ground clearance and the possibility of shorter
landing roll out.
Noel
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> Michael Gibbs
> Sent: Friday, August 18, 2006 5:46 AM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: why tailwheel
>
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michael Gibbs
> <MichaelGibbs@cox.net>
>
> Tricycle versus tail wheel issues are definitely religious!
> That said...
>
> John sez:
>
> >[A tail wheel] will always keep you alert but a castering
> nose is just as bad.
>
> That's not true, John. With the main gear behind the aircraft's
> center of mass, even with a castering nose wheel the plane has
> positive longitudinal stability on the ground. A tail dragger is
> never directionally stable on the ground.
>
> Here are some of the reasons I like tricycle gear:
>
> 1. Aircraft is directionally stable on the ground (hard to
> ground loop)
> 2. The cabin is level for loading and boarding
> 3. On the ground, fuel & oil tanks are level for quantity checks
> 4. Preflight is easier because the nose is low and the tail is
> up off the ground
> 5. Over the nose visibility is superior on the ground (no S turns!)
> 6. Wing is at a zero-lift angle of attack when rolling out
> after landing, taxiing, and when tied down
> 7. You don't need separate taxi and landing lights
> 8. Full braking is available during the landing roll-out (no
> flipping or prop strikes)
> 9. Folding the wings is easier because they aren't trying to
> swing aft all the time
>
> These are every day advantages, not something that might come into
> play during an off-field landing. Phil Laker took his nose wheel
> Kitfox Vixen to Alaska with a group tail dragger 'foxes and landed at
> every single spot that the others did with no difficulty.
>
> Mike G.
> N728KF
>
>
>
>
>
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Cover and Finish |
Message
Andy and all,
I am using the Stewart System right now to cover my Highlander and so
far really like it.... A LOT! I learned to cover using the PolyFiber
system and have covered a few planes in the past with it, but wanted to
try the AFS/Stewart System this time around to see how I like it. I also
wanted to try to steer clear of the other MEK based systems (for health
reasons). I can tell you right now that there is no way in hell that I
will ever use a different system if I can help it. There is no more
strong smell and being high as a kite. I can even cover in the house if
I wanted to without the wife raising all kinds of hell. The CecoBond
fabric cement is an absolute dream to work with and all clean up is with
water! This is a water borne system (not water based) and I believe is
the covering system of the future. Folks can learn more about this
wonderful covering system at the web sites listed below. Note, I am not
a distributor for the Stewart's, just a VERY satisfied customer and now
good friend. These guys are really great people to work with as well.
You will not be disappointed if you follow the directions/instructions
Stan
www.justkitplanes.com
http://www.stewartsystems.aero/
http://www.supercubproject.com/afs.aspx
----- Original Message -----
From: Andy Fultz
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 10:10 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Cover and Finish
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.
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: why tailwheel |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "kitfoxmike" <kitfoxmike@yahoo.com>
Yup! your right, why such the big deal on the tail wheel preference. I don't understand
it either. I have the fox with the rear wheel. It is squarly. But
after much PRACTICE you can get it pretty good. My landing last night was that
way, I had to tell my wife we were down, I did a perfect wheel landing and
the tail came down soooo nice I said, I wheel landed and the rear wheel come down,
that wasn't a three point. All she could say was WOW!
But, back to your response. Why the tail wheel preference. I don't know. But
I do know, my rv7 will have a nose gear, so I guess I'm building an RV7A. Why?
Like the one response for tri gear. Better vis, is no. one with me, second
is the stable landing with the gear behind the CG, and don't forget those nasty
taxi lights that stick up about a foot and a half at the airports, I see them
all the time(or I should say I don't see them), and when there on your right
side, it's get lucky and not hit them time, or be lucky like me and have a
wife that loves to fly and sees them before I ever will.
My feeling is with my new plane, I will have a lot of money in the project, why,
why, put a wheel in the back and risk all that hard work. Plus one more advantage,
the insurance will be less.
I don't plan on taking the RV into any off fields, that will be for the kitfox
to enjoy. So I guess I'll have the best of both words. One last thing, the airplane
is for ME, not some other big headed pilot that thinks everybody should
have a plane like his.
--------
kitfoxmike
kitfox4 1200 912ul speedster
http://www.frappr.com/kitfoxmike
rv7 wingkit
reserved 287RV
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=55527#55527
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: why tailwheel |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "kitfoxmike" <kitfoxmike@yahoo.com>
Here is one more thought against tail wheel airplanes. If you get in an accident
with a tail wheel and turn in an NTSB report, guess what, you WILL get a letter
from the friends at the FAA wanting you to take a check ride in... A TAIL
WHEEL AIRPLANE, and guess what, NOBODY will let you use their plane to do a
check ride in, and try to rent one of these aircraft, no joy on that either.
Why is it that all rentable airplanes are tri gear??? Sure some of you might
come up with places that have tail planes to rent, but it's not something that's
available very easily, if at all.
--------
kitfoxmike
kitfox4 1200 912ul speedster
http://www.frappr.com/kitfoxmike
rv7 wingkit
reserved 287RV
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=55535#55535
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: why tailwheel malcolm |
It's lighter, and demand for concentration, using rudder on take-off/ landing will
make you a better pilot. "Fly it until it's in the hangar, engine off." At
least that's what my 82 year old CFI told me. But you're right, there's religion
too.
As a kid growing up in the late 50's, I must have built every model WWII warbird
there was. Should have bought stock in Revell and Monogram. Dad was in aviation
and I hung around real C-45's, 46's, 47's and the nuts who flew them. Those
experiences taught me that an airplane just doesn't look right on the ground
unless its tail is dragging. Also, that "real" pilots fly "conventional gear"
airplanes. Yep, it's religion. ;-)
do not archive
spudnuts <martan@cstone.net> wrote:
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "spudnuts"
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
Marco Menezes
Model 2 582 N99KX
---------------------------------
Next-gen email? Have it all with the all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta.
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: why tailwheel |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "spudnuts" <martan@cstone.net>
Well, since I'm getting my BFR in conjunction with my tailwheel lessons, I do plan
on finishing up and getting the endorsement. My CFI pointed out that I really
only have 1.5 hrs in the air and only about 4 landings where I did 'most'
of the work so I shouldn't be so hard on myself.
But aside from the rough field and the 'macho pilot' thing, I don't see much going
for the tailwheel. I personally think that trigear blue and white kitfox
on the kitfoxaircraft.com site is fantastic looking and thats what I would get
if I could get exactly what I wanted. Even down to the paint scheme.
I can see I'm probably going to have to build one if I want one like that.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=55549#55549
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: Ethanol and wing tanks Ethanol and wing tanks |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: PWilson <pwmac@sisna.com>
When studying the various fuel the specialty formulators are selling
it is obvious that volatility is important which must be the reason
they offer so many formulations.
Paul
===========
At 07:48 AM 8/18/2006, Noel wrote:
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys@yahoo.ca>
>
>Mike:
>
>The first link to chevron was dead so it sent me to their search page. The
>second page was a bit better and it said exactly what I've been saying on
>this thread. Any fuel that has more resistance to detonation than octane
>will have an octane rating higher than 100.
>
>When I was in technical school I had the same argument over volatility and
>octane rating. It was the opinion of my class mates that because high
>octane fuels were more volatile than they were actually more explosive,
>(would flash at a lower temp). I ended up doing a paper on the transitions
>of the fuel in the various stages of compression to demonstrate why high
>octane fuels were used in high compression engines and the flash points of
>some readily available fuels
>
>I guess to try to cut to the quick of it is that it looks to me that you are
>trying to compare apples to oranges. They are both fruits, they are both
>more or less spherical, they both grow on trees but they are very different.
>
>Noel
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> > [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> > Michael Gibbs
> > Sent: Friday, August 18, 2006 5:11 AM
> > To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> > Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: Ethanol and wing tanks Ethanol
> > and wing tanks
> >
> >
> > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michael Gibbs
> > <MichaelGibbs@cox.net>
> >
> > Noel sez:
> >
> > >There are holes in your argument. First we are talking about a
> > >rating not a ratio.
> >
> > It's not my "argument" Noel, it's the definition of "octane rating".
> > From Wikipedia <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octane>:
> >
> > "...Octane ratings are ratings used to represent the anti-knock
> > performance of petroleum-based fuels (octane is less likely to
> > prematurely combust under pressure than heptane), given as the
> > percentage of 2,2,4-trimethylpentane in an 2,2,4-trimethylpentane /
> > n-heptane mixture that would have the same performance."
> >
> > A "percentage" cannot exceed 100, by definition.
> >
> > >Pure ethanol has an octane rating of around 110.
> >
> > I am not an expert on fuels. Rather than argue with me, please read
> > these articles on octane ratings:
> >
> > <http://www.chevron.com/products/prodserv/fuels/bulletin/aviat
>ionfuel/9_ag_specsandtest.shtm%3E>
>
><http://www.prime-mover.org/Engines/GArticles/octane.html>
>
>Mike G.
>N728KF
>
>
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 |
|
Regarding the recent request for AFS info:
Have had it on the plane for 3 years. As has been reported, it's a challenge to
apply. It can be done, but those of us of average ability will have a steep learning
curve applying it without a lot of defects.
I've been disappointed with its durability. It abraids and scratches far too easily.
The edges of small defects begin to lift if not sealed (touched up) promptly.
It is also solvent sensitive after curing, so be very careful with what
is used to clean it.
My major reason for using it was to avoid the isocyanide vapors from solvents used
in other systems (lung toxicity) and it is safer for those of us with pulmonary
problems. It also gives a very handsome, deep glossy finish.
I would not use it again based on my durabilty experience.
Fred
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 |
|
To All,
As you know, I advertised my 2000 Classic IV (582) for sale a couple
weeks ago (on the list only) for $20K. So far I have received 7 off
list responses. One of the folks just flew up today from NC to take a
look and go for a test flight. We were up about 15 minutes cruising
just shy of 90 MPH @ 5800 and he decided he wanted something faster.
So, my Classic IV is still on the market if anyone might be interested.
Please feel free to pass the word to anyone not on the list and give
them my email.
I was asked last time, "Why was I selling". Answer, my interest
have change to new and different things. I also received a couple hate
mails (not really) for selling too cheap. I hate to sell things and
when I decide to sell, I price it to sell now and not have to wait
forever. That's just my way.
Thanks,
Don Smythe
dosmythe@cox.net
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: | Firewall Forward for Sale |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Napier, Mark" <Mark.Napier@sciatl.com>
I'm going to put a different engine in my KF III so my 582 firewall
forward is for sale.
This includes everything: motor mount, cables, prop, radiator,
instruments, etc.
The motor has 180 hours since I put in a new crankshaft and all new
seals about 14 months ago.
The motor mount is the latest style and will fit models I - IV.
I have an over-sized and a regular sized radiator. It gets hot here in
Georgia.
It needs new pistons since it has approximately 350 hours on the pistons
and cylinders since new. I pulled the engine to do a top end but have
decided to try out something different.
I'll take $3000 for the whole package as-is or $3700 with new seals and
pistons. This is a deal for a good FWF.
Mark Napier
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kitfox-List
Digest Server
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 2:59 AM
Subject: Kitfox-List Digest: 38 Msgs - 08/16/06
*
=================================================
Online Versions of Today's List Digest Archive
=================================================
Today's complete Kitfox-List Digest can also be found in either of the
two Web Links listed below. The .html file includes the Digest
formatted
in HTML for viewing with a web browser and features Hyperlinked Indexes
and Message Navigation. The .txt file includes the plain ASCII version
of the Kitfox-List Digest and can be viewed with a generic text editor
such as Notepad or with a web browser.
HTML Version:
http://www.matronics.com/digest/kitfox-list/Digest.Kitfox-List.2006-08-1
6.html
Text Version:
http://www.matronics.com/digest/kitfox-list/Digest.Kitfox-List.2006-08-1
6.txt
===============================================
EMail Version of Today's List Digest Archive
===============================================
----------------------------------------------------------
Kitfox-List Digest Archive
---
Total Messages Posted Wed 08/16/06: 38
----------------------------------------------------------
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
_____________________________________
Time: 04:12:15 AM PST US
From: "Barry West" <barry@pgtc.com>
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 2
_____________________________________
Time: 04:54:14 AM PST US
From: Mike Chaney <mdps_mc@swoca.net>
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: GPS Units
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
_____________________________________
Time: 07:23:21 AM PST US
From: Dan Billingsley <dan@azshowersolutions.com>
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 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
_____________________________________
Time: 07:39:10 AM PST US
From: "Fox5flyer" <morid@northland.lib.mi.us>
Subject: Kitfox-List: 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
_____________________________________
Time: 07:47:20 AM PST US
From: "Algate" <algate@attglobal.net>
Subject: Kitfox-List: Kitfox wanted
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
_____________________________________
Time: 07:47:52 AM PST US
From: "Algate" <algate@attglobal.net>
Subject: Kitfox-List: Kitfox List
Deke
Did you get my email re setting up George Briggs on the list.
Regards
Gary Algate
________________________________ Message 7
_____________________________________
Time: 07:53:08 AM PST US
From: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@sbcglobal.net>
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 8
_____________________________________
Time: 08:18:19 AM PST US
From: kerrjohna@comcast.net
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 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>
________________________________ Message 9
_____________________________________
Time: 08:23:02 AM PST US
From: Michael Gibbs <MichaelGibbs@cox.net>
Subject: Kitfox-List: 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
____________________________________
Time: 08:26:56 AM PST US
From: "Fox5flyer" <morid@northland.lib.mi.us>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 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
____________________________________
Time: 08:27:16 AM PST US
From: PWilson <pwmac@sisna.com>
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: 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
____________________________________
Time: 08:27:18 AM PST US
From: PWilson <pwmac@sisna.com>
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: GPS Units
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
____________________________________
Time: 08:27:19 AM PST US
From: PWilson <pwmac@sisna.com>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 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
____________________________________
Time: 08:27:24 AM PST US
From: Fred Shiple <fredshiple@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 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
____________________________________
Time: 08:30:39 AM PST US
From: "Fox5flyer" <morid@northland.lib.mi.us>
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
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
____________________________________
Time: 08:32:59 AM PST US
From: "Don Smythe" <dosmythe@cox.net>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 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
____________________________________
Time: 09:21:11 AM PST US
From: wwillyard@aol.com
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 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
____________________________________
Time: 09:27:02 AM PST US
From: "Algate" <algate@attglobal.net>
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Kitfox List
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
____________________________________
Time: 09:30:10 AM PST US
From: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 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
____________________________________
Time: 09:45:49 AM PST US
Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Kitfox wanted
From: "spudnuts" <martan@cstone.net>
--> 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
____________________________________
Time: 09:56:34 AM PST US
Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Kitfox wanted
From: "spudnuts" <martan@cstone.net>
--> 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
____________________________________
Time: 09:58:15 AM PST US
From: "John Oakley" <john@leptron.com>
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 23
____________________________________
Time: 10:50:33 AM PST US
From: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@sbcglobal.net>
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 24
____________________________________
Time: 10:57:33 AM PST US
From: Marco Menezes <msm_9949@yahoo.com>
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: GPS Units
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
____________________________________
Time: 11:48:44 AM PST US
From: "jdmcbean" <jdmcbean@cableone.net>
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: renewed lister
--> 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
____________________________________
Time: 12:04:02 PM PST US
From: "John Oakley" <john@leptron.com>
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: renewed lister
--> 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
____________________________________
Time: 12:58:22 PM PST US
From: PWilson <pwmac@sisna.com>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 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
____________________________________
Time: 12:58:22 PM PST US
From: PWilson <pwmac@sisna.com>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 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
____________________________________
Time: 02:19:46 PM PST US
From: "brentbidus@juno.com" <brentbidus@juno.com>
Subject: Kitfox-List: 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>
________________________________ Message 30
____________________________________
Time: 02:25:48 PM PST US
From: "John Galt" <johngalt.0@gmail.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 <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
____________________________________
Time: 02:38:25 PM PST US
From: "clemwehner" <clemwehner@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Message Repeats
--> 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
____________________________________
Time: 02:47:06 PM PST US
From: "QSS" <msm@byterocky.net>
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Engine quitting
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
____________________________________
Time: 03:13:44 PM PST US
From: Jimmie Blackwell <jimmieblackwell@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Kitfox-List: Message Repeats
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
____________________________________
Time: 03:23:56 PM PST US
From: "jdmcbean" <jdmcbean@cableone.net>
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: 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
____________________________________
Time: 04:13:46 PM PST US
From: Jim Carriere <jimcarriere@yahoo.com>
Subject: Kitfox-List: 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
____________________________________
Time: 08:07:13 PM PST US
From: "david yeamans" <dafox@ckt.net>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 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
____________________________________
Time: 08:25:54 PM PST US
From: Grant Fluent <gjfpilot@yahoo.com>
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: 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
____________________________________
Time: 09:59:10 PM PST US
From: "Marwynne" <marwynne@verizon.net>
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: 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
- - - - - Appended by Scientific Atlanta, a Cisco company - - - - -
This e-mail and any attachments may contain information which is confidential,
proprietary, privileged or otherwise protected by law. The information is solely
intended for the named addressee (or a person responsible for delivering it
to the addressee). If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you
are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy or disseminate this message or
any part of it. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the
sender immediately by return e-mail and delete it from your computer.
Message 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: | Kitfox IV cowling |
I have a Kitfox IV cowling for sale, and a man with a kitfox 3 asked if
it is the same cowling used on kitfox 3. ?? Hope someone can answer me
on this one.
Thanks
Geir Olav
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 |
|
Tail wheels flip over easier on rough or hard surfaces look at the geometry.
Besides being more reliable in getting you home from a long trip a nose
wheel gives better visibillity see the attached. The only reason tricycle gear
was used in early aircraft is that they were unknown technology. The heavier
nosewheel is too much for very marginal engine power and therefore gives better
performance.
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: | Firewall Forward for Sale |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bradley M Webb" <bmwebb@cox.net>
What engine are you going to?
Bradley
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Napier, Mark
Sent: Friday, August 18, 2006 1:54 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Firewall Forward for Sale
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Napier, Mark" <Mark.Napier@sciatl.com>
I'm going to put a different engine in my KF III so my 582 firewall
forward is for sale.
This includes everything: motor mount, cables, prop, radiator,
instruments, etc.
The motor has 180 hours since I put in a new crankshaft and all new
seals about 14 months ago.
The motor mount is the latest style and will fit models I - IV.
I have an over-sized and a regular sized radiator. It gets hot here in
Georgia.
It needs new pistons since it has approximately 350 hours on the pistons
and cylinders since new. I pulled the engine to do a top end but have
decided to try out something different.
I'll take $3000 for the whole package as-is or $3700 with new seals and
pistons. This is a deal for a good FWF.
Mark Napier
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kitfox-List
Digest Server
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 2:59 AM
Subject: Kitfox-List Digest: 38 Msgs - 08/16/06
*
=================================================
Online Versions of Today's List Digest Archive
=================================================
Today's complete Kitfox-List Digest can also be found in either of the
two Web Links listed below. The .html file includes the Digest
formatted
in HTML for viewing with a web browser and features Hyperlinked Indexes
and Message Navigation. The .txt file includes the plain ASCII version
of the Kitfox-List Digest and can be viewed with a generic text editor
such as Notepad or with a web browser.
HTML Version:
http://www.matronics.com/digest/kitfox-list/Digest.Kitfox-List.2006-08-1
6.html
Text Version:
http://www.matronics.com/digest/kitfox-list/Digest.Kitfox-List.2006-08-1
6.txt
===============================================
EMail Version of Today's List Digest Archive
===============================================
----------------------------------------------------------
Kitfox-List Digest Archive
---
Total Messages Posted Wed 08/16/06: 38
----------------------------------------------------------
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
_____________________________________
Time: 04:12:15 AM PST US
From: "Barry West" <barry@pgtc.com>
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 2
_____________________________________
Time: 04:54:14 AM PST US
From: Mike Chaney <mdps_mc@swoca.net>
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: GPS Units
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
_____________________________________
Time: 07:23:21 AM PST US
From: Dan Billingsley <dan@azshowersolutions.com>
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 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
_____________________________________
Time: 07:39:10 AM PST US
From: "Fox5flyer" <morid@northland.lib.mi.us>
Subject: Kitfox-List: 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
_____________________________________
Time: 07:47:20 AM PST US
From: "Algate" <algate@attglobal.net>
Subject: Kitfox-List: Kitfox wanted
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
_____________________________________
Time: 07:47:52 AM PST US
From: "Algate" <algate@attglobal.net>
Subject: Kitfox-List: Kitfox List
Deke
Did you get my email re setting up George Briggs on the list.
Regards
Gary Algate
________________________________ Message 7
_____________________________________
Time: 07:53:08 AM PST US
From: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@sbcglobal.net>
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 8
_____________________________________
Time: 08:18:19 AM PST US
From: kerrjohna@comcast.net
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 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>
________________________________ Message 9
_____________________________________
Time: 08:23:02 AM PST US
From: Michael Gibbs <MichaelGibbs@cox.net>
Subject: Kitfox-List: 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
____________________________________
Time: 08:26:56 AM PST US
From: "Fox5flyer" <morid@northland.lib.mi.us>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 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
____________________________________
Time: 08:27:16 AM PST US
From: PWilson <pwmac@sisna.com>
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: 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
____________________________________
Time: 08:27:18 AM PST US
From: PWilson <pwmac@sisna.com>
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: GPS Units
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
____________________________________
Time: 08:27:19 AM PST US
From: PWilson <pwmac@sisna.com>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 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
____________________________________
Time: 08:27:24 AM PST US
From: Fred Shiple <fredshiple@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 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
____________________________________
Time: 08:30:39 AM PST US
From: "Fox5flyer" <morid@northland.lib.mi.us>
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
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
____________________________________
Time: 08:32:59 AM PST US
From: "Don Smythe" <dosmythe@cox.net>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 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
____________________________________
Time: 09:21:11 AM PST US
From: wwillyard@aol.com
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 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
____________________________________
Time: 09:27:02 AM PST US
From: "Algate" <algate@attglobal.net>
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Kitfox List
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
____________________________________
Time: 09:30:10 AM PST US
From: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 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
____________________________________
Time: 09:45:49 AM PST US
Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Kitfox wanted
From: "spudnuts" <martan@cstone.net>
--> 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
____________________________________
Time: 09:56:34 AM PST US
Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Kitfox wanted
From: "spudnuts" <martan@cstone.net>
--> 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
____________________________________
Time: 09:58:15 AM PST US
From: "John Oakley" <john@leptron.com>
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 23
____________________________________
Time: 10:50:33 AM PST US
From: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@sbcglobal.net>
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 24
____________________________________
Time: 10:57:33 AM PST US
From: Marco Menezes <msm_9949@yahoo.com>
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: GPS Units
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
____________________________________
Time: 11:48:44 AM PST US
From: "jdmcbean" <jdmcbean@cableone.net>
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: renewed lister
--> 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
____________________________________
Time: 12:04:02 PM PST US
From: "John Oakley" <john@leptron.com>
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: renewed lister
--> 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
____________________________________
Time: 12:58:22 PM PST US
From: PWilson <pwmac@sisna.com>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 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
____________________________________
Time: 12:58:22 PM PST US
From: PWilson <pwmac@sisna.com>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 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
____________________________________
Time: 02:19:46 PM PST US
From: "brentbidus@juno.com" <brentbidus@juno.com>
Subject: Kitfox-List: 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>
________________________________ Message 30
____________________________________
Time: 02:25:48 PM PST US
From: "John Galt" <johngalt.0@gmail.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 <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
____________________________________
Time: 02:38:25 PM PST US
From: "clemwehner" <clemwehner@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Message Repeats
--> 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
____________________________________
Time: 02:47:06 PM PST US
From: "QSS" <msm@byterocky.net>
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Engine quitting
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
____________________________________
Time: 03:13:44 PM PST US
From: Jimmie Blackwell <jimmieblackwell@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Kitfox-List: Message Repeats
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
____________________________________
Time: 03:23:56 PM PST US
From: "jdmcbean" <jdmcbean@cableone.net>
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: 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
____________________________________
Time: 04:13:46 PM PST US
From: Jim Carriere <jimcarriere@yahoo.com>
Subject: Kitfox-List: 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
____________________________________
Time: 08:07:13 PM PST US
From: "david yeamans" <dafox@ckt.net>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 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
____________________________________
Time: 08:25:54 PM PST US
From: Grant Fluent <gjfpilot@yahoo.com>
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: 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
____________________________________
Time: 09:59:10 PM PST US
From: "Marwynne" <marwynne@verizon.net>
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: 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
- - - - - Appended by Scientific Atlanta, a Cisco company - - - - -
This e-mail and any attachments may contain information which is
confidential, proprietary, privileged or otherwise protected by law. The
information is solely intended for the named addressee (or a person
responsible for delivering it to the addressee). If you are not the intended
recipient of this message, you are not authorized to read, print, retain,
copy or disseminate this message or any part of it. If you have received
this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail
and delete it from your computer.
Message 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: Cover and Finish |
Noel (the other one) of Blue Sky Aviation has used the product and even represented
them or a time but due to problems with the product or product support brought
him to the point of severing the relationship. The name change may give
a hint of previous problems.
The attractiveness of water cleanup may not compensate for other shortcomings.
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "Andy Fultz" <fultz@trip.net>
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.
<html><body>
<DIV>Noel (the other one) of Blue Sky Aviation has used the product and even represented
them or a time but due to problems with the product or product support
brought him to the point of severing the relationship. The name change
may give a hint of previous problems.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The attractiveness of water cleanup may not compensate for other shortcomings.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px
solid">-------------- Original message -------------- <BR>From: "Andy Fultz"
<fultz@trip.net> <BR>
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2963" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Tahoma size=2>
<DIV><SPAN class=890395603-18082006><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>Has anybody on the list used, or do you know anybody that has used, STEWART'S AIRCRAFT FINISHING SYSTEM </FONT></SPAN><IMG height=1 src="http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714&grpId=4077554&grpspId=1600065618&msgId=13258&stime=1153931815" width=1 NOSEND="1"> <SPAN class=890395603-18082006><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>to cover and finish their tube and fabric plane? This system was formerly known as AIRCRAFT FINISHING SYSTEMS. Thanks.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=890395603-18082006></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=890395603-18082006><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>Andy
F.</FONT> </SPAN><BR></DIV></FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><PRE><B><FONT face="courier
new,courier" size=2 color000000?>
</B></FONT></PRE></BLOCKQUOTE>
<pre><b><font size=2 color="#000000" face="courier new,courier">
</b></font></pre></body></html>
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: Kitfox IV cowling |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
Hei Geir Olav,
On Aug 18, 2006, at 8:51 PM, Geir Olav ien wrote
> I have a Kitfox IV cowling for sale, and a man with a kitfox 3 asked
> if it is the same cowling used on kitfox 3. ?? Hope someone can answer
> me on this one.
My understanding is that the model IV has a steeper angle of the
windscreen than the model 3 and while the cowling may fit, it might
need modification around the windscreen to allow for another angle. At
least, that was my conclusion after looking at Morten's model IV at
Stavanger Sola.
Med vennlig hilsen,
Michel
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: Cover and Finish |
AFS sold out to the Dan and Doug Stewart who own and operate Stewart's
Hangar 21 in Cashmere, WA. That is where the new name of "Stewart
Finishing System" comes from. They were the AFS dealers who really know
the system best and have had great success with it over the years. As I
said in my previous post, it is great stuff if applied correctly. That
is the key. They are more than happy to talk you through it or
personally show you how to apply the top coats. Another nice thing about
the system is that if you don't want to you use their top coats, then
you can simply use PolyTone, or whatever. You really should try the
CecoBond glue, if nothing else. It is wonderful stuff and so much easier
to work with than PolyTac. You can clean it off of your hands when dry
by rolling it off with an eraser. This is the same for your clothes as
well. Clean up is a snap! I am a true believer that a person should not
knock something if not familiar with it. If you have not used the
system, that;'s ok, but don't knock it because "he said, she said".
That's what has happened to the Franklin engines..... which in my
personal experience after flying behind them are far superior to
Lycoming and Continental engines.
OK, I'll now get off my soap box! ;-)
Stan
----- Original Message -----
From: kerrjohna@comcast.net
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Friday, August 18, 2006 2:05 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Cover and Finish
Noel (the other one) of Blue Sky Aviation has used the product and
even represented them or a time but due to problems with the product or
product support brought him to the point of severing the relationship.
The name change may give a hint of previous problems.
The attractiveness of water cleanup may not compensate for other
shortcomings.
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: Kitfox IV cowling |
I had a model 3 with a 582. When I sold the 582 two-smoke and bought the
912, I had to do the entire firewall forward. When it came, it was a mo
del 4 firewall forward. I called Dave Morris at the factory and he told
me the only thing I'd need to do is make a new windshield because of the
steeper angle. I did that and all is well! That should answer your ques
tion.
Rex in Michigan
-- Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no> wrote:
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
Hei Geir Olav,
On Aug 18, 2006, at 8:51 PM, Geir Olav =D8ien wrote
> I have a Kitfox IV cowling for sale, and a man with a kitfox 3 asked
> if it is the same cowling used on kitfox 3. ?? Hope someone can answer
> me on this one.
My understanding is that the model IV has a steeper angle of the
windscreen than the model 3 and while the cowling may fit, it might
need modification around the windscreen to allow for another angle. At
least, that was my conclusion after looking at Morten's model IV at
Stavanger Sola.
Med vennlig hilsen,
Michel
========================
===========
========================
===========
========================
===========
========================
===========
========================
===========
<html><P>I had a model 3 with a 582. When I sold the 582 two-smoke and b
ought the 912, I had to do the entire firewall forward. When it came, it
was a model 4 firewall forward. I called Dave Morris at the factory and
he told me the only thing I'd need to do is make a new windshield becau
se of the steeper angle. I did that and all is well! That should answer
your question.</P>
<P>Rex in Michigan<BR><BR>-- Michel Verheughe <michel@
online.no> wrote:<BR>--> Kitfox-List message p
osted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no><
BR><BR>Hei Geir Olav,<BR><BR>On Aug 18, 2006,&n
bsp;at 8:51 PM, Geir Olav =D8ien wrote<BR>
> I have a Kitfox IV cowling for&n
bsp;sale, and a man with a kitfox 3&n
bsp;asked <BR>> if it is the same
cowling used on kitfox 3. ?? Hope som
eone can answer <BR>> me on this o
ne.<BR><BR>My understanding is that the model&n
bsp;IV has a steeper angle of the <BR
>windscreen than the model 3 and while&nbs
p;the cowling may fit, it might <BR>need&n
bsp;modification around the windscreen to allow
for another angle. At <BR>least, that&nbs
p;was my conclusion after looking at Morte
n's model IV at <BR>Stavanger Sola.<BR><BR>Med&
========================
========================
- The Kitfox-List Email Forum -<BR>
Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Brow
========================
========================
sp; - NEW MATRONICS WEB FORUMS 
========================
========================
- NEW MATRONICS LIST W
========================
========================
sp; - List Contribution Web Site -<B
nbsp; &
nbsp; -Matt Dralle,&
========================
======================</P></
html>
<pre><b><font size=2 color="#000000" face="courier new,courier">
</b></font></pre></body></html>
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: why tailwheel |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net>
Because most pilots don't know how to fly a tailwheel? And because most
pilots learned on trikes (nosegear)? And trikes are easier for people
to learn on, so give 'em the easy way out? Why did we all learn to
first ride a tricycle, then a bicycle? Because it was easier. My
instructor keeps telling me that all I did in flight school was learn
to have lazy feet. What I learned at the local flight center was that
the insurance companies drive the general aircraft industry, and the
records show that accident rates went down when trikes came out, so the
insurance companies dictated that schools shall use trikes, or not be
insured. It's like anything else, the masses rule.
I'm just as rookie pilot with about 60 solo hours in one plane...a
taildragger, so I may know not of which I speak...:)
Lynn
On Friday, August 18, 2006, at 11:26 AM, kitfoxmike wrote:
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "kitfoxmike" <kitfoxmike@yahoo.com>
> Why is it that all rentable airplanes are tri gear???
> --------
> kitfoxmike
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: why tailwheels |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Richard Rabbers" <rira1950@yahoo.com>
Not addressing the question but on subject ... here's some impressive to me - tricycle
gear .... and more... performance.
A friend of mine owns a C-182 w/ Peterson Canard Conversion.
I've not seen the plane but heard more about it yesterday.
His plane was part of a presentation at Oshkosh a few years ago.
The design path was originated with a Robinson Wren... then on from there. I'd
guess than many of you are familar with the conversion.
A current model is the 'Bushmaster'.
Maybe we can open the doors and use our hands for the canards:)
(2 short videos)
http://www.260se.com/video.html
(13 minute video)
http://www.260se.com/images/program.mov
This is out of our (my) leauge but impressive in any case.
--------
Richard in SW Michigan
Model 1 / 618 - full-lotus floats (restoration)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=55624#55624
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: why tailwheel |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Richard Rabbers" <rira1950@yahoo.com>
Not addressing the question but on subject ... here's some impressive to me - tricycle
gear .... and more... performance.
A friend of mine owns a C-182 w/ Peterson Canard Conversion.
I've not seen the plane but heard more about it yesterday.
His plane was part of a presentation at Oshkosh a few years ago.
The design path was originated with a Robinson Wren... then on from there. I'd
guess than many of you are familar with the conversion.
A current model is the 'Bushmaster'.
Maybe we can open the doors and use our hands for the canards:)
(2 short videos)
http://www.260se.com/video.html
(13 minute video)
http://www.260se.com/images/program.mov
This is out of our (my) leauge but impressive in any case.
------------------------------
PS --- I got my tailwheel endorsement at Dodgens Aircraft in Allegan,MI where they
rent a Champ. I got my float rating in Cadillac, MI in a super cub.... Northwoods
Aviation also offers tailwheel training in Cubs.
--------
Richard in SW Michigan
Model 1 / 618 - full-lotus floats (restoration)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=55628#55628
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: | Building a new Fox |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "spudnuts" <martan@cstone.net>
Is this even possible? I've been to the new kitfox site and sent a couple of emails
about building one, but have not heard back. They are in business now right?
I'll assume they are just busy.
Lacking a response from them, I'll put some questions to you guys:
How hard are they to build, what sorts of tools will I need?
Can I order a complete package from them with everything? I mean, is it like a
supersized model airplane kit?
How long to build one?
Is it possible to look at a construction manual just to get an idea of what the
steps are and what it's like to build one?
What are all the options they list, some are obvious, others not.
Any idea of a ball park cost for building a tri-gear (boo-hiss) with basic VFR
instruments and a 912? If I add up what I know I want on the order form on their
site, the basic firewall back is about 22K. What is a good guess to add to
that to complete it?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=55641#55641
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 |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jose M. Toro" <jose_m_toro@yahoo.com>
Lynn:
When my father learned to fly 55 years ago, all
trainers where taildraggers. He had no problem
transitioning to trikes!!! My opinion is that your
instructor is right, and you must consider yourself
privileged of learning to fly in a taildragger.
Not every trike pilot knows how to handle cross wind
landings. If you fly taildraggers, you either handle
cross wind, or experience a ground loop. If you are a
trike pilot, you have the option to force the nose
wheel to the runway to gain directional control.
Are you practicing wheel landings? In a strong, cross
wind, a tri-point may not be an option.
Nothing wrong with trikes, however, you miss some of
the fun.
Jos
--- Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net> wrote:
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson
> <lynnmatt@jps.net>
>
>
> Because most pilots don't know how to fly a
> tailwheel? And because most
> pilots learned on trikes (nosegear)? And trikes are
> easier for people
> to learn on, so give 'em the easy way out? Why did
> we all learn to
> first ride a tricycle, then a bicycle? Because it
> was easier. My
> instructor keeps telling me that all I did in flight
> school was learn
> to have lazy feet. What I learned at the local
> flight center was that
> the insurance companies drive the general aircraft
> industry, and the
> records show that accident rates went down when
> trikes came out, so the
> insurance companies dictated that schools shall use
> trikes, or not be
> insured. It's like anything else, the masses rule.
>
> I'm just as rookie pilot with about 60 solo hours in
> one plane...a
> taildragger, so I may know not of which I speak...:)
>
> Lynn
>
> On Friday, August 18, 2006, at 11:26 AM, kitfoxmike
> wrote:
>
> > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "kitfoxmike"
> <kitfoxmike@yahoo.com>
>
>
>
> > Why is it that all rentable airplanes are tri
> gear???
> > --------
> > kitfoxmike
>
>
>
> browse
> Subscriptions page,
> FAQ,
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List
>
> Web Forums!
>
>
> Admin.
>
>
>
>
>
__________________________________________________
Message 32
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: why tailwheels |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "flier" <FLIER@sbcglobal.net>
Come fly with us here in TX and we'll take you into
some fields that will promptly make a nosegear
retractable (whether it was fixed or not!) Hard turf
with a few bumps is all it takes.
My friend's KR2 just went through a conversion from
nosegear to taildragger for that simple reason. The
nosegear was removed by a very experienced test pilot
around the 8th hour of testing. Nosegear just won't
stand up to the punishment.
Many of our friends with tricycles are always
hesistant going to fly-ins on grass as they're always
worried about their nosewheels...
BTW, I believe you confused tricycle vs conventional
gear below...
Regards,
Ted
--- Original Message ---
From: AMuller589@aol.com
Subject: Kitfox-List: why tailwheels
>
>Tail wheels flip over easier on rough or hard
surfaces look at the geometry.
>Besides being more reliable in getting you home from
a long trip a nose
>wheel gives better visibillity see the attached.
The only reason tricycle gear
>was used in early aircraft is that they were
unknown technology. The heavier
>nosewheel is too much for very marginal engine
power and therefore gives better
> performance.
>
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: KF 5 Vixen Rudder |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "John Anderson" <janderson412@hotmail.com>
From: "David Steade" <david.steade@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: KF 5 Vixen Rudder
Allen
I noticed the same problem when building my model 7. I have bolted an
extension to the rudder horn to move the cables out by about 0.7" each side.
In the UK I had to get approval for this modification through the PFA. I
don't know what the system is in the States
I did notice that Jim McBean had extended the horn on his aircraft that was
on display at Oshkosh this year.
Regards.
David Steade
_________________________________________________________________
Shop til you drop at XtraMSN Shopping http://shopping.xtramsn.co.nz/home/
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: Building a new Fox |
Sounds like you have an interest <g>
To answer some of your questions...Yes, they are probably very busy right now
so keep trying them.
Many of the other guys that are flying could probably attest to all the costs when all is said and done better than I can. I am currently building a IV-912s tri-gear (which is the 100 horse). I am doing several modifications which of course takes more time and $. I'm doing a web build site (when I have time to build) that you could take a look at www.azshowersolutions.com/Kitfox1.html
How hard are they to build, what sorts of tools will I need?
In my opinion the Kit Fox is an easy build. It just takes the time to devote
to getting it done. I teach Industrial Tech classes at a Jr. High and believe
if you have an interest in building stuff and enjoy it...you will do fine.
It would be difficult to list all the tools here, however, a good assortment
of basic hand tools, a band saw, drill press, dremmel-type tool, and maybe a modest
air compressor. Of course there are a few specialized tools that make things
easier, but you can get by with many things you probably already have.
Can I order a complete package from them with everything? I mean, is it like
a supersized model airplane kit?
I believe John said a few weeks ago that he had a few complete kits ready to go.
John is also a dealer for the Rotax engine. Yep, just like a big airplane kit.
:>)
How long to build one?
I think the better question here is how many hours do they generally take? Every
plane is different but I would say realistically look at between 900 and 1000
hours. I'm sure others may debate that.
Is it possible to look at a construction manual just to get an idea of what the
steps are and what it's like to build one?
I'm sure John can help you with that, however, I could mail or fax you a section
of a manual if you would like.
What are all the options they list, some are obvious, others not.
Wait for John...he has been developing and adding things for the new company
and many of us don't know the answer to that.
Any idea of a ball park cost for building a tri-gear (boo-hiss) with basic VFR
instruments and a 912? If I add up what I know I want on the order form on their
site, the basic firewall back is about 22K. What is a good guess to add to
that to complete it?
In my opinion...$50K would probably be real close. However, it could probably be
done for less if you look for deals and keep it simple.
Hope that helps,
Dan B
Mesa, AZ
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! --
|