Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:18 AM - Re: Michigan Kitfoxers...or Mich. pilots in general (Fox5flyer)
2. 05:32 AM - Ref carb sockets (Larry Martin)
3. 09:37 AM - Re: KitFox Rudder Authority (Michael Gibbs)
4. 10:46 AM - Re: Re: KitFox Rudder Authority (kerrjohna@comcast.net)
5. 11:49 AM - Re: Re: KitFox Rudder Authority (John Oakley)
6. 12:07 PM - Re: Re: KitFox Rudder Authority (Aerobatics@aol.com)
7. 12:40 PM - Re: KitFox Rudder Authority (Michel Verheughe)
8. 12:42 PM - Re: Re: KitFox Rudder Authority (Michel Verheughe)
9. 01:20 PM - Sport Pilot: one step closer (Lynn Matteson)
10. 02:01 PM - Re: Sport Pilot: one step closer (Jose M. Toro)
11. 02:20 PM - Re: Sport Pilot: one step closer (Michel Verheughe)
12. 02:56 PM - Re: Sport Pilot: one step closer (Lowell Fitt)
13. 03:22 PM - Re: Re: Fuel System Rotax 912UL(to Howard) (Randy Daughenbaugh)
14. 03:22 PM - Re: Fuel System Rotax 912UL (Randy Daughenbaugh)
15. 05:48 PM - Re: Sport Pilot: one step closer (Noel Loveys)
16. 06:36 PM - Re: Re: KitFox Rudder Authority (John Anderson)
17. 07:40 PM - Re: Sport Pilot: one step closer (Rex)
18. 08:28 PM - Re: Sport Pilot: one step closer (Richard Rabbers)
19. 08:55 PM - Re: NSI Manuals and other Materials (A Smith)
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: Michigan Kitfoxers...or Mich. pilots in general |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Fox5flyer" <fox5flyer@i-star.com>
Thanks Lynn. I recall talking to him a few times while he picked my brain
about local grass strips around here. I think what he's putting together is
an excellent tool for all of us, especially when we're looking around for a
good place to go to breakfast. Often the municipal airport is 3 miles or
more from town and with this directory if there are any small farm strips
around within walking distance of an eatery, we'll know about them. Many
other more doors open up for us, especially for emergency landing areas.
Thanks for letting us know.
Deke
waiting with my $20
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lynn Matteson" <lynnmatt@jps.net>
Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 10:26 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Michigan Kitfoxers...or Mich. pilots in general
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net>
>
> I just returned from our Chapter 304 EAA meeting, and a guest speaker
> announced that he has put together a list of all private airstrips in
> the State of Michigan. It should be ready for publication in about a
> month. He has been compiling it for over two years. He is meeting with
> his lawyer to iron out all the legal aspects of such a publication. It
> will sell for $20. I told him to put me on the list. He said that he
> contacted hundreds of strip owners, and they were very willing to be
> added to his list, with very few exceptions. He said that the current
> Michigan Airport Directory lists about 200+ airports, and his list will
> provide about 500+ private landing strips. He even had yours, Deke.
> Hell, he's even got Howland Field on there! He also said that around
> Napoleon and Brooklyn there are 20-some strips....and added "I don't
> know how you guys keep from running into one another."
>
> When it's done, the list will show nearest town, owners name and phone
> number, lat and long, length of runway(s), slope (if any), turf or
> paved, etc. I'll let you all know when he is ready to sell the
> directory.
>
>
> Lynn
> Kitfox IV Speedster...Jabiru 2200
>
>
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: | Ref carb sockets |
It looked like the page I sent arrive to the list blank, so here is the
link for the American made carb sockets.
http://www.geocities.com/chinooktips/ROTAX.html
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: KitFox Rudder Authority |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michael Gibbs <MichaelGibbs@cox.net>
I did not experience the type of flight performance you did in my
Model IV-1200. Later Model IVs and the Series 5-7 Kitfoxes have a
larger vertical stabilizer and rudder than the earlier models do,
which gives them more yaw stability.
While certainly requiring more attention than my Piper Arrow, my
Model IV handled turbulent summer air without a lot of effort on my
part. I will admit, however, that it gets easier with time, which
suggests that your feet develop an "auto pilot" operation of their
own. :-)
Mike G.
N728KF
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: KitFox Rudder Authority |
It has been interesting to follow this thread as contributors speak of the lateral
stability and rudder authority. They are different things and might be considered
counter to one another: the more stable an aircraft is laterally the
more rudder authority is required to counter that stability. The balance of the
two is part of design compromise process and is not unique to this design.
We can all cite designs that have evolved over time to accomodate increased power
and other changes.
One such evolution is the very popular RV series that saw a signicant increase
in veritical stabilizer area and similarly an increase in rudder size when the
design of the RV6 was deemed to be improvable ala the RV8 and RV9. The fuselage
was also lengthened to further improve stability.
In the past few months I have had the opportunity to fly 2 certified airplanes
and found them HARD to fly because they were so stable as to need forceful control
input to get them to change direction. Flying them was much more tiring
than the light pressure needed to control my 'Fox or my RV9.
I guess I could talk with a similar jaundiced attitude toward the certified transition
as some have exhibited toward their transition to lighter more responsive
designs. I have never flown a fully aerobatic aircraft, but I suspect that
the feel is different for them as well. I have heard that aerobatic craft don't
make particularly good cross country flyers. I guess our reaction is based
on the paradigm we are each in.
John Kerr
-------------- Original message --------------
From: Michael Gibbs <MichaelGibbs@cox.net>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michael Gibbs
>
> I did not experience the type of flight performance you did in my
> Model IV-1200. Later Model IVs and the Series 5-7 Kitfoxes have a
> larger vertical stabilizer and rudder than the earlier models do,
> which gives them more yaw stability.
>
> While certainly requiring more attention than my Piper Arrow, my
> Model IV handled turbulent summer air without a lot of effort on my
> part. I will admit, however, that it gets easier with time, which
> suggests that your feet develop an "auto pilot" operation of their
> own. :-)
>
> Mike G.
> N728KF
>
>
>
>
<html><body>
<DIV>It has been interesting to follow this thread as contributors speak of the
lateral stability and rudder authority. They are different things and might
be considered counter to one another: the more stable an aircraft is laterally
the more rudder authority is required to counter that stability. The
balance of the two is part of design compromise process and is not unique to
this design. We can all cite designs that have evolved over time to accomodate
increased power and other changes.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>One such evolution is the very popular RV series that saw a signicant increase
in veritical stabilizer area and similarly an increase in rudder size when
the design of the RV6 was deemed to be improvable ala the RV8 and RV9.
The fuselage was also lengthened to further improve stability.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>In the past few months I have had the opportunity to fly 2 certified airplanes
and found them HARD to fly because they were so stable as to need forceful
control input to get them to change direction. Flying them was much more
tiring than the light pressure needed to control my 'Fox or my RV9.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I guess I could talk with a similar jaundiced attitude toward the certified
transition as some have exhibited toward their transition to lighter more responsive
designs. I have never flown a fully aerobatic aircraft, but I suspect
that the feel is different for them as well. I have heard that aerobatic
craft don't make particularly good cross country flyers. I guess
our reaction is based on the paradigm we are each in.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>John Kerr</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
=====
<BR>&g
<pre><b><font size=2 color="#000000" face="courier new,courier">
</b></font></pre></body></html>
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: KitFox Rudder Authority |
dEar John,
Pleze noot use such Big wOrds on us,
Other than that you made a good point! Well said.
John Oakley
_____
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
kerrjohna@comcast.net
Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006 11:44 AM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: KitFox Rudder Authority
It has been interesting to follow this thread as contributors speak of the
lateral stability and rudder authority. They are different things and might
be considered counter to one another: the more stable an aircraft is
laterally the more rudder authority is required to counter that stability.
The balance of the two is part of design compromise process and is not
unique to this design. We can all cite designs that have evolved over time
to accomodate increased power and other changes.
One such evolution is the very popular RV series that saw a signicant
increase in veritical stabilizer area and similarly an increase in rudder
size when the design of the RV6 was deemed to be improvable ala the RV8 and
RV9. The fuselage was also lengthened to further improve stability.
In the past few months I have had the opportunity to fly 2 certified
airplanes and found them HARD to fly because they were so stable as to need
forceful control input to get them to change direction. Flying them was
much more tiring than the light pressure needed to control my 'Fox or my
RV9.
I guess I could talk with a similar jaundiced attitude toward the certified
transition as some have exhibited toward their transition to lighter more
responsive designs. I have never flown a fully aerobatic aircraft, but I
suspect that the feel is different for them as well. I have heard that
aerobatic craft don't make particularly good cross country flyers. I guess
our reaction is based on the paradigm we are each in.
John Kerr
======
&g
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: KitFox Rudder Authority |
In a message dated 10/5/2006 12:51:34 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
kerrjohna@comcast.net writes:
It has been interesting to follow this thread as contributors speak of the
lateral stability and rudder authority. They are different things and might
be considered counter to one another: the more stable an aircraft is laterally
the more rudder authority is required to counter that stability. The
balance of the two is part of design compromise process and is not unique to this
design. We can all cite designs that have evolved over time to accomodate
increased power and other changes.
Agreed........ an airplane design IS full of compromises...
I have a bit of time in some aerobatic planes Pitts S2B was amazing not
inherently stable, but not unstable, just very responsive, I Loved it. Light
controls, point it there, it stays... a neutral set up. I have a bit of time
in a RV4 and found very much the same thing... great airplane...
But so is the KF in what it does...:-)
Dave
KF2
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: KitFox Rudder Authority |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
On Oct 4, 2006, at 8:15 PM, Fox5flyer wrote:
> Just let it wiggle Michel.
Yes, I guess I should, Deke. It's just that, I need to fly more to get
the feel of it.
On Oct 4, 2006, at 9:21 PM, Guy Buchanan wrote:
> As a lifelong sailor I only mind the motion when I bounce my head off
> the skylight! :'(
I understand, Guy. But as Rod Machado puts it: turbulence are like
waves at sea. The only difference is that you don't see them ... and
that's what horror movies are made of! :-)
Cheers,
Michel
do not archive
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: KitFox Rudder Authority |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
On Oct 5, 2006, at 8:52 PM, John Oakley wrote:
> Pleze noot use such Big wOrds on us,
Not a problem for me! You see, fancy words in English are mostly from
French origin so ... vive la diffrence!
... Okay, I'll shut up! :-)
Cheers,
Michel
do not archive
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: | Sport Pilot: one step closer |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net>
I just got my recommendation today from my instructor to take the
checkride next week. We went up and I did all the maneuvers asked, all
the various takeoffs and landings, and when he said "take me home" I
thought I had flunked the pre-checkride checkride....I hadn't. When he
got out he said "congrats, you just did your recommendation ride in
20-30 mph winds" yeeehawwwwwww!!
Lynn
Kitfox IV Speedster...Jabiru 2200
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: Sport Pilot: one step closer |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jose M. Toro" <jose_m_toro@yahoo.com>
Congratulations Lynn! Will be waiting next week for
feedback from the newest Sport Pilot in the list.
Jose
--- Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net> wrote:
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson
> <lynnmatt@jps.net>
>
> I just got my recommendation today from my
> instructor to take the
> checkride next week. We went up and I did all the
> maneuvers asked, all
> the various takeoffs and landings, and when he said
> "take me home" I
> thought I had flunked the pre-checkride
> checkride....I hadn't. When he
> got out he said "congrats, you just did your
> recommendation ride in
> 20-30 mph winds" yeeehawwwwwww!!
>
> Lynn
> Kitfox IV Speedster...Jabiru 2200
>
>
>
> browse
> Subscriptions page,
> FAQ,
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List
>
> Web Forums!
>
>
> Admin.
>
>
>
>
>
__________________________________________________
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: Sport Pilot: one step closer |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
On Oct 5, 2006, at 10:22 PM, Lynn Matteson wrote:
> When he got out he said "congrats, you just did your recommendation
> ride in 20-30 mph winds" yeeehawwwwwww!!
Congrats, cowboy! :-)
Now, to enlighten the ignorance of an European Kitfoxer, ... what is a
"recommendation check-ride?"
Cheers,
Michel
do not archive
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Sport Pilot: one step closer |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@sbcglobal.net>
Thanks for the Post, Lynn.
It was a long time ago, but it brought to mind my anticipation for the check
ride.
Lowell
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lynn Matteson" <lynnmatt@jps.net>
Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006 1:22 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Sport Pilot: one step closer
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net>
>
> I just got my recommendation today from my instructor to take the
> checkride next week. We went up and I did all the maneuvers asked, all the
> various takeoffs and landings, and when he said "take me home" I thought I
> had flunked the pre-checkride checkride....I hadn't. When he got out he
> said "congrats, you just did your recommendation ride in 20-30 mph winds"
> yeeehawwwwwww!!
>
> Lynn
> Kitfox IV Speedster...Jabiru 2200
>
>
>
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: Fuel System Rotax 912UL(to Howard) |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Randy Daughenbaugh" <rjdaugh@rapidnet.com>
Rotating the wrong way (more than about half a prop turn) will pump the oil
backwards into the oil tank, while drawing air from the crankcase into the
oil pump. This causes the oil pump to lose prime. Then it is possible for
the engine to run without oil pressure which can damage the engine.
There are procedures that Rotax published to prime the oil pump every time
you change the oil.
Randy
.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of dcsfoto
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2006 7:06 AM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Fuel System Rotax 912UL(to Howard)
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "dcsfoto" <david@kelm.com>
one reason to rotate prop is to pressure crankcase and force oil into the
tank.
rotate in wrong direction it will draw oil into crankcase
that is what I was told by Rotax
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=62977#62977
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: | Fuel System Rotax 912UL |
Howard,
Do you have a "choke"? It doesn't work unless the throttle is closed all
the way. Could that be the problem?
It isn't really a choke, but rather an en-richer circuit.
Randy
.
_____
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Howard
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 6:57 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Fuel System Rotax 912UL
I am a new Kitfox owner, and need some advice.
I have the wings off my Fox for recovering, and since the engine hasn't been
started in over a year, I deceided to start it before I put on the
wings...The header tank was about 1/2 full, so I felt there was plenty of
gas to start up and see how it was running.
I could not get the engine to fire...Can I start the engine with the wings
off, and the total fuel system not on line, just using the header tank?
What do you think I am doing wrong, and better yet, you might give me a
short step by step check list.
Thanks so much for your time in this matter.
Safe flying.
Howard Ligon
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: | Sport Pilot: one step closer |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys@yahoo.ca>
Congratulations Lynn.... I've flown in 30+ winds and there is no way I'd
want to do a test in those conditions!
Noel
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> Lynn Matteson
> Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006 5:52 PM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Kitfox-List: Sport Pilot: one step closer
>
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net>
>
> I just got my recommendation today from my instructor to take the
> checkride next week. We went up and I did all the maneuvers
> asked, all
> the various takeoffs and landings, and when he said "take me home" I
> thought I had flunked the pre-checkride checkride....I
> hadn't. When he
> got out he said "congrats, you just did your recommendation ride in
> 20-30 mph winds" yeeehawwwwwww!!
>
> Lynn
> Kitfox IV Speedster...Jabiru 2200
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: KitFox Rudder Authority |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "John Anderson" <janderson412@hotmail.com>
Agreed........ an airplane design IS full of compromises...
Except de Haviland aircraft......that old gent had a secret when it came to
control and stability...
From: Aerobatics@aol.com
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: KitFox Rudder Authority
In a message dated 10/5/2006 12:51:34 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
kerrjohna@comcast.net writes:
It has been interesting to follow this thread as contributors speak of the
lateral stability and rudder authority. They are different things and might
be considered counter to one another: the more stable an aircraft is
laterally the more rudder authority is required to counter that stability.
The balance of the two is part of design compromise process and is not
unique to this design. We can all cite designs that have evolved over time
to accomodate increased power and other changes.
Agreed........ an airplane design IS full of compromises...
I have a bit of time in some aerobatic planes Pitts S2B was amazing not
inherently stable, but not unstable, just very responsive, I Loved it.
Light controls, point it there, it stays... a neutral set up. I have a bit
of time in a RV4 and found very much the same thing... great airplane...
But so is the KF in what it does...:-)
Dave
KF2
_________________________________________________________________
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Sport Pilot: one step closer |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Rex <gypsybee@copper.net>
Hi Michel
Since no one has answered yet, I'll offer my explanation. When an
instructor thinks you are ready and should be able to pass an actual
Check-Ride he will simulate giving the check ride. If you do well he
will endorse your log book as recommended for that Pilot test. The
endorsement is written to include the word "recommended" or something
like that. Thus the term "recommendation ride". There may be errors in
my answer as I haven't read the latest FAR's.
Rex
Colorado
Michel Verheughe wrote:
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
>
> On Oct 5, 2006, at 10:22 PM, Lynn Matteson wrote:
>
>> When he got out he said "congrats, you just did your recommendation
>> ride in 20-30 mph winds" yeeehawwwwwww!!
>
>
> Congrats, cowboy! :-)
> Now, to enlighten the ignorance of an European Kitfoxer, ... what is a
> "recommendation check-ride?"
>
> Cheers,
> Michel
>
> do not archive
>
>
--
Karla and Rex Hefferan
Gypsy Bee Innkeepers
719-651-5198 or 719-651-9192
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Sport Pilot: one step closer |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Richard Rabbers" <rira1950@yahoo.com>
> Lynn >yeeehawwwwwww!!
Congratulations Lynn!
do not archive
--------
Richard in SW Michigan
Model 1 / 618 - full-lotus floats (restoration)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=66121#66121
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: NSI Manuals and other Materials |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "A Smith" <kitfox@ida.net>
You should have a dyno run on that engine. Looks like a spread sheet. Comes
with teh engine. That will give you some numbers to use. As far as the
manuals, that sounds fairly complete. The expierence here in the group will
probably be the best manual you have. Here are just a few for starters. It
will be heavy. Put your battery in the tail and sweep the wings. It will not
cool well without some effort. An oil cooler is a must. Two fuel pumps,
think about it very seriously. And remember to keep it light. Drill out your
primer so it can get fuel on the first fire up of the day. I vented my
gearbox. No more seal problems. Fasten the muffler where it exits the cowl
back to the crossover pipe or it will break from vibration. It is an easy
fix. I would look over everyones install before even starting. Did I mention
to keep it light. It is a great setup with a great sound.
Albert
5TD
NSI-T/CAP140
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! --
|