Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 01:10 AM - Re: Re: Aileron Differential (Michel Verheughe)
2. 04:42 AM - Meeitng 9 AM or so ........... Re: Fly in Sunday Breakfast possible (Dave)
3. 05:23 AM - Correct Oil for 912UL (Howard)
4. 07:11 AM - Re: Correct Oil for 912UL (John Oakley)
5. 07:19 AM - Re: Ethanol and fiberglass tanks - once again (Bob Unternaehrer)
6. 07:23 AM - Re: Denaturing ethanol of motor fuel (Dave and Diane)
7. 07:25 AM - sadly a kitfox is down (john perry)
8. 07:27 AM - Re: Re: Aileron Differential (dwight purdy)
9. 07:27 AM - Re: Ethanol and fiberglass tanks - once again (Bob Unternaehrer)
10. 08:42 AM - Re: Ethanol and fiberglass tanks - once again (Lowell Fitt)
11. 09:26 AM - Re: sadly a kitfox is down (Michel Verheughe)
12. 10:55 AM - Re: sadly a kitfox is down (Lowell Fitt)
13. 11:46 AM - Re: Re: Aileron Differential (Michel Verheughe)
14. 01:08 PM - Re: Ethanol and fiberglass tanks - once again (Bob Unternaehrer)
15. 01:20 PM - Re: Ethanol and fiberglass tanks - once again (Bob Unternaehrer)
16. 02:22 PM - Re: Re: Aileron Differential (dwight purdy)
17. 02:34 PM - Long Crosscountry (wannafly)
18. 03:14 PM - Sport pilot at last! (Lynn Matteson)
19. 03:19 PM - Re: Ethanol and fiberglass tanks - once again (PWilson)
20. 03:47 PM - Re: Sport pilot at last! (Dave and Diane)
21. 03:47 PM - Re: Sport pilot at last! (Fox5flyer)
22. 04:15 PM - Re: Sport pilot at last! (Jose M. Toro)
23. 04:28 PM - Re: Sport pilot at last! (Richard Rabbers)
24. 04:35 PM - Re: sadly a kitfox is down (Lynn Matteson)
25. 04:56 PM - Why some fying should be boring WAS: sadly a kitfox is down (GypsyBeeInnkeepers)
26. 05:06 PM - Re: Re: Sport pilot at last! (Lynn Matteson)
27. 05:23 PM - sadly a kitfox is down (Aerobatics@aol.com)
28. 05:37 PM - Re: Re: Sport pilot at last! (Ben Baltrusaitis)
29. 05:58 PM - Re: Sport pilot at last! (Dave)
30. 06:07 PM - Re: Long Crosscountry (Noel Loveys)
31. 06:13 PM - Re: Ethanol and fiberglass tanks - once again (Noel Loveys)
32. 06:19 PM - Re: Ethanol and fiberglass tanks - once again (Noel Loveys)
33. 06:29 PM - Re: Denaturing ethanol of motor fuel (Noel Loveys)
34. 06:33 PM - Re: Ethanol and fiberglass tanks - once again (PWilson)
35. 06:41 PM - Model V with O-200; questions (Paul Seehafer)
36. 06:48 PM - Re: Re: Sport pilot at last! (Lynn Matteson)
37. 06:48 PM - Re: sadly a kitfox is down (Noel Loveys)
38. 06:52 PM - Re: Ethanol and fiberglass tanks - once again (John Anderson)
39. 06:54 PM - Re: Sport pilot at last! (Noel Loveys)
40. 07:01 PM - Re: Model V with O-200; questions (John Anderson)
41. 07:07 PM - Re: sadly a kitfox is down (John Anderson)
42. 07:24 PM - RV: Model V with O-200; questions (Francisco J Ocampo)
43. 07:24 PM - Re: Sport pilot at last! (Lynn Matteson)
44. 08:07 PM - Re: sadly a kitfox is down (wingsdown)
45. 08:08 PM - Re: Aileron Differential (DeWayne Clifford)
46. 08:20 PM - Re: sadly a kitfox is down glide.... (Aerobatics@aol.com)
47. 08:50 PM - Re: Model V with O-200; questions (Paul Seehafer)
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: Aileron Differential |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
On Oct 15, 2006, at 4:38 AM, John wrote:
> Aileron differential is when one aileron moves more degrees than the
> other when the control stick is deflected.
Thank you, John. I know the theory but I can't understand you saying: "
Model III is about 1 1/2 to 1 reverse differential."
I thought that Kitfoxes, prior to model IV, had no differential
aileron, i.e. they moved the same angle up and down, thus inducing some
adverse yaw. Trying to understand your sentence, I imagine that you are
saying: If the up aileron moves 10 degrees, then the down aileron moves
15 to 10 degrees; is that right?
This being said, I don't find the light adverse yaw of my Kitfox a
problem at all. In any case, the plane has to be flown with the pedals
at all time. The only time I really use the pedals in a turn is when
e.g. I do a very square traffic pattern, turning sharp by "throwing"
the plane in a 45 degrees bank, the "throwing" it back to level.
Last, while adverse yaw is of "no use" really, I wonder if it is not
desirable in a crosswind landing, when we keep the aileron up on the
weather side, while the lee side, with its aileron down adding extra
drag, works in preventing the plane to weathercock. Is this a fact or
just something I imagine?
Cheers,
Michel
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: Fly in Sunday Breakfast |
possible
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Dave" <dave@cfisher.com>
A few of us headed to Reeces Corner for breakfast
It a few miles east of Sarnia airport Ontario. CYZR
prolly about 15 miles from Port Huron.
Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave" <dave@cfisher.com>
Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2006 10:08 AM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Fly in Sunday Breakfast possible
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Dave" <dave@cfisher.com>
>
> There has been a few that have shown interest in meeting for breakfast
> tomorrow at Reece's Corner near Sarnia , Ontario.
>
> If anyone wants to fly in tomorrow let me know and I will post some info.
>
> IT a grass strip runs N S I think about 17- 35 approx . Great little
> spot to get a good breakfast at diner about 100 feet from Runway.
>
> WX permitting of course and it been windy her alll week.
> our TAF for today as follows but Sunday looking more promising so far...
> ( hate to say that or it will be a blizzard)
>
> Dave
>
> Reported: October 14, 2006 at 7:39 AM
> Valid From: October 14, 2006 at 8:00 AM
> Valid Until: October 15, 2006 at 8:00 AM
>
> a.. From 8:00 AM: Wind 260 (W) at 15 gusting to 25 kt, Visibility greater
> than 6 sm, Overcast 5000' (VFR)
>
> a.. Temporarily from 8:00 AM to 12:00 PM: Visibility 2 sm, Light Rain
> Showers Snow, Broken 1500', Overcast 3000' (IFR)
>
> a.. From 2:00 PM: Wind 270 (W) at 15 gusting to 25 kt, Visibility greater
> than 6 sm, Broken 6000' (VFR)
>
> a.. Between 6:00 PM and 8:00 PM becoming: Wind 260 (W) at 10 kt, Scattered
> 6000' (VFR)
>
> a.. Next Forecast 2:00 PM
>
>
>
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: | Correct Oil for 912UL |
When using 100LL exclusively in your 912UL, what oil would you
recommend?
Howard
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: | Correct Oil for 912UL |
Pro Honda HP4M 10W40 semi-synthetic oil with Moly, 1 Litre
Formulated for high heat, 4-stroke motorcycle racing applications only. If
the bike is used for high performance riding and it will be operating at or
near redline for extended periods of time, this is your oil. HP4M with Moly
is a blend for synthetic and petroleum base stocks. The synthetic portion is
very effective, in high heat applications, at reducing oxidization,
evaporation, and viscosity loss. It also contains molybdenum (moly), a very
slippery substance. The moly contributes to less friction and heat in high
temperature situations, therefore allowing the motor to rev easier, creating
more horsepower! So if horsepower is your goal; HP4M is your oil.
Howard,
This is the oil rotax suggested years ago and I have been using for 700
hours, the petroleum portion of the oil holds the lead in av gas in
suspension. The synthetic portions protect against the high temps and holds
on the parts during short term storage. The moly in this mix is the required
product for the gear box.
John Oakley
_____
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Howard
Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2006 6:21 AM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Correct Oil for 912UL
When using 100LL exclusively in your 912UL, what oil would you recommend?
Howard
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: Ethanol and fiberglass tanks - once again |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bob Unternaehrer" <shilocom@mcmsys.com>
Lowell, Just curious where you got 100% ethanol. Even our plant in Mo. can
only sell denatured alcohol which I believe is something above 98%, to keep
the drinkers from using it. Also what is 6% mogas. Do you mean 6% ethanol
and 94% unleaded gasoline. I've got a Model IV, 9? fox, whatever year
they changed tank material, I'm rebuilding that I'm not sure of the tank
composition, and am trying to decide whether to replace the tanks or slosh
with the PR-1005-L Buna N that seems to be working so well in my combine.
Bob U.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2006 5:53 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Ethanol and fiberglass tanks - once again
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@sbcglobal.net>
>
> Sorry, the proof reader is out of town.
>
> I am using 100% ethanol in one series and vinyl ester in the other.
Should
> read 100% ethanol and 6% mogas in the other.
>
> Lowell
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@sbcglobal.net>
> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2006 7:01 AM
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Ethanol and fiberglass tanks - once again
>
>
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: Denaturing ethanol of motor fuel |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Dave and Diane <ddsyverson@comcast.net>
Noel,
That would be the remaining 15% - identified as gasoline (or 90% in the case
of 10% ethanol blends).
Dont even thing of drinking E85.
All of the ethanol blends intended for motor fuel leaving a corn gas plant are
unfit for human consumption - this is a regulatory requirement (AFT).
Interesting enough, among the 15 or so corn gas plants we have, one also makes
Vodka, intended for human consumption - goes without saying that the
production equipment is separate. Anyone who wants to Google Earth it -
located about a mile northwest of Benson MN - right adjacent to the local
airport (site of my first solo in a C-120 1967 - although the corn gas plant
did not exist back then, we did have a grass cross strip - so the old
neighborhood has probably gone down hill in two ways at least)
Dave S
DO NOT ARCHIVE
On Sunday 15 October 2006 12:07 am, Noel Loveys wrote:
>
> Just curious are they (the refiners or governments) putting any thing into
> EA85 to make it either poisonous or un-palatable? Could make for a cheap
> weekend ;-)
>
> Noel
>
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: | sadly a kitfox is down |
Just read on the ntsb that a kitfox 4 1200 went down on friday N134U two
peope were on board and did not make it .
pilot was having fuel problems it says
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id 061013X01518&key=1
John Perry
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: Aileron Differential |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: dwight purdy <dpurdy@comteck.com>
Micheal
I fly a model ll. I did not build it and learned to fly with the flap
handle full off. One day while checking the incident angle of the flaperons
I found that they were in a reflex position with the handle full down. I
started flying with the handle about 30% up and the plane is very
squirrelly as compared to full down. I like having to fly the plane. When
you give the controls to your passenger, he is all over the sky. Makes you
look like the MAN. HA HA.
Dwight
At 10:07 AM 10/15/2006 +0200, you wrote:
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
>
>On Oct 15, 2006, at 4:38 AM, John wrote:
>>Aileron differential is when one aileron moves more degrees than the
>>other when the control stick is deflected.
>
>Thank you, John. I know the theory but I can't understand you saying: "
>Model III is about 1 1/2 to 1 reverse differential."
>
>I thought that Kitfoxes, prior to model IV, had no differential aileron,
>i.e. they moved the same angle up and down, thus inducing some adverse
>yaw. Trying to understand your sentence, I imagine that you are saying: If
>the up aileron moves 10 degrees, then the down aileron moves 15 to 10
>degrees; is that right?
>This being said, I don't find the light adverse yaw of my Kitfox a problem
>at all. In any case, the plane has to be flown with the pedals at all
>time. The only time I really use the pedals in a turn is when e.g. I do a
>very square traffic pattern, turning sharp by "throwing" the plane in a 45
>degrees bank, the "throwing" it back to level.
>Last, while adverse yaw is of "no use" really, I wonder if it is not
>desirable in a crosswind landing, when we keep the aileron up on the
>weather side, while the lee side, with its aileron down adding extra drag,
>works in preventing the plane to weathercock. Is this a fact or just
>something I imagine?
>
>Cheers,
>Michel
>
>
>--
>Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
--
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
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 fiberglass tanks - once again |
For those who don't believe in ethanol to "reduce" foreign oil
dependency, they should suggest and PROVE another PRACTICAL alternative.
I'm hoping, but probably only a big hope, that Hydrogen will prove out
quickly. Bob U.
----- Original Message -----
From: david yeamans
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2006 9:43 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Ethanol and fiberglass tanks - once again
I still think ethanol is not the answer.... It is just a corrosive
diversion to get a few more votes.
Noel
I agree with you 100 % David Yeamans
----- Original Message -----
From: Noel Loveys
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Friday, October 13, 2006 8:19 PM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Ethanol and fiberglass tanks - once again
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Noel Loveys"
<noelloveys@yahoo.ca>
The fun starts ... I think there are a few cars on the road today
with
composite or plastic gas tanks. I wonder what will happen to them
when they
have been exposed to EA85 for a year or so.
I still think ethanol is not the answer.... It is just a corrosive
diversion to get a few more votes.
Noel
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> Lowell Fitt
> Sent: Friday, October 13, 2006 10:15 PM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Ethanol and fiberglass tanks - once
again
>
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt"
> <lcfitt@sbcglobal.net>
>
> I did a little research on the alcohol issue. The majority of
> the talk is in
> the boating world where the fiberglass tanks have deteriated
> in some cases
> and more seriously, in some cases residues, possibly from the
> affected tanks
> have resulted in engine damage.
>
> The good news seems to indicate that the affected fiberglass
> tanks were made
> prior to the mid 1980s - at least for those that have models
> built after
> that date.
>
>
> For those interested do a Google search on Ethanol and
> Fiberglass fuel
> tanks.
>
> It is comforting that we Kitfox folks are not the only ones
> concerned about
> this issue and there is info out there.
>
> Lowell
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Michel Verheughe" <michel@online.no>
> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Friday, October 13, 2006 2:34 PM
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Ethanol and fiberglass tanks - once
again
>
>
> > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe
> <michel@online.no>
> >
> > On Oct 13, 2006, at 9:00 PM, Don Smythe wrote:
> >> In my opinion, no.
> >
> > Thank you, Don. Your explanation makes perfect sense to me.
> I mentioned
> > once again PRC because Bill, on the Jabiru list, couldn't
> understand what
> > the problem was with ethanol. My initial posting there was
> to say, in an
> > answer to: is the Jabiru fuel pump and carby gaskets
> ethanol resistant?;
> > - "I can always replace hoses and gaskets but what about
> fiberglass
> > tanks?"
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Michel
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> p; Features Subscriptions
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List">http://www.matron
======================
bsp; available via
-========================
nbsp; Email List nbsp; generous bsp;
================
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: Ethanol and fiberglass tanks - once again |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@sbcglobal.net>
Bob, You are correct on the 100%. I am using denatured alcohol, wasn't sure
of the percentage, but my reading said it acts the same as 100%, what ever
that means. I had been lead to understand that the denaturing agent is
methanol. I suppose I could get pure ethanol from a pharmaceutical supply
co. But I no longer have a license to practice dentistry. We used to use it
in the old days for gold foil fillings.
The 6% mogas did refer to 94% petrolium fuel and 6% ehtanol. Sorry for the
misunderstanding. I tried to boost the 6% ehtanol to 25% (arbitrary) by
simply adding the denatured alcohol to the pump fuel, but it won't mix.
This is one of the fears of higher levels of alcohol in mogas as I
understand it. My reading indicates that the alcohol is added to the
gasoline just prior to shipment to prevent water from getting into the
alcohol in the stored fuel. There is a tendency for phase separation and
when transferring from the truck to the underground tank if not mixed
completely, the first out of the truck would by higher in ethanol by
percentage, as ethanol is more dense than the gasoline and settles on the
bottom like water.
Lowell
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Unternaehrer" <shilocom@mcmsys.com>
Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2006 7:28 AM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Ethanol and fiberglass tanks - once again
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bob Unternaehrer"
> <shilocom@mcmsys.com>
>
> Lowell, Just curious where you got 100% ethanol. Even our plant in Mo.
> can
> only sell denatured alcohol which I believe is something above 98%, to
> keep
> the drinkers from using it. Also what is 6% mogas. Do you mean 6%
> ethanol
> and 94% unleaded gasoline. I've got a Model IV, 9? fox, whatever year
> they changed tank material, I'm rebuilding that I'm not sure of the tank
> composition, and am trying to decide whether to replace the tanks or slosh
> with the PR-1005-L Buna N that seems to be working so well in my combine.
> Bob U.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@sbcglobal.net>
> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2006 5:53 PM
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Ethanol and fiberglass tanks - once again
>
>
>> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@sbcglobal.net>
>>
>> Sorry, the proof reader is out of town.
>>
>> I am using 100% ethanol in one series and vinyl ester in the other.
> Should
>> read 100% ethanol and 6% mogas in the other.
>>
>> Lowell
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@sbcglobal.net>
>> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
>> Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2006 7:01 AM
>> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Ethanol and fiberglass tanks - once again
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
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: sadly a kitfox is down |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
On Oct 15, 2006, at 4:22 PM, john perry wrote:
> Just read on the ntsb that a kitfox 4 1200 went down on friday N134U
> two peope were on board and did not make it .
> pilot was having fuel problems it says
Yes, I learnt about the fatal accident Thursday , as I have "Kitfox" as
a keyword in Google Alert. But your new link seem to shed more light on
the accident, John. I looks like the two pilots did what we should
avoid; try to save the plane by turning back to the runway, and stalled
in the turn, entering a spin.
May this be a lesson to all of us, once an emergency arises, our
beloved planes are merely an expendable cushion between us and mother
earth. I don't know how I would react if this happened to me but, from
all I read, I believe the best way to safe my, and my eventual
passenger's life, is to land almost anywhere but straight ahead.
When I was in Germany, one month ago, for the PocketFMS fly-in, we
assisted a safety conference held by a German aviation safety officer.
In one example, he took a real airfield and demonstrated what were the
alternatives in the event of an engine stop under initial climb. His
opinion was that, for our small aircraft, it was even better to land on
tree tops, than making the possibly fatal 180 turn.
Our thoughts are, of course, with the family of the victims. May God
bless them and relief their pain.
Cheers,
Michel
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: sadly a kitfox is down |
John,
Thanks for the report. This is indeed bad news. If the pilot was the
registered owner, then it is someone I have met as he attended the Cameron
Park Kitfox fly-in. I have been unable to find any local news reports of
the accident.
Attached is a photo of the airplane (N134U) taken by John McBean at the
Second fly-in.
Lowell
----- Original Message -----
From: "john perry" <eskflyer@lvcisp.com>
Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2006 7:22 AM
Subject: Kitfox-List: sadly a kitfox is down
Just read on the ntsb that a kitfox 4 1200 went down on friday N134U two
peope were on board and did not make it .
pilot was having fuel problems it says
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id 061013X01518&key=1
John Perry
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: Aileron Differential |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
On Oct 15, 2006, at 4:25 PM, dwight purdy wrote:
> I found that they were in a reflex position with the handle full down.
Here again, I am stumbling on words, Dwight; what is "reflex position?"
You see, with the "1.5 reverse differential" from John, I also have
problems to understand because, from what I can read from the builder's
manual (like you, I bought the plane completed) when the flaperons are
at the same angle on both sides, a spline extending the it's lower
surface, must meet the leading edge of the wing a few inches below.
Which it does, on my plane. My conclusion then is that the chord of the
flaperon is at a slightly higher AoA than the wing.
Now, if you then measure the angle the flaperon does with full stick
movement, it will be a greater angle down than up - compared to the
wing! Not maybe not to the initial reference, which is then the level
position.
Then I also read that some gliders have negative flaps setting. Hum, it
gets complicated! :-)
Cheers,
Michel
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Ethanol and fiberglass tanks - once again |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bob Unternaehrer" <shilocom@mcmsys.com>
<<<Just curious are they (the refiners or governments) putting any thing
into
EA85 to make it either poisonous or un-palatable? Could make for a cheap
weekend ;-)>>>
15% gasoline!!!!
<<Corn in
> usable quantities won't grow here and the cost of transporting Eth from
the
> closest distilleries would be prohibitive.>>
1/2 of our production in Malta Bend Mo, 45 Million gallons, soon to go to 90
million, now goes to California, so the east coast is no farther away.
Bob U.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys@yahoo.ca>
Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2006 12:07 AM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Ethanol and fiberglass tanks - once again
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys@yahoo.ca>
>
> I think I'll wait until your results are posted before I try anything like
> that.... I'm lucky living out in the North Atlantic. I don't expect to
have
> my gas supply contaminated with ethanol in the very near future. Corn in
> usable quantities won't grow here and the cost of transporting Eth from
the
> closest distilleries would be prohibitive.
>
> Just curious are they (the refiners or governments) putting any thing into
> EA85 to make it either poisonous or un-palatable? Could make for a cheap
> weekend ;-)
>
> Noel
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> > [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> > Lowell Fitt
> > Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2006 8:26 PM
> > To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> > Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Ethanol and fiberglass tanks - once again
> >
> >
> > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt"
> > <lcfitt@sbcglobal.net>
> >
> > No Noel, that's where you come in.
> >
> > Lowell
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys@yahoo.ca>
> > To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> > Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2006 8:02 AM
> > Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Ethanol and fiberglass tanks - once again
> >
> >
> > > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Noel Loveys"
> > <noelloveys@yahoo.ca>
> > >
> > > Can you also introduce bending and flexing and vibration
> > that you get in a
> > > flying airplane into your experiment?
> > >
> > > Noel
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> > >> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> > >> Lowell Fitt
> > >> Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2006 11:32 AM
> > >> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> > >> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Ethanol and fiberglass tanks - once again
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt"
> > >> <lcfitt@sbcglobal.net>
> > >>
> > >> Don, I agree whole heartedly. My tanks are an interesting
> > >> story. I took
> > >> delivery of the kit in March 1993. Of course the first
> > >> things were the
> > >> fuselage controlls and fitting all the fuselate
> > attachments: rudder,
> > >> horizontal stab and elevator. Then I got around to doing the
> > >> wings, left
> > >> wing first. That was December 2003. The wing tank was a
> > >> right wing tank
> > >> with a left wing tank top, in other words the washout twist
> > >> was backward. I
> > >> sent the tank back for an exchange - so I now had wing
> > tanks from two
> > >> production era's nine months apart.
> > >>
> > >> It was the early tank that began leaking at 500 hours, in
> > >> Idaho, after four
> > >> days soaking in AV Gas. There is definitely, in my mind,
> > >> differences in
> > >> wing batches. Whether the difference has to do with materials or
> > >> workmanship, I have no idea.
> > >>
> > >> I am running an experiment with vinyl ester resin and
> > Kreem as a fuel
> > >> barrior. I tried to boost the alcohol content of the local
> > >> fuel - 6% - as
> > >> we speak, but couldn't get the ethanol to mix, so I am using
> > >> 100% ethanol in
> > >> one series and vinyl ester in the other. I have the samples
> > >> under a bell
> > >> jar so I can simulate altitude changes that would cause a
> > >> solid structure to
> > >> degass at lower air pressures - if there are pin holes in the
> > >> tanks there is
> > >> air in them. The samples are held under the liquids in test
> > >> tubes so I can
> > >> observe degassing bubbles if present. I take them up to a
> > >> simulated 14,000
> > >> ft daily and observe for any degassing bubbles. So far
> > >> nothing in any of
> > >> the samples, but they only have been submerged since Oct 1.
> > >>
> > >> I will rerport to the list the first sign of failure.
> > >>
> > >> Lowell
> > >>
> > >> ----- Original Message -----
> > >> From: "Don Smythe" <dosmythe@cox.net>
> > >> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> > >> Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2006 4:07 AM
> > >> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Ethanol and fiberglass tanks - once again
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Don Smythe"
> > <dosmythe@cox.net>
> > >> >
> > >> > Lowell,
> > >> > I did a lot of web searching and found the same stuff
> > >> you're talking
> > >> > about. I still have one little concern. Back when I was
> > >> working in the
> > >> > Submarine world, they had a program called "SUBSAFE".
> > This program
> > >> > required all critical parts in a Submarine to be certified
> > >> with a long
> > >> > trail of paperwork You could just about track back a piece
> > >> of metal to
> > >> > the mine where the ore came from. We discussed many times
> > >> that the old
> > >> > Skystar had used a couple different tank manufactures and I
> > >> never did get
> > >> > a good warm feeling as to exactly what materials were used
> > >> and when.
> > >> > Bottom line, my 1995 tanks have no serial numbers or
> > >> paperwork to tell me
> > >> > what they are made of.. Who knows, they might be made of
> > >> the pre 85 boat
> > >> > stuff.
> > >> >
> > >> > Don Smythe
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > ----- Original Message -----
> > >> >> I did a little research on the alcohol issue. The majority
> > >> of the talk is
> > >> >> in the boating world where the fiberglass tanks have
> > >> >
> > >> >> The good news seems to indicate that the affected
> > >> fiberglass tanks were
> > >> >> made prior to the mid 1980s - at least for those that have
> > >> models built
> > >> >> after
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
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: Ethanol and fiberglass tanks - once again |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bob Unternaehrer" <shilocom@mcmsys.com>
You know a lot more about it than I do chemically. I know we ship the
denatured product in tanker trucks and rail cars to "blenders", where the
15% gasoline is added to get E85 or 85 to 90% unleaded gasoline is added to
get E10 or E15. I've been running around 30% ethanol in an OLD 88 T-bird
for a couple of months by haphazardly blending E85 with unleaded gas at the
fuel pump. I guess at how much fuel it will take total, add about 30 to 45%
E85 and then fill it up with nonleaded gasoline. Has taken away a lot of
the misses and hesitations of the old bird, but don't know how much less
fuel economy I'm now getting. I'm playing around with getting a "blenders"
liscence here on the farm, so I can get the 51 cent Federal tax credit. I
own several shares in an ethanol plant close by, but the problem is they
can't load small trucks like mine, so would have to go thru a jobber and
they don't want to give up the lucrative tax credit much at all to sell to
me. Don't know how it will come out in the wash. In case you are not
familiar with the USD research and web site on AGE85, here it is. AGE85 is
Aviation Grade Ethanol and doesn't necessarily mean it is 85% ethanol, but
some time gets much higher, approaching95%. They have 3 airplanes running
on it doing reasearch for the FAA. http://www.age85.org/ Bob U.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2006 10:39 AM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Ethanol and fiberglass tanks - once again
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@sbcglobal.net>
>
> Bob, You are correct on the 100%. I am using denatured alcohol, wasn't
sure
> of the percentage, but my reading said it acts the same as 100%, what ever
> that means. I had been lead to understand that the denaturing agent is
> methanol. I suppose I could get pure ethanol from a pharmaceutical supply
> co. But I no longer have a license to practice dentistry. We used to use
it
> in the old days for gold foil fillings.
>
> The 6% mogas did refer to 94% petrolium fuel and 6% ehtanol. Sorry for
the
> misunderstanding. I tried to boost the 6% ehtanol to 25% (arbitrary) by
> simply adding the denatured alcohol to the pump fuel, but it won't mix.
> This is one of the fears of higher levels of alcohol in mogas as I
> understand it. My reading indicates that the alcohol is added to the
> gasoline just prior to shipment to prevent water from getting into the
> alcohol in the stored fuel. There is a tendency for phase separation and
> when transferring from the truck to the underground tank if not mixed
> completely, the first out of the truck would by higher in ethanol by
> percentage, as ethanol is more dense than the gasoline and settles on the
> bottom like water.
>
> Lowell
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bob Unternaehrer" <shilocom@mcmsys.com>
> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2006 7:28 AM
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Ethanol and fiberglass tanks - once again
>
>
> > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bob Unternaehrer"
> > <shilocom@mcmsys.com>
> >
> > Lowell, Just curious where you got 100% ethanol. Even our plant in Mo.
> > can
> > only sell denatured alcohol which I believe is something above 98%, to
> > keep
> > the drinkers from using it. Also what is 6% mogas. Do you mean 6%
> > ethanol
> > and 94% unleaded gasoline. I've got a Model IV, 9? fox, whatever year
> > they changed tank material, I'm rebuilding that I'm not sure of the tank
> > composition, and am trying to decide whether to replace the tanks or
slosh
> > with the PR-1005-L Buna N that seems to be working so well in my
combine.
> > Bob U.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@sbcglobal.net>
> > To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> > Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2006 5:53 PM
> > Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Ethanol and fiberglass tanks - once again
> >
> >
> >> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@sbcglobal.net>
> >>
> >> Sorry, the proof reader is out of town.
> >>
> >> I am using 100% ethanol in one series and vinyl ester in the other.
> > Should
> >> read 100% ethanol and 6% mogas in the other.
> >>
> >> Lowell
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@sbcglobal.net>
> >> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> >> Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2006 7:01 AM
> >> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Ethanol and fiberglass tanks - once again
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
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: Aileron Differential |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: dwight purdy <dpurdy@comteck.com>
Don't know if I am using the right word, I think reflex is when flaperons
are set at less angle of attack than the wing. In the case of kitfoxs
anything less than that magical set up the manual calls for.
Dwight
At 08:42 PM 10/15/2006 +0200, you wrote:
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
>
>On Oct 15, 2006, at 4:25 PM, dwight purdy wrote:
>>I found that they were in a reflex position with the handle full down.
>
>Here again, I am stumbling on words, Dwight; what is "reflex position?"
>
>You see, with the "1.5 reverse differential" from John, I also have
>problems to understand because, from what I can read from the builder's
>manual (like you, I bought the plane completed) when the flaperons are at
>the same angle on both sides, a spline extending the it's lower surface,
>must meet the leading edge of the wing a few inches below. Which it does,
>on my plane. My conclusion then is that the chord of the flaperon is at a
>slightly higher AoA than the wing.
>Now, if you then measure the angle the flaperon does with full stick
>movement, it will be a greater angle down than up - compared to the wing!
>Not maybe not to the initial reference, which is then the level position.
>Then I also read that some gliders have negative flaps setting. Hum, it
>gets complicated! :-)
>
>Cheers,
>Michel
>
>
>--
>Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
--
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
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: | Long Crosscountry |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "wannafly" <wannaflyfox4@hotmail.com>
I want to do a long flight across Canada next May...those of you with experience
with this feel free to give me some tips...I would prefer to avoid the larger
centers and land at private or small strips along the way....meet people and
see the country....will start in Lethbridge, Alberta and end up in Nova Scotia...and
back ofcourse...my Fox IV Speedster and I are ready for the adventure...careful
planning will be the key to a successful flight so lets have your input
:)
feel free to e-mail me direct with your input
thanks mic C-FOXX
wannaflyfox4@hotmail.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=68007#68007
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: | Sport pilot at last! |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net>
The day came and we went and now I got the "ticket to
fly"....Michigan/Jackson County's newest Sport pilot.
Lynn
Kitfox IV Speedster...Jabiru 2200
do not archive
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Ethanol and fiberglass tanks - once again |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: PWilson <pwmac@sisna.com>
They use polyethylene
PW
===========
At 05:33 AM 10/14/2006, you wrote:
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Brian Rodgers" <brodg@texas.net>
>
>Noel, you might note that GM and Ford have intentionally designed some of
>their vehicles to run on E85.
>Don't know what their fuel tanks are made from, but I'd bet that the car
>companies are WAY ahead of most aeroplane builders with regards to this
>issue.
>Brian
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys@yahoo.ca>
>To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
>Sent: Friday, October 13, 2006 8:19 PM
>Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Ethanol and fiberglass tanks - once again
>
>
> > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys@yahoo.ca>
> >
> > The fun starts ... I think there are a few cars on the road today with
> > composite or plastic gas tanks. I wonder what will happen to them when
>they
> > have been exposed to EA85 for a year or so.
> >
> > I still think ethanol is not the answer.... It is just a corrosive
> > diversion to get a few more votes.
> >
> > Noel
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> > > [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> > > Lowell Fitt
> > > Sent: Friday, October 13, 2006 10:15 PM
> > > To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> > > Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Ethanol and fiberglass tanks - once again
> > >
> > >
> > > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt"
> > > <lcfitt@sbcglobal.net>
> > >
> > > I did a little research on the alcohol issue. The majority of
> > > the talk is in
> > > the boating world where the fiberglass tanks have deteriated
> > > in some cases
> > > and more seriously, in some cases residues, possibly from the
> > > affected tanks
> > > have resulted in engine damage.
> > >
> > > The good news seems to indicate that the affected fiberglass
> > > tanks were made
> > > prior to the mid 1980s - at least for those that have models
> > > built after
> > > that date.
> > >
> > >
> > > For those interested do a Google search on Ethanol and
> > > Fiberglass fuel
> > > tanks.
> > >
> > > It is comforting that we Kitfox folks are not the only ones
> > > concerned about
> > > this issue and there is info out there.
> > >
> > > Lowell
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Michel Verheughe" <michel@online.no>
> > > To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> > > Sent: Friday, October 13, 2006 2:34 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Ethanol and fiberglass tanks - once again
> > >
> > >
> > > > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe
> > > <michel@online.no>
> > > >
> > > > On Oct 13, 2006, at 9:00 PM, Don Smythe wrote:
> > > >> In my opinion, no.
> > > >
> > > > Thank you, Don. Your explanation makes perfect sense to me.
> > > I mentioned
> > > > once again PRC because Bill, on the Jabiru list, couldn't
> > > understand what
> > > > the problem was with ethanol. My initial posting there was
> > > to say, in an
> > > > answer to: is the Jabiru fuel pump and carby gaskets
> > > ethanol resistant?;
> > > > - "I can always replace hoses and gaskets but what about
> > > fiberglass
> > > > tanks?"
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > Michel
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Sport pilot at last! |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Dave and Diane <ddsyverson@comcast.net>
Lynn,
Congratulations on your accomplishment. Use you new found freedom to enjoy the
skys. Fly safely and always keep learning.
Sincerely,
Dave S
St Paul, MN
DO NOT ARCHIVE
On Sunday 15 October 2006 5:16 pm, Lynn Matteson wrote:
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net>
>
> The day came and we went and now I got the "ticket to
> fly"....Michigan/Jackson County's newest Sport pilot.
>
>
> Lynn
> Kitfox IV Speedster...Jabiru 2200
> do not archive
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Sport pilot at last! |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Fox5flyer" <fox5flyer@i-star.com>
Hey Lynn, way to go!
Hoorah.
Deke
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lynn Matteson" <lynnmatt@jps.net>
Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2006 6:16 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Sport pilot at last!
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net>
>
> The day came and we went and now I got the "ticket to
> fly"....Michigan/Jackson County's newest Sport pilot.
>
>
> Lynn
> Kitfox IV Speedster...Jabiru 2200
> do not archive
>
>
>
>
>
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: | Re: Sport pilot at last! |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jose M. Toro" <jose_m_toro@yahoo.com>
You made it Lynn. Congratulations!!!!! This is just the beginning... Enjoy the
privilege!
Jose
---
From: Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net>
Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2006 6:16:44 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Sport pilot at last!
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net>
The day came and we went and now I got the "ticket to
fly"....Michigan/Jackson County's newest Sport pilot.
Lynn
Kitfox IV Speedster...Jabiru 2200
do not archive
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: Sport pilot at last! |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Richard Rabbers" <rira1950@yahoo.com>
> ....Michigan/Jackson County's newest Sport pilot....
!! 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=68030#68030
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: sadly a kitfox is down |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net>
Michel-
I thought the straight-ahead landing was the preferred method, as
opposed to trying to get back to the field...did you misspeak yourself?
Lynn
On Sunday, October 15, 2006, at 12:24 PM, Michel Verheughe wrote:
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
>
> On Oct 15, 2006, at 4:22 PM, john perry wrote:
>> Just read on the ntsb that a kitfox 4 1200 went down on friday N134U
>> two peope were on board and did not make it .
>> pilot was having fuel problems it says
>
> Yes, I learnt about the fatal accident Thursday , as I have "Kitfox"
> as a keyword in Google Alert. But your new link seem to shed more
> light on the accident, John. I looks like the two pilots did what we
> should avoid; try to save the plane by turning back to the runway, and
> stalled in the turn, entering a spin.
> May this be a lesson to all of us, once an emergency arises, our
> beloved planes are merely an expendable cushion between us and mother
> earth. I don't know how I would react if this happened to me but, from
> all I read, I believe the best way to safe my, and my eventual
> passenger's life, is to land almost anywhere but straight ahead.
> When I was in Germany, one month ago, for the PocketFMS fly-in, we
> assisted a safety conference held by a German aviation safety officer.
> In one example, he took a real airfield and demonstrated what were the
> alternatives in the event of an engine stop under initial climb. His
> opinion was that, for our small aircraft, it was even better to land
> on tree tops, than making the possibly fatal 180 turn.
>
> Our thoughts are, of course, with the family of the victims. May God
> bless them and relief their pain.
>
> Cheers,
> 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: | Why some fying should be boring WAS: sadly a kitfox is down |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: GypsyBeeInnkeepers <hefferans@gmail.com>
I once practiced some simulated attempts at returning to the airfield
(at a safe altitude) in a C150 Aerobat after I had completed my
acrobatic flight check out. I felt it might be doable if you did
everything exactly right and had at least 300 feet AGL when the
emergency occurred. The field must also not have any trees near your
approach. This means you must be very alert and practiced at the skills
needed plus you would need to execute the turn immediately at the first
sign of engine out. Not a likely situation for most of us to react in
such way when surprised. I AM NOT that skilled anymore, not by a long
shot. I DO NOT recommend trying it in a real emergency. I do believe it
was good practice if only to impress and confirm myself of the risk such
a maneuver entails.
I agree with Michel and the German safety officer. Glide the aircraft
to the safest landing choice that is not directly behind you. Practice
emergency procedures regularly and with the seriousness that it could
really happen to you someday. When the practice becomes boring to you
then maybe you've got the skills to save your life. Keep the emergency
practice boring and remember why it's good that it's boring.
Rex
Colorado
Michel Verheughe wrote:
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
>
> On Oct 15, 2006, at 4:22 PM, john perry wrote:
>
>> Just read on the ntsb that a kitfox 4 1200 went down on friday N134U
>> two peope were on board and did not make it .
>> pilot was having fuel problems it says
>
>
> Yes, I learnt about the fatal accident Thursday , as I have "Kitfox"
> as a keyword in Google Alert. But your new link seem to shed more
> light on the accident, John. I looks like the two pilots did what we
> should avoid; try to save the plane by turning back to the runway, and
> stalled in the turn, entering a spin.
> May this be a lesson to all of us, once an emergency arises, our
> beloved planes are merely an expendable cushion between us and mother
> earth. I don't know how I would react if this happened to me but, from
> all I read, I believe the best way to safe my, and my eventual
> passenger's life, is to land almost anywhere but straight ahead.
> When I was in Germany, one month ago, for the PocketFMS fly-in, we
> assisted a safety conference held by a German aviation safety officer.
> In one example, he took a real airfield and demonstrated what were the
> alternatives in the event of an engine stop under initial climb. His
> opinion was that, for our small aircraft, it was even better to land
> on tree tops, than making the possibly fatal 180 turn.
>
> Our thoughts are, of course, with the family of the victims. May God
> bless them and relief their pain.
>
> Cheers,
> Michel
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: Sport pilot at last! |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net>
Thanks Richard, and Jose...my very first flight after the exchange of
the Certificate and the money was a long cross-country to Napoleon
Airport (3NP)...a whole 2.7 miles for some coffee and pie...do I know
how to live, or what?!
Lynn
Kitfox IV Speedster...Jabiru 2200
do not archive
On Sunday, October 15, 2006, at 07:27 PM, Richard Rabbers wrote:
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Richard Rabbers"
> <rira1950@yahoo.com>
>
>
>> ....Michigan/Jackson County's newest Sport pilot....
>
>
> !! Congratulations Lynn !!
>
> do not archive
>
> --------
> Richard in SW Michigan
> Model 1 / 618 - full-lotus floats (restoration)
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: | sadly a kitfox is down |
Well said. I dont have the nerve to pull to Idle at 300 feet after take
off, but I always think of the altitude that I am confident I could at every
takeoff.
I think 400 feet would possible if a clear approach, if not I want 500 feet
or I am going straight ahead. Period.
I have done quite a few dead stick landings. Engine off, on purpose. The
one thing I learned about the KF2, it glides quite well and I needed a bit
higher approach speed than I first thought. I glide at 55 to 60, short final
50 fence 45 at least or flair is tough. ALWAYS aim quite a bit down the
runway and slip to your spot. Personally, the KF2 is a great side slipping
aircraft. Normal accent is 350/400 feet pm in side slip can be well over 1,500.
My ASI seems fairly accurate, but doesn't really matter, it is what
indicates on my plane that works for me. I tried a few a bit slower and over
the
fence at 40 and it not would properly flair.
My CG is on the forward range, I believe it was 28% empty. Also what
helped a LOT was closing the gap on the elevator and rudder. Difference was
huge. Now if I could close the gap on the ailerons LOL
In any case, knowing your plane is a great idea, fun to do and hopefully
makes us safer
Dave
KF582
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: Sport pilot at last! |
You know how to live alright, Lynn!
Congratulations on your license!
I don't see you on the Kitfox Frappr Map. If you aren't there, please
add yourself and some pictures of your plane and you:
http://www.frappr.com/kitfox
I hope you can find other places to eat that are farther away
Ben
----- Original Message -----
From: Lynn Matteson
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: 10/15/2006 8:08 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: Sport pilot at last!
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net>
Thanks Richard, and Jose...my very first flight after the exchange of
the Certificate and the money was a long cross-country to Napoleon
Airport (3NP)...a whole 2.7 miles for some coffee and pie...do I know
how to live, or what?!
Lynn
Kitfox IV Speedster...Jabiru 2200
do not archive
Message 29
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Sport pilot at last! |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Dave" <dave@cfisher.com>
Congrats !! Lynn, nice work .
Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lynn Matteson" <lynnmatt@jps.net>
Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2006 6:16 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Sport pilot at last!
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net>
>
> The day came and we went and now I got the "ticket to
> fly"....Michigan/Jackson County's newest Sport pilot.
>
>
> Lynn
> Kitfox IV Speedster...Jabiru 2200
> do not archive
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 30
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Long Crosscountry |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys@yahoo.ca>
That's only 3/4 the whole way.
Noel
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of wannafly
> Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2006 7:05 PM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Kitfox-List: Long Crosscountry
>
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "wannafly"
> <wannaflyfox4@hotmail.com>
>
> I want to do a long flight across Canada next May...those of
> you with experience with this feel free to give me some
> tips...I would prefer to avoid the larger centers and land at
> private or small strips along the way....meet people and see
> the country....will start in Lethbridge, Alberta and end up
> in Nova Scotia...and back ofcourse...my Fox IV Speedster and
> I are ready for the adventure...careful planning will be the
> key to a successful flight so lets have your input :)
>
> feel free to e-mail me direct with your input
>
> thanks mic C-FOXX
> wannaflyfox4@hotmail.com
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=68007#68007
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: | Ethanol and fiberglass tanks - once again |
Reduce dependency at what cost??? Cheaper to start using diesel engines
in
smaller domestic cars. The VW TDI jetta is quite popular here north of
the
49th, as is the Mercedes smart diesel (if you can find one)
Still takes more than a gallon of diesel to produce and deliver a gallon
of
hooch In my book that's a net loss. Those working for the ethanol
producers and the oil companies will say other. they are well versed at
twisting the figures.
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob
Unternaehrer
Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2006 12:07 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Ethanol and fiberglass tanks - once again
For those who don't believe in ethanol to "reduce" foreign oil
dependency,
they should suggest and PROVE another PRACTICAL alternative. I'm
hoping,
but probably only a big hope, that Hydrogen will prove out quickly. Bob
U.
----- Original Message -----
From: david yeamans <mailto:dafox@ckt.net>
Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2006 9:43 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Ethanol and fiberglass tanks - once again
I still think ethanol is not the answer.... It is just a corrosive
diversion to get a few more votes.
Noel
I agree with you 100 % David Yeamans
----- Original Message -----
From: Noel <mailto:noelloveys@yahoo.ca> Loveys
Sent: Friday, October 13, 2006 8:19 PM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Ethanol and fiberglass tanks - once again
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys@yahoo.ca>
The fun starts ... I think there are a few cars on the road today with
composite or plastic gas tanks. I wonder what will happen to them when
they
have been exposed to EA85 for a year or so.
I still think ethanol is not the answer.... It is just a corrosive
diversion to get a few more votes.
Noel
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> Lowell Fitt
> Sent: Friday, October 13, 2006 10:15 PM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Ethanol and fiberglass tanks - once again
>
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt"
> <lcfitt@sbcglobal.net>
>
> I did a little research on the alcohol issue. The majority of
> the talk is in
> the boating world where the fiberglass tanks have deteriated
> in some cases
> and more seriously, in some cases residues, possibly from the
> affected tanks
> have resulted in engine damage.
>
> The good news seems to indicate that the affected fiberglass
> tanks were made
> prior to the mid 1980s - at least for those that have models
> built after
> that date.
>
>
> For those interested do a Google search on Ethanol and
> Fiberglass fuel
> tanks.
>
> It is comforting that we Kitfox folks are not the only ones
> concerned about
> this issue and there is info out there.
>
> Lowell
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Michel Verheughe" <michel@online.no>
> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Friday, October 13, 2006 2:34 PM
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Ethanol and fiberglass tanks - once again
>
>
> > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe
> <michel@online.no>
> >
> > On Oct 13, 2006, at 9:00 PM, Don Smythe wrote:
> >> In my opinion, no.
> >
> > Thank you, Don. Your explanation makes perfect sense to me.
> I mentioned
> > once again PRC because Bill, on the Jabiru list, couldn't
> understand what
> > the problem was with ethanol. My initial posting there was
> to say, in an
> > answer to: is the Jabiru fuel pump and carby gaskets
> ethanol resistant?;
> > - "I can always replace hoses and gaskets but what about
> fiberglass
> > tanks?"
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Michel
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> p; Features Subscriptions
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List">http://www.matron
====
=================
bsp; available via
-========================
nbsp; Email List nbsp;
generous bsp;
================
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List">http://www.matron
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: | Ethanol and fiberglass tanks - once again |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys@yahoo.ca>
All the large ships are busy moving oil. We can't grow the corn here and
the costs would be prohibitive. "Thank god we're surrounded by water!!" (
that was an Anti-Confederation song 57 years ago.)
Noel
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> Bob Unternaehrer
> Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2006 12:17 PM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Ethanol and fiberglass tanks - once again
>
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bob Unternaehrer"
> <shilocom@mcmsys.com>
>
> <<<Just curious are they (the refiners or governments)
> putting any thing
> into
> EA85 to make it either poisonous or un-palatable? Could make
> for a cheap
> weekend ;-)>>>
>
> 15% gasoline!!!!
>
> <<Corn in
> > usable quantities won't grow here and the cost of
> transporting Eth from
> the
> > closest distilleries would be prohibitive.>>
>
> 1/2 of our production in Malta Bend Mo, 45 Million gallons,
> soon to go to 90
> million, now goes to California, so the east coast is no farther away.
>
> Bob U.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys@yahoo.ca>
> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2006 12:07 AM
> Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Ethanol and fiberglass tanks - once again
>
>
> > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Noel Loveys"
> <noelloveys@yahoo.ca>
> >
> > I think I'll wait until your results are posted before I
> try anything like
> > that.... I'm lucky living out in the North Atlantic. I
> don't expect to
> have
> > my gas supply contaminated with ethanol in the very near
> future. Corn in
> > usable quantities won't grow here and the cost of
> transporting Eth from
> the
> > closest distilleries would be prohibitive.
> >
> > Just curious are they (the refiners or governments) putting
> any thing into
> > EA85 to make it either poisonous or un-palatable? Could
> make for a cheap
> > weekend ;-)
> >
> > Noel
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> > > [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> > > Lowell Fitt
> > > Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2006 8:26 PM
> > > To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> > > Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Ethanol and fiberglass tanks -
> once again
> > >
> > >
> > > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt"
> > > <lcfitt@sbcglobal.net>
> > >
> > > No Noel, that's where you come in.
> > >
> > > Lowell
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys@yahoo.ca>
> > > To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> > > Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2006 8:02 AM
> > > Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Ethanol and fiberglass tanks -
> once again
> > >
> > >
> > > > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Noel Loveys"
> > > <noelloveys@yahoo.ca>
> > > >
> > > > Can you also introduce bending and flexing and vibration
> > > that you get in a
> > > > flying airplane into your experiment?
> > > >
> > > > Noel
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >> -----Original Message-----
> > > >> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> > > >> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> > > >> Lowell Fitt
> > > >> Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2006 11:32 AM
> > > >> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> > > >> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Ethanol and fiberglass tanks
> - once again
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt"
> > > >> <lcfitt@sbcglobal.net>
> > > >>
> > > >> Don, I agree whole heartedly. My tanks are an interesting
> > > >> story. I took
> > > >> delivery of the kit in March 1993. Of course the first
> > > >> things were the
> > > >> fuselage controlls and fitting all the fuselate
> > > attachments: rudder,
> > > >> horizontal stab and elevator. Then I got around to doing the
> > > >> wings, left
> > > >> wing first. That was December 2003. The wing tank was a
> > > >> right wing tank
> > > >> with a left wing tank top, in other words the washout twist
> > > >> was backward. I
> > > >> sent the tank back for an exchange - so I now had wing
> > > tanks from two
> > > >> production era's nine months apart.
> > > >>
> > > >> It was the early tank that began leaking at 500 hours, in
> > > >> Idaho, after four
> > > >> days soaking in AV Gas. There is definitely, in my mind,
> > > >> differences in
> > > >> wing batches. Whether the difference has to do with
> materials or
> > > >> workmanship, I have no idea.
> > > >>
> > > >> I am running an experiment with vinyl ester resin and
> > > Kreem as a fuel
> > > >> barrior. I tried to boost the alcohol content of the local
> > > >> fuel - 6% - as
> > > >> we speak, but couldn't get the ethanol to mix, so I am using
> > > >> 100% ethanol in
> > > >> one series and vinyl ester in the other. I have the samples
> > > >> under a bell
> > > >> jar so I can simulate altitude changes that would cause a
> > > >> solid structure to
> > > >> degass at lower air pressures - if there are pin holes in the
> > > >> tanks there is
> > > >> air in them. The samples are held under the liquids in test
> > > >> tubes so I can
> > > >> observe degassing bubbles if present. I take them up to a
> > > >> simulated 14,000
> > > >> ft daily and observe for any degassing bubbles. So far
> > > >> nothing in any of
> > > >> the samples, but they only have been submerged since Oct 1.
> > > >>
> > > >> I will rerport to the list the first sign of failure.
> > > >>
> > > >> Lowell
> > > >>
> > > >> ----- Original Message -----
> > > >> From: "Don Smythe" <dosmythe@cox.net>
> > > >> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> > > >> Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2006 4:07 AM
> > > >> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Ethanol and fiberglass tanks
> - once again
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Don Smythe"
> > > <dosmythe@cox.net>
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Lowell,
> > > >> > I did a lot of web searching and found the same stuff
> > > >> you're talking
> > > >> > about. I still have one little concern. Back when I was
> > > >> working in the
> > > >> > Submarine world, they had a program called "SUBSAFE".
> > > This program
> > > >> > required all critical parts in a Submarine to be certified
> > > >> with a long
> > > >> > trail of paperwork You could just about track back a piece
> > > >> of metal to
> > > >> > the mine where the ore came from. We discussed many times
> > > >> that the old
> > > >> > Skystar had used a couple different tank manufactures and I
> > > >> never did get
> > > >> > a good warm feeling as to exactly what materials were used
> > > >> and when.
> > > >> > Bottom line, my 1995 tanks have no serial numbers or
> > > >> paperwork to tell me
> > > >> > what they are made of.. Who knows, they might be made of
> > > >> the pre 85 boat
> > > >> > stuff.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Don Smythe
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > ----- Original Message -----
> > > >> >> I did a little research on the alcohol issue. The majority
> > > >> of the talk is
> > > >> >> in the boating world where the fiberglass tanks have
> > > >> >
> > > >> >> The good news seems to indicate that the affected
> > > >> fiberglass tanks were
> > > >> >> made prior to the mid 1980s - at least for those that have
> > > >> models built
> > > >> >> after
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: | Denaturing ethanol of motor fuel |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys@yahoo.ca>
Drink the stuff ...no I don't think so. There is a problem with the Inuit
and Innu people of Labrador. They have rampant alcoholism. If that were
not bad enough many of their young have taken to sniffing gasoline as a
preferred method of getting high. I can't help wondering what will happen
when 85% or better eth turns up on their doorstep.
I have a question for you folks that have the E85. Years ago I noticed that
when F1 cars caught on fire the flame was invisible. Is this true of E85 if
it is can they put something into the brew to make the flame of a burning
car visible to rescuers?
Noel
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> Dave and Diane
> Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2006 11:05 AM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Denaturing ethanol of motor fuel
>
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Dave and Diane
> <ddsyverson@comcast.net>
>
> Noel,
>
> That would be the remaining 15% - identified as gasoline (or
> 90% in the case
> of 10% ethanol blends).
>
> Dont even thing of drinking E85.
>
> All of the ethanol blends intended for motor fuel leaving a
> corn gas plant are
> unfit for human consumption - this is a regulatory requirement (AFT).
>
> Interesting enough, among the 15 or so corn gas plants we
> have, one also makes
> Vodka, intended for human consumption - goes without saying that the
> production equipment is separate. Anyone who wants to Google
> Earth it -
> located about a mile northwest of Benson MN - right adjacent
> to the local
> airport (site of my first solo in a C-120 1967 - although
> the corn gas plant
> did not exist back then, we did have a grass cross strip - so the old
> neighborhood has probably gone down hill in two ways at least)
>
> Dave S
>
> DO NOT ARCHIVE
>
> On Sunday 15 October 2006 12:07 am, Noel Loveys wrote:
>
> >
> > Just curious are they (the refiners or governments) putting
> any thing into
> > EA85 to make it either poisonous or un-palatable? Could
> make for a cheap
> > weekend ;-)
> >
> > Noel
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: Ethanol and fiberglass tanks - once again |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: PWilson <pwmac@sisna.com>
Good post
Let me call attention to pages 20-22, where the
vapor pressure is noted for auto fuels. Keep in
mind that high vapor pressure means low boiling
point and higher risk of vapor lock. It is my
belief that these tables apply generically to
auto fuel not just E85. To much work to prove this point.
Class 1 is for hot weather where a high boiling
point is desirable and class 3 is where it is
cold and a low boiling point is OK. The you can
look at your location and see why it is important
in a plane to make sure one uses the highest
boiling point fuel that you can buy. Example when
traveling S from CO get your fuel south of 34 deg
latitude in NM. Or even better plan to be low
just for that purpose. Then when one get to AZ
fill up with the high boiling point fuel.
Regards, Paul
================
At 03:17 PM 10/13/2006, you wrote:
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Torgeir Mortensen" <torgemor@online.no>
>
>Hi Michel,
>
>You're pointing to a very important problem -soon to come...
>
>First, the PRC 1422(a..B) Pro-Seal, is a well known fuel sealing compound
>much used for both jet fuel and 100LL. This compound is mostly used as a
>sealer between joints in wet tanks, but also as a sealer for fasteners
>etc. inside fuel tanks. The PRC 1422 "never" harden, but will keep it's
>good elastomeric qualities for a very long time.. The problem is that
>it's a stuff with "high" viscosity, I.E. cant be sprayed.
>
>Here's a link to the "famous" site :) :
>
>http://www.bergdahl.com/Aerocat.htm
>
>
>Now to the problem, the ethanol fuel E85.
>
>I do not think this kind of fuel can be used for "todays" aviation.
>
>Firstly, we'll need to find out more accurate information about various
>Resins vs. Ethanol and "fiberglass degrade".
>
>So, what kind of resin is used in YOUR Kitfox??? My Kitfox model II (93
>mod) is made with West System Resin (the fuel tanks).
>
>Well, here's a little info, copied from the "official" guide, issued by:
>The U.S. Department of Energy
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Some materials are known to
>become degraded by contact with
>fuel ethanol blends having high
>alcohol concentrations. Zinc, brass,
>lead, and aluminum are some of
>these sensitive metals. Terne (leadtin-
>alloy)-plated steel, which is commonly
>used for gasoline fuel tanks,
>and lead-based solder are also
>incompatible with fuel ethanol.
>Avoid using these metals because of
>the possibility of vehicle failure or
>fuel contamination. Unplated steel,
>stainless steel, black iron, and bronze have shown acceptable
>resistance to corrosion by ethanol.
>Nonmetallic materials that degrade when in contact
>with fuel ethanol include natural rubber, polyurethane,
>cork gasket material, leather, polyester-bonded fiberglass
>laminate, polyvinyl chloride (PVC), polyamides, and
>methyl-methacrylate plastics. Nonmetallic materials
>that have been successfully used with fuel ethanol
>include Buna-N, Neoprene rubber, polyethylene, nylon,
>polypropylene, nitrile, Viton, and Teflon.
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>You see, aluminum and brass (our carburetor), is among the material that
>won't stand the Ethanol...
>
>Ok., here's the link to the full document about Ethanol fuel (E85):
>
>http://www.agriculture.state.ia.us/pdfs/ethguide.pdf
>
>This is recommended reading for every one of us.
>
>
>Torgeir.
>
>
>A happy model II flier, with Avid wing :) , sure you too Michel...
>
>
>On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 19:55:00 +0200, Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
>wrote:
>
>>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
>>
>>Greetings, Kitfoxers,
>>We have been talking about the danger of ethanol in our fiberglass tanks
>>for a long time. I have already mentionned what I read on the Jabiru
>>Engine list but ... here it is again:
>>
>>A gentleman called Bill Evans writes:
>>
>>"The airlines, military and others use thiokol based rubber sealants to
>>seal their tanks. Brand names is PRC. You want PRC1422 A2. It's now
>>manufactured by ProSeal. Normally lasts for generations."
>>
>>To what I reply, as previously said on this list: "Yes, but it can't be
>>sloshed in our existing tanks."
>>
>>To what Bill answers:
>>
>>"So the PRC is not thin but is pourable. The solvent is Methyl Ethyl
>>Ketone. (You can only do this outdoors and with the wind to your back.)
>>MEK is somewhat soluble in PRC. You use a paint mixer in an electric
>>drill, and thin the PRC with MEK until the sealant will flow
>>sufficiently to get 100% coverage. Slosh would be too optimistic. You
>>could also spray it in with a new garden sprayer, but that would also
>>"seal" the future of your garden sprayer. I have done this... Sprayed
>>PRC."
>>
>>Guys, my brain is as empty as a barrel of beer after being raided by a
>>bunch of Norwegian soccer hooligans! Make up your mind on the above
>>information and let me know what the jury has decided. Can we do it?
>>
>>Thanks in advance,
>>
>>Michel
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>--
>Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
>
>
Message 35
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Model V with O-200; questions |
Anyone out there flying a model V with an 0-200 continental 100 hp? A
friend of mine just bought one like this and reports a 85-90 mph cruise
speed and a 400-500 fpm climb rate. The airplane is 900 lbs empty and
is equipped with a Warp drive prop. I have a model 6 specs page that
shows a 120 mph cruise and a 1200 fpm climb rate. I realize the factory
numbers might be somewhat optimistic, but are they that far from the
truth? Or is the warp drive the wrong prop for this engine and
airframe?
Paul Seehafer
Message 36
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Sport pilot at last! |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net>
I think I'm on the frapper, but I can't see the map as I'm using a Mac.
But I should be there on the photo page.
Lynn
do not archive
On Sunday, October 15, 2006, at 08:37 PM, Ben Baltrusaitis wrote:
> You know how to live alright, Lynn!
> Congratulations on your license!
>
> I don't see you on the Kitfox Frappr Map. If you aren't there, please
> add yourself and some pictures of your plane and you:
> http://www.frappr.com/kitfox
>
> I hope you can find other places to eat that are farther away
> <image.tiff>
> Ben
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Lynn Matteson
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Sent: 10/15/2006 8:08 PM
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: Sport pilot at last!
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net>
>
> Thanks Richard, and Jose...my very first flight after the exchange of
> the Certificate and the money was a long cross-country to Napoleon
> Airport (3NP)...a whole 2.7 miles for some coffee and pie...do I know
> how to live, or what?!
>
> Lynn
> Kitfox IV Speedster...Jabiru 2200
> do not archive
>
Message 37
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | sadly a kitfox is down |
I did it from about 250' on floats one day. Just dropped the nose real
fast
and made a good landing. The term chopped the power really doesn't
apply to
what I did though, it was more like a normal withdrawal of power. No
way
was I going to flirt with a stall at that altitude. Turns were out of
the
question! Airspeed didn't drop below 60mph until just before touchdown.
500' is one of the altitudes I was trained to make a 180 turn into the
final flare. That's Ok when the landing spot is directly below you and
you
have decent flying speed to begin with.
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Aerobatics@aol.com
Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2006 9:53 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: sadly a kitfox is down
Well said. I dont have the nerve to pull to Idle at 300 feet after take
off, but I always think of the altitude that I am confident I could at
every
takeoff.
I think 400 feet would possible if a clear approach, if not I want 500
feet
or I am going straight ahead. Period.
I have done quite a few dead stick landings. Engine off, on purpose.
The
one thing I learned about the KF2, it glides quite well and I needed a
bit
higher approach speed than I first thought. I glide at 55 to 60, short
final 50 fence 45 at least or flair is tough. ALWAYS aim quite a bit
down
the runway and slip to your spot. Personally, the KF2 is a great side
slipping aircraft. Normal accent is 350/400 feet pm in side slip can be
well over 1,500.
My ASI seems fairly accurate, but doesn't really matter, it is what
indicates on my plane that works for me. I tried a few a bit slower and
over the fence at 40 and it not would properly flair.
My CG is on the forward range, I believe it was 28% empty. Also what
helped a LOT was closing the gap on the elevator and rudder. Difference
was
huge. Now if I could close the gap on the ailerons LOL
In any case, knowing your plane is a great idea, fun to do and hopefully
makes us safer
Dave
KF582
Message 38
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Ethanol and fiberglass tanks - once again |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "John Anderson" <janderson412@hotmail.com>
Yep, chucked my LAST petrol car for a C5 Citroen HDI diesel and has to be
one of my better decisions...The common rail turbo diesel technology has
come so far, performance and economy is over whelming
From: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys@yahoo.ca>
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Ethanol and fiberglass tanks - once again
Reduce dependency at what cost??? Cheaper to start using diesel engines in
smaller domestic cars. The VW TDI jetta is quite popular here north of the
49th, as is the Mercedes smart diesel (if you can find one)
Still takes more than a gallon of diesel to produce and deliver a gallon of
hooch In my book that's a net loss. Those working for the ethanol
producers and the oil companies will say other. they are well versed at
twisting the figures.
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob
Unternaehrer
Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2006 12:07 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Ethanol and fiberglass tanks - once again
For those who don't believe in ethanol to "reduce" foreign oil dependency,
they should suggest and PROVE another PRACTICAL alternative. I'm hoping,
but probably only a big hope, that Hydrogen will prove out quickly. Bob U.
----- Original Message -----
From: david yeamans
Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2006 9:43 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Ethanol and fiberglass tanks - once again
I still think ethanol is not the answer.... It is just a corrosive
diversion to get a few more votes.
Noel
I agree with you 100 % David Yeamans
----- Original Message -----
From: Noel Loveys
Sent: Friday, October 13, 2006 8:19 PM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Ethanol and fiberglass tanks - once again
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys@yahoo.ca>
The fun starts ... I think there are a few cars on the road today with
composite or plastic gas tanks. I wonder what will happen to them when they
have been exposed to EA85 for a year or so.
I still think ethanol is not the answer.... It is just a corrosive
diversion to get a few more votes.
Noel
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lowell Fitt
>Sent: Friday, October 13, 2006 10:15 PM
>To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Ethanol and fiberglass tanks - once again
>
>
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@sbcglobal.net>
>
>I did a little research on the alcohol issue. The majority of the talk is
>in the boating world where the fiberglass tanks have deteriated in some
>cases and more seriously, in some cases residues, possibly from the
>affected tanks have resulted in engine damage.
>
>The good news seems to indicate that the affected fiberglass tanks were
>made prior to the mid 1980s - at least for those that have models built
>after that date.
>
>
>For those interested do a Google search on Ethanol and Fiberglass fuel
>tanks.
>
>It is comforting that we Kitfox folks are not the only ones concerned about
>this issue and there is info out there.
>
>Lowell
>----- Original Message ----- From: "Michel Verheughe" <michel@online.no>
>To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
>Sent: Friday, October 13, 2006 2:34 PM
>Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Ethanol and fiberglass tanks - once again
>
>
> > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
> >
> > On Oct 13, 2006, at 9:00 PM, Don Smythe wrote:
> >> In my opinion, no.
> >
> > Thank you, Don. Your explanation makes perfect sense to me. I mentioned
> > once again PRC because Bill, on the Jabiru list, couldn't understand
>what > the problem was with ethanol. My initial posting there was to say,
>in an > answer to: is the Jabiru fuel pump and carby gaskets ethanol
>resistant?;
> > - "I can always replace hoses and gaskets but what about fiberglass >
>tanks?"
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Michel
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>p; Features Subscriptions
>href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List">http://www.matron======================
bsp; available via -========================nbsp; Email List nbsp;
generous bsp; ================
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List">http://www.matron
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List">http://www.matron
_________________________________________________________________
Become a fitness fanatic @ http://xtramsn.co.nz/health
Message 39
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Sport pilot at last! |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys@yahoo.ca>
Congratulations Lynn. Now you can really start the enjoyment part of flying
your 'Fox with no strings.
Noel
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dave
> Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2006 10:28 PM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Sport pilot at last!
>
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Dave" <dave@cfisher.com>
>
> Congrats !! Lynn, nice work .
>
> Dave
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Lynn Matteson" <lynnmatt@jps.net>
> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2006 6:16 PM
> Subject: Kitfox-List: Sport pilot at last!
>
>
> > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net>
> >
> > The day came and we went and now I got the "ticket to
> > fly"....Michigan/Jackson County's newest Sport pilot.
> >
> >
> > Lynn
> > Kitfox IV Speedster...Jabiru 2200
> > do not archive
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
Message 40
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Model V with O-200; questions |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "John Anderson" <janderson412@hotmail.com>
Does seem a little behind in performance. I have a Model V with EA81 T
72"Warp drive and guess it's around 120HP. I get 1700fpm at 60kts with just
me on board and 3/4 tanks. Mine is a heavy beast - 945lbs.
From: "Paul Seehafer" <av8rps@tznet.com>
Subject: Kitfox-List: Model V with O-200; questions
Anyone out there flying a model V with an 0-200 continental 100 hp? A
friend of mine just bought one like this and reports a 85-90 mph cruise
speed and a 400-500 fpm climb rate. The airplane is 900 lbs empty and is
equipped with a Warp drive prop. I have a model 6 specs page that shows a
120 mph cruise and a 1200 fpm climb rate. I realize the factory numbers
might be somewhat optimistic, but are they that far from the truth? Or is
the warp drive the wrong prop for this engine and airframe?
Paul Seehafer
_________________________________________________________________
Check out the latest video @ http://xtra.co.nz/streaming
Message 41
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | sadly a kitfox is down |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "John Anderson" <janderson412@hotmail.com>
The way to try this is do it at 3000', I set up in a steep climb at 60kts
high power to simulate t/off. Then snapped the throttle and held the nose up
for a second or two to simulate human responce delay to test the effect. The
nose dropped and the a/c just squashed and as soon as I lowered the nose the
speed built. John A.
From: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys@yah.ca>
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: sadly a kitfox is down
I did it from about 250' on floats one day. Just dropped the nose real fast
and made a good landing. The term chopped the power really doesn't apply to
what I did though, it was more like a normal withdrawal of power. No way
was I going to flirt with a stall at that altitude. Turns were out of the
question! Airspeed didn't drop below 60mph until just before touchdown.
500' is one of the altitudes I was trained to make a 180 turn into the
final flare. That's Ok when the landing spot is directly below you and you
have decent flying speed to begin with.
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Aerobatics@aol.com
Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2006 9:53 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: sadly a kitfox is down
Well said. I dont have the nerve to pull to Idle at 300 feet after take
off, but I always think of the altitude that I am confident I could at every
takeoff.
I think 400 feet would possible if a clear approach, if not I want 500 feet
or I am going straight ahead. Period.
I have done quite a few dead stick landings. Engine off, on purpose. The
one thing I learned about the KF2, it glides quite well and I needed a bit
higher approach speed than I first thought. I glide at 55 to 60, short
final 50 fence 45 at least or flair is tough. ALWAYS aim quite a bit down
the runway and slip to your spot. Personally, the KF2 is a great side
slipping aircraft. Normal accent is 350/400 feet pm in side slip can be
well over 1,500.
My ASI seems fairly accurate, but doesn't really matter, it is what
indicates on my plane that works for me. I tried a few a bit slower and
over the fence at 40 and it not would properly flair.
My CG is on the forward range, I believe it was 28% empty. Also what
helped a LOT was closing the gap on the elevator and rudder. Difference was
huge. Now if I could close the gap on the ailerons LOL
In any case, knowing your plane is a great idea, fun to do and hopefully
makes us safer
Dave
KF582
_________________________________________________________________
Need more speed? Get Xtra Broadband @
http://jetstream.xtra.co.nz/chm/0,,202853-1000,00.html
Message 42
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Model V with O-200; questions |
Paul
I'm flying a VIXEN model V with a 0-200 continental 100HP and my reports
is the following : cruise speed 100mph, climb rate 300-500fpm with 70mph
and 3000''feet with 10000'feet the climb rate is almost 50-80fpm . Prop warp
drive 70", static RPM 2600 elevation 2000f. I'd like to get the specs of
the factory.
Francisco
_____
De: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] En nombre de Paul Seehafer
Enviado el: Sunday, October 15, 2006 8:39 PM
Para: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Asunto: Kitfox-List: Model V with O-200; questions
Anyone out there flying a model V with an 0-200 continental 100 hp? A
friend of mine just bought one like this and reports a 85-90 mph cruise
speed and a 400-500 fpm climb rate. The airplane is 900 lbs empty and is
equipped with a Warp drive prop. I have a model 6 specs page that shows a
120 mph cruise and a 1200 fpm climb rate. I realize the factory numbers
might be somewhat optimistic, but are they that far from the truth? Or is
the warp drive the wrong prop for this engine and airframe?
Paul Seehafer
Message 43
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Sport pilot at last! |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net>
Yeah, Noel, cuttin' those strings was great. I'm gonna wear out my
pencil writin' up those cross-country's. : )
I'm hoping on going to Wakeman, Ohio this week if weather permits. A
former RC flight instructor is visiting there, and that would be a nice
2-3 hour hop for me. Just enough to get my feet a little wetter.
Lynn
Kitfox IV Speedster...Jabiru 2200
do not archive
On Sunday, October 15, 2006, at 09:52 PM, Noel Loveys wrote:
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys@yahoo.ca>
>
> Congratulations Lynn. Now you can really start the enjoyment part of
> flying
> your 'Fox with no strings.
>
> Noel
>
Message 44
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | sadly a kitfox is down |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "wingsdown" <wingsdown@comcast.net>
For those with a free wheeling prop, add about 400 too 500 FPM extra
sink to your normal for the added drag. It was a real surprise trust me
on that one. Truly sorry for the loss of life and those they left
behind. May we all learn quickly from the ultimate lessons given from
others. I did not know the men, but they will be missed just the same.
Rick
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John
Anderson
Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2006 7:07 PM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: sadly a kitfox is down
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "John Anderson"
--> <janderson412@hotmail.com>
The way to try this is do it at 3000', I set up in a steep climb at
60kts
high power to simulate t/off. Then snapped the throttle and held the
nose up
for a second or two to simulate human responce delay to test the effect.
The
nose dropped and the a/c just squashed and as soon as I lowered the nose
the
speed built. John A.
From: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys@yah.ca>
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: sadly a kitfox is down
I did it from about 250' on floats one day. Just dropped the nose real
fast and made a good landing. The term chopped the power really doesn't
apply to what I did though, it was more like a normal withdrawal of
power. No way was I going to flirt with a stall at that altitude.
Turns were out of the question! Airspeed didn't drop below 60mph until
just before touchdown.
500' is one of the altitudes I was trained to make a 180 turn into the
final flare. That's Ok when the landing spot is directly below you and
you have decent flying speed to begin with.
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Aerobatics@aol.com
Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2006 9:53 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: sadly a kitfox is down
Well said. I dont have the nerve to pull to Idle at 300 feet after take
off, but I always think of the altitude that I am confident I could at
every takeoff.
I think 400 feet would possible if a clear approach, if not I want 500
feet or I am going straight ahead. Period.
I have done quite a few dead stick landings. Engine off, on purpose.
The one thing I learned about the KF2, it glides quite well and I needed
a bit higher approach speed than I first thought. I glide at 55 to 60,
short final 50 fence 45 at least or flair is tough. ALWAYS aim quite a
bit down the runway and slip to your spot. Personally, the KF2 is a
great side slipping aircraft. Normal accent is 350/400 feet pm in side
slip can be well over 1,500.
My ASI seems fairly accurate, but doesn't really matter, it is what
indicates on my plane that works for me. I tried a few a bit slower and
over the fence at 40 and it not would properly flair.
My CG is on the forward range, I believe it was 28% empty. Also what
helped a LOT was closing the gap on the elevator and rudder. Difference
was huge. Now if I could close the gap on the ailerons LOL
In any case, knowing your plane is a great idea, fun to do and hopefully
makes us safer
Dave
KF582
_________________________________________________________________
Need more speed? Get Xtra Broadband @
http://jetstream.xtra.co.nz/chm/0,,202853-1000,00.html
Message 45
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Aileron Differential |
John , I would be very interested in your aileron control modification.
If I might ask you to send me some information .
DeWayne Clifford
kitfox@bresnan.net
----- Original Message -----
From: John
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2006 11:35 AM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Aileron Differential
Aileron differential on a stock Model III is about 1 1/2 to 1 REVERSE
differential.
I found this when I was bored one weekend and modelled the aileron
control system in a computer program.
I believe this was accepted by the factory so that you would not have
to disconnect the aileron controls to fold the wings, that was a choice
for convenient airplane storage and very rudder dependant flight
characteristics.
I chose to redesign the aileron/flap control mechanism to provide the
correct 2 : 1 aileron differential and it makes for a very pleasant
flying aircraft (IMHO). I do have to disconnect the flaperon horns to
fold the wings.
In the flap deployment area my redesign system can deploy too much
flap, so much so that at near stall speeds there is almost no aileron
control, I have of course limited my flap handle movement, this also
allows the flap mechanism to 'reflex' a few degrees which helps with
elevator trim.
I do not live in a Kitfox rich environment and the only one I've seen
flying (from the outside) was a model II, one time, one takeoff. So I
cannot compare my Fox's flying characteristics to any others.
It'll be interesting to hear other people's experiences.
Regards,
John Stoner
KFIII, 582
Alaska
Message 46
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: sadly a kitfox is down glide.... |
re: glide and sink rate.... I have a 582 Blue head with an E box and IVO 3
blade... this does not windmill hence the better glide......
Dave
Message 47
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Model V with O-200; questions |
Francisco;
Interesting specs. Much like what my friend is experiencing. Here is a
copy of the specs sheet page for a model 6 Kitfox (along with the IV on
the lower part of the page).
I wonder if a different prop, say one from a 150 Cessna would improve
the performance? Have you ever tried a different prop on your Vixen?
Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: Francisco J Ocampo
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2006 9:22 PM
Subject: RV: Kitfox-List: Model V with O-200; questions
Paul
I'm flying a VIXEN model V with a 0-200 continental 100HP and my
reports is the following : cruise speed 100mph, climb rate 300-500fpm
with 70mph and 3000''feet with 10000'feet the climb rate is almost
50-80fpm . Prop warp drive 70", static RPM 2600 elevation 2000f. I'd
like to get the specs of the factory.
Francisco
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
De: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] En nombre de Paul
Seehafer
Enviado el: Sunday, October 15, 2006 8:39 PM
Para: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Asunto: Kitfox-List: Model V with O-200; questions
Anyone out there flying a model V with an 0-200 continental 100 hp? A
friend of mine just bought one like this and reports a 85-90 mph cruise
speed and a 400-500 fpm climb rate. The airplane is 900 lbs empty and
is equipped with a Warp drive prop. I have a model 6 specs page that
shows a 120 mph cruise and a 1200 fpm climb rate. I realize the factory
numbers might be somewhat optimistic, but are they that far from the
truth? Or is the warp drive the wrong prop for this engine and
airframe?
Paul Seehafer
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! --
|