Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:01 AM - Re: Model V with O-200; questions (Fox5flyer)
2. 04:38 AM - Re: sadly a kitfox is down (Michel Verheughe)
3. 04:57 AM - Re: sadly a kitfox is down glide.... (wingnut)
4. 05:01 AM - Re: sadly a kitfox is down (Lynn Matteson)
5. 05:44 AM - Re: Model V with O-200; questions (Dave)
6. 05:49 AM - OFF TOPIC: The danger of languages (Michel Verheughe)
7. 05:57 AM - Re: Re: sadly a kitfox is down glide.... (Noel Loveys)
8. 06:03 AM - Re: Re: sadly a kitfox is down glide.... (Fox5flyer)
9. 06:46 AM - Re: Re: sadly a kitfox is down glide.... (John Oakley)
10. 07:24 AM - Re: Re: sadly a kitfox is down glide.... (RRTRACK@aol.com)
11. 07:26 AM - Re: Fuel savings - was Ethanol and fiberglass tanks - once again (kurt schrader)
12. 07:28 AM - Re: sadly a kitfox is down (Lowell Fitt)
13. 07:58 AM - RV: Model V with O-200; questions (Francisco J Ocampo)
14. 08:08 AM - RV: Model V with O-200; questions (Francisco J Ocampo)
15. 08:12 AM - Re: sadly a kitfox is down (Dave)
16. 08:25 AM - Re: Sport pilot at last! (Guy Buchanan)
17. 08:26 AM - Michel re wheel skis (Algate)
18. 08:32 AM - RV: Model V with O-200; questions (Francisco J Ocampo)
19. 08:46 AM - Re: Help changing fuel lines (wingnut)
20. 09:57 AM - Model V with O-200; questions (Fox5flyer)
21. 10:02 AM - Re: Sport pilot at last! (Michael Gibbs)
22. 10:05 AM - Re: Model V with O-200; questions (Dave)
23. 10:27 AM - Re: Michel re wheel skis (Michel Verheughe)
24. 10:30 AM - Windmilling. WAS: sadly a kitfox is down glide.... (Michel Verheughe)
25. 10:35 AM - Re: sadly a kitfox is down glide.... (Michel Verheughe)
26. 11:27 AM - Re: Re: sadly a kitfox is down glide.... (W Duke)
27. 11:33 AM - Re: Michel re wheel skis (Algate)
28. 11:33 AM - Re: bungie cords (john beirne)
29. 11:58 AM - Cabin Heater 912UL (parahawk)
30. 12:15 PM - Re: Michel re wheel skis (Dave)
31. 12:20 PM - Re: Re: Sport pilot at last! (Michel Verheughe)
32. 12:36 PM - Re: Re: sadly a kitfox is down glide.... (wingsdown)
33. 01:15 PM - Re: Re: sadly a kitfox is down glide.... (Brian Smith)
34. 01:20 PM - Re: OFF TOPIC: The danger of languages (Lynn Matteson)
35. 01:21 PM - Re: Aileron Differential (John)
36. 01:23 PM - Re: Re: sadly a kitfox is down glide.... (Lynn Matteson)
37. 01:30 PM - Re: Re: sadly a kitfox is down glide.... (Dave G.)
38. 01:34 PM - Re: sadly a kitfox is down glide.... (wingnut)
39. 01:43 PM - Re: 582 W/ chopped muffler (John)
40. 01:59 PM - Re: Re: Aileron Differential (Ron Liebmann)
41. 02:02 PM - Re: sadly a kitfox is down glide.... (Ben-PA)
42. 02:13 PM - Re: Re: Sport pilot at last! (Lynn Matteson)
43. 02:14 PM - Re: Re: sadly a kitfox is down glide.... (Algate)
44. 03:18 PM - Re: Re: 582 W/ chopped muffler (Malcolmbru@aol.com)
45. 03:22 PM - Re: Re: sadly a kitfox is down glide.... (wingsdown)
46. 03:26 PM - Re: Re: 582 W/ chopped muffler (Dave)
47. 03:33 PM - Re: Re: sadly a kitfox is down glide.... (Dave)
48. 04:20 PM - Re: Re: sadly a kitfox is down glide.... (Dave G.)
49. 04:27 PM - Re: Re: sadly a kitfox is down glide.... (Aerobatics@aol.com)
50. 04:33 PM - Re: 582 W/ chopped muffler (John)
51. 04:38 PM - PRop Drag (Dave)
52. 04:50 PM - Re: 582 W/ chopped muffler (John)
53. 05:00 PM - Re: Re: 582 W/ chopped muffler (Dave)
54. 05:06 PM - Re: PRop Drag (wingsdown)
55. 05:19 PM - Re: OFF TOPIC: The danger of languages (Noel Loveys)
56. 05:26 PM - Re: Re: bungie cords (Noel Loveys)
57. 05:42 PM - Re: Re: sadly a kitfox is down glide.... (Noel Loveys)
58. 05:52 PM - Re: sadly a kitfox is down (Noel Loveys)
59. 05:56 PM - Re: Windmilling. WAS: sadly a kitfox is down glide.... (Noel Loveys)
60. 05:59 PM - Re: Re: bungie cords (john perry)
61. 06:07 PM - throtle (Gerald Jantzi)
62. 06:15 PM - For Michel Verheughe / "Haute Voltage au Japon" (icaza francisco)
63. 06:33 PM - Re: Re: 582 W/ chopped muffler Very interesting (Aerobatics@aol.com)
64. 06:41 PM - Re: Windmilling. Props..... (Aerobatics@aol.com)
65. 06:44 PM - Re: OFF TOPIC: The danger of languages (Lynn Matteson)
66. 07:05 PM - Re: Re: sadly a kitfox is down glide.... (clemwehner)
67. 07:19 PM - Re: Re: bungie cords (Malcolmbru@AOL.COM)
68. 07:20 PM - Re: Re: 582 W/ chopped muffler Very interesting (Malcolmbru@aol.com)
69. 07:31 PM - Re: Re: sadly a kitfox is down glide.... (john perry)
70. 07:35 PM - Re: Re: 582 W/ chopped muffler Very interesting (Aerobatics@aol.com)
71. 07:42 PM - Re: Fuel savings - was Ethanol and fiberglass tanks - once again (John Anderson)
72. 07:50 PM - Re: Re: sadly a kitfox is down glide.... (Aerobatics@aol.com)
73. 07:50 PM - Re: Re: Help changing fuel lines (John Anderson)
74. 08:10 PM - Re: Re: bungie cords (Noel Loveys)
75. 08:18 PM - Re: Re: sadly a kitfox is down glide.... (john perry)
76. 08:33 PM - Re: Re: sadly a kitfox is down glide.... Feather (Aerobatics@aol.com)
77. 08:46 PM - Re: Fuel savings - was Ethanol and fiberglass tanks - once again (Noel Loveys)
78. 09:01 PM - Re: Sport pilot at last! (Tom Tomlin)
79. 09:05 PM - Re: OFF TOPIC: The danger of languages (Noel Loveys)
80. 09:11 PM - Re: Re: sadly a kitfox is down glide.... (Noel Loveys)
81. 09:18 PM - Re: Cabin Heater 912UL (John Oakley)
82. 09:30 PM - Re: OFF TOPIC: The danger of languages (Lowell Fitt)
83. 09:33 PM - Re: Windmilling. WAS: sadly a kitfox is down glide.... (Lowell Fitt)
84. 09:45 PM - Re: OFF TOPIC: The danger of languages (Lowell Fitt)
85. 09:45 PM - Re: PRop Drag (Marco Menezes)
86. 11:51 PM - OFF TOPIC: Windmilling (Michel Verheughe)
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: Model V with O-200; questions |
I can't speak for the factory specs and I tend to agree with what you
say in that they tend to embellish them. That being said, your reported
cruise/climb speeds for the 0200 are definitely low. Something is
seriously wrong there, but then again, drag reduction is a pretty big
factor, especially with the struts. That doesn't explain the poor climb
rate though. Possibly the engine isn't producing rated power?
Deke
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Seehafer
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2006 9:39 PM
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
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: | sadly a kitfox is down |
Hello Lynn,
> From: Lynn Matteson [lynnmatt@jps.net]
> I thought the straight-ahead landing was the preferred method, as
> opposed to trying to get back to the field...did you misspeak yourself?
If you understood it that way, then I surely misspoke myself, because the straight-ahead
method is what is recommended by everyone.
Second: Congratulations on your Sport Pilot license. A new life opens itself for
you.
Third, I also have a Macintosh and I don't remember Frappr displaying wrongly.
I'll check that again this evening. (I am on a PC at work but shttt! don't tell
anyone! :-)
Cheers,
Michel
do not archive
<pre><b><font size=2 color="#000000" face="courier new,courier">
</b></font></pre></body></html>
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: sadly a kitfox is down glide.... |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "wingnut" <wingnut@spamarrest.com>
I'm confused. Is a windmilling prop more resistance than one that is motionless
or the other way around?
-Luis
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=68144#68144
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: sadly a kitfox is down |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net>
Thanks for the congrats, Michel. I've already worn out some sectional
charts looking for places to go. : )
Here is the quote that I read from you yesterday (Sunday), and copied
and pasted here:
"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 read this, I was sitting here at the computer and a large
"question mark" suddenly appeared above my head. : )
Lynn
Kitfox IV Speedster...Jabiru 2200
do not archive
On Monday, October 16, 2006, at 07:37 AM, Michel Verheughe wrote:
> Hello Lynn,
>
>> From: Lynn Matteson [lynnmatt@jps.net]
>> I thought the straight-ahead landing was the preferred method, as
>> opposed to trying to get back to the field...did you misspeak
>> yourself?
>
> If you understood it that way, then I surely misspoke myself, because
> the straight-ahead method is what is recommended by everyone.
>
> Second: Congratulations on your Sport Pilot license. A new life opens
> itself for you.
>
> Third, I also have a Macintosh and I don't remember Frappr displaying
> wrongly. I'll check that again this evening. (I am on a PC at work but
> shttt! don't tell anyone! :-)
>
> Cheers,
> Michel
>
> do not archive
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: Model V with O-200; questions |
Francisco,
You never said what rpm you are turning .
I am assuming this is a landplane ?
If on floats and at 100F then I appologize.
Is this a new engine install ?
Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: Francisco J Ocampo
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2006 10:22 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
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: | OFF TOPIC: The danger of languages |
> From: Lynn Matteson [lynnmatt@jps.net]
> <SNIP> "is to land almost anywhere but straight ahead."
Ha ha ha! Good one, Lynn! What I should have written was: "...to land almost anywhere
but make sure it is straight ahead." Reading again my sentence I see how
it turned out to be the exact opposite. That's the fun of speaking languages
without really mastering them.
Many years ago, when I passed my ham license here in Norway, still much influenced
by my native French, I was pretty sure that the explanation of UTC in our
book was wrong. Arguing with another ham, he said: No it's correct. All my experience
as an astro-nagigator told me it was the opposite. The problem was in
the Norwegian wording of the "ahead" or "behind" the clock. It was the way I interpreted
a Norwegian sentence that was wrong.
Here is another famous language pitfall in French: During the 100 years war between
the French and the Brits, a French general is supposed to have said:
"Messieurs les anglais, tirez les premiers!" (Sires Englishmen, fire first!)
This has been used to demonstrate the almost absurd "polite gentlemen" wars of
the past. In reality, the original text says:
"Messieurs, les anglais; tirez les premiers!" (Sires, the Englishmen; fire first!)
Which is exactly the opposite. A tiny comma can make a big difference! :-)
Cheers,
Michel
do not archive
<pre><b><font size=2 color="#000000" face="courier new,courier">
</b></font></pre></body></html>
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: sadly a kitfox is down glide.... |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys@yahoo.ca>
The wind milling prop has more resistance to the air. The least is a
feathered still prop. An unfeathered still prop is in the middle.
Noel
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of wingnut
> Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 9:27 AM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: sadly a kitfox is down glide....
>
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "wingnut" <wingnut@spamarrest.com>
>
> I'm confused. Is a windmilling prop more resistance than one
> that is motionless or the other way around?
>
> -Luis
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=68144#68144
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: sadly a kitfox is down glide.... |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Fox5flyer" <fox5flyer@i-star.com>
Wind milling is much worse, especially the clutch type. Think of it as a
big disk out front.
Deke
----- Original Message -----
From: "wingnut" <wingnut@spamarrest.com>
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 7:56 AM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: sadly a kitfox is down glide....
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "wingnut" <wingnut@spamarrest.com>
>
> I'm confused. Is a windmilling prop more resistance than one that is
motionless or the other way around?
>
> -Luis
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=68144#68144
>
>
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: sadly a kitfox is down glide.... |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "John Oakley" <john@leptron.com>
Hi Guys,
I was giving my wife a check out in the fox years ago and she asked how far
it would glide without the engine running, we had just received our "cleared
for the option" so I reached out and shut the engine off. We would have over
run our normal spot as it extended our glide much further.
John Oakley
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Fox5flyer
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 7:01 AM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: sadly a kitfox is down glide....
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Fox5flyer" <fox5flyer@i-star.com>
Wind milling is much worse, especially the clutch type. Think of it as a
big disk out front.
Deke
----- Original Message -----
From: "wingnut" <wingnut@spamarrest.com>
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 7:56 AM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: sadly a kitfox is down glide....
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "wingnut" <wingnut@spamarrest.com>
>
> I'm confused. Is a windmilling prop more resistance than one that is
motionless or the other way around?
>
> -Luis
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=68144#68144
>
>
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: sadly a kitfox is down glide.... |
I have made many engine out landings both for practice and for real. And to
think you can glide farther than you normally can with engine out sounds like
very dangerous advise. I have practiced many times with different speeds and
stopping the prop from windmilling with good results, but in real emergency
landings at low altitudes the key is to find a landing site that can be "made
for sure" and "watch your airspeed". I will chose a landing spot and slip it
in when absolutely sure I can make it. There's no adding a little power if
you short here!
Mark
Wisconsin
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: | Fuel savings - was Ethanol and fiberglass tanks - once |
again
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
--- John Anderson <janderson412@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 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.....
I agree. The first step is to stop wasting it. Both
my car and my van get better than 30 mpg on the
highway. Yes, not 1/2 pint cars but a van with a V-6
and a BMW 5 sport can get good milage too. And a
D-Jetta can get over 40 and maybe over 50 mpg.
My 4th gear went out on the van north of Atlanta this
weekend. My milage dropped to 29-30 mpg when using
3rd gear to limp home to FLA. That is with a load of
heavy junk in the back too. This is a Olds van. My
old Dodge van of the same size got 22 mpg at best with
a 4 banger. I can drive over 800 highway miles with
the new van on a tank full! I like it.
Since I moved to Fla I have heard advertising for NOT
insolating the attic, but to install other expensive
fixs. The argument was that we only need to lower the
inside temp a little over outside. Well, my attic is
not at outside temp but way hotter. The insolation is
definately required. My point is that there is a lot
of mis-information out there.
Another example: It would take covering the entire LA
basin worth of solar cells to replace the energy
output from only 3 major gas stations selling in LA.
There are 1000's of times that many stations. Solar
is not going to provide transportation for us any time
soon. But it is good for houses.
My engineering friend and I worked this one out: Only
5 cars driving 330 miles each at 25 mpg burn the same
oxygen as 1 million people at 2500 cal each do in a 24
hr day. Walk when you can.
If you want energy savings ideas, check here:
http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid17.php
I have followed them since the 70's. They do pretty
good at finding solutions that work.
Lots more, but this is getting off topic.
Kurt S. S-5/NSI turbo
Do not archive
__________________________________________________
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: sadly a kitfox is down |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@sbcglobal.net>
One thing I have found for sure is that if the fuel flow is compromised
between the header tank and the carburetors, you will have just enough fuel
in the carb bowls to get you to about the death altitude before the engine
stops or loses significant power. This is important to know. How do I
know?
After the last series of posts on the fatal stall spin accident in the South
East. I was tracing an incipient fuel smell and found a cracked fuel line
at one of the carburetors. It had been cut by the banjo bolt on the right
carb due to too sharp a turn in the line. I changed out all the engine pump
to carb fuel lines and put in new fire shield. I had one of those neat
firesheild clamp tighteners and proceeded to clamp the ends per the book,
RTV and all. I then went up for a test around the pattern and all was in
order.
The next morning I went up for a flight and just about 200 ft, the engine
started running extremely rough. The first thing I did is punch on the aux
fuel pump and reduce power. My first impression was that fuel starvation
was the problem. I felt I was too low for my alternate - straight ahead -
emergency landing point - it is a field a bit to the right of straight
ahead,but is across some commercial buildings and trees.
To make this short, the engine never quit and it was not like I was heading
down at best glide, so I initiated the dreaded 180 and came out over the
runway high enough that a steep side slip was necessary to get down. I made
a note in my trip record sheet and my hand writing betrays the adrenaline
rush I was fighting. The engine ran fine all the way back to the hangar.
I announced to my wife that I would not fly until I found something that I
could definitely attribute to the problem. Everything checked out until I
removed the new fuel lines and sighted down the bore. Apparently the fire
sleeve had relaxed during the night putting pressure on the fuel line,
essentially crimping them nearly closed.
The point of all this is that you can do everything right, taxi,
predeparture checks, run up, and even if fuel flow is compromised, all that
will seem fine. Taxi to the take off point and go and if the fuel demands
exceed the fuel flow, the carb bowls will be sucked dry and the bad things
will start happening just at the point of greatest danger.
Since that time, I am hearing lots of little noises from my engine, I have
never "heard" before and am a bit tense during that transition point from
take off to comfort altitude.
Lowell
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: | Model V with O-200; questions |
Paul
I have never tried a different prop. May be would be better another prop
like a Sensenich
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 10:32 PM
Para: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Asunto: Re: Kitfox-List: 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 <mailto:fjo@telecom.com.co>
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
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: | Model V with O-200; questions |
Deke
The engine today is only 300Hrs of fly and has all struts checked may be I
thing the poor speed and climb is for the motor weight. I spocke with the
factory about this 5 years ago and they told me that the all the planes are
not identity.
Francisco
_____
De: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] En nombre de Fox5flyer
Enviado el: Monday, October 16, 2006 6:00 AM
Para: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Asunto: Re: Kitfox-List: Model V with O-200; questions
I can't speak for the factory specs and I tend to agree with what you say in
that they tend to embellish them. That being said, your reported
cruise/climb speeds for the 0200 are definitely low. Something is seriously
wrong there, but then again, drag reduction is a pretty big factor,
especially with the struts. That doesn't explain the poor climb rate
though. Possibly the engine isn't producing rated power?
Deke
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Seehafer <mailto:av8rps@tznet.com>
Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2006 9:39 PM
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
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List">http://www.matron
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: sadly a kitfox is down |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Dave" <dave@cfisher.com>
Lowell, some good points there and one thing I do when diagnosing a fuel
problem before flying it again and everything seems to check out ok out, is
tie it down and WOT for 3 mins on the ground. If you have a fuel delivery
issue it is more than likely to fail/starve or burp at this testing.
Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 10:27 AM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: sadly a kitfox is down
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@sbcglobal.net>
>
> One thing I have found for sure is that if the fuel flow is compromised
> between the header tank and the carburetors, you will have just enough
> fuel in the carb bowls to get you to about the death altitude before the
> engine stops or loses significant power. This is important to know. How
> do I know?
>
> After the last series of posts on the fatal stall spin accident in the
> South East. I was tracing an incipient fuel smell and found a cracked
> fuel line at one of the carburetors. It had been cut by the banjo bolt on
> the right carb due to too sharp a turn in the line. I changed out all the
> engine pump to carb fuel lines and put in new fire shield. I had one of
> those neat firesheild clamp tighteners and proceeded to clamp the ends per
> the book, RTV and all. I then went up for a test around the pattern and
> all was in order.
>
> The next morning I went up for a flight and just about 200 ft, the engine
> started running extremely rough. The first thing I did is punch on the
> aux fuel pump and reduce power. My first impression was that fuel
> starvation was the problem. I felt I was too low for my alternate -
> straight ahead - emergency landing point - it is a field a bit to the
> right of straight ahead,but is across some commercial buildings and trees.
>
> To make this short, the engine never quit and it was not like I was
> heading down at best glide, so I initiated the dreaded 180 and came out
> over the runway high enough that a steep side slip was necessary to get
> down. I made a note in my trip record sheet and my hand writing betrays
> the adrenaline rush I was fighting. The engine ran fine all the way back
> to the hangar.
>
> I announced to my wife that I would not fly until I found something that I
> could definitely attribute to the problem. Everything checked out until I
> removed the new fuel lines and sighted down the bore. Apparently the fire
> sleeve had relaxed during the night putting pressure on the fuel line,
> essentially crimping them nearly closed.
>
> The point of all this is that you can do everything right, taxi,
> predeparture checks, run up, and even if fuel flow is compromised, all
> that will seem fine. Taxi to the take off point and go and if the fuel
> demands exceed the fuel flow, the carb bowls will be sucked dry and the
> bad things will start happening just at the point of greatest danger.
>
> Since that time, I am hearing lots of little noises from my engine, I have
> never "heard" before and am a bit tense during that transition point from
> take off to comfort altitude.
>
> Lowell
>
>
>
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: Sport pilot at last! |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Guy Buchanan <bnn@nethere.com>
At 03:16 PM 10/15/2006, you wrote:
>The day came and we went and now I got the "ticket to
>fly"....Michigan/Jackson County's newest Sport pilot.
Congratulations Lynn! Now go somewhere far and fun!
Guy Buchanan
K-IV 1200 / 582-C / Warp / 100% done, thanks mostly to Bob Ducar.
Do not archive
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: | Michel re wheel skis |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Algate" <algate@attglobal.net>
Michel
I recall that you built wheel skis last year - A friend of mine is
interested in making some so would you be able to put some details and/or
photos together for me
Regards
Gary
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: | Model V with O-200; questions |
Dave
I always flying with 2550Rpm, the plane only has a 300hr of fly. And we
installed the weelpants
Thanks
Francisco J ocampo.
_____
De: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] En nombre de Dave
Enviado el: Monday, October 16, 2006 7:42 AM
Para: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Asunto: Re: Kitfox-List: Model V with O-200; questions
Francisco,
You never said what rpm you are turning .
I am assuming this is a landplane ?
If on floats and at 100F then I appologize.
Is this a new engine install ?
Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: Francisco J Ocampo <mailto:fjo@telecom.com.co>
Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2006 10:22 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
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: Help changing fuel lines |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "wingnut" <wingnut@spamarrest.com>
Here's a picture with another angle in case it's unclear what I'm looking at. I
gather that the fuel shut off valve has barbed fittings and the builder somehow
crimped the fuel line over that. Is there a tool I need to buy to reproduce
this? Would it be advisable to just replace this with a hose clamp?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=68205#68205
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/valve2_130.jpg
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: | Model V with O-200; questions |
That 100hp should pull the airplane faster than what you indicate so
assuming the airplane is well fared and the engine is OK, then it's
entirely possible that your problem lies in your prop selection. Maybe
calling Sensenich again and talking to their tech support might give
some insight. My S5 with 100hp Subaru cruises 108 at 3900rpm and a
typical climb is somewhere around 850 to 1200 fpm depending on temp and
load. One thing I do have that is different from you is an electric
cockpit adjustable prop (CAP) which may account for the big difference.
Airmaster makes a nice unit, but I don't know if they make one to fit on
an 0200. http://www.airmasterpropellers.com/wa.asp?idWebPage=3672
Personally, I'll never have another airplane without a CAP. They're
especially nice when on floats.
Good luck,
Deke
----- Original Message -----
From: Francisco J Ocampo
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 11:06 AM
Subject: RV: Kitfox-List: Model V with O-200; questions
Deke
The engine today is only 300Hrs of fly and has all struts checked may
be I thing the poor speed and climb is for the motor weight. I spocke
with the factory about this 5 years ago and they told me that the all
the planes are not identity.
Francisco
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
De: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] En nombre de Fox5flyer
Enviado el: Monday, October 16, 2006 6:00 AM
Para: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Asunto: Re: Kitfox-List: Model V with O-200; questions
I can't speak for the factory specs and I tend to agree with what you
say in that they tend to embellish them. That being said, your reported
cruise/climb speeds for the 0200 are definitely low. Something is
seriously wrong there, but then again, drag reduction is a pretty big
factor, especially with the struts. That doesn't explain the poor climb
rate though. Possibly the engine isn't producing rated power?
Deke
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Seehafer
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2006 9:39 PM
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
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List">http://www.matron
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List
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: Michael Gibbs <MichaelGibbs@cox.net>
Lynn sez:
>I think I'm on the frapper, but I can't see the map as I'm using a Mac...
It's not because you're on a Mac, Lynn, I see the map just fine (Mac
OS X 10.4.8, Safari 2.0.4).
Congratulations on your accomplishment!
Mike G.
N728KF
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: Model V with O-200; questions |
Francisco, your 0-200 only gonna be giving you about 80 hp or so at
2550 ....... at best on a perfect engine
You should see 2650 to 2750 for take off , so basically you missing
at least 20 % of your performance there alone .
So for example........
If you see 800 fpm you missing at least 160 fpm so that brings you
back closer to 600 fpm
Has the compression been checked in this engine ? And is this the prop
that warp recos for this engine /airframe combo ? It would be a benefit
to give them a call and maybe you just got to fine up that prop a bit
to get higher rpm.
If you even flown a plane then change to seaplane prop that alone will
tell the story on performance gains.
Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: Francisco J Ocampo
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 11:31 AM
Subject: RV: Kitfox-List: Model V with O-200; questions
Dave
I always flying with 2550Rpm, the plane only has a 300hr of fly. And
we installed the weelpants
Thanks
Francisco J ocampo.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
De: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] En nombre de Dave
Enviado el: Monday, October 16, 2006 7:42 AM
Para: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Asunto: Re: Kitfox-List: Model V with O-200; questions
Francisco,
You never said what rpm you are turning .
I am assuming this is a landplane ?
If on floats and at 100F then I appologize.
Is this a new engine install ?
Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: Francisco J Ocampo
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2006 10:22 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
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List
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: Michel re wheel skis |
On Oct 16, 2006, at 5:30 PM, Algate wrote:
> I recall that you built wheel skis last year - A friend of mine is
> interested in making some so would you be able to put some details
> and/or
> photos together for me
Of course, Gary. Here is the link to the first test flight in the
winter 2004:
http://home.online.no/~michel/ski/
Then I include to this email a PFD drawing of the skis. Since it is
only 24 Kb, I hope no one minds.
Cheers,
Michel
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: | Windmilling. WAS: sadly a kitfox is down glide.... |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
On Oct 16, 2006, at 2:54 PM, Noel Loveys wrote:
> The wind milling prop has more resistance to the air. The least is a
> feathered still prop. An unfeathered still prop is in the middle.
And it is the same for a yacht, Noel. When I stop my engine, after
hoisting the sails, I keep it in gear to prevent the prop to windmill
... or, should I say: watermill! :-)
Cheers,
Michel
do not archive
Message 25
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: sadly a kitfox is down glide.... |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
On Oct 16, 2006, at 4:23 PM, RRTRACK@aol.com wrote:
> And to think you can glide farther than you normally can with engine
> out sounds like very dangerous advise.
I can confirm that. After I started landing "dead-stick" for practice
purpose, I enjoy it so much that I do it now, whenever the weather (and
my eventual passenger) allows me to. With the prop stopped, the sink
rate is slightly higher than with the engine on and at idle.
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: sadly a kitfox is down glide.... |
I have heard this argument before but have never really understood. There is more
to it than the prop is a disc. The prop when wind milling must be "seeking
a path of least resistance". There may very well be more overall resistance
to the airframe. I do not know. If someone has more of an explanation I would
love to hear it.
Thanks
Maxwell Duke S6/TD/IO240
Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no> wrote:
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe
On Oct 16, 2006, at 4:23 PM, RRTRACK@aol.com wrote:
> And to think you can glide farther than you normally can with engine
> out sounds like very dangerous advise.
I can confirm that. After I started landing "dead-stick" for practice
purpose, I enjoy it so much that I do it now, whenever the weather (and
my eventual passenger) allows me to. With the prop stopped, the sink
rate is slightly higher than with the engine on and at idle.
Cheers,
Michel
Maxwell Duke
S6/IO240/Phase II Flight Testing
---------------------------------
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: | Michel re wheel skis |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Algate" <algate@attglobal.net>
Thanks Michel
This is great
Gary
Of course, Gary. Here is the link to the first test flight in the
winter 2004:
http://home.online.no/~michel/ski/
Then I include to this email a PFD drawing of the skis. Since it is
only 24 Kb, I hope no one minds.
Cheers,
Michel
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: bungie cords |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "john beirne" <jmcb@oceanfree.net>
Hi Guys,
where can i purchase a new set of bungies already made up with the nicopress fitting
(for a Mark III)
thanks
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=68242#68242
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: | Cabin Heater 912UL |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "parahawk" <alfi98596@yahoo.com>
I am considering to intall a cabin heater in my IV-1200 912UL. so the upcoming
winter flying gets a little more comfortable.
Could anyone suggest what's the best and most efficient heater to get and from
where ??
Thank's a lot
--------
Flying is the highest form of life on earth.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=68248#68248
Message 30
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Michel re wheel skis |
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michel Verheughe" <michel@online.no>
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 1:26 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Michel re wheel skis
> On Oct 16, 2006, at 5:30 PM, Algate wrote:
>> I recall that you built wheel skis last year - A friend of mine is
>> interested in making some so would you be able to put some details
>> and/or
>> photos together for me
>
> Of course, Gary. Here is the link to the first test flight in the
> winter 2004:
> http://home.online.no/~michel/ski/
>
> Then I include to this email a PFD drawing of the skis. Since it is
> only 24 Kb, I hope no one minds.
>
> Cheers,
> Michel
>
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
Message 31
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Sport pilot at last! |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
On Oct 16, 2006, at 7:01 PM, Michael Gibbs wrote:
> It's not because you're on a Mac, Lynn, I see the map just fine (Mac
> OS X 10.4.8, Safari 2.0.4).
Yes, now that I am at home, I can confirm that, Lynn: all's well on the
Mac (same version as Mike).
Cheers,
Michel
do not archive
Message 32
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: sadly a kitfox is down glide.... |
It creates more drag by seeking less resistance due to its design which
is to produce lift. When it has no power of its own to do so, the
engine, it steals it from the momentum of the aircraft and produces
more drag not lift. That is why a failed engine has its prop feathered.
Rick
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of W Duke
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 11:26 AM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: sadly a kitfox is down glide....
I have heard this argument before but have never really understood.
There is more to it than the prop is a disc. The prop when wind milling
must be "seeking a path of least resistance". There may very well be
more overall resistance to the airframe. I do not know. If someone has
more of an explanation I would love to hear it.
Thanks
Maxwell Duke S6/TD/IO240
Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no> wrote:
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe
On Oct 16, 2006, at 4:23 PM, RRTRACK@aol.com wrote:
> And to think you can glide farther than you normally can with engine
> out sounds like very dangerous advise.
I can confirm that. After I started landing "dead-stick" for practice
purpose, I enjoy it so much
Message 33
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: sadly a kitfox is down glide.... |
Here is an excerpt from an article in the AOPA archives:
Stopping the prop
Stopping the propeller can add some length to your glide since the drag
produced by a wind milling prop attached to the weight of a now-dead engine
will be eliminated. However, this maneuver should be considered only if
you're at an altitude high enough to negate the effects of bringing the
airplane to the brink of a stall to get the propeller to stop wind milling.
If you're below 5,000 feet agl, we see no value in attempting this maneuver
(see "Stopping the Propeller," January 1995 Pilot). Of course, if the engine
seized, then the propeller will already be stopped.
For airplanes equipped with constant-speed propellers more glide distance
can be obtained by simply pulling the prop control to the low-rpm/high-pitch
position to minimize drag. Of course, if the engine has lost oil pressure,
the propeller control probably won't work. Most propellers revert to the
high-rpm/low-pitch setting if oil pressure is lost. This, unfortunately,
creates the most drag.
I flew the P-3 Orion for a number of years in the US Navy and one of the
things that could happen was a prop that would pitch lock at a
high-rpm/low-blade angle. It could decouple from the engine and spin at a
very high rpm creating a huge amount of drag and possible lose of control.
A fixed pitch prop that is spinning creates more drag than a fixed pitch
prop that has stopped. If I remember correctly it has to do with the "lift"
that is turning the engine. Any creation of lift is accompanied by an
increase in drag. In this case the lift does not help us (unless you are
trying for a restart) and the drag most definitely hurts us.
Brian Smith.
_____
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of wingsdown
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 2:34 PM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Re: sadly a kitfox is down glide....
It creates more drag by seeking less resistance due to its design which is
to produce lift. When it has no power of its own to do so, the engine, it
steals it from the momentum of the aircraft and produces more drag not lift.
That is why a failed engine has its prop feathered.
Rick
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of W Duke
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 11:26 AM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: sadly a kitfox is down glide....
I have heard this argument before but have never really understood. There
is more to it than the prop is a disc. The prop when wind milling must be
"seeking a path of least resistance". There may very well be more overall
resistance to the airframe. I do not know. If someone has more of an
explanation I would love to hear it.
Thanks
Maxwell Duke S6/TD/IO240
Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no> wrote:
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe
On Oct 16, 2006, at 4:23 PM, RRTRACK@aol.com wrote:
> And to think you can glide farther than you normally can with engine
> out sounds like very dangerous advise.
I can confirm that. After I started landing "dead-stick" for practice
purpose, I enjoy it so much
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List">http://www.matron
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: OFF TOPIC: The danger of languages |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net>
What bothers me about the UTC thing is that it stands for (I've been
told, and I have read) Coordinated Universal Time. If so, why is it not
abbreviated CTU?
Aviation on a whole has so darn many of these contractions and acronyms
and abbreviations, that it's hard to remember them all, and when they
throw one like this at us, with the letters out of sequence, it's hard
for me to recall what it stands for because it doesn't "compute" so to
speak. And how do they get Zulu out of all this?
Interestingly enough, this is back ON topic, dealing with aviation as
it does. : ) And I might add, Michel, that I admire and envy anybody
that has mastered more than one language, and that puts you up several
rungs on the proverbial ladder.
Lynn
do not archive
On Monday, October 16, 2006, at 08:47 AM, Michel Verheughe wrote:
>> From: Lynn Matteson [lynnmatt@jps.net]
>> <SNIP> "is to land almost anywhere but straight ahead."
>
> Ha ha ha! Good one, Lynn! What I should have written was: "...to land
> almost anywhere but make sure it is straight ahead." Reading again my
> sentence I see how it turned out to be the exact opposite. That's the
> fun of speaking languages without really mastering them.
>
> Many years ago, when I passed my ham license here in Norway, still
> much influenced by my native French, I was pretty sure that the
> explanation of UTC in our book was wrong. Arguing with another ham, he
> said: No it's correct. All my experience as an astro-nagigator told me
> it was the opposite. The problem was in the Norwegian wording of the
> "ahead" or "behind" the clock. It was the way I interpreted a
> Norwegian sentence that was wrong.
>
> Here is another famous language pitfall in French: During the 100
> years war between the French and the Brits, a French general is
> supposed to have said:
> "Messieurs les anglais, tirez les premiers!" (Sires Englishmen, fire
> first!)
>
> This has been used to demonstrate the almost absurd "polite gentlemen"
> wars of the past. In reality, the original text says:
>
> "Messieurs, les anglais; tirez les premiers!" (Sires, the Englishmen;
> fire first!)
> Which is exactly the opposite. A tiny comma can make a big difference!
> :-)
>
> Cheers,
> Michel
Message 35
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Aileron Differential |
Michel,
The term 'reflex' flap position I used is the same as the 'negative'
flap position you referred to on sailplanes.
Your detail discussion of aileron and rudder use in crosswind landings
was very interesting, I had not considered these arguments before.
Thank you.
DeWayne,
I would be more than happy to share my aileron design changes with
anyone who is interested. In general I moved the mixer mechanism to an
under the seat position and then ran push/pull tubes to the outer edges
of the fuselage via bellcranks and then up to the aileron arms. This
routing allowed a zipper duffel bag to be suspended behind the seat for
light cargo where the old design occupied this space with the mixer
mechanism. A little application of trigonometry, in particular the law
of sines, to increase differential motion at each bellcrank and you can
achieve any practical degree of differentiation you desire. This little
excursion deeper into 'experimental' consumed over 100 hours of design,
fabrication, and fuselage mods. I can take photos when I do my next
annual conditon inspection if you would like to see them (about two
months away).
Regards,
John Stoner
KFIII, 582
Alaska
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: sadly a kitfox is down glide.... |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net>
Strange isn't it, that when it's being powered it's a great thing to
have out front, but when not powered, it's a real drag...yes, the pun
was intended...couldn't pass it up. : )
Lynn
Kitfox IV Speedster...Jabiru 2200
do not archive
On Monday, October 16, 2006, at 09:01 AM, Fox5flyer wrote:
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Fox5flyer" <fox5flyer@i-star.com>
>
> Wind milling is much worse, especially the clutch type. Think of it
> as a
> big disk out front.
> Deke
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "wingnut" <wingnut@spamarrest.com>
> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 7:56 AM
> Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: sadly a kitfox is down glide....
>
>
>> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "wingnut" <wingnut@spamarrest.com>
>>
>> I'm confused. Is a windmilling prop more resistance than one that is
> motionless or the other way around?
>>
>> -Luis
Message 37
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: sadly a kitfox is down glide.... |
All you ever wanted to know aboutr prop drag.
http://www.goshen.edu/physics/PropellerDrag/thesis.htm
From: W Duke
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 3:25 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: sadly a kitfox is down glide....
I have heard this argument before but have never really understood.
There is more to it than the prop is a disc. The prop when wind milling
must be "seeking a path of least resistance". There may very well be
more overall resistance to the airframe. I do not know. If someone has
more of an explanation I would love to hear it.
Thanks
Maxwell Duke S6/TD/IO240
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: | Re: sadly a kitfox is down glide.... |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "wingnut" <wingnut@spamarrest.com>
While executing some extreme manuever to stop the prop or stoping the prop in expectation
of extending the glide may not be advisable, it seems to me that it's
more important to know what to expect if your prop stops on its own (doesn't
that always happen with the 912?). I understood that most missed deadstick landings
that occur after an engine failure at altitude are because the runway
was overshot.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=68272#68272
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: | Re: 582 W/ chopped muffler |
DeWayne,
I have a 'chopped' exhaust system on my Model III with a 582. I did
this to fit the exhaust entirely on the right side of the engine. This
allowed my simplified fuel system to occupy the left side of the
firewall and be well separated from the exhaust system heat.
Changing the curvature of the exhaust elbow or the tapered pipe leading
to the muffler will not alter the engine performance IF the changes in
angles are relatively small (less than 15 degrees per bend) AND the
centerline length of the exhaust system remains unchanged. If you need
more than 15 degrees of change use multiple 'bends'.
A good way to make a bend is to carefully mark a wedge to be cut from
the inside of the bend, the sharp ends of the wedge must be exactly on
the opposite centers of the tube. Cut a straight line from the side
opposite the removed wedge to withis 1/16 inch of the tip of removed
wedge. Bend the tube along these tiny 'hinges' and the removed wedge
should perfectly fill the new open wedge on the outside of the bend.
This of course takes a little practice to get it right. You can make
tapered tubes from sheet stock and practice on them.
There is a good narrative with illustrations of this technique in the
expansion chamber section of "Two-stroke Tuner's Handbook" by Gordon
Jennings. If you go to the extreme and design and build your own
exhaust system from scratch using this manual be aware that there are
some errors in the math examples, always do your own math to double
check the text.
Regards,
John Stoner
KFIII, 582
Alaska
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: | Re: Aileron Differential |
Hi John,
I would be grateful to get drawings and, later on pictures of your
aileron push/pull tubing.Please keep me in the info loop..
Thanks Much, Ron N55KF rliebmann@comcast.net
DO NOT ARCHIVE
----- Original Message -----
From: John
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 3:20 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Aileron Differential
Michel,
The term 'reflex' flap position I used is the same as the 'negative'
flap position you referred to on sailplanes.
Your detail discussion of aileron and rudder use in crosswind landings
was very interesting, I had not considered these arguments before.
Thank you.
DeWayne,
I would be more than happy to share my aileron design changes with
anyone who is interested. In general I moved the mixer mechanism to an
under the seat position and then ran push/pull tubes to the outer edges
of the fuselage via bellcranks and then up to the aileron arms. This
routing allowed a zipper duffel bag to be suspended behind the seat for
light cargo where the old design occupied this space with the mixer
mechanism. A little application of trigonometry, in particular the law
of sines, to increase differential motion at each bellcrank and you can
achieve any practical degree of differentiation you desire. This little
excursion deeper into 'experimental' consumed over 100 hours of design,
fabrication, and fuselage mods. I can take photos when I do my next
annual conditon inspection if you would like to see them (about two
months away).
Regards,
John Stoner
KFIII, 582
Alaska
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: | Re: sadly a kitfox is down glide.... |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Ben-PA" <ben@gmpexpress.net>
[/quote]
I can confirm that. After I started landing "dead-stick" for practice
purpose, I enjoy it so much that I do it now, whenever the weather (and
my eventual passenger) allows me to. With the prop stopped, the sink
rate is slightly higher than with the engine on and at idle.
Cheers,
Michel[/quote]
Michel,
I like the idea of practicing a dead stick landing. I will try that sometime when
I have a 5,000 foot runway in front of me.
Have you considered the possibility of doing engine damage because of super cooling?
Perhaps you should contact Jabiru and tell them what you do and get their
input.
Ben
--------
Sign up on the Kitfox Frappr Map:
http://www.frappr.com/kitfox
You can see where fellow Kitfoxers live and pictures of their planes. Be sure to
post some pictures of you, your plane, or share the scenery of the Kitfox world.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=68279#68279
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: | Re: Sport pilot at last! |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net>
Thanks for the kind words, Deke, Mike, Michel, Dave S., and any others
I might have overlooked. And Mike, and Michel, I'm on a version 10.2.8,
and it seems like I tried to see the map before, but wasn't able due to
not logging in, but I'll give it another go and see what gives. I know
that I was able to post a picture, but I should change that, as I now
have a more recent, complete-paint-scheme photo.
Lynn
do not archive
On Monday, October 16, 2006, at 01:01 PM, Michael Gibbs wrote:
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michael Gibbs <MichaelGibbs@cox.net>
>
> Lynn sez:
>
>> I think I'm on the frapper, but I can't see the map as I'm using a
>> Mac...
>
> It's not because you're on a Mac, Lynn, I see the map just fine (Mac
> OS X 10.4.8, Safari 2.0.4).
>
> Congratulations on your accomplishment!
>
> Mike G.
> N728KF
>
>
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: sadly a kitfox is down glide.... |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Algate" <algate@attglobal.net>
Michel
The only problem associated with super cooling would be related to a re
start and there is a procedure in the manual for that. I used to practice
mine on a frozen lake and it surprising how far out you are on your initial
attempts. Mt first few were well short of the runway but I think in the
event of real dead stick the biggest problem might be a overshoot due to the
initial reaction to get to a suitable landing spot. There is no doubt that
practicing side slips will certainly help in this situation.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ben-PA
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 5:02 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: sadly a kitfox is down glide....
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Ben-PA" <ben@gmpexpress.net>
[/quote]
I can confirm that. After I started landing "dead-stick" for practice
purpose, I enjoy it so much that I do it now, whenever the weather (and
my eventual passenger) allows me to. With the prop stopped, the sink
rate is slightly higher than with the engine on and at idle.
Cheers,
Michel[/quote]
Michel,
I like the idea of practicing a dead stick landing. I will try that sometime
when I have a 5,000 foot runway in front of me.
Have you considered the possibility of doing engine damage because of super
cooling? Perhaps you should contact Jabiru and tell them what you do and get
their input.
Ben
--------
Sign up on the Kitfox Frappr Map:
http://www.frappr.com/kitfox
You can see where fellow Kitfoxers live and pictures of their planes. Be
sure to post some pictures of you, your plane, or share the scenery of the
Kitfox world.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=68279#68279
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: | Re: 582 W/ chopped muffler |
So the manafold and the muffler has 1/2 and 3/4 cut off them so the center
line is shorter? ,the elbow is wedged out a little bit did I loose any power
? what causes the need to rejet ?
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: sadly a kitfox is down glide.... |
Have to tell ya. Read the entire paper. Good stuff but inconclusive and
not real world. Some of the thing he points out are, or should be,
oblivious to any one who fly's. If you stick you arm out the window of a
moving car and rotate your hand flat into the wind you get more drag. If
you stick your arm out the window all the way , more drag. Of course we
are not capable of spinning our hand like a blade. But if you stood in
the back of a pickup truck, I challenge anyone to tie a plank on the end
of a rope and spin it and tell be which created more drag, the plank
hanging or spinning. If you drive 2 miles an hour who cares, we don't
land at 2 MPH.
What those that are not convinced that a free wheeling blade creates
more drag, should simple do their own real world test, on a very long
runway. If you do ,please expect to use greater back pressure on the
flair due to increase sink rate. Hey, been there done that, so I know
what is going to happen. I would suggest a cool day just to edge your
bet.
Rick
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dave G.
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 1:31 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: sadly a kitfox is down glide....
All you ever wanted to know aboutr prop drag.
http://www.goshen.edu/physics/PropellerDrag/thesis.htm
From: W Duke <mailto:n981ms@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 3:25 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: sadly a kitfox is down glide....
I have heard this argument before but have never really understood.
There is more to it than the prop is a disc. The prop when wind milling
must be "seeking a path of least resistance". There may very well be
more overall resistance to the airframe. I do not know. If someone has
more of an explanation I would love to hear it.
Thanks
Maxwell Duke S6/TD/IO240
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: 582 W/ chopped muffler |
John , great write up on the Kitfox chopped exhaust. I was always
under the impression that the 582 is a bit less that 64 HP in the Kitfox
as the exhaust length is a bit different than a stock rotax exhaust. I
had a new manifold here and compared it to the Kitfox Y pipe and the
Kitfox one was about 1" to 1 1/2 " shorter than the brand new one. Now
I know the cone is altered after the elbow and measuring through the
centreline it seemed to be the same length as the new one in total.
What did you find on your workings with this ? Right now we have a
great comprise between wider power band and you don;t have to be on the
pipe at a narrow rpm range to get the torque.
That being said if you wanted to lose some reliability and use more gas
, I am sure you could get 100 hp ++ out of the 582..... but if would
not be nearly as flyable as it is now. Would be good for a show off
plane for super quick take offs and climb outs..........
Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: John
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 4:43 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: 582 W/ chopped muffler
DeWayne,
I have a 'chopped' exhaust system on my Model III with a 582. I did
this to fit the exhaust entirely on the right side of the engine. This
allowed my simplified fuel system to occupy the left side of the
firewall and be well separated from the exhaust system heat.
Changing the curvature of the exhaust elbow or the tapered pipe
leading to the muffler will not alter the engine performance IF the
changes in angles are relatively small (less than 15 degrees per bend)
AND the centerline length of the exhaust system remains unchanged. If
you need more than 15 degrees of change use multiple 'bends'.
A good way to make a bend is to carefully mark a wedge to be cut from
the inside of the bend, the sharp ends of the wedge must be exactly on
the opposite centers of the tube. Cut a straight line from the side
opposite the removed wedge to withis 1/16 inch of the tip of removed
wedge. Bend the tube along these tiny 'hinges' and the removed wedge
should perfectly fill the new open wedge on the outside of the bend.
This of course takes a little practice to get it right. You can make
tapered tubes from sheet stock and practice on them.
There is a good narrative with illustrations of this technique in the
expansion chamber section of "Two-stroke Tuner's Handbook" by Gordon
Jennings. If you go to the extreme and design and build your own
exhaust system from scratch using this manual be aware that there are
some errors in the math examples, always do your own math to double
check the text.
Regards,
John Stoner
KFIII, 582
Alaska
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: sadly a kitfox is down glide.... |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Dave" <dave@cfisher.com>
Ben , I think the super cooling or shock cooling is something to be
avoided but more important is the sudden surge of full power after shock
cooling. Always keep your temps in their operating range. On realtime
forced approach the longer the runway the better but in reality a Kitfox can
slip into some pretty tight places. I think a 2000 foot runway is plenty.
And like some one else mentioned that is very important to be able to short
land your Kitfox. Try practicing under 1000 foot landing over 75 foot
trees and stopping in under 1000 feet. Just do it ten times in a row till
you feel confident. Slow flight is a great thing to master and practice.
Dave
Ps... I just got in from 1.5 hours of slow flight SAR pattern at 200 to
300 agl all practice though.......so I got a biased view :)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ben-PA" <ben@gmpexpress.net>
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 5:01 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: sadly a kitfox is down glide....
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Ben-PA" <ben@gmpexpress.net>
>
> [/quote]
> I can confirm that. After I started landing "dead-stick" for practice
> purpose, I enjoy it so much that I do it now, whenever the weather (and
> my eventual passenger) allows me to. With the prop stopped, the sink
> rate is slightly higher than with the engine on and at idle.
>
> Cheers,
> Michel[/quote]
>
> Michel,
> I like the idea of practicing a dead stick landing. I will try that
> sometime when I have a 5,000 foot runway in front of me.
> Have you considered the possibility of doing engine damage because of
> super cooling? Perhaps you should contact Jabiru and tell them what you do
> and get their input.
> Ben
>
> --------
> Sign up on the Kitfox Frappr Map:
> http://www.frappr.com/kitfox
> You can see where fellow Kitfoxers live and pictures of their planes. Be
> sure to post some pictures of you, your plane, or share the scenery of the
> Kitfox world.
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=68279#68279
>
>
>
Message 48
| 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.... |
MessageMy easy answer without much reading or research is that it takes
energy to spin the prop. The only stored energy an aircraft in glide has
is it's height. It spins the prop by coverting height into work. Well,
you could convert speed into work, but that might get you to the ground
quicker yet.
----- Original Message -----
From: wingsdown
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 7:19 PM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Re: sadly a kitfox is down glide....
Have to tell ya. Read the entire paper. Good stuff but inconclusive
and not real world. Some of the thing he points out are, or should be,
oblivious to any one who fly's. If you stick you arm out the window of a
moving car and rotate your hand flat
Message 49
| 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.... |
In a message dated 10/16/2006 5:35:57 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
dave@cfisher.com writes:
On realtime
forced approach the longer the runway the better but in reality a Kitfox can
slip into some pretty tight places. I think a 2000 foot runway is plenty.
And like some one else mentioned that is very important to be able to short
land your Kitfox. Try practicing under 1000 foot landing over 75 foot
trees and stopping in under 1000 feet. Just do it ten times in a row till
you feel confident. Slow flight is a great thing to master and practice.
Dave
I agree that 2000 feet is plenty. BUT if you are new and building
experience, choose a field which is comfortable to you.
My strip is a bit under than 750 feet and I have shut engine off and landed,
with a passenger, almost never using more than 50% of the runway for
practice. Well goodie for me, but man it was not always like that, not even close.
I
thought it was simply not possible.
The first time I tried to land my kitfox here (750 feet) I chickened out and
flew it back to my original base with a 3,400 foot paved runway with grass
on the side.
Not thinking I could ever do it, I simply painted "my strip" on the 3,500
grass at Paxton airport. I just used cheap white aerosol paint. There I could
build, in steps skill sets that was at a comfortable rate for me. In a
while, I could land on my painted "carrier" even though, I used most of it. 350
hours later I rarely use more than 1/2 in all types of conditions.
The plane is capable, its us humans need to learn how. I might add,
personally, 10 hours a year is not enough to maintain this type of proficiency.
It
depends on the individual, but I think at least 30.... I am lucky enough to
get 80 to 100... it makes a difference.
OK OK I am a slow learner......
Enjoy the process of becoming better, its one of the most rewarding parts of
this
Just an opinion....
Dave Patrick
KF2
Message 50
| 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: 582 W/ chopped muffler |
Malcolm,
The shorter centerline length of your exhaust most likely made the power
band slightly narrower and makes peak power at a little higher rpm.
This change would also likely reduce the exhaust scavenging at the
cylinder exhaust port, which would require a richer mixture, hence the
larger jets. Poorer scavenging will reduce power output. Bear in mind
also that the jetting is air temperature and density dependant. Up here
in Alaska I routinely switch to larger jets about this time of year when
our temp rarely go above 40 degrees (F).
The elbow being wedged out a little may or may not effect the power
output. If it looks like the smooth flow of exhaust is comprimised, it
almost certainly is, and will reduce power output. If the elbow looks
like it still allows smooth flow throughout the length of the bend and
into the next segment of the system, it probably does not contribute to
power reduction.
The welds as they are seen from inside the tubes can also be detrimental
to flow. Rough welds that protrude into the flow path can cause
turbulene in the flow, thus reducing power. The smaller the diameter
where the welds are the more significant the potential problem.
The proper execution of a good exhaust on two stroke engines is a
combination of science and art. The physics can speak for themselves,
certain dimensions, tapers, etc. are either right or wrong for the goals
of power band width and rpm at peak power. The art is making it look
like it will flow smoothly with minimum turbulence as seen from the
exhaust gas perspective.
Regards,
John Stoner
KFIII, 582
Alaska
From: Malcolmbru@aol.com
Date: Mon Oct 16 - 3:18 PM
So the manafold and the muffler has 1/2 and 3/4 cut off them so the
center
line is shorter? ,the elbow is wedged out a little bit did I loose any
power
? what causes the need to rejet ?
Message 51
| 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 |
|
MessageIf you think a windmilling prop does not have drag then look at
some of the wind generator towers out there ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
HUGE DRAG and huge cement pads they bolted to...... with very large
bolts
Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: Dave G.
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 7:19 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: sadly a kitfox is down glide....
My easy answer without much reading or research is that it takes
energy to spin the prop. The only stored energy an aircraft in glide has
is it's height. It spins the prop by coverting height into work. Well,
you could convert speed into work, but that might get you to the ground
quicker yet.
----- Original Message -----
From: wingsdown
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 7:19 PM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Re: sadly a kitfox is down glide....
Have to tell ya. Read the entire paper. Good stuff but inconclusive
and not real world. Some of the thing he points out are, or should be,
oblivious to any one who fly's. If you stick you arm out the window of a
moving car and rotate your hand flat
Message 52
| 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: 582 W/ chopped muffler |
Dave,
It would be very easy to get 100 hp or more from a 582. This could be
done with only exhaust system changes. The biggest argument against
doing this (IMHO) is not overstressing the connecting rod small end
bearings.
The horsepower our engines make in flight is continuous, that is a
steady all the time 48 hp (at 75 % cruise for example). In other
applications like snow machines, they claim a higher horsepower rating
from the almost identical engine. But, they only operate at that high
horsepower setting for a few seconds at a time, their cruise output is
likely in the 25 to 30 hp range.
One of the main differences between the 583 snow machine engine and the
582 aircraft enging is the rod small end bearings. Caged bearings in
the 583, easier to install, and adequate for the power levels they see
on a continuous basis. Loose needle bearings in the 582 provide more
surface contact and better heat dissipation at the higher continuous
loads.
As I understand it, this is the main reason that Rotax discourages
putting a 'higher' output 583 in an aircraft.
Regards,
John Stoner
KFIII, 582
Alaska
Subject: Re: Re: 582 W/ chopped muffler
From: Dave (dave@cfisher.com)
Date: Mon Oct 16 - 3:26 PM
<<<
, I am sure you could get 100 hp ++ out of the 582..... but if would
not be nearly as flyable as it is now. Would be good for a show off
plane for super quick take offs and climb outs..........
Dave
Message 53
| 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: 582 W/ chopped muffler |
Sounds right to me ......... and also a 582 fuel burn will go up
considerably with a better exhaust. But with a better exhaust comes
alot of screwing around with jetting and you will always have issues as
the temps and climate changes............so imo bestd to leave it
alone.........
----- Original Message -----
From: John
To: Kitfox-List@matronics.com
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 7:50 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: 582 W/ chopped muffler
Dave,
It would be very easy to get 100 hp or more from a 582. This could be
done with only exhaust system changes. The biggest argument against
doing this (IMHO) is not overstressing the connecting rod small end
bearings.
The horsepower our engines make in flight is continuous, that is a
steady all the time 48 hp (at 75 % cruise for example). In other
applications like snow machines, they claim a higher horsepower rating
from the almost identical engine. But, they only operate at that high
horsepower setting for a few seconds at a time, their cruise output is
likely in the 25 to 30 hp range.
One of the main differences between the 583 snow machine engine and
the 582 aircraft enging is the rod small end bearings. Caged bearings
in the 583, easier to install, and adequate for the power levels they
see on a continuous basis. Loose needle bearings in the 582 provide
more surface contact and better heat dissipation at the higher
continuous loads.
As I understand it, this is the main reason that Rotax discourages
putting a 'higher' output 583 in an aircraft.
Regards,
John Stoner
KFIII, 582
Alaska
Subject: Re: Re: 582 W/ chopped muffler
From: Dave (dave@cfisher.com)
Date: Mon Oct 16 - 3:26 PM
<<<
, I am sure you could get 100 hp ++ out of the 582..... but if would
not be nearly as flyable as it is now. Would be good for a show off
plane for super quick take offs and climb outs..........
Dave
Message 54
| 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 |
|
Good one Dave, excellent and I do believe they feather those when not in
use. :)
Rick
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dave
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 4:38 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: PRop Drag
If you think a windmilling prop does not have drag then look at some of
the wind generator towers out there ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
HUGE DRAG and huge cement pads they bolted to...... with very large
bolts
Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: Dave <mailto:occom@ns.sympatico.ca> G.
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 7:19 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: sadly a kitfox is down glide....
My easy answer without much reading or research is that it takes energy
to spin the prop. The only stored energy an aircraft in glide has is
it's height. It spins the prop by coverting height into work. Well, you
could convert speed into work, but that might get you to the ground
quicker yet.
----- Original Message -----
From: wingsdown <mailto:wingsdown@comcast.net>
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 7:19 PM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Re: sadly a kitfox is down glide....
Have to tell ya. Read the entire paper. Good stuff but inconclusive and
not real world. Some of the thing he points out are, or should be,
oblivious to any one who fly's. If you stick you arm out the window of a
moving car and rotate your hand flat
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List">http://www.matron
Message 55
| 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: | OFF TOPIC: The danger of languages |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys@yahoo.ca>
As a ham whose interest in radio goes back almost forty years ( only
licensed for 22 Yr) I like the term Z. As in 1400 Hr Z. Or 1400hr. Zulu.
It was also known as GMT (Greenwich Mean Time). From the longitude going
through Greenwich, England as 0Hr. The fall of the British Empire finished
that.
Who out there knows what the UTC really stands for?? I'm just guessing
maybe Universal Time Coordinate. T would be interested in knowing though.
Noel
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> Lynn Matteson
> Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 5:53 PM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: OFF TOPIC: The danger of languages
>
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net>
>
> What bothers me about the UTC thing is that it stands for (I've been
> told, and I have read) Coordinated Universal Time. If so, why
> is it not
> abbreviated CTU?
> Aviation on a whole has so darn many of these contractions
> and acronyms
> and abbreviations, that it's hard to remember them all, and when they
> throw one like this at us, with the letters out of sequence,
> it's hard
> for me to recall what it stands for because it doesn't
> "compute" so to
> speak. And how do they get Zulu out of all this?
>
> Interestingly enough, this is back ON topic, dealing with aviation as
> it does. : ) And I might add, Michel, that I admire and envy anybody
> that has mastered more than one language, and that puts you
> up several
> rungs on the proverbial ladder.
>
> Lynn
> do not archive
>
> On Monday, October 16, 2006, at 08:47 AM, Michel Verheughe wrote:
>
> >> From: Lynn Matteson [lynnmatt@jps.net]
> >> <SNIP> "is to land almost anywhere but straight ahead."
> >
> > Ha ha ha! Good one, Lynn! What I should have written was:
> "...to land
> > almost anywhere but make sure it is straight ahead."
> Reading again my
> > sentence I see how it turned out to be the exact opposite.
> That's the
> > fun of speaking languages without really mastering them.
> >
> > Many years ago, when I passed my ham license here in Norway, still
> > much influenced by my native French, I was pretty sure that the
> > explanation of UTC in our book was wrong. Arguing with
> another ham, he
> > said: No it's correct. All my experience as an
> astro-nagigator told me
> > it was the opposite. The problem was in the Norwegian
> wording of the
> > "ahead" or "behind" the clock. It was the way I interpreted a
> > Norwegian sentence that was wrong.
> >
> > Here is another famous language pitfall in French: During the 100
> > years war between the French and the Brits, a French general is
> > supposed to have said:
> > "Messieurs les anglais, tirez les premiers!" (Sires
> Englishmen, fire
> > first!)
> >
> > This has been used to demonstrate the almost absurd "polite
> gentlemen"
> > wars of the past. In reality, the original text says:
> >
> > "Messieurs, les anglais; tirez les premiers!" (Sires, the
> Englishmen;
> > fire first!)
> > Which is exactly the opposite. A tiny comma can make a big
> difference!
> > :-)
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Michel
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 56
| 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: bungie cords |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys@yahoo.ca>
Steve Winder at Airdale.com told me he has them ready to go, with the nico
press eyes made.... Just in case I decide to put the funny round thingys on
this winter. ;-)
Noel
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> john beirne
> Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 4:02 PM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: bungie cords
>
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "john beirne" <jmcb@oceanfree.net>
>
> Hi Guys,
> where can i purchase a new set of bungies already made up
> with the nicopress fitting (for a Mark III)
> thanks
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=68242#68242
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 57
| 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.... |
As a kid.... (I'm still the biggest, oldest kid I know) I noticed that
carnival pinwheels held out the window of the car on the way home would
drag
a lot more when they were allowed to spin. This extra drag and be
noticed
even when holding a pinwheel in a stiff breeze. next time the Carney is
in
town get a pinwheel and try it for yourself.
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of wingsdown
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 7:50 PM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Re: sadly a kitfox is down glide....
Have to tell ya. Read the entire paper. Good stuff but inconclusive and
not
real world. Some of the thing he points out are, or should be, oblivious
to
any one who fly's. If you stick you arm out the window of a moving car
and
rotate your hand flat into the wind you get more drag. If you stick your
arm
out the window all the way , more drag. Of course we are not capable of
spinning our hand like a blade. But if you stood in the back of a pickup
truck, I challenge anyone to tie a plank on the end of a rope and spin
it
and tell be which created more drag, the plank hanging or spinning. If
you
drive 2 miles an hour who cares, we don't land at 2 MPH.
What those that are not convinced that a free wheeling blade creates
more
drag, should simple do their own real world test, on a very long
runway. If
you do ,please expect to use greater back pressure on the flair due to
increase sink rate. Hey, been there done that, so I know what is going
to
happen. I would suggest a cool day just to edge your bet.
Rick
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dave G.
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 1:31 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: sadly a kitfox is down glide....
All you ever wanted to know aboutr prop drag.
http://www.goshen.edu/physics/PropellerDrag/thesis.htm
From: W Duke <mailto:n981ms@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 3:25 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: sadly a kitfox is down glide....
I have heard this argument before but have never really understood.
There
is more to it than the prop is a disc. The prop when wind milling must
be
"seeking a path of least resistance". There may very well be more
overall
resistance to the airframe. I do not know. If someone has more of an
explanation I would love to hear it.
Thanks
Maxwell Duke S6/TD/IO240
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List">http://www.matron
Message 58
| 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: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys@yahoo.ca>
There is one take off direction on the pond I use to launch. When the wind
is due west I have to go over a hill that is about 300' high and then about
a mile to the next usable pond for landing. I hate taking off in that
direction because it cuts my options. Easterly wind would be worse for
hills and boreal forest but usually an easterly wind here also brings half
the North Atlantic raining down.
Noel
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> Lowell Fitt
> Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 11:57 AM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: sadly a kitfox is down
>
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt"
> <lcfitt@sbcglobal.net>
>
> One thing I have found for sure is that if the fuel flow is
> compromised
> between the header tank and the carburetors, you will have
> just enough fuel
> in the carb bowls to get you to about the death altitude
> before the engine
> stops or loses significant power. This is important to know.
> How do I
> know?
>
> After the last series of posts on the fatal stall spin
> accident in the South
> East. I was tracing an incipient fuel smell and found a
> cracked fuel line
> at one of the carburetors. It had been cut by the banjo bolt
> on the right
> carb due to too sharp a turn in the line. I changed out all
> the engine pump
> to carb fuel lines and put in new fire shield. I had one of
> those neat
> firesheild clamp tighteners and proceeded to clamp the ends
> per the book,
> RTV and all. I then went up for a test around the pattern
> and all was in
> order.
>
> The next morning I went up for a flight and just about 200
> ft, the engine
> started running extremely rough. The first thing I did is
> punch on the aux
> fuel pump and reduce power. My first impression was that
> fuel starvation
> was the problem. I felt I was too low for my alternate -
> straight ahead -
> emergency landing point - it is a field a bit to the right of
> straight
> ahead,but is across some commercial buildings and trees.
>
> To make this short, the engine never quit and it was not like
> I was heading
> down at best glide, so I initiated the dreaded 180 and came
> out over the
> runway high enough that a steep side slip was necessary to
> get down. I made
> a note in my trip record sheet and my hand writing betrays
> the adrenaline
> rush I was fighting. The engine ran fine all the way back to
> the hangar.
>
> I announced to my wife that I would not fly until I found
> something that I
> could definitely attribute to the problem. Everything
> checked out until I
> removed the new fuel lines and sighted down the bore.
> Apparently the fire
> sleeve had relaxed during the night putting pressure on the
> fuel line,
> essentially crimping them nearly closed.
>
> The point of all this is that you can do everything right, taxi,
> predeparture checks, run up, and even if fuel flow is
> compromised, all that
> will seem fine. Taxi to the take off point and go and if the
> fuel demands
> exceed the fuel flow, the carb bowls will be sucked dry and
> the bad things
> will start happening just at the point of greatest danger.
>
> Since that time, I am hearing lots of little noises from my
> engine, I have
> never "heard" before and am a bit tense during that
> transition point from
> take off to comfort altitude.
>
> Lowell
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 59
| 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: | Windmilling. WAS: sadly a kitfox is down glide.... |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys@yahoo.ca>
I take it you don't have one of those fancy folding props. I often wondered
if they would work in reverse. My little boat has an outboard with an
outboard kicker. The lift went on my main engine this summer so I never got
past the door of the boathouse.
Noel
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> Michel Verheughe
> Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 3:00 PM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Kitfox-List: Windmilling. WAS: sadly a kitfox is
> down glide....
>
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
>
> On Oct 16, 2006, at 2:54 PM, Noel Loveys wrote:
> > The wind milling prop has more resistance to the air. The
> least is a
> > feathered still prop. An unfeathered still prop is in the middle.
>
> And it is the same for a yacht, Noel. When I stop my engine, after
> hoisting the sails, I keep it in gear to prevent the prop to windmill
> ... or, should I say: watermill! :-)
>
> Cheers,
> Michel
>
> do not archive
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 60
| 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: bungie cords |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "john perry" <eskflyer@lvcisp.com>
GUYS GUYS GUYS . KITFOX KITFOX ARE YOU ALL FORGETTING SOMETHING HERE .
John and Debra have them, please support them ..
Just my opinion and only mine
John Perry
Kitfox 2 N718PD
----- Original Message -----
From: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys@yahoo.ca>
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 7:25 PM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Re: bungie cords
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys@yahoo.ca>
>
> Steve Winder at Airdale.com told me he has them ready to go, with the nico
> press eyes made.... Just in case I decide to put the funny round thingys
> on
> this winter. ;-)
>
> Noel
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
>> john beirne
>> Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 4:02 PM
>> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
>> Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: bungie cords
>>
>>
>> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "john beirne" <jmcb@oceanfree.net>
>>
>> Hi Guys,
>> where can i purchase a new set of bungies already made up
>> with the nicopress fitting (for a Mark III)
>> thanks
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=68242#68242
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Message 61
| 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 |
|
help I need to get some info on where I can purchase complete throttle cable Assembly
and complete choke cable Assembly. for A kitfox 5 with rotax 912. any
input will be much appreciated thanks
---------------------------------
Message 62
| 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: | For Michel Verheughe / "Haute Voltage au Japon" |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: icaza francisco <franicaza@yahoo.com.mx>
Michel,
Once you told the list about a very nice video called
"Haute Voltage au Japon", from FAI. I lost much
information in my computer and I lost the link. Can
you tell me where I can download it?
I appreciate in advance very much,
Francisco Icaza
(Classic IV in Mexico)
___________________________________________________________
La mejor conexin a Internet y <b >2GB</b> extra a tu correo por $100 al mes. http://net.yahoo.com.mx
Message 63
| 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: 582 W/ chopped muffler Very interesting |
I am so conservative .... if Rotax says "X" its "X" to me.
Personally, I have to believe they know a lot more about their engine than
any of us, simply by virtue of the number of engines they sell and support
compared to an individual or even a group.
Now, nothing is perfect, and engines have moving parts and it can fail. We
all have heard of it happening. Lets try to manage these risks wisely
That being said, I was at a fly-in and saw a very nice Rans with a big
chromed tuned pipe proudly sticking out the side the fuse. It was pretty awesome
so I asked the owner about it. I forgot the details, but he was claiming
really big horse power ( I think 80 or 90) and how he changed this and that and
how fast it could climb and so on. It was Cool! I wanted one of those...
I asked, doesn't that stress the engine? Nah, he responded, it is designed
for much more than that and in fact he just returned from 1,000 mile cross
country problem free. I was impressed!!
There was one dead stick during that fly in. We can guess which one, in
fact, I think it "grenaded". He had to trailer it home.
Maybe it might have failed anyway, but, I doubt it.
I go by the book, I know its boring......
Dave
Message 64
| 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: Windmilling. Props..... |
Since I have been so chatty.... Ill blab some more..... sorry
I was raised around sailboats, all types from Sun Fish to a 100 foot ketch,
and depending on the sail boat, ie racer or cruiser... most have some
form of drag reduction while under sail by locking the prop so it can not
windmill or folding or even feathering....
Locking the shaft is the simplest and a big improvement..... it always
amazed me, not to mention so much quieter....
Back to flying :-)
Ahoy
Dave Patrick
Message 65
| 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: OFF TOPIC: The danger of languages |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net>
Like I said, Noel, it stands for Coordinated Universal Time, or in
aviation speak, UTC, what with their (whoever "they" are) penchant for
mixing things up so we can't get an easy handle on memorizing these
things. I'm sorry, but this has been an issue with me ever since I
started to learn about aviation. It seems that whenever something makes
sense, "they" find a way to make it difficult. Then to make matters
more difficult, they convert UTC to the word Zulu, for whatever reason,
and then to make it really perplexing, they explain that: "it really
is the time at the 0 line of longitude which passes through Greenwich,
England". Confused yet? I sure am...actually WAS confused, because I
try not to dwell on these nonsensical matters. It is only when the
subject comes up that I start to boil over. No wonder it took me so
damn long to get my ticket!
I just looked up the term in my Jeppesen Private Pilot Manual, and the
above quote comes from that book, page 2-50.
If anybody can follow the paper trail of this "Coordinated Universal
Time-----UTC------Zulu------Z-------Greenwich, England" thing, or
knows the reasoning behind the "code", please enlighten me and others.
Lynn
On Monday, October 16, 2006, at 08:19 PM, Noel Loveys wrote:
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys@yahoo.ca>
>
> As a ham whose interest in radio goes back almost forty years ( only
> licensed for 22 Yr) I like the term Z. As in 1400 Hr Z. Or 1400hr.
> Zulu.
> It was also known as GMT (Greenwich Mean Time). From the longitude
> going
> through Greenwich, England as 0Hr. The fall of the British Empire
> finished
> that.
>
> Who out there knows what the UTC really stands for?? I'm just
> guessing
> maybe Universal Time Coordinate. T would be interested in knowing
> though.
>
> Noel
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
>> Lynn Matteson
>> Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 5:53 PM
>> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
>> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: OFF TOPIC: The danger of languages
>>
>>
>> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net>
>>
>> What bothers me about the UTC thing is that it stands for (I've been
>> told, and I have read) Coordinated Universal Time. If so, why
>> is it not
>> abbreviated CTU?
>> Aviation on a whole has so darn many of these contractions
>> and acronyms
>> and abbreviations, that it's hard to remember them all, and when they
>> throw one like this at us, with the letters out of sequence,
>> it's hard
>> for me to recall what it stands for because it doesn't
>> "compute" so to
>> speak. And how do they get Zulu out of all this?
>>
>> Interestingly enough, this is back ON topic, dealing with aviation as
>> it does. : ) And I might add, Michel, that I admire and envy anybody
>> that has mastered more than one language, and that puts you
>> up several
>> rungs on the proverbial ladder.
>>
>> Lynn
>> do not archive
>>
>> On Monday, October 16, 2006, at 08:47 AM, Michel Verheughe wrote:
>>
>>>> From: Lynn Matteson [lynnmatt@jps.net]
>>>> <SNIP> "is to land almost anywhere but straight ahead."
>>>
>>> Ha ha ha! Good one, Lynn! What I should have written was:
>> "...to land
>>> almost anywhere but make sure it is straight ahead."
>> Reading again my
>>> sentence I see how it turned out to be the exact opposite.
>> That's the
>>> fun of speaking languages without really mastering them.
>>>
>>> Many years ago, when I passed my ham license here in Norway, still
>>> much influenced by my native French, I was pretty sure that the
>>> explanation of UTC in our book was wrong. Arguing with
>> another ham, he
>>> said: No it's correct. All my experience as an
>> astro-nagigator told me
>>> it was the opposite. The problem was in the Norwegian
>> wording of the
>>> "ahead" or "behind" the clock. It was the way I interpreted a
>>> Norwegian sentence that was wrong.
>>>
>>> Here is another famous language pitfall in French: During the 100
>>> years war between the French and the Brits, a French general is
>>> supposed to have said:
>>> "Messieurs les anglais, tirez les premiers!" (Sires
>> Englishmen, fire
>>> first!)
>>>
>>> This has been used to demonstrate the almost absurd "polite
>> gentlemen"
>>> wars of the past. In reality, the original text says:
>>>
>>> "Messieurs, les anglais; tirez les premiers!" (Sires, the
>> Englishmen;
>>> fire first!)
>>> Which is exactly the opposite. A tiny comma can make a big
>> difference!
>>> :-)
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Michel
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Message 66
| 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.... |
When I was a T-38 Flight Instructor, we used to sit around and debate
the same issue (ad nauseum) with regard to a failed engine. Would a
windmilling engine turbine generate more drag than a frozen turbine?
The answer came from our USAF test pilots and engineers at Edwards AFB.
The windmilling engine will cause more drag.
I like Noel's idea to prove it to yourself. Get any little prop at the
local hobby shop or make a wooden one and go prove it for yourself. You
could even put some resistance on the prop and see whether a slowly
turning prop is worse than a free spinning one. I done this and the
fast spinning one is the worst case for drag.
cheers,
Clem
Lawton OK
Mod IV-912
-----Original Message-----
" I noticed that carnival pinwheels held out the window of the car on
the way home would drag a lot more when they were allowed to spin "
Noel
Message 67
| 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: bungie cords |
Debra told me they are 5ft 1/2 in long for the modil 2 up to the mod 4
but my old set stretched 9.3/4 in they had to be original and that put them at
6 years I know this because the floor pan had to be drummel tooled out to
make the nicopress end fit throe the hole. The directions I got from a member
OFF LIST worked very well.
I just helped a man replace a set on a kit fox lite his set came with the
type of clamp you get at the horse tack store for making lead ropes and came
with white tape over them they came from Gray Lane in Michigan.
Message 68
| 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: 582 W/ chopped muffler Very interesting |
Bravo Dave the muffler mod came from Kit fox and I would prefer to have it
original my self on the up side producing less power provides moor
reliability. And I still get 68mph out of 5400rpm. lower rpm equates to even
longer
duty cycle malcolm
Message 69
| 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.... |
MessageClem ,now that have the clutch on the gearbox and the prop
windmills all the time when at a idle i can do realshort landings now
lol . the only good thing is the ivo inflight can be feathered. . Well
have to do some actual testing this weekend lol .
Take care fly safe fly low fly slow fly Kitfox
John Perry
----- Original Message -----
From: clemwehner
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 9:05 PM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Re: sadly a kitfox is down glide....
When I was a T-38 Flight Instructor, we used to sit around and debate
the same issue (ad nauseum) with regard to a failed engine. Would a
windmilling engine turbine generate more drag than a frozen turbine?
The answer came from our USAF test pilots and engineers at Edwards AFB.
The windmilling engine will cause more drag.
I like Noel's idea to prove it to yourself. Get any little prop at the
local hobby shop or make a wooden one and go prove it for yourself. You
could even put some resistance on the prop and see whether a slowly
turning prop is worse than a free spinning one. I done this and the
fast spinning one is the worst case for drag.
cheers,
Clem
Lawton OK
Mod IV-912
Message 70
| 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: 582 W/ chopped muffler Very interesting |
In a message dated 10/16/2006 9:24:25 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
Malcolmbru@aol.com writes:
Bravo Dave the muffler mod came from Kit fox and I would prefer to have
it original my self on the up side producing less power provides moor
reliability. And I still get 68mph out of 5400rpm. lower rpm equates to even
longer duty cycle malcolm
Gee you make me wonder what muffler I have??
I think its from KF ....... MY KF2 came with a 532 , I then replaced it
with a 582 BH and E box, but used the original muffler.
I turn about 6,400 to 6,500 at full power 55 mpg climb. IVO 3 blade I
cruise around 5,600 to 5,800 75 to 80. I do have lift strut fairings and even
gas
cap fairings. I think it helps...
Seems to be a good combo, however I have been looking at that new prop from
Lockwood.
Dave Patrick
KF2
582 BH
Message 71
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Fuel savings - was Ethanol and fiberglass tanks - once |
again
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "John Anderson" <janderson412@hotmail.com>
Interesting site indeed Kurt. Bit like the hybrid car thing, when it comes
to the true numbers, just how good are they...
Don't archive
From: kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Fuel savings - was Ethanol and fiberglass tanks -
once again
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader
<smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
--- John Anderson <janderson412@hotmail.com> wrote:
>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.....
I agree. The first step is to stop wasting it. Both
my car and my van get better than 30 mpg on the
highway. Yes, not 1/2 pint cars but a van with a V-6
and a BMW 5 sport can get good milage too. And a
D-Jetta can get over 40 and maybe over 50 mpg.
My 4th gear went out on the van north of Atlanta this
weekend. My milage dropped to 29-30 mpg when using
3rd gear to limp home to FLA. That is with a load of
heavy junk in the back too. This is a Olds van. My
old Dodge van of the same size got 22 mpg at best with
a 4 banger. I can drive over 800 highway miles with
the new van on a tank full! I like it.
Since I moved to Fla I have heard advertising for NOT
insolating the attic, but to install other expensive
fixs. The argument was that we only need to lower the
inside temp a little over outside. Well, my attic is
not at outside temp but way hotter. The insolation is
definately required. My point is that there is a lot
of mis-information out there.
Another example: It would take covering the entire LA
basin worth of solar cells to replace the energy
output from only 3 major gas stations selling in LA.
There are 1000's of times that many stations. Solar
is not going to provide transportation for us any time
soon. But it is good for houses.
My engineering friend and I worked this one out: Only
5 cars driving 330 miles each at 25 mpg burn the same
oxygen as 1 million people at 2500 cal each do in a 24
hr day. Walk when you can.
If you want energy savings ideas, check here:
http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid17.php
I have followed them since the 70's. They do pretty
good at finding solutions that work.
Lots more, but this is getting off topic.
Kurt S. S-5/NSI turbo
Do not archive
__________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
Looking for love? Check out XtraMSN Personals
http://xtramsn.match.com/match/mt.cfm?pg=channel&tcid 0731
Message 72
| 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.... |
In a message dated 10/16/2006 9:36:15 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
eskflyer@lvcisp.com writes:
Clem ,now that have the clutch on the gearbox and the prop windmills all
the time when at a idle i can do realshort landings now lol . the only good
thing is the ivo inflight can be feathered. . Well have to do some actual
testing this weekend lol .
You can actually Feather your IVO? Cool...
The ones I saw you can change pitch but not feather...
Great stuff I want one!
Dave
Message 73
| 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: Help changing fuel lines |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "John Anderson" <janderson412@hotmail.com>
Nothing wrong with good fitting correctly sized hose clamps. Used on French
helicopters for years.
From: "wingnut" <wingnut@spamarrest.com>
Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Help changing fuel lines
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "wingnut" <wingnut@spamarrest.com>
Here's a picture with another angle in case it's unclear what I'm looking
at. I gather that the fuel shut off valve has barbed fittings and the
builder somehow crimped the fuel line over that. Is there a tool I need to
buy to reproduce this? Would it be advisable to just replace this with a
hose clamp?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=68205#68205
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/valve2_130.jpg
_________________________________________________________________
Discover fun and games at @ http://xtramsn.co.nz/kids
Message 74
| 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: bungie cords |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys@yahoo.ca>
I assumed (the wrong thing to do ) that any one on this list would have
checked with John and Debra first.
I checked availability of B'cords last winter, before John and Debra took
over Kitfox. At that time I was thinking about doing some conventional
gear time. It didn't come around...for the second year in a row. This
year the floats are staying on until we get a good 30 or 40 mile sheet of
ice. In the past five years there has been no salt water ice acceptable for
landing on.
The other thing is my friend who is a high time pilot on conventional gear
has moved to "The Knife" (Yellow Knife). It may be fun finding someone with
conventional gear experience to show me the ropes. Back in '71 my father
clipped off about three runway lights, at CYYT, while high speed taxiing his
VJ22 Sportsman Amphib. I don't want to do the same thing with my "Fox"!
Noel
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> john perry
> Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 10:29 PM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: bungie cords
>
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "john perry" <eskflyer@lvcisp.com>
>
> GUYS GUYS GUYS . KITFOX KITFOX ARE YOU ALL FORGETTING
> SOMETHING HERE .
> John and Debra have them, please support them ..
>
> Just my opinion and only mine
> John Perry
> Kitfox 2 N718PD
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys@yahoo.ca>
> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 7:25 PM
> Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Re: bungie cords
>
>
> > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Noel Loveys"
> <noelloveys@yahoo.ca>
> >
> > Steve Winder at Airdale.com told me he has them ready to
> go, with the nico
> > press eyes made.... Just in case I decide to put the funny
> round thingys
> > on
> > this winter. ;-)
> >
> > Noel
> >
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> >> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> >> john beirne
> >> Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 4:02 PM
> >> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> >> Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: bungie cords
> >>
> >>
> >> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "john beirne"
> <jmcb@oceanfree.net>
> >>
> >> Hi Guys,
> >> where can i purchase a new set of bungies already made up
> >> with the nicopress fitting (for a Mark III)
> >> thanks
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Read this topic online here:
> >>
> >> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=68242#68242
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 75
| 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.... |
Sorry i will restate i can change pitch but it really is not a true
feathering .. however at the lowest pitch i can reverse the tips . It
is the greatest thing since since ????? well since the last prop i had
on her lol . I did have the GSC 3 blade 68" but just could not get the
performance I wanted all the time .
Fly safe fly low fly slwo fly fun fly Kitfox
John Perry
Kitfox 2 N718PD
Message 76
| 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.... Feather |
Darn LOL
:-)
Message 77
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Fuel savings - was Ethanol and fiberglass tanks - once |
again
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys@yahoo.ca>
I quickly checked what they had to say about lighting.
It is true that fluorescent lighting uses a fraction of incandescent
lighting ..... Once it is warmed up! The first five minutes are another
story. There is another point about incandescent lighting. Apparently
incandescent lights are only 10 % efficient. That means that 90 % of the
power used to produce light is lost... Or maybe not. If your home is
electrically heated and you have your lights on then your 3500W+ baseboard
heaters won't be cutting in as often. BTW they also burn a yaffel of power
when they are warming up. I had an uncle who was a university professor
and a physicist. He once told me that the cost of operating a building
where the lights were never turned off, day or night, was actually cheaper
if the lights were left on. If you had an endless supply of light bulbs and
the building was eclectically heated.
In this location I use electricity only to keep most of the house up to 10C
in the winter. This room I have an oil stove installed which is more than
enough to heat most of the house except during a storm when in all honesty I
don't think anything will work ( too many leaks and a basement garage door
facing the North Atlantic).
My water heater is around fifteen Gal. propane. The pilot light alone (
about 0.05/Da.) will keep the water pretty hot. The only time the burner
cuts in is when the shower or washer is running. I would like to have
tanks put under my floors to recover the heat from a bath or
shower..hummmmm.
I have been looking into wind power. Just for heat on windy winter days.
During windy summer days I'll divert the power to my water heater and turn
the pilot light off. Either that or the world's biggest bug zapper.
Noel
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> John Anderson
> Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 12:12 AM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Fuel savings - was Ethanol and
> fiberglass tanks - once again
>
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "John Anderson"
> <janderson412@hotmail.com>
>
> Interesting site indeed Kurt. Bit like the hybrid car thing,
> when it comes
> to the true numbers, just how good are they...
>
> Don't archive
>
>
>
> From: kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Fuel savings - was Ethanol and
> fiberglass tanks -
> once again
> Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 07:26:22 -0700 (PDT)
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader
> <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
>
> --- John Anderson <janderson412@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >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.....
>
> I agree. The first step is to stop wasting it. Both
> my car and my van get better than 30 mpg on the
> highway. Yes, not 1/2 pint cars but a van with a V-6
> and a BMW 5 sport can get good milage too. And a
> D-Jetta can get over 40 and maybe over 50 mpg.
>
> My 4th gear went out on the van north of Atlanta this
> weekend. My milage dropped to 29-30 mpg when using
> 3rd gear to limp home to FLA. That is with a load of
> heavy junk in the back too. This is a Olds van. My
> old Dodge van of the same size got 22 mpg at best with
> a 4 banger. I can drive over 800 highway miles with
> the new van on a tank full! I like it.
>
> Since I moved to Fla I have heard advertising for NOT
> insolating the attic, but to install other expensive
> fixs. The argument was that we only need to lower the
> inside temp a little over outside. Well, my attic is
> not at outside temp but way hotter. The insolation is
> definately required. My point is that there is a lot
> of mis-information out there.
>
> Another example: It would take covering the entire LA
> basin worth of solar cells to replace the energy
> output from only 3 major gas stations selling in LA.
> There are 1000's of times that many stations. Solar
> is not going to provide transportation for us any time
> soon. But it is good for houses.
>
> My engineering friend and I worked this one out: Only
> 5 cars driving 330 miles each at 25 mpg burn the same
> oxygen as 1 million people at 2500 cal each do in a 24
> hr day. Walk when you can.
>
> If you want energy savings ideas, check here:
>
> http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid17.php
>
> I have followed them since the 70's. They do pretty
> good at finding solutions that work.
>
> Lots more, but this is getting off topic.
>
> Kurt S. S-5/NSI turbo
>
> Do not archive
>
> __________________________________________________
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Looking for love? Check out XtraMSN Personals
> http://xtramsn.match.com/match/mt.cfm?pg=channel&tcid 0731
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 78
| 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: "Tom Tomlin" <ThomasTomlin@comcast.net>
TO ------->>>> Michigan/Jackson County's newest Sport pilot.
Congrats!
Tom Tomlin
Colorado
Message 79
| 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: | OFF TOPIC: The danger of languages |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys@yahoo.ca>
The UTC I can't explain. In the days when the British Empire was becoming
the Commonwealth the centre for time was changed to Z, or Zulu from GMT
Greenwich Mean Time to reflect a more international, for lack of a better
word flavour. Of course Zulu is the recognized phonetic word to represent
the letter "Z" so Z and Zulu are the same. What perplexes me is why it's
UTC and not CUT. Maybe some one at the UN may know.
As for using the different systems of measurement the only one I ever had
problems with was the old English Sterling currency. Like everyone I knew
that a pound was around $2.50 - $3.00. But when you got into Crowns,
Guineas, Pennies and Farthings... Sheeesh!
The best thing that happened north of the 49 was when they rammed the
international metric system down our unwilling throats. I was lucky there
as at the time I was studying physics in high school and doing everything
metric was just a lot easier. Funny though I still think of speed in miles
per hour. I think of distances in both kilometres and miles and gasoline in
gallons (Imperial Gallons 4.55 L) even though Gas is only sold here by the
litre. The major loss in the implementation of the metric system is the
loss of the pint of beer. The answer ... Beer on tap!
That reminds me.... Time for a cold one.
Good night :-)
Noel
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> Lynn Matteson
> Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 11:17 PM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: OFF TOPIC: The danger of languages
>
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net>
>
> Like I said, Noel, it stands for Coordinated Universal Time, or in
> aviation speak, UTC, what with their (whoever "they" are)
> penchant for
> mixing things up so we can't get an easy handle on memorizing these
> things. I'm sorry, but this has been an issue with me ever since I
> started to learn about aviation. It seems that whenever
> something makes
> sense, "they" find a way to make it difficult. Then to make matters
> more difficult, they convert UTC to the word Zulu, for
> whatever reason,
> and then to make it really perplexing, they explain that: "it really
> is the time at the 0 line of longitude which passes through
> Greenwich,
> England". Confused yet? I sure am...actually WAS confused, because I
> try not to dwell on these nonsensical matters. It is only when the
> subject comes up that I start to boil over. No wonder it took me so
> damn long to get my ticket!
> I just looked up the term in my Jeppesen Private Pilot
> Manual, and the
> above quote comes from that book, page 2-50.
>
> If anybody can follow the paper trail of this "Coordinated Universal
> Time-----UTC------Zulu------Z-------Greenwich, England" thing, or
> knows the reasoning behind the "code", please enlighten me and others.
>
> Lynn
> On Monday, October 16, 2006, at 08:19 PM, Noel Loveys wrote:
>
> > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Noel Loveys"
> <noelloveys@yahoo.ca>
> >
> > As a ham whose interest in radio goes back almost forty
> years ( only
> > licensed for 22 Yr) I like the term Z. As in 1400 Hr Z.
> Or 1400hr.
> > Zulu.
> > It was also known as GMT (Greenwich Mean Time). From the longitude
> > going
> > through Greenwich, England as 0Hr. The fall of the British Empire
> > finished
> > that.
> >
> > Who out there knows what the UTC really stands for?? I'm just
> > guessing
> > maybe Universal Time Coordinate. T would be interested in knowing
> > though.
> >
> > Noel
> >
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> >> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> >> Lynn Matteson
> >> Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 5:53 PM
> >> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> >> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: OFF TOPIC: The danger of languages
> >>
> >>
> >> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net>
> >>
> >> What bothers me about the UTC thing is that it stands for
> (I've been
> >> told, and I have read) Coordinated Universal Time. If so, why
> >> is it not
> >> abbreviated CTU?
> >> Aviation on a whole has so darn many of these contractions
> >> and acronyms
> >> and abbreviations, that it's hard to remember them all,
> and when they
> >> throw one like this at us, with the letters out of sequence,
> >> it's hard
> >> for me to recall what it stands for because it doesn't
> >> "compute" so to
> >> speak. And how do they get Zulu out of all this?
> >>
> >> Interestingly enough, this is back ON topic, dealing with
> aviation as
> >> it does. : ) And I might add, Michel, that I admire and
> envy anybody
> >> that has mastered more than one language, and that puts you
> >> up several
> >> rungs on the proverbial ladder.
> >>
> >> Lynn
> >> do not archive
> >>
> >> On Monday, October 16, 2006, at 08:47 AM, Michel Verheughe wrote:
> >>
> >>>> From: Lynn Matteson [lynnmatt@jps.net]
> >>>> <SNIP> "is to land almost anywhere but straight ahead."
> >>>
> >>> Ha ha ha! Good one, Lynn! What I should have written was:
> >> "...to land
> >>> almost anywhere but make sure it is straight ahead."
> >> Reading again my
> >>> sentence I see how it turned out to be the exact opposite.
> >> That's the
> >>> fun of speaking languages without really mastering them.
> >>>
> >>> Many years ago, when I passed my ham license here in Norway, still
> >>> much influenced by my native French, I was pretty sure that the
> >>> explanation of UTC in our book was wrong. Arguing with
> >> another ham, he
> >>> said: No it's correct. All my experience as an
> >> astro-nagigator told me
> >>> it was the opposite. The problem was in the Norwegian
> >> wording of the
> >>> "ahead" or "behind" the clock. It was the way I interpreted a
> >>> Norwegian sentence that was wrong.
> >>>
> >>> Here is another famous language pitfall in French: During the 100
> >>> years war between the French and the Brits, a French general is
> >>> supposed to have said:
> >>> "Messieurs les anglais, tirez les premiers!" (Sires
> >> Englishmen, fire
> >>> first!)
> >>>
> >>> This has been used to demonstrate the almost absurd "polite
> >> gentlemen"
> >>> wars of the past. In reality, the original text says:
> >>>
> >>> "Messieurs, les anglais; tirez les premiers!" (Sires, the
> >> Englishmen;
> >>> fire first!)
> >>> Which is exactly the opposite. A tiny comma can make a big
> >> difference!
> >>> :-)
> >>>
> >>> Cheers,
> >>> Michel
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 80
| 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.... |
My Ivo won't thicken to a true feather!
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of john perry
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 12:01 AM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: sadly a kitfox is down glide....
Clem ,now that have the clutch on the gearbox and the prop windmills
all
the time when at a idle i can do realshort landings now lol . the only
good
thing is the ivo inflight can be feathered. . Well have to do some
actual
testing this weekend lol .
Take care fly safe fly low fly slow fly Kitfox
John Perry
----- Original Message -----
From: clemwehner <mailto:clemwehner@sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 9:05 PM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Re: sadly a kitfox is down glide....
When I was a T-38 Flight Instructor, we used to sit around and debate
the
same issue (ad nauseum) with regard to a failed engine. Would a
windmilling
engine turbine generate more drag than a frozen turbine? The answer
came
from our USAF test pilots and engineers at Edwards AFB. The windmilling
engine will cause more drag.
I like Noel's idea to prove it to yourself. Get any little prop at the
local
hobby shop or make a wooden one and go prove it for yourself. You could
even
put some resistance on the prop and see whether a slowly turning prop is
worse than a free spinning one. I done this and the fast spinning one
is
the worst case for drag.
cheers,
Clem
Lawton OK
Mod IV-912
Message 81
| 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: | Cabin Heater 912UL |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "John Oakley" <john@leptron.com>
I am going to put the heater system on that Rans has designed for their 912.
John Oakley
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of parahawk
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 12:56 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Cabin Heater 912UL
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "parahawk" <alfi98596@yahoo.com>
I am considering to intall a cabin heater in my IV-1200 912UL. so the
upcoming winter flying gets a little more comfortable.
Could anyone suggest what's the best and most efficient heater to get and
from where ??
Thank's a lot
--------
Flying is the highest form of life on earth.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=68248#68248
Message 82
| 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: OFF TOPIC: The danger of languages |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@sbcglobal.net>
It looks like it is Coordinated Universal Time (From the US Naval
Observatory website). That is our arrangement of the words. I suspect in
the language adopted - maybe French, Michel? the acronym is more correct. I
too prefer Zulu time and still find myself using that term from time to
time.
Lowell
----- Original Message -----
From: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys@yahoo.ca>
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 5:19 PM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: OFF TOPIC: The danger of languages
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys@yahoo.ca>
>
> As a ham whose interest in radio goes back almost forty years ( only
> licensed for 22 Yr) I like the term Z. As in 1400 Hr Z. Or 1400hr. Zulu.
> It was also known as GMT (Greenwich Mean Time). From the longitude going
> through Greenwich, England as 0Hr. The fall of the British Empire
> finished
> that.
>
> Who out there knows what the UTC really stands for?? I'm just guessing
> maybe Universal Time Coordinate. T would be interested in knowing though.
>
> Noel
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
>> Lynn Matteson
>> Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 5:53 PM
>> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
>> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: OFF TOPIC: The danger of languages
>>
>>
>> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net>
>>
>> What bothers me about the UTC thing is that it stands for (I've been
>> told, and I have read) Coordinated Universal Time. If so, why
>> is it not
>> abbreviated CTU?
>> Aviation on a whole has so darn many of these contractions
>> and acronyms
>> and abbreviations, that it's hard to remember them all, and when they
>> throw one like this at us, with the letters out of sequence,
>> it's hard
>> for me to recall what it stands for because it doesn't
>> "compute" so to
>> speak. And how do they get Zulu out of all this?
>>
>> Interestingly enough, this is back ON topic, dealing with aviation as
>> it does. : ) And I might add, Michel, that I admire and envy anybody
>> that has mastered more than one language, and that puts you
>> up several
>> rungs on the proverbial ladder.
>>
>> Lynn
>> do not archive
>>
>> On Monday, October 16, 2006, at 08:47 AM, Michel Verheughe wrote:
>>
>> >> From: Lynn Matteson [lynnmatt@jps.net]
>> >> <SNIP> "is to land almost anywhere but straight ahead."
>> >
>> > Ha ha ha! Good one, Lynn! What I should have written was:
>> "...to land
>> > almost anywhere but make sure it is straight ahead."
>> Reading again my
>> > sentence I see how it turned out to be the exact opposite.
>> That's the
>> > fun of speaking languages without really mastering them.
>> >
>> > Many years ago, when I passed my ham license here in Norway, still
>> > much influenced by my native French, I was pretty sure that the
>> > explanation of UTC in our book was wrong. Arguing with
>> another ham, he
>> > said: No it's correct. All my experience as an
>> astro-nagigator told me
>> > it was the opposite. The problem was in the Norwegian
>> wording of the
>> > "ahead" or "behind" the clock. It was the way I interpreted a
>> > Norwegian sentence that was wrong.
>> >
>> > Here is another famous language pitfall in French: During the 100
>> > years war between the French and the Brits, a French general is
>> > supposed to have said:
>> > "Messieurs les anglais, tirez les premiers!" (Sires
>> Englishmen, fire
>> > first!)
>> >
>> > This has been used to demonstrate the almost absurd "polite
>> gentlemen"
>> > wars of the past. In reality, the original text says:
>> >
>> > "Messieurs, les anglais; tirez les premiers!" (Sires, the
>> Englishmen;
>> > fire first!)
>> > Which is exactly the opposite. A tiny comma can make a big
>> difference!
>> > :-)
>> >
>> > Cheers,
>> > Michel
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Message 83
| 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: Windmilling. WAS: sadly a kitfox is down glide.... |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@sbcglobal.net>
The folding props do work in reverse, but need lots of revs for the
centrifugal force to open the blades. Used to crew on off shore racing
boats.
Lowell
----- Original Message -----
From: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys@yahoo.ca>
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 5:56 PM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Windmilling. WAS: sadly a kitfox is down glide....
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys@yahoo.ca>
>
> I take it you don't have one of those fancy folding props. I often
> wondered
> if they would work in reverse. My little boat has an outboard with an
> outboard kicker. The lift went on my main engine this summer so I never
> got
> past the door of the boathouse.
>
> Noel
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
>> Michel Verheughe
>> Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 3:00 PM
>> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
>> Subject: Kitfox-List: Windmilling. WAS: sadly a kitfox is
>> down glide....
>>
>>
>> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
>>
>> On Oct 16, 2006, at 2:54 PM, Noel Loveys wrote:
>> > The wind milling prop has more resistance to the air. The
>> least is a
>> > feathered still prop. An unfeathered still prop is in the middle.
>>
>> And it is the same for a yacht, Noel. When I stop my engine, after
>> hoisting the sails, I keep it in gear to prevent the prop to windmill
>> ... or, should I say: watermill! :-)
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Michel
>>
>> do not archive
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Message 84
| 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: OFF TOPIC: The danger of languages |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@sbcglobal.net>
Read all about it.
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/MAEL/ag/zulu.htm
http://aa.usno.navy.mil/faq/docs/UT.html
Lowell
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lynn Matteson" <lynnmatt@jps.net>
> If anybody can follow the paper trail of this "Coordinated Universal
> Time-----UTC------Zulu------Z-------Greenwich, England" thing, or
> knows the reasoning behind the "code", please enlighten me and others.
>
> Lynn
Message 85
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
I put a clutch on my 582. It disengages at about 2400 rpm which I can only achieve
with the choke out (i've changed idle jets a few times, it's the best I can
get). My Fox used to "float" quite alot on landing. Now I pop out the choke
and she settles right now. Apply it earlier on short final and sink rate increases
considerably.
Marco Menezes
Model 2 582 N99KX
---------------------------------
Message 86
| 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: | OFF TOPIC: Windmilling |
> From: Noel Loveys [noelloveys@yahoo.ca]
> I take it you don't have one of those fancy folding props.
That is correct, Noel. I had a folding Gory prop but I lost one blade somewhere
outside north Spain. I sailed in a harbour and got a new fixed prop installed.
That's what I still have today.
> I often wondered if they would work in reverse.
Oh yes, they work just fine on both direction. The folding prop reduced drag but
unless you're racing, I don't really see the point. Still, all sailboats in
my harbour have folding props. In Norway, we have to take our boats out of the
water during the winter because the fjords freeze. It's then easy to see what
kind of prop people have when they are all on dry ground.
Cheers,
Michel
do not archive
<pre><b><font size=2 color="#000000" face="courier new,courier">
</b></font></pre></body></html>
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! --
|