Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 01:33 AM - Re: GSC numbers : Re Propellers (JC Propellerdesign)
2. 04:42 AM - Jetting and Pitching a 582 (Don Smythe)
3. 05:17 AM - Re: Jetting and Pitching a 582 (Dave)
4. 05:30 AM - Re: Jetting and Pitching a 582 (Don Smythe)
5. 05:40 AM - Re: Running rough (Marwynne Kuhn)
6. 06:20 AM - Propellers (JC Propellerdesign)
7. 06:26 AM - Inline Oil Pump (Jimmy Cantrell)
8. 07:51 AM - Re: Re: Kitfox vs. Cub (Kenneth and Alice Jones)
9. 08:08 AM - Propellers (JC Propellerdesign)
10. 10:22 AM - Re: Guy --- Re: Warp Drive Hub (Noel Loveys)
11. 11:55 AM - Re: Kitfox vs. Cub (Tony Partain)
12. 12:10 PM - Re: GSC numbers : Re Propellers (Lowell Fitt)
13. 12:55 PM - Re: Re: Kitfox vs. Cub (Roger McConnell)
14. 02:22 PM - Re: Running rough (Torgeir Mortensen)
15. 02:53 PM - Re: Re: Kitfox vs. Cub (David Estapa)
16. 04:26 PM - Re: Re: Kitfox vs. Cub (Bob Unternaehrer)
17. 04:49 PM - Re: Re: Kitfox vs. Cub (Dan Billingsley)
18. 05:44 PM - Re: Jetting and Pitching a 582 (Malcolmbru@aol.com)
19. 05:47 PM - Re: OFF TOPIC: "Flyboys" (Jerry Liles)
20. 06:12 PM - for sale (Malcolmbru@aol.com)
21. 07:06 PM - Kitfox history (Frank Miles)
22. 08:14 PM - Re: Kitfox history (WBL)
23. 10:30 PM - Re: Running rough (Kaufjm@aol.com)
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: GSC numbers : Re Propellers |
Propeller
16 deg at 69% is 42,2" pitch.
16,5 is 43,66"
17 is 45,0"
16 deg at 75% is 45,9"
16,5 is 47,5"
What the pitch is at 75% on the GSC don't have to be, or more exact
isn't the same as on 69% (depends on the blade twist and the angle)
Normally a propeller don't have true helix, meaning the pitch isn't the
same along the whole blade, if the prop was sitting an a long shaft
10-20 feet ahead of the fuselage it might be ok, but at the nose the air
is slowed down (pushed forward) by the fuselage, gear, wings ...) this
make a propeller with less pitch near the hub better, on "normal"
propellers the thicker airfoil near the hub also work better at smaller
angles, and the opposite, the thinner blade near the tip work better at
higher angles. (angles relative to the air)
Aspect Ratio.
Why is the warp doing so good? even with the wide tips on the standard
blade.
Normally a propeller have a AR of 6 or 6,66 on an 2 bladed prop, the
Warp is around AR 6 on 3 blades, meaning it would be AR 9 on 2 blade, a
rather high aspect ratio.
We all know that a glider plane with AR 20-25 have better performance
L/D then a plane with a AR of 6-7, same on propellers, the prop with AR
6 on 3 blade will have thinner blade in mm or fraction of inch, then a 2
blade with AR 6 if the airfoil(s) have the same percent thickness, and
the losses at the narrower tip and blade is less with high AR. The 3
blade will have less diameter then the 2 blade with same blade, this
also reduce the high drag from the higher Mach nr on the 2 blade.
Note that a 3 blade with AR 6 will have same diameter as an 2 blade with
AR 6.
This may be the case with the Powerfin F model, it looks like it is
wider then the Warp and GSC, this force it to have shorter blades to
come to its optimum.
The pitch distribution maybe isn't optimal either. (I don't know)
Stuart at Powerfin say that it is not perfect to have just a few models
and cut the length to perform, it might be so that the F model isn't
designed for this speed/RPM/diameter VnD but better blade will come.
>The last few years I have been designing a manufacturing process that
enables me to make drawings and toolpaths for molds very quickly with
CAD/CAM. Just having a few blades and cutting them down to size is not a
very good way to get efficiency when the main factors in efficieny seem
to be proper lift distrubution and advance ratio to achieve the correct
alpha angles. Since the optimal design for each application is unique,
it is in my interest to figure out how to make molds and prototypes
quickly. That's been my main focus for a number of years.< Stuart.
Tests.
To make accurate tests, following test will be interesting, Take off
distance (difficult to measure exact) time to take off might be better,
but wind make a lot differences.
climb speed say at 60 MPH timing with the clock the climb from say 1000
to 2000 feet starting at 500 keeping the speed constant. feet AGL that
is so we don't hit any Sitka spruce's.
cruise speed at say 5800 and 6000 but this mean the prop's have to be
adjusted to exact the same WOT RPM others the cruise RPM will represent
different HP's
and then WOT speed, all at same density alt. this have to be made same
day on a calm day. (days are short this time of the year)
there is other aspects too, like vibrations and wear.
would be interesting to test the taper Warp and the standard on the same
airplane/same day also.
Jan
www.jcpropellerdesign.com
----- Original Message -----
From: Dave
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Friday, October 27, 2006 12:05 AM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: GSC numbers : Re Propellers
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Dave" <dave@cfisher.com>
Well Don first run at 16 degree I was getting a bit over 6250 rpm
static.
WOT 7050 to 7100
Added 1/2 degree and still about 6150 to 6200 static and 6950 wot .
I just flew to 1.5 hours horsing around and it seems not bad really.
Decent performance all round but I think another 1/2 degree would do
it.
But we got colder wx coming and snow soon plus my plugs at about 60
hours
and I have to pull cowl off soon so I think I reptich then again.
Who
know I might repitch tomorrow.
Also if you got multiple mails from me today, my outlook express is
sending everyone extra mails for some reason ( maybe early xmas gifts
? )
and I might have to do a format of it soon. So if I don't rely to
quick
you will know I melted this pc. :)
Dave
PS I am sending this from my webmail so it should just arrive once
: )
----- Original Message -----
From: Don Smythe
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 3:36 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: GSC numbers : Re Propellers
Dave,
Without repitching, what RPM do you get in level flight with "full
throttle"?
Don Smythe
I think I can pitch a little coarser on the gsc about 1/4 degree more
and
get the cruise the same .
Reason I say this is because the EGT are a tad higher than I had with
the
WARP . And I repitched once already from 16 to 16.5 degrees on the
GSC
measured at .69 % radii
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: | Jetting and Pitching a 582 |
I'm probably going to open up another bag of worms here. Back several
years ago when I was trying to get my 582 in the air I was having a
problem understanding the concept of jetting and pitching a 582. Our
good friend Bruce Harrington finally challenged me to write a simple
procedure for proper jetting/pitching. He finally gave me a passing
grade on the following procedure. Back then, no body ever came back and
said this procedure was bogus. If I remember correctly, it didn't even
cause a stir. Just curious with today's group if it will be agreed
upon. Went something like this, take your best shots:
1. Look ahead at the anticipated OAT's for your local flight area.
(Example, it's November with average daily temps of 60-70 degrees.
Temps in January expected to be 30-40 degrees)
2. Look on the recommended Rotax jetting chart and select the proper
main jet for your altitude and the projected 30-40 degrees OAT's.
Install jets.
3. Pitch the prop to a recommended starting pitch.
4. Go fly the airplane. Let it warm up good and on a long downwind leg
push the throttle to full while holding firm forward stick to maintain
as near perfect level flight as possible.
5. Hold full throttle and level flight long enough to let EGT's and
RPM's stable out (about 10 seconds or so). Record readings. EGT's
should be around 1100-1150 (less than 1200). RPM's should be near 6800.
6. If RPM are say, 6600, go back to the hanger and take out 1/2 degree
pitch. Repeat steps 4 and 5 until RPM's are near 6800. You are done.
Caution: Do not let RPM's exceed 6800. If so, reduce throttle and
repeat step 6 by adding pitch in 1/2 to 1 degree increments.
Caution: Avoid pitching the prop to simply improve performance
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: Jetting and Pitching a 582 |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Dave" <dave@cfisher.com>
Don, Very good info.
I will add though that EGT of 1200 is not bad "IF" the plugs look ok.
EGT is just a instrument to me to tell me what is going on inside the
combustion chamber. I am not saying to run at 1200 + for extended periods
of time but I will say that your spark plugs will tell the story.
Mine are over 60 hours on them and due for a change( last change early
July) . I have been running 1150 to 1175 most of yesterday and like i
said I think that I can add a bit more pitch due to the fact that I am
getting over 6800 rpm WOT now. That being said I am looking forward
to colder and more denser air yet and a dump of snow in the next 2 to 6
weeks so more pitch might not be necessary quite yet but I think it
will happen.
Will report back findings soon. And GSC props is working very well --
hard to say if it better or worse than the WARP but quite adequate so far.
A few more tweaks and the story will be told.
Dave
On Fri, October 27, 2006 7:41 am, Don Smythe wrote:
> I'm probably going to open up another bag of worms here. Back several
> years ago when I was trying to get my 582 in the air I was having a
> problem understanding the concept of jetting and pitching a 582. Our good
> friend Bruce Harrington finally challenged me to write a simple procedure
> for proper jetting/pitching. He finally gave me a passing grade on the
> following procedure. Back then, no body ever came back and said this
> procedure was bogus. If I remember correctly, it didn't even cause a
> stir. Just curious with today's group if it will be agreed upon. Went
> something like this, take your best shots:
>
> 1. Look ahead at the anticipated OAT's for your local flight area.
> (Example, it's November with average daily temps of 60-70 degrees. Temps
> in January expected to be 30-40 degrees)
>
> 2. Look on the recommended Rotax jetting chart and select the proper main
> jet for your altitude and the projected 30-40 degrees OAT's. Install
> jets.
>
> 3. Pitch the prop to a recommended starting pitch.
>
> 4. Go fly the airplane. Let it warm up good and on a long downwind leg
> push the throttle to full while holding firm forward stick to maintain as
> near perfect level flight as possible.
>
> 5. Hold full throttle and level flight long enough to let EGT's and RPM's
> stable out (about 10 seconds or so). Record readings. EGT's should be
> around 1100-1150 (less than 1200). RPM's should be near 6800.
>
> 6. If RPM are say, 6600, go back to the hanger and take out 1/2 degree
> pitch. Repeat steps 4 and 5 until RPM's are near 6800. You are done.
>
> Caution: Do not let RPM's exceed 6800. If so, reduce throttle and repeat
> step 6 by adding pitch in 1/2 to 1 degree increments.
> Caution: Avoid pitching the prop to simply improve performance
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: Jetting and Pitching a 582 |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Don Smythe" <dosmythe@cox.net>
I agree 100%. I use 1200 degrees as the absolute number simply because it
is a Rotax max spec.
Don Smythe
Do Not Archive
> I will add though that EGT of 1200 is not bad "IF" the plugs look ok.
> EGT is just a instrument to me to tell me what is going on inside the
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: Running rough |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Marwynne Kuhn <marwynne@verizon.net>
I had two problems with engine running rough.
I had a whole in one of the carbs diaphragm. This problem caused the
engine to run rough all the time.
The other was one of the wires on the electronic modules was broken.
This was an interment problem.
Rex Shaw wrote:
> Time: 11:13:47 AM PST US
> From: Kaufjm@AOL.COM <mailto:Kaufjm@AOL.COM>
> Subject: Kitfox-List: Electrical question
>
> I am having a problem with my 912ULS running rough. I've been every
> where,
> checked for broken wires on my ignition modules, coils everything I
> can think
>
> of. I've been through the carbs as well. I did find something on my
> ignition
> switch that was supplied with the engine kit. It's the A-510-2 keyed
> left-right-starter switch. There is a jumper that's on terminal 1.
> Going back
> over
> the instructions it says jumper used with impulse coupling. I assume
> that is
> what the 912 has... The other thing is there is no ground wire to the
> switch
> as indicated by the instructions, Could this cause a problem?
> Thanks!
> I just fixed this exact same problem in my mates KR2 with a Revmaster
> VW motor and the A-510 ignition switch. The fault came back to the
> switch. I happened to have a new one I was not using at the time and
> we swapped it over.All the problems dissapeared. So I pulled the old
> switch apart to figure out why. On the inside/backside of the terminal
> plate there was a heavy carbon track. I meant to measure this first
> but forgot and started to clean it. I wish I had measured it because
> it seemed strange this was causing the problem. Anyway I did measure
> across the terminals after cleaning and there was no leakage so I
> think the switch would be OK now but my mate prefered not to change it
> back. I think if you remove the two screws holding the plate on and
> clean it and the little dimpled contacts that wipe across the
> terminals you might well solve your problem. Watch the springs under
> the triangular contacts.
> Now a word about that carbon track. I think it may have been partly
> made up by some lubricant used. It is good idea to use something after
> cleaning. I just usted Clean and Lube spray and I figure this would be
> OK. We don't actually know though because as I said we didn't reuse
> this switch at this point in time, instead it is my mates spares box.
> I hope this solves your problem.
> Rex.
> *
>
>
> *
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 |
|
One propeller that have become popular in Europe is the French DUC and
have proved its efficiency
se the info
http://www.duc-helices.com/anglais/catalogue.htm
Jan
----- Original Message -----
From: Dave
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Friday, October 27, 2006 12:05 AM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: GSC numbers : Re Propellers
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Dave" <dave@cfisher.com>
Well Don first run at 16 degree I was getting a bit over 6250 rpm
static.
WOT 7050 to 7100
Added 1/2 degree and still about 6150 to 6200 static and 6950 wot .
I just flew to 1.5 hours horsing around and it seems not bad really.
Decent performance all round but I think another 1/2 degree would do
it.
But we got colder wx coming and snow soon plus my plugs at about 60
hours
and I have to pull cowl off soon so I think I reptich then again.
Who
know I might repitch tomorrow.
Also if you got multiple mails from me today, my outlook express is
sending everyone extra mails for some reason ( maybe early xmas gifts
? )
and I might have to do a format of it soon. So if I don't rely to
quick
you will know I melted this pc. :)
Dave
PS I am sending this from my webmail so it should just arrive once
: )
----- Original Message -----
From: Don Smythe
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 3:36 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: GSC numbers : Re Propellers
Dave,
Without repitching, what RPM do you get in level flight with "full
throttle"?
Don Smythe
I think I can pitch a little coarser on the gsc about 1/4 degree more
and
get the cruise the same .
Reason I say this is because the EGT are a tad higher than I had with
the
WARP . And I repitched once already from 16 to 16.5 degrees on the
GSC
measured at .69 % radii
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 |
|
I am looking for a source on an inline electric oil pump to scavenge
residual oil from a mini sump on a radial engine, anyone have any
suggestions?
Jim Cantrell
Kitfox 5 TD
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Kitfox vs. Cub |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Kenneth and Alice Jones" <kmamjones@comcast.net>
I'm in the early process of building a Series VII with the builder's manual
I received with the kit from Skystar. I previously built an RV-4 in the
late 80's. In my opinion the Skystar builder's manual is not quite as good
as a Van's manual, but it's not bad. I'm finding it to be quite adequate,
particularly with all the construction pictures and advice from other Kitfox
builders available on the internet and this forum. But perhaps most
important, the new owner, John McBean is every bit as good as Van's (maybe
even a little better) in answering questions and providing advice.
Good luck in your project.
Ken Jones
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tony Partain" <tpartain@bendcable.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 9:54 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Kitfox vs. Cub
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Tony Partain" <tpartain@bendcable.com>
>
> Gentleman thanks for the replies. I am really looking forward to building
> another plane, a tube and fabric plane this time! My initial thoughs were
> to us a traditional engine, but the Rotax seems to be the engine of
> choice. It also sounds like the factory numbers are close.
>
> One other question about the builders manual, the Vans manual is pretty
> good for the RV 7 8 9, but it's fantastic for the 10. How does the Kitfox
> manual stack up?
>
> I sound like I will be making a trip to Idaho as soon as John returns from
> Copperstate.
>
> --------
> Tony Partain
> Partain Transport Company
> Bend Oregon
> http://www.vansairforce.net/Graphics/PartainTruckingCo.htm
>
> RV7 IO360 CS 116WT
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=70482#70482
>
>
>
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 |
|
Propeller
16 deg at 69% is 42,2" pitch.
16,5 is 43,66"
17 is 45,0"
16 deg at 75% is 45,9"
16,5 is 47,5"
What the pitch is at 75% on the GSC don't have to be, or more exact
isn't the same as on 69% (depends on the blade twist and the angle)
Normally a propeller don't have true helix, meaning the pitch isn't the
same along the whole blade, if the prop was sitting an a long shaft
10-20 feet ahead of the fuselage it might be ok, but at the nose the air
is slowed down (pushed forward) by the fuselage, gear, wings ...) this
make a propeller with less pitch near the hub better, on "normal"
propellers the thicker airfoil near the hub also work better at smaller
angles, and the opposite, the thinner blade near the tip work better at
higher angles. (angles relative to the air)
Aspect Ratio.
Why is the warp doing so good? even with the wide tips on the standard
blade.
Normally a propeller have a AR of 6 or 6,66 on an 2 bladed prop, the
Warp is around AR 6 on 3 blades, meaning it would be AR 9 on 2 blade, a
rather high aspect ratio.
We all know that a glider plane with AR 20-25 have better performance
L/D then a plane with a AR of 6-7, same on propellers, the prop with AR
6 on 3 blade will have thinner blade in mm or fraction of inch, then a 2
blade with AR 6 if the airfoil(s) have the same percent thickness, and
the losses at the narrower tip and blade is less with high AR. The 3
blade will have less diameter then the 2 blade with same blade, this
also reduce the high drag from the higher Mach nr on the 2 blade.
Note that a 3 blade with AR 6 will have same diameter as an 2 blade with
AR 6.
This may be the case with the Powerfin F model, it looks like it is
wider then the Warp and GSC, this force it to have shorter blades to
come to its optimum.
The pitch distribution maybe isn't optimal either. (I don't know)
Stuart at Powerfin say that it is not perfect to have just a few models
and cut the length to perform, it might be so that the F model isn't
designed for this speed/RPM/diameter VnD but better blade will come.
>The last few years I have been designing a manufacturing process that
enables me to make drawings and toolpaths for molds very quickly with
CAD/CAM. Just having a few blades and cutting them down to size is not a
very good way to get efficiency when the main factors in efficieny seem
to be proper lift distrubution and advance ratio to achieve the correct
alpha angles. Since the optimal design for each application is unique,
it is in my interest to figure out how to make molds and prototypes
quickly. That's been my main focus for a number of years.< Stuart.
Tests.
To make accurate tests, following test will be interesting, Take off
distance (difficult to measure exact) time to take off might be better,
but wind make a lot differences.
climb speed say at 60 MPH timing with the clock the climb from say 1000
to 2000 feet starting at 500 keeping the speed constant. feet AGL that
is so we don't hit any Sitka spruce's.
cruise speed at say 5800 and 6000 but this mean the prop's have to be
adjusted to exact the same WOT RPM others the cruise RPM will represent
different HP's
and then WOT speed, all at same density alt. this have to be made same
day on a calm day. (days are short this time of the year)
there is other aspects too, like vibrations and wear.
would be interesting to test the taper Warp and the standard on the same
airplane/same day also.
Jan
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: Warp Drive Hub |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys@yahoo.ca>
I may have to go North through Saskatchewan thee isn't too many places to
put down on floats on the prairies. I've been considering getting a set of
full lotus amphibs just for the trip. What I'd really like is a set of
amphib Aerocets. I have the straight Aerocet and like them. Crossing from
Newfoundland to the mainland is going to be tricky too. I haven't decided
yet whether to go the Quebec North shore or straight across the Cabot
Straight. The straight is close to 100 Mi. but there are usually many ships
there. The flight form the park outside Port Aux Basques to Sydney is about
140Mi it will require a good day.
Noel
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dave G.
> Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 6:04 PM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Guy --- Re: Kitfox-List: Warp Drive Hub
>
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Dave G." <occom@ns.sympatico.ca>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys@yahoo.ca>
> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 10:14 AM
> Subject: RE: Guy --- Re: Kitfox-List: Warp Drive Hub
>
>
> > My reason for looking at the HAC is that I an planning a
> trip from coast
> > to
> > coast in Canada. The plan is to traverse the whole
> Enchilada, from St.
> > John's harbour in the East to Victoria harbour in the West.
> In between
> > there
> > is a little bump called the Rocky Mountains that I would
> like to be able
> > to
> > traverse with altitude to spare.
> >
>
> That's going to be quite a challenge on floats Noel.
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Kitfox vs. Cub |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Tony Partain" <tpartain@bendcable.com>
Are there any builder web sites? I would like to see them.
Ken could you call me at the office? 800-774-0828.
--------
Tony Partain
Partain Transport Company
Bend Oregon
http://www.vansairforce.net/Graphics/PartainTruckingCo.htm
RV7 IO360 CS 116WT
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=70594#70594
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: GSC numbers : Re Propellers |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@sbcglobal.net>
Jan,
I've always thought one issue with the Powerfin and the round cowl Kitfox is
that the thickest part of the blade is just a fraction of an inch from the
blunt end of the ring cowl. I think this is one issue with the Jabiru also.
It usually will use a shorter prop to get the RPMs in the proper tip speed
range and that leaves the bulk of the prop battling the cowl.
This doesn't seem to be a problem with the more streamlined Sonex, etc.
The Warp prop on my Model IV has a longer neck at the root and the widest
part of the blade begins right where the cowl face rounds to the cowl side
very little of the prop is blanketed by the cowl.
Lowell
----- Original Message -----
From: "JC Propellerdesign" <propellerdesign@tele2.se>
Sent: Friday, October 27, 2006 1:32 AM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: GSC numbers : Re Propellers
Propeller
16 deg at 69% is 42,2" pitch.
16,5 is 43,66"
17 is 45,0"
16 deg at 75% is 45,9"
16,5 is 47,5"
What the pitch is at 75% on the GSC don't have to be, or more exact isn't
the same as on 69% (depends on the blade twist and the angle)
Normally a propeller don't have true helix, meaning the pitch isn't the same
along the whole blade, if the prop was sitting an a long shaft 10-20 feet
ahead of the fuselage it might be ok, but at the nose the air is slowed down
(pushed forward) by the fuselage, gear, wings ...) this make a propeller
with less pitch near the hub better, on "normal" propellers the thicker
airfoil near the hub also work better at smaller angles, and the opposite,
the thinner blade near the tip work better at higher angles. (angles
relative to the air)
Aspect Ratio.
Why is the warp doing so good? even with the wide tips on the standard
blade.
Normally a propeller have a AR of 6 or 6,66 on an 2 bladed prop, the Warp is
around AR 6 on 3 blades, meaning it would be AR 9 on 2 blade, a rather high
aspect ratio.
We all know that a glider plane with AR 20-25 have better performance L/D
then a plane with a AR of 6-7, same on propellers, the prop with AR 6 on 3
blade will have thinner blade in mm or fraction of inch, then a 2 blade with
AR 6 if the airfoil(s) have the same percent thickness, and the losses at
the narrower tip and blade is less with high AR. The 3 blade will have less
diameter then the 2 blade with same blade, this also reduce the high drag
from the higher Mach nr on the 2 blade.
Note that a 3 blade with AR 6 will have same diameter as an 2 blade with AR
6.
This may be the case with the Powerfin F model, it looks like it is wider
then the Warp and GSC, this force it to have shorter blades to come to its
optimum.
The pitch distribution maybe isn't optimal either. (I don't know)
Stuart at Powerfin say that it is not perfect to have just a few models and
cut the length to perform, it might be so that the F model isn't designed
for this speed/RPM/diameter VnD but better blade will come.
>The last few years I have been designing a manufacturing process that
>enables me to make drawings and toolpaths for molds very quickly with
>CAD/CAM. Just having a few blades and cutting them down to size is not a
>very good way to get efficiency when the main factors in efficieny seem to
>be proper lift distrubution and advance ratio to achieve the correct alpha
>angles. Since the optimal design for each application is unique, it is in
>my interest to figure out how to make molds and prototypes quickly. That's
>been my main focus for a number of years.< Stuart.
Tests.
To make accurate tests, following test will be interesting, Take off
distance (difficult to measure exact) time to take off might be better, but
wind make a lot differences.
climb speed say at 60 MPH timing with the clock the climb from say 1000 to
2000 feet starting at 500 keeping the speed constant. feet AGL that is so we
don't hit any Sitka spruce's.
cruise speed at say 5800 and 6000 but this mean the prop's have to be
adjusted to exact the same WOT RPM others the cruise RPM will represent
different HP's
and then WOT speed, all at same density alt. this have to be made same day
on a calm day. (days are short this time of the year)
there is other aspects too, like vibrations and wear.
would be interesting to test the taper Warp and the standard on the same
airplane/same day also.
Jan
www.jcpropellerdesign.com
----- Original Message -----
From: Dave
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Friday, October 27, 2006 12:05 AM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: GSC numbers : Re Propellers
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Dave" <dave@cfisher.com>
Well Don first run at 16 degree I was getting a bit over 6250 rpm static.
WOT 7050 to 7100
Added 1/2 degree and still about 6150 to 6200 static and 6950 wot .
I just flew to 1.5 hours horsing around and it seems not bad really.
Decent performance all round but I think another 1/2 degree would do it.
But we got colder wx coming and snow soon plus my plugs at about 60 hours
and I have to pull cowl off soon so I think I reptich then again. Who
know I might repitch tomorrow.
Also if you got multiple mails from me today, my outlook express is
sending everyone extra mails for some reason ( maybe early xmas gifts ? )
and I might have to do a format of it soon. So if I don't rely to quick
you will know I melted this pc. :)
Dave
PS I am sending this from my webmail so it should just arrive once : )
----- Original Message -----
From: Don Smythe
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 3:36 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: GSC numbers : Re Propellers
Dave,
Without repitching, what RPM do you get in level flight with "full
throttle"?
Don Smythe
I think I can pitch a little coarser on the gsc about 1/4 degree more and
get the cruise the same .
Reason I say this is because the EGT are a tad higher than I had with the
WARP . And I repitched once already from 16 to 16.5 degrees on the GSC
measured at .69 % radii
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Kitfox vs. Cub |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Roger McConnell" <rdmac@swbell.net>
Tony,
Having only built one airplane so far in my life I really have
nothing to compare with the Kitfox build manual. However it isn't bad I
guess. I did find a couple of typos and other minor errors, nothing really
comes to mind.
And those have probable been corrected too. So short answer, the manual is
OK I guess. It could certainly be worse.
Roger Mac
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tony Partain
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 8:55 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Kitfox vs. Cub
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Tony Partain" <tpartain@bendcable.com>
Gentleman thanks for the replies. I am really looking forward to building
another plane, a tube and fabric plane this time! My initial thoughs were
to us a traditional engine, but the Rotax seems to be the engine of choice.
It also sounds like the factory numbers are close.
One other question about the builders manual, the Vans manual is pretty good
for the RV 7 8 9, but it's fantastic for the 10. How does the Kitfox manual
stack up?
I sound like I will be making a trip to Idaho as soon as John returns from
Copperstate.
--------
Tony Partain
Partain Transport Company
Bend Oregon
http://www.vansairforce.net/Graphics/PartainTruckingCo.htm
RV7 IO360 CS 116WT
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=70482#70482
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Running rough |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Torgeir Mortensen" <torgemor@online.no>
Just a note here.
There is no (traditional) magneto on the 912UL (or ULS version).
The jumper installed in your switch is to be removed!!
The purpose of this jumper is to ground the right magneto during startup.
In standard aircraft with Lycoming or Continental etc., there is a little
device installed on the left magneto -the impulse device. This device
makes the left magneto "spin" faster every time it's "trigged" during
startup. In addition the ignite point is advanced during start up. In this
sequence of the start, the right magneto is grounded when the starting
switch is turned to start position. This is just the same we do in older
manual start procedure, when starting with only left magneto on (remember
left magneto have the impulse), when the engine start the right magneto is
to be switched on.
So again, the Rotax 912 do not have this kind of ignition system.
Can't see any reason to ground your right ignition during start up.
Just remove this wire.
Try to explain a little more about the engine behavior during run, does it
run rough in the entire "RPM" band -or? At high and low RPM?
Again, a detailed description of the engines behavior and everything that
you have observed.
Good luck.
Torgeir.
On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 22:18:53 +0200, Rex Shaw <rexjan@bigpond.com> wrote:
> Time: 11:13:47 AM PST US
> From: Kaufjm@AOL.COM
> Subject: Kitfox-List: Electrical question
>
> I am having a problem with my 912ULS running rough. I've been every
> where,
> checked for broken wires on my ignition modules, coils everything I can
> think
>
> of. I've been through the carbs as well. I did find something on my
> ignition
> switch that was supplied with the engine kit. It's the A-510-2 keyed
> left-right-starter switch. There is a jumper that's on terminal 1.
> Going back
> over
> the instructions it says jumper used with impulse coupling. I assume
> that is
> what the 912 has... The other thing is there is no ground wire to the
> switch
> as indicated by the instructions, Could this cause a problem?
> Thanks!
>
> I just fixed this exact same problem in my mates KR2 with a Revmaster VW
> motor and the A-510 ignition switch. The fault came back to the switch.
> I happened to have a new one I was not using at the time and we swapped
> it over.All the problems dissapeared. So I pulled the old switch apart
> to figure out why. On the inside/backside of the terminal plate there
> was a heavy carbon track. I meant to measure this first but forgot and
> started to clean it. I wish I had measured it because it seemed strange
> this was causing the problem. Anyway I did measure across the terminals
> after cleaning and there was no leakage so I think the switch would be
> OK now but my mate prefered not to change it back. I think if you remove
> the two screws holding the plate on and clean it and the little dimpled
> contacts that wipe across the terminals you might well solve your
> problem. Watch the springs under the triangular contacts.
> Now a word about that carbon track. I think it may have been partly
> made up by some lubricant used. It is good idea to use something after
> cleaning. I just usted Clean and Lube spray and I figure this would be
> OK. We don't actually know though because as I said we didn't reuse this
> switch at this point in time, instead it is my mates spares box.
> I hope this solves your problem.
> Rex.
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
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: Kitfox vs. Cub |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: David Estapa <davestapa@juno.com>
Tony, I have finished a Kitfox 5 and I am about 60% on a Van's RV-9A. In
my opinion the Kitfox manual is far superior to the Van's manual and blue
prints. In fact Van's has changed to a manual almost identically set up
as Kitfox on the RV-10 and recently on the RV-8. I spend a lot of time
searching for notes and details on the Van's prints (can be on several
pages) where as on most operations you have everything spread out on
double pages in the Kitfox manual
C. David Estapa
Woodstock, GA
S5TD N97DE (taxi testing).
On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 14:54:51 -0500 "Roger McConnell" <rdmac@swbell.net>
writes:
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Roger McConnell"
> <rdmac@swbell.net>
>
> Tony,
> Having only built one airplane so far in my life I really
> have
> nothing to compare with the Kitfox build manual. However it isn't
> bad I
> guess. I did find a couple of typos and other minor errors, nothing
> really
> comes to mind.
> And those have probable been corrected too. So short answer, the
> manual is
> OK I guess. It could certainly be worse.
> Roger Mac
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tony
> Partain
> Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 8:55 PM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Kitfox vs. Cub
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Tony Partain"
> <tpartain@bendcable.com>
>
> Gentleman thanks for the replies. I am really looking forward to
> building
> another plane, a tube and fabric plane this time! My initial
> thoughs were
> to us a traditional engine, but the Rotax seems to be the engine of
> choice.
> It also sounds like the factory numbers are close.
>
> One other question about the builders manual, the Vans manual is
> pretty good
> for the RV 7 8 9, but it's fantastic for the 10. How does the Kitfox
> manual
> stack up?
>
> I sound like I will be making a trip to Idaho as soon as John
> returns from
> Copperstate.
>
> --------
> Tony Partain
> Partain Transport Company
> Bend Oregon
> http://www.vansairforce.net/Graphics/PartainTruckingCo.htm
>
> RV7 IO360 CS 116WT
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=70482#70482
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Kitfox vs. Cub |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bob Unternaehrer" <shilocom@mcmsys.com>
It could be like the QCU Challenger manual,,,,smile....worse
----- Original Message -----
From: "Roger McConnell" <rdmac@swbell.net>
Sent: Friday, October 27, 2006 2:54 PM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Re: Kitfox vs. Cub
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Roger McConnell" <rdmac@swbell.net>
>
> Tony,
> Having only built one airplane so far in my life I really have
> nothing to compare with the Kitfox build manual. However it isn't bad I
> guess. I did find a couple of typos and other minor errors, nothing really
> comes to mind.
> And those have probable been corrected too. So short answer, the manual is
> OK I guess. It could certainly be worse.
> Roger Mac
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tony Partain
> Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 8:55 PM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Kitfox vs. Cub
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Tony Partain" <tpartain@bendcable.com>
>
> Gentleman thanks for the replies. I am really looking forward to building
> another plane, a tube and fabric plane this time! My initial thoughs were
> to us a traditional engine, but the Rotax seems to be the engine of
choice.
> It also sounds like the factory numbers are close.
>
> One other question about the builders manual, the Vans manual is pretty
good
> for the RV 7 8 9, but it's fantastic for the 10. How does the Kitfox
manual
> stack up?
>
> I sound like I will be making a trip to Idaho as soon as John returns
from
> Copperstate.
>
> --------
> Tony Partain
> Partain Transport Company
> Bend Oregon
> http://www.vansairforce.net/Graphics/PartainTruckingCo.htm
>
> RV7 IO360 CS 116WT
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=70482#70482
>
>
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Kitfox vs. Cub |
Very little done with builder web sites in the Kitfox arena...mine is the only one I know of. www.azshowersolutions.com/Kitfox1.html Go to Sportflight page to get other bits of info. http://www.sportflight.com/
Dan
Tony Partain <tpartain@bendcable.com> wrote:
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Tony Partain"
Are there any builder web sites? I would like to see them.
Ken could you call me at the office? 800-774-0828.
--------
Tony Partain
Partain Transport Company
Bend Oregon
http://www.vansairforce.net/Graphics/PartainTruckingCo.htm
RV7 IO360 CS 116WT
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=70594#70594
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Jetting and Pitching a 582 |
In michigan some people belive that adding a little pitch will lower the egt
in colder OAT. some kit foxes wil go VNE at 6800 rpm in livel flight. if
you set static rpm at 62500 like most recomend it usually won't do 68000 full
out. malcolm
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: OFF TOPIC: "Flyboys" |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Jerry Liles <wliles@bayou.com>
The streaks may be accurate. I've seen some WWII footage from a Stuka
firing its machine guns and they had a smoke type trace. Looked gray on
the B&W film though. And yes, tracers were available during WWI.
Jerry Liles
Lynn Matteson wrote:
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net>
>
> One of the few things that struck me as odd was the black streaks that
> represented the bullets flying through the air. Did they have any
> tracers back then? Did the smoke actually follow the bullets like
> that? Or was that merely "poetic license" taken by the graphics
> illustrators? I questioned this the first time I saw the film, but not
> the second time.
> I was a student in film production at San Francisco State University
> back in 1978, and we had our share of critics in the classes.
> According to them, there never was a film worth watching. My Dad used
> to say "Remember that the word 'critic' comes from the word 'critical' "
> Almost every film ever made has some questionable element to it, but
> that shouldn't deter us from enjoying it, and I enjoyed this
> film...and will again probably. On my second viewing, I noticed the
> Eiffel Tower way in the background in the dirigible scene...didn't
> notice this during the first viewing.
>
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 |
|
Gery at green sky adventure has his Kit Fox for sale this plain was at sun
fun 06. mal
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 |
|
I have seen several, so called, histories of the Kitfox posted in different
places and they all seem to be pretty much the same however I wonder why no
mention is made of Dan Denny's prior relationship with the Avid Flyer Co.
(He did not just appear in Southern Idaho with a new plane) and the genesis
of the Kitfox. That Dean Wilson was the designer of the Avid which the
Kitfox was copied after. Anyone know or care to comment. (let's be nice!)
Frank
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: Kitfox history |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: WBL <aeromer@ix.netcom.com>
I attended several Kitfox Fly-Ins in Caldwell (both Kitfox and Avid were located
there at the time) in the early 1990's. What I remember is that Dean Wilson
designed both. Denny sold out to Skystar but was still located at the same location
with his Thunder Mustang project! If you can get a copy of How to "Fly
a Kitfox" there is a brief history in that booklet. AeroMer
-----Original Message-----
>From: Frank Miles <f.miles.tcp.833@clearwire.net>
>Sent: Oct 27, 2006 7:05 PM
>To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Kitfox-List: Kitfox history
>
>I have seen several, so called, histories of the Kitfox posted in different
>places and they all seem to be pretty much the same however I wonder why no
>mention is made of Dan Denny's prior relationship with the Avid Flyer Co.
>(He did not just appear in Southern Idaho with a new plane) and the genesis
>of the Kitfox. That Dean Wilson was the designer of the Avid which the
>Kitfox was copied after. Anyone know or care to comment. (let's be nice!)
>
>
>
>Frank
>
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: Running rough |
Thanks for your response, The engine runs rough at idle and up through full
throttle but not as noticeable at the higher RPM. The synchronization is ok,
I
sent the redrive out and the carbs cleaned by a Rotax shop, I checked all
the wires on the electronic ignition for continuity and now I am checking sp
ark
plug wires and contacts, cleaning and spraying with electronic cleaner.
THANKS!
Jon
Just a note here.
There is no (traditional) magneto on the 912UL (or ULS version).
The jumper installed in your switch is to be removed!!
The purpose of this jumper is to ground the right magneto during startup.
In standard aircraft with Lycoming or Continental etc., there is a little
device installed on the left magneto -the impulse device. This device
makes the left magneto "spin" faster every time it's "trigged" during
startup. In addition the ignite point is advanced during start up. In this
sequence of the start, the right magneto is grounded when the starting
switch is turned to start position. This is just the same we do in
=9Colder
manual start=9D procedure, when starting with only left magneto on (r
emember
left magneto have the impulse), when the engine start the right magneto is
to be switched on.
So again, the Rotax 912 do not have this kind of ignition system.
Can't see any reason to ground your right ignition during start up.
Just remove this wire.
Try to explain a little more about the engine behavior during run, does it
run rough in the entire "RPM" band -or? At high and low RPM?
Again, a detailed description of the engines behavior and everything that
you have observed.
Good luck.
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! --
|