Today's Message Index:
----------------------
0. 12:37 AM - List of Contributors Coming Soon - Make Sure You're Listed! (Matt Dralle)
1. 01:49 AM - (QSS)
2. 03:49 AM - Re: Ever had this happen? (noel anderson)
3. 04:38 AM - Re: Ever had this happen? (Lynn Matteson)
4. 04:53 AM - Re: Re: Low spot in fuel system (Don Smythe)
5. 04:54 AM - Re: Re: Low spot in fuel system (Lynn Matteson)
6. 05:28 AM - Re: Re: Low spot in fuel system (john perry)
7. 05:58 AM - Re: Ever had this happen? (Noel Loveys)
8. 06:20 AM - Re: Ever had this happen? (Noel Loveys)
9. 06:36 AM - Re: (kirk hull)
10. 06:40 AM - Re: Ever had this happen? (Lynn Matteson)
11. 07:19 AM - Conventional Vs Tail and other training (Noel Loveys)
12. 07:22 AM - Re: Re: Low spot in fuel system (Lowell Fitt)
13. 08:37 AM - Re: VSO ELSA (Michael Gibbs)
14. 09:56 AM - The Taxman cometh (GAry Olson)
15. 10:44 AM - Re: The Taxman cometh (Dave Wahlquist)
16. 11:00 AM - Chamois (Michel Verheughe)
17. 11:11 AM - Re: The Taxman cometh (Jay Fabian)
18. 11:55 AM - Re: The Taxman cometh (GAry Olson)
19. 12:45 PM - Re: Model II MTOW (Marco Menezes)
20. 01:03 PM - Re: The Taxman cometh (crazyivan)
21. 01:45 PM - Re: The Taxman cometh (GypsyBeeInnkeepers)
22. 01:54 PM - Re: Low spot in fuel system (Tom Jones)
23. 02:17 PM - Re: The Taxman cometh (Dave Wahlquist)
24. 02:22 PM - Re: The Taxman cometh (GENTRYLL@aol.com)
25. 02:50 PM - Re: The Taxman cometh (Guy Buchanan)
26. 02:50 PM - Re: Re: Low spot in fuel system (Guy Buchanan)
27. 03:25 PM - Re: The Taxman cometh (Lowell Fitt)
28. 03:33 PM - Re: Re: Low spot in fuel system (Lowell Fitt)
29. 04:07 PM - Re: Ever had this happen? (jimcarriere)
30. 05:02 PM - Tail Dragger Endorsement (Rex Shaw)
31. 05:59 PM - Re: Model II MTOW (Noel Loveys)
32. 06:41 PM - Re: Tail Dragger Endorsement (Noel Loveys)
33. 08:22 PM - Re: Re: off topic PA 28 crash (kurt schrader)
Message 0
| 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: | List of Contributors Coming Soon - Make Sure You're Listed! |
Dear Listers,
The List of Contributors (LOC) is just around the corner! On December 1st I post
a list of everyone that so generously made a Contribution to support the Lists.
Its my way of publicly thanking everyone that took a minute to show their
appreciation for the Lists.
As a number of people have pointed out in their Contribution comments, the List
seems at least as valuable of a building/flying/recreating tool as a typical
your magazine subscription! And how interactive is a magazine, after all? :-)
Won't you take minute and assure that your name is on the upcoming LOC? Tell others
that you appreciate the Lists. Making a Contribution to support the Lists
is fast and easy using your Visa, MasterCard, or Paypal account:
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Or, by droping a personal check in the mail to:
Matronics / Matt Dralle
PO Box 347
Livermore CA 94551-0347
USA
(Please include your email address on the check!)
I would like to thank everyone that has so generously made a Contribution thus
far during this year's List Fund Raiser! Remember that its YOUR support that
keeps these Lists running and improving! Don't forget to include a little comment
about how the Lists have helped you!
Thank you!
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
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 |
|
Hi Guys, its been really interesting reading all your comments about the
Pro=92s & Con=92s of tail wheel and tri gear. One thing I personally
gained
from this discussion was a comment made about landing in freshly turned
soil. As I am in a rural area that grows a lot of cane and pine apples I
have always wondered about putting down in those freshly ploughed fields
and wrongly assumed the soft soil would quickly put you on your nose. I
do a lot of beach landings and have nearly been caught a couple of times
with soft sand but have never plucked up the courage to put her down in
a cane paddock etc. I=92ll try it at the next opportunity. As its
getting
close to Christmas and the silly season is nearly upon us, I will take
this opportunity to wish you all well and thank you for the time you
have given me in replying to my numerous questions.
Cheers
Graeme
--
27/11/2006
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Ever had this happen? |
Hi Team.
I must point out that "chamois" is not "felt" but goat skin
and has been used as a fuel filter for a 100 years!! "Felt" is compacted
fibres of cloth and come in various thicknesses. I hope this don't upset
anybody, but as my grand-dad said, we should learn something new every
day!!!!!!!!!!!
Fly Safe Regards Noel
----- Original Message -----
From: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys@yahoo.ca>
Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 3:43 AM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Ever had this happen?
>
> If the pilot was using a felt (Chamois) to filter his fuel, it won't pass
> water, some of the animal hair used to make felt will eventually come off
> and it will be dropped into the fuel tanks. This was quite normal and
> still
> is for those using felt to filter their fuel. There usually isn't a
> problem
> with it as the screens in the gascolator will catch it. Of course you
> will
> want to clean the gascolator every 50 hr.
>
> Noel
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of fox5flyer
>> Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2006 5:12 PM
>> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
>> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Ever had this happen?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Regarding these Purolator fuel filters, I seem to recall some time
>> back about a member who was having similar flow problems and also had
>> the same filters. Upon dismantling the filters he found them to be
>> partially plugged with tiny fibers that he determined to have come
>> from the wing tanks and were inhibiting the fuel flow. They were
>> possibly fiberglass fibers, but that wasn't confirmed as I recall.
>> He replaced the filters and no more problems. This happened several
>> years ago. Perhaps someone else can shed some light on it.
>> Deke
>>
>>
>> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Ever had this happen?
>> Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2006 17:34:40 -0500
>>
>> >Don-
>> > I have almost exactly the same configuration as you, except that I
>> >can't see my horizontal 3rd filter. It is under my center
>> >console...maybe I should install a window to have a look at it
>> >occasionally. That one is after the main shutoff and the aux.
>> >electric
>> >pump, which I never/rarely ever use. It's a Facet, and it allows
>> >gravity flow through it...or perhaps more properly, allows the
>> >engine's
>> >mechanical pump to pull through it, although it does flow through via
>> >
>> >gravity. All 3 filters are 5/16" in my system.
>> >
>> >Lynn
>>
>> >On Friday, November 24, 2006, at 05:11 PM, Don Smythe wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Lynn,
>> >> I have the clear glass Purolator filters on each wing tank.
>> >They
>> >> are mounted vertically and always show just a tad of vapor
>> >(appearing
>> >> not quite full). I have a third Purolator mounted horizontal
>> >between
>> >> the main shutoff and the carbs. Since that one is mounted
>> >horizontal,
>> >> it always shows more vapor than the vertical ones. I strongly
>> >believe
>> >> this to be a case of vapor in auto gas.
>> >> After seeing my hanger mates lawn mower completely quit due to
>> >> vapor lock it has always made me a little concerned that a Kitfox
>> >> system could do the same thing. I feel it has something to do with
>> >
>> >> the physical size of the filter and/or possible location in the
>> >line.
>> >> I don't think the vent on the header has anything to do with this
>> >type
>> >> situation. You can fly safely with the header vent shut off
>> >> completely (Avids did/do). As long as the filler caps are
>> >supplying
>> >> air to the wing tanks and there are no obstruction in the lines,
>> >fuel
>> >> should flow (except for maybe vapor lock)???
>> >>
>> >> Don Smythe
>> >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lynn Matteson"
>> ><lynnmatt@jps.net>
>> >> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
>> >> Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 4:58 PM
>> >> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Ever had this happen?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I've seen this happen too, Don....the half-full clear filter thing,
>> >> that is. I expected to see this on my plane with a clear filter in
>> >the
>> >> supply lines from each wing tank. But they are both very full and
>> >very
>> >> clear. I'm sure it has something to do with the venting of the
>> >header
>> >> tank up to the wing tank. This vent line on my plane is full of
>> >fuel,
>> >> and will be as long as fuel is present in the tanks, and the
>> >shutoff
>> >> valves in each supply line is open. I have just gone over 200 hours
>> >on
>> >> my plane, and no problems yet...knocking on wood. : )
>> >>
>> >> Lynn
>> >>
>> >> On Friday, November 24, 2006, at 04:14 PM, Don Smythe wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Michael,
>> >>> First, do every thing that Lowell said. If you have the MIL-6000
>> >>> black rubber fuel line, replace it before you do anything else. If
>> >
>> >>> every thing works out to be good with no obstructions, consider
>> >Vapor
>> >>> Lock. I worked on my hanger mates riding lawn mower recently. His
>> >>> fuel tank will be at about 1/2 and the engine goes dead. The fuel
>> >>> filter is empty. Take off the inlet line to the filter and fuel
>> >>> starts to flow freely. Reconnect to filter and the engine will
>> >start
>> >>> and run the rest of the fuel. Happens every time without fail. For
>> >
>> >>> some reason, his system is vapor locking and I haven't had a
>> >chance
>> >>> to figure it out.
>> >>> Auto fuel is much more likely to vapor lock than 100LL. Look at
>> >any
>> >>> clear filter on your car or lawnmower and it will always appear
>> >half
>> >>> full of fuel. The other half which looks like air is vapor. You
>> >may
>> >>> have some strange vapor locking like my hanger mates lawnmower. I
>> >>> think his problem has something to do with the large body fuel
>> >filter
>> >>> that's installed or it's location to the fuel tank. Like I said,
>> >do
>> >>> all Lowell said and then consider a strange vapor locking problem.
>> >>>
>> >>> Don Smythe
>> >>> ----- Original Message -----
>> >>> From: MA Stanard
>> >>> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
>> >>> Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 9:25 AM
>> >>> Subject: Kitfox-List: Ever had this happen?
>> >>>
>> >>> Oh Wisdom of the List, I call upon your knowledge!
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Right wing shows 3 gallons thru the sight tube, but the fuel
>> >filter
>> >>> is empty. Does any one know why this could be? Is there gas
>> >baffled
>> >>> in one section of the tank that does not reach? I am unfamiliar
>> >with
>> >>> what the tank looks like since I am not the builder. The fuel
>> >filters
>> >>> also seem to have a hard time filling up in flight and only stay
>> >half
>> >>> full when flying. I can watch the gas coming in but most times it
>> >>> seems to be only a trickle.
>> >>>
>> >>> Any solutions or suggestions?
>> >>>
>> >>> Michael Stanard
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> WebMail Express+ - http://www.i-star.com Internet Access from $7.95
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> 26/11/2006
>
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: Ever had this happen? |
I haven't commented on this subject, but I felt (no pun intended) that
there must be some local use of the word "felt" that is confusing. I
have read that bush pilots used chamois to filter their fuel when
pouring from cans....apparently trusting that which is pumped via hoses.
Lynn
On Monday, November 27, 2006, at 12:23 AM, noel anderson wrote:
> <nandrand@xtra.co.nz>
>
> Hi Team.
> I must point out that "chamois" is not "felt" but goat
> skin and has been used as a fuel filter for a 100 years!! "Felt" is
> compacted fibres of cloth and come in various thicknesses. I hope this
> don't upset anybody, but as my grand-dad said, we should learn
> something new every day!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> Fly Safe Regards Noel
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys@yahoo.ca>
> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 3:43 AM
> Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Ever had this happen?
>
>
>>
>> If the pilot was using a felt (Chamois) to filter his fuel, it won't
>> pass
>> water, some of the animal hair used to make felt will eventually come
>> off
>> and it will be dropped into the fuel tanks. This was quite normal
>> and still
>> is for those using felt to filter their fuel. There usually isn't a
>> problem
>> with it as the screens in the gascolator will catch it. Of course
>> you will
>> want to clean the gascolator every 50 hr.
>>
>> Noel
>>
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
>>> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
>>> fox5flyer
>>> Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2006 5:12 PM
>>> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
>>> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Ever had this happen?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Regarding these Purolator fuel filters, I seem to recall some time
>>> back about a member who was having similar flow problems and also had
>>> the same filters. Upon dismantling the filters he found them to be
>>> partially plugged with tiny fibers that he determined to have come
>>> from the wing tanks and were inhibiting the fuel flow. They were
>>> possibly fiberglass fibers, but that wasn't confirmed as I recall.
>>> He replaced the filters and no more problems. This happened several
>>> years ago. Perhaps someone else can shed some light on it.
>>> Deke
>>>
>>>
>>> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Ever had this happen?
>>> Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2006 17:34:40 -0500
>>>
>>> >Don-
>>> > I have almost exactly the same configuration as you, except that I
>>> >can't see my horizontal 3rd filter. It is under my center
>>> >console...maybe I should install a window to have a look at it
>>> >occasionally. That one is after the main shutoff and the aux.
>>> >electric
>>> >pump, which I never/rarely ever use. It's a Facet, and it allows
>>> >gravity flow through it...or perhaps more properly, allows the
>>> >engine's
>>> >mechanical pump to pull through it, although it does flow through
>>> via
>>> >
>>> >gravity. All 3 filters are 5/16" in my system.
>>> >
>>> >Lynn
>>>
>>> >On Friday, November 24, 2006, at 05:11 PM, Don Smythe wrote:
>>> >
>>> >>
>>> >> Lynn,
>>> >> I have the clear glass Purolator filters on each wing tank.
>>> >They
>>> >> are mounted vertically and always show just a tad of vapor
>>> >(appearing
>>> >> not quite full). I have a third Purolator mounted horizontal
>>> >between
>>> >> the main shutoff and the carbs. Since that one is mounted
>>> >horizontal,
>>> >> it always shows more vapor than the vertical ones. I strongly
>>> >believe
>>> >> this to be a case of vapor in auto gas.
>>> >> After seeing my hanger mates lawn mower completely quit due to
>>> >> vapor lock it has always made me a little concerned that a Kitfox
>>> >> system could do the same thing. I feel it has something to do
>>> with
>>> >
>>> >> the physical size of the filter and/or possible location in the
>>> >line.
>>> >> I don't think the vent on the header has anything to do with this
>>> >type
>>> >> situation. You can fly safely with the header vent shut off
>>> >> completely (Avids did/do). As long as the filler caps are
>>> >supplying
>>> >> air to the wing tanks and there are no obstruction in the lines,
>>> >fuel
>>> >> should flow (except for maybe vapor lock)???
>>> >>
>>> >> Don Smythe
>>> >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lynn Matteson"
>>> ><lynnmatt@jps.net>
>>> >> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
>>> >> Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 4:58 PM
>>> >> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Ever had this happen?
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> <lynnmatt@jps.net>
>>> >>
>>> >> I've seen this happen too, Don....the half-full clear filter
>>> thing,
>>> >> that is. I expected to see this on my plane with a clear filter
>>> in
>>> >the
>>> >> supply lines from each wing tank. But they are both very full and
>>> >very
>>> >> clear. I'm sure it has something to do with the venting of the
>>> >header
>>> >> tank up to the wing tank. This vent line on my plane is full of
>>> >fuel,
>>> >> and will be as long as fuel is present in the tanks, and the
>>> >shutoff
>>> >> valves in each supply line is open. I have just gone over 200
>>> hours
>>> >on
>>> >> my plane, and no problems yet...knocking on wood. : )
>>> >>
>>> >> Lynn
>>> >>
>>> >> On Friday, November 24, 2006, at 04:14 PM, Don Smythe wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>> Michael,
>>> >>> First, do every thing that Lowell said. If you have the MIL-6000
>>> >>> black rubber fuel line, replace it before you do anything else.
>>> If
>>> >
>>> >>> every thing works out to be good with no obstructions, consider
>>> >Vapor
>>> >>> Lock. I worked on my hanger mates riding lawn mower recently. His
>>> >>> fuel tank will be at about 1/2 and the engine goes dead. The fuel
>>> >>> filter is empty. Take off the inlet line to the filter and fuel
>>> >>> starts to flow freely. Reconnect to filter and the engine will
>>> >start
>>> >>> and run the rest of the fuel. Happens every time without fail.
>>> For
>>> >
>>> >>> some reason, his system is vapor locking and I haven't had a
>>> >chance
>>> >>> to figure it out.
>>> >>> Auto fuel is much more likely to vapor lock than 100LL. Look at
>>> >any
>>> >>> clear filter on your car or lawnmower and it will always appear
>>> >half
>>> >>> full of fuel. The other half which looks like air is vapor. You
>>> >may
>>> >>> have some strange vapor locking like my hanger mates lawnmower. I
>>> >>> think his problem has something to do with the large body fuel
>>> >filter
>>> >>> that's installed or it's location to the fuel tank. Like I said,
>>> >do
>>> >>> all Lowell said and then consider a strange vapor locking
>>> problem.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Don Smythe
>>> >>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> >>> From: MA Stanard
>>> >>> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
>>> >>> Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 9:25 AM
>>> >>> Subject: Kitfox-List: Ever had this happen?
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Oh Wisdom of the List, I call upon your knowledge!
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Right wing shows 3 gallons thru the sight tube, but the fuel
>>> >filter
>>> >>> is empty. Does any one know why this could be? Is there gas
>>> >baffled
>>> >>> in one section of the tank that does not reach? I am unfamiliar
>>> >with
>>> >>> what the tank looks like since I am not the builder. The fuel
>>> >filters
>>> >>> also seem to have a hard time filling up in flight and only stay
>>> >half
>>> >>> full when flying. I can watch the gas coming in but most times it
>>> >>> seems to be only a trickle.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Any solutions or suggestions?
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Michael Stanard
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>> WebMail Express+ - http://www.i-star.com Internet Access from $7.95
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> 26/11/2006
>
>
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: Low spot in fuel system |
Tom,
Didn't you post a pic a couple days ago showing your shutoff valve???
If so, the one thing I noticed is your shutoff valve looks like the one that
caused a big stir on the list about 10 years ago. It looks like the same
one that came with my kit. If I remember correctly, it's a round brown
plastic material with a center round rotating sleeve. Leak protection is
supplied by an "O" ring that is grooved into the curvature of the valve
body. Every time you turn the valve the center sleeve rubs the "O" ring.
Way back, somebody had that "O" ring get cut and it ended up in the fuel
line toward the carbs. Engine Out. A big discussion followed and I ended
up throwing that supplied valve in the trash and going with a ball and seat
type valve. Also, I seem to remember that old valve having a very very
small inlet/outlet hole for fuel. The supplied alum tubing had a very small
I.D. I upgraded the valve and line to 1/4".
I've never seen the panel tank installation and wondered how it
worked??? BTW, I got my kit in September 95.
Don Smythe
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Jones" <nahsikhs@elltel.net>
Sent: Sunday, November 26, 2006 10:31 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Low spot in fuel system
>
> Don,
> My Classic 4 did not come with a header tank for behind the seat. I wish
> it would have, then I would not need the gascolator. I purchased the
> gascolator as an option to install in the low point of the nose tank fuel
> system.
>
> For what its worth, the wing tanks feed the nose tank instead of a header
> tank. It looks like I may have purchased my kit just before you did. I
> should have waited then maybe I would have received the good header tank
> system.
>
> The problem I have run into is there is no way to plumb the fuel lines
> into the shutoff valve where it is designed to go and still have a
> continuous down hill flow.
>
> Tom Jones
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=77165#77165
>
>
>
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: Low spot in fuel system |
Why not do away with the supplied shutoff valve and install a valve(s)
where you want it/them, taking into consideration the downhill flow
recommendations.
Lynn
On Sunday, November 26, 2006, at 10:31 PM, Tom Jones wrote:
>
> Don,
> My Classic 4 did not come with a header tank for behind the seat. I
> wish it would have, then I would not need the gascolator. I purchased
> the gascolator as an option to install in the low point of the nose
> tank fuel system.
>
> For what its worth, the wing tanks feed the nose tank instead of a
> header tank. It looks like I may have purchased my kit just before
> you did. I should have waited then maybe I would have received the
> good header tank system.
>
> The problem I have run into is there is no way to plumb the fuel lines
> into the shutoff valve where it is designed to go and still have a
> continuous down hill flow.
>
> Tom Jones
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=77165#77165
>
>
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Low spot in fuel system |
Tom
My kitfox 2 has the panel tank and a 13 gallon right wing tank . I also use
a gascolator on the lower right hand engine side of firewall . I replaced
the valve in the cockpit with a 3 way vlave left posititon is panel tank
middle is off and right is wing tank , I also have a valve on the wing tank
at the root where it comes into the plane . I have never had a problem with
it this way . the old setup really was terrible when trying to fill the
front tank and not let it overfill . All fuel drains downhill in my setup.
in preflight turn on wing tank and drain gascolator for a minute then turn
on front tank and drain for a minute. works great .
I love my front 9 gallon. Just wish I had my other 13 gallon tank in the
left wing already .
Take care fly safe fly low fly slow fly fun fly KITFOX
John Perry
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: | Ever had this happen? |
Been there, done that. Used an old Fedora I wore fishing in my teen age
years. The plus side of it is it helps to keep the flies off. My new
Aussie Akubra doesn't see any fuel.
Noel
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> kurt schrader
> Sent: Sunday, November 26, 2006 5:14 PM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Ever had this happen?
>
>
> <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
>
> This is why an old bush pilot told me to wear a felt
> cap. It was his backup filter, but let it air out
> before putting it back on.... :-(
>
> Kurt S. S-5
>
> --- Noel Loveys <noelloveys@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > If the pilot was using a felt (Chamois) to filter
> > his fuel, it won't pass water.....
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: | Ever had this happen? |
When I was working the AMO in gander all our pilots swore up and down on a
small mountain of bibles that they were using a "Chamios" to filter their
fuel. I've washed enough cars to know what a chamois is, not to mention
how much better a real chamois is at removing water from your just washed
chariot.
Back to the topic.
When I saw the first "Chamois" filter I was surprised to find out that what
they were actually using was a felt. One of the properties of felt is it
stops the flow of water while passing gasoline. They use it (with tar ) for
the roofs of houses and in all the old dusters ( Westerns ) the Roy Rogers
always gave his horse a drink out of his ten gallon hat and John Wayne must
have dumped a thousand gallons out of his hat in his career.
Felt may have a quantity of cloth fibre in it but originally it was made
from the hair of pelts. Canada sent shiploads of beaver pelts to England in
it's early years to make felt hats. The Oz Akubra hats are made from rabbit
fur and are OZ answer to the Stetson.
As you say Chamois is actually a goat skin specifically form a Chamois ....
A very soft skin which shares the felt ability to block water. That's why
they used to carry water in goat skins
So if the "Chamois" you are using to filter your fuel is really a "Felt' Be
aware that some of the hair that makes the felt can come of and be caught in
your gascolator. It only takes five minutes to clean out a gascolator and
once every fifty hours or so isn't too much to do.... Just clean it when
you swap out your plugs. Don't forget the lockwire. Do it once or twice
and you will be surprised how easy it is to do a good job of lockwiring.
For the purpose of the topic cops... All the above is in reference to the
safe operation of Kitfox aircraft.
Noel
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> noel anderson
> Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 1:53 AM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Ever had this happen?
>
>
> <nandrand@xtra.co.nz>
>
> Hi Team.
> I must point out that "chamois" is not "felt"
> but goat skin
> and has been used as a fuel filter for a 100 years!! "Felt"
> is compacted
> fibres of cloth and come in various thicknesses. I hope this
> don't upset
> anybody, but as my grand-dad said, we should learn something
> new every
> day!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> Fly Safe Regards Noel
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys@yahoo.ca>
> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 3:43 AM
> Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Ever had this happen?
>
>
> <noelloveys@yahoo.ca>
> >
> > If the pilot was using a felt (Chamois) to filter his fuel,
> it won't pass
> > water, some of the animal hair used to make felt will
> eventually come off
> > and it will be dropped into the fuel tanks. This was quite
> normal and
> > still
> > is for those using felt to filter their fuel. There
> usually isn't a
> > problem
> > with it as the screens in the gascolator will catch it. Of
> course you
> > will
> > want to clean the gascolator every 50 hr.
> >
> > Noel
> >
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> >> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf
> Of fox5flyer
> >> Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2006 5:12 PM
> >> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> >> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Ever had this happen?
> >>
> >>
> <fox5flyer@i-star.com>
> >>
> >>
> >> Regarding these Purolator fuel filters, I seem to recall some time
> >> back about a member who was having similar flow problems
> and also had
> >> the same filters. Upon dismantling the filters he found them to be
> >> partially plugged with tiny fibers that he determined to have come
> >> from the wing tanks and were inhibiting the fuel flow. They were
> >> possibly fiberglass fibers, but that wasn't confirmed as I recall.
> >> He replaced the filters and no more problems. This
> happened several
> >> years ago. Perhaps someone else can shed some light on it.
> >> Deke
> >>
> >>
> >> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Ever had this happen?
> >> Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2006 17:34:40 -0500
> >>
> >> >Don-
> >> > I have almost exactly the same configuration as you,
> except that I
> >> >can't see my horizontal 3rd filter. It is under my center
> >> >console...maybe I should install a window to have a look at it
> >> >occasionally. That one is after the main shutoff and the aux.
> >> >electric
> >> >pump, which I never/rarely ever use. It's a Facet, and it allows
> >> >gravity flow through it...or perhaps more properly, allows the
> >> >engine's
> >> >mechanical pump to pull through it, although it does flow
> through via
> >> >
> >> >gravity. All 3 filters are 5/16" in my system.
> >> >
> >> >Lynn
> >>
> >> >On Friday, November 24, 2006, at 05:11 PM, Don Smythe wrote:
> >> >
> <dosmythe@cox.net>
> >> >>
> >> >> Lynn,
> >> >> I have the clear glass Purolator filters on each wing tank.
> >> >They
> >> >> are mounted vertically and always show just a tad of vapor
> >> >(appearing
> >> >> not quite full). I have a third Purolator mounted horizontal
> >> >between
> >> >> the main shutoff and the carbs. Since that one is mounted
> >> >horizontal,
> >> >> it always shows more vapor than the vertical ones. I strongly
> >> >believe
> >> >> this to be a case of vapor in auto gas.
> >> >> After seeing my hanger mates lawn mower completely
> quit due to
> >> >> vapor lock it has always made me a little concerned
> that a Kitfox
> >> >> system could do the same thing. I feel it has
> something to do with
> >> >
> >> >> the physical size of the filter and/or possible location in the
> >> >line.
> >> >> I don't think the vent on the header has anything to do
> with this
> >> >type
> >> >> situation. You can fly safely with the header vent shut off
> >> >> completely (Avids did/do). As long as the filler caps are
> >> >supplying
> >> >> air to the wing tanks and there are no obstruction in the lines,
> >> >fuel
> >> >> should flow (except for maybe vapor lock)???
> >> >>
> >> >> Don Smythe
> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lynn Matteson"
> >> ><lynnmatt@jps.net>
> >> >> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> >> >> Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 4:58 PM
> >> >> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Ever had this happen?
> >> >>
> >> >>
> <lynnmatt@jps.net>
> >> >>
> >> >> I've seen this happen too, Don....the half-full clear
> filter thing,
> >> >> that is. I expected to see this on my plane with a
> clear filter in
> >> >the
> >> >> supply lines from each wing tank. But they are both
> very full and
> >> >very
> >> >> clear. I'm sure it has something to do with the venting of the
> >> >header
> >> >> tank up to the wing tank. This vent line on my plane is full of
> >> >fuel,
> >> >> and will be as long as fuel is present in the tanks, and the
> >> >shutoff
> >> >> valves in each supply line is open. I have just gone
> over 200 hours
> >> >on
> >> >> my plane, and no problems yet...knocking on wood. : )
> >> >>
> >> >> Lynn
> >> >>
> >> >> On Friday, November 24, 2006, at 04:14 PM, Don Smythe wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>> Michael,
> >> >>> First, do every thing that Lowell said. If you have
> the MIL-6000
> >> >>> black rubber fuel line, replace it before you do
> anything else. If
> >> >
> >> >>> every thing works out to be good with no obstructions, consider
> >> >Vapor
> >> >>> Lock. I worked on my hanger mates riding lawn mower
> recently. His
> >> >>> fuel tank will be at about 1/2 and the engine goes
> dead. The fuel
> >> >>> filter is empty. Take off the inlet line to the filter and fuel
> >> >>> starts to flow freely. Reconnect to filter and the engine will
> >> >start
> >> >>> and run the rest of the fuel. Happens every time
> without fail. For
> >> >
> >> >>> some reason, his system is vapor locking and I haven't had a
> >> >chance
> >> >>> to figure it out.
> >> >>> Auto fuel is much more likely to vapor lock than 100LL. Look at
> >> >any
> >> >>> clear filter on your car or lawnmower and it will always appear
> >> >half
> >> >>> full of fuel. The other half which looks like air is vapor. You
> >> >may
> >> >>> have some strange vapor locking like my hanger mates
> lawnmower. I
> >> >>> think his problem has something to do with the large body fuel
> >> >filter
> >> >>> that's installed or it's location to the fuel tank.
> Like I said,
> >> >do
> >> >>> all Lowell said and then consider a strange vapor
> locking problem.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Don Smythe
> >> >>> ----- Original Message -----
> >> >>> From: MA Stanard
> >> >>> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> >> >>> Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 9:25 AM
> >> >>> Subject: Kitfox-List: Ever had this happen?
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Oh Wisdom of the List, I call upon your knowledge!
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Right wing shows 3 gallons thru the sight tube, but the fuel
> >> >filter
> >> >>> is empty. Does any one know why this could be? Is there gas
> >> >baffled
> >> >>> in one section of the tank that does not reach? I am unfamiliar
> >> >with
> >> >>> what the tank looks like since I am not the builder. The fuel
> >> >filters
> >> >>> also seem to have a hard time filling up in flight and
> only stay
> >> >half
> >> >>> full when flying. I can watch the gas coming in but
> most times it
> >> >>> seems to be only a trickle.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Any solutions or suggestions?
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Michael Stanard
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> WebMail Express+ - http://www.i-star.com Internet Access from $7.95
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > 26/11/2006
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
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 |
|
Just remember to land with the plow lines
_____
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of QSS
Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 3:49 AM
Subject: Kitfox-List:
Hi Guys, its been really interesting reading all your comments about the
Pro's & Con's of tail wheel and tri gear. One thing I personally gained from
this discussion was a comment made about landing in freshly turned soil. As
I am in a rural area that grows a lot of cane and pine apples I have always
wondered about putting down in those freshly ploughed fields and wrongly
assumed the soft soil would quickly put you on your nose. I do a lot of
beach landings and have nearly been caught a couple of times with soft sand
but have never plucked up the courage to put her down in a cane paddock etc.
I'll try it at the next opportunity. As its getting close to Christmas and
the silly season is nearly upon us, I will take this opportunity to wish you
all well and thank you for the time you have given me in replying to my
numerous questions.
Cheers
Graeme
--
27/11/2006
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: Ever had this happen? |
I don't think that even the most radical of "topic cops" would bust you
for this post, Noel, and believe me I've been busted, so I know!
Lynn
do not archive
On Monday, November 27, 2006, at 09:20 AM, Noel Loveys wrote:
>
> When I was working the AMO in gander all our pilots swore up and down
> on a
> small mountain of bibles that they were using a "Chamios" to filter
> their
> fuel. I've washed enough cars to know what a chamois is, not to
> mention
> how much better a real chamois is at removing water from your just
> washed
> chariot.
>
> Back to the topic.
>
> When I saw the first "Chamois" filter I was surprised to find out that
> what
> they were actually using was a felt. One of the properties of felt is
> it
> stops the flow of water while passing gasoline. They use it (with tar
> ) for
> the roofs of houses and in all the old dusters ( Westerns ) the Roy
> Rogers
> always gave his horse a drink out of his ten gallon hat and John Wayne
> must
> have dumped a thousand gallons out of his hat in his career.
>
> Felt may have a quantity of cloth fibre in it but originally it was
> made
> from the hair of pelts. Canada sent shiploads of beaver pelts to
> England in
> it's early years to make felt hats. The Oz Akubra hats are made from
> rabbit
> fur and are OZ answer to the Stetson.
>
> As you say Chamois is actually a goat skin specifically form a Chamois
> ....
> A very soft skin which shares the felt ability to block water. That's
> why
> they used to carry water in goat skins
>
> So if the "Chamois" you are using to filter your fuel is really a
> "Felt' Be
> aware that some of the hair that makes the felt can come of and be
> caught in
> your gascolator. It only takes five minutes to clean out a gascolator
> and
> once every fifty hours or so isn't too much to do.... Just clean it
> when
> you swap out your plugs. Don't forget the lockwire. Do it once or
> twice
> and you will be surprised how easy it is to do a good job of
> lockwiring.
>
> For the purpose of the topic cops... All the above is in reference to
> the
> safe operation of Kitfox aircraft.
>
> Noel
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
>> noel anderson
>> Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 1:53 AM
>> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
>> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Ever had this happen?
>>
>>
>> <nandrand@xtra.co.nz>
>>
>> Hi Team.
>> I must point out that "chamois" is not "felt"
>> but goat skin
>> and has been used as a fuel filter for a 100 years!! "Felt"
>> is compacted
>> fibres of cloth and come in various thicknesses. I hope this
>> don't upset
>> anybody, but as my grand-dad said, we should learn something
>> new every
>> day!!!!!!!!!!!
>>
>> Fly Safe Regards Noel
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys@yahoo.ca>
>> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
>> Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 3:43 AM
>> Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Ever had this happen?
>>
>>
>> <noelloveys@yahoo.ca>
>>>
>>> If the pilot was using a felt (Chamois) to filter his fuel,
>> it won't pass
>>> water, some of the animal hair used to make felt will
>> eventually come off
>>> and it will be dropped into the fuel tanks. This was quite
>> normal and
>>> still
>>> is for those using felt to filter their fuel. There
>> usually isn't a
>>> problem
>>> with it as the screens in the gascolator will catch it. Of
>> course you
>>> will
>>> want to clean the gascolator every 50 hr.
>>>
>>> Noel
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
>>>> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf
>> Of fox5flyer
>>>> Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2006 5:12 PM
>>>> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
>>>> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Ever had this happen?
>>>>
>>>>
>> <fox5flyer@i-star.com>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Regarding these Purolator fuel filters, I seem to recall some time
>>>> back about a member who was having similar flow problems
>> and also had
>>>> the same filters. Upon dismantling the filters he found them to be
>>>> partially plugged with tiny fibers that he determined to have come
>>>> from the wing tanks and were inhibiting the fuel flow. They were
>>>> possibly fiberglass fibers, but that wasn't confirmed as I recall.
>>>> He replaced the filters and no more problems. This
>> happened several
>>>> years ago. Perhaps someone else can shed some light on it.
>>>> Deke
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Ever had this happen?
>>>> Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2006 17:34:40 -0500
>>>>
>>>>> Don-
>>>>> I have almost exactly the same configuration as you,
>> except that I
>>>>> can't see my horizontal 3rd filter. It is under my center
>>>>> console...maybe I should install a window to have a look at it
>>>>> occasionally. That one is after the main shutoff and the aux.
>>>>> electric
>>>>> pump, which I never/rarely ever use. It's a Facet, and it allows
>>>>> gravity flow through it...or perhaps more properly, allows the
>>>>> engine's
>>>>> mechanical pump to pull through it, although it does flow
>> through via
>>>>>
>>>>> gravity. All 3 filters are 5/16" in my system.
>>>>>
>>>>> Lynn
>>>>
>>>>> On Friday, November 24, 2006, at 05:11 PM, Don Smythe wrote:
>>>>>
>> <dosmythe@cox.net>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Lynn,
>>>>>> I have the clear glass Purolator filters on each wing tank.
>>>>> They
>>>>>> are mounted vertically and always show just a tad of vapor
>>>>> (appearing
>>>>>> not quite full). I have a third Purolator mounted horizontal
>>>>> between
>>>>>> the main shutoff and the carbs. Since that one is mounted
>>>>> horizontal,
>>>>>> it always shows more vapor than the vertical ones. I strongly
>>>>> believe
>>>>>> this to be a case of vapor in auto gas.
>>>>>> After seeing my hanger mates lawn mower completely
>> quit due to
>>>>>> vapor lock it has always made me a little concerned
>> that a Kitfox
>>>>>> system could do the same thing. I feel it has
>> something to do with
>>>>>
>>>>>> the physical size of the filter and/or possible location in the
>>>>> line.
>>>>>> I don't think the vent on the header has anything to do
>> with this
>>>>> type
>>>>>> situation. You can fly safely with the header vent shut off
>>>>>> completely (Avids did/do). As long as the filler caps are
>>>>> supplying
>>>>>> air to the wing tanks and there are no obstruction in the lines,
>>>>> fuel
>>>>>> should flow (except for maybe vapor lock)???
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Don Smythe
>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lynn Matteson"
>>>>> <lynnmatt@jps.net>
>>>>>> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
>>>>>> Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 4:58 PM
>>>>>> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Ever had this happen?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>> <lynnmatt@jps.net>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've seen this happen too, Don....the half-full clear
>> filter thing,
>>>>>> that is. I expected to see this on my plane with a
>> clear filter in
>>>>> the
>>>>>> supply lines from each wing tank. But they are both
>> very full and
>>>>> very
>>>>>> clear. I'm sure it has something to do with the venting of the
>>>>> header
>>>>>> tank up to the wing tank. This vent line on my plane is full of
>>>>> fuel,
>>>>>> and will be as long as fuel is present in the tanks, and the
>>>>> shutoff
>>>>>> valves in each supply line is open. I have just gone
>> over 200 hours
>>>>> on
>>>>>> my plane, and no problems yet...knocking on wood. : )
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Lynn
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Friday, November 24, 2006, at 04:14 PM, Don Smythe wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Michael,
>>>>>>> First, do every thing that Lowell said. If you have
>> the MIL-6000
>>>>>>> black rubber fuel line, replace it before you do
>> anything else. If
>>>>>
>>>>>>> every thing works out to be good with no obstructions, consider
>>>>> Vapor
>>>>>>> Lock. I worked on my hanger mates riding lawn mower
>> recently. His
>>>>>>> fuel tank will be at about 1/2 and the engine goes
>> dead. The fuel
>>>>>>> filter is empty. Take off the inlet line to the filter and fuel
>>>>>>> starts to flow freely. Reconnect to filter and the engine will
>>>>> start
>>>>>>> and run the rest of the fuel. Happens every time
>> without fail. For
>>>>>
>>>>>>> some reason, his system is vapor locking and I haven't had a
>>>>> chance
>>>>>>> to figure it out.
>>>>>>> Auto fuel is much more likely to vapor lock than 100LL. Look at
>>>>> any
>>>>>>> clear filter on your car or lawnmower and it will always appear
>>>>> half
>>>>>>> full of fuel. The other half which looks like air is vapor. You
>>>>> may
>>>>>>> have some strange vapor locking like my hanger mates
>> lawnmower. I
>>>>>>> think his problem has something to do with the large body fuel
>>>>> filter
>>>>>>> that's installed or it's location to the fuel tank.
>> Like I said,
>>>>> do
>>>>>>> all Lowell said and then consider a strange vapor
>> locking problem.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Don Smythe
>>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>>> From: MA Stanard
>>>>>>> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
>>>>>>> Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 9:25 AM
>>>>>>> Subject: Kitfox-List: Ever had this happen?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Oh Wisdom of the List, I call upon your knowledge!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Right wing shows 3 gallons thru the sight tube, but the fuel
>>>>> filter
>>>>>>> is empty. Does any one know why this could be? Is there gas
>>>>> baffled
>>>>>>> in one section of the tank that does not reach? I am unfamiliar
>>>>> with
>>>>>>> what the tank looks like since I am not the builder. The fuel
>>>>> filters
>>>>>>> also seem to have a hard time filling up in flight and
>> only stay
>>>>> half
>>>>>>> full when flying. I can watch the gas coming in but
>> most times it
>>>>>>> seems to be only a trickle.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Any solutions or suggestions?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Michael Stanard
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> WebMail Express+ - http://www.i-star.com Internet Access from $7.95
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> 26/11/2006
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
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: | Conventional Vs Tail and other training |
The tricycle gear handles differently no doubt.... But directionally more
stable. I think directional stability will be the result of a number of
factors. E.g. the speed of taxi, the number of wheels on the ground, the
direction and speed of the wind, the condition and length of the runway and
lets not forget the experience of the pilot.
What I find interesting is the fact that in this country we don't have a
tail wheel endorsement and it seems we also don't have the perceived
problems of flying with one. I am in favour of additional training where it
is needed and additional training on the tail wheel is probably a good idea.
For pilots who have only flown with the conventional gear some training in
the tricycle config. Would also be a good idea. There are manoeuvres used
on tricycle gear that do not even exist on conventional aircraft. E.g. soft
field taxiing. I'm willing to bet there are people who are reading this
list who have had at least one accident involving a tricycle/conventional
gear plane on a runway.
In this country, now, you don't have to do any spirals, the recover from
which can seriously twist your plane, if done incorrectly. You also don't
have to do any spins the recovery from which is mandatory to a good day. I
don't know if this is true south of the 49th but up this way it appears that
TC ( Transport Canada ), the governing body wants people to have their
crashes away from the airports. I think that spiral and spin training would
be at least as important as training on conventional gear.
The above in reference to the safe operation of Kitfox aircraft. :-)
Fly fish, Fly floats, Fly Safe!
Noel
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> Michael Gibbs
> Sent: Sunday, November 26, 2006 1:31 PM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Taildraggers
>
>
> <MichaelGibbs@cox.net>
>
> Lynn sez:
>
> >I wonder if the FAA required a similar endorsement when the tricycle
> >gear first came out? After all, pilots up until then had ONLY
> >taildragger experience.
>
> Since tricycle gear airplanes are inherently directionally stable on
> the ground, I doubt it. :-)
>
> Mike G.
> N728KF
>
>
>
>
>
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: Low spot in fuel system |
Tom,
I wonder if there is a problem here. First; though, when I purchased my kit
in 1993, the panel tank was standard with the aft mounted header tank as an
option.
The rear mounted header tank has several downward then upward runs of fuel
line to the shut off valve and engine moun ted fuel pump. Mine is moounted
high behind the baggage sack like the I trough III. Fuel line runs from
near the bottom of the tank down along the door bottom and then up to the
valve then down again to the gascollator then up again to the fuel pump. I
do have an aux fuel pump at the header tank outlet, but have run the
airplane in all phases with and without the pump and there is no difference
in engine performance.
Lowell
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Jones" <nahsikhs@elltel.net>
Sent: Sunday, November 26, 2006 7:31 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Low spot in fuel system
>
> Don,
> My Classic 4 did not come with a header tank for behind the seat. I wish
> it would have, then I would not need the gascolator. I purchased the
> gascolator as an option to install in the low point of the nose tank fuel
> system.
>
> For what its worth, the wing tanks feed the nose tank instead of a header
> tank. It looks like I may have purchased my kit just before you did. I
> should have waited then maybe I would have received the good header tank
> system.
>
> The problem I have run into is there is no way to plumb the fuel lines
> into the shutoff valve where it is designed to go and still have a
> continuous down hill flow.
>
> Tom Jones
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=77165#77165
>
>
>
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 |
|
Ron sez:
>As a licensed pilot I should have this in my head, but.. VS is clean
>vs VSO is landing configuration. Is this power on or off?
I remember them this way (sorry, I can't do subscripts in a text-only
message): the "i" in Vsi means "in", while the "o" in Vso means
"out", referring to the gear and flaps, of course. Both are measured
with power off, which is different from a takeoff/departure stall
situation where, of course, you have full power in.
You're right about the difference--with full power my Model IV seemed
like it could just hang from the prop in a ridiculously nose-high
attitude while barely moving. :-)
Mike G.
N728KF
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: | The Taxman cometh |
Things just keep getting better in the land of taxes, oops, I mean Wisconsin. Shortly
after registering my Kitfox with the FAA, a notice from the Dept. of Revenue
shows up in my mailbox demanding their piece of the action. Within 2 weeks
another letter is send with a deadline of 10 days for payment of the taxes
due and a threat of lien placement. I went on to explain that the Kitfox is still
in kit form and is a non-airworthy aircraft that is being build in my garage
at home. So then comes the audit notice (10 days later) that states that they
demand to see all of my receipts because they "understand that a lot of parts
and materials must be purchased in order to complete the aircraft. Verification
that the sales tax has been paid must be presented". I am sure that others
of us have confronted the same issue. Any ideas to help make this any less
painful? I realize that each state and municipalities have separate tax laws,
but I am looking for any helpful advice.
This is just one more way that the government is making flying increasingly unaffordable.
What is so amazing is that this plane may never touch a public runway
or use any public facility, but yet the registration/tax notices keep coming.
On the other hand, it is still cheaper than most countries.
Gary O.
Oshkosh S7
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: The Taxman cometh |
Hey Gary and all,
Similar problem...Same state,Wisconsin.
My situation is that I picked up a damaged N numbered Kitfox a few years
ago. Had the registration with the FAA changed to me no problem. I asked
the state guys if I needed to register it right away and was told to wait
until it is airworthy and do the full registration then. I paid $10.00 and
registered it as un-airworthy and thought I was all set. Well a year or
more goes by and the state vehicle dept. says that they conducted an audit
and have found my aircraft is not registered. I let them know that it was
registered as un-airworthy some time back. They say they have no record of
it. After a lot of phone calls etc. I finally send them another $10.00 to
register it again as un-airworthy. I was told by several motor vehicle reps
that if it is un-airworthy that no tax was due at that time. Well the Dept.
of Revenue conducts an audit and now finds that there is an aircraft that
has been registered but no taxes were collected. So they start sending me
nasty grams similar to yours requesting that I send them whatever money
they are due. They leave it to us to figure that amount out but after
discussion with a revenue agent they determined that I owe not only the
amount of tax on the original un-airworthy aircraft purchase but PENATIES
for late payment, and interest.
I have yet to work this out and make everyone happy but it looks like the
easy way is to just pay the tax and penalties and be done with it.
Any advise from anyone would be appreciated.
Dave Wahlquist
Mod III pile of parts with taxes due....
At 11:55 AM 11/27/2006, you wrote:
>
>Things just keep getting better in the land of taxes, oops, I mean
>Wisconsin. Shortly after registering my Kitfox with the FAA, a notice from
>the Dept. of Revenue shows up in my mailbox demanding their piece of the
>action. Within 2 weeks another letter is send with a deadline of 10 days
>for payment of the taxes due and a threat of lien placement. I went on to
>explain that the Kitfox is still in kit form and is a non-airworthy
>aircraft that is being build in my garage at home. So then comes the
>audit notice (10 days later) that states that they demand to see all of my
>receipts because they "understand that a lot of parts and materials must
>be purchased in order to complete the aircraft. Verification that the
>sales tax has been paid must be presented". I am sure that others of us
>have confronted the same issue. Any ideas to help make this any less
>painful? I realize that each state and municipalities have separate tax
>laws, but I am looking for any helpful advice.
>
>This is just one more way that the government is making flying
>increasingly unaffordable. What is so amazing is that this plane may never
>touch a public runway or use any public facility, but yet the
>registration/tax notices keep coming.
>
>On the other hand, it is still cheaper than most countries.
>
>Gary O.
>Oshkosh S7
>
>
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 |
|
On Nov 27, 2006, at 6:23 AM, noel anderson wrote:
> I must point out that "chamois" is not "felt" but goat skin and has
> been used as a fuel filter for a 100 years!!
A chamois is actually a mountain goat from the Alps. Its skin, soft yet
strong, was much appreciated for centuries as fine garments. It also
made its way in the housecleaning department for its ability to absorb
water without leaving traces on glass. I guess the name made its way to
the US with the textile industry together with denim, velour and
corduroy.
Cheers,
Michel
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: | Re: The Taxman cometh |
Actually in Taxachussetts, we donot have to pay sales tax on Aircraft (
Right after I registered mine of course).
Just to let you know
Jay
----- Original Message -----
From: "GAry Olson" <n113gb@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 12:55 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: The Taxman cometh
>
> Things just keep getting better in the land of taxes, oops, I mean
> Wisconsin. Shortly after registering my Kitfox with the FAA, a notice from
> the Dept. of Revenue shows up in my mailbox demanding their piece of the
> action. Within 2 weeks another letter is send with a deadline of 10 days
> for payment of the taxes due and a threat of lien placement. I went on to
> explain that the Kitfox is still in kit form and is a non-airworthy
> aircraft that is being build in my garage at home. So then comes the
> audit notice (10 days later) that states that they demand to see all of my
> receipts because they "understand that a lot of parts and materials must
> be purchased in order to complete the aircraft. Verification that the
> sales tax has been paid must be presented". I am sure that others of us
> have confronted the same issue. Any ideas to help make this any less
> painful? I realize that each state and municipalities have separate tax
> laws, but I am looking for any helpful advice.
>
> This is just one more way that the government is making flying
> increasingly unaffordable. What is so amazing is that this plane may never
> touch a public runway or use any public facility, but yet the
> registration/tax notices keep coming.
>
> On the other hand, it is still cheaper than most countries.
>
> Gary O.
> Oshkosh S7
>
>
> --
> 11/27/2006
>
>
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: The Taxman cometh |
I would like to add one point to my original message. I understand the need for
the state to bring in revenue, I probably would not be quite so uptight about
this if it were not for the fact that the sales tax goes directly into Wisconsin's
general fund and the registration fees go into the D.O.T. fund. If these
fees/taxes went back into maintaining and operating the airport system, I would
be more accepting of the exorbitant fees associated with owning my aircraft
in this state.
Gary
----- Original Message ----
From: Jay Fabian <experimental208nd@comcast.net>
Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 1:10:47 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: The Taxman cometh
Actually in Taxachussetts, we donot have to pay sales tax on Aircraft (
Right after I registered mine of course).
Just to let you know
Jay
----- Original Message -----
From: "GAry Olson" <n113gb@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 12:55 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: The Taxman cometh
>
> Things just keep getting better in the land of taxes, oops, I mean
> Wisconsin. Shortly after registering my Kitfox with the FAA, a notice from
> the Dept. of Revenue shows up in my mailbox demanding their piece of the
> action. Within 2 weeks another letter is send with a deadline of 10 days
> for payment of the taxes due and a threat of lien placement. I went on to
> explain that the Kitfox is still in kit form and is a non-airworthy
> aircraft that is being build in my garage at home. So then comes the
> audit notice (10 days later) that states that they demand to see all of my
> receipts because they "understand that a lot of parts and materials must
> be purchased in order to complete the aircraft. Verification that the
> sales tax has been paid must be presented". I am sure that others of us
> have confronted the same issue. Any ideas to help make this any less
> painful? I realize that each state and municipalities have separate tax
> laws, but I am looking for any helpful advice.
>
> This is just one more way that the government is making flying
> increasingly unaffordable. What is so amazing is that this plane may never
> touch a public runway or use any public facility, but yet the
> registration/tax notices keep coming.
>
> On the other hand, it is still cheaper than most countries.
>
> Gary O.
> Oshkosh S7
>
>
> --
> 11/27/2006
>
>
Cheap talk?
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: Model II MTOW |
What's your kits s/n Dee?
do not archive
Dee Young <henrysfork1@msn.com> wrote:
When I got the kit there was conflicting information on gross so I opted for
the higher gross 1,050 llbs.
Dee
Do Not Archive
Noel says
>Thanks
>
>Did you have to do much in the way of mods to your airplane to get the 1050
>gross?
Marco Menezes
Model 2 582 N99KX
---------------------------------
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: The Taxman cometh |
Here's some refresher training for all of us when dealing with these moronic, pin-head,
bureaucrats:
1. Always get the name (first and last) and telephone number/extension of the person
who is telling you what to do.
2. Get it in writing from him or have them cite a reference that you have access
to (the State's tax law).
3. If it's good news then make sure you follow steps 1 and 2 or some moron from
from the cubilce next to the guy you originally talked to will write you a nasty-gram
and threated a lien on your property in a year.
If you are reading this, and you resemble the above-mentioned pin-headed bureaucrat,
and have access to my files, I'm just kidding...I love you guys.
--------
Dave
Speedster 912 UL
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=77400#77400
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: The Taxman cometh |
IMHO It sounds like the same kind of property tax model similar for
motor vehicles. For instance if you built a kit car from junk parts and
a kit chassis you could decide what it's value was based on whatever
receipts you might provide. It sounds like you can specify what the
value is by showing only sales receipts for the basic kit or whatever
you decide to show them. If it's like most states I think you will go to
your county DMV office and will encounter a clerk that wouldn't know a
Kitfox from a Quicksilver. Later you might provide more receipts that
would increase the taxable value if you wish. I don't think any state
Dept. of Revenue will continue to hound you for additional receipts
however. They may just continue to hit you for the yearly registration
fee based on what you originally provided. They probably won't send an
expert out to see the airplane because I doubt they have any.
I call to the appropriate office to ask hypothetical questions might
prove enlightening.
Rex
Colorado
GAry Olson wrote:
>
>Things just keep getting better in the land of taxes, oops, I mean Wisconsin.
Shortly after registering my Kitfox with the FAA, a notice from the Dept. of Revenue
shows up in my mailbox demanding their piece of the action. Within 2 weeks
another letter is send with a deadline of 10 days for payment of the taxes
due and a threat of lien placement. I went on to explain that the Kitfox is still
in kit form and is a non-airworthy aircraft that is being build in my garage
at home. So then comes the audit notice (10 days later) that states that
they demand to see all of my receipts because they "understand that a lot of parts
and materials must be purchased in order to complete the aircraft. Verification
that the sales tax has been paid must be presented". I am sure that others
of us have confronted the same issue. Any ideas to help make this any less
painful? I realize that each state and municipalities have separate tax laws,
but I am looking for any helpful advice.
>
>This is just one more way that the government is making flying increasingly unaffordable.
What is so amazing is that this plane may never touch a public runway
or use any public facility, but yet the registration/tax notices keep coming.
>
>On the other hand, it is still cheaper than most countries.
>
>Gary O.
>Oshkosh S7
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
Karla and Rex Hefferan
Gypsy Bee Innkeepers
719-651-5198 or 719-651-9192
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: Low spot in fuel system |
Okay, I have gotten a lot of good comments.
Don, the fuel valve I have is not the one Service Bulletin #42 addresses about
leaking. The fuel line is 5/16ths (OD) aluminum. However, I do remember the
flap about the valve on the kitfox List way back when. I never could determine
what the part number was for the valve they were talking about.
Lynn, I have considered moving the valve but I cannot find a better spot (with
a down hill slope all the way from the tank to the gascolator) for it.
Lowell, is your 4 a classic or model 4 1200. My theory is: My Classic 4 was one
of the first Classic 4's and was caught in a transition period of phasing into
the behind the seat header tank. I got stuck with the panel tank.
I have done some checking with a level today. With the tail on the ground the
fuel valve is level with the tank outlet. With the plane level the fuel valve
is five inches above the tank outlet and the bottom two gallons in the nose tank
are below the fuel valve level.
I wrote in my builder's log during my fuel flow tests the nose tank drained completely
with the plane in a nose high attitude. I guess I better do another flow
test with the plane level to find out if those bottom two gallons are useable.
John, I also have a 13 gallon tank in the right wing. I have a left wing tank
on the shelf in the shop. I figured 36 gallons was over kill for the little
Kitfox. I like your setup with the three way valve. I am going to give that
some serious consideration.
Thanks for the ideas everyone,
Tom Jones
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=77411#77411
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: The Taxman cometh |
In my case they actually needed pictures before they would allow the
un-airworthy registration. If it was a certified airplane they said they
would need a sign off of un-airworthy from an A&P or IA. Using their logic
if you purchased a Subaru or any other auto which was crashed with the
intent of using the motor in a project you would have to pay the tax on the
car purchase and also on the value of the car when you did the aircraft
registration. In Wisconsin I have been asked to prove my purchase price
when I have found real good deals on cars. They don't want to miss out on
any tax by someone misreporting the purchase price. Oh and don't forget to
pay the tax due on all those Ebay and Barnstormers purchases..Yeah right...
Dave
At 03:43 PM 11/27/2006, you wrote:
>
> IMHO It sounds like the same kind of property tax model similar for
> motor vehicles. For instance if you built a kit car from junk parts and a
> kit chassis you could decide what it's value was based on whatever
> receipts you might provide. It sounds like you can specify what the value
> is by showing only sales receipts for the basic kit or whatever you
> decide to show them. If it's like most states I think you will go to your
> county DMV office and will encounter a clerk that wouldn't know a Kitfox
> from a Quicksilver. Later you might provide more receipts that would
> increase the taxable value if you wish. I don't think any state Dept. of
> Revenue will continue to hound you for additional receipts however. They
> may just continue to hit you for the yearly registration fee based on
> what you originally provided. They probably won't send an expert out to
> see the airplane because I doubt they have any.
>I call to the appropriate office to ask hypothetical questions might prove
>enlightening.
>
>Rex
>Colorado
>
>GAry Olson wrote:
>
>>
>>Things just keep getting better in the land of taxes, oops, I mean
>>Wisconsin. Shortly after registering my Kitfox with the FAA, a notice
>>from the Dept. of Revenue shows up in my mailbox demanding their piece of
>>the action. Within 2 weeks another letter is send with a deadline of 10
>>days for payment of the taxes due and a threat of lien placement. I went
>>on to explain that the Kitfox is still in kit form and is a non-airworthy
>>aircraft that is being build in my garage at home. So then comes the
>>audit notice (10 days later) that states that they demand to see all of
>>my receipts because they "understand that a lot of parts and materials
>>must be purchased in order to complete the aircraft. Verification that
>>the sales tax has been paid must be presented". I am sure that others of
>>us have confronted the same issue. Any ideas to help make this any less
>>painful? I realize that each state and municipalities have separate tax
>>laws, but I am looking for any helpful advice.
>>This is just one more way that the government is making flying
>>increasingly unaffordable. What is so amazing is that this plane may
>>never touch a public runway or use any public facility, but yet the
>>registration/tax notices keep coming.
>>On the other hand, it is still cheaper than most countries.
>>Gary O.
>>Oshkosh S7
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>--
>Karla and Rex Hefferan
>Gypsy Bee Innkeepers
>719-651-5198 or 719-651-9192
>
>
Message 24
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: The Taxman cometh |
Mine is even worse in Mississippi. I purchased a kit that was barely
started. I got the engine from another source, the fabric another, the instruments
another, etc. I got the notice from the tax folks and told them I didn't
buy a plane, I bought a lot of parts from different sources. They said "Oh, in
that case the tax on parts is 7% instead of the regular 3% on a flying
plane". Oh well !!!
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: The Taxman cometh |
At 09:55 AM 11/27/2006, you wrote:
>Any ideas to help make this any less painful? I realize that each state
>and municipalities have separate tax laws, but I am looking for any
>helpful advice.
My recommendations based on personal experience which I will never relate
in any fashion that can be recorded anywhere:
1. If you are like me you are exceptionally stupid and disorganized and had
no idea you were supposed to keep records of any kind. Ask lots of questions.
2. Contact a proficient attorney. I'm assuming you owe sales taxes just as
you would if you bought anything in Wisconsin, but there might be some kind
of exemption for aircraft, or for kits or for interstate commerce, etc.
3. Ask the State to estimate the taxes owed NOW; they know it. (They
probably got it from Skystar or KitfoxLLC.) In at least ONE state there is
NO requirement that an individual maintain permanent records of any kind,
for any reason. There is, of course, also no requirement that you remember
how much you paid for anything, let alone have a hard copy receipt.
(Corporations, yes; individuals, no. See the attorney for Wisconsin laws.)
4. Pay the taxes owed now, now. They only go up. Save that record.
5. I doubt the state can force you to continuously send them future
receipts for audit; they can usually only conduct audits of past activity.
If you don't keep records, the only thing they can audit is the records of
the corporations with which you deal. (See the attorney.)
Good Luck,
Guy Buchanan
K-IV 1200 / 582-C / Warp / 100% done, thanks mostly to Bob Ducar.
Do not archive
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: Low spot in fuel system |
At 07:21 AM 11/27/2006, you wrote:
>The rear mounted header tank has several downward then upward runs of fuel
>line to the shut off valve and engine moun ted fuel pump.
My poly header tank is mounted as low as possible on the aft side of the
seat bulkhead. At 3-point rest, (taildragger,) all fuel lines run
continuously down-hill to the header tank, with the exception of the filter
which is mounted horizontal and can therefore trap some water. (I thought
about moving it to the firewall, but decided to fly it this way first. I
wasn't sure I wanted it in the hot environment.) In flight the line drops
about 4" from the header to the floor near the control column, then starts
climbing toward the pulse pump on the firewall. My system will, therefore,
trap any water coming from the main tanks in the header tank, but might
also trap water in the filter downstream of the header, coming from I don't
know where. I'll have to give stronger consideration to moving the filter
so it is vertical.
Guy Buchanan
K-IV 1200 / 582-C / Warp / 100% done, thanks mostly to Bob Ducar.
Message 27
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: The Taxman cometh |
A thought here. Wisconsin is a state where arguably the biggest event in
the state, unless the Packers are in the Super Bowl, is Airventure.
Everyone there is aware of what a Home Built airplane is and all the
ramifications - receipts beyond the kit price and on and on. I guess living
too close to Mecca might just put oneself in the spotlight.
I had an interesting tax situation here in Calif where I was forgotten for
about four years and due to my fear of penalties, I did a bit of research,
made an appointment with the tax guy, met with him with my documents and
proceeded to wait another three years before they hit me with the tax bill.
After some gentle protestations, all came out OK as the tax was fair and
only for the current year.
Lowell
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Wahlquist" <wahlquist@ics.uwex.edu>
Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 2:16 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: The Taxman cometh
>
> In my case they actually needed pictures before they would allow the
> un-airworthy registration. If it was a certified airplane they said they
> would need a sign off of un-airworthy from an A&P or IA. Using their
> logic if you purchased a Subaru or any other auto which was crashed with
> the intent of using the motor in a project you would have to pay the tax
> on the car purchase and also on the value of the car when you did the
> aircraft registration. In Wisconsin I have been asked to prove my purchase
> price when I have found real good deals on cars. They don't want to miss
> out on any tax by someone misreporting the purchase price. Oh and don't
> forget to pay the tax due on all those Ebay and Barnstormers
> purchases..Yeah right...
>
> Dave
>
> At 03:43 PM 11/27/2006, you wrote:
>><hefferans@gmail.com>
>>
>> IMHO It sounds like the same kind of property tax model similar for
>> motor vehicles. For instance if you built a kit car from junk parts and a
>> kit chassis you could decide what it's value was based on whatever
>> receipts you might provide. It sounds like you can specify what the value
>> is by showing only sales receipts for the basic kit or whatever you
>> decide to show them. If it's like most states I think you will go to your
>> county DMV office and will encounter a clerk that wouldn't know a Kitfox
>> from a Quicksilver. Later you might provide more receipts that would
>> increase the taxable value if you wish. I don't think any state Dept. of
>> Revenue will continue to hound you for additional receipts however. They
>> may just continue to hit you for the yearly registration fee based on
>> what you originally provided. They probably won't send an expert out to
>> see the airplane because I doubt they have any.
>>I call to the appropriate office to ask hypothetical questions might prove
>>enlightening.
>>
>>Rex
>>Colorado
>>
>>GAry Olson wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Things just keep getting better in the land of taxes, oops, I mean
>>>Wisconsin. Shortly after registering my Kitfox with the FAA, a notice
>>>from the Dept. of Revenue shows up in my mailbox demanding their piece of
>>>the action. Within 2 weeks another letter is send with a deadline of 10
>>>days for payment of the taxes due and a threat of lien placement. I went
>>>on to explain that the Kitfox is still in kit form and is a non-airworthy
>>>aircraft that is being build in my garage at home. So then comes the
>>>audit notice (10 days later) that states that they demand to see all of
>>>my receipts because they "understand that a lot of parts and materials
>>>must be purchased in order to complete the aircraft. Verification that
>>>the sales tax has been paid must be presented". I am sure that others of
>>>us have confronted the same issue. Any ideas to help make this any less
>>>painful? I realize that each state and municipalities have separate tax
>>>laws, but I am looking for any helpful advice.
>>>This is just one more way that the government is making flying
>>>increasingly unaffordable. What is so amazing is that this plane may
>>>never touch a public runway or use any public facility, but yet the
>>>registration/tax notices keep coming.
>>>On the other hand, it is still cheaper than most countries.
>>>Gary O.
>>>Oshkosh S7
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>--
>>Karla and Rex Hefferan
>>Gypsy Bee Innkeepers
>>719-651-5198 or 719-651-9192
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
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: Low spot in fuel system |
Tom,
My airplane is a Model IV-1200 which came out in 1992 just after the Model
IV-1050. The Classic IV was reintrocuced much later after Ed Downs returned
to Skystar replacing Ray Caldwell who had cancelled the Model IV-1200 during
his tenure as SS President. You may have the IV-1050 if it has the panel
tank.
Lowell
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Jones" <nahsikhs@elltel.net>
Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 1:52 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Low spot in fuel system
>
> Okay, I have gotten a lot of good comments.
>
> Don, the fuel valve I have is not the one Service Bulletin #42 addresses
> about leaking. The fuel line is 5/16ths (OD) aluminum. However, I do
> remember the flap about the valve on the kitfox List way back when. I
> never could determine what the part number was for the valve they were
> talking about.
>
> Lynn, I have considered moving the valve but I cannot find a better spot
> (with a down hill slope all the way from the tank to the gascolator) for
> it.
>
> Lowell, is your 4 a classic or model 4 1200. My theory is: My Classic 4
> was one of the first Classic 4's and was caught in a transition period of
> phasing into the behind the seat header tank. I got stuck with the panel
> tank.
>
> I have done some checking with a level today. With the tail on the ground
> the fuel valve is level with the tank outlet. With the plane level the
> fuel valve is five inches above the tank outlet and the bottom two gallons
> in the nose tank are below the fuel valve level.
>
> I wrote in my builder's log during my fuel flow tests the nose tank
> drained completely with the plane in a nose high attitude. I guess I
> better do another flow test with the plane level to find out if those
> bottom two gallons are useable.
>
> John, I also have a 13 gallon tank in the right wing. I have a left wing
> tank on the shelf in the shop. I figured 36 gallons was over kill for the
> little Kitfox. I like your setup with the three way valve. I am going to
> give that some serious consideration.
>
> Thanks for the ideas everyone,
> Tom Jones
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=77411#77411
>
>
>
Message 29
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Ever had this happen? |
[quote="Float Flyr"]
When I saw the first "Chamois" filter I was surprised to find out that what
they were actually using was a felt. One of the properties of felt is it
stops the flow of water while passing gasoline.
[quote] --[/quote]
Noel, I had an old car that used felt for the crankshaft seal. This was old-fashioned
engineering but apparently common. I understand those seals would give
about a year or two of good service, so rubber and/or silicone shaft seals must
have been quite an improvement back in the day.
Do not archive
Jim in NW FL
Series 7 in progress
--------
Jim in NW FL
Kitfox Series 7 in progress
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=77435#77435
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: | Tail Dragger Endorsement |
From: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys@yahoo.ca>
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Re: Taildraggers
I'm not saying the FAA is wrong on this one... In fact they are probably
right. However in other countries around the world there is no tail
wheel
endorsement.
Noel,
in Australia most of us fly our Kitfox's under RAAus [
Recreational Aviation Australia --- used to be AUF, Australian
Ultralight Federation ] and under that these days you automatically get
a certificate for tricycle only and have to then earn a tail dragger
endorsement that in actual fact just wipes the "T" for tricycle only.
I'm not sure if one can train in a tai dragger in the first place and
avoid ever getting the "T" Actually it can be a bit hard getting tail
wheel training here. I did my original training in the club tricycle
Jabiru then my tail dragger endorsement in my Kitfox per favour my
friend who is our club CFI. Our rules allow this in our Technical Manual
section 3.3 clauses 2&3 but a few months ago our magazine said we could
not train in our own planes. I wrote in pointing out you could and got
an answer back that they would probably interperet it differently.
However that's rubbish it really is very clear. I think the problem is
it kind of puts pressure on Intructors to train in any plane someone
fronts up with and they may not be comfortable in some.
If you get your licence under General Aviation I'm not sure how it all
goes. We all chose RAAus though because we can do our own maintainence
and get cheap 3rd party insurance. It's about $150/yr for licence and
insurance. Now $5 million.
Rex.
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 |
|
Try again Marco...Nothing came through.
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Marco Menezes
Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 5:14 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Model II MTOW
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: | Tail Dragger Endorsement |
I have a friend who is an UL instructor. I was talking to him the other
day
about float training. Apparently it is difficult if not impossible for
an
instructor to get insurance to teach ultralight flight on floats. He
has to
personally check he is insured on each and every plane to instruct on
that
plane. Then he will do a pretty in depth inspection of the plane before
he
starts instructing.
The major problem he has is, in this neck of the woods there are
virtually
no wheeled ultralight planes. Everybody wants to fly floats... There
are a
few who have the Full Lotus floats and fly them year round. they work
pretty good on ice, snow and, I've been told wet grass in a pinch.
When I did my training the flight school wouldn't allow me to fly my
'Fox.
I had to do all my training on a C172... I found that plane to be a lot
more demanding than the 'Fox. In hindsight it would have been an
improvement to have been able to do at least some of my solo time in the
Kitfox. More fut too!! That decision was made entirely by the flight
school and many UL pilots do all their training on their own planes.
I checked with the grand Pu-bah at Transport Canada (east) this
morning...
There is definitely on tail wheel endorsement in Canada. We also don't
have
an endorsement for in flight adjustable props. I believe the basic
Ultralight Pilot Permit (UL-PP) can be achieved in as low as fifteen
hours
on your own plane. Also there is no requirement for a UL-PP to have a
float
endorsement. A UL-PP may also fly any two place aircraft that is less
than
1200lb. MTOW and has a Vso of 39 kt. ( 45mph ) or less.
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rex Shaw
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 4:01 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Tail Dragger Endorsement
From: "Noel Loveys" < <mailto:noelloveys@yahoo.ca> noelloveys@yahoo.ca>
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Re: Taildraggers
I'm not saying the FAA is wrong on this one... In fact they are probably
right. However in other countries around the world there is no tail
wheel
endorsement.
Noel,
in Australia most of us fly our Kitfox's under RAAus [
Recreational Aviation Australia --- used to be AUF, Australian
Ultralight
Federation ] and under that these days you automatically get a
certificate
for tricycle only and have to then earn a tail dragger endorsement that
in
actual fact just wipes the "T" for tricycle only.
I'm not sure if one can train in a tai dragger in the first place and
avoid ever getting the "T" Actually it can be a bit hard getting tail
wheel
training here. I did my original training in the club tricycle Jabiru
then
my tail dragger endorsement in my Kitfox per favour my friend who is our
club CFI. Our rules allow this in our Technical Manual section 3.3
clauses
2&3 but a few months ago our magazine said we could not train in our own
planes. I wrote in pointing out you could and got an answer back that
they
would probably interperet it differently. However that's rubbish it
really
is very clear. I think the problem is it kind of puts pressure on
Intructors
to train in any plane someone fronts up with and they may not be
comfortable
in some.
If you get your licence under General Aviation I'm not sure how it all
goes. We all chose RAAus though because we can do our own maintainence
and
get cheap 3rd party insurance. It's about $150/yr for licence and
insurance.
Now $5 million.
Rex.
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: off topic PA 28 crash |
Years ago I was in ANC listening to 3 bush pilots tell
stories. One was treated as the "boy" because he had
less than 30 years bush experience. This is why I was
just listening.....
Anyway, one spoke of a CFIT he did years earlier in
his Cub when he was the "boy". He flew around a
mountain and right into a snow storm white out. After
a few seconds he spotted a 55 gal drum off his wing
snd tried to make a 180 around it as a reference.
Puff, into the snow covered hill he went. When he
crawled out of the plane he discovered it was a coke
can and not a drum.
Being bush pilots, I am sure it was a true story. ;-)
Kurt S.
--- akflyer <akflyer_2000@yahoo.com> wrote:
> CFIT is the number one killer up here in alaska..
> Controlled Flight Into Terrain. Generally speaking,
> it is when a pilot takes a perfectly good aircraft,
> make a few dumb mistakes (such and flying into a
> mountain pass in bad weather) and procedes to make
> himself a permanent part of the terrain..
>
> oh yeah... and to keep it relevant, I hope no one
> from this list does this in a KITFOX.
>
> --------
> Leni
> Avid C W/582
> 1260 full lotus
>
> .......DO NOT ARCHIVE.....
Want to start your own business?
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/r-index
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! --
|