Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 01:33 AM - Re: KitFox Model II (Don and Dianne Usher)
2. 03:36 AM - Re: KitFox Model II (dave)
3. 05:36 AM - Re: 0-235 vs Turbo Subaru (Glenn Horne)
4. 05:38 AM - Re: 0-235 vs Turbo Subaru (Clifford Begnaud)
5. 05:41 AM - Re:Clear Fuel Line Recommendation (Larry Martin)
6. 06:14 AM - Re: 0-235 vs Turbo Subaru (john perry)
7. 06:17 AM - Re: Kitfox Upgrades (Michael Gibbs)
8. 06:43 AM - Re: Vixen: Fuel Gauge Leak.. and Clear Fuel Line Recommendation (Lynn Matteson)
9. 06:44 AM - Re: Vixen: Fuel Gauge Leak.. and Clear Fuel Line Recommendation (FlyboyTR)
10. 07:21 AM - Re: Oil Filter Thoughts (wwillyard@aol.com)
11. 07:45 AM - Rotax Oil Filter By Pass Pressure (Jimmie Blackwell)
12. 08:25 AM - Re: Vixen: Fuel Gauge Leak.. and Clear Fuel Line Recommendation (Guy Buchanan)
13. 08:41 AM - Re: 0-235 vs Turbo Subaru (Rueb, Duane)
14. 10:37 AM - Re: Vixen: Fuel Gauge Leak.. and Clear Fuel Line Recommendation (W Duke)
15. 10:52 AM - Re: 0-235 vs Turbo Subaru (Fox5flyer)
16. 11:05 AM - Re: Oil Filter Thoughts (Noel Loveys)
17. 11:50 AM - Re: 0-235 vs Turbo Subaru (Rueb, Duane)
18. 11:57 AM - Re: 0-235 vs Turbo Subaru (Glenn Horne)
19. 12:04 PM - Re: 0-235 vs Turbo Subaru (dave)
20. 01:08 PM - Re: Re:Clear Fuel Line Recommendation (Don Smythe)
21. 04:09 PM - Re: Oil Filter Thoughts (Sjklerks@aol.com)
22. 04:57 PM - Rotax 582 plugs (Rex Shaw)
23. 05:15 PM - Tail wheels (Rex Shaw)
24. 05:21 PM - Re: Rotax 582 plugs (dave)
25. 05:27 PM - Re: Tail wheels (dave)
26. 06:01 PM - Re: Rotax 582 plugs (Don Smythe)
27. 06:34 PM - Re: Rotax 582 plugs (dave)
28. 06:45 PM - Re: Rotax 582 plugs (dave)
29. 06:45 PM - Skis for Kitfox's (Lynn Matteson)
30. 07:11 PM - Kitfox as a Lite Sport (dcsfoto)
31. 07:20 PM - Re: Tail wheels (Lynn Matteson)
32. 07:42 PM - Re: Tail wheels (john perry)
33. 09:16 PM - Re: Rotax 582 plugs (Guy Buchanan)
34. 09:21 PM - Re: Kitfox as a Lite Sport (ron schick)
35. 10:07 PM - Re: Kitfox as a Lite Sport (kurt schrader)
36. 10:09 PM - Re: Kitfox as a Lite Sport (Alan Daniels)
37. 10:09 PM - Re: Skis for Kitfox's (kurt schrader)
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: KitFox Model II |
You are asking too much for your plane. I just bought a brand new mod 3
with 582 for 16,500, and barnstormers has others also for less.
don
----- Original Message -----
From: Glenn Horne
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 3:56 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: KitFox Model II
I have put my KitFox up for sale. I have
put it on Barnstormers and also on EBay.
The Item Number on EBay is 280057173786
Anyone looking for a nice model II check it out.
Glenn Horne Model II
Suffolk, Virginia.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
12/2/2006
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: KitFox Model II |
I think this is great , Kitfoxes have been selling at huge discount
for year to cost of building.
Don, you should be thankful that your investment has grown so quickly.
Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: Don and Dianne Usher
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 4:31 AM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: KitFox Model II
You are asking too much for your plane. I just bought a brand new mod
3 with 582 for 16,500, and barnstormers has others also for less.
don
----- Original Message -----
From: Glenn Horne
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 3:56 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: KitFox Model II
I have put my KitFox up for sale. I have
put it on Barnstormers and also on EBay.
The Item Number on EBay is 280057173786
Anyone looking for a nice model II check it out.
Glenn Horne Model II
Suffolk, Virginia.
href="http://www.aeroelectric.com">www.aeroelectric.com
href="http://www.buildersbooks.com">www.buildersbooks.com
href="http://www.kitlog.com">www.kitlog.com
href="http://www.homebuilthelp.com">www.homebuilthelp.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List">http://www.matron
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
Date: 12/2/2006
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: 0-235 vs Turbo Subaru |
The Lyc. No question about it. There are only two engine to fly behind.Lyc.
7 Cont.
GG
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Corner" <jcorner@shaw.ca>
Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 12:12 AM
Subject: Kitfox-List: 0-235 vs Turbo Subaru
>
> This is maybe a problem that most of you wish you had..... and to many
> the answer might be very obvious.
>
> I have 1 each of the above two engines, one I purchased and the other I
> received on a debt owing. For this question assume that installed cost
> is about the same.
>
> Installed weights are about the same...... and one of these engines is
> going into a Kitfox Model 5, I just can't seem to make a final decision
> and stick with it.
>
> The Sube has more power 150+ vs 115 for the Lyc
>
> The Lyc has a longer proven history of reliability, and perhaps a little
> easier to install and maintain.
>
> The S5 Kitfox will be equipped for night flying, i don't expect any hard
> IFR, floats may come later.
>
> One week I am convinced that I will install the Sube, next the Lyc.
>
> Have to make up my mind very soon, pre-cover inspection coming right up.
>
> Which one should I install? Comments appreciated.
>
> Jim
>
> PS: I currently fly a Model 2, 582 s/n 575 just over 1100 hrs.
>
>
>
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: 0-235 vs Turbo Subaru |
Jim,
I have the Lycoming on a model 5 and have been very happy with it. Lots of
torque to turn a big prop which gives great take off and climb performance.
Cruise speed is good also (130 mph at 5.2 gph) For floats I think the Lyc
might be the better choice.
The nice things about the subie are that it can burn auto gas and you can
install an inflight adjustable prop. For my taste though, the Lycoming is a
much simpler setup with fewer things to go wrong and you can get parts and
service on it anywhere.
good luck,
Cliff
>
> One week I am convinced that I will install the Sube, next the Lyc.
>
> Have to make up my mind very soon, pre-cover inspection coming right up.
>
> Which one should I install? Comments appreciated.
>
> Jim
>
> PS: I currently fly a Model 2, 582 s/n 575 just over 1100 hrs.
>
>
>
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:Clear Fuel Line Recommendation |
My line of choice is urethane hose available at any snowmobile/dirt bike
place. They have been using it for years and it stays flexible.
Locally, about $1.00/ft. I plan to redo all my lines with it this
spring.
larry
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: 0-235 vs Turbo Subaru |
I dont know who brain washed you but , your wrong . There are many engines
to fly behind . They are all mechanical and will break at some point . That
said I have flown behind 2 strokes and never had a engine out . I have
flown behind continentals and have had rods thrown threw the case . I have
flown behind subbies and never had a problem . ahve flown behind Lycomings
and had mags fail . HMMMMM whats the better engine , each to there own i
guess.
John Perry
----- Original Message -----
From: "Glenn Horne" <glennflys@verizon.net>
Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 7:28 AM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 0-235 vs Turbo Subaru
>
> The Lyc. No question about it. There are only two engine to fly
> behind.Lyc. 7 Cont.
> GG
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jim Corner" <jcorner@shaw.ca>
> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 12:12 AM
> Subject: Kitfox-List: 0-235 vs Turbo Subaru
>
>
>>
>> This is maybe a problem that most of you wish you had..... and to many
>> the answer might be very obvious.
>>
>> I have 1 each of the above two engines, one I purchased and the other I
>> received on a debt owing. For this question assume that installed cost
>> is about the same.
>>
>> Installed weights are about the same...... and one of these engines is
>> going into a Kitfox Model 5, I just can't seem to make a final decision
>> and stick with it.
>>
>> The Sube has more power 150+ vs 115 for the Lyc
>>
>> The Lyc has a longer proven history of reliability, and perhaps a
>> little easier to install and maintain.
>>
>> The S5 Kitfox will be equipped for night flying, i don't expect any hard
>> IFR, floats may come later.
>>
>> One week I am convinced that I will install the Sube, next the Lyc.
>>
>> Have to make up my mind very soon, pre-cover inspection coming right up.
>>
>> Which one should I install? Comments appreciated.
>>
>> Jim
>>
>> PS: I currently fly a Model 2, 582 s/n 575 just over 1100 hrs.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Kitfox Upgrades |
Deke sez:
>I can't speak personally for the under seat bins, but my
>recollection is that they're a PITA just to get to.
I found them to be quite handy for things like a bottle of fuel
additive, a quart of oil, and a couple of hand tools. I used the
ones that Murle Williams sells on his web site
<http://MurleWilliamsAviation.com/catalog.html>. Obviously, they are
not meant for items needed in flight.
I can't say for sure, but the way the bins were flattened during my
accident suggests that they also offered a small amount of energy
absorption that may have contributed to preventing more serious back
injuries for my passenger and I.
Dave sez:
>...I think I might go with a removable cargo pod instead of the seat
>things. Use it only for long trips.
A cargo pod is great if you have a need for one, I'm interested in
one myself. When attached, though, the pod weighs more than underseat
compartments and adds drag.
Margaret sez:
>I wanted to be able to access it in flight even with a passenger
>present. ...not much space, but it's good for maps and fuel
>strainers and stuff like that.
That sort of thing goes in my glove box.
Mike G.
N728KF
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: Vixen: Fuel Gauge Leak.. and Clear Fuel Line Recommendation |
A question: when you folks say "ACS", are you referring to Aircraft
Spruce, or is this another company that I'm unaware of? The (seemingly)
extra "C" maybe is throwing me off.
Lynn
On Tuesday, December 5, 2006, at 10:36 PM, Guy Buchanan wrote:
>
> At 04:06 PM 12/5/2006, you wrote:
>> I would like to know what is now (since I've been away from flying
>> for some time...) considered to be the best clear fuel line for this
>> type of application?
>
> I like the Bing Blue out of ACS. (Bing Alcohol Resistant Fuel Line.)
> It got rave reviews on past web searches and is pre-discolored for
> 100LL. ;-)
>
>
> Guy Buchanan
> K-IV 1200 / 582-C / Warp / 100% done, thanks mostly to Bob Ducar.
>
>
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Vixen: Fuel Gauge Leak.. and Clear Fuel Line Recommendation |
Randy and Guy,
Thanks for the info. I had been reading about the yellow Tygon and decided to
go with that. I ordered it from United States Plastic Corp. along with a bunch
of other stuff. Great price on yellow plastic bins, etc.
http://www.usplastic.com/catalog/default.asp
Thanks again!
Travis :)
--------
Travis Rayner
Mobile, AL
Skystar Vixen
N-789DF
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=79545#79545
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: Oil Filter Thoughts |
Lowell I agree with your thoughts and have made the same observations.
Bill W.
DO NOT ARCHIVE
I also agree with Nicks thoughts. The bypass comes in to play, in my estimation
with an abused system - inadequate oil changes.
I have thought a lot about the tendency of the oil draining into the crank case
from the tank and possible solutions. I have to "burp" mine before flight as
well and in the past, it took fewer compression strokes after an oil change, then
progressively more as the hours mounted.
The geometry of the system is as mike states. The oil tank being higher than the
Rotax recommended position will siphon the oil in the tank back to the crankcase.
This actually sould be stated as "forward" into the crank case as the return
line is higher than the oil level in the tank and any movement of oil from
the tank to the crank case is in a forward direction through the pick-up line
- tank, pick-up tube, oil cooler, oil pump, oil filter oil journals and crank
case. Neither the bypass valve nor the anti-drainback valve are involved with
the movement of the oil because there is very little pressure and the oil is
moving from the tank to the engine in the normal direction.
Since the oil is purged from the crank case by blowby gasses, I always thought
the relative fit of the rings and valves would determine the bypass pressure and
be the predominant factor in the number of compression strokes needed to fill
the oil tank, i.e., a good tight engine - low bypass gasses and lots of strokes,
a tired worn engine (or a new engine) with lots of bypass - few strokes.
I think other factors involved are oil temperatures - thickness of the oil and
the duration between flights. My guess is that most of the flow from the tank
occurs immediately after shutdown when the oil is warm and relatively thinner.
I have burped several days before a flight and the oil remained fairly high
on the dipstick at flight time.
Much of this is opinion and I am interested in other's thoughts.
Lowell
________________________________________________________________________
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: | Rotax Oil Filter By Pass Pressure |
I just acquired informtion on the by pass pressure of the Rotax oil
filter. It is 13 - 16 psi. Carquest filter, which is made by Wix, is 8
- 11 psi. With this in mind is the Carquest filter ok to use? I am far
from an expert on this issue, but would like to hear the opinions of
those with more knowledge and experience.
Jimmie
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: Vixen: Fuel Gauge Leak.. and Clear Fuel Line Recommendation |
At 06:43 AM 12/6/2006, you wrote:
>A question: when you folks say "ACS", are you referring to Aircraft
>Spruce, or is this another company that I'm unaware of?
That's it! I guess it just looks better than AS.
Guy Buchanan
K-IV 1200 / 582-C / Warp / 100% done, thanks mostly to Bob Ducar.
Do not archive
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: | 0-235 vs Turbo Subaru |
Jim:
Direct drive and a single cooling system, maintainability
'anywhere' would favor the Lycoming. Assuming that both engines are in
good serviceable condition, I know which one I would rather be flying
behind when, say approximately 100 miles west of Denver at 13,500 ft.
(for a brief period). I would definitely vote for the Lycoming at that
time.
The "real ones" are often criticized for being behind the times,
but the truth is that they are tried and true, and have the advantage of
being designed from the ground up as aircraft engines, and have
benefited from years of improvement, and advances of material science.
Since aircraft engines experience a very different operational profile
than car engines, putting out 100% power at every takeoff, and then
65-75% continuously thereafter, until descent and landing, all of their
parts were designed with that operation profile in mind, from the
crankshaft to the valves. They are often compared to tractor engines,
and with good reason, since a tractor also needs to put out a high
percentage of its power continuously. Tractor engines are, of course,
heavy, so they are not a good choice for airplanes.
The "real ones" have been developed to produce the most power at
the least weight, retaining the highest reliability possible. System
simplicity is one of the ways that this is achieved.
Now, we Kitfox pilots are flying airplanes that are in the class
called "experimental", so this opens the door for trying different
things, which is the decision that you are of course struggling with.
I would try to make the choice depending on where my flights are likely
to be carried out, just how much night flight you anticipate, and how
much you will 'enjoy' the systems complication associated with the
Subbie.
Also try to remember how the different engines and especially
their major components look to you comparatively whenever you have seen
them displayed at shows. Here is where I rest my case for the "real
ones", but if your anticipated flight profiles give you the opportunity
to experiment with your power unit, then use the car engine, and join
the ranks of those who are in a continuous mode of solving carburetor
problems, cooling leaks, gearbox issues, and head gasket concerns,
ignition system questions, oil leaks, not to mention the stress factors
that arise due to the loads that are passed through an engine that was
designed to be connected to a bell housing/transmission, and not to have
the gyro loads of a propeller induced into its 'block' and then taken on
through to a mounting system that was not the one considered by its
designer. Your type 5 is well able to do mild aerobatics, so if you
anticipate doing any of these, then you would want to be sure your power
unit will not get sick before you do.
Yes, I know, some of the most famous military craft have liquid
cooling, and a geared propeller. They also were designed from the
ground up as aircraft, and military ones at that, so I contend that they
make a poor comparison or justification for those systems in a civilian
light plane.
Whichever you choose, do install the "help me Joe" kit offered
by John McBean, this will do wonders to refine the control system, and
keep the back pressure needed under control on approaches, since you
will have an airplane that tends to be nose heavy, and the elevator has
no aero-counter force designed in. This spring coupling is designed
for the model 5's thru 7's, and in my opinion is an essential
improvement when heavier engines are used.
Duane Rueb, N24ZM
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Glenn Horne
Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 5:29 AM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 0-235 vs Turbo Subaru
The Lyc. No question about it. There are only two engine to fly
behind.Lyc.
7 Cont.
GG
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Corner" <jcorner@shaw.ca>
Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 12:12 AM
Subject: Kitfox-List: 0-235 vs Turbo Subaru
>
> This is maybe a problem that most of you wish you had..... and to
many
> the answer might be very obvious.
>
> I have 1 each of the above two engines, one I purchased and the other
I
> received on a debt owing. For this question assume that installed
cost
> is about the same.
>
> Installed weights are about the same...... and one of these engines
is
> going into a Kitfox Model 5, I just can't seem to make a final
decision
> and stick with it.
>
> The Sube has more power 150+ vs 115 for the Lyc
>
> The Lyc has a longer proven history of reliability, and perhaps a
little
> easier to install and maintain.
>
> The S5 Kitfox will be equipped for night flying, i don't expect any
hard
> IFR, floats may come later.
>
> One week I am convinced that I will install the Sube, next the Lyc.
>
> Have to make up my mind very soon, pre-cover inspection coming right
up.
>
> Which one should I install? Comments appreciated.
>
> Jim
>
> PS: I currently fly a Model 2, 582 s/n 575 just over 1100 hrs.
>
>
>
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: Vixen: Fuel Gauge Leak.. and Clear Fuel Line Recommendation |
Hi,
I also have the IO240. I was aware of the service bulletin and I am dreading
the apparently inevitable. I was curious how many hours were on your engine
at the time of failure. I think Danny Melnick had a failure at something like
250 hours.
Unfortunately I have no experience with clear fuel tubing to share.
Thanks,
Maxwell S6/TD/IO240
FlyboyTR <flyboytr@bellsouth.net> wrote:
I have been having on-going issues with my Vixen. The engine is currently off awaiting parts for the Continental IO-240 starter. This is the link to that problem if you're interested. http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?t=19174
Yesterday I noticed fuel dripping off the side of the plane. According to the fuel
gauges I had lost around 14 gallons! It was dripping out of the wing, running
into the aileron...dripping out of the aileron and down the side of the fuselage.
Turned the fuel valves off and siphoned the tank. Today we folded the
right wing to access the fuel fittings. There was nothing obvious until I realized
the sight gauge fitting at the bottom was loose...it would move in and out
about 1/8". This is the semi rigid gauge. Removed, inspected and determined
it had to be the culprit...just loose! Reinstalled and everything is dry. I will
check the other side tomorrow!
Before re-installing the sight gauge I cut a length of red spray spout tubing (the
little hose that comes on a can of WD-40, etc) and inserted it into the sight
gauge. I had read about this in an old post but there was no mention of how
well it worked. As I was adding fuel (checking for the leak) my wife was the
first to notice the difference in ease of reading the sight gauge. I was quite
impressed when I looked at it...much easier to see and identify the fuel level.
Now, to my needs... :) I want to replace the clear fuel line that runs from the
header tank (behind the seat) to the top of the right fuel tank. In years past
I have used vinyl fuel line but always had easy access for inspection purposes.
I would like to know what is now (since I've been away from flying for some
time...) considered to be the best clear fuel line for this type of application?
ID is 1/4". As always, any and all help/input will be greatly appreciated.
Thanks!
Travis :)
--------
Travis Rayner
Mobile, AL
Skystar Vixen
N-789DF
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=79440#79440
Maxwell Duke
S6/IO240/Phase II Flight Testing
---------------------------------
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: 0-235 vs Turbo Subaru |
Good narrative Duane. Even though I'm a Soob driver I agree with all of it.
However, if it weren't for us experimenters, even the Lycosaurs' and Conts
wouldn't be around today. :-)
It sounds as if you must have installed the spring coupler in 24ZM. Can you
be more specific on how it works, what is included with the kit, and what it
costs?
Thanks,
Deke
>
> Jim:
>
> Direct drive and a single cooling system, maintainability
> 'anywhere' would favor the Lycoming. Assuming that both engines are in
> good serviceable condition, I know which one I would rather be flying
> behind when, say approximately 100 miles west of Denver at 13,500 ft.
> (for a brief period). I would definitely vote for the Lycoming at that
> time.
> The "real ones" are often criticized for being behind the times,
> but the truth is that they are tried and true, and have the advantage of
> being designed from the ground up as aircraft engines, and have
> benefited from years of improvement, and advances of material science.
> Since aircraft engines experience a very different operational profile
> than car engines, putting out 100% power at every takeoff, and then
> 65-75% continuously thereafter, until descent and landing, all of their
> parts were designed with that operation profile in mind, from the
> crankshaft to the valves. They are often compared to tractor engines,
> and with good reason, since a tractor also needs to put out a high
> percentage of its power continuously. Tractor engines are, of course,
> heavy, so they are not a good choice for airplanes.
> The "real ones" have been developed to produce the most power at
> the least weight, retaining the highest reliability possible. System
> simplicity is one of the ways that this is achieved.
> Now, we Kitfox pilots are flying airplanes that are in the class
> called "experimental", so this opens the door for trying different
> things, which is the decision that you are of course struggling with.
> I would try to make the choice depending on where my flights are likely
> to be carried out, just how much night flight you anticipate, and how
> much you will 'enjoy' the systems complication associated with the
> Subbie.
> Also try to remember how the different engines and especially
> their major components look to you comparatively whenever you have seen
> them displayed at shows. Here is where I rest my case for the "real
> ones", but if your anticipated flight profiles give you the opportunity
> to experiment with your power unit, then use the car engine, and join
> the ranks of those who are in a continuous mode of solving carburetor
> problems, cooling leaks, gearbox issues, and head gasket concerns,
> ignition system questions, oil leaks, not to mention the stress factors
> that arise due to the loads that are passed through an engine that was
> designed to be connected to a bell housing/transmission, and not to have
> the gyro loads of a propeller induced into its 'block' and then taken on
> through to a mounting system that was not the one considered by its
> designer. Your type 5 is well able to do mild aerobatics, so if you
> anticipate doing any of these, then you would want to be sure your power
> unit will not get sick before you do.
> Yes, I know, some of the most famous military craft have liquid
> cooling, and a geared propeller. They also were designed from the
> ground up as aircraft, and military ones at that, so I contend that they
> make a poor comparison or justification for those systems in a civilian
> light plane.
> Whichever you choose, do install the "help me Joe" kit offered
> by John McBean, this will do wonders to refine the control system, and
> keep the back pressure needed under control on approaches, since you
> will have an airplane that tends to be nose heavy, and the elevator has
> no aero-counter force designed in. This spring coupling is designed
> for the model 5's thru 7's, and in my opinion is an essential
> improvement when heavier engines are used.
>
> Duane Rueb, N24ZM
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: | Oil Filter Thoughts |
Start your engine on a very cold day.... Your by pass will come into play.
Even the pressure bypasses on a 206 Jet ranger will pop on a cold day...
Once warmed up just reset the bypasses. (206 pressure by passes need to be
physically reset to indicate the next bypass episode.)
Noel
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> Lowell Fitt
> Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 6:08 PM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Oil Filter Thoughts
>
>
> <lcfitt@sbcglobal.net>
>
> I also agree with Nicks thoughts. The bypass comes in to play, in my
> estimation with an abused system - inadequate oil changes.
>
> I have thought a lot about the tendency of the oil draining
> into the crank
> case from the tank and possible solutions. I have to "burp"
> mine before
> flight as well and in the past, it took fewer compression
> strokes after an
> oil change, then progressively more as the hours mounted.
>
> The geometry of the system is as mike states. The oil tank
> being higher
> than the Rotax recommended position will siphon the oil in
> the tank back to
> the crankcase. This actually sould be stated as "forward"
> into the crank
> case as the return line is higher than the oil level in the
> tank and any
> movement of oil from the tank to the crank case is in a
> forward direction
> through the pick-up line - tank, pick-up tube, oil cooler,
> oil pump, oil
> filter oil journals and crank case. Neither the bypass valve nor the
> anti-drainback valve are involved with the movement of the
> oil because there
> is very little pressure and the oil is moving from the tank
> to the engine in
> the normal direction.
>
> Since the oil is purged from the crank case by blowby gasses,
> I always
> thought the relative fit of the rings and valves would
> determine the bypass
> pressure and be the predominant factor in the number of
> compression strokes
> needed to fill the oil tank, i.e., a good tight engine - low
> bypass gasses
> and lots of strokes, a tired worn engine (or a new engine)
> with lots of
> bypass - few strokes. I think other factors involved are oil
> temperatures -
> thickness of the oil and the duration between flights. My
> guess is that
> most of the flow from the tank occurs immediately after
> shutdown when the
> oil is warm and relatively thinner. I have burped several
> days before a
> flight and the oil remained fairly high on the dipstick at
> flight time.
>
> Much of this is opinion and I am interested in other's thoughts.
>
> Lowell
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Fox5flyer" <fox5flyer@i-star.com>
> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 9:25 AM
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Oil Filter Thoughts
>
>
> Nick, that's good information and I agree that the bypass
> spring is most
> likely not the problem. However, I believe the filter's
> anti-drain back
> membrane (check valve) can be a possible cause. An
> ineffective check valve
> will let too much, or even all, of the oil to drain back into
> the crankcase
> which would take a lot of flips of the prop to create enough
> pressure to
> push oil past the filter and into the reservoir to the point that it
> "burps", which, as I see it, is nothing more than the air in
> the line being
> evacuated.
> I might be totally wrong on this, but it makes sense to me.
> A hundred or more prop pulls would wear a guy out!
> Deke
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Nick Scholtes
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 12:03 PM
> Subject: Kitfox-List: Oil Filter Thoughts
>
>
> Randy and Jimmie,
>
> I've been following this oil filter thread a bit, and
> couldn't help jumping
> in a bit. I'm not an oil-filter expert by any means, so I'm kinda'
> speculating here, but here goes:
>
> I believe that the "number of compression strokes" and the "different
> pressure relief value" are totally different issues, and are totally
> unrelated. I also believe that the alleged "different
> pressure relieve
> value" of the Rotax filter is no reason whatsoever to
> purchase the Rotax
> filter, but it's the only thing that Rotax can point to to
> differentiate
> their filter and justify their price.
>
> An oil filter's pressure relief system is a safety system and
> it only comes
> into play when the filter is completely clogged, and the
> pressure across the
> filter builds to the point where the filter may burst (or the
> engine may be
> damaged due to all of the pressure drop being across the
> filter). The
> filter has a valve in it that will open, bypassing the
> "filter" part, and
> simply allowing oil to flow past, unfiltered. Again, this
> only happens in a
> non-normal situation, and will only be brought on by the
> filter producing
> enough resistance to the oil flow that the pressure across
> the filter builds
> high enough to pop the bypass valve. And I emphasize that
> the pressure
> across the filter is what matters, just because a motor has a
> high pressure
> oil pump doesn't mean that the bypass valve should be
> bypassing, even with a
> high pressure oil pump the filter should still be able to
> flow enough volume
> of oil to keep the pressure drop across the filter to a minimum.
>
> In an aircraft situation where the oil is changed religiously
> and the engine
> is maintained well, I just don't see the relief valve ever
> coming into play,
> and in the odd situation that it would, the value is somewhat
> irrelevant, as
> long as it goes into bypass before there's a catastrophic
> failure, that's
> all that matters. So, CarQuest or Rotax, who is to say that
> one picked a
> better pressure bypass number than the other? I want a
> bypass value high
> enough that it NEVER goes into bypass in normal operation.
>
> Anyway, in my opinion, there are several things that can
> differentiate an
> oil filter: The "fineness" of the filter (usually measured
> in microns), the
> quality and hence longevity of the filter material, and the
> bypass pressure
> value. The bypass pressure value is a non-issue, in my opinion.
>
> The "fineness" could be what is contributing to the different
> number of
> compression strokes, maybe the Rotax filter has a finer mesh than the
> CarQuest.
>
> After I wrote the above, I did a Google search on "How an oil
> filter works",
> and there are a couple of really good pages there that talk
> about the bypass
> valve, and also a different type of filtering technique
> called "bypass
> filtering" (not related to the bypass valve), and pages that
> talk about
> differences in fineness, and also differences in quality.
> Interesting
> reading on this topic.
>
> Nick
>
>
>
>
> Time: 09:54:42 PM PST US
> From: "Randy Daughenbaugh" <rjdaugh@rapidnet.com>
> Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Oil Filters for 912UL
>
> Jimmie,
>
>
>
> What does the amount of blow-by have to do with whether all
> the oil goes
> through the filter or not? The number of
> compression strokes should have everything to do with ring leakage and
> nothing to do with by-passing the oil filter. ???????
>
>
> I have been trying to get info on the pressure values for the pressure
> relief valves. It is not easy to come by!
>
>
> Randy
>
>
> .
>
> 3D===================
> =====================3
> D===
> 3D===================
> =====================3
> D===
> 3D===================
> =====================3
> D===
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: | 0-235 vs Turbo Subaru |
Deke, and list:
Yes, I did install the "help me Joe" kit into N24ZM. It was
priced at $85 when I purchased it, and it couples the elevator to the
flaps, and installs behind the seat. The only thing that might
improve the kit would be a suggestion as to how to stretch the fairly
stiff (for human strength, and the position available if working through
the seat access panels that are in my plane) spring.
What I did with Milts help was to first put the spring in a
bench vice and stretch it just enough to insert a (approx 3/4") nylon
strap between some coils near the end that we would be pulling from,
then with two people working, with one pulling the straps, and the other
guiding the sprint to the front hook point.
If the airplane has no access panels in the seat back, you will
have to remove the seat, which will make attaching the spring easier, so
you may not feel you need to use a strap, but it worked so well, that it
may still be the best approach.
Take note of the elevator droop you have before you install this
kit, and after, and you will see quite a difference. The elevator no
longer droops, and will stay level. The real change is when the flaps
are put in as on an approach, where the spring now helps you with the
extra back pressure/trim now needed. On mine, the trim can now
compensate for this, allowing neutral or very near neutral stick back
pressure with one notch of flap at an approach speed of 60-65mph
indicated. With full flap, some additional back pressure is needed, but
much less than before.
I think that this kit results in a better control system feel
all around, too, not just on approaches.
Duane
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Fox5flyer
Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 10:51 AM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 0-235 vs Turbo Subaru
Good narrative Duane. Even though I'm a Soob driver I agree with all of
it.
However, if it weren't for us experimenters, even the Lycosaurs' and
Conts
wouldn't be around today. :-)
It sounds as if you must have installed the spring coupler in 24ZM. Can
you
be more specific on how it works, what is included with the kit, and
what it
costs?
Thanks,
Deke
>
> Jim:
>
> Direct drive and a single cooling system, maintainability
> 'anywhere' would favor the Lycoming. Assuming that both engines are
in
> good serviceable condition, I know which one I would rather be flying
> behind when, say approximately 100 miles west of Denver at 13,500 ft.
> (for a brief period). I would definitely vote for the Lycoming at
that
> time.
> The "real ones" are often criticized for being behind the times,
> but the truth is that they are tried and true, and have the advantage
of
> being designed from the ground up as aircraft engines, and have
> benefited from years of improvement, and advances of material science.
> Since aircraft engines experience a very different operational profile
> than car engines, putting out 100% power at every takeoff, and then
> 65-75% continuously thereafter, until descent and landing, all of
their
> parts were designed with that operation profile in mind, from the
> crankshaft to the valves. They are often compared to tractor engines,
> and with good reason, since a tractor also needs to put out a high
> percentage of its power continuously. Tractor engines are, of course,
> heavy, so they are not a good choice for airplanes.
> The "real ones" have been developed to produce the most power at
> the least weight, retaining the highest reliability possible. System
> simplicity is one of the ways that this is achieved.
> Now, we Kitfox pilots are flying airplanes that are in the class
> called "experimental", so this opens the door for trying different
> things, which is the decision that you are of course struggling with.
> I would try to make the choice depending on where my flights are
likely
> to be carried out, just how much night flight you anticipate, and how
> much you will 'enjoy' the systems complication associated with the
> Subbie.
> Also try to remember how the different engines and especially
> their major components look to you comparatively whenever you have
seen
> them displayed at shows. Here is where I rest my case for the "real
> ones", but if your anticipated flight profiles give you the
opportunity
> to experiment with your power unit, then use the car engine, and join
> the ranks of those who are in a continuous mode of solving carburetor
> problems, cooling leaks, gearbox issues, and head gasket concerns,
> ignition system questions, oil leaks, not to mention the stress
factors
> that arise due to the loads that are passed through an engine that was
> designed to be connected to a bell housing/transmission, and not to
have
> the gyro loads of a propeller induced into its 'block' and then taken
on
> through to a mounting system that was not the one considered by its
> designer. Your type 5 is well able to do mild aerobatics, so if you
> anticipate doing any of these, then you would want to be sure your
power
> unit will not get sick before you do.
> Yes, I know, some of the most famous military craft have liquid
> cooling, and a geared propeller. They also were designed from the
> ground up as aircraft, and military ones at that, so I contend that
they
> make a poor comparison or justification for those systems in a
civilian
> light plane.
> Whichever you choose, do install the "help me Joe" kit offered
> by John McBean, this will do wonders to refine the control system, and
> keep the back pressure needed under control on approaches, since you
> will have an airplane that tends to be nose heavy, and the elevator
has
> no aero-counter force designed in. This spring coupling is designed
> for the model 5's thru 7's, and in my opinion is an essential
> improvement when heavier engines are used.
>
> Duane Rueb, N24ZM
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: 0-235 vs Turbo Subaru |
You are right. Each to their own.
For me there are only two. Lyc. & Cont.
GG
----- Original Message -----
From: "john perry" <eskflyer@lvcisp.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 9:13 AM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 0-235 vs Turbo Subaru
>
> I dont know who brain washed you but , your wrong . There are many engines
> to fly behind . They are all mechanical and will break at some point .
> That said I have flown behind 2 strokes and never had a engine out . I
> have flown behind continentals and have had rods thrown threw the case . I
> have flown behind subbies and never had a problem . ahve flown behind
> Lycomings and had mags fail . HMMMMM whats the better engine , each to
> there own i guess.
>
> John Perry
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Glenn Horne" <glennflys@verizon.net>
> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 7:28 AM
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 0-235 vs Turbo Subaru
>
>
>>
>> The Lyc. No question about it. There are only two engine to fly
>> behind.Lyc. 7 Cont.
>> GG
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Jim Corner" <jcorner@shaw.ca>
>> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
>> Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 12:12 AM
>> Subject: Kitfox-List: 0-235 vs Turbo Subaru
>>
>>
>>>
>>> This is maybe a problem that most of you wish you had..... and to many
>>> the answer might be very obvious.
>>>
>>> I have 1 each of the above two engines, one I purchased and the other I
>>> received on a debt owing. For this question assume that installed cost
>>> is about the same.
>>>
>>> Installed weights are about the same...... and one of these engines is
>>> going into a Kitfox Model 5, I just can't seem to make a final decision
>>> and stick with it.
>>>
>>> The Sube has more power 150+ vs 115 for the Lyc
>>>
>>> The Lyc has a longer proven history of reliability, and perhaps a
>>> little easier to install and maintain.
>>>
>>> The S5 Kitfox will be equipped for night flying, i don't expect any
>>> hard IFR, floats may come later.
>>>
>>> One week I am convinced that I will install the Sube, next the Lyc.
>>>
>>> Have to make up my mind very soon, pre-cover inspection coming right up.
>>>
>>> Which one should I install? Comments appreciated.
>>>
>>> Jim
>>>
>>> PS: I currently fly a Model 2, 582 s/n 575 just over 1100 hrs.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
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: 0-235 vs Turbo Subaru |
Don't forget the franklins........
and yes Rotax a dominant player.
I would take a 912 over a soob anyday for a floatplane especially.
Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: "Glenn Horne" <glennflys@verizon.net>
Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 2:55 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 0-235 vs Turbo Subaru
>
> You are right. Each to their own.
> For me there are only two. Lyc. & Cont.
> GG
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "john perry" <eskflyer@lvcisp.com>
> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 9:13 AM
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 0-235 vs Turbo Subaru
>
>
>>
>> I dont know who brain washed you but , your wrong . There are many
>> engines to fly behind . They are all mechanical and will break at some
>> point . That said I have flown behind 2 strokes and never had a engine
>> out . I have flown behind continentals and have had rods thrown threw
>> the case . I have flown behind subbies and never had a problem . ahve
>> flown behind Lycomings and had mags fail . HMMMMM whats the better engine
>> , each to there own i guess.
>>
>> John Perry
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Glenn Horne" <glennflys@verizon.net>
>> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
>> Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 7:28 AM
>> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 0-235 vs Turbo Subaru
>>
>>
>>>
>>> The Lyc. No question about it. There are only two engine to fly
>>> behind.Lyc. 7 Cont.
>>> GG
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Jim Corner" <jcorner@shaw.ca>
>>> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
>>> Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 12:12 AM
>>> Subject: Kitfox-List: 0-235 vs Turbo Subaru
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> This is maybe a problem that most of you wish you had..... and to many
>>>> the answer might be very obvious.
>>>>
>>>> I have 1 each of the above two engines, one I purchased and the other
>>>> I received on a debt owing. For this question assume that installed
>>>> cost is about the same.
>>>>
>>>> Installed weights are about the same...... and one of these engines
>>>> is going into a Kitfox Model 5, I just can't seem to make a final
>>>> decision and stick with it.
>>>>
>>>> The Sube has more power 150+ vs 115 for the Lyc
>>>>
>>>> The Lyc has a longer proven history of reliability, and perhaps a
>>>> little easier to install and maintain.
>>>>
>>>> The S5 Kitfox will be equipped for night flying, i don't expect any
>>>> hard IFR, floats may come later.
>>>>
>>>> One week I am convinced that I will install the Sube, next the Lyc.
>>>>
>>>> Have to make up my mind very soon, pre-cover inspection coming right
>>>> up.
>>>>
>>>> Which one should I install? Comments appreciated.
>>>>
>>>> Jim
>>>>
>>>> PS: I currently fly a Model 2, 582 s/n 575 just over 1100 hrs.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
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: RE:Clear Fuel Line Recommendation |
Larry,
This is Polyurethane line I've been using from Spruce. The line
stays soft but will turn yellow with age especially if you let the lines
go dry of fuel for a couple days??? I still replace all soft fuel lines
every two years.
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/appages/polyurethanetubing.php
Don Smythe
----- Original Message -----
From: Larry Martin
To: Kitfox-List@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 8:40 AM
Subject: Kitfox-List: RE:Clear Fuel Line Recommendation
My line of choice is urethane hose available at any snowmobile/dirt
bike place. They have been using it for years and it stays flexible.
Locally, about $1.00/ft. I plan to redo all my lines with it this
spring.
larry
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: Oil Filter Thoughts |
Hi Bill, I installed a shut off valve in the oil line. Mine was filling the
crankcase and causing a prop lock. If the prop was not locked up it would
smoke and cover the underneath with oil. I also added some literature in my
walk around check list to turn valve on and I also put a tag warning to turn
valve on a clip and clip it to the master switch before putting plane back into
hangar. I haven't had a problem since. JIm
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: Kitfox-List: Spark Plug Gap
Can anyone tell me the proper spark plug for a Rotax 582?
Frank
Hi ! Frank,
The Rotax recomended plug is NGK B8ES for the grey
head and BR8ES for the Blue head. The "R" is for resistor. Really you
should not use resistor plugs with resistor caps although I think Rotax
did it with the blue head 582. Generally use resistor either in the
plug or the cap but not both to help with ignition noise in the radio. A
resistor plug and resistor cap have been used together for persistent
cases of interference and if you really need both I guess you can use
both but personally I wouldn't. The high [ typically 5K + 5K = 10K ]
resistance increases the voltage build up before the plug fires. This
might have a slight advantage re firing under some conditions although
offset by the lower firing current, however the higher voltage is more
likely to lead to a CDI [ Capacitive Discharge Ignition ] failure.
Generally you will get a better spark the lower the resistance.
Sometimes you will see Rotax distributors listing the plug as a
number rather than B8ES etc. This is mainly to just get you to buy from
them, however there is another suttle difference. The little screw on
cap. This can be brass, aluminium, fixed or with the right caps you just
use the thread. My choice out of all this is the resistor plug with a
non resistor cap with just the thread being used. My reasoning is using
just the thread makes it more secure and you don't have issues with the
aluminium caps or the caps coming lose. I also prefer the resistor in
the plug rather than the cap because it can and does fail. If it's in
the plug you are changing it when you change plugs and the extra cost of
a resistor plug is minimal.
To complicate it a bit though I'm now going to tell you that I use NGK
BR8EIX plugs. These are Iridium and used in inverted motors. The reason
being is they stand up to the harder conditions like fouling etc. As you
can see the BR8E part is the same the IX is for "I" fine Iridium centre
electrode. "X" Booster gap [ "S" standard centre electrode.] Now I
haven't checked but I'm not sure if you can get this plug with the screw
on cap so you can use just the thread. I am using fixed cap plugs at the
moment but will change if I can shortly. These plugs are working really
well for me with non resistor caps. You can get whatever caps you need
from an auto parts store.
Rotax recommended gap setting is 16 to 20 thou. I set mine to 20
thou. This raises another point if you use the Iridium plugs. The
packet says not to adjust the gap and from memory it's set about 30
thou. Not a good idea for our application. However you can adjust the
gap just be very carefull not to stress the very fine iridium centre
electrode especially by pulling a feeler gauge across it and putting
side pressure one it that's all.
Rex.
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 |
|
About the only thing I can take issue with is the Maule tailwheel. The
hard
rubber type is a 6" unit and I think it's about a pound lighter than the
pneumatic type which is an 8" inch unit. Have you considered the Home
Builders Special? Very light and soft rubber for a better ride. Might
even
be lighter than the Maule 6 inch.
Dave,
I use the 6" Home Builders Special wheel from Aircraft Spruce
and I would totally agree it's well worth considering. I changed from
that horible Maule SFSA solid wheel and the difference is amazing. It
runs very much quieter and gives much better control. It cost less than
$30 although you need to address the bearing and axle size issues. The
bearings that come in the wheel are total rubbish and for a 5/8" axle.
The Maule SFSA tail wheel assembly is 1/2" axle. Just go to a bearing
supply shop and get the right size sealed bearings with a circlip to
stop them sliding into the wheel too far.
I have no experience with the pneumatic wheel but believe it is also a
good answer to the shocking solid Maule wheel. However the Homebuilders
wheel is a lot cheaper way to go. Several including Lynn and Michel on
this list have gone this way and I'm sure they are also very satisfied
with the decision.
Rex.
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: Rotax 582 plugs |
Rex,
I have a few things to add. when you buy BR8ES or B8ES from a Rotax
dealer they will most likely have solid tips and not screw on tips.
Screw on tips are bad news as they are softer than the llittle clip
inside those 5k ohm cap which is steel.
Also they come pre gapped about .016 to 020 so adjust will be minimal
wheras bought form other place I have seen them .030 or larger gap.
That take a good bend to adjust gap.
I have asked several Rotax dealers about the iridiums and they say no
gain to be had but a owners choice. I have just shy of 100 hours on my
plugs now in my Blue head since July and still running fine and I
checked about 5 hours ago and they had minimal deposits on them and
looked good. I use only regular gas and bombardier XPS mineral oil.
Now the gray head uses ducati igntion as well but the older ones had
points and in that case you are correct to use B8ES and 5k resistor caps
but not resistor plugs and caps on point ignition. I have had Blue
heads and gray heads and performance wise they about the same.
I would suggest that Solid tip plugs from rotax is the best choice.
The plug caps can and will fall off other wise. Some will safety wire
, tiewrap etc but why not just use the proper plug ?
Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: Rex Shaw
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2006 2:25 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Rotax 582 plugs
Subject: Kitfox-List: Spark Plug Gap
Can anyone tell me the proper spark plug for a Rotax 582?
Frank
Hi ! Frank,
The Rotax recomended plug is NGK B8ES for the grey
head and BR8ES for the Blue head. The "R" is for resistor. Really you
should not use resistor plugs with resistor caps although I think Rotax
did it with the blue head 582. Generally use resistor either in the
plug or the cap but not both to help with ignition noise in the radio. A
resistor plug and resistor cap have been used together for persistent
cases of interference and if you really need both I guess you can use
both but personally I wouldn't. The high [ typically 5K + 5K = 10K ]
resistance increases the voltage build up before the plug fires. This
might have a slight advantage re firing under some conditions although
offset by the lower firing current, however the higher voltage is more
likely to lead to a CDI [ Capacitive Discharge Ignition ] failure.
Generally you will get a better spark the lower the resistance.
Sometimes you will see Rotax distributors listing the plug as a
number rather than B8ES etc. This is mainly to just get you to buy from
them, however there is another suttle difference. The little screw on
cap. This can be brass, aluminium, fixed or with the right caps you just
use the thread. My choice out of all this is the resistor plug with a
non resistor cap with just the thread being used. My reasoning is using
just the thread makes it more secure and you don't have issues with the
aluminium caps or the caps coming lose. I also prefer the resistor in
the plug rather than the cap because it can and does fail. If it's in
the plug you are changing it when you change plugs and the extra cost of
a resistor plug is minimal.
To complicate it a bit though I'm now going to tell you that I use
NGK BR8EIX plugs. These are Iridium and used in inverted motors. The
reason being is they stand up to the harder conditions like fouling etc.
As you can see the BR8E part is the same the IX is for "I" fine Iridium
centre electrode. "X" Booster gap [ "S" standard centre electrode.]
Now I haven't checked but I'm not sure if you can get this plug with the
screw on cap so you can use just the thread. I am using fixed cap plugs
at the moment but will change if I can shortly. These plugs are working
really well for me with non resistor caps. You can get whatever caps you
need from an auto parts store.
Rotax recommended gap setting is 16 to 20 thou. I set mine to 20
thou. This raises another point if you use the Iridium plugs. The
packet says not to adjust the gap and from memory it's set about 30
thou. Not a good idea for our application. However you can adjust the
gap just be very carefull not to stress the very fine iridium centre
electrode especially by pulling a feeler gauge across it and putting
side pressure one it that's all.
Rex.
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 |
|
Matco has now the 6 inch wheel pneumatic http://www.matcomfg.com/
I have a solid tailwheel and works fine although now that ground is
frozen they trasmit the shock and noise more so.
Who cares -- > Skis on soon ( forecast 12 to 18 inches in next 24
hours. :) )
Also - I have used matco 6 inch solids on front of amphib floats this
season. They work ok but I would like a 7 or 8 inch tall wheel to fit
but they are hard to find. ( pneumatic ) That is why I talk to
Matco last week for sizing on the new wheel.
Hope that helps
Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: Rex Shaw
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2006 2:43 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Tail wheels
About the only thing I can take issue with is the Maule tailwheel.
The hard
rubber type is a 6" unit and I think it's about a pound lighter than
the
pneumatic type which is an 8" inch unit. Have you considered the Home
Builders Special? Very light and soft rubber for a better ride.
Might even
be lighter than the Maule 6 inch.
Dave,
I use the 6" Home Builders Special wheel from Aircraft
Spruce and I would totally agree it's well worth considering. I changed
from that horible Maule SFSA solid wheel and the difference is amazing.
It runs very much quieter and gives much better control. It cost less
than $30 although you need to address the bearing and axle size issues.
The bearings that come in the wheel are total rubbish and for a 5/8"
axle. The Maule SFSA tail wheel assembly is 1/2" axle. Just go to a
bearing supply shop and get the right size sealed bearings with a
circlip to stop them sliding into the wheel too far.
I have no experience with the pneumatic wheel but believe it is also
a good answer to the shocking solid Maule wheel. However the
Homebuilders wheel is a lot cheaper way to go. Several including Lynn
and Michel on this list have gone this way and I'm sure they are also
very satisfied with the decision.
Rex.
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: Rotax 582 plugs |
I was not aware that the NGK BR/B8 plugs came with anything other than
the standard screw on top. These are standard out of the box plugs for
many applications. Are you saying that Rotax modifies these standard
plugs for Rotax use or does NGK produce a plug that is modified for
aircraft use? I'm confused? I've always used the standard (auto parts
store) NGK plugs however, I perform a minor adjustment to the screw on
top. I "stake" the cap lightly with a cold chisel to secure it to the
threads. I also use a different little method to close the .030 gap to
.016.
Don Smythe
----- Original Message -----
From: dave
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 8:21 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Rotax 582 plugs
Rex,
I have a few things to add. when you buy BR8ES or B8ES from a Rotax
dealer they will most likely have solid tips and not screw on tips.
Screw on tips are bad news as they are softer than the llittle clip
inside those 5k ohm cap which is steel.
Also they come pre gapped about .016 to 020 so adjust will be minimal
wheras bought form other place I have seen them .030 or larger gap.
That take a good bend to adjust gap.
I have asked several Rotax dealers about the iridiums and they say no
gain to be had but a owners choice. I have just shy of 100 hours on my
plugs now in my Blue head since July and still running fine and I
checked about 5 hours ago and they had minimal deposits on them and
looked good. I use only regular gas and bombardier XPS mineral oil.
Now the gray head uses ducati igntion as well but the older ones had
points and in that case you are correct to use B8ES and 5k resistor caps
but not resistor plugs and caps on point ignition. I have had Blue
heads and gray heads and performance wise they about the same.
I would suggest that Solid tip plugs from rotax is the best choice.
The plug caps can and will fall off other wise. Some will safety wire
, tiewrap etc but why not just use the proper plug ?
Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: Rex Shaw
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2006 2:25 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Rotax 582 plugs
Subject: Kitfox-List: Spark Plug Gap
Can anyone tell me the proper spark plug for a Rotax 582?
Frank
Hi ! Frank,
The Rotax recomended plug is NGK B8ES for the
grey head and BR8ES for the Blue head. The "R" is for resistor. Really
you should not use resistor plugs with resistor caps although I think
Rotax did it with the blue head 582. Generally use resistor either in
the plug or the cap but not both to help with ignition noise in the
radio. A resistor plug and resistor cap have been used together for
persistent cases of interference and if you really need both I guess you
can use both but personally I wouldn't. The high [ typically 5K + 5K =
10K ] resistance increases the voltage build up before the plug fires.
This might have a slight advantage re firing under some conditions
although offset by the lower firing current, however the higher voltage
is more likely to lead to a CDI [ Capacitive Discharge Ignition ]
failure. Generally you will get a better spark the lower the resistance.
Sometimes you will see Rotax distributors listing the plug as a
number rather than B8ES etc. This is mainly to just get you to buy from
them, however there is another suttle difference. The little screw on
cap. This can be brass, aluminium, fixed or with the right caps you just
use the thread. My choice out of all this is the resistor plug with a
non resistor cap with just the thread being used. My reasoning is using
just the thread makes it more secure and you don't have issues with the
aluminium caps or the caps coming lose. I also prefer the resistor in
the plug rather than the cap because it can and does fail. If it's in
the plug you are changing it when you change plugs and the extra cost of
a resistor plug is minimal.
To complicate it a bit though I'm now going to tell you that I use
NGK BR8EIX plugs. These are Iridium and used in inverted motors. The
reason being is they stand up to the harder conditions like fouling etc.
As you can see the BR8E part is the same the IX is for "I" fine Iridium
centre electrode. "X" Booster gap [ "S" standard centre electrode.]
Now I haven't checked but I'm not sure if you can get this plug with the
screw on cap so you can use just the thread. I am using fixed cap plugs
at the moment but will change if I can shortly. These plugs are working
really well for me with non resistor caps. You can get whatever caps you
need from an auto parts store.
Rotax recommended gap setting is 16 to 20 thou. I set mine to 20
thou. This raises another point if you use the Iridium plugs. The
packet says not to adjust the gap and from memory it's set about 30
thou. Not a good idea for our application. However you can adjust the
gap just be very carefull not to stress the very fine iridium centre
electrode especially by pulling a feeler gauge across it and putting
side pressure one it that's all.
Rex.
href="http://www.aeroelectric.com">www.aeroelectric.com
href="http://www.buildersbooks.com">www.buildersbooks.com
href="http://www.kitlog.com">www.kitlog.com
href="http://www.homebuilthelp.com">www.homebuilthelp.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List">http://www.matron
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: Rotax 582 plugs |
Ok Don, I did a quick search on Google and found some info here
http://www.rotaxservice.com/rotax_tips/rotax_feed2.htm
Hope this helps , Dave
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
Spark Plugs
The recommended spark plugs are the NGK B8ES or BR8ES. The "R" denotes a
resistance which helps suppress radio interference. The use of spark
plugs with a solid tip, rather than the screwed-on tip, is mandatory.
The latter can unscrew itself in flight and dislodge the spark plug
connector cap, creating an ignition failure.
Spark plug gap
a.. Allowable range: 0.4-0.5mm / .016-.020"
b.. Optimal: 0.45mm / .018"
c.. The gap can be reduced to its allowable minimum to help starting
in very cold conditions
To be avoided:
a.. Other spark plug models and other manufacturers' equivalents
b.. Screwed-on tips
c.. Unverified spark plug gaps
d..
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
More here . scroll to bottom
http://www.ultralightnews.ca/articles/resistorcapsandplugs.htm
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
Also here
http://www.auf.asn.au/airworthiness/rotax_447_plugs.pdf
----- Original Message -----
From: Don Smythe
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 9:00 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Rotax 582 plugs
I was not aware that the NGK BR/B8 plugs came with anything other than
the standard screw on top. These are standard out of the box plugs for
many applications. Are you saying that Rotax modifies these standard
plugs for Rotax use or does NGK produce a plug that is modified for
aircraft use? I'm confused? I've always used the standard (auto parts
store) NGK plugs however, I perform a minor adjustment to the screw on
top. I "stake" the cap lightly with a cold chisel to secure it to the
threads. I also use a different little method to close the .030 gap to
.016.
Don Smythe
----- Original Message -----
From: dave
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 8:21 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Rotax 582 plugs
Rex,
I have a few things to add. when you buy BR8ES or B8ES from a Rotax
dealer they will most likely have solid tips and not screw on tips.
Screw on tips are bad news as they are softer than the llittle clip
inside those 5k ohm cap which is steel.
Also they come pre gapped about .016 to 020 so adjust will be
minimal wheras bought form other place I have seen them .030 or larger
gap. That take a good bend to adjust gap.
I have asked several Rotax dealers about the iridiums and they say
no gain to be had but a owners choice. I have just shy of 100 hours on
my plugs now in my Blue head since July and still running fine and I
checked about 5 hours ago and they had minimal deposits on them and
looked good. I use only regular gas and bombardier XPS mineral oil.
Now the gray head uses ducati igntion as well but the older ones
had points and in that case you are correct to use B8ES and 5k resistor
caps but not resistor plugs and caps on point ignition. I have had Blue
heads and gray heads and performance wise they about the same.
I would suggest that Solid tip plugs from rotax is the best choice.
The plug caps can and will fall off other wise. Some will safety wire
, tiewrap etc but why not just use the proper plug ?
Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: Rex Shaw
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2006 2:25 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Rotax 582 plugs
Subject: Kitfox-List: Spark Plug Gap
Can anyone tell me the proper spark plug for a Rotax 582?
Frank
Hi ! Frank,
The Rotax recomended plug is NGK B8ES for the
grey head and BR8ES for the Blue head. The "R" is for resistor. Really
you should not use resistor plugs with resistor caps although I think
Rotax did it with the blue head 582. Generally use resistor either in
the plug or the cap but not both to help with ignition noise in the
radio. A resistor plug and resistor cap have been used together for
persistent cases of interference and if you really need both I guess you
can use both but personally I wouldn't. The high [ typically 5K + 5K =
10K ] resistance increases the voltage build up before the plug fires.
This might have a slight advantage re firing under some conditions
although offset by the lower firing current, however the higher voltage
is more likely to lead to a CDI [ Capacitive Discharge Ignition ]
failure. Generally you will get a better spark the lower the resistance.
Sometimes you will see Rotax distributors listing the plug as a
number rather than B8ES etc. This is mainly to just get you to buy from
them, however there is another suttle difference. The little screw on
cap. This can be brass, aluminium, fixed or with the right caps you just
use the thread. My choice out of all this is the resistor plug with a
non resistor cap with just the thread being used. My reasoning is using
just the thread makes it more secure and you don't have issues with the
aluminium caps or the caps coming lose. I also prefer the resistor in
the plug rather than the cap because it can and does fail. If it's in
the plug you are changing it when you change plugs and the extra cost of
a resistor plug is minimal.
To complicate it a bit though I'm now going to tell you that I
use NGK BR8EIX plugs. These are Iridium and used in inverted motors. The
reason being is they stand up to the harder conditions like fouling etc.
As you can see the BR8E part is the same the IX is for "I" fine Iridium
centre electrode. "X" Booster gap [ "S" standard centre electrode.]
Now I haven't checked but I'm not sure if you can get this plug with the
screw on cap so you can use just the thread. I am using fixed cap plugs
at the moment but will change if I can shortly. These plugs are working
really well for me with non resistor caps. You can get whatever caps you
need from an auto parts store.
Rotax recommended gap setting is 16 to 20 thou. I set mine to
20 thou. This raises another point if you use the Iridium plugs. The
packet says not to adjust the gap and from memory it's set about 30
thou. Not a good idea for our application. However you can adjust the
gap just be very carefull not to stress the very fine iridium centre
electrode especially by pulling a feeler gauge across it and putting
side pressure one it that's all.
Rex.
href="http://www.aeroelectric.com">www.aeroelectric.com
href="http://www.buildersbooks.com">www.buildersbooks.com
href="http://www.kitlog.com">www.kitlog.com
href="http://www.homebuilthelp.com">www.homebuilthelp.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List">http://www.matron
href="http://www.aeroelectric.com">www.aeroelectric.com
href="http://www.buildersbooks.com">www.buildersbooks.com
href="http://www.kitlog.com">www.kitlog.com
href="http://www.homebuilthelp.com">www.homebuilthelp.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List">http://www.matron
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: Rotax 582 plugs |
http://home.vicnet.net.au/~stclub/STC_ga/plugs.htm
more talk here on NGK caps and plugs
http://www.pcpros.net/~tvoss/techTip/200205.htm
----- Original Message -----
From: Don Smythe
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 9:00 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Rotax 582 plugs
I was not aware that the NGK BR/B8 plugs came with anything other than
the standard screw on top. These are standard out of the box plugs for
many applications. Are you saying that Rotax modifies these standard
plugs for Rotax use or does NGK produce a plug that is modified for
aircraft use? I'm confused? I've always used the standard (auto parts
store) NGK plugs however, I perform a minor adjustment to the screw on
top. I "stake" the cap lightly with a cold chisel to secure it to the
threads. I also use a different little method to close the .030 gap to
.016.
Don Smythe
----- Original Message -----
From: dave
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 8:21 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Rotax 582 plugs
Rex,
I have a few things to add. when you buy BR8ES or B8ES from a Rotax
dealer they will most likely have solid tips and not screw on tips.
Screw on tips are bad news as they are softer than the llittle clip
inside those 5k ohm cap which is steel.
Also they come pre gapped about .016 to 020 so adjust will be
minimal wheras bought form other place I have seen them .030 or larger
gap. That take a good bend to adjust gap.
I have asked several Rotax dealers about the iridiums and they say
no gain to be had but a owners choice. I have just shy of 100 hours on
my plugs now in my Blue head since July and still running fine and I
checked about 5 hours ago and they had minimal deposits on them and
looked good. I use only regular gas and bombardier XPS mineral oil.
Now the gray head uses ducati igntion as well but the older ones
had points and in that case you are correct to use B8ES and 5k resistor
caps but not resistor plugs and caps on point ignition. I have had Blue
heads and gray heads and performance wise they about the same.
I would suggest that Solid tip plugs from rotax is the best choice.
The plug caps can and will fall off other wise. Some will safety wire
, tiewrap etc but why not just use the proper plug ?
Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: Rex Shaw
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2006 2:25 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Rotax 582 plugs
Subject: Kitfox-List: Spark Plug Gap
Can anyone tell me the proper spark plug for a Rotax 582?
Frank
Hi ! Frank,
The Rotax recomended plug is NGK B8ES for the
grey head and BR8ES for the Blue head. The "R" is for resistor. Really
you should not use resistor plugs with resistor caps although I think
Rotax did it with the blue head 582. Generally use resistor either in
the plug or the cap but not both to help with ignition noise in the
radio. A resistor plug and resistor cap have been used together for
persistent cases of interference and if you really need both I guess you
can use both but personally I wouldn't. The high [ typically 5K + 5K =
10K ] resistance increases the voltage build up before the plug fires.
This might have a slight advantage re firing under some conditions
although offset by the lower firing current, however the higher voltage
is more likely to lead to a CDI [ Capacitive Discharge Ignition ]
failure. Generally you will get a better spark the lower the resistance.
Sometimes you will see Rotax distributors listing the plug as a
number rather than B8ES etc. This is mainly to just get you to buy from
them, however there is another suttle difference. The little screw on
cap. This can be brass, aluminium, fixed or with the right caps you just
use the thread. My choice out of all this is the resistor plug with a
non resistor cap with just the thread being used. My reasoning is using
just the thread makes it more secure and you don't have issues with the
aluminium caps or the caps coming lose. I also prefer the resistor in
the plug rather than the cap because it can and does fail. If it's in
the plug you are changing it when you change plugs and the extra cost of
a resistor plug is minimal.
To complicate it a bit though I'm now going to tell you that I
use NGK BR8EIX plugs. These are Iridium and used in inverted motors. The
reason being is they stand up to the harder conditions like fouling etc.
As you can see the BR8E part is the same the IX is for "I" fine Iridium
centre electrode. "X" Booster gap [ "S" standard centre electrode.]
Now I haven't checked but I'm not sure if you can get this plug with the
screw on cap so you can use just the thread. I am using fixed cap plugs
at the moment but will change if I can shortly. These plugs are working
really well for me with non resistor caps. You can get whatever caps you
need from an auto parts store.
Rotax recommended gap setting is 16 to 20 thou. I set mine to
20 thou. This raises another point if you use the Iridium plugs. The
packet says not to adjust the gap and from memory it's set about 30
thou. Not a good idea for our application. However you can adjust the
gap just be very carefull not to stress the very fine iridium centre
electrode especially by pulling a feeler gauge across it and putting
side pressure one it that's all.
Rex.
href="http://www.aeroelectric.com">www.aeroelectric.com
href="http://www.buildersbooks.com">www.buildersbooks.com
href="http://www.kitlog.com">www.kitlog.com
href="http://www.homebuilthelp.com">www.homebuilthelp.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List">http://www.matron
href="http://www.aeroelectric.com">www.aeroelectric.com
href="http://www.buildersbooks.com">www.buildersbooks.com
href="http://www.kitlog.com">www.kitlog.com
href="http://www.homebuilthelp.com">www.homebuilthelp.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List">http://www.matron
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: | Skis for Kitfox's |
I'd like to get peoples opinions on skis for a Model IV. I know Skystar
offered them, but not (I don't think) in the wheel-penetration type
that I am interested in. We don't get enough snow around here (Lower
Michigan) to warrant full skis...that is, non-penetration skis. But if
we get our normal amount, my strip will be snowed over, while most of
the paved strips will be cleared of snow, and I wouldn't be able to go
there....well, you get the idea. I'd like to hear some dialogue about
what is involved in flying with skis, problems encountered, etc. I am
thinking of building my own skis of the wheel-penetration type, or
perhaps buying if a pair is available. I need a project, so building is
preferred.
Lynn
Kitfox IV Speedster...Jabiru 2200
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: | Kitfox as a Lite Sport |
I am attending an FAA class to add Lite Sport certification to my DAR limitations.
1. I ask what is needed for me to operate my Kitfox 7 as a lite sport aircraft
( gross weight is the only factor for Kitfox) if I had the aircraft
certificated as a Experimental-Amateur Built with a gross weight at the time of
certification of 1550 lbs.
The responce: since Experimental Amateur Built airplanes have the gross weight
set by the builder all I needed to do was redo the weight and balance to set a
max of 1320 lbs, a logbook entry to denote the change and press on. I could also
placard the inst panel. Lowering gross weight is not a major mod. Gross weight
is not conected to the limitations.
DO NOT confuse experimental aircraft with FAA approved type certified aircraft.
you cannot lower the gross weight of type certified aircraft this way.
The FAA people that teach this class are spokes people for Washington DC
headquarters. In 16 years as a DAR they have not steared me wrong yet.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=79714#79714
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 |
|
As Rex said, I'm very happy with my decision (based on Rex's
suggestion, for one) to go with the Home Builder's Special tailwheel.
Jimmie Blackwell has also gone this route, I believe, and might back up
this testimonial.
Lynn
On Thursday, December 7, 2006, at 02:43 PM, Rex Shaw wrote:
> About the only thing I can take issue with is the Maule tailwheel.
> The hard
> rubber type is a 6" unit and I think it's about a pound lighter than
> the
> pneumatic type which is an 8" inch unit. Have you considered the Home
> Builders Special? Very light and soft rubber for a better ride.
> Might even
> be lighter than the Maule 6 inch.
>
> Dave,
> I use the 6" Home Builders Special wheel from Aircraft
> Spruce and I would totally agree it's well worth considering. I
> changed from that horible Maule SFSA solid wheel and the difference is
> amazing. It runs very much quieter and gives much better control. It
> cost less than $30 although you need to address the bearing and axle
> size issues. The bearings that come in the wheel are total rubbish and
> for a 5/8" axle. The Maule SFSA tail wheel assembly is 1/2" axle. Just
> go to a bearing supply shop and get the right size sealed bearings
> with a circlip to stop them sliding into the wheel too far.
> I have no experience with the pneumatic wheel but believe it is also
> a good answer to the shocking solid Maule wheel. However the
> Homebuilders wheel is a lot cheaper way to go. Several including Lynn
> and Michel on this list have gone this way and I'm sure they are also
> very satisfied with the decision.
> Rex.
>
>
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 |
|
I also have the homebuilders tail wheel and WOW it made a big wonderful
difference . If you try it you will like it much better than the dinosaur
model maul tail wheel.
John Perry
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lynn Matteson" <lynnmatt@jps.net>
Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 9:21 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Tail wheels
>
> As Rex said, I'm very happy with my decision (based on Rex's suggestion,
> for one) to go with the Home Builder's Special tailwheel. Jimmie Blackwell
> has also gone this route, I believe, and might back up this testimonial.
>
> Lynn
> On Thursday, December 7, 2006, at 02:43 PM, Rex Shaw wrote:
>
>> About the only thing I can take issue with is the Maule tailwheel. The
>> hard
>> rubber type is a 6" unit and I think it's about a pound lighter than the
>> pneumatic type which is an 8" inch unit. Have you considered the Home
>> Builders Special? Very light and soft rubber for a better ride. Might
>> even
>> be lighter than the Maule 6 inch.
>>
>> Dave,
>> I use the 6" Home Builders Special wheel from Aircraft Spruce and I would
>> totally agree it's well worth considering. I changed from that horible
>> Maule SFSA solid wheel and the difference is amazing. It runs very much
>> quieter and gives much better control. It cost less than $30 although you
>> need to address the bearing and axle size issues. The bearings that come
>> in the wheel are total rubbish and for a 5/8" axle. The Maule SFSA tail
>> wheel assembly is 1/2" axle. Just go to a bearing supply shop and get the
>> right size sealed bearings with a circlip to stop them sliding into the
>> wheel too far.
>> I have no experience with the pneumatic wheel but believe it is also a
>> good answer to the shocking solid Maule wheel. However the Homebuilders
>> wheel is a lot cheaper way to go. Several including Lynn and Michel on
>> this list have gone this way and I'm sure they are also very satisfied
>> with the decision.
>> 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: Rotax 582 plugs |
At 11:25 AM 12/7/2006, you wrote:
>Generally use resistor either in the plug or the cap but not both to help
>with ignition noise in the radio.
How do I check whether I have resistor caps or not? Is it simply 5k ohms
between the plug and wire contacts? I guess I therefore have to remove the
caps from the wires. Is there anything special I should do to put them back
together, such as conductive grease, etc.?
Thanks,
Guy Buchanan
K-IV 1200 / 582-C / Warp / 100% done, thanks mostly to Bob Ducar.
Message 34
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Kitfox as a Lite Sport |
Wow! Could Steve be redeemed? Ron NB Ore do not archive
>From: "dcsfoto" <david@kelm.com>
>To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Kitfox-List: Kitfox as a Lite Sport
>Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2006 19:11:21 -0800
>
>
>I am attending an FAA class to add Lite Sport certification to my DAR
>limitations.
>1. I ask what is needed for me to operate my Kitfox 7 as a lite sport
>aircraft ( gross weight is the only factor for Kitfox) if I had the
>aircraft
>certificated as a Experimental-Amateur Built with a gross weight at the
>time of certification of 1550 lbs.
>The responce: since Experimental Amateur Built airplanes have the gross
>weight set by the builder all I needed to do was redo the weight and
>balance to set a max of 1320 lbs, a logbook entry to denote the change and
>press on. I could also placard the inst panel. Lowering gross weight is not
>a major mod. Gross weight is not conected to the limitations.
>DO NOT confuse experimental aircraft with FAA approved type certified
>aircraft. you cannot lower the gross weight of type certified aircraft this
>way.
>
>The FAA people that teach this class are spokes people for Washington DC
>headquarters. In 16 years as a DAR they have not steared me wrong yet.
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=79714#79714
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Shopping has everything on your holiday list. Get expert picks by style,
age, and price. Try it!
http://shopping.msn.com/content/shp/?ctId00,ptnrid=176,ptnrdata 0601&tcode=wlmtagline
Message 35
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Kitfox as a Lite Sport |
This would be great if the FAA sticks with it. Might
save someone from selling their dear Fox in the future
too. Maybe me? Certainly didn't build it to make a
profit. ha ha
Kurt S. S-5
--- dcsfoto <david@kelm.com> wrote:
> I am attending an FAA class to add Lite Sport
> certification to my DAR limitations.
> 1. I ask what is needed for me to operate my Kitfox
> 7 as a lite sport aircraft ( gross weight is the
> only factor for Kitfox) if I had the aircraft
> certificated as a Experimental-Amateur Built with a
> gross weight at the time of certification of 1550
> lbs.
> The responce: since Experimental Amateur Built
> airplanes have the gross weight set by the builder
> all I needed to do was redo the weight and balance
> to set a max of 1320 lbs, a logbook entry to denote
> the change and press on. I could also placard the
> inst panel. Lowering gross weight is not a major
> mod. Gross weight is not conected to the
> limitations.
> DO NOT confuse experimental aircraft with FAA
> approved type certified aircraft. you cannot lower
> the gross weight of type certified aircraft this
> way.
>
> The FAA people that teach this class are spokes
> people for Washington DC
> headquarters. In 16 years as a DAR they have not
> steared me wrong yet.
Have a burning question?
Go to www.Answers.yahoo.com and get answers from real people who know.
Message 36
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Kitfox as a Lite Sport |
That would be great if true. Last I check EAA was saying otherwise but
were working on it. My suggestion to EAA was that most planes we fly
have a couple of weight limit ( like lower for utility ) so why not let
us put a 1320 limit to make the Sport Pilot requirements. Their response
was that would make sense but FAA would not sign off on it. Just my
guess but I think some might be redoing their W&B and data plates
anyway. There are enough people in the know saying you can make the
change to consider making the change and just not ask to many more
questions.( leave me out of it, I know nothing) I think the real risk
would be the insurance factor, aircraft, liability, and life. The
Kitfox surely meets the intent of the Sport Pilot rule.
do not archive
ron schick wrote:
> <roncarolnikko@hotmail.com>
>
> Wow! Could Steve be redeemed? Ron NB Ore do not archive
>
>
>> From: "dcsfoto" <david@kelm.com>
>> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
>> Subject: Kitfox-List: Kitfox as a Lite Sport
>> Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2006 19:11:21 -0800
>>
>>
>> I am attending an FAA class to add Lite Sport certification to my DAR
>> limitations.
>> 1. I ask what is needed for me to operate my Kitfox 7 as a lite
>> sport aircraft ( gross weight is the only factor for Kitfox) if I had
>> the aircraft
>> certificated as a Experimental-Amateur Built with a gross weight at
>> the time of certification of 1550 lbs.
>> The responce: since Experimental Amateur Built airplanes have the
>> gross weight set by the builder all I needed to do was redo the
>> weight and balance to set a max of 1320 lbs, a logbook entry to
>> denote the change and press on. I could also placard the inst panel.
>> Lowering gross weight is not a major mod. Gross weight is not
>> conected to the limitations.
>> DO NOT confuse experimental aircraft with FAA approved type certified
>> aircraft. you cannot lower the gross weight of type certified
>> aircraft this way.
>>
>> The FAA people that teach this class are spokes people for Washington DC
>> headquarters. In 16 years as a DAR they have not steared me wrong yet.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=79714#79714
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> MSN Shopping has everything on your holiday list. Get expert picks by
> style, age, and price. Try it!
> http://shopping.msn.com/content/shp/?ctId00,ptnrid=176,ptnrdata 0601&tcode=wlmtagline
>
>
Message 37
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Skis for Kitfox's |
Michel, are you here?
Lynn, Michel built some that he uses in Norway. Looks
like they work well for him too. Oh, and he has a
Jabber engine too.
Kurt S.
--- Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net> wrote:
> I'd like to get peoples opinions on skis for a Model
> IV. I know Skystar
> offered them, but not (I don't think) in the
> wheel-penetration type
> that I am interested in. We don't get enough snow
> around here (Lower
> Michigan) to warrant full skis...that is,
> non-penetration skis. But if
> we get our normal amount, my strip will be snowed
> over, while most of
> the paved strips will be cleared of snow, and I
> wouldn't be able to go
> there....well, you get the idea. I'd like to hear
> some dialogue about
> what is involved in flying with skis, problems
> encountered, etc. I am
> thinking of building my own skis of the
> wheel-penetration type, or
> perhaps buying if a pair is available. I need a
> project, so building is
> preferred.
>
> Lynn
> Kitfox IV Speedster...Jabiru 2200
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! --
|