---------------------------------------------------------- Kitfox-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Thu 12/28/06: 47 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 05:44 AM - Re: Skis for Kitfox's (crazyivan) 2. 06:18 AM - Re: Re: Skis for Kitfox's (Lynn Matteson) 3. 06:43 AM - Re: less than 100 foot take off ... cool (floran higgins) 4. 06:46 AM - Re: Re: Skis for Kitfox's (dave) 5. 06:52 AM - Re: less than 100 foot take off ... cool (dave) 6. 07:12 AM - Re: Re: Skis for Kitfox's (Noel Loveys) 7. 07:14 AM - Re: More speeds: Older Kitfox cruise speeds (kitfoxmike) 8. 07:18 AM - Re: Skis for Kitfox's (kitfoxmike) 9. 07:24 AM - Re: Re: Skis for Kitfox's (dave) 10. 07:29 AM - Re: Re: Skis for Kitfox's (dave) 11. 11:17 AM - Re: Kitfox-List Digest: 23 Msgs - 12/27/06 (EMAproducts@AOL.COM) 12. 11:32 AM - Re: Skis for Kitfox's (crazyivan) 13. 12:40 PM - Re: Re: Skis for Kitfox's (Fox5flyer) 14. 01:18 PM - Re: less than 100 foot take off ... cool (Paul Seehafer) 15. 01:45 PM - Re: less than 100 foot take off ... cool (kitfoxmike) 16. 02:04 PM - Re: less than 100 foot take off ... cool (Michel Verheughe) 17. 02:09 PM - Re: Re: Skis for Kitfox's (Michel Verheughe) 18. 02:20 PM - Michel Fabic tearing topic (dave) 19. 02:35 PM - PAUL : less than 100 foot take off ... cool (dave) 20. 02:48 PM - GSC prop protractor (Eric) 21. 03:14 PM - Re: Kit Fox Tires only $2.50? (Lowell Fitt) 22. 03:19 PM - Possible overheating and EGT question (wingnut) 23. 04:23 PM - Re: Skis for Kitfox's (Richard Rabbers) 24. 04:35 PM - Re: Re: Skis for Kitfox's (Lynn Matteson) 25. 04:37 PM - Re: Re: Skis for Kitfox's (Lynn Matteson) 26. 04:53 PM - Re: Possible overheating and EGT question (john perry) 27. 04:57 PM - Re: Re: Skis for Kitfox's (john perry) 28. 05:12 PM - Re: Model 2 to 3 upgrade - Denney Aerocraft Owners Newsletter. (Torgeir Mortensen) 29. 05:15 PM - Re: Re: Skis for Kitfox's (dave) 30. 05:21 PM - Re: Model 2 to 3 upgrade - Denney Aerocraft Owners Newsletter. (dave) 31. 05:38 PM - Re: Re: Skis for Kitfox's (john perry) 32. 05:47 PM - Re: Possible overheating and EGT question (wingnut) 33. 06:18 PM - Re: less than 100 foot take off ... cool (Noel Loveys) 34. 06:35 PM - Re: Re: Possible overheating and EGT question (Noel Loveys) 35. 06:39 PM - wing tank model 2-3 (john perry) 36. 06:46 PM - Re: Kit Fox Tires only $2.50? (ron schick) 37. 06:51 PM - Re: Re: Skis for Kitfox's (Noel Loveys) 38. 06:55 PM - Re:Off topic: Skis for Kitfox's (Noel Loveys) 39. 06:55 PM - Re: Possible overheating and EGT question (Torgeir Mortensen) 40. 07:19 PM - Re: wing tank model 2-3 (Noel Loveys) 41. 07:43 PM - wing tank model 2-3 (Rexster) 42. 07:46 PM - Re: wing tank model 2-3 (john perry) 43. 08:58 PM - Re: wing tank model 2-3 (Noel Loveys) 44. 09:02 PM - Re: Possible overheating and EGT question (Torgeir Mortensen) 45. 09:10 PM - Re: Possible overheating and EGT question (wingnut) 46. 09:41 PM - Possible overheating and EGT question (Rexster) 47. 09:42 PM - Re: First (Four) Flights!! (Guy Buchanan) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 05:44:34 AM PST US Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Skis for Kitfox's From: "crazyivan" I'm glad to see that somebody else thought that $3600 for experimental skis is nuts. And they aren't even painted. Seems to me that either their manufacturing process is too expensive or they are trying to get a premium profit just because it's aviation. I'd be willing to pay $1500 max for a new set of LIGHTER, wheel penetrating skis that have had some market exposure and positive feedback. (I prefer John's suggestion of 500 bucks) I don't know if I should wish these aviation entrepreneurs good luck or be mad because they are trying to make the aviation lifestyle that much more expensive for us regular Joes. -------- Dave Speedster 912 UL Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=83933#83933 ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 06:18:40 AM PST US From: Lynn Matteson Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: Skis for Kitfox's Funny you should mention lighter, wheel-penetrating skis...I'm in the process of ordering/building a set right now, based on the best ideas that I've heard/seen/read about. I'm certainly not in any position to market anything....just building a set for my own pleasure, if the snow ever comes this way. Maybe I should be glad there's no snow yet...might be tempted to clamp on some barrel staves, and give it a go. : ) There are others out there that might be better suited to build/ market a set, and maybe your comments will stir some activity....anyone...John, Dave, Michel? Lynn On Dec 28, 2006, at 8:43 AM, crazyivan wrote: > > I'm glad to see that somebody else thought that $3600 for > experimental skis is nuts. And they aren't even painted. Seems to > me that either their manufacturing process is too expensive or they > are trying to get a premium profit just because it's aviation. > > I'd be willing to pay $1500 max for a new set of LIGHTER, wheel > penetrating skis that have had some market exposure and positive > feedback. (I prefer John's suggestion of 500 bucks) > > I don't know if I should wish these aviation entrepreneurs good > luck or be mad because they are trying to make the aviation > lifestyle that much more expensive for us regular Joes. > > -------- > Dave > Speedster 912 UL > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=83933#83933 > > ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 06:43:32 AM PST US From: "floran higgins" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: less than 100 foot take off ... cool This is standard procedure for a short field takeoff. I have used this procedure for years in a Cessena 180 and now in my Speedster. I havren't measured the distance with a tape measure but I am sure that less than 100 ft is entirely possible. Floran H. ----- Original Message ----- From: Aerobatics@aol.com To: kitfox-list@matronics.com Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2006 7:47 PM Subject: Kitfox-List: less than 100 foot take off ... cool Less than 100 feet? calm day? Wow awesome I thought I could TO short :-) I once had a bit of snow on my runway so I could plainly see and accurately measure I also tried different things. Best I got was a bit under 200 feet on a cold day, no wind, solo, 1/2 fuel. Most were around 225 feet. I even have some on vid Full Brake full power full up elevator, release brake, after about a long second, full down to level. Adjust elevator to maintain level, then as I pass 35 mph Up to rotate. My strip is 750 feet total. So I practice this all the time. I cant imagine a KF taking off in less than 100 feet, that has to be a rush! Dave Patrick KF 2 582 ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 06:46:50 AM PST US From: "dave" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: Skis for Kitfox's yes 3600 out of my pocket book for a Kitfox. There are some manufactures that make them for about 1500 for challengers but a Kitfox is a bit heavier and those are straight skis. I think 1000 $ would be a very fair price for a pair of 4130 wheel skis. I have straight skis now and when I get my 21 iuch tires from Jim, perhaps i should make a set that would accommadate others? I have 16 inch golf cart style tires now so I do not think that that would e a common size tire/ski combo? Dave ----- Original Message ----- From: "crazyivan" Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 8:43 AM Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Skis for Kitfox's > > I'm glad to see that somebody else thought that $3600 for experimental > skis is nuts. And they aren't even painted. Seems to me that either > their manufacturing process is too expensive or they are trying to get a > premium profit just because it's aviation. > > I'd be willing to pay $1500 max for a new set of LIGHTER, wheel > penetrating skis that have had some market exposure and positive feedback. > (I prefer John's suggestion of 500 bucks) > > I don't know if I should wish these aviation entrepreneurs good luck or be > mad because they are trying to make the aviation lifestyle that much more > expensive for us regular Joes. > > -------- > Dave > Speedster 912 UL > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=83933#83933 > > > ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 06:52:43 AM PST US From: "dave" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: less than 100 foot take off ... cool I was just out this am , My IV weight is about 540 plus my fat ass of 215 and 6 gals fuel . temp 34F wind 3 knots at 210 and i took off on heading 170 and was off in about 120 feet or less across a 100 foot wide runway-- and it all grass ,unfrozen ground. And thats was zero flap till 30 mph then full 30 deg + flap and rotate at once --pop up she goes. Would be fun to try on a 20 knot wind day :) I will mark it out one day and/or park some plane wing tip to wingtip so it gives a good referance. My 582 only getting 5900 static and I should re adjust to 6200 or 6400 rpm to get a bi better but it works pretty well all around now and with colder temps coming it will elevate my egts then . Dave ----- Original Message ----- From: Aerobatics@aol.com To: kitfox-list@matronics.com Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 1:10 AM Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: less than 100 foot take off ... cool In a message dated 12/27/2006 9:42:39 P.M. Central Standard Time, kirkhull@kc.rr.com writes: What is the hp / engine and empty weight Empty wt is 480 lbs its a KF 2 the 582 Blue head is 66 hp on an E box IVO 3 blade UL prop ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 07:12:17 AM PST US From: "Noel Loveys" Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Re: Skis for Kitfox's I have the straight skis but would prefer to have the penetration skis. Loading the plane on a trailer is easier with the wheels, not to mention putting it back in the garage. May be the way to go would be for someone to offer a ski kit. That would remove all liability and could lower the prices. The kit should include Axels drilled etc to accept the ski mount, the ski frames and a ski skin along with cables, bungees and the cable fittings. Done that way I could see the cost drop close to the $500 mark. Noel > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of crazyivan > Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 10:14 AM > To: kitfox-list@matronics.com > Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Skis for Kitfox's > > > > I'm glad to see that somebody else thought that $3600 for > experimental skis is nuts. And they aren't even painted. > Seems to me that either their manufacturing process is too > expensive or they are trying to get a premium profit just > because it's aviation. > > I'd be willing to pay $1500 max for a new set of LIGHTER, > wheel penetrating skis that have had some market exposure and > positive feedback. (I prefer John's suggestion of 500 bucks) > > I don't know if I should wish these aviation entrepreneurs > good luck or be mad because they are trying to make the > aviation lifestyle that much more expensive for us regular Joes. > > -------- > Dave > Speedster 912 UL > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=83933#83933 > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 07:14:19 AM PST US Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: More speeds: Older Kitfox cruise speeds From: "kitfoxmike" I have experimented with full flap take offs, and what I found was an amazing takeoff. I did mine where I was full flaps and was rolling a little, hit the throttle and away I went. It was amazing how the tail sprang up off the runway, and the lift wow. The only thing was I left the full flaps on at altitude and quickly found a huge drag and of course the turning was junk. I sense have found that you remove the flaps as soon as you can to gain airspeed and control. Another thing to watch out for is the tail comes way up and a prop strike is possible. I have a 68 inch powerfin 3 blade so I have extra room to play with, but if you have a 72 inch, I feel you could be in trouble. I limit myself to half flaps, but most all take offs are no flaps and I can still get off within about 200ft. plenty for me. kitfox4 speedster 1200, 912ul kitfoxmike Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=83953#83953 ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 07:18:13 AM PST US Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Skis for Kitfox's From: "kitfoxmike" hay I just got a thought, what about mounting some snow boards to your plane. Maybe a stupid idea, so don't take me seriously. just thinking out loud. -------- kitfoxmike Do not archive Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=83956#83956 ________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________ Time: 07:24:24 AM PST US From: "dave" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: Skis for Kitfox's Noel, NO chance of 500 $ unless you talking EACH !! 4130 is 3 to 5 $ a foot alone. you will need 20 to 25 feet per ski UHMW is about 3 to 4 $ a square foot. 10 sq feet needed. Am I missing somthing ? Also ........ A tip to move in shot on skis ..... use a 2 x 6 that fits under the axles and between the calipers and put on a floor jack . lift up a few inches and pull the plane on floor jack . If you have a tail ski it will drag ok or put a dolly under the tail ski. Dave ----- Original Message ----- From: "Noel Loveys" Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 10:11 AM Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Re: Skis for Kitfox's > > I have the straight skis but would prefer to have the penetration skis. > Loading the plane on a trailer is easier with the wheels, not to mention > putting it back in the garage. > > May be the way to go would be for someone to offer a ski kit. That would > remove all liability and could lower the prices. The kit should include > Axels drilled etc to accept the ski mount, the ski frames and a ski skin > along with cables, bungees and the cable fittings. Done that way I could > see the cost drop close to the $500 mark. > > Noel > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com >> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of crazyivan >> Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 10:14 AM >> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com >> Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Skis for Kitfox's >> >> >> >> I'm glad to see that somebody else thought that $3600 for >> experimental skis is nuts. And they aren't even painted. >> Seems to me that either their manufacturing process is too >> expensive or they are trying to get a premium profit just >> because it's aviation. >> >> I'd be willing to pay $1500 max for a new set of LIGHTER, >> wheel penetrating skis that have had some market exposure and >> positive feedback. (I prefer John's suggestion of 500 bucks) >> >> I don't know if I should wish these aviation entrepreneurs >> good luck or be mad because they are trying to make the >> aviation lifestyle that much more expensive for us regular Joes. >> >> -------- >> Dave >> Speedster 912 UL >> >> >> >> >> Read this topic online here: >> >> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=83933#83933 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > ________________________________ Message 10 ____________________________________ Time: 07:29:00 AM PST US From: "dave" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: Skis for Kitfox's yes but only on real light planes imo. Dave ----- Original Message ----- From: "kitfoxmike" Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 10:17 AM Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Skis for Kitfox's > > hay I just got a thought, what about mounting some snow boards to your > plane. Maybe a stupid idea, so don't take me seriously. just thinking out > loud. > > -------- > kitfoxmike > Do not archive > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=83956#83956 > > > ________________________________ Message 11 ____________________________________ Time: 11:17:49 AM PST US From: EMAproducts@AOL.COM Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Kitfox-List Digest: 23 Msgs - 12/27/06 12/2006 Gentlemen, Currently I have less than 30% of our customers current e-mail addresses. I am attempting to update our mailing lists to see if they have any questions re their RiteAngle IIIb Angle of Attack systems. Occasionally I get a call from someone who purchased a system several years ago and still do not have system installed or set-up due to various reasons. Should you have any questions, comments, photos of system installed in your plane, endorsements or whatever re: the RiteAngle IIIb system please send it to this address _riteangle3@aol.com_ (mailto:riteangle3@aol.com) Thankfully, since the IIIb system has gone into production, we have had no changes in the electronics, however we now have a professional written setup manual. Sincerely Elbie EM Aviation, LLC ________________________________ Message 12 ____________________________________ Time: 11:32:16 AM PST US Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Skis for Kitfox's From: "crazyivan" Sportflight.com photo and file share page has a lot of ideas for home made skis. Check this one out: http://www.sportflight.com/cgi-bin/uploader.pl?action=view&epoch=1070714137 Not too sure how effective these are but it's a brilliant (simple) idea to work from. -------- Dave Speedster 912 UL Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=84015#84015 ________________________________ Message 13 ____________________________________ Time: 12:40:16 PM PST US From: "Fox5flyer" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: Skis for Kitfox's Those were my skis Dave that I made for my M2. They were fine (and very effective) for that airplane at just over 500 lbs and would be OK for up through the IV if kept light, but wouldn't be enough surface area for the heavier models like the 5+. Interesting enough, the total weight of each ski was less than the wheel and tire. Axle bushings were just hardware store bronze units at a couple bucks each. The ABS plastic skis provided a very slippery surface and takeoff was about the same as the wheels. I even used them on bare concrete a few times with very little scuffing. Unfortunately, when I sold the II, the skis went with it. Fairly easy to make though. If anyone has any questions about them just let me know. Deke (Darrel Morisse) ----- Original Message ----- From: "crazyivan" Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 2:31 PM Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Skis for Kitfox's > > Sportflight.com photo and file share page has a lot of ideas for home made skis. Check this one out: http://www.sportflight.com/cgi-bin/uploader.pl?action=view&epoch=1070714137 > Not too sure how effective these are but it's a brilliant (simple) idea to work from. > > -------- > Dave > Speedster 912 UL > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=84015#84015 > > ________________________________ Message 14 ____________________________________ Time: 01:18:59 PM PST US From: "Paul Seehafer" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: less than 100 foot take off ... cool Dave, Back in the late 80's and early 90's it seemed everyone with an Avid Flyer or a Kitfox was trying to outdo the other guy in the short takeoff category (other airplanes generally can't even compete with our airplanes). So to defend the STOL KING credentials of my Avid Flyer, I practiced, practiced, and practiced some more my short takeoff technique. I found what worked best is to hold brakes with full power until you feel the airplane starting to overcome the brakes (we had poor mechanical brakes way back when, so that was almost immediately), then within a few feet of the starting roll to release slight stick back pressure, just enough to let the tailwheel rise ever so slightly (a couple inches off the surface). Then just before you thought it might fly (in my airplane at the time this was just as the airspeed indicator was coming up on 20 mph), jerk the flaps on full while burying the stick in your lap. This would normally provide a "main gear first" liftoff, followed by the tailwheel. Of course as soon as you were off you had to reduce the back pressure as well as about 1/2 the flaps. But you were off very short, and in those early planes climbing out at about a 45 degree angle! The thought process behind using this technique is; 1 - The drag caused by rolling down the runway with the wing at a high angle of attack is minimal at best when you consider the very slow speeds a light Avid or Kitfox can lift off at (20-25 mph), and the short distance you rolled (50-75 feet) . 2 - With the high wing angle of attack right from the start of the roll the very high lift airfoil (especially of the early airplanes) goes to work lightening the aircraft, allowing it to fly sooner. If nothing else, it forces the lift off at the least amount of speed needed, rather than relying on the pilots judgement of the rotation time or speed. 3 - By releasing just enough back pressure to let the tailwheel skim a few inches off the ground, you've minimized wheel drag for one of the wheels, but yet maintained that high angle of attack of the wing for the most lift. 4 - When you really knew your airplane and were able to pull back on the stick and the flap handle at just the right moment, you caused a "ballooning effect" much like when you first apply flaps on a decent. That balloon effect on takeoff maximizes use of ground effect. Why not raise the tail and rotate? Well, on the early airplanes the takeoff was so quick that seemed like nothing more than a waste of time to me. Plus I was busy enough the way it was. So does this technique still apply? I think so. I'm sure someone will tell me why it won't according to some other source, but I still use it. A similar technique gets my 775 lb 912ul amphib Model 4 off the water in 8 seconds (although in that case I also raise one fly by applying full left aileron and a touch of left rudder while jerking on the stick and the flaps...). That is a very short takeoff for an amphib, especially one with only 80 horsepower that has everything but the kitchen sink on it. Unfortunately I can't tell you how it compares on wheels as I haven't yet flown my fox on wheels. But I'm sure it will do a 4-5 second takeoff on land (even without doing the math, I'm sure thats not a lot of forward distance). Here's a little story describing just how well my practiced technique worked; I once won $100 in a bet against a guy that owned a souped up 360 hp IO-550 powered 185 Cessna by having a group of other pilots measure off my Avid Flyers takeoff. He said there was no way I could take off in a hundred feet (the claim I made to the group that he overheard) and went on to make jokes about my snowmobilie motor powered toy airplane. Of course I had to defend the Avid, so I bet him $100 I could do it in less than a hundred feet, and certainly shorter than he could with his hot rod Cessna. Oh yeah, we had a density altitude at the time of almost 4,000 feet as it was 90+ degrees out (with essentially no wind). So the group of other pilots hanging around the airport measure for me, as I took off sideways on a taxiway (the airport manager knew me and my plane well, so went along with my little escapade). 52 feet was all I used that day. Being verified by a bunch of other pilots (some his buddies even) as well as himself, made him eat a lot of crow that day. And he wasn't interested in showing us how short he could take off in his big buck hotrod Cessna either. To conclude this story, for the record I never took his money. I just told him to be more careful in the future about picking on guys with homebuilts. Especially those with two stroke engines. He still talks to me today, and occasionally teases about one day owning an Avid Flyer or Kitfox. And for further proof we can get our airplanes off short, just check out what John Knapp does at Oshkosh or Greenville with his two stroke powered Avid Flyer on floats. He holds the world record off the water, 2.7 seconds!!!! I have some video that one of these days I will load of John doing some of his takeoffs. In one, I don't think he uses more than 6 feet! Yeah, I did say SIX FEET. Play around with your takeoff techniques. These airplanes are all pretty amazing performers in the right hands (eg. Jimmy Franklin, John Knapp....) No reason you can't become that expert like with your own. And when onlookers see how well our airplanes perform, John McBean just might sell a couple more Foxes.... the more the merrier. Happy New Year! Paul Seehafer Central Wisconsin Model IV-1200 amphib 912ul oh yeah, the Avid I was flying back then was an A-model (similar to the model I kitfox), powered by a 532 Rotax. However, the airplane only weighed 396 pounds, and that little ol' 532 dyno'd bone stock at 73 horsepower. It was a real performer, like most of the earliest airplanes. ----- Original Message ----- From: Aerobatics@aol.com To: kitfox-list@matronics.com Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2006 8:47 PM Subject: Kitfox-List: less than 100 foot take off ... cool Less than 100 feet? calm day? Wow awesome I thought I could TO short :-) I once had a bit of snow on my runway so I could plainly see and accurately measure I also tried different things. Best I got was a bit under 200 feet on a cold day, no wind, solo, 1/2 fuel. Most were around 225 feet. I even have some on vid Full Brake full power full up elevator, release brake, after about a long second, full down to level. Adjust elevator to maintain level, then as I pass 35 mph Up to rotate. My strip is 750 feet total. So I practice this all the time. I cant imagine a KF taking off in less than 100 feet, that has to be a rush! Dave Patrick KF 2 582 ________________________________ Message 15 ____________________________________ Time: 01:45:07 PM PST US Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: less than 100 foot take off ... cool From: "kitfoxmike" Sounds way cool. I do some pretty short take off and landings. In fact when I get in the grove for short, inside, approaches. I commonly hear other pilots asking what kind of aircraft I'm flying. My favorate is to do 3 touch and goes on the 172's while there on their final. On my take off's, I like to get off the ground as soon as possible, run within 10feet of the ground and get my speed way up then pull up and do a turn, real fun, and, gets a lot of lookers. -------- kitfoxmike Do not archive Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=84034#84034 ________________________________ Message 16 ____________________________________ Time: 02:04:27 PM PST US From: Michel Verheughe Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: less than 100 foot take off ... cool On Dec 28, 2006, at 10:18 PM, Paul Seehafer wrote: > Why not raise the tail and rotate? Interesting reading, Paul. Of course, I won't tell you why one should raise the tail and rotate, I know much too little about aviation, I am merely reading and learning. Reading your email definitively tells me that I should try other take-off techniques than the one I use. The key element is probably that when I tried to take off with a high angle of attack, I didn't had enough speed and was pulling too much the stick. If you have ever done that, you know that it doesn't feel right and you hope nobody is watching. I think I'll have to try until I find the correct stick pressure. That's the nice thing about flying: Always something new to try, always something new to learn, always a good reason to go out flying ... Now, if someone can tell that to my wife! :-) Happy New Year, Michel ________________________________ Message 17 ____________________________________ Time: 02:09:10 PM PST US From: Michel Verheughe Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: Skis for Kitfox's On Dec 28, 2006, at 3:19 PM, Lynn Matteson wrote: > There are others out there that might be better suited to build/market > a set, and maybe your comments will stir some > activity....anyone...John, Dave, Michel? Just a second, Lynn, I'll take a crash course in welding then I'll make you a nice pair of skis ... kidding! :-) Just an idea: I think wheel penetration skis don't have to be very strong. If they are, and you hit a rock hidden under the snow, they might bend your gears. If the are not, you'll bend the skis but your wheel will still be there and that what's matter, isn't it? You can then remove the skis and fix them while the plane is ready to fly for the summer. Just a thought. Cheers, Michel ________________________________ Message 18 ____________________________________ Time: 02:20:33 PM PST US From: "dave" Subject: Kitfox-List: Michel Fabic tearing topic Michel, I just in from 2.5 hours flying today in total. I mentioned that i was doing airstarts after gliding the Kitfox and I thought about you today so I went up and shut off mags and slowed to about 40 ias till the prop stopped. Then came this bright idea *** oh yeah BRIGHT !! well why not do some stalls and take off the headset to hear the sounds you described before and all i heard was the air leaks !! I did about half dozen stalls -- all power off and mags too !! some steeper than others and I just get a shudder and a mush for the most part. Now once you put nose down just after you break the stall I do get a bit of a THUD from the rear........ I am guessing it the disturbed air on top of wing washing onto the tail ? Maybe if I hear air leaks then i have some taping and sealing to do some time ? Hope that helps you and it was fun........ Dave ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michel Verheughe" Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 5:03 PM Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: less than 100 foot take off ... cool > > On Dec 28, 2006, at 10:18 PM, Paul Seehafer wrote: >> Why not raise the tail and rotate? > > Interesting reading, Paul. Of course, I won't tell you why one should > raise the tail and rotate, I know much too little about aviation, I am > merely reading and learning. Reading your email definitively tells me that > I should try other take-off techniques than the one I use. The key element > is probably that when I tried to take off with a high angle of attack, I > didn't had enough speed and was pulling too much the stick. If you have > ever done that, you know that it doesn't feel right and you hope nobody is > watching. > I think I'll have to try until I find the correct stick pressure. That's > the nice thing about flying: Always something new to try, always something > new to learn, always a good reason to go out flying ... Now, if someone > can tell that to my wife! :-) > > Happy New Year, > Michel > > > ________________________________ Message 19 ____________________________________ Time: 02:35:06 PM PST US From: "dave" Subject: Kitfox-List: PAUL : less than 100 foot take off ... cool Paul, Thanks for that post. I did at least a dozen takeoffs today all definably 120 feet at the longest. I did try different flap settings and tail up tail down tail light on tailwheel etc.......... Conclusion ? Well 20 degrees stick neutral wide open throttle let go of brakes and it will fly off in 120 or less feet. This is probably the best soft/short field combo for all round use. I maintain that getting tail up so your AOA is zero and pull full flaps ( over 30 degrees is necessary to achieve best results) and at the same time you yank that flap handle FULL you yank the stick back full and if you not ready the tailwheel smacks the ground and if you ready the wings and tail are flying and the tailwheel will not smack the ground. What would you think of a longer landing gear ? say 3 to 5 inches longer extended from what I presently have ? I am not sure if that would be worth it or not. I will tell you that the guy who is doing those tests on the Zenith 701 without the Slats runs a company called www.stolspeed.com and he sells VGs called Feather Vgs . He sent me some to try after seeing my last 3 videos I posted. ( he might be on this list , I am not sure) . Anyways I will report the findings when I do in fact try them to anyone interested. I did tell him that I have a good flying Kitfox now and I did not think that the VGs will do much good for me but he sent them any ways as he liked my videos. If they work well you will know and if they don't well you will know as well. Am I told him that 701s have similar performance to a Kitfox in the STOL part but they just plain Ugly and slower. ( VERY Big Grin ) Dave ----- Original Message ----- From: Paul Seehafer To: kitfox-list@matronics.com Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 4:18 PM Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: less than 100 foot take off ... cool Dave, Back in the late 80's and early 90's it seemed everyone with an Avid Flyer or a Kitfox was trying to outdo the other guy in the short takeoff category (other airplanes generally can't even compete with our airplanes). So to defend the STOL KING credentials of my Avid Flyer, I practiced, practiced, and practiced some more my short takeoff technique. I found what worked best is to hold brakes with full power until you feel the airplane starting to overcome the brakes (we had poor mechanical brakes way back when, so that was almost immediately), then within a few feet of the starting roll to release slight stick back pressure, just enough to let the tailwheel rise ever so slightly (a couple inches off the surface). Then just before you thought it might fly (in my airplane at the time this was just as the airspeed indicator was coming up on 20 mph), jerk the flaps on full while burying the stick in your lap. This would normally provide a "main gear first" liftoff, followed by the tailwheel. Of course as soon as you were off you had to reduce the back pressure as well as about 1/2 the flaps. But you were off very short, and in those early planes climbing out at about a 45 degree angle! The thought process behind using this technique is; 1 - The drag caused by rolling down the runway with the wing at a high angle of attack is minimal at best when you consider the very slow speeds a light Avid or Kitfox can lift off at (20-25 mph), and the short distance you rolled (50-75 feet) . 2 - With the high wing angle of attack right from the start of the roll the very high lift airfoil (especially of the early airplanes) goes to work lightening the aircraft, allowing it to fly sooner. If nothing else, it forces the lift off at the least amount of speed needed, rather than relying on the pilots judgement of the rotation time or speed. 3 - By releasing just enough back pressure to let the tailwheel skim a few inches off the ground, you've minimized wheel drag for one of the wheels, but yet maintained that high angle of attack of the wing for the most lift. 4 - When you really knew your airplane and were able to pull back on the stick and the flap handle at just the right moment, you caused a "ballooning effect" much like when you first apply flaps on a decent. That balloon effect on takeoff maximizes use of ground effect. Why not raise the tail and rotate? Well, on the early airplanes the takeoff was so quick that seemed like nothing more than a waste of time to me. Plus I was busy enough the way it was. So does this technique still apply? I think so. I'm sure someone will tell me why it won't according to some other source, but I still use it. A similar technique gets my 775 lb 912ul amphib Model 4 off the water in 8 seconds (although in that case I also raise one fly by applying full left aileron and a touch of left rudder while jerking on the stick and the flaps...). That is a very short takeoff for an amphib, especially one with only 80 horsepower that has everything but the kitchen sink on it. Unfortunately I can't tell you how it compares on wheels as I haven't yet flown my fox on wheels. But I'm sure it will do a 4-5 second takeoff on land (even without doing the math, I'm sure thats not a lot of forward distance). Here's a little story describing just how well my practiced technique worked; I once won $100 in a bet against a guy that owned a souped up 360 hp IO-550 powered 185 Cessna by having a group of other pilots measure off my Avid Flyers takeoff. He said there was no way I could take off in a hundred feet (the claim I made to the group that he overheard) and went on to make jokes about my snowmobilie motor powered toy airplane. Of course I had to defend the Avid, so I bet him $100 I could do it in less than a hundred feet, and certainly shorter than he could with his hot rod Cessna. Oh yeah, we had a density altitude at the time of almost 4,000 feet as it was 90+ degrees out (with essentially no wind). So the group of other pilots hanging around the airport measure for me, as I took off sideways on a taxiway (the airport manager knew me and my plane well, so went along with my little escapade). 52 feet was all I used that day. Being verified by a bunch of other pilots (some his buddies even) as well as himself, made him eat a lot of crow that day. And he wasn't interested in showing us how short he could take off in his big buck hotrod Cessna either. To conclude this story, for the record I never took his money. I just told him to be more careful in the future about picking on guys with homebuilts. Especially those with two stroke engines. He still talks to me today, and occasionally teases about one day owning an Avid Flyer or Kitfox. And for further proof we can get our airplanes off short, just check out what John Knapp does at Oshkosh or Greenville with his two stroke powered Avid Flyer on floats. He holds the world record off the water, 2.7 seconds!!!! I have some video that one of these days I will load of John doing some of his takeoffs. In one, I don't think he uses more than 6 feet! Yeah, I did say SIX FEET. Play around with your takeoff techniques. These airplanes are all pretty amazing performers in the right hands (eg. Jimmy Franklin, John Knapp....) No reason you can't become that expert like with your own. And when onlookers see how well our airplanes perform, John McBean just might sell a couple more Foxes.... the more the merrier. Happy New Year! Paul Seehafer Central Wisconsin Model IV-1200 amphib 912ul oh yeah, the Avid I was flying back then was an A-model (similar to the model I kitfox), powered by a 532 Rotax. However, the airplane only weighed 396 pounds, and that little ol' 532 dyno'd bone stock at 73 horsepower. It was a real performer, like most of the earliest airplanes. ----- Original Message ----- From: Aerobatics@aol.com To: kitfox-list@matronics.com Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2006 8:47 PM Subject: Kitfox-List: less than 100 foot take off ... cool Less than 100 feet? calm day? Wow awesome I thought I could TO short :-) I once had a bit of snow on my runway so I could plainly see and accurately measure I also tried different things. Best I got was a bit under 200 feet on a cold day, no wind, solo, 1/2 fuel. Most were around 225 feet. I even have some on vid Full Brake full power full up elevator, release brake, after about a long second, full down to level. Adjust elevator to maintain level, then as I pass 35 mph Up to rotate. My strip is 750 feet total. So I practice this all the time. I cant imagine a KF taking off in less than 100 feet, that has to be a rush! Dave Patrick KF 2 582 href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List">http://www.matron href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com ________________________________ Message 20 ____________________________________ Time: 02:48:37 PM PST US From: "Eric" Subject: Kitfox-List: GSC prop protractor Does anyone have a GSC prop protractor that they no longer need. I would like to buy it. Eric ________________________________ Message 21 ____________________________________ Time: 03:14:47 PM PST US From: "Lowell Fitt" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Kit Fox Tires only $2.50? Been out of town. Interesting getting cought up with the Kitfox list stuff. Regarding these tires. I don't recall when I put them on my airplane, but found some pictures John McBean took at the Cameron Park fly-in of 2003 and it looks like they were on the airplane then. I have 360 hours on the airplane since that fly-in and at least that many landings as I have averaged at least one landing per hour. Most landings have been on pavement with some really rough stuff in the Idaho trips. I keep them at 10 psi. So far no flats and no cords showing. That is what I will use to determind thier service life. I have a replacement set, otherwise I would be an instant buyer. Lowell N96KL Model IV ________________________________ Message 22 ____________________________________ Time: 03:19:10 PM PST US Subject: Kitfox-List: Possible overheating and EGT question From: "wingnut" I discovered a small puddle of coolant under my airplane this morning. I had spent the previous day practicing in the pattern for almost two hours and Im wondering if the constant "touch & go" with all that time at full throttle caused it to overheat. I'm ashamed to say that I did not notice if any of the gauges where indicating anything out of the ordinary. I ran her up on the ground for a while and could not reproduce the leak so I tried a few turns around the pattern keeping a close eye on the gauges. As usual the EGT runs near the upper range of the gauge during takeoff at 1600F. I didn't used to worry about that because it's still just shy of max and it always cools off once I level out for cruise. Today though, I noticed that it stayed up at 1600 on the downwind leg coming down only when I pulled back to idle before the base turn. Is this normal behavior for EGT? Should I bump the mixture a bit? If I do adjust the mixture, how do I keep the two carbs in sync? Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=84061#84061 ________________________________ Message 23 ____________________________________ Time: 04:23:16 PM PST US Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Skis for Kitfox's From: "Richard Rabbers" Skiplane fly in - Jan. 27th 2007 - probably a pretty good opportunity to check out various ski set ups. http://www.eaa.org/communications/eaanews/061221_skiplane.html -------- Richard in SW Michigan Model 1 / 618 - full-lotus floats (restoration) Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=84076#84076 ________________________________ Message 24 ____________________________________ Time: 04:35:06 PM PST US From: Lynn Matteson Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: Skis for Kitfox's I was actually referring to your friend...Paul?...who welded your skis. Incidentally, I noticed that you don't have a diagonal brace from one side to the other...was that a part of the 'not too strong' school of thought? I'm not being picky, just observing. I also just noticed your use of the phrase: crash course in welding...hmmmm...interesting. : ) By the way, there is a guy over here in Michigan who is a flight instructor and serves some other aviation job, and his last name is Krashen...wonder how many folks walk away after being introduced to him as their flight instructor? Lynn p. s. I ordered the tubing for my skis yesterday. I've got a little extra ordered to do some practice welding...gas and MIG...and to do some practice bending. I like the bends that appear on the outside of your skis, at the pivot point...keeps the leverage nice and short. do not archive On Dec 28, 2006, at 5:08 PM, Michel Verheughe wrote: > > On Dec 28, 2006, at 3:19 PM, Lynn Matteson wrote: >> There are others out there that might be better suited to build/ >> market a set, and maybe your comments will stir some >> activity....anyone...John, Dave, Michel? > > Just a second, Lynn, I'll take a crash course in welding then I'll > make you a nice pair of skis ... kidding! :-) > Just an idea: I think wheel penetration skis don't have to be very > strong. If they are, and you hit a rock hidden under the snow, they > might bend your gears. If the are not, you'll bend the skis but > your wheel will still be there and that what's matter, isn't it? > You can then remove the skis and fix them while the plane is ready > to fly for the summer. Just a thought. > > Cheers, > Michel > > ________________________________ Message 25 ____________________________________ Time: 04:37:46 PM PST US From: Lynn Matteson Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: Skis for Kitfox's That's a long term goal for me, if I can get mine done by then...be a shame to build skis and then find better ideas there, though. Lynn On Dec 28, 2006, at 7:22 PM, Richard Rabbers wrote: > > > Skiplane fly in - Jan. 27th 2007 > - probably a pretty good opportunity to check out various ski set ups. > > http://www.eaa.org/communications/eaanews/061221_skiplane.html > > -------- > Richard in SW Michigan > Model 1 / 618 - full-lotus floats (restoration) > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=84076#84076 > > ________________________________ Message 26 ____________________________________ Time: 04:53:03 PM PST US From: "john perry" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Possible overheating and EGT question UHHHH Wing nut what engine are you running . If you are running the 582 you most likely have a fried engine MAX EGT is 1200 . If 912 normal is 1472 max is 1652 Good luck and hope you find the trouble John Perry DO NOT ARCHIVE ________________________________ Message 27 ____________________________________ Time: 04:57:28 PM PST US From: "john perry" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: Skis for Kitfox's Dave where in the heck are you buying your 4130 cuzz i am not paying that much 7/8 .035 is only $2.59 a foot and if i buy more than 100 feet i get it cheaper . Fly safe fly low fly slow and quick takeoffs to all. John Perry ________________________________ Message 28 ____________________________________ Time: 05:12:02 PM PST US Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Model 2 to 3 upgrade - Denney Aerocraft Owners Newsletter. From: "Torgeir Mortensen" Hi there Friends, I'm glad that this info have interesst for some you! Is not this what's all about(?), -yes sharing information -and- hopefully gain some more wisdom? Sure I'll learn something every day.. :) Now Dave, you've certainly gave us alot with all of the movies of a flying Kitfox, this is for sure a great inspiration for those of us still buliding, but also for us out here thats wishing to be able to make such shots ouself (like me), -I'm sure!!! Great, great, great!!! Greetings to your camera man! Wishing you all out there a Happy New Year, -and take care. Thank you. Torgeir. On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 02:56:19 +0100, dave wrote: > > Torgier, great info and good work. > > I have to say that some of those mods on the model 2 to 3 upgrade should > interest Float fliers in the models 2 as well. Extra strength to a > potential weak spot at the crossover tube should be of interest. > If any of you know hte Skyfox , I think it pretty close to a clone of > the Kitfox and they have cracking carry through tube issues. IF you > need a link let me know as I have the pdf on it or a google search > should most likely find it . > > > Dave > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Torgeir Mortensen" > > To: > Sent: Monday, December 25, 2006 8:08 PM > Subject: Kitfox-List: Denney Aerocraft Owners Newsletter. > > >> >> >> Hi Folks, >> >> >> We've been talking about those old owners newsletters, the builders >> info "magazine" from Denney Aerocraft issued for free to every builder >> at those days.. >> >> Lots of info is in this magazines, even manual update/revisions. >> >> I have scanned all of these magazines I have, just for you folks to >> see. Here's lots of pictures of the "undercambred" Kitfoxers pre. model >> IV and the builders. It is really interesting to read about "Kitfox >> building" at that time, from the old Kifox factory. >> >> Before you start downloading, just remember this info might be outdated >> or omitted -so every thing in here might need to be checked for >> validity against SB's ETC. >> >> Also, some of these pdf files is very large and may not contain very >> useful information for you, I.E. the old brochure for the model II. >> >> All of the Owners Newsletter might be interesting, some of them is very >> large -this is to keep the quality of all the pictures in there as good >> as possible. >> >> The Kitfox general info is also worth downloading. >> >> The server hosting this files is really fast, however, if you do not >> have a fast internet line -this will take some time. >> >> The "lift strut and fitting" load test, is found in the May 1990 issue. >> >> >> Merry Christmas. >> >> Torgeir >> >> >> >> The files are here: >> >> http://upngo.net/kitfox/ >> >> >> >> Do not archive >> >> -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ >> >> >> >> >> >> > > -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ ________________________________ Message 29 ____________________________________ Time: 05:15:26 PM PST US From: "dave" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: Skis for Kitfox's .875 x 035 wall is 4.50 a foot here.......... If I ordered form Wicks or spruce it would be near 50% to 100% more that price FOB there due to the customs brokers and couriers sticking it to us........ Like i said on average 4130 is >4130 is 3 to 5 $ a foot alone. you will need 20 to 25 feet per ski<< Now our money is about 12 % differance plus duty in Canada ----- Original Message ----- From: "john perry" Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 7:56 PM Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: Skis for Kitfox's > > Dave where in the heck are you buying your 4130 cuzz i am not paying that > much 7/8 .035 is only $2.59 a foot and if i buy more than 100 feet i get > it cheaper . > > Fly safe fly low fly slow and quick takeoffs to all. > > John Perry > > > ________________________________ Message 30 ____________________________________ Time: 05:21:33 PM PST US From: "dave" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Model 2 to 3 upgrade - Denney Aerocraft Owners Newsletter. Torgier , Thanks ! funny thing is that the camera man flies Beaver Ultralight RX 550 with full lotus floats. If i ever let him take a kitfox out I am sure he would orphan the Beaver quickly. I have flown his beaver and I will be polite in saying that is was no joy and if all Beavers are like that one they are close to the biggest pos I ever flown. MAybe it rigged wrong ? Or I am just spoiled by flying a easy handling Kitfox ? One thing I could never understand is why Beavers, Chinnoks and Challengars are so damn popular. As Far as I am concerned , McBean should sell alot of Kits. And if a Kitfox dealer was to have the three above planes on hand and take each customer up for a flight in each plane , then without a doubt the Kitfox would make their decision be made very quickly. Dave ----- Original Message ----- From: "Torgeir Mortensen" Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 8:11 PM Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Model 2 to 3 upgrade - Denney Aerocraft Owners Newsletter. > > > Hi there Friends, > > I'm glad that this info have interesst for some you! Is not this what's > all about(?), -yes sharing information -and- hopefully gain some more > wisdom? Sure I'll learn something every day.. :) > > Now Dave, you've certainly gave us alot with all of the movies of a flying > Kitfox, this is for sure a great inspiration for those of us still > buliding, but also for us out here thats wishing to be able to make such > shots ouself (like me), -I'm sure!!! Great, great, great!!! Greetings > to your camera man! > > Wishing you all out there a Happy New Year, -and take care. > > Thank you. > > > Torgeir. > > > On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 02:56:19 +0100, dave wrote: > >> >> Torgier, great info and good work. >> >> I have to say that some of those mods on the model 2 to 3 upgrade should >> interest Float fliers in the models 2 as well. Extra strength to a >> potential weak spot at the crossover tube should be of interest. >> If any of you know hte Skyfox , I think it pretty close to a clone of >> the Kitfox and they have cracking carry through tube issues. IF you >> need a link let me know as I have the pdf on it or a google search >> should most likely find it . >> >> >> Dave >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Torgeir Mortensen" >> >> To: >> Sent: Monday, December 25, 2006 8:08 PM >> Subject: Kitfox-List: Denney Aerocraft Owners Newsletter. >> >> >>> >>> >>> Hi Folks, >>> >>> >>> We've been talking about those old owners newsletters, the builders >>> info "magazine" from Denney Aerocraft issued for free to every builder >>> at those days.. >>> >>> Lots of info is in this magazines, even manual update/revisions. >>> >>> I have scanned all of these magazines I have, just for you folks to >>> see. Here's lots of pictures of the "undercambred" Kitfoxers pre. model >>> IV and the builders. It is really interesting to read about "Kitfox >>> building" at that time, from the old Kifox factory. >>> >>> Before you start downloading, just remember this info might be outdated >>> or omitted -so every thing in here might need to be checked for >>> validity against SB's ETC. >>> >>> Also, some of these pdf files is very large and may not contain very >>> useful information for you, I.E. the old brochure for the model II. >>> >>> All of the Owners Newsletter might be interesting, some of them is very >>> large -this is to keep the quality of all the pictures in there as good >>> as possible. >>> >>> The Kitfox general info is also worth downloading. >>> >>> The server hosting this files is really fast, however, if you do not >>> have a fast internet line -this will take some time. >>> >>> The "lift strut and fitting" load test, is found in the May 1990 issue. >>> >>> >>> Merry Christmas. >>> >>> Torgeir >>> >>> >>> >>> The files are here: >>> >>> http://upngo.net/kitfox/ >>> >>> >>> >>> Do not archive >>> >>> -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > -- > Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ > > > ________________________________ Message 31 ____________________________________ Time: 05:38:02 PM PST US From: "john perry" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: Skis for Kitfox's OMG , That is horrible Dave , We need to just load our planes with the stuff as we fly over and just say its spare parts for our own planes if we have trouble lol . and stock it at your place . Take care fly safe fly snow John Perry ----- Original Message ----- From: "dave" Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 7:15 PM Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: Skis for Kitfox's > > .875 x 035 wall is 4.50 a foot here.......... > If I ordered form Wicks or spruce it would be near 50% to 100% more that > price FOB there due to the customs brokers and couriers sticking it to > us........ > > > Like i said on average 4130 is >>4130 is 3 to 5 $ a foot alone. > you will need 20 to 25 feet per ski<< > > Now our money is about 12 % differance plus duty in Canada > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "john perry" > To: > Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 7:56 PM > Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: Skis for Kitfox's > > >> >> Dave where in the heck are you buying your 4130 cuzz i am not paying that >> much 7/8 .035 is only $2.59 a foot and if i buy more than 100 feet i get >> it cheaper . >> >> Fly safe fly low fly slow and quick takeoffs to all. >> >> John Perry >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > ________________________________ Message 32 ____________________________________ Time: 05:47:27 PM PST US Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Possible overheating and EGT question From: "wingnut" Duh. Sorry 912UL. Is it typical for EGT to hit max at full throttle? Water and oil temps are nominal as is oil pressure. Another thing worries me is that this Westach combo gauge only goes up to 1600F. It looks like the needle is free to move beyond 1600 but there's no way to be sure. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=84105#84105 ________________________________ Message 33 ____________________________________ Time: 06:18:25 PM PST US From: "Noel Loveys" Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: less than 100 foot take off ... cool Paul: Being a float flyer I really want to see that one!!!! Noel And for further proof we can get our airplanes off short, just check out what John Knapp does at Oshkosh or Greenville with his two stroke powered Avid Flyer on floats. He holds the world record off the water, 2.7 seconds!!!! I have some video that one of these days I will load of John doing some of his takeoffs. In one, I don't think he uses more than 6 feet! Yeah, I did say SIX FEET. ________________________________ Message 34 ____________________________________ Time: 06:35:31 PM PST US From: "Noel Loveys" Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Re: Possible overheating and EGT question Sounds like you might be a bit lean. Also the cool dense air is making your engine run even leaner. Noel > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of wingnut > Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 10:17 PM > To: kitfox-list@matronics.com > Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Possible overheating and EGT question > > > > Duh. Sorry 912UL. > Is it typical for EGT to hit max at full throttle? Water and > oil temps are nominal as is oil pressure. Another thing > worries me is that this Westach combo gauge only goes up to > 1600F. It looks like the needle is free to move beyond 1600 > but there's no way to be sure. > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=84105#84105 > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ Message 35 ____________________________________ Time: 06:39:02 PM PST US From: "john perry" Subject: Kitfox-List: wing tank model 2-3 I am looking for a wingtank for the Model 2 -3 , 13.5 gallon needs to be a left tank . Wahoo supposed to snow this weekend will be fun on skis for some of us . John Perry ________________________________ Message 36 ____________________________________ Time: 06:46:33 PM PST US From: "ron schick" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Kit Fox Tires only $2.50? Glad to hear that Lowell! My two sets arrived today and I must say I'm impressed. If these were "yellow tagged" they would cost a fortune. How much speed did you lose changing to the bigger tires. Since the Kitfox has the speed wing I may try to put them on my stol Avid first. Hafta lose the nosewheel first or it just wouldn't look right. Ron NB Ore >From: "Lowell Fitt" >To: >Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Kit Fox Tires only $2.50? >Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 15:13:56 -0800 > > >Been out of town. Interesting getting cought up with the Kitfox list >stuff. > >Regarding these tires. I don't recall when I put them on my airplane, but >found some pictures John McBean took at the Cameron Park fly-in of 2003 and >it looks like they were on the airplane then. > >I have 360 hours on the airplane since that fly-in and at least that many >landings as I have averaged at least one landing per hour. Most landings >have been on pavement with some really rough stuff in the Idaho trips. I >keep them at 10 psi. > >So far no flats and no cords showing. That is what I will use to determind >thier service life. I have a replacement set, otherwise I would be an >instant buyer. > >Lowell N96KL Model IV > > _________________________________________________________________ Get live scores and news about your team: Add the Live.com Football Page www.live.com/?addtemplate=football&icid=T001MSN30A0701 ________________________________ Message 37 ____________________________________ Time: 06:51:56 PM PST US From: "Noel Loveys" Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Re: Skis for Kitfox's Dave: The floor jack is a good idea for getting in and out of the shop but wouldn't help me get it on the trailer. I have been considering bulling a bit of snow up with my J5 and pulling the plane directly onto the trailer. The WX here is a bit colder here today but we are a good ways off seeing the bay freeze over. I'm not planning on taking the floats off until it is well and truly frozen... We are only about 12 WK away from spring break-up..... Of course in this part of the world spring break-up occurs when the ice breakers come in to open the bay for lobster fishing. Late march... Fresh water may not open until mid April. The last few years have been pretty poor for ski flying... Less snow and no sea ice. Inland you can land just about any where. There are laws that don't permit the building of roads close to ponds so getting the plane off a trailer in location that is usable for flying can be fun. The last owner used to tow the plane behind his snowmobile about a half a mile to a frozen bog he used as a strip. Noel > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of dave > Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 11:54 AM > To: kitfox-list@matronics.com > Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: Skis for Kitfox's > > > > Noel, > NO chance of 500 $ unless you talking EACH !! > > 4130 is 3 to 5 $ a foot alone. > you will need 20 to 25 feet per ski > > UHMW is about 3 to 4 $ a square foot. > 10 sq feet needed. > > Am I missing somthing ? > > Also ........ A tip to move in shot on skis ..... use a 2 x > 6 that fits > under the axles and between the calipers and put on a floor > jack . lift up > a few inches and pull the plane on floor jack . If you have > a tail ski it > will drag ok or put a dolly under the tail ski. > > Dave ________________________________ Message 38 ____________________________________ Time: 06:55:14 PM PST US From: "Noel Loveys" Subject: Kitfox-List: Re:Off topic: Skis for Kitfox's With a kitfox mounted on a snow board you will not be guaranteed of getting any air .... :-) Noel Do not archive > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of dave > Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 11:59 AM > To: kitfox-list@matronics.com > Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: Skis for Kitfox's > > > > yes > but only on real light planes imo. > > Dave > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "kitfoxmike" > To: > Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 10:17 AM > Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Skis for Kitfox's > > > > > > > hay I just got a thought, what about mounting some snow > boards to your > > plane. Maybe a stupid idea, so don't take me seriously. > just thinking out > > loud. > > > > -------- > > kitfoxmike > > Do not archive > > > > > > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=83956#83956 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ Message 39 ____________________________________ Time: 06:55:34 PM PST US Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Possible overheating and EGT question From: "Torgeir Mortensen" Hi Luis, (not sure about your name) Funny this thing, as I thought I'll write some- about the EGT system before the New Year. Hmmm... The thing is that, the EGT system is measuring differential temperature. Ok., the system that is used for measuring the exhaust gas temperature is measuring temperature difference, NOT absolute temperature!! Well, it is measuring the temperature difference between the cockpit(inside cockpit temperature -NOT the OAT!) and the EGT probe temperature. But you'll know, the temperature in the cockpit may change -then your EGT reading change too!!! To know your correct EGT temperature (at the probe) it important to know the cockpit temperature. So now, I'm wondering :) how many of you are using a true cockpit thermometer? Some of you might have the double temperature meter, that measure the inside and outside temperature (with ice warning) for cars? This is indeed a good idea (if you checked that the readings are correct) as this can be used to calculate your "true" EGT. The ting is that, your EGT system is calibrated at a known temperature! Do you know this temperature for your instrument??? Now, think about this "calibration temperature" as a line across a standard mercury meter scale, if your cockpit temperature is above this line -your meter is reading to low! This is because the meter (and the calibration point) is moving towards the EGT probe temperature, see less difference I.E. reading to low. The other way around, no cockpit heater (or a poor heater), I'm trying to say that the cockpit temperature is below the "calibration value". In this case, the indicated value will show to high, so we think that we are boosting the red line. But indeed we should subtract the "absolute" value of the reading BELOW the "calibration value" line. In this latter case, our reading will be to high. Ok., to summarize; in the winter time our reading will be to high, -and in the summer time our reading will be to low, IF OUR COCKPIT TEMPERATURE DIFFER/VARY WITH SEASONS FROM THE INSTRUMENTS CALIBRATION TEMPERATURE. If you have a temperature controlled de luxe heater that can maintain, say 23 deg. Celsius in the cockpit -everything become so much more simple. :) :) (I'll add a little bit more about this later.) Now to your engine: Doing touch and go is without doubt a real hard work for your engine, esp. in the winter time. As the temperature is going a lot down, and maybe it's CAVOK(a high pressure), in this situ. your engine got lot's of more O2 -meaning better combustion and higher temperature. Yes, we've to enrich to keep the temperature in the green (one notch up and..). So this is why we have more power during the winter season. (Sure that's more to say here..). Also, as the air molecules is closer together we would have a better lift as well. (Hey, winter flying is more fun!!) In the winter time, cooling is also allot better, so this will normally not occur, unless there is another problem. (If not, check your thermostat.) A last word, after such a hard work for your engine it is a good practice to let the engine idle for some time to take the heath out. If not, we often see that the engine start boiling after shut down. (Hint; this is always a must for a turbo engine). Torgeir. On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 00:18:55 +0100, wingnut wrote: > > I discovered a small puddle of coolant under my airplane this morning. I > had spent the previous day practicing in the pattern for almost two > hours and Im wondering if the constant "touch & go" with all that > time at full throttle caused it to overheat. I'm ashamed to say that I > did not notice if any of the gauges where indicating anything out of the > ordinary. > > I ran her up on the ground for a while and could not reproduce the leak > so I tried a few turns around the pattern keeping a close eye on the > gauges. As usual the EGT runs near the upper range of the gauge during > takeoff at 1600F. I didn't used to worry about that because it's still > just shy of max and it always cools off once I level out for cruise. > Today though, I noticed that it stayed up at 1600 on the downwind leg > coming down only when I pulled back to idle before the base turn. > > Is this normal behavior for EGT? Should I bump the mixture a bit? If I > do adjust the mixture, how do I keep the two carbs in sync? > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=84061#84061 > > -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ ________________________________ Message 40 ____________________________________ Time: 07:19:53 PM PST US From: "Noel Loveys" Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: wing tank model 2-3 John: My plane has a 6 Gal U.S. tank on the left side and a 13.5 Gal. U.S. on the right. I was wondering if you can think of a good reason for this configuration.... Noel > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of > john perry > Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 11:08 PM > To: kitfox-list@matronics.com > Subject: Kitfox-List: wing tank model 2-3 > > > > I am looking for a wingtank for the Model 2 -3 , 13.5 > gallon needs to > be a left tank . > > Wahoo supposed to snow this weekend will be fun on skis for > some of us . > > John Perry > > > > > > ________________________________ Message 41 ____________________________________ Time: 07:43:35 PM PST US From: "Rexster" Subject: Kitfox-List: wing tank model 2-3 When I bought my model 3 kit in 1990, I did all the option paperwork wit h Dan Denney at Oshkosh. He recommended I go with 6 gallons on my side a nd 13 on the right because we often fly solo and the extra fuel on the r ight side helps to balance things out. A couple months into the project, I sent the six gallon tank back and replaced it with another 13. I'm gl ad I did. I've never noticed an imbalance when flying solo. Rex in Michigan -- "Noel Loveys" wrote: John: My plane has a 6 Gal U.S. tank on the left side and a 13.5 Gal. U.S. on the right. I was wondering if you can think of a good reason for this configuration.... Noel > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of > john perry > Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 11:08 PM > To: kitfox-list@matronics.com > Subject: Kitfox-List: wing tank model 2-3 > > > > I am looking for a wingtank for the Model 2 -3 , 13.5 > gallon needs to > be a left tank . > > Wahoo supposed to snow this weekend will be fun on skis for > some of us . > > John Perry > > > > > > ======================== =========== ======================== =========== ======================== ===========

When I bought my model 3 kit in 1990, I did all the option paperwork with Dan Denney at Oshkosh. He recommended I go with 6 gallon s on my side and 13 on the right because we often fly solo and the extra fuel on the right side helps to balance things out. A couple months int o the project, I sent the six gallon tank back and replaced it with anot her 13. I'm glad I did. I've never noticed an imbalance when flying solo .

Rex in Michigan

 



-- "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys@yahoo.ca>&n bsp;wrote:
--> Kitfox-List message posted by:& nbsp;"Noel Loveys" <noelloveys@yahoo.ca>

John:

My plane has a 6 Gal U.S. tank&n bsp;on the left side and a 13.5 Gal.& nbsp;U.S. on the
right.  I was wonderin g if you can think of a good rea son for this
configuration....

Noel



& gt; -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-k itfox-list-server@matronics.com 
> [mailto:owner-kitfox- list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of 
>&nbs p;john perry
> Sent: Thursday, December 2 8, 2006 11:08 PM
> To: kitfox-list@matron ics.com
> Subject: Kitfox-List: wing tank  ;model 2-3
> 
> 
> --> Kit fox-List message posted by: "john perry" & lt;eskflyer@lvcisp.com>
> 
> I am loo king for a wingtank for the Model 2&n bsp;-3 ,     13.5 
> gallo n   needs to 
> be a left& nbsp;tank .
> 
> Wahoo supposed to& nbsp;snow this weekend will be fun on  ;skis for 
> some of us .
>&nb sp;
> John Perry
> 
> 
>&nbs ======================== ======================== sp;   - The Kitfox-List Email Forum&n  utilities such as the Subscriptions page, ======================== ========================      - NEW MATRONICS WEB FO ======================== ======================== ======
________________________________ Message 42 ____________________________________ Time: 07:46:54 PM PST US From: "john perry" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: wing tank model 2-3 Noel My only guess is builder did not want more weight ?. I have the 10 gallon front tank and 13.5 gallon right tank and would really like a left tank also for those LONNNNNG flight days when i want to go far and fuel is not available . Fly safe John Perry ________________________________ Message 43 ____________________________________ Time: 08:58:22 PM PST US From: "Noel Loveys" Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: wing tank model 2-3 What I have is the 6 and the 13.5 with a header of 2 Gal. ( all U.S.) I've had flights of 3 hr with a good half hr. of reserve but at the low speeds of these planes that's not a lot of range. I generally carry another 12 gal in the right float if I'm going any distance. 3 Gal U.S. Jerry cans are great for that. Noel > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of > john perry > Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 12:16 AM > To: kitfox-list@matronics.com > Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: wing tank model 2-3 > > > > Noel > My only guess is builder did not want more weight ?. I have > the 10 gallon > front tank and 13.5 gallon right tank and would really like a > left tank also > for those LONNNNNG flight days when i want to go far and fuel is not > available . > > Fly safe > John Perry > > > > > > ________________________________ Message 44 ____________________________________ Time: 09:02:41 PM PST US Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Possible overheating and EGT question From: "Torgeir Mortensen" Hi again, Just a little important note. When I said one notch up, I meant one notch to bring the needle up having more rich mixture. To actually do this, the locking ring has to go one notch down on the needle itself... Sorry, but do not want any confusion here. Torgeir. On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 03:55:29 +0100, Torgeir Mortensen wrote: > > > Hi Luis, (not sure about your name) > > Funny this thing, as I thought I'll write some- about the EGT system > before the New Year. Hmmm... > > The thing is that, the EGT system is measuring differential temperature. > Ok., the system that is used for measuring the exhaust gas temperature > is measuring temperature difference, NOT absolute temperature!! > > Well, it is measuring the temperature difference between the > cockpit(inside cockpit temperature -NOT the OAT!) and the EGT probe > temperature. > > But you'll know, the temperature in the cockpit may change -then your > EGT reading change too!!! > > To know your correct EGT temperature (at the probe) it important to know > the cockpit temperature. > > So now, I'm wondering :) how many of you are using a true cockpit > thermometer? > > Some of you might have the double temperature meter, that measure the > inside and outside temperature (with ice warning) for cars? > > This is indeed a good idea (if you checked that the readings are > correct) as this can be used to calculate your "true" EGT. > > The ting is that, your EGT system is calibrated at a known temperature! > Do you know this temperature for your instrument??? > > Now, think about this "calibration temperature" as a line across a > standard mercury meter scale, if your cockpit temperature is above this > line -your meter is reading to low! > > This is because the meter (and the calibration point) is moving towards > the EGT probe temperature, see less difference I.E. reading to low. > > The other way around, no cockpit heater (or a poor heater), I'm trying > to say that the cockpit temperature is below the "calibration value". > In this case, the indicated value will show to high, so we think that we > are boosting the red line. But indeed we should subtract the "absolute" > value of the reading BELOW the "calibration value" line. > > In this latter case, our reading will be to high. > > Ok., to summarize; in the winter time our reading will be to high, -and > in the summer time our reading will be to low, IF OUR COCKPIT > TEMPERATURE DIFFER/VARY WITH SEASONS FROM THE INSTRUMENTS CALIBRATION > TEMPERATURE. > > If you have a temperature controlled de luxe heater that can maintain, > say 23 deg. Celsius in the cockpit -everything become so much more > simple. :) :) > > (I'll add a little bit more about this later.) > > Now to your engine: > > Doing touch and go is without doubt a real hard work for your engine, > esp. in the winter time. > > As the temperature is going a lot down, and maybe it's CAVOK(a high > pressure), in this situ. your engine got lot's of more O2 -meaning > better combustion and higher temperature. Yes, we've to enrich to keep > the temperature in the green (one notch up and..). So this is why we > have more power during the winter season. (Sure that's more to say > here..). > > Also, as the air molecules is closer together we would have a better > lift as well. (Hey, winter flying is more fun!!) > > In the winter time, cooling is also allot better, so this will normally > not occur, unless there is another problem. (If not, check your > thermostat.) > > A last word, after such a hard work for your engine it is a good > practice to let the engine idle for some time to take the heath out. If > not, we often see that the engine start boiling after shut down. (Hint; > this is always a must for a turbo engine). > > > Torgeir. > > > On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 00:18:55 +0100, wingnut > wrote: > >> >> I discovered a small puddle of coolant under my airplane this morning. >> I had spent the previous day practicing in the pattern for almost two >> hours and Im wondering if the constant "touch & go" with all that >> time at full throttle caused it to overheat. I'm ashamed to say that I >> did not notice if any of the gauges where indicating anything out of >> the ordinary. >> >> I ran her up on the ground for a while and could not reproduce the leak >> so I tried a few turns around the pattern keeping a close eye on the >> gauges. As usual the EGT runs near the upper range of the gauge during >> takeoff at 1600F. I didn't used to worry about that because it's still >> just shy of max and it always cools off once I level out for cruise. >> Today though, I noticed that it stayed up at 1600 on the downwind leg >> coming down only when I pulled back to idle before the base turn. >> >> Is this normal behavior for EGT? Should I bump the mixture a bit? If I >> do adjust the mixture, how do I keep the two carbs in sync? >> >> >> >> >> Read this topic online here: >> >> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=84061#84061 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ ________________________________ Message 45 ____________________________________ Time: 09:10:47 PM PST US Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Possible overheating and EGT question From: "wingnut" > When I said one notch up, I meant one notch to bring the needle up having > more rich mixture. > > To actually do this, the locking ring has to go one notch down on the > needle itself... OK. Now I'm really confused. You wouldn't happen to know where I can find an illustration of what you are talking about? Also, when adjusting the mixture at the carb, how does one ensure that the two carbs stay in sync? -Luis -824KF Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=84145#84145 ________________________________ Message 46 ____________________________________ Time: 09:41:00 PM PST US From: "Rexster" Subject: Kitfox-List: Possible overheating and EGT question OK. Now I'm really confused. You wouldn't happen to know where I can fin d an illustration of what you are talking about? Also, when adjusting th e mixture at the carb, how does one ensure that the two carbs stay in sy nc? Luis, Did you get my earlier response (off line)? Changing the needle positions on the carbs does not have any affect on the carb syncronization. Check out either the Rotax parts catalog or the overhaul manual. Both show the needle and clip relationship in diagr ams. Rex in Michigan -Luis -824KF Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=84145#84145 ======================== =========== ======================== =========== ======================== ===========

OK. Now I'm really confused. You& nbsp;wouldn't happen to know where I can&n bsp;find an illustration of what you are&n bsp;talking about? Also, when adjusting the&nbs p;mixture at the carb, how does one e nsure that the two carbs stay in sync ?

Luis,

    Did you get my earlier response (off line)?
&nb sp;   Changing the needle positions on the carbs does not have any affect on the carb syncronization. Check out either the Rotax parts catalog or the overhaul manual. Both show the needle and clip relations hip in diagrams.

Rex in Michigan


-Luis
-824KF




Read t his topic online here:

http://forums.matronics.com ======================== ========================     - The Kitfox-List Email Foru ist utilities such as the Subscriptions pa ======================== ======================== sp;     - NEW MATRONICS WEB  ======================== ======================== =======
________________________________ Message 47 ____________________________________ Time: 09:42:20 PM PST US From: Guy Buchanan Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: First (Four) Flights!! At 08:27 AM 12/27/2006, you wrote: >I'm proud to report that another Series 5 is now flying (as of >Saturday 23 Dec)! Congratulations Grant! It sounds like an exciting first flight. Guy Buchanan K-IV/1200 w/ 582 C-box & Warp 3 blade Do Not Archive ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Other Matronics Email List Services ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post A New Message kitfox-list@matronics.com UN/SUBSCRIBE http://www.matronics.com/subscription List FAQ http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/Kitfox-List.htm Web Forum Interface To Lists http://forums.matronics.com Matronics List Wiki http://wiki.matronics.com Full Archive Search Engine http://www.matronics.com/search 7-Day List Browse http://www.matronics.com/browse/kitfox-list Browse Digests http://www.matronics.com/digest/kitfox-list Browse Other Lists http://www.matronics.com/browse Live Online Chat! http://www.matronics.com/chat Archive Downloading http://www.matronics.com/archives Photo Share http://www.matronics.com/photoshare Other Email Lists http://www.matronics.com/emaillists Contributions http://www.matronics.com/contribution ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.