Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:22 AM - Re: Re: dead-stick topic (kirk hull)
2. 05:29 AM - Re: wing tank model 2-3 (dave)
3. 06:01 AM - Re: Possible overheating and EGT question (Noel Loveys)
4. 06:20 AM - Re: Fuel Flw (Noel Loveys)
5. 06:48 AM - Re: Possible overheating and EGT question (Lynn Matteson)
6. 06:49 AM - Re: Re: dead-stick topic (Noel Loveys)
7. 07:47 AM - Re: Fuel Flw (Guy Buchanan)
8. 07:48 AM - Re: Rotax 912-S flyers, What RPM do you look for on Climbout ? (wingnut)
9. 07:51 AM - Re: Possible overheating and EGT question (Noel Loveys)
10. 08:59 AM - new kitfox2 (jerry evans)
11. 09:09 AM - Re: Possible overheating and EGT question (Clem Nichols)
12. 09:18 AM - Re: Re: dead-stick topic (Ron Liebmann)
13. 09:42 AM - Re: Fuel Flw (Lowell Fitt)
14. 09:46 AM - Re: new kitfox2 (Lowell Fitt)
15. 09:50 AM - Re: Possible overheating and EGT question (Fox5flyer)
16. 09:57 AM - Re: new kitfox2 (john perry)
17. 10:00 AM - 912 UL question (RRTRACK@aol.com)
18. 10:03 AM - Kitfox ad in February Kitplanes! (Randy Daughenbaugh)
19. 10:23 AM - Re: Re: Rotax 912-S flyers, What RPM do you look for on Climbout ? (Roger McConnell)
20. 11:49 AM - Re: Re: dead-stick topic (Noel Loveys)
21. 11:55 AM - Re: Fuel Flw (Noel Loveys)
22. 12:13 PM - Re: Possible overheating and EGT question (Noel Loveys)
23. 12:14 PM - Re: new kitfox2 (Noel Loveys)
24. 12:17 PM - Re: Fuel Flw (Torgeir Mortensen)
25. 12:39 PM - Re: Possible overheating and EGT question (Torgeir Mortensen)
26. 01:29 PM - Re: Possible overheating and EGT question (Lynn Matteson)
27. 01:35 PM - Re: Possible overheating and EGT question (Lynn Matteson)
28. 01:48 PM - Re: new kitfox2 (john perry)
29. 02:01 PM - Re: Possible overheating and EGT question (Torgeir Mortensen)
30. 02:07 PM - Re: Re: Skis for Kitfox's (Randy Daughenbaugh)
31. 02:33 PM - Re: Kitfox ad in February Kitplanes! (kirk hull)
32. 02:44 PM - Re: Possible overheating and EGT question (Noel Loveys)
33. 02:47 PM - Re: new kitfox2 (Noel Loveys)
34. 02:48 PM - Re: Kitfox ad in February Kitplanes! (dave)
35. 03:25 PM - Re: Michel Fabic tearing topic (Michel Verheughe)
36. 03:41 PM - Re: new kitfox2 (Malcolmbru@aol.com)
37. 03:43 PM - Re: Re: dead-stick topic (Michel Verheughe)
38. 04:05 PM - Re: Possible overheating and EGT question (Noel Loveys)
39. 04:22 PM - Re: Fuel Flw (Torgeir Mortensen)
40. 05:28 PM - Re: 912 UL question (jeff puls)
41. 05:32 PM - Re: Fuel Flw (Noel Loveys)
42. 05:58 PM - Re: Kitfox ad in February Kitplanes! (kitfoxmike)
43. 07:09 PM - Re: Re: dead-stick topic (kitfoxjunky)
44. 07:49 PM - Re: Re: dead-stick topic (Ron Liebmann)
45. 07:58 PM - Re: Re: dead-stick topic (QSS)
46. 08:26 PM - Re: Re: dead-stick topic (Noel Loveys)
47. 10:27 PM - Re: new kitfox2 (Marco Menezes)
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: dead-stick topic |
Once you have mastered the procedure you should be fine. The reason they
don't teach this is that if you find out that you are not going to make the
field until the last min then you don't have enough time to restart the
engine and in some cases it wont start any way.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rexinator
Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2006 12:00 AM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: dead-stick topic
Michel,
When I was in training it was considered risky to practice engine out
procedures by doing actual dead stick flight. Most of the training
flights were by flight schools and were done from tower controlled
airports. Possible dead stick practice accidents were enough of a
deterent to the schools considering they might be done by solo students
if taught by instructors.
I see no problem practicing them if you are allowed by the airport
authorities or have your own airstrip as long as safe procedures.are
followed. I intend to do them myself one day.
Rex
Snowy Colorado
Michel Verheughe wrote:
> On Dec 28, 2006, at 11:20 PM, dave wrote:
>
>> 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 !!
>
>
> That would certainly be a good way to find out where the sound is
> coming from, Dave. However, I have a problem. One year ago, I was
> talking to this list about dead-stick landing and after I was told
> that I never tried it after doing it with my instructor, I was told
> that I should. Then I obeyed and I did, and I enjoyed it. In fact,
> each time I am alone and the weather is stable, I land dead-stick. A
> while ago, I told that to the Jabiru Engine list. There, I got the
> opposite reaction. I was told that it was dangerous to cut out a
> perfectly running engine and that I could try dead-stick with the
> engine at idle.
> Now, I am confused and I don't know if I should or I should not.
>
> Cheers,
> Michel
>
> do not archive
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: wing tank model 2-3 |
Ron, Thanks for those pics of the rear tank.
Looks like a fair size.
I have a dash tank and 2 6 gal tanks in wings. When on floats I am
restricted to about 3.5 hours and a bit.
I can take gas in floats but an extra 5 to 10 gals behind seat would extend
me 1 to 2 hours . So i can fly in 3 hours and still have enough for return
without refueling.
Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: "ron schick" <roncarolnikko@hotmail.com>
Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 8:23 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: wing tank model 2-3
The weights and balance might be a challenge, but I saw a rear mounted tank
at Arlington this year. I'll try to attach a picture or three. Ron NB Ore
>From: "dave" <dave@cfisher.com>
>To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: wing tank model 2-3
>Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 10:47:06 -0500
>
>
>Lowell,
>What do you think of a tank that could be mounted behind the seat ?
>Custon made of course but you could get I would guess 5 to 10 gal capacity
>there.
>I have taken may times 3 of the 2 imp container there. so an extra 30
>litres or so.
>My Baggage sack is tie wrapped in with eyelets in the canvas not velcro-ed
>like some.
>I have thought of making a new baggage compartment that is solid with a
>side door and might do this winter.
>
>My floats are handy for extra fuel cans as well.
>
>
>Dave
>
>
>----- Original Message ----- From: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@sbcglobal.net>
>To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
>Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 10:33 AM
>Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: wing tank model 2-3
>
>
>>
>>Noel,
>>
>>In the early days of small instrument panel and panel tank kitfoxes, the
>>wing tanks were available options. The tanks were in two sizes as you
>>mention. My guess is that with the light weights of the early airplanes,
>>it was considered wise to put the large tank on the mostly empty passenger
>>seat side and the small tank on the pilot side for lateral ballance.
>>
>>Lowell
>>----- Original Message ----- From: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys@yahoo.ca>
>>To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
>>Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 7:18 PM
>>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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Find sales, coupons, and free shipping, all in one place! MSN Shopping
Sales & Deals
http://shopping.msn.com/content/shp/?ctid=198,ptnrid=176,ptnrdata 0639
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: | Possible overheating and EGT question |
Enough to say Lynn your EIS is probably a darn sight more accurate than my
EGT. As long as you didn't cut any wires or use speaker zip wire in your
installation.
Noel
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> Lynn Matteson
> Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 10:57 PM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Possible overheating and EGT question
>
>
>
> I just looked for my manual for the EIS, but it's at the hangar. I
> know they mention the cold junction, and say that it should be kept
> as far from heat sources as possible, so they must be worried that
> this junction will get hot and foul up the reading. But elsewhere I
> recall reading that the unit temperature is what is used to compare
> all other temp readings to, so I'm at a loss to say anything,
> really...and I'm certainly no electronics person.
>
> Lynn
> On Dec 29, 2006, at 3:22 PM, Torgeir Mortensen wrote:
>
> > <torgemor@online.no>
> >
> > Hi Lynn,
> >
> > Yes, you're right by now you've probably been reading my post to
> > Lowell about this.
> >
> > Funny that you mention the EIS, I'm a little curious about this
> > system, cause such a modern design should have an automatic cold
> > junction compensation system built in, I.E. the system measure the
> > actual instrument temperature and then correct the reading so
> > you'll always be reading the true EGT (well, -the temp at
> the probe).
> >
> > If you are using this system, it could be interesting to
> know their
> > cold junction reference.
> >
> > Yes, the principle is just the same, except that they're using an
> > amplifier and an analog to digital converter -vola..
> >
> > Torgeir
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 16:56:27 +0100, Lynn Matteson
> > <lynnmatt@jps.net> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Lowell-
> >>
> >> I think what Torgeir said was that the EGT reading is a
> >> differential between the probe and the cockpit temp. My
> >> understanding of my EIS is that it references the unit
> >> temperature...that is, the temp of the EIS "unit" itself, and any
> >> other temp that you are monitoring. If Torgeir was not talking
> >> about the EIS unit, this comment may not apply.
> >>
> >> Lynn
> >> On Dec 29, 2006, at 10:29 AM, Lowell Fitt wrote:
> >>
> >>> <lcfitt@sbcglobal.net>
> >>>
> >>> Torgeir,
> >>>
> >>> I have understood, as you say, that the the EGT probe is
> >>> measuring a differential temperature between the probe and the
> >>> end of the metal shielded lead. My lead does not terminate in
> >>> the cockpit, although there is sufficient length to do so. The
> >>> leads on the Lancair IV I am helping with are too short to enter
> >>> the cockpit We coiled the leads aft of the first two cylinders
> >>> so the leads terminate in the same relative location, but they
> >>> are in the engine compartment. These airplanes are built to fly
> >>> in the flight levels so positioning the terminals above the
> >>> baffling would give the reference temps a great fluctuation.
> >>> They are positioned below the baffles of necessity due to their
> >>> length.
> >>>
> >>> Your thoughts.
> >>>
> >>> Lowell
> >>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Torgeir Mortensen"
> >>> <torgemor@online.no>
> >>> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> >>> Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 6:55 PM
> >>> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Possible overheating and EGT question
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> <torgemor@online.no>
> >>>>
> >>>> 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.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client:
> http://www.opera.com/mail/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
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 |
|
Torgeir:
I followed your post with some interest. I do have a question... How do you
calculate the right tank to have a higher head of fuel than the right tank?
They are both at the same distance over the header tank.
My plane has forward facing vent tubes (on the caps) on both tanks. The
only way I can see a difference in the head of fuel from each tank is when
both tanks are at different pressures because of differences in the cap
vents.
There may be a little difference in the level of the plane in flight as the
rounded cowl distorts to some extent a persons ability to tell straight and
level. In a case like that the upper tank will empty first.
As to having separate shut offs on each wing tank I heartily agree with you.
I check the rubber tube connections on the fuel system quite often because I
don't want a gas shower at 3000' ! Shutting off one tank will also allow
you to get a good top off for max fuel in both tanks.
Noel
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> Torgeir Mortensen
> Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 11:27 PM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Fuel Flw
>
>
> <torgemor@online.no>
>
> Hi Howard,
>
> this is an interesting situation, I've been thinking a little
> about this
> one. I'll say this is the first issue after the mandatory
> main tank "fuel
> shutoff valve" removal.
>
> Well, the removal of these two valves was a big mistake that
> Skystar did,
> IMO. Do you have those installed??
>
> There is three good reasons (at last) to keep this valves installed.
>
> Lets first talk about your "possible" problem.
>
> By some reason the pressure is higher in the right tank vs.
> the left side.
> This explain the fuel transfere, it also explain your engine
> stoppage,
> well how.
>
> I'm assuming that you have the feeder went line connected to
> the left hand
> main tank, right?
>
> As we assume that the head pressure is lower in left tank,
> the transfere
> take place -and fuel will be transferred by both the left
> feeder line and
> the vent line. As the feeder is "pressurized" fuel transfere
> will use both
> lines, that's why this go so fast.
>
> As the left tank go dry, air start entering the feeder, the
> remaining fuel
> is trapped in the left tank by the air pressure, the engine
> is using the
> remaining fuel that's below both feeding lines inside the
> feeder. Soon
> your engine loose power.
>
> Ok., it's right that some fuel will leak into the feeder from
> the left
> tank due to gravity, when feeder fuel level go below the feeder pipe
> outlet. However, this leakage will be far to low for your
> engine demand.
>
>
> Then to the cause of the low pressure in the left tank, the
> traditional is
> an old leaky gasket at the main filler, but your plane is not
> that old so..
>
> Next, could it be a leaky head tube? Or could it be a leaky
> left fuel tank
> at some high spot? All of these three is hard to spot/verify
> without a
> tank shut off valve.
>
>
> So number one reason for having main fuel tank shut off
> valves, is to
> avoid unwanted fuel tranfere and loss of endurance.
>
> In your case fuel would still be able to tranfere even if you
> had the shut
> off valve installed. This time via the vent line.
>
> I've many times talked about a cross vent line, such
> arrangement would
> prevent transfere, but will lower the total head pressure if
> one of the
> tank is leaking.
>
>
> Number two is a safety issue, well both tank outlet enter
> cockpit via a
> rubber housing - if one of those rubber housing start
> leaking, to stop
> such a leakage you'll need to shut both tank valves, but
> you'll still have
> the header for landing..
>
>
> Number three. When I'm parking, even for long term, one of
> the main is
> open the other is closed. For maintenance this valve is a must.
>
> OK.
>
> The last thing you've mentioned, is the lack of transfere
> from left to
> right via the feeder when on ground.
>
> This is hard to explain, unless you have a rubber flap valve
> somewhere(one
> way valve), mentioned in one of the old the Rotax Service
> Information
> Letter, that prevent fuel to go toward the right tank.
>
>
> Well lets see what happen now..
>
>
> There is still something to ask, how much fuel was left in
> the left tank?
> Was the fuel level above the venline tube where it is
> entering the left
> tank?
>
>
>
> Good Luck
>
>
> Torgeir.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 16:15:36 +0100, howard <rv73hl@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > My Model IV 1200, has been feeding fuel from the right tank
> with gas in
> > the left also. I finally deceided to run to see if the gas would
> > transfer. Luckly for me, it stopped on final at our
> airport. The left
> > tank had gas in it. It would not start, we added gas to
> the right tank,
> > and after a few minutes on choke, it started.
> >
> > Question...what would cause the tanks not to flow evenly.
> We had check
> > the lines, and they all flowed. I would think the tanks
> would level up
> > when sitting on the ground, but they do not seem to cross flow.
> >
> > Suggestions please.
> >
> > Howard
>
>
>
> --
> Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
>
>
>
>
>
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: Possible overheating and EGT question |
Right on Noel, re the speaker wire...not even Monster wire would work
here. : ) Actually though, the instructions say that you CAN cut the
wires shorter:
"NOTE: The length of wire on the EGT & CHT probes, or the extension
wire may be shortened as desired for your installation."
A personal note on their NOTE....I'm almost certain that I recall
speaking to Sandy at Grand Rapids Technologies (EIS) about shortening
the wires, and she said that you can shorten the wires coming from
the unit...actually the connector... but NOT the probe wires.
Torgeir-
I just read the manual re the "unit temperature"...to quote:
"This function is displayed on the hourmeter page, and shows the
internal temperature of the instrument. It is used by the instrument
for cold-junction compensation of the EGTs and CHTs. It is also
useful for estimating the cabin temperature, as it tends to stabilize
at about 30-35 degrees F above the ambient temperature."
It goes on to mention that it (the unit temperature) can be used to
check for excessive instrument (the EIS itself) heat, but that's not
pertinent to this discussion.
Lynn
On Dec 30, 2006, at 9:00 AM, Noel Loveys wrote:
>
> Enough to say Lynn your EIS is probably a darn sight more accurate
> than my
> EGT. As long as you didn't cut any wires or use speaker zip wire
> in your
> installation.
>
> Noel
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
>> Lynn Matteson
>> Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 10:57 PM
>> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
>> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Possible overheating and EGT question
>>
>>
>>
>> I just looked for my manual for the EIS, but it's at the hangar. I
>> know they mention the cold junction, and say that it should be kept
>> as far from heat sources as possible, so they must be worried that
>> this junction will get hot and foul up the reading. But elsewhere I
>> recall reading that the unit temperature is what is used to compare
>> all other temp readings to, so I'm at a loss to say anything,
>> really...and I'm certainly no electronics person.
>>
>> Lynn
>> On Dec 29, 2006, at 3:22 PM, Torgeir Mortensen wrote:
>>
>>> <torgemor@online.no>
>>>
>>> Hi Lynn,
>>>
>>> Yes, you're right by now you've probably been reading my post to
>>> Lowell about this.
>>>
>>> Funny that you mention the EIS, I'm a little curious about this
>>> system, cause such a modern design should have an automatic cold
>>> junction compensation system built in, I.E. the system measure the
>>> actual instrument temperature and then correct the reading so
>>> you'll always be reading the true EGT (well, -the temp at
>> the probe).
>>>
>>> If you are using this system, it could be interesting to
>> know their
>>> cold junction reference.
>>>
>>> Yes, the principle is just the same, except that they're using an
>>> amplifier and an analog to digital converter -vola..
>>>
>>> Torgeir
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 16:56:27 +0100, Lynn Matteson
>>> <lynnmatt@jps.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Lowell-
>>>>
>>>> I think what Torgeir said was that the EGT reading is a
>>>> differential between the probe and the cockpit temp. My
>>>> understanding of my EIS is that it references the unit
>>>> temperature...that is, the temp of the EIS "unit" itself, and any
>>>> other temp that you are monitoring. If Torgeir was not talking
>>>> about the EIS unit, this comment may not apply.
>>>>
>>>> Lynn
>>>> On Dec 29, 2006, at 10:29 AM, Lowell Fitt wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> <lcfitt@sbcglobal.net>
>>>>>
>>>>> Torgeir,
>>>>>
>>>>> I have understood, as you say, that the the EGT probe is
>>>>> measuring a differential temperature between the probe and the
>>>>> end of the metal shielded lead. My lead does not terminate in
>>>>> the cockpit, although there is sufficient length to do so. The
>>>>> leads on the Lancair IV I am helping with are too short to enter
>>>>> the cockpit We coiled the leads aft of the first two cylinders
>>>>> so the leads terminate in the same relative location, but they
>>>>> are in the engine compartment. These airplanes are built to fly
>>>>> in the flight levels so positioning the terminals above the
>>>>> baffling would give the reference temps a great fluctuation.
>>>>> They are positioned below the baffles of necessity due to their
>>>>> length.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your thoughts.
>>>>>
>>>>> Lowell
>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Torgeir Mortensen"
>>>>> <torgemor@online.no>
>>>>> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
>>>>> Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 6:55 PM
>>>>> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Possible overheating and EGT question
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> <torgemor@online.no>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client:
>> http://www.opera.com/mail/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
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: dead-stick topic |
When I was training my instructor and myself were out doing forced
approaches one day. It was a very cold dry day and we had had a very cold
week. All the ponds in the area were frozen over just like skating rinks.
For training purposes we used a hard deck of 500'. On one of the approaches
I lined up to land on one of the ponds The instructor asked why I didn't
line up on the woods road beside the pond. I told him about wing clearance,
potholes and the fact on the ice there was plenty of room for a rescue
aircraft to land also with the weather we had the ice was no doubt up to
carrying our weight. Also many ski-doo tracks went across the ice and
showed it to be very strong.... He said OK. I asked him then if he wanted
to make the next one a full on landing.... He wasn't interested! I later
told him that when flying with my father in his Lake LA4 we regularly landed
on ice.
For our forced approaches we used Engine to idle, carb heat and 20 Deg. Flap
(C172) with 3 sec of full throttle every 500' of decent to keep the CHT up.
It was considered very important to do the engine warms.
At that time a student and instructor (different flight school) got their
wings doing the exact same thing some 200 Mi away. Apparently they had
engine problems when going around from a forced approach. The weather in
their local was considerably warmer and damper than ours so I suspect what
they had was carb icing.
After that we were given a hard deck of 1000' AGL for forced approaches.
I have seen a film of a fellow in Alaska who flies a Cub stripped down. In
order to land he has to shut down his engine as he doesn't have breaks. He
also doesn't have a starter. Every landing at his home strip is both dead
stick and short on soft field. Hi wife and son fly in and out every day
under the same conditions.
Noel
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rexinator
> Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2006 2:30 AM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: dead-stick topic
>
>
>
> Michel,
> When I was in training it was considered risky to practice
> engine out
> procedures by doing actual dead stick flight. Most of the training
> flights were by flight schools and were done from tower controlled
> airports. Possible dead stick practice accidents were enough of a
> deterent to the schools considering they might be done by
> solo students
> if taught by instructors.
> I see no problem practicing them if you are allowed by the airport
> authorities or have your own airstrip as long as safe procedures.are
> followed. I intend to do them myself one day.
>
> Rex
> Snowy Colorado
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 |
|
At 07:15 AM 12/29/2006, you wrote:
>Question...what would cause the tanks not to flow evenly. We had
>check the lines, and they all flowed. I would think the tanks would
>level up when sitting on the ground, but they do not seem to cross flow.
>
>Suggestions please.
Howard,
We need more information. How much fuel was in your left
tank? (%) Do you have a header tank? Better yet, what does your
entire fuel system look like, with sizes and locations of tanks and tubes.
Guy Buchanan
K-IV/1200 w/ 582 C-box & Warp 3 blade
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: Rotax 912-S flyers, What RPM do you look for on Climbout |
?
1 min? My operator manual reads 5 min.
I pictch my IVO prop for max RPM at takeoff. The actual RPM will vary with weather
but I do occationally see 5800. When I do, I throttle back to 5200 about 100ft
before pattern altitude, pitch the nowse down a touch and start the cross
wind turn. This usually happens around the end of the runway :-).
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=84465#84465
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: | Possible overheating and EGT question |
The probe wires is what I was referring to not being cut. The probes are
usually available with several different length harnesses. All of which
will have identical internal resistances.
As you wrote, your EIS has a second probe built in, physically close to the
cold junction that monitors the temp of that junction and automatically
makes your compensation corrections for you. That's the best. Except of
course if you loose your EIS at which time you will have more worries than
an EGT a couple of degrees too high.
Some other instruments will have a little bi-metallic spring, similar to
what is found in a thermostat, in the meter that will make adjustments for
the temperature of the cold junction. Sort of second best. In the event of
a power out you won't lose your EGT but the bi-metallic spring can after a
time lose its calibration.
My EGT doesn't have any compensation built in but the documentation says it
is calibrated for 20C (68F) Since my cockpit temps seldom if ever get above
68F the instrument is usable. Even if the cockpit temps went up to 80F the
accuracy of reading the meter because of parallax etc is probably close to
the 12F the meter will be reading too low.
In flight my EGTs show an almost even 1100F my plugs say they are getting
good mixture so I can now depend ( to an extent ) on my EGT gauge. I will
probably continue to check my plugs every 5-10 hr.
I got into a discussion with a gentleman on another group last year about
the use of extending probe harness with copper speaker wire. He said the
two extra junctions that were created would balance each other out and the
instrument would still be accurate. Actually there would be four junctions
created as the connectors actually on the instrument are chromel and alumel.
He considered a few feet of copper wire to have a resistance of 0 so it
wouldn't throw off his EGT. In fact the way he uses his EGTs just to follow
temperature trends it probably works for him.
Noel
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> Lynn Matteson
> Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2006 11:19 AM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Possible overheating and EGT question
>
>
>
> Right on Noel, re the speaker wire...not even Monster wire
> would work
> here. : ) Actually though, the instructions say that you CAN
> cut the
> wires shorter:
>
> "NOTE: The length of wire on the EGT & CHT probes, or the extension
> wire may be shortened as desired for your installation."
>
> A personal note on their NOTE....I'm almost certain that I recall
> speaking to Sandy at Grand Rapids Technologies (EIS) about
> shortening
> the wires, and she said that you can shorten the wires coming from
> the unit...actually the connector... but NOT the probe wires.
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 |
|
I'm new to kitfox , Just purchased a kitfox 2 and I was interested in making the
rudder and the stab taller to help the yaw ? I'm still in the stage of building
before the covering. What is the thoughts has anyone done this? Also is there
anyone in North Cal near paradise that I can see there kitfox and ask questions
about building?
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Possible overheating and EGT question |
For whatever it's worth, there's an article on page 48 or the January 2007
issue of "Light Sport and Ultralight Flying" which covers this very
subject. It's written by Arnold C. Anderson who is now retired after
spending " I37 years in the engine and aerospace industry as a mechanical
engineer, designing electro-mechanical equipment and solving reliability
problems in equipment for unmanned deep space missions". I would think that
this issue could probably be purchased by going to www.ultralightflying.com.
Clem Nichols
----- Original Message -----
From: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys@yahoo.ca>
Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2006 9:51 AM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Possible overheating and EGT question
>
> The probe wires is what I was referring to not being cut. The probes are
> usually available with several different length harnesses. All of which
> will have identical internal resistances.
>
> As you wrote, your EIS has a second probe built in, physically close to
> the
> cold junction that monitors the temp of that junction and automatically
> makes your compensation corrections for you. That's the best. Except of
> course if you loose your EIS at which time you will have more worries than
> an EGT a couple of degrees too high.
>
> Some other instruments will have a little bi-metallic spring, similar to
> what is found in a thermostat, in the meter that will make adjustments for
> the temperature of the cold junction. Sort of second best. In the event
> of
> a power out you won't lose your EGT but the bi-metallic spring can after a
> time lose its calibration.
>
> My EGT doesn't have any compensation built in but the documentation says
> it
> is calibrated for 20C (68F) Since my cockpit temps seldom if ever get
> above
> 68F the instrument is usable. Even if the cockpit temps went up to 80F
> the
> accuracy of reading the meter because of parallax etc is probably close to
> the 12F the meter will be reading too low.
>
> In flight my EGTs show an almost even 1100F my plugs say they are getting
> good mixture so I can now depend ( to an extent ) on my EGT gauge. I
> will
> probably continue to check my plugs every 5-10 hr.
>
> I got into a discussion with a gentleman on another group last year about
> the use of extending probe harness with copper speaker wire. He said the
> two extra junctions that were created would balance each other out and the
> instrument would still be accurate. Actually there would be four
> junctions
> created as the connectors actually on the instrument are chromel and
> alumel.
> He considered a few feet of copper wire to have a resistance of 0 so it
> wouldn't throw off his EGT. In fact the way he uses his EGTs just to
> follow
> temperature trends it probably works for him.
>
> Noel
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
>> Lynn Matteson
>> Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2006 11:19 AM
>> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
>> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Possible overheating and EGT question
>>
>>
>>
>> Right on Noel, re the speaker wire...not even Monster wire
>> would work
>> here. : ) Actually though, the instructions say that you CAN
>> cut the
>> wires shorter:
>>
>> "NOTE: The length of wire on the EGT & CHT probes, or the extension
>> wire may be shortened as desired for your installation."
>>
>> A personal note on their NOTE....I'm almost certain that I recall
>> speaking to Sandy at Grand Rapids Technologies (EIS) about
>> shortening
>> the wires, and she said that you can shorten the wires coming from
>> the unit...actually the connector... but NOT the probe wires.
>
>
>
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: dead-stick topic |
On the subject of intentional dead stick landings, we should check the FAR's
to make sure that it legal to do so. Back when I was building hours towards
my commercial rating I told an FAA friend that I was doing intentional dead
stick landings and he said that they were not allowed by the regs.
Ron N55KF
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rexinator" <rexinator@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2006 12:00 AM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: dead-stick topic
>
> Michel,
> When I was in training it was considered risky to practice engine out
> procedures by doing actual dead stick flight. Most of the training flights
> were by flight schools and were done from tower controlled airports.
> Possible dead stick practice accidents were enough of a deterent to the
> schools considering they might be done by solo students if taught by
> instructors.
> I see no problem practicing them if you are allowed by the airport
> authorities or have your own airstrip as long as safe procedures.are
> followed. I intend to do them myself one day.
>
> Rex
> Snowy Colorado
>
>
> Michel Verheughe wrote:
>
>> On Dec 28, 2006, at 11:20 PM, dave wrote:
>>
>>> 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 !!
>>
>>
>> That would certainly be a good way to find out where the sound is coming
>> from, Dave. However, I have a problem. One year ago, I was talking to
>> this list about dead-stick landing and after I was told that I never
>> tried it after doing it with my instructor, I was told that I should.
>> Then I obeyed and I did, and I enjoyed it. In fact, each time I am alone
>> and the weather is stable, I land dead-stick. A while ago, I told that to
>> the Jabiru Engine list. There, I got the opposite reaction. I was told
>> that it was dangerous to cut out a perfectly running engine and that I
>> could try dead-stick with the engine at idle.
>> Now, I am confused and I don't know if I should or I should not.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Michel
>>
>> 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 |
|
Noel,
I know this was directed to Torgeir, but I have some thoughts on this.
Because of the round shape of the top of the instrument panel / cowl, the
Kitfox doesn't have the typical flat reference to the horizon that a Cessna
has. The forward carry through shoud be flat with the horizon, but is a
distance visually from the horizon in our aiprlanes. In the group I fly
with we once had a guy streaming fuel from his fuel cap area and a close fly
by confirmed he still had his cap on. When he leveled his wings the fuel
stream stopped. He was our highest hour pilot, but when on a long X country
we tend to settle in and watch the scenery letting the airplane find it's
confort zone. This especially if we are un-trimmed i.e., needing a little
bit of right rudder when in cruise. When watching Kitfoxes in flight, it is
not uncommon to see guys flying with a wing low.
I think this is a major part of the uneven fuel flow, as in this
configuration, you will have a higher head in the high tank. It is
interesting also that the high tank will indicate a higher level of fuel in
the sight gauge, giving the impression that the low wing has less fuel in
it's tank. For those that have the tank valves, the common response would
be to close the valve on the lower tank which would result in full flow from
only the higher wing tank which might already have less fuel than the other
tank.
When rigged properly, the system works and this is where I disagree with
Torgeirs comment regarding Skystar's elimination of the tank valves. I know
some that still have them, but, and someone else will have to remind me of
the exact reason, I believe Skystar eliminated them because of issues that
developed after the addition of the header tank vent to the system. As I
unserstand it, the early fuel system with the panel tank didn't vent the
panel tank independently from the fuel lines from the wing tanks.
This latter is from my understanding and am always welcome to comments from
those that were closer to the issues mentioned.
Lowell N96KL Mod IV-1200
----- Original Message -----
From: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys@yahoo.ca>
Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2006 6:20 AM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Fuel Flw
>
> Torgeir:
>
> I followed your post with some interest. I do have a question... How do
> you
> calculate the right tank to have a higher head of fuel than the right
> tank?
> They are both at the same distance over the header tank.
>
> My plane has forward facing vent tubes (on the caps) on both tanks. The
> only way I can see a difference in the head of fuel from each tank is when
> both tanks are at different pressures because of differences in the cap
> vents.
>
> There may be a little difference in the level of the plane in flight as
> the
> rounded cowl distorts to some extent a persons ability to tell straight
> and
> level. In a case like that the upper tank will empty first.
>
> As to having separate shut offs on each wing tank I heartily agree with
> you.
> I check the rubber tube connections on the fuel system quite often because
> I
> don't want a gas shower at 3000' ! Shutting off one tank will also allow
> you to get a good top off for max fuel in both tanks.
>
> Noel
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
>> Torgeir Mortensen
>> Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 11:27 PM
>> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
>> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Fuel Flw
>>
>>
>> <torgemor@online.no>
>>
>> Hi Howard,
>>
>> this is an interesting situation, I've been thinking a little
>> about this
>> one. I'll say this is the first issue after the mandatory
>> main tank "fuel
>> shutoff valve" removal.
>>
>> Well, the removal of these two valves was a big mistake that
>> Skystar did,
>> IMO. Do you have those installed??
>>
>> There is three good reasons (at last) to keep this valves installed.
>>
>> Lets first talk about your "possible" problem.
>>
>> By some reason the pressure is higher in the right tank vs.
>> the left side.
>> This explain the fuel transfere, it also explain your engine
>> stoppage,
>> well how.
>>
>> I'm assuming that you have the feeder went line connected to
>> the left hand
>> main tank, right?
>>
>> As we assume that the head pressure is lower in left tank,
>> the transfere
>> take place -and fuel will be transferred by both the left
>> feeder line and
>> the vent line. As the feeder is "pressurized" fuel transfere
>> will use both
>> lines, that's why this go so fast.
>>
>> As the left tank go dry, air start entering the feeder, the
>> remaining fuel
>> is trapped in the left tank by the air pressure, the engine
>> is using the
>> remaining fuel that's below both feeding lines inside the
>> feeder. Soon
>> your engine loose power.
>>
>> Ok., it's right that some fuel will leak into the feeder from
>> the left
>> tank due to gravity, when feeder fuel level go below the feeder pipe
>> outlet. However, this leakage will be far to low for your
>> engine demand.
>>
>>
>> Then to the cause of the low pressure in the left tank, the
>> traditional is
>> an old leaky gasket at the main filler, but your plane is not
>> that old so..
>>
>> Next, could it be a leaky head tube? Or could it be a leaky
>> left fuel tank
>> at some high spot? All of these three is hard to spot/verify
>> without a
>> tank shut off valve.
>>
>>
>> So number one reason for having main fuel tank shut off
>> valves, is to
>> avoid unwanted fuel tranfere and loss of endurance.
>>
>> In your case fuel would still be able to tranfere even if you
>> had the shut
>> off valve installed. This time via the vent line.
>>
>> I've many times talked about a cross vent line, such
>> arrangement would
>> prevent transfere, but will lower the total head pressure if
>> one of the
>> tank is leaking.
>>
>>
>> Number two is a safety issue, well both tank outlet enter
>> cockpit via a
>> rubber housing - if one of those rubber housing start
>> leaking, to stop
>> such a leakage you'll need to shut both tank valves, but
>> you'll still have
>> the header for landing..
>>
>>
>> Number three. When I'm parking, even for long term, one of
>> the main is
>> open the other is closed. For maintenance this valve is a must.
>>
>> OK.
>>
>> The last thing you've mentioned, is the lack of transfere
>> from left to
>> right via the feeder when on ground.
>>
>> This is hard to explain, unless you have a rubber flap valve
>> somewhere(one
>> way valve), mentioned in one of the old the Rotax Service
>> Information
>> Letter, that prevent fuel to go toward the right tank.
>>
>>
>> Well lets see what happen now..
>>
>>
>> There is still something to ask, how much fuel was left in
>> the left tank?
>> Was the fuel level above the venline tube where it is
>> entering the left
>> tank?
>>
>>
>>
>> Good Luck
>>
>>
>> Torgeir.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 16:15:36 +0100, howard <rv73hl@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> > My Model IV 1200, has been feeding fuel from the right tank
>> with gas in
>> > the left also. I finally deceided to run to see if the gas would
>> > transfer. Luckly for me, it stopped on final at our
>> airport. The left
>> > tank had gas in it. It would not start, we added gas to
>> the right tank,
>> > and after a few minutes on choke, it started.
>> >
>> > Question...what would cause the tanks not to flow evenly.
>> We had check
>> > the lines, and they all flowed. I would think the tanks
>> would level up
>> > when sitting on the ground, but they do not seem to cross flow.
>> >
>> > Suggestions please.
>> >
>> > Howard
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
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 |
|
Jerry,
I am in Cameron Park. Not too far from you as the crow flies. I have a
Model IV and would be happy to hook up with you. The models are different,
but I followed a couple of guys with Models I and II in my early building
and it was helpful then.
Lowell
----- Original Message -----
From: "jerry evans" <kitfox555@sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2006 8:58 AM
Subject: Kitfox-List: new kitfox2
> I'm new to kitfox , Just purchased a kitfox 2 and I was interested in
> making the rudder and the stab taller to help the yaw ? I'm still in the
> stage of building before the covering. What is the thoughts has anyone
> done this? Also is there anyone in North Cal near paradise that I can see
> there kitfox and ask questions about building?
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: Possible overheating and EGT question |
The ambient cockpit temp may very well be at 68f, but I wouldn't bet on what
it is under that panel. It depends on a lot of things, some of which are
the radios, transponder, various other heat producing electronics, heater
fluid lines and the heater core itself (if there is one), amount of heat
producing sunlight hitting the (usually) dark glare shield, heat being
transmitted by the firewall, etc. My EIS has an internal temp reading that
is often over 120f on hot flying days. Well, hot for up here in NE Michigan
anyway. I imagine it would be considerably higher down in the desert
climates. Of course, this is all relative to the amount of ventilation that
is provided for the electronics and I suspect that many of us have very
little to nothing. Hopefully my EIS compensates for that temp difference,
but if it really does, I don't know. Has anybody stuck a thermocouple up
under the panel to see what their temp is? I've always planned on running a
vent tube up there, but I just haven't been able to get to it.
Regards,
Deke
S5
snip...
> My EGT doesn't have any compensation built in but the documentation says
it
> is calibrated for 20C (68F) Since my cockpit temps seldom if ever get
above
> 68F the instrument is usable. Even if the cockpit temps went up to 80F
the
> accuracy of reading the meter because of parallax etc is probably close to
> the 12F the meter will be reading too low.
>
> In flight my EGTs show an almost even 1100F my plugs say they are getting
> good mixture so I can now depend ( to an extent ) on my EGT gauge. I
will
> probably continue to check my plugs every 5-10 hr.
...snip
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 |
|
Jerry welcome to the most fun you ever experienced, The Kitfox.
I have a Kitfox 2 N718PD , I have almost 700 hours on her now . Never
have ever had one single problem with crosswind or adverse Yaw problems
on takeoff or landing or just flying . In my humble opinion there is no
need to enlarge the Vertical stabilizer or rudder .
Fly safe fly low fly slow
John Perry
580-695-8778
eskflyer@lvcisp.com
Kitfox2 N718PD
582 cbox 2:62-1
Ivo inflight 3 blade 68"
I'm new to kitfox , Just purchased a kitfox 2 and I was interested in
making the rudder and the stab taller to help the yaw ? I'm still in the
stage of building before the covering. What is the thoughts has anyone
done this? Also is there anyone in North Cal near paradise that I can
see there kitfox and ask questions about building?
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 |
|
Happy Holidays
My newly acquired Kitfox has about five hours on new plugs ( 180 TT ). I
removed them to check how they were burning. I found all the plugs on the rear
two cylinders to be pure white, like right out of the box, and all the plugs
on the front two cylinders to be black. I am not familiar with the 912 UL
and have no idea what is causing this. It starts well and seams to run smooth
with plenty of power. The A &P that did the annual 5 hours ago said the
compresion was good on all cylinders. Any idea's?
Mark
Wisconsin
Kitfox V 912 UL
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: | Kitfox ad in February Kitplanes! |
I haven't seen an ad for Kitfox for some time. It is good to see one on
Page 16 of Kitplanes!
Randy
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: Rotax 912-S flyers, What RPM do you look for on Climbout |
?
Hi Wingnut,
I run a Rotax 912uls 100 horse with a GSC 68 inch 3 blade. My prop is
pitched so I see about 5400-5500 at WOT on climb. And I cruise between 5000
and 5200.
Roger Mac
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of wingnut
Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2006 9:49 AM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Rotax 912-S flyers, What RPM do you look for on
Climbout ?
1 min? My operator manual reads 5 min.
I pictch my IVO prop for max RPM at takeoff. The actual RPM will vary with
weather but I do occationally see 5800. When I do, I throttle back to 5200
about 100ft before pattern altitude, pitch the nowse down a touch and start
the cross wind turn. This usually happens around the end of the runway :-).
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=84465#84465
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: dead-stick topic |
Better get a longish ladder for those guys that went flying without an
engine. If there is such a regulation by FAA it just goes to show how
uninformed some civil servants really are.
Noel
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> Ron Liebmann
> Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2006 1:49 PM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: dead-stick topic
>
>
> <rliebmann@comcast.net>
>
> On the subject of intentional dead stick landings, we should
> check the FAR's
> to make sure that it legal to do so. Back when I was building
> hours towards
> my commercial rating I told an FAA friend that I was doing
> intentional dead
> stick landings and he said that they were not allowed by the regs.
>
> Ron N55KF
>
> do not archive
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Rexinator" <rexinator@gmail.com>
> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2006 12:00 AM
> Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: dead-stick topic
>
>
> >
> > Michel,
> > When I was in training it was considered risky to practice
> engine out
> > procedures by doing actual dead stick flight. Most of the
> training flights
> > were by flight schools and were done from tower controlled
> airports.
> > Possible dead stick practice accidents were enough of a
> deterent to the
> > schools considering they might be done by solo students if
> taught by
> > instructors.
> > I see no problem practicing them if you are allowed by the airport
> > authorities or have your own airstrip as long as safe
> procedures.are
> > followed. I intend to do them myself one day.
> >
> > Rex
> > Snowy Colorado
> >
> >
> > Michel Verheughe wrote:
> >
> >> On Dec 28, 2006, at 11:20 PM, dave wrote:
> >>
> >>> 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 !!
> >>
> >>
> >> That would certainly be a good way to find out where the
> sound is coming
> >> from, Dave. However, I have a problem. One year ago, I was
> talking to
> >> this list about dead-stick landing and after I was told
> that I never
> >> tried it after doing it with my instructor, I was told
> that I should.
> >> Then I obeyed and I did, and I enjoyed it. In fact, each
> time I am alone
> >> and the weather is stable, I land dead-stick. A while ago,
> I told that to
> >> the Jabiru Engine list. There, I got the opposite
> reaction. I was told
> >> that it was dangerous to cut out a perfectly running
> engine and that I
> >> could try dead-stick with the engine at idle.
> >> Now, I am confused and I don't know if I should or I should not.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Michel
> >>
> >> do not archive
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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 |
|
Great! I'm not alone. After a flight of a couple of hours last year I
found myself happily cruising along left wing low. I would have put it down
to my weight except I was carrying an additional 70 lb or so in the right
float. Funny how just before touchdown the plane seems to level itself
out..I have yet to land on one float although I've taken off on one float
may times.
This is not quite off topic but do not archive anyway.
Noel
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> Lowell Fitt
> Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2006 2:11 PM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Fuel Flw
>
>
> <lcfitt@sbcglobal.net>
>
> Noel,
>
> I know this was directed to Torgeir, but I have some thoughts
> on this.
> Because of the round shape of the top of the instrument panel
> / cowl, the
> Kitfox doesn't have the typical flat reference to the horizon
> that a Cessna
> has. The forward carry through shoud be flat with the
> horizon, but is a
> distance visually from the horizon in our aiprlanes. In the
> group I fly
> with we once had a guy streaming fuel from his fuel cap area
> and a close fly
> by confirmed he still had his cap on. When he leveled his
> wings the fuel
> stream stopped. He was our highest hour pilot, but when on a
> long X country
> we tend to settle in and watch the scenery letting the
> airplane find it's
> confort zone. This especially if we are un-trimmed i.e.,
> needing a little
> bit of right rudder when in cruise. When watching Kitfoxes
> in flight, it is
> not uncommon to see guys flying with a wing low.
>
> I think this is a major part of the uneven fuel flow, as in this
> configuration, you will have a higher head in the high tank. It is
> interesting also that the high tank will indicate a higher
> level of fuel in
> the sight gauge, giving the impression that the low wing has
> less fuel in
> it's tank. For those that have the tank valves, the common
> response would
> be to close the valve on the lower tank which would result in
> full flow from
> only the higher wing tank which might already have less fuel
> than the other
> tank.
>
> When rigged properly, the system works and this is where I
> disagree with
> Torgeirs comment regarding Skystar's elimination of the tank
> valves. I know
> some that still have them, but, and someone else will have to
> remind me of
> the exact reason, I believe Skystar eliminated them because
> of issues that
> developed after the addition of the header tank vent to the
> system. As I
> unserstand it, the early fuel system with the panel tank
> didn't vent the
> panel tank independently from the fuel lines from the wing tanks.
>
> This latter is from my understanding and am always welcome to
> comments from
> those that were closer to the issues mentioned.
>
>
> Lowell N96KL Mod IV-1200
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys@yahoo.ca>
> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2006 6:20 AM
> Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Fuel Flw
>
>
> <noelloveys@yahoo.ca>
> >
> > Torgeir:
> >
> > I followed your post with some interest. I do have a
> question... How do
> > you
> > calculate the right tank to have a higher head of fuel than
> the right
> > tank?
> > They are both at the same distance over the header tank.
> >
> > My plane has forward facing vent tubes (on the caps) on
> both tanks. The
> > only way I can see a difference in the head of fuel from
> each tank is when
> > both tanks are at different pressures because of
> differences in the cap
> > vents.
> >
> > There may be a little difference in the level of the plane
> in flight as
> > the
> > rounded cowl distorts to some extent a persons ability to
> tell straight
> > and
> > level. In a case like that the upper tank will empty first.
> >
> > As to having separate shut offs on each wing tank I
> heartily agree with
> > you.
> > I check the rubber tube connections on the fuel system
> quite often because
> > I
> > don't want a gas shower at 3000' ! Shutting off one tank
> will also allow
> > you to get a good top off for max fuel in both tanks.
> >
> > Noel
> >
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> >> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> >> Torgeir Mortensen
> >> Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 11:27 PM
> >> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> >> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Fuel Flw
> >>
> >>
> >> <torgemor@online.no>
> >>
> >> Hi Howard,
> >>
> >> this is an interesting situation, I've been thinking a little
> >> about this
> >> one. I'll say this is the first issue after the mandatory
> >> main tank "fuel
> >> shutoff valve" removal.
> >>
> >> Well, the removal of these two valves was a big mistake that
> >> Skystar did,
> >> IMO. Do you have those installed??
> >>
> >> There is three good reasons (at last) to keep this valves
> installed.
> >>
> >> Lets first talk about your "possible" problem.
> >>
> >> By some reason the pressure is higher in the right tank vs.
> >> the left side.
> >> This explain the fuel transfere, it also explain your engine
> >> stoppage,
> >> well how.
> >>
> >> I'm assuming that you have the feeder went line connected to
> >> the left hand
> >> main tank, right?
> >>
> >> As we assume that the head pressure is lower in left tank,
> >> the transfere
> >> take place -and fuel will be transferred by both the left
> >> feeder line and
> >> the vent line. As the feeder is "pressurized" fuel transfere
> >> will use both
> >> lines, that's why this go so fast.
> >>
> >> As the left tank go dry, air start entering the feeder, the
> >> remaining fuel
> >> is trapped in the left tank by the air pressure, the engine
> >> is using the
> >> remaining fuel that's below both feeding lines inside the
> >> feeder. Soon
> >> your engine loose power.
> >>
> >> Ok., it's right that some fuel will leak into the feeder from
> >> the left
> >> tank due to gravity, when feeder fuel level go below the
> feeder pipe
> >> outlet. However, this leakage will be far to low for your
> >> engine demand.
> >>
> >>
> >> Then to the cause of the low pressure in the left tank, the
> >> traditional is
> >> an old leaky gasket at the main filler, but your plane is not
> >> that old so..
> >>
> >> Next, could it be a leaky head tube? Or could it be a leaky
> >> left fuel tank
> >> at some high spot? All of these three is hard to spot/verify
> >> without a
> >> tank shut off valve.
> >>
> >>
> >> So number one reason for having main fuel tank shut off
> >> valves, is to
> >> avoid unwanted fuel tranfere and loss of endurance.
> >>
> >> In your case fuel would still be able to tranfere even if you
> >> had the shut
> >> off valve installed. This time via the vent line.
> >>
> >> I've many times talked about a cross vent line, such
> >> arrangement would
> >> prevent transfere, but will lower the total head pressure if
> >> one of the
> >> tank is leaking.
> >>
> >>
> >> Number two is a safety issue, well both tank outlet enter
> >> cockpit via a
> >> rubber housing - if one of those rubber housing start
> >> leaking, to stop
> >> such a leakage you'll need to shut both tank valves, but
> >> you'll still have
> >> the header for landing..
> >>
> >>
> >> Number three. When I'm parking, even for long term, one of
> >> the main is
> >> open the other is closed. For maintenance this valve is a must.
> >>
> >> OK.
> >>
> >> The last thing you've mentioned, is the lack of transfere
> >> from left to
> >> right via the feeder when on ground.
> >>
> >> This is hard to explain, unless you have a rubber flap valve
> >> somewhere(one
> >> way valve), mentioned in one of the old the Rotax Service
> >> Information
> >> Letter, that prevent fuel to go toward the right tank.
> >>
> >>
> >> Well lets see what happen now..
> >>
> >>
> >> There is still something to ask, how much fuel was left in
> >> the left tank?
> >> Was the fuel level above the venline tube where it is
> >> entering the left
> >> tank?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Good Luck
> >>
> >>
> >> Torgeir.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 16:15:36 +0100, howard
> <rv73hl@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> > My Model IV 1200, has been feeding fuel from the right tank
> >> with gas in
> >> > the left also. I finally deceided to run to see if the gas would
> >> > transfer. Luckly for me, it stopped on final at our
> >> airport. The left
> >> > tank had gas in it. It would not start, we added gas to
> >> the right tank,
> >> > and after a few minutes on choke, it started.
> >> >
> >> > Question...what would cause the tanks not to flow evenly.
> >> We had check
> >> > the lines, and they all flowed. I would think the tanks
> >> would level up
> >> > when sitting on the ground, but they do not seem to cross flow.
> >> >
> >> > Suggestions please.
> >> >
> >> > Howard
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client:
> http://www.opera.com/mail/
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: | Possible overheating and EGT question |
All valid points Deke:
The only thing I have in my panel that can generate any heat is the T&B. I
tend to use my EGT mostly as a trend indicator and If I tell you my EGT was
1100F then there is an error Could be as much as 50F either way in that
reading. In the mean time I'm not too worried because there is enough air
leaks and draughts in the cockpit to fly a kite ( if I had more room). I
fold my wings after every flight and usually do a pretty good post flight
inspection so sealing the areas of air leaks isn't high priority for me. If
I put the skis on this winter I'll just wear my WW II Flight pants and a
good heavy parka.
The documentation on your EIS should give you the operational temperature
range. I think the high end will probably be around 150F (65C). After that
thermal runaway of electronic components is a possibility. You will get an
indication of that when your EIS just stops. Seriously though there is
probably an indicator on your EIS to let you know when its too hot.
My mother always said, "When all else fails.... Read the instructions".
Noel
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Fox5flyer
> Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2006 2:21 PM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Possible overheating and EGT question
>
>
>
> The ambient cockpit temp may very well be at 68f, but I
> wouldn't bet on what
> it is under that panel. It depends on a lot of things, some
> of which are
> the radios, transponder, various other heat producing
> electronics, heater
> fluid lines and the heater core itself (if there is one),
> amount of heat
> producing sunlight hitting the (usually) dark glare shield, heat being
> transmitted by the firewall, etc. My EIS has an internal
> temp reading that
> is often over 120f on hot flying days. Well, hot for up here
> in NE Michigan
> anyway. I imagine it would be considerably higher down in the desert
> climates. Of course, this is all relative to the amount of
> ventilation that
> is provided for the electronics and I suspect that many of us
> have very
> little to nothing. Hopefully my EIS compensates for that
> temp difference,
> but if it really does, I don't know. Has anybody stuck a
> thermocouple up
> under the panel to see what their temp is? I've always
> planned on running a
> vent tube up there, but I just haven't been able to get to it.
> Regards,
> Deke
> S5
>
> snip...
> > My EGT doesn't have any compensation built in but the
> documentation says
> it
> > is calibrated for 20C (68F) Since my cockpit temps seldom
> if ever get
> above
> > 68F the instrument is usable. Even if the cockpit temps
> went up to 80F
> the
> > accuracy of reading the meter because of parallax etc is
> probably close to
> > the 12F the meter will be reading too low.
> >
> > In flight my EGTs show an almost even 1100F my plugs say
> they are getting
> > good mixture so I can now depend ( to an extent ) on my
> EGT gauge. I
> will
> > probably continue to check my plugs every 5-10 hr.
> ...snip
>
>
>
>
>
>
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 |
|
For more fun try floats!
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of john perry
Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2006 2:26 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: new kitfox2
Jerry welcome to the most fun you ever experienced, The Kitfox.
I have a Kitfox 2 N718PD , I have almost 700 hours on her now . Never
have
ever had one single problem with crosswind or adverse Yaw problems on
takeoff or landing or just flying . In my humble opinion there is no
need to
enlarge the Vertical stabilizer or rudder .
Fly safe fly low fly slow
John Perry
580-695-8778
eskflyer@lvcisp.com
Kitfox2 N718PD
582 cbox 2:62-1
Ivo inflight 3 blade 68"
I'm new to kitfox , Just purchased a kitfox 2 and I was interested in
making
the rudder and the stab taller to help the yaw ? I'm still in the stage
of
building before the covering. What is the thoughts has anyone done this?
Also is there anyone in North Cal near paradise that I can see there
kitfox
and ask questions about building?
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 |
|
Noel,
Let's take the questions one by one.
On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 15:20:17 +0100, Noel Loveys <noelloveys@yahoo.ca>
wrote:
>
> Torgeir:
>
> I followed your post with some interest. I do have a question... How do
> you
> calculate the right tank to have a higher head of fuel than the right
> tank?
> They are both at the same distance over the header tank.
Sure, the head pressure is the same if; the height of the vent tube (or
more correct "head pressure tube" installed on the fuel cap), the airfoil
shape (the wing where the cap is located), and the relative "position
cordline vs.pitot tip" is equal.
The thing is, when we pre compress our main fuel tanks in this way, the
air pressure inside the tank will be equal to the head pressure. Equal
pressure in both main tanks is the normal condition during our flight.
The pressure can't (normally) be higher in the right tank, but if the
pressure is decreasing (going low) in the left tank, we can say that the
pressure is higher in the right as this must be the situation in this
case. You'll that an uncoordinated/banked attitude can be the factor to
transfer fuel, but our tube size limit this some, so such a transfer cant
go as fast as Howard experienced.
Lets see some possibilities for development of "reduced" "head pressure",
see- when this pressure is reduced a little we cant name it "head
pressure" any more..
Remember, the top of the wing hold the static low pressure that's created
at the same location as our "head pressure". "The product of static and
dynamic pressure is always constant". This is one of the most important
thing to remember about fluid mechanics. :)
Well, the thing is that the "filler cap" gasket not only need to hold the
head pressure it will also need to hold for the differential pressure over
the wing, the static pressure.
Now folks, you'll see this gasket is very important for our kind of fuel
setup. This become more clear when we know there is restricted a flow in
the "header tube", the tube that's attached to the fuel cap, try to blow
through it and you should feel the resistance (this is valid -at least for
the older model Kitfox).
This limitation is in some matter very good, but in our case very, very,
bad. Cause such a limited flow can be "overtaken" by a broken "fuel cap
gasket", I.E. our supposed "head pressure" can drop below our "true"
static pressure. In this situation fuel is sucked from the feeder tank due
to the low pressure in the left tank, on the other side fuel is pressed
into the header tank from the normally pressurized right tank.
We can also have air leakage in the upper outer part of the tank, in this
case not that much flow as it is just the header pressure that do the
transfer.
The latter one is indeed more dangerous..
>
> My plane has forward facing vent tubes (on the caps) on both tanks. The
> only way I can see a difference in the head of fuel from each tank is
> when
> both tanks are at different pressures because of differences in the cap
> vents.
This might be true if the limitation is to hi, It should be easy to blow
through the "cap vent" and both should be equal.
I use to check my main for leakage in this way; close main valves for both
tank, then install a tygon housing or anything similar that can fit the
"vent line". The fuel cap should be installed as normal, then blow into
the housing and see if the pressure will hold without leaking - should be
no leakage here..
>
> There may be a little difference in the level of the plane in flight as
> the
> rounded cowl distorts to some extent a persons ability to tell straight
> and
> level. In a case like that the upper tank will empty first.
Agree with you here, but it seems like Howards transfer go much faster
than possible in the above example.
>
> As to having separate shut offs on each wing tank I heartily agree with
> you.
> I check the rubber tube connections on the fuel system quite often
> because I
> don't want a gas shower at 3000' ! Shutting off one tank will also allow
> you to get a good top off for max fuel in both tanks.
>
Thank you Noel.
Torgeir.
> Noel
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
>> Torgeir Mortensen
>> Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 11:27 PM
>> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
>> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Fuel Flw
>>
>>
Message 25
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Possible overheating and EGT question |
Hi Lynn,
ok., then your instrument do compensate for "cold junction", good -seems
to be an excellent unit!
Those "new" instruments use "high impedance" amplifiers in the first
stage, therefore they do not load the "thermo couple" that much, the patch
cable may then be quite long, -even long enough for a Kitfox. :)
Interesting.
Cheers
Torgeir.
On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 15:49:15 +0100, Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net> wrote:
>
> Right on Noel, re the speaker wire...not even Monster wire would work
> here. : ) Actually though, the instructions say that you CAN cut the
> wires shorter:
>
> "NOTE: The length of wire on the EGT & CHT probes, or the extension wire
> may be shortened as desired for your installation."
>
> A personal note on their NOTE....I'm almost certain that I recall
> speaking to Sandy at Grand Rapids Technologies (EIS) about shortening
> the wires, and she said that you can shorten the wires coming from the
> unit...actually the connector... but NOT the probe wires.
>
> Torgeir-
> I just read the manual re the "unit temperature"...to quote:
>
> "This function is displayed on the hourmeter page, and shows the
> internal temperature of the instrument. It is used by the instrument for
> cold-junction compensation of the EGTs and CHTs. It is also useful for
> estimating the cabin temperature, as it tends to stabilize at about
> 30-35 degrees F above the ambient temperature."
>
> It goes on to mention that it (the unit temperature) can be used to
> check for excessive instrument (the EIS itself) heat, but that's not
> pertinent to this discussion.
>
> Lynn
>
> On Dec 30, 2006, at 9:00 AM, Noel Loveys wrote:
>
>>
>> Enough to say Lynn your EIS is probably a darn sight more accurate than
>> my
>> EGT. As long as you didn't cut any wires or use speaker zip wire in
>> your
>> installation.
>>
>> Noel
>>
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
>>> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
>>> Lynn Matteson
>>> Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 10:57 PM
>>> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
>>> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Possible overheating and EGT question
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I just looked for my manual for the EIS, but it's at the hangar. I
>>> know they mention the cold junction, and say that it should be kept
>>> as far from heat sources as possible, so they must be worried that
>>> this junction will get hot and foul up the reading. But elsewhere I
>>> recall reading that the unit temperature is what is used to compare
>>> all other temp readings to, so I'm at a loss to say anything,
>>> really...and I'm certainly no electronics person.
>>>
>>> Lynn
>>> On Dec 29, 2006, at 3:22 PM, Torgeir Mortensen wrote:
>>>
>>>> <torgemor@online.no>
>>>>
>>>> Hi Lynn,
>>>>
>>>> Yes, you're right by now you've probably been reading my post to
>>>> Lowell about this.
>>>>
>>>> Funny that you mention the EIS, I'm a little curious about this
>>>> system, cause such a modern design should have an automatic cold
>>>> junction compensation system built in, I.E. the system measure the
>>>> actual instrument temperature and then correct the reading so
>>>> you'll always be reading the true EGT (well, -the temp at
>>> the probe).
>>>>
>>>> If you are using this system, it could be interesting to
>>> know their
>>>> cold junction reference.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, the principle is just the same, except that they're using an
>>>> amplifier and an analog to digital converter -vola..
>>>>
>>>> Torgeir
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 16:56:27 +0100, Lynn Matteson
>>>> <lynnmatt@jps.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Lowell-
>>>>>
>>>>> I think what Torgeir said was that the EGT reading is a
>>>>> differential between the probe and the cockpit temp. My
>>>>> understanding of my EIS is that it references the unit
>>>>> temperature...that is, the temp of the EIS "unit" itself, and any
>>>>> other temp that you are monitoring. If Torgeir was not talking
>>>>> about the EIS unit, this comment may not apply.
>>>>>
>>>>> Lynn
>>>>> On Dec 29, 2006, at 10:29 AM, Lowell Fitt wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> <lcfitt@sbcglobal.net>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Torgeir,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have understood, as you say, that the the EGT probe is
>>>>>> measuring a differential temperature between the probe and the
>>>>>> end of the metal shielded lead. My lead does not terminate in
>>>>>> the cockpit, although there is sufficient length to do so. The
>>>>>> leads on the Lancair IV I am helping with are too short to enter
>>>>>> the cockpit We coiled the leads aft of the first two cylinders
>>>>>> so the leads terminate in the same relative location, but they
>>>>>> are in the engine compartment. These airplanes are built to fly
>>>>>> in the flight levels so positioning the terminals above the
>>>>>> baffling would give the reference temps a great fluctuation.
>>>>>> They are positioned below the baffles of necessity due to their
>>>>>> length.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your thoughts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Lowell
>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Torgeir Mortensen"
>>>>>> <torgemor@online.no>
>>>>>> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 6:55 PM
>>>>>> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Possible overheating and EGT question
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <torgemor@online.no>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --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 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: Possible overheating and EGT question |
Quote from the (mine anyway) manual:
"Unit temperatures above 170 degrees F can degrade the readability of
the display. (The display will return to normal when it is cooled to
normal temperatures.) Temperatures above 200 deg F can activate the
internal thermal fuse, shutting down the instrument."
Lynn
On Dec 30, 2006, at 3:13 PM, Noel Loveys wrote:
>
> All valid points Deke:
>
> The only thing I have in my panel that can generate any heat is the
> T&B. I
> tend to use my EGT mostly as a trend indicator and If I tell you my
> EGT was
> 1100F then there is an error Could be as much as 50F either way in
> that
> reading. In the mean time I'm not too worried because there is
> enough air
> leaks and draughts in the cockpit to fly a kite ( if I had more
> room). I
> fold my wings after every flight and usually do a pretty good post
> flight
> inspection so sealing the areas of air leaks isn't high priority
> for me. If
> I put the skis on this winter I'll just wear my WW II Flight pants
> and a
> good heavy parka.
>
> The documentation on your EIS should give you the operational
> temperature
> range. I think the high end will probably be around 150F (65C).
> After that
> thermal runaway of electronic components is a possibility. You
> will get an
> indication of that when your EIS just stops. Seriously though
> there is
> probably an indicator on your EIS to let you know when its too hot.
>
> My mother always said, "When all else fails.... Read the
> instructions".
>
> Noel
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
>> Fox5flyer
>> Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2006 2:21 PM
>> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
>> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Possible overheating and EGT question
>>
>>
>>
>> The ambient cockpit temp may very well be at 68f, but I
>> wouldn't bet on what
>> it is under that panel. It depends on a lot of things, some
>> of which are
>> the radios, transponder, various other heat producing
>> electronics, heater
>> fluid lines and the heater core itself (if there is one),
>> amount of heat
>> producing sunlight hitting the (usually) dark glare shield, heat
>> being
>> transmitted by the firewall, etc. My EIS has an internal
>> temp reading that
>> is often over 120f on hot flying days. Well, hot for up here
>> in NE Michigan
>> anyway. I imagine it would be considerably higher down in the desert
>> climates. Of course, this is all relative to the amount of
>> ventilation that
>> is provided for the electronics and I suspect that many of us
>> have very
>> little to nothing. Hopefully my EIS compensates for that
>> temp difference,
>> but if it really does, I don't know. Has anybody stuck a
>> thermocouple up
>> under the panel to see what their temp is? I've always
>> planned on running a
>> vent tube up there, but I just haven't been able to get to it.
>> Regards,
>> Deke
>> S5
>>
>> snip...
>>> My EGT doesn't have any compensation built in but the
>> documentation says
>> it
>>> is calibrated for 20C (68F) Since my cockpit temps seldom
>> if ever get
>> above
>>> 68F the instrument is usable. Even if the cockpit temps
>> went up to 80F
>> the
>>> accuracy of reading the meter because of parallax etc is
>> probably close to
>>> the 12F the meter will be reading too low.
>>>
>>> In flight my EGTs show an almost even 1100F my plugs say
>> they are getting
>>> good mixture so I can now depend ( to an extent ) on my
>> EGT gauge. I
>> will
>>> probably continue to check my plugs every 5-10 hr.
>> ...snip
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
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: Possible overheating and EGT question |
Thanks for that summation, Torgeir. I'm no electronics guru...I don't
even play one on TV : )...so that vote of confidence in the EIS is
welcome news.
Lynn
p.s. Yes, the leads are quite long...mine are still coiled up behind
the panel...just in case. One of these days I'll shorten them up for
neatness' sake.
On Dec 30, 2006, at 3:39 PM, Torgeir Mortensen wrote:
> <torgemor@online.no>
>
>
> Hi Lynn,
>
> ok., then your instrument do compensate for "cold junction", good -
> seems to be an excellent unit!
>
> Those "new" instruments use "high impedance" amplifiers in the
> first stage, therefore they do not load the "thermo couple" that
> much, the patch cable may then be quite long, -even long enough for
> a Kitfox. :)
>
>
> Interesting.
>
> Cheers
>
>
> Torgeir.
>
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 |
|
MessageI have a set of straight floats WAHOOOO just no fun putting on
and off trailer at lake to go flying . Someone needs to reinvent the
amphibs with the tundra tires so we can land with floats in the bush
also . Maybe that is my next calling OFFROAD AMPHIBS
John Perry
DO NOT ARCHIVE
----- Original Message -----
From: Noel Loveys
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2006 2:14 PM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: new kitfox2
For more fun try floats!
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of john perry
Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2006 2:26 PM
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: new kitfox2
Jerry welcome to the most fun you ever experienced, The Kitfox.
I have a Kitfox 2 N718PD , I have almost 700 hours on her now .
Never have ever had one single problem with crosswind or adverse Yaw
problems on takeoff or landing or just flying . In my humble opinion
there is no need to enlarge the Vertical stabilizer or rudder .
Fly safe fly low fly slow
John Perry
580-695-8778
eskflyer@lvcisp.com
Kitfox2 N718PD
582 cbox 2:62-1
Ivo inflight 3 blade 68"
I'm new to kitfox , Just purchased a kitfox 2 and I was interested
in making the rudder and the stab taller to help the yaw ? I'm still in
the stage of building before the covering. What is the thoughts has
anyone done this? Also is there anyone in North Cal near paradise that I
can see there kitfox and ask questions about building?
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List">http://www.matron
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
Message 29
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Possible overheating and EGT question |
Lowell and All,
here's the next one about the EGT; this time about the thermocouple
connection methods, just the three of them.
In the end of this you'll find the visual wives of cold junction, the way
I often use to explain it.
This first one, is our standard Westach setup, a straight through setup
accepting some error.
The second one is the preferred connection setup of a thermocouple, this
one has no error if it is correctly corrected for cold junction
temperature and the instrument has no error!
The last one is a combination of the above, but also manipulating the
thermocouple resistance in order to extend the distance between probe and
indicator.
All of these drawings is made (yesterday night) with AutoCAD, the files is
converted to jpg for the ease of presentation. (They might look a little
gray, but this is due to the high compression.)
Next time we'll see how "cheap devices" can be used to measure cold
junction temperature and OAT.
(Prob. Next year.)
Torgeir.
Message 30
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Skis for Kitfox's |
Kitfox Mike,
I am exploring doing just that. I am looking for a pair of boards that
approach 5' long and plan to make a metal frame for them and cut holes for
wheel penetration. I believe that with a frame, they will be just fine.
I can't decide whether to leave one side open so that I can put them on (or
off) without jacking up the plane. I am toying with the idea of making a
removable section on one side so I can close off the side hole after
mounting the skis.
Randy
.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of kitfoxmike
Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 8:18 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 31
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Kitfox ad in February Kitplanes! |
What did it cover. I don't get kitplanes
_____
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Randy
Daughenbaugh
Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2006 12:03 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Kitfox ad in February Kitplanes!
I haven't seen an ad for Kitfox for some time. It is good to see one on
Page 16 of Kitplanes!
Randy
Message 32
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Possible overheating and EGT question |
That's normal for LCD displays. If you leave your GPS out in open sunlight
too long it will go all black and you won't be able to read anything on it.
After it cools even slightly the display returns to operational condition.
The 200 (F) thermal fuse is the upper end of the EIS operation ( the 'puter
that runs the display) if it gets that hot under your instrument panel (if
that's where your EIS unit is) believe me you're cooked or at least par
boiled.
The EIS unit Gathers info from your engine then drives your display...
There is no holy book that says it needs to be close to the display. I
would guess harnesses can be made for the digital display of any necessary
length.
I would love to have your system set up for the 582. Two strokes are
particular about EGT. Mixture can be changed by either applying or reducing
throttle and/or load.
Now I'll dream about a full FADEC two stroke fuel injection.... Hmmmm sounds
like the engine Rotax cancelled last spring.
Noel
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> Lynn Matteson
> Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2006 6:00 PM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Possible overheating and EGT question
>
>
>
> Quote from the (mine anyway) manual:
> "Unit temperatures above 170 degrees F can degrade the
> readability of
> the display. (The display will return to normal when it is cooled to
> normal temperatures.) Temperatures above 200 deg F can activate the
> internal thermal fuse, shutting down the instrument."
>
> Lynn
>
>
> On Dec 30, 2006, at 3:13 PM, Noel Loveys wrote:
>
> <noelloveys@yahoo.ca>
> >
> > All valid points Deke:
> >
> > The only thing I have in my panel that can generate any
> heat is the
> > T&B. I
> > tend to use my EGT mostly as a trend indicator and If I
> tell you my
> > EGT was
> > 1100F then there is an error Could be as much as 50F either way in
> > that
> > reading. In the mean time I'm not too worried because there is
> > enough air
> > leaks and draughts in the cockpit to fly a kite ( if I had more
> > room). I
> > fold my wings after every flight and usually do a pretty good post
> > flight
> > inspection so sealing the areas of air leaks isn't high priority
> > for me. If
> > I put the skis on this winter I'll just wear my WW II Flight pants
> > and a
> > good heavy parka.
> >
> > The documentation on your EIS should give you the operational
> > temperature
> > range. I think the high end will probably be around 150F (65C).
> > After that
> > thermal runaway of electronic components is a possibility. You
> > will get an
> > indication of that when your EIS just stops. Seriously though
> > there is
> > probably an indicator on your EIS to let you know when its too hot.
> >
> > My mother always said, "When all else fails.... Read the
> > instructions".
> >
> > Noel
> >
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> >> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> >> Fox5flyer
> >> Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2006 2:21 PM
> >> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> >> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Possible overheating and EGT question
> >>
> >>
> <fox5flyer@i-star.com>
> >>
> >> The ambient cockpit temp may very well be at 68f, but I
> >> wouldn't bet on what
> >> it is under that panel. It depends on a lot of things, some
> >> of which are
> >> the radios, transponder, various other heat producing
> >> electronics, heater
> >> fluid lines and the heater core itself (if there is one),
> >> amount of heat
> >> producing sunlight hitting the (usually) dark glare shield, heat
> >> being
> >> transmitted by the firewall, etc. My EIS has an internal
> >> temp reading that
> >> is often over 120f on hot flying days. Well, hot for up here
> >> in NE Michigan
> >> anyway. I imagine it would be considerably higher down in
> the desert
> >> climates. Of course, this is all relative to the amount of
> >> ventilation that
> >> is provided for the electronics and I suspect that many of us
> >> have very
> >> little to nothing. Hopefully my EIS compensates for that
> >> temp difference,
> >> but if it really does, I don't know. Has anybody stuck a
> >> thermocouple up
> >> under the panel to see what their temp is? I've always
> >> planned on running a
> >> vent tube up there, but I just haven't been able to get to it.
> >> Regards,
> >> Deke
> >> S5
> >>
> >> snip...
> >>> My EGT doesn't have any compensation built in but the
> >> documentation says
> >> it
> >>> is calibrated for 20C (68F) Since my cockpit temps seldom
> >> if ever get
> >> above
> >>> 68F the instrument is usable. Even if the cockpit temps
> >> went up to 80F
> >> the
> >>> accuracy of reading the meter because of parallax etc is
> >> probably close to
> >>> the 12F the meter will be reading too low.
> >>>
> >>> In flight my EGTs show an almost even 1100F my plugs say
> >> they are getting
> >>> good mixture so I can now depend ( to an extent ) on my
> >> EGT gauge. I
> >> will
> >>> probably continue to check my plugs every 5-10 hr.
> >> ...snip
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
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 |
|
Build them so they can be retrofitted to Aerocet 1100s...PLEASE!!!
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of john perry
Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2006 6:18 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: new kitfox2
I have a set of straight floats WAHOOOO just no fun putting on and off
trailer at lake to go flying . Someone needs to reinvent the amphibs
with
the tundra tires so we can land with floats in the bush also . Maybe
that is
my next calling OFFROAD AMPHIBS
John Perry
DO NOT ARCHIVE
----- Original Message -----
From: Noel <mailto:noelloveys@yahoo.ca> Loveys
Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2006 2:14 PM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: new kitfox2
For more fun try floats!
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of john perry
Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2006 2:26 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: new kitfox2
Jerry welcome to the most fun you ever experienced, The Kitfox.
I have a Kitfox 2 N718PD , I have almost 700 hours on her now . Never
have
ever had one single problem with crosswind or adverse Yaw problems on
takeoff or landing or just flying . In my humble opinion there is no
need to
enlarge the Vertical stabilizer or rudder .
Fly safe fly low fly slow
John Perry
580-695-8778
eskflyer@lvcisp.com
Kitfox2 N718PD
582 cbox 2:62-1
Ivo inflight 3 blade 68"
I'm new to kitfox , Just purchased a kitfox 2 and I was interested in
making
the rudder and the stab taller to help the yaw ? I'm still in the stage
of
building before the covering. What is the thoughts has anyone done this?
Also is there anyone in North Cal near paradise that I can see there
kitfox
and ask questions about building?
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List">http://www.matron
href
"http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List">http://www.matron
href
"http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
Message 34
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Kitfox ad in February Kitplanes! |
Kirk , I think my ad for Kitfox pretty well says it all !!
Dave < snicker >
Original Message -----
From: "dave" <dave@cfisher.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 8:21 PM
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: kirk hull
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2006 5:33 PM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Kitfox ad in February Kitplanes!
What did it cover. I don't get kitplanes
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Randy
Daughenbaugh
Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2006 12:03 PM
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Subject: Kitfox-List: Kitfox ad in February Kitplanes!
I haven't seen an ad for Kitfox for some time. It is good to see one
on Page 16 of Kitplanes!
Randy
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: Michel Fabic tearing topic |
On Dec 29, 2006, at 8:46 PM, dave wrote:
> Only conern that I personally would have on the Jabiru is that it is
> air cooled and potential shock cooling could certainly be a
> possibility. Do you use a winter front in colder temps ?
Shock cooling is also my concern, Dave, and that's why I only do
dead-stick landings as full-stop landings and never touch-and-go. In
the winter, I remove the oil cooler. That's what my Jabiru agent told
me they were doing in Norway. But I still have a rather cool CHT and
oil so I intend to build a cowl flap. I already did that last year but
without any success. The air outlet was much smaller but the quantity
of air passing was just as great, only faster. Now, I am playing with a
different idea, inspired by Lynn's "sliding valve" and I think I am
going to try it as soon as the weather (that a synonym for my wife! :-)
permits it.
Cheers,
Michel
do not archive
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 |
|
forget about it , dont worey, I land mine every time I fly and never had a
problem mal
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: dead-stick topic |
On Dec 30, 2006, at 2:45 AM, ron schick wrote:
> Ah Michel I always try to learn from others then do as I feel
> comfortable.
Here is how I feel about it, Ron. I don't do anything that is not
necessary, this is recreational aviation, right? The pleasure is in
flying. But training for an eventual engine stop is part of safe
flying, I think. It happens that, with the Jabiru the engine stopped,
my plane sinks a bit faster than at idle. Norway is not Illinois and if
I find a field for landing, it will be of a handkerchief size. So, I
train dead-stick precision landing at my very long asphalt runway home
airfield. I have a friend who lost power on initial climb and while it
went just fine (did a 180 and downwind landing) he get very irritated
by the three or four seconds he lost by thinking: "This is not
happening to me! This is not happening to me!"
I think aviation safety is about recognising at once a situation and
act as an automatic response to what one has trained for. I have read
of bad emergency landings due to the pilot not being able to make his
mind where to land, or trying vainly to restart the engine.
Cheers,
Michel
do not archive
Message 38
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Possible overheating and EGT question |
I don't have CAD on this computer. My copy is 2000 and won't load onto
the
XP. S I did this up on Photoshop.
It is a Rough, and I mean rough, diagram of my EGT schematic as came
with my
EGT documentation... I don't intend to open the Instrument to check on
the
location of the cold junction
Just one more configuration.
Still prefer the EIS set up Lynn has... Just need one for 2 cyc.
Cheers and Happy New Year
Noel
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> Torgeir Mortensen
> Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2006 6:30 PM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Possible overheating and EGT question
>
>
> Lowell and All,
>
> here's the next one about the EGT; this time about the thermocouple
> connection methods, just the three of them.
>
> In the end of this you'll find the visual wives of cold
> junction, the way
> I often use to explain it.
>
> This first one, is our standard Westach setup, a straight
> through setup
> accepting some error.
>
>
> The second one is the preferred connection setup of a
> thermocouple, this
> one has no error if it is correctly corrected for cold junction
> temperature and the instrument has no error!
>
>
> The last one is a combination of the above, but also
> manipulating the
> thermocouple resistance in order to extend the distance
> between probe and
> indicator.
>
>
> All of these drawings is made (yesterday night) with AutoCAD,
> the files is
> converted to jpg for the ease of presentation. (They might
> look a little
> "gray", but this is due to the high compression.)
>
>
> Next time we'll see how "cheap devices" can be used to measure cold
> junction temperature and OAT.
>
> (Prob. Next year.)
>
>
> Torgeir.
>
Message 39
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Hi Lowell, my respected Kitfox friend,
I'll agree in all what you say, except the thing about Skystars
elimination of the main tank valves.
This need an explanation, and this is hard to explain as well -fully
understand cause of the complexity.
Well, before I'll start, maybe the latter posting has enlighten my
concern?? Or maybe cleared up a little more the "real" (?) problem -or?
I have a fully respect for the intention that Skystar had when they made
the last modification to the fuel system. However, I could not see the
"basement" of their decision, and they never explained "exactly" the
problem and why this solution.
Over the years, I've been reading everything that I could find about a
Kitfox plane, cause I had to justify why I wanted to by a Kitfox!! Well,
I've not only checked the Kitfox, But I've also checked the Avid...
In 8 to 10 different setup (Kitfox and Avid - maybe you may find even more
out there), there is one common parts that's sill the same!!!
(I'll know one that's not having this setup, -but only one.)
Yes. this is the way we "boost" the fuel pressure a little!
Ive spent quite a few hours in order to explain this physics, -but for
"death ears", maybe my explanation is not good enough -or maybe people
don't care.
Sometimes I'm just wonderin if it is not best to close my eyes and leave,
-you know.
The thing is, this part need some scheduled maintenance-, then we'll need
just more education about the system- and how to handle/operate it
correctly!
Or- maybe a redesign is in place, if we want a system like Cessna, we need
to go all the way -not somewhere in between, like Skystar did.
Sorry folks, -sometimes you'll need to go all the way!
Now Folks, I'd like to wish one and everyone
A Happy New Year and all the best
Cheers
Torgeir.
On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 18:41:04 +0100, Lowell Fitt <lcfitt@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
>
> Noel,
>
> I know this was directed to Torgeir, but I have some thoughts on this.
> Because of the round shape of the top of the instrument panel / cowl,
> the Kitfox doesn't have the typical flat reference to the horizon that a
> Cessna has. The forward carry through shoud be flat with the horizon,
> but is a distance visually from the horizon in our aiprlanes. In the
> group I fly with we once had a guy streaming fuel from his fuel cap area
> and a close fly by confirmed he still had his cap on. When he leveled
> his wings the fuel stream stopped. He was our highest hour pilot, but
> when on a long X country we tend to settle in and watch the scenery
> letting the airplane find it's confort zone. This especially if we are
> un-trimmed i.e., needing a little bit of right rudder when in cruise.
> When watching Kitfoxes in flight, it is not uncommon to see guys flying
> with a wing low.
>
> I think this is a major part of the uneven fuel flow, as in this
> configuration, you will have a higher head in the high tank. It is
> interesting also that the high tank will indicate a higher level of fuel
> in the sight gauge, giving the impression that the low wing has less
> fuel in it's tank. For those that have the tank valves, the common
> response would be to close the valve on the lower tank which would
> result in full flow from only the higher wing tank which might already
> have less fuel than the other tank.
>
> When rigged properly, the system works and this is where I disagree with
> Torgeirs comment regarding Skystar's elimination of the tank valves. I
> know some that still have them, but, and someone else will have to
> remind me of the exact reason, I believe Skystar eliminated them because
> of issues that developed after the addition of the header tank vent to
> the system. As I unserstand it, the early fuel system with the panel
> tank didn't vent the panel tank independently from the fuel lines from
> the wing tanks.
>
> This latter is from my understanding and am always welcome to comments
> from those that were closer to the issues mentioned.
>
>
> Lowell N96KL Mod IV-1200
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys@yahoo.ca>
> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2006 6:20 AM
> Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Fuel Flw
>
>
>>
>> Torgeir:
>>
>> I followed your post with some interest. I do have a question... How
>> do you
>> calculate the right tank to have a higher head of fuel than the right
>> tank?
>> They are both at the same distance over the header tank.
>>
>> My plane has forward facing vent tubes (on the caps) on both tanks. The
>> only way I can see a difference in the head of fuel from each tank is
>> when
>> both tanks are at different pressures because of differences in the cap
>> vents.
>>
>> There may be a little difference in the level of the plane in flight as
>> the
>> rounded cowl distorts to some extent a persons ability to tell straight
>> and
>> level. In a case like that the upper tank will empty first.
>>
>> As to having separate shut offs on each wing tank I heartily agree with
>> you.
>> I check the rubber tube connections on the fuel system quite often
>> because I
>> don't want a gas shower at 3000' ! Shutting off one tank will also
>> allow
>> you to get a good top off for max fuel in both tanks.
>>
>> Noel
>>
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
>>> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
>>> Torgeir Mortensen
>>> Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 11:27 PM
>>> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
>>> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Fuel Flw
>>>
>>>
>>> <torgemor@online.no>
>>>
>>> Hi Howard,
>>>
>>> this is an interesting situation, I've been thinking a little
>>> about this
>>> one. I'll say this is the first issue after the mandatory
>>> main tank "fuel
>>> shutoff valve" removal.
>>>
>>> Well, the removal of these two valves was a big mistake that
>>> Skystar did,
>>> IMO. Do you have those installed??
>>>
>>> There is three good reasons (at last) to keep this valves installed.
>>>
>>> Lets first talk about your "possible" problem.
>>>
>>> By some reason the pressure is higher in the right tank vs.
>>> the left side.
>>> This explain the fuel transfere, it also explain your engine
>>> stoppage,
>>> well how.
>>>
>>> I'm assuming that you have the feeder went line connected to
>>> the left hand
>>> main tank, right?
>>>
>>> As we assume that the head pressure is lower in left tank,
>>> the transfere
>>> take place -and fuel will be transferred by both the left
>>> feeder line and
>>> the vent line. As the feeder is "pressurized" fuel transfere
>>> will use both
>>> lines, that's why this go so fast.
>>>
>>> As the left tank go dry, air start entering the feeder, the
>>> remaining fuel
>>> is trapped in the left tank by the air pressure, the engine
>>> is using the
>>> remaining fuel that's below both feeding lines inside the
>>> feeder. Soon
>>> your engine loose power.
>>>
>>> Ok., it's right that some fuel will leak into the feeder from
>>> the left
>>> tank due to gravity, when feeder fuel level go below the feeder pipe
>>> outlet. However, this leakage will be far to low for your
>>> engine demand.
>>>
>>>
>>> Then to the cause of the low pressure in the left tank, the
>>> traditional is
>>> an old leaky gasket at the main filler, but your plane is not
>>> that old so..
>>>
>>> Next, could it be a leaky head tube? Or could it be a leaky
>>> left fuel tank
>>> at some high spot? All of these three is hard to spot/verify
>>> without a
>>> tank shut off valve.
>>>
>>>
>>> So number one reason for having main fuel tank shut off
>>> valves, is to
>>> avoid unwanted fuel tranfere and loss of endurance.
>>>
>>> In your case fuel would still be able to tranfere even if you
>>> had the shut
>>> off valve installed. This time via the vent line.
>>>
>>> I've many times talked about a cross vent line, such
>>> arrangement would
>>> prevent transfere, but will lower the total head pressure if
>>> one of the
>>> tank is leaking.
>>>
>>>
>>> Number two is a safety issue, well both tank outlet enter
>>> cockpit via a
>>> rubber housing - if one of those rubber housing start
>>> leaking, to stop
>>> such a leakage you'll need to shut both tank valves, but
>>> you'll still have
>>> the header for landing..
>>>
>>>
>>> Number three. When I'm parking, even for long term, one of
>>> the main is
>>> open the other is closed. For maintenance this valve is a must.
>>>
>>> OK.
>>>
>>> The last thing you've mentioned, is the lack of transfere
>>> from left to
>>> right via the feeder when on ground.
>>>
>>> This is hard to explain, unless you have a rubber flap valve
>>> somewhere(one
>>> way valve), mentioned in one of the old the Rotax Service
>>> Information
>>> Letter, that prevent fuel to go toward the right tank.
>>>
>>>
>>> Well lets see what happen now..
>>>
>>>
>>> There is still something to ask, how much fuel was left in
>>> the left tank?
>>> Was the fuel level above the venline tube where it is
>>> entering the left
>>> tank?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Good Luck
>>>
>>>
>>> Torgeir.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 16:15:36 +0100, howard <rv73hl@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> > My Model IV 1200, has been feeding fuel from the right tank
>>> with gas in
>>> > the left also. I finally deceided to run to see if the gas would
>>> > transfer. Luckly for me, it stopped on final at our
>>> airport. The left
>>> > tank had gas in it. It would not start, we added gas to
>>> the right tank,
>>> > and after a few minutes on choke, it started.
>>> >
>>> > Question...what would cause the tanks not to flow evenly.
>>> We had check
>>> > the lines, and they all flowed. I would think the tanks
>>> would level up
>>> > when sitting on the ground, but they do not seem to cross flow.
>>> >
>>> > Suggestions please.
>>> >
>>> > Howard
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -- 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 40
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 912 UL question |
Mark,
My 912UL does the same thing. The reason is if you stand back and look
at the manifold you will notice it takes an immediate bend to the rear
cylinders and a nice straight route to the front cylinders. My plugs
burn the same exact way. I bet everyone on the list will confirm that.
There is nothing wrong with your engine, enjoy it. Jeff Classic IV
Columbus, Ohio
----- Original Message -----
From: RRTRACK@aol.com
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2006 12:59 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: 912 UL question
Happy Holidays
My newly acquired Kitfox has about five hours on new plugs ( 180 TT
). I removed them to check how they were burning. I found all the plugs
on the rear two cylinders to be pure white, like right out of the box,
and all the plugs on the front two cylinders to be black. I am not
familiar with the 912 UL and have no idea what is causing this. It
starts well and seams to run smooth with plenty of power. The A &P that
did the annual 5 hours ago said the compresion was good on all
cylinders. Any idea's?
Mark
Wisconsin
Kitfox V 912 UL
Message 41
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
I expect the thing to do if any problems are encountered is to install wing
tank shut offs (2) and a crossover line left to right tank. The only time I
did have a problem was with fuel over flowing. What caused that was only
having one cap with a forward facing vent. I flew like that for a few hours
while trying to get another cap to fit and there was no doubt about it the
tank with the vented cap emptied long before the other one.
I have been playing with the idea of installing fuel shutoff cocks on my
wing tanks for quite some time now. I would want ball valves (1/4 turn on
and off) which have less chance of weeping fuel.
Noel
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> Torgeir Mortensen
> Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2006 8:52 PM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Fuel Flw
>
>
> <torgemor@online.no>
>
> Hi Lowell, my respected Kitfox friend,
>
> I'll agree in all what you say, except the thing about Skystars
> elimination of the main tank valves.
>
> This need an explanation, and this is hard to explain as well -fully
> understand cause of the complexity.
>
> Well, before I'll start, maybe the latter posting has enlighten my
> concern?? Or maybe cleared up a little more the "real" (?)
> problem -or?
>
> I have a fully respect for the intention that Skystar had
> when they made
> the last modification to the fuel system. However, I could
> not see the
> "basement" of their decision, and they never explained "exactly" the
> problem and why this solution.
>
> Over the years, I've been reading everything that I could
> find about a
> Kitfox plane, cause I had to justify why I wanted to by a
> Kitfox!! Well,
> I've not only checked the Kitfox, But I've also checked the Avid...
>
> In 8 to 10 different setup (Kitfox and Avid - maybe you may
> find even more
> out there), there is one common parts that's sill the same!!!
>
> (I'll know one that's not having this setup, -but only one.)
>
> Yes. this is the way we "boost" the fuel pressure a little!
>
> I've spent quite a few hours in order to explain this
> physics, -but for
> "death ears", maybe my explanation is not good enough -or
> maybe people
> don't care.
>
> Sometimes I'm just wonderin if it is not best to close my
> eyes and leave,
> -you know.
>
> The thing is, this part need some scheduled maintenance-,
> then we'll need
> just more education about the system- and how to handle/operate it
> correctly!
>
> Or- maybe a redesign is in place, if we want a system like
> Cessna, we need
> to go all the way -not somewhere in between, like Skystar did.
>
> Sorry folks, -sometimes you'll need to go all the way!
>
>
>
> Now Folks, I'd like to wish one and everyone
>
> A Happy New Year and all the best
>
> Cheers
>
> Torgeir.
Message 42
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Kitfox ad in February Kitplanes! |
Dave,
I absolutely agree, the fox is so much fun to fly. Today I went flying for a 1.5
hr flight. In the pattern I usually get 3 touches in to another planes 1 that
is on a so called short approach for the other plane. When an aircraft is
in a normal pattern I can get much more, many times I get 3 touches when their
in the final approach. When I went north to an uncontrolled airport I was making
calls that sounded like this, kitfox7PR in down wind, no make it base, no
final for 34... I did about 4 of these while two other aircraft made calls for
being 2 and 3 miles out. When they got closer I made a call that I was going
normal traffic pattern for traffic, wow, how boring. If people only knew how
fun the fox is they would drop some of these airplanes out there like the ones
you mentioned. I am building a second airplane, an rv7, but this will be my
travel airplane, I will not get rid of the fox.
--------
kitfoxmike
Do not archive
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=84586#84586
Message 43
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: dead-stick topic |
Before the Kitfox, I used to jockey around a C-150 Aerobat. I was taking
some aerobatic instruction at a remote strip and the instructor pulled the
mixture and had me nose up till the prop stopped. That was my first real
dead stick landing in a powered airplane. Many years later the family
rented a cottage in Northern Ontario, and there was a 6,000 abandoned
airstrip next to the lake. I used to go out very early in the morning just
after sunrise...climb to 4000' above the field, then shut down the engine
and do dead stick landings. Those got to be routine so I moved up to
dead stick loops and rolls. At first I found there was a big difference
emotionally between a windmilling prop and one that was not moving...then
I simply got used to it.
I mentioned this when hanger flying once and someone called it reckless.
After that I kept my mouth shut. About three years ago I had my first
real emergency landing, and I think part of the reason I remained calm was
because seeing the prop stopped was not unfamiliar. In retrospect, I was
glad I had that dead stick experience under my belt.
Gary Walsh
KF IV Anphib 912S
C-GOOT
www.decisionlabs.com/kitfox
do not archive
Message 44
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: dead-stick topic |
> Hi Michel,
I agree with you completely. Back in 1967 while I was building hours to get
my commercial rating I was being instructed by a pilot from Unites Airlines
who was also a good friend of mine. With him on board a Cessna 150 we did 20
deadstick landings where we killed the engine completely at 10,000 feet.
>From that height we glided back to our home airport 10 times with the prop
windmilling and 10 flights with the prop stopped. My friend assurred me that
during the next 40 to 50 years of flying, I was sure to have at least one
complete engine failure forcing me into a gliding situation. He wanted me to
be ready for it when it happened. I learned the difference in the way the
plane flew in each mode and when I should use the turning or stopped prop to
best suit the situation. After the 20 flights I felt good about facing the
time that it would happen.
When it did occur in N55KF back in 1992 with just 92 hours on a new engine,
that experience paid off. It all came back to me. To this date I still shut
the engine off and glide for fun. I start at 5000 feet agl and chase
thermals over a long grass strip out in the country.
Back then when I took my commercial flight test the examiner pulled the
mixture at 2500 ' agl and said that my plane was on fire and my kids were in
the back seat. I had to get the plane on the ground as fast as possible.
After spiraling down and turning final the examiner told me to hit the white
line at the start of the runway. After hitting the line he said "I like to
see that again".I said "ok thats easy". I pushed the mixture in and with the
prop still windmilling, advanced the throttle at which point he pulled it
back and had me taxi to the parking area. He said that he was considering
failing me because of my cocky attitude when I told him that I could easily
hit the white line a second time. It was then that I told him of my 20
deadstick landings and that was how I became proficient at deadstick spot
landings....
He advised me that, at that time, it was illegal to deliberately kill an
engine as it was considered to be an "aeorbatic" maneuver which I was not
checked out to do. He knew that I was going to be hired by United soon and
he passed me anyway.
Today, I spend an hour going thru the regs looking for anything on
"deliberately" killing ones engine. I could find nothing on the subject but
if something is there, it is beyond me.
Happy New Year everyone, Ron
> Here is how I feel about it, Ron. I don't do anything that is not
> necessary, this is recreational aviation, right? The pleasure is in
> flying. But training for an eventual engine stop is part of safe flying, I
> think. It happens that, with the Jabiru the engine stopped, my plane sinks
> a bit faster than at idle. Norway is not Illinois and if I find a field
> for landing, it will be of a handkerchief size. So, I train dead-stick
> precision landing at my very long asphalt runway home airfield. I have a
> friend who lost power on initial climb and while it went just fine (did a
> 180 and downwind landing) he get very irritated by the three or four
> seconds he lost by thinking: "This is not happening to me! This is not
> happening to me!"
> I think aviation safety is about recognising at once a situation and act
> as an automatic response to what one has trained for. I have read of bad
> emergency landings due to the pilot not being able to make his mind where
> to land, or trying vainly to restart the engine.
>
> Cheers,
> Michel
>
> do not archive
>
>
>
Message 45
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: dead-stick topic |
Michel, I couldn't agree more. Time is so precious when encountering an
engine failure and it is not always when we have the luxury of sufficient
height that it happens. I am fortunate to have walked away from 2 engine
failures but both were totally different. On the first occasion I was at
1500 feet and by the time I realised the prop was stationary and that the
engine had failed I had lost precious time that could have been better used.
It was only after a good ten to fifteen seconds that my training really
kicked in and I carried out my first forced landing with time on my side.
The second as you know was totally different in that I was only at 300 - 400
ft and a long way offshore. You would think that the first experience would
have conditioned me to handle the second one in a more professional manner,
but I am convinced that we all handle stressful situations differently. In
my case the realisation of the engine failing again took time to sink in and
compounding the situation was that this time due to the NSI gear box, the
prop was free wheeling quite fast. My brain was tell me the instruments were
receding, my eyes were telling me that the prop was turning and my ears were
telling me that the normal flight noises had stopped. I was confused and
clearly remember questioning what I was seeing. Again I lost valuable time
and with limited options was lucky to select one that again I walked away
from ( Or should I say swam away from). You are completely right in saying
"I think aviation safety is about recognising at once a situation and act as
an automatic response to what one has trained for" but Imp afraid I don't
know how many times it takes to prepare you for the real thing. I only know
that without me taking the same sensible approach to engine failures as you
do yourself, I truly believe I would be wearing my wings rather that
strapping them onto my back when I fly.
Do not archive
Regards
Graeme
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michel Verheughe" <michel@online.no>
Sent: Sunday, December 31, 2006 9:42 AM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Re: dead-stick topic
>
> On Dec 30, 2006, at 2:45 AM, ron schick wrote:
>> Ah Michel I always try to learn from others then do as I feel
>> comfortable.
>
> Here is how I feel about it, Ron. I don't do anything that is not
> necessary, this is recreational aviation, right? The pleasure is in
> flying. But training for an eventual engine stop is part of safe flying, I
> think. It happens that, with the Jabiru the engine stopped, my plane sinks
> a bit faster than at idle. Norway is not Illinois and if I find a field
> for landing, it will be of a handkerchief size. So, I train dead-stick
> precision landing at my very long asphalt runway home airfield. I have a
> friend who lost power on initial climb and while it went just fine (did a
> 180 and downwind landing) he get very irritated by the three or four
> seconds he lost by thinking: "This is not happening to me! This is not
> happening to me!"
> I think aviation safety is about recognising at once a situation and act
> as an automatic response to what one has trained for. I have read of bad
> emergency landings due to the pilot not being able to make his mind where
> to land, or trying vainly to restart the engine.
>
> Cheers,
> Michel
>
> do not archive
>
>
> --
>
>
Message 46
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: dead-stick topic |
If it were me it would be reckless... but I haven't spent a lot of time
doing deadstick landings. As for loops and rolls power off this is
normal
fare for gliders and it sounds to me like you have gained a lot lf
gliding
experience.
I might try a few dead stick landings. I fly floats and there is a lot
of
water around here. With the added weight and drag of floats I'll pass
on
the rolls and loops :-)
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of kitfoxjunky
Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2006 11:39 PM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Re: dead-stick topic
Before the Kitfox, I used to jockey around a C-150 Aerobat. I was
taking
some aerobatic instruction at a remote strip and the instructor pulled
the
mixture and had me nose up till the prop stopped. That was my first
real
dead stick landing in a powered airplane. Many years later the family
rented
a cottage in Northern Ontario, and there was a 6,000 abandoned airstrip
next
to the lake. I used to go out very early in the morning just after
sunrise...climb to 4000' above the field, then shut down the engine and
do
dead stick landings. Those got to be routine so I moved up to dead
stick
loops and rolls. At first I found there was a big difference
emotionally
between a windmilling prop and one that was not moving...then I simply
got
used to it.
I mentioned this when hanger flying once and someone called it reckless.
After that I kept my mouth shut. About three years ago I had my first
real
emergency landing, and I think part of the reason I remained calm was
because seeing the prop stopped was not unfamiliar. In retrospect, I
was
glad I had that dead stick experience under my belt.
Gary Walsh
KF IV Anphib 912S
C-GOOT
www.decisionlabs.com/kitfox
do not archive
Message 47
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Hi Jerry. Amen to what John says. The Model 2 is a sweet little airplane as designed.
Just leave it alone and have fun!
john perry <eskflyer@lvcisp.com> wrote:
Jerry welcome to the most fun you ever experienced, The Kitfox.
I have a Kitfox 2 N718PD , I have almost 700 hours on her now . Never have ever
had one single problem with crosswind or adverse Yaw problems on takeoff or
landing or just flying . In my humble opinion there is no need to enlarge the
Vertical stabilizer or rudder .
Fly safe fly low fly slow
John Perry
580-695-8778
eskflyer@lvcisp.com
Kitfox2 N718PD
582 cbox 2:62-1
Ivo inflight 3 blade 68"
I'm new to kitfox , Just purchased a kitfox 2 and I was interested in making the
rudder and the stab taller to help the yaw ? I'm still in the stage of building
before the covering. What is the thoughts has anyone done this? Also is there
anyone in North Cal near paradise that I can see there kitfox and ask questions
about building?
Marco Menezes
Model 2 582 N99KX
__________________________________________________
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! --
|