---------------------------------------------------------- Kitfox-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Thu 01/25/07: 31 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 03:33 AM - Re: Re: Fuel Flow, continued.Fuel Flow, continued. (Bradley M Webb) 2. 03:45 AM - Re: Fuel Flow, continued. (Lynn Matteson) 3. 04:36 AM - Fuel Flow, continued. (Fox5flyer) 4. 05:46 AM - Re: Fuel Flow, continued. (dave) 5. 06:55 AM - Fuel Flow, continued. (Fox5flyer) 6. 06:56 AM - Re: Tuning a KitFox Airframe (kitfoxmike) 7. 07:01 AM - Re: low RPM @ full Throttle (Eric) 8. 07:14 AM - Re: Fuel Flow, continued. (dave) 9. 07:15 AM - Re: low RPM @ full Throttle (dave) 10. 07:23 AM - Re: Fuel Flow, continued. (kitfoxmike) 11. 08:46 AM - Re: Fuel Flow, continued. (Randy Daughenbaugh) 12. 11:14 AM - Re: Fuel Flow, continued. (akflyer) 13. 11:47 AM - Re: insect sprayer (akflyer) 14. 01:08 PM - Re: Fuel Flow, continued. (Lowell Fitt) 15. 01:21 PM - Re: Re: insect sprayer (dave) 16. 01:27 PM - Re: Fuel Flow, continued. (Larry Huntley) 17. 01:33 PM - Re: Fuel Flow, continued. (Lynn Matteson) 18. 01:44 PM - Oshkosh Skiplane Fly-in (Lynn Matteson) 19. 02:02 PM - Re: Re: Fuel Flow, continued. (Noel Loveys) 20. 03:32 PM - ETHANOL MSNBC STORY (Noel Loveys) 21. 03:46 PM - Re: Re: insect sprayer (Noel Loveys) 22. 03:54 PM - Re: Oshkosh Skiplane Fly-in (Noel Loveys) 23. 04:17 PM - Re: Re: insect sprayer (Fox5flyer) 24. 04:26 PM - Re: Oshkosh Skiplane Fly-in (84KF) 25. 05:32 PM - Re: Re: Oshkosh Skiplane Fly-in (Lynn Matteson) 26. 05:36 PM - Re: Oshkosh Skiplane Fly-in (Lynn Matteson) 27. 05:53 PM - Re: Oshkosh Skiplane Fly-in (Lynn Matteson) 28. 06:10 PM - Re: Fuel Flow, continued. (Torgeir Mortensen) 29. 06:52 PM - Re: low RPM @ full Throttle (kirk hull) 30. 07:13 PM - Re: Oshkosh Skiplane Fly-in (floran higgins) 31. 09:04 PM - Re: low RPM @ full Throttle/tach (ron schick) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 03:33:08 AM PST US From: "Bradley M Webb" Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Re: Fuel Flow, continued.Fuel Flow, continued. The Geo 1.0L three cylinder. 3.5gph on takeoff and full bore climb, 1.8-2.2gph in cruise at 4500 rpm. Bradley -----Original Message----- From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dennis Golden Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 6:26 PM Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: Fuel Flow, continued.Fuel Flow, continued. Bradley M Webb wrote: > > It's not that much different from many of yours, but much different than the > Model 2 instructions show. > > First of all, I have 6gal in the left, 12 gal in the right, and the small > aluminum header right behind the firewall. > > I have no tank interconnect that vents both tanks together. The only vents > are the individual caps. I did this mainly to stop siphoning between the > tanks while parked. > > I also have each tank flow to a left-off-right valve near the header tank. > The M2 manual shows the shut-offs behind the pilot (SB'd out), and both > tanks went to the sides of the header tank. Mine has a single line from the > L-O-R valve to the flow sender then to the header. From there, to a firewall > shut-off valve, to the FI pump, then to the motor. From the FI/TBI, excess > fuel returns to the other side of the header. > > My header is a closed system, in that it is not vented at all under normal > conditions. I did not run the vent up to the wing tank. I have a purge valve > to the top to burp it, even in flight. I installed an ACS fuel level switch > with an LED in the panel. If that light comes on, my header level is > falling, and I open the purge valve to burp it. Both vertical distance and > cap vent tube force the bubble out and re-fill the tank. > > While sitting tail down with half tanks, I get 4-5gph flow to the header. In > flight attitude, it's over 10gph. Since I only use 2 gph on my motor, it > meets the FAA 150% flow rule by a large margin. What engine are you using to get a 2gph fuel burn? > Bradley -- Dennis Golden Golden Consulting Services, Inc. ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 03:45:56 AM PST US From: Lynn Matteson Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Fuel Flow, continued. Yes, Guy, as I recall, the tube went into the tank, and down to the "corner" of the(usually) round tank. Geez, I just thought of another similar application of this principle...the paint sprayer gun...DUH! on me! At any rate, the bug sprayer had you putting air pressure over that drop tube via a plunger. This air would come out a nozzle at the end of the plunger cylinder, and blow directly over the upper end of the drop tube. This arrangement was the ideal pressure/siphon device, while our planes have a rather crude and inefficient "facsimile." Maybe I wouldn't say crude if I was the one who just lost a tankful in an hour like Lowell did. I also had a sandblaster that worked on the bug sprayer principle. Lynn do not archive On Jan 24, 2007, at 10:37 PM, Guy Buchanan wrote: > > At 04:36 PM 1/24/2007, you wrote: >> Right on, John. Another thing to study might be the lowly insect >> sprayer....air gets blown over a tube which leads to a liquid in a >> tank...sound familiar? Some of these newer folks might never have >> heard of such a contraption, but believe me, they existed at one >> time. > > Do you remember, Lynn, whether that tube was immersed in the > liquid? Or was there just a hole in the cap? Perhaps you could try > it both ways and let us know if there's a difference. > > > Guy Buchanan > K-IV 1200 / 582-C / Warp / 100% done, thanks mostly to Bob Ducar. > > Do not archive ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 04:36:29 AM PST US From: "Fox5flyer" Subject: Kitfox-List: Fuel Flow, continued. As I recall the NTSB archives are full of incidents related to fuel starvation and it's probably the number one cause of engine failure, so IMO this is a good topic and may save some people the pain of a broken airplane, or worse. I've been watching this debate with interest because it happened to me with my old Model II. I took off with full tanks for a breakfast run and before I'd gotten ten miles I noticed that my left tank was at the half way mark while the right tank was full. I watched it for another minute or so and saw that the left tank level was still dropping rapidly so I did a 180 and headed home, landing just about the time the left tank was nearly empty. What I determined was that two things had happened. One, the right tank fuel with the cap not completely secured (on by only one tab) was being sucked out, and two, the left tank being pressurized by the secure cap/pitot was pushing the fuel from the left tank down through the header and out the right tank. My conclusion was that the loss of fuel was a combination of both the pressurized left tank and the leaking from the right tank. I don't know whether or not the engine would have quit had the left tank run completely dry, but I suspect it would not have so long as there was still fuel in the right tank, but that's definitely debatable. Now, this is different from a tank that has the cap completely missing. That's a big hole, especially in turbulence where you can lose a lot of fuel very fast, BUT considering the internal baffling, as the fuel level goes down the rate of loss will slow, right? No, because it's still being pushed out by the pressurized left tank (which is going down) and the right tank level will stay up until the left tank unports. Right? What I'm not sure about here is what would happen when the left tank empties. Personally, I'd really like to see the results of a controlled test in flying conditions to see just what would happen if this was allowed to go all the way. It would take the loss of a few gallons of gas and of course at altitude above an airport with a long runway, but it shouldn't be hard to make the test. Probably best with two people so the pilot only flies the airplane. Then again, it would depend on the configuration and integrity of the fuel system because no two are exactly alike. I have no idea how a test could be made while on the ground. Basically I agree with Randy. Deke Morisse S5 Outback NE Michigan and 14F, breezy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Randy Daughenbaugh" Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 10:20 PM Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Fuel Flow, continued. > > You are right; I don't want to test it. But what if the fuel cap is just on > poorly - only one lug caught - or on backwards? And my cap is less than > 2" open cross section. Yours must be the old pre-unleaded type cap. ;-) > > Another factor (which was mentioned by Lowell) was turbulence. If the plane > is bouncing wildly, the main loss mechanism could be due to splashing and > our discussion of relative pressure would be rather moot. > > But someone a couple of months ago reported just what I describe. Their > tank that emptied first was the one WITH the cap on. > > Guy mentioned measuring how fast the two tanks equalize levels. I have > checked this and the answer is that it depends. ! As the levels get > closer together, it is not surprising that the flow is slower. But when > there is significant differential (as in height or pressure differential) > the flow is about half a gallon per minute. At that rate, it would not > take long to make quite a deficit in your anticipated range. > > Randy > > . > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of john perry > Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 7:36 PM > To: kitfox-list@matronics.com > Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Fuel Flow, continued. > > > Randy > I would dare you to test your theory but then that would probably cause a > engine to quit in flight . No you are wrong on this one ,the tank with the > lid off will empty first every time . Remember that you are pulling fuel > from an opening around 3 inches arcross. and the other tank is feeding a 1/4 > > inch line , Now which will empty first . > > John Perry > > DO NOT ARCHIVE > > ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 05:46:38 AM PST US From: "dave" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Fuel Flow, continued. Deke, Can I ask , What is the reasoning for the vent tube that would allow this to happen ? If you have a pitot cap and a shut off for each wing tank before the header tank. If you need a vent for the header tank make it indenpendant of the wing tanks ? Does this make sense ? In your case then the right tank would have drained ? Dave ----- Original Message ----- From: "Fox5flyer" Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 7:35 AM Subject: Kitfox-List: Fuel Flow, continued. > > As I recall the NTSB archives are full of incidents related to fuel > starvation and it's probably the number one cause of engine failure, so > IMO > this is a good topic and may save some people the pain of a broken > airplane, > or worse. > I've been watching this debate with interest because it happened to me > with > my old Model II. I took off with full tanks for a breakfast run and > before > I'd gotten ten miles I noticed that my left tank was at the half way mark > while the right tank was full. I watched it for another minute or so and > saw that the left tank level was still dropping rapidly so I did a 180 and > headed home, landing just about the time the left tank was nearly empty. > What I determined was that two things had happened. One, the right tank > fuel with the cap not completely secured (on by only one tab) was being > sucked out, and two, the left tank being pressurized by the secure > cap/pitot > was pushing the fuel from the left tank down through the header and out > the > right tank. > My conclusion was that the loss of fuel was a combination of both the > pressurized left tank and the leaking from the right tank. I don't know > whether or not the engine would have quit had the left tank run completely > dry, but I suspect it would not have so long as there was still fuel in > the > right tank, but that's definitely debatable. > Now, this is different from a tank that has the cap completely missing. > That's a big hole, especially in turbulence where you can lose a lot of > fuel > very fast, BUT considering the internal baffling, as the fuel level goes > down the rate of loss will slow, right? No, because it's still being > pushed > out by the pressurized left tank (which is going down) and the right tank > level will stay up until the left tank unports. Right? What I'm not sure > about here is what would happen when the left tank empties. > Personally, I'd really like to see the results of a controlled test in > flying conditions to see just what would happen if this was allowed to go > all the way. It would take the loss of a few gallons of gas and of course > at altitude above an airport with a long runway, but it shouldn't be hard > to > make the test. Probably best with two people so the pilot only flies the > airplane. Then again, it would depend on the configuration and integrity > of > the fuel system because no two are exactly alike. I have no idea how a > test > could be made while on the ground. > Basically I agree with Randy. > > Deke Morisse > S5 Outback > NE Michigan and 14F, breezy > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Randy Daughenbaugh" > To: > Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 10:20 PM > Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Fuel Flow, continued. > > > >> >> You are right; I don't want to test it. But what if the fuel cap is just > on >> poorly - only one lug caught - or on backwards? And my cap is less >> than >> 2" open cross section. Yours must be the old pre-unleaded type cap. ;-) >> >> Another factor (which was mentioned by Lowell) was turbulence. If the > plane >> is bouncing wildly, the main loss mechanism could be due to splashing and >> our discussion of relative pressure would be rather moot. >> >> But someone a couple of months ago reported just what I describe. Their >> tank that emptied first was the one WITH the cap on. >> >> Guy mentioned measuring how fast the two tanks equalize levels. I have >> checked this and the answer is that it depends. ! As the levels get >> closer together, it is not surprising that the flow is slower. But when >> there is significant differential (as in height or pressure differential) >> the flow is about half a gallon per minute. At that rate, it would not >> take long to make quite a deficit in your anticipated range. >> >> Randy >> >> . >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com >> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of john perry >> Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 7:36 PM >> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com >> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Fuel Flow, continued. >> >> >> Randy >> I would dare you to test your theory but then that would probably cause a >> engine to quit in flight . No you are wrong on this one ,the tank with >> the >> lid off will empty first every time . Remember that you are pulling fuel >> from an opening around 3 inches arcross. and the other tank is feeding a > 1/4 >> >> inch line , Now which will empty first . >> >> John Perry >> >> DO NOT ARCHIVE >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 06:55:00 AM PST US From: "Fox5flyer" Subject: Kitfox-List: Fuel Flow, continued. Those are good questions Dave. The vent tube is simply to allow the header to fill and stay filled. The reason why ours vent to the right tank is because it's the closest one (behind the seat header). Some folks have the vent tube independent of the wing tanks, as has been discussed here. Personally, I don't think the vent tube had anything to do with what happened to me and had the left cap rather than the right cap been installed incorrectly the same would have happened in reverse. In my opinion it's simply the differential pressure between the tanks when one tank is being vacuumed (loose cap) and the other pressurized (pitot). Both tanks are connected by the header. Valves on the tank lines would help, but they create a whole new set of problems. Overall, the factory setup as designed by Dan Denny/Dean Wilson/Skystar is sound and like any other airplane is not foolproof when mistakes are made like forgetting to install a fuel cap or installing it incorrectly. Deke ----- Original Message ----- From: "dave" Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 8:45 AM Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Fuel Flow, continued. > > Deke, > Can I ask , What is the reasoning for the vent tube that would allow this to > happen ? > If you have a pitot cap and a shut off for each wing tank before the header > tank. > > If you need a vent for the header tank make it indenpendant of the wing > tanks ? > > Does this make sense ? > > In your case then the right tank would have drained ? > > Dave > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Fox5flyer" > To: > Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 7:35 AM > Subject: Kitfox-List: Fuel Flow, continued. > > > > > > As I recall the NTSB archives are full of incidents related to fuel > > starvation and it's probably the number one cause of engine failure, so > > IMO > > this is a good topic and may save some people the pain of a broken > > airplane, > > or worse. > > I've been watching this debate with interest because it happened to me > > with > > my old Model II. I took off with full tanks for a breakfast run and > > before > > I'd gotten ten miles I noticed that my left tank was at the half way mark > > while the right tank was full. I watched it for another minute or so and > > saw that the left tank level was still dropping rapidly so I did a 180 and > > headed home, landing just about the time the left tank was nearly empty. > > What I determined was that two things had happened. One, the right tank > > fuel with the cap not completely secured (on by only one tab) was being > > sucked out, and two, the left tank being pressurized by the secure > > cap/pitot > > was pushing the fuel from the left tank down through the header and out > > the > > right tank. > > My conclusion was that the loss of fuel was a combination of both the > > pressurized left tank and the leaking from the right tank. I don't know > > whether or not the engine would have quit had the left tank run completely > > dry, but I suspect it would not have so long as there was still fuel in > > the > > right tank, but that's definitely debatable. > > Now, this is different from a tank that has the cap completely missing. > > That's a big hole, especially in turbulence where you can lose a lot of > > fuel > > very fast, BUT considering the internal baffling, as the fuel level goes > > down the rate of loss will slow, right? No, because it's still being > > pushed > > out by the pressurized left tank (which is going down) and the right tank > > level will stay up until the left tank unports. Right? What I'm not sure > > about here is what would happen when the left tank empties. > > Personally, I'd really like to see the results of a controlled test in > > flying conditions to see just what would happen if this was allowed to go > > all the way. It would take the loss of a few gallons of gas and of course > > at altitude above an airport with a long runway, but it shouldn't be hard > > to > > make the test. Probably best with two people so the pilot only flies the > > airplane. Then again, it would depend on the configuration and integrity > > of > > the fuel system because no two are exactly alike. I have no idea how a > > test > > could be made while on the ground. > > Basically I agree with Randy. > > > > Deke Morisse > > S5 Outback > > NE Michigan and 14F, breezy ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 06:56:05 AM PST US Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Tuning a KitFox Airframe From: "kitfoxmike" doesn't matter in my fox if I have a full tank on one side and empty or near emty in the other, wife in with me, or sitting alone. The fox flies the same as far as heavy wing or not. I went two turns out on the left front because mine also had a heavy left wing. I also have 13 gal tanks in each wing. Model IV, 1200 speedster 912ul -------- kitfoxmike Do not archive Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=90355#90355 ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 07:01:51 AM PST US From: "Eric" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: low RPM @ full Throttle Thanks to everyone who responded to my low rpm @ full throttle problem. Ron, I am getting 4300 and Rotax 912 redline is 5600-5800 rpm. Looks like my options are either an optical tach or TinyTach. I am going to go with a TinyTach because its cheaper, reads eng.rpm not prop rpm, and it leaves both hands free to fiddle with buttons and knobs. Eric ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 07:14:04 AM PST US From: "dave" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Fuel Flow, continued. Deke, My Buddy has an AVID with 2 - 12 gal wing tanks. and a header behind the seat. Stupidest system i seen. He fills both tank full and if it is parked not level the fuel runs out the low tank cap . I told him to put a shut off on each tank but he has not yet. Still has to worry about fuel transfering tank to tank via the flow thru the header tank. Does this make sense ? Dave ----- Original Message ----- From: "Fox5flyer" Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 9:54 AM Subject: Kitfox-List: Fuel Flow, continued. > > Those are good questions Dave. The vent tube is simply to allow the > header > to fill and stay filled. The reason why ours vent to the right tank is > because it's the closest one (behind the seat header). Some folks have > the > vent tube independent of the wing tanks, as has been discussed here. > Personally, I don't think the vent tube had anything to do with what > happened to me and had the left cap rather than the right cap been > installed > incorrectly the same would have happened in reverse. In my opinion it's > simply the differential pressure between the tanks when one tank is being > vacuumed (loose cap) and the other pressurized (pitot). Both tanks are > connected by the header. Valves on the tank lines would help, but they > create a whole new set of problems. Overall, the factory setup as > designed > by Dan Denny/Dean Wilson/Skystar is sound and like any other airplane is > not > foolproof when mistakes are made like forgetting to install a fuel cap or > installing it incorrectly. > Deke > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "dave" > To: > Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 8:45 AM > Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Fuel Flow, continued. > > >> >> Deke, >> Can I ask , What is the reasoning for the vent tube that would allow this > to >> happen ? >> If you have a pitot cap and a shut off for each wing tank before the > header >> tank. >> >> If you need a vent for the header tank make it indenpendant of the wing >> tanks ? >> >> Does this make sense ? >> >> In your case then the right tank would have drained ? >> >> Dave >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Fox5flyer" >> To: >> Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 7:35 AM >> Subject: Kitfox-List: Fuel Flow, continued. >> >> >> > >> > As I recall the NTSB archives are full of incidents related to fuel >> > starvation and it's probably the number one cause of engine failure, so >> > IMO >> > this is a good topic and may save some people the pain of a broken >> > airplane, >> > or worse. >> > I've been watching this debate with interest because it happened to me >> > with >> > my old Model II. I took off with full tanks for a breakfast run and >> > before >> > I'd gotten ten miles I noticed that my left tank was at the half way > mark >> > while the right tank was full. I watched it for another minute or so > and >> > saw that the left tank level was still dropping rapidly so I did a 180 > and >> > headed home, landing just about the time the left tank was nearly >> > empty. >> > What I determined was that two things had happened. One, the right >> > tank >> > fuel with the cap not completely secured (on by only one tab) was being >> > sucked out, and two, the left tank being pressurized by the secure >> > cap/pitot >> > was pushing the fuel from the left tank down through the header and out >> > the >> > right tank. >> > My conclusion was that the loss of fuel was a combination of both the >> > pressurized left tank and the leaking from the right tank. I don't >> > know >> > whether or not the engine would have quit had the left tank run > completely >> > dry, but I suspect it would not have so long as there was still fuel in >> > the >> > right tank, but that's definitely debatable. >> > Now, this is different from a tank that has the cap completely missing. >> > That's a big hole, especially in turbulence where you can lose a lot of >> > fuel >> > very fast, BUT considering the internal baffling, as the fuel level >> > goes >> > down the rate of loss will slow, right? No, because it's still being >> > pushed >> > out by the pressurized left tank (which is going down) and the right > tank >> > level will stay up until the left tank unports. Right? What I'm not > sure >> > about here is what would happen when the left tank empties. >> > Personally, I'd really like to see the results of a controlled test in >> > flying conditions to see just what would happen if this was allowed to > go >> > all the way. It would take the loss of a few gallons of gas and of > course >> > at altitude above an airport with a long runway, but it shouldn't be > hard >> > to >> > make the test. Probably best with two people so the pilot only flies > the >> > airplane. Then again, it would depend on the configuration and > integrity >> > of >> > the fuel system because no two are exactly alike. I have no idea how a >> > test >> > could be made while on the ground. >> > Basically I agree with Randy. >> > >> > Deke Morisse >> > S5 Outback >> > NE Michigan and 14F, breezy > > > ________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________ Time: 07:15:14 AM PST US From: "dave" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: low RPM @ full Throttle Will be an interesting comparison, looking forward to hear the results. Dave ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric" Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 9:57 AM Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: low RPM @ full Throttle > > Thanks to everyone who responded to my low rpm @ full throttle problem. > Ron, I am getting 4300 and Rotax 912 redline is 5600-5800 rpm. > Looks like my options are either an optical tach or TinyTach. I am going > to go with a TinyTach because its cheaper, reads eng.rpm not prop rpm, and > it leaves both hands free to fiddle with buttons and knobs. > Eric > > > ________________________________ Message 10 ____________________________________ Time: 07:23:45 AM PST US Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Fuel Flow, continued. From: "kitfoxmike" I made my system simple and it has been mentioned by others, that they use the same. I have NO gascalator, I run from my tanks ,each, to a filter, inline filter, to a shutoff valve, to the header tank, the right tank has the vent that goes to the header tank. I have a line that goes from the header to another inline filter and then to a shut off valve then to the fuel pump. I run one tank at a time, when that tank gets down to about an inch off the bottom of the site hose I switch to the other tank. I also have the problem with the right tank draining into the left tank, but when the left tank gets full that stops. Not a problem, but I like to know what I have so I settled on using only one tank at a time. This time of year I don't go anywhere and I always want spare fuel, so I put av gas in the right tank, 5 gallons, and only use the left tank. The right tank with the av fuel will not go bad like auto fuel so that's my reasoning for that. The hoses I use is the blue hose, which turns green from the auto fuel, from the tanks to the header. from the header I have aluminum tube, then blue hose at the main filter and shut off valve, then aluminum tube out through the fire wall, then I have auto, fuel injection hose from the fire wall to the fuel pump, from the fuel pump to the carbs, fuel injection hose. I fly over 250 hrs a year and I have had no problems with this setup. The hobbs on the airplane just hit 802 yesterday. -------- kitfoxmike Do not archive Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=90363#90363 ________________________________ Message 11 ____________________________________ Time: 08:46:14 AM PST US From: "Randy Daughenbaugh" Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Fuel Flow, continued. Dave, I only put one shut off valve in my system - Right tank. I use this to stop the transfer between two tanks when parked on uneven ground or in the rare case when I have full fuel. I decided NOT to put a shut off valve on each tank because then both tanks can not be shut off. Inadvertently, absent mindedly, etc. When I need to shut of left tank, I use a hose clamp. I just believe that the simpler system is safer. - less to go wrong. I see no reason for additional fuel pumps. The system works fine without a pump. The pump is just something else to go wrong. Randy . -----Original Message----- From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of dave Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 8:12 AM Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Fuel Flow, continued. Deke, My Buddy has an AVID with 2 - 12 gal wing tanks. and a header behind the seat. Stupidest system i seen. He fills both tank full and if it is parked not level the fuel runs out the low tank cap . I told him to put a shut off on each tank but he has not yet. Still has to worry about fuel transfering tank to tank via the flow thru the header tank. Does this make sense ? Dave ----- Original Message ----- From: "Fox5flyer" Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 9:54 AM Subject: Kitfox-List: Fuel Flow, continued. > > Those are good questions Dave. The vent tube is simply to allow the > header > to fill and stay filled. The reason why ours vent to the right tank is > because it's the closest one (behind the seat header). Some folks have > the > vent tube independent of the wing tanks, as has been discussed here. > Personally, I don't think the vent tube had anything to do with what > happened to me and had the left cap rather than the right cap been > installed > incorrectly the same would have happened in reverse. In my opinion it's > simply the differential pressure between the tanks when one tank is being > vacuumed (loose cap) and the other pressurized (pitot). Both tanks are > connected by the header. Valves on the tank lines would help, but they > create a whole new set of problems. Overall, the factory setup as > designed > by Dan Denny/Dean Wilson/Skystar is sound and like any other airplane is > not > foolproof when mistakes are made like forgetting to install a fuel cap or > installing it incorrectly. > Deke > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "dave" > To: > Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 8:45 AM > Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Fuel Flow, continued. > > >> >> Deke, >> Can I ask , What is the reasoning for the vent tube that would allow this > to >> happen ? >> If you have a pitot cap and a shut off for each wing tank before the > header >> tank. >> >> If you need a vent for the header tank make it indenpendant of the wing >> tanks ? >> >> Does this make sense ? >> >> In your case then the right tank would have drained ? >> >> Dave >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Fox5flyer" >> To: >> Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 7:35 AM >> Subject: Kitfox-List: Fuel Flow, continued. >> >> >> > >> > As I recall the NTSB archives are full of incidents related to fuel >> > starvation and it's probably the number one cause of engine failure, so >> > IMO >> > this is a good topic and may save some people the pain of a broken >> > airplane, >> > or worse. >> > I've been watching this debate with interest because it happened to me >> > with >> > my old Model II. I took off with full tanks for a breakfast run and >> > before >> > I'd gotten ten miles I noticed that my left tank was at the half way > mark >> > while the right tank was full. I watched it for another minute or so > and >> > saw that the left tank level was still dropping rapidly so I did a 180 > and >> > headed home, landing just about the time the left tank was nearly >> > empty. >> > What I determined was that two things had happened. One, the right >> > tank >> > fuel with the cap not completely secured (on by only one tab) was being >> > sucked out, and two, the left tank being pressurized by the secure >> > cap/pitot >> > was pushing the fuel from the left tank down through the header and out >> > the >> > right tank. >> > My conclusion was that the loss of fuel was a combination of both the >> > pressurized left tank and the leaking from the right tank. I don't >> > know >> > whether or not the engine would have quit had the left tank run > completely >> > dry, but I suspect it would not have so long as there was still fuel in >> > the >> > right tank, but that's definitely debatable. >> > Now, this is different from a tank that has the cap completely missing. >> > That's a big hole, especially in turbulence where you can lose a lot of >> > fuel >> > very fast, BUT considering the internal baffling, as the fuel level >> > goes >> > down the rate of loss will slow, right? No, because it's still being >> > pushed >> > out by the pressurized left tank (which is going down) and the right > tank >> > level will stay up until the left tank unports. Right? What I'm not > sure >> > about here is what would happen when the left tank empties. >> > Personally, I'd really like to see the results of a controlled test in >> > flying conditions to see just what would happen if this was allowed to > go >> > all the way. It would take the loss of a few gallons of gas and of > course >> > at altitude above an airport with a long runway, but it shouldn't be > hard >> > to >> > make the test. Probably best with two people so the pilot only flies > the >> > airplane. Then again, it would depend on the configuration and > integrity >> > of >> > the fuel system because no two are exactly alike. I have no idea how a >> > test >> > could be made while on the ground. >> > Basically I agree with Randy. >> > >> > Deke Morisse >> > S5 Outback >> > NE Michigan and 14F, breezy > > > ________________________________ Message 12 ____________________________________ Time: 11:14:39 AM PST US Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Fuel Flow, continued. From: "akflyer" I have had a cap come off on a PA-12. The tank arrangement is virtualy the same as the fox. I can tell you that I had a helluva spray over my left shoulder. The left tank went from tip top full to about 1" left in the tank in the 6-8 miles it took me to notice it... thankfully, the right tank remained full. I was able get my butt back out of the pass and to port alsworth to re-fuel... again... it was a bit embarassing pulling back to the pump 10 minutes after I had just topped off and take another 18 gallons.. I found the cap in about 2' of water right where I had pulled up to shore and re-fuled the first time. -------- Leni Avid C W/582 1260 full lotus .......DO NOT ARCHIVE..... Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=90410#90410 ________________________________ Message 13 ____________________________________ Time: 11:47:43 AM PST US Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: insect sprayer From: "akflyer" duuuhhhh me tink dis is workin on da syphon principal... but who knows... I be an under edumacated alaskan.. hmmm... It seems like some genious allready figured this out and uses this MOST BASIC idea for .... THE FRIGGIN SPRAY GUN YOU PAINTED YOUR PLANE WITH....or the sandblaster you may have cleaned up some tubes with.or or or... I dont know why everyone has to over analize every little thing.... we gots tooo many einsteins around here I guess lol... -------- Leni Avid C W/582 1260 full lotus .......DO NOT ARCHIVE..... Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=90418#90418 ________________________________ Message 14 ____________________________________ Time: 01:08:08 PM PST US From: "Lowell Fitt" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Fuel Flow, continued. I must admit that Deke's expereince has given me pause as to my memory. I checked my log book and apparently didn't log the experience of the misaligned fuel cam and resultant fuel loss. As difficult as it is to admit this, I seldom look at my fuel gauges as in almost all lengthy cross countrys, my fuel needs are superceeded by others with greater burn or smaller tanks. Since it is easier to view the right tank sight gauge at a glance I am pretty sure that the right tank was the low one. And the flyby showed no apparent difference in the caps. However I can't actually recall which tank had the poorly fitted cap. So I will Defer to Deke. We may actually have two phenomena working here. The pitot pressure forcing fuel out of the misaligned cap and another thing entirely with a cap missing. I remember many times when I was working for a short time for United Airlines on the ramp, where a taxing 737 could suck a puddle dry through a miniature water spout as the engine passed over it. Could it be a similar phenomenon with an open cap and the airstream over the wing causing a vortex in through the tank opening and sucking out the fuel? Lowell ----- Original Message ----- From: "Fox5flyer" Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 4:35 AM Subject: Kitfox-List: Fuel Flow, continued. > > As I recall the NTSB archives are full of incidents related to fuel > starvation and it's probably the number one cause of engine failure, so > IMO > this is a good topic and may save some people the pain of a broken > airplane, > or worse. > I've been watching this debate with interest because it happened to me > with > my old Model II. I took off with full tanks for a breakfast run and > before > I'd gotten ten miles I noticed that my left tank was at the half way mark > while the right tank was full. I watched it for another minute or so and > saw that the left tank level was still dropping rapidly so I did a 180 and > headed home, landing just about the time the left tank was nearly empty. > What I determined was that two things had happened. One, the right tank > fuel with the cap not completely secured (on by only one tab) was being > sucked out, and two, the left tank being pressurized by the secure > cap/pitot > was pushing the fuel from the left tank down through the header and out > the > right tank. > My conclusion was that the loss of fuel was a combination of both the > pressurized left tank and the leaking from the right tank. I don't know > whether or not the engine would have quit had the left tank run completely > dry, but I suspect it would not have so long as there was still fuel in > the > right tank, but that's definitely debatable. > Now, this is different from a tank that has the cap completely missing. > That's a big hole, especially in turbulence where you can lose a lot of > fuel > very fast, BUT considering the internal baffling, as the fuel level goes > down the rate of loss will slow, right? No, because it's still being > pushed > out by the pressurized left tank (which is going down) and the right tank > level will stay up until the left tank unports. Right? What I'm not sure > about here is what would happen when the left tank empties. > Personally, I'd really like to see the results of a controlled test in > flying conditions to see just what would happen if this was allowed to go > all the way. It would take the loss of a few gallons of gas and of course > at altitude above an airport with a long runway, but it shouldn't be hard > to > make the test. Probably best with two people so the pilot only flies the > airplane. Then again, it would depend on the configuration and integrity > of > the fuel system because no two are exactly alike. I have no idea how a > test > could be made while on the ground. > Basically I agree with Randy. > > Deke Morisse > S5 Outback > NE Michigan and 14F, breezy > ________________________________ Message 15 ____________________________________ Time: 01:21:45 PM PST US From: "dave" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: insect sprayer LOL YUP !! < I dont know why everyone has to over analize every little thing.... we gots tooo many einsteins around here I guess lol... > True test is real time, I hear lots of stories and I tell a few--- but who woulda believe that a guy take off and land in a foot of water in Muddy field ? www.cfisher.com Stay tuned for some more videos soon , anyone else got one hosted- let me know or put on youtube. Is is free you know. Dave ----- Original Message ----- From: "akflyer" Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 2:47 PM Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: insect sprayer > > duuuhhhh me tink dis is workin on da syphon principal... but who knows... > I be an under edumacated alaskan.. > > hmmm... It seems like some genious allready figured this out and uses this > MOST BASIC idea for .... THE FRIGGIN SPRAY GUN YOU PAINTED YOUR PLANE > WITH....or the sandblaster you may have cleaned up some tubes with.or or > or... > > I dont know why everyone has to over analize every little thing.... we > gots tooo many einsteins around here I guess lol... > > -------- > Leni > Avid C W/582 > 1260 full lotus > > .......DO NOT ARCHIVE..... > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=90418#90418 > > > ________________________________ Message 16 ____________________________________ Time: 01:27:36 PM PST US From: "Larry Huntley" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Fuel Flow, continued. Hmmmmm, I agree. Just like a Cessna 150 and the Kitfox4( unless you put a valve in at least one tank). Larry Huntley,4-1200 Soob > .. > Stupidest system i seen. He fills both tank full and if it is parked not > level the fuel runs out the low tank cap . ________________________________ Message 17 ____________________________________ Time: 01:33:24 PM PST US From: Lynn Matteson Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Fuel Flow, continued. Deke- What is/are the "new set of problems"? I've got 'em on my plane, and other than one incident when I parked the plane one wing low, full of fuel, I have had no (knock on wood) problems. Lynn On Jan 25, 2007, at 9:54 AM, Fox5flyer wrote: > > Valves on the tank lines would help, but they > create a whole new set of problems. Overall, the factory setup as > designed > by Dan Denny/Dean Wilson/Skystar is sound and like any other > airplane is not > foolproof when mistakes are made like forgetting to install a fuel > cap or > installing it incorrectly. > Deke > > =================== > > ________________________________ Message 18 ____________________________________ Time: 01:44:35 PM PST US From: Lynn Matteson Subject: Kitfox-List: Oshkosh Skiplane Fly-in Is anybody going to the fly-in this Saturday? I've got my plane ready, and maybe I need somebody to tell me I'm nuts to go. Barring that, weather willing, creek doesn't rise, I'm gonna give it a shot. I've got about 15 takeoffs and landings since I installed the skis, and all is well landing on mostly grass with about 3 inches of snow around here. Biggest detriment that I can see so far is the weather. Any tips out there for a beginning (by air) Oshkosher? I just finished installing a redundant set of safety cables/shock cords, and feel like I can just about slice through anything. : ) Lynn Kitfox IV Speedster...Jabiru 2200 do not archive ________________________________ Message 19 ____________________________________ Time: 02:02:24 PM PST US From: "Noel Loveys" Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Re: Fuel Flow, continued. Mike: What you are saying is here is no need for independent fuel shut offs?? Are they a necessity...maybe not but they will stop cross tank fuel flow so you can get both tanks completely full without any loss. They will also allow you to isolate a tank in the event of an in flight problem. At the present time I don't have individual shut offs on my wing tanks but they are on my list of priorities. Noel > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of > kitfoxmike > Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 11:52 AM > To: kitfox-list@matronics.com > Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Fuel Flow, continued. > > > > > I made my system simple and it has been mentioned by others, > that they use the same. > > I have NO gascalator, I run from my tanks ,each, to a > filter, inline filter, to a shutoff valve, to the header > tank, the right tank has the vent that goes to the header tank. > > I have a line that goes from the header to another inline > filter and then to a shut off valve then to the fuel pump. I > run one tank at a time, when that tank gets down to about an > inch off the bottom of the site hose I switch to the other tank. > > I also have the problem with the right tank draining into the > left tank, but when the left tank gets full that stops. Not > a problem, but I like to know what I have so I settled on > using only one tank at a time. > > This time of year I don't go anywhere and I always want > spare fuel, so I put av gas in the right tank, 5 gallons, and > only use the left tank. The right tank with the av fuel will > not go bad like auto fuel so that's my reasoning for that. > > The hoses I use is the blue hose, which turns green from the > auto fuel, from the tanks to the header. from the header I > have aluminum tube, then blue hose at the main filter and > shut off valve, then aluminum tube out through the fire wall, > then I have auto, fuel injection hose from the fire wall to > the fuel pump, from the fuel pump to the carbs, fuel injection hose. > > I fly over 250 hrs a year and I have had no problems with > this setup. The hobbs on the airplane just hit 802 yesterday. > > -------- > kitfoxmike > Do not archive > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=90363#90363 > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ Message 20 ____________________________________ Time: 03:32:49 PM PST US From: "Noel Loveys" Subject: Kitfox-List: ETHANOL MSNBC STORY Ok guys and gals... Have a look at this and this guy doesn't even consider all the costs of production or distribution. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16790038/site/newsweek/ Noel ________________________________ Message 21 ____________________________________ Time: 03:46:19 PM PST US From: "Noel Loveys" Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Re: insect sprayer Dave The machine for doing that is called a Jeep or Land Rover :-) Noel > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of dave > Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 5:51 PM > To: kitfox-list@matronics.com > Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: insect sprayer > > > > LOL YUP !! > < I dont know why everyone has to over analize every little > thing.... we > gots tooo many einsteins around here I guess lol... > > > > True test is real time, I hear lots of stories and I tell a > few--- but who > woulda believe that a guy take off and land in a foot of > water in Muddy > field ? > > www.cfisher.com > > Stay tuned for some more videos soon , anyone else got one > hosted- let me > know or put on youtube. Is is free you know. > > Dave > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "akflyer" > To: > Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 2:47 PM > Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: insect sprayer > > > > > > > duuuhhhh me tink dis is workin on da syphon principal... > but who knows... > > I be an under edumacated alaskan.. > > > > hmmm... It seems like some genious allready figured this > out and uses this > > MOST BASIC idea for .... THE FRIGGIN SPRAY GUN YOU PAINTED > YOUR PLANE > > WITH....or the sandblaster you may have cleaned up some > tubes with.or or > > or... > > > > I dont know why everyone has to over analize every little > thing.... we > > gots tooo many einsteins around here I guess lol... > > > > -------- > > Leni > > Avid C W/582 > > 1260 full lotus > > > > .......DO NOT ARCHIVE..... > > > > > > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=90418#90418 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ Message 22 ____________________________________ Time: 03:54:31 PM PST US From: "Noel Loveys" Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Oshkosh Skiplane Fly-in When parking in un-packed snow it is sometimes a good idea to taxi the plane in a circle and stop in your own tracks the second time around. Helps to keep the skis from sticking to the snow. An old bush pilot told me that one... He also said when it really got cold he would drain the oil and bring it inside and also bring in the battery. Oh yes.. And in very cold weather lay some boughs on the ground and run the plane up on them also helps to keep the skis from sticking to the snow. Have fun!! Noel > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of > Lynn Matteson > Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 6:15 PM > To: kitfox-list@matronics.com > Subject: Kitfox-List: Oshkosh Skiplane Fly-in > > > > Is anybody going to the fly-in this Saturday? I've got my plane > ready, and maybe I need somebody to tell me I'm nuts to go. Barring > that, weather willing, creek doesn't rise, I'm gonna give it a shot. > I've got about 15 takeoffs and landings since I installed the skis, > and all is well landing on mostly grass with about 3 inches of snow > around here. Biggest detriment that I can see so far is the weather. > Any tips out there for a beginning (by air) Oshkosher? > I just finished installing a redundant set of safety cables/shock > cords, and feel like I can just about slice through anything. : ) > > Lynn > Kitfox IV Speedster...Jabiru 2200 > do not archive > > > > > ________________________________ Message 23 ____________________________________ Time: 04:17:01 PM PST US From: "Fox5flyer" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: insect sprayer C'mon folks. How about a little DO NOT ARCHIVE to keep the searches easier. Thanks, Deke do not archive ----- Original Message ----- From: "Noel Loveys" Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 6:44 PM Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Re: insect sprayer > > Dave > > The machine for doing that is called a Jeep or Land Rover :-) > > Noel > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com > > [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of dave > > Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 5:51 PM > > To: kitfox-list@matronics.com > > Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: insect sprayer > > > > > > > > LOL YUP !! > > < I dont know why everyone has to over analize every little > > thing.... we > > gots tooo many einsteins around here I guess lol... > > > > > > > True test is real time, I hear lots of stories and I tell a > > few--- but who > > woulda believe that a guy take off and land in a foot of > > water in Muddy > > field ? > > > > www.cfisher.com > > > > Stay tuned for some more videos soon , anyone else got one > > hosted- let me > > know or put on youtube. Is is free you know. > > > > Dave > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "akflyer" > > To: > > Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 2:47 PM > > Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: insect sprayer > > > > > > > > > > > > duuuhhhh me tink dis is workin on da syphon principal... > > but who knows... > > > I be an under edumacated alaskan.. > > > > > > hmmm... It seems like some genious allready figured this > > out and uses this > > > MOST BASIC idea for .... THE FRIGGIN SPRAY GUN YOU PAINTED > > YOUR PLANE > > > WITH....or the sandblaster you may have cleaned up some > > tubes with.or or > > > or... > > > > > > I dont know why everyone has to over analize every little > > thing.... we > > > gots tooo many einsteins around here I guess lol... > > > > > > -------- > > > Leni > > > Avid C W/582 > > > 1260 full lotus > > > > > > .......DO NOT ARCHIVE..... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > > > > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=90418#90418 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ Message 24 ____________________________________ Time: 04:26:29 PM PST US Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Oshkosh Skiplane Fly-in From: "84KF" Go wide around Chicago....Plan fuel stops well...you'll need the snow I've done Oshkosh a few times from New Hudson Mi in the Fall Long trip, (85 MPH) and you need to know where you are at when rounding the lake and heading east. I always went past Mode C airspace before starting North, but that was an equipment issue. more relaxing though This was before common GPS Steve Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=90461#90461 ________________________________ Message 25 ____________________________________ Time: 05:32:17 PM PST US From: Lynn Matteson Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: Oshkosh Skiplane Fly-in I just got the VFR Terminal Area chart, and it shows the popular route along the lake, which looks doable to me...a little up and down here and there to stay out of "B" space, but seems doable. Of course the chart doesn't show all those planes zooming by either. : ) I've done the Oshkosh drive 6 or 7 times, and it's gonna be fun (weather permitting) to look down and see those damned orange cones from another view. I'm planning to mark the chart, but keep an eye on the GPS as well...or vice versa, probably. With 26 gallons aboard, and less than 4 gph, I *shouldn't* have to stop for fuel, but certainly will for nature calls, and will refuel then, I'll mark the best-looking spots on the chart. Thanks, Steve. Lynn do not archive On Jan 25, 2007, at 7:26 PM, 84KF wrote: > > Go wide around Chicago....Plan fuel stops well...you'll need the snow > > I've done Oshkosh a few times from New Hudson Mi in the Fall > Long trip, (85 MPH) and you need to know where you are at when > rounding the lake and heading east. I always went past Mode C > airspace before starting North, but that was an equipment issue. > more relaxing though This was before common GPS > Steve > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=90461#90461 > > ________________________________ Message 26 ____________________________________ Time: 05:36:27 PM PST US From: Lynn Matteson Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Oshkosh Skiplane Fly-in Thanks Noel...sounds like some of the stories I read last year about the Alaskan bush pilots. NOW I know what to do with my still-to-be-taken-down Christmas tree! I understand that tossing the boughs out can give you a better perspective on landing. Lynn do not archive On Jan 25, 2007, at 6:53 PM, Noel Loveys wrote: > > When parking in un-packed snow it is sometimes a good idea to taxi > the plane > in a circle and stop in your own tracks the second time around. > Helps to > keep the skis from sticking to the snow. > > An old bush pilot told me that one... > > He also said when it really got cold he would drain the oil and > bring it > inside and also bring in the battery. Oh yes.. And in very cold > weather lay > some boughs on the ground and run the plane up on them also helps > to keep > the skis from sticking to the snow. > > Have fun!! > > Noel ________________________________ Message 27 ____________________________________ Time: 05:53:22 PM PST US From: Lynn Matteson Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Oshkosh Skiplane Fly-in Re sticking to the snow....I've got wheel-penetration skis, so with packed snow, this shouldn't be an issue, should it? Also the polyurethane "feet" should help that situation, I would think...we shall see... Lynn do not archive On Jan 25, 2007, at 6:53 PM, Noel Loveys wrote: > > When parking in un-packed snow it is sometimes a good idea to taxi > the plane > in a circle and stop in your own tracks the second time around. > Helps to > keep the skis from sticking to the snow. > > An old bush pilot told me that one... > > He also said when it really got cold he would drain the oil and > bring it > inside and also bring in the battery. Oh yes.. And in very cold > weather lay > some boughs on the ground and run the plane up on them also helps > to keep > the skis from sticking to the snow. > > Have fun!! > > Noel ________________________________ Message 28 ____________________________________ Time: 06:10:23 PM PST US Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Fuel Flow, continued. From: "Torgeir Mortensen" Hi Guy, You sure put up some good asumptions here.. Well, once more; Is there any difference if I loose (or forgot to put on) the left or the right fuel cap? I.E. will one or the other situation (loosing left or loosing right fuel cap) leave more or less fuel for us to use during flight. Yes or No ???? The correct answer here is; there is no "significant" differece if you'll loose the right or the left fuel cap!!!! Second, can't you do anything to avoid loosing fuel if this situation arise. You'll know, if the engine quit due to this situ., there is no more fuel left... Well, since you only have the main shut off to play with there's not very much you can do. Sure if you're aware about the situ. in an early state, you could lift that wing etc... Yes Guy, if you lift the "actual" wing before it's exhausted...if you figure out what's going on.. :) OK., folks, remember that this is the latest version with both wing tank valves removed.. Do not mix the old system into this late version. The old setup is to be discussed later (-don't worry), with all details we know about. Be sure my friends, the intentions of the latest system is to have a system that's serve you the best with minimum effort over time. Hovewer, over time tings wear and tear, - then how would my setup behave then? And, -is there any kind of redundancy in here? Also, it is possible to loose fuel even there's no fuel transfer between fuel tank's! Keyword here is; backflow, resonant (flute effect in venturi) and direct siphons effect. Now, why is there a "restriction" in the flow entering from the header line into the altimeter?? How will this restriction influence when there's a leaky gasket? Torgeir. On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 00:55:59 +0100, Guy Buchanan wrote: > > I'm not sure what you're asking, Torgier. I did some calcs and the > dynamic pressure at 115 MIAS at sea level equates to about 9" of static > fuel head. (Assume the static pressure is the same across the open cap > and at the vent pitot tip, a reasonable approximation.) This appears to > mean that as long as you're going fast you can empty the left tank. When > the fuel level in the left tank/line drops to 9" below that in the right > tank you'll be at equilibrium. This will leave nearly the entire left > fuel line and vent line full, and the right tank full. Both levels will > drop simultaneously, all things being equal, with the left level 9" > below the right. (This assumes the top of your header is more than 9" > below the bottom of your tanks. I'm pretty sure mine is.) > > If you slow down the 9" static fuel head drops as the square of the > velocity. (E.g. at 57.5 MIAS the head will be 9/4" or 2.25") If you > climb the static fuel head drops linearly with the air density. So if > you find you're blowing fuel, slow down, climb high, lift the streaming > wing a little, and you should be fine. Indeed you should be able to lift > the wing enough to stop the leak. > > > Guy Buchanan > K-IV 1200 / 582-C / Warp / 100% done, thanks mostly to Bob Ducar. > > -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ ________________________________ Message 29 ____________________________________ Time: 06:52:49 PM PST US From: "kirk hull" Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: low RPM @ full Throttle Don't buy a laset tach just have a shop or someone use one to test your tach to see if it is correct -----Original Message----- From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Noel Loveys Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 8:53 PM Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: low RPM @ full Throttle Tiny tach is about $60.00. How much is a laser tach?? Noel > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of kirk hull > Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 10:20 PM > To: kitfox-list@matronics.com > Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: low RPM @ full Throttle > > > > Any good shop ( and most A&P ) can test your tach with a > laser devise and a > piece of reflective tape on the prop. If you are in the Kansas City > Missouri area I can check it for you. I need another reason > to fly 205AK > anyway. > >> > >> I have found them to be 50 times more consistant than the > Rotax tachs. > >> The take the impluse right from spark plus lead same as > you would when > >> you use a timing light. > >> How you wire your Rotax tach I think alters the reading as well as > >> electrical load. > >> > >> Tiny tach is small and in my opinion you better off with a > 2 1/4" G meter > > >> than a Rotax tach. > >> I have both a Rotax tach and a Tiny Tach ....... The Tiny > is consistant > >> and the Rotax mightbe the same one out of 100 times and > other times 300 > >> to 600 or more off. WHY ? > >> > >> > >> Dave > >> > >> > >> > >> ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: "Lowell Fitt" > >> To: > >> Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 5:58 PM > >> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: low RPM @ full Throttle > >> > >> > > >>> > >>> John's advice is right on. I carry an optical tach with > me in the > >>> cockpit and find that the tach will vary as much as 300 > rpm due to > >>> temps. I made a knob that is attached on the back of the > tach so it can > >>> be adjusted in flight. The conversion table is taped to > the optical > >>> tach. > >>> > >>> Lowell > >>> > >>> Another thing to look at and I learned this first hand. > Make sure the > >>> throttle allows the carbs to go full open at the full > throttle position. > > >>> for the first little while I was flying mine, the > throttle full in was > >>> holding the carburetor arm a bit from the stop. > >>> > >>> Lowell > >>> > >>> ----- Original Message ----- > >>> From: > >>> To: > >>> Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 2:25 PM > >>> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: low RPM @ full Throttle > >>> > >>> > >>>> those guage are notorious for drifting. I recalibrate > mine every annual > > >>>> condition inspection. On mine there is a small hole on the back, > >>>> originally covered by a sticker, into which I stick a > small electronic > >>>> screwdriver to adjust. You will need to do the math for > the reduction > >>>> drive and have access to a digital hand held tachometer. > Check your > >>>> local R/C hobby shop. > >>>> > >>>> Using the conversion table you created in doing the math > set the prop > >>>> rpm such that you will be looking for a convenient > engine rpm. Then > >>>> adjust the tach. Best to have the tail tied to your > pickup. Don't ask. > >>>> > >>>> John Kerr > >>>> > >>>> -------------- Original message -------------- > >>>> From: "Eric" > >>>> > >>>> Hi Folks, > >>>> finally started the engine for the firs time since I bought this > >>>> Speedster rebuild project 1.5 years ago. Set the new GSC > blade pitch at > > >>>> 17deg. Pneumatically synched the carbs and at full > throttle I was only > >>>> getting 4200 rpm. So I repitched the blades to 15 deg. > (minimum shown > >>>> in the GSC chart for a 912 UL with a 3 blade 68" prop), > now it maxes > >>>> out at 4300. Any ideas why I cant get anywhere close to > max RPM. Could > >>>> the Rotax RPM gauge be lying to me. > >>>> Eric N58EW > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Checked by PC Tools AntiVirus (3.1.0.10 - 9.058.016). > http://www.pctools.com/anti-virus/ Checked by PC Tools AntiVirus (3.1.0.10 - 9.058.016). http://www.pctools.com/anti-virus/ ________________________________ Message 30 ____________________________________ Time: 07:13:49 PM PST US From: "floran higgins" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Oshkosh Skiplane Fly-in I used to carry two short pieces of 2X4 and would lift up the skis and put them under the skis to keep them from freezing down. Floran H. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Noel Loveys" Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 4:53 PM Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Oshkosh Skiplane Fly-in > > When parking in un-packed snow it is sometimes a good idea to taxi the > plane > in a circle and stop in your own tracks the second time around. Helps to > keep the skis from sticking to the snow. > > An old bush pilot told me that one... > > He also said when it really got cold he would drain the oil and bring it > inside and also bring in the battery. Oh yes.. And in very cold weather > lay > some boughs on the ground and run the plane up on them also helps to keep > the skis from sticking to the snow. > > Have fun!! > > Noel > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com >> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of >> Lynn Matteson >> Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 6:15 PM >> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com >> Subject: Kitfox-List: Oshkosh Skiplane Fly-in >> >> >> >> Is anybody going to the fly-in this Saturday? I've got my plane >> ready, and maybe I need somebody to tell me I'm nuts to go. Barring >> that, weather willing, creek doesn't rise, I'm gonna give it a shot. >> I've got about 15 takeoffs and landings since I installed the skis, >> and all is well landing on mostly grass with about 3 inches of snow >> around here. Biggest detriment that I can see so far is the weather. >> Any tips out there for a beginning (by air) Oshkosher? >> I just finished installing a redundant set of safety cables/shock >> cords, and feel like I can just about slice through anything. : ) >> >> Lynn >> Kitfox IV Speedster...Jabiru 2200 >> do not archive >> >> >> >> >> > > > ________________________________ Message 31 ____________________________________ Time: 09:04:35 PM PST US From: "ron schick" Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: low RPM @ full Throttle/tach It was a $25.00 Hobbico phototach from towerhobbies.com or elsewhere that found my problem. I keep meaning to order my own as well as their inexpensive infrared thermometer. Ron NB Ore >From: "kirk hull" >To: >Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: low RPM @ full Throttle >Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 20:52:11 -0600 > > >Don't buy a laset tach just have a shop or someone use one to test your >tach to see if it is correct > >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com >[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Noel Loveys >Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 8:53 PM >To: kitfox-list@matronics.com >Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: low RPM @ full Throttle > > >Tiny tach is about $60.00. How much is a laser tach?? > >Noel > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com > > [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of kirk hull > > Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 10:20 PM > > To: kitfox-list@matronics.com > > Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: low RPM @ full Throttle > > > > > > > > Any good shop ( and most A&P ) can test your tach with a > > laser devise and a > > piece of reflective tape on the prop. If you are in the Kansas City > > Missouri area I can check it for you. I need another reason > > to fly 205AK > > anyway. > > >> > > >> I have found them to be 50 times more consistant than the > > Rotax tachs. > > >> The take the impluse right from spark plus lead same as > > you would when > > >> you use a timing light. > > >> How you wire your Rotax tach I think alters the reading as well as > > >> electrical load. > > >> > > >> Tiny tach is small and in my opinion you better off with a > > 2 1/4" G meter > > > > >> than a Rotax tach. > > >> I have both a Rotax tach and a Tiny Tach ....... The Tiny > > is consistant > > >> and the Rotax mightbe the same one out of 100 times and > > other times 300 > > >> to 600 or more off. WHY ? > > >> > > >> > > >> Dave > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> ----- Original Message ----- > > >> From: "Lowell Fitt" > > >> To: > > >> Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 5:58 PM > > >> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: low RPM @ full Throttle > > >> > > >> > > > > >>> > > >>> John's advice is right on. I carry an optical tach with > > me in the > > >>> cockpit and find that the tach will vary as much as 300 > > rpm due to > > >>> temps. I made a knob that is attached on the back of the > > tach so it can > > >>> be adjusted in flight. The conversion table is taped to > > the optical > > >>> tach. > > >>> > > >>> Lowell > > >>> > > >>> Another thing to look at and I learned this first hand. > > Make sure the > > >>> throttle allows the carbs to go full open at the full > > throttle position. > > > > >>> for the first little while I was flying mine, the > > throttle full in was > > >>> holding the carburetor arm a bit from the stop. > > >>> > > >>> Lowell > > >>> > > >>> ----- Original Message ----- > > >>> From: > > >>> To: > > >>> Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 2:25 PM > > >>> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: low RPM @ full Throttle > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> those guage are notorious for drifting. I recalibrate > > mine every annual > > > > >>>> condition inspection. On mine there is a small hole on the back, > > >>>> originally covered by a sticker, into which I stick a > > small electronic > > >>>> screwdriver to adjust. You will need to do the math for > > the reduction > > >>>> drive and have access to a digital hand held tachometer. > > Check your > > >>>> local R/C hobby shop. > > >>>> > > >>>> Using the conversion table you created in doing the math > > set the prop > > >>>> rpm such that you will be looking for a convenient > > engine rpm. Then > > >>>> adjust the tach. Best to have the tail tied to your > > pickup. Don't ask. > > >>>> > > >>>> John Kerr > > >>>> > > >>>> -------------- Original message -------------- > > >>>> From: "Eric" > > >>>> > > >>>> Hi Folks, > > >>>> finally started the engine for the firs time since I bought this > > >>>> Speedster rebuild project 1.5 years ago. Set the new GSC > > blade pitch at > > > > >>>> 17deg. Pneumatically synched the carbs and at full > > throttle I was only > > >>>> getting 4200 rpm. So I repitched the blades to 15 deg. > > (minimum shown > > >>>> in the GSC chart for a 912 UL with a 3 blade 68" prop), > > now it maxes > > >>>> out at 4300. Any ideas why I cant get anywhere close to > > max RPM. Could > > >>>> the Rotax RPM gauge be lying to me. > > >>>> Eric N58EW > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Checked by PC Tools AntiVirus (3.1.0.10 - 9.058.016). > > http://www.pctools.com/anti-virus/ > > >Checked by PC Tools AntiVirus (3.1.0.10 - 9.058.016). >http://www.pctools.com/anti-virus/ > > _________________________________________________________________ Turn searches into helpful donations. Make your search count. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Other Matronics Email List Services ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post A New Message kitfox-list@matronics.com UN/SUBSCRIBE http://www.matronics.com/subscription List FAQ http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/Kitfox-List.htm Web Forum Interface To Lists http://forums.matronics.com Matronics List Wiki http://wiki.matronics.com Full Archive Search Engine http://www.matronics.com/search 7-Day List Browse http://www.matronics.com/browse/kitfox-list Browse Digests http://www.matronics.com/digest/kitfox-list Browse Other Lists http://www.matronics.com/browse Live Online Chat! http://www.matronics.com/chat Archive Downloading http://www.matronics.com/archives Photo Share http://www.matronics.com/photoshare Other Email Lists http://www.matronics.com/emaillists Contributions http://www.matronics.com/contribution ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.