Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:28 AM - Fuel Flow, continued. (Torgeir Mortensen)
2. 05:02 AM - Re: Fuel Flow, continued. (W Duke)
3. 05:18 AM - Re: Fuel Flow, continued. (Fox5flyer)
4. 05:21 AM - Re: Fuel Flow, continued. (Fox5flyer)
5. 08:09 AM - NSI Engine help. (Floyd Johnson)
6. 08:50 AM - Re: Fuel Flow, continued. (Randy Daughenbaugh)
7. 09:02 AM - Re: NSI Engine help. (GENTRYLL@AOL.COM)
8. 09:05 AM - Re: Fuel Flow, continued. (GENTRYLL@aol.com)
9. 09:13 AM - Re: NSI Engine help. (Larry Huntley)
10. 10:13 AM - Re: Oshkosh Skiplane Fly-in (kitfoxmike)
11. 11:21 AM - Re: NSI Engine help. (Floyd Johnson)
12. 11:25 AM - For Larry Huntley (Floyd Johnson)
13. 11:28 AM - Re: NSI Engine help. (Fox5flyer)
14. 12:11 PM - Re: NSI Engine help. (GENTRYLL@aol.com)
15. 12:22 PM - Re: NSI Engine help. (Floyd Johnson)
16. 12:33 PM - Re: NSI Engine help. (GENTRYLL@aol.com)
17. 03:00 PM - Re: Fuel Flow, continued. (Torgeir Mortensen)
18. 03:06 PM - Re: Re: Oshkosh Skiplane Fly-in (Lynn Matteson)
19. 04:02 PM - Re: Fuel Flow, continued. (Guy Buchanan)
20. 04:08 PM - Re: NSI Engine help. (Michael Logan)
21. 04:43 PM - Re: Fuel Flow, continued. THe FIX (dave)
22. 05:09 PM - Re: Fuel Flow, continued. (Noel Loveys)
23. 05:19 PM - Re: Re: Oshkosh Skiplane Fly-in (dave)
24. 05:27 PM - Re: Fuel Flow, continued. (Torgeir Mortensen)
25. 06:03 PM - Re: Fuel Flow, continued. (Torgeir Mortensen)
26. 06:44 PM - Re: NSI Engine help. (Floyd Johnson)
27. 07:26 PM - Re: Tuning a KitFox Airframe (david yeamans)
28. 07:33 PM - Re: Re: Oshkosh Skiplane Fly-in (Lynn Matteson)
29. 07:47 PM - Re: Fuel Flow, continued. THe FIX (Noel Loveys)
30. 09:09 PM - Fw: price of snow skies (Malcolmbru@aol.com)
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: | Fuel Flow, continued. |
Sure folks, this is a big thypo...
Too late working yesterday, but soon weekend.. :)
> Now, why is there a "restriction" in the flow entering from the header
> line into the altimeter??
Question is, why is there a restriction in the "head tube" welded to the fuel cap,
that feed our main tank with head pressure.
(Such limitations/restrictions is often found around in the aviation, however don't
know if this is done by purpose, at least this is done in my model II.)
> How will this restriction influence when there's a leaky gasket?
Torgeir.
> From: Torgeir Mortensen [torgemor@online.no]
> Sent: 2007-01-26 03:08:27 CET
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Fuel Flow, continued.
>
>
> 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 <bnn@nethere.com> 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/
>
>
>
>
>
<pre><b><font size=2 color="#000000" face="courier new,courier">
</b></font></pre></body></html>
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: Fuel Flow, continued. |
With my experience of the reversed cap: The right cap was on backwards. The left
tank was empty in appr 40 minutes. I had just filled the tanks to 11-12 gallons
each.
Maxwell S6/IO240/TD
Lowell Fitt <lcfitt@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
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
>
---------------------------------
Get your own web address.
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fuel Flow, continued. |
That make sense. The right cap pitot was sucking and the left cap pitot
was pushing.
I recall a long time ago where one of our members told of getting his
fuel topped off and the fuel truck guy put the caps on backward. This
is the main reason I always ask them to allow me to fill my own. So far
nobody has minded.
Deke
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: W Duke
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 8:01 AM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Fuel Flow, continued.
With my experience of the reversed cap: The right cap was on
backwards. The left tank was empty in appr 40 minutes. I had just
filled the tanks to 11-12 gallons each.
Maxwell S6/IO240/TD
Lowell Fitt <lcfitt@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
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"
To:
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,
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
Get your own web address.
Have a HUGE year through
--> http://forums.matronics.com
===========
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fuel Flow, continued. |
Personally, I don't use wing-to-header valves, but if a person chooses to
install them, that's there business. I doesn't bother me because we build
our airplanes the way we want them to be and none of us should have to
defend it. Lynn, in the past, meaning "many years ago", Skystar recommended
fuel shut-offs be removed from the tank-to-header lines or not be installed
at all. I believe it was due to some fuel starvation issues. Seems to me
there was a bulletin of some sort. Cessna probably had the same reasons
because of simplicityand the fact that they were trainers. Some of the
reasons (some are mine) that I recall were
-potential for compromised fuel flow to the header because of the extra
restriction of the valves.
-potential for leakage from the extra fittings.
-difficulty operating them while in flight.
-the considerable chance that a valve could be forgotten. This is where you
can paste in your favorite "dark and stormy night story" where attention is
diverted to other problems and the fact that the valves are behind you in a
difficult to reach place and they get forgotten.
-turned off when the intention was to turn it on. (Again, diverted
attention.)
-wrong valve operated. (Same reason)
-and most of all, the lack of necessity of even having them (my opinion).
I didn't install them in any of my Kitfoxes mostly because of the "less is
better" rule that I try to use. I've never had a problem with unequal flow
in flight. On the ground I ensure that when I park the airplane it's on as
level of a surface that I can find. That hasn't been a problem and rarely
are my tanks completely full in those cases.
Good luck on your trip to Oshkosh Lynn. It'll be a real adventure and I can'
t wait to read the report when you return.
Deke
>
> 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 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: | NSI Engine help. |
For you pilots flying behind NSI EA 81 engines who are having problems, I have
a reference to help you.
Jay Roese in the Rochester, New York area solved my multitude of NSI Engine problems.
I highly
recommend him. He has agreed to talk to anyone who needs his expertise. He has
an extensive background
with Subaru engines and builds racing engines a well as rebuilds engines for car
dealers. I now have a SMOOOOOTH
running Subaru engine in my MOD IV Kitfox, thanks to Jay. This not meant in any
way as an advertisement, only as a help for those NSI engine owners who are having
problems.
His E-Mail addrss is: phatbasstrd@rochester.rr.com
His Cell #: 1-585-729-5098
Floyd Johnson
kitfox69@earthlink.net
EarthLink Revolves Around You.
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: | Fuel Flow, continued. |
Only one valve is needed to stop the tank to tank transfer. Only one valve
(instead of two) gets around some of the scenarios that Deke addresses here.
Randy
.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Fox5flyer
Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 6:22 AM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Fuel Flow, continued.
Personally, I don't use wing-to-header valves, but if a person chooses to
install them, that's there business. I doesn't bother me because we build
our airplanes the way we want them to be and none of us should have to
defend it. Lynn, in the past, meaning "many years ago", Skystar recommended
fuel shut-offs be removed from the tank-to-header lines or not be installed
at all. I believe it was due to some fuel starvation issues. Seems to me
there was a bulletin of some sort. Cessna probably had the same reasons
because of simplicityand the fact that they were trainers. Some of the
reasons (some are mine) that I recall were
-potential for compromised fuel flow to the header because of the extra
restriction of the valves.
-potential for leakage from the extra fittings.
-difficulty operating them while in flight.
-the considerable chance that a valve could be forgotten. This is where you
can paste in your favorite "dark and stormy night story" where attention is
diverted to other problems and the fact that the valves are behind you in a
difficult to reach place and they get forgotten.
-turned off when the intention was to turn it on. (Again, diverted
attention.)
-wrong valve operated. (Same reason)
-and most of all, the lack of necessity of even having them (my opinion).
I didn't install them in any of my Kitfoxes mostly because of the "less is
better" rule that I try to use. I've never had a problem with unequal flow
in flight. On the ground I ensure that when I park the airplane it's on as
level of a surface that I can find. That hasn't been a problem and rarely
are my tanks completely full in those cases.
Good luck on your trip to Oshkosh Lynn. It'll be a real adventure and I can'
t wait to read the report when you return.
Deke
>
> 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 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: NSI Engine help. |
Thanks, We need all the help we can get.
Do you have an Ellison SEF-2 on your engine and if so How much fuel pressure
are you running?
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: Fuel Flow, continued. |
I read somewhere it was because in a long slip, if the valve was hardlined
horizontally to the tank as opposed to along the line somewhere, you could
pull a vacuum and introduce air in the line.
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: NSI Engine help. |
Good news Floyd! See you at 4N2 this summer.
Larry Huntley,Dundee,NY
----- Original Message -----
From: Floyd Johnson
To: Kitfox-List
Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 11:07 AM
Subject: Kitfox-List: NSI Engine help.
For you pilots flying behind NSI EA 81 engines who are having
problems, I have a reference to help you.
Jay Roese in the Rochester, New York area solved my multitude of NSI
Engine problems. I highly
recommend him. He has agreed to talk to anyone who needs his
expertise. He has an extensive background
with Subaru engines and builds racing engines a well as rebuilds
engines for car dealers. I now have a SMOOOOOTH
running Subaru engine in my MOD IV Kitfox, thanks to Jay. This not
meant in any way as an advertisement, only as a help for those NSI
engine owners who are having problems.
His E-Mail addrss is: phatbasstrd@rochester.rr.com
His Cell #: 1-585-729-5098
Floyd Johnson
kitfox69@earthlink.net
EarthLink Revolves Around You.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
1/26/2007
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Oshkosh Skiplane Fly-in |
from my snowmobile days, we did have problems with ski's sticking in the snow,
then came the plastic ski's, wow now we were spoiled pups, slide and no stick
in the snow, no build up of snow on the ski's either. hope this helps.
--------
kitfoxmike
Do not archive
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=90631#90631
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: NSI Engine help. |
I am now running an EFS3A on my engine, because the 2 didn't have enough air capacity.
I'm running
about 3 PSI currently, with good results.
----- Original Message -----
From:
Sent: 1/26/2007 12:18:28 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: NSI Engine help.
Thanks, We need all the help we can get.
Do you have an Ellison SEF-2 on your engine and if so How much fuel pressure are
you running?
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: | For Larry Huntley |
Hi Larry,
Please send me your E-mail address so I can reply off the list.
Thanks, Floyd Kitfox69@earthlink.net
Do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: Larry Huntley
Sent: 1/26/2007 12:29:21 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: NSI Engine help.
Good news Floyd! See you at 4N2 this summer.
Larry Huntley,Dundee,NY
----- Original Message -----
From: Floyd Johnson
Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 11:07 AM
Subject: Kitfox-List: NSI Engine help.
For you pilots flying behind NSI EA 81 engines who are having problems, I have
a reference to help you.
Jay Roese in the Rochester, New York area solved my multitude of NSI Engine problems.
I highly
recommend him. He has agreed to talk to anyone who needs his expertise. He has
an extensive background
with Subaru engines and builds racing engines a well as rebuilds engines for car
dealers. I now have a SMOOOOOTH
running Subaru engine in my MOD IV Kitfox, thanks to Jay. This not meant in any
way as an advertisement, only as a help for those NSI engine owners who are having
problems.
His E-Mail addrss is: phatbasstrd@rochester.rr.com
His Cell #: 1-585-729-5098
Floyd Johnson
kitfox69@earthlink.net
EarthLink Revolves Around You.
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List">http://www.matronhref="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: NSI Engine help. |
Good to hear from you Floyd and thanks for the information. Can you
tell us what some of the problems you were having with your NSI?
Deke
----- Original Message -----
From: Floyd Johnson
To: Kitfox-List
Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 11:07 AM
Subject: Kitfox-List: NSI Engine help.
For you pilots flying behind NSI EA 81 engines who are having
problems, I have a reference to help you.
Jay Roese in the Rochester, New York area solved my multitude of NSI
Engine problems. I highly
recommend him. He has agreed to talk to anyone who needs his
expertise. He has an extensive background
with Subaru engines and builds racing engines a well as rebuilds
engines for car dealers. I now have a SMOOOOOTH
running Subaru engine in my MOD IV Kitfox, thanks to Jay. This not
meant in any way as an advertisement, only as a help for those NSI
engine owners who are having problems.
His E-Mail addrss is: phatbasstrd@rochester.rr.com
His Cell #: 1-585-729-5098
Floyd Johnson
kitfox69@earthlink.net
EarthLink Revolves Around You.
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: NSI Engine help. |
Do you have an EA-81?
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: NSI Engine help. |
Hi Deke,
Do you have a couple of hours? I would do this off line, but it will probably
be valuable to other
NSI engine drivers. I'll stick to the details and spare everyone the 10 years of
frustratiion.
I tore the engine down, finally, and asked Jay Roese to check it out. He was
refered to me by a friend
who knows him well. The engine was apart when Jay first saw it and he had some
immediate observations.
First off, the engine was advertised as having an 8.6 compression ratio. It had
7.7pistons in it. For the uninnitiated,
that means the compression ratio was 7.7:1. Next, the pistons and rods were missmatched.
In other words, from
two different engines. A total NO NO. Jay next asked if the engine had been overheated?
The answer was yes,
because the engine wasn't purged at NSI and their radiator was too small, which
they replaced with one which
was still too small. Eventually Jay figured that out by getting engine cooling
needs specs from Subaru engineers,
then took it to RIT for a flow test, where they determined that the latest NSI
radiator only had 85% of the engines needed
cooling capacity. The reason he asked was that he suspected, and later varified,
that the cylinders and pistons were
oval as a result of overheating.
He instantly recognized that the cam was ground into the core shaft, so that
was trashed too.
At this point he took the engine back to his shop and did a through check. We
completely overhauled it. Bored the
cylinders, new 8.9:1 pistons and rings, new stock cam, and anything else he deemed
necessary. Basically, the
block and bearings were OK. We just replaced seals. The heads were OK and didn't
need any work.
Next came the SFDI ignition abortion. Jay investigates everything! He is dedicated
and very through, so he contacted
Electromotive, who supplies the modules. They told him that there is no way that
system could work. The two systems
were working against each other. I decided to just use one module, base on the
30 year reliability of electronic ignition
systems on automobiles. My Decision! So far, so good.
Next, he used a exhaust computer module to check that part out. Surprise!, the
NSI system is very inefficient, so he built me a
very simple tuned exhaust system. I built a carb heat unit which works well.
He determined that the air volume needs of the engine were more than the Ellison
EFS2 could supply, so I opted for an
EFS3A which actually provides too much air, but that was easilly remedied by restricting
the FULL OPEN throttle movement.
In a week or two, we are going to address the oil system. According to Jay, the
engine is designed to run ar '0" or negative
pressure. With the oil tank where it is, it is pressurizing the crankcase to 4
to 5 PSI. Probably why I have seen some postings
here about blown seals. He is going to design a tank which fits under and behind
the dry sump oil pan. I'll keep everyone posted on the results.
I'm sure there is more, but with so many changes, it is hard to remember what
else we tackled.
I would urge anyone with questions to contact Jay. He will talk to you in laymans
terms and you will understand what he
is telling you. I hope this helps folks having problems with these engines.
I now have about 20 hours on the engine and it is running well and has more torque
than it ever had before.
Best regards, Floyd
----- Original Message -----
From: Fox5flyer
Sent: 1/26/2007 2:36:00 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: NSI Engine help.
Good to hear from you Floyd and thanks for the information. Can you tell us what
some of the problems you were having with your NSI?
Deke
----- Original Message -----
From: Floyd Johnson
Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 11:07 AM
Subject: Kitfox-List: NSI Engine help.
For you pilots flying behind NSI EA 81 engines who are having problems, I have
a reference to help you.
Jay Roese in the Rochester, New York area solved my multitude of NSI Engine problems.
I highly
recommend him. He has agreed to talk to anyone who needs his expertise. He has
an extensive background
with Subaru engines and builds racing engines a well as rebuilds engines for car
dealers. I now have a SMOOOOOTH
running Subaru engine in my MOD IV Kitfox, thanks to Jay. This not meant in any
way as an advertisement, only as a help for those NSI engine owners who are having
problems.
His E-Mail addrss is: phatbasstrd@rochester.rr.com
His Cell #: 1-585-729-5098
Floyd Johnson
kitfox69@earthlink.net
EarthLink Revolves Around You.
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List">http://www.matronhref="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: NSI Engine help. |
Can you give us some speed and performance data relative to RPM. We need
your weight and Prop Specifics to compare.
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fuel Flow, continued. |
Hi Randy,
No need for help here, you're absolutely right!!!
This later system will transfer fuel if one of your cap is gone, or a
gasket is leaking, -and there is nothing you can do to stop this as there
is no valves between the two mains that could prevent this to take place.
If you'll remember, some people reported that their "left or right" tank
always empty first. The combination of the leak amount vs. head filling
capability (remember the restriction built in here) will "balance out" and
resulting in a decreased tank pressure.
Remember that the differential pressure is around 0.3 psi, and that
approx. 75 percent of this is caused by the low pressure over the wing,
-so even a "small" gasket leakage can create a differential pressure able
to transfer fuel from one tank to the other.
Let's say this pressure can rice fuel -say 3 inches in the main tank, I.E.
this pressure is not capable to "lift" fuel over the filler neck, so we
would not loose fuel. But end result is that this tank always empty last.
So this is indeed a ringing bell asking you to check your cap gasket.
Now folks, check your tank gaskets this is one of the most important item
that's often forgotten. You can pressurize your tank by using the head
tube in the fuel cap, blank the other side so it is air tight, set main
fuel selector to off, then carry out a leak check. A warning here: Never
use more than 0.2 psi pressure for this test. The maximum pressure drop
allowed might be 5 percent in 5 minute, however, if you can get no leakage
here is the better.. :) Ok., the above numbers is the one Im
using, do not know if the factory have some numbers here.
Torgeir.
On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 03:18:14 +0100, Randy Daughenbaugh
<rjdaugh@rapidnet.com> wrote:
> <rjdaugh@rapidnet.com>
>
> Both you guys are right.
>
> But if your tanks can cross feed - via header or otherwise - the tank
> that
> will empty is the one WITH the cap on. Yes, the fuel is going out of the
> tank without the good cap seal, but the air going into the system to
> displace the fuel with be going into the other tank - the one with cap on
> correctly. So it is the OTHER tank (the one with a good cap!) that will
> empty first.
>
> Torgeir! Help!
>
> Randy
>
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Oshkosh Skiplane Fly-in |
I spoke with O'kosh today, and the wind was blowing the snow around,
but they are still a go for tomorrow, as am I.
Yeah, thank God for plastic...I'm a "newbie" on skis, and I'm already
spoiled.
Lynn
do not archive
On Jan 26, 2007, at 1:12 PM, kitfoxmike wrote:
> <customtrans@qwest.net>
>
> from my snowmobile days, we did have problems with ski's sticking
> in the snow, then came the plastic ski's, wow now we were spoiled
> pups, slide and no stick in the snow, no build up of snow on the
> ski's either. hope this helps.
>
> --------
> kitfoxmike
> Do not archive
>
>
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: Fuel Flow, continued. |
At 06:08 PM 1/25/2007, you wrote:
>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...
I agree completely. With a missing cap there appears to be some kind of a
"blow-out" that will empty that tank regardless of valve and vent design.
Now if the tanks are connected it follows that both tanks will equilibrate
and the entire wing tank load of fuel will be eventually, (rapidly?) lost.
It's unclear whether the header will also be emptied. Preventing cross flow
will protect at least one tank of fuel for use. (Again, presuming the
header is not somehow being siphoned.) And in this latter case it would
appear that if you want to run with a header tank you would want one valve
for each tank upstream of the header to isolate the tank with the lost cap
from the system. If you did not run a header you could simply have the left
/ right / off valve to isolate the lost cap tank.
So. The big question is, what system is optimal? I'm sure I don't know. I
fly a Cessna 150 with cross linked fuel feed, cross linked vents, no
header, and a simple on/off valve. I fly a 172 with cross linked fuel feed,
cross linked vents, no header, and an off/left/right/both valve. I fly a
Decathlon with cross linked fuel feed, cross linked vents, a header tank,
and a single on/off valve downstream. I fly a Bonanza F33A with separate
feeds, separate vents, no header tank, and an off/left/right valve. My
Kitfox is similar to the Decathlon.
Should I go through a complete risk analysis? If I do this email will get
awfully long. I did not do so for my Kitfox, because it was factory
standard, similar to the Decathlon, and showed no obvious flaws. Now I
suppose draining the tank when you leave a cap off is an obvious flaw. It
certainly isn't single failure tolerant, whereas having a valve for each
tank is. And I can't think of any significant failure modes with the three
valve system, (similar to the 172 with the off/left/right/both valve,) so I
guess a cursory risk analysis says you should have three valves,
left/right/header. Yes you can turn off the fuel, but you can turn it back
on too. Yes a valve can fail, but I've never heard of it happening, and I
cycle my valves every time I fly, and I would fly with them all open since
I watch my fuel and would notice a significant fuel loss fairly quickly. I
guess I could also fly it like the Bonanza, with it's off/left/right,
switching tanks every 1/2 hour and watching the fuel levels in between. A
leak would be noticeable sooner, since only one tank would be draining.
OK Torgeir, you have, for the time being, convinced me. I'm not going to
change over tomorrow, bit I'll look into it a bit to see how difficult it
will be. (I fold my wings a lot and need a certain fuel line geometry to
make that happen.)
Guy Buchanan
K-IV 1200 / 582-C / Warp / 100% done, thanks mostly to Bob Ducar.
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: | NSI Engine help. |
Floyd,
What are you using for the pickups on the ignition now that you have gone to
one module?
Mike
_____
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Floyd Johnson
Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 11:07 AM
Subject: Kitfox-List: NSI Engine help.
For you pilots flying behind NSI EA 81 engines who are having problems, I
have a reference to help you.
Jay Roese in the Rochester, New York area solved my multitude of NSI Engine
problems. I highly
recommend him. He has agreed to talk to anyone who needs his expertise. He
has an extensive background
with Subaru engines and builds racing engines a well as rebuilds engines for
car dealers. I now have a SMOOOOOTH
running Subaru engine in my MOD IV Kitfox, thanks to Jay. This not meant in
any way as an advertisement, only as a help for those NSI engine owners who
are having problems.
His E-Mail addrss is: phatbasstrd@rochester.rr.com
His Cell #: 1-585-729-5098
Floyd Johnson
kitfox69@earthlink.net
EarthLink Revolves Around You.
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fuel Flow, continued. THe FIX |
So why not have one shut off for each tank located wher eyou can reach them
- i have both of mine behind the Passenger seat so it a easy reach.
Vent your header tank outside? can this be done with out a suction being
created ?
Use one tank at a time that way you isolate this chance of losing fuel from
one tank only.
I do not have a header tank bu I do have a Dash tank and I draw off the dash
tank all the time but I can open one wing tank in flight at a time and it
transfers fine under presure from the pitot tube static wing tank gas cap
and at the same time the dash tank is pressurized from the pitot tube on the
cap on the dash tank.
I have ZERO fuel issues, complaints , worries or theories as mine has been
perfect.
Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: "Guy Buchanan" <bnn@nethere.com>
Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 6:50 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Fuel Flow, continued.
>
> At 06:08 PM 1/25/2007, you wrote:
>>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...
>
> I agree completely. With a missing cap there appears to be some kind of a
> "blow-out" that will empty that tank regardless of valve and vent design.
> Now if the tanks are connected it follows that both tanks will equilibrate
> and the entire wing tank load of fuel will be eventually, (rapidly?) lost.
> It's unclear whether the header will also be emptied. Preventing cross
> flow will protect at least one tank of fuel for use. (Again, presuming the
> header is not somehow being siphoned.) And in this latter case it would
> appear that if you want to run with a header tank you would want one valve
> for each tank upstream of the header to isolate the tank with the lost cap
> from the system. If you did not run a header you could simply have the
> left / right / off valve to isolate the lost cap tank.
>
> So. The big question is, what system is optimal? I'm sure I don't know. I
> fly a Cessna 150 with cross linked fuel feed, cross linked vents, no
> header, and a simple on/off valve. I fly a 172 with cross linked fuel
> feed, cross linked vents, no header, and an off/left/right/both valve. I
> fly a Decathlon with cross linked fuel feed, cross linked vents, a header
> tank, and a single on/off valve downstream. I fly a Bonanza F33A with
> separate feeds, separate vents, no header tank, and an off/left/right
> valve. My Kitfox is similar to the Decathlon.
>
> Should I go through a complete risk analysis? If I do this email will get
> awfully long. I did not do so for my Kitfox, because it was factory
> standard, similar to the Decathlon, and showed no obvious flaws. Now I
> suppose draining the tank when you leave a cap off is an obvious flaw. It
> certainly isn't single failure tolerant, whereas having a valve for each
> tank is. And I can't think of any significant failure modes with the three
> valve system, (similar to the 172 with the off/left/right/both valve,) so
> I guess a cursory risk analysis says you should have three valves,
> left/right/header. Yes you can turn off the fuel, but you can turn it back
> on too. Yes a valve can fail, but I've never heard of it happening, and I
> cycle my valves every time I fly, and I would fly with them all open since
> I watch my fuel and would notice a significant fuel loss fairly quickly. I
> guess I could also fly it like the Bonanza, with it's off/left/right,
> switching tanks every 1/2 hour and watching the fuel levels in between. A
> leak would be noticeable sooner, since only one tank would be draining.
>
> OK Torgeir, you have, for the time being, convinced me. I'm not going to
> change over tomorrow, bit I'll look into it a bit to see how difficult it
> will be. (I fold my wings a lot and need a certain fuel line geometry to
> make that happen.)
>
>
> Guy Buchanan
> K-IV 1200 / 582-C / Warp / 100% done, thanks mostly to Bob Ducar.
>
>
>
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: | Fuel Flow, continued. |
I guess if you wanted to you could put a one way valve in each wing tank
line and vent the header outside and above the trailing edge of the wing ...
But that seems to me to only increase the complexity of the system. I like
the idea of a valve similar to the C172 feeding the header and a separate
main shut off.
I agree with double checking the fuel caps before take off... I have it
written into my check list three times. Once after fuelling, once on walk
around and again before getting in the plane. Main shut off only is
operated for maintenance but that gets checked on the pre flight and pre
start sheets. Only when I was training did I find fuel selector valves in
the wrong positions.
Noel
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> Guy Buchanan
> Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 8:20 PM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Fuel Flow, continued.
>
>
>
> At 06:08 PM 1/25/2007, you wrote:
> >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...
>
> I agree completely. With a missing cap there appears to be
> some kind of a
> "blow-out" that will empty that tank regardless of valve and
> vent design.
> Now if the tanks are connected it follows that both tanks
> will equilibrate
> and the entire wing tank load of fuel will be eventually,
> (rapidly?) lost.
> It's unclear whether the header will also be emptied.
> Preventing cross flow
> will protect at least one tank of fuel for use. (Again, presuming the
> header is not somehow being siphoned.) And in this latter
> case it would
> appear that if you want to run with a header tank you would
> want one valve
> for each tank upstream of the header to isolate the tank with
> the lost cap
> from the system. If you did not run a header you could simply
> have the left
> / right / off valve to isolate the lost cap tank.
>
> So. The big question is, what system is optimal? I'm sure I
> don't know. I
> fly a Cessna 150 with cross linked fuel feed, cross linked vents, no
> header, and a simple on/off valve. I fly a 172 with cross
> linked fuel feed,
> cross linked vents, no header, and an off/left/right/both
> valve. I fly a
> Decathlon with cross linked fuel feed, cross linked vents, a
> header tank,
> and a single on/off valve downstream. I fly a Bonanza F33A
> with separate
> feeds, separate vents, no header tank, and an off/left/right
> valve. My
> Kitfox is similar to the Decathlon.
>
> Should I go through a complete risk analysis? If I do this
> email will get
> awfully long. I did not do so for my Kitfox, because it was factory
> standard, similar to the Decathlon, and showed no obvious
> flaws. Now I
> suppose draining the tank when you leave a cap off is an
> obvious flaw. It
> certainly isn't single failure tolerant, whereas having a
> valve for each
> tank is. And I can't think of any significant failure modes
> with the three
> valve system, (similar to the 172 with the
> off/left/right/both valve,) so I
> guess a cursory risk analysis says you should have three valves,
> left/right/header. Yes you can turn off the fuel, but you can
> turn it back
> on too. Yes a valve can fail, but I've never heard of it
> happening, and I
> cycle my valves every time I fly, and I would fly with them
> all open since
> I watch my fuel and would notice a significant fuel loss
> fairly quickly. I
> guess I could also fly it like the Bonanza, with it's off/left/right,
> switching tanks every 1/2 hour and watching the fuel levels
> in between. A
> leak would be noticeable sooner, since only one tank would be
> draining.
>
> OK Torgeir, you have, for the time being, convinced me. I'm
> not going to
> change over tomorrow, bit I'll look into it a bit to see how
> difficult it
> will be. (I fold my wings a lot and need a certain fuel line
> geometry to
> make that happen.)
>
>
> Guy Buchanan
> K-IV 1200 / 582-C / Warp / 100% done, thanks mostly to Bob Ducar.
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 23
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Oshkosh Skiplane Fly-in |
Lynn, --------------------- Good luck on your trip. ----------------
I love Ski fly ins.
Also if you do not have a metal runner on bottom of ski you will not get
much sticking.
One thing I would suggest is to lift up each ski and put a stick under each
ski to be sure.
One thing i Usually do prior to getting in the plane is grab the strut and
move the plane back and forth a bit to ensure you not stuck. Or grab the
tail handle and move it side to side and watch each ski to make sure they
loose.
Also if landing in deep snow make sure you land and don't stop until you go
in a loop an d come back to the tracks you just made if possbile. If not
you might be looking at tramping down a path to get back out.
Another thing is make sure you not in slush, once you bog down in it you
will have trouble getting moving again. Even though there is 2 feet of ice
but yet 12 inches of slush will be a mess to get out of. And since you on
wheel skis always be ready for a frozen wheel on landing.
Take some sunglasses and different colours if you have them as it hard to
see the surface on gray days.
And don;'t forget to take some pics to remind us what a great time it was.
Fly safe !
Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lynn Matteson" <lynnmatt@jps.net>
Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 6:07 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: Oshkosh Skiplane Fly-in
>
> I spoke with O'kosh today, and the wind was blowing the snow around, but
> they are still a go for tomorrow, as am I.
> Yeah, thank God for plastic...I'm a "newbie" on skis, and I'm already
> spoiled.
>
> Lynn
> do not archive
>
> On Jan 26, 2007, at 1:12 PM, kitfoxmike wrote:
>
>>
>> from my snowmobile days, we did have problems with ski's sticking in the
>> snow, then came the plastic ski's, wow now we were spoiled pups, slide
>> and no stick in the snow, no build up of snow on the ski's either. hope
>> this helps.
>>
>> --------
>> kitfoxmike
>> Do not archive
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Message 24
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fuel Flow, continued. |
Hi Deke and others,
Good and interesting report.
I've some questions, this because of this "old" model II was (or)
originally fitted with (let's say) "Denney" fuel system with unvented
header tank.
Was this fuel system modified according to the Skystar SB.(Service
Bulletin)? (Removal of both main valves plus header tank vented to the
right main tank.)
Well, one thing I'm quite sure about; If this AC had the old Denney setup,
you was having both main valves open, right? Then to the question about
what will happen after left tank unporting; the engine will continue to
run and using the remaining fuel in the header -then the engine stop!!!
Yes, -and your right main tank is full of fuel...
Remember the old setup do not have the vent line, so air will flow from
left via the header and uphill the feed line from the right tank. The
steady and massive air flow will prevent "effective" fuel flow from right
tank into the header tank.
Now to the scenario if this system is modified according to Skystar SB.
(like the drawing I made).
Well, remember in my first posting, due to the vent line the header tank
is filled by gravity only. This is an important note and play a key role
for understanding of this fuel system. For flow through pressurization
will help, for filling no.
Ok., if we look at the situation where the left tank output "unport"
(inside the header tank), air start flowing from the left tank -this time
the air will take the vent line path toward the right main. As there's no
airflow up through the right tank feeder line fuel will flow cause of the
gravity and the small diff pressure between header and right tank. So
this time fuel will stay at the unported level inside the header tank. A
booster pump just beside or near the header will definitely keep enough
fuel for the engine, however I'll think the normal engine pump also can do
that, as it "normally" can bring the inlet pressure down to around 10 psi
absolute pressure, sure some brands can do better than this.
Well, it's still lot more here, can you figure. The modified (SB) can
have fuel starvation and engine stoppage. Go figure.. :)
The old system can be managed different without engine stoppage.
We're not finished yet.
Torgeir.
On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 13:35:43 +0100, Fox5flyer <fox5flyer@i-star.com> wrote:
>
> 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" <rjdaugh@rapidnet.com>
> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 10:20 PM
> Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Fuel Flow, continued.
>
>
> <rjdaugh@rapidnet.com>
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
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: Fuel Flow, continued. |
Hi Dave,
I'll think your system is Ok., easy to handle and secure..
If you loose one cap, you sure only loose fuel from that tank -in worst
case 3/4 may go due to backflow and "resonant escape". (When backflow
occur flute effect may create low frequent resonance creating waves in the
fuel surface throwing droplets of fuel thats escape with the backflow.)
I've been thinking of installing two small mirrors as far forward as
possible this in order trying to see the fuel cap's. I've always forgot to
check if it's possible to see the tanks pitot from this position.
Of all those fuel cap incidents, theres almost none of the low wing
aircraft forgetting the fuel cap, hmm they're easy to spot from the
cockpit.. :)
The old word, seeing is believing..
For sure I know about the checklist. The point is this thing still happen.
Torgeir.
On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 17:32:27 +0100, dave <dave@cfisher.com> wrote:
>
> I have 2 - 6 gals wing tanks and each has it's own shut off.
> Each tank is a pitot tube cap .
>
> They both flow together to a T fitting then a Clear Fuel filter and I
> can clearly see the fuel flowing throught that filter. Rivht in line
> after the filter is a Facet pump which I have a manual switch for but
> only use to transfer fuel to Dash tank ( about 8.5 Gallon and you can
> see the level in until about 2 gals left and you have to rock the wings
> to see the fuel slosh around) After the Dash Tank the fuel flows
> into gascolator then to Fuel pump.
>
> I usually fly off the main dash tank only and I only open the
> independant fuel valves from each wing tank to transfer wing tank fuel
> as needed to the dash tank .
>
> If I was to loose a cap in flight -what would happen ? Is this method
> ok ?
>
>
> Dave
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@sbcglobal.net>
> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 11:05 AM
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Fuel Flow, continued.
>
>
>>
>> Noel
>>
>> It was the right tank that had the fuel cap breach. It was the right
>> tank that I noticed the significantly lower fuel level and by the time
>> I landed, the right tank had lost fuel to the point I could barely see
>> it in the sight gauge. I never felt at risk as the left tank showed
>> nearly full when I noticed the fuel loss with a normal drop thereafter.
>>
>> There may have been some transfilling from the left tank, but that I
>> can't say for sure. The flight was about 210 miles and the duration
>> was about two hours and my lament was that I had lost some expensive
>> fuel - $86 for a two hour flight. The trip took 20.4 gallons (yes I
>> still have the receipt) and a little over 8 gallons was burned in the
>> two hours, leaving somewhat less than 12 gallons lost through the loose
>> fuel cap.
>>
>> Lowell
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys@yahoo.ca>
>> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 6:03 AM
>> Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Fuel Flow, continued.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Lowell was it the left tank that had the cap partially open?
>>>
>>> What I'm thinking is once the left tank is emptied a bit the vacuum
>>> caused
>>> by the loose cap will travel along the vent line for the header tank
>>> to the
>>> top of the right tank. Once the fuel in the right tank is below the
>>> level
>>> of the vent the vacuum will be broken by air coming in the right
>>> forward
>>> facing vent.
>>>
>>> If the right cap was the one partially open, the vacuum would have been
>>> ducted to the header tank by both the vent and the right gas line.
>>> That
>>> could allow fuel to be drawn form the left tank faster than normal.
>>>
>>> This is just a guess. When you get into fluid dynamics things get a
>>> little
>>> strange a lot of fast.
>>>
>>> Noel
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
>>>> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
>>>> Lowell Fitt
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 2:46 AM
>>>> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
>>>> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Fuel Flow, continued.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> <lcfitt@sbcglobal.net>
>>>>
>>>> My numbers are similar to Guy's
>>>>
>>>> Some years ago I used a water manometer to check my airspeed
>>>> indicator. It
>>>> doesn't take a lot of Delta Water to indicate our airspeeds,
>>>> for esample
>>>> the delta at 30 mph is .74 inches, 90 is 4.13 inches and 6.18
>>>> inches at 120
>>>> mph. Since our fuel is about .75 the density of water, the
>>>> head of our fuel
>>>> would be .98", 5.49" and 8.21" at the corresponding airspeeds.
>>>>
>>>> I had often heard it said that the pressure from the pitot
>>>> vents is about
>>>> one or so psi. Apparently this is not true as the pressure
>>>> at 120 mph would
>>>> need to be about .3 psi to maintain a 8.21" column of water.
>>>>
>>>> What this means, I haven't a clue really. This I do know, On
>>>> a flight from
>>>> Las Vegas to Ely, Nevada a couple of years ago, I noticed the
>>>> right tank had
>>>> lost most of it's fuel. The left tank was essentially full.
>>>> On landing I
>>>> found that the fuel cap on the right tank had been attached
>>>> at only one
>>>> side. For me, at least, I lost fuel apparently from a
>>>> venturi effect and
>>>> the low pressure on top of the wing from the mis fit cap
>>>> sucking the tank
>>>> dry and had apparently very little transfilling from the
>>>> pressurized side.
>>>>
>>>> Lowell
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Guy Buchanan" <bnn@nethere.com>
>>>> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2007 3:55 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Fuel Flow, continued.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> >
>>>> > At 12:56 PM 1/23/2007, you wrote:
>>>> >>In the mean time, let's assume that we "loose" our right
>>>> wing tank cap
>>>> >>(the left one is tight and in place).
>>>> >>
>>>> >>Would it make any difference in this case?
>>>> >>
>>>> >>Can we do anything about the situ?
>>>> >
>>>> > 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 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: | NSI Engine help. |
I'm currently using the new Electromotive WEDGE SHAPED pickup. It is much more
precise.
I can get the part number for you, or you can go to ELECTROMOTIVE.COM and find
it.
They have a complete manual for the ignition modules which you can download. It
has all
the information you would need for troubleshooting etc. Be sure to download the
one for your
particular module. Floyd
----- Original Message -----
From: Michael Logan
Sent: 1/26/2007 7:13:43 PM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: NSI Engine help.
Floyd,
What are you using for the pickups on the ignition now that you have gone to one
module?
Mike
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Floyd Johnson
Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 11:07 AM
Subject: Kitfox-List: NSI Engine help.
For you pilots flying behind NSI EA 81 engines who are having problems, I have
a reference to help you.
Jay Roese in the Rochester, New York area solved my multitude of NSI Engine problems.
I highly
recommend him. He has agreed to talk to anyone who needs his expertise. He has
an extensive background
with Subaru engines and builds racing engines a well as rebuilds engines for car
dealers. I now have a SMOOOOOTH
running Subaru engine in my MOD IV Kitfox, thanks to Jay. This not meant in any
way as an advertisement, only as a help for those NSI engine owners who are having
problems.
His E-Mail addrss is: phatbasstrd@rochester.rr.com
His Cell #: 1-585-729-5098
Floyd Johnson
kitfox69@earthlink.net
EarthLink Revolves Around You.
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List">http://www.matronhref="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
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: Tuning a KitFox Airframe |
Hello Nick,
I had the same problem, ( left wing heavy ) a gentle roll to
the left
for an unknown reson. After checking everything I could think of, even
the new tires I installed, the new smooth bigger ones that replaced the
skinned tires, thought maybe they were acting like a rudder being a
little
out of line, not so. I talked to John McBean about the problem. He
asked me when it started doing it and I said when i flew back from
oshkosh He said he had the same problem when he got back to Idaho.
He thought sense our kitfoxes sat out during the storm that went
thru
Oshkosh, the wind might have torqued the wings some how. his
suggestion was to put more washout in the light wing ( right wing ) the
wing that was rolling up. I took the back strut, took the bolt out ,
gave two
full turns OUT to raise the wing slightly, put it back together, test
flew it,
and it flew hands off in a straight and level flight, just like new
again.
John McBean had the answer to the problem.
David Kitfox IV 1200
912 UL
----- Original Message -----
From: Nick Scholtes
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2007 11:26 AM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Tuning a KitFox Airframe
Hi Guys!
I just recently purchased a KitFox Model IV Speedster, and flew it
home
half-way across the country. During the flight, the airplane handled
really well, I was totally impressed with how well it flew! Awesome!
But, it has a tendency to gently roll to the left, and I want to make
appropriate adjustments so that it will fly straight. In totally
smooth
air, trimmed out straight and level in cruise, if you let go of the
stick, it will slowly and gently roll to the left.
My instinct is to adjust the flaperon. But, I've also heard of making
adjustments to the wing strut that connects to the leading edge, and
also to the stabilizer with the adjustable rod end.
So, what are the various "tweak" adjustments that are available on the
Model IV, and what do each one of them do?
Thanks!
Nick Scholtes
Message 28
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Oshkosh Skiplane Fly-in |
do not archive
Thanks, Dave...pictures coming right up...stills that is.
The trip hasn't even started yet and I already caught two typos in
the landing procedures that were emailed to me from EAA...not a big
deal, just saying on one hand that you're heading for downwind, and
on the other hand that you're heading for final...like I say, just a
small matter. : ) Oh, yeah, another small matter was the reference
to the Red Barn as a landmark just north of the field....don't look
for it, I was told, as they demolished it two weeks ago....ho hum.
They are expecting maybe 100 planes, and when I called today, with
about 2 hours left in their day, they gave me registration number 53,
so there may not be as many as they think. With 53-100 planes packing
the snow, I gotta think that it'll be bumpy and skatey.
I'm planning to leave there later in the day and heading back the
northern route, and staying someplace in Upper Michigan for the
night, then maybe heading to the Bush Planes Museum in Sault Ste.
Marie, Ontario....maybe. I'm taking my birth certificate in case I do
that. I'd land stateside, and take ground transportation into Canada,
eh? : )
Lynn
do not archive
On Jan 26, 2007, at 8:19 PM, dave wrote:
>
> Lynn, --------------------- Good luck on your trip. ----------------
>
>
> I love Ski fly ins.
>
> Also if you do not have a metal runner on bottom of ski you will
> not get much sticking.
> One thing I would suggest is to lift up each ski and put a stick
> under each ski to be sure.
> One thing i Usually do prior to getting in the plane is grab the
> strut and move the plane back and forth a bit to ensure you not
> stuck. Or grab the tail handle and move it side to side and watch
> each ski to make sure they loose.
>
> Also if landing in deep snow make sure you land and don't stop
> until you go in a loop an d come back to the tracks you just made
> if possbile. If not you might be looking at tramping down a path
> to get back out.
>
> Another thing is make sure you not in slush, once you bog down in
> it you will have trouble getting moving again. Even though there is
> 2 feet of ice but yet 12 inches of slush will be a mess to get out
> of. And since you on wheel skis always be ready for a frozen
> wheel on landing.
>
> Take some sunglasses and different colours if you have them as it
> hard to see the surface on gray days.
>
> And don;'t forget to take some pics to remind us what a great time
> it was.
>
> Fly safe !
>
> Dave
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lynn Matteson" <lynnmatt@jps.net>
> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 6:07 PM
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: Oshkosh Skiplane Fly-in
>
>
>>
>> I spoke with O'kosh today, and the wind was blowing the snow
>> around, but they are still a go for tomorrow, as am I.
>> Yeah, thank God for plastic...I'm a "newbie" on skis, and I'm
>> already spoiled.
>>
>> Lynn
>> do not archive
>>
>> On Jan 26, 2007, at 1:12 PM, kitfoxmike wrote:
>>
>>> <customtrans@qwest.net>
>>>
>>> from my snowmobile days, we did have problems with ski's
>>> sticking in the snow, then came the plastic ski's, wow now we
>>> were spoiled pups, slide and no stick in the snow, no build up
>>> of snow on the ski's either. hope this helps.
>>>
>>> --------
>>> kitfoxmike
>>> Do not archive
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
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: | Fuel Flow, continued. THe FIX |
Sure .
The static ports on the sides of many aircraft have to, by definition, give
neither pitot pressure or suction. Most suction is at or slightly behind
the thickest part of the wing... Just put your vent some where else. If you
want to be sure before you start hacking holes in your plane test the area
with tape and a piece of yarn.
On the other hand if you really want a vacuum install a venturi in the slip
stream.
When I was in school we were told to watch the use of MOGAS as it can (only
can) evaporate faster at altitude. We were also told that many small
airplanes have pitot style forward facing tubes to help pressurize the fuel
tank and there by reduce losses due to evaporation at altitude. Apparently
100LL although higher in octane rating is not any where as volatile as
MOGAS.
Noel
> Vent your header tank outside? can this be done with out a
> suction being
> created ?
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: | Fwd: price of snow skies |
0-1180893994-1169870275=:60596--
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! --
|