Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:23 AM - Re: Speedster Electric Trim Wire Routing (Noel Loveys)
2. 12:59 AM - Test (Torgeir Mortensen)
3. 06:46 AM - Re: Fuel flow, summary so far. (Torgeir Mortensen)
4. 09:02 AM - Re: Fuel flow, summary so far. (Don Pearsall)
5. 10:26 AM - Re: Fuel flow, summary so far. (Torgeir Mortensen)
6. 10:34 AM - Re: Fuel flow, summary so far. (Torgeir Mortensen)
7. 10:49 AM - Re: Speedster Electric Trim Wire Routing (Michel Verheughe)
8. 12:37 PM - Re: Fuel System Questions=gasolator (kurt schrader)
9. 06:55 PM - Aircraft cover (Clint Bazzill)
10. 07:35 PM - High Voltage Indication (Jimmie Blackwell)
11. 08:42 PM - Re: High Voltage Indication (A Smith)
12. 09:39 PM - Oshkosh Skiplane trip...coming home...OFF TOPIC (Lynn Matteson)
13. 10:17 PM - Re: Speedster Electric Trim Wire Routing (Guy Buchanan)
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: | Speedster Electric Trim Wire Routing |
I would dope a doubler on the bottom of the elevator first. Try to make the
hole flow with the paint job... E.g. speed stripes etc. The second thing is
instead of cutting with a razor I would consider using a 15-20 watt
soldering iron. And slowly burning the hole. The iron helps heal around the
hole.
After the wires are installed it should be easy to dope a patch on and
shrink the patch and finish to match the rest of the elevator.
You could also just cut a small straight slit on the bottom of the elevator
pull the wires through with an electricians pulling wire and then patch the
slit with tape. To hide the job put a dummy tape on the other elevator to
balance the appearance.
You may have to bribe a neighbourhood kid to crawl carefully down in the
fuselage to attach the wires in a reasonable fashion to the frame. Maybe
the age of Dickens isn't over yet ;-)
Noel
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Fox5flyer
> Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 1:53 PM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Speedster Electric Trim Wire Routing
>
>
>
> Recovering a small portion of the underside of the elevator
> is not really a
> big deal. If it's painted with Polytone the patch can easily be made
> invisible. I doubt there is any other effective way to do it
> other than
> some sort of surface mount.
>
> Deke
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Nick Scholtes" <Nick@Scholtes1.com>
> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 11:36 AM
> Subject: Kitfox-List: Speedster Electric Trim Wire Routing
>
>
> <Nick@Scholtes1.com>
> >
> > Hey Listers!
> >
> > I bought a Model IV Speedster recently. It was designed to have
> > electric trim, so darn-it, I want it to have electric trim!
> The seller
> > (also the builder) told me:
> >
> > "The servo is installed and the wire goes from here (up
> under the panel)
> > back to the servo. I just never connected the switches and the
> > indicator." Ok, I can connect the wires under the panel,
> no problem.
> >
> > Well, last night I opened up the "hatch" in the elevator to
> take a look
> > at the servo. Sure enough, it's in there. Then I noticed the wires
> > that come out of the servo are bundled into a neat package
> and stuffed
> > to the side. They're not connected to anything. The wire
> that is under
> > the panel heads aft and dissapears somewhere in the back of the
> > fuselage, never to be seen or heard from again! It never comes out.
> >
> > So, my question:
> >
> > -- How do I route the wire out of the back of the fuselage
> and into the
> > elevator to connect to the servo, especially now that the
> elevator has
> > been covered and the wire wasn't installed prior to covering?
> > Recovering the elevator would be SO unappealing!
> >
> > -- How is the wire normally routed?
> >
> > Any suggestions?
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Nick
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
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 |
|
Something wrong here?
<pre><b><font size=2 color="#000000" face="courier new,courier">
</b></font></pre></body></html>
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, summary so far. |
PS. Yesterday I sent 3 postings, all of the returned, so really don't know what
happend.
Hi Lowell,
this is a good and correct observation.
However, you'll know I've never mentioned the height. :)
Sure, I've been informed that the new tank is located behind the seat all
the way down to the floor.
And you're right, the feeder tank I'm describing is the pre. 94 model
tank, "high" located behind the seat.
Let's do some calculations:
Now; 10.58 millibar (or 0.1534499 PSI) is equal to 92 mph or ~80 Kts.
Another important thing is the influence the low pressure might have here,
my finding is based on a standard profile at 5 deg AOA gave approx. 14.4
PSI with 92 Mph.
(This is a little conservative calculation, -but hopefully close to the
reality, at high angle the pressure can go down to ~14.2 PSI.)
Well, all of my assumptions is worst case, so anything less is better..
I.E. Delta P=((14.7-14.4)+0.153)PSI=0.453 PSI. This is the pressure that
will try to force the fuel downward the line until there is pressure
balance. The height between top of fuel surface inside left tank and the
level of the "downpressed" fuel.
Let's see what height this will be;
14.7 PSI represent 393.7" column of water (equal to 10 meter). The
following formula is valid for this calculation; 14.7
PSI/393.7"=0.453PSI/X
Then X=0.453PSI*393.7"/14.7PSI=12.123" column of water. Now, since fuel
(Mogas) is lighter than water we must recalculate as this:
Column of fuel = Column of water/spec. weight for
fuel=12.123"/0.71=17.088" (0.43 meter)
The height difference between the main tank output flange and the
carburetor inlet flange is 0.6 meter or 23.62". The old header in my
example is in between here, I.E. less than 0.6 meter.
Next thing is that the size of the feeder lines of this old setup
"originally" is 1/4" of diameter.
With the fuel demand from the engine, and this reduced flow the header
will decrease in level until the line unport and air start flowing.
Here's another one; the total length of all feeding fuel lines in my plane
is 5.13 meter equal to 16.6 feet!
And this one, let's say that the left only have say 5 Gallon and the pilot
make some left turns -airwork, observations who knows.
I've always search for the worst case just to clarify or.. justify..
Torgeir
On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 03:19:16 +0100, Lowell Fitt <lcfitt@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
>
> Torgeir,
>
> I think I see a problem with your figure (fuel_4). My water manometer
> shows a column of water 4.5" tall will create the pressure at the pitot
> tube to register 100 mph. which is a bit more than the avarage Kitfox
> will fly (sorry to the 5 through 8 guys, but average is average and you
> guys will come in later). A rough estimate gives a column of fuel at
> say 6 inches at that speed. Conversely an airplane flying at 100 mph
> will has the ability to lift a column of fuel about 6 inches. What that
> indicates to me - if the header tank is full and the left tank is full
> as you show, there will be fuel to some level in both the fuel line and
> the vent line on the right side due to head pressure from the full
> tank. The level will be somethiing like 6: below the tank fuel level.
> As I measure it I have about 10 inches from the level of the fuel tank
> outlet to the header tank inlet. There is insufficient pressure
> generated from the "pitot tube" type air vent on the non leaking tank to
> force a breach into the header tank as long is there is at least some
> fuel in the (leaking gasket) tank and the airspeed is no higher than,
> say 115 mph. Air at .04 psi won't lift a column of fuel 10 inches.
>
> Further all aircraft sold after about 1994 - the aircraft capable of
> higher speeds have the header tanks low behind the seats with a pressure
> head of more like 18 to 20 inches. With these airplanes the .04 psi
> from the intact fuel cap won't force air in the fuel line or vent line
> more than about 11inches below the fuel level in the system even at
> VNE. I doubt there is any way to introduce air into the full tank to
> header tank feed line in our airplanes in the scenario you illustrate.
>
> Also the diagram of the header tank reflects the round header tank of
> several models ago consistent with the diagram of (Fuel_5) The newer
> header tank has the inlets from both tanks on the top surface as well as
> the vent line. Provision is made for a quick drain on the bottom and
> fuel outlet about an inch or two above that on the forward facing side.
>
> Lowell
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Torgeir Mortensen"
> <torgemor@online.no>
> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 3:52 PM
> Subject: Kitfox-List: Fuel flow, summary so far.
<pre><b><font size=2 color="#000000" face="courier new,courier">
</b></font></pre></body></html>
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: | Fuel flow, summary so far. |
Torgeir,
The list did not get any messages from you yesterday, but there were plenty
of other messages posted. So the problem must be on your end. Your posts are
appearing now, so perhaps it is fixed.
Don Pearsall
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Torgeir
Mortensen
Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 6:45 AM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Fuel flow, summary so far.
PS. Yesterday I sent 3 postings, all of the returned, so really don't know
what happend.
Hi Lowell,
this is a good and correct observation.
However, you'll know I've never mentioned the height. :)
Sure, I've been informed that the new tank is located behind the seat all
the way down to the floor.
And you're right, the feeder tank I'm describing is the pre. 94 model
tank, "high" located behind the seat.
Let's do some calculations:
Now; 10.58 millibar (or 0.1534499 PSI) is equal to 92 mph or ~80 Kts.
Another important thing is the influence the low pressure might have here,
my finding is based on a standard profile at 5 deg AOA gave approx. 14.4
PSI with 92 Mph.
(This is a little conservative calculation, -but hopefully close to the
reality, at high angle the pressure can go down to ~14.2 PSI.)
Well, all of my assumptions is worst case, so anything less is better..
I.E. Delta P=((14.7-14.4)+0.153)PSI=0.453 PSI. This is the pressure that
will try to force the fuel downward the line until there is pressure
balance. The height between top of fuel surface inside left tank and the
level of the "downpressed" fuel.
Let's see what height this will be;
14.7 PSI represent 393.7" column of water (equal to 10 meter). The
following formula is valid for this calculation; 14.7
PSI/393.7"=0.453PSI/X
Then X=0.453PSI*393.7"/14.7PSI=12.123" column of water. Now, since fuel
(Mogas) is lighter than water we must recalculate as this:
Column of fuel = Column of water/spec. weight for
fuel=12.123"/0.71=17.088" (0.43 meter)
The height difference between the main tank output flange and the
carburetor inlet flange is 0.6 meter or 23.62". The old header in my
example is in between here, I.E. less than 0.6 meter.
Next thing is that the size of the feeder lines of this old setup
"originally" is 1/4" of diameter.
With the fuel demand from the engine, and this reduced flow the header
will decrease in level until the line unport and air start flowing.
Here's another one; the total length of all feeding fuel lines in my plane
is 5.13 meter equal to 16.6 feet!
And this one, let's say that the left only have say 5 Gallon and the pilot
make some left turns -airwork, observations who knows.
I've always search for the worst case just to clarify or.. justify..
Torgeir
On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 03:19:16 +0100, Lowell Fitt <lcfitt@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
>
> Torgeir,
>
> I think I see a problem with your figure (fuel_4). My water manometer
> shows a column of water 4.5" tall will create the pressure at the pitot
> tube to register 100 mph. which is a bit more than the avarage Kitfox
> will fly (sorry to the 5 through 8 guys, but average is average and you
> guys will come in later). A rough estimate gives a column of fuel at
> say 6 inches at that speed. Conversely an airplane flying at 100 mph
> will has the ability to lift a column of fuel about 6 inches. What that
> indicates to me - if the header tank is full and the left tank is full
> as you show, there will be fuel to some level in both the fuel line and
> the vent line on the right side due to head pressure from the full
> tank. The level will be somethiing like 6: below the tank fuel level.
> As I measure it I have about 10 inches from the level of the fuel tank
> outlet to the header tank inlet. There is insufficient pressure
> generated from the "pitot tube" type air vent on the non leaking tank to
> force a breach into the header tank as long is there is at least some
> fuel in the (leaking gasket) tank and the airspeed is no higher than,
> say 115 mph. Air at .04 psi won't lift a column of fuel 10 inches.
>
> Further all aircraft sold after about 1994 - the aircraft capable of
> higher speeds have the header tanks low behind the seats with a pressure
> head of more like 18 to 20 inches. With these airplanes the .04 psi
> from the intact fuel cap won't force air in the fuel line or vent line
> more than about 11inches below the fuel level in the system even at
> VNE. I doubt there is any way to introduce air into the full tank to
> header tank feed line in our airplanes in the scenario you illustrate.
>
> Also the diagram of the header tank reflects the round header tank of
> several models ago consistent with the diagram of (Fuel_5) The newer
> header tank has the inlets from both tanks on the top surface as well as
> the vent line. Provision is made for a quick drain on the bottom and
> fuel outlet about an inch or two above that on the forward facing side.
>
> Lowell
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Torgeir Mortensen"
> <torgemor@online.no>
> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 3:52 PM
> Subject: Kitfox-List: Fuel flow, summary so far.
<pre><b><font size=2 color="#000000" face="courier new,courier">
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List">http://www.matronics.c
om/Navigator?Kitfox-List</a>
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com</a>
</b></font></pre>
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fuel flow, summary so far. |
Hi Jim,
Got this message as a reply of all my posting to the list yesterday, see
below.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The original message was received at Thu, 1 Feb 2007 20:09:40 -0800
from barracuda.matronics.com [64.81.74.21]
----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----
"|/lists/cto DoMIME | /lists/at Kitfox-List kitfox-list | /lists/hf
kitfox-list Kitfox-List DoMIME"
(reason: 554 5.4.6 Too many hops)
(expanded from: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>)
----- Transcript of session follows -----
554 5.4.6 Too many hops 39 (25 max): from <torgemor@online.no> via
barracuda.matronics.com, to <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for the flowers Jim.
My planned trip up North was cancelled, so now some more writing. :)
Torgeir.
On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 02:51:44 +0100, James Shumaker
<jimshumaker@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Excellent Torgier
Another keeper for my archives and another change to be made on my plane.
Jim Shumaker
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fuel flow, summary so far. |
Hi Noel,
Hmm, maybe there was a thunderstorm in cyberspace yesterday ... ?
See below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The original message was received at Thu, 1 Feb 2007 22:02:21 -0800
from barracuda.matronics.com [64.81.74.21]
----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----
"|/lists/cto DoMIME | /lists/at Kitfox-List kitfox-list | /lists/hf
kitfox-list Kitfox-List DoMIME"
(reason: 554 5.4.6 Too many hops)
(expanded from: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>)
----- Transcript of session follows -----
554 5.4.6 Too many hops 47 (25 max): from <torgemor@online.no> via
barracuda.matronics.com, to <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Noel,
I'll put the answer in beetween below.
> On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 03:53:24 +0100, Noel Loveys <noelloveys@yahoo.ca>
> wrote:
> Torgeir:
> On the second diagram you showed the left tank dribbling fuel into the
> header tank. I expect that you won't get a pressurized head of air over
> the fuel in the tank but neither will you get a vacuum to hold the fuel
> up
> in the tank. Let alone suck air from the empty tank. Even though the cap
> isn't properly fitted the pitot effect should be enough to brake the low
> pressure ( hardly a vacuum) on the top of the wing.
See the mail just posted to Lowell.
> Why bother connecting a vent from the header to the cross vent in the
> last
> diagram? Once you have the cross vent tube installed the air pressure on
> top of the fuel should be consistent across both wing tanks regardless of
> whether or not one cap is not properly installed.. The header will self
> purge because you don't fill both tanks at exactly the same speed to trap
> air in the header.... That is assuming of course you ran or drained the
> header dry. One other thing... On my plane the inlets to the header tank
> are "almost" at the very top of the header tank.... The vent comes off
> the
> same level as the inlets.
As my tank has a colletion camber for air and vented at the top, it's a
must to be able to vent.
In your newer system,perhaps with 3/8" lines, the system will self vent.
> Nice diagrams. I do like the idea of the cross vent. Then again I like
> the
> idea of controlling the fuel flow too.
> Noel
Thanks
Torgeir.
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
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: Speedster Electric Trim Wire Routing |
On Feb 1, 2007, at 8:00 PM, Guy Buchanan wrote:
> I recently routed a manual trim cable without re-covering so this
> should be easy.
Guy, like most of us, I keep some email from this list for later
reference, in a special folder. While I am not specially interested in
the electric trim of a Speedster (I have a model 3 without trim), I
would like to take the occasion to salute you, and the nice way you
document your work and explain it to the benefit of everyone. Together
with e.g. Lowell, Torgeir (and many others, I can't write them all) you
make this place worth the reading and archiving of good stuff that
makes our flying a safer and enjoyable experience.
Thank you, Sir! Keep up the good job (and everyone else)
Michel
do not archive
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 System Questions=gasolator |
The gascolator will pass whatever is on top. As long
as there isn't enough water to fill it, you should get
fuel. But more water than that and it will pass
water. Of course there is some stiring going on, so
something less than a full gascolator cup will start
passing some water.
Since my gascolator drain blew out in flight 2 years
ago on my S-5, I think it is more a danger than a help
to me.
The good news is that my engine kept running at cruise
power, but higher EGT, so the fuel to the engine was
maintained, even with a quarter inch hole in the
gascolator and a fuel flow of way over 10 gph, half at
least blowing overboard.
I intend to take all the components of the fuel system
not necessary and put them on the cabin side of the
firewall. Opposite of my origional feelings on this
one. Bigger fire potential on the front side.
I will take out the gascolator and use the header
tank. The header tank will probably have a front
feed, rear drain for emptying the plane quickly, and a
bottom quick drain for fuel samples only. I keep
destroying my quick drain O rings using them to drain.
I need one final filter up front somewhere, but
haven't decided where yet. The intent is to have all
flow going up to the engine after the header so there
are no air or water traps enroute. The header will
trap water and sediment and any air should flow up to
the main tanks or be bled out of the engine, once fuel
is added.
Having the gascolater where mine was made more top and
bottom points on my fuel system than I liked, and
added a source of fuel leakage 4 inches from my
exhaust. Also it made another place for vapor lock to
occur. Cleaning this all up will make me feel safer,
at least.
Kurt S. S-5
--- Cudnohufsky's <7suds@Chartermi.net> wrote:
> All,
> Thanks for all the replys. Another question, I was
> under the impression that
> a gascolator's filtering screen was such that it
> would allow fuel to pass
> but not water. I found this artical that seems to
> elude to that thought.
> Thoughts?
> Lloyd
> http://www.andair.co.uk/system/index.html
Expecting? Get great news right away with email Auto-Check.
Try the Yahoo! Mail Beta.
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 |
|
Any on have one of the Model IV aircraft covers they are not using, contact
me off line. Clint
_________________________________________________________________
Turn searches into helpful donations. Make your search count.
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: | High Voltage Indication |
With engine running I normally see about 14 volts indicated on the panel
meter and pulsating slightly if the strobes are on. While flying today
I noted that the voltage pegged high for awhile and then settled back
down to normal. A few minutes later the volt meter again pegged high,
(above 16 volts). At that point I turned off the alternator circuit and
the meter immediately dropped down and showed a steady 13-14 volts.
Turning the alternator on again the volt meter pegged high again, but
after awhile settled down to normal.
Would appreciate any ideas on what may be causing this indication.
Jimmie
Model IV Speedster, 912 UL
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: High Voltage Indication |
Internal regulator on the alternator??? They can weld shut on some units
when they are overloaded.
ALbert
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: | Oshkosh Skiplane trip...coming home...OFF TOPIC |
Part II of my recent trip to Oshkosh for the Annual Skiplane Fly-in:
I got up Sunday morning to the view of a little more snow on the
ground at Oshkosh, and enough mist or blowing snow to keep the tower
obscured for a couple hours. I opened the hangar, fueled up, got a
new Airport Directory and a Green Bay sectional, clearance to taxi,
and took off on 31 to the north. The directory says that 31 is full
of cracks and vegetation, but the Kitfox must have picked a good
section (snow covered) and the wind helped get it up quick. I flew
northward, missing all the towered airports, and set my sights for
the edge of Lake Michigan all the way around to the Bridge. About the
time I had got as far as Menominee (MNM), Michigan and was flying at
5,500' altitude, I had finally seen the "elusive" zero F. reading on
my OAT (outside air temperature) gauge. I say elusive, because in
previous attempts to climb up high enough to witness 0 or lower, I'd
always run into a temperature inversion, and the higher I climbed,
the warmer it got. This was several days, to weeks, before this trip
to Oshkosh. I wasn't going to be disappointed on this flight. The
clouds were becoming thicker, and I was climbing to get over them and
have clear skies in which to fly. I still had the required (for my
Sport Pilot license) view of the earth below me, but down there was
snow and who knows what, so I stayed up high, and enjoyed the sun. As
I flew further north, the OAT finally hit the minus sign, and another
goal was mine. I don't know why this was a particular goal of mine, I
just wanted to see it. Like when you are home and the weather says
it's going to zero, I like to watch my digital temp gauge and see it
happen...exciting life I lead, eh? Anyway, I got the below-zero
reading, even got a shot with my camera at -4. I eventually hit -6,
but by then it was more a pain in the ass and cold in the feet, than
anything I wanted to see more of. I was getting chilly all over by
then, and started to think of getting down and getting warm in a nice
airport somewhere. The next stopping place was Delta Co (ESC) at
Escanaba, Michigan. I made a radio call and flew the pattern and
landed there. I went into the pilot's lounge and warmed up a bit and
some guy came in and was checking out the weather for me, and we got
to talking about Kitfox's and he said there was one on the grounds.
He drove me to where it was, we met the owner, and shot the breeze,
then it was time to head out. Driving back to my plane, we saw a
turboprop plane being towed out of a hangar, and passengers lining up
to board. I got back in my plane and departed. During the climbout, I
noticed low clouds and what looked like snow in the direction that I
wanted to go, which was right over a bay with freighters seemingly
frozen in port...I took a picture, and diverted north, aiming for
large openings in the clouds. To do this, I had to head slightly
west, and climb, and finally I was over the clouds, and I could head
back to my east heading. I knew that I was now in line with the
runway that I had just left, and possibly in the path of that
passenger jet that was boarding at Escanaba. I made a report of my
position, just in case he was coming. I kept glancing over my
shoulder, and thinking of the opening sequence of the 1980 movie
"Airplane!". That opening shot shows a view above the clouds, plays
the music from the movie "Jaws", and you see a fin zig-zagging just
above the clouds, when finally the fin and attached airplane emerges
from the clouds. This is what I was thinking was going to happen any
second now..that this jet was going to emerge with me in its jaws,
and I wasn't going to make much of a meal for him...enough to annoy
his day and ruin mine.
That moment passed, and I was flying over pretty sparsely populated
area now, with nothing but trees under me. As I later told my flight
instructor, I wasn't too worried, because I couldn't see all the
trees because of the clouds. I could see enough to keep within the
letter of the laws of the FAA, but not enough to make me worry about
the stupidity of taking this direction home, with not much of a
chance for a great landing area should I need that...hindsight is a
great educator. I got some great shots of the beautiful patterns of
frozen lake, and drifting snow, and ice floes. I passed the last
airport for the next 40-50 miles and set my sights on the Mackinac/
Mackinaw Bridge. When the bridge came into view I took several
pictures, got up some courage, and cut across the Lake and headed for
the Lower Peninsula. At the point that I crossed the Lake, I had to
cover about 20 miles of open water. This was also a less-than-
brilliant move on my part, because I misjudged how far it really was.
I could see the bridge, and knew that it was about 5 miles long, and
just misjudged how far I would have to glide if engine problems
occurred at that point...I think "get-there-itis" was clouding my
thinking at that point. But I made it, and was glad to finally be
heading straight south toward home. It was 3:08 PM when I was finally
over the Lower, and I set my sights on one more hour of flying and
then about one hour of find a suitable stayover spot for the night. I
had of course been watching my fuel supply and all looked well at
that point, with only an hour left to fly, and about two hours worth
of fuel in which to do it. I set my sights on Clare Co. (80D)
airport, mainly because it showed in the Airport Facility Directory
that lodging was "adjacent" to the field. I was to find out that this
was wrong. As I made my descent from about 5000' I witnessed the
first of two low fuel warnings that I encountered during this trip. I
leveled off during the descent with the runway in sight, and the
light did not go off, so I continued my descent, knowing that I had
about 15 minutes of fuel remaining in my header tank. When I reached
pattern altitude, and leveled off, the light went out and I landed on
the snow-covered runway. I taxied to a small restaurant and got some
coffee, and inquired about the possibility of lodging, got the bad
news, and decided to head for Mt Pleasant, 30 miles down the road. My
thoughts were that the fuel would equalize in both tanks by the time
I departed, and that if I didn't dawdle, I would have enough light to
depart and get into Mt Pleasant (MOP) before the "civil evening
twilight" rule made me stop for the night. When I checked the plane,
I could see no fuel in the sight gauges at all. In retrospect, I
think the plane was at a slight angle up or down, and that this was
causing me to not see any on the sight gauges. I asked at the
restaurant about getting some auto gas (the Jabiru engine can run on
it, but I prefer avgas) and one kindly (but slow-moving) gentleman
offered to drive me to get his can and some fuel. Let me tell you,
when this pilot gets into "we better get moving along" mode (some
would say that's putting it mildly), it seems like everything goes
into slow-motion. Well, that's where we were that late, sun going
down, times-a-wasting Sunday afternoon/early evening. This guy seemed
to poke along without a care, getting the can from his shed, putting
it in the car, brooming the snow off his boots, and the sun was going
down. We got going again, down a long road, slowly coming up on a
hill with a stop sign, him telling me "ya gotta watch out for
snowmobiles here", then over the hill down the road and finally at
the gas station with the sun going down. Back at the field, he told
me to just put the can in the back of his car when I was done, would
accept no money for his troubles...just "help somebody else out
sometime"...I woulda loved the guy if I wasn't trying to get to
someplace to stay for the night...and the sun was going down. I
borrowed a step-stool from the restaurant, and hoisted the can above
the wing. That's when I discovered how well the guy maintained his
gas can. There apparently was no gasket on the filler spout, as the
gas was going into the tank, and all over the wing at about a 3:2
ratio...maybe 3 parts into the tank and 2 parts all over and under
the wing, and all over the flaperon, and onto the fuselage...and the
sun was going down.
Well, I got the fuel carefully wiped up with some snow, and then a
rag slowly dragged over the surface so as to not cause a spark, and
proceeded to get on my way. I tucked the rag under one of the braces
of my skis, not wanting to bring it into the plane, and knowing that
it wouldn't stay there long enough to cause any problems for me, at
least. I left Clare Co. airport without incident, and headed for Mt
Pleasant and got there just as the sun blinked out. I had made my
first solo cross-country flight to this airport, and was glad to see
Bob, an airport worker who remembered me and who had taken shots of
my plane on that first visit. He recalled the Dale Earnhardt theme of
my plane's paint job. He called the Holiday Inn to get a shuttle ride
for me and we set out to tie the plane down. He couldn't find the tie-
down locations in the snow, so he motioned me...I was taxiing behind
him in the plane...to follow him to a 120 x 120 hangar for the second
night in a row of hangar living for the plane. This time the cost was
much more reasonable...$15 for the night as opposed to $50 the night
before at Oshkosh.
The next morning I checked the tanks and both showed over 5
gallons...more than enough for the 1-hour, 15 minute flight home. As
I descended to my home strip from about 4000', the low-fuel light
came on again, and went out as soon as I leveled off at pattern
altitude. The next time I go to the hangar I'll fill the tanks and
see just how low I was.
From what I could tell from the limited fill-ups of fuel, either
putting on the skis, taking off the wheel pants, flying into the wind
for the most part, or just plain flying faster, the fuel economy has
fallen from several readings of about 3.4 gph, to about 4.5 gph.
Granted, this trip is a small cross section of information from which
to get any real data, but it just might point out what drag can do to
fuel economy. And of course, the last leg (south) I was into about a
45 degree head wind, so most of the trip was Bob Seger in
nature....against the wind.
Lynn
do not archive
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Speedster Electric Trim Wire Routing |
At 10:49 AM 2/2/2007, you wrote:
>I would like to take the occasion to salute you, and the nice way
>you document your work and explain it to the benefit of everyone.
Thank you. :-[ And to think I un-subscribed last month because the
signal / noise was just too low to justify the effort. I
re-subscribed after a couple of days cooling.
Guy Buchanan
K-IV 1200 / 582-C / Warp / 100% done, thanks mostly to Bob Ducar.
Do not archive
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! --
|