Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:12 AM - Re: Droop tips (Glenn Horne)
2. 05:57 AM - Re: Droop tips (Mike)
3. 06:02 AM - Re: Flight to Alaska (Mike)
4. 06:45 AM - Re: Droop tips (Bob)
5. 06:46 AM - Re: Kitfox website FAQ (Bob)
6. 06:50 AM - Clear bubble doors (Russ & Jacque Solsvig)
7. 08:57 AM - Re: Flight to Alaska (Ted Palamarek)
8. 09:11 AM - Re: Clear bubble doors (darinh)
9. 09:24 AM - Re: Clear bubble doors (kitfoxmike)
10. 09:56 AM - Re: Clear bubble doors (jdmcbean)
11. 10:35 AM - Re: Kitfox website FAQ (Barry West)
12. 10:43 AM - Re: Flight to Alaska (kitfoxmike)
13. 11:15 AM - Speaking of trips...Fla. to Cal. (Lynn Matteson)
14. 11:47 AM - my latest heat muff revision (lynnmatt@jps.net)
15. 12:11 PM - Re: Speaking of trips...Fla. to Cal. (Randy Daughenbaugh)
16. 02:29 PM - Re: Speaking of trips...Fla. to Cal. (Lynn Matteson)
17. 02:43 PM - Re: Speaking of trips...Fla. to Cal. (Barry West)
18. 02:50 PM - Re: Speaking of trips...Fla. to Cal. (84KF)
19. 04:21 PM - Re: Re: Droop tips (D. Fisher)
20. 07:03 PM - Tyres (Rex & Jan Shaw)
21. 07:09 PM - Droop Tips (Rex & Jan Shaw)
22. 07:31 PM - Droop Wing Tips (Rex & Jan Shaw)
23. 07:40 PM - Re: Flight to Alaska (Mike)
24. 08:06 PM - Re: Speaking of trips...Fla. to Cal. (N81JG@AOL.COM)
25. 08:27 PM - Re: Re: Speaking of trips...Fla. to Cal. (Randy Daughenbaugh)
26. 08:41 PM - Re: Speaking of trips...Fla. to Cal. (84KF)
27. 08:47 PM - Re: Droop Wing Tips (James Shumaker)
28. 09:21 PM - Bing Carbs shaking problem solved. (James Shumaker)
29. 11:02 PM - Flight to Alaska (John Allen)
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 |
|
You are right. Been there done that.
Glenn
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michel Verheughe" <michel@online.no>
Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2007 3:35 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Droop tips
>
> Here is a place I think the droop winglets may help: It will protect
> the flaperons in case of a ground loop where the wing tip touches the
> ground. I never tried it so I have no idea if I am right, just a hunch.
>
> Cheers,
> Michel
>
>
>
>
>
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 |
|
Dave,
I have done some digging on the effects of various wingtip designs on
performance. Here is what I remember....
Winglets effectively increase the span of the wing by keeping the tip
vortices outboard of the wing. Hoerner tips and tips that droop or
the reverse (stick up) also have the effect of pushing the vortices
further outboard on the wing. However, in order of effectiveness (as
I recall) they are: 1. Hoerner tips, and 2. Droop tips. However,
published experimental data from wind tunnel tests, as well as
mathematical modeling indicate that the differences between these are
relatively small.
I am rebuilding a KF2, and spent time looking into this issue to see
if a change would be worthwhile, and concluded that the differences
were not large enough to consider. However, there is another
technology that will help improve the stall performance of the
aircraft, and that is vortex generators. These are small devices
that are usually attached to the wing, near the leading edge, and
they help to prevent boundary layer separation at steep angles of
attack, and thus improve the lift coefficient and reduce the stall
speed. They are very inexpensive, and John McBean sells a kit that
can be used to install these on a Kitfox.
There is lots of good information on the web, you just have to go
digging a bit. If I can resurrect the URL's for some of the web
sites I looked at, I'll post them.
Mike
On Mar 3, 2007, at 8:29 AM, D. Fisher wrote:
> I am looking for anyone that has changed from Droop tips to the
> more current hoerner style tip on a IV.
>
> What was gained or lost if anything ?
>
> I have mixed thoughts on Droop tips. Personally would a winglet
> tip ( invested tip) now give better STOL ?
>
>
> Open for comments.
>
>
> Dave
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List_-
> ============================================================ _-
> forums.matronics.com_-
> ===========================================================
>
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: Flight to Alaska |
Steve,
Let me chime in also. My Chief Pilot has spent over 12 years in
Alaska, although he has been in the lower 48 for the last several
years. He told me that the only way to fly the is to follow the
Alcan. There are NO landing fields, and you have to land on the
highway. The services are minimal...basically just fuel. He always
kept the road in sight, so that if you have a problem you have a
place to land. Flying over water should only be done on floats, as
there are NO landing strips.
On Mar 3, 2007, at 10:30 AM, Paul Seehafer wrote:
> Steve,
>
> There's a guy that wrote a two part article for Water Flying
> magazine about flying his Lake Amphibian to alaska using the route
> you are considering. It is titled "Journey on the inside
> passage", but the subtitle is "Not for novices, nor the faint of
> heart". Knowing this guy has done this trip for years in his lake
> might offer you some tremendous advice. His name is Richard
> Pellerin. He is a FAA medical examiner (previously a Green Beret
> and Navy seal fwiw), and has an occuapational website at
> www.faamed.com where I'm sure you could contact him.
>
> I love his quote on the site; "Just remember, if you're not living
> on the edge, you're taking up too much space".
>
> Paul Seehafer
> Central Wisconsin
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Steve Zakreski
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2007 7:21 AM
> Subject: Kitfox-List: Flight to Alaska
>
> For those of you familiar with the West coast and Alaska=85
>
>
> It looks like I=92m ferrying an aircraft for one of our members from
> Seattle to Anchorage sometime in the next few months. The safe
> (but long) route for me to take is inland, up the Alaska Highway.
> Has anyone flown the coastal route? Am I likely to get 3 clear
> days to fly this route in late April and May? I bet it will be
> pretty.
>
>
> SteveZ
>
> Calgary
>
>
> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List">http://
> www.matronhref="http://forums.matronics.com">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 |
|
Hi Dave
First off, you've got a great web-site!
I don't have personal experience with the droop tips on the IV, but did have them
on a Cessna 150 that I resurrected and flew for a year. The "batman tips"
(I think they were the Madras STC) became a magnet for talking such things with
other droop-tip owners. In short, they maybe-possibly-perhaps lowered the stall
speed by a smidge (2mph?) in the Cessnas. It sure wasn't the 5+ mph was
advertised. The Piper owners reported more pronounced effects, especially when
in ground effect, which makes a lot of sense. When the stall developed in the
150, the droop tips did seem to make things a bit more squirrely and I liked
the stall less than in similar planes with hoerners or the old round tips. For
how low and slow you seem to like flying around the mud-patch, that may be
something to consider.
The hard aerodynamics and common-sense perspectives agree with what Mike Clayton
mentioned. The big-3 in determining stall speed are your weight, wing area,
and CL (coefficient of lift). Your plane's weight is pretty well established
and while the tips sorta kinda make a small change in effective area, it is relatively
small. However, the VGs change the CL for the entire wing. The change
can be enough that the size of the horizontal tail can become an issue, so
if you go this route put a set on the bottom of the horizontal stab, as well.
Bob
Aero Eng, A&P
Vixen in work
--------
Remember that internet advice may only be worth what you pay.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=98637#98637
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: Kitfox website FAQ |
What Guy said
+1
do not archive
--------
Remember that internet advice may only be worth what you pay.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=98638#98638
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: | Clear bubble doors |
Hi all. I'm the proud owner of a series 5 I0-240 powered kitfox.It was
the original factory "Outback" demo bird. I'm very pleased with it, and
think that putting the clear bubble doors on it would be the way to go.
Any forum members who have these, how do you like them, do they seal
well, and are they a big deal to put on?
Also,while I'm dreaming on a cold winter day, anyone have any feedback
concerning amphib floats on a 5 series kitfox, i.e. performance, type,
mounting issues, prop needed, etc. Great site. Thanks!
Russ
Solsvig
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: | Flight to Alaska |
Mike
Your statement "there are no landing fields" is absolutely untrue. The
Alaska Highway route is very well developed with all sorts of facilities
available for small aircraft to make the trip from Alberta to Alaska. Just
ask John King, Stan Specht and a host of other fellows who have made the
trip. I have spent 15 years in the lat 60's and early 70's installing air to
ground, ILS, VOR/DME at all the sites up and down the Highway. I really get
peeved when some one just makes a statement without finding out the facts.
You pilot probably flew commercial from Anchorage to Seattle and never saw
the Highway.
Ted
DO NOT ARCHIVE
_____
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mike
Sent: March 4, 2007 7:02 AM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Flight to Alaska
Steve,
Let me chime in also. My Chief Pilot has spent over 12 years in Alaska,
although he has been in the lower 48 for the last several years. He told me
that the only way to fly the is to follow the Alcan. There are NO landing
fields, and you have to land on the highway. The services are
minimal...basically just fuel. He always kept the road in sight, so that if
you have a problem you have a place to land. Flying over water should only
be done on floats, as there are NO landing strips.
On Mar 3, 2007, at 10:30 AM, Paul Seehafer wrote:
Steve,
There's a guy that wrote a two part article for Water Flying magazine about
flying his Lake Amphibian to alaska using the route you are considering.
It is titled "Journey on the inside passage", but the subtitle is "Not for
novices, nor the faint of heart". Knowing this guy has done this trip for
years in his lake might offer you some tremendous advice. His name is
Richard Pellerin. He is a FAA medical examiner (previously a Green Beret
and Navy seal fwiw), and has an occuapational website at
<http://www.faamed.com> www.faamed.com where I'm sure you could contact him.
I love his quote on the site; "Just remember, if you're not living on the
edge, you're taking up too much space".
Paul Seehafer
Central Wisconsin
----- Original Message -----
From: <mailto:szakreski@shaw.ca> Steve Zakreski
Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2007 7:21 AM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Flight to Alaska
For those of you familiar with the West coast and Alaska.
It looks like I'm ferrying an aircraft for one of our members from Seattle
to Anchorage sometime in the next few months. The safe (but long) route for
me to take is inland, up the Alaska Highway. Has anyone flown the coastal
route? Am I likely to get 3 clear days to fly this route in late April and
May? I bet it will be pretty.
SteveZ
Calgary
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List">http://www.matronhref
"http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
- NEW MATRONICS WEB FORUMS - class="Apple-converted-space">
--> <http://forums.matronics.com> http://forums.matronics.com
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: Clear bubble doors |
Russ,
Get them, you will love them! I had them on my Model III and they sealed fine.
I am now building a Series 7 and they were the first option I put on it. I
don't know about the series 5 but on the 7, the seal is not a problem at all.
The door frames with the doors mounted are very rigid and will seal great. As
for installation, I used rivnuts through the outboard side of the frame and
then mounted the doors with finish washers and stainless steel countersunk screws.
I prefer this methods because then you don't have a bunch of exposed bolts
on the interior of the door frame. I also used 1/2" wide x 1/16" thick neoprene
foam tape between the door and the aluminum frame to keep it from scratching
or creaking. I am very pleased with the installation and it looks awesome!
If you have never been in a kitfox with the bubble doors, get ready for an
amazing view. I flew my model III with the doors off a couple of times but realized
that you get the same visibility with the doors on but without the wind
noise. I would not own a Fox without the bubble doors! I have attached a couple
of pics of my installation for you.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=98661#98661
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: Clear bubble doors |
I have the model 4, it has the bubble doors and I absolutely love them. I take
pics through them, what's really kool is being able to see straight down, many
times I come in for a landing and the sun is right down the runway, well with
the bubble doors I can took right at the wheels and the runway and land just
fine, no looking into the sun.
As far as flying in the winter time, I think since the begining of the year I've
missed only about 7 days of flying, meaning I fly just about every day. Are
you staying grounded because of overcast or the temps? I fly down to 20 degrees
without any problem. I've flown in snow, rain, and low clouds, yep I ask for
special vfr at times as well, if I couldn't get in my daily flight, I would
go crazy, well not really, but I like to think so.
--------
kitfoxmike
model IV, 1200
speedster
912ul
Do not archive
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=98666#98666
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: | Clear bubble doors |
Russ,
You'll love them.. and they seal just fine. Give us a shout we offer
them in Clear, Light Smoke and Green Tint.. We are also looking at floats
currently.
John McBean
www.KitfoxAircraft.com
208.337.5111
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Russ & Jacque
Solsvig
Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2007 7:50 AM
To: kitfox-list
Subject: Kitfox-List: Clear bubble doors
Hi all. I'm the proud owner of a series 5 I0-240 powered kitfox.It was the
original factory "Outback" demo bird. I'm very pleased with it, and think
that putting the clear bubble doors on it would be the way to go. Any forum
members who have these, how do you like them, do they seal well, and are
they a big deal to put on?
Also,while I'm dreaming on a cold winter day, anyone have any feedback
concerning amphib floats on a 5 series kitfox, i.e. performance, type,
mounting issues, prop needed, etc. Great site. Thanks!
Russ
Solsvig
--
8:12 AM
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: Kitfox website FAQ |
I also believe we are beating this todeath. A sport airplane must be
CERTIFIED to have a maximum gross weight of no more than 1320 pounds unless
it is on floats.
Barry West
----- Original Message -----
From: "84KF" <stevebenesh@comcast.net>
Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2007 7:08 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Kitfox website FAQ
>
> What does all this mean?
> ...as found @
> http://kitfoxaircraft.com/FAQ.htm#2
>
> (Q) Does the Kitfox qualify for Light Sport Aircraft (LSA)?
>
> (A) "Absolutely ! The current Kitfox can be operated at the 1320 lb gross
> weight when on gear and the 1430 lb gross when on floats. It can also be
> converted from floats, to skis, to tail wheel or to Tricycle gear.. Your
> choice."
>
> (Q) What is the gross weight of a Kitfox?
>
> (A) "The current Kitfox has been structurally tested at 1550 lbs gross
> weight at +6g and -3g Load Limit. With an empty weight of 750 lbs, it can
> easily be operated within the LSA limit of 1320 lb gross. Not concerned
> about LSA? Use the full 1550 lb gross weight limit and have an 800 lb
> useful load."
>
> What does the following have to do with the above?
>
> Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 143 / Tuesday, July 27, 2004 / Rules and
> Regulations page 44793
> "Some commenters stated that lacking
> a definition of maximum takeoff weight,
> aircraft with fairly high performance
> characteristics could meet the definition
> of light-sport aircraft by limiting the
> approved weight and payload of the
> airplane. The FAA considers this a valid
> concern and has provided some
> additional constraints on the weight as
> detailed below. The maximum weight of
> a light-sport aircraft is the sum of:
> (1) Aircraft empty weight;
> (2) Weight of the passenger for each
> seat installed;
> (3) Baggage allowance for each
> passenger; and
> (4) Full fuel, including a minimum of
> the half-hour fuel reserve required for
> day visual flight rules in 91.151(a)(1).
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=98563#98563
>
>
>
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Flight to Alaska |
My opinion, do not try to shortcut, go the safest rounte, on this one, fly IFR
, I FLY ROADS. And take a GPS. If possible, fly with another people, preferably
in another aircraft next to you, the more the safer. Maybe you can plan a multiple
aircraft flight up to Alaska, or just meet kitfoxes along your route and
fly short flights on the way up with them.
--------
kitfoxmike
model IV, 1200
speedster
912ul
Do not archive
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=98677#98677
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: | Speaking of trips...Fla. to Cal. |
I'm thinking of making a trip from back East...Michigan...via Sun 'n'
Fun, then on to California in my Model IV. For those of you who
have made the crossing, what advice can you give? I'm a Sport Pilot,
so I have to stay below 10,000 feet MSL. I'm thinking of the
Guadalupe Pass, down near El Paso, TX, as I'll be down there visiting
along the way. Any other ideas as to a safe crossing point?
Lynn
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: | my latest heat muff revision |
I just got back from a test flight with my latest version of a heat exchang
er inside my heat muffs for cabin heat. The ambient temp was 25=B0 F. I was
pleasantly surprised as to how much better it works now than when I had th
e muffs all stuffed with...dare I say it...pot scrubbers. (anybody that ha
d pot scrubbers on their automatic delete will miss this earth-shattering n
ews : ) ) I've included two pictures of the new finned parts that I'm usin
g now. Cudos to Nick Scholtes for giving me the heads-up on this idea. The
theory is that it's better to have the air flow unrestricted over the heat
source, rather than slow it down with the PS's. At least it works for me an
d my Jabiru engine, with its short exhaust pipes and hence, short heat muff
s. I can't give definitive numbers as to temperature, but it feels a LOT be
tter than when I made the Oshkosh trip last month with similar ambient temp
s. On that trip I had PS's in one muff and nothing in the other. The airflo
w is definitly better, and it is bringing heat with it now.
The first picture show the two parts that I made...one goes into each heat
muff. The second picture shows the view through the hose opening of the muf
f. Because of the Jabiru's close-fitting exhaust pipes, the muffs are built
off-center to the exhaust pipe, and thus the finned parts can only take up
about half of the space inside the muff. Knowing this, I had to make the f
inned parts equally off-center, and I had to make the fins fit the space av
ailable.
Lynn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/9j/4AAQSkZJRgABAgAAZABkAAD/7AARRHVja3kAAQAEAAAAPAAA/+4ADkFkb2JlAGTAAAAAAf/b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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: | Speaking of trips...Fla. to Cal. |
Lynn,
Remember it is below 10,000' or up to 1,000' AGL. So if the ground level is
9,800' you can fly to 10,800' etc.
Randy
.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lynn Matteson
Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2007 12:16 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Speaking of trips...Fla. to Cal.
I'm thinking of making a trip from back East...Michigan...via Sun 'n'
Fun, then on to California in my Model IV. For those of you who
have made the crossing, what advice can you give? I'm a Sport Pilot,
so I have to stay below 10,000 feet MSL. I'm thinking of the
Guadalupe Pass, down near El Paso, TX, as I'll be down there visiting
along the way. Any other ideas as to a safe crossing point?
Lynn
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: Speaking of trips...Fla. to Cal. |
I wish you were right, Randy, but according to 2007 Far 61.315 (c)
"You may not act as pilot in command of a light-sport aircraft: (11)
"At an altitude of more than 10,000 feet MSL." I don't see anything
that allows for 1,000 AGL under the Sport Pilot rules, and believe
me, I've looked at these rules with the eye of a lawyer (ugh), and I
can't find a loophole in that 10,000 foot rule.
I realize that nobody's gonna know...under most circumstances...if
you got a little high, and if safety became a concern, I'd go a
little higher, but...
Are you maybe thinking about the allowance for Recreational Pilots
who may go to 10,000' MSL or 2,000' AGL, whichever is higher?
Lynn
On Mar 4, 2007, at 3:11 PM, Randy Daughenbaugh wrote:
> <rjdaugh@rapidnet.com>
>
> Lynn,
> Remember it is below 10,000' or up to 1,000' AGL. So if the ground
> level is
> 9,800' you can fly to 10,800' etc.
>
> Randy
>
> .
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lynn
> Matteson
> Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2007 12:16 PM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Kitfox-List: Speaking of trips...Fla. to Cal.
>
>
> I'm thinking of making a trip from back East...Michigan...via Sun 'n'
> Fun, then on to California in my Model IV. For those of you who
> have made the crossing, what advice can you give? I'm a Sport Pilot,
> so I have to stay below 10,000 feet MSL. I'm thinking of the
> Guadalupe Pass, down near El Paso, TX, as I'll be down there visiting
> along the way. Any other ideas as to a safe crossing point?
>
> Lynn
>
>
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: Speaking of trips...Fla. to Cal. |
Lynn, I have made the trip many times, both the southern route and following
I40, but not in my Model IV. Most trips were in a C182 and some in a
Cardinal RG. I have often considered doing it in the Model IV and would
love to. However, I don't camp and don't want to spend many nights in
motels.
Either way is about the same, depending on the weather you get, and either
can certainly be done below 10,000. Summer is bad because the desert heated
air gets really rough. Spring should be OK. Stay in touch with the centers
for flight following and it would be wise to stay in gliding distance of the
Interstates. Watch out for weather near Guadalupe Peak. Expect headwinds
going and tailwinds coming back -- but it doesn't always work that way.
Barry West
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lynn Matteson" <lynnmatt@jps.net>
Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2007 1:15 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Speaking of trips...Fla. to Cal.
>
> I'm thinking of making a trip from back East...Michigan...via Sun 'n'
> Fun, then on to California in my Model IV. For those of you who have
> made the crossing, what advice can you give? I'm a Sport Pilot, so I have
> to stay below 10,000 feet MSL. I'm thinking of the Guadalupe Pass, down
> near El Paso, TX, as I'll be down there visiting along the way. Any other
> ideas as to a safe crossing point?
>
> Lynn
>
>
>
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: Speaking of trips...Fla. to Cal. |
!0,000' MSL ...no higher as sportpilot.
Read on.....
Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 143 / Tuesday, July 27, 2004 / Rules and Regulations
Page 44825
Proposed section 73(b)(6) of SFAR No.
89 (now 61.315(c)(11)) would have
restricted the operation of a light-sport
aircraft to altitudes of no more than
10,000 feet above MSL or 2,000 feet
above ground level (AGL), whichever is
higher. The FAA received several
comments on this proposed restriction,
and nearly all of them opposed it. Most
stated that allowing pilots to fly at
higher altitudes would enhance safety.
Several commenters noted that higher
altitudes permit safer stall and spin
recovery training because of the
increased margin for error. One
commenter specifically noted that
visibility is often better above 10,000
feet MSL, which enhances safety.
Another commenter offered a similar
observation, noting that pilots often
choose to fly at higher altitudes to avoid
flying through dangerous weather
systems. Many commenters also noted
that glider pilots often need to fly at
altitudes greater than 10,000 feet MSL to
take full advantage of areas of rising
warm air, called thermals, which help to
keep gliders aloft.
The FAA does not believe that these
commenters provided valid justification
for amending the rule. After considering
these comments and other comments
expressing concern about sport pilots
operating in congested, high-altitude
airspace, the FAA has revised
61.315(c)(11) to be more restrictive.
The rule now prohibits operations above
10,000 feet MSL, and the latitude that
was proposed for operations up to 2,000
feet AGL, if higher, is removed. The
FAA is making this revision for the
following reasons.
First, operations above 10,000 feet
MSL require that a pilot have skills and
training on oxygen requirements and
medical factors, reduced aircraft
performance, and the other risks
associated with operations at higher
altitudes. The minimum training that a
sport pilot receives does not encompass
these additional training requirements.
Second, given that the aircraft that
typically operate above 10,000 feet MSL
are often much larger than light-sport
aircraft and usually cruise at
considerably higher speeds, the FAA is
concerned about permitting light-sport
aircraft to operate at the same altitudes
as these aircraft.
Third, light-sport aircraft typically do
not have position or anticollision lights
to help other pilots see and avoid these
aircraft, which would be beneficial at
higher speeds.
Lastly, there are still many areas in
the United States where operations
above 10,000 feet MSL do not require
communication with ATC or the
equipment required to be easily
identified on radar by ATC, such as
transponders. Most light-sport aircraft
do not have transponders or the
capability to conduct radio
communications, reducing their ability
to coordinate their operations with ATC
and be easily identified to ensure
collision avoidance.
Several commenters disagreed with
the limit of 2,000 feet AGL, arguing that
most pilots would prefer, in the interest
of safety, to clear mountains by more
than 2,000 feet AGL. The FAA agrees
with these commenters in that there
could be circumstances in which a sport
pilot would need more than 2,000 feet
AGL to safely clear a mountain.
However, as discussed above regarding
training and equipment required for
high-altitude operations, the FAA does
not believe it is necessary to permit
operations above 10,000 feet MSL solely
for the purpose of crossing mountainous
terrain. The pilot must determine
whether it is safe to clear mountainous
terrain and remain below 10,000 feet
MSL.
The FAA is revising 61.311(c), and
limiting sport pilot operations at all
times to below 10,000 feet MSL. The
FAA believes that this revision will
simplify the altitude restrictions and
increase the level of safety.
If this has been changed since original publication, I will stand corrected.
Steve
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=98711#98711
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 |
|
Bob,
Yup the site is a great way to share info with others.
I agree with all you say... and VG's I have afew sets from differnent
companies here and I might try them in the spring......
Personally I think that the fundamentals of the hoerner style give me the
more interest. Droops tips I have mixed feelings on.
A slight winglet like these are interesting
http://www.crosswindsstol.com/prod01.htm
Or these more hoerner style .........
http://www.stewartshangar21.aero/wingtip.htm
Food for thought for anyone who thinks they can tweak a bit more outta
Kitfox.
I think a the big hole in the round cowl is way to big for the needs of the
582 and possibly a bit of drag there as well. ?
Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob" <dswaim1119@comcast.net>
Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2007 9:45 AM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Droop tips
>
> Hi Dave
>
> First off, you've got a great web-site!
>
> I don't have personal experience with the droop tips on the IV, but did
> have them on a Cessna 150 that I resurrected and flew for a year. The
> "batman tips" (I think they were the Madras STC) became a magnet for
> talking such things with other droop-tip owners. In short, they
> maybe-possibly-perhaps lowered the stall speed by a smidge (2mph?) in the
> Cessnas. It sure wasn't the 5+ mph was advertised. The Piper owners
> reported more pronounced effects, especially when in ground effect, which
> makes a lot of sense. When the stall developed in the 150, the droop tips
> did seem to make things a bit more squirrely and I liked the stall less
> than in similar planes with hoerners or the old round tips. For how low
> and slow you seem to like flying around the mud-patch, that may be
> something to consider.
>
> The hard aerodynamics and common-sense perspectives agree with what Mike
> Clayton mentioned. The big-3 in determining stall speed are your weight,
> wing area, and CL (coefficient of lift). Your plane's weight is pretty
> well established and while the tips sorta kinda make a small change in
> effective area, it is relatively small. However, the VGs change the CL
> for the entire wing. The change can be enough that the size of the
> horizontal tail can become an issue, so if you go this route put a set on
> the bottom of the horizontal stab, as well.
>
> Bob
> Aero Eng, A&P
> Vixen in work
>
> --------
> Remember that internet advice may only be worth what you pay.
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=98637#98637
>
>
>
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 |
|
I have a series IV and while I WAY behind schedule getting it
> airworthy again I am curious about tires. I currently have some ATV
> tire on there and I'm not fond of them. I have looked at a cheap
> Carlyle tire of 16.5X6.5x8 and they might be a little heavy. What
> is normal??
Dave,
Well I whole heartedly agree about those ATV tyres. Mine went in
the rubbish tin. I think your Carlyle 16.5 x 6.5 x 8 are about right.
Actually I have Goodyear lawn mower or golf cart tyres and they are 18
rather than 16.5 and if you had the choice I'd go for 18. Mine have light
fine tread but that causes no propblem. In fact I love them.
Rex.
rexjan@bigpond.com
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 |
|
Here is a place I think the droop winglets may help: It will protect
the flaperons in case of a ground loop where the wing tip touches the
ground. I never tried it so I have no idea if I am right, just a hunch.
Cheers,
Michel
I agree but although I have looped nothing touched the ground. In fact I
just held the wing up with the stick. I also used rudder but I thought that
was wasted effort. I thing holding the wing up was worthwhile though. I do
feel the droop tip may be helpfull too.
Rex..
rexjan@bigpond.com
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 |
|
I would like to think that they might help in ground effect but I cannot see
what gain they are otherwise .
They would tend to hold the vortice in longer and I think for better STOL
perhaps if they were inverted they would hold the low pressure in better on
top and possibly create more lift ? Simular to a STOL fence on a 185.
What was reason for newer Kitfoxes to have the differnt tip anyone ?
Lessening Adverse yaw would be my thought.
Speed ? I am not sure as mine runs 86 to 90mph on wheels with a 582 .
Dave
Hi Dave,
I already commented re ground loop possible protection but did
not mention other aspects because I though I was getting out of my depth.
Never the less you have expressed your thoughts so I'll express mine. I
do'nt necesarilly disagree with you but as I see it the high pressure under
the wing that normally can flow out at the tips to join the low pressure on
the top gets deflected down by the droop tips actually adding to lift. If
that high pressure is allowed to flow out from under the wing at the tip and
join the low pressure on top it negates some of the lift reducing the
effective wing area. Anyway that's as I see it and if I remember correctly
it is what I was taught.
Rex.
rexjan@bigpond.com
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: Flight to Alaska |
If you read my email carefully, I said that landing "on the highway"
is what is required. I am sure that at least for many miles there
are no facilities available anywhere else. There are facilities to
accommodate light aircraft ( I believe I said that as well), just
nothing anywhere else, unless you are close to civilization.
Mike
On Mar 4, 2007, at 11:56 AM, Ted Palamarek wrote:
> Mike
>
>
> Your statement =93there are no landing fields=94 is absolutely untrue.
> The Alaska Highway route is very well developed with all sorts of
> facilities available for small aircraft to make the trip from
> Alberta to Alaska. Just ask John King, Stan Specht and a host of
> other fellows who have made the trip. I have spent 15 years in the
> lat 60=92s and early 70=92s installing air to ground, ILS, VOR/DME at
> all the sites up and down the Highway. I really get peeved when
> some one just makes a statement without finding out the facts. You
> pilot probably flew commercial from Anchorage to Seattle and never
> saw the Highway.
>
>
> Ted
>
>
> DO NOT ARCHIVE
>
>
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-kitfox-
> list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mike
> Sent: March 4, 2007 7:02 AM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Flight to Alaska
>
>
> Steve,
>
>
> Let me chime in also. My Chief Pilot has spent over 12 years in
> Alaska, although he has been in the lower 48 for the last several
> years. He told me that the only way to fly the is to follow the
> Alcan. There are NO landing fields, and you have to land on the
> highway. The services are minimal...basically just fuel. He
> always kept the road in sight, so that if you have a problem you
> have a place to land. Flying over water should only be done on
> floats, as there are NO landing strips.
>
>
> On Mar 3, 2007, at 10:30 AM, Paul Seehafer wrote:
>
>
> Steve,
>
>
> There's a guy that wrote a two part article for Water Flying
> magazine about flying his Lake Amphibian to alaska using the route
> you are considering. It is titled "Journey on the inside
> passage", but the subtitle is "Not for novices, nor the faint of
> heart". Knowing this guy has done this trip for years in his lake
> might offer you some tremendous advice. His name is Richard
> Pellerin. He is a FAA medical examiner (previously a Green Beret
> and Navy seal fwiw), and has an occuapational website at
> www.faamed.com where I'm sure you could contact him.
>
>
> I love his quote on the site; "Just remember, if you're not living
> on the edge, you're taking up too much space".
>
>
> Paul Seehafer
>
> Central Wisconsin
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: Steve Zakreski
>
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
>
> Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2007 7:21 AM
>
> Subject: Kitfox-List: Flight to Alaska
>
>
> For those of you familiar with the West coast and Alaska=85
>
>
> It looks like I=92m ferrying an aircraft for one of our members from
> Seattle to Anchorage sometime in the next few months. The safe
> (but long) route for me to take is inland, up the Alaska Highway.
> Has anyone flown the coastal route? Am I likely to get 3 clear
> days to fly this route in late April and May? I bet it will be
> pretty.
>
>
> SteveZ
>
> Calgary
>
>
> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List">http://
> www.matronhref="http://forums.matronics.com">http://
> forums.matronics.com
> - NEW MATRONICS WEB FORUMS - class="Apple-converted-
> space"> --> http://forums.matronics.com
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List
> http://forums.matronics.com
>
> ========================
> ========================
>
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: Speaking of trips...Fla. to Cal. |
I believe the original proposed rule for LSA had the 1000 ft. AGL in it, but
it was dropped for the final rule. I don't understand the reasoning other
than transponder altitude parallel.
John Greaves
VariEze N81JG
<BR><BR><BR>**************************************<BR> AOL now offers free
email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at
http://www.aol.com.
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: Speaking of trips...Fla. to Cal. |
Thanks for that Steve. I will try to find one of my sources. It was on the
EAA site.
My other source was a speaker from the FAA at a picnic last summer. He was
asked if a sport pilot could fly into the Leadville, Colorado airport which
is just 73 feet shy of 10,000'. The speaker said sure. - and I thought
mentioned the 1,000' AGL. It must have been 2,000'.
I will see if I can find anything on the EAA site. If not, I guess I am
wrong.
Randy
.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of 84KF
Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2007 3:50 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Speaking of trips...Fla. to Cal.
!0,000' MSL ...no higher as sportpilot.
Read on.....
Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 143 / Tuesday, July 27, 2004 / Rules and
Regulations Page 44825
Proposed section 73(b)(6) of SFAR No.
89 (now 61.315(c)(11)) would have
restricted the operation of a light-sport
aircraft to altitudes of no more than
10,000 feet above MSL or 2,000 feet
above ground level (AGL), whichever is
higher. The FAA received several
comments on this proposed restriction,
and nearly all of them opposed it. Most
stated that allowing pilots to fly at
higher altitudes would enhance safety.
Several commenters noted that higher
altitudes permit safer stall and spin
recovery training because of the
increased margin for error. One
commenter specifically noted that
visibility is often better above 10,000
feet MSL, which enhances safety.
Another commenter offered a similar
observation, noting that pilots often
choose to fly at higher altitudes to avoid
flying through dangerous weather
systems. Many commenters also noted
that glider pilots often need to fly at
altitudes greater than 10,000 feet MSL to
take full advantage of areas of rising
warm air, called thermals, which help to
keep gliders aloft.
The FAA does not believe that these
commenters provided valid justification
for amending the rule. After considering
these comments and other comments
expressing concern about sport pilots
operating in congested, high-altitude
airspace, the FAA has revised
61.315(c)(11) to be more restrictive.
The rule now prohibits operations above
10,000 feet MSL, and the latitude that
was proposed for operations up to 2,000
feet AGL, if higher, is removed. The
FAA is making this revision for the
following reasons.
First, operations above 10,000 feet
MSL require that a pilot have skills and
training on oxygen requirements and
medical factors, reduced aircraft
performance, and the other risks
associated with operations at higher
altitudes. The minimum training that a
sport pilot receives does not encompass
these additional training requirements.
Second, given that the aircraft that
typically operate above 10,000 feet MSL
are often much larger than light-sport
aircraft and usually cruise at
considerably higher speeds, the FAA is
concerned about permitting light-sport
aircraft to operate at the same altitudes
as these aircraft.
Third, light-sport aircraft typically do
not have position or anticollision lights
to help other pilots see and avoid these
aircraft, which would be beneficial at
higher speeds.
Lastly, there are still many areas in
the United States where operations
above 10,000 feet MSL do not require
communication with ATC or the
equipment required to be easily
identified on radar by ATC, such as
transponders. Most light-sport aircraft
do not have transponders or the
capability to conduct radio
communications, reducing their ability
to coordinate their operations with ATC
and be easily identified to ensure
collision avoidance.
Several commenters disagreed with
the limit of 2,000 feet AGL, arguing that
most pilots would prefer, in the interest
of safety, to clear mountains by more
than 2,000 feet AGL. The FAA agrees
with these commenters in that there
could be circumstances in which a sport
pilot would need more than 2,000 feet
AGL to safely clear a mountain.
However, as discussed above regarding
training and equipment required for
high-altitude operations, the FAA does
not believe it is necessary to permit
operations above 10,000 feet MSL solely
for the purpose of crossing mountainous
terrain. The pilot must determine
whether it is safe to clear mountainous
terrain and remain below 10,000 feet
MSL.
The FAA is revising 61.311(c), and
limiting sport pilot operations at all
times to below 10,000 feet MSL. The
FAA believes that this revision will
simplify the altitude restrictions and
increase the level of safety.
If this has been changed since original publication, I will stand corrected.
Steve
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=98711#98711
Message 26
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Speaking of trips...Fla. to Cal. |
The 10,000' rule is a pilot certificate issue, and has nothing to do with LSA.
also... A pilot holding at least a private certificate may fly a ELSA or SLSA
aircraft above 10'000' MSL (if properly equipped.)
The aircraft in question is an experimental-amateur built being flown under sportpilot
privileges, not to be confused with LSA compliant aircraft. Don't worry...seems
to be a common misconception.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=98778#98778
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: Droop Wing Tips |
I believe droop tips help somewhat in taxiing in a crosswind. The upwind w
ing does not seem to want to lift as much as without.=0A=0AJim Shumaker=0A
=0A=0A----- Original Message ----=0AFrom: Rex & Jan Shaw <rexjan@bigpond.co
m>=0ATo: kitfox-list@matronics.com=0ASent: Sunday, March 4, 2007 7:35:56 PM
=0ASubject: Kitfox-List: Droop Wing Tips=0A=0A=0A--> Kitfox-List message po
sted by: "Rex & Jan Shaw" <rexjan@bigpond.com>=0A=0AI would like to think t
hat they might help in ground effect but I cannot see=0Awhat gain they are
otherwise .=0AThey would tend to hold the vortice in longer and I think for
better STOL=0Aperhaps if they were inverted they would hold the low press
ure in better on=0Atop and possibly create more lift ? Simular to a STOL
fence on a 185.=0A=0AWhat was reason for newer Kitfoxes to have the differn
t tip anyone ?=0ALessening Adverse yaw would be my thought.=0ASpeed ? I a
m not sure as mine runs 86 to 90mph on wheels with a 582 .=0A=0ADave=0A=0A
Hi Dave,=0A I already commented re ground loop possible protec
tion but did=0Anot mention other aspects because I though I was getting ou
t of my depth.=0ANever the less you have expressed your thoughts so I'll
express mine. I=0Ado'nt necesarilly disagree with you but as I see it the h
igh pressure under=0Athe wing that normally can flow out at the tips to joi
n the low pressure on=0Athe top gets deflected down by the droop tips actua
lly adding to lift. If=0Athat high pressure is allowed to flow out from un
der the wing at the tip and=0Ajoin the low pressure on top it negates some
of the lift reducing the=0Aeffective wing area. Anyway that's as I see it a
nd if I remember correctly=0Ait is what I was taught.=0A=0ARex.=0Arexjan@bi
======
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: | Bing Carbs shaking problem solved. |
This is a new post for general information and is not a reponse to previous
posts, even though the problem may be the same or similar.=0A=0AI have bee
n having a problem with my carbs spitting fuel out the overflows during idl
e. I had replaced the needles, needle jets, fuel needle and the fuel need
le seat. New diaphrams, hoses floats and pressure regulators. As well as
float lever and axle. =0A=0AEvery time I would replace some part and adjus
t cables, needle valves or clean orfices or change pressures the problem se
emed to be solved and then the next time the engine was started it would ru
n terrible.=0A=0ANothing helped. The Bing dealer was helpful. They guided
me in the right direction or confirmed my settings and procedures when I c
alled. When I had tried every thing they told me to set, they said that t
he overflow was from the running rough at idle causing the floats to allow
the float needle to unseat and causeing the fuel to spash out the overflow.
They were right, but My experiance seemed to be that the rough running wa
s caused by the overflow rather than the other way around.=0A=0AOne of the
changes I had made when adjusting the pressure regulator to limit the press
ure to the fuel needle seat was to lower the jet needle circlip which riche
ned the mixture (but only in the midrange - I thought). My logic for makin
g this change was faulty, so we will not go into that now.=0A=0AWhen I move
d the needle jet circlip back to the Factory setting of the second groove d
own from the top, the shaking during idle settled down to nearly nothing.
A little bit of fine tuning and the engine is now running better than it ev
er has at idle.=0A=0ASo....what was happening is that when the jet needle w
as raised in the main jet it richened the mixture so much that the engine m
issed and ran rough and caused the floats to unport and allow extra fuel i
n which raised the fuel level and richened the mixture and made the engine
miss and run rough and on and on. When the mixture did not make the engine
run too rough the idle could be set and all seemed ok. But then once the
engine started flooding from being too rich the problem fed on itself and t
he engine ran terrible. =0A=0AHope this is helpful to someone.=0A=0AJim Sh
umaker
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: | Flight to Alaska |
I have been planning to go up from central California
around June 12 and back around July 5, allowing 2
weeks to go up, fly around parts of the state and get
back plus 1 week for weather. I have been looking
locally for pilots with 100 mph planes to go along but
so far have found no one due to the distance, time,
and expense. Anyone on the list who is interested
contact me off list at kitfoxfugit@yahoo.com. Plans
need to be made now to have everything ready by June,
such as passports, required survival kits, Canadian
flight guides, a place to carry baggage, etc.
To debrun26@juno.com, my son may be interested in
taking your Kitfox up if he is available in June. He
is commercial/instrument/multi rated but is building
taildragger time in a Champ right now while trying to
get hired in AK and finishing up comittments in CA.
Whoever takes yours up or wants to come, we are
planning to stop at Lynden WA after the 1st day out.
That might be a good place for those who may want to
come along to rondezvous. The plan is to more or less
follow the Stewart Cassiar Highway ie. Cassiar Highway
37 up depending upon winds and weather. Assuming you
are in Juneau, flying over the coast range to Juneau
would be a question, but I don't know why it couldn't
be brought back down from Whitehorse to Skagway, then
to Juneau, assuming that is where you want it.
John Allen, Kitfox IV Speedster 912UL
Get your own web address.
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/domains/?p=BESTDEAL
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! --
|