---------------------------------------------------------- Kitfox-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Tue 03/20/07: 18 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 12:38 AM - Re: flase ribs (Michael Gibbs) 2. 12:38 AM - Re: Droop tips -Crusie speeds mods. (Michael Gibbs) 3. 01:04 AM - Re: Re: Droop tips -Crusie speeds mods. (QSS) 4. 04:19 AM - Re: Bing Carb Flooding (michael paton) 5. 06:23 AM - Re: Re: Please read this sort of OT (flier) 6. 06:26 AM - Re: Please read this sort of OT (flier) 7. 07:21 AM - Re: flase ribs (Bob) 8. 08:17 AM - Re: Droop tips -Crusie speeds mods. (kitfoxmike) 9. 10:08 AM - Re: flase ribs (Michel Verheughe) 10. 12:18 PM - Re: Rotax For Sale (Noel Loveys) 11. 06:57 PM - Re: Mielage: Fuel consumption based on gallons per hour (Randy Daughenbaugh) 12. 07:32 PM - Re: Bing Carb Flooding (Cudnohufsky's) 13. 07:32 PM - Fuel consumption based on gallons per hour (fox5flyer) 14. 08:04 PM - Re: Source code in posts - Off topic (Larry/Cathy Boone) 15. 08:19 PM - Re: Source code in posts - Off topic (Kitfoxv@comcast.net) 16. 08:48 PM - Re: Re: Please read this sort of OT (Kitfoxv@comcast.net) 17. 09:55 PM - Re: Source code in posts - Off topic (Larry/Cathy Boone) 18. 10:26 PM - Re: Source code in posts - Off topic (Kitfoxv@comcast.net) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 12:38:36 AM PST US From: Michael Gibbs Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: flase ribs Noel sez: >You said @ 0 deg there would be no lift nor induced drag I'm not too >sure how you define induced drag. One of the problems with a mass >moving through a fluid ( air ) is there is always drag induced by >the movement. Clem is quite right. Induced drag is the drag that comes from the production of lift. You are referring to parasite drag, Noel. No lift = no induced drag. >The other observation I would like to make is that many planes e.g. >the CH701 actually have "upside down" airfoils on the tail to >actually push the tail down and apply load to the wings. With very few exceptions, all aircraft with conventional tails (those without canards) have downward lifting tails. Having the center of mass forward of the center of lift is what provides stability in the pitch axis. Mike G. N728KF ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 12:38:36 AM PST US From: Michael Gibbs Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Droop tips -Crusie speeds mods. kitfoxmike sez: >...by that time the fox is moving very slow and after touch I hit >the brakes lightly and stop it, very short. forget the flaps. My Model IV-1200 Speedster could touch down considerably slower with full flaps than without. It also got off the ground much quicker with 1/2 flaps on takeoff--as little as 120 feet one time. You are missing out on half the performance your plane is capable of. Mike G. N728KF ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 01:04:35 AM PST US From: "QSS" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: Droop tips -Crusie speeds mods. I agree Mike, I have been experimenting with flaps for a while now and I realise the group has divided thoughts about their effectiveness but I am confident the short field performance with flaps is better than without. A while back I was landing in 15 knots of cross wind with 20 degrees of flap with no noticeable aileron control loss. The big deficit as I see it is that if you do get some drift on the flair, dont dump your flaps to gain more aileron authority or your going to end up with a bent plane. Just use power and go around. I use with and with out depending on conditions and feel I know my plane better for it. Just my 2 bobs worth. Regards Graeme ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Gibbs" Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 5:37 PM Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Droop tips -Crusie speeds mods. > > kitfoxmike sez: > >>...by that time the fox is moving very slow and after touch I hit the >>brakes lightly and stop it, very short. forget the flaps. > > My Model IV-1200 Speedster could touch down considerably slower with full > flaps than without. It also got off the ground much quicker with 1/2 > flaps on takeoff--as little as 120 feet one time. You are missing out on > half the performance your plane is capable of. > > Mike G. > N728KF > > > -- > 19/03/2007 11:49 AM > > ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 04:19:03 AM PST US From: michael paton Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Bing Carb Flooding thanks for this info , have been having the same prob , will try jets=0A9J- FOX=0A=0A----- Original Message ----=0AFrom: fox5flyer =0ATo: kitfox-list@matronics.com=0ASent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 3:13: 31 AM=0ASubject: Re: Kitfox-List: Bing Carb Flooding=0A=0A--> Kitfox-List m essage posted by: "fox5flyer" =0A=0AI don't know i f this has anything to do with the problem or the fix, but=0Aback when I ha d my Model II with gray head 582 I had a big problem (from the=0Agit-go) wi th the engine running very rough at idle, but as the rpms went up=0Athe eng ine would smooth out, but not until it got over 3k. At 2k idle it=0Awould shake so badly that the floats would overfill the bowls and fuel would=0Apo ur out the vents. Obviously, this overfilling of the bowls just=0Aexacerba ted the problem so it was difficult to see what the actual problem=0Awas, e specially since the float levels were set to factory settings. I=0Afooled around with it for awhile changing needles, balance, etc., and while=0Aa f riend was over we were discussing what to do because everything was brand =0Anew and we felt that there was probably nothing actually wrong with the =0Acarbs. As we talked about it one of us said something about the idle je ts=0Amaybe being too rich as the carbs may have been assembled for a differ ent=0Aaltitude. I thought it was worth a try so I ordered from Spruce a se t of=0Aidle jets the next size leaner and voila! Smoothed right out! End of=0Aproblem. Of course, I had to make the usual twice a year change to th e=0Amains to compensate for the wild temp swings here in Michigan, but actu ally=0Anever had any fuel related problems again for 400 hours.=0AHope this might help a little bit.=0ADeke=0A=0A----- Original Message ----- =0AFrom: "W & R Beck" =0ATo: =0ASent: Monday, March 19, 2007 6:27 PM=0ASubject: Re: Kitfox-List: Bing Ca orkebb@earthlink.net>=0A>=0A> Folks:=0A>=0A> I will be interested to hear w hat others say about this as I have had the=0A> same intermittent problem w ith my 350 hour greyhead, and on the rear carb=0A> only. Wierd. LEAF advise d me to check the fuel levels -1/2"- in the=0Abowls,=0A> and the plunger that the floats work against to shut off fuel; its viton=0Atip=0A> should b e clear of debris and not worn. My was clean and not worn and=0Afloat=0A> l evels are good, but I found the rear float in the rear carb binding in=0Ath e=0A> down position. If you pushed it down with fuel in the bowl it would n ot=0A> float back up. So I changed the rear float in each carb for the new style=0A> that has beveled corners. Now there is no possibility that either float=0Awill=0A> bind in either carb. But I still don't know if that was t he problem. I=0A> suspect not. The annual will be finished on the plane soo n and we'll have=0Ato=0A> see how it goes then.=0A>=0A> Robert=0A>=0A>=0A> > Hi ! Guys,=0A> > I have a Bluehead 582 about 150 hours old so I would not=0A> > expect worn parts and they certainly look ok. Howeve r every now and=0Athen=0A> > the back carby floods. When it does I get roug h running down low. If the=0A> > motor is not running then I get some dribb ling out of those two little=0A> > holes=0A> > in the vent loop. It only do es it several weeks apart. If I pull the=0Abowl=0A> > I=0A> > can't find an ything either in the bowl or needle and seat. It's a worry=0A> > because i t drips on the muffler. In flight I just give it full throttle=0A> > and =0A> > back off again and it's fine. On the ground if I pull the bowl off I =0Afind=0A> > nothing and all is fine when I put it back. Being intermitten t like that=0A> > it=0A> > makes it very hard to find. It's always only the back bowl and=0A> > theoretically=0A> > nothing can get to the needle and seat anyway. I have a filter and a=0A> > gascolator. Any common problems like this or any ideas would be=0A> > appreciated. Thanks in advance, Rex. ===================0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A =0A=0A=0A=0A =0A___________________________________________________________ _________________________=0ANow that's room service! Choose from over 150, 000 hotels=0Ain 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit.=0Aht tp://farechase.yahoo.com/promo-generic-14795097 ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 06:23:59 AM PST US From: "flier" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: Please read this sort of OT What I'm trying to figure out is why anyone would want to listen to another conversation of yours about that rule. Let it go! DO NOT ARCHIVE --- Original Message --- From: "84KF" Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Please read this sort of OT > >If anyone is interested, Avidflyer and I will be "discussing" (cough...cough...) the "Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 143 / Tuesday, July 27, 2004 / Rules and Regulations", also known as the "Final Rule" > He has agreed to actually read the document, when time permits, and present his opinions. What is encouraging is that the man was honest enough to admit that at this time he has NOT read it... as I suspect many of the group here has not either. > That's good enough for me as it shows that he is a free thinker, and not reliant on others to make decisions for him. Some of us live our lives based on our own thinking and judgement. Some, incapable of that, just sit back.., accept the words of others at factual, and when asked to prove those words, merely retort "well..., that's what I was told." or as here, tend to quote the very commercial publication who's statements are being contested. Hello? >Stay abreast of this in the following days at http://www.avidfoxflyers.com/ >And... please offer any input or questions you care to. >Sugested reading beforehand is "Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 143 / Tuesday, July 27, 2004 / Rules and Regulations" available for download, .pdf format, from the AOPA site: > http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/regulatory/regsport.html >Look for it in the "Related Documents" at the bottom of the page. > >steve > > >Read this topic online here: > >http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php? p=101801#101801 > > >_- ===================================================== ===== browse Subscriptions page, FAQ, List >_- ===================================================== ===== Web Forums! >_- ===================================================== ===== > > ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 06:26:04 AM PST US From: "flier" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Please read this sort of OT Don't worry guys. You'all have fun over there. --- Original Message --- From: "avidflyer" Subject: Kitfox-List: Please read this sort of OT > >Some of you are under the impression that I want to rip this list apart and take a bunch of members with me... NOTHING could be farther from the truth.. >My intention is to stay a member of this list and learn as much as possible... The "other" site is a place we can go to chat, flame, and carry on without pissing off anyone. > > >Read this topic online here: > >http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php? p=101784#101784 > > >_- ===================================================== ===== browse Subscriptions page, FAQ, List >_- ===================================================== ===== Web Forums! >_- ===================================================== ===== > > ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 07:21:44 AM PST US Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: flase ribs From: "Bob" Looks like it's mostly covered, just an engineer's input/side-track on airfoil moments. To create lift, the wing airfoil tries to pitch it's nose downward (actually, the CL lifts the trailing edge) which engineers express as coefficient of moment (Cm). The tail is initially designed to offset that Cm and the download is typically roughly (note the combination of 2 weasel words) 10% of the wing lift. This is a drag that we pay for in fuel burn and it can be offset by using the cg in lieu of some tail downforce, or by adding a canard (which has it's own drag). That's why cruise speed and fuel burn typically do a bit better at aft cg. We control the pitch of the plane by controlling how much or little the tail offsets the CM. What we know as the ends of the cg range are just within the number of pounds of force that the elevator can make. As we all know, bad things can happen when we exceed those limits of cg and elevator authority. While we are on this side-track, wreckage of airplanes that lose part of the horizontal tail (like early Bonanzas) are easy to spot. As soon as the tail starts to fail and not generate downforce, the nose snaps down and the wings break in a downward direction, rather than up. Back to the original question about adding ribs, though. Airflow hates flat surfaces, especially if they can vibrate slightly. It creates all sorts of drag to run air along a flat slab. This is the not-so-secret of fish, birds, cars, hulls, etc. The early Kitfoxes and Avids flew fine without the ribs and they were lighter, but adding ribs in the later airplanes provided a curvature for the air to follow. The pressure of the leading edge of this slight airfoil shape will become positive and the aft portion will be negative, so there isn't the draggy turbulence created by vibrating the flat surface, either. The net effect is that a slightly curved surface should reduce drag at cruise and delay boundary layer separation at the stalling point of that surface. Whether the speed differences at cuise and stall are enough for you to do the work is subjective and up to you. Bob Aero Eng (but work aircraft systems), A&P -------- Remember that internet advice may only be worth what you pay. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=101880#101880 ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 08:17:47 AM PST US Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Droop tips -Crusie speeds mods. From: "kitfoxmike" tough group -------- kitfoxmike model IV, 1200 speedster 912ul Do not archive Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=101895#101895 ________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________ Time: 10:08:28 AM PST US From: Michel Verheughe Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: flase ribs A bit off-topic! On Mar 19, 2007, at 10:30 PM, Noel Loveys wrote: > You said @ 0 deg there would be no lift nor induced drag Delayed by living in different time zones, you already go a very good answer from Clem, Noel, and the excellent explanation from Bob, which I enjoyed reading. > BTW what sim are you using where you can use NACA foils??? It is called X-Plane that you can find at www.x-plane.com. It runs on PC, Mac and Linux. You can download a free demo that will let you fly for six minutes with a joystick. After that, only the AP will work. As the X in the name indicates, it is more a flight simulator for experimenting than Microsoft Flight Simulator. It comes with the tools to make you own aircraft and I would even say, any craft because I even modelled landsailers with it. After all, a sail is nothing more than a not-so-good wing profile. The simulator is based on what is called the blade theory, where all elements are divided in a number of objects with eventual lift, drag and moment; the latter being what Bob talks about. Of course, there are limitations. Airfoils data are tested in wind tunnels and go up to 20 degrees angle of incidence. That's because nearly all will stall beyond that. It means that when flying in a normal attitude envelope, the simulation is quite good. But beyond that, as e.g. in a spin; it may not be realistic at all. But then, no simulator will because such an attitude would request the use of CFD (Computational Fluid Dynamic) where each "parcel" of air is simulated and an individual object. That kind of simulation cannot happen on home computers at real-time speed, unfortunately. But I have learnt a lot with X-Plane and I still enjoy changing small parameters and see how it affects the behaviour. My Kitfox is, of course, modelled as well as I could (with 3D cockpit) and is available at x-plane.org, the place where one distribute aircraft and scenery. Cheers, Michel do not archive ________________________________ Message 10 ____________________________________ Time: 12:18:38 PM PST US From: "Noel Loveys" Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Rotax For Sale Which PSRU? B,C or E Noel -----Original Message----- From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jerry Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 12:07 AM Subject: Kitfox-List: Rotax For Sale I have a Rotax 583 fwf engine, mount, exhaust, psru, prop and all related hardware for sale. It was removed to install 2200 Jabiru. Would like to sell to someone in need of an engine. Price negotiable, best offer, plus shipping. It is in Lewiston, Idaho. Thanks Jerry Do not archive ________________________________ Message 11 ____________________________________ Time: 06:57:06 PM PST US From: "Randy Daughenbaugh" Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Mielage: Fuel consumption based on gallons per hour I will throw out one data point for a series 5 with series 7 firewall forward and 912S. >From Rapid City, South Dakota to just past the other side of South Dakota - Sioux Center Iowa. 390 miles, 430 miles on I-90, about 4.3 hours on clock, one stop, 13 gal premium car gas 30 miles per gallon. I now have a better prop and am quite a bit faster and burning more like 3.3 gal/hr. Randy . _____ From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of L Klingmuller Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 2:10 PM Subject: Kitfox-List: Mielage: Fuel consumption based on gallons per hour The subject of fuel consumtion has so many variables: speed, engine, altitude, airplane, weight, inclusion/exclusions, averages, etc, etc Now here is a chanllange for those who have been flying some longer x-country flights and have computed AVERAGE trip milages. What is your average MILAGE e. g. st miles/gal or n miles/gal?? Here some recent data for an RV-6A based on total gl used for the total GPS milage flown from Denver / Tucson / southern Calf/ Albuquerque/Denver (includes one hour of sight seeing and all taxiing etc) Total GPS milage: 2000 nml Total fuel: 102 gl Average milage: 22.5 gl/st ml ________________________________ Message 12 ____________________________________ Time: 07:32:55 PM PST US From: "Cudnohufsky's" <7suds@Chartermi.net> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Bing Carb Flooding Deke, Interesting, had a similar problem with the 503DCDI in my 4, but on the top end. Idle was great but on the way back from Oshkosh one year (very hot0 developed a miss and decided to land at a little grass strip in Wisconsin, tried changing plugs but still had the miss and was not comfortable leaving the ground, finally tried pulling the air filters and that allowed the engine to lean out enough to clear up. When I got home I ordered different mains and would have to change main jets for really hot weather. Lloyd * Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. 1 Thes. 5:21 * ----- Original Message ----- From: "fox5flyer" Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 8:13 PM Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Bing Carb Flooding > > I don't know if this has anything to do with the problem or the fix, but > back when I had my Model II with gray head 582 I had a big problem (from > the > git-go) with the engine running very rough at idle, but as the rpms went > up > the engine would smooth out, but not until it got over 3k. At 2k idle it > would shake so badly that the floats would overfill the bowls and fuel > would > pour out the vents. Obviously, this overfilling of the bowls just > exacerbated the problem so it was difficult to see what the actual problem > was, especially since the float levels were set to factory settings. I > fooled around with it for awhile changing needles, balance, etc., and > while > a friend was over we were discussing what to do because everything was > brand > new and we felt that there was probably nothing actually wrong with the > carbs. As we talked about it one of us said something about the idle jets > maybe being too rich as the carbs may have been assembled for a different > altitude. I thought it was worth a try so I ordered from Spruce a set of > idle jets the next size leaner and voila! Smoothed right out! End of > problem. Of course, I had to make the usual twice a year change to the > mains to compensate for the wild temp swings here in Michigan, but > actually > never had any fuel related problems again for 400 hours. > Hope this might help a little bit. > Deke > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "W & R Beck" > To: > Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 6:27 PM > Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Bing Carb Flooding > > >> >> >> Folks: >> >> I will be interested to hear what others say about this as I have had the >> same intermittent problem with my 350 hour greyhead, and on the rear carb >> only. Wierd. LEAF advised me to check the fuel levels -1/2"- in the > bowls, >> and the plunger that the floats work against to shut off fuel; its viton > tip >> should be clear of debris and not worn. My was clean and not worn and > float >> levels are good, but I found the rear float in the rear carb binding in > the >> down position. If you pushed it down with fuel in the bowl it would not >> float back up. So I changed the rear float in each carb for the new style >> that has beveled corners. Now there is no possibility that either float > will >> bind in either carb. But I still don't know if that was the problem. I >> suspect not. The annual will be finished on the plane soon and we'll have > to >> see how it goes then. >> >> Robert >> >> >> > Hi ! Guys, >> > I have a Bluehead 582 about 150 hours old so I would not >> > expect worn parts and they certainly look ok. However every now and > then >> > the back carby floods. When it does I get rough running down low. If >> > the >> > motor is not running then I get some dribbling out of those two little >> > holes >> > in the vent loop. It only does it several weeks apart. If I pull the > bowl >> > I >> > can't find anything either in the bowl or needle and seat. It's a >> > worry >> > because it drips on the muffler. In flight I just give it full >> > throttle >> > and >> > back off again and it's fine. On the ground if I pull the bowl off I > find >> > nothing and all is fine when I put it back. Being intermittent like >> > that >> > it >> > makes it very hard to find. It's always only the back bowl and >> > theoretically >> > nothing can get to the needle and seat anyway. I have a filter and a >> > gascolator. Any common problems like this or any ideas would be >> > appreciated. Thanks in advance, Rex. >> > rexjan@bigpond.com >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > ________________________________ Message 13 ____________________________________ Time: 07:32:55 PM PST US From: "fox5flyer" Subject: Kitfox-List: Fuel consumption based on gallons per hour That's some great fuel economy Randy. What sort of average cruise speeds were you getting for the trip? Deke ----- Original Message ----- From: Randy Daughenbaugh To: kitfox-list@matronics.com Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 8:58 PM Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Mielage: Fuel consumption based on gallons per hour I will throw out one data point for a series 5 with series 7 firewall forward and 912S. From Rapid City, South Dakota to just past the other side of South Dakota - Sioux Center Iowa. 390 miles, 430 miles on I-90, about 4.3 hours on clock, one stop, 13 gal premium car gas 30 miles per gallon. I now have a better prop and am quite a bit faster and burning more like 3.3 gal/hr. Randy . ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of L Klingmuller Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 2:10 PM To: kitfox-list@matronics.com Subject: Kitfox-List: Mielage: Fuel consumption based on gallons per hour The subject of fuel consumtion has so many variables: speed, engine, altitude, airplane, weight, inclusion/exclusions, averages, etc, etc Now here is a chanllange for those who have been flying some longer x-country flights and have computed AVERAGE trip milages. What is your average MILAGE e. g. st miles/gal or n miles/gal?? Here some recent data for an RV-6A based on total gl used for the total GPS milage flown from Denver / Tucson / southern Calf/ Albuquerque/Denver (includes one hour of sight seeing and all taxiing etc) Total GPS milage: 2000 nml Total fuel: 102 gl Average milage: 22.5 gl/st ml ________________________________ Message 14 ____________________________________ Time: 08:04:44 PM PST US From: "Larry/Cathy Boone" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Source code in posts - Off topic BIG PROBLEMO? No, but it takes a lot of concentration (time) to figure out exactly what you are trying to say. After reading the "give and take" on some of the issues, "exactly" is a big deal and time is a precious comodity for some of us. You might want to consider the concept of "first impressions" in the quality of communications. If something of importance is being said, how it is said can be just as important to the receiver of the message relating to its perceived value and its source. The natural tendency of a human being is to think "if it looks like garbage, it probably is garbage." There is an old saying in the computer industry, "garbage in-garbage out." There is another saying in aircraft maintenance, "if it looks good (i.e. welds, machined parts, etc.), it probably is good." The opposite is true also. If I apply the above to communications about technical issues through the email, then if the message looks like garbage it could very well be garbage and/or the source of it is a producer of garbage. So why should I waste my time trying to read it? If it is considered important enough by the sender to communicate with us, please make it look like it is important enough to read. If the fix, is simple, why not fix it? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Noel Loveys" Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2007 4:05 PM Subject: Kitfox-List: Source code in posts - Off topic > > Just wondering if there is actually any one out there who will admit to > having a big problem with reading the little bit of code that is in some > of > the posts? If I had a big problem with it I wouldn't let on. > > Noel > Before I forget do not archive > BTW I also changed the subject Etc.Etc. > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com >> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of fox5flyer >> Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2007 10:40 AM >> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com >> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: Corrosion Protecting Aluminum >> >> >> >> >> Emails like this coming from new guys makes me roll my eyes, >> especially >> early in the morning before I finish my cup of coffee. >> "actual Kitfox List >> web site"? "the List site is only way to go"? >> First off Steve, I appreciate your input. You seem like a fairly well >> informed guy, but Jim is right. You are having a >> configuration problem with >> your mailer, or perhaps it's the method you use to >> copy/paste. It isn't the >> other 500 people here, but you're making it their problem. >> Your emails are >> the only ones coming as Jim Crowder described. You've been >> told about it >> before, but apparently ignored it. >> Second, if there is an "actual Kitfox List web site" it would be >> Sportflight.com. Matronics is a mail server. >> And third, your opinion about "the List site viewing is only >> way to go" is >> noted, but what you don't seem to understand is that this >> list has been >> around for close to 20 years, gone through several mail list >> servers, and >> still has many of us old timers hanging on, as well as some >> charter members >> who kind of like the email version of the list. When we >> changed to Matt >> Dralle's Matronics server about two years ago there was no >> forum at that >> time, but was added about a year or so ago as an option. >> What is happening >> is that many new members are taking the forum option because >> they aren't >> aware of the email option and we're getting a mix of forum and email, >> probably in the neighborhood of 20/80. One of the big >> problems with the >> forum version is that for the 80 percent of us using the >> email version is >> that we often don't know what the forum contributor is >> talking about because >> he/she usually doesn't quote any part of the message they're >> responding to. >> Not a huge problem, but definitely an annoyance. >> Please check your configuration settings and set them to >> plain text so that >> we don't have to sift through all the html codes. A lot of us would >> appreciate it. >> Deke Morisse >> List Janitor/Manager/Administrator/whatever... >> >> >> > Sorry... I do realize that my post may show up somewhat >> "corrupted" when >> read through misc. e-mail clients. All I can say is when >> viewed using the >> actual Kitfox List web site >> http://forums.matronics.com/viewforum.php?f=8&sid=83b6acbe5602 >> af72d6c023eab4688518 >> > all will be right and legible. >> > I sometimes compose using Microsoft works, then cut and >> paste to the List >> Message Body window, and this might be a cause of corrupted >> e-mail. It does >> not affect the List site viewing. >> > >> > I post right to the site, and forget that others receive >> through e-mail. >> While I regret the e-mail corruption, it is not my intention >> to send e-mail >> to every viewerreader. IMHO, the List site is the only way to go. >> > Thanks for the input. >> > Steve >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > Read this topic online here: >> > >> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=101168#101168 >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > ________________________________ Message 15 ____________________________________ Time: 08:19:14 PM PST US From: Kitfoxv@comcast.net Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Source code in posts - Off topic > "if the message looks like garbage it could very well be garbage and/or the > source of it is a producer of garbage. " what's your point? steve ________________________________ Message 16 ____________________________________ Time: 08:48:15 PM PST US From: Kitfoxv@comcast.net Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: Please read this sort of OT "as here, tend to quote the very commercial publication who's statements are being contested. Hello?" Hmm, must have hit someones sore spot eh? Guess that's why 84KF is now denied access. Gee, who has the access to do that? perhaps..... ________________________________ Message 17 ____________________________________ Time: 09:55:46 PM PST US From: "Larry/Cathy Boone" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Source code in posts - Off topic My point-- if the message is difficult to read because a computer program changes the typed figure/letters into another form and then the message literally looks like the message sender had his fingers on the wrong keys, then the first impression is that the message is garbage or at least not quickly deciphered or maybe not worth the effort to decipher. If the sender has a quick fix available, why not use it? ----- Original Message ----- From: Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 8:18 PM Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Source code in posts - Off topic > > >> "if the message looks like garbage it could very well be garbage and/or >> the >> source of it is a producer of garbage. " > > what's your point? > steve > > > ________________________________ Message 18 ____________________________________ Time: 10:26:02 PM PST US From: Kitfoxv@comcast.net Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Source code in posts - Off topic You also have the option to go to the original site of the post and read it in plain language, exactly as posted. The poster is not sending you e-mail, the server is. If that facility is not capable of sending accurate copies, why do YOU use it .(e-mail) ..and why do you rag on the original writer? I repeat...the writer\poster is not sending it to your personal e-mail box. Get it?? Duh...? You still didn't explain your crude, rude and statement..... "if the message looks like garbage it could very well be garbage and/or the source of it is a producer of garbage." You imply the writer is garbage. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Other Matronics Email List Services ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post A New Message kitfox-list@matronics.com UN/SUBSCRIBE http://www.matronics.com/subscription List FAQ http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/Kitfox-List.htm Web Forum Interface To Lists http://forums.matronics.com Matronics List Wiki http://wiki.matronics.com Full Archive Search Engine http://www.matronics.com/search 7-Day List Browse http://www.matronics.com/browse/kitfox-list Browse Digests http://www.matronics.com/digest/kitfox-list Browse Other Lists http://www.matronics.com/browse Live Online Chat! http://www.matronics.com/chat Archive Downloading http://www.matronics.com/archives Photo Share http://www.matronics.com/photoshare Other Email Lists http://www.matronics.com/emaillists Contributions http://www.matronics.com/contribution ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.