Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 03:49 AM - Cross country/MOA's/Thunder Ridge (Lynn Matteson)
2. 04:14 AM - site update - 152 hours on plug pics ()
3. 04:17 AM - 582 cruise speed (was) Most HP on a Kitfox? Which Engine ()
4. 05:01 AM - Re: My new Foxkit (fox5flyer)
5. 05:48 AM - Re: Poly/Plastic tanks (Bob)
6. 06:01 AM - Re: Cross country/MOA's/Thunder Ridge (Bob)
7. 06:05 AM - Re: My new Foxkit (Bob)
8. 06:22 AM - Re: Re: (was) Most HP on a Kitfox? Which Engine (Noel Loveys)
9. 06:27 AM - Re: Re: New fuel proof Wing Tanks (Noel Loveys)
10. 06:29 AM - Re: Re: New fuel proof Wing Tanks (Noel Loveys)
11. 06:33 AM - Re: Re: Poly/Plastic tanks (Noel Loveys)
12. 06:55 AM - Re: Cross country/MOA's/Thunder Ridge (mscotter@comcast.net)
13. 07:09 AM - Re: Fox Classix 4 (Barry West)
14. 07:46 AM - KF IV Builder Logs or Time (Harry Cieslar)
15. 07:50 AM - Re: Cross country/MOA's/Thunder Ridge (Noel Loveys)
16. 07:58 AM - Re: 582 cruise speed (was) Most HP on a Kitfox? Which Engine (Lowell Fitt)
17. 08:07 AM - Re: Cross country/MOA's/Thunder Ridge (Guy Buchanan)
18. 08:18 AM - Re: Fox Classix 4 (Larry Huntley)
19. 08:19 AM - Re: IO240 prop (n85ae)
20. 08:19 AM - Re: Cross country/MOA's/Thunder Ridge (mscotter@comcast.net)
21. 08:25 AM - Re: Most HP on a Kitfox? (n85ae)
22. 08:33 AM - Re: Cross country/MOA's/Thunder Ridge (Marco Menezes)
23. 08:42 AM - Re: Re: New fuel proof Wing Tanks (Ted Palamarek)
24. 08:48 AM - Flaperon Protective Covering (Mdkitfox@aol.com)
25. 09:25 AM - Fox Classic (Harry Cieslar)
26. 09:36 AM - Re: (was) Most HP on a Kitfox? Which Engine (Bob)
27. 09:47 AM - Re: (was) Most HP on a Kitfox? Which Engine (Bob)
28. 09:49 AM - 582 coolant weep (Larry Martin)
29. 09:52 AM - Re: Flaperon Protective Covering (Lynn Matteson)
30. 10:07 AM - Re: (was) Most HP on a Kitfox? Which Engine (n85ae)
31. 10:07 AM - Re: Re: Cross country/MOA's/Thunder Ridge (Lynn Matteson)
32. 10:11 AM - Re: 582 coolant weep (Tom Jones)
33. 10:15 AM - Re: (no subject) (Clint Bazzill)
34. 10:18 AM - Re: Cross country/MOA's/Thunder Ridge (Lynn Matteson)
35. 10:25 AM - Re: 582 coolant weep (Lynn Matteson)
36. 10:25 AM - Re: Re: New fuel proof Wing Tanks (tc9008@aol.com)
37. 10:31 AM - Re: Re: 582 coolant weep ()
38. 01:20 PM - Re: Cross country/MOA's/Thunder Ridge (Randy Daughenbaugh)
39. 01:53 PM - Re: 582 coolant weep (Larry Martin)
40. 02:34 PM - Re: Short wing weights (kurt schrader)
41. 02:55 PM - Re: Cross country/MOA's/Thunder Ridge (kurt schrader)
42. 03:02 PM - Re: (no subject) (kirk hull)
43. 03:15 PM - Re: (no subject) (Clint Bazzill)
44. 03:48 PM - Trimming Acrylic Windshield (GENTRYLL@aol.com)
45. 04:24 PM - Re: Trimming Acrylic Windshield (Lynn Matteson)
46. 06:02 PM - Re: Cross country/MOA's/Thunder Ridge (Noel Loveys)
47. 06:05 PM - Re: Cross country/MOA's/Thunder Ridge (Noel Loveys)
48. 06:33 PM - Re: Re: New fuel proof Wing Tanks (Noel Loveys)
49. 07:09 PM - Re: Trimming Acrylic Windshield (Noel Loveys)
50. 07:15 PM - Re: Re: (was) Most HP on a Kitfox? Which Engine (kurt schrader)
51. 09:10 PM - Re: Flaperon Protective Covering (Jim Crowder)
52. 09:19 PM - Re: Re: (was) Most HP on a Kitfox? Which Engine (Randy Daughenbaugh)
53. 10:28 PM - Flaperon Protective Covering (clemwehner)
54. 11:04 PM - Re: Trimming Acrylic Windshield (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: | Cross country/MOA's/Thunder Ridge |
In reading Guy's trip report, and finding Thunder Ridge on my Phoenix
chart, it reminded me that I'll have a lot of MOA's to deal with
crossing the country. Right now I don't have my radio
endorsement...I'm hoping to get with my instructor before I go to Sun
'n' Fun to sign me off. So what is the group's experience with
dealing with MOA's? Go around, go through with radio calls, go
through with crossed fingers....what?
Lynn
do not archive
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | site update - 152 hours on plug pics |
Ok, I updated my site here http://www.cfisher.com/
I added a few links relevant to my Kitfox.
Bleeding Matco brakes http://www.cfisher.com/aeroshell.html
and my plugs after 152 hours TT on them
http://www.cfisher.com/152hournkg.html
I finally changed them the other day, really had no operating issues with
them but I had to take of cowl to change needles in carbs. I moved the
clips up one notch to raise the needles for warmer weather now and about 15
% less fuel burn.
The plugs area little crudded up but confident they would have gone further
as they were not missing a beat. But surely the carbon would have started
to fill the gaps and offer some troubles soon. Those are the NGK plugs from
Rotax that many wil argue about and I posted this info before about the
differances. http://www.cfisher.com/ngk/
Furthermore it was validated by the Rotax guy Bob Robertson that the plugs
are not all the same.
mine worked flawless for 152 hours there so no arguement from me.
Dave
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: | 582 cruise speed (was) Most HP on a Kitfox? Which Engine |
Lowell , those are great cruise speeds. What was the density altitude you
were flying at to get those speeds ? And maybe what RPM and fuel burn ?
I would like to be able to pick up a bit more speed out of mine but most of
my flying is 1500 to 3000 ASL . I think at 7500 ASL I would see some more
increase as well.
What is the altitude here at Johnson Creek in Idaho ?
Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Monday, April 09, 2007 1:52 AM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: (was) Most HP on a Kitfox? Which Engine
>
> Dave, I flew alongside Guy Buchanan. He is in the high 90s for sure if
> not 100. During the flight I asked the others what they thought he was
> doing, the answer back - 100.
>
> But your point is well taken. That is why I want to fly alongside
> someone for comparison. All the variables are there to see. I just
> wonder how much horsepower can compensate for the other variables and how
> a heavy high horsepower airplane compares with a light lower horsepower
> airplane in climb and cruise. What we need to do is all meet at Johnson
> Creek in Idaho and see who can climb straight out and clear the ridge. I
> have seen it done by a Kitfox.
>
> Lowell
>
> do not archive
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <davef@cfisher.com>
> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2007 7:05 PM
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: (was) Most HP on a Kitfox? Which Engine
>
>
>>
>> Lowell,
>>
>> Numbers are all a help but really have to compare apples to apples as in
>> total weights and speed mods, fairings etc that have been done.
>>
>> I have seen 912 Kitfox cruise at 80s mph and other at 120 mph ........
>>
>> Anyone seen a 582 powered in the high 90s or over 100 yet ? My ASI
>> reads 115 in cruise but TAS is about 90
>>
>>
>> Dave
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@sbcglobal.net>
>> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
>> Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2007 7:22 PM
>> Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: (was) Most HP on a Kitfox? Which Engine
>>
>>
>>>
>>> This is an interesting subject of which I am by no means an expert, but
>>> all ears (eyes). I have long felt that the Rotax 912 engine was a
>>> perfectly design for the IV and earlier model Kitfoxes. The 912 ULS
>>> coming later and being a marked improvement on that.
>>>
>>> Then the V through Seven Series airplanes came in with no real clear
>>> winner in engine choice. Any one of the several choices have advantages
>>> and disadvantages. Rotax - light weight, but arguably under powered.
>>> Certified and auto conversions - more powerful, but significantly
>>> heavier.
>>>
>>> My impression on reading posts over the past few years seems to indicate
>>> that with the larger airplanes and the more powerful engines cruise
>>> speed is definitely enhanced. How much of that is due to the airframe
>>> improvements - electric trim, smooth cowl etc., I can only guess. But,
>>> and correct me if I am wrong, short takeoff distances and enhanced
>>> climb does not seem to be one of the benefits of the more powerful,
>>> heavier engines.
>>>
>>> What I would like to see is several similar airplanes of different
>>> engine configurations fly together in and out of all sorts of places,
>>> all in exactly the same conditions. Pilot proficiency would then be the
>>> only variable and we could get some real numbers. I personally have
>>> trouble with stop watches and charts. I get questions from time to time
>>> as to my cruise speeds. I really don't have a good answer as it depends
>>> a lot on conditions. I do, however, know how I do with respect ot the
>>> guys I fly with - especially on the long cross country legs - ability to
>>> keep up and fuel burn. We also climb out of some interesting places and
>>> also will sometimes delay a climb over approaching terrain until the
>>> last moment for competitive excitement. There have been times we have
>>> misjudged and been forced into a 360 or two.
>>>
>>> Another problem with coming to a consesus is that most guys that make
>>> engine choices tend to like their choices and will defend them pretty
>>> vigorously. And in most cases, they have not had the opportunity to fly
>>> their airplane or a similar airplane with one of the other engines. So
>>> who's to know.
>>>
>>> Lowell
>>>
>>> do not archive
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "darinh" <gerns25@netscape.net>
>>> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
>>> Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2007 11:00 AM
>>> Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Most HP on a Kitfox?
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Kurt,
>>>>
>>>> I haven't looked into the thrust seriously yet so I don't know the
>>>> answer to that. I am not too worried about the 140 hp engine as I know
>>>> guys have flown this on the Kitfox without problems...the 200 hp is a
>>>> bit different but as I said, I would limit the rpm to something lower
>>>> than the 6200 redline, say 5500 which should produce something around
>>>> 170 hp.
>>>>
>>>> Brett,
>>>>
>>>> I agree, horsepower is not everything but when you fly from high
>>>> airstrips with high density altitues, sometimes it can be everything.
>>>> I also agree that these are supposed to be fun airplanes to fly...well,
>>>> fun is in the eye of the pilot and I think the power in the backcountry
>>>> of Idaho would be fun. That said, I need to do a bit more thinking and
>>>> research to determine the exact engine for my 7 but I know the 912S is
>>>> not the one...I want better performance than this engine will give.
>>>> The 914 would be great but the nearly $27k price tag isn't so great.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for the comments,
>>>>
>>>> Darin
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Read this topic online here:
>>>>
>>>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=105698#105698
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: My new Foxkit |
Congrats Scott! As a new builder you've come to the right place where
you'll receive all the help you need during the process, and then some :-)
Keep us in the loop during the process of getting it home and all that
stuff. Assuming you've already won the bid, do you have a link to it so we
can have a look at your new project?
Deke
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "JSD" <sctmch@hotmail.com>
Sent: Monday, April 09, 2007 12:41 AM
Subject: Kitfox-List: My new Foxkit
>
> After all this time on the fence I bid on a 6/7 on Ebay. We went to see it
and were pretty impressed by Ed (the builder) and his project. I think it's
probably more than 65% done. He's moved on to another project and doesn't
have the time to finish this. I really couldn't believe nobody came along to
outbid me with all the extras included and all the time invested--then again
everyone was eating their Easter dinner (except me of course). I just
couldn't be more thrilled!!! Well maybe when it leaves the ground. I'm not a
pilot but just found a field where they like to start you out on stick &
rudder& taildragger (and keep you there). Well I've kind of been immersed in
this for years and just needed to come across the right deal at the right
time. I'm in the trucking biz and have limited time at home but take long
vacations like two or three months at a time. I guess I'll have it done in
two or three years. I'm quite sure I'll have a few questions for you guys. I
would have li!
> ked to have started the project from the beginning but my work situation
doesn't fit that so this is just great. I'll be the third owner of this kit
and I'll get to be the one that flys it. Sorry about the onrunning paragraph
but that's how I write when I'm all atwitter.--Scott
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: Poly/Plastic tanks |
The following is from an engineer/A&P doing some Google searches and applying some
experience/common sense, so take it with that grain of salt:
If your tank says Nalgene, then it may be easy to explain. Nalgene is a company
trade name that is mostly used with 3 types of plastic; low density polyethylene
(LDPE), polycarbonate, and high density polyethylene (HDPE). The LDPE wouldn't
have the stability of HDPE and polycarbs can be attacked by some oil additives.
All 3 are used in very thin moldings for Nalgene bottles, versus the
boat folks using 8-12mm thicknesses for fuel tanks, which is about the thickness
of the red gas cans that we all know and love. Plus, transparent plastics
don't typically have UV stabilizer additives, which are typically black.
Just like the radiator hoses in your car, I'd suggest regularly feeling any transparent
plastic for hardening or brittleness.
Bob
--------
Remember that internet advice may only be worth what you pay.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=105839#105839
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: Cross country/MOA's/Thunder Ridge |
Got buzzed by a pair of F-4 Phantoms (showing my age here) and don't want to EVER
have that happen again. I absolutely believe in squawking 1200 and telling
whoever is listed as the controlling agency (see bottom of the sectional chart)
that I'm there!
BTW, a transponder and antenna can work just fine on a battery! We have a electric-less
Champ at our airport that runs the xpdr and an Icom off an Odyssey motorcycle
battery.
Bob
--------
Remember that internet advice may only be worth what you pay.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=105842#105842
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: My new Foxkit |
Congratulations! I talked to somebody about that one and he said it looked well
put together. Price was right, too. Did you get the engine with it?
Bob
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=105843#105843
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: (was) Most HP on a Kitfox? Which Engine |
Lowell:
>From what I've been reading here, it sounds like the heavier engines do
enjoy a marginal increase in rate of climb but at the expense to take off
roll. I assume they make that take off roll faster than the light engines
but it still requires more room. No doubt as you said the aerodynamic
improvements in the later models probably have something to do with
increased cruise speed and ROC.
Noel
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> Lowell Fitt
> Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2007 8:53 PM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: (was) Most HP on a Kitfox? Which Engine
>
>
> <lcfitt@sbcglobal.net>
>
> This is an interesting subject of which I am by no means an
> expert, but all
> ears (eyes). I have long felt that the Rotax 912 engine was
> a perfectly
> design for the IV and earlier model Kitfoxes. The 912 ULS
> coming later and
> being a marked improvement on that.
>
> Then the V through Seven Series airplanes came in with no
> real clear winner
> in engine choice. Any one of the several choices have advantages and
> disadvantages. Rotax - light weight, but arguably under
> powered. Certified
> and auto conversions - more powerful, but significantly heavier.
>
> My impression on reading posts over the past few years seems
> to indicate
> that with the larger airplanes and the more powerful engines
> cruise speed is
> definitely enhanced. How much of that is due to the airframe
> improvements -
> electric trim, smooth cowl etc., I can only guess. But, and
> correct me if I
> am wrong, short takeoff distances and enhanced climb does
> not seem to be
> one of the benefits of the more powerful, heavier engines.
>
> What I would like to see is several similar airplanes of
> different engine
> configurations fly together in and out of all sorts of places, all in
> exactly the same conditions. Pilot proficiency would then be
> the only
> variable and we could get some real numbers. I personally
> have trouble with
> stop watches and charts. I get questions from time to time
> as to my cruise
> speeds. I really don't have a good answer as it depends a lot on
> conditions. I do, however, know how I do with respect ot the
> guys I fly
> with - especially on the long cross country legs - ability to
> keep up and
> fuel burn. We also climb out of some interesting places and
> also will
> sometimes delay a climb over approaching terrain until the
> last moment for
> competitive excitement. There have been times we have
> misjudged and been
> forced into a 360 or two.
>
> Another problem with coming to a consesus is that most guys
> that make engine
> choices tend to like their choices and will defend them
> pretty vigorously.
> And in most cases, they have not had the opportunity to fly
> their airplane
> or a similar airplane with one of the other engines. So
> who's to know.
>
> Lowell
>
> do not archive
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "darinh" <gerns25@netscape.net>
> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2007 11:00 AM
> Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Most HP on a Kitfox?
>
>
> >
> > Kurt,
> >
> > I haven't looked into the thrust seriously yet so I don't
> know the answer
> > to that. I am not too worried about the 140 hp engine as I
> know guys have
> > flown this on the Kitfox without problems...the 200 hp is a
> bit different
> > but as I said, I would limit the rpm to something lower
> than the 6200
> > redline, say 5500 which should produce something around 170 hp.
> >
> > Brett,
> >
> > I agree, horsepower is not everything but when you fly from
> high airstrips
> > with high density altitues, sometimes it can be everything.
> I also agree
> > that these are supposed to be fun airplanes to fly...well,
> fun is in the
> > eye of the pilot and I think the power in the backcountry
> of Idaho would
> > be fun. That said, I need to do a bit more thinking and
> research to
> > determine the exact engine for my 7 but I know the 912S is
> not the one...I
> > want better performance than this engine will give. The
> 914 would be
> > great but the nearly $27k price tag isn't so great.
> >
> > Thanks for the comments,
> >
> > Darin
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Read this topic online here:
> >
> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=105698#105698
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: New fuel proof Wing Tanks |
I have it here If I get a chance I'll scan it into a PDF and post it.
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jerry
Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2007 8:33 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: New fuel proof Wing Tanks
What was the company that makes the new fuel tanks.
Also does anyone have a copy of How to Fly a Kitfox by Ed Downs
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: New fuel proof Wing Tanks |
My copy is a Pre-publication copy and it has no copyright claimed on it.
Noel
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> Guy Buchanan
> Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2007 9:10 PM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: New fuel proof Wing Tanks
>
>
>
> At 04:03 PM 4/8/2007, you wrote:
> >Also does anyone have a copy of How to Fly a Kitfox by Ed Downs
>
> I have a copy. Do you mean an EXTRA copy? I think John sells them. I
> know I bought mine from Skystar right before they went bankrupt. Must
> have been what put them over...
>
>
> Guy Buchanan
> K-IV 1200 / 582-C / Warp / 100% done, thanks mostly to Bob Ducar.
>
> Do not archive
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: Poly/Plastic tanks |
I think the dash tanks were HDPE
Noel
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> davef@cfisher.com
> Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2007 11:40 PM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: Poly/Plastic tanks
>
>
>
> Those new tanks look decent .
>
> Question --- I have a dash tank about 8 or 9 gallons in my
> IV -- what is it
> made of?
>
> It works well with no leaks .............
>
> If these tanks are similar they will likely be decent. IF I
> have ethanol
> issues I will buy a pair and try them as it sounds like a
> great solution
> and a fast repair job. And if I have no issues with ethanol
> I wonder if I
> can add another tank beside my 6 gal wings tanks now ? I
> know a few other
> Kitfox guys near me that would opt for a larger tank in a jiffy.
>
>
> Dave
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Barry West" <barry@pgtc.com>
> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2007 10:48 AM
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: Poly/Plastic tanks
>
>
> >
> > Bob, I have no experience with HDPE as a tank but with
> other uses. It is
> > stronger than ordinary polyethylene and can take a little higher
> > temperatur. Chemical resistance is better also. Again, it
> should work
> > great as a fuel tank but may be effected by high temperature oil.
> >
> > Barry West
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Bob" <dswaim1119@comcast.net>
> > To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> > Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2007 9:12 AM
> > Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Poly/Plastic tanks
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Happy Easter to all!
> >>
> >> I'm still up in the air on what to install, but have
> learned that the car
> >> and boat makers skipped PE and went to HDPE because there
> are important
> >> differences in chemistry and molecular density. Any
> material we choose to
> >> use will have limitations and I'm sure every mechanic on
> the group can
> >> tell stories about changing Cessna aluminum tanks, Beech
> bladders, or
> >> re-sealing Mooneys. Anybody have experience with HDPE tanks?
> >> Bob
> >> 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=105631#105631
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: Cross country/MOA's/Thunder Ridge |
Hi Lynn, I'll give you one guy's opinion on the matter.
You can always look up the controlling agency for that MOA on the chart as well
as the normal hours of operation (listed on the bottom of the chart, isn't it?),
and that is definitely a good idea. I personally would never enter an MOA
without talking with atc and asking whether that area is 'hot' or not and whether
you can enter. Personally, I'm a firm believer in flight following whenever
I'm on a cross-country. It's not a guarantee, but at least then you have
a pretty direct link to a controller to talk to and they can pick up the phone
and find out about the moa for you. They're usually very on the ball as far
as the current status of MOA's in their area. If they say it's okay, I would
have no problem flying through. You're best bet, of course, is to have a file
a flight plan and state this intention to a briefer before departing so they
can make sure it's inactive well before you get there.
Mark Scott
Elkton, MD
-------------- Original message --------------
From: Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net>
>
> In reading Guy's trip report, and finding Thunder Ridge on my Phoenix
> chart, it reminded me that I'll have a lot of MOA's to deal with
> crossing the country. Right now I don't have my radio
> endorsement...I'm hoping to get with my instructor before I go to Sun
> 'n' Fun to sign me off. So what is the group's experience with
> dealing with MOA's? Go around, go through with radio calls, go
> through with crossed fingers....what?
>
> Lynn
> do not archive
<html><body>
<DIV>Hi Lynn, I'll give you one guy's opinion on the matter.</DIV>
<DIV>You can always look up the controlling agency for that MOA on the chart as
well as the normal hours of operation (listed on the bottom of the chart, isn't
it?), and that is definitely a good idea. I personally would never enter
an MOA without talking with atc and asking whether that area is 'hot' or not
and whether you can enter. Personally, I'm a firm believer in flight
following whenever I'm on a cross-country. It's not a guarantee, but at
least then you have a pretty direct link to a controller to talk to and they can
pick up the phone and find out about the moa for you. They're usually
very on the ball as far as the current status of MOA's in their area. If
they say it's okay, I would have no problem flying through. You're best
bet, of course, is to have a file a flight plan and state this intention to
a briefer before departing so they can make sure it's inactive well before you
get there.</DIV>
<DIV>Mark Scott</DIV>
<DIV>Elkton, MD</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px
solid">-------------- Original message -------------- <BR>From: Lynn Matteson
<lynnmatt@jps.net> <BR><BR>> --> Kitfox-List message posted by:
Lynn Matteson <LYNNMATT@JPS.NET><BR>> <BR>> In reading Guy's trip report,
and finding Thunder Ridge on my Phoenix <BR>> chart, it reminded me that
I'll have a lot of MOA's to deal with <BR>> crossing the country. Right now
I don't have my radio <BR>> endorsement...I'm hoping to get with my instructor
before I go to Sun <BR>> 'n' Fun to sign me off. So what is the group's
experience with <BR>> dealing with MOA's? Go around, go through with radio
calls, go <BR>> through with crossed fingers....what? <BR>> <BR>> Lynn
<BR>> do not archive <BR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<pre><b><font size=2 color="#000000" face="courier new,courier">
</b></font></pre></body></html>
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: Fox Classix 4 |
Harry, there are so many variables I don't think you can get an answer just
for you. It took me 1400 hours to build my Classic IV from the box. I
finished it in 2001. I am sure an experienced builder could do it in half
the time.
Barry
----- Original Message -----
From: "Harry Cieslar" <hcieslar@cabletv.on.ca>
Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2007 11:12 AM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Fox Classix 4
>
> I am thinking of purchasing a partly completed Classic 4 kit, frame on
> wheels, wings, no covers. I am unable to find any builder sites which
> document building a KF. Does anyone have any idea how many hours it would
> take to finish such a product with basic instruments and a firewall
> forward setup if I can find one. The only suggestion I could find was 1000
> hrs from kit in the box stage. Despite extensive discussion's on every
> conceivable topic, I was unable to find a single builders log. Can anyone
> help? Thanks.
> Falcon in Ontario.
>
>
>
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: | KF IV Builder Logs or Time |
Barry: Thanks for info: Harry
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: | Cross country/MOA's/Thunder Ridge |
Being north of the 49th and the snow line:-) I'm not sure what MOAs are
Noel
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> Lynn Matteson
> Sent: Monday, April 09, 2007 8:12 AM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Kitfox-List: Cross country/MOA's/Thunder Ridge
>
>
>
> In reading Guy's trip report, and finding Thunder Ridge on my
> Phoenix
> chart, it reminded me that I'll have a lot of MOA's to deal with
> crossing the country. Right now I don't have my radio
> endorsement...I'm hoping to get with my instructor before I
> go to Sun
> 'n' Fun to sign me off. So what is the group's experience with
> dealing with MOA's? Go around, go through with radio calls, go
> through with crossed fingers....what?
>
> Lynn
> do not archive
>
>
>
>
>
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: 582 cruise speed (was) Most HP on a Kitfox? Which Engine |
The Wickenburg altitude near Thunder Ridge is about 2200 ft and Johnson
Creek is 4933.
----- Original Message -----
From: <davef@cfisher.com>
Sent: Monday, April 09, 2007 4:17 AM
Subject: Kitfox-List: 582 cruise speed (was) Most HP on a Kitfox? Which
Engine
>
> Lowell , those are great cruise speeds. What was the density altitude
> you were flying at to get those speeds ? And maybe what RPM and fuel
> burn ?
>
> I would like to be able to pick up a bit more speed out of mine but most
> of my flying is 1500 to 3000 ASL . I think at 7500 ASL I would see some
> more increase as well.
>
> What is the altitude here at Johnson Creek in Idaho ?
>
> Dave
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@sbcglobal.net>
> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Monday, April 09, 2007 1:52 AM
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: (was) Most HP on a Kitfox? Which Engine
>
>
>>
>> Dave, I flew alongside Guy Buchanan. He is in the high 90s for sure if
>> not 100. During the flight I asked the others what they thought he was
>> doing, the answer back - 100.
>>
>> But your point is well taken. That is why I want to fly alongside
>> someone for comparison. All the variables are there to see. I just
>> wonder how much horsepower can compensate for the other variables and how
>> a heavy high horsepower airplane compares with a light lower horsepower
>> airplane in climb and cruise. What we need to do is all meet at Johnson
>> Creek in Idaho and see who can climb straight out and clear the ridge.
>> I have seen it done by a Kitfox.
>>
>> Lowell
>>
>> do not archive
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: <davef@cfisher.com>
>> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
>> Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2007 7:05 PM
>> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: (was) Most HP on a Kitfox? Which Engine
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Lowell,
>>>
>>> Numbers are all a help but really have to compare apples to apples as in
>>> total weights and speed mods, fairings etc that have been done.
>>>
>>> I have seen 912 Kitfox cruise at 80s mph and other at 120 mph ........
>>>
>>> Anyone seen a 582 powered in the high 90s or over 100 yet ? My ASI
>>> reads 115 in cruise but TAS is about 90
>>>
>>>
>>> Dave
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@sbcglobal.net>
>>> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
>>> Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2007 7:22 PM
>>> Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: (was) Most HP on a Kitfox? Which Engine
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> This is an interesting subject of which I am by no means an expert, but
>>>> all ears (eyes). I have long felt that the Rotax 912 engine was a
>>>> perfectly design for the IV and earlier model Kitfoxes. The 912 ULS
>>>> coming later and being a marked improvement on that.
>>>>
>>>> Then the V through Seven Series airplanes came in with no real clear
>>>> winner in engine choice. Any one of the several choices have
>>>> advantages and disadvantages. Rotax - light weight, but arguably under
>>>> powered. Certified and auto conversions - more powerful, but
>>>> significantly heavier.
>>>>
>>>> My impression on reading posts over the past few years seems to
>>>> indicate that with the larger airplanes and the more powerful engines
>>>> cruise speed is definitely enhanced. How much of that is due to the
>>>> airframe improvements - electric trim, smooth cowl etc., I can only
>>>> guess. But, and correct me if I am wrong, short takeoff distances and
>>>> enhanced climb does not seem to be one of the benefits of the more
>>>> powerful, heavier engines.
>>>>
>>>> What I would like to see is several similar airplanes of different
>>>> engine configurations fly together in and out of all sorts of places,
>>>> all in exactly the same conditions. Pilot proficiency would then be
>>>> the only variable and we could get some real numbers. I personally
>>>> have trouble with stop watches and charts. I get questions from time
>>>> to time as to my cruise speeds. I really don't have a good answer as
>>>> it depends a lot on conditions. I do, however, know how I do with
>>>> respect ot the guys I fly with - especially on the long cross country
>>>> legs - ability to keep up and fuel burn. We also climb out of some
>>>> interesting places and also will sometimes delay a climb over
>>>> approaching terrain until the last moment for competitive excitement.
>>>> There have been times we have misjudged and been forced into a 360 or
>>>> two.
>>>>
>>>> Another problem with coming to a consesus is that most guys that make
>>>> engine choices tend to like their choices and will defend them pretty
>>>> vigorously. And in most cases, they have not had the opportunity to fly
>>>> their airplane or a similar airplane with one of the other engines. So
>>>> who's to know.
>>>>
>>>> Lowell
>>>>
>>>> do not archive
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: "darinh" <gerns25@netscape.net>
>>>> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
>>>> Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2007 11:00 AM
>>>> Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Most HP on a Kitfox?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Kurt,
>>>>>
>>>>> I haven't looked into the thrust seriously yet so I don't know the
>>>>> answer to that. I am not too worried about the 140 hp engine as I
>>>>> know guys have flown this on the Kitfox without problems...the 200 hp
>>>>> is a bit different but as I said, I would limit the rpm to something
>>>>> lower than the 6200 redline, say 5500 which should produce something
>>>>> around 170 hp.
>>>>>
>>>>> Brett,
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree, horsepower is not everything but when you fly from high
>>>>> airstrips with high density altitues, sometimes it can be everything.
>>>>> I also agree that these are supposed to be fun airplanes to
>>>>> fly...well, fun is in the eye of the pilot and I think the power in
>>>>> the backcountry of Idaho would be fun. That said, I need to do a bit
>>>>> more thinking and research to determine the exact engine for my 7 but
>>>>> I know the 912S is not the one...I want better performance than this
>>>>> engine will give. The 914 would be great but the nearly $27k price tag
>>>>> isn't so great.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for the comments,
>>>>>
>>>>> Darin
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Read this topic online here:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=105698#105698
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
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: Cross country/MOA's/Thunder Ridge |
At 03:42 AM 4/9/2007, you wrote:
>So what is the group's experience with
>dealing with MOA's? Go around, go through with radio calls, go
>through with crossed fingers....what?
When I'm flying cross country alone I fly for best winds, usually
relatively high, and I use flight following. As such I can easily
determine whether an MOA or even restricted area is "hot" by asking
ATC. If hot I'll stay out. I generally plan to stay out anyway, but
sometimes it's too difficult / dangerous a routing to stay out of an
MOA so I'll stay low and keep my eyes open.
Guy Buchanan
K-IV 1200 / 582-C / Warp / 100% done, thanks mostly to Bob Ducar.
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: Fox Classix 4 |
I had 850 hrs in my 4 -1200 ,but that doesn't count sitting ,thinking or
head scratching time. Just hands on work. Larry
----- Original Message -----
From: "Harry Cieslar" <hcieslar@cabletv.on.ca>
Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2007 12:12 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Fox Classix 4
>
> I am thinking of purchasing a partly completed Classic 4 kit, frame on
> wheels, wings, no covers. I am unable to find any builder sites which
> document building a KF. Does anyone have any idea how many hours it would
> take to finish such a product with basic instruments and a firewall
> forward setup if I can find one. The only suggestion I could find was 1000
> hrs from kit in the box stage. Despite extensive discussion's on every
> conceivable topic, I was unable to find a single builders log. Can anyone
> help? Thanks.
> Falcon in Ontario.
>
>
> --
> 10:57 PM
>
>
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 |
|
Cruise is about the same with all the props I have tried. I think that the
drag increases so much at speeds greater than 120, that basically the
prop becomes irrelevant.
Solo, in cold weather I probably get around 150 ft. takeoff (give or take).
Rate of climb in winter weather is generally around 14-1500 fpm, on the
very rare occasion I can get close to 2000 fpm. When the weather is
warmer I normally see around 11-1200 fpm. Hot weather, and heavy
climb sucks as much with any of the props.
If you're running the Skystar prop W74EK-2-58 I think chopping 3/4" off
each tip will get the best bang for the buck. I think my 74" performs a tad
better, but not worth the $1K unless, you just like spending money. The
3/4" trim on the W74EK-2-58 does a lot for performance, and I know at
least one other who's running that and would concur.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=105877#105877
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Cross country/MOA's/Thunder Ridge |
MOA's: Military operational areas. These are generally training areas that may
be under part- or full-time use by our country's military. They are shown on
charts and while private pilots are not restricted from this airspace, one does
have to take care and exercise caution when entering one. You stand the potential
of having some very high-speed traffic in your vicinity. If you talk
to Air Traffic Control and confirm that there are no operations in the area before
you traverse it you will be fine.
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys@yahoo.ca>
>
> Being north of the 49th and the snow line:-) I'm not sure what MOAs are
>
> Noel
<html><body>
<DIV>MOA's: Military operational areas. These are generally training
areas that may be under part- or full-time use by our country's military. They
are shown on charts and while private pilots are not restricted from this
airspace, one does have to take care and exercise caution when entering one.
You stand the potential of having some very high-speed traffic in your
vicinity. If you talk to Air Traffic Control and confirm that there are
no operations in the area before you traverse it you will be fine.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px
solid">-------------- Original message -------------- <BR>From: "Noel Loveys"
<noelloveys@yahoo.ca> <BR><BR>> --> Kitfox-List message posted by:
"Noel Loveys" <NOELLOVEYS@YAHOO.CA><BR>> <BR>> Being north of the 49th
and the snow line:-) I'm not sure what MOAs are <BR>> <BR>> Noel <BR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<pre><b><font size=2 color="#000000" face="courier new,courier">
</b></font></pre></body></html>
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Most HP on a Kitfox? |
I think the Kitfox wing doesn't like to fly heavy, so regardless of the
power you put in it performance is gonna suck once it gets heavy. That
wing starts making a lot of drag when the loading on it gets high, and
then you'd need orders of magnitude more power to overcome the
drag. So You might get 20 more hp in it, but if you get closer to Max GW
in doing so you probably sacrificed all the power to drag. So a 20-30
hp gain, carrying an extra 100 lb.s might actually cost you performance.
Based on flying mine, that's my unprofessional conclusion.
Jeff Hays
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=105881#105881
Message 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Cross country/MOA's/Thunder Ridge |
Here's another 2 cents worth Lynn.
I live in (actually under) the Hersey MOA. I fly from Evart (9C8), also under
the MOA. All summer long, ANG A-10's periodically dogfight overhead at, I'd guess,
about 10kft agl.
The book says that if you operate below 5kft agl you're below their playground,
tho I have seen them fly over in transit to/from Camp Grayling much lower than
that.
There's a good article about safe flying in MOAs in the Feb. issue of Sport Aviation, referencing www.SeeAndAvoid.org as a resource to find out about a particular MOA.
Marco
mscotter@comcast.net wrote:
Hi Lynn, I'll give you one guy's opinion on the matter.
You can always look up the controlling agency for that MOA on the chart as well
as the normal hours of operation (listed on the bottom of the chart, isn't
it?), and that is definitely a good idea. I personally would never enter an MOA
without talking with atc and asking whether that area is 'hot' or not and whether
you can enter. Personally, I'm a firm believer in flight following whenever
I'm on a cross-country. It's not a guarantee, but at least then you have
a pretty direct link to a controller to talk to and they can pick up the phone
and find out about the moa for you. They're usually very on the ball as far
as the current status of MOA's in their area. If they say it's okay, I would
have no problem flying through. You're best bet, of course, is to have a file
a flight plan and state this intention to a briefer before departing so they
can make sure it's inactive well before you get there.
Mark Scott
Elkton, MD
-------------- Original message --------------
From: Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net>
>
> In reading Guy's trip report, and finding Thunder Ridge on my Phoenix
> chart, it reminded me that I'll have a lot of MOA's to deal with
> crossing the country. Right now I don't have my radio
> endorsement...I'm hoping to get with my instructor before I go to Sun
> 'n' Fun to sign me off. So what is the group's experience with
> dealing with MOA's? Go around, go through with radio calls, go
> through with crossed fingers....what?
>
> Lynn
> do not archive
Marco Menezes
Model 2 582 N99KX
---------------------------------
Bored stiff? Loosen up...
Download and play hundreds of games for free on Yahoo! Games.
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: New fuel proof Wing Tanks |
Noel
Just a word of caution here ----- The How To Fly a Kitfox by Ed Downs is a
copy write article and owned by the SkyStar Aircraft Corporation. Since John
McBean now owns the company I would consult with him before doing anything
like copying and posting a PDF file. FWIW
Ted
DO NOT ARCHIVE
_____
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Noel Loveys
Sent: April 9, 2007 7:28 AM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Re: New fuel proof Wing Tanks
I have it here If I get a chance I'll scan it into a PDF and post it.
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jerry
Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2007 8:33 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: New fuel proof Wing Tanks
What was the company that makes the new fuel tanks.
Also does anyone have a copy of How to Fly a Kitfox by Ed Downs
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: | Flaperon Protective Covering |
I know there was an extensive thread on this subject a while back, but I
looked in the archives and couldn't find a definitive answer on how to remove
it. Does anyone know or recall how to get this stuff off the flaperons?
Thanks,
Rick Weiss
Series V Speedster - N39RW
DO NOT ARCHIVE
************************************** See what's free 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 |
|
To Larry: thanks for info on your build time.
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: (was) Most HP on a Kitfox? Which Engine |
Lowell -
I know that you said you're not a charts kind of guy, but if you want to give it
a try, it'll answer the question for your particular airplane. Since fuel flow
is a fair indicator of horsepower, make an chart with true airspeed on the
vertical axis and fuel flow on the horizontal. Write down some numbers at a
spread of throttle settings and the chart will show a curve. Yes, the draggy
Kitfox shape can blow the wings off an RV-8 with enough power, but of course then
there would be one or two structural problems, right? :)
If you don't have a flow-meter, use a common hand-held GPS and you can get a set
of average speeds to put over the number of gallons that it takes to refill
with after each flight. If you need, I'd be more than happy to plot data you
collect.
Bob
--------
Remember that internet advice may only be worth what you pay.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=105900#105900
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: (was) Most HP on a Kitfox? Which Engine |
Just noticed Jeff Hayes mention that the airplane flies best when light and it
made me remember to add to my post. The heavier engines typically make for a
heavier airplane, and the big three issues in stall speed are WEIGHT, wing area,
and coefficient of lift; two of which you can't do much about.
While the big engines will get a little faster cruise, their weight counts against
shorter takeoffs. The exception is sometimes at high density altitudes, where
the smaller engine might just get you into trees at the far end of a runway.
Bob
--------
Remember that internet advice may only be worth what you pay.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=105903#105903
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: | 582 coolant weep |
Why/how would coolant be leaking from the gasket under the water pump
housing? The bolts are tightened equally, and the antifreeze has been
changed 2/yr. (I use a winter thermostat and change the antifreeze each
spring and fall. The old stuff goes to the cars) Only distilled water
has been mixed with it, so I wouldn't expect corrosion. Total hrs. 170
ish. Can the housing become warped? How? Can I double gasket it? Or
would it be best to lightly plane down the cover with emery paper and
just change the gasket?
Thanks,
Larry
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: | Re: Flaperon Protective Covering |
I soaked heavy duty paper towels/shop towels with paint thinner/
mineral spirits and laid them onto the flaperons for up to 8 hours.
Do as large an area as you can, and keep the papers soaked. The
coating will pucker up and almost fall off...or you'll need to rub a
little.
Lynn
On Apr 9, 2007, at 11:48 AM, Mdkitfox@aol.com wrote:
> I know there was an extensive thread on this subject a while back,
> but I looked in the archives and couldn't find a definitive answer
> on how to remove it. Does anyone know or recall how to get this
> stuff off the flaperons?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Rick Weiss
> Series V Speedster - N39RW
> DO NOT ARCHIVE
>
>
> See what's free at AOL.com.
> www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List _-
> ===========================================================
Message 30
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: (was) Most HP on a Kitfox? Which Engine |
I think the IO-240B is a better quality engine than the 912S, but if I built
another Kitfox, I'd more likely use the 912S, or a Jabiru that the IO-240B
Weight, cost, and fuel choice being big factors.
Jeff.
lcfitt(at)sbcglobal.net wrote:
> This is an interesting subject of which I am by no means an expert, but all
> ears (eyes). I have long felt that the Rotax 912 engine was a perfectly
> design for the IV and earlier model Kitfoxes. The 912 ULS coming later and
> being a marked improvement on that.
>
> Then the V through Seven Series airplanes came in with no real clear winner
> in engine choice. Any one of the several choices have advantages and
> disadvantages. Rotax - light weight, but arguably under powered. Certified
> and auto conversions - more powerful, but significantly heavier.
>
> My impression on reading posts over the past few years seems to indicate
> that with the larger airplanes and the more powerful engines cruise speed is
> definitely enhanced. How much of that is due to the airframe improvements -
> electric trim, smooth cowl etc., I can only guess. But, and correct me if I
> am wrong, short takeoff distances and enhanced climb does not seem to be
> one of the benefits of the more powerful, heavier engines.
>
> What I would like to see is several similar airplanes of different engine
> configurations fly together in and out of all sorts of places, all in
> exactly the same conditions. Pilot proficiency would then be the only
> variable and we could get some real numbers. I personally have trouble with
> stop watches and charts. I get questions from time to time as to my cruise
> speeds. I really don't have a good answer as it depends a lot on
> conditions. I do, however, know how I do with respect ot the guys I fly
> with - especially on the long cross country legs - ability to keep up and
> fuel burn. We also climb out of some interesting places and also will
> sometimes delay a climb over approaching terrain until the last moment for
> competitive excitement. There have been times we have misjudged and been
> forced into a 360 or two.
>
> Another problem with coming to a consesus is that most guys that make engine
> choices tend to like their choices and will defend them pretty vigorously.
> And in most cases, they have not had the opportunity to fly their airplane
> or a similar airplane with one of the other engines. So who's to know.
>
> Lowell
>
> do not archive
>
>
> ---
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=105910#105910
Message 31
| 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: Cross country/MOA's/Thunder Ridge |
Thanks for that scary reminder, Bob. I've got the xponder in panel,
as well as an Icom 200, and a backup handheld radio.
How'd the Kitfox handle the wash from the jets?
Lynn
do not archive
On Apr 9, 2007, at 9:00 AM, Bob wrote:
>
> Got buzzed by a pair of F-4 Phantoms (showing my age here) and
> don't want to EVER have that happen again. I absolutely believe in
> squawking 1200 and telling whoever is listed as the controlling
> agency (see bottom of the sectional chart) that I'm there!
>
> BTW, a transponder and antenna can work just fine on a battery! We
> have a electric-less Champ at our airport that runs the xpdr and an
> Icom off an Odyssey motorcycle battery.
>
> Bob
>
> --------
> Remember that internet advice may only be worth what you pay.
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=105842#105842
>
>
Message 32
| 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: 582 coolant weep |
larry, look real close at it to see if the coolant is coming from the weep hole
under the housing. the purpose of that hole is to let coolant or oil leak out
and you will see it if the seal on the rorary valve shaft is starting to leak.
there should be a space between the two seals so the water does't mix with
the RV shaft oil when an oil or water seal leaks.
Tom Jones
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=105914#105914
Message 33
| 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 |
|
When the Model V came out, its gross weight was 1400 lbs with the long wing,
and 1200 lbs with the short wing, probably because of the 80 hp engine.
Clint
From: JJProbasco@cs.com
Subject: Kitfox-List: (no subject)
My 1450 # Model 5 kit came with the convertable wing tip option that allows
an outer portion of each wing to be easily removed to effectively become a
clipped wing (speed wing?) version. When in this configuration the gross
weight
limit is reduced. (I can't presently remember the lesser gross but I think
it
was in the 1320 # range)
It seems the (clipped) speed wing configuration offers some weight savings
potential for the purposes of sportplane eligibility. Does anyone have data
on
the typical stall speed and other characteristics for the shorter wing that
would be sportplane relevant? I suspect the same could apply to the Models 6
and
7.
Jeff Probasco
_________________________________________________________________
Exercise your brain! Try Flexicon.
http://games.msn.com/en/flexicon/default.htm?icid=flexicon_hmemailtaglineapril07
Message 34
| 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: Cross country/MOA's/Thunder Ridge |
Thanks for the reminder, Mark...I had completely forgotten about
those "special use airspace" notes on the charts. Just goes to show
what having a GPS on board does to you...makes you (me) lazy.
I was looking at my plane this morning, and thinking "what if I were
a jet jocky and saw this small orange plane with a big #3 on the tail
(or a big E if looking at the other side)...would I think it was a
little drone...to be shot at?" hmmmm.....
I'll get more input from my instructor when the time draws near, but
thanks to all who responded in the mentime.
Lynn
do not archive
On Apr 9, 2007, at 9:54 AM, mscotter@comcast.net wrote:
> Hi Lynn, I'll give you one guy's opinion on the matter.
> You can always look up the controlling agency for that MOA on the
> chart as well as the normal hours of operation (listed on the
> bottom of the chart, isn't it?), and that is definitely a good
> idea. I personally would never enter an MOA without talking with
> atc and asking whether that area is 'hot' or not and whether you
> can enter. Personally, I'm a firm believer in flight following
> whenever I'm on a cross-country. It's not a guarantee, but at
> least then you have a pretty direct link to a controller to talk to
> and they can pick up the phone and find out about the moa for you.
> They're usually very on the ball as far as the current status of
> MOA's in their area. If they say it's okay, I would have no
> problem flying through. You're best bet, of course, is to have a
> file a flight plan and state this intention to a briefer before
> departing so they can make sure it's inactive well before you get
> there.
> Mark Scott
> Elkton, MD
>
> -------------- Original message --------------
> From: Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net>
>
> >
> > In reading Guy's trip report, and finding Thunder Ridge on my
> Phoenix
> > chart, it reminded me that I'll have a lot of MOA's to deal with
> > crossing the country. Right now I don't have my radio
> > endorsement...I'm hoping to get with my instructor before I go to
> Sun
> > 'n' Fun to sign me off. So what is the group's experience with
> > dealing with MOA's? Go around, go through with radio calls, go
> > through with crossed fingers....what?
> >
> > Lynn
> > do not archive
> www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List _-
> ===========================================================
Message 35
| 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: 582 coolant weep |
Sometimes you can tighten a gasket too much, and then the housing
ends are forced down, and the water leaks from under the (now)
distorted housing. Lay a straight edge on both the housing and the
block to see if this has happened. You might be able to save the fit
by draw-filing the surfaces.
Lynn
On Apr 9, 2007, at 12:49 PM, Larry Martin wrote:
> Why/how would coolant be leaking from the gasket under the water
> pump housing? The bolts are tightened equally, and the antifreeze
> has been changed 2/yr. (I use a winter thermostat and change the
> antifreeze each spring and fall. The old stuff goes to the cars)
> Only distilled water has been mixed with it, so I wouldn't expect
> corrosion. Total hrs. 170 ish. Can the housing become warped?
> How? Can I double gasket it? Or would it be best to lightly plane
> down the cover with emery paper and just change the gasket?
>
> Thanks,
> Larry
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List_-
> ============================================================ _-
> forums.matronics.com_-
> ===========================================================
Message 36
| 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: New fuel proof Wing Tanks |
What does this have to do with New fuel proof waing tanks
travis
-----Original Message-----
From: temco@telusplanet.net
Sent: Mon, 9 Apr 2007 10:41 AM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Re: New fuel proof Wing Tanks
Noel
Just a word of caution here ----- The How To Fly a Kitfox by Ed Downs is a copy
write article and owned by the SkyStar Aircraft Corporation. Since John McBean
now owns the company I would consult with him before doing anything like copying
and posting a PDF file. FWIW
Ted
DO NOT ARCHIVE
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Noel Loveys
Sent: April 9, 2007 7:28 AM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Re: New fuel proof Wing Tanks
I have it here If I get a chance I'll scan it into a PDF and post it.
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jerry
Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2007 8:33 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: New fuel proof Wing Tanks
What was the company that makes the new fuel tanks.
Also does anyone have a copy of How to Fly a Kitfox by Ed Downs
________________________________________________________________________
Message 37
| 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: 582 coolant weep |
Good point Tom,
On the 582 I will add that the anti-freeze you use with your distilled water
should be phosphate & silicate free eg - Dexcool or equivilent.
Check your Rotory valve oil bottle for any contamination as well. It will
usually make the oil in RV bottle turn milky. If so your RV seals are gone
and most likely the RV shaft.
I have seen the bolts on water pump housing leak as well but usually oil
from crankcase and they need some locktite put on them.
Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Jones" <nahsikhs@elltel.net>
Sent: Monday, April 09, 2007 1:11 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: 582 coolant weep
>
> larry, look real close at it to see if the coolant is coming from the weep
> hole under the housing. the purpose of that hole is to let coolant or oil
> leak out and you will see it if the seal on the rorary valve shaft is
> starting to leak. there should be a space between the two seals so the
> water does't mix with the RV shaft oil when an oil or water seal leaks.
> Tom Jones
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=105914#105914
>
>
>
Message 38
| 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: | Cross country/MOA's/Thunder Ridge |
I live near Ellsworth Air Force base. Half of the nation's B-1's are based
here. There is an MAO in southeast Montana where they practice, among other
things, low altitude terrain following. I have often seen them (always
from a car so far!) at altitudes much lower than 1000'. And they are
moving FAST.
I have flown through there, but only when it is inactive. I would hate to
run into their wake turbulence.
Incidently, in couple of weeks the Air Force is going to let civilians land
at Ellsworth. I am looking forward to that. It will be a kick to land on a
runway that's over 2.5 miles long. I wonder if they would let me land
across the runway????
Randy
.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Guy Buchanan
Sent: Monday, April 09, 2007 8:59 AM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Cross country/MOA's/Thunder Ridge
At 03:42 AM 4/9/2007, you wrote:
>So what is the group's experience with
>dealing with MOA's? Go around, go through with radio calls, go
>through with crossed fingers....what?
When I'm flying cross country alone I fly for best winds, usually
relatively high, and I use flight following. As such I can easily
determine whether an MOA or even restricted area is "hot" by asking
ATC. If hot I'll stay out. I generally plan to stay out anyway, but
sometimes it's too difficult / dangerous a routing to stay out of an
MOA so I'll stay low and keep my eyes open.
Guy Buchanan
K-IV 1200 / 582-C / Warp / 100% done, thanks mostly to Bob Ducar.
Message 39
| 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: 582 coolant weep |
Thanks for the quick responses. I plan to start doing the engine annual
next week and will look for these things.
larry
Message 40
| 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: | Short wing weights |
--- Clint Bazzill <clint_bazzill@hotmail.com> wrote:
> When the Model V came out, its gross weight was 1400
> lbs with the long wing,
> and 1200 lbs with the short wing, probably because
> of the 80 hp engine.
> Clint
And I think later changed to 1550 and 1400 on the
newer -5's. One of those could be lowered from 1400
to Sport Flight weight easily, since it is so close.
Instead of it being a convertable wing, permentally
attaching the wingtip one bay inboard would make it a
very nice sport plane, I believe.
Kurt S. S-5
Be a PS3 game guru.
Get your game face on with the latest PS3 news and previews at Yahoo! Games.
http://videogames.yahoo.com/platform?platform=120121
Message 41
| 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: Cross country/MOA's/Thunder Ridge |
Many years ago I got to fly in MOA's in both speed
regimes - helos and later jets. Sometimes they are in
the same place at the same time covering a lot of
space. I also was a MOA military scheduler for a few
years out in California.
In the helos, you might be doing anything from hide
and hover to 160 knots picking up tree branches and
climbing over fences. Nap-of-the-earth it is called
and necessary training for desert environments.
In the jets, 360-420 knots at a few feet higher is
quite normal. Back then we crossed a ridge line by
pulling up and rolling inverted. As you came to the
top you were already pulling down towards the ground,
upside down to stay low. Very scarry stuff and not
much room for error. (Now they go over sideways)
This is necessary to reduce exposure to ground fire
and rockets.
In each case, you are very busy and don't have a lot
of time to look anywhere except where you are going.
You don't have a lot of leeway for an object to move
into your path. A slow moving Fox would look almost
stationary to a jet, so you don't see it until you are
within a few seconds of impact. If youj don't see
movement, it blends into the background.
We sometimes had a civilian fly thru during
engagements and found them to be at greater risk then
they ever realized. But the rules are rules and they
could go at their own risk. But it was our risk too!
So basically I sty out of them now. If I have to go
in, I talk to someone all the way across and keep a
lookout.
One time when I was flying a C-130, I looked over at
the copilot just in time to see a C-141 diving under
his window. Near miss! I called the controller and
he said, "Maintain VFR". They don't really control
it, just monitor it ya' know.
Kurt S.
Get your own web address.
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/domains/?p=BESTDEAL
Message 42
| 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 |
|
Do you have docs on that. I have a classic 4 with the long wings and would
love to have a 1400 gw
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Clint Bazzill
Sent: Monday, April 09, 2007 12:15 PM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: (no subject)
<clint_bazzill@hotmail.com>
When the Model V came out, its gross weight was 1400 lbs with the long wing,
and 1200 lbs with the short wing, probably because of the 80 hp engine.
Clint
From: JJProbasco@cs.com
Subject: Kitfox-List: (no subject)
My 1450 # Model 5 kit came with the convertable wing tip option that allows
an outer portion of each wing to be easily removed to effectively become a
clipped wing (speed wing?) version. When in this configuration the gross
weight
limit is reduced. (I can't presently remember the lesser gross but I think
it
was in the 1320 # range)
It seems the (clipped) speed wing configuration offers some weight savings
potential for the purposes of sportplane eligibility. Does anyone have data
on
the typical stall speed and other characteristics for the shorter wing that
would be sportplane relevant? I suspect the same could apply to the Models 6
and
7.
Jeff Probasco
_________________________________________________________________
Exercise your brain! Try Flexicon.
http://games.msn.com/en/flexicon/default.htm?icid=flexicon_hmemailtaglineapr
il07
Message 43
| 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 |
|
A Model IV is 1200 lbs. Early Model V's had a 1400 lb gross with long wing.
I am a tech counselor and president of Chapter 639 out of Half Moon Bay,
Calif
Clint
From: "kirk hull" <kirkhull@kc.rr.com>
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: (no subject)
Do you have docs on that. I have a classic 4 with the long wings and would
love to have a 1400 gw
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Clint Bazzill
Sent: Monday, April 09, 2007 12:15 PM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: (no subject)
<clint_bazzill@hotmail.com>
When the Model V came out, its gross weight was 1400 lbs with the long wing,
and 1200 lbs with the short wing, probably because of the 80 hp engine.
Clint
From: JJProbasco@cs.com
Subject: Kitfox-List: (no subject)
My 1450 # Model 5 kit came with the convertable wing tip option that allows
an outer portion of each wing to be easily removed to effectively become a
clipped wing (speed wing?) version. When in this configuration the gross
weight
limit is reduced. (I can't presently remember the lesser gross but I think
it
was in the 1320 # range)
It seems the (clipped) speed wing configuration offers some weight savings
potential for the purposes of sportplane eligibility. Does anyone have data
on
the typical stall speed and other characteristics for the shorter wing that
would be sportplane relevant? I suspect the same could apply to the Models 6
and
7.
Jeff Probasco
_________________________________________________________________
Exercise your brain! Try Flexicon.
http://games.msn.com/en/flexicon/default.htm?icid=flexicon_hmemailtaglineapr
il07
_________________________________________________________________
Download Messenger. Join the im Initiative. Help make a difference today.
http://im.live.com/messenger/im/home/?source=TAGHM_APR07
Message 44
| 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: | Trimming Acrylic Windshield |
What is the best method to use for trimming an acrylic windshield as
furnished by LP Aero.
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
Message 45
| 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: Trimming Acrylic Windshield |
I used my Dremel tool with a #426 fiberglass-reinforced disc for the
trimming. A saber saw would chip it as it cuts, and I recall that
they frown on this. Finish the cuts by filing and then fine grade
sandpaper, and round the edges slightly. No rough edges should remain.
Lynn
On Apr 9, 2007, at 6:46 PM, GENTRYLL@aol.com wrote:
> What is the best method to use for trimming an acrylic windshield
> as furnished by LP Aero.
>
>
> See what's free at AOL.com.
> www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List _-
> ===========================================================
Message 46
| 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: | Cross country/MOA's/Thunder Ridge |
Those areas are also on our charts.. I don't think they have the same
name
but operations are generally posted as NOTAMs. I'm not too sure about
the
area in northern Labrador where all the NATO countries used to practice
low
and fast flying..... very low and very fast. In that area a higher
altitude
with a transponder would be much safer.
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
mscotter@comcast.net
Sent: Monday, April 09, 2007 12:49 PM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Cross country/MOA's/Thunder Ridge
MOA's: Military operational areas. These are generally training areas
that
may be under part- or full-time use by our country's military. They are
shown on charts and while private pilots are not restricted from this
airspace, one does have to take care and exercise caution when entering
one.
You stand the potential of having some very high-speed traffic in your
vicinity. If you talk to Air Traffic Control and confirm that there are
no
operations in the area before you traverse it you will be fine.
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys@yahoo.ca>
>
> Being north of the 49th and the snow line:-) I'm not sure what MOAs
are
>
> Noel
Message 47
| 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: | Cross country/MOA's/Thunder Ridge |
Lower than 1000' ... In Labrador they would be considered high at 100' and
I'm sure they trained a lot lower than that.
Noel
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> Randy Daughenbaugh
> Sent: Monday, April 09, 2007 5:50 PM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Cross country/MOA's/Thunder Ridge
>
>
> <rjdaugh@rapidnet.com>
>
> I live near Ellsworth Air Force base. Half of the nation's
> B-1's are based
> here. There is an MAO in southeast Montana where they
> practice, among other
> things, low altitude terrain following. I have often seen
> them (always
> from a car so far!) at altitudes much lower than 1000'. And they are
> moving FAST.
>
> I have flown through there, but only when it is inactive. I
> would hate to
> run into their wake turbulence.
>
> Incidently, in couple of weeks the Air Force is going to let
> civilians land
> at Ellsworth. I am looking forward to that. It will be a
> kick to land on a
> runway that's over 2.5 miles long. I wonder if they would let me land
> across the runway????
>
> Randy
>
> .
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> Guy Buchanan
> Sent: Monday, April 09, 2007 8:59 AM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Cross country/MOA's/Thunder Ridge
>
>
> At 03:42 AM 4/9/2007, you wrote:
> >So what is the group's experience with
> >dealing with MOA's? Go around, go through with radio calls, go
> >through with crossed fingers....what?
>
> When I'm flying cross country alone I fly for best winds, usually
> relatively high, and I use flight following. As such I can easily
> determine whether an MOA or even restricted area is "hot" by asking
> ATC. If hot I'll stay out. I generally plan to stay out anyway, but
> sometimes it's too difficult / dangerous a routing to stay out of an
> MOA so I'll stay low and keep my eyes open.
>
>
> Guy Buchanan
> K-IV 1200 / 582-C / Warp / 100% done, thanks mostly to Bob Ducar.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 48
| 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: New fuel proof Wing Tanks |
My intention is not to tread on any ones toes, especially when it comes
to
copy right. I spent many years where my sole income was as a direct
result
of copyright I held on photographs and I take copyright very seriously
especially when taking the bread and butter off someone else's table.
My
copy which appears to be a photocopy about god knows how old, claims no
copyright it is 15 chapters on 24 pages. The only identifying marks are
it
is listed on the front cover as a pre-publication copy.
If this is the same manual that John has rights to I'll certainly
respect
that legal right. Doing any thing else isn't what I'm about.
Any other discussion I will have with John directly as I don't think a
public, international forum is the right place to discuss such items.
Thanks for the post.
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ted
Palamarek
Sent: Monday, April 09, 2007 1:11 PM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Re: New fuel proof Wing Tanks
Noel
Just a word of caution here ----- The How To Fly a Kitfox by Ed Downs is
a
copy write article and owned by the SkyStar Aircraft Corporation. Since
John
McBean now owns the company I would consult with him before doing
anything
like copying and posting a PDF file. FWIW
Ted
DO NOT ARCHIVE
_____
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Noel Loveys
Sent: April 9, 2007 7:28 AM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Re: New fuel proof Wing Tanks
I have it here If I get a chance I'll scan it into a PDF and post it.
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jerry
Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2007 8:33 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: New fuel proof Wing Tanks
What was the company that makes the new fuel tanks.
Also does anyone have a copy of How to Fly a Kitfox by Ed Downs
Message 49
| 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: | Trimming Acrylic Windshield |
I'd try a rotary spin saw... they don chip at the glass and can produce
a
very clean edge. Use the same saw to cut composites.
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
GENTRYLL@aol.com
Sent: Monday, April 09, 2007 8:17 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Trimming Acrylic Windshield
What is the best method to use for trimming an acrylic windshield as
furnished by LP Aero.
_____
See what's free at AOL.com
<http://www.aol.com?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000503> .
Message 50
| 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: (was) Most HP on a Kitfox? Which Engine |
This seems to be a Kitfoxism - to always compare
unlike aircraft, or aircraft with pilot and fuel only,
since we fly alone a lot. It is a bit apple and
oranges that way though. We don't all weigh the same,
or carry the same fuel. We don't all have the same
fairings, range, etc either.
A -4 at 1200 lbs is near full, or full, and a -7 at
1200 lbs is near empty. I did most of my S-5 testing
at 1300 lbs, near empty. How can we compare
performance that way? I can beat the lower model's
performance, if he has to make 2 trips to carry the
load. And above some density altitude, I might be
able to beat any 1-4 on takeoff distance with my
turbo.
In the past, manufacturers were supposed to present
performance at gross weight, not something less. The
figures included payload that could be carried and
still achieve that performance. Anything under weight
would obviously produce better performance, but that
is cheating those who give gross weight numbers.
The S-5,6,7 will always perform less than the 1-4 on
the same HP, payload, and the same drag reducing
treatments. The newer ones are just heavier and use
more of a cruise wing profile, and so stall faster.
Cruise is improved by the wing, but there still is a
price to be paid for being wider and heavier, ie.
slower cruise on the same HP. Notice there are no 582
S-5's and later. I don't know of many 80 HP -5,6,7's
out there either, even though they are lighter.
But if you bought the later wide bodied Foxes, you
could up the HP to equal performance, except stall
speeds, and have more elbow room. The IV and older
still stall slower, all else the same.
But the 5 and later could stand a much larger increase
in HP. They can overcome the difference and perform
even better on non-stall related performance. So
takeoff speed and landing speed will be higher, but
with higher allowable HP, takeoff distance, climb, and
cruise could be better than the IV and older models.
This is where the power to weight figure comes in as a
truth teller.
So one better measures to compare between planes would
be, what is your max payload? What is your range at
gross? What is your T/O and landing distance at
gross? etc.
Or we could establish a standard payload and compare
all aircraft performance with that standard load
carried. Something like, "What is your performance
with 100 lbs of fuel, 400 lbs of people, and 100 lbs
of baggage? Can you even carry that? How far can you
go?"
Can we all carry 700 lbs? Some can. Can we all fly
500 miles with 30 minutes reserves? Some can.
Or something like, "What payload and performance can
your plane achieve with 500 miles range? Or what
range and performance can your plane achieve with 500
lbs of non-fuel payload?"
Otherwise one of the pilots I know (Mr T) on our list
will blow everyone away by always taking off in less
than 100 feet. I can't, but he can not carry the load
I can, legally 800 lbs.
And when you see Cubs in competition, there aren't
many 65 HP Cubs beating the high HP Cubs in the short
field area.
You can lower the lbs per HP by lighter weight - same
HP, or by increasing the HP more than the weight.
Where higher HP can't compete is in $/mile or $/hour.
But if you want to take off over 50' obsticles at
7,000 ft DA carrying you and your loved one and
camping gear, a turbo'ed KF with excess HP will do it
where the lighter weight one will not.
Bottom line: Mission dictates and the rest is
bragging rights. If we want to compare, we need a
standard to compare to.
Just my opinion,
Kurt S. S-5
8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time
with the Yahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut.
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#news
Message 51
| 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: | Flaperon Protective Covering |
My memory is that some have had good luck using WD40.
Jim Crowder
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Lynn
Matteson
Sent: Monday, April 09, 2007 10:55 AM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Flaperon Protective Covering
I soaked heavy duty paper towels/shop towels with paint thinner/
mineral spirits and laid them onto the flaperons for up to 8 hours.
Do as large an area as you can, and keep the papers soaked. The
coating will pucker up and almost fall off...or you'll need to rub a
little.
Lynn
On Apr 9, 2007, at 11:48 AM, Mdkitfox@aol.com wrote:
> I know there was an extensive thread on this subject a while back,
> but I looked in the archives and couldn't find a definitive answer
> on how to remove it. Does anyone know or recall how to get this
> stuff off the flaperons?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Rick Weiss
> Series V Speedster - N39RW
> DO NOT ARCHIVE
>
>
> See what's free at AOL.com.
> www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List _-
> ===========================================================
Message 52
| 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: (was) Most HP on a Kitfox? Which Engine |
Kurt says: "A -4 at 1200 lbs is near full, or full, and a -7 at
1200 lbs is near empty."
Kurt,
I about fell off my chair when I read that. But I guess what I am about to
relate just confirms what you say.
My Series 5 with a Series 7 firewall forward is near full at 1200 lbs. I
weigh 200, my wife weighs 125, - on our cross country flights we usually
have 50 - 60 lbs of luggage and 23 gal of fuel and still weigh less than
1300 lbs. - Which is a good thing since my fox is sport plane compliant.
Most of my flying is with passengers and at less than 1200 lbs. One time I
had a 300 lb passenger and I couldn't have full fuel, but so far, I haven't
felt the 1320 gross weight is much of a handicap.
I have Grove gear and big heavy tires and a heavy pneumatic tail wheel but
still have an empty weight of 776 lbs with the 912S engine.
Randy
.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of kurt schrader
Sent: Monday, April 09, 2007 8:14 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: (was) Most HP on a Kitfox? Which Engine
<smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
This seems to be a Kitfoxism - to always compare
unlike aircraft, or aircraft with pilot and fuel only,
since we fly alone a lot. It is a bit apple and
oranges that way though. We don't all weigh the same,
or carry the same fuel. We don't all have the same
fairings, range, etc either.
A -4 at 1200 lbs is near full, or full, and a -7 at
1200 lbs is near empty. I did most of my S-5 testing
at 1300 lbs, near empty. How can we compare
performance that way? I can beat the lower model's
performance, if he has to make 2 trips to carry the
load. And above some density altitude, I might be
able to beat any 1-4 on takeoff distance with my
turbo.
In the past, manufacturers were supposed to present
performance at gross weight, not something less. The
figures included payload that could be carried and
still achieve that performance. Anything under weight
would obviously produce better performance, but that
is cheating those who give gross weight numbers.
The S-5,6,7 will always perform less than the 1-4 on
the same HP, payload, and the same drag reducing
treatments. The newer ones are just heavier and use
more of a cruise wing profile, and so stall faster.
Cruise is improved by the wing, but there still is a
price to be paid for being wider and heavier, ie.
slower cruise on the same HP. Notice there are no 582
S-5's and later. I don't know of many 80 HP -5,6,7's
out there either, even though they are lighter.
But if you bought the later wide bodied Foxes, you
could up the HP to equal performance, except stall
speeds, and have more elbow room. The IV and older
still stall slower, all else the same.
But the 5 and later could stand a much larger increase
in HP. They can overcome the difference and perform
even better on non-stall related performance. So
takeoff speed and landing speed will be higher, but
with higher allowable HP, takeoff distance, climb, and
cruise could be better than the IV and older models.
This is where the power to weight figure comes in as a
truth teller.
So one better measures to compare between planes would
be, what is your max payload? What is your range at
gross? What is your T/O and landing distance at
gross? etc.
Or we could establish a standard payload and compare
all aircraft performance with that standard load
carried. Something like, "What is your performance
with 100 lbs of fuel, 400 lbs of people, and 100 lbs
of baggage? Can you even carry that? How far can you
go?"
Can we all carry 700 lbs? Some can. Can we all fly
500 miles with 30 minutes reserves? Some can.
Or something like, "What payload and performance can
your plane achieve with 500 miles range? Or what
range and performance can your plane achieve with 500
lbs of non-fuel payload?"
Otherwise one of the pilots I know (Mr T) on our list
will blow everyone away by always taking off in less
than 100 feet. I can't, but he can not carry the load
I can, legally 800 lbs.
And when you see Cubs in competition, there aren't
many 65 HP Cubs beating the high HP Cubs in the short
field area.
You can lower the lbs per HP by lighter weight - same
HP, or by increasing the HP more than the weight.
Where higher HP can't compete is in $/mile or $/hour.
But if you want to take off over 50' obsticles at
7,000 ft DA carrying you and your loved one and
camping gear, a turbo'ed KF with excess HP will do it
where the lighter weight one will not.
Bottom line: Mission dictates and the rest is
bragging rights. If we want to compare, we need a
standard to compare to.
Just my opinion,
Kurt S. S-5
8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time
with the Yahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut.
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#news
Message 53
| 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: | Flaperon Protective Covering |
My flapesons were made in 1991 and I peeled off the protective covering
last month after 16 years. It came off easily in one big sheet without
any problems. I know some guys have have a lot of trouble. I stored mine
in my garage all those years, maybe that was the key to not having
problems.
Clem
Lawton, OK
-----Original Message-----
> I know there was an extensive thread on this subject a while back, but
> I looked in the archives and couldn't find a definitive answer
> on how to remove it. Does anyone know or recall how to get this
> stuff off the flaperons?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Rick Weiss
> Series V Speedster - N39RW
> DO NOT ARCHIVE
>
>
> See what's free at AOL.com. www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List _-
> ===========================================================
Message 54
| 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: Trimming Acrylic Windshield |
At 03:46 PM 4/9/2007, you wrote:
>What is the best method to use for trimming an acrylic windshield as
>furnished by LP Aero.
I use a Dremel with their diamond disk. They're expensive
but they last a long time. I cut about 1/16" off my mark. Make sure
you cut against the rotation so the disk doesn't try to run across
the plastic. Don't go slow because everything gets hot and heat's
your enemy. (It causes thermal cracks.)
I then sand with 60 / 220 / 400. Make sure you use a board
if you want straight edges. I then polish with TC6 (brown) and then
PBC (blue) using the 1.5" cloth Dremel buffing disk. This leaves you
with a transparent edge which is supposed to prevent cracks.
Just for information I drill small holes using plastic 0
rake angle drills and large holes using a Uni-bit. Be careful with
the latter. Go slow and don't let it grab. De-burr the edges of any
hole and polish the inside of the large holes using the small felt
Dremel wheels and the above compuonds.
Good luck!
Guy Buchanan
K-IV 1200 / 582-C / Warp / 100% done, thanks mostly to Bob Ducar.
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! --
|