---------------------------------------------------------- Kitfox-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Mon 04/09/07: 54 ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 _____________________________________ Time: 03:49:12 AM PST US From: Lynn Matteson 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 2 _____________________________________ Time: 04:14:07 AM PST US From: Subject: Kitfox-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 04:17:59 AM PST US From: 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" 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: > To: > 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" >> To: >> 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" >>> To: >>> 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 _____________________________________ Time: 05:01:11 AM PST US From: "fox5flyer" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 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" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 05:48:55 AM PST US Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Poly/Plastic tanks From: "Bob" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:01:34 AM PST US Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Cross country/MOA's/Thunder Ridge From: "Bob" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:05:08 AM PST US Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: My new Foxkit From: "Bob" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:22:11 AM PST US From: "Noel Loveys" Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: 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 > > > > > 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" > To: > 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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:27:48 AM PST US From: "Noel Loveys" 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 10 ____________________________________ Time: 06:29:54 AM PST US From: "Noel Loveys" Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:33:40 AM PST US From: "Noel Loveys" Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: 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" > To: > 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" > > To: > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:55:02 AM PST US From: mscotter@comcast.net Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 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 > > 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
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>

> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson
>
> 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 13 ____________________________________ Time: 07:09:11 AM PST US From: "Barry West" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 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" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:46:56 AM PST US From: Harry Cieslar Subject: Kitfox-List: KF IV Builder Logs or Time Barry: Thanks for info: Harry ________________________________ Message 15 ____________________________________ Time: 07:50:40 AM PST US From: "Noel Loveys" Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:58:37 AM PST US From: "Lowell Fitt" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 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: 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" > To: > 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: >> To: >> 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" >>> To: >>> 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" >>>> To: >>>> 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:07:16 AM PST US From: Guy Buchanan 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 18 ____________________________________ Time: 08:18:51 AM PST US From: "Larry Huntley" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 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" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:19:11 AM PST US Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: IO240 prop From: "n85ae" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:19:24 AM PST US From: mscotter@comcast.net 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" > > Being north of the 49th and the snow line:-) I'm not sure what MOAs are > > Noel
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>

> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Noel Loveys"
>
> Being north of the 49th and the snow line:-) I'm not sure what MOAs are
>
> Noel
________________________________ Message 21 ____________________________________ Time: 08:25:28 AM PST US Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Most HP on a Kitfox? From: "n85ae" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:33:38 AM PST US From: Marco Menezes Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 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 > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:42:03 AM PST US From: "Ted Palamarek" 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 24 ____________________________________ Time: 08:48:48 AM PST US From: Mdkitfox@aol.com Subject: Kitfox-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:25:45 AM PST US From: Harry Cieslar Subject: Kitfox-List: Fox Classic To Larry: thanks for info on your build time. ________________________________ Message 26 ____________________________________ Time: 09:36:40 AM PST US Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: (was) Most HP on a Kitfox? Which Engine From: "Bob" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:47:30 AM PST US Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: (was) Most HP on a Kitfox? Which Engine From: "Bob" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:49:34 AM PST US From: "Larry Martin" Subject: Kitfox-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:52:36 AM PST US From: Lynn Matteson 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 30 ____________________________________ Time: 10:07:48 AM PST US Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: (was) Most HP on a Kitfox? Which Engine From: "n85ae" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:07:51 AM PST US From: Lynn Matteson Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:11:32 AM PST US Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: 582 coolant weep From: "Tom Jones" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:15:02 AM PST US From: "Clint Bazzill" Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: (no subject) 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:18:15 AM PST US From: Lynn Matteson Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 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 > > > > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:25:01 AM PST US From: Lynn Matteson Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:25:43 AM PST US Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: New fuel proof Wing Tanks From: tc9008@aol.com 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:31:56 AM PST US From: Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 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" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:20:03 PM PST US From: "Randy Daughenbaugh" Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:53:13 PM PST US From: "Larry Martin" Subject: Kitfox-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 02:34:28 PM PST US From: kurt schrader Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Short wing weights --- Clint Bazzill 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 ____________________________________ Time: 02:55:27 PM PST US From: kurt schrader Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:02:55 PM PST US From: "kirk hull" 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) 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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:15:44 PM PST US From: "Clint Bazzill" Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: (no subject) 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" 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) 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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:48:27 PM PST US From: GENTRYLL@aol.com 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 http://www.aol.com. ________________________________ Message 45 ____________________________________ Time: 04:24:22 PM PST US From: Lynn Matteson Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:02:12 PM PST US From: "Noel Loveys" Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: 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" > > Being north of the 49th and the snow line:-) I'm not sure what MOAs are > > Noel ________________________________ Message 47 ____________________________________ Time: 06:05:26 PM PST US From: "Noel Loveys" Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: 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 > > > > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:33:48 PM PST US From: "Noel Loveys" Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:09:49 PM PST US From: "Noel Loveys" Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: 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 . ________________________________ Message 50 ____________________________________ Time: 07:15:49 PM PST US From: kurt schrader Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:10:04 PM PST US From: "Jim Crowder" Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:19:16 PM PST US From: "Randy Daughenbaugh" Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:28:54 PM PST US From: "clemwehner" Subject: Kitfox-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:04:33 PM PST US From: Guy Buchanan Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post A New Message kitfox-list@matronics.com UN/SUBSCRIBE http://www.matronics.com/subscription List FAQ http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/Kitfox-List.htm Web Forum Interface To Lists http://forums.matronics.com Matronics List Wiki http://wiki.matronics.com Full Archive Search Engine http://www.matronics.com/search 7-Day List Browse http://www.matronics.com/browse/kitfox-list Browse Digests http://www.matronics.com/digest/kitfox-list Browse Other Lists http://www.matronics.com/browse Live Online Chat! http://www.matronics.com/chat Archive Downloading http://www.matronics.com/archives Photo Share http://www.matronics.com/photoshare Other Email Lists http://www.matronics.com/emaillists Contributions http://www.matronics.com/contribution ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.