---------------------------------------------------------- Kitfox-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Mon 05/14/07: 13 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 06:33 AM - Re: Re: WING TIPS (Paul Seehafer) 2. 08:11 AM - Spinner (Barry West) 3. 11:53 AM - Re: Spinner (Fred Shiple) 4. 12:05 PM - KitFox IV wing questions (Don G) 5. 02:59 PM - Engines (Glenn Horne) 6. 03:48 PM - Re: KitFox IV wing questions (Paul Seehafer) 7. 04:01 PM - Re: KitFox IV wing questions (Tom Jones) 8. 04:43 PM - Speedster features giving it higher speeds (Paul Seehafer) 9. 04:56 PM - Brakes little to none (pilotpat) 10. 05:35 PM - Re: Speedster features giving it higher speeds (paul wilson) 11. 07:41 PM - Re: Brakes little to none (RAY Gignac) 12. 07:44 PM - Re: Brakes little to none (Lynn Matteson) 13. 10:00 PM - Re: Brakes little to none (Marco Menezes) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 06:33:48 AM PST US From: "Paul Seehafer" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: WING TIPS Message Leonard, I put 1300 hours on three different Avid Flyer models, 90% of those hours on floats. And none of those hours included use of a ventral fin. I never noticed any issues for not having one. The Avids flew beautifully on floats without a ventral fin, and they were extremely maneuverable in all flight modes (fwiw - I did most everything you can do with one on floats too...) In the last 2 years I have been flying a Kitfox IV-1200 on amphib floats. It has the standard Kitfox ventral fin. It too flies good as a seaplane, but will not slip anywhere near as well as the Avid Flyers did. I suspect that is because of the ventral fin on the Fox, and the fact that the Avid has a "notch" in the back of the fuselage that the Kitfox doesn't. I've not bothered flying it without, but believe if I did it would just take a little adjusting to the increased adverse yaw. So in my opinion adding a ventral fin to an Avid (or a kitfox for that matter) is probably a little overkill. You won't see significant flight characteristic changes. And the airplane will have adverse yaw either way. And last but not least, one big detriment of having a ventral fin is when you try to turn the airplane around on a dock, you can't swing the tail over a dock without hitting the ventral fin. Kind of a pain. Paul Seehafer Central Wisconsin Model IV-1200 912ul on Aerocet amphibs Avid A-model 532 Rotax on Avid Floats IVO prop > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of xfire > Sent: Sunday, May 06, 2007 12:28 PM > To: kitfox-list@matronics.com > Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: WING TIPS > > > > > Noel, > This is a bit off topic, but have you flown with and without > the ventral fin on your fox ? I am thinking of building one > for my Avid if it really helps as much as I think it will. > Can you get the basic dimensions of the fin for me? > > Thanks > > -------- > Leonard Perry > Soldotna AK > Avid "C / Mk IV" > 582 Full lotus 1260 > 90% rebuilt > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=111144#111144 > > > > > > > > ========== > Kitfox-List http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List > ========== > bsp; available href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com > ========== > > > > ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 08:11:36 AM PST US From: "Barry West" Subject: Kitfox-List: Spinner OK, I have the new prop, medium IVOPROP, on the Kitfox, 912S Rotax engine. Now the old spinner from the GSC prop looks like it is not going to work. What spinner do I get? I am looking at the UHS fiberglass spinner from Aircraft Spruce. What diameter? A problem is that it can't be powder coated but I may have to live with paint. What does John McBean think? Barry West Barry West ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 11:53:16 AM PST US From: Fred Shiple Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Spinner When John sent me my medium IVOprop he directed me to UHS for the spinner. Fred Barry West wrote: OK, I have the new prop, medium IVOPROP, on the Kitfox, 912S Rotax engine. Now the old spinner from the GSC prop looks like it is not going to work. What spinner do I get? I am looking at the UHS fiberglass spinner from Aircraft Spruce. What diameter? A problem is that it can't be powder coated but I may have to live with paint. What does John McBean think? Barry West Barry West ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 12:05:43 PM PST US Subject: Kitfox-List: KitFox IV wing questions From: "Don G" Hi Gents, Greetings from the other "K" list... I am considering a buying a model 4 speedster, 80 hp, with a JBS serial number and I have just finished a couple of hours scanning the archives here. Unfortunatly, instead of getting the answers I wanted, I just got more questions. Mostly because I now realize how little I know about the different varities of Kitfox's. I have come across referances to riblett airfoils and laminar flow airfoils...speedster wings and such. My 1st question is can anyone explain to me what the different wings have been over the years? Is the speedster wing a flat bottom?...or concave like the others? were the older wings of the series 3 and prior flat bottom as well? What wing is the "Riblett"? Which the laminar? What changes were made to acomplish the upgrade in GW from 1050 to 1200 in the series 4? in regards to the mention of "airfoiled tail surfaces" when did this happen as standard? are both the vertical and horizontal "airfoiled"? did this give a great advantage? Any website where this data has been arranged accordingly? I found nothing on the new Kitfox site referring to the details...only a brief history. Also, I saw a remarkable video of Jimmy Frankiln doing an aerobatic routine at OshKosh several years ago in a series 4 speedster 80hp. Can anyone tell me if that was a modified airframe? thx! -------- Don G FireFly#098 http://www.geocities.com/dagger369th/my_firefly.htm Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=112780#112780 ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 02:59:38 PM PST US From: "Glenn Horne" Subject: Kitfox-List: Engines Got a question on the Model II. Has anyone with a Model II got a 912 engine install on it? Thanks GLENN HORNE Kitfox Model II ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 03:48:02 PM PST US From: "Paul Seehafer" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: KitFox IV wing questions Don, Here are some answers to your questions. I will e-mail you personally with copies of documentation that may help explain things better. Paul Seehafer > My 1st question is can anyone explain to me what the different wings have > been over the years? (Kitfoxes model 1-3 have wings with a lot of undercamber. Model 4 and newer have the same basic wing, but Mr Riblett added a leading edge extrusion, a set of lower false ribs along the first 33% of the wing chord, and moved the flapperons closer to the bottom of the wings trailing edge, while also making the flapperon chord considerably wider. All those changes to the original model 3 Kitfox wing designate the model 4 and up kitfox wing as the Riblett - laminar flow wing.) > Is the speedster wing a flat bottom?...or concave like the others? (All true Speedsters were model 4's, and therefore have the less concaved Riblett Laminar flow wing. Technically speaking, all Kitfox wings are flat bottomed. But the early models 1-3 are undercambered significantly more than the Model 4 and newer.) > What changes were made to acomplish the upgrade in GW from 1050 to 1200 in > the series 4? (I believe there were a lot of changes to tubing sizes in the fuselage as well as the struts) > > in regards to the mention of "airfoiled tail surfaces" when did this > happen as standard? (All true speedsters had the airfoiled tail surfaces, as well as chromolly streamlined horizontal stabilizer struts, jury struts, and a electric trim tab on the elevator. I find those three things the easiest way short of the serial number to determine if it is a speedster or not) > are both the vertical and horizontal "airfoiled"? (yes) > Did this give a great advantage? (Not really sure. Some say yes, some > no. The company said it improved the handling) > > Any website where this data has been arranged accordingly?(I will forward > that direct to your mail once I find it) > I found nothing on the new Kitfox site referring to the details...only a > brief history. (I will send you a copy of the kitfox speedster brochure specs. Make sure to read the fine print as it explains things pretty well. But this early Speedster brochure shows it at only 1050 pounds, when I believe all production speedsters were actually 1200 lb gross weight. > > Also, I saw a remarkable video of Jimmy Frankiln doing an aerobatic > routine at OshKosh several years ago in a series 4 speedster 80hp. > Can anyone tell me if that was a modified airframe? (that was a completely stock Speedster flown with a 81 hp 912ul and a GSC ground adjustable prop) > > thx! > > -------- > Don G > FireFly#098 > > http://www.geocities.com/dagger369th/my_firefly.htm > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=112780#112780 > > > ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 04:01:50 PM PST US Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: KitFox IV wing questions From: "Tom Jones" Don, there are only two different Kitfox wing designs. The model 1, 2, and 3 used the under cambered wing. Starting with the model 4 the wings are the Harry Riblett airfoil. It is pretty close to flat on the bottom. To make it a speedster you clip 18 inches off. It has been refered to as laminar flow. Avoid that debate like the plague. It is builders choice on the airfoiled tail surfaces. Some do all, some do some and some do none. The IV 1200 airframe has larger tubing than the 1050. Mostly in the spar carry through tubes in the fuselage. The kitfox marketing materials of that time period stated the kitfox in the aerobatic video did not have a modified airframe. They also made a point of recommending you not try this at home. -------- Tom Jones Classic IV, Phase one 503, Warp Ellensburg, WA Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=112818#112818 ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 04:43:39 PM PST US From: "Paul Seehafer" Subject: Kitfox-List: Speedster features giving it higher speeds Don, Here is something I scanned that offers a good description of what differs between the Speedster and the rest of the earlier airplanes. Please note the paragraphs that talk about the elevator trim, and the extra false ribs on the bottom of the wing, as I personally believe this is what gives the Speedster and later Kitfoxes considerably higher speeds than some of the earlier model IV's (which fwiw are still faster than the 3's and earlier). My IV-1200 on floats will go 120 mph on a 912ul, and it has a long wing. I've been perplexed as to why it goes that fast when others say they can't go that fast on wheels? And it is faster than a few of my buddies Model IV-1050's that are on wheels? Only observable difference between the airplanes is that I have extra false ribs in my wing they don't, and I have electric elevator trim. Apparently these things make a large difference. And I think I can understand as they both make sense. If the wing doesn't hold it's shape consistently at high speeds, it will revert back to the original airfoil shape somewhat, thereby increasing drag. And the elevator trim definitely helps as you no longer need to trim the plane with the flapperons, which are major drag if not neutral to the airstream (they are essentially full length wings with a 10 inch chord, right?). So in my opinion, if you you want a good little cross country Kitfox, make sure it has those features. However, if you desire a real booney basher with extreme stol characteristics, but a model 3 or earlier with the lightweight airframe and the high lift undercambered airfoil. Just my two cents worth... Paul Seehafer Central Wisconsin Model IV-1200 912ul IVO prop Aerocet amphib floats ________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________ Time: 04:56:44 PM PST US Subject: Kitfox-List: Brakes little to none From: "pilotpat" I have little to no brakes now. pumped in fluid from bottom up twice till overflowed and still very weak. any suggestions on problem Also forgot to mention a while back that N821PK had 1st flight on April 10 2007 do not archive -------- Pilotpat Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=112829#112829 ________________________________ Message 10 ____________________________________ Time: 05:35:37 PM PST US From: paul wilson Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Speedster features giving it higher speeds True. If the shape of the bottom of the wing can be held in the Riblitt designed shape It is bound to improve performance. And 3 false ribs/bay is much better than zero and 4 is better than 3. More than 4 is starting to add weight. Standard speedster had 3 false bottom robs in each bay. Paul ==================== At 04:39 PM 5/14/2007, you wrote: >Don, > >Here is something I scanned that offers a good description of what >differs between the Speedster and the rest of the earlier >airplanes. Please note the paragraphs that talk about the elevator >trim, and the extra false ribs on the bottom of the wing, as I >personally believe this is what gives the Speedster and later >Kitfoxes considerably higher speeds than some of the earlier model >IV's (which fwiw are still faster than the 3's and earlier). > >My IV-1200 on floats will go 120 mph on a 912ul, and it has a long >wing. I've been perplexed as to why it goes that fast when others >say they can't go that fast on wheels? And it is faster than a few >of my buddies Model IV-1050's that are on wheels? Only observable >difference between the airplanes is that I have extra false ribs in >my wing they don't, and I have electric elevator trim. Apparently >these things make a large difference. And I think I can understand >as they both make sense. If the wing doesn't hold it's shape >consistently at high speeds, it will revert back to the original >airfoil shape somewhat, thereby increasing drag. And the elevator >trim definitely helps as you no longer need to trim the plane with >the flapperons, which are major drag if not neutral to the airstream >(they are essentially full length wings with a 10 inch chord, >right?). So in my opinion, if you you want a good little cross >country Kitfox, make sure it has those features. > >However, if you desire a real booney basher with extreme stol >characteristics, but a model 3 or earlier with the lightweight >airframe and the high lift undercambered airfoil. > >Just my two cents worth... > >Paul Seehafer >Central Wisconsin >Model IV-1200 912ul IVO prop >Aerocet amphib floats > > ________________________________ Message 11 ____________________________________ Time: 07:41:14 PM PST US From: "RAY Gignac" Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Brakes little to none First, what do you have for master cylinders? you may need to rebuild them, I have Matco and I also have had simular problems. Ray >From: "pilotpat" >To: kitfox-list@matronics.com >Subject: Kitfox-List: Brakes little to none >Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 16:56:22 -0700 > > >I have little to no brakes now. pumped in fluid from bottom up twice till >overflowed and still very weak. any suggestions on problem > >Also forgot to mention a while back that N821PK had 1st flight on April 10 >2007 > >do not archive > >-------- >Pilotpat > > >Read this topic online here: > >http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=112829#112829 > > _________________________________________________________________ PC Magazines 2007 editors choice for best Web mailaward-winning Windows Live Hotmail. ________________________________ Message 12 ____________________________________ Time: 07:44:13 PM PST US From: Lynn Matteson Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Brakes little to none Just filling them SHOULD be enough, but the bottom line is to be sure there are no air bubbles in the lines...this is what causes the weakness, in my opinion. If you ever run out of fluid while pumping, you have just pumped in some air and will have to start pumping again. Do you have clear/translucent lines? The bubbles will be white and the fluid red, so it should be easy to tell where the air is. As far as the overflowing goes, just stop pumping and check occasionally, and if getting too full draw some fluid out of the reservoir with a syringe. I have an oil can that I use for filling my system, and when I have pumped in about 45 squirts, it is time to dump the reservoir, load up the oil can and go at it again. And every time you take the flex hose off the bleeder nipple (if you ever have to), make sure that when it goes back on, there is no air...only fluid...at the end of the hose, or you will be putting that air into the system. From that standpoint, using as large a pumper as you can find, will eliminate that problem. One more thing...if you can see the entire brake line circuit when you are pumping the fluid into the bleeder nipple, you will be able to tell when the system is free of any bubbles. And don't forget that when a bubble disappears into the master cylinders, that's not the end of your job. It must leave the master cylinder and continue it's way up to the reservoir before it will return to the atmosphere and leave you with a "solid" hydraulic system. The preceding assumes that you have the Cleveland cylinders which utilize the single separate fluid reservoir. I don't know anything about the master cylinders with the integrated reservoirs. Do you have dual brakes? Lynn Matteson Grass Lake, Michigan Kitfox IV Speedster w/Jabiru 2200 flying w/275+ hrs On May 14, 2007, at 7:56 PM, pilotpat wrote: > > I have little to no brakes now. pumped in fluid from bottom up > twice till overflowed and still very weak. any suggestions on problem > > Also forgot to mention a while back that N821PK had 1st flight on > April 10 2007 > > > -------- > Pilotpat > > ________________________________ Message 13 ____________________________________ Time: 10:00:52 PM PST US From: Marco Menezes Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Brakes little to none One side or both? Sounds like a rebuild of master cylinder(s) may be in order. It's an easy job. Presume you have Matco cylinders. If so go to matco.com for rebuild kit(s). They're cheap. I have little to no brakes now. pumped in fluid from bottom up twice till overflowed and still very weak. any suggestions on problem Also forgot to mention a while back that N821PK had 1st flight on April 10 2007 do not archive -------- Pilotpat Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=112829#112829 Marco Menezes Model 2 582 N99KX --------------------------------- Park yourself in front of a world of choices in alternative vehicles. Visit the Yahoo! Auto Green Center. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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.