---------------------------------------------------------- Kitfox-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Wed 11/21/07: 17 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 03:59 AM - Re: coverings (Dave G.) 2. 05:34 AM - Re: coverings (Andy Fultz) 3. 06:14 AM - Re: Re: Kitfox I mods (Jim_and_Lucy Chuk) 4. 09:33 AM - Re: Poly-Brush? (Donroutledge@aol.com) 5. 09:34 AM - Re: coverings (Lowell Fitt) 6. 09:53 AM - Re: Kitfox I mods / Gross weight change (RRTRACK@aol.com) 7. 10:35 AM - Re: Kitfox I mods / Gross weight change (Jose M. Toro) 8. 10:44 AM - Re: coverings (Jose M. Toro) 9. 10:48 AM - Re: IFR in a kitfox (Michel Verheughe) 10. 10:53 AM - Re: coverings (Tim Vader) 11. 11:38 AM - Re: IFR in a kitfox (akflyer) 12. 12:04 PM - Re: coverings (Michel Verheughe) 13. 03:23 PM - Re: IFR in a kitfox (Marco Menezes) 14. 05:33 PM - Re: Kitfox I mods / Gross weight change (Noel Loveys) 15. 06:05 PM - Re: coverings (KITFOXZ@AOL.COM) 16. 07:36 PM - Re: coverings (Dave G.) 17. 07:55 PM - Re: coverings (Bob) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 03:59:17 AM PST US From: "Dave G." Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: coverings I think the number of coats is similar to the others, 2-2.5 cross coats of the final finish. I figured there were less total coats than Poly and about the same as Hipec. The starting point is to obtain the reference materials for all the systems you are considering. I think all three are fine systems, there is also the Loehle Aero coatings and others. I simply mentioned the Stewart one because it is the one I chose and I'm happy with it. Actually my Model IV is a mongrel in finishing, The fuselage is polythane which will have 3 small Stewart finished patches. The wings are Stewart systems, but the ribs were primed with Poly epoxy varnish. I'll be recovering the fuselage at some point and it will be all Stewart (more MEK to wipe all the polybrush off) Harry, if you want I may be able to fix you up with some reference material for the Stewart System, contact me off list if it will help you. Dave Goddard- Mod IV 1050/582 do not archive ----- Original Message ----- From: "Harry Cieslar" Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 12:32 AM Subject: Kitfox-List: coverings > > Since reading this info on Stewart system coatings for dacron , I looked > at their site. I really like the idea of safer material,. All others are > potentially toxic. Even Stewart Systems needs precautions they mention. > My question is to those who have used Steweart System and other systems is > how time consuming is Stewarts? Filler coat up to four and top coat 5 or > more. Seems like a lot of work. I have researched a lot and am trying to > decide my first project. Hipec was the simplest , strongest etc . I talked > to a few users and saw a plane which looked very good after 15 yrs. > However the toxicity is my concern. I would need a full independent > breathing system etc. Not in the cards for my Avid. Any advice. > Harry Cieslar,Goderich, Ontario, Avid Magnum Project > > > ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 05:34:35 AM PST US From: "Andy Fultz" Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: coverings Harry, I don't think that the Stewart Systems process is any more time consuming than any other. In fact there's fewer steps in the Stewart process than there are in other processes. There is very little time between coats. On the bigger pieces, by the time you reach the end of one coat you start back at the beginning with the next coat. You really should get in touch with Doug and/or Dan Stewart and have a talk with them. They are very helpful. They have a set of DVD's that will walk you through the process and you can see for yourself just how easy it is. The Stewart System is pretty amazing. Andy Fultz -----Original Message----- From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Harry Cieslar Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 10:33 PM Subject: Kitfox-List: coverings Since reading this info on Stewart system coatings for dacron , I looked at their site. I really like the idea of safer material,. All others are potentially toxic. Even Stewart Systems needs precautions they mention. My question is to those who have used Steweart System and other systems is how time consuming is Stewarts? Filler coat up to four and top coat 5 or more. Seems like a lot of work. I have researched a lot and am trying to decide my first project. Hipec was the simplest , strongest etc . I talked to a few users and saw a plane which looked very good after 15 yrs. However the toxicity is my concern. I would need a full independent breathing system etc. Not in the cards for my Avid. Any advice. Harry Cieslar,Goderich, Ontario, Avid Magnum Project ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 06:14:11 AM PST US From: Jim_and_Lucy Chuk Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Re: Kitfox I mods Sorry if that post was a bit confusing, I just reread it and see that I sho uld have said the stiffeners in the spars changed with different models. Sorry, Jim Chuk From: thesupe@hotmail.comTo: kitfox-list@matronics.comSubject: RE: Kitfox-L ist: Re: Kitfox I modsDate: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 05:31:06 +0000 I believe the Kitfox 1 has a gross weight of 850 lbs. I know that the stif feners in the wings were changed as the models changed. I have a set of Ki tfox 1 wings and the spar thickness is the same as the ones on a Kitfox 3. Both were .063 if I remember correctly. But like I said, the stiffners we re totally different and I suppose that had something to do with the increa sed gross weight. I just remembered another change, the strut attachment p oint is closer to the wingtip on the 3 than the 1. About 10" if my memory it right. Hope this is of some help. Jim Chuk, Avid MK IV Jabiru, Chishol m Mn> Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Kitfox I mods> From: akflyer_2000@yahoo.com > Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 20:46:35 -0800> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com> > - ne has never been registered. I dont think he is too darn worried about leg al.. I bet the plane is never registered, he just wants it safe. The guy ha s 1000's of hours flying up here and has had many other planes. He also doe s not want to re-invent the wheel so he asked me to find out what mods peop le had done.> > --------> DO NOT ARCHIVE> Leonard Perry> Soldotna AK> Avid "C" / Mk IV > 582 IVO IFA> Full Lotus 1260> 95% complete> > > > > Read this topic online here:> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php? p=147641#147641> > > > > ===> > > Connect and share in new ways with Windows Live. Connect now! _________________________________________________________________ Your smile counts. The more smiles you share, the more we donate.- Join i n. www.windowslive.com/smile?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_Wave2_oprsmilewlhmtagline ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 09:33:29 AM PST US From: Donroutledge@aol.com Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Poly-Brush? Hi Andy, Does the Stewart system include the fabric also or can I apply the Stewart products over ceconite?Thanks for your help. Don Kitfox MKIV copy/subaru/west Tn In a message dated 11/20/2007 9:29:39 P.M. Central Standard Time, andynfultz@bellsouth.net writes: --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Andy Fultz" I'll second that. Now that I'm in the process of covering, I can assure you I will never use that other stuff again. Stewart Systems is ten times easier to use, there's no volital chemicals and there's no odor. Clean up is a cinch. That other stuff has such a strong odor it about chokes me now to even be around where it is being used. Stewart's is now STC'd and will soon become the standard for aircraft covering. You'll also save several pounds in the finished weight. NO, I don't work for the company and have no ties other than being a satisfied user of the product. Andy Fultz AVID Mk IV Speedwing -----Original Message----- From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Dave G. Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 4:39 PM Subject: Kitfox-List: Poly-Brush? As long as coatings are being discussed, I'd like to mention the coatings from Stewart Systems. I know that Polyfiber works but I had/have a huge problem with the MEK or one of the solvents in it. I can only use it for a very short time and my eyes start to feel very dry and irritated, a feeling that lasts for days even if the shop is well ventilated. I decided to try Stewart Systems line of water borne product and so far I couldn't be happier. The support has been excellent the price has been good and I have no problem being around and in contact with any of the products. I've found the whole line to be easy to use. There is no doubt Polyfiber is the standard, but the alternatives have worked out better for me. Dave Goddard- Mod IV 1050/582 do not archive **************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest products. (http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001) ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 09:34:38 AM PST US From: "Lowell Fitt" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: coverings List, I like the idea of a safer material as well, but a quick look at the MSDS on MEK http://ptcl.chem.ox.ac.uk/MSDS/BU/2-butanone.html doesn't convince me that the "old stand" by Polyfiber system is that much of a risk regarding health. Yes, it has a strong smell, but with the exception of that it is fairly harmless with proper ventilation. In fact that reminds me of something my dad told me once - PhD Chemistry. Hydrogen Sulfide is much more toxic than Hydrogen Cyanide. The fact that we don't hear much about exposure problems is because it smells so bad it drives the potential victim to fresh air. A full breathing system for MEK based systems is way over kill in my opinion, just open the door or maybe a couple of doors. I would think that working with it in an enclosed work space there would be much more risk due to the possibility of explosion and fire and that alone would prompt me to open the doors to my hangar, shut off the pilot lights etc. and just be prudent. My now deceased Model IV was Polyfiber covered and finished with Aerothane and based on durability reports on some of the water based systems, my next airplane will be Polyfiber and Aerothane. I did use a respirator for the Aerothane, but a one off project is much different than a career of covering airplanes. Again my opinion. I know some used a fresh air system and I respect that decision. I know they do in the Kitfox factory, but again that is a production facility with painting going on regularly with the possibility of chronic build up of toxicity. I do apapreciate the pioneers though. What we really need are more guys willing to branch out and then report results. Then we will have assembled a data base that will help all that will follow to make informed decisions. Lowell ----- Original Message ----- From: "Harry Cieslar" Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 8:32 PM Subject: Kitfox-List: coverings > > Since reading this info on Stewart system coatings for dacron , I looked > at their site. I really like the idea of safer material,. All others are > potentially toxic. Even Stewart Systems needs precautions they mention. > My question is to those who have used Steweart System and other systems is > how time consuming is Stewarts? Filler coat up to four and top coat 5 or > more. Seems like a lot of work. I have researched a lot and am trying to > decide my first project. Hipec was the simplest , strongest etc . I talked > to a few users and saw a plane which looked very good after 15 yrs. > However the toxicity is my concern. I would need a full independent > breathing system etc. Not in the cards for my Avid. Any advice. > Harry Cieslar,Goderich, Ontario, Avid Magnum Project > > > ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 09:53:08 AM PST US From: RRTRACK@aol.com Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Kitfox I mods / Gross weight change Jose You "can" change the gross weight of a certified airplane. I've done it already. I just sent a letter to my local FSDO requesting the change along with documentation to justify the change. But you cannot lower the gross weight to meet LSA standards. Once an airplane is certified over 1320# it cannot be used as an LSA. The early Avid's were 850 gross as well, but after the installation of flapperon ballencers, the factory increased the gross to 911#. Mark Kitfox 5 Vixen 912UL IVO Hartford, Wisconsin **************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest products. (http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001) ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 10:35:37 AM PST US From: "Jose M. Toro" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Kitfox I mods / Gross weight change Mark: Just learned something new. Thanks! :-) ----- Original Message ---- From: "RRTRACK@aol.com" Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 1:40:54 PM Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Kitfox I mods / Gross weight change Jose You "can" change the gross weight of a certified airplane. I've done it already. I just sent a letter to my local FSDO requesting the change along with documentation to justify the change. But you cannot lower the gross weight to meet LSA standards. Once an airplane is certified over 1320# it cannot be used as an LSA. The early Avid's were 850 gross as well, but after the installation of flapperon ballencers, the factory increased the gross to 911#. Mark Kitfox 5 Vixen 912UL IVO Hartford, Wisconsin Check out AOL Money & Finance's list of the hottest products and top money wasters of 2007. Get easy, one-click access to your favorites. Make Yahoo! your homepage. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 10:44:22 AM PST US From: "Jose M. Toro" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: coverings Lowell Fitt wrote: "...my next airplane will be Polyfiber and Aerothane." There is going to be a next airplane. These are good news!!! My best wishes for both you and your wife. Jos ex Kitfox II/582 Get easy, one-click access to your favorites. Make Yahoo! your homepage. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs ________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________ Time: 10:48:15 AM PST US From: Michel Verheughe Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: IFR in a kitfox On Nov 20, 2007, at 10:40 PM, Marco Menezes wrote: > I had a similar experience returning from Oshkosh this August, flying > over lake Michigan. Thanks for sharing, Marco. I have two questions: 1) How did you keep from going in a bank if you didn't had a giro instrument? 2) Is on-top permitted in the US with non-certified engines? It is not in Norway. The idea is: You must always have a possible landing place in sight. Something you can't over the clouds. Maybe it's our mountainous terrain that dictates that. The only time I flew on-top (against my best judgement) it was over the fog and I knew it would be clear at arrival, it was only a round trip. Here it is: http://home.online.no/~michel/Autumn/ Cheers, Michel Verheughe Norway Kitfox 3 - Jabiru 2200 ________________________________ Message 10 ____________________________________ Time: 10:53:49 AM PST US From: "Tim Vader" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: coverings Harry I covered my Classic IV with one coat of Hipec Sun Barrier put on with a foam roller, let dry for a couple of days, then scuff sanded and one coat of sprayed on finish. The finish I used was Dupont Imron 4.3 HG. Low volatiles, one part, spay on, water cleanup, unlinked polyurethane. I used a cotton mask. Finish was touch dry in 20 minutes. I've had a piece stapled to the fence outside for 2 years with no obvious damage. Tim Vader Classic IV Subaru/ Soon to be VW ----- Original Message ----- From: "Harry Cieslar" Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 9:32 PM Subject: Kitfox-List: coverings > > Since reading this info on Stewart system coatings for dacron , I looked > at their site. I really like the idea of safer material,. All others are > potentially toxic. Even Stewart Systems needs precautions they mention. > My question is to those who have used Steweart System and other systems is > how time consuming is Stewarts? Filler coat up to four and top coat 5 or > more. Seems like a lot of work. I have researched a lot and am trying to > decide my first project. Hipec was the simplest , strongest etc . I talked > to a few users and saw a plane which looked very good after 15 yrs. > However the toxicity is my concern. I would need a full independent > breathing system etc. Not in the cards for my Avid. Any advice. > Harry Cieslar,Goderich, Ontario, Avid Magnum Project > > > -- > 269.16.1/1141 - Release Date: 11/20/2007 11:34 AM > > ________________________________ Message 11 ____________________________________ Time: 11:38:40 AM PST US Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: IFR in a kitfox From: "akflyer" Michel, Even if you are IFR rated an the plane has a full panel, you better be ready to fly with no gyros. Have lost a vacuum pump and it can hose you up good if you are fixated on your main flight instrument(s) (artificial horizon etc.). You can watch you compass to indicate turning, airspeed to tell if you are climbing or diving, RPM changes are great indications also. glance down to see if you are holding the stick or yoke in an unusual position (may indicate a turning climb or shallow dive). Most guys have a GPS on-board and most have some sort of situational awareness screen. I have been in IFR conditions twice in a bare panel PA12, once was in a mountain pass. When I started in the pass at 1500' I could see the "turn" about 6 miles out. About 1 mile into the pass a layer formed within about 1 minute that made it hard to see the prop... I had an old Sony Pixes GPS that had a moving map and only showed the track not real terrain features. I kept myself glued to the bread crumb trail I had made earlier pointed the nose to the sky and firewalled it... I broke out at 14,500 in desperate need of a new pair of shorts as I was within a few miles of mount redoubt and really did not want to become a permanent part of the landscape. I went in the following week and began my Instrument training. My instructor really loved to cover up various instruments at the most in-opportune times just to drill it into you NOT to get fixated and to let you know that you don't have to have a full panel to get yourself out of a tight spot and back home as long as you keep you head on straight and don't panic. -------- DO NOT ARCHIVE Leonard Perry Soldotna AK Avid "C" / Mk IV 582 IVO IFA Full Lotus 1260 95% complete Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=147753#147753 ________________________________ Message 12 ____________________________________ Time: 12:04:34 PM PST US From: Michel Verheughe Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: coverings > From: Jose M. Toro [jose_m_toro@yahoo.com] > There is going to be a next airplane. These are good news!!! > My best wishes for both you and your wife. And let me join Jos=E9 in wishing you and Kay the very best, Lowell! This i s the message we have been waiting for. You will be building again! Cheers, Michel Verheughe Norway Kitfox 3 - Jabiru 2200 do not archive
________________________________ Message 13 ____________________________________ Time: 03:23:21 PM PST US From: Marco Menezes Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: IFR in a kitfox Michel, I didn't avoid a bank. I was focused on staying right side up, keeping airspeed and rate of descent constant and the ball centered. Because I wasn't concerned about course (GPS showed no obstructions below) I did do an unintentional 180 degree, 3 minute turn. To my knowledge, VFR "over the top" in the US is not restricted based on whether engine is certificated or not. If it is, I made up all that stuff in my last 2 posts. ;-) Michel Verheughe wrote: On Nov 20, 2007, at 10:40 PM, Marco Menezes wrote: > I had a similar experience returning from Oshkosh this August, flying > over lake Michigan. Thanks for sharing, Marco. I have two questions: 1) How did you keep from going in a bank if you didn't had a giro instrument? 2) Is on-top permitted in the US with non-certified engines? It is not in Norway. The idea is: You must always have a possible landing place in sight. Something you can't over the clouds. Maybe it's our mountainous terrain that dictates that. The only time I flew on-top (against my best judgement) it was over the fog and I knew it would be clear at arrival, it was only a round trip. Here it is: http://home.online.no/~michel/Autumn/ Cheers, Michel Verheughe Norway Kitfox 3 - Jabiru 2200 Marco Menezes Model 2 582 N99KX --------------------------------- Be a better pen pal. Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how. ________________________________ Message 14 ____________________________________ Time: 05:33:34 PM PST US From: "Noel Loveys" Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Kitfox I mods / Gross weight change I was looking into increasing the MTOW of my model III-A from 950 to 1050 last year. I think it was Dave Fisher who sent me a drawing of an upgrade that included the installation of a heavier pass through tube for the wing struts (bottom of the plane) and also two additional frame braces in the same area on each side of the plane... To make a long story short, I have no appreciable welding skills and I don't want to strip the cloth off my plane to start hacking more tubing in. I wouldn't have any problem with flying my floats at 1050 lb. I would take into consideration that I was heavier than design standards and pass on some more extreme manoeuvres. So far I still haven't reached the 950lb. gross and I still pass on extreme manoeuvres. Noel Loveys, RPP, AME intern Campbellton, Newfoundland, Canada Kitfox Mod III-A, 582, B box, Ivo IFA Aerocet 1100s noelloveys@yahoo.ca -----Original Message----- From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jose M. Toro Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 3:03 PM Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Kitfox I mods / Gross weight change Mark: Just learned something new. Thanks! :-) ----- Original Message ---- From: "RRTRACK@aol.com" Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 1:40:54 PM Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Kitfox I mods / Gross weight change Jose You "can" change the gross weight of a certified airplane. I've done it already. I just sent a letter to my local FSDO requesting the change along with documentation to justify the change. But you cannot lower the gross weight to meet LSA standards. Once an airplane is certified over 1320# it cannot be used as an LSA. The early Avid's were 850 gross as well, but after the installation of flapperon ballencers, the factory increased the gross to 911#. Mark Kitfox 5 Vixen 912UL IVO Hartford, Wisconsin _____ Check out AOL Money & Finance's list of the hottest products and top money wasters of 2007. ________________________________ Message 15 ____________________________________ Time: 06:05:10 PM PST US From: KITFOXZ@AOL.COM Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: coverings In a message dated 11/21/2007 12:36:03 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, lcfitt@sbcglobal.net writes: List, I like the idea of a safer material as well, but a quick look at the MSDS o n MEK http://ptcl.chem.ox.ac.uk/MSDS/BU/2-butanone.html doesn't convince me that the "old stand" by Polyfiber system is that much of a risk regarding health. Yes, it has a strong smell, but with the exception of that it is fairly harmless with proper ventilation. In fact that reminds me of something my dad told me once - PhD Chemistry. Hydrogen Sulfide is much more toxic than Hydrogen Cyanide. The fact that we don't hear much about exposure problems is because it smells so bad it drives the potential victi m to fresh air. A full breathing system for MEK based systems is way over kill in my opinion, just open the door or maybe a couple of doors. I would think that working with it in an enclosed work space there would be much more risk due to the possibility of explosion and fire and that alone would prompt me to open the doors to my hangar, shut off the pilot lights etc. an d just be prudent. My now deceased Model IV was Polyfiber covered and finished with Aerothane and based on durability reports on some of the water based systems, my next airplane will be Polyfiber and Aerothane. I did use a respirator for the Aerothane, but a one off project is much different than a career of coverin g airplanes. Again my opinion. I know some used a fresh air system and I respect that decision. I know they do in the Kitfox factory, but again that is a production facility with painting going on regularly with the possibility of chronic build up of toxicity. I do apapreciate the pioneers though. What we really need are more guys willing to branch out and then report results. Then we will have assembled a data base that will help all that will follow to make informed decisions. Lowell Hello Lowell, I have been on the Kitfox List for many years. Still too busy to build righ t now, currently I lurk from time to time. Several years ago on The List we hashed over the issues concerning MEK. In fact we covered MEK from all possible angles. I have the greatest respect and admiration for you Lowell but, it troubles me to see your words: "Yes, it has a strong smell, but with the exception o f that it is fairly harmless with proper ventilation." You also wrote: "A full breathing system for MEK based systems is way over kill in my opinion, just open the door or maybe a couple of doors." I mean no malice to you Lowell, nor do I want to embarrass you in any way. I just want you and others on The List to err on the safe side when it come s to working with MEK. I don't have a can of MEK in front of me right now bu t, I am sure it still warns about the fact that MEK is accumulative in your body tissues. The body cannot rid itself of MEK. It can cause permanent b rain, nervous system, kidney and liver damage. Don't misunderstand me, I like the properties of MEK based covering and paint products for aircraft and I plan to use it to cover my Fox. But, I w ill use a full fresh air protection system for my eyes and lungs and gloves on my hands. I wrote the following letter in '96 to EAA chapter 292 and shared it with The List at that time. It is self explanatory. Dear chapter 292 members: My name is John Marzluf and I thoroughly love aviation! When a bird lands on a tree branch, a cat will crouch down and study it carefully, twitching it=99 s tail to and fro, eyes big and focused, well that cat is me! I h ave been eating, drinking, and sleeping aviation my whole life. You know what I am talking about, it=99s in your blood, it=99s in your very soul! I am building a Kitfox (she=99s a series five tail dragger with a Rota x 912S) and I belong to the Internet billboard list group for fellow Kitfox builder s. Here we post building and flying questions, opinions, and so forth for all to see. Your chapter newsletter editor, Mike Pongracz, saw a posting that I made to my Kitfox List members concerning the safe use of aviation chemicals. He asked me to repeat it here for everyone to read: My younger brother, Tom grew up with the same aviation enthusiasm that I did. Dad was a WW 11 Naval Aviator flying PBY5A Catalinas. (I still think the PBY is the most graceful war bird ever built) We all built model aircraft of all sorts. I served in the United States Marine Corps from 1970 to 1980 working as an avionics technician. While in Japan in 1975, I sent Tom his first radio control system and an airplane kit with the promise that as soon as I got ho me on leave, we would build and fly it together. Tom was 12 or 13 at the time. When I got home, boy was I surprised! Not only did he have it built and flying, but he had already cut the wing in half and rejoined it with no dih edral so that it would roll better. I finished my days working for Uncle Sam and went home for good in July 198 0. Tom was building bigger, better, and faster airplanes and dreaming about building a full scale some day. We talked about pooling our time and money for a Cub or Champ project. He graduated from High school and enrolled in the local community college aviation technology program. A couple of years lat er he earned his A&P license. I tell you the kid was in hog heaven! Our new A&P got a job right away working for a local aircraft service group . He honed his skills in every phase of aviation maintenance and soon gained the respect of many for his fine work. The spring of 1991 found him working for the largest aviation maintenance group in our area. He worked evening shift with the responsibilities of continuing the round the clock progress of annuals or engine changes or eme rgency repairs. His group had contracts with several of the non-hub airlines to d o emergency troubleshooting for flights that would have to cancel without an A&P=99 s sign off. The job was stressful at times and he started to tell me about his heartburn problems. Some evenings I would stop by the hanger to visit for a few minutes (had to get my hands on a bird feel it=99s cold metallic skin). Tom would be tearing down a fuel injection system and soaking the pieces in the parts washing tu b with MEK (Methyl Ethyl Keytone). He would scrub the parts with a brush and bare hands and then blow them all clean and dry with shop air. MEK is grea t for this because it will cut through almost any deposit and dry residue fre e. I can still see the gleam in his eye as he hooked up each injector to the test bench and watched it produce that perfect conical spray pattern. Other nights I would walk in through the hanger door and be hit with a wall of MEK fumes, while Tom did one of the things he liked best, the repair of hanger rash on spinners, wingtips, wheel pants, etc. He wiped the work dow n with an MEK soaked rag, filled and sanded as necessary, a final MEK wipe do wn before painting, and then of course the clean up of all spray equipment wit h, you guessed it, MEK. All of the hanger exhaust fans were running but what a stench this all made. At quitting time he would wash up first with MEK at the parts wash tub and then with some skin conditioning cleaner to replace some of the moisture in his hands. MEK is great to clean those dirty fingernail s of all of that black grease! He confided in me in the summer of 1991 that he found the airline emergency calls to be very stressful (holding a 737 full of late passengers and an ang ry flight crew to be sure their bird was air worthy). He said the heartburn was getting to be a real problem and that over the counter antacids didn =99t work much anymore. The smell of avgas used to make his day, he said, but now he found he could n=99 t stomach it any more. Filling his car gas tank made him sick, he would stick his nose in his sleeve and squeeze the trigger hard to get it over wi th. Driving behind a city bus was impossible without a dry heave or two. I told him to see a doctor and stop eating those Beanie Weenies out of the snack machine at work. The heartburn persisted and one night he left the hanger and went to the emergency room with his throat =9COn fire! =9D. The doctors ran some tests and finally agreed that he may have an ulcer starting up. They gave him some antacid medication to take and he said it worked great! The fall of 1991 was bad for us. Tom wanted to sleep a lot and had no interest in our airplane fun anymore. His belly was getting big and we jok ed about whose was the biggest. The winter of 1991-92 was terrible. I looked at my little brother and saw a young man with sunken dark circles under his eyes and a thinning face that was way out of character for him. His belly was too large for anyone to mistake it for a beer gut, and it was lopsided on the right side! This was a guy who two years before, was doing handstands on a skateboard going down a sidewalk hill. We got him into the doctor and they did a biopsy right away . The test results took a couple of days. On April fools=99 day 1992 the doctor came into his hospital room and said: =9C I have bad news.=9D We all figured it could be bad like cancer or som ething and that some treatment would soon follow. Tom, always the jokester and sc i-fi movie buff said: =9CLay it on me doc, I can go flat-line for awhile! =9D. The doctor said: =9CI have very bad news=9D. He kept apologizing t o us for having to tell us this. Tom wiped the smile off his face. The biopsy tests showed that Tom=99s liver was destroyed by Mucin producing Adeno Carcinoma. That meant that the cancer cells produce a liquid buffer around them as they grow and his liver was an ever-growing sponge like mass of cancer. No treatment wou ld reverse it or cure him. His liver was swelling to enormous proportions. The doctor said that his liver may have become cancerous from a blood borne contaminate or maybe there was some primary cancer site that sent the cancer to his liver through his vascular system. He suggested some tests that cou ld be done to see if there was a primary site somewhere. This seemed to give us some hope. The plan was to do a complete gastrointestinal study and to prep for that; he had to cleanse his system that night by drinking a gallon of =9C Go lightly=9D to flush his system out. The doctors would scope him in the morning. Guys, I spent ten years in the United States Marine Corps working on our fine Naval Aircraft. I was a real man in my little brother=99s eyes, but I wish more than anything else that I could re-live the night of April 1st 1992. I was the last one to leave his room that night. He poured himself a tall gl ass of that Go Lightly, raised it to me and said: =9CCheers mate! =9D in his pretend Aussie accent. I turned away to hide my burning eyes, tried to swallow an apple sized lump in my throat and somehow managed to say =9CSee ya later man=9D. I stormed out of his room like Judas himself and ran down the hall to the private safety o f my truck. You can=99t know how much I regret those few minutes. I s o wish we could have stayed up together that night pouring drinks for each other over and over, pretending to be getting drunk like a couple of old war aces. Instead, he stayed up that night drinking that horrible stuff all alone! Sarah, Tom and Doreen=99s daughter was born that month sixteen days l ater. Tom was with his wife through 22 hours of labor before the doctor decided t o do a caesarian. The Morphine got him through that I guess. May was a blur and June had us all taking shifts to watch over him as he la y in the spare bedroom at mom=99s house. We pushed the bed against the wall and I slept on the floor during my shift beside his bed so that if he got up in the night, he would have to step on me to get out of the room. We couldn =99t allow him to roam around and hurt himself in the night. The morphine was turning him into a monster. Strange to think back on it all now and rememb er how being stepped on was such an honor to me at the time. My beloved little brother Tommy passed away early in the morning of his 30t h birthday, June 19th 1992 with all of us at his bedside. He is buried in ou r family plot beside Dad and I am just sure that they are skimming a heavenly lake somewhere, cranking on the flap handle, trying to get that PBY up on i t=99 s step. Tom's widow, myself, and the rest of the family, were too grief stricken to have my little brother's body autopsied. Many questions remain unanswered to this day. Although no conclusive study has yet been conducted to prove a solid link between MEK and liver cancer, MEK and other aviation chemicals ar e known to cause irreversible damage to the liver, brain, and nervous system i f not used correctly and safely. Use a fresh air-supplied-mask and hood. These chemicals will get into your blood and tissues through your skin, lun gs, and even your eyes. Your body cannot deal with them. Please build and fly safely. I sure wish Tom could be here to see my Fox. I know he would twitch his tail watching all of your birds! Sincerely, John P. Marzluf _Kitfoxz@aol.com_ (mailto:Kitfoxz@aol.com) **************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest products. (http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001) ________________________________ Message 16 ____________________________________ Time: 07:36:19 PM PST US From: "Dave G." Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: coverings I don't believe that MEK is quite as deadly as some believe, although caution and ventilation is clearly advised. This link will take you to the best information I have seen on the matter. http://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/chemicals/chem_profiles/mek/health_mek.html Anyone reading the sheet will notice the advice about it being a fairly powerful irritant to the eyes. I think reactions are likely to vary somewhat from person to person. I appear to be more sensitive for some reason, even a fairly short exposure leaves my eyes feeling extremely dry and irritated, and it lasts for days. Sort of like an eyeful of sand. It's quite worthwhile for me to avoid it but nobody else I know has the problem to anything close to the same degree. Shifting between the two systems has given me the opportunity to try two in short succession and I feel the Stewarts is much easier to use. However as Lowell points out, longevity is unknown at this point. Dave Goddard- Mod IV 1050/582 do not archive ________________________________ Message 17 ____________________________________ Time: 07:55:34 PM PST US Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: coverings From: "Bob" John, I am really sorry to hear about losing your brother. In the "bad old days" we never took toxicity seriously and loved the smells of gas, MEK, and lots of other really bad stuff. As young A&Ps 30-40 years ago, we'd use stinky stuff all day and then smell like it all night, using skin lotion for dried out skin. It sounds like your brother was an extreme case, but your message is sound. Thanks! Fortunately, as somebody else mentioned, the non-contact cure is easy through ventilation and frequent glove replacement. I won't use PolyFiber in the house, but have no hesitation in using it out in a hangar or the garage or shed - with the doors open and usually with a fan running. I just think that we've learned and adapted. Obviously, once applied the way even close to how it should be, the stuff is well-known, darn near bullet proof, and easy to repair. Those are important qualities in a covering that should last 20+ years. I looked seriously at Stewart and started calling recovering shops. I won't give out any names, you'll have to do your own homework. The Van's RV guys swear by the Stewart metal finishing products for their interiors and there were two conclusions that I came to. First, all of the fabric covering systems come to within a few hundred dollars when you're really done. Second bottom line was that applied absolutely correctly, kept in a hangar, and away from contaminates, Stewart's fabric covering can look great and last a long time, but it's not for me. I did talk to some very happy Stewart-systems owners, such as Kansas City Dawn Patrol guys. However... I'm an A&P and started calling recovering shops to talk to mechanics with personal experience and less emotion about "their" airplanes. There are some that have used it more than once and won't touch it again. I was told by at least two shop owners in different parts of the country that they found the coating failed where avgas spills made somewhat regular contact and that they couldn't get new coats to both adhere and/or look right unless the fabric was replaced. One of the western shop owners said that he had to recover all of one airplane due to staining of the belly and coating coming off the wings. Both mentioned partial recover of two or three (my lack of notes) other airplanes. I also heard from them and some owners that wear areas around doors and such became a problem as the coating didn't seem as "hard" or durable as PolyFiber or epoxy coatings. As much as I like the water-base idea, I personally stopped looking at Stewart for fabric, although I'll probably go with it for metal interior parts. I also heard good things about their very expensive paint that's for high temps. BTW, the ag-operators have gone almost 100% epoxy, but they really require health precautions (forced air and full Tyvek suits) that I don't want to go to. I'm just recommending that you talk to as many owners as possible before making a long-term commitment to any system. Lowell, I am really happy to hear that there's another 'fox in you. Too bad that you're not closer, as I'd make you a good deal on my Vixen project. Not actively trying to sell it yet, but think I came across a flying airplane that is looking too cheap to pass up and the wife has a "one set of wings" rule. (when Momma's happy...) Bob -------- Remember that internet advice may only be worth what you pay. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=147822#147822 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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.