---------------------------------------------------------- Kitfox-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Thu 01/10/08: 27 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 02:45 AM - Re: Pros' & Cons' 912UL vs 912ULS (dave) 2. 02:51 AM - Re: Current events/ski story (dave) 3. 03:57 AM - Re: Re: LOW power limits (Dave G.) 4. 05:50 AM - Re: Polybrush help!!! (Harold Flynn) 5. 06:49 AM - Re: Re: Pros' & Cons' 912UL vs 912ULS (Randy Daughenbaugh) 6. 07:25 AM - Re: LOW power limits (Tom Jones) 7. 08:41 AM - Re: Re: Current events/ski story (Lynn Matteson) 8. 09:05 AM - Re: Current events/ski story (dave) 9. 09:12 AM - Model 7 & 912UL (darinh) 10. 09:45 AM - Model 0ne/ Two Dihedral (Bernie and Kim) 11. 10:24 AM - Re: Pros' & Cons' 912UL vs 912ULS (kerrjohna@comcast.net) 12. 12:19 PM - Re: Pros' & Cons' 912UL vs 912ULS (darinh) 13. 02:19 PM - Re: Re: LOW power limits (Dave G.) 14. 02:28 PM - Re: LOW power limits (dave) 15. 03:14 PM - Re: Re: Pros' & Cons' 912UL vs 912ULS (Dennis Golden) 16. 03:38 PM - remove (Forfun3@aol.com) 17. 03:43 PM - Re: Re: LOW power limits (Sbennett3@aol.com) 18. 04:40 PM - Re: Pros' & Cons' 912UL vs 912ULS (darinh) 19. 04:53 PM - Fw: Interest in Kitfox (b gammon) 20. 05:04 PM - Re: Re: Pros' & Cons' 912UL vs 912ULS (Dennis Golden) 21. 05:58 PM - How to increase lift on horizontal stab? (LarryM) 22. 07:04 PM - Re: Pros' & Cons' 912UL vs 912ULS (floran higgins) 23. 08:32 PM - Re: Re: Wing Tank Fuel Finger Strainers (N81JG@aol.com) 24. 09:23 PM - Re: LOW power limits (dave) 25. 09:27 PM - Re: Pros' & Cons' 912UL vs 912ULS (dave) 26. 09:31 PM - Re: Interest in Kitfox (dave) 27. 09:36 PM - Re: How to increase lift on horizontal stab? (dave) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 02:45:55 AM PST US Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Pros' & Cons' 912UL vs 912ULS From: "dave" The cost difference of reg to premium here in Canada is about 10 to 15 cents a litre so that translates into 40 to 60 cents a gallon more. You getting a good deal there Rex :) There are flight schools getting over 3000 hours out of the 912 UL . These are getting regular maintenance and use Rotax oil filters. Some will tell you different but for 16$ the Rotax filter is a few dollars more than the after-market ones that will fit. BUT , there are many differences including pressure relief valve. The after-market will just open and your oil will not be filtered and you will never know. There have been cases where the pressure relief spring has actually worn right through the oil filter resulting in a total oil loss. One another note on oil and 912s is that having your oil sender mounted off the engine like on the firewall with a line from the existing sender hole might make them last longer. The Diamonds certifieds are done this way. Also Rotax tried to make them stronger by using a brass band around there as a damper for vibration but firewall mount is the best cure. > Dale, > The big difference to ME is the fuel. The 80 horse burns unleaded regular while the 100 needs premium. Right now, they're about twenty cents per gallon difference. I'm concerned about a few years from now. > I also hear from a Rotax repair guy that the S is prone to more problems from the added power. He claims that the UL is smoother, shakes less when starting and stopping and is more "relaxed" when running. But, to each his own, and I'm guessing that others will have different opinions. I have 650 hours on my UL and like it a lot. I've never felt the "need" for more power with my Model 3. My plane weighs 660 empty. I'm interested if I'd still be happy with 80 HP in a Model 7. I've got some research to do. Good luck with your search. > Rex Phelps in Michigan / Warp Drive > > -- "Dale H" wrote: > Speaking of the Rotax 912........... ?I have a newby question. I don't own a Kitfox yet, and I'm still considering buying a flying one. I'm thinking about a model IV with a 912. > > What are the Pro's & Con's of the 912UL vs the 912ULS? Of course the obvious, the 912ULS has 20 more hp. Are there any down sides to having the 912ULS? Is it a HUGE performace difference between them? I have run across more 80hp models than 100hp models forsale. > > Thanks, > Dale Herseth > Mesa, Az -------- Rotax Dealer, Ontario Canada Flying Videos and Kitfox Info http://www.cfisher.com/ Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=157202#157202 ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 02:51:12 AM PST US Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Current events/ski story From: "dave" Lynn, I dug out a pic of those skis i mentioned above. I can tell you that these skis did not work very well as the tips just dig, dove whatever with that tip too steep. -------- Rotax Dealer, Ontario Canada Flying Videos and Kitfox Info http://www.cfisher.com/ Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=157203#157203 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/picture_003_193.jpg ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 03:57:35 AM PST US From: "Dave G." Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: LOW power limits Hi Dave, my empty weight was 551 and I expect it will change a few lbs when my recover is complete. I knew from reading your experiments around the 582 that I as down a little from rated. I'm not really after improving my Kitfox in any way. I'll learn to fly it and then assess whether I want to change something. My basis for asking the question was that most of the engine questions center around how to obtain more power and speed, up to the point where some have asked about some really heavy engine combinations. It simply made me wonder how few ponies could we aviate on? 40, 35, 30? Dave Goddard- Mod IV 1050/582 do not archive ----- Original Message ----- From: "dave" Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 10:56 PM Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: LOW power limits > > >> I know the bulk of the list feels power is good and more of it is better, >> but I'm curious how much is actually NEEDED. My 582 will perform fine, >> great even with 65 HP. I know from others that a VW will perform well and >> that an HKS 700E will be roughly the same in most respects as my Rotax. >> There are people out there flying on a 503 although I have no figures as >> to performance. >> >> An Aeronca C3 made do with 35 HP and a lousy prop choice. So, I'm curious >> with it's big wing, efficient airfoil and light weight, how few ponies >> could a kitfox flier make do with? We don't have climb at 1500 FPM, 30% >> of that will do with the runways many of of us use. Some of the early >> Cubs only had 40 HP. > > > Dave, First off a rotax 582 is rated at 64 HP with a stock pipe. Kitfox > pipe it not stock OEM - it is modified and has resulted in about a 5 hp > loss so you will be at about 60 hp for round numbers. If you search back i > did some testing on this and modified the exhaust to find out for sure . > My you tube videos document some of this > http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=kitfoxflyer > > The HKS maybe close to 582 but not faster. > VW direct drive no hope in faster than a 582 for take off ,but might be > in cruise if all set up right . VW need a reduction drive to optimize it > better. > > If you got a 582 I would stick with that. Mine has 380 hours on it since > last June 2006 and my thrid engine in this Kitfox. When will it stop> ? > Everyone says they not dependable. > > You last question -- well you could fly on likely a 25 HP engine and that > would depend on your Kitfox weight. If you look at John Knapps Avid here > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjDSatUSoCY it gets off REAL QUICK, I > think a 583 90 HP and a 380 lb plane on floats does it . I would guess > your Kitfox Iv will be 500 to 550 lbs as it simular to mine ? > > -------- > Rotax Dealer, Ontario Canada > Flying Videos and Kitfox Info > http://www.cfisher.com/ > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=157151#157151 > > > ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 05:50:31 AM PST US From: Harold Flynn Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Polybrush help!!! I had a problem that sounds something like that. I bought my kitfox in 1995. I used the Superflight systems to cover it with. When I sprayed my first coat of primer on the fabric I was shocked ! It looked like I had dirt in the paint. It looked like really really small round beads. Working in a body shop and doing some painting for 26 years I did know a little something about painting. At first I thought I didn't have my fabric clean so I tried another piece. Same problem! Just couldn't figure it out. I knew I was doing everything right. Finally I started looking at the frabic. It was hard to see at first but if you got down and with the right angle and light you could see vary small fabric hairs standing up in the fabric. I called Skystars and they said they had no knowledge of a problem like that. I found out that Stitts supplyed the fabric so I called them. Sure enought they knew about it. They told me that they discontinued that fabric two years previous because of that problem. I asked if they had a solution or a fix for it. Yes , replace the fabric.You know I wasn't going to do that. They then said that they did have some luck shaving the fabric with an electric razor. Thats what I did. It removed about 95% of the fuzz.The primer went as it should had. I did have to do a little sanding here and there but my paint job turned out very nice !! I know this all might sound a little weird but thats what happened. Harold Flynn jeff puls wrote: You may want to wipe the cloth lightly with a tack rag. I didn't have any luck spraying that stuff below 60 degrees. I would suggest you heat the hanger as warm as you possible can and then turn the heater off. I don't think the fumes from the Polybrush mix well with an open flame. Don't give up, it is not that uncommon. When you say "blobs," are they like small beads? Jeff Classic IV CMH ----- Original Message ----- From: "wadegreaves" Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 3:30 AM Subject: Kitfox-List: Polybrush help!!! > > > I am lost! > > I got my spray equipment up to par with a filter/water trap. Have plenty > of line and a good HVLP gun. Thinned my polybrush out with 65-75 (3:1). > Gun sprays nice and smooth. I clean the surface with MEK to ensure there > is no contaminants.... > > Then I spray the fabric and it literally looks like water on a well sealed > deck. Doesn't want to settle smoothly. It will bead up into blobs here > and there. > > Could this be due to low air temperature? That's the only think I can > think of. It is cold here in Oregon right now...in the 30s. I am heating > my hangar up to probably about 50 or so. The minds at the field seem to > think that low temps and spraying polybrush is fine. > I bought a JP-4 powered forced air heater to get my hangar toasty and am > hoping that the warmer air will eliminate this problem. > Anyone else heard of or observed this odd behavior? (not mine...the > polybrush's) > > Any advice would be great....losing it over here! [Evil or Very Mad] > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=156727#156727 > > > --------------------------------- ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 06:49:54 AM PST US From: "Randy Daughenbaugh" Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Re: Pros' & Cons' 912UL vs 912ULS Might toss out one other thing to think about. My strip is at 4400'. At this altitude the 912S is making about 80 hp. I find this preferable to the 64 hp that the 912 makes at this altitude. Randy ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 07:25:38 AM PST US Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: LOW power limits From: "Tom Jones" > I'm curious with it's big wing, efficient airfoil and light weight, how few ponies could a kitfox flier make do with? We don't have climb at 1500 FPM, 30% of that will do with the runways many of of us use. Some of the early Cubs only had 40 HP. Dave, I am nearing the completion of phase one flight testing my Classic 4 with a 52 hp 503 Rotax. Prop is a 72" Warp two blade, gear box is 3:1, prop pitch set for 6200 RPM at 60 mph climb. Fairing on tube gear, no fairing on lift struts. The Classic 4 is limited to 1050 max gross weight with a 503. This is a power limitation, not an airframe limitation. Here's some raw performance numbers. Gross wt 760, density altitude 1500 ft, climb 730 fpm. Gross wt 890, density altitude 1000 ft, climb 525 fpm. Gross wt 954, density altitude 1500 ft, climb 480 fpm. Gross wt 1050, density altitude 1800ft, climb 420 fpm. Stall speed at 760 gross clean = 38 mph, 20 degrees flaps = 36 mph. Stall speed at 1050 gross clean = 46 mph, 20 degrees flaps = 42 mph. True air speed at 5800 rpm is 78 mph. Best rate of climb speed = 58 mph, best angle =55, not much dif. If I made my graph correctly, service ceiling at 760 gross is about 12,600 ft. and rate of climb at sea level at 760 gross is 810 fpm. I havent measured the take off run but can say it is very short at 760 gross and increases to probably about twice the distance at 1050 gross. These performance numbers are very close to what the old Skystar advertised. Their hook for selling this engine with the classic 4 was "Fun affordable flying around the patch now and upgrade to more power at a later date when you can afford it". -------- Tom Jones Classic IV, Phase one 503 Rotax, 72 inch Two blade Warp Ellensburg, WA Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=157231#157231 ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 08:41:16 AM PST US From: Lynn Matteson Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: Current events/ski story I see what you mean....they look way too blunt to me. It looks like they are no more than about 4" high at the tip, and too steep, like you said. I think I made mine about 6" high at the tip, and much more pointed. The recent encounter probably gave me another 1 1/2 to 2" more height at the tip, and they seem to like the deeper snow now. Of course all of our snow is totally gone now, so I'll have to wait until more falls, or head toward the upper part of the state to find snow. Incidentally, the Annual Skiplane Fly-in at Pioneer Field in Oshkosh is coming up in a couple of weeks. Lynn Matteson Grass Lake, Michigan Kitfox IV Speedster w/Jabiru 2200 flying w/450+ hrs On Jan 10, 2008, at 5:50 AM, dave wrote: > > Lynn, > > I dug out a pic of those skis i mentioned above. > > I can tell you that these skis did not work very well as the tips > just dig, dove whatever with that tip too steep. > > -------- > Rotax Dealer, Ontario Canada > Flying Videos and Kitfox Info > http://www.cfisher.com/ > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=157203#157203 > > > Attachments: > > http://forums.matronics.com//files/picture_003_193.jpg > > ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 09:05:08 AM PST US Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Current events/ski story From: "dave" Lynn, Back on wheels as of today . we 98% green ,well brown and water everywhere . Just in from a flight fun fun fun -------- Rotax Dealer, Ontario Canada Flying Videos and Kitfox Info http://www.cfisher.com/ Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=157255#157255 ________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________ Time: 09:12:34 AM PST US Subject: Kitfox-List: Model 7 & 912UL From: "darinh" Rex, The answer to your question is probably yes, the Series 7 will fly on 80 hp but its performance will be very anemic to say the least. I too flew a model 3 with the 80 hp 912 and it did just fine although my cruise numbers were now where near yours (I could hit 100 mph ground with a tailwind) and my weight was 30 lbs lighter than yours. Keep in mind your Vne in that plane is 100 mph IAS. I have yet to hear of a Series 7 under 800 lbs with most of them coming in around 820 to 850...I'm sure it could be done by taking a minimalist approach to the panel and amenities but even at 780 to 800 lbs. I think it would be underpowered with 80 ponies...but yes, it would fly. I went the opposite way, I wanted as much power (within reason) as I could get while keeping the FWF weight to a minimum. The Lycs, Continentals, Soobs, VW, etc. are too heavy and I didn't like the prop choices for the Jabiru so the choice was obvious for me. Of course I fly in the west from high stips and mountians all around that are 10K plus so the extra power (especially the turbo) is very useful to me. Flatland is a completely different story and the power is not necessarily useful. Just my $.02. I can't run regular mogas but premium is still $1.50 cheaper than avgas. -------- Darin Hawkes Series 7 (under Construction) 914 Turbo Ogden, Utah Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=157257#157257 ________________________________ Message 10 ____________________________________ Time: 09:45:14 AM PST US From: "Bernie and Kim" Subject: Kitfox-List: Model 0ne/ Two Dihedral New guy on the link here.... I'm helping a friend rebuild a kit fox model one. He is installing a brand new set of model two wings, struts and jury struts. No where in the manual he has is the degree of dihedral given. It just says the lift strut bracket locations are used to set the dihedral. I'm guessing between one to one and one half degree. What is the wing dihedral on a model one or two kit fox? Bernie In the Cumberland Maryland area. ________________________________ Message 11 ____________________________________ Time: 10:24:29 AM PST US From: kerrjohna@comcast.net Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Pros' & Cons' 912UL vs 912ULS ........and Florin, what about fuel burn? Seems that there exists a fairly fixed relationship between power and fuel burn. The relationship between power and speed is exponentially less productive. Are we chasing absolutes? What flight profile is desired? Darin is configuring his 7 for the same flight environment as I have for my Classic IV. His resulting profile will likely not vary much from mine because of the difference in weight; 820# vs 640#. The Saturday before OSH I took off from LGU 4450' in my 160hp RV9 (longer wings) with an RV7 and an RV8 both with 180hp engines. I arrived at cruise altitude about 10 minutes and several miles ahead of them but they soon caught up and passed me. All three weigh in at 1050+/- pounds. Design affects performance. John -------------- Original message -------------- From: "floran higgins" I have a model 4 Speedster. When I bought it, it had a 912 UL. I installed a 912 ULS a couple of years later. The 912 ULS cut my takeoff run by about 100 ft. My rate of climb increased by about 400 Ft per minute. The cruise speed is about the same at 105 mph. Floran Higgins Helena, Mt. Speedster 912 ULS ----- Original Message ----- From: Dale H Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 7:25 PM Subject: Kitfox-List: Pros' & Cons' 912UL vs 912ULS Speaking of the Rotax 912........... I have a newby question. I don't own a Kitfox yet, and I'm still considering buying a flying one. I'm thinking about a model IV with a 912. What are the Pro's & Con's of the 912UL vs the 912ULS? Of course the obvious, the 912ULS has 20 more hp. Are there any down sides to having the 912ULS? Is it a HUGE performace difference between them? I have run across more 80hp models than 100hp models forsale. Thanks, Dale Herseth Mesa, Az ----- Original Message ----- From: Rexster Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 4:58 PM Subject: Kitfox-List: LOW power limits Interesting question Dave. I tend to think with you on this subject. I have a Model 3 right now and enjoy being able to use unleaded regular gas with my 80 horse 912 UL (warp drive). I am very happy with the performance of the plane and cruise between 100 and 105 mph (GPS). My next plane will be a Model 7 and I'm wondering if I can still get away with those 80 horses and regular fuel. My current plane weighs 660 pounds and I expect that a Model seven will be about 100 pounds more. I'm wondering if an in-flight adjustable prop would make up for those extra 100 pounds. Is anybody running a Model 7 with the 912 UL? Rex Phelps 1050 href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List">http://www.matronhref="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
........and Florin, what about fuel burn?  Seems that there exists a fairly fixed relationship between power and fuel burn.  The relationship between power and speed is exponentially less productive.
 
Are we chasing absolutes?  What flight profile is desired? Darin is configuring his 7 for the same flight environment as I have for my Classic IV. His resulting profile will likely not vary much from mine because of the difference in weight; 820# vs 640#.
 
The Saturday before OSH I took off from LGU 4450' in my 160hp RV9 (longer wings) with an RV7 and an RV8 both with 180hp engines. I arrived at cruise altitude about 10 minutes and several miles ahead of them but they soon caught up and passed me.  All three weigh in at 1050+/- pounds.  Design affects performance.
 
John
 
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "floran higgins" <cliffh@outdrs.net>
I have a model 4 Speedster. When I bought it, it had a 912 UL. I installed a 912 ULS a couple of years later. 
The 912 ULS cut my takeoff run by about 100 ft.
My rate of climb increased by about 400 Ft per minute.
The cruise speed is about the same at 105 mph.
Floran Higgins
Helena, Mt.
Speedster
912 ULS
----- Original Message -----
From: Dale H
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 7:25 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Pros' & Cons' 912UL vs 912ULS

Speaking of the Rotax 912...........  I have a newby question.  I don't own a Kitfox yet, and I'm still considering buying a flying one.  I'm thinking about a model IV with a 912.
 
What are the Pro's & Con's of the 912UL vs the 912ULS?  Of course the obvious, the 912ULS has 20 more hp.  Are there any down sides to having the 912ULS?  Is it a HUGE performace difference between them?   I have run across more 80hp models than 100hp models forsale.
 
Thanks,
Dale Herseth
Mesa, Az
 
 
 
----- Original Message -----
From: Rexster
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 4:58 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: LOW power limits

Interesting question Dave. I tend to think with you on this subject. I have a Model 3 right now and enjoy being able to use unleaded regular gas with my 80 horse 912 UL (warp drive). I am very happy with the performance of the plane and cruise between 100 and 105 mph (GPS).

My next plane will be a Model 7 and I'm wondering if I can still get away with those  80 horses and regular fuel. My current plane weighs 660 pounds and I expect that a Model seven will be about 100 pounds more. I'm wondering if an in-flight adjustable prop would make up for those extra 100 pounds. Is anybody running a Model 7 with the 912 UL?

Rex Phelps 1050



href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List">http://www.matronhref="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
________________________________ Message 12 ____________________________________ Time: 12:19:58 PM PST US Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Pros' & Cons' 912UL vs 912ULS From: "darinh" > Darin is configuring his 7 for the same flight environment as I have for my Classic IV. His resulting profile will likely not vary much from mine because of the difference in weight; 820# vs 640#. John, I think our performance envelopes will vary significantly, at least I hope they will...Keep in mind the turbo lets me produce the rated 115 hp up to 10,000' and 100 hp up to 20,000. So even though I will weigh in close to 200# more than you, my weight to hp is significantly less. On a standard day (72 degrees, and 29.92) at 4450' you are producing around 84% of your rated power or roughly 67 hp. At 10,000' its about 64% of rated assuming standard conditions. That puts you around 9.55 lbs./hp. on the ground and 12.5 lbs./hp at 10k. On the other hand, I will be producing rated power up to 10k so I am at 7.39 lbs./hp on the ground and 8.5 lbs./hp at 10k. I've also got he CS prop so that should add to my climb and cruise. Somebody check my math but I think this is pretty accurate. Now, this is not a contest with John by any means, simply an analysis for me to justify the amount of money I have in this project! I don't want to regret this project if I could have accomplished the same goals for half to 2/3 the costs by going with a Classic IV. I flew a model 3 with a 912UL and the performance was great but nothing compared to what Mark Miller is getting in his 914 Series 7. -------- Darin Hawkes Series 7 (under Construction) 914 Turbo Ogden, Utah Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=157290#157290 ________________________________ Message 13 ____________________________________ Time: 02:19:01 PM PST US From: "Dave G." Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: LOW power limits Thanks Tom, good performance numbers for a small engine and I'd guess there's room left at the bottom of the chart yet! I wonder what a 447 would do? Dave Goddard- Mod IV 1050/582 do not archive ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom Jones" Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 11:25 AM Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: LOW power limits > > >> I'm curious with it's big wing, efficient airfoil and light weight, how >> few ponies could a kitfox flier make do with? We don't have climb at 1500 >> FPM, 30% of that will do with the runways many of of us use. Some of the >> early Cubs only had 40 HP. > > > Dave, I am nearing the completion of phase one flight testing my Classic 4 > with a 52 hp 503 Rotax. Prop is a 72" Warp two blade, gear box is 3:1, > prop pitch set for 6200 RPM at 60 mph climb. Fairing on tube gear, no > fairing on lift struts. The Classic 4 is limited to 1050 max gross weight > with a 503. This is a power limitation, not an airframe limitation. > Here's some raw performance numbers. > > Gross wt 760, density altitude 1500 ft, climb 730 fpm. > Gross wt 890, density altitude 1000 ft, climb 525 fpm. > Gross wt 954, density altitude 1500 ft, climb 480 fpm. > Gross wt 1050, density altitude 1800ft, climb 420 fpm. > > Stall speed at 760 gross clean = 38 mph, 20 degrees flaps = 36 mph. > Stall speed at 1050 gross clean = 46 mph, 20 degrees flaps = 42 mph. > > True air speed at 5800 rpm is 78 mph. > > Best rate of climb speed = 58 mph, best angle =55, not much dif. > > If I made my graph correctly, service ceiling at 760 gross is about 12,600 > ft. and rate of climb at sea level at 760 gross is 810 fpm. > > I havent measured the take off run but can say it is very short at 760 > gross and increases to probably about twice the distance at 1050 gross. > > These performance numbers are very close to what the old Skystar > advertised. Their hook for selling this engine with the classic 4 was > "Fun affordable flying around the patch now and upgrade to more power at a > later date when you can afford it". > > -------- > Tom Jones > Classic IV, Phase one > 503 Rotax, 72 inch Two blade Warp > Ellensburg, WA > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=157231#157231 > > > ________________________________ Message 14 ____________________________________ Time: 02:28:20 PM PST US Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: LOW power limits From: "dave" I would think over all the 582 is the best fit for performance especially when you are flying dual or on floats. Dependability ? about the same 503 or 582 . Tom is cruising at 78 mph whereas mine with Kingfox tires about 92 mph at 5800 to 6000 rpm . With golf cart tires eg 16.5 x 8.00 ad 2 mph. Dave are your wings covered yet? If not I might be able to help you pick up a few more mph before covering. -------- Rotax Dealer, Ontario Canada Flying Videos and Kitfox Info http://www.cfisher.com/ Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=157318#157318 ________________________________ Message 15 ____________________________________ Time: 03:14:27 PM PST US From: Dennis Golden Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: Pros' & Cons' 912UL vs 912ULS darinh wrote: > > >> Darin is configuring his 7 for the same flight environment as I >> have for my Classic IV. His resulting profile will likely not vary >> much from mine because of the difference in weight; 820# vs 640#. > > > John, > > I think our performance envelopes will vary significantly, at least I > hope they will...Keep in mind the turbo lets me produce the rated 115 > hp up to 10,000' and 100 hp up to 20,000. So even though I will > weigh in close to 200# more than you, my weight to hp is > significantly less. On a standard day (72 degrees, and 29.92) at > 4450' you are producing around 84% of your rated power or roughly 67 > hp. At 10,000' its about 64% of rated assuming standard conditions. > That puts you around 9.55 lbs./hp. on the ground and 12.5 lbs./hp at > 10k. On the other hand, I will be producing rated power up to 10k so > I am at 7.39 lbs./hp on the ground and 8.5 lbs./hp at 10k. I've also > got he CS prop so that should add to my climb and cruise. That 115 HP is takeoff only (5 min) and I believe that the 100 HP continues to about 16,000', but that is still significant power at altitude. I would still like the 914 for my M IV Speedster (I'm from Colorado originally), but the cost may put it out of the picture. Dennis -- Dennis Golden Golden Consulting Services, Inc. ________________________________ Message 16 ____________________________________ Time: 03:38:58 PM PST US From: Forfun3@aol.com Subject: Kitfox-List: remove remove **************Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape. http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489 ________________________________ Message 17 ____________________________________ Time: 03:43:51 PM PST US From: Sbennett3@aol.com Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: LOW power limits I wanted long distance between tbo, and less fuel burn. My perfect engine combo is the 912. Oh ya, reliability ... My plane weighs 607lbs. Steve B 4-912 **************Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape. http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489 ________________________________ Message 18 ____________________________________ Time: 04:40:28 PM PST US Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Pros' & Cons' 912UL vs 912ULS From: "darinh" Dennis, You are correct, it is for 5-minutes but the 912UL and ULS are also only rated for full power for 5-minutes. You may also be right on the 16,000'. I need to read through my owners manual to get the exact specs. The 20,000' reference came from the Pulsar list about 2 weeks ago and I didn't take the time to verify its accuracy. Even so, 100 hp at 16,000 is more than a non turboed O-360 is generating. I am also adding the intercooler that Bell intercoolers puts out. The purpose for this is simply to decrease the temps of the inlet air in hopes that it will prolong the life of the engine. But an added benefit is that cooler inlet air means a little bit more power. Only time will tell how it will perform...I am betting it is pretty good. -------- Darin Hawkes Series 7 (under Construction) 914 Turbo Ogden, Utah Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=157340#157340 ________________________________ Message 19 ____________________________________ Time: 04:53:22 PM PST US From: b gammon Subject: Kitfox-List: Fw: Interest in Kitfox I need to figure out how to stop the individual hits and only get the summary. ----- Forwarded Message ---- From: b gammon Sent: Monday, January 7, 2008 6:00:43 AM Subject: Interest in Kitfox I am interested in buying a kitfox and becoming a Kitfox owner. Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage. Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs ________________________________ Message 20 ____________________________________ Time: 05:04:29 PM PST US From: Dennis Golden Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: Pros' & Cons' 912UL vs 912ULS darinh wrote: > > Dennis, > > You are correct, it is for 5-minutes but the 912UL and ULS are also > only rated for full power for 5-minutes. You may also be right on > the 16,000'. I need to read through my owners manual to get the > exact specs. The 20,000' reference came from the Pulsar list about 2 > weeks ago and I didn't take the time to verify its accuracy. Even > so, 100 hp at 16,000 is more than a non turboed O-360 is generating. > > I am also adding the intercooler that Bell intercoolers puts out. > The purpose for this is simply to decrease the temps of the inlet air > in hopes that it will prolong the life of the engine. But an added > benefit is that cooler inlet air means a little bit more power. Only > time will tell how it will perform...I am betting it is pretty good. Is there online information for the Bell intercooler? -- Dennis Golden Golden Consulting Services, Inc. ________________________________ Message 21 ____________________________________ Time: 05:58:44 PM PST US Subject: Kitfox-List: How to increase lift on horizontal stab? From: "LarryM" Would anyone know or be able to direct me to someone/where.... I want to increase the lift of my flat surfaced horizontal stab. It can be done by increasing the span, or by putting airfoil shaped ribs on the underside. Any ideas on which would have the greatest effect for the amount of work needed? The ribs would be quite simple, but how does one estimate the benefit? Thanks, larry Ps I already have vg's. They helped incredibly, but I;m on a quest for even more! Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=157357#157357 ________________________________ Message 22 ____________________________________ Time: 07:04:27 PM PST US From: "floran higgins" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Pros' & Cons' 912UL vs 912ULS With the 912UL I burned about 4.5 GPH. With the 912 ULS I burn about 5 GPH. Floran Higgins Helena, Mt. Speedster 912 ULS ----- Original Message ----- From: kerrjohna@comcast.net To: kitfox-list@matronics.com Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 11:22 AM Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Pros' & Cons' 912UL vs 912ULS ........and Florin, what about fuel burn? Seems that there exists a fairly fixed relationship between power and fuel burn. The relationship between power and speed is exponentially less productive. Are we chasing absolutes? What flight profile is desired? Darin is configuring his 7 for the same flight environment as I have for my Classic IV. His resulting profile will likely not vary much from mine because of the difference in weight; 820# vs 640#. The Saturday before OSH I took off from LGU 4450' in my 160hp RV9 (longer wings) with an RV7 and an RV8 both with 180hp engines. I arrived at cruise altitude about 10 minutes and several miles ahead of them but they soon caught up and passed me. All three weigh in at 1050+/- pounds. Design affects performance. John -------------- Original message -------------- From: "floran higgins" I have a model 4 Speedster. When I bought it, it had a 912 UL. I installed a 912 ULS a couple of years later. The 912 ULS cut my takeoff run by about 100 ft. My rate of climb increased by about 400 Ft per minute. The cruise speed is about the same at 105 mph. Floran Higgins Helena, Mt. Speedster 912 ULS ----- Original Message ----- From: Dale H To: kitfox-list@matronics.com Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 7:25 PM Subject: Kitfox-List: Pros' & Cons' 912UL vs 912ULS Speaking of the Rotax 912........... I have a newby question. I don't own a Kitfox yet, and I'm still considering buying a flying one. I'm thinking about a model IV with a 912. What are the Pro's & Con's of the 912UL vs the 912ULS? Of course the obvious, the 912ULS has 20 more hp. Are there any down sides to having the 912ULS? Is it a HUGE performace difference between them? I have run across more 80hp models than 100hp models forsale. Thanks, Dale Herseth Mesa, Az ----- Original Message ----- From: Rexster To: kitfox-list@matronics.com Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 4:58 PM Subject: Kitfox-List: LOW power limits Interesting question Dave. I tend to think with you on this subject. I have a Model 3 right now and enjoy being able to use unleaded regular gas with my 80 horse 912 UL (warp drive). I am very happy with the performance of the plane and cruise between 100 and 105 mph (GPS). My next plane will be a Model 7 and I'm wondering if I can still get away with those 80 horses and regular fuel. My current plane weighs 660 pounds and I expect that a Model seven will be about 100 pounds more. I'm wondering if an in-flight adjustable prop would make up for those extra 100 pounds. Is anybody running a Model 7 with the 912 UL? Rex Phelps 1050 href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List">http://www.matron href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c ________________________________ Message 23 ____________________________________ Time: 08:32:44 PM PST US From: N81JG@aol.com Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: Wing Tank Fuel Finger Strainers A micron (short for micrometer) is 1 millionth of a meter (one micrometer) . A millimeter is 1 thousandth of a meter. Milli means 1 thousand and micro means 1 million. As a clinical pathologist for 30 years I dealt with those units regularly. John Greaves Redding, CA **************Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape. http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489 ________________________________ Message 24 ____________________________________ Time: 09:23:37 PM PST US Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: LOW power limits From: "dave" > I wanted long distance between tbo, and less fuel burn. My perfect engine combo is the 912. Oh ya, reliability ... My plane weighs 607lbs. Steve B 4-912 > no arguement there Steve. 912 a great choice as is a 912s or 914. 600 lbs IV with a 912 would be a good performer. I think Dave already has a 582 though. Would be happy to sell him a new 912 though. -------- Rotax Dealer, Ontario Canada Flying Videos and Kitfox Info http://www.cfisher.com/ Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=157393#157393 ________________________________ Message 25 ____________________________________ Time: 09:27:40 PM PST US Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Pros' & Cons' 912UL vs 912ULS From: "dave" > With the 912UL I burned about 4.5 GPH. > With the 912 ULS I burn about 5 GPH. > > Floran Higgins > And you said at 105 mph cruise ? not bad but you could likely see 10 to 15 mph more . What have you done for fairings etc ? What size tires do you have and what prop are you running ? -------- Rotax Dealer, Ontario Canada Flying Videos and Kitfox Info http://www.cfisher.com/ Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=157395#157395 ________________________________ Message 26 ____________________________________ Time: 09:31:47 PM PST US Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Interest in Kitfox From: "dave" I would suggest to stop the individual mails and use the forum only http://forums.matronics.com/viewforum.php?f=8 The old mail list is nice if you get fora daily summary but the forum interface seems much easier and better to me. > I need to figure out how to stop the individual hits and only get the summary. change your settings here http://www.matronics.com/emaillists/ I think -------- Rotax Dealer, Ontario Canada Flying Videos and Kitfox Info http://www.cfisher.com/ Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=157397#157397 ________________________________ Message 27 ____________________________________ Time: 09:36:57 PM PST US Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: How to increase lift on horizontal stab? From: "dave" > Ps I already have vg's. They helped incredibly, but I;m on a quest for even more! > What did you gain and on what model ? What is your stall characteristics now ? I have used differnt Vgs with some benefit but not huge like many claim. I tried a few years ago some VGs on bottom of horiz stab just ahead of the hinge line to try to get more elevator control while on amphib floats so that I could rotate easier. I did have a negative AOA with wheels down and it was hard to rotate and lengthy. I never found they helped. What I did was to redesign the nose wheels casters and raiser the nose about 1 " high giving me about 1 degree + now. On water I sat about 3 to 5 degrees + and was never an issue. -------- Rotax Dealer, Ontario Canada Flying Videos and Kitfox Info http://www.cfisher.com/ Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=157399#157399 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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.