Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 03:17 AM - Re: Re: How to increase lift on horizontal stab? (JC Propeller Design)
2. 03:17 AM - Re: How to increase lift on horizontal stab? (dave)
3. 03:24 AM - Re: Ignition pb on 582 (dave)
4. 03:27 AM - Re: How to increase lift on horizontal stab? (dave)
5. 03:28 AM - Re: How to increase lift on horizontal stab? (dave)
6. 04:46 AM - Re: Jabiru. WAS: LOW power limits (Lynn Matteson)
7. 05:06 AM - Re: Re: How to increase lift on horizontal stab? (KITFOXZ@aol.com)
8. 05:56 AM - Re: Jabiru. (Michel Verheughe)
9. 06:02 AM - engine selection (great bear)
10. 07:30 AM - Re: Re: How to increase lift on horizontal stab? (JC Propeller Design)
11. 07:53 AM - Re: engine selection (paul wilson)
12. 07:55 AM - Wing Tank Finger Fuel Strainers (Jimmie Blackwell)
13. 08:09 AM - Re: Jabiru. WAS: LOW power limits (dave)
14. 08:11 AM - Re: Wing Tank Finger Fuel Strainers (dave)
15. 08:11 AM - Re: Re: Jabiru. WAS: LOW power limits (Noel Loveys)
16. 09:09 AM - Re: Re: How to increase lift on horizontal stab? (Noel Loveys)
17. 09:16 AM - Re: Re: How to increase lift on horizontal stab? (Noel Loveys)
18. 09:55 AM - Re: engine selection (John Alexander)
19. 10:02 AM - Re: Vinyl graphics (akflyer)
20. 10:36 AM - Re: engine selection (Clint Bazzill)
21. 11:10 AM - Re: Re: LOW power limits (Clint Bazzill)
22. 11:14 AM - Re: Re: Jabiru. WAS: LOW power limits (Clint Bazzill)
23. 12:06 PM - Re: Jabiru. WAS: LOW power limits (Noel Loveys)
24. 12:19 PM - Re: Wing Tank Finger Fuel Strainers (Lynn Matteson)
25. 12:20 PM - Re: engine selection (Noel Loveys)
26. 12:23 PM - Re: engine selection (Lynn Matteson)
27. 01:00 PM - Re: Ignition pb on 582 (Renaud)
28. 01:53 PM - Re: engine selection (Michel Verheughe)
29. 02:20 PM - Re: engine selection (Lynn Matteson)
30. 03:01 PM - Re: engine selection (av8rps)
31. 03:06 PM - Re: engine selection (shinco)
32. 03:15 PM - Re: Jabiru. WAS: LOW power limits (av8rps)
33. 03:15 PM - Re: engine selection (shinco)
34. 03:24 PM - Re: How to increase lift on horizontal stab? (LarryM)
35. 03:42 PM - Re: engine selection (Noel Loveys)
36. 03:50 PM - Re: LOW power limits (av8rps)
37. 03:50 PM - Re: Re: LOW power limits (Noel Loveys)
38. 04:23 PM - Re: Re: LOW power limits (Dave G.)
39. 04:52 PM - Re: LOW power limits (dave)
40. 05:07 PM - Re: LOW power limits (av8rps)
41. 05:11 PM - Re: Re: LOW power limits (Dave G.)
42. 05:18 PM - Re: Wing Tank Finger Fuel Strainers (Noel Loveys)
43. 05:21 PM - Re: engine selection (Noel Loveys)
44. 05:41 PM - Re: engine selection (Clint Bazzill)
45. 05:41 PM - Re: Re: How to increase lift on horizontal stab? (Noel Loveys)
46. 05:42 PM - Re: engine selection (av8rps)
47. 06:18 PM - Maximum Miles Per Gallon in a Kitfox? (av8rps)
48. 06:19 PM - Re: Re: engine selection (84KF)
49. 06:24 PM - Re: Re: engine selection (Clint Bazzill)
50. 06:26 PM - Re: Re: engine selection (Sbennett3@aol.com)
51. 07:00 PM - Re: Re: engine selection (shinco)
52. 07:15 PM - Re: Wing Tank Finger Fuel Strainers (Lynn Matteson)
53. 07:21 PM - Re: Re: engine selection (Lynn Matteson)
54. 08:32 PM - Re: engine selection (av8rps)
55. 10:38 PM - Mandatory Gearbox SB on 912/914's - Check yours (darinh)
56. 11:12 PM - Re: Re: engine selection (shinco)
57. 11:32 PM - Re: Re: engine selection (shinco)
58. 11:36 PM - Cleaning Seat Covers (John Allen)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: How to increase lift on horizontal stab? |
Larry,
You can not have a higher AoA at shallow angle (to the ground) without
increasing the sink rate. (or moving the wing relative fuselage)
You can increase lift without increasing the AoA with effective flaps.
VG's on wing don't increase lift it self, it make the wing tolerant to
higher Alfa (AoA)
Lift is linear to Alfa up to near stall.
With a high camber wing and forward/normal CG the tail don't produce lift,
but negative "lift"
This negative lift needs to be lifted by the wing. (increasing the induced
drag)
The wing is said to have center of lift at about 24-25% of cord. then it is
said to have a moment around the 25%
with a highly cambered airfoil it have a negative moment, that want to lower
the nose.
The CG is somewhere from 15-30% on most airplanes.
meaning if it is ahead of 25% it add to the nose lowering moment, if behind
25% it reduce the moment.
To be able to control the airplane this moment need to be compensated, that
is the task of the horizontal tail plane.
If we have a (we do in most cases) negative moment around the wing's 25% We
need a force pointed down on the tail to balance the negative moment.
If we wants a higher Alfa we rise the elevator (increase the camber on the
tail) this increase the negative lift, until the increased Alfa (wing and
tail's lift and moment) balance this moment out again
If the elevator don't produce enough negative lift, we can lower the leading
edge of the horizontal, so we can get the Alfa needed to stall the wing, but
that is best don with a in the air moveable horizontal, others we have to
push hard on the stick in high(er) speed.
Problem is if the tailplane stall before the wing, that can happen if
negative moment is high and or CG is far a head. meaning you can't stall out
the plane when landing
Even worse if CG is so far behind that the horiz. tail have so much positive
lift that it stall, a situation that can trip that stall is if slowing down
for landing pulling flap, and compensating the increased wing lift with down
elevator, The airplane will flip nose up, standing as a cross in the sky,
and you will soon have a cross with your name on it on ground too.
Rule Nr 1 on all airplane is the have the most forward wing to stall first,
canard or 3-surface or "normal" configuration,
If we make the forward wing more effective we might need to do something at
the rear end too!
If VG's isn't enough in front of hinge line at bottom, maybe VG's on the
leading edge of top surface can help? making the air follow the front fixed
part of horizontal to the up deflected elevator.
If the tail wheel hits ground first the landing gear need to be higher! if
you want to land short.
Jan Carlsson
JC Propeller Design
----- Original Message -----
From: "LarryM" <CrownLJ@verizon.net>
Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2008 4:04 AM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: How to increase lift on horizontal stab?
>
> Noel,
> What I'm thinking is that as the angle of attack is increased, the center
> of lift moves forward, hence the attitude of the airplane is increased.
> If I could get the same angle of attack without the cp moving so far
> forward (which we can't with a given airfoil) then I could have a flatter
> attitude with for the same angle of attack. Since the cp can't be kept
> back, that only leaves changing the contribution that the tail makes to
> lower the nose at any given AoA. The overall desire result is slower
> speed due to the elevator being able to generate the higher AoA, and
> having a shallower pitch angle so I don't slam the tail on before the
> mains. What do you think?
>
> larry
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=157570#157570
>
>
> __________ NOD32 2778 (20080109) Information __________
>
>
>
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: How to increase lift on horizontal stab? |
> 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?
>
Ok well why not put in ribs that are more curved on top so it would be like a
wing? instead of a horiz stab made out of 1/2' tube make it like the Kitfox
model IV 1200
--------
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=157594#157594
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Ignition pb on 582 |
Renaud,
Sounds like you had a bad connection ?
Engine removal takes less than a hour.
Great time to replace all hoses as well.
--------
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=157596#157596
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: How to increase lift on horizontal stab? |
> If the tail wheel hits ground first the landing gear need to be higher! if
> you want to land short.
>
> Jan Carlsson
> JC Propeller Design
Jan this is what I have been saying that I would like to do. Extend my main gear
6 to 10" longer. Have you seen my videos how my tail hits first ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itqyBYxU0lU
--------
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=157597#157597
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: How to increase lift on horizontal stab? |
Jan, Another point on VG placement , what about on the underside of an uncamber
wing ?
--------
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=157598#157598
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Jabiru. WAS: LOW power limits |
Nope...I've only seen 3300 once when I did a low pass under power at
a friend's airstrip. My 62 x 46 will only get me about 3150 under
most conditions, but usually I see about 3000 max straight and level.
Jab says 2750-2950 is the cruise range. Like I've said here before, I
think I'm over-propped, but that's what was engineered for me by the
Jabiru dealer/Sensenich, and I'm pretty happy with the way it works,
so no changes are in my immediate future.
Lynn Matteson
Grass Lake, Michigan
Kitfox IV Speedster w/Jabiru 2200
flying w/450+ hrs
On Jan 11, 2008, at 11:05 PM, Noel Loveys wrote:
>
> Lynn do you take your jab all the way up to 3300??? That's
> screaming for a
> direct drive!
>
> Noel
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lynn
> Matteson
> Sent: Friday, January 11, 2008 6:13 PM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Jabiru. WAS: LOW power limits
>
>
> Absolutely, Michel and Noel. I'm not sure what short is, but I gather
> my 62" (x46") is shorter by comparison to the 72-inchers, or whatever
> the redrive crowd uses. But then, my engine got me across the country
> last year at a pretty economical rate, I didn't lose a drop of
> coolant, and didn't have to listen to, and worry about, a tach
> reading of 5000+ rpm. In my case, a Sport Pilot, I can't fly with an
> in-flight-adjustable prop anyway, so my prop choices are not that
> limited. I just can't use a ground adjustable at the present time,
> according to Jabiru, unless that's changed recently. My plane gets
> off the ground in about 250 feet the last time I cared to check,
> sometimes less. I usually fly alone, can kick the butts of the
> spamcans that are foolish enough to try to outclimb me, but I'm
> realistic enough to know that the screaming Rotax's would probably
> outclimb me, so why get into that. It's all about what you want to do
> with the plane, how you want to fly, and how you want the engine to
> sound. I can't count the times I've heard "At least your plane
> SOUNDS like a real plane."
>
> Lynn Matteson
> Grass Lake, Michigan
> Kitfox IV Speedster w/Jabiru 2200
> flying w/450+ hrs
>
>
> On Jan 11, 2008, at 3:58 PM, Michel Verheughe wrote:
>
>> <michel@online.no>
>>
>> On Jan 11, 2008, at 8:52 PM, Noel Loveys wrote:
>>> What I question about the Jab is the 3300 rpm... That requires a
>>> very short
>>> prop to keep the inertial stresses down. That means that full
>>> power for
>>> takeoff isn't either developed or efficient. What i like about it
>>> is of
>>> course the fact you can leave the redrive at the shop :-)
>>
>> I have a Jabiru 60 by 38" two-blades fixed pitch wood prop, Noel. I
>> don't know if that is short or not; I don't know much about these
>> things. From what I understand, I have less torque for take-off.
>> But it is not my concern; I fly from a long asphalt runway. As you
>> probably know, I went from a Rotax 582 to the Jabiru. My decision
>> was based on the reliability and long TBO of a four-strokes engine;
>> plus the light weight and simplicity of a air-cooled and direct
>> drive engine.
>> Take-off performance is about the same as the 582. At cruise
>> attitude, I need less power to keep 85 MPH, my cruise speed with
>> the model 3. I burn a bit less fuel and it is a quiet and smooth
>> ride. Last, the Jabiru 2200 is only slightly heavier than the 582
>> and, in order to keep my CoG at the same place, I only had to move
>> the battery from the firewall to behind the seat.
>> The negative sides of the Jabiru are:
>> - Limited propeller choice.
>> - Needs a new cowling to accommodate for the boxer type engine.
>> Otherwise, I am quite pleased with it and I think that Lynn is too.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Michel Verheughe
>> Norway
>> Kitfox 3 - Jabiru 2200
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: How to increase lift on horizontal stab? |
In a message dated 1/12/2008 6:18:37 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
dave@cfisher.com writes:
Ok well why not put in ribs that are more curved on top so it would be like
a wing? instead of a horiz stab made out of 1/2' tube make it like the
Kitfox model IV 1200
Changing the hor stab's airfoil for more lift will be even more effective at
higher air speeds! I think Larry simply has a tail heavy bird. I would
experiment with a more forward CG first.
John P. Marzluf (John Z.)
Columbus, Ohio
Series V Outback (Out Back In The Garage)
20% Complete, Not Currently Building
Do Not Archive
**************Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape.
http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
> From: Lynn Matteson [lynnmatt@jps.net]
> Nope...I've only seen 3300 once when I did a low pass under power at
> a friend's airstrip.
Nor have I, guys. I think the 3300 max RPM can only be achieved in a steep dive.
With my light model 3, I have 2950 static and 3050 WOT at cruise. I am told
that it is exactly what it should be. But I cruise slower than Lynn, only 2,650
to keep my cruise speed of 85 MPH. If I push the throttle to WOT at level, I
near quickly my Vne of 100 MPH. With a model 1, 2 or 3, I think that the 2200
is more than enough. If I had e.g. a Jabiru 3300, I would never be able to cruise
at more than 50% throttle and that is, as far as I understand, not good for
the engine.
Cheers,
Michel Verheughe
Norway
Kitfox 3 - Jabiru 2200
<pre><b><font size=2 color="#000000" face="courier new,courier">
</b></font></pre></body></html>
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | engine selection |
I have been following the talk on engine choices...just another thought to add....I
have a series 5 outback and will have to make an engine choice soon because
of wing sweep (or lack of) and would like to know your thoughts on a Jabiru
2200 vs a 0-200 cont. Heres my thinking....the jabiru weighs in at 138 and the
0-200 at 187....ready to go...how much of an even trade is this...50 pounds
for 20 hp? Now I guess we can close the weight gap by going light weight starter
and alternator by about 12-15 pounds..I am still researching that...I like
the simplicity of a direct drive air-cooled engine..how much does the 912 series
really weigh when you factor the radiator, hoses, coolant,expansion tank...ect?
Does it fall somewhere in this weight range? I had a Cessna 140 for 22 years
and changed the 85 hp to an 0-200 and doubled the rate of climb but only gained
2mph in cruise. Since excess hp power is merely the ability to climb faster
and cruise is a function of
aerodynamics will the weight savings be traded off for horse power? Also can the
wings be set at zero sweep and the battery moved to adjust the CG? Just getting
started in this as I just bought the Outback and got it home a week ago....still
looking it over and wondering what I have gotten myself into here.....If
there are any builders who would rather respond off list feel free to contact
me direct at av8r2488@yahoo.com Thanks for your advice and help this is a
great forum.
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: How to increase lift on horizontal stab? |
Hm, it might reduce drag at high speed, if thinking of airfoil with concave
underside. with VG's close to leading edge! It need to be tested Dave.
Thinking of STOL plane, some have the horiz. stab. plane with a upside down
airfoil to be able to stall the wing.
Was Re-reading what Larry said,
But
The Center of lift isn't moving forward with increased Alfa, it is the
opposite, or more aerodynamically correct speaking that the negative moment
is increasing with higher Alfa, The Alfa is increasing because the negative
lift is increased at the tail. The elevator have to both overcome the
increased neg. moment and the fixed part of the horiz tail's increased lift
from the aircrafts increased angle.
If center of lift was moving forward you would be needed to reduce up
elevator at high Alfa.
Jan
----- Original Message -----
From: "dave" <dave@cfisher.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2008 12:28 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: How to increase lift on horizontal stab?
>
> Jan, Another point on VG placement , what about on the underside of an
> uncamber wing ?
>
> --------
> 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=157598#157598
>
>
> __________ NOD32 2778 (20080109) Information __________
>
>
>
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: engine selection |
Here are some numbers to ponder:
O-200, 100 Hp @2750, 6.3GPH, 187#
J2200, 71Hp @2750, 4GPH@??%, 132#
J3300, 107Hp @2750, 6.87GPH@75%, 178#
R912ul 81Hp @5800 (2386 prop),6.3GPH, 121#
@5500, 67.7Hp, 5.92GPH
@5000, 58.4Hp, 5.1GPH
R912uls 100Hp @5800 (2386 prop),7.1GPH, 125#
@5500, 79.3Hp, 6.14GPH
@5000, 68.4Hp, 5.3GPH
Data from the manufacturers web links. Put your own values in the
above to compare.
BTW, Jim C have you looked at the KF4 3300 in the Greeley EAA hanger?
Paul
===================
At 05:56 AM 1/12/2008, great bear wrote:
>
>I have been following the talk on engine choices...just another
>thought to add....I have a series 5 outback and will have to make an
>engine choice soon because of wing sweep (or lack of) and would like
>to know your thoughts on a Jabiru 2200 vs a 0-200 cont. Heres my
>thinking....the jabiru weighs in at 138 and the 0-200 at
>187....ready to go...how much of an even trade is this...50 pounds
>for 20 hp? Now I guess we can close the weight gap by going light
>weight starter and alternator by about 12-15 pounds..I am still
>researching that...I like the simplicity of a direct drive
>air-cooled engine..how much does the 912 series really weigh when
>you factor the radiator, hoses, coolant,expansion tank...ect? Does
>it fall somewhere in this weight range? I had a Cessna 140 for 22
>years and changed the 85 hp to an 0-200 and doubled the rate of
>climb but only gained 2mph in cruise. Since excess hp power is
>merely the ability to climb faster and cruise is a function of
> aerodynamics will the weight savings be traded off for horse
> power? Also can the wings be set at zero sweep and the battery
> moved to adjust the CG? Just getting started in this as I just
> bought the Outback and got it home a week ago....still looking it
> over and wondering what I have gotten myself into here.....If there
> are any builders who would rather respond off list feel free to
> contact me direct at av8r2488@yahoo.com Thanks for your advice
> and help this is a great forum.
>
>
>Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
>http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
>
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Wing Tank Finger Fuel Strainers |
Since I was the one that started the discussion on fuel strainers I
wanted to report the outcome on mine. I removed and reinstalled mine
yesterday without any difficulty. After 13 years and 440 hours on the
912UL engine the strainers were completely clear. I guess that says a
lot for using, "Mr. Funnel", to filter fuel.
Jimmie
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Jabiru. WAS: LOW power limits |
Have you guys seen the Tony spicer video?
He flying a Sonex 3300 @ 198 mph down the runway.
I for get the rpm.
I have a copy of it here somewhere, maybe I could upload ?
--------
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=157628#157628
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Wing Tank Finger Fuel Strainers |
> I guess that says a lot for using, "Mr. Funnel", to filter fuel.
I filter most gas in my planes. Only exception is at marinas when they busy or
windy and cannot get it done as quick. I have a gascolator very rarely see
anything but gas in it.
--------
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=157629#157629
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Jabiru. WAS: LOW power limits |
It's just; what they get used to, what they see most of, and of course what
their instructors told them. When I was in flight school I was told how
dangerous the two stroke engine was. I was told it spun too fast and would,
sure as god made little green apples, fail me. This was going to happen
even though there were something like 20% less moving parts in a two stroke
engine, even though my two stroke engine was liquid cooled.
When I got my plane home the first thing I had to do was a thorough
inspection as the plane had been sitting for a couple of years. The main
thing that caught my eye was the fact there were no EGT gauges.
Long and the short of it is I have had one problem, not two stroke related,
that caused me to quickly cancel one trip and return to base. The fuel pump
has been fixed and the engine run again... Even four stroke engines have
fuel pumps.
I did have a few other problems with the engine... None caused a power
outage, all were obvious in post flight inspections.
That is a point I'd like to mention... I always do a post flight
inspection, usually with a pen and paper where I list any deficiencies.
More than once it was during the post-flight I would find snags. As a
flight student I found more snags with the airplane I flew (always the same
one) than anyone else flying that plane.
Now as you know I'm getting ready to install the 912 I bought last summer.
I decided to do this only because of the flight I've planned for '09. I
wanted extra range for crossing the prairies and I didn't want to be fooling
with jets while trying to get through the Rockies. To be honest I hate to
take the 582 out in case there is a snag getting the parts to install the
912.
Noel Loveys
AME Intern, RPP
Kitfox III-A, 582,B box
Ivo IFA, Aerocet 1100 floats
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of dave
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2008 9:32 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Jabiru. WAS: LOW power limits
> I can't count the times I've heard "At least your plane
> SOUNDS like a real plane."
>
Yes the GA crowd always has something to say about a real airplane.
Cuz of the sound ? yah OK ....... Oh yes I do the like the of my old 185
cranking down the harbour pissing off everyone but a few pilots :)
I have flown from motorized Hang gliders to light twins and have no problem
with a Rotax engine that does not sound like real airplane.
Most of these " real pilots " that fly "real airplanes" are just ignorant to
Rotax engines. Real engines weigh Real weight.
How many "real airplanes" can carry their own REAL WEIGHT ?
yah i thought so . just more hangar talk from a guy that flys his BFR and a
few check out flights annually.
Check it out - Real videos of Kitfox that flys but so not sound real
ROFLMAO.................. http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=kitfoxflyer
--------
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=157559#157559
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: How to increase lift on horizontal stab? |
Now I see what you want...
Increasing the lift of y9ur tail at slow speeds is as easy as letting the
stick go a bit forward of full back. But then you have the problem of a
faster sink rate and of course an increase in speed.
These planes are well known for landing tail first at slow speeds. The
consensus so far is to get around that put on higher gear of something like
the Kingfox tires.
Redesigning the gear higher can make your plane slower and more ungainly on
the ground. The taller tires have been used by a bunch of guys on the list
with great results. Me I like floats... not enough strips around here but
thousands of water. :-)
Noel Loveys
AME Intern, RPP
Kitfox III-A, 582,B box
Ivo IFA, Aerocet 1100 floats
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of LarryM
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2008 11:23 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: How to increase lift on horizontal stab?
The tail does have seals - did nothing. I do want more lift at the
horizontal stab to push the nose down. I have too high of an attitude at
slow speeds causing the tail to hit way too soon, and I still have lift left
in the wing when it partially stalls, with the stick full aft. I figure any
increase in lift at the tail will help both situations.
When I hold the stick aft to the limit, it simply raises the nose, then
drops the nose, then raises, and so on. In fact if I do an extreme slip and
with the stick full aft, it will not even "break" like a stall, but just
comes slips down like a lead sled. I do not spin it, as the wings will not
remain stalled and a spiral is instantly is generated and can quick exceed
the normal speeds.
The VG's are spaced about an inch forward of the hinge line and about 1"
apart. The apparent speed gain was realize with the VG's installed only on
the tail. I now have some on the wing at about 6%, and I can't "see"
difference in slow speed, and the OAT has changed since testing before, so
an apples to apples comparison can't be made right now. I did plan on
moving them to several locations to see whats best, but haven't moved them
since I put them on last year. On the slow speed end, I can't rightfully
comment on the effectiveness, as the elevator is the weak link for now - the
wing has more lift than I can extract.
Has anyone put an airfoil under the stab?
Thanks,
larry
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=157569#157569
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: How to increase lift on horizontal stab? |
The AOA you would want to increase to accomplish what you want to do is the
AOA of the wing not the elevator. Increasing the AOA of the horizontal stab
will cause you to have to fly with a lot of pressure or trim put into the
elevator to compensate.
Sorry I don't know any easy way of increasing the AOA of the wing so you
will have a better slow speed attitude for landing. That is of course short
of a lot of redesigning cutting and welding. I could be done though. If
you tried it you would probably feel like you were flying downhill at
cruise.
I still think taller tires would be the first thing to try. Just remember
higher stance = higher CG = more tippy on the ground.
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of LarryM
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2008 11:34 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: How to increase lift on horizontal stab?
Noel,
What I'm thinking is that as the angle of attack is increased, the center
of lift moves forward, hence the attitude of the airplane is increased. If
I could get the same angle of attack without the cp moving so far forward
(which we can't with a given airfoil) then I could have a flatter attitude
with for the same angle of attack. Since the cp can't be kept back, that
only leaves changing the contribution that the tail makes to lower the nose
at any given AoA. The overall desire result is slower speed due to the
elevator being able to generate the higher AoA, and having a shallower pitch
angle so I don't slam the tail on before the mains. What do you think?
larry
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=157570#157570
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: engine selection |
I'm putting a C-85 into my when I get it. The choice is driven by the fact
that I have a C-85 on hand - newly overhauled with the O-200 STC (crank and
pistons) installed.
I'll be putting a lighter starter and an alternator on it, so that will free
up a few pounds.
I've been curious about the Jabiru engines though. They turn up quite a bit
faster than the O-200 or C-85 necessitating a smaller prop. How does this
affect efficiency/performance?
John Alexander
Currently at sea - SBX-1
On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 05:56:37 -0800 (PST), great bear wrote
>
> I have been following the talk on engine choices...just another
> thought to add....I have a series 5 outback and will have to make an
> engine choice soon because of wing sweep (or lack of) and would like
> to know your thoughts on a Jabiru 2200 vs a 0-200 cont. Heres my
> thinking....the jabiru weighs in at 138 and the 0-200 at
> 187....ready to go...how much of an even trade is this...50 pounds
> for 20 hp? Now I guess we can close the weight gap by going light
> weight starter and alternator by about 12-15 pounds..I am still
> researching that...I like the simplicity of a direct drive air-
> cooled engine..how much does the 912 series really weigh when you
> factor the radiator, hoses, coolant,expansion tank...ect? Does it
> fall somewhere in this weight range? I had a Cessna 140 for 22 years
> and changed the 85 hp to an 0-200 and doubled the rate of climb but
> only gained 2mph in cruise. Since excess hp power is merely the
> ability to climb faster and cruise is a function of aerodynamics
> will the weight savings be traded off for horse power? Also can the
> wings be set at zero sweep and the battery moved to adjust the CG?
> Just getting started in this as I just bought the Outback and got it
> home a week ago....still looking it over and wondering what I have
> gotten myself into here.....If there are any builders who would
> rather respond off list feel free to contact me direct at
> av8r2488@yahoo.com Thanks for your advice and help this is a great
> forum.
>
> Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
> http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
>
--
Beer is proof that god loves us and wants us to be happy. - Ben Franklin
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Vinyl graphics |
akflyer wrote:
> the plane does not look "camo" it looks like standard olive drab.
>
> I have the local cutter make paint masks for mine. they go on like the vinyl
graphics, but are paint masks. put em on, paint, peel em off and you have the
perfect details. They cost about the same as the vinyl, but the paint will
last forever and not start lifting on ya.
I guess I should clarify, I had the masks cut for my N numbers, the fuse striping
was just masked off in normal fashion with tape/paper.
I just figured, if you were going to have decals made, for about the same price
you can have masks made and paint it on. The end result would be a better looking
product IMO.
--------
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=157648#157648
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | engine selection |
The O-200 is going to come in at least 100 Lbs more then the 912ULS. The 2
200 is a joke (I think) many reports out that says that the 2 stroke 582 ou
t climbs the Jabiru 2200. You cannot drive a Kitfox with that little chunk
of wood out front. Before you get involved with hundreds and hundreds of
hours building. Do some research and fly with these different airplanes.
My take is can't get better then a 912ULS. Ivoprop.
When you have to put a 25 lb battery in the tail to balance and sweep wings
. Figure
Locate the Kitfox Pilot's Guide. Part #60000.100 Look at all the aircraft
weights, specifications, add 50 lbs to all their empty weights, that work
s out about right. Check with these pilots and fly with them.
Clint> From: alexandj@preachain.org> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com> Subject
: Re: Kitfox-List: engine selection> Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 09:43:42 -0800>
org>> > I'm putting a C-85 into my when I get it. The choice is driven by t
he fact > that I have a C-85 on hand - newly overhauled with the O-200 STC
(crank and > pistons) installed.> > I'll be putting a lighter starter and a
n alternator on it, so that will free > up a few pounds.> > I've been curio
us about the Jabiru engines though. They turn up quite a bit > faster than
the O-200 or C-85 necessitating a smaller prop. How does this > affect effi
ciency/performance?> > John Alexander> Currently at sea - SBX-1> > On Sat,
12 Jan 2008 05:56:37 -0800 (PST), great bear wrote> > --> Kitfox-List messa
ge posted by: great bear <av8r2488@yahoo.com>> > > > I have been following
the talk on engine choices...just another > > thought to add....I have a se
ries 5 outback and will have to make an > > engine choice soon because of w
ing sweep (or lack of) and would like > > to know your thoughts on a Jabiru
2200 vs a 0-200 cont. Heres my > > thinking....the jabiru weighs in at 138
and the 0-200 at > > 187....ready to go...how much of an even trade is thi
s...50 pounds > > for 20 hp? Now I guess we can close the weight gap by goi
ng light > > weight starter and alternator by about 12-15 pounds..I am stil
l > > researching that...I like the simplicity of a direct drive air-> > co
oled engine..how much does the 912 series really weigh when you > > factor
the radiator, hoses, coolant,expansion tank...ect? Does it > > fall somewhe
re in this weight range? I had a Cessna 140 for 22 years > > and changed th
e 85 hp to an 0-200 and doubled the rate of climb but > > only gained 2mph
in cruise. Since excess hp power is merely the > > ability to climb faster
and cruise is a function of aerodynamics > > will the weight savings be tra
ded off for horse power? Also can the > > wings be set at zero sweep and th
e battery moved to adjust the CG? > > Just getting started in this as I jus
t bought the Outback and got it > > home a week ago....still looking it ove
r and wondering what I have > > gotten myself into here.....If there are an
y builders who would > > rather respond off list feel free to contact me di
rect at > > av8r2488@yahoo.com Thanks for your advice and help this is a gr
eat > > forum.> > > > Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. > > ht
tp://www.yahoo.com/r/hs> > > > > --> Beer is proof that god loves us and wa
========================> _
=============> > >
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: LOW power limits |
Hi had the Jabiru 2200. Had lots of problems with noise, engine and electr
ical from spark plugs etc. I did not like the noise and was hard to hear o
n intercom. The guy who bought it put on a different prop hoping for bette
r performance but sent it back. You can only go so far with a VW type dire
ct drive engine with props. I had a 912UL and was happy with it. It was i
n a Model IV and performed great. The guys at the airport asked why I woul
d want anything else. When my friend flys with me he comments how quiet th
e aircraft is. With 2 of us in his Avid it would climb almost as good as a
150 with 2 people.
Clint
From: jcrowder@lpbroadband.netTo: kitfox-list@matronics.comSubject: RE: Kit
fox-List: Re: LOW power limitsDate: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 19:11:45 -0700
Which Jabiru engine did he have? How well was it set up and did he have 10
0 hours one it. Many Jab owners say their engine continues to perform bett
er up through the first 100 hours. To get their performance Rotax owners o
ften resort to more expensive and complex adjustable props. What is the di
fference in the part count? And of course performance will be better with
a Jabiru 3300, 120 hp engine, than with a Jabiru 2200, 80 hp engine. Older
and newer Jabiru models also have different carburetor jetting among other
engine changes. It will be a while before we really know how these engine
s match up and maintain. All of us have an interest in the engines we inve
st in. I submit to you that it is rare to have someone not advocate the e
ngine they know and own. Likewise our research tends to lead to the outcom
e we expect.
In the end we are fortunate to have more good engine choice than ever befor
e.
Jim Crowder
-----Original Message-----From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com [mai
lto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Clint BazzillSent:
Friday, January 11, 2008 4:51 PMTo: kitfox-list@matronics.comSubject: RE: K
itfox-List: Re: LOW power limitsMichael, I think the Jabiru is a nice engin
e. Am going to write a nice long article about these different engines. M
y friend had (had) a very nice Avid MK4 that he had a Rotax 618. Almost ha
d one myself and he had several engine failures. He decided to put in a di
fferent 4 stroke engine. I tried to talk him into a 912 but he insisted on
the Jabiru. I have flown with him for about 8 hours in his plane, he like
d it as it kept running. He sold it a few months ago and I am 100% sure if
he had installed the 912UL he would still have it. The performance would
have been so much better that he couldn't part with it. More on that later
. Clint> From: michel@online.no> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: LOW power l
imits> Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 20:29:23 +0100> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> On Jan 11, 2008, at 8:04 PM, Clint Bazzill wrote:> > A new 912 has a TBO
of 1500 hours. Thats the TBO but in reality its > > 2000 hours.> > Clint,
I was told that my Jabiru 2200 had a TBO of 2,000 hours, which > was twice
that of the 912, because the Jabiru has a max RPM of 3,000 - > half that o
f the Rotax. It made sense to me at the time. Have I been > fooled by my Ja
biru dealer?> Just wondering; I know so little about engines.> > Cheers,> M
ichel Verheughe> Norway> Kitfox 3 - Jabiru 2==========
=============&g==> > >
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List">http://www.matronhr
ef="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
Message 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Jabiru. WAS: LOW power limits |
Noel,
Good choice.
Clint
> From: noelloveys@yahoo.ca> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com> Subject: RE: Ki
tfox-List: Re: Jabiru. WAS: LOW power limits> Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 12:34:
hoo.ca>> > It's just; what they get used to, what they see most of, and of
course what> their instructors told them. When I was in flight school I was
told how> dangerous the two stroke engine was. I was told it spun too fast
and would,> sure as god made little green apples, fail me. This was going
to happen> even though there were something like 20% less moving parts in a
two stroke> engine, even though my two stroke engine was liquid cooled.> W
hen I got my plane home the first thing I had to do was a thorough> inspect
ion as the plane had been sitting for a couple of years. The main> thing th
at caught my eye was the fact there were no EGT gauges. > > Long and the sh
ort of it is I have had one problem, not two stroke related,> that caused m
e to quickly cancel one trip and return to base. The fuel pump> has been fi
xed and the engine run again... Even four stroke engines have> fuel pumps.>
> I did have a few other problems with the engine... None caused a power>
outage, all were obvious in post flight inspections.> > That is a point I'd
like to mention... I always do a post flight> inspection, usually with a p
en and paper where I list any deficiencies.> More than once it was during t
he post-flight I would find snags. As a> flight student I found more snags
with the airplane I flew (always the same> one) than anyone else flying tha
t plane.> > Now as you know I'm getting ready to install the 912 I bought l
ast summer.> I decided to do this only because of the flight I've planned f
or '09. I> wanted extra range for crossing the prairies and I didn't want t
o be fooling> with jets while trying to get through the Rockies. To be hone
st I hate to> take the 582 out in case there is a snag getting the parts to
install the> 912.> > > Noel Loveys> AME Intern, RPP> Kitfox III-A, 582,B b
ox> Ivo IFA, Aerocet 1100 floats> > > > -----Original Message-----> From: o
wner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@mat
ronics.com] On Behalf Of dave> Sent: Friday, January 11, 2008 9:32 PM> To:
kitfox-list@matronics.com> Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Jabiru. WAS: LOW power
> > I can't count the times I've heard "At least your plane > > SOUNDS like
a real plane." > > > > > Yes the GA crowd always has something to say abou
t a real airplane. > > Cuz of the sound ? yah OK ....... Oh yes I do the li
ke the of my old 185> cranking down the harbour pissing off everyone but a
few pilots :) > > I have flown from motorized Hang gliders to light twins a
nd have no problem> with a Rotax engine that does not sound like real airpl
ane. > > Most of these " real pilots " that fly "real airplanes" are just i
gnorant to> Rotax engines. Real engines weigh Real weight.> > How many "rea
l airplanes" can carry their own REAL WEIGHT ? > yah i thought so . just mo
re hangar talk from a guy that flys his BFR and a> few check out flights an
nually. > > Check it out - Real videos of Kitfox that flys but so not sound
real> ROFLMAO.................. http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=kitf
oxflyer> > --------> Rotax Dealer, Ontario Canada> Flying Videos and Kitfox
Info> http://www.cfisher.com/> > > > > Read this topic online here:> > htt
p://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=157559#157559> > > > > > > > > >
-========================
==> > >
Message 23
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Jabiru. WAS: LOW power limits |
I'd like to see Jab go back and redesign the crank for a max of 2900 rpm.
That would allow a bit longer more efficient prop. Problem is they would
probably also have to increase displacement to maintain hp. Increasing
displacement means burning more fuel and dissipating more heat, dissipating
more heat... What to H... lets strap a high by pass turbine on to it and
call it an F-022 (F for fun) :-) and have a big tanker follow us
everywhere!
The above written with tongue firmly planted in cheek.
Noel Loveys
AME Intern, RPP
Kitfox III-A, 582,B box
Ivo IFA, Aerocet 1100 floats
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lynn Matteson
Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2008 9:16 AM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Jabiru. WAS: LOW power limits
Nope...I've only seen 3300 once when I did a low pass under power at
a friend's airstrip. My 62 x 46 will only get me about 3150 under
most conditions, but usually I see about 3000 max straight and level.
Jab says 2750-2950 is the cruise range. Like I've said here before, I
think I'm over-propped, but that's what was engineered for me by the
Jabiru dealer/Sensenich, and I'm pretty happy with the way it works,
so no changes are in my immediate future.
Lynn Matteson
Grass Lake, Michigan
Kitfox IV Speedster w/Jabiru 2200
flying w/450+ hrs
On Jan 11, 2008, at 11:05 PM, Noel Loveys wrote:
>
> Lynn do you take your jab all the way up to 3300??? That's
> screaming for a
> direct drive!
>
> Noel
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lynn
> Matteson
> Sent: Friday, January 11, 2008 6:13 PM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Jabiru. WAS: LOW power limits
>
>
> Absolutely, Michel and Noel. I'm not sure what short is, but I gather
> my 62" (x46") is shorter by comparison to the 72-inchers, or whatever
> the redrive crowd uses. But then, my engine got me across the country
> last year at a pretty economical rate, I didn't lose a drop of
> coolant, and didn't have to listen to, and worry about, a tach
> reading of 5000+ rpm. In my case, a Sport Pilot, I can't fly with an
> in-flight-adjustable prop anyway, so my prop choices are not that
> limited. I just can't use a ground adjustable at the present time,
> according to Jabiru, unless that's changed recently. My plane gets
> off the ground in about 250 feet the last time I cared to check,
> sometimes less. I usually fly alone, can kick the butts of the
> spamcans that are foolish enough to try to outclimb me, but I'm
> realistic enough to know that the screaming Rotax's would probably
> outclimb me, so why get into that. It's all about what you want to do
> with the plane, how you want to fly, and how you want the engine to
> sound. I can't count the times I've heard "At least your plane
> SOUNDS like a real plane."
>
> Lynn Matteson
> Grass Lake, Michigan
> Kitfox IV Speedster w/Jabiru 2200
> flying w/450+ hrs
>
>
> On Jan 11, 2008, at 3:58 PM, Michel Verheughe wrote:
>
>> <michel@online.no>
>>
>> On Jan 11, 2008, at 8:52 PM, Noel Loveys wrote:
>>> What I question about the Jab is the 3300 rpm... That requires a
>>> very short
>>> prop to keep the inertial stresses down. That means that full
>>> power for
>>> takeoff isn't either developed or efficient. What i like about it
>>> is of
>>> course the fact you can leave the redrive at the shop :-)
>>
>> I have a Jabiru 60 by 38" two-blades fixed pitch wood prop, Noel. I
>> don't know if that is short or not; I don't know much about these
>> things. From what I understand, I have less torque for take-off.
>> But it is not my concern; I fly from a long asphalt runway. As you
>> probably know, I went from a Rotax 582 to the Jabiru. My decision
>> was based on the reliability and long TBO of a four-strokes engine;
>> plus the light weight and simplicity of a air-cooled and direct
>> drive engine.
>> Take-off performance is about the same as the 582. At cruise
>> attitude, I need less power to keep 85 MPH, my cruise speed with
>> the model 3. I burn a bit less fuel and it is a quiet and smooth
>> ride. Last, the Jabiru 2200 is only slightly heavier than the 582
>> and, in order to keep my CoG at the same place, I only had to move
>> the battery from the firewall to behind the seat.
>> The negative sides of the Jabiru are:
>> - Limited propeller choice.
>> - Needs a new cowling to accommodate for the boxer type engine.
>> Otherwise, I am quite pleased with it and I think that Lynn is too.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Michel Verheughe
>> Norway
>> Kitfox 3 - Jabiru 2200
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Message 24
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Wing Tank Finger Fuel Strainers |
I'll second the use of Mr. Funnel, Jimmie...when I fuel up at home
hangar. When on the road, and getting my 100LL from the airports, I
pump straight in. No issues yet. Neither of my "just-below-the-tanks"
Purolator filters have had to be changed yet, nor do they show any
indication of any accumulated crap in 460 hrs.
Lynn Matteson
Grass Lake, Michigan
Kitfox IV Speedster w/Jabiru 2200
flying w/460+ hrs
On Jan 12, 2008, at 10:53 AM, Jimmie Blackwell wrote:
> Since I was the one that started the discussion on fuel strainers I
> wanted to report the outcome on mine. I removed and reinstalled
> mine yesterday without any difficulty. After 13 years and 440
> hours on the 912UL engine the strainers were completely clear. I
> guess that says a lot for using, "Mr. Funnel", to filter fuel.
>
> Jimmie
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List_-
> ============================================================ _-
> forums.matronics.com_-
> ============================================================ _-
> contribution_-
> ===========================================================
Message 25
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | engine selection |
The only thing you haven't factored in here is the co$t of the different
engines installed and operating. The Conti, even de-certified, is going to
cost big time for parts and fuel. You may also have to design and install a
pressure cowling to cool the cylinders. Weight wise and simplicity wise I
expect the Jab will give the best bang for the lb.(kg in Canada) And the
buck.
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of great bear
Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2008 10:27 AM
Subject: Kitfox-List: engine selection
I have been following the talk on engine choices...just another thought to
add....I have a series 5 outback and will have to make an engine choice soon
because of wing sweep (or lack of) and would like to know your thoughts on a
Jabiru 2200 vs a 0-200 cont. Heres my thinking....the jabiru weighs in at
138 and the 0-200 at 187....ready to go...how much of an even trade is
this...50 pounds for 20 hp? Now I guess we can close the weight gap by going
light weight starter and alternator by about 12-15 pounds..I am still
researching that...I like the simplicity of a direct drive air-cooled
engine..how much does the 912 series really weigh when you factor the
radiator, hoses, coolant,expansion tank...ect? Does it fall somewhere in
this weight range? I had a Cessna 140 for 22 years and changed the 85 hp to
an 0-200 and doubled the rate of climb but only gained 2mph in cruise. Since
excess hp power is merely the ability to climb faster and cruise is a
function of
aerodynamics will the weight savings be traded off for horse power? Also
can the wings be set at zero sweep and the battery moved to adjust the CG?
Just getting started in this as I just bought the Outback and got it home a
week ago....still looking it over and wondering what I have gotten myself
into here.....If there are any builders who would rather respond off list
feel free to contact me direct at av8r2488@yahoo.com Thanks for your
advice and help this is a great forum.
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
Message 26
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: engine selection |
Climbing isn't everything, Clint. It depends on your mission. I flew
from Michigan to California and back. Michigan to New York and back.
Michigan to upper Tennessee and back. Michigan to Oshkosh (summer and
winter) and back (no biggee). While that little chunk of wood may not
be as large or as numerous (blades) as the Rotax's use, my experience
shows me that the Kitfox WILL fly behind the Jabiru 2200...at least
mine does.
Oh yes, about the Jabiru being a joke...I laugh all the time while
I'm flying mine, so it must be true. : )
Lynn Matteson
Grass Lake, Michigan
Kitfox IV Speedster w/Jabiru 2200
flying w/460+ hrs
On Jan 12, 2008, at 1:32 PM, Clint Bazzill wrote:
> The O-200 is going to come in at least 100 Lbs more then the
> 912ULS. The 2200 is a joke (I think) many reports out that says
> that the 2 stroke 582 out climbs the Jabiru 2200. You cannot drive
> a Kitfox with that little chunk of wood out front. Before you get
> involved with hundreds and hundreds of hours building. Do some
> research and fly with these different airplanes. My take is can't
> get better then a 912ULS. Ivoprop.
>
> When you have to put a 25 lb battery in the tail to balance and
> sweep wings. Figure
>
> Locate the Kitfox Pilot's Guide. Part #60000.100 Look at all the
> aircraft weights, specifications, add 50 lbs to all their empty
> weights, that works out about right. Check with these pilots and
> fly with them.
>
>
> Clint
>
> > From: alexandj@preachain.org
> > To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> > Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: engine selection
> > Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 09:43:42 -0800
> >
> <alexandj@preachain.org>
> >
> > I'm putting a C-85 into my when I get it. The choice is driven by
> the fact
> > that I have a C-85 on hand - newly overhauled with the O-200 STC
> (crank and
> > pistons) installed.
> >
> > I'll be putting a lighter starter and an alternator on it, so
> that will free
> > up a few pounds.
> >
> > I've been curious about the Jabiru engines though. They turn up
> quite a bit
> > faster than the O-200 or C-85 necessitating a smaller prop. How
> does this
> > affect efficiency/performance?
> >
> > John Alexander
> > Currently at sea - SBX-1
> >
> > On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 05:56:37 -0800 (PST), great bear wrote
> > >
> > > I have been following the talk on engine choices...just another
> > > thought to add....I have a series 5 outback and will have to
> make an
> > > engine choice soon because of wing sweep (or lack of) and would
> like
> > > to know your thoughts on a Jabiru 2200 vs a 0-200 cont. Heres my
> > > thinking....the jabiru weighs in at 138 and the 0-200 at
> > > 187....ready to go...how much of an even trade is this...50 pounds
> > > for 20 hp? Now I guess we can close the weight gap by going light
> > > weight starter and alternator by about 12-15 pounds..I am still
> > > researching that...I like the simplicity of a direct drive air-
> > > cooled engine..how much does the 912 series really weigh when you
> > > factor the radiator, hoses, coolant,expansion tank...ect? Does it
> > > fall somewhere in this weight range? I had a Cessna 140 for 22
> years
> > > and changed the 85 hp to an 0-200 and doubled the rate of climb
> but
> > > only gained 2mph in cruise. Since excess hp power is merely the
> > > ability to climb faster and cruise is a function of aerodynamics
> > > will the weight savings be traded off for horse power? Also can
> the
> > > wings be set at zero sweep and the battery moved to adjust the CG?
> > > Just getting started in this as I just bought the Outback and
> got it
> > > home a week ago....still looking it over and wondering what I have
> > > gotten myself into here.....If there are any builders who would
> > > rather respond off list feel free to contact me direct at
> > > av8r2488@yahoo.com Thanks for your advice and help this is a great
> > > forum.
> > >
> > > Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
> > > http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Beer is proof that god loves us and wants us to be happy. - Ben
> Frank======================
> &g=
> >
> >
> >
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List_-
> ============================================================ _-
> forums.matronics.com_-
> ============================================================ _-
> contribution_-
> ===========================================================
Message 27
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Ignition pb on 582 |
Dave,
Yes possible, but when I inverted the coil I re-did all connections between stator
+ sensors and coils, and still had the same pb. I really suspect ambient temperature
to influence. I know a guy here who had a similar problem, only in
a given range of temperature. It was bad adjustment of the gap between sensor
and rotor. I will try again when temperature here will go done, 0 to 3C.
If I remove the engine now without knowing where the problem is, I am afraid I
won't be able to detect what is wrong?
I will let you know. Thanks for your help.
Renaud
--------
Renaud
KitFox IV - 1200. Rotax 582.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=157674#157674
Message 28
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: engine selection |
On Jan 12, 2008, at 9:17 PM, Lynn Matteson wrote:
> Climbing isn't everything, Clint. It depends on your mission. I flew
> from Michigan to California and back. Michigan to New York and back.
> Michigan to upper Tennessee and back. Michigan to Oshkosh (summer and
> winter) and back (no biggee).
... and with my Jabiru, I flew from Norway to Belgium and back, Clint.
Then to north Germany and back. Then to south Germany and back ... and
many flights to western Norway, across the mountains and several
flights to Sweden. Flying is Lynn's and my mission! :-)
Seriously, both the Rotax 582 and 912 are very good engines. Saying
anything else would be an insult for the so many happy owners. But the
Jabiru is also a nice alternative for those who ... like alternatives.
Both Lynn and I are unconventional; we fly Jabiru and we write why ...
on a Macintosh! :-)
One thing to remember, though: Rotax makes engines for any kind of
craft. Jabiru makes engines for their Jabiru aircraft. If you decide to
fit one on anything else, you're within experimental aviation. Because
I realised that and I don't know much about aviation and engines, I
made sure to install my Jabiru as close as possible to the way they
install it on their aircraft: I use a Jabiru oil cooler, a Jabiru
airbox, the Jabiru recommended instruments and a Jabiru propeller. From
the Yahoo Jabiruengines list, I think that those who have problems with
the engine are those who think they know better than the Australian
engineers and do things ... the experimental way.
Cheers,
Michel Verheughe
Norway
Kitfox 3 - Jabiru 2200
Message 29
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: engine selection |
On Jan 12, 2008, at 4:51 PM, Michel Verheughe wrote:
> Both Lynn and I are unconventional; we fly Jabiru and we write
> why ... on a Macintosh! :-)
Must have been those left-handed cigarettes from way back when...
Lynn
(back to football)
Message 30
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: engine selection |
I'm not so sure that I would believe statistics as much as I would actual owner
experiences.
I'm confident if you ask around you will find the 912 owners very happy with the
performance they get from their 912 Kitfoxes. I'm very happy with the performance
my 80 hp 912ul gives in my Model IV (and it's an amphib!) A friend here
on the list is currently flyiing a Model V Vixen that is equipped with the 912ul
and an IVO inflight adjustable prop. He can climb at 1200 fpm and cruise
at 125 mph! Oh yeah, his empty weight is around 775 lbs. (He loves the way
it flies so much that he sold his RV-6...) Of course, the 100 hp 912s would just
be that much better. (actually, significantly better. Only 20 hp more, but
everyone that I know that switched from the 80 to the 100 says it feels more
like 50%). There's a reason everyone is using the 912. And look around, not
just in Kitfoxes.
I love the simplicity of the Jabiru 2200, but an 80 hp 912ul will outperform it
due to the more efficient (geared) prop on the Rotax. And while the Jab is touted
as super light, I've noticed aircraft empty weights for the Jab and Rotax
on identical airframes are essentially the same. I personally think the best
performance you could expect on a model V would be similar to an 0-200 powered
C-150, or maybe your C-140. It is very unlikely you'll see the Supercub-like
STOL performance the Outback was designed for.
And while Lynn here on the list makes a good case for the 2200, the Model V airframe
is quite a bit heavier than his model IV. A good example of that is my
912ul IV at 650 pounds empty, verses my friends 912ul model V Vixen at 775 pounds.
Both aircraft are similarly equipped. Yet the V weighs 125 lbs more. The
2200 would be maxed dragging that around I'm afraid. The 2200 shines on the
earlier, lightweight Kitfoxes, replacing 582,s, 503's, etc.
C-85 or 0-200? I'm not a big fan of aircraft engines on the Kitfox generally as
I think they just make these little airplanes just too heavy. But if I were
to do one I would use either a pumped up, super light 0-235 or an IO-240, those
are the only aircraft engine versions I've seen or heard of that provide good
performance (and the V can handle either one). An 0-200 (or a C-85) will probably
provide anemic Kitfox STOL performance. Performance is all about horsepower
to weight, wing loading, and propellor thrust. The smaller aircraft engines
just don't provide enough power (or thrust) per pound.
And speaking of propellor thrust, I think if we ever could test all the engines
mentioned against eachother using props appropriate to our aircraft, you would
see pound for pound the 912 Rotax would come out the winner. It's not just
the horsepower rating of an engine. It's how efficiently you can convert that
horsepower to prop thrust. A longer, slower turning propellor is just more efficient,
particularly on STOL aircraft.
Fuel burn? While those fuel burn numbers posted here were apparently from company
stats, I can tell you the 912 numbers posted are far from accurate. I've
flown my 912ul IV amphib now for 2+ years and 300+ hours. ON FLOATS I only burn
3.2 gph average, with speeds in the 95-100 mph range. I have to run wide open
(124 mph) to get my fuel burn over 5 gallons per hour. Everyone can tell
me I'm nuts, but it is a proven fact that a liquid cooled engine will burn less
fuel than an air cooled engine. The air cooled engine needs to use fuel to
cool it (there's a reason Rutan used a liquid cooled engine to fly around the
world without refueling).
One last comment, if you were to reprop that C-140 so the climb was the same as
it was, I'd be totally surprised if you didn't gain speed.
Good luck with your engine decision!
Paul Seehafer
--------
Model IV-1200 912ul Amphib
Avid Flyer
Lake Amphibian
Central Wisconsin
paul676@tds.net
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=157693#157693
Message 31
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: engine selection |
Lynn Matteson wrote:
>
>
> On Jan 12, 2008, at 4:51 PM, Michel Verheughe wrote:
>> Both Lynn and I are unconventional; we fly Jabiru and we write why
>> ... on a Macintosh! :-)
>
>
> Must have been those left-handed cigarettes from way back when...
>
> Lynn
> (back to football)
>
>
Hey Guys,,I too need some help.I have a KF2 empty wt 533 lb.OK and it
has the 582 in it..I have been looking at different engines too.been
looking at the Jab 2200..BUT now I found a 100 hp.,rotax.that is out of
a KF. in texas.I can buy the engine with every thing.with it..for
$4000.00..no papers or logs..But I wanted to over haul it befor I do any
thing with it.The KF in Texas is wrecked fliped over at end of runway.
So I am wanting to know about if the weight would Be too heavy for my
KF2? my empty 533lb-950=417 left.usefull load. What does every one
think on this?? Steve Shinabery N554KF KF2 with 582 for now
Message 32
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Jabiru. WAS: LOW power limits |
(Noel said; Now as you know I'm getting ready to install the 912 I bought last
summer...)
Noel,
You won't be sorry putting that 912 in your Kitfox. It makes for one super premium
seaplane that is super economical! While I have had similar (good) experiences
as you with the two strokes, the 912 will turn your Kitfox into a fun airplane
that is practical to go cross country with. Heck, my Kitfox IV amphib
is almost as fast as my Lake amphib in cruise, but burns less than 1/2 as much
fuel. And that says a lot because a lake is a very efficient (and fast) seaplane
for its horsepower.
Paul Seehafer
--------
Model IV-1200 912ul Amphib
Avid Flyer
Lake Amphibian
Central Wisconsin
paul676@tds.net
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=157696#157696
Message 33
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: engine selection |
shinco wrote:
>
> Lynn Matteson wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Jan 12, 2008, at 4:51 PM, Michel Verheughe wrote:
>>> Both Lynn and I are unconventional; we fly Jabiru and we write why
>>> ... on a Macintosh! :-)
>>
>>
>> Must have been those left-handed cigarettes from way back when...
>>
>> Lynn
>> (back to football)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> Hey Guys,,I too need some help.I have a KF2 empty wt 533 lb.OK and it
> has the 582 in it..I have been looking at different engines too.been
> looking at the Jab 2200..BUT now I found a 100 hp.,rotax.that is out
> of a KF. in texas.I can buy the engine with every thing.with it..for
> $4000.00..no papers or logs..But I wanted to over haul it befor I do
> any thing with it.The KF in Texas is wrecked fliped over at end of
> runway. So I am wanting to know about if the weight would Be too heavy
> for my KF2? my empty 533lb-950=417 left.usefull load. What does every
> one think on this?? Steve Shinabery N554KF KF2 with 582 for now
>
>
All so I only have 2,,,,6gal wing tanks,,,,,Steve Shinabery N554KF
KF2 582 for now Thanks again every one
Message 34
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: How to increase lift on horizontal stab? |
Ok. I need to retract a lot of what I said. It might be just as easy to ask to
erase everything, and Ill explain what should be. When I spoke to the designer
I mis-communicated what I was trying to achieve, therefore we were not talking
about the same thing. Please accept my apologies. (Though I still wonder
if anyone has experience to which would be more effective; airfoil stab or increased
length?)
I spoke to him again today and simply asked how can I achieve a lower aircraft
attitude at a high AoA? His responses were: adjust the flaperons down to
just above the point of aileron reversal when fully deployed. (reversal will come
around 25-30 degrees) and; to increase the chord of the flaperons and; to
raise the angle of incidence of the wing and to adjust the horizontal stab to
keep the same relationship.
To increase the stab was to answer elevator effectiveness, as was the airfoil.
I had already employed his other recommendations of gap seals, increase elevator
size, and VGs.
Again, I apologize for my gross miscommunication and I tank everyone for their
inputs.
I plan to ensure max flaperon deployment and perhaps enlarge them as suggested.
I am also going to extend the gear 6, and take the wash out out of the wing.
larry
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=157699#157699
Message 35
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | engine selection |
I don't know whether to say thank you or not.... I expect that when I
install my 912 I won't get as short a take off as I can with the 582. I do
however expect climb rate once airborne to increase. Cruise speed? Well
the Kitfox, Mod III-A, a modified Mod II with the under cambered wing, isn't
designed to break any speed barriers.
Noel
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Clint Bazzill
Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2008 3:02 PM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: engine selection
The O-200 is going to come in at least 100 Lbs more then the 912ULS. The
2200 is a joke (I think) many reports out that says that the 2 stroke 582
out climbs the Jabiru 2200. You cannot drive a Kitfox with that little
chunk of wood out front. Before you get involved with hundreds and
hundreds of hours building. Do some research and fly with these different
airplanes. My take is can't get better then a 912ULS. Ivoprop.
When you have to put a 25 lb battery in the tail to balance and sweep wings.
Figure
Locate the Kitfox Pilot's Guide. Part #60000.100 Look at all the aircraft
weights, specifications, add 50 lbs to all their empty weights, that works
out about right. Check with these pilots and fly with them.
Clint
> From: alexandj@preachain.org
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: engine selection
> Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 09:43:42 -0800
>
<alexandj@preachain.org>
>
> I'm putting a C-85 into my when I get it. The choice is driven by the fact
> that I have a C-85 on hand - newly overhauled with the O-200 STC (crank
and
> pistons) installed.
>
> I'll be putting a lighter starter and an alternator on it, so that will
free
> up a few pounds.
>
> I've been curious about the Jabiru engines though. They turn up quite a
bit
> faster than the O-200 or C-85 necessitating a smaller prop. How does this
> affect efficiency/performance?
>
> John Alexander
> Currently at sea - SBX-1
>
> On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 05:56:37 -0800 (PST), great bear wrote
> >
> > I have been following the talk on engine choices...just another
> > thought to add....I have a series 5 outback and will have to make an
> > engine choice soon because of wing sweep (or lack of) and would like
> > to know your thoughts on a Jabiru 2200 vs a 0-200 cont. Heres my
> > thinking....the jabiru weighs in at 138 and the 0-200 at
> > 187....ready to go...how much of an even trade is this...50 pounds
> > for 20 hp? Now I guess we can close the weight gap by going light
> > weight starter and alternator by about 12-15 pounds..I am still
> > researching that...I like the simplicity of a direct drive air-
> > cooled engine..how much does the 912 series really weigh when you
> > factor the radiator, hoses, coolant,expansion tank...ect? Does it
> > fall somewhere in this weight range? I had a Cessna 140 for 22 years
> > and changed the 85 hp to an 0-200 and doubled the rate of climb but
> > only gained 2mph in cruise. Since excess hp power is merely the
> > ability to climb faster and cruise is a function of aerodynamics
> > will the weight savings be traded off for horse power? Also can the
> > wings be set at zero sweep and the battery moved to adjust the CG?
> > Just getting started in this as I just bought the Outback and got it
> > home a week ago....still looking it over and wondering what I have
> > gotten myself into here.....If there are any builders who would
> > rather respond off list feel free to contact me direct at
> > av8r2488@yahoo.com Thanks for your advice and help this is a great
> > forum.
> >
> > Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
> > http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
> >
>
>
> --
> Beer is proof that god loves us and wants us to be happy. - Ben
Frank======================
&g=
>
>
>
Message 36
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: LOW power limits |
(Dave Goddard said; 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...)
Dave,
I put a bunch of hours on the Avid Flyer prototype N99AF, which was powered by
a 43 hp Cuyuna engine (which I think was more like 40 hp). Compared to the 65
hp J-3 Cub and the spam cans I trained in, it was a little rocketship, climbing
solo at 1400 fpm, using 75 feet for takeoff, and cruising around 80 mph on
around 3 gph. But that airplane was only 364 lbs empty. So weight is everything
when one talks about how much horsepower is required. But even on floats (empty
weight now at approx 500 lbs) and two people it still flew very well. In
fact, it was a great performing floatplane, outperforming most other floatplanes
unless they had engines 3 or 4 times larger. And fwiw, I flew that little
Avid to 10,000 ft msl regularly on hot summer days to cool off, shut the engine
off and glide around just to seen how long of a glide I could get (seriously).
It had a wonderful service ceiling, blowing most other planes away that
I had ever flown. (See attached picture)
I also knew of an Avid that flew with a 447 rotax for years. Flew just great.
So I'm sure a light Kitfox would do ok as well.
Paul Seehafer
--------
Model IV-1200 912ul Amphib
Avid Flyer
Lake Amphibian
Central Wisconsin
paul676@tds.net
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=157702#157702
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/dead_stick_in_n99af__1_398.jpg
Message 37
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: LOW power limits |
160 hp on the nose of a Super Cub will climb faster than my 'Fox with the
582. It also takes a lot more room to get the floats out of the water. The
$1.50 is hardly worth talking about because it will hardly lift the floats
out of the water let alone out climb anything. The $1.50 is faster in the
cruise though, on wheels.
Hmmm. Wonder why I'm not a fan of the C150????
Noel
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Clint Bazzill
Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2008 3:35 PM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Re: LOW power limits
Hi had the Jabiru 2200. Had lots of problems with noise, engine and
electrical from spark plugs etc. I did not like the noise and was hard to
hear on intercom. The guy who bought it put on a different prop hoping for
better performance but sent it back. You can only go so far with a VW type
direct drive engine with props. I had a 912UL and was happy with it. It
was in a Model IV and performed great. The guys at the airport asked why I
would want anything else. When my friend flys with me he comments how quiet
the aircraft is. With 2 of us in his Avid it would climb almost as good as
a 150 with 2 people.
Clint
_____
From: jcrowder@lpbroadband.net
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Re: LOW power limits
Which Jabiru engine did he have? How well was it set up and did he have 100
hours one it. Many Jab owners say their engine continues to perform better
up through the first 100 hours. To get their performance Rotax owners often
resort to more expensive and complex adjustable props. What is the
difference in the part count? And of course performance will be better with
a Jabiru 3300, 120 hp engine, than with a Jabiru 2200, 80 hp engine. Older
and newer Jabiru models also have different carburetor jetting among other
engine changes. It will be a while before we really know how these engines
match up and maintain. All of us have an interest in the engines we invest
in. I submit to you that it is rare to have someone not advocate the
engine they know and own. Likewise our research tends to lead to the
outcome we expect.
In the end we are fortunate to have more good engine choice than ever
before.
Jim Crowder
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Clint Bazzill
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2008 4:51 PM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Re: LOW power limits
Michael,
I think the Jabiru is a nice engine. Am going to write a nice long article
about these different engines. My friend had (had) a very nice Avid MK4
that he had a Rotax 618. Almost had one myself and he had several engine
failures. He decided to put in a different 4 stroke engine. I tried to
talk him into a 912 but he insisted on the Jabiru. I have flown with him
for about 8 hours in his plane, he liked it as it kept running. He sold it
a few months ago and I am 100% sure if he had installed the 912UL he would
still have it. The performance would have been so much better that he
couldn't part with it. More on that later. Clint
> From: michel@online.no
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: LOW power limits
> Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 20:29:23 +0100
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
>
>
> On Jan 11, 2008, at 8:04 PM, Clint Bazzill wrote:
> > A new 912 has a TBO of 1500 hours. Thats the TBO but in reality its
> > 2000 hours.
>
> Clint, I was told that my Jabiru 2200 had a TBO of 2,000 hours, which
> was twice that of the 912, because the Jabiru has a max RPM of 3,000 -
> half that of the Rotax. It made sense to me at the time. Have I been
> fooled by my Jabiru dealer?
> Just wondering; I know so little about engines.
>
> Cheers,
> Michel Verheughe
> Norway
> Kitfox 3 - Jabiru 2======================
&g=
>
>
>
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
arget=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List
p://forums.matronics.com
blank>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Message 38
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: LOW power limits |
Thanks Paul, I knew someone would have had experience with small HP engines.
I never understood the constant insistance from the world that everything
must have more power and speed. In the early seventies I got along quite
well with a 900cc car making 40 odd hp, and later a 1200cc Toyota making 70
some odd. Now that fuel is expensive I cannot buy a car with an engine of
that size, although they sell them in other markets. My old BMW motorcycle
was made with engines running from 500 to 1000cc. I get along well on 600
and would actually be happy with the 36HP 500cc. Everyone else apparently
requires 1500 to 1800cc bikes weighing hundreds of LBs more to accompllish
the same task. The simple fact is that I will likely never need a 1200fpm
climb rate, and I'm not likely to get there as fast as an RV or even a 152
regardless of engine choice.
Dave Goddard- Mod IV 1050/582
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "av8rps" <paul676@tds.net>
Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2008 7:49 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: LOW power limits
>
> (Dave Goddard said; 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...)
>
> Dave,
>
> I put a bunch of hours on the Avid Flyer prototype N99AF, which was
> powered by a 43 hp Cuyuna engine (which I think was more like 40 hp).
> Compared to the 65 hp J-3 Cub and the spam cans I trained in, it was a
> little rocketship, climbing solo at 1400 fpm, using 75 feet for takeoff,
> and cruising around 80 mph on around 3 gph. But that airplane was only
> 364 lbs empty. So weight is everything when one talks about how much
> horsepower is required. But even on floats (empty weight now at approx 500
> lbs) and two people it still flew very well. In fact, it was a great
> performing floatplane, outperforming most other floatplanes unless they
> had engines 3 or 4 times larger. And fwiw, I flew that little Avid to
> 10,000 ft msl regularly on hot summer days to cool off, shut the engine
> off and glide around just to seen how long of a glide I could get
> (seriously). It had a wonderful service ceiling, blowing most other
> planes away that I had ever flown. (See attached picture)
>
> I also knew of an Avid that flew with a 447 rotax for years. Flew just
> great. So I'm sure a light Kitfox would do ok as well.
>
> Paul Seehafer
>
> --------
> Model IV-1200 912ul Amphib
> Avid Flyer
> Lake Amphibian
> Central Wisconsin
> paul676@tds.net
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=157702#157702
>
>
> Attachments:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/dead_stick_in_n99af__1_398.jpg
>
>
>
Message 39
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: LOW power limits |
> The simple fact is that I will likely never need a 1200fpm
> climb rate,
Dave on the contrary. -- you have a 582 and it will work well with your 550 empty
weight. My neighbour has a KF 1 clone ( raven ) weight about 420 or 440
lbs with a 503 single carb. IT work well at over 100 lbs less than mine but
I kick his ass on take off distance, climb and cruise.
I would also say thats mine dual ( 2 guys are 220 lbs each will beat him off the
ground and in climb and cruise as well.
You can always use more power , it can get you out of trouble too , that is one
thing you might not have considered yet. Fuel burn not too different on the
503 to 582 but you will use more on a 582 unless you try to fly with a 503 like
the one i mention above. When he is a 6000 rpm in cruise I am at 4800 rpm
burning about 8 litres a hour. IF you ever want to put on floats , you will
be glad you got the power.
--------
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=157715#157715
Message 40
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: LOW power limits |
[quote="dave"The simple fact is that I will likely never need a 1200fpm
climb rate...)
[/quote; Dave on the contrary. -- you have a 582 and it will work well with your
550 empty weight..)
Dave (and Dave)
I agree it is fun to have an efficient, low powered aircraft. But that 582 on
a Model IV-1050 is a nice combination of efficiency along with lots of power (as
the other Dave states). In fact, I have about 10 hours in a MIV-1050 on full
lotus floats, and even with full fuel and two guys it was great performer.
It certainly wasn't lacking power.
And extra power can get you out of trouble. That is a really good point Dave made.
Being able to brag about a great climb rate is one thing, but clearing the
trees on a short grass strip on a hot day with a heavy load is another. The
582 in your airplane will work well, and that extra power will quickly grow
on you.
Now, you can always open the doors and fly around at half throttle, burning little
fuel if you desire.
Paul Seehafer
--------
Model IV-1200 912ul Amphib
Avid Flyer
Lake Amphibian
Central Wisconsin
paul676@tds.net
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=157722#157722
Message 41
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: LOW power limits |
Thanks Dave, I will be using the 582 and I'm sure it will be fine. What I do
when I want to replace or rebuild it I'll have to see. I've heard the more
HP in case you need it from passengers in my little cars (from guys with
340/383 v8's) and from other motorcyclists but the truth is that so far the
only thing I've wished for more of from time to time is brakes. I do my
flying right now in an 11,000 hour Cessna, not exactly a "king of climb",
it's adequate.
Dave Goddard- Mod IV 1050/582
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "dave" <dave@cfisher.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2008 8:52 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: LOW power limits
>
>
>> The simple fact is that I will likely never need a 1200fpm
>> climb rate,
>
>
> Dave on the contrary. -- you have a 582 and it will work well with your
> 550 empty weight. My neighbour has a KF 1 clone ( raven ) weight about
> 420 or 440 lbs with a 503 single carb. IT work well at over 100 lbs less
> than mine but I kick his ass on take off distance, climb and cruise.
> I would also say thats mine dual ( 2 guys are 220 lbs each will beat him
> off the ground and in climb and cruise as well.
>
>
> You can always use more power , it can get you out of trouble too , that
> is one thing you might not have considered yet. Fuel burn not too
> different on the 503 to 582 but you will use more on a 582 unless you try
> to fly with a 503 like the one i mention above. When he is a 6000 rpm in
> cruise I am at 4800 rpm burning about 8 litres a hour. IF you ever
> want to put on floats , you will be glad you got the power.
>
> --------
> 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=157715#157715
>
>
>
Message 42
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Wing Tank Finger Fuel Strainers |
Lynn: I had a look at the Mr.Funnel at the local Crappy Tire store.
Canada's answer to a have it all hardware, come auto parts, come marina,
come garden center, come... You get the idea.
They were very expensive but the ones in stock must have been a low end
model because they only had a cone shaped screen in the centre instead of
the normal flat screen. There was nothing different about that funnel. The
label did mention a different model that is supposed to remove water from
fuel (as long as there is no ethanol in it)but so far I haven't been able to
actually get to see one of those funnels.
When I was a kid I used to use an old felt hat to filter the gas for my
outboard motor. I think they call that felt a chamois now days. The good
thing about using the hat is I always had it handy and when the gas was
fresh it would keep the flies, and me, away for a couple of hours. J All
the planes I serviced had a big funnel and a big felt in the storage
compartment. None of them ever had water in the fuel.
Speaking of water in the fuel I had an acquaintance once who gassed up his
Lake, LA-4 at Stephenville (CYJT). He back fired and missed all the way
down the 12000' runway, got airborne and at around 150'agl had the engine,
after much sputtering, quit. His gear was already up when he tried to turn
back and, well, we all know what happens in that situation. High attitude,
low speed, no power and a steep turn are the main points of the recipe.
Hindsight is always 20 20. Things he should have done. 1. After fuelling
the plane he should have taken 20 minutes for a coffee to let the fuel and
any water in it settle. 2. He should have dripped all his sumps 3. He
should have cut the power at the first backfire an found out what caused it
4. He should have landed straight ahead in the salt water... LA-4s are
pretty good at landing in water. I intentionally left out using a filter
because the airport nozzles had Purolator filters installed. Of course
pressure from the fuel pumps could/did push water through the filters.
I must be getting tired... I think I'm rambling
Noel Loveys
AME Intern, RPP
Kitfox III-A, 582,B box
Ivo IFA, Aerocet 1100 floats
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lynn Matteson
Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2008 4:33 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Wing Tank Finger Fuel Strainers
I'll second the use of Mr. Funnel, Jimmie...when I fuel up at home
hangar. When on the road, and getting my 100LL from the airports, I
pump straight in. No issues yet. Neither of my "just-below-the-tanks"
Purolator filters have had to be changed yet, nor do they show any
indication of any accumulated crap in 460 hrs.
Lynn Matteson
Grass Lake, Michigan
Kitfox IV Speedster w/Jabiru 2200
flying w/460+ hrs
On Jan 12, 2008, at 10:53 AM, Jimmie Blackwell wrote:
> Since I was the one that started the discussion on fuel strainers I
> wanted to report the outcome on mine. I removed and reinstalled
> mine yesterday without any difficulty. After 13 years and 440
> hours on the 912UL engine the strainers were completely clear. I
> guess that says a lot for using, "Mr. Funnel", to filter fuel.
>
> Jimmie
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List_-
> ============================================================ _-
> forums.matronics.com_-
> ============================================================ _-
> contribution_-
> ===========================================================
Message 43
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | engine selection |
Michael:
Did you install a pressure cowl to direct cold air down through the cooling
fins?
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Michel
Verheughe
Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2008 6:22 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: engine selection
On Jan 12, 2008, at 9:17 PM, Lynn Matteson wrote:
> Climbing isn't everything, Clint. It depends on your mission. I flew
> from Michigan to California and back. Michigan to New York and back.
> Michigan to upper Tennessee and back. Michigan to Oshkosh (summer and
> winter) and back (no biggee).
... and with my Jabiru, I flew from Norway to Belgium and back, Clint.
Then to north Germany and back. Then to south Germany and back ... and
many flights to western Norway, across the mountains and several
flights to Sweden. Flying is Lynn's and my mission! :-)
Seriously, both the Rotax 582 and 912 are very good engines. Saying
anything else would be an insult for the so many happy owners. But the
Jabiru is also a nice alternative for those who ... like alternatives.
Both Lynn and I are unconventional; we fly Jabiru and we write why ...
on a Macintosh! :-)
One thing to remember, though: Rotax makes engines for any kind of
craft. Jabiru makes engines for their Jabiru aircraft. If you decide to
fit one on anything else, you're within experimental aviation. Because
I realised that and I don't know much about aviation and engines, I
made sure to install my Jabiru as close as possible to the way they
install it on their aircraft: I use a Jabiru oil cooler, a Jabiru
airbox, the Jabiru recommended instruments and a Jabiru propeller. From
the Yahoo Jabiruengines list, I think that those who have problems with
the engine are those who think they know better than the Australian
engineers and do things ... the experimental way.
Cheers,
Michel Verheughe
Norway
Kitfox 3 - Jabiru 2200
Message 44
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | engine selection |
A dinner says your take off will be a lot shorter. Clint
My friend told me once, only fools and crooks bet. Which one am I?
From: noelloveys@yahoo.caTo: kitfox-list@matronics.comSubject: RE: Kitfox-L
ist: engine selectionDate: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 20:12:00 -0330
I don=92t know whether to say thank you or not.... I expect that when I in
stall my 912 I won=92t get as short a take off as I can with the 582. I d
o however expect climb rate once airborne to increase. Cruise speed? Well
the Kitfox, Mod III-A, a modified Mod II with the under cambered wing, isn
=92t designed to break any speed barriers.
Noel
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-serv
er@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Clint BazzillSent: Saturday, January 12, 200
8 3:02 PMTo: kitfox-list@matronics.comSubject: RE: Kitfox-List: engine sele
ction
The O-200 is going to come in at least 100 Lbs more then the 912ULS. The 2
200 is a joke (I think) many reports out that says that the 2 stroke 582 ou
t climbs the Jabiru 2200. You cannot drive a Kitfox with that little chunk
of wood out front. Before you get involved with hundreds and hundreds of
hours building. Do some research and fly with these different airplanes.
My take is can't get better then a 912ULS. Ivoprop. When you have to put
a 25 lb battery in the tail to balance and sweep wings. Figure Locate the
Kitfox Pilot's Guide. Part #60000.100 Look at all the aircraft weights, s
pecifications, add 50 lbs to all their empty weights, that works out about
right. Check with these pilots and fly with them. Clint> From: alexandj
@preachain.org> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: en
gine selection> Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 09:43:42 -0800> > --> Kitfox-List me
ssage posted by: "John Alexander" <alexandj@preachain.org>> > I'm putting a
C-85 into my when I get it. The choice is driven by the fact > that I have
a C-85 on hand - newly overhauled with the O-200 STC (crank and > pistons)
installed.> > I'll be putting a lighter starter and an alternator on it, s
o that will free > up a few pounds.> > I've been curious about the Jabiru e
ngines though. They turn up quite a bit > faster than the O-200 or C-85 nec
essitating a smaller prop. How does this > affect efficiency/performance?>
> John Alexander> Currently at sea - SBX-1> > On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 05:56:37
ear <av8r2488@yahoo.com>> > > > I have been following the talk on engine ch
oices...just another > > thought to add....I have a series 5 outback and wi
ll have to make an > > engine choice soon because of wing sweep (or lack of
) and would like > > to know your thoughts on a Jabiru 2200 vs a 0-200 cont
. Heres my > > thinking....the jabiru weighs in at 138 and the 0-200 at > >
187....ready to go...how much of an even trade is this...50 pounds > > for
20 hp? Now I guess we can close the weight gap by going light > > weight s
tarter and alternator by about 12-15 pounds..I am still > > researching tha
t...I like the simplicity of a direct drive air-> > cooled engine..how much
does the 912 series really weigh when you > > factor the radiator, hoses,
coolant,expansion tank...ect? Does it > > fall somewhere in this weight ran
ge? I had a Cessna 140 for 22 years > > and changed the 85 hp to an 0-200 a
nd doubled the rate of climb but > > only gained 2mph in cruise. Since exce
ss hp power is merely the > > ability to climb faster and cruise is a funct
ion of aerodynamics > > will the weight savings be traded off for horse pow
er? Also can the > > wings be set at zero sweep and the battery moved to ad
just the CG? > > Just getting started in this as I just bought the Outback
and got it > > home a week ago....still looking it over and wondering what
I have > > gotten myself into here.....If there are any builders who would
> > rather respond off list feel free to contact me direct at > > av8r2488@
yahoo.com Thanks for your advice and help this is a great > > forum.> > > >
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. > > http://www.yahoo.com/r/
hs> > > > > --> Beer is proof that god loves us and wants us to be happy. -
Ben Frank=====================
==&g==> > > http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-Listhttp://
forums.matronics.comhttp://www.matronics.com/contribution
Message 45
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: How to increase lift on horizontal stab? |
Be very careful when adjusting wash out of the wings. It is there to make the
aircraft controllable at slow speeds. You don't want to get up only to find you
have to land at 80+ mph.
I always think to KISS... Keep It Simple S... So I would try the biggest tires
I could put on first. Check ATV shops and see if you can have the lugs ground
down to keep rocks from perforating your wings. Your take off speed may be
in excess of 40 mph but you are only there for a second or so.
If you find you still need another inch or so then think about taller gear. Then
flapperon extension and after that washout.
Noel Loveys
AME Intern, RPP
Kitfox III-A, 582,B box
Ivo IFA, Aerocet 1100 floats
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of LarryM
Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2008 7:54 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: How to increase lift on horizontal stab?
Ok. I need to retract a lot of what I said. It might be just as easy to ask to
erase everything, and Ill explain what should be. When I spoke to the designer
I mis-communicated what I was trying to achieve, therefore we were not talking
about the same thing. Please accept my apologies. (Though I still wonder
if anyone has experience to which would be more effective; airfoil stab or increased
length?)
I spoke to him again today and simply asked how can I achieve a lower aircraft
attitude at a high AoA? His responses were: adjust the flaperons down to
just above the point of aileron reversal when fully deployed. (reversal will come
around 25-30 degrees) and; to increase the chord of the flaperons and; to
raise the angle of incidence of the wing and to adjust the horizontal stab to
keep the same relationship.
To increase the stab was to answer elevator effectiveness, as was the airfoil.
I had already employed his other recommendations of gap seals, increase elevator
size, and VGs.
Again, I apologize for my gross miscommunication and I tank everyone for their
inputs.
I plan to ensure max flaperon deployment and perhaps enlarge them as suggested.
I am also going to extend the gear 6, and take the wash out out of the wing.
larry
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=157699#157699
Message 46
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: engine selection |
(Steve Shinabery wrote; been looking at the Jab 2200..BUT now I found a 100 hp.,rotax
that is out of a KF in texas. I can buy the engine with every thing with
it..for $4000.00..)
Steve,
Don't waste any time making up your mind on that one. That will not be easy to
find again...
I believe the first Kitfox to have a 912 was a model 2. So I can't see any reason
yours wouldn't accept the engine. Only thing I have to tell you is, you had
better HANG ON the first time you crack that throttle! A 100 hp 912 on a model
2 is going to be a real rocketship!!! If you work at it, you could end up
with a 575 lb airplane. That'll give you a 5.75 lbs per hp power loading (e.w.).
That's almost 30% better than a new kitfox with a 914. So as I said, you'll
have a real rocketship! Oh yeah, having the undercambered, high lift wing,
you should have one awesome short field, climbing monster as well! But you
will have to learn to keep a close eye on your VNE and maneuvering speeds, as
you'll most likely blow by them so quickly it will scare you...
But oh, what great fun all that sounds like!!!!!
Paul Seehafer
--------
Model IV-1200 912ul Amphib
Avid Flyer
Lake Amphibian
Central Wisconsin
paul676@tds.net
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=157733#157733
Message 47
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Maximum Miles Per Gallon in a Kitfox? |
Hey gang,
This summer, just for fun I decided to play around with my Kitfox to see what I
could get for maximum fuel mileage.
This wasn't overly scientific, but I just kept playing with power settings and
airspeeds, trim, flaperons, and prop pitch until I was able to get the lowest
fuel burn and the best airspeed.
It was a perfectly calm evening around 75 degrees, around 2500 msl, and I was very
light on fuel (8-10 gallons), with a 200 pound cabin load. After lots of
playing around I discovered that 65 mph TAS was the best airspeed. The mimimal
throttle setting I needed to maintain level flight showed I only needed 1.1
gallons per hour of fuel. Doing the math, that provided me with a 59 miles per
gallon fuel mileage rating!
Have any of you ever tried to see what your kitfox would give you for max MPG?
I'm so impressed that my little plane could get that kind of miles per gallon
that I'm wondering if I did something wrong. But I duplicated the test again
a week later, and got the same results. (Geez, I only wish the car I drove could
do that...)
Now as I said, this wasn't done very scientifically, but IF it is accurate like
I believe it is, that is quite impressive for any airplane. Just think how far
we could go on a full tank of fuel :-) And if I removed those big, heavy,
bulky amphib floats I have on it currently, I'm sure I would do better.
Maybe our Kitfoxes are more efficient than we even knew?
Paul Seehafer
--------
Model IV-1200 912ul Amphib
Avid Flyer
Lake Amphibian
Central Wisconsin
paul676@tds.net
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=157741#157741
Message 48
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: engine selection |
Hey guys,
Take a breather.... check this out.
http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?ContentBlockID=925e6690-ed1f-43e0-b4f7-1abc3d534a6a
&
Seems to depend on specific gearbox SN's installed on 912's and 914's.
Steve Benesh
84KF.
Ok...Carry on.
Message 49
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: engine selection |
If you don't buy it let me know. I will
Clint
> Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: engine selection> From: paul676@tds.net> Date:
Sat, 12 Jan 2008 17:42:39 -0800> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com> > --> Kitfo
x-List message posted by: "av8rps" <paul676@tds.net>> > (Steve Shinabery wr
ote; been looking at the Jab 2200..BUT now I found a 100 hp.,rotax that is
out of a KF in texas. I can buy the engine with every thing with it..for $4
000.00..)> > Steve,> > Don't waste any time making up your mind on that one
. That will not be easy to find again...> > I believe the first Kitfox to h
ave a 912 was a model 2. So I can't see any reason yours wouldn't accept th
e engine. Only thing I have to tell you is, you had better HANG ON the firs
t time you crack that throttle! A 100 hp 912 on a model 2 is going to be a
real rocketship!!! If you work at it, you could end up with a 575 lb airpla
ne. That'll give you a 5.75 lbs per hp power loading (e.w.). That's almost
30% better than a new kitfox with a 914. So as I said, you'll have a real r
ocketship! Oh yeah, having the undercambered, high lift wing, you should ha
ve one awesome short field, climbing monster as well! But you will have to
learn to keep a close eye on your VNE and maneuvering speeds, as you'll mos
t likely blow by them so quickly it will scare you...> > But oh, what great
fun all that sounds like!!!!!> > Paul Seehafer> > --------> Model IV-1200
912ul Amphib> Avid Flyer> Lake Amphibian> Central Wisconsin> paul676@tds.ne
t> > > > > Read this topic online here:> > http://forums.matronics.com/view
===============> > >
Message 50
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: engine selection |
When I learned on my 912 motor, my instructor made me use half throttle on
the ground, then three quarter after stable and on the centerline. Only once
airborne would I get to crack the throttle... Just be ready to use a LOT of
right rudder on climb out. Steve Bennett Durham NC. 4-912ul
**************Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape.
http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489
Message 51
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: engine selection |
av8rps wrote:
>
> (Steve Shinabery wrote; been looking at the Jab 2200..BUT now I found a 100 hp.,rotax
that is out of a KF in texas. I can buy the engine with every thing with
it..for $4000.00..)
>
> Steve,
>
> Don't waste any time making up your mind on that one. That will not be easy
to find again...
>
> I believe the first Kitfox to have a 912 was a model 2. So I can't see any reason
yours wouldn't accept the engine. Only thing I have to tell you is, you
had better HANG ON the first time you crack that throttle! A 100 hp 912 on a
model 2 is going to be a real rocketship!!! If you work at it, you could end
up with a 575 lb airplane. That'll give you a 5.75 lbs per hp power loading
(e.w.). That's almost 30% better than a new kitfox with a 914. So as I said,
you'll have a real rocketship! Oh yeah, having the undercambered, high lift
wing, you should have one awesome short field, climbing monster as well! But
you will have to learn to keep a close eye on your VNE and maneuvering speeds,
as you'll most likely blow by them so quickly it will scare you...
>
> But oh, what great fun all that sounds like!!!!!
>
> Paul Seehafer
>
> --------
> Model IV-1200 912ul Amphib
> Avid Flyer
> Lake Amphibian
> Central Wisconsin
> paul676@tds.net
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=157733#157733
>
>
>
Thanks Paul.That will help me decide.I do not know what model the KF
is..or the model of the rotax 912.I do not know of TT on engine,no paper
work on it..But will have logs on AF..so I still think to over haul
engine .and start out with 0 time.and new engine log book..what do U
think.plane is in Texas and I am in Ohio.Thanks again Steve Shinabery
N554KF KF 2..and the little 582 4 now
Message 52
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Wing Tank Finger Fuel Strainers |
Noel-
Go to www.mrfunnel.com/Models.html for a look at the different
models. There is even a demo, but I couldn't get it to play. My eMac
computer is powered by a Jabiru, so it is extremely slow, I guess. : )
Anyway, the models are shown there, and I'm pretty sure I have the
F3, which flows 3.9 gpm. think they all have the cone...actually it
is a cylinder...sticking straight up in the centr of the funnel. I
see this as allowing more screen surface than a flat screen. The
largest one flows 15 gpm, and has two screen cylinders sticking up in
the middle of the funnel. The plastic is supposed to be conductive,
which helps prevent static electricity from ruining your day. I
recall getting the F3 because it contains a nice number, (ha, ha) and
because of its size, which I could store in my baggage compartment if
I so chose.
Lynn Matteson
Grass Lake, Michigan
Kitfox IV Speedster w/Jabiru 2200
flying w/460+ hrs
do not archive
On Jan 12, 2008, at 8:17 PM, Noel Loveys wrote:
> Lynn: I had a look at the Mr.Funnel at the local Crappy Tire
> store. Canada's answer to a have it all hardware, come auto parts,
> come marina, come garden center, come... You get the idea.
>
>
> They were very expensive but the ones in stock must have been a low
> end model because they only had a cone shaped screen in the centre
> instead of the normal flat screen. There was nothing different
> about that funnel. The label did mention a different model that is
> supposed to remove water from fuel (as long as there is no ethanol
> in it)but so far I haven't been able to actually get to see one of
> those funnels.
>
>
> When I was a kid I used to use an old felt hat to filter the gas
> for my outboard motor. I think they call that felt a chamois now
> days. The good thing about using the hat is I always had it handy
> and when the gas was fresh it would keep the flies, and me, away
> for a couple of hours. J All the planes I serviced had a big
> funnel and a big felt in the storage compartment. None of them
> ever had water in the fuel.
>
>
> Speaking of water in the fuel I had an acquaintance once who gassed
> up his Lake, LA-4 at Stephenville (CYJT). He back fired and missed
> all the way down the 12000 runway, got airborne and at around
> 150agl had the engine, after much sputtering, quit. His gear was
> already up when he tried to turn back and, well, we all know what
> happens in that situation. High attitude, low speed, no power and
> a steep turn are the main points of the recipe.
>
>
> Hindsight is always 20 20. Things he should have done. 1. After
> fuelling the plane he should have taken 20 minutes for a coffee to
> let the fuel and any water in it settle. 2. He should have dripped
> all his sumps 3. He should have cut the power at the first backfire
> an found out what caused it 4. He should have landed straight
> ahead in the salt water... LA-4s are pretty good at landing in
> water. I intentionally left out using a filter because the airport
> nozzles had Purolator filters installed. Of course pressure from
> the fuel pumps could/did push water through the filters.
>
>
> I must be getting tired... I think Im rambling
>
>
> Noel Loveys
>
> AME Intern, RPP
>
> Kitfox III-A, 582,B box
>
> Ivo IFA, Aerocet 1100 floats
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-kitfox-
> list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lynn Matteson
> Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2008 4:33 PM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Wing Tank Finger Fuel Strainers
>
>
>
>
> I'll second the use of Mr. Funnel, Jimmie...when I fuel up at home
>
> hangar. When on the road, and getting my 100LL from the airports, I
>
> pump straight in. No issues yet. Neither of my "just-below-the-tanks"
>
> Purolator filters have had to be changed yet, nor do they show any
>
> indication of any accumulated crap in 460 hrs.
>
>
> Lynn Matteson
>
> Grass Lake, Michigan
>
> Kitfox IV Speedster w/Jabiru 2200
>
> flying w/460+ hrs
>
>
> On Jan 12, 2008, at 10:53 AM, Jimmie Blackwell wrote:
>
>
> > Since I was the one that started the discussion on fuel strainers I
>
> > wanted to report the outcome on mine. I removed and reinstalled
>
> > mine yesterday without any difficulty. After 13 years and 440
>
> > hours on the 912UL engine the strainers were completely clear. I
>
> > guess that says a lot for using, "Mr. Funnel", to filter fuel.
>
> >
>
> > Jimmie
>
> > http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List_-
>
> > ========== _-
>
> > forums.matronics.com_-
>
> > ========== _-
>
> > contribution_-
>
> > =========
>
>
> to browse
>
> Un/Subscription,
>
> Browse, Chat, FAQ,
>
> more:
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List
>
>
> Web Forums!
>
> http://forums.matronics.com
>
>
> support!
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List_-
> ============================================================ _-
> forums.matronics.com_-
> ============================================================ _-
> contribution_-
> ===========================================================
Message 53
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: engine selection |
Be cautious of any engine that flipped, Steve. It might have suffered
a prop strike, and might have a bent crank...a couple of MIGHT's here
is all.
Lynn Matteson
Grass Lake, Michigan
Kitfox IV Speedster w/Jabiru 2200
flying w/460+ hrs
do not archive
On Jan 12, 2008, at 8:42 PM, av8rps wrote:
>
> (Steve Shinabery wrote; been looking at the Jab 2200..BUT now I
> found a 100 hp.,rotax that is out of a KF in texas. I can buy the
> engine with every thing with it..for $4000.00..)
>
> Steve,
>
> Don't waste any time making up your mind on that one. That will
> not be easy to find again...
>
> I believe the first Kitfox to have a 912 was a model 2. So I can't
> see any reason yours wouldn't accept the engine. Only thing I have
> to tell you is, you had better HANG ON the first time you crack
> that throttle! A 100 hp 912 on a model 2 is going to be a real
> rocketship!!! If you work at it, you could end up with a 575 lb
> airplane. That'll give you a 5.75 lbs per hp power loading
> (e.w.). That's almost 30% better than a new kitfox with a 914. So
> as I said, you'll have a real rocketship! Oh yeah, having the
> undercambered, high lift wing, you should have one awesome short
> field, climbing monster as well! But you will have to learn to
> keep a close eye on your VNE and maneuvering speeds, as you'll most
> likely blow by them so quickly it will scare you...
>
> But oh, what great fun all that sounds like!!!!!
>
> Paul Seehafer
>
> --------
> Model IV-1200 912ul Amphib
> Avid Flyer
> Lake Amphibian
> Central Wisconsin
> paul676@tds.net
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=157733#157733
>
>
Message 54
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: engine selection |
[quote="Lynn Matteson"Be cautious of any engine that flipped, Steve. It might have
suffered a prop strike, and might have a bent crank..)
Steve,
That 912 gearbox (you know, the one the Jab flyers leave at home :-) ) will save
a crankshaft from damage. But of course the gearbox could have suffered damage
if it was a hard hit. So you probably need to learn more about the details
of the crash if you want to make a better assessment of the engines condition.
Zero timing it might be a good idea, but unless it really took a hard hit,
or has tons of hours on it, you probably will just need a reputable shop to check
it over and give it a blessing. There are some 912s out there now that have
been torn down with 2500+ hours on them and needed almost nothing.
For anyone concerned about all the 912 bulletins; I know some of the non-912
owners like to make note about all of Rotaxes service bulletins/AD's on the 912s,
as if the engines have countless problems. But that's not the case. After
29 years in the auto industry, I learned a long time ago its the companies that
never produce service bulletins or recalls that have the products you should
be suspect of. No one builds a perfect, problem free product. Big companies
tend to have systems and procedures (or whole divisions) in place to make sure
as they learn about problems, they work to solve them and then inform their
customers, in the case it may affect them. Small companies are usually too
small to be quite so organized, or have the number of products in service to provide
a good database of problems, so the customer doesn't usually hear anything
unless they have catastrophic failures that can't be ignored. Rotax/bombardier
certainly qualifies as a large aircraft engine mfr, not to mention also
has certified aircraft engines in service around the world. Therefore they have
a good system in place to alert their customers of any issues that might concern
them. Besides my 912, I also have a Lycoming 0-360 in an airplane. While
the 0-360 Lyc is pretty much proven to be one of the most bulletproof aircraft
engines in history, over the years I have received piles of bulletins and
AD's for it. Fortunately, just like the Rotax info, most is not anything I have
to do anything about. But it's nice stuff to know about my engine(s). It's
worked to keep my 44 year old Lycoming running safely and reliably all these
years, so I believe having that knowledge on my 912 is likely to provide a similar
level of service from my Rotax engine.
Oh yeah, I agree with Clint. So if you decide not to buy it let me know, I will
:-)
Paul Seehafer
--------
Model IV-1200 912ul Amphib
Avid Flyer
Lake Amphibian
Central Wisconsin
paul676@tds.net
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=157761#157761
Message 55
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Mandatory Gearbox SB on 912/914's - Check yours |
For those of you who aren't registered on the rotax owners site:
Rotax has issued a mandatory service bulletin (SB) on all 900 series engines.
The SB is mandatory and involves defective gears that can loose teeth and cause
major problems. Rotax has put a date for compliance of April 30, 2008. Here
is a link to the SB
http://www.rotax-owner.com/si_tb_info/serviceb/SB-912-056UL.pdf
I got lucky and my gearbox S/N is not one of the affected ones. I suspect with
the number of 912's on this list, some will be affected. Remember, the S/N on
the gearbox is the important one, not the engine.
--------
Darin Hawkes
Series 7 (under Construction)
914 Turbo
Ogden, Utah
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=157767#157767
Message 56
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: engine selection |
Lynn Matteson wrote:
>
> Be cautious of any engine that flipped, Steve. It might have suffered
> a prop strike, and might have a bent crank...a couple of MIGHT's here
> is all.
>
> Lynn Matteson
> Grass Lake, Michigan
> Kitfox IV Speedster w/Jabiru 2200
> flying w/460+ hrs
> do not archive
>
>
> On Jan 12, 2008, at 8:42 PM, av8rps wrote:
>
>>
>> (Steve Shinabery wrote; been looking at the Jab 2200..BUT now I found
>> a 100 hp.,rotax that is out of a KF in texas. I can buy the engine
>> with every thing with it..for $4000.00..)
>>
>> Steve,
>>
>> Don't waste any time making up your mind on that one. That will not
>> be easy to find again...
>>
>> I believe the first Kitfox to have a 912 was a model 2. So I can't
>> see any reason yours wouldn't accept the engine. Only thing I have
>> to tell you is, you had better HANG ON the first time you crack that
>> throttle! A 100 hp 912 on a model 2 is going to be a real
>> rocketship!!! If you work at it, you could end up with a 575 lb
>> airplane. That'll give you a 5.75 lbs per hp power loading (e.w.).
>> That's almost 30% better than a new kitfox with a 914. So as I said,
>> you'll have a real rocketship! Oh yeah, having the undercambered,
>> high lift wing, you should have one awesome short field, climbing
>> monster as well! But you will have to learn to keep a close eye on
>> your VNE and maneuvering speeds, as you'll most likely blow by them
>> so quickly it will scare you...
>>
>> But oh, what great fun all that sounds like!!!!!
>>
>> Paul Seehafer
>>
>> --------
>> Model IV-1200 912ul Amphib
>> Avid Flyer
>> Lake Amphibian
>> Central Wisconsin
>> paul676@tds.net
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=157733#157733
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Thanks for your input Lynn,,Steve Shinabery N554KF KF2
Message 57
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: engine selection |
av8rps wrote:
>
> [quote="Lynn Matteson"Be cautious of any engine that flipped, Steve. It might
have suffered a prop strike, and might have a bent crank..)
>
> Steve,
>
> That 912 gearbox (you know, the one the Jab flyers leave at home :-) ) will save
a crankshaft from damage. But of course the gearbox could have suffered damage
if it was a hard hit. So you probably need to learn more about the details
of the crash if you want to make a better assessment of the engines condition.
Zero timing it might be a good idea, but unless it really took a hard hit,
or has tons of hours on it, you probably will just need a reputable shop to
check it over and give it a blessing. There are some 912s out there now that
have been torn down with 2500+ hours on them and needed almost nothing.
>
>
> For anyone concerned about all the 912 bulletins; I know some of the non-912
owners like to make note about all of Rotaxes service bulletins/AD's on the
912s, as if the engines have countless problems. But that's not the case. After
29 years in the auto industry, I learned a long time ago its the companies
that never produce service bulletins or recalls that have the products you should
be suspect of. No one builds a perfect, problem free product. Big companies
tend to have systems and procedures (or whole divisions) in place to make
sure as they learn about problems, they work to solve them and then inform their
customers, in the case it may affect them. Small companies are usually too
small to be quite so organized, or have the number of products in service to
provide a good database of problems, so the customer doesn't usually hear anything
unless they have catastrophic failures that can't be ignored. Rotax/bombardier
certainly qualifies as a large aircraft engine!
> mfr, not to mention also has certified aircraft engines in service around the
world. Therefore they have a good system in place to alert their customers
of any issues that might concern them. Besides my 912, I also have a Lycoming
0-360 in an airplane. While the 0-360 Lyc is pretty much proven to be one of
the most bulletproof aircraft engines in history, over the years I have received
piles of bulletins and AD's for it. Fortunately, just like the Rotax info,
most is not anything I have to do anything about. But it's nice stuff to
know about my engine(s). It's worked to keep my 44 year old Lycoming running
safely and reliably all these years, so I believe having that knowledge on my
912 is likely to provide a similar level of service from my Rotax engine.
>
> Oh yeah, I agree with Clint. So if you decide not to buy it let me know, I
will :-)
>
> Paul Seehafer
>
> --------
> Model IV-1200 912ul Amphib
> Avid Flyer
> Lake Amphibian
> Central Wisconsin
> paul676@tds.net
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=157761#157761
>
>
>
Thank You again Paul.every one has been a good help and support here for
me..and Thanks to all...Steve Shinabery N554KF KF2 + the little 582
that could
Message 58
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Cleaning Seat Covers |
Does anyone know if the Kitfox seat covers supplied by
Skystar can be dry cleaned, or how to clean them?
They appear to be synthetic with foam and plastic.
John Allen KF 4 Speedster O70
Looking for last minute shopping deals?
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|