Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:52 AM - NSI compression (fox5flyer)
2. 06:05 AM - Re: NSI compression (Peter Graichen)
3. 06:20 AM - Re: NSI compression (fox5flyer)
4. 06:20 AM - Short field take off : was 6" extension (LarryM)
5. 06:47 AM - Re: Need NSI Subaru Operating Limitations (fox5flyer)
6. 07:15 AM - Short field take off : was 6" extension (fox5flyer)
7. 08:00 AM - Re: Short field take off : was 6" extension (Roger Standley)
8. 08:12 AM - Re: Short field take off : was 6" extension (Randy Daughenbaugh)
9. 08:19 AM - Re: Sun-N-Fun 2008: What are your plans? (FlyboyTR)
10. 12:31 PM - CGS Prop blades Loose (Pete Christensen)
11. 12:55 PM - Re: CGS Prop blades Loose (Guy Buchanan)
12. 01:38 PM - Re: CGS Prop blades Loose (Pete Christensen)
13. 01:41 PM - Re: Re: Sun-N-Fun 2008: What are your plans? (Lynn Matteson)
14. 01:47 PM - Re: Short field take off : was 6" extension (Lynn Matteson)
15. 02:00 PM - Re: CGS Prop blades Loose (Tom Jones)
16. 03:08 PM - Re: Sun-N-Fun 2008: What are your plans? (FlyboyTR)
17. 03:48 PM - Re: Re: TCP (Noel Loveys)
18. 03:58 PM - Re: Sun-N-Fun 2008: What are your plans? (fox5flyer)
19. 04:01 PM - Re: Re: 6" gear extension (Noel Loveys)
20. 04:09 PM - Short field take off : was 6" extension (fox5flyer)
21. 04:13 PM - Fw: Short field take off : was 6" extension (fox5flyer)
22. 04:39 PM - Re: Re: Sun-N-Fun 2008: What are your plans? (Lynn Matteson)
23. 04:40 PM - Re: Re: Sun-N-Fun 2008: What are your plans? (Lynn Matteson)
24. 04:43 PM - Re: Re: TCP (Noel Loveys)
25. 04:58 PM - Re: Re: 6" gear extension (Noel Loveys)
26. 05:07 PM - Re: Re: CGS Prop blades Loose (Pete Christensen)
27. 05:45 PM - Re: Re: TCP (Noel Loveys)
28. 06:47 PM - Re: CGS Prop blades Loose (Tom Jones)
29. 06:50 PM - Re: Sun-N-Fun 2008: What are your plans? (FlyboyTR)
30. 07:07 PM - Re: Re: TCP (Jim_and_Lucy Chuk)
31. 07:11 PM - Re: Re: CGS Prop blades Loose (Pete Christensen)
32. 08:33 PM - Re: CGS Prop blades Loose (ron schick)
33. 08:33 PM - Re: Re: CGS Prop blades Loose (Jim_and_Lucy Chuk)
34. 09:04 PM - Re: Re: CGS Prop blades Loose (Robert Harris)
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 |
|
Hey folks. Has anyone here done head work on there NSI EA81 N/A? My
engine has been running just fine, but I've been noticing a new
difference in my EGTs Normally they were nearly identical at cruise
power, but suddenly they're 150 degrees different. So, I did a normal
automotive type compression check which was
reasonably good, but then I did a differential check and it's
appearing that I may have some bad valves. My highest is #4 at 77/80
and weakest one is #3 at 50/80. #2 is 76/80 and #1 is 60/80 . Both of
the weak ones are on the pilot side with air hissing in the exhaust.
I can hear a gurgling in the oil tank on all four, but I don't know
if that is normal or not since they all sound the same and the
starboard cylinders have pretty good compression. I'm fairly
convinced I need to do a valve job, but what I need is specific
teardown/repair instructions, gasket kit, possibly valves, and someone
to do the actual valve job properly.
Anybody like to give their opinion/recommendations on this? Sources
for the above parts would also be appreciated.
If I go local for parts, what engine do I tell them I have?
Deke
S5 NSI EA81 NA
380 hours
NE Michigan
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 |
|
Hi Deke:
Why don't you give Ron Carr at RAM Performance a shout. He has done my
engine. They are located in Clinton OH, a few miles SW of Akron. Their phone
is (330) 882-6255
Peter Graichen
http:/home.neo.rr.com/n10pg/kitfox.htm
________________________________
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of fox5flyer
Sent: Saturday, 05 April, 2008 07:47
Subject: Kitfox-List: NSI compression
Hey folks. Has anyone here done head work on there NSI EA81 N/A? My
engine has been running just fine, but I've been noticing a new
difference in my EGTs Normally they were nearly identical at cruise power,
but suddenly they're 150 degrees different. So, I did a normal automotive
type compression check which was
reasonably good, but then I did a differential check and it's
appearing that I may have some bad valves. My highest is #4 at 77/80
and weakest one is #3 at 50/80. #2 is 76/80 and #1 is 60/80 . Both of
the weak ones are on the pilot side with air hissing in the exhaust.
I can hear a gurgling in the oil tank on all four, but I don't know
if that is normal or not since they all sound the same and the
starboard cylinders have pretty good compression. I'm fairly
convinced I need to do a valve job, but what I need is specific
teardown/repair instructions, gasket kit, possibly valves, and someone
to do the actual valve job properly.
Anybody like to give their opinion/recommendations on this? Sources
for the above parts would also be appreciated.
If I go local for parts, what engine do I tell them I have?
Deke
S5 NSI EA81 NA
380 hours
NE Michigan
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: NSI compression |
Thanks Peter. I'll do that.
Deke
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Graichen" <n10pg@neo.rr.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 05, 2008 9:01 AM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: NSI compression
>
> Hi Deke:
>
> Why don't you give Ron Carr at RAM Performance a shout. He has done my
> engine. They are located in Clinton OH, a few miles SW of Akron. Their
> phone
> is (330) 882-6255
> Peter Graichen
> http:/home.neo.rr.com/n10pg/kitfox.htm
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of fox5flyer
> Sent: Saturday, 05 April, 2008 07:47
> To: Kitfox List
> Subject: Kitfox-List: NSI compression
>
>
> Hey folks. Has anyone here done head work on there NSI EA81 N/A? My
> engine has been running just fine, but I've been noticing a new
> difference in my EGTs Normally they were nearly identical at cruise power,
> but suddenly they're 150 degrees different. So, I did a normal automotive
> type compression check which was
> reasonably good, but then I did a differential check and it's
> appearing that I may have some bad valves. My highest is #4 at 77/80
> and weakest one is #3 at 50/80. #2 is 76/80 and #1 is 60/80 . Both of
> the weak ones are on the pilot side with air hissing in the exhaust.
> I can hear a gurgling in the oil tank on all four, but I don't know
> if that is normal or not since they all sound the same and the
> starboard cylinders have pretty good compression. I'm fairly
> convinced I need to do a valve job, but what I need is specific
> teardown/repair instructions, gasket kit, possibly valves, and someone
> to do the actual valve job properly.
> Anybody like to give their opinion/recommendations on this? Sources
> for the above parts would also be appreciated.
> If I go local for parts, what engine do I tell them I have?
> Deke
> S5 NSI EA81 NA
> 380 hours
> NE Michigan
>
>
>
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: | Short field take off : was 6" extension |
With regards to tail up or 3 point take offs: In theory, a tail up roll would
lessen the amount of induced drag created by the wings as the angle of attack
would be less, thereby accelerate quicker. Depending on the take off roll length,
it may be noticeable. With my Avid, taking off at about 850# CG at 17ish",
the take off roll is very brief. I've marked my strip at 100, 200, 250 and
300' markers. This morning I had opportunity to do a dozen take offs. I did
tail up and 3 points to compare. I find that the 3 point will very consistently
allow take off in the 125-150' range. The tail up will not reduce that distance,
but most of the time, extends it. There is a lot of room for pilot "non
optimize" with getting the tail up, then rotating to take off attitude. I
find the shortest of all take off rolls is when I set the flaps, trim full nose
up, hold it with the brakes (as much as possible), then release the brakes and
my hand from the stick. The airplane will jump into the air. I can shorten
it just a bit by "helping" it with aft stick when the airplane feels light.
She will leap into the air, and accelerate through ground effect, but I do NOT
recommend letting it, lowering the nose in ground effect and accelerating is
the far safer way. An engine failure at the time of nose high/no speed - needless
to say with be prejudice to longetivity of life, limb and airplane. My
"help" can also lengthen the roll, if not applied at right moment.
I've been a bit fanatical over the past couple years, trying to get as short
as possible ground run. Early on I found that "something must be wrong with the
airplane" because I could not get the tail up as "normal" airplanes do.
Thanks for the great discussion and opportunity to share experiences.
larry
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=174941#174941
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: Need NSI Subaru Operating Limitations |
John, I just checked my manual and it's the same as yours. The lower
right on each page says "MAN-EAE01-01"
I think you're good to go.
Deke Morisse
Mikado Michigan
S5/Subaru/CAP 355+ TT
"The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but
progress."
- Joseph Joubert
----- Original Message -----
From: John W. Hart
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Friday, April 04, 2008 7:57 PM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Need NSI Subaru Operating Limitations
Deke,
I don't know for sure which version it is. It is normally aspirated.
The data plate on the aircraft lists the engine as 118 HP. The tach is
redlined at 6200 rpm. The guy I bought it from told me it was the 118
HP version. The book I have lists RPM 5600 as max allowable engine
speed, and max continuous engine speed as 5500.
The engine uses the Ellison EFS-2 Throttle Body Injection instead of a
carburetor. Are there any other ways to determine which version engine
I have?
The manual I have has on the lower margin of each page the number
MA-EAE01-01. The engine model this book applies to is EA81-0981 Under
the "Description of Design" in Section 2.0
John Hart
Kitfox Model IV
NSI Subaru Engine
Wilburton, OK
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of fox5flyer
Sent: Friday, April 04, 2008 5:03 PM
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Subject: Kitfox-List: Need NSI Subaru Operating Limitations
John, is yours the standard EA81 or the SHO version? Which book are
you using? Let me know and perhaps I can help.
Deke
----- Original Message -----
From: John W. Hart
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Friday, April 04, 2008 4:57 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Need NSI Subaru Operating Limitations
Is anyone using a NSI Subaru (118hp) that would be willing to email
me a copy of their Engine Operating Limitations? I have the incorrect
engine book for my engine. I'd appreciate it very much.
Thanks,
John Hart
Kitfox Model IV
NSI Subaru Engine
Wilburton, OK
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: | Short field take off : was 6" extension |
Good post Larry. I agree. These discussion are just like the landing and
slipping discussions where it normally ends up to technique that feels good
to the particular flyer. Very often, it's the way a person was first taught
and it becomes cast in stone. I have a relatively short farm strip, about
900 Kitfox hours, and countless takeoff/landings, so the vast majority of
mine are short field technique. Sure, I could flatten out my prop and get
the airplane off the ground in 100 feet and have something to brag about,
but that's about all it is, bragging rights. I've tried every combination
possible and I always come back to the same thing that works best in my
situation. I use half flaps, full forward stick, tail up, pick up some
speed, then tail down to get the wheels off the ground and into ground
effect as soon as possible so I can quickly accelerate. The quicker the
wheels are off the ground and the airplane is level in ground effect, the
quicker it will accelerate to climb speed. I don't even look at the
airspeed as it all goes by feel. I've found that I use up a tad more runway
this way, but not very much--possibly 50 feet. The pros to this are
visibility and safety. I have the long aluminum gear so my S5 sits very
nose high and getting the tail up right away allows me to see if a deer is
running out in front of me or any other thing I hadn't seen. If I had a
nose dragger, obviously I'd do it somewhat differently. All this talk about
who can get their airplane off the ground the quickest is "groundless" chest
beating and doesn't really prove anything. The most important thing IMO, is
to use a technique that allows one to make a safe takeoff in a reasonable
distance with enough airspeed to make a climb well above stall speed.
Deke Morisse
Mikado Michigan
S5/Subaru/CAP 355+ TT
"The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but progress."
- Joseph Joubert
----- Original Message -----
From: "LarryM" <CrownLJ@verizon.net>
Sent: Saturday, April 05, 2008 9:17 AM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Short field take off : was 6" extension
>
> With regards to tail up or 3 point take offs: In theory, a tail up roll
> would lessen the amount of induced drag created by the wings as the angle
> of attack would be less, thereby accelerate quicker. Depending on the
> take off roll length, it may be noticeable. With my Avid, taking off at
> about 850# CG at 17ish", the take off roll is very brief. I've marked my
> strip at 100, 200, 250 and 300' markers. This morning I had opportunity
> to do a dozen take offs. I did tail up and 3 points to compare. I find
> that the 3 point will very consistently allow take off in the 125-150'
> range. The tail up will not reduce that distance, but most of the time,
> extends it. There is a lot of room for pilot "non optimize" with getting
> the tail up, then rotating to take off attitude. I find the shortest of
> all take off rolls is when I set the flaps, trim full nose up, hold it
> with the brakes (as much as possible), then release the brakes and my hand
> from the stick. The airplane will jump i!
> nto the air. I can shorten it just a bit by "helping" it with aft stick
> when the airplane feels light. She will leap into the air, and accelerate
> through ground effect, but I do NOT recommend letting it, lowering the
> nose in ground effect and accelerating is the far safer way. An engine
> failure at the time of nose high/no speed - needless to say with be
> prejudice to longetivity of life, limb and airplane. My "help" can also
> lengthen the roll, if not applied at right moment.
> I've been a bit fanatical over the past couple years, trying to get as
> short as possible ground run. Early on I found that "something must be
> wrong with the airplane" because I could not get the tail up as "normal"
> airplanes do.
> Thanks for the great discussion and opportunity to share experiences.
>
> larry
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=174941#174941
>
>
>
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: Short field take off : was 6" extension |
Good points. Sometimes it is necessary to combine several techniques.
You all remember being taught short field techniques over a 50 ft obst
acle where extending your ground roll (with tail up for low drag) buil
ds momentum to be converted to altitude while climbing at Vx. But if y
our situation is a short field surrounded by tall trees and is muddy/w
et or snowy or just tall grass, then you first need to clear the groun
d asap, accelerate in ground effect and then climb at Vx to clear the
trees.=0AWe have such a field here, and to add to the fun, we can u
se only one end of the field for takeoffs and landings, regardless of
wind direction.=0A ----- Original Message ----- =0A From: fox5
flyer<mailto:fox5flyer@idealwifi.net> =0A To: kitfox-list@matronic
s.com<mailto:kitfox-list@matronics.com> =0A Sent: Saturday, April
05, 2008 7:10 AM=0A Subject: Kitfox-List: Short field take off : w
"fox5flyer" <fox5flyer@idealwifi.net<mailto:fox5flyer@idealwifi.net>>
=0A=0A Good post Larry. I agree. These discussion are just li
ke the landing and =0A slipping discussions where it normally ends
up to technique that feels good =0A to the particular flyer. Ver
y often, it's the way a person was first taught =0A and it becomes
cast in stone. I have a relatively short farm strip, about =0A
900 Kitfox hours, and countless takeoff/landings, so the vast majorit
y of =0A mine are short field technique. Sure, I could flatten ou
t my prop and get =0A the airplane off the ground in 100 feet and
have something to brag about, =0A but that's about all it is, brag
ging rights. I've tried every combination =0A possible and I alwa
ys come back to the same thing that works best in my =0A situation
I use half flaps, full forward stick, tail up, pick up some =0A
speed, then tail down to get the wheels off the ground and into groun
d =0A effect as soon as possible so I can quickly accelerate. The
quicker the =0A wheels are off the ground and the airplane is lev
el in ground effect, the =0A quicker it will accelerate to climb s
peed. I don't even look at the =0A airspeed as it all goes by fee
l. I've found that I use up a tad more runway =0A this way, but n
ot very much--possibly 50 feet. The pros to this are =0A visibili
ty and safety. I have the long aluminum gear so my S5 sits very
=0A nose high and getting the tail up right away allows me to see if
a deer is =0A running out in front of me or any other thing I hadn
't seen. If I had a =0A nose dragger, obviously I'd do it somewha
t differently. All this talk about =0A who can get their airplane
off the ground the quickest is "groundless" chest =0A beating and
doesn't really prove anything. The most important thing IMO, is
=0A to use a technique that allows one to make a safe takeoff in a re
asonable =0A distance with enough airspeed to make a climb well ab
ove stall speed.=0A Deke Morisse=0A Mikado Michigan=0A S5/
Subaru/CAP 355+ TT=0A "The aim of an argument or discussion should
not be victory, but progress."=0A - Joseph Joubert=0A=0A -
---- Original Message ----- =0A From: "LarryM" <CrownLJ@verizon.ne
t<mailto:CrownLJ@verizon.net>>=0A To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com<m
ailto:kitfox-list@matronics.com>>=0A Sent: Saturday, April 05, 200
8 9:17 AM=0A Subject: Kitfox-List: Short field take off : was 6" e
yM" <CrownLJ@verizon.net<mailto:CrownLJ@verizon.net>>=0A >=0A
> With regards to tail up or 3 point take offs: In theory, a tail up
roll =0A > would lessen the amount of induced drag created by the
wings as the angle =0A > of attack would be less, thereby accelera
te quicker. Depending on the =0A > take off roll length, it may b
e noticeable. With my Avid, taking off at =0A > about 850# CG at
17ish", the take off roll is very brief. I've marked my =0A > str
ip at 100, 200, 250 and 300' markers. This morning I had opportunity
=0A > to do a dozen take offs. I did tail up and 3 points to comp
are. I find =0A > that the 3 point will very consistently allow t
ake off in the 125-150' =0A > range. The tail up will not reduce
that distance, but most of the time, =0A > extends it. There is a
lot of room for pilot "non optimize" with getting =0A > the tail
up, then rotating to take off attitude. I find the shortest of =0A
> all take off rolls is when I set the flaps, trim full nose up, hol
d it =0A > with the brakes (as much as possible), then release the
brakes and my hand =0A > from the stick. The airplane will jump
i!=0A > nto the air. I can shorten it just a bit by "helping" it
with aft stick =0A > when the airplane feels light. She will leap
into the air, and accelerate =0A > through ground effect, but I d
o NOT recommend letting it, lowering the =0A > nose in ground effe
ct and accelerating is the far safer way. An engine =0A > failure
at the time of nose high/no speed - needless to say with be =0A >
prejudice to longetivity of life, limb and airplane. My "help" can
also =0A > lengthen the roll, if not applied at right moment.
=0A > I've been a bit fanatical over the past couple years, trying t
o get as =0A > short as possible ground run. Early on I found tha
t "something must be =0A > wrong with the airplane" because I coul
d not get the tail up as "normal" =0A > airplanes do.=0A > Th
anks for the great discussion and opportunity to share experiences.
=0A >=0A > larry=0A >=0A >=0A >=0A >=0A > Rea
d this topic online here:=0A >=0A > http://forums.matronics.co
m/viewtopic.php?p=174941#174941<http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopi
c.php?p=174941#174941>=0A >=0A >=0A >=0A >=0A >
=======================
=======================
= --> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List<http://www.ma
=======================
=======================
=======================
=======================
=======================
===========0A=0A=0A=0A
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 |
|
| Subject: | Short field take off : was 6" extension |
Thanks all for some good discussion. I am in agreement with Deke for the
reason he mentions - watch for deer.
Larry said: "In theory, a tail up roll would lessen the amount of induced
drag created by the wings as the angle of attack would be less, thereby
accelerate quicker."
In support of Larry's point on this is that with the drag proportional to
the air speed, there is negligible drag at the low speed in the start of the
takeoff run. It is only at the last second before takeoff that it becomes
significant and I know I can't run the stick fast enough (and I doubt that
the tail moves up or down fast enough) to take advantage of the situation.
Randy
Randy Daughenbaugh, N10NH
Black Hills of South Dakota, - Near Mount Rushmore
Home Strip, Grass Room in Hangar for visitors
Series 5/7 (7 Firewall Forward) 912S, Warp Drive Taper Tip
Gross Weight 1320 lbs, Flying since November 2004
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of fox5flyer
Sent: Saturday, April 05, 2008 8:11 AM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Short field take off : was 6" extension
Good post Larry. I agree. These discussion are just like the landing and
slipping discussions where it normally ends up to technique that feels good
to the particular flyer. Very often, it's the way a person was first taught
and it becomes cast in stone. I have a relatively short farm strip, about
900 Kitfox hours, and countless takeoff/landings, so the vast majority of
mine are short field technique. Sure, I could flatten out my prop and get
the airplane off the ground in 100 feet and have something to brag about,
but that's about all it is, bragging rights. I've tried every combination
possible and I always come back to the same thing that works best in my
situation. I use half flaps, full forward stick, tail up, pick up some
speed, then tail down to get the wheels off the ground and into ground
effect as soon as possible so I can quickly accelerate. The quicker the
wheels are off the ground and the airplane is level in ground effect, the
quicker it will accelerate to climb speed. I don't even look at the
airspeed as it all goes by feel. I've found that I use up a tad more runway
this way, but not very much--possibly 50 feet. The pros to this are
visibility and safety. I have the long aluminum gear so my S5 sits very
nose high and getting the tail up right away allows me to see if a deer is
running out in front of me or any other thing I hadn't seen. If I had a
nose dragger, obviously I'd do it somewhat differently. All this talk about
who can get their airplane off the ground the quickest is "groundless" chest
beating and doesn't really prove anything. The most important thing IMO, is
to use a technique that allows one to make a safe takeoff in a reasonable
distance with enough airspeed to make a climb well above stall speed.
Deke Morisse
Mikado Michigan
S5/Subaru/CAP 355+ TT
"The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but progress."
- Joseph Joubert
----- Original Message -----
From: "LarryM" <CrownLJ@verizon.net>
Sent: Saturday, April 05, 2008 9:17 AM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Short field take off : was 6" extension
>
> With regards to tail up or 3 point take offs: In theory, a tail up roll
> would lessen the amount of induced drag created by the wings as the angle
> of attack would be less, thereby accelerate quicker. Depending on the
> take off roll length, it may be noticeable. With my Avid, taking off at
> about 850# CG at 17ish", the take off roll is very brief. I've marked my
> strip at 100, 200, 250 and 300' markers. This morning I had opportunity
> to do a dozen take offs. I did tail up and 3 points to compare. I find
> that the 3 point will very consistently allow take off in the 125-150'
> range. The tail up will not reduce that distance, but most of the time,
> extends it. There is a lot of room for pilot "non optimize" with getting
> the tail up, then rotating to take off attitude. I find the shortest of
> all take off rolls is when I set the flaps, trim full nose up, hold it
> with the brakes (as much as possible), then release the brakes and my hand
> from the stick. The airplane will jump i!
> nto the air. I can shorten it just a bit by "helping" it with aft stick
> when the airplane feels light. She will leap into the air, and accelerate
> through ground effect, but I do NOT recommend letting it, lowering the
> nose in ground effect and accelerating is the far safer way. An engine
> failure at the time of nose high/no speed - needless to say with be
> prejudice to longetivity of life, limb and airplane. My "help" can also
> lengthen the roll, if not applied at right moment.
> I've been a bit fanatical over the past couple years, trying to get as
> short as possible ground run. Early on I found that "something must be
> wrong with the airplane" because I could not get the tail up as "normal"
> airplanes do.
> Thanks for the great discussion and opportunity to share experiences.
>
> larry
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=174941#174941
>
>
>
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: | Re: Sun-N-Fun 2008: What are your plans? |
Louis,
Airplane camping is usually $25 per night. The fee schedule is not real clear
(never has been!) Sorry...can't provide any more insight! :?
Travis :D
--------
Travis Rayner
Mobile, AL
Skystar Vixen, N-789DF
Continental IO-240, Prince P-Tip Prop
IFR with Autopilot
AnyWhereMap Navigation with weather
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=174960#174960
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: | CGS Prop blades Loose |
I just bought a Used Kitfox III in Arizona and yesterday flew it to within
100 miles of El Paso before I ran out of daylight. This morning while doing
a walk around before the final leg home I found that the blades were loose.
The good Lord was looking after me as I flew it yesterday for 6 hours
without a problem. One blade was so loose I turned it by hand. It had an
annual the day I bought the plane. I suspect it was loose when I left AZ
but I never checked as it was not on my checklist. It had been stored in an
enclosed storage container for probably a couple years.
Is there a fix or is the prop trash?
Pete
Kitfox III N73BH
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: CGS Prop blades Loose |
At 12:28 PM 4/5/2008, you wrote:
>Is there a fix or is the prop trash?
Pete,
Need more info. What prop? What's loose? I would say a close
inspection after disassembly is certainly in order. More depends on
the prop and what's found.
Guy Buchanan
San Diego, CA
K-IV 1200 / 582-C / Warp / 100% done, thanks mostly to Bob Ducar.
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: | Re: CGS Prop blades Loose |
After doing a little research online, it turns out that the GSC props are
only good for 5 years or 500 hours. This prop is 14 years old and has
probably 400 hours on it.
Pete
Kitfox III N73BH
PS. Yes I will be in church tomorrow.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Guy Buchanan" <bnn@nethere.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 05, 2008 1:52 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: CGS Prop blades Loose
>
> At 12:28 PM 4/5/2008, you wrote:
>>Is there a fix or is the prop trash?
>
> Pete,
> Need more info. What prop? What's loose? I would say a close
> inspection after disassembly is certainly in order. More depends on the
> prop and what's found.
>
>
> Guy Buchanan
> San Diego, CA
> K-IV 1200 / 582-C / Warp / 100% done, thanks mostly to Bob Ducar.
>
>
>
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: Sun-N-Fun 2008: What are your plans? |
here's the reply I got from someone at SnF:
***************************
Camping from the 7th through the 13th is $100. If have two people in
your party, the $260 option is your best bet=85 otherwise you can
purchase your camping for a $100 and then however many daily
registrations you need. Yes, daily registrations are daily tickets
to the convention.
Laura Vaughn
Convention Administrator
863-644-2431 X113
863-646-9651 Fax
www.sun-n-fun.org
April 8 - 13, 2008
*****************************
I suspect that LSA/UL is the same...these people don't give anything
away. I had asked the question about "convention registration" and
why they didn't just call it a "gate pass", or "ticket to the
show"....it sounds like a way to hide the fact that they are charging
admission to get in for some strange reason, otherwise why not call
it what it is? and you will notice that there are NO refunds like
they do at Oshkosh.
Notice that the aircraft camping "in designated areas with limited
facilities for $25 a night" can you say boonies? : )
I haven't left Michigan yet, and won't until I see the "green" go
away from Florida on my Pilot My-Cast (shameless name-dropping for my
newest toy). It looks clear down to western Georgia, but not any
further. I'm gonna stay high and dry up here until I see some
improvement. Tampa and Orlando show rain for the next three days, and
my buddy called a friend in Zephyrhills, and it was raining there.
We're enjoying the flying up here right now...63=B0 and clear skies.
Travis, why do you suppose they don't make things crystal clear?
Something to do with IRS reporting and income from this event? Am I
being paranoid? : )
Lynn Matteson
Grass Lake, Michigan
Kitfox IV Speedster w/Jabiru 2200
flying w/480+ hrs/down for annual
On Apr 5, 2008, at 11:16 AM, FlyboyTR wrote:
>
> Louis,
> Airplane camping is usually $25 per night. The fee schedule is not
> real clear (never has been!) Sorry...can't provide any more
> insight! :?
>
> Travis :D
>
> --------
> Travis Rayner
> Mobile, AL
> Skystar Vixen, N-789DF
> Continental IO-240, Prince P-Tip Prop
> IFR with Autopilot
> AnyWhereMap Navigation with weather
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=174960#174960
>
>
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: Short field take off : was 6" extension |
I wonder if these "get off quick" guys ever go anyplace with these
planes, or just practice takeoffs? Maybe I'm just jealous, but I'd
rather go someplace than just brag about my short takeoffs. To each
his/her own, I guess.
Lynn
do not archive
On Apr 5, 2008, at 10:10 AM, fox5flyer wrote:
> Sure, I could flatten out my prop and get the airplane off the
> ground in 100 feet and have something to brag about, but that's
> about all it is, bragging rights.
(snip)
> All this talk about who can get their airplane off the ground the
> quickest is "groundless" chest beating and doesn't really prove
> anything.
> Deke Morisse
>>
>
>
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: CGS Prop blades Loose |
Pete, don't throw that prop out yet. I haven't heard about the 5 year or 500 hour
limit on the GSC prop. That sounds funny.
If the plane just went through a condition inspection, possibly the bolts were
loosened to adjust the pitch or re-torque it and the mechanic forgot to re-torque
it. it is strange though that the loose blade didn't move in flight and cause
a significant vibration.
Don't try to tighten bolts unless you have the instructions on setting the pitch
and torquing and follow them closely. GSC props have been ruined by improper
torquing procedure.
There should be about a .020 in. gap between the hub halves when the blades are
torqued. If you get to the proper torque and the hub halves are touching then
the prop has been over torqued in the past and is probably ruined but there
is a hen house fix with paper shims that some people have used.
If you don't find a copy of the instructions for that prop let me know, I should
have a set in my manual I can scan and email.
--------
Tom Jones
Classic IV
503 Rotax, 72 inch Two blade Warp
Ellensburg, WA
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=174988#174988
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: Sun-N-Fun 2008: What are your plans? |
I have always thought that SNF was way overpriced, registration & camping. However,
the proceeds help to fund the EAA which helps to protect our right to fly...so
I'll just sigh and say........okay. [Rolling Eyes]
I hope the weather does cooperate with us. Looks fair for our Thursday afternoon
departure (overnight in Quincy, FL). Unless there is some major system/front
moving through...a little rain is always expected.
Lynn, hope you are able to make it!
Travis :D
--------
Travis Rayner
Mobile, AL
Skystar Vixen, N-789DF
Continental IO-240, Prince P-Tip Prop
ADI-II Autopilot
AnyWhereMap Navigation with weather
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=175000#175000
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 |
|
How much Stoddard Solvent?
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of dave
Sent: Friday, April 04, 2008 7:27 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: TCP
MMO -- 1 % lard LOL
MMO == snake oil or close to it .
It is not the same as TCP. IT just a worthless additive.
Some will argue that it a "gotta have " but the rest of us get thousands of
hours >WITHOUT MMO
--------
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=174872#174872
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: Sun-N-Fun 2008: What are your plans? |
>
> I have always thought that SNF was way overpriced, registration & camping.
> However, the proceeds help to fund the EAA which helps to protect our
> right to fly...so I'll just sigh and say........okay. [Rolling Eyes]
Fund the EAA? Not to be picky, but I don't think Sun'nFun is affiliated
with the EAA at all. Then again, I might be wrong on this, or maybe I'm
misunderstanding your intent, but as I recall, they're independent of the
EAA and Oshkosh. Uless it's changed, Oshkosh charges camping for the whole
week. However, if you leave early, you get the unused days refunded.
>
> I hope the weather does cooperate with us. Looks fair for our Thursday
> afternoon departure (overnight in Quincy, FL). Unless there is some major
> system/front moving through...a little rain is always expected.
Good luck all you guys. Wish I could go, but I'm in the middle of
determining if I need a ring job.
Deke Morisse
Mikado Michigan
S5/Subaru/CAP 355+ TT
"The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but progress."
- Joseph Joubert
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: 6" gear extension |
Interesting Dave there is a very similar thread running on the Avid list.
I have yet to pull the flaps while on step... Usually around that time I'm
too busy getting into the air without introducing another variable.
Good news... John Mc Bean told me the model IV mount should fit my plane...
The mount should be on its way any day! Now all I have to contend with is
stator plate (AD)... Looks like a new oil pump (another AD) has been
installed.
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of dave
Sent: Friday, April 04, 2008 8:49 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: 6" gear extension
Kitfox IV , empty weight 570s Engine over 400 hours now ( 3rd engine)
It's not just what you got , it is how you use 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=174888#174888
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: | Short field take off : was 6" extension |
Oops, I just reread my message and saw that I might have ruffled some
feathers, especially "Rotax Dealer". If you're pitched to get off the
ground in 100 feet, then you're pitched to cruise at 65 mph!
Deke
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lynn Matteson" <lynnmatt@jps.net>
Sent: Saturday, April 05, 2008 4:45 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Short field take off : was 6" extension
>
> I wonder if these "get off quick" guys ever go anyplace with these
> planes, or just practice takeoffs? Maybe I'm just jealous, but I'd rather
> go someplace than just brag about my short takeoffs. To each his/her own,
> I guess.
>
> Lynn
> do not archive
>
> On Apr 5, 2008, at 10:10 AM, fox5flyer wrote:
>> Sure, I could flatten out my prop and get the airplane off the ground
>> in 100 feet and have something to brag about, but that's about all it
>> is, bragging rights.
> (snip)
>
>> All this talk about who can get their airplane off the ground the
>> quickest is "groundless" chest beating and doesn't really prove
>> anything.
>
>
>> Deke Morisse
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
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: | Fw: Short field take off : was 6" extension |
My sincere apologies. That was not meant to go to the list.
Again, my apologies, especially to Dave. Too quick to hit the "send"
button.
Deke
----- Original Message -----
From: "fox5flyer" <fox5flyer@idealwifi.net>
Sent: Saturday, April 05, 2008 7:02 PM
Subject: Short field take off : was 6" extension
> Oops, I just reread my message and saw that I might have ruffled some
> feathers, especially "Rotax Dealer". If you're pitched to get off the
> ground in 100 feet, then you're pitched to cruise at 65 mph!
> Deke
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Lynn Matteson" <lynnmatt@jps.net>
> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Saturday, April 05, 2008 4:45 PM
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Short field take off : was 6" extension
>
>
>>
>> I wonder if these "get off quick" guys ever go anyplace with these
>> planes, or just practice takeoffs? Maybe I'm just jealous, but I'd
>> rather go someplace than just brag about my short takeoffs. To each
>> his/her own, I guess.
>>
>> Lynn
>> do not archive
>>
>> On Apr 5, 2008, at 10:10 AM, fox5flyer wrote:
>>> Sure, I could flatten out my prop and get the airplane off the ground
>>> in 100 feet and have something to brag about, but that's about all it
>>> is, bragging rights.
>> (snip)
>>
>>> All this talk about who can get their airplane off the ground the
>>> quickest is "groundless" chest beating and doesn't really prove
>>> anything.
>>
>>
>>> Deke Morisse
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
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: Sun-N-Fun 2008: What are your plans? |
I felt that it was overpriced the first time I went there, and when
no refund was forthcoming after I stayed half the week (in the
campground with a small motorhome), I decided to ask why. I called
the EAA in Oshkosh last year and asked why one EAA activity offered
camping refunds while the other...Sun 'n' Fun...did not. I was also
curious as to why the SnF logo in the magazines did not mention the
EAA. The Public Relations person (forgot his name) for the EAA told
me that SnF is not actually an EAA-endorsed function. He said that
they buy their own insurance, have their own lawyers, (hope I'm
recalling all this correctly), and do all their own promoting, etc.
They DO seek EAA members to help out, but it is strictly Florida-
owned and operated by EAA members, but without the affiliation of the
EAA itself. If you will look back at some of the pre-2006 (I think)
windshield sticker logos, you'll see the letters EAA prominently
featured...but not last year and not this year. Also, this year EAA
pulled their "sponsorship" for want of the right word, of all the
major fly-ins....look back at the older magazines and see the EAA-
sponsored fly-ins at Marysville, Arlington, Hondo, etc., and see the
EAA in the ads for them. No more. I just read that they don't want to
be affiliated with the regional fly-ins for reasons of association
should something bad happen...lawyers must've gotten involved.
I also read that SnF has recently been losing attendance, and I'm
sure cost has something to do with it, as well as the time of the
year...weather at this time of year is critical, I'd guess. I know
it's keeping me away so far.
I hope to make it, Travis, but so far it looks like a few rainy days
down there, then if I get to leave here, it might be a while getting
back here. A lot of weather happens in those 2000 miles between here
and there and back again. Oh, well, I can always stay home and
practice short takeoffs. : )
By the way, I wonder how much of the proceeds go back to the EAA in
Oshkosh? I'm thinking not very much if they've pulled their
affiliation/sponsorship/ whatever the term is, with SnF. I'd sure
like to get the real word from someone closer to the top.
Lynn Matteson
Grass Lake, Michigan
Kitfox IV Speedster w/Jabiru 2200
flying w/480+ hrs/down for annual
On Apr 5, 2008, at 6:03 PM, FlyboyTR wrote:
>
> I have always thought that SNF was way overpriced, registration &
> camping. However, the proceeds help to fund the EAA which helps to
> protect our right to fly...so I'll just sigh and say........okay.
> [Rolling Eyes]
>
> I hope the weather does cooperate with us. Looks fair for our
> Thursday afternoon departure (overnight in Quincy, FL). Unless
> there is some major system/front moving through...a little rain is
> always expected.
>
> Lynn, hope you are able to make it!
>
> Travis :D
>
> --------
> Travis Rayner
> Mobile, AL
> Skystar Vixen, N-789DF
> Continental IO-240, Prince P-Tip Prop
> ADI-II Autopilot
> AnyWhereMap Navigation with weather
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=175000#175000
>
>
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: | Re: Sun-N-Fun 2008: What are your plans? |
A "ring job"....? Deke, don't tell me you're thinking of getting
married again?
Lynn
do not archive
On Apr 5, 2008, at 6:51 PM, fox5flyer wrote:
>
> Good luck all you guys. Wish I could go, but I'm in the middle of
> determining if I need a ring job.
> Deke Morisse
> Mikado Michigan
> S5/Subaru/CAP 355+ TT
> "The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but
> progress."
> - Joseph Joubert
>
>
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 |
|
Who said mostly Stoddard Solvent?.... Come to mention it who asked if
Stoddard solvent was actually an ingredient?
I think we got a little off the topic here. My contention is this: While I
have no doubt TCP will help keep the top end of a four stroke engine clean,
in a two stroke engine the only thing up there is the spark plug and rings.
In their own instructions as to how it works they (TCP Manufacturers) say it
has to be burned to work. In the base of the two stroke engine there is no
burning in the base so there is no protection from plating lead onto your
main roller bearings. Those roller bearings are what I would be most
interested in protecting. One way of doing that is to dilute the 100 LL
with MOGAS or avoid the 100LL as much as possible.
I am still adamant about not using ethanol anywhere near a plane....Either
in the gas tank or the pilot before/while flying. It may be OK for
cleaning a few parts. Is it really worth taking a chance on? Not for me it
isn't! I'm not flying tonight so it's getting close to time for a Rum and
coke...
Now, let's talk a bit about two stroke engines( you mentioned them)... Do
they have a bad rep? YES. Do they deserve it? Not in the past ten to
fifteen years. They have such a high power to weight ratio one has to be
careful how you handle them. An EGT should be considered a basic don't
leave home without it, engine instrument.
There are all sorts of legends going around about four stroke engines flying
all over the place with one or two jugs blown... Some of them may even be
true. The thing to remember because it is so much higher stressed than the
four stroke engine if you blow a jug ( why would you, there's no valve
train.) you will experience a much greater loss of power. Over the past
twenty years the two stroke engine has been de-rated and refined to the
point where it is as reliable as the four stroke... or at least close enough
for government work.
My personal experience is; My two stroke 582 has always gotten me home. A
couple of times with partial power that had little or nothing to do with
being a two stroke engine. I've also seen more than one Lyc. that has come
apart on take off ... Pin 80 % out...Really?? But they do give excellent
BANG for the buck.
Sigtaturea
Noel Loveys
Campbellton, NL, Canada
CDN AME intern, PP-Rec
C-FINB, Kitfox III-A
582 B box, Ivo IFA, Aerocet 1100 floats
noelloveys@yahoo.ca
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mnflyer
Sent: Friday, April 04, 2008 8:45 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: TCP
Well we are really getting somewhere now, we went from mostly (???)Stoddard
solvent to less than 25% (at least thats the thinking) then we get the
claim of last resort "Its Snake Oil" that pretty much covers it when when
ones an authority on things, I put it in the same context as 2 stroke
engines are a grenade with the pin about 80% out.
--------
GB
MNFlyer
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=174886#174886
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: | Re: 6" gear extension |
Dave:
All you need are wheels 36' any way you want to measure them J...
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of dave
Sent: Friday, April 04, 2008 7:33 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: 6" gear extension
look at my videos on youtube, and you will see what Larry it talking about.
I raise my tail on start of roll and then after 75 feet I hammer the
taildown and it takes a few feet before I get the wings flying. I have
mentioned and asked this forum about lengthening the main gear before and
not much talk on it. GladLarry finally got it done with favourabel
results. I would like to make a new set of gear higher by 6 to 10 " and get
the higher AOA to cut Take off roll further .
Just watch this and tell me how yor compares
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=174874#174874
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: CGS Prop blades Loose |
Tom,
Well there was NO gap between hub halves and the bolts were plenty tight. I
took the prop apart and it looks brand new inside and out. I just made some
aluminum shims for the inside of both halves. They appear to work. I do
have the instructions. It seems like it would be easier to fly it the 60 or
so miles than to try to find a trailer that will fit.
Pete
Kitfox III 912 N73BH
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Jones" <nahsikhs@elltel.net>
Sent: Saturday, April 05, 2008 2:56 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: CGS Prop blades Loose
>
> Pete, don't throw that prop out yet. I haven't heard about the 5 year or
> 500 hour limit on the GSC prop. That sounds funny.
>
> If the plane just went through a condition inspection, possibly the bolts
> were loosened to adjust the pitch or re-torque it and the mechanic forgot
> to re-torque it. it is strange though that the loose blade didn't move in
> flight and cause a significant vibration.
>
> Don't try to tighten bolts unless you have the instructions on setting the
> pitch and torquing and follow them closely. GSC props have been ruined by
> improper torquing procedure.
>
> There should be about a .020 in. gap between the hub halves when the
> blades are torqued. If you get to the proper torque and the hub halves
> are touching then the prop has been over torqued in the past and is
> probably ruined but there is a hen house fix with paper shims that some
> people have used.
>
> If you don't find a copy of the instructions for that prop let me know, I
> should have a set in my manual I can scan and email.
>
> --------
> Tom Jones
> Classic IV
> 503 Rotax, 72 inch Two blade Warp
> Ellensburg, WA
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=174988#174988
>
>
>
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 |
|
I couldn't get the link to work but the percentages look familiar.
Noel
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jim_and_Lucy
Chuk
Sent: Friday, April 04, 2008 1:52 AM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Re: TCP
Here is something I read a few years ago, it is an accident report on the
NSTB site that mentions MMO and in the 5th paragraph up from the bottom, it
says that MMO is mineral oil, stoddard solvent, and lard (75%, 24%, 1%) I
can't say for sure this is true, it is an official gov. document though, so
who knows. Hope this long link comes out okey. I found it again on the web
by searching Marvel mystery oil FAA and found it on the second page I
think. Jim Chuk Avids Mn
http://www.nstb.gov/nstb/brief2.asp?ev_id 020916X01610
<http://www.nstb.gov/nstb/brief2.asp?ev_id 020916X01610&nstbno=NYC0LA181&a
key=1> &nstbno=NYC0LA181&akey=1
if that isn't the right link, maybe this is (not sure if the 0 in NYCOLA
is a letter or #)
http://www.nstb.gov/nstb/brief2.asp?ev_id 020916X01610
<http://www.nstb.gov/nstb/brief2.asp?ev_id 020916X01610&nstbno=NYCOLA181&a
key=1> &nstbno=NYCOLA181&akey=1
> Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: TCP
> From: rlee468@comcast.net
> Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 19:29:36 -0700
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
>
>
> I have the same question. How do you know MMO is Stoddard solvent? Where
did you find that information or is just a guess or hearsay?
> The mining companies use it by the 55 gallon barrels for many applications
including all air tools. The military also uses barrels of the stuff. In
view of this I wouldn't think it is Stoddard solvent.
>
> --------
> Ron Lee
> Tucson, Arizona
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=174719#174719
>
&g=========
>
>
>
_____
Use video conversation to talk face-to-face with Windows Live Messenger. Get
started!
<http://www.windowslive.com/messenger/connect_your_way.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_W
L_Refresh_messenger_video_042008>
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: CGS Prop blades Loose |
peteohms wrote:
> Tom,
> Well there was NO gap between hub halves and the bolts were plenty tight. I
> took the prop apart and it looks brand new inside and out. I just made some
> aluminum shims for the inside of both halves. They appear to work. I do
> have the instructions. It seems like it would be easier to fly it the 60 or
> so miles than to try to find a trailer that will fit.
>
> Pete
> Kitfox III 912 N73BH
> ---
Pete, your prop situation is different than I have heard of. That being the bolts
are tight, hub halves touching, and the blades still loose. The blade roots
can be crushed and thus damaged if it has been over-torqued in the past.
People have reported a blade slipping in flight due to over torqueing, which crushes
the blade root and the hub halves touch. Being able to turn a blade by
hand with the bolts tight indicates to me that either the blade root diameter
is too small or the hub sockets too large. GSC keeps a record of blade serial
numbers (I think) so may be able to shed some light on the issue for you. Probably
won't be able to get ahold of anyone there until Monday though.
--------
Tom Jones
Classic IV
503 Rotax, 72 inch Two blade Warp
Ellensburg, WA
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=175020#175020
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: Sun-N-Fun 2008: What are your plans? |
I may be wrong about the SNF/EAA affiliation. I know that... way back when...
SNF was EAA sponsored. Until two years ago, we had been away from airplanes for
8-9 years. A lot of things have changed.
Lynn, what day are you planning on leaving, weather permitting?
Travis :D
--------
Travis Rayner
Mobile, AL
Skystar Vixen, N-789DF
Continental IO-240, Prince P-Tip Prop
ADI-II Autopilot
AnyWhereMap Navigation with weather
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=175021#175021
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 |
|
Hi Noel, I posted another message right after that one that had the right
link on it. I'll try it again, otherwise google Marvel mystery oil FAA
and look at the topic NYCO2LA it was the ninth item down on the first
page when I checked. Here is the link again, hope it works
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id 020916X01610&ntsbno=NYC02LA
181&akey=1
Jim Chuk Avids Mhn
From: noelloveys@yahoo.caTo: kitfox-list@matronics.comSubject: RE: Kitfox-L
ist: Re: TCPDate: Sat, 5 Apr 2008 22:09:23 -0230
I couldn=92t get the link to work but the percentages look familiar.
Noel
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-serv
er@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jim_and_Lucy ChukSent: Friday, April 04, 200
8 1:52 AMTo: kitfox-list@matronics.comSubject: RE: Kitfox-List: Re: TCP
Here is something I read a few years ago, it is an accident report on the N
STB site that mentions MMO and in the 5th paragraph up from the bottom, it
says that MMO is mineral oil, stoddard solvent, and lard (75%, 24%, 1%) I
can't say for sure this is true, it is an official gov. document though, s
o who knows. Hope this long link comes out okey. I found it again on the
web by searching Marvel mystery oil FAA and found it on the second page I
think. Jim Chuk Avids Mn http://www.nstb.gov/nstb/brief2.asp?ev_id 0
20916X01610&nstbno=NYC0LA181&akey=1 if that isn't the right link, may
be this is (not sure if the 0 in NYCOLA is a letter or #)http://www.nstb.g
ov/nstb/brief2.asp?ev_id 020916X01610&nstbno=NYCOLA181&akey=1> Subj
ect: Kitfox-List: Re: TCP> From: rlee468@comcast.net> Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008
19:29:36 -0700> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com> > --> Kitfox-List message p
osted by: "ronlee" <rlee468@comcast.net>> > I have the same question. How d
o you know MMO is Stoddard solvent? Where did you find that information or
is just a guess or hearsay?> The mining companies use it by the 55 gallon b
arrels for many applications including all air tools. The military also use
s barrels of the stuff. In view of this I wouldn't think it is Stoddard sol
vent.> > --------> Ron Lee> Tucson, Arizona> > > > > Read this topic online
here:> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=174719#174719> &g
==========> > >
Use video conversation to talk face-to-face with Windows Live Messenger. Ge
t started! http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-Listhttp://forums.ma
tronics.comhttp://www.matronics.com/contribution
_________________________________________________________________
Use video conversation to talk face-to-face with Windows Live Messenger.
http://www.windowslive.com/messenger/connect_your_way.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM
_WL_Refresh_messenger_video_042008
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: CGS Prop blades Loose |
Thanks Tom,
This plane has been through about 6 owners. Bound to be one of them that
over tightened the hub. I really don't like the complexity of the ground
adjustable. I would prefer fixed pitch. The instructions that came with
the prop leave allot to be desired and the GSC web site is even less
helpful.
Pete
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Jones" <nahsikhs@elltel.net>
Sent: Saturday, April 05, 2008 7:44 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: CGS Prop blades Loose
>
>
> peteohms wrote:
>> Tom,
>> Well there was NO gap between hub halves and the bolts were plenty tight.
>> I
>> took the prop apart and it looks brand new inside and out. I just made
>> some
>> aluminum shims for the inside of both halves. They appear to work. I do
>> have the instructions. It seems like it would be easier to fly it the 60
>> or
>> so miles than to try to find a trailer that will fit.
>>
>> Pete
>> Kitfox III 912 N73BH
>> ---
>
>
> Pete, your prop situation is different than I have heard of. That being
> the bolts are tight, hub halves touching, and the blades still loose. The
> blade roots can be crushed and thus damaged if it has been over-torqued in
> the past.
>
> People have reported a blade slipping in flight due to over torqueing,
> which crushes the blade root and the hub halves touch. Being able to turn
> a blade by hand with the bolts tight indicates to me that either the blade
> root diameter is too small or the hub sockets too large. GSC keeps a
> record of blade serial numbers (I think) so may be able to shed some light
> on the issue for you. Probably won't be able to get ahold of anyone there
> until Monday though.
>
> --------
> Tom Jones
> Classic IV
> 503 Rotax, 72 inch Two blade Warp
> Ellensburg, WA
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=175020#175020
>
>
>
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: | CGS Prop blades Loose |
Pete The by the book crowd will insist the prop is junk and it may be. I w
ould think if it were overtightened to that degree there would be material
pressed into the parting line. I just wonder if maybe it's dryer than a po
pcorn fart in Texas and Arizona. I'll bet after about two days on the Oreg
on coast you would have your .020 gap at the parting line. Raining like he
ll here so I'm probably just all wet. :) Ron NB Ore KF IV, Avid A, C15
2> From: apeterchristensen@sbcglobal.net> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com> Su
bject: Kitfox-List: CGS Prop blades Loose> Date: Sat, 5 Apr 2008 13:28:02 -
ensen@sbcglobal.net>> > I just bought a Used Kitfox III in Arizona and yest
erday flew it to within > 100 miles of El Paso before I ran out of daylight
. This morning while doing > a walk around before the final leg home I foun
d that the blades were loose. > The good Lord was looking after me as I fle
w it yesterday for 6 hours > without a problem. One blade was so loose I tu
rned it by hand. It had an > annual the day I bought the plane. I suspect i
t was loose when I left AZ > but I never checked as it was not on my checkl
ist. It had been stored in an > enclosed storage container for probably a c
ouple years.> > Is there a fix or is the prop trash?> > Pete> Kitfox III N7
===> > >
_________________________________________________________________
Get in touch in an instant. Get Windows Live Messenger now.
http://www.windowslive.com/messenger/overview.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_Refr
esh_getintouch_042008
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: CGS Prop blades Loose |
Others may have other opinions, but it you need a different prop, go with a
n IVO, it is the easiest to adjust of them all and performs quite well. Th
e nice thing about an adjustable prop, compared to a fixed pitch prop is th
at if the fixed prop isn't right, you just spent a bunch of money for nothi
ng, or at least not really what you want. With the adjustable, you set it
where you want it. For instance, if you want to fly a cross country, mayb
e you add a bit of pitch for better cruise speed, but later, you are trying
to get out of some short strips, you can take out some pitch and have more
of a climb prop. I now have a Jabiru in my Avid, and really do miss being
able to set the prop up the way I want it like I could with the 582 before
. Just my 2 cents worth, Jim Chuk> From: apeterchristensen@sbcglobal.net
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: CGS Prop bla
des Loose> Date: Sat, 5 Apr 2008 20:09:05 -0600> > --> Kitfox-List message
posted by: "Pete Christensen" <apeterchristensen@sbcglobal.net>> > Thanks T
om,> > This plane has been through about 6 owners. Bound to be one of them
that > over tightened the hub. I really don't like the complexity of the gr
ound > adjustable. I would prefer fixed pitch. The instructions that came w
ith > the prop leave allot to be desired and the GSC web site is even less
> helpful.> > Pete> > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Tom Jones" <n
ahsikhs@elltel.net>> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>> Sent: Saturday, April
05, 2008 7:44 PM> Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: CGS Prop blades Loose> > > > -
> peteohms wrote:> >> Tom,> >> Well there was NO gap between hub halves and
the bolts were plenty tight. > >> I> >> took the prop apart and it looks b
rand new inside and out. I just made > >> some> >> aluminum shims for the i
nside of both halves. They appear to work. I do> >> have the instructions.
It seems like it would be easier to fly it the 60 > >> or> >> so miles than
to try to find a trailer that will fit.> >>> >> Pete> >> Kitfox III 912 N7
3BH> >> ---> >> >> > Pete, your prop situation is different than I have hea
rd of. That being > > the bolts are tight, hub halves touching, and the bla
des still loose. The > > blade roots can be crushed and thus damaged if it
has been over-torqued in > > the past.> >> > People have reported a blade s
lipping in flight due to over torqueing, > > which crushes the blade root a
nd the hub halves touch. Being able to turn > > a blade by hand with the bo
lts tight indicates to me that either the blade > > root diameter is too sm
all or the hub sockets too large. GSC keeps a > > record of blade serial nu
mbers (I think) so may be able to shed some light > > on the issue for you.
Probably won't be able to get ahold of anyone there > > until Monday thoug
h.> >> > --------> > Tom Jones> > Classic IV> > 503 Rotax, 72 inch Two blad
e Warp> > Ellensburg, WA> >> >> >> >> > Read this topic online here:> >> >
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=175020#175020> >> >> >> >> >>
=======> > >
_________________________________________________________________
Get in touch in an instant. Get Windows Live Messenger now.
http://www.windowslive.com/messenger/overview.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_Refr
esh_getintouch_042008
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: CGS Prop blades Loose |
I had a a three blad GSC prop on my Quad City challenger and it slipped in the
hub too. After readjusting it I could get it to stop slipping but what an awful
lot of work. The IVO prop is very easy to aduust in comparison.
Robert
San Diego
Former II/582
V/0200 N200KF
----- Original Message ----
From: Pete Christensen <apeterchristensen@sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Saturday, April 5, 2008 7:09:05 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: CGS Prop blades Loose
Thanks Tom,
This plane has been through about 6 owners. Bound to be one of them that
over tightened the hub. I really don't like the complexity of the ground
adjustable. I would prefer fixed pitch. The instructions that came with
the prop leave allot to be desired and the GSC web site is even less
helpful.
Pete
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Jones" <nahsikhs@elltel.net>
Sent: Saturday, April 05, 2008 7:44 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: CGS Prop blades Loose
>
>
> peteohms wrote:
>> Tom,
>> Well there was NO gap between hub halves and the bolts were plenty tight.
>> I
>> took the prop apart and it looks brand new inside and out. I just made
>> some
>> aluminum shims for the inside of both halves. They appear to work. I do
>> have the instructions. It seems like it would be easier to fly it the 60
>> or
>> so miles than to try to find a trailer that will fit.
>>
>> Pete
>> Kitfox III 912 N73BH
>> ---
>
>
> Pete, your prop situation is different than I have heard of. That being
> the bolts are tight, hub halves touching, and the blades still loose. The
> blade roots can be crushed and thus damaged if it has been over-torqued in
> the past.
>
> People have reported a blade slipping in flight due to over torqueing,
> which crushes the blade root and the hub halves touch. Being able to turn
> a blade by hand with the bolts tight indicates to me that either the blade
> root diameter is too small or the hub sockets too large. GSC keeps a
> record of blade serial numbers (I think) so may be able to shed some light
> on the issue for you. Probably won't be able to get ahold of anyone there
> until Monday though.
>
> --------
> Tom Jones
> Classic IV
> 503 Rotax, 72 inch Two blade Warp
> Ellensburg, WA
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=175020#175020
>
>
>
You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster Total
Access, No Cost.
http://tc.deals.yahoo.com/tc/blockbuster/text5.com
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! --
|