---------------------------------------------------------- Kitfox-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Sat 04/12/08: 61 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 03:52 AM - Re: Short field take off : was 6" extension (dave) 2. 04:02 AM - Re: Was short field "new for hold it a minute" (dave) 3. 04:04 AM - Re: Was short field "new for hold it a minute" (dave) 4. 04:28 AM - Re: Great Lakes Area Kitfox Fly In (dave) 5. 04:40 AM - Re: GSC Prop Blades Loose (JC Propeller Design) 6. 05:24 AM - Re: Re: CGS Prop blades Loose (dpremgood@aim.com) 7. 05:42 AM - Re: GSC Prop Blades Loose (Lynn Matteson) 8. 05:48 AM - Re: Re: Short field take off : was 6" extension (Lynn Matteson) 9. 05:57 AM - Ethanol removal? (bigboyzt0yz) 10. 06:04 AM - Re: Short field take off : was 6" extension (dave) 11. 06:10 AM - Re: Ethanol removal? (dave) 12. 06:32 AM - Re: Re: Short field take off : was 6" extension (84KF) 13. 06:51 AM - Re: Re: Great Lakes Area Kitfox Fly In (steve shinabery) 14. 06:51 AM - Re: Re: Small Side window? (Noel Loveys) 15. 06:54 AM - Re: Re: Was short field "new for hold it a minute" (steve shinabery) 16. 07:15 AM - Re: GSC Prop Blades Loose (Noel Loveys) 17. 07:40 AM - Re: CGS Prop blades Loose (Tom Jones) 18. 07:46 AM - Re: GSC Prop Blades Loose (Noel Loveys) 19. 08:09 AM - Re: Re: Small Side window? (Rexinator) 20. 08:16 AM - Re: Ethanol removal? (Noel Loveys) 21. 08:21 AM - Re: GSC Prop Blades Loose (Rexinator) 22. 08:23 AM - Installation Instructions for Strut fairings (Mnflyer) 23. 08:36 AM - Re: Ethanol removal? (Randy Daughenbaugh) 24. 09:00 AM - Re: Small Side window? (darinh) 25. 09:06 AM - Re: Re: Small Side window? (Cudnohufsky's) 26. 09:19 AM - Re: GSC Prop Blades Loose (JC Propeller Design) 27. 09:33 AM - Re: GSC Prop Blades Loose (Noel Loveys) 28. 09:36 AM - Re: Ethanol removal? (Noel Loveys) 29. 09:47 AM - Re: Re: Small Side window? (Noel Loveys) 30. 09:50 AM - Re: GSC Prop Blades Loose (Noel Loveys) 31. 10:28 AM - Re: GSC Prop Blades Loose (Lynn Matteson) 32. 11:06 AM - Re: Ethanol removal? (Randy Daughenbaugh) 33. 11:15 AM - Re: Any model 5-7's in upstate NY? (dholly) 34. 11:19 AM - Re: Installation Instructions for Strut fairings (Lynn Matteson) 35. 11:59 AM - Re: Ethanol removal? (Dave G.) 36. 12:01 PM - windshield (screen) fit (SUE MICHAELS) 37. 12:06 PM - Re: OT Corsairs. Was - GSC Prop Blades Loose (Marco Menezes) 38. 12:16 PM - Re: Ethanol removal? (Noel Loveys) 39. 12:35 PM - Re: windshield (screen) fit (Nelson Goguen) 40. 12:36 PM - Re: Ethanol removal? (Noel Loveys) 41. 01:09 PM - Re: GSC Prop Blades Loose (JC Propeller Design) 42. 01:44 PM - Re: Ethanol removal? (Michel Verheughe) 43. 01:47 PM - Re: Ethanol removal? (wingnut) 44. 01:49 PM - Re: windshield (screen) fit (Lynn Matteson) 45. 02:20 PM - Re: windshield (screen) fit (patrick reilly) 46. 02:55 PM - Cutting a windshield (Dee Young) 47. 03:14 PM - Re: Re: Ethanol removal? (Herbert R Gottelt) 48. 03:52 PM - Re: Ethanol removal? (ronlee) 49. 03:53 PM - Re: windshield (screen) fit (Lynn Matteson) 50. 04:13 PM - Re: Re: Small Side window? (Guy Buchanan) 51. 04:13 PM - Re: windshield (screen) fit (Guy Buchanan) 52. 04:18 PM - Re: Cutting a windshield (Lynn Matteson) 53. 04:36 PM - Re: Installation Instructions for Strut fairings (Donroutledge@aol.com) 54. 04:37 PM - Re: Re: Ethanol removal? (RAY Gignac) 55. 05:39 PM - Re: Cutting a windshield (Dee Young) 56. 05:46 PM - Re: Ethanol removal? (Dave G.) 57. 05:51 PM - Re: Cutting a windshield (Dee Young) 58. 06:21 PM - Re: Installation Instructions for Strut fairings (Mnflyer) 59. 08:29 PM - Re: Re: Ethanol removal? (Clint Bazzill) 60. 08:30 PM - Re: Ethanol removal? (Noel Loveys) 61. 08:42 PM - Re: Re: Ethanol removal? (Noel Loveys) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 03:52:04 AM PST US Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Short field take off : was 6" extension From: "dave" > That's the way juveniles behave. If you don't believe > him, that's your prerogative. You are so Right with that statement Mike. I think you should take action for your actions as well. I am not the one doing the offending here. I hope I can be more of an inspiration for builders and other fliers , well I know I am. I also think that some like you should help others rather that try to do a critique on them. I have posted this before and it still the same. Deke had this statement "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 " And that is So untrue. That would be a totally Misleading statement for a new builder or flier and I set the record straight. So he admitted to ruffling feathers but not you the moderator are trying to pint the blame my way ? OH PALLLLLLLLLLEZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ .............. -------- 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=176353#176353 ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 04:02:30 AM PST US Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Was short field "new for hold it a minute" From: "dave" > Aviator attitude is what took me 30 years to even think about > learning how to fly, they have an arogant attitude. There are kits out there > to be finished. Lets get those done and get more started. > PS (I still need a motor) > Albert Smith > YEs, so true, and so many used Kitfoxes outo there for sale as bargain basement prices. I would bet that we have seen the bottom and prices will climb at some point again. How many Planes can you buy with a 582 for 15 to 20k or with a 912 for 22 to 28k Ready to fly - Turn KEY ? Not too mention one of the best flying and most versatile airplane in the homebuilt market. Sure no smooth finish like some of those 100k plus planes but just about as good in the air and likely better short field and on floats not too mention in the back country. Heck if you want a new one I would bet MCbeans Super Super SPort would still be all around better plane that most if not all the new LSA kits that have not sold thousands of planes already and been around for over 25 years. Do I like Kitfoxes ? HELL YES -------- 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=176354#176354 ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 04:04:08 AM PST US Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Was short field "new for hold it a minute" From: "dave" > bet that 99.9% of it is simply our testosterone coming out because we are hidden in our little dens behind our computer and know we don't have to face the person on the other end Darin , That is what I call an Armchair pilot !! I really do fly -------- 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=176355#176355 ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 04:28:37 AM PST US Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Great Lakes Area Kitfox Fly In From: "dave" Steve, I am trying to arrange a few guys in Kitfoxes to fly to your flyin that weekend From Canada. I attached a pic of the flight on google maps here but I have to check customs availabilty etc and find our point of entry . I think Toledo would be the best bet. Do you have customs at your field ? Weather might be a factor as well as we would likely make it a 2 day trip Dave -------- 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=176357#176357 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/londontoocelina_123.jpg ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 04:40:12 AM PST US From: "JC Propeller Design" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: GSC Prop Blades Loose I have heard this before, and it would be true on ground, but it isn't really either. In the air, say we have a kitfox or Cub or Aeronca, a relative slow plane, pitch is 40 inch or 1 meter. we fly with 2500 rpm = 2500 meter/minute = 150 km/h = 93 MPH = 81 Knots Every turn of propeller give us 1 meter in forward motion, so with 2 blade the next blade "follow" an half meter or 20 inch AHEAD of the "first" in undisturbed air With 3 blade it will be 0,33 meter or 13,3 inch ahead of each other. The propeller blade is 1 inch to a quarter of an inch thick and blade bottom is about flat with relative/incoming air. Have you seen or performed a balloon chase? many times the balloon goes straight thru the prop disk unhurt, a balloon is maybe 6 by 10 inch so that isn't as strange as at first thought, we think the balloon must be sliced by the fast spinning propeller, but the distance between blades is greater then the size of the balloon. A roll of toilet paper is fun too, but unroll a couple of meter before you throw it overboard, and don't dive into the balloon or paper, climb or level flight is safer. if you dig your grave with your airplane and have toilet paper hanging on landing gear and antennas, NTSB will get the wrong conclusion. There is NACA test showing that a 3 blade is more efficient then 2 and 4 blade, with identical blades, others tests show different result, of course with 3 blades it takes 50% more power to turn the prop at the same rpm and forward speed, so we will never choose between 2 or 3 identical blades, with same pitch and diameter to compeer on our planes. a 3 blade will be smaller in diameter and/or have narrower blades. so it isn't really comparable. if the 3 blade is to large in diameter the pitch will be sat at a lower angle to get RPM up and top speed will suffer. climb will be good though. An single blade prop is more efficient if the tip speed/rotation speed is slow enough to allow a bigger diameter, single blade have been used on Silent electric self launch glider, why? because when retracting the prop into the fuselage the heavy hole don't have to be that large. We do lose 3-15% of power to tipspeed effect! Many test have been made with different result, why? sometimes they have admit that the tested blades wasn't really identical, in thickness, pitch distribution and so on. What propeller is best then? As asking what car is best, or whose wife is best, it all depends on what we use them to do. If we want good take off a slower! turning prop with large diameter is best, if it isn't become to slow with to coarse pitch that will stall on take off. So some trade off here. If we want high speed we need to squeeze the air through a smaller disk area to get it up to higher speed. (Mustang v. PBY) also at higher speed the thrust is less with constant power. We chose if we want, a climb, a standard or cruise propeller, difference will be an inch or two between each in diameter and pitch. Ok now we have the diameter, now we need blade area to "brake" the power, if the blades is becoming to wide, we can chose more blades instead. a slender blade will have better L/D then a wide one, you don't see a Cherokee wing on a sailplane! if the blade become to narrow we get structural problem. We can chose 2 wide blade or 3 narrow blade, total area should be the same with same diameter, if pitch and pitch distribution is the same I think the 3 blade will become the most efficient. If we chose blades with same Aspect ratio, the 3 blade will have less diameter. note that the 3 blade with same aspect ratio will be narrower and thinner if diameter is smaller. With 2 narrow blade the diameter will be larger, fine if no problem with ground clearance or high tip speed or noise. will give good take off and climb and speed. A single blade prop is most efficient? Yes if design and need is right a 3, 4 or 5 blade is best? Yes if needed. 2 wife's? downside is 2 mother in laws. Jan JC Propeller Design attached a reason for wood prop. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Noel Loveys" Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2008 5:47 AM Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: GSC Prop Blades Loose > > Lynn: > > What we were told in school was that a single blade is always cutting into > clear undisturbed air. As you add blades the air each blade cuts into > becomes more and more disturbed. This is what caused the loss of > efficiency. > > Multiple blades do however allow you to handle higher power loads at > smaller > diameters. The P51-D is one plane I can remember seeing with a four blade > prop that was able to soak up the full 1800 +- horsepower of the Rolls > Royce > Merlin engine! Props on the PBY, also in the 1800 hp range were only three > blades but I assume are much larger. > > Noel > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lynn Matteson > Sent: Friday, April 11, 2008 6:37 PM > To: kitfox-list@matronics.com > Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: GSC Prop Blades Loose > > > I do too, Doug, and I can't imagine the P-40 with any other prop, but > I was told in my model airplane days that a 2-blade was more > efficient, and a single blade (club prop) even more so. I guess there > are other factors to consider, however. > > Lynn Matteson > Grass Lake, Michigan > Kitfox IV Speedster w/Jabiru 2200 > flying w/487+ hrs/down for annual > do not archive > > > On Apr 11, 2008, at 4:42 PM, dpremgood@aim.com wrote: >> >> I also like the looks of a 3 blade :-) >> >> Doug >> >> >> >> >> > > > __________ NOD32 2838 (20080131) Information __________ > > > ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 05:24:23 AM PST US Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: CGS Prop blades Loose From: dpremgood@aim.com Tom, That's very interesting. I fly a J3 Kitten with a 503 B gearbox, 2.58 :1 My biggest concern is ground clearance... the 72 inch just wouldn't be possible for me. How does the prop inertia compare between the Warp and the GSC? Doug -----Original Message----- From: Tom Jones Sent: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 11:41 pm Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: CGS Prop blades Loose My experience with a 68 inch three blade GSC versus a 72 inch two blade Warp on a 503, with a 3:1 C reduction box on a Classic 4 is the three blade was smoother...the two blade better climb and faster cruise. I need every ounce of thrust I can get from the 503 so for me the two blade is the prop of choice. -------- 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=176333#176333 ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 05:42:48 AM PST US From: Lynn Matteson Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: GSC Prop Blades Loose That's what I learned from my reading too...that singles were the most efficient. I suppose at a certain point efficiency must give way to the horsepower to be handled. I'm thinking of the Merlin of course, and what engine does the Sea Fury have in it? That's a 5- blade as I recall. Another factor to consider is the engines' needs. Early on, I was told that my Jabiru needed the 2-bladed wooden prop to absorb the torsional vibration of the engine, and that ground adjustables of the time had too large a hub, and that the hub interfered with air going into the cooling ports of the cowl. Later this info changed, and some ground adjustables were now OK'd to use....different info as the times change and equipment becomes available. Lynn Matteson Grass Lake, Michigan Kitfox IV Speedster w/Jabiru 2200 flying w/487+ hrs/down for annual do not archive On Apr 11, 2008, at 11:47 PM, Noel Loveys wrote: > > Lynn: > > What we were told in school was that a single blade is always > cutting into > clear undisturbed air. As you add blades the air each blade cuts into > becomes more and more disturbed. This is what caused the loss of > efficiency. > > Multiple blades do however allow you to handle higher power loads > at smaller > diameters. The P51-D is one plane I can remember seeing with a > four blade > prop that was able to soak up the full 1800 +- horsepower of the > Rolls Royce > Merlin engine! Props on the PBY, also in the 1800 hp range were > only three > blades but I assume are much larger. > > Noel ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 05:48:03 AM PST US From: Lynn Matteson Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: Short field take off : was 6" extension As I recall, this offering was made a while ago, the offending person or persons started a new group, and he/they left this group...damned of I can remember who that was. Whatever happened to those guys and that group...oh well, this one's where the real Kitfox'ers are. Lynn Matteson Grass Lake, Michigan Kitfox IV Speedster w/Jabiru 2200 flying w/487+ hrs/down for annual do not archive On Apr 12, 2008, at 12:53 AM, Michael Gibbs wrote: > If you want to start your own list you'd be free to choose the > moderators in any way that you wish. > > Mike G. > Kitfox List Moderator > > ________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________ Time: 05:57:46 AM PST US Subject: Kitfox-List: Ethanol removal? From: "bigboyzt0yz" Ethanol can it be removed from fuel by adding water to this 15 gal tank (see Photo) If so what is the ratio of water to fuel? I plan on adding water and shaking it up. Then letting it sit and drain off the water and Ethanol off the bottom. Based on the fact that there is 10% Ethanol in the fuel how far below 93 does it lower the rating? Is there any thing that I am missing by doing this. I have 1995 model IV fiberglass wing tanks and do not want a engine out from the resin break down. The waste could be used for cleaning parts and such. -------- Lee Fritz in owings Mills Md. 2002 KitFox-IV Classic/912UL/Warp drive prop/100% Complete (just adding the Extras now) /71 hours time on plane since Aug 07 "Have your feet on the Pedals and keep reaching for the sky". Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=176367#176367 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/fuel_tank_on_stand_small_170.jpg ________________________________ Message 10 ____________________________________ Time: 06:04:00 AM PST US Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Short field take off : was 6" extension From: "dave" > Whatever happened to those guys and > that group...oh well, this one's where the real Kitfox'ers are. > Lynn Matteson > That was John perry and brother. there are 3 on that forum . I seen the one video that one of them made on full lotus, looks like at least of one of them flys and makes a Kitfox do what it was designed for , fly and fly well. I forget site -- avid fox flyers .com ? i think -------- Rotax Dealer, Ontario Canada Flying Videos and Kitfox Info http://www.cfisher.com/ Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=176368#176368 ________________________________ Message 11 ____________________________________ Time: 06:10:30 AM PST US Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Ethanol removal? From: "dave" I have run through my fiberglass tanks thousands of gallons of gas. I cannot guarantee you that it has ethanol but it has been law here in Canada that gas must contain ethanol so I assume it there. I am against ethanol in gas but I use it as I have no choice. So far I have had ZERO issues with it. IF i have to separate gas and ethanol to fly I will adapt however needed. Like i said I do not support ethanol but I will adapt to it. We are only sheep in the pasture here. Government rams it down our throats. I would like to see some conclusive evidence from hands on experience on why it should not be used rather than just "talk about it " and why it so bad. So far I have had nothing but good luck I guess ? -------- 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=176369#176369 ________________________________ Message 12 ____________________________________ Time: 06:32:58 AM PST US From: 84KF Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: Short field take off : was 6" extension All alive and well, thank you,,, http://avidfoxflyers.com/index.php ________________________________ Message 13 ____________________________________ Time: 06:51:19 AM PST US From: steve shinabery Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: Great Lakes Area Kitfox Fly In dave wrote: > > Steve, I am trying to arrange a few guys in Kitfoxes to fly to your flyin that weekend From Canada. I attached a pic of the flight on google maps here but I have to check customs availabilty etc and find our point of entry . I think Toledo would be the best bet. Do you have customs at your field ? > > Weather might be a factor as well as we would likely make it a 2 day trip > > > Dave > > -------- > 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=176357#176357 > > > Attachments: > > http://forums.matronics.com//files/londontoocelina_123.jpg > > > Dave,,,I think if you fly down..Toledo would be your best bet,all so for point of entry....we do not have any customs or point of entry here at Lake field airport since we are a small country airport...from Toledo.you are app 1 hr flight from us south.if need you can camp here,or can get a room if needed.I hope we have good weather..I would be PROUD to MEET you Dave..Even if you come down Sat night. we can make arangements for you.heck even if you need a tent to stay in..I can do that all so..just let me know..Thanks Dave,,,,STEVE SHINABERY N554KF KF2 ________________________________ Message 14 ____________________________________ Time: 06:51:36 AM PST US From: "Noel Loveys" Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Re: Small Side window? You're forgetting the windows are sewn in and all the finishing you mention would have to be done anyway. Another idea would be to install inspection port rings and attach Plexiglas to them. Nice porthole windows reminiscent of the DHC-2 Beaver....nah too much like work. Maybe a decal of a window. Noel -----Original Message----- From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of darinh Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2008 12:56 AM Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Small Side window? Noel, I agree with you but I have seen a couple of Foxes where the builder has done this and in my opinion it looks a bit odd. Besides, to cover this area, seal, prime and paint, you would have much more effort and time into it than simply replacing the windows. Just my opinion, to each his own. -------- Darin Hawkes Series 7 (Painting) 914 Turbo Kaysville, Utah Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=176329#176329 ________________________________ Message 15 ____________________________________ Time: 06:54:57 AM PST US From: steve shinabery Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: Was short field "new for hold it a minute" darinh wrote: > > Albert, > > Spot on Albert...new builders need not worry about the banter that goes on on this list as I would be willing to bet that 99.9% of it is simply our testosterone coming out because we are hidden in our little dens behind our computer and know we don't have to face the person on the other end (Wow, how manly we can be [Wink] ). What I am trying to say is that it is my opinion that if we were all in a big room or around a campfire we would be all be throwing back a couple, telling lies and enjoying each others company as friends and fellow Kitfox owners, builders and pilots. I think most of us adults understand this and simply let our emotions get the best of us sometimes. > > -------- > Darin Hawkes > Series 7 (Painting) > 914 Turbo > Kaysville, Utah > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=176331#176331 > > > Now You Are TALKING Darin...some good words of advice....and well taken...STEVE SHINABERY N554KF KF2 ________________________________ Message 16 ____________________________________ Time: 07:15:26 AM PST US From: "Noel Loveys" Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: GSC Prop Blades Loose Thanks Jan... Very in depth, however, your idea that each blade at 40 inches of pitch advances 40 inches with each revolution assumes no drag on the plane... If that were true we wouldn't need props or engines at all.... I made the same argument in school. I was wondering if with each additional blade there is also an additional root area which gives no appreciable thrust to the plane? And in fact can increase load by pushing air at a flat cowl. I agree with your reason for a wood prop. Beautiful craftsmanship! Noel -----Original Message----- From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of JC Propeller Design Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2008 9:06 AM Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: GSC Prop Blades Loose I have heard this before, and it would be true on ground, but it isn't really either. In the air, say we have a kitfox or Cub or Aeronca, a relative slow plane, pitch is 40 inch or 1 meter. we fly with 2500 rpm = 2500 meter/minute = 150 km/h = 93 MPH = 81 Knots Every turn of propeller give us 1 meter in forward motion, so with 2 blade the next blade "follow" an half meter or 20 inch AHEAD of the "first" in undisturbed air With 3 blade it will be 0,33 meter or 13,3 inch ahead of each other. The propeller blade is 1 inch to a quarter of an inch thick and blade bottom is about flat with relative/incoming air. Have you seen or performed a balloon chase? many times the balloon goes straight thru the prop disk unhurt, a balloon is maybe 6 by 10 inch so that isn't as strange as at first thought, we think the balloon must be sliced by the fast spinning propeller, but the distance between blades is greater then the size of the balloon. A roll of toilet paper is fun too, but unroll a couple of meter before you throw it overboard, and don't dive into the balloon or paper, climb or level flight is safer. if you dig your grave with your airplane and have toilet paper hanging on landing gear and antennas, NTSB will get the wrong conclusion. There is NACA test showing that a 3 blade is more efficient then 2 and 4 blade, with identical blades, others tests show different result, of course with 3 blades it takes 50% more power to turn the prop at the same rpm and forward speed, so we will never choose between 2 or 3 identical blades, with same pitch and diameter to compeer on our planes. a 3 blade will be smaller in diameter and/or have narrower blades. so it isn't really comparable. if the 3 blade is to large in diameter the pitch will be sat at a lower angle to get RPM up and top speed will suffer. climb will be good though. An single blade prop is more efficient if the tip speed/rotation speed is slow enough to allow a bigger diameter, single blade have been used on Silent electric self launch glider, why? because when retracting the prop into the fuselage the heavy hole don't have to be that large. We do lose 3-15% of power to tipspeed effect! Many test have been made with different result, why? sometimes they have admit that the tested blades wasn't really identical, in thickness, pitch distribution and so on. What propeller is best then? As asking what car is best, or whose wife is best, it all depends on what we use them to do. If we want good take off a slower! turning prop with large diameter is best, if it isn't become to slow with to coarse pitch that will stall on take off. So some trade off here. If we want high speed we need to squeeze the air through a smaller disk area to get it up to higher speed. (Mustang v. PBY) also at higher speed the thrust is less with constant power. We chose if we want, a climb, a standard or cruise propeller, difference will be an inch or two between each in diameter and pitch. Ok now we have the diameter, now we need blade area to "brake" the power, if the blades is becoming to wide, we can chose more blades instead. a slender blade will have better L/D then a wide one, you don't see a Cherokee wing on a sailplane! if the blade become to narrow we get structural problem. We can chose 2 wide blade or 3 narrow blade, total area should be the same with same diameter, if pitch and pitch distribution is the same I think the 3 blade will become the most efficient. If we chose blades with same Aspect ratio, the 3 blade will have less diameter. note that the 3 blade with same aspect ratio will be narrower and thinner if diameter is smaller. With 2 narrow blade the diameter will be larger, fine if no problem with ground clearance or high tip speed or noise. will give good take off and climb and speed. A single blade prop is most efficient? Yes if design and need is right a 3, 4 or 5 blade is best? Yes if needed. 2 wife's? downside is 2 mother in laws. Jan JC Propeller Design attached a reason for wood prop. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Noel Loveys" Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2008 5:47 AM Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: GSC Prop Blades Loose > > Lynn: > > What we were told in school was that a single blade is always cutting into > clear undisturbed air. As you add blades the air each blade cuts into > becomes more and more disturbed. This is what caused the loss of > efficiency. > > Multiple blades do however allow you to handle higher power loads at > smaller > diameters. The P51-D is one plane I can remember seeing with a four blade > prop that was able to soak up the full 1800 +- horsepower of the Rolls > Royce > Merlin engine! Props on the PBY, also in the 1800 hp range were only three > blades but I assume are much larger. > > Noel > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lynn Matteson > Sent: Friday, April 11, 2008 6:37 PM > To: kitfox-list@matronics.com > Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: GSC Prop Blades Loose > > > I do too, Doug, and I can't imagine the P-40 with any other prop, but > I was told in my model airplane days that a 2-blade was more > efficient, and a single blade (club prop) even more so. I guess there > are other factors to consider, however. > > Lynn Matteson > Grass Lake, Michigan > Kitfox IV Speedster w/Jabiru 2200 > flying w/487+ hrs/down for annual > do not archive > > > On Apr 11, 2008, at 4:42 PM, dpremgood@aim.com wrote: >> >> I also like the looks of a 3 blade :-) >> >> Doug >> >> >> >> >> > > > __________ NOD32 2838 (20080131) Information __________ > > > ________________________________ Message 17 ____________________________________ Time: 07:40:32 AM PST US Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: CGS Prop blades Loose From: "Tom Jones" dpremgood(at)aim.com wrote: > Tom, > That's very interesting. > I fly a J3 Kitten with a 503 B gearbox, 2.58 :1 > My biggest concern is ground clearance... the 72 inch just wouldn't be > possible for me. > How does the prop inertia compare between the Warp and the GSC? > Doug > -- Doug, I don't know the specific inertia numbers for the props. The three blade GSC came with the engine when I bought it from Skystar in 1994. later I wanted to maximize the performance so called Warp and told them the application. The Warp guy discussed some other props with me until I mentioned the gear box was a 3:1 C then he immediately said the 72 inch two blade was the way to maximize performance for that little engine. The sturdiness of the gear box along with the gear reduction was the Key I think. My kitfox is draggy. No fairing on the wing struts. Cruise speed is slow...75 MPH at 5800 RPM with the WARP, about 70 with the GSC. -------- 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=176384#176384 ________________________________ Message 18 ____________________________________ Time: 07:46:15 AM PST US From: "Noel Loveys" Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: GSC Prop Blades Loose Lynn: I'm sure a three blade could absorb even more TV (Torsional Vibration). I just Googled (is that a real word???) up the Sea Fury. One version had a 2550 hp Centaurus XV air cooled engine with a five bladed Rotol prop. Being a naval plane it had to take off in surprisingly short distances even with catapult assist this would require a lot of power to be sunk into the prop. The idea of the bent wing one the F4-U Corsair was to allow a bigger prop on a smaller plane. Back to our props.. I don't think composite props handle the vibration as well as wood. In the early days of the Corvette, with our notoriously bad roads, the bodies of the cars cracked profusely and were always undergoing repair. Since then there have been many advancements in composite construction but I think it just doesn't stand up to vibration as well as natural wood. Wood on the other hand won't age nearly as well as composite. Neither prop should be flown through rain. The prop that came with my 912 is a two blade GA Warp. I'm hoping it will work well for me. Time will tell. Noel -----Original Message----- From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lynn Matteson Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2008 10:08 AM Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: GSC Prop Blades Loose That's what I learned from my reading too...that singles were the most efficient. I suppose at a certain point efficiency must give way to the horsepower to be handled. I'm thinking of the Merlin of course, and what engine does the Sea Fury have in it? That's a 5- blade as I recall. Another factor to consider is the engines' needs. Early on, I was told that my Jabiru needed the 2-bladed wooden prop to absorb the torsional vibration of the engine, and that ground adjustables of the time had too large a hub, and that the hub interfered with air going into the cooling ports of the cowl. Later this info changed, and some ground adjustables were now OK'd to use....different info as the times change and equipment becomes available. Lynn Matteson Grass Lake, Michigan Kitfox IV Speedster w/Jabiru 2200 flying w/487+ hrs/down for annual do not archive On Apr 11, 2008, at 11:47 PM, Noel Loveys wrote: > > Lynn: > > What we were told in school was that a single blade is always > cutting into > clear undisturbed air. As you add blades the air each blade cuts into > becomes more and more disturbed. This is what caused the loss of > efficiency. > > Multiple blades do however allow you to handle higher power loads > at smaller > diameters. The P51-D is one plane I can remember seeing with a > four blade > prop that was able to soak up the full 1800 +- horsepower of the > Rolls Royce > Merlin engine! Props on the PBY, also in the 1800 hp range were > only three > blades but I assume are much larger. > > Noel ________________________________ Message 19 ____________________________________ Time: 08:09:54 AM PST US Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: Small Side window? From: Rexinator Noel Loveys wrote: > Maybe a decal of a window. > >Noel > > HA HA HA HA :-D ...made me spit out my coffee! do not archive -- Rex Hefferan SE Colorado / K-II / 582-C / still waiting repairs ________________________________ Message 20 ____________________________________ Time: 08:16:53 AM PST US From: "Noel Loveys" Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Ethanol removal? That's a good question...Wish I had the answer for sure. The RON for ethanol is reported as being 116. I think gas without ethanol is 87. If you can find it toluene has a rating of 114 so for special purposes it can boost the RON again. If you are flying a 582 that should be Ok. A 914 will require an octane booster... preferably not lead. There are guys I've come across, one in New York who have been doing this for their boat engines for years. The main thing to look out for is pinging aka detonation. How much water to use? Test to be sure. For 15 gallons of gas there is only 1.5 gallons of ethanol to remove. If ethanol will in excess of 80% its volume in water I would start with a trial of one quart of water. Then test the gas with a jar or test tube. If it proves to be cleaned great if it still seems to show ethanol in the fuel add another cup of water. When mixing use an air operated agitator and be sure to let it stand for a minimum of twenty minutes to allow the smallest "bubbles" of water to settle to the bottom of the tank. Also, you can siphon the gas off the top or on that fancy barrel just drain the water off first. Best of luck Noel -----Original Message----- From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of bigboyzt0yz Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2008 10:25 AM Subject: Kitfox-List: Ethanol removal? Ethanol can it be removed from fuel by adding water to this 15 gal tank (see Photo) If so what is the ratio of water to fuel? I plan on adding water and shaking it up. Then letting it sit and drain off the water and Ethanol off the bottom. Based on the fact that there is 10% Ethanol in the fuel how far below 93 does it lower the rating? Is there any thing that I am missing by doing this. I have 1995 model IV fiberglass wing tanks and do not want a engine out from the resin break down. The waste could be used for cleaning parts and such. ________________________________ Message 21 ____________________________________ Time: 08:21:26 AM PST US Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: GSC Prop Blades Loose From: Rexinator Noel Loveys wrote: > The idea of the bent wing one the F4-U Corsair was to allow a bigger >prop on a smaller plane. > True, but to complete the reason as I recall reading about it, at the time they couldn't design landing gear long enough and strong enough for carrier landings with the required prop diameter. -- Rex Hefferan SE Colorado / K-II / 582-C / still waiting repairs ________________________________ Message 22 ____________________________________ Time: 08:23:11 AM PST US Subject: Kitfox-List: Installation Instructions for Strut fairings From: "Mnflyer" Hi All, does anyone have a set of installation instructions for the PVC wing strut fairings? I purchased a unused set but the fellow couldn't find the instructions so if anyone has some that would be will to share with me I'd appreciate the help. Thanks GB -------- GB MNFlyer Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=176391#176391 ________________________________ Message 23 ____________________________________ Time: 08:36:39 AM PST US From: "Randy Daughenbaugh" Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Ethanol removal? Lee, I just want to raise a safety issue here. In addition to lowering the octane rating, you are adding water to the gas. You need to add a step to dry the gas after your process. Mole sieves or such. Otherwise when you fly into colder weather, you risk separation of the water and gas line freeze or ingestion of water into the engine. - either could make things real quiet up there. Even if it works real well, there are going to be some mistakes made, which can cause problems. You could buy some alcohol (methanol or ethanol or isopropanol) to add to the gas to keep the water in solution. ;-) Randy . -----Original Message----- From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of bigboyzt0yz Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2008 6:55 AM Subject: Kitfox-List: Ethanol removal? Ethanol can it be removed from fuel by adding water to this 15 gal tank (see Photo) If so what is the ratio of water to fuel? I plan on adding water and shaking it up. Then letting it sit and drain off the water and Ethanol off the bottom. Based on the fact that there is 10% Ethanol in the fuel how far below 93 does it lower the rating? Is there any thing that I am missing by doing this. I have 1995 model IV fiberglass wing tanks and do not want a engine out from the resin break down. The waste could be used for cleaning parts and such. -------- Lee Fritz in owings Mills Md. 2002 KitFox-IV Classic/912UL/Warp drive prop/100% Complete (just adding the Extras now) /71 hours time on plane since Aug 07 "Have your feet on the Pedals and keep reaching for the sky". Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=176367#176367 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/fuel_tank_on_stand_small_170.jpg ________________________________ Message 24 ____________________________________ Time: 09:00:30 AM PST US Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Small Side window? From: "darinh" Noel, I was referring to retrofitting with the windows from Blue Sky Aviation, not with the sewn-in windows in which case, you're right, there would be much more work than simply covering it over. With the Blue Sky windows you simply cut out the old fabric and install the window and frame using the supplied brackets...it is really pretty slick. I like your decal idea...you could get an airbrush artist to paint the window on and show a terrified passenger, green-faced and all. -------- Darin Hawkes Series 7 (Painting) 914 Turbo Kaysville, Utah Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=176398#176398 ________________________________ Message 25 ____________________________________ Time: 09:06:12 AM PST US From: "Cudnohufsky's" <7suds@Chartermi.net> Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Re: Small Side window? All, My experience with not having the small windows, I had a Model 4 XL that did not have them, I found myself wishing I did when I was in tight ground taxi situations around hangers and parked planes as well as when I would fly formation with other aircraft, found myself leaning forward to cop a peak around the end of the door window, I am re-building a 5 now and am putting in as much window as I can, full Lexan doors, full Lexan turtle deck cover and small windows. Lloyd C N Mich. 5 w/912 ________________________________ Message 26 ____________________________________ Time: 09:19:40 AM PST US From: "JC Propeller Design" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: GSC Prop Blades Loose Yes I mean that with 40 inch we will go 40 inch, or 38 or 42 inch forward. I have the short coming that I don't understand when other people don't understand what I am thinking, or forget to say. :-) pitch on propellers is mostly referring to the flat bottom, not the cord or aerodynamically correct the zero lift line. at cruise, if diameter is correct the flat bottom is about flat with incoming air, with a longer prop this angle will be negative!, and a shorter prop will have a positive angle. this vary also with thickness of blade, thinner blade need more angle, and opposite. the lift or thrust is generated from the angle between zero lift angle and the angle of relative wind! 6 or so degree higher at 75% radii of the blade, going from 40 inch to 58.5 inch at the Zero lift line. The number I closed to use was just even nr's close to the real kitfox world, I didn't bother to check it up with my propeller program, but just did. if we say by some reason we have 65 hp and is going 92 mph, propeller thickness at 75% = 12% and turning the prop at 2500 rpm we (I) get 40.02 inch or 14.02 degree at 75%, diameter 68" and aspect ratio 6,12 = 5,55 inch wide blade at 45% radii 2 blade. other way of see it! is to just look out to your left when flying, specially you with flat bottom wings, it is almost flat with the horizon, at higher speed it is a negative angle, ( leading edge down a bit) it still fly and lift is most of the times, or at least sometimes equal to the weight, (if we don't go into the negative pitch moment of wing and down or sometimes up lift of the tail, because it will be a very long story then I don't have time to type much more because my wife want me to go out with 6 month son to by groceries) the area near hub is also interesting, I go there when back from walk. Jan ----- Original Message ----- From: "Noel Loveys" Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2008 4:12 PM Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: GSC Prop Blades Loose > > Thanks Jan... Very in depth, however, your idea that each blade at 40 > inches > of pitch advances 40 inches with each revolution assumes no drag on the > plane... If that were true we wouldn't need props or engines at all.... I > made the same argument in school. > > I was wondering if with each additional blade there is also an additional > root area which gives no appreciable thrust to the plane? And in fact can > increase load by pushing air at a flat cowl. > > I agree with your reason for a wood prop. > Beautiful craftsmanship! > > Noel > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of JC Propeller > Design > Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2008 9:06 AM > To: kitfox-list@matronics.com > Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: GSC Prop Blades Loose > > I have heard this before, and it would be true on ground, but it isn't > really either. > > In the air, say we have a kitfox or Cub or Aeronca, a relative slow plane, > pitch is 40 inch or 1 meter. > > we fly with 2500 rpm = 2500 meter/minute = 150 km/h = 93 MPH = 81 Knots > > Every turn of propeller give us 1 meter in forward motion, so with 2 blade > the next blade "follow" an half meter or 20 inch AHEAD of the "first" in > undisturbed air With 3 blade it will be 0,33 meter or 13,3 inch ahead of > each other. > > The propeller blade is 1 inch to a quarter of an inch thick and blade > bottom > is about flat with relative/incoming air. > > Have you seen or performed a balloon chase? many times the balloon goes > straight thru the prop disk unhurt, a balloon is maybe 6 by 10 inch so > that > isn't as strange as at first thought, we think the balloon must be sliced > by > the fast spinning propeller, but the distance between blades is greater > then > the size of the balloon. > A roll of toilet paper is fun too, but unroll a couple of meter before you > throw it overboard, and don't dive into the balloon or paper, climb or > level > flight is safer. > if you dig your grave with your airplane and have toilet paper hanging on > landing gear and antennas, NTSB will get the wrong conclusion. > > There is NACA test showing that a 3 blade is more efficient then 2 and 4 > blade, with identical blades, others tests show different result, of > course > with 3 blades it takes 50% more power to turn the prop at the same rpm and > forward speed, so we will never choose between 2 or 3 identical blades, > with > same pitch and diameter to compeer on our planes. a 3 blade will be > smaller > in diameter and/or have narrower blades. so it isn't really comparable. if > the 3 blade is to large in diameter the pitch will be sat at a lower angle > to get RPM up and top speed will suffer. climb will be good though. > > An single blade prop is more efficient if the tip speed/rotation speed is > slow enough to allow a bigger diameter, single blade have been used on > Silent electric self launch glider, why? because when retracting the prop > into the fuselage the heavy hole don't have to be that large. > > We do lose 3-15% of power to tipspeed effect! > > Many test have been made with different result, why? sometimes they have > admit that the tested blades wasn't really identical, in thickness, pitch > distribution and so on. > > What propeller is best then? As asking what car is best, or whose wife is > best, it all depends on what we use them to do. > > If we want good take off a slower! turning prop with large diameter is > best, > if it isn't become to slow with to coarse pitch that will stall on take > off. > > So some trade off here. > > If we want high speed we need to squeeze the air through a smaller disk > area > to get it up to higher speed. (Mustang v. PBY) also at higher speed the > thrust is less with constant power. > > We chose if we want, a climb, a standard or cruise propeller, difference > will be an inch or two between each in diameter and pitch. > > Ok now we have the diameter, now we need blade area to "brake" the power, > if > the blades is becoming to wide, we can chose more blades instead. a > slender > blade will have better L/D then a wide one, you don't see a Cherokee wing > on > a sailplane! > if the blade become to narrow we get structural problem. > > We can chose 2 wide blade or 3 narrow blade, total area should be the same > with same diameter, if pitch and pitch distribution is the same I think > the > 3 blade will become the most efficient. > If we chose blades with same Aspect ratio, the 3 blade will have less > diameter. note that the 3 blade with same aspect ratio will be narrower > and > thinner if diameter is smaller. > With 2 narrow blade the diameter will be larger, fine if no problem with > ground clearance or high tip speed or noise. will give good take off and > climb and speed. > > A single blade prop is most efficient? Yes if design and need is right a > 3, > 4 or 5 blade is best? Yes if needed. > 2 wife's? downside is 2 mother in laws. > > Jan > JC Propeller Design > > attached a reason for wood prop. > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Noel Loveys" > To: > Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2008 5:47 AM > Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: GSC Prop Blades Loose > > >> >> Lynn: >> >> What we were told in school was that a single blade is always cutting >> into >> clear undisturbed air. As you add blades the air each blade cuts into >> becomes more and more disturbed. This is what caused the loss of >> efficiency. >> >> Multiple blades do however allow you to handle higher power loads at >> smaller >> diameters. The P51-D is one plane I can remember seeing with a four >> blade >> prop that was able to soak up the full 1800 +- horsepower of the Rolls >> Royce >> Merlin engine! Props on the PBY, also in the 1800 hp range were only >> three >> blades but I assume are much larger. >> >> Noel >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com >> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lynn >> Matteson >> Sent: Friday, April 11, 2008 6:37 PM >> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com >> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: GSC Prop Blades Loose >> >> >> I do too, Doug, and I can't imagine the P-40 with any other prop, but >> I was told in my model airplane days that a 2-blade was more >> efficient, and a single blade (club prop) even more so. I guess there >> are other factors to consider, however. >> >> Lynn Matteson >> Grass Lake, Michigan >> Kitfox IV Speedster w/Jabiru 2200 >> flying w/487+ hrs/down for annual >> do not archive >> >> >> On Apr 11, 2008, at 4:42 PM, dpremgood@aim.com wrote: >>> >>> I also like the looks of a 3 blade :-) >>> >>> Doug >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> __________ NOD32 2838 (20080131) Information __________ >> >> >> > > > __________ NOD32 2838 (20080131) Information __________ > > > ________________________________ Message 27 ____________________________________ Time: 09:33:00 AM PST US From: "Noel Loveys" Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: GSC Prop Blades Loose The funny thing about it is I think is saw very little, if any, carrier service. Noel Do not archive -----Original Message----- From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rexinator Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2008 12:49 PM Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: GSC Prop Blades Loose Noel Loveys wrote: > The idea of the bent wing one the F4-U Corsair was to allow a bigger >prop on a smaller plane. > True, but to complete the reason as I recall reading about it, at the time they couldn't design landing gear long enough and strong enough for carrier landings with the required prop diameter. -- Rex Hefferan SE Colorado / K-II / 582-C / still waiting repairs ________________________________ Message 28 ____________________________________ Time: 09:36:50 AM PST US From: "Noel Loveys" Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Ethanol removal? Water won't mix, or form solutions with gasoline... Sorry the same is not true with ethanol. To remove water from gas just let it sit... all the water will settle to the bottom of the container. Water dissolved in ethanol which is mixed with gas is one of the problems we are trying to get around. Noel -----Original Message----- From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Randy Daughenbaugh Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2008 1:05 PM Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Ethanol removal? Lee, I just want to raise a safety issue here. In addition to lowering the octane rating, you are adding water to the gas. You need to add a step to dry the gas after your process. Mole sieves or such. Otherwise when you fly into colder weather, you risk separation of the water and gas line freeze or ingestion of water into the engine. - either could make things real quiet up there. Even if it works real well, there are going to be some mistakes made, which can cause problems. You could buy some alcohol (methanol or ethanol or isopropanol) to add to the gas to keep the water in solution. ;-) Randy . -----Original Message----- From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of bigboyzt0yz Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2008 6:55 AM Subject: Kitfox-List: Ethanol removal? Ethanol can it be removed from fuel by adding water to this 15 gal tank (see Photo) If so what is the ratio of water to fuel? I plan on adding water and shaking it up. Then letting it sit and drain off the water and Ethanol off the bottom. Based on the fact that there is 10% Ethanol in the fuel how far below 93 does it lower the rating? Is there any thing that I am missing by doing this. I have 1995 model IV fiberglass wing tanks and do not want a engine out from the resin break down. The waste could be used for cleaning parts and such. -------- Lee Fritz in owings Mills Md. 2002 KitFox-IV Classic/912UL/Warp drive prop/100% Complete (just adding the Extras now) /71 hours time on plane since Aug 07 "Have your feet on the Pedals and keep reaching for the sky". Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=176367#176367 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/fuel_tank_on_stand_small_170.jpg ________________________________ Message 29 ____________________________________ Time: 09:47:53 AM PST US From: "Noel Loveys" Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Re: Small Side window? Nah... I'd just bang something together here on the 'puter and e-mail it to the local decal shop for printing... That's what I did for my tail logo. A copy of that logo isat the top left of the picture. Explorer1.jpg Noel I like your decal idea...you could get an airbrush artist to paint the window on and show a terrified passenger, green-faced and all. -------- Darin Hawkes Series 7 (Painting) 914 Turbo Kaysville, Utah Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=176398#176398 ________________________________ Message 30 ____________________________________ Time: 09:50:18 AM PST US From: "Noel Loveys" Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: GSC Prop Blades Loose Thanks Jan... I, for one will be waiting. Noel Do not archive this one. -----Original Message----- From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of JC Propeller Design Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2008 1:46 PM Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: GSC Prop Blades Loose Yes I mean that with 40 inch we will go 40 inch, or 38 or 42 inch forward. I have the short coming that I don't understand when other people don't understand what I am thinking, or forget to say. :-) pitch on propellers is mostly referring to the flat bottom, not the cord or aerodynamically correct the zero lift line. at cruise, if diameter is correct the flat bottom is about flat with incoming air, with a longer prop this angle will be negative!, and a shorter prop will have a positive angle. this vary also with thickness of blade, thinner blade need more angle, and opposite. the lift or thrust is generated from the angle between zero lift angle and the angle of relative wind! 6 or so degree higher at 75% radii of the blade, going from 40 inch to 58.5 inch at the Zero lift line. The number I closed to use was just even nr's close to the real kitfox world, I didn't bother to check it up with my propeller program, but just did. if we say by some reason we have 65 hp and is going 92 mph, propeller thickness at 75% = 12% and turning the prop at 2500 rpm we (I) get 40.02 inch or 14.02 degree at 75%, diameter 68" and aspect ratio 6,12 = 5,55 inch wide blade at 45% radii 2 blade. other way of see it! is to just look out to your left when flying, specially you with flat bottom wings, it is almost flat with the horizon, at higher speed it is a negative angle, ( leading edge down a bit) it still fly and lift is most of the times, or at least sometimes equal to the weight, (if we don't go into the negative pitch moment of wing and down or sometimes up lift of the tail, because it will be a very long story then I don't have time to type much more because my wife want me to go out with 6 month son to by groceries) the area near hub is also interesting, I go there when back from walk. Jan ----- Original Message ----- From: "Noel Loveys" Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2008 4:12 PM Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: GSC Prop Blades Loose > > Thanks Jan... Very in depth, however, your idea that each blade at 40 > inches > of pitch advances 40 inches with each revolution assumes no drag on the > plane... If that were true we wouldn't need props or engines at all.... I > made the same argument in school. > > I was wondering if with each additional blade there is also an additional > root area which gives no appreciable thrust to the plane? And in fact can > increase load by pushing air at a flat cowl. > > I agree with your reason for a wood prop. > Beautiful craftsmanship! > > Noel > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of JC Propeller > Design > Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2008 9:06 AM > To: kitfox-list@matronics.com > Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: GSC Prop Blades Loose > > I have heard this before, and it would be true on ground, but it isn't > really either. > > In the air, say we have a kitfox or Cub or Aeronca, a relative slow plane, > pitch is 40 inch or 1 meter. > > we fly with 2500 rpm = 2500 meter/minute = 150 km/h = 93 MPH = 81 Knots > > Every turn of propeller give us 1 meter in forward motion, so with 2 blade > the next blade "follow" an half meter or 20 inch AHEAD of the "first" in > undisturbed air With 3 blade it will be 0,33 meter or 13,3 inch ahead of > each other. > > The propeller blade is 1 inch to a quarter of an inch thick and blade > bottom > is about flat with relative/incoming air. > > Have you seen or performed a balloon chase? many times the balloon goes > straight thru the prop disk unhurt, a balloon is maybe 6 by 10 inch so > that > isn't as strange as at first thought, we think the balloon must be sliced > by > the fast spinning propeller, but the distance between blades is greater > then > the size of the balloon. > A roll of toilet paper is fun too, but unroll a couple of meter before you > throw it overboard, and don't dive into the balloon or paper, climb or > level > flight is safer. > if you dig your grave with your airplane and have toilet paper hanging on > landing gear and antennas, NTSB will get the wrong conclusion. > > There is NACA test showing that a 3 blade is more efficient then 2 and 4 > blade, with identical blades, others tests show different result, of > course > with 3 blades it takes 50% more power to turn the prop at the same rpm and > forward speed, so we will never choose between 2 or 3 identical blades, > with > same pitch and diameter to compeer on our planes. a 3 blade will be > smaller > in diameter and/or have narrower blades. so it isn't really comparable. if > the 3 blade is to large in diameter the pitch will be sat at a lower angle > to get RPM up and top speed will suffer. climb will be good though. > > An single blade prop is more efficient if the tip speed/rotation speed is > slow enough to allow a bigger diameter, single blade have been used on > Silent electric self launch glider, why? because when retracting the prop > into the fuselage the heavy hole don't have to be that large. > > We do lose 3-15% of power to tipspeed effect! > > Many test have been made with different result, why? sometimes they have > admit that the tested blades wasn't really identical, in thickness, pitch > distribution and so on. > > What propeller is best then? As asking what car is best, or whose wife is > best, it all depends on what we use them to do. > > If we want good take off a slower! turning prop with large diameter is > best, > if it isn't become to slow with to coarse pitch that will stall on take > off. > > So some trade off here. > > If we want high speed we need to squeeze the air through a smaller disk > area > to get it up to higher speed. (Mustang v. PBY) also at higher speed the > thrust is less with constant power. > > We chose if we want, a climb, a standard or cruise propeller, difference > will be an inch or two between each in diameter and pitch. > > Ok now we have the diameter, now we need blade area to "brake" the power, > if > the blades is becoming to wide, we can chose more blades instead. a > slender > blade will have better L/D then a wide one, you don't see a Cherokee wing > on > a sailplane! > if the blade become to narrow we get structural problem. > > We can chose 2 wide blade or 3 narrow blade, total area should be the same > with same diameter, if pitch and pitch distribution is the same I think > the > 3 blade will become the most efficient. > If we chose blades with same Aspect ratio, the 3 blade will have less > diameter. note that the 3 blade with same aspect ratio will be narrower > and > thinner if diameter is smaller. > With 2 narrow blade the diameter will be larger, fine if no problem with > ground clearance or high tip speed or noise. will give good take off and > climb and speed. > > A single blade prop is most efficient? Yes if design and need is right a > 3, > 4 or 5 blade is best? Yes if needed. > 2 wife's? downside is 2 mother in laws. > > Jan > JC Propeller Design > > attached a reason for wood prop. > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Noel Loveys" > To: > Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2008 5:47 AM > Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: GSC Prop Blades Loose > > >> >> Lynn: >> >> What we were told in school was that a single blade is always cutting >> into >> clear undisturbed air. As you add blades the air each blade cuts into >> becomes more and more disturbed. This is what caused the loss of >> efficiency. >> >> Multiple blades do however allow you to handle higher power loads at >> smaller >> diameters. The P51-D is one plane I can remember seeing with a four >> blade >> prop that was able to soak up the full 1800 +- horsepower of the Rolls >> Royce >> Merlin engine! Props on the PBY, also in the 1800 hp range were only >> three >> blades but I assume are much larger. >> >> Noel >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com >> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lynn >> Matteson >> Sent: Friday, April 11, 2008 6:37 PM >> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com >> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: GSC Prop Blades Loose >> >> >> I do too, Doug, and I can't imagine the P-40 with any other prop, but >> I was told in my model airplane days that a 2-blade was more >> efficient, and a single blade (club prop) even more so. I guess there >> are other factors to consider, however. >> >> Lynn Matteson >> Grass Lake, Michigan >> Kitfox IV Speedster w/Jabiru 2200 >> flying w/487+ hrs/down for annual >> do not archive >> >> >> On Apr 11, 2008, at 4:42 PM, dpremgood@aim.com wrote: >>> >>> I also like the looks of a 3 blade :-) >>> >>> Doug >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> __________ NOD32 2838 (20080131) Information __________ >> >> >> > > > __________ NOD32 2838 (20080131) Information __________ > > > ________________________________ Message 31 ____________________________________ Time: 10:28:20 AM PST US From: Lynn Matteson Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: GSC Prop Blades Loose Not to pick nits or anything, but wasn't the reason for the bent wing to be able to use a shorter landing gear BECAUSE of the larger prop? The way I heard it was the engine needed a larger prop to absorb horsepower, then that dictated the longer landing gear, and that was out of the question (less the plane take on the Storch look), so they bent the wing to get the gear shorter...or so I'm told. Maybe that's what you said. Lynn Matteson Grass Lake, Michigan Kitfox IV Speedster w/Jabiru 2200 flying w/487+ hrs/down for annual do not archive On Apr 12, 2008, at 10:43 AM, Noel Loveys wrote: > > Lynn: > > I'm sure a three blade could absorb even more TV (Torsional > Vibration). I > just Googled (is that a real word???) up the Sea Fury. One version > had a > 2550 hp Centaurus XV air cooled engine with a five bladed Rotol prop. > Being a naval plane it had to take off in surprisingly short > distances even > with catapult assist this would require a lot of power to be sunk > into the > prop. The idea of the bent wing one the F4-U Corsair was to allow > a bigger > prop on a smaller plane. > > Back to our props.. > > I don't think composite props handle the vibration as well as wood. > > In the early days of the Corvette, with our notoriously bad roads, the > bodies of the cars cracked profusely and were always undergoing > repair. > Since then there have been many advancements in composite > construction but I > think it just doesn't stand up to vibration as well as natural > wood. Wood > on the other hand won't age nearly as well as composite. > > Neither prop should be flown through rain. > > The prop that came with my 912 is a two blade GA Warp. I'm hoping > it will > work well for me. Time will tell. > > Noel > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lynn > Matteson > Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2008 10:08 AM > To: kitfox-list@matronics.com > Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: GSC Prop Blades Loose > > > That's what I learned from my reading too...that singles were the > most efficient. I suppose at a certain point efficiency must give way > to the horsepower to be handled. I'm thinking of the Merlin of > course, and what engine does the Sea Fury have in it? That's a 5- > blade as I recall. > > Another factor to consider is the engines' needs. Early on, I was > told that my Jabiru needed the 2-bladed wooden prop to absorb the > torsional vibration of the engine, and that ground adjustables of the > time had too large a hub, and that the hub interfered with air going > into the cooling ports of the cowl. Later this info changed, and some > ground adjustables were now OK'd to use....different info as the > times change and equipment becomes available. > > Lynn Matteson > Grass Lake, Michigan > Kitfox IV Speedster w/Jabiru 2200 > flying w/487+ hrs/down for annual > do not archive > > > On Apr 11, 2008, at 11:47 PM, Noel Loveys wrote: > >> >> >> Lynn: >> >> What we were told in school was that a single blade is always >> cutting into >> clear undisturbed air. As you add blades the air each blade cuts >> into >> becomes more and more disturbed. This is what caused the loss of >> efficiency. >> >> Multiple blades do however allow you to handle higher power loads >> at smaller >> diameters. The P51-D is one plane I can remember seeing with a >> four blade >> prop that was able to soak up the full 1800 +- horsepower of the >> Rolls Royce >> Merlin engine! Props on the PBY, also in the 1800 hp range were >> only three >> blades but I assume are much larger. >> >> Noel > > ________________________________ Message 32 ____________________________________ Time: 11:06:31 AM PST US From: "Randy Daughenbaugh" Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Ethanol removal? Noel, Get your self a chemistry book. Water dissolves in gasoline up to a certain percentage. Beyond that it separates into two phases. The small amount of water that is dissolved in the gasoline will come out of solution if the gasoline is cooled. If you are in the air while you are cooling your home made fuel, you may get an unpleasant surprise. Similarly, gas dissolves in water. - But to a lesser degree. This is why a small amount of gasoline can contaminate a very large amount of water. Gasoline changes all the time. Some has more benzene than other gas. Some has more toluene or xylenes than others. The amount of water that is soluble in the gas changes with the amount of these and other components of gasoline. Look for some ternary phase diagrams of water, ethanol and octane. You will figure it out. Randy . -----Original Message----- From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Noel Loveys Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2008 10:34 AM Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Ethanol removal? Water won't mix, or form solutions with gasoline... Sorry the same is not true with ethanol. To remove water from gas just let it sit... all the water will settle to the bottom of the container. Water dissolved in ethanol which is mixed with gas is one of the problems we are trying to get around. Noel -----Original Message----- From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Randy Daughenbaugh Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2008 1:05 PM Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Ethanol removal? Lee, I just want to raise a safety issue here. In addition to lowering the octane rating, you are adding water to the gas. You need to add a step to dry the gas after your process. Mole sieves or such. Otherwise when you fly into colder weather, you risk separation of the water and gas line freeze or ingestion of water into the engine. - either could make things real quiet up there. Even if it works real well, there are going to be some mistakes made, which can cause problems. You could buy some alcohol (methanol or ethanol or isopropanol) to add to the gas to keep the water in solution. ;-) Randy . -----Original Message----- From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of bigboyzt0yz Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2008 6:55 AM Subject: Kitfox-List: Ethanol removal? Ethanol can it be removed from fuel by adding water to this 15 gal tank (see Photo) If so what is the ratio of water to fuel? I plan on adding water and shaking it up. Then letting it sit and drain off the water and Ethanol off the bottom. Based on the fact that there is 10% Ethanol in the fuel how far below 93 does it lower the rating? Is there any thing that I am missing by doing this. I have 1995 model IV fiberglass wing tanks and do not want a engine out from the resin break down. The waste could be used for cleaning parts and such. -------- Lee Fritz in owings Mills Md. 2002 KitFox-IV Classic/912UL/Warp drive prop/100% Complete (just adding the Extras now) /71 hours time on plane since Aug 07 "Have your feet on the Pedals and keep reaching for the sky". Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=176367#176367 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/fuel_tank_on_stand_small_170.jpg ________________________________ Message 33 ____________________________________ Time: 11:15:27 AM PST US Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Any model 5-7's in upstate NY? From: "dholly" Folks, it never hurts to remind what a terrific asset this Kitfox List is to builders and flyers alike. Within hours of posting this request I had replies from both series 5 and 7 owners offering measurements. In an almost too-good-to-be-true example of generosity, one gentleman passing thru town on business actually stuffed his 3-pc series 7 cowl into his car and left it with me for the day. Let me tell you, nothing beats physically holding part 'A' to part 'B'! Clearly, the ability to fit that cowl to my plane provided invaluable knowledge simple measurements never could. Chris, thanks ever so much, such kindness is what keep this community and homebuilding interest strong! -------- Airdale Avid Plus | Jab2200 | Aerocet 1100 Amphibs Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=176418#176418 ________________________________ Message 34 ____________________________________ Time: 11:19:36 AM PST US From: Lynn Matteson Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Installation Instructions for Strut fairings I'll look when I go to the hangar next time. I saw them just the other day....somewhere. "One of these days I'll get organisized"...to steal a line from a movie..."Taxi Driver"? Lynn Matteson Grass Lake, Michigan Kitfox IV Speedster w/Jabiru 2200 flying w/487+ hrs/down for annual do not archive On Apr 12, 2008, at 11:20 AM, Mnflyer wrote: > > Hi All, does anyone have a set of installation instructions for the > PVC wing strut fairings? I purchased a unused set but the fellow > couldn't find the instructions so if anyone has some that would be > will to share with me I'd appreciate the help. > Thanks GB > > -------- > GB > MNFlyer > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=176391#176391 > > ________________________________ Message 35 ____________________________________ Time: 11:59:43 AM PST US From: "Dave G." Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Ethanol removal? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Noel Loveys" Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2008 1:34 PM Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Ethanol removal? > > Water won't mix, or form solutions with gasoline... Sorry the same is not > true with ethanol. To remove water from gas just let it sit... all the > water will settle to the bottom of the container. > > Water dissolved in ethanol which is mixed with gas is one of the problems > we > are trying to get around. > > Noel > This will be an unending and possibly dangerous effort. I can't help but think that time would be better spent figuring out how to modify the fuel system to cope with it. That would only have to be done once. Then you'd be able to burn the fuel you buy, unstead of throwing a portion of it away. YMMV ________________________________ Message 36 ____________________________________ Time: 12:01:20 PM PST US From: SUE MICHAELS Subject: Kitfox-List: windshield (screen) fit Okay, one of my retired neighbors that worked in plastics heard of my use of a 8 lbs hammer to fit my windshield and came to my rescue with his enormous heat, anti-aircraft, gun. Faster than than the military aircraft can fly everything fit. One question remains?? Does the one-piece plastic windshield/overhead canopy cut flush with the outer butt rib or extend past to the first rib? If so how far? I read the destruction's over a lot and I have????????? George ________________________________ Message 37 ____________________________________ Time: 12:06:54 PM PST US From: Marco Menezes Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: OT Corsairs. Was - GSC Prop Blades Loose I read once that early in WW2 the US Navy, in it's great wisdom, did not think the Corsair was a viable carrier based airplane. Accordingly, they "gave" it to the Marines who proved it's worth in combat operating from land bases in the South Pacific. Baa Baa Black Sheep and all. Meanwhile, the Brits found that it could be flown (and landed) successfully on carriers despite poor pilot visability over it's exceptionally long nose. So, reluctantly, the USN brass okayed its use off carriers towards the end of the war. The Corsair then went on to be very successfully operated off carriers during the Korean war. They were produced right into the 1950's and more were made than any other WW2 design. Unfortunately, unlike the P-51,very few remain airworthy today. Could all be wrong, but it's my best recollection. do not archive Noel Loveys wrote: The funny thing about it is I think is saw very little, if any, carrier service. Noel Do not archive -----Original Message----- From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rexinator Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2008 12:49 PM Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: GSC Prop Blades Loose Noel Loveys wrote: > The idea of the bent wing one the F4-U Corsair was to allow a bigger >prop on a smaller plane. > True, but to complete the reason as I recall reading about it, at the time they couldn't design landing gear long enough and strong enough for carrier landings with the required prop diameter. -- Rex Hefferan SE Colorado / K-II / 582-C / still waiting repairs Marco Menezes Model 2 582 N99KX __________________________________________________ ________________________________ Message 38 ____________________________________ Time: 12:16:18 PM PST US From: "Noel Loveys" Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Ethanol removal? Thanks I have lots of Chemistry books. Yes there is a minimal dissolving of water in gasoline (PPB). For all practical purposes, none. Certainly not enough to separate from the gasoline by temperature changes or be the principal cause of carb icing. If that were true ethanol would be a required ingredient of 100LL. Funny it's not. Funny the accepted method of removing water form 100LL is to drain water drops from the sumps until no droplets can be found or filter the gas through a chamois or felt. The same is not true for gasoline that has been contaminated with ethanol. Once contaminated with ethanol the gas can separate from the gas. This phase separation occurs much easier if there is oil present in the gasoline. I did however do a quick search for solubility of water into gasoline. There were several notations of this but they almost all related to the water actually forming a solution with ethanol in the gas. There is a reference to the addition of salt HCL in the water making it more soluble for gasoline if the concentrations of HCL are correct. I searched further and found this. "Gasoline and water do not mix because the non-polar hydrocarbon molecules (water is polar) would disrupt the water in such a way as to produce a structure that was actually lower entropy; therefore, the mixture is less likely to exist than the separate liquids." Sounds good but I can't confirm the reliability of the source. The idea that gasoline is more conducive to carb icing or water separation over ethanol contaminated gas is lacking in substance. Just check your chemistry books. Noel -----Original Message----- From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Randy Daughenbaugh Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2008 3:35 PM Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Ethanol removal? Noel, Get your self a chemistry book. Water dissolves in gasoline up to a certain percentage. Beyond that it separates into two phases. The small amount of water that is dissolved in the gasoline will come out of solution if the gasoline is cooled. If you are in the air while you are cooling your home made fuel, you may get an unpleasant surprise. Similarly, gas dissolves in water. - But to a lesser degree. This is why a small amount of gasoline can contaminate a very large amount of water. Gasoline changes all the time. Some has more benzene than other gas. Some has more toluene or xylenes than others. The amount of water that is soluble in the gas changes with the amount of these and other components of gasoline. Look for some ternary phase diagrams of water, ethanol and octane. You will figure it out. Randy . -----Original Message----- From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Noel Loveys Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2008 10:34 AM Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Ethanol removal? Water won't mix, or form solutions with gasoline... Sorry the same is not true with ethanol. To remove water from gas just let it sit... all the water will settle to the bottom of the container. Water dissolved in ethanol which is mixed with gas is one of the problems we are trying to get around. Noel -----Original Message----- From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Randy Daughenbaugh Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2008 1:05 PM Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Ethanol removal? Lee, I just want to raise a safety issue here. In addition to lowering the octane rating, you are adding water to the gas. You need to add a step to dry the gas after your process. Mole sieves or such. Otherwise when you fly into colder weather, you risk separation of the water and gas line freeze or ingestion of water into the engine. - either could make things real quiet up there. Even if it works real well, there are going to be some mistakes made, which can cause problems. You could buy some alcohol (methanol or ethanol or isopropanol) to add to the gas to keep the water in solution. ;-) Randy . -----Original Message----- From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of bigboyzt0yz Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2008 6:55 AM Subject: Kitfox-List: Ethanol removal? Ethanol can it be removed from fuel by adding water to this 15 gal tank (see Photo) If so what is the ratio of water to fuel? I plan on adding water and shaking it up. Then letting it sit and drain off the water and Ethanol off the bottom. Based on the fact that there is 10% Ethanol in the fuel how far below 93 does it lower the rating? Is there any thing that I am missing by doing this. I have 1995 model IV fiberglass wing tanks and do not want a engine out from the resin break down. The waste could be used for cleaning parts and such. -------- Lee Fritz in owings Mills Md. 2002 KitFox-IV Classic/912UL/Warp drive prop/100% Complete (just adding the Extras now) /71 hours time on plane since Aug 07 "Have your feet on the Pedals and keep reaching for the sky". Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=176367#176367 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/fuel_tank_on_stand_small_170.jpg ________________________________ Message 39 ____________________________________ Time: 12:35:25 PM PST US From: "Nelson Goguen" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: windshield (screen) fit George, I cut mine about 1/2 inch beyont the butt rib. When the wing is in place, this overhang covers the small space between end rib of the wing and the butt rib. Nelson Goguen s5 912s Ashby, MA almost done ----- Original Message ----- From: SUE MICHAELS To: kitfox-list@matronics.com Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2008 2:58 PM Subject: Kitfox-List: windshield (screen) fit Okay, one of my retired neighbors that worked in plastics heard of my use of a 8 lbs hammer to fit my windshield and came to my rescue with his enormous heat, anti-aircraft, gun. Faster than than the military aircraft can fly everything fit. One question remains?? Does the one-piece plastic windshield/overhead canopy cut flush with the outer butt rib or extend past to the first rib? If so how far? I read the destruction's over a lot and I have????????? George ________________________________ Message 40 ____________________________________ Time: 12:36:34 PM PST US From: "Noel Loveys" Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Ethanol removal? There is a way. But the only way I can see of making the ethanol truly safe from separation and carb icing is to have them fill pressurized tanks at the refinery. Heavy? You bet! Expensive? Right! Stupid? That's why they don't do it! Best answer it to not use ethanol for fuel. The stuff is: Prohibitively expensive in terms of monetary cost of production. Prohibitively expensive in terms of food production taken off line Prohibitively expensive in terms of pollution the production adds to the environment Prohibitively expensive to transport in its raw state Prohibitively expensive in terms of the power it produces per unit volume compared to oil Prohibitively expensive in terms of the fact that money is being deflected from a good alternative. Get the idea? Ethanol fuel is just prohibitively expensive and should be avoided. If you happen to have a thousand gallons or so of ethanol that occurred naturally then it would be much more feasible. Ethanol is not an answer to replacing oil... It is a bad idea getting worse In the years to come, people, will ask if we really so dumb as to use ethanol for fuel. Noel This will be an unending and possibly dangerous effort. I can't help but think that time would be better spent figuring out how to modify the fuel system to cope with it. That would only have to be done once. Then you'd be able to burn the fuel you buy, unstead of throwing a portion of it away. YMMV ________________________________ Message 41 ____________________________________ Time: 01:09:40 PM PST US From: "JC Propeller Design" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: GSC Prop Blades Loose Back to real life of airplanes and propellers. the inner parts of propellers is something that haven't been investigated that much, some just use the true helical prop. = constant pitch along the blade. ( not const. angle) naca and others have made some tests, but test prop's with different twist is more expensive then test propellers with different P/D (pitch/Diam.) because they use ground adjustable blades. it is shown that with a radial engine and big prop, the inner part of prop was seeing about 60% of the forward speed, so the pitch have to be compensated for this and often is. if true helix the high angle of the inner blade will stall, specially during take off. a propeller with round shanks will not produce any thrust at the inner part, just drag ( to plane and engine) if it is a radial engine that is slowing down airspeed, that will reduce the drag from the round shanks. and a spinner will not increase speed. a slender fuselage (water cooled engine) a spinner that cover the hub and inner blade root is very help full, the mustangs even had a sleeve covering the round shanks a test I read about had a very low drag fuselage just little bigger then the spinner in diameter, it showed a reduced air speed near the spinner of 90% of forward speed, reduction in speed was seen out to about 60 % of the radii. if we want a good take off and climb it is better with reduced pitch near hub, but even if we want good speed, the inner parts is seeing 60-90% of forward speed, depending of what the airplane looks like. Jan ----- Original Message ----- From: "Noel Loveys" Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2008 4:12 PM Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: GSC Prop Blades Loose > > Thanks Jan... Very in depth, however, your idea that each blade at 40 > inches > of pitch advances 40 inches with each revolution assumes no drag on the > plane... If that were true we wouldn't need props or engines at all.... I > made the same argument in school. > > I was wondering if with each additional blade there is also an additional > root area which gives no appreciable thrust to the plane? And in fact can > increase load by pushing air at a flat cowl. > > I agree with your reason for a wood prop. > Beautiful craftsmanship! > > Noel > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of JC Propeller > Design > Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2008 9:06 AM > To: kitfox-list@matronics.com > Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: GSC Prop Blades Loose > > I have heard this before, and it would be true on ground, but it isn't > really either. > > In the air, say we have a kitfox or Cub or Aeronca, a relative slow plane, > pitch is 40 inch or 1 meter. > > we fly with 2500 rpm = 2500 meter/minute = 150 km/h = 93 MPH = 81 Knots > > Every turn of propeller give us 1 meter in forward motion, so with 2 blade > the next blade "follow" an half meter or 20 inch AHEAD of the "first" in > undisturbed air With 3 blade it will be 0,33 meter or 13,3 inch ahead of > each other. > > The propeller blade is 1 inch to a quarter of an inch thick and blade > bottom > is about flat with relative/incoming air. > > Have you seen or performed a balloon chase? many times the balloon goes > straight thru the prop disk unhurt, a balloon is maybe 6 by 10 inch so > that > isn't as strange as at first thought, we think the balloon must be sliced > by > the fast spinning propeller, but the distance between blades is greater > then > the size of the balloon. > A roll of toilet paper is fun too, but unroll a couple of meter before you > throw it overboard, and don't dive into the balloon or paper, climb or > level > flight is safer. > if you dig your grave with your airplane and have toilet paper hanging on > landing gear and antennas, NTSB will get the wrong conclusion. > > There is NACA test showing that a 3 blade is more efficient then 2 and 4 > blade, with identical blades, others tests show different result, of > course > with 3 blades it takes 50% more power to turn the prop at the same rpm and > forward speed, so we will never choose between 2 or 3 identical blades, > with > same pitch and diameter to compeer on our planes. a 3 blade will be > smaller > in diameter and/or have narrower blades. so it isn't really comparable. if > the 3 blade is to large in diameter the pitch will be sat at a lower angle > to get RPM up and top speed will suffer. climb will be good though. > > An single blade prop is more efficient if the tip speed/rotation speed is > slow enough to allow a bigger diameter, single blade have been used on > Silent electric self launch glider, why? because when retracting the prop > into the fuselage the heavy hole don't have to be that large. > > We do lose 3-15% of power to tipspeed effect! > > Many test have been made with different result, why? sometimes they have > admit that the tested blades wasn't really identical, in thickness, pitch > distribution and so on. > > What propeller is best then? As asking what car is best, or whose wife is > best, it all depends on what we use them to do. > > If we want good take off a slower! turning prop with large diameter is > best, > if it isn't become to slow with to coarse pitch that will stall on take > off. > > So some trade off here. > > If we want high speed we need to squeeze the air through a smaller disk > area > to get it up to higher speed. (Mustang v. PBY) also at higher speed the > thrust is less with constant power. > > We chose if we want, a climb, a standard or cruise propeller, difference > will be an inch or two between each in diameter and pitch. > > Ok now we have the diameter, now we need blade area to "brake" the power, > if > the blades is becoming to wide, we can chose more blades instead. a > slender > blade will have better L/D then a wide one, you don't see a Cherokee wing > on > a sailplane! > if the blade become to narrow we get structural problem. > > We can chose 2 wide blade or 3 narrow blade, total area should be the same > with same diameter, if pitch and pitch distribution is the same I think > the > 3 blade will become the most efficient. > If we chose blades with same Aspect ratio, the 3 blade will have less > diameter. note that the 3 blade with same aspect ratio will be narrower > and > thinner if diameter is smaller. > With 2 narrow blade the diameter will be larger, fine if no problem with > ground clearance or high tip speed or noise. will give good take off and > climb and speed. > > A single blade prop is most efficient? Yes if design and need is right a > 3, > 4 or 5 blade is best? Yes if needed. > 2 wife's? downside is 2 mother in laws. > > Jan > JC Propeller Design > > attached a reason for wood prop. > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Noel Loveys" > To: > Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2008 5:47 AM > Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: GSC Prop Blades Loose > > >> >> Lynn: >> >> What we were told in school was that a single blade is always cutting >> into >> clear undisturbed air. As you add blades the air each blade cuts into >> becomes more and more disturbed. This is what caused the loss of >> efficiency. >> >> Multiple blades do however allow you to handle higher power loads at >> smaller >> diameters. The P51-D is one plane I can remember seeing with a four >> blade >> prop that was able to soak up the full 1800 +- horsepower of the Rolls >> Royce >> Merlin engine! Props on the PBY, also in the 1800 hp range were only >> three >> blades but I assume are much larger. >> >> Noel >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com >> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lynn >> Matteson >> Sent: Friday, April 11, 2008 6:37 PM >> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com >> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: GSC Prop Blades Loose >> >> >> I do too, Doug, and I can't imagine the P-40 with any other prop, but >> I was told in my model airplane days that a 2-blade was more >> efficient, and a single blade (club prop) even more so. I guess there >> are other factors to consider, however. >> >> Lynn Matteson >> Grass Lake, Michigan >> Kitfox IV Speedster w/Jabiru 2200 >> flying w/487+ hrs/down for annual >> do not archive >> >> >> On Apr 11, 2008, at 4:42 PM, dpremgood@aim.com wrote: >>> >>> I also like the looks of a 3 blade :-) >>> >>> Doug >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> __________ NOD32 2838 (20080131) Information __________ >> >> >> > > > __________ NOD32 2838 (20080131) Information __________ > > > ________________________________ Message 42 ____________________________________ Time: 01:44:29 PM PST US From: Michel Verheughe Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Ethanol removal? > From: Noel Loveys [noelloveys@yahoo.ca] > Get the idea? Ethanol fuel is just prohibitively expensive and should be > avoided. To be fair, Noel, and while I agree it is a bad idea in your country - especially when it is at the cost of corn - it may be a solution for other countries. Brazil does quite well with ethanol and think of the African countries that need to borrow money only to pay the interests of what they already owe international banks. And all that to buy crude oil that has now gone over $100 per barrel. Now, I read that there is an African tree that grows in the harshest conditions but can produce much ethanol. I don't think energy and environmental questions can be answered in one universal way. We have to be innovative and flexible. Cheers, Michel Verheughe Norway Kitfox 3 - Jabiru 2200 do not archive
________________________________ Message 43 ____________________________________ Time: 01:47:46 PM PST US Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Ethanol removal? From: "wingnut" > I would like to see some conclusive evidence from hands on experience on why it should not be used rather than just "talk about it " and why it so bad. So far I have had nothing but good luck I guess ? > According her previous owner my Kitfox had been on a steady diet of avgas since it was built. I switched to mogas after I bought it and six months later I started smelling gasoline in the cabin. It turned out that my fuel lines where beginning to deteriorate. A couple months after that, I started getting some crud from my gascolator which turned out to be rust on the gascolator bowl. I suppose it's possible that it's a coincidence that these events coincided with the switch to mogas but I from the responses I got here at the time I got the impression that I was the only person on the planet that didn't know that ethanol tainted mogas would eat the mill-spec fuel lines that many Kitfoxes where built with. I still run with Mogas (I can scarcely afford not to) but I do wonder about what else the ethanol is eating into in my airplane. -------- Luis Rodriguez Model IV 1200 Rotax 912UL Flying Weekly Laurens, SC (34A) Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=176440#176440 ________________________________ Message 44 ____________________________________ Time: 01:49:01 PM PST US From: Lynn Matteson Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: windshield (screen) fit I did the same as George...about 1/2" beyond the butt rib. I made all cuts with a reinforced abrasive disc...Dremel tool. Be sure to file all cuts smooth and leave no scratches. Use fine sandpaper to round all edges. Lynn Matteson Grass Lake, Michigan Kitfox IV Speedster w/Jabiru 2200 flying w/487+ hrs/down for annual On Apr 12, 2008, at 3:32 PM, Nelson Goguen wrote: > George, > > I cut mine about 1/2 inch beyont the butt rib. When the wing is in > place, this overhang covers the small space between end rib of the > wing and the butt rib. > > Nelson Goguen > s5 912s > Ashby, MA > almost done > ----- Original Message ----- > From: SUE MICHAELS > To: kitfox-list@matronics.com > Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2008 2:58 PM > Subject: Kitfox-List: windshield (screen) fit > > Okay, one of my retired neighbors that worked in plastics heard of > my use of a 8 lbs hammer to fit my windshield and came to my rescue > with his enormous heat, anti-aircraft, gun. Faster than than the > military aircraft can fly everything fit. One question remains?? > Does the one-piece plastic windshield/overhead canopy cut flush > with the outer butt rib or extend past to the first rib? If so how > far? I read the destruction's over a lot and I have????????? > > George > href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List">http:// > www.matronhref="http://forums.matronics.com">http:// > forums.matronics.comhref="http://www.matronics.com/ > contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c_- > ============================================================ _- > http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List_- > ============================================================ _- > forums.matronics.com_- > ============================================================ _- > contribution_- > =========================================================== ________________________________ Message 45 ____________________________________ Time: 02:20:21 PM PST US From: patrick reilly Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: windshield (screen) fit Lynn, After you smooth the plexi edge with sandpaper, have you ever used a propane torch to "flame" the edge smooth. Seems to work for me. Man I'm gla d we are talking technical again. I thought we were going to become a phios ophical thread. Without the knowledge, and Kitfox parts I have found on thi s site it would be years before I could get in the air. Pat Reilly Mod 3 582 Rebuild Rockford, IL > From: lynnmatt@jps.net> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: windshield (screen) fit> Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 16:46:43 -0400> To: kitfox-list@matro net>> > I did the same as George...about 1/2" beyond the butt rib. I made a ll > cuts with a reinforced abrasive disc...Dremel tool. Be sure to file > all cuts smooth and leave no scratches. Use fine sandpaper to round > all e dges.> > Lynn Matteson> Grass Lake, Michigan> Kitfox IV Speedster w/Jabiru 2200> flying w/487+ hrs/down for annual> > > On Apr 12, 2008, at 3:32 PM, N elson Goguen wrote:> > > George,> >> > I cut mine about 1/2 inch beyont the butt rib. When the wing is in > > place, this overhang covers the small sp ace between end rib of the > > wing and the butt rib.> >> > Nelson Goguen> > s5 912s> > Ashby, MA> > almost done> > ----- Original Message -----> > Fr om: SUE MICHAELS> > To: kitfox-list@matronics.com> > Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2008 2:58 PM> > Subject: Kitfox-List: windshield (screen) fit> >> > Oka y, one of my retired neighbors that worked in plastics heard of > > my use of a 8 lbs hammer to fit my windshield and came to my rescue > > with his e normous heat, anti-aircraft, gun. Faster than than the > > military aircraf t can fly everything fit. One question remains?? > > Does the one-piece pla stic windshield/overhead canopy cut flush > > with the outer butt rib or ex tend past to the first rib? If so how > > far? I read the destruction's ove r a lot and I have?????????> >> > George> > href="http://www.matronics.co m/Navigator?Kitfox-List">http:// > > www.matronhref="http://forums.matron ics.com">http:// > > forums.matronics.comhref="http://www.matronics.com/ > > contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c_- > > ======== == _- > > http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List_- > > == ======== _- > > forums.matronics.com_- > > ===== ===== _- > > contribution_- > > =========== ========================> > ==> > > ________________________________ Message 46 ____________________________________ Time: 02:55:12 PM PST US From: "Dee Young" Subject: Kitfox-List: Cutting a windshield I have read mean posts about the cutting of Plexiglas and polycarbonate for windshields. I have cut two windshields, one from each of they materials for my Model II, both of which were cut with a good set of tin snips. I over cut, then trimmed and cleaned up the edges and corners with mill file. I have no crazing or cracking at the wing root or any other problems with this process. Its done quickly and easily. Dee Young Model II N345DY Do not archive ________________________________ Message 47 ____________________________________ Time: 03:14:49 PM PST US From: Herbert R Gottelt Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: Ethanol removal? Hi Listers ! I have to agree with Dave, and as I have testified repeatedly, using auto gas with the mandatory 10% gasohol in my Kitfox with fiberglass tanks, has not had any negative effect in the Chicago area since it became the law about 6 to 8 years ago. Herb Gottelt,M4-1200, 912UL Mt. Prospect, IL dave wrote: I have run through my fiberglass tanks thousands of gallons of gas. I cannot guarantee you that it has ethanol but it has been law here in Canada that gas must contain ethanol so I assume it there. I am against ethanol in gas but I use it as I have no choice. So far I have had ZERO issues with it. IF i have to separate gas and ethanol to fly I will adapt however needed. Like i said I do not support ethanol but I will adapt to it. We are only sheep in the pasture here. Government rams it down our throats. I would like to see some conclusive evidence from hands on experience on why it should not be used rather than just "talk about it " and why it so bad. So far I have had nothing but good luck I guess ? -------- 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=176369#176369 ________________________________ Message 48 ____________________________________ Time: 03:52:00 PM PST US Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Ethanol removal? From: "ronlee" I do not own a kitfox but do own and fly a zenith aircraft with aluminum tanks. >From long gone posts I've read that SOME kitfox planes have fiberglass tanks that can withstand ethanol while others will deteriorate and began separating. If I owned a Kitfox I would certainly do some research to make sure my tanks were compatible to ethanol laden gasoline. Deteriorating tanks could plug things up with particles and or dissolved fiberglass resin. If I am wrong about this, I am sure someone will straighten me out pronto! Ron Lee -------- Ron Lee Tucson, Arizona Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=176455#176455 ________________________________ Message 49 ____________________________________ Time: 03:53:32 PM PST US From: Lynn Matteson Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: windshield (screen) fit I haven't tried that, Pat. It seems like I did that eons ago when in shop class in about the 7th grade. But my windhield/skylight is acrylic (LP Aeroplastics), and I'm not sure if this is recommended....I don't recall seeing that step in LP A's instructions. Lynn Matteson Grass Lake, Michigan Kitfox IV Speedster w/Jabiru 2200 flying w/487+ hrs/down for annual On Apr 12, 2008, at 5:17 PM, patrick reilly wrote: > Lynn, After you smooth the plexi edge with sandpaper, have you ever > used a propane torch to "flame" the edge smooth. Seems to work for > me. Man I'm glad we are talking technical again. I thought we were > going to become a phiosophical thread. Without the knowledge, and > Kitfox parts I have found on this site it would be years before I > could get in the air. > > Pat Reilly > Mod 3 582 Rebuild > Rockford, IL > > > From: lynnmatt@jps.net > > Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: windshield (screen) fit > > Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 16:46:43 -0400 > > To: kitfox-list@matronics.com > > > > > > I did the same as George...about 1/2" beyond the butt rib. I made > all > > cuts with a reinforced abrasive disc...Dremel tool. Be sure to file > > all cuts smooth and leave no scratches. Use fine sandpaper to round > > all edges. > > > > Lynn Matteson > > Grass Lake, Michigan > > Kitfox IV Speedster w/Jabiru 2200 > > flying w/487+ hrs/down for annual > > > > > > On Apr 12, 2008, at 3:32 PM, Nelson Goguen wrote: > > > > > George, > > > > > > I cut mine about 1/2 inch beyont the butt rib. When the wing is in > > > place, this overhang covers the small space between end rib of the > > > wing and the butt rib. > > > > > > Nelson Goguen > > > s5 912s > > > Ashby, MA > > > almost done > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: SUE MICHAELS > > > To: kitfox-list@matronics.com > > > Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2008 2:58 PM > > > Subject: Kitfox-List: windshield (screen) fit > > > > > > Okay, one of my retired neighbors that worked in plastics heard of > > > my use of a 8 lbs hammer to fit my windshield and came to my > rescue > > > with his enormous heat, anti-aircraft, gun. Faster than than the > > > military aircraft can fly everything fit. One question remains?? > > > Does the one-piece plastic windshield/overhead canopy cut flush > > > with the outer butt rib or extend past to the first rib? If so how > > > far? I read the destruction's over a lot and I have????????? > > > > > > George > > > href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List">http:// > > > www.matronhref="http://forums.matronics.com">http:// > > > forums.matronics.comhref="http://www.matronics.com/ > > > contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c_- > > > ========== _- > > > http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List_- > > > =================================== _- > > > forums.matronics.com_- > > > ========== > > > contribution_- > > > ========= > > > > > > > > http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List_- > ============================================================ _- > forums.matronics.com_- > ============================================================ _- > contribution_- > =========================================================== ________________________________ Message 50 ____________________________________ Time: 04:13:51 PM PST US From: Guy Buchanan Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Re: Small Side window? At 09:03 AM 4/12/2008, you wrote: >I am re-building a 5 now and am putting >in as much window as I can, full Lexan doors, full Lexan turtle deck cover >and small windows. Lloyd, Don't forget to shade the skylight and turtledeck before installation. I wish I had. Guy Buchanan San Diego, CA K-IV 1200 / 582-C / Warp / 100% done, thanks mostly to Bob Ducar. Do not archive ________________________________ Message 51 ____________________________________ Time: 04:13:52 PM PST US From: Guy Buchanan Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: windshield (screen) fit At 11:58 AM 4/12/2008, you wrote: >Does the one-piece plastic windshield/overhead canopy cut flush with >the outer butt rib or extend past to the first rib? If so how far? I >read the destruction's over a lot and I have????????? Mine is outboard of the fuselage rib about 1". This, in my opinion, looks better, gives more room for crack propagation and termination, and keeps a little bit of the rain / wind out. You do, however, have to carefully sculpt around the rear bolt to clear the wing when it folds. Guy Buchanan San Diego, CA K-IV 1200 / 582-C / Warp / 100% done, thanks mostly to Bob Ducar. ________________________________ Message 52 ____________________________________ Time: 04:18:53 PM PST US From: Lynn Matteson Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Cutting a windshield The Kitfox windshield from LP Aeroplastics is about 1/8" thick, and I wouldn't even try to go after that with snips. The thinner stuff might handle snipping, but the thicker stuff...at least the windshield that I have wouldn't tolerate it. Are you talking about material that is 1/8" thick or the stuff that Skystar sold as windshield material and is only .093" thick or thinner, with the name Hyzod on the protective covering? Lynn Matteson Grass Lake, Michigan Kitfox IV Speedster w/Jabiru 2200 flying w/487+ hrs/down for annual On Apr 12, 2008, at 5:52 PM, Dee Young wrote: > I have read mean posts about the cutting of Plexiglas and > polycarbonate for windshields. I have cut two windshields, one from > each of they materials for my Model II, both of which were cut > with a good set of tin snips. I over cut, then trimmed and cleaned > up the edges and corners with mill file. I have no crazing or > cracking at the wing root or any other problems with this process. > Its done quickly and easily. > > Dee Young > Model II > N345DY > > Do not archive > http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List_- > ============================================================ _- > forums.matronics.com_- > ============================================================ _- > contribution_- > =========================================================== ________________________________ Message 53 ____________________________________ Time: 04:36:37 PM PST US From: Donroutledge@aol.com Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Installation Instructions for Strut fairings GB, Where did you find the PVC strut fairings? Thanks, Don In a message dated 4/12/2008 10:24:17 A.M. Central Daylight Time, gbsb2002@yahoo.com writes: --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Mnflyer" Hi All, does anyone have a set of installation instructions for the PVC wing strut fairings? I purchased a unused set but the fellow couldn't find the instructions so if anyone has some that would be will to share with me I'd appreciate the help. Thanks GB -------- GB MNFlyer Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=176391#176391 **************It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms and advice on AOL Money & Finance. (http://money.aol.com/tax?NCID=aolcmp00300000002850) ________________________________ Message 54 ____________________________________ Time: 04:37:13 PM PST US From: RAY Gignac Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Re: Ethanol removal? If you have milspec fuel lines, and are using auto gas then you need to cha nge the lines to regular auto fuel lines. Ray> Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Ethanol removal?> From: wingnut@spamarrest.c om> Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 13:45:24 -0700> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com> > > I would like to see some conclusive evidence from hands on experience on why it should not be used rather than just "talk about it " and why it so bad. So far I have had nothing but good luck I guess ?> > > > > According h er previous owner my Kitfox had been on a steady diet of avgas since it was built. I switched to mogas after I bought it and six months later I starte d smelling gasoline in the cabin. It turned out that my fuel lines where be ginning to deteriorate. A couple months after that, I started getting some crud from my gascolator which turned out to be rust on the gascolator bowl. I suppose it's possible that it's a coincidence that these events coincide d with the switch to mogas but I from the responses I got here at the time I got the impression that I was the only person on the planet that didn't k now that ethanol tainted mogas would eat the mill-spec fuel lines that many Kitfoxes where built with. > > I still run with Mogas (I can scarcely affo rd not to) but I do wonder about what else the ethanol is eating into in my airplane.> > --------> Luis Rodriguez> Model IV 1200> Rotax 912UL> Flying Weekly> Laurens, SC (34A)> > > > > Read this topic online here:> > http://f ======================> > > _________________________________________________________________ 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 55 ____________________________________ Time: 05:39:17 PM PST US From: "Dee Young" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Cutting a windshield I cut the .060 polycarbonate for my second windshield using the first one as a pattern. Dee Young Do not archive ----- Original Message ----- From: Lynn Matteson To: kitfox-list@matronics.com Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2008 5:16 PM Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Cutting a windshield > The Kitfox windshield from LP Aeroplastics is about 1/8" thick, and I wouldn't even try to go after that with snips. The thinner stuff might handle snipping, but the thicker stuff...at least the windshield that I have wouldn't tolerate it. Are you talking about material that is 1/8" thick or the stuff that Skystar sold as windshield material and is only .093" thick or thinner, with the name Hyzod on the protective covering? Lynn Matteson Grass Lake, Michigan Kitfox IV Speedster w/Jabiru 2200 flying w/487+ hrs/down for annual On Apr 12, 2008, at 5:52 PM, Dee Young wrote: > I have read mean posts about the cutting of Plexiglas and > polycarbonate for windshields. I have cut two windshields, one from > each of they materials for my Model II, both of which were cut > with a good set of tin snips. I over cut, then trimmed and cleaned > up the edges and corners with mill file. I have no crazing or > cracking at the wing root or any other problems with this process. > Its done quickly and easily. > > Dee Young > Model II > N345DY > > Do not archive > http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List > > ========= http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List http://www.matronics.com/contribution ________________________________ Message 56 ____________________________________ Time: 05:46:44 PM PST US From: "Dave G." Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Ethanol removal? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Noel Loveys" Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2008 4:34 PM > > Best answer it to not use ethanol for fuel. > I probably agree with what you wrote, ( I only scanned the list) But the ethanol is in the mix and I've never seen a legislative assembly listen to sense as carefully as they listen for the sound of money. That leaves us with possibly ethanol contaminated road fuel and 100LL as practical choices. I think learning to cope with one or the other as issued is the best bet, simply can't see myself trying to wash the ethanol out of my fuel. I'm under the impression that there is work going on trying to create a lead free aviation fuel for GA, that should solve everybodys problems except for price. ________________________________ Message 57 ____________________________________ Time: 05:51:40 PM PST US From: "Dee Young" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Cutting a windshield I miss spoke it was the .093 Dee Do not archive ----- Original Message ----- From: Dee Young To: kitfox-list@matronics.com Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2008 6:35 PM Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Cutting a windshield I cut the .060 polycarbonate for my second windshield using the first one as a pattern. Dee Young Do not archive ----- Original Message ----- From: Lynn Matteson To: kitfox-list@matronics.com Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2008 5:16 PM Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Cutting a windshield > The Kitfox windshield from LP Aeroplastics is about 1/8" thick, and I wouldn't even try to go after that with snips. The thinner stuff might handle snipping, but the thicker stuff...at least the windshield that I have wouldn't tolerate it. Are you talking about material that is 1/8" thick or the stuff that Skystar sold as windshield material and is only .093" thick or thinner, with the name Hyzod on the protective covering? Lynn Matteson Grass Lake, Michigan Kitfox IV Speedster w/Jabiru 2200 flying w/487+ hrs/down for annual On Apr 12, 2008, at 5:52 PM, Dee Young wrote: > I have read mean posts about the cutting of Plexiglas and > polycarbonate for windshields. I have cut two windshields, one from > each of they materials for my Model II, both of which were cut > with a good set of tin snips. I over cut, then trimmed and cleaned > up the edges and corners with mill file. I have no crazing or > cracking at the wing root or any other problems with this process. > Its done quickly and easily. > > Dee Young > Model II > N345DY > > Do not archive > http://www.matron > > Features Chat, --> http://www.matron=== =================== bsp; via the Web title=http://forums.matronics.com/ href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com nbsp; generous bsp; title=http://www.matronics.com/contribution href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c ================ http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List http://www.matronics.com/contribution ________________________________ Message 58 ____________________________________ Time: 06:21:47 PM PST US Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Installation Instructions for Strut fairings From: "Mnflyer" Hi they came up on e-bay. -------- GB MNFlyer Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=176480#176480 ________________________________ Message 59 ____________________________________ Time: 08:29:54 PM PST US From: Clint Bazzill Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Re: Ethanol removal? You must be using a different mil spec fuel line then mine. Just put in 2 new shut off valves, fuel line removed you couldn't tell from new. 1313 ho urs Clint From: kitfoxpilot@msn.comTo: kitfox-list@matronics.comSubject: RE: Kitfox-L ist: Re: Ethanol removal?Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 23:34:48 +0000 If you have milspec fuel lines, and are using auto gas then you need to cha nge the lines to regular auto fuel lines. Ray> Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Ethanol removal?> From: wingnut@spamarrest.com> Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 13:4 5:24 -0700> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com> > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "wingnut" > > > > I would like to see some con clusive evidence from hands on experience on why it should not be used rath er than just "talk about it " and why it so bad. So far I have had nothing but good luck I guess ?> > > > > According her previous owner my Kitfox had been on a steady diet of avgas since it was built. I switched to mogas aft er I bought it and six months later I started smelling gasoline in the cabi n. It turned out that my fuel lines where beginning to deteriorate. A coupl e months after that, I started getting some crud from my gascolator which t urned out to be rust on the gascolator bowl. I suppose it's possible that i t's a coincidence that these events coincided with the switch to mogas but I from the responses I got here at the time I got the impression that I was the only person on the planet that didn't know that ethanol tainted mogas would eat the mill-spec fuel lines that many Kitfoxes where built with. > > I still run with Mogas (I can scarcely afford not to) but I do wonder abou t what else the ethanol is eating into in my airplane.> > --------> Luis Ro driguez> Model IV 1200> Rotax 912UL> Flying Weekly> Laurens, SC (34A)> > > > > Read this topic online here:> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p hp?p=176440#176440> > > ======> > > Get in touch in an instant. Get Windows Live Messenger now. ________________________________ Message 60 ____________________________________ Time: 08:30:59 PM PST US From: "Noel Loveys" Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Ethanol removal? As you say it's different countries and different circumstances. Most of the third world pay a lot more for oil than the western hemisphere. They make their ethanol from raw materials that have no other value. Few if any of them use the fuel for flight. If we could turn landfills (dumps) into ethanol production I would be a lot more forgiving on its use for ground fuel. I haven't noticed an increase in the cost of sugar so their production hasn't affected sugar production.... The price of pork, beef and corn has however increased. Someone a short while ago mentioned to me about using the corn grouts to increase the production of milk. I did check with a local vet on that item and it was true. It is also true that the grouts and steroids are killing the cattle at younger ages. Noel -----Original Message----- From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Michel Verheughe Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2008 6:12 PM Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Ethanol removal? > From: Noel Loveys [noelloveys@yahoo.ca] > Get the idea? Ethanol fuel is just prohibitively expensive and should be > avoided. To be fair, Noel, and while I agree it is a bad idea in your country - especially when it is at the cost of corn - it may be a solution for other countries. Brazil does quite well with ethanol and think of the African countries that need to borrow money only to pay the interests of what they already owe international banks. And all that to buy crude oil that has now gone over $100 per barrel. Now, I read that there is an African tree that grows in the harshest conditions but can produce much ethanol. I don't think energy and environmental questions can be answered in one universal way. We have to be innovative and flexible. Cheers, Michel Verheughe Norway Kitfox 3 - Jabiru 2200 do not archive 


href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List">http://www.matronics.c
om/Navigator?Kitfox-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contri
bution
________________________________ Message 61 ____________________________________ Time: 08:42:24 PM PST US From: "Noel Loveys" Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Re: Ethanol removal? Apparently there are some vinylester fillers that are supposed to be more resistant to ethanol (whatever more resistant means) than either epoxy or polyester. Noel -----Original Message----- From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of ronlee Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2008 8:19 PM Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Ethanol removal? I do not own a kitfox but do own and fly a zenith aircraft with aluminum tanks. >From long gone posts I've read that SOME kitfox planes have fiberglass tanks that can withstand ethanol while others will deteriorate and began separating. If I owned a Kitfox I would certainly do some research to make sure my tanks were compatible to ethanol laden gasoline. Deteriorating tanks could plug things up with particles and or dissolved fiberglass resin. If I am wrong about this, I am sure someone will straighten me out pronto! Ron Lee -------- Ron Lee Tucson, Arizona Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=176455#176455 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Other Matronics Email List Services ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post A New Message kitfox-list@matronics.com UN/SUBSCRIBE http://www.matronics.com/subscription List FAQ http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/Kitfox-List.htm Web Forum Interface To Lists http://forums.matronics.com Matronics List Wiki http://wiki.matronics.com Full Archive Search Engine http://www.matronics.com/search 7-Day List Browse http://www.matronics.com/browse/kitfox-list Browse Digests http://www.matronics.com/digest/kitfox-list Browse Other Lists http://www.matronics.com/browse Live Online Chat! http://www.matronics.com/chat Archive Downloading http://www.matronics.com/archives Photo Share http://www.matronics.com/photoshare Other Email Lists http://www.matronics.com/emaillists Contributions http://www.matronics.com/contribution ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.