Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:08 AM - Re: alcohol in fuel - fiber glass tanks (dave)
2. 03:45 AM - Re: Trailering Kitfox Vixen (Ted & Bonnie Jacques)
3. 04:32 AM - Re: GSC Prop Blades Loose (fox5flyer)
4. 05:01 AM - Re: GSC Prop Blades Loose (JC Propeller Design)
5. 05:23 AM - Re: Re: Small Side window? (Dacha)
6. 05:25 AM - Re: Windshield Fit Help Model 7 (dcsfoto)
7. 07:04 AM - MODEL 4 SPEEDSTER/912UL FOR SALE (Don & Betty Stevenson)
8. 07:43 AM - Kitfox 4 Classic compared to Avid MK IV questions (Jim_and_Lucy Chuk)
9. 08:07 AM - Re: Ethanol removal? (Randy Daughenbaugh)
10. 08:27 AM - Re: alcohol in fuel - fiber glass tanks (Chuck Popenoe)
11. 08:29 AM - Re: Kitfox 4 Classic compared to Avid MK IV questions (Guy Buchanan)
12. 08:32 AM - Re: Subaru EA81 Exhaust (Earnest & Bonnie Jacques)
13. 08:48 AM - Re: Kitfox 4 Classic compared to Avid MK IV questions (fox5flyer)
14. 09:06 AM - Re: Kitfox 4 Classic compared to Avid MK IV questions (Clint Bazzill)
15. 09:58 AM - Re: Kitfox 4 Classic compared to Avid MK IV questions (fox5flyer)
16. 11:03 AM - Re: Re: Ethanol removal? (Noel Loveys)
17. 12:08 PM - Re: alcohol in fuel - fiber glass tanks (Noel Loveys)
18. 12:40 PM - Re: Ethanol removal? (Noel Loveys)
19. 12:41 PM - Re: Kitfox 4 Classic compared to Avid MK IV questions (Lynn Matteson)
20. 01:30 PM - Re: Kitfox 4 Classic compared to Avid MK IV questions (Michel Verheughe)
21. 02:31 PM - Model 4 rudder gap (Catz631@aol.com)
22. 02:52 PM - Re: Model 4 rudder gap (kirk hull)
23. 04:00 PM - Re: Model 4 rudder gap (Tom Jones)
24. 04:10 PM - Re: Model 4 rudder gap (Sbennett3@aol.com)
25. 05:40 PM - Re: Got your attention (Beemer)
26. 06:10 PM - Re: Re: Got your attention (steve eccles)
27. 06:27 PM - Re: Kitfox 4 Classic compared to Avid MK IV questions (dave)
28. 06:30 PM - Re: Got your attention (dave)
29. 07:04 PM - Re: Re: Small Side window? (Cudnohufsky's)
30. 07:08 PM - Re: Model 4 rudder gap (Lynn Matteson)
31. 08:28 PM - Re: Small Side window? (darinh)
32. 09:13 PM - Re: Model 4 rudder gap (Peter Newgard)
33. 09:24 PM - Re: Kitfox 4 Classic compared to Avid MK IV questions (Jim_and_Lucy Chuk)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: alcohol in fuel - fiber glass tanks |
I have had ZERO trouble with my tanks after thousands of gallon of gas.
If mine leak I will definitely look at these http://wingtanks.com/ .
Has one tried these yet ? http://wingtanks.com/
My dash tank looks like the same material and it is been fantastic so far.
--------
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=176670#176670
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | RE: Trailering Kitfox Vixen |
Hi Tom,
Thanks for the pictures. They are very helpful, I think I can fabricate
those
Temporarily for the trip and will purchase a set from Kitfox once I get it
back
To Idaho. I was unsure about the tie downs, but I think I can figure out
the procedure now.
I have most of those materials already.
Thanks for the help.
Ted
Ted,
Attached are some photos of these items on a Classic 4. The Wing Support
Braces
I made from 3/4" EMT. I think you can get real nice factory made ones from
the kitfox factory. The wing Lock Back Braces are made from 1/2" 4130.
Maybe
someone has a set you could buy or borrow or check with the factory for a
set...you
really should have these to tow the kitfox. Also put a fail safe of some
sort on to keep a wing from swinging out if a Lock back brace should fail or
come off. That has ruined the day for a Kitfox owner or two. Notice in the
rudder picture I use a bungee around the flaperon counter balances for this
purpose.
I secure the rudder and elevator with some foam rubber as shown.
--------
Tom Jones
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: GSC Prop Blades Loose |
Great essay Jan. Very informative and enlightening.
Keep 'em coming.
Deke Morisse
Mikado Michigan
S5/Subaru/CAP 355+ TT
"The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but progress."
- Joseph Joubert
>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" <noelloveys@yahoo.ca>
> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> 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 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: GSC Prop Blades Loose |
thank you guys.
Jan
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "fox5flyer" <fox5flyer@idealwifi.net>
Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 1:26 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: GSC Prop Blades Loose
>
> Great essay Jan. Very informative and enlightening.
> Keep 'em coming.
> Deke Morisse
> Mikado Michigan
> S5/Subaru/CAP 355+ TT
> "The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but
> progress."
> - Joseph Joubert
>
>>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" <noelloveys@yahoo.ca>
>> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
>> 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 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Small Side window? |
I took my turtle deck to a graphics place and they made up a scene with
runway, windsock, and clouds. Looks pretty cool. It is the same material as
the sun screens for the rear windows in a car.
LeRoy
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Windshield Fit Help Model 7 |
The shape on mine was not even close. I plan to use foil and make a fiberglass
piece like on my model III .
David Model 7 and 3
do not arcive
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=176691#176691
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | MODEL 4 SPEEDSTER/912UL FOR SALE |
Hi Everyone, I have a Kitfox model 4 speedster/912UL project (about 85 to 90% completed)
for sale. I,m located in Southern Ontario, Canada and sadly must sell
for personal reasons. So as not to get into a long post with all the details,
anyone interested can contact me off list at the following:-
Email: shericom@rogers.com
Phone: 905-838-5283
Thanks,
Don Stevenson
Caledon, Ontario, Canada (Just N/W of Toronto)
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Kitfox 4 Classic compared to Avid MK IV questions |
Hi all, perhaps some of you know me as haveing been one of the Avid guys on
the Kitfox list, well I've come over to the dark side (just kidding) anyw
ay, Saterday I saw a Kitfox 4 project on ebay that was about 70 miles away
from me at a real good price on the buy it now. I ended up pushing the buy
it now button yesterday so now I have another project on my hands. He sai
d the fusalge is about 90% done, wings were quick build from the factory an
d have been fitted to the fusaloge although tanks aren't installed yet. Pl
enty to keep me busy for a while at any rate. My question is this. I've n
ever flown in a Kitfox 4 or been around one so can anyone with experience i
n an Avid MK IV Heavy Hauler and the Kitfox 4 Classic give me their compari
son of the two different airplanes. Thanks Jim Chuk Avid MK IV and Ki
tfox 4 MN
==> > >
_________________________________________________________________
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 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Ethanol removal? |
Noel,
I agree with you on ethanol from Corn. The only justification that I can
see is it may help get the infrastructure in place for ethanol from
cellulose.
But what I was addressing was the danger of a home operation to remove
ethanol from gasoline with water. I was assuming that you were completely
successful in removing the ethanol and the danger that the remaining water
presents. You seem to like the sideways arguments so I will toss one out to
you.
Water is much more soluble in gasoline than diesel fuel. Yet there is a
spec for water in diesel fuel. And it is there for a reason.
Randy
.
_____
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Noel Loveys
Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2008 1:14 PM
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?
<rjdaugh@rapidnet.com>
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?
<rjdaugh@rapidnet.com>
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
to browse
Un/Subscription,
Browse, Chat, FAQ,
more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List
Web Forums!
http://forums.matronics.com
support!
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: alcohol in fuel - fiber glass tanks |
Thanks, Noel, for taking the time to expose the lies and untruths in the
article written by Vincent T. Ciulla, (who must be a shill for the
ethanol
lobby), which was presented as fact by Rotax Dealer Dave. Dave has been
very
lucky to have experienced no problems due to E10 fuel. He must have the
newer fuel tanks made with vinylester resin. I haven=92t been so lucky.
My
wing tank is of 1989 vintage (polyester resin), which has partially
dissolved, resulting in forced landings twice before I realized the
cause of
the problem and stopped using E10 fuel. I may have to drive over 100
miles
to find pure gas, but I think that it=92s worth it!
I am one of the founders of Capital Area Light Flyers flying club
(CALF),
and we have made the decision to be proactive in fighting the ethanol
lobby.
Our goal is to convince legislators to exempt one grade of mogas
(probably
premium) from the ethanol requirement. This has been accomplished
presently
in at least four states, largely as a result of lobbying by EAA
chapters or
groups of flyers! Several other states have this exemption before the
legislature. A farmer=92s lobby has already gained an exemption from
mandated
ethanol for farm use. Most of CALF=92s membership resides in Maryland,
so we
will initially shoot for a statewide Maryland premium fuel exemption.
If we
are successful there maybe we=92ll tackle Virginia. The laws will not
be
changed if we do nothing! BTW, McCain is the only presidential
candidate
who has expressed opposition to the ethanol economy.
For those who wish to dig deeper, I=92m attaching a white paper that we
have
put together as a starter, with facts which are verified. We aim to
gather
support from EAA, AOPA, BoatsUS, and any other groups adversely affected
by
the E10 mandate.
Chuck Popenoe
Avid STOL N113P
Flying continuously since 1956
Checked by AVG.
4/14/2008
9:26 AM
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Kitfox 4 Classic compared to Avid MK IV questions |
At 07:40 AM 4/14/2008, you wrote:
>Saterday I saw a Kitfox 4 project on ebay that was about 70 miles
>away from me at a real good price on the buy it now. I ended up
>pushing the buy it now button yesterday so now I have another
>project on my hands.
Jim you lucky dog! I wanted that Kitfox badly, just didn't have a
place to store it. I'm glad it's in interested hands, though. Welcome
to the Dark Side. (And proud of it!)
Guy Buchanan, Kitfox List Moderator
San Diego, CA
K-IV 1200 / 582-C / Warp / 100% done, thanks mostly to Bob Ducar.
Do not archive
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | RE: Subaru EA81 Exhaust |
Hi All,
Thanks for the information. I called Dawley this morning. They are having
a hard time finding any information on the exhaust for the EA81 Turbo. Will
let you know how it goes. Thanks for the information. My responses are
having a hard time getting thru, haven't figured out how to use this list
yet.
Ted Jacques
When I still owned a NSI Turbo EA81 engine, I ordered one of the Dawley
crossover exhaust packages and it fit perfectly out of the box. I have
never had something like that fit so perfectly. I also could not have been
happier! I had them include the welded fittings for two exhaust sensors.
It was all great.
Jim Crowder
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
<mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com?subject=RE:%20Subaru%20EA81%2
0Exhaust&replyto=1208186103.0000@hypermail.dummy>
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
<mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com?subject=RE:%20Subaru%20EA81%2
0Exhaust&replyto=1208186103.0000@hypermail.dummy> ]On Behalf Of Ron Stevens
Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2008 5:42 PM
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
<mailto:kitfox-list@matronics.com?subject=RE:%20Subaru%20EA81%20Exhaust&repl
yto=1208186103.0000@hypermail.dummy>
Subject: RE: Subaru EA81 Exhaust
I had Dawley Aviation make one up for me in stainless steel. They still
have the jig. Just call 'em up. Mine was for an NSI EA81 Turbo. I could
not be happier with the results. It fit *perfectly* right out of the box.
http://www.dawley.net
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Kitfox 4 Classic compared to Avid MK IV questions |
Jim, they're very close cousins and I doubt you'll find much difference
in the two. Just keep it light.
Congratulations!
Deke Morisse
Mikado Michigan
S5/Subaru/CAP 355+ TT
"The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but
progress."
- Joseph Joubert
----- Original Message -----
From: Jim_and_Lucy Chuk
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 10:40 AM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Kitfox 4 Classic compared to Avid MK IV
questions
Hi all, perhaps some of you know me as haveing been one of the Avid
guys on the Kitfox list, well I've come over to the dark side (just
kidding) anyway, Saterday I saw a Kitfox 4 project on ebay that was
about 70 miles away from me at a real good price on the buy it now. I
ended up pushing the buy it now button yesterday so now I have another
project on my hands. He said the fusalge is about 90% done, wings were
quick build from the factory and have been fitted to the fusaloge
although tanks aren't installed yet. Plenty to keep me busy for a while
at any rate. My question is this. I've never flown in a Kitfox 4 or
been around one so can anyone with experience in an Avid MK IV Heavy
Hauler and the Kitfox 4 Classic give me their comparison of the two
different airplanes. Thanks Jim Chuk Avid MK IV and Kitfox 4 MN
========================>
>
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Get in touch in an instant. Get Windows Live Messenger now.
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Kitfox 4 Classic compared to Avid MK IV questions |
You are wrong. The Mark IV is a very different aircraft. The Model IV Ki
tfox flys very much like the Series 7. Clint
From: fox5flyer@idealwifi.netTo: kitfox-list@matronics.comSubject: Re: Kitf
ox-List: Kitfox 4 Classic compared to Avid MK IV questionsDate: Mon, 14 Apr
2008 11:43:00 -0400
Jim, they're very close cousins and I doubt you'll find much difference in
the two. Just keep it light.
Congratulations!
Deke MorisseMikado MichiganS5/Subaru/CAP 355+ TT"The aim of an argument or
discussion should not be victory, but progress."- Joseph Joubert
----- Original Message -----
From: Jim_and_Lucy Chuk
Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 10:40 AM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Kitfox 4 Classic compared to Avid MK IV questions
Hi all, perhaps some of you know me as haveing been one of the Avid guys on
the Kitfox list, well I've come over to the dark side (just kidding) anyw
ay, Saterday I saw a Kitfox 4 project on ebay that was about 70 miles away
from me at a real good price on the buy it now. I ended up pushing the buy
it now button yesterday so now I have another project on my hands. He sai
d the fusalge is about 90% done, wings were quick build from the factory an
d have been fitted to the fusaloge although tanks aren't installed yet. Pl
enty to keep me busy for a while at any rate. My question is this. I've n
ever flown in a Kitfox 4 or been around one so can anyone with experience i
n an Avid MK IV Heavy Hauler and the Kitfox 4 Classic give me their compari
son of the two different airplanes. Thanks Jim Chuk Avid MK IV and Ki
tfox 4 MN ====================
====> > >
Get in touch in an instant. Get Windows Live Messenger now.
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List">http://www.matronhr
ef="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Kitfox 4 Classic compared to Avid MK IV questions |
Quote: "The Model IV Kitfox flys very much like the Series 7."
Are you pretty sure about that? Or is it perhaps an opinion? I might
be wrong, but I thought he was asking about an Avid vs KF4.
Deke
----- Original Message -----
From: Clint Bazzill
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 12:02 PM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Kitfox 4 Classic compared to Avid MK IV
questions
You are wrong. The Mark IV is a very different aircraft. The Model
IV Kitfox flys very much like the Series 7. Clint
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
From: fox5flyer@idealwifi.net
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Kitfox 4 Classic compared to Avid MK IV
questions
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 11:43:00 -0400
Jim, they're very close cousins and I doubt you'll find much
difference in the two. Just keep it light.
Congratulations!
Deke Morisse
Mikado Michigan
S5/Subaru/CAP 355+ TT
"The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but
progress."
- Joseph Joubert
----- Original Message -----
From: Jim_and_Lucy Chuk
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 10:40 AM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Kitfox 4 Classic compared to Avid MK IV
questions
Hi all, perhaps some of you know me as haveing been one of the
Avid guys on the Kitfox list, well I've come over to the dark side (just
kidding) anyway, Saterday I saw a Kitfox 4 project on ebay that was
about 70 miles away from me at a real good price on the buy it now. I
ended up pushing the buy it now button yesterday so now I have another
project on my hands. He said the fusalge is about 90% done, wings were
quick build from the factory and have been fitted to the fusaloge
although tanks aren't installed yet. Plenty to keep me busy for a while
at any rate. My question is this. I've never flown in a Kitfox 4 or
been around one so can anyone with experience in an Avid MK IV Heavy
Hauler and the Kitfox 4 Classic give me their comparison of the two
different airplanes. Thanks Jim Chuk Avid MK IV and Kitfox 4 MN
=======================
>
>
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Get in touch in an instant. Get Windows Live Messenger now.
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List">http://www.matron
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
arget=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List
p://forums.matronics.com
blank>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Ethanol removal? |
Line by line discussion coming up!
Quote> Fuel ethanol (or 'Gasohol') is a high octane, water-free alcohol
produced from the fermentation of sugar or converted starch.
Answer> The octane rating of ethanol is around 116
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octane_rating ). As for being water free
that
is true only immediately after it has been distilled and then only if if
it
is sealed from moisture in the air which it will absorb like a sponge.
Quote> It is traditionally used as a blending ingredient at 5% to 10%
concentrations (termed E5 or E10, respectively) in gasoline or as a raw
material to produce high octane fuel ether additives.
Answer> It hasn=92t been used in this country long enough to have a
traditional use but most jurisdictions where ethanol is being force fed
the
concentrations are 5 or 10%. People should be aware that octane rating
and
power are two completely different things. In the past high octane
gasoline
was more volatile than low octane. This is no longer true as the octane
boosters in the fuel (ethanol ) are not as volatile as gas therefore the
gas
itself is less volatile.. This is why it is used in racing cars.
Quote> Ethanol is made primarily from grains or other renewable
agricultural and agroforestry feedstocks.
Answer> On this continent ethanol is produced by diverting farm land
from
fuel production. This is neither efficient, financially responsible or
feasible in the long term. It is made from feed stocks that is why the
cost
of food in the past six months has skyrocketed. You ain=92t seen
nothing yet!
Quote> Ethanol has been made since ancient times by the fermentation
of
sugars. All beverage ethanol and more than half of industrial ethanol is
still made by this process. Simple sugars are the raw material. Zymase,
an
enzyme from yeast, changes the simple sugars into ethanol and carbon
dioxide. If you use hops instead of corn, you get beer instead of fuel.
Answer> Making a good beer is a bit harder than that... The basic
taste of
beer is produced from the malts in the grains used to provide the raw
sugars. The hops ( actually flowers)are used to give the beer a
distinctive
finished taste. Guiness the world=92s most sold beer, a dinner in a
bottle,
doesn=92t use hops at all.... 100% grain. Beer also is not distilled so
the
highest concentration of alcohol that can be achieved is in the
neighbourhood of 11%.
Quote> The use of ethanol does provide some benefits. First of all it
is
renewable.
Answer> True but at what cost?
Quote> The problem with crude oil is when it's gone, it's gone. No
more,
finished, kaput, finis.
Answer> That is why I totally agree that We have to find an
alternative to
fossil fuels. It=92s just that ethanol isn=92t it.
Quote> 1 acre corn = 300 gallons of Ethanol and 400 gallons of
unneeded
oil imports.
Answer> 1 acre of corn may produce 300 gallons of ethanol but to get
that
you will use the 400 gallons plus of Diesel fuel. 300 gallons of
ethanol
will only have the BTUs of less than 200 gallons of gas and less than
100
gallons of diesel fuel. Total output of BTU ( ethanol + Diesel to
produce
it) is the equivalent of around 8 acres of ethanol producing land. This
is
not reasonable.
Quote> Ethanol is made from corn and other grown grains and when was
the
last time you saw a year where there wasn't any corn around?
Answer> Being from farming country I figured you would know that only
excess
grains are exported. Unfortunately with ethanol production there are no
excess crops. There aren=92t even enough crops to fill out own
requirements... that=92s why the price of chicken and pork is
skyrocketing.
Quote> Since it contains a high amount of oxygen it makes a car
engine
cleaner burning resulting in a cleaner environment for us to live in.
Carbon
dioxide emissions are lower thus reducing ground level ozone which
people
with respiratory problems will be the first to tell you is a problem.
Answer> Are you saying, the fact the stuff is so corrosive has nothing
to
do with it=92s ability to clean? Car engines do not burn cleaner they
only do
not produce as much CO2 at the tail pipe. They produce an even nastier
derivative of Benzene which is much more damaging top 5the environment.
So yes a car engine will run cleaner for all the wrong reasons and CO2
is
still given off in the fermentation process add that to the carbon and
benzene derivatives given off when ethanol is burned and then add the
exhaust particles of the diesel fuel used to produce the ethanol and
it=92s
anything but clean. In fact it=92s just about the most filthy poisonous
stuff
that is somehow legal to spew around. The benzene derivatives that are
given off when ethanol burns and are far more devastating to the ozone
levels , low and high, than the same concentrations of CO2, are not even
detected when fossil fuels are burned. Ethanol backers do not want this
to
come to light so they just ignore it hoping no one will notice. They
loose!
Quote> The emissions produced by burning ethanol are less reactive
with
sunlight than those produced by burning gasoline. This results in a
lower
potential for damaging the ozone layer.
Answer> It probably is less reactive with sunlight because it
doesn=92t need
to react with sunlight to eat ozone. Works just as well at night as it
does
during the day. The result is a much higher level of damage to the
ozone
layers.
Quote> The use of ethanol reduces our dependance on imported oil and
increases the market for farmers who grow the grains we use to produce
ethanol. Now we can stop paying farmers not grow crops and use their
excess
production as fuel.
Answer> Because it requires so much fossil fuel to manufacture a
gallon of
ethanol it actually compounds the oil problem by increasing our
dependence
on fossil fuel.
Now we can get to the crux of the matter it is a way the government can
do
cash injections to farmers by increasing the demand, ergo the price of
their
crops. I don=92t blame farmers for liking and supporting the idea of
ethanol
fuel even though they know it=92s not true. Unfortunately it=92s not
the excess
production that=92s going into ethanol production... The excess
production is
now finding its way to our tables. Paying farmers not to produce was
just
another method of playing the game of supply and demand to make farming
more
viable. See what would happen if they tax land producing ethanol that
was
in food production before!
Quote> Of course there are some by-products of ethanol production
that
have to be dealt with. By-products such as corn flour, corn oil, corn
meal
and corn grits. Other by-products are animal feeds such as Fibrotein TM,
corn gluten meal and feed and certain amino acids.
Answer> It is the natural proteins and sugars in corn that is
converted to
alcohol so there isn=92t any corn oil or Corn Flour.
A short while ago somebody brought up the use of by products like
Fibrotein
to me so I checked it out. It=92s partially true! Cows fed the stuff do
produce in excess of 15% more milk. BUT... These amino acids they
talk
about are what most of us call steroids... The same steroids we are
trying
to avoid in our steaks, The same steroids that cause internal bleeding
and
puss into the milk, the same steroids the producers should have to eat
themselves before giving it to unsuspecting farm animals whose lives are
made far more painful and shortened. Natural Corn flour and corn oil are
removed in the fermentation process leaving what the beer makers call
grouts. The best thing is to compost them. Of course doing that would
be
an exercise in diminishing returns. The real =93best thing=94 is to
feed the
farm animals the whole corn.
Quote> Carbon dioxide is another by-product in ethanol production and
is
used as a refrigerant and putting the fizz in our sodas.
Answer> Just how much pop can you drink?? (burp!) It can also be used
for
MIG welding but I haven=92t noticed the price of a bottle of CO2 going
down
have you? I won=92t comment on CO2 as a refrigerant.... This is the
first time
I=92ve heard this. I hope it=92s true. I do have to ask why is it then
a
bottle of pop doesn=92t get noticeably cooler when the pressure is
released?
If it were efficient at refrigeration why bother with putting a bottle
of
Champagne on ice. Why is it that just this week scientists are
discussing
pumping CO2 deep underground? With both these uses you mention the end
result is it eventually gets released to the air.
Quote> There are no waste products when ethanol is produced from
corn.
Answer> ethanol itself is a waste product of yeast growing. Other by
products are at least questionable as to their benefit to the population
in
general.
Quote> It is possible, with certain engine modifications, to run on
pure
ethanol. Brazil operates almost 50% of their vehicles on pure ethanol. A
10%
blend requires no engine modifications at all. There is a very limited
selection of vehicles offered by original equipment manufacturers that
will
run on 85% ethanol blended fuel.
Answer> Brazil produces almost all its ethanol on excess crops...
They
still have the problems of the benzene derivatives produced when ethanol
is
burned.. Given the choice of the table or the tank I=92ll bet they put
their
crops on the table.
Car owners are concerned about what effects ethanol will have on
their
engines and fuel systems, a valid concern. Let me take this a step at a
time.
1. Ethanol has a lot less power than gasoline so engines have to be
tuned
much richer than gas engines the higher the concentration of ethanol the
richer the tune required. Add to this to burn ethanol efficiently the
engine should also have a high compression ratio (CR) that in itself
will
cause your engine to age faster.
2. Ethanol is corrosive. It will eventually eat the inside of your
engine
and fuel system. Unless you are lucky enough to have those items made
of
titanium or glass.
3. The descendants of monsieur Armand Bombardier allow their engines to
operate on up to 10% ethanol tainted gas. No where do they advise to
use
this fuel!
Quote> New car warranties.
Ethanol began being used in 1979 and auto manufactures did not address
the
use of ethanol blended fuels. Then when they began testing their
vehicles
with the new blended fuels, they were able to approve the use of the 10%
ethanol blended fuels. Some went as far as to recommend the new blended
fuels in their vehicles.
Answer> Problem is when ethanol eats out car components, eventually it
will, the manufacturer make more money replacing the parts. A good
reason
to stay as far from ethanol on the ground as possible. No doubt by
recommending people use blended fuels they are insuring the high sales
of
expensive engine parts for years to come.
Quote> Do I have to do anything to my engine to use a 10% ethanol
fuel?
All engines built from 1970 can use the 10% ethanol blended fuels with
no
problems or modifications. A carburetted engine may need an adjustment
to
take full advantage of the fuel.
Answer> Because there is so much less power in ethanol compared to
gasoline the engine will have to be tuned much richer to get some of the
power experienced with gasoline back. To burn efficiently you will need
to
increase your CR. The one good point is because ethanol has an RON of
116
your engine probably won=92t ping as the fuel eats it=92s guts out.
Quote> Will the new fuels work in a fuel injected engine?
It sure will. At first you may need to change the fuel filter more often
as
the ethanol cleans out the fuel system, but once that is done fuel
filter
replacement will go back to normal.
Answer> Bull feathers ! Once the loose crud is released, because
ethanol
is so corrosive, and caught in the filters the rest of the parts that
are
being corroded will pass right through the filters. If one has to use
ethanol. I mean really, really, has to use ethanol then fuel injection
is
how it should be done. In aircraft add a fuel system pressurized (with
nitrogen?) to keep the crap from absorbing water out of the air while on
the
ground Just wait for the corrosive action to consume the engine.
Quote> Ethanol can loosen contaminants and residues that have been
deposited by previous gasoline fills. These can collect in the fuel
filter.
This problem has happened occasionally in older cars, and can easily be
corrected by changing fuel filters. Since 1985 all ethanol blended fuels
and
most non-blended fuels have had detergents added to them to keep fuel
injectors clean and prevent deposits that could clog them.
Answer> After changing the filters the ethanol will just start to eat
your; fuel tank, fuel pump, fuel lines, FUEL FILTER, injection pump and
injectors. I forgot to mention what it will do to your fuel gauge
sending
unit. All gasoline is blended... that=92s what makes gas, gas. Other
ingredients are changed with seasons and availability. Only one
gasoline,
locally available, doesn=92t change its recipe that=92s 100LL. Ethanol
won=92t
only clean your injectors given enough time it will consume them and
your
new iridium plugs etc...
Quote> Will adding a gas line anti-freeze cause problems?
Gas line anti-freezes are made from ethanol, methanol or isopropyl
alcohol
to absorb water in the fuel and keep it from freezing. That one little
bottle of gas line anti-freeze is about 0.3% of the volume of a full gas
tank. With a 10% ethanol blended fuel, it's 10% so it will absorb a lot
more
water and you'll never have to worry about a frozen fuel line. Now you
don't
have to worry about buying it, keeping it in the trunk and adding it to
the
tank when you fill up.
Answer> So true. Now all you have to worry about is a phase
separation
which can occur, especially in humid climes when the temperature drops..
Let=92s not talk about what happens to your dirt cheap injector pump and
injectors when water gets into them. Can anyone say pressurized fuel
system... starting at the distillery.
BTW if you are in the habit of doctoring your gas with MMO or some other
lubricant be advised the presence of oil in the gas accelerates phase
separation with the ethanol and any moisture joining the oil. A fine
mess
to write off a fuel injection system.
Quote> What about my valves?
Not to worry, ethanol burns cooler than straight gasoline helping to
keep
the valves cool. This is the main reason that high powered racing
engines
burn straight alcohol.
Answer> Ethanol burns cooler because there isn=92t as much power in
it.
Racing authorities mandating/requiring the use of ethanol was an attempt
to
restrict post crash explosions. Now you can see people burn in flames
you
cannot see... Great stuff to have on the highway.
Quote> Will ethanol hurt my older engine designed for leaded gas?
No. The concern about older engines came about because of the lead
phase-out. Lead oxides that were formed during combustion provided a
cushion
that reduced wear on non-case-hardened valve seats. Therefore, it is the
absence of lead, not the presence of ethanol, that is of concern.
Answer> Finally a point I have not one issue with. Of course you can
have
your valves and seats treated so then ethanol will have something to
dine
on.
Quote> Why do some mechanics say not to use ethanol?
A mechanic who says not to use ethanol does not have correct
information.
There is very little information available for mechanics on fuel
formulation, so when there appears to be a fuel-related problem with an
engine, some mechanics will immediately ask if ethanol has been used.
The
only reason ethanol is suspected is that in many states it is the only
gasoline component other than lead that has an identifying label. In
North
Dakota, New Mexico, and Idaho, ethanol proponents have offered a $100
reward
to any customer who can document damage from ethanol to his or her car,
and
so far no one has ever collected.
Answer> The mechanic who advises you not to use ethanol is HONEST. He
is
smart enough to see the truth regardless of what the spin doctors say.
Ethanol will have a lot more effect on your car than a daily cigar will
have on your health... and we all know cigars are not good for your
heath.
No one ever will collect the $100 reward because people who offer the
award
will always credit other factors with the damage ethanol did. I note
they
don=92t address the damage it does to the atmosphere even before its
burned.
That=92s worth a lot more than a lousy hundred bucks and they don=92t
want to be
held responsible for that.
Quote> Okay, what about my gas milage?
At the very worst it will be very slight. Ethanol contains 97% of the
energy
that pure gasoline has. But because the combustion efficiency is
increased,
the slight reduction in energy content is compensated for. Most users
will
not notice the decrease, if any, and many people have reported an
increase
in fuel milage.
Answer> Obviously there is a type-o error here it=92s not 97% but
closer to
67% ( actually lower than that) adding 10 % to your perfectly good gas
will
reduce your mileage, all else equal, around 20%. I know I=92d notice
that for
sure. There are two ways I can see a slight mileage decrease;
1. Your engine has been detonating all over the place.. Ethanol with an
RON
of around 116 will actually allow your engine to run smoother and
therefore
more efficiently possibly increasing fuel mileage until bits and pieces
of
your engine are consumed.
2. Your name is Jethro Bodine and you ciphering at grade six level has
damaged a few brain cells....
Quote> Can I use it in my lawn mower?
No, you'll have to stop mowing the lawn every week. Only kidding, I
thought
I saw a few people smile at that prospect. The answer is yes, you can
use
the 10% ethanol blended fuels anywhere you use regular unleaded fuel. It
can
be used in any lawn mower, snow plow, snowmobile, ATV and any other gas
powered engine. There may be some carburetor adjustment needed, so
always
refer to your equipments owner=92s manual before using it.
Answer> You were right when you said NO! Ethanol should never be used
for
fuel except as =93Party fuel=94. Your engines will survive small uses
of 10%
ethanol. Because of it=92s corrosive cleaning nature occasional use may
not
be bad. I won=92t advise continued chronic use.
Quote> Can I use it in diesel engine?
No, Diesel fuel and ethanol don't mix. Besides which gasoline is an
octane
fuel while diesel fuel is a cetain fuel.
Answer> Can you use it??? Definitely! The whole idea of a Diesel
engine
is it can be made to run on any fuel. It can be made to run on wood
chips
if you want and it most certainly can be made to run on ethanol... up to
the
point where the ethanol eats the engine. Ethanol won=92t mix with
diesel fuel
so you=92d be captured into using one or the other. The injector pump
fuel
rails and injectors would all have to be changed.
Quote> Ethanol is a very safe fuel, if you spill it it will not
contaminate the ground water.
Answer> Ethanol is an organic compound. I=92m not sure if it will
contaminate ground water but it will kill just about any plant it comes
in
contact with. Just try an ounce or so on your wife=92s prize rosebush.
Better
not, you=92ll just be adding to the dangers of ethanol.
Quote> If you drink it, you'll get drunk. Although if you drink large
quantities you will suffer liver damage. In fact, if you drink just
about
any alcoholic beverage, you're drinking ethanol in one form or another.
Answer> As for drinking the stuff that you get from the gas station
you
can=92t even distil the eth out of it. They have a compound in the
ethanol
that distils at the same temperature. That compound will make you very
sick. If you wash the ethanol out of the gas the compound goes with the
ethanol. You might be able to distil it again and use it to clean
parts.
Quote> I was hard pressed to find any down sides to the use of
ethanol as
a fuel. There are reports that the emissions of an ethanol burning
engine
can adversely affect plant life, but studies are still being conducted
to
prove or disprove this.
Answer> with all your wrong answers about engines, races, toxicity of
ethanol and production logistics I=92m not surprised you missed the
=93down
sides=94 If I were you I=92d read up on benzene.
Quote> Copyright =C2=A9 2000 - 2003 Vincent T. Ciulla All Rights
Reserved
Answer> I claim no copyright to my opinions and ideas. The truth
actually
belongs to all of us. Please feel free spread it around. Please,
don=92t
believe what I=92ve said here, Carte Blanche. Check it out for
yourself.
I=92ve said it before and I=92ll say it again and again and again... We
have a
huge problem with fossil fuels. They are dirty, they are toxic and they
are
in limited supply. Ethanol is NOT the answer... it=92s worse than a
decoy
leading us from finding a real viable answer it=92s like a double agent;
Paid
by one crowd to put down the home crowd.
Guy: I hope this is what you were looking for
Sigtaturea
Noel Loveys
Campbellton, NL, Canada
CDN AME intern, PP-Rec
C-FINB, Kitfox III-A
582 B box, Ivo IFA, Aerocet 1100 floats
noelloveys@yahoo.ca
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | alcohol in fuel - fiber glass tanks |
Chuck:
Far be it for me to put words into Dave's mouth. He is a high time pilot
who flies more in a month than I probably will in a life time. Some of us
talk about doing things. Dave is one of those, "Damn the torpedoes, full
speed ahead" guys who gets things done.... Fast.
He has the dash tank (HDPE?) and wing tanks so I doubt if any ethanol laced
fuel sits in his wings for any length of time. He does have a point about
conforming and I can guarantee unless he comes up with problems with the
fuel he won't stop using it. I'd like to see what his answer will be if he
does start to have problems... I expect it's all a matter of time.
I notice though he hasn't said anything about testing the fuel he uses.
My training is to avoid by whatever means anything that can be a possible
dangerous situation. Taken to the Nth degree that would mean I'd hide in a
deep hole for eternity. Practically speaking it means ethanol shouldn't be
used in planes. While investigating the pros and cons of ethanol I have
found and checked out the rest of my borrowed arguments.
A while ago ( almost a year now ) I talked to a chemical engineer at
Imperial Oil (Esso) who told me through ethanol production the demand for
Diesel actually increases. His words were," It's good for our business".
Esso as a brand has tried to keep ethanol out of its fuel as much as
possible. Basically what he said is there were no Esso gas stations in
Canada, supplied by Esso that had ethanol in their fuel except two. Those
were stations in municipalities in Ontario where there were by-laws
requiring the addition of ethanol. I think by this time provincial
legislation requires 10% ethanol in all (street ?) gas. The stuff
(ethanol)is cursedly expensive to handle, let alone purchase to put into
gas, so I'm sure Esso would be most happy to provide airports, marinas and
anyone else for that matter with Eth free gas if the government will let
them.
As for Mr. Ciulla being a shill for the ethanol lobby; He's either that a
brain dead politician in farm country or a farmer who wants a captive
customer. One thing is sure, something smells of rat!
Noel
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Chuck Popenoe
Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 12:54 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: alcohol in fuel - fiber glass tanks
Thanks, Noel, for taking the time to expose the lies and untruths in the
article written by Vincent T. Ciulla, (who must be a shill for the ethanol
lobby), which was presented as fact by Rotax Dealer Dave. Dave has been very
lucky to have experienced no problems due to E10 fuel. He must have the
newer fuel tanks made with vinylester resin. I haven't been so lucky. My
wing tank is of 1989 vintage (polyester resin), which has partially
dissolved, resulting in forced landings twice before I realized the cause of
the problem and stopped using E10 fuel. I may have to drive over 100 miles
to find pure gas, but I think that it's worth it!
I am one of the founders of Capital Area Light Flyers flying club (CALF),
and we have made the decision to be proactive in fighting the ethanol lobby.
Our goal is to convince legislators to exempt one grade of mogas (probably
premium) from the ethanol requirement. This has been accomplished presently
in at least four states, largely as a result of lobbying by EAA chapters or
groups of flyers! Several other states have this exemption before the
legislature. A farmer's lobby has already gained an exemption from mandated
ethanol for farm use. Most of CALF's membership resides in Maryland, so we
will initially shoot for a statewide Maryland premium fuel exemption. If we
are successful there maybe we'll tackle Virginia. The laws will not be
changed if we do nothing! BTW, McCain is the only presidential candidate
who has expressed opposition to the ethanol economy.
For those who wish to dig deeper, I'm attaching a white paper that we have
put together as a starter, with facts which are verified. We aim to gather
support from EAA, AOPA, BoatsUS, and any other groups adversely affected by
the E10 mandate.
Chuck Popenoe
Avid STOL N113P
Flying continuously since 1956
Checked by AVG.
4/14/2008 9:26 AM
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Ethanol removal? |
Randy:
What you say is true. In fact you can get a pretty good crop of seaweed
growing inside the fuel tanks of jets. I expect it's nature's way of
removing the water that forms in the tanks through condensation. Those
tanks unlike smaller planes are generally carrying fresh fuel 24-7. They
also see warm and sub zero temperatures every day.
Gas molecules are formed of rings...Carbon rings. Water on the other hand
is polar they can't form homogenous mixes, phase relationships or solutions.
Sooner than later water will settle out. I've even checked this out with
the past owner of a specialty lab and was assured that water and oil or gas
do not mix but it may take time for the water to settle out. In the case of
jet fuel because the fuel itself is so much more viscous than gas it may,
especially at lower temperatures, take a lot longer to settle out.
Diesel is especially prone to water from any source, including condensation
while sitting in underground storage tanks. The high pressure injector
pumps and the injectors themselves can be ruined by even the smallest amount
of water. A lot of diesel vehicles have water detectors that can now shut
off fuel flow and disable starters if any water is in the fuel system. It's
expensive to remove the water but not nearly as expensive a replacing the
injectors and pump. Unlike diesel injectors turbine injectors easily pass
water so there is no problem there.
I expect someday soon a procedure to produce ethanol from cellulose will be
perfected. I expect also it won't be energy efficient. And it still
doesn't address the problems of CO2 and benzene.
Yes I enjoy the discussions and I'm always open to new ideas. Ethanol isn't
all bad. I've consumed enough of it J. I digress! It is, however, bad as a
fuel, in a country where the raw material can go too far better uses. If
ethanol production were limited to excess farm product, some of the wind
would be taken out of my sails.
Sigtaturea
Noel Loveys
Campbellton, NL, Canada
CDN AME intern, PP-Rec
C-FINB, Kitfox III-A
582 B box, Ivo IFA, Aerocet 1100 floats
noelloveys@yahoo.ca
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Randy
Daughenbaugh
Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 12:36 PM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Ethanol removal?
Noel,
I agree with you on ethanol from Corn. The only justification that I can
see is it may help get the infrastructure in place for ethanol from
cellulose.
But what I was addressing was the danger of a home operation to remove
ethanol from gasoline with water. I was assuming that you were completely
successful in removing the ethanol and the danger that the remaining water
presents. You seem to like the sideways arguments so I will toss one out to
you.
Water is much more soluble in gasoline than diesel fuel. Yet there is a
spec for water in diesel fuel. And it is there for a reason.
Randy
.
_____
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Noel Loveys
Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2008 1:14 PM
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?
<rjdaugh@rapidnet.com>
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?
<rjdaugh@rapidnet.com>
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
to browse
Un/Subscription,
Browse, Chat, FAQ,
more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List
Web Forums!
http://forums.matronics.com
support!
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Kitfox 4 Classic compared to Avid MK IV questions |
It'll only be the Dark Side if he doesn't put a Jabiru in it. : )
Lynn Matteson
Grass Lake, Michigan
Kitfox IV Speedster w/Jabiru 2200
flying w/487+ hrs/down for annual
do not archive
On Apr 14, 2008, at 11:10 AM, Guy Buchanan wrote:
>
> At 07:40 AM 4/14/2008, you wrote:
>> Saterday I saw a Kitfox 4 project on ebay that was about 70 miles
>> away from me at a real good price on the buy it now. I ended up
>> pushing the buy it now button yesterday so now I have another
>> project on my hands.
>
> Jim you lucky dog! I wanted that Kitfox badly, just didn't have a
> place to store it. I'm glad it's in interested hands, though.
> Welcome to the Dark Side. (And proud of it!)
>
>
> Guy Buchanan, Kitfox List Moderator
> San Diego, CA
> K-IV 1200 / 582-C / Warp / 100% done, thanks mostly to Bob Ducar.
>
> Do not archive
>
>
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Kitfox 4 Classic compared to Avid MK IV questions |
> From: Lynn Matteson [lynnmatt@jps.net]
> It'll only be the Dark Side if he doesn't put a Jabiru in it. : )
He, he! :-)
Beside my model 3, I had a try at a Classic IV and an Avid on floats (with their
respective owners on board, of course). I have also been flying a few other
birds like the Rans and Sky Arrow. My opinion is that all small airplanes are
alike and no two are exactly the same. That's the world of experimental aviation.
This being said, the main difference is probably between taildraggers vs.
tricyles. But, of course, you all already know that. I don't think I would have
a problem to swap my Kitfox for an Avid. Aren't they brothers? :-)
Cheers,
Michel Verheughe
Norway
Kitfox 3 - Jabiru 2200
Do not archive
<pre><b><font size=2 color="#000000" face="courier new,courier">
</b></font></pre></body></html>
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Model 4 rudder gap |
I am in the process of filling the large gap between the rudder and vertical
stabilizer on my Kitfox.I have obtained some foam pieces for this purpose but
before gluing them to the leading edge of the rudder and covering I thought I
would write the group and see if anyone had done it and is it worth it.
I am tired of looking at that 1 1/2 to 2 inch gap and if for no other reason
then looks I want to fill it. I have heard that it improves the rudder
authority (although mine seems to be fine) Has anyone none this? I intend to epoxy
the shaped foam pieces to the leading edge of the rudder, cover with 6" tape
and then respray the covered area but before I screw it up, I thought I would
check with you guys
Thanks !
Dick Maddux
Fox 4
Pensacola,Fl
**************It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms and advice on AOL Money &
Finance. (http://money.aol.com/tax?NCID=aolcmp00300000002850)
Message 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Model 4 rudder gap |
I believe that is standard procedure on the classic 4. I have been looking
for a pic but cant seem to find one. I will take one the next time I am at
the airport if I can remember. In my classic 4 the foam was placed on the
trailing edge of the vert fin but a pic is worth a thousand words.
_____
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Catz631@aol.com
Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 4:27 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Model 4 rudder gap
I am in the process of filling the large gap between the rudder and vertical
stabilizer on my Kitfox.I have obtained some foam pieces for this purpose
but before gluing them to the leading edge of the rudder and covering I
thought I would write the group and see if anyone had done it and is it
worth it.
I am tired of looking at that 1 1/2 to 2 inch gap and if for no other
reason then looks I want to fill it. I have heard that it improves the
rudder authority (although mine seems to be fine) Has anyone none this? I
intend to epoxy the shaped foam pieces to the leading edge of the rudder,
cover with 6" tape and then respray the covered area but before I screw it
up, I thought I would check with you guys
Thanks !
Dick Maddux
Fox 4
Pensacola,Fl
_____
It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms and advice on AOL Money
<http://money.aol.com/tax?NCID=aolcmp00300000002850> & Finance.
Message 23
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Model 4 rudder gap |
[quote="Catz631(at)aol.com"]I am in the process of filling the large gap between
the rudder and vertical stabilizer on my Kitfox.I have obtained some foam pieces
for this purpose but before gluing them to the leading edge of the rudder
and covering I thought I would write the group and see if anyone had done it
and is it worth it.
I am tired of looking at that 1 1/2 to 2 inch gap and if for no other reason
then looks I want to fill it. I have heard that it improves the rudder authority
(although mine seems to be fine) Has anyone none this? I intend to epoxy the
shaped foam pieces to the leading edge of the rudder, cover with 6" tape and
then respray the covered area but before I screw it up, I thought I would check
with you guys
Thanks !
Dick Maddux
Fox 4
Pensacola,Fl
> [b]
Dick,
Good idea, it looks much better and reduces drag to fill the gap. The foam gap
seal instructions in the manual say it should be epoxied to the vertical fin
tail post. Also, I think the leading edge of the rudder will swing out of alignment
with the fin if the gap seal is attached to the rudder.
I cut straight edged rectangular openings in the foam to clear the rod ends.
later I saw a Kitfox with nice smooth curved openings around the rod ends. That
looks better. Unless you are really good at fabric work you will need bias
tape to finish it with the curved openings. Thats the way I would do it if I
built another plane.
--------
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=176832#176832
Message 24
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Model 4 rudder gap |
The gap on the classic and the 4/1200 are different. My classic speedwing
only has 1/2 inch gap. I thought about sealing, but it flies just fine without.
If I had the 1 1/2 inch gap like the 4/1200's I'd definitely seal. Steve
Bennett
**************It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms and advice on AOL Money &
Finance. (http://money.aol.com/tax?NCID=aolcmp00300000002850)
Message 25
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Got your attention |
I have to chime in here...this is precisely why I quit posting here, and rarely
ever lurk anymore on this list. If you don't recall, I'm the one flying the Geo
metro conversion on my model 2, which is doing fine, BTW. Much better than
the Rotax it replaced.
I'm only back (for a short while) because I bought a new Model 3, and am looking
to answer a couple questions.
I'm not impressed with the "Old Guard" here, and feel they need to be replaced,
or at least back down from posting their "gospel" as law. That being said, forums
like this one have a place in our world, and are a fantastic resource for
those, like me, who don't have twenty Kitfox's nearby to research.
I've taken my toys and gone home, and I intend to stay there, for now anyway.
Bradley
--------
Beemer
KF2
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=176852#176852
Message 26
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Got your attention |
looks like someone needs a hug :) but I hear what you are saying.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Beemer
Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 7:37 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Got your attention
I have to chime in here...this is precisely why I quit posting here, and
rarely ever lurk anymore on this list. If you don't recall, I'm the one
flying the Geo metro conversion on my model 2, which is doing fine, BTW.
Much better than the Rotax it replaced.
I'm only back (for a short while) because I bought a new Model 3, and am
looking to answer a couple questions.
I'm not impressed with the "Old Guard" here, and feel they need to be
replaced, or at least back down from posting their "gospel" as law. That
being said, forums like this one have a place in our world, and are a
fantastic resource for those, like me, who don't have twenty Kitfox's nearby
to research.
I've taken my toys and gone home, and I intend to stay there, for now
anyway.
Bradley
--------
Beemer
KF2
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=176852#176852
Message 27
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Kitfox 4 Classic compared to Avid MK IV questions |
> Jim, they're very close cousins and I doubt you'll find much difference in the
two. Just keep it light.
> Congratulations!
> Deke Morisse
> Mikado Michigan
Deke, you are incorrect, although cousins they both have very different flying
characteristics. I have flown both as well as Kitfox 1 ,2 3 , 4 and and differnt
clones. Plus Avids up to heavy hauler Mark IV.
As discussed the other day my videos show it all -- if you look in those youtube flicks this one shows a blue Heavy hauler http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tR16rYZFccU
You can see the Kitfox IV lifts off alot quicker, but hey I am at the controls.
The second one is a Kitfox clone . Ther is one or two more with that same
avid in it .
The avid seems to fly well -- 618 and cruises about 85 mph good climb rate about
1200 to 1400 fpm but it was a laggart off the ground in about 400 feet or
a bit less. Like the Early Kitfoxes models 1,2 and 3 the avid has not Aileron
differential which leaves you with more adverse yaw. The Model IV kitfox
rectified a good part of this by going to a 2 to 1 Aileron differential as you
likely are aware of.
I will tell you that the Avid Struts I think are a bit stronger than the Kitfox
Rod ends. They have a piece of 4130 wrapped around the wing bolt and welded on.
Far superior strengthwise that the rod ends. That being said I do not know
of a Kitfox Rod end separation. Denny went to rod ends to accommodate the builders
tolerances and differences.
All this being said both Avids and Kitfoxes are truly remarkable flying aircraft
and a good majority of them sell dirt cheap on the used market.
Kitfox are the second more popular aircraft in the USA registered.
Deke, one thing I will agree with you on is the fact to KEEP THEM LIGHT .
My IV is 550 ish and works very well .
--------
Rotax Dealer, Ontario Canada
Flying Videos and Kitfox Info
http://www.cfisher.com/
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=176861#176861
Message 28
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Got your attention |
> I'm not impressed with the "Old Guard" here, and feel they need to be replaced,
or at least back down from posting their "gospel" as law. That being said,
forums like this one have a place in our world, and are a fantastic resource for
those, like me, who don't have twenty Kitfox's nearby to research.
>
Bradley, Great to see you back. WHat kind of performance are ou getting on your
GEO now compared to the 582 ?
Dave
(old and crusty, but not a old guard ) :-)
--------
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=176863#176863
Message 29
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Small Side window? |
Guy,
I hear what you are saying, my 4 had all clear glass, and in the hot weather
here, (right around Oshkosh time) it can be a cooker. What I did on the 4
was to fab door latches that would allow me to either close the door tight
or have it a half inch open, it was just enough to get a nice breeze in the
cockpit without blowing everything around, I plan to install them on the 5
as well, however, they will not keep the UV out.
Lloyd
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Guy Buchanan
Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2008 11:12 PM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Re: Small Side window?
At 08:44 AM 4/13/2008, you wrote:
>Too late, all the glass is in, but just out of curiosity, how did you shade
>them? My turtle deck was already shaded but the main windscreen is clear,
>door glass is shaded.
Mine isn't, that's why I suggested it. I fly in my own
little microwave oven. I have to admit it's nice in the winter,
however. When I replace my window I'll take it to the guys that did
my car. They put a rather permanent coating on the windows that
blocked 97% of the UV without blocking much of the light. It works
and has lasted six years without visible degradation. I don't know
their process.
Guy Buchanan
San Diego, CA
K-IV 1200 / 582-C / Warp / 100% done, thanks mostly to Bob Ducar.
Message 30
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Model 4 rudder gap |
Hi Dick-
I've enclosed a picture of my vertical stab when I added some
airfoils, and a gap-filling method that I used during my building. It
may be more than you want to do, but thought I'd include it for your
edification. After I shot these pictures, I added a vertical
stiffener to each horizontal rib, as has been done on the 2nd rib
from the top on the rudder. The formed piece is aluminum sheet, and
the rudder pieces are balsa wood on the sides, with the foam stuff
that Skystar included with the kit, sandwiched between.
Lynn Matteson
Grass Lake, Michigan
Kitfox IV Speedster w/Jabiru 2200
flying w/490+ hrs
On Apr 14, 2008, at 5:27 PM, Catz631@aol.com wrote:
> I am in the process of filling the large gap between the rudder and
> vertical stabilizer on my Kitfox.I have obtained some foam pieces
> for this purpose but before gluing them to the leading edge of the
> rudder and covering I thought I would write the group and see if
> anyone had done it and is it worth it.
> I am tired of looking at that 1 1/2 to 2 inch gap and if for no
> other reason then looks I want to fill it. I have heard that it
> improves the rudder authority (although mine seems to be fine) Has
> anyone none this? I intend to epoxy the shaped foam pieces to the
> leading edge of the rudder, cover with 6" tape and then respray the
> covered area but before I screw it up, I thought I would check with
> you guys
> Thanks !
> Dick Maddux
> Fox 4
> Pensacola,Fl
>
>
Message 31
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Small Side window? |
I may be wrong here but I thought that all clear glass (and plexi) filtered out
UV, that is why you don't get a sunburn through the glass even thought the sun
is beating down on you. It does not filter the radiant heat though, that is
where the microwave effect comes in. Like I said, I could be wrong but I have
never been sunburned through a window and the UV rays are what produce the burn.
Having said this, I wish i would have gone with the "smoked" doors and windscreen
because the tint will reduce the temp in the cabin a bit.
--------
Darin Hawkes
Series 7 (Painting)
914 Turbo
Kaysville, Utah
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=176891#176891
Message 32
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Model 4 rudder gap |
Anothe option that I used on my mod 4 and on previously owned gliders
is to use about a 3" strip of fabric glued on one side of the fin and
the other side of the rudder. Very light weight and easy to rig.
You might want to paint the strip before applying and contact cement
in place.
On Apr 14, 2008, at 2:49 PM, kirk hull wrote:
> I believe that is standard procedure on the classic 4. I have been
> looking for a pic but cant seem to find one. I will take one the
> next time I am at the airport if I can remember. In my classic 4
> the foam was placed on the trailing edge of the vert fin but a pic
> is worth a thousand words.
>
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-kitfox-
> list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Catz631@aol.com
> Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 4:27 PM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Kitfox-List: Model 4 rudder gap
>
> I am in the process of filling the large gap between the rudder and
> vertical stabilizer on my Kitfox.I have obtained some foam pieces
> for this purpose but before gluing them to the leading edge of the
> rudder and covering I thought I would write the group and see if
> anyone had done it and is it worth it.
> I am tired of looking at that 1 1/2 to 2 inch gap and if for no
> other reason then looks I want to fill it. I have heard that it
> improves the rudder authority (although mine seems to be fine) Has
> anyone none this? I intend to epoxy the shaped foam pieces to the
> leading edge of the rudder, cover with 6" tape and then respray the
> covered area but before I screw it up, I thought I would check with
> you guys
> Thanks !
> Dick Maddux
> Fox 4
> Pensacola,Fl
>
>
> It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms and advice on AOL Money & Finance.
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
>
Message 33
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Kitfox 4 Classic compared to Avid MK IV questions |
Thanks Lynn and everyone else for the replys to my question. As far as the
engine goes, I'm really not sure. The Jabiru in my Avid MK IV doesn't get
me off the ground as fast as the 582 did, (a concern with my short strip w
ith trees on the end) but I have picked up quite a bit on cruise speed.
I guess I still am not happy with the fixed pitch short wood prop compared
to a ground adjustable 72" or so. I would like to look in the direction of
a 80 HP 912, but I'm in no rush. If I'm patient, and in no rush, a good
deal will come along, just like the Kitfox 4 did. Thanks again to all, J
im Chuk Avids, Kitfox 4 Mn> From: lynnmatt@jps.net> Subject: Re: Kitfox
-List: Kitfox 4 Classic compared to Avid MK IV questions> Date: Mon, 14 Apr
2008 15:39:13 -0400> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com> > --> Kitfox-List mess
age posted by: Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net>> > It'll only be the Dark S
ide if he doesn't put a Jabiru in it. : )> > Lynn Matteson> Grass Lake, Mic
higan> Kitfox IV Speedster w/Jabiru 2200> flying w/487+ hrs/down for annual
> do not archive> > > On Apr 14, 2008, at 11:10 AM, Guy Buchanan wrote:> >
t 07:40 AM 4/14/2008, you wrote:> >> Saterday I saw a Kitfox 4 project on e
bay that was about 70 miles > >> away from me at a real good price on the b
uy it now. I ended up > >> pushing the buy it now button yesterday so now I
have another > >> project on my hands.> >> > Jim you lucky dog! I wanted t
hat Kitfox badly, just didn't have a > > place to store it. I'm glad it's i
n interested hands, though. > > Welcome to the Dark Side. (And proud of it!
)> >> >> > Guy Buchanan, Kitfox List Moderator> > San Diego, CA> > K-IV 120
0 / 582-C / Warp / 100% done, thanks mostly to Bob Ducar.> >> > Do not arch
=======> > >
_________________________________________________________________
Going green? See the top 12 foods to eat organic.
http://green.msn.com/galleries/photos/photos.aspx?gid=164&ocid=T003MSN5
1N1653A
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|