Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 03:38 AM - Re: Performance stats for a Model II (dave)
2. 04:08 AM - Re: Performance stats for a Model II (Bob Brennan)
3. 04:21 AM - Re: Hydraulic Lock (Catz631@aol.com)
4. 04:24 AM - Re: Re: Performance stats for a Model II (Bob Brennan)
5. 05:16 AM - Re: Performance stats for a Model II (dave)
6. 06:10 AM - Re: Hydraulic Lock (paul wilson)
7. 06:49 AM - Re: Radiator scoop (yodaone)
8. 07:08 AM - Re: Hydraulic Lock (Lowell Fitt)
9. 07:40 AM - Re: Performance stats for a Model II (Marco Menezes)
10. 09:09 AM - Thanks (Jim Gilliatt)
11. 01:23 PM - Re: Re: Performance stats for a Model II (skyflyte@comcast.net)
12. 04:07 PM - Re: Hydraulic Lock (Lynn Matteson)
13. 04:11 PM - Re: Performance stats for a Model II (Lynn Matteson)
14. 04:19 PM - Re: Performance stats for a Model II (Noel Loveys)
15. 06:04 PM - Re: Performance stats for a Model II (Paul Morel)
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: Performance stats for a Model II |
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I don't know where you are getting your information.? My Kitfox Pilot's Guide
says that a Model II 582 powered aircraft has a take off distance of 250 feet
C landing ground roll of 250 feet and climb rate of 900 feet / minute.
> ?
> Clint
>
Guys you have to remember that performance will always be given to the lightest
planes. The Model 2 book will show 1600 fpm @ a gross of 650 lbs if you look.and
1200 fpm at 1050 gross.
Take off run is 75 feet solo @ 650 again and 200 feet at 1050 gross.
Her is link right here http://cfisher.com/kitfox/kitfox2poh.pdf Funny thing is I forgot I had that manual online until i did a google search http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GGIH_enCA221CA221&q=kitfox+manual And it pointed me to my own site TOO FUNNY ............
So remember compare apples to apples and not to oranges. The early Avids under
400 empty use to climb over 2000 fpm . weight is your enemy.
For what it's worth I do find the model 2 numbers a little stretched....... fuel
flow is low cruise is high and stall speeds listed are abit low . But hte
model 2 has the undercamber wing and if built light it will give better numbers.
A good rule of thumb is every pound that you go over 400 pound empty weight
you will lose 3 to 4 FPM climb......... so take your 600 lb empty Kitfox
and realize that you have a penalty of about 600 to 800 fpm loss from extra
weight already before you even get into the plane.
BY the way -- it is on Page 5 here http://cfisher.com/kitfox/kitfox2poh.pdf
Realtime Kitfox movies to separate the internet chatter from the truth
http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=kitfoxflyer
Dave
--------
Rotax Dealer, Ontario Canada
Flying Videos and Kitfox Info
http://www.cfisher.com/
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=190837#190837
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: | Performance stats for a Model II |
Hi Marco - where do I find the serial number? My plane was finished in 1991
but I believe was worked on for several years, so may be a mixture of II and
III?
I don't think I can do a takeoff in 75ft but less than 250ft would be easy,
as would a slightly more than 100ft roll-out with a little precision and
practice. The previous owner bragged of being able to do a "vertical"
landing given enough headwind, and it's not too difficult to achieve 0mph
groundspeed at altitude with full flaps, nose high, and power.
I also don't think 1600fpm sustained is possible in my Kitfox but 1000 is
typical and I would guess I could push that to 1200 on a good day and no
breakfast.
I thought that Model II to III was a beefing up for more MTOW as Marco said
plus a larger tail assembly to correct the loss of control authority at low
speeds, hardly anything that would increase performance stats as published.
The 2 pages from my "Kitfox Owners Manual Model II" are the same as
<http://cfisher.com/kitfox/kitfox2poh.pdf>
http://cfisher.com/kitfox/kitfox2poh.pdf except that mine say "Model III" at
the top, which is obviously wrong.
Bob Brennan
1991 Model 2(?) Kitfox
Rotax 582 with 3 blade prop
Wrightsville Pa
_____
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Marco Menezes
Sent: 01 July 2008 8:23 pm
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Performance stats for a Model II
Can't imagine the mods made to the 3 to increase MTOW to 1050 could possibly
make much difference in the relative performance numbers. As I recall, it
was mostly beefing up of the spar carry-trough tubes. Correct me if I'm
wrong listers.
Clint's numbers are real-world. What's the kit s/n on your 2 Bob?
Marco Menezes N99KX
Model 2 582-90 C-Box 3:1
--- On Tue, 7/1/08, Bob Brennan <matronics@bob.brennan.name> wrote:
From: Bob Brennan <matronics@bob.brennan.name>
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Performance stats for a Model II
Those numbers certainly sound more realistic Clint. I got the numbers from
the "Kitfox Owners Manual Model II" that came with the logbooks, and I
assume came with the original kit from Denney. However the title on the
Performance page says "Performance KITFOX Model III" and I am reading under
the "Rotax 582LC, solo" column. I always thought the "III" was a typo since
all the other data seems to match, and I have always been led to believe I
have a Model II.
So I guess my question changes to - is 75ft takeoff and 100ft landing and
1600fpm climb out valid for a Model III? Does anyone have access to Model II
performance pages that they can scan for me please? And what are the major
recognisable differences between a Model II and III?
Bob Brennan
1991 Model 2(?!) Kitfox
Rotax 582 with 3 blade prop
Wrightsville Pa
_____
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Clint Bazzill
Sent: 01 July 2008 3:30 pm
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Performance stats for a Model II
I don't know where you are getting your information. My Kitfox Pilot's
Guide says that a Model II 582 powered aircraft has a take off distance of
250 feet, landing ground roll of 250 feet and climb rate of 900 feet /
minute.
Clint
_____
From: matronics@bob.brennan.name
Subject: Kitfox-List: Performance stats for a Model II
Hi all - I have a general question about the published performance stats for
my Model II, they don't seem to be realistic.
Specifically - the takeoff distance is listed as 75ft, landing roll as
100ft, both "solo". I've done some pretty quick off-the-grounders with a
good headwind and no fuel to speak of, but 75ft?(!) Is this possibly an
interpolated number for the aircraft at "empty" weight with no pilot or
fuel? Obviously performance specs differ for every pilot/plane combination
but I thought specs were for a typical 170(?)lb pilot at 0 MSL on a perfect
day. I'm not that far off 170lb (well, not TOO far that a gallon or 2 of gas
wouldn't make up for...)
Climb-out is listed as 1600fpm. In which parallel universe? I have achieved
900fpm sustained on a good day, alone, light fuel, and having recently
lightened my own load (I call it "dumping ballast").
I have tested Vne, stall speeds in various configurations, best angle and
best rate of climb, etc but not MTOW or max Gs, and have no intention of
doing so, but with takeoff/landing distances and rate-of-climb seemingly so
far off I have to wonder about the other stats.
Yes - the airplane is configured as stated in the performance data column
and the engine only had 80 hours since a complete overhaul so I don't think
age was a factor. The prop is a ground-adjustable type and was tested and
re-set early in flight testing although I don't know if the setting is for
optimal performance, that's the only thing I can think of.
Thanks in advance,
Bob Brennan
1991 Model 2 Kitfox
Rotax 582 with 3 blade prop
Wrightsville Pa
target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List
ttp://forums.matronics.com
=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List">http://www.matronhref
"http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
D========================
=========
D========================
=========
D========================
=========
D========================
=========
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: Hydraulic Lock |
Which brings up my next question. Has anyone come up with a workable idea to
stop the siphoning of oil into the engine from the oil tank or is that not
possible? I know the tank is too high on the Kitfox and it is out of position
for the Rotax 912/914. If you let the aircraft sit for a month (ie: vacation)
you sure run a risk of the oil seeping past the rings. I had thought about a
valve but figured I would probably forget to open it.
Dick Maddux
Pensacola,Fl (hot !)
**************Gas prices getting you down? Search AOL Autos for
fuel-efficient used cars. (http://autos.aol.com/used?ncid=aolaut00050000000007)
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: Performance stats for a Model II |
Your document Dave is exactly the same as my printed document except that
the title on the top of my pages says "Model III" and in mine the Gross
Weight says 1050 while yours says 950. Note that yours also says "Model III"
for gross weight.
Should we assume that the people at Denney at the time were not too careful
with their document control? I also assume my Gross Weight stat should read
"Model II 950 lbs"?
I forgot to note the cambered wing undersides of my Model II vs the Model
III which I believe has flat undersides, and a correspondingly faster
cruise(?)
Does anyone have a complete, and accurate, stats listing for the Model III
online?
Bob Brennan
1991 Model 2(?) Kitfox
Rotax 582 with 3 blade prop
Wrightsville Pa
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of dave
Sent: 02 July 2008 6:35 am
Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Performance stats for a Model II
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
>
> I don't know where you are getting your information.? My Kitfox Pilot's
Guide says that a Model II 582 powered aircraft has a take off distance of
250 feet C landing ground roll of 250 feet and climb rate of 900 feet /
minute.
> ?
> Clint
>
Guys you have to remember that performance will always be given to the
lightest planes. The Model 2 book will show 1600 fpm @ a gross of 650 lbs
if you look.and 1200 fpm at 1050 gross.
Take off run is 75 feet solo @ 650 again and 200 feet at 1050 gross.
Her is link right here http://cfisher.com/kitfox/kitfox2poh.pdf Funny
thing is I forgot I had that manual online until i did a google search
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GGIH_enCA221
CA221&q=kitfox+manual And it pointed me to my own site TOO FUNNY
............
So remember compare apples to apples and not to oranges. The early Avids
under 400 empty use to climb over 2000 fpm . weight is your enemy.
For what it's worth I do find the model 2 numbers a little stretched.......
fuel flow is low cruise is high and stall speeds listed are abit low .
But hte model 2 has the undercamber wing and if built light it will give
better numbers. A good rule of thumb is every pound that you go over 400
pound empty weight you will lose 3 to 4 FPM climb......... so take your
600 lb empty Kitfox and realize that you have a penalty of about 600 to 800
fpm loss from extra weight already before you even get into the plane.
BY the way -- it is on Page 5 here
http://cfisher.com/kitfox/kitfox2poh.pdf
Realtime Kitfox movies to separate the internet chatter from the truth
http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=kitfoxflyer
Dave
--------
Rotax Dealer, Ontario Canada
Flying Videos and Kitfox Info
http://www.cfisher.com/
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=190837#190837
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: Performance stats for a Model II |
> I forgot to note the cambered wing undersides of my Model II vs the Model
> III which I believe has flat undersides, and a correspondingly faster
> cruise(?)
I could be mistaken but the flatter bottom wing started on the IV as well as the
leading edge extension that added a few more mph.
I think the model 3 was a gross weight change from 950 to 1050 but the aileron
differential started in model IV. The lighter any model will give you the
best climb numbers as well as horsepower. The Rotax 2 stokes namely the 582
do in fact give the best power to weight ratio and perform well. The 912 ul
912 s and 914 will give you the extra torque in cruise to increase the cruise
speeds. Where my 582 IV will cruise at 92 a similar weight IV with a 912 set
up properly will give you 110 to 125 mph cruise.
--------
Rotax Dealer, Ontario Canada
Flying Videos and Kitfox Info
http://www.cfisher.com/
Realtime Kitfox movies to separate the internet chatter from the truth
http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=kitfoxflyer
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=190848#190848
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: Hydraulic Lock |
siphoning ? Not likely.
Or just thin viscosity oil that creeps past the oil pump?? I would
expect that it would occur after a hot shutdown?
On these hot days is the correct viscosity used?
Paul
=========
At 05:18 AM 7/2/2008, you wrote:
>Which brings up my next question. Has anyone come up with a workable
>idea to stop the siphoning of oil into the engine from the oil tank
>or is that not possible? I know the tank is too high on the Kitfox
>and it is out of position for the Rotax 912/914. If you let the
>aircraft sit for a month (ie: vacation) you sure run a risk of the
>oil seeping past the rings. I had thought about a valve but figured
>I would probably forget to open it.
> Dick Maddux
> Pensacola,Fl (hot !)
>
>
>----------
>Gas prices getting you down? Search AOL Autos for fuel-efficient
><http://autos.aol.com/used?ncid=aolaut00050000000007>used cars.
>
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Radiator scoop |
Installed the scoop and fastened it to the fuselage using three stainless screws.
I did not remove the floor boards.
Chose this hardware because it provided the perfect spacer.
Hammered/flattened out the the spikes, drilled the holes, and installed.
--------
1991 Kitfox IV 1050LB
Rotax 912UL
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=190878#190878
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/scoop_kitfox_041_362.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/scoop_kitfox_010_182.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/scoop_kitfox_007_114.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/scoop_kitfox_034_506.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/bolt_010_684.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/bolt_004_649.jpg
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: | Re: Hydraulic Lock |
Paul,
This was my experience for the most part. I found that If I would do the
prop thing a few yours after a flight, the oil would stay in the tank ready
to go for at least a week. I think it is the reduced viscosity of the oil
when hot that results in the majority of the siphoning. Of course what Dick
mentions, the high location of the oil tank is the real culprit.
Lowell
----- Original Message -----
From: "paul wilson" <pwmac@sisna.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 5:54 AM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Hydraulic Lock
>
> siphoning ? Not likely.
> Or just thin viscosity oil that creeps past the oil pump?? I would expect
> that it would occur after a hot shutdown?
> On these hot days is the correct viscosity used?
> Paul
> =========
>
> At 05:18 AM 7/2/2008, you wrote:
>>Which brings up my next question. Has anyone come up with a workable idea
>>to stop the siphoning of oil into the engine from the oil tank or is that
>>not possible? I know the tank is too high on the Kitfox and it is out of
>>position for the Rotax 912/914. If you let the aircraft sit for a month
>>(ie: vacation) you sure run a risk of the oil seeping past the rings. I
>>had thought about a valve but figured I would probably forget to open it.
>> Dick Maddux
>> Pensacola,Fl (hot !)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>----------
>>Gas prices getting you down? Search AOL Autos for fuel-efficient
>><http://autos.aol.com/used?ncid=aolaut00050000000007>used cars.
>>
>
>
>
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: | Performance stats for a Model II |
Bob:
-
I don't know whether-the s/n is stamped somewhere on the airframe. Maybe
someone out there knows? I only know mine from the paperwork I got when I b
ought the airplane. (S/n 374, delivered in 1989). I've heard here that ther
e was some "blending" of the models between the last of the 2's and first o
f the 3's. Certainly, as non-structural mods were made these were incorpora
ted into many kits then in-progress.
-
Marco Menezes N99KX
Model 2 582-90 C-Box 3:1
--- On Wed, 7/2/08, Bob Brennan <matronics@bob.brennan.name> wrote:
From: Bob Brennan <matronics@bob.brennan.name>
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Performance stats for a Model II
Hi Marco - where do I find the serial number? My plane was finished in 1991
but-I believe was worked on for several years, so may be a mixture of II
and III?
-
I don't think I can do a takeoff in 75ft but less than 250ft would be easy,
as would a slightly more than 100ft roll-out with a little precision and p
ractice. The previous owner bragged of being able to do a "vertical" landin
g given enough headwind, and it's not too difficult to achieve 0mph grounds
peed at altitude with full flaps, nose high, and power.
-
I also don't think 1600fpm sustained is possible in my Kitfox but 1000 is t
ypical and I would guess I could push that to 1200 on a good day and no bre
akfast.
-
I thought that Model II to III was a beefing up for more MTOW as Marco said
plus a larger tail assembly to correct the loss of control authority at lo
w speeds, hardly anything that would increase performance stats as publishe
d.
-
The 2 pages from my "Kitfox Owners Manual Model II"-are the same as http:
//cfisher.com/kitfox/kitfox2poh.pdf-except that mine say "Model III" at t
he top, which is obviously wrong.
Bob Brennan
1991 Model 2(?) Kitfox
Rotax 582 with 3 blade prop
Wrightsville Pa
-
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-serv
er@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Marco Menezes
Sent: 01 July 2008 8:23 pm
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Performance stats for a Model II
Can't imagine the mods made to the 3 to increase MTOW to 1050 could possibl
y make much difference in the relative performance numbers. As I recall, it
was mostly beefing up of the spar carry-trough tubes. Correct me if I'm wr
ong listers.
-
Clint's numbers are real-world. What's the kit s/n on your 2 Bob?
-
Marco Menezes N99KX
Model 2 582-90 C-Box 3:1
--- On Tue, 7/1/08, Bob Brennan <matronics@bob.brennan.name> wrote:
From: Bob Brennan <matronics@bob.brennan.name>
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Performance stats for a Model II
#yiv1484170043 #yiv2028182423 .hmmessage P {
PADDING-RIGHT:0px;PADDING-LEFT:0px;PADDING-BOTTOM:0px;MARGIN:0px;PADDING-TO
P:0px;}
#yiv1484170043 #yiv2028182423 {
FONT-SIZE:10pt;FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma;}
Those numbers certainly sound more realistic Clint. I got the numbers from
the "Kitfox Owners Manual Model II" that came with the logbooks, and I assu
me came with the original kit from Denney. However the title on the Perform
ance page says "Performance KITFOX Model III" and I am reading under the "R
otax 582LC, solo" column. I always thought the "III" was a typo since all t
he other data seems to match, and I have always been led to believe I have
a Model II.
-
So I guess my question changes to - is 75ft takeoff and 100ft landing and 1
600fpm climb out valid for a Model III? Does anyone have access to Model II
performance pages that they can scan for me please? And what are the major
recognisable differences between a Model II and III?
-
Bob Brennan
1991 Model 2(?!) Kitfox
Rotax 582 with 3 blade prop
Wrightsville Pa
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-serv
er@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Clint Bazzill
Sent: 01 July 2008 3:30 pm
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Performance stats for a Model II
I don't know where you are getting your information.- My Kitfox Pilot's G
uide says that a Model II 582 powered aircraft has a take off distance of 2
50 feet, landing ground roll of 250 feet and climb rate of 900 feet / minut
e.
-
Clint
From: matronics@bob.brennan.name
Subject: Kitfox-List: Performance stats for a Model II
Hi all - I have a general question about the published performance stats fo
r my Model II, they don't seem to be realistic.
-
Specifically - the takeoff distance is listed as 75ft, landing roll as 100f
t, both "solo". I've done some pretty quick off-the-grounders with a good h
eadwind and no fuel to speak of, but 75ft?(!) Is this possibly an interpola
ted number for the aircraft at "empty" weight with no pilot or fuel? Obviou
sly performance specs differ for every pilot/plane combination but I though
t specs were for a typical 170(?)lb pilot at 0 MSL on a perfect day. I'm no
t that far off 170lb (well, not TOO far that a gallon or 2 of gas wouldn't
make up for...)
-
Climb-out is listed as 1600fpm. In which parallel universe? I have achieved
900fpm sustained on a good day, alone, light fuel, and having recently lig
htened my own load (I call it "dumping ballast").
-
I have tested Vne, stall speeds in various configurations, best angle and b
est rate of climb, etc but not MTOW or max Gs, and have no intention of doi
ng so, but with takeoff/landing distances and rate-of-climb seemingly so fa
r off I have to wonder about the other stats.
-
Yes - the airplane is configured as stated in the performance data column a
nd the engine only-had 80 hours since a complete overhaul so I don't thin
k age was a factor. The prop is a ground-adjustable type and was tested and
re-set early in flight testing although I don't know if the setting is for
optimal performance, that's the only thing I can think of.
-
Thanks in advance,
-
Bob Brennan
1991 Model 2 Kitfox
Rotax 582 with 3 blade prop
Wrightsville Pa
target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List
ttp://forums.matronics.com
=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
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
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
href='3D"http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List"'>http://www.matr
onics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
href='3D"http://forums.matronics.com"'>http://forums.matronics.com
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
href='3D"http://www.matronics.com/contribution"'>http://www.matronics.com
/contribution
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
=0A=0A=0A
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 |
|
Thanks everyone for the pointers and pages. The archives shed a lot of
information, and I think it will be quite helpful.
Cheers,
Jim Gilliatt
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: Performance stats for a Model II |
I have a model 2 and shared my hangar with a model 3.5. The 3.5 was a model 3
(1050#) with the model 4 wings and lift struts. We both have the same engine
(582) and prop (GSC) and the 3.5 was about 10 mph faster at the same rpm setting.
My model 2 was a bit lighter and I would regularly see 1300 fpm climb rates
@ 55 mph. I could get a bit higher climb rate if I wanted, but 1300 fpm was
more than enough.
Mike Cannon
N490MC
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "dave" <dave@cfisher.com>
>
>
> > I forgot to note the cambered wing undersides of my Model II vs the Model
> > III which I believe has flat undersides, and a correspondingly faster
> > cruise(?)
>
>
> I could be mistaken but the flatter bottom wing started on the IV as well as
the
> leading edge extension that added a few more mph.
>
> I think the model 3 was a gross weight change from 950 to 1050 but the
> aileron differential started in model IV. The lighter any model will give you
> the best climb numbers as well as horsepower. The Rotax 2 stokes namely the
> 582 do in fact give the best power to weight ratio and perform well. The 912
> ul 912 s and 914 will give you the extra torque in cruise to increase the cruise
> speeds. Where my 582 IV will cruise at 92 a similar weight IV with a 912 set
> up properly will give you 110 to 125 mph cruise.
>
> --------
> Rotax Dealer, Ontario Canada
> Flying Videos and Kitfox Info
> http://www.cfisher.com/
> Realtime Kitfox movies to separate the internet chatter from the truth
> http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=kitfoxflyer
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=190848#190848
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
<html><body>
<DIV>I have a model 2 and shared my hangar with a model 3.5. The 3.5
was a model 3 (1050#) with the model 4 wings and lift struts. We both have
the same engine (582) and prop (GSC) and the 3.5 was about 10 mph faster at
the same rpm setting. My model 2 was a bit lighter and I would regularly
see 1300 fpm climb rates @ 55 mph. I could get a bit higher climb rate
if I wanted, but 1300 fpm was more than enough.</DIV>
<DIV>Mike Cannon</DIV>
<DIV>N490MC</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px
solid">-------------- Original message -------------- <BR>From: "dave" <dave@cfisher.com>
<BR><BR>> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "dave"
<DAVE@CFISHER.COM><BR>> <BR>> <BR>> > I forgot to note the cambered
wing undersides of my Model II vs the Model <BR>> > III which I believe
has flat undersides, and a correspondingly faster <BR>> > cruise(?) <BR>>
<BR>> <BR>> I could be mistaken but the flatter bottom wing started
on the IV as well as the <BR>> leading edge extension that added a few more
mph. <BR>> <BR>> I think the model 3 was a gross weight change from
950 to 1050 but the <BR>> aileron differential started in model IV. The lighter
any model will give you <BR>> the best climb numbers as well as horsepower.
The Rotax 2 stokes namely the <BR>> 582 do in fact give the best power
to weight ratio and perform well. The 912 <BR>>
ul 912
&
<pre><b><font size=2 color="#000000" face="courier new,courier">
</b></font></pre></body></html>
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: Hydraulic Lock |
Whaddya mean "sit for a month...vacation" ? I'm going on a 4-day
vacation, and, not being able to make arrangements for someone to
drive my tiny motorhome to the vacation site, I'm driving the
motorhome, and towing the plane with me. It's a 150 or so mile trip,
but I ain't gonna let my baby sit at home, and I'm not gonna pitch a
tent this time, so that means tow the 'fox to the nearest field, and
fly every chance I get, while enjoying the comforts of the MH while
there. If this works out, I may even do the same thing for
Oshkosh...tow the plane, and enjoy the "hard roof" that the motorhome
offers. It was a pain in the ass trying to recall just how to fold
the wings, load the trailer, etc., but I endured, and tomorrow I'll
head out for Sharps Strip (2E2), and have a flying weekend. : )
Lynn Matteson
Kitfox IV Speedster
Jabiru 2200
Status: flying w/541 hrs
do not archive
On Jul 2, 2008, at 7:18 AM, Catz631@aol.com wrote:
> Which brings up my next question. Has anyone come up with a
> workable idea to stop the siphoning of oil into the engine from the
> oil tank or is that not possible? I know the tank is too high on
> the Kitfox and it is out of position for the Rotax 912/914. If you
> let the aircraft sit for a month (ie: vacation) you sure run a risk
> of the oil seeping past the rings. I had thought about a valve but
> figured I would probably forget to open it.
> Dick Maddux
> Pensacola,Fl (hot !)
>
>
> Gas prices getting you down? Search AOL Autos for fuel-efficient
> used cars.
> www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List _-
> www.matronics.com/contribution _-
> ===========================================================
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: Performance stats for a Model II |
Marco-
The serial # on my IV is stamped on the shoulder harness center
location plate. Look closely, it may be obfuscated with powder coating.
Lynn Matteson
Kitfox IV Speedster
Jabiru 2200
Status: flying w/541 hrs
On Jul 2, 2008, at 10:36 AM, Marco Menezes wrote:
> Bob:
>
>
> I don't know whether the s/n is stamped somewhere on the airframe.
> Maybe someone out there knows? I only know mine from the paperwork
> I got when I bought the airplane. (S/n 374, delivered in 1989).
> I've heard here that there was some "blending" of the models
> between the last of the 2's and first of the 3's. Certainly, as non-
> structural mods were made these were incorporated into many kits
> then in-progress.
>
>
> Marco Menezes N99KX
> Model 2 582-90 C-Box 3:1
>
>
> --- On Wed, 7/2/08, Bob Brennan <matronics@bob.brennan.name> wrote:
>
> From: Bob Brennan <matronics@bob.brennan.name>
> Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Performance stats for a Model II
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Date: Wednesday, July 2, 2008, 7:05 AM
>
> Hi Marco - where do I find the serial number? My plane was finished
> in 1991 but I believe was worked on for several years, so may be a
> mixture of II and III?
>
> I don't think I can do a takeoff in 75ft but less than 250ft would
> be easy, as would a slightly more than 100ft roll-out with a little
> precision and practice. The previous owner bragged of being able to
> do a "vertical" landing given enough headwind, and it's not too
> difficult to achieve 0mph groundspeed at altitude with full flaps,
> nose high, and power.
>
> I also don't think 1600fpm sustained is possible in my Kitfox but
> 1000 is typical and I would guess I could push that to 1200 on a
> good day and no breakfast.
>
> I thought that Model II to III was a beefing up for more MTOW as
> Marco said plus a larger tail assembly to correct the loss of
> control authority at low speeds, hardly anything that would
> increase performance stats as published.
>
> The 2 pages from my "Kitfox Owners Manual Model II" are the same as
> http://cfisher.com/kitfox/kitfox2poh.pdf except that mine say
> "Model III" at the top, which is obviously wrong.
>
> Bob Brennan
> 1991 Model 2(?) Kitfox
> Rotax 582 with 3 blade prop
> Wrightsville Pa
>
>
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-kitfox-
> list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Marco Menezes
> Sent: 01 July 2008 8:23 pm
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Performance stats for a Model II
>
> Can't imagine the mods made to the 3 to increase MTOW to 1050 could
> possibly make much difference in the relative performance numbers.
> As I recall, it was mostly beefing up of the spar carry-trough
> tubes. Correct me if I'm wrong listers.
>
>
> Clint's numbers are real-world. What's the kit s/n on your 2 Bob?
>
>
> Marco Menezes N99KX
>
> Model 2 582-90 C-Box 3:1
>
> --- On Tue, 7/1/08, Bob Brennan <matronics@bob.brennan.name> wrote:
>
> From: Bob Brennan <matronics@bob.brennan.name>
> Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Performance stats for a Model II
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Date: Tuesday, July 1, 2008, 4:19 PM
>
> Those numbers certainly sound more realistic Clint. I got the
> numbers from the "Kitfox Owners Manual Model II" that came with the
> logbooks, and I assume came with the original kit from Denney.
> However the title on the Performance page says "Performance KITFOX
> Model III" and I am reading under the "Rotax 582LC, solo" column. I
> always thought the "III" was a typo since all the other data seems
> to match, and I have always been led to believe I have a Model II.
>
> So I guess my question changes to - is 75ft takeoff and 100ft
> landing and 1600fpm climb out valid for a Model III? Does anyone
> have access to Model II performance pages that they can scan for me
> please? And what are the major recognisable differences between a
> Model II and III?
>
> Bob Brennan
> 1991 Model 2(?!) Kitfox
> Rotax 582 with 3 blade prop
> Wrightsville Pa
>
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-kitfox-
> list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Clint Bazzill
> Sent: 01 July 2008 3:30 pm
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Performance stats for a Model II
>
> I don't know where you are getting your information. My Kitfox
> Pilot's Guide says that a Model II 582 powered aircraft has a take
> off distance of 250 feet, landing ground roll of 250 feet and climb
> rate of 900 feet / minute.
>
> Clint
>
>
> From: matronics@bob.brennan.name
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Kitfox-List: Performance stats for a Model II
> Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 09:50:25 -0400
>
>
> Hi all - I have a general question about the published performance
> stats for my Model II, they don't seem to be realistic.
>
> Specifically - the takeoff distance is listed as 75ft, landing roll
> as 100ft, both "solo". I've done some pretty quick off-the-
> grounders with a good headwind and no fuel to speak of, but 75ft?
> (!) Is this possibly an interpolated number for the aircraft at
> "empty" weight with no pilot or fuel? Obviously performance specs
> differ for every pilot/plane combination but I thought specs were
> for a typical 170(?)lb pilot at 0 MSL on a perfect day. I'm not
> that far off 170lb (well, not TOO far that a gallon or 2 of gas
> wouldn't make up for...)
>
> Climb-out is listed as 1600fpm. In which parallel universe? I have
> achieved 900fpm sustained on a good day, alone, light fuel, and
> having recently lightened my own load (I call it "dumping ballast").
>
> I have tested Vne, stall speeds in various configurations, best
> angle and best rate of climb, etc but not MTOW or max Gs, and have
> no intention of doing so, but with takeoff/landing distances and
> rate-of-climb seemingly so far off I have to wonder about the other
> stats.
>
> Yes - the airplane is configured as stated in the performance data
> column and the engine only had 80 hours since a complete overhaul
> so I don't think age was a factor. The prop is a ground-adjustable
> type and was tested and re-set early in flight testing although I
> don't know if the setting is for optimal performance, that's the
> only thing I can think of.
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Bob Brennan
> 1991 Model 2 Kitfox
> Rotax 582 with 3 blade prop
> Wrightsville Pa
> target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List ttp://
> forums.matronics.com =_blank>http://www.matronics.com/
> contributionhref="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-
> List">http://www.matronhref="http://forums.matronics.com">http://
> forums.matronics.com href="http://www.matronics.com/
> contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
>
> 3D=======================3
> D======================
> href='3D"http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List"'>http://
> www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List
> 3D=======================3
> D======================
> href='3D"http://forums.matronics.com"'>http://forums.matronics.com
> 3D=======================3
> D======================
> href='3D"http://www.matronics.com/contribution"'>http://
> www.matronics.com/contribution
> 3D=======================3
> D=====================
>
> _-
> ========================
> 3D=======================3
> www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List_-
> ========================
> 3D=======================3
> ========================
> 3D=======================3
> = --> http://www.matronics.com/contribution_-
> ========================
> 3D=======================3
> D============
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: | Performance stats for a Model II |
Once I got my tachometer issues fixed I did better than that on Aerocet 1100
floats. Take off in near glass water was around 300 ft landing a lot
shorter than that and climb was close to 1500 ft/min. With any wind at all
take off was much faster.
Signature
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 Clint Bazzill
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 5:00 PM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Performance stats for a Model II
I don't know where you are getting your information. My Kitfox Pilot's
Guide says that a Model II 582 powered aircraft has a take off distance of
250 feet, landing ground roll of 250 feet and climb rate of 900 feet /
minute.
Clint
_____
From: matronics@bob.brennan.name
Subject: Kitfox-List: Performance stats for a Model II
Hi all - I have a general question about the published performance stats for
my Model II, they don't seem to be realistic.
Specifically - the takeoff distance is listed as 75ft, landing roll as
100ft, both "solo". I've done some pretty quick off-the-grounders with a
good headwind and no fuel to speak of, but 75ft?(!) Is this possibly an
interpolated number for the aircraft at "empty" weight with no pilot or
fuel? Obviously performance specs differ for every pilot/plane combination
but I thought specs were for a typical 170(?)lb pilot at 0 MSL on a perfect
day. I'm not that far off 170lb (well, not TOO far that a gallon or 2 of gas
wouldn't make up for...)
Climb-out is listed as 1600fpm. In which parallel universe? I have achieved
900fpm sustained on a good day, alone, light fuel, and having recently
lightened my own load (I call it "dumping ballast").
I have tested Vne, stall speeds in various configurations, best angle and
best rate of climb, etc but not MTOW or max Gs, and have no intention of
doing so, but with takeoff/landing distances and rate-of-climb seemingly so
far off I have to wonder about the other stats.
Yes - the airplane is configured as stated in the performance data column
and the engine only had 80 hours since a complete overhaul so I don't think
age was a factor. The prop is a ground-adjustable type and was tested and
re-set early in flight testing although I don't know if the setting is for
optimal performance, that's the only thing I can think of.
Thanks in advance,
Bob Brennan
1991 Model 2 Kitfox
Rotax 582 with 3 blade prop
Wrightsville Pa
target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List
ttp://forums.matronics.com
=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
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: Performance stats for a Model II |
I believe my serial # was stamped just aft of the turtle deck on the top
plate
PMorel
Speedster 912
Ser # 80
----- Original Message -----
From: Marco Menezes
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 10:36 AM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Performance stats for a Model II
Bob:
I don't know whether the s/n is stamped somewhere on the
airframe. Maybe someone out there knows? I only know mine from the
paperwork I got when I bought the airplane. (S/n 374, delivered in
1989). I've heard here that there was some "blending" of the models
between the last of the 2's and first of the 3's. Certainly, as
non-structural mods were made these were incorporated into many kits
then in-progress.
Marco Menezes N99KX
Model 2 582-90 C-Box 3:1
--- On Wed, 7/2/08, Bob Brennan <matronics@bob.brennan.name>
wrote:
From: Bob Brennan <matronics@bob.brennan.name>
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Performance stats for a Model II
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Date: Wednesday, July 2, 2008, 7:05 AM
Hi Marco - where do I find the serial number? My plane was
finished in 1991 but I believe was worked on for several years, so may
be a mixture of II and III?
I don't think I can do a takeoff in 75ft but less than 250ft
would be easy, as would a slightly more than 100ft roll-out with a
little precision and practice. The previous owner bragged of being able
to do a "vertical" landing given enough headwind, and it's not too
difficult to achieve 0mph groundspeed at altitude with full flaps, nose
high, and power.
I also don't think 1600fpm sustained is possible in my Kitfox
but 1000 is typical and I would guess I could push that to 1200 on a
good day and no breakfast.
I thought that Model II to III was a beefing up for more MTOW
as Marco said plus a larger tail assembly to correct the loss of control
authority at low speeds, hardly anything that would increase performance
stats as published.
The 2 pages from my "Kitfox Owners Manual Model II" are the
same as http://cfisher.com/kitfox/kitfox2poh.pdf except that mine say
"Model III" at the top, which is obviously wrong.
Bob Brennan
1991 Model 2(?) Kitfox
Rotax 582 with 3 blade prop
Wrightsville Pa
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Marco
Menezes
Sent: 01 July 2008 8:23 pm
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Performance stats for a Model II
Can't imagine the mods made to the 3 to increase MTOW to
1050 could possibly make much difference in the relative performance
numbers. As I recall, it was mostly beefing up of the spar carry-trough
tubes. Correct me if I'm wrong listers.
Clint's numbers are real-world. What's the kit s/n on
your 2 Bob?
Marco Menezes N99KX
Model 2 582-90 C-Box 3:1
--- On Tue, 7/1/08, Bob Brennan
<matronics@bob.brennan.name> wrote:
From: Bob Brennan <matronics@bob.brennan.name>
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Performance stats for a
Model II
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Date: Tuesday, July 1, 2008, 4:19 PM
Those numbers certainly sound more realistic Clint. I
got the numbers from the "Kitfox Owners Manual Model II" that came with
the logbooks, and I assume came with the original kit from Denney.
However the title on the Performance page says "Performance KITFOX Model
III" and I am reading under the "Rotax 582LC, solo" column. I always
thought the "III" was a typo since all the other data seems to match,
and I have always been led to believe I have a Model II.
So I guess my question changes to - is 75ft takeoff
and 100ft landing and 1600fpm climb out valid for a Model III? Does
anyone have access to Model II performance pages that they can scan for
me please? And what are the major recognisable differences between a
Model II and III?
Bob Brennan
1991 Model 2(?!) Kitfox
Rotax 582 with 3 blade prop
Wrightsville Pa
--------------------------------------------------------------
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Clint
Bazzill
Sent: 01 July 2008 3:30 pm
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Performance stats for a
Model II
I don't know where you are getting your information.
My Kitfox Pilot's Guide says that a Model II 582 powered aircraft has a
take off distance of 250 feet, landing ground roll of 250 feet and climb
rate of 900 feet / minute.
Clint
--------------------------------------------------------------
From: matronics@bob.brennan.name
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Subject: Kitfox-List: Performance stats for a Model II
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 09:50:25 -0400
Hi all - I have a general question about the published
performance stats for my Model II, they don't seem to be realistic.
Specifically - the takeoff distance is listed as 75ft,
landing roll as 100ft, both "solo". I've done some pretty quick
off-the-grounders with a good headwind and no fuel to speak of, but
75ft?(!) Is this possibly an interpolated number for the aircraft at
"empty" weight with no pilot or fuel? Obviously performance specs differ
for every pilot/plane combination but I thought specs were for a typical
170(?)lb pilot at 0 MSL on a perfect day. I'm not that far off 170lb
(well, not TOO far that a gallon or 2 of gas wouldn't make up for...)
Climb-out is listed as 1600fpm. In which parallel
universe? I have achieved 900fpm sustained on a good day, alone, light
fuel, and having recently lightened my own load (I call it "dumping
ballast").
I have tested Vne, stall speeds in various
configurations, best angle and best rate of climb, etc but not MTOW or
max Gs, and have no intention of doing so, but with takeoff/landing
distances and rate-of-climb seemingly so far off I have to wonder about
the other stats.
Yes - the airplane is configured as stated in the
performance data column and the engine only had 80 hours since a
complete overhaul so I don't think age was a factor. The prop is a
ground-adjustable type and was tested and re-set early in flight testing
although I don't know if the setting is for optimal performance, that's
the only thing I can think of.
Thanks in advance,
Bob Brennan
1991 Model 2 Kitfox
Rotax 582 with 3 blade prop
Wrightsville Pa
target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List
ttp://forums.matronics.com
=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
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
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
href='3D"http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List"'>http://www.ma
tronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
href='3D"http://forums.matronics.com"'>http://forums.matronics.com
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
href='3D"http://www.matronics.com/contribution"'>http://www.matronics.c
om/contribution
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
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! --
|