Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 01:45 AM - Re: X-Plane test (Michel Verheughe)
2. 04:06 AM - Re: Back on the list after 9 years! (Larry Huntley)
3. 05:15 AM - Re: VG's (Catz631@aol.com)
4. 05:34 AM - Re: trip to Oshkosh/big prep, shorttrip to Oshkosh/big prep, short (Catz631@aol.com)
5. 05:51 AM - Re: trip to Oshkosh/big prep, short (Catz631@aol.com)
6. 05:52 AM - Re: Re: checking sparkchecking spark (Catz631@aol.com)
7. 06:16 AM - Re: VG's (JC Propeller Design)
8. 07:21 AM - Ski Tuck (Kitfoxkirk)
9. 08:10 AM - Re: Enough (fox5flyer)
10. 08:14 AM - Re: Another flying adventure/"Ski tuck" (Noel Loveys)
11. 08:33 AM - Re: KF IV Distance from DATUM to center of wheel (Lowell Fitt)
12. 08:47 AM - Re: Panel Wiring (Noel Loveys)
13. 08:55 AM - Re: Exhaust Manifold (Noel Loveys)
14. 09:12 AM - Re: Re: 26 foot Clipped Wing Kitfox (Noel Loveys)
15. 10:25 AM - Re: Exhaust Manifold (Noel Loveys)
16. 10:47 AM - Re: Another flying adventure (Noel Loveys)
17. 11:12 AM - Re: Rotax 912 overvoltage (Noel Loveys)
18. 12:11 PM - Re: Re: X-Plane test (Lynn Matteson)
19. 12:13 PM - Re: Back on the list after 9 years! (Rueb, Duane)
20. 12:21 PM - Re: VG's (Lynn Matteson)
21. 12:25 PM - Re: Re: checking sparkchecking spark (Lynn Matteson)
22. 12:40 PM - Re: Ski Tuck (Lynn Matteson)
23. 01:14 PM - Re: Back on the list after 9 years! (John Bonewitz)
24. 01:22 PM - Re: Another flying adventure (Lynn Matteson)
25. 01:45 PM - Re: VG's (JetPilot)
26. 02:05 PM - Fuel Tank Expose (A H)
27. 02:12 PM - Re: 26 foot Clipped Wing Kitfox (JetPilot)
28. 03:07 PM - VG's (Lowell Fitt)
29. 03:23 PM - Re: Re: 26 foot Clipped Wing Kitfox (fox5flyer)
30. 03:26 PM - Re: Fuel Tank Expose (fox5flyer)
31. 03:43 PM - Re: Re: checking sparkchecking spark (Noel Loveys)
32. 03:51 PM - Re: Ski Tuck (Noel Loveys)
33. 03:51 PM - Re: Back on the list after 9 years! (Roger McConnell)
34. 04:21 PM - Re: Another flying adventure (Noel Loveys)
35. 04:55 PM - Airframe Parts for Kitfox 3 (hubertk)
36. 05:19 PM - Re: Another flying adventure (Lynn Matteson)
37. 05:34 PM - Re: Re: checking sparkchecking spark (Lynn Matteson)
38. 05:40 PM - Re: KF IV Distance from DATUM to center of wheel (Francisco Drovetta)
39. 05:40 PM - Re: Ski Tuck (Lynn Matteson)
40. 06:56 PM - Re: Back on the list after 9 years! (John Bonewitz)
41. 07:05 PM - Re: Panel Wiring (Michael Gibbs)
42. 08:03 PM - Re: Airframe Parts for Kitfox 3 (patrick reilly)
43. 08:36 PM - Re: X-Plane test (av8rps)
44. 08:47 PM - Re: 26 foot Clipped Wing Kitfox (av8rps)
45. 08:49 PM - Re: Panel Wiring (patrick reilly)
46. 08:52 PM - Re: Re: checking sparkchecking spark (patrick reilly)
47. 09:12 PM - Re: X-Plane test (av8rps)
48. 09:23 PM - Re: Panel Wiring (Michael Gibbs)
49. 10:01 PM - Greetings! New to the forum. (Cwehner)
50. 10:06 PM - Re: KF IV Distance from DATUM to center of wheel (Lowell Fitt)
51. 10:40 PM - Re: KF IV Distance from DATUM to center of wheel (Guy Buchanan)
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: X-Plane test |
> From: av8rps [paul676@tds.net]
> I know nothing about X-plane, but what we are trying to find out here is how
a Kitfox
> IV will perform if the standard Ribblet 32 ft wing is cut down to a 26 ft span.
Hello Paul,
First, a word of warning: although this is an excellent simulator as it divides
everything to a blade element with own coeficient of lift, drag and moment ...
it is only a simulator with its limitations.
For example, to simulate the flaperons, I had to cheat. Why? Well, a flaperon stall
much later than the wing because the air passing under the wing is pressed
on the top of the flaperon, keeping it laminar.
If a simulator was to do exactly the same thing, the interaction between different
surfaces should be calculated using Computerized Fluid Dynamic (CFD) that
divides the entire volume of space into independant parcels. That can't be done
in real time.
X-Plane takes into account simple things like the prop wash effect on the control
surfaces. But not much more. So, to make my flaperons, I had to manually change
the lift coefficient and stall angle that exceeds then 20 degrees AOA.
Anyway, I made a copy of my Kitfox model 3 with Jabiru 2200 and shortened the wings
to 26 feet span. The result was interesting!
I can't really measure the take-off distance. To do that, I should mark the ground
with lines and use replay to see when it lifted. What I did is:
Stall speed at idle: normal: 34 mph. Short wing: 39 mph
Max speed at WOT: normal: 110 mph. Short wing: 115 mph.
Climb rate at 60 mph: normal: 1,000 ft/m. Short wing: ... also 1,000 ft/m!
Please, take those figures not as absolute but relative values.
The general feeling is this: performances weren't very much affected but the feeling
of flying was quite different! First, I was surprised to see how much roll
power I had! More than with the long wings. (Yes, the flaperons were also shortened).
On second thoughts, it may make sense: shorter flaperons but also shorter
wings that present drag to roll motion.
The general feeling of flying was more flimsy with the short wings. For example,
with the normal wings, a stall induces a soft mush-down; something I also experience
in real life with my plane. But the short wing model stall harder. Uncoordinate
stall went much faster in a wing drop and possible spin with the short
wings. It felt better to fly the unmodified plane but perhaps that's because
I am used to it.
I hope it helps.
Cheers,
Michel Verheughe
Norway
Kitfox 3 - Jabiru 2200 ... flying as PAX
do not archive
<pre><b><font size=2 color="#000000" face="courier new,courier">
</b></font></pre></body></html>
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: Back on the list after 9 years! |
Hi John,
I have a Soob( probably about the same weight as the O-235) on a 4-1200
and I found that elevator gap seals help. I can't /won't land w/ flaps
as I just don't have enough elevator authority. I always 3point and find
that just a few RPM added right at touchdown helps keep the tail on the
ground.Not a problem,just have gotten used to it in 500 hrs.
Three pt and slow helps the tires. I am mostly on grass,but I am still
using the original little fat tires that came with the Mod 4.
Flew a friend's 582 a few weeks ago. Just plunk it down and it stays
there. What a difference.
----- Original Message -----
From: John Bonewitz
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2009 10:46 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Back on the list after 9 years!
Hello everyone. I'd like to re-introduce myself to the list. I'm a
Series V owner who purchased his kit from SkyStar back in 1996. Four
years later I had my first flight in my Lycoming O-235 powered Fox.
Almost nine years later, I'm still having a ball, though fuel prices
have kept the hours low the last couple of years. Unfortunately, I've
kind of lost touch with the "list" since finishing the plane, and have
mostly been lurking.
This year, I've resolved to fly more (outside my commercial pilot job)
and plan some longer trips away from base. I live in the Dallas / Fort
Worth area and over the past years have flown a handful of long
cross-country trips. I've made two pilgrimages to OSH, two to Telluride
Colorado, and one to the Grand Canyon, though it's been awhile since
I've made any long trips like this. Hopefully, this will change this
year.
I'd be interested to hear from any builders who have installed the
O-235. I'm powering a Warpdrive 3 blade and the combination has been a
joy - smooth and remarkably reliable, though I do miss the short takeoff
roll you Rotax guys enjoy. Poor elevator authority in the flare has been
the only real complaint I've had. It keeps flap use to one notch, and I
always wheel land. I'd like to experiment with a combination of elevator
gap seals and VG's to combat this. So any of you flying w/ the O235,
please contact me on or off the list. I'd be interested in talking to
you. Also, anyone who has used the "Land Shorter" VG's under the
horizontal stab, I'd like to hear your opinion. I'm sure a search of the
archives will produces some good info as well. I'm glad to be back.
Hopefully I can contribute more in the future.
Best Regards,
John Bonewitz
Kitfox Series V
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
1/25/2009 6:13 PM
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 |
|
Lynn,
I put two VG's in each "valley" on the wings. This was suggested in the
instructions. That's a lot of VG's on the wing. They are made of clear plastic
and are not too obtrusive. When I wash the top of the wing I use a brush on a
pole and am careful around them. On the horizontal stab they are about 2" in
front of the hinge line (gap is also sealed with tape)
This plane sure loves to wheel land and it is difficult to get a decent 3
pointer unless it is absolute calm. I get a lot of complements on my wheel
landing which in any other aircraft usually takes a bit of finesse to pull off,
On
this one you just put the tires on the runway and release the pressure. Eats
up runway though.
Dick Maddux
Fox 4-1200
Pensacola,Fl
**************From Wall Street to Main Street and everywhere in between, stay
up-to-date with the latest news. (http://aol.com?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000023)
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: trip to Oshkosh/big prep, shorttrip to Oshkosh/big prep, |
short
Marco,
I used a product called Thermo Shield to cover the Northstar fuel flow
sending unit. I purchased it from Spruce (p316 in 2008-2009 catalog) It has an
adhesive on the back and comes in 1 1/2 "width x 15 'roll so was easy to wrap
around the unit. I have also used this same stuff as heat shielding in various
parts of my engine compartment. Use either tie wraps or silicone tape that melts
into itself as a backup because the adhesive looses its grip after awhile in
the heat
The remaining hose was covered with 3/4" fire sleeve I had on hand. I used
it all so don't have it anymore
Dick Maddux
Pensacola,Fl
**************From Wall Street to Main Street and everywhere in between, stay
up-to-date with the latest news. (http://aol.com?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000023)
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: trip to Oshkosh/big prep, short |
Lynn,
I was cruising the 912UL at about 4500rpm and that is why I was getting the
low gas consumption. I have since found out that the engine should be set at
around 5000 rpm so I am sure my consumption is much higher. I am tracking it
so I can get the Northstar f/f closer to the actual consumption. Right now I
believe it is a little too optimistic and I have tweaked the flow up higher. In
any case, this engine doesn't use much fuel.
Dick Maddux
Pensacola,Fl
**************From Wall Street to Main Street and everywhere in between, stay
up-to-date with the latest news. (http://aol.com?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000023)
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: checking sparkchecking spark |
I had a similar problem with my 912. It was running a little rough with an
uneven mag check. The plugs were new so I dismissed that as the problem. During
my annual while awaiting parts I decided to pull them and test them under air
pressure load with my friends "bomb" tester. Sure enough, one of the plugs was
dead and wouldn't fire (actually it did but intermittently with a weak spark)
>From now on I will test each plug even when new.
The engine is now very smooth running with equal drops on the mag check.
Dick Maddux
Pensacola,Fl
**************From Wall Street to Main Street and everywhere in between, stay
up-to-date with the latest news. (http://aol.com?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000023)
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 |
|
If it is difficult to get the tail down first or at the same time as
main wheel, isn't the CG to far forward?
Can you stall the aircraft in air with and without flap? (not just stall
the elevator)
Jan
www.jcpropellerdesign.com
----- Original Message -----
From: Catz631@aol.com
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2009 2:13 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: VG's
Lynn,
I put two VG's in each "valley" on the wings. This was suggested in
the instructions. That's a lot of VG's on the wing. They are made of
clear plastic and are not too obtrusive. When I wash the top of the wing
I use a brush on a pole and am careful around them. On the horizontal
stab they are about 2" in front of the hinge line (gap is also sealed
with tape)
This plane sure loves to wheel land and it is difficult to get a
decent 3 pointer unless it is absolute calm. I get a lot of complements
on my wheel landing which in any other aircraft usually takes a bit of
finesse to pull off, On this one you just put the tires on the runway
and release the pressure. Eats up runway though.
Dick Maddux
Fox 4-1200
Pensacola,Fl
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
From Wall Street to Main Street and everywhere in between, stay
up-to-date with the latest news.
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
signature database 3800 (20090126) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
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 |
|
Regarding the posting on the ski tuck, the problem may be with the rubber in
the bungee. I had some problems with my landing gear bungee cord with below
zero temperatures in that the gear would not come back up. So I had a "bow
legged" Kitfox until it warmed up. I noticed that the rubber in the bungee
was sort of gray. Where the bungee cords with the white rubber seem to snap
back no matter how cold it is. I now only use bungee cords with white
rubber. Some supply houses will check before they cut the bungee to your
specified length.
Maybe the bungee was a little weak and did not hold the ski up all the way,
allowing the slipstream at cruise speeds to grab the ski and pull it down.
Just a thought.
Kirk Martenson
Classic IV (Speedster?) with a sick 912UL
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 |
|
Easy, Clint. Most of what I've seen is definitely relevent to the
Kitfoxes. However, there are 500 different personalities here and they
aren't always going to be in harmony. Generally, so long as people are
courteous, these threads die on their own accord.
Deke
S5 Mikado MI
----- Original Message -----
From: Clint Bazzill
To: Kitfox list
Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2009 1:00 PM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Enough
Why don't you guys Email your pet projects to each other and not on
this list.
It seems like a chat room and I spend a lot of time deleting this
stuff.
Clint
> From: vr_baker@nvbell.net
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Enough
> Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2009 13:17:09 -0800
>
>
> I second that!
>
> do not archive
>
> Vic Baker
> S7 912S Warp
> Phase 1 flight testing
> Carson City, Nv
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jay & Beverly" <valleyairport@cotterweb.com>
> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2009 12:28 PM
> Subject: Kitfox-List: Enough
>
>
> > <valleyairport@cotterweb.com>
> >
> > Enough short wing Pipers.
> >
> > Enough sniping.
> >
> > PLEASE!
> >
> > Jay C. S-6, 290-D Lyc. Arkansas
> >
> > Do not archive
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
========================>
>
>
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: | Another flying adventure/"Ski tuck" |
Thanks Lynn I just went to the FAA site and downloaded quite a few
publications... After a quick browse I've seen most of it before but it's
always good to see things presented in a different manner.
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lynn Matteson
Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2009 2:12 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Another flying adventure/"Ski tuck"
Earlier I mentioned FAA publication #FAA-H-8083-3. Another source
for more extensive information on ski and float-equipped airplanes
(and choppers) can be found in FAA-H-8083-23, which finally surfaced
when I cleaned up the "publication area"...that area of my floor
where the publications all drop from my hands when I fall asleep
while reading them.
Lynn Matteson
Kitfox IV Speedster, taildragger
Jabiru 2200, #2062, 600.2 hrs
Sensenich 62x46
Electroair direct-fire ignition system
New skis done and flying
On Jan 25, 2009, at 9:21 AM, Lynn Matteson wrote:
>
> Well, now I find that the FAA has an official name for what
> happened to me yesterday...it is called "ski tuck". I found a
> reference to ski tuck in publication "FAA-H-8083-3" It says in
> part "....when skis are not rigged properly, or when a pilot
> exceeds recommended airspeeds, that a ski will tuck down and give a
> momentary downward rotation of the nose of the aircraft. This is
> generally caused by spring or bungie (their spelling, not mine)
> tension not being sufficient to hold ski tips up. The pitching and
> yawing will get your undivided attention." To that last
> sentence I give a big AMEN!
>
> They go on to say ".....reduce power and reduce the speed of the
> aircraft. When the air loads are decreased below the tension of the
> spring or bungie, the ski will pitch back up into place and the
> control problem will go away. The proper fix is to get a
> maintenance shop to correctly adjust the spring or bungie tension
> and then not exceed the speed limits on the skis."
>
> That last sentence reminds me that I must get ahold of the dim bulb
> that built these skis and slap him about the head a bit and get him
> to issue a speed limit for these new skis, and to get him to issue
> a new tension tolerance for the "bungies"....damned experimenters,
> anyway!
>
> Lynn Matteson
> Kitfox IV Speedster, taildragger
> Jabiru 2200, #2062, 600.2 hrs
> Sensenich 62x46
> Electroair direct-fire ignition system
> New skis done and flying
>
>
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: KF IV Distance from DATUM to center of wheel |
I suspect that what Francisco actually needs is the location of the axle
relative to the CG. I think the easy way to approximate this is by
tailwheel weight vs. empty weight. My first Kitfox had a tailwheel wt of 44
lbs. vs an empty wt of 704 lbs. - yes a heavy. This gives 6.25% on the
tailwheel. From what I see in the pictures on Francisco's website, I
suspect his emtpy weight in the 850 lb range giving a tailwheel weight in
the range of 53 lbs. This in level attitude.
Lowell
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Franz - Merlin GT" <paul@eucleides.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2009 5:49 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: KF IV Distance from DATUM to center of wheel
> <paul@eucleides.com>
>
> On Sun, January 25, 2009 4:30 pm, Francisco Drovetta wrote:
>> Hi!
>> Someone knows which is the distance from DATUM line to "center of wheel"
>> in Kitfox
>> Model IV ??
>
> For ease and safety in landing, the gear should be set as far forward as
> practicable.
>
> The limit is usually dictated by the fuselage structure, that is, you can
> only mount
> it to the forward limit of the fuselage. But in your case with what looks
> like a
> forward mounted and heavy engine, weight and balance might be the limiting
> factor.
>
> If you can supply the moment arms and weights of your existing setup, I
> can calculate
> what happens when you move the gear.
>
> I would need:
>
> moment arm and weight of the main gear
> moment arm and scale weight of tail wheel
> moment arm and weight on main gear (empty, no fuel or oil) at tire contact
> point
> moment arm for oil in crankcase
> moment arm for fuel in tanks.
> moment arm for occupants
> moment arm for baggage
>
> If the existing gear is not going to be used then I need the weight of the
> proposed
> gear and location of it's c.g. relative to the fore and aft mounting
> positions.
>
>>
>> See jpg attached of Highlander (www.justkitplanes.com)
>> I need the same image of Kitfox IV, to find answer to my question.
>>
>> Can you help me?
>>
>> Tks
>> FD
>> www.dcubj3.com.br
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Paul A. Franz
> Registration/Aircraft - N14UW/Merlin GT
> Engine/Prop - Rotax 914/NSI CAP
> Bellevue WA
> 425.241.1618 Cell
>
>
>
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 |
|
Sounds like the original builder used one pole of the master switch instead
of building a buss.
The recommended system is:
A large fuse something close to the maximum output of your charging system
to connected as close to the battery as possible The other side of that
"Master fuse" goes to your master switch. This protects every bit of wire
down circuit of it. A wire from the master (panel) switch feeds a buss.
It is recommended that each of the circuit breakers or individual fuses be
attached directly to the power buss as they only protect what is down
circuit of them. From these breakers or fuses your load is established.
One thing they do which I recommend is if you use studs to make connections
a maximum of three connectors should be attached to any one stud. You may
have more than one wire in a connector.
Connectors should always be crimped... never soldered unless they are very
small wires inside a load. Vibration of an engine will tend to cause
stranded wire to crack where the solder stops in a joint.
Certified aircraft tend to use all white wire which is usually stamped with
laser or ink a code to tell what it is for. This tends to make
installations look very clean. Cars and amateur built planes tend to use
the coloured wires for tracing. Just because of the colour they can get
looking pretty messy, pretty fast. Once you get used to the white seeing
all the colours will remind you of Sesame St.
Do I have a preference... Yes but I also like seeing wax string and
coraseal. I've never seen anyone get so much as a scratch form either of
those things. Nylon ties and tubing covers, well that's a different quintal
of fish.
Noel
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of patrick reilly
Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2009 2:23 PM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Panel Wiring
Noel, Thanks for reply. I have a scanner that I haven't learned how to use
yet. I will try to figure it out later. A panel master switch connects one
terminal of each of the switches with a common wire. The other switch
terminal runs to a fuse and then a wire from the fuse to the load, radio,
strobe light, nav lights, etc. There is a different fuse that establishes a
circuit for each load. All schematics that I am familiar with run from the
buss to individual fuses first, then to a switch and then to the load.
Pat Reilly
Mod 3 582 Rebuild
Rockford, IL
_____
From: noelloveys@yahoo.ca
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Panel Wiring
Can you draw a little thumb nail diagram as to what wires you have and how
they are connected? Draw freehand and scan.
Noel
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Pat Reilly
Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2009 12:37 AM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Panel Wiring
Kitfoxers, This will be the last dumb question I ask......tonight. I am
rewiring the panel on the mod 3 582 I am rebuilding. I would like to leave
the switch / fuse portion of the wiring as is . But, it is wired backwards,
at least to my limited electrical experience. The power is supplied to the
switches first & then to the fuses and on out to the radio, lights, etc.. I
don't see anything wrong with this setup. Each circuit has a switch and a
fuse. But, all the switches are connected together. Is there any problem
with this setup?
Pat Reilly
Rockford, IL
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List
http://forums.matronics.com
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List
ronics.com
ww.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: | Exhaust Manifold |
I got to assume you are talking about a 582... Well it will kill your
power. The elbow and the piece actually going to the muffler are what is
called and expansion chamber. It causes a sonic barrier inside the chamber
that sort of acts like an exhaust valve. This is why different pipes can
cause the engine to produce more power but usually it will also cause the
engine to get very peaky where maximum power and torque are in a very narrow
power band. This si great for bikes but has no place in planes unless you
are doing short take off contests all the time.
Noel
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Malcolm
Brubaker
Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2009 2:29 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Exhaust Manifold
has anybody ever figured out how much power is lost or the effect it has on
accurate egt readings by chopping the elbow and muffler?
--- On Sun, 1/25/09, Marco Menezes <msm_9949@yahoo.com> wrote:
From: Marco Menezes <msm_9949@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Exhaust Manifold
My grayhead's exhaust is mounted same as yours, Pat. It all fits and it
works like it's supposed to.
Marco Menezes N99KX
Model 2 582-90 C-Box 3:1 w/clutch
--- On Sat, 1/10/09, Pat Reilly <patreilly43@hotmail.com> wrote:
From: Pat Reilly <patreilly43@hotmail.com>
Subject: Kitfox-List: Exhaust Manifold
Kitfoxers. Looking at a closeup of a Bluehead 582 engine installation Bill
Chenoweths), I see the exhaust manifold is installed angled down with the
EGT sensor mounts on the bottom. I swear when I received my used engine the
manifold was mounted angled up with the EGT probe mounts up. I have
reinstalled the engine and mounted the pipe and muffler. Fits fine with
probe mounts up. And looking at it, I believe if I flipped the manifold over
the pipe/muffler would be too low to bolt up. What gives? Were some engines
installed with exhaust manifold up and others down? I sure hate to remove
mine with all the springs saftey wired already, flip it over and find I am
right and the pipe won't bolt up.
Pat Reilly
Mod 3 582 Rebuild
Rockford, IL
D========================
=========
D========================
=========
D========================
=========
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: | Re: 26 foot Clipped Wing Kitfox |
With the quick disconnect feature of the Kitfox flapperon controls i would
hav advised to build a set of short wings... I think it would be easier to
swap a set of wings than to play around trying to get control surfaces to
stretch. Two guys could swap out a set of wings in less than an hour. If
the shorter wings turn out well sell the longer ones to someone who wants to
finish their plane faster.
If they don't work the way hoped then there is a good set of wings to
experiment on... VGs, wing tips, etc.
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of JetPilot
Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2009 2:44 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: 26 foot Clipped Wing Kitfox
Dick Maddux wrote:
> Well, Lowell, junior's at it again. Maybe we are missing the boat. He
might be a rocket scientist or senior aeronautical engineer.
>
Dick,
The only comments you or Lowell have posted in relation to the subject of
cutting a Kitfox wings to 26 feet have nothing to do with the subject at
hand. Lowell only tried to distract people away from the facts with his
post, and your post has zero information on this subject, and does is
nothing other than try to belittle me. If you think I am wrong and am
giving Paul bad advice, lets hear why. A childish and uncalled for comment
like you just posted just reflects very badly on you. You being an ex
military and airline pilot, I really expected you to post something far more
intelligent and informative on this subject than this. You are not the
person I thought you were.
What Paul needs is good information on the likely results of clipping his
Kitfox wings down to 26 feet. If you disagree with me, post some factual
information as to why, and something that can help anyone that is thinking
about shortening the wingspan of their Kitfox make an informed decision.
This is a good subject and it should be kept on topic.
Mike
--------
"NO FEAR" - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you
could have !!!
Kolb MK-III Xtra, 912-S
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=226730#226730
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: | Exhaust Manifold |
That wouldn't be a calculation but a dynamometer test. If you really want
more power just drop in a snowmobile exhaust... You will get more.... power
and heat and less power band.
Apparently the original Rotax exhaust is slightly longer than the Kitfox
one. The Kitfox expansion chamber had to fit inside the cowl. That will
cause a modest reduction of power If you wanted to you could make a blister
on your cowl and put the longer expansion chamber on and gain maybe 5 hp
without making the engine too peaky.
Noel
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of JC Propeller
Design
Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2009 3:41 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Exhaust Manifold
Yes ask Dick about that
----- Original Message -----
From: Malcolm Brubaker <mailto:brubakermal@yahoo.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2009 6:59 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Exhaust Manifold
has anybody ever figured out how much power is lost or the effect it has on
accurate egt readings by chopping the elbow and muffler?
--- On Sun, 1/25/09, Marco Menezes <msm_9949@yahoo.com> wrote:
From: Marco Menezes <msm_9949@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Exhaust Manifold
My grayhead's exhaust is mounted same as yours, Pat. It all fits and it
works like it's supposed to.
Marco Menezes N99KX
Model 2 582-90 C-Box 3:1 w/clutch
--- On Sat, 1/10/09, Pat Reilly <patreilly43@hotmail.com> wrote:
From: Pat Reilly <patreilly43@hotmail.com>
Subject: Kitfox-List: Exhaust Manifold
Kitfoxers. Looking at a closeup of a Bluehead 582 engine installation Bill
Chenoweths), I see the exhaust manifold is installed angled down with the
EGT sensor mounts on the bottom. I swear when I received my used engine the
manifold was mounted angled up with the EGT probe mounts up. I have
reinstalled the engine and mounted the pipe and muffler. Fits fine with
probe mounts up. And looking at it, I believe if I flipped the manifold over
the pipe/muffler would be too low to bolt up. What gives? Were some engines
installed with exhaust manifold up and others down? I sure hate to remove
mine with all the springs saftey wired already, flip it over and find I am
right and the pipe won't bolt up.
Pat Reilly
Mod 3 582 Rebuild
Rockford, IL
3D=========================3
D===================
href='3D"http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List"'>http://www.matroni
cs.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/co
ntribution
3D=========================3
D===================
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 3798 (20090125) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
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: | Another flying adventure |
Thanks lynn:
I just looked it up and yes sir I'm surprised how far the points of the skis
can go down.
Now I'm trying to think of a way to lift a ski and be able to press down on
the tip to see how much weight it requires to slack the check cable. AC 43
says 20-40lb for our weight planes.
Thanks
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lynn Matteson
Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2009 5:42 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Another flying adventure
The ski info is all in AC 43.13-2A, which seems to be an addition to
43.13-1B combined with change 1. The actual page numbers for the ski
installation are pages 33-41. This is according to my copy which is
dated 9/8/98. The skis stuff shows "Rev 1977" If you have the actual
book, it's way in the back...if you're going online to view it, I
have no idea except to look for "-2A". As usual, FAA thinking went
into this, and I can't make sense out of their numbering system.
Lynn Matteson
Kitfox IV Speedster, taildragger
Jabiru 2200, #2062, 600.2 hrs
Sensenich 62x46
Electroair direct-fire ignition system
New skis done and flying
On Jan 25, 2009, at 1:12 PM, Noel Loveys wrote:
>
> Lynn:
>
> What page in AC43 did you find the spec for the skis?
>
> I've been looking and found nothing on installation.
>
> Noel
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lynn
> Matteson
> Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2009 10:26 AM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Another flying adventure
>
>
> Tight at sitting on the ground with tailwheel down? That seems like
> it would not allow for going over terrain dips, etc. The shock cords
> should hold the positive of 0 degrees to 5 degrees. I'm gonna have to
> think about your suggestion over coffee this morning, Gary, but if
> 43.13 allows up to negative 35, I gotta wonder why. Maybe some
> northern resident who lives on skis could answer.
> One solution is to always carry a big stick....and don't speak softly
> to those %#$@*&_+ skis when/if they do it again!
>
> Lynn Matteson
> Kitfox IV Speedster, taildragger
> Jabiru 2200, #2062, 600.2 hrs
> Sensenich 62x46
> Electroair direct-fire ignition system
> New skis done and flying
>
>
> On Jan 25, 2009, at 2:51 AM, gary.algate@sandvik.com wrote:
>
>>
>> Lynn
>>
>> when I had my skis I sent the front restraint cable so that it was
>> starting to tighten when the plain was in the standard 3 point
>> position.
>>
>> there was no way I could get a negative angle on my skis in flight!
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Gary
>>
>> Gary Algate
>> SMC, Exploration
>> Office Phone: +61 8 8276 7655
>>
>>
>> This e-mail is confidential and it is intended only for the
>> addressees. Any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
>> this message by persons or entities other than the intended
>> recipient is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error,
>> kindly notify us immediately by telephone or e-mail and delete the
>> message from your system. The sender does not accept liability for
>> any errors or omissions in the contents of this message which may
>> arise as a result of the e-mail transmission.
>> "This year, instead of sending you a Christmas card in the mail, we
>> have made a contribution to UNICEF Australia. We wish you a safe
>> and happy Christmas".
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net>
>> Sent by: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
>> 25/01/2009 12:16 PM
>> Please respond to
>> kitfox-list@matronics.com
>>
>> To
>> kitfox-list@matronics.com
>> cc
>> Subject
>> Re: Kitfox-List: Another flying adventure
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> AC 43.13 shows -20 to -35 degree angles for main ski incidence, and a
>> couple of years ago, when this was a current topic, somebody...a few,
>> actually...said that 25 was plenty, so I set mine at that figure.
>> This is the first time I've ever had this happen, and it got my
>> attention. What caused it I don't know, but I'll be asking advice
>> from other ski users locally. 43.13 also specs the down force
>> required to slacken the check cable, and for this size ski it is
>> 20-40 pounds of force. Maybe I need to set mine a bit higher because
>> of my 15" wide fronts, and narrower...6-1/2" wide rears. Because they
>> are dissimilar in area, maybe the air got hold of the front area and
>> blew it down, and the smaller rear area could not balance it out. I
>> never had this happen on the other skis, and I have exactly the same
>> cable and shock cord setup....1/8" stainless steel cables and 3/8"
>> shock cords. The shock cords have 2" of pre-stretch when they are
>> installed at the maximum positive incidence angle of +5 degrees.
>>
>>
>> Lynn Matteson
>> Kitfox IV Speedster, taildragger
>> Jabiru 2200, #2062, 600.2 hrs
>> Sensenich 62x46
>> Electroair direct-fire ignition system
>> New skis done and flying
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Jan 24, 2009, at 6:31 PM, Noel Loveys wrote:
>>
>> <noelloveys@yahoo.ca>
>>>
>>> 25 Degrees down sounds pretty steep to me. What are the other guys
>>> using?
>>>
>>> Noel
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> www.matronics.com/contribution _-
>> ===========================================================
>
>
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: | Rotax 912 overvoltage |
Two places to look.
There is a voltage sensing lead on your regulator/rectifier it can be
corroded at the point it connects to the battery or buss. The reference
ground for that voltage is usually the back of the rectifier case. To check
that you have to unbolt the case clean around the bolt hole and clean the
back of the case before re installing.. if you find any corrosion there
after you clean it up you may consider smearing a bit of grease on the back
of the unit to slow down any more corrosion from forming.
Noel
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Catz631@aol.com
Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2009 6:01 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Rotax 912 overvoltage
Here's a new one for me. I just installed a Monroy 300 traffic alerter in my
panel. One of the features of this unit is an indication of voltage. It
warns you if your voltage exceeds 14.8 volts. (aural warning as well as
indicated voltage) I got that warning today. It indicated a max of 15 volts
momentary and varied between about 13.8 and 14.5 depending on the engine
speed. The warning on the Monroy was confirmed by my analog voltmeter. After
searching through all the manuals I finally came up with a chart in the
installation manual that talked about the normal voltage values of the
silicone rectifier. I am running too high. It mentioned cleaning the
connections,overheat,etc. Has anyone had this problem? Any ideas on how to
proceed. I hate to buy a new voltage regulator as they are expensive. There
is very little in the books on this and no way to adjust the voltage that I
know of.
Thanks!
Dick Maddux
Fox 4-1200
Pensacola,Fl
_____
>From Wall Street to Main Street and everywhere in between, stay up-to-date
with the latest news <http://aol.com?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000023%0d%0a> .
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: X-Plane test |
Hey Michel-
Why don't you try a "ski tuck" with a Speedster model IV, and see
what it feels like. : )
Lynn Matteson
Kitfox IV Speedster, taildragger
Jabiru 2200, #2062, 600.2 hrs
Sensenich 62x46
Electroair direct-fire ignition system
New skis done and flying
do not archive
On Jan 26, 2009, at 4:41 AM, Michel Verheughe wrote:
>> From: av8rps [paul676@tds.net]
>> I know nothing about X-plane, but what we are trying to find out
>> here is how a Kitfox
>> IV will perform if the standard Ribblet 32 ft wing is cut down to
>> a 26 ft span.
>
> Hello Paul,
> First, a word of warning: although this is an excellent simulator
> as it divides everything to a blade element with own coeficient of
> lift, drag and moment ... it is only a simulator with its
> limitations.
>
> For example, to simulate the flaperons, I had to cheat. Why? Well,
> a flaperon stall much later than the wing because the air passing
> under the wing is pressed on the top of the flaperon, keeping it
> laminar.
>
> If a simulator was to do exactly the same thing, the interaction
> between different surfaces should be calculated using Computerized
> Fluid Dynamic (CFD) that divides the entire volume of space into
> independant parcels. That can't be done in real time.
> X-Plane takes into account simple things like the prop wash effect
> on the control surfaces. But not much more. So, to make my
> flaperons, I had to manually change the lift coefficient and stall
> angle that exceeds then 20 degrees AOA.
>
> Anyway, I made a copy of my Kitfox model 3 with Jabiru 2200 and
> shortened the wings to 26 feet span. The result was interesting!
>
> I can't really measure the take-off distance. To do that, I should
> mark the ground with lines and use replay to see when it lifted.
> What I did is:
>
> Stall speed at idle: normal: 34 mph. Short wing: 39 mph
> Max speed at WOT: normal: 110 mph. Short wing: 115 mph.
> Climb rate at 60 mph: normal: 1,000 ft/m. Short wing: ... also
> 1,000 ft/m!
>
> Please, take those figures not as absolute but relative values.
>
> The general feeling is this: performances weren't very much
> affected but the feeling of flying was quite different! First, I
> was surprised to see how much roll power I had! More than with the
> long wings. (Yes, the flaperons were also shortened). On second
> thoughts, it may make sense: shorter flaperons but also shorter
> wings that present drag to roll motion.
> The general feeling of flying was more flimsy with the short wings.
> For example, with the normal wings, a stall induces a soft mush-
> down; something I also experience in real life with my plane. But
> the short wing model stall harder. Uncoordinate stall went much
> faster in a wing drop and possible spin with the short wings. It
> felt better to fly the unmodified plane but perhaps that's because
> I am used to it.
>
> I hope it helps.
>
> Cheers,
> Michel Verheughe
> Norway
> Kitfox 3 - Jabiru 2200 ... flying as PAX
>
> do not archive
>
> <pre><b><font size=2 color="#000000" face="courier new,courier">
>
> List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List</a>
> forums.matronics.com</a>
> www.matronics.com/contribution</a>
>
> </b></font></pre>
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: | Back on the list after 9 years! |
John:
Welcome back. Sounds like you could benefit from the "Help Me Joe" kit tha
t is available from John and Debra McBean. I have installed it in my model
5 with excellent results. This kit is easy to install and couples the ele
vator to flap function and works on the model 5 or later control mixer, and
is a great solution. My airplane has a Continental IO 240 for power, so
we have similar nose heavy situations, and this will cure the major part of
your problem. You might also take a look at your trim screw jack and meas
ure it and ask John if a new one might be slightly shorter, giving you a li
ttle more up trim. If so that would be also a good mod and will contribut
e to solving the problem.
Have good flights, Duane Rueb N24ZM
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-serv
er@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Randy Daughenbaugh
Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2009 9:06 PM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Back on the list after 9 years!
Welcome back John!
I remember your name from when I first started on the list about 9 years ag
o!
Randy
- flying for 4+ years Series 5/7 912S Warpdrive taper tip
Do not archive.
________________________________
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-serv
er@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Bonewitz
Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2009 8:46 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Back on the list after 9 years!
Hello everyone. I'd like to re-introduce myself to the list. I'm a Series V
owner who purchased his kit from SkyStar back in 1996. Four years later I
had my first flight in my Lycoming O-235 powered Fox. Almost nine years lat
er, I'm still having a ball, though fuel prices have kept the hours low the
last couple of years. Unfortunately, I've kind of lost touch with the "lis
t" since finishing the plane, and have mostly been lurking.
This year, I've resolved to fly more (outside my commercial pilot job) and
plan some longer trips away from base. I live in the Dallas / Fort Worth ar
ea and over the past years have flown a handful of long cross-country trips
. I've made two pilgrimages to OSH, two to Telluride Colorado, and one to t
he Grand Canyon, though it's been awhile since I've made any long trips lik
e this. Hopefully, this will change this year.
I'd be interested to hear from any builders who have installed the O-235. I
'm powering a Warpdrive 3 blade and the combination has been a joy - smooth
and remarkably reliable, though I do miss the short takeoff roll you Rotax
guys enjoy. Poor elevator authority in the flare has been the only real co
mplaint I've had. It keeps flap use to one notch, and I always wheel land.
I'd like to experiment with a combination of elevator gap seals and VG's to
combat this. So any of you flying w/ the O235, please contact me on or off
the list. I'd be interested in talking to you. Also, anyone who has used t
he "Land Shorter" VG's under the horizontal stab, I'd like to hear your opi
nion. I'm sure a search of the archives will produces some good info as wel
l. I'm glad to be back. Hopefully I can contribute more in the future.
Best Regards,
John Bonewitz
Kitfox Series V
- The Kitfox-List Email Forum -
--> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List
- MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
- List Contribution Web Site -
-Matt Dralle, List Admin.
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 |
|
In the valleys between the ribs, or the valleys between the false
ribs? I assume the false ribs being that you say a "lot of VG's".
That's gotta be 8 VG's between the ribs...that IS a lot. On top of,
or underneath the hort. stab? I've heard of underneath.
Lynn Matteson
Kitfox IV Speedster, taildragger
Jabiru 2200, #2062, 600.2 hrs
Sensenich 62x46
Electroair direct-fire ignition system
New skis done and flying
On Jan 26, 2009, at 8:13 AM, Catz631@aol.com wrote:
> Lynn,
> I put two VG's in each "valley" on the wings. This was suggested
> in the instructions. That's a lot of VG's on the wing. They are
> made of clear plastic and are not too obtrusive. When I wash the
> top of the wing I use a brush on a pole and am careful around them.
> On the horizontal stab they are about 2" in front of the hinge line
> (gap is also sealed with tape)
> This plane sure loves to wheel land and it is difficult to get a
> decent 3 pointer unless it is absolute calm. I get a lot of
> complements on my wheel landing which in any other aircraft usually
> takes a bit of finesse to pull off, On this one you just put the
> tires on the runway and release the pressure. Eats up runway though.
> Dick Maddux
> Fox 4-1200
> Pensacola,Fl
>
> From Wall Street to Main Street and everywhere in between, stay up-
> to-date with the latest news. _-
> www.matronics.com/contribution _-
> ===========================================================
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: checking sparkchecking spark |
New one on me, Dick....what's a "bomb" tester?
Lynn Matteson
Kitfox IV Speedster, taildragger
Jabiru 2200, #2062, 600.2 hrs
Sensenich 62x46
Electroair direct-fire ignition system
New skis done and flying
do not archive
On Jan 26, 2009, at 8:45 AM, Catz631@aol.com wrote:
> I had a similar problem with my 912. It was running a little rough
> with an uneven mag check. The plugs were new so I dismissed that as
> the problem. During my annual while awaiting parts I decided to
> pull them and test them under air pressure load with my friends
> "bomb" tester. Sure enough, one of the plugs was dead and wouldn't
> fire (actually it did but intermittently with a weak spark) From
> now on I will test each plug even when new.
> The engine is now very smooth running with equal drops on the mag
> check.
> Dick
> Maddux
>
> Pensacola,Fl
>
> From Wall Street to Main Street and everywhere in between, stay up-
> to-date with the latest news. _-
> www.matronics.com/contribution _-
> ===========================================================
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 |
|
It was new rubber about 2 weeks ago, fresh from Aircraft Spruce, and
it is white rubber. I think I just didn't put enough tension on them
when I cut them to length. I'm going to shorten them by about an inch
or maybe 1-1/2". And of course with building skis, you just order 16
feet of the stuff, and hope for the best and freshest batch. One of
my Tony Bingelis books shows a chart of the thread colors used in the
covering of the shock cords, which would allow you to check the
manufacturing date of the cords, but none of the cords that I've
ordered over the years from Spruce has matched the chart...ever.
Lynn Matteson
Kitfox IV Speedster, taildragger
Jabiru 2200, #2062, 600.2 hrs
Sensenich 62x46
Electroair direct-fire ignition system
New skis done and flying
do not archive
On Jan 26, 2009, at 10:20 AM, Kitfoxkirk wrote:
> Regarding the posting on the ski tuck, the problem may be with the
> rubber in the bungee. I had some problems with my landing gear
> bungee cord with below zero temperatures in that the gear would not
> come back up. So I had a "bow legged" Kitfox until it warmed up. I
> noticed that the rubber in the bungee was sort of gray. Where the
> bungee cords with the white rubber seem to snap back no matter how
> cold it is. I now only use bungee cords with white rubber. Some
> supply houses will check before they cut the bungee to your
> specified length.
>
> Maybe the bungee was a little weak and did not hold the ski up all
> the way, allowing the slipstream at cruise speeds to grab the ski
> and pull it down.
>
>
> Just a thought.
>
>
> Kirk Martenson
> Classic IV (Speedster?) with a sick 912UL
> www.matronics.com/contribution _-
> ===========================================================
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: Back on the list after 9 years! |
Thanks for all the good suggestions, both on and off the list. Regarding the
elevator authority issue, I always thought it was a result of a generally
forward CG. However, a friend of mine has a Series 5 w/ the much lighter
912, and he has the same problem. So it makes me wonder if control throw
and/or trim jack screw length may be a contributor. I'm going to order the
trim assist mod, and add gap seals while I'm at it. Still wondering about
adding VG's to the elevator. Their money back guarantee is hard to beat.
While my CG is in the envelope, my configuration is a bit non-standard. I
placed my battery behind the pilot's seat rather than above the tail wheel
and balanced it with a ballistic parachute in the aft cargo. On paper, it
works, but I think I would benefit from a little more weight in the tail.
The ballistic chute is out of date, both rocket and re-pack, so I'm not sure
it's doing me any good anyway - (This is an addition I probably wouldn't
install if I had it to do over again), Maybe some day I'll take it out and
relocate the battery.Anyway, I've got some good, inexpensive suggestions to
go on - Thanks.
Like someone said, this airplane loves to wheel land, which I'm more than
happy to do, but for really short field landings, or in an emergency, it
would be nice to have a practiced slow 3-point technique in the bag.
What prop are you big motor guys using? My 3-blade Warp drive is smooth, but
I've always had the feeling I'm leaving some horsepower on the ground. I
usually flight plan for about 115-118 MPH. Anyone seeing much more than
that?
John
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: Another flying adventure |
I haven't had to ride over moguls yet, but I'm sure there are folks
who have and I'll bet that's where the "down travel" comes into play.
That's the problem that I've had on both sets of skis that I've
built....how to get the plane high enough off the ground so that I
can press down on the tip and record a pressure number. During
rigging of the check (rear) cables, I raised the tail of the plane to
zero degrees...straight and level "flight"...then I raised the tip of
the ski to less than 5 degrees positive, and made the check cables
such a length that they would be tight at this attitude. I then
measured from the fuselage mount point of the upper end of the shock
cord to the lower mounting point, subtracted 2" (a figure I found in
yet another article), and made my shock cords this length,
calculating in the length of the terminal/fasteners. You will note
that the rigging article says "Because of the various angles used in
attaching.....shock cord tension cannot be specified."
What I'll do next is to jack up the plane, place a main wheel onto a
block of wood, such that the cord will pull the check cable tight,
then measure the pressure required to push down on the tip of the
ski. I'll use this figure as the "not enough pressure unless you want
another exciting ride" pressure, and shorten up the cord to set this
to a higher pressure requirement...such as shorten the cord by at
least 1" and see how that changes the pressure reading. And of
course, the further down you push, the more the tension will
increase, so you don't want them too tight at first.
Lynn Matteson
Kitfox IV Speedster, taildragger
Jabiru 2200, #2062, 600.2 hrs
Sensenich 62x46
Electroair direct-fire ignition system
New skis done and flying
On Jan 26, 2009, at 1:45 PM, Noel Loveys wrote:
>
> Thanks lynn:
>
> I just looked it up and yes sir I'm surprised how far the points of
> the skis
> can go down.
>
> Now I'm trying to think of a way to lift a ski and be able to press
> down on
> the tip to see how much weight it requires to slack the check
> cable. AC 43
> says 20-40lb for our weight planes.
> Thanks
>
> Noel
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lynn
> Matteson
> Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2009 5:42 PM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Another flying adventure
>
>
> The ski info is all in AC 43.13-2A, which seems to be an addition to
> 43.13-1B combined with change 1. The actual page numbers for the ski
> installation are pages 33-41. This is according to my copy which is
> dated 9/8/98. The skis stuff shows "Rev 1977" If you have the actual
> book, it's way in the back...if you're going online to view it, I
> have no idea except to look for "-2A". As usual, FAA thinking went
> into this, and I can't make sense out of their numbering system.
>
> Lynn Matteson
> Kitfox IV Speedster, taildragger
> Jabiru 2200, #2062, 600.2 hrs
> Sensenich 62x46
> Electroair direct-fire ignition system
> New skis done and flying
>
>
> On Jan 25, 2009, at 1:12 PM, Noel Loveys wrote:
>
>> <noelloveys@yahoo.ca>
>>
>> Lynn:
>>
>> What page in AC43 did you find the spec for the skis?
>>
>> I've been looking and found nothing on installation.
>>
>> Noel
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lynn
>> Matteson
>> Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2009 10:26 AM
>> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
>> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Another flying adventure
>>
>>
>> Tight at sitting on the ground with tailwheel down? That seems like
>> it would not allow for going over terrain dips, etc. The shock cords
>> should hold the positive of 0 degrees to 5 degrees. I'm gonna have to
>> think about your suggestion over coffee this morning, Gary, but if
>> 43.13 allows up to negative 35, I gotta wonder why. Maybe some
>> northern resident who lives on skis could answer.
>> One solution is to always carry a big stick....and don't speak softly
>> to those %#$@*&_+ skis when/if they do it again!
>>
>> Lynn Matteson
>> Kitfox IV Speedster, taildragger
>> Jabiru 2200, #2062, 600.2 hrs
>> Sensenich 62x46
>> Electroair direct-fire ignition system
>> New skis done and flying
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Jan 25, 2009, at 2:51 AM, gary.algate@sandvik.com wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Lynn
>>>
>>> when I had my skis I sent the front restraint cable so that it was
>>> starting to tighten when the plain was in the standard 3 point
>>> position.
>>>
>>> there was no way I could get a negative angle on my skis in flight!
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> Gary
>>>
>>> Gary Algate
>>> SMC, Exploration
>>> Office Phone: +61 8 8276 7655
>>>
>>>
>>> This e-mail is confidential and it is intended only for the
>>> addressees. Any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
>>> this message by persons or entities other than the intended
>>> recipient is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error,
>>> kindly notify us immediately by telephone or e-mail and delete the
>>> message from your system. The sender does not accept liability for
>>> any errors or omissions in the contents of this message which may
>>> arise as a result of the e-mail transmission.
>>> "This year, instead of sending you a Christmas card in the mail, we
>>> have made a contribution to UNICEF Australia. We wish you a safe
>>> and happy Christmas".
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net>
>>> Sent by: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
>>> 25/01/2009 12:16 PM
>>> Please respond to
>>> kitfox-list@matronics.com
>>>
>>> To
>>> kitfox-list@matronics.com
>>> cc
>>> Subject
>>> Re: Kitfox-List: Another flying adventure
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> AC 43.13 shows -20 to -35 degree angles for main ski incidence,
>>> and a
>>> couple of years ago, when this was a current topic, somebody...a
>>> few,
>>> actually...said that 25 was plenty, so I set mine at that figure.
>>> This is the first time I've ever had this happen, and it got my
>>> attention. What caused it I don't know, but I'll be asking advice
>>> from other ski users locally. 43.13 also specs the down force
>>> required to slacken the check cable, and for this size ski it is
>>> 20-40 pounds of force. Maybe I need to set mine a bit higher because
>>> of my 15" wide fronts, and narrower...6-1/2" wide rears. Because
>>> they
>>> are dissimilar in area, maybe the air got hold of the front area and
>>> blew it down, and the smaller rear area could not balance it out. I
>>> never had this happen on the other skis, and I have exactly the same
>>> cable and shock cord setup....1/8" stainless steel cables and 3/8"
>>> shock cords. The shock cords have 2" of pre-stretch when they are
>>> installed at the maximum positive incidence angle of +5 degrees.
>>>
>>>
>>> Lynn Matteson
>>> Kitfox IV Speedster, taildragger
>>> Jabiru 2200, #2062, 600.2 hrs
>>> Sensenich 62x46
>>> Electroair direct-fire ignition system
>>> New skis done and flying
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jan 24, 2009, at 6:31 PM, Noel Loveys wrote:
>>>
>>> <noelloveys@yahoo.ca>
>>>>
>>>> 25 Degrees down sounds pretty steep to me. What are the other guys
>>>> using?
>>>>
>>>> Noel
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> www.matronics.com/contribution _-
>>> ===========================================================
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Message 25
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
According to www.landshorter.com, the VG's should be spaced about 1 % of the wingspan apart, so that is about 100 VG's total on the wings. The spacing between VG's is not critical, like Dick says, put a pair in the valley between each rib, your result may be more than 100, thats fine... It does not matter if it is a false rib, or real rib, near the leading edge where you put them, a rib is a rib.
Placement of VG's is CRITICAL !!! There are exact directions given by www.landshorter.com when you get them, which is 10 % of the chord of the wing back from the leading edge, and 15 degrees nose in in each rib valley if I remember correctly. They only take a couple hours to put on, you can use 3 M double sided automobile trim tape if you want to just put them on temporary to try them out if you like.
The results of VG's should be INCREDIBLE ! I don't know why Dick did not have
a reduction in stall with his VG's. Only thing I can say again is that it is
CRITICAL to get them on exactly as per the instructions that came with them.
Also each type of wing reacts differently to VG's, but I have never ever heard
anyone say they did not improve the airplane. My friend just put VG's on his
Kitfox, and raves about the improvement in slow speed handling and reduced speeds.
On my Kolb VG's took the stall down from 40 to 30 MPH, a 10 MPH reduction
in stall speed !!! The handling was the best part, it used to feel " Mushy
" below 60 MPH, now I can fly the pattern at 40 if I like, and control is there
and still very responsive. Check out this video of the performance of my
Kolb with VG's installed, it will amaze you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjI7-kBptrA
Make sure you click " Watch In High Quality " at the bottom right of the video
so that the quality will be good enough to read the airspeed indications. This
is the best single thing I have ever done to increase the performance of my
Airplane, and at 100 dollars, its a bargain. My Kitfox series 7 will be getting
VG's when its done.
Mike
--------
"NO FEAR" - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you could
have !!!
Kolb MK-III Xtra, 912-S
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=226927#226927
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: | Fuel Tank Expose |
I'll post some pictures eventually=2C but thought you all would be interest
ed in the findings/process. Brief overview:
My tanks are from 1995=2C never had fuel in them(as I am still under constr
uction). They don't fit in the wing as they are incorrectly twisted and wa
s planning on a tank redo=2C plus several years ago I noticed the "sprayed"
in sealer was cracked and flaking off the inside surfaces...so-
I decided to take the top off of the tank=2C which came off easier than I e
xpected. The three layers: two weaved with a glass mat sandwiched between
them. They peeled apart=2C each individual layer=2C very easily=2C easier
than pulling off a peelply layer. Where the top was adhered to the baffles
and side seams it came apart quite easily as well. Took probably 30 min t
o remove the top. I thought I may have to use a heat gun=2C but separating
a layer with a razor and pulling on it with a pair of duckbills pulled it
right off=2C once I got going a gloved hand is all that was needed. And I
did not damage any of the tank that I wanted. I assume that it came apart
fairly easily being that it is vinyl-ester based=2C instead of epoxy. I've
tried to pull apart composite layers in test layups I've done and never be
en able to get them apart. So in a weird way=2C its a good thing the top c
ame off easily=2C for repairs anyway.
Interior: The white sealer was sprayed in and was mostly a light "fog" coat
ing on the front and rear of the tank. The sealer has not given me any res
istance in being removed. Some areas are difficult to get to with the scra
per=2C but should have it completely clean with another hour of work.
After looking at numerous composite build sites and calling some very respe
cted composite individuals=2C I decided to use Jeffco's 9700 product to coa
t the inside of the tank. It has a very good track record=2C very chemical
ly resistant and from all reports has resisted all fuels to this date. It
is used in nearly every composite aircraft fuel tanks construction as the s
ealer of choice. I am writing down things as I go and will post something
when I am complete=2C don't expect anything for a while=2C I have to layup
a new top which shouldn't be to difficult. I've been working on this since
'95 so.... My goal is to have the tanks completed by the end of spring an
d the wings ready for cover this summer. Unless I lose my job.
Andy
Series 5 TD
_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live=99: E-mail. Chat. Share. Get more ways to connect.
http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t2_allup_explore_012009
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: 26 foot Clipped Wing Kitfox |
Paul,
Good luck with your " Experiment ", don't feel bad for throwing it out here on
the forum, this is exactly why we are all here. Not your fault if the discussion
got a little lively :) I don't think you will get the performance increase
you hope for, but it does not sound dangerous to try something like this. Just
a lot of time and some money invested. The removable wing tips are a GREAT
idea, you are going to want those to compensate for that overly short wing !
There is a Brazilian motor glider that uses removable wingtips for different
types of flying. I look forward to your results.
For those that keep going back to short wing Pipers, you seem to have forgotten
that those short Piper wings were DESIGNED FROM THE START to be short, and have
a WIDE CHORD and other things such as DIFFERENT AIRFOILS to compensate for
this. You all have gotten distracted by Pipers, we are not talking about a Piper
wing here, we are talking about cutting down a Kitfox wing. Just because
you may like the way a Piper flys, to use this is a basis for cutting a Kitfox
wing's down to 26 feet and say it should perform better is nothing short of
foolish.
Mike
--------
"NO FEAR" - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you could
have !!!
Kolb MK-III Xtra, 912-S
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=226931#226931
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 |
|
A blast from the past. Many of you will remember Kurt Schrader who last
posted in 2007. This is a post regarding his experience testing VGs.
Hi John,
I think VG's are a winner and that is a good price.
Only way you can beat that is to make your own. But
these come with a guarantee!
I bought a different brand and tested them on my Fox
during my 40 hrs of testing. I tried 5 or 6 different
patterns and did some 50 or so stalls. I did get a
significant improvement in handling and safety as far
as I am concerned. I could still completely control
the plane with full aft stick and bobbing in and out
of stalls. I could even shove in considerable rudder
and not spin out.
Unfortunately I couldn't achieve any siginificant
reduction in stall speeds and need to continue testing
in the future. As I remember, reporting my testing on
the list resulted in Landshorter jumping in to help.
I consider that great customer concern and would
support buying from them for that reason too. They
supported me even though I had a different brand.
I will certainly be going back to testing VG's
whenever I get more time. Even without a reduction is
stall speed, I like the slow flying qualities. This
makes me feel much more confident about low speed
landings and that alone would improve safety and short
field work.
Anticipating your question, my cruise speed was
similar with VG's and without. Some patterns slowed
me down a few mph and some didn't make a change in
cruise performance.
The major shortcoming of VG's to me is cleaning your
plane. Ha ha. Ya gotta work around those things.
Otherwise they are all a plus.
Kurt S. S-5/NSI turbo
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: 26 foot Clipped Wing Kitfox |
Uh, maybe I'm being a little bit senile here, but if I recall correctly,
Kitfox has had removable wing tips for a very long time. I'm talking about
the option where one can have a speedster one day and a long wing the next.
I recall that several members have used this option, but most ended up just
picking one or the other and leaving it that way. I have no idea if the
option is still available. John McBean?
Deke Morisse
Mikado Michigan
S5/Subaru/CAP 402+ TT
"The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but progress."
- Joseph Joubert
----- Original Message -----
From: "JetPilot" <orcabonita@hotmail.com>
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2009 5:11 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: 26 foot Clipped Wing Kitfox
>
> Paul,
>
> Good luck with your " Experiment ", don't feel bad for throwing it out
> here on the forum, this is exactly why we are all here. Not your fault if
> the discussion got a little lively :) I don't think you will get the
> performance increase you hope for, but it does not sound dangerous to try
> something like this. Just a lot of time and some money invested. The
> removable wing tips are a GREAT idea, you are going to want those to
> compensate for that overly short wing ! There is a Brazilian motor glider
> that uses removable wingtips for different types of flying. I look
> forward to your results.
>
> For those that keep going back to short wing Pipers, you seem to have
> forgotten that those short Piper wings were DESIGNED FROM THE START to be
> short, and have a WIDE CHORD and other things such as DIFFERENT AIRFOILS
> to compensate for this. You all have gotten distracted by Pipers, we are
> not talking about a Piper wing here, we are talking about cutting down a
> Kitfox wing. Just because you may like the way a Piper flys, to use this
> is a basis for cutting a Kitfox wing's down to 26 feet and say it should
> perform better is nothing short of foolish.
>
> Mike
>
> --------
> "NO FEAR" - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you
> could have !!!
>
> Kolb MK-III Xtra, 912-S
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=226931#226931
>
>
>
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: Fuel Tank Expose |
Andy, that is a first. Most people just put a gallon or two of MEK or
Acetone in there and shake it around until the white stuff (Kreem)
dissolves and then just pour it all out. I would never have thought
that one could just remove the top of the tank. Good tip!
BTW, you can easily remove the remainder of the Kreem in there using MEK
or Acetone. MEK seems to work a little quicker, but isn't as easy to
find and somewhat more expensive. Kreem is MEK based.
Deke Morisse
Mikado Michigan
S5/Subaru/CAP 402+ TT
"The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but
progress."
- Joseph Joubert
----- Original Message -----
From: A H
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2009 5:00 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Fuel Tank Expose
I'll post some pictures eventually, but thought you all would be
interested in the findings/process. Brief overview:
My tanks are from 1995, never had fuel in them(as I am still under
construction). They don't fit in the wing as they are incorrectly
twisted and was planning on a tank redo, plus several years ago I
noticed the "sprayed" in sealer was cracked and flaking off the inside
surfaces...so-
I decided to take the top off of the tank, which came off easier than
I expected. The three layers: two weaved with a glass mat sandwiched
between them. They peeled apart, each individual layer, very easily,
easier than pulling off a peelply layer. Where the top was adhered to
the baffles and side seams it came apart quite easily as well. Took
probably 30 min to remove the top. I thought I may have to use a heat
gun, but separating a layer with a razor and pulling on it with a pair
of duckbills pulled it right off, once I got going a gloved hand is all
that was needed. And I did not damage any of the tank that I wanted. I
assume that it came apart fairly easily being that it is vinyl-ester
based, instead of epoxy. I've tried to pull apart composite layers in
test layups I've done and never been able to get them apart. So in a
weird way, its a good thing the top came off easily, for repairs anyway.
Interior: The white sealer was sprayed in and was mostly a light "fog"
coating on the front and rear of the tank. The sealer has not given me
any resistance in being removed. Some areas are difficult to get to
with the scraper, but should have it completely clean with another hour
of work.
After looking at numerous composite build sites and calling some very
respected composite individuals, I decided to use Jeffco's 9700 product
to coat the inside of the tank. It has a very good track record, very
chemically resistant and from all reports has resisted all fuels to this
date. It is used in nearly every composite aircraft fuel tanks
construction as the sealer of choice. I am writing down things as I go
and will post something when I am complete, don't expect anything for a
while, I have to layup a new top which shouldn't be to difficult. I've
been working on this since '95 so.... My goal is to have the tanks
completed by the end of spring and the wings ready for cover this
summer. Unless I lose my job.
Andy
Series 5 TD
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Windows Live=99: E-mail. Chat. Share. Get more ways to connect. Check
it out.
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: checking sparkchecking spark |
A machine the you screw the sparkplug into and run a spark through it. There
is generally a mirror and a window to see the plug spark under air pressure.
(shop air) It takes a lot more power to make a spark jump under pressure and
there can even be small faults with the plug itself that cause the plug to
short under the pressure of a running engine. Most certified engines will
have the plugs tested in this way before installation. Generally it is a
good idea to check the gap on new plugs too.
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lynn Matteson
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2009 4:53 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: checking sparkchecking spark
New one on me, Dick....what's a "bomb" tester?
Lynn Matteson
Kitfox IV Speedster, taildragger
Jabiru 2200, #2062, 600.2 hrs
Sensenich 62x46
Electroair direct-fire ignition system
New skis done and flying
do not archive
On Jan 26, 2009, at 8:45 AM, Catz631@aol.com wrote:
> I had a similar problem with my 912. It was running a little rough
> with an uneven mag check. The plugs were new so I dismissed that as
> the problem. During my annual while awaiting parts I decided to
> pull them and test them under air pressure load with my friends
> "bomb" tester. Sure enough, one of the plugs was dead and wouldn't
> fire (actually it did but intermittently with a weak spark) From
> now on I will test each plug even when new.
> The engine is now very smooth running with equal drops on the mag
> check.
> Dick
> Maddux
>
> Pensacola,Fl
>
> From Wall Street to Main Street and everywhere in between, stay up-
> to-date with the latest news. _-
> www.matronics.com/contribution _-
> ===========================================================
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 |
|
Lynn:
That's because it isn't certified shock cord. If you get your cord from
Aviall expect to pay a lot more for it but it will come with a tag used to
certify the plane. Are the cords from Aviall any better? No, but the tag
is worth its weight in gold. A rule of thumb is to replace all chords every
five years. On our small planes we may get twice that life out of them.
Like everything else check them over in the fall when you install your skis.
Most chord will extend .61 % (from 1 ft. to 1.61 ft) so for the skis I
would have the stretched length around 1.5 times the length at rest. That
will give close to maximum lift on the chord without pulling it too much.
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lynn Matteson
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2009 5:09 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Ski Tuck
It was new rubber about 2 weeks ago, fresh from Aircraft Spruce, and
it is white rubber. I think I just didn't put enough tension on them
when I cut them to length. I'm going to shorten them by about an inch
or maybe 1-1/2". And of course with building skis, you just order 16
feet of the stuff, and hope for the best and freshest batch. One of
my Tony Bingelis books shows a chart of the thread colors used in the
covering of the shock cords, which would allow you to check the
manufacturing date of the cords, but none of the cords that I've
ordered over the years from Spruce has matched the chart...ever.
Lynn Matteson
Kitfox IV Speedster, taildragger
Jabiru 2200, #2062, 600.2 hrs
Sensenich 62x46
Electroair direct-fire ignition system
New skis done and flying
do not archive
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: | Back on the list after 9 years! |
Hello John,
We need to get together some time. I'm up here in Duncan, OK.
Where do you keep your plane?
Roger McConnell, Duncan, OK
Model 7 Trigear, Rotax 912uls
Flying sense Jan. 06
_____
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Bonewitz
Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2009 9:46 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Back on the list after 9 years!
Hello everyone. I'd like to re-introduce myself to the list. I'm a Series V
owner who purchased his kit from SkyStar back in 1996. Four years later I
had my first flight in my Lycoming O-235 powered Fox. Almost nine years
later, I'm still having a ball, though fuel prices have kept the hours low
the last couple of years. Unfortunately, I've kind of lost touch with the
"list" since finishing the plane, and have mostly been lurking.
This year, I've resolved to fly more (outside my commercial pilot job) and
plan some longer trips away from base. I live in the Dallas / Fort Worth
area and over the past years have flown a handful of long cross-country
trips. I've made two pilgrimages to OSH, two to Telluride Colorado, and one
to the Grand Canyon, though it's been awhile since I've made any long trips
like this. Hopefully, this will change this year.
I'd be interested to hear from any builders who have installed the O-235.
I'm powering a Warpdrive 3 blade and the combination has been a joy - smooth
and remarkably reliable, though I do miss the short takeoff roll you Rotax
guys enjoy. Poor elevator authority in the flare has been the only real
complaint I've had. It keeps flap use to one notch, and I always wheel land.
I'd like to experiment with a combination of elevator gap seals and VG's to
combat this. So any of you flying w/ the O235, please contact me on or off
the list. I'd be interested in talking to you. Also, anyone who has used the
"Land Shorter" VG's under the horizontal stab, I'd like to hear your
opinion. I'm sure a search of the archives will produces some good info as
well. I'm glad to be back. Hopefully I can contribute more in the future.
Best Regards,
John Bonewitz
Kitfox Series V
Message 34
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Another flying adventure |
There may be a way of doing it mathematically. The cord as you know is
designed to stretch 1:1.6. you know what the length of the extended chord
will be. ( the distance from the end of the crust cutter to the top
attachment point) Using a little trig you can calculate the weight you will
need to stretch the cord (Slightly over 30 - 40 lb) the specific length.
Make one loop in the chord and simply lift the weight off the floor using a
single pulley suspended the distance of the stretched installation plus the
thickness of your weights off the floor. Mark the chord with a soap and
make your second loop. All you would have to do then is make two chords the
same. Don't be surprised if there is a bit of pre load on the cords
especially when the tail is on the ground.
I think a big part of the installation would be the angle "B" on the front
(AC43) If that angle gets too small then the chances of going over centre
get greater and at best the forces during a tuck are increased as that angle
decreases. At full extension of the check cable the force required to lift
the ski is the greatest when it is attached at the root of the landing gear
as in AC43. I've seen lots of 180s that had the bungees attached further
forward. Now I think I see why.
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lynn Matteson
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2009 5:50 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Another flying adventure
I haven't had to ride over moguls yet, but I'm sure there are folks
who have and I'll bet that's where the "down travel" comes into play.
That's the problem that I've had on both sets of skis that I've
built....how to get the plane high enough off the ground so that I
can press down on the tip and record a pressure number. During
rigging of the check (rear) cables, I raised the tail of the plane to
zero degrees...straight and level "flight"...then I raised the tip of
the ski to less than 5 degrees positive, and made the check cables
such a length that they would be tight at this attitude. I then
measured from the fuselage mount point of the upper end of the shock
cord to the lower mounting point, subtracted 2" (a figure I found in
yet another article), and made my shock cords this length,
calculating in the length of the terminal/fasteners. You will note
that the rigging article says "Because of the various angles used in
attaching.....shock cord tension cannot be specified."
What I'll do next is to jack up the plane, place a main wheel onto a
block of wood, such that the cord will pull the check cable tight,
then measure the pressure required to push down on the tip of the
ski. I'll use this figure as the "not enough pressure unless you want
another exciting ride" pressure, and shorten up the cord to set this
to a higher pressure requirement...such as shorten the cord by at
least 1" and see how that changes the pressure reading. And of
course, the further down you push, the more the tension will
increase, so you don't want them too tight at first.
Lynn Matteson
Kitfox IV Speedster, taildragger
Jabiru 2200, #2062, 600.2 hrs
Sensenich 62x46
Electroair direct-fire ignition system
New skis done and flying
On Jan 26, 2009, at 1:45 PM, Noel Loveys wrote:
>
> Thanks lynn:
>
> I just looked it up and yes sir I'm surprised how far the points of
> the skis
> can go down.
>
> Now I'm trying to think of a way to lift a ski and be able to press
> down on
> the tip to see how much weight it requires to slack the check
> cable. AC 43
> says 20-40lb for our weight planes.
> Thanks
>
> Noel
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lynn
> Matteson
> Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2009 5:42 PM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Another flying adventure
>
>
> The ski info is all in AC 43.13-2A, which seems to be an addition to
> 43.13-1B combined with change 1. The actual page numbers for the ski
> installation are pages 33-41. This is according to my copy which is
> dated 9/8/98. The skis stuff shows "Rev 1977" If you have the actual
> book, it's way in the back...if you're going online to view it, I
> have no idea except to look for "-2A". As usual, FAA thinking went
> into this, and I can't make sense out of their numbering system.
>
> Lynn Matteson
> Kitfox IV Speedster, taildragger
> Jabiru 2200, #2062, 600.2 hrs
> Sensenich 62x46
> Electroair direct-fire ignition system
> New skis done and flying
>
>
> On Jan 25, 2009, at 1:12 PM, Noel Loveys wrote:
>
>> <noelloveys@yahoo.ca>
>>
>> Lynn:
>>
>> What page in AC43 did you find the spec for the skis?
>>
>> I've been looking and found nothing on installation.
>>
>> Noel
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lynn
>> Matteson
>> Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2009 10:26 AM
>> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
>> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Another flying adventure
>>
>>
>> Tight at sitting on the ground with tailwheel down? That seems like
>> it would not allow for going over terrain dips, etc. The shock cords
>> should hold the positive of 0 degrees to 5 degrees. I'm gonna have to
>> think about your suggestion over coffee this morning, Gary, but if
>> 43.13 allows up to negative 35, I gotta wonder why. Maybe some
>> northern resident who lives on skis could answer.
>> One solution is to always carry a big stick....and don't speak softly
>> to those %#$@*&_+ skis when/if they do it again!
>>
>> Lynn Matteson
>> Kitfox IV Speedster, taildragger
>> Jabiru 2200, #2062, 600.2 hrs
>> Sensenich 62x46
>> Electroair direct-fire ignition system
>> New skis done and flying
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Jan 25, 2009, at 2:51 AM, gary.algate@sandvik.com wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Lynn
>>>
>>> when I had my skis I sent the front restraint cable so that it was
>>> starting to tighten when the plain was in the standard 3 point
>>> position.
>>>
>>> there was no way I could get a negative angle on my skis in flight!
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> Gary
>>>
>>> Gary Algate
>>> SMC, Exploration
>>> Office Phone: +61 8 8276 7655
>>>
>>>
>>> This e-mail is confidential and it is intended only for the
>>> addressees. Any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
>>> this message by persons or entities other than the intended
>>> recipient is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error,
>>> kindly notify us immediately by telephone or e-mail and delete the
>>> message from your system. The sender does not accept liability for
>>> any errors or omissions in the contents of this message which may
>>> arise as a result of the e-mail transmission.
>>> "This year, instead of sending you a Christmas card in the mail, we
>>> have made a contribution to UNICEF Australia. We wish you a safe
>>> and happy Christmas".
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net>
>>> Sent by: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
>>> 25/01/2009 12:16 PM
>>> Please respond to
>>> kitfox-list@matronics.com
>>>
>>> To
>>> kitfox-list@matronics.com
>>> cc
>>> Subject
>>> Re: Kitfox-List: Another flying adventure
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> AC 43.13 shows -20 to -35 degree angles for main ski incidence,
>>> and a
>>> couple of years ago, when this was a current topic, somebody...a
>>> few,
>>> actually...said that 25 was plenty, so I set mine at that figure.
>>> This is the first time I've ever had this happen, and it got my
>>> attention. What caused it I don't know, but I'll be asking advice
>>> from other ski users locally. 43.13 also specs the down force
>>> required to slacken the check cable, and for this size ski it is
>>> 20-40 pounds of force. Maybe I need to set mine a bit higher because
>>> of my 15" wide fronts, and narrower...6-1/2" wide rears. Because
>>> they
>>> are dissimilar in area, maybe the air got hold of the front area and
>>> blew it down, and the smaller rear area could not balance it out. I
>>> never had this happen on the other skis, and I have exactly the same
>>> cable and shock cord setup....1/8" stainless steel cables and 3/8"
>>> shock cords. The shock cords have 2" of pre-stretch when they are
>>> installed at the maximum positive incidence angle of +5 degrees.
>>>
>>>
>>> Lynn Matteson
>>> Kitfox IV Speedster, taildragger
>>> Jabiru 2200, #2062, 600.2 hrs
>>> Sensenich 62x46
>>> Electroair direct-fire ignition system
>>> New skis done and flying
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jan 24, 2009, at 6:31 PM, Noel Loveys wrote:
>>>
>>> <noelloveys@yahoo.ca>
>>>>
>>>> 25 Degrees down sounds pretty steep to me. What are the other guys
>>>> using?
>>>>
>>>> Noel
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> www.matronics.com/contribution _-
>>> ===========================================================
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Message 35
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Airframe Parts for Kitfox 3 |
I am not having much luck in finding airframe parts for my Kitfox 3. Does anyone
have any other suggestions or links, other than Kitfox, to find things such
as flaperons, lift struts, etc, for a Kitfox 3?
Thanks, Hubert
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=226966#226966
Message 36
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Another flying adventure |
In my case there is enough preload to make it difficult to attach the
cords....way more than the suggested (by the other article) 2" of
preload, because as you mentioned, the tail is on the ground. Your
weight method should work, but I'm going to use a spring scale to get
the weight needed, by marking the cord at "x" and "y" (a guessed-at
distance apart) then seeing what length this distance becomes when
stretched to the 20-40 lbs suggested for a 1500-3000 lb rating ski.
Probably before I do this, I would check the existing tension at the
stretched length of the check cable. This would be the starting
point, and the point at where the ski would be in the flying
attitude. This would be the weakest tension on the cord, and it would
only get stronger from there. I'll get a pretty good idea of how much
to shorten the cords by using this method, as I can use the spring
tension scale to stretch the cord beyond the mounting point, and
thereby observe how much needs to be cut off and the terminal
reattached.
Lynn Matteson
Kitfox IV Speedster, taildragger
Jabiru 2200, #2062, 600.2 hrs
Sensenich 62x46
Electroair direct-fire ignition system
New skis done and flying
On Jan 26, 2009, at 7:19 PM, Noel Loveys wrote:
>
> There may be a way of doing it mathematically. The cord as you
> know is
> designed to stretch 1:1.6. you know what the length of the
> extended chord
> will be. ( the distance from the end of the crust cutter to the top
> attachment point) Using a little trig you can calculate the weight
> you will
> need to stretch the cord (Slightly over 30 - 40 lb) the specific
> length.
> Make one loop in the chord and simply lift the weight off the floor
> using a
> single pulley suspended the distance of the stretched installation
> plus the
> thickness of your weights off the floor. Mark the chord with a
> soap and
> make your second loop. All you would have to do then is make two
> chords the
> same. Don't be surprised if there is a bit of pre load on the cords
> especially when the tail is on the ground.
>
> I think a big part of the installation would be the angle "B" on
> the front
> (AC43) If that angle gets too small then the chances of going over
> centre
> get greater and at best the forces during a tuck are increased as
> that angle
> decreases. At full extension of the check cable the force required
> to lift
> the ski is the greatest when it is attached at the root of the
> landing gear
> as in AC43. I've seen lots of 180s that had the bungees attached
> further
> forward. Now I think I see why.
>
> Noel
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lynn
> Matteson
> Sent: Monday, January 26, 2009 5:50 PM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Another flying adventure
>
>
> I haven't had to ride over moguls yet, but I'm sure there are folks
> who have and I'll bet that's where the "down travel" comes into play.
>
> That's the problem that I've had on both sets of skis that I've
> built....how to get the plane high enough off the ground so that I
> can press down on the tip and record a pressure number. During
> rigging of the check (rear) cables, I raised the tail of the plane to
> zero degrees...straight and level "flight"...then I raised the tip of
> the ski to less than 5 degrees positive, and made the check cables
> such a length that they would be tight at this attitude. I then
> measured from the fuselage mount point of the upper end of the shock
> cord to the lower mounting point, subtracted 2" (a figure I found in
> yet another article), and made my shock cords this length,
> calculating in the length of the terminal/fasteners. You will note
> that the rigging article says "Because of the various angles used in
> attaching.....shock cord tension cannot be specified."
>
> What I'll do next is to jack up the plane, place a main wheel onto a
> block of wood, such that the cord will pull the check cable tight,
> then measure the pressure required to push down on the tip of the
> ski. I'll use this figure as the "not enough pressure unless you want
> another exciting ride" pressure, and shorten up the cord to set this
> to a higher pressure requirement...such as shorten the cord by at
> least 1" and see how that changes the pressure reading. And of
> course, the further down you push, the more the tension will
> increase, so you don't want them too tight at first.
>
> Lynn Matteson
> Kitfox IV Speedster, taildragger
> Jabiru 2200, #2062, 600.2 hrs
> Sensenich 62x46
> Electroair direct-fire ignition system
> New skis done and flying
>
>
> On Jan 26, 2009, at 1:45 PM, Noel Loveys wrote:
>
>> <noelloveys@yahoo.ca>
>>
>> Thanks lynn:
>>
>> I just looked it up and yes sir I'm surprised how far the points of
>> the skis
>> can go down.
>>
>> Now I'm trying to think of a way to lift a ski and be able to press
>> down on
>> the tip to see how much weight it requires to slack the check
>> cable. AC 43
>> says 20-40lb for our weight planes.
>> Thanks
>>
>> Noel
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lynn
>> Matteson
>> Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2009 5:42 PM
>> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
>> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Another flying adventure
>>
>>
>> The ski info is all in AC 43.13-2A, which seems to be an addition to
>> 43.13-1B combined with change 1. The actual page numbers for the ski
>> installation are pages 33-41. This is according to my copy which is
>> dated 9/8/98. The skis stuff shows "Rev 1977" If you have the actual
>> book, it's way in the back...if you're going online to view it, I
>> have no idea except to look for "-2A". As usual, FAA thinking went
>> into this, and I can't make sense out of their numbering system.
>>
>> Lynn Matteson
>> Kitfox IV Speedster, taildragger
>> Jabiru 2200, #2062, 600.2 hrs
>> Sensenich 62x46
>> Electroair direct-fire ignition system
>> New skis done and flying
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Jan 25, 2009, at 1:12 PM, Noel Loveys wrote:
>>
>>> <noelloveys@yahoo.ca>
>>>
>>> Lynn:
>>>
>>> What page in AC43 did you find the spec for the skis?
>>>
>>> I've been looking and found nothing on installation.
>>>
>>> Noel
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
>>> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lynn
>>> Matteson
>>> Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2009 10:26 AM
>>> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
>>> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Another flying adventure
>>>
>>>
>>> Tight at sitting on the ground with tailwheel down? That seems like
>>> it would not allow for going over terrain dips, etc. The shock cords
>>> should hold the positive of 0 degrees to 5 degrees. I'm gonna
>>> have to
>>> think about your suggestion over coffee this morning, Gary, but if
>>> 43.13 allows up to negative 35, I gotta wonder why. Maybe some
>>> northern resident who lives on skis could answer.
>>> One solution is to always carry a big stick....and don't speak
>>> softly
>>> to those %#$@*&_+ skis when/if they do it again!
>>>
>>> Lynn Matteson
>>> Kitfox IV Speedster, taildragger
>>> Jabiru 2200, #2062, 600.2 hrs
>>> Sensenich 62x46
>>> Electroair direct-fire ignition system
>>> New skis done and flying
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jan 25, 2009, at 2:51 AM, gary.algate@sandvik.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Lynn
>>>>
>>>> when I had my skis I sent the front restraint cable so that it was
>>>> starting to tighten when the plain was in the standard 3 point
>>>> position.
>>>>
>>>> there was no way I could get a negative angle on my skis in
>>>> flight!
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>>
>>>> Gary
>>>>
>>>> Gary Algate
>>>> SMC, Exploration
>>>> Office Phone: +61 8 8276 7655
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This e-mail is confidential and it is intended only for the
>>>> addressees. Any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
>>>> this message by persons or entities other than the intended
>>>> recipient is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error,
>>>> kindly notify us immediately by telephone or e-mail and delete the
>>>> message from your system. The sender does not accept liability for
>>>> any errors or omissions in the contents of this message which may
>>>> arise as a result of the e-mail transmission.
>>>> "This year, instead of sending you a Christmas card in the mail, we
>>>> have made a contribution to UNICEF Australia. We wish you a safe
>>>> and happy Christmas".
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net>
>>>> Sent by: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
>>>> 25/01/2009 12:16 PM
>>>> Please respond to
>>>> kitfox-list@matronics.com
>>>>
>>>> To
>>>> kitfox-list@matronics.com
>>>> cc
>>>> Subject
>>>> Re: Kitfox-List: Another flying adventure
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> AC 43.13 shows -20 to -35 degree angles for main ski incidence,
>>>> and a
>>>> couple of years ago, when this was a current topic, somebody...a
>>>> few,
>>>> actually...said that 25 was plenty, so I set mine at that figure.
>>>> This is the first time I've ever had this happen, and it got my
>>>> attention. What caused it I don't know, but I'll be asking advice
>>>> from other ski users locally. 43.13 also specs the down force
>>>> required to slacken the check cable, and for this size ski it is
>>>> 20-40 pounds of force. Maybe I need to set mine a bit higher
>>>> because
>>>> of my 15" wide fronts, and narrower...6-1/2" wide rears. Because
>>>> they
>>>> are dissimilar in area, maybe the air got hold of the front area
>>>> and
>>>> blew it down, and the smaller rear area could not balance it out. I
>>>> never had this happen on the other skis, and I have exactly the
>>>> same
>>>> cable and shock cord setup....1/8" stainless steel cables and 3/8"
>>>> shock cords. The shock cords have 2" of pre-stretch when they are
>>>> installed at the maximum positive incidence angle of +5 degrees.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Lynn Matteson
>>>> Kitfox IV Speedster, taildragger
>>>> Jabiru 2200, #2062, 600.2 hrs
>>>> Sensenich 62x46
>>>> Electroair direct-fire ignition system
>>>> New skis done and flying
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Jan 24, 2009, at 6:31 PM, Noel Loveys wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <noelloveys@yahoo.ca>
>>>>>
>>>>> 25 Degrees down sounds pretty steep to me. What are the other
>>>>> guys
>>>>> using?
>>>>>
>>>>> Noel
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> www.matronics.com/contribution _-
>>>> ===========================================================
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Message 37
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: checking sparkchecking spark |
God, I had forgotten all about them...I used to clean plugs on an
actual sandblast machine built for such a thing, and it had the
"bomb" (where'd THAT name come from?) as a part of the machine. Sure
don't see those things anymore. Most people just replace
plugs...probably find those old AC, Champion, whatever-brand machines
at the older neighborhood automotive repair garages.
Lynn Matteson
Kitfox IV Speedster, taildragger
Jabiru 2200, #2062, 600.2 hrs
Sensenich 62x46
Electroair direct-fire ignition system
New skis done and flying
do not archive
On Jan 26, 2009, at 6:41 PM, Noel Loveys wrote:
>
> A machine the you screw the sparkplug into and run a spark through
> it. There
> is generally a mirror and a window to see the plug spark under air
> pressure.
> (shop air) It takes a lot more power to make a spark jump under
> pressure and
> there can even be small faults with the plug itself that cause the
> plug to
> short under the pressure of a running engine. Most certified
> engines will
> have the plugs tested in this way before installation. Generally it
> is a
> good idea to check the gap on new plugs too.
>
> Noel
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lynn
> Matteson
> Sent: Monday, January 26, 2009 4:53 PM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: checking sparkchecking spark
>
>
> New one on me, Dick....what's a "bomb" tester?
>
> Lynn Matteson
> Kitfox IV Speedster, taildragger
> Jabiru 2200, #2062, 600.2 hrs
> Sensenich 62x46
> Electroair direct-fire ignition system
> New skis done and flying
> do not archive
>
>
> On Jan 26, 2009, at 8:45 AM, Catz631@aol.com wrote:
>
>> I had a similar problem with my 912. It was running a little rough
>> with an uneven mag check. The plugs were new so I dismissed that as
>> the problem. During my annual while awaiting parts I decided to
>> pull them and test them under air pressure load with my friends
>> "bomb" tester. Sure enough, one of the plugs was dead and wouldn't
>> fire (actually it did but intermittently with a weak spark) From
>> now on I will test each plug even when new.
>> The engine is now very smooth running with equal drops on the mag
>> check.
>> Dick
>> Maddux
>>
>> Pensacola,Fl
>>
>> From Wall Street to Main Street and everywhere in between, stay up-
>> to-date with the latest news. _-
>> www.matronics.com/contribution _-
>> ===========================================================
>
>
Message 38
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: KF IV Distance from DATUM to center of wheel |
Mr. Lowell Fitt
Mr. Paul Franz
Mr. Guy Buchanan
Tks a lot for useful information.
Attached is excel file W&B of my aircraft info.
Tks
FD
www.dcubj3.com.br
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2009 2:25 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: KF IV Distance from DATUM to center of wheel
>
> I suspect that what Francisco actually needs is the location of the axle
> relative to the CG. I think the easy way to approximate this is by
> tailwheel weight vs. empty weight. My first Kitfox had a tailwheel wt of
> 44
> lbs. vs an empty wt of 704 lbs. - yes a heavy. This gives 6.25% on the
> tailwheel. From what I see in the pictures on Francisco's website, I
> suspect his emtpy weight in the 850 lb range giving a tailwheel weight in
> the range of 53 lbs. This in level attitude.
>
> Lowell
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Paul Franz - Merlin GT" <paul@eucleides.com>
> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2009 5:49 PM
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: KF IV Distance from DATUM to center of wheel
>
>
>> <paul@eucleides.com>
>>
>> On Sun, January 25, 2009 4:30 pm, Francisco Drovetta wrote:
>>> Hi!
>>> Someone knows which is the distance from DATUM line to "center of wheel"
>>> in Kitfox
>>> Model IV ??
>>
>> For ease and safety in landing, the gear should be set as far forward as
>> practicable.
>>
>> The limit is usually dictated by the fuselage structure, that is, you can
>> only mount
>> it to the forward limit of the fuselage. But in your case with what looks
>> like a
>> forward mounted and heavy engine, weight and balance might be the
>> limiting
>> factor.
>>
>> If you can supply the moment arms and weights of your existing setup, I
>> can calculate
>> what happens when you move the gear.
>>
>> I would need:
>>
>> moment arm and weight of the main gear
>> moment arm and scale weight of tail wheel
>> moment arm and weight on main gear (empty, no fuel or oil) at tire
>> contact
>> point
>> moment arm for oil in crankcase
>> moment arm for fuel in tanks.
>> moment arm for occupants
>> moment arm for baggage
>>
>> If the existing gear is not going to be used then I need the weight of
>> the
>> proposed
>> gear and location of it's c.g. relative to the fore and aft mounting
>> positions.
>>
>>>
>>> See jpg attached of Highlander (www.justkitplanes.com)
>>> I need the same image of Kitfox IV, to find answer to my question.
>>>
>>> Can you help me?
>>>
>>> Tks
>>> FD
>>> www.dcubj3.com.br
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Paul A. Franz
>> Registration/Aircraft - N14UW/Merlin GT
>> Engine/Prop - Rotax 914/NSI CAP
>> Bellevue WA
>> 425.241.1618 Cell
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
18:37
Message 39
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Both Spruce and Wicks Aircraft Supply cite Mil-Spec numbers for their
shock cord...Spruce says theirs is pre-stretched "for an ultimate
elongation of 120-140%"
How is the tag worth it's weight in gold.....on an experimental pair
of skis on an experimental airplane?
I have even begun to follow FAA's suggestion to relax the cords when
parked overnight or longer....which is most of the time. I would
surmise that if it is common practice to change landing gear bungees
every two years, we may well get 5 years out of ski shock cords,
especially if relaxed as suggested....and kept out of sunlight for
most of their life.
Lynn Matteson
Kitfox IV Speedster, taildragger
Jabiru 2200, #2062, 600.2 hrs
Sensenich 62x46
Electroair direct-fire ignition system
New skis done and flying
On Jan 26, 2009, at 6:50 PM, Noel Loveys wrote:
>
> Lynn:
>
> That's because it isn't certified shock cord. If you get your cord
> from
> Aviall expect to pay a lot more for it but it will come with a tag
> used to
> certify the plane. Are the cords from Aviall any better? No, but
> the tag
> is worth its weight in gold. A rule of thumb is to replace all
> chords every
> five years. On our small planes we may get twice that life out of
> them.
> Like everything else check them over in the fall when you install
> your skis.
> Most chord will extend .61 % (from 1 ft. to 1.61 ft) so for the
> skis I
> would have the stretched length around 1.5 times the length at
> rest. That
> will give close to maximum lift on the chord without pulling it too
> much.
>
> Noel
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lynn
> Matteson
> Sent: Monday, January 26, 2009 5:09 PM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Ski Tuck
>
>
> It was new rubber about 2 weeks ago, fresh from Aircraft Spruce, and
> it is white rubber. I think I just didn't put enough tension on them
> when I cut them to length. I'm going to shorten them by about an inch
> or maybe 1-1/2". And of course with building skis, you just order 16
> feet of the stuff, and hope for the best and freshest batch. One of
> my Tony Bingelis books shows a chart of the thread colors used in the
> covering of the shock cords, which would allow you to check the
> manufacturing date of the cords, but none of the cords that I've
> ordered over the years from Spruce has matched the chart...ever.
>
> Lynn Matteson
> Kitfox IV Speedster, taildragger
> Jabiru 2200, #2062, 600.2 hrs
> Sensenich 62x46
> Electroair direct-fire ignition system
> New skis done and flying
> do not archive
>
>
Message 40
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Back on the list after 9 years! |
I'm based at Grand Prairie Municipal (GPM), just south of DFW. Do you ever
get down this way?
John
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 5:50 PM, Roger McConnell <rdmac@swbell.net> wrote:
> Hello John,
>
> We need to get together some time. I'm up here in Duncan, OK.
> Where do you keep your plane?
>
>
> Roger McConnell, Duncan, OK
>
> Model 7 Trigear, Rotax 912uls
>
> Flying sense Jan. 06
>
Message 41
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Noel sez:
>It is recommended that each of the circuit breakers or individual
>fuses be attached directly to the power buss as they only protect
>what is down circuit of them. From these breakers or fuses your
>load is established.
There's nothing wrong with attaching the breakers or fuses directly
to the power buss, that's what I've always done, but a circuit
breaker or fuse protects the device on the circuit it is in line
with--it has no idea what is "up circuit" or "down circuit." When
the current flow exceeds the threshold value, it opens the circuit,
preventing any power flow.
This:
(+)-----[device]-----[breaker]-----(-)
is equivalent to:
(+)-----[breaker]-----[device]-----(-)
When the breaker pops, they remain equivalent with no complete
circuit, hence no current flow:
(+)-----[device]-----
or:
-----[device]-----(-)
Mike G.
N728KF, Kitfox IV-1200 Speedster
Phoenix, AZ
Message 42
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Airframe Parts for Kitfox 3 |
Hubert=2C Have you been watching Barnstormers. com?
do not archivePat ReillyMod 3 582 RebuildRockford=2C IL> Subject: Kitfox-Li
st: Airframe Parts for Kitfox 3> From: hjklepac@turbousa.com> Date: Mon=2C
26 Jan 2009 16:54:47 -0800> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com> > --> Kitfox-Lis
t message posted by: "hubertk" <hjklepac@turbousa.com>> > I am not having m
uch luck in finding airframe parts for my Kitfox 3. Does anyone have any ot
her suggestions or links=2C other than Kitfox=2C to find things such as fla
perons=2C lift struts=2C etc=2C for a Kitfox 3?> > Thanks=2C Hubert> > > >
> Read this topic online here:> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php
==> > >
Message 43
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: X-Plane test |
Michel,
Thanks so much for doing this test on your X-plane software. The results were
pretty much what I had expected based on what I had read, with the exception of
the flimsy handling characteristics. I would have thought the higher wing loading
would actually make it feel stabler. But as you said, it's not necessarily
an exact science, so once again the real test is just that...
I do wonder how the newer airfoil used on the Model IV along with the wider symetrical-airfoiled
flaperons might change the numbers, as there is a significant
difference between a real Model 3 and a Model 4 for top speed. I learned that
the first time I put the nose down on my Model IV with the long wing...it builds
up speed fast. Much faster than does the older higher lift airfoil used
on the Avids and the Kitfox 1-3 models, which feel like they hit a wall once
you exceed 100 mph. At least that's been my experience.
I'm curious, does X-plane accurately simulate your jabiru powered Model 3 for performance
specs? It sure sounds like it does a good job with handling and control
feel. I'm pretty impressed that you could actually sense and feel the increased
stall characteristics with the shorter wing. That's pretty cool!
Thanks again Michel.
Paul
Michel wrote:
>
> > From: av8rps [paul676@tds.net]
> > I know nothing about X-plane, but what we are trying to find out here is how
a Kitfox
> > IV will perform if the standard Ribblet 32 ft wing is cut down to a 26 ft
span.
> >
> >
>
> Hello Paul,
> First, a word of warning: although this is an excellent simulator as it divides
everything to a blade element with own coeficient of lift, drag and moment
... it is only a simulator with its limitations.
>
> For example, to simulate the flaperons, I had to cheat. Why? Well, a flaperon
stall much later than the wing because the air passing under the wing is pressed
on the top of the flaperon, keeping it laminar.
>
> If a simulator was to do exactly the same thing, the interaction between different
surfaces should be calculated using Computerized Fluid Dynamic (CFD) that
divides the entire volume of space into independant parcels. That can't be done
in real time.
> X-Plane takes into account simple things like the prop wash effect on the control
surfaces. But not much more. So, to make my flaperons, I had to manually
change the lift coefficient and stall angle that exceeds then 20 degrees AOA.
>
> Anyway, I made a copy of my Kitfox model 3 with Jabiru 2200 and shortened the
wings to 26 feet span. The result was interesting!
>
> I can't really measure the take-off distance. To do that, I should mark the ground
with lines and use replay to see when it lifted. What I did is:
>
> Stall speed at idle: normal: 34 mph. Short wing: 39 mph
> Max speed at WOT: normal: 110 mph. Short wing: 115 mph.
> Climb rate at 60 mph: normal: 1,000 ft/m. Short wing: ... also 1,000 ft/m!
>
> Please, take those figures not as absolute but relative values.
>
> The general feeling is this: performances weren't very much affected but the
feeling of flying was quite different! First, I was surprised to see how much
roll power I had! More than with the long wings. (Yes, the flaperons were also
shortened). On second thoughts, it may make sense: shorter flaperons but also
shorter wings that present drag to roll motion.
> The general feeling of flying was more flimsy with the short wings. For example,
with the normal wings, a stall induces a soft mush-down; something I also
experience in real life with my plane. But the short wing model stall harder.
Uncoordinate stall went much faster in a wing drop and possible spin with the
short wings. It felt better to fly the unmodified plane but perhaps that's because
I am used to it.
>
> I hope it helps.
>
> Cheers,
> Michel Verheughe
> Norway
> Kitfox 3 - Jabiru 2200 ... flying as PAX
>
> do not archive
>
>
--------
Model IV-1200 912ul Amphib
Avid Flyer
Lake Amphibian
Central Wisconsin
paul676@tds.net
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=227009#227009
Message 44
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 26 foot Clipped Wing Kitfox |
Ok gang, if you haven't already seen what Michel has done using X-plane software
to simulate clipping the wing down to 26 ft, here is a copy of his results of
clipping the wing on his model 3 (this was posted elsewhere on the forum as
well);
[Quote:
From: av8rps [paul676@tds.net]
I know nothing about X-plane, but what we are trying to find out here is how a
Kitfox
IV will perform if the standard Ribblet 32 ft wing is cut down to a 26 ft span.]
Michel wrote:
Hello Paul,
First, a word of warning: although this is an excellent simulator as it divides
everything to a blade element with own coeficient of lift, drag and moment ...
it is only a simulator with its limitations.
For example, to simulate the flaperons, I had to cheat. Why? Well, a flaperon stall
much later than the wing because the air passing under the wing is pressed
on the top of the flaperon, keeping it laminar.
If a simulator was to do exactly the same thing, the interaction between different
surfaces should be calculated using Computerized Fluid Dynamic (CFD) that
divides the entire volume of space into independant parcels. That can't be done
in real time.
X-Plane takes into account simple things like the prop wash effect on the control
surfaces. But not much more. So, to make my flaperons, I had to manually change
the lift coefficient and stall angle that exceeds then 20 degrees AOA.
Anyway, I made a copy of my Kitfox model 3 with Jabiru 2200 and shortened the wings
to 26 feet span. The result was interesting!
I can't really measure the take-off distance. To do that, I should mark the ground
with lines and use replay to see when it lifted. What I did is:
Stall speed at idle: normal: 34 mph. Short wing: 39 mph
Max speed at WOT: normal: 110 mph. Short wing: 115 mph.
Climb rate at 60 mph: normal: 1,000 ft/m. Short wing: ... also 1,000 ft/m!
Please, take those figures not as absolute but relative values.
The general feeling is this: performances weren't very much affected but the feeling
of flying was quite different! First, I was surprised to see how much roll
power I had! More than with the long wings. (Yes, the flaperons were also shortened).
On second thoughts, it may make sense: shorter flaperons but also shorter
wings that present drag to roll motion.
The general feeling of flying was more flimsy with the short wings. For example,
with the normal wings, a stall induces a soft mush-down; something I also experience
in real life with my plane. But the short wing model stall harder. Uncoordinate
stall went much faster in a wing drop and possible spin with the short
wings. It felt better to fly the unmodified plane but perhaps that's because
I am used to it.
I hope it helps.
Cheers,
Michel Verheughe
Norway
Kitfox 3 - Jabiru 2200 ... flying as PAX
Michel,
****My reply****
Thanks so much for doing this test on your X-plane software. The results were pretty
much what I had expected based on what I had read, with the exception of
the flimsy handling characteristics. I would have thought the higher wing loading
would actually make it feel stabler. But as you said, it's not necessarily
an exact science, so once again the real test is just that...
I do wonder how the newer airfoil used on the Model IV along with the wider symetrical-airfoiled
flaperons might change the numbers, as there is a significant
difference between a real Model 3 and a Model 4 for top speed. I learned that
the first time I put the nose down on my Model IV with the long wing...it builds
up speed fast. Much faster than does the older higher lift airfoil used on
the Avids and the Kitfox 1-3 models, which feel like they hit a wall once you
exceed 100 mph. At least that's been my experience.
I'm curious, does X-plane accurately simulate your jabiru powered Model 3 for performance
specs? It sure sounds like it does a good job with handling and control
feel. I'm pretty impressed that you could actually sense and feel the increased
stall characteristics with the shorter wing. That's pretty cool!
Thanks again Michel.
Paul
--------
Model IV-1200 912ul Amphib
Avid Flyer
Lake Amphibian
Central Wisconsin
paul676@tds.net
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=227011#227011
Message 45
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Mike and Noel=2C OK=2C I got what you are telling me. But=2C that does not
answer my question.
+-----(Switch)-----(Fuse)-----(Devise)----(-)
+-----(Switch)-----(Fuse)-----(Devise)----(-)
+-----(Switch)-----(Fuse)-----(Devise)----(-)
All the +'s on the left form a power buss. Mine is actually a wire connecti
ng 1 terminal of each switch. Next in the circuit is the fuse. Mike=2C by y
our definition=2C shorting of the switch=2C which is not downline of the fu
se would not be protected by that circuits fuse. What would happen if ther
e was a dead short at a switch? I am guessing it would blow a fuse up line
=2C the fuse (not shown) that supplies power to the three +'s. This would k
ill power to the 3 circuits shown. If the fuse was hooked into the buss bef
ore the switch and there was a dead short at the switch=2C you would only l
ose power to that circuit. Is this correct? If this is correct=2C I will di
smantel the panel and rewire it with fuse hooked to power buss before the s
witch. I have never seen power to a switch and then to a fuse. I didn't wir
e it this way The original builder wired it. It flew around 200 hours like
this and the original builder did what I would call high quality work. I kn
ow that doesn't mean he was electrically knowledgeable=2C and I don't know
what fuse would blow if there was a dead short at one of the switches. I kn
ow there are going to be alot of opinions out there=2C but who out there kn
ows for sure what will happen in this circuit.
Pat ReillyMod 3 582 RebuildRockford=2C IL> Date: Mon=2C 26 Jan 2009 20:04:3
7 -0700> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com> From: MichaelGibbs@cox.net> Subject
el Gibbs <MichaelGibbs@cox.net>> > Noel sez:> > >It is recommended that eac
h of the circuit breakers or individual > >fuses be attached directly to th
e power buss as they only protect > >what is down circuit of them. From the
se breakers or fuses your > >load is established.> > There's nothing wrong
with attaching the breakers or fuses directly > to the power buss=2C that's
what I've always done=2C but a circuit > breaker or fuse protects the devi
ce on the circuit it is in line > with--it has no idea what is "up circuit"
or "down circuit." When > the current flow exceeds the threshold value=2C
it opens the circuit=2C > preventing any power flow.> > This:> > (+)-----[d
evice]-----[breaker]-----(-)> > is equivalent to:> > (+)-----[breaker]-----
[device]-----(-)> > When the breaker pops=2C they remain equivalent with no
complete > circuit=2C hence no current flow:> > (+)-----[device]-----> > o
r:> > -----[device]-----(-)> > Mike G.> N728KF=2C Kitfox IV-1200 Speedster>
====================> > >
Message 46
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: checking sparkchecking spark |
Lynn=2C You can still buy the plug sandblaster from J.C. Whitney. But=2C I
am not familiar with the hookup to test spark part.
do not archivePat ReillyMod 3 582 RebuildRockford=2C IL> From: lynnmatt@jps
.net> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: checking sparkchecking spark> Date: Mon
=2C 26 Jan 2009 20:29:43 -0500> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com> > --> Kitfox
-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net>> > God=2C I had f
orgotten all about them...I used to clean plugs on an > actual sandblast ma
chine built for such a thing=2C and it had the > "bomb" (where'd THAT name
come from?) as a part of the machine. Sure > don't see those things anymore
. Most people just replace > plugs...probably find those old AC=2C Champion
=2C whatever-brand machines > at the older neighborhood automotive repair g
arages.> > Lynn Matteson> Kitfox IV Speedster=2C taildragger> Jabiru 2200
=2C #2062=2C 600.2 hrs> Sensenich 62x46> Electroair direct-fire ignition sy
stem> New skis done and flying> do not archive> > > > On Jan 26=2C 2009=2C
oel Loveys" <noelloveys@yahoo.ca>> >> > A machine the you screw the sparkpl
ug into and run a spark through > > it. There> > is generally a mirror and
a window to see the plug spark under air > > pressure.> > (shop air) It tak
es a lot more power to make a spark jump under > > pressure and> > there ca
n even be small faults with the plug itself that cause the > > plug to> > s
hort under the pressure of a running engine. Most certified > > engines wil
l> > have the plugs tested in this way before installation. Generally it >
> is a> > good idea to check the gap on new plugs too.> >> > Noel> >> > ---
--Original Message-----> > From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com> >
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lynn > > Matte
son> > Sent: Monday=2C January 26=2C 2009 4:53 PM> > To: kitfox-list@matron
ics.com> > Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: checking sparkchecking spark> >> >
New one on me=2C Dick....what's a "bomb" tester?> >> > Lynn Matteson> > Kit
fox IV Speedster=2C taildragger> > Jabiru 2200=2C #2062=2C 600.2 hrs> > Sen
senich 62x46> > Electroair direct-fire ignition system> > New skis done and
flying> > do not archive> >> >> >> > On Jan 26=2C 2009=2C at 8:45 AM=2C Ca
tz631@aol.com wrote:> >> >> I had a similar problem with my 912. It was run
ning a little rough> >> with an uneven mag check. The plugs were new so I d
ismissed that as> >> the problem. During my annual while awaiting parts I d
ecided to> >> pull them and test them under air pressure load with my frien
ds> >> "bomb" tester. Sure enough=2C one of the plugs was dead and wouldn't
> >> fire (actually it did but intermittently with a weak spark) From> >> n
ow on I will test each plug even when new.> >> The engine is now very smoot
h running with equal drops on the mag> >> check.> >> Dick> >> Maddux> >>> >
> Pensacola=2CFl> >>> >> From Wall Street to Main Street and everywhere in
between=2C stay up-> >> to-date with the latest news. _-> >> www.matronics.
com/contribution _-> >> =================
==================> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
==================> > >
Message 47
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: X-Plane test |
Michel,
One last thought; Would you consider doing a 28'8" wing like the Speedser has
for comparisons against the 26 and 32 ft wings? I thought that might help us
"balance" the data results better.
Paul
--------
Model IV-1200 912ul Amphib
Avid Flyer
Lake Amphibian
Central Wisconsin
paul676@tds.net
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=227020#227020
Message 48
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Pat sez:
>Mike and Noel, OK, I got what you are telling me. But, that does not
>answer my question.
>
>+-----(Switch)-----(Fuse)-----(Devise)----(-)
>+-----(Switch)-----(Fuse)-----(Devise)----(-)
>+-----(Switch)-----(Fuse)-----(Devise)----(-)
>
>
>All the +'s on the left form a power buss. Mine is actually a wire
>connecting 1 terminal of each switch. Next in the circuit is the
>fuse. Mike, by your definition, shorting of the switch, which is not
>downline of the fuse would not be protected by that circuits fuse.
There is nothing wrong with your diagram. A switch that is "shorted"
is simply a switch that is turned on--it allows current to flow
through the circuit. You don't need to "protect" the switch from a
short. What you want to protect is the wire that forms the circuit,
which you've done by placing a fuse in the circuit. A short in the
device (with the switch on) would cause too much current flow through
the wire, and that's what the fuse will prevent by blowing, thus
opening the circuit and stopping the current flow.
>What would happen if there was a dead short at a switch?
The device would be on, nothing more.
>If the fuse was hooked into the buss before the switch and there was
>a dead short at the switch, you would only lose power to that
>circuit.
No. Opening a circuit anywhere in the circuit prevents current flow.
It's not like a water leak which could continue to flow to the point
of the leak. Any break in a circuit stops the flow of electricity.
>I have never seen power to a switch and then to a fuse.
I didn't do mine this way but I see no problem with it.
>...I don't know what fuse would blow if there was a dead short at
>one of the switches.
The device controlled by the switch would be on and you couldn't turn
it off, that's all. But the same would be true even if you
rearranged your fuses and switches. As long as the device is not
shorted, the fuse shouldn't blow.
Mike G.
N728KF, Kitfox IV-1200 Speedster
Phoenix, AZ
Message 49
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Greetings! New to the forum. |
Hello all,
I wanted to to take a minute to introduce myself and thank you all (in advance)
for all the help I'm going to receive from you in the coming future.
I reside in Tulsa and and received my pilot training from Spartan flight school
(here in Tulsa) in the early 90's. My father started building a Kitfox IV in
the 90's and with life getting in the way hasn't had much time to work on it.
He has recently decided to move the plane from his home in southwest Oklahoma,
up here to Tulsa so we can Team-up and make a final push to complete it.
Over the last few weeks I have been cramming my brain with as much Kitfox info
as I can handle. This Forum has already answered many of my questions without
even having to ask them. My father has always spoke highly of the help here and
I can see why.
Sincerely,
Chris
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=227025#227025
Message 50
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: KF IV Distance from DATUM to center of wheel |
Well, Francisco, I wasn't too far off with the empty weight estimate, and it
should fly fine based on your W&B numbers, but the tailwheel wt. should be
much heavier. Since you have the spring gear, could you fabricate an
extension that could be bolted to the gear at the axle attachment, extending
the axle forward in increments until you get the 55 lbs. that you should
have with that empty weight and that then would be your proper axle
location. You could then fabricate new attachment points for the spring
gear or maybe use tube gear that would angle forward to the correct axle
location.
Lowell
----- Original Message -----
From: "Francisco Drovetta" <dcubj3@terra.com.br>
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2009 5:39 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: KF IV Distance from DATUM to center of wheel
> Mr. Lowell Fitt
> Mr. Paul Franz
> Mr. Guy Buchanan
>
> Tks a lot for useful information.
>
> Attached is excel file W&B of my aircraft info.
>
> Tks
>
> FD
> www.dcubj3.com.br
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@sbcglobal.net>
> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Monday, January 26, 2009 2:25 PM
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: KF IV Distance from DATUM to center of wheel
>
>
>>
>> I suspect that what Francisco actually needs is the location of the axle
>> relative to the CG. I think the easy way to approximate this is by
>> tailwheel weight vs. empty weight. My first Kitfox had a tailwheel wt of
>> 44
>> lbs. vs an empty wt of 704 lbs. - yes a heavy. This gives 6.25% on the
>> tailwheel. From what I see in the pictures on Francisco's website, I
>> suspect his emtpy weight in the 850 lb range giving a tailwheel weight in
>> the range of 53 lbs. This in level attitude.
>>
>> Lowell
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Paul Franz - Merlin GT" <paul@eucleides.com>
>> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
>> Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2009 5:49 PM
>> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: KF IV Distance from DATUM to center of wheel
>>
>>
>>> <paul@eucleides.com>
>>>
>>> On Sun, January 25, 2009 4:30 pm, Francisco Drovetta wrote:
>>>> Hi!
>>>> Someone knows which is the distance from DATUM line to "center of
>>>> wheel"
>>>> in Kitfox
>>>> Model IV ??
>>>
>>> For ease and safety in landing, the gear should be set as far forward as
>>> practicable.
>>>
>>> The limit is usually dictated by the fuselage structure, that is, you
>>> can
>>> only mount
>>> it to the forward limit of the fuselage. But in your case with what
>>> looks
>>> like a
>>> forward mounted and heavy engine, weight and balance might be the
>>> limiting
>>> factor.
>>>
>>> If you can supply the moment arms and weights of your existing setup, I
>>> can calculate
>>> what happens when you move the gear.
>>>
>>> I would need:
>>>
>>> moment arm and weight of the main gear
>>> moment arm and scale weight of tail wheel
>>> moment arm and weight on main gear (empty, no fuel or oil) at tire
>>> contact
>>> point
>>> moment arm for oil in crankcase
>>> moment arm for fuel in tanks.
>>> moment arm for occupants
>>> moment arm for baggage
>>>
>>> If the existing gear is not going to be used then I need the weight of
>>> the
>>> proposed
>>> gear and location of it's c.g. relative to the fore and aft mounting
>>> positions.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> See jpg attached of Highlander (www.justkitplanes.com)
>>>> I need the same image of Kitfox IV, to find answer to my question.
>>>>
>>>> Can you help me?
>>>>
>>>> Tks
>>>> FD
>>>> www.dcubj3.com.br
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Paul A. Franz
>>> Registration/Aircraft - N14UW/Merlin GT
>>> Engine/Prop - Rotax 914/NSI CAP
>>> Bellevue WA
>>> 425.241.1618 Cell
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
> 18:37
>
Message 51
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: KF IV Distance from DATUM to center of wheel |
At 05:39 PM 1/26/2009, you wrote:
>Attached is excel file W&B of my aircraft info.
>
>Tks
Francisco,
My IV build manual shows a CG range of 10.7" - 14.8". The
latter was changed by service letter to 16". Where did you get your
numbers? Also, did you obtain your pilot location by weighing the
aircraft with the pilot in it? When I did my W&B I weighed with and
without pilot. I found the pilot location to be 15.8" behind datum.
Finally, is it true that your aircraft is not really a Kitfox IV, but
a copy? If so, I guess that none of this really matters, since it
appears your plane flies just fine.
Guy Buchanan
San Diego, CA
K-IV 1200 / 582-C / Warp / 100% done, thanks mostly to Bob Ducar.
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! --
|