Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:29 AM - Re: Re: Mogas revisited (fox5flyer)
2. 06:10 AM - Re: Mogas revisited (Roger Lee)
3. 06:43 AM - Re: Re: Mogas revisited (JC Propeller Design)
4. 07:41 AM - Re: Re: Mogas revisited ( Back on track) (Lowell Fitt)
5. 08:06 AM - fuel drain valves (Vic Baker)
6. 08:24 AM - Insurance Question, for those that garage "hangar" (WurlyBird)
7. 08:57 AM - Re: Another query about towing, front spar supports (WurlyBird)
8. 09:12 AM - Re: Insurance Question, for those that garage "hangar" (Bob Brennan)
9. 09:33 AM - Re: Re: Mogas revisited (Noel Loveys)
10. 09:42 AM - Re: Insurance Question, for those that garage "hangar" (Paul Franz - Merlin GT)
11. 09:56 AM - Re: Re: Mogas revisited (Noel Loveys)
12. 10:03 AM - Re: Mogas revisited (jdmcbean)
13. 10:18 AM - Re: Re: Mogas revisited ( Back on track) (Noel Loveys)
14. 10:37 AM - Re: Insurance Question, for those that garage "hangar" (Noel Loveys)
15. 10:37 AM - Re: Insurance Question, for those that garage "hangar" (jdmcbean)
16. 10:38 AM - Re: fuel drain valves (John W. Hart)
17. 12:40 PM - Re: Re: Mogas revisited ( Back on track) (sbennett3)
18. 01:35 PM - Re: Re: Mogas revisited ( Back on track) (gilbey69)
19. 02:45 PM - Re: Insurance Question, for those that garage "hangar" (C David Estapa)
20. 02:53 PM - Re: Mogas revisited (Roger Lee)
21. 05:29 PM - Re: fuel drain valves (paul wilson)
22. 07:42 PM - A $100 hamburger (Randy Daughenbaugh)
23. 09:14 PM - Re: Insurance Question, for those that garage "hangar" (Jim_and_Lucy Chuk)
24. 10:59 PM - Re: A $100 hamburger (Cwehner)
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: Mogas revisited |
I'm just curious. If the lead is soooo bad in these engines, why isn't
Rotax issuing a prohibition order on it to save themselves from lawsuits?
Then there are those who use 100LL exclusively with no problems...
Baffled,
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: "Roger Lee" <ssadiver1@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 11:12 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Mogas revisited
>
> If you are using 100LL you should be changing oil at 25 hrs and plugs at
> 50 hrs. If you don't then headaches await you soon. If you use 91 oct.
> then oil and filter at 50 hrs and plugs at 75 hrs.
> Tell your friend not to worry about the ethanol. The lead in 100LL is far
> worse in the long run. If he is using 100LL then he should also be using a
> fuel additive like Decalin (from Aircraft Spruce) all the time. It is 1/2
> oz. for each 10 gal.
> The lead in 100LL gets in everything. Pilots in Europe use up to 18%
> ethanol and in South America up to 24% so why worry about 7-10% here.
> Rotax says 5% is ok in writing, but a good part of the Rotax owners in the
> USA use 91 Oct. with ethanol. This question comes up in every class. 91
> Oct. is better for the engine than 100LL!
> Even if you use a lead scavenging fuel additive you will have to pull the
> gear box at 800 hrs and clean it out and you will probably have to send it
> to a service center. You may have lead build up issues in the valve train
> or cylinders to deal with. Rotax has some guide lines as to when you have
> to pull components when using 100LL that others using 91 octane do not
> have to bother with.
>
> Here is the old adage if you don't keep up on your Rotax maint:
> Pay a little now or pay a lot later.
>
> --------
> Roger Lee
> Tucson, Az.
> Light Sport Repairman - Maintenance Rated
> Rotax Service Center
> 520-574-1080
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=228404#228404
>
>
>
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: Mogas revisited |
There is nothing wrong with 100LL because it has been in planes for decades. It
still cause GA engines issues the same as Rotax. The GA maint times would be
less and less repair issues if they could run unleaded, but most can't. Some Ga
pilots do have STC's and they absolutely benefit or they wouldn't have purchased
the STC. 100LL is an accepted fuel, but the lead issue is still there and
they have to use the lead to get the Octane up to 100LL. We can not make 100
unleaded with our current technology. We can get to about 96 octane. Rotax is
no different in that 100LL is an accepted fuel it just causes double the maint
and leading issues. It is and has been accepted aviation practice.
You can use 100LL all you want just follow the shortened maint schedule and parts
disassembly schedule.
But you have a choice with the Rotax engine to not use the 100LL and use a cleaner
burning fuel. The other reason people use 100LL around the world is that a
number of places don't have an alternative fuel for them to use so they are relegated
to 100LL for all aircraft.
100LL is an accepted fuel in aviation, but we are lucky here in the USA with our
Rotax and can have a say in our engine's health.
--------
Roger Lee
Tucson, Az.
Light Sport Repairman - Maintenance Rated
Rotax Service Center
520-574-1080
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=228432#228432
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Mogas revisited |
Here in good old Sweden we have 91/96 UL unleaded fuel, some have 25-30%
100LL in it for engines that need lead
Jan
http://www.hjelmco.com/default.asp
----- Original Message -----
From: "Roger Lee" <ssadiver1@yahoo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 3:08 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Mogas revisited
>
> There is nothing wrong with 100LL because it has been in planes for
> decades. It still cause GA engines issues the same as Rotax. The GA maint
> times would be less and less repair issues if they could run unleaded, but
> most can't. Some Ga pilots do have STC's and they absolutely benefit or
> they wouldn't have purchased the STC. 100LL is an accepted fuel, but the
> lead issue is still there and they have to use the lead to get the Octane
> up to 100LL. We can not make 100 unleaded with our current technology. We
> can get to about 96 octane. Rotax is no different in that 100LL is an
> accepted fuel it just causes double the maint and leading issues. It is
> and has been accepted aviation practice.
> You can use 100LL all you want just follow the shortened maint schedule
> and parts disassembly schedule.
> But you have a choice with the Rotax engine to not use the 100LL and use a
> cleaner burning fuel. The other reason people use 100LL around the world
> is that a number of places don't have an alternative fuel for them to use
> so they are relegated to 100LL for all aircraft.
>
> 100LL is an accepted fuel in aviation, but we are lucky here in the USA
> with our Rotax and can have a say in our engine's health.
>
> --------
> Roger Lee
> Tucson, Az.
> Light Sport Repairman - Maintenance Rated
> Rotax Service Center
> 520-574-1080
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=228432#228432
>
>
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
> signature database 3825 (20090204) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
>
>
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: Mogas revisited ( Back on track) |
I hope this comes across with a smiley face, but, the original post was
intended to find out if folks are having fuel tank trouble with mogas with a
touch of ethanol. Apparently there are a lot of feelings regarding 100LL
and engines - pro and con. Something like gap seals and short wings. This
guy has a $3000 teardown at Lockwood who are eating part of the cost,
incidently, and who suggest that it is a lead related issue so comments on
fuel / engine compatability are not too helpful unless you feel like taking
on Lockwood. Like many folks, he has used 100LL exlusively due to the fuel
tank / ethanol compatability issue. It would be helpful to him to get some
input regarding mogas and the early 2000 un- Kreemed fuel tanks. He wants
to switch, but is looking for a little encouragement.
Thanks
Lowell
----- Original Message -----
From: "Roger Lee" <ssadiver1@yahoo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 6:08 AM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Mogas revisited
>
> There is nothing wrong with 100LL because it has been in planes for
> decades. It still cause GA engines issues the same as Rotax. The GA maint
> times would be less and less repair issues if they could run unleaded, but
> most can't. Some Ga pilots do have STC's and they absolutely benefit or
> they wouldn't have purchased the STC. 100LL is an accepted fuel, but the
> lead issue is still there and they have to use the lead to get the Octane
> up to 100LL. We can not make 100 unleaded with our current technology. We
> can get to about 96 octane. Rotax is no different in that 100LL is an
> accepted fuel it just causes double the maint and leading issues. It is
> and has been accepted aviation practice.
> You can use 100LL all you want just follow the shortened maint schedule
> and parts disassembly schedule.
> But you have a choice with the Rotax engine to not use the 100LL and use a
> cleaner burning fuel. The other reason people use 100LL around the world
> is that a number of places don't have an alternative fuel for them to use
> so they are relegated to 100LL for all aircraft.
>
> 100LL is an accepted fuel in aviation, but we are lucky here in the USA
> with our Rotax and can have a say in our engine's health.
>
> --------
> Roger Lee
> Tucson, Az.
> Light Sport Repairman - Maintenance Rated
> Rotax Service Center
> 520-574-1080
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=228432#228432
>
>
>
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: | fuel drain valves |
I recall seeing mention of viton (?) seals being used in wing and header
tank fuel drain valves. I drain my tanks for aircraft transport after
each flight and as a result the fuel drain valves in the wings remain
dry between flights. Would like a longer term solution than the month
or two the existing seals last.
Looking for a supplier and part number.
Thanks for any help.
Vic Baker
S7 912S Warp
Phase 1 flight testing
Carson City, Nv
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: | Insurance Question, for those that garage "hangar" |
So I got my new toy home, thanks to the help of this forum, and now I am looking
to start flying it. Here are the two things I am running into;
First, AOPA says that none of their underwriters will insure my plane, even though
I only want liability, because I am hangaring it at my house and not an airport.
Does this make any sense? Avemco gave me a quote but they never specifically
asked where I hangared the plane, could this be an issue in the future?
Secondly, Avemco said they would not insure me during the instruction phase because
there is only single brakes in the plane. Any suggestions on this one?
And one last thing that seems to keep coming across my mind; I have a glider rating
with 175 hours. At least 100 hours of that is in gliders that are set up
in a tail dragger configuration. They still have only one primary wheel and
a smaller tail wheel and the CG is significantly rearward of the main wheel.
So does this time count for insurance purposes? I realize that I do not taxi
in the same manner as a power plane, but we do have to ground taxi for a short
while on take off and also on landing, and depending on how far you want to
push the glider this may be a very long and complicated energy management taxi.
Any thoughts?
--------
Prospective Kitfox buyer
Here for information on airframes and engines
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=228449#228449
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Another query about towing, front spar supports |
Quick update, I was able to get all the parts needed to make the supports as well
as fully fashion them in a parking lot. I got long bolts for top and bottom
and over sized nuts to use as a pin jig. It was the flat side of the nut that
I drilled through to give me a portable way to put holes through the bolt for
a cotter pin. All in all it cost about $15 and 30 minutes to make these and
they worked great for an 800 mile trip. Thanks guys.
--------
Prospective Kitfox buyer
Here for information on airframes and engines
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=228458#228458
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Insurance Question, for those that garage "hangar" |
James - I can answer the first part from personal experience. I keep my
Kitfox in my barn and trailer it to a local airstrip. I got my insurance
from Falcon through AOPA and I chose to have liability and hull since I
think I would be more likely to have hull claims but am aware that liability
claims against me could be financially catastrophic in my circumstances.
I don't recall being specifically asked about where the aircraft is stored,
only where it is "based", and for FAA reasons I call my base airport 8N7
even though I trailer to it to fly. I suppose because the FAA required I
declare a base airport for Airworthiness I didn't give it a second thought
about giving an airport to the insurance company and saying "yes" to
"hangered?" because it is stored under cover in my barn.
I re-trained (already had a "stale" US PPL) in my Kitfox without dual
brakes; in a taildragger on a grass strip brakes are not that important and
none of the FBO training microlights had brakes at all, but that was in the
UK where insurance was less specific and a *lot* less expensive.
Regarding your experience in a glider - I doubt your experience could be
applied to a taildragger rating but it should certainly help you keep to
minimum hours of dual instruction. Any applied experience according to the
FAA must be "in type", and I doubt anyone would accept a Kitfox as a similar
"type" to a glider. Just my opinion on that last point.
Bob Brennan - N717GB
ELSA Repairman, inspection rated
1991 UK Model 2 ELSA Kitfox
Rotax 582 with 3 blade prop
Wrightsville Pa
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of WurlyBird
Sent: 04 February 2009 11:24 am
Subject: Kitfox-List: Insurance Question, for those that garage "hangar"
<james.t.trizzino@us.army.mil>
So I got my new toy home, thanks to the help of this forum, and now I am
looking to start flying it. Here are the two things I am running into;
First, AOPA says that none of their underwriters will insure my plane, even
though I only want liability, because I am hangaring it at my house and not
an airport. Does this make any sense? Avemco gave me a quote but they
never specifically asked where I hangared the plane, could this be an issue
in the future?
Secondly, Avemco said they would not insure me during the instruction phase
because there is only single brakes in the plane. Any suggestions on this
one?
And one last thing that seems to keep coming across my mind; I have a
glider rating with 175 hours. At least 100 hours of that is in gliders that
are set up in a tail dragger configuration. They still have only one
primary wheel and a smaller tail wheel and the CG is significantly rearward
of the main wheel. So does this time count for insurance purposes? I
realize that I do not taxi in the same manner as a power plane, but we do
have to ground taxi for a short while on take off and also on landing, and
depending on how far you want to push the glider this may be a very long and
complicated energy management taxi. Any thoughts?
--------
Prospective Kitfox buyer
Here for information on airframes and engines
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=228449#228449
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Mogas revisited |
I agree with all except... I think they can make a 100 octane gas without
using either lead or ethanol. I also thing they can modify the engines to
run on lower octane fuel simply by lowering the CR a tad. In other words
undo all the stuff we used to do to our cars that made then run faster but
requi8red higher and higher octane fuel.
There is a way of removing ethanol from gasohol now if we could find a way
of removing say 75% of the lead in 100LL that to me would be a start.
I've checked the so called lead scavengers and the only thing they protect
is the exhaust valves and the top of the cylinder head ( spark plugs ) it
does nothing to protect the engine from lead in blow by gasses so therefore
does nothing to help either Rotax two or four stroke engines.
There has been rumors (and we all know what to do with them) of a 92
unleaded gas formulated for use in aviation. I only hope it's true.
Noel Loveys
AME Intern, RPP
Kitfox III-A, R-912
Aerocet 1100 floats
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Roger Lee
Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 10:39 AM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Mogas revisited
There is nothing wrong with 100LL because it has been in planes for decades.
It still cause GA engines issues the same as Rotax. The GA maint times would
be less and less repair issues if they could run unleaded, but most can't.
Some Ga pilots do have STC's and they absolutely benefit or they wouldn't
have purchased the STC. 100LL is an accepted fuel, but the lead issue is
still there and they have to use the lead to get the Octane up to 100LL. We
can not make 100 unleaded with our current technology. We can get to about
96 octane. Rotax is no different in that 100LL is an accepted fuel it just
causes double the maint and leading issues. It is and has been accepted
aviation practice.
You can use 100LL all you want just follow the shortened maint schedule and
parts disassembly schedule.
But you have a choice with the Rotax engine to not use the 100LL and use a
cleaner burning fuel. The other reason people use 100LL around the world is
that a number of places don't have an alternative fuel for them to use so
they are relegated to 100LL for all aircraft.
100LL is an accepted fuel in aviation, but we are lucky here in the USA with
our Rotax and can have a say in our engine's health.
--------
Roger Lee
Tucson, Az.
Light Sport Repairman - Maintenance Rated
Rotax Service Center
520-574-1080
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=228432#228432
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Insurance Question, for those that garage "hangar" |
On Wed, February 4, 2009 8:23 am, WurlyBird wrote:
> First, AOPA says that none of their underwriters will insure my plane, even though
I
> only want liability, because I am hangaring it at my house and not an airport.
Does
> this make any sense?
My guess is someone is just reading information to you that specifically applies
to
hull insurance. Get another person on the phone and emphasize from the start that
you
only want to buy a liability policy.
Incidently, I'd check with your home owner's insurance carrier for specifics of
having
an airplane in your garage. You may have some options such as extending fire insurance
coverage and you may also have an obligation to report such use of your garage.
I
found there were some limitations on fuel storage.
> Avemco gave me a quote but they never specifically asked where I
> hangared the plane, could this be an issue in the future?
If they didn't ask, it apparently wasn't considered a significant risk influence.
If
you buy hull insurance they do care. Secured in a hangar is a lower risk than outside
tiedown for example.
> Secondly, Avemco said they would not insure me during the instruction phase because
> there is only single brakes in the plane. Any suggestions on this one?
Get your instruction in a similar plane through PPL, then get clearance for dual
instruction in your own plane for check ride purposes. Explain to them that brakes
aren't needed for the check ride at all if that is necessary.
> And one last thing that seems to keep coming across my mind; I have a glider
rating
> with 175 hours. At least 100 hours of that is in gliders that are set up in
a tail
> dragger configuration. They still have only one primary wheel and a smaller
tail
> wheel and the CG is significantly rearward of the main wheel. So does this time
count
> for insurance purposes?
Ask them. If you held a PPL or better, glider time and operations in a log book
would
count as experience.
> I realize that I do not taxi in the same manner as a power
> plane, but we do have to ground taxi for a short while on take off and also on
> landing, and depending on how far you want to push the glider this may be a very
long
> and complicated energy management taxi. Any thoughts?
As a practical matter, that glider experience will greatly reduce the time and
difficulty required to get your PPL. You still have to meet the minimums for
instruction time but that instruction can be devoted more to other things of interest
such as instrument flying, mountain flying, soft field and short field work.
--
Paul A. Franz
Registration/Aircraft - N14UW/Merlin GT
Engine/Prop - Rotax 914/NSI CAP
Bellevue WA
425.241.1618 Cell
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: Mogas revisited |
Fuels for older supercharged radials (extra lead) and next to unleaded
(0.002g/l) sounds excellent too bad we can't get it here. I'm sure there
would be a market for it sold as an aviation fuel.
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of JC Propeller
Design
Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 11:13 AM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: Mogas revisited
<propellerdesign@tele2.se>
Here in good old Sweden we have 91/96 UL unleaded fuel, some have 25-30%
100LL in it for engines that need lead
Jan
http://www.hjelmco.com/default.asp
----- Original Message -----
From: "Roger Lee" <ssadiver1@yahoo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 3:08 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Mogas revisited
>
> There is nothing wrong with 100LL because it has been in planes for
> decades. It still cause GA engines issues the same as Rotax. The GA maint
> times would be less and less repair issues if they could run unleaded, but
> most can't. Some Ga pilots do have STC's and they absolutely benefit or
> they wouldn't have purchased the STC. 100LL is an accepted fuel, but the
> lead issue is still there and they have to use the lead to get the Octane
> up to 100LL. We can not make 100 unleaded with our current technology. We
> can get to about 96 octane. Rotax is no different in that 100LL is an
> accepted fuel it just causes double the maint and leading issues. It is
> and has been accepted aviation practice.
> You can use 100LL all you want just follow the shortened maint schedule
> and parts disassembly schedule.
> But you have a choice with the Rotax engine to not use the 100LL and use a
> cleaner burning fuel. The other reason people use 100LL around the world
> is that a number of places don't have an alternative fuel for them to use
> so they are relegated to 100LL for all aircraft.
>
> 100LL is an accepted fuel in aviation, but we are lucky here in the USA
> with our Rotax and can have a say in our engine's health.
>
> --------
> Roger Lee
> Tucson, Az.
> Light Sport Repairman - Maintenance Rated
> Rotax Service Center
> 520-574-1080
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=228432#228432
>
>
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
> signature database 3825 (20090204) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
>
>
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 |
|
There are a couple of items regarding 100LL and Premium Auto Gas in regards
to the Kitfox and Rotax 912/912S power.
As a reminder.. we do have tanks now that are ethanol resistant.
When running 100LL be careful on the oil chosen. If running a synthetic oil
with 100LL you will have issues. Personally I have used Honda pro GN4 oil
(make sure it does not have Moly if you have a slipper clutch), and now have
changed to the Aeroshell Sport Plus 4... Also use the Decalin Run-up. It can
be carried in the cockpit and treats up to 320 gallons (1/2 oz per 10
gallons) We keep both the Aeroshell and the Decalin in Stock.
Change the oil every 25 hours.. Plugs are another item.. I have found at
about 75-100 hours they start to give indication. Still work fine. Others
run for upwards of 150 hours.
Regarding the Tanks... The resin was changed in Jan 96 and used until 2007
and it was not tested against ethanol. Some have reported running ethanol
without issue but the common theme is when using autogas with ethanol.. do
not let it sit in the tanks.. put it in and fly it out. Don't let it sit
for any length of time.
We are testing some of the older tanks with ethanol fuels.
Fly Safe !!
John McBean
Ph 208.337.5111
www.kitfoxaircraft.com
"The Sky is not the Limit... It's a Playground"
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Randy
Daughenbaugh
Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 7:07 PM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Mogas revisited
--> <rjdaugh@rapidnet.com>
Lowell,
I understood that my V from mid '99 was after the change to a resin that
could stand ethanol. All I burn is premium mogas and have had no problems
yet.
Randy
Series 5/7 912S Warpdrive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lowell Fitt
Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 5:26 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Mogas revisited
I got a call from a friend in the central part of California this afternoon.
He has a Model V+ (early 2003 with a 912S - 300 hours). He has been using
avgas for the usual - Mehanol - reasons and is in the process of having
Lockwood split the case and clean the whole thing up after what Lockwood
suspects is lead related problems. He has been changing oil at 50 hours,
Lockwood says 25.
The question he asked had to do with the resin formula on the final batch of
tanks Skyster sold before the bankurptcy. I had no info, but thought if
there was a problem with these tanks with mogas, there would be reports
sufacing on the list. I don't recall any. Does anyone with this era tank
have any advice for Eric.
Thanks in a advance.
Lowell
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Mogas revisited ( Back on track) |
Lowell:
My advice to your friend would be to keep an eye on the fuel ( eth ).. That
means using a gascolator. As much as I dislike the idea of burning ethanol,
especially in a plane, it seems to be the lesser of two evils at this point
in time. The first sign of any goop, or yellow in the fuel, crme or change
the tanks. The first sign of cloudiness in the fuel and drain it and replace
it with fresh fuel. One other thing I'd advise him not to store his plane
for days on end or even overnight with ethanol fuel in the tanks. It only
takes ten minutes or so to defuel a plane and put leftover fuel either in
the car or into collapsible fuel bladders where it won't condensate. Also on
chilly nights cover the tank breathers.
There is a guy in the Avid group who used the ethanol fuel for years without
any problems in what he refers to as La La land but he premixed his gas for
the 582. Now he flies a Jab and I think he puts a little oil in with the
gas to help protect the tanks from the ethanol. That seems to work to
protect the tanks.
I'd use 100LL, with a scavenger to help the exhaust valves, but only in a
pinch. Make that a tight pinch.
I'm interested in what Lockwood finds on the gears etc.
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lowell Fitt
Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 12:07 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: Mogas revisited ( Back on track)
I hope this comes across with a smiley face, but, the original post was
intended to find out if folks are having fuel tank trouble with mogas with a
touch of ethanol. Apparently there are a lot of feelings regarding 100LL
and engines - pro and con. Something like gap seals and short wings. This
guy has a $3000 teardown at Lockwood who are eating part of the cost,
incidently, and who suggest that it is a lead related issue so comments on
fuel / engine compatability are not too helpful unless you feel like taking
on Lockwood. Like many folks, he has used 100LL exlusively due to the fuel
tank / ethanol compatability issue. It would be helpful to him to get some
input regarding mogas and the early 2000 un- Kreemed fuel tanks. He wants
to switch, but is looking for a little encouragement.
Thanks
Lowell
----- Original Message -----
From: "Roger Lee" <ssadiver1@yahoo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 6:08 AM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Mogas revisited
>
> There is nothing wrong with 100LL because it has been in planes for
> decades. It still cause GA engines issues the same as Rotax. The GA maint
> times would be less and less repair issues if they could run unleaded, but
> most can't. Some Ga pilots do have STC's and they absolutely benefit or
> they wouldn't have purchased the STC. 100LL is an accepted fuel, but the
> lead issue is still there and they have to use the lead to get the Octane
> up to 100LL. We can not make 100 unleaded with our current technology. We
> can get to about 96 octane. Rotax is no different in that 100LL is an
> accepted fuel it just causes double the maint and leading issues. It is
> and has been accepted aviation practice.
> You can use 100LL all you want just follow the shortened maint schedule
> and parts disassembly schedule.
> But you have a choice with the Rotax engine to not use the 100LL and use a
> cleaner burning fuel. The other reason people use 100LL around the world
> is that a number of places don't have an alternative fuel for them to use
> so they are relegated to 100LL for all aircraft.
>
> 100LL is an accepted fuel in aviation, but we are lucky here in the USA
> with our Rotax and can have a say in our engine's health.
>
> --------
> Roger Lee
> Tucson, Az.
> Light Sport Repairman - Maintenance Rated
> Rotax Service Center
> 520-574-1080
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=228432#228432
>
>
>
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: | Insurance Question, for those that garage "hangar" |
For the thousands and thousands of people that keep their bush planes on
lakes and grass strips outside their homes it makes no sense at all. Tell
them you fly out of the strip where you buy most of your fuel. Don't
mention storage. While the plane is being stored it is not covered for the
PLPD any way.
This is additionally strange as the closer you are to a large airport the
greater the chances you have of hitting something expensive if you have to
come down unwillingly. If you fly out of a strip in the boonies you may
have to fly an hour or two to find a decent target.
As for the dual brakes the insurance companies would like you to use a
spam-can to learn on. They have less accidents or so they say... BTW while
learning (dual) you are not the PIC the instructor is. He may have
additional insurance, for which he pays in spades, to cover the
instructional phase.
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of WurlyBird
Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 12:54 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Insurance Question, for those that garage "hangar"
<james.t.trizzino@us.army.mil>
So I got my new toy home, thanks to the help of this forum, and now I am
looking to start flying it. Here are the two things I am running into;
First, AOPA says that none of their underwriters will insure my plane, even
though I only want liability, because I am hangaring it at my house and not
an airport. Does this make any sense? Avemco gave me a quote but they
never specifically asked where I hangared the plane, could this be an issue
in the future?
Secondly, Avemco said they would not insure me during the instruction phase
because there is only single brakes in the plane. Any suggestions on this
one?
And one last thing that seems to keep coming across my mind; I have a
glider rating with 175 hours. At least 100 hours of that is in gliders that
are set up in a tail dragger configuration. They still have only one
primary wheel and a smaller tail wheel and the CG is significantly rearward
of the main wheel. So does this time count for insurance purposes? I
realize that I do not taxi in the same manner as a power plane, but we do
have to ground taxi for a short while on take off and also on landing, and
depending on how far you want to push the glider this may be a very long and
complicated energy management taxi. Any thoughts?
--------
Prospective Kitfox buyer
Here for information on airframes and engines
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=228449#228449
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: | Insurance Question, for those that garage "hangar" |
James,
Try David McCoy at NationAir. http://www.nationair.com/
Fly Safe !!
John McBean
Ph 208.337.5111
www.kitfoxaircraft.com
"The Sky is not the Limit... It's a Playground"
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of WurlyBird
Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 9:24 AM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Insurance Question, for those that garage "hangar"
--> <james.t.trizzino@us.army.mil>
So I got my new toy home, thanks to the help of this forum, and now I am
looking to start flying it. Here are the two things I am running into;
First, AOPA says that none of their underwriters will insure my plane, even
though I only want liability, because I am hangaring it at my house and not
an airport. Does this make any sense? Avemco gave me a quote but they
never specifically asked where I hangared the plane, could this be an issue
in the future?
Secondly, Avemco said they would not insure me during the instruction phase
because there is only single brakes in the plane. Any suggestions on this
one?
And one last thing that seems to keep coming across my mind; I have a
glider rating with 175 hours. At least 100 hours of that is in gliders that
are set up in a tail dragger configuration. They still have only one
primary wheel and a smaller tail wheel and the CG is significantly rearward
of the main wheel. So does this time count for insurance purposes? I
realize that I do not taxi in the same manner as a power plane, but we do
have to ground taxi for a short while on take off and also on landing, and
depending on how far you want to push the glider this may be a very long and
complicated energy management taxi. Any thoughts?
--------
Prospective Kitfox buyer
Here for information on airframes and engines
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=228449#228449
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: | fuel drain valves |
Take one of your old "O" rings into a gasket/seal business and tell them you
want Viton seals of the same size. I had to drive 170 miles one way to
Oklahoma City to find a source for them. I bought 100 of them since they
were about 6 cents each at the time. That was 18 months ago, so prices may
have changed. I changed out the tank drains on 2 Cessna 172's and my
Kitfox, all of which use unleaded gas, right after I bought them, and they
are still holding.
John Hart
KF IV, NSI Subaru
Wilburton, OK
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Vic Baker
Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 10:03 AM
Subject: Kitfox-List: fuel drain valves
I recall seeing mention of viton (?) seals being used in wing and header
tank fuel drain valves. I drain my tanks for aircraft transport after each
flight and as a result the fuel drain valves in the wings remain dry between
flights. Would like a longer term solution than the month or two the
existing seals last.
Looking for a supplier and part number.
Thanks for any help.
Vic Baker
S7 912S Warp
Phase 1 flight testing
Carson City, Nv
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: | Re: Mogas revisited ( Back on track) |
The state I live in will not put ethanol in 93 octane. I was also told that if
there is ethanol in any gas that it has to be disclosed at the pump. Just what
I was told, not gospel. SB North Carolina
In a message dated 02/04/09 13:19:23 Eastern Standard Time, noelloveys@yahoo.ca
writes:
Lowell:
My advice to your friend would be to keep an eye on the fuel ( eth ).. That
means using a gascolator. As much as I dislike the idea of burning ethanol,
especially in a plane, it seems to be the lesser of two evils at this point
in time. The first sign of any goop, or yellow in the fuel, crme or change
the tanks. The first sign of cloudiness in the fuel and drain it and replace
it with fresh fuel. One other thing I'd advise him not to store his plane
for days on end or even overnight with ethanol fuel in the tanks. It only
takes ten minutes or so to defuel a plane and put leftover fuel either in
the car or into collapsible fuel bladders where it won't condensate. Also on
chilly nights cover the tank breathers.
There is a guy in the Avid group who used the ethanol fuel for years without
any problems in what he refers to as La La land but he premixed his gas for
the 582. Now he flies a Jab and I think he puts a little oil in with the
gas to help protect the tanks from the ethanol. That seems to work to
protect the tanks.
I'd use 100LL, with a scavenger to help the exhaust valves, but only in a
pinch. Make that a tight pinch.
I'm interested in what Lockwood finds on the gears etc.
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lowell Fitt
Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 12:07 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: Mogas revisited ( Back on track)
I hope this comes across with a smiley face, but, the original post was
intended to find out if folks are having fuel tank trouble with mogas with a
touch of ethanol. Apparently there are a lot of feelings regarding 100LL
and engines - pro and con. Something like gap seals and short wings. This
guy has a $3000 teardown at Lockwood who are eating part of the cost,
incidently, and who suggest that it is a lead related issue so comments on
fuel / engine compatability are not too helpful unless you feel like taking
on Lockwood. Like many folks, he has used 100LL exlusively due to the fuel
tank / ethanol compatability issue. It would be helpful to him to get some
input regarding mogas and the early 2000 un- Kreemed fuel tanks. He wants
to switch, but is looking for a little encouragement.
Thanks
Lowell
----- Original Message -----
From: "Roger Lee" <ssadiver1@yahoo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 6:08 AM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Mogas revisited
>
> There is nothing wrong with 100LL because it has been in planes for
> decades. It still cause GA engines issues the same as Rotax. The GA maint
> times would be less and less repair issues if they could run unleaded, but
> most can't. Some Ga pilots do have STC's and they absolutely benefit or
> they wouldn't have purchased the STC. 100LL is an accepted fuel, but the
> lead issue is still there and they have to use the lead to get the Octane
> up to 100LL. We can not make 100 unleaded with our current technology. We
> can get to about 96 octane. Rotax is no different in that 100LL is an
> accepted fuel it just causes double the maint and leading issues. It is
> and has been accepted aviation practice.
> You can use 100LL all you want just follow the shortened maint schedule
> and parts disassembly schedule.
> But you have a choice with the Rotax engine to not use the 100LL and use a
> cleaner burning fuel. The other reason people use 100LL around the world
> is that a number of places don't have an alternative fuel for them to use
> so they are relegated to 100LL for all aircraft.
>
> 100LL is an accepted fuel in aviation, but we are lucky here in the USA
> with our Rotax and can have a say in our engine's health.
>
> --------
> Roger Lee
> Tucson, Az.
> Light Sport Repairman - Maintenance Rated
> Rotax Service Center
> 520-574-1080
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=228432#228432
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: Mogas revisited ( Back on track) |
not so on the ethanol in NC steve,i was using BP gas in wilmington nc to
fuel up my rv6,as it used to be free from it, when i was using it to
fill up my kitfox speedster when i had it,formerly in fayetteville
nc,lived in wilmington for the past year, so was using it here for the
6,i started to keep a check on it here for the last few months,went to
fill up one day a couple of months ago and lo and behold,on checking
before filling up, i had 10 per cent ethanel in it,just glad i checked
that batch,no where on the tanks is it listed as having same,a neighbor
and i started checking the stations here and talking to some dealers, at
this point only one dealer in this town has gas without it in it, and he
advertises it,i have yet to find another station here that sells it, nor
a station to show it as having ethanal on there pumps,another pilot in
the community here that i live in states that he was told its not
manadtory by the federal gov. to do so,nor the states, the only way to
find out for sure is to check the gas as you buy it,the gas is not
shipped with it in,its put in it here before its delievered to the
pumps,as specified by the dealer,where ever he gets it from,
frank goggio
wilmington nc
rv6a
former kitfox owner
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Insurance Question, for those that garage "hangar" |
James, I just had a related question come up about insurance Monday. I am
losing my hanger because the guy I rent from wants it back. My only
option now is to store it at my office/warehouse and trailer it 7-10
miles to a closer airport. I am insured thru EAA (Falcon Insurance). Both
liability and hull. I called and asked about how it would affect my
insurance coverage. The answer was it wouldn't. They just want to notify
the underwriter as to which airport I am flying out of and wanted to be
sure it was stored indoors. It is even covered when trailering it to and
from the airport. Be sure and talk to your homeowners insurance co. I
have State Farm and they will not cover anything related to aviation,
period.
David Estapa
Woodstock, Georgia
N97DE S5TD 912ULS
On Wed, 4 Feb 2009 08:23:52 -0800 "WurlyBird"
<james.t.trizzino@us.army.mil> writes:
> <james.t.trizzino@us.army.mil>
>
> So I got my new toy home, thanks to the help of this forum, and now
> I am looking to start flying it. Here are the two things I am
> running into;
>
> First, AOPA says that none of their underwriters will insure my
> plane, even though I only want liability, because I am hangaring it
> at my house and not an airport. Does this make any sense? Avemco
> gave me a quote but they never specifically asked where I hangared
> the plane, could this be an issue in the future?
>
> Secondly, Avemco said they would not insure me during the
> instruction phase because there is only single brakes in the plane.
> Any suggestions on this one?
>
> And one last thing that seems to keep coming across my mind; I have
> a glider rating with 175 hours. At least 100 hours of that is in
> gliders that are set up in a tail dragger configuration. They still
> have only one primary wheel and a smaller tail wheel and the CG is
> significantly rearward of the main wheel. So does this time count
> for insurance purposes? I realize that I do not taxi in the same
> manner as a power plane, but we do have to ground taxi for a short
> while on take off and also on landing, and depending on how far you
> want to push the glider this may be a very long and complicated
> energy management taxi. Any thoughts?
>
> --------
> Prospective Kitfox buyer
> Here for information on airframes and engines
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=228449#228449
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
____________________________________________________________
WATCH THE EXTERMINATORS ON A&E
Wed Feb 4 10.30/9.30C join Billy tackling the worst pests imaginable
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/u4MuScM2GTJOD9BhN1BF2oLbFMs5INucB9J72KoDPowGaib4yMcCH/
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Mogas revisited |
Hi Noel,
According to all that is written from the fuel companies and people in the industry
they can't make unleaded fuels yet over 96 octane without the other unwanted
things like lead, ethanol or methanol. I had to do a research project on fuels
a year ago and I learned this at that time. We use 91 Octane because of our
compression ratio in the 912 100 hp. being higher than the 912 80 hp. The 91
octane sit time is about 3 weeks, then you are losing octane and additives through
evaporation even if you have a lid on the container. Gas vaporizes at -45F.
Semi synthetic oil is for 100LL and either semi or full synthetic for 91.
Full synthetic does not suspend lead and it falls out in the gearbox and crankcase.
You should not be letting plugs run to 150 hr. Rotax schools recommend
75 for 91 octane and 50 for 100LL use. No where in any manual has Rotax ever had
150 plug change. It used to be 100 hrs. years ago, but is taught different
now. Fuel scavengers like Decalin does help Rotax 912's. It helps keep the lead
soft and helps keep it off everything in the cylinder( i.e. plugs, valves, valve
seats, cyl. heads). This scavenger should help blow more out the exhaust.
I would recommend that all that do their own work go to a Rotax service school
and a line maint school. These are two day schools and $500 each.
A&P's really need to go. [Wink]
--------
Roger Lee
Tucson, Az.
Light Sport Repairman - Maintenance Rated
Rotax Service Center
520-574-1080
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=228541#228541
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: fuel drain valves |
S7 should have the latest drain valves with Viton. Amber colored is
correct. If you are not sure call the company and they will send new
o-rings at no cost. I forget the name of the company. sorry. The
header valve should have a touch of gas on it anyway. The drain
valves in the wings need to be replaced with a pipe plugs since they
serve no function and are just another failure point. The drain in
the header is plenty. That is where the bad stuff settles.
Paul
========
At 08:03 AM 2/4/2009, you wrote:
>I recall seeing mention of viton (?) seals being used in wing and
>header tank fuel drain valves. I drain my tanks for aircraft
>transport after each flight and as a result the fuel drain valves in
>the wings remain dry between flights. Would like a longer term
>solution than the month or two the existing seals last.
>Looking for a supplier and part number.
>Thanks for any help.
>
>
>Vic Baker
>S7 912S Warp
>Phase 1 flight testing
>Carson City, Nv
>
Message 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | A $100 hamburger |
It's been a cold winter and the forecast for today was near 60 F, so I
called a friend and he joined me for a flight for a Hamburger.
We left the ranch about 10:00 and flew around his vacation house in Wyoming
on the way to Hewlett Wyoming. We also went by Devils Tower before we
landed. I thought I would send a picture out. It is not from the normal
tourist angle.
Randy
Series 5/7 912S Warpdrive
Near Mount Rushmore in South Dakota
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: | Insurance Question, for those that garage "hangar" |
I've had insurance through AIG aviation=2C sold by Falcon Ins. Agency. If
you are an EAA member=2C you get a discount. Give them a try. 1-866-647-4
322 Jim Chuk Avid MK IV=2C Mn
> Subject: Kitfox-List: Insurance Question=2C for those that garage "hangar
"> From: james.t.trizzino@us.army.mil> Date: Wed=2C 4 Feb 2009 08:23:52 -08
rlyBird" <james.t.trizzino@us.army.mil>> > So I got my new toy home=2C than
ks to the help of this forum=2C and now I am looking to start flying it. He
re are the two things I am running into=3B> > First=2C AOPA says that none
of their underwriters will insure my plane=2C even though I only want liabi
lity=2C because I am hangaring it at my house and not an airport. Does this
make any sense? Avemco gave me a quote but they never specifically asked w
here I hangared the plane=2C could this be an issue in the future?> > Secon
dly=2C Avemco said they would not insure me during the instruction phase be
cause there is only single brakes in the plane. Any suggestions on this one
? > > And one last thing that seems to keep coming across my mind=3B I have
a glider rating with 175 hours. At least 100 hours of that is in gliders t
hat are set up in a tail dragger configuration. They still have only one pr
imary wheel and a smaller tail wheel and the CG is significantly rearward o
f the main wheel. So does this time count for insurance purposes? I realize
that I do not taxi in the same manner as a power plane=2C but we do have t
o ground taxi for a short while on take off and also on landing=2C and depe
nding on how far you want to push the glider this may be a very long and co
mplicated energy management taxi. Any thoughts?> > --------> Prospective Ki
tfox buyer> Here for information on airframes and engines> > > > > Read thi
s topic online here:> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=22844
=====================> > >
_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live=99: Keep your life in sync.
http://windowslive.com/howitworks?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t1_allup_howitworks_0
22009
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: A $100 hamburger |
Looks like that hamburger was well worth the hundred bucks. Nice pic!
--------
Chris Wehner
Tulsa, Oklahoma
Kitfox IV, 912, lots a mod's, 80% complete
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=228610#228610
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! --
|