Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:26 AM - Re: Engine choice (Catz631@aol.com)
2. 06:38 AM - Re: Engine choice (patrick reilly)
3. 06:42 AM - Re: Re: Ski Size (patrick reilly)
4. 07:18 AM - Re: Engine choice (Marco Menezes)
5. 08:23 AM - Re: Engine choice (Randy Daughenbaugh)
6. 09:10 AM - Header tank (Jim Feldmann)
7. 11:35 AM - Re: Engine choice (Lowell Fitt)
8. 11:42 AM - Re: Re: Ski Size (Lynn Matteson)
9. 12:22 PM - Re: Header tank (Eggstaf@aol.com)
10. 01:03 PM - Re: Engine choice (Randy Daughenbaugh)
11. 01:21 PM - Re: Header tank (Guy Buchanan)
12. 01:36 PM - Re: Engine choice (Guy Buchanan)
13. 02:25 PM - Re: Engine choice (patrick reilly)
14. 04:33 PM - Re: Gummed up Fuel Filter - Any Ideas??? (Rich L)
15. 07:14 PM - Re: Ski Size (dashwood)
16. 08:26 PM - POH - Series 5 or 7? (darinh)
17. 09:51 PM - Re: POH - Series 5 or 7? (Guy Buchanan)
18. 10:44 PM - Re: POH - Series 5 or 7? (darinh)
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: Engine choice |
Nicely said Paul ! That in a nutshell is it !
Dick Maddux
Fox 4-1200
912 UL
Pensacola,Fl
**************Need a job? Find employment help in your area.
(http://yellowpages.aol.com/search?query=employment_agencies&ncid=emlcntusyelp00000005)
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 |
|
Paul=2C Well I am a relatively new kid too. I bought a Model 3 a little ove
r a year ago. It that had been damaged and stripped of engine and instrumen
ts and disassembled. It was originally built with a 912 and everything was
there for that setup including the mount. My intention was to install a 912
. But=2C I saw a 100 hr 582 firewall forward on Barnstormers. It included e
verything=2C mount=2C gages=2C prop radiator=2C everything. I figured the c
ost would be 1/3 to 1/4 of the 912. I should be air worthy in 2 months. It
was extra work to set up for 582=2C but the engine weighs 1/2 a 912 install
ation=2C I don't plan on extended cross country flights in that plane. It's
for low and slow. I have alot of experience with 2 stroke motorcycle engin
es and actually prefer them for dirt bike applications. Despite what others
think a 2 stroke engine is just as reliable as a 4 stroke if properly main
tained and aren't that harrd to maintain=2C especially one like a Rotax tha
t is a proven design. Twenty years ago I owned an ultrlaight powered by a K
ohler 30 horse engine ( designed for John Deere snow mobiles ) that require
d no maintainance in the 70 hours we flew it over a 3 year period. It didn'
t even hiccup once in that 3 years. I stand corrected=2C I think we changed
spark plugs once as routine maintance.
Pat Reilly
Mod 3 582 Rebuild
Rockford=2C IL
Subject: Kitfox-List: Engine choice
From: darrellhaas@gmail.com
Hi=2C
I'm a new kid on the block and it looks like I may be able to buy a kit
fox Mark IV. I am really excited and wondering what people are using for en
gines and why. We all want the best bang for our bucks and hopefully I can
learn from all of you why you chose your engine. Thanks for any help you ca
n provide.
Darrell Haas
Live near Portland=2C Oregon
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=2C Don't know if you are a skier=2C but that applies to downhill skiin
g also. Powder skies are much wider than carving skies.
do not archive
Pat Reilly
Mod 3 582 Rebuild
Rockford=2C IL
> From: lynnmatt@jps.net
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: Ski Size
> Date: Tue=2C 3 Mar 2009 18:45:33 -0500
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
>
>
> When I was digging into ski sizes=2C it *seemed* that all the skis that
> I measured were built under the assumption of about 1-2 pounds of
> airplane weight per square inch of ski. That's a wild --- guess=2C but
> again=2C deep powdery snow requires more flotation/area=2C and hard-
> packed snow needs less area=2C at least from what I've been able to
> gather.
>
> Lynn Matteson
> Kitfox IV Speedster=2C taildragger
> Jabiru 2200=2C #2062=2C 610 hrs
> Sensenich 62x46
> Electroair direct-fire ignition system
> Status: flying
>
>
>
>
> On Mar 3=2C 2009=2C at 5:33 PM=2C patrick reilly wrote:
>
> > Len=2C We don't have knee deep powder. Never! As a matter of fact we
> > don't have powder period. I'm shooting for 600 sq " per ski. But
> > thanks for info.
> >
> > Pat Reilly
> > Mod 3 582 Rebuild
> > Rockford=2C IL
>
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
>
>
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: Engine choice |
Darrell,
-
I put this spreadsheet together awhile ago when we last had this discussion
. It's incomplete and prices need updating but it's a start at empirical an
aylsis of the choices available.
-
Have fun.
-
Marco Menezes N99KX
Model 2 582-90 C-Box 3:1 w/clutch-
--- On Wed, 3/4/09, Paul Franz - Merlin GT <paul@eucleides.com> wrote:
From: Paul Franz - Merlin GT <paul@eucleides.com>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Engine choice
<paul@eucleides.com>
On Tue, March 3, 2009 7:44 pm, Darrell Haas wrote:
> Hi,
> I'm a new kid on the block and it looks like I may be able to buy
a
> kitfox Mark IV. I am really excited and wondering what people are using
for
> engines and why. We all want the best bang for our bucks and hopefully I
can
> learn from all of you why you chose your engine. Thanks for any help you
can
> provide.
Engine selection advice is like asking for someone to pick you a religion.
You're
going to have to study this issue if you don't already have an engine.
Here's some
things to consider.
1) Will the engine be appropriate for the type of propeller you want. For
example, if
the engine is only furnished and can use a wood propeller and you're
definitely going
to be using floats, then you might rule that engine out.
2) Economics are an important consideration. There are two parts to this -
initial
cost and operational cost. The two stroke engines cost less, are a little
lighter but
use more fuel and have more scheduled maintenance costs.
3) Weight of the installed engine, gear reduction and propeller are very
important. A
heavy engine is going to limit your useful load. That could greatly influen
ce
your
engine selection. An example of a light, powerful and reliable engine well
suited for
a Kitfox model IV with a big selection of propellers is a Rotax 912. But th
e
initial
investment is high but it is in the lower range of operational costs. There
are
several choices utilizing certified aircraft engines. These are somewhat
heavier but
don't require a gear reduction (redrive) and can have close to the best
operational
cost but they too have a fairly high initial cost.
4) Consider the most likely uses of the airplane. How you're going to fuel
it mostly.
If you can always fuel on your home airport you have the greatest flexibili
ty
but if
you have to carry oil for trips and have a two stroke engine, and higher fu
el
consumption that would be an influence on your decision whether or not to u
se a
Rotax
582.
5) Consider the firewall foreward part of your kit and factory support. I'd
favor a
supported engine installation. It's your airplane so you can pick what you
want
though.
6) The weak point of some of the better auto engine conversions is the redr
ive.
Most
of the auto engine conversions are heavier than the designed for aircraft
selections.
They have a lot of appeal for die-hard do-it-yourselfers though. Lots of
flexibility
and there is a common belief that they can achieve a lower cost of complete
d
installation and possibly do it without a big weight penalty. Lots of room
for
argument and contention here though.
Because of the sensitivity of this issue, people are probably not going to
go
right to
their conclusion which is the best engine choice. I can tell you what I cho
se.
I have
a Rotax 914. I wanted to have a turbo charged engine for frequent over a
mountain
range flying and wanted light weight and a constant speed prop. Although I
didn't find
one of those suitable so I bought an NSI CAP. Since those have had problems
on
Rotax
912/914's and NSI isn't in business anymore, that would no longer be my
recommendation.
You might want to have something unique too, like a Rotec radial. You might
also
consider the dealer support aspect of your engine purchase. You can probabl
y
chat with
Lockwood about Rotax or John McBean from Kitfox about engines, what kind of
support
and costs.
One thing for sure, making the choice will be a fun process but will requir
e
some
effort to get the best result for your needs.
--
Paul A. Franz
Registration/Aircraft - N14UW/Merlin GT
Engine/Prop - Rotax 914/NSI CAP
Bellevue WA
425.241.1618 Cell
=0A=0A=0A
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 |
|
I agree Paul! Well said!
Now I know where to go when I need help picking a religion.
Randy
Series 5/7, 912S (the best choice!) Warpdrive taper tip
_____
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Catz631@aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2009 5:26 AM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Engine choice
Nicely said Paul ! That in a nutshell is it !
Dick Maddux
Fox 4-1200
912 UL
Pensacola,Fl
_____
Need a job? Find
<http://yellowpages.aol.com/search?query=employment_agencies&ncid=emlcntusye
lp00000005> employment help in your area.
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 |
|
I have the wing tanks with one gallon header tank behind the seats. I would like
to have more than 15 minutes of fuel after the light comes on. Has anyone
come up with a larger header tank/low fuel warning system?
I am thinking of adding another standard header tank back to back with the original
(plumbed in parallel). Any thoughts on that?
Thanks
--------
Jim Feldmann, 3rd owner
1994 Kitfox IV Speedster / 912
Down for engine work
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=233158#233158
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: Engine choice |
Great resource Marko.
I have one observation, however. Of course flying behind a Rotax 912 UL for
900 hours before losing that airplane in a forced landing, that is the first
place I looked on the spreadsheet. What caught my eye was the fuel
consumption and a fairly large factor in the cost per hour.
I kept a spread sheet for about the first four years tracking fuel per hour
consumption and for that period it averaged 2.2 gallons per hour. That
figure along with a flight, probably in 2002 or 3 when a group of six flew
from Rancho Murietta, CA to Winnemucca, NV on our way to exlporing the Idaho
back country. The flight was right at three hours (three hours and about 20
minutes as my flight path took me from Cameron Park to Rancho Murietta) and
I topped up in Winnemucca taking 7.7 gallons. Others in the group took as
much as 11 gallons, a little over half of what shows for fuel gph on the
spead sheet. Keep in mind that the typical Kitfox flying around the patch
is not in full power settings but a small fraction of the time.
I guess the point is that the religion analogy is a very good one. There is
a lot of belief and opinion factored into the equation and hard facts (at
least universally accepted ones) are pretty hard to come by. I have beliefs
based on some experience and observation and they move me back to the 912 UL
like I had. I am sure other opinions will vary.
Lowell
----- Original Message -----
From: "Marco Menezes" <msm_9949@yahoo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2009 7:17 AM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Engine choice
Darrell,
I put this spreadsheet together awhile ago when we last had this discussion.
It's incomplete and prices need updating but it's a start at empirical
anaylsis of the choices available.
Have fun.
Marco Menezes N99KX
Model 2 582-90 C-Box 3:1 w/clutch
--- On Wed, 3/4/09, Paul Franz - Merlin GT <paul@eucleides.com> wrote:
From: Paul Franz - Merlin GT <paul@eucleides.com>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Engine choice
<paul@eucleides.com>
On Tue, March 3, 2009 7:44 pm, Darrell Haas wrote:
> Hi,
> I'm a new kid on the block and it looks like I may be able to buy
a
> kitfox Mark IV. I am really excited and wondering what people are using
for
> engines and why. We all want the best bang for our bucks and hopefully I
can
> learn from all of you why you chose your engine. Thanks for any help you
can
> provide.
Engine selection advice is like asking for someone to pick you a religion.
You're
going to have to study this issue if you don't already have an engine.
Here's some
things to consider.
1) Will the engine be appropriate for the type of propeller you want. For
example, if
the engine is only furnished and can use a wood propeller and you're
definitely going
to be using floats, then you might rule that engine out.
2) Economics are an important consideration. There are two parts to this -
initial
cost and operational cost. The two stroke engines cost less, are a little
lighter but
use more fuel and have more scheduled maintenance costs.
3) Weight of the installed engine, gear reduction and propeller are very
important. A
heavy engine is going to limit your useful load. That could greatly
influence
your
engine selection. An example of a light, powerful and reliable engine well
suited for
a Kitfox model IV with a big selection of propellers is a Rotax 912. But the
initial
investment is high but it is in the lower range of operational costs. There
are
several choices utilizing certified aircraft engines. These are somewhat
heavier but
don't require a gear reduction (redrive) and can have close to the best
operational
cost but they too have a fairly high initial cost.
4) Consider the most likely uses of the airplane. How you're going to fuel
it mostly.
If you can always fuel on your home airport you have the greatest
flexibility
but if
you have to carry oil for trips and have a two stroke engine, and higher
fuel
consumption that would be an influence on your decision whether or not to
use a
Rotax
582.
5) Consider the firewall foreward part of your kit and factory support. I'd
favor a
supported engine installation. It's your airplane so you can pick what you
want
though.
6) The weak point of some of the better auto engine conversions is the
redrive.
Most
of the auto engine conversions are heavier than the designed for aircraft
selections.
They have a lot of appeal for die-hard do-it-yourselfers though. Lots of
flexibility
and there is a common belief that they can achieve a lower cost of completed
installation and possibly do it without a big weight penalty. Lots of room
for
argument and contention here though.
Because of the sensitivity of this issue, people are probably not going to
go
right to
their conclusion which is the best engine choice. I can tell you what I
chose.
I have
a Rotax 914. I wanted to have a turbo charged engine for frequent over a
mountain
range flying and wanted light weight and a constant speed prop. Although I
didn't find
one of those suitable so I bought an NSI CAP. Since those have had problems
on
Rotax
912/914's and NSI isn't in business anymore, that would no longer be my
recommendation.
You might want to have something unique too, like a Rotec radial. You might
also
consider the dealer support aspect of your engine purchase. You can probably
chat with
Lockwood about Rotax or John McBean from Kitfox about engines, what kind of
support
and costs.
One thing for sure, making the choice will be a fun process but will require
some
effort to get the best result for your needs.
--
Paul A. Franz
Registration/Aircraft - N14UW/Merlin GT
Engine/Prop - Rotax 914/NSI CAP
Bellevue WA
425.241.1618 Cell
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 |
|
I haven't skied in 20 years, and haven't kept up with that sport, but
what you say sounds right.
Lynn Matteson
Kitfox IV Speedster, taildragger
Jabiru 2200, #2062, 610 hrs
Sensenich 62x46
Electroair direct-fire ignition system
Status: flying
do not archive
On Mar 4, 2009, at 9:40 AM, patrick reilly wrote:
> Lynn, Don't know if you are a skier, but that applies to downhill
> skiing also. Powder skies are much wider than carving skies.
>
> do not archive
> Pat Reilly
> Mod 3 582 Rebuild
> Rockford, IL
>
>
> > From: lynnmatt@jps.net
> > Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: Ski Size
> > Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2009 18:45:33 -0500
> > To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> >
> >
> > When I was digging into ski sizes, it *seemed* that all the skis
> that
> > I measured were built under the assumption of about 1-2 pounds of
> > airplane weight per square inch of ski. That's a wild --- guess, but
> > again, deep powdery snow requires more flotation/area, and hard-
> > packed snow needs less area, at least from what I've been able to
> > gather.
> >
> > Lynn Matteson
> > Kitfox IV Speedster, taildragger
> > Jabiru 2200, #2062, 610 hrs
> > Sensenich 62x46
> > Electroair direct-fire ignition system
> > Status: flying
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mar 3, 2009, at 5:33 PM, patrick reilly wrote:
> >
> > > Len, We don't have knee deep powder. Never! As a matter of fact we
> > > don't have powder period. I'm shooting for 600 sq " per ski. But
> > > thanks for info.
> > >
> > > Pat Reilly
> > > Mod 3 582 Rebuil= Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse,
> Chat, FAQ,
> &g===
> >
> >
> >
> ============================================================ _-
> ============================================================ _-
> contribution_-
> ===========================================================
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 |
|
Be careful if using ethanol gas. It melted the optical low fuel sensor in my
header tank. Fuel all over the place! I now only use avgas with TCP added.
Lloyd Eggstaff
Hawaii
Vixen N100VX
Rotax 100 Horse
**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy
steps!
%3D62%26bcd%3DfebemailfooterNO62)
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 |
|
Lowell,
I sure agree that the 912 engines are thrifty. When I had a wrong propeller
on my 912S early on, fuel burn was averaging under 3 gph. Now with a better
propeller (108 - 110 mph cruise versus 95 mph) the average is now closer to
3.5 gph when going somewhere. Like you say, when just out to check the
sights or enjoy the evening, fuel burn is much lower. I usually fly at
about 5-6,000' - my strip is at 4400'. I don't know if that affects my burn
rate.
I love that engine.
Randy
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lowell Fitt
Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2009 12:27 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Engine choice
Great resource Marko.
I have one observation, however. Of course flying behind a Rotax 912 UL for
900 hours before losing that airplane in a forced landing, that is the first
place I looked on the spreadsheet. What caught my eye was the fuel
consumption and a fairly large factor in the cost per hour.
I kept a spread sheet for about the first four years tracking fuel per hour
consumption and for that period it averaged 2.2 gallons per hour. That
figure along with a flight, probably in 2002 or 3 when a group of six flew
from Rancho Murietta, CA to Winnemucca, NV on our way to exlporing the Idaho
back country. The flight was right at three hours (three hours and about 20
minutes as my flight path took me from Cameron Park to Rancho Murietta) and
I topped up in Winnemucca taking 7.7 gallons. Others in the group took as
much as 11 gallons, a little over half of what shows for fuel gph on the
spead sheet. Keep in mind that the typical Kitfox flying around the patch
is not in full power settings but a small fraction of the time.
I guess the point is that the religion analogy is a very good one. There is
a lot of belief and opinion factored into the equation and hard facts (at
least universally accepted ones) are pretty hard to come by. I have beliefs
based on some experience and observation and they move me back to the 912 UL
like I had. I am sure other opinions will vary.
Lowell
----- Original Message -----
From: "Marco Menezes" <msm_9949@yahoo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2009 7:17 AM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Engine choice
Darrell,
I put this spreadsheet together awhile ago when we last had this discussion.
It's incomplete and prices need updating but it's a start at empirical
anaylsis of the choices available.
Have fun.
Marco Menezes N99KX
Model 2 582-90 C-Box 3:1 w/clutch
--- On Wed, 3/4/09, Paul Franz - Merlin GT <paul@eucleides.com> wrote:
From: Paul Franz - Merlin GT <paul@eucleides.com>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Engine choice
<paul@eucleides.com>
On Tue, March 3, 2009 7:44 pm, Darrell Haas wrote:
> Hi,
> I'm a new kid on the block and it looks like I may be able to buy
a
> kitfox Mark IV. I am really excited and wondering what people are using
for
> engines and why. We all want the best bang for our bucks and hopefully I
can
> learn from all of you why you chose your engine. Thanks for any help you
can
> provide.
Engine selection advice is like asking for someone to pick you a religion.
You're
going to have to study this issue if you don't already have an engine.
Here's some
things to consider.
1) Will the engine be appropriate for the type of propeller you want. For
example, if
the engine is only furnished and can use a wood propeller and you're
definitely going
to be using floats, then you might rule that engine out.
2) Economics are an important consideration. There are two parts to this -
initial
cost and operational cost. The two stroke engines cost less, are a little
lighter but
use more fuel and have more scheduled maintenance costs.
3) Weight of the installed engine, gear reduction and propeller are very
important. A
heavy engine is going to limit your useful load. That could greatly
influence
your
engine selection. An example of a light, powerful and reliable engine well
suited for
a Kitfox model IV with a big selection of propellers is a Rotax 912. But the
initial
investment is high but it is in the lower range of operational costs. There
are
several choices utilizing certified aircraft engines. These are somewhat
heavier but
don't require a gear reduction (redrive) and can have close to the best
operational
cost but they too have a fairly high initial cost.
4) Consider the most likely uses of the airplane. How you're going to fuel
it mostly.
If you can always fuel on your home airport you have the greatest
flexibility
but if
you have to carry oil for trips and have a two stroke engine, and higher
fuel
consumption that would be an influence on your decision whether or not to
use a
Rotax
582.
5) Consider the firewall foreward part of your kit and factory support. I'd
favor a
supported engine installation. It's your airplane so you can pick what you
want
though.
6) The weak point of some of the better auto engine conversions is the
redrive.
Most
of the auto engine conversions are heavier than the designed for aircraft
selections.
They have a lot of appeal for die-hard do-it-yourselfers though. Lots of
flexibility
and there is a common belief that they can achieve a lower cost of completed
installation and possibly do it without a big weight penalty. Lots of room
for
argument and contention here though.
Because of the sensitivity of this issue, people are probably not going to
go
right to
their conclusion which is the best engine choice. I can tell you what I
chose.
I have
a Rotax 914. I wanted to have a turbo charged engine for frequent over a
mountain
range flying and wanted light weight and a constant speed prop. Although I
didn't find
one of those suitable so I bought an NSI CAP. Since those have had problems
on
Rotax
912/914's and NSI isn't in business anymore, that would no longer be my
recommendation.
You might want to have something unique too, like a Rotec radial. You might
also
consider the dealer support aspect of your engine purchase. You can probably
chat with
Lockwood about Rotax or John McBean from Kitfox about engines, what kind of
support
and costs.
One thing for sure, making the choice will be a fun process but will require
some
effort to get the best result for your needs.
--
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 |
|
At 09:09 AM 3/4/2009, you wrote:
>I have the wing tanks with one gallon header tank behind the
>seats. I would like to have more than 15 minutes of fuel after the
>light comes on. Has anyone come up with a larger header tank/low
>fuel warning system?
Murle's got one:
http://sonoragraphics.com/williamsaviation/headertank.html He's also
got low-fuel warning systems, but I'd go with Lowell's
(http://www.highwingllc.com/lowfuel.html) as some of the local folk
had problems with Murle's.
Guy Buchanan
San Diego, CA
K-IV 1200 / 582-C / Warp / 300 hrs. and counting
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Engine choice |
At 07:44 PM 3/3/2009, you wrote:
> I'm a new kid on the block and it looks like I may be able to
> buy a kitfox Mark IV. I am really excited and wondering what people
> are using for engines and why. We all want the best bang for our
> bucks and hopefully I can learn from all of you why you chose your engine.
I run a 582 C box with a 70" Warp 3 blade on a Kitfox IV-1200.
Pro:
* Light. (To pull the engine I unbolt it, pick it up by hand, and
set it on a bench. Try THAT with any other engine.)
* Really, REALLY, easy to work on.
* Quiet.
* Reliable. (So far.)
* Swings a big prop very slowly. (More thrust.)
* Very cheap to buy.
* Can change gear ratios for an amazing array of prop options.
* Super easy to start. (Like a snowmobile.)
* No need to pre-heat. (Like a snowmobile.)
Con:
* Higher fuel burn. (4.5 gph @ cruise.)
* Vibration. (2 cylinder typical.)
* Higher acoustic pitch. (Not for the manly man.)
* Very low TBO. (300 hours, though the folks in South Africa have
some studies indicating much higher numbers are appropriate, and have
increased their TBO to 600 hours.)
* Parts are expensive, relative to auto.
* It burns oil, so if you're going just about anywhere you have
to carry all the oil you're going to use for that trip, or stage it
accordingly. Interestingly this seriously degrades any weight
reduction normally attributed to the motor.
* Low permanent magnet alternator output. (12 amps continuous.)
* Great care required in operation to keep EGT's in line. (No big
deal with a mixture control and a little experience, but you do have
to be careful.)
I've been very happy with mine, but will eventually switch
to either a 912 or a diesel. I do lots of cross countries and am
tired of carrying oil instead of passengers.
Guy Buchanan
San Diego, CA
K-IV 1200 / 582-C / Warp / 300 hrs. and counting
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 |
|
What religion you pick doesn't matter much. Picking an engine does!
do not archive
Pat Reilly
Mod 3 582 Rebuild
Rockford=2C IL
From: rjdaugh@rapidnet.com
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Engine choice
I agree Paul! Well said!
Now I know where to go when I need help picking a religion.
Randy
Series 5/7=2C 912S (the best choice!) Warpdrive taper tip
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-serv
er@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Catz631@aol.com
Sent: Wednesday=2C March 04=2C 2009 5:26 AM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Engine choice
Nicely said Paul ! That in a nutshell is it !
Dick Maddux
Fox 4-1200
912 UL
Pensacola=2CFl
Need a job? Find employment help in your area. - The Kitfox-List
Email Forum ---> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List
- MATRONICS WEB FORUMS - - List Contribution Web Site -
-Matt Dralle=2C List Admin.
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: Gummed up Fuel Filter - Any Ideas??? |
Thank you Darin for your timely posting on fuel lines. Because of you and another
kitfox owner who said he changes his fuel lines every two years, I decided
to change mine out. Here is what I found. I had a mix of 30R7, 6000, and Gates
CS091206 C200??? From the wing tanks to the header, I had Tygon B44-4. I
have 316 hours since DAR in August 07. All the lines seemed ok except for the
Tygon. It was about 3/4 the size of the new Tygon I had and really brown and
brittle. It actually cracked when I tried to straighten it out. I have only
run 91 octane non ethanol fuel. I have replaced all the lines with Goodyear
30R9 at $5 a foot but I feel its worth it. Here is the Goodyear site with some
good words on the stuff.
http://www.goodyearep.com/ProductsDetail.aspx?id=5144
Thanks for the heads up.
Rich L
Kitfox S-7, 912uls
Bonners Ferry,IDAHO
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=233250#233250
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 |
|
hello lynn: its odd that you guys are talking about my skis. i got some of my inspiration from looking at the picture posts of yours. The originals idea came from robert nelson in the zenair .com posts of skis. www.zenithair.com/stolch701/7- photo81.html His are of the blue 701 at the top and about 2/3 down the list. I emailed him for info and he supplied me with some spec and more pics. .some others on the site show a guy standing on his skies so i got some relative sizes from that. I was just winging it as to the sizes. the pictures are just after traversing a 6' deep snowdrift. The plane sank about 8" but was able to hold the nw higher with rpm and backstick. I walked back through the same drift and sank past my knees. My size 12'vs couldnt hold up the 200lb hulk.there is a fair amout to cheese slicing and the wheels protrude about 2". the home field is grass with many short hops to pavement so i wanted both.
yes the other pic is of the nw ski under construction detailing the machined pivot
separate from the nw axle....including pavers in the hanger
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=233289#233289
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: | POH - Series 5 or 7? |
Does anyone have a POH they have put together that I can steal and modify with
my numbers from my test flying? I am not good at putting my info together into
a form that makes sense so I was hoping someone more gifted than myself had
one I could pirate as a template.
--------
Darin Hawkes
Series 7
914 Turbo
Kaysville, Utah
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=233293#233293
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: POH - Series 5 or 7? |
At 08:25 PM 3/4/2009, you wrote:
>Does anyone have a POH they have put together that I can steal and
>modify with my numbers from my test flying? I am not good at
>putting my info together into a form that makes sense so I was
>hoping someone more gifted than myself had one I could pirate as a template.
John at Kitfox should have PoH's that are nice ring bound units,
about 5 x 7", with blanks for your performance information.
Guy Buchanan
San Diego, CA
K-IV 1200 / 582-C / Warp / 300 hrs. and counting
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: POH - Series 5 or 7? |
Thanks Guy, I didn't even think about that. I will call him tomorrow.
--------
Darin Hawkes
Series 7
914 Turbo
Kaysville, Utah
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=233300#233300
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! --
|