Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 06:24 AM - Re: POH - Series 5 or 7? (Pete Christensen)
2. 06:42 AM - Re: POH - Series 5 or 7? (Bob Brennan)
3. 08:30 AM - Re: Re: Ski Size (Rueb, Duane)
4. 01:38 PM - Re: Engine choice (Marco Menezes)
5. 05:25 PM - Re: Engine choice (Lowell Fitt)
6. 08:48 PM - Fuel Flow Display (SkySteve)
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: POH - Series 5 or 7? |
There is a pdf of a POH (Kitfox II) floating around the internet somewhere.
Just copy and change the numbers.
>
> 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 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: | POH - Series 5 or 7? |
It is here:
http://cfisher.com/kitfox/kitfox2poh.pdf
Courtesy of Mr Dave Fisher
Bob Brennan - N717GB
ELSA Repairman, inspection rated
1991 UK Model 2 ELSA Kitfox taildragger
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 Pete
Christensen
Sent: 05 March 2009 9:23 am
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: POH - Series 5 or 7?
<apeterchristensen@sbcglobal.net>
There is a pdf of a POH (Kitfox II) floating around the internet somewhere.
Just copy and change the numbers.
>
> 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 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 |
|
Everyone knows size matters!
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lynn Matteson
Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2009 11:41 AM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: Ski Size
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 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 |
Lowell,
-
I make no claims to accuracy or completeness of the data contained in the s
preadsheet. But I can say that the information it contains comes from the e
ngine manufacturer's and/or distributor's own sources.-My intent was to i
nitiate a tool for empirical, apples-to-apples comparison, to the extent-
possible. I continue to encourage everyone to add-verifiable data as they
see fit and to share it with the rest of us.
-
Marco Menezes N99KX
Model 2 582-90 C-Box 3:1 w/clutch
--- On Wed, 3/4/09, Lowell Fitt <lcfitt@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
From: Lowell Fitt <lcfitt@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Engine choice
<lcfitt@sbcglobal.net>
Great resource Marko.
I have one observation, however. Of course flying behind a Rotax 912 UL fo
r
900 hours before losing that airplane in a forced landing, that is the firs
t
place I looked on the spreadsheet. What caught my eye was the fuel consump
tion
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 fig
ure
along with a flight, probably in 2002 or 3 when a group of six flew from Ra
ncho
Murietta, CA to Winnemucca, NV on our way to exlporing the Idaho back count
ry.
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 gall
ons,
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 settin
gs
but a small fraction of the time.
I guess the point is that the religion analogy is a very good one. There i
s a
lot of belief and opinion factored into the equation and hard facts (at lea
st
universally accepted ones) are pretty hard to come by. I have beliefs base
d 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 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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Engine choice |
I fully understand, Marco. I hope it didn't sound like I was criticising
your effort. I was just trying to point out how difficult it is to get
everyday data for comparison. I wouldn't give much credence to published
weights either. I think the best information there is the final empty
weight of various projects and look for trends, i.e. the low 600 lb. Model
IV with a 912. I remember Lance Wheeler - NSI - stating that their EA81 was
35 lbs heavier than the 912 then builders were forced to offset the extra
100 ft lbs forward of the datum with 200 ft lbs. aft.
I found this same weight thing when researching landing gear. Grove
advertises their spring gear for the Model IV at 34.3 lbs. I called and
asked what the total was including the mounting plates and hardware. It was
over 30 lbs. I guess if I was going to carry it around in the baggage sack
their figure is a keeper, but in order to use it it took another six poungs
of stuff. I am not sure Rotax includes such things as radiators, oil
coolers hoses and coolant in their engine weights either. I suspect not.
For the benefit of those thinking and doing the research maybe it would be
helpful to go back to the survey we did in 2006 and add empty weights,
actual fuel consumption, climb, cruise, fairings, etc. I just checked the
spreadsheet and out of 117 entries four listed empty weights - two Model
IVs and two Series 5s. The two fours came in at empty weights of 625 (on
wheels) and 673 and the 5s were 925 and 776. The IV's had 912s, and the 5s
an auto conversion and a 912ULS.
Lowell Fitt
Cameron Park, CA
Model IV-1200 R-912 UL
Building
----- Original Message -----
From: "Marco Menezes" <msm_9949@yahoo.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2009 1:36 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Engine choice
Lowell,
I make no claims to accuracy or completeness of the data contained in the
spreadsheet. But I can say that the information it contains comes from the
engine manufacturer's and/or distributor's own sources. My intent was to
initiate a tool for empirical, apples-to-apples comparison, to the extent
possible. I continue to encourage everyone to add verifiable data as they
see fit and to share it with the rest of us.
Marco Menezes N99KX
Model 2 582-90 C-Box 3:1 w/clutch
--- On Wed, 3/4/09, Lowell Fitt <lcfitt@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
From: Lowell Fitt <lcfitt@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Engine choice
<lcfitt@sbcglobal.net>
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 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: | Fuel Flow Display |
Regarding the Northstar F210 Fuel Flow Display, I have two questions:
1. Can the sending unit be installed upside down? If installed in the fuel line
between the gasolator and the fuel pump on a Rotax 912 it needs to be installed
upside down to obtain the correct fuel flow direction through the sending
unit.
2. Can the very long wire between the sending unit and the panel display be cut
and spliced to shorten the length? Or does that wire have some sort of shielding
that should not be cut?
--------
Steve Wilson
Huntsville, UT
Kitfox Model 1- 85DD
912A / 3 Blade Warp Drive
Convertible Nosewheel & Tailwheel
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=233437#233437
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! --
|