---------------------------------------------------------- Kitfox-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Thu 03/05/09: 6 ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:24:16 AM PST US From: "Pete Christensen" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:42:18 AM PST US From: "Bob Brennan" Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: 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? 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 _____________________________________ Time: 08:30:04 AM PST US From: "Rueb, Duane" Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Re: Ski Size 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 _____________________________________ Time: 01:38:17 PM PST US From: Marco Menezes Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 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 wrote: From: Lowell Fitt Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Engine choice 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" 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 wrote: From: Paul Franz - Merlin GT Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Engine choice 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 _____________________________________ Time: 05:25:12 PM PST US From: "Lowell Fitt" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 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" 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 wrote: From: Lowell Fitt 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" 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 wrote: From: Paul Franz - Merlin GT Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Engine choice 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 _____________________________________ Time: 08:48:04 PM PST US Subject: Kitfox-List: Fuel Flow Display From: "SkySteve" 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post A New Message kitfox-list@matronics.com UN/SUBSCRIBE http://www.matronics.com/subscription List FAQ http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/Kitfox-List.htm Web Forum Interface To Lists http://forums.matronics.com Matronics List Wiki http://wiki.matronics.com Full Archive Search Engine http://www.matronics.com/search 7-Day List Browse http://www.matronics.com/browse/kitfox-list Browse Digests http://www.matronics.com/digest/kitfox-list Browse Other Lists http://www.matronics.com/browse Live Online Chat! http://www.matronics.com/chat Archive Downloading http://www.matronics.com/archives Photo Share http://www.matronics.com/photoshare Other Email Lists http://www.matronics.com/emaillists Contributions http://www.matronics.com/contribution ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.