Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:38 AM - Re: Engine choice (fox5flyer)
2. 04:55 AM - Re: Engine choice (michael paton)
3. 05:17 AM - Re: Fuel Flow Display (Catz631@aol.com)
4. 06:37 AM - Re: Fuel Flow Display (SkySteve)
5. 07:24 AM - Re: Fuel Flow Display (Noel Loveys)
6. 07:27 AM - Re: Engine choice (Lynn Matteson)
7. 07:42 AM - Re: Re: Fuel Flow Display (Lynn Matteson)
8. 08:04 AM - Re: Fuel Flow Display (SkySteve)
9. 11:41 AM - Re: Re: Fuel Flow Display (Lynn Matteson)
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 |
Let the flood gates open...again.
> 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 was waiting for something like this to come up, but you surprised me,
Lowell with the numbers you gave. You generally avoid anecdotal information
that can't be backed up. I'll stipulate that the 912x is a great engine and
very light for it's power output and there is no doubt in my mind that it is
probably the premier aircraft engine when used for it's intended design.
However, there is a hefty price for that and many of us do not have pockets
that are deep enough to go that route.
As for all up weights, I won't speak for the Model IV because mine is a V.
For balast the only thing I had to do was put my battery in the tail,
nothing more, and that was including the CAP prop, which by it'self is
relatively heavy. Also, I suppose there might be a 600 lb Model IV with a
912 out there, but I suspect it's definitely not typical.
>
> 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.
Exactly. It's been said that numbers don't lie, but unfortunately in the
experimental world no two people (or factories) provide their weights with a
verifiable standard which makes the numbers useful, but meaningless. And
for what it's worth, when I was building, I weighed my Grove gear along with
axles, bolts, nuts, clamps, wheels, tires, and brakes. Basically everything
that was required to keep the airplane off the ground. Surprisingly it came
out to almost exactly 75lbs. Then again, that weight is comparatively
meaningless because I have no idea how much the tube gear weighs with the
same items included. I've always wondered...
>
> 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
One thing that needs to be kept in perspective here is that regardless of
engine weights and periferals, the V with no engine at all is much heavier
than the IV with no engine. A given. Using all up weights between aircraft
whether they be IV or V or II has limited value because no two builders
build the same way nor do they use the same materials.
Personally, what I would like to see is a standard developed for weighing
engines. There are so many variables out there that it's really impossible
to find out what the real weights are unless you have one in your hands and
weigh it for yourself. Perhaps it would be a good project for submittal to
the EAA for publication, but I doubt that will ever happen. Too many people
with there own agendas.
Deke Morisse
Mikado Michigan
S5/Subaru/CAP 402+ TT
"The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but progress."
- Joseph Joubert
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: Engine choice |
soory to come in so late, lowell
i had a912 in a series 5,it works well but it decided to go for a sleep 13
hrs after servising it and i hit the deck, it was a ok engine but now i sus
pisios
cheers michael
had only 450 hrs on it
--- On Thu, 3/5/09, Lowell Fitt <lcfitt@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
From: Lowell Fitt <lcfitt@sbcglobal.net>
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 w
eight of various projects and look for trends, i.e.- the low- 600 lb. M
odel 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 adve
rtises their spring gear for the Model IV at 34.3 lbs.- I called and aske
d 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 sa
ck their figure is a keeper, but in order to use it it took another six pou
ngs 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, actu
al fuel consumption, climb, cruise, fairings, etc.- I just checked the sp
readsheet and out of- 117 entries four listed empty weights - two Model I
Vs 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 t
he 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 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 ini
tiate a tool for empirical, apples-to-apples comparison, to the extent poss
ible. I continue to encourage everyone to add verifiable data as they see f
it 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 firs
t
place I looked on the spreadsheet.- What caught my eye was the fuel consu
mption
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 f
igure
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 u
p in
Winnemucca taking 7.7 gallons.- Others in the group took as much as 11 ga
llons,
a little over half of what shows for fuel gph on the spead sheet.- Keep i
n 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
is 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 ba
sed 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
le, List Admin.
=0A=0A=0A
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: Fuel Flow Display |
Steve,
My Northstar sending unit is installed vertical a few inches above the
gascolator prior to the fuel pump and yes the wire can be shortened as specified
by
the instructions. I shortened mine to a total length of about 3 1/2 ft
spliced it and it works perfect.
I have included a picture but not a good one. It barely shows the
installation. If you look at the lower left of the firewall you will see where
the fuel
line (aluminum goes down to the gascolator and then goes up to the fuel pump
[in red fire sleeve). About two inches above the gascolator is the fuel sending
unit for the Northstar (also wrapped in fire sleeve) there is a white circle
in the line, at that location. I then cut the wire and sent it to the
instrument panel for the gauge. Sorry I don't have a better picture but the picture
was made to show my bush gear installation.
Dick Maddux
Rotax 912UL
Fox 4
Pensacola,Fl
**************Need a job? Find employment help in your area.
(http://yellowpages.aol.com/search?query=employment_agencies&ncid=emlcntusyelp00000005)
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: Fuel Flow Display |
Dick,
Thanks for the info and the photo. My installation is exactly like yours. After
I installed it, I got to wondering if I had screwed up by placing it upside
down.
--------
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=233459#233459
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 Flow Display |
Dick can I get a close-up on how you attached the oil cooler?
Noel
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Catz631@aol.com
Sent: Friday, March 06, 2009 9:45 AM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Fuel Flow Display
Steve,
My Northstar sending unit is installed vertical a few inches above the
gascolator prior to the fuel pump and yes the wire can be shortened as
specified by the instructions. I shortened mine to a total length of about 3
1/2 ft spliced it and it works perfect.
I have included a picture but not a good one. It barely shows the
installation. If you look at the lower left of the firewall you will see
where the fuel line (aluminum goes down to the gascolator and then goes up
to the fuel pump [in red fire sleeve). About two inches above the gascolator
is the fuel sending unit for the Northstar (also wrapped in fire sleeve)
there is a white circle in the line, at that location. I then cut the wire
and sent it to the instrument panel for the gauge. Sorry I don't have a
better picture but the picture was made to show my bush gear installation.
Dick
Maddux
Rotax
912UL
Fox 4
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Engine choice |
I wasn't going to respond to this thread, but now that someone has
admitted to having trouble with a Rotax, I'll chime in with a
suggestion for the Jabiru 2200 engine. Mine made it to 562 hrs before
crapping the bed, but it's working just fine now. This is just to say
that all engine makes have a bad apple now and then, and no make is
exempt.
Lynn Matteson
Kitfox IV Speedster, taildragger
Jabiru 2200, #2062, 610 hrs
Sensenich 62x46
Electroair direct-fire ignition system
Status: flying
On Mar 6, 2009, at 7:53 AM, michael paton wrote:
> soory to come in so late, lowell
> i had a912 in a series 5,it works well but it decided to go for a
> sleep 13 hrs after servising it and i hit the deck, it was a ok
> engine but now i suspisios
> cheers michael
> had only 450 hrs on it
>
> --- On Thu, 3/5/09, Lowell Fitt <lcfitt@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> From: Lowell Fitt <lcfitt@sbcglobal.net>
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Engine choice
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Date: Thursday, March 5, 2009, 5:20 PM
>
> <lcfitt@sbcglobal.net>
>
> 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>
> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.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
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Date: Wednesday, March 4, 2009, 2:27 PM
>
> <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>
> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.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
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Date: Wednesday, March 4, 2009, 12:27 AM
>
> <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
>
>
> http://www.matronicsp; --> _-
> www.matronics.com/contribution _-
> ===========================================================
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: Fuel Flow Display |
If I'm reading Dick correctly, his is right side up, with the outlet
end at the top, right, Dick? And Steve, it sounds like yours is as
you say "upside down" meaning that the outlet is at the bottom? This,
according to the instructions, is not what they want....I don't
think. But if you guys are happy, I'll just shut the hell up. : )
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 6, 2009, at 9:36 AM, SkySteve wrote:
>
> Dick,
> Thanks for the info and the photo. My installation is exactly like
> yours. After I installed it, I got to wondering if I had screwed
> up by placing it upside down.
>
> --------
> 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=233459#233459
>
>
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: | Re: Fuel Flow Display |
Lynn,
Your understanding of my installation is wrong. There is an arrow on the side
of the sending unit which indicates which way the fuel should flow through the
sending unit. When mounted veritcal and between the gasolator and the fuel pump,
that arrow should, and does, point "up". That is how mine is installed.
If, on the other hand, the sending unit was installed below the header tank, the
arrow should point "down". I don't have enough room below the header tank to
install the sending unit there.
--------
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=233466#233466
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: Fuel Flow Display |
Yup, I gotcha now, Steve....as I was waking up my computer just now,
I got to thinking of how that arrow (I have the same unit as you) is
indicating flow direction, and not necessarily "UP". .....my bad!
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 6, 2009, at 11:02 AM, SkySteve wrote:
>
> Lynn,
> Your understanding of my installation is wrong. There is an arrow
> on the side of the sending unit which indicates which way the fuel
> should flow through the sending unit. When mounted veritcal and
> between the gasolator and the fuel pump, that arrow should, and
> does, point "up". That is how mine is installed.
>
> If, on the other hand, the sending unit was installed below the
> header tank, the arrow should point "down". I don't have enough
> room below the header tank to install the sending unit there.
>
> --------
> 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=233466#233466
>
>
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! --
|