New beginnings

[Good old number 29 199]

I guess you could call me a ferry pilot. 
It was a beautiful day to pick up a plane. Beautiful scenery everywhere you look. Loaded up for the long haul. 
Bluetooth prop. 
Home, sweet home. That’s as far as I got. We wore out some pavement, but we got it home. Now, back to work. 

[Good old number 29 199]

Here’s a little progress to share with you. I knew that corrosion was going to be the biggest factor in rebuilding this particular plane. It sat for a long time, maybe since the ‘90s, and at least one wing was outside for most or all of that time. That being what it is, it’s clear that at least one wing rib will need to be replaced or repaired, also due to weathering. With as much corrosion as is evident, it seems prudent to strip all the fabric and start fresh. It’s a shame, since the fabric seems tight and strong, only needing a few small patches. 
The turtledeck is missing. Besides that and the right stick, it’s a complete model 4-1200. Well, you could also point out that the gascolator screen is missing. When I pulled the empty bowl, I blew into it without looking, and was rewarded with a blast of rust particles to the face. The pictures show how much rust remained afterwards, and how well it cleaned up. So, where does that much rust come from? The plastic tank or aluminum fuel line? It’s not from the body of the gascolator. It cleaned up smooth and nice, in minutes. I believe that pile of rust is all that’s left of the filter screen. 


The plastic fuel lines in the engine compartment were brittle. They broke and snapped into many little pieces. 
No fuel came out of the panel tank. I put some methanol in it, expecting the lines are iced up. It has two thirteen gallon fiberglass wing tanks, presumably the early ones, which are not compatible with ethanol. I don’t love the fuel line routing, or valves behind the seat. 
The engine is the venerable Model 90 ROTAX 582. It has a 3:1 C box, a GSC prop hub and blade stubs. The oil injection is intact. The motor wouldn’t turn over with the key. The solenoid clicked, nothing else. I suspect several poor connections, as I did eventually get it to crank fast, jumping the starter, but not reliably. 
I started by turning the prop hub by hand. Removing the spark plugs didn’t make it much easier. A little mixed gas in the top of each cylinder got it freed right up. 
Once it was turning freely, I found that all four (not solid top) spark plugs would spark. They look to have little use. 
And, with a drop of gas on the air filter, it ran, albeit only for a few seconds, as the fuel system was not in any condition to deliver fuel. 
Obviously, with the rust in the fuel system, as well as the tightness of the motor, the engine would need a full bearing replacement before ever considering flying it. No doubt there will be rusty needles, and likely a rough crankshaft. 
There is no hour meter. The logbook is minimal, and lacks any indication of hours on the motor. No evidence of time on engine or airframe, except that it must have at least forty hours, to be out of phase 1 test flight. 
Overall, it’s a good example of a light and simple, early Model 4-1200. No frills. It does have the belly pod, a pair of skis, and a nice little cabin heater. You can probably guess what I have in mind for the motor. 

[ChrisBolkan 151]

Wow! Looks like some work ahead of you! Do you think the rust level will require replacement of some tubing in the fuse and control surfaces? Difficult to tell from the pics.

[Good old number 29 199]

I haven’t seen any tubing that I would say will definitely need to be replaced, but some critical points are questionable. Those will probably get some tubing, to be on the safe side. There is a lot of tubing still under fabric. On #29, there was just a little rust showing through the fabric, at the trailing edge of the control surfaces. It looked similar to what I’m seeing here, and turned out to be pretty serious. If the landing gear looks anything like that, it will be replaced. That seems likely. The bungees are sagging, and would need replacement, too. Any exposed steel surfaces are in pretty rough shape. It doesn’t seem like the paint gave it much protection. It will need a full sandblast, then a careful look at how deep the pitting is. I wish there was a good way to gauge it, without stripping the whole thing, but the reality is that it definitely needs to be done, or suffer the consequences. Once the rust is showing through the paint, it’s getting serious. 

[Good old number 29 199]

I liked this prop spinner better than the smaller one I have on #29. I might use it as a mold for a composite. Check out the corrosion. I thought it looked okay, until I took it off. That dirt looking stuff on the inside is all aluminum oxide. I can easily dent the side of the spinner with finger pressure. It feels like cheap waferboard, and breaks apart more easily. 

[ChrisBolkan 151]

Wow...

[Good old number 29 199]

Yeah, every time I start thinking, “Well, it really doesn’t look that bad…”, I get another reminder like this one. Sitting idle outside is not good for planes. 

[Good old number 29 199]

I’ll try to get some good side by side pics of the two foxes, comparing #29 to 1,875 Kitfoxes later. . I got some good measurements, comparing the original to the Model 4-1200. What was most interesting, to me, is how much of it didn’t change. The turtle deck measurements are the same, with the difference of where the flaperon torque tube passes through. The panel tank is the same, and width of the fuselage under the panel (33”) is the same. Width (36” on center of the pins) and spacing at the spar carry-through tubes is the same. Horizontal stabilizer is the same. The width at the back of the seat increased from 36”, to 39”. That’s to the outside of the tubing. The bubble doors add another 1.5”, at the lexan, so max width is 40.5” on the M4, vs. 36” on the M1. But, the top of the fuselage is the same width, as it also is at the front of the doors. The often quoted 10” increase in the fin and rudder height turned out to be 9”, from 44” at the tailpost of the original, to 53” on the M4. The elevator gained 2” of chord, and the rudder gained 4”, though the taper continues to shorten the chord of the rudder and fin, at the top, so it’s not all that. #29’s has been lengthened, so the max rudder chord is the same, and minimum is greater, with its lower aspect ratio, and the elevator is 2” longer chord, with the same span. The fuselage of the Model 4 measures 6.5” longer, not exactly the 7” figure from the factory, but close enough. 1.5” additional inches from the center of the lift strut bolt to the firewall, and the other 5” stretched back. That extra 1.5” forward on the fuselage only translated to 5/8” from the front of the seat to the bottom of the firewall, and it looks like the M4 pedals are further aft. Maybe its seat is longer. I’ll have a closer look to see how similar the firewalls are. It appears that they’re about the same, but hard to tell with the motor hanging in the way. I just had the motor off the old one, too, to adjust the points. It’s easier to measure, anyway, with the fan-cooled, pull-start motor. One other difference is that the Model 4 gear legs are longer, and angle forward from the same front attach point, inline with the seat truss. 
 

[Good old number 29 199]

Got the fuel line from the panel tank de-iced, but there’s still a half cup of ice in the bottom of the tank. The Heet didn’t do the trick, so I had to add heat. The shop is unheated, so that means a heater inside. I’ll have to pull the fittings to get that last bit out. 
One possibly positive discovery, is that the #1 carb float bowl was clean and dry, and #2 was full of oil. Not a bad thing either way, as far as I’m concerned. 
 

The cables are bound up, but I was interested to see that it has Mike Jacober’s mixture adjustment device. It’s a cool setup. I’d like to make that work again. 

[ChrisBolkan 151]

oooh the infamous sunken float. good find!

[Good old number 29 199]

My day job keeps me fairly occupied, but I got the time to pull 582 off the airframe. It was good to hear it run, but I just can’t trust it, having been sitting this long. I wish there was a good way to check the rod and crank center bearings. With no idea how many hours it has, and knowing it sat idle for years, the bearings most likely need to be replaced, like it or not. 
I got a couple pics, comparing the model 1 (with extended tail feathers) to the 4-1200. I finally got the adapters to put the 25” tires back on #29, but it’s sitting on 8.00s. 
For curiosity, I tried the M1 turtle deck on the 4. Basically the same dimensions, but the fasteners don’t align. 
I took some better pics of corrosion on the airframe. You can see there’s orange peel, so there’s definitely pitting. How deep that goes remains to be seen. 

[1avidflyer 2025]

Keep pecking away at it.  I would see if there is a good snowmobile repair shop near you that can tear the engine down and do what needs to be done to it.  But in the end, the best bet is to put a 912 in the plane.  I sure like my Kitfox 4 with the 912.  There are more used 912s around all the time.  JImChuk

[Good old number 29 199]

The registration has transferred. I can finally start doing some real work on it, whenever I find the time. So far, I’ve gotten the motor off, and gotten the ice thawed out of everything. 
 

My plan is to mount a Simonini Victor 2 Super, with a Helix electric in-flight adjustable prop. I’d like to keep it close to 600 pounds, empty weight, with equal useful load. 
 

We have a shipment of engines that was delivered to the warehouse. My first small prop order is almost finished, having been submitted on Friday. It’s great to be working with companies that go right to work on your order, like Helix Propellers and Simonini have done for me. I waited around six months for my last Powerfin prop, which was originally supposed to ship out the next week. No issues like that here. 
 

I haven’t quite decided on the prop diameter and reduction gearing, yet. With 110 hp, constant speed prop, and a relatively clean plane, I would like to be able to cruise at something close to the max structural cruising speed, if I choose to, without compromising too much short takeoff capability. So, I’m weighing that tradeoff between the taller gearing and smaller prop, for cruise, versus lower gearing and bigger diameter for takeoff performance. I’m going to take some time to talk with the experts at Helix, in person, and get their recommendation.
 

If I could, I’d consider repowering and propping both planes (I can dream, right?), extending the gear on the Model 1, with a 4:1 ratio and huge prop, and build the Model 4 to cruise fast and clean. One to warp space, and the other for time. 
 

Back to work. 

IMG_3441.heic

[Good old number 29 199]

I found the starter problem when I removed the motor. Loose ground lead on the starter. That explains why it would crank fast occasionally, but barely crank over other times. It had a really poor ground, through the motor mounts, with enough resistance to make it crank slowly, but worked like normal when the arc of the loose connection, or torque of the starter and vibration of the motor, stuck the connection in place while it cranked. Always something simple. 

[1avidflyer 2025]

Remember that you are supposed to have .040" space between the starter housing and the cover that bolts to the engine crankcase.  The O rings holds things where they should be.  If tightened up tight, the starter cover will crack.  JImChuk

Edited 19 March by 1avidflyer

[AvidJack 31]

Looking at the corrosion on your tubes reminds me of my catalina project- it had been stored on the coast near houston for 20 years, and it was pretty far gone.  I stripped what little fabric had been done, and, started in sanding.. and sanding, and..

Found a local place that advertised blasting, and although they'd never, took it on as a challenge.  Did the whole fuse, and then sprayed it with epoxy, I think for like 800 bucks.  They asked if they could use it in a picture for advertising..

I'd still be sanding today.

 

[Good old number 29 199]

That looks really good. $800 is a great deal for blasting and painting, too.  I rented a sandblaster and compressor when I did the tail feathers on #29. I’ll probably do the same for this one. 
 

I’d thought about the 912, like Jim suggested. It seems like that’s what everybody wants, too. I just saw a post on one of the Facebook groups, someone asking the price for a Kitfox IV with a basic gauge panel -no glass- and a 912 UL. The answer was $40k-$50k. That’s crazy, but that’s what they’re going for, and it’s what people want.
 

There were several considerations that kept me from taking that route. I’ve never seen a used 912 for sale, in Alaska, that wasn’t attached to a plane. I’ve seen them in the lower 48, usually going around $6k. That’s not the kind of thing I want to buy without looking at. If I could work it out, I’d be in for $10k before I got it on the plane, just getting it up here and putting a prop on it, and it’s still a used engine. 

But, I’m not the type of guy that wants the standard Ford. Nothing against it. To tell the truth, I’d take a 172 over a new Kitfox, and have something safer, more practical, and more reliable, for less money. Yes, I just looked down on Ford, only to say I’d rather go for the Buick of airplanes. But, this is a different kind of bird, and it’s going to be light and nimble and fun. If not a Ferrari, at least a Mustang with a six speed to shift. 
 

Since I just got set up to sell Simonini engines, and I have several Victor 2 Supers, that I already paid for, it makes sense to build the plane with one. I like the two-strokes, personally. I grew up riding snowmachines, and a bad KX 250 that couldn’t keep the front wheel on the ground, besides my little Kitfox. I know that’s not for everyone. Like with the KX, as well as the Rotaxes, people have gotten away from the light and simple, choosing the bigger and heavier machines. 
 

For some reason, people have a hard time taking a step back, after they make things too complicated. We add more and more, then pretty soon, the cars are driving themselves, the planes fly without us, and we just watch them on YouTube. I don’t  want a $200,000 Kitfox, even if I could afford it. Guys are paying $50k for a basic KF4. That’s stupid. Go buy a Taylorcraft with a C90, and spend the other $20k on fuel. Just my opinion. 
 

For my money, I’ll take the orphaned fuselage, put some love into it, and keep it light and simple, like it was made to be. Yes, it was designed to handle the 912, but also the 582, and a lightweight two-stroke with a good pedigree, and more power, for less money, makes something a little leaner, a little meaner, and a little more unique, than every Model 4 that people are lining up to pay too much for. 
 

Besides, I like the idea of keeping two-strokes in the mainstream, and supporting a good, family-run business, like Simonini, to say nothing of my own. Since I do have my own business at stake, I think I need to put my money where my mouth is, and show what the engines I’m selling are really capable of. 
 

Nothing against the 9 series, but if we all do that, that will be all there is. 

[Good old number 29 199]

That looks really good. $800 is a great deal for blasting and painting, too.  I rented a sandblaster and compressor when I did the tail feathers on #29. I’ll probably do the same for this one. 
 

I’d thought about the 912, like Jim suggested. It seems like that’s what everybody wants, too. I just saw a post on one of the Facebook groups, someone asking the price for a Kitfox IV with a basic gauge panel -no glass- and a 912 UL. The answer was $40k-$50k. That’s crazy, but that’s what they’re going for, and it’s what people want.
 

There were several considerations that kept me from taking that route. I’ve never seen a used 912 for sale, in Alaska, that wasn’t attached to a plane. I’ve seen them in the lower 48, usually going around $6k. That’s not the kind of thing I want to buy without looking at. If I could work it out, I’d be in for $10k before I got it on the plane, just getting it up here and putting a prop on it, and it’s still a used engine. 

But, I’m not the type of guy that wants the standard Ford. Nothing against it. To tell the truth, I’d take a 172 over a new Kitfox, and have something safer, more practical, and more reliable, for less money. Yes, I just looked down on Ford, only to say I’d rather go for the Buick of airplanes. But, this is a different kind of bird, and it’s going to be light and nimble and fun. If not a Ferrari, at least a Mustang with a six speed to shift. 
 

Since I just got set up to sell Simonini engines, and I have several Victor 2 Supers, that I already paid for, it makes sense to build the plane with one. I like the two-strokes, personally. I grew up riding snowmachines, and a bad KX 250 that couldn’t keep the front wheel on the ground, besides my little Kitfox. I know that’s not for everyone. Like with the KX, as well as the Rotaxes, people have gotten away from the light and simple, choosing the bigger and heavier machines. 
 

For some reason, people have a hard time taking a step back, after they make things too complicated. We add more and more, then pretty soon, the cars are driving themselves, the planes fly without us, and we just watch them on YouTube. I don’t  want a $200,000 Kitfox, even if I could afford it. Guys are paying $50k for a basic KF4. That’s stupid. Go buy a Taylorcraft with a C90, and spend the other $20k on fuel. Just my opinion. 
 

For my money, I’ll take the orphaned fuselage, put some love into it, and keep it light and simple, like it was made to be. Yes, it was designed to handle the 912, but also the 582, and a lightweight two-stroke with a good pedigree, and more power, for less money, makes something a little leaner, a little meaner, and a little more unique than every Model 4 that people are lining up to pay too much for. 
 

Besides, I like the idea of keeping two-strokes in the mainstream, and supporting a good, family-run business, like Simonini, to say nothing of my own. Since I do have my own business at stake, I think I need to put my money where my mouth is, and show what the engines I’m selling are really capable of. 
 

Nothing against the 9 series, but if we all do that, that will be all there is. 

Edited 20 March by Good old number 29