krnet-l-digest Saturday, May 3 1997 Volume 01 : Number 007 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 02 May 1997 12:49:36 -0400 From: Vince Bozik Subject: Re: KR: Rotary KR? Ron Lee wrote: > > Page 80 of the June 97 Kitplanes magazine shows a 5 cylinder > VW cylinder prototype engine. 75 hp at 2150 rpm and it only > weighs 122 pounds. > > Who will be first to use this engine? > > Ron Is that Rotary or Radial??? Vince Vince Bozik - Athens, Georgia Mailto:ICBM@ix.netcom.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 02 May 1997 13:05:57 -0700 From: Owen Davies Subject: Re: KR: KR-1 motor glider. Curt Martin wrote: > Knowing someone else succeeded in stretching a KR-1 > would be a big confidence boost :) Like too much of my "information," this is a long way from actually knowing anything, but FWIW I have heard that someone did once make a tandem KR-1+1. I may even have seen a photo, but it is long enough ago (before this morning!) so that memory fails. No idea how well it worked. Owen Davies ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 02 May 1997 10:33:26 -0700 From: David Moore Subject: Re: KR: stupidity Homebuilding for FUN!! and RELAXATION!!!: A Famous quote from someone who has not done it. At 08:47 PM 05/01/1997 -0500, you wrote: >Bob Smith wrote: > >>I don't think anyone would call you stupid. > >Hey, who are you callin' NOT stupid? I know stupid when I'm it! Examples? > Remember a few weeks ago I reminded everybody to build their copper foil >antennas into their vertical stabs? Well yesterday I was admiring the >wonderful job I did on my newly finished vertical stab. Know what? NO >ANTENNA! >Today I fit the rudder to the vertical stab and inserted the bolts. >Despite going to the trouble of using my "foolproof" jig/template method to >ensure perfect alignment, the top of the rudder was offset from the >stabilizer by about 1/16". Doesn't sound like much, but it sure looked >funny, and would probably fly that way too. So out comes the dremel tool >to cut away the glass and foam, then clean away all the micro which I had >"potted" the nuts with. Sure enough, those nuts almost never came out. >Then I had to break the hinge off of the spar. Who needs bolts when epoxy >works so good? Need more proof? Stay tuned, the weekend's coming up... > >Mark Langford >langford@hiwaay.net >http://fly.hiwaay.net/~langford > >---------- >> From: smithr >> To: krnet-l@teleport.com >> Subject: Re: KR: project update >> Date: Thursday, May 01, 1997 10:54 AM >> >> But my plan at the moment is to build a prop shaft that runs off of >> the flywheel end of the engine, Of course, there's a weight penalty >> associated with it, and with the Type 4, but longevity is a factor as >> well. Still going with the Rabbit CIS injection too. Just call me >> stupid... >> > >> > Mark Langford >> >> I don't think anyone would call you stupid. And no one would accuse you >> of being too conservative in your KR modifications either. Thats an >> interesting KR you're building. >> >> Bob Smith > > David Moore ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 2 May 1997 12:33:15 -0600 (MDT) From: Ron Lee Subject: Re: KR: RADIAL KR? (No Archive) At 12:49 97/5/02 -0400, you wrote: >Ron Lee wrote: >> >> Page 80 of the June 97 Kitplanes magazine shows a 5 cylinder >> VW cylinder prototype engine. 75 hp at 2150 rpm and it only >> weighs 122 pounds. >> >> Who will be first to use this engine? >> >> Ron > > Is that Rotary or Radial??? > > Vince >-- >Vince Bozik - Athens, Georgia Vince caught me. It is indeed a RADIAL, not rotary. Guess I had Mazda on the brain. Rin ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 02 May 1997 15:49:59 -0400 From: Vince Bozik Subject: Re: KR: RADIAL KR? (No Archive) Ron Lee wrote: > > At 12:49 97/5/02 -0400, you wrote: > >Ron Lee wrote: > >> > >> Page 80 of the June 97 Kitplanes magazine shows a 5 cylinder > >> VW cylinder prototype engine. 75 hp at 2150 rpm and it only > >> weighs 122 pounds. > >> > >> Who will be first to use this engine? > >> > >> Ron > > > > Is that Rotary or Radial??? > > > > Vince > >-- > >Vince Bozik - Athens, Georgia > > Vince caught me. It is indeed a RADIAL, not rotary. Guess I had Mazda > on the brain. > > Rin I can't blame you. I'm an expert in nothing, but I still like how the rotarys work. They're far from a regular reciprocating piston engine, and I think they're pretty cool! Gee, I'd still like to know how a five-rotor rotary would perform! The rotarys are aweful simple. I sometimes wonder what it would take to produce a two rotor/internal redrive @ 100 hp.(Read as - True H.P. at reasonable prop-shaft rpm. Not some outfigured numbers that some wack-@#$ salesman came up with!) Or, some non-reciprocating engine other than a turbo-prop for that matter. Am I missing something? Are there no other non reciprocating engines other than a jet engine? Maybe I'll persue a degree with emphasis in aircraft propulsion. Well, if I can ever get through chemistry! I must be showing my ignorance again. Fridays are great, I'm giddy! Humbling down... Vince Bozik Vince Bozik - Athens, Georgia ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 02 May 1997 17:49:52 -0700 From: Owen Davies Subject: Re: KR: RADIAL KR? (No Archive) Ron Lee wrote: > Page 80 of the June 97 Kitplanes magazine shows a 5 cylinder > VW cylinder prototype engine. 75 hp at 2150 rpm and it only > weighs 122 pounds. > > Who will be first to use this engine? > > Ron For a start, how big around is it? Width doesn't worry me, but that vertical dimension could get a bit cramped. I once saw a t-shirt with a drawing of a P-51 with a big radial grafted to the nose. Kind of funny looking. (The caption read, "You can fly a Pratt & Whitney farther than you can ship a Merlin!") Owen Davies ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 02 May 1997 14:58:40 -0700 From: Ross Youngblood Subject: Re: KR: New guy with a question...KR-1 motor glider. Curt, Welcome aboard. I used to fly sailplanes, and have occasionally considered building a second set of wings for my KR-2 to make a KR-2B. But I haven't seriously worked any of it out. I will be interested to see what comes of this. -- Ross Curt Martin wrote: > > Hello, > > I just subscribed to this list and have an interest in building a KR (if fact, > I was eyeing up a partially completed KR-2 in this weeks "Aero > Trader"...hmmm... can I scrounge up $4250 in a hurry...hmmmm.:) > > Actually, while everyone has been discussing widening the KR-2, has anyone > lengthened a KR-1 ? Like making a tandem two seat KR-1. > > This is the direction I have been thinking of going... I'd like to build a two > place motor-glider using the KR-1 as the basis (nice thin fuse with longer > wings...sounds like a good motor-glider.) I know KR-1 has a long wing > conversion for a single seat aircraft...it's stretching the fuse and the wings > at the same time that concerns me. Anyone ever heard of something similar > being done before? > > TIA, > > Curt Martin (cmartin@america.com) Ross Youngblood ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 2 May 1997 15:50:31 -0700 From: R Covington Subject: Re: KR: RADIAL KR? (No Archive) >At 12:49 97/5/02 -0400, you wrote: >>Ron Lee wrote: >>> >>> Page 80 of the June 97 Kitplanes magazine shows a 5 cylinder >>> VW cylinder prototype engine. 75 hp at 2150 rpm and it only >>> weighs 122 pounds. >>> >>> Who will be first to use this engine? >>> >>> Ron >> >> Is that Rotary or Radial??? >> >> Vince >>-- >>Vince Bozik - Athens, Georgia > >Vince caught me. It is indeed a RADIAL, not rotary. Guess I had Mazda >on the brain. > >Rin Well, the VW cylinder mention would be a direct clue to it being a radial, rather than a rotary, so I figured that is what you meant anyway. :) Of course if it was a Mazda cylinder, then...but that might brake, and be slow.:) Hmm, if it was a VW , the piston would move on forward and engage the other hydraulic circuit...I digress. Actual rotaries are great for the power to weight ratio I think. Wish somebody would make what Vince mentioned in another reply. Robert Covington ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 2 May 1997 21:03:00 -0400 (EDT) From: MikeTnyc@aol.com Subject: Re: KR: New guy with a question...KR-1 motor glider. >Actually, while everyone has been discussing widening the KR-2, has anyone >lengthened a KR-1 ? Like making a tandem two seat KR-1. > >This is the direction I have been thinking of going... I'd like to build a >two >place motor-glider using the KR-1 as the basis (nice thin fuse with longer >wings...sounds like a good motor-glider.) I know KR-1 has a long wing >conversion for a single seat aircraft...it's stretching the fuse and the >wings >at the same time that concerns me. Anyone ever heard of something similar >being done before? If it's true, as many knowledgeable people on this list have said, that it doesn't affect drag very much to widen the fuselage, maybe widening it from KR-1 size to KR-2 size also didn't affect drag very much. Since Rand Robinson already offers a KR-1 motorglider, maybe you could put the long wings designed for that on a KR-2 and wind up with a 2-place side-by-side motorglider that wouldn't have much less performance than the one-place, and it could be converted back to a regular KR-2 by putting regular wings back on. Of course, any glider design would have to be light weight and spartan with as clean a body as possible. (P.S. Does anyone know whether the KR-1 motorglider had some means of feathering the prop?) To make any kind of tandem KR, I'd try to dig up a copy of the Sonerai plans to get measurements, since these are tandem. The tube/fabric construction is entirely different, but both use a VW engine and have similar weight, so the Sonerai design would be a decent starting point. Mike Taglieri ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 2 May 1997 23:15:53 -0400 (EDT) From: Dennis Ambrose Subject: Re: KR: RADIAL KR? (No Archive) Hi: I think I will probably be the first KR2 owner to own a Mazda Rotary powered KR. The down side to the notion is weight. A 12A engine (stripped of all its automotive junk is 190 lbs. way too heavy for a KR even if it does make 130 to 160 hp, it'll weigh 320 lbs when it's complete. What to do... (Mad scientist at work here!!) Because of the Rotary being built in "layers" it is a relativly easy process to cut in half!!-- just eliminate one housing, one rotor and the middle casting and remachine the excentric shaft (crank) arrange for a proper counterweight and voila! a single rotor mazda that starts bare life as 123 lbs. of pieces. The engine will put out 80+ hp. normally asperated and with a small turbo 100+ hp. The question I have is what is the firewall foreward installed weight of a KR2? I know the V.W. engine is about 160lbs. but what about the rest of the engine package? And NOW for the really neat part, suppose there is an extra 50 to 75 lbs. out front what do you do??? make the header tank into a rarely (if ever) used baggage compartment and put the 17 gallons (and 102 lbs.) of fuel in the baggage compartment/ turtle deck~!!! That way as the fuel burns off the C.G. moves FOREWARD as it should!! The plane gets safer as it loses fuel( and the worst case fore and aft. C.G. will be TOTALLY predictable and stable! In addition to the rotaty being VERY reliable(only having 3 moving parts) they have an additional feature no one ever talks about- if it ever fails, it will be a "soft" failure as it CAN'T grenade itself like a recip. engine can. I LIKE the rotary. Reagrds Dennis >Actual rotaries are great for the power to weight ratio I think. Wish >somebody would make what Vince mentioned in another reply. > >Robert Covington > > > > ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 2 May 1997 20:22:12 -0700 From: "John Bouyea" Subject: KR: Gussets/ How about plywood? In all I've read here about enduring cutting and fitting all the gussets, there's got to be a better way. How about Tony Bingelis's notes about making plywood gussets? Pros: Fast Easy did I mention fast and easy? Cons: Difficult to inspect during "annuals" Not as pretty Possibly weight penalty Has anyone used plywood for the fuselage gussets? Why -or- more importantly, why not? bou John/Johnna Bouyea johnbouyea@worldnet.att.net ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 2 May 1997 20:24:12 -0700 From: "John Bouyea" Subject: KR: Is the turtledeck structural? Does the turtledeck provide any significant structural improvement? If not, could it be removable? Think of how easy annuals would become... bou John/Johnna Bouyea johnbouyea@worldnet.att.net ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 2 May 1997 21:57:28 -0600 (MDT) From: Ron Lee Subject: Re: KR: RADIAL KR? (No Archive) At 23:15 97/5/02 -0400, you wrote: Because of the Rotary being built in "layers" >it is a relativly easy process to cut in half!!-- just eliminate one >housing, one rotor and the middle casting and remachine the excentric shaft >(crank) arrange for a proper counterweight and voila! a single rotor mazda >that starts bare life as 123 lbs. of pieces. The engine will put out 80+ hp. >normally asperated and with a small turbo 100+ hp. SNIPPING as appropriate > > And NOW for the really neat part, suppose there is an extra 50 to 75 >lbs. out front what do you do??? make the header tank into a rarely (if >ever) used baggage compartment and put the 17 gallons (and 102 lbs.) of fuel >in the baggage compartment/ turtle deck~!!! That way as the fuel burns off >the C.G. moves FOREWARD as it should!! The plane gets safer as it loses >fuel( and the worst case fore and aft. C.G. will be TOTALLY predictable and >stable! > > Reagrds Dennis Someone who has a better grasp of CG calculations should really check this. IN the 2S, the engine is moved 2" forward. Using 160 pounds for the engine and accesories (may be low), I think this is an additional 27 ft-lbs in the forward direction. If your rotary weighs 200 pounds, that is 40 pounds more. Here is where my train of thought derails since I need more data!!! You may NOT need to move the engine forward. IN addition, if the rotary is more compact, that might tend to move the CG back as well. Thus you may not have to do anything with the fuel tank (save move them to the wings like some are doing. Ron Lee ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 2 May 1997 21:01:40 -0700 From: R Covington Subject: Re: KR: Is the turtledeck structural? >Does the turtledeck provide any significant structural improvement? If >not, could it be removable? > >Think of how easy annuals would become... > >bou >John/Johnna Bouyea >johnbouyea@worldnet.att.net The turtledeck,indeed the whole top everything is not structural, so you could make it removeable, some people have done that. Robert Covington ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 02 May 1997 20:48:58 -0700 From: Micheal Mims Subject: Re: KR: Gussets/ How about plywood? At 08:22 PM 5/2/97 -0700, you wrote: >In all I've read here about enduring cutting and fitting all the gussets, >there's got to be a better way. How about Tony Bingelis's notes about >making plywood gussets? >Has anyone used plywood for the fuselage gussets? Why -or- more >importantly, why not? > I have both! I placed plywood gussets on a few of my joints, actually all the KR gussets are a combination of spruce filler blocks (gussets) with a plywood skin on one side. The gussets are a pain in the butt, just put your nose to the sanding wheel and make them! I made all mine in about four days of solid work. Just glue it!! Micheal Mims ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 02 May 1997 20:50:33 -0700 From: Micheal Mims Subject: Re: KR: Is the turtledeck structural? At 08:24 PM 5/2/97 -0700, you wrote: >Does the turtledeck provide any significant structural improvement? If >not, could it be removable? No it doesn't and yes it can, this according to Rand but,, I can tell you that after I installed my aft turtledeck the aft section of the fuselage sure stiffened up a bit! >Think of how easy annuals would become... > >bou >John/Johnna Bouyea >johnbouyea@worldnet.att.net > > Micheal Mims ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 02 May 1997 21:03:54 -0700 From: Micheal Mims Subject: KR: Mazda powered KR (was Radial kr) Your ideas are good, and Im sure have been hashed a million times (including by myself) but if you do a little more research you will find there are reasons the Mazda Rotary isn't more successful as a aero powerplant. They get really hot and are hard to keep cool, they consume fuel like crazy, in some cases up to 10 gallons an hour! The one thing that derailed my Rotary train was that they have problems with harmonics, even through the use of a Ross reduction or Belt type reduction. Micheal Mims ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 3 May 1997 00:18:23 -0400 (EDT) From: JEHayward@aol.com Subject: KR: Horizontal Stab Doubler KR2-S Drawing A for the 2-S shows the horizontal stabalizer aft spar with a 36" doubler on the forward face. The side view shows the same single doubler going down into the fuselage. I'm wondering if this is an incomplete drawing in that there is a mating of the horizontal doubler with a different vertically placed piece of plywood or if the doubler is in fact one bit fat "T" shaped piece of plywood. Anyone know or how did you guys do yours? I'm ready to add the horizontal spars to the fuselage and don't want to have to do it over! Jim Hayward ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 02 May 1997 22:01:04 -0700 From: Micheal Mims Subject: Re: KR: RADIAL KR? (No Archive) At 09:57 PM 5/2/97 -0600, you wrote: >IN the 2S, the engine is moved 2" forward. Using 160 pounds for the engine >and accesories (may be low), I wish I could have a ready to run firewall forward 2180 for 160 lbs! We weighed the 2100 Revmaster (yes firewall forward) during the last rebuild. Minus the battery and gascolator it weight almost 190lbs! Micheal Mims ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 02 May 1997 22:16:49 -0700 From: Micheal Mims Subject: Re: KR: Horizontal Stab Doubler KR2-S At 12:18 AM 5/3/97 -0400, you wrote: > Drawing A for the 2-S shows the horizontal stabalizer aft spar with a 36" doubler on the forward face. The side view shows the same single doubler going down into the fuselage. I'm wondering if this is an incomplete drawing in that there is a mating of the horizontal doubler with a different vertically placed piece of plywood or if the doubler is in fact one bit fat "T" shaped piece of plywood. Anyone know or how did you guys do yours? >>>>>>>>>. I built mine separate, the spar has a doubler and then there is a 1/4 inch plywood bracket that was epoxied to the fuselage and spar. Micheal Mims ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 03 May 1997 16:54:45 +1000 From: ginnwj Subject: KR: KR- Hirth Engines Hello all, Has anyone looked at fitting one of the light weight engines like the Hirth F30? It would be one way to keep the weight of your KR-2 down and providing a lot of power if you need it (for takeoff, climbout). Fitting heavier engines (even a VW derivative) seems to be counter productive. I would be very pleased to hear from anyone who can provide an address for someone with a Hirth F30 engine who I could ask for advice on installation and reliability. Bill ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 03 May 1997 16:58:16 +1000 From: ginnwj Subject: Re: KR: west system epoxy Micheal Mims wrote: > > >You are using the west system for fiberglass??? I was not aware that they > >made one that was suitable for structural applications. Am I mistaken? > > Keep in mind most of the fiberglass components on the KR are non structural. I would have thought that the wing and tail skins were structural. What else provides the torsional and drag bracing for the outboard spars? If you put fuel tanks in the wings then the lower skin will also surely be structural. Bill ginnwj@ibm.net ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 03 May 1997 08:19:56 -0700 From: Donald Reid Subject: Re: KR: Horizontal Stab Doubler KR2-S Micheal Mims wrote: > > At 12:18 AM 5/3/97 -0400, you wrote: > > Drawing A for the 2-S shows the horizontal stabalizer aft spar with a > 36" doubler on the forward face. The side view shows the same single > doubler going down into the fuselage. I'm wondering if this is an > incomplete drawing in that there is a mating of the horizontal doubler with > a different vertically placed piece of plywood or if the doubler is in fact > one bit fat "T" shaped piece of plywood. Anyone know or how did you guys do > yours? >>>>>>>>>. > > I built mine separate, the spar has a doubler and then there is a 1/4 inch > plywood bracket that was epoxied to the fuselage and spar. > > _______________________ > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Micheal Mims I did the same thing, and must add that there are the 5/8" spruce pieces that the plywood bracket is glued to. Don Reid ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 03 May 1997 08:28:49 -0700 From: Donald Reid Subject: Re: KR: RADIAL KR? (No Archive) Ron Lee wrote: > > At 23:15 97/5/02 -0400, you wrote: > Because of the Rotary being built in "layers" > >it is a relativly easy process to cut in half!!-- just eliminate one > >housing, one rotor and the middle casting and remachine the excentric shaft > >(crank) arrange for a proper counterweight and voila! a single rotor mazda > >that starts bare life as 123 lbs. of pieces. The engine will put out 80+ hp. > >normally asperated and with a small turbo 100+ hp. > SNIPPING as appropriate > > > > And NOW for the really neat part, suppose there is an extra 50 to 75 > >lbs. out front what do you do??? make the header tank into a rarely (if > >ever) used baggage compartment and put the 17 gallons (and 102 lbs.) of fuel > >in the baggage compartment/ turtle deck~!!! That way as the fuel burns off > >the C.G. moves FOREWARD as it should!! The plane gets safer as it loses > >fuel( and the worst case fore and aft. C.G. will be TOTALLY predictable and > >stable! > > > > > Reagrds Dennis > > Someone who has a better grasp of CG calculations should really check this. > > IN the 2S, the engine is moved 2" forward. Using 160 pounds for the engine > Ron Lee 1) An O-200, minimal electric, no starter, etc. is closer to 200-210#. A Soob with radiator and coolant is in that neighborhood. 2) That would be a lot of gas just waiting to end up in the cockpit in an accident. Wing tanks are more work, more plumbing, more ..., more ..., more, but they area generally safer. And less CG movement. Don Reid ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 3 May 1997 08:10:21 -0500 From: Roli Kriening Subject: KR: FW: Fuselage Widening - ---------- From: Roli Kriening[SMTP:kriening] Sent: May 3, 1997 7:58 AM To: 'KRNET' Subject: Fuselage Widening Thanks for all the discussion on this topic...I am a potential builder = who stands 6' and 220lbs...the fuselage width is a concern for me. I have read the comments about widening the fuselage 3 -4 -5" but am a = little confused. I don't really want to build from scratch - so the = question I have is how much can I widen the fuselage with the materials = provided in the kit?? What will the overall dimension be at the = shoulders? Hips? Etc? Do the original plans call for 37" at the = shoulders?? Roli ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 03 May 1997 11:15:02 -0400 From: Vince Bozik Subject: Re: KR: Is the turtledeck structural? > > The turtledeck,indeed the whole top everything is not structural, so you > could make it removeable, some people have done that. > > Robert Covington Gee, since the weight is already there, it seems that someone would have made it structural, along with a few other mod's, and came up with what could possibly be a lighter and stronger aft section. Any thoughts on the matter?? - -- Vince Bozik - Athens, Georgia ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 03 May 1997 09:32:17 -0700 From: Micheal Mims Subject: Re: KR: KR- Hirth Engines At 04:54 PM 5/3/97 +1000, you wrote: >I would be very pleased to hear from anyone who can provide an address >for someone with a Hirth F30 engine who I could ask for advice on >installation and reliability. > I don't know of any KRs with the hirth but there is a Q-200 or a Dragonfly buzzing around with one. Maybe you could start at the Quickie home page to find out who the owner is. Or email Jon Finley at: finley@cyberdude.com Micheal Mims ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 03 May 1997 09:39:02 -0700 From: Micheal Mims Subject: Re: KR: FW: Fuselage Widening At 08:10 AM 5/3/97 -0500, you wrote: >Thanks for all the discussion on this topic...I am a potential builder who stands 6' and 220lbs...the fuselage width is a concern for me. > >I have read the comments about widening the fuselage 3 -4 -5" but am a little confused. I don't really want to build from scratch - so the question I have is how much can I widen the fuselage with the materials provided in the kit?? What will the overall dimension be at the shoulders? Hips? Etc? Do the original plans call for 37" at the shoulders?? The premolded aft turtledeck is your primary concern , it will not fit a widened fuselage, it will only flex about 1 inch. the standard KR is only 35 inches wide at the shoulders and 30 inches wide at the hips. This would basically mean that it would be a single place aircraft for someone of your size or even my size! (5'11" 185 lbs) Micheal Mims ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 03 May 1997 10:11:43 -0700 From: David Turley Subject: Re: KR: Gussets/ How about plywood? John Bouyea wrote: > > In all I've read here about enduring cutting and fitting all the gussets, > there's got to be a better way. How about Tony Bingelis's notes about > making plywood gussets? > Pros: > Fast > Easy > did I mention fast and easy? > Cons: > Difficult to inspect during "annuals" > Not as pretty > Possibly weight penalty > > Has anyone used plywood for the fuselage gussets? Why -or- more > importantly, why not? > > bou > John/Johnna Bouyea > johnbouyea@worldnet.att.net The wood construction on my Horizon uses spruce gussets, after which the whole joint is "sandwiched" between 1/16" aircraft ply. Super strong, I built a test joint and could not break the joints- only the members outside the joint. I don't know if ply alone would be strong enough- I suspect that the joint "fillet" provided by the solid gusset member provides a lot of surface area as well as compressive resistance in the joint . . . IMHO - -- David Turley ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 03 May 1997 10:27:09 -0700 From: Ross Youngblood Subject: Re: KR: Horizontal Stab Doubler KR2-S JEHayward@aol.com wrote: > > Drawing A for the 2-S shows the horizontal stabalizer aft spar with a 36" > doubler on the forward face. The side view shows the same single doubler > going down into the fuselage. I'm wondering if this is an incomplete drawing > in that there is a mating of the horizontal doubler with a different > vertically placed piece of plywood or if the doubler is in fact one bit fat > "T" shaped piece of plywood. Anyone know or how did you guys do yours? I'm > ready to add the horizontal spars to the fuselage and don't want to have to > do it over! > > Jim Hayward On the KR-2 (Not S) I interperted the doubler as a T shaped piece, however it actually NOTCHED for the upper longerons, and captures two vertical crossmembers that are installed at this time. Again, I don't recall the fuselage Station but "M" comes to mind. I made a template out of cardboard before cutting the plywood. -- Ross ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 03 May 1997 10:39:23 -0700 From: David Turley Subject: Re: KR: KR-1 motor glider. I'm a member of the Sailplane Homebuilders Association, and have been pushing for the sailplane designers (who are members of the group) to work on better two-place self launch ships (I used to fly a Monnette Moni, but always wanted a second seat). The consensus always seemed to be that with the second seat you either decrease the performance too much to be practical without spending large amounts of money on increasing everything else needed to carry the additional weight- the law of diminishing returns hits pretty hard unless you are happy with 20:1 performance. They all said " you can't just take a single place maching and add a second seat (longer fuse) and add some wing area- you need to start over from scratch and the ship will cost three times what a single place ship would to construct and will have mediocre performance" So I built a two place Fisher Horizon, and now I want to go fast (KR2S with a Jato rocket for propulsion) - -- David Turley ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 03 May 1997 10:43:21 -0700 From: David Turley Subject: Re: KR: Gussets/ How about plywood? Agreed! With a table saw and a small tabletop belt/disc sander you can get VERY fast and accurate at making airtight gusset / fillers. The ply I cut with sheet metal snips and sand the edges. Glue in the filler gussets, then staple the ply over the top with enough squeeze out to ensure good contact. The staples throught the fillers held them in place till the glue dries, and the structure will last forever with a good coat of varathane!!! Dave Turley Micheal Mims wrote: > > At 08:22 PM 5/2/97 -0700, you wrote: > >In all I've read here about enduring cutting and fitting all the gussets, > >there's got to be a better way. How about Tony Bingelis's notes about > >making plywood gussets? > > >Has anyone used plywood for the fuselage gussets? Why -or- more > >importantly, why not? > > > > I have both! I placed plywood gussets on a few of my joints, actually all > the KR gussets are a combination of spruce filler blocks (gussets) with a > plywood skin on one side. The gussets are a pain in the butt, just put > your nose to the sanding wheel and make them! I made all mine in about four > days of solid work. > > Just glue it!! > > Micheal Mims - -- David Turley ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 03 May 1997 10:57:16 -0700 From: David Turley Subject: Re: KR:motor glider. Ross Youngblood wrote: > > Curt, > Welcome aboard. I used to fly sailplanes, and have occasionally > considered building a second set of wings for my KR-2 to make a KR-2B. > But I haven't seriously worked any of it out. I will be interested > to see what comes of this.> > > > Curt Martin (cmartin@america.com) > > Ormond Beach, FL > > http://www.america.com/~cmartin > Curt, I would look into the wing structures / airfoil sections utilized by Jim Maupin in the Windrose powered sailplane, or one of the other wing structures talked about by the SHA group (sailplane homebuilders). Jim called these his "7 day wings" as two people apparently can build and glass the wings in a week (of long days). Of course, your milage may vary. . . . . - -- David Turley ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 3 May 1997 17:03:46 -0700 From: R Covington Subject: Re: KR: KR- Hirth Engines >Hello all, > >Has anyone looked at fitting one of the light weight engines like the >Hirth F30? It would be one way to keep the weight of your KR-2 down >and providing a lot of power if you need it (for takeoff, climbout). >Fitting heavier engines (even a VW derivative) seems to be counter >productive. > >I would be very pleased to hear from anyone who can provide an address >for someone with a Hirth F30 engine who I could ask for advice on >installation and reliability. > >Bill Don't know of anybody who has installed one, but Aircraft Spruce and Specialty carries them, or used to.There is or was some info in the catalog on them. I thought about using that 100 plus horsepower one, since it is so light. Doesn't cost all that much either. Robert Covington ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 03 May 1997 17:06:52 -0700 From: Ross Youngblood Subject: KR: Admin Topics, Website update and KR for sale I'm hoping to get caught up on webpage stuff this weekend, also I will try to adjust the krnet-l-digest to be a weekly email or when the file reaches a certain size. These tasks may be larger than life, but if you know of a KR link or a broken link on my website let me know and I will try to fix it this weekend. By the way... KRNET is at 166 subscribers and GROWING! This seems like THE place to get your KR question answered! There is a KR-2 for sale here in Oregon for $9,000 U.S. if anyone is interested. (541)673-1862 Clyde Lloyd. I saw the flyer and it looks pretty nice for a black and white photo. I will try to get a color photo up on the website, I've got a call into Clyde, and hope to touch base with him this weekend to find out more about the plane. -- Regards Ross - -- Ross Youngblood ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 4 May 97 01:38:18 UT From: "Craig Sellers" Subject: KR:Prop came off Last week we were testing a KR2-S with type IV engine. When doing a static engine runup the prop hub came off along with the propellor. Fortunately the plane was on the ground and no one was hit by the splintered pieces of the prop when it hit the ground. The hub was a Great Plains Force 1 hub. It appears that the washer which holds the hub on was not hardened - it became dish shaped - this caused the retaining bolt to become loose, the cotter pin then sheared, the bolt holding the hub on became unscrewed and the hub and prop came off the engine. We also had another type IV that was built up at the same time and found that it also had a hub retaining washer that was also not hardened. I also have one of these hubs also on my KR-2. It appears that mine is hardened as I have flown it over 500 hours with no problem and the washer does not appear to be "dished". I recall seeing something about this somewhere, but it is VERY VERY important that anyone using a Great Plains force 1 hub make sure that you have a hardened washer holding the hub on. This would obviously be a very bad thing to happen in flight. If someone knows when and how many of the bad washers were shipped please let us know. I personally now know of at least two of them. These hubs were purchased about 3 years ago. Craig Sellers KR2 N34SS ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 3 May 1997 20:34:49 -0600 (MDT) From: Ron Lee Subject: Re: KR:Prop came off (No Archive) At 01:38 97/5/04 UT, you wrote: >Last week we were testing a KR2-S with type IV engine. When doing a static >engine runup the prop hub came off along with the propellor. Fortunately the >plane was on the ground and no one was hit by the splintered pieces of the >prop when it hit the ground. The hub was a Great Plains Force 1 hub. It >appears that the washer which holds the hub on was not hardened - SNIP > >Craig Sellers KR2 N34SS I will ask the ignorant question. How do you know if it is hardened? Ron "John Doe" Lee Added no archive since only the answer to the question is appropriate. delete NO ARCHIVE in subject when answering ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 3 May 1997 23:17:07 -0400 From: "Curt Martin" Subject: KR: KR for sale...Re: Admin Topics, Website update and KR for sale Since this may be of interest to other subscribers, I figured I'd pass it along. There is a partially complete KR-2 listed in the "Aero Trader". From the photograph, it appears to be finished up to the point of adding wings, rigging, engine, and finish. Taildragger configuration landing gear. Also look like it has a holed speed-brake hinged between the main landing gear. Caption reads: "KR2 Project, 75% complete, Diehl skins, no firewall forward, $4250, 706-695-0102." It's not my airplane, so don't reply to me.. just passing on the ad to anyone who may be interested. Curt Martin ------------------------------ pDate: Sat, 3 May 1997 23:26:22 -0400 (EDT) From: Dennis Ambrose Subject: Re: KR: Mazda powered KR (was Radial kr) At 09:03 PM 5/2/97 -0700, you wrote: >Your ideas are good, and Im sure have been hashed a million times (including >by myself) but if you do a little more research you will find there are >reasons the Mazda Rotary isn't more successful as a aero powerplant. They >get really hot and are hard to keep cool, they consume fuel like crazy, in >some cases up to 10 gallons an hour! The one thing that derailed my Rotary >train was that they have problems with harmonics, even through the use of a >Ross reduction or Belt type reduction. > >Micheal Mims Tracey Crook says his RV4 is no harder on fuel than the others and this was confirmed by a fellow at the Brampton Flying Club, that flies a Lancair with a Mazda engine in it. He says he would do it again next time, it's SMOOTH, quiet and powerful. BTW anyone interested in learning the RIGHT way to cool a liquid cooled engine should check out this months RAA site at WWW.RAA.COM It shows how and why to position your rads under the planes belly (a la P51) and the Lancair is done this way and only THINKS of overheating if you are 10-15 minutes getting to the active. It works. As for harmonics, the ross reduction unit (as one example) uses a clutch type disk with torsional dampening springs and hasn't failed in over 800 hours in one unit (a gyrocopter that runs 6000 - 7000 rpm all the time) I have been checking the Rotary out for some time and a lot of these myths are apparently just that. Hope this dosen't start a flamethrower war. :-# Dennis. End of krnet-l-digest V1 #7 ***************************