From: owner-krnet-l-digest@lists.teleport.com (krnet-l-digest) To: krnet-l-digest@lists.teleport.com Subject: krnet-l-digest V1 #22 Reply-To: krnet-l-digest Sender: owner-krnet-l-digest@lists.teleport.com Errors-To: owner-krnet-l-digest@lists.teleport.com Precedence: bulk krnet-l-digest Sunday, May 25 1997 Volume 01 : Number 022 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 24 May 97 15:35:48 GMT From: mathewrz@iafrica.com (Rob Matthews) Subject: Fw: RE: KR: 1/2 Mazda Package Available - -- Rob Matthews Have a nice day South Africa email mathewrz@iafrica.com - ----------------------------Forwarded Message-------------------------------- > Can SKYTECH attach the info if we request it direct from him. I am interested > in > sfc; Hp rpm; torque curve; does the 102 lbs include as installed, wet? > I will try to mail him direct > Steve in SA > > ---------- > From: SMTP1@K1 - Server@Servers[] > To: > Cc: > Subject: Fw: KR: 1/2 Mazda Package Available > Date: Thursday, May 22, 1997 5:04PM > > > -- > Rob Matthews Have a nice day > South Africa > email mathewrz@iafrica.com > ----------------------------Forwarded Message-------------------------------- > > > KRNetters, > > > > Interested in the 100 HP 1/2 Mazda that weighs 102 lbs? All that's needed > > is to send me a self-addressed, stamped envelope to the address listed > > below. Inturn, I'll send you a copy of the free information package that I > > so graceously received from Alturair. For those "Doubting Thomas' " out > > there, it may be worth wasting a stamp just to see the data. It really is > > impressive and includes some very helpful information. > > > > And the address is... > > > > SKYTECH Innovations, Inc. > > Chief Cook & Bottle Washing Dept. > > 3167 Woodsboro NE > > Grand Rapids, MI 49505 > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > NOTE: > > This free offer in no way implies an endorsement of any kind for the > > aforemented product by SKYTECH Innovations, Inc. nor is there any, written, > > verbal or subliminal message intended. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Take care, > > > > Jim > > SKYTECH Innovations, Inc. > > Mail To: skytech@iserv.net > > > > > > > ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 24 May 97 15:36:05 GMT From: mathewrz@iafrica.com (Rob Matthews) Subject: Fw: RE: KR: VW Revs and Props - -- Rob Matthews Have a nice day South Africa email mathewrz@iafrica.com - ----------------------------Forwarded Message-------------------------------- > Prop info > > Dia = 360*[2*Hp/(n*(N^2)*V)]^0.25 > Vtip = 3.1416*Dia*N/60 > Vtip < 0.85 Mach or 935fps > > n = No of blades > N = rpm > V = a/c max forward speed in fps > Steve in SA > > ---------- > From: SMTP1@K1 - Server@Servers[] > To: > Cc: > Subject: Fw: KR: VW Revs and Props > Date: Thursday, May 22, 1997 5:05PM > > > -- > Rob Matthews Have a nice day > South Africa > email mathewrz@iafrica.com > ----------------------------Forwarded Message-------------------------------- > > > <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< > > > 2. Don't just consider the still air speed when you're looking at tip > > > speed. Your aircraft is moving at considerable speed at max power (you > have > > > to consider the worst case) and that airspeed is a factor in tip speed as > > > well. > > > > Anyone got a formula for that? I don't know anything about vectoring, > > or whatever kind the heck kind of equation it would take to figure this > > one out. Yea, at least I can apply sixth grade math! > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > Hello, Vince > > > > I think you have to do a vector sum: > > > > Vt = SQRT (Vf + Vr) > > where Vt = velocity of tip (total) > > Vf = velocity forward (aircraft's) > > Vr = velocity of tip due to rotation > > and Vr = 2*3.14159*R*f, > > with R = prop radius > > and f = frequency (rotations per unit of time) > > > > thus, Vt = SQRT (Vf + 2 * 3.14159 * R * f) > > > > Me thinks. Now I leave it up to you to make sure the values belong > > to the same measuring system (piece of cake if you use metric :o))) > > i.e., if speed is given in metres/sec, then R = metres, f = rps. > > > > Have fun... > > Carlos > > > > > ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 24 May 1997 14:05:48 -0400 From: "Curt Martin" Subject: KR: Re: Propeller RPM (long) > Does this mean that Piper, Cessna and other manufactures don't figure in the > relative speed of the aircraft? and if not, why are we? Is this another > excuse to be conservative with our rpm? Sometimes I get the feeling we > really over analyze here on the net! :-) > Micheal Mims Perhaps we are, but I wouldn't characterize the typical Cessna or Piper as a "high performance" aircraft and might be bad examples. For laughs, I ran a typical Cessna (1985 172P) through the posted formulas and got the following: Limits (from Cessna information manual) Prop: 75" McCauley Vne: 152 knots (175mph) Lycoming O-320 redline: 2700 RPM V, RPM, Tip speed 0mph, 2700, 602mph 175mph, 2700, 627mph Normal Range of operation keeps the tips of the prop well under Mach 1 Now, if you are foolish enough to break Vne and manage to keep the RPM's down below redline (yeah, right, just getting a 172 up near Vne is a real challenge!) 190mph, 2700, 632mph... You are still not in serious trouble yet..the part of the prop tip speed caused by forward motion is small compared to the speed caused by spinning the prop. Now, if you are really foolish and managed to overspeed the engine...(nose her over at full throttle and let gravity do it's thing...) 175mph, 3400rpm, 779mph... Your getting close to being in deep shit, yet you only exceeded the redline by 700 rpm. Ok, so what does this mean to us (IMHO)... Forward speed has a part in the tip speed, but it's understated. For the sake of accuracy, It's worth including if you want the absolute limits. RPM and blade length have the greatest effect on tip speed. Also include the change in mach based on atmospheric conditions and altitude (up to the service ceiling). What you end up with is a envelope that you should stay within. Any combination of prop diameter & engine RPM that stays inside that envelope are Ok (though some will be undesirable for other reasons, like ground clearance and engine performance curves) What will kill you if you get the prop real close to the speed of sound is going to be vibration. Since you probably don't have enough HP to poke both blades through the speed of sound, you will end up sitting there with one of the blades reaching mach (due to p-factor) and the other blades just shy of it. That will put a very large amplitude (the pressure and the offset from the centerline), low frequency (rpm/blade count) vibration on the engine, engine mounts, and every bit of the airframe. This is not a good thing to do (a lot like throwing one prop blade or having a badly out of balance prop.) I guess it all comes down to knowing where the limits are and staying within them. In that respect, we are all junior aero engineers (you did want an aircraft that said "EXPERIMENTAL" on the side :) Just thinking out loud.. Curt Martin (cmartin@america.com) Ormond Beach, FL http://www.america.com/~cmartin ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 24 May 1997 11:14:32 -0700 From: Micheal Mims Subject: Re: KR: Re: Rand fixed gear versus Diehl gear (no archive) At 07:32 AM 5/24/97 -0600, you wrote: >I've never seen any comment here on the relative merits of the Rand Robinson fixed gear versus the Diehl gear, though most people seem to be using the Diehl. Has anybody checked into both of them? >> >>Mike Taglieri >> > > >I will posit an uninformed guess just to see if my knowledge of these two gear is close to accurate. > >The Rand system has a single piece of material (fiberglass?) that probably attaches to the bottom of the spar. As such, the horizontal piece "may" be a source of drag if it is outside the bottom skin. Your close! The Rand gear is aluminum, it has a little narrower ground track than Dan's gear and Janette told me it was heavier. I was visiting with her the other day, we were discussing this very subject. I think Janette would prefer everyone buy the Diehl gear. Less inventory for her and of course one less thing to support, and I think she said Dan's gear was better overall. _______________________ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Micheal Mims Just Plane Nutts mailto:mimsmand@ix.netcom.com http://www.netcom.com/~mimsmand ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 24 May 1997 11:21:38 -0700 From: Ross Youngblood Subject: KR: Website I haven't yet added this link to my website, but check it out. It's good! -- Ross http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/3050 - -- Ross Youngblood KRNET-L administrator mailto:rossy@teleport.com http://www.teleport.com/~rossy/N541RY.htm ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 24 May 1997 11:44:00 -0700 From: Micheal Mims Subject: Re: KR: Re: Propeller RPM (long) At 02:05 PM 5/24/97 -0400, you wrote: > >> Does this mean that Piper, Cessna and other manufactures don't figure in the relative speed of the aircraft? and if not, why are we? Is this another excuse to be conservative with our rpm? Sometimes I get the feeling we really over analyze here on the net! :-) > >> Micheal Mims > >Perhaps we are, but I wouldn't characterize the typical Cessna or Piper as a "high performance" aircraft and might be bad examples. > >For laughs, I ran a typical Cessna (1985 172P) through the posted formulas and got the following: Your right, I wasn't considering a 172 as a high performance airplane, not even the Hawk XP model! (Hawk Extra Power) :-) I hate that airplane! I was thinking more along the lines of something with at least 300hp (2850 rpm) and the 80 inch prop, PA-46 Malibu, or PA 603p 700 Aerostar. As far as Cessnas go C-206, P-210, or 414. Trust me I wasn't talking about trainers! I havent flown a C-172 since I was a flight instructor and I hope to never fly one again! I guess I am just spoiled! _______________________ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Micheal Mims Just Plane Nutts mailto:mimsmand@ix.netcom.com http://www.netcom.com/~mimsmand ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 24 May 1997 13:51:17 -0500 From: inet@intellisys.net (brian whatcott) Subject: Re: KR: Prop tip speed At 11:52 AM 5/24/97 -0400, krnet-l@teleport.com wrote: >I think that the A/C speed has little influence on >the propeller tip speed: >Assume the propeller tip speed is 700 MPH in still air. >If the A/C speed is 150 MPH, the resultant tip speed is >SQRT ( 700**2 + 150**2) = 715.89 MPH. > >This shows that the A/C speed adds 2% to the propeller >tip speed (in this example)... > >Watcha think? > >Carlos > I'll use this equation to show how prop transverse speed varies with airspeed if you hold constant tip speed = 760 mph at 100 mph airspeed 760 = sqrt(100^2 + x^2) x = 753 +1% at 200 mph airspeed 760 = sqrt(200^2 + x^2) x = 733 +4% at 300 mph airspeed 760 = sqrt(300^2 + x^2) x = 698 +9% Between 100 and 200 mph it accounts for 1 to 4% difference. Not a lot... Then again, the difference between a 192 mph cruise and a 200 mph cruise is not a lot. Which would you rather have? brian brian whatcott Altus OK ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 24 May 1997 14:22:38 -0500 From: "Mark Langford" Subject: KR: Re: Horizontal Stab Ribs Personally, I wouldn't worry about it, particularly since it's done. I'm sure much worse atrocities have been commited in building these things. And 1/16" over the course of 2" isn't much. Too bad we don't have a good set of drawings... Mark Langford langford@hiwaay.net http://fly.hiwaay.net/~langford - ---------- > From: JEHayward@aol.com > To: krnet-l@teleport.com > Subject: KR: Horizontal Stab Ribs > Date: Friday, May 23, 1997 5:58 PM > > While making the ribs for the horizontal stabalizer this afternoon ala > Mark Langford's article in the KR Newsletter, I tried transferring the > rounded elevator leading edge with a compass from the drawing to the plywood. > I found the lower half of the horizontal stabalizer drawing to be off by > 1/16" (chord-wise) thicker referenced to the drawn center line. It's off > about the center 70 to 80 percent of the drawing. I elected to just "cut > down" that portion (by whatever it was off) parallel to the chord. I used a > ruler to check equi-distantly from the centerline on the upper and lower > halves and marked the lower accordingly and trimmed my rib pieces to match. > My question is: should I have done this or increased the "thinner" (upper) > half to match the side that was "thicker" (lower). My concern is that left > like this, my spar will be 1/16" thinner" (top to bottom) with a resultant > lower strength. I know it's not much but my experience doesn't allow much of > an educated guess. I'd like to redraw the rib but don't know how they get > the airfoil shape with it's constantly changing radius. Anyone run into this > before or am I concerned over nothing??? > > Jim Hayward ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 24 May 1997 14:40:37 -0700 From: Ross Youngblood Subject: Re: KR: Rear spar advice Cary Honeywell wrote: > > This is my first post here, so pardon the protocol errors if any. > > I am finishing a rebuild of a KR-2 initially built in 1977-78. It has seen > better days. At some time in the past, an owner has managed to damage the > rear spar ends at the wing mounting brackets. Perhaps a frantic attempt to > put the wing on ended with the wing backets spearing the spar end and > splitting same back into the attach bolt area. This is evident on both left > and right sides, top/bottom on one, top on the other. > > My question: should I do a (12 to 1) angle splice as a repair as > recommended by the local EAA types, or would it be easier just to try to > pull the spar and replace it? > Any suggestions,etc, would be welcome either here or email at > cary@storm.ca > > Thanks. > > - Cary Honeywell - > KR-2 C-GJMW > C-172 C-FRRB Cary, When my KR was in the boat stage, I found I had installed the AFT spar 1/2" off center. One side had the spar ends flush with each other, and the other end had the aft spar in by 1". I pondered what to do and decided to cut the spar out and re-do. This was a major job, and all I had to do was cut the 5/8" gussets and cut the spar webbing around the joint with the fuselage. In case you decide to do this, I recommend making a cutting tool out of an old hacksaw blade. This can clear the tight spaces around the vertical longerons. I did all my cutting by hand. I think in your case cutting the entire rear spar out means major cutting of the fiberglass of the wing stubs. I think a 12:1 splice will be much easier. -- Ross - -- Ross Youngblood KRNET-L administrator mailto:rossy@teleport.com http://www.teleport.com/~rossy/N541RY.htm ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 24 May 1997 17:47:43 -0400 (EDT) From: EagleGator@aol.com Subject: Re: KR: Diehl Gear In a message dated 97-05-24 11:56:05 EDT, Marty wrote: << Is your aircraft flying? >> Well, I had this dream last night..... but otherwise, no, my project won't get into the air on it's own power till about this time next year. I don't have the gear mounted on my airplane yet, but I do have the gear and all the dimensions for you. The gear leg itself is 24 inches long. The approximate vertical dimension from the bottom of the wing to the axle is 12 1/2 inches, as mounted with the supplied aluminum castings. The axle is approximately 6 7/8 inches forward of the forward face of the spar. The mounting instructions tell you to mount the gear assembly on the forward face of the main spar (tail dragger, nose dragger mounts to the aft face) as close to the fuselage sidewall as possible, and this will determine the main gear track width of your project. The dimension from the inboard side of the aluminum mounting casting to the axle mounting plate is about 16 inches. So double this, add the width of your fuselage at the front spar, and add 2 or 3 inches to accomodate the slope of the fuselage sidewall, figure in the axle extension and tire width, and you will have your approximate track width. I hope that helps, let me know if I can get you any other dimensions. Cheers! Rick Junkin EagleGator@aol.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 24 May 1997 15:34:34 -0600 From: cartera@cuug.ab.ca Subject: Re: KR: Re: Propeller RPM (long) >I was thinking more along the lines of something with at least 300hp (2850 >rpm) and the 80 inch prop, PA-46 Malibu, or PA 603p 700 Aerostar. As far >as Cessnas go C-206, P-210, or 414. Trust me I wasn't talking about >trainers! I havent flown a C-172 since I was a flight instructor and I >hope to never fly one again! I guess I am just spoiled! > >_______________________ >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >Micheal Mims >Just Plane Nutts >mailto:mimsmand@ix.netcom.com > >http://www.netcom.com/~mimsmand > And, after you get some time under your belt on the KR2, you will be more spoiled. ;-) Adrian VE6AFY cartera@cuug.ab.ca http://www.cuug.ab.ca:8001/ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 24 May 1997 15:08:25 -0700 From: Ross Youngblood Subject: Re: KR: VW Revs and Props(No Archive) Vince Bozik wrote: > > Hey Guys, all of this "Turbo" talk has got me wondering what the heck it > would cost. Do any of you have any good guesses? Say, for a VW or Soob? > > Thanks > > Vince My guess is that a VW turbo setup will cost between $700 and $2000 depending on used/new source. I haven't seen them really cheap. I think the best turbo values would be the Soobs as they are already plumed (intake/exhaust manifolds), and it seems to me the computer can control waste gate stuff too. -- Ross - -- Ross Youngblood KRNET-L administrator mailto:rossy@teleport.com http://www.teleport.com/~rossy/N541RY.htm ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 24 May 1997 15:21:35 -0700 From: Ross Youngblood Subject: KR: GPS: Tripmate $125 Well, I've had my Tripmate for a few days now and here's what I found. PROS: 0) It's only $150. 1) The reciever appears to be NMEA-183 compatable, except on powerup it wants the string "ASTRAL" to be sent back to unlock it for use by the software. This keeps it from being compatable with other non DeLorme software packages. 2) It appears to be a pretty good unit. It can track and acquire up to 12 satellites, and the moving map software has airports in the database. 3) I have run it around town in the car, on a business trip to Bosie, and shortly in a commercial plane on the ground. (it couldn't see satellites through the metal. CONS: 1) Non Aviation map database... There is a $200 software package that would fix this, but the reciever needs that "ASTRAL" message. This could be a chip built into the RS232 cable to work around this. 2) My Laptop... The screen is hard to see in direct sunlight, bulky has short battery life, and all the pains of windows 95. This has been a large enough pain this week during my messing around that I think it's only somthing I would use with a navigator to run it. Too many potential distractions otherwise. There are several web sources on GPS and it appears that one person has a HP Palmtop interface for the tripmate. If this occurs then that might be the cool setup. -- Regards Ross - -- Ross Youngblood KRNET-L administrator mailto:rossy@teleport.com http://www.teleport.com/~rossy/N541RY.htm ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 24 May 1997 21:03:12 -0400 (EDT) From: Dennis Ambrose Subject: KR: Propellor selection >Date: Sun, 18 May 1997 22:45:54 >To: krnet-l@teleport.com >From: Dennis Ambrose >Subject: Propellor selection > >Hi: > >Has there been any consensus as to what propellor is best for the KR2.I know the Ed Sterba prop has had a fairly faithful following but I was wondering if anyone has a new and positive experience with any of the newer props. ie. Warp drive, >Ivoprop or others? > >My particular combo. is a KR2 plans built, 1834 c.c. greatplanes motor and weighing in at about 600 lbs. empty. It had a Props Inc. 52 x 46 on it and reported moderate performance at best (1820' in 3 min. on climb report, 15 deg.C >temp. @ 200' ASL) at 900 lbs. gross. > >What do you guys think of these numbers and what prop would you recomend? > >Thanks for the input. > >Regards Dennis. ;-D > ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 24 May 1997 22:31:52 EDT From: jscott.pilot@juno.com (Jeffrey E. Scott) Subject: Re: KR: Propellor selection On Sat, 24 May 1997 21:03:12 -0400 (EDT) Dennis Ambrose writes: >>Date: Sun, 18 May 1997 22:45:54 >>To: krnet-l@teleport.com >>From: Dennis Ambrose >>Subject: Propellor selection >> >>Hi: >> >>Has there been any consensus as to what propellor is best for the >KR2.I >know the Ed Sterba prop has had a fairly faithful following but I was >wondering if anyone has a new and positive experience with any of the >newer >props. ie. Warp drive, >>Ivoprop or others? >> >>My particular combo. is a KR2 plans built, 1834 c.c. greatplanes >motor and >weighing in at about 600 lbs. empty. It had a Props Inc. 52 x 46 on it >and >reported moderate performance at best (1820' in 3 min. on climb >report, 15 deg.C >>temp. @ 200' ASL) at 900 lbs. gross. >> >>What do you guys think of these numbers and what prop would you >recomend? >> >>Thanks for the input. >> >>Regards Dennis. ;-D >> I have said this before, but will repeat meyself. My configuration is a KR-2S with a C-85 powerplant. I bought my prop from Clark Lydick @ Performance Propellors (520) 394-2059. It is a 64 laminate maple prop dimensioned to 60 x 66. He built the prop, shipped it to me with only a varnish finish for testing and included the prop bolts. Delivery was 8 weeks after I placed the order. After test running the prop and deciding it didn't need any adjustments, I shipped it back to have the composite leading edge installed, rematch and rebalance the blades, and permanent epoxy finish installed. Received the prop back finished in two weeks. $650 total cost. Any adjustments made to the prop to make it perform the way you want are included in the original cost of the prop. In my opinion, he makes a very high quality prop and you can't beat his service. Clark was also willing to put together a package with the crush plate and prop extension for a better price than available through the standard outlet companies. I have read unsolicited testimonials about the performance of his props, but can't comment on the performance of mine until I get to fly the plane. Hopefully the test flying will commence two weeks from today. Jeff Scott jscott.pilot@juno.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 24 May 1997 21:19:35 -0600 (MDT) From: Ron Lee Subject: KR: Dallas Area KR2 project for sale (no archive) This is from Rec.aviation.homebuilt I have my KR-2 for sale (Dallas, TX). It is in the "boat" stage of construction with the wing spars signed-off by an FAA inspector prior to their covering. It is configured as a tail dragger with dual controls (not the 'S' model). All material to complete (less engine and instruments). Excellent workmanship. $2,000 (cash). Serious buyer inquires only, please. E-mail me at: Ron Lee ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 24 May 1997 22:18:28 -0600 From: jeb@laintra.com (John Bryhan) Subject: KR: Web page update I posted 7 pictures of Jeff''s PAINTED KR2-S looking good, should taxi next week (?) No progress on mine ($$!!$&#@%) John jeb@laintra.com www.laintra.com/jeb/krpage.htm ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 24 May 1997 22:25:14 -0600 From: jeb@laintra.com (John Bryhan) Subject: KR: Re: Diehl Gear I've got the tri-cycle and it mounts to rear of front spar angled back - approx 5 inches as Diehl instructions call for you to mount it with different face of gear leg on the mounting plate. ---- From: ginnwj To: krnet-l@teleport.com Date: Saturday, May 24, 1997 8:20 AM Subject: KR: Diehl Gear >Can anyone tell me where the wheel axle of the Diehl main gear is >located relative to the vertical front edge of the forward spar for the >tailwheel and nosewheel versions? > >Thanks > >Bill Ginn >Sydney Australia ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 24 May 1997 23:00:06 -0700 From: Micheal Mims Subject: KR: Funny Here are some actual maintenance complaints submitted by US Air Force pilots and the replies from the maintenance crews. "Squawks" are problem listings that pilots generally leave for maintenance crews. Problem: "Left inside main tire almost needs replacement." Solution: "Almost replaced left inside main tire." Problem: "Test flight OK, except autoland very rough." Solution: "Autoland not installed on this aircraft." Problem #1: "#2 Propeller seeping prop fluid." Solution #1: "#2 Propeller seepage normal." Problem #2: "#1, #3, and #4 propellers lack normal seepage." Problem: "The autopilot doesn't." Signed off: "IT DOES NOW." Problem: "Something loose in cockpit." Solution: "Something tightened in cockpit." Problem: "Evidence of hydraulic leak on right main landing gear." Solution: "Evidence removed." Problem: "DME volume unbelievably loud." Solution: "Volume set to more believable level." Problem: "Dead bugs on windshield." Solution: "Live bugs on order." Problem:"Autopilot in altitude hold mode produces a 200 fpm descent." Solution: "Cannot reproduce problem on ground." Problem: "IFF inoperative." Solution: "IFF inoperative in OFF mode." Problem: "Friction locks cause throttle levers to stick." Solution: "That's what they're there for." Problem: "Number three engine missing." Solution: "Engine found on right wing after brief search." _______________________ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Micheal Mims Just Plane Nutts mailto:mimsmand@ix.netcom.com http://www.netcom.com/~mimsmand ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 25 May 1997 07:42:10 -0500 From: Bobby Muse Subject: Re: KR: Floorboard At 10:42 AM 5/17/97 -0400, you wrote: > Anyone using foam or some sort of additional reinforcing between the >floorboard and the bottom of the fuselage. I was contemplating using a foam sandwich when installing the floorboard. > >Jim Hayward > I did. Bobby Muse bmuse@mindspring.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 25 May 1997 07:42:12 -0500 From: Bobby Muse Subject: Re: KR: Re: VW Revs and Props At 06:37 AM 5/22/97 -0700, you wrote: >MikeTnyc@aol.com wrote: >> >> >> So why aren't larger props being used? 52" may have been the limit for >> >> the retract gear, but I would think a larger one would be desirable on the >> >> fixed gear without coming dangerously close to the ground. >> >> > >Mike, > >I just got my prop from Ed Sterba. He recommended a 54" diameter prop >for a KR with the Diehl tri-gear. > >Tom Crawford >KR2 N262TC >Spraying Imron today #:) > Tom, I have a Tri-gear KR with a revmaster 2100D(68HP). When I first flew my KR, I had a 52" ED Serba Prop with a 52 pitch. With this configuration I could only get a max of 3050 RPM. The airplane seemed to perform well but not great. At about 60 hours I had to replace the prop due a nose gear failure. After talking with Ed Serba, I ordered a 50" prop with the same pitch and the plane performs much better. I am no speed demon, but I did come in second(twice) in the Sun-N-Fun 100 race. Bobby Muse bmuse@mindspring.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 25 May 1997 07:09:17 -0600 (MDT) From: Ron Lee Subject: KR: Jeff's painted plane (No archive) At 22:18 97/5/24 -0600, you wrote: >I posted 7 pictures of Jeff''s PAINTED KR2-S >looking good, should taxi next week (?) >No progress on mine ($$!!$&#@%) >John >jeb@laintra.com >www.laintra.com/jeb/krpage.htm > Hey Jeff, It looks GREAT. Even looks shiny over the net!!!! What kind of paint did you use? Also, before you begin taxi tests, you may want to add one of those wooden thingies on the front of the plane :) I forget the technical term. Ron Lee ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 25 May 1997 12:27:56 EDT From: jscott.pilot@juno.com (Jeffrey E. Scott) Subject: Re: KR: Floorboard On Sun, 25 May 1997 07:42:10 -0500 Bobby Muse writes: >At 10:42 AM 5/17/97 -0400, you wrote: >> Anyone using foam or some sort of additional reinforcing between >the >>floorboard and the bottom of the fuselage. I was contemplating using >a foam sandwich when installing the floorboard. >> >>Jim Hayward >> > > >I did. > >Bobby Muse >bmuse@mindspring.com > > Mine too. It's strong enough to support my weight when working on the plane in the cockpit. - ---- Jeffrey Scott jscott.pilot@juno.com See construction of KR-2S N1213W at http://fly.hiwaay.net/~langford/kjeffs.html - ---- ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 25 May 1997 12:27:56 EDT From: jscott.pilot@juno.com (Jeffrey E. Scott) Subject: Re: KR: Jeff's painted plane (No archive) On Sun, 25 May 1997 07:09:17 -0600 (MDT) Ron Lee writes: > >Hey Jeff, > >It looks GREAT. Even looks shiny over the net!!!! > >What kind of paint did you use? > >Also, before you begin taxi tests, you may want to add one >of those wooden thingies on the front of the plane :) >I forget the technical term. > >Ron Lee > > Thanks. We shot it with Dupont Centari. It's one of those ten foot paint jobs. It looks great from about ten feet away. Unfortunately, it started sprinkling on us while we were painting, so the surface isn't as nice as I would have liked. Most of the imperfections should polish out, but we didn't get to shoot the finish coat we had intended. It rained for six days while I had the plane together outside. Thanks to John Bryhan for shooting pictures with the digital camera and giving the plane some web space. I have pretty well worked off the squak list I made for myself last night, so will probably start hauling tools and airplane parts to the Santa Fe airport this afternoon. I've got to get that wooden club for the front found. It must be laying out in the shop somewhere. ;o) - ---- Jeffrey Scott jscott.pilot@juno.com See construction of KR-2S N1213W at http://fly.hiwaay.net/~langford/kjeffs.html - ---- ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 25 May 1997 10:47:00 -0600 (MDT) From: Ron Lee Subject: Re: KR: Jeff's painted plane (No archive) > >I have pretty well worked off the squak list I made for myself last >night, so will probably start hauling tools and airplane parts to the >Santa Fe airport this afternoon. I've got to get that wooden club for >the front found. It must be laying out in the shop somewhere. ;o) > >---- >Jeffrey Scott jscott.pilot@juno.com Jeff, I just thought of a question that most people probably know the answer to. You did a run-up with that wooden club thingie a few weeks ago. Did you decide it was the proper pitch because you got the run-up RPMs you expected? Had the RPMs been low, would that indicate the need for LESS pitch for the same diameter thingie? Is the Sante Fe airport different than Los Alamos? Better runway length, lower elevation, etc? NO mesa drop-off at the end of the runway? That might make the initial tests rather sporting! Ron ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 25 May 1997 11:50:59 -0600 From: cartera@cuug.ab.ca Subject: Re: KR: Jeff's painted plane (No archive) >Thanks. We shot it with Dupont Centari. It's one of those ten foot >paint jobs. It looks great from about ten feet away. Unfortunately, it >started sprinkling on us while we were painting, so the surface isn't as >nice as I would have liked. Most of the imperfections should polish out, >but we didn't get to shoot the finish coat we had intended. It rained >for six days while I had the plane together outside. > >Thanks to John Bryhan for shooting pictures with the digital camera and >giving the plane some web space. > >I have pretty well worked off the squak list I made for myself last >night, so will probably start hauling tools and airplane parts to the >Santa Fe airport this afternoon. I've got to get that wooden club for >the front found. It must be laying out in the shop somewhere. ;o) > >---- >Jeffrey Scott jscott.pilot@juno.com >See construction of KR-2S N1213W at >http://fly.hiwaay.net/~langford/kjeffs.html >---- > Hi Jeff, It looks great, congratulations. Gives me a funny nostalgic feeling in the pit of my stomach. Good luck in you test and your maiden flight. Just as a suggestion, take a picture that you like and enlarge it, take it with you on your maiden flight and after have someone to certify it, to hang on you wall. Happy Flying! Adrian VE6AFY cartera@cuug.ab.ca http://www.cuug.ab.ca:8001/ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 25 May 1997 12:59:25 -0700 From: Peter Hudson Subject: Re: KR: Re: Rand fixed gear versus Diehl gear (no archive) Hi, As I said before... I have the Rand fixed gear. Next time I'm reunited with my fuselage I'll measure it for you. It is, in fact, an aluminum spring bar which spans the underside of the fuselage. I faired mine in with foam and glass, which is a step I wouldn't have needed with the Diehl gear. I don't know about the weight though, as I mounted it without weighing it first. (another piece of data lost forever!) The continuous bar is a lot more gentle on the spar but I haven't looked into how much of a factor that is. Since the Diehl gear works I wouldn't worry about it. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 25 May 1997 13:22:30 -0700 From: Peter Hudson Subject: Re: KR: coposite skins Ted & Louisa Jones wrote: > > Sorry, my Defender catalog is in the office. I will try to remember to > post it tomorrow. Meanwhile, if you can't wait, they are located in > central Connecticut south of Hartford (formerly in New Rochelle, New > York) and for $.50 you should be able to obtain their phone number Ted & Louisa, (or any one else) I would like a data sheet on the 4 oz dynel for comprison sake. Any luck on the catalog address? If not, do you have any strenght and stiffness specs on it? thanks, - -Peter- ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 25 May 1997 15:11:21 -0700 From: Ted & Louisa Jones Subject: Re: KR: composite skins > David Moore wrote: > > > > I don't believe dynel is offered anymore, that's why RR went to fiberglass. > > I have a copy of the original plans, and yes they call for dynel. > > snip This is a follow-up on my message of Thursday regarding Dynel: Defender Industries, Inc. is located at: 42 Great Neck Road Waterford, CT 06385 (near New London) orders: (800) 628-8225 or (860) 701-3400 faxes: (800) 654-1616 or (860) 701-3424 customer service: (800) 435-7180 or (860) 701-3415 I have bought from Defender for many years, but have no vested interest in the company. Occasionally I have found them to be a bit "hurry-up-and-order pushy" (they're New Yorkers, like me, so what do you expect?), but they have always delivered. They supply Dynel in 63" widths for $6.80/yard (1 to 25 yards). It weighs 4.2 oz./sq. yd. Their similar product is Xynole (I misspelled it before). This comes in 60" widths for $5.85/yard (1 to 25 yards). It weighs 4 oz./sq.yd. They also sell "Olifin spun polypropylene", 60" widths, $5.25/yard, 4 oz./sq.yd. A chart lists comparable qualities: Specifications Glass Xynole Polypro. Flexural strength PSI 24000 15000 15000 Tensile strength sp.gr. 79000 61000 78000 Stiffness, grams denier 322 88 50 Abrasion resistance fair good excellent Resin impregnation` fair 1 good excellent It is not clear whether Dynel and Xynole have the same qualities. Regardless, neither has the strength of a good glass laminate, although I would think that as a covering, where the primary function is not structural, Dynel or Xynole would be fine, and they surely are easier to work with. Web site: http://www.Defenderus.com Ted Jones ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 25 May 1997 19:12:36 -0400 From: jwcox@tc3net.com (Joseph Cox) Subject: KR: FloScan fuel flow computer Just purchased a flowscan fuel flow computer for my 26 ft bayliner boat. The unit cost $289 reads out gph and total fuel used resetable to 0 when you fuel up. Accurate to 1% according to floscan avalible at most marine parts dealers more info www.floscan.com I can see a real use for this in my kr but my wife aint gona like the 3" hole in the boat dash when I get ready for it humm maybe I buy 2 :) Joe jwcox@tc3net.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 25 May 1997 18:17:07 -0600 (MDT) From: Ron Lee Subject: Re: KR: FloScan fuel flow computer At 19:12 97/5/25 -0400, you wrote: >Just purchased a flowscan fuel flow computer for my 26 ft bayliner boat. > The unit cost $289 reads out gph and total fuel used resetable to 0 >when you fuel up. Accurate to 1% according to floscan avalible at most >marine parts dealers more info www.floscan.com > I can see a real use for this in my kr but my wife aint gona like the >3" hole in the boat dash when I get ready for it humm maybe I buy 2 >:) > > Joe > jwcox@tc3net.com I have a similar unit for my Long-EZ. When reading the instruction manual, it suggested that an alternate fuel path be set up around the fuel flow sensing unit. I suspect that is in case it gets clogged. Does your manual suggest the same bypass system? Ron ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 25 Jan 1997 21:59:56 -0500 From: Vince Bozik Subject: KR: ASCII Aircraft (Do NOT Archive) Hey Guys, I realize that this is a complete waste of bandwidth, but someone in this group is likely to find this interesting. IT's sight for "ASCII Aircraft." Hopefully, my browser didn't mess the following examples, which - by the way - is only a fraction of what's there. http://www.servtech.com/public/ptomblin/planes.html Again, I'm sorry about the "Non-KR" stuff. Maybe this'll give some of you "Footer Buffs" a fancy-schmancy addition. Later, Vince Bozik \ / Gary Vander Ploeg \ __ / g.vanderploeg@freenet.hamilton.on.ca ____________\.-|__|-./____________ + + ---\__| \/ |__/--- + + \__/ Fokker Dr. 1 __________!__________ by Anthony G. Sanchez _\___---_^_---___/_ Tsunami0@ix.netcom.com _\_~~~( " )~~~_/_ ./---\. . |-----| . YF-23 \ / by Robin Breyl \ / breyl@sparc2.ikb.uni-essen.de \ __ _ __ / ______________\/__\/(_)\/__\/______________ \__| \___/ |__/ _____ _ Biplane | __\ \_o______/__) Ennis Trimble <:[^^_\_\_ ////---< erst@gower.net | `` | (0> # Piper PA28-161 Warrior | # by Paul Tomblin _|_ # ptomblin@xcski.com ____/___\____ # ___________[o0o]___________ # O O O # Saab Viggen | # Stefan Skoglund | # sp2stes1@ida.his.se _____/0\_____ # ____________O(.)O___________ # I-+-I O I-+-I - -- Vince Bozik - Athens, Georgia Mailto:ICBM@ix.netcom.com ------------------------------ End of krnet-l-digest V1 #22 ****************************