From: owner-krnet-l-digest@lists.teleport.com (krnet-l-digest) To: krnet-l-digest@lists.teleport.com Subject: krnet-l-digest V1 #27 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, June 1 1997 Volume 01 : Number 027 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 31 May 1997 21:27:30 -0600 (MDT) From: Ron Lee Subject: Re: KR: Radios? At 21:25 97/5/31 -0500, you wrote: > >Has anyone done a serious comparison of hh gps's? I hesitate to buy one >quite yet because I think the companies aren't done trying to >out-feature each other yet. I'll probably break down when I get a real >job and start flying a lot. (I get my BSME degree this summer, so soon >I'll be rollin' in it!) > >Paul Eberhardt > I will make it THREE to bypass the VOR/COM units. There is an article in the July 97 Kitplanes about the two handheld COM/GPS units. Even there, the price may not justify the integrated COM/GPS unless having just one unit matters. And by waiting a bit on the GPS handheld, you will likely get more for your money. Also a neighbor mentioned that the Lowrange Moving Map GPS unit was offered at a GREAT price at Oshkosh. Maybe the same at sun-n fun. Might be a way to save some money if you know what you want. Ron Lee ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 31 May 1997 22:46:00 -0500 From: Bobby Muse Subject: Re: KR: Painting the Bottom? At 11:14 AM 5/26/97 -0700, you wrote: >At 11:47 PM 5/25/97 -0700, you wrote: >>I'm wondering if there are any great tricks for painting the bottom >>of the KR without fliping the plane over? I'm thinking of jigging it >>on some blocks so I can sand/paint underneath without trying to flip >>the whole fuselage over. >> >> Any ideas? I'm not committed to this, I could yank the engine off >>then get a couple of fellow EAA'ers to come over and flip it next >>weekend. >> >> -- Ross >>-- >>Ross Youngblood >>KRNET-L administrator >>mailto:rossy@teleport.com >>http://www.teleport.com/~rossy/N541RY.htm >> Hi Ross > > I got the the KR up on blocks as high as I could,( no wings),and painted >the bottom the same time as the rest of the KR. Less overspry.I've painted 4 >KR's that way. > Bill >Bill Reents >http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/3050 > > > I put mine up on blocks too. My helper was able to raise and and lower the tail enough to paint the whole plane at one time. Be extra careful that your KR doesn't fall off the blocks. Bobby Muse bmuse@mindspring.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 31 May 1997 22:46:02 -0500 From: Bobby Muse Subject: Re: KR: Re: VW Revs and Props At 01:07 AM 5/27/97 -0400, you wrote: >>>> >> So why aren't larger props being used? > > >>After talking with Ed Serba, I ordered a 50" prop with the same pitch and the >>plane performs much better. > >This is interesting. I figured you could get the same rpm/performance with a >larger prop and lower pitch as with a smaller one and higher pitch, but that >was just an assumption. > >However, I really wasn't thinking about performance at all, but about >windmilling when the engine dies. Large props will do this, but KR-sized >ones won't. A 52" prop will supposedly stop turning in flight if the engine stalls >even briefly, so starter-less operation isn't as safe. Does anyone know how >big a prop has to be to windmill, and could such a prop be run efficiently on >a KR? > >Mike Taglieri > I don't know where you heard that a 52" may stop turning in flight. I have never shut my engine in flight, but I have flown with Jim Hill on several occassions. Jim will shut down his engine in flight and has several times. He says that it's real quite when the engine stops. When he drops the nose, speed increases real fast. The prop will windmill and the engine will restart. Jim's prop was 47" ... What can I say? Bobby Muse bmuse@mindspring.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 31 May 1997 22:46:03 -0500 From: Bobby Muse Subject: Re: KR: Elevator Hinge Pins At 11:26 PM 5/28/97 -0700, you wrote: >JEHayward@aol.com wrote: >> >> I noticed when I was getting my parts order together for Wicks that there >> was a reminder NOT to use locknuts on rotating parts. So I changed the bolts >> to a drilled shank type so I could use castle nuts with cotter pins. >> >> Jim, > > I decided to use drilled bolts as well, but I've been preflighting a 152 a LOT >recently, and I noticed that they use locknuts on the elevator hinge bolts... so >I always count the threads on the 152 .... > > -- Ross > If you closely at the 152, you should find that the bolt is not able to rotate. Therefore a locknut can be used. Bobby Muse bmuse@mindspring.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 31 May 1997 22:46:05 -0500 From: Bobby Muse Subject: Re: KR: I am finally a KR owner! (no archive) At 05:51 PM 5/29/97 -0600, you wrote: >Just took possesion of Roy Marsh's KR-2S. > >Ron Lee > > Ron, Congradulations. Weclome to the greatest club in the world...... the 'KR Pilots and Owners Association'(KROPA). Bobby Muse bmuse@mindspring.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 31 May 1997 22:46:07 -0500 From: Bobby Muse Subject: Re: KR: Re: Tail hinges At 09:30 PM 5/29/97 -0400, you wrote: >Just to make sure I didn't give anyone the wrong idea, I made my own hinges, >but I ordered the complete airplane bolt kit from Wicks. This bolt kit >supposedly contains the nuts and bolts for the hinges, and none of them are >drilled/castellated/etc. Seems to me that the drilled/cotter pinned approach >is probably a prudent one, does anyone think it's overkill? My finger is >poised over the Wicks speed dial key.... (glad you liked that one.... ;-}) > >Cheers! >Rick Junkin >EagleGator@aol.com > I believe that by not using castell nuts and cotter pins in a position that MAY allow a bolt to rolate may KILL you and violates FAA rules and practices. Bobby Muse bmuse@mindspring.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 31 May 1997 22:49:08 -0500 From: Bobby Muse Subject: Re: KR: Re: Tail hinges At 11:56 AM 5/30/97 -0700, you wrote: >At 12:45 PM 5/30/97 -0400, you wrote: >>My feeling is that prudent preflight inspections of the bolts, nuts and >>hinges would preclude the need for cotter pins/castellated nuts. I feel the >>fiberlock nuts would be more than sufficient to tolerate the torsional loads >>they will be subjected to. > >Just for kicks I looked up this up in one of the manuals Tony B. produced >and it states clearly that a fiber lock or any other locking nut is NOT to >be used in any flight control application where rotation is involved, >either a cotter pin with castellated nut or clevis type pin with washers and >cotter pin is to be used. This is pretty common knowledged in the aviation >mechanic world. > >________________________________ >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >Micheal Mims >Just Plane Nutts >mailto:mimsmand@ix.netcom.com > >http://www.netcom.com/~mimsmand > Micheal, You can lead them to water but you can't make them drink. >Bobby Muse bmuse@mindspring.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 31 May 1997 22:13:04 -0600 (MDT) From: Ron Lee Subject: Re: KR: I am finally a KR owner! (no archive) >Congradulations. Weclome to the greatest club in the world...... the 'KR Pilots and Owners Association'(KROPA). > >Bobby Muse Do I owe someone dues now? :) Ron ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 31 May 1997 23:06:19 -0500 From: Bobby Muse Subject: Re: KR: Elevator Hinge Pins At 10:17 PM 5/30/97 -0700, you wrote: >If you really want to go overkill, buy the castellated nylock nuts which >are about $1.10 each. This way if you forget the cotter pin, your still >locked. > > -- Ross > Good suggestion!!! Bobby Muse bmuse@mindspring.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 31 May 1997 23:06:21 -0500 From: Bobby Muse Subject: Re: KR: KROnline resurrection At 01:48 PM 5/31/97 -0500, you wrote: >KRNetHeads, > >I haven't stirred anything up lately, so I offer this: > >I asked Mike Mims about an article I wrote for the February KROnline >Newsletter the other day, and he said if I'd send him to it'd be the first >article he'd received. Well, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure >out that this ain't working. > >Again, any volunteers? Or comments. I'll be Randy wouldn't mind >administering the process... > >Mark Langford I am like Mike....I have never been able to get the KROnline either..... Bobby Muse bmuse@mindspring.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 31 May 1997 23:42:39 -0500 From: Bobby Muse Subject: Re: KR: Headsets? At 05:57 PM 5/31/97 -0700, you wrote: >Say, whats the conventional wisdom on the best headset value? > > Soo... can anyone comment on the durability and comfort of their >favorite headset, and also any really bad ones to avoid? > > -- Regards > > Ross > >-- > I have peltor 7004 and I believe they are great! less than $200 and lightest wieght headset that you can buy in its class. They're perfect for me. Bobby Muse bmuse@mindspring.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 31 May 1997 23:42:40 -0500 From: Bobby Muse Subject: Re: KR: I am finally a KR owner! (no archive) At 10:13 PM 5/31/97 -0600, you wrote: > >>Congradulations. Weclome to the greatest club in the world...... the 'KR >Pilots and Owners Association'(KROPA). >> >>Bobby Muse > >Do I owe someone dues now? :) > >Ron > > Yea. Once you feel comfortable enough to give rides, You'll start paying dues. Bobby Muse bmuse@mindspring.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 31 May 1997 23:12:26 -0700 From: Micheal Mims Subject: Re: KR: Headsets? At 11:42 PM 5/31/97 -0500, you wrote: >I have peltor 7004 and I believe they are great! less than $200 and lightest weight headset that you can buy in its class. They're perfect for me. > >Bobby Muse >bmuse@mindspring.com A few of my students used the Peltor headsets and I have to admit they were GREAT! I almost forgot about these units! _______________________ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Micheal Mims Just Plane Nutts mailto:mimsmand@ix.netcom.com http://www.netcom.com/~mimsmand ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 01 Jun 1997 07:30:36 -0700 From: Donald Reid Subject: Re: KR: Wood Props and Wing Tanks Dennis Ambrose wrote: > Maybe one of you could explain to me how ANYONE could fly a KR2 with > 2 adult males and stay legal? Most planes are comming in at closer to > 600lbs. and with 400lbs. of people and 100lbs. of fuel we weigh in at > 1100lbs. or 200lbs. over. Is the 900lbs. just an arbitrary number or is the > max. gross limited by something other than the structure of the plane? The > KR2 has LOTS of wing area for a plane in this weight class, so is it power > or what? > > Your comments, please? > > Dennis ;=# *****Wondering how to get anything other than me, a > child and 5 gallons airborne******* The limit is structural. Going from memory since I don't have my calc notes handy, the wing is good for a little less than 6 G's at 900# gross. Based on my calcs, this limit is primarily due to the 3/16 inch bolts that hold the wing attachment fittings to the spar. The stabilizer is good for an FAR23 load of slightly more than 6 G's at 900# gross. A higher gross will reduce the load factors. This is not really a bad thing since the average spam can is designed for a utility catagory of 4.4 G's. In general, the fuselage structure is stronger than the wing and tail. I do not know the limit loads on the landing gear. If you use the original retract, I suspect that anything over 900# is asking for trouble. I have no info on the Diehl gear. The heavier weight will decrease performance. Everything is a compromise in this business. - -- Don Reid donreid@erols.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 08:45:40 -0400 (EDT) From: KR2616TJ@aol.com Subject: KR: New KR Web page!!! Tax season is finally over so it is now time to get back to work on "the project". I have posted several of my KR2 pictures on my web page. I am still in the process of doing the writeups and page links so you will for the time being have to manually go from page to page. You will find construction pictures, 1995 Gathering pictures, flying pictures and other pictures. Under the other pictures are pictures from camping out at the Rough River EAA fly-in this past summer. You KRer's will remember this airport in Kentucky as the gathering point for several years. Please bear with me I am upgrading the picture quality and will be posting several links. If you feel the need (please do) to provide me with new links I'll include these. Addresses are as follows: http://members.iclub.org/aquaria/kr2/kr2.html substitute the following for the second kr2 in the address for the other pages, construction, gathering, flying and other. Dana Overall KR2 616TJ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 06:57:44 -0600 (MDT) From: Ron Lee Subject: KR: KROnline Suggestion Many good ideas come out of the KRNET postings. The Editor of the month/quarter/whatever might summarize the ones he feels are beneficial. Example is the castellated nut or castellated fiber nut on rotating parts. Some of these things are not obvious to the first time builder Also with the complaints about the plans, perhaps a standard feature could be a summary of web sites links for specific tasks, such as Mark's (?) web page on the aileron bearings or someones idea on ensuring main gear alignment. Is it ethical to use links to other plane web sites. For example, I am also on the Cozy list, and many of the issues that affect the KR also affect the Cozy..such as fuel tank epoxy. That might be another source of helpful info. Ron Lee ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 09:15:35 -0400 (EDT) From: Baleco@aol.com Subject: Re: KR: Wing Tanks & Fuel Octane Availability In a message dated 97-05-31 20:21:38 EDT, you write: << Anyone comment on what fuel grades they are running with? >> I flew a 2180 with 9:0-1 compression that the previous owner was running auto fuel in. He had trouble getting the thing started by hand. I bought the airplane, switched to 100LL and the engine starts easily. This is with an Ellison by the way. Between the 9:1 compression and not having a bearing on the front at the prop hub I decided to tear it out. I replaced it with a 8.3:1 or whatever Great Plains called for 100LL 2180. It's one of their Steve's engines. Anyway, I've run 100LL for 150 hours now and the engine itself seems to be resisting the lead OK, I've had no valve problems, plugs stay clean etc. I do have a fair amount of lead sludge in the oil at each 25 hour drain but then that's why you change the oil regularly right? I'd configure for the 100LL if I were you. Like you said, it's available everywhere. By the way, the 9:1 engine I took out, I tore down and it was in perfect condition (100 hours). I guess some would say it was a problem waiting to happen but it certainly made more power than this Great Plains engine I'm running. I haven't checked the cam for lift and duration specs. I just know the other engine made more power. It's a much more conservative engine but then maybe it's a much safer (and durable?) install. Marty ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 09:25:04 -0400 (EDT) From: Baleco@aol.com Subject: Re: KR: Headsets? In a message dated 97-05-31 20:57:55 EDT, you write: << Soo... can anyone comment on the durability and comfort of their favorite headset, and also any really bad ones to avoid? >> Softcomm C-60 has been a great headset for 5 years now. Pretty much heavy duty clone of the old style David Clarks.It took the Headset Inc. ANR kit well. With gell filled earseals it's a heck of a performer. I purchased a Gulf Coast Avionics headset as a copilot unit and it performs well for it's $89. With a qualilty set of ear seals it's a pretty hardy unit and it too cuts the noise and is a great performer. I then purchased a pair of Flightcom DX4 or whatever the unit was called before this current 5 series. As much as I loved my 4 place Flightcom GSX-2 intercomm, those headsets were lousy with a capital L. The hardware kept loosening up. We lost a couple peices of the stuff you can't run down the street to replace and the headbands wouldn't maintain pressure. When I sold my Maule and bought the Sonerai, the Flighcoms went with the airplane. I kept the Softcom and GCA headsets. On a budget I'd buy another GCA headset. They still make the same unit. I had the chance to use a new one a few weeks ago when a local flight instructor bought a pair with an intercom. Still a GREAT value, quality construction CHEAP price. I think those run $79 now. If you want ANR, the Softcom and ANR kit have probably now been superceded by some of the new factory ANR headsets. I have about $380 invested in the Softcom with ANR. Some of the new sets are probably selling down in this range these days. Marty ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 09:29:20 -0400 (EDT) From: Baleco@aol.com Subject: Re: KR: Radios? In a message dated 97-05-31 21:46:48 EDT, you write: << I-com makes an interesting one with a removable battery pack, ptt input, headset jacks, VOR display, etc. >> Paul, Before you get all torqued up over the Nav capability of the Icom A-22, we just did a round of this in Rec.Aviation.Homebuilt and the unanimous decision was that the Nav is a joke-short range and totally unreliable reception. The Comm on the otherhand is top notch! For me personally, the Nav works OK but I wouldn't want to rely on it for primary navigation. It isn't much of a backup for nav either. I use an external bent whip antennae with a ground plane on the belly of my Sonerai. Comm is so good that I'm not gonna touch this to improve Nav for fear of screwing the Comm. Marty ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 09:34:33 -0400 (EDT) From: Baleco@aol.com Subject: Re: KR: Radios? In a message dated 97-05-31 22:57:43 EDT, you write: << Pass on the VOR. NAV signals are polarized horizontally, while COM signals are vertically polarized. That's why NAV/COM's use two antennas. You'll never get decent reception even with an external antenna(a must for decent COM reception). Use the money you save buying just the COM on a handheld GPS. > I think one could be mounted to the panel somehow with external power, > ptt, and antenna inputs. This would give you a battery backup and a > handheld to take in other planes. It is also lighter and cheaper than > having both HH and panel mount. Definitely get the headset adapter. Use an external antenna(on a KR, hide copper tape in the vertical stab per RST) and external power. You could mount it with velcro easy enough. >> You got this one nailed on the head Patrick. Unless you wanna antennae switch I just don't see the Nav getting better. The headset adapter is a must too. On the Icom A-22 the headset adapter has PTT jack built right in. Kinda handy though I haven't hooked up to it yet. Marty ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 11:20:05 -0400 (EDT) From: JEHayward@aol.com Subject: Re: KR: Wood Props and Wing Tanks In a message dated 97-05-31 18:43:03 EDT, you write: << Maybe one of you could explain to me how ANYONE could fly a KR2 with 2 adult males and stay legal? Most planes are comming in at closer to 600lbs. and with 400lbs. of people and 100lbs. of fuel we weigh in at 1100lbs. or 200lbs. over. Is the 900lbs. just an arbitrary number or is the max. gross limited by something other than the structure of the plane? The KR2 has LOTS of wing area for a plane in this weight class, so is it power or what? >> I talked to a KR2 driver at Oshkosk in '93 who (he said) routinely flew his at 1200lbs gross. He'd had his for several years and used it for his business trips around Oregon/California. I was thinking if the KR's were stressed for +/- 6G's then why couldn't I license it for 1200 and de-rate the G's to 4 1/2 or even 4 which puts it in a catagory similar to the Cessna's I've flown. I asked the FAA inspector who is in our EAA chapter and was told "that would work just fine." Anyone else heard of doing this? Jim Hayward ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 31 May 1997 08:26:07 -0400 From: "Jim Fields" Subject: Re: KR: Twins Speed up Throttle up Clean up Identify Verify if critical phase of flight Feather if enroute, attempt to trouble shoot if feather check for feather check for fire check list! and....... the FINAL WORD, PREPARE TO MEET THY GOD! There is your first 20 seconds of multi ground school! Take care, Jim SKYTECH Innovations, Inc. Mail To: skytech@iserv.net - ---------- > From: Micheal Mims > To: krnet-l@teleport.com > Subject: Re: KR: Twins > Date: Saturday, May 31, 1997 3:36 AM > > At 09:26 AM 5/31/97 PDT, you wrote: > >To my knowledge the second motor on a light twin is there to take you to > >the scene of the accident after the first failed. > > > > > Oh come on twins are fun! :-) > > One misunderstanding is that the second engine is there for safety, trust > me on light twins its there for performance! I think only transport type > twins are certified for continued operation on one engine. Most twin > trainers when fully loaded wont even maintain altitude on one engine! > Bummer hu! Remember: > > Speed up > Throttle up > Clean up > Identify > Verify > if critical phase of flight Feather > if enroute, attempt to trouble shoot > if feather > check for feather > check for fire > check list! > > There is your first 20 seconds of multi ground school! > > _______________________ > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Micheal Mims > Just Plane Nutts > mailto:mimsmand@ix.netcom.com > > http://www.netcom.com/~mimsmand ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 11:33:54 -0400 (EDT) From: JEHayward@aol.com Subject: Re: KR: Wing Tanks & Fuel Octane Availability In a message dated 97-05-31 22:05:25 EDT, you write: << Brad first thought it would be cool to run on mogas but soon found it is almost impossible to get at airports in the southwest, not to mention all of it (mogas) around here is oxygenated! Micheal Mims >> I get the impression 'oxygenated' is not good for airplane gas. What does that condition do to/for us? Seems like I read somewhere that it was for lower emissions but other than that, I don't know. Jim Hayward ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 11:38:17 -0400 (EDT) From: JEHayward@aol.com Subject: Re: KR: Radios? In a message dated 97-05-31 22:32:13 EDT, you write: << Has anyone done a serious comparison of hh gps's? Paul Eberhardt >> Speaking of GPS's, why are the panel mount ones so dang much more expensive than the handhelds? I'd think it would be just the opposite what with trying to compact all that stuff. Jim Hayward ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 12:14:54 -0400 (EDT) From: JEHayward@aol.com Subject: Re: KR: Elevator Hinge Pins In a message dated 97-06-01 00:10:32 EDT, you write: << If you closely at the 152, you should find that the bolt is not able to rotate. Therefore a locknut can be used. Bobby Muse >> I guess I don't understand how a bolt and locknut assembly that is tightened up enough so that there are several threads showing but not tight enough to keep the assembly from turning (so that it can "float" in the hinge assembly like a pin) is going to be able to turn or back off a locking nut that needs 20 or 30 inch pounds of torque to put on in the first place. Could someone please enlighten me? Jim Hayward ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 12:22:54 -0400 (EDT) From: JEHayward@aol.com Subject: Re: KR: KROnline Suggestion In a message dated 97-06-01 09:01:07 EDT, you write: << Is it ethical to use links to other plane web sites. For example, I am also on the Cozy list, and many of the issues that affect the KR also affect the Cozy..such as fuel tank epoxy. Ron Lee >> How would ethics come into play with any of this. I'd think it would be a courtesy thing. I know I'd be grateful for any kind of information from any source that would help me in my building efforts, especially if all I'd built before was R/C airplanes! Jim Hayward ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 01 Jun 1997 09:50:53 -0700 From: Micheal Mims Subject: Re: KR: Wing Tanks & Fuel Octane Availability At 11:33 AM 6/1/97 -0400, you wrote: I get the impression 'oxygenated' is not good for airplane gas. What does that condition do to/for us? Seems like I read somewhere that it was for lower emissions but other than that, I don't know. > >Jim Hayward I have heard nasty rumors about it attacking certain epoxies, rubbers, gasket material and other commonly used materials in homebuilt construction. _______________________ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Micheal Mims Just Plane Nutts mailto:mimsmand@ix.netcom.com http://www.netcom.com/~mimsmand ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 12:18:33 -0500 (CDT) From: larry flesner Subject: KR: weight/ g- rating At 11:20 AM 6/1/97 -0400, you wrote: >In a message dated 97-05-31 18:43:03 EDT, you write: > ><< Maybe one of you could explain to me how ANYONE could fly a KR2 with > 2 adult males and stay legal? Most planes are comming in at closer to > 600lbs. and with 400lbs. of people and 100lbs. of fuel we weigh in at > 1100lbs. or 200lbs. over. Is the 900lbs. just an arbitrary number or is the > max. gross limited by something other than the structure of the plane? The > KR2 has LOTS of wing area for a plane in this weight class, so is it power > or what? > >> > > I talked to a KR2 driver at Oshkosk in '93 who (he said) routinely flew >his at >1200lbs gross. .//././././././././././././././/. Fellow builders, (reference Construction Plans for the KR-2, introduction, first paragraph) I have #5850, book #57, updated 5/2/83 My plans state that the design stress loading is +/- 7 g's at 800 pounds. That computes to 5600 pounds. If you load the aircraft to 1250 pounds that would bring the g rating down to 4.48 g's. The g rating is going to change as a relationship to the gross weight the aircraft is flying at. WHATEVER weight you are flying at, you have to keep that weight balanced in the DESIGN C.G. RANGE !!! Aircraft performance is going to vary according to the weight also. The greatest change is going to be in the takeoff and climb area of the flight envelope(and glide), slightly less in the cruise area. Richard Ring of Pratt, Kansas has an 0-200 , 24 inch stretch KR . His W.& B. sheet shows his heaviest figures at 1226 pounds. He told me the aircraft performs well. One thing to remember. When you license the aircraft, list your max. gross weight at the heaviest you ever intend to fly the aircraft. This is called C.Y.A. !!! (YOU are the builder, YOU pick the numbers) If you license it at 900 pounds for example and regularly fly it at a heavier weight, you are in violation of the F.A.R.'s !!!!! Can you spell liability.............. I have only a HIGH SCHOOL ENGINEERING DEGREE (read as NO ENGINEERING BACKGROUND) so varify any of my opinions before acting on them !!!!! My opinions come from 35 years of aviation books and magizines and 300 flight hours, and asking a lot of questions of people who should know. I have , in my opinion, found people that should know don't always have the right answers so take ANYONES opinion with a grain of salt and verify, verify, verify............ If I am in violation of common sense here,(or laws of physics) don't be afraid to tell me!!! Now , back to building!!!!!!!! Larry Flesner larryfle@,midwest.net ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 11:49:55 -0600 (MDT) From: Ron Lee Subject: Re: KR: GPS Units (was radio) (NO archive) At 11:38 97/6/01 -0400, you wrote: >In a message dated 97-05-31 22:32:13 EDT, you write: > ><< Has anyone done a serious comparison of hh gps's? > > Paul Eberhardt >> > > Speaking of GPS's, why are the panel mount ones so dang much more >expensive than the handhelds? I'd think it would be just the opposite what >with trying to compact all that stuff. > >Jim Hayward > I agree Jim. Does not make sense to me either. Guess people need to make allowances for one or two handheld units (comm and GPS) when they design the panel and make allowance for cigarette plug ins. Ron Lee ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 01 Jun 1997 11:19:06 -0700 From: David Turley Subject: Re: KR: Elevator Hinge Pins Historically, there have been loss of control (and fatalities) when control surface through-bolts came loose, with the result that FAA standard A&P procedure is to safety all control surface bolts with castellated nuts and cotter pins. The elastic stop nuts (especially those from thirty years ago) could, with weathering and/or removal and re-installation, loose their locking "grip" on the bolt threads. Obviously, the KR owner/builder could check the "breakaway torque" yearly and never install used (even once) nuts. The likelihood is that you would never have a problem. On the other hand the simple way to look at this is that the AN 3-17 bolts and castellated nuts are cheap and easy to install. You then don't have to "torque check" your nuts, and furthermore you don't have to decide "how much friction is enough"! I'll do mine that way, just to be safe and simple. As I tell the kids at school, "Pick Your Battles!" David Turley A&P and Junior High School Counselor > I guess I don't understand how a bolt and locknut assembly that is > tightened up enough so that there are several threads showing but not tight > enough to keep the assembly from turning (so that it can "float" in the hinge > assembly like a pin) is going to be able to turn or back off a locking nut > that needs 20 or 30 inch pounds of torque to put on in the first place. > Could someone please enlighten me? > > Jim Hayward - -- David Turley http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/5774/ (for Dave Raun's Horizon Pics) http://www2.tscnet.com/pages/daturley/ (for pics of my Horizon and Subaru EA-81 installation) mailto:daturley@tscnet.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 14:18:11 -0400 (EDT) From: Baleco@aol.com Subject: Re: KR: Elevator Hinge Pins In a message dated 97-06-01 12:18:11 EDT, you write: << I guess I don't understand how a bolt and locknut assembly that is tightened up enough so that there are several threads showing but not tight enough to keep the assembly from turning (so that it can "float" in the hinge assembly like a pin) is going to be able to turn or back off a locking nut that needs 20 or 30 inch pounds of torque to put on in the first place. Could someone please enlighten me? >> Over many cycles it is POSSIBLE, for the nut to work it's way back off. Even if it was installed properly at the factory or in our case in the garage, there could be a bur that allows the bolt/nut working against one another. A mechanic could overtighten the nut, you could overtighten the nut etc. In a high heat environment the "fiber" can melt or relax it's hold on the threads allowing the nut to back off or the nut can simply be worn out. Using the pin, washer, cotter or bolt, castle nut, cotter eliminate all these possibilties. Of course convention also says you position the bolt or pin so that even if the fastener does come apart, the assembly stays together. Marty ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 01 Jun 1997 14:40:55 -0400 From: Patrick Flowers Subject: Re: KR: GPS Units (was radio) (NO archive) Ron Lee wrote: > > At 11:38 97/6/01 -0400, you wrote: > >In a message dated 97-05-31 22:32:13 EDT, you write: > > > ><< Has anyone done a serious comparison of hh gps's? > > > > Paul Eberhardt >> > > > > Speaking of GPS's, why are the panel mount ones so dang much more > >expensive than the handhelds? I'd think it would be just the opposite what > >with trying to compact all that stuff. > > > >Jim Hayward > > > > I agree Jim. Does not make sense to me either. Guess people need to make > allowances for one or two handheld units (comm and GPS) when they design > the panel and make allowance for cigarette plug ins. > > Ron Lee I'll take a wild guess at this one. Anything that you stick in the panel must be certified for use in aircraft. Handheld goodies don't have to. Probably is the same internally, but the associated federale' costs aren't there. Just a guess, Patrick - -- Patrick Flowers Mailto:patri63@ibm.net ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 01 Jun 1997 13:54:31 -0500 From: robert k adams Subject: KR: local flyin hi there there is going to be a flyin at farrington airport on saturday june 14 that is located 5 mi s/e of paducah ky. everyone is welcome to attend. farringtons is where the twinstar gyroplane is built. just thought i would send this in case anyone would like to attend. thats about all i know now but if i get more info on activities etc i will forward them. bob adams (mistic@vci.net) kr-2 N7057V ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 01 Jun 1997 16:35:20 -0400 From: Vince Bozik Subject: Re: KR: KROnline Suggestion/My fair share(Possible) > Also with the complaints about the plans, perhaps a standard > feature could be a summary of web sites links for specific > tasks, such as Mark's (?) web page on the aileron bearings > or someones idea on ensuring main gear alignment. NetHeads(Sorry Langford, I couldn't resist!), I guess I may be able to contribute something in this area. Check out the following Address: http://pw1.netcom.com/~icbm/NacaCoolingDuct.htm There's also a link where I obtained the information from. I'm fairly positive that It's correct(the cooling duct), and maybe some of you Aero-Engineers could verify that it is. Some of you "legal oriented individuals" may want to notify me if I'm breaking any laws here too. If any of you happen to wander to the rest of the pages, please don't send me any messages with laughter involved;). (Note the "E-Mail" animation that I swiped from Mims Man!) If any of you want a copy, send me an SASE(Self Addressed Stamped Envelope) with the desired length of the cooling duct(via X coordinates) and I'll scale it and ship it out to you. Heck, if you want any other mod's, I'm sure I can help out. It will be in exact scale, can be verified with a rule. Sooner or later, I'll post a cooling duct that can be mechanically closed. Of course, it will not have been tested out, but chances are it'll be made from items that can be found at a local hardware store - allowing for easy(and cost effective) fabrication. My address is as follows: Vince Bozik 152 West Paces Dr. Athens, GA 30605 I would offer to ship them out for free(No SASE), but I have no Idea how many responses I'll get. Just let me know... I feel like you guys have done more for me than can ever be repayed. I've learned a lot by reading the postings, and personal messages. My thanks goes out to all of you who've had the patience to deal with me! Thanks! Sincerely, Vince Bozik - -- Vince Bozik - Athens, Georgia Mailto:ICBM@ix.netcom.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 01 Jun 1997 14:33:18 -0700 From: David Turley Subject: Re: KR: GPS Units (was radio) (NO archive) You can put anything you want in the panel of a homebuilt. Whether the FAA would allow you to file and fly IFR in IMC without a certified avionics installation might depend on your local GADO. (Does your Nav/Comm need to be TSO'd and such). For VFR ops, you can put a microwave oven in the panel and the FAA will look suprised, but they won't likely stop you! Handheld GPS's are a gift from God! I used one of the first units in a non-military aircraft when I was flying in Africa back in the 1980's, (no reliable ground based navaids in most of the places I went, and no, don't ask any questions or I'll have to . . . . . .). Saved my backside on a couple occasions, and then we all got spoiled and EXPECTED the little box to get you wherever you wanted to go. Oh, the kids have it easy these days . . . . . . . . . . Vor has numbered days, I would suspect. . . .. Agent X > > > Speaking of GPS's, why are the panel mount ones so dang much more > > >expensive than the handhelds? I'd think it would be just the opposite what > > >with trying to compact all that stuff. > > > > > I agree Jim. Does not make sense to me either. Guess people need to make > > allowances for one or two handheld units (comm and GPS) when they design > > the panel and make allowance for cigarette plug ins. > > > > Ron Lee > > I'll take a wild guess at this one. Anything that you stick in the > panel must be certified for use in aircraft. Handheld goodies don't > have to. Probably is the same internally, but the associated federale' > costs aren't there. > > Just a guess, > Patrick > -- > Patrick Flowers Mailto:patri63@ibm.net - -- David Turley http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/5774/ (for Dave Raun's Horizon Pics) http://www2.tscnet.com/pages/daturley/ (for pics of my Horizon and Subaru EA-81 installation) mailto:daturley@tscnet.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 16:18:03 -0800 From: "Parley T. Byington" Subject: Re: KR: Radios? Paul I have used a ICOM A-20 for the past 5 years on my KR-2 and have had excellant service from it. I installed a 22.5 inch antenna in the leading edge of the verticle stabilizer and ran coax with a BNC connector to the front panel. I built a small aluminum holder that is mounted to the instrument panel along with a plug for aircraft power to plug into the external power jack. I have had numerous good comments on the clearity and signal strength of my set up from both pilots and ground controllers. The setup also allows me to easily remove the radio to carry with me during airshows and for security when I leave my bird tied down. I don't think you will regret using the ICOM for a KR-2. Regards Parley Byington N54PB. On 31 May 97 at 22:41, Patrick Flowers wrote: > Paul Eberhardt wrote: > > > > I am of the opinion that a handheld radio is sufficient for a kr. I am > > also a student pilot and my opinion on this is suspect. > > > > I-com makes an interesting one with a removable battery pack, ptt input, > > headset jacks, VOR display, etc. > > Pass on the VOR. NAV signals are polarized horizontally, while COM > signals are vertically polarized. That's why NAV/COM's use two > antennas. You'll never get decent reception even with an external > antenna(a must for decent COM reception). Use the money you save buying > just the COM on a handheld GPS. > > > I think one could be mounted to the panel somehow with external power, > > ptt, and antenna inputs. This would give you a battery backup and a > > handheld to take in other planes. It is also lighter and cheaper than > > having both HH and panel mount. > > Definitely get the headset adapter. Use an external antenna(on a KR, > hide copper tape in the vertical stab per RST) and external power. You > could mount it with velcro easy enough. > > Patrick > -- > Patrick Flowers Mailto:patri63@ibm.net > > > > ------------------------------ End of krnet-l-digest V1 #27 ****************************