From: owner-krnet-l-digest@lists.teleport.com (krnet-l-digest) To: krnet-l-digest@lists.teleport.com Subject: krnet-l-digest V1 #29 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 Monday, June 2 1997 Volume 01 : Number 029 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 08:14:08 -0600 (MDT) From: Ron Lee Subject: Re: KR: Radios? Transponders (no archive) SNIP >> >> I'm considering getting a Terra COM and Terra Xponder, I believe unless >>I'm hosed on the regs, that a Xponder is required since I have an electrical >>system. Am I correct? >> >>Ross Youngblood Me thinks the transponder is only needed if you go into Class A or B (?) airspace. Ron Lee ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 02 Jun 1997 11:01:17 -0700 From: Owen Davies Subject: Re: KR: Radios? Transponders Among other things, Ross Youngblood wrote: > I'm considering getting a Terra COM and Terra Xponder, I believe unless > I'm hosed on the regs, that a Xponder is required since I have an electrical > system. Am I correct? Actually, all homebuilders are hosed. The exemption for non-electric airplanes applies only to certificated aircraft--essentially antiques. Homebuilts need a transponder to fly in the relevant airspace whether they have an electrical system or not. (You didn't think the FAA was on your side, did you?) Owen Davies ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 02 Jun 1997 11:37:48 -0400 From: smithr Subject: Re: KR: KROnline resurrection Micheal Mims wrote: > Why don't we just number these things and give up on the monthly label? (vol > 2 issue 6) for example. Great Idea! Bob Smith ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 02 Jun 1997 09:03:03 -0700 From: Micheal Mims Subject: Re: KR: Wheelpants At 10:22 AM 6/2/97 -0300, you wrote: it dawned on me that I had no idea >how to install the wheel pants that I had received from Rand Robinson. >There was no instructions nor any hardware to attach with. Subsequently I >have been told that there are special nuts for the axle bolt that allow the >wheel pants to be attached. Any advice or info about hopw and where I can >get this information would be appreciated. >Regards; Jim > There should have been installation instructions with the pants, I have seen them laying around RR, maybe give them a call! ________________________________ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Micheal Mims Just Plane Nutts mailto:mimsmand@ix.netcom.com http://www.netcom.com/~mimsmand ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 10:17:26 -0600 (MDT) From: Ron Lee Subject: Re: KR: Radio dealer source (no archive) For the person looking to buy a comm radio, look at this site for info and possible good deal. I have no experience with them so use your normal buyer judgement: http://www.avweb.com/toc/shopping.html You can also see reviews of some GPS units somewhere at this site. Ron Lee ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 02 Jun 1997 09:18:17 -0700 From: Micheal Mims Subject: Re: KR: KR CG Question At 08:53 AM 6/2/97 -0500, you wrote: >As to the C.G., I wouldn't do anything untill I called Roy and ask >him if he has flown it at the rear C.G. configuration you are concerned >about and if so, how did it handle. Remember, the C.G. numbers kicked >around on the net have,to my understanding, been for an unmodified KR-2. >Your KR has the 16 inch stretch, right? Also your airfoil is not the RAF 48 so maybe Roy has come up with different numbers for the 23015 or what ever it is. For sure give him a call! You posted the empty CG as being at the forward limit, I would think you would want your empty CG to be a few inches in front of the forward limit. I plan to set my CG to be at the forward limit with me and 3/4 fuel inside. This way I can actually put a passenger in with me and not go beyond the aft limit. I don't know what the empty CG will be and hopefully I wont have to park it like a LongEZ! :-) ________________________________ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Micheal Mims Just Plane Nutts mailto:mimsmand@ix.netcom.com http://www.netcom.com/~mimsmand ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 02 Jun 1997 12:22:04 -0400 From: smithr Subject: Re: KR: Wing Tanks & Fuel Octane Availability > I have heard nasty rumors about oxygenated fuel 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 Chemistry 101: A basic rule of chemistry is that "Like dissolves like". Solvents, such as gasoline have a thing called "polarity". Hydrocarbons are at one extreme and are called "non-polar". Water or methyl acohol is at the other extreme and called "polar". Everything else falls in the middle. Gasoline is a complex mixture of things like hexane and toluene and generally is non-polar. Oxygenated molecules added to gasoline make it much more polar and therefore more likely to dissolve anything that is also relatively polar such as polar plastics (plastics are called polymers). Because some plastics are resistant, this may not occur instantly but may take hours, weeks or months. The only way to be sure of compatibility is to do a long term test. The only sure plastic I know of that is solvent resistant is teflon (also metals such as aluminum). Bob Smith, Albany, NY ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 09:35:36 -0700 From: enewbold@sprynet.com Subject: Re: KR: Radios? Transponders (no archive) On Mon, 2 Jun 1997, Ron Lee wrote: >>>I'm considering getting a Terra COM and Terra Xponder, I believe unless >>>I'm hosed on the regs, that a Xponder is required since I have an electrical >>>system. Am I correct? >>>Ross Youngblood >Me thinks the transponder is only needed if you go into Class A or B (?) >airspace. >Ron Lee A check with the local Columbus, Ohio, FSDO (Mr Hayden Decker) verified what Ron just said, with the following caveat: "If you're flying ANY certificated aircraft into the 30-mile mode-C veil surrounding most major high-density areas (like the Baltimore-Washington or Los Angeles area), you MUST have a mode-c transponder installed (and operating) in your aircraft. A check of the sectional for your area will easily identify the mode-C veils." By the way, he also told me that ultralight aircraft DO NOT have to have any kind of a transponder to operate within a 30-mile mode-C veil. Interesting. Ed Newbold ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 10:46:50 -0600 (MDT) From: Ron Lee Subject: Re: KR: KR CG Question (no archive) >Also your airfoil is not the RAF 48 so maybe Roy has come up with different >numbers for the 23015 or what ever it is. For sure give him a call! You >posted the empty CG as being at the forward limit, I would think you would >want your empty CG to be a few inches in front of the forward limit. I plan >to set my CG to be at the forward limit with me and 3/4 fuel inside. This >way I can actually put a passenger in with me and not go beyond the aft >limit. I don't know what the empty CG will be and hopefully I wont have to >park it like a LongEZ! :-) > >________________________________ >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >Micheal Mims The plans are in the mail so I have more checking to do. You are right that the empty CG is right at the forward CG limit. Seems like a strange coincidence. I did fly with Roy and the plane "seemed" fine at that cg (aft somewhere!). He did verify an OK aft condition but it was with a 120 lb passenger. If that means I can only fly lightweight women...so be it. But I will not be meeting my obligations as a KRPOA member if I can't fly other male builders, most of whom weigh much more than 120 pounds. Ron Lee ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 02 Jun 1997 07:42:06 -0700 From: Micheal Mims Subject: Re: KR: KR CG Question (no archive) At 10:46 AM 6/2/97 -0600, you wrote: >The plans are in the mail so I have more checking to do. You are right that the >empty CG is right at the forward CG limit. Seems like a strange coincidence. > >I did fly with Roy and the plane "seemed" fine at that cg (aft somewhere!). > >He did verify an OK aft condition but it was with a 120 lb passenger. If that >means I can only fly lightweight women...so be it. But I will not be meeting >my obligations as a KRPOA member if I can't fly other male builders, most of >whom weigh much more than 120 pounds. > >Ron Lee > > Your numbers may be correct, I think your plane is only stretched in the rearward direction which would tend to make it more weighty on the aft end but at the same time have better ability to handel aft CG conditions than shorter KRs. Maybe the 2 or 3 inch spacers behind the motor accessory plate would make you and your plane more comfortable with each other?! I know I have seen passengers WELL over 120 lbs in that passenger seat! :-) ________________________________ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Micheal Mims Just Plane Nutts mailto:mimsmand@ix.netcom.com http://www.netcom.com/~mimsmand ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 13:03:08 -0600 (MDT) From: Ron Lee Subject: Re: KR: Radios? Transponders (no archive) >A check with the local Columbus, Ohio, FSDO (Mr Hayden Decker) verified what Ron >just said, with the following caveat: > >"If you're flying ANY certificated aircraft into the 30-mile mode-C veil >surrounding most major high-density areas (like the Baltimore-Washington or Los >Angeles area), you MUST have a mode-c transponder installed (and operating) in >your aircraft. A check of the sectional for your area will easily identify the >mode-C veils." > >By the way, he also told me that ultralight aircraft DO NOT have to have any >kind of a transponder to operate within a 30-mile mode-C veil. Interesting. > >Ed Newbold > Is an EXPERIMENTAL considered in the "certificated" category in this instance? Ron Lee ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 13:08:57 -0600 (MDT) From: Ron Lee Subject: Re: KR: KR CG Question (no archive) >Your numbers may be correct, I think your plane is only stretched in the >rearward direction which would tend to make it more weighty on the aft end >but at the same time have better ability to handel aft CG conditions than >shorter KRs. Maybe the 2 or 3 inch spacers behind the motor accessory plate >would make you and your plane more comfortable with each other?! I know I >have seen passengers WELL over 120 lbs in that passenger seat! :-) > >________________________________ >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >Micheal Mims The spacers seem like a possibility. Can you provide more info on the source and/or name of these spacers. Obviously may require an added cowl flange but that is relatively minor. I also did a quick and dirtt CG calculation assuming moving 190 pounds of engine forward 2". I subtracted the estimated fuselage station (-14) by the weight then readded it with a fuselage station of minus 16. If I did ev rything right (NO guarantee), the aircraft CG only shifted forward about 0.7 inches. I have not taken that number and recalculated final CG under forward and aft conditions. This process is beneficial and educational for me. Thanks for the help. Ron Lee ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 02 Jun 1997 13:00:09 -0700 From: Micheal Mims Subject: Re: KR: KR CG Question (no archive) At 01:08 PM 6/2/97 -0600, you wrote: >The spacers seem like a possibility. Can you provide more info on the source >and/or name of these spacers. Obviously may require an added cowl flange but >that is relatively minor. I haven't used them or had any dealings with them but I am sure a KR flyer will respond. I think they are just 1.5 to 2 inch aluminum solid stick that is drilled to accept the engine mount bolt. You would also need longer bolts of course! ________________________________ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Micheal Mims Just Plane Nutts mailto:mimsmand@ix.netcom.com http://www.netcom.com/~mimsmand ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 02 Jun 1997 13:18:42 -0700 From: Micheal Mims Subject: Re: KR: KR CG Question (no archive) At 01:00 PM 6/2/97 -0700, you wrote: >I haven't used them or had any dealings with them but I am sure a KR flyer >will respond. I think they are just 1.5 to 2 inch aluminum solid stick...... Solid Stick , Stock something like that! ________________________________ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Micheal Mims Just Plane Nutts mailto:mimsmand@ix.netcom.com http://www.netcom.com/~mimsmand ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 02 Jun 1997 14:07:23 -0700 From: Ross Youngblood Subject: Re: KR: Wheelpants jsellars@auracom.com wrote: > > Friends; I recently received my shipment of airframe parts from Rand > Robinson. I immediately stuck the turtle deck and front deck on the project > with duct tape to see how it looks. I was sitting in the seat fully > strapped in, (seatbelts not tape) when it dawned on me that I had no idea > how to install the wheel pants that I had received from Rand Robinson. > There was no instructions nor any hardware to attach with. Subsequently I > have been told that there are special nuts for the axle bolt that allow the > wheel pants to be attached. Any advice or info about hopw and where I can > get this information would be appreciated. > Regards; Jim How about Duct Tape? (Just kidding). I found many things like this in the process of building my KR... say how about a good canopy latch design? -- Ross - -- Ross Youngblood KRNET-L administrator mailto:rossy@teleport.com http://www.teleport.com/~rossy/N541RY.htm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 02 Jun 1997 14:17:13 -0700 From: Ross Youngblood Subject: Re: KR: Radios? Transponders (no archive) Ron Lee wrote: > > SNIP > >> > >> I'm considering getting a Terra COM and Terra Xponder, I believe unless > >>I'm hosed on the regs, that a Xponder is required since I have an electrical > >>system. Am I correct? > >> > > >>Ross Youngblood > > Me thinks the transponder is only needed if you go into Class A or B (?) > airspace. > > Ron Lee Well their are TWO regs... one for flying, you only need to have it for flight into Class A or B space, but if you have an electrical system installed and the plane is certified after 1994 (I think) it appears that you need a Transponder: FAR 91.215 However, the part b(3) "Notwithstanding paragraph (b)(2) of this section", seems to indicate you can get buy if you stay out of class A-C airspace and away from 30NM of airports listed in appendix D. Otherwise it indicates that if you have an electrical system you need a transponder. I guess it's the "Notwithstanding paragraph (b)(2)" that tripped me up. I think you may be right I don't need a transponder after all. Cool. -- Ross - -- Ross Youngblood KRNET-L administrator mailto:rossy@teleport.com http://www.teleport.com/~rossy/N541RY.htm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 02 Jun 1997 14:21:38 -0700 From: Ross Youngblood Subject: Re: KR: Radios? Transponders (no archive) enewbold@sprynet.com wrote: > By the way, he also told me that ultralight aircraft DO NOT have to have any > kind of a transponder to operate within a 30-mile mode-C veil. Interesting. > > Ed Newbold How much of a dent do you think an ultralight makes in a 747 Heavy on approach to land? I think the turbines might not like it much however. -- Ross - -- Ross Youngblood KRNET-L administrator mailto:rossy@teleport.com http://www.teleport.com/~rossy/N541RY.htm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 15:53:23 -0600 (MDT) From: Ron Lee Subject: Re: KR: Transponders (no archive) > Well their are TWO regs... one for flying, you only need to have >it for flight into Class A or B space, but if you have an electrical >system installed and the plane is certified after 1994 (I think) it >appears that you need a Transponder: > > FAR 91.215 > However, the part b(3) "Notwithstanding paragraph (b)(2) of this >section", seems to indicate you can get buy if you stay out of class >A-C airspace and away from 30NM of airports listed in appendix D. > > Otherwise it indicates that if you have an electrical system you >need a transponder. > > I guess it's the "Notwithstanding paragraph (b)(2)" that tripped >me up. I think you may be right I don't need a transponder after >all. Cool. > > -- Ross My limited research into transponders indicates to get a NEW transponder and altitude encoder will cost around $1400. I have seen rebuilt units in TAP for about $800 (transponder only). Anyone have a clue where to get such a unit cheaper...or will I just have to avoid the Class A-C areas and 30 NM region? Is that FAR on line somewhere so I can determine if not having a transponder will really impact where I can go? For example, I beleive I would be excluded from going into the Colorado Springs airport without one. (NO, I don't know what letter it is. That is part of the relearning process I will have to undertake once I start REAL flying again...especially x-country flights) Ron ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 22:02:22 +0000 From: Robert Lasecki Subject: KR: Rudder pedals & brakes I have been trying to determine the best way to mount the pedals in a KR-2S. I have the R-R dual control pedal assembly with nylon mounting blocks and the Cleveland cylinders. The photocopy of the instructions is such a high generation it is nearly unreadable. Mounting the cylinders one fore and one aft of the pedal bars as instructed ressults in highly non-symmetrical pedal operation and severe binding. What I am wondering is: 1. In the "neutral" position of the rudder pedals, are they canted toward the tail from vertical? If so, then one pedal is higher than the other. 2. The "revised" plans in process show the cable attach position to be 4" above the pivot center of the pedal. Is this correct for proper deflection of the rudder? 3. The "revised" plans show the typical cylinder mounted 1-3/8" forward of the pedal. This makes more sense than the instructions provided but still binds on forward travel of the pedal. Any suggestions? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 02 Jun 1997 17:27:43 -0500 From: Jim Faughn Subject: Re: KR: Wood Props and Wing Tanks JEHayward@aol.com 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. 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 After I weighed my plane, I then reweighed the plane with me in it. (I had a little help.) This gave me the exact position of the pilot for CG calculations. I then weighed the fuel and found it's exact location, next added baggage in what I label my front (by the main spar) and rear baggage locations (behind me). I then caclulated the maximum weight I could handle based on the aft CG limit which I set as 2" in front of the one published for the KR. When I added everything up I could carry 2 - 195 people with 50 lbs of baggage distributed between the front and rear baggage location and 2 gal of fuel (rear CG limit) of course I can actually carry 15.5 gal of fuel which I used for the max weight. This all added up to a total of about 1120 lbs (I don't have the exact number here its at the airport). I showed the FAA the info and they liked the methodology and I licensed it for the max weight I calculated so I'm legal. As far as pulling G's is concerned, I would never pull more than 2 - 2.5 G's with anyone else on board. I don't think its good for the plane and I don't want to scare them on a ride. By myself, I have pulled up to 4 G's in formation with a Skybolt who had a G meter. (Lots of fun) Thats about all I have to say about that.... (Forest Gump rip off) - -- Jim Faughn N8931JF St. Louis, MO (314) 652-7659 or (573) 465-8039 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 02 Jun 1997 15:41:48 -0700 From: Micheal Mims Subject: Re: KR: Rudder pedals & brakes At 10:02 PM 6/2/97 +0000, you wrote: >1. In the "neutral" position of the rudder pedals, are they canted toward >the tail from vertical? If so, then one pedal is higher than the other. > >2. The "revised" plans in process show the cable attach position to be 4" >above the pivot center of the pedal. Is this correct for proper deflection >of the rudder? > >3. The "revised" plans show the typical cylinder mounted 1-3/8" forward of >the pedal. This makes more sense than the instructions provided but still >binds on forward travel of the pedal. > Well since I built my own I can only tell you what I did, Basically I copied the setup from the Dragonfly. If you look at my controls page at my web site you can see a few photos. The brake cylinders are not mounted yet. Something to keep in mind is to keep the distance of the mounting holes for the cylinders the same. That is, the distance from the mounting hole to the pivot point on the pedal needs to be the same as the distance from the lower mount to the pivot point of the pedal shaft. The pedal should pretty much stay vertical or at least apply the same amount of braking pressure as you deflect the rudder pedal or as the ball of your foot moves the rudder pedal back and forth your toes shouldnt have to continually adjust the amount of deflection to maintain the same amount of braking pressure. Hope this helps! If not go look at your locally owned C-150. _ / | brake cylinder / | rudder upper mounting hole--->/. O|<--pedal pivot point \___| | | | brake cylinder | rudder lower mounting hole---->. O <--assembly pivot point ________________________________ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Micheal Mims Just Plane Nutts mailto:mimsmand@ix.netcom.com http://www.netcom.com/~mimsmand ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 17:19:56 -0600 (MDT) From: Ron Lee Subject: KR: Re: KR CG (Was something else!) (no archive) Jim, This is very interesting. Could you provide your CG data...derivation of plane empty weight and forward/aft CG conditions? This is on the surface a lot different than what I could do. Also need info on your datum points. Also is there anything unique about your plane that is of interest in this matter. Ron Lee >After I weighed my plane, I then reweighed the plane with me in it. (I >had a >little help.) This gave me the exact position of the pilot for CG >calculations. >I then weighed the fuel and found it's exact location, next added >baggage in >what I label my front (by the main spar) and rear baggage locations >(behind me). I then >caclulated the maximum weight I could handle based on the aft CG limit >which >I set as 2" in front of the one published for the KR. When I added >everything >up I could carry 2 - 195 people with 50 lbs of baggage distributed >between >the front and rear baggage location and 2 gal of fuel (rear CG limit) of >course >I can actually carry 15.5 gal of fuel which I used for the max weight. >This all >added up to a total of about 1120 lbs (I don't have the exact >number here its at the airport). I showed the FAA the info and they >liked the methodology and I licensed it for the max weight I calculated >so I'm legal. >Jim Faughn N8931JF >St. Louis, MO >(314) 652-7659 or (573) 465-8039 > > ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 02 Jun 1997 16:46:54 -0700 From: David Turley Subject: Re: KR: GPS Units (was radio) (NO archive) OHHHHHH, yea =\ I get it. You are right, the manufacturers do have to charge for their certification, and who else uses panel mount (and aircraft certificated)equipment.??? Good Point. Dave Patrick Flowers wrote: > > Hang on there David, you didn't quite follow my logic. Any GPS intended > to be mounted in an aircraft panel must be certified for that use. Thus > the higher price. I don't think anyone makes a panel mount GPS just for > use in homebuilts. The ones that are IFR approach certified cost even > more. > 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: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 23:54:09 +0000 From: Robert Lasecki Subject: Re: KR: Rudder pedals & brakes At 10:41 PM 6/2/97 +0000, you wrote: >At 10:02 PM 6/2/97 +0000, you wrote: >>1. In the "neutral" position of the rudder pedals, are they canted toward >>the tail from vertical? If so, then one pedal is higher than the other. >> >>2. The "revised" plans in process show the cable attach position to be 4" >>above the pivot center of the pedal. Is this correct for proper deflection >>of the rudder? >> >>3. The "revised" plans show the typical cylinder mounted 1-3/8" forward of >>the pedal. This makes more sense than the instructions provided but still >>binds on forward travel of the pedal. >> > >Well since I built my own I can only tell you what I did, Basically I >copied the setup from the Dragonfly. If you look at my controls page at my >web site you can see a few photos. The brake cylinders are not mounted yet. >Something to keep in mind is to keep the distance of the mounting holes for >the cylinders the same. That is, the distance from the mounting hole to >the pivot point on the pedal needs to be the same as the distance from the >lower mount to the pivot point of the pedal shaft. The pedal should pretty >much stay vertical or at least apply the same amount of braking pressure as >you deflect the rudder pedal or as the ball of your foot moves the rudder >pedal back and forth your toes shouldnt have to continually adjust the >amount of deflection to maintain the same amount of braking pressure. Hope >this helps! If not go look at your locally owned C-150. > > _ > / | >brake cylinder / | rudder >upper mounting hole--->/. O|<--pedal pivot point > \___| > | > | > | >brake cylinder | rudder >lower mounting hole---->. O <--assembly pivot point > > > > >________________________________ >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >Micheal Mims >Just Plane Nutts >mailto:mimsmand@ix.netcom.com > >http://www.netcom.com/~mimsmand > Mike: You hit the problem right on the head. The plans have the length of the cylinder and rod to be about 1-1/2 inches longer than the pedal arm between pivot points. The result is excellent tracking as the pedal moves toward you but crazy movement and mechanical lockup when the pedal moves away from you. The linkage is like having a tail wheel go outside of the cg axis on landing!!! Bob> ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 20:49:47 -0400 From: "alan" Subject: [none] Hi, my name is Alan Moat. I live in Flowery Branch, Ga. which is N.E. of Atlanta. I am a first time builder. I am building a 2s tri gear. I haven't decided on a enginge choice yet. I am currently working on my tail post. Just this weekend I finished working my belly skin cross section. In studying the plans to cut my tail post it appears that at least the first 12" should be beveled to fit my side skin contour. My question is should this carried farther up the tail post or fair it out to a rectangular shape? The instructions say I should install the tail post while I still have the boat up[side down. This seems to be a hard way to keep the tail post properly aligned and centered. Does any one have any suggestions on how they did it? It would seem better to install it with the boat in the upright position. In fitting your Belly skins where did your Scarf joint fall. Mine will fall under the rear spar. Is this location ok? Thank you, Alan ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 21:01:46 -0400 (EDT) From: Baleco@aol.com Subject: Re: KR: Radios? Transponders (no archive) In a message dated 97-06-02 19:08:28 EDT, you write: << How much of a dent do you think an ultralight makes in a 747 Heavy on approach to land? I think the turbines might not like it much however. >> The ultralights may not need the gear becasue technically they are not aircraft however, I thought they were prohibited from the 30 mile veil and Class A,B & C airspace. In other words, they are not permitted where Xponders are required? Marty ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 13:52:59 -0600 From: Nick Davidson Subject: RE: KR: Headsets? Tell me more about the ANR. Do you like it ? recommend it? Nick - ---------- From: Baleco@aol.com[SMTP:Baleco@aol.com] Sent: Sunday, June 01, 1997 3:25 AM To: krnet-l@teleport.com Subject: Re: KR: Headsets? In a message dated 97-05-31 20:57:55 EDT, you write: . 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: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 23:17:00 -0400 (EDT) From: MikeTnyc@aol.com 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). Anybody know why he decided to get rid of it after only a few years? I would estimate he's close to 80 now, so has he just decided to give up flying? Mike Taglieri ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 23:17:42 -0400 (EDT) From: MikeTnyc@aol.com Subject: Re: KR: Re: VW Revs and Props In a message dated 97-06-01 00:10:34 EDT, you write: >>>>> >> 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? This is comforting, but seems to differ from what other people have posted. Maybe it depends on both the pitch and the compression ratio of the engine. Mike Taglieri ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 21:24:18 -0600 (MDT) From: Ron Lee Subject: Re: KR: I am finally a KR owner! (no archive) At 23:17 97/6/02 -0400, you wrote: >>At 05:51 PM 5/29/97 -0600, you wrote: >>>Just took possesion of Roy Marsh's KR-2S. >>> >Anybody know why he decided to get rid of it after only a few years? I >would estimate he's close to 80 now, so has he just decided to give up >flying? > >Mike Taglieri Roy give up flying? Hardly seems possible. I hope I am as active as he is when I get to that age. For that matter, I wish I were that active NOW! Ron Lee ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 20:32:53 -0700 From: enewbold@sprynet.com Subject: Re: KR: Radios? Transponders (no archive) >The ultralights may not need the gear becasue technically they >are not aircraft however, I thought they were prohibited from the 30 mile >veil and Class A,B & C airspace. In other words, they are not permitted where >Xponders are required? > Marty The Columbus FAA FSDO said "ultralights were exempt from the 30-mile mode-c veil rule." =Ed Newbold= ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 20:33:46 -0700 From: enewbold@sprynet.com Subject: Re: KR: Radios? Transponders (no archive) >Is an EXPERIMENTAL considered in the "certificated" category in this instance? >Ron Lee Yes, by all means. Ed Newbold ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 22:44:23 -0500 (CDT) From: larry flesner Subject: Re: Re[2]: KR: KR CG Question At 11:06 AM 6/2/97 -0400, you wrote: > Larry: > > I didn't save Ron Lee's e-mail address. Could you please forward this > note to him. > > Ron: > > Larry is right on all counts. Some KRs have been flown at very high > weights, but were not designed to be. Heavy KRs tend to have heavy > engines that can generate enough thrust to get a decent climb rate > with the extra weight of the heavier engine. The heavier engine can > also keep the C.G. in the forward allowable range. You have no idea > of how safe certain parts of the plane are at heavier weights though > (engine mounts, wing lugs, wing spars, baggage compartments, fuel tank > support, seats). It's best to talk to other flyer/owners with similar > configurations (gross weight, wing area, horizontal tail area, engine > size and horsepower) to see what they experience. > > If your plane has been stretched, that is good for stability. You > must still use the c.g. range published for the unstretched airplane. > This will allow you to cash in on that little bit of extra stability. > If you don't do that, you'll find out everyone is stretching their > KRs. If the wing is wider than 20.6 feet, then some of the benefit of > the stretch is shot anyway. > > I hope the person who sold you the plane gave you the plans and all > the necessary design and flight information. It does not sound like > he did. I'd get the plans from him or buy them from Jeanette Rand. > This will be crucial for nagging little questions about what you own. > > DON BLANKENSHIP >______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ >Subject: Re: KR: KR CG Question >Author: larry flesner at smtplink >Date: 6/2/97 8:53 AM > > >At 11:20 PM 6/1/97 -0600, you wrote: > >>It would appear that carrying two people is out of the question. >> >>Am I missing something here or should I plan on moving the engine >>forward a few inches? >> >>Ron Lee >> >> >Ron, > >Congradulations on your purchase. NICE looking KR !! I have several >nice pictures of it. > >As to the C.G., I wouldn't do anything untill I called Roy and ask >him if he has flown it at the rear C.G. configuration you are concerned >about and if so, how did it handle. Remember, the C.G. numbers kicked >around on the net have,to my understanding, been for an unmodified KR-2. >Your KR has the 16 inch stretch, right? I have not seen the KR-2s plans >and suspect the C.G. location is much the same but the stretch has to >have some effect on handling. Remember, your KR is different then EVERY >other KR out there!!! One set of numbers ,while close, is not exactly right >for every aircraft. Do your own varification... That's why we have to >mark them EXPERMENTIAL !!!!!!!!!!!!!! > >Some options might be: > >-- eliminate baggage with two people (if that is enough of a fix) >-- move battery forward if possible >-- larger battery if small and already far forward >-- consider location and amount of fuel with two people >-- Do your own flight tests and "sneak up" on the rear C.G. and > see how the aircraft handles as you approach the limits. > Remember, the rear C.G. location is the most dangerous > so approach with CAUTION. >-- lead weight forward on engine mount (least desirable fix) >-- combinations of any/all the above > >Probably more possibilitie that I haven't thought about. > >Enjoy your new KR !!!!! > >Larry Flesner >larryfle@midwest.net > > > ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 22:01:35 -0600 (MDT) From: Ron Lee Subject: KR: Weight & Balance/CG for N133RM Just in case this real data helps others, I am including the weight and balance and CG data for N133RM The reference points are as follows (subject to my knowledge at this time) Fuselage station Name 0.0 Firewall (?) 14.0 Fuel 17.0 Main wheels 43.0 Occupants 68.0 Baggage 150.0 Tail wheel A. Plane CG as follows: Wheel weight moment arm Moment weight Left 296 17 5032 Right 280 17 4760 Tail 10 150 1500 Total is 11292 in/lbs divided by 586 lbs = empty CG at 19.26" B. Pilot only cg as follows" Plane = 586 lbs x 19.26" = 11286 in/lbs (rounding error) Pilot = 170 lbs x 43.0" = 7310 in/lbs Fuel = 96 lbs x 14.0' = 1344 in/lbs Total = 19940 in/lbs divided by 852 lbs = CG of 23.4" C. Pilot plus 120 lb female admirer Plane 586 lbs x 19.26" = 11286 in/lbs Occupants 290 lbs x 43.0" = 12470 in/lbs Fuel 96 lbs x 14.0" = 1344 in/lbs Total = 25106 in/lbs divided by 972 lbs = CG of 25.8" (typo errors are MINE!) Ron Lee ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 22:11:47 -0600 (MDT) From: Ron Lee Subject: KR: KR Aft CG and Flight Tests Many of you may have seen or heard about the Miami Cessna 205 jump plane crash. Pilot and 5 jumpers killed. "Apparently" the plane stalled on jump run and subsequently the plane entered a spin or flat spin. Highly likely that an AFT CG condition may have been a factor. It was recommended that I cautiously approach an aft CG in my plane to determine operating limits. Although I know how to add weight incrementally, I am not positive what to observe to know when an unsafe aft CG is getting too close. Obviously it may start on the take-off roll if insufficient elevator is available for rotation. My bigger concern is attempting stalls. If the aft limit is exceeded, I believe that a flat spin might be induced. This happened with a canard type aircraft last year (other factors contributed but the aft CG was a biggie). Does anyone have insight into how this aft limit can be safely determined other than using the designers limits. I have heard that the Rand prescribed aft limit should be moved up about two inches in a standard KR (possibly only one in a -2S). Ron Lee ------------------------------ End of krnet-l-digest V1 #29 ****************************