From: owner-krnet-l-digest@lists.teleport.com (krnet-l-digest) To: krnet-l-digest@lists.teleport.com Subject: krnet-l-digest V1 #30 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 Tuesday, June 3 1997 Volume 01 : Number 030 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 02 Jun 1997 21:39:07 -0700 From: Micheal Mims Subject: Re: KR: I am finally a KR owner! (no archive) At 11:17 PM 6/2/97 -0400, you wrote: >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 > I guess he wants a larger faster airplane, it seems to be pretty common for people to move on to something bigger and better after building a KR. I doubt if I will have this problem unless that 40k a year raise kicks in soon! :-) _______________________ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Micheal Mims Just Plane Nutts mailto:mimsmand@ix.netcom.com http://www.netcom.com/~mimsmand ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 00:59:18 -0400 (EDT) From: MikeTnyc@aol.com Subject: KR: Re:Transponders 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? 95% right. You need a transponder to fly into the Mode C veil if your plane was CERTIFIED with an ENGINE-POWERED electrical system. Therefore, if you have a battery-powered system that you recharge between flights or a wind-generator, etc., you don't need a transponder for the Mode C area. Also, I don't see why you couldn't install the flywheel-mounted generator sold by Great Plains, etc., without hooking it up, then connect the thing (a lot easier than installing it) after you've saved up for the transponder. Note that I'm talking only about the 30 nm Mode C area that surrounds Class B and goes under and over Class C. You have to have a transponder to fly INTO a B or C without permission in advance. Finally, the person who said without a transponder you'll get hit by a 747 probably misunderstood your post, because you won't encounter the big planes unless you fly INTO a B or C, for which you need a transponder anyway. Mike Taglieri ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 00:59:33 -0400 (EDT) From: MikeTnyc@aol.com Subject: Re: KR: Wheelpants >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? I think all this stuff and more is in is Tony Bingelis's books. Mike Taglieri ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 00:59:30 -0400 (EDT) From: MikeTnyc@aol.com Subject: KR: Re: CG Question In a message dated 97-06-02 17:44:15 EDT, you write: >>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! :-) "Flight Testing Homebuilt Aircraft," which has been mentioned quite a bit on this list, has info on how to determine aft C.G. by test. Since you go further and further aft I'd want to have some kind of moveable ballast I could get forward if controllability got too dicey -- maybe a weight in the tailcone on a moveable track, or even one stuck on Velcro with a strong rope forward to the cockpit! Mike Taglieri ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 02 Jun 1997 22:43:14 -0700 From: Ross Youngblood Subject: Re: KR: Transponders (no archive) Ron Lee wrote: > > > 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) > > RonWell Class A --> A = Airliner, Above 18,500 feet. IFR only Class B --> B = Busy The old TCA areas such as LAX & Phoenix Class C --> C = Congested Portland Oregon is Class C, but will probably be Class B. Class D --> D = Doghouse on airport... Operating Control Tower So if they have a Tower in Co Springs, they are at least Class Charlie. Did I get this right? --Ross (There is a test later... check ride) - -- Ross Youngblood KRNET-L administrator mailto:rossy@teleport.com http://www.teleport.com/~rossy/N541RY.htm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 02 Jun 1997 22:45:44 -0700 From: Ross Youngblood Subject: Re: KR: Rudder pedals & brakes Robert Lasecki wrote: > > 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? If you purchase the Toe Brake materials kit you get another couple of xeroxed pages which make things a bit clearer. I think 4" from the pivot point sounds about right. As far as the height of the pedels with respect to each other, I'm thinking you can make adjustments when you rig the control cables, also you can fine tune with turnbuckles after that but its a small adjustment at that point. -- Ross - -- Ross Youngblood KRNET-L administrator mailto:rossy@teleport.com http://www.teleport.com/~rossy/N541RY.htm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 02 Jun 1997 22:53:52 -0700 From: Ross Youngblood Subject: KR: Re: alan wrote: > > 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?You may wish to wait to bevel the tail post above the side skins until you know what the contour of the vertical stabilizer will be. On the other hand, if you go ahead and bevel, it should be about right as you will have at least one layer of glass over it, possibly two for the hinge gap seal. > 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. I did it boat upside down. I think you can actually control the angle better that way as you can jig it to the table. However if you have an alternate method to keep it secure for 24 hours while the epoxy cures, go right ahead. > In fitting your Belly skins where did your Scarf joint fall. Mine will > fall under the rear spar. Is this location ok?My scarf fell just aft of the rear spar I think... If you did a 12:1 scarf, it doesn't really matter where it falls. Thats the wonder of a good scarf joint. Have Fun! -- Ross (Just sprayed primer coat #3, and ran out of primer...ugh!) - -- Ross Youngblood KRNET-L administrator mailto:rossy@teleport.com http://www.teleport.com/~rossy/N541RY.htm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 23:03:45 -0700 From: R Covington Subject: KR: Re: 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 > >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 Mike, from an earlier Ron Lee posting you must have missed: > He stated that he wants to build a faster (200 mph) plane. > I think he is looking at the Mirage Celerity. > Ron Lee At 11:35 97/5/30 -0400, you wrote: >Ron Lee wrote: >> >> Just took possesion of Roy Marsh's KR-2S derivative. >> Ron Lee > >Why did Roy sell it? > >Bob Smith, KR2S, Albany NY ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 02 Jun 1997 23:09:58 -0700 From: Ross Youngblood Subject: Re: KR: Re:Transponders MikeTnyc@aol.com 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? > > 95% right. You need a transponder to fly into the Mode C veil if your plane > was CERTIFIED with an ENGINE-POWERED electrical system. Therefore, if you > have a battery-powered system that you recharge between flights or a > wind-generator, etc., you don't need a transponder for the Mode C area. > Also, I don't see why you couldn't install the flywheel-mounted generator > sold by Great Plains, etc., without hooking it up, then connect the thing (a > lot easier than installing it) after you've saved up for the transponder. > > Note that I'm talking only about the 30 nm Mode C area that surrounds Class B > and goes under and over Class C. You have to have a transponder to fly INTO > a B or C without permission in advance. > > Finally, the person who said without a transponder you'll get hit by a 747 > probably misunderstood your post, because you won't encounter the big planes > unless you fly INTO a B or C, for which you need a transponder anyway. > > Mike Taglieri Mike, I was the guy with the 747 joke. Someone mentioned that Ultralights could enter the Class C veil without a Transponder. I did not make a distinction between the 30Nm veil and the actual Class Bravo or Charlie Airspace. My jokes tend to do this. It is also unlikely that an ultralight would be at the altitudes where it would see a 747 unless it was crossing the final approach at 700'AGL. -- Ross - -- Ross Youngblood KRNET-L administrator mailto:rossy@teleport.com http://www.teleport.com/~rossy/N541RY.htm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 02 Jun 1997 23:26:14 -0700 From: Micheal Mims Subject: KR: Ross shooting primer At 10:53 PM 6/2/97 -0700, you wrote: > -- Ross (Just sprayed primer coat #3, and ran out of primer...ugh!) >-- Hey man how about some pictures of your bird in primer!!! I need some motivation, yes believe it or not this canopy door has been a long process and I am getting tired of it! Good thing it will be done this weekend, I don't know how much more I could take! Oh well, all in the name of reaching that $10k goal! I could have been done if I would have used the Dragonfly canopy! For those of you into stripes, check out "paint job idea number 4" on my home page! _______________________ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Micheal Mims Just Plane Nutts mailto:mimsmand@ix.netcom.com http://www.netcom.com/~mimsmand ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 02 Jun 1997 23:44:20 -0700 From: Ross Youngblood Subject: Re: KR: Ross shooting primer Micheal Mims wrote: > > At 10:53 PM 6/2/97 -0700, you wrote: > > -- Ross (Just sprayed primer coat #3, and ran out of primer...ugh!) > >-- > > Hey man how about some pictures of your bird in primer!!! I need some > motivation, yes believe it or not this canopy door has been a long process > and I am getting tired of it! Good thing it will be done this weekend, I > don't know how much more I could take! I've got an "OLD" lumpy photo of the KR in primer at my primary (NON KR) webpage http://www.teleport.com/~rossy That photo is about a month old. Lots of sanding and fine tuning of glass parts has been done. However, I've still got LOTS to go. ARRGG!!! I ran out of film. I think I will snap some Polaroids of it if I can't get my act together. -- Ross - -- Ross Youngblood KRNET-L administrator mailto:rossy@teleport.com http://www.teleport.com/~rossy/N541RY.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 06:14:15 -0400 (EDT) From: Baleco@aol.com Subject: Re: KR: Radios? Transponders (no archive) In a message dated 97-06-03 02:15:49 EDT, you write: << The Columbus FAA FSDO said "ultralights were exempt from the 30-mile mode-c veil rule." =Ed Newbold= >> Again, I think they are exempt because they are prohibited from inside this area. They are exempt from the veil requirement underneath. This is how I remember it, err, maybe it's the way I want to remember it. Marty ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 04:05:07 -0700 From: enewbold@sprynet.com Subject: Re: KR: Radios? Transponders (no archive) >>The Columbus FAA FSDO said "ultralights were exempt from the 30-mile >>mode-c veil rule." >Again, I think they are exempt because they are prohibited >from inside this area. They are exempt from the veil requirement underneath. >This is how I remember it, err, maybe it's the way I want to remember it. >Marty They are most definitely NOT prohibited from inside this area. Mr. Decker said, "sounds kinda scary, doesn't it, but that's the way it is." The are exempt from the veil requirement because they are not certificated aircraft. Ed Newbold Columbus, OH ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 04:16:43 -0700 From: enewbold@sprynet.com Subject: Re: KR: Transponders >95% right. You need a transponder to fly into the Mode C veil if your plane >was CERTIFIED with an ENGINE-POWERED electrical system. Therefore, if you >have a battery-powered system that you recharge between flights or a >wind-generator, etc., you don't need a transponder for the Mode C area. >Note that I'm talking only about the 30 nm Mode C area that surrounds Class B >and goes under and over Class C. You have to have a transponder to fly INTO >a B or C without permission in advance. Mike Taglieri Not quite correct, Mike. If you have ANY kind of a certificated aircraft, you MUST have a mode-C transponder in it to fly into the 30 nm mode-C veil area, non-electrical aircraft or otherwise. For folks flying non-electric aircraft (like antiques and non-electric homebuilts), you can, however, call the FAA people in the mode-C veil area concerned and make arrangements with them to enter the area at a specific time and date. But this is a hassle if you plan on operating in a mode-C area on a routine basis. If you like, I can give you the FAA FSDO Office phone number (for Columbus, OH) and you can ask them yourself. I did, and was quite surprised with their answers . By the way, as an aside, for folks with electricity in their planes, I saw reconditioned altitude-encoding transponders in Trade-a-plane last month for around $595. That's the lowest I've seen them. Have a good one. Ed Newbold ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 04:25:32 -0700 From: enewbold@sprynet.com Subject: Re: KR: Transponders (no archive) >> 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) >Class A --> A = Airliner, Above 18,500 feet. IFR only >Class B --> B = Busy. The old TCA areas such as LAX & Phoenix >Class C --> C = Congested. Portland Oregon is Class C, but will probably >be Class B. >Class D --> D = Doghouse on airport... Operating Control Tower Let's see, Ross. Here's my rendition. I think we're pretty close on this one. Class A: IFR above 18,500. Airliners. (and Glasairs?) Class B: The old TCA. LAX, BWI, etc. Class C: The old ARSA. Was Co Springs an ARSA before? Class D: Operating Control Tower. (with bathroom?) Class E: Any airfield without a Control Tower. Class F: (No such animal). Class G: Uncontrolled airspace. Ed Newbold Columbus, OH ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 03 Jun 1997 08:45:48 -0400 From: Patrick Flowers Subject: KR: Airspace enewbold@sprynet.com wrote: > > >> 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) > > >Class A --> A = Airliner, Above 18,500 feet. IFR only > >Class B --> B = Busy. The old TCA areas such as LAX & Phoenix > >Class C --> C = Congested. Portland Oregon is Class C, but will probably > >be Class B. > >Class D --> D = Doghouse on airport... Operating Control Tower > > Let's see, Ross. Here's my rendition. I think we're pretty close on this one. > > Class A: IFR above 18,500. Airliners. (and Glasairs?) > Class B: The old TCA. LAX, BWI, etc. > Class C: The old ARSA. Was Co Springs an ARSA before? > Class D: Operating Control Tower. (with bathroom?) > Class E: Any airfield without a Control Tower. Only if it has a published IFR approach. I think if it doesn't have ILS, the Class E airspace doesn't extend all the way to the surface(even at some airports with ILS, it stops at 700ft. depends on services provided to IRF ops). Look on a sectional, Class E airspace down to 700ft AGL at an airport is a fuzzy magenta circle. If it extends to the surface, there will be a dashed magenta line; kind of a circle with a box(the approach corridor) attached. Keep in mind, these rules are mainly for IFR ops. > Class F: (No such animal). > Class G: Uncontrolled airspace. Here in the east, class G usually only extends to 1200ft AGL. Everything above that is Class E unless Class B, C or D prevails(confused yet?). Class E includes airways, and the airspace 8 miles from the center of each airway, so around here we have no high Class G(too many airways). Out west where the airways get farther apart, Class G extends up to 10,000ft MSL, then Class E up to 18,000ft MSL with Class A above that. There are other exceptions to Class G, but I get a headache when I talk airspace too long ;o) Patrick - -- Patrick Flowers Mailto:patri63@ibm.net ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 03 Jun 1997 08:51:27 -0400 From: Patrick Flowers Subject: Re: KR: Re:Transponders Ross Youngblood wrote: > > I was the guy with the 747 joke. Someone mentioned that Ultralights could > enter the Class C veil without a Transponder. I did not make a distinction between > the 30Nm veil and the actual Class Bravo or Charlie Airspace. My jokes tend > to do this. It is also unlikely that an ultralight would be at the altitudes > where it would see a 747 unless it was crossing the final approach at 700'AGL. It doesn't have to hit you. About eight years ago, there was an ultralight crash north of Charlotte. The investigation determined the cause was structural failure as a result of encountering wake turbulence from a 727 on approach to CLT. Patrick - -- Patrick Flowers Mailto:patri63@ibm.net ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 03 Jun 1997 08:19:19 -0700 From: Donald Reid Subject: Re: KR: Rudder pedals & brakes Robert Lasecki wrote: > > 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? 1. Check the Tony Bingelis books from EAA 2. Make sure the pivot point for the brake pedal is slightly above the ball of your foot - -- Don Reid donreid@erols.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 03 Jun 1997 08:24:28 -0700 From: Donald Reid Subject: KR: Re: Scarf joint alan wrote: > > In fitting your Belly skins where did your Scarf joint fall. Mine will > fall under the rear spar. Is this location ok? > In certified wooden aircraft construction, the scarf joint must fall on a reinforcement such as the 5/8" square spruce framework. An alternate method that is not recommended but that is acceptable is to add a backing plate that is the same thickness as the plywood being scarfed and extends beyond the area of the scarf. - -- Don Reid donreid@erols.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 03 Jun 1997 08:30:26 -0700 From: Donald Reid Subject: Re: KR: KR Aft CG and Flight Tests Ron Lee wrote: Big snip > 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). > Sport Aviation had a good article about finding the aft CG limit and how the a/c would respond. It was in March, 1993. - -- Don Reid donreid@erols.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 03 Jun 1997 08:36:07 -0700 From: Donald Reid Subject: Re: KR: Re: Scarf joint Donald Reid wrote: > > alan wrote: > > > > In fitting your Belly skins where did your Scarf joint fall. Mine will > > fall under the rear spar. Is this location ok? > > > > In certified wooden aircraft construction, the scarf joint must fall on a > reinforcement such as the 5/8" square spruce framework. An alternate > method that is not recommended but that is acceptable is to add a backing > plate that is the same thickness as the plywood being scarfed and extends > beyond the area of the scarf. > -- I forgot to include the following: There are reasons that there are rules in certified a/c, and that is because they work and have stood the test of time. Since they work, I will use them. - -- Don Reid donreid@erols.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 11:25:52 -0400 (EDT) From: Dennis Ambrose Subject: Re: KR: Radios? At 04:18 PM 6/1/97 -0800, you wrote: >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. Tell me, how does one tie down their KR. There doesen't seem to be any obvious tie down points. (Sorry if this is a silly question) :-O Dennis ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 10:51:08 -0600 (MDT) From: Ron Lee Subject: Re: KR: Tiedown > Tell me, how does one tie down their KR. There doesen't seem to be >any obvious tie down points. > > (Sorry if this is a silly question) :-O > > Dennis Hardly a silly question...jusr the wrong subject :) N133RM is tied down by wrapping a towel around the lower gear leg then using rope around the towel. Tail tiedown around the spring/leaf assembly. There are probably better ways and I think if you look in the archives you will find where some folks attached some sort of tiedown attached to the main spar at an outboard point. Ron Lee (Hoping to start taxi tests soon!) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 10:54:04 -0600 (MDT) From: Ron Lee Subject: KR: FARs Online Try this site for FARs and AIM documentation: http://www1.drive.net/evird.acgi$pass*173006!_h-www.landings.com/_landings/p ages/regulations.html Ron Lee ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 03 Jun 1997 10:12:58 -0700 From: Micheal Mims Subject: Re: KR: Transponders (no archive) At 04:25 AM 6/3/97 -0700, you wrote: >Let's see, Ross. Here's my rendition. I think we're pretty close on this one. > >Class A: IFR above 18,500. Airliners. (and Glasairs?) >Class B: The old TCA. LAX, BWI, etc. >Class C: The old ARSA. Was Co Springs an ARSA before? >Class D: Operating Control Tower. (with bathroom?) >Class E: Any airfield without a Control Tower. >Class F: (No such animal). >Class G: Uncontrolled airspace. > >Ed Newbold >Columbus, OH What about an uncontrolled (no tower) airport with a Control Zone? :-) Class C!? ________________________________ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Micheal Mims Just Plane Nutts mailto:mimsmand@ix.netcom.com http://www.netcom.com/~mimsmand ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 03 Jun 1997 10:15:50 -0700 From: Micheal Mims Subject: Re: KR: Airspace At 08:45 AM 6/3/97 -0400, you wrote: >Class A --> A = Airliner, Above 18,500 feet. IFR only >> >Class B --> B = Busy. The old TCA areas such as LAX & Phoenix >> >Class C --> C = Congested. Portland Oregon is Class C, but will probably >> >be Class B. >> >Class D --> D = Doghouse on airport... Operating Control Tower >> >> Let's see, Ross. Here's my rendition. I think we're pretty close on this one. >> >> Class A: IFR above 18,500. Airliners. (and Glasairs?) >> Class B: The old TCA. LAX, BWI, etc. >> Class C: The old ARSA. Was Co Springs an ARSA before? >> Class D: Operating Control Tower. (with bathroom?) >> Class E: Any airfield without a Control Tower. > >Only if it has a published IFR approach. I think if it doesn't have >ILS, the Class E airspace doesn't extend all the way to the surface(even >at some airports with ILS, it stops at 700ft. depends on services >provided to IRF ops). Look on a sectional, Class E airspace down to >700ft AGL at an airport is a fuzzy magenta circle. If it extends to the >surface, there will be a dashed magenta line; kind of a circle with a >box(the approach corridor) attached. Keep in mind, these rules are >mainly for IFR ops. > >> Class F: (No such animal). >> Class G: Uncontrolled airspace. > I really get a kick out of this! And to think it was done to eliminate confusion! What the hell was wrong with TCA, ARSA, Control Zone and Uncontrolled Airspace? I never had a problem with it! ________________________________ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Micheal Mims Just Plane Nutts mailto:mimsmand@ix.netcom.com http://www.netcom.com/~mimsmand ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 19:29:39 +0000 From: Robert Lasecki Subject: Re: KR: Tiedown There is an excellent tiedown method shown in the Diehl wing construction video which uses inexpensive boat fittings which are also lightweight. The video shows how and where to put them. They bolt to the outer main spar from the bottom between the last two vertical members. Bob Lasecki At 04:51 PM 6/3/97 +0000, you wrote: > >> Tell me, how does one tie down their KR. There doesen't seem to be >>any obvious tie down points. >> >> (Sorry if this is a silly question) :-O >> >> Dennis > >Hardly a silly question...jusr the wrong subject :) > >N133RM is tied down by wrapping a towel around the lower gear leg then using >rope around the towel. Tail tiedown around the spring/leaf assembly. > >There are probably better ways and I think if you look in the archives you will >find where some folks attached some sort of tiedown attached to the main spar >at an outboard point. > >Ron Lee >(Hoping to start taxi tests soon!) > > ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 03 Jun 1997 15:36:57 -0400 From: Patrick Flowers Subject: Re: KR: Airspace Micheal Mims wrote: > > > I really get a kick out of this! And to think it was done to eliminate > confusion! What the hell was wrong with TCA, ARSA, Control Zone and > Uncontrolled Airspace? I never had a problem with it! Now Mike, you know that it's not in a Fed's vested interest to simplify anything(witness the Federal Tax Code). Everything must remain complex to justify their existance. Patrick - -- Patrick Flowers Mailto:patri63@ibm.net ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 03 Jun 1997 14:17:33 -0700 From: David Moore Subject: KR: Deihl 30" Gear I got a FAX from Dan Deihl today about the 30" gear for a tail dragger. He said he would not make another one. "I made one no more". "The gear legs for the KR2S are 24" long. Because of the 100 lbs. extra weight of the Subaru, we don't recommend the Tri-Gear. Tail-dragger will work fine". I thought Dan was the one who first stetched the KR-2, but he says no. He flys a stock KR-2 with a VW and says it flys great. "Keep it light and have fun". David Moore Hesperia,Calif. 92345 Turnkey1@MSCOMM.COM ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 18:26:50 -0500 (CDT) From: "Bryce R. Kehoe" Subject: KR: ??? from a newbie I've been reading krnet for a couple of weeks now. The last time I was in a small plane was 35 years ago, but I ran across a copy of Kitplane and now I'm hooked on the idea of building a nice sporty inexpensive little 2 seater. The KR-2 .. I still have not seen one yet. But the question is I've been following the CG discussion with great interest, stability at 10,000 fet you bet I'm interested. I'm a good cabinet maker and can be a fair mechanic when motivated enough. So I know I can build the thing and do a good job on it . Getting back to the question at hand , I'm not an engineer when you guys start throwing around formulas my grey matter swirls and becomes less grey. Oh yea the question! Can I build one of these things without being an engineer, assuming that I am a competant builder. Thanks Bryce Kehoe ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 03 Jun 1997 19:44:50 -0400 From: Vince Bozik Subject: KR: Something to think about/(No Archive) Patrick Flowers wrote: > > Micheal Mims wrote: > > > > > > > I really get a kick out of this! And to think it was done to eliminate > > confusion! What the hell was wrong with TCA, ARSA, Control Zone and > > Uncontrolled Airspace? I never had a problem with it! > > Now Mike, you know that it's not in a Fed's vested interest to simplify > anything(witness the Federal Tax Code). Everything must remain complex > to justify their existance. > On that note... How Specs Live Forever The US Standard railroad gauge (distance between the rails) is 4 feet, 8.5 inches. That's an exceedingly odd number. Why was that gauge used? Because that's the way they built them in England, and the US railroads were built by English expatriates. Why did the English people build them like that? Because the first rail lines were built by the same people who built the pre-railroad tramways, and that's the gauge they used. Why did "they" use that gauge then? Because the people who built the tramways used the same jigs and tools that they used for building wagons, which used that wheel spacing. Okay! Why did the wagons use that odd wheel spacing? Well, if they tried to use any other spacing the wagons would break on some of the old, long distance roads, because that's the spacing of the old wheel ruts. So who built these old rutted roads? The first long distance roads in Europe were built by Imperial Rome for the benefit of their legions. The roads have been used ever since. And the ruts? The initial ruts, which everyone else had to match for fear of destroying their wagons, were first made by Roman war chariots. Since the chariots were made for or by Imperial Rome they were all alike in the matter of wheel spacing. Thus, we have the answer to the original questions. The United States standard railroad gauge of 4 feet, 8.5 inches derives from the original specification for an Imperial Roman army war chariot. Specs and Bureaucracies live forever. So, the next time you are handed a specification and wonder what horse's a** came up with it, you may be exactly right. Because the Imperial Roman chariots were made to be just wide enough to accommodate the back-ends of two war horses. [Credit: Professor Tom O'Hare Germanic Lanuages (512) 471-4123 University of Texas at Austin tohare@mail.utexas.edu] - -- Vince Bozik - Athens, Georgia Mailto:ICBM@ix.netcom.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 03 Jun 1997 20:16:21 -0400 From: Carlos Sa Subject: KR: KRnet * * * help wanted * * * 'evening, folks. I am afraid I have bad news: I will not be able to continue performing the archiving function. Since many of you depend on the archives as a source of information, I think you deserve an explanation: Number one, I am embarking on a project with a friend. No, it is not a KR... but hopefully I will be a couple of dollars closer to it when I am done... That will be time consumming, and the archiving will have to be put aside... The second reason is $, though I think we could figure a solution (we might have to, one way or the other). The traffic out of the KRnet pages has been * huge * for a humble site like mine: 500 MB/month. That translates into about $45/month, or around $500 / year. That sort of messes up my KR budget :o( !!! Of course this is not unique to my ISP, so we'll probably have to deal with the issue. I propose we find a new volunteer to keep the archives. He/she should *not* be a builder ;o)! I will supply all the knowledge needed (if any!), as well as the programs I created to sort the postings (REXX required!) and web pages. I will keep archiving postings for the next week or two, while we look for a new volunteer. Sorry for the inconvenience, folks. Regards Carlos ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 03 Jun 1997 18:47:00 -0700 From: Ted & Louisa Jones Subject: Re: KR: Transponders (no archive) Micheal Mims wrote: > > At 04:25 AM 6/3/97 -0700, you wrote: > >Let's see, Ross. Here's my rendition. I think we're pretty close on this one. > > > >Class A: IFR above 18,500. Airliners. (and Glasairs?) > >Class B: The old TCA. LAX, BWI, etc. > >Class C: The old ARSA. Was Co Springs an ARSA before? > >Class D: Operating Control Tower. (with bathroom?) > >Class E: Any airfield without a Control Tower. > >Class F: (No such animal). > >Class G: Uncontrolled airspace. > > > >Ed Newbold > >Columbus, OH > > What about an uncontrolled (no tower) airport with a Control Zone? :-) > > Class C!? > > ________________________________ > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Micheal Mims > Just Plane Nutts > mailto:mimsmand@ix.netcom.com > > http://www.netcom.com/~mimsmand I believe that is the situation here in Beaufort, NC. We are 20 miles from Cherry Point MCAS. One can take off and depart low and toward the sea without a transponder, but you'd better have one when you come back. Ergo, everyone has a transponder. Ted Jones ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 03 Jun 1997 17:47:04 -0700 From: Micheal Mims Subject: Re: KR: ??? from a newbie At 06:26 PM 6/3/97 -0500, you wrote: >Can I build one of these things without being an engineer, assuming that I >am a competant builder. > > Yes you can!! Buy yourself a set of KR2S plans and build it as is, if you have the extra cash buy the pre molded parts if not then scratch build them. Nothing needs to be changed on the KR2S, it will fly fine built the way the plans call for. The RAF-48 airfoil is fine, the amount of washout is fine, the only area of the plans that I think are in error (and a safety concern) is the published CG range (but this is just my opinion, which is non-engineerably influenced). Everything else is just fine, 2000+ KRs cant be wrong! There are a few of us who are changing this and that but its not necessary to change anything to build a great little airplane. Don't get scared away by those of us who are making changes, the changes I have made include, widened fuselage by 4 inches (remember, Pontiac says "Wider is Better"), reduced wing incidence to 2.5 degrees instead of 3.5, scratch built all my fiberglass components, and at this point I may be using a 110 hp 1800cc water cooled inline VW with a PSRU (this is still in the research stage but things are looking good!). You could build a KR2 but if your gona start from scratch it doesn't make much sense to build the short one when you can build the long one for close to the same amount of money and time. Besides the longer one should fly a little better at least that's what the aerodynamic data says, some on this list will argue that fact though! :-) See a KR before you build, ride in one if possible, see for yourself the size difference between the KR2 and the 2S (it IS a bit bigger) If you don't want the extra seat build a KR1, If you think the KR will fit your needs a great little weekend x-country machine then by all means jump in and start gluing, with your background this will be a piece of cake! My biggest advise to you concerning this list is, if someone says something that you question, don't believe it to be gospel! Some of us here don't even have a set of plans in our possession or a pilots license for that matter! If it comes from the mouth of a KR builder/flyer (flyer being a key part) then give it more weight, a lot more weight, otherwise just filter through the stuff that sounds like bunk and keep the good! I am not a flyer but a builder, not and engineer but have occasionally been know to be full of bunk! :-) Oh yea, I do have a pilots license, but its a funny looking one though! ________________________________ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Micheal Mims Just Plane Nutts mailto:mimsmand@ix.netcom.com http://www.netcom.com/~mimsmand ------------------------------ End of krnet-l-digest V1 #30 ****************************