From: owner-krnet-l-digest@lists.teleport.com (krnet-l-digest) To: krnet-l-digest@lists.teleport.com Subject: krnet-l-digest V1 #34 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 Friday, June 6 1997 Volume 01 : Number 034 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 05 Jun 1997 22:45:03 -0700 From: Ross Youngblood Subject: KR: Revmaster for sale I was at the Oregon Air & Space Museum in Eugene Oregon today. Besides having some terrific stuff (F4-Phantom and A6E) they have some experimental KR size WW-II replica's of a Corsair, and a Zero. Pretty cool. What brings me to write this, is that they have a prototype Molt Taylor Pusher design which I believe was the last thing he did before he passed away, they have removed the Revmaster engine. The caretaker told me that if I "knew" anyone who was interested in a revmaster engine, they are interested in selling it to raise money for the museum. I assume it is a 2180CC Revmaster, but I don't know for sure. I expect if someone wants to call the Museum and bid on it you might get a good deal. Unfortunatly, I haven't done any legwork on this. I don't even have the phone number for the Museum for you. They are open 8:00-4:00 weekdays and weekends, and staffed primarily by retired volunteers. The gentleman I spoke with seemed to know they wanted to sell it, but did not have a price in mind. The Aera code for Oregon outside of Portland is 541, so you can call information 1-541-555-1212 and ask for the Oregon Air & Space Museum in Eugene Oregon. Thats all I have on it at the moment. I will get with my local EAA chapter this weekend, and may have some more information. I know I saw Molt Taylor's Pusher design in Kitplanes/Sport Aviation a couple of years ago, but I don't recall the name of it. It was a nice looking design, but had poor over the nose visibility, and the cruise was only 120Mph, Molt was hoping for 140Mph from the VW powerplant. Actually it kinda looks like a testbed for the next generation Aero Car... (Sorry the plane is not for sale, just the engine.) -- Regards Ross - -- Ross Youngblood KRNET-L administrator mailto:rossy@teleport.com http://www.teleport.com/~rossy/N541RY.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 05 Jun 1997 22:49:24 -0700 From: Ross Youngblood Subject: Re: KR: Re:Tiedown ideas Donald Reid wrote: > > If you drill a hole and don't use it, the standard aviation practice is the > plug it with a wooden dowel soaked in glue. > > This is probably more than anyone wants to hear. My kids have learned that if > they ask a technical question, they get a long answer. > > Just an engineering geek at work and play. > > -- > Don Reid > donreid@erols.com Don, Thanks for the extra stuff. I use the dowel technique soaked in epoxy, but couldn't be sure if it was somthing I read or it was accepted aviation practice. I only have one or two holes in the longerons that needed the treatment, but it seemed like a good plan. -- Ross - -- Ross Youngblood KRNET-L administrator mailto:rossy@teleport.com http://www.teleport.com/~rossy/N541RY.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 05 Jun 1997 22:53:44 -0700 From: Ross Youngblood Subject: Re: KR: Transponder stuff Baleco@aol.com wrote: > My Terra is of course 1/2 the normal width so is 3 1/2" wide > by 2 inches tall and about 12 inches deep. Sad part is, we have Class C in > our area about to become Class B. The Xponder is required but I've been told > they routinely delete 1200 returns. > > MartyWhat do you mean by "routinely delete 1200 returns", do they launch a transponder seeking missle? :) Hopefully you will get a VFR corridor that you can fly through, but it will be 90 degrees out of your way to get to it I'm sure. If you need to land however getting "deleted" could be a problem. -- Ross - -- Ross Youngblood KRNET-L administrator mailto:rossy@teleport.com http://www.teleport.com/~rossy/N541RY.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 05 Jun 1997 23:04:35 -0700 From: Ross Youngblood Subject: KR: KRNET Spam alert I just recieved an email from another mailing list user at Teleport. He is reporting that someone is "spamming" using a forged list members name and sending email to other members of the list. The email was a get rich quick scheme but some of the list members were quite upset to be recieving this mail. I would be too. I have recieved a couple of these type messages in the past few months, but didn't consider that it came via KRNET or a KRNET member. Just a heads up, if you start getting junk email and it turns out to be from a KRNET member it could be a forgery. Let me know by sending me an email to rossy@teleport.com and I will report it to the folks at Teleport. -- Regards Ross - -- Ross Youngblood KRNET-L administrator mailto:rossy@teleport.com http://www.teleport.com/~rossy/N541RY.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 05 Jun 1997 23:07:37 -0700 From: Ross Youngblood Subject: Re: KR: ??? from a newbie SLIMPIDLIN@aol.com wrote: > Have been > looking into KRs for a few yrs now,have even been to Jeanettes shop and > talked to her.Wife says I cant start one until I finish the st.rod (36 > Chev.truck).Thats probably the wiser thing she has enforced on me. > Slim My wife won't let me do the truck until I finish the KR. ;) For me a project the size of the KR is about all I can handle, I can't even seem to find excuses to keep from mowing the lawn. -- Ross - -- Ross Youngblood KRNET-L administrator mailto:rossy@teleport.com http://www.teleport.com/~rossy/N541RY.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Jun 97 8:32:30 ÿÿÿ From: steveb@aviation.denel.co.za Subject: Re: KR: Wood Props and Wing Tanks I mentioned in previous articles that it would be interesting to get a copy of the original design file. Alot of questions could be answered regarding exceeding max design mass of the a/c and in particular structural considerations. Just as a matter of interest; I did a survey of the kits available that comply to the following: 2 seater, composite type construction and run with <90Hp engines and the AVE Empty Mass is 605 lbs with MAUM of 1180 lbs. I believe that this is where the avaerage KR2 lies. Thus being approx 30% OVER gross. Dennis I think you have hit the nail right on the head about over gross and legality. Steve in SA - ---------- From: SMTP1@K1 - Server@Servers[] To: Cc: Subject: Re: KR: Wood Props and Wing Tanks Date: Saturday, May 31, 1997 6:33PM At 08:43 AM 5/31/97, you wrote: >David and Ross talk about carrying 28 gal and 60 gal of gas. > WOW! puts it lightly. >Consider empty weight of 500lbs, pilot and passenger of 300lbs; this is a zero fuel weight of 800 lbs. Gross +10% is 990 lbs; this leaves a total of 190lbs or 32gal for gas. >32gal @ a fuel consumption of 6gph = a touch over 5hrs in a KR2 >2 to 3 hrs in a KR2, I think is pushing it or am I missing something here > >Steve in SA If I'm not mistaken, Ken designed the KR2 to be an 800lb. gross plane, and if you fudge the numbers by 10% then you end up at 880lbs. or roughly the 900lbs. that is often quoted as the max. weight. 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******* ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 05 Jun 1997 23:48:14 -0700 From: Micheal Mims Subject: Re: KR: ??? from a newbie At 01:21 AM 6/6/97 -0400, you wrote: Nothing needs to be changed on the KR2S, it will fly fine built the way the plans call for. > >I'm not sure I agree with this, since most people on this list (Including >Mike, I think) will agree that the KR plans are extremely sketchy compared to modern designs like the Pulsar, Kitfox, etc., and many, many details have to be custom-designed that would be cut-and-dried in the plans of modern planes (which are also much more expensive, of course). Your right they are extremely simple, thrown together and on the sketchy side,... but I still say a KR2 or 2S can be built from the plans and fly just fine (as long as you purchase all the Tony Bingelis books) and stay out of the last two inches of the CG range for the first 100 hours! The plans have a LONG way to go to match the quality and depth of say a set of Kitfox or Pulsar manuals but you can build a KR from them. This aint no huge model like the Pulsar or Glasair! You will have a ton of questions after reading the plans for the third time (which should be only an hour after you read them the first time! :-) ) and I have heard the support from RR can be "lacking" (or should I say redirecting) but if you have the KRnet you 300% ahead of those who don't! The KR2 is a rather touchy aircraft as far as control input is concerned but obviously many have mastered it. I feel there is an error in the published CG range that is only known within the "flying" KR community ( I feel the plans should reflect this needed change) but I aint no aerodynamisist ( I cant even spell it!) so what do I know? I wanted mine to be a little stiffer in the pitch so I changed the linkage ratio a little. It could use a little aerodynamic refinements but it doesn't NEED them, It could be a little wider but it doesn't NEED to be, the plans need to be re-written, and the drawings need some information added and some taken away but sadly I am convinced none of this is gona happen. The original question was can I build one of these KR thing a ma jigs from the plans, my answer was and still is yes! Something I found interesting is how Mark Langford and myself had all these neat ideas on how to do certain things better than the methods described in the plans, We both found out the hard way that the plans were obviously written by someone who tried our methods already! Some of the best construction techniques are in the plans! Now Im not saying some of us haven't improved upon them but the more I build the more I agree with use the techniques and methods in the plans! What you NEED to build a KR2: Plans Tony Bingelis books (all of them) KRnet What would be nice to have: Updated plans with better pictures and more detail in some areas (dump the whole chapter on the retracts, 20% of the plans!) Cad drawings of the fuselage, top, bottom, and sides (full size) Cad drawings of fuselage stations from front to rear including instrument panel and turtledeck bulkheads (full size) Cad drawings of the horizontal and vertical tail spars Cad drawings of all the controls and details on how to build your own rudder pedals and brakes. (full size) Cad drawings of various motor mounts and how to build them Things that should be included with the plans that are not Cad drawings of various motor mounts and how to build them Details on how to install the KR2S canopy Up to date information on fiberglass and epoxy substitutes Details on landing gear and brake installation (this is one area that really gets my blood flowing!) I bought a set of plans to an airplane and they don't even tell me how to mount the damn landing gear or how to install brakes!!! Full Size CAD drawings are available by the way, go to: http://206.129.98.5:80/~nearsite/ Maybe after all is said and done I will team up with someone and write a book called "How I built my KR2" The book will come with a set of full size cad drawings and lots of pictures, hell why don't I just call the book "How to build the MM2" Nahh!! Im out of here, this post is way toooo big and I am getting way out of control! _______________________ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Micheal Mims Just Plane Nutts mailto:mimsmand@ix.netcom.com http://www.netcom.com/~mimsmand ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Jun 1997 04:34:35 -0700 From: enewbold@sprynet.com Subject: Re: KR: Transponders? Yes! >>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. >This is not what I have always read, so I'm unconvinced it's correct, unless >the regulations have changed very recently. Are you quoting from a recent >revision of the FAR's, and which one? I'm convinced. I'm quoting direct from Mr. Hayden Decker who is head of the Columbus, OH, FAA FSDO (Flight Safety Department Office). (('scuse me if I got the wrong word in the D position. I suppose it could be 'Division' also)) >I also think such a change in the regulations would be more trouble than it >would be worth. The big Class B's often have many little uncontrolled fields >scattered around inside the veil area (including private fields, I count 15 >on the Kennedy/Newark/LaGuardia Class B terminal chart). Yep! You're right. >Since the Piper Cubs, Aeroncas, older-generation homebuilts, etc., that tend >to inhabit these fields usually have no electrical systems, making them >install transponders would be prohibitively expensive to the owners of these >planes, since their engines often have no provision for a generator. Yep! Right again, but the government doesn't care how much it cost us. >It would also encourage people to relocate outside the veil, causing a severe >economic impact to these airfields, some of which are of historic importance >to aviation. I think the FAA may have kept this exception in the rules >because there would otherwise be a great deal of political turmoil for no >particular gain, since there's no real danger if the planes stay out of the >controlled airspace itself. The reason they HAVE this 30-mile mode-C veil is because it IS dangerous in and around these high-density traffic areas! When I fly around the Baltimore- Washington area, I am sooooooo glad I have that transponder humming away, because of the extremely high number of commercial flights of ALL sizes coming and going in such a small piece of air. >I would be surprised if it has been summarily changed. Mike Color yourself surprised. It has been. If you're *really* in doubt, why not pick up the phone and call them yourself? That's what I did, 'cause I said the same exact things you did when I first read about the changes. The only thing constant is change! Ed Newbold ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 06 Jun 1997 08:07:10 -0600 From: Robert Lasecki Subject: Re: KR: ??? from a newbie Micheal Mims wrote: > > At 01:21 AM 6/6/97 -0400, you wrote: > Nothing needs to be changed on the KR2S, it will fly fine built the way the > plans call for. > > > >I'm not sure I agree with this, since most people on this list (Including > >Mike, I think) will agree that the KR plans are extremely sketchy compared > to modern designs like the Pulsar, Kitfox, etc., and many, many details have > to be custom-designed that would be cut-and-dried in the plans of modern > planes (which are also much more expensive, of course). > > Your right they are extremely simple, thrown together and on the sketchy > side,... but I still say a KR2 or 2S can be built from the plans and fly > just fine (as long as you purchase all the Tony Bingelis books) and stay out > of the last two inches of the CG range for the first 100 hours! The plans > have a LONG way to go to match the quality and depth of say a set of Kitfox > or Pulsar manuals but you can build a KR from them. This aint no huge model > like the Pulsar or Glasair! You will have a ton of questions after reading > the plans for the third time (which should be only an hour after you read > them the first time! :-) ) and I have heard the support from RR can be > "lacking" (or should I say redirecting) but if you have the KRnet you 300% > ahead of those who don't! > > The KR2 is a rather touchy aircraft as far as control input is concerned but > obviously many have mastered it. I feel there is an error in the published > CG range that is only known within the "flying" KR community ( I feel the > plans should reflect this needed change) but I aint no aerodynamisist ( I > cant even spell it!) so what do I know? I wanted mine to be a little > stiffer in the pitch so I changed the linkage ratio a little. It could use > a little aerodynamic refinements but it doesn't NEED them, It could be a > little wider but it doesn't NEED to be, the plans need to be re-written, > and the drawings need some information added and some taken away but sadly I > am convinced none of this is gona happen. > > The original question was can I build one of these KR thing a ma jigs from > the plans, my answer was and still is yes! Something I found interesting > is how Mark Langford and myself had all these neat ideas on how to do > certain things better than the methods described in the plans, We both > found out the hard way that the plans were obviously written by someone who > tried our methods already! Some of the best construction techniques are in > the plans! Now Im not saying some of us haven't improved upon them but the > more I build the more I agree with use the techniques and methods in the plans! > > What you NEED to build a KR2: > Plans > Tony Bingelis books (all of them) > KRnet > > What would be nice to have: > Updated plans with better pictures and more detail in some areas (dump the > whole chapter on the retracts, 20% of the plans!) > Cad drawings of the fuselage, top, bottom, and sides (full size) > Cad drawings of fuselage stations from front to rear including instrument > panel and turtledeck bulkheads (full size) > Cad drawings of the horizontal and vertical tail spars > Cad drawings of all the controls and details on how to build your own rudder > pedals and brakes. (full size) > Cad drawings of various motor mounts and how to build them > > Things that should be included with the plans that are not > Cad drawings of various motor mounts and how to build them > Details on how to install the KR2S canopy > Up to date information on fiberglass and epoxy substitutes > Details on landing gear and brake installation (this is one area that > really gets my blood flowing!) I bought a set of plans to an airplane and > they don't even tell me how to mount the damn landing gear or how to install > brakes!!! > > Full Size CAD drawings are available by the way, go to: > > http://206.129.98.5:80/~nearsite/ > > Maybe after all is said and done I will team up with someone and write a > book called "How I built my KR2" The book will come with a set of full size > cad drawings and lots of pictures, hell why don't I just call the book > "How to build the MM2" Nahh!! Im out of here, this post is way toooo big > and I am getting way out of control! > > _______________________ > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Micheal Mims > Just Plane Nutts > mailto:mimsmand@ix.netcom.com > > http://www.netcom.com/~mimsmand Mike: I agree 1000 percent!!! It would be nice if the "instruction book" included something about the shape, position, and installation suggestion for the instrument panel. There is no clue whatsoever. Likewise for the canopy installation. The separate plans there are equally sketchy. What upsets me most is the way the plane is advertised as verything needed to build the airplane. Yet the cost of the plans is not included nor is much of the small hardware supplied. Jeanette told me that the advertiseds cost with the quick build option is higher than advertised and the magazine has just not kept the price current yet the ad shows up over and over. Even when I bought the plans, the minimal instructions for the gear, brakes, turtle-deck, canopy and fuel tank were not included. These are only sent when you buy the particular hardware. It irritates me that there are a number of known errors in the plans which are nowhere noted on sets being sent out. It shouldn't take much to include a simple addendum. So much for my soapbox. :-) Bob Lasecki ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 06 Jun 1997 10:47:11 -0700 From: Owen Davies Subject: Re: KR: Re:Tiedown ideas Ross Youngblood wrote: > Thanks for the extra stuff. I use the dowel technique soaked > in epoxy, but couldn't be sure if it was somthing I read or it was > accepted aviation practice. I only have one or two holes in the > longerons that needed the treatment, but it seemed like a good plan. Er, the _longerons_? I've heard of this technique for larger members, but have always thought that the longerons require continuous fibers all the way through. For example, a few years ago a Flying Flea builder crashed on his first flight, owing to severe problems with his changes to the design. One of the problems cited later, though it did not contribute to the accident, was that he had scarfed the longerons, a technique that would have been acceptable elsewhere. You might want to consider sistering the wood wherever those plugs occur. Owen Davies ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Jun 1997 12:03:27 -0400 (EDT) From: SLIMPIDLIN@aol.com Subject: Re: KR: ??? from a newbie Ross You got it all wrong your supposed to scam the wife into mowing the lawn,then you will have more time for toys.The trick is to throw her a bone(no pun intended)like lettin her go to Vegas with the girls or takin her skiing at the lake every so often.Oh and for sure compliment her on how nice the lawn looks Slim ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Jun 1997 12:08:37 -0400 (EDT) From: Dennis Ambrose Subject: Re: KR: Re:Tiedown ideas At 10:11 PM 6/3/97 -0700, you wrote: >Dennis Ambrose 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 >> (SNIP) This means >cutting into the wing and epoxying an oak block with the nut floxed >in place on the spar someplace. At this point this is my plan. > > Another option would be to construct some nylon webbing seat belt >like straps that would go around the wing and pick up the tiedown >hook/eyelet. > > For the tailwheel, I'm thinking I can weld up or find a fixture to >attach at the tail spring area. > > How do these ideas sound? > > >-- >Ross Youngblood >KRNET-L administrator >mailto:rossy@teleport.com >http://www.teleport.com/~rossy/N541RY.htm > It seems to me the outer main spar is the place to put a couple of tie down rings, but would't that extra hole in the spar weaken it? Where "exactly" are people putting the ring? Regards Dennis. %-D ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Jun 1997 10:57:43 -0600 (MDT) From: Ron Lee Subject: Re: KR: Re:Tiedown ideas It seems to me the outer main spar is the place to put a couple of >tie down rings, but would't that extra hole in the spar weaken it? Where >"exactly" are people putting the ring? > > Regards Dennis. %-D > > From a non-KR builder I think that one person had a plate that held the tube. The plate is attached to the beefy part of the main spars with relatively small screws/bolts. Even if you do the hole (maybe 1/4-5/16") through the bottom of the spar, with appropriate wood support to carry the stress, it seems like this hole is of the type that may be OK. Will let others with more expertise correct me if wrong!!! Ron Lee ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 06 Jun 1997 14:14:25 -0400 From: Vince Bozik Subject: Re: KR: Re:Tiedown ideas > Even if you do the hole (maybe 1/4-5/16") through the bottom of the spar, with > appropriate wood support to carry the stress, it seems like this hole is > of the type that may be OK. Will let others with more expertise correct me if > wrong!!! > > Ron Lee No expertise here, but... Why drill a hole at all? It's probably been mentioned at least once, but you could probably add a cantilever off the face of the spar - obtaining an angle parallel with the airfoil, and mount it to that. Someone stated previously that holes near the outboard side of the spar arent nearly as consequential as holes near the fuselage. Well, if you don't want to risk any strength, why drill a hole at the outboard of the spar when you could just bond something to the spar to drill a hole through. I'm not exactly sure what lies between the front and rear spar(unless it's fuel), but it seems like there'd be a good way to do it without getting in the way of the controls. You may argue that it won't be as structurally sound as the forementioned; but if you're really concerned, why add an extra hole to worry about. Personally, I'd rather be concerned about a plane while it's tied down in a hurricane than when my butt's in the cockpit realizing exactly what a large aircraft's tip vortices do to small-light aircraft under the wrong conditions - which would progably happen less holes(!). Yea, I'll agree that my lack of experience is more than showing here. But, are the holes really necessary? Location, Location, Location... Where are you guys planning on putting these tiedowns? I know that the KR's are relatively low in stature(sp?), so placement would be of a higher concern than the high wing aircraft. Vince - -- Vince Bozik - Athens, Georgia Mailto:ICBM@ix.netcom.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Jun 1997 12:36:44 -0600 (MDT) From: Ron Lee Subject: Re: KR: Re:Tiedown ideas > Why drill a hole at all? It's probably been mentioned at least once, >but you could probably add a cantilever off the face of the spar - >obtaining an angle parallel with the airfoil, and mount it to that. > > Location, Location, Location... Where are you guys planning on putting >these tiedowns? I know that the KR's are relatively low in >stature(sp?), so placement would be of a higher concern than the high >wing aircraft. > >Vince > Seems reasonable. A spring mounted tiedown hook might just work. Mount the spring on one end to a piece of plywood that is FLOXED to the aft spar face. The other (horizontal) piece of hinge is mounted to wood/fiberglass/metal (as appropriate). Attached to that horizontal structure is the eye hook to attach a rope to. That flatish piece would spring back up to be flush with the lower wing surface..thus you would have to build a flange to stop it. I will try to do one of those ASCII drawings but it may be futile!! The vertical ! represent the vertical wood that is floxed to the aft spar face AND the hinge at the bottom. The lower horizontal line is some material, the hinge (near the spar) and the flange that stops the eyehook piece from going to far up. Ron Lee " " !" !" !" <----aft spar face !" - !" eye hook > [ ] !" - !" _____!___________!" ^ ' ' Lower piece of structure (bottom of wing) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Jun 1997 13:43:58 CDT From: "Rex Ellington" Subject: KR: Plans review Mark Langford I am trying to go through the net archives to pick up more items pertinent to plans review, and hope to finish in a few days. This is sent in open mail in hopes others will have specific topics and data on solutions to be added. What about the following topics: 1. Hard points. [[ A KISS prototype is in a hanger down the strip from me. They are reworking a spar hard point that wasn't so hard and permitted the wing to be wobbled up and down by hand.]] If you look back at the spruce spars made for Taylorcraft and the like, a hard wood dowel seems to have been glued into the strut for every bolt hole on main attachment and jury strut attachment. Then, the dowel is drilled on-gauge for the final bolt. This has never been mentioned in what I have been able to read regarding the KRs. Did anyone ever do it?? It seems to me this would be a natural for tiedowns. Drill an oversize hole down through the top and bottom members of the outer piece of the front spar, at the proper location, glue in a carefully sized dowel and then drill a hole for the tiedown fitting. The fitting? Perhaps a steel eyebolt, with a washer, pushed up from the bottom, finished with a washer and a cowling pin through a hole drilled through the bolt?? Also, what about details on hard points to be built into the fuselage for seat belts and shoulder harness?? The same questions arise regarding gear bolts, etc. 2. Should builders be encouraged to make a cockpit mockup early for fitting rudder pedals, sling seat (especially the back) and the bracing location at the top, and instrument panel design with controls location? The sling seat on my T-Craft is very comfortable, but I had to add lumbar support on the back-pad. (But the angle of the back was fixed and a little to vertical.) This way, lots of activities can be started early and thought out completely before they fall on the critical path. Rex Ellington Rex T. Ellington ellingto@gslan.offsys.uoknor.edu ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Jun 1997 15:53:27 -0400 (EDT) From: Baleco@aol.com Subject: Re: KR: ??? from a newbie In a message dated 97-06-06 12:15:52 EDT, you write: << This method was thrown together by the factory based on suggestions for modifications by KR-2 builders, and the new plane has never been tested by the factory, since it has no design capability now and the original designer has been dead for many years. >> That's pretty generous on your part to refer to RR as being a "factory". I think RR owes an incredible amount of their success to the builders as it is they who have waded through and complete many safe aircraft. These days if it weren't for this list there'd be many less KR's being built. I have a set of plans and have been wanting to build (I need to finish a couple airplanes in front of it first). Reviewing the sketches we're calling "plans" and seeing the lack of support from the "plans seller", I wouldn't consider attempting this aircraft without the generous builder support found here. Marty ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Jun 1997 15:59:20 -0400 (EDT) From: Baleco@aol.com Subject: Re: KR: Transponder stuff In a message dated 97-06-06 12:38:25 EDT, you write: << MartyWhat do you mean by "routinely delete 1200 returns", do they launch a transponder seeking missle? :) Hopefully you will get a VFR corridor that you can fly through, but it will be 90 degrees out of your way to get to it I'm sure. If you need to land however getting "deleted" could be a problem. >> Our EAA Chapter was going to the meetings when they were designing the Class B. The officials were sorry to see us for sure. While I think a corridor finally made it's way into the plan it is on the South side of the Class B where no one flies, there are no airports and it parrallels the typical route gen av uses-20 miles on the other side! All the airports are North. The next airport South is something like 50 miles away. We're 8 miles North. Pretty cool huh? Marty ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Jun 1997 16:04:14 -0400 (EDT) From: Baleco@aol.com Subject: Re: KR: Re:Tiedown ideas In a message dated 97-06-06 15:25:59 EDT, you write: << Someone stated previously that holes near the outboard side of the spar arent nearly as consequential as holes near the fuselage. >> What about drilling a hole vertically through the outboard portion of the wing panel? On the Sonerai there's a hole through the wingpanel that's used to pin the wing to the fuselage when it's folded. These wing holes double as a tiedown by using a typical anchor in the ground and routing the rope up through the wing and tying itself into a knot? Aerodynamically I don't know what effect this has but if one of you gusys know that it does, tape the holes over when not in use. Marty ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 05 Jun 1997 20:36:08 -0700 From: Donald Reid Subject: Re: KR: Re:Tiedown ideas Owen Davies wrote: > > Ross Youngblood wrote: > > > Thanks for the extra stuff. I use the dowel technique soaked > > in epoxy, but couldn't be sure if it was somthing I read or it was > > accepted aviation practice. I only have one or two holes in the > > longerons that needed the treatment, but it seemed like a good plan. > > Er, the _longerons_? I've heard of this technique for larger members, > but have always thought that the longerons require continuous fibers > all the way through. For example, a few years ago a Flying Flea builder > crashed on his first flight, owing to severe problems with his changes > to the design. One of the problems cited later, though it did not > contribute to the accident, was that he had scarfed the longerons, a > technique that would have been acceptable elsewhere. You might want to > consider sistering the wood wherever those plugs occur. > > Owen Davies I think Owen is mostly correct about the longeron. They really should not be touched if at all possible. Scarfing of highly stressed structural members is acceptable. The FAA will allow scarfing repairs in wooden wing spars of certified A/C. My Dad told me that he has seen Cubs straight from the factory that had scarfed main spars when spruce was hard to get. - -- Don Reid donreid@erols.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 06 Jun 1997 17:46:22 -0700 From: "David M. Gargasz" Subject: KR: kr2/kr2s design comparing The best to evryone, the wing span of the kr2 is 20', " " " " " kr2s is 23', " boat lenth is streched 17" on the s, nothing else differs from the kr2 plans, the retract gear is deleted in preference to fix gear, most builders have added 4" to the width @ the shoulder, some have used krs wing skins on kr2, some have added width to the stablizers, some have added several inches to the firewall, am I correct in my assuming all these deviations from plans were made and all the planes built so have passed all FAA requirements as to experimental classification. I plan to build my kr2 with the following deviations from plan, increase width 4" @ the shoulders, add to length 24" shoulders back and add 2" to the firewall, total strech 26", add 6" total to the stabalizer, add 2' to the main spars to allow 1' more to each flap, total wing span will be 22' using plan outer spares, tie down nuts embeded in, Mims: landing gear hardware, canopy, wing tanks. Substituding composite materials of greater structural value where plywood is specified in plans. Thank all of you for the information I gleaned from the krnet, if anyone has any coments concerning the modifications I plan to make, all are appreciated. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 06 Jun 1997 17:32:38 -0500 From: robert k adams Subject: KR: update on june 14 flyin at farringtons in paducah,ky greetings to all here is some updated info on the flyin on june 14 sponsered by EAA chap #807 & civil air patrol at farrington airpark Breakfast 7:00 am to 10:00 am served by EAA Chap 807 10:00 am to 12:00 pm young eagles flights by local aircraft owners - contact EAA for scheduling youngsters <502-488-3784> 11:30 am to 1:30 pm lunch served by EAA chapter 11:00 am to 4:00 pm hombuilders forums 12:00 pm to 2:00 pm open flying numerous other activities and lots of aircraft to see hope all that can will come and enjoy the day thank you bob adams -N7057V- mistic@vci.net ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 06 Jun 1997 15:41:03 -0700 From: Micheal Mims Subject: Re: KR: ??? from a newbie At 03:53 PM 6/6/97 -0400, you wrote: These days if it weren't for this list there'd be many less KR's >being built. Interesting comment, last time I was at RR (about 3 weeks ago) Janette made a comment about how well things were going and how sales were up and she didn't know why! Hummm....... How many people here actually bought there plans AFTER being associated with the KRnet? I was on the AOL KR forum for a while (about 2 years ago) until I found this one and I bought my second set of plans (first set was borrowed by co-worker who never returned them) about 2 weeks after signing up on this list! ________________________________ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Micheal Mims Just Plane Nutts mailto:mimsmand@ix.netcom.com http://www.netcom.com/~mimsmand ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 06 Jun 1997 15:47:12 -0700 From: Micheal Mims Subject: Re: KR: kr2/kr2s design comparing At 05:46 PM 6/6/97 -0700, you wrote: >The best to evryone, the wing span of the kr2 is 20', >" " " " " kr2s is 23', " boat lenth is streched 17" on the s, >nothing else differs from the kr2 plans, the retract gear is deleted in I think we should change the name of the KRlist to the Mod Squad! :-) ________________________________ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Micheal Mims Just Plane Nutts mailto:mimsmand@ix.netcom.com http://www.netcom.com/~mimsmand ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Jun 1997 17:08:58 -0600 (MDT) From: Ron Lee Subject: Re: KR: KRNET Effect on Builders (no archive) At 15:41 97/6/06 -0700, you wrote: >At 03:53 PM 6/6/97 -0400, you wrote: > These days if it weren't for this list there'd be many less KR's >>being built. > >Interesting comment, last time I was at RR (about 3 weeks ago) Janette made >a comment about how well things were going and how sales were up and she >didn't know why! Hummm....... How many people here actually bought there >plans AFTER being associated with the KRnet? I was on the AOL KR forum for >a while (about 2 years ago) until I found this one and I bought my second >set of plans (first set was borrowed by co-worker who never returned them) >about 2 weeks after signing up on this list! > >________________________________ >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >Micheal Mims Yo Mike. you want I should pay a visit to that bum who took your plans? Ron (The Enforcer) Lee ------------------------------ End of krnet-l-digest V1 #34 ****************************