From: owner-krnet-l-digest@lists.teleport.com (krnet-l-digest) To: krnet-l-digest@lists.teleport.com Subject: krnet-l-digest V1 #35 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 Saturday, June 7 1997 Volume 01 : Number 035 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 06 Jun 1997 16:21:25 -0700 From: Micheal Mims Subject: Re: KR: KRNET Effect on Builders (no archive) At 05:08 PM 6/6/97 -0600, you wrote: >Yo Mike. you want I should pay a visit to that bum who took your plans? > >Ron (The Enforcer) Lee Yea I have wished evil things on Jeff but I guess what comes around goes around. I don't know how I would feel about building a plane from plans that were stolen! Bad Karma Man, Bad Karma!!! :-) I picked them up at a garage sale back in high school so they were more of a nostalgia thing than anything else. I would have needed to purchase new plans anyway. I think these were of "first release" vintage. If you think the ones we have now are bad,.... WOW!! ________________________________ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Micheal Mims Just Plane Nutts mailto:mimsmand@ix.netcom.com http://www.netcom.com/~mimsmand ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Jun 1997 18:37:06 -0500 From: "Mark Langford" Subject: KR: project update-Langford KRNetHeads, I'm working on the canopy hinges now. I originally tried a four bar linkage like Roy Marsh and Lester Palmer have, but I must have done something wrong there. Mine was pretty flimsy. Ken Cornelius clued me in that Les Palmer's two front links were connected to a crosstube behind the instrument panel, which keeps the two sides of the canopy in sync when opening/closing. I decided to go for the Don Betchan method, using something like VW Beetle hood hinges. Of course mine are 1/4" 7075 aluminum (I can't handle flimsy again). Will probably use a single gas strut mounted between the rudder pedals to the hinges to help lift itI installed a 3/4" foam bulkhead/beam inside the front deck to connect them to. Looking at the time I've spent to arrive at my current design makes the stock piano hinge look mightly appealing. You can see a CAD drawing of it at http://fly.hiwaay.net/~langford/khinge.jpg . I think it's going to work out well, and will post pictures when it's done. I also gave very serious thought to an idea that Michael Mims had about a year ago: Mount the hinges to the outside of the forward deck, but integrated flush into it. That way you clear the panel, and you get max stability because they are mounted at the extreme outside edges. Picture straight 1"x20"x.090" 4130 blades resting vertically on the longerons, pinned at a point about 13" from the firewall, and extending down the sides of the canopy, rigidly connected. I'd also connect the two hinges to each other with a .75" 4130 tube extending thru the hinge axis, the keep the two sides rotating in sync (might have to dodge the fuel tank, though). I almost did it (even ordered the steel from Wicks on speed dial), but I would have had to build a FOURTH front deck to preserve the lines that I want. I have to draw the line somewhere, and that's at three on this one. You can take this "education" thing too far. My present deck is very light and smooth, and I just didn't want to make another one. I may draw up his scheme though, because I definitely feel it is the way to go. I've finished installing my elevator controls. It's a Rube Goldberg contraption using a pushrod from the stick to the aft spar, a bellcrank which connects to two cables, another bellcrank on the foreward horizontal stabilizer spar (in place of the pullies), and another pushrod to the elevator bellcrank. Sounds like a mess, but what it buys me is a really simple, light, counterweight for my elevator. And I like not having to sit on my elevator cables where the plans show them running to the aft spar from the stick. And this way I don't have to worry about cables coming off of the pullies. It works very well, with cable tension remaining the same in all positions. Counterweight weighs about 20 ounces. I'll post pictures to my web site next week. It will get a lot clearer then. I also finished up the vertical stabilizer and rudder, which is detailed at http://fly.hiwaay.net/~langford/kvs.html. Also did the fillet from aft deck to horizontal and vertical stabilizers. Three layers of glass built up on foam. Looks really good to me. Next: stub wings! NLF templates are glued in place. I'm going to do it a little crazy. Negative templates in a table top jig to sand out the foam from the inside, glass it, bond to spars, and sand the outside to contour. Same method I used on my front deck (http://fly.hiwaay.net/~langford/kfd.html). This way I get exactly 3/8" thickness throughout, and a lot more strength with the inner layer of glass. I'm probably going to cover the exterior with one layer of 6 oz carbon fiber, two at the leading edge and ailerons, all covered by a layer of my favorite 1.5 oz silk weave deck cloth. Hey, it's only money... Mark Langford langford@hiwaay.net http://fly.hiwaay.net/~langford ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Jun 1997 18:38:15 -0500 From: "Mark Langford" Subject: KR: RAF48 info My recent post about the RAF48 info on my website had an error in the URL. It should have been http://fly.hiwaay.net/~langford/kraf48.html. Let me know if anybody has any more information. Mark Lougheed ran the RAF48 through a program that produces more detailed numerical data based on coordinates, but said that it agreed closely with the Eppler graphs that I have on my page. For design work, most people would rather have the graphs, I think. Mark Langford langford@hiwaay.net http://fly.hiwaay.net/~langford ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 06 Jun 1997 16:58:33 -0700 From: Micheal Mims Subject: KR: Gates Poly Chain Belt Drives Well I got my Belt drive catalog from Gates today and all they have listed is cast iron sprockets! :-( I called the local Gates distributor and she told me the custom order department in Colorado would build aluminum sprockets if I wanted them too, but there would be a minimum order value! :-( Oh well struck out again. Where are the redrive guys getting their sprockets? Maybe Stratus, Reductions and others are machining their own sprockets? Someone must know! How about the belts used on the Harley street bikes, do they have aluminum sprockets? Or how about the Japanese bikes that use belt drives? Is anyone out there familiar with the Poly Chain GT belts, these belts are incredibly small for the amount of HP they can handle! A belt about 2 inches wide is good for 150 HP with a small sprocket RPM of 5000+! ________________________________ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Micheal Mims Just Plane Nutts mailto:mimsmand@ix.netcom.com http://www.netcom.com/~mimsmand ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Jun 1997 21:47:49 -0400 (EDT) From: Baleco@aol.com Subject: Re: KR: ??? from a newbie In a message dated 97-06-06 19:11:13 EDT, you write: << How many people here actually bought there plans AFTER being associated with the KRnet? >> I had dismissed the KR until becomming associated with this group. Now If I can just get my other projects cleared so I can get started. I wanna build a light handpropped turbo Subaru EA-81 direct drive straight KR-2. Marty ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 06 Jun 1997 19:33:19 -0700 From: Ted & Louisa Jones Subject: Re: KR: ??? from a newbie > 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 Sorry, but either you misunderstood Jeanette or she is handing you a large snow-job. Magazines do not set prices in ads, nor do they tamper with an advertiser's ad copy. It would appear that she is covering for her failure to keep on top of her advertising copy. For a publisher to fail to make a change requested by the advertiser is grounds for non-payment for the ad in question and/or cancellation of a contract. What is in the RR ad Jeanette or someone in her employ put there and it will stay exactly as put until changed or cancelled by the advertiser or its agency. Hanging wrong or misleading pricing on the "magazines" is a cop-out. That's a heck of a way to run a RR. :-] Ask me how I know. Ted Jones President Nautilus Publishing Inc. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Jun 1997 20:56:32 -0600 (MDT) From: Ron Lee Subject: KR: RR Ads (was newbie question) (no archive) OK Ted...how DO you know? (Is the answer related to your job?) What MIGHT happen is that an ad change may take two months to take effect due to publication deadlines. But I as an imaginary seller of a product should know that and take it into account when raising prices. I can't comment on the plans since I have not read all of them yet but this forum no doubt is very informative. It picks up where the plans leave off as evidenced by the quick response to "what do I do here?" questions. Ron (may get to taxi tomorrow) Lee t 19:33 97/6/06 -0700, you wrote: > >> 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. SNIP > >Sorry, but either you misunderstood Jeanette or she is handing you a >large snow-job. Magazines do not set prices in ads, nor do they tamper >with an advertiser's ad copy. It would appear that she is covering for >her failure to keep on top of her advertising copy. For a publisher to >fail to make a change requested by the advertiser is grounds for >non-payment for the ad in question and/or cancellation of a contract. >What is in the RR ad Jeanette or someone in her employ put there and it >will stay exactly as put until changed or cancelled by the advertiser or >its agency. Hanging wrong or misleading pricing on the "magazines" is a >cop-out. That's a heck of a way to run a RR. :-] > >Ask me how I know. >Ted Jones >President >Nautilus Publishing Inc. > > > ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Jun 1997 21:02:25 -0600 (MDT) From: Ron Lee Subject: KR: Question On Manifold Pressure Gauge N133RM has a manifold pressure gauge to assist is regulating the turbo. An Orion builder looked at it and commented that it should be reading 23-24". I live at about 6840' MSL. It is reading just under 30". Today the barometric pressure as reported by the weather lady on the TV pegged the pressure at 29.92". Should the gauge read the actual ambient pressure when off and what is it really? One would think that the pressure here would be about 7" less than sea level, or about 23". Yet the weather folks and ATC report pressures around 30". Why am I so confused? Oh yea, another plane here had a gauge that was reading 23-24" yesterday. Ron (Confused on many things) Lee ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 06 Jun 1997 23:41:59 EDT From: jscott.pilot@juno.com (Jeffrey E. Scott) Subject: Re: KR: Question On Manifold Pressure Gauge On Fri, 6 Jun 1997 21:02:25 -0600 (MDT) Ron Lee writes: >N133RM has a manifold pressure gauge to assist is regulating >the turbo. An Orion builder looked at it and commented that >it should be reading 23-24". I live at about 6840' MSL. > >It is reading just under 30". Today the barometric pressure >as reported by the weather lady on the TV pegged the pressure at >29.92". > >Should the gauge read the actual ambient pressure when off and what >is it really? One would think that the pressure here would be >about 7" less than sea level, or about 23". Yet the weather folks >and ATC report pressures around 30". Why am I so confused? > >Oh yea, another plane here had a gauge that was reading 23-24" >yesterday. > >Ron (Confused on many things) Lee > > > Ron, My MP guage reads 24" at the SAF airport 6344' ASL. Your ambient (engine not running) MP pressure reading should equal approximately 30" at sea level minus one inch per thousand feet of altitude. In Colorado Springs, yours should read just about right at 24". Take a cruise around the airport and look at the MP guage in any of the planes you see sitting on the ramp that have Constant speed props. I think you'll find that the Orion builder is correct. It looks like yours is in need of replacement. - ---- Jeffrey Scott jscott.pilot@juno.com See construction of KR-2S N1213W at http://fly.hiwaay.net/~langford/kjeffs.html - ---- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Jun 1997 22:44:45 -0600 From: jeb@laintra.com (John Bryhan) Subject: KR: The Kr-list It picks up where the >plans leave off as evidenced by the quick response to "what do I do >here?" questions. Seems like there is WAY more talk of airspace and other non-buildlng related stuff now-a-days than "what do I do here" Just an opinion...:o) John jeb@laintra.com www.laintra.com/jeb/krpage.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 06 Jun 1997 07:54:16 -0700 From: Donald Reid Subject: Re: KR: kr2/kr2s design comparing David M. Gargasz wrote: > > 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. The FAA can not and will not tell a person the how to design or build a plane. In their advisory circular concerning experimental A/C, they say it is your responsibility. You can build an experimental A/C out of cardboard if you want. You would of course have to justify your work to one degree or another. The FAA inspector/DAR may not want to give the airworthiness certificate, but they are limited in what they can do. The only real FAA requirement is the 51% rule. You are suppose to build the majority of the project and you are required to prove it. > 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. > Some of these changes will affect the structural strength, others will affect the flight characteristics. In some places, composite materials (even "stronger" ones) will not be the most appropriate choice. Engineers get lots of negative comments (I get more than my share) but any significant changes should be checked by someone with an engineering background. Designing by eyeball engineering can work, but the odds are against it. - -- Don Reid donreid@erols.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 7 Jun 1997 08:39:08 -0400 (EDT) From: Baleco@aol.com Subject: Re: KR: ??? from a newbie In a message dated 97-06-06 23:07:11 EDT, you write: << What is in the RR ad Jeanette or someone in her employ put there and it will stay exactly as put until changed or cancelled by the advertiser or its agency. Hanging wrong or misleading pricing on the "magazines" is a cop-out. >> She may have been trying to say that the ad has been changed but that the next couple issues have already been sent. Anyway, I don't buy it. I really don't care what price they put in the ad, it's that misleading cruise speed that ticks me off. Yes, that speed has been attained but not as a routine cruise figure and it wasn't by an airframe built to the plans. There's no way a typical VW powered KR-2 is gonna see that kind of speed in cruise. I used to think the KR's were some kind of rocket. Recently I ran against a local KR guy who's always talking about how fast his aircraft is. Well, we both have 2180's and in a 15 mile run my Sonerai walked away from him and was a couple miles ahead when we reached the airport. I know, there's all kinds of factors and I know KR's are generally faster than a Sonerai but the point is, that cruise figure she advertises is bull. Offering it as typical and a CRUISE instead of MAX is dishonest. I think it's what attracts a lot of builders that would otherwise pass it over but it's misleading. We won't get into the build time claims. The 2180 on my Sonerai was originally a Great Plains assembled engine I purchased from a fell chapter member who removed it from his KR. It never did better than 135mph. Marty ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 7 Jun 1997 08:46:39 -0400 (EDT) From: Baleco@aol.com Subject: Re: KR: The Kr-list In a message dated 97-06-07 02:23:38 EDT, you write: << Seems like there is WAY more talk of airspace and other non-buildlng related stuff now-a-days than "what do I do here" Just an opinion...:o) >> Well, to get us a back on track, we were discussing the need or not for the Xponder and people on the list currently flying KR's or other planes were making the case for the Xponder. Justifiying the weight, cost and complexity with added safety if not from ATC then from TCAS. In my opnion, if you are going to have an electrical system, reg.s be darned, install and use an Xponder! Leave out the full leather interior if weight's a concern. Marty ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 07 Jun 1997 08:58:25 -0600 From: Robert Lasecki Subject: Re: KR: ??? from a newbie Ted & Louisa Jones wrote: > > > > 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 > > Sorry, but either you misunderstood Jeanette or she is handing you a > large snow-job. Magazines do not set prices in ads, nor do they tamper > with an advertiser's ad copy. It would appear that she is covering for > her failure to keep on top of her advertising copy. For a publisher to > fail to make a change requested by the advertiser is grounds for > non-payment for the ad in question and/or cancellation of a contract. > What is in the RR ad Jeanette or someone in her employ put there and it > will stay exactly as put until changed or cancelled by the advertiser or > its agency. Hanging wrong or misleading pricing on the "magazines" is a > cop-out. That's a heck of a way to run a RR. :-] > > Ask me how I know. > Ted Jones > President > Nautilus Publishing Inc. Ted: I understand only too well how she is failing to stay on top of things. Maybe that is why the 2S kits still contain aluminum for the retract mechanism which isn't even applicable to the 2S. Bob Lasecki President Mitchell Aircraft Products, Inc. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 07 Jun 1997 10:33:53 -0700 From: bmsi@ix.netcom.com Subject: Re: KR: Question On Manifold Pressure Gauge Ron Lee wrote: > > N133RM has a manifold pressure gauge to assist is regulating > the turbo. An Orion builder looked at it and commented that > it should be reading 23-24". I live at about 6840' MSL. > > It is reading just under 30". Today the barometric pressure > as reported by the weather lady on the TV pegged the pressure at > 29.92". > > Should the gauge read the actual ambient pressure when off and what > is it really? One would think that the pressure here would be > about 7" less than sea level, or about 23". Yet the weather folks > and ATC report pressures around 30". Why am I so confused? > > Oh yea, another plane here had a gauge that was reading 23-24" > yesterday. > > Ron (Confused on many things) Lee Ron, Your weather lady is reporting sea level pressure -- and probably an old reading, at that. You need an altimeter setting from a nearby barometer, read as you are calibrating your instrument. Bruce S. Campbell Your friendly meteorologist and KR wanabuilder. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 7 Jun 1997 09:59:31 -0600 (MDT) From: Ron Lee Subject: Re: KR: The Kr-list At 08:46 97/6/07 -0400, you wrote: >In a message dated 97-06-07 02:23:38 EDT, you write: > ><< Seems like there is WAY more talk of airspace and other non-buildlng > related > stuff now-a-days than "what do I do here" > Just an opinion...:o) >> > > Well, to get us a back on track, we were discussing the >need or not for the Xponder and people on the list currently flying KR's or >other planes were making the case for the Xponder. Justifiying the weight, >cost and complexity with added safety if not from ATC then from TCAS. In my >opnion, if you are going to have an electrical system, reg.s be darned, >install and use an Xponder! Leave out the full leather interior if weight's a >concern. > > Marty Another factor about the transponder is cost. A Terra unit with altitude encoder is about $1400. There are reconditioned units (not Terra) in Trade A Plane for around $600 but I assume that an encoder ($150-200) is also needed. I am not an expert on the various model numbers for different brands so looking for one is hard at times. Add to that confusion more than one transponder by a maker..means something is different...such as imbedded Mode C perhaps. Granted this does not relate directly to KR but it still is valuable info. Ron ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 07 Jun 1997 11:14:18 From: brian whatcott Subject: Re: KR: Question On Manifold Pressure Gauge Not quite the right answer here. To get actual pressure where you are at, you could set an altimeter to read zero feet, and read off the window. (In parts of Europe this is flown as the "QFE" setting). The setting the tower passes is the equivalent sea level pressure for that particular place, which can be obtained by setting an altimeter to read the actual elevation of your current position, and reading off THAT setting. (We know this as the "Actual QNH" value) regards brian whatcott At 10:33 6/7/97 -0700, you wrote: >Ron Lee wrote: >> >> N133RM has a manifold pressure gauge to assist is regulating >> the turbo. An Orion builder looked at it and commented that >> it should be reading 23-24". I live at about 6840' MSL. >> >> It is reading just under 30". Today the barometric pressure >> as reported by the weather lady on the TV pegged the pressure at >> 29.92". >> >> Should the gauge read the actual ambient pressure when off and what >> is it really? One would think that the pressure here would be >> about 7" less than sea level, or about 23". Yet the weather folks >> and ATC report pressures around 30". Why am I so confused? >> >> Oh yea, another plane here had a gauge that was reading 23-24" >> yesterday. >> >> Ron (Confused on many things) Lee > >Ron, > > Your weather lady is reporting sea level pressure -- and probably an >old reading, at that. You need an altimeter setting from a nearby >barometer, read as you are calibrating your instrument. > >Bruce S. Campbell >Your friendly meteorologist and KR wanabuilder. > > brian whatcott Altus OK ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 08 Jun 1997 02:34:14 -0400 From: Bob Litty Subject: KR: Soob engine. I'm going to try again. I have a chance to buy an EA81 from a car. The man wants $575 delivered with a 30 da. warranty. No core. Anything special I should look for? - -- Bob rdlitty@infinet.com littyrd@muohio.edu rdlitty@mumr2.mid.muohio.edu ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 07 Jun 1997 13:23:35 -0700 From: Micheal Mims Subject: Re: KR: ??? from a newbie At 08:39 AM 6/7/97 -0400, you wrote: The 2180 on my Sonerai was originally a Great Plains assembled >engine I purchased from a fell chapter member who removed it from his KR. It never did better than 135mph. > > Something was terribly wrong with it then! KRs can cruise in the 180 mph range and will do 200 flat out. I have seen it, and done it! When I flew with Troy Petteway we climbed to 2000 feet and leveled off, the airspeed quickly jumped to 150mph and was still climbing, Troy pulled the power back to 3100rpm and we sat there scooting along at 155mph. Troy runs his plane flat out during races and sees 200mph. His plane is powered by a 2100 Revmaster with no electrical and his empty weight is only 520 pounds. His is VERY close to plans built so I guess I have to disagree with you and say a plans built KR with a VW will cruise at 180. From what I understand most guys are not comfortable cruising that fast so they don't. _______________________ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Micheal Mims Just Plane Nutts mailto:mimsmand@ix.netcom.com http://www.netcom.com/~mimsmand ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 07 Jun 1997 15:23:13 -0700 From: Ted & Louisa Jones Subject: Re: KR: RR Ads (was newbie question) (no archive) Ron Lee wrote: > > OK Ted...how DO you know? (Is the answer related to your job?) Yes, I own and edit a consumer magazine, and I'd hate to tell you how many times we've had advertisers squawk (rhymes with female dog) and demand a refund if we misplaced a comma in their ad. The advertiser is king. If he or she says "jump" you say "how high?" (that's with my owner hat on ;-}). If Jeanette were on top of things she'd have had the ads changed. Ted Jones ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 07 Jun 1997 15:06:59 -0700 From: Ross Youngblood Subject: Re: KR: Re:Tiedown ideas Donald Reid wrote: > > 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 This region is the area of the top longeron where there is a 2nd 5/8" doubler adjacent. I can however add a tapered 5/8 block to the bottom of the longeron, or a 1/4" plywood piece in this area. I will make a note to have a Tech Counselor review these areas just to make sure that the structure is O.K. -- Thanks Ross - -- Ross Youngblood KRNET-L administrator mailto:rossy@teleport.com http://www.teleport.com/~rossy/N541RY.htm ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 07 Jun 1997 15:19:47 -0700 From: Ross Youngblood Subject: Re: KR: ??? from a newbie Micheal Mims 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? Not to mention all the nifty construction websites out there (more free advertising). It's good to hear business is going well for Janette. -- Ross - -- Ross Youngblood KRNET-L administrator mailto:rossy@teleport.com http://www.teleport.com/~rossy/N541RY.htm ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 7 Jun 1997 22:36:49 -0400 (EDT) From: JEHayward@aol.com Subject: Re: KR: ??? from a newbie In a message dated 97-06-07 21:02:52 EDT, you write: << a plans built KR with a VW will cruise at 180. From what I understand most guys are not comfortable cruising that fast so they don't. Micheal Mims >> Is that because things are happening so fast or is it a rough ride in light turbulence? Just wondering since one of the reasons I wanted the KR is for that kind of speed. Jim Hayward ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 07 Jun 1997 22:43:27 -0400 From: Vince Bozik Subject: KR: Strakes Hey Guys, Have any of you builders or "soon to be builders" thought about adding strakes to your project? I recall reading somewhere that they decease drag and increase stability. - -- Vince Bozik - Athens, Georgia Mailto:ICBM@ix.netcom.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 7 Jun 1997 20:59:48 -0600 (MDT) From: Ron Lee Subject: Re: KR: High Speed in KRs << a plans built KR with a VW will cruise at 180. From what I understand >most guys are not comfortable cruising that fast so they don't. > >Micheal Mims >> > > Is that because things are happening so fast or is it a rough ride in >light turbulence? Just wondering since one of the reasons I wanted the KR is >for >that kind of speed. > >Jim Hayward > Have you tried going that fast with your eyes closed? it is scary! Although I have never flown that fast, when I flew with Troy he was going about 150 mph or so. It did not seem uncomfortable to me in calm air so I suspect a little faster would be OK under good conditions. In fact on the return trip when I flew I bet I was going at least 140 mph. And I am not the most proficient pilot around. Today I flew a Cessna 172 at about 100mph and felt like slowing down in minor turbulence. Since there were several C-130s lumbering around I could not close my eyes. Ron Lee ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 7 Jun 1997 21:03:27 -0600 (MDT) From: Ron Lee Subject: Re: KR: Strakes Guys, > Have any of you builders or "soon to be builders" thought about adding >strakes to your project? I recall reading somewhere that they decease >drag and increase stability. > >Vince Bozik - Athens, Georgia > Mailto:ICBM@ix.netcom.com I read something like that too Vince. Not sure where but it seems that the strake in front of the vertical stabilizer adds stability in one axis. And some Cessna's have them I think. Never knew what they were there for. This is the kind of thing that may help but I have ZERO technical ability to know how big to make them and if they would actually help and NOT hurt stability. Ron Lee ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 7 Jun 1997 23:21:23 -0400 (EDT) From: Dennis Ambrose Subject: Re: KR: Strakes At 09:03 PM 6/7/97 -0600, you wrote: >Guys, >> Have any of you builders or "soon to be builders" thought about adding >>strakes to your project? I recall reading somewhere that they decease >>drag and increase stability. >> >>Vince Bozik - Athens, Georgia >> Mailto:ICBM@ix.netcom.com > >I read something like that too Vince. Not sure where but it seems that the >strake in front of the vertical stabilizer adds stability in one axis. And >some Cessna's have them I think. Never knew what they were there for. This >is the kind of thing that may help but I have ZERO technical ability to know >how big to make them and if they would actually help and NOT hurt stability. > >Ron Lee You should read the book "Flight Testing Homebuilt Aircraft" by Vaughn Askue. ISBN 0-8138-1308-5 Regards Dennis ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 07 Jun 1997 23:39:34 -0400 From: Vince Bozik Subject: KR: Joke(No Archive) Sorry about the waste of bandwidth, but I thought that it was funny enough to send: You know you are an E-Mail Junkie if..... 1. You wake up at 3 a.m. to go to the bathroom and stop to check your e-mail on the way back to bed. 2. You get a tattoo that reads "This body best viewed with Netscape 2.0 or higher." 3. You name your children Eudora, Mozillia, Dotcom. 4. You turn off your modem and get this awful empty feeling, like you just pulled the plug on a loved one. 5. You spend half of the plane trip with your laptop on your lap... and your child in the overhead compartment. 6. Youd decide to stay in college for an additional year or two, just for the Internet access. 7. You lacugh at people with 9600 baud modems. 8. You start using smileys in your snail mail. 9. Your hard drive crashes. You haven't logged on in for over two hours. You start to twitch. You pick up the phone and manually dial your ISP's access number. You try to hum to communicate with the modem. .... And You Succeed. 10. You find yourself typing "com" after every period when using the word processor.com 11. You start introducing yourself as "JohnVarley@aol 'dot' Com" 12. All of your friends have an @ in their names. 13. Your cat, dog, motorcycle, etc.. has its own web page. 14. You can't call your mother.... she doesn't have a modem. 15. You check your mail. It says "No new messages." So you check it again. 16. Every time your e-mail browser indicates you have received a message. You suddenly understand how Pavlovs Dog felt. 17. You check your mail. It says "No new messages." You quickly go to MSNBC's website and "mail document" yourself just for a quick fix. 18. Your phone bill comes to your doorstep in a crate. 19. You don't know what sex three of your closest friends are, because they have neutral nicknames and you were afraid to ask. 20. You tell the cab drive you live at http://1018.se.belmont/portland/apartment/up2floors/html 21. You move into a new house and decide to Netscape before you landscape. 22. You decide upon calling yourself Rip Van Email, after realizing four presidents were elected while you were chatting on-line. 23. While surfing the local university's psychology departments curriculum guide on-line for the upcoming. You notice one of the courses titles concerning addiction is identical to your name. 24. You get up to go to the bathroom, and realize that a National Geographic Camera crew has been taping you while you were on-line. 25. You start tilting your head sideways whenever you smile. 26. You receive one of those "You know your an E-Mail Junkie" posts, and think it was written about you. 27. You receive one of those "You know your an E-Mail Junkie" posts, and immediately begin editting and adding new ones to the list. - -- - -- Vince Bozik - Athens, Georgia Mailto:ICBM@ix.netcom.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 8 Jun 1997 00:00:08 -0500 From: "perryw" Subject: KR: Re: Gates Poly Chain Belt Drives - ---------- > From: Micheal Mims > To: krnet-l@teleport.com > Cc: airsoob@interstice.com > Subject: KR: Gates Poly Chain Belt Drives > Date: Friday, June 06, 1997 6:58 PM > > Well I got my Belt drive catalog from Gates today and all they have listed > is cast iron sprockets! :-( I called the local Gates distributor and she > told me the custom order department in Colorado would build aluminum > sprockets if I wanted them too, but there would be a minimum order value! > :-( Oh well struck out again. > > Where are the redrive guys getting their sprockets? Maybe Stratus, > Reductions and others are machining their own sprockets? Someone must know! > How about the belts used on the Harley street bikes, do they have aluminum > sprockets? Or how about the Japanese bikes that use belt drives? Is anyone > out there familiar with the Poly Chain GT belts, these belts are incredibly > small for the amount of HP they can handle! A belt about 2 inches wide is > good for 150 HP with a small sprocket RPM of 5000+! > > > ________________________________ > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Micheal Mims > Just Plane Nutts > mailto:mimsmand@ix.netcom.com > > http://www.netcom.com/~mimsmand > Hi Micheal; I am a machinist of 30 yrs,I have several times made alum. sprockets for those Gates belts to repair machine tools . They are simple to make and the standards are published. Also you might try"Stock Drive Products",ph.(516)328-3300 fax.(516)326-8827. There are a lot of companies that make that type of product,somebody will have it in stock or will know who does. If you dont have any luck send me an e-mail and I will try to help. perryw@hal-pc.org ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 7 Jun 1997 23:02:43 -0800 From: "Parley T. Byington" Subject: Re: KR: Re:Tiedown ideas Dennis I use the landing gear to tie my KR-2 down, I carry some 3/8 nylon rope with me and just attach the rope to the tie down rings or cable at which every airport I happen to be at. This has worked just fine so far. Regards Parley On 6 Jun 97 at 12:08, Dennis Ambrose wrote: > 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 > > > ------------------------------ End of krnet-l-digest V1 #35 ****************************