From: owner-krnet-l-digest@lists.teleport.com (krnet-l-digest) To: krnet-l-digest@lists.teleport.com Subject: krnet-l-digest V1 #38 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 Wednesday, June 11 1997 Volume 01 : Number 038 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 15:54:40 -0700 From: Bill Reents Subject: Re: KR: Finally taxied! (no archive) At 07:06 AM 6/10/97 -0600, you wrote: >At 02:02 97/6/10 -0400, you wrote: >>>Squack list: Lengthen the slings so I have more head room and >>>check the brakes. Directional control at low speeds is very >>>good with the tail wheel directly tied to rudder movement (NO >>>spring or slack in cable to tail wheel). >> >>Is this for flying primarily on paved runways? I think I read that if you >>were on grass, etc., and hit a rock with the tailwheel, the springs would >>provide some "give" so nothing gets broken. >> >>Mike Taglieri > >Yes it is primarily for paved runways. However I do have to tow in between >my house and pavement. The small shopping cart tailwheel may get replaced >with something larger in diameter and pneumatic (air). Two reasons: Raise >the tail so I can see better (may not really be a problem) and roll a little >quieter. Any comments from experienced tailwheel manly man fliers. > >Ron (whussie-boy) Lee > >Hi I have used a lot of different tail wheels, but the best so far is a skate board wheel,there quite,have good bearings,and wear good. On the KR taildrager,the smaller wheel will give you more angle of attack on landing, hence a slower touch down speed. On my KR I try to touch the tail wheel first,so when the mains touch you should be done flying.(carrier type landing) Bill Bill Reents http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/3050 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 16:07:28 -0400 (EDT) From: Horn2004@aol.com Subject: Re: KR: Painting ineterior parts?? In a message dated 6/10/97 9:16:50 AM, you wrote: <> Only problem with the Krylon, even if it's clear coated, is durability. The stuff tends to be VERY brittle. The corner of a clipboard bumped into the cured paint will usually cause a chip. Even flexing over a period of time will tend to crack the stuff up. You might want to investigate Zoalatone (sp?) or some other commercial product. If you do go with Krylon, buy an extra can for touch-up. Make sure they are the same batch number (printed on the can). I had an unfortunate experience getting a good match with Krylon. After a call to their factory, they did a test based on the batch numbers (they store samples from every batch). Sure enough, the batches had a very noticable shift in color. They sent me a check so that I could have a professional strip and repaint the item. They said this happens frequently. Steve Horn Horn2004@aol.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 14:16:45 -0600 (MDT) From: Ron Lee Subject: Re: KR: Painting ineterior parts?? (no archive) >>Only problem with the Krylon, even if it's clear coated, is durability. The >>stuff tends to be VERY brittle. The corner of a clipboard bumped into the >>cured paint will usually cause a chip. Even flexing over a period of time >>will tend to crack the stuff up. You might want to investigate Zoalatone >>(sp?) or some other commercial product. If you do go with Krylon, buy an >>extra can for touch-up. Make sure they are the same batch number (printed on >>the can). I had an unfortunate experience getting a good match with Krylon. >>After a call to their factory, they did a test based on the batch numbers >>(they store samples from every batch). Sure enough, the batches had a very >>noticable shift in color. They sent me a check so that I could have a >>professional strip and repaint the item. They said this happens frequently. >> >>Steve Horn >>Horn2004@aol.com >> There is another similar product available in home depot type stores that some people like. Can't remember the name but I think Jeff Scott used it. LOts of colors available. NOt sure of its durability. I have heard some bad comments about Zolatone. May have been that you have to prime the surface and seal coat it but again my memory is vague on that. Ron "Just spray it with something" Lee ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 13:39:23 -0700 From: mimsmand@ix.netcom.com Subject: Re: KR: Non-builder plane maintenance Ron Lee wrote: > Michael, > > I was concerned about this when I was looking to buy a homebuilt. Based on my research, I will be able to do anything I wish on the plane EXCEPT for the annual condition inspection. If you find out positively otherwise, I don't want to hear it :) > > Ron "Why not use Elmers glue on that wood splice?" Lee Interesting, I have had FSDOs in Alaska and now in California tell me you can only do preventative maintenance on a homebuilt that you did not build! Humm................... ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 15:34:13 -0600 (MDT) From: Ron Lee Subject: Re: KR: Non-builder plane maintenance >Interesting, I have had FSDOs in Alaska and now in California tell me >you can only do preventative maintenance on a homebuilt that you did not >build! Humm................... > I may be wrong too but Check this URL for more than what I snipped: http://www.halcyon.com/wanttaja/maint.html Now about who can do work on amateur-built aircraft. Anyone can normally work on an experimental aircraft and sign off the work, including your two-year-old son. Some FAA field inspectors do not believe this. Remember FAR Part 43.1(b) "This part does not apply to any aircraft for which an experimental airworthiness certificate has been issued." The operating limitations that each experimental aircraft must have are what replaces Part 43. Each set of operating limitations is different. However, an FAA inspector has the power to place a requirement in the operating limitations that all work must be done by an FAA certified A&P. So far to EAA's knowledge, this has never happened on an amateur built aircraft. Most operating limitations contain a statement that says an annual "condition" inspection must be performed per the scope and detail of FAR Part 43 Appendix D. It also states that an FAA certificated A&P or repairman must perform this inspection. Note it says, "A&P or Repairman." It does not require an IA. Let me clarify this. Anyone can work on an experimental aircraft and sign off the work. However, the annual "condition" inspection must be completed by an A&P or a Repairman. I take this to mean I can work on it all I want even though I did not build it. But the anuual must be done by an A&P type. Therefor I will proceed without asking anymore questions :) Ron ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 14:59:34 -0700 From: mimsmand@ix.netcom.com Subject: Re: KR: Non-builder plane maintenance Ron Lee wrote: >Let me clarify this. Anyone can work on an experimental aircraft and sign off the work. However, the annual "condition" > inspection must be completed by an A&P or a Repairman. > I take this to mean I can work on it all I want even though I did not build it. But the anuual must be done by an A&P type. Therefor I will proceed without asking anymore questions :) > > Ron Your right thats what it says!!?? So those guys who are supposed to know the FARs inside and out do not! Should I be supprised? NOT!! :-) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 18:23:04 -0500 From: robert k adams Subject: Re: KR: Non-builder plane maintenance At 01:39 PM 6/10/97 -0700, you wrote: >Ron Lee wrote: > >> Michael, >> >> I was concerned about this when I was looking to buy a homebuilt. Based on my research, I will be able to do anything I wish on the plane EXCEPT for the annual condition inspection. If you find out positively otherwise, I don't want to hear it :) >> >> Ron "Why not use Elmers glue on that wood splice?" Lee > > >Interesting, I have had FSDOs in Alaska and now in California tell me >you can only do preventative maintenance on a homebuilt that you did not >build! Humm................... > > naturally because they make money haveing thier people work on your airplanes and selling you extreemly high priced parts. i talked this over with a faa inspector before i purchased my kr and was told you can do whatever you wish but it must conform with good & safe aircraft standards. i have rebuilt my engine, made my own tail dragger gear and added 2 fuel pumps, a different carb plus many other things and it had its annual last sat and passed with flying colors. also you may do the same to a production airplane as long as an a/p approves ov your work and will sign it off, i know cause iv done it more than once, but again your work must conform to high standards bob adams mistic@vci.net KR-2 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 19:37:20 EDT From: jscott.pilot@juno.com (Jeffrey E. Scott) Subject: Re: KR: Painting ineterior parts?? On Tue, 10 Jun 1997 07:52:29 -0700 Micheal Mims writes: >Hello Sports fans! I installed he window in my door and it looks >great! >Anyway I have a question or two about painting areas in the cockpit. >I hat >to start applying paint to anything but I noticed with the canopy >arraignment that if I don't paint some things now it will be darn near >impossible to paint them later because of access. > > Did some of you builders paint certain pieces inside the cockpit this >early >in construction and if so did the paint last well enough so that it >still >looked good when you finally finished your project? I had to paint >the >inside of my baggage area because it would have been impossible to >paint at >a later date. Now I am thinking about painting the side panels, >instrument >panel and other bulkheads before I install my windshield and right >side >window to avoid getting paint on them and the possibility of not >having very >good access to paint them at a later date. > >PS I am using Krylon splatter paint and it works great! It comes with >a >small can of clear coat to apply after it dries. > >_______________________ >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >Micheal Mims >Just Plane Nutts >mailto:mimsmand@ix.netcom.com > >http://www.netcom.com/~mimsmand > > Mike, The panel and insides of my canopy are painted with similar stuff (fleck-stone by Plasti-Kote) and much of it was painted several years ago. Give it a good heavy clear coat and it will stand up quite well. One thing I would recommend is using a base coat of some solid color first. Then you will only need about 1/3 as much of the splatter paint. It will save you weight, $$, and looks better because you get better coverage. Also the lighter coat of splatter paint is won't chip near so easily. Jeff - ---- Jeffrey Scott jscott.pilot@juno.com See construction of KR-2S N1213W at http://fly.hiwaay.net/~langford/kjeffs.html - ---- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 09 Jun 1997 19:20:04 -0700 From: Donald Reid Subject: Re: KR: Wooden Construction Owen Davies wrote: In reference to scarf joints in structural members > However, my impression is that this was done only when the > spar was built in several layers (up-and-down or front-to-back) so that > each scarf would be backed up by solid wood, and I believe that in spar > repairs the scarf is supposed to be supported by plywood reinforcements. > That isn't an option on pieces as slender as the longerons. > Does anyone really know the answer here? > > Owen Davies The following is from one of my most treasured reference books (geek engineer at work). I got it from my dad who has been an EAA member since '57. The book is called ANC-18, Design of Wood Aircraft Structures. It was published by the Department of Defense, Munitions Board, Aircraft Committee, in 1951. Quoting from this "bible" The following requirements should be observed in specifying scarf joints in solid or laminated beams and beam flanges. The slope of all scarfs should be not steeper than 1 in 15. The proportions of end grain appearing on a scarfed surface is undesirable increased if the material to be spliced is somewhat cross-grained, and the scarf is made "across" rather than in the general direction of the grain. For this reason it is very desirable that the following note be added to all beam drawings showing scarf joints. Note: Where cross grain within the specified acceptable limits is present, all scarf cuts should be made in the general direction of the grain slope. In laminated members the longitudinal distance between the nearest scarf tips in adjacent laminations shall be not less than 10 times the thickness of the thicker lamination. In addition to the previously mentioned specific requirements, it is recommended that the number of scarf joints be limited as much as possible; the location be limited to the particular portion of a member where margins of safety are most adequate and stress concentrations are not serious; and special care be exercised to employ good technique in all preparatory gluing, and pressing operations. Where necessary tapering produces an angle between the grain and edge of the piece greater than the allowable slope for the particular species, the piece should be reinforced to prevent splitting by glueing plywood reinforcing plates to the faces. To sum all this up, it is OK in either solid or laminated (longerons are a type of beam flange), a scarf joint of 12-15 to 1 slope does not necessarily need any additional reinforcement if the grain slope of the wood is acceptable, and the line of the scarf joint should follow as much as possible the grain slope in the wood. It is also written in some reference books that the scarf joint pieces should not be sanded prior to gluing. The sanding residue is supposed to contaminate the joint and result in a weaker glue line. This may be left over from the less than adequate glues that were available in the old days, but it sounds like a good thing no matter what type of glue is used. If you ask an Engineer "do you really know the answer?" you need to be prepared for an answer. Sometimes they are a little longwinded. - -- Don Reid donreid@erols.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 16:58:15 -0700 From: mimsmand@ix.netcom.com Subject: Re: KR: Painting ineterior parts?? Jeffrey E. Scott wrote: One thing I would recommend is using a base coat of some solid color > first. Then you will only need about 1/3 as much of the splatter paint. This is what I did, I used an almond base coat and sprayed the sand stone splatter over it. Looks really cool with only two light coats of splatter paint! I painted two or three heavy clear coats on top of the splatter and it feels like its pretty tuff, I will give it the old drop the clipboard test tonight! :-) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 20:18:30 -0500 From: "Mark Langford" Subject: KR: Re: prop flange spacer Cary, Ken Brock sells a variety of prop extensions which mate to the SAE 1 flange (used on most KR props, I think) and space it out 3,4,6,and 8 inch increments, but you'd be crazy to use an 8. Their phone number is 714-894-0811 and their address is on my web page below. Mark Langford langford@hiwaay.net http://fly.hiwaay.net/~langford - ---------- > From: Cary Honeywell > To: krnet-l@teleport.com > Subject: KR: prop flange spacer > Date: Tuesday, June 10, 1997 7:26 AM > > I sent this message yesterday, but I think my connection to the server was > severed before it got out. > > When mounting the prop spinner on my Revmaster, I found that there was not > enough space between the cowel and the spinner. Shortening the cowel is not > an option since clearance for the exhaust is at a minimum now. I guess a > spacer is in order. > > My question: is there one on the market or do I get a metal shop to > fabricate? If I have to fabricate, is there any specific metal to be used? > > - Cary - > > KR-2 C-GJMW > C172 C-FRRB > > Email to cary@storm.ca > http://www.storm.ca/~cary/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 18:33:19 -0700 From: Micheal Mims Subject: KR: Homebuilt buyers and maintenance Well I called Brad and a few other guys who know the FSDO around here all too well (I am calling the Long Beach FSDO tomorrow) and they ALL said exactly what I said earlier concerning working on an aircraft that you did not build. You are pretty much limited to preventative maintenance, an A&P or the repairman (guy who built the airplane) must do any major work. This is what I have always been led to believe but hopefully I will get a clarifications on it tomorrow. Two of the guys I talked too just purchased already flying homebuilts and just went through all this with our local FSDO so I think they might know what's up! They were told that only the holder of the repair station/repairman certificate or an A&P is allowed to perform other than preventative maintenance and the repairman certificate that you get when you certify your experimental is only valid for your aircraft and is NOT transferable. Of course all this is for those of you who are worried about legal to the word FARs. Anyway I will call tomorrow and get a FAR interpretation / explanation from the Long Beach FSDO and I will ask the FAA employee if I can quote him! See YA! _______________________ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Micheal Mims Just Plane Nutts mailto:mimsmand@ix.netcom.com http://www.netcom.com/~mimsmand ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 21:02:56 From: brian whatcott Subject: Re: KR: Non-builder plane maintenance At 18:23 6/10/97 -0500, Robert K Adams wrote: (in response to this) >>Interesting, I have had FSDOs in Alaska and now in California tell me >>you can only do preventative maintenance on a homebuilt that you did not >>build! Humm................... >> >> >naturally because they make money haveing thier people work on your >airplanes and selling you extreemly high priced parts. > bob adams Huh? That was FSDO not FBO !! brian whatcott Altus OK ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 21:17:32 From: brian whatcott Subject: Re: KR: Re: prop flange spacer At 20:18 6/10/97 -0500, you wrote: >Cary, > >Ken Brock sells a variety of prop extensions which mate to the SAE 1 flange >(used on most KR props, I think) and space it out 3,4,6,and 8 inch >increments, but you'd be crazy to use an 8. Their phone number is >714-894-0811 and their address is on my web page below. > >Mark Langford For what it's worth: I mentioned buying a prop hub for a vw with an SAE1 bolt pattern: "6 5/16 holes on a 4 inch pitch circle" I got a response saying that that's a "VW hub" and the SAE1 hub has bigger holes on a bigger pitch circle.... regards brian whatcott Altus OK ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 21:02:39 -0500 From: "Mark Langford" Subject: KR: max firewall HP Marty asked about max HP that the KR2S is designed for. I believe Jeannette (proper spelling, I swear) said at the Oshkosh forum last year that it would handle 100 for sure. Her stress guy said it would handle more, but didn't elaborate. Mark Langford langford@hiwaay.net http://fly.hiwaay.net/~langford ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Jun 97 7:23:23 ÿÿÿ From: steveb@aviation.denel.co.za Subject: KR: Wooden Construction I see a reference made to ANC-18, Design of Wood Aircraft Structures, published by the Department of Defense, Munitions Board, Aircraft Committee, in 1951. I contacted the NTIS, Springfield, Virginia for a copy of this doc. However, I am also looking for the ANC 19 that deals with the design aspects of Propellers and NTIS does not have this doc as part of their stock. Does anybody know where I can source this document? Steve in SA ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 01:34:31 EDT From: jscott.pilot@juno.com (Jeffrey E. Scott) Subject: KR: N1213W Flies!!! Ladies, Gentlemen, and other Netheads, This is the other post that it seems that I have been waiting for years to make. This evening June 10, 1997, after what seems like an eternity of building, N1213W finally took flight from the main runway at Santa Fe, New Mexico. As they say, "A day I shall always remember." Before I get into the analysis of the first flight, I would like to first publicly thank my wife, Becky and my sons, Curtis and Matthew for their unending understanding, patience and assistance as I have spent evenings, weekends and the vacation money for the last few years out in the garage building this flying machine. I would also like to publicly thank John Bryhan for his assistance in getting this machine off the ground and many hours put in as the second set of hands, ground support, and photographer. First Flight Analysis: For those that may not be familiar with my plane, it is a KR-2S that was started prior to the release of the KR-2S addendum from Rand Robinson. It has the extra (ala KR-2S) 14" bay in the tail, but has a standard KR-2 tail, the 3" longer RR KR-2S/O-200 engine mount, a C-85 powerplant, and no flaps/bellyboard/spoilers. As I had suspected after my high speed taxi tests on Sunday, this plane is very sensitive on the elevator. After takeoff rotation, I immediately stairstepped the plane up the first couple of hundred feet while trying to get a feel for the elevator. In my opinion, this could be fixed by the addition of more horizontal stabilizer, whether it be strakes forward from the horizontal stab or just adding onto the horiontal stab. Even taking off from Santa Fe (6344ASL), the plane climbed comfortably up to 10,000 feet where I leveled out and played with the slow flight charactoristics in preparation for trying to get it back onto the ground. I found the ailerons and rudder to be very easy and comfortable throughout the tested range (60 - 130mph IAS at 10,000ft), but the elevator to be easy to overcontrol especially at slower speeds. I'll let those that are better with the whiz wheels tell me what my tested speed trues out to, but I would guess 145 - 150 mph TAS. One thing that surprised me is that there is little difference in the feel of the plane or the noise level between 70 and 120 mph indicated. I have to look at the airspeed indicator and believe what it is saying, because I can't feel it in the plane. First landing attempt turned into a go around as I approached by feel rather than using the airspeed indicator and flew the approach WAY to hot. Once I started to get the plane slowed down, I got into a degrading case of pilot induced oscillations as I bounced in and out of ground effect. I finally decided it was time to go around for another shot at it. On the second approach, I flew the plane by the numbers I had in my head from playing with slowflight up at 10,000 feet. Approach at 70, over the fence at 60, 55 over the numbers, bleed the rest off while pulling the nose up to stall it in. A very smooth (and very blind) three point landing. Just like landing from the backseat of my champ. All temps and pressures ran in the green throughout the flight. 2300rpm during climbout. 2500 if I wanted to push it in level flight. Engine/prop performance was perfect! Postflight walkaround revealed that my new glass spinner had a 2" crack in it from the first flight. I thought it was kind of flimsy to start with. We'll have to see if A/C spruce will take it back. The rest of the plane appeared to be in excellent condition, but it will get a thorough inspection before it flies again. One other problem is that I flew most of the time with full nose up trim. As the re-engineering guys have been saying for the last year, this plane really needs less incidence, or it needs to have the nose of the horizontal stabilizer mounted a bit higher. One fix/workaround on a finished airplane is to add additional trim to the bottom of the elevator, but the ultimate solution would to be to engineer it correctly in the first place. This is a point where Mark Langford's moveable horizontal stab would be VERY valuable. At any rate, the wings and the horizontal stabilizer don't seem to be well matched. All in all, it was a successful first flight and I am satisfied with my flying machine even though I can see where it could use some improvement. As the newsman says, tune in at 5 for pictures. John Bryhan was flying as a passenger in the chase plane and was able to shoot several pictures with his telephoto lense. A trip to one hour photo mart tomorrow and he should have some scanned and posted to his website sometime tomorrow afternoon. That's "http://www.laintra.com/jeb/krpage.htm" Jeff "it finally flew" Scott - ---- Jeffrey Scott jscott.pilot@juno.com See construction of KR-2S N1213W at http://fly.hiwaay.net/~langford/kjeffs.html - ---- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 01:57:30 -0400 (EDT) From: MikeTnyc@aol.com Subject: KR: Re: Non-builder Plane Maintenance > The same thing happened a year or two ago concerning whether buyers of >homebuilts built by someone else can do all their own maintenance. The >answer is "yes," except for the annuals, but some FAA bureaucrat told a >person on this list completely the opposite. > > >The non builder can only do the same maintenance to his newly acquired >homebuilt (pre-built) as he could any other certified aircraft. (mostly >preventative) an A&P or the manufacturer has to do the rest. This is a myth I thought we killed a year ago, so here we go again: Experimental aircraft are not covered by Part 42. Period. You can do any kind of maintenance whatever on a homebuilt you purchase except the annual (i.e., "condition inspection") which can be done only by the builder or an A&P. I'm afraid I cannot look it up now, because I'm moving and my books are packed. However, this should all be in the archives. >Yes you do >lose some of the privileges when you buy a homebuilt instead building your >own. If not, why the heck would anyone build one when they could buy one >and have all the benefits of building it? You're not getting "all the benefits of building it," because you don't have the satisfaction of building it, or of modifying it the way you want. I'm not positive of this, but I believe "maintenance" of the plane the way you bought it would not include any significant changes (i.e., substitute engine, tri-gear, etc.) Since so many KR's are not built to plans, you could probably modify it back to the plans with an A&P signoff. >Interesting, I have had FSDOs in Alaska and now in California tell me >you can only do preventative maintenance on a homebuilt that you did >not build! Humm................... As I said about the transponders, these guys seem to think their opinions are the law. Actually, I'm not sure most A&P's would WANT to be involved in the day-to-day maintenance of nontraditional homebuilts, since they can have engines and construction methods the A&P may never have seen before. Mike Taglieri ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 23:39:21 -0600 From: cartera@cuug.ab.ca Subject: Re: KR: N1213W Flies!!! Congratulation Jeff, now the fun starts and the frustration of the building will start to fade. Good Luck and Happy Flying! On Wed, 11 Jun 1997, jscott.pilot@juno.com (Jeffrey E. Scott) wrote: >Ladies, Gentlemen, and other Netheads, > >This is the other post that it seems that I have been waiting for years >to make. > >This evening June 10, 1997, after what seems like an eternity of >building, N1213W finally took flight from the main runway at Santa Fe, >New Mexico. As they say, "A day I shall always remember." > >Before I get into the analysis of the first flight, I would like to first >publicly thank my wife, Becky and my sons, Curtis and Matthew for their >unending understanding, patience and assistance as I have spent evenings, >weekends and the vacation money for the last few years out in the garage >building this flying machine. I would also like to publicly thank John >Bryhan for his assistance in getting this machine off the ground and many >hours put in as the second set of hands, ground support, and >photographer. > > >First Flight Analysis: > >For those that may not be familiar with my plane, it is a KR-2S that was >started prior to the release of the KR-2S addendum from Rand Robinson. >It has the extra (ala KR-2S) 14" bay in the tail, but has a standard KR-2 >tail, the 3" longer RR KR-2S/O-200 engine mount, a C-85 powerplant, and >no flaps/bellyboard/spoilers. > >As I had suspected after my high speed taxi tests on Sunday, this plane >is very sensitive on the elevator. After takeoff rotation, I immediately >stairstepped the plane up the first couple of hundred feet while trying >to get a feel for the elevator. In my opinion, this could be fixed by >the addition of more horizontal stabilizer, whether it be strakes forward >from the horizontal stab or just adding onto the horiontal stab. Even >taking off from Santa Fe (6344ASL), the plane climbed comfortably up to >10,000 feet where I leveled out and played with the slow flight >charactoristics in preparation for trying to get it back onto the ground. > I found the ailerons and rudder to be very easy and comfortable >throughout the tested range (60 - 130mph IAS at 10,000ft), but the >elevator to be easy to overcontrol especially at slower speeds. I'll let >those that are better with the whiz wheels tell me what my tested speed >trues out to, but I would guess 145 - 150 mph TAS. > >One thing that surprised me is that there is little difference in the >feel of the plane or the noise level between 70 and 120 mph indicated. I >have to look at the airspeed indicator and believe what it is saying, >because I can't feel it in the plane. > >First landing attempt turned into a go around as I approached by feel >rather than using the airspeed indicator and flew the approach WAY to >hot. Once I started to get the plane slowed down, I got into a degrading >case of pilot induced oscillations as I bounced in and out of ground >effect. I finally decided it was time to go around for another shot at >it. On the second approach, I flew the plane by the numbers I had in my >head from playing with slowflight up at 10,000 feet. Approach at 70, >over the fence at 60, 55 over the numbers, bleed the rest off while >pulling the nose up to stall it in. A very smooth (and very blind) three >point landing. Just like landing from the backseat of my champ. > >All temps and pressures ran in the green throughout the flight. 2300rpm >during climbout. 2500 if I wanted to push it in level flight. >Engine/prop performance was perfect! > >Postflight walkaround revealed that my new glass spinner had a 2" crack >in it from the first flight. I thought it was kind of flimsy to start >with. We'll have to see if A/C spruce will take it back. The rest of >the plane appeared to be in excellent condition, but it will get a >thorough inspection before it flies again. > >One other problem is that I flew most of the time with full nose up trim. > As the re-engineering guys have been saying for the last year, this >plane really needs less incidence, or it needs to have the nose of the >horizontal stabilizer mounted a bit higher. One fix/workaround on a >finished airplane is to add additional trim to the bottom of the >elevator, but the ultimate solution would to be to engineer it correctly >in the first place. This is a point where Mark Langford's moveable >horizontal stab would be VERY valuable. At any rate, the wings and the >horizontal stabilizer don't seem to be well matched. > >All in all, it was a successful first flight and I am satisfied with my >flying machine even though I can see where it could use some improvement. > As the newsman says, tune in at 5 for pictures. John Bryhan was flying >as a passenger in the chase plane and was able to shoot several pictures >with his telephoto lense. A trip to one hour photo mart tomorrow and he >should have some scanned and posted to his website sometime tomorrow >afternoon. That's "http://www.laintra.com/jeb/krpage.htm" > >Jeff "it finally flew" Scott >---- >Jeffrey Scott jscott.pilot@juno.com >See construction of KR-2S N1213W at >http://fly.hiwaay.net/~langford/kjeffs.html >---- > > > Adrian VE6AFY cartera@cuug.ab.ca http://www.cuug.ab.ca:8001/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 02:10:21 -0400 (EDT) From: MikeTnyc@aol.com Subject: Re: KR: Non-builder plane maintenance >This is a myth I thought we killed a year ago, so here we go again: >Experimental aircraft are not covered by Part 42. Just for the record, I meant part 43 rather than 42. As I said in the prior post, all my reference books are packed so for now I have to rely on my rather dubious memory. Mike Taglieri ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 23:37:47 -0700 From: David Moore Subject: Re: KR: N1213W Flies!!! Jeff, Congratulations, well done and all the other old sayings. So yesterday you couldn't even spell it, and now you are one, KR PILOT! Happy Flying. Dave Moore At 01:34 AM 06/11/1997 EDT, you wrote: >Ladies, Gentlemen, and other Netheads, > >This is the other post that it seems that I have been waiting for years >to make. > >This evening June 10, 1997, after what seems like an eternity of >building, N1213W finally took flight from the main runway at Santa Fe, >New Mexico. As they say, "A day I shall always remember." > >Before I get into the analysis of the first flight, I would like to first >publicly thank my wife, Becky and my sons, Curtis and Matthew for their >unending understanding, patience and assistance as I have spent evenings, >weekends and the vacation money for the last few years out in the garage >building this flying machine. I would also like to publicly thank John >Bryhan for his assistance in getting this machine off the ground and many >hours put in as the second set of hands, ground support, and >photographer. > > >First Flight Analysis: > >For those that may not be familiar with my plane, it is a KR-2S that was >started prior to the release of the KR-2S addendum from Rand Robinson. >It has the extra (ala KR-2S) 14" bay in the tail, but has a standard KR-2 >tail, the 3" longer RR KR-2S/O-200 engine mount, a C-85 powerplant, and >no flaps/bellyboard/spoilers. > >As I had suspected after my high speed taxi tests on Sunday, this plane >is very sensitive on the elevator. After takeoff rotation, I immediately >stairstepped the plane up the first couple of hundred feet while trying >to get a feel for the elevator. In my opinion, this could be fixed by >the addition of more horizontal stabilizer, whether it be strakes forward >from the horizontal stab or just adding onto the horiontal stab. Even >taking off from Santa Fe (6344ASL), the plane climbed comfortably up to >10,000 feet where I leveled out and played with the slow flight >charactoristics in preparation for trying to get it back onto the ground. > I found the ailerons and rudder to be very easy and comfortable >throughout the tested range (60 - 130mph IAS at 10,000ft), but the >elevator to be easy to overcontrol especially at slower speeds. I'll let >those that are better with the whiz wheels tell me what my tested speed >trues out to, but I would guess 145 - 150 mph TAS. > >One thing that surprised me is that there is little difference in the >feel of the plane or the noise level between 70 and 120 mph indicated. I >have to look at the airspeed indicator and believe what it is saying, >because I can't feel it in the plane. > >First landing attempt turned into a go around as I approached by feel >rather than using the airspeed indicator and flew the approach WAY to >hot. Once I started to get the plane slowed down, I got into a degrading >case of pilot induced oscillations as I bounced in and out of ground >effect. I finally decided it was time to go around for another shot at >it. On the second approach, I flew the plane by the numbers I had in my >head from playing with slowflight up at 10,000 feet. Approach at 70, >over the fence at 60, 55 over the numbers, bleed the rest off while >pulling the nose up to stall it in. A very smooth (and very blind) three >point landing. Just like landing from the backseat of my champ. > >All temps and pressures ran in the green throughout the flight. 2300rpm >during climbout. 2500 if I wanted to push it in level flight. >Engine/prop performance was perfect! > >Postflight walkaround revealed that my new glass spinner had a 2" crack >in it from the first flight. I thought it was kind of flimsy to start >with. We'll have to see if A/C spruce will take it back. The rest of >the plane appeared to be in excellent condition, but it will get a >thorough inspection before it flies again. > >One other problem is that I flew most of the time with full nose up trim. > As the re-engineering guys have been saying for the last year, this >plane really needs less incidence, or it needs to have the nose of the >horizontal stabilizer mounted a bit higher. One fix/workaround on a >finished airplane is to add additional trim to the bottom of the >elevator, but the ultimate solution would to be to engineer it correctly >in the first place. This is a point where Mark Langford's moveable >horizontal stab would be VERY valuable. At any rate, the wings and the >horizontal stabilizer don't seem to be well matched. > >All in all, it was a successful first flight and I am satisfied with my >flying machine even though I can see where it could use some improvement. > As the newsman says, tune in at 5 for pictures. John Bryhan was flying >as a passenger in the chase plane and was able to shoot several pictures >with his telephoto lense. A trip to one hour photo mart tomorrow and he >should have some scanned and posted to his website sometime tomorrow >afternoon. That's "http://www.laintra.com/jeb/krpage.htm" > >Jeff "it finally flew" Scott >---- >Jeffrey Scott jscott.pilot@juno.com >See construction of KR-2S N1213W at >http://fly.hiwaay.net/~langford/kjeffs.html >---- > > David Moore Hesperia,Calif. 92345 Turnkey1@MSCOMM.COM ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 05:49:09 -0700 From: Tom Crawford Subject: Re: KR: Painting ineterior parts?? Horn2004@aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 6/10/97 9:16:50 AM, you wrote: > > < small can of clear coat to apply after it dries.>> > > Only problem with the Krylon, even if it's clear coated, is durability. The > stuff tends to be VERY brittle. The corner of a clipboard bumped into the > cured paint will usually cause a chip. Even flexing over a period of time > will tend to crack the stuff up. You might want to investigate Zoalatone > (sp?) or some other commercial product. If you do go with Krylon, buy an > extra can for touch-up. Make sure they are the same batch number (printed on > the can). I had an unfortunate experience getting a good match with Krylon. > After a call to their factory, they did a test based on the batch numbers > (they store samples from every batch). Sure enough, the batches had a very > noticable shift in color. They sent me a check so that I could have a > professional strip and repaint the item. They said this happens frequently. > > Steve Horn > Horn2004@aol.com I just used Zolotone on the interior of my plane and am vey happy with the results. Amazing stuff- hides a multitude of evils. Very expensive tho, and of course, they wont guarantee the results unless you use their primer which is also expensive. Funny, the primer smelled an awful lot like Bullseye primer which is a lot cheaper. Tom tomc@afn.org KR2 N262TC ------------------------------ End of krnet-l-digest V1 #38 ****************************