From: owner-krnet-l-digest@teleport.com[SMTP:owner-krnet-l-digest@teleport.com] Sent: Monday, December 08, 1997 7:35 PM To: krnet-l-digest@teleport.com Subject: krnet-l-digest V1 #187 krnet-l-digest Monday, December 8 1997 Volume 01 : Number 187 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 8 Dec 1997 06:51:42 -0600 From: "Mark Langford" Subject: Re: KR: Re: aluminum channel MikeT nyc wrote: > This could be the answer to a question I've been wondering about for a long > time: I've got a large suitcase full of about 75 pounds of aluminum of all > shapes and sizes that were scrap, cutoffs and various jigs from a plant where... You may be right about the quality of your aluminum. But like you I've had a few pieces of unknown pedigree sitting around for years that I've been afraid to use for anything critical (that would be just about every single piece on the KR). Everything that I get out of the recycling dumpster at Teledyne Brown Engineering is 6061-T6 at the very least, but you can do much worse. During my "rudder pedal design and construction month" I poked holes in a lot of 6061-T6, and was getting desperate for some 2x2 aluminum, so I pulled this unknown stuff out ( I think I found this particular piece on the side of the road!). I put it on the drill press table and applied the usual force that I've had to apply for the 6061 and the drill bit went through it like butter! And rather than the aluminum chipping away cleanly, much of it was displaced like a bullet would do to a Coke (trademark!) can. I don't know what it was, but it went to the recyler on Saturday. I eventually made my pedals from the 4 x 2.5 angle that RR sells in their "aluminum kit" as firewall reinforcement. Of course you wouldn't even KNOW what was in the aluminum kit unless you bought it from RR, 'cause it's not revealed in the plans... Some places in the plans call for aluminum that is too heavy for the job, mainly in the interest of simplicity of material acquisition, I'm sure. But these places are an opportunity to save weight, not substitute lower strength aluminum. Even with my source for free aluminum, I sucked it up and bought RR's aluminum kit. Because I didn't know the dimensions of what was required, and I knew if I got it from them it would be the right grade. Mark Langford, Huntsville, AL email at langford@hiwaay.net KR2S project construction at http://fly.hiwaay.net/~langford ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 08 Dec 1997 07:19:22 From: "Troy Johnson" Subject: KR: Phoenix Being Invaded!!! Hey KR-netters, Sounds like there is an invasion of KR builders heading my way....Woohoo! Maybe we could set up a place to meet when you are all in town, I am here semi-permanently ( still trying to get that job in CA, Mike M.) but will definitely still be here through the Holidays. Let me know what you guys think. You can reach me at the numbers on my Tag line or at 602-835-7205 evenings. See ya...Troy ************************************************************* If at first you don't succeed.....so much for skydiving! Troy A. Johnson WYLE Electronics 1955 E. Sky Harbor Circle North Phoenix, AZ 85034 (602)-495-9953 (602)-416-2158 (direct) ************************************************************* ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 08 Dec 1997 08:17:39 -0500 From: "Robert M. Simon" Subject: Re: KR: Re: Re:Useless retract information in manual > Mark Langford wrote: > And you're entirely right about another thing. RR's reluctance to improve > the breed (or at least publish decent plans for the ones she has) will > almost certainly lead to the KR series being replaced by far better planes > of similarly inexpensive but faster design. > > Mark Langford, Huntsville, AL > email at langford@hiwaay.net > KR2S project construction at http://fly.hiwaay.net/~langford Mark, As a first time builder I really cannot afford to plan 14 steps ahead and envision a plethora of problems that an experienced builder might forsee. So what "far better plane" might you suggest as a start. Something along the lines of a KR2S but wide enough for 2 people not conjoined at the hip, and with kit parts and plans that fit together and make sense? Robert M. Simon rms@ustek-inc.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 08 Dec 1997 06:18:41 PST From: "Oscar Zuniga" Subject: KR: Design of the KR Mike T wrote: >I'm not sure it would apply to a plane "designed" as casually as the >KR. Mike, that was the mindset I had as well, until I got on the Net, got a set of plans, and started doing homework. To put it in perspective, download the KR-2 design review done years ago by Neil Bingham. In that article, Neil (I don't know his qualifications, other than his building and flying a KR) states that he had not found one single connection, member, bolt, etc. in the KR which was not structurally up to the advertised speeds, G loading, or gross weight. Now, that presumes building exactly to plans, but it does say something about the design. Me not knowing of Ken Rand's aero design qualifications either, the man must have at least had something on the ball to cook up the design, no? Casual it may have been for Ken, but not for the average homebuilder. Anybody ever run a finite-element analysis on the original design? I'd be curious to see how close it was to 'right', and with the possible exception of the retract gear arrangement, it's a nice design- witness how many of us are here building, flying, and talking about it. My opinion. And, you also wrote: >why should someone put up with years and years of cost, mess, and >strain on the relationship if he's never gonna get a chance to go up >in the damn plane? If a spouse has any possible interest in riding >someday, I'd build the 2 or 2's. Apparently (since you're not married), you don't know: this is the normal way guys do things. We ALWAYS make messes and spend money for years and years, with the express purpose of straining the relationship! If it's not one project, it's another. I had this same dilemma, but figured (1)she'll never go up in something that I built in the garage anyway, and (2)if I need to take her somewhere in an airplane, her first choice is a Seneca anyway, so why fight it? If that's what she wants to travel in, let her spring for the $185/hr. or whatever it is, and let's go fly! Keep talkin', buddy- we're getting a lot of groundswell for a new KR spinoff design here! Regards Oscar Zuniga Medford, Oregon ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 08 Dec 1997 06:23:35 PST From: "Oscar Zuniga" Subject: KR: E-Mail to RR was KR2S Drawings ><< You might also try an email to pilot@fly-kr.com (also from the KR > Homepage). > >> > I once sent an e-mail to them and never got a response. Yep, this is what I did back in September before I first got on the Net. But then Mike Stearns was kind enough to reply, and to steer me here. I don't know if he is still doing that, though. Apparently R-R uses the e-mail address as a come-on, but it isn't actively supported. BTW- I wrote to Jeanette a week ago or so, asking about re-registering the plans I bought from Ricky Pitman (he never built his KR-2); we'll see what she says. My purpose was to try to buy a set of the -2S supplement without having to buy a whole new set of KR-2 plans. I am prepared to buy the whole enchilada again, but obviously would rather not have to. Oscar ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 08 Dec 1997 06:29:19 PST From: "Oscar Zuniga" Subject: KR: Marsh's KR >>Roy Marsh's KR-2S goes 180 mph but he's using a different airfoil, >>shorter wings, and a lot more than 80 hp to do it. That article in Jan >>95 Kitplanes is such BS and misrepresentative of the KR-2S it's a >>disservice to kitbuilders. > What gets me is that R-R thinks enough of Marsh's KR to use it so profusely in its ad material, yet it's not really a KR as available on plans. I was truly disappointed to find out that it wasn't a plans-built KR as I interpret plans-built. But boy do I like the paint job and the way it looks! Oscar Zuniga Medford, Oregon ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Dec 1997 09:01:03 -0600 (CST) From: Steven A Eberhart Subject: KR: New KR design As the members of our private "Area 51" group will tell you, I have gone the full circle in considering new design ideas. Seems that once you make the first modification you start thinking of your self as an aircraft designer and start thinking you are the next Burt Rutan. I have finally come back down to earth and consider the basic design a classic. A small airplane needs to be _LIGHT_. Weight is the enemy and he needs to be battled on all fronts. There have been advances in aerodynamics since the KR was designed 25 years ago. Composite construction techniques have matured and understanding of airfoils have taken great leaps forward. I don't think that we have come up with a construction method for the fuselage that will give us a lighter fuselage than the basic spruce boat. Wing construction methods for one off construction and for mass production have improved though. Most of Burt Rutan's current designs, Boomerang, Vantage jet, Williams jet, etc all have foreward swept wings that let the designer have better control over the CG range. Just thinking out loud but the following is my current thinking on a new KR like design: a. stock KR-2S fuselage with a possible additional stretch to the tail. b. Stock KR wing spars with hot wired blue foam inserts using a state of the art airfoil. THis would be for a plans built plane. sandwich core composite skins like RR and Diel for prefab kits. c. Optional wing with 10 degree forward sweep possibly using Rutan's Long EZ construction methods. THis would use the same spruce boat but would have the mean aerodynamic chord in teh same location as the stock KR-2S. The fuel would be in the sub wing leading edge and, because of the forward sweep, would be closer to the CG. You could also get teh passengers closer to the CG as well. d. Optional composite molded parts for the turtle decks and canopy frame (dragonfly canopy). e. consider a stabilator with anti-servo tabs so that the elevator autohrity would be there and the anti-servo tabs could be tweeked for desired control force. This isn't too far from the KR-2S design, just taking advantage of some more current aerodynamic and construction thinking. The resulting plane could be a 100% plans built plane or have prefab subassemblies available for it. With the plans in a 3d cad database, templates, plans, etc. would be a no brainer. Again, just thinking out loud. As always, these are just my own thoughts and all you can assume is that any plane build from these ideas can only be guaranteed to fall from the sky :-) Legal cover your ass mode now off. Steve ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 08 Dec 1997 07:03:17 -0800 From: Micheal Mims Subject: Re: KR: Improved KR?/Nose Gear At 12:50 AM 12/8/97 -0800, you wrote: Sheesh Mike. Why not? Never mind. Then you will be like the RR of Net >Discussion in that dept...and get thrashed about too for the omission. As you should for sounding snobbish. ;) > >I tail you whut. > >Robert Covington > >(Building a Tri-Gear, without any shame whatsoever) > > > Boy I tell U whut! I aint gona put no nose wheel on it because that alone will keep the people out of it who don't belong in it! Ill tell U whut! :o) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Micheal Mims Remember,..Service Guarantees Citizenship mailto:mikemims@pacbell.net http://home.pacbell.net/mikemims ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 08 Dec 1997 11:08:47 -0500 From: smithr Subject: Re: KR: Re: Larger Flap then plans > MARVIN MCCOY wrote: > > > I was wondering what problems I might get into by making the > > flaps larger then shown on the plans. The plans show a flap that is > > about six inches wide or deep. I think Mark Langford has a picture of a > > flap that appears to be hinging off of the rear spar. As much as I would like to try Langford's split flap, I am very concerned with making changes here. I see 2 possible problems: 1) lots of turbulence produced with unknown consequences for the hstab/elev and 2) with an unproven newly engineered design, the chance for 1 flap to break under stress causing a nasty roll. Therefore I think I'll have to stick to something close to the plans flaps or belly board which has been tested. Bob Smith (there is a limit to my bravery) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 08 Dec 1997 07:13:52 -0800 From: Micheal Mims Subject: Re: KR: Design of the KR At 06:18 AM 12/8/97 PST, you wrote: >Me not knowing of Ken Rand's aero design qualifications either, the man must have at least had something on the ball to cook up the design, no? Yo Homer, Ken didn't design the KR, he bought a set of Taylor monoplane plans and built it with surfboard style wings. The design is a lot older than most people realize! I think the Taylor Monoplane came about back in the late 50s or early 60s. Almost all the wood structure (IE all structural members) of the KR are a direct copy of the Monoplane. In effect he did exactly what I am doing, took a design and changed to his liking. Plane (ha ha) and simple! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Micheal Mims Remember,..Service Guarantees Citizenship mailto:mikemims@pacbell.net http://home.pacbell.net/mikemims ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 08 Dec 1997 07:56:04 -0500 From: george bell Subject: Re: KR: Progress This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - --------------9D023B7C7D1FE4AEEAD0D9A2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mike, we received two progress reports on krnet. Micheal Mims wrote: > Sports Fans and Flood Victims (its raining in Southern Cali) I put in a > good 6 hours today filling and sanding. I am happy to report both t-decks > are filled and sanded. I have a few minor areas that will require more > filler but for the most part they are ready for primer!. > > mailto:mikemims@pacbell.net > http://home.pacbell.net/mikemims - --------------9D023B7C7D1FE4AEEAD0D9A2 Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii; name="vcard.vcf" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Description: Card for George P. Bell Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="vcard.vcf" begin: vcard fn: George P. Bell n: Bell;George P. email;internet: gpbell@pacbell.net x-mozilla-cpt: ;0 x-mozilla-html: FALSE version: 2.1 end: vcard - --------------9D023B7C7D1FE4AEEAD0D9A2-- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 08 Dec 1997 12:47:09 -0500 From: smithr Subject: KR: cutting a canopy Here is a tip: I have had to cut my 1/8" plexiglass dragonfly canopy to fit my KR. I found that my small battery-powered rotary Dremel with a small (about 1/2" dia) saw blade worked great. With a little patience I was able to make long cuts with no damage to the canopy. Just touch up the edge with some sandpaper. PS The Dragonfly canopy is a dream to work with -- like Jello, it goes where you want it Bob Smith ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 08 Dec 1997 12:57:03 -0500 From: smithr Subject: KR: Bam Bi canopy setup I checked out the Bam Bi forward hinging canopy attachment in the Nov issue of Sport Aviation as someone suggested. Looks good. Would like to see it in real life. In a KR it would hinge on the top of the longerons. I see the advantage in stability when open and maybe strength for the canopy attachment but this design would seem to have the disadvantage of a longer seam between canopy and forward deck. I'm not convinced its better than the normal forward hinge setup. Bob Smith ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 07 Dec 97 15:35:59 GMT From: mathewrz@iafrica.com (Rob Matthews) Subject: Re: KR: E-Mail to RR was KR2S Drawings On 7/12/97 8:56AM, in message <2fc63008.348a488a@aol.com>, LVav8r wrote: Hi Tom I think that the email address that you have is the one that Mike Stearns used and i beleive that he is no longer with with and had to sell his project etc. Mike was in close contact with RR and messages were sent to her via him. Cheers Rob Matthews (From Sunny South Africa) > I sent this to the KRNet a day or two ago and never saw it come back so > here it is again. Sorry if you got this twice. > > > In a message dated 97-12-05 22:11:47 EST, you write: > > << You might also try an email to pilot@fly-kr.com (also from the KR > Homepage). > >> > I once sent an e-mail to them and never got a response. I later called > them and inquired about it and was told that the site is maintained by a > builder and they didn't find out about my e-mail for a week or two. So the > best way to communicate with Jeanette is to use the old-fashioned telephone or > snail mail. I've called several times and as long as you call during normal > business hours someone will probably be there to take the call. > > > Tom Kilgore > Las Vegas, NV > LVav8r@aol.com > http://members.aol.com/LVav8r/index.html > KR-2S 2% complete > __I__ > _______( X )_______ > o/ \o > - -- Rob Matthews Have a nice day South Africa email mathewrz@iafrica.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 08 Dec 1997 12:57:02 -0500 From: Patrick Flowers Subject: KR: KRNetters at Sun N Fun? Sun N Fun is scheduled for April 19 - 25, 1998. Any KRNetters planning to go. I know it's a little late, but I'm trying to line up my hotel reservations. Probably will try to make the opening weekend and would like to meet as many of you as possible while there. Other dates of interest(gonna' try to make all of them next year) - May 15 - 17, 1998 R.A.H flyin at Pinckneyville IL(PJY) July 29 - Aug. 4, 1998 - EAA Oshkosh, WI Sept. 18 - 20, 1998 - KR Gathering Perry OK Patrick - -- Patrick Flowers Mailto:patri63@ibm.net ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Dec 1997 12:09:04 -0600 (CST) From: Steven A Eberhart Subject: Re: KR: KRNetters at Sun N Fun? On Mon, 8 Dec 1997, Patrick Flowers wrote: Going to try to make Sun N Fun and the Gathering for sure. Not sure about Oshkosh, its 50-50 right now. Steve > Sun N Fun is scheduled for April 19 - 25, 1998. Any KRNetters planning > to go. I know it's a little late, but I'm trying to line up my hotel > reservations. Probably will try to make the opening weekend and would > like to meet as many of you as possible while there. > > Other dates of interest(gonna' try to make all of them next year) - > > May 15 - 17, 1998 R.A.H flyin at Pinckneyville IL(PJY) > July 29 - Aug. 4, 1998 - EAA Oshkosh, WI > Sept. 18 - 20, 1998 - KR Gathering Perry OK > > Patrick > -- > Patrick Flowers > Mailto:patri63@ibm.net > ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Dec 1997 14:42:15 EST From: BSHADR Subject: KR: JD Crash KRNetters: This from the net ie John Denver accident: << George Patterson, the lead investigator for the NTSB's investigation of the JD crash postulates in AGNews & Flyer that, since the utterly destroyed wreckage was found (within minutes) with virtually no gas slick at the crash site, the cockpit fuel transfer valve was found in the midway position between two tanks and fuel tank sight gauges were not visible to the pilot, there's a good chance that JD simply ran out of fuel at between 300-500 ft AGL, and crashed trying to switch tanks. The fuel transfer valve was mounted in a non-standard position (over his left shoulder) which required him to let go of the stick to switch over the valve. The fuel tanks sight gauges required a mirror to be visible by the pilot (JD had borrowed one a little earlier). >> This seems to be the plausible explanation to date. Off the record talk out of the Rutan camp indicates he was only at about 100 ft AGL. The popping sound seems to have been fuel exhaustion. This particular EZ was set up to run very lean and was known to pop a lot upon throttle reduction, this was offered by EZ guys who knew the plane. Vice-grip type pliers were indeed found in the wreckage (possibly attached to the fuel valve). If John had his right hand over his left shoulder to operate the (maybe sticky) valve with pliers, he would be flying with his left across his body to control the stick. He might have had both hands on the valve/pliers and in the twisted torso position, could have inadvertently stomped on the rudder pedal which likely would have snapped the plane over and into a vertical dive. <> Draw your own conclusions, but IMHO, the EZ design or structural failure are not likely the cause of this accident. New to the pilot aircraft, low altitude, fuel exhaustion...all are beginning to sound like the main reasons for this accident. Not an unheard of group of circumstances in many general aviation accidents. Airplanes are very safe overall, but also can be very unforgiving of transgressions. Automobiles have a higher accident rate than aircraft, however, the odds of serious injury tend to be lower due to the lower speeds and larger structural mass surrounding the occupants. Randy Stein BSHADR@aol.com Soviet Monica, CA ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 08 Dec 1997 11:56:52 -0700 From: cartera@cuug.ab.ca Subject: Re: KR: test bmsi@ix.netcom.com wrote: > > Micheal Mims wrote: > > > > Weird, it seems that only one out of every 6 post of mine are making it to > > the net! Did anyone get my progress report? > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Micheal Mims > > Remember,..Service Guarantees Citizenship > > > > mailto:mikemims@pacbell.net > > http://home.pacbell.net/mikemims > > Yep! Got it twice so far. You're moving right along. What else is > there to do on a rainy day? Watch out for the slidding houses out there > :o) > > Bruce S. Campbell > Tampa Hi Mike, Yep, got it twice today, was not on yesterday. Looks like your moving right along with your project and doing a hellva job! - -- Adrian VE6AFY cartera@cuug.ab.ca http://www.cuug.ab.ca/~cartera ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 08 Dec 1997 16:19:40 -0800 From: Tom Crawford Subject: Re: KR: Design of the KR Micheal Mims wrote: > > At 06:18 AM 12/8/97 PST, you wrote: > >Me not knowing of Ken Rand's aero design qualifications either, the man > must have at least had something on the ball to cook up the design, no? > > Yo Homer, Ken didn't design the KR, he bought a set of Taylor monoplane > plans and built it with surfboard style wings. The design is a lot older > than most people realize! I think the Taylor Monoplane came about back in > the late 50s or early 60s. Almost all the wood structure (IE all structural > members) of the KR are a direct copy of the Monoplane. In effect he did > exactly what I am doing, took a design and changed to his liking. Plane (ha > ha) and simple! > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Micheal Mims > Remember,..Service Guarantees Citizenship > > mailto:mikemims@pacbell.net > http://home.pacbell.net/mikemims I think he borrowed more than a few ideas. I have been looking at the plans for a flybaby (1960's design) and the aileron assembly looks mighty familiar! Tom Crawford tomc@afn.org Gainesville, FL N262TC flying! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 08 Dec 1997 15:32:39 -0500 From: Patrick Flowers Subject: Re: KR: KRNetters at Sun N Fun? Anyone care to designate a KRNet "headquarters" hotel for Sun N Fun? We need to move pretty quick tho', as rooms will get real tough to find after 1/1/98. I'm game, but I've just been reminded of a wedding in my wife's family the opening weekend. So, it looks like I'll be arriving on 4/20 and would be happy to buy the first round of drinks for the KRNet crew that evening. Patrick - -- Patrick Flowers Mailto:patri63@ibm.net ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Dec 1997 19:31:14, -0500 From: YCGB97A@prodigy.com (MR JEAN R VERON) Subject: KR: New KR design Steve About the modern airfoil, look at what the spar thickness would be! I did that and found that you would have to redesign the spar and that aint good . Jean N4DD ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 08 Dec 1997 19:53:01 -0500 From: Tom Andersen Subject: Re: KR: Re: Re:Useless retract information in manual Robert M. Simon wrote: > As a first time builder I really cannot afford to plan 14 steps ahead > and > envision a plethora of problems that an experienced builder might > forsee. > So what "far better plane" might you suggest as a start. Something > along > the lines of a KR2S but wide enough for 2 people not conjoined at the > hip, > and with kit parts and plans that fit together and make sense? > > Robert M. Simon > rms@ustek-inc.com Robert, The KR-2S is in a class by itself in terms of bang for the buck. If you only want to spend 7k for a kit for a plane that goes 160mph with two people and a little baggage, you have to go with the KR-2S. Maybe the bang for the buck is the reason the quality of the plans is so poor. You get what you pay for! - -Tom ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Dec 1997 19:56:37 EST From: ECLarsen81 Subject: Re: KR: test Mike, I got if twice, Matter of fact, several of your postings twice, I've been wondering if you have an echo! =o) Ed Larsen Mechanical Designer All the Fun, Half the Money! In a message dated 97-12-07 17:51:35 EST, you write: << Subj: KR: test Date: 97-12-07 17:51:35 EST From: mikemims@pacbell.net (Micheal Mims) Sender: owner-krnet-l@teleport.com Reply-to: krnet-l@teleport.com To: krnet-l@teleport.com Weird, it seems that only one out of every 6 post of mine are making it to the net! Did anyone get my progress report? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Micheal Mims Remember,..Service Guarantees Citizenship mailto:mikemims@pacbell.net http://home.pacbell.net/mikemims >> ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 08 Dec 1997 17:31:32 PST From: "Oscar Zuniga" Subject: KR: New KR design Well, I know that each KR is never gonna be exactly like the plans, no matter what. Same goes for any other kit plane, even the kit-kit type with everything in the box and a color-by-numbers to go with it. So, how can anybody even call their "KR" a "KR"? What defines a plane built to "specs" and one that's a spinoff? Anything not specifically mentioned in the plans like, "some builders have mounted their rudder pedals from the top shelf", or something like that? Now I'm wondering what basis the design could be defended as a true KR anyway. I'm going to call mine the LN-2 "El Nino". And that settles it. I will have plans available on CAD, and they will be shareware! Oscar Zuniga Medford, Oregon ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Dec 1997 20:44:54 EST From: JEHayward Subject: Re: KR: Improved KR In a message dated 97-12-06 17:33:59 EST, you write: << I think they call it the Pulsar because after they tell you how much the kit costs, they have to check your pulse. For all the fiberglass parts in the kit, no time savings over a KR is noticed either. -Tom >> Plus, I don't think it's near as fast. Jim Hayward ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 08 Dec 1997 19:14:09 -0700 From: Ron Lee Subject: Re: KR: New KR design >Just thinking out loud but the following is my current thinking on a new >KR like design: > >a. stock KR-2S fuselage with a possible additional stretch to the tail. > I suspect a slight widening...with the widest point at the shoulders is almost mandatory. For the general population...a stock KR-2 cockpit is too narrow >b. Stock KR wing spars with hot wired blue foam inserts using a state of >the art airfoil. THis would be for a plans built plane. sandwich core >composite skins like RR and Diel for prefab kits. > Might consider a composite spar. >e. consider a stabilator with anti-servo tabs so that the elevator >autohrity would be there and the anti-servo tabs could be tweeked for >desired control force. > Could this include a variable horizontal stabilizer...or one set up to optimize incidence relative to the "corrected" main wing incidence? >Again, just thinking out loud. As always, these are just my own thoughts >and all you can assume is that any plane build from these ideas can only >be guaranteed to fall from the sky :-) Legal cover your ass mode now off. > >Steve Ron Lee > > ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 08 Dec 1997 18:09:19 -0800 From: Micheal Mims Subject: Re: KR: New KR design At 07:31 PM 12/8/97 -0500, you wrote: >Steve > About the modern airfoil, look at what the spar thickness would be! >I did that and found that you would have to redesign the spar and >that aint good . > Jean N4DD > What's wrong with re-designing the spar? We have the tools, you know that thing you composed this email with! :o) Actually its already done! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Micheal Mims Remember,..Service Guarantees Citizenship mailto:mikemims@pacbell.net http://home.pacbell.net/mikemims ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Dec 1997 20:44:55 EST From: JEHayward Subject: Re: KR: Re: aluminum channel In a message dated 97-12-06 19:36:17 EST, you write: << Bob, Wicks sells it with radiused corners. The catalog isn't clear on this, but last time I ordered some the sides were parallel. It's #CH1x125-T6. If it's the rounds on the outside corners that have you concerned, you could get their 1x1 square tubing and cut one side out. It's #SQ1x125-T6. Believe it or not, T-6 is common everyday aluminum. Like Brian said, if it says 6061-T6, you've said it all. The more exotic stuff is 7075. Mark Langford, >> Bob, I got both of the channels from Wicks. The only thing I found is the fit of one inside the other is extremely tight. If I could get a thousandth off each channel side, I think that would work just fine. The outsides of the inside channel will sand easy enough but I don't know how I'll do the insides of the outside channel yet. I'm still thinking about it. Jim Hayward ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Dec 1997 22:05:01 -0500 (EST) From: jeroffey@tir.com (jeroffey) Subject: Re: KR: Rudder Pedals >John, > >Have you done anything with your Subaru yet? What are chances of getting pictures >of the pedal set up? > >Rich McCall >1518 Holly Lane >Junction City, KS 66441 > >John Roffey wrote: > >> Austin Clark wrote: >> > >> > I am getting ready to build my rudder pedals and am having trouble bending >> > the tubing according to plans. I am considering a welded fabrication >> > either with the tubing or building the thing from aluminum. Would like to >> > hear some ideas and suggestions. I built the brake pedals and brackets >> > (modification kit from Wicks) this week and they turned out nice. >> > >> > I could use 1/2" aluminum conduit as the "shaft" welded to 1-1/2" x 1/8" >> > aluminum flat stock for the vertical and another piece of 1/2" aluminum >> > conduit welded at the top of the flat stock for the "pedal" and fabricate >> > poly bearings for the "shaft" and the brake pedals. Any thoughts pro or con? >> > >> > Thanks, >> > >> > Austin Clark >> > Pascagoula, MS >> > >> Just finnished with my rudder pedals Austin, and I used 4130 tubing >> recommended in the construction manual. I mitered the tubing and welded >> it with 4130 tig rod. They are very light and appear to be very strong >> and ridgid. My bearings were milled from nylon and I am happy with thier >> appearance and weight. The rudder/brake pedals I milled from 6061T6 raw >> aluminum 6" stock and this took a lot of lunch time at work but they are >> custom and light/strong. >> I borrowed the Piper design for my master cylinder mounting by putting >> parallel tabs on the 90 degree corners of the drivers side cross tubes >> and using Cleveland cylinders with a tang mount. Looks very clean and >> turned out to be light. A lot of work though, some of the pictures of >> others pedals look to be very light/clean and much simpler, check out >> the web sites and you will see a few of the other builders pedals. >> John Roffey KR2S/ Subaru >> jeroffey@tir.com > >Hi Rich. I wish I had the time to get a web site under way but working on the shop pretty much consumes my spare time right now. I look at the e-mail just before bed time and that is the only computer time I can spare. One of the guys with a web site has offered to post pictures of other peoples projects but I can't remember who it was right now. If the individual would like to respond to this post, I will "snail mail" some pictures of my project so far for his web site. I'm not sure, but it may have been Ross, just a guess. The only thing I did with the Subarus was rip the motors out and the EA81 is on a motor stand waiting patiently for my attention. I did find a turbo motor in the local junk yard, but it's just a core and not useable but I'll pick it up just for the turbo stuff and see what I can use. I'm pretty interested in the direct drive information I've gotten on the web and I bought Reg Clarks tapes on how he built his turbo EA81. His Dragonfly runs good and I took a good look at his plane at Oshkosh a couple of summers ago. He claims to be getting very reliable service from his set up as he has flown it all over the country. >John Roffey jeroffer@tir.com > > > > ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Dec 1997 22:01:46 -0500 From: "Jeremy Casey" Subject: KR: Newbie questions I apoligize for the beginner's nature of these couple of questions. I have read every web page I have seen regarding KR's they I have run across since I saw one in the real at the Evergreen, Al. fly-in a few weeks back but I am a newbie and am a little lost on some of the terminology. I am not very familiar with composite construction as of yet and I keep reading terms such as 'flox' and 'bid' and so forth. Is there some where to get a beginner's 'guide' to composite construction on the internet??? I'm not stupid or nothing, by that I mean that I understand the basics (very basics!!) but I am interested more in the step by step of what is required to build a KR.? Also I have seen several references to "toxic" materials used in the construction. While I am not trying to save the whales or rain forests or anything but I do want to live to see my first child born in a few months!!!! I am curious what type of "dangerous" chemicals are used in the construction and if they are in fact harmful or whatever what type of precautions have to be taking during the construction??? Sorry this got so long but I got a lot more questions I'll save for later... Thanks in advance Jeremy Casey jrcasey@mindspring.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 08 Dec 1997 19:08:10 -0800 From: Micheal Mims Subject: Re: KR: Re: aluminum channel At 08:44 PM 12/8/97 EST, you wrote: Wicks sells it with radiused corners. The catalog isn't clear on this, but > last time I ordered some the sides were parallel. It's #CH1x125-T6. If > it's the rounds on the outside corners that have you concerned, you could get their 1x1 square tubing and cut one side out. It's #SQ1x125-T6. Believe it or not, T-6 is common everyday aluminum. Like Brian said, if it says 6061-T6, you've said it all. The more exotic stuff is 7075. > > Mark Langford, >> > I bought my aluminum kit from RR and absolutely none of it had any writing on it what so ever! It seemed kinda soft to be T6 and it definitely did not look like any aviation grade or type aluminum channel I had seen in the past. IF I were to do it again I think I would something else. I don't know what but I would go look at how other airplanes have been done and copy it. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Micheal Mims Remember,..Service Guarantees Citizenship mailto:mikemims@pacbell.net http://home.pacbell.net/mikemims ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Dec 1997 22:28:10 -0500 (EST) From: jeroffey@tir.com (jeroffey) Subject: Re: KR: Phoenix Being Invaded!!! > >Hey KR-netters, > >Sounds like there is an invasion of KR builders heading my way....Woohoo! > >Maybe we could set up a place to meet when you are all in town, I am here >semi-permanently ( still trying to get that job in CA, Mike M.) but will >definitely still be here through the Holidays. > >Let me know what you guys think. You can reach me at the numbers on my Tag >line or at 602-835-7205 evenings. > >See ya...Troy >************************************************************* > >If at first you don't succeed.....so much for skydiving! > >Troy A. Johnson >WYLE Electronics >1955 E. Sky Harbor Circle North >Phoenix, AZ 85034 >(602)-495-9953 >(602)-416-2158 (direct) > >************************************************************* >Just for a starting spot, I'll be arriving in Phoenix on the 26th and going up to Prescott on the 29th and 30th. The rest of the time we'll be at my inlaws in Sun City West at (602) 584-3260. I'd like to get together at a central spot to meet some builders if possible, How 'bout a lunch on the week end of 27th 28th.? We're heading back home on the 3rd. John Roffey jeroffey@tir.com > > > > ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Dec 1997 22:34:50 -0500 (EST) From: jeroffey@tir.com (jeroffey) Subject: Re: KR: New KR design >As the members of our private "Area 51" group will tell you, I have gone >the full circle in considering new design ideas. Seems that once you make >the first modification you start thinking of your self as an aircraft >designer and start thinking you are the next Burt Rutan. I have finally >come back down to earth and consider the basic design a classic. A small >airplane needs to be _LIGHT_. Weight is the enemy and he needs to be >battled on all fronts. There have been advances in aerodynamics since >the KR was designed 25 years ago. Composite construction techniques have >matured and understanding of airfoils have taken great leaps forward. I >don't think that we have come up with a construction method for the >fuselage that will give us a lighter fuselage than the basic spruce >boat. Wing construction methods for one off construction and for mass >production have improved though. Most of Burt Rutan's current designs, >Boomerang, Vantage jet, Williams jet, etc all have foreward swept wings >that let the designer have better control over the CG range. > >Just thinking out loud but the following is my current thinking on a new >KR like design: > >a. stock KR-2S fuselage with a possible additional stretch to the tail. > >b. Stock KR wing spars with hot wired blue foam inserts using a state of >the art airfoil. THis would be for a plans built plane. sandwich core >composite skins like RR and Diel for prefab kits. > >c. Optional wing with 10 degree forward sweep possibly using Rutan's Long >EZ construction methods. THis would use the same spruce boat but would >have the mean aerodynamic chord in teh same location as the stock KR-2S. >The fuel would be in the sub wing leading edge and, because of the forward >sweep, would be closer to the CG. You could also get teh passengers >closer to the CG as well. > >d. Optional composite molded parts for the turtle decks and canopy frame >(dragonfly canopy). > >e. consider a stabilator with anti-servo tabs so that the elevator >autohrity would be there and the anti-servo tabs could be tweeked for >desired control force. > > >This isn't too far from the KR-2S design, just taking advantage of some >more current aerodynamic and construction thinking. The resulting plane >could be a 100% plans built plane or have prefab subassemblies available >for it. With the plans in a 3d cad database, templates, plans, etc. >would be a no brainer. > >Again, just thinking out loud. As always, these are just my own thoughts >and all you can assume is that any plane build from these ideas can only >be guaranteed to fall from the sky :-) Legal cover your ass mode now off. > >Steve > >Steve, the corporate term is "annus protectus". John ------------------------------ End of krnet-l-digest V1 #187 *****************************