From: owner-krnet-l-digest@teleport.com[SMTP:owner-krnet-l-digest@teleport.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 1997 6:28 AM To: krnet-l-digest@teleport.com Subject: krnet-l-digest V1 #188 krnet-l-digest Wednesday, December 10 1997 Volume 01 : Number 188 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 08 Dec 1997 10:54:38 CDT From: dboll@newburg.ndak.net Subject: RE: Re: KR: Phoenix Being Invaded!!! John I will be in the Sun city area during this same time period and will meet you whenever you want. Just say and I will try to set it up. Don ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Dec 1997 20:35:49 -0800 From: "John Bouyea" Subject: KR: Tapering the Stern Post Does anyone remember what angle taper to put on the stern post where it bonds to the skins? My fuselage is stock width at both the upper and lower longerons. It follows the plans in regards to the "straight from here back" dimensioning of the longerons aft of the spars... John Bouyea johnbouyea@worldnet.att.net kr2s - fitting the engine rails Hillsboro, Oregon ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 08 Dec 1997 20:46:01 -0800 From: Micheal Mims Subject: Re: KR: Tapering the Stern Post At 08:35 PM 12/8/97 -0800, you wrote: >Does anyone remember what angle taper to put on the stern post where it >bonds to the skins? > I think you will find its just a custom fit. I believe I jigged my fuselage to the right size on the aft end and then used a protractor to guesstimate the angle. I used a hand planner to cut the angle on the spar, stopping to check the fit now and then. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Micheal Mims Remember,..Service Guarantees Citizenship mailto:mikemims@pacbell.net http://home.pacbell.net/mikemims ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 00:56:40 EST From: BSHADR Subject: KR: Phoenix Being Invaded!!! In a message dated 97-12-09 00:04:35 EST, you write: << I will be in the Sun city area during this same time period and will meet you whenever you want. Just say and I will try to set it up. >> Ross , and everyone else: Don't leave out a call to Howard Kaiser. Long time KR builder & flyer in AZ. Give him a call. He is always up to KR chat at the drop of a flap. He has a fair number of KR hours (300+) so he would be a good addition to the group if you can track him down. Randy Stein BSHADR@aol.com Soviet Monica, CA ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 00:56:26 EST From: BSHADR Subject: Re: KR: New KR design In a message dated 97-12-08 23:39:51 EST, you write: << 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 >> Jean: Welcome to KRNet. We need more input from the KR flyers. Will we always agree?...I doubt it. But info is info. The collective knowledge base will be enhanced with your contributions. Welcome aboard. Randy (or is it Rambo?) Stein BSHADR@aol.com Soviet Monica, CA ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 00:56:43 EST From: BSHADR Subject: KR: Dfly being parted out... KRNetheads: This just came across the DFLY list. Given Nate's recent repost by Brian, I thought someone may find this worthwhile. Nate is a true gentleman... Randy Stein BSHADR@aol.com Soviet Monica, CA ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Subj: DFLY: Parts Available Date: 97-12-08 23:49:36 EST From: rambo@vcnet.com (Nathan Rambo) This mssg is only for builders who need parts. Last week my Fly completed its 14th year and 1000 hours of flight. With these milestones complete, and after much personal anguish regarding other factors, I have decided to retire my private pilot wings and decommission my Dragonfly. Of interest to you builders is that my aircraft will be parted-out and numerous items will be sold for less than half what new would cost. Some of the "beat" items will go free. There will be engine, instruments, avionics, brakes, strobes etc. There will be no major airframe parts sold with the exception that I might part with the aft wing and canopy assembly. At this time I wish to sell only the engine or FWF with delivery here in Camarillo,CA. If you are interested ... read on. For those interested in other components, stand easy; I will announce how to get a complete list in a few weeks. The engine is a 2180 VW. 110 SMO. Bottom-end assembled by Great Plains. Top-end is custom by Gene Evans. Dual ignition, heavy-web flywheel/alternator, geared starter, hydraulic lifters, large oil cooler and separate filter, Ellison TBI. Let's talk around $2500. I will really make it adventageous financially for a person to take the FWF (engine complete and all accessories, prop, motor mount, spinner, heat box, cool tins, exhaust, gascolator, etc). That way everything is there, operating correctly, and ready to drop into the new acft. We can discuss including all engine instruments and throttle quadrant or whatever you need. If you live within driving range and are interested in details about the engine call me at 805-482-3702 evenings. (I'll be away 12/12 thru 12/14) Leave number if I'm not home. I'll get back and we'll talk. I wish that I had an opportunity like this when I was building my ship. Nathan Rambo ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 01:27:29 EST From: MikeT nyc Subject: Re: KR: KR2S drawings >The Website for RR was maintained by Mike Stearns - He is an "ex" KR builder. >He parted out his project due to a supposed "financial" problem. > >Mike told me a couple of years ago that he would print out the RR E-mail >messages forward them to RR via fax. I don’t know if this protocol is still >followed today though, or if Mike is even involved with the company hosting >the site. It's one thing to not be maintaining your own web page, but do you mean RR doesn't even have a computer that can send and receive e-mail? Have they got those newfangled phones with the push buttons on them instead of dials yet? Mike Taglieri ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 08 Dec 1997 22:33:00 -0800 From: Micheal Mims Subject: Re: KR: KR2S drawings At 01:27 AM 12/9/97 EST, you wrote: >It's one thing to not be maintaining your own web page, but do you mean RR doesn't even have a computer that can send and receive e-mail? Have they got those newfangled phones with the push buttons on them instead of dials yet? > >Mike Taglieri > > They got a phone and a FAX! That's the extent of technology at RR :o) PS At least one of the phones is push button! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Micheal Mims Remember,..Service Guarantees Citizenship mailto:mikemims@pacbell.net http://home.pacbell.net/mikemims ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 09 Dec 1997 01:06:55 -0800 From: Melvin Poradun Subject: KR: working with wood and glue Check out the news letter for October at this site. Lots of good info on wood construction and glueing your projects. also bending and construting wood parts. http://www.primenet.com/~celerity/ Mel Poradun mporadun@nas.com http://www.nas.com/~mporadun/mims.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 09 Dec 1997 08:04:48 -0500 From: Patrick Flowers Subject: Re: KR: Newbie questions Jeremy Casey wrote: > > I apoligize for the beginner's nature of these couple of questions. Welcome aboard Jeremy. No need to apologize, we've all been there before :o) > ... 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??? Get catalogs from Wicks Aircraft Supply and Aircraft Spruce & Specialty($5.00 each - call them on their 800 numbers and use your credit card). You're gonna' be buying stuff from them anyway. They have simple explanations of the use of these materials and pictures too. Plus you can get an idea of how much this is all gonna' cost. > Also I have seen several references to "toxic" materials used in the > construction. 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??? Well, even water in sufficient quantities will kill you, but you will be working with resins and solvents that you wouldn't want to come in contact with your skin. Just wear old coveralls with long sleeves and gloves and you should be fine. Most builders recommend a carbon filter mask when using resin to avoid headache or toxic reaction(resin allergy) and at least a dust mask when sanding foam or handling flox(chopped cotton fibers) and micro (real tiny glass beads). Hope this helps! Patrick - -- Patrick Flowers Mailto:patri63@ibm.net ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 09 Dec 1997 08:13:10 -0500 From: Patrick Flowers Subject: Re: KR: Re: aluminum channel Micheal Mims wrote: > > 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. Since I'm starting with the hor. stab. and elevator, I've been looking at these aluminum channels a lot. The idea of aluminum bearing against aluminum and potential galling worries me some(not a lot, just chin scratching), but this is probably the absolute lightest way to build these hinges. The RV's use a rod end bearing screwed into the rear stab spar and bolted into a 4130 bracket on the elevator spar. I've thought about trying this, but it would be heavier and more expensive. I'll probably end up using the aluminum channel and oil*te bushings. Patrick - -- Patrick Flowers Mailto:patri63@ibm.net ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 09 Dec 1997 08:40:54 -0800 From: Micheal Mims Subject: KR: another web site http://www.crossflow.com/ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Micheal Mims Remember,..Service Guarantees Citizenship mailto:mikemims@pacbell.net http://home.pacbell.net/mikemims ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 11:35:56 CDT From: "Rex Ellington" Subject: KR: New Airfoil Test G'Day All Jean N4DD raised the question for me. I was just going to start plotting dimensions of the NLF airfoil using the same chord as the RAF48. Since everything affects everything else, however: What would the spar vertical dimensions have to be if the spars were located at the same fuselage positions as presently? What wing area would be necessary for the same design light and gross loads at cruise and landing speeds? How ill-advised would it be to keep the RAF 48 section out to the outer panel attach points, and then go to the NLF? Should adoption of the NLF be posponed until part of major redesign of the 2S? Rex Ellington Rex T. Ellington ellingto@gslan.offsys.ou.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 09 Dec 1997 09:52:52 -0800 From: Micheal Mims Subject: Re: KR: New Airfoil Test At 11:35 AM 12/9/97 CDT, you wrote: >G'Day All > >Jean N4DD raised the question for me. I was just going to start >plotting dimensions of the NLF airfoil using the same chord as >the RAF48. Since everything affects everything else, however: > Your questions are good ones and I am afraid that the wind tunnel test results are needed to answer most of them. The NLF has a drastically different shape than the RAF that there is no way you could adapt NLF outer wings to RAF stubs. The 48 in chord NLF only allows for a spar depth of around 6.75 inches. I don't have my plots with me but I do remember the spar will need to be shorter and wider to accommodate the NLF. These are just a few of the reasons I decided to use the NACA23016 instead. I think we need a lot more data (which is on the way) before everyone starts to build their fuselages and spars to utilize the NLF. I could not wait so I went with the NACA23016 which allowed me to use the stock KR2S spars. There is no doubt that the NLF will be a superior airfoil to the NACA23016, maybe next time! :o) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Micheal Mims Remember,..Service Guarantees Citizenship mailto:mikemims@pacbell.net http://home.pacbell.net/mikemims ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 09 Dec 1997 13:16:27 -0500 From: Patrick Flowers Subject: Re: KR: New Airfoil Test Rex Ellington wrote: > > Should adoption of the NLF be posponed until part of major > redesign of the 2S? Well Rex, I think we're witnessing the "major redesign" occurring right before our eyes, thanks to the marvels of internet communication. Unfortunately, the owner of the design, by forfeit, has decided not to participate. Therefore, the result will not be a KR2S. I think your questions will all be answered in time. Remember, Dr. Selig is going to test the NLF(1)0115 as well as an airfoil of his own design for the KR2S. Patience is a virtue - don't start plotting airfoils yet. That's why I'm starting with the tailfeathers :) Patrick - -- Patrick Flowers Mailto:patri63@ibm.net ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 12:39:14 -0600 (CST) From: Steven A Eberhart Subject: Re: KR: New Airfoil Test On Tue, 9 Dec 1997, Micheal Mims wrote: > At 11:35 AM 12/9/97 CDT, you wrote: > >G'Day All > > > >Jean N4DD raised the question for me. I was just going to start > >plotting dimensions of the NLF airfoil using the same chord as > >the RAF48. Since everything affects everything else, however: > > > > Your questions are good ones and I am afraid that the wind tunnel test > results are needed to answer most of them. The NLF has a drastically > different shape than the RAF that there is no way you could adapt NLF outer > wings to RAF stubs. The 48 in chord NLF only allows for a spar depth of > around 6.75 inches. I don't have my plots with me but I do remember the > spar will need to be shorter and wider to accommodate the NLF. These are > just a few of the reasons I decided to use the NACA23016 instead. I think > we need a lot more data (which is on the way) before everyone starts to > build their fuselages and spars to utilize the NLF. I could not wait so I > went with the NACA23016 which allowed me to use the stock KR2S spars. There > is no doubt that the NLF will be a superior airfoil to the NACA23016, maybe > next time! :o) I will be talking to Ashok today and will try to get a schedule when he needs the wind tunnel airfoils and when they plan on doing the tests. Will also get all of the posts relating to the NLF test from the archives for him to review. Now that his Doctorial reviews are out of the way he should be starting on the design of the new airfoil as well as sizing the NLF(1)0115 to the KR-2S. There are several projects here. One is sizing the existing NLF to the KR-2S using teh existing design as a base line. Another is the design of a completely new airfoil optimizing the aerodynamics of the plane and airfoil. I will also discuss the spar questions and see if we can get some guidance on what the dimensions of a new spar for the NLF(1)0115 should be to keep the same strength and construction techniques. Steve > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Micheal Mims > Remember,..Service Guarantees Citizenship > > mailto:mikemims@pacbell.net > http://home.pacbell.net/mikemims > > ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 15:52:44 EST From: MikeT nyc Subject: Re: KR: Design of the KR >>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. Yes, I've read Bingham and several other sources. I meant casual design of the handling, CG, pitch stability, etc. As Flying Magazine and others recently said on the 50th anniversary of the V-tail Bonanza, the earliest ones were the best flying because they weren't fattened up with extra junk. Supposedly then old ragwing Cessna 170's are the same way. If many of the people on this list can be believed, the KR is just the opposite, with the 2-S handles better than the KR-2. On the other hand, the few areas where the original KR-2 design wasn't up to strength mechanically (such as the boat near the top engine mount, the holes drilled in the elevator hinges, the retract latches, etc.) were corrected years ago by early builders like Dan Diehl, and the plans redrawn to suit (or abandoned, like the retracts), so by simple trial and error the KR-2 may now be one of the stronger planes around. Whether the 2-S will also be strong enough is unknown, since RR just reuses the numbers for the KR-2 for this significant redesign. It might be several more years till we know what the actual strength of the 2-S is. Mike Taglieri ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 09 Dec 1997 18:22:43 -0500 From: Patrick Flowers Subject: KR: Slow Day? Is KRNet having a slow day or is my ISP losing my mail again? - -- Patrick Flowers Mailto:patri63@ibm.net ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 18:18:12 EST From: BSHADR Subject: KR: RR Cheapshot - Not worth archiving In a message dated 97-12-09 12:21:27 EST, you write: << They got a phone and a FAX! That's the extent of technology at RR :o) PS At least one of the phones is push button! >> Ahhhhh...would the pay phone out front be the one with the buttons???? Randy (the sniper) Stein BSHADR@aol.com Soviet Monica, CA ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 09 Dec 1997 16:52:11 PST From: "Oscar Zuniga" Subject: Re: KR: Slow Day? >Date: Tue, 09 Dec 1997 18:22:43 -0500 >From: Patrick Flowers >To: krnet-l@teleport.com >Subject: KR: Slow Day? >Reply-To: krnet-l@teleport.com > >Is KRNet having a slow day or is my ISP losing my mail again? >-- >Patrick Flowers >Mailto:patri63@ibm.net > Yep; slow day. Ross is in Calif**nia, and his last instructions were for everybody to be good. Oscar ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 09 Dec 1997 18:55:53 -0600 From: brian whatcott Subject: Re: KR: New KR design At 09:01 12/8/97 -0600, you wrote: >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.... >Steve > > Somebody has to be a party-pooper.... The reason you don't see many swept forward designs, in spite of their aerodynamic advantages, is that an upgust deflection tends to increase AoA which is a positive feedback - apt to break the wing right off. You cope with this feature by making a wing stiff so it doesn't deflect much or arrange reinforcement to ensure the wing twist is favorable... brian whatcott Altus OK ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 09 Dec 1997 17:18:56 PST From: "Oscar Zuniga" Subject: KR: Forward swept wings >The reason you don't see many swept forward designs, in spite of their >aerodynamic advantages, is that an upgust deflection tends to increase >AoA which is a positive feedback - apt to break the wing right off. Now that makes a lot of sense. What I think is objectionable about the forward sweep is the appearance. Part of the appeal of the KR is the classic lines (IMHO)... and part of that is the lines of the wings. It does come together visually nicely. Oscar Zuniga Medford, Oregon ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 09 Dec 1997 20:43:04 -0800 From: Donald Reid Subject: Re: KR: Newbie questions Jeremy Casey wrote: > 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!!) Gwt the Aircraft Spruce and Specialty or Wicks catalogs, and also a basic composites book like the one by Burt Rutan. > Also I have seen several references to "toxic" materials used in the > construction. Get a good quality charcoal filter resperator. Always wear good quality gloves. You will develope an alergy to epoxy over time that is a real pain. It is worse than poison ivy. > Thanks in advance > Jeremy Casey > jrcasey@mindspring.com - -- Don Reid mailto:donreid@erols.com http://www.erols.com/donreid/kr_page.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 09 Dec 1997 20:50:05 -0800 From: Donald Reid Subject: Re: KR: Re: aluminum channel JEHayward wrote: > 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 For hinges, consider using the same size pieces for both the stationary and moveable pieces. I used square stock 2" X 2" and cut the hinges from that. Refer to the highly detailed drawing below. I also have a light AN washer (half thickness) between the pieces to prevent galling. _______________ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I_____________I - -- Don Reid mailto:donreid@erols.com http://www.erols.com/donreid/kr_page.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 18:05:05 -0800 From: Robert Covington Subject: Re: KR: New Airfoil Test Mike wrote: > >Your questions are good ones and I am afraid that the wind tunnel test >results are needed to answer most of them. The NLF has a drastically >different shape than the RAF that there is no way you could adapt NLF outer >wings to RAF stubs. The 48 in chord NLF only allows for a spar depth of >around 6.75 inches. What would be the chord of an NLF wing that used the standard spar height dimension? 52 in.? Robert Covington ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 09 Dec 1997 18:12:31 -0800 From: Micheal Mims Subject: Re: KR: New Airfoil Test At 06:05 PM 12/9/97 -0800, you wrote: >What would be the chord of an NLF wing that used the standard spar height >dimension? > >52 in.? > > >Robert Covington > A little over 50 inches I think, your thinking along the same lines I was at first! :o) Who cares if the stubs are 50 inches right? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Micheal Mims Remember,..Service Guarantees Citizenship mailto:mikemims@pacbell.net http://home.pacbell.net/mikemims ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 09 Dec 1997 19:26:12 -0700 From: Ron Lee Subject: Re: KR: New Airfoil Test At 06:12 PM 12/9/97 -0800, you wrote: >At 06:05 PM 12/9/97 -0800, you wrote: >>What would be the chord of an NLF wing that used the standard spar height >>dimension? >> >>52 in.? >>Robert Covington >> >A little over 50 inches I think, your thinking along the same lines I was at >first! :o) Who cares if the stubs are 50 inches right? >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >Micheal Mims >Remember,..Service Guarantees Citizenship > Just a nit. Getting into the cockpit might be a bit harder. Obviously the way around that could be a solid foam stub and a bit more glass. Ron Lee ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 21:11:46 EST From: BSHADR Subject: KR: New Airfoil/Airframe design - No archive In a message dated 97-12-09 19:36:45 EST, Steve wrote: << Well Rex, I think we're witnessing the "major redesign" occurring right before our eyes, thanks to the marvels of internet communication. Unfortunately, the owner of the design, by forfeit, has decided not to participate. Therefore, the result will not be a KR2S. >> NLFHeads: I still think this could be the "VW2 Speedster" with the rights owned by KRNet so anyone who builds it will not need a blessing from any highness to buy prints, modify (or build to plans) as they may wish. Heck, if the government can design by committee, why can't we? KRNet has way too much brain power and talent to allow it to go to waste...and I have dibs on the title of "KRNet Jester." Sorry Rob and Oscar, I beat you two to it and (I'll tell ya whut) I'm way funnier than you guys...just ask me! Randy Stein BSHADR@aol.com Soviet Monica, CA ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 09 Dec 1997 19:11:37 -0800 From: Peter Hudson Subject: Re: KR: Forward swept wings > >The reason you don't see many swept forward designs, in spite of their > >aerodynamic advantages, is that an upgust deflection tends to increase > >AoA which is a positive feedback - apt to break the wing right off. The reason they show up on a lot of newer aircraft is mainly because the big composite spar carry-through need to be conviently located in the fuselage. This might not put the wing in the best place for CG reasons so some forward sweep helps. It also can get the pilot a little better visibility by getting the L=leading edge behind his/her eyes. The spar location in the KR is already conviently located (for a seat) and you'd need DRASTIC forward sweep to improve the visibility. There are some potential benefits at stall but I don't think it would improve the KR any. - -Peter Hudson- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 09 Dec 1997 22:43:08 -0800 From: bmsi@ix.netcom.com Subject: Re: KR: Design of the KR MikeT nyc 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. > > Yes, I've read Bingham and several other sources. I meant casual design of > the handling, CG, pitch stability, etc. As Flying Magazine and others > recently said on the 50th anniversary of the V-tail Bonanza, the earliest ones > were the best flying because they weren't fattened up with extra junk. > Supposedly then old ragwing Cessna 170's are the same way. If many of the > people on this list can be believed, the KR is just the opposite, with the 2-S > handles better than the KR-2. > > On the other hand, the few areas where the original KR-2 design wasn't up to > strength mechanically (such as the boat near the top engine mount, the holes > drilled in the elevator hinges, the retract latches, etc.) were corrected > years ago by early builders like Dan Diehl, and the plans redrawn to suit (or > abandoned, like the retracts), so by simple trial and error the KR-2 may now > be one of the stronger planes around. Whether the 2-S will also be strong > enough is unknown, since RR just reuses the numbers for the KR-2 for this > significant redesign. It might be several more years till we know what the > actual strength of the 2-S is. > > Mike Taglieri Or which 2-S :o) Bruce S. Campbell Tampa ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 21:33:45 -0600 (CST) From: Steven A Eberhart Subject: Re: KR: Forward swept wings On Tue, 9 Dec 1997, Peter Hudson wrote: > > >The reason you don't see many swept forward designs, in spite of their > > >aerodynamic advantages, is that an upgust deflection tends to increase > > >AoA which is a positive feedback - apt to break the wing right off. > > The reason they show up on a lot of newer aircraft is mainly because the > big composite spar carry-through need to be conviently located in the > fuselage. This might not put the wing in the best place for CG reasons > so some forward sweep helps. It also can get the pilot a little better > visibility by getting the L=leading edge behind his/her eyes. The spar > location in the KR is already conviently located (for a seat) and you'd > need DRASTIC forward sweep to improve the visibility. There are some > potential benefits at stall but I don't think it would improve the KR > any. > > -Peter Hudson- > If you place the pilot and passengers bu** on the center of gravity they are sitting on top of the spar. move the spar back and sweep it forward to keep the same mean aerodynamic chord location and you have a plane that doesn't change CG with the addition of ballast/passenger. You can also get the fuel in the leading edge of the root close to the CG as well. You now have a plane that has a CG that doesn't shift with fuel levels and occupant weight. Seems kinda nice to me. Steve ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 09 Dec 1997 22:38:26 -0500 From: Patrick Flowers Subject: Re: KR: New Airfoil/Airframe design - No archive BSHADR wrote: > > In a message dated 97-12-09 19:36:45 EST, Steve wrote: > > << Well Rex, I think we're witnessing the "major redesign" occurring right > before our eyes, thanks to the marvels of internet communication. > Unfortunately, the owner of the design, by forfeit, has decided not to > participate. Therefore, the result will not be a KR2S. >> Ahem! Okay Randy, when I finally say something worth quoting, please get the attribution right :o) > I still think this could be the "VW2 Speedster" with the rights owned by KRNet > so anyone who builds it will not need a blessing from any highness to buy > prints, modify (or build to plans) as they may wish. Heck, if the government > can design by committee, why can't we? KRNet has way too much brain power and > talent to allow it to go to waste...and I have dibs on the title of "KRNet > Jester." Well, if this is the "VW2 Speedster", then my $2/100 is that the stubs should be shortened to around 12"; enough room for wing root fairings and a narrow wing walk. The wing would be a straight taper from the stub to the tip, as it is now, but the tapered section would be longer(hey, ya gotta' redesign the spar anyway). Lots of room for flaps and ailerons, which should be hung from the aft wing spar. This would put the dihedral break within the prop wash and give the plane a strong resemblance to my all time favorite classic, the Globe Swift. Patrick - -- Patrick Flowers Mailto:patri63@ibm.net ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 09 Dec 1997 19:50:35 +0000 From: Bruce Toscano Subject: Re: KR: Tapering the Stern Post Yes, here's another prime example. Throw your plans away, put the manual out of reach and mill a custom stern post that will allow the longerons to continue in a straight line. I milled three to plans and then decided I'd had enough. My fourth (custom) sternpost fit perfect. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 22:28:05 EST From: JEHayward Subject: Re: KR: New Airfoil Test In a message dated 97-12-09 12:58:19 EST, you write: << There is no doubt that the NLF will be a superior airfoil to the NACA23016, maybe next time! :o) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Micheal Mims >> Is the NACA23016 superior to the RAF48 in about the same way as the NLF is to the NACA23016? Just wondering.... Jim Hayward ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 22:28:03 EST From: JEHayward Subject: Re: KR: Re: aluminum channel In a message dated 97-12-09 11:17:38 EST, you write: << I'll probably end up using the aluminum channel and oil*te bushings. Patrick >> That's what I have planned for mine. I've already got the holes drilled for the bushings and the hinges cut and roughly shaped. Jim Hayward ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 19:11:10 -0600 From: "Mark Langford" Subject: Re: KR: Re: aluminum channel Patrick flowers wrote: > spar and bolted into a 4130 bracket on the elevator spar. I've thought > about trying this, but it would be heavier and more expensive. I'll > probably end up using the aluminum channel and oil*te bushings. Patrick, I didn't think much of the aluminum on aluminum either, which is why I used oil*ite bushings. I also went to five hinges, rather than just three, assuming that I would almost cut the loading in half. That's got to make them last longer. I just got a little nervous feeling all the slop in most of the planes at the first Gathering that I went to (Covington 94). But I wouldn't worry much about eventual failure, just flutter at 250mph. :) Rod end bearings would be a good choice too. There was an article in an ancient Newsletter by Don Chisholm who recommended one called the 5B11 "ball bearing rod end". It looks perfect for the job, and used a .063" U shaped 4130 fitting to connect to the other spar. I'd like to see somebody do this and make it work. I'd have done it, but couldn't find a rod end bearing with a shoulder. One would have to be welded up or something. I called him a few years ago, and he couldn't remember who made it or where he got it. He's doing the REALLY long term project thing... Mark Langford, Huntsville, AL email at langford@hiwaay.net KR2S project construction at http://fly.hiwaay.net/~langford ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 09 Dec 1997 21:18:38 -0800 From: Micheal Mims Subject: Re: KR: New Airfoil Test At 07:26 PM 12/9/97 -0700, you wrote: >Just a nit. Getting into the cockpit might be a bit harder. Obviously the >way around that could be a solid foam stub and a bit more glass. > I used last-a-foam on the entry side (between the spars) and a solid hot wired core for the trailing edge with 2 layers glass on the inside and tri ply on the outside. You could do a jig in my left stub wing if you wanted! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Micheal Mims Remember,..Service Guarantees Citizenship mailto:mikemims@pacbell.net http://home.pacbell.net/mikemims ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 09 Dec 1997 21:27:01 -0800 From: Micheal Mims Subject: Re: KR: New Airfoil Test At 10:28 PM 12/9/97 EST, you wrote: Is the NACA23016 superior to the RAF48 in about the same way as the NLF is to the NACA23016? Just wondering.... > >Jim Hayward > > Hard to say I guess, it is 30 years newer! (Actually it is better than the RAF but how much I do not know) :o) Also some mighty fine aircraft have and still use the airfoil. I chose it because I have flown three or four aircraft that use this airfoil and I like it! It is not a laminar airfoil by definition but it is more so than the RAF. I guess what I am trying to say is it was designed for 200 mph airplanes not 100MPH airplanes as was the RAF. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Micheal Mims Remember,..Service Guarantees Citizenship mailto:mikemims@pacbell.net http://home.pacbell.net/mikemims ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 03:00:16 -0800 From: Robert Covington Subject: Re: KR: New Airfoil/Airframe design - No archive > >Sorry Rob and Oscar, I beat you two to it and (I'll tell ya whut) I'm way >funnier than you guys...just ask me! > >Randy Stein >BSHADR@aol.com >Soviet Monica, CA Yeah, funnier as in funnier looking. We win. Robert Covington Speaking for Oscar "Throne King" Zuniga ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 05:27:26 -0600 From: "Mark Langford" Subject: KR: Re: New Airfoil Test Rex Ellington wrote: > What would the spar vertical dimensions have to be if the spars > were located at the same fuselage positions as presently? Rex, Spar height for the NLF(1)0115 is around 6.7 for the main spar. Taking that into effect, I reconfigured my main spar so that it's slightly thicker (front to back) with a thicker (2.3125") upper spar cap. I left my lower at the stock 2". My thinking was that I don't plan on doing nearly as many negative G's as positive G's, so positive is where I want my margin of safety. Were I just now building my boat, I'd leave an extra 5/16" or more of extra room for the spar to go through the vertical members. As it was, I had to clearance mine a little for my extra width. I made up for it with extra spruce reinforcements. Because of my reduced outer spar dimensions, my plane picked up 4.5 lbs. Now that they're designing an airfoil especially for the KR2S, I'm waiting for the new airfoil to do my outer wings. I don't know what kind of characteristics an RAF48 - NLF would have... Mark Langford, Huntsville, AL email at langford@hiwaay.net KR2S project construction at http://fly.hiwaay.net/~langford - ---------- > From: Rex Ellington > Jean N4DD raised the question for me. I was just going to start > plotting dimensions of the NLF airfoil using the same chord as > the RAF48. Since everything affects everything else, however: > > What would the spar vertical dimensions have to be if the spars > were located at the same fuselage positions as presently? > > What wing area would be necessary for the same design light > and gross loads at cruise and landing speeds? > > How ill-advised would it be to keep the RAF 48 section out > to the outer panel attach points, and then go to the NLF? > > Should adoption of the NLF be posponed until part of major > redesign of the 2S? > > Rex Ellington > > Rex T. Ellington > ellingto@gslan.offsys.ou.edu > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 06:28:30 PST From: "Oscar Zuniga" Subject: KR: British help needed Good morning, Netters I found the ad I was looking for in Sport Aviation, for plans for the Taylor Monoplane. They are available for "60 pounds sterling", and I don't know how much that is in greenbacks. Anybody out there know the going conversion rate? If it's anything close to 1:1, sixty bucks ain't too bad for me to settle the KR/Monoplane issue in my mind. I am willing (and interested) in seeing these plans in order to compare to KR. And yes Randy... I even read the classified ads in the back of Sport Aviation. Oscar Zuniga Medford, Oregon ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ End of krnet-l-digest V1 #188 *****************************