From: owner-krnet-l-digest@teleport.com[SMTP:owner-krnet-l-digest@teleport.com] Sent: Friday, January 16, 1998 5:32 AM To: krnet-l-digest@teleport.com Subject: krnet-l-digest V2 #15 krnet-l-digest Friday, January 16 1998 Volume 02 : Number 015 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 01:56:17 EST From: MikeT nyc Subject: KR: Elevator Bell Crank and Rudder Control Horn I just noticed that various pages in the manual show the elevator bellcrank and the rudder control horn in place on the plane, but I can't find measured drawings showing how to make them. Am I losing my mind or are they shown somewhere else? Mike Taglieri ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 21:01:39 +1300 From: "David Stuart" Subject: Re: KR: Wisconsin KR's - ---------- > From: Shane & Lynn > To: krnet-l@teleport.com > Subject: Re: KR: Wisconsin KR's > Date: Thursday, 15 January 1998 16:22 > > Hi, my name is Shane King. I live in DeForest, near Madison. I have been > building my KR2S in my garage the past three years. I am almost done and > ready for take off! > > Please reply if you have any questions. e-mail address: king@itis.com > > Best of Luck with yours. > > Shane King > Hi Shane my name is Wayne Rayner at Davids place Wellington New Zealand I have building my KR 2S for the last four years Hope to complete by the middle of the year Is your plane tri gear? and what powers your baby? My is on tri gear and will have a direct drive EA81. Curious to know if you have any problems with the plans, because I have found them not to be a problem at all!!! We have almost finished reconditioning an EA 81 direct drive and would be interested to know what brand of carbuerator are others using out there? Also has anybody fitted a extra bearing behind the propellor to accept the additional loading? regards David and Wayne ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 05:23:37 From: Austin Clark Subject: Re: KR: Diel Gear >... are you going to be trailoring your bird, because if >you are it's going to take a customized trailor as mine is just barely short >of seven feet from outside of wheel pant to outside of wheel pant with the >outside tire to outside of tire measurement being 6" "10". > >Dana Overall >Richmond, KY >kr2616tj@aol.com >http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/7085 > > Yes, I plan to modify a trailer with racks for the wings. When it comes time for major inspections or modifications, I want to be able to do those things at home because the airport is 15 miles away. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 08:37:23 EST From: KMcken7414 Subject: Re: KR: Re: epoxy Yes, it is in fact a glue, but in tests has proven to be stronger and has a faster set time than T88 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 08:39:56 EST From: KMcken7414 Subject: Re: KR: Tailwheel Flight Training Program why not just make it a tri-gear? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 08:41:13 EST From: Kr2dream Subject: Re: KR: Re: Cleveland wheels I have been saying that very thing for some time. The instruments we manufacture (Mitchell) are sold through many distributors and the prices vary by sometimes 2:1. It is always better to shop around. Distributor loyalty is great but at what price? Bob Lasecki 700 hrs & still building Chicago, IL ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 23:51:00 +1000 (EST) From: Peter Leonard Subject: Re: KR: let's just call it a preference When I replied to Don's Thoughts the other day I certainly didn't want to impress on anybody that they should use one airfoil section over another, they were my own thoughts and calculations and I was only pointing out what I had found. As for the washout discussion here is my 2 cents worth. As pointed out in previous posts, washout is used to maintain aileron effectness for a little longer into the stall, an added safety feature. I believe that washout is used so that the aircraft has a progressive stall, (note the word "progressive") and this is how aircraft that use wing sections with abbrupt stall characteristics can be tamed. Yes you use the rudder to correct any wing drop but you should also lower the nose and regain airspeed as quickly as possible. So as you do this and speed is building up (as well as the ground coming up) because of washout you will regain some control of your aircraft sooner (with minimum height loss) and hopefully avoid disaster. Another point not mention yet about washout is elipical lift distrubution of the wing. When designing a wing there are a number of factors that must be taken into account eg. maintaining aileron effectness, mention above. There are three stages of flight that should also be considered 1. The landing phase here we want maximum lift with drag (within reason) so we can land as slow as possible with the maximum load. An elliptical lift distribution would help to give good lift and low drag but we usually sacrificed some lift on the outer portion of the wing so that we have good aileron response at low speed. Because the lift is now non elliptical we have additional drag which is not so bad during landing and can be used to slow the aircraft down. 2. The cruise, here again having a elliptical lift distribution would be advantageous in minimizing drag (only a small amount). Because induced drag is only a small portion of the overall drag at this stage of flight there is little advantage in having elliptical lift distribution across the wing in the criuse. 3. The climb, because an elliptical lift distribution across the wing really helps in minimizing induced drag it is at this stage of flight where it helps most. We want maximum climb performance to get over that obstacle at the end of the runway and get to our cruising altitude as soon as possible. I will try to explain. The wing on the KR is tapered I not sure what taper ratio it has, but with straight tapered wings the best taper ratio for minimum induced drag is about 0.4 or an elliptical planform is best. If we do not have a wing that is elliptical in planform or has a taper ratio of 0.4 we can use washout which will change the lift distribution across the wing and hopefully come very close to elliptical (another way is to use different wing section at the root and tip but I'll leave that one alone). There is another factor that should be considered and that is Reynolds number. Using the same wing section for the whole wing and having taper, the amount of lift generated by the root section will be different to the lift generated by the tip section because of the chord but also because of Reynolds number so this must be taken into account when calculating the Lift distribution across the wing. So washout may be considered more critical at this stage of the flight than any other and used to minimize drag for maximum climb performance. As has been pointed out in preivous posts when considering the wing there is not just one or two factors involved there may be many factors and all should be considered and put into prospective. As mention in my previous post Anderson's formula can be used to calculate the lift distribution, the formula and the tables can be found in "Theory Of Wing Sections". There is another excellent publication that uses the formula in worked examples and they are the books by Alex Strojnik. There are three books on Low Powered Laminar Flow Aircraft. Do yourself a favour and go out and buy them (if you don't already have them). I hope the above has help and would like to hear other thoughts on the subject. Regards Peter Leonard ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 09:03:21 EST From: KR2 616TJ Subject: Re: KR: Questions on Tailwheel Landings In a message dated 98-01-14 23:00:52 EST, you write: << Its much higher, and yes he is sitting in the seat and he is 6 foot tall! My fwd t-deck bulkhead is 19 inches tall and the windshield bow is 20 inches. These measurements taken from the top longeron to the outside of the windshield and t-deck. I don't know how tall a stock KR2 is above the longeron but it looks to be about half of what mine is. Anyone out there have one handy to measure? Ross run out to your garage and take your tape measure dude! :o) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Micheal Mims Oh My,.......Its 1998!! >> Ross, I beat you too it. On my standard KR2 using the standard canopy and RR frame I've got 16 inches from the top longeron to the top of the canopy where my head is. I'm 6' and it's probably 5/8" above my head using a sling seat. Dana Overall Richmond, KY kr2616tj@aol.com http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/7085/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 07:07:00 -0700 From: Ron Lee Subject: Re: KR: Tailwheel Flight Training Program At 08:39 AM 1/15/98 EST, you wrote: >why not just make it a tri-gear? > LOL. Very good answer for those who like tricycles or bicycles with training wheels. That will have to be an option. LOL Thanks for staring my day off with a laugh Ron ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 08:17:13 -0600 From: "Randy Stout" Subject: KR: Re: Elevator Bell Crank and Rudder Control Horn - -----Original Message----- From: MikeT nyc To: krnet-l@teleport.com Date: Thursday, January 15, 1998 12:57 AM Subject: KR: Elevator Bell Crank and Rudder Control Horn >I just noticed that various pages in the manual show the elevator bellcrank >and the rudder control horn in place on the plane, but I can't find measured >drawings showing how to make them. Am I losing my mind or are they shown >somewhere else? > >Mike Taglieri > Mike, I went nuts last night looking for the same drawing. I finally found it on page 41, drawing #39. It says "tail wheel arm" but in the small print it also says rudder and elevator arm. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 10:18:22 EST From: XZOSTD1 Subject: Re: KR: Elevator Bell Crank and Rudder Control Horn The tailwheel, rudder, and elevator all use the same bellcrank. Since I just made mine I,ll tell you how I did it. I bought rect. stock from A.S.S. . The stock was cut with a sawzall with a fine blade. Finish grinding was done with a 4" grinder and sanding drums on my drill press. You should drill the holes first then bolt 2 together and grind identical duplicates. This also saves time. This would be a great weekend project while watching the Packers SPANK the Bronco's. Have Fun!!! Bill Huntley Green Bay, (Go Pack) WI. KR2S With all the wood and metal stuff done. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 10:16:17 -0600 From: "Woodbridge, Gary" Subject: RE: KR: let's just call it a preference >Mike Taglieri wrote: > > >>Speaking of the RAF 48's "gentle stall," how gentle is it compared to, say, >>a >>Cessna 152 or 172? I find the 152's power-off stall to be a nonevent, >>although they can sometimes drop a wing viciously in a power-on stall. If >>cutting the washout made power-off stalls on the KR somewhat worse than the >>152's, I could live with it. There's no reason to do power-on stalls, so I >>don't care how vicious they are. Mike, I am going to have to disagree with you on your statement "There's no reason to do power-on stalls". I want to know how my plane is going to perform throughout the envelope. My Maule has a real nose high attitude in the power on stall configuration, but I still go practice them. You never know when I might overshoot that landing on a 1000 ft. one-way strip with a tail wind and have to go around and hope I don't plant it in those trees. ;-} Just my $0.02 worth. Finally, SUN in OK. YEAH. Know if I could just get off work early........ >Gary Woodbridge >Senior Systems Engineer - UMI / OKC >Maule M7-235B - N723M >gwoodbridge@datatimes.com > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 12:59:48 -0500 From: smithr Subject: Re: KR: let's just call it a preference Mark Langford wrote: > > Rossy wrote: > > > I think that messing with the washout will impact the > > aileron effectiveness. The idea is to have a higher > > angle of incidence at the root so that the root stalls > > first, then give the ailerons a chance to keep flying to > > keep you from the spin situation. > > Ross, > > That's one reason I'm moving my ailerons outboard, reducing length to 40", > and extending them to the spar, in an effort to effectively move them to > the tips (kinda like the vast majority of other planes). I can't say for > sure, but I'd imagine that the short retractable gear of the original had > something to do with the short-chord ailerons and flaps that are detailed > in the plans. Your point is well taken though. > > Mark Langford, Huntsville, AL > email at langford@hiwaay.net > KR2S project construction at http://fly.hiwaay.net/~langford But didn't Ken Rand plan the ailerons to be near the fuse to reduce adverse yaw? When I flew a KR, it seemed to hardly need a rudder to bank. However, I'm sure you have considered this, Mark, when you planned your changes so there must be advantages of your ailerons in wing tips. Bob Smith Bob Smith ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 11:15:22 -0600 From: "Woodbridge, Gary" Subject: KR: New Member Since I have been lurking on the list for a while, and what a great list it is, I thought it was about time I introduce myself. My name is Gary Woodbridge. I live just south-east of the Guthrie, OK airport on a airport community called Harvey-Ellis. I own a 1995 Maule M7-235B. I have about 200 hrs. total with about 130hrs. of tailwheel time. Since I own a pickup of an airplane, I have been looking for a poor man's Corvette to go with it and the KR2S seems to fit the bill. I have been kicking myself for not knowing about the Perry fly in. Just a few minutes north of my house. ARGH... As for Pine Bluff, AR., I was reading a web page about your gathering there. It is true. That town and airport do close down a night. Anyway, it is safer to stay in at night anyway. My wife is from Pine Bluff and her parents still live there so we get over there about every month. Did anybody notice that you do not need any nav. equipment to find Pine Bluff? Just follow your nose! That place stinks. I have a few questions, but if the answers are in a FAQ somewhere, please let me know by private e-mail without creating noise on the list. 1) If the cabin area is widened by say 6", what kind of length do you need to add to keep the overall length of the plane the same? 2) What about composite construction books? What do you recommend? 3) Finally, any KR's in the central OK area? I would like to bum a ride in one or trade for a ride in a Maule. This is one of the best lists that I have seen. Low noise, high on very useful info and no flaming. Almost as good as flying. Gary Woodbridge Senior Systems Engineer - UMI / OKC Maule M7-235B - N723M gwoodbridge@datatimes.com > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 13:59:04 -0800 From: MARVIN MCCOY Subject: Re: KR: Re: Cleveland wheels Austin Clark wrote: > > > > > This question is for those of us who are putting the tailwheel in the wrong > place. > > Does the Deil nosegear take a 4" or 5" wheel and does anyone have the > Cleveland part number for the 4" nosewheel? > >--------------- I don't know if you got an answer to this. The Deihl nose gear I have (I think came from R&R) has a five inch nose wheel. The tire is a Cheng Shin 3.40/3.00 - 5. There is no name or number on the wheel. But the bearing says China. So I doubt that it is Cleveland. The wheel is a two piece, meaning that three bolts hold it together. Marvin McCoy Seattle, WA. North end of Boeing field mr.marvin@worldnet.att.net - ------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 14:11:55 -0800 From: MARVIN MCCOY Subject: Re: KR: New Member Woodbridge, Gary wrote: > > > > 2) What about composite construction books? What do you recommend? > > > >------------------ Gary: Welcome. One good book is "Composite Basics" by Andrew Marshall. You need to order it from him at Marshall Consulting, 720 Appaloosa Drive, Walnut Creek, CA. 94596. I am not sure if Wicks and others have it. He has an ad in Sport aviation. Another very good book is by "The Gougeon Brothers On Boat Construction: They are the guys that sell West System Epoxy. The book is about boats but they cover everything about epoxy and composite construction. Excelent book, and has a lot of information about working with epoxy and its limitations. They have a web site but I do not know the url. I would also get all of the Tony Bingelis books, EXCEPT the one titled Tony Bingelis on Engines. There are other books but that is a start. Marvin McCoy Seattle, WA. North end of Boeing field mr.marvin@worldnet.att.net - ------------------------ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 18:56:57 -0500 From: Donald Reid Subject: Re: KR: Questions on Tailwheel Landings KR2 616TJ wrote: > In a message dated 98-01-14 23:00:52 EST, you write: > > << Its much higher, and yes he is sitting in the seat and he is 6 foot tall! > My fwd t-deck bulkhead is 19 inches tall and the windshield bow is 20 > inches. > Ross, I beat you too it. On my standard KR2 using the standard canopy and RR > frame I've got 16 inches from the top longeron to the top of the canopy where > my head is. I'm 6' and it's probably 5/8" above my head using a sling seat. I just ran out in the cold rain to my shop and measured 19 inches above the longeron, which gives 2 inches of head room. I did make the fuselage 1 inch deeper than normal. The seats lean back about as much as in a Long-Ez. - -- Don Reid Bumpass, Va. mailto:donreid@erols.com http://www.erols.com/donreid/kr_page.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 19:00:19 -0500 From: Donald Reid Subject: Re: KR: let's just call it a preference Peter Leonard wrote: > When I replied to Don's Thoughts the other day I certainly didn't want to > impress on anybody that they should use one airfoil section over another, > they were my own thoughts and calculations and I was only pointing out what > I had found. I have deceided that making comments that can be taken as negative about a guy's choice in airfoils is just like telling a mother that she has an ugly baby. She may or may not know it already, but she doesn't want to hear it from you. - -- Don Reid Bumpass, Va. mailto:donreid@erols.com http://www.erols.com/donreid/kr_page.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 18:29:09 -0800 From: Douglas Dorfmeier Subject: KR: Engine Choices I just ordered the first part of my KR2S Kit this week and am anxious to get started building. I have been sending for a lot of information on engines. So far I have received information on Jabiru, Revmaster, Stratus EA-81 and CAM 100 (Canadian Honda conversion). At this point I am leaning either toward a turbocharged Revmaster or the Stratus EA-81. The Statrus is a 100hp engine at 5900 RPMs and uses a 2.2:1 belt drive reduction. Its one drawback may be its weight. It weighs 188 lbs. not including Radiator (5lbs) and coolent (11.8lbs). Does anyone have any experience or thoughts on these or any other engines? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 18:49:52 -0800 From: Micheal Mims Subject: Re: KR: Engine Choices At 06:29 PM 1/15/98 -0800, you wrote: >The Statrus is a 100hp engine at 5900 RPMs and uses a 2.2:1 belt drive reduction. Its one drawback may be its weight. It weighs 188 lbs. not including Radiator (5lbs) and coolant (11.8lbs). > >Does anyone have any experience or thoughts on these or any other >engines? > > Hi and welcome to the group, nothing against Riener and his conversion, I think its probably one of the best Subaru conversions but I would question the weight! I don't think there is a such thing as a Subaru that weighs 188 pounds! I think the engine alone (without re-drive) weighs 200 pounds! Almost all the EA-81s I have seen or discussed with their owners seem to think the firewall forward weight of a EA-81 with reduction to be right at 250 pounds. I know of two direct drive subarus that weigh 220 pounds (this is firewall forward) and a reduction unit weighs between 20 and 25 pounds, something aint adding up here dude! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Micheal Mims Oh My,.......Its 1998!! mailto:mikemims@pacbell.net http://home.pacbell.net/mikemims ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 21:26:58 From: Austin Clark Subject: KR: Re: Cleveland wheels >Austin Clark wrote: >> Does the Deil nosegear take a 4" or 5" wheel and does anyone have the >> Cleveland part number for the 4" nosewheel? >Marvin McCoy wrote: >The Deihl nose gear I have (I think came from R&R) has a five inch nose wheel. The tire is a Cheng Shin 3.40/3.00 - 5. There is no name or number on the wheel. >But the bearing says China. So I doubt that it is Cleveland. The wheel >is a two piece, meaning that three bolts hold it together. > Marvin, my nosegear came with 7/8" bushings on a 5/8" axle. Wicks lists a 5" aluminum wheel kit (set of two) made by Azusa, including brakes (drum type) for $145.00. These wheels use a 5/8" axle and Wicks states "as used on the KR-2 aircraft". The 5" wheel alone is about $19.00. I am thinking now of going with 5" Clevelands for the mains and the 5" Azusa for the nose. The description also says it has a three bolt pattern and split rim design. This sounds like what you describe for your nose gear. Austin Clark Pascagoula, MS http://www.datasync.com/~itac/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 22:23:06 EST From: BSHADR Subject: KR: New Member In a message dated 98-01-15 12:18:04 EST, the new dude (Gary) wrote: << Since I have been lurking on the list for a while, and what a great list it is, I thought it was about time I introduce myself... ...My name is Gary Woodbridge. I live just south-east of the Guthrie, OK airport on a airport community called Harvey-Ellis... > Gary: Welcome aboard...a Maule huh? Well, I speck we'll get some GREAT KRKosh video flight footage in '98!!! Hey Video Bob, got your ears up? I'm going to motion that Gary be designated the official KR flight camera platform pilot (with his Maule of course). Do I hear a second? Pleazzzze do it quick before he wises up and "unsubscribes" from KRNet! Gary - Next KRKosh is again at Perry, Sept 18-19, 1998. Stay tuned and you'll hear plenty of whining on KRNet when the date gets closer. Yep, ya came to the right place if you like KRs...and yep, we be a pretty great bunch of guys too...ouch, my arm hurts from patting my own back. Hey Jean V, are you listening? Email Gary and get him hooked up with Marty in dear 'ol Tulsa. I'll bet Gary will order a spruce kit the Monday following his ride with "RocketMan" Marty. You folks agree? :-) Randy Stein BSHADR@aol.com Soviet Monica, CA PS - Oh ya...Don Betchan has his nice KR at Perry and there is an "Area 51" hanger there too that has an interesting KR in it. Drop by for a look see. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 22:39:36 -0600 From: Paul Eberhardt Subject: KR: V-Tail Has anyone ever considered using a V tail (Bonanza style) on their KR? You don't see many V tailed kit planes, but they seem to be popular in sailplanes. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 20:53:31 -0700 From: Ron Lee Subject: Re: KR: New Member in OK ><< Since I have been lurking on the list for a while, and what a great list > it is, I thought it was about time I introduce > myself... > > ...My name is Gary Woodbridge. I live just south-east of the Guthrie, OK > airport on a airport community called > Harvey-Ellis... > > >Gary: Oh boy! I have never flown a Maule. Can I fly it please please? Ron Lee ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 23:02:21 -0500 From: Tom Andersen Subject: KR: 1 deg incidence, no washout, using stall strips in center. Peter Leonard wrote: > washout is used to maintain aileron > effectness for a little longer into the stall, an added safety feature. I > believe that washout is used so that the aircraft has a progressive stall, > (note the word "progressive") and this is how aircraft that use wing > sections with abrupt stall characteristics can be tamed. Hi KRNetters! Here's my plan for reducing induced drag and making the plane more pitch-stable at high speed, while maintaining complete stall warning. Specific changes: I am going with 1 degree incidence, no washout, and 6" long stall strips on the stub wings. One degree is all that is necessary for the RAF48 which could generate a lot of lift even at 0 degrees incidence due to it's non-symmetrical shape. I'm increasing the stab 30% with both a 5" longer nose rib on the inside of stab, and 5" x 12" triangular strakes on the stabilizer. I feel that the washout contributes to pitch instability. Why washout sucks: Washout is not designed to increase aileron effectiveness at the stall, it's supposed to insure that the plane starts to drop down straight ahead at critical AOA and not let the full length of a wing stall completely all at once. Washout lets the tips maintain some lift to keep the wings level, and simultaneously cause a dropping down which warn the pilot to reduce the angle of attack. Without the dropping down as in a pure aerobatic plane which has an abrupt stall, you would only get some buffeting, then inevitably one wing would stall a split second before the other wing, and engine torque, or slight weight imbalance would cause a snap-spin to occur since both wings stalled completely. Bear in mind that washout is not stall-proof, you can still stall the entire wing, but the pilot would have to be ignoring the dropping down of the plane since part of the wing stalls before the rest. The dropping down occurs before the heavy buffeting and so it is an early warning of loss of lift. If you are on glide slope and you suddenly start dropping down, whether you have washout or not, you DO NOT PULL BACK, you increase your airspeed by dropping the nose then adding a bit of power. The center of your wing is always creating more lift than the wingtips since it flies at a higher angle of attack, which means that your wingtips are just hanging out there causing drag, waiting for AOA to increase so they can pull their own weight. So, in conclusion, washout just plain sucks. A better way to get early stall warning: This dropping down can be achieved much more efficiently in terms of drag and lift by using stall strips on the stub wings with no washout at all. I have about 15 years of experimentation on model planes and I had a model that had stall strips in the planned fashion. I loved the way that plane landed. It acted just like it had washout, but the plane flew so much more honestly with less pitching occuring with changes in airspeed. I actually had to remove the stall strips completely so I could do snap rolls and spins. It was amazing that I could not get a snap roll or spin. It got boring, but I noticed that up and down pitch forces, which are most evident in knife-edge flight, were the same with or without stall strips. Some pattern flyers, in an effort to get crisper snap rolls actually put stall strips on the wingtips! Stall strips, stall strips, stall strips!!! There's zero drag at high speed, and they do their job at high AOA. They are vastly underutilized because they "stick out" from the surface and are not smooth-looking. However, I feel that they actually help the leading edge cut the oncoming air better for the 6" of leading edge that they cover on each wing, this increasing top speed by an immeasurable amount, which I am confident will add up to something when added to other immeasurable amounts. :) Why washout causes pitch instability: Especially on tapered wings, the unequal pitch forces caused by the difference in angles of attack of the tip and root DO NOT completely cancel each other out 50/50 at every airspeed, and at high speed the airflow near the root gets more disturbed by the fuselage and the tip generates even more downward pitch forces. This is akin to adding a wing on the back of a racecar to add downforce. Now the last thing we want is to generate DOWNFORCE which is the same as weight. Let the tips fly at the same angle of attack as the root and use a simple device to stall the root first as a safety measure. Some of you guys are going to great lengths to find a new airfoil, but the KR-2S wing has not yet been maxed out for performance with the RAF48 airfoil, right? Free Airspeed: An extremely interesting recent development is those dimples added to the prop, struts, and wing high points. Heres some free airspeed! Now one thing the article didn't talk about was the impact on stall safety, but if it causes a wing to stall later at a higher AOA, we could use the dimples on the outer wing sections, on the prop for less noise and more power (I love that idea!) and on the LG struts (that is pure magic in my opinion). Can we talk more about these dimples? It's like making an airplane smaller since the airflow stays closer to the airframe, right? With the stall strips, their effect occurs AFTER any stall strip activity, so the entire wing could utilize them at the high point if you have stall strips. How many times have I said stall strips now? - -Tom in Orlando ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 20:31:47 -0800 From: Micheal Mims Subject: Re: KR: V-Tail At 10:39 PM 1/15/98 -0600, you wrote: >Has anyone ever considered using a V tail (Bonanza style) on their KR? >You don't see many V tailed kit planes, but they seem to be popular in >sailplanes. > Eewww, you figure it out and I will be your new best friend! :o) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Micheal Mims Oh My,.......Its 1998!! mailto:mikemims@pacbell.net http://home.pacbell.net/mikemims ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 00:02:15 EST From: JEHayward Subject: Re: KR: Wing Washout In a message dated 98-01-14 20:54:03 EST, you write: << .....but wrong in the sense that it has not been perfected like a Clark Y for instance. Keith >> So what's a Clark Y ??? Jim Hayward ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 00:02:14 EST From: JEHayward Subject: Re: KR: Diel Gear In a message dated 98-01-14 19:40:08 EST, you write: << Now that I said that, think about this; are you going to be trailoring your bird, because if you are it's going to take a customized trailor as mine is just barely short of seven feet from outside of wheel pant to outside of wheel pant with the outside tire to outside of tire measurement being 6" "10". Dana Overall >> Oh SURE, Dana!!! NOW you say that and make me think of my tire track measurements! Geez! I'm not even sure I can get thru the 7' 3" shop door now. Can you guess I decided on the wider placement AFTER building my door??? Oh well...... Jim Hayward ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 00:14:11, -0500 From: YCGB97A@prodigy.com (MR JEAN R VERON) Subject: Re: KR: Construction update. The Zenith lasted about 10 min. at the fly-market at Perrykosh. The Posa went with the intake manifold last week. But i still have the Revflow. It's brand new still in the bag. I'll take $200 and pay shipping ( new is $220 + shipping. Jean N4DD Broken Arrow, OK YCGB97A@Prodigy.Com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 21:12:37 -0800 From: Micheal Mims Subject: Re: KR: Wing Washout At 12:02 AM 1/16/98 EST, you wrote: > So what's a Clark Y ??? > >Jim Hayward > > Its an airfoil, a very flat bottom bulbous top airfoil! Its one of the most basic of all airfoils! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Micheal Mims Oh My,.......Its 1998!! mailto:mikemims@pacbell.net http://home.pacbell.net/mikemims ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 00:32:11 EST From: Genseric Subject: Re: KR: Engine Choices In a message dated 98-01-15 21:56:02 EST, you write: << Does anyone have any experience or thoughts on these or any other engines? >> Hello there. First of all, I think I should introduce myself. I'm Ben Raby from Elk River Minnesota. Is there any one in my area? I'll be building a Tri-gear KR-2S, and I'm just about ready to put in my first order for spuce. I've been looking into the Wankel Rotary engine. The conversion put out by Mid West Engines (http://www.avnet.co.uk/midwestengines/) advertizes about 122 lbs with the gear box, then what ever extra for the cooling system. Is there any one out there using a rotary? If so, I'ld like to here more about them. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 00:53:37 EST From: MikeT nyc Subject: Re: KR: Questions on Tailwheel Landings In a message dated 98-01-15 19:00:12 EST, you write: >> Ross, I beat you too it. On my standard KR2 using the standard canopy and >RR >> frame I've got 16 inches from the top longeron to the top of the canopy >where >> my head is. I'm 6' and it's probably 5/8" above my head using a sling >seat. > >I just ran out in the cold rain to my shop and measured 19 inches above >the longeron, which gives 2 inches of head room. I did make the >fuselage 1 inch deeper than normal. The seats lean back about as much >as in a Long-Ez. I don't usually find many reasons to be glad I'm 5'7" instead of 6', but I guess this is one. If you used a homemade frame instead of the RR one, can you make it as high as you want, or do you need a bigger canopy too? Mike Taglieri ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 00:53:31 EST From: MikeT nyc Subject: Re: KR: 1 deg incidence, no washout, using stall strips in center. >Specific changes: >I am going with 1 degree incidence, no washout, and 6" long stall strips >on the stub wings. One degree is all that is necessary for the RAF48 >which could generate a lot of lift even at 0 degrees incidence due to >it's non-symmetrical shape. I'm increasing the stab 30% with both a 5" >longer nose rib on the inside of stab, and 5" x 12" triangular strakes >on the stabilizer. I feel that the washout contributes to pitch >instability. > >Why washout sucks: If this is right, it sounds fascinating, but what do your stall strips look like, how do you make them and where do you put them? Also, does the 30% increase in the stabilizer have something to do with having no washout or is it just because you thing the stabilizer is too small anyway? Mike Taglieri Mike Taglieri ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 01:00:53 EST From: BSHADR Subject: Re: KR: Engine Choices In a message dated 98-01-16 00:41:45 EST, Ben wrote: << I've been looking into the Wankel Rotary engine. The conversion put out by Mid West Engines (http://www.avnet.co.uk/midwestengines/) advertizes about 122 lbs with the gear box, then what ever extra for the cooling system. Is there any one out there using a rotary? If so, I'ld like to here more about them. >> Ben: Welcome aboard...geez, new KRNet guys are coming out of the woodwork recently. Pretty cool - Yo Ross, whatch ya been doin to make this happen? The Midwest engine is really compact - I mean really, really small!!! I saw one at OSH. Down side is the purchase price new is in the $13,000+ range without cooling system parts!!! I like - my wallets doesn't. Randy Stein BSHADR@aol.com Soviet Monica, CA ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 00:53:34 EST From: MikeT nyc Subject: Re: KR: Re: Elevator Bell Crank and Rudder Control Horn >>I just noticed that various pages in the manual show the elevator bellcrank >>and the rudder control horn in place on the plane, but I can't find >measured >>drawings showing how to make them. Am I losing my mind or are they shown >>somewhere else? >> >>Mike Taglieri >I went nuts last night looking for the same drawing. I finally found it on >page 41, drawing #39. It says "tail wheel arm" but in the small print it >also says rudder and elevator arm. > The tailwheel, rudder, and elevator all use the same bellcrank. Since I just >made mine I,ll tell you how I did it. I bought rect. stock from A.S.S. . The >stock was cut with a sawzall with a fine blade. Finish grinding was done with >a 4" grinder and sanding drums on my drill press. Thanks, I'm glad I'm not nuts, at least in this area. Even though the plans say they're all the same, I might make the one for the elevator a bit beefier, to be on the safe side. Just for my curiosity, how do you cut out a delicate thing like this with a Sawzall? I thought they were mostly used for heavy demolition, chopping holes in walls, etc. Mike Taglieri ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 22:00:32 -0800 From: Micheal Mims Subject: Re: KR: Questions on Tailwheel Landings At 12:53 AM 1/16/98 EST, you wrote: If you used a homemade frame instead of the RR one, can >you make it as high as you want, or do you need a bigger canopy too? > >Mike Taglieri > > I think you are OK as long as you leave the width alone. The KR2 bubble doesn't flex outward much and when it does the top sinks. But mounting the whole thing higher like on a false wall should work just fine. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Micheal Mims Oh My,.......Its 1998!! mailto:mikemims@pacbell.net http://home.pacbell.net/mikemims ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 11:53:37 +0100 From: Michele Bucceri Subject: KR: Progress report (ah ah ah !!!) Here my ... ahem !!!... progress report. After a lot of effort spent to find some unused set of KR2S plans here in Italy (no success), finally I've decided to order them to RR. Monday the great day. After two faxes sent to RR without any answer, I'll call Jeannette directly by phone ... the only way to have an answer I think. Hope the price is not grown vs the 285 bucks mentioned in the Steve's mail; our bad change is enough (1795 Lit for 1 USD !!). If out there somebody wants sell me unused drawings, he's still in time!! Michele (dreaming plans) - -- MBMBMBMBMBMBMBMBMBMBMBMBMBMBMBMBMBMBMBMBMBMBMB Michele Bucceri E-mail: mailto:michele.bucceri@italtel.it MBMBMBMBMBMBMBMBMBMBMBMBMBMBMBMBMBMBMBMBMBMBMB ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 08:30:45 EST From: KR2 616TJ Subject: Re: KR: Tailwheel Landings-Canopy frame. In a message dated 98-01-16 00:55:49 EST, you write: << my head is. I'm 6' and it's probably 5/8" above my head using a sling >seat. > >I just ran out in the cold rain to my shop and measured 19 inches above >the longeron, which gives 2 inches of head room. I did make the >fuselage 1 inch deeper than normal. The seats lean back about as much >as in a Long-Ez. I don't usually find many reasons to be glad I'm 5'7" instead of 6', but I guess this is one. If you used a homemade frame instead of the RR one, can you make it as high as you want, or do you need a bigger canopy too? Mike Taglieri >> Mike, The distance from my head to the top of the "nearest" point (upper left curve sitting in the plane) is the nearest point I mentioned. sitting straight up I have plenty of room using the RR frame and canopy. If you use the RR canopy, there is plenty of "extra" material so that you could get another inch or so if you made your own frame. You could always add an inch to the bottom of your frame or slope it up one inch from front to back, extend your canopy one inch higher using the material on the canopy and magically you've got two more inches than me. Be sure and think this through, as if obviously affects your forward deck and turtle deck. Dana Overall Richmond, KY kr2616tj@aol.com http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/7085/ ------------------------------ End of krnet-l-digest V2 #15 ****************************