From: KR-net users group digest[SMTP:kr-net@telelists.com] Sent: Saturday, January 16, 1999 12:10 AM To: kr-net digest recipients Subject: kr-net digest: January 15, 1999 KR-net users group Digest for Friday, January 15, 1999. 1. Re: KR in Staten Island, NY 2. Some more progress. 3. Re: Firewall 4. Re: Firewall 5. Re: New airfoils 6. Re: New airfoils 7. Re: New airfoils 8. Re: Wing Tanks 9. Re: KR in Staten Island, NY 10. FYI EA-81 Turbo 11. Re: KR in Staten Island, NY 12. Re: KR in Staten Island, NY 13. Smaller alternative airfiol 14. Re: accident rate of KR 30. Re: New airfoils 31. Re: New airfoils 32. Re: New airfoils ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: KR in Staten Island, NY From: Mike Mims Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 00:23:23 -0800 X-Message-Number: 1 "Michael C. Taglieri" wrote: > <<< Does anyone have any suggestions on the best way to do this? I'm > assuming I can pull off the front or back spar web, check it out, varnish > if necessary and put plywood back on (not the same piece, of course) > without removing the spar from the fuselage, and without harming the spar > caps or other things. >>> I would recommend that you use a spade bit and drill a 1/2 inch hole or so in the shear web and then just take a sniff. You will know for sure if he varnished the inside just from the smell. I also think taking it apart would do more damage than just leaving it as it is. I don't think anyone would build the spar in such a manor that it would fail. Remember he at one time had planned on flying this beast himself! I understand where your coming from though and if I was that worried I would just build a new center spar and forget inspecting the existing one. -- zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz Micheal Mims SP290 (Sky Pig 290) ,..Building Cowling now mailto:mikemims@home.com http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/4136/ Aliso Viejo Ca ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Some more progress. From: HAshraf@aol.com Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 03:52:16 EST X-Message-Number: 2 Well gentlemen, I was able to make a little more progress during the last weekend and this week. I glued the second top engine brace, the two longerons doublers, another cross member and a dozen more gussetts. I was also able to glue the foam on the bottom and make the ply floor which I will probably glue tomorrow. At this time all the pieces have atleast one gussett on each side so I can move the boat around. Next, I plan to move to elevator and then spars and then come back to the boat again. Hopefully by Chino Kosh I should have all the woodwork done. Haris 'still standing' Ashraf ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Firewall From: "Richard Parker" Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 03:03:43 PST X-Message-Number: 3 >>You dont need stainless, a coated mild steel is acceptable. >>(but doesnt look as pretty) Check out the book "Firewall Forward" >>by Tony Bingelis. >> >>Rich Parker > >Doesn't he say somewhere that you need a thicker (i.e., heavier) piece of >mild steel than stainless steel for equal fireproof-ness? > >Mike Taglieri Actually he says just the opposite by saying that you can get away with using coated mild steel instead of using SS and save about half the weight. but if you want it to look pretty ...SS ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Firewall From: KR2616TJ@aol.com Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 07:03:38 EST X-Message-Number: 4 In a message dated 1/15/99 6:04:01 AM Eastern Standard Time, richontheroad@hotmail.com writes: << you can get away with using coated mild steel instead of using SS and save about half the weight. but if you want it to look pretty ...SS >> I guess mine has that "pretty look":-) because I went with SS. One point here, and I'll let this dog alone, if you use SS be sure and wear some leather gloves................it will cut you in a heartbeat. Dana Overall Richmond, KY mailto:kr2616tj@aol.com http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/7085/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: New airfoils From: "Mark Langford" Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 06:39:02 -0000 X-Message-Number: 5 > Where can I get the profile for the "16%" version. >-since my stubs are built to the original RAF profile it seems I would have >to taper into the new profile over a couple of feet or so. Has RR reviewed >this or are we in a world of our own. What sort of performance changes >might I expect for such a hybrid bird. I can plot you a set of templates for the 16% version, but I don't want to do that too many times before somebody flies it first. The airfoil is too different from the RAF 48 to try to graft it it on and try to transition it. Besides that, your root incidence should be set to 1 degree for the new wing anyway (rather than the previous 3.5 degrees), requiring that the aft spar be moved upward about 1.5". If I were going to use the new wing on an old KR2, I'd remove all glass and foam from the stub wings (leaving main spar in place) and start over, moving the aft spar up as well. That sounds harder than it is, considering the aft spar is glued in a fairly simple manner. The tapers on the two spars are similar on the main spar, but different on the top of the aft spar, but you'd be adding new material there anyway. This upgrade would probably be too much work for a flying KR2, but for those who worry about wing integrity on an older plane and want to rebuild them anyway, it makes a lot more sense. Planform and aileron/hinge locations would all remain the same as the stock configuration. RR will quickly tell you that they know nothing of this wing, and don't sanction its use in any way, and would almost certainly discourage it. Of course, they are selling wing skins for $4200 a set. You'd be using the new airfoil at your own risk, but given it's pedigree, that doesn't bother me. There is far more technical information regarding aerodynamic characteristics available on the AS 504x series than there ever will be for the RAF48, unless you count flying airplanes... Mark Langford, Huntsville, Alabama mailto:langford@hiwaay.net see KR2S project N56ML at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: New airfoils From: KR2616TJ@aol.com Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 07:57:02 EST X-Message-Number: 6 In a message dated 1/15/99 7:38:20 AM Eastern Standard Time, langford@hiwaay.net writes: << If I were going to use the new wing on an old KR2, I'd remove all glass and foam from the stub wings (leaving main spar in place) and start over, moving the aft spar up as well. That sounds harder than it is, considering the aft spar is glued in a fairly simple manner. >> Guys, I've seen a KR on which the aft spar has been moved to accomadate the new wing. It's an easy process. For you guys who have done your spars yet, you need to check out the improved characteristics of this new wing. It's the way to go. Dana Overall Richmond, KY mailto:kr2616tj@aol.com http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/hangar/7085/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: New airfoils From: boggyd@webtv.net (D Bogdan) Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 07:24:56 -0600 (CST) X-Message-Number: 7 what are the improved characteristics of this new airfoil? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Wing Tanks From: JKM001@aol.com Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 08:31:28 EST X-Message-Number: 8 I was passing along second hand info. about the tanks. I ahd no idea at the time they were only 5 gal. Well, I guess it is better than nothing. Regards Keith ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: KR in Staten Island, NY From: Donald Reid Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 08:55:59 -0500 X-Message-Number: 9 Michael C. Taglieri wrote: > I'm wondering how to tell whether he built it right inside and varnished > the inside, or did the inspector sign that off before he closed the spar? > (Or do they even still HAVE inspection before you close the spar?) The pre-closure FAA inspection has not been required for a long time, on the order of 15 years. That just goes to show you how often the KR builder's manual is revised. -- Don Reid Bumpass, Va. mailto:donreid@erols.com KR2XL at http://www.erols.com/donreid/kr_page.htm Ultralights at http://www.erols.com/donreid/usua250.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: FYI EA-81 Turbo From: "Richard Parker" Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 06:19:25 PST X-Message-Number: 10 FYI I've been investigating turbochargers and the best price I have found is through turbocity. e-mail turbocty@sprynet.com This turbo is a w/c Suburu Turbo for a 1.8L (1800 cc) engine. #110-840 $617.02 Price is plus shipping and handling. The turbo and cartridge are complete and ready for installation. We require a new OEM oil supply line to insure proper flow of oil. (Not supplied) Both have a 12 month or 12,000 warranty. We accept Visa, M/C and Discover Card. You may Email your order for payment with a credit card. Please include full number, expiration date, and full name on card, plus complete shipping address for UPS delivery. Shipment will sent at lowest price ground shipment unless otherwise instructed. >From: "Richard Parker" >To: "KR-net users group" >Subject: [kr-net] Re: Firewall >Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 03:03:43 PST >Reply-To: "KR-net users group" > > > >>>You dont need stainless, a coated mild steel is acceptable. >>>(but doesnt look as pretty) Check out the book "Firewall Forward" >>>by Tony Bingelis. >>> >>>Rich Parker >> >>Doesn't he say somewhere that you need a thicker (i.e., heavier) piece >of >>mild steel than stainless steel for equal fireproof-ness? >> >>Mike Taglieri > >Actually he says just the opposite by saying that you can get away with >using coated mild steel instead of using SS and save about half the >weight. but if you want it to look pretty ...SS > > >______________________________________________________ >Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com > >--- >You are currently subscribed to kr-net as: richontheroad@hotmail.com >To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-kr-net-17800J@telelists.com > ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: KR in Staten Island, NY From: "Richard Parker" Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 06:23:14 PST X-Message-Number: 11 >The pre-closure FAA inspection has not been required for a long time, on >the order of 15 years. That just goes to show you how often the KR >builder's manual is revised. If you have an EAA tech counselor available its not a bad idea to have him look at it anyway. but again not required. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: KR in Staten Island, NY From: KRBLUCH@aol.com Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 09:29:05 EST X-Message-Number: 12 Intermediate sign-offs not required anymore but EAA designee should have a chance to approve. Dave Blucher N197DB ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Smaller alternative airfiol From: "Tom Rehl" Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 08:33:06 -0600 X-Message-Number: 13 Has anyone considered an alternative laminar flow airfoil for an aircraft = the size of a KR-1? I've been rather silent other than the Celotex = question, but I'm building a unique aircraft. I'm building a hummelbird = out of glass, foam, and wood, from hummelbird designs. It uses a rather = bland airfoil, and I think that performance could be increased with a more = modern airfoil. I think the airfoil that are used in it's plans are about = 35 years old or so. It has a 21' span, weighs about 280 lbs dry, runs off of a 30-40 hp 1/2 = vw...etc...=20 I'm following this mailing list for the incredible knowloedge base you = have amassed. Any help would be appriciated. - T ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: accident rate of KR Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 06:42:51 -0800 (PST) X-Message-Number: 14 To fellow KR net members. I am new to this list and am getting back into flying after a prolonged absence ((35Years).I only had a student license then. I am slowly getting back into flying ,and have recently acquired an ultralight pietenpol with a kawasaki 440 engine. I have been thinking of getting an airplane with greater speed and range and the KR2 seems to be a very attractive possibility. I have been following your lists and found much useful info. No this is not a joke as no jokes are alllowed on your list. Mike Mims graciously provided a list of accidents with KR's To me it seemed that there were two main causes: One , poor pilot t judgement (some of the things I am afraid I might do myself).such as pilots with little or no training or experience in this type of aircraft,., taking off under adverse conditions, running our of fuel,etc. and Two: sloppy workmanship combined with a desire to get into the air at all cost, using makeshift part for gasoline connections,etc. In looking at the pictures kindly provided by many of you I see a lot of excellent workmanship. Are you people the exception to the rule or do I have the wrong impression? Is the accident rate higher,lower or average for KR's compared to other homebuitls? Perhaps it should be compared to aircraft with similar speeds. I am located in Greenville, North Carolina, 42 miles east of I 95, are ther any owners or buildersn nearby? Thaks for any feedback you could provide me with. Joe Hill - _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Wing Tanks From: DClarke351@aol.com Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 09:41:46 EST X-Message-Number: 15 I will pass on the specks when I get them from Team. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: KR2 in Staten Island, NY From: ejanssen@chipsnet.com (Ed Janssen) Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 08:46:35 -0600 X-Message-Number: 16 Mike, You've got to be excited now!!! :0) Of course from a building standpoint, now's the time to decide whether you should go retractable. They work ok and I think the KR-1, especially, looks more P-51-ish with it. Yep, central air conditioning is inlcuded. The two KR-1s I've flown and owned were both retractable. They both had a positive up and down pin locking system, much improving on the original locking design. If such a system is built, the locking system needs to be designed so that the pins or other part of the system is strong enough so that it doesn't bend on a hard landing. This could cause binding the next time you attempt a "gear down" at the next landing. Most embarassing! Retractable gear will limit your propellor length somewhat ( ok for Vdub, but something you would probably want to increase if you are going with an engine like the 0-200) and will cause you to avoid all but the better landing strips. Short gear legs and little tires tend to "hunt" for animal holes and potholes. I l agree that the throw-over control wheel should go - I don't even like them in the Bonanzas...and you don't need the extra complexity and weight. As for instruments, I'm definitely a KISS person. I would include EGT and CHT for EACH cylinder so you can tell what the valves are doing and that's about all the "extras" in addition to the required basic engine and flight instruments. In short, I would keep any KR a VFR daylight bird. Good luck finding a place to build! Ed Janssen > > >Assuming I buy it, I expect to be getting rid of several things, >including the throw-over control wheel, the Type 4 engine, the >retractible tricycle gear, and all the gyro instruments (except possibly >for a turn indicator). > >In the meantime, I'd like to hear from people building (or flying) the >classic retractible gear design. I wouldn't have bought this gear if I >were starting from scratch, but except for the nosewheel the retractible >tricycle gear seems to be similar or identical to the standard retract >gear, so I might as well use it if I can. There are several beef-up >procedures for the lock mechanism in the Newsletters and I plan to build >a plane as close to stock weight as I can. Also, of course, the >retractible gear is much cooler. If anyone got rid of retractible gear, >I'd like to hear about that, too, and also possibly buy some of your >parts for spares. > >Mike Taglieri ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: KR in Staten Island, NY From: MARVIN MCCOY Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 07:28:45 -0800 X-Message-Number: 17 Mike Mims wrote: > > "Michael C. Taglieri" wrote: > > > <<< Does anyone have any suggestions on the best way to do this? I'm > > assuming I can pull off the front or back spar web, check it out, varnish > > if necessary and put plywood back on > > I would recommend that you use a spade bit and drill a 1/2 inch hole or so in > the shear web and then just take a sniff. You will know for sure if he > varnished the inside just from the smell. I also think taking it apart would > do more damage than just leaving it as it is. I don't think anyone would > build the spar in such a manor that it would fail. Remember he at one time > had planned on flying this beast himself! I understand where your coming > from though and if I was that worried I would just build a new center spar > and forget inspecting the existing one. > > -- > zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz > Micheal Mims -------------- I would agree with Mike. But if you think you need to take it apart you can run the spar through a thickness planer and shave off the plywood and then replace it. For what its worth. Marvin McCoy Seattle. ------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Useless Facts From: Gordon Brimhall Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 07:39:39 -0800 X-Message-Number: 18 Well said Mike. I am on 8 lists and this was only list to nail me about my airplane joke. I have tried to remove myself from this list and sent the necessary post but it come back and told me I am not on this list. If I am not on this list why am I still getting all this stuff? What is the commands now to get off this list? I just have to many emails coming my way and as I'm not building a KR I don't need all this for now. Thanks Gordon RW1 Building Storch Next. "Michael C. Taglieri" wrote: > > I strongley dissagree with you and everyone that supports > >this kind of junk on a otherwise helpful net. . . . > > I'm the one who posted the initial jokes, and I apologize. I am on other > lists that have serious technical discussions as well as lighter stuff, > and I didn't realize this list was restrictive of that. However, I would > also point out that this thread has so far wasted much more bandwidth on > the evils of posting jokes to the list than I wasted on the original > jokes. > > Could we put this behind us and get back to KR's, please? I promise I > will post no more jokes on this list, and if I sin again you can connect > me up to a Slick magneto for punishment. It would also be nice if people > sending private messages to each other avoided posting those on the list, > since that wastes bandwidth as well. > > Mike Taglieri > > ___________________________________________________________________ > You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. > Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html > or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] > > --- > You are currently subscribed to kr-net as: snakeskin@surfree.com > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-kr-net-17800J@telelists.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Smaller alternative airfiol From: Donald Reid Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 11:51:00 -0500 X-Message-Number: 19 Tom Rehl wrote: > > Has anyone considered an alternative laminar flow airfoil for an aircraft the size of a KR-1? A number of us are using different airfoils, most of them are laminar sections, but I don't know of anyone doing that on a KR-1. -- Don Reid Bumpass, Va. mailto:donreid@erols.com KR2XL at http://www.erols.com/donreid/kr_page.htm Ultralights at http://www.erols.com/donreid/usua250.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: KR-3 From: Donald Reid Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 12:02:57 -0500 X-Message-Number: 20 There was a thread on the KR-3 not long ago. I just happened to see this in the April 1978 Sport Aviation. It was reported in the article on the 1978 Sun and Fun. "Ken Rand was showing pictures of the crash of the KR-3 amphibian prototype at Corona, Ca a few weeks earlier. The airplane's wing employed a GA(W)-1 airfoil and was found to have a viscous stall, often snaprolling in either direction at the break. One of Ken's employees, Jack Moel, was alone in the airplane at the time and on short final had the little bird voilently drop a wing, hit the ground, cartwheel and finally end up inverted and nose down. The airframe was totaled, but Jack crawled out of the wreckage with nothing more than a scraped arm. Ken said that a new airframe is already under construction, incorporating a number of changes he and his partner, Stu Robinson, found desirable during testing prior to the accident. Perhaps the most important change will be to a Clark Y airfoil. He estimated that the crash will set the KR-3 program back about a year and possibly a bit longer." I looked up the windtunnel results of the GA(W)-1 and I agree with the statement that it has a viscous stall. It has a very good lift coefficient, but when it reaches stall, it will drop like a rock. In my opinion, the only way that someone would use that airfoil is if they have a large amount of washout built in. -- Don Reid Bumpass, Va. mailto:donreid@erols.com KR2XL at http://www.erols.com/donreid/kr_page.htm Ultralights at http://www.erols.com/donreid/usua250.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: New airfoils From: KR2616TJ@aol.com Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 12:14:26 EST X-Message-Number: 21 In a message dated 1/15/99 8:25:43 AM Eastern Standard Time, boggyd@webtv.net writes: << what are the improved characteristics of this new airfoil? >> I'm going to defer the technical analysis numbers to Mark & Steve but if you have seen a KR fly, then you have noticed the nose down attitude at cruise speed. You have to remember this RAF48 airfoil came off the Taylor Monoplane and is not a design made for the KR, but simply an adapted airfoil for Ken Rand. The new airfoils are laminar flow, correct the incident error in the KR construction, and address a number of issues inherent in the RAF48. That is away Mark. Dana Overall Richmond, KY mailto:kr2616tj@aol.com http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/7085/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: New airfoils From: "Albert Pecoraro" Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 12:26:13 EST X-Message-Number: 22 <> Dana, Ok, now I'm confused. What is this new airfoil that is being referred to? Is it in the KR-2S plans? i.e. if I build my wings according to the drawings in my plans what airfoil will I have built - the New airfoil or the RAF-48? ... Thanks Albert Pecoraro Kentwood, MI 49508 616-281-3828 (H) 616-247-2803 (W) apec97@hotmail.com http://fly.to/hangar-AP <--- not yet ready! KR-2S - Waiting for spruce & ply Machined my own Wing Attach Fittings Building table this weekend ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: "new" airfoil From: "Mark Langford" Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 13:14:32 -0000 X-Message-Number: 23 Albert Pecoraro wrote: >Ok, now I'm confused. What is this new airfoil that is being referred >to? Is it in the KR-2S plans? i.e. if I build my wings according to the >drawings in my plans what airfoil will I have built - the New airfoil or >the RAF-48? ... All KR airplanes (1,2, 2S) use the same RAF48 airfoil, designed in the 20's, before accurate wind tunnels and measurement equipment existed. The "new" airfoil we're talking about was designed last year by a graduate student in aeronautical engineering (under the supervison of Dr. Michael Selig) expressly for the KR2S in an effort to reduce overall drag. The main improvement is in drag, while maintaining the same or slower stall speed as the RAF48. It's a win/win airfoil, optimized for performance by a computer. The 18% has the added benefit of storing 20% more fuel in the wingtanks (approx 13 gallons per side). There is plenty of information available on both the RAF48 airfoil and AS504x series using links from http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford/kopinion.html Mark Langford, Huntsville, Alabama mailto:langford@hiwaay.net see KR2S project N56ML at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: KRNet Admin From: Ross Youngblood Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 12:56:58 -0800 X-Message-Number: 24 Gordon, You can get most of your answers at the KRnet website http://www.krnet.org The last time I checked the size of the list we were at just over 300 members world wide. -- Regards Ross Gordon Brimhall wrote: > Just wonder what the cost is to be connected? > > ListBot is free as two other lists I am on are with ListBot > > How many members on this list? > > Do we also get a KR Newsletter? > > I am not building a KR but a RagWing Pietenpol. I just kind of hang out > here to keep up with other news. > > Thanks > > Gordon > > Oscar Zuniga wrote: > > > Hello, Netters > > > > I note that there quite a few newer netters on the list, and so I was > > reminded (when Randy "Whine" sent a recent post) that the new folks may > > not know that voluntary contributions keep the KRNet healthy and > > growing. There are costs associated with maintaining the list and > > webpage, and in keeping Ross's hot tub stocked with water treatment and > > aromatherapy capsules (just kidding there). > > > > It has become customary to pony up a suggested $10 annual contribution > > to cover the admin costs of KRNet, usually paid around September when > > the KR Gathering occurs, but donations are welcome anytime and may be > > sent to: > > > > Ross Youngblood > > 1109 NE Burke Pl. > > Corvallis, OR 97330 > > --------------------- > > Oscar Zuniga > > webpage at http://www.geocities.com/Pipeline/Dropzone/5610/ > > Medford, OR > > > > ______________________________________________________ > > Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com > > > > --- > > You are currently subscribed to kr-net as: snakeskin@surfree.com > > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-kr-net-17800J@telelists.com > > --- > You are currently subscribed to kr-net as: rossy@saber.slb.com > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-kr-net-17800J@telelists.com -- Ross Youngblood Staff Technical Specialist Schlumberger SABER Snail Mail: 1109 NE Burke Pl Corvallis Oregon email: rossy@San-Jose.ate.slb.com Pager: (800)SKY-PAGE PIN#895-9073 Voicemail (800)538-6838 x1632 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Wing Tanks From: Dean Selby Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 17:41:52 -0800 X-Message-Number: 25 I built a TEAM Mini-Max a couple of years ago. The tank you are referring to is 5 gal. Made of some sort of plastic, but a very durable tank. I am not aware of any other tank they make unless it is for their Air-Bike. I have not personally paid any attention to how that tank is made but if you need any measurements off the 5 gal tank I have one in my garage, I'd be happy to measure it for you but it will not fit in a KR wing. Dean Selby deans@usit.net At 06:03 PM 1/14/99 -0800, you wrote: >DClarke351@aol.com wrote: >> >> I called the "Team Co" and found out that the tanks are only 5 Gal tanks not >> 10 and I am getting the specks from them via snail mail. >> >> --- >> You are currently subscribed to kr-net as: doug.dorfmeier@worldnet.att.net >> To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-kr-net-17800J@telelists.com > >It sounds like you got further by calling them than I did sending them >an email. My first request for information received a response "the >tanks are 5 gallons" with no other detail. I sent a subsequent email >asking for additional information and received by mail a diagram with >deminsions and tank fill neck. No reference was made to materials used >in construction, positioning of drain, fuel line or venting. Price >which I had also requested was omitted. I am beginning to think that >these people do not really want to be bothered with potential customers. > >--- >You are currently subscribed to kr-net as: deans@usit.net >To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-kr-net-17800J@telelists.com > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: New airfoils From: Douglas Dorfmeier Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 16:14:52 -0800 X-Message-Number: 26 KR2616TJ@aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 1/15/99 8:25:43 AM Eastern Standard Time, boggyd@webtv.net > writes: > > << what are the improved characteristics of this new airfoil? >> > > I'm going to defer the technical analysis numbers to Mark & Steve but if you > have seen a KR fly, then you have noticed the nose down attitude at cruise > speed. You have to remember this RAF48 airfoil came off the Taylor Monoplane > and is not a design made for the KR, but simply an adapted airfoil for Ken > Rand. The new airfoils are laminar flow, correct the incident error in the KR > construction, and address a number of issues inherent in the RAF48. > > That is away Mark. > > Dana Overall > Richmond, KY > mailto:kr2616tj@aol.com > http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/7085/ > > --- > You are currently subscribed to kr-net as: doug.dorfmeier@worldnet.att.net > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-kr-net-17800J@telelists.com Does anyone have any thoughts on how the new airfoil compares to the one offered by Dan Diehl? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: New airfoils From: "Mark Langford" Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 18:47:49 -0600 X-Message-Number: 27 > Does anyone have any thoughts on how the new airfoil compares to the one > offered by Dan Diehl? Diehl's airfoils are RAF48 too. Mark Langford, Huntsville, Alabama mailto:langford@hiwaay.net see KR2S N56ML at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: FYI EA-81 Turbo From: "Tom Andersen" Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 19:37:09 -0500 X-Message-Number: 28 Also check out Majestic Turbo in Tampa, Fl, 1888 508 8726 Dave Calligan. They quoted me a price of $600 for the IHI and have several turbos cheaper than that, such as the TD05H for $500 and the TE04 for $450. He seemed very helpful when I explained that it was for an Airplane. I've heard that you need carbon seals to run them on a carbureted engine though, because the suction created by using a carb can draw the oil out of the turbo into the intake. -Tom -----Original Message----- From: Richard Parker To: KR-net users group Date: Friday, January 15, 1999 9:24 AM Subject: [kr-net] FYI EA-81 Turbo >FYI I've been investigating turbochargers and the best price I have >found is through turbocity. e-mail turbocty@sprynet.com > >This turbo is a w/c Suburu Turbo for a 1.8L (1800 cc) engine. > > #110-840 $617.02 > >Price is plus shipping and handling. > >The turbo and cartridge are complete and ready for installation. > We require a new OEM oil supply line to insure proper flow of oil. >(Not supplied) Both have a 12 month or 12,000 warranty. > >We accept Visa, M/C and Discover Card. You may Email your order >for payment with a credit card. Please include full number, >expiration date, and full name on card, plus complete shipping >address for UPS delivery. Shipment will sent at lowest price >ground shipment unless otherwise instructed. > > > >>From: "Richard Parker" >>To: "KR-net users group" >>Subject: [kr-net] Re: Firewall >>Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 03:03:43 PST >>Reply-To: "KR-net users group" >> >> >> >>>>You dont need stainless, a coated mild steel is acceptable. >>>>(but doesnt look as pretty) Check out the book "Firewall Forward" >>>>by Tony Bingelis. >>>> >>>>Rich Parker >>> >>>Doesn't he say somewhere that you need a thicker (i.e., heavier) piece >>of >>>mild steel than stainless steel for equal fireproof-ness? >>> >>>Mike Taglieri >> >>Actually he says just the opposite by saying that you can get away with >>using coated mild steel instead of using SS and save about half the >>weight. but if you want it to look pretty ...SS >> >> >>______________________________________________________ >>Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com >> >>--- >>You are currently subscribed to kr-net as: richontheroad@hotmail.com >>To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-kr-net-17800J@telelists.com >> > > >______________________________________________________ >Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com > >--- >You are currently subscribed to kr-net as: tomkr2s@t-three.com >To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-kr-net-17800J@telelists.com > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Need A RST Radio / NOT! From: Ron Freiberger Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 21:06:53 -0500 X-Message-Number: 29 My experience with RST suggest not buying from him. I was treated discourteousl and left without help to finish the assembly. More correctly, I'd rather struggle with it than put up will bad manners. -----Original Message----- From: bounce-kr-net-19348@telelists.com [mailto:bounce-kr-net-19348@telelists.com] On Behalf Of NFCKR3@aol.com Sent: Thursday, January 14, 1999 10:45 PM To: KR-net users group Subject: [kr-net] Re: Need A RST Radio Does anyone have a GOOD WORKING RST radio that they want to sell. Mis intermittant and I can't seem to find it. I called the factory and he tells me it will be 3 or 4 months before he can look at it (told me the same thing 2 months ago) as they don't have a service person. Any help and or suggestions will be appreciated, could replace it with something else but don't want to re-do Don's panel. Thanks Skip Carden and Pee Wee (250KB) --- You are currently subscribed to kr-net as: ronald.freiberger@cwix.com To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-kr-net-17800J@telelists.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: New airfoils From: Mike Mims Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 18:44:06 -0800 X-Message-Number: 30 Albert Pecoraro wrote: > << to? Is it in the KR-2S plans? i.e. if I build my wings according to the > drawings in my plans what airfoil will I have built - the New airfoil or > the RAF-48? ...>>>> I think Mark covered the new airfoil situation pretty well but I would like to include that in no way does RR endorse any airfoil other than the RAF48. You are on your own if you decided to change the airfoil. Also the development and wind tunnel testing of this airfoil was completely funded but users here on KRnet! That's pretty darn cool if you ask me! I knew from the beginning I wanted to use something other than the RAF48 and I went with the NACA 23015 (used on many GA aircraft). There have been a number of KR2s and KR2Ss flown with the 230xx series of airfoils so I felt it was a more conservative choice. Roy Marsh's super fast turbo KR2S utilizes this series and we all know its one fast bird! This is a really old stinky horse for most of us here on the net but rehashing is sometimes fun! :o) There is nothing wrong with the RAF48 I just wanted an airfoil that was developed during WW2 and not WW1! You guys who are just starting construction have the opportunity to use an airfoil created in the 1990s and that's a really nice option. -- zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz Micheal Mims SP290 (Sky Pig 290) ,..Building Cowling now mailto:mikemims@home.com http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/4136/ Aliso Viejo Ca ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: New airfoils From: Mike Mims Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 19:19:36 -0800 X-Message-Number: 31 Mike Mims wrote: <<>> Before someone gets their panties in a wad I didn't mean that as a negative thing, I don't blame RR for sticking with their proven airfoil. I just wanted to make sure people realize this is not endorsed in any way by RR. -- zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz Micheal Mims SP290 (Sky Pig 290) ,..Building Cowling now mailto:mikemims@home.com http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/4136/ Aliso Viejo Ca ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: New airfoils From: Ron Lee Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 21:17:02 -0700 X-Message-Number: 32 At 06:44 PM 1/15/99 -0800, you wrote: >I knew from the beginning I wanted to use something other than the RAF48 and >I went with the NACA 23015 (used on many GA aircraft). There have been a >number of KR2s and KR2Ss flown with the 230xx series of airfoils so I felt >it was a more conservative choice. Roy Marsh's super fast turbo KR2S >utilizes this series and we all know its one fast bird! Except for the last 22 months. Ron Lee --- END OF DIGEST --- You are currently subscribed to kr-net as: johnbou@timberline.com To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-kr-net-17800J@telelists.com