From: KR-net users group digest[SMTP:kr-net@telelists.com] Sent: Sunday, July 04, 1999 12:12 AM To: kr-net digest recipients Subject: kr-net digest: July 03, 1999 KR-net users group Digest for Saturday, July 03, 1999. 1. Re: RR wing skins 2. More interesting stuff 3. Re: strobe info? 4. Re: RR wing skins 5. Re: Tailpost 6. Re: strobe info? 7. Re: Control cables 8. Re: What Flox is. 9. Cutting fiberglass / foam 10. Re: ...New list member...Introduction....Arlington EAA Fly-in...BS 11. (no subject) 12. Re: (no subject) 13. Re: RR wing skins 14. Canopy installation 15. Mark's new web site 16. Re: Canopy installation 17. Re: ...New list member...Introduction....Arlington EAA Fly-in...BS 18. Re: Mark's new web site 19. Re: Arlington Airshow 20. Re: RR wing skins 21. Re: Canopy installation 22. light nav lights? 23. Stablizer hot wiring 24. Re: RR wing skins 25. Progress (was Stablizer hot wiring) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: RR wing skins From: "Mark Langford" Date: Sat, 3 Jul 1999 06:14:52 -0500 X-Message-Number: 1 Haris wrote: >I am ready to start building the outboard front spars soon. I plan to use RR >skins and was wondering that whether the spars have to be tapered both >ways. Haris, If you mean tapered front to rear as the spar extends to the tip, you're right. And obviously they taper top to bottom too. Is that what you meant? It's on one of the KR2S plans sheets, but if you need details I'll see if I can dig up my plans... Mark Langford, Huntsville, Alabama mailto:langford@hiwaay.net see KR2S N56ML at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: More interesting stuff From: "Wayne DeLisle Sr." Date: Sat, 03 Jul 1999 09:44:44 -0400 X-Message-Number: 2 This looks too good to not pass around. If anyone disagrees, please let me know privately, and I'll stop. WD ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Veeduber@aol.com Date: Sat, 3 Jul 1999 06:35:05 EDT Subject: PSRU's and horsepower To: VW@lists.kz In a message dated 99-07-03 00:05:37 EDT, you write: << Maybe we can get Prof Hoover to expound on the subject? Please. CZ >> CaptonZap (and the Group), I thought you were doing quite well :-) Besides, I've already received at least one razz-mut for pointing out that all 'horsepower' (note the quotes) are not the same. Doing so set several people's hair on fire because they read that without the quotes -- as meaning a horsepower was not 42 BTU's, 746 watts or 33,000 foot-pounds in a minute (or 550 in a second :-) or any of the myriad other definition of horsepower (without the quotes). All mothers are females. But not all females are mothers. It's the same with horsepower :-) [You may convert six-packs per weekend into horsepower if you wish. ] CZ's comment "...if you realize that a longer prop is more efficient at moving a mass of air, per HP input..." shows he's on the right track, even though he's risking the ire of the nit-pickers and bean-counters :-) A point he did not make directly -- and one which many fail to understand -- has to do with the velocity of the slip-stream produced by those smaller diameter props. Even if they are in fact moving 65 hp-worth of air, the only way they can do so is to accelerate that smaller diameter column of air to a higher velocity -- significantly higher in most cases. Did that come across? Try this... forget the horse. (It wasn't even a horse to begin with, it was PONY. [oh, never mind..] ) Focus on the 'power'. Power is defined as the rate at which work is done. And 'work' in this sense means the transfer of energy from one physical thing to another by the application of force. In this case, the force is torque and the thing is air. When we talk about 'horsepower' we are simply using a form of shorthand to define the lifting of a certain amount of weight a given distance in a given amount of time. To apply those definitions to airplanes & propellers, the weight in the equation becomes the mass of air that must be accelerated by the propeller, while the force that accomplishes that is the torque which causes the propeller to spin. (Time remains a constant. By convention, we use one minute.) In 'airplane-speak' we call the product of this marriage 'Thrust'. Unfortunately, air is elastic -- it can be compressed very easily. Even the atmosphere itself is a variable in the equation. And when you get right down to it, a propeller is not a very efficient converter of torque to thrust. Indeed, the most efficient propellers have only ONE blade... and achieve high efficiency only by moving slowly... as in s..l..o..w..l..y... not real handy for use in real airplanes :-) Add more blades... even one... and the efficiency drops. Spin it faster and it drops some more. Make the blades SHORTER and it drops again! Terrible things, propellors :-) But whatever its efficiency, the propeller DOES move air. And since air has mass you MAY think that five pounds of air moving ten miles an hour is the same as one pound of air moving fifty miles an hour. (Same total quanta of energy, right? Same 'horsepower', right?) But they're not equal. The properties of the air-mass change as its speed increases. Basically, it becomes more dense -- it is compressed, to some degree. And as it's density rises, so to does the drag it produces when it impinges upon an object. This has a horrendous effect on the amount of drag produced by that portion of the airframe in the prop blast, and the faster the blast, the more horrendous the drag. The simple truth is that horsepower alone is not enough on which to base the selection of an engine. The best example of this I've ever seen was watching a VW-powered Fly Baby make its first flight. He got off in fine style -- acceleration appeared about the same as with a C65. But he climbed VERY slowly. I don't think he had 200 feet under him by the time he reached the end of the 5000' runway. He made a wide, shallow turn and maintained his same altitude on the downwind leg, extending it quite a ways, then made another cautious turn... and headed back, keeping power on until he had the numbers under his nose. The landing was... lumpy but uneventful. I thought the guy was being very cool, making an ultra-cautious first-flight. But when he taxied in he looked like he'd seen a ghost. And the engine was HOT! Turns out, he had the engine firewalled all the time -- that almost non-existant rate of climb was ALL IT COULD DO. Later, I heard he fiddled with different props and made a few more flights, always during cool temps (this was near Sacramento in California's central valley -- warmish in the summer) but he never flew off the restrictions. He hauled it home. I heard it flew again -- like a Fly Baby should :-) but this time with a C65. (I don't know the details of the engine. He was one of the Aero-Jet crowd... mebbe someone in the Group can provide more info.) But if you put that same VW engine into a Teenie or a Sonerai an I'll bet it would do pretty good. (Ever drive a Fly Baby? You should. Interesting. Comfortable. Stiff-legged. And DRAGGY. You could confuse the altimeter for the tack if you're not careful :-) Personally, I don't pay that much attention to horsepower. After all, it isn't part of the equation. You got weight and lift. And you've got thrust and drag. No horsepower at all :-) How much torque have you got? Torque is what's important when it comes to generating thrust with a propellor. Stock VW has under 80 ft/lbs. Big Type IV veedub engine has about 120... about the same as the 1800cc Subaru. Bore & stroke a Type I, you can generally see about the same. (These are guesstimates. Your mileage may vary :-) Another way to look at psru's is as a torque-multiplier, kinda like a winch. The only problem is, nobody knows what the hell you're talking about when you say 'torque' :-) They only know horsepower... or think they do. If folks read the fine print they'd discover an awful lot of those 80hp engines (for ONE MINUTE) are actually 60hp (continuous output) engines. On that basis, the "65hp" veedub is a fairly reliable 50 hp engine :-) But it's pretty much a lost cause. Doesn't do much good talking about it -- they've got all the numbers on their side. All 'horsepower' is the same, right? :-) Which brings me back to your original point, with which I agree whole heartedly -- You can add a torque-mulitplier to your engine and thereby enhance it's ability to fly certain airframes... but you are stuck with the peak-vs-continuous problems. The joke here is that a lot of folks think a psru will change the engine's peak OUTPUT... somehow extend the minute or so during which it can actually produce 65 hp without melting down. The joke is that they NEVER HAD A 65HP ENGINE TO BEGIN WITH... except to begin with... for a minute or so, to get them airborne. After that, they've got a fifty-horse engine (or whatever). If those fifty horses are dashing around too fast for you to get much thrust out of them, adding a psru... and accepting its additional weight and inherent losses... MAY be the best solution. But only to gain FIFTY HP WORTH of usable thrust, not the mythical 65. (It really makes no sense at all, this psru vs power confusion. Ever drive a Jeep? When you shifted into 4wd and low-range, did you put in a new engine too? But it had more 'power', right? WRONG. Same amount of power but applied over a longer period of TIME. Same thing with a psru.... 50 hp at 3400rpm suddenly becomes 50hp at 2000 rpm. The prop has more TIME. It is now moving at a slower RATE. You may now use a LARGER propeller... and gain considerably from its greater efficiency, as compared to that toothpick you've been using :-) Or maybe not. A lot of it has to do what you're trying to fly. Little bird slicker than snot on a door knob, may do just fine spinning a splinter of a prop at 3600 rpm... and producing an honest 65 horsepower...(but with every needle you got in the red after the first few minutes). But redlined or not, that pilot has 'proof' he's getting a zillion horsepower out of a veedub (at least for a while). Now let's go across the street to that feller building the CH-701 and lookit the haystack he's trying to drag through the air. He's like the Fly Baby driver in that his airframe dictates the need for a big, slow-moving slug of thrust to do it's thing most efficiently. Submerge his boxy, struted, fixed-gear-with-no-pants airframe in the 140mph slipstream you'll get from a veedub twirling a tiny prop... and the CH-701 would be lucky to get off the ground. (For all the bean-counters: The CH-701 is a superb design. The prototype flew two-up, STOL, behind a 50hp Rotax... fitted with a psru and large-diameter prop. This airframe is literally re-writing the books with regard to low-cost STOL performance. And yes, this is an example of Hoover Aluminum Lust :-) It always comes back to the same crux. Once you've homed-in on what you want to fly, you need to figure out what you're going to fly it with. That's where all the flak comes in, mostly from folks who have 'proof' their Whizbang 2000 does just fine with an "80hp" VW... or those who believe the ads they read... or that all horsepower are created equal... which they are. But when it comes to generating thrust, some horses are a bit more equal than others :-) ------------------------ This might be a good time to publicly air a subject that several (well... two :-) of you have asked me about. Yes, the Type IV engine is a fairly close match for the Porsche type 678 industrial engine I've previously mentioned on this Mailing List (ie, the one Porsche sold as an aircraft engine). I've already mentioned the major differences privately so I won't repeat them. But a topic that may be of general interest is the fact the most significant difference between the Type IV and the Type I is the surface area of the cooling fins in the head. To put that in persepctive, the Type I heads started out on a 1300cc engine. The 1600cc engine (or the 2180cc engine, if you bore & stroke the thing) has the SAME head-cooling surface area as the 1300cc engine. (Actually, it has a bit less -- compare the castings to see why. This is part of the 'geometry' paradox I keep mentioning.) By comparison, the heads on the type 678... which had a displacement of only 1500cc... have about the same cooling area as the heads of the 2000cc Type IV. (Does this ring any bells? Anyone notice any light-bulbs going on over their heads?) The point of all this is that you can bore & stroke a veedub as much as you want but you can't bring about any substantial change in its SUSTAINED output unless you increase its cooling capacity. Start with the Type IV, you're about fifteen horsepower higher up the curve but you are going to run into the same problem -- the amount of cooling surface area is fixed. You can increase the engine's power-output but all that will do is spike the temps... and lead to early failure of the valves. If you want more CONTINUOUS power from a veedub, you must increase its cooling capacity. The situation is radically different for liquid-cooled engines, in that you may push their output to the limits of the design's volumetric efficiency -- over 200hp from less than 100 cubic inches -- yet still have a reliable, cool-running power-plant. It comes down to the management of the waste heat produced by the engine. With liquid cooling, you need only increase the flow-rate of the coolant and the size of the radiator to keep critical temps within spec. You do not have the same latitude when dealing with an air-cooled engine. Virtually all Subaru installations are fitted with psru's. But their relatively high output vs displacement is an artifact of their COOLING, not the psru. Type I veedub has about fifty horsepower's-worth of cooling ability. With... or without a psru. Type IV has about sixty-five Increase the displacement of these engines and you can see some dramatic gains in PEAK power output... but sustained output is dictated by the engine's ability to cool itself. After taking off, you're back to your basic fifty or sixty-five hp. Most Subaru flyers alter the cam and provide a cooling system which allows a fairly high sustained power output -- I've personally seen 80hp continuous and 100hp TO and have heard of even more (from larger engines). But Soobs and 'Dubs are apples & oranges -- you can't compare them directly. And the psru really has nothing to do with it; it does not increase the engine's output, it simply moves the torque curve into a range where you can use a larger, more efficient propeller. -R.S.Hoover PS -- Couple of crevats: I'm talking small recips operating at slow speeds and low altitudes here. If you wanna put a JT6 in your Windwagen, take two aspirins and call me in the morning. PPS -- Maximum sustained output from the type 678 was 70hp @ 4500 rpm. Economy cruise was less, take-off more. (678-4, dual carbs, fitted with the planetary-geared psru... and using a belt-driven BLOWER for cooling. Prop speed was 2275. Weight was about 190.) And yes, those are DIN horsepower rather than SAE. (But all horsepower are the SAME, right? :-) --------------------------------------------------------- Wayne DeLisle Sr. Charlotte, North Carolina USA mailto:dodger@accessnode.net (new address) mailto:dodger@coincidental.net (old address) http://accessnode.net/~dodger --------------------------------------------------------- Project Viking "Daring to venture forward from the Dark Ages" online FAQ/manual at http://www.evansville.net/~boeing/project_viking ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: strobe info? From: RFG842@aol.com Date: Sat, 3 Jul 1999 10:35:08 EDT X-Message-Number: 3 Mike Two questions about the pulsing landing lights; what help are they when viewing the aircraft from the rear and how does it affect the life of the bulbs. Think its a good idea and Aircraft Spruce offers a flasher but it's expensive. Tnks Bob ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: RR wing skins From: HAshraf@aol.com Date: Sat, 3 Jul 1999 11:03:17 EDT X-Message-Number: 4 In a message dated 99-07-03 07:16:28 EDT, you write: << If you mean tapered front to rear as the spar extends to the tip, you're right. And obviously they taper top to bottom too. Is that what you meant? It's on one of the KR2S plans sheets, but if you need details I'll see if I can dig up my plans.. >> Sorry for the confusion. Here is another try: The root of the spar is approx 2"x2" and the tip is approx 1"x1" per plan. When I got my spars from Canada, the tips were were 1"x2" (heightxdepth). Which meant that If I do not taper it again I can have more surface area to bond from the skins but they will weigh more. Also the joggle in skin may not be wide enough to accomodate an un tapered outer spar. This question can probably answered by some one who has seen the skins. I should probably go ahead per plans. I am sure the RR would have put a note in plans if premolded skins required any special changes. Today I should be able to start hot wiring the stab and the plan is to complete it during the long weekend. If I have time I may taper the spars too. Haris ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Tailpost From: HAshraf@aol.com Date: Sat, 3 Jul 1999 11:11:09 EDT X-Message-Number: 5 In a message dated 99-07-02 22:02:48 EDT, you write: << I had purchased an electric hand plane to taper the spars, and it works to taper the tail post as well. (Black & Decker). >> Ross: I have an electric plane and would like to use it to taper the spars. I was wondering how did you do it. Was it free hand or you built some sort of jig. haris ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: strobe info? From: Mike Mims Date: Sat, 03 Jul 1999 08:20:04 -0700 X-Message-Number: 6 RFG842@aol.com wrote: > > Mike > > Two questions about the pulsing landing lights; what help are they when > viewing the aircraft from the rear and how does it affect the life of the > bulbs.>> Forget the stuff from AS&S (unless its from pulselite), you can buy a system designed for what I am talking about from Precise Flight for $229. As for what good they do? All I can say is once we installed them on the planes I flew we could see each other for miles away and we didn't even hook the nav lights up to the system. The bulbs last longer from what I remember but if you want to know more go to: http://www.pulselite.com/ I plan to use one of these on the Pig because I used them and they work. -- zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz Micheal Mims Filling and Sanding again! http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/4136/ http://members.home.com/mikemims/ Aliso Viejo CA ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Control cables From: Bobby Muse Date: Sat, 03 Jul 1999 11:37:28 -0500 X-Message-Number: 7 At 06:49 AM 05/28/1999 PDT, you wrote: >Control cable material is available both in galvanized and stainless. The >price difference, for the quantity of cable we need for our projects, is >relatively insignificant. Has anybody used stainless? I see it takes >different Nico sleeves, too. > >Oscar Zuniga > I used stainless... for the same reason you stated plus confidence that I have in stainless over galvanized to be almost maintenance free made it a no-brainer. Bobby Muse mailto:bmuse@mindspring.com Wimberly, TX ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: What Flox is. From: "R.W. Moore" Date: Sat, 3 Jul 1999 12:14:29 -0400 X-Message-Number: 8 thanks I found the flox in acp catalog. I will order a pounf tuesday. RWM ----- Original Message ----- From: Ross Youngblood To: KR-net users group Sent: Friday, July 02, 1999 9:46 PM Subject: [kr-net] What Flox is. > R.W., > Flox is a mixture of epoxy and cotton Flock that is mixed > and creates a structural filler material. It is commonly used > on the trailing edges of fiberglass lay-ups, and used in the > sealing of the wing tanks per the plans. > I have made flox from both Hexcell Structural Adheasive (Like T-88), > and Aeropoxy (Used for fiberglass work). In the case of my wing tanks > I mixed it with Aeropoxy, and smeared it into the tank seam with a > tongue depressor. > > > R.W. Moore wrote: > > > > I have cut open my wing gas tank to stop the leaks. What do I use and where > > do I buy it. The leaks are next to the main spar. I read in ACP catalog the > > a sealer for about $14. 00 a Quart. I do not know about FLOX what is it and > > where do you buy it? > > RWMoore > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: > > To: KR-net users group > > Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 1999 12:19 PM > > Subject: [kr-net] Re: T-88 or E-Z Poxy to glue Aluminum to wood > > > > > In a message dated 6/30/99 9:21:46 AM Mountain Daylight Time, > > > rossy@teleport.com writes: > > > > > > << Michael Taglieri wrote: > > > > > > > > >This Floxing of the aluminum mounts is news to me. I have made > > > > >FLOX from both Aeropoxy, and Hexcel Structural Adhesive (Similar > > > > >to T-88). The T88, will be thicker, but will work. I found using > > > > >the structural adhesive easier to use for small batches as it is > > > > > > > > If I remember correctly, the aluminum mounts were first suggested in an > > > > old Newsletter (perhaps by Lance Niebuhr??) following a firewall > > failure > > > > after a hard landing. That article recommended both bolting and > > > > epoxying. Eventually the idea made it into the plans but mentioned > > only > > > > bolting. > > > > > > > > This either means (A) Rand-Robinson did careful stress analysis and > > > > determined that epoxying was not needed, or (B) another slapdash error > > in > > > > the plans. > > > > > > > > Mike Taglieri > > > > >> > > > I have had a fair amount of experience with glueing aluminum, and unless > > the > > > surface > > > is prepared properly,ie FPL etch or Boeing anodize process, the aluminum > > will > > > seperate from the rest of the assy. after a while. So I think the glue was > > > deleted because it would seperate after a short time anyway. ps I know > > some > > > of you have had these joints hold for a "long time" but a lot of Industry > > > experience by a lot of companies says unless properly preped, they won't > > > hold. > > > Bill Higdon > > > Willard561@aol.com > > > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > You are currently subscribed to kr-net as: rwmoore@alltel.net > > > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-kr-net-17800J@telelists.com > > > > > > > > > > --- > > You are currently subscribed to kr-net as: rossy@teleport.com > > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-kr-net-17800J@telelists.com > > --- > You are currently subscribed to kr-net as: rwmoore@alltel.net > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-kr-net-17800J@telelists.com > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Cutting fiberglass / foam From: "Dean Collette" Date: Sat, 3 Jul 1999 14:25:59 -0500 X-Message-Number: 9 Netters, I made a seat back out of Last-A-Foam with regular fiberglass laid up on each side. To cut it to the correct size I just ran it through my bandsaw. Every now and then while cutting, I saw a couple of sparks! When done, the piece came out fine, but the blade was completely shot. I have cut wood, aluminum, and steel (yes, thin 4130) with blades just like this one, and I have never had anything ruin a blade that fast. Any idea why? I can't imagine what was making the sparks - they were definitely coming from the material being cut. Maybe something in the Last-A-Foam? By the way, I had the distinct pleasure to see Mark Jones' project in person this morning. Although I was amazed at how far Mark has gotten during his18 months of construction, his careful craftsmanship is evident throughout the entire project. I have no doubt that this will be a beautiful airplane when done. It's unfortunate, but Mark will have to take some time away from working on his airplane - He's going to need to build a trophy case!! If you haven't seen his web site yet, make sure to check out http://sites.netscape.net/flykr2s/homepage Dean Collette Milwaukee, Wisconsin mailto:drdean@execpc.com Web Page at http://www.execpc.com/~drdean/home.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: ...New list member...Introduction....Arlington EAA Fly-in...BS From: Tim Date: Sat, 03 Jul 1999 13:55:29 -0600 X-Message-Number: 10 Hi dudes! Tim here, Newest prospective builder to the list; I live on a Canadain F-18Hornet Airbase (whoopie shizen) 6 of the birds just arrived back from Aviano, Italy. Had to watch a Bud kissing his girlfriend on National News (If he really knew... right ;-) Been in the EAA since 86...done Osh-2/S&F-1/ARL-6. I'm leaving Alberta for Arlington on weds. Driving 'me trusty' 1 ton Chevy APRV (aircraft project recovery van/vehicle). I'm delivering a 0200A to a local builder (convennient or what?) so will be arriving thursnight for a Suds at 'Porkies Bar & Grill' My brother 'founder EAA chap 679' and his crowd will be hanging out on the weekend...Monty...I'll keep an eye open for your KR arrival, on Saturday. I looked at the KR2 some yrs ago...prior to the KR2S and decided it was too small until seeing what others have done...I've been Looking for an A/C with good performance specs to hang my 'gem' of a EA-81 on. While perusing (ok...checking out), Mark Langfords Website. I now have my past concerns addressed and 'dig' some of his very well thought out, newer ideas. Thanks again Mark!...you have made me 'HOT' and I don't mean in the incarcerated sense (just rented the video "American History X" excellent flick...must be based on a true story... So plans are in order...any know of a set of -2 plans with the 2S mods set?. If not, perhaps Rand/R is going to the show although I don't remember RR there before. OK I'll Shutup Now, cheers Tim Cramb Monty Dotson wrote: > I'm planning on flying up to the show on Sat. the 10th , I would like to meet any KR enthusiasts. Does anyone have any plans for gathering together at the show ? The last time I attended the event ,they didn't seem to really have much regard placing types of aircraft catagoricaly. I suppose it's a first come , first tie down spot situation. Thank you for any response. Monty D. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: (no subject) From: WA7YXF@aol.com Date: Sat, 3 Jul 1999 20:50:34 EDT X-Message-Number: 11 I am scratch building a Kr-2 single place. With Kr-1 canopy on it. Even after reading all the news letters and doing my best my wings are turning out really rough and I see weeks of filling and sanding. So guys once again get those cores true and keep those glue joints down below the surface. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: (no subject) From: DClarke351@aol.com Date: Sat, 3 Jul 1999 21:32:48 EDT X-Message-Number: 12 When I built my wings I built a long hot wire, (about 6') and my wings came out nice and smooth. If you have any questions E-mail me or call 915-755-0588. Don Clarke ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: RR wing skins From: "w.g. kirkland" Date: Sat, 3 Jul 1999 22:08:07 -0400 X-Message-Number: 13 Mark: The spars taper only one way in each plane. Ie. front to back but the rear edge is straight. W.G. KIRKLAND kirkland@vianet.on.ca ---------- > From: Mark Langford > To: KR-net users group > Subject: [kr-net] Re: RR wing skins > Date: Saturday, July 03, 1999 7:14 AM > > Haris wrote: > > >I am ready to start building the outboard front spars soon. I plan to use > RR > >skins and was wondering that whether the spars have to be tapered both > >ways. > > Haris, > > If you mean tapered front to rear as the spar extends to the tip, you're > right. And obviously they taper top to bottom too. Is that what you meant? > It's on one of the KR2S plans sheets, but if you need details I'll see if I > can dig up my plans... > > Mark Langford, Huntsville, Alabama > mailto:langford@hiwaay.net > see KR2S N56ML at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford > > > --- > You are currently subscribed to kr-net as: kirkland@vianet.on.ca > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-kr-net-17800J@telelists.com > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Canopy installation From: RFG842@aol.com Date: Sat, 3 Jul 1999 22:11:10 EDT X-Message-Number: 14 Mark Installing my Dragonfly canopy now. How did you install the blocks on the side of the fuselage to squeeze the canopy to shape without putting holes in the fuselage?? Can't make out the mounting method in your pictures. Also, when you lay up the cloth on the canopy, useing pleply or duck tape to mask the canopy, how do you trip the edges of the cloth after cureing so that you don't scratch or cut the canopy? I plan to lay up the turtle deck and canopy at the same time and then cut it loose with a Dremel. By the way, could not have gottten this far without yours, Mikes, Riches and all of the other sites that clerify what the plans leave unsaid. Thanks for all the help, Bob ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Mark's new web site From: Robert Maniss Date: Sat, 03 Jul 1999 21:16:13 -0700 X-Message-Number: 15 Anyone besides me having difficulty reaching Mark's site? Bob Maniss Abilene, TX ejrem@worldnet.att.net ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Canopy installation From: Donald Reid Date: Sat, 03 Jul 1999 22:26:03 -0400 X-Message-Number: 16 RFG842@aol.com wrote: > > Mark > > Installing my Dragonfly canopy now. How did you install the blocks on the > side of the fuselage to squeeze the canopy to shape without putting holes in > the fuselage?? On mine, I drilled two holes in each side of the canopy under the area that would eventially be glassed over. I then used small nails (small screws would also work) to pull the canopy over into position against temporary blocks of wood that were attached to framework in the cockpit area. After the majority of the layup had cured, I pulled the nails out and covered the small holes with a little piece of glass. > Also, when you lay up the cloth on the canopy, useing pleply or duck tape to > mask the canopy, how do you trip the edges of the cloth after cureing so that > you don't scratch or cut the canopy? Be sure to use black electrical tape on the canopy itself. It will not leave a residue on the plexiglass. On the final layer of glass, cut a fairly wide strip of glass and fold it in half. Put the fold at the outer edge of the layup. Then you will have a very nice edge as the final surface. Alternatively, if your glass comes with a selvage edge, use that. -- 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 list member...Introduction....Arlington EAA Fly-in...BS From: "w.g. kirkland" Date: Sat, 3 Jul 1999 22:26:52 -0400 X-Message-Number: 17 Tim. Another Canuck ex RCAF/CAF Kr2s builder here. When u are ordering supplies be carefull how you have them shipped. US postal service is ok getting things thru customs and couriers will look after the customs duties for you but they won't take packages over 4 or 6' (can't remember which). Shipping by truck is a disaster. You pay by volume and top dollar. You need a customs agent -$100, duty $50, and trucking $150 ++. The foam costs less than 500. Buy Canadian and save. I can give you the name of a building supply centre that sells the foam if you can't find a local dealer. Look to boat builders to get fiberglass and epoxy. I have an address in TO if u need it. Good luck. Bill W.G. KIRKLAND kirkland@vianet.on.ca ---------- > From: Tim > To: KR-net users group > Subject: [kr-net] Re: ...New list member...Introduction....Arlington EAA Fly-in...BS > Date: Saturday, July 03, 1999 3:55 PM > > Hi dudes! Tim here, Newest prospective builder to the list; > > I live on a Canadain F-18Hornet Airbase (whoopie shizen) 6 of the > birds just arrived back from Aviano, Italy. Had to watch a Bud kissing > his girlfriend on National News (If he really knew... right ;-) > > Been in the EAA since 86...done Osh-2/S&F-1/ARL-6. I'm leaving Alberta > for Arlington on weds. Driving 'me trusty' 1 ton Chevy APRV (aircraft > project recovery van/vehicle). I'm delivering a 0200A to a local builder > (convennient or what?) so will be arriving thursnight for a Suds at > 'Porkies Bar & Grill' My brother 'founder EAA chap 679' and his crowd > will be hanging out on the weekend...Monty...I'll keep an eye open for > your KR arrival, on Saturday. > > I looked at the KR2 some yrs ago...prior to the KR2S and decided it > was too small until seeing what others have done...I've been Looking for > an A/C with good performance specs to hang my 'gem' of a EA-81 on. > > While perusing (ok...checking out), Mark Langfords Website. I now have > my past concerns addressed and 'dig' some of his very well thought out, > newer ideas. Thanks again Mark!...you have made me 'HOT' and I don't > mean in the incarcerated sense (just rented the video "American History > X" excellent flick...must be based on a true story... > > So plans are in order...any know of a set of -2 plans with the 2S mods > set?. If not, perhaps Rand/R is going to the show although I don't > remember RR there before. OK I'll Shutup Now, cheers > > Tim Cramb > > > Monty Dotson wrote: > > > I'm planning on flying up to the show on Sat. the 10th , I would like > to meet any KR enthusiasts. Does anyone have any plans for gathering > together at the show ? The last time I attended the event ,they didn't > seem to really have much regard placing types of aircraft catagoricaly. > I suppose it's a first come , first tie down spot situation. Thank you > for any response. Monty D. > > > > --- > You are currently subscribed to kr-net as: kirkland@vianet.on.ca > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-kr-net-17800J@telelists.com > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Mark's new web site From: Mike Mims Date: Sat, 03 Jul 1999 20:32:17 -0700 X-Message-Number: 18 Robert Maniss wrote: > > Anyone besides me having difficulty reaching Mark's site? > Bob Maniss Abilene, TX ejrem@worldnet.att.net > Which Mark? What URL? -- zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz Micheal Mims Filling and Sanding again! http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/4136/ http://members.home.com/mikemims/ Aliso Viejo CA ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Arlington Airshow From: MARVIN MCCOY Date: Sun, 04 Jul 1999 08:37:57 -0700 X-Message-Number: 19 Monty: Several of us are meeting at the Bar-B-Q pit Saturday at 10:00 am. I do not know how many KR's will be there. Robert Pyra is coming from Canada with his KR2 some time on Saturday. The Bar-B-Q Pit is the little hamburger joint on the west side of the field. Hope to see you there. Marvin McCoy Seattle, WA. North end of Boeing field -------------------- Monty Dotson wrote: > > I'm planning on flying up to the show on Sat. the 10th , I would like to > meet any KR enthusiasts. Does anyone have any plans for gathering > together at the show ? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: RR wing skins From: "Mark Langford" Date: Sat, 3 Jul 1999 22:41:02 -0500 X-Message-Number: 20 > Mark: The spars taper only one way in each plane. Ie. front to back but the > rear edge is straight. Maybe THAT's what he meant! Now you're talking "does it taper both FRONT and BACK as it extends outboard, which isn't what he asked, but it makes sense. Mark Langford, Huntsville, Alabama mailto:langford@hiwaay.net see KR2S project N56ML at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Canopy installation From: "Mark Langford" Date: Sat, 3 Jul 1999 22:56:04 -0500 X-Message-Number: 21 Bob wrote: > Installing my Dragonfly canopy now. How did you install the blocks on the > side of the fuselage to squeeze the canopy to shape without putting holes in > the fuselage?? Can't make out the mounting method in your pictures. The early stages of the canopy frame were built sitting on top of a "false flange" that was merely a piece of 3/4" OSB (oriented strand board) that was sitting on top of the fuselage and whose outer perimeter was cut to the shape of the fuselage. To make it I laid the OSB on top, traced the fuselage around the eges and jigsawed it out. That's what the blocks screw into, pinching the canopy into the same position as the fuselage sides. I'm with Don on the electrical tape. I used duct tape, which definitely leaves a serious residue. Fortunately the majority of the tape was on top of the acrylic stuff that they spray on the canopy to protect it. I also covered the outside with electrical tape (later) to protect the canopy while feathering the micro joint between canopy and frame. Never drilled a hole in it, since I read too many horror stories about that sort of thing... Mark Langford, Huntsville, Alabama mailto:langford@hiwaay.net see KR2S project N56ML at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford ----- Original Message ----- From: To: KR-net users group Sent: Saturday, July 03, 1999 9:11 PM Subject: [kr-net] Canopy installation > Mark > > Installing my Dragonfly canopy now. How did you install the blocks on the > side of the fuselage to squeeze the canopy to shape without putting holes in > the fuselage?? Can't make out the mounting method in your pictures. > > Also, when you lay up the cloth on the canopy, useing pleply or duck tape to > mask the canopy, how do you trip the edges of the cloth after cureing so that > you don't scratch or cut the canopy? I plan to lay up the turtle deck and > canopy at the same time and then cut it loose with a Dremel. > > By the way, could not have gottten this far without yours, Mikes, Riches and > all of the other sites that clerify what the plans leave unsaid. > > Thanks for all the help, Bob > > --- > You are currently subscribed to kr-net as: langford@hiwaay.net > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-kr-net-17800J@telelists.com > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: light nav lights? From: "Mark Langford" Date: Sat, 3 Jul 1999 23:03:56 -0500 X-Message-Number: 22 LightHeads, OK, I solved the strobe dilema last week. Now I need nav/position lights (the ones with colored facing front and white facing rear, so I don't have to have a tail light). Anybody know of anything that's light? The Whelen stuff is a little homely looking, and sure looks heavy. And they're certainly not aerodynamic. I remember seeing some pretty cool colored airfoil shaped covers on Tailwinds. Anybody know where those come from? I'm making lots of progress this weekend. Tomorrow I finish the foam structure of the leading edge and would be ready to close it out if I had lights and strobes installed. It's one of those things that I've dreaded doing for YEARS and just knocked it out today like it was a piece of cake. It even looks nice, although it will be inside the wing. I might be sanding my first wing to shape next weekend! Thanks, Mark Langford, Huntsville, Alabama mailto:langford@hiwaay.net see KR2S project N56ML at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Stablizer hot wiring From: HAshraf@aol.com Date: Sun, 4 Jul 1999 00:32:15 EDT X-Message-Number: 23 Hi Guys, Today Mike and Brad hot wired the stabilizer and elevator while I watched. The results were exceptionally good. It took less than an hour. There is very litle sanding needed and the edges are perfectly straight. This is the way to go. I made the mistake of gluing (using micro) the foam in the frame and then sanding the micro that had squeezed out with. I has not done that perfectly so I need to sand some minor ridges. If I do a decent job glassing there would be very little filler required making the whole tail really light and smooth. If I had to do it again, I would hot wire the cores in one piece and then cut ( using the hot wireing bow) to fit in the stabalizer frame. I'll take a picture of the tail and post it on the net if possible. Haris ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: RR wing skins From: HAshraf@aol.com Date: Sun, 4 Jul 1999 00:37:01 EDT X-Message-Number: 24 In a message dated 99-07-03 23:48:37 EDT, you write: << Maybe THAT's what he meant! Now you're talking "does it taper both FRONT and BACK as it extends outboard, which isn't what he asked, but it makes sense. >> No I did not mean that. Sorry I caused the confusion. There are so many 'tapers' in the outer spars which caused the confusion. Haris ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Progress (was Stablizer hot wiring) From: Mike Mims Date: Sat, 03 Jul 1999 21:58:00 -0700 X-Message-Number: 25 HAshraf@aol.com wrote: > > Hi Guys, > > Today Mike and Brad hot wired the stabilizer and elevator while I watched. > The results were exceptionally good. It took less than an hour. There is very > litle sanding needed and the edges are perfectly straight. This is the way to > go. Haris you forgot to mention that I gave you some dual on applying SuperFil. As mentioned before its a little weird to work with but after an hour or so you get a good feel for what it takes to make it spread nicely. Haris made the mistake of saying he would like to help apply some filler today so I put him and my 12 year old son Patrick to work! They did pretty good and I would like to thank them both. One of the reasons I went to the hanger today was to test out my RST antenna that I built a few weeks ago. I hooked up the King KX99 and called Chino ground for a radio check and promptly got a "LOUD AND CLEAR" back from the controller. This for some odd reason made me feel good! I don't know what I expected but knowing I built the antenna and it ended up working perfectly gave me a feeling of accomplishment. Imagine what it must be like to build an entire radio and hear it work. Anyway buy the kit from RST and you cant go wrong. Better yet the kit includes enough parts to build about 15 antennas so some of you could get together and split the cost. RST has a web site but I forget the URL. -- zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz Micheal Mims Filling and Sanding again! http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/4136/ http://members.home.com/mikemims/ Aliso Viejo CA ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ --- 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