From: KR-net users group digest[SMTP:kr-net@telelists.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 1999 12:16 AM To: kr-net digest recipients Subject: kr-net digest: July 19, 1999 KR-net users group Digest for Monday, July 19, 1999. 1. Re: Open Canopy 2. Re: Emergency Proceedures (in light of how not to get out) 3. Re: Emergency Proceedures (in light of how not to get out) 4. Re: Emergency Proceedures (in light of how not to get out) 5. Re: More on Troy's plane 6. Layups using plastic film 7. Toby's site 8. Re: Toby's site 9. whats old is new again 10. Re: Toby's site 11. Re: Layups using plastic film 12. Re: Toby's site 13. Re: Fuel tank 14. Re: Emergency Proceedures (in light of how not to get out) 15. Re: Fuel Lines 16. Bonding foam to wood (was layups . . .) 17. Re: Fuel Lines 18. Re: Fuel Lines 19. Re: More on Troy's plane 20. Re: [c-a] Newer Foam??? 21. Re: Fuel lines 22. Re: whats old is new again 23. Re: Fuel Lines 24. Auto engines...etc... 25. Re: Fuel lines...stainless-steel 26. Re: More on Troy's plane 27. Re: Emergency Proceedures (in light of how not to get out) 28. Layups using plastic film 29. Re: [c-a] Newer Foam??? 30. stupid question of the day 31. RAF 48 32. Re: Newer Foam??? 33. Noise Cancelling Circuit 34. Re: stupid question of the day 35. Re: Emergency Proceedures (in light of how not to get out) 36. Re: stupid question of the day 37. Re: Emergency Procedures (in light of how not to get out) 38. Re: stupid question of the day 39. Re: KR-1 leveling points 40. Re: Emergency Procedures (in light of how not to get out) 41. Re: Emergency Proceedures (in light of how not to get out) 42. Re: Emergency Procedures (in light of how not to get out) 43. Re: Emergency Proceedures (in light of how not to get out) 44. Re: Fuel Lines 45. Re: Toby's site 46. Re: Fuel tank 47. Re: Emergency Proceedures (in light of how not to get out) 48. Re: stupid question of the day 49. Re: KR-1 leveling points 50. ELT'S 51. Re: ELT'S 52. Re: ELT'S 53. Re: ELT'S 54. Re: Emergency Proceedures (in light of how not to get out) 55. Re:45 deg plywood 56. Re: Newer Foam??? 57. Re: ELT'S 58. FW: Cooling Problems 59. Grain direction.....who cares it's plywood...my turn at a 'STUPID' Question ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Open Canopy From: Bobby Muse Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 06:22:59 -0500 X-Message-Number: 1 At 08:39 AM 07/18/1999 -0700, you wrote: > You better be sure this is what you want to >do as the Dragonfly and or KR will not maintain flight with the canopy >missing. > >Micheal Mims Why do say that the KR will not maintain flight with the canopy missing? On the cover on the KR Newsletter about seven years ago was a picture of a KR1 flying with the canopy open. The windshield stayed in place but the top of the canopy could be removed for open-cockpit flying which he he did a lot. I talked with the builder(sorry, I forgot his name) once at Oshkosh, where he had the KR on display. I don't if any of you guys know or have ever met this builder but he would be a real motivational experience and an inspiration to have ever had that opportunity. This guy had a great positive attitude about life and a real love of flying and he loved his KR. It was a honor for me to have had the opportunity to meet and talk with him. He won the 'Outstanding Achievement Award' from the EAA for being with his KR at Oshkosh that year. You see, this guy loved to fly, built a KR and had flown the it several hours before he had an accident, not in the KR but on tractor. He had had a job at the airport cutting grass when one day while cutting the grass, he got off of the tractor to check the PTO that drives the bush-hog mower. Accidently his jacket got tangled in the PTO and tore both of his arms off at the shoudler. He had no arms. He loved his pride and joy and he wanted everyone at Oshkosh to see it. He'll never be able to build an airplane or to fly solo again, but he did it once and he was proud of it. He should have been because it was a great little KR1. He had a dream and he made his dream come true. Bobby Muse mailto:bmuse@mindspring.com Wimberly, TX ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Emergency Proceedures (in light of how not to get out) From: Krwr1@aol.com Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 08:14:52 EDT X-Message-Number: 2 In a message dated 7/18/99 8:58:15 PM Pacific Daylight Time, miket_nyc@juno.com writes: << Maybe the Dragonfly, but I've seen instructions for an alternative open-cockpit design, at least for the KR-1, so why can't it fly with the cockpit removed? Mike Taglieri >> We had a KR-2 in Oil City Pa. that lost it's canopy in flight, and would not stay in the air because of the large open area in to the back of the aircraft . The pilot landed in a tree , and found himself walking in a daze in the forest . He surveved . It would all depend on how you finish the rear area inside the cockpit .Most KR's built would not have a windshield if the canopy was lost . Bill Reents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Emergency Proceedures (in light of how not to get out) From: "Mark Langford" Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 07:46:53 -0500 X-Message-Number: 3 > We had a KR-2 in Oil City Pa. that lost it's canopy in flight, and would > not stay in the air because of the large open area in to the back of the > aircraft . The pilot landed in a tree... The story I heard was he spun it in from 8000 feet into a tree, but I guess you could call that a "landing". The guy is now building another KR2, and usually makes the Gatherings. Mark Langford, Huntsville, Alabama mailto:langford@hiwaay.net see KR2S N56ML at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Emergency Proceedures (in light of how not to get out) From: Krwr1@aol.com Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 08:56:09 EDT X-Message-Number: 4 In a message dated 7/19/99 5:47:43 AM Pacific Daylight Time, langford@hiwaay.net writes: << > We had a KR-2 in Oil City Pa. that lost it's canopy in flight, and would > not stay in the air because of the large open area in to the back of the > aircraft . The pilot landed in a tree... The story I heard was he spun it in from 8000 feet into a tree, but I guess you could call that a "landing". The guy is now building another KR2, and usually makes the Gatherings. >> Not the same guy Mark , this guy was a friend of mine And it was a controlled landing in a tree .. Bill ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: More on Troy's plane From: KR2616TJ@aol.com Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 08:56:13 EDT X-Message-Number: 5 --part1_b47cd1db.24c47a6d_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 7/19/99 7:55:23 AM Eastern Daylight Time, KR2 616TJ writes: << In a message dated 7/18/99 11:29:26 PM Eastern Daylight Time, mikemims@home.com writes: << Also we all know that a increase in HP of say 20 will do very little for top speed so if its going faster you can bet your butt its the airfoil. >> Top end speeds were certainly an objective and something we all thought was going to be an eventually outcome of the new airfoils. If you look at the computer numbers, the efficiency of the airfoil is dramatically better than the RAF48. This efficiency will not show up on the instrument panel but shows up in areas such as long range cruise. You're going to get more out of the airplane on the same horsepower. It's a wing designed for the KR specifically. The RAF48 is an airfoil that, if I remember correctly, was originally used on a plane with 90mph as the top end speed (Taylor Monocraft). This wing was simply "borrowed" and put on the KR. So don't look only at the testosterone thing (speed), which is only one improvement, but look at the efficiency of the airfoil............that's where the bread and butter of this improvement is. Dana Overall 1999 KR Gathering host Richmond, KY mailto:kr2616tj@aol.com http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/7085/ >> --part1_b47cd1db.24c47a6d_boundary Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Return-path: KR2616TJ@aol.com From: KR2616TJ@aol.com Full-name: KR2 616TJ Message-ID: Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 07:55:23 EDT Subject: Re: [kr-net] Re: More on Troy's plane To: kr-net@telelistscom MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 13 In a message dated 7/18/99 11:29:26 PM Eastern Daylight Time, mikemims@home.com writes: << Also we all know that a increase in HP of say 20 will do very little for top speed so if its going faster you can bet your butt its the airfoil. >> Top end speeds were certainly an objective and something we all thought was going to be an eventually outcome of the new airfoils. If you look at the computer numbers, the efficiency of the airfoil is dramatically better than the RAF48. This efficiency will not show up on the instrument panel but shows up in areas such as long range cruise. You're going to get more out of the airplane on the same horsepower. It's a wing designed for the KR specifically. The RAF48 is an airfoil that, if I remember correctly, was originally used on a plane with 90mph as the top end speed (Taylor Monocraft). This wing was simply "borrowed" and put on the KR. So don't look only at the testosterone thing (speed), which is only one improvement, but look at the efficiency of the airfoil............that's where the bread and butter of this improvement is. Dana Overall 1999 KR Gathering host Richmond, KY mailto:kr2616tj@aol.com http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/7085/ --part1_b47cd1db.24c47a6d_boundary-- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Layups using plastic film From: "Oscar Zuniga" Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 06:11:14 PDT X-Message-Number: 6 Haris (and others)- When using the plastic sheeting method (a la Mark Langford), I too tried removing the plastic film before the resin cured, and it just doesn't work well. It makes a mess, as you found out. But if you leave it on until the layup cures- voila! It zips off in a clean and satisfying way, leaving a nice smooth surface. Only time I remove plastic prior to cure is when I'm overlapping two layups in progress. Then I just peel back enough of the plastic on the piece which is already smoothed on, overlap my two layups, then smooth both layers of film over the joint and keep going. My seams are seamless! It's the way to go. I can't wait to use the method for making things like fairings; it should result in finished smooth surfaces for little parts like that. Oscar Zuniga Medford, Oregon website at http://www.geocities.com/Pipeline/Dropzone/5610/ _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Toby's site From: "Oscar Zuniga" Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 06:15:04 PDT X-Message-Number: 7 If you haven't yet visited Tobin Dunham's site at http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Runway/7013, do so! Click on the images he and his brother have cooked up in 3d on the KR- they have lots of detail and help you visualize how things go together. And the image of his instrument panel makes me think: "KR-2S Flight Simulator". Not bad for an Aggie ;o) Oscar "University of Texas Ex" Zuniga Medford, Oregon website at http://www.geocities.com/Pipeline/Dropzone/5610/ _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Toby's site From: "Tobin Dunham" Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 07:05:29 PDT X-Message-Number: 8 Oscar Zuniga wrote: >Not bad for an Aggie ;o) Well, I knew that was coming sooner or later from somebody. That's OK, I'm used to it. But Aubrey is an Aggie too, so we outnumber you. The model is still under construction, so things will change a lot. I'm updating the website every couple of days (as we progress on the model and I receive updates from Aubrey), so stay tuned... As for the kr-net discussion on losing/jettisoning your canopy in flight, here's my thoughts. I plan on using a canopy configuration like Mike Mims (which looks really good). It will be added to the model soon. If something happened in flight, like your feet being on fire, and you need to get out QUICK, this would be the arrangement to have. You could design a quick-release to jettison the gullwing door and get out. But you'd still have the windshield, which I think would help the airplane to maintain some sort of flight. You guys using the Dragonfly canopies are going to have a real hard time if something awful happens up there and you have to leave. Just my 2 cents worth. Toby Dunham Houston, TX homepage at http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Runway/7013 _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: whats old is new again From: Steven Eberhart Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 09:40:04 -0500 (CDT) X-Message-Number: 9 I OD'd on airshows this weekend. Bloomington, IL on Saturday for the THunderbirds and Davenport, IA on Sunday for the Blue Angels. THere was a DC-3 on display at the Bloomington show. Remember Dr. Dean's new elevator hinge using the rod end bearings? That is how the ailerons on the DC-3 were mounted. If they have worked this long on the DC-3 we shouldn't be worried about using them on a KR. That is about as time tested as you are going to get :-) THere was an awsome Waco biplane at the Davenport show. It was beautiful and was performing at it's first airshow. Most everything looked stock from the outside with the exception of the JET ENGINE MOUNTED BELOW THE LOWER WING. THats right, he put a jet engine from a Lear Jet on the thing. You can't imagine the out of site vertical performance of that thing. On loops all you hear is the jet on the vertical and the radial on the back side. Truley awesome. Steve EBerhart ------------------------------------- http://www.newtech.com/nlf One test is worth a thousand expert opinions but a thousand opinions are easier to get. --plagiarized from an unknown author All information, in any of my aircraft related correspondence, is strictly food for thought and is in no way intended to imply that it is anything more than ideas requiring additional, qualified, engineering analysis. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Toby's site From: "Kobus de Wet" Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 16:50:17 +0200 X-Message-Number: 10 Hi Guys, With regard to the KR flying without the canopy. My KR (gullwing canopy) lost a gullwing during one of its first flights (previous owner,builder) and landed back safely. Remember the windscreen directs the airflow over the cockpit area and in doing so the airflow to the tailfeathers are maintained. Without the windscreen you are dead.!!!!!! Kobus de Wet KR-2 ZS-WPX Cape Town South Africa GMT +2.00 Ph +27-21-988-3671 Fax +27-21-987-1850 Cell 082-424-0194 http://home.intekom.com/kobusdw -----Original Message----- From: Tobin Dunham To: KR-net users group Date: Monday, July 19, 1999 16:24 Subject: [kr-net] Re: Toby's site Oscar Zuniga wrote: >Not bad for an Aggie ;o) Well, I knew that was coming sooner or later from somebody. That's OK, I'm used to it. But Aubrey is an Aggie too, so we outnumber you. The model is still under construction, so things will change a lot. I'm updating the website every couple of days (as we progress on the model and I receive updates from Aubrey), so stay tuned... As for the kr-net discussion on losing/jettisoning your canopy in flight, here's my thoughts. I plan on using a canopy configuration like Mike Mims (which looks really good). It will be added to the model soon. If something happened in flight, like your feet being on fire, and you need to get out QUICK, this would be the arrangement to have. You could design a quick-release to jettison the gullwing door and get out. But you'd still have the windshield, which I think would help the airplane to maintain some sort of flight. You guys using the Dragonfly canopies are going to have a real hard time if something awful happens up there and you have to leave. Just my 2 cents worth. Toby Dunham Houston, TX homepage at http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Runway/7013 _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com --- You are currently subscribed to kr-net as: jfdewet@intekom.co.za To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-kr-net-17800J@telelists.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Layups using plastic film From: HAshraf@aol.com Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 10:54:27 EDT X-Message-Number: 11 In a message dated 99-07-19 09:12:49 EDT, you write: << But if you leave it on until the layup cures- voila! It zips off in a clean and satisfying way, leaving a nice smooth surface. >> That would leave the top of the weave full of epoxy. And epoxy is heavy. I Was very sucessful in laying the bottom of the stabalizer yesterday. I used 1.5 mil film from AS&S. 6 mil was a disaster. The trick is to use thin film, 1.0 mil would be perfect. I marked the outline of the stab. on the plastic and that helped in aligining. I also made a square pattern on the glass. That helped in keeping the weave straight. I did everything by myself as ut an extra pair of hands would have certainly helped. I did put peel ply on the seams, and the leading edge, but on second thought I should have left them alone. Super fill should have done a better job. Mistakes I made: 1) Used T-88 with micro to join the foam. T-88 does not have the capacity to wet a lot of micro. As wood was 'involved' I thought I used T-88. Should have used regular 30 min epoxy as it wets micro real well. 2) Raw Foam pieces were not perfectly cut so so some more heavy micro had to be used to fill the voids between them and the wood. Sloppy workmanship always shows as added weight. 3) I glued the foam in the stab. frame first and then hot wired them. Should have hotwired cores as whole. Problem 2 would have gone away as hotwire bow cuts perfectly staringt sides. 6) Used 1.5 mil sheet instead of 6.0 mil. This did not cause any weight increase but the weave on one side is not very straight. It is much easier to keep weave straight using plastic film method. Atleast until one's technique improves. From what I have learned, I could have built an stabilizer that that would be atleast a pound lighter. I still need to weigh it. It seems like it weigh atleast 100 lbs :-(. Haris ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Toby's site From: HAshraf@aol.com Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 10:58:55 EDT X-Message-Number: 12 In a message dated 99-07-19 10:06:28 EDT, you write: << You guys using the Dragonfly canopies are going to have a real hard time if something awful happens up there and you have to leave. Just my 2 cents worth. >> I thought that at high speeds canopies has low pressure. When I got a ride in Brads D'Fly we had to hold the canopy down with our hands while taxing. It was hot so we we had kept it open during taxiing. Haris ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Fuel tank From: "R.W. Moore" Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 11:10:36 -0400 X-Message-Number: 13 What are the level points on a KR1 to do weight and balance? R. W. Moore ----- Original Message ----- From: Ross Youngblood To: KR-net users group Sent: Thursday, July 15, 1999 9:56 PM Subject: [kr-net] Re: Fuel tank > To add to Marks comments. I have built my fuel tanks per plans. > The header tank is not so bad, but the wing tanks... leak. > Right now I think the leak is at the fuel sending unit flange, > but the wings have to come off for further testing/repairs. > > I tested them with water, but since then the fuel senders have been > replaced, so I'm hoping the leak is with the gasket. I'll let everyone > know. > > The key to this information is to test your tanks before building them > into the wings. > > -- Regards > Ross > > Mark Langford wrote: > > > > > Anybody out there fabricate their own fuel tank? What epoxy, glass and > > foam core would you recommend? Did you use a mold type or glass/foam/glass > > sandwich type? > > > > Man, you've got a lot of web readin' to do. Start at > > http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford/kmarkl.html with "header tank" and then > > "wing tanks". And when you're done, start over at > > http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford and look at everybody elses work... > > > > Mark Langford, Huntsville, Alabama > > mailto:langford@hiwaay.net > > see KR2S project N56ML at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford > > > > --- > > 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: Re: Emergency Proceedures (in light of how not to get out) From: "w.g. kirkland" Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 12:30:11 -0400 X-Message-Number: 14 Would it possibly be because the pilot goes with the cockpit? W.G. KIRKLAND kirkland@vianet.on.ca ---------- > From: SClay10106@aol.com > To: KR-net users group > Subject: [kr-net] Re: Emergency Proceedures (in light of how not to get out) > Date: Monday, July 19, 1999 12:39 AM > > More input please. This is new news to me why wont a kr fly without a > cockpit? and if you were to loose it in flight what would be the flight > caracteristics?? > > --- > 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: Fuel Lines From: cartera Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 10:10:52 -0600 X-Message-Number: 15 Mike Mims wrote: > > cartera wrote: > > > > All my lines are 3/8" aluminum and a reinforced rubber line from the firewall/gasculator to the carb covered with a fire sleeve. Hope this helps! > > > > Something else to remember about fuel lines, you can get away with 1/4 > inch lines on some engines but if you are at the point where you need to > buy your lines and install them don't screw around with 1/4 inch lines! > (not to call anyone's baby ugly) If you install 3/8 lines your system > will flow adequate fuel for most any engine up to 100+ hp (O-200s like > 3/8 fuel lines). Also the Ellison carbs will work fine when 3/8 lines > are used on a gravity feed system. There are two almost identical > Dragonflies in my hanger, one has 3/8s the other 1/4 inch. Guess which > one has to have a fuel pump (on the gravity feed tank) turned on during > climb out? > > -- > zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz > Micheal Mims > Filling and Sanding again! > http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/4136/ > http://members.home.com/mikemims/ > Aliso Viejo CA > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > --- > You are currently subscribed to kr-net as: cartera@cuug.ab.ca > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-kr-net-17800J@telelists.com Your right Mike, 1/4" lines should not even be considered, also a fuel flow check should be performed. Ellison engineers advised me that I would not be able to use their carb simply because if did not have enough head or pressure at the carb to use the Ellison therefore, went to the Tillotson. I diagrammed the fuel tank location, lines and proposed location of the carb and sent it to them. Not enough pressure with a straight gravity flow, fuel pump was required, no electric's on board so this was out of the question. Hope this helps. Happy Flying!! -- Adrian VE6AFY Mailto:cartera@cuug.ab.ca http://www.cuug.ab.ca/~cartera ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Bonding foam to wood (was layups . . .) From: "Dean Collette" Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 12:58:07 -0500 X-Message-Number: 16 Foamheads, Over the last 6 months or so I have seen several posts which lead me to believe that there is a misconception out there about bonding foam to wood. This joint is completely non-structural, if you used two-sided tape to hold it on - that would be fine, Well, maybe that's a bad example, but you get the point. The whole purpose of bonding foam to the wood is to hold the foam in place while you sand it. That's it - period, end. So use the lightest glue available, and don't get any in a joint that you are going to be sanding. We don't really need to get into the numbers to prove this point - just think about it. The foam does a couple of things for us. First and foremost - it holds the shape of the thing we want when we glass it - airfoils, fillets, etc. In a composite sandwich construction, it is bonded to the layers of glass to separate them and that makes them stronger - it acts to spread an applied force over a larger area. If you push a pointed finger into raw foam - it damages the foam without much pressure applied, but when its glassed you'd have to push pretty hard to even distort it. It is imperative that a good bond be established between the glass and the wood surface - such as spars, because this is where a load is transmitted to the structure of the airplane. So, do yourself a favor - use just enough glue to hold the foam in place while you sand it. Don't get any in the joint. Use the easiest, lightest glue that you can find. I used a polyurethane based adhesive (Probond, Gorilla glue, etc.) and just barely enough to hold things in place. Dean Collette Milwaukee, Wisconsin mailto:drdean@execpc.com Web Page at http://www.execpc.com/~drdean/home.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Fuel Lines From: Kimball Anderson Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 13:48:33 -0400 X-Message-Number: 17 > cartera wrote: > > All my lines are 3/8" aluminum and a reinforced rubber line from > the firewall/gasculator to the carb covered with a fire sleeve. > Hope this helps! > Adrien (and whoever else might want to answer): Have you ever had any problems with the aluminum lines cracking due to vibration, etc? I had this happen on a car I built once. The line didn't fail outright, but developed cracks that the fuel would seep out of. Had to get rid of the aluminum and go to steel fuel lines. Kimball Anderson isleno@hargray.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Fuel Lines From: cartera Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 12:01:29 -0600 X-Message-Number: 18 Kimball Anderson wrote: > > > cartera wrote: > > > > All my lines are 3/8" aluminum and a reinforced rubber line from > > the firewall/gasculator to the carb covered with a fire sleeve. > > Hope this helps! > > > > Adrien (and whoever else might want to answer): > > Have you ever had any problems with the aluminum lines cracking due to > vibration, etc? I had this happen on a car I built once. The line didn't > fail outright, but developed cracks that the fuel would seep out of. Had to > get rid of the aluminum and go to steel fuel lines. > > Kimball Anderson > isleno@hargray.com > > --- > You are currently subscribed to kr-net as: cartera@cuug.ab.ca > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-kr-net-17800J@telelists.com Kimball, No problems, they are short enough and anchored, so no problem there. There is absolutely no vibration anywhere. That's what Adel are for. -- Adrian VE6AFY Mailto:cartera@cuug.ab.ca http://www.cuug.ab.ca/~cartera ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: More on Troy's plane From: Willard561@aol.com Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 14:11:07 EDT X-Message-Number: 19 In a message dated 7/19/99 7:01:05 AM Mountain Daylight Time, KR2616TJ@aol.com writes: << The RAF48 is an airfoil that, if I remember correctly, was originally used on a plane with 90mph as the top end speed (Taylor Monocraft). This wing was simply "borrowed" and put on the KR. So don't look only at the testosterone thing (speed), which is only one improvement, but look at the efficiency of the airfoil............that's where the bread and butter of this improvement is. >> I believe the RAF 48 was used on the Spitfire, as well as the Taylor Monplane. Bill Higdon Willard561@aol.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: [c-a] Newer Foam??? From: Tim Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 12:14:21 -0600 X-Message-Number: 20 I asked the Canard guy's about the Trymer foam that is up at Dr deans web-site under 'cheap tricks' and if they are using it and what the scoop is... JP wrote: > > [The Canard Aviators's Mailing list] > Some nice ideas on this site, but as for the Trymer foam bit, where is the test/qualification data? Trymer was specifically identified in a very early CP to NOT be used for construction. Remember, Burt did extensive testing of the materials he recommended. Even if Trymer had been "re-formulated" over the years, and now possesses the same strength and fatigue properties as the urethanes that Burt recommended, it would have to be tested in the same manner that Burt tested all materials he qualified. > My engin-nerd's 2 pennies. JP ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Fuel lines From: "Tobin Dunham" Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 11:16:41 PDT X-Message-Number: 21 Kimball Anderson wrote: Have you ever had any problems with the aluminum lines cracking due to vibration, etc? I had this happen on a car I built once. The line didn't fail outright, but developed cracks that the fuel would seep out of. Had to get rid of the aluminum and go to steel fuel lines. Kimball Anderson Ok, I know I've already contributed my 2 cents worth to the kr-net today, but I'm upping it to 4 cents. I had this same problem on my Harley Davidson with oil lines. Due to high vibration of Harley motors, the aluminum lines just cracked and leaked oil all over my leg (any rice-burner riders out there, don't laugh). Aluminum tends to fail in a brittle fashion and shouldn't be trusted unless it's been specifically sized for that application. I replaced it with stainless tubing and have never had a problem. Please don't flame me for that comment - I know motorcycles are a far cry from airplanes, but the basic idea is the same. Your plane is going to vibrate and get bumped around, and even something like a fuel line will be under stress. Every time it bends just a little, it's that much closer to a brittle failure. In the industry I work in, we don't trust aluminum at all, so I'm biased. In fact, I don't even like aluminum for brackets or gear legs or anything. I plan to minimize aluminum in my plane. Sure, I'll pay a weight penalty for going to stainless steel, but I'll sleep better at night. Toby Dunham Houston, TX homepage at http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Runway/7013 _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: whats old is new again From: Willard561@aol.com Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 14:14:48 EDT X-Message-Number: 22 In a message dated 7/19/99 8:43:36 AM Mountain Daylight Time, newtech@newtech.com writes: << THere was a DC-3 on display at the Bloomington show. Remember Dr. Dean's new elevator hinge using the rod end bearings? That is how the ailerons on the DC-3 were mounted. If they have worked this long on the DC-3 we shouldn't be worried about using them on a KR. That is about as time tested as you are going to get :-) >> If you check a Mooney you will find that the aileron hinges are tie rod ends, or at least the older Mooney's Boll Higdon Willadr561@aol.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Fuel Lines From: Tim Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 12:25:34 -0600 X-Message-Number: 23 Also consider tossing any Aluminium fuel fittings and go with steel...twas an ole Ercoupe 'AD' after some fires. Reminds me, of when I tried to weld back on an aluminium fitting onto my lawnmowers aluminium gas tank. I was using that 'Airshow' Propane torch and those rods (you know the Guy)...Well I've never seen Butter Melt that fast!...it has a plastic tank now :-( Tim Forward Speed 'is' Lift/Lift...But does the new Airfoil have Karma? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Auto engines...etc... From: Tim Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 12:41:39 -0600 X-Message-Number: 24 Pat, Tim here; I like this idea, to save redrive weight. the engines are plentiful and cheap...seems to work Check out Feb 1996 EAA Sport Aviation on the cover is Reg Clarke's Dragonfly. He uses a direct drive EA-81 turbo charged (recommends water cooled turbo as it puts out more 'Poop' than the aircooled version) He put just under 500hrs on it before mounting a larger EJ-22 series engine. One winter Reg tore down the engine to check for wear think it was around 400hrs...all was well inside. I sent for his two video tapes on his Soob prep and installation...time will tell Tim N54 degrees ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Fuel lines...stainless-steel From: Tim Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 12:50:55 -0600 X-Message-Number: 25 Tony; I'm up to .08 cents now Mine was an 81 FXE...'lotsa shaking going on' Stainless is pretty, but doesn't like vibration. Worked in a Pulp&paper mill where they use it everywhere, due to Chemical corrosion. Replacing broken bolts 'lots' was my job as a Utility Operator. A buddy changed his Motor mount bolts to Stainless on his HD Shovelhead, two snapped off...must be the harder nickel content. Fly light...keeps stall speed down Tim Cool Pool ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: More on Troy's plane From: "Mark Langford" Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 13:57:06 -0500 X-Message-Number: 26 > I believe the RAF 48 was used on the Spitfire I keep hearing that from different people (and never believed it), but recently read or saw or somewhere discovered that it wasn't. I forget exactly what it was, but it wasn't an RAF 48. Somebody like to prove me wrong? Mark Langford, Huntsville, Alabama mailto:langford@hiwaay.net see KR2S N56ML at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Emergency Proceedures (in light of how not to get out) From: "Richard Parker" Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 12:42:45 PDT X-Message-Number: 27 That was a different guy, he went down around Memphis. and he didnt land in a tree, the tree ended up in him. >The story I heard was he spun it in from 8000 feet into a tree, but I guess >you could call that a "landing". The guy is now building another KR2, and >usually makes the Gatherings. > >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: richontheroad@hotmail.com >To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-kr-net-17800J@telelists.com > _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Layups using plastic film From: "Richard Parker" Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 12:48:28 PDT X-Message-Number: 28 Dont try leaving the plastic on with West Systems 105 epoxy. You wont get the plastic off once it dries. comes off ok when wet though. Rich Parker >Haris (and others)- > >When using the plastic sheeting method (a la Mark Langford), I too tried >removing the plastic film before the resin cured, and it just doesn't work >well. It makes a mess, as you found out. But if you leave it on until the >layup cures- voila! It zips off in a clean and satisfying way, leaving a >nice smooth surface. _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: [c-a] Newer Foam??? From: "Dean Collette" Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 15:09:11 -0500 X-Message-Number: 29 Tim, When I started looking for foam I called and received a engineering data sheet on the "regular" urethane from a manufacturer in Indiana. I was appalled at the lack of information that was available. If you do a little internet search on Trymer you will find an enormous amount of data available. In all cases, the specs on the Tymer outperformed the urethane, so I decided to use it. Since that time I have received several private emails on the topic of polyurethane foam - don't know why it interests people so much. Someone explained to me that in actuality there are very few companies that actually make the stuff anymore. Dow Chemical makes the Trymer series of polyisocyanurates. It is my understanding, that all PINK urethane-type foams are actually Trymer. The pinkness is not an added color, but a property of the chemistry (which is proprietary.) So when you place an order for urethane foam from AS&S, you actually get Trymer. (Wicks sells the brown stuff - old type.) This is nothing more then hearsay, since I have never ordered any foam from AS&S. But I can tell you - every web site you see, where pink foam is being used - that's Trymer, whether they bought it from an insulation company or an aircraft supply house. Lastly, when Burt was testing materials for recommendations for the Canards - I don't think Trymer was available yet. I think that this is a relatively new product released in the late 80s or early 90s. That's my 2 cents worth. Heck, I'm not advocating the stuff, I'm just saying "this is how I did it." Dean Collette Milwaukee, Wisconsin mailto:drdean@execpc.com Web Page at http://www.execpc.com/~drdean/home.htm ----- Original Message ----- From: Tim To: KR-net users group Sent: Monday, July 19, 1999 1:14 PM Subject: [kr-net] Re: [c-a] Newer Foam??? > I asked the Canard guy's about the Trymer foam that is up at Dr deans > web-site under 'cheap tricks' and if they are using it and what the > scoop is... > > JP wrote: > > > > [The Canard Aviators's Mailing list] > > > Some nice ideas on this site, but as for the Trymer foam bit, where is > the test/qualification data? Trymer was specifically identified in a > very early CP to NOT be used for construction. Remember, Burt did > extensive testing of the materials he recommended. Even if Trymer had > been "re-formulated" over the years, and now possesses the same strength > and fatigue properties as the urethanes that Burt recommended, it > would have to be tested in the same manner that Burt tested all > materials he qualified. > > > My engin-nerd's 2 pennies. > JP > > --- > You are currently subscribed to kr-net as: drdean@execpc.com > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-kr-net-17800J@telelists.com > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: stupid question of the day From: Aubrey Dunham Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 16:17:09 -0400 (EDT) X-Message-Number: 30 KR-netters: I've got a rather stupid question. If you look at the spar construction section of the manual, it shows the grain direction for the spar webs. It says to run the grain vertically. Well, I was looking at AC 43.13-1b, and it seems to suggest that spar-web plywood should run the other way. I'm in the construction business (and I design plywood formwork daily), and I seem to agree with the FAA. The spar webs are in shear (with some tension and compression at the top and bottom). I would think the plywood would be better utilized by turning it 90 degrees (grain running horizontally). Any opinions? Am I interpreting the manual wrong? Help me out here. Another comment. I've seen a lot of discussion about the type of foam to use. I know nada about the best foam for filling/sanding/glassing, but I know one thing: You shouldn't use any kind of toxic foam. Even if you don't hot-wire it. I recently read an accident report where the guy died from the crash-landing fire. He didn't die from the burns, he died from the toxic fumes as the airplane was consumed. One last thing, and I'm done. I'm the guy who drew the 3d model on Toby's website (http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/7013). I'd like some input on what you guys would like to see (as far as 3d views are concerned). There are almost endless possibilities, so lemme know. -Aubrey Dunham San Antonio, TX _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: RAF 48 From: KR2616TJ@aol.com Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 16:56:06 EDT X-Message-Number: 31 --part1_7b1544d0.24c4eae6_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 7/19/99 2:14:55 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Willard561@aol.com writes: << << The RAF48 is an airfoil that, if I remember correctly, was originally used on a plane with 90mph as the top end speed (Taylor Monocraft). This wing was simply "borrowed" and put on the KR. So don't look only at the testosterone thing (speed), which is only one improvement, but look at the efficiency of the airfoil............that's where the bread and butter of this improvement is. >> I believe the RAF 48 was used on the Spitfire, as well as the Taylor Monplane. Bill Higdon >> The RAF 48 probably went back to the days of the old Supermarine aircraft company around 1916. The Spitfire is a dirivitive of Regianld Mitchell's 1925 F.7/30. It used two different wings known as the F wing and the LF wing. The LF was a shorter wing which provided better yanking and banking. Both of these wings were single spar, stressed skin wings. Sorry, as much as we would all like to believe our little birds RAF 48 is the Spitfire wing, it isn't. The only thing we have in common is the RAF designation. I don't think I'm wrong here, I'll look up the numbers as soon as I can figure out where I put them.................so I wouldn't lose them:-). Dana Overall 1999 KR Gathering host Richmond, KY mailto:kr2616tj@aol.com http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/7085/ --part1_7b1544d0.24c4eae6_boundary Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Return-Path: Received: from aol.com (rly-yb03.mail.aol.com [172.18.146.3]) by air-yb03.mail.aol.com (v60.14) with ESMTP; Mon, 19 Jul 1999 14:14:54 -0400 Received: from lyris.teleport.com (lyris.teleport.com [192.108.254.49]) by rly-yb03.mx.aol.com (v60.14) with ESMTP; Mon, 19 Jul 1999 14:14:46 -0400 From: Willard561@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 14:11:07 EDT Subject: [kr-net] Re: More on Troy's plane To: "KR-net users group" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-URL: X-List-Host: Telelists List Hosting Services Reply-To: "KR-net users group" X-Message-Id: <5ff509c9.24c4c43b@aol.com> Sender: bounce-kr-net-17407@telelists.com Precedence: bulk X-disclaimer: KR-net assumes no responsibility for the information posted on this list In a message dated 7/19/99 7:01:05 AM Mountain Daylight Time, KR2616TJ@aol.com writes: << The RAF48 is an airfoil that, if I remember correctly, was originally used on a plane with 90mph as the top end speed (Taylor Monocraft). This wing was simply "borrowed" and put on the KR. So don't look only at the testosterone thing (speed), which is only one improvement, but look at the efficiency of the airfoil............that's where the bread and butter of this improvement is. >> I believe the RAF 48 was used on the Spitfire, as well as the Taylor Monplane. Bill Higdon Willard561@aol.com --- You are currently subscribed to kr-net as: KR2616TJ@aol.com To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-kr-net-17800J@telelists.com --part1_7b1544d0.24c4eae6_boundary-- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Newer Foam??? From: "Tobin Dunham" Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 13:52:30 PDT X-Message-Number: 32 I was under the impression that the foam was just to hold the glass in place until it cures. If you're relying on the foam for structural integrity, you may be in trouble because none of these foams were designed for that. Your wood and 'glass should carry the loads. As a sidebar, I obtained some Trymer 2000 from one of my insulation contractors (after reading Dr. Dean's website). The stuff is probably as good or better than you would expect from any other type, at least for our purposes. The particular pieces I got were for 4" pipe insulation (about 2" thick), which are perfect for the leading edge work. Obviously, I haven't built and flown a plane with this stuff in it, but the skeptics out there have nothing to fear. Lastly, back to the stainless/aluminum debate. The comment was made that stainless is a poor choice for bolts and I agree (those old shovelheads will vibrate you to a pulp, and are hard on any bolts). AN-grade bolts are the best choice for aircraft. But for stuff like fuel lines, pulley brackets, and rudder hinge brackets, I like stainless better than aluminum. Just my opinion. I'm up to $.06 today! Toby Dunham Houston, TX homepage at http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Runway/7013 _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Noise Cancelling Circuit From: Peter Leonard Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 07:28:07 +1000 (EST) X-Message-Number: 33 Good Day to all Can anyone help with a circuit diagram for a noise cancelling Headset. I would like to have a go at making a set for myself Anybody have any ideas of places to go to get the info I require. Thanks In Advance Peter Leonard ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: stupid question of the day From: Donald Reid Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 19:04:03 -0400 X-Message-Number: 34 Aubrey Dunham wrote: > > KR-netters: > I've got a rather stupid question. If you look at the spar > construction section of the manual, it shows the grain direction for > the spar webs. It says to run the grain vertically. Well, I was > looking at AC 43.13-1b, and it seems to suggest that spar-web plywood > should run the other way. I'm in the construction business (and I > design plywood formwork daily), and I seem to agree with the FAA. You are completely correct. The plywood will support a higher load in shear with the face grain parallel to the shear as compared to the face grain perpendicular to the shear. The best way is to orient it at 45 degrees to the shear, but this is somewhat harder to build. -- 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: Emergency Proceedures (in light of how not to get out) From: ejanssen@chipsnet.com (Ed Janssen) Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 18:35:54 -0500 X-Message-Number: 35 Just a small correction. I know of at least one KR-1 which lost its canopy in flight and continued on to land without incident. Not sure about the other KR models though. Ed Janssen You better be sure this is what you want to >do as the Dragonfly and or KR will not maintain flight with the canopy >missing. > >-- >zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz >Micheal Mims ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: stupid question of the day From: "Wayne DeLisle Sr." Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 19:46:01 -0400 X-Message-Number: 36 At 07:04 PM 7/19/99 -0400, you wrote: >Aubrey Dunham wrote: >> >> KR-netters: >> I've got a rather stupid question. If you look at the spar >> construction section of the manual, it shows the grain direction for >> the spar webs. It says to run the grain vertically. Well, I was >> looking at AC 43.13-1b, and it seems to suggest that spar-web plywood >> should run the other way. I'm in the construction business (and I >> design plywood formwork daily), and I seem to agree with the FAA. > >You are completely correct. The plywood will support a higher load in >shear with the face grain parallel to the shear as compared to the face >grain perpendicular to the shear. The best way is to orient it at 45 >degrees to the shear, but this is somewhat harder to build. >-- >Don Reid Ok, then why is it supposed to be installed with the grain running vertically on the KR spars? WD --------------------------------------------------------- Wayne DeLisle Sr. Charlotte, North Carolina USA mailto:dodger@accessnode.net 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: Emergency Procedures (in light of how not to get out) From: "Wayne DeLisle Sr." Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 19:51:18 -0400 X-Message-Number: 37 At 06:35 PM 7/19/99 -0500, you wrote: >Just a small correction. I know of at least one KR-1 which lost its canopy >in flight and continued on to land without incident. Not sure about the >other KR models though. > >Ed Janssen I remember talking to Stu Robinson back in the 70's, (at Sun-n-Fun, I think). He told about losing a homemade fiberglass spinner at altitude. The spinner smacked the canopy, breaking it and causing it to rip off the KR2. He was able to maintain control and land safely. WD --------------------------------------------------------- Wayne DeLisle Sr. Charlotte, North Carolina USA mailto:dodger@accessnode.net 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: stupid question of the day From: "Dean Collette" Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 19:27:36 -0500 X-Message-Number: 38 > Ok, then why is it supposed to be installed with the grain running vertically > on the KR spars? > > WD Because it's a KR. Dean Collette Milwaukee, Wisconsin mailto:drdean@execpc.com Web Page at http://www.execpc.com/~drdean/home.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: KR-1 leveling points From: ejanssen@chipsnet.com (Ed Janssen) Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 19:19:11 -0500 X-Message-Number: 39 R.W., I used the top of the longerons in the cockpit area for leveling. Ed Janssen KR-1 8029J -----Original Message----- From: R.W. Moore To: KR-net users group Date: Monday, July 19, 1999 10:30 AM Subject: [kr-net] Re: Fuel tank >What are the level points on a KR1 to do weight and balance? >R. W. Moore > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Emergency Procedures (in light of how not to get out) From: theron a proper Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 17:26:15 -0700 X-Message-Number: 40 All: This story has a familiar ring to it,If we are talking about the same story. (the Oil City incident) If we are talking about the same incident it is about 20 years ago. I think I can flesh the details a bit. The incident involved Paul Deeter of Cooperstown, Pa. He had one of the first KR-2 to be built . It was a nicely done little airplane (light tan or beige as I remember) Had a Revmaster 2180 with a Warnke ground adjustable prop. The KR was a tad over weight but Paul probably only weighted 130 lbs at the time. The story goes like this basically he did indeed loose the canopy in flight and it was very draggy but he managed to safely land at Clarion airport despite the degraded performance and wind buffeting.(try sticking your head out the window at 100 mph+) When he got it on the ground he called his wife or son to bring him a motor cycle helmet wife a face shield as he would fly it home (about 35 miles) rather than dismantle it and truck it home. Well he did manage to get it airborne and the gear up and was on a beeline course for home but he had to run full bore to maintain level flight which caused the engine to go over temp and the hotter it got the less power it put out and the area he was over was nothing but trees. He slowed it down as best he could and flew it into the trees, as I remember Paul telling the story, he closed his eyes and prepared to die. When he got brave enough to open his eyes and realized he wasn" dead he was still setting on the main spar with the stick in his hand and his little airplane was in a thousand pieces around him. I was told the largest pieces found were the engine and Paul. As for wandering dazed in the forest, maybe. I would guess disoriented,heartbroke and euphoric at not being killed or even injured. prope@juno.com ___________________________________________________________________ Get the Internet just the way you want it. Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month! Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Emergency Proceedures (in light of how not to get out) From: SClay10106@aol.com Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 21:12:11 EDT X-Message-Number: 41 I think someone made a comment it depends on how the read section is constructed. If it stays open and unblocked if the canopy was to come off the air would come rushing into the tail section and acting as air brakes ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Emergency Procedures (in light of how not to get out) From: "Mark Langford" Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 20:19:57 -0500 X-Message-Number: 42 The guy I'm thinking of (John Shafer, maybe) did something (and I think it was lose his canopy) at 8000 feet, entered a flat spin, tried everything he could possibly think of to get out of it (he had plenty of time, from that high up) and came down in a pine thicket. He was somewhat impaled by a pine limb. He's now building another one. I heard this from the horses mouth... Mark Langford, Huntsville, Alabama mailto:langford@hiwaay.net see KR2S project N56ML at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Emergency Proceedures (in light of how not to get out) From: Mike Mims Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 18:44:39 -0700 X-Message-Number: 43 SClay10106@aol.com wrote: > > I think someone made a comment it depends on how the read section is > constructed. If it stays open and unblocked if the canopy was to come off the > air would come rushing into the tail section and acting as air brakes > Man obviously there has been some confusion here! When I said it would not fly without a canopy I meant the standard (per plans) canopy. If it were to come off you would not have a windshield. Just your face and the flat area of the turtledeck that's behind your head. That creates just a little too much drag for most ANY airplane to stay airborne. -- zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz Micheal Mims Filling and Sanding again! http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/4136/ http://members.home.com/mikemims/ Aliso Viejo CA ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Fuel Lines From: Mike Mims Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 18:51:09 -0700 X-Message-Number: 44 Tim wrote: > > Also consider tossing any Aluminium fuel fittings and go with > steel...twas an ole Ercoupe 'AD' after some fires. > > Reminds me, of when I tried to weld back on an aluminium fitting onto > my lawnmowers aluminium gas tank. I was using that 'Airshow' Propane > torch and those rods (you know the Guy)...Well I've never seen Butter > Melt that fast!...it has a plastic tank now :-( You guys are killing me with this aluminum bashing thing! I am sure glad to hear that I wont have the heaviest KR after all. Everyone else, use aluminum tubing and aluminum fittings in your KR. That's what real airplanes are made of and if its good enough for them then its sure as heck good enough for our KRs. Aluminum tubing works very well in aircraft, heck a Huey with its blades out of balance doesn't shake as much as an oil dripping Harley or Briggs and Stratton. You know why those two engines shake so much don't you? They were designed by the same cave man! :o) -- zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz Micheal Mims Filling and Sanding again! http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/4136/ http://members.home.com/mikemims/ Aliso Viejo CA ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Toby's site From: Mike Mims Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 18:52:57 -0700 X-Message-Number: 45 HAshraf@aol.com wrote: > >> > > I thought that at high speeds canopies has low pressure. When I got a ride in > Brads D'Fly we had to hold the canopy down with our hands while taxing. It > was hot so we we had kept it open during taxiing. > Haris, it will open about 2 inches in flight and that's it. I think once you dump some of the lift that it creates it starts to get heavy. -- zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz Micheal Mims Filling and Sanding again! http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/4136/ http://members.home.com/mikemims/ Aliso Viejo CA ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Fuel tank From: Mike Mims Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 18:55:23 -0700 X-Message-Number: 46 "R.W. Moore" wrote: > > What are the level points on a KR1 to do weight and balance? > R. W. Moore > Should be safe to use 90 degrees from the vertical members on each side of the spar. -- zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz Micheal Mims Filling and Sanding again! http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/4136/ http://members.home.com/mikemims/ Aliso Viejo CA ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Emergency Proceedures (in light of how not to get out) From: SClay10106@aol.com Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 22:00:32 EDT X-Message-Number: 47 Maybe i didnt explain it correctly but that is what i am saying. If there is no windscreen or canopy the air will conform to the boby of the plane which it will rush over the front cowling and into the cockpit and into the tail section (creating drag) like putting on full flaps. As the earlier guy said you over stress the engine trying to keep it flying. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: stupid question of the day From: Mike Mims Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 18:59:44 -0700 X-Message-Number: 48 Donald Reid wrote: > >>>> Aubrey Dunham wrote: I'm in the construction business (and I design plywood formwork daily), and I seem to agree with the FAA.>>>>>>> >> The best way is to orient it at 45 degrees to the shear, but this is somewhat harder to build.>>>>> From all I have read 45 degrees is the best way but the most difficult. -- zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz Micheal Mims Filling and Sanding again! http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/4136/ http://members.home.com/mikemims/ Aliso Viejo CA ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: KR-1 leveling points From: "R.W. Moore" Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 22:53:19 -0400 X-Message-Number: 49 Thanks Ed. RWM ----- Original Message ----- From: Ed Janssen To: KR-net users group Sent: Monday, July 19, 1999 8:19 PM Subject: [kr-net] Re: KR-1 leveling points > R.W., > > I used the top of the longerons in the cockpit area for leveling. > > Ed Janssen > KR-1 8029J > > -----Original Message----- > From: R.W. Moore > To: KR-net users group > Date: Monday, July 19, 1999 10:30 AM > Subject: [kr-net] Re: Fuel tank > > > >What are the level points on a KR1 to do weight and balance? > >R. W. Moore > > > > > > --- > 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: ELT'S From: "garbez" Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 22:42:01 -0500 X-Message-Number: 50 I would like your thoughts on a subject that has me very upset. With the crash of JFK Jr.'s airplane and many others, it has come to mind that the ELT's required by the FAA don't work. More times than not searchers look for crash sites for days or more. If the ELT worked it should take only hours to find any signal. What's wrong with the technology that it takes so long to find the signal if it is located at all? I understand how important ELT's are and a great idea, but it seems they don't work as well as they could and as they are now are just added weight. What's the answer to this piece of equipment that is quite expensive and doesn't seem to do the job as well as it should. We all depend on them in an emergency and would like them to help rescures find us as soon as possible, hours not days or weeks, or maybe not at all. Is anyone else concerned? I think we as a group could do something to bring the awareness of the inadequate ELT into the public eye. It seems to me with the technology of today a better more sufficient piece of equipment could and should be designed. Mike and Teri Garbez N998MG ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: ELT'S From: Mike Mims Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 21:06:26 -0700 X-Message-Number: 51 garbez wrote: > > I would like your thoughts on a subject that has me very upset. With the > crash of JFK Jr.'s airplane and many others, it has come to mind that the > ELT's required by the FAA don't work. More times than not searchers look > for crash sites for days or more. If the ELT worked it should take only > hours to find any signal. >>> Unfortunately I have been part in quite a few searches. I can tell you from experience that for the most part ELTs work as advertised. In cases where the ELT did not work because it was destroyed in the crash there was no possibility of survivors anyway. I repeat, "In almost every survivable crash that I help locate the ELT worked just fine". Its just speculation on my part and maybe this isn't the place to discuss it but I am willing to bet that JFK Jr. got disoriented in the MVFR weather, over water, at night and augered in at a very high rate of speed. Learn from his mistakes! -- zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz Micheal Mims Filling and Sanding again! http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/4136/ http://members.home.com/mikemims/ Aliso Viejo CA ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: ELT'S From: mjdotson@webtv.net (Monty Dotson) Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 21:10:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Message-Number: 52 ELT"s work have worked quite well as long as they aren't under a hundred feet or more of ocean. JFK'S is probably signaling now! A sad occasion. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: ELT'S From: SClay10106@aol.com Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 00:17:45 EDT X-Message-Number: 53 From what i have been told per an instructor of mine who worked CAP is that ELT's do work there just not the best technology we have and there on the cheap side of things. But just like with any other type of radio freq. signals can be blocked by terrain and hard to track. The signal they recieve can be tracked but not to a pinpoint location its a braud area i think he said 20 miles or so. But if your really into your safety there is a new GPS type ELT that gives exact cordnances which can be pinpionted down to about 20-50 feet but the cost 2 arms and 1 leg. But when it comes to your life if you have the money i say get it ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Emergency Proceedures (in light of how not to get out) From: HAshraf@aol.com Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 01:35:57 EDT X-Message-Number: 54 In a message dated 99-07-19 21:49:17 EDT, you write: << Just your face and the flat area of the turtledeck that's behind your head. That creates just a little too much drag for most ANY airplane to stay airborne. >> The airplane that crashed was over gross and probably unstable even with the canopy on at the time of the crash (NTSB report refers to the overgross condition, I think). With one person on board there there may be enough power and stability to limp home safely. Haris ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re:45 deg plywood From: HAshraf@aol.com Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 01:40:44 EDT X-Message-Number: 55 In a message dated 99-07-19 22:04:35 EDT, you write: << From all I have read 45 degrees is the best way but the most difficult. >> You can buy 45 degree plywood from Wicks. Cost is pretty high though. AS&S does not carry it though. Haris ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Newer Foam??? From: HAshraf@aol.com Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 01:49:02 EDT X-Message-Number: 56 In a message dated 99-07-19 17:07:12 EDT, you write: << I was under the impression that the foam was just to hold the glass in place until it cures. If you're relying on the foam for structural integrity, you may be in trouble because none of these foams were designed for that. Your wood and 'glass should carry the loads. >> Foam is actually also a structrual part of the composite, in addition to the fiberglass. It needs to have adequete compressive strength. Some foams like the ones that are used for making coolers do not have enough compressive strength. They will not make strong enough composite sandwich. Haris ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: ELT'S From: Michael Taglieri Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 01:11:42 -0400 X-Message-Number: 57 >Its just speculation on my part and maybe this isn't the place to >discuss it but I am willing to bet that JFK Jr. got disoriented in the >MVFR weather, over water, at night and augered in at a very high rate of >speed. Learn from his mistakes! His principal mistake was flying VFR at night. A study awhile back [I think at Flying magazine] found that about 10% of VFR flights are at night, but they account for 50% of VFR accidents. If there's a cloud layer that conceals the stars and terrain without lights, you might as well be in IMC because you have nothing visible by which to orient the plane. Mike Taglieri ___________________________________________________________________ Get the Internet just the way you want it. Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month! Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: FW: Cooling Problems From: "Blandford, Carlton C" Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 09:06:12 +0200 X-Message-Number: 58 -----Original Message----- From: Carlton Blandford [mailto:Genesis2@iafrica.com] Sent: 18 July 1999 11:21 To: cblandford@mail.sbic.co.za Subject: Cooling Problems Hi Chaps, I need some Help! I just cannot get my engine to cool properly at full throttle for longer that 2 minutes on the ground. She will keep a constant temp at any setting below 2500 RPM. Once the throttle is advanced beyond this point the engine overheats in about 2 minutes. (flying makes no difference) As some of you know I have a water-cooled VW engine installed in a standard KR2. I've tried to mount the radiator in various positions under the engine but to no avail. Here are some of the facts: 1. The radiator is 200mm (8") in width by 400mm (16") long by 30mm (1") thick. (single core). 2. Pipe diameter ID is 1". 3. The thermostat has been removed. 4. The original water pump has been retained. This is a high capacity pump. 5. The RAD can only be mounted under the engine or on the belly as there is no space on top,sides, on the firewall or in front of the engine. I think the RAD is too small (only holds about one litre of water) so I've decided to make up three lengths of about 500mm (20") by 100mm (4") and mount them behind each other. Coolant will enter the front RAD and exit the rear one. I intend mounting this just below the firewall and have a 100mm channel running up the bottom of the cowling to about the halfway point. The problem is I'm not sure if this will work? Will the RAD be of sufficient capacity? What size must the inlet area be and where is the best location on the cowl? What other alternatives are there? Thanks for any advise in advance The installation can be viewed at Http://www.geocities.com/pipeline/valley/2636/eng.html Regards Carlton Blandford ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Grain direction.....who cares it's plywood...my turn at a 'STUPID' Question From: Tim Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 01:05:51 -0600 X-Message-Number: 59 Guy's, I'm not a Woodhead, but; Like Aircraft Plywood is either 90 or 45 degrees, I assume this is how the ply's (3-7) are layered. So grain direction of the top sheet is of interest, but I wouldn't think the orintation is as critical in dealing with the Spar web as perhaps Aluminium is because of fact that the plywood is a composite already...Which leads me to a 'STUPID' question dealing with the Spar construction? Why isn't there any small 'cormer blocks' being used on each side of the vertical spar members?...("Be gentle Boy's") Tim Cramb Cold Lake, AB Lift/Life --- 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