From: "KR-net users group digest" To: "kr-net digest recipients" Subject: kr-net digest: March 09, 2000 Date: Friday, March 10, 2000 12:30 AM KR-NET Digest2 for Thursday, March 09, 2000. 1. Re: kr-net digest: March 08, 2000 2. Re: More Engine Questions 3. Re: kr-net digest: March 08, 2000 4. ENGINE MOUNTING 5. Re: ENGINE MOUNTING 6. Re: ENGINE MOUNTING 7. Re: More Engine Questions 8. Re: ENGINE MOUNTING 9. Re: More Engine Questions 10. Re: More Engine Questions 11. Re: kr-net digest: March 07, 2000 12. Aft Spar/ WAF ??? 13. Re: kr-net digest: March 08, 2000 14. Re: Aft Spar/ WAF ??? 15. The right Engine for a KR 16. Re: More Engine Questions 17. Re: More Engine Questions 18. Re: More Engine Questions 19. Re: Annual Inspection 20. Sun & Fun!!! 21. Re: Wheel shimmy 22. Re: More Engine Questions 23. Re: More Engine Questions 24. Re: More Engine Questions 25. Re: More Engine Questions 26. Just thinking... 27. Re: Just thinking... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: kr-net digest: March 08, 2000 From: SRMAKISH@aol.com Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 07:46:39 EST X-Message-Number: 1 Mark is right about the type 4. I ran a type 4 2600 cc on my Kr and broke 2 cranks. You can bore and stroke and put it in a car and go fast. When you hang a prop on the end of it all sorts of weird things happen. Regards, Steve Makish ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: More Engine Questions From: "macwood" Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 12:02:51 -0000 X-Message-Number: 2 Fascinating stuff! Ralph Nader did us all a favour when he panned the Corvair-I assume it's the same beast? "It's an ill wind that gathers no moss" as someone might have said! Can some kind gent give me Revmaster's email address please. Thanks, Mac W Hampshire. ----- Original Message ----- From: Mark Langford To: KR-net users group Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2000 1:00 PM Subject: [kr-net] Re: More Engine Questions > Dan Villeneuve wrote: > > > This all also brings me to another question. I have noticed the max speed > > of the KR-2S is 200mph, can the VW push it to that speed? Is that the max > > speed of the air-frame or the engine. If it is the air-frame and the VW > > can push it to that, why is everyone talking about going with the Corvair? > > Well, thats enough for now, thanks for any information ahead of time. > > At the risk of alienating the VW fans (of which, I AM one) the big > difference in Corvair and VW is going to be reliablity and power. Even > after all the boring and stroking is done, you're going to get maybe 85 HP > out of the VW, and you'll have to run it pretty hard to do it. The 1600cc > engine that it's derived from was originally about 50 HP, and now you've > almost doubled what you're asking from it, and on a continuous basis, so > longevity will certainly suffer. The engine case doesn't usually last more > a few hundred hours due to internal cracking (oil pressure loss) or pounding > out of the main bearing saddles. > > On the other hand, the Corvair that we start with is rated at 110 HP as it > came from the factory, and this exact same bottom end was also used in the > 180 HP version, so it can obviously take it. And we're only asking it to > produce 110 HP for us. That's a much larger margin than you get with the > VW. The result is an aircraft conversion that is just about bulletproof. > For example, line-boring a Corvair is virtually unheard of, because the main > bearing saddles don't pound themselves out. Broken crankshafts are another > thing that you won't hear of when speaking of the Corvair, unlike the VW. > And the Corvair crank can be had for practically free. That fancy E4340 VW > crank was $600 last time I checked. There are several other factors, like 6 > cylinders rather than 4, that increase safety with the Corvair. For a > little more reading check out http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford/corvair.html > and http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford/kvw.html . > > Having said all of this, if you WANTED to cruise at 199 MPH with the KR2S, > the Corvair would certainly allow you to do this effortlessly. IF the VW > would let you do it (and it would almost have to be turbocharged and running > at the hairy edge) it wouldn't last long. > > Personally I feel like my plane will allow me to safely go faster than 200 > MPH, since my ailerons are fastened directly to the aft spar (rather than to > the wing skin) and my elevator spars are 50% taller, elevator's balanced, > etc. Only careful flight testing will tell the tale, but I plan to use my > Corvair to the fullest. I think Marty Roberts and many others would testify > that the stock KR2 can handle speeds greater than 200 MPH, repeatedly. He > runs an O-200... > > 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: macwood@tinyworld.co.uk > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-kr-net-161811R@telelists.com > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: kr-net digest: March 08, 2000 From: "Jon Sinon" Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 05:57:48 -0800 X-Message-Number: 3 Maybe you should have hung it on the other end. The front was meant for pulleys. ----- Original Message ----- From: To: KR-net users group Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2000 4:46 AM Subject: [kr-net] Re: kr-net digest: March 08, 2000 > Mark is right about the type 4. I ran a type 4 2600 cc on my Kr and broke 2 > cranks. You can bore and stroke and put it in a car and go fast. When you > hang a prop on the end of it all sorts of weird things happen. > Regards, Steve Makish > > --- > You are currently subscribed to kr-net as: jsinon@jps.net > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-kr-net-181287S@telelists.com > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: ENGINE MOUNTING From: "Livingstone, Danny (DJ)" Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 16:23:16 +0200 X-Message-Number: 4 Hello netters, from a warm sunny South Africa Just one question: What, in your opinion, is the best way (safest, least harmful to the motor) To mount the VW engine to the firewall pulley side forward or fly wheel forward? Getting ready to sand the spars to airfoil profile. Danny South Africa livd0124@natref.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: ENGINE MOUNTING From: "Jon Sinon" Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 06:21:05 -0800 X-Message-Number: 5 mount the prop on the flywheel end, stronger position and you can isolate the main bearings from adverse torque and vibration. ----- Original Message ----- From: Livingstone, Danny (DJ) To: KR-net users group Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2000 6:23 AM Subject: [kr-net] ENGINE MOUNTING > Hello netters, from a warm sunny South Africa > > Just one question: What, in your opinion, is the best way (safest, least > harmful to the motor) > To mount the VW engine to the firewall pulley side forward or fly wheel > forward? > > > Getting ready to sand the spars to airfoil profile. > > Danny > South Africa > livd0124@natref.com > > --- > You are currently subscribed to kr-net as: jsinon@jps.net > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-kr-net-181287S@telelists.com > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: ENGINE MOUNTING From: Mike Mims Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2000 06:20:33 -0800 X-Message-Number: 6 "Livingstone, Danny (DJ)" wrote: > > Hello netters, from a warm sunny South Africa > > Just one question: What, in your opinion, is the best way (safest, least > harmful to the motor) To mount the VW engine to the firewall pulley side forward or fly wheel > forward? Use the rear mount from GPASC. Go to their web page and check it out. http://www.greatplainsas.com/index.html -- zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz Micheal Mims Sanding and Filling AGAIN! :o( http://www.fortunecity.com/marina/anchor/270/ mirror @ http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/4136/ http://members.home.com/mikemims/ Aliso Viejo CA ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: More Engine Questions From: "Stefan B." Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2000 15:28:01 +0100 X-Message-Number: 7 The discussion here is about the automotive conversions. I have an O-200 type French engine with an overspeed at 3025 rpm. I wonder whether I could increase the power of the engine making it turning faster and/or increasing the bore/stroke. I do not see any reason why a 110 hp Corvair could be "upgraded" to 140 hp and a 100 hp O-200 couldn't deliver 140 hp at, lets say 3500 rpm. I have really no experience at all in this area but I think that with a careful redesign of the camshaft (and other changes) such an upgrade is possible. Thanks for your comments or ideas. Stefan Balatchev, Paris, France mailto:Stefan.Balatchev@wanadoo.fr ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: ENGINE MOUNTING From: Mike Mims Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2000 06:22:23 -0800 X-Message-Number: 8 "Livingstone, Danny (DJ)" wrote: > > Hello netters, from a warm sunny South Africa > > Just one question: What, in your opinion, is the best way (safest, least > harmful to the motor) To mount the VW engine to the firewall pulley side forward or fly wheel > forward? Specifically this page: http://www.greatplainsas.com/pg12.html Everyone check out the update GPASC website. Looks great Steve! -- zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz Micheal Mims Sanding and Filling AGAIN! :o( http://www.fortunecity.com/marina/anchor/270/ mirror @ http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/4136/ http://members.home.com/mikemims/ Aliso Viejo CA ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: More Engine Questions From: CHOCTAWCWR@aol.com Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 09:37:20 EST X-Message-Number: 9 Oh Please, lets not stone the corvair because of nader, he said the corvair was unsafe because of its handeling drawbacks, i seriousely doubt if any one will be putting wings on the car. the engine is a well proven design. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: More Engine Questions From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Graham=20Schott?= Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 06:46:46 -0800 (PST) X-Message-Number: 10 Hi Stefan It should be possible BUT How long would it last? Would you trust it over tiger country? In a KR2 what changes must be made to the firewall to fusealage glue joint? how would you ever keep it straight after opening the throttle? --- "Stefan B." wrote: > > The discussion here is about the automotive > conversions. I have an O-200 type > French engine with an overspeed at 3025 rpm. I > wonder whether I could increase > the power of the engine making it turning faster > and/or increasing the > bore/stroke. I do not see any reason why a 110 hp > Corvair could be "upgraded" to > 140 hp and a 100 hp O-200 couldn't deliver 140 hp > at, lets say 3500 rpm. I have > really no experience at all in this area but I think > that with a careful > redesign of the camshaft (and other changes) such an > upgrade is possible. > Thanks for your comments or ideas. > > Stefan Balatchev, > Paris, France > mailto:Stefan.Balatchev@wanadoo.fr > > > --- > You are currently subscribed to kr-net as: > gands_schott@yahoo.com > To unsubscribe send a blank email to > leave-kr-net-177744Q@telelists.com > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: kr-net digest: March 07, 2000 From: John E Braun Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2000 09:08:34 -0800 X-Message-Number: 11 Hey netters I just spotted a KR-2 project on E-bay that may be of interest. Here's a link. (no, its not my plane...) http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=279239360 John Braun ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Aft Spar/ WAF ??? From: "T.Flemming" Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 09:18:20 -0600 X-Message-Number: 12 My question refers to the plywood that is called for in the plans, in regards to the aft outboard spar. It says to cover the 2nd and 3rd vertical pieces on the aft spar on the aft side. This leaves the the outboard spar considerably thinner (3/8) than the center aft spar. I realize that the outboard spar WAF's fit in side the inboard spar WAF's but even with plywood starting at the beginnig of the out board aft spar and going to the 3rd vertical piece, there would be enough room to fit the WAF inside the inboard WAF. Any thoughts on this would be appreciated. Thanks Trent & Kellie Flemming Longview, Texas http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hall/9098/ tflemming@texramp.net ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: kr-net digest: March 08, 2000 From: AviationMech@aol.com Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 11:22:38 EST X-Message-Number: 13 Every problem that I hear about the type 4 always involves a stroker crank. In 15 years my stock crank has been tested and never failed. Orma http://members.aol.com/aviationmech ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Aft Spar/ WAF ??? From: flykr2s@execpc.com Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 11:11:00 -0600 X-Message-Number: 14 > My question refers to the plywood that is called for in the plans, in > regards to the aft outboard spar. It says to cover the 2nd and 3rd vertical > pieces on the aft spar on the aft side. This leaves the the outboard spar > considerably thinner (3/8) than the center aft spar. I realize that the > outboard spar WAF's fit in side the inboard spar WAF's but even with plywood > starting at the beginnig of the out board aft spar and going to the 3rd > vertical piece, there would be enough room to fit the WAF inside the inboard > WAF. Any thoughts on this would be appreciated. > > Thanks > > > Trent & Kellie Flemming > Longview, Texas > http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hall/9098/ > tflemming@texramp.net > Trent, You need to look at the supplement drawing for the 2S spars. You will find on the 2S drawing that both sides of the outboard spars, both front and aft, are completely covered with plywood webs. I am not at home where I can look at my drawings. However my spars are complete and have been test fitted with no problems. You should have no gap at the WAF. Mark Jones (N886MJ) Waukesha, WI mailto:flykr2s@execpc.com http://sites.netscape.net/flykr2s/homepage > > > --- > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: The right Engine for a KR From: "Stanley Mello" Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2000 09:50:12 PST X-Message-Number: 15 My feeling is that a VW of 1835cc for a light KR and a 2400cc for a heavier one would be plenty of engine unless you are trying for a climb speed record. Trying to fly a KR at 200mph in level flight may be attainable but unless you are in smooth air the ride may be rather rough with the wing loading the KR has. The added horsepower of a larger engine would be offset by the added weight and greater fuel burn which would require large fuel capacity which means more added weight. A larger engine will also cause CG adjustments that may be difficult. Building this airplane as it was designed is always the quickest way from construction start to the day it flies with no surprises. I truly believe this aircraft is best used as a day VFR fun flyer. If you want to go fast and carry a large load, fly at nite and IFR then I think a Glassair or a Lanceair is a better choice. Food for thought , Melloflyer ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: More Engine Questions From: RBChaser1@aol.com Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 12:57:23 EST X-Message-Number: 16 Mark; Has there ever been any discussions of what we would need to change to have an airframe with a vne of say 250 mph. Using the convair of course. I am in the middle of a project but currently intend my next one to be a fast crosscountry capable KR2S. possibly wider and stretched a little. Your thoughts on changes to strengthen the airframe for more speed would be very interesting. Chuck ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: More Engine Questions From: "Jon Sinon" Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 10:27:55 -0800 X-Message-Number: 17 might try this home page, it has some interesting insights http://users.erols.com/donreid/kr_page.htm ----- Original Message ----- From: To: KR-net users group Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2000 9:57 AM Subject: [kr-net] Re: More Engine Questions > Mark; > Has there ever been any discussions of what we would need to change to have > an airframe with a vne of say 250 mph. Using the convair of course. I am in > the middle of a project but currently intend my next one to be a fast > crosscountry capable KR2S. possibly wider and stretched a little. Your > thoughts on changes to strengthen the airframe for more speed would be very > interesting. > Chuck > > --- > You are currently subscribed to kr-net as: jsinon@jps.net > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-kr-net-181287S@telelists.com > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: More Engine Questions From: Donald Reid Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2000 14:19:20 -0500 X-Message-Number: 18 --=====================_1047000==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed >The discussion here is about the automotive conversions. I have an O-200 type >French engine with an overspeed at 3025 rpm. I wonder whether I could increase >the power of the engine making it turning faster and/or increasing the >bore/stroke. I do not see any reason why a 110 hp Corvair could be >"upgraded" to >140 hp and a 100 hp O-200 couldn't deliver 140 hp at, lets say 3500 rpm. Formula racing planes do run the O-200 at much higher speeds. 4500 rpm is not unusual. They will put out the higher power, but is that what you really want? Reliability has to suffer. Airplane engines are designed and built very conservatively. I think that is a good thing. 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 --=====================_1047000==_.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
The discussion here is about the automotive conversions. I have an O-200 type
French engine with an overspeed at 3025 rpm. I wonder whether I could increase
the power of the engine making it turning faster and/or increasing the
bore/stroke. I do not see any reason why a 110 hp Corvair could be "upgraded" to
140 hp and a 100 hp O-200 couldn't deliver 140 hp at, lets say 3500 rpm.

Formula racing planes do run the O-200 at much higher speeds.  4500 rpm is not unusual.  They will put out the higher power, but is that what you really want?  Reliability has to suffer.  Airplane engines are designed and built very conservatively.  I think that is a good thing.

Don Reid
Bumpass, Va.   mailto:donreid@erols.com
  Ultralights at http://www.erols.com/donreid/usua250.html --=====================_1047000==_.ALT-- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Annual Inspection From: FRED SMITH Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2000 17:31:25 -0600 X-Message-Number: 19 Willard561@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 00-03-08 18:14:40 EST, you write: > > << My brake system is from a company called Rosenhaun. This > company I believe sold out or somehow got aquired by MATCO. I own a dragonfly that has Rosenhaum brakes and have done the ground work on this. Matco can sell the brake lining as a part that you cut to fit. They bought the line but do not handle the brake as such. My main problem was the rubber seal. The seal is a polypak that is readily available. You are looking for the standard 3/16 polypack in the diameter on your brake. I have had to many beers to remember the O.D. , but it is 3-? for the 5" wheel. The design is simple and straight forward and should be ok with new seals. Make sure that the spacing on your bearings is ok. To much room and the seal will squash out and lose fluid and to tight and the wheels will drag. Hope this helps. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Sun & Fun!!! From: Steve & Linda Bennett Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2000 17:35:33 -0600 X-Message-Number: 20 Hi KR-Net! This is your invitation!!!!! It is almost time for Sun N Fun! We are going to again host a free KR-Net get together at the airfield for all of those that would like to join in. It is scheduled for April 10 (Monday) at 5:30 pm in one of the Forum Tents. Stop by our booth and we will tell you the Tent number. We are planning to have brats, polish sausage and hot dogs, with chips and dip (cookies too!) Pop will be served. Steve & Linda Bennett Great Plains Aircraft ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Wheel shimmy From: SkyHawk11@aol.com Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 21:13:41 EST X-Message-Number: 21 Same thing on old Harleys and if you havent survived a shimmy on a Harley doing 80- 90 mph you havent lived!!!!!!! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: More Engine Questions From: SkyHawk11@aol.com Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 21:30:36 EST X-Message-Number: 22 Have an imaculate 1965 corvair monza 2dr hardtop in my garage 54000 miles since new. great car!!!!!!! you cannot have the engine. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: More Engine Questions From: The Muses Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2000 20:58:45 -0600 X-Message-Number: 23 At 03:42 PM 03/08/2000 -0700, you wrote: >It is not only the HP that governs the speed . It is how you fly it. You can >a great deal better performance if you get used to flying " on the step" >That is if you have a plane with a 4 degree angle of incidence , you fly >what appears .to be 4 degrees degrees below the horizon. Try it, You won't >loose altitude. > Thanks, I never knew what allowed us(N122B and me) to 'get on step' but when we do we get about a 12 mph increase in speed. I have been able to do it a few times but I never realized what allowed it. When we weren't able to 'get on step', I just thought that the engine was not as strong that day. I will go try your way. Bobby Bobby Muse N122B - Wimberley, TX mailto:bmuse@mindspring.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: More Engine Questions From: The Muses Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2000 21:11:00 -0600 X-Message-Number: 24 At 12:02 PM 03/09/2000 -0000, you wrote: >Fascinating stuff! Ralph Nader did us all a favour when he panned the >Corvair-I assume it's the same beast? "It's an ill wind that gathers no >moss" as someone might have said! Can some >kind gent give me Revmaster's email address please. >Thanks, Mac W >Hampshire. > I was wandering how long before someone said something. Bobby Bobby Muse N122B - Wimberley, TX mailto:bmuse@mindspring.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: More Engine Questions From: "Mark Langford" Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 21:15:47 -0600 X-Message-Number: 25 Chuck wrote: > Has there ever been any discussions of what we would need to change to have > an airframe with a vne of say 250 mph. Not on KRNet, that I can remember. I doubt that anybody really wants to start dispensing structural information on the web. As for Don's reinforcements to the longerons, those are probably required more for his added "big and tall" gross weight capability than any speed issue. While such things can theoretically be calculated, there are still a lot of assumptions to be made during the process, and the bottom line is that you'll never know for sure until it's tested. As far as I'm concerned, after watching Marty Roberts and others pull some of their stunts at high speed at the Gatherings, I'd say it's BEEN tested. As has been mentioned, the light wing loading of the KR would beat you to death in even light turbulence at 250 mph (or even 150, for that matter). Personally my 675 pound plane and shorter wings (I left off the foam spars, and 15" of wing span on each side) will have a higher wing loading than stock, but I expect my huge flaps to keep landing speed on par with the stocker. Having said that, I remember that Marty sawed off a couple of feet of his wings a few years ago, and hated the results. And he definitely knows about a million times more about flying KRs than I do. I'm leaving the door open to adding wing extensions, just to see what kind of difference it makes, particularly at high altitude. I left 2 feet of strobe cable inside the wing tips, "for just such an emergency" (that's a Foghorn Leghorn quote). I remember an Oshkosh RR Forum in which Bill Marcy (RR's hired structural guy) said something like "the KR2S firewall can handle almost anything you can hang on it" when asked about the 0-200. The 0-200 and Corvair are similar in the weight department, so that's good enough for me. And you just don't hear of KR structural failures, which should tell you something about the conservative nature of the design. Balancing all of the control surfaces would be wise, I'd think, especially the ailerons (as the plans require). Jeff Duval experienced some aileron flutter in his recently purchased KR2, and discovered that they were only partially balanced. He balanced them 100% and hasn't had a problem since. That's something for you guys who've bought KRs second hand to think about. Jeff's a first rate commercial pilot, so he handled it, but many of us wouldn't have been able to. If you really want to go fast, take Troy's recommendation and fly at 200 indicated at about 12,000 feet. That'll probably be close to 250 true anyway, depending. I think Ken used to spend a lot of time up there... Mark Langford, Huntsville, Alabama mailto:langford@hiwaay.net see KR2S project N56ML at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Just thinking... From: KMcke10305@aol.com Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 22:18:35 EST X-Message-Number: 26 Is there anyway at all to build the KR2-S without getting into the fiberglass and all of the sanding? I was thinking about ply skins coating with epoxy or resin. Maybe this is way out of line, but I thought it was something to consider. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Just thinking... From: "Joe Beyer" Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 22:27:57 -0800 X-Message-Number: 27 There are ways of keeping the sanding and dust down by wet sanding. Wood skinned planes tend to 'oil can' because there's no core behind the skin. I've seen an old Mooney Mite, and a wood skinned KR-2 recently and the surface looks wavy. When getting into the fiberglass phase, use the plane as the jig to form the shape of the outter skins. Make the cores very accurate and fill with micro, to keep the weight down, before rolling out the fiber glass. Always have a good shop vac. and dust mask. Follow the plans. ----- Original Message ----- From: To: KR-net users group Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2000 7:18 PM Subject: [kr-net] Just thinking... > Is there anyway at all to build the KR2-S without getting into the fiberglass > and all of the sanding? I was thinking about ply skins coating with epoxy or > resin. Maybe this is way out of line, but I thought it was something to > consider. > > --- > You are currently subscribed to kr-net as: joejbeyer@earthlink.net > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-kr-net-181950O@telelists.com > --- END OF DIGEST --- You are currently subscribed to kr-net as: johnbou@ipinc.net To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-kr-net-110995W@telelists.com