From: To: Subject: krnet Digest 31 May 2000 21:34:26 -0000 Issue 37 Date: Wednesday, May 31, 2000 1:34 PM krnet Digest 31 May 2000 21:34:26 -0000 Issue 37 Topics (messages 818 through 847): Re: KR Icing encounters 818 by: Richard Parker Re: Oshkosh 2000? 819 by: Kobus de Wet Re: AN Fittings 820 by: Ronald R. Eason Re: Gross weight? 821 by: Mike Mims 822 by: Mike Mims 826 by: Kenneth L Wiltrout 833 by: Ross Youngblood wing rib design 823 by: Rex T. Ellington Re: krnet Digest 26 May 2000 04:38:36 -0000 Issue 33 824 by: Parley Byington Re: engine 825 by: Mark Langford 830 by: Jeff LeTempt 834 by: Ross Youngblood 835 by: Richard Parker Re: POSA CARB 827 by: AviationMech.aol.com 831 by: KRkip.aol.com 840 by: SClay10106.aol.com Re: resins 828 by: AviationMech.aol.com 832 by: WMWingz.aol.com Re: Spar repair continued 829 by: larry flesner Kr1 Prop 836 by: cranks4u 837 by: Livingstone, Danny (DJ) 842 by: Joe Beyer 843 by: Florin L Pintea 844 by: Joe Beyer 845 by: Kr22278z.aol.com 846 by: Joe Beyer 847 by: AviationMech.aol.com How not to wash your planes 838 by: Mike Mims Re: FUEL TANK TESTS 839 by: w.g. kirkland Re: Acetone Volatility 841 by: Frank Ross Administrivia: To subscribe to the digest, e-mail: To unsubscribe from the digest, e-mail: To post to the list, e-mail: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 05:44:13 PDT To: kae_ar@yahoo.com, leot@ptialaska.net From: "Richard Parker" Cc: krnet@mailinglists.org Subject: Re: KR> KR Icing encounters Message-ID: <20000530124413.10215.qmail@hotmail.com> I have one posted on on my web site. Rich Parker http://top.monad.net/~theparkers/kr.htm >Cant remember where I just read a great story of one >of the first KR1s built in one year by a guy in Alaska >and flown to Oshkosh. Seems like it may have been in >one of the early KR web sites. Worth looking for. >--- taylor wrote: > > Anyone have any info or stories on icing encounters > > with the KR,s .Im thinking of using one as a > > commuter in Alaska. > > > > >===== >Frank Ross, Major, USAF(Ret.) >San Antonio, TX, > >__________________________________________________ >Do You Yahoo!? >Kick off your party with Yahoo! Invites. >http://invites.yahoo.com/ > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >To unsubscribe, e-mail: krnet-unsubscribe@mailinglists.org >For additional commands, e-mail: krnet-help@mailinglists.org > ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 16:48:29 +0200 To: "The House of D's" , , "Mike Mims" From: "Kobus de Wet" Cc: Subject: Re: KR> Oshkosh 2000? Message-ID: <000d01bfca46$20c70aa0$d196ef9b@kobusdewet> Maybe it is like its getting here in South Africa it is not the "Experimental Aircraft Association" anymore, it has now become the "EXPENSIVE Aircraft Association" That's my 2 cents worth (US $) the local currency is worth nothing. Cheers Kobus de Wet Cape Town South Africa GMT +2.00 mailto:jfdewet@intekom.co.za Ph +27-21-988-3671 Fax +27-21-987-1850 Cell 082-424-0194 http://home.intekom.com/kobusdw ----- Original Message ----- From: The House of D's To: ; Mike Mims Cc: Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2000 04:43 Subject: RE: KR> Oshkosh 2000? If you are not flying WWII "heavy iron", my impression it my money and proxy is all they want there. -----Original Message----- From: B&B Muse [mailto:bmuse@ev1.net] Sent: Monday, May 29, 2000 9:23 PM To: Mike Mims Cc: krnet@mailinglists.org Subject: Re: KR> Oshkosh 2000? Mike Mims wrote: > --- Steven Eberhart wrote: > >>>Troy Petteway and I will be tagging along to answer > questions. Troy is also planning on having his KR-2 > there.>>>> > > > > Sure would be nice if some KRs actually started > showing up at Oshkosh. I got the impression from > flyers in the past that KRs were not really welcome there. > > It's not that we're not welcome there, it's that we don't get no respect there. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: krnet-unsubscribe@mailinglists.org For additional commands, e-mail: krnet-help@mailinglists.org ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 09:59:45 -0500 To: , From: "Ronald R. Eason" Subject: Re: KR> AN Fittings Message-ID: <002901bfca47$b366a2c0$857239ce@winbook> -----Original Message----- From: RFG842@aol.com To: krnet@mailinglists.org Date: Tuesday, May 30, 2000 7:43 AM Subject: Re: KR> AN Fittings >Summit Racing Equipment > >www.SummittRacing.com ????? > Try http://www.summitracing.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 09:03:19 -0700 (PDT) To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: Mike Mims Subject: Re: KR> Gross weight? Message-ID: <20000530160319.15532.qmail@web1406.mail.yahoo.com> --- Gene Hudson wrote: > Hi, >I and my girlfriend will be flying together > most of the time and between us, we go about 400lbs. > > I think if you plan to do a lot of flying together this may be the wrong plane for you. But if its just an occasional short trip now and then you could work it out with limited fuel load and no baggage. Keep in mind you will be exceeding the recommended max gross weight but it has been done before. Depending on your skills and the amount of power you have you can get away with 1200 pounds as long as its in the CG range, particularly in the forward part. Keep in mind I do not fly a KR, only think about it now and then. But I have talked to a lot of people who have. :o) ===== ........| .......-^- ....-/_____\- ...(O\__o__/O) ...[#]oxxxo[#] -----Y2K Bug--- Yes I drive one! __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Kick off your party with Yahoo! Invites. http://invites.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 09:05:41 -0700 (PDT) To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: Mike Mims Subject: Re: KR> Gross weight? Message-ID: <20000530160541.15946.qmail@web1406.mail.yahoo.com> --- Gene Hudson wrote: > Of the 2 other planes I considered, I dismissed the > Dragonfly, as the wings are not removable. That > leaves the KR2S. > Flying with this kind of load the Dragonfly would have been a better choice. I know this as fact as I fly one now and then. BTW the wings on a KR are not really "removable" as in something you want to do more than once a year. ===== ........| .......-^- ....-/_____\- ...(O\__o__/O) ...[#]oxxxo[#] -----Y2K Bug--- Yes I drive one! __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Kick off your party with Yahoo! Invites. http://invites.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 19:19:30 -0400 To: kr2sflyer@yahoo.com From: Kenneth L Wiltrout Cc: krnet@mailinglists.org Subject: Re: KR> Gross weight? Message-ID: <20000530.191931.-392447.0.klw1953@juno.com> If you really want to remove the wings on a regular basis do what I did: Build a trailer to facilitate with wing installation and removal. The key thing is a jib crane with slings made out of soft carpet, the crane drops into a pipe pocket on each side. Sling each wing, lift it up with the crane, drop inthe bolts. It takes me about 30-40 minutes to install or remove. Yes it does take time, but there is no hanger fee in my garage. I'm painting mine this Sat., after that it's back together with all the parts, and hopefully a safe first flight sometime this summer. On Tue, 30 May 2000 09:05:41 -0700 (PDT) Mike Mims writes: > > --- Gene Hudson wrote: > > > Of the 2 other planes I considered, I dismissed the > > Dragonfly, as the wings are not removable. That > > leaves the KR2S. > > > > Flying with this kind of load the Dragonfly would have > been a better choice. I know this as fact as I fly one > now and then. > > ________________________________________________________________ YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET! Juno now offers FREE Internet Access! Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 23:19:36 -0700 To: Kenneth L Wiltrout From: Ross Youngblood CC: kr2sflyer@yahoo.com, krnet@mailinglists.org Subject: Re: KR> Gross weight? Message-ID: <3934AEF8.EF13A1C@teleport.com> Ken, Can you take some photos of this set up? I have been thinking about somthing like this, but haven't come up with a solution yet for my trailering setup. -- Ross Kenneth L Wiltrout wrote: > If you really want to remove the wings on a regular basis do what I did: > Build a trailer to facilitate with wing installation and removal. > The key thing is a jib crane with slings made out of soft carpet, the > crane drops into a pipe pocket on each side. Sling each wing, lift it up > with the crane, drop inthe bolts. > It takes me about 30-40 minutes to install or remove. Yes it does take > time, but there is no hanger fee in my garage. > I'm painting mine this Sat., after that it's back together with all the > parts, and hopefully a safe first flight sometime this summer. > > On Tue, 30 May 2000 09:05:41 -0700 (PDT) Mike Mims > writes: > > > > --- Gene Hudson wrote: > > > > > Of the 2 other planes I considered, I dismissed the > > > Dragonfly, as the wings are not removable. That > > > leaves the KR2S. > > > > > > > Flying with this kind of load the Dragonfly would have > > been a better choice. I know this as fact as I fly one > > now and then. > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________ > YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET! > Juno now offers FREE Internet Access! > Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit: > http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: krnet-unsubscribe@mailinglists.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: krnet-help@mailinglists.org ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 11:08:24 -0500 To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: "Rex T. Ellington" Subject: wing rib design Message-ID: <3933E778.36F4@telepath.com> Morning All I have been off the net for some time, but have now finished another project, and am getting krbusy again. These thoughts are put out for criticism. There is an old saying, "We are all products of our experience and most of us are prisoners of it as well." I admit the former and have always fought the latter. After decades of work in engineering and construction, I know that few of the drawings signed off at the beginning correspond to the 'as built' dwgs., because of those sweet little things called 'change orders'. The KRs that each of you flies is the result of many change orders, so mine will be too. Please check the following line of thought which I think of using for building my wings. Following many of Mark Langford's splendid analyses, I come to the following sum-up. a). Although no one has flown it yet, there seems to be growing concensus on using the Ashok Selig 18% thickness airfoil at the root of the outer wing panel, tapering linearly to 15% thickness at the tip rib. b). Instead of using the old plans 3-foot foam section at the tip, one should extend the spars and put the 15% rib at the true tip. c). Then employ a smoot taper transition from the root rib to the tip rib. (By the way, my hanger cronies remind me that the F8F Bearcat did exactly this, using a 23018 root rib tapering to a 2308 tip rib. It had nice properties.) d. Then, for example the midpoint rib will be an (18+15)/2=16.5% rib. The same applies to the chord. The spars will penetrate the ribs at the same relative point, with the same relative thickness. e). The detailed measurements of each rib can be calculated using the calculated thickeness and chord values. These are the x,y versus C values. Then, after the x and y values are plotted and smoothed, one should set the 'cut' values 1/8" inside this for the plywood top skin and 3/64 inside for the bottom skin. If these thoughts are correct, I will go back through Mark's email notes and consolidate them for drawings, as well final fuselage locations - and post them for checking. In the end, my construction drawings should be darned close to as-built, and be part of the 2000 new design. Rex Ellington Norman OK rtecg@telepath.com f). ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 09:45:54 -0700 To: From: "Parley Byington" Subject: Fw: krnet Digest 26 May 2000 04:38:36 -0000 Issue 33 Message-ID: <002601bfca56$863b61a0$e0b765d1@parleyanv.net> >Clay > >I used the sight gauge in my aircraft for several years but I didn't like >the fact that the reading depended on the pitch attitude. This caused me to >have to interpolate too much. I rebuilt my tank (to increase it's capacity >from 13 gal to 18.5) and installed a baffle plate that I designed to act as >a capacitor. This capacitor changes it's capacitance as a function of the >amount of fuel in the tank. The nice thing about this is that it is >independent of the aircraft attitude. > >I designed my own capacitive type fuel gauge which has a resolution of 1/2 >gal. I have been using this gauge for the past three years with no >problems. The gauge and circuitry cost less than twenty-five US dollars. >All of the parts with the exception of the 0-1milliamp gauge was available >at Radio Shack. > >Let me know if you need further details. > >Regards >Parley (N54PB) >parley@anv.net >Henderson, Nevada USA >-----Original Message----- >From: krnet-digest-help@mailinglists.org > >To: krnet@mailinglists.org >Date: Thursday, May 25, 2000 9:39 PM >Subject: krnet Digest 26 May 2000 04:38:36 -0000 Issue 33 > > >>krnet Digest 26 May 2000 04:38:36 -0000 Issue 33 >> >>Topics (messages 705 through 734): >> >>Re: fuel gauge >> >>what is wrong with using a sight gauge, as suggested in the KR plans? >>Clay >>Flykr2@aol.com >> > ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 17:20:36 -0500 To: From: "Mark Langford" Subject: Re: KR> engine Message-ID: <002f01bfca85$47c72d80$a5f780ce@300emachine> > if you had your choice between these engines what one would you choose? > 1800cc m.p.f.i. overhead cam subaru from a '90 wagon > the turbo subaru engine > 1835cc VW > 140 corvair I already answered this once today, but must have sent it direct to David, rather than the list. Silly me. At least I wondered where it went... The 140 HP Corvair is not a good choice for an airplane. Besides its nasty habit of dropping valve seats, the 140 doesn't develop any more power than a 110HP Corvair at aircraft RPMs (3600). The 110's don't have the valve seat dropping problem, since there's a lot more material between the valves, and they can be had for peanuts compared to a 140. And you CAN turbo a Corvair, using factory parts! If I were going to build a VW, I'd go ahead and build a 2180. For a slightly higher weight, you get 15% more power. The 4340 cranks aren't that much more expensive for a stroker than a stoker, but there's a bit of machining costs involved with the stroke increase. I think most folks with an 1835 wish they had more power. I can tell you it made a huge difference in my Karmann Ghia. As for Soobs, anytime you start carrying water around there's a power/weight penalty, not to mention another mode of failure. Obviously, I'd go for the Corvair, but I'd swap that 140 with a Corvair fanatic for a pair of 110's. There are several links at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford/corvair.html . If you buy an in-flight adjustable prop, avoid the Ivo... Mark Langford, Huntsville, Alabama mailto:langford@hiwaay.net see KR2S project N56ML at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 19:43:45 -0500 To: From: "Jeff LeTempt" Subject: Re: KR> engine Message-ID: <001301bfca99$490f26c0$8ea3fe3f@default> I certainly do respect Mark's opinion, and I have not fully made up my mind, but I leaning toward the Subaru. In particular an EA-81 direct drive turbo. I know that with water cooling there are more parts that could break, but I feel that a properly engineered system should prove to be very reliable. Water cooled engines tend to last longer and be more efficient than air cooled engines. Another couple of benefits are no shock cooling and a safe cockpit heating system is easy to manufacture. It is quite easy to get 100 hp with the DDT setup and tip the scales at about 200 lbs ready to fly. That is a 2:1 weight to power ratio. Just because Mark is going with the Corvair is almost reason enough for me to install an old Corvair engine in my plane (I have been looking for a Corvair engine to buy and play around with). Jeff ----- Original Message ----- From: Mark Langford To: Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2000 5:20 PM Subject: Re: KR> engine > > if you had your choice between these engines what one would you choose? > > 1800cc m.p.f.i. overhead cam subaru from a '90 wagon > > the turbo subaru engine > > 1835cc VW > > 140 corvair > > I already answered this once today, but must have sent it direct to David, > rather than the list. Silly me. At least I wondered where it went... > > The 140 HP Corvair is not a good choice for an airplane. Besides its nasty > habit of dropping valve seats, the 140 doesn't develop any more power than a > 110HP Corvair at aircraft RPMs (3600). The 110's don't have the valve seat > dropping problem, since there's a lot more material between the valves, and > they can be had for peanuts compared to a 140. And you CAN turbo a Corvair, > using factory parts! > > If I were going to build a VW, I'd go ahead and build a 2180. For a > slightly higher weight, you get 15% more power. The 4340 cranks aren't that > much more expensive for a stroker than a stoker, but there's a bit of > machining costs involved with the stroke increase. I think most folks with > an 1835 wish they had more power. I can tell you it made a huge difference > in my Karmann Ghia. > > As for Soobs, anytime you start carrying water around there's a power/weight > penalty, not to mention another mode of failure. > > Obviously, I'd go for the Corvair, but I'd swap that 140 with a Corvair > fanatic for a pair of 110's. There are several links at > http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford/corvair.html . > > If you buy an in-flight adjustable prop, avoid the Ivo... > > Mark Langford, Huntsville, Alabama > mailto:langford@hiwaay.net > see KR2S project N56ML at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: krnet-unsubscribe@mailinglists.org > For additional commands, e-mail: krnet-help@mailinglists.org > ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 23:23:07 -0700 To: Jeff LeTempt From: Ross Youngblood CC: krnet@mailinglists.org Subject: Re: KR> engine Message-ID: <3934AFCB.C7C53827@teleport.com> Just a FYI for Soob owners. My old hangar mate has a Soob on his Zenair Zodiac. Seems it overheated during initial ground tests. After about 50 hours the valve guides came loose, and he had to do a complete top overhaul. Cost him about what my VW cost to build, but he will not let the engine overheat again. Seems the interference fit is reasonable, but the guides come loose if the heads get too hot (according to him). -- Ross Jeff LeTempt wrote: > I certainly do respect Mark's opinion, and I have not fully made up my mind, > but I leaning toward the Subaru. In particular an EA-81 direct drive turbo. > I know that with water cooling there are more parts that could break, but I > feel that a properly engineered system should prove to be very reliable. > Water cooled engines tend to last longer and be more efficient than air > cooled engines. Another couple of benefits are no shock cooling and a safe > cockpit heating system is easy to manufacture. It is quite easy to get 100 > hp with the DDT setup and tip the scales at about 200 lbs ready to fly. > That is a 2:1 weight to power ratio. Just because Mark is going with the > Corvair is almost reason enough for me to install an old Corvair engine in > my plane (I have been looking for a Corvair engine to buy and play around > with). > > Jeff > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Mark Langford > To: > Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2000 5:20 PM > Subject: Re: KR> engine > > > > if you had your choice between these engines what one would you choose? > > > 1800cc m.p.f.i. overhead cam subaru from a '90 wagon > > > the turbo subaru engine > > > 1835cc VW > > > 140 corvair > > > > I already answered this once today, but must have sent it direct to David, > > rather than the list. Silly me. At least I wondered where it went... > > > > The 140 HP Corvair is not a good choice for an airplane. Besides its > nasty > > habit of dropping valve seats, the 140 doesn't develop any more power than > a > > 110HP Corvair at aircraft RPMs (3600). The 110's don't have the valve > seat > > dropping problem, since there's a lot more material between the valves, > and > > they can be had for peanuts compared to a 140. And you CAN turbo a > Corvair, > > using factory parts! > > > > If I were going to build a VW, I'd go ahead and build a 2180. For a > > slightly higher weight, you get 15% more power. The 4340 cranks aren't > that > > much more expensive for a stroker than a stoker, but there's a bit of > > machining costs involved with the stroke increase. I think most folks > with > > an 1835 wish they had more power. I can tell you it made a huge > difference > > in my Karmann Ghia. > > > > As for Soobs, anytime you start carrying water around there's a > power/weight > > penalty, not to mention another mode of failure. > > > > Obviously, I'd go for the Corvair, but I'd swap that 140 with a Corvair > > fanatic for a pair of 110's. There are several links at > > http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford/corvair.html . > > > > If you buy an in-flight adjustable prop, avoid the Ivo... > > > > Mark Langford, Huntsville, Alabama > > mailto:langford@hiwaay.net > > see KR2S project N56ML at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: krnet-unsubscribe@mailinglists.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: krnet-help@mailinglists.org > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: krnet-unsubscribe@mailinglists.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: krnet-help@mailinglists.org ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 05:28:04 PDT To: rossy@teleport.com, krnet@mailinglists.org From: "Richard Parker" Subject: Re: KR> engine Message-ID: <20000531122804.37508.qmail@hotmail.com> That would seem true of most engines. The problem here doesnt sound like a problem with the engine, it sounds like a problem with improper airflow over the radiator or poor engine temperature mananagement. I would think I could get things to loosen up on a corvair, VW, Soob, Rotax, etc if had improper cooling. Rich Parker >From: Ross Youngblood >Just a FYI for Soob owners. My old hangar mate has a Soob on his >Zenair Zodiac. Seems it overheated during initial ground tests. After >about 50 hours the valve guides came loose, and he had to do a complete >top overhaul. Cost him about what my VW cost to build, but he >will not let the engine overheat again. Seems the interference fit >is reasonable, but the guides come loose if the heads get too hot >(according to him). > > -- Ross ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 20:01:58 EDT To: DONAN5@aol.com, krnet@mailinglists.org From: AviationMech@aol.com Subject: Re: KR> POSA CARB Message-ID: <7a.5ea1016.2665b076@aol.com> In a message dated 5/30/00 12:43:36 AM Eastern Daylight Time, DONAN5@aol.com writes: << What is the smallest MM posa carb you can run on a VW 2180 engine??? >> I would guess at 32mm Orma aviationmech@aol.com http://members.aol.com/aviationmech ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 21:45:22 EDT To: DONAN5@aol.com, krnet@mailinglists.org From: KRkip@aol.com Subject: Re: KR> POSA CARB Message-ID: The recomended size that you need is a 32mm and you must use a number 5 needle or you will only be able to get you engine to run right at low engine speeds. The number 5 needle will run a little rich at idle but at the higher rpms that you will use at flight speeds 2800 to 3500 it will be fine. Kip ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 11:56:08 EDT To: KRkip@aol.com, DONAN5@aol.com, krnet@mailinglists.org From: SClay10106@aol.com Subject: Re: KR> POSA CARB Message-ID: <25.663f736.26669018@aol.com> I have heard a lot of horror stories on carbs with interchangeable jets what's the deal? Recently heard of another kr come down cause the jet fell out. What carb is this? Cause I don't think I want it. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 20:01:52 EDT To: Kr2dream@aol.com, shanspur@webtv.net, krnet@mailinglists.org From: AviationMech@aol.com Subject: Re: KR> Re: resins Message-ID: <5f.5dcbec4.2665b070@aol.com> Bob, you are right. My point is that you need to find all the leaks you can before you put fuel in the tank, because once fuel has been in the tank epoxy does not stick well and you need to sand the surface as well as remove all residual fuel. Orma aviationmech@aol.com http://members.aol.com/aviationmech ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 23:11:55 EDT To: Kr2dream@aol.com, AviationMech@aol.com, shanspur@webtv.net, krnet@mailinglists.org From: WMWingz@aol.com Subject: Re: KR> Re: resins Message-ID: <13.5efde57.2665dcfb@aol.com> Diesel fuel works good here. It will penetrate the smallest leak ( I have seen Inspectors spraying diesel fuel on welds on huge storage tanks after the ultrasound guys leave). It doesn't smell that nice but the fumes aren't dangerous and clean up is easy as the residual will mix with gas and cause no harm. Thanks Bill McCraw Niagara Falls On. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 19:09:26 -0500 To: "Livingstone, Danny (DJ)" , krnet@mailinglists.org From: larry flesner Subject: Re: KR> Spar repair continued Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000530190926.00801b20@mail.midwest.net> At 11:07 AM 5/30/00 +0200, Livingstone, Danny (DJ) wrote: >After cutting the foam of my wing I noticed a low area on an area of my top >surface of the main outer spar cap approx. 24 cm long by 0.5mm(0.019") to >1.5mm (0.059") (Probably sleeping on my belt sander!). Will filling this low >area with flox be an adaquate repair? >Danny Livingstone ===================================================================== Danny, If you are building scratch built wings, I'd be inclined to say go ahead and foam and glass and fill the low spot when you are doing the finishing. If you are using premolded skins, make sure you have enough flox in that area to get a good bond. .02 to .06 doesn't sound that bad to me. I've seen flying KR's with more irregularities than that !! Larry Flesner ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 10:08:46 -0700 To: "krnet" From: "cranks4u" Subject: Kr1 Prop Message-ID: <002201bfcb22$e7f23500$496f9fcf@thank> I'm looking for suggestions for a prop for my 1976 KR1. I'm using a 52x44, good cruise & good economy but it just doesn't want to leave the ground. My engine is a 69x88 AeroVee, advertised as 65HP, Yeah right, engine turns about 2850 in flight. Any ideas would be appreciated. Dan cranks4u@inna.net ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 16:15:57 +0200 To: krnet From: "Livingstone, Danny (DJ)" Subject: RE: KR> Kr1 Prop Message-ID: <042104686D63D311B51A0000C110B8E4449ABA@SASLTD06> You could varify that the engine is in fact still producing its original power output, that there in no loss of power due to worn engine compression rings, fouled pluggs, carburettor complications, etc. The timing is in fact what it should be. If this problem has been around since new I suggest that a finer pitch prop should be on the next shopping list. Danny Livingstone South Africa E-Mail: livd0124@natref.com > -----Original Message----- > From: cranks4u [SMTP:cranks4u@inna.net] > Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2000 7:09 PM > To: krnet > Subject: KR> Kr1 Prop > > I'm looking for suggestions for a prop for my 1976 KR1. I'm using a > 52x44, > good cruise & good economy but it just doesn't want to leave the ground. > My > engine is a 69x88 AeroVee, advertised as 65HP, Yeah right, engine turns > about 2850 in flight. Any ideas would be appreciated. > Dan > cranks4u@inna.net > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: krnet-unsubscribe@mailinglists.org > For additional commands, e-mail: krnet-help@mailinglists.org ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 22:36:25 -0700 To: "cranks4u" , "krnet" From: "Joe Beyer" Subject: Re: KR> Kr1 Prop Message-ID: <000701bfcac2$2a6b3b40$d640b23f@earthlink.net> I'm running a 69mm x 87mm in my KR-2. I use a 54 x34 prop and get about the same numbers. I get about 2950 static, about 3000 full power in level flight, and cruse is 2600 rpm. I'd suggest a prop with less pitch. I estimate my power is about 49hp. mailto:joejbeyer@earthlink.net Portland, Ore. ----- Original Message ----- From: cranks4u To: krnet Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2000 10:08 AM Subject: KR> Kr1 Prop > I'm looking for suggestions for a prop for my 1976 KR1. I'm using a 52x44, > good cruise & good economy but it just doesn't want to leave the ground. My > engine is a 69x88 AeroVee, advertised as 65HP, Yeah right, engine turns > about 2850 in flight. Any ideas would be appreciated. > Dan > cranks4u@inna.net > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: krnet-unsubscribe@mailinglists.org > For additional commands, e-mail: krnet-help@mailinglists.org > > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 12:12:04 -0700 To: "Joe Beyer" , "cranks4u" , "krnet" From: "Florin L Pintea" Subject: Re: KR> Kr1 Prop Message-ID: <000b01bfcb34$1b2041e0$25194618@cgws1.ab.wave.home.com> Don't mean to be ignorant, but is that an RC plane, 'cause that's a pretty tiny prop? :-) Florin ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joe Beyer" To: "cranks4u" ; "krnet" Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2000 10:36 PM Subject: Re: KR> Kr1 Prop > I'm running a 69mm x 87mm in my KR-2. I use a 54 x34 prop and get about the > same numbers. I get about 2950 static, about 3000 full power in level > flight, and cruse is 2600 rpm. I'd suggest a prop with less pitch. I > estimate my power is about 49hp. > mailto:joejbeyer@earthlink.net Portland, Ore. > ----- Original Message ----- > From: cranks4u > To: krnet > Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2000 10:08 AM > Subject: KR> Kr1 Prop > > > > I'm looking for suggestions for a prop for my 1976 KR1. I'm using a > 52x44, > > good cruise & good economy but it just doesn't want to leave the ground. > My > > engine is a 69x88 AeroVee, advertised as 65HP, Yeah right, engine turns > > about 2850 in flight. Any ideas would be appreciated. > > Dan > > cranks4u@inna.net > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: krnet-unsubscribe@mailinglists.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: krnet-help@mailinglists.org > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: krnet-unsubscribe@mailinglists.org > For additional commands, e-mail: krnet-help@mailinglists.org > ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 23:16:23 -0700 To: "Florin L Pintea" , "cranks4u" , "krnet" From: "Joe Beyer" Subject: Re: KR> Kr1 Prop Message-ID: <005401bfcac7$c007c2e0$d640b23f@earthlink.net> It works. I get 500 to 700 fpm climb rate, depending on air temp. and 100 mph cruse at 3 1/2 gph fuel consumption. mailto:joejbeyer@earthlink.net Portland, Ore. ----- Original Message ----- From: Florin L Pintea To: Joe Beyer ; cranks4u ; krnet Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2000 12:12 PM Subject: Re: KR> Kr1 Prop > Don't mean to be ignorant, but is that an RC plane, 'cause that's a pretty > tiny prop? :-) > > Florin > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Joe Beyer" > To: "cranks4u" ; "krnet" > Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2000 10:36 PM > Subject: Re: KR> Kr1 Prop > > > > I'm running a 69mm x 87mm in my KR-2. I use a 54 x34 prop and get about > the > > same numbers. I get about 2950 static, about 3000 full power in level > > flight, and cruse is 2600 rpm. I'd suggest a prop with less pitch. I > > estimate my power is about 49hp. > > mailto:joejbeyer@earthlink.net Portland, Ore. > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: cranks4u > > To: krnet > > Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2000 10:08 AM > > Subject: KR> Kr1 Prop > > > > > > > I'm looking for suggestions for a prop for my 1976 KR1. I'm using a > > 52x44, > > > good cruise & good economy but it just doesn't want to leave the ground. > > My > > > engine is a 69x88 AeroVee, advertised as 65HP, Yeah right, engine > turns > > > about 2850 in flight. Any ideas would be appreciated. > > > Dan > > > cranks4u@inna.net > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: krnet-unsubscribe@mailinglists.org > > > For additional commands, e-mail: krnet-help@mailinglists.org > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: krnet-unsubscribe@mailinglists.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: krnet-help@mailinglists.org > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: krnet-unsubscribe@mailinglists.org > For additional commands, e-mail: krnet-help@mailinglists.org > > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 14:45:43 EDT To: joejbeyer@earthlink.net, cranks4u@inna.net, krnet@mailinglists.org From: Kr22278z@aol.com Subject: Re: KR> Kr1 Prop Message-ID: Hello Nett. As long as the Nett topic is props I have a question. When I bought this KR-2, with a Cont. A-65, it had a 54/57 Prop on it. It is time to replace this Prop and I would be interested to hear if anyone can suggest a prop for this engine and plane combination. What is the longest or typical length prop people are using on KRs? A recent letter cited a length of "34," that sounded short to me too. I have not been monitoring this Nett for long, so sorry if this question is redundant. Bob Jennings Anchorage, Alaska. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 23:59:29 -0700 To: , , From: "Joe Beyer" Subject: Re: KR> Kr1 Prop Message-ID: <001301bfcacd$c5467a20$0f44b23f@earthlink.net> I've heard that when sizing a prop to a plane that the circumference of the diameter at the tip should be approximately equal to the length of the fuselage. mailto:joejbeyer@earthlink.net Portland, Ore. ----- Original Message ----- From: To: ; ; Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2000 11:45 AM Subject: Re: KR> Kr1 Prop > Hello Nett. > > As long as the Nett topic is props I have a question. When I bought this > KR-2, with a Cont. A-65, it had a 54/57 Prop on it. It is time to replace > this Prop and I would be interested to hear if anyone can suggest a prop for > this engine and plane combination. What is the longest or typical length prop > people are using on KRs? A recent letter cited a length of "34," that sounded > short to me too. I have not been monitoring this Nett for long, so sorry if > this question is redundant. > > > Bob Jennings > Anchorage, Alaska. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: krnet-unsubscribe@mailinglists.org > For additional commands, e-mail: krnet-help@mailinglists.org > > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 17:33:07 EDT To: joejbeyer@earthlink.net, cranks4u@inna.net, krnet@mailinglists.org From: AviationMech@aol.com Subject: Re: KR> Kr1 Prop Message-ID: In a message dated 5/31/00 1:37:05 PM Eastern Daylight Time, joejbeyer@earthlink.net writes: << I'm running a 69mm x 87mm in my KR-2. I use a 54 x34 prop >> Correct me if I'm wrong. The typical VW cam is designed to reach peak torque at around 3400 to 3600 rpm. On take off you should want to be in the max torque range of the engine. At cruise you throttle back to an economy range, say 3200 rpm. I once ran an almost constant speed Sturba that was 48x46 and could over rev to 3900, the climb performance was great. My current prop is a norman blade 54L x 52P and could only be turned by the 2.0 Liter at only 2900 max and my climb was down to around 400 fpm. Sturba concurred that the RPM will increase if I trim the length. The length matters as much as the pitch. Peak HP and torque dont exactly match, however, you wont reach max HP or torque if you cant turn the engine fast enough because of the prop load. Orma aviationmech@aol.com http://members.aol.com/aviationmech ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 07:56:58 -0700 (PDT) To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: Mike Mims Subject: How not to wash your planes Message-ID: <20000531145658.170.qmail@web1406.mail.yahoo.com> Ok I know its not Friday but if you want a good laugh go to: http://www.teleport.com/~leopoldo/humor/cleanplane.html ===== ........| .......-^- ....-/_____\- ...(O\__o__/O) ...[#]oxxxo[#] -----Y2K Bug--- Yes I drive one! __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 11:35:12 -0400 To: , , , From: "w.g. kirkland" Subject: Re: FUEL TANK TESTS Message-Id: <200005311533.LAA14259@dreams.vianet.on.ca> ------=_NextPart_000_01BFCAF4.483188A0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The advise I got from an AME was to test the fiberglass tank with Acetone. It seems to make sense. A. testing with water can leave residual water in the tank (tony Bengelis) B. testing with gas leaves the surface with a residue that makes polyester not stick. C. acetone evaporates quicklly and leaves no harmfull residue. Just use about 1 gal. and rotate the tank to check all the corners and seams. D. test with positive air pressure . above all test before installing. W.G.(Bill) KIRKLAND kirkland@vianet.on.ca ---------- > From: AviationMech@aol.com > To: Kr2dream@aol.com; shanspur@webtv.net; krnet@mailinglists.org > Subject: Re: KR> Re: resins > Date: Tuesday, May 30, 2000 8:01 PM > > Bob, you are right. My point is that you need to find all the leaks you can > before you put fuel in the tank, because once fuel has been in the tank epoxy > does not stick well and you need to sand the surface as well as remove all > residual fuel. > > Orma > aviationmech@aol.com > http://members.aol.com/aviationmech > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: krnet-unsubscribe@mailinglists.org > For additional commands, e-mail: krnet-help@mailinglists.org ------=_NextPart_000_01BFCAF4.483188A0-- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 09:26:20 -0700 (PDT) To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: Frank Ross Subject: Re: Acetone Volatility Message-ID: <20000531162620.28796.qmail@web4701.mail.yahoo.com> Most of you are probably already familiar with acetone and it's volatility. We used it extensively in hospitals for cleaning until the 60s when there were several multi-million dollar law suits over explosions and burned patients/visitors/and staff. Even very small amounts can cause violent explosions and it will take the paint off just about anything if you are careless and let it drip. Definitely not the stuff to keep or use in the basement, garage or a workshop full of expensive tools. If you survive the explosion and fire the many months of painful recovery from the burns are followed by ugly and permanant burn scars.Only use acetone if there is no other choice and where there is VERY good ventilation. Absolutely NO spark and that includes electrical switches. ===== Frank Ross, Major, USAF(Ret.) San Antonio, TX, __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ End of krnet Digest ***********************************