From: To: Subject: krnet Digest 13 Oct 2000 22:07:55 -0000 Issue 107 Date: Friday, October 13, 2000 2:08 PM krnet Digest 13 Oct 2000 22:07:55 -0000 Issue 107 Topics (messages 2497 through 2526): Re: Trim tabs 2497 by: Schmidt, Curtis Re: Limitations 2498 by: macwood 2505 by: garbez KR Help request 2499 by: BSHADR.aol.com canopy setup pros and cons 2500 by: Bob Smith 2502 by: Mark Langford 2506 by: garbez 2512 by: Tom Andersen 2521 by: larry flesner 2525 by: Mark Langford Re: alternative designs 2501 by: GARYKR2.cs.com Re: mazda rotary 2 2503 by: JEAN VERON Corviar vs Subaru 2504 by: Peter Johnson 2513 by: James Sellars 2514 by: James Sellars 2516 by: KR2616TJ.aol.com 2519 by: James Sellars 2520 by: Mark Langford 2526 by: Peter Nauta BOBBY MUSE 2507 by: Phil Visconti 2508 by: Mark Langford 2509 by: Mark Jones Tank size 2510 by: Al Friesen First flight in 8 years for N32U ! 2511 by: GoFlySlow2.aol.com Friday the 13 th. 2515 by: Edwin Blocher Wallpaper 2517 by: Edwin Blocher 2518 by: Mark Langford TET WAFs and gear brackets are almost ready! 2522 by: Mark Langford Fuel Filters 2523 by: RONALD.FREIBERGER 2524 by: Ron Lee Administrivia: To subscribe to the digest, e-mail: To unsubscribe from the digest, e-mail: To post to the list, e-mail: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 12 Oct 2000 09:14:00 -0700 To: "AviationMech@aol.com" , "RFG842@aol.com" , "krnet@mailinglists.org" From: "Schmidt, Curtis" Subject: RE: KR> Re: Trim tabs Message-ID: <000205D3@kaydon.com> Hey guys: I saw this and thought I might be able to help. I have an old schematic tha= t was published in the KR news letters back in the 70's/80's for a trim tab= control using the RC servo set up. Instead of a center off and momentary s= witch it uses a POT for fine trim adjustment, servo speed is irrelevant wit= h this set up, I have built the controls and bench run them and all seams t= o work great! For a trim indicator I'll just mark the knob on the pot after it's all ins= talled in the dash! If anyone wants this diagram I can fax it to you! CURTIS R SCHMIDT CNC TOOLING & PROGRAMMING KANSAS USA -----Original Message----- From: AviationMech@aol.com [mailto:AviationMech@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 9:53 AM To: RFG842@aol.com; krnet@mailinglists.org Cc: cschmidt@kaydon.com Subject: KR> Re: Trim tabs In a message dated 10/10/00 10:49:45 PM Eastern Daylight Time, RFG842 write= s: << 1. Where did you mount the servo, in the elevator or horizantal stab? 2. What did you use for a cockpit trim indicator? >> The servo's are mounted directly into the elevator and rudder, and use the = RC push pull rods to actuate the tab. They are a little fast and can cause= me to over trim and hunt for a spot that is just right. It is a matter of finding a voltage that is low enough to slowly turn the motor. The switche= s are of the center off and momentary on at both ends. I have a diagram for the wiring of the switches. As for the cockpit trim indicator, I use the seat of my pants. On the long trip to Barkley, I added 14 gal of wing fuel which is aft CG. As the fuel load changed, I adjusted trim to meet the weight changes. On the ground, as part of my preflight, I look at and adju= st the position on the tabs back to neutral. In the air the position is ob= vious and relates to stick force to maintain level flight. I can't help yo= u on the canopy lock. I have simple internal latches and have to release t= hree, which release from the inside only. I placed this reply on the net b= ecause the info might be help to others and others might have a canopy lock suggestion for you. Orma A&P / IA Builder, 1984 KR-2 N110LR http://member.aol.com/aviationmech --------------------------------------------------------------------- To post to the list, email: krnet@mailinglists.org To unsubscribe, e-mail: krnet-unsubscribe@mailinglists.org For additional commands, e-mail: krnet-help@mailinglists.org ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 16:35:39 +0100 To: "Mark Langford" From: "macwood" Cc: "krnet user group" Subject: Re: KR> Limitations Message-ID: <005901c03462$4c5a4e80$a8d6b0c2@tinypc> I have no doubts about the integrity of the wing spar and WAF. I understand a wing assembly was tested to destruction in Australia using flight loading by sandbags, and it eventually failed at the fuselage to spar junction , way over specification -, illustrating the difference between practical and theoretical engineering (sorry - that "e" word again !) Cheers , Mac Wood Eng UK -- Original Message ----- From: Mark Langford To: Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 4:32 PM Subject: Re: KR> Limitations > > >The other day on the KRNet someone was talking about how to register KR's > > >and this phrase "what if we're building heavy KR's and the wings brake > off", > > >became a concern to me. /////////////////////////////// Are the > > >wings engineered to withstand the extra weight and stresses, or are we > > >pushing it? /////////////////////////////////// > > Consider this. Marty Roberts is using Dan Diehl's original wings, built > back in 1983 (or thereabouts) on his plane. You saw what he was doing at > the Gathering with two aboard, and probably a gross weight of over 1200 > pounds. He actually has a G-meter in his plane. I wonder what the highest > number is that he's registered... > > Mark Langford, Huntsville, Alabama > mailto:langford@hiwaay.net > see KR2S N56ML at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To post to the list, email: krnet@mailinglists.org > To unsubscribe, e-mail: krnet-unsubscribe@mailinglists.org > For additional commands, e-mail: krnet-help@mailinglists.org > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 21:55:58 -0500 To: "KR-POST" From: "garbez" Subject: RE: Limitations Message-ID: <001d01c034c1$4aa47c00$11b6fea9@msgtlg.netins.net> I want to thank all of you that responded to my question about the wing limitations. You all helped to set my mind at ease. Although caution is of utmost importance I feel better about my airplanes design, but you guys that are still building keep it as light as possible, you will be a whole lot happier with the results, trust me I'm dealing with a heavy airframe and started out with an 1835 and now I am putting in an engine to fly the heavy airframe and it is just getting heavier, KEEP IT LIGHT. Mike Garbez N998MG msgtlg@netins.net ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 18:11:16 EDT To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: BSHADR@aol.com CC: raganfield@pol.net Subject: KR Help request Message-ID: Folks: This came to me from someone who needs help in the Midwest area. PLEAZE do not clog the list with messages intended for him as I think he is in not on KRNet. His email address is on the bottom on the message. Reply to him direct. Any questions? ;-) Randy Stein Soviet Monica, CA ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I have completed a KR-2 recently and have never flown one. I have appox. 1000 hr. as a Cesna driver and not too much recently due to business and family illness. Do you know of any one near central Nebraska who would be interested in looking over my plane and giving me some dual? I have taxied it and been one foot off the concrete, but am uncomfortable taking it further. I need the transportation badly due to work and family illness. Will appreciate any help or suggestions and negotiate fees. Thank you, Roger Ganfield raganfield@pol.net (Roger Ganfield) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 20:29:22 -0700 To: From: "Bob Smith" Subject: canopy setup pros and cons Message-ID: <001001c034c5$c7eeede0$f4941918@nycap.rr.com> ------=_NextPart_000_000D_01C0348B.1B455140 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi KR gang,=20 I have been contemplating what type of canopy arrangement to have for a = long time now. I purchased a Dragonfly canopy and like it a lot, but = haven't decided how to frame it. Some of the canopy setups being used are: 1) side hinged 2) front hinged = 3) front opening parallelogram 4) front sliding 5) framed immovable = windscreen with 1 or 2 side opening window(s). There may be others but = these are pretty basic. I see pros and cons to each arrangement but would like to know if there = is some reason why one arrangement might have the most advantages or the = most important advantages over the others. Here some of my thoughts: =20 #1 is the simplest (KISS), strong, light weight,full visibility, allows = ventilation while taxiing if you open it an inch or so, easy entry, = handy left side securing with right side hinge, might catch a wind when = open, removable for access. Drawbacks?? #2 allows double sided entry, fairly convenient open&close with strut = assist, fairly easy entry, full visibility, allows ventilation while = taxiing if you open it an inch or so, strong, might catch a wind when = open, removable for access, slightly more complicated hinge/strut = attachment. #3 less convenient to open and close, full visibility, not likely to = catch a wind while open, removable for access. #4 I haven't yet found a front sliding setup for a KR that I like = (includes hangar 51 setup) #5 very popular, convenient entry, wont catch a wind open, = strong/secure, lightweight, only disadvantage: framework obscures side = visibility. Right now I am favoring the simple side entry#1 because framed #5 = doesn't have full visibility (important to me) and front hinged #2 seems = difficult to hinge with the fuel tank there and also the lifting struts = might get in the way. OK, you guys out there that are actually flying and using these = things....what is important? Bob Smith, Albany, NY Working on my vertical stab/rudder ------=_NextPart_000_000D_01C0348B.1B455140-- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 20:37:29 -0500 To: From: "Mark Langford" Subject: Re: KR> canopy setup pros and cons Message-ID: <002701c034b6$27fcb920$f2de8e18@300emachine> Bob Smith wrote: >Some of the canopy setups being used are: 1) side hinged 2) front hinged >3) front opening parallelogram 4) front sliding 5) framed immovable >windscreen with 1 or 2 side opening window(s). There may be others but >these are pretty basic. I haven't flown with mine yet, so I'm sure you'll take my comments with a grain of salt. But if I were to do it over again, I might very well go the gull wing door way like Troy's, Marty's, and Bobby's KR2s. That method is very easy to seal against air (and water) leaks, unlike in either #1, #2, or #3, which are ramming air up under the front while in flight. And it integrates a roll bar into the cockpit, which might just be a trade worth making (as opposed to visibility). And you don't have to worry what happens in a few years after things settle and your canopy doesn't seem to mate properly to the fuselage (as with all other versions). I saw Jim Hill's side hinged (stock KR method) canopy go flying off (ripped right from the longeron) when his prop blast hit it once. Fortuately is landed on the grass, but otherwise it would have been new canopy time. The parallel thing is pretty structurally flaky. The big secret is you need a big torque tube up behind the instrument panel to syncronize the two sides, or you'll have a floppy mess (been there, done that). I might also go with number 2 again, except this time hinge the thing out at the longerons rather than closer to the airplane's centerline, giving it a very wide and very strong stance. That would be pretty easy to do, by running an aluminum angle under the front edges of the canopy frame (where it sits on the longeron) up to about a foot in front of the panel, and then using the downturned leg as the hinge point. This way the canopy would lift up as well as forward, and would be very structurally sound especially after the gas struts are added. I'd also make the frame from carbon fiber so it would be very stiff and light. And this "outside extremity hinge" method wouldn't impact your fuel tank at all. I wish I'd have thought of this, and suspect that I might end up there eventually with the canopy that I have. I still like the Area51 method a lot too (http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford/97y.jpg). It still looks strong, simple, and light (although a little rough, on this one). I'm sure there are other opinions. I wouldn't want to be the only one to comment... Mark Langford, Huntsville, Alabama mailto:langford@hiwaay.net see KR2S project N56ML at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 22:01:21 -0500 To: "KR-POST" From: "garbez" Subject: Re: Canopy setup pros and cons Message-ID: <000901c034c1$e80443e0$11b6fea9@msgtlg.netins.net> Bob, We built the #2 setup with the front hinge. We built an aluminum gas tank and welded the hinges to the tank at about 6" from the outer edge on each side. The gas tank is bolted to the longerlon and brackets also that protrude below the longerons are screwed to the 5/8" side members which makes it very stable. The hinges on the canopy are glassed into the framework of the canopy. I have one gas strut on the right side to help lift it and hold it down. We put weather-stripping around the canopy and when we trailered it to KY to the gathering in 1999 we drove twelve hours in the rain and it didn't leak a drop. Mike Garbez N998MG msgtlg@netins.net ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 07:30:05 -0400 To: From: "Tom Andersen" Subject: Re: KR> canopy setup pros and cons Message-ID: <003c01c03508$ef428b20$a5e71c18@triad.rr.com> Mark, I don't understand your suggestion for #2 mounting, but my ears perk up when you say "If I were to do it over again"! Do you have a diagram? -Tom Andersen > I might also go with number 2 again, except this time hinge the thing out > at the longerons rather than closer to the airplane's centerline, giving it > a very wide and very strong stance. That would be pretty easy to do, by > running an aluminum angle under the front edges of the canopy frame (where > it sits on the longeron) up to about a foot in front of the panel, and then > using the downturned leg as the hinge point. This way the canopy would lift > up as well as forward, and would be very structurally sound especially after > the gas struts are added. I'd also make the frame from carbon fiber so it > would be very stiff and light. And this "outside extremity hinge" method > wouldn't impact your fuel tank at all. I wish I'd have thought of this, and > suspect that I might end up there eventually with the canopy that I have. > > I still like the Area51 method a lot too > (http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford/97y.jpg). It still looks strong, simple, > and light (although a little rough, on this one). > > I'm sure there are other opinions. I wouldn't want to be the only one to > comment... > > Mark Langford, Huntsville, Alabama > mailto:langford@hiwaay.net > see KR2S project N56ML at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford > > ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 10:58:40 -0500 To: "Mark Langford" , From: larry flesner Subject: Re: KR> canopy setup pros and cons Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20001013105840.0081f690@mail.midwest.net> At 08:37 PM 10/12/00 -0500, Mark Langford wrote: >Bob Smith wrote: > >>Some of the canopy setups being used are: 1) side hinged 2) front hinged >>3) front opening parallelogram 4) front sliding 5) framed immovable >>windscreen with 1 or 2 side opening window(s). There may be others but >>these are pretty basic. ========================================================================== Bob, I went with the gullwing door and fixed windshield. My reasons were: -some rollover protection -ease of entry -ease of building I used a portion of a broken Pulsar canopy for the fixed windshield and the glass from a KR half bubble for the side glass. My single door on the pilot side opens up approx. 60% of the center section. Two doors would have made it tight on exit and entry from both sides. The single door gives me plenty of room and allows me to be last in, first out, to help any passanger I might have. The profile is the same as if the Dragonfly or a KR2S canopy had been used. I would think that starting with the Dragonfly or KR2S canopy would have made the job easier and given me a bit more glass area although mine seems to be o.k. from the garage flying I've done. I'll try to give you a short discription of how I built it. I determined the height I wanted it and decided I wanted it to go vertical about 7 inches above the longerons before curving over. I laid out these lines on a work table and then used a 32 gallon trash can lid to radius the corners. From there I laminated two bows using plywood strip scraps (available from Wick's for $2.00 a bundle) with a layer of glass between each strip. I cut down the height of the windshield bow to fit the line of the canopy at that station. The two bows were mounted to the longerons and the turtledeck and windshield were installed. If I were starting with a complete windshield, I'd try to get a templet from the canopy for the bows. To build the center section: I started by taping a thin plywood strip from the windshield to the turtledeck and that gave me the line I wanted. I used two strips of plywood glued to the bows at each end on a block to start the door mount, one flush with the top and one flush with the bottom of the bows. Using that as a templet, I cut and installed a 1/4 inch vertical member to serve as a hinge mount. I built a second plywood strip onto which I would build the door and installed hardwood blocks at the attach points. I used rod end bearings drilled for 3/16 threads and bearing hole. I used a single alum. angle at each attach point. I glued a thin plywood strip on the bottom side of each bow so that I had a 3/8 inch lip for the door to close on. This lip is on the right side also as that section of canopy is removable with 5 flush mounted bolts. At that point I started the foam work. I would suggest using foam strips pretty much cut to shape and glued in place to start. To sand the exterior, I used a 1/8 inch plywood strip with sandpaper glued on and I held the front and rear edges flush with the windshield and turtledeck and slowly worked down the foam. Be careful not to scratch the windshield. This allowed me to actually sand in the compound curves of the door. Finish and glass the center section. To understand the latch assembly I made, look at your camper top shell latch on your pickup truck. This is where I got my idea and the dimentions for my latch. I used two sizes of 4130 pipe that fit one inside the other. A friend of mine welded a half T-handle on one pipe for the outside and a flat handle and two tabs on the other pipe for the inside. The pipe runs through the door in some thick nylon washers mounted in a spruce block and the unit is riveted together on the inside after assembly. Two lengths of the 3/16 rod I used to align the tail hinges are welded to two wood washers and these are dressed down to a teardrop shape and attach to the tabs on the inside. The rods run through two nylon block on the door, one front and one rear, mounted on wood blocks glassed in the door. They have a 3/4 inch throw with a 90 degree rotation of the handle. The rods slide into two more nylon blocks, one on each bow, front and rear. There is a very slight tapper on the rod ends and a very slight flair on the holes in the lock-down blocks. My door closes with no wiggle or jiggle and a 90 degree rotation of the handle locks the door down with zero movement in the door. There is only about a 1/8 inch gap between the nylon blocks on the door and the bows so there should not be a problem with the rods bending under flight loads. A good source for the nylon blocks is a cutting board from the Dollar Store. The thickest one I found was a 7/16" board as I recall. Jeanette was so pleased with what she saw when she stopped by that she had her daughter get the camera and take some pictures of it. She's not half as pleased with it as I am and I nearly break out in a laugh of disbelief every time I operate it!! By using a sander and a round file to dress up the welds on the handle and dressing up the nylon blocks by rounding corners, partially counter-sinking the nuts, using buried flathead bolts on the outside, etc., you can make a very nice looking unit. I recall having to go one small size over on the holes in the nylon for the rods to get the right amount of system friction. Maybe I could get some digital photo's and have someone post them on there site ????? Aren't you glad I didn't give you the long version?!?!?! Larry Flesner ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 15:22:38 -0500 To: From: "Mark Langford" Subject: Re: KR> canopy setup pros and cons Message-ID: <000901c03553$56cae8b0$f2de8e18@300emachine> Tim Anderen wrote: > you say "If I were to do it over again"! Do you have a diagram? See http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford/canopy_frame.gif . It's pretty hard to believe that I worked my way through college as a draftsman, but you probably get the idea... Mark Langford, Huntsville, Alabama mailto:langford@hiwaay.net see KR2S project N56ML at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 20:47:00 EDT To: taildrags@hotmail.com, krnet@mailinglists.org From: GARYKR2@cs.com Subject: Re: KR> alternative designs Message-ID: <9c.8120cde.2717b584@cs.com> In a message dated 10/10/00 8:56:44 AM Eastern Daylight Time, taildrags@hotmail.com writes: << And as far as the ability to use the "Rand method" to design/build just about anything, yes-! The "construction trainer" I'm building is exactly that. It uses the same wood frame/foam infill/glass over method as pioneered by Ken Rand, and so I'm learning the techniques to be used on the KR. Actually, I've been thinking about the simple lines of a Britten-Norman BN-2A "Islander" twin, using the "Rand method" of composite construction. Scale it down a bit, make it 4-place, hang a couple of Corvairs out on the wings... Oscar Zuniga Medford, Oregon >> See, just as I said. This is one great little airplane. The only limit is you. Gary Hinkle ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 20:41:25 -0500 To: "Pieter Vermeulen" , From: "JEAN VERON" Subject: Re: KR> mazda rotary 2 Message-ID: <002601c034b6$b49c2c80$f7f20f3f@computer> Mike Ladigo and I started a stretched KR-1 using 1/2 of a 13B. Information and parts from Lou Ross were so hard to get we abandonen the Mazda and the plane was fitted with a Garrett JFS-100 turbine. Somewhere in there I sold out my part to Mike. The project made it to Perrykosh and haasn't been worked on since. Harleys and girls have higher priority. Jean ----- Original Message ----- From: Pieter Vermeulen To: Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 10:23 AM Subject: KR> mazda rotary 2 > Dear Kr builders > > My name is Pieter and i'm from South Africa---Pretoria to be precise. > I would like to know has anybody out there tried the mazda RX2 13b motor? > I did some asking and found that it's a small engine with a big kick!!! > Especially with a 1:2 reduction drive one of my friends calculated that it > will provide up to 200hp on takeoff. > > Has anyone tried the engine or is there some hidden aspects. I know for a > fact that some re-thinking on the engine cooling will have to be done but > for 200hp will I call it an experiment and what the heck isn't this whole > game EXPERIMENTAL?????? > > Have fun flying > > Pieter > _________________________________________________________________________ > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. > > Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at > http://profiles.msn.com. > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To post to the list, email: krnet@mailinglists.org > To unsubscribe, e-mail: krnet-unsubscribe@mailinglists.org > For additional commands, e-mail: krnet-help@mailinglists.org > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 20:44:42 -0700 To: From: "Peter Johnson" Subject: Corviar vs Subaru Message-ID: <003701c034cd$7dfac3a0$b709eccf@peter> ------=_NextPart_000_002F_01C0348D.3F3D7800 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi everyone, I have a need for information for anyone here who can offer = it. I am soon to begin a -2S and am yet undecided on an engine. The Corvair is interesting in that information and parts to convert it = is readily available. The drawbacks to it is availability and cost as = it looks like I will need to buy everything for it from the States, (I'm = in Kenora, Ontario). The Subaru is intersting in that it is readily available, parts can be = had 'downtown', and in direct drive/turbo configuration it is compact = and light. I have not been able to find as readily a source of = information and parts for converting it as is available for the Corvair. What I would love to hear from those who know is; What is the expected horsepower of a direct drive/turbo EA-81 and '82? =20 What is the wet weight of an installation? Is there a common/readily available source of parts and conversion = information available? Thanks to everyone in advance. Any suggestions, advice and information = that anyone can offer will be greatly appreciated and allow me to start = building! mailto:pjohnson@voyageur.ca ------=_NextPart_000_002F_01C0348D.3F3D7800-- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 09:47:23 -0300 To: "Peter Johnson" , From: James Sellars Subject: Re: KR> Corviar vs Subaru Message-Id: <4.3.0.20001013094510.00adcc20@mail.auracom.com> Peter; Have you thought about any other options? I can recommend looking at the Saturn engine. An SL2 will make 124 hp at ;4800 RPM. It weighs less than an O-200 and is liquid cooled so you get some advantage there from fuel efficiency ;and no cooling problems. Let me know if you would like more info. Regards Jim At 08:44 PM 10/12/00 -0700, Peter Johnson wrote: >Hi everyone, I have a need for information for anyone here who can offer it. > >I am soon to begin a -2S and am yet undecided on an engine. > >The Corvair is interesting in that information and parts to convert it is >readily available. The drawbacks to it is availability and cost as it >looks like I will need to buy everything for it from the States, (I'm in >Kenora, Ontario). > >The Subaru is intersting in that it is readily available, parts can be had >'downtown', and in direct drive/turbo configuration it is compact and >light. I have not been able to find as readily a source of information >and parts for converting it as is available for the Corvair. > >What I would love to hear from those who know is; >What is the expected horsepower of a direct drive/turbo EA-81 and '82? >What is the wet weight of an installation? >Is there a common/readily available source of parts and conversion >information available? > >Thanks to everyone in advance. Any suggestions, advice and information >that anyone can offer will be greatly appreciated and allow me to start >building! > > >mailto:pjohnson@voyageur.ca ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 14:09:08 -0300 To: Scott Stanton From: James Sellars Cc: Peter Johnson , krnet@mailinglists.org Subject: Re: KR> Corviar vs Subaru Message-Id: <4.3.0.20001013135820.00a7e1a0@mail.auracom.com> Scott : Your're too funny Ha!Ha!. But really I had concerns about the same thing. What I did was order a gear reduction drive from Dave Johnson in Manitoba. Canadian Funds and it was a terrific piece of work. 80 MM toothed belt, with a 2:1 reduction ratio. Turn the engine at 4800 Prop at 2400 makes 125 HP. Less weight;than an O-200. Without the radiator or coolant liquids, with the reduction drive, my set up weighted just under 200 lb. I built a cowling like described in the plans which because it was liquid cooled didn't need two air intakes, for cylinder cooling. I built it to look something like a P-40 Kittyhawk, with a "Mulroney" chin, for the rad cooling, and one eye right of the spinner for ram air intake. So as it is an inline four it makes the nose of the plane look a little bit longer than the flat four,( by two cylinders) . Bought a prop that was another work of art, from Colin Walker out of Surrey BC. I have fixed gear and rather long legs, so I could use a 60 x 72 prop. Made the little bird go like crazy. PS incase you didn't hear I'm looking for a project to finish, as I was forced down by fuel contamination and the airframe of my bird is broken. Regards; Jim At 09:50 AM 10/13/00 -0400, Scott Stanton wrote: >Jim, >Can you post the specs of the saturn engine to the list? I'm sure I'm not the >only one who is still undecided as far as the powerplant issue is concerned. >The main information I'm interested in is: >wieght >dimensions >power >cost >any links for power curve graphs, etc >and anything else you can think of. > >I guess you could do direct drive at 4800rpm and use a 30" prop ;-) >(That was a joke, maybe a bad one.) > > >Scott >Wake Forest NC >mailto:scott.stanton@stratech.com > >James Sellars wrote: > > > Peter; Have you thought about any other options? I can recommend looking > > at the Saturn engine. An SL2 will make 124 hp at ;4800 RPM. It weighs > > less than an O-200 and is liquid cooled so you get some advantage there > > from fuel efficiency ;and no cooling problems. Let me know if you would > > like more info. Regards Jim > > At 08:44 PM 10/12/00 -0700, Peter Johnson wrote: > > >Hi everyone, I have a need for information for anyone here who can > offer it. > > > > > >I am soon to begin a -2S and am yet undecided on an engine. > > > > > >The Corvair is interesting in that information and parts to convert it is > > >readily available. The drawbacks to it is availability and cost as it > > >looks like I will need to buy everything for it from the States, (I'm in > > >Kenora, Ontario). > > > > > >The Subaru is intersting in that it is readily available, parts can be had > > >'downtown', and in direct drive/turbo configuration it is compact and > > >light. I have not been able to find as readily a source of information > > >and parts for converting it as is available for the Corvair. > > > > > >What I would love to hear from those who know is; > > >What is the expected horsepower of a direct drive/turbo EA-81 and '82? > > >What is the wet weight of an installation? > > >Is there a common/readily available source of parts and conversion > > >information available? > > > > > >Thanks to everyone in advance. Any suggestions, advice and information > > >that anyone can offer will be greatly appreciated and allow me to start > > >building! > > > > > > > > >mailto:pjohnson@voyageur.ca > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To post to the list, email: krnet@mailinglists.org > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: krnet-unsubscribe@mailinglists.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: krnet-help@mailinglists.org > >-- >Scott Stanton >Strategic Technologies >System Engineer II >Phone: 919-379-8486 Fax: 919-379-8100 >Email: Scott.Stanton@stratech.com http://www.stratech.com > > ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 14:34:11 EDT To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: KR2616TJ@aol.com Subject: Re: KR> Corviar vs Subaru Message-ID: <6c.3d96e9f.2718afa3@aol.com> In a message dated 10/13/00 1:09:51 PM Eastern Daylight Time, jsellars@auracom.com writes: << 80 MM toothed belt, with a 2:1 reduction ratio >> Jim, and all reduction drive drivers. I'm not raging on your choice of engine but I will offer my 2 cents worth, and some people think it's worth just exactly that:-). When you decide to go with a reduction drive, you are adding something else out on the front of that engine to go wrong. Think about all that additional whirling and twirling going on in that reduction unit. Now, think about what could go wrong with that belt. Again, you are going to have to deal with how to achieve proper flow over the radiator thereby increasing the frontal area of plane, not to mention the water to cool the engine. Once again, you have added something else to go wrong......ie, coolant leak plus weight. Now, if that is your choice so be it, I'll admire you for getting such an arrangement airborne. One the other hand, look at a direct drive unit......a whole lot less to go wrong and it is cooled by air, which you have a whole lot of in forward motion. I'm just yet to see a reduction drive engine out perform a direct drive. I know of a lot of people going from reduction drive to direct drive but have yet to hear of someone going the other way. I know when the Subaru bird from Texas finally flew at a gathering a couple of years ago, it looked the air raid siren had gone off watching the smaller, less horsepower, quieter direct drives take to the air.....it wasn't much of a competition. Added a new meaning to low and slow:-) Again, this is not an attack on your choice so please don't take it that way, just offering an opinion based on a couple of years worth of observations. Dana Overall 2000 KR Gathering host Richmond, KY mailto:kr2616tj@aol.com http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/hangar/7085/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 16:01:36 -0300 To: KR2616TJ@aol.com, krnet@mailinglists.org From: James Sellars Subject: Re: KR> Corviar vs Subaru Message-Id: <4.3.0.20001013155234.00add840@mail.auracom.com> Dana; You're absolutely right. However, liquid cooled did work well on some 1940's vintage aircraft of note. Again if I could get a good air cooled direct drive engine (maybe more research into the Corvair is in order) that could make 120 horses or so, and would cost about $5 or 6 thousand dollars all up. When I consider for example the Jabiru 6 cylinder I understand they want 13500 US. an O-200 like Marty's is the answer I'd say but these engine assemblies are not all that available as I see it. So, Dana tell me what you think might be some of the optimum choices. I got to admit that I flew with Kip in Maine and he has a revmaster 2100 and we made 176 knots with throttle left to spare. I just liked the inline look, straight pipes sounded beautiful too. Share you ideas. Regards Jim At 02:34 PM 10/13/00 -0400, KR2616TJ@aol.com wrote: >In a message dated 10/13/00 1:09:51 PM Eastern Daylight Time, >jsellars@auracom.com writes: > ><< 80 MM > toothed belt, with a 2:1 reduction ratio >> > >Jim, and all reduction drive drivers. I'm not raging on your choice of >engine but I will offer my 2 cents worth, and some people think it's worth >just exactly that:-). When you decide to go with a reduction drive, you are >adding something else out on the front of that engine to go wrong. Think >about all that additional whirling and twirling going on in that reduction >unit. Now, think about what could go wrong with that belt. Again, you are >going to have to deal with how to achieve proper flow over the radiator >thereby increasing the frontal area of plane, not to mention the water to >cool the engine. Once again, you have added something else to go >wrong......ie, coolant leak plus weight. Now, if that is your choice so be >it, I'll admire you for getting such an arrangement airborne. > >One the other hand, look at a direct drive unit......a whole lot less to go >wrong and it is cooled by air, which you have a whole lot of in forward >motion. I'm just yet to see a reduction drive engine out perform a direct >drive. I know of a lot of people going from reduction drive to direct drive >but have yet to hear of someone going the other way. I know when the Subaru >bird from Texas finally flew at a gathering a couple of years ago, it looked >the air raid siren had gone off watching the smaller, less horsepower, >quieter direct drives take to the air.....it wasn't much of a competition. >Added a new meaning to low and slow:-) > >Again, this is not an attack on your choice so please don't take it that way, >just offering an opinion based on a couple of years worth of observations. > > > >Dana Overall >2000 KR Gathering host >Richmond, KY >mailto:kr2616tj@aol.com >http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/hangar/7085/ > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >To post to the list, email: krnet@mailinglists.org >To unsubscribe, e-mail: krnet-unsubscribe@mailinglists.org >For additional commands, e-mail: krnet-help@mailinglists.org ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 14:03:10 -0500 To: From: "Mark Langford" Subject: Re: KR> Corviar vs Subaru Message-ID: <002301c03548$3b466340$f2de8e18@300emachine> Dana wrote: > When you decide to go with a reduction drive, you are > adding something else out on the front of that engine to go wrong... At the risk of looking like a pile-on, I have to agree. Fuel injection falls into that same category, since it's usually electronic, and utilizes much smaller orifiices for the fuel to flow thru (since it's under pressure) than most one barrel carburetors. One tiny bit of contamination can take out a cylinder or the whole fuel system. A good fuel filter is obviously required, but since it has very small "passages" it doesn't take much to plug the whole thing up. My wife once bought a tank of rusty fuel for her fuel injected Rabbit, and got maybe 10 miles before it suddenly died. Although the filter on it was only a few months old, it was completely plugged with fine particles of rust! A new filter and she was on the road again. Of course this particular scenario could happen to a carburetor as well, but usually a carb won't get totally plugged up like that. I had originally planned to use CIS injection, but I'm starting out with a carburetor. Electronic ignition is another one. Works fine when it works, but when it quits you're going down if that's all you've got. Points in a distributor wear out slowly over a long period of time, and rarely just die suddenly. That's where I plan to start... Mark Langford, Huntsville, Alabama mailto:langford@hiwaay.net see KR2S project N56ML at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 00:09:24 +0200 To: "Krnet@Mailinglists. Org" From: "Peter Nauta" Subject: RE: KR> Corviar vs Subaru Message-ID: Hi, Here in the Netherlands some guys run a 2 cylinder 1100 RS/RT BMW motorcycle engine up front, in at least two Cherry's I know of. Puts 100HP at 7500 RPM at take off (reduction gear used), into a nice silencer, managed by some nifty motor management electronics. Really gets our FAA's attention, because of the environmental issues. Ever considered that? There have been 2 reports about it in the NVAV's magazine. Let me know if somebody's interested in reading it, I will translate and put up on the web if the authors agree. Regards, Peter Nauta > -----Original Message----- > From: James Sellars [mailto:jsellars@auracom.com] > Sent: Friday, October 13, 2000 7:09 PM > To: Scott Stanton > Cc: Peter Johnson; krnet@mailinglists.org > Subject: Re: KR> Corviar vs Subaru > > > Scott : Your're too funny Ha!Ha!. But really I had concerns about the > same thing. What I did was order a gear reduction drive from > Dave Johnson > in Manitoba. Canadian Funds and it was a terrific piece of work. 80 MM > toothed belt, with a 2:1 reduction ratio. Turn the engine at 4800 Prop at > 2400 makes 125 HP. Less weight;than an O-200. Without the radiator or > coolant liquids, with the reduction drive, my set up weighted just under > 200 lb. I built a cowling like described in the plans which > because it was > liquid cooled didn't need two air intakes, for cylinder cooling. I built > it to look something like a P-40 Kittyhawk, with a "Mulroney" > chin, for the > rad cooling, and one eye right of the spinner for ram air intake. > So as it > is an inline four it makes the nose of the plane look a little bit longer > than the flat four,( by two cylinders) . Bought a prop that was another > work of art, from Colin Walker out of Surrey BC. I have fixed gear and > rather long legs, so I could use a 60 x 72 prop. Made the little bird go > like crazy. PS incase you didn't hear I'm looking for a project > to finish, > as I was forced down by fuel contamination and the airframe of my bird is > broken. Regards; Jim > > At 09:50 AM 10/13/00 -0400, Scott Stanton wrote: > >Jim, > >Can you post the specs of the saturn engine to the list? I'm > sure I'm not the > >only one who is still undecided as far as the powerplant issue > is concerned. > >The main information I'm interested in is: > >wieght > >dimensions > >power > >cost > >any links for power curve graphs, etc > >and anything else you can think of. > > > >I guess you could do direct drive at 4800rpm and use a 30" prop ;-) > >(That was a joke, maybe a bad one.) > > > > > >Scott > >Wake Forest NC > >mailto:scott.stanton@stratech.com > > > >James Sellars wrote: > > > > > Peter; Have you thought about any other options? I can > recommend looking > > > at the Saturn engine. An SL2 will make 124 hp at ;4800 RPM. > It weighs > > > less than an O-200 and is liquid cooled so you get some > advantage there > > > from fuel efficiency ;and no cooling problems. Let me know > if you would > > > like more info. Regards Jim > > > At 08:44 PM 10/12/00 -0700, Peter Johnson wrote: > > > >Hi everyone, I have a need for information for anyone here who can > > offer it. > > > > > > > >I am soon to begin a -2S and am yet undecided on an engine. > > > > > > > >The Corvair is interesting in that information and parts to > convert it is > > > >readily available. The drawbacks to it is availability and > cost as it > > > >looks like I will need to buy everything for it from the > States, (I'm in > > > >Kenora, Ontario). > > > > > > > >The Subaru is intersting in that it is readily available, > parts can be had > > > >'downtown', and in direct drive/turbo configuration it is compact and > > > >light. I have not been able to find as readily a source of > information > > > >and parts for converting it as is available for the Corvair. > > > > > > > >What I would love to hear from those who know is; > > > >What is the expected horsepower of a direct drive/turbo > EA-81 and '82? > > > >What is the wet weight of an installation? > > > >Is there a common/readily available source of parts and conversion > > > >information available? > > > > > > > >Thanks to everyone in advance. Any suggestions, advice and > information > > > >that anyone can offer will be greatly appreciated and allow > me to start > > > >building! > > > > > > > > > > > >mailto:pjohnson@voyageur.ca > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > To post to the list, email: krnet@mailinglists.org > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: krnet-unsubscribe@mailinglists.org > > > For additional commands, e-mail: krnet-help@mailinglists.org > > > >-- > >Scott Stanton > >Strategic Technologies > >System Engineer II > >Phone: 919-379-8486 Fax: 919-379-8100 > >Email: Scott.Stanton@stratech.com http://www.stratech.com > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To post to the list, email: krnet@mailinglists.org > To unsubscribe, e-mail: krnet-unsubscribe@mailinglists.org > For additional commands, e-mail: krnet-help@mailinglists.org > > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 23:09:48 -0400 To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: Phil Visconti Subject: BOBBY MUSE Message-ID: <39E67CFC.3A87625A@gis.net> --------------97C5617BFED952D314C46357 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Someone told me that Bobby Muse has an 18 gallon (US) fuselage tank Is he on KRNET or does anyone know how to reach him ? I made a tank with foam and fiberglass. It's 14 gallons. BUT, it hangs down low in the cockpit. Phil Visconti Marlboro, MA --------------97C5617BFED952D314C46357-- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 22:19:32 -0500 To: From: "Mark Langford" Subject: Re: KR> BOBBY MUSE Message-ID: <004b01c034c4$68559f10$f2de8e18@300emachine> Phil Visconti wrote: > I made a tank with foam and fiberglass. It's 14 gallons. > BUT, it hangs down low in the cockpit. At the risk of hogging the bandwidth, my tank (at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford/kft.html would have held 22 gallons. I've heard of 24 gallon header tanks. Avionics don't take up nearly as much room as you might think. And Bobby is on KRNet, and his email address is bmuse@ev1.net ... Mark Langford, Huntsville, Alabama mailto:langford@hiwaay.net see KR2S project N56ML at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 23:44:54 -0500 To: Mark Langford From: Mark Jones CC: krnet@mailinglists.org Subject: Re: KR> BOBBY MUSE Message-ID: <39E69346.2A89D581@execpc.com> I have fabricated my tank very similar to the design which is on Mark Langford's web site link http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford/kft.html and is shown in construction phases on my site http://sites.netscape.net/flykr2s/homepage My tank will hold 22 gallons. I have a reserve of seven gallons of fuel when my fuel gauge reaches empty. Just prior to reaching empty (3 gallons showing on the gauge) I have a low fuel light and buzzer alarm. I have the audio alarm on a switch where I can disengage the audio yet the light remains on. Trust me, when you hear the audio alarm your heart will pick up a beat or two. Mark Jones Mark Langford wrote: > Phil Visconti wrote: > > > I made a tank with foam and fiberglass. It's 14 gallons. > > BUT, it hangs down low in the cockpit. > > At the risk of hogging the bandwidth, my tank (at > http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford/kft.html would have held 22 gallons. I've > heard of 24 gallon header tanks. Avionics don't take up nearly as much room > as you might think. And Bobby is on KRNet, and his email address is > bmuse@ev1.net ... > > Mark Langford, Huntsville, Alabama > mailto:langford@hiwaay.net > see KR2S project N56ML at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To post to the list, email: krnet@mailinglists.org > To unsubscribe, e-mail: krnet-unsubscribe@mailinglists.org > For additional commands, e-mail: krnet-help@mailinglists.org -- Mark Jones (N886MJ) Wales, WI USA E-mail me at mailto:flykr2s@execpc.com Visit my KR-2S CorvAIRCRAFT web site at http://sites.netscape.net/flykr2s/homepage ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 04:33:18 -0700 To: From: "Al Friesen" Subject: Tank size Message-ID: <003001c03509$64eb64a0$8fcb6cce@s8z8i0> ------=_NextPart_000_002D_01C034CE.B5B4B480 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable My tank is 25 US gallons, stepped down at the panel with drop pickup = towards the instrument panel and no baffels. ------=_NextPart_000_002D_01C034CE.B5B4B480-- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 01:08:00 EDT To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: GoFlySlow2@aol.com Subject: First flight in 8 years for N32U ! Message-ID: KR guys, I flew the KR-2 home on Sunday, and it fly's as advertised. This modified KR-2, finished in '92 has a span of 23' 4". Fuse is 15' 2" 1835cc HAPI, electric pitch &roll trim, retract suspension gear and weighs 670 lbs. (ouch!) Built by Ralph (Buzz) Sawyer (deceased) It's quite stable in the fast taxi regime, owing to the custom low pressure oversize inflatable tailwheel setup. I flew without retracting the gear and saw 110mph at 75% power. Climb out was at a comfortable 80 mph with a need for slight left rudder application. Pitch sensitivity seems to have been exaggerated by some, at least in this airplane. Upon first takeoff the tail wheel came up at about 45 mph with a little forward stick pressure. Balanced on the mains and maintaining straight directional control (not difficult) the speed builds to about 55mph and the plane rotates. Speed increases while slight back stick pressure is applied thru 65 -75 mph. Vy appears to be 85mph I did porpoise a bit in the beginning of the climb out but very soon became comfortable with the small amounts of control inputs needed. I used a pillow as an armrest so that inputs would not be subject to my arm felexion/extention. Only finger movements of the stick are required. A real delight to fly. Upon reaching pattern altitude, a right crosswind was made at about 30 degrees bank. The roll into and out of the turn seemed second nature. It just felt very comfortable. The airplane goes where you point it. Rudder inputs are minimal and one could probable have a fairly coordinated turn with no rudder input at all. Down-wind at about 500ft above pattern I initiated to trim out at 100mph with the electric roll and pitch servos. I needed quite a bit of up elevator trim. (at least 75% of its travel. And I needed about 30% aileron roll trim (the left wing was flying low) With these trim inputs, the plane was flying hands off straight and level with a very slight left turning tendency, probably due to engine torque. I believe that it fly's nose heavy and will adjust the weight and balance accordingly. I made several large rectangular patterns above the Mojave airport and then headed for Fox Airport, in Lancaster, about 25 miles away. At the above trim settings I could imagine flying considerable distances with very little fatigue. It kinda felt like my Beech. Just occasional directional control inputs. The little V.W, hummed along and the interior cockpit noise was noticeably LESS than the Beechcraft Muscketeer! But, radio noise from ignition static ruined it all. In flight, I made a few little S turns and did some Dutch rolls. The Dutch rolls were very surprising, in that, of any plane that I've been in, this was the easiest to do them in. (Try them in a glider sometime. With all that adverse yaw, a glider nose wants to go everywhere but straight!) The first landing, at Fox, was greased on! The pattern there is quite big and there was time to get things slowed down and altitudes adjusted. The landing was on mains and then allowing the tail wheel to settle down. Full back stick pressure was applied a couple of seconds after tailwheel touched and I could feel it firmly planted with positive steering control assured. I had lunch at Fox with my chase plane buddy (flying my Beech). Had the $100 Burger - with cheese, add $35 By this time outside temps were 90 degrees and full sun. I was concerned that the all "glass" canopy would allow me to broil. NOT SO! The tinted canopy honestly had very little solar heat penetration. It was warm, but I've been in much worse for the conditions. The canopy is easily held slightly open during taxi and is quite effective in allowing dissipation of heat. In cabin vents provide cooling during flight. All temps, EGT CHT and Oil were well within limits. The adjustable cowl flap has a moderate effect upon cooling. The drag can be felt with it open. The flight home to Rosamond was a quick 8 minutes. I had difficulty bleeding off speed and was at 85mph over the numbers. By midfield, I'm still flying in ground effect, and at 3/4 field I finally touched down. A healthy amount of pull on the brakes with full up elevator slowed me down with room to spare on this 3,600 ft runway. It wasn't the prettiest landing. But friends there gave me the benefit of the doubt and proceeded to oogle the little KR2. This is one cool airplane! Probably the most BANG for the BUCK anyone could get! Looking forward to 150 mph! More to come as flight tests continue : i.e. gear up, flat out, C.G. changes and radio anti static measures. I'll be out to El Mirage drylake bed one day this coming weekend if the weather improves and the rain doesn't get it muddy ANGEL FLIGHT ULTRALIGHTS pictures on the web site (hot links at the bottom of the page) Chuck Scrivner Second flight tests showed power on stall at 40mph and power off at 45mph (gear down) Gear down max speed is 135 mph at 3500rpm. Gear up stalls are same. Gear up speeds 130mph at 3200rpm, 150mph at 3500rpm MAX. Very stable, but bleeds off speed quickly if the nose is allowed to wander on the horizon. Landings are much improved by useing a bigger pattern (it takes a while to bleed off speeds in the 100 mph range.) Gear Up warning horn/light is coupled with the tachometer at 1800rpm. It's loud, obnoxious and gets your attention quick. Having too much fun! Wish you were her. Chuck http://www.angelfire.com/biz6/MFM ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 13:21:31 -0500 To: "KRNet" From: "Edwin Blocher" Subject: Friday the 13 th. Message-ID: <001a01c03542$6a9c0f60$d4e279a5@computer> ------=_NextPart_000_0017_01C03518.80871EC0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Being Friday I would like to suggest that the next time you order from = Wicks, Aircraft Spruce and Specialty, and System Three, that you thank = them for all the door prizes and materials that they provided for my = woodworking forum. All together they supplied well over $250.00 worth of = stuff. For anyone interested I'll be building a web site on the "bent spar" in = a few days. Got jury duty next week so it may be a while.=20 On another note, I have flown right seat in the Islander and loved the = way it performed, reminded me a lot of a 10 passenger C150 with two = engines. If 899EB ever gets in the air that would be a project to look = at. Have good weekend of building/flying. Any one looking for a Log Home right next to a 3200 ft grass strip in = Alabama, e-mail me. We can't move to Florida until it's sold. Have a good one, ED Ed Blocher e-mail kr-n899eb@mindspring.com ------=_NextPart_000_0017_01C03518.80871EC0-- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 13:49:49 -0500 To: "KRNet" From: "Edwin Blocher" Subject: Wallpaper Message-ID: <001301c03546$5e7b5de0$d4e279a5@computer> ------=_NextPart_000_0010_01C0351C.74666D40 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I know you all are enjoying the wallpaper of Martys KR and I know Mark = L. has a lot of spare time :) plus a lot of KR pictures. Wouldn't it be nice to have a new one every month. WWW.historicwings has = one with a callender. OK Mark, being the good guy that you are, what do you say. Let's all vote for Mark. He needs another feather in his cap (to go with = the one he already has. Cheers Mark, ED Ed Blocher e-mail kr-n899eb@mindspring.com ------=_NextPart_000_0010_01C0351C.74666D40-- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 13:57:27 -0500 To: "KRNet" From: "Mark Langford" Subject: Re: KR> Wallpaper Message-ID: <001e01c03547$6e5e7c50$f2de8e18@300emachine> Hey, I could handle a trip to Sweden. I like that idea! But it's at http://www.historicwings.com . Mark Langford, Huntsville, Alabama mailto:langford@hiwaay.net see KR2S project N56ML at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 14:45:09 -0500 To: From: "Mark Langford" Subject: TET WAFs and gear brackets are almost ready! Message-ID: <003201c0354e$18c55280$f2de8e18@300emachine> WAFHeads, Those that ordered wing attach fittings and gear brackets will be happy to know that they are made, heat treated, and in the process of being powder coated. So it's time to send your hard earned money to Dr. Dean at: Trailing Edge Technologies, LLC 3300 S. Stone Gate Circle #203 New Berlin, WI 53151 Checks and money orders are preferred. I'm not sure if we know how to do Visa yet (nor do we care to learn). Only problem is the costs have gone up, so rather than $275 we're going to have to ask for $285 instead (for either WAFS or GABs). But shipping is free! They should be going out around the end of next week. There's more info at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford/tet/ if you have no idea what I'm talking about and are interested. We made a couple of extra sets of WAFs (KR2S) and an extra gear bracket if anybody wants them. Any questions should be sent to me offline. While I have your attention, let me tell you a story to illustrate how stupid I am (as if you weren't convinced already). Right after the Gathering I noticed that my heater and air conditioner would no longer blow air out of the center vents in my Scirocco, even thought the fan was blowing. Being a perfectionist (at least in the area of my car) I vowed to fix it immediately, and got to work. I checked all of the vacuum lines, and the 2 vacuum motors that I could reach without completely disassembling the dash. I finally determined that the one that was just about inaccessible (visible thru the instrument cluster hole in http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford/heater_fiasco.jpg ), was the culprit. You gotta see this picture to realize how far I had this thing torn apart. Even after testing it, it seemed to work, but I just couldn't seem to get those shutters to open right behind the louvers. Finally, 3 hours later and standing on my head (sitting in the seat upside down) I got into a position that I could see the mechanism that controlled the shutters. I managed to contort my arm enough to operate the mechanism and opened them, noting where the linkage was located on the dash. Upon emerging I checked the area around the louvers again, and remembered that little wheely knob that closes those shutters, which I had turned off on the rainy trip back from the Gathering to make the defroster work better! It took me an hour to put it all back together, and I DID fix a little rattle behind my dash while I was there. And you guys wonder why I'm not done with my plane yet... Mark Langford, TET, LLC mailto:langford@hiwaay.net see KR2S project N56ML at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 15:58:26 -0400 To: "KRNET" From: "RONALD.FREIBERGER" Subject: Fuel Filters Message-ID: Mark's point about clogging injectors is excellent, but we all need to use a VERY good filter as the last thing in the system before the fuel metering device. This cannot be over emphasized. I'm aware of several accidents due to fuel failure, one especially bad involving a "fiberglass" tank. (One of my favorite Peeves in homebuilts.) Ron Freiberger... mailto:ron.martha@mindspring.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 13:58:43 -0600 To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: Ron Lee Subject: Re: KR> Fuel Filters Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20001013135843.007bc100@pcisys.net> I can't let this one go unanswered. Some folks might get the wrong impression that a fiberglass tank is bad. Considering the thousands of glass planes in use, and to my knowledge to major issue, please clarify the incident you allude to with details that clearly state all the facts so that valid conclusions can be made. Ron Lee I'm aware of several accidents due >to fuel failure, one especially bad involving a "fiberglass" tank. (One of >my favorite Peeves in homebuilts.) ------------------------------ End of krnet Digest ***********************************