From: To: Subject: krnet Digest 26 Nov 2000 07:25:30 -0000 Issue 130 Date: Saturday, November 25, 2000 11:25 PM krnet Digest 26 Nov 2000 07:25:30 -0000 Issue 130 Topics (messages 3105 through 3129): Re: glass the boat?? 3105 by: Ross Youngblood UAE 3106 by: Gary Kruger 3121 by: Gary Kruger Corvair power 3107 by: Oscar Zuniga fiberglass vs. plywood 3108 by: Oscar Zuniga 3109 by: Guenther Bryce Re: alternative power? 3110 by: Andrew 3112 by: Frank Ross 3126 by: Ron Eason Re: An introduction 3111 by: Andrew glass the boat 3113 by: jim jacoby 3122 by: Krwr1.aol.com scaling up the kr2s 3114 by: jim jacoby 3115 by: Guenther Bryce 3116 by: Guenther Bryce 3120 by: David R. Christensen 3129 by: David R. Christensen BAD NETSCAPE ? 3117 by: Phil Visconti 3119 by: Mark Jones Re: VW REBUILD 3118 by: GARYKR2.cs.com Sheeting the Truss 3123 by: Peter Johnson Original Newsletter Website moved 3124 by: Mark D Lougheed 3127 by: Frank Ross Re: Moved my web site, KRRon 3125 by: Ron Eason Individual Weight? 3128 by: Todd Administrivia: To subscribe to the digest, e-mail: To unsubscribe from the digest, e-mail: To post to the list, e-mail: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 05:44:20 -0700 To: Jack Coranz From: Ross Youngblood CC: krnet@mailinglists.org Subject: Re: KR> glass the boat?? Message-ID: <3A1E62A4.CD940A93@teleport.com> Jack Coranz wrote: > Can anyone answer me? I have my boat done and am about to glass the turtle > deck on. Would it be worth laying a thin layer of glass on the spruce all > the way around to strengthen it up? Or is it not woth the weight?? It's not worth the weight in my opinion. Also, I don't think that it needs to be "strengthened up" -- Ross ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 15:01:53 +0200 To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: Gary Kruger Subject: UAE Message-ID: <60DE862D1B5DD411AAE20020AFF36DE4010829@SCHEDULING> I have recently moved to Dubai, UAE, and wondered if any netters know of any KR aircraft (airworthy or otherwise) in this region. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 12:06:22 +0200 To: "'Robert Stone'" From: Gary Kruger Cc: "'krnet@mailinglists.org'" Subject: RE: KR> UAE Message-ID: <60DE862D1B5DD411AAE20020AFF36DE401082F@SCHEDULING> -----Original Message----- From: Gary Kruger Sent: 25 November 2000 10:57 To: 'Robert Stone' Cc: 'krnet@mailinglists.org' Subject: RE: KR> UAE Hi Bob, UAE stands for "United Arab Emirates" - located on the Arabian peninsula near Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Kuwait. Dubia is the capital of one of the emirates. cheers Gary -----Original Message----- From: Robert Stone [mailto:rlspjs@dashlink.com] Sent: 24 November 2000 05:16 To: Gary Kruger Subject: Re: KR> UAE What is UAE, PUT YOUR REPLY ON THE NET PLEASE AS I AM SURE THERE ARE OTHERS WHO WOULD LIKE TO KNOW AS WELL AS ME Bob Stone ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gary Kruger" To: Sent: Friday, November 24, 2000 7:01 AM Subject: KR> UAE > I have recently moved to Dubai, UAE, and wondered if any netters know of any > KR aircraft (airworthy or otherwise) in this region. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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, 24 Nov 2000 13:35:56 To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: "Oscar Zuniga" Subject: Corvair power Message-ID: Bill wrote: >I have been trying to call William Wynne to order the hub and >a few other things, has anybody had any contact with him lately? Like Rand-Robinson, he best way to deal with William is by phone. He's out there, but hard to catch. If you know what you want from him and what it costs, the best way is to mail your request with a check. Emailing him may or may not get a response. Others here have had experience dealing with him and may comment. >1.) Engine mount (Tric). William was supposed to have developed a jig specifically for fabricating the bed mount for a Corvair in a KR. When you catch him, ask how that project is developing. >2.) Prop Hub. William does offer one. Be on the lookout if you're patient, though; there may be new sources for this (and other Corvair items) in the near future, due to its popularity lately. >3.) Carb. Best bets on a carb for the Corvair are said to be a standard Stromberg off a C-85 or C-90, or the Ellison. >4.) Exhaust / Intake (I can build if nec). You'll probably have to build your own. The stock exh. manifold "logs" are heavy, but the alternative is to add in new new 'spigots' out of the exhaust ports and build up a header. That's what the racers do, and the head work involved can be done for you. Intake is somewhat easier to do, similar to the VW. >5.) Prop Shaft I don't think William offers a prop shaft (extension) for this application. Again, if you're not in too big a hurry, stick around and see if somebody develops one for the KR soon. >can any of you guys that have went with the Corvair >comment on the performance I don't believe there are any flying, yet. Oscar Zuniga Medford, Oregon mailto: taildrags@hotmail.com website at http://www.geocities.com/taildrags/ _____________________________________________________________________________________ Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 13:46:07 To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: "Oscar Zuniga" Subject: fiberglass vs. plywood Message-ID: Dean (not Dr. Dean) wrote: >Why couldn't a builder finish the "boat" portion, as per plans, with >the exception of the plywood. Then fill the surfaces between wooden >portions of the longerons with 1" thick foam, sand to contour, >and fiberglass? This is exactly the method used on the M-19 "Flying Squirrel" I am building. >This should certainly be stronger than plywood, probably create >a smoother finish and be a lot simpler than Dr. Dean's process. >I assume such a fuselage would be stronger than plywood, take longer >to make, cost more and might be somewhat heavier Well, it is certainly a strong 'sandwich', since it's glassed on both sides, but it has been said over and over (and proven) that additional strength is not needed on the existing KR structural design. The 2-sided sandwich would take longer to make due to having to smooth and glass double the number of surfaces. It would also cost more and be heavier for the same reasons. And believe me- getting down into the tailcone area to glass the insides is no picnic. The standard KR method is lighter, plenty strong, and proven. But if anyone is interested, I've got plenty of pictures and narrative on this 2-sided 'sandwich' method on my website (see my sig line). Oscar Zuniga Medford, Oregon mailto: taildrags@hotmail.com website at http://www.geocities.com/taildrags/ _____________________________________________________________________________________ Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 06:33:33 -0800 (PST) To: Oscar Zuniga , krnet@mailinglists.org From: Guenther Bryce Subject: Re: KR> fiberglass vs. plywood Message-ID: <20001124143333.49685.qmail@web9008.mail.yahoo.com> --- Oscar Zuniga wrote: > Dean (not Dr. Dean) wrote: > >Why couldn't a builder finish the "boat" portion, > as per plans, with > >the exception of the plywood. Then fill the > surfaces between wooden > >portions of the longerons with 1" thick foam, sand > to contour, > >and fiberglass? > > This is exactly the method used on the M-19 "Flying > Squirrel" I am building. > > >This should certainly be stronger than plywood, > probably create > >a smoother finish and be a lot simpler than Dr. > Dean's process. > >I assume such a fuselage would be stronger than > plywood, take longer > >to make, cost more and might be somewhat heavier > > Well, it is certainly a strong 'sandwich', since > it's glassed on both sides, > but it has been said over and over (and proven) that > additional strength is > not needed on the existing KR structural design. > The 2-sided sandwich would > take longer to make due to having to smooth and > glass double the number of > surfaces. It would also cost more and be heavier > for the same reasons. And > believe me- getting down into the tailcone area to > glass the insides is no > picnic. > > The standard KR method is lighter, plenty strong, > and proven. But if anyone > is interested, I've got plenty of pictures and > narrative on this 2-sided > 'sandwich' method on my website (see my sig line). > > Oscar Zuniga > Medford, Oregon > mailto: taildrags@hotmail.com > website at http://www.geocities.com/taildrags/ > > Alternative construction materials are always good to evaluate. Have people been blinded by those who have not the courage to change "experimental" is basic physics "purpose-procedure-results" logic. An associate of mind at Cessna Aircraft Corp. was an flight test associate engineer, while I was a Engineer on the Citation Jets at the Wallace Divsion designed built flew and marketed an ultrlight called "WREN" . It was made entirely of Foam with Kevlar tape on corners and cockpit/firewall/supperstructure sandwich blue foam and kevlar. The whole fuselage weight was 58 lbs. The cockpit was designed to protect the pilot from 20 g's crash loads.___The WREN flew at 90 mph on 20 hp Zenoah. The point is the KR fuselage could be made out of foam the same way. Simple Shear loads/buckle/deflection dynamics/ and fatigue would all prove that it would work. Innovation is good and the American Virtue of creativity to fertilize.__________________________________________________________________________________ > Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : > http://explorer.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 > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products. http://shopping.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 10:42:05 -0600 To: Peter Nauta From: Andrew CC: krnet@mailinglists.org Subject: Re: KR> alternative power? Message-ID: <3A1E9A5D.81BDA48C@subjex.com> Now this is something that I know about. I must say that I disagree with Frank, when he says, "Electric Power is NOT environmentally friendly" Electric Power is not COMMONLY produced in an environmentally friendly, manner, thus the common misconception. Putting aside its practically in Aircraft, I am currently engaged in a project that proves that properly obtained electricity is far more cleaner and efficient than any other type of propulsion. I own some acreage in the mountains of Western VA. I have a naturally accruing spring and river, that we are installing a small non intrusive hydro-plant in. The only negative (if you want to call it that) is the small 1/8 acre lake that the small "dam" produced. Which I intend on raising fish in. This system will produce approximately 3 times the electricity that I need, and I intend on selling it back to the power company. I will be using it for a future home and shop, and a 100% electric car I plan on purchasing. Now I know that this kind of setup is virtually an impossibility for most of us, but it does prove my point. The answers to saving our planet are not easy, and it is up to us. In my opinion, it is our, (people who care about the environment) responsibility to prove that cleaner living is a viable option. If we automatically believe that it is an impossibility, and that electricity is "dirty", than change is not likely. I feel that it is quite an admirable endeavor to pursue cleaner modes of transportation regardless of how daunting the task may look when applied to aircraft, and especially the KR. I think that the overall theme of John's message was that under ideal circumstances, what other forms of propulsion are out there, that have less of an impact on the environment, not that an electric system is definitively more clean. These are my rantings.... :-) Andrew Peter Nauta wrote: > I'm concerned about that too. Check out the latest "Custom Planes" > magazine, it features a BMW 2 cylinder 100Hp engine (converted by Takeoff, > based in Germany) with electronic motor management en fuel ignition, as well > as catalyser system and is very quiet too. While being complicated, it must > be one of the most economic alternatives. My only concern is that the > engine fill not fit in front of a KR firewall, but I've been told that when > moving the generator, it might just fit. Mind you, this set up is certified > in the Netherlands. Two Cherries are flying with this setup. Apart from > the good emission control, it will probably be the leanest KR around. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Frank Ross [mailto:kae_ar@yahoo.com] > > Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2000 8:57 AM > > To: krnet@mailinglists.org > > Subject: Re: KR> alternative power? > > > > > > John, > > Electric Power is NOT environmentally friendly. Think > > about it! It is a SECONDARY and much more inefficent > > source of power. The electric plant BURNS FUEL, making > > emissions, to run huge ENGINES that turn GENERATORS > > that MAKE ELECTRICITY which is trasferred to your > > house. You must use that OIL-MADE source of power to > > charge LEAD batteries, which are WAY too heavy to put > > in an airplane and then power your heavy electric > > motor. Sure YOUR vehicle is not burning gasoline and > > making pollution, the ELECTRIC POWER plant is though, > > and in much larger proportions than if you just used a > > gasoline engine in the first place. And before long, > > you need new batteries and your old lead batteries > > have to be broken down to make new ones, because > > they're no good anymore. A lot of resources go into > > that process and are wasted too. Electric power is > > great, but it is NOT environmentally friendly, it's > > pollution is just less visible. A well-tuned gasoline > > engine is about as good as it's going to get at this > > point. Hybrids are a good idea for cars though. Just > > too heavy for airplanes. > > Which brings me to the subject of concrete boats and > > steam-powered planes... > > > > --- Screwy Squirrel wrote: > > > Hi there! I've some friends who are heavily into > > > being environmentally > > > friendly and a discussion involving my new project > > > generated some > > > interesting questions about power plants. Has > > > anyone out there thought > > > about using some form of > > > alternative/more-environmentally-friendly system > > > on a KR? I was thinking of something along the line > > > of an electric or > > > hybrid electric system and of alternate fuels such > > > as ethanol, compressed > > > natural gas, or even hydrogen. > > > > > > Just curious.... > > > > > > > > +----------------------------------+------------------------------ > > ---------+ > > > |John E. Holeman | > > > OSU Computer Science| > > > |754-3450 | > > > OSU Atmospheric Science| > > > > > +----------------------------------+------------------------------ > > ---------+ > > > |holemanj@ucs.orst.edu > > > |holemanj@cs.orst.edu | > > > |www.orst.edu/~holemanj > > > |jholeman@oce.orst.edu | > > > > > +----------------------------------+------------------------------ > > ---------+ > > > | When once you have tasted flight, you will forever > > > walk the earth with | > > > | your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, > > > and there you will | > > > | always long to return. > > > | > > > | > > > | > > > | -- > > > Leonardo da Vinci | > > > > > +----------------------------------------------------------------- > > ---------+ > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > ===== > > Frank Ross, San Antonio, TX, > > > > __________________________________________________ > > Do You Yahoo!? > > Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products. > > http://shopping.yahoo.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 > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 -- Thanks Andrew ________________________________________________ Andrew Hyder - Subjex.com mailto:andrew@subjex.com http://www.subjex.com The next generation search engine! TRY IT! Toll free 1-800-447-0607 Voice 612-362-9224 Fax 612-362-9227 43 Main Street SE, Suite 508 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55414 ________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 09:04:20 -0800 (PST) To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: Frank Ross Subject: Re: KR> alternative power? Message-ID: <20001124170420.8246.qmail@web4704.mail.yahoo.com> Well said Andrew. It is only through the efforts of John and you and others like you that we will eventually have the power we need without destroying our beautiful surroundings. Flying won't be much fun if all we can see below us is dirt. ===== Frank Ross, San Antonio, TX, __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products. http://shopping.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 19:06:22 -0600 To: "krnet" From: "Ron Eason" Subject: Fw: KR> alternative power? Message-ID: <004301c05745$18ecb5a0$557239ce@dana-coe> You forgot to mention the power transmission losses to the point of use. Its not even a good idea for cars such as the electric-engine driven ones. Hoursepower to weight also applies to cars, for efficiency. Fuel cells are the only honest hybrid.( 80% thermo efficiency). KRRon -----Original Message----- From: Frank Ross To: krnet@mailinglists.org Date: Thursday, November 23, 2000 1:58 AM Subject: Re: KR> alternative power? >John, >Electric Power is NOT environmentally friendly. Think >about it! It is a SECONDARY and much more inefficent >source of power. The electric plant BURNS FUEL, making >emissions, to run huge ENGINES that turn GENERATORS >that MAKE ELECTRICITY which is trasferred to your >house. You must use that OIL-MADE source of power to >charge LEAD batteries, which are WAY too heavy to put >in an airplane and then power your heavy electric >motor. Sure YOUR vehicle is not burning gasoline and >making pollution, the ELECTRIC POWER plant is though, >and in much larger proportions than if you just used a >gasoline engine in the first place. And before long, >you need new batteries and your old lead batteries >have to be broken down to make new ones, because >they're no good anymore. A lot of resources go into >that process and are wasted too. Electric power is >great, but it is NOT environmentally friendly, it's >pollution is just less visible. A well-tuned gasoline >engine is about as good as it's going to get at this >point. Hybrids are a good idea for cars though. Just >too heavy for airplanes. >Which brings me to the subject of concrete boats and >steam-powered planes... ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 10:53:29 -0600 To: Gaston Landry , krnet@mailinglists.org From: Andrew Subject: Re: KR> An introduction Message-ID: <3A1E9D09.FD3EB721@subjex.com> Hi Gaston, I can see what happened, and why this thing retracted on a hard landing. The pins that hold the landing gear in place, had a hole drilled through them at the stress point. (it was designed that way). I am surprised that anyone would have trusted it at all. (anyone ever heard of this before?) I really like the concept of retractable landing gear, and the drag savings (that I have been reading about). I will however not rebuild it the same way. Thanks Andrew Gaston Landry wrote: > Welcome to the gang, Andrew :o) > > I was just thinking, if you can do it without too much surgery, perhaps > converting your plane to fixed gear.. less chance of the gear retracting in > a hard landing, that way... I know I'd feel alot safer, flying a fixed > gear... > > Gaston > > >From: GARYKR2@cs.com > >To: klw1953@juno.com, andrew@subjex.com > >CC: krnet@mailinglists.org > >Subject: Re: KR> An introduction > >Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 08:09:27 EST > > > >In a message dated 11/18/00 8:22:14 PM Eastern Standard Time, > >klw1953@juno.com writes: > > > ><< I am brand new to this forum. My name is Andrew Hyder. I recently > > > purchased a fully completed (once flying) KR2. It had been involved > > > in a > > > small crash (hard landing really). where the landing gear > > > (retractable) > > > collapsed during the landing (retracted). There is front end damage, > > > but > > > the engine (VW) is fine and was just rebuilt. (8 hours). >> > > > > Hey Andrew, I'm on the East coast, but I think we can work on the > >phone and send pictures back and forth to get this repaired. > > As they say, been there done that. I had a gear up landing and > >think > >I can help you. Drop me a line and lets see what we can get going. > > Gary Hinkle (A/P) Middletown, Pa. > > garykr2@cs.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 > > > > _____________________________________________________________________________________ > Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com -- Thanks Andrew ________________________________________________ Andrew Hyder - Subjex.com mailto:andrew@subjex.com http://www.subjex.com The next generation search engine! TRY IT! Toll free 1-800-447-0607 Voice 612-362-9224 Fax 612-362-9227 43 Main Street SE, Suite 508 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55414 ________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 12:04:03 -0800 (PST) To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: jim jacoby Subject: glass the boat Message-ID: <9579663.975096243849.JavaMail.imail@digger.excite.com> Why not just foam between spruce structure with glass on the outside? _______________________________________________________ Tired of slow Internet? Get @Home Broadband Internet http://www.home.com/xinbox/signup.html ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 08:59:43 EST To: jkjacoby@excite.com, krnet@mailinglists.org From: Krwr1@aol.com Subject: Re: KR> glass the boat Message-ID: <44.9210f97.27511fcf@aol.com> In a message dated 11/24/2000 3:05:12 PM Eastern Standard Time, jkjacoby@excite.com writes: << Why not just foam between spruce structure with glass on the outside? >> Does anyone remember WAR Replica? , That was based on the KR wooden frame. They had foam covered sides, then glassed over to get any contour you wanted. Bill ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 12:21:48 -0800 (PST) To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: jim jacoby Subject: scaling up the kr2s Message-ID: <7504084.975097308057.JavaMail.imail@digger.excite.com> I weigh 240 lbs and am thinking of using the corvair engine on the kr2s. To increase the useful load for this combination, If I were to increase the every dimension of the kr2s about 10 percent how much would structural elements (spruce) need to be increased in size, ie use 3/4 inch longerons and verticals and diagonals in fuselage, increase spar crossections by (1.1) squared or 21 percent, increase plywood thickness by 21 percent (and so forth)? _______________________________________________________ Tired of slow Internet? Get @Home Broadband Internet http://www.home.com/xinbox/signup.html ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 13:59:32 -0800 (PST) To: jim jacoby , krnet@mailinglists.org From: Guenther Bryce Subject: Re: KR> scaling up the kr2s Message-ID: <20001124215932.97244.qmail@web9008.mail.yahoo.com> --- jim jacoby wrote: > I weigh 240 lbs and am thinking of using the corvair > engine on the kr2s. To > increase the useful load for this combination, If I > were to increase the > every dimension of the kr2s about 10 percent how > much would structural > elements (spruce) need to be increased in size, ie > use 3/4 inch longerons > and verticals and diagonals in fuselage, increase > spar crossections by (1.1) > squared or 21 percent, increase plywood thickness by > 21 percent (and so > forth)? > Jim ! Hi: fellow KR enthusiast the scaling is not neccessary for such effort would yield far to complicated labor. If your concerned of your weight no big deal. Martin Roberts KR2 handles that weight easily I know I rode with him once and all I can say is "awesome". The power plant is the key and lots of KR aircraft could easily deal with the weight. Most BIG people problem is shoulder width or canopy height. Those dimensions are frequently discussed on the krnet and are easy to accomodate during fuselage construction. My KR2 is a narrowed single seater with a Pitts S2 canopy for height. It is very comfortable and generous space. I've a Lycoming 0-235 C1 @ 108 hp continuous and 625 lbs empty weight. Its like a Home Sick Angle. The KR with power is not a timid performer. Its reasonable to enlarge the airframe the airframe proportions to change would be fuselage overall dimensions the Moments of Inertia I=bh3/12 of the proportions would more than compensate for the 10% increase. Sectional propertys 5/8", 3/4" do not have to change for these are more than adequate for the increase you describe. The wing and tail surfaces leave them per plans. The wetted fuselage area increase will creat more equivalent flat plate area drag and will fly slower as a result. There again the powerplant you choose may overcome the loss. > > > > > _______________________________________________________ > Tired of slow Internet? Get @Home Broadband Internet > http://www.home.com/xinbox/signup.html > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products. http://shopping.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 13:59:35 -0800 (PST) To: jim jacoby , krnet@mailinglists.org From: Guenther Bryce Subject: Re: KR> scaling up the kr2s Message-ID: <20001124215935.97254.qmail@web9008.mail.yahoo.com> --- jim jacoby wrote: > I weigh 240 lbs and am thinking of using the corvair > engine on the kr2s. To > increase the useful load for this combination, If I > were to increase the > every dimension of the kr2s about 10 percent how > much would structural > elements (spruce) need to be increased in size, ie > use 3/4 inch longerons > and verticals and diagonals in fuselage, increase > spar crossections by (1.1) > squared or 21 percent, increase plywood thickness by > 21 percent (and so > forth)? > Jim ! Hi: fellow KR enthusiast the scaling is not neccessary for such effort would yield far to complicated labor. If your concerned of your weight no big deal. Martin Roberts KR2 handles that weight easily I know I rode with him once and all I can say is "awesome". The power plant is the key and lots of KR aircraft could easily deal with the weight. Most BIG people problem is shoulder width or canopy height. Those dimensions are frequently discussed on the krnet and are easy to accomodate during fuselage construction. My KR2 is a narrowed single seater with a Pitts S2 canopy for height. It is very comfortable and generous space. I've a Lycoming 0-235 C1 @ 108 hp continuous and 625 lbs empty weight. Its like a Home Sick Angle. The KR with power is not a timid performer. Its reasonable to enlarge the airframe the airframe proportions to change would be fuselage overall dimensions the Moments of Inertia I=bh3/12 of the proportions would more than compensate for the 10% increase. Sectional propertys 5/8", 3/4" do not have to change for these are more than adequate for the increase you describe. The wing and tail surfaces leave them per plans. The wetted fuselage area increase will creat more equivalent flat plate area drag and will fly slower as a result. There again the powerplant you choose may overcome the loss. > > > > > _______________________________________________________ > Tired of slow Internet? Get @Home Broadband Internet > http://www.home.com/xinbox/signup.html > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products. http://shopping.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 21:07:51 -0800 To: "krnet mailing lists" From: "David R. Christensen" Subject: Fw: KR> scaling up the kr2s Message-ID: <001001c0569d$a9a52300$54785ad1@davec> Jim, I too felt the need to scale up from the KR-2 I built and have been flying for the past nine years. I am working on a Mirage Marathon now. It is a full size two seater on the order of the RV-6. The structure is similar to the KR-2 - wood frame, foam, fiberglass and the design allows for the same opportunity for individuality as the KR does. The wing has the same airfoil as the Beech Bonanza. The structure and controls are somewhat more complicated than the KR, the build time much longer. The airframe structure and controls materials cost about $9000. The plans show a tricycle gear but I am making mine a tail dragger. I will probably use a 160 hp Lycoming engine. The plans call for 150 - 180 hp. The spruce used in the fuselage is 3/4". The plywood on the fuselage is only 1/16" thick but the forward half has plywood on both sides. The outer plywood has lightening cutouts. The fuselage is also slabbed with foam, contoured and glassed. The wing and tailfeather skins per the plans are a 1/4" foam/ fiberglass sandwich. The inside glass is laid up ahead of time. This is then bonded in and the outside glass then laid up over the entire assembly. I opted to do mine per the KR design with 1" foam and all of the glass on the outside. This is actually the way the prototype was built and has flown for over 900 hours. If you decide to scale up the KR design you might get some useful information from the Marathon plans. -----Original Message----- From: jim jacoby To: krnet@mailinglists.org Date: Friday, November 24, 2000 12:30 PM Subject: KR> scaling up the kr2s >I weigh 240 lbs and am thinking of using the corvair engine on the kr2s. To >increase the useful load for this combination, If I were to increase the >every dimension of the kr2s about 10 percent how much would structural >elements (spruce) need to be increased in size, ie use 3/4 inch longerons >and verticals and diagonals in fuselage, increase spar crossections by (1.1) >squared or 21 percent, increase plywood thickness by 21 percent (and so >forth)? > > > > > >_______________________________________________________ >Tired of slow Internet? Get @Home Broadband Internet >http://www.home.com/xinbox/signup.html > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >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: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 00:29:56 -0800 To: "krnet mailing lists" From: "David R. Christensen" Subject: Fw: KR> scaling up the kr2s Message-ID: <001701c05783$0fa9ea60$6f785ad1@davec> Ken, The Marathon plans are excellent in some respects and sadly lacking in others. The plans are generally 1/4 scale blueprints very acurately drawn. A builder's manual is included with a lot of excellent information on techniques and procedures. There are construction videos available also which I didn't purchase. The are actually for the Celerity, roughly marked up by hand for the fixed tricycle gear Marathon configuration. One sheet has been added showing the fixed tricycle gear configuration. The Celerity is the retractable taildragger original configuration. The most confusion occurs in the aft fuselage where the plans show a retractable tailwheel. The aft three bulkheads are specially designed for this feature and must be redesigned by the builder as no attempt has been made to define this area for the Marathon. I redesigned mine for a fixed tailwheel (RV-6 components). The profile for the Marathon has supposedly been improved as is implied by sketches in the Mirage info materials but the plans show only the Celerity lines. These omissions and discrepancies would be very discouraging to a novice builder. One puzzling thing I ran into was that the elevator hinges did not line up with each other on the plans. Mirage Aircraft told me this is an old aerodynamacist's trick to control flutter by forcing the elevator spar to bend when deflected. I didn't buy it and made my hinges in line. Balancing of the elevator is shown entirely internal. I decided to balance a portion of the elevator at the tips and the rest internal. These are the major problems I have encountered with the plans so far. One disadvantage of this design is that the designer passed away several years ago and a builder, Eldon Helmer, took over the company to keep it going. Apparently the designer was in the process of developing the plans specifically for the Marathon when he died. I don't think Eldon has the time to complete the effort. Another problem I ran into recently was on weight and balance information. All I could get from Eldon was some weight and balance data from a couple specific aircraft. I don't know how reliable this information is. I will probably be able to come up with enough information from this to do mine I hope. I thought my KR plans were quite reliable and complete even though I was working to plans purchased back in 1982 and they have been redrawn and improved since then. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Boyers To: David R. Christensen Date: Saturday, November 25, 2000 7:23 AM Subject: Re: KR> scaling up the kr2s >Jim, how do the marathon plans compare to the kr's. Ken B >----- Original Message ----- >From: David R. Christensen >To: krnet mailing lists >Sent: Friday, November 24, 2000 11:07 PM >Subject: Fw: KR> scaling up the kr2s > > >> Jim, >> I too felt the need to scale up from the KR-2 I built and have been >> flying for the past nine years. I am working on a Mirage Marathon now. >It >> is a full size two seater on the order of the RV-6. The structure is >> similar to the KR-2 - wood frame, foam, fiberglass and the design allows >for >> the same opportunity for individuality as the KR does. The wing has the >> same airfoil as the Beech Bonanza. The structure and controls are >somewhat >> more complicated than the KR, the build time much longer. The airframe >> structure and controls materials cost about $9000. The plans show a >> tricycle gear but I am making mine a tail dragger. I will probably use a >> 160 hp Lycoming engine. The plans call for 150 - 180 hp. The spruce >used >> in the fuselage is 3/4". The plywood on the fuselage is only 1/16" thick >> but the forward half has plywood on both sides. The outer plywood has >> lightening cutouts. The fuselage is also slabbed with foam, contoured and >> glassed. The wing and tailfeather skins per the plans are a 1/4" foam/ >> fiberglass sandwich. The inside glass is laid up ahead of time. This is >> then bonded in and the outside glass then laid up over the entire >assembly. >> I opted to do mine per the KR design with 1" foam and all of the glass on >> the outside. This is actually the way the prototype was built and has >flown >> for over 900 hours. If you decide to scale up the KR design you might >get >> some useful information from the Marathon plans. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: jim jacoby >> To: krnet@mailinglists.org >> Date: Friday, November 24, 2000 12:30 PM >> Subject: KR> scaling up the kr2s >> >> >> >I weigh 240 lbs and am thinking of using the corvair engine on the kr2s. >> To >> >increase the useful load for this combination, If I were to increase the >> >every dimension of the kr2s about 10 percent how much would structural >> >elements (spruce) need to be increased in size, ie use 3/4 inch longerons >> >and verticals and diagonals in fuselage, increase spar crossections by >> (1.1) >> >squared or 21 percent, increase plywood thickness by 21 percent (and so >> >forth)? >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >_______________________________________________________ >> >Tired of slow Internet? Get @Home Broadband Internet >> >http://www.home.com/xinbox/signup.html >> > >> > >> >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >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 >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> 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, 24 Nov 2000 19:04:12 -0500 To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: Phil Visconti Subject: BAD NETSCAPE ? Message-ID: <3A1F01FC.ECA09620@gis.net> --------------5B4014CAB79891AD5EDD7307 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit HELP>>>I wanted to put pictures of KR project on web site , so...I upgraded my Netscape from 4.75 to Netscape 6. Now I can't get my pictures. Pictures were in JPEG form but now Netscape 6 has changed files to something called "MOZILLA JPEG". Used ADOBE to read pictures into files but now Netscape won't let me use ADOBE to improve picture quality for web site. Can anyone help??? Phil Visconti Marlboro, MA --------------5B4014CAB79891AD5EDD7307-- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 20:33:21 -0600 To: Phil Visconti From: Mark Jones CC: krnet@mailinglists.org Subject: Re: KR> BAD NETSCAPE ? Message-ID: <3A1F24F0.8B400F0C@execpc.com> Phil, I also use Netscape for my web site. Netscape is in the process of upgrading their server for the web sites. You will be unable to edit your web page until 11-30. You should however still be able to view the web site, but as I stated, no editing will be able to be accomplished until the upgrade is complete. Mark Jones Phil Visconti wrote: > HELP>>>I wanted to put pictures of KR project on web site , so...I > upgraded my Netscape from 4.75 to Netscape 6. Now I can't get my > pictures. Pictures were in JPEG form but now Netscape 6 has changed > files to something called "MOZILLA JPEG". > Used ADOBE to read pictures into files but now Netscape won't let me use > ADOBE to improve picture quality for web site. > > Can anyone help??? > > Phil Visconti > Marlboro, MA -- 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, 24 Nov 2000 19:52:51 EST To: LIVD0124@natref.com, krnet@mailinglists.org From: GARYKR2@cs.com Subject: Re: KR> VW REBUILD Message-ID: <93.3679796.27506763@cs.com> In a message dated 11/19/00 2:55:34 PM Eastern Standard Time, LIVD0124@natref.com writes: << Hello netters Its Sunday I am looking at my VW (was once before an aircraft engine) and I have the task of rebuilding ahead of me. I would like to know from those of you who have been through the process, what to look out for and what pitfalls there are when rebuilding the motor. Also any tips or advice very welcome. P.S. - The prop sits on the pulley side. Thanks Danny SA >> Danny, the best two books that I have found are the Great Plains Engine Manual and one from HPBooks entitled How to Rebuild Your VOLKSWAGEN Air-Cooled Engine. I tend to lean towards the "How to" book for the best info. Steve Bennett's book gives you the info that is needed for A/C use. The "How to" book has better pictures and goes into a lot of detail as to rebuilding. Follow the book, step by step, and all will be fine. Any problems, E-mail me off net and we'll get together on the phone and I'll walk you thru it. Gary Hinkle (A/P) Middletown, Pa. garykr2@cs.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 10:54:55 -0800 To: From: "Peter Johnson" Subject: Sheeting the Truss Message-ID: <001d01c05713$7f8e4800$15a5e2d1@peter> ------=_NextPart_000_0008_01C056CE.25373280 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Here's something that I hope will help those who have yet to glue the = plywood/fuse truss. Even though both fuse trusses were built on the same bench, inside the = same nail guides, and in the same fashion, when removed from the bench = and compared to each other, there was difference in 'set' of almost 1/4" = at the tail of my trusses! Not a big deal of course because the truss = is very flexible at this point. However, if not taken into account when = glueing the plywood on, by sides would have been out that 1/4" when = drawn together! A difference in 1/4" at the end of the fuse, where the = stab spars go, would make for alot of spacers to make up the difference. I glued the ply to one truss. Prior to gluing the second truss and ply = together, I aligned the two pcs of ply for the second side at the scarf = joint and stapled them down so they wouldn't move. I then placed the = first truss on the ply (ensuring I wasn't building the same side for a = second airplane!), and penciled around the outline. This left an = outline of the first truss which I could align the second truss to and = provided perfect symmetry between the sides. =20 I hope this helps.... mailto:pjohnson@voyageur.ca ------=_NextPart_000_0008_01C056CE.25373280-- ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 10:40:17 -0800 To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: Mark D Lougheed Subject: Original Newsletter Website moved Message-ID: <20001125.104036.-272763.0.mdlougheed@juno.com> Hi gang, Thanks to all of you for your reminders that the original KR newsletter site was malfuctioning. Things are now back in operation, but the location has moved to fortunecity from geocities. The new address is http://www.fortunecity.com/marina/commodity/844 Mark D. Lougheed ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 18:15:16 -0800 (PST) To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: Frank Ross Subject: Re: KR> Original Newsletter Website moved Message-ID: <20001126021516.11417.qmail@web4703.mail.yahoo.com> --- Mark D Lougheed wrote: > Thanks to all of you for your reminders that the > original KR newsletter > site was malfuctioning. Things are now back in > operation, but the > location has moved to fortunecity from geocities. > Mark D. Lougheed Mark, Nice job! The pages load much faster now too! Thank you. ===== Frank Ross, San Antonio, TX, __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products. http://shopping.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 15:03:06 -0600 To: "Jean Veron" , "krnet" From: "Ron Eason" Subject: Re: KR> Re: Moved my web site, KRRon Message-ID: <005401c05723$1e779840$567239ce@dana-coe> ------=_NextPart_000_0051_01C056F0.D1149260 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable This is my own design with help from early new letter { DeFreeze work}. Hand welded from cromally tube. KRron -----Original Message----- From: Jean Veron To: Ron Eason ; krnet = Date: Tuesday, November 21, 2000 6:18 PM Subject: Re: KR> Re: Moved my web site, KRRon =20 =20 Great web site. Who's retract design is it? Jean Veron N4DD =20 =20 =20 ----- Original Message ----- From: Ron Eason Sent: Monday, November 20, 2000 11:07 PM To: krnet@mailinglists.org Subject: KR> Re: Moved my web site, KRRon =20 =20 My new web site is http://www.jrl-engineering.com/hangar.html we are still working on it and more photos will be added soon. =20 KRRon =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 = --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 -------------------------------------------------------------------------= --- =20 Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : = http://explorer.msn.com ------=_NextPart_000_0051_01C056F0.D1149260-- ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 21:43:53 -0600 To: From: "Todd" Subject: KR> Individual Weight? Message-ID: Hi, newbie with a couple ?'s. My uncle recently bought a partially built KR2, since I've also been thinking about building a KR I'm helping him out and getting kinda itchy about starting my own project. I've found quite ah few sites listing thier KR's empty weight to compare how we're doing, but I'm wondering if someone could throw me some of their individual weights, completed fuselage (less eng.)and especially wings? The wings seem a little on the heavy side and we're thinking about rebuilding them, which brings me to another question. Since this is a KR2 non stretched, should we consider the AS5046 airfoil designed for the KR2S or stick with the stock airfoil? Thanks for any help, now back to more endless reading :) Todd mailto:RockyRun@Centurytel.net ------------------------------ End of krnet Digest ***********************************