From: To: Subject: krnet Digest 15 Jan 2001 15:10:30 -0000 Issue 154 Date: Monday, January 15, 2001 7:10 AM krnet Digest 15 Jan 2001 15:10:30 -0000 Issue 154 Topics (messages 3636 through 3665): Re: Wing Dihedral 3636 by: Mark Langford 3637 by: Brian. P Vasseur 3638 by: pjvisc.netzero.net 3639 by: Mark Langford 3640 by: Patricia Burger 3641 by: Edwin Blocher 3645 by: John P Moyle 3646 by: WA7YXF.aol.com 3650 by: Mark Langford "abortions" 3642 by: Mark Langford 3643 by: Edwin Blocher 3655 by: GARYKR2.cs.com Wing Attach Point ? 3644 by: Laheze.aol.com Invention 3647 by: Al Friesen 3649 by: Phil Maynard Wing Redesign 3648 by: David R. Christensen C-85 starter idea?? 3651 by: Ed Janssen 3662 by: Timothy Bellville 3663 by: Stefan B. Cleveland Wheel Question 3652 by: Albert Pecoraro 3653 by: Edwin Blocher 3654 by: Mark Langford 3656 by: Albert Pecoraro Neat paper airplane site 3657 by: Ed Janssen 3658 by: Ed Janssen New airfoils and the flight controls 3659 by: Dave and Tina Goodman 3660 by: Mark Jones wheel landings 3661 by: Dan Leahy 3664 by: David R. Christensen "start-stick" 3665 by: larry flesner Administrivia: To subscribe to the digest, e-mail: To unsubscribe from the digest, e-mail: To post to the list, e-mail: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 11:50:28 -0600 To: From: "Mark Langford" Subject: Re: KR> Wing Dihedral Message-ID: <003e01c07d89$50d63120$561cf618@600athlon> >Could someone clarify something about wing dihedral? In the case of the KR, it's something like five inches from the inboard end of the outboard wing spar to the tip of the outboard wing spar. But don't forget there's a two inch height difference due to the wing taper, so you're really only jacking it up 4 inches in terms of the centerline of the wing (when viewed from the front). But if you are making your angular measurements off the bottom of the spar (which is what the plans are effectively doing, if I remember correctly), it's about 4.8 degrees for the actual angle, which would turn into about 2.8 degrees if your wings start bending at the aircraft centerline, or 3.3 degrees if you started bending them at the fuselage. Mark Langford, Huntsville, Alabama mailto:langford@hiwaay.net see KR2S project N56ML at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 11:03:43 -0700 To: "B. McCraw" , krnet@mailinglists.org From: "Brian. P Vasseur" Subject: Re: KR> Wing Dihedral Message-Id: <200101131803.LAA01816@spool1.cadvision.com> Dihedral measured in inches usually means total, so 5" usually means 2 1/2" above flat measured at each wingtip. If you think of the entire wing bolted together, with one outside section flat on the bench then the far tip would be 5" high. The same usually applies to degrees, 3 degrees means 1 1/2 each side totalling 3. If a KR had straight wings then you would shoot for the tips being the same height above the bench as they are now. The angle is shallower but the net result is similar. In practice the result may be better or worse depending on a lot of factors, none of which I understand well enough to try and explain. I think though that the KR is a difficult plane to try this on, strictly from an assembly point of view. I've read many newsletter articles where someone made a change which seemed to make things easier or nicer, only to get burned later when they found something else didn't fit quite how it was supposed to. Here's some this to keep in mind while you think about it. 1. Straight wings means a slight "V" in the fuselage bottom. Not much mind you but it changes the skins, how the gear mounts, where the cables run, etc. You'd want to build a mockup of this out of scrap and run string for all the pushrods, cables, control stick, etc to see what conflicts you might run into. 2. The seats assume that the top of the spar is flat across so you'd have to build it up across the centre to get the seating to work correctly. 3. The spar centre section ends up thicker, similar to what you'd find on a Falco. This would also affect possible solutions to 1 and 2 above. This kind of spar is also a bit more difficult to build and the engineering is a bit different. You'd want to look at some cantilevered wood wings (i.e. Falco or similar) to get ideas on how to build it. This is however a common spar design so you've got that in your favor. 4. You could still build the wing in three sections and the aileron setup would be similar so you shouldn't have any trouble there. The outboard sections could remain the same. If you were willing to take the time to build a spar mockup and fit it to your fuselage to sort out all the issues I think you could find a workable solution. I'm one of those people though that would run out of patience doing a whole bunch of work I might have to throw away so I'm probably more biased to not try it. Let us know what you decide to do. Brian B. McCraw wrote: >Hi Krnetters; > >Could someone clarify something about wing dihedral? If a design sprcifies >a dihedral of ,say 5 degrees, is this an included angle from tip to tip >,or is it the angle from acft. CL. to the tip? I'm drawing up a curved >center section for my "S" and the standard "5 inches at the tip" doesn't >come anywhere close to the 4-6 degrees that I see specified for some >popular aircraft. Can someone shed some more light on this? Also, if the >angle was applied at acft.center, using straight outer wings, what angle >would be used to give the same mean dihedral as compared to the KR >standard of putting the dihedral in the outer planes only? I'm not trying >to design a new wheel here but I like the looks of sthaight wings and >would like to try it. Any input on this would be appreciated (just don't >call me crazy :-) ) > >Thanks,Bill McCraw >Niagara Falls Canada >bmccraw2@home.com -- Brian. P Vasseur -- vasseurb@cadvision.com Calgary Alberta ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 13:38:34 -0500 To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: pjvisc@netzero.net Subject: WING DIHEDRAL Message-ID: <3A60A0AA.B9EAB90F@netzero.net> --------------90F1382D7DF525EA28A63669 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I thought it was explained very easily on page 26 of the KR-2 manual. But then again, I have an old manual (circa 1984). Maybe things change ? Phil Visconti --------------90F1382D7DF525EA28A63669-- Shop online without a credit card http://www.rocketcash.com RocketCash, a NetZero subsidiary ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 13:03:13 -0600 To: From: "Mark Langford" Subject: Re: KR> Wing Dihedral Message-ID: <006401c07d93$7b04cab0$561cf618@600athlon> Brian. P Vasseur wrote: > Dihedral measured in inches usually means total, so 5" usually means 2 1/2" > above flat measured at each wingtip. If you think of the entire wing bolted > together, with one outside section flat on the bench then the far tip would > be 5" high. The same usually applies to degrees, 3 degrees means 1 1/2 each > side totalling 3. Really? I always thought that it was "defined as the angle of the wing with respect to the horizontal when seen from the front". That quote is straight out of an aero text book. And in another book they show the dihedral angle theta as measured below each wing, rather than theta/2, which is what you're saying it would be. That would mean that 5 degrees of dihedral means that EACH wing is inclined 5 degrees from the horizontal. > I think though that the KR is a difficult plane to try this on, strictly > from an assembly point of view. I've read many newsletter articles where > someone made a change which seemed to make things easier or nicer, only to > get burned later when they found something else didn't fit quite how it was > supposed to. Here's some this to keep in mind while you think about it. I've thought this through pretty thoroughly, and if I were to build another set of wings (and I may very well, at some point), I'd build the center spar out of laminated strips of spruce, bent up just inside the fuselage so that they exit straight from fuselage on out (which means the airfoil template can be fastened very close to the fuselage). This bent center spar would be the only REAL difference you'd have. The bend we're talking about is very slight, and the benefits outweight the extra work, as I see it. The downside is slightly more difficult construction, maybe 10% more time required for the center spar, but nothing fancy, just the same process as bending the sides of the boat (wooden blocks on the table to define it) but laminating 4 half inch thick strips together to make the bend. The other minus is that the gear will now sit a quarter inch higher, making the prop a quarter inch closer to the ground. The benefits are that it looks a whole lot better without that joint (which is now less noticeable), the wing attach fittings are now very easy to align (since they are in a straight line now) and your wing tanks drain better. It would be far easier to sand the whole wing to shape too, and cover stub and outer at the same time, effectively throwing away to separate sanding and covering operations, and reducing the need for duplicating the root wing template for use on the outboard end of the stub wing. And the BIG one is that you can now make your flaps include not only the stub wings but they can extend on out onto the wing a considerable distance for some REAL flap performance. Ed Blocher is doing exactly this, so maybe he will comment on how it's going... Mark Langford, Huntsville, Alabama mailto:langford@hiwaay.net see KR2S project N56ML at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 17:15:31 -0800 To: "Mark Langford" , From: "Patricia Burger" Subject: Re: KR> Wing Dihedral Message-ID: <001901c07dc7$7eb30800$393919d0@default> I think that you might be biting off a lot of work for no gain. What's wrong with the design the way Ken worked it up? It's almost comical the way a person wants a Falco, Glasair, or other hot rod, then buys KR dwg's and tries to abort the design beyond belief. Bill ====== Pat & Bill Burger ====== Roseville, California pbburger@inreach.com -----Original Message----- From: Mark Langford To: krnet@mailinglists.org Date: Saturday, January 13, 2001 9:47 AM Subject: Re: KR> Wing Dihedral >>Could someone clarify something about wing dihedral? > > ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 19:07:58 -0600 To: "Mark Langford" , From: "Edwin Blocher" Subject: Re: KR> Wing Dihedral Message-ID: <000001c07dc7$b5955300$8fe879a5@computer> First, page 26 of my 1990 RR manual shows the rise at the tip to be 5". I just went out and measured my bent spar and that equates to 2.5 degrees. My front spar bends exactly at the fuselage side and the rear spar about 3/4" outside the fuselage side in order to keep the front and rear bends in line. I used 1/4" thick wood for a little easier bending and a little less clamping pressure. The lamination will take about an hour at my speed (not too fast) for each spar cap. The only other thing I see that will take extra time is angleing the spars for the wing shape, front to back, from fuselage sides out. I made mine a little longer and will have 25" of as5048 stubs outside the fuselage which will give me added fuel capacity. If I ever get off my but work on a web site I will have pictures. If anyone wants to see the bent spar I can e-mail you a picture. ED Ed Blocher Moody, Alabama kr-n899eb@mindspring.com ----- Original Message ----- From: Mark Langford To: Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2001 1:03 PM Subject: Re: KR> Wing Dihedral > Brian. P Vasseur wrote: > > > Dihedral measured in inches usually means total, so 5" usually means 2 > 1/2" > > above flat measured at each wingtip. If you think of the entire wing > bolted > > together, with one outside section flat on the bench then the far tip > would > > be 5" high. The same usually applies to degrees, 3 degrees means 1 1/2 > each > > side totalling 3. > > Really? I always thought that it was "defined as the angle of the wing with > respect to the horizontal when seen from the front". That quote is straight > out of an aero text book. And in another book they show the dihedral angle > theta as measured below each wing, rather than theta/2, which is what you're > saying it would be. That would mean that 5 degrees of dihedral means that > EACH wing is inclined 5 degrees from the horizontal. > > > I think though that the KR is a difficult plane to try this on, strictly > > from an assembly point of view. I've read many newsletter articles where > > someone made a change which seemed to make things easier or nicer, only to > > get burned later when they found something else didn't fit quite how it > was > > supposed to. Here's some this to keep in mind while you think about it. > > I've thought this through pretty thoroughly, and if I were to build another > set of wings (and I may very well, at some point), I'd build the center spar > out of laminated strips of spruce, bent up just inside the fuselage so that > they exit straight from fuselage on out (which means the airfoil template > can be fastened very close to the fuselage). This bent center spar would be > the only REAL difference you'd have. > > The bend we're talking about is very slight, and the benefits outweight the > extra work, as I see it. The downside is slightly more difficult > construction, maybe 10% more time required for the center spar, but nothing > fancy, just the same process as bending the sides of the boat (wooden blocks > on the table to define it) but laminating 4 half inch thick strips together > to make the bend. The other minus is that the gear will now sit a quarter > inch higher, making the prop a quarter inch closer to the ground. The > benefits are that it looks a whole lot better without that joint (which is > now less noticeable), the wing attach fittings are now very easy to align > (since they are in a straight line now) and your wing tanks drain better. > It would be far easier to sand the whole wing to shape too, and cover stub > and outer at the same time, effectively throwing away to separate sanding > and covering operations, and reducing the need for duplicating the root wing > template for use on the outboard end of the stub wing. And the BIG one is > that you can now make your flaps include not only the stub wings but they > can extend on out onto the wing a considerable distance for some REAL flap > performance. > > Ed Blocher is doing exactly this, so maybe he will comment on how it's > going... > > 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 > ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 21:48:09 -0800 To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: John P Moyle Subject: Fw: Re: KR> Wing Dihedral Message-ID: <20010113.214809.-145483.2.jmoyle1@juno.com> KR-heads, I am sure Bill doesn't mean that quite the way it reads. Even a dunce like me knows that there are "purists" and there are "experimenters". Follow the design to the letter if that's what satisfies you. It was and is a neat little airplane "as drawn", but if anyone believes that Ken would have not improved his own aircraft design over the last twenty years ( had he lived ) then you don't have a realistic view. Ken Rand was NOT a "purist" he was an EXPERIMENTER, and a damn fine one. It's the small things, the little changes here and there that slowly make a design better, or at least expand our knowledge base. A new idea, applied to an older design, might not work at all well, but knowing that is useful too !! We try, we share our failures and our successes, and everybody benefits. My 2 cents. Keep trying !! John Moyle mailto:jmoyle1@juno.com On Sat, 13 Jan 2001 17:15:31 -0800 "Patricia Burger" writes: > I think that you might be biting off a lot of work for no gain. > What's > wrong with the design the way Ken worked it up? > > It's almost comical the way a person wants a Falco, Glasair, or > other hot > rod, then buys KR dwg's and tries to abort the design beyond > belief. > > Bill > ====== Pat & Bill Burger ====== > Roseville, California > pbburger@inreach.com > > -----Original Message----- > From: Mark Langford > To: krnet@mailinglists.org > Date: Saturday, January 13, 2001 9:47 AM > Subject: Re: KR> Wing Dihedral > > > >>Could someone clarify something about wing dihedral? > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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, 14 Jan 2001 01:23:24 EST To: kr-n899eb@mindspring.com, langford@hiwaay.net, krnet@mailinglists.org From: WA7YXF@aol.com Subject: Re: KR> Wing Dihedral Message-ID: <86.5842108.27929fdc@aol.com> I didn't find it difficult at all to laminate the bent spars. In fact I laid up the entire 20' spar caps and eliminated the wing fittings with the 5" of dihedral. I used a rib template at the fuselage (root) and one at the tip giving me a tapered wing. Why? I can't say..........just something I wanted to do I guess. Lynn Hyder WA7YXF N37LH Redmond, Oregon ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 12:43:11 -0600 To: From: "Mark Langford" Subject: Re: KR> Wing Dihedral Message-ID: <007701c07e59$d89de730$561cf618@600athlon> BentSparHeads, Ed Blocher sent some pictures of his bent up spar. They're at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford/ed_blocher/web_page/ . I guess I have to take the blame for suggesting to Ed that he do this. I'm sure just about everybody's thought of the idea, but the sticking point has been the details of construction. After seeing Dr. Dean's method of laminating spruce into unatural shapes, several of us (mainly Dr. Dean), hatched the scheme at the Columbia "East Coast Gathering" a few years back, but it was too late for Dean or me to incorporate it. I've tried to convince a few others, but Ed was the first to seize the idea and run with it. It looks like he's doing a great job, and will have something he can be very proud of when he's finished. I suspect that when one of these bent spar planes shows up a Gathering, there will be a lot more starting construction shortly thereafter. Lynn, are you gonna make it to the Gathering this year? I don't know if you've all seen it, but check out his plane at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford/lhyder/ . It's not exactly by the plans either... Mark Langford, Huntsville, Alabama mailto:langford@hiwaay.net see KR2S project N56ML at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 19:24:47 -0600 To: From: "Mark Langford" Subject: "abortions" Message-ID: <009701c07dc8$c8a4d230$561cf618@600athlon> > It's almost comical the way a person wants a Falco, Glasair, or other hot > rod, then buys KR dwg's and tries to abort the design beyond belief. When you put it that way, I guess I'm building a real abortion... Mark Langford, Huntsville, Alabama mailto:langford@hiwaay.net see KR2S project N56ML at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 19:23:55 -0600 To: "Mark Langford" , From: "Edwin Blocher" Subject: Re: KR> "abortions" Message-ID: <000a01c07dc8$aa7fb040$8fe879a5@computer> I think my abortion will look good to me. We had a T18 fly in to the grass strip behind my house last Sat. The wing bend is way out on the wing, the standared KR looks much better and I'll bet mine will look better still but everyone to their own opinion. What does experimental mean anyway? Ed Ed Blocher Moody, Alabama kr-n899eb@mindspring.com ----- Original Message ----- From: Mark Langford To: Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2001 7:24 PM Subject: KR> "abortions" > > It's almost comical the way a person wants a Falco, Glasair, or other hot > > rod, then buys KR dwg's and tries to abort the design beyond belief. > > When you put it that way, I guess I'm building a real abortion... > > 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 > ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 21:38:11 EST To: langford@hiwaay.net, krnet@mailinglists.org From: GARYKR2@cs.com Subject: Re: KR> "abortions" Message-ID: In a message dated 1/13/01 8:21:36 PM Eastern Standard Time, langford@hiwaay.net writes: << When you put it that way, I guess I'm building a real abortion... Mark Langford, Huntsville, Alabama mailto:langford@hiwaay.net see KR2S project N56ML at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford >> Keep in mind that Abortion is legal in this country. Gary Hinkle (A/P) Middletown, Pa. garykr2@cs.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 21:59:01 EST To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: Laheze@aol.com Subject: Wing Attach Point ? Message-ID: I like the idea of a constant dihedral from the fuselage out to the tip without the two foot horizontal area at the root. If I were inclined (no pun intended) to have a constant dihedral, here is what I would do. I would copy a Bonanza sorta, that is I would build a carry through spar like we have now except it would stick out each side of the fuselage only about 6 to 8 inches. I would move the landing gear attach points just inside of the fuselage wall to where the gear legs would come out over the top of the bottom fuselage longeron, in leaving enough room to place the wing attach fittings outboard of the landing gear fitttings. I haven't checked to see how this would work out but I think you could get the center section spar short enough, that when you attached the wing it would appear to be one single wing without the horizontal area that we see now, especially with a wing fillet fairing at the root. This way may be a little easier to build the carry through spar without any bends just built shorter. As I mentioned earlier a Bonanza has horizontal carry through spars like the KR2 except the Bonanzas stops at the fuselage side walls and the wing attach points are right there up against the fuselage so you have a constant dihedral from root to tip of wing. The Bonanzas' attach points carry all the landing loads and weight of the aircraft in general because the landing gear is outboard past the attach fittings. Building a shorter centersection spar as I suggested before would narrow the track of the main gear by 12 to 16 inches which I do not think would hurt it but what do I know? I haven't tried it. Larry Howell laheze@aol.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 10:24:18 -0800 To: From: "Al Friesen" Subject: Invention Message-ID: <003f01c07d8e$0cca81c0$72cb6cce@s8z8i0> ------=_NextPart_000_003C_01C07D4A.FC974D80 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Netters, All the diversity that I see on the net and the different ideas, the = arguments as to who is right has all the parallels to Orville and = Wright. You all know where it when from their trials. Don't stop with = your plans but let us know how she flys. The truth is in the pudding so = to speak. I love the controversy, the diversity and the guts it takes to = built something you have to fly yourself. Al ------=_NextPart_000_003C_01C07D4A.FC974D80-- ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 11:07:43 -0500 To: "Al Friesen" , From: "Phil Maynard" Subject: Re: KR> Invention Message-ID: <009301c07e44$212ac1a0$1c01a8c0@amd500> Its hard to imaging a more independent minded bunch of people than experimental aircraft builders. That's why time and time again a simple innocent question like "what's the dihedral" can run wild and generate so much response. It isn't always pretty but the exchange of ideas is wonderful. Personally I find that if I let myself be wrong about something and then discover a better way of doing it, that is of far greater worth than being "right" all the time. Winning an argument can be "fools gold". Discovering the best solution to a problem can be much more difficult. Phil Maynard Ridley Park, PA ----- Original Message ----- From: "Al Friesen" To: Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2001 1:24 PM Subject: KR> Invention Netters, All the diversity that I see on the net and the different ideas, the arguments as to who is right has all the parallels to Orville and Wright. You all know where it when from their trials. Don't stop with your plans but let us know how she flys. The truth is in the pudding so to speak. I love the controversy, the diversity and the guts it takes to built something you have to fly yourself. Al ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 07:09:20 -0800 To: "krnet mailing lists" From: "David R. Christensen" Subject: Wing Redesign Message-ID: <001301c07e3b$f952d760$3a785ad1@davec> ------=_NextPart_000_0010_01C07DF8.EA9A0E20 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The Mirage Marathon design might be an excellent model to use for = those who want to modify the KR design to a one piece wing. The = dihedral starts at the wing root. The main spar is laminated from 3/8" = thick spruce. The rear spar has 3/4" square spar caps with the dihedral = established by splice joints at the wing root. The ribs are 1/4" birch = ply. The skin is foam and fiberglass. The skin for the prototype wing = was built in the same way as the plans built KR and has flown over 900 = hours. The wing has the same airfoil as a Beech Bonanza and the = planform and taper are very similar to the KR. The design incorporates = nice, long flaps with shorter ailerons near the tips proportionally = about the same width cordwise as the KR.=20 ------=_NextPart_000_0010_01C07DF8.EA9A0E20-- ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 19:06:01 -0600 To: From: ejanssen@chipsnet.com (Ed Janssen) Subject: C-85 starter idea?? Message-ID: <001701c07e8f$53cc60a0$020010ac@dad> Can anyone help with this? I am now building up a C85-12. Considering on putting a starter in it although not an electrical system. Considering an arrangement utilizing a GPU plug ala Piper style and a "Start-Stick". Looking for availability of the following components: 1. Proper Start-stick 2. Regular pull type starter for a C-85 thru O-200 Continental - like the kind off an old C-120 or C-140 3. Lightweight starter for same engine 4. Curious about lightweight Altenator for same engine - for future reference 5. Is there a web site for the start-stick? Thanks! Ed ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 07:58:45 -0500 To: "Ed Janssen" , From: "Timothy Bellville" Subject: Re: KR> C-85 starter idea?? Message-ID: <001701c07ef2$f4f73140$715f570c@default> Hey,Ed, why not use a small dry-cell with out an alternator, like I do. It's installed on the back of the firewall, and is only 12lbs. on a 1600cc VW I get about 20 starts between recharges. I use a 1 amp trickle charger to keep the battery up. Been working great for about a year now. The greatest thing is you'll never forget it on the ground. Tim Sonerai I N2206X ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Janssen" To: Sent: Sunday, January 14, 2001 8:06 PM Subject: KR> C-85 starter idea?? > Can anyone help with this? > > I am now building up a C85-12. Considering on putting a starter in it > although not an electrical system. Considering an arrangement utilizing a > GPU plug ala Piper style and a "Start-Stick". Looking for availability of > the following components: > 1. Proper Start-stick > 2. Regular pull type starter for a C-85 thru O-200 Continental - like the > kind off an old C-120 or C-140 > 3. Lightweight starter for same engine > 4. Curious about lightweight Altenator for same engine - for future > reference > 5. Is there a web site for the start-stick? > > Thanks! > > > Ed > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 14:31:22 +0100 To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: "Stefan B." Subject: Re: KR> C-85 starter idea?? Message-ID: <3A62FBAA.692D9E30@wanadoo.fr> Kubota has a very neat alternator, it weighs 1.6 kg and delivers 10 A. Sorry, I don't know the URL of Kubota, it is a Canadian manufacturer of small tractors, lawn mowers, etc. The part number of this alternator is 15531-64010, regulator 15531-64600. Stefan Balatchev, France > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ed Janssen" > To: > Sent: Sunday, January 14, 2001 8:06 PM > Subject: KR> C-85 starter idea?? > > > Can anyone help with this? > > > > I am now building up a C85-12. Considering on putting a starter in it > > although not an electrical system. Considering an arrangement utilizing a > > GPU plug ala Piper style and a "Start-Stick". Looking for availability of > > the following components: > > 1. Proper Start-stick > > 2. Regular pull type starter for a C-85 thru O-200 Continental - like the > > kind off an old C-120 or C-140 > > 3. Lightweight starter for same engine > > 4. Curious about lightweight Altenator for same engine - for future > > reference > > 5. Is there a web site for the start-stick? > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > Ed > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 20:09:23 -0500 To: "kr2s group" From: "Albert Pecoraro" Subject: Cleveland Wheel Question Message-ID: <001001c07e8f$d3234120$b9d4b23f@steelcase.com> ------=_NextPart_000_000D_01C07E65.E36DE280 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable ClevelandWheelHeads, I was wondering if anyone can help clarify a dilemma I'm having = regarding wheels and ground clearance for my KR-2S - taildragger. I just bought a set of Cleveland 5.00x5 wheels with Armstrong 6-ply = tires - they measure approximately 14" in diameter. I'm trying to figure = out what the clearance should be between the top of the tire and the = bottom of the wing. When I reference the KR-2S dimension drawing = (supplied with the plans) it indicates that the bottom of the wing = should be 17" from the ground. With the wheels I have now, that comes = out to 3" clearance from the top of the tire to the bottom of the wing. = Also, the drawing shows a KR-2S tricycle gear, not a taildragger.=20 Q1: Do I have the right size wheel/tire for a KR-2S? If not, what is the = recommended size? or ... Q2: Should I increase the ground clearance to something like 20" instead = of 17" in order to get extra wheel/wing clearance. Thanks in advance for your help. Albert Pecoraro ------=_NextPart_000_000D_01C07E65.E36DE280-- ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 19:23:41 -0600 To: "Albert Pecoraro" , "kr2s group" From: "Edwin Blocher" Subject: Re: KR> Cleveland Wheel Question Message-ID: <002701c07e91$ccf463e0$84e879a5@computer> Albert, Before I comment I just want to say that I don't know a lot about this, BUT I am going to look for ground clearance for the prop rather than tire to wing clearance. Mark Langford said on Friday that he is incresing his gear leg height by 2" or so. Check with him on this or he may comment in a few minutes. Anyone going to Langfordkosh next Sun.? I'd rather call it KR University at Professor Langford's but whatever I plan to be there. Ed Blocher Moody, Alabama kr-n899eb@mindspring.com ----- Original Message ----- From: Albert Pecoraro To: kr2s group Sent: Sunday, January 14, 2001 7:09 PM Subject: KR> Cleveland Wheel Question ClevelandWheelHeads, I was wondering if anyone can help clarify a dilemma I'm having regarding wheels and ground clearance for my KR-2S - taildragger. I just bought a set of Cleveland 5.00x5 wheels with Armstrong 6-ply tires - they measure approximately 14" in diameter. I'm trying to figure out what the clearance should be between the top of the tire and the bottom of the wing. When I reference the KR-2S dimension drawing (supplied with the plans) it indicates that the bottom of the wing should be 17" from the ground. With the wheels I have now, that comes out to 3" clearance from the top of the tire to the bottom of the wing. Also, the drawing shows a KR-2S tricycle gear, not a taildragger. Q1: Do I have the right size wheel/tire for a KR-2S? If not, what is the recommended size? or ... Q2: Should I increase the ground clearance to something like 20" instead of 17" in order to get extra wheel/wing clearance. Thanks in advance for your help. Albert Pecoraro ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 20:10:51 -0600 To: "kr2s group" From: "Mark Langford" Subject: Re: KR> Cleveland Wheel Question Message-ID: <006301c07e98$62a73d30$561cf618@600athlon> Albert wrote: I just bought a set of Cleveland 5.00x5 wheels with Armstrong 6-ply tires - they measure approximately 14" in diameter. I'm trying to figure out what the clearance should be between the top of the tire and the bottom of the wing... Albert, Standard KR main gear is the "Lamb" tire (now made by Cheng Shin) 11x4.0-5, which is a little shy of 11" diameter undeflected. Mine is upside down right now, so has no load on the wheels, but the tire is 8.5" from the wing at the closest point. I too bought a set of 5.00x5 tires for my Clevelands in the beginning, but they looked like Tundra tires on the KR, so I gave them to my brother to use on his C-172. I guess I should mention that on my "gear" page to keep others from making the same mistake I did (and now you, Albert)... Mark Langford, Huntsville, Alabama mailto:langford@hiwaay.net see KR2S project N56ML at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 22:16:08 -0500 To: "kr2s group" From: "Albert Pecoraro" Subject: Re: KR> Cleveland Wheel Question Message-ID: <000601c07ea1$82904020$c9d4b23f@steelcase.com> Mark wrote: > > Standard KR main gear is the "Lamb" tire (now made by Cheng Shin) 11x4.0-5, > which is a little shy of 11" diameter undeflected. Mine is upside down > right now, so has no load on the wheels, but the tire is 8.5" from the wing > at the closest point. I too bought a set of 5.00x5 tires for my Clevelands > in the beginning, but they looked like Tundra tires on the KR, so I gave > them to my brother to use on his C-172. I guess I should mention that on > my "gear" page to keep others from making the same mistake I did (and now > you, Albert)... Mark, Thanks for the info. Now it all makes sense - I've got to replace the "Tundra" tires with the low-profile Lambs!!! ;-) I knew something didn't seem right to me when I propped up the fuselage to 17" and placed the tire underneath it and discovered that I only had about 3" underneath. And to comment on Ed Blocher's comment: >>> Ed said: Before I comment I just want to say that I don't know a lot about this, BUT I am going to look for ground clearance for the prop rather than tire to wing clearance. Mark Langford said on Friday that he is increasing his gear leg height by 2" or so. Check with him on this or he may comment in a few minutes.<<< I agree with Ed's comment about ground clearance for the prop ... but when I propped up my fuselage to the height where I would have adequate ground clearance, and then slid the tire underneath the spar ... I was wondering why the tire was so close to the bottom! It was due to those big fat "Tundra" tires. ;-) Thanks again to you all. Albert ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 21:36:15 -0600 To: From: ejanssen@chipsnet.com (Ed Janssen) Subject: Neat paper airplane site Message-ID: <003301c07ea4$5d063c80$020010ac@dad> Neat site to check out. Something to do when you're not building. There are some neat free downloads. Ed ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 21:38:39 -0600 To: From: ejanssen@chipsnet.com (Ed Janssen) Subject: Re: KR> Neat paper airplane site Message-ID: <003901c07ea4$a6751080$020010ac@dad> Whoops! Forgot to add the URL: http://www.fiddlersgreen.net/ Ed > Neat site to check out. Something to do when you're not building. There > are some neat free downloads. > > Ed > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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, 14 Jan 2001 19:44:01 -0800 To: "KR-POST" From: "Dave and Tina Goodman" Subject: New airfoils and the flight controls Message-ID: <003301c07ea5$66ea2b20$ce44a6d1@oemcomputer> ------=_NextPart_000_0030_01C07E62.57C384E0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Okay, I have my aileron aluminum parts cut out and drilled (with the = exception of the holes to mount them to the spar). I plan on mounting = them on the front side of the aft spar for clearance (AS5048 airfoils) = and running the control rods between the inner and outer wing. Question. Where do I mount the inner wing outer airfoil shape? If I = mount it inboard of the aileron controls, how am I supposed to get the = airfoil shape out to end of the spar and make it meet with the airfoil = shape from the outer wing? Do I just mount it at the end and cut holes = through it for the controls? Any thoughts would be appreciated. Photos will be devoured. Dave "Zipper" Goodman zipperts@whidbey.net =20 ------=_NextPart_000_0030_01C07E62.57C384E0-- ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 21:58:39 -0600 To: Dave and Tina Goodman From: Mark Jones CC: KR-POST Subject: Re: KR> New airfoils and the flight controls Message-ID: <3A62756E.4D56FACC@execpc.com> Dave & Tina, Take a look at my web site listed below and you will see how I did exactly the same thing. I will be placing my airfoil on the outer edge of the wing stub and will make the appropriate holes for control clearance. http://sites.netscape.net/n886mj/homepage Mark Jones Dave and Tina Goodman wrote: > Okay, I have my aileron aluminum parts cut out and drilled (with the exception of the holes to mount them to the spar). I plan on mounting them on the front side of the aft spar for clearance (AS5048 airfoils) and running the control rods between the inner and outer wing. > > Question. Where do I mount the inner wing outer airfoil shape? If I mount it inboard of the aileron controls, how am I supposed to get the airfoil shape out to end of the spar and make it meet with the airfoil shape from the outer wing? Do I just mount it at the end and cut holes through it for the controls? -- 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/n886mj/homepage ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 05:29:51 -0700 To: From: "Dan Leahy" Subject: wheel landings Message-ID: <000801c07eee$dbfd4a20$98911018@poctlo1.id.home.com> ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C07EB4.2F321BC0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Are there KR re-designers who insist on their plane having the ability = to do "wheel landings" ? By "wheel landings" I'm referring to landing on the main gear at speed = and being able to push the stick forward without "prop strike". Dan Leahy N6WRA@arrl.net ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C07EB4.2F321BC0-- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 06:54:20 -0800 To: "krnet mailing lists" From: "David R. Christensen" Subject: Fw: KR> wheel landings Message-ID: <000b01c07f03$0b0ffb00$87785ad1@davec> Dan, Wheel landings are no problem even with the retractable gear, Lamb tires and a 52x 48 prop. I have about 6" clearance in level attitude. I have never even come close to a prop strike doing wheel landings which I always do. I usually touch down at about 70 mph with flaps down, slow to about 50 mph with the tail up, then retract the flaps, plant the tail and brake as required. -----Original Message----- From: Dan Leahy To: krnet@mailinglists.org Date: Monday, January 15, 2001 5:41 AM Subject: KR> wheel landings Are there KR re-designers who insist on their plane having the ability to do "wheel landings" ? By "wheel landings" I'm referring to landing on the main gear at speed and being able to push the stick forward without "prop strike". Dan Leahy N6WRA@arrl.net ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 09:17:07 -0600 To: ejanssen@chipsnet.com (Ed Janssen), From: larry flesner Subject: "start-stick" Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010115091707.00876a50@pop3.norton.antivirus> Considering an arrangement utilizing a >GPU plug ala Piper style and a "Start-Stick". Looking for availability of >the following components: >1. Proper Start-stick > >Ed ============================================================== Ed and Netters, The "start-stick" is some amazing new battery technology that was developed at NASA. One of the designer/developers that turned that technology into a marketable product that you may have seen at Sun-N-Fun and Oshkosh the past year or two lives here in southern Illinois. His name is Dave Ekstrom and he is a member of our local EAA chapter. His e-mail address is ekstrom@midwest.net Dave is great young man and I'm sure he can answer your questions. Dave worked for Rans as an enginer/test pilot and for Farrington's at Paduach, Ky. before the "start-stick" came along and is now trying to put life back into a motor-glider design that went under for some reason. Dave also has experience working on/rebuilding/ test flying about ten other homebuilts including eight build by his 75 year old, retired landlord. They include 5 Kitfox, 2 pulsars, and a Skystar. You may have seen their "Mini-Pearl" restoration at Oshkosh. Larry Flesner ------------------------------ End of krnet Digest ***********************************