From: To: Subject: krnet Digest 23 Jan 2001 22:44:19 -0000 Issue 158 Date: Tuesday, January 23, 2001 2:44 PM krnet Digest 23 Jan 2001 22:44:19 -0000 Issue 158 Topics (messages 3726 through 3753): first inspection 3726 by: Timothy Brown Re: abortion clinic 3727 by: Edwin Blocher 3731 by: Mark Langford Re: Questions 3728 by: Richard Parker 3729 by: Mark Langford 3730 by: Phil Maynard 3732 by: Mark Langford 3733 by: Phil Maynard 3736 by: KR2616TJ.aol.com 3737 by: KR2616TJ.aol.com 3739 by: Phil Maynard 3741 by: Ron Eason Visit with Youngblood 3734 by: Frank Ross Getting there 3735 by: Al Friesen Re: Control link 3738 by: Austin Clark RAF48 vs AS504X 3740 by: Mark Jones 3743 by: BillStarrs 3744 by: Edwin Blocher 3745 by: Albert Pecoraro 3753 by: Phil Maynard Re: 1932 Doolittle's GB R-1 3742 by: Ron Eason Weight and balance 3746 by: Carter Pond 3747 by: larry flesner 3749 by: KR2616TJ.aol.com CAD Program 3748 by: Robert E. Moser 3750 by: Tracy & Carol O'Brien removing those hardened gaskets 3751 by: Florin L Pintea Hej Netters. 3752 by: Mogens Mølhede Pedersen Administrivia: To subscribe to the digest, e-mail: To unsubscribe from the digest, e-mail: To post to the list, e-mail: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 12:48:27 -0800 (PST) To: kirkland@vianet.on.ca From: Timothy Brown Cc: Group KR NET Subject: first inspection Message-ID: <20010121204827.66874.qmail@web9504.mail.yahoo.com> Dear Bill and NET: I live in Southern Calif and have 27" of snow on the ground, and a snow blower, so I doubt you will find your wish. Last month I installed a forced air furnace in the attic of my garage so I could keep working on my KR2S. All of January has been between 13 and 36 degrees. Can now get the garage to the 60s. Had my first tech inspection yesterday of my boat. He has four KRs under his belt re inspections. Said my workmanship was outstanding so I guess I must be doing something right. Thanks to the net for your input and replies. Now onto the wings. Tim __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices. http://auctions.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 16:32:26 -0600 To: "w.g. kirkland" , , , From: "Edwin Blocher" Subject: Re: KR> abortion clinic Message-ID: <002701c083fa$0ad3f6e0$6ae579a5@computer> Just got back from Dr. Langfords Abortion Clinic. He does very good abortions and some of them are expensive but you pay for what you get. There were 4 of us there for Tenn. To Florida. I'm sure Mark will comment on it later. Thanks Mark. Ed Ed Blocher Moody, Alabama kr-n899eb@mindspring.com ----- Original Message ----- From: w.g. kirkland To: ; ; ; Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2001 12:09 PM Subject: Re: KR> abortion clinic > Whats a little snow! I've got 3 1/2' in the back yard and it's still > snowing. Plan to move south. Put the snow blower on the trailer and drive > till someone asks--what is that damn thing? :0) I'd love to come over Mark > but it is a bit far. May get down in March as we plan to go to Florida for a > month. Y'awl have a good day now. > W.G.(Bill) KIRKLAND (half way to the north pole) > kirkland@vianet.on.ca > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: ; ; > > Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2001 8:00 AM > Subject: Re: KR> abortion clinic > > > > In a message dated 1/21/01 7:59:17 AM Eastern Standard Time, KR2 616TJ > writes: > > > > << In a message dated 1/20/01 10:57:25 PM Eastern Standard Time, > > kr-n899eb@mindspring.com writes: > > > > << I feel sorry for the > > ones with excuses like a little snow. We had flurries here all day today > and > > I'm still going to get out. >> > > > > Wish I could but I just called the airport and the runway is still not > > plowed. Seven inches affects ground handling ever so slightly. Something > > about the road departement has it's own priorities.......... > > > > > > > > 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: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 19:20:12 -0600 To: From: "Mark Langford" Subject: Re: KR> abortion clinic Message-ID: <046101c08411$795ea490$561cf618@600athlon> > Just got back from Dr. Langfords Abortion Clinic. He does very good > abortions and some of them are expensive but you pay for what you get. There > were 4 of us there for Tenn. To Florida. I'm sure Mark will comment on it > later. Yep, we had Ron the A-10 crew chief from Fort Walton Beach (who's thinking seriously about building an S), and Pete the Volksplane pilot who's now finishing up somebody's KR2 project, as well as Herb, who flies a Kolb, among other things. We flipped the KR (in about a minute and a half) and talked about various systems, but the star of the show was my Corvair engine. I believe we will now have at least two more Corvair powered KRs in the works. Too see why, visit http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford/corvair/ . I enjoyed it guys! I sure do have a lot of beer left over though. And I DID get the floor swept for the first time in months. I'm off to the basement to finish stuffing pistons into cylinders, and cylinders into the engine. And then, more surgery... Mark Langford, Huntsville, Alabama mailto:langford@hiwaay.net see KR2S project N56ML at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford > ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 23:33:09 To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: "Richard Parker" Subject: Re: KR> Questions Message-ID: Well after a short hiatus I'm back at it. After having the shakes for 6 months I needed to log back on to the knet for my daily dose. Once an addict always an addict.I havent even flown in my XP since October. My "honey do" lost was long but I think I have it all handled now. Brought my corvair into the basement where its warm, although the kr is cold in the garage, and I've taken it apart to have the crank drilled. Good to see you guys are still doing your best to keep Mark's blood pressure up. If I had logged on earlier I might have shot down to Huntsville for a few beers. Good to see some familiar names stil on the list. Rich Parker Peterboough, NH >Yep, if you've read the new airfoil data detailing improved performance in >every respect but with same stall speed performance, same exact wing >construction (and therefore, time to build, except aileron bellcrank now >has >MORE room than the RAF48 leaves you), increased wing tank volume, and >taller/stronger main spar, and you still don't see the point in going with >the new airfoil, by all means you should stick with the RAF48. I'm sure >you'll be quite happy with it... > >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 > _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 18:08:17 -0600 To: From: "Mark Langford" Subject: Re: KR> Questions Message-ID: <009901c08407$6d9e1cd0$561cf618@600athlon> > As far as the new airfoil, Mark said that the new airfoil has the same stall > speed but I thought the data showed that in fact the new airfoil has a > higher stall speed. One of the design criteria for the new airfoil was to have the same stall speed as the RAF48. Troy's stall speed increased by 2 mph after adding the new wing, but he also added 90 pounds to his airplane, which I figure is where that increase in stall speed came from, not from the airfoil. We'll never know until somebody with a flying KR2 or KR2S does extensive testing, rips their stock wings off and replaces them with the new airfoil, making absolutely no other changes, and tests again. Somebody with "bubbling" wing skins (and four coats of paint they'd like to lose) would be the perfect candidate for this mission... Mark Langford, Huntsville, Alabama mailto:langford@hiwaay.net see KR2S project N56ML at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 20:10:23 -0500 To: "Mark Langford" , From: "Phil Maynard" Subject: Re: KR> Questions Message-ID: <003d01c08410$193ac900$1c01a8c0@amd500> The only problem with that is unless the new airfoil also had bubbly wing skins and 4 coats of paint it wouldn't be a fair comparison. Phil Maynard Ridley Park, PA Somebody with "bubbling" wing > skins (and four coats of paint they'd like to lose) would be the perfect > candidate for this mission... > > 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, 21 Jan 2001 19:34:49 -0600 To: From: "Mark Langford" Subject: Re: KR> Questions Message-ID: <000701c08413$827ab9e0$561cf618@600athlon> > The only problem with that is unless the new airfoil also had bubbly wing > skins and 4 coats of paint it wouldn't be a fair comparison. Then I guess we'll NEVER know will we? I give up, really... Mark Langford, Huntsville, Alabama mailto:langford@hiwaay.net see KR2S project N56ML at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford > ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 23:03:39 -0500 To: "Mark Langford" , From: "Phil Maynard" Subject: Re: KR> Questions Message-ID: <000601c08428$4de0a4a0$1c01a8c0@amd500> I think it's reasonable to attempt fair comparisons between the old and new airfoils. It would be surprising if in the many years since the RAF48 was drawn, there couldn't now be developed an improved airfoil. It would be easy (not that I know how to do it) to improve the high end at the expense of the low end or improve the low end at the expense of the high end. To improve both ends at once, now that's something much harder to do and it will become apparent if the new airfol can or can not live up to that standard after more of them are built and flown. The new airfoil has already contributed to the knowledge of the aerodynamics of the KR's and this can benefit all KR builders. It does seem to me, a little soon to advise new builders to write off the RAF48 (and corresponding RR support) based on 1 set of flown wings which were added to an aircraft that had other changes made at the same time. Phil Maynard Ridley Park,PA ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark Langford" To: Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2001 8:34 PM Subject: Re: KR> Questions > > > > The only problem with that is unless the new airfoil also had bubbly wing > > skins and 4 coats of paint it wouldn't be a fair comparison. > > Then I guess we'll NEVER know will we? > > I give up, really... > > 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: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 07:32:51 EST To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: KR2616TJ@aol.com Subject: Re: KR> Questions Message-ID: --part1_fd.14775c3.279d8273_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 01/21/2001 10:59:21 PM Eastern Standard Time, pmaynard@bellatlantic.net writes: > It would be easy > (not that I know how to do it) to improve the high end at the expense of the > low end or improve the low end at the expense of the high end. To improve > both ends at once, now that's something much harder to do Well the KR commissioned those who know how to, to do it. > > Well, since Mark has given up on this thread, I'll hop in. What you just > described has been accomplished with the airfoil funded and wind tunnel > tested by the members of the KRNet. Unless one accepts the RAF48 (very, > very, very old profile) as the wing of all wings, you will see that the > computer models matched the wind tunnel testing exactly. Remember, the > RAF48 was designed for 90MPH. > > I don't have a problem at all suggesting the new airfoil, as it is better. > No doubt about it. Speaking of support from RR, care to tell me where that > is at???? Plot the coordinates of the RAF48 as put out by > RR................they don't even work out, but that is supposed to be > better????????? > ets see, same stall speed, more efficient cruise (less fuel burn), more > room inside for tanks, wind tunnel tested, computer modeled.............ah, > lets just slap a wing off the Taylor Monocraft onto it..........it's got to > be great. > > Kinda like beating your head up against the wall, heck Mark I'm done also. > I just the RAF48 is actually that third stone tab. brought off the > mountainside. Got a little testy there didn't I:-). But truly I am tired of beating my head against the wall. Pick 1920's tech or 1997 tech. Dana Overall 2000 KR Gathering host Richmond, KY mailto:kr2616tj@aol.com http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/7085/ --part1_fd.14775c3.279d8273_boundary-- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 08:29:56 EST To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: KR2616TJ@aol.com Subject: Re: KR> Questions Message-ID: <60.ae4cfe6.279d8fd4@aol.com> In a message dated 1/21/01 8:31:13 PM Eastern Standard Time, langford@hiwaay.net writes: << The only problem with that is unless the new airfoil also had bubbly wing > skins and 4 coats of paint it wouldn't be a fair comparison. Then I guess we'll NEVER know will we? I give up, really... Mark Langford, >> You will never know by stalling speed alone. I really do think an analysis of this stall speed and top end question needs to be looked at in terms other than just the airfoil. Stalling speed and AOA of a wing is dependent on numerous outside influences and the design and installation of a wing itself and it's corresponding countering forces. Keep in mind, the stalling AOA of a wing is constant, only the speed varies. Mark, talked with Mr. Robinson on how they came up with the 3.5 degrees (I think that is it) of the plans wing incidence. The reason, they originally put it at 5 degrees just to start and didn't like that so they lessened it to the 3.5....not very scientific. Back to the AOA, if a wing is installed with excess incidence to begin with, it's allowable envelope of lift is decreased. Thus the new wing was designed optimally to fall within the parameters of accepted aerodynamic theory. Weight has a tremendous influence on the stalling speed. The KR was originally designed to operated at less than 500 LBS., those are far and few between now. The new airfoil was designed with a targeted stall speed and top end at the current operating weights. So you see, it is stalling at the same speed at a heavier weight (real world weight). It is difficult to use pitot indicated speeds to get a true speed, although it does give you a visual reference as to where you are reaching that critical AOA at. Now, to the top end. Remember the RAF48 was designed for a top speed of 90MPH. Two major contributor of drag are lift and drag. Thus parasite drag and induced drag. Think of induced drag was lift. As AOA is increased, induced drag is increased, thus induced drag is increased as speed is decreased. Parasite drag is opposite. As speed is increased, parasite drag is increased and induced drag is decreased. The RAF48 installed at 3.5 degrees already has too much induced drag built into it according to accepted current standards. Why do you need this incidence? To achieve a stable airplane you must have counter acting forces, thus the aerodynamic down force on the horizontal stab. With the 3.5 degrees, according to the plans, there is way too much down force on this stab. This down force is greatly influenced by speed (parasite drag). The new wing was designed along these parameters. You want stability but you need to carefully calculate the needed amount so as not to produce too much parasite drag at the top end. I'll not go deeply into laminar airflow and airflow separation but to say that a wing designed for 90 MPH and operating outside it's designed envelope is going to be less efficient than one that is operating within it's designed envelope. The was I see it, the operating envelope and the operating weight are the two determining factors. If you are going to operate light and slow, the RAF48 my be the optimal airfoil. Otherwise........ With all of that said, those who are flying their KR's with the RAF48, I don't at all think it is the wrong wing. Tom Crawford's airplane is a great flying KR. Now those of you who are looking at the airfoil of Bonanza, think again........you don't want to get anywhere near stall with this baby.......it bites. Dana Overall 2000 KR Gathering host Richmond, KY mailto:kr2616tj@aol.com http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/hangar/7085/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 19:37:00 -0500 To: , From: "Phil Maynard" Subject: Re: KR> Questions Message-ID: <004f01c084d4$9a463740$1c01a8c0@amd500> The new wing may prove to be better, in the meantime, 1. The builder will not have the option of buying wing skins. 2. The data show increased drag at high CL (slow flight) compared with RAF48. As far as AOA, 20 years ago I set my wing at 2 degress with 1 1/2 degrees washout as it was a known issue back then. 3. The increased wing thickness will benefit any builder choosing wing tanks but wont help a builder with a header only tank. Meanwhile the increased wing thickness will decrease the knee clearance between the forward spar and the instrument panel. I know this is a minor point but nobody's pointing it out. Unless you want to maximize your wing tanks and unless the spar is redesigned to take advantage of the extra thickness, it's of little value. It's an interesting point, that the heavier gross/higher hp KR's will benefit more, and the lower powered planes maybe better off with the RAF48 or the gains aren't worth changing the plans or tooling for things like wing skins and gear castings, etc. If the new wing is better, it will be adopted. If it doesn't live up to it's claims, then it will be forgotten. Time will tell. I hope the resiliance and beauty of the KR are strengthened as a result of this debate. Phil Maynard Ridley Park, PA ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Monday, January 22, 2001 8:29 AM Subject: Re: KR> Questions > In a message dated 1/21/01 8:31:13 PM Eastern Standard Time, > langford@hiwaay.net writes: > > << The only problem with that is unless the new airfoil also had bubbly wing > > skins and 4 coats of paint it wouldn't be a fair comparison. > > Then I guess we'll NEVER know will we? > > I give up, really... > > Mark Langford, >> > > You will never know by stalling speed alone. > > I really do think an analysis of this stall speed and top end question needs > to be looked at in terms other than just the airfoil. Stalling speed and AOA > of a wing is dependent on numerous outside influences and the design and > installation of a wing itself and it's corresponding countering forces. Keep > in mind, the stalling AOA of a wing is constant, only the speed varies. > Mark, talked with Mr. Robinson on how they came up with the 3.5 degrees (I > think that is it) of the plans wing incidence. The reason, they originally > put it at 5 degrees just to start and didn't like that so they lessened it to > the 3.5....not very scientific. Back to the AOA, if a wing is installed with > excess incidence to begin with, it's allowable envelope of lift is decreased. > Thus the new wing was designed optimally to fall within the parameters of > accepted aerodynamic theory. Weight has a tremendous influence on the > stalling speed. The KR was originally designed to operated at less than 500 > LBS., those are far and few between now. The new airfoil was designed with a > targeted stall speed and top end at the current operating weights. So you > see, it is stalling at the same speed at a heavier weight (real world > weight). It is difficult to use pitot indicated speeds to get a true speed, > although it does give you a visual reference as to where you are reaching > that critical AOA at. Now, to the top end. Remember the RAF48 was designed > for a top speed of 90MPH. Two major contributor of drag are lift and drag. > Thus parasite drag and induced drag. Think of induced drag was lift. As AOA > is increased, induced drag is increased, thus induced drag is increased as > speed is decreased. Parasite drag is opposite. As speed is increased, > parasite drag is increased and induced drag is decreased. The RAF48 > installed at 3.5 degrees already has too much induced drag built into it > according to accepted current standards. Why do you need this incidence? To > achieve a stable airplane you must have counter acting forces, thus the > aerodynamic down force on the horizontal stab. With the 3.5 degrees, > according to the plans, there is way too much down force on this stab. This > down force is greatly influenced by speed (parasite drag). The new wing was > designed along these parameters. You want stability but you need to > carefully calculate the needed amount so as not to produce too much parasite > drag at the top end. I'll not go deeply into laminar airflow and airflow > separation but to say that a wing designed for 90 MPH and operating outside > it's designed envelope is going to be less efficient than one that is > operating within it's designed envelope. > > The was I see it, the operating envelope and the operating weight are the two > determining factors. If you are going to operate light and slow, the RAF48 > my be the optimal airfoil. Otherwise........ > > With all of that said, those who are flying their KR's with the RAF48, I > don't at all think it is the wrong wing. Tom Crawford's airplane is a great > flying KR. Now those of you who are looking at the airfoil of Bonanza, think > again........you don't want to get anywhere near stall with this > baby.......it bites. > > > > 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: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 19:49:27 -0600 To: "Phil Maynard" , , From: "Ron Eason" Subject: Re: KR> Questions Message-ID: <004401c084de$b9f7ba00$527239ce@dana-coe> Time will be the judge as in all experimentation. In my 35 years of engineering it hasn't changed, it always works that way dissipate all the testing and theory. And their is no outdated foils, just new foils. I have quite a few changes in my KR including the addition of extra wing lift area without lengthening the wing. Thus by extending the wing undersurface under the fus, and no I haven't put it in a wind tunnel, time will tell how it flies, it remains a RAF48-54. By the way, I have no abortions in my hanger. KRRon -----Original Message----- From: Phil Maynard To: KR2616TJ@aol.com ; krnet@mailinglists.org Date: Monday, January 22, 2001 6:32 PM Subject: Re: KR> Questions >The new wing may prove to be better, in the meantime, >1. The builder will not have the option of buying wing skins. >2. The data show increased drag at high CL (slow flight) compared with >RAF48. As far as AOA, 20 years ago I set my wing at 2 degress with 1 1/2 >degrees washout as it was a known issue back then. >3. The increased wing thickness will benefit any builder choosing wing tanks >but wont help a builder with a header only tank. Meanwhile the increased >wing thickness will decrease the knee clearance between the forward spar and >the instrument panel. I know this is a minor point but nobody's pointing it >out. Unless you want to maximize your wing tanks and unless the spar is >redesigned to take advantage of the extra thickness, it's of little value. > >It's an interesting point, that the heavier gross/higher hp KR's will >benefit more, and the lower powered planes maybe better off with the RAF48 >or the gains aren't worth changing the plans or tooling for things like wing >skins and gear castings, etc. If the new wing is better, it will be adopted. >If it doesn't live up to it's claims, then it will be forgotten. Time will >tell. I hope the resiliance and beauty of the KR are strengthened as a >result of this debate. > >Phil Maynard >Ridley Park, PA ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 19:59:16 -0800 (PST) To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: Frank Ross Subject: Visit with Youngblood Message-ID: <20010122035916.22980.qmail@web4703.mail.yahoo.com> Netters, Had a great visit with Ross Youngblood last weekend. We drove to Arizona so my wife could bond with family and I looked in on Ross in Chandler. He had his entire plane in the driveway when I got there and after a quick review of his progress, we got busy doing some tightening up on the fuel lines and fuel-flow tests. It was hot in the Arizona sun and he supplied me with beer to keep me working. Didn't see any snow until I drove on to San Diego. Got to go flying on Sunday, Ross flew and I got some videos, but too much haze to get good pix. Learned a little more about KRs, had a great time and got to meet another KR nut. What a great trip. I'll bet when I get back in June for my daughter's wedding, Ross will have that plane out at the airport. Also met Mike Wray, has a Nieuport replica at Chandler and has built KRs. Think I'll move back to Phoenix. ===== Frank Ross, San Antonio, TX, __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices. http://auctions.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 01:34:57 -0800 To: From: "Al Friesen" Subject: Getting there Message-ID: <005001c08456$97404780$58cb6cce@s8z8i0> ------=_NextPart_000_004D_01C08413.874895A0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Netters, Did a weight and balance and the numbers are good but for the weight = category. I did 3 different W & B and all where in the envelope except = the weight(1180 full load). Even with 20 lbs. of baggage I was still = inside the tail heavy 4" area but the weight went to 1180 lbs. with 340 = for warm bodies,20 for baggage,24 gals in header tank I was still ahead = of the rear limit even with only 3 gal. fuel. Looks like the "BLUE = BELLE" will fly in solo mode. Have done 8 taxies on the runway, tail = down and like the way she handles. Al ------=_NextPart_000_004D_01C08413.874895A0-- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 17:35:50 -0600 To: "William Tabbert" , From: "Austin Clark" Subject: Re: KR> Control link Message-ID: <001a01c084cc$0f2ee420$0d9da4d0@itac> I have a picture of my bellcrank at http://www.datasync.com/~itac/wings.htm Austin Clark KR2S, Moss Point MS ----- Original Message ----- From: "William Tabbert" To: Sent: Saturday, January 20, 2001 6:01 PM Subject: KR> Control link > Hello everybody!, Does anybody have a good close up on the aileron to bell > bellcrank finished job??? > > > http://jillenium.members.easyspace.com > > > Thanks, > > Bill Tabbert > _________________________________________________________________ > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at 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 > ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 18:50:15 -0600 To: KR-Net From: Mark Jones Subject: RAF48 vs AS504X Message-ID: <3A6CD546.3A4F116B@execpc.com> This whole thing is getting out of hand. There are those who will never change. There are those who will pioneer and experiment. Then there are those who will put the RAF48 on one side and the AS504X on the other side to see which side flies better. Come on guys, technology has far passed the RAF48. Dana, I thought, put it very clear in his post, but that is my opinion. Each of you must make up your own mind about the wing. I just feel sorry for those who will one day say "I wish I had that wing on my KR". I debated and doubted the new wing also. I then contacted the experts and studied what they had to offer and saw the light. I removed the RAF48 stubs and converted to the AS5046. A very simple procedure and I am glad I did. Enough said on the wing, let's get back to some productive KR building and posting. -- 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, 22 Jan 2001 19:36:26 -0700 To: "Mark Jones" , "KR-Net" From: "BillStarrs" Subject: Re: KR> RAF48 vs AS504X Message-ID: <003701c084e5$4afc4d80$5f0b2aa2@starrs> I have a new wing that will increse cruise speed by 50MPH. I'll sell it to any one along with a 50% interest in the Brooklyn Bridge. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark Jones" To: "KR-Net" Sent: Monday, January 22, 2001 5:50 PM Subject: KR> RAF48 vs AS504X > This whole thing is getting out of hand. There are those who will never > change. There are those who will pioneer and experiment. Then there are > those who will put the RAF48 on one side and the AS504X on the other > side to see which side flies better. Come on guys, technology has far > passed the RAF48. Dana, I thought, put it very clear in his post, but > that is my opinion. Each of you must make up your own mind about the > wing. I just feel sorry for those who will one day say "I wish I had > that wing on my KR". I debated and doubted the new wing also. I then > contacted the experts and studied what they had to offer and saw the > light. I removed the RAF48 stubs and converted to the AS5046. A very > simple procedure and I am glad I did. Enough said on the wing, let's get > back to some productive KR building and posting. > -- > 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 > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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, 22 Jan 2001 20:36:58 -0600 To: "Mark Jones" , "KR-Net" From: "Edwin Blocher" Subject: Re: KR> RAF48 vs AS504X Message-ID: <001901c084e5$5d567be0$79e579a5@computer> I'm leaving early tomorrow to Florida. I hope this is as interesting in 5 days as it is now. Can't hardly wait to get back and read 300 e-mails. Maybe I wont see too many abortions the rest of the week. Cheers! Ed Ed Blocher Moody, Alabama kr-n899eb@mindspring.com ----- Original Message ----- From: Mark Jones To: KR-Net Sent: Monday, January 22, 2001 6:50 PM Subject: KR> RAF48 vs AS504X > This whole thing is getting out of hand. There are those who will never > change. There are those who will pioneer and experiment. Then there are > those who will put the RAF48 on one side and the AS504X on the other > side to see which side flies better. Come on guys, technology has far > passed the RAF48. Dana, I thought, put it very clear in his post, but > that is my opinion. Each of you must make up your own mind about the > wing. I just feel sorry for those who will one day say "I wish I had > that wing on my KR". I debated and doubted the new wing also. I then > contacted the experts and studied what they had to offer and saw the > light. I removed the RAF48 stubs and converted to the AS5046. A very > simple procedure and I am glad I did. Enough said on the wing, let's get > back to some productive KR building and posting. > -- > Mark Jones (N886MJ) > Wales, WI USA > E-mail me at mailto:flykr2s@execpc.com > Visit my KR-2S CorvAIRCRAFT web site at > http://sites.netscape.net/n886mj/homepage > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To post to the list, email: krnet@mailinglists.org > To unsubscribe, e-mail: krnet-unsubscribe@mailinglists.org > For additional commands, e-mail: krnet-help@mailinglists.org > ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 00:45:18 -0500 To: "kr2s group" From: "Albert Pecoraro" Subject: Re: KR> RAF48 vs AS504X Message-ID: <001f01c084ff$ac6b1640$74d4b23f@steelcase.com> Mark Jones wrote: > This whole thing is getting out of hand. There are those who will never change. There are those who will pioneer and experiment. ...Each of you must make up your own mind about the wing ...Enough said on the wing, let's get back to some productive KR building and posting.< Yes, I agree Mark, it's getting out of hand ... again. This thing has already been discussed on KRNet, off KRNet, after church on Sunday, and at the annual company picnic. I discussed it with my dog just now and he just looked at me hoping for a Milk Bone. For the record, I chose the AS5046 airfoil for my stock KR-2S spars. I'm not an engineer, but when the news about the new airfoil was announced I looked into it, researched it, became confused by what I read, asked questions to a few of the "pioneers" who were involved in launching the idea and making it a reality, asked more questions, read Ashok's conclusions on his website, etc ... and I decided that this was THE airfoil for the KR. It's in plain black & white. Take it or leave it, it's your choice. This isn't a "cult" thing, really. I find it interesting that those that seem to be against the AS504xx airfoil and champions of the RAF-48 never include references to any sort of documentation to support their position. I sure would like to see some data on the RAF48 that is comparable to the data of the AS504xx. Those who chose the AS504xx know where the data can be found (and if you don't know where to find it, just use a search engine on the Internet, search for "RAF48", and you'll find websites for the AS504xx.) On the positive side of KR building ... I just came in from working in my unheated garage - I was drilling holes for the aileron control brackets. My nuts are frozen ... and so is the rest of my AN hardware! ;-) (Sorry 'bout that, couldn't resist!) Albert ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 17:49:28 -0500 To: "Albert Pecoraro" , "kr2s group" From: "Phil Maynard" Subject: Re: KR> RAF48 vs AS504X Message-ID: <003201c0858e$beac7f80$1c01a8c0@amd500> In terms of the debate of airfoils, what I don't hear from the new wing advocates is a realistic assessment of the pro's and con's, they simply say it's the best. But imagine you were a new builder and wanted to use as many prefabricated parts as possible to speed and simplfy building and you were going to do mostly local flying. In that case you couldn't use prefabricated wing skins and you would be making a major change not endorsed by the company you bought your plans from. The extra spar thickness wouldn't benefit you, in fact you would lose an inch of knee room and have to look at gear fittings and everything else that bolts onto the spar as it's now different from your plans, you would have to find the related information you were now missing. This would significantly slow down and complicate your construction project. Is all this worth a little faster cruise speed for local flying? Thats up to the builder. On the other hand if you wanted to scratch build your wings, needed the wing fuel because you planned to do long distance flying and were willing to go through the extra effort required for the new wings, then the advantage of the increased cruise speed may well be worth it. I don't hear this type of discussion. What it sounds more like is some builders put big engines on their KR's and then say that the wing is wrong, maybe it's really their engine thats wrong. If they want to put big engines on and change the wing I have no objection whatsoever, but when they hype the new wing in a one sided manner, they probably slow down the adoption rate (no bad pun intended) by losing credibility due to their one sided one size fits all there are no drawbacks hype. At the present moment "the" airfoil for the KR's is the RAF48. It seems the new wing group has a way to go to establish their credibility and prove their claims with fair even handed presentations that support their viewpoints. And the data show in addition to lower drag at cruise CL, higher drag at low speed CL. Phil Maynard Ridley Park, PA ----- Original Message ----- From: "Albert Pecoraro" To: "kr2s group" Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2001 12:45 AM Subject: Re: KR> RAF48 vs AS504X > Mark Jones wrote: > > > > This whole thing is getting out of hand. There are those who will never > change. There are those who will pioneer and experiment. ...Each of you must > make up your own mind about the wing ...Enough said on the wing, let's get > back to some productive KR building and posting.< > > Yes, I agree Mark, it's getting out of hand ... again. This thing has > already been discussed on KRNet, off KRNet, after church on Sunday, and at > the annual company picnic. I discussed it with my dog just now and he just > looked at me hoping for a Milk Bone. > > For the record, I chose the AS5046 airfoil for my stock KR-2S spars. I'm not > an engineer, but when the news about the new airfoil was announced I looked > into it, researched it, became confused by what I read, asked questions to a > few of the "pioneers" who were involved in launching the idea and making it > a reality, asked more questions, read Ashok's conclusions on his website, > etc ... and I decided that this was THE airfoil for the KR. It's in plain > black & white. Take it or leave it, it's your choice. This isn't a "cult" > thing, really. > > I find it interesting that those that seem to be against the AS504xx airfoil > and champions of the RAF-48 never include references to any sort of > documentation to support their position. I sure would like to see some data > on the RAF48 that is comparable to the data of the AS504xx. Those who chose > the AS504xx know where the data can be found (and if you don't know where to > find it, just use a search engine on the Internet, search for "RAF48", and > you'll find websites for the AS504xx.) > > On the positive side of KR building ... I just came in from working in my > unheated garage - I was drilling holes for the aileron control brackets. M y > nuts are frozen ... and so is the rest of my AN hardware! ;-) (Sorry 'bout > that, couldn't resist!) > > Albert > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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, 22 Jan 2001 19:57:02 -0600 To: "krnet" From: "Ron Eason" Subject: Fw: 1932 Doolittle's GB R-1 Message-ID: <005301c084df$c89d4f60$527239ce@dana-coe> On a lighter note I just received this from brother Jim. Karol -----Original Message----- From: Jim Eason To: Jerry Eaton ; Charles H Moore ; Ronald Coleman ; BKen2001@aol.com ; R2Bullard@juno.com ; Ray Richelieu Cc: Ronald R. Eason Date: Monday, January 22, 2001 7:34 PM Subject: Re: 1932 Doolittle's GB R-1 >Ron, >I thought planes were supposed to fly, not stall. I thought Doolittle was >supposed to know something about planes. This plane looks like fat banana >with very small wings, no wonder. I'll bet take off and landing speed was >about 200 mph also, now that would be exciting in 1932 when we hadn't >learned to take the bumps out runways yet. I'm going to send it to my >brother Ron, this is not the plane he wants to copy. > >Jim >----- Original Message ----- >From: Ronald Coleman >To: Charles H Moore >Cc: Ronald L Coleman >Sent: Monday, January 22, 2001 6:34 PM >Subject: 1932 Doolittle's GB R-1 > > >> Bev , want to go for a spin , lt was said this plane could stall at >> speeds over two hundred miles per , lt was clocked at >> a little over three hundred miles per , once . this is in 1932 >> >> 1932 Doolittle's GB R-1 >> > > ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 06:57:03 -0800 To: kr From: Carter Pond Subject: Weight and balance Message-ID: <3A6D9BBF.A4D33CBA@home.com> Can it be ruffly estimated that with out the wings on a KR2 the C of G is in the same location? I need this info for my CAD pre construction weight and Balance guesstomates Thanks KR2-S Dreaming and designing ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 06:48:57 -0600 To: Carter Pond ,kr From: larry flesner Subject: Re: KR> Weight and balance Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010123064857.007f8880@pop3.norton.antivirus> At 06:57 AM 1/23/01 -0800, Carter Pond wrote: >Can it be ruffly estimated that with out the wings on a KR2 the C of G >is in the same location? >KR2-S Dreaming and designing ============================================================================ === Carter, When the wings are installed , the C.G. will move several inches to the rear. Just how far, I don't know. I never removed the wings while the plane was on the scales. I suspect that with some careful thought, it could be estimated. Larry Flesner ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 09:07:46 EST To: carterkr2s1@home.com, krnet@mailinglists.org From: KR2616TJ@aol.com Subject: Re: KR> Weight and balance Message-ID: <57.10959e4c.279eea32@aol.com> In a message dated 1/23/01 6:47:16 AM Eastern Standard Time, carterkr2s1@home.com writes: << Can it be ruffly estimated that with out the wings on a KR2 the C of G is in the same location? >> Mine will nearly tip over on it's nose without the wings. Dana Overall 2000 KR Gathering host Richmond, KY mailto:kr2616tj@aol.com http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/hangar/7085/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 08:32:48 -0500 To: "KR Network" From: "Robert E. Moser" Subject: CAD Program Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20010123083037.00ad9c30@viper> Any recommendations from anyone about a good CAD program for aero use? I'd like something that ties in with other programs for weight and balance, stress analysis, aerodynamic analysis, etc. Indeed, if someone would like to recommend these "other programs" as well, that would be welcome. TIA, Robert ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 08:46:19 -0800 To: "Robert E. Moser" , "KR Network" From: Tracy & Carol O'Brien Subject: Re: KR> CAD Program Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.20010123084619.0071eeec@localaccess.com> At 08:32 AM 01/23/2001 -0500, Robert E. Moser wrote: >Any recommendations from anyone about a good CAD program for aero use? I'd >like something >that ties in with other programs for weight and balance, stress analysis, >aerodynamic analysis, etc. >Indeed, if someone would like to recommend these "other programs" as well, >that would be welcome. > >TIA, > >Robert > Netters, The AirplanePDQ program from DaVinci Technologies includes a fully functioning CAD program as well as design and analysis capabilities. At $75.00, its hard to go wrong! www.davincitechnologies.com or check their ad in Kitplanes, Sport Aviation, etc. Tracy O'Brien ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 10:05:35 -0700 To: "Corvaircraft" , "KR-Net" From: "Florin L Pintea" Subject: removing those hardened gaskets Message-ID: A short while ago we had some posts about how to remove those stubborn hardened old gaskets from the aluminium engine parts without damaging the gasket surface. While I've tried almost every method that was mentioned (and then some), here's something that "really" impressed me, worked great, chewed up the gasket without any elbow grease and just polished the aluminium instead of removing any of it. Here's what I found, and after using it successfully I would like to share it with the rest of you frustrated engine block and gasket scrapers. It is another "3M" product called "ROLOC TM" BRISTLE DISC. It mounts exactly as the older scouring pad type 3M discs onto your die grinder adapter (Screw lock). So far I know the Snap-On dealers sell it since it is being offered to the automotive and heavy-duty diesel trade. A fellow mechanic donated the one I have to me and I forgot to ask how much it costs (mine was free, and that is a good deal), but I'm sure it can't be too much. Here's the link to 3M's page in case anyone needs more info about this product http://www2.mmm.com/intl/DE/english/stories/s2310.html Caution: I would strongly advise anyone using this product to exercise caution still on the amount of pressure applied on the tool and don't forget you are still dealing with aluminium. Have fun, and I hope it helped someone. Let me know how it worked out for you. FLORIN L. PINTEA KR-2S SKUNKWORKS @ CALGARY, ALBERTA, CANADA mailto: florinpi@home.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 18:26:07 +0100 To: "krnet" From: "=?iso-8859-1?Q?Mogens_M=F8lhede_Pedersen?=" Subject: Hej Netters. Message-ID: <002401c08561$92c6d500$cfead7c3@main> New pictures ect. home13.inet.tele.dk/oyrv6a Regards Mogens, Denmark. ------------------------------ End of krnet Digest ***********************************