From: To: Subject: krnet Digest 24 Jan 2001 18:47:20 -0000 Issue 159 Date: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 10:58 AM krnet Digest 24 Jan 2001 18:47:20 -0000 Issue 159 Topics (messages 3754 through 3781): Re: RAF48 vs AS504X 3754 by: Guenther Bryce 3755 by: Ron Eason 3756 by: Albert Pecoraro 3758 by: Frank Ross 3763 by: Dr. No Re: Weight and balance 3757 by: Frank Ross 3759 by: BillStarrs Re: Carb Info & Horse Trading 3760 by: Gaylon Fuller wings and things 3761 by: Steven Eberhart 3770 by: David R. Christensen 3776 by: RONALD.FREIBERGER 3779 by: David R. Christensen Re: tri gear weight&balance vs original 3762 by: Flymaca711689.cs.com Re: RAF48 vs AS504X - An Editorial 3764 by: EagleGator.aol.com Re: RAF48 vs AS504X-one last look. 3765 by: KR2616TJ.aol.com weight&balance vs original 3766 by: larry flesner Re: one last look 3767 by: Richard Parker good news..bad news 3768 by: Leonardo 3775 by: RONALD.FREIBERGER Re: good news..bad news / Prop Strike 3769 by: Frank Ross Re: wing skins 3771 by: Frank Ross electronic stuff 3772 by: Dr. No 3774 by: David R. Christensen Regrettable modification 3773 by: David R. Christensen 3777 by: David R. Christensen 3778 by: David R. Christensen 3780 by: David R. Christensen 3781 by: jwells1.impop.bellatlantic.net Administrivia: To subscribe to the digest, e-mail: To unsubscribe from the digest, e-mail: To post to the list, e-mail: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 15:52:37 -0800 (PST) To: Phil Maynard , Albert Pecoraro , kr2s group From: Guenther Bryce Subject: Re: KR> RAF48 vs AS504X Message-ID: <20010123235237.63494.qmail@web9007.mail.yahoo.com> --- Phil Maynard wrote: > 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 > > > > > > If it ain't got a RAF48 airfoil it ain't a KR (purist perspective) > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices. http://auctions.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 18:00:08 -0600 To: "Phil Maynard" , "Albert Pecoraro" , "kr2s group" From: "Ron Eason" Subject: Re: KR> RAF48 vs AS504X Message-ID: <006601c08598$b9a38b00$517239ce@dana-coe> Good point and practical! KRRon -----Original Message----- From: Phil Maynard To: Albert Pecoraro ; kr2s group Date: Tuesday, January 23, 2001 4:44 PM Subject: Re: KR> RAF48 vs AS504X >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 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 19:41:43 -0500 To: "kr2s group" From: "Albert Pecoraro" Subject: Re: KR> RAF48 vs AS504X Message-ID: <002e01c0859e$6e1b8c40$16d4b23f@steelcase.com> Phil Maynard wrote: > 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 I would like to be part of that group. Every night when I complete something on my KR-2S, I am one step closer to flying something that just may very well lend credibility to those claims. And if not, oh well, at least I/we tried. If this is successful - hey, no problem. If this is a failure ... we'll try again. Cheers to you all. I've got to get working on my plane already. Albert ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 16:48:51 -0800 (PST) To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: Frank Ross Subject: Re: KR> RAF48 vs AS504X Message-ID: <20010124004851.19766.qmail@web4701.mail.yahoo.com> Albert, Don't forget something to keep your AN hardware from freezing. > Cheers to you all. I've got to get working on my > plane already. > > Albert ===== Frank Ross, San Antonio, TX, __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices. http://auctions.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 20:54:59 -0600 To: krnet From: "Dr. No" Subject: KR> RAF48 vs AS504X Message-ID: <3A6E43FB.2034BFE1@pol.net> --------------FDD5D533C1311A55D04E450D Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit --------------FDD5D533C1311A55D04E450D Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Message-ID: <3A6E36E9.11107CF4@pol.net> Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 19:59:10 -0600 From: "Dr. No" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 (Macintosh; I; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en-US,fr-FR,es MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Albert Pecoraro Subject: Re: KR> RAF48 vs AS504X References: <3A6CD546.3A4F116B@execpc.com> <001f01c084ff$ac6b1640$74d4b23f@steelcase.com> <003201c0858e$beac7f80$1c01a8c0@amd500> <002e01c0859e$6e1b8c40$16d4b23f@steelcase.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Anyone who has actually researched the old posts on this list and A51, the web pages of the developers of the new airfoil and those who are building it knows that both sides of the issue have been presented, from the loss of knee room, changes in bellcrank placement, moving an already-glued in aft spar, to improved cruise. On the other side the argument seems to consist mainly of two statements: its not the wing the plane was designed with, and, my plane flies fine with a 70-year-old wing design, why change? If you say its not a KR without an RAF48, is it a KR without Dynel covering? The designer tweaked his design as long as he was alive, and we carry that on as long as we do anything not on the plans. Is there any KR out there that has every detail per plans, and only what is in the plans? And if its good enough for you, great! I want the best, most up-to-date design I can get at a price. My only advice: check out research and experience of real life and make an informed decision. If you have opinion without experience, shut up. Scott Albert Pecoraro wrote: > Phil Maynard wrote: > > > 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 I would like to be part of that group. Every night when I complete > something on my KR-2S, I am one step closer to flying something that just > may very well lend credibility to those claims. And if not, oh well, at > least I/we tried. If this is successful - hey, no problem. If this is a > failure ... we'll try again. > > Cheers to you all. I've got to get working on my plane already. > > 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 --------------FDD5D533C1311A55D04E450D-- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 16:45:50 -0800 (PST) To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: Frank Ross Subject: Re: KR> Weight and balance Message-ID: <20010124004550.19473.qmail@web4701.mail.yahoo.com> Carter, With or without engine and nose or tail gear? --- KR2616TJ@aol.com wrote: > 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 ===== Frank Ross, San Antonio, TX, __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices. http://auctions.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 18:57:59 -0700 To: "Frank Ross" , From: "BillStarrs" Subject: Re: KR> Weight and balance Message-ID: <002b01c085a9$145d4d00$540b2aa2@starrs> That is for sure that it will tip over . I had a friend that could wait to taxi his wingless bird. He tipped over with a lot of expensive repairs. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Frank Ross" To: Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2001 5:45 PM Subject: Re: KR> Weight and balance > Carter, > With or without engine and nose or tail gear? > --- KR2616TJ@aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 1/23/01 6:47:16 AM Eastern > > Standard Time, > > carterkr2s1@home.com writes: > > > > << Can it be ruffly estimated that with out the > > wings on a KR2 the C of G > > is in the same location? >> > > Mine will nearly tip over on it's nose without the > > wings. > > Dana Overall > > > ===== > Frank Ross, San Antonio, TX, > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices. > http://auctions.yahoo.com/ > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To post to the list, email: krnet@mailinglists.org > To unsubscribe, e-mail: krnet-unsubscribe@mailinglists.org > For additional commands, e-mail: krnet-help@mailinglists.org > > ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 19:09:53 -0700 To: From: "Gaylon Fuller" Subject: Fw: Carb Info & Horse Trading Message-ID: <002101c085aa$c1447ec0$e8a0a7d8@oemcomputer> ------=_NextPart_000_001E_01C08570.112A7380 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Gaylon Fuller=20 To: KR-net users group=20 Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2001 1:14 PM Subject: Fw: Carb Info & Horse Trading Hey Net, For some reason I have not been getting my digest, so I didn't know = if this got posted. It was supposed to post on Friday. Thanks=20 Gaylon ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Gaylon Fuller=20 To: KR-net users group=20 Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 6:21 PM Subject: Carb Info & Horse Trading I just wanted to say thanks for the carb links that David M. posted. = I was totally unaware of the Edelbrock carb and there was no way I was = going to be able to fork out $300 + S&H for the Altimiser. I have been = looking at the Zenith's real hard and the Tillotson's as well, but I'm = going to have to really check into that Edelbrock now. I ended up with = a Slick 4001 LH with impulse coupler in my trades. I also have two = harnesses and aircraft plugs if anyone is in the "MOOD" for trading. = I'm in the need for a 52" X 40 or 42 prop, VFR flight instruments, = engine instruments, carb, ignition, and would love to get my hands = accessory case. I do have allot of KR parts from the KR 2 kit as well. = I have a standard KR2 cowl, canopy, canopy frame, front deck, turtle = deck, sling seat, flap handle, retracts and mechanical brakes (unused = and undrilled), WAF's, and lot's more. Anything that does not get = traded will be cannibalized in some form for the KR 1. If nothing else, = I'll have a lot of spares! L8R Gaylon fuller@pvtnetworks.net ------=_NextPart_000_001E_01C08570.112A7380-- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 20:15:59 -0600 (CST) To: From: Steven Eberhart Subject: wings and things Message-ID: I am sure a lot of you have been wondering if I left KRNet since I haven't jumped in on the current round of discussions about the KRNet alternative wing. I am still around, just a little older and slower. THe scars from previous flame wars have taken their tole. I just want to comment on a statement that was made about the KRNet alternative wing. Someone mentioned that the reduced drag on the top end was at the sacrefice of drag at higher angles of attack. This became part of the original design features after some of the initial research work had been done. Many of the KR pilots have commented that the KR is a slick airplane that you have to stay ahead of. Many builders add belly boards or flaps for use at higher angles of attack just so they can slow the plane down. The somewhat higher drag at high angles of attack seemed to be a situation of having your cake and eating it too. We didn't see it as the negative that it has been described as in recent posts. THe other item was the fact that when using the 18% root airfoil you end up with a deeper spar. Yup, that is the nature of the beast. But, guess what......use the 16% airfoil and you can use the stock spars. Not trying to get a fight started, just thought you might like to know a little of the history about the KRNet alternative wing. Burt Rutan thought enough of the designer of the KRNet alternative wing to have him design the airfoils for his Boomerang II. Steve Eberhart mailto:newtech@newtech.com One test is worth a thousand expert opinions but a thousand opinions are easier to get. --plagiarized from an unknown author ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 08:20:17 -0800 To: "krnet mailing lists" From: "David R. Christensen" Subject: Fw: KR> wings and things Message-ID: <003901c08621$8afdb760$9e785ad1@davec> An interesting flight characteristic of my KR-2 which has the standard airfoil, retracts, and slightly oversize flaps is angle of descent vs. approach speed. In a normal 90 mph approach with full flaps, I found that rather than putting the nose down and diving steeper at the runway which causes airspeed to get out of hand in a hurry, to increase my angle of descent significantly I could pull the nose up and slow to 80 mph which is still safely above my 60 mph stall speed. (I slow to 80 mph anyway when rounding out at the end of the runway). This phenomenon may in part be due to presentation of the flaps to the airstream at an increased angle and possible increased interference drag of the extended gear. At any rate, increasing angle of attack with resulting increase in drag and angle of descent is a definite plus during landings, especially with less than optimal mechanical brakes. -----Original Message----- From: Steven Eberhart To: krnet@mailinglists.org Date: Tuesday, January 23, 2001 7:25 PM Subject: KR> wings and things >I am sure a lot of you have been wondering if I left KRNet since I haven't >jumped in on the current round of discussions about the KRNet alternative >wing. I am still around, just a little older and slower. THe scars from >previous flame wars have taken their tole. > >I just want to comment on a statement that was made about the KRNet >alternative wing. Someone mentioned that the reduced drag on the top end >was at the sacrefice of drag at higher angles of attack. This became part >of the original design features after some of the initial research work >had been done. Many of the KR pilots have commented that the KR is a >slick airplane that you have to stay ahead of. Many builders add belly >boards or flaps for use at higher angles of attack just so they can slow >the plane down. The somewhat higher drag at high angles of attack seemed >to be a situation of having your cake and eating it too. We didn't see it >as the negative that it has been described as in recent posts. > >THe other item was the fact that when using the 18% root airfoil you end >up with a deeper spar. Yup, that is the nature of the beast. But, guess >what......use the 16% airfoil and you can use the stock spars. > >Not trying to get a fight started, just thought you might like to know a >little of the history about the KRNet alternative wing. Burt Rutan >thought enough of the designer of the KRNet alternative wing to have him >design the airfoils for his Boomerang II. > > >Steve Eberhart >mailto:newtech@newtech.com > >One test is worth a thousand expert opinions but a thousand opinions are >easier to get. --plagiarized from an unknown author > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >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: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 11:20:55 -0500 To: "David R. Christensen" , "krnet mailing lists" From: "RONALD.FREIBERGER" Subject: RE: KR> wings and things Message-ID: Interesting characteristic of a clean airplane. I built a Cassutt Sport, and any approach speed over 90 meant you not only didn't land in the right place, you went right past the airport. Finding the right approach speed is much more important than having flaps. Learning those flight characteristics is important, 'cause some day you might need a powerless approach to the only good site in sight. Ron Freiberger... mailto:ron.martha@mindspring.com -----Original Message----- From: David R. Christensen [mailto:davec@favorites.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 11:20 AM To: krnet mailing lists Subject: Fw: KR> wings and things An interesting flight characteristic of my KR-2 which has the standard airfoil, retracts, and slightly oversize flaps is angle of descent vs. approach speed. In a normal 90 mph approach with full flaps, I found that rather than putting the nose down and diving steeper at the runway which causes airspeed to get out of hand in a hurry, to increase my angle of descent significantly I could pull the nose up and slow to 80 mph which is still safely above my 60 mph stall speed. (I slow to 80 mph anyway when rounding out at the end of the runway). This phenomenon may in part be due to presentation of the flaps to the airstream at an increased angle and possible increased interference drag of the extended gear. At any rate, increasing angle of attack with resulting increase in drag and angle of descent is a definite plus during landings, especially with less than optimal mechanical brakes. -----Original Message----- From: Steven Eberhart To: krnet@mailinglists.org Date: Tuesday, January 23, 2001 7:25 PM Subject: KR> wings and things >I am sure a lot of you have been wondering if I left KRNet since I haven't >jumped in on the current round of discussions about the KRNet alternative >wing. I am still around, just a little older and slower. THe scars from >previous flame wars have taken their tole. > >I just want to comment on a statement that was made about the KRNet >alternative wing. Someone mentioned that the reduced drag on the top end >was at the sacrefice of drag at higher angles of attack. This became part >of the original design features after some of the initial research work >had been done. Many of the KR pilots have commented that the KR is a >slick airplane that you have to stay ahead of. Many builders add belly >boards or flaps for use at higher angles of attack just so they can slow >the plane down. The somewhat higher drag at high angles of attack seemed >to be a situation of having your cake and eating it too. We didn't see it >as the negative that it has been described as in recent posts. > >THe other item was the fact that when using the 18% root airfoil you end >up with a deeper spar. Yup, that is the nature of the beast. But, guess >what......use the 16% airfoil and you can use the stock spars. > >Not trying to get a fight started, just thought you might like to know a >little of the history about the KRNet alternative wing. Burt Rutan >thought enough of the designer of the KRNet alternative wing to have him >design the airfoils for his Boomerang II. > > >Steve Eberhart >mailto:newtech@newtech.com > >One test is worth a thousand expert opinions but a thousand opinions are >easier to get. --plagiarized from an unknown author > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >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: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 11:03:26 -0800 To: "krnet mailing lists" From: "David R. Christensen" Subject: Fw: KR> wings and things Message-ID: <000f01c08638$662eaf40$a0785ad1@davec> Ron, Approach at 90 to 80 (to control descent angle), about 1000 rpm, always full flaps, round out to 80, wheel land at about 70 (not looking at the airspeed indicator during this phase), power to idle, slow to 50, raise flaps and plant tailwheel, brake as required. I use about 2500' of the runway at field elevation of 4300'. Most if the airports have over 4000' of runway in our area. Works for me! I wish I had done glide ratio testing clean, idle power, before my recent forced landing due to engine failure. While trying to make a field is no time to be experimenting! I chose to glide it at 80 mph as a best guess, attempting to make it to an airport 9 miles away from an altitude of 4300 AGL. I knew it would be close as the end of the runway was staying at the same location relative to the canopy. If it moves down you've got it made, if it moves up, forget it! I landed 10' short of the runway, gear up, wiped out a threshhold light and skidded about 100' down the runway. There was no structural damage to the plane (the threshhold light sliced into the wing stub leading edge and hit the gear spring bar which prtected the spar) and after about three months I'm back in the air. I took the opportunity to repair other minor defects that occurred over the years. It looks better than before the incident! Here's an interesting predicament I got myself into on my post restoration first flight. I had shimmed under the left gear casting to align the gear better with the other one and in an attempt to eliminate some interference between the recontoured gear fairing with the gear well and the gap cover door hinge. I failed to check the gear up latch function after doing this. When I subsequently took off I snapped the gear lever down against the floor with my heel as I always do but it didn't latch. So I did it again harder. This time it latched. Then it dawned on me that I had just done a real bad thing! As I expected I was unable to unlatch it. So the rest of this flight consisted of some very interesting manuevers as I loosened my seat belt and attempted to get both hands on the latch while pushing down as hard as I could on the gear lever with my heel. After about 10 minutes of increasing desparation it finally budged a little. A few more yanks and it was free. Whew!!!! That was a close one! Dave -----Original Message----- From: RONALD.FREIBERGER To: David R. Christensen ; krnet mailing lists Date: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 9:30 AM Subject: RE: KR> wings and things > Interesting characteristic of a clean airplane. I built a Cassutt Sport, >and any approach speed over 90 meant you not only didn't land in the right >place, you went right past the airport. Finding the right approach speed is >much more important than having flaps. Learning those flight >characteristics is important, 'cause some day you might need a powerless >approach to the only good site in sight. > >Ron Freiberger... >mailto:ron.martha@mindspring.com > > >-----Original Message----- >From: David R. Christensen [mailto:davec@favorites.com] >Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 11:20 AM >To: krnet mailing lists >Subject: Fw: KR> wings and things > > >An interesting flight characteristic of my KR-2 which has the standard >airfoil, retracts, and slightly oversize flaps is angle of descent vs. >approach speed. In a normal 90 mph approach with full flaps, I found that >rather than putting the nose down and diving steeper at the runway which >causes airspeed to get out of hand in a hurry, to increase my angle of >descent significantly I could pull the nose up and slow to 80 mph which is >still safely above my 60 mph stall speed. (I slow to 80 mph anyway when >rounding out at the end of the runway). This phenomenon may in part be due >to presentation of the flaps to the airstream at an increased angle and >possible increased interference drag of the extended gear. At any rate, >increasing angle of attack with resulting increase in drag and angle of >descent is a definite plus during landings, especially with less than >optimal mechanical brakes. > >-----Original Message----- >From: Steven Eberhart >To: krnet@mailinglists.org >Date: Tuesday, January 23, 2001 7:25 PM >Subject: KR> wings and things > > >>I am sure a lot of you have been wondering if I left KRNet since I haven't >>jumped in on the current round of discussions about the KRNet alternative >>wing. I am still around, just a little older and slower. THe scars from >>previous flame wars have taken their tole. >> >>I just want to comment on a statement that was made about the KRNet >>alternative wing. Someone mentioned that the reduced drag on the top end >>was at the sacrefice of drag at higher angles of attack. This became part >>of the original design features after some of the initial research work >>had been done. Many of the KR pilots have commented that the KR is a >>slick airplane that you have to stay ahead of. Many builders add belly >>boards or flaps for use at higher angles of attack just so they can slow >>the plane down. The somewhat higher drag at high angles of attack seemed >>to be a situation of having your cake and eating it too. We didn't see it >>as the negative that it has been described as in recent posts. >> >>THe other item was the fact that when using the 18% root airfoil you end >>up with a deeper spar. Yup, that is the nature of the beast. But, guess >>what......use the 16% airfoil and you can use the stock spars. >> >>Not trying to get a fight started, just thought you might like to know a >>little of the history about the KRNet alternative wing. Burt Rutan >>thought enough of the designer of the KRNet alternative wing to have him >>design the airfoils for his Boomerang II. >> >> >>Steve Eberhart >>mailto:newtech@newtech.com >> >>One test is worth a thousand expert opinions but a thousand opinions are >>easier to get. --plagiarized from an unknown author >> >> >>--------------------------------------------------------------------- >>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: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 21:36:08 EST To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: Flymaca711689@cs.com Subject: Re: tri gear weight&balance vs original Message-ID: <83.5ef0a49.279f9998@cs.com> my aircraft was setup and test flown with retracts ihave converted to tricycle and hyd brakes full elcctrical my question is how is the weight &bal done iput it up on the scales. tonight it showed 249lbs each for the mains 131 for the nose these readings are with 12 gal of fuel giving me a empty weight of 557 with fuel 629 lbs thanks mac b&bsport avition ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 22:41:14 EST To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: EagleGator@aol.com Subject: Re: KR> RAF48 vs AS504X - An Editorial Message-ID: <34.fef1a2d.279fa8da@aol.com> --part1_34.fef1a2d.279fa8da_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Fellow Netters, This will probably end up to be a long post, and it is my opinion, so make judicious use of your delete key as you feel appropriate. I'm not sure why I'm doing this, because I know someone will rebut whatever I say, but in an effort to put this thing to bed once again, here are my thoughts. When you choose an airplane to build, you consider many different factors. Among those are construction methods, construction time, cost, powerplant required, speed, range, and payload. The beauty of our current situation is that there are options available to the KR builder that will meet the needs of most. However, optimizing any one of the factors I mentioned, or perhaps several of them, will come at the cost of at least one of the other factors, if not all of them. You end up with the best compromise of options to meet your particular needs or desires. Each of us defined the objectives our airplanes were to meet before we started building, and many of us refined those objectives as the process progressed. I won't build a complete matrix of the choices that can be made, but here are two extremes. 1) If you want to build a tried and true airplane with very respectable performance as quickly as possible , build strictly to the plans and buy all of the prefabricated parts that are available to you. Buy an assembled VW engine from Great Planes. You'll be able build in the fewest hours possible and you won't be disappointed with the finished airplane. It will be relatively expensive, but still affordable. 2) If you want to build the fastest aiplane you can build for the money and you have plenty of time, talent, and engineering know-how, and want to take advantage of some solid scientific research that resulted in an airfoil optimized for the higher cruise speeds you're looking for, then step out onto the experimental end of things and build your airplane. Design and build your own engine from scratch. Keep in mind that you will be experimenting, and everything you do must be based on sound scientific and engineering principles and theory. You'll possibly be doing something untried, so any performance data will likely be theoretical predictions, not empirical data. It's not for everyone. And you may end up creating a completely different airplane that is merely based on the original KR plans you bought. Look at the Glasair, even the Lancair. They had some very humble beginnings. Finally, allow me to put this into the context of my own KR-2S project. I want a fast airplane with the legs to fly some good cross country, but I don't have a lot of extra time to experiment right now. So, my airplane is pretty much stock, I'm using premolds, but I'm putting in a mostly digital panel and hands-on-throttle-and-stick (HOTAS) ergonomics because I like that sort of thing. I did make some modifications, but nothing too major. And I'm using a turbocharged engine for altitude normalization to give me the cruise power I want. My intent is to complete it, fly it, gather performance data and generate a comprehensive report. Then, if and when I get the time and motivation, I plan to turn it into a FrankenKR, much like Troy has done with his airplane, and experiment a bit. That's why I contributed to the airfoil project; we had some of the best in the field doing the research to design an optimized airfoil specifically for the KR airframe design. That's the airfoil I'll use. And then I'll fly it, gather performance data and generate a comprehensive report. But that's just me. With the KR, you have options, and with options there are opinions and parochial positions. Sift the opinions until all that is left are the facts, evaluate the facts and determine where the compromises are, and bounce them against the weighting you've assigned to the factors you used to pick an airplane to build in the first place. Then build YOUR airplane to do what YOU want it to, the way you want it to. It really is that simple, it just takes some work and study to arrive at your answer. Your answer will probably be different in some way than the answer the next person comes up with, and that is perfectly OK. It's your project. Contrary to some opinions on the list, there is no single "right" answer, and you're not crazy if you don't take advantage of the newest thing to come along. It's entirely up to each individual. There's a lot of history in some of the discussions on this list, and some of us have seen the same "battles" fought several times. They always end up the same way -- we end up agreeing to disagree until the next time someone new asks a question that starts the discussion all over again. That's the nature of the beast. So, use this list to ask questions, provide help and motivation to other builders, and offer opinions where you have some expertise. But please don't try to prove your opinion is right, or prove someone else's opinion is wrong. Facts and data speak for themselves, and it's in all of our best interests to listen. Thanks for hanging in there through my monologue, I hope you found some value in it. Please flame me directly, if you please. Cheers, Rick Junkin, St. Charles MO EagleGator@aol.com --part1_34.fef1a2d.279fa8da_boundary-- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 23:00:23 EST To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: KR2616TJ@aol.com Subject: Re: KR> RAF48 vs AS504X-one last look. Message-ID: In a message dated 1/23/01 6:53:18 PM Eastern Standard Time, guentheraviator@yahoo.com writes: << > If it ain't got a RAF48 airfoil it ain't a KR (purist perspective) >> Now, now take a look at the picture RR uses for advertising the "new" KR2S. Guess what, that ain't not RAF48. So, I guess what RR is advertising is not really a KR. I wasn't going to get into the 16% same spar thing or the increase drag at high angles of attack and slow speed which was a desirable trait or the fact that you achieve more endurance at the same HP.......anyone who has followed the data knows these issues. KRRon, I guess you airplane isn't a KR after all this building time, and that added wing area:-). Only kidding. If you want to build it with an RAF48 go right ahead, I'll congratulate you on your accomplishment but don't boost the laurels of the 48 by just the fact that the wing flies. The data derived on the RAF48, during the new airfoil research, was more extensive than any other work on that airfoil. Wing skins.............Dan Diehl is working on getting out of the business, RR has moved her operation into her home, wing skins are not the issue. Oh, I forgot, if you use Diehl skins you have to change your spars so I guess any plane with Diehl skins is not a KR. Didn't know that huh. OH, with the 16% wing you don't have to change anything on the construction of your spars. Don't say that the RAF48 is an easier wing to build that the 16% or 18%, it simply is not true, don't be mislead. You can build the either wing in the same amount of time, simply fact. Plot out the coordinates of the RAF48 in the plans, they don't even plot out correctly. You want wing skins, I bet they'll show up....................pros and cons, I think we handled some of those. what I don't hear from the new wing advocates is a realistic assessment of the pro's and con's I have absolutely no clue where this comment came from. Was this person around during the research, if you can't understand the benefit of induced drag at slow speed...............kinda like spitting in the wind. Rich, you glad you are back???? I may be taking another break after all this.....same old shi%@#$%. Nah, Oh, BTW my KR has the RAF48 with the aft spar moved up 3/4":-), but I guess my new horizontal stab disqualifies me as owning a KR. Dana Overall 2000 KR Gathering host Richmond, KY mailto:kr2616tj@aol.com http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/hangar/7085/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 06:06:22 -0600 To: Flymaca711689@cs.com,krnet@mailinglists.org From: larry flesner Subject: weight&balance vs original Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010124060622.0081b2f0@pop3.norton.antivirus> >my aircraft was setup and test flown with retracts ihave converted to >tricycle and hyd brakes full elcctrical my question is how is the weight &bal >done iput it up on the scales. >tonight it showed 249lbs each for the mains 131 for the nose these readings >are with >12 gal of fuel giving me a empty weight of 557 with fuel 629 lbs thanks mac b&bsport avition +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Mac, In the rear of the plans blue note book is a chart on doing the weight and balance. I don't remember if it gives the procedure or not. If not, grab someone from your local EAA chapter to help you or ask an A&P. They don't need to know anything about a KR, they only need to know how to figure a Weight and balance. Good luck. Larry Flesner ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 13:24:31 To: KR2616TJ@aol.com, krnet@mailinglists.org From: "Richard Parker" Subject: Re: one last look Message-ID: This is the same argument that was happening when I jumped ship 6 months ago. SSDD I'd suggest that people who are really interested in the new airfoils etc. talk directly with Mark Lanford et al and others who were here during the testing and appreciate the work that was done. Otherwise dont waste their time. I for one am extremely appreciative of the effort Mark, yourself and others have done to further the kr design and the information you have all been willing to share. There has always been a core group of people who have pushed the kr envelope. A second private mailing list is already looking real apealing for that group. Let the repetitive noise remain on the krnet for us to lurk if we feel the need. Have we lost Mims? Rich >Rich, you glad you are back???? I may be taking another break after all >this.....same old shi%@#$%. > >Nah, > >Oh, BTW my KR has the RAF48 with the aft spar moved up 3/4":-), but I guess >my new horizontal stab disqualifies me as owning a KR. > > >Dana Overall >2000 KR Gathering host >Richmond, KY >mailto:kr2616tj@aol.com >http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/hangar/7085/ _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 11:30:00 -0200 To: "David Mullins" , "krnet" From: "Leonardo" Subject: good news..bad news Message-ID: <017601c08609$c0d84340$c2b9fea9@estacao1> hello gang.. this is Leo from Brazil. AS YOU GUYS SEW IN MY HOME PAGE http://geocities.com/leoadrena/krpage.html THE PP-XLA IS NOW IN A AIRPORT 50 MILES A WAY FROM MY HOME,AFTER FEW PROBLEMS SOLVED IN 2 DAYS THE LOW TAXIS AND FAST TAXIS STARTED WITH NO PROBLEMS , OIL TEMP AND OIL PRESS OK, ELETRICAL AND ALL WAS JUST FINE . BUT............. AFTER THE TEST PILOT TOOK THE PLANE ON A FAST TAXI IT TOOK OFF AND HE GOT SCARED ( MY OPINION) AND PUT IT RAPIDLY ON THE GROUND AGAIN AND THE NOSE GEAR AND THE PROP NOW ARE IN SMALL PARTS. I DIDNT CRY BECAUSE THERE WERE MANY PEOPLE AROUND ME , BUT I DID WANT. MAKING A LONG STORY SHORT : NEW NOSE GEAR ARMY , NEW PROP, AND I'D LIKE TO HEAR FROM YOU . OPEN THE ENGINE AND HAVE THE SHAFT CHECKED OR NOT , THE PROP WAS WOOD MADE. COMMENTS OF ALL KINDS BAD OR GOOD WELCOME. LEO ,BRAZIL, KR2S ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 11:15:48 -0500 To: "krnet" From: "RONALD.FREIBERGER" Subject: RE: KR> good news..bad news Message-ID: First flight surprise.... This is a common problem, one that I've avoided on three "first flights". Go to the runway after fully testing the aircraft for everything you can think of. Make your first pass down the runway with the full intention of departing. Go fly 'til you feel good about flying the aircraft, but stay close to the airport. Land after a good aquintance with the flying characteristics. All aircraft handle the most poorly as stall speed approaches. Avoid this regime of flight until you've flown it a bit and have calmed your nerves. I know of several aircraft damaged or destroyed because of the high speed taxi testing, and lack of prpeparation. One guy ran out of fuel on his first (unplanned) flight, 'cause he didn't expect to take off. Ron Freiberger... mailto:ron.martha@mindspring.com -----Original Message----- From: Leonardo [mailto:adrena@brfree.com.br] Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 8:30 AM To: David Mullins; krnet Subject: KR> good news..bad news hello gang.. this is Leo from Brazil. AS YOU GUYS SEW IN MY HOME PAGE http://geocities.com/leoadrena/krpage.html THE PP-XLA IS NOW IN A AIRPORT 50 MILES A WAY FROM MY HOME,AFTER FEW PROBLEMS SOLVED IN 2 DAYS THE LOW TAXIS AND FAST TAXIS STARTED WITH NO PROBLEMS , OIL TEMP AND OIL PRESS OK, ELETRICAL AND ALL WAS JUST FINE . BUT............. AFTER THE TEST PILOT TOOK THE PLANE ON A FAST TAXI IT TOOK OFF AND HE GOT SCARED ( MY OPINION) AND PUT IT RAPIDLY ON THE GROUND AGAIN AND THE NOSE GEAR AND THE PROP NOW ARE IN SMALL PARTS. I DIDNT CRY BECAUSE THERE WERE MANY PEOPLE AROUND ME , BUT I DID WANT. MAKING A LONG STORY SHORT : NEW NOSE GEAR ARMY , NEW PROP, AND I'D LIKE TO HEAR FROM YOU . OPEN THE ENGINE AND HAVE THE SHAFT CHECKED OR NOT , THE PROP WAS WOOD MADE. COMMENTS OF ALL KINDS BAD OR GOOD WELCOME. LEO ,BRAZIL, KR2S --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 07:12:35 -0800 (PST) To: krnet From: Frank Ross Subject: Re: KR> good news..bad news / Prop Strike Message-ID: <20010124151235.18171.qmail@web4702.mail.yahoo.com> Leo, Sorry about your mishap. Glad there was so little damage and no injuries though. I think maybe we all cry a little for you. Then, back to work. I am not an expert. I am not a mechanic. Most writers discussing prop-strikes recommend examination of the crankshaft before flying again. It will be easier to do now because, once everything else is repaired, you will be anxious to get it flying again. Good Luck! ===== Frank Ross, San Antonio, TX, __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices. http://auctions.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 07:29:08 -0800 (PST) To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: Frank Ross Subject: Re: KR> wing skins Message-ID: <20010124152908.27756.qmail@web4704.mail.yahoo.com> --- Jack Coranz wrote: > The project I am finishing sat were the sun could > get at it for about 3 > months. Do you guys think that was enough to hurt > the skins??? Also the > wings appear to have only one layer of cloth, the > way I understand it it > should have two, any comments... > Jack Coranz I haven't seen an answer to this post. Did I miss it in all the controversy about the "New VS Old" wing? I don't have the experience to answer it and I'm looking forward to the answer for my own information. Anybody out there got their adrenalin level down far enough yet to give this guy a rational answer? Thanks ===== Frank Ross, San Antonio, TX, __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices. http://auctions.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 09:32:01 -0600 To: krnet From: "Dr. No" Subject: electronic stuff Message-ID: <3A6EF568.B0C67A75@pol.net> Two questions for those who have gone before: How many candles of strobe are required for night flight? It sounds like it would be 400, and does that mean I can use 4 of the 100 candle strobes from Great Plains (top, belly and wingtips)? Also, I have a casual mix of used/surplus instuments. For the electics (TBI etc, I would like a near-IFR board because I'm a guy--I like stuff, NO plans to fly into clouds, don't start that up again) there are all kinds of plugs, 3-6 prong screw-on. Does anyone know a source for generic wiring connectors or at least schematics for such? Thanks, Scott ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 08:57:51 -0800 To: "krnet mailing lists" From: "David R. Christensen" Subject: Fw: KR> electronic stuff Message-ID: <006301c08626$ca3c42c0$9e785ad1@davec> I have one of those Great Plains strobes on my KR-2. Nobody ever notices it! -----Original Message----- From: Dr. No To: krnet Date: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 8:42 AM Subject: KR> electronic stuff >Two questions for those who have gone before: >How many candles of strobe are required for night flight? It sounds like >it would be 400, and does that mean I can use 4 of the 100 candle >strobes from Great Plains (top, belly and wingtips)? >Also, I have a casual mix of used/surplus instuments. For the electics >(TBI etc, I would like a near-IFR board because I'm a guy--I like stuff, >NO plans to fly into clouds, don't start that up again) there are all >kinds of plugs, 3-6 prong screw-on. Does anyone know a source for >generic wiring connectors or at least schematics for such? >Thanks, >Scott > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >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: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 08:47:59 -0800 To: "krnet mailing lists" From: "David R. Christensen" Subject: Regrettable modification Message-ID: <004f01c08625$698c7ae0$9e785ad1@davec> ------=_NextPart_000_004C_01C085E2.5ACA89E0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Speaking of variations to the KR-2. The most regrettable modification I = made to mine after completion and many hours of enjoyable flying (and = taxiing!) was chopping the canopy. I modified the bottom of my seat so = that I was essentially sitting on the bottom skin (the airplane's, not = mine!). This places my line of view just a couple of inches above the = forward deck. Then I lowered the standard canopy so that it would just = barely clear my headset. Because of the dome shape of the standard KR-2 = canopy side to side I am unable to move my head toward the left side of = the cockpit. There is no problem flying this way as my forward view is = fine and I can bank to see down better, but taxi visibility is totally = unacceptable. I have to swerve radically to even see straight ahead out = the left side of the canopy. I cannot usually swerve enough to see more = than 45 degrees out the left side. Consequently I have about a 45 = degree blind spot when taxiing. I made this change when I was = interested in racing and to my surprise I got no noticeable increase in = speed from this abortion. However the profile view of the plane looks = real cool, for what that's worth! My next modification? Install a = KR-2S canopy with plenty of head room! ------=_NextPart_000_004C_01C085E2.5ACA89E0-- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 09:42:33 -0800 To: "krnet mailing lists" From: "David R. Christensen" Subject: Fw: KR> Regrettable modification Message-ID: <00cf01c0862d$08ad4f80$9e785ad1@davec> Frank, The widest measurement of my cockpit is also the standard 38". I understand the standard cockpit width of the KR-2S per the plans is the same as for the KR-2. Jeanette Rand told me a few years ago that the 2S conopy would work on the KR-2. I will definitely be raising the bottom of my seat at least an inch to where it was before and the canopy a couple of inches from where it is now. This along with the more squared off side to side shape of the 2S canopy should solve my ground visibility problem. Good luck with your installation. The original Pulsar canopy has a nice shape and is close to the right width at 39". Might be worth a look. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Frank Ross To: David R. Christensen Date: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 9:04 AM Subject: Re: KR> Regrettable modification >David, >Thanks for this post. You may have saved me (and other >builders) a lot of trouble. BTW, what is the widest >side-to-side measurement of your cockpit? Mine is 38" >and a Dragonfly canopy I wanted measured 44". I didn't >get it though I really want that "look". Do you know >the width of the KR-2S canopy? Will it fit the KR-2 or >are you planning to cut it down some? Are you raising >your seat back up? >Thanks, > > >===== >Frank Ross, San Antonio, TX, > >__________________________________________________ >Do You Yahoo!? >Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices. >http://auctions.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 10:06:42 -0800 To: "krnet mailing lists" From: "David R. Christensen" Subject: Fw: KR> Regrettable modification Message-ID: <000401c08630$684e7ba0$a0785ad1@davec> Frank, I just recalled a nice KR-2 that showed up at Copperstate back in 1996. The builder's name was John something. His canopy was especially sleek looking. He said he had used a Dragonfly canopy turned around backwards. That's all I can tell you about it. Dave -----Original Message----- From: David R. Christensen To: krnet mailing lists Date: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 9:46 AM Subject: Fw: KR> Regrettable modification >Frank, > The widest measurement of my cockpit is also the standard 38". I >understand the standard cockpit width of the KR-2S per the plans is the same >as for the KR-2. Jeanette Rand told me a few years ago that the 2S conopy >would work on the KR-2. I will definitely be raising the bottom of my seat >at least an inch to where it was before and the canopy a couple of inches >from where it is now. This along with the more squared off side to side >shape of the 2S canopy should solve my ground visibility problem. > Good luck with your installation. The original Pulsar canopy has a nice >shape and is close to the right width at 39". Might be worth a look. > Dave > >-----Original Message----- >From: Frank Ross >To: David R. Christensen >Date: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 9:04 AM >Subject: Re: KR> Regrettable modification > > >>David, >>Thanks for this post. You may have saved me (and other >>builders) a lot of trouble. BTW, what is the widest >>side-to-side measurement of your cockpit? Mine is 38" >>and a Dragonfly canopy I wanted measured 44". I didn't >>get it though I really want that "look". Do you know >>the width of the KR-2S canopy? Will it fit the KR-2 or >>are you planning to cut it down some? Are you raising >>your seat back up? >>Thanks, >> >> >>===== >>Frank Ross, San Antonio, TX, >> >>__________________________________________________ >>Do You Yahoo!? >>Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices. >>http://auctions.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 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 11:27:04 -0800 To: "krnet mailing lists" From: "David R. Christensen" Subject: Fw: Fw: KR> Regrettable modification Message-ID: <002601c0863b$a2a6b280$a0785ad1@davec> Frank, On my original canopy installation procedure I laid up a few layers of fiberglass on top of the protective film coated with mold release wax on the canopy. I used this to get the fit I wanted. When I was satisfied I simply laid it back on the canopy and traced around it to mark my trim line. Then I used the old steel dremel cut-off blade (no longer available as people were cutting off their fingers with it!) to trim the plexi just once. I too was afraid to start chopping up my canopy until I was sure of where I was at. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Frank Ross To: David R. Christensen Date: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 10:57 AM Subject: Re: Fw: KR> Regrettable modification >Hey Dave, >Thanks for the quick replys. I will definitely look at >all these possibilities. Also, have heard about the >"backwards" Dragonfly and, believe me, I stood looking >a long time at that canopy picturing how that might be >done. Marty Roberts told me his canopy (fixed >windshield, off-set gullwing) is a Dragonfly turned >backwards and cut up and I really like the look of it. >Cutting that big expensive piece of plexi really makes >me nervous though. We'll see. I've still got plenty of >time. >Thanks again > >===== >Frank Ross, San Antonio, TX, > >__________________________________________________ >Do You Yahoo!? >Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices. >http://auctions.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 13:43:49 -0500 To: krnet From: jwells1@impop.bellatlantic.net Subject: Re: KR> Regrettable modification Message-ID: <3A6F2265.93F09C7@mailbox.bellatlantic.net> David, Oh the fun of flying taildraggers, Try a Stearman sometime!! J= erry David R. Christensen wrote: > Speaking of variations to the KR-2. The most regrettable modification = I made to mine after completion and many hours of enjoyable flying (and t= axiing!) was chopping the canopy. I modified the bottom of my seat so th= at I was essentially sitting on the bottom skin (the airplane's, not mine= !). This places my line of view just a couple of inches above the forwar= d deck. Then I lowered the standard canopy so that it would just barely = clear my headset. Because of the dome shape of the standard KR-2 canopy = side to side I am unable to move my head toward the left side of the cock= pit. There is no problem flying this way as my forward view is fine and = I can bank to see down better, but taxi visibility is totally unacceptabl= e. I have to swerve radically to even see straight ahead out the left si= de of the canopy. I cannot usually swerve enough to see more than 45 deg= rees out the left side. Consequently I have about a 45 degree blind spot= when taxiing. I made this change when I was interested in racing and to= my surprise I got no noticeable increase in speed from this abortion. H= owever the profile view of the plane looks real cool, for what that's wor= th! My next modification? Install a KR-2S canopy with plenty of head ro= om! ------------------------------ End of krnet Digest ***********************************