From: To: Subject: krnet Digest 27 Jan 2001 19:29:14 -0000 Issue 161 Date: Saturday, January 27, 2001 11:29 AM krnet Digest 27 Jan 2001 19:29:14 -0000 Issue 161 Topics (messages 3812 through 3841): Re: wings and things 3812 by: Steven Eberhart 3813 by: Steven Eberhart 3816 by: Frank Ross Re: The GAP 3814 by: Patricia Burger Re: Cut off wheels for Dremel 3815 by: Patricia Burger Re: Revmaster missing 3817 by: KRkip.aol.com Re: krnet Digest 26 Jan 2001 01:12:17 -0000 Issue 160 3818 by: Gaylon Fuller 3820 by: John P Moyle Re: Belly-flap stall speed 3819 by: KR2616TJ.aol.com 3823 by: WA7YXF.aol.com 3825 by: WA7YXF.aol.com Re: Rec. Pilot 3821 by: KR2616TJ.aol.com 3824 by: John P Moyle 3827 by: KR2616TJ.aol.com Re: KR Gathering 3822 by: Frank Ross LICENSE MISINFORMATION 3826 by: pjvisc.netzero.net Cut off wheels for Dremel/canopy 3828 by: larry flesner Re: RAF48 vs AS504X 3829 by: Bobby Muse Kr News letter 277 3830 by: John Roffey 3831 by: Albert Pecoraro KR-1B 3832 by: John Gilbert 3833 by: John Gilbert 3834 by: Donald Reid 3839 by: Frank Ross Ideal control set up 3835 by: Carter Pond canopy 3836 by: larry flesner slotted flaps 3837 by: Carter Pond New Airfoil 3838 by: Aggie lewanda 3841 by: Steven Eberhart RE New Airfoil 3840 by: Dave and Tina Goodman Administrivia: To subscribe to the digest, e-mail: To unsubscribe from the digest, e-mail: To post to the list, e-mail: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 19:49:42 -0600 (CST) To: From: Steven Eberhart Subject: Re: Fw: KR> wings and things Message-ID: On Thu, 25 Jan 2001 T152GMAN@aol.com wrote: > has anyone ever put vortex generators on a kr?Would they help at all. > Doesn't that require someone to have come to the conclusion that something needed fixing in the first place? I thought we had come to the conclusion that there wasn't anything that needed fixing. I am confused. 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: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 19:59:53 -0600 (CST) To: From: Steven Eberhart Subject: Re: Fw: KR> wings and things Message-ID: On Thu, 25 Jan 2001, Steven Eberhart wrote: > > On Thu, 25 Jan 2001 T152GMAN@aol.com wrote: > > > has anyone ever put vortex generators on a kr?Would they help at all. > > > > Doesn't that require someone to have come to the conclusion that something > needed fixing in the first place? I thought we had come to the conclusion > that there wasn't anything that needed fixing. I am confused. > Oops! forgot the :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) Forgive me, it has been a long day. 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: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 18:47:59 -0800 (PST) To: T152GMAN@aol.com, davec@favorites.com, krnet@mailinglists.org From: Frank Ross Subject: Re: Fw: KR> wings and things Message-ID: <20010126024759.12204.qmail@web4702.mail.yahoo.com> I have seen a KR2 with vortex generators at Sun & Fun but I cannot tell you any more about it than that. Did not get to talk to the owner. Sorry. --- T152GMAN@aol.com wrote: > has anyone ever put vortex generators on a kr?Would > they help at all. > ===== Frank Ross, San Antonio, TX, __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices. http://auctions.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 18:45:25 -0800 To: "David R. Christensen" , "krnet mailing lists" From: "Patricia Burger" Subject: Re: KR> The GAP Message-ID: <008b01c08742$1a6cc0a0$183919d0@default> Hi Guys I can vouch for the clean and VERY neat set up Dave has on his ship -- almost undetectable -- no need for any covers. Bill ====== Pat & Bill Burger ====== Roseville, California pbburger@inreach.com -----Original Message----- From: David R. Christensen To: krnet mailing lists Date: Thursday, January 25, 2001 11:43 AM Subject: Fw: KR> The GAP >You can eliminate the gap by gluing foam in the space, applying fiberglass >to bridge from one panel to the other, then cutting with a hacksaw blade. >The ends can then be finished off with additional fiberglass. You will end >up with a hairline joint between the two panels. Apply a little caulking if >you want to seal the joint. This feature often gets favorable comments at >the fly-ins. > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 18:53:15 -0800 To: "David R. Christensen" , "krnet mailing lists" From: "Patricia Burger" Subject: Re: Cut off wheels for Dremel Message-ID: <009201c08743$227dc400$183919d0@default> Dave I also loved to use the little cut off saw blades in my Dremel. When they stopped making them I did find a substitute made by Gyros miniature accessories and available thru Post Tool Co. (Their parent co. is Trendlines). This saw is not as fine as the one Dremel used to supply, but they do work nice. Bill ====== Pat & Bill Burger ====== Roseville, California pbburger@inreach.com -----Original Message----- From: David R. Christensen To: krnet mailing lists Date: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 10:26 AM Subject: Fw: Fw: KR> Regrettable modification >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 > > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 21:49:53 EST To: davec@favorites.com, krnet@mailinglists.org From: KRkip@aol.com Subject: Re: KR> Revmaster missing Message-ID: Dave i also fly with a revmaster and used to have the same problem that you are talking about when flying in cold weather. I have a posa and a bendix D3000 mag firing the same plugs that you use. For a long time i messed with the mixture,carb heat and different throttle settings to try to get rid of the intermitent miss or hesitation and nothing seemed to help. The problem was finaally solved when i discovered that one set of the points were almost closed up and for some reason this really seemed to manifest itself in the cold weather as a problem when it didn't seem to make any difference when it was warm out. Go figure. Anyway when everything was set to specs the problem went away and now i can fly in temps as low as 0 without any noticeable miss Kr Kip Kip Lounsbury Lincoln Maine ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 19:58:35 -0700 To: From: "Gaylon Fuller" Subject: Re: krnet Digest 26 Jan 2001 01:12:17 -0000 Issue 160 Message-ID: <006301c08743$e0969f20$e39fa7d8@oemcomputer> Hey Net, I was wanting to point out something about the Class III medical and a DOT medical for a CDL license. I'm DOT Inspector and have a CDL. The Class three medical is similar to the DOT medical, but not the same. The requirements for the class three are much much higher in certain areas. I found this out first hand when going for my class three. I have had a DOT medical for about 10 years. Every two years, it must be renewed. I had the same Doctor give them both to me at the same time! However, I have Allergies and Migraine headaches (from and neck injury 10 years ago). The Doctor simply wrote out my DOT medical and that was done. Not only could I drive a truck, but I can carry a gun and enforce the laws of my state and federal laws. No problem. The DOT looks at "under a doctors care" for those and its a done deal. However, the FAA was a whole another story. The Doctor could not give me my medical because I admitted to taking my prescription medication. My medical was denied upon review by the FAA. Only after 6 months of fighting, talking, writing and getting "expert" opinions from my Doctor (who is a PILOT) I got my Class III. Now what is more dangerous? I'm fully "qualified" to haul 45,000 lbs. of Gasoline down the freeway (around your family and every one else's) at 75mph through out the United States or drive my police car at over 128mph on occasions. Or me and my 152 at 90mph over the desert and farmland. Even if we do end up with the DOT medical model. Thousands who cannot (or give up on trying for) a class III well be able to get a medical. Thanks Gaylon Fuller P.S. Off the soapbox now, I love the monokote idea for GAP seals. I'm a model builder and had that idea awhile back. I'm glad some one has already tried it. The stuff is dirt cheap, very light, very easy to work with, easy to remove with no damage and looks great!!!!!! It is also fuel resistant and is great for sealing small leaks that are hard to seal, it shrinks to fit. If you screw it up, just pill it off and try again. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 22:49:00 -0800 To: fuller@pvtnetworks.net From: John P Moyle Cc: krnet@mailinglists.org Subject: Re: KR> Re: krnet Digest 26 Jan 2001 01:12:17 -0000 Issue 160 Message-ID: <20010125.224901.-146583.3.jmoyle1@juno.com> On Thu, 25 Jan 2001 19:58:35 -0700 "Gaylon Fuller" writes: > and my 152 at 90mph over the desert and farmland. Even if we do end > up with > the DOT medical model. Thousands who cannot (or give up on trying > for) a > class III well be able to get a medical. > > > Thanks > > Gaylon Fuller What Gaylon states in his post is completely true, and I hope I didn't come off as whining about perhaps having to maintain a DOT medical card ( no problem for me, have to carry one anyway if I wish to stay employed ! ) I'm just hoping somebody can steer me towards some documentation of this requirement, because I simply can't find any. So if anybody recalls having seen (in print) the statement that what the magazines call "a valid U.S. drivers license" is actually either a Class A ( commercial drivers license ) which requires a current DOT medical card to be valid anyway, or some other unspecified medical certificate. I was under the impression that a part of the plan was to make it legal to self-certify as the Sailplane pilots do...... Thanks, John Moyle ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 22:20:29 EST To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: KR2616TJ@aol.com Subject: Re: KR> Belly-flap stall speed Message-ID: --part1_ad.60be6b9.27a246fd_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 01/25/2001 5:53:44 PM Eastern Standard Time, WA7YXF@aol.com writes: > . Some have said they experience a nose down situation which I > think is because of the drag taking place under the fuselage and behind the > CG. Actually the belly board is located forward of the CG. The pitching down is a result of the drag induced below the centerline of the airplane. With this being the case, your AOA would be decreased theoretically and would decrease stall speed. One thing that might counteract this pitching is the interruption of the airflow over the horizontal stab, thus less aerodynamic down force, which would cause a pitch down. Might be six of one, half a dozen of another. What most people say is that it allows a more nose down attitude on final, which is an advantage. Dana Overall 2000 KR Gathering host Richmond, KY mailto:kr2616tj@aol.com http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/7085/ --part1_ad.60be6b9.27a246fd_boundary-- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 12:04:27 EST To: KR2616TJ@aol.com, krnet@mailinglists.org From: WA7YXF@aol.com Subject: Re: KR> Belly-flap stall speed Message-ID: Dana.... I personally would not mount a speed brake ahead of the aircraft's CG especially if I was flying a tail dragger. Lynn Hyder WA7YXF N37LH Redmond, Oregon ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 13:20:16 EST To: stefan.balatchev@wanadoo.fr, krnet@mailinglists.org From: WA7YXF@aol.com Subject: Re: KR> Belly-flap stall speed Message-ID: <64.aab04be.27a319e0@aol.com> Stefan, I'm sorry someone couldn't have come aboard and answered your question better than I........... If a wing stalls, at say 40 MPH There's really nothing the speed brake can do to change that. All the speed brake can do is help you increase the angle of decent without increasing the airspeed and shorten the floating tendencies in ground effect while landing. The speed brake is all drag.. Flaps are a whole different ball game. They change the shape of the wing so it will create more lift therefore lowering the stall speed. So if you want to lower the stalling speed, flaps is the way you'll have to do it. Lynn Hyder WA7YXF N37LH Redmond, Oregon ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 07:09:00 EST To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: KR2616TJ@aol.com Subject: Re: KR> Rec. Pilot Message-ID: <49.6993d54.27a2c2dc@aol.com> --part1_49.6993d54.27a2c2dc_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 01/26/2001 1:47:06 AM Eastern Standard Time, jmoyle1@juno.com writes: > I was under the impression that a part of the plan was to make it legal > to self-certify as the Sailplane pilots do > > From what AOPA says, that is the case. What we have to remember here is > the self certifying. What AOPA says is you must sign a statement stating > that you meet all the requirements of a third class. It will be no problem > unless you have an accident. At that time any attorney worth his weight in > salt will jump on any misstatement you made to make you culpable and unfit > from the beginning. Please, no lawyer bashing here, if this were the case, > it would be the fault of the applicant for lying just to fly and not the > attorney for holding his feet to the fire. Let's look at this, if you know > you are not qualified to hold a third class but will sign a statement > saying that you do qualify, that statement could be your downfall not your > godsend. > > Dana Overall 2000 KR Gathering host Richmond, KY mailto:kr2616tj@aol.com http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/7085/ --part1_49.6993d54.27a2c2dc_boundary-- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 09:17:55 -0800 To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: John P Moyle Subject: Re: KR> Rec. Pilot Message-ID: <20010126.091757.-123835.0.jmoyle1@juno.com> Friday, January 26th, 2001 Dana, Thanks for chiming in!! I've enjoyed many of your previous postings, which always seem to take the high road. I want to clarify something so that I won't be misunderstood in my passionate interest in the proposed Sport Pilot license. First, while I would have to jump through some hoops to obtain a Class III medical, it could be done. I feel strongly that this level of scrutiny is totally misguided though, and impacts aviation negatively. The concept that a person must be in flawless health, get a completely separate opinion from a special M.D.(who will have to risk his career status on your future performance) is patently absurd, particularly in the case of this new category of totally recreational flying, day VFR, out of restricted airspace. The statistics offer solid proof that there really in no evidence that medical condition has played any real part in the history of aviation mis- haps. That said, I'd like to reiterate that all jokes aside, I'm in no way a scofflaw, in fact I'm pretty much your "law and order" candidate, but I recognize stupid laws when I see them, and hope for relief from the dumbest legal faux pas!! I believe that at one time pilots were thought of as virtual supermen doing something that the average person simply could not do, which we all now know is untrue. I was diagnosed with type II diabetes many years ago, I take oral medication for this and live a totally normal life, I also require medication to maintain healthy blood pressure levels, so I take them dutifully and lay off the sodium. I am in no way impaired, and no more a safety risk than anyone else with the good fortune to not need these medications. Were I ill, I would not fly, and only I know on a daily basis how I feel. I have a rotten head cold this week, and so I have cancelled my flight instruction until I am well again. Self Certifying !! The reason I'm going on here isn't that I disagree with your statements, but rather I have some doubts re: what AOPA says will be the procedure for a Sport Pilot to self certify. Has this been published somewhere?? I'd love to read this. This seems illogical, doesn't it?? I don't believe for one minute that 95% of the applicants for a Class III medical would be able to read and understand the forms that a M.D. must sign on your behalf. It's not reasonable for anyone to be expected to know his blood pressure, blood sugar level, thyroid levels, or sperm count on any given day!! I do feel it's likely that any responsible adult would have his regular physical, with his regular M.D. and be as aware as can be fairly expected of his condition. You know if you're in shape for the days activities, be it pushing the lawn mower, driving your kids to the mall in the mini-van, or taking the KR2 up for a little fun. There is no one better to make this judgement than you. Period. Now I must apologize to you all for gassing off about this, I keep having people refer me to publications and web sites that say nothing to support the statements that they've made, ( there was only one exception ) but I pursue every lead because I cannot discount any remotely plausible spin on what the FAA may hand down in April. What I'm asking you for, not just Dana, EVERYONE, if you read something new or hear something spoken about this issue which may very well impact YOU one day, please identify the source with as much clarity as you can.( Publication, Date, Page...) I know this is not a KR specific item, but I beg your indulgence. I also realize that I maybe ought to let this be and just wait and see what comes out when the NPRM is finally published, but lots of comments have been made, and I can't help but want to share in your knowledge. This reference from the AOPA upsets me because I am a new member and haven't gotten my first copy of their magazine yet and now it appears that I may have missed something important. Rats!! Thanks all, I'll go check my blood pressure now ;-) John Moyle mailto:jmoyle1@juno.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 18:05:56 EST To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: KR2616TJ@aol.com Subject: Re: KR> Rec. Pilot Message-ID: <98.fbb9841.27a35cd4@aol.com> In a message dated 1/26/01 12:17:07 PM Eastern Standard Time, jmoyle1@juno.com writes: << 'm in no way a scofflaw, in fact I'm pretty much your "law and order" candidate, but I recognize stupid laws when I see them, >> No problem at all with me:-). Since you are an AOPA member go to their web page and search for the Rec. pilot and Sport pilot. The two are different and cannot be interchanged. The statement I saw in a CFI flier was as follows: I paraphase "Petitioner furthur states that he has no knowledge of a medical condition which would preclude petitioner from obtaining a required medical certificate from a Medical Examiner". I know there is still a lot of lobbying going on. I too, believe there should be a catagory where you could fly legally in and I hope this is the one. Dana Overall 2000 KR Gathering host Richmond, KY mailto:kr2616tj@aol.com http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/hangar/7085/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 08:27:33 -0800 (PST) To: krnet mailing lists From: Frank Ross Subject: Re: KR Gathering Message-ID: <20010126162733.9356.qmail@web4701.mail.yahoo.com> --- "David R. Christensen" wrote: Haven't been to a > KR Gathering yet. That would be fun. > Dave Dave, Others, This was my first year at the KR gathering and I really enjoyed myself. I got to put a lot of faces to the names I see on the net all the time, but best of all, I got to meet a lot of KR builders I had never heard of. Quiet people (unlike myself) who had a lot of knowlege to share. Anyway, It was a great time and I drove three days to get there. I know it is really hard on those who are further away, but it sure was fun. Highly recommended. ===== Frank Ross, San Antonio, TX, __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices. http://auctions.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 16:13:16 -0500 To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: pjvisc@netzero.net Subject: LICENSE MISINFORMATION Message-ID: <3A71E86C.7C866E64@netzero.net> --------------6DF79C999A61EAA16A443239 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit There is a difference between the "Sport License" and the proposed "Recreational License". Maybe comment should be reserved until the FAA proposes the new license since some comments have been erroneous. Phil Visconti --------------6DF79C999A61EAA16A443239-- Shop online without a credit card http://www.rocketcash.com RocketCash, a NetZero subsidiary ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 19:48:50 -0600 To: "krnet mailing lists" From: larry flesner Subject: Cut off wheels for Dremel/canopy Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010126194850.007fe1d0@pop3.norton.antivirus> >Dave >I also loved to use the little cut off saw blades in my Dremel. When they >stopped making them I did find a substitute made by Gyros miniature >accessories and available thru Post Tool Co. (Their parent co. is >Trendlines). >Bill +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++= Netters, There is a fiberglass reinforced cutting wheel for Dremel type tools that works just fine for most materials including canopy stock. They are available at Sears or most hardware type stores. I have used them to cut lite alum, thin ply, and did all my canopy work with them. They might even be better for canopy work as they melt through the material very quickly and that should avoid the cracking problems of saws and drills. WEAR EYE PROTECTION as it kicks out very fine pieces of HOT plastic !! Try one on some scrap. I think you'll like it. Pulsar canopy: I used the forward portion of a broken Pulsar canopy for a fixed windshield on my project. I laid up windshield and turtledeck bows of 1/8 inch ply. I removed about 3 inches of the front end of canopy and about 14 to 18 inches of the broken rear edge. I then used portions of the standard KR half bubble for the side glass and gullwing door glass. This gives me about the same lines as the KR2s canopy and the Pulsar glass fit just fine on my stock KR2 fuselage. Your results may vary!!! Larry Flesner ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 02:14:08 -0600 To: Phil Maynard From: Bobby Muse CC: Albert Pecoraro , kr2s group Subject: Re: KR> RAF48 vs AS504X Message-ID: <3A6FE050.CC046849@ev1.net> 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 > > Now here is a builder that really makes sense. I really like this guy. This is the point that I was trying to make 17 months ago before I just gave up because it was so unpopular to not just accept the new wing. Bobby Muse Wimberley, TX ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 23:34:20 -0600 From: John Roffey CC: Albert Pecoraro , "krnet@mailinglists.org" Subject: Kr News letter 277 Message-ID: <3A725DDC.462676D1@tir.com> I just received newsletter #277 and there is our KRNET member "Albert" Pecoraro, building away on his 2S in ITALY. My how you appear to have aged slightly since September in Kentucky Albert. Or are we seeing double? Are there TWO Pecoraros building KR2S'? One in ITALY and one closer to home in GRAND RAPIDS MI? Albert, help us out here. Have you gained foliage under the chin and lost more from the top? Has the stress of building and working for a living caused some apparent acceleration of the aging process? Albert(s), PLEASE help us out here. What are we looking at in issue 277? The plane looks good Albert, where ever you are!!! John Roffey jeroffey@tir.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 00:47:42 -0500 To: From: "Albert Pecoraro" Cc: Subject: Re: KR> Kr News letter 277 Message-ID: <002a01c08825$07373540$c5d1b23f@steelcase.com> John, I don't receive the KR Newsletter, but I think I know who the person is in the newsletter. His name is Alessandro Pecorara from Torino, Italy - I am Alberto Pecoraro! Close, but no cigar! ;-) I have corresponded with Alessandro several times in the past and I have a picture of his KR-2S (under construction) at my website: http://home.earthlink.net/~gryphonflier/ Click on the Eagle. Select "Builder Links" Select "Europe" Select the Italian Flag ... and his picture should be the first on the page. Please allow me to call on Alessandro to see if it his him in the Newletter: Alessandro Pecorara: vogliamo tutti sapere se la foto nell'edizione corrente della rivista KR e' di te e del tuo KR-2S? Ho ricevuto email da parecchie persone che credono che io sia fuggito all'Italia con il mio progetto! Ok ... let's just sit back and find out who is REALLY in Newletter #277. I think it is him. AlbertO PecorarO - Grand Rapids, MI ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Roffey" Cc: "Albert Pecoraro" ; Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2001 12:34 AM Subject: KR> Kr News letter 277 > I just received newsletter #277 and there is our KRNET member "Albert" > Pecoraro, building away on his 2S in ITALY. My how you appear to have > aged slightly since September in Kentucky Albert. Or are we seeing > double? Are there TWO Pecoraros building KR2S'? One in ITALY and one > closer to home in GRAND RAPIDS MI? Albert, help us out here. Have you > gained foliage under the chin and lost more from the top? Has the stress > of building and working for a living caused some apparent acceleration > of the aging process? > Albert(s), PLEASE help us out here. What are we looking at in issue 277? > > The plane looks good Albert, where ever you are!!! > John Roffey > jeroffey@tir.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: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 22:40:00 -0800 To: KR-Net From: John Gilbert Subject: KR-1B Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.20010126224000.00699c48@mail.blarg.net> Hi. At the risk of starting up more discussions about alternative airfoils, or a subject that may have been beat to death already, how about the KR-1B? Has anyone built one, besides the one registered to Rand/Robinson? Are the plans included in the KR-1 plans? The only info I have found is Don Reid's website. Sorry, I haven't searched the list archives. The archives won't respond to my inquiries... Any information would help. Thanks, John Gilbert Std. Cirrus - PY "mailto:xcsoar@blarg.net" ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 00:11:53 -0800 To: Ken Burch , KR-Net From: John Gilbert Subject: Re: KR> KR-1B Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.20010127001153.007236b8@mail.blarg.net> At 01:14 AM 1/27/01 -0600, you wrote: >Would anyone have the URL for Don Reid's website? >Ken Burch > http://www.erols.com/donreid/Kr80-1.HTM This is a cool photo, man, how close is that plane to the ground??? Regards, John John Gilbert Std. Cirrus - PY "mailto:xcsoar@blarg.net" >John Gilbert wrote: > >> Hi. >> >> At the risk of starting up more discussions about alternative airfoils, or >> a subject that may have been beat to death already, how about the KR-1B? >> >> Has anyone built one, besides the one registered to Rand/Robinson? >> >> Are the plans included in the KR-1 plans? The only info I have found is Don >> Reid's website. >> >> Sorry, I haven't searched the list archives. The archives won't respond to >> my inquiries... >> >> Any information would help. >> Thanks, >> >> John Gilbert ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 08:21:17 -0500 To: John Gilbert ,Ken Burch , KR-Net From: Donald Reid Subject: Re: KR> KR-1B Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.0.20010127081941.009fb0b0@pop.erols.com> --=====================_579385==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 12:11 AM 1/27/2001 -0800, John Gilbert wrote: >At 01:14 AM 1/27/01 -0600, you wrote: > >Would anyone have the URL for Don Reid's website? > >Ken Burch > > >http://www.erols.com/donreid/Kr80-1.HTM > >This is a cool photo, man, how close is that plane to the ground??? The home page url is the one below. The one shown above is for one of the Sport Aviation articles. Don Reid mailto:donreid@erols.com Bumpass, Va KR2XL construction at http://users.erols.com/donreid/kr_page.htm Ultralights at http://users.erols.com/donreid/usua250.html --=====================_579385==_.ALT-- ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 08:45:58 -0800 (PST) To: KRNet From: Frank Ross Subject: Re: KR-1B Message-ID: <20010127164558.20146.qmail@web4704.mail.yahoo.com> --- John Gilbert wrote: > Has anyone built one, besides the one registered to > Rand/Robinson? > Are the plans included in the KR-1 plans? The only > info I have found is Don > Reid's website. > John Gilbert John, The 1-B supplement is available seperately from the KR-1 plans. The KR-1 plans are around $60 and are a simpler, cruder version of the KR-2 plans. I didn't really understand my KR-1 plans until I saw KR-2 plans. They jump back and forth and a lot of the pictures are KR-2 pictures that were added to the KR-1 plans later. Anyway, it is not expensive and worth having for reference. Dont know if anyone has built one. ===== Frank Ross, San Antonio, TX, __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices. http://auctions.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 08:35:15 -0800 To: kr From: Carter Pond Subject: Ideal control set up Message-ID: <3A72F8C3.260DDE98@home.com> OK KR Netter What is the ideal control set up for the KR2S. I hope to fly alot of new want to be pilots and my children as they grow up. I am favouring dual control sticks. I am guess that side sticks may give the cockpit a larger feel although i have only seem them in a Velocity. I just want to confirm that the KR2S can recover from spins. Is this true? Carter Designing and Dreaming KR2S ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 07:38:44 -0600 To: Bobby Muse ,krnet@mailinglists.org From: larry flesner Subject: canopy Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010127073844.007f7100@pop3.norton.antivirus> >Larry, your canopy sounds great. What kind of hinge system did you use for the >gull wing doors? > >Bobby Muse +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Thanks, Bobby I'll probably give you more info in this post than you asked for but it may be helpful to some of the other builders. To answer your question, I used female rod end bearings with 3/16" threads and bearing hole. Because my canopy has a constant curve from the windshield to the turtledeck, I couldn't use any straight line hinge and keep it within the canopy lines. I went with a single door on the pilot side as a door on each side would have been too small and made for a tight entry from either side. My door opens about 60 percent of the top and makes for easy enter and exit. As for the hinge setup: I have a plywood frame that runs from the windshield to the turtledeck with a nice constant curve. To this I mounted two pieces of alum angle, one at each hinge location. The rod end bearings mount to the alum angle with the "bearing" bolt. In the top of the door at the hinge locations are two wood blocks. These are drilled horizontaly for the bolts that attach to the ends of the bearing assemblys. The foam on the inside of the door is flaired for access to the bolts. The door can be installed or removed simply with these two bolts. The "float" in the rod end bearings allows the door to rotate from closed to 90 degees open without any binding. The simple latch assembly is a single lever that runs two 3/16" rods (one forward, one back) through nylon blocks and into a nylon lock-down block, one on the windshield bow and one on the turtledeck bow. This inside lever is connected to the outside lever through a nylon block, set in a wood block in the door. It's just two pieces of 4130 pipe, one inside the other with levers welded on. After the latch assy was mounted, I set the inside and outside lever in the position I wanted and drilled a hole through the two pieces of pipe and installed a rivet. A 90 degree rotation of the lever locks the door closed with "0" play. When Jeanette visited the project last fall, she liked the latch assy so well that she had her daughter take pictures of it. I was quite pleased. To me, the ideal setup would be to build what I did but using a complete KR2s or Pulsar canopy. Using the original KR2 half bubble for the side glass limited the size of my side glass and it was a bit of a trick trying to get the maximum glass panels I could. I went this route because I already had the half bubble and Bobby's dad located the broken Pulsar canopy for me and I got it for FREE. (Larry's law: real deals are only found through constant communication.) To see a slick looking door/canopy assy, check out Bobby's KR in some of the Gathering photos at the different web sites. If there is any interest, I'll try to get one of my buddies to take some digital photos and make them available. Larry Flesner ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 10:09:10 -0800 To: kr From: Carter Pond Subject: slotted flaps Message-ID: <3A730EC6.6978AD63@home.com> I found a magazine from Nov. /90 Glasair developed slotted flaps for the a/c. They suggest decrease 6 stall. They also spoke of a wing tip extension that combined with flap design gave them a 6 knot increase in cruise and 11 knot stall decrease. Has any done any research on this bird to see if there are design ideas that can be borrowed from them to increase our KR passion for enjoyable flight? Carter KR Dreaming and Designing ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 07:14:44 -0800 (PST) To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: Aggie lewanda Subject: New Airfoil Message-ID: <20010127151444.24340.qmail@web1404.mail.yahoo.com> Fellow KR-netters: I have been following the renewed discussion over wing design and the pro's and con's of the RAF 48 vs. the new airfoil. I am a financial planner, frequently clients will call me saying I want to form a corporation, or establish a trust, or create a partnership. I always stop them; and ask "What are you trying to accomplish?" Each tool has a specific use. While it is possible to accomplish something in more than one way, the differences should be understood. A client recently insisted that he wanted to form an organization that was a Section 501 (c)(3) tax exempt organization. After I Fed-Exed the 48 page IRS form and instructions required just to apply (no guarantee of IRS approval) he suddenly understood why I had advised against the move. What's all that have to do with the new wing? Same principle applies; every tool, every structure and every construction method has its particular uses. When making a decision, a person has to first understand the differences between each wing. When someone on either side says mine is "better" he really means that it is "better" for a particular purpose. While that may be a true statement, it is also usually true that it may not be "better" when measured by different criteria. RAF 48 has a few advantages: 1. Proven design. Been around for decades. Lots of em flying. 2. Pre molded skins available. 3. Specified in the plans. (This is only an advantage if you are a compulsive rule follower.) 4. Probably a few others. The new airfoil also has some advantages: 1. Extensive design and testing. 2. Created specifically to achieve maximum performance in the KR series aircraft. 3. Laminar flow. 4. Capacity for more fuel in wing tanks. 5. Probably some others as well. Now, if you want to build fast & cheap the old wing has a slight edge. If you assume unproven equals unreliable (not a valid assumption) you will want to be conservative with the old wing. This will probably appeal most to the person who wants to build a "by the plans" KR with reliable VW power. It also appeals to the guy who wants the cheapest way out and the least amount of work. In my own case, I figure the purposes of building an aircraft are to get maximum performance (new wing), and to build something that is newer, better and more sophisticated than production aircraft or 20 year old KR's. This is EXPERIMENTAL aviation, right? I will probably only build an aircraft once in my life. It will be a several year long learning experience. I want it to be something I can point out to my grandchildren (not yet born) some day with great pride. I am a big guy 6'1" and 230 Lbs. and I want a cross country plane that will haul two people. Therefore, the new wing, corvair power and a few other deviations from the "stock" by the plans KR are just common sense for me and my intended use. However, each pilot builder needs to follow the advice I give my clients. Ask yourself what you are trying to do (goals) before you make a decision. Then recognize that other folks may not have the same needs and goals you have established for yourself. Recognize that is O.K. FOR THEM and your way is not the only way. The 150 lb guy building with VW power in mind may have good logical reasons to think HIS aircraft will be satisfactory, or, in his mind, even superior with the old wing. I hope we can all share information and help one another, while still recognizing we are not all building the same thing for the same purposes. I am not to the wing building part yet but before I get there, I will look for the best possible wing. Right now, for my purposes, it IS NOT the venerable RAF-48. Let's exchange facts, information, specifications, construction methods and goals without judging each other. And for sure, don't make the mistake of using the wrong tool (in this case airfoil) for the task you are attempting. Nother words, I have been lurking around arguments over whether a butter knife or a phillips screw driver is the best tool. The answer depends on whether you are at a formal dinner party or screwing around in the wood working shop. Each tool has a place. Dean ===== Dean Allen P.O. Box 4173 Greenville, SC 29608 (704) 348-1715 __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices. http://auctions.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 13:29:11 -0600 (CST) To: From: Steven Eberhart Subject: Re: KR> New Airfoil Message-ID: Dean, you have included a lot of sound advice. I went through the process of putting together a mission plan of how I wanted to use my airplane. THis was after I bought my KR-2S plans. I bought the plans for the same reasons that all of us did. I liked the construction methods, the factory specifications and the low cost to build. After being arround the KR group for a while and after I got the chance to actually fly one from the right seat it became obvious that the KR didn't meet several items on my mission plan. I wanted an economical plane that would be a good reliable day cruiser and didn't require constant attention to keep it going where I wanted it to go. I live in southern Indiana and spend about a third of my life in Davenport, IA on business. It is a 6 1/2 drive by car and about a 3 hour flight in a 172. I wanted something that would make the flight in about 2 hours and have the stability of something like the Europa. THe Europa is an amaizing design that meets all of my requirements but costs about three times more to put in the air than I could afford. THe thought process went something like this: THe Europa's wing was designed by the same person that designed the wings for all of the Airbus airliners and is on the cutting edge of aerodynamic design. If I could find someone with the same cridentials as Dr. Dykin to work with me on a new airfoil design for the KR and if I could find someone to attack the stability issues then maybe I could make a plane that had the flying characteristics of an Europa with the economics of a KR. About this time I met up with a group of KR builders that had many of the same goals. Mark Langford, Mark Lougheed, Dean Collette and Richard Mole all had the same ideas and a working relationship was immediately established. Dr. Michael Selig and Dr. Ashok Gopalarathnam joined the group and designed the new state of the art airfoils and Dr. Richard Mole contributed in many areas including the stability improvements. Mark Langford was the main catalyst - he was actually building an airplane and wanted one that was consistent with the state of the art. THis project was truly a magical moment in time that only rerely occures. The synergy was truly awesome. Since we didn't have unlimited research and development resources we weren't able to go out and build the proof of concept airplanes like we would have liked to. Troy Petteway had a KR that needed new wings and his plane became the "test mule" (sorry Troy). His plane has been flying now for over a year with one of the new airfoils. Dana Overall tore the existing horizontal stabilizer off of his KR and replaced it with the new one designed by Dr. Mole. Unfortunatly, shortly after modifying his KR, Dana bought a Bonanza and has been too buisy having fun with it to finish up his KR. He doesn't know it yet but I strongly suspect that there are going to be several KR call to arms sessions this summer to help him get it finished up and flying :-) We surely would have liked to be able to have a test airplane that we could have documented the performance in stock KR configuration, change the wing and document all of the differences. We were able to do that with the exception that Troy changed engines and modified his tail in mid stream resulting in a weight increase on his airplane and stability improvements from the tail modifications. The result is we weren't able to pinpoint what effects were attributable to which modification. The result was, he liked his airplane and it didn't gain any adverse characteristics. THe bottom line to all of this rambling is to understand what your expectations are in the form of a well thought out mission plan and to make sure you fully understand how the KR meets your expectations of how you are wanting to fly your airplane. THe KR, in its stock form, is an inexpensive, relatively high performance little airplane that does meet the mission requirements of many builders. THe vast majority of the KR builders, that have not been supporters of this project, have a plane that meets their mission plan and the new modifications result in an airplane that no longer meets their requirements. THey are just as committed to the stock KR design, for the same reasons, as we are to the modified design. To have undertaken the design modifications without getting some of the top minds in the aeronautical engineering world to work with us would have resulted in a plane that didn't meet our requirements, we wanted a solidly engineered design with state of the art aerodynamics. What started out as my quest for the equivalent of a plans built Europa turned into a project to upgrade the KR into a state of the art homebuilt. My own project took another twist when I found out about a Swiss designed, plans built, homebuilt that used the KR style of construction but already had many of the features that I wanted to add to the KR. It already had a laminar flow wing, stabilator, flaps coupled with drooping ailerons, retractable tricycle gear and was designed for an O-200 engine. THe main drawback was that the 130 or so engineering drawings were in German. I am dealing with the language problem, which is somewhat simplified by the excellent quality of the engineering drawings. I am applying some of the features of the KR along with using the 15% AS5045 airfoil which I think is an improvement over the somewhat older design laminar flow airfoil utilized on the stock design. I am also using the composite spar design that Mark Lougheed and I worked on back in the Area 51 days. The purpose of all of this rambling is just to say BUILD THE PLANE THAT MEETS YOUR MISSION PLAN. If your plane doesn't meet the characteristics of how you want to fly the plane it just won't be the right plane for you. This surely includes your willingness to participate in the relm of Experimental Aviation. There are going to be greater risks envolved in flying a new design, that is the nature of the beast. You can minimize the risks by taking advantage of the truly amaizing wealth of engineering talent available to us through the internet. THe team that participated in the new wing project included: 3 PhD aeronautical engineers, 1 mathamatician, 1 mechanical engineer, 1 manufacturing engineer, 1 physician, 1 accountant and 1 professional negotiator. For those saying "BUILD IT TO THE PLANS" they are exactly right. For a plane that meets their mission plan the plans built KR is the perfect airplane and the experimental plane that resulted from the new wing project JUST DOESN'T MEET THEIR MISSION PLAN and is entirely wrong for them. By the same token, the plans stock KR doesn't meet the mission plan of some of us. Who is right? We both are. Are we going to change our minds - NO. You need to make an educated decision, what plane meets your mission plan? I like this - WE ARE ALL RIGHT. I think Randy Stein would be proud. For those of you than wern't around when Randy was an active participant on KRNet, he was the professional negotiator that was part of the project. Blue Skies, 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 On Sat, 27 Jan 2001, Aggie lewanda wrote: > Fellow KR-netters: > > I have been following the renewed discussion over wing design and the > pro's and con's of the RAF 48 vs. the new airfoil. I am a financial > planner, frequently clients will call me saying I want to form a corporation, > or establish a trust, or create a partnership. > > I always stop them; and ask "What are you trying to accomplish?" Each > tool has a specific use. While it is possible to accomplish something in > more than one way, the differences should be understood. A client recently > insisted that he wanted to form an organization that was a Section 501 (c)(3) > tax exempt organization. After I Fed-Exed the 48 page IRS form and > instructions required just to apply (no guarantee of IRS approval) he > suddenly understood why I had advised against the move. > > What's all that have to do with the new wing? Same principle applies; > every tool, every structure and every construction method has its > particular uses. When making a decision, a person has to first understand > the differences between each wing. When someone on either side says > mine is "better" he really means that it is "better" for a particular > purpose. While that may be a true statement, it is also usually true that > it may not be "better" when measured by different criteria. > > RAF 48 has a few advantages: > 1. Proven design. Been around for decades. Lots of em flying. > 2. Pre molded skins available. > 3. Specified in the plans. (This is only an advantage if you are > a compulsive rule follower.) > 4. Probably a few others. > > The new airfoil also has some advantages: > 1. Extensive design and testing. > 2. Created specifically to achieve maximum performance > in the KR series aircraft. > 3. Laminar flow. > 4. Capacity for more fuel in wing tanks. > 5. Probably some others as well. > > Now, if you want to build fast & cheap the old wing has a slight edge. > If you assume unproven equals unreliable (not a valid assumption) > you will want to be conservative with the old wing. This will > probably appeal most to the person who wants to build a "by the plans" > KR with reliable VW power. It also appeals to the guy who wants the > cheapest way out and the least amount of work. > > In my own case, I figure the purposes of building an aircraft are to > get maximum performance (new wing), and to build something that is > newer, better and more sophisticated than production aircraft or 20 > year old KR's. This is EXPERIMENTAL aviation, right? > > I will probably only build an aircraft once in my life. It will be a several > year long learning experience. I want it to be something I can point out > to my grandchildren (not yet born) some day with great pride. > > I am a big guy 6'1" and 230 Lbs. and I want a cross country plane that will > haul two people. Therefore, the new wing, corvair power and a few other > deviations from the "stock" by the plans KR are just common sense for > me and my intended use. > > However, each pilot builder needs to follow the advice I give my clients. > Ask yourself what you are trying to do (goals) before you make a > decision. Then recognize that other folks may not have the same needs and > goals you have established for yourself. Recognize that is O.K. FOR > THEM and your way is not the only way. > > The 150 lb guy building with VW power in mind may have good logical > reasons to think HIS aircraft will be satisfactory, or, in his mind, > even superior with the old wing. > > I hope we can all share information and help one another, while still > recognizing we are not all building the same thing for the same > purposes. > > I am not to the wing building part yet but before I get there, I will > look for the best possible wing. Right now, for my purposes, it IS NOT the > venerable RAF-48. Let's exchange facts, information, specifications, > construction methods and goals without judging each other. And for sure, > don't make the mistake of using the wrong tool (in this case airfoil) > for the task you are attempting. > > Nother words, I have been lurking around arguments over whether a > butter knife or a phillips screw driver is the best tool. The answer > depends on whether you are at a formal dinner party or screwing around > in the wood working shop. Each tool has a place. > > Dean > > ===== > Dean Allen > P.O. Box 4173 > Greenville, SC 29608 > > (704) 348-1715 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 10:58:01 -0800 To: "KR-POST" From: "Dave and Tina Goodman" Subject: RE New Airfoil Message-ID: <001c01c08893$13e4b6a0$5345a6d1@oemcomputer> ------=_NextPart_000_0019_01C08850.046282E0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Before we go down the road of misconceptions too far here, consider = these things: >> Now, if you want to build fast & cheap the old wing has a slight = edge. >>It also appeals to the guy who wants the cheapest way out and the = least amount of work. This is not true. The RAF airfoil is not going to take you any less = time or work to complete than a AS504X wing. A wing is a wing, and you = are still going to have to build two of them. The templates for the = AS504X wing (provided by TET) are probably easier to use than the = Mickey mouse blueprints in the KR kits. Building the AS504X wings is no = different than building the RAF wings, the only difference is the = airfoil and size of the spars. It took me no less or no more time to = build the new spars on my plane than the RAF spars would have taken. >> If you assume unproven equals unreliable (not a valid assumption) you = will want to be conservative with the old wing. This will probably = appeal most to the person who wants to build a "by the plans" KR with = reliable VW power. This IS true, if you are one of those who does not want to deviate from = the plans. Having said that, has anyone NOT deviated from the plans? = Anyone? Buehler? Buehler? Unless you fall into the last category, the AS504X airfoil is a very = viable option for this plane, and if Rand Robinson would get off its = proverbial tail it would have been incorporated into the plans already. = The truth is that there is going to come a time when someone out there = (and you know who you are because we have talked about it offline) is = going to take all the improvements that are on the KR-Net, make a new = version of the KR and market it, most likely under the name ML-1 or some = derivative thereof. At that point the KR as we know it will be dead. I = personally look forward to that day. Dave "Zipper" Goodman zipperts@whidbey.net ------=_NextPart_000_0019_01C08850.046282E0-- ------------------------------ End of krnet Digest ***********************************