From: To: Subject: krnet Digest 16 Mar 2001 02:32:03 -0000 Issue 192 Date: Thursday, March 15, 2001 6:32 PM krnet Digest 16 Mar 2001 02:32:03 -0000 Issue 192 Topics (messages 4623 through 4652): cheep cheep KR 1... 4623 by: CS Wheel fairings design 4624 by: Carter Pond Ideal wing loading 4625 by: Carter Pond 4634 by: Richard Selix Cheep cheep KR1, more info....... 4626 by: CS Jabiru engines 4627 by: Aripo Re: Jabiru engine for KR2 4628 by: Peter Stefurak 4629 by: Peter Stefurak Panel Design Program 4630 by: IMA FLYER 4633 by: jshays Re: KR1-Tandem 4631 by: Didactics1.aol.com 4632 by: Steven Eberhart 4635 by: Tracy & Carol O'Brien Just curious. 4636 by: aerobair Aft wing spar 4637 by: Hafsteinn Jonasson 4638 by: Hafsteinn Jonasson 4643 by: Mark Jones 4649 by: Brian Vasseur engine wanted 4639 by: Oscar Zuniga Re: Duct collapse 4640 by: Ross R. Youngblood Re: bolts and other stuff 4641 by: Ross R. Youngblood Re: more tail stuff 4642 by: Ross R. Youngblood KR CAFE 4644 by: Ross R. Youngblood Re: i'm new! 4645 by: Ross R. Youngblood Re: STALL and STABILITY 4646 by: Ross R. Youngblood Re: KR-1 Build Time 4647 by: Ross R. Youngblood firing order vw 4648 by: Flymaca711689.cs.com Re: KR proof load 4650 by: Ross R. Youngblood Re: "Sanding Board" success! 4651 by: Ross R. Youngblood Re: KR-1 4652 by: Ross R. Youngblood Administrivia: To subscribe to the digest, e-mail: To unsubscribe from the digest, e-mail: To post to the list, e-mail: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 16:35:49 -0800 (PST) To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: CS Subject: cheep cheep KR 1... Message-ID: <20010315003549.1576.qmail@web2304.mail.yahoo.com> Hi all, Well, 2 weeks ago I didn't own a plane, now I've got two. I bought this one (KR 1)to get the engine and instruments, the plane itself is for sale. Supposedly (I haven't seen it yet) it is 80% complete, Dan Diehl wings, fixed gear, Cleveland disk brakes, and probably more. Anything not related to engine or instruments will be included in sale. Has builder's photo log. Asking $995, will negotiate (within reason). Will also deliver free anywhere between Boston, MA and Chattanooga, TN when I go pick it up. Netters get first shot, won't be advertised elsewhere till next week. Chuck --- Manager Bill wrote: > To Rex Ellington, Dana Overall, and all you other > tail tinkerers on > KRnet: > > This is not a flame, it is just a statement > repeating much of what I > said at the KR forum during Sun N Fun last April. Go > read “Airplane > Performance, Stability and Control,” by Perkins and > Hage. The > longitudinal stability of any airplane is determined > by a single number: > the distance between the airplane center of gravity > and its point of > neutral stability. What this means is that anything > you can do by > increasing tail length or tail area can be done by > simply moving the > center of gravity forward. All the tail area you > need is whatever is > required to trim the airplane in pitch. Look at the > Fokker T-2 hanging > in the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum. Its > horizontal tail is > minuscule compared to its wing area, yet it made the > first nonstop > coast-to-coast flight in history. Look at canards > like the Rutan > designs; if you make the horizontal tail (the aft > surface) big enough, > you can fly with the c.g. several chord lengths aft > of the forward > wing’s trailing edge. Or, if you want the biggest > surface to be the > wing, if you move the c.g. far enough forward, you > can have negative > trail length (horizontal tail in front of the wing)! > Same configuration, > different ways of looking at it, but the important > point is not the > relative areas, but the center of gravity location. > > Having said all that, I will stick my neck out a > little further. Long > tail and small area are better than short tail and > large area, because > the ”damping effect” of long tail arms is greater > than that of short > arms. That is, up-and-down oscillations in pitch > will die out much > faster with a long tail than with a short one, even > though the product > of tail arm x tail area is the same. The result is > an airplane that > feels more steady and stable. Like the Pontiac > commercials say, “wider > (longer) is better.” > > Incidentally, I call myself “manager Bill” rather > than “engineer Bill” > because I am attempting to manage a small charitable > organization called > the Kiddie Hawk Air Academy. Read about us on the > Web at > www.kiddiehawk.org; we are dedicated to aviation > education for little > kids, and that is why the e-mail address is > kids2fly. > > To Bernie Wunder: My slide rule is a 1949 K&E log > log duplex vector > model, and yep, I can still use it! > > Bill Marcy > Hired Gun for Jeannette Rand > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 22:44:27 -0800 To: kr From: Carter Pond Subject: Wheel fairings design Message-ID: <3AB064CB.41E01782@home.com> What is the least drag airfoil shaped wheel fairings. Does anyone know where I can find a cordinates to create it? ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 22:50:38 -0800 To: kr From: Carter Pond Subject: Ideal wing loading Message-ID: <3AB0663E.BB29039B@home.com> I am designing a "heavy" KR-2S with that in mind in Canada I must keep the wing loading close to 13.4# with out flaps and something like 16# with small flaps Question Can I with out compromising the original reasoning behind the new airfoils make the airfoil 10% larger there by increasing the chord length and increasing the wing surface area? Any other ideas would be appreciated Carter ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 08:39:25 -0800 To: Carter Pond From: Richard Selix CC: kr Subject: Re: KR> Ideal wing loading Message-ID: <3AB0F03D.F2D9A80D@earthlink.net> Carter: If you can handle the other changes necessary with an increase in wing area, an airfoil is an airfoil, and won't change its' characteristics by increasing the overall dimensions by some percentage. Note the different aircraft using the same airfoil with different wings in shape and area. Richard mailto:rselix@earthlink.net Carter Pond wrote: > I am designing a "heavy" KR-2S with that in mind in Canada I must keep > the wing loading close to 13.4# with out flaps and something like 16# > with small flaps > Question > Can I with out compromising the original reasoning behind the new > airfoils make the airfoil 10% larger there by increasing the chord > length and increasing the wing surface area? > > Any other ideas would be appreciated > Carter > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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, 14 Mar 2001 23:00:26 -0800 (PST) To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: CS Subject: Cheep cheep KR1, more info....... Message-ID: <20010315070026.5608.qmail@web2303.mail.yahoo.com> Hi all, I earlier advertised the KR1, asking $995. Unfortunately I am going to Chattanooga tomorrow to close on a house and won't have a phone line/ISP there till next week--thus no email. I will be home probably Tuesday, and will respond to all emails as quickly as I can. Also, I will PROBABLY be able to check emails Thur. and Fri. at the real estate agent's office, but I don't know that for sure. Thanks. Chuck __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices. http://auctions.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 08:34:41 +0100 To: "KRnet" From: "Aripo" Subject: Jabiru engines Message-ID: <002f01c0ad26$7b48b960$36fd1997@aripo> ------=_NextPart_000_0026_01C0AD2A.C7977F00 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Nadine Here in Italy many Kr install a Limbach engines specially the 2000 80 = hp ( the 2400 cc is to heavy) without problems.=20 Jabiru engines here are not very popular ( I dont know why) . In my case I have a Rotax 912 80 hp on my KR2 , lightweight and = powerful. Ciao=20 Franco Negri I-KRFN=20 ------=_NextPart_000_0026_01C0AD2A.C7977F00-- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 22:23:26 -0800 To: "Nadine Brauns" , From: "Peter Stefurak" Subject: Re: KR> Jabiru engine for KR2 Message-ID: <007d01c0ade1$b3f68ba0$298336cb@i6g1w3> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nadine Brauns" To: Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2001 5:31 PM Subject: KR> Jabiru engine for KR2 Hi, Has anyone (in Australia or elsewhere) installed a Jabiru engine on its KR2? . If so, do you have basic drawings of the engine mount you used? your comments about the general performance of that engine. Thanks! Nadine from Belgium Hi Nadine, Petes the name from Australia, Ive been flying Jabiru aircraft for five years, both the 55 h.p and 80 h..p versions accumulating approximately 250 hours with these engines with out any problems. They are light, strong ,quiet, reliable engine and are a neat tidy uncluttered installation Needless to say they are very popular in this country . I am presently building a kr 1 stretched with a turtle deck , so it looks like a kr2s but is only a single seater,and I have a jabiru engine sitting on the bench ready to bolt in. Engine mount will be stock jabiru mount built by factory to suit my firewall, but that might be unrealistic option for you guys. There are no jabiru powered krs in this country at the moment and the only similar comparision for performance I can tell you of is a locally built Pulsar which has a 80 h.p. jabiru engine in it, and he cruises 120 mph @ 2850rpm with full fuel and passanger.Jabiru do have a web site www.jabiru.com.au I hope this is off some help to you. Pete ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 22:39:41 -0800 To: "Nadine Brauns" , From: "Peter Stefurak" Subject: Re: KR> Jabiru engine for KR2 Message-ID: <009001c0ade3$e28321c0$298336cb@i6g1w3> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nadine Brauns" To: Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2001 5:31 PM Subject: KR> Jabiru engine for KR2 Sorry Nadine, the correct address is www.jabiru.net.au/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 07:30:55 -0500 To: flyer@clas.net From: Eckmstr@netscape.net ( IMA FLYER) Cc: krnet@mailinglists.org Subject: Panel Design Program Message-ID: <6AC7FD37.2298178C.00167451@netscape.net> Does anyone know where the panel palnner is currnetly? Who like to review it. Also I'm wondering what opinion anyone has re: it's use and benifits? Thanks for the help and as always... be safe and watch yur 6. Jon Minneapolis __________________________________________________________________ Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Webmail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Mar 01 08:54:37 -0600 To: Eckmstr@netscape.net ( IMA FLYER), flyer From: jshays Cc: krnet Subject: RE: KR> Panel Design Program I'm not sure where it is located, but on the various lists I read I have heard quite a lot of complaints about the program. I made full size templates of my instruments out of graph paper, and did my layout on my dining table. Total time about two hours. The panel can be seen at: http://homepage.interaccess.com/~jshays/ipanel.htm I'm sure you'll notice, it isn't exactly a KR... The KR is my new project. Regards, Jeff Hays. >===== Original Message From Eckmstr@netscape.net ( IMA FLYER) ===== >Does anyone know where the panel palnner is currnetly? Who like >to review it. Also I'm wondering what opinion anyone has re: >it's use and benifits? Thanks for the help >and as always... be safe and watch yur 6. Jon Minneapolis >__________________________________________________________________ >Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Webmail account today at http://webmail.netscape.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: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 09:03:07 EST To: nerb@mail.gtn.on.ca, krnet@mailinglists.org From: Didactics1@aol.com Subject: Re: KR1-Tandem Message-ID: <102.43fccc.27e2259b@aol.com> Dear Nick, Thanks for replying. I'm about to get started on my KR project, after getting some other things done that had a higher priority. Here are my thoughts to date: 1. Build a tandem two-deat, taildragger of the KR design. 2. Use the proverbial VW Type 4 engine. 3. Since I'm talking about something heavier than the single-place KR-1, a. Use the KR-2S for increased wing area and longer fuselage. b. Use the improved AS 540X airfoil c. Mod the basic KR-2S fuselage (lengthen) to accommodate the tandem seating arrangement, which poses these questions: 1) What seating arrangement is necessary to maintain stability when flying alone? 2) How much should the fuselage be lengthened, and at what stations? 3) Can a pushrod system be used to activate wing flaps and aerolons be used to allow for wings to be removed for transport without major effort? I'm thinking of using the KR-2S fuselage instead of the KR-1 to get more cross section interior space. Plus I think the KR-1 wing area would be not enough for the added weight of two, plus fuel. I would certainly appreciate your insights and critical comments on these thoughts. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 08:57:56 -0600 (CST) To: From: Steven Eberhart cc: , Subject: Re: KR> Re: KR1-Tandem Message-ID: On Thu, 15 Mar 2001 Didactics1@aol.com wrote: > Dear Nick, > > Thanks for replying. I'm about to get started on my KR project, after > getting some other things done that had a higher priority. Here are my > thoughts to date: > > 1. Build a tandem two-deat, taildragger of the KR design. Cool. > 2. Use the proverbial VW Type 4 engine. A lot of them are flying. Like the old saying goes, "no one was ever fired for selecting IBM" > 3. Since I'm talking about something heavier than the single-place KR-1, > a. Use the KR-2S for increased wing area and longer fuselage. > b. Use the improved AS 540X airfoil > c. Mod the basic KR-2S fuselage (lengthen) to accommodate the > tandem > seating arrangement, which poses these questions: > 1) What seating arrangement is necessary to maintain > stability when > flying alone? > 2) How much should the fuselage be lengthened, and at what > stations? > 3) Can a pushrod system be used to activate wing flaps and > aerolons be > used to allow for wings to be removed for transport > without major > effort? > > I'm thinking of using the KR-2S fuselage instead of the KR-1 to get more > cross section interior space. Plus I think the KR-1 wing area would be not > enough for the added weight of two, plus fuel. > > I would certainly appreciate your insights and critical comments on these > thoughts. > You won't find anyone that enjoies playing aircraft designer more than me. Just ask any of the old timers on the list. IMHO a tandem aircraft, roughly the weight and loading of a KR-2S, using the basic construction methods of the KR, would be a neat design project. Being very blunt, based on the questions that you are asking, and the help you are asking for, you are not ready for a project of this scope. You are talking about a completely new design not an incremental improvement of an existing design. Do I want to discourage you in this ambitious adventure? NOT ON YOUR LIFE. But just remember, you ARE TALKING ABOUT YOUR LIFE HERE. To tackle a project like this you need to become an aircraft designer and a structural engineer. Not an impossible task at all but you do need to wear both of these hats. To get started you need to get a copy of the Roncz aircraft design spread sheets and copies of the Sport Aviation articles that they accompanied. A call to the EAA archives will get you copies of the articles, a series of four IIRC. THe spreadsheets are available on the web. Use google.com and search for something like roncz spreadsheets. Get Daniel Raymers book "Aircraft Design a Conceptual Approach", all of the Tony Bengales books, the Hollman design and construction books and start reading. After you start getting a handle on what is envolved you you will start to identify more questions than solutions. That just means that you are making progress and you will start to be able to recognize the areas that you need additional training in. For something as critical as aircraft design it just isn't fair to ask others to do your work for you. After you start to get a handle on this aircraft designer thing you can start playing with the Roncz spread sheets and start playing aircraft designer. None of the above tackles the structural aspects. For that it is plain grunt work mathematics and you have to track down text books on that aspect. You just can't begin to imagine the amount of design work that has gone into Mark Langford's airplane and his is just an incremental design progression of an existing design. THere has been literaly man years of design effort by many people that has gone into his airplane. You are talking about a completely new design. It is time to start doing your homework and keep us posted on your progress. 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, 15 Mar 2001 12:08:16 -0800 To: Steven Eberhart , From: Tracy & Carol O'Brien Cc: , Subject: Re: KR> Re: KR1-Tandem Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.20010315120816.0073fb10@localaccess.com> >> Dear Nick, et al, First thing to do when considering a tandem aircraft is to take a look at aircraft similar to the one you expect to end up with! I'd recommend looking over an RV-4 for sure, also a VariEze or LongEze for their cockpit geometry, and I'd go ahead and order a set of plans for the Sonerai IIL, as it is of comparable size and configuration. (Besides, Steve Bennett can always use our support!) The structural problem that is most critical is the length of the opening required to place 2 people in tandem: all of the designs I mentioned above have bulkhead structures that break the space up into separate cockpits. Regards, Tracy O'Brien ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 17:59:27 -0500 To: "Krnet@Mailinglists. Org" From: aerobair Subject: Just curious. Message-ID: <3AB1494F.A391EBCA@netc.net> Does anyone know of how many KR 1s are still flying in Canada? I'm aware of one in Ontario, 2 in B.C. and mine. That makes four. .......Bob ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 01:00:24 -0000 To: From: haffi@vortex.is (Hafsteinn Jonasson) Subject: Aft wing spar Message-ID: <000c01c0adb4$7c421d00$469104c1@c0g3t9> ------=_NextPart_000_0009_01C0ADB4.7B897B60 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable hi netters I've just glued my center aft spar together on my kR-2S project. As I = was looking happily over the glue joints etc. I found out changes = between the manual and the 2S plans that I had seen before. In the = manual (KR-2) is total of 16 cross members, ten 1 1/8x1/2 and six = 1/2x1/2. But in the 2S drawnings there are 18, ten 1 1/8x1/2 and eight = 1/2x1/2. I BUILT IT THE KR-2 WAY!!!!!!!!! Is this something to disturb = my sleap or not? --- Hafsteinn J=F3nasson Iceland haffi@vortex.is ------=_NextPart_000_0009_01C0ADB4.7B897B60-- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 01:07:05 -0000 To: "Hafsteinn Jonasson" , From: haffi@vortex.is (Hafsteinn Jonasson) Subject: Re: KR> Aft wing spar Message-ID: <000a01c0adb5$6b5089e0$659104c1@c0g3t9> NOTE: always go over the spelling BEFORE you klick the send button ----- Original Message ----- From: Hafsteinn Jonasson To: Sent: Friday, March 16, 2001 1:00 AM Subject: KR> Aft wing spar hi netters I've just glued my center aft spar together on my kR-2S project. As I was looking happily over the glue joints etc. I found out changes between the manual and the 2S plans that I had not seen before. In the manual (KR-2) is total of 16 cross members, ten 1 1/8x1/2 and six 1/2x1/2. But in the 2S drawnings there are 18, ten 1 1/8x1/2 and eight 1/2x1/2. I BUILT IT THE KR-2 WAY!!!!!!!!! Is this something to disturb my sleap or not? --- Hafsteinn Jónasson Iceland haffi@vortex.is ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 20:11:15 -0600 To: Hafsteinn Jonasson From: Mark Jones CC: krnet@mailinglists.org Subject: Re: KR> Aft wing spar Message-ID: <3AB17643.96466944@execpc.com> Hafsteinn, From what I have learned from others and PLEASE anyone correct me if I am wrong here is: The aft spar mainly is for the purpose of maintaining a rigid wing. What I mean by this is that the forward main spar carries the majority of the wing load and the aft spar simply helps hold the wing in a stable horizontal axis. This being the case, I would not suspect the omission of two vertical members in the aft center spar would be of any concern nor any reason to lose any sleep. Again, anyone please correct me if I am wrong here. Mark Jones Hafsteinn Jonasson wrote: > hi netters > > I've just glued my center aft spar together on my kR-2S project. As I was looking happily over the glue joints etc. I found out changes between the manual and the 2S plans that I had seen before. In the manual (KR-2) is total of 16 cross members, ten 1 1/8x1/2 and six 1/2x1/2. But in the 2S drawnings there are 18, ten 1 1/8x1/2 and eight 1/2x1/2. I BUILT IT THE KR-2 WAY!!!!!!!!! Is this something to disturb my sleap or not? > --- > Hafsteinn Jónasson Iceland > haffi@vortex.is -- Mark Jones (N886MJ) Wales, WI USA E-mail me at mailto:flykr2s@execpc.com Visit my KR-2S CorvAIRCRAFT web site at http://sites.netscape.net/n886mj/homepage ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 19:21:11 -0700 To: "Mark Jones" , "Hafsteinn Jonasson" From: "Brian Vasseur" Cc: Subject: Re: KR> Aft wing spar Message-ID: <003101c0adbf$c4b92280$2c45e4cf@C5477> I concur with your assessment that this error isn't critical. If this were my airplane I wouldn't worry about it. Brian ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark Jones" To: "Hafsteinn Jonasson" Cc: Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 7:11 PM Subject: Re: KR> Aft wing spar > Hafsteinn, > From what I have learned from others and PLEASE anyone correct me if I am wrong here is: The aft spar mainly is for the purpose of maintaining a rigid wing. What I mean by this is that the forward main spar carries the majority of the wing load and the aft spar simply helps hold the wing in a stable horizontal axis. This being the case, I would not suspect the omission of two vertical members in the aft center spar would be of > any concern nor any reason to lose any sleep. Again, anyone please correct me if I am wrong here. > Mark Jones > > Hafsteinn Jonasson wrote: > > > hi netters > > > > I've just glued my center aft spar together on my kR-2S project. As I was looking happily over the glue joints etc. I found out changes between the manual and the 2S plans that I had seen before. In the manual (KR-2) is total of 16 cross members, ten 1 1/8x1/2 and six 1/2x1/2. But in the 2S drawnings there are 18, ten 1 1/8x1/2 and eight 1/2x1/2. I BUILT IT THE KR-2 WAY!!!!!!!!! Is this something to disturb my sleap or not? > > --- > > Hafsteinn Jónasson Iceland > > haffi@vortex.is > > -- > Mark Jones (N886MJ) > Wales, WI USA > E-mail me at mailto:flykr2s@execpc.com > Visit my KR-2S CorvAIRCRAFT web site at > http://sites.netscape.net/n886mj/homepage > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To post to the list, email: krnet@mailinglists.org > > > To UNsubscribe, e-mail: krnet-unsubscribe@mailinglists.org > For additional commands, e-mail: krnet-help@mailinglists.org > > ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 01:13:38 To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: "Oscar Zuniga" Subject: engine wanted Message-ID: Hello, netters; I'm helping a friend look for an engine; a run-out, clean 0-290, 125 HP, which will go in a Pacer and will be completely overhauled. West coast preferred. Email me direct, off-net. Oscar Zuniga Medford, Oregon mailto: taildrags@hotmail.com website at http://www.geocities.com/taildrags/ _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 18:47:30 -0700 To: Frank Ross From: "Ross R. Youngblood" CC: krnet@mailinglists.org Subject: Re: KR> Duct collapse Message-ID: <3AB170B2.313CA6C2@home.com> Interesting.... I have CAT ducting from my carb heat muff to the carb, which I suppose could fail, but the unheated air is routed straight so shouldn't be a problem. -- Ross Frank Ross wrote: > Netters, > Came across the following reading old Cozy Newsletters > today. Thought some of you might find it helpful. > > "10/5/92 > Dear Nat, > The CAT-10 (yes, the style with no inner liner) from > the filter to the carburetor collapsed, causing the > engine to fail. (The) duct was properly installed > (both ends of the spiral wire secured and the thread > secured under clamps)... > Regards, > James Bierly > Editor: We have heard of CEET and SCEET Aeroduct > ducting failures due to the collapse of the inner > liner, but this is the first instance we know of where > CAT ducting collapsed because the wire didn't stay put > - a good reason to eliminate the ducting, by mounting > a filter box directly on the carburetor." > > ===== > Frank Ross, San Antonio, TX, > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. > http://personal.mail.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: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 18:50:30 -0700 To: Manager Bill From: "Ross R. Youngblood" CC: Krnet Subject: Re: KR> bolts and other stuff Message-ID: <3AB17166.EC1E838D@home.com> Bill, Thanks for your posts! I have had major computer problems for the past several weeks and was unable to fetch my email.... now I'm getting caught up. -- Ross Manager Bill wrote: > Netters > > There is an FAA form 8000-38, Fabrication Assembly Operation Checklist, > that you check off whether you or the kit manufacturer (or the prior > builder, I expect) did the operation. It covers some 124 operations plus > 32 more if you have a rotorcraft, and if you did 51% of the operations, > you are the builder and are eligible for a Repairman’s Certificate! The > bad news is that if you DIDN’T do 51%, you aren’t eligible. > > This is all part of a thick manual titled, “Amateur-Built Evaluation and > Certification Handout Material,” that I obtained at Sun N Fun in 1997; I > am sure they are still available and have probably been modified since > 1997. This handout was put together to bring all the FAA offices > together on homebuilt certification. Check it out. > > On the matter of reaming the Wing Attach Fittings. Jeannette tells me > that her fitting sets are intentionally punched undersize so they can be > reamed to fit the bolts that come with the kit. However, AN 3 bolts have > a tolerance on the diameter, and most bolts are under the nominal size > because that saves material. There are also AN 173, 174, and 175 CLOSE > TOLERANCE bolts that are ground to much more precise size. You will get > maximum benefit from reaming your attach fittings if you you these > bolts, and they also save you the work of measuring every AN bolt to be > sure you get the size you want. Aircraft Spruce lists some of these > bolts, but not in the length dash numbers you will need for KR wings. > Try a fastener specialist; maybe AS&S will tell you who their vendor is, > or find one on the Internet. > > On shoulder harnesses. At the 1997 KR Forum at Sun N Fun I gave a talk > on attaching shoulder harnesses to the 4 inch shelf behind the seat > back. I set the analysis up for 4000 pounds in each of 2 seats, divided > 2000 pounds at the seat belt and 2000 pounds at the shoulder harness. > For original builders, the shelf should be 1/4 birch ply. If you have > already installed the 3/32 shelf, reinforce it by gluing on a 1/8 or 1/4 > panel over it. Attach the shoulder harness with five AN 4 bolts or four > AN 5 bolts installed at least 3/4 inch aft of the front edge of the > shelf. Reinforce the glue joint between the shelf and the longeron by > gluing in a 5/8 square x 4 inch strip in the angle between the longeron > and the shelf, and you will have joints at each end of the shelf that > will take well in excess of 4000 pounds applied at the shoulder harness > attachments. This is more than enough to hold a 200 pound body at 20g > acceleration. > > Bill Marcy > old paper and pencil engineer > Hired Gun for Jeannette Rand > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 19:03:33 -0700 To: Manager Bill From: "Ross R. Youngblood" CC: Krnet Subject: Re: KR> more tail stuff Message-ID: <3AB17475.E6C81657@home.com> Bill, As a aspiring aeronautical engineer I loved this post! I started out in aeronautical engineering, then converted to computer engineering my sophmore year in college.... I think that's why I ended up building a KR. Thanks again for your contributions to the KR-net community! -- Ross Manager Bill wrote: > March 7 > To Dana Overall and others who have commented on the tail area > discussion I published on March 4.. Sorry for the delay here. > > First some basics: an airplane has a longitudinal axis running through > its center of gravity from the nose to the tail. It is generally defined > by the designer. The airplane has a lateral axis running through the > center of gravity and parallel to the wingtips. And, the airplane has a > vertical axis running through the center of gravity at right angles to > both the longitudinal axis and the lateral axis. Apparently to confound > the thoughtful, the stability of rotation about the lateral axis is > called longitudinal stability, the stability of rotation about the > longitudinal axis is called lateral stability, and the stability of > motion about the vertical axis is called directional stability. Another > set of terms reduces the confusion: motion about the lateral axis is > called pitch stability, motion about the longitudinal axis is called > roll stability, and motion about the vertical axis is called yaw > stability. I should never have used the word longitudinal, I should have > used the word pitch. This may seem trivial to a lot of you, but I want > to be straightforward and clear about what I say. To be more exact, I am > going to write here only about power-off, stick fixed static stability. > > Again I entreat you: go read Chapter 5 of the book Airplane Performance, > Stability and Control, by Perkins and Hage, original copyright 1949. > Their equation number 5-34 says exactly what I said and what Dana said > in his quotes: Stability is determined by the location of the center of > gravity in relation to the center of pressure (actually this should be > the location relative to the neutral point, which is the point at which > the pitching moment of the complete airplane is independent of the lift > coefficient. This distance, divided by the mean aerodynamic chord, is > called the static margin, and the larger (more negative) it is, the more > stable is the airplane. > > There are actually several static margins: stick fixed, power off; stick > fixed, power on; stick free, power off; stick free, power on; all four > of these with gear or flaps or both down, and so on. And, of course, the > center of gravity depends on how the airplane is loaded. Pilot, > passenger, fuel and baggage all influence the C.G. and therefore the > stability of the airplane. It is the responsibility of the designed to > select a horizontal stabilizer and elevator area that will stabilize the > airplane with the C.G. at its most aft location and yet be powerful > enough to pitch the airplane to its maximum lift coefficient with the > C.G. at is most forward location. Because it is pretty simple and > involves the fewest variables, the stick fixed, power off stability is > usually the first number discussed. And if the stick fixed, power off > stability is inadequate, most of the other will be inadequate also. > > The static margin can be increased in three ways: the neutral point can > be moved backward by increasing the tail length or the horizontal tail > area, the mean aerodynamic chord can be decreased, or the center of > gravity can be moved forward. Any chart that compares tail area to wing > area without considering either aspect ratio or C.G. location to show > whether an airplane is stable or unstable is at best an approximation. I > will say it again: the KR is not an unstable airplane just because its > tail area ratio is smaller than some other airplanes. I described the > Fokker T-2 as an example of a relatively small tail area, and I > described two ways of analyzing a canard configuration to show that C.G. > location can solve many problems. Then I went astray and got into > dynamic stability by saying that long tail, small area is better than > short tail, small area. Finally I compared the rollover stability of the > Pontiac commercials to the pitch stability of airplanes and got Dana to > think I was confusing lateral stability with longitudinal stability. No, > I just didn’t make the analogy plain enough. > > This is not to say that the KR-2 and 2S cannot be improved; it can be. > But I am not convinced that it is essential to change the tail. From > what I’ve read about the sensitivity of the pitch control, I believe > there is plenty of elevator effectiveness to handle a much more forward > C.G. than is shown on the plans. However, as I said in another note, the > taildraggers are limited because if the C.G. gets too far forward it > falls on the prop too easily. I guess this is one argument in favor of > nosewheels. (As one who learned to fly in a Taylorcraft, this is a hard > thing to admit.) However, it should not be very hard to tilt the fixed > gear forward a few inches, so even the taildraggers, unless they stay > with the retract system, can be stabilized by moving the C.G. forward. > > One more thing: stability is always discussed in relation to movement or > oscillation about a state of equilibrium. That is, the airplane must be > trimmed before its stability can be discussed. So in a very simplistic > way, I look on the tail as the trimming device and the C.G. as the > stabilizing device, but of course they are interdependent. The important > thing to remember is always start analyzing from a trimmed condition, or > you are likely to get a wrong or misleading result. > > I gave a talk on pitch stability at the KR forum during Sun N Fun 1997, > and wrote it up in a report to Jeannette Rand in May 1997. I understood > she was going to publish it in the KR newsletter; does anyone remember > it? I am not a KR builder, so I have never seen a newsletter. > > This has been a rather long winded discussion, but I want to minimize > the misunderstandings. > Chris, I will get to your wing loadings tomorrow. > > Bill Marcy > old paper and pencil engineerÄ` > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 19:11:27 -0700 To: Steven Eberhart From: "Ross R. Youngblood" CC: krnet@mailinglists.org, Ashok Gopalarathnam Subject: KR CAFE Message-ID: <3AB1764F.9D4D4966@home.com> I like the KR CAFE measurement idea. What type of instrumentation do we need to put on a KR to get quality data? Perhaps we can develop some benchmarks using GPS equipment and some standard flight patterns. For example, flying a racetrack pattern to get average ground speed. Climb performance profiles etc. How do we gather decent takeoff and landing distance information too. We could then put this stuff in a online database on the krnet.org website where people could look at the distribution of performance numbers for KR1/2 and 2S with various engines etc... Hmmm.... Well I'm all excited, at the moment, but am sure to run out of energy before I do anything positive on the topic. -- Ross (PC is back up... garage is warm... and I'm going for "IN MOTION" insurance coverage later this week!) Steven Eberhart wrote: > Mom always told me to say I'm sorry when I screwed up. Just because I > want a plane with a little more stability for cross country flights > doesn't mean that is what everyone wants. Bill Marcy has published his > analysis of the KRs stability. That is all that I really want to see. > Real data and/or analysis with real numbers. > > I would really like to see KRNet pull together around another project. > What I am proposing here is for the engineers on the group to put together > a CAFE type of flight test program that can be used to get actual flight > stability data on as many stock KRs as possible. This data can be used to > form a base line for the KR design so we will have real world numbers to > compare any R&D efforts against. THis would also publish definatively > what the stability characteristics of the KR actually is. Each builder > would also be able to compair his actual performance to that of the fleet. > > Bill has published the results of his analysis. Richard Mole and Mark > Lougheed have both done similar analysis. This would be a great time for > Ashok and some of his graduate students to get their feet wet in another > real world aeronautical engineering project. KRNet can provide the flying > KRs for the flight tests. Ashok can coordinate the engineering tallent on > KRNet and his engineering students while the tinkerers on KRNet can > provide the recording and measuring equipment. THis project could provide > the base line for all experimental aircraft to be compared against. A > pretty nice contribution to experimental aviation if you ask me. I have > talked to Richard Mole privately and he has agreed to participate. > > Since this is Friday I will add another paragraph. I once heard a story > about two men that were standing by the fence of a horse pasture. They > were debating how many teeth the horse on the other side of the pasture > had in its mouth. A third person, probably a woman or one of the net > moms, walked up and after seeing what was going on suggested that they > just climb the fence, go over and count the teeth in the horses mouth. > > Lets count some teeth. > > 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: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 19:16:46 -0700 To: "pietro.bruni@libero.it" From: "Ross R. Youngblood" CC: krnet@mailinglists.org Subject: Re: KR> i'm new! Message-ID: <3AB1778E.824D4A78@home.com> Pietro, Welcome to the KR family... so to speak. Ignore the sibling rivalry brothers sometimes get into arguments about who has the most of the back seat in the car. I purchased my plans in '88 and I believe they were dated '86. I think if you have the 2S plans you are in pretty good shape as far as modifications go. Perhaps someone will speak up if I'm mistaken, but I don't know of any real critical mods to the plans since the 2S revisions. Can someone correct me if I'm wrong? -- Regards Ross "pietro.bruni@libero.it" wrote: > Hi guys im' new here and i have just a simple question. > > I havo bought from a friend the construction drawing and manual of > KR2S, he bought it from Rand Robinson in february 1998 and after he > decided noot to build it so i sold it to me, but he have Newsletter > only to 1984! > > What else after? > There was important notice that i have to know about drawings? > There is anywhere some online newsletter? > The last one in KrNet is january 97 old ? > > thank you to every body in advance for replies. > > Pietro Bruni > Paderno Dugnano (Mi) Italy > EAA 583377 > Club Aviazione Popolare (Italian Homebuilders Association)1269 > > E mail pietro.bruni@libero.it > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 19:19:17 -0700 To: Tom Andersen From: "Ross R. Youngblood" CC: krnet@mailinglists.org Subject: Re: KR> STALL and STABILITY Message-ID: <3AB17825.C1D4C682@home.com> Dave! I was in heaven with your SLOW FLIGHT description in the KR! I just built wing jigs last night so I can do one man rigging on my plane. A little bit every day is my goal, but the best I seem to do is a bit every week. -- Ross Tom Andersen wrote: > Thanks for the pleasant story Dave. That was a breath of fresh air. I know > that 95% of KRnet would like to see more of these. > -Tom Andersen > Greensboro, NC > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Dave > To: > Cc: Max Saunders > Sent: Friday, March 09, 2001 6:26 PM > Subject: KR> STALL and STABILITY > > I'm at 3000 feet and pulling alongside of Max in his little Druine > Turbulent. Conditions are very smooth and not even a little bump in the sky. > Deep blue above and rolling green pastures below with just a little white > aeroplane beside me. Carb heat is on as I pull the power right back and try > to adjust my decreasing speed and at the same time time maintain the height > that Max is flying at untill at last i'm flying slightly faster but know > that i'm still loosing foward speed and it should all even out as I move > along side. Max normally flies the little Turbulent ZK-CVX at about 80mph > but today something is different as I notice the angle of attack in my > KR-2special is getting higher and higher. A quick glance at the air speed > indicator shows 55mph and then its eyes outside to maintain station with Max > who is maintaining a constant speed and flying nice and straight and > level.Or so I thought. Its just starting to dawn on me that his insane > looking grin is probably for my benefit and that he has been slowing down > ever since he saw me comming along side. Right. Lets see if we can match him > as I move away to give a bit of distance between us. ZK-CSR stalls at 55mph > and am starting to get a little stick shake now as the speed falls through > 55mph.We are starting to drop away a little so add a trickle of power to my > Revmaster 2100 and the buffeting through the stick gets stronger. Increasing > revs to 2100 and the buffeting remains constant and wow. The airspeed is > dropping below 50mph and we are still along side him and. At 45mph indicated > max is dropping behind and I know we just can't go any slower and so start a > gentle turn away leaving Max and his Turbulent outlined against a deep blue > sky and the sharp green line seperating the sea. Still maintaing height I > increase revs to 2200rpm and keep the stick held back trying to keep the > speed smack on 40mph. Still have the buffeting and I wonder about a rate one > turn to the right. No problems there and the same to the left. A full 360 > degree turn with stick buffeting and apparent full control. So lets try full > control deflection to the left and back again. Just a soggy very slow > response. Full deflection to the right gave a bit of height loss but no > control problems. Oh well. I suppose I should head back to the airfield and > have a coffee and discuss the speeds with Max. "Paraparam traffic this is > CSR five to the north 3000 feet joining". I wonder what the indicated > airspeed error was at the speed we were travelling. Wiil never know really. > What I do know is that this little aeroplane of mine has not got any bad > vices at all and think to myself how lucky I am. "CSR is left base for 34 > number two behind the Cub on short final". Last week I did my biannual > licence review "CSR short final for 34" and the instructor was very > impressed with the the handling and wanted to go off on his own and do some > aeros's. No way. This is my wee baby. Accross the fence at 70mph and holding > off, holding off, holding off. Mains down and a little check foward on the > stick to stick them there then ease back as the tail comes down."CSR > clearing left to Sport hanger". Stick hard back and a lot of power to run up > on to the grass and finally to the hanger. A cup of coffee. A good talk > about aircraft and then another flight and then.....What a life........ > > David J Stuart > > Email fly@paradise.net.nz > http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/~fly > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 19:21:49 -0700 To: "R.M. Obrey" <39viking@home.com> From: "Ross R. Youngblood" CC: krnet@mailinglists.org Subject: Re: KR> KR-1 Build Time Message-ID: <3AB178BD.39461DD@home.com> I had to throw my 2cents in.... I think my project started going over budget on time, when I tried to build everything myself. I built enough wing attach fittings for 3 KR's but only one set made it beyond the scrap heap.... Also spent a lot of time sanding and filling, sanding and filling my wings. If you have the $$ buy the skins. You will get sexy looking wings, and you can lie to everyone about all the sanding you did, since it will be much less and you won't want to feel left out. -- Regards Ross "R.M. Obrey" wrote: > Has anyone built a KR-1 or KR-2 in a thousand hours or less? If not, why? Thanks. > > - Richard ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 21:22:50 EST To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: Flymaca711689@cs.com Subject: firing order vw Message-ID: <4a.12c8ead4.27e2d2fa@cs.com> great planes (good site) wrong firing order specs read # 1234 ? vw is #1432 . mine is timed #1432 . is this right? slick magneto right rotation ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 19:24:48 -0700 To: Manager Bill From: "Ross R. Youngblood" CC: chris K , Krnet Subject: Re: KR> KR proof load Message-ID: <3AB17970.8FC0D204@home.com> Manager Bill, Say if you have a picture on the loading jig I would be happy to put it up on http://www.krnet.org You can email it, or if this is a hassle, send me a floppy or CD-ROM to: KR-net c/o Ross Youngblood 3461 W. Jasper Dr Chandler,Az 85226 KR related activities sort of get put off sometimes, but if you send me this stuff I will be sure to post it. Manager Bill wrote: > This is for Chris Kogelmann in Austria, but I am sending it via the > krnet for information and comment. > > First I want to dispel the notion that I am on the Rand Robinson > payroll. I have an ongoing agreement with Jeannette to work on a > structural analysis of the KR-2S, but it is a task-by-task job and I > haven’t worked on it very often. Despite what many of you may believe, > Mrs. Rand is not reaping huge profits from her business. Most of what I > have done in forums at Oshkosh and at Sun N Fun has been as a volunteer, > though she helped some with travel expenses. Like the rest of you, all > that I do here on krnet is unpaid, though I have written about a couple > of things I was paid to do. What follows is part of that, although the > conversions to metric I am doing for Chris, not Jeannette. > > Chris, you didn’t mention what the gross weight of your KR is going to > be, but since you are using VW power, I assume you are following the > guidelines and are working toward 980 lb (445 kg). You should have no > fear of loading your wing to the equivalent of 445 kg; as I wrote a few > days ago, it is more than strong enough to support 477 kg at 4.0 g > without permanent deformation. That is, when the load is removed, it > will return to its unloaded shape. That is the definition of limit load. > So you are perfectly safe in loading to 445 kg at 3.8 g, provided that > you do it carefully and correctly. As a matter of fact, it’s a good > idea. You wouldn’t fire a rifle or shotgun without proof marks on the > barrel, would you? > > You expressed reluctance to invert your KR so it can be loaded acting > downward on the lower surface, so I will tell you how to keep the > airplane upright. It will take some sturdy lumber and a bit of time to > build the loading levers, but the work is pretty easy. You are going to > build a pair of simple support beams to go over the spar at the wing > roots, because you will be pushing up on the wings, and you need to hold > the airplane down. Next you are going to build ten loading levers and > their stands, five for each wing, but they will all be identical. > > First, the support beams. They need to be sturdy, because you will be > pushing against them with about 800 kg on each side. In the US, a > standard board size is 2 x 6, which is finished to 1.5 x 5.5 inches, or > 4 cm x 14 cm. You need two pieces, each 2 meters long. Drill each end > through the 14 cm width so you can attach a chain or cable that will > reach an anchor in the ground and so the cables will clear the wings > with the midpoint of the beam centered over the front spar. Attach a 5 > cm x 4 cm rubber pad to the 4 cm bottom edge at its midpoint to form a > bearing surface on the top of the front spar. Each ground anchor and > cable should withstand at least 400 kg; 500 kg would be better. > > Now you will need a total of 24.5 meters of 50 mm x 50 mm square stock, > 8 square meters of 18 to 20 mm plywood, and 28 glass or steel balls > about 12 to 15 mm in diameter. Finally you will need 1306 kg of bricks > or sand and sandbags. The bricks are easier to stack, but don’t buy > them; borrow them, and if you can’t borrow bricks, use the sand and > sandbags. Of course, you’ll also need a scale to weigh the bricks or > sand. > > Cut 10 pieces of 50 mm square stock into 1 meter lengths. Set 2 pieces > aside. With a drill, start a 10 mm hole 20 mm from the end of each of > the 8 pieces remaining. Turn the pieces over, and start a 10 mm hole 330 > mm from the center of the first hole in each piece. These are sockets > for the 12 mm balls. (If you use 15 mm balls, use a 12 mm drill bit.) > Each hole should be such that a ball will go about 1/3 of the way into a > hole. These 8 pieces are the outboard loading levers. Measure 660 mm > from the center of each end socket, and drill a shallow socket hole. > These holes will locate the center lines of the loading planks that you > will place your sandbags on. > > Cut 12 blocks of 50 mm square stock, each 100 mm long (this length is > not critical). Glue and screw two blocks flush with the ends of each of > the two remaining 1 meter lever arms and on opposite sides of the arm so > you form a 100 mm x 150 mm surface at one end of each lever. These are > the inboard lever arms. Drill a ball socket 100 mm apart and 20 mm from > the end of each lever arm. (This is why you glued blocks to the sides.) > Measure 330 mm from the centers of the sockets and mark the pivot point > on each arm. Center a 100 mm block to each side of the lever arms (same > orientation as the end blocks) on these marks, and glue and screw them > in place. Turn each arm over and drill a ball socket in each block at > the lever arm center line and 100 mm apart. Turn the arms over again and > measure 660 mm from the center line between the end socket holes. Mark > each arm. This is the centerline of the inboard loading platform. Center > two of the last four 100 mm blocks to each lever arm (same orientation > as the others) and glue and screw them in place. > > Now cut 2 pieces of 18 mm or 20 mm plywood, each 600 x 630 mm. The > grain should run the long way. Mark the center of each piece, and glue > and screw one platform with its center over the loading centerline of > each inboard loading lever. > > Cut 4 pieces of 50 mm square stock, each 630 mm long. Two of these are > the inboard load distribution pads, and the other two are ballast to > balance the 630 mm loading pads. Mark the centers of the two load > distribution pads, and drill a pair of ball sockets 50 mm on each side > of the centerlines to match the two sockets in the ends of the inboard > loading levers. > > Cut 4 pieces of 50 mm square stock, each 2.4 meters long. Two of these > are load distribution pads and two are ballast to balance the loading > plank that will rest on the loading levers. Make a mark to identify the > outboard tips of the two distribution pads. Starting from the outboard > end of each pad, drill ball sockets centered at 4 locations on each pad: > 343 mm from the tip, 953 mm from the tip, 1504 mm from the tip, and 2174 > mm from the tip. These sockets will locate the ends of the 8 outboard > loading levers, 4 on each outboard wing panel. > > Cut 2 plywood loading planks, each 2.4 meters long by 600 mm wide, with > the grain running the long way (if your plywood is only available in > American 8 foot lengths, don’t worry about the missing inch. Just > compensate for a 25 mm shortage at the tip end of each plank.) Scribe a > centerline down each plank and drill ball socket holes corresponding to > the socket holes in the load distribution pads. Don’t forget to > compensate for the missing 25 mm at the tip if you are using American > size plywood. > > Now cut 10 pieces of 50 mm square stock, each 220 mm long, and 10 pieces > of plywood each 150 mm square. These are the pylons that the loading > planks and the load distribution pads will rest on. Center one end of a > 220 mm pylon on the center of each plywood base and glue and screw it in > place. Drill a ball socket in the free end of each pylon. > > You are ready to assemble the loading system. Place five pylons about > equally spaced and about 15 mm ahead of the center section leading edge > of each wing. Starting from the inboard end, number them from 1 to 5. > Place a bearing ball in each pylon socket. Take the two inboard loading > levers (the ones with two ball sockets in the ends) and place them on > the no. 1 pylons, locating each lever with its socket on the ball in the > pylon and the short end projecting under the wing. Insert balls in the > sockets and place the 630 mm loading pads on the levers, with their ball > sockets on the bearing balls in the ends of the loading levers. Put a > 630 mm ballast bar just in front of each load distribution pad. Now > adjust each assembly of pylon, loading lever, load distribution pad and > ballast bar so the loading pad is centered on the bottom of the main > spar and the end of the loading pad is flush with the outside of the > fuselage. The loading levers won’t be completely balanced, so the > distribution pads will press lightly against the bottom of the spar and > keep everything steady. > > Place a loading lever with its midpoint ball socket over the bearing > ball on each of the 8 outboard pylons, and put a bearing ball in the end > socket and the loading socket of each lever. Now place a 600 mm loading > plank, with its locating sockets facing down, over each set of outboard > loading levers, and adjust the pylons in and out so the ball sockets in > the platforms fit onto the bearing balls in the lever arms. Adjust the > whole assembly so the outboard edge of each platform is even with the > tips of the wings. Place a load distribution pad and a ballast bar > between the wing and the loading levers, and again adjust the pylons in > and out and back and forth so the load distribution bars are even with > the bottoms of the spars and the bearing sockets fit over the balls in > the loading levers. > > Are you still with me? It is hard to describe this without using a > picture or drawing, but I have a phobia against e-mail attachments. If > you require a drawing, I will send you one by postal service. > > You should now have your airplane securely fastened down, with ten short > pylons each supporting a load lever, and the system of load levers > having a short inboard and a long outboard loading platform in front of > the wing and a short load distribution pad and a long distribution pad > pressing against the bottom of the wing spar on each side of the > fuselage. You are ready to apply the 3.8 g static load. However, the > total load will not be 3.8 times 444 kg, both because you are not going > to load the part of the wing that is inside the fuselage, and because > the downward inertia of the outboard wing panels relieves the lift load > on the wing. The applied load is centered on the forward spar because > this is the 25 percent chord location, and the lift load is centered > approximately on the 25 percent chord. Gather your bricks. > > You are going to apply the following loads: > pad number 1, 186 kg > pad number 2, 144 kg > pad number 3, 125 kg > pad number 4, 107 kg > pad number 5, 91 kg > Total applied to each wing, 653 kg > Incidentally, this distribution includes the effect of 2 degrees washout > (twist) in the outer wing panels. > > Start at the inboard location, pad number 1. Stack 186 kg of bricks so > the load is centered on the center of the pylon. Note that the wing spar > will bend a little, and the outer levers will be tilted upward against > the wing. Put some spacers under the number 2 pylon until the lever is > at least level, and make sure that the long loading pad is even with the > spar all along its length. Load both number 1 pylons before you adjust > the number 2 pylons. > > Now stack 144 kg of bricks on the loading plank, with the load centered > over the center of the number 2 pylon on each side of the fuselage.. > > Move to pylon number 3. Note that the wing spar will be bent a little > more, and the number 3 loading levers will be tilting up toward the > wing. Put spacers under the pylon platforms to level the levers again, > and load each lever number 3 with 125 kg of bricks, again centered over > the number 3 pylons. > > Move to the number 4 pylons. Put spacers under the platforms to level > the loading levers. Then load the plank with 107 kg of bricks, centered > on pylon number 4, for each wing panel. > > Finally, move to the number 5 pylons. Put spacers under the platforms > (it will probably take quite a few!) to level the loading levers. > Finally, load each plank with 91 kg of bricks, centered on pylon number > 5. > > Take lots of pictures! Also be sure the Austrian officials are there to > witness the loading, though you don’t need them around until you > actually start piling bricks. It would also be wise to measure the > upward bending of the spar at the wingtip also. Finally, remove the > loads in reverse order. That is, unload the number 5 pylons, then the > number 4 pylons, and so on, working on both wings as you go. > > The last step, and of utmost importance to the officials (as well as to > you!), is to inspect the wings and the attach fittings after all the > load has been removed. If you have done all the gluing, glassing, > reaming and bolting properly, there should be no damage at all. Go fly! > > Bill Marcy > Still penciling on paper > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 19:28:41 -0700 To: Mark Jones From: "Ross R. Youngblood" CC: EagleGator@aol.com, krnet@mailinglists.org Subject: Re: KR> "Sanding Board" success! Message-ID: <3AB17A59.C34E548C@home.com> Run don't walk to Home Depot or a craf store and buy the following: 1) Hot Glue Gun 2) Glue sticks This is a FAST way to attach sandpaper to your board, and you can easily peel the glue off and start over when it's time for a new sheet. I found this was faster and slightly less messy than rubber cement. The glue gun trick also works GREAT for foam attaching too. Much quicker than the 5 minute epoxy. > > I find a faster way to change paper. Currently I'm using rubber > > cement to attach the paper to the board. Anyone have a better idea? > > > > Cheers, > > Rick Junkin, St. Charles MO > > EagleGator@aol.com > > -- > Mark Jones (N886MJ) > Wales, WI USA > E-mail me at mailto:flykr2s@execpc.com > Visit my KR-2S CorvAIRCRAFT web site at > http://sites.netscape.net/n886mj/homepage > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To post to the list, email: krnet@mailinglists.org > > To UNsubscribe, e-mail: krnet-unsubscribe@mailinglists.org > For additional commands, e-mail: krnet-help@mailinglists.org ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 19:31:06 -0700 To: "R.M. Obrey" <39viking@home.com> From: "Ross R. Youngblood" CC: krnet@mailinglists.org Subject: Re: KR> KR-1 Message-ID: <3AB17AEA.C456D99B@home.com> Richard, I had a hangar mate in Oregon with a KR-1 project. If it lit your fire, I would say go for it and possibly stretch the plane a bit. However this would mess with the CG, so you need somone who knows what they are talking about, not a Bull****er like me. -- Ross "R.M. Obrey" wrote: > Thanks for the answer to my earlier question. Now I have another one or two. > > 1. Is the KR-1 pitch sensitive like the KR-2? If so, should I follow the same path that everyone else has taken to eliminate the problem? > 2. My plans are from 1973 and are vauge at best. How many layers of glass should I use? The plans do not say, it just says glass the thing with Dynel. I take it from the other posts that I will be using E-glass. > 3. I have read a couple of small books on the subject, the books weren't very good. It didn't tell me what is meant by "flox" nor did it tell me what BID tape means. Can someone answer this for me? > 4. I sure would like to glass the whole thing, as suggested by Michael Mimms. Is this a bad idea? > 5. I am 6'2" tall, Rand-Robinson told me that I am too big. Were they just trying to sell me a set for the KR-2S or is it true? Should I say "Big Deal" and modify the plane to fit me. I really want to build this plane. I have plans for a half dozen others, this is the only one that has lit my fire. > > Thanks! > > - Richard ------------------------------ End of krnet Digest ***********************************