From: To: Subject: krnet Digest 19 May 2001 08:51:03 -0000 Issue 226 Date: Saturday, May 19, 2001 1:51 AM krnet Digest 19 May 2001 08:51:03 -0000 Issue 226 Topics (messages 5411 through 5440): Re KR>control cables 5411 by: anthony soldano 5417 by: Tracy & Carol O'Brien Re: Cockpit dimensions? 5412 by: Rick Spriggle 5413 by: Rick Hubka Foam filler 5414 by: Mark Jones 5415 by: Robert Stone 5418 by: Laheze.aol.com 5419 by: Ross R. Youngblood 5428 by: virgnvs.juno.com 5432 by: Laheze.aol.com 5435 by: Ron Eason Five notes 5416 by: Manager Bill 5420 by: Ross R. Youngblood 5425 by: Mark Langford 5427 by: Jerry Mahurin 5429 by: HEATH, DANIEL R 5430 by: Manager Bill 5431 by: Jerry Mahurin 5433 by: Robert X. Cringely 5440 by: John and Janet Martindale Cowling Lives (N541RY Update) 5421 by: Ross R. Youngblood PHX TRACON/Tower Visit 5422 by: Ross R. Youngblood 5437 by: Carson Cassidy Control Cables 5423 by: Glasco Turbo Suburu engine for sale 5424 by: Lon V Boothby Re: polyfuse 5426 by: larry flesner Re: Another engine. 5434 by: George Allen Inspection 5436 by: Al Friesen FIBERGLASS-DYNEL 5438 by: pjvisc.netzero.net 5439 by: Glasco Administrivia: To subscribe to the digest, e-mail: To unsubscribe from the digest, e-mail: To post to the list, e-mail: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 16:29:43 -0400 To: "Bill Gaudlip" , "KRNET" From: "anthony soldano" Subject: Re KR>control cables Message-ID: <000d01c0df10$1c8ac0a0$28eb1440@compaq> I need to order control cables and i am not sure what to use.i was planning on useing 3/32 cable,stainless.After looking in Wicks's book i see there are three types,1x19,7x7,and7x19.What do you guys recommend? Thanks Tony ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 20:59:42 -0700 To: "anthony soldano" , "Bill Gaudlip" ,"KRNET" From: Tracy & Carol O'Brien Subject: Re: KR> Re KR>control cables Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.20010517205942.0072dc70@localaccess.com> Tony, For anything running over a pulley you should always use 7x19. Regards, Tracy O'Brien At 04:29 PM 05/17/2001 -0400, anthony soldano wrote: > >I need to order control cables and i am not sure what to use.i was planning >on useing 3/32 cable,stainless.After looking in Wicks's book i see there are >three types,1x19,7x7,and7x19.What do you guys recommend? > > >Thanks Tony > > > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >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, 17 May 2001 18:22:08 -0400 To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: Rick Spriggle Subject: Re: KR> Cockpit dimensions? Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010517182208.0080e880@127.0.0.1> Thanks to everyone who responded to my question. That's the reason I'm on this list before buying anything. It's amazing what a few scraps of plywood and 2x4 can do for a visual. I made the so-called box and set it at 33" inside dimension to be on the safe side. Then I drew a center line and sat my butt in there. I'm not a big guy, 5'10" and 165lbs, but I have wide shoulders and take up about 18" or so. Get my dad in there with me who is slightly larger and it probably wouldn't be a comfortable trip from Nashville to PA. Maybe ok for local flying but not for a 4 hr x-country. And I thought my friend's 150 was small !!! It appears as if almost everyone is plans building their KRs, correct? For various reasons I was planning on individual sub-kits from RR. For me to widen and straighten the fuselage pretty much puts me into a plans-build situation, which is what I don't want. Not that I'm afraid of plans building something, because I've had my eye on the Corby Starlet for some time, but I don't want to devote 7-10 years of build time to get in the air with the first one. 3-4 years is plenty. If the stock KR won't fit the bill, then I might have to re-think. Rick At 05:39 PM 5/16/01 -0700, Peter Johnson wrote: >Hi Rick, some thoughts on fuse width.... > >Just about NOBODY builds the fuse to the width shown on the drawings which >is 37.5" if I remember correctly. Just about EVERYBODY widens the fuse to >40" at the shoulders and the bottom accordingly. > >Mark Loughheed of Northwest Experimental Aircraft Resources has redrawn the >fuse plan form to move the widest part of the fuse to a point nearer the >shoulders, this is good! I have his drawings and altered the fuse plan >accordingly, but I still added 10% additional width to the widest point, and >tapered it out to the tailpost and made it about 2" wider at the firewall. > >None of what I did above was at all hard. The KR aircraft is very amenable >to changes such as this and like I said, just about everybody does it. > >If you would like to discuss this more Rick, please feel free to drop me >aline. > >mailto:pjohnson@voyageur.ca ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 19:21:19 -0600 To: From: "Rick Hubka" Subject: Re: KR> Cockpit dimensions? Message-ID: <004601c0df38$d8277100$a280be95@cg.shawcable.net> Hi Rick > It appears as if almost everyone is plans building their KRs, correct? MMMmmm... Yes and No I am building a KR-2S from the plans BUT.............. I widened the fusalage 4" at the shoulders on the top longeron and 6" on the bottom. (about 50% approx of builders widen theirs) Widened the firewall 1" at the top and 2" at the bottom. I am using the new airfoil (not the plans RAF airfoil). In the last 2 years many(?????) are opting to build with this airfoil. *** Please read the archives on this hot topic!!! :) This includes a newer airfoil for the tail section which I might add is now 8" wider (horizontal stab that is) I am using a DragonFly canopy (about 50% of KR-2S builders do) Building my own forward and aft decks.(most do now) I am buying nothing but the plans from RR. Using TET 4130 steel gear brackets with solid alum gear legs. Using the famous Dr Dean rod end bearing advice for tail hinges. (Dean... get back to that plane soon.) Built my outter spars 12" longer in wood instead of 12" of foam etc... etc... etc... All my mods were the result of taking and leaving great and not so great ideas from the many talented people on this news group for the last 2.5 years. I think it is safe to say that "almost" nobody builds exactly to plans. Note... I have a qualifier in that sentence (almost). I would say the most common mod is to widen the fusalage at the shoulders 4 to 6 inches. But...> It appears as if almost everyone is plans building their KRs, correct? Nope... Take care Rick Rick Hubka Calgary, Alberta Canada rick@hubka.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rick Spriggle" To: Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2001 4:22 PM Subject: Re: KR> Cockpit dimensions? > Thanks to everyone who responded to my question. That's the reason I'm on > this list before buying anything. > > It's amazing what a few scraps of plywood and 2x4 can do for a visual. I > made the so-called box and set it at 33" inside dimension to be on the safe > side. Then I drew a center line and sat my butt in there. I'm not a big > guy, 5'10" and 165lbs, but I have wide shoulders and take up about 18" or > so. Get my dad in there with me who is slightly larger and it probably > wouldn't be a comfortable trip from Nashville to PA. Maybe ok for local > flying but not for a 4 hr x-country. And I thought my friend's 150 was > small !!! > > It appears as if almost everyone is plans building their KRs, correct? For > various reasons I was planning on individual sub-kits from RR. For me to > widen and straighten the fuselage pretty much puts me into a plans-build > situation, which is what I don't want. Not that I'm afraid of plans > building something, because I've had my eye on the Corby Starlet for some > time, but I don't want to devote 7-10 years of build time to get in the air > with the first one. 3-4 years is plenty. If the stock KR won't fit the > bill, then I might have to re-think. > > Rick > > > > > > > > > At 05:39 PM 5/16/01 -0700, Peter Johnson wrote: > >Hi Rick, some thoughts on fuse width.... > > > >Just about NOBODY builds the fuse to the width shown on the drawings which > >is 37.5" if I remember correctly. Just about EVERYBODY widens the fuse to > >40" at the shoulders and the bottom accordingly. > > > >Mark Loughheed of Northwest Experimental Aircraft Resources has redrawn the > >fuse plan form to move the widest part of the fuse to a point nearer the > >shoulders, this is good! I have his drawings and altered the fuse plan > >accordingly, but I still added 10% additional width to the widest point, and > >tapered it out to the tailpost and made it about 2" wider at the firewall. > > > >None of what I did above was at all hard. The KR aircraft is very amenable > >to changes such as this and like I said, just about everybody does it. > > > >If you would like to discuss this more Rick, please feel free to drop me > >aline. > > > >mailto:pjohnson@voyageur.ca > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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, 17 May 2001 20:45:04 -0500 To: KR-Net From: Mark Jones Subject: Foam filler Message-ID: <3B047EA0.D07CDDB1@execpc.com> What are you guys using as a foam filler prior to glassing. By this, I mean, if there is a dent in the foam which needs to be filled before any glass cloth is applied, what is the best for adhesion and ease of sanding? Thanks -- 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, 17 May 2001 21:03:41 -0500 To: "Mark Jones" , "KR-Net" From: "Robert Stone" Subject: Re: KR> Foam filler Message-ID: <000f01c0df3e$e5de6e60$ebd8fea9@pavilion> Mark: I would also like the answer to this one. When Rich McCall was living in this area and I was working on his KR-2S (much modified) we tried to find out what product was the best filler foam and tried some of them but the problem was that most leave a hard crust when they dry. When sanding or cutting is attempted the filler foam breaks away from the other foam. I hope someone can come up with an answer to this. Bob Stone, Harker Heights, Tx rlspjs@dashlink.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark Jones" To: "KR-Net" Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2001 8:45 PM Subject: KR> Foam filler > What are you guys using as a foam filler prior to glassing. By this, I > mean, if there is a dent in the foam which needs to be filled before any > glass cloth is applied, what is the best for adhesion and ease of > sanding? > Thanks > -- > 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, 18 May 2001 00:04:17 EDT To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: Laheze@aol.com Subject: Foam Filler Message-ID: <106.2a7e9.2835f941@aol.com> The size of the dent into your foam will determine what you may want to do to remedy the situation. If the dent is not very deep at all just fill with thicker slurry ( glass balls mixed with resin) If you have a major dent that is not easily fillable, you can cut out a square area,or (round area or what ever shape you prefer) which would remove the dented (damaged) area. Replace it with another piece of the same type of foam cut in the same shape. Use a can of expandable urethane, hot glue, or whatever your preference is to glue in place around the edges lower down than your already finished surface. Sand this new piece to shape and then slurry all and glass it. Larry Howell laheze@aol.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 22:47:58 -0700 To: Robert Stone From: "Ross R. Youngblood" CC: Mark Jones , KR-Net Subject: Re: KR> Foam filler Message-ID: <3B04B78E.7BA4BD5D@home.com> This is a real pain in the xxx problem. I just did some more foam work tonight on my cowling, and I ran across it again. I haven't found much that works to my satisfaction, and usually end up using filler on the end product unless I remove and refoam a large area. Short of doing this here are some options. 1) Secure small pieces of foam with toothpicks while you wait for the glue to set. 2) Use a glue gun instead of 5 minute epoxy, sets up faster, and is easier to apply (no mixing). Robert Stone wrote: > Mark: I would also like the answer to this one. When Rich McCall was > living in this area and I was working on his KR-2S (much modified) we tried > to find out what product was the best filler foam and tried some of them but > the problem was that most leave a hard crust when they dry. When sanding or > cutting is attempted the filler foam breaks away from the other foam. I > hope someone can come up with an answer to this. > > Bob Stone, Harker Heights, Tx > rlspjs@dashlink.com > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Mark Jones" > To: "KR-Net" > Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2001 8:45 PM > Subject: KR> Foam filler > > > What are you guys using as a foam filler prior to glassing. By this, I > > mean, if there is a dent in the foam which needs to be filled before any > > glass cloth is applied, what is the best for adhesion and ease of > > sanding? > > Thanks > > -- > > 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 > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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, 18 May 2001 09:09:29 -0400 To: Laheze@aol.com From: virgnvs@juno.com Cc: krnet@mailinglists.org Subject: Re: KR> Foam Filler Message-ID: <20010518.092144.-295591.0.virgnvs@juno.com> OH OH, Burt says to taper sand the depression out about 6" dia, lay up until level. Do not go by what I say, read the master glass mans books, Virg On Fri, 18 May 2001 00:04:17 EDT Laheze@aol.com writes: > The size of the dent into your foam will determine what you may want > to do to > remedy the situation. > If the dent is not very deep at all just fill with thicker slurry ( > glass > balls mixed with resin) > If you have a major dent that is not easily fillable, you can cut > out a > square area,or (round area or what ever shape you prefer) which > would remove > the dented (damaged) area. Replace it with another piece of the same > type of > foam cut in the same shape. Use a can of expandable urethane, hot > glue, or > whatever your preference is to glue in place around the edges lower > down than > your already finished surface. Sand this new piece to shape and then > slurry > all and glass it. > > Larry Howell laheze@aol.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, 18 May 2001 13:54:58 EDT To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: Laheze@aol.com Subject: Fwd: KR> Foam Filler Message-ID: <27.159a1327.2836bbf2@aol.com> --part1_27.159a1327.2836bbf2_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit --part1_27.159a1327.2836bbf2_boundary Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Return-path: From: Laheze@aol.com Full-name: Laheze Message-ID: <9c.e836d24.2836bbb4@aol.com> Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 13:53:56 EDT Subject: Re: KR> Foam Filler To: virgnvs@juno.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 138 Virg, I believe the repair you are talking about is for an already glassed item that has been damaged. Larry Howell laheze@aol.com --part1_27.159a1327.2836bbf2_boundary-- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 19:35:35 -0500 To: "Robert Stone" , "Mark Jones" , "KR-Net" From: "Ron Eason" Subject: Re: KR> Foam filler Message-ID: <001501c0dffb$9ec26820$506a1a41@kc.rr.com> Us Aeropoxy superlite filler, it seals the foam for fiberglass later [ or some similar other product or micro beads and resin mixed to tooth paste viscosity]. Ron ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Stone" To: "Mark Jones" ; "KR-Net" Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2001 9:03 PM Subject: Re: KR> Foam filler > Mark: I would also like the answer to this one. When Rich McCall was > living in this area and I was working on his KR-2S (much modified) we tried > to find out what product was the best filler foam and tried some of them but > the problem was that most leave a hard crust when they dry. When sanding or > cutting is attempted the filler foam breaks away from the other foam. I > hope someone can come up with an answer to this. > > Bob Stone, Harker Heights, Tx > rlspjs@dashlink.com > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Mark Jones" > To: "KR-Net" > Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2001 8:45 PM > Subject: KR> Foam filler > > > > What are you guys using as a foam filler prior to glassing. By this, I > > mean, if there is a dent in the foam which needs to be filled before any > > glass cloth is applied, what is the best for adhesion and ease of > > sanding? > > Thanks > > -- > > 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 > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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, 17 May 2001 21:45:04 -0600 To: Krnet@mailinglists.org From: Manager Bill Subject: Five notes Message-ID: <3B049ABE.6AC31698@nm.net> I’ve been meaning to respond to several notes on krnet recently, but have let other matters interfere, so I am catching up. Here are five notes for the net. Note 1. On May 5, Pond Carter asked, “Would some one give me a layman’s reasoning for the chosen wing design. What is the advantage of the tapered wing?” It is my considered opinion that the advantage of a tapered wing is chiefly structural. The deeper a wing spar, the lighter it can be for a given load, and with fixed span and area, tapering the wing makes the root chord and therefore the depth greater than for a rectangular wing. The ultimate is a diamond shaped planform with zero tip chord; this doubles the spar depth and reduced the thickness of the spar cap by a factor of 8. In addition, the bending moment at the root is much less for the tapered wing than the rectangular, so the structure of the tapered wing is quite a bit more efficient than the rectangular wing. However, a sharply tapered wing tends to stall at the tips first, and so is difficult to control at slow speeds. For this reason, tip chords less than about 1/3 of the root chord are best avoided. Many tapered wings, including the KR series, are also twisted to reduce the tendency for tips to stall first. In chapter 3 of his book, “Fluid Dynamic Lift,” S.F. Hoerner shows that the optimum taper ratio for lift/drag ratio is close to 1/2 (no twist), but is only about 10 percent better than a rectangular wing with unrounded tips. Finally, style and appearance do count. Chris Heintz’s Zenith designs are marvels of efficiency and simplicity, but have never been popular because they don’t look sleek and streamlined. Note 2. On May 10, Dan Heath asked about the shear strength of AN 6 bolts. Nickel steel AN 6 bolts have a guaranteed shear strength of 8280 lb, whereas the applied load at the wing attach fittings is 6884 lb on each of the two fittings attached to the front spar. See Mil Handbook 5C or whatever letter mod is current. However, there are 3 other ways in which toe wing attach fittings can fail: 1. the fittings can fail in shear along two horizontal planes between the edge of the hole and the edge of the material. The shear strength of the wing attach fittings in this area is 8014 lb, so the fittings will shear out before the bolt shears through. 2. The fittings can fail in tension along a vertical plane between the edge of the hole and the edge of the material. The tension strength of the wing attach fittings in this area is 13357 lb, so the fittings will fail in shear before they fail in tension. 3. The fitting holes can fail in bearing (elongation of the holes) of the bolts against the surface of the holes in the fittings. The bearing strength of the 3/8 inch holes in the fittings is 9375 lb, so the fittings will fail in shear before the bolt holes fail by elongation. Finally, in an earlier note, I pointed out that for reamed holes, AN 176 close tolerance bolts (same strength as AN bolts) will fit more closely and therefore better develop the full strength of the joint than simple AN bolts. Or, for both strength and close tolerance, use NAS 1106 high strength bolts, which are not only ground to close tolerance but are heat reated to 160,000 psi. Then you can be sure the fittings will fail and not the bolts. Item 3. On May 11, Jerry Mahurin advocated using piano hinges on the ailerons and elevators. This is not a good idea. Both the wing and horizontal tail bend under air load. When you bend a piano hinge in a curve, it tends to bind and “snap over” from one position to another. Try it on your bench. Even trying to have 3 hinges in a row can lead to trouble. Use two short hinges on wings and tail surfaces. You can use short sections of extruded MS piano hinge, but don’t try to use full length sections. And avoid the bent-up hinges; they are not strong enough. Item 4. On May 11, Larry Howell and Steve Eberhart had comments on the KR structure and the use of fiberglass in place of the original Dynel. The KR is essentially a wooden structure with external contours shaped by applying foam and a covering. All the structural analysis I have done has ignored the foam and the covering. The wings are two wooden spars, with each spar in three sections joined by steel fittings. The center spar sections are built into the fuselage, attaching at the fuselage sides. The fuselage is a braced wooden truss in the shape of a tapered tube, and the tail surfaces are pairs of wood spars joined to the fuselage. The foam and glass simply transfer the airloads to the wood structure. Note that you can reinforce and stiffen the wing panels as much as you want, but the final loads are carried by the Wing Attach Fittings and the center section spars. These pieces limit the amount of load you can carry. In the same way, the fuselage trusswork is a tube with a large opening in the top (the cockpit). You can reinforce the turtle deck and the forward deck all you want, but unless you also build a reinforcing ring around the cockpit opening, you are not improving the basic fuselage structure much at all. Make it smooth and make it pretty, but don’t worry too much about increasing the strength. Note 5. There was some brief discussion a couple of weeks ago about a 36 HP engine and its disadvantages. Don’t bee too quick to give up on 36 HP. A 1000 pound KR flying at 70 mph and L/D of 10 has just 100 pounds of drag; if the prop efficiency is 70% (small diameter and high rpm), that 100 pounds of drag requires just 26.7 HP, and the remaining 9.3 HP will enable you to climb at 215 feet per minute. You will outclimb Cubs, Champs, and Cessna 150s on about 2/3 the fuel. And that 36 HP VW will fly all day, day after day, at full throttle without complaining. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 23:01:11 -0700 To: Manager Bill From: "Ross R. Youngblood" CC: Krnet@mailinglists.org Subject: Re: KR> Five notes Message-ID: <3B04BAA7.31A77BC5@home.com> Bill, This was a TERRIFIC POST! I really enjoyed the technical content! I especially enjoyed the analysis of the fuselage "tube" area. I made my aft deck out of Kevlar and it is very light and has some flex. I reinforced the area aft of the canopy so I could place all my weight on it for entry and exit without it deforming, but aft of this area (beyond 18") it is more flexible. In the center of the aft area you can deform it slightly if you apply enough pressure. I have had one technical counselor comment that by making the aft deck removable, I needed to add a horizantal cross member aft of the seat area. (I forget the section, but it is the one fuselage bay where there is no top X-member in the KR-2 plans). After adding this, I had another tech counselor concerned about flutter who asked that I add some 1/8" triangular spruce, as diagional cross members to the all of the bays aft of the seating area.These were placed against the plywood bay sections. The idea was to add some stiffness without adding significant weight. All this was done to prevent flutter. I have noticed that the KR-2S has some additional bracing aft of the seat area as diagional braces. Can you comment on the necessity of adding this on a KR-2, in light of my removable aft deck? Also the 36HP VW comment was interesting. Seems I should have plenty of HP with my 1835cc engine for the flyingg I want to do. -- Thanks & Best Regards Ross Manager Bill wrote: > I’ve been meaning to respond to several notes on krnet recently, but > have let other matters interfere, so I am catching up. Here are five > notes for the net. > ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 06:50:34 -0500 To: From: "Mark Langford" Subject: Re: KR> Five notes Message-ID: <002f01c0df90$c0684f00$5e0ca58c@tbe.com> Manager Bill wrote: > Item 3. On May 11, Jerry Mahurin advocated using piano hinges on the > ailerons and elevators. This is not a good idea. Both the wing and > horizontal tail bend under air load. When you bend a piano hinge in a > curve, it tends to bind and "snap over" from one position to another. > Try it on your bench. Even trying to have 3 hinges in a row can lead to > trouble. Use two short hinges on wings and tail surfaces. You can use > short sections of extruded MS piano hinge, but don't try to use full > length sections. And avoid the bent-up hinges; they are not strong > enough. You mean the KR design came down from the mountaintop with a bad idea? You know, I'm sure, that the KR plans of all three versions include 72" of aileron on each side fastened by a continuous piano hinge. Wait until the purists hear about THIS! I've noticed lots of other kit planes that use 2 or 3 short lengths for the reasons you mentioned, however, which is a testimonial to their strength. On the issue of "bent up" rolled hinges, the issue came up a few years ago and I did a little test. See http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford/15aug98a.jpg . I applied my 150 pounds to a 4 inch length with no visible deformation or signs of failure, which would mean that a 6 foot length could probably withstand 2700 pounds in tension. I'd be willing to bet money that that little auxillary spar that's fastened to nothing but wing skin would be long gone before that hinge failed. I'm not advocating rolled over extruded, especially since we're talking such a small fraction of the plane's overall price, but I"m not convinced that the rolled ones wouldn't work satisfactorily in a pinch. I'll bet there are several flying, somewhere... Mark Langford, Huntsville, Alabama mailto:langford@hiwaay.net see KR2S N56ML at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 12:52:43 To: langford@hiwaay.net, Krnet@mailinglists.org From: "Jerry Mahurin" Subject: Re: KR> Five notes Message-ID: All, Just to show you what a 'middle of the roader' that I am..... I am using 72" of extruded AL hinge on each wing of my KR2 and three short rolled steel (from the hardware store) hinges on each wing of my Teenie Two..... Why the mix...? 'Cause I build according to the plans; and that is what each set of plans specify. And that is the way I will build it unless someone can convince me that it is UNSAFE. I consider all of the preceeding thread on this subject valid, but no one has convinced me that what I am doing is unsafe, and it is according to plans. Keep on keeping on, Jerry Mahurin Lugoff, SC >From: "Mark Langford" >Reply-To: "Mark Langford" >To: >Subject: Re: KR> Five notes >Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 06:50:34 -0500 > >Manager Bill wrote: > > > Item 3. On May 11, Jerry Mahurin advocated using piano hinges on the > > ailerons and elevators. This is not a good idea. Both the wing and > > horizontal tail bend under air load. When you bend a piano hinge in a > > curve, it tends to bind and "snap over" from one position to another. > > Try it on your bench. Even trying to have 3 hinges in a row can lead to > > trouble. Use two short hinges on wings and tail surfaces. You can use > > short sections of extruded MS piano hinge, but don't try to use full > > length sections. And avoid the bent-up hinges; they are not strong > > enough. > >You mean the KR design came down from the mountaintop with a bad idea? You >know, I'm sure, that the KR plans of all three versions include 72" of >aileron on each side fastened by a continuous piano hinge. Wait until the >purists hear about THIS! I've noticed lots of other kit planes that use 2 >or 3 short lengths for the reasons you mentioned, however, which is a >testimonial to their strength. > >On the issue of "bent up" rolled hinges, the issue came up a few years ago >and I did a little test. See http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford/15aug98a.jpg >. I applied my 150 pounds to a 4 inch length with no visible deformation >or >signs of failure, which would mean that a 6 foot length could probably >withstand 2700 pounds in tension. I'd be willing to bet money that that >little auxillary spar that's fastened to nothing but wing skin would be >long >gone before that hinge failed. I'm not advocating rolled over extruded, >especially since we're talking such a small fraction of the plane's overall >price, but I"m not convinced that the rolled ones wouldn't work >satisfactorily in a pinch. I'll bet there are several flying, somewhere... > >Mark Langford, Huntsville, Alabama >mailto:langford@hiwaay.net >see KR2S N56ML at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >To post to the list, email: krnet@mailinglists.org > > >To UNsubscribe, e-mail: krnet-unsubscribe@mailinglists.org >For additional commands, e-mail: krnet-help@mailinglists.org > _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 09:43:54 -0400 To: "'Mark Langford'" , Krnet@mailinglists.org From: "HEATH, DANIEL R" Subject: RE: KR> Five notes Message-ID: When I built my first KR, I thought that it would be a good idea to use 4 short extruded sections, about 3" each, instead of the long hinge. I think Ken used full length rolled. I changed my mind, not that it was a bad idea, it worked fine, but I realized that the long hinge filled the gap quite nicely. We are using full length, but are using extruded. Daniel R. Heath DHeath@Scana.com (803)217-9984 -----Original Message----- From: Mark Langford [mailto:langford@hiwaay.net] Sent: Friday, May 18, 2001 7:51 AM To: Krnet@mailinglists.org Subject: Re: KR> Five notes Manager Bill wrote: > Item 3. On May 11, Jerry Mahurin advocated using piano hinges on the > ailerons and elevators. This is not a good idea. Both the wing and > horizontal tail bend under air load. When you bend a piano hinge in a > curve, it tends to bind and "snap over" from one position to another. > Try it on your bench. Even trying to have 3 hinges in a row can lead to > trouble. Use two short hinges on wings and tail surfaces. You can use > short sections of extruded MS piano hinge, but don't try to use full > length sections. And avoid the bent-up hinges; they are not strong > enough. You mean the KR design came down from the mountaintop with a bad idea? You know, I'm sure, that the KR plans of all three versions include 72" of aileron on each side fastened by a continuous piano hinge. Wait until the purists hear about THIS! I've noticed lots of other kit planes that use 2 or 3 short lengths for the reasons you mentioned, however, which is a testimonial to their strength. On the issue of "bent up" rolled hinges, the issue came up a few years ago and I did a little test. See http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford/15aug98a.jpg . I applied my 150 pounds to a 4 inch length with no visible deformation or signs of failure, which would mean that a 6 foot length could probably withstand 2700 pounds in tension. I'd be willing to bet money that that little auxillary spar that's fastened to nothing but wing skin would be long gone before that hinge failed. I'm not advocating rolled over extruded, especially since we're talking such a small fraction of the plane's overall price, but I"m not convinced that the rolled ones wouldn't work satisfactorily in a pinch. I'll bet there are several flying, somewhere... Mark Langford, Huntsville, Alabama mailto:langford@hiwaay.net see KR2S N56ML at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford --------------------------------------------------------------------- To post to the list, email: krnet@mailinglists.org To UNsubscribe, e-mail: krnet-unsubscribe@mailinglists.org For additional commands, e-mail: krnet-help@mailinglists.org ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 10:06:50 -0600 To: rossy65@home.com From: Manager Bill CC: Krnet@mailinglists.org Subject: Re: KR> Five notes Message-ID: <3B054899.A08BA8A5@nm.net> Hey Ross Thanks for the kind comment. Regarding the fuselage bracing: gussets, if they are large enough and strong enough, are supposed to take the place of diagonal bracing. My isometric sketch of the KR shows gussets the same thickness as the longerons and cross braces. You could add some square strips along the diagonal lines of the gussets to increase their size. The flutter concern is probably about coupling between fuselage twist and antisymmetric bending of the tail surfaces. If your turtle deck is well fastened to the fuselage, you are probably OK, but don't forget that the entire cockpit opening is the real weak point of the fuselage. Somehow, it needs a reinforcing ring all around its circumference to make the fuselage tube as strong as it would be without the opening, or with at least a diagonal brace across its corners. But then how would you sit in it? This question plagues all designers of fuselages, and is the main reason so many airplanes (even Bonanzas!) only have one door into the cockpit. Bill Marcy Orthogonal to the Main Stream ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 16:47:41 To: kids2fly@nm.net, rossy65@home.com From: "Jerry Mahurin" Cc: Krnet@mailinglists.org Subject: Re: KR> Five notes Message-ID: All, Just an observation from a non-engineer. Would not a single 'gull wing' door on one side offer the smallest opening; and they seem pretty 'beefy' around the perimeter. By 'beefy' I mean two laminated bows with a connecting member across the top, typically....??? Jerry Mahurin Lugoff, SC >From: Manager Bill >To: rossy65@home.com >CC: Krnet@mailinglists.org >Subject: Re: KR> Five notes >Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 10:06:50 -0600 > >Hey Ross > >Thanks for the kind comment. Regarding the fuselage bracing: gussets, if >they are large enough and strong enough, are supposed to take the place >of diagonal bracing. My isometric sketch of the KR shows gussets the >same thickness as the longerons and cross braces. You could add some >square strips along the diagonal lines of the gussets to increase their >size. > >The flutter concern is probably about coupling between fuselage twist >and antisymmetric bending of the tail surfaces. If your turtle deck is >well fastened to the fuselage, you are probably OK, but don't forget >that the entire cockpit opening is the real weak point of the fuselage. >Somehow, it needs a reinforcing ring all around its circumference to >make the fuselage tube as strong as it would be without the opening, or >with at least a diagonal brace across its corners. But then how would >you sit in it? This question plagues all designers of fuselages, and is >the main reason so many airplanes (even Bonanzas!) only have one door >into the cockpit. > >Bill Marcy >Orthogonal to the Main Stream > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >To post to the list, email: krnet@mailinglists.org > > >To UNsubscribe, e-mail: krnet-unsubscribe@mailinglists.org >For additional commands, e-mail: krnet-help@mailinglists.org > _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 11:14:49 -0700 To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: "Robert X. Cringely" Subject: Re: KR> Five notes Message-Id: My KR-1 uses rolled hinge. My Glasair uses extruded hinge, but I long ago switched to full-length hinges on all surfaces to help seal the gaps. That was 15 years ago with no problems so far and plenty of dogfighting. All the Fisher designs use rolled hinges (stainless) in a clever way that I think might be very applicable to original style KR horizontal stabilizers. Cut a thin short slot (rather like a biscuit slot, only longer) on the back side of the stabilizer rear spar and on the front side of the elevator front spar. Insert the hinge sections in these slots and hold them in place with 2-3 screws going vertically through the spars with nuts on the bottom. The elevator pivots on these hinge sections. It is light, cheap, quick, simple, and a snap to disassemble. And if we accept for a moment that Manager Bill just might be going overboard a bit on how much flex you get in a KR stabilizer under load, you could even go with full-length hinges that would act to seal the gap. Bob >Manager Bill wrote: > >> Item 3. On May 11, Jerry Mahurin advocated using piano hinges on the >> ailerons and elevators. This is not a good idea. Both the wing and >> horizontal tail bend under air load. When you bend a piano hinge in a >> curve, it tends to bind and "snap over" from one position to another. >> Try it on your bench. Even trying to have 3 hinges in a row can lead to >> trouble. Use two short hinges on wings and tail surfaces. You can use >> short sections of extruded MS piano hinge, but don't try to use full >> length sections. And avoid the bent-up hinges; they are not strong >> enough. > >You mean the KR design came down from the mountaintop with a bad idea? You >know, I'm sure, that the KR plans of all three versions include 72" of >aileron on each side fastened by a continuous piano hinge. Wait until the >purists hear about THIS! I've noticed lots of other kit planes that use 2 >or 3 short lengths for the reasons you mentioned, however, which is a >testimonial to their strength. > >On the issue of "bent up" rolled hinges, the issue came up a few years ago >and I did a little test. See http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford/15aug98a.jpg >. I applied my 150 pounds to a 4 inch length with no visible deformation or >signs of failure, which would mean that a 6 foot length could probably >withstand 2700 pounds in tension. I'd be willing to bet money that that >little auxillary spar that's fastened to nothing but wing skin would be long >gone before that hinge failed. I'm not advocating rolled over extruded, >especially since we're talking such a small fraction of the plane's overall >price, but I"m not convinced that the rolled ones wouldn't work >satisfactorily in a pinch. I'll bet there are several flying, somewhere... > >Mark Langford, Huntsville, Alabama >mailto:langford@hiwaay.net >see KR2S N56ML at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >To post to the list, email: krnet@mailinglists.org > > >To UNsubscribe, e-mail: krnet-unsubscribe@mailinglists.org >For additional commands, e-mail: krnet-help@mailinglists.org -- ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 18:35:21 +1000 To: "HEATH, DANIEL R" , "'Mark Langford'" , From: "John and Janet Martindale" Subject: Re: KR> Five notes Message-ID: <009001c0e042$19ccf620$1493fcd8@JohnMartindale> Folks If you're going to use more than two hinges then you might as well use full length piano hinge. The hinge axis must be a straight line, essentially between two points. If not it will bind regardless of whether you have three, five, ten, or fifty or more (piano hinge) separate hinges. I do not think the KR wing bends sufficiently to bind piano hinge. A possible reason for not using piano hinge on the elevator is that to get 30 degree down would require an excessive gap in the under surface that the spar location may not allow. Also the pan head attach bolts would have to be along the upper half of the spar close to the top where you really want strength. The standard aluminium angle or Dr Dean hinges are central where load is ziltch. My tuppence worth which in Australia is worth bugger all. Cheers John. ----- Original Message ----- From: HEATH, DANIEL R To: 'Mark Langford' ; Sent: Friday, May 18, 2001 11:43 PM Subject: RE: KR> Five notes > When I built my first KR, I thought that it would be a good idea to use 4 > short extruded sections, about 3" each, instead of the long hinge. I think > Ken used full length rolled. I changed my mind, not that it was a bad idea, > it worked fine, but I realized that the long hinge filled the gap quite > nicely. We are using full length, but are using extruded. > > Daniel R. Heath > DHeath@Scana.com > (803)217-9984 > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Mark Langford [mailto:langford@hiwaay.net] > Sent: Friday, May 18, 2001 7:51 AM > To: Krnet@mailinglists.org > Subject: Re: KR> Five notes > > > Manager Bill wrote: > > > Item 3. On May 11, Jerry Mahurin advocated using piano hinges on the > > ailerons and elevators. This is not a good idea. Both the wing and > > horizontal tail bend under air load. When you bend a piano hinge in a > > curve, it tends to bind and "snap over" from one position to another. > > Try it on your bench. Even trying to have 3 hinges in a row can lead to > > trouble. Use two short hinges on wings and tail surfaces. You can use > > short sections of extruded MS piano hinge, but don't try to use full > > length sections. And avoid the bent-up hinges; they are not strong > > enough. > > You mean the KR design came down from the mountaintop with a bad idea? You > know, I'm sure, that the KR plans of all three versions include 72" of > aileron on each side fastened by a continuous piano hinge. Wait until the > purists hear about THIS! I've noticed lots of other kit planes that use 2 > or 3 short lengths for the reasons you mentioned, however, which is a > testimonial to their strength. > > On the issue of "bent up" rolled hinges, the issue came up a few years ago > and I did a little test. See http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford/15aug98a.jpg > . I applied my 150 pounds to a 4 inch length with no visible deformation or > signs of failure, which would mean that a 6 foot length could probably > withstand 2700 pounds in tension. I'd be willing to bet money that that > little auxillary spar that's fastened to nothing but wing skin would be long > gone before that hinge failed. I'm not advocating rolled over extruded, > especially since we're talking such a small fraction of the plane's overall > price, but I"m not convinced that the rolled ones wouldn't work > satisfactorily in a pinch. I'll bet there are several flying, somewhere... > > Mark Langford, Huntsville, Alabama > mailto:langford@hiwaay.net > see KR2S N56ML at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To post to the list, email: krnet@mailinglists.org > > > To UNsubscribe, e-mail: krnet-unsubscribe@mailinglists.org > For additional commands, e-mail: krnet-help@mailinglists.org > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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, 17 May 2001 23:27:08 -0700 To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: "Ross R. Youngblood" Subject: Cowling Lives (N541RY Update) Message-ID: <3B04C0BC.83A1CA6@home.com> Well Monday & Tuesday night I dug into my cowling and got it to fit the engine again. It doesn't look too bad after all. I had bought some longer camlock fasteners which solves the problem for the upper part of the cowling and did some trimming. Tonight I did some glassing. Hopefully tomorrow it will be cured enough so I can remove it and do some sanding, if not, I will wait a day. I'm hoping for a nice hot Phoenix Summer day tomorrow to help me speed the curing process. The economy has pitched in as well. My employer is forcing us to take 18 vacation days between May25 and September 28th. This makes lots of 4 day weekends, and I think will provide a couple of Monday/Fridays where I can take the KR to the airport for some taxi testing. I'm hoping to have enough sanding/filling completed by the weekend that I can take the airplane out with the cowling in place. This was one of those pesky problems that took a lot of energy to overcome, but once I started things began to move faster. -- Ross ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 23:31:29 -0700 To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: "Ross R. Youngblood" Subject: PHX TRACON/Tower Visit Message-ID: <3B04C1C1.2B885E20@home.com> I had an opportunity via my local flying club to visit the Phoenix TRACON (Terminal Radar Control) last night. It was a 6:30-10:00pm event. Wow! It was a small group of four of us and our guide who was a 20 year veteran of Phoenix ATC. It was really great! We had about a 1 hour classroom orientation with questions and answers, discussing flight following, and how the ATC system works, basicly covering lots of stuff that you read in the AIM, but from a controller/pilots prospective. (Our guide has 1600+ hours flying time, including CFII & Multi). Then we went into a training room with two Radar screens used for training, but which were setup with live traffic. (They occasionally used this room for controlling traffic when the normal system is down for maintenance). Although this stuff is ancient (70's vintage), it is still pretty remarkable all of the data that can be displayed on the screen. We say raw radar blips, then blips with transponders, then blips with transponders & Mode C, as Rick (our Guide) showed us how the equipment works. Then when live traffic was being handed off from Alberqueue Center to Phoenix Approach, he showed us what and how this was done with the trackball and cursor. Pretty neat. There are all kinds of overlays that can be displayed, and we saw how the workload can be divided into various sectors, and how controllers identify what traffic belongs to whom. For example, if you are IFR, or using Flight Following, your airplane's N number can be displayed with groundspeed, altitude (mode C), and your destination. Along with aircraft type. Now I know why ATC occasionally asks for Aircaraft type when I use flight following, its so they can fill in all the readout stuff on the screen when you call them up. The really cool thing happens when IFR traffic departs. Since the IFR flight plan is already filed, and IFR traffic (or VFR traffic at airports with Clearance Delivery), all your stuff is already entered into the compter. As soon as you take off and radar gets your transponder code, your blip shows up with your destination, squawk code, and airplane type, viola like magic. I was noticing this when we were in the Phoenix tower and a C-172 departed, when the blip showed up on crosswind, it already had all the data, and no-one had entered anything. Phoenix is now the nations fourth busiest airport with about, 63 arrivals/departures per hour. They are the busiest per runway, as they only have three runways, having gotten the third runway operational last October. One of the really nifty things they have is a computer system that shows them ALL IFR traffic in the air over the US, at about 9:00 I saw that the US was winding down on the east cost, with not too many blips. Then Rick showed me the air traffic over the Atlantic ocean from Scotland... lots of blips, also similar ant trails lead to Japan/Orient from Alaska, and ant trails lead to Hawaii over the Pacific. It turns out you can get this real time airplane data too, for $9.95 a month, if you go to AVweb and click on Flight Explorer. Give them your credit card, download the software and you can get all the traffic in the USA in real time. I have a cable modem and it works well, I don't know what it would be like at 28.8. You can even filter out flights by type, say you want to find all the KR2's using flight following, you might be able to find them.... I don't think there are many. I found 1 C-177 and several C-172's at about 6:00PM. At any rate, I learned a whole lot about how ATC works, if you get a chance to do one of these tours I'd recommend it. -- Ross ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 19:59:20 -0600 To: rossy65@home.com From: Carson Cassidy CC: krnet@mailinglists.org Subject: Re: KR> PHX TRACON/Tower Visit Message-ID: <3B05D378.484BEDA8@home.com> Ross Sounds like a great visit. For anyone visiting Calgary, Alberta, Canada, give me a call, I'm a controller at the control tower there. Cheers Carson Cassidy "Ross R. Youngblood" wrote: > > I had an opportunity via my local flying club to visit the Phoenix > TRACON (Terminal Radar Control) last night. It was a > 6:30-10:00pm event. Wow! > > It was a small group of four of us and our guide who was a 20 year > veteran of Phoenix ATC. It was really great! > > We had about a 1 hour classroom orientation with questions and answers, > discussing flight following, and how the ATC system works, basicly > covering lots of stuff that you read in the AIM, but from a > controller/pilots > prospective. (Our guide has 1600+ hours flying time, including CFII & > Multi). > > Then we went into a training room with two Radar screens used for > training, but which were setup with live traffic. (They occasionally > used > this room for controlling traffic when the normal system is down for > maintenance). > > Although this stuff is ancient (70's vintage), it is still pretty > remarkable all of the data that can be displayed on the screen. > We say raw radar blips, then blips with transponders, then blips > with transponders & Mode C, as Rick (our Guide) > showed us how the equipment works. Then when live traffic > was being handed off from Alberqueue Center to Phoenix > Approach, he showed us what and how this was done with > the trackball and cursor. Pretty neat. > > There are all kinds of overlays that can be displayed, and we saw how > the workload can be divided into various sectors, and how controllers > identify what traffic belongs to whom. For example, if you are > IFR, or using Flight Following, your airplane's N number can be > displayed with groundspeed, altitude (mode C), and your destination. > Along with aircraft type. > > Now I know why ATC occasionally asks for Aircaraft type when I use > flight following, its so they can fill in all the readout stuff on the > screen when you call them up. > > The really cool thing happens when IFR traffic departs. Since the IFR > flight plan is already filed, and IFR traffic (or VFR traffic at > airports > with Clearance Delivery), all your stuff is already entered into the > compter. As soon as you take off and radar gets your transponder > code, your blip shows up with your destination, squawk code, and > airplane type, viola like magic. I was noticing this when we were > in the Phoenix tower and a C-172 departed, when > the blip showed up on crosswind, it already had all the data, and > no-one had entered anything. > > Phoenix is now the nations fourth busiest airport with about, 63 > arrivals/departures per hour. They are the busiest per runway, > as they only have three runways, having gotten the third runway > operational last October. > > One of the really nifty things they have is a computer system that > shows them ALL IFR traffic in the air over the US, at about 9:00 > I saw that the US was winding down on the east cost, with not > too many blips. Then Rick showed me the air traffic over the Atlantic > ocean from Scotland... lots of blips, also similar ant trails lead to > Japan/Orient from Alaska, and ant trails lead to Hawaii over > the Pacific. > > It turns out you can get this real time airplane data too, for $9.95 a > month, if you go to AVweb and click on Flight Explorer. Give > them your credit card, download the software and you can > get all the traffic in the USA in real time. I have a cable modem and > it works well, I don't know what it would be like at 28.8. You can > even filter out flights by type, say you want to find > all the KR2's using flight following, you might be able to find them.... > > I don't think there are many. I found 1 C-177 and several C-172's > at about 6:00PM. > > At any rate, I learned a whole lot about how ATC works, if you get a > chance to do one of these tours I'd recommend it. > > -- Ross > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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, 17 May 2001 23:57:30 -0700 To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: Glasco Subject: Control Cables Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010517235730.007cd620@ridgenet.net> Hi all, I'm new here, been 'lurking' (reading posts for about a week). I am still in the select my project status so don't have any experience to offer. However I am a compulsive reader so have purchased a number of books. One addresses this and many other questions in great detail. On page 198 of Ronald J. Wanttaja's book "Kitplane Construction" (Library of Congress Catalog # ISBN 0 07-0689161-9 (paperback) available from Amazon.com) he says, "Single-strand cable is best for bracing and other applications that don't pass through fairleads or pulleys. The so-called flexible cables(7x7 or 7x19) are best for control systems. The 7x19 construction is sometimes called extra-flexible. For a given cable diameter, the wires of 7x19 are smaller, and hence more easily damagaed. Go with the 7x19 construction if your design uses small pulleys; otherwise, 7x7 gives reasonable flexibility and wears better." That is just one short paragraph out of 16 pages on cables and accessories. On page 199 he continues with pictures of 1x7, 1x19, 7x7, and 7x19 cable construction and a table comparing strength of different sizes, construction, and galvanized vs stainless. (Even covers when should you use stainless instead of galvanized?). The 432 page book is chock full of drawings and pictures. Chapter 6 Composite Construction covers glass cloth, foam, peel ply, Epoxy, Vinylesters, Safety, Storage, Preperation, Cutting, Bonding, Shaping, Flox, Mill fiber, Micro, etc., etc., It is very comprehensive and answers many (most?, maybe even all) of the questions I have seen posted here. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 00:35:28 -0700 To: rossy65@home.com From: Lon V Boothby Cc: kids2fly@nm.net, Krnet@mailinglists.org Subject: Turbo Suburu engine for sale Message-ID: <20010518.003529.-3683937.0.LBoothby@juno.com> I have a 1986 GFJ1.8 turbo suburu engine, still in the car, so all the electronics are there. The car has 113,000 miles on it, and was rear-ended. It runs like a top, and can still be driven, but not legally, without tail lights. I believe it is fuel injected. I would take $700 for the engine, or entire car. It is located in Spokane, Washington. Will also consider trades. Thanks, Lon (509) 443-0173 Please email me at LBoothby@juno.com ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 07:54:04 -0500 To: shanspur@webtv.net (shannon spurgeon),krnet@mailinglists.org From: larry flesner Subject: Re: KR> polyfuse Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010518075404.0080cb90@pop3.norton.antivirus> At 10:40 PM 5/12/01 -0500, shannon spurgeon wrote: >HELLLLPPP!! I read something somewhere about a really neat product >called polyfuse (I think), told a friend about it, and now can't find >the article. Can any of you remember where it was? Thanks >Shannon >++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++= I don't recall seeing any answers to this post so I'll take a shot at it. If you are talking about the "solid state" fuse material or something along those lines, I too recall seeing something about it lately in either Kitplanes or Sport Aviation. I'm guessing that it has been in the last six months and was in one of the "how to" articles on electronics. My guess would be "Kitplanes". Larry Flesner ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 19:53:28 -0400 To: From: "George Allen" Subject: Re: Another engine. Message-ID: <005d01c0dff5$bce54ee0$b6a8dcd8@george> ------=_NextPart_000_005A_01C0DFD4.355E30C0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The cowling should look real interesting on that beast. Better move the = tail back some!! I just finished the engine for my car... http://home.earthlink.net/~k6ro/images/Supervair.JPG George Allen GeorgeA@PaOnline.com Harrisburg, PA ------=_NextPart_000_005A_01C0DFD4.355E30C0-- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 18:25:52 -0700 To: From: "Al Friesen" Subject: Inspection Message-ID: <004001c0e002$e164a600$50cb6cce@s8z8i0> ------=_NextPart_000_003D_01C0DFC7.F8755960 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Netters, A week from tomorrow is the day the inspector from MD-RA (Canada) comes = from the gates of Waterton Park Gate (has a garage business there) to = Creston, just 8 miles north of Idaho,a long drive, to look at my little = "Blue Belle". Found a lot of prebuilt snags to correct, got a new = regulator from Joe at Revmaster (now it charges 13.5v. The hour meter = had a loose connection. I know she flys as a fast taxi with some down = trim put her into the air about 6' x 150 yrds. Got interesting but she = handles very nicely. I changed the tail wheel I got with the plane = (Champ type, too heavy) for my own design using a 4" wheel from A/C = Spruce inside an alum teardrop fairing, saved 5lbs. Thanks to all who = contributed info & parts for "Blue Belle" Al ------=_NextPart_000_003D_01C0DFC7.F8755960-- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 23:26:35 -0400 To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: pjvisc@netzero.net Subject: FIBERGLASS-DYNEL Message-ID: <3B05E7EA.A710B30C@netzero.net> --------------E5F8C62FB0F58C9D97DA487D Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I tried looking in archives for dynel vs fiberglass topic. I couldn't find it. Didn't someone recently discuss the pros and cons of each for wings ? Phil Visconti Marlboro, MA --------------E5F8C62FB0F58C9D97DA487D-- NetZero Platinum No Banner Ads and Unlimited Access Sign Up Today - Only $9.95 per month! http://www.netzero.net ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 20:52:00 -0700 To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: Glasco Subject: KR> FIBERGLASS-DYNEL Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010518205200.007c9100@ridgenet.net> I tried looking in archives for dynel vs fiberglass topic. I couldn't find it. Didn't someone recently discuss the pros and cons of each for wings ? Phil Visconti ***************** Phil, I remember something on the subject which indicates it was something recent so you might look at postings since the first of May but I suspect it may be mote. Dynel is hard to find in suitable quanities for kit building. Dynel is easy to work with. Conforms to shapes well because of its open weave but also tends to take up lots of resin and end up heavier than and not as strong as fiberglass. Ken Rand used it on the KR-1 and one layer was sufficient because it was a covering not a structural component. You didn't ask a specific question. I hope this helps. Brad ------------------------------ End of krnet Digest ***********************************