From: To: Subject: krnet Digest 25 Jun 2002 04:23:31 -0000 Issue 462 Date: Monday, June 24, 2002 9:24 PM krnet Digest 25 Jun 2002 04:23:31 -0000 Issue 462 Topics (messages 11090 through 11119): Re: Corvair engine update 11090 by: John and Janet Martindale df canopy/ gear question 11091 by: jim . synergy design 11093 by: Edwin Blocher KR seat pictures new 11092 by: Rick 11107 by: Frank Ross Re: OZ VW gear reduction engine 11094 by: Phillip Matheson Turbine powerd KR-2 11095 by: Robin Wills - The Guru WAF Bolts 11096 by: Phillip Matheson 11099 by: Phillip Matheson Re: df canopy 11097 by: Bruce Barcham 11101 by: Phil Maley Canopy seals 11098 by: JIM VANCE Re: turbine Kr-2 11100 by: ace nunye DF canopies 11102 by: Patrick Driscoll Re: Question for seller -- Item #1838609185 11103 by: asavant.notes.state.ne.us canopy construction 11104 by: rfarmer 11108 by: Patrick Driscoll 11115 by: rfarmer 11118 by: rfarmer Re: re:kr>turbine powered kr2 11105 by: idrawtobuild Re: Off Subject] 11106 by: Ron Thomas waf loads 11109 by: Rick Wilson KR weights etc. 11110 by: Kenneth L Wiltrout 11114 by: bstarrs 11117 by: Mark Langford 11119 by: w.g. kirkland weights etc. 11111 by: Rick Wilson Portland,Oregon 11112 by: Darrell A Haas Re: TT1800 Engines for the KR2 11113 by: Daniel Heath Custom hoses 11116 by: Ron Thomas Administrivia: To subscribe to the digest, e-mail: To unsubscribe from the digest, e-mail: To post to the list, e-mail: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 12:13:42 +1000 To: "Mark Langford" , "KR Net Listings" From: "John and Janet Martindale" Subject: Re: KR> Corvair engine update Message-ID: <000301c21b24$e28477a0$a0de12d2@m1g0x7> Hello Mark/Phil You raise interesting questions. In Australia up until recently the approved KR2 gross was 500kg or 1100lb (Phil refer to ABAA No.45) and this effectively restricted two people operations to about an 1 hour of flying, that is, they de facto turned the KR2 into a single seater. Now that "experimental" is in, I don't think a gross can any longer be set by the authority but I intend to confirm this. My KR2 with Corvair weighs 712 lb empty thus useful load is 1100-712=388 lbs. Two Aussie standard (77kg) people weigh 340 lb so max. fuel is 48 lbs (8 US gal, 30 ltr - say 1 hour with some reserve) with no baggage. Setting a gross of 1200lb as Mark suggests would give another 100 lb for fuel which would be stacks and the extra 20hp from the Corvair should maintain performance. The 100lb would cost about 1G in loading which in a 7G design is not really a concern. Phil, I'm spinning a 57" dia by 56" pitch wood two blader at 3300rpm static at present but will go to an adjustable Warp Drive 3 blader once the $$ show up. I think the ideal Warp for my Corvair will be about 55" dia (better ground clearance) by 62" pitch. We'll see. There are a few Corvairs in this country and a gentleman in Queensland is gearing up to import and modify them. These days with the internet and airfreight getting an engine and parts is not really an inconvenience...after all, we've been doing it for Lycs and Conts forever!! Cheers John and Janet Martindale 29 Jane Circuit TOORMINA NSW 2452 AUSTRALIA ph: 61 2 66584767 ----- Original Message ----- From: Mark Langford To: KR Net Listings Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 10:38 AM Subject: Re: KR> Corvair engine update > Phil Matheson wrote: > > > John Martindale in OZ has said that he will have weight problems when he > > puts two people in his KR. He will only have about One of Fuel. > > > > This makes looking at lighter engines than the Corvair much more of a > > encouraging to me in OZ. > > > > Do you know yet what PROP the Covair will spin at What RPM. > > I don't know how the Australian feds govern gross weight of experimentals, > but if they hold you to the 900 pound gross weight stated in the plans for > the KR2, you would certainly be screwed running a Corvair in a heavy > airplane. I was told a few years ago that they forced KR2s to be single > seaters, but maybe that's changed, and maybe that was only the heavy ones. > My plane weighs about 700 pounds, and with two 150 pounders and 19 gallons > of fuel, that means my gross will be 1115 pounds, maybe 1150 counting a > little baggage. That figure doesn't bother me one bit, knowing that there > is at least one hotdog pilot out there who often flies at 1400 pounds in a > basically stock KR2 (and does it quite well). In the US, the builder sets > the gross weight, and I'll probably make mine 1200 pounds. My power to > weight ratio will be nothing short of stellar, so performance will not be an > issue. My personal opinion is that when you install a much more powerful > engine that weighs only 40 or 50 pounds more than the original, a lot of > sins are forgiven. > > > This makes looking at lighter engines than the Corvair much more of a > > encouraging to me in OZ. > > The fact that you don't have Corvairs in your part of the world excuses you. > Personally I'd go with a large Type 4 running a drive shaft or PSRU off the > flywheel end. > > > Do you know yet what PROP the Covair will spin at What RPM. > > Not specific to the KR2's small diameter props, although Steve Makish said > his engine would turn a 52x66 Prince P-tip 2950 rpm at cruise. > > 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 , NOT "reply all" > > To UNsubscribe, e-mail: krnet-unsubscribe@mailinglists.org > For additional commands, e-mail: krnet-help@mailinglists.org > > See the KRNet archives at http://www.escribe.com/aviation/krnet/ > and at http://www.bouyea.net/ for the older ones > > ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2002 20:51:55 -0700 To: From: "jim @ synergy design" Subject: df canopy/ gear question Message-ID: <002d01c21b32$7d5a9b80$0101a8c0@pavilion> ------=_NextPart_000_002A_01C21AF7.CF922160 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Seems we have a bunch of people needing DF canopies. I may have missed = it, But does anyone know what the cost will be? Also, the tech = inspector( KR builder , and knew Ken Rand from way back when he was = first developing the plane) was just here and he HATES my TET brackets = with the Deihl legs due to the mismatch( I personally dont see any major = issue that couldnt possibly be fixed ?) Basically the TET bracket is = about 1/2 inch larger than the Deihl leg(at the widest point, bottom of = spar. )The pre-drilled bracket holes will be too close to edge of leg. = It looks like I could move the gear leg slightly( about 2"+ full aft to = full foreward at the wheel) to possibly vary the amount of weight on the = tailwheel?. If I move it foreward I will have a space behind the leg = that will need to be filled. I think I could re-drill the gear leg bolt = holes to get them further from the edge, no big deal. His other big = concern(mine too) was that the steeper angle (60 deg as opposed to the = 45 deg. deihl) will be way too stiff. Since I am ready to do my wings, = and I will need to make a new axel bracket to fit the 60 deg TET = bracket. I need to make a decision to use the Deihl brackets( I used the = TET bracket because I have the taller airfoil) or keep the TET ones. = Has anyone else used the TET brackets with the Deihl Legs? Any = comments welcomed, Especially Mark or Dr. Dean. Thanks, Jim Sporka = ------=_NextPart_000_002A_01C21AF7.CF922160-- ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2002 22:56:41 -0500 To: "jim @ synergy design" , From: "Edwin Blocher" Subject: Re: KR> df canopy/ gear question Message-ID: <006b01c21b33$279a4960$6b9131cc@cyou.com> I will be working on getting a price this coming week. As soon as I do I will post it and we will go from there. So far it looks like 6 to 8 are definately interested. Ed Blocher Santa Rosa Beach, Florida ----- Original Message ----- From: "jim @ synergy design" To: Sent: Sunday, June 23, 2002 10:51 PM Subject: KR> df canopy/ gear question Seems we have a bunch of people needing DF canopies. I may have missed it, But does anyone know what the cost will be? Also, the tech inspector( KR builder , and knew Ken Rand from way back when he was first developing the plane) was just here and he HATES my TET brackets with the Deihl legs due to the mismatch( I personally dont see any major issue that couldnt possibly be fixed ?) Basically the TET bracket is about 1/2 inch larger than the Deihl leg(at the widest point, bottom of spar. )The pre-drilled bracket holes will be too close to edge of leg. It looks like I could move the gear leg slightly( about 2"+ full aft to full foreward at the wheel) to possibly vary the amount of weight on the tailwheel?. If I move it foreward I will have a space behind the leg that will need to be filled. I think I could re-drill the gear leg bolt holes to get them further from the edge, no big deal. His other big concern(mine too) was that the steeper angle (60 deg as opposed to the 45 deg. deihl) will be way too stiff. Since I am ready to do my wings, and I will need to make a new axel bracket to fit the 60 deg TET bracket. I need to make a decision to use the Deihl brackets( I used the TET bracket because I have the taller airfoil) or keep the TET ones. Has anyone else used the TET brackets with the Deihl Legs? Any comments welcomed, Especially Mark or Dr. Dean. Thanks, Jim Sporka ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2002 21:30:27 -0600 To: KRNET@MAILINGLISTS.ORG From: Rick Subject: KR seat pictures new Message-ID: <41ED2F1280124E4D8B88691C9A9B5FDE011B61@mail.binoids.com> Hi Guys Just about done (90%) with my new KR-2S seat. It's like some of the other fiberglass seats out there but... again a bit different. Take a peak when you have time... http://www.hubka.com/kr-2s_hubka_seat.htm Rick Hubka http://www.hubka.com/kr_main.htm rick@hubka.com 65 Butler Crescent NW Calgary AB T2L 1K4 Canada ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 12:25:06 -0700 (PDT) To: KRNET@MAILINGLISTS.ORG From: Frank Ross Subject: Re: KR> KR seat pictures new Message-ID: <20020624192506.54620.qmail@web21509.mail.yahoo.com> Rick, Good pix. Thanks for the idea of using the seats to get fiberglass practice. I was planning to make a fuel tank first, but this is better. Frank Ross in San Antonio, TX, USA __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 13:47:33 +1000 To: "KR Net Listings" From: "Phillip Matheson" Cc: "John Martindale" Subject: Re: KR>OZ VW gear reduction engine Message-ID: <003201c21b59$3c12cea0$1796dccb@Matheson> John. This is all I know at the momment on OZ VW engines http://www.vw-engines.com/ As requested TBO on RG2000 & TT1800 is 1,000 Hrs Don Hart in USA has one.Check web page Gear drive testing is on going, 40 Hrs continual load and still testing USA price , ? they will let me know OZ price around $13,000 No prop forces on crank, s/steel valves / seats new cases, new barrels, pistons, hydraulic lifters Better cooling with Alo Barrels & heads 4000 RPM Prop 2500 1.6:1 reduction , temps all in green on static full power testing with Bolley 66"- 3 blade prop Contacts are Ron, Garry,OZ And (Don in USA ) Phil Matheson matheson@dodo.com.au ----- Original Message ----- From: "John and Janet Martindale" To: "Phillip Matheson" Sent: 23 June 2002 10:15 Subject: Re: KR> Re: EA81 Thanks to all > Hi Phil > > That is a very impressive looking piece of VW machinery. Now I see where the > 100hp is coming from out of the VW - by spinning it faster at 4000rpm > upwards then gear reducing to 3500rpm at the prop. I reckon you have made a > good decision with this. What is the cost, weight and TBO for the engine at > those higher revs? Can it dissipate the extra heat? > > Cheers > > John and Janet Martindale > 29 Jane Circuit > TOORMINA NSW 2452 > AUSTRALIA > ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 18:30:52 +1000 To: From: "Robin Wills - The Guru" Subject: Turbine powerd KR-2 Message-ID: <00ba01c21b59$74f8d8e0$026486cb@oemcomputer> ------=_NextPart_000_00B7_01C21BAD.4576C920 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable To all who have replied reference installing a turboshaft in a KR-2, = Thanks. To answer the questions posed: Fuel comsumption is about 90L an hour at max RPM. Heat dissipation is standard jet. Air cooled, oil lubricated. My logic for pursuing this engine is varied. It appears to be a High = power - low weight engine, even if the claimed output of 170HP is very = optimistic.=20 Most KR-2s seem to be flying with around 70-100 HP engines, so even if = the engine puts out only 120 HP i am still ahead. It weighs a claimed 20#, so is that much less weight that i have to haul = around, which can go towards a sturdy PSRU. And in Australia to have it = registered as an ultralight it has to stall below 51MPH. I would like = that added buffer by removing aheavy engine. I would be cruising at high altitude(FL100) for the most part, so having = extra power on tap at that altitude is a must. I work with Jet A1 everyday, so am very comfortable with it as a fuel. I am lucky enough to work with several Airframe Technicians in the Army, = who are able to assist with any major dramas. And a purely psychological reason...having the only Turbine powered KR-2 = in Australia! Robin Wills Queensland, Australia robinwills@iprimus.com.au ------=_NextPart_000_00B7_01C21BAD.4576C920-- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 19:45:25 +1000 To: "KR Net Listings" From: "Phillip Matheson" Subject: WAF Bolts Message-ID: <002a01c21b63$de9c6960$1796dccb@Matheson> ------=_NextPart_000_0027_01C21BB7.AF86B000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I have removed the aft centre spar WAF ( as I will with all of them ) to = inspect and clean etc, The instruction manual page 23 & 24 and drawings = No 19 say that the WA main bolt is AN3 =3D 3/16" same as the bracket to = spar bolts. My WAF bolt is 5/16. aft fitting. The reason I removed it was that it seemed thin in the radius around the = wing mounting bolt. Question: will this matter, the WAF are very rough, and I think I will make new = ones,=20 Am I correct in saying the aft centre WAF attachment bolt should be = 3/16. or has it changed on the latter plans My plan No is 7642 book 68. Also the plan is not clear, but I think all the centre aft fittings are = the same. It is only the outer brackets that are different. Is that correct.?? Any comments welcome. =20 Phil matheson@dodo.com.au ------=_NextPart_000_0027_01C21BB7.AF86B000-- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 22:43:07 +1000 To: "KR Net Listings" From: "Phillip Matheson" Subject: Re: KR> WAF Bolts Message-ID: <001d01c21b7c$b157a140$bb97dccb@Matheson> John My wing have been fitted, I'm just making new aft WAF. the plans say they are .125 4130 I don't think you can harden 4130, just normalise it after completion. So I can use the old ones for templates, with the correct Dia holes. . Phil matheson@dodo.com.au ----- Original Message ----- From: "John and Janet Martindale" To: "Phillip Matheson" Sent: 24 June 2002 21:23 Subject: Re: KR> WAF Bolts > Phil > > Don't use those rear WAFs!! > > The rear WAF bolts should be all AN3 (3/16") and only the outer WAFs are > bent (the front one slightly different to the rear). An AN5 bolt would leave > precious little metal as the WAFs are only 1/2" wide. Sounds like yours may > have been drilled out to force the alignment. > > WAFs are a hardened steel not just 4130 strip. They are one of the few bits > I purchased from RR predrilled and prebent. I think TET (Mark Langford's > crowd) may also supply them. > > When installing them, clamp them all in position with the connect bolts > installed, jig the spar to the correct postion and lastly drill through the > wood. Take care with the upper rear ones to allow room for the taper on the > spar top for the skin profile, that is, don't mount the WAFs too high on the > spar caps or they'll want to protrude above the upper skin line. > > See Ya > > John and Janet Martindale > 29 Jane Circuit > TOORMINA NSW 2452 > AUSTRALIA > > ph: 61 2 66584767 > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Phillip Matheson > To: KR Net Listings > Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 7:45 PM > Subject: KR> WAF Bolts > > > I have removed the aft centre spar WAF ( as I will with all of them ) to > inspect and clean etc, The instruction manual page 23 & 24 and drawings No > 19 say that the WA main bolt is AN3 = 3/16" same as the bracket to spar > bolts. > > My WAF bolt is 5/16. aft fitting. > The reason I removed it was that it seemed thin in the radius around the > wing mounting bolt. > > Question: > will this matter, the WAF are very rough, and I think I will make new ones, > Am I correct in saying the aft centre WAF attachment bolt should be 3/16. or > has it changed on the latter plans > > My plan No is 7642 book 68. > > Also the plan is not clear, but I think all the centre aft fittings are the > same. It is only the outer brackets that are different. > Is that correct.?? > > Any comments welcome. > > > Phil > > matheson@dodo.com.au > > > ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 20:47:43 +1000 To: From: "Bruce Barcham" Subject: RE: KR> df canopy Message-ID: I'd be keen to try to get a DR canopy to AUS. Is ther anyone else building in AUS who would like to share the transport cost? Bruce ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 23:01:03 +0800 To: "KRnet" From: "Phil Maley" Subject: RE: KR> df canopy Message-ID: Hi Bruce I just realised you are in Australia too. Where exactly are you? There are a few of us building and/or flying KRs over here. Not sure what the others are doing for canopies - mine came with a canopy originally intended for the Eagle aircraft factory. Haven't looked in detail at how to fit it yet. From what I've experienced of freight costs and risks so far you might do better to find some sources closer to home. There is at least one guy over here in Perth who has blown canopies commercially. Regards Phil Maley Perth Australia mailto:phil@wotech.com.au http://www.wotech.net/vk6ad/ Phone: +61 417 954 187 Fax: +61 8 9315 3055 -----Original Message----- From: Bruce Barcham [mailto:barch@hwy.com.au] Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 6:48 PM To: krnet@mailinglists.org Subject: RE: KR> df canopy I'd be keen to try to get a DR canopy to AUS. Is ther anyone else building in AUS who would like to share the transport cost? Bruce ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 06:26:45 -0500 To: From: "JIM VANCE" Subject: Canopy seals Message-ID: <008d01c21b72$069efe60$34000a0a@oemcomputer> ------=_NextPart_000_008A_01C21B48.1CF049A0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Surgical tubing is made of natural rubber. It does not contain the = ozone and ultraviolet inhibitors that automotive rubber, such as tires, = hoses, and seal, have. =20 Consequently, surgical tubing will harden and crack after a year's = exposure to sunlight and the weather. Jim Vance Vance@ClaflinWildcats.com ------=_NextPart_000_008A_01C21B48.1CF049A0-- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 08:36:26 -0400 To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: "ace nunye" Subject: RE: turbine Kr-2 Message-ID: I have always been interested in turbine power so I'll throw my 2 cents worth in, I have heard of one turbine KR and if my memory serves me I think its GPH burn was somewhere around 15 gph so it seems like it would be a lil too hungry to be of much use as a cross-country machine. It's engine came from a A-7 corsair ( the starter ). Just lately though I saw something promising on the KR net here and here's the link http://www.atpcoinc.com/ This has a lower fuel burn, the thing is, I hear the KR is to touchy to be an IFR machine, its a small bird so it doesnt carry a lot of weight, seems like maybe the KR was designed to be a plane to just go up and enjoy flying. So is it worth it to put a turbine in a KR? Guess its up to the individual. Mike- KR2s _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 10:30:03 -0500 To: "KR Net Mail" From: "Patrick Driscoll" Subject: DF canopies Message-ID: <002801c21b94$032596a0$e1db6843@oemcomputer> ------=_NextPart_000_0025_01C21B6A.19B87EC0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Anyone given thought as to the cost of shipping the canopy? I think a = good idea is to see if they could be taken to Oshkosh, and have buyers = pick them up there. Even if some of the guys/gals are flying in, most of = them know someone who is driving and could haul it home for them. Just a thought. Pat Driscoll ------ http://USFamily.Net/info - Unlimited Internet - From $8.99/mo! ------ ------=_NextPart_000_0025_01C21B6A.19B87EC0-- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 10:40:03 -0500 To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: asavant@notes.state.ne.us Subject: Re: Question for seller -- Item #1838609185 Message-ID: Hi KRnetters, Someone posted the ebay KR2 and I contacted the seller. I don't know how many of you have seen the photographs of the KR2 on ebay but I find it odd that the tail looks beat up and the fuselage has been already painted when the construction is not yet complete. The following is the response of the Seller to my questions. I have grave doubts about the building quality, especially there are not builder logs! What do you think? To view the item, go to: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1838609185 Thanks Ameet PS - if Dan Walker (the seller) is on this mailing list please don't be offended but If I am thinking of buying the plane I better make sure what I am getting into. Low build quality is definitely a NO NO. ----- Forwarded by Ameet Savant/DASIMS/NEBRLN on 06/24/2002 10:34 AM ----- USAFWalker@aol.co m To: asavant@notes.state.ne.us cc: 06/24/2002 10:30 Subject: Re: Question for seller -- Item #1838609185 AM No I'm not the original builder. I bought it from a friend of the original builder. The wings are completed and you can see one of them in the first picture. It is sitting up against the wall on the right side of the garage. Yes a 1 car garage is all you need to store it. I have all the plans for the plane but no building logs. I'm selling it because I had a baby and can't afford to keep the plane. It is all sanded down and has been refiberglassed in all the spots that had any cracks at all. You can finish it by applying lightweight body filler to the spots that still need to be smoothed down and then sand and paint. It also needs a fuel tank and the forward deck needs to be refiberglassed or buy a new premolded one for 150.00 from rand robinson Thanks Dan >Hi, > >1) Are you the original builder? >2) Are the wings built? >3) Why are you selling it? >4) Do you have all the building logs? >5) If the plane is still in building phase, howcome the paint scheme is painted already? There seems to be >some damage on the tail. Are you building it or rebuilding it? >6) Is a one car garage enough to store the plane until it is ready to be assembled? >7) What is the shipping cost? >8) Is there a way to postpone sale pending inspection by the buyer? >Thanks >Ameet ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 11:15:25 -0400 To: "krnet" From: "rfarmer" Subject: canopy construction Message-ID: <001601c21b91$f8562c00$fe5f62d8@oemcomputer> ------=_NextPart_000_0013_01C21B70.704125C0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Just posted a couple of pic. of my KR2 canopy construction. The canopy = is coming along nicely but the pic are poor. I will try to get some more = light on it before I take any more. Here is a link if you want to see = how it is going. = http://www.foamhead.com/Builders%20pages/KR2%20Bob%20Farmer.html Bob Farmer rfarmer@naxs.net ------=_NextPart_000_0013_01C21B70.704125C0-- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 14:13:45 -0500 To: "rfarmer" , "krnet" From: "Patrick Driscoll" Subject: Re: KR> canopy construction Message-ID: <000501c21bb3$438ff900$15219ecd@oemcomputer> Bob, Canopy looks good. Wouldn't you want to hinge it on the passenger side at the top (rather than pilots side) to get more room to enter? (if you are only going to have one side open.). Pat Driscoll ------ http://USFamily.Net/info - Unlimited Internet - From $8.99/mo! ------ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 18:54:54 -0400 To: "krnet" From: "Bob Farmer" Subject: Re: KR> canopy construction Message-ID: <001c01c21bd2$28cb7620$a14562d8@oemcomputer> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Daniel Heath" To: "rfarmer" Bob, Looks like a neat way to build a turtle deck. I suppose you will be able to remove the templates and then glass it on the underside ................. Daniel, that is correct. I will cut the canopy width to match my KR2, then glass the inside. I will cut the door wider on the outside than the inside which will provide a lip for a weather seal. The reason I made it wider( 46") than I needed for the KR2 is so I can use it again on another project. The frame took 1 sheet of plywood & about 3 hrs to build. The foam is 1" & took about 4 hrs to get this far, 1 side & top done 1 side to go. About $50 (including pw) ready to glass. I don't think this will be much if any more work than a blown canopy & a lot less money. For one thing there is no motor freight charges to pay coast to coast which could be about 1/2 as much as the canopy. This was so easy & looks so good I don't know why I waited so long to do it. I will try to get some details on my web site in the next few days. For now here are a few more pic. http://www.foamhead.com/Builders%20pages/KR2%20Bob%20Farmer.html Thanks Bob Farmer ----- Original Message ----- From: "Daniel Heath" To: "rfarmer" Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 9:37 PM Subject: RE: KR> canopy construction > Bob, > > Looks like a neat way to build a turtle deck. I suppose you will be able to > remove the templates and then glass it on the underside also. I like it. I > always said that the pre-molded part was too expensive for something this > easy to build. It may be interesting for others, to have the distances and > dimensions of your templates if you would be willing to share that > information. > > Daniel R. Heath > > See our KR2 at: http://kr-builder.org > > See our EAA Chapter 242at: http://WWW.EAA242.ORG > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: rfarmer [mailto:rfarmer@naxs.net] > Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 8:15 AM > To: krnet > Subject: KR> canopy construction > > > Just posted a couple of pic. of my KR2 canopy construction. The canopy is > coming along nicely but the pic are poor. I will try to get some more light > on it before I take any more. Here is a link if you want to see how it is > going. http://www.foamhead.com/Builders%20pages/KR2%20Bob%20Farmer.html > > Bob Farmer > rfarmer@naxs.net > > > --- > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.325 / Virus Database: 182 - Release Date: 2/19/2002 > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.325 / Virus Database: 182 - Release Date: 2/19/2002 > > ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 19:51:06 -0400 To: "Patrick Driscoll" From: "Bob Farmer" Cc: "krnet" Subject: Re: KR> canopy construction Message-ID: <003d01c21bda$02a6c6e0$a14562d8@oemcomputer> Pat, I probably will move the hinge past the center line of the plane to give more room to enter. Others have brought up this matter and some day I will get around to updating my model. As for the side to enter I don't have to make up my mind for a few days. Still undecided on that one. Thanks for the input. This is the very reason krnet is such a big help. I probably would have given up on the KR if some of the things about the plane had not already been resolved by krnet member's Thanks Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: "Patrick Driscoll" Canopy looks good. Wouldn't you want to hinge it on the passenger side at > the top (rather than pilots side) to get more room to enter? (if you are > only going to have one side open.). > > Pat Driscoll > > > > ------ http://USFamily.Net/info - Unlimited Internet - From $8.99/mo! ------ > > > ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 11:24:19 -0700 To: From: "idrawtobuild" Subject: Re: KR> re:kr>turbine powered kr2 Message-ID: <001f01c21bac$5bebcc60$6e13fea9@greg> I have given this individual a call and also talked to the folks at MicroBD. After conversations with both. If you can ask technical questions, you'll get better answer (so it seems) from MicroBD. I came to the conclusion that a person would be far better off and get his monies worth by going with the Turboprop from the MicroBD outfit instead of Jim from Fargo. Yes Jane, you will pay more for the MicroBD turboprop, but you'll get what you pay for and in my opinion. Some piece of mind in regards to the equipment you purchased is also a nice item to get. Give it a try your self and see how you feel. The proof for me was is in the pudding. I'll still use a piston engine because of the cost. I can hardly afford even a beer budget. Greg Martin ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jan Laan" To: Sent: Sunday, June 23, 2002 3:05 PM Subject: Re: KR> re:kr>turbine powered kr2 > This Jim advertizes in Kitplanes from time to time. > > He only gives his phone# :701-232-5183 central. > > The microjet engines are pure jet engines with no provisions > to hook up a gearbox from what I can see. > > Jan > > At 04:59 PM 6/23/02 -0500, Thomas C Adams wrote: > >robin > > > >there is a guy in north dakota named jim that sells refurbished turbine > starters that have an output of about 3000 rpm and 100 horsepower or so. i > think it weighed around 80 pounds with reduction. i think that is what the > turbine kr used. > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To post to the list, email: krnet@mailinglists.org , NOT "reply all" > > To UNsubscribe, e-mail: krnet-unsubscribe@mailinglists.org > For additional commands, e-mail: krnet-help@mailinglists.org > > See the KRNet archives at http://www.escribe.com/aviation/krnet/ > and at http://www.bouyea.net/ for the older ones > ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 14:38:11 -0400 To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: Ron Thomas Subject: [Fwd: Off Subject] Message-ID: <3D176713.918CD75B@mindspring.com> --------------FBAF1ECB9750B859AB7CADB2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit --------------FBAF1ECB9750B859AB7CADB2 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Message-ID: <3D176657.BFB08E41@mindspring.com> Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 14:35:03 -0400 From: Ron Thomas X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: krnet@mailinglist.org Subject: Off Subject Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit May not apply to KR's, but there was an air racer next to William Wynne's Corvair demo engine at Sun'N'Fun. Push Pull twin Masda rotory engines with some type planatary gear(from a helicopter). They test run the engine and it was swinging a large constance speed prop. Loud, doesn't do it justest. It sounded like a DC6 runup. Actual HP ??? One reason to go to S'N'f.or Oskosh. Always something new or interesting to see. --------------FBAF1ECB9750B859AB7CADB2-- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 14:47:02 -0700 (PDT) To: KRNET@MAILINGLISTS.ORG From: Rick Wilson Subject: waf loads Message-ID: <20020624214702.33347.qmail@web21208.mail.yahoo.com> Hi, Does anyone out there know how much of the actual load is carried by the aft wing attach fittings? They seem awfully small compared to the front waf's. Is the pressure on them pulling upwards, or is most of it pushing in toward the center when in flight? I'm no engineer by any stretch of the imagination, but it seems to me that the pressure being applied during level or climb attitude would be upward and toward the center section spar. Can anyone tell me if this is correct or not? Thanks, Rick Wilson. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 18:16:06 -0400 To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: Kenneth L Wiltrout Subject: KR weights etc. Message-ID: <20020624.181607.-190049.0.klw1953@juno.com> I fly a 2S that I built, according to the info I received when I started building 6 or 7 yrs ago the Rand #'s were empty wt =520 lbs, gross = 980, and useful load = 460 lbs. Now we all know that hitting these #'s is dam hard if not impossible, but I continue to see people talk about this plane being a 7g airplane. My point is this---------who really knows factually what this plane can tolerate as far as weight? How did someone arrive at 6 or 7g's. 6399U tips the scales at 640 dry, with me and a 170 passenger with full fuel it tops out at 1121 lbs. Lets be realistic, how many g's will it take to pull the wings off of this thing at this weight. I love my bird but I fly it with respect.---------------------Kenny ________________________________________________________________ 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/web/. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 16:27:33 -0700 To: From: "bstarrs" Subject: Fw: KR> KR weights etc. Message-ID: <005301c21bd6$b81aa360$9200a8c0@bstarrs> Speaking of weight, I have a question for the Aero Engeneers. in the group . My KR1 CG falls well within the perscribed envelope under ordinary cirmstanstnaces however if I try to loade an Electric scooter Weight 50 lbs in the bagage area which is 18 in behind the pilot, after I burn off most of the fuel, the CG falls 1 in to the rear of the accpeted envelope. How serious is the one inch shift? I havn't tried to fly whith this loading. All of this is on paper. Bill Starrs, Prescott, AZ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kenneth L Wiltrout" To: Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 3:16 PM Subject: KR> KR weights etc. > I fly a 2S that I built, according to the info I received when I started > building 6 or 7 yrs ago the Rand #'s were empty wt =520 lbs, gross = > 980, and useful load = 460 lbs. Now we all know that hitting these #'s is > dam hard if not impossible, but I continue to see people talk about this > plane being a 7g airplane. My point is this---------who really knows > factually what this plane can tolerate as far as weight? How did someone > arrive at 6 or 7g's. 6399U tips the scales at 640 dry, with me and a 170 > passenger with full fuel it tops out at 1121 lbs. Lets be realistic, how > many g's will it take to pull the wings off of this thing at this weight. > I love my bird but I fly it with respect.---------------------Kenny > > > ________________________________________________________________ > 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/web/. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To post to the list, email: krnet@mailinglists.org , NOT "reply all" > > To UNsubscribe, e-mail: krnet-unsubscribe@mailinglists.org > For additional commands, e-mail: krnet-help@mailinglists.org > > See the KRNet archives at http://www.escribe.com/aviation/krnet/ > and at http://www.bouyea.net/ for the older ones > > ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 19:35:43 -0500 To: From: "Mark Langford" Subject: Re: KR> KR weights etc. Message-ID: <003b01c21be0$3dbee4a0$0100a8c0@TD310> Bill Starrs wrote: > the CG falls 1 in to the rear of the accpeted envelope. How > serious is the one inch shift? I don't think you need to be an aero engineer to know the answer to that one. It's a commonly held opinion on KRnet (and it's been worked out for the KR2 by a Phd in AE) that about the aft 1.5 inches of the "given" CG envelope is in the "unstable" zone for a typically built plane. Another inch past that is just that much more dangerous. I don't think anybody in the world would assure you that it's safe to fly it that way without a serious analysis or testing. I don't claim to be an expert on the KR1 or KR2, but I think they are similar with respect to "given" CG range. I guess you could do gradual testing as detailed in recent issues of Kitplanes (or maybe it's SA) and establish your own aft CG limit, and eventually prove that it's OK. After all, none of these planes are the same, due to the ease of modification and potential to "overbuild" in whatever area we please. So the safe CG range could end up in various places between planes, but I'd be surprised if it worked out that way. That's one beef I have with the header tank built per plans with no wing tanks, is the CG moves dramatically from full fuel to empty tank, and when you land, it's likely to be approaching the aft limit. Then somebody throws a scooter in the back and... Mark Langford, Huntsville, Alabama mailto:langford@hiwaay.net see KR2S N56ML at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 00:30:12 -0400 To: , "Kenneth L Wiltrout" From: "w.g. kirkland" Subject: Re: KR> KR weights etc. Message-ID: <003e01c21c01$124a4f00$41b45bd1@utboopki> Ken; Lets see! 7G's at 1120lb makes for a load of 7840 lb. There are several ways to arrive at the ultimate load the wing will withstand. 1. Do the engineering calculations. This just puts you in the ballpark. It's theory only, not real world. 2. Test the wing to destruction. Probably the best way but then you have to build another wing and can you make it exactly like the first one. Hmm better put in a safety factor for manufacturing errors. 3. Fly it then pull G until the wing busts, but then you and God only know and it really won't matter will it? Fact is #2 is the only one the FAA will accept and I don't know that it has ever been done on this aircraft. So the best you probably have is #1 which is only an estimate so you had best play it safe. I don't trust engineers anyway cause I r one. Just musing. Anyone done any accurate flight tests? W.G.(Bill) KIRKLAND kirkland@vianet.on.ca ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kenneth L Wiltrout" To: Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 6:16 PM Subject: KR> KR weights etc. > I fly a 2S that I built, according to the info I received when I started > building 6 or 7 yrs ago the Rand #'s were empty wt =520 lbs, gross = > 980, and useful load = 460 lbs. Now we all know that hitting these #'s is > dam hard if not impossible, but I continue to see people talk about this > plane being a 7g airplane. My point is this---------who really knows > factually what this plane can tolerate as far as weight? How did someone > arrive at 6 or 7g's. 6399U tips the scales at 640 dry, with me and a 170 > passenger with full fuel it tops out at 1121 lbs. Lets be realistic, how > many g's will it take to pull the wings off of this thing at this weight. > I love my bird but I fly it with respect.---------------------Kenny > > > ________________________________________________________________ > 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/web/. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To post to the list, email: krnet@mailinglists.org , NOT "reply all" > > To UNsubscribe, e-mail: krnet-unsubscribe@mailinglists.org > For additional commands, e-mail: krnet-help@mailinglists.org > > See the KRNet archives at http://www.escribe.com/aviation/krnet/ > and at http://www.bouyea.net/ for the older ones > ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 15:23:19 -0700 (PDT) To: KRNET@MAILINGLISTS.ORG From: Rick Wilson Subject: weights etc. Message-ID: <20020624222319.60978.qmail@web21206.mail.yahoo.com> Hi, I'm not concerned with a weight issue. I've pretty much decided that my kr2 will also be in the neighborhood of 1150-1175 lbs. with fuel and a passenger. I was only trying to figure out what percentage of the load is carried by the aft waf's. and in what direction the loads are applied. Thanks again, Rick. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 15:26:47 -0700 To: From: darrellh@involved.com (Darrell A Haas) Subject: Portland,Oregon Message-ID: <004201c21bce$3b12b590$5434bbd0@darrellhyov7nx> ------=_NextPart_000_003F_01C21B93.8DDDEFF0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I just joined the list with hopes of finding out more about the plane to = see if I have what it takes to build one. Anyone working on one or = already have a finished project in the Portland, Oregon area. Anyone = going to the fly in at Arlington, Wash.? Thanks, Darrell ------=_NextPart_000_003F_01C21B93.8DDDEFF0-- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 18:39:39 -0700 To: "Krnet@Mailinglists.Org" From: "Daniel Heath" Subject: FW: TT1800 Engines for the KR2 Message-ID: ------=_NextPart_000_000E_01C21BAE.7F8669D0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Prices look good. Daniel R. Heath See our KR2 at: http://kr-builder.org See our EAA Chapter 242at: http://WWW.EAA242.ORG -----Original Message----- From: Dan Hart [mailto:dan@pyramid3.net] Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 6:37 AM To: DanRH@ATT.net Cc: RG2000 Subject: TT1800 Engines for the KR2 Dear Dan: Our Type 1 conversions are the direct drive model (about 75 hp and $6,000) and the TT1800 with the 1.6 reduction PSRU. At $6,500, it is our most attractive Type 1 installation. These are the first (to my knowledge) VW conversions that drive directly from the drive shaft end of the engine. No belts. Type 1 conversions include a 12 amp alternator built in. The weight limitations for the KR 2 may limit you to the Type 1 conversion. The Type 4, though heavier, is mucho more powerful. The Type 4 with the PSRU puts out a little better than 115 hp. It goes for $7,500. Prices do not include shipping from Rockport, Texas. Let us know if we can help. Looked at your web site. Nice craftsmanship! Thanks for asking, Dan --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.325 / Virus Database: 182 - Release Date: 2/19/2002 ------=_NextPart_000_000E_01C21BAE.7F8669D0-- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 20:18:22 -0400 To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: Ron Thomas Subject: Custom hoses Message-ID: <3D17B6CE.A60E7115@mindspring.com> Check out WWW.Paragonperformance.com ------------------------------ End of krnet Digest ***********************************