From: To: Subject: krnet Digest 28 Jun 2002 12:25:23 -0000 Issue 465 Date: Friday, June 28, 2002 5:25 AM krnet Digest 28 Jun 2002 12:25:23 -0000 Issue 465 Topics (messages 11180 through 11208): Re: G rating/KR2 11180 by: larry flesner Re: Fuel tank vent 11181 by: larry flesner 11188 by: Robert X. Cringely Fiberglassing / Great Plains 11182 by: Mark Jones Re: Fiberglassing 11183 by: Ralph H Snyder Re: EA 81 engine weight 11184 by: w.g. kirkland Re: KR weights etc. 11185 by: Ronald Freiberger 11186 by: ROBERT COOPER 11193 by: Darren Pond 11194 by: Ronald Freiberger 11196 by: idrawtobuild Critical Analysis of the KR2 by Neil Bingham 11187 by: Ronald Freiberger Re: KR weights etc. Load test 11189 by: Ronald Freiberger 11192 by: Bob Farmer 11202 by: Donald Blankenship Heat Colors 11190 by: Eric Evezard Re: KR-2weight 11191 by: René Lemelin resource 11195 by: Bob Farmer Canopy update 11197 by: Edwin Blocher 11201 by: BSHADR Re: Canopy update - new and improved 11198 by: Edwin Blocher Birthday flight 11199 by: Darren Pond 11206 by: Daniel Heath Sealing Ply Fuse 11200 by: Phillip Matheson Alum Fuel tanks 11203 by: Phillip Matheson WAF info and Question 11204 by: Phillip Matheson G spots 11205 by: John and Janet Martindale End of the week pic. 11207 by: Dana Overall Re: Alum Fuel tanks-Long KR related:-) 11208 by: Dana Overall Administrivia: To subscribe to the digest, e-mail: To unsubscribe from the digest, e-mail: To post to the list, e-mail: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 20:42:31 -0500 To: "Daniel Heath" , From: larry flesner Subject: RE: KR> G rating/KR2 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20020626204231.008f5810@mail.midwest.net> >I thought it was +7, -4 >Daniel R. Heath ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++= My plans say "plus/minus 7 G's at 800 pounds". (page 6, first paragraph) Several paragraphs later it also says "Before begining construction, STUDY THE PLANS WELL." I read mine start to finish at least four times before I felt comfortable starting construction. Larry Flesner ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 20:48:44 -0500 To: Jim Morehead ,KR- Net From: larry flesner Subject: Re: KR> Fuel tank vent Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20020626204844.008fa100@mail.midwest.net> > I=B9m building a header tank and a auxiliary tank in the right stub= wing. >A question for anyone who has done this. Would you vent the stub wing tank >and the header tank together or would you vent them separately?=20 >Jim Morehead +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Seems to me separate vents would be easier to plumb and then one bug can't disable both tanks at once either. IMHO :-) Larry Flesner ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 10:07:17 -0700 To: Jim Morehead , KR- Net From: "Robert X. Cringely" Subject: Re: KR> Fuel tank vent Message-Id: You can do it either way. It is easier to vent them separately but cooler to vent the aux tank to the header and the header to the outside. That way you'll never have a vent leak from the aux tank. Bob At 12:42 PM -0700 6/27/02, Jim Morehead wrote: >Netters, > I'm building a header tank and a auxiliary tank in the right stub wing. >A question for anyone who has done this. Would you vent the stub wing tank >and the header tank together or would you vent them separately? I plan on >making the header tank removable. > >Jim Morehead >Cameron Park, CA > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >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: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 22:09:45 -0500 To: "KR-Net" , "CorvAircraft" From: "Mark Jones" Cc: Subject: Fiberglassing / Great Plains Message-ID: <009101c21d88$17675180$c5991f41@wi.rr.com> ------=_NextPart_000_008E_01C21D5E.2E1D5200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Thank you all who responded with many good suggestions on how to = fiberglass under the wing stubs. My final decision is to do this the = right way and remove the engine, flip the plane over and completely = finish the bottom stubs. This will be done after I return from Oshkosh = Airventure. This weekend I will be starting my engine for the first = time. Kind of a birthday present to myself. I received a crossover tube = from Steve Bennett of Great Plains today ( = http://www.greatplainsas.com/welcome.html ) as well as a primer, = gascolator and 1 1/2" ID fuel proof hose. I am using a flanged Aerocarb = and Steve makes a crossover flanged tube to match the Ellison carb = flange, which also matches the Aerocarb flange. Steve's prices on these = parts are extremely good...especially the primer and gascolator. If you = guys have not checked his prices, you should because you will not beat = these prices and he has much to offer that we can use. Thanks Steve!!! Mark Jones (N886MJ) Wales, WI USA=20 E-mail me at flykr2s@wi.rr.com Visit my KR-2S CorvAIRCRAFT web site at =20 http://mywebpage.netscape.com/n886mj/homepage.html ------=_NextPart_000_008E_01C21D5E.2E1D5200-- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 00:23:33 -0700 To: flykr2s@wi.rr.com From: Ralph H Snyder Cc: krnet@mailinglists.org Subject: Re: KR> Fiberglassing Message-ID: <20020627.002927.-936903.1.ralphndori@juno.com> ----__JNP_000_261a.1b3b.761a Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mark I tried painting with the engine on. I soon found out lying on a creeper was the hard way to do it. I removed the engine, mounted 2 2x6's on the engine mount and flipped the tail up and over. It sure is a lot easier to sand that way, and was well worth the time to remove the engine. Ralph Snyder ----__JNP_000_261a.1b3b.761a-- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 12:12:41 -0400 To: "Phillip Matheson" , "KR Net Listings" From: "w.g. kirkland" Subject: Re: KR> EA 81 engine weight Message-ID: <00cf01c21df5$77c6b760$4eb45bd1@utboopki> Phil; My book says; Block with intake manifold, oil pump, pan, filter etc. 128.5 lbs. Reduction unit 33.5 lbs, carb 5.5 lbs, alternator 8.5 lbs, starter 8.5 lbs. , coil & wiring 2.0 lbs. / Oil, coolant, rad, battery and exhaust system extra. thank you Dave Johnson of REDUCTIONS W.G.(Bill) KIRKLAND kirkland@vianet.on.ca ----- Original Message ----- From: "Phillip Matheson" To: "KR Net Listings" Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 4:38 PM Subject: KR> EA 81 engine weight Does any know the engine weight of a Subaru EA81 wet????? Phil Matheson matheson@dodo.com.au 61 3 58833588 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 11:21:10 -0400 To: "KRNET" , From: "Ronald Freiberger" Subject: RE: KR> KR weights etc. Message-ID: dgard@attcanada said; >I, for one, would like to see Transport Canada grant us Canadian KR >builders the same gross weight as most US builders are getting , namely >1150 lbs or so. I doubt that Transport Canada has the ability to make the aircraft stronger. The fact that people who are flying overweight doesn't make it safer either. Some FAA/DAR's might give you whatever you apply for, but won't fly with you. Conversely, you could just go ahead and fly with whatever loading you wish. If it breaks, then we might have more data, especially if you have a recording G-meter. I built a variance of the Spezio Tuholer. I built mine differently in the area of the wing bracing struts, because I had predicted failure at 4 G's. I an aerobatic demo for an FAA waiver, one of them did, in fact, fold at a documented 4 G's. Subsequently, a "sort of" AD was issued, but I doubt that most got the word, and they are still flying (but haven't broken YET) doesn't prove a lot either. Most people never fly their aircraft to the limit, or send messages back when they do. Tony Spezio did one thing differently; he said the plans simply showed how he built his. Does anyone have a text version of Neil Bingham's "A Critical Analysis of the KR2"? Further, does anyone find fault with his data or calculations? If a KR2 at design weight is good for 7 g's, how good is yours at XXXX ? The real experiment in EXPERIMENTAL is that the feds allow amateurs to build their own airplanes. It's not a license to act dumb. Ron Freiberger...EAA Tech Counselor 4125 mailto:ron.martha@mindspring.com -----Original Message----- From: chris gardiner [mailto:clgard@attcanada.ca] Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 7:00 PM To: w.g. kirkland Cc: krnet@mailinglists.org; Kenneth L Wiltrout Subject: Re: KR> KR weights etc. Thanks for the comments, Bill. I , for one,would like to see Transport Canada grant us Canadian KR builders the same gross weight as most US builders are getting , namely 1150 lbs or so. I just recently got my final Special Certificate of Airworthiness but 980 Lbs is my max limit. When asking TC what it would take to up my gross weight , I get a variety of answers. At the very least they will require a stress analysis calculation of the WAF fitiingsand max G loading , new Cg calculation and a new climb test report . ( and probably signed afidavits from other builders flying at 1150 would help) Do you ( can you ) help with the stress calc. ? Once one KR builder gets the 1150 weight , a precedent will be set for all. Regards Chris Gardiner C-GKRZ . Would w.g. kirkland wrote: >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 >> > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >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: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 12:59:11 -0400 To: "Donald Blankenship" , , "krnet" From: "ROBERT COOPER" Subject: Re: KR> KR weights etc. Message-ID: ------=_NextPart_001_0000_01C21DDA.6E547520 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Now, as Bill said, there is one way to get around the math without offend= ing Mr. Isaac Newton: Place 1150 lbs x 7 g (maybe just 6.75 g) =3D 8050 l= bs on the spars with the plane upside down and make sure your regulators = witness it. If it doesn't break -- "voila" as the Quebecois say, it's goo= d for 1150 pounds and you haven't broken anything (hopefully). It's as ea= sy as that. =20 If anyone would like to perform this test, I have a set of spars that cam= e with my KR-2. I would gladly donate them for testing. Jack Cooper =20 ------=_NextPart_001_0000_01C21DDA.6E547520-- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 17:06:36 -0700 To: "ROBERT COOPER" , "krnet" From: "Darren Pond" Subject: Re: KR> KR weights etc. Message-ID: <002e01c21e37$abca6d80$79469d18@cambr.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> Jack, thats a great idea. I would like to donate time/ machining or funds to see this happen Darren Pond Canada ----- Original Message ----- From: ROBERT COOPER To: Donald Blankenship ; ; krnet Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2002 9:59 AM Subject: Re: KR> KR weights etc. Now, as Bill said, there is one way to get around the math without offending Mr. Isaac Newton: Place 1150 lbs x 7 g (maybe just 6.75 g) = 8050 lbs on the spars with the plane upside down and make sure your regulators witness it. If it doesn't break -- "voila" as the Quebecois say, it's good for 1150 pounds and you haven't broken anything (hopefully). It's as easy as that. If anyone would like to perform this test, I have a set of spars that came with my KR-2. I would gladly donate them for testing. Jack Cooper ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 16:40:26 -0400 To: "Darren Pond" , "ROBERT COOPER" , "krnet" From: "Ronald Freiberger" Subject: RE: KR> KR weights etc. Message-ID: Remember that, considering the variability of wood, results in excess of established design data will only apply to that specimen. So, test and document to the limt you wish to use, and then use THAT SPAR SET to build. Properly sealed, it will be good data FOR A WHILE. ?? How long? Ron Freiberger... mailto:ron.martha@mindspring.com -----Original Message----- From: Darren Pond [mailto:pond27@rogers.com] Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2002 8:07 PM To: ROBERT COOPER; krnet Subject: Re: KR> KR weights etc. Jack, thats a great idea. I would like to donate time/ machining or funds to see this happen Darren Pond Canada ----- Original Message ----- From: ROBERT COOPER To: Donald Blankenship ; ; krnet Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2002 9:59 AM Subject: Re: KR> KR weights etc. Now, as Bill said, there is one way to get around the math without offending Mr. Isaac Newton: Place 1150 lbs x 7 g (maybe just 6.75 g) = 8050 lbs on the spars with the plane upside down and make sure your regulators witness it. If it doesn't break -- "voila" as the Quebecois say, it's good for 1150 pounds and you haven't broken anything (hopefully). It's as easy as that. If anyone would like to perform this test, I have a set of spars that came with my KR-2. I would gladly donate them for testing. Jack Cooper --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 16:25:29 -0700 To: From: "idrawtobuild" Subject: Re: KR> KR weights etc. Message-ID: <001501c21e31$ee67b540$6e13fea9@greg> And if it fails. Don't forget that you can reduce the arm on the outer wing spars by simply making the center section longer and the outer section spars shorter. Still the same over wing span and you can start tapering the spar at the same point if you want. Shorter arm, less moment arm. The better your results as it is the WAF's that hold the key. The blots through the wood are the weak points. Greg S. Martin ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ronald Freiberger" To: "Darren Pond" ; "ROBERT COOPER" ; "krnet" Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2002 1:40 PM Subject: RE: KR> KR weights etc. > Remember that, considering the variability of wood, results in excess of > established design data will only apply to that specimen. So, test and > document to the limt you wish to use, and then use THAT SPAR SET to build. > Properly sealed, it will be good data FOR A WHILE. ?? How long? > > Ron Freiberger... > mailto:ron.martha@mindspring.com > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Darren Pond [mailto:pond27@rogers.com] > Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2002 8:07 PM > To: ROBERT COOPER; krnet > Subject: Re: KR> KR weights etc. > > > Jack, thats a great idea. I would like to donate time/ machining or funds to > see this happen > Darren Pond > Canada > ----- Original Message ----- > From: ROBERT COOPER > To: Donald Blankenship ; ; krnet > > Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2002 9:59 AM > Subject: Re: KR> KR weights etc. > > > > > Now, as Bill said, there is one way to get around the math without offending > Mr. Isaac Newton: Place 1150 lbs x 7 g (maybe just 6.75 g) = 8050 lbs on the > spars with the plane upside down and make sure your regulators witness it. > If it doesn't break -- "voila" as the Quebecois say, it's good for 1150 > pounds and you haven't broken anything (hopefully). It's as easy as that. > > > If anyone would like to perform this test, I have a set of spars that came > with my KR-2. I would gladly donate them for testing. > Jack Cooper > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 12:05:58 -0400 To: "KRNET" From: "Ronald Freiberger" Subject: Critical Analysis of the KR2 by Neil Bingham Message-ID: For whoever is interested, copies of Neil Bingham's article, " A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE KR2" is on my web page in *.gif and HTM formats. Not really easy to use, but it's all I have. http://ron.martha.home.mindspring.com Ron Freiberger... mailto:ron.martha@mindspring.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 12:11:26 -0400 To: "krnet" From: "Ronald Freiberger" Subject: RE: KR> KR weights etc. Load test Message-ID: But, this is proof ONLY for that set of spars. However, it's a start. Ron Freiberger... mailto:ron.martha@mindspring.com -----Original Message----- From: ROBERT COOPER [mailto:kr2cooper@msn.com] Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2002 12:59 PM To: Donald Blankenship; clgard@attcanada.ca; krnet Subject: Re: KR> KR weights etc. Now, as Bill said, there is one way to get around the math without offending Mr. Isaac Newton: Place 1150 lbs x 7 g (maybe just 6.75 g) = 8050 lbs on the spars with the plane upside down and make sure your regulators witness it. If it doesn't break -- "voila" as the Quebecois say, it's good for 1150 pounds and you haven't broken anything (hopefully). It's as easy as that. If anyone would like to perform this test, I have a set of spars that came with my KR-2. I would gladly donate them for testing. Jack Cooper ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 14:50:26 -0400 To: "krnet" From: "Bob Farmer" Subject: Re: KR> KR weights etc. Load test Message-ID: <002101c21e0b$810bc160$cf4562d8@oemcomputer> > If anyone is considering sandbagging their wings here are a few points to > consider: The weight of the wings & any fuel carried in them would not be > part of this calc. Gross weight -wing weight including any weight carried in > the wing= the weight carried by the wing. i.e. 1150 Gross - 150 = 1000 x 4.5 > (utility rating) I would not go past that unless you are building a fully > aerobatic plane. > > The weight distribution of the sandbags should take into consideration the > taper & the washout of the wing as the area of the wing will decrease with > span & CL will not be the same on all parts of the wing. > > I guess what I am saying is that if not done properly all that effort would > not yield any good data. When all is said & done it's just a WAG anyway. > > Bob Farmer > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ronald Freiberger" > To: "krnet" > Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2002 12:11 PM > Subject: RE: KR> KR weights etc. Load test > > > > ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 01:10:39 -0500 To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: "Donald Blankenship" Subject: Re: KR> KR weights etc. Load test Message-ID: <20020628061040.4524.qmail@mail.com> ------------=_1025244639-90085-4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit That's good, Bob. Somehow through a mysterious wisdom of FAA requirements you got the destructive wing test weight down to 4500 lbs for an overweight 1150 lb aircraft that originally had to be tested to 5600 lbs for an 800 lb aircraft. I like your math. I'm not too worried about it though. The designer built it for failing at 7 x 800 lbs and it won't stretch out to 7 x 1150 lbs. Misinterpreting utility specs and speading it around makes it a lot worse. --Don Blankenship Bob Farmer wrote: > If anyone is considering sandbagging their wings here are a few points to > consider: The weight of the wings & any fuel carried in them would not be > part of this calc. Gross weight -wing weight including any weight carried in > the wing= the weight carried by the wing. i.e. 1150 Gross - 150 = 1000 x 4.5 > (utility rating) I would not go past that unless you are building a fully > aerobatic plane. > > The weight distribution of the sandbags should take into consideration the > taper & the washout of the wing as the area of the wing will decrease with > span & CL will not be the same on all parts of the wing. > > I guess what I am saying is that if not done properly all that effort would > not yield any good data. When all is said & done it's just a WAG anyway. > > Bob Farmer > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bob Farmer" Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 14:50:26 -0400 To: "krnet" Subject: Re: KR> KR weights etc. Load test > > > > > If anyone is considering sandbagging their wings here are a few points to > > consider: The weight of the wings & any fuel carried in them would not be > > part of this calc. Gross weight -wing weight including any weight carried > in > > the wing= the weight carried by the wing. i.e. 1150 Gross - 150 = 1000 x > 4.5 > > (utility rating) I would not go past that unless you are building a fully > > aerobatic plane. > > > > The weight distribution of the sandbags should take into consideration the > > taper & the washout of the wing as the area of the wing will decrease with > > span & CL will not be the same on all parts of the wing. > > > > I guess what I am saying is that if not done properly all that effort > would > > not yield any good data. When all is said & done it's just a WAG anyway. > > > > Bob Farmer > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Ronald Freiberger" > > To: "krnet" > > Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2002 12:11 PM > > Subject: RE: KR> KR weights etc. Load test > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 > > -- __________________________________________________________ Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup Save up to $160 by signing up for NetZero Platinum Internet service. http://www.netzero.net/?refcd=N2P0602NEP8 ------------=_1025244639-90085-4-- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 20:01:14 +0200 To: "KR MAIL" From: "Eric Evezard" Subject: Heat Colors Message-ID: <004801c21e04$c3ea2640$d8ce07c4@bonzabay> ------=_NextPart_000_0045_01C21E15.641F13E0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Netters, Youre a good bunch ! ! Thanks for the response to my query.Mel Evans = ,for your information, I did look at my Kr 2s S plans and the heat = colours page.Yellow was given as the second coolest to white and I = painted my plane a beautiful chrome lemon yellow,as a result of the = information given.on the page you mentioned,Mel. A short period in the African sun produced a few blisters,which I = repaired however my black and white chequered rudder was a disaster.Nearly all the black = squares blistered badly.Following info given to me by the kinder = majority of netters,I have decided topaint the whole plane white and = perhaps colour on the wooden fuselage.Thanks again for the wealth of = info forwarded,netters,and I have downloaded it as I do with a lot of = netters inputs. Best Regards, Eric Evezard, South Africa. ------=_NextPart_000_0045_01C21E15.641F13E0-- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 14:04:48 -0400 To: From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Ren=E9_Lemelin?= Subject: Fw: KR-2weight Message-ID: <003001c21e05$22541240$9a6bfea9@oemcomputer> ----- Original Message ----- From: "jack begin" To: "René Lemelin" Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2001 11:00 AM Subject: Tr: KR-2 > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Manager Bill > To: jack begin > Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2001 10:40 AM > Subject: Re: KR-2 > > > > Wednesday, Aug 15 > > > > Jackques > > > > Threatening thunderstorms most of the day yesterday kept me from using > > my computer because I didn't want to suffer a lightning surge and blow > > my circuits. It is clear this morning, so I will get off an answer to > > your latest inquiry. > > > > When you read off the list of KR aircraft at various weights, I assumed > > you had decided to approve the 1038 lb gross weight requested by Rene > > Lemelin, so I did not address the question of gross weight. I apologize > > for the omission. > > > > The structural integrity of the KR-2 is independent of the power plant, > > and is more than adequate for gross weights up to at least 1050 lb. > > Therefore, 1038 lb should be an acceptable gross weight as far as > > structural integrity is concerned. The reason Mrs. Rand has recommended > > a lower weight for aircraft without the O-200 engine is because she > > wishes to limit the weight that builders put in the cockpit, and thereby > > to limit the aft center of gravity. > > > > Like all small aircraft, the KR-2 is much lighter on the controls and > > more quickly responsive to control inputs than are standard training > > aircraft such as the Cessna 150, the Piper Tomahawk, and older aircraft > > such as Piper Cubs and Aeronca Champs. This is true even though the > > demonstrated stability and control coefficients may be nearly equal for > > all these types. It therefore requires more than just casual experience > > to fly these small aircraft. This is especially true when the stability > > margins are small; that is, when the center of gravity is near its aft > > limit. > > > > The important dimension is the center of gravity relative to the > > geometry of the wing. A convenient reference point for the KR-2 is the > > leading edge of the stub wing. For an aircraft built to the published > > plans, that leading edge should be 12.25 inches aft of the aft face of > > the firewall, but variations introduced by individual builders, either > > intentionally of by chance, may vary. M. Lemelin should check this > > dimension on the aircraft he has constructed, and if different, should > > adjust his center of gravity range to accommodate the difference. > > > > The published plans call for a center of gravity range from 8 inches to > > 16 inches aft of the leading edge of the stub wing. This is 20.25 to > > 28.25 inches aft of the firewall datum plane. My calculation of the > > stick fixed, propeller off, static neutral point (position of neutral > > stability) is 13.3 inches aft of the leading edge of the mean > > aerodynamic chord, or 26.3 inches aft of the firewall datum. With its > > center of gravity at the published aft limit, it is expected that the > > KR-2 will be statically unstable. This is not to say that it will be > > unflyable, but that it will require experience, skill, and quick > > reflexes on the part of the pilot. > > > > I refer you now to the last paragraph of my e-mail to you: "In the > > course of a long career, I have learned that theory is often a poor > > preparation for reality, and I am prepared to learn that, > > notwithstanding the calculated results, the useable c.g. range of the > > KR-2 is as published by Rand and Robinson. However, I would urge anyone > > who is undertaking his or her first flights in a KR to keep the c.g. > > near the forward limit, and to approach aft c.g. very cautiously." I > > stand by that statement. Well conducted tests are always preferable to > > theoretical calculations. > > > > Every homebuilt airplane is a one-off. Its conformity to plans and > > instructions for building are not verified by anyone but the builder, > > and its performance, stability, and handling qualities are subject to > > any dimensional and mass variations he or she may have introduced. M. > > Lemelin should be allowed to TEST his airplane through any range of > > weights and balance conditions he chooses to select. Such tests should > > be made in such a way that M. Lemelin endangers no one but himself. On > > completing those tests, he should be given a Certificate of > > Airworthiness that states the limits he has demonstrated to be safe, and > > should be allowed to fly according to the requirements and limitations > > of amateur-built aircraft. Incidentally, this latter is not required in > > the U.S. The builder is merely required to fly a certain number of > > hours, and upon making an appropriate entry in his logbook, is free to > > fly in accordance with the regulations applicable to personal (as > > opposed to commercial) aircraft. > > > > I hope this lengthy discussion allows you to approve M. Lemelin's > > application, including his requested center of gravity range relative > > to the leading edge of the stub wing if it is in accordance with the > > KR-2 plans. > > > > Bill Marcy > > Aeronautical Engineer > > > > > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 18:46:59 -0400 To: "krnet" From: "rfarmer" Subject: resource Message-ID: <009101c21e2c$8dd472e0$cf4562d8@oemcomputer> ------=_NextPart_000_008E_01C21E0B.04ECDA60 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable helpful articles=20 http://exp-aircraft.com/library/ Bob ------=_NextPart_000_008E_01C21E0B.04ECDA60-- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 18:49:49 -0500 To: "KRNet" From: "Edwin Blocher" Subject: Canopy update Message-ID: <002201c21e35$54869000$749131cc@cyou.com> ------=_NextPart_000_001F_01C21E0B.6A7AC720 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I have just talked to Todd of Todds Canopys In Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. = He is working with me on a canopy equal to a Dragonfly canopy. We have = some design work to do ie: measurements and angles which I will be = asking for help with from some of you who already have your D'fly = canopys installed. As soon as we get this all put together he will make = canopys for us as follows: Clear $300.00 Tinted $450.00 plus shipping (he says he has good shipping rates) and good rates to you = guys down under also. All we need for this price is an order for 5 canopys. ED Ed Blocher Santa Rosa Beach, Florida ------=_NextPart_000_001F_01C21E0B.6A7AC720-- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 21:47:06 -0700 To: "KRNet" From: "BSHADR" Subject: Re: KR> Canopy update Message-ID: <001d01c21e5e$dbb3d4b0$d7e47e18@RMS> Folks: I've seen a few of Todd's canopies, mostly for Berkuts and Cozys. They are a work of art. I would say he makes products that are about as good as they come. Ask him about his installation replacement guarantee (I think if you break it, he'll ship a replacement to you N/C). He is a man of his word.(and no, I do not know Todd personally nor do I benefit from this endorsement in any way). If the KR community jumps on this opportunity, it will cement another first class vendor relationship for the whole KRcommunity for a long time into the future. Randy "NetMom" Stein South Soviet Monica, CA ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 20:03:26 -0500 To: From: "Edwin Blocher" Cc: "KRNet" Subject: Re: Canopy update - new and improved Message-ID: <001a01c21e3f$9d3ba560$749131cc@cyou.com> Thanks Larry, This is what we need and I like the longer and deeper for my lengthened KR. Would you e-mail Todd at bsilver05@aol.com and see what he needs? Thanks Mark. I'm sure you have what he needs, in fact I sent him to your web site and he's impressed. Yell at me when you get home. Ron, Glad to hear from someone else who is working with Todd. He is now making canopys for about 20 different airplanes and talks like he knows what he is doing. Now I need a commitment for at least 5 canopys when we get this going. I'm one and I have a couple more interested. Let me hear from you. I think it will be "the more-the cheaper" after 5. ED Ed Blocher Santa Rosa Beach, Florida ----- Original Message ----- From: "Larry A. Capps" To: "'Edwin Blocher'" Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2002 7:01 PM Subject: Canopy update - new and improved > Ed, > > The new canopy is an idea I've been thinking of as well. It would be best > if we could make a canopy slightly longer and deeper than the DFly canopy; > I'd be willing to donate the CAD time needed to accomplish this endeavor. > > Regards, > > Larry A. Capps > Publisher > KR Newsletter > Naperville, IL > > -----Original Message----- > I have just talked to Todd of Todds Canopys > He is working with me on a canopy equal to a Dragonfly canopy. > We have some design work to do ie > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 22:47:59 -0700 To: "krnet" , "gary wolf" , "Goldhart, William" , "JIM POND" From: "Darren Pond" Subject: Birthday flight Message-ID: <006201c21e67$5c9923c0$79469d18@cambr.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> ------=_NextPart_000_005F_01C21E2C.AFCC6EC0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable HI All I just turned 32. Ok so that's not that old compared to some. But with = two little kids and well you know. I feel old. Story.... HI talked an RV6 owner into a ride today as I skipped off work to play. Weather was Haze with 3+ mile visibility. broken ceiling at 1500ft = cumulus congestus clouds, clear until 8k with high Cirrus fibratus. So = not bad but not great. Wind 4 knots. This bird won the 93 best kit = build plane at the BIG "O". She is a beauty. Fuel injected 160 hp full = gryro panel.=20 He let me taxi, very heavy on the pedals, visibility was reasonable for = a taildragger. He uses a CD player so Beatle's were rocking on as he put = the coals to her. Up in a few hundred feet at best. 1500ft climb. Wow. I = took control as we departed south from CYKF. very light on the controls = now. No input on rudder pedal is ever required except he suggest on take = off. The Ailerons did not need to be be move up or down more than 5deg = or .5" at the trailing edge. As she climbed through the broken cumulus = at 120knots the sky opened up to beautiful sunshine. It was fantastic! = As we could not see much below the clouds we stayed local and just = played like flying should be. We leveled out at 4500ft 160knots. I tried = a few right and left turns and my Cessna training and lack of fling in = two years showed up big time. I turned right at what felt comfortable = 60-70deg bank it was too easy. EXCEPT my right turns climbed at 1500ft = min and my left put us in a spiral at 2000decent a minute. Good thing I = was not alone on this flight. Next he took control and showed me a = maneuver to fly out of box canyons, again not your standard 120 plus = hour private pilot Cessna training maneuver. What a blast. I think he = suggested 2g pull out at best. two more and it was my turn again. This = plane is rock solid and the noise canceling head sets with music make it = feel like your at that IMAX movie theatre. We then went cloud hopping = and cut the tops off a few and flew around a number of the 2000 ft = monsters. I can only imagine what it must be like to fly in the = mountains. By now I was starting to feel a little green but I tried to = smile. The next trick was a barrel roll. I held the CD player on my palm = as if it was a plate of dishes, closed my eyes and he rolled it 360 in = seconds. I felt almost nothing and the CD player did not get light or = heavy or even move. TOO Cool. Unfortunatly my brain was not having so = much fun. We found a large hole and circled down through it again at = 170knots and 2000 ft decent to the gray day that the mortals were = enduring below. As he was about to drop in to a local grass strip I had = to admit that it was time to get me down. We join right down wind, made = a short base leg and lined up on finial. At 700 ft over the thresh hold = he pull the power and with the constant speed prop in coarse we drop out = of the sky and came in for a perfect landing. All we had to do was = filler up and push it back in the hanger for an other day. AND I CAN'T = WAIT to join the birds again! The Nine gallons an hour and operating cost are fair for the bird and = the 165knot cruise but still a little steep for us young (OLD) family = guys. So if the RV 6 is anything like the KR that I have read so much = about bring it on! I can now understand what a two finger stick control = feels like and what very little drag and nose down attitude can do for = speed. Very humbling. Thanks for the flight Terry! Happy birthday to me, thanks for listening. I have to ask does anyone else get motion sickness from flying. In my = 125 hours the only troubles I have had were on the stall spin training = days where we would spin it 5-6 times as I learning how to manage this = kind of flight attitude. I had to sleep for two hours today to get rid = of the green feeling and I'm exhausted. Have I gotten weak in not flying = and building for the last 2 years or is this what Thirty something with = kids, no real exercise and high stress from work does to the body? Any = thoughts? Darren Pond Building KR2S Heavy=20 waiting on Transport Canada permission to start test flying Taylor Mono = Plane C-FVML ------=_NextPart_000_005F_01C21E2C.AFCC6EC0-- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 06:28:07 -0700 To: "Darren Pond" , "krnet" , "gary wolf" , "Goldhart, William" , "JIM POND" From: "Daniel Heath" Subject: RE: KR> Birthday flight Message-ID: Thanks for the inspiration. Daniel R. Heath See our KR2 at: http://kr-builder.org See our EAA Chapter 242at: http://WWW.EAA242.ORG -----Original Message----- From: Darren Pond [mailto:pond27@rogers.com] Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2002 10:48 PM To: krnet; gary wolf; Goldhart, William; JIM POND Subject: KR> Birthday flight HI All I just turned 32. Ok so that's not that old compared to some. But with two little kids and well you know. I feel old. Story.... HI talked an RV6 owner into a ride today as I skipped off work to play. Weather was Haze with 3+ mile visibility. broken ceiling at 1500ft cumulus congestus clouds, clear until 8k with high Cirrus fibratus. So not bad but not great. Wind 4 knots. This bird won the 93 best kit build plane at the BIG "O". She is a beauty. Fuel injected 160 hp full gryro panel. He let me taxi, very heavy on the pedals, visibility was reasonable for a taildragger. He uses a CD player so Beatle's were rocking on as he put the coals to her. Up in a few hundred feet at best. 1500ft climb. Wow. I took control as we departed south from CYKF. very light on the controls now. No input on rudder pedal is ever required except he suggest on take off. The Ailerons did not need to be be move up or down more than 5deg or .5" at the trailing edge. As she climbed through the broken cumulus at 120knots the sky opened up to beautiful sunshine. It was fantastic! As we could not see much below the clouds we stayed local and just played like flying should be. We leveled out at 4500ft 160knots. I tried a few right and left turns and my Cessna training and lack of fling in two years showed up big time. I turned right at what felt comfortable 60-70deg bank it was too easy. EXCEPT my right turns climbed at 1500ft min and my left put us in a spiral at 2000decent a minute. Good thing I was not alone on this flight. Next he took control and showed me a maneuver to fly out of box canyons, again not your standard 120 plus hour private pilot Cessna training maneuver. What a blast. I think he suggested 2g pull out at best. two more and it was my turn again. This plane is rock solid and the noise canceling head sets with music make it feel like your at that IMAX movie theatre. We then went cloud hopping and cut the tops off a few and flew around a number of the 2000 ft monsters. I can only imagine what it must be like to fly in the mountains. By now I was starting to feel a little green but I tried to smile. The next trick was a barrel roll. I held the CD player on my palm as if it was a plate of dishes, closed my eyes and he rolled it 360 in seconds. I felt almost nothing and the CD player did not get light or heavy or even move. TOO Cool. Unfortunatly my brain was not having so much fun. We found a large hole and circled down through it again at 170knots and 2000 ft decent to the gray day that the mortals were enduring below. As he was about to drop in to a local grass strip I had to admit that it was time to get me down. We join right down wind, made a short base leg and lined up on finial. At 700 ft over the thresh hold he pull the power and with the constant speed prop in coarse we drop out of the sky and came in for a perfect landing. All we had to do was filler up and push it back in the hanger for an other day. AND I CAN'T WAIT to join the birds again! The Nine gallons an hour and operating cost are fair for the bird and the 165knot cruise but still a little steep for us young (OLD) family guys. So if the RV 6 is anything like the KR that I have read so much about bring it on! I can now understand what a two finger stick control feels like and what very little drag and nose down attitude can do for speed. Very humbling. Thanks for the flight Terry! Happy birthday to me, thanks for listening. I have to ask does anyone else get motion sickness from flying. In my 125 hours the only troubles I have had were on the stall spin training days where we would spin it 5-6 times as I learning how to manage this kind of flight attitude. I had to sleep for two hours today to get rid of the green feeling and I'm exhausted. Have I gotten weak in not flying and building for the last 2 years or is this what Thirty something with kids, no real exercise and high stress from work does to the body? Any thoughts? Darren Pond Building KR2S Heavy waiting on Transport Canada permission to start test flying Taylor Mono Plane C-FVML --- 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: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 15:07:05 +1000 To: From: "Phillip Matheson" Subject: Sealing Ply Fuse Message-ID: <004601c21e61$aa7bdb60$af96dccb@barry> ------=_NextPart_000_0043_01C21EB5.77BBB7A0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I have been told about a product called EVERSEAL. ( it is epoxy ) Get it from Marine dealers in Australia By a hydro boat builder. He says it is very thin does not need anything except just paint it on = and it will disappears into the wood to seal, than another coat, sand and = epoxy over, or if you MUST as he says, use light cloth to finish. He says he = uses it all the time with West Systems. I have ordered it, and not used it as yet. Phil Matheson matheson@dodo.com.au Phil Matheson matheson@dodo.com.au ------=_NextPart_000_0043_01C21EB5.77BBB7A0-- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 16:22:48 +1000 To: "krnet listing" From: "Phillip Matheson" Subject: Alum Fuel tanks Message-ID: <008d01c21e6c$3d4db800$af96dccb@barry> ------=_NextPart_000_008A_01C21EC0.0B9BA8E0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I have been looking through the old lists trying to find the gauge or = thickness of Alum to make some wing tanks . Can someone who has made them , help me with some info, ie thickness and = weight of Alum compared to glass etc. Phil Matheson matheson@dodo.com.au ------=_NextPart_000_008A_01C21EC0.0B9BA8E0-- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 16:30:31 +1000 To: "krnet listing" From: "Phillip Matheson" Subject: WAF info and Question Message-ID: <009601c21e6d$51af32a0$af96dccb@barry> ------=_NextPart_000_0093_01C21EC1.1F2A9140 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Well I;m finally getting some work done on my KR last night, removed old WAF to inspect, someone had drilled out the rear = main WAF bolt to 1/4" instead of 3/16 " AN3, and the radius left was not = good. 4 hours later, cut new ones from 125 4130 sheet, belted sanded, drilled, = and I was finished, Beautiful. Next I'll remove the front ones and check them. Question, the bolt fit in the front WAF are not a really nice slide fit = of the bolts. Any comments?????? Phil Matheson matheson@dodo.com.au ------=_NextPart_000_0093_01C21EC1.1F2A9140-- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 17:47:19 +1000 To: "KRnet" From: "John and Janet Martindale" Subject: G spots Message-ID: <001301c21e78$237e8c40$ccde12d2@m1g0x7> ------=_NextPart_000_0010_01C21ECB.D9B1D5A0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Folks What really interests me most is a determination of just which part of = the airframe is the limiting bit with respect to the G loading. It seems = to me that if, for example, the engine mount/firewall attach points = break well before the wings at 7G then upping the gross weight with = respect to extra fuel in the wings might be less of an issue....within = limits of course. Sort of like sitting on a tree branch and then cutting = it off. On one side ya safe the other goodeh Mr Newton. Cheers John and Janet Martindale 29 Jane Circuit TOORMINA NSW 2452 AUSTRALIA ph: 61 2 66584767 ------=_NextPart_000_0010_01C21ECB.D9B1D5A0-- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 07:47:24 -0400 To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: "Dana Overall" Subject: End of the week pic. Message-ID: OK gang, here's one I could not resist taking. This pic was taken this past Tuesday. I still have a tremendous amount of work to do on the wings but they have taken shape. Remember, I am doing both wings at the same time and only started the wings 11 days prior to this pic. It may not look like much, but there is tremendous amount of work involved to get to this point. I have since removed the inboard leading edge fuel tank and began internal construction of the stiffeners, pickup, fuel sender etc. It's beginning to look like an airplane part though. http://rvflying.tripod.com/frwing0628.jpg Dana Overall Richmond, KY 1999 & 2000 National KR Gathering host http://rvflying.tripod.com _________________________________________________________________ Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 08:25:11 -0400 To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: "Dana Overall" Subject: Re: KR> Alum Fuel tanks-Long KR related:-) Message-ID: Since this is point I am at in my construction, I'll chime in here. The inboard leading edge fuel tanks on my airplane are .032 alum. with interior ribs running fore and aft and two sets stiffeners running span length between each rib on the bottom only. Now for it's application to a KR, in my view. The RV world uses a glue, otherwize known as "Black Death" to seal between the ribs and the skin so no leaks occur through the rivets. I can tell you this stuff has got to be worlds stickiest substance currently known to man. Aircraft Spruce carries it; It's known as Pro-Seal. The part number is P/S 890 B-2. Biz jets literally use this stuff between the fush. substructure and the skin to hold their airplanes together with pressurization. I know of some airplanes that are held together totally with this stuff, it's that sticky...........and guess what, FUEL PROOF. Now how would I build a KR tank? I would take my two end pieces and bend a 1/2" flange on all four sides. Actually I would make enough of these flange piece so I would have a couple of interior ribs also. Be sure and drill out a couple of holes in the "ribs" to allow fuel to transfer between bays. These ribs will also act as baffles so don't go crazy with the holes. Be sure on hole in each rib is positioned at the rearmost/bottommost portion of the rib. I would drill these flanges to accept an 3/32 rivets (structural pops would work fine)spaced appropriately. I would lay my bottom piece in and final drill this using the holes in the flange as a drill guide. Do this to all outboard pieces, I'll need some 3/32 clecos. Take the bottom off and flip it over so I can drill what will be your top. Be sure and figure out how you are going to attach this thing to your KR and rivet on, with a generous amount of Pro-Seal any alum angles you may want. As for a sump, just position the tank so the front/outboard corner is highest and all water, etc. will run to the rear/inboard corner. I would osition my pickup just above this point. Take it all apart and deburr all the holes. At this point I do all plumbing work, tank cap, etc. Pro-Seal all fitting together and make a fillet using popcicle (sp) sticks from the craft section of Wally World. Assembly: I would place my two outboard panels on my bench and Pro-Seal the inboard flanges and drop my floor in. Rivet this sucker together. Now I would drop in my interior ribs with Pro-Seal between the parts and rivet these in. Now I would move to front and back and rivet them to the all the panel flanges. Be sure and put Pro-Seal between everything. At this point I move to the inside and dab Pro-Seal on the heads of all rivets, make a fillet on all flanges and seal the corners very well with the Black Death. Now I would just Pro-Seal and rivet the top on making sure I had a good supply of Pro-Seal on this as you will not be able to work on the side flanges. The top will need a flange bent into the the front and back side of it to overlap the the front and back of your tank. Apply Pro-Seal to the tops of each rivet and pressure test this thing after giving it time to harden up real good. After I bent my flanges and did all my plumbing, I could assemble this thing in an hour...............honest!! This thing would be a piece of cake. The Pro-Seal is the answer. Dana Overall Richmond, KY 1999 & 2000 National KR Gathering host http://rvflying.tripod.com _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx ------------------------------ End of krnet Digest ***********************************