From: To: Subject: krnet Digest 6 Aug 2002 01:30:59 -0000 Issue 490 Date: Monday, August 05, 2002 6:31 PM krnet Digest 6 Aug 2002 01:30:59 -0000 Issue 490 Topics (messages 11868 through 11889): Re: The AS5046 airfoil 11868 by: van Rooyen, Hennie(SF02) 11869 by: van Rooyen, Hennie(SF02) Re: attaching wings at fuselage. 11870 by: van Rooyen, Hennie(SF02) Re: build to plans 11871 by: van Rooyen, Hennie(SF02) Re: Update: International/External mail problems. 11872 by: van Rooyen, Hennie(SF02) 2002 Oshkosh Pictures 11873 by: gpasc Blunt Edges 11874 by: Eric Evezard 11875 by: Ronald Freiberger 11876 by: Schurr, Larry 11877 by: Dana Overall 11882 by: Donald Blankenship 11883 by: Lynn Hyder Henny van Rooyen and my Soapbox about SIGNATURE BLOCKS 11878 by: Frank Ross 11879 by: Ronald Freiberger Flying KRs with NO FUEL 11880 by: Frank Ross First Flight of KR-2S OE-VPD 11881 by: Christian Kogelmann 11885 by: Brian Kraut Pressure Field Around the Fuselage 11884 by: Donald Reid changing airfoils 11886 by: rfarmer Re: Car mirror assemblies 11887 by: Alex Swavely Flaps not effective 11888 by: rfarmer Re: re design of kr---Hennie van Rooyen 11889 by: Hennie.van.Rooyen.honeywell.com Administrivia: To subscribe to the digest, e-mail: To unsubscribe from the digest, e-mail: To post to the list, e-mail: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 08:04:23 -0500 To: Ronald Freiberger , David McKelvey , krnet@mailinglists.org From: "van Rooyen, Hennie(SF02)" Subject: RE: KR> The AS5046 airfoil Hi Ron, I'll keep your mail in a safe place. As stated, I'm more than 50% done. It WILL fly before December this year, even if just to prove you wrong. Please forgive me when I make a big scene here with the actual achieved results then. Regards, Hennie -----Original Message----- From: Ronald Freiberger [mailto:ron.martha@mindspring.com] Sent: Friday, August 02, 2002 12:16 AM To: David McKelvey; krnet@mailinglists.org Subject: RE: KR> The AS5046 airfoil I think this whole thing is a giant joke, and that it originates in Richmond, KY. Ron Freiberger... mailto:ron.martha@mindspring.com -----Original Message----- From: David McKelvey [mailto:davmck@verizon.net] Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2002 6:59 PM To: krnet@mailinglists.org Subject: RE: KR> The AS5046 airfoil He's got a point, a stock KR does not fly well with no fuel -----Original Message----- From: van Rooyen, Hennie(SF02) [mailto:Hennie.van.Rooyen@honeywell.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2002 9:14 PM To: 'krnet@mailinglists.org' Subject: FW: KR> The AS5046 airfoil Hi Mark, Thanks for the reply. Just as yourself. I also have my own opinions for a perfect KR2 derivative and this is what I'm building: 1. With more than 600 hours of all sorts of microlights behind me, I wanted a plane that has the speed capabilities of the KR, but landing characteristics of the microlights. Thus it should be able to fly at 200+ mph, but also be able to land in the mid 20 mph range. Impossible? Think again - I'm going to achieve this and soon! 2. I've read many articles which states that the actual Hp of a 1800cc VW turning in the lower 3000 Rpm range is closer to 45Hp than the suggested 60Hp everyone quotes. Ken designed this aircraft to fly perfectly with only 60Hp if it is built light. So I re-designed everything by: 3. Moving the seats and firewall forward so that the pilot (me, 6ft tall) and passenger sits comfortably right on the cg. 4. The tail is also stretched, but not as much as the KR2S. 5. The tail feathers have been increased for better control and low speed handling. 6. Coming from a microlighting background, I know where to find 60 Hp at less than half the weight of the VW, so I'll use a proper 2 stroke like the 503 Rotax until my finances allow something like the 30Hp Hirth or 6 cylinder 180Hp Arrow two stroke engines. Having many hours in the air with two strokes gives me the total confidence to do this. 7. I've exceeded all wood dimensions slightly to give me a stronger, yet light airframe. I'll run a tube from the inner rear spar to the outer main spar on the outboard wings to make the wings safe at the higher speed obtained with i.e. the Arrow engine - just imagine a 400+ lbs aircraft with 180 Hp! 8. My fuel will be in both the inner and outer wings ONLY, so I'll have no loading cg problems like most do - my aircraft should fly the same with one or two aboard and wheather no fuel or full fuel. 9. I see no benefit in tapering the fuselage at the bottom, so mine is wider than the KR and the same width top and bottom. Having located the seats forward puts the shoulders at the widest part of the airframe and my seating arrangement is extremely comfortable with two aboard. 10. I've used tube push pull control throughout like in most microlights - much easier to construct and a lot safer and less complex than any cable arrangement. The ONLY easily accessible parts to be inspected on every preflight are the clearly visible bolts at each end. 11. I've designed and fabricated my own lightweight tricycle gear with steerable nose wheel - much lighter than the original KR setup, yet easily strong enough for my purposes. 12. I'll only use a Skydat microlight single instrument with a hand held radio. 13. Initially no electric starter - the start pull rope for the Rotax 503 is mounted at the bottom of the firewall inside the cockpit - so I even save some more weight. 14. The canopy will be like the Swearinham 3000's with a flat wrap around Plexiglas or lexan windshield which is easy to make, lightweight, super modern and with excellent headroom and visibility. 15. I'll use the new airfoil with full span flaps, even on the inboard side. The flaps will be like the PC Pilatus, which is hinged at the bottom wing skin with a curve at the top like yours. Thus there'll be no gap and by deploying them, the bottom wing area stays the same but the top area is increased making the total wing area larger helping with more lift for both take-offs and landings. Landing at 25 - 30 mph should get rid of most of the floating in any case. 16. I'll use spoilers on the outboard wings for both roll and decent control. My life was saved on more than one occasion on microlights by this facility by being able to deploy both spoilers simultaneously, killing a lot of lift in this way. Once it got me out of cloud suck and in landings, I could come down like a parachute. By letting them retract just above the ground I could then flare and do a normal landing. Thus, using spoilers in this way lets you absolutely control your descent and you can put the aircraft down anywhere you want! 17. Initially I was going to use the GAW-1 airfoil. I was going to attach the wings right at the fuselage so that the brackets of the outer wings actually protrude into the fuselage. The wing attach bolt would then be inside the fuselage where they could be easily reached. Because I'm using longer wings and unsure of the strength of this arrangement, I came up with another idea in which the outboard wings simply fold up at the joint with only minor modifications to one of the upper main WAFs. So I built new spars like the KR and this is the way I'll go. I made several other changes, but all in all I'm convinced I'll get what I'm after and I hope to be flying before this Christmas. Regards, Hennie -----Original Message----- From: Mark Langford [mailto:langford@hiwaay.net] Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2002 3:18 PM To: krnet@mailinglists.org Subject: Re: KR> The AS5046 airfoil Hennie van Rooyen wrote: > Where can I find detail on exactly where the outer spars match the outer rib > of the AS5046 airfoil. I see on all the pictures that the main spar seems to > be located closer to the aft section of the outer rib template. (I.o.w the > main spar seems to be pulled backwards at the end) I'll check, but I'm pretty sure the drawings are set up so that the relationships of the spars to the airfoil chord are identical to the setup of the RAF48 shown in the RR plans. That's why we requested the AS5046, because the AS5045 wasn't a perfect match to the existing spars due to the location of the "bulges" being slightly different between the two airfoils. The airfoil "plans" are designed to be used exactly as the RR plans call for, except using a different shape for the template. Planform (and spar location) remain exactly the same. That setup has been proven, and offers the "safest" deviation from the plans. Installation instructions are at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford/tet/as5046inst.html . There is mention of changing the horizontal stabilizer incidence, but that's in improvement that all KRs could stand, in my humble opinion. You could build a KR with new wing airfoil and old horizontal stab and incidence, if you wanted to. In fact, that's exactly what Troy did, because he didn't have the heart to tear into his tail right after he'd rebuilt it with his new smaller elevators and rudder. His plane would probably be a little faster if the two matched. That's why my horizontal stab is ground adjustable, so I can tweak it to perfection by trial and error. Since you mention seeing "all the photos of the new airfoil", you're probably talking about pictures of the AS5046 implementation on MY airplane, so all bets are off. I slid things around here and there, for various reasons, one of which was to be able to use the aft spar as the attach point for my ailerons and flaps, but that kind of talk can start a war here! It might be mentioned though, that that's exactly what Kevin Kelly did with the KR100, which almost made it into "production" at RR. I did it before I knew Keven had done it though. Kevin also changed the wing incidence and horizontal stab incidence to be closer together too, with a total decalage of 2 degrees, if I'm not mistaken. I'm thinking that Larry Capps might do an in-depth article for the Newsletter on that plane, assuming the Newsletter survives. Mark Langford, TET, LLC mailto:langford@hiwaay.net see KR2S project 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.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp or http://www.bouyea.net/ for the Word files --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp or http://www.bouyea.net/ for the Word files --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp or http://www.bouyea.net/ for the Word files --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp or http://www.bouyea.net/ for the Word files ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 08:50:12 -0500 To: bstarrs , krnet@mailinglists.org From: "van Rooyen, Hennie(SF02)" Subject: RE: KR> The AS5046 airfoil Hi Bill, Would you mind elaborating please - I post to all as none of my mail apeared here since Friday morning. I take it for granted that you have that experience. I'm open to justified reprimands. would you please point me to the points that might kill me? Apart from the fact that two strokes are completely unreliable in every one's opinion except those who regularly fly with them. Honest, I'm not being nasty, so let's see: 1. Most increase the size of their tailfeathers, just look at Troy's recent example. Yet if I do it, it might kill me? 2. My cg staying more or less in the same location under just about all conditions is going to kill me? 3. Not tapering the fuselage on the bottom is going to kill me? 4. Push pull controls using aircraft aliminium tubing an AN aircraft certified bolts at both ends is going to kill me? 5. A Four inches wider cockpit is going to kil me? 6. Using the new airfoil is going to kill me? 7. Installing full span flaps is going to kill me? 8. Using spoilers proven by at least one other KR1 pilot is going to kill me? 9. Having a 450 lbs empty weight is going to kill me? 10. Having fixed tricycle undercariage is going to kill me? 11. Having 24 ft wings with 24ft spars is going to kill me? 12. Having a Swearinhan 3000 look alike canopy is going to kill me? 13. User slightly oversized wooden structure throughout is goingv to kill me? 14. Having all fuel in the wings is going to kill me? 15. Using a skydat single instrument and hand held radio is going to kill me? Bill, without being nasty, if these type of "safe" things is going to kill me then life should not be worth living. After all, every single designer or modifier of any home built aircraft then must be a certified aircraft design engineer. What WON'T kill me then I presume is: 1. Pushing my empty weight up to 900 lbs or so using the same airframe. 2. Because I now need longer wings to cope, I simply stick four feet of foam to the ends and fibreglass over it. 3. Now I find a V8 engine that can drag all of this in the air. 4. I add 20 ft to the rear to compersate. Oh yes, Ken did not design this aircraft and structure for 480 lbs empty weight any more - I can now slap what I like to it and as long as it's HEAVY, I'll be accepted by every one. Sorry guys, I do not want to hurt your feelings, but you are most certainly doing your best to hurt mine. After all, who's this IDIOT advocating building it light again? Regards, Hennie -----Original Message----- From: bstarrs [mailto:bstarrs@cybertrails.com] Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2002 5:00 PM To: krnet@mailinglists.org Subject: Fw: KR> The AS5046 airfoil My thoughs were about the same,but I didn't want to put a damper on such enthusiasm. One gets the impression You think you know a lot more then you do. If you make all of the changes you mentioned at least one of them will kill you. Keep on checking with others who have more experience then "600 hrs in microlites" .Bill Starrs ----- Original Message ----- From: "Schurr, Larry" To: Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2002 5:41 AM Subject: RE: KR> The AS5046 airfoil > Hennie, > > No one can fault your spirit, that's for sure :-) > > In reading your treatise on your upcoming plane, I couldn't help but wonder > about some questions, not necessarily issues, but some little 'red lights' > in my nay-sayer head -- I'm such a terrible cynic! -- and thought I'd chime > in. > > > So I re-designed everything by: > > > > 5. The tail feathers have been increased for better control > > and low speed > > handling. > > > > 6. Coming from a microlighting background, I know where to > > find 60 Hp at > > less than half the weight of the VW, so I'll use a proper 2 > > stroke like the > > 503 Rotax > > From where will you get the *other* 8hp? A 503 is only good for 52, isn't > it? > And at cruise, closer to 39-40? > > > >until my finances allow something like the 30Hp Hirth or 6 > > cylinder 180Hp Arrow two stroke engines. Having many hours in > > the air with > > two strokes gives me the total confidence to do this. > > Hmmm... I'm guessing these are thirsty... 180hp 2stroke? yup, probably > pretty thirsty. > > > - my aircraft should fly the > > same with one > > or two aboard and wheather no fuel or full fuel. > > Uhm... an F-16 AND a C-150 demonstrate significant differences with 2up/full > fuel conditions, yet yours will not?? This will be interesting. > > > > > 9. I see no benefit in tapering the fuselage at the bottom, > > so mine is wider > > than the KR and the same width top and bottom. Having located > > the seats > > forward puts the shoulders at the widest part of the airframe > > and my seating > > arrangement is extremely comfortable with two aboard. > > Yes, wonder why that fuse tapers? Hmmm... wonder why EVERY tailcone isn't > square at the bottom? Hmmm.. wonder why each and every >200mph plane out > there has a rounded tailcone... hmmmm.... oh, except the Mustang2/Thorp > t-18, 200hp/200mph... you might wanna check into some aero studies on wing > root fairing and fuselage boundary layer. > > Though true, a flat bottom CAN be shown to produce better ground effect that > can *contribute* to lower landing speed, it can also reduce your numbers at > cruise with increased boundary layer drag. > > > > > 10. I've used tube push pull control throughout like in most > > microlights - > > much easier to construct and a lot safer and less complex > > than any cable > > arrangement. The ONLY easily accessible parts to be inspected on every > > preflight are the clearly visible bolts at each end. > > Though inspection is easier... wonder why EVERY high performance plane > doesn't use tubes?? Check into flutter failure modes... Re-examine your item > 5. above. Increasing area? >200mph? Be sure to take the necessary steps > to prevent flutter. > > > 15. I'll use the new airfoil with full span flaps, even on > > the inboard side. > > The flaps will be like the PC Pilatus, which is hinged at the > > bottom wing > > skin with a curve at the top like yours. Thus there'll be no > > gap and by > > deploying them, the bottom wing area stays the same but the > > top area is > > increased making the total wing area larger helping with more > > lift for both > > take-offs and landings. Landing at 25 - 30 mph should get rid > > of most of the > > floating in any case. > > Pilatus-type split flaps (which have holes in them, BTW) are little more > than air brakes. They produce very little in the way of useful low speed > lift and are considered inefficient for the complexity. Drag=Lift. The > trick is to get Lift in a unified and useful direction. Hence, flaps. > There is a very big difference between decreasing lift and decreasing stall > speed. > > > > > > 16. I'll use spoilers on the outboard wings for both roll and decent > > control. My life was saved on more than one occasion on > > microlights by this > > facility by being able to deploy both spoilers > > simultaneously, killing a lot > > of lift in this way. Once it got me out of cloud suck and in > > landings, I > > could come down like a parachute. By letting them retract > > just above the > > ground I could then flare and do a normal landing. Thus, > > using spoilers in > > this way lets you absolutely control your descent and you can put the > > aircraft down anywhere you want! > > You might remember you're going from about 3#/sq.ft. wingloading to around 6 > or more. Unless, with your longer wings, you're increasing the wing area, > then your ride gets worse and your handling more microlight-like. "Coming > down like a parachute" is no accommplishment -- 'landing like a rocking > chair' IS. > > > > > 17. Initially I was going to use the GAW-1 airfoil. I was > > going to attach > > the wings right at the fuselage so that the brackets of the > > outer wings > > actually protrude into the fuselage. The wing attach bolt > > would then be > > inside the fuselage where they could be easily reached. > > Because I'm using > > longer wings and unsure of the strength of this arrangement, > > I came up with > > another idea in which the outboard wings simply fold up at > > the joint with > > only minor modifications to one of the upper main WAFs. So I > > built new spars > > like the KR and this is the way I'll go. > > "[U]nsure or the strength of this arrangement"?? "So I built new spars"?? > Uhhh.... this has the 'kindergarteners with handguns' sort of feel to it, > sorry. Learn to run the numbers. Learn what they mean. KNOW what your > vehicle's engineered limits (all of them) are. Are you setting up a stress > riser? Do you know what that is? Before you "design" anything, you might > want to brush up a bit on some of these lessons (learned the hard way > throughout history). Just a thought. > > > > > I made several other changes, but all in all I'm convinced > > I'll get what I'm > > after and I hope to be flying before this Christmas. > > Rotsa ruck :-) Let us know how it goes and if we can help. > > Larry > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp > or http://www.bouyea.net/ for the Word files > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp or http://www.bouyea.net/ for the Word files ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 08:59:32 -0500 To: "jim @ synergy design" , krnet@mailinglists.org From: "van Rooyen, Hennie(SF02)" Subject: RE: KR> attaching wings at fuselage. Hi Jim, I reply to all as my post no longer seem to appear here and this way at least you'll get my reply. My inner spars goes all the way to the fuselage outer longeron. The outer wing WAF push through the boat sides. The brackets on the inner spars is located with the holes just before the outer boat longerons. Thus the bolts are located just on the inside of the boat longerons. Many now adds an additional two feet using foam and fibreglass only to the outboard wings. Please tell me the difference adding the same arm lenght right at the fuselage or at the normal wing attach points using the same thickness spars? But then, I'm an Idiot, so obviously my reasong must me covered in mud... Hennie -----Original Message----- From: jim @ synergy design [mailto:synergydesign@sopris.net] Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2002 9:06 PM To: krnet@mailinglists.org Subject: KR> attaching wings at fuselage. Hennie, You may want an engineer to figure out how much extra force is applied to the WAF's by moving them closer. I may be wrong on this, But I think you will be increasing the leverage arm(therefor the forces) at the WAF's by moving them to just inside the fuselage skin, If I understand you correctly .Also, what is your center spar now attached to if it doesn't go through the fuselage sides? Good Luck, Jim Sporka P.S. Can I be the beneficiary on your life insurance policy? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 09:05:47 -0500 To: "jim @ synergy design" , krnet@mailinglists.org From: "van Rooyen, Hennie(SF02)" Subject: RE: KR> build to plans Hi Jim, Too late, I'm halfway there already. Plus I'm now even more convinced that I went the right way and have a point to prove. Please, mr. network administrator, I suffered all this humilation without seeing my replies posted here. Please allow me to post a thread or two as soon as I have practical, DEMONSTRADED figures in my hand promised by no later than end December 2002. Please also allow me to again host extracts from all this doom mail I'm now receiving. At least it will make me feel better. Thanks for the advice Jim, I'm convinced that your intentions are meant only for my well being, but I have faith in my abilities. Regards, Hennie -----Original Message----- From: jim @ synergy design [mailto:synergydesign@sopris.net] Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2002 10:42 PM To: krnet@mailinglists.org Subject: KR> build to plans Since I made fun of Virg last week, And he's probably in shock over Hennies post, Ill say it. Hennie, build it to the plans. :) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 09:09:12 -0500 To: "'krnet@mailinglists.org'" From: "van Rooyen, Hennie(SF02)" Subject: FW: Update: International/External mail problems. Hi all, This is why you did not receive any replies from me since Friday morning. Unfortunately, you'll now be swamped with replies, but I only tried to defend myself. I gues now I'll have to defend all this mail. Regards, Hennie > -----Original Message----- > From: Network Solutions SA(SF02) > Sent: Monday, August 05, 2002 11:23 AM > To: EVERYONE-SF02-P01; Everyone-SF04/P01; EVERYONE-SF10/P01; > EVERYONE_Teqtrader(SF02) > Subject: Update: International/External mail problems. > Importance: High > > Mail system is fully functional again, take note that it will take some > time for the backlogged mail to come through. > Regards, > Network Solutions. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Network Solutions SA(SF02) > Sent: 05 August 2002 09:46 > To: EVERYONE-SF02-P01; Everyone-SF04/P01; EVERYONE-SF10/P01; > EVERYONE_Teqtrader(SF02) > Subject: Update: International/External mail problems. > Importance: High > > International/external mail can be sent at this stage, but not received. > Regards, > Network Solutions. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Network Solutions SA(SF02) > Sent: 05 August 2002 09:36 > To: EVERYONE-SF02-P01; Everyone-SF04/P01; EVERYONE-SF10/P01; > EVERYONE_Teqtrader(SF02) > Subject: International/External mail problems. > Importance: High > > To all users, > Honeywell UK is experiencing technical difficulties on > the central mail system, and is currently working on the problem. > You will still be able to send and receive internal mail, but no > international or external mail. > We will let you know as soon as the problems have been resolved. > Regards, > Network Solutions. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2002 12:14:29 -0500 To: From: gpasc Subject: 2002 Oshkosh Pictures Message-ID: Hi KR Guys: Here are the pictures I finally loaded: http://www.greatplainsas.com/oshkosh.html Enjoy! Linda Great Plains ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 19:47:13 +0200 To: "KR MAIL" From: "Eric Evezard" Subject: Blunt Edges Message-ID: <008801c23ca8$45740980$2cce07c4@erick> ------=_NextPart_000_0085_01C23CB8.E50BCCC0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Folks, Saw a new Czchec assembled aircraft kit here.Very small but beautifully = finished,with a good performance.Of interest,though was the blunt = trailing edges about 1/4 ins. thick.I have seen blunt trailing edges on = some model aircraft.wings.Does this require a special airfoil ?What are = the advantages if any.?It looked rather odd to see untapered trailing = edges. Best Regards to all, Eric Evezard South Africa. ------=_NextPart_000_0085_01C23CB8.E50BCCC0-- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 12:53:19 -0400 To: "Eric Evezard" , "KR MAIL" From: "Ronald Freiberger" Subject: RE: KR> Blunt Edges Message-ID: As I remember, Ken Rand's aircraft also bad very blunt edges. I think I renmember some references to preventing aileron snatch with blunt edges Ron Freiberger... mailto:ron.martha@mindspring.com -----Original Message----- From: Eric Evezard [mailto:bonzabay@netactive.co.za] Sent: Monday, August 05, 2002 1:47 PM To: KR MAIL Subject: KR> Blunt Edges Hi Folks, Saw a new Czchec assembled aircraft kit here.Very small but beautifully finished,with a good performance.Of interest,though was the blunt trailing edges about 1/4 ins. thick.I have seen blunt trailing edges on some model aircraft.wings.Does this require a special airfoil ?What are the advantages if any.?It looked rather odd to see untapered trailing edges. Best Regards to all, Eric Evezard South Africa. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 12:53:21 -0500 To: KR MAIL From: "Schurr, Larry" Subject: RE: KR> Blunt Edges Message-ID: Eric, I'm assuming you're referring to the practice a 'squaring off' the trailing edge of a control surface. This creates a predictable turbulence wave (as opposed to a random one :-) at the aftmost center resulting in a "crisper" stick. Increased stability at neutral position and more pronounced initial displacement forces. It is, of course, more aerodynamically 'draggy' but many feel the tactile feedback is worth it especially in designs with neutral stability. Larry ## -----Original Message----- ## From: Eric Evezard [mailto:bonzabay@netactive.co.za] ## Sent: Monday, August 05, 2002 12:47 PM ## To: KR MAIL ## Subject: KR> Blunt Edges ## ## ## Hi Folks, ## Saw a new Czchec assembled aircraft kit here.Very small but ## beautifully finished,with a good performance.Of ## interest,though was the blunt trailing edges about 1/4 ins. ## thick.I have seen blunt trailing edges on some model ## aircraft.wings.Does this require a special airfoil ?What are ## the advantages if any.?It looked rather odd to see untapered ## trailing edges. ## Best Regards to all, ## Eric Evezard ## South Africa. ## ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2002 15:02:28 -0400 To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: "Dana Overall" Subject: Re: KR> Blunt Edges Message-ID: Eric, Look at the trailing edges of all the Extra 300s and so on. All aerobatic aircraft share this same characteristic. I've always thought the KR needed this feature. Dana Overall Richmond, KY http://rvflying.tripod.com do not archive _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2002 15:45:17 -0500 To: "Schurr, Larry" , krnet@mailinglists.org From: "Donald Blankenship" Subject: RE: KR> Blunt Edges Message-ID: <20020805204517.22090.qmail@mail.com> God forbid, please don't put blunt edeges on your planes. Exactly opposite what was just said, it can slightly reduce drag but generally decrease control effectiveness. To even reduce drag a minor amount for full-scale aircraft, the squared corners of the trailing edge have to be extremely sharp. So sharp, fiberglass does not lend itself to its manufacture. Improperly done, it adds drag and dramatically reduces the effectiveness of ailerons or whatever it is applied to. That's why you see it on models, not manned aircraft. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Schurr, Larry" Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 12:53:21 -0500 To: KR MAIL Subject: RE: KR> Blunt Edges > > Eric, > I'm assuming you're referring to the practice a 'squaring off' the trailing > edge of a control surface. > > This creates a predictable turbulence wave (as opposed to a random one :-) > at the aftmost center resulting in a "crisper" stick. Increased stability > at neutral position and more pronounced initial displacement forces. It is, > of course, more aerodynamically 'draggy' but many feel the tactile feedback > is worth it especially in designs with neutral stability. > > Larry > > ## -----Original Message----- > ## From: Eric Evezard [mailto:bonzabay@netactive.co.za] > ## Sent: Monday, August 05, 2002 12:47 PM > ## To: KR MAIL > ## Subject: KR> Blunt Edges > ## > ## > ## Hi Folks, > ## Saw a new Czchec assembled aircraft kit here.Very small but > ## beautifully finished,with a good performance.Of > ## interest,though was the blunt trailing edges about 1/4 ins. > ## thick.I have seen blunt trailing edges on some model > ## aircraft.wings.Does this require a special airfoil ?What are > ## the advantages if any.?It looked rather odd to see untapered > ## trailing edges. > ## Best Regards to all, > ## Eric Evezard > ## South Africa. > ## > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp > or http://www.bouyea.net/ for the Word files > > -- __________________________________________________________ Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup Get 4 DVDs for $.49 cents! plus shipping & processing. Click to join. http://adfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/990-1736-3566-59 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2002 14:18:30 -0700 To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: "Lynn Hyder" Subject: RE: KR> Blunt Edges Message-ID: The Lancairs, some now going over 300 mph all have blunt edges. Lynn Hyder N37LH >From: "Donald Blankenship" > >God forbid, please don't put blunt edeges on your planes. Exactly opposite >what was just said, it can slightly reduce drag but generally decrease >control effectiveness. To even reduce drag a minor amount for full-scale >aircraft, the squared corners of the trailing edge have to be extremely >sharp. So sharp, fiberglass does not lend itself to its manufacture. >Improperly done, it adds drag and dramatically reduces the effectiveness of >ailerons or whatever it is applied to. That's why you see it on models, not >manned aircraft. > > > > > Eric, > > I'm assuming you're referring to the practice a 'squaring off' the >trailing > > edge of a control surface. > > > > This creates a predictable turbulence wave (as opposed to a random one >:-) > > at the aftmost center resulting in a "crisper" stick. Increased >stability > > at neutral position and more pronounced initial displacement forces. It >is, > > of course, more aerodynamically 'draggy' but many feel the tactile >feedback > > is worth it especially in designs with neutral stability. > > > > Larry > > > > ## > > ## Hi Folks, > > ## Saw a new Czchec assembled aircraft kit here.Very small but > > ## beautifully finished,with a good performance.Of > > ## interest,though was the blunt trailing edges about 1/4 ins. > > ## thick.I have seen blunt trailing edges on some model > > ## aircraft.wings.Does this require a special airfoil ?What are > > ## the advantages if any.?It looked rather odd to see untapered > > ## trailing edges. > > ## Best Regards to all, > > ## Eric Evezard > > ## South Africa. > > ## > > _________________________________________________________________ Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 12:35:15 -0700 (PDT) To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: Frank Ross Subject: Henny van Rooyen and my Soapbox about SIGNATURE BLOCKS Message-ID: <20020805193515.95261.qmail@web21509.mail.yahoo.com> Hennie, I think that Ron, and maybe others, thought your posts were a hoax perpetrated by one of our members in Richmond, Kentucky, USA. It really helps us all to include your location in your signature block. Here in the states we tend to think everyone on the krnet is in the states. That leads to great confusion when someone from Egypt or Australia (or South Africa, like you, I suspect)complains that they have difficulty or great expense with something we in the US take for granted. Like the fellow awhile back who was obviously from a middle-eastern country asking about spruce and plywood substitutes. Bet they don't have a lot of Spruce Forests in Riyhad. And I am pretty sure he cannot run down to his local lumber yard and pick out a few pieces of aircraft or even marine quality plywood. Anyway, it would have helped a LOT to know where he was writing from and, it might have helped some of our skeptics who thought they were having a joke played on them to know where you are writing from. Thanks for reading all of this, and I look forward to seeing pictures of your airplane. That IS why we call it 'Experimental', after all. Franklin L. Ross, in San Antonio, Texas, USA --- "van Rooyen, Hennie(SF02)" wrote: > Hi Ron, > > I'll keep your mail in a safe place. As stated, I'm > more than 50% done. It > WILL fly before December this year, even if just to > prove you wrong. Please > forgive me when I make a big scene here with the > actual achieved results > then. > > Regards, > Hennie > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ronald Freiberger > [mailto:ron.martha@mindspring.com] > Sent: Friday, August 02, 2002 12:16 AM > To: David McKelvey; krnet@mailinglists.org > Subject: RE: KR> The AS5046 airfoil > > > I think this whole thing is a giant joke, and that > it originates in > Richmond, KY. > > Ron Freiberger... > mailto:ron.martha@mindspring.com > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: David McKelvey [mailto:davmck@verizon.net] > Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2002 6:59 PM > To: krnet@mailinglists.org > Subject: RE: KR> The AS5046 airfoil > > > He's got a point, a stock KR does not fly well with > no fuel > > -----Original Message----- > From: van Rooyen, Hennie(SF02) > [mailto:Hennie.van.Rooyen@honeywell.com] > Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2002 9:14 PM > To: 'krnet@mailinglists.org' > Subject: FW: KR> The AS5046 airfoil > > > Hi Mark, > > Thanks for the reply. Just as yourself. I also have > my own opinions for a > perfect KR2 derivative and this is what I'm > building: > > 1. With more than 600 hours of all sorts of > microlights behind me, I wanted > a plane that has the speed capabilities of the KR, > but landing > characteristics of the microlights. Thus it should > be able to fly at 200+ > mph, but also be able to land in the mid 20 mph > range. Impossible? Think > again - I'm going to achieve this and soon! > > 2. I've read many articles which states that the > actual Hp of a 1800cc VW > turning in the lower 3000 Rpm range is closer to > 45Hp than the suggested > 60Hp everyone quotes. Ken designed this aircraft to > fly perfectly with only > 60Hp if it is built light. So I re-designed > everything by: > > 3. Moving the seats and firewall forward so that the > pilot (me, 6ft tall) > and passenger sits comfortably right on the cg. > > 4. The tail is also stretched, but not as much as > the KR2S. > > 5. The tail feathers have been increased for better > control and low speed > handling. > > 6. Coming from a microlighting background, I know > where to find 60 Hp at > less than half the weight of the VW, so I'll use a > proper 2 stroke like the > 503 Rotax until my finances allow something like the > 30Hp Hirth or 6 > cylinder 180Hp Arrow two stroke engines. Having many > hours in the air with > two strokes gives me the total confidence to do > this. > > 7. I've exceeded all wood dimensions slightly to > give me a stronger, yet > light airframe. I'll run a tube from the inner rear > spar to the outer main > spar on the outboard wings to make the wings safe at > the higher speed > obtained with i.e. the Arrow engine - just imagine a > 400+ lbs aircraft with > 180 Hp! > > 8. My fuel will be in both the inner and outer wings > ONLY, so I'll have no > loading cg problems like most do - my aircraft > should fly the same with one > or two aboard and wheather no fuel or full fuel. > > 9. I see no benefit in tapering the fuselage at the > bottom, so mine is wider > than the KR and the same width top and bottom. > Having located the seats > forward puts the shoulders at the widest part of the > airframe and my seating > arrangement is extremely comfortable with two > aboard. > > 10. I've used tube push pull control throughout like > in most microlights - > much easier to construct and a lot safer and less > complex than any cable > arrangement. The ONLY easily accessible parts to be > inspected on every > preflight are the clearly visible bolts at each end. > > 11. I've designed and fabricated my own lightweight > tricycle gear with > steerable nose wheel - much lighter than the > original KR setup, yet easily > strong enough for my purposes. > > 12. I'll only use a Skydat microlight single > instrument with a hand held > radio. > > 13. Initially no electric starter - the start pull > rope for the Rotax 503 is > mounted at the bottom of the firewall inside the > cockpit - so I even save > some more weight. > > 14. The canopy will be like the Swearinham 3000's > with a flat wrap around > Plexiglas or lexan windshield which is easy to make, > lightweight, super > modern and with excellent headroom and visibility. > > 15. I'll use the new airfoil with full span flaps, > even on the inboard side. > The flaps will be like the PC Pilatus, which is > hinged at the bottom wing > skin with a curve at the top like yours. Thus > there'll be no gap and by > deploying them, the bottom wing area stays the same > but the top area is > increased making the total wing area larger helping > with more lift for both > take-offs and landings. Landing at 25 - 30 mph > should get rid of most of the > floating in any case. > > 16. I'll use spoilers on the outboard wings for both > roll and decent > control. My life was saved on more than one occasion > on microlights by this > facility by being able to deploy both spoilers > simultaneously, killing a lot > of lift in this way. Once it got me out of cloud > suck and in landings, I > could come down like a parachute. By letting them > retract just above the > ground I could then flare and do a normal landing. > Thus, using spoilers in > this way lets you absolutely control your descent > and you can put the > aircraft down anywhere you want! > > 17. Initially I was going to use the GAW-1 airfoil. > I was going to attach > the wings right at the fuselage so that the brackets > of the outer wings > actually protrude into the fuselage. The wing attach > bolt would then be > inside the fuselage where they could be easily > reached. Because I'm using > longer wings and unsure of the strength of this > arrangement, I came up with > another idea in which the outboard wings simply fold > up at the joint with > only minor modifications to one of the upper main > WAFs. So I built new spars > like the KR and this is the way I'll go. > > I made several other changes, but all in all I'm > convinced === message truncated === __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better http://health.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 14:44:53 -0400 To: From: "Ronald Freiberger" Subject: RE: KR> Henny van Rooyen and my Soapbox about SIGNATURE BLOCKS Message-ID: Apparently, the person in RICHMOND KENTUCKY is not online much. To busy assembling? Else has ProSeal on his keyboard? Ron Freiberger... mailto:ron.martha@mindspring.com -----Original Message----- From: Frank Ross [mailto:alamokr2@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, August 05, 2002 3:35 PM To: krnet@mailinglists.org Subject: KR> Henny van Rooyen and my Soapbox about SIGNATURE BLOCKS Hennie, I think that Ron, and maybe others, thought your posts were a hoax perpetrated by one of our members in Richmond, Kentucky, USA. It really helps us all to include your location in your signature block. Here in the states we tend to think everyone on the krnet is in the states. That leads to great confusion when someone from Egypt or Australia (or South Africa, like you, I suspect)complains that they have difficulty or great expense with something we in the US take for granted. Like the fellow awhile back who was obviously from a middle-eastern country asking about spruce and plywood substitutes. Bet they don't have a lot of Spruce Forests in Riyhad. And I am pretty sure he cannot run down to his local lumber yard and pick out a few pieces of aircraft or even marine quality plywood. Anyway, it would have helped a LOT to know where he was writing from and, it might have helped some of our skeptics who thought they were having a joke played on them to know where you are writing from. Thanks for reading all of this, and I look forward to seeing pictures of your airplane. That IS why we call it 'Experimental', after all. Franklin L. Ross, in San Antonio, Texas, USA --- "van Rooyen, Hennie(SF02)" wrote: > Hi Ron, > > I'll keep your mail in a safe place. As stated, I'm > more than 50% done. It > WILL fly before December this year, even if just to > prove you wrong. Please > forgive me when I make a big scene here with the > actual achieved results > then. > > Regards, > Hennie > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ronald Freiberger > [mailto:ron.martha@mindspring.com] > Sent: Friday, August 02, 2002 12:16 AM > To: David McKelvey; krnet@mailinglists.org > Subject: RE: KR> The AS5046 airfoil > > > I think this whole thing is a giant joke, and that > it originates in > Richmond, KY. > > Ron Freiberger... > mailto:ron.martha@mindspring.com > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: David McKelvey [mailto:davmck@verizon.net] > Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2002 6:59 PM > To: krnet@mailinglists.org > Subject: RE: KR> The AS5046 airfoil > > > He's got a point, a stock KR does not fly well with > no fuel > > -----Original Message----- > From: van Rooyen, Hennie(SF02) > [mailto:Hennie.van.Rooyen@honeywell.com] > Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2002 9:14 PM > To: 'krnet@mailinglists.org' > Subject: FW: KR> The AS5046 airfoil > > > Hi Mark, > > Thanks for the reply. Just as yourself. I also have > my own opinions for a > perfect KR2 derivative and this is what I'm > building: > > 1. With more than 600 hours of all sorts of > microlights behind me, I wanted > a plane that has the speed capabilities of the KR, > but landing > characteristics of the microlights. Thus it should > be able to fly at 200+ > mph, but also be able to land in the mid 20 mph > range. Impossible? Think > again - I'm going to achieve this and soon! > > 2. I've read many articles which states that the > actual Hp of a 1800cc VW > turning in the lower 3000 Rpm range is closer to > 45Hp than the suggested > 60Hp everyone quotes. Ken designed this aircraft to > fly perfectly with only > 60Hp if it is built light. So I re-designed > everything by: > > 3. Moving the seats and firewall forward so that the > pilot (me, 6ft tall) > and passenger sits comfortably right on the cg. > > 4. The tail is also stretched, but not as much as > the KR2S. > > 5. The tail feathers have been increased for better > control and low speed > handling. > > 6. Coming from a microlighting background, I know > where to find 60 Hp at > less than half the weight of the VW, so I'll use a > proper 2 stroke like the > 503 Rotax until my finances allow something like the > 30Hp Hirth or 6 > cylinder 180Hp Arrow two stroke engines. Having many > hours in the air with > two strokes gives me the total confidence to do > this. > > 7. I've exceeded all wood dimensions slightly to > give me a stronger, yet > light airframe. I'll run a tube from the inner rear > spar to the outer main > spar on the outboard wings to make the wings safe at > the higher speed > obtained with i.e. the Arrow engine - just imagine a > 400+ lbs aircraft with > 180 Hp! > > 8. My fuel will be in both the inner and outer wings > ONLY, so I'll have no > loading cg problems like most do - my aircraft > should fly the same with one > or two aboard and wheather no fuel or full fuel. > > 9. I see no benefit in tapering the fuselage at the > bottom, so mine is wider > than the KR and the same width top and bottom. > Having located the seats > forward puts the shoulders at the widest part of the > airframe and my seating > arrangement is extremely comfortable with two > aboard. > > 10. I've used tube push pull control throughout like > in most microlights - > much easier to construct and a lot safer and less > complex than any cable > arrangement. The ONLY easily accessible parts to be > inspected on every > preflight are the clearly visible bolts at each end. > > 11. I've designed and fabricated my own lightweight > tricycle gear with > steerable nose wheel - much lighter than the > original KR setup, yet easily > strong enough for my purposes. > > 12. I'll only use a Skydat microlight single > instrument with a hand held > radio. > > 13. Initially no electric starter - the start pull > rope for the Rotax 503 is > mounted at the bottom of the firewall inside the > cockpit - so I even save > some more weight. > > 14. The canopy will be like the Swearinham 3000's > with a flat wrap around > Plexiglas or lexan windshield which is easy to make, > lightweight, super > modern and with excellent headroom and visibility. > > 15. I'll use the new airfoil with full span flaps, > even on the inboard side. > The flaps will be like the PC Pilatus, which is > hinged at the bottom wing > skin with a curve at the top like yours. Thus > there'll be no gap and by > deploying them, the bottom wing area stays the same > but the top area is > increased making the total wing area larger helping > with more lift for both > take-offs and landings. Landing at 25 - 30 mph > should get rid of most of the > floating in any case. > > 16. I'll use spoilers on the outboard wings for both > roll and decent > control. My life was saved on more than one occasion > on microlights by this > facility by being able to deploy both spoilers > simultaneously, killing a lot > of lift in this way. Once it got me out of cloud > suck and in landings, I > could come down like a parachute. By letting them > retract just above the > ground I could then flare and do a normal landing. > Thus, using spoilers in > this way lets you absolutely control your descent > and you can put the > aircraft down anywhere you want! > > 17. Initially I was going to use the GAW-1 airfoil. > I was going to attach > the wings right at the fuselage so that the brackets > of the outer wings > actually protrude into the fuselage. The wing attach > bolt would then be > inside the fuselage where they could be easily > reached. Because I'm using > longer wings and unsure of the strength of this > arrangement, I came up with > another idea in which the outboard wings simply fold > up at the joint with > only minor modifications to one of the upper main > WAFs. So I built new spars > like the KR and this is the way I'll go. > > I made several other changes, but all in all I'm > convinced === message truncated === __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better http://health.yahoo.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp or http://www.bouyea.net/ for the Word files ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 12:52:17 -0700 (PDT) To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: Frank Ross Subject: Flying KRs with NO FUEL Message-ID: <20020805195217.84155.qmail@web21504.mail.yahoo.com> One other point about adding your LOCATION to your krnet posts. It helps to know english is not your native language. I know I'll take a lot of flack on this one, especially from my 'politically correct' associates. Sometimes minor syntax deviations lead us to say things like "or two aboard and wheather no fuel or full fuel", which sounds like you think the KR will fly as well with NO fuel as it will full of fuel. Of course, it will fly with NO fuel, but most of us try not to do that unless we have the sailplane option. I had a Grandmother who was Dutch and her syntax was a source of some really good laughs when she would say things like "Throw Momma from the train a kiss." Okay, I'll shut up now. Frank Ross in San Antonio, Texas, USA > > From: David McKelvey [mailto:davmck@verizon.net] > > Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2002 6:59 PM > > To: krnet@mailinglists.org > > Subject: RE: KR> The AS5046 airfoil > > > > > > He's got a point, a stock KR does not fly well > with > > no fuel > > or two aboard and wheather no fuel or full fuel. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better http://health.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 22:07:09 +0200 To: "Krnet" From: "Christian Kogelmann" Subject: First Flight of KR-2S OE-VPD Message-ID: <000c01c23cbb$c3249260$b01c2e3e@aptivacomputer> ------=_NextPart_000_0009_01C23CCC.71B0C3C0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear All, I have been very quiet (busy working on my KR) on the mailing list, but = now I have good news: First Flight Report of KR-2S (Plans build, RAF48 airfoil) / GPAS VW2180 = / Homemade Prop 55dia/41pitch,=20 Serial KR2-8739 Supplemental 285, Registration OE-VPD (Austria) First Flight was 1. August 2002 in F=FCrstenfeld (LOGF) with a 1800 ft = runway (rather short...)Austria Test Pilot was the Authority pilot/inspector who gave me a hard time the = last 1/2 year. Take Off Weight was close to 900lbs. The airplane lifted off after about 600ft climb speed 65kts at 2500RPM Temps normal Flaps 1 notch down. climb speed 70kts at 2500RPM Temps normal Flaps up (Mixture was a little on the rich side after pulling on the mixer we got = more RPM) Cruise: 2400RPM at 95kts 2500RPM at 105kts 2600RPM at 110kts (sounds promising.....) Approach: Flaps full doesn't mean a difference to the airplane???? Approach Speed of 65 kts is too fast Approach Speed of 55 kts is just right, but the airplane floats like = anything. After 1200ft of runway floating 2ft above the runway the plane setled = down.=20 But as the engine idle speed was a bit too high the speed would not = bleed off. The plane was stopped (engine already off) by the high grass at the end = of the runway. All damages are repaired, at the moment I have to modifiy the Tailwheel = and we willl be flying again in about 2 weeks. What did we learn: The airplane is easy to take off and fly, its a bitch to land. The standard tailwheel is to flimsy. Watch you engine idle speed! A couple more revs than needed an the = airplane floats twice as long When test flying choose a looong runway. The plane pics up speed just when you think of moving the stick forward = (reminds me of the fiberglass gliders I used to fly, very slippery). The plane is nose heavy, that surprised me, after hearing all the = stories on the net about getting your C/G forward. It is a very fast airplane, I hope to get the engine up to around = 3200RPM and than hopefully get to 130 or 140kts.... I had a great day out there on the flightline. Cheers Christian OE-VPD ( only 49:24 hours to go before final certification) ------=_NextPart_000_0009_01C23CCC.71B0C3C0-- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2002 15:02:20 -0700 To: Christian Kogelmann From: "Brian Kraut" Cc: krnet@mailinglists.org Subject: Re: KR> First Flight of KR-2S OE-VPD Message-ID: Looks to me like you climb, cruise, and approach speeds are all a little slow. Are you sure your airspeed indicator is working correctly? Did you have a GPS to compare the speed to? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2002 17:25:45 -0400 To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: Donald Reid Subject: Pressure Field Around the Fuselage Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.0.20020805172237.00a31050@pop.erols.com> --=====================_928655==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed I generated an animated gif of the pressure coefficient around the fuselage. It can be seen at http://users.erols.com/donreid/Pressure.htm It loops through the pressure coefficient field from 0 to 10 degrees and back to 0 in 1 degree increments. Don Reid mailto:donreid@erols.com Bumpass, Va Visit my web sites at: KR2XL construction: http://users.erols.com/donreid/kr_page.htm Aviation Surplus: http://users.erols.com/donreid/Airparts.htm EAA Chapter 231: http://eaa231.org Ultralights: http://usua250.org VA EAA State Fly-in: http://vaeaa.org --=====================_928655==_.ALT-- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 19:16:30 -0400 To: "krnet" From: "rfarmer" Subject: changing airfoils Message-ID: <001601c23cd6$228059a0$ce4562d8@oemcomputer> ------=_NextPart_000_0013_01C23CB4.9A8CE520 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I have jumped ship! As much as I like the figures on the AS5046 airfoil = it would require raising the rear spar, which is already in place or = accepting a higher angle of wing incidence than I would like. I will = probably use the Eppler 266 airfoil. A comparison can be seen on my KR2 = page at http://www.foamhead.com/Builders%20pages/KR2%20Bob%20Farmer.html = as always all comments are welcome.=20 Bob Farmer rfarmer@naxs.net foamhead@ls.net=20 ------=_NextPart_000_0013_01C23CB4.9A8CE520-- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 17:42:23 -0700 (PDT) To: KRNET From: Alex Swavely Subject: Re: KR> Car mirror assemblies Message-ID: Ah, you must be referring to the "Car Mirror Adjustment Subassembly" p/n G13325 @ $2.49 ea. , which looks to be real similar to what Jerry and Dan are using on their plane (see at http://kr-builder.org/trim/index.html) On Sun, 4 Aug 2002, Ronald Freiberger wrote: > For all the guys who wanted a trim device, check WWW.goldmine-elec.com. > Download the August newsletter and look on Page 7. They are $2.49 each > ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 20:58:04 -0400 To: "krnet" From: "rfarmer" Subject: Flaps not effective Message-ID: <001e01c23ce4$52dcb040$665b62d8@oemcomputer> ------=_NextPart_000_001B_01C23CC2.CAFA04A0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable re design of kr---Hennie van Rooyen Hi Jeremy, Thanx for explaining that one as my post no longer seem to appear here. Hennie -----Original Message----- From: Jerry Mahurin [mailto:jerrymahurin@charter.net] Sent: Friday, August 02, 2002 2:19 PM To: krnet@mailinglists.org Subject: Re: KR> re design of kr---Hennie van Rooyen In the sailplane (and I guess microlights) world; there are heavy, powerful thermals at the base of cumulus clouds that can 'suck' you up into the cloud if you ride them all the way up.... >it got you out of a "cloud suck". I've never heard it put >that way before. >Could you explain this phenomenon or is this a term >common to microlights? I Jerry Mahurin Lugoff, SC http://kr-builder.org http://jerrymahurin.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp or http://www.bouyea.net/ for the Word files ------------------------------ End of krnet Digest ***********************************