From: To: Subject: krnet Digest 7 Aug 2002 04:39:07 -0000 Issue 491 Date: Tuesday, August 06, 2002 9:40 PM krnet Digest 7 Aug 2002 04:39:07 -0000 Issue 491 Topics (messages 11890 through 11915): Re: The AS5046 airfoil 11890 by: Hennie.van.Rooyen.honeywell.com 11896 by: van Rooyen, Hennie(SF02) About Fuselage Pressure Distributions... 11891 by: Walter Lounsbery Re: Hennies Complaints... 11892 by: Ronald Freiberger Blunt Airfoil Training Edges 11893 by: Walter Lounsbery Test - Tuesday 6th August 2002 03h52 am 11894 by: Hennie.van.Rooyen.honeywell.com Re: designing airplanes 11895 by: Phillip Matheson Messages not posted...for Hennie 11897 by: Ronald Freiberger Mounting Alum Wing Tanks 11898 by: Phillip Matheson 11904 by: Dana Overall Re: K R ?? 11899 by: van Rooyen, Hennie(SF02) Re: Vents: don't do it wrong 11900 by: Serge F. VIDAL Re: Henny van Rooyen and my Soapbox about SIGNATURE BLOCKS 11901 by: Dana Overall Oshkosh photos 11902 by: Mark Langford Re: attaching wings at fuselage. 11903 by: van Rooyen, Hennie(SF02) 11912 by: Brian Kraut 11913 by: Hennie.van.Rooyen.honeywell.com Re: Monowheel 11905 by: AeroPax.aol.com 11906 by: virgnvs.juno.com 11907 by: AeroPax.aol.com 11909 by: virgnvs.juno.com 11910 by: Mark Jones 11911 by: AeroPax.aol.com Sorry, Dana 11908 by: Frank Ross ADDRESS FOR KR NEWS LETTER? 11914 by: David Hartz Re: Able Experimental Engines and Alimizer products 11915 by: James Wester 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 18:14:26 -0700 To: davmck@verizon.net, krnet@mailinglists.org From: Hennie.van.Rooyen@honeywell.com Subject: RE: KR> The AS5046 airfoil Yeah, enjoy. I've posted roughly 20 posts since Friday of which none appeared here - so I'm not even allowed the right to defend myself. Problem is that you do not seem to be able to read that's why you misinterpret my posts! Hennie -----Original Message----- From: David McKelvey [mailto:davmck@verizon.net] Sent: Friday, August 02, 2002 12:59 AM 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 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 21:14:54 -0500 To: "'krnet@mailinglists.org'" From: "van Rooyen, Hennie(SF02)" Subject: FW: KR> The AS5046 airfoil ------_=_NextPart_000_01C23CEF.0DC4D950 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Yeah, not to bother - I'll not bother any of you any more with this issue! So just let it be, I'll spend my time more constructively by building in future. Hennie -----Original Message----- From: gleone [mailto:gleone@tritel.net] Sent: Friday, August 02, 2002 3:28 PM To: David McKelvey Cc: krnet@mailinglists.org Subject: Re: KR> The AS5046 airfoil Or better yet: (1) Start with a clean sheet of paper and design your own plane or: (2) Build it to plans. Is anyone building the plane to plans? David McKelvey wrote: > With all the proposed changes, please change the name (I hate to see KR in > accident reports)! > > -----Original Message----- > From: Schurr, Larry [mailto:LSchurr@bellhelicopter.textron.com] > Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2002 7:42 AM > To: 'krnet@mailinglists.org' > 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 <> ------_=_NextPart_000_01C23CEF.0DC4D950 Content-Type: text/plain; name="ATT1453088.txt" Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="ATT1453088.txt" --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 ------_=_NextPart_000_01C23CEF.0DC4D950-- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 20:32:17 -0500 To: "KRnet" From: "Walter Lounsbery" Subject: About Fuselage Pressure Distributions... Message-ID: <001f01c23ce9$1d09e730$0300a8c0@NimbleCompass0.com> Hi All, It's been so long since I posted to the list, I'm not even sure this is the correct address. I noticed some discussion about KR fuselage pressure distributions, where an airfoil program had apparently been enlisted for the predictions. Two good clues: the data included zero lift angle and pitching moment. The aerodynamics of bodies are complex, and I don't want to introduce a long discussion. However, the KR fuselage does not resemble an airfoil. It is more like a cylinder. Although the wings modify the flow tremendously, the combination tends to be additive to a degree. So there is a delta affect of the fuselage on the wing and the wing on the fuselage. Similarly the tail affects the end of the fuselage. Wing and tail affects tend to be local (normally low pressure on the fuselage above the wing, for example). Anyway, if anyone out there knows of a 3D CFD flow package that is available, I would be interested in getting a copy too. At this point I am curious enough to troll the net for something useful. The results should be much better than a 2D airfoil simulation, which will not predict the coefficients correctly and will impose the Kutta condition at the trailing point of the fuselage. If anyone wants to dispute my statements, you are quite welcome to your opinion. The last time I worked on fuselage aerodynamics was for F-16 high angle of attack research at NASA Langley, and I admit it was nothing like a KR-2! :-) Walt Lounsbery ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 20:41:56 -0400 To: , , From: "Ronald Freiberger" Subject: RE: Hennies Complaints... Message-ID: Actually, I think I've received all 20 (I didn't count them) of Hennies posts, and feel the attitudes expressed are inappropriate and undesireable. I would enjoy it if there were NO MORE. Ron Freiberger... mailto:ron.martha@mindspring.com -----Original Message----- From: Hennie.van.Rooyen@honeywell.com [mailto:Hennie.van.Rooyen@honeywell.com] Sent: Monday, August 05, 2002 9:14 PM To: davmck@verizon.net; krnet@mailinglists.org Subject: RE: KR> The AS5046 airfoil Yeah, enjoy. I've posted roughly 20 posts since Friday of which none appeared here - so I'm not even allowed the right to defend myself. Problem is that you do not seem to be able to read that's why you misinterpret my posts! Hennie -----Original Message----- From: David McKelvey [mailto:davmck@verizon.net] Sent: Friday, August 02, 2002 12:59 AM 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 20:52:02 -0500 To: "KRnet" From: "Walter Lounsbery" Subject: Blunt Airfoil Training Edges Message-ID: <002001c23ceb$dfb61b30$0300a8c0@NimbleCompass0.com> Well, here's another two cents on that blunt trailing edge thing. Back when it was a wowie-zowie phenomena with NASA (early 70s), the experts told us that the blunt trailing edge had to be squared off, with crisp corners (no rounding). As I recall, the edge had to be something like half as deep as the usual displacement thickness of the boundary layer, blah, blah, blah. Trouble is, you can't test that stuff in a wind tunnel, and you can't test it accurately in flight. So any performance opinions are pretty much that. Back when I thought some of this stuff was accurate, I was associated with the team that was going to put winglets on the KC-135R, with NASA help. Dang things didn't work so they left them off the planes. Then later I went to work for Gulfstream, where we did a bang-up job integrating winglets and getting good performance increments (at least in the tunnel). Of course, I kept suggesting that we save the 80 pounds of structure for each winglet... Which leads me to the main competitor for Gulfstream, the Canadair jets. You will find they all have blunt trailing edges on the wings. Walt Lounsbery ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 18:49:55 -0700 To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: Hennie.van.Rooyen@honeywell.com Subject: Test - Tuesday 6th August 2002 03h52 am ...to see if I can now once more post here. If not, I'll just give up and go back to building without bothering anyone anymore. I've had nearly 20 posts since Friday not appear here. I do not give up easily, but I now give up on this one. Pity though as I had a good idea for a wing fold mechanism for the KR's. See you all, Hennie ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 12:20:57 +1000 To: "krnet listing" From: "Phillip Matheson" Subject: Re: KR> designing airplanes Message-ID: <001701c23cef$e8ca0840$0100a8c0@LocalHost> Hennie, Stick to your guns. This is experintal isn't it. Build it stronge and correct, and enjoy yourself Phil Matheson matheson@dodo.com.au 61 3 58833588 NSW Australia. See our VW engines at; www.vw-engines.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 21:27:37 -0400 To: "KRNET" From: "Ronald Freiberger" Subject: Messages not posted...for Hennie Message-ID: You had 23 recent postings, including one on Sunday 8/04 regarding wing folding mechanism. Some were doubles . Maybe your server isn't working for you. BTW, if you'll search the archives, this subject has been discussed extensively. Ron Freiberger... mailto:ron.martha@mindspring.com -----Original Message----- From: van Rooyen, Hennie(SF02) [mailto:Hennie.van.Rooyen@honeywell.com] Sent: Friday, August 02, 2002 5:16 AM To: 'krnet@mailinglists.org' Subject: KR> Multiple AS5046 mail Hi all, My apologies if you end up receiving three copies of the above mail. I've sent this plus two other mails with some suggested mods over five hours ago and I'm not sure if I'm doing something wrong or is this the standard procedure. On all the other forms the mail comes up immediately when sent - I'm new, so if you're using a different arrangement over here I did not know about it. Also, it will be weekend over here soon and I'll be off the net till Monday - I just wanted to make sure my mail is received. Enjoy your weekend, Hennie --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 12:51:12 +1000 To: "krnet listing" From: "Phillip Matheson" Subject: Mounting Alum Wing Tanks Message-ID: <007e01c23cf4$2114e720$0100a8c0@LocalHost> ------=_NextPart_000_007B_01C23D47.F1F78CA0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I would like to hear from anyone using moulded wing skins and Alum wing = tanks. I'm still looking into making good mounting brackets, before I complete = the tanks. Phil Matheson matheson@dodo.com.au 61 3 58833588 NSW Australia. See our VW engines at; www.vw-engines.com ------=_NextPart_000_007B_01C23D47.F1F78CA0-- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2002 08:33:07 -0400 To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: "Dana Overall" Subject: Re: KR> Mounting Alum Wing Tanks Message-ID: Since I don't have skins anymore and never installed alum tanks in them, I may not be qualified to post to this......but I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express........Hum, when was that?? Food for thought. Three or four alum C brackets that would flox to the forward and rear spar with the longer arm acting as a cradle for the tank just may do the trick. Manufacture the inboard and outboard brackets to accept a couple bolts from flanges on the tank. The two middle brackets would act as nothing more than supports with a dab or two of ProSeal as a bonding agent. Drill holes in the two uprights so that flox would seep into these giving you a larger bonding area. Another thought is to put a couple bolts through the spar caps. Remember, your landing gear is attached with bolt holes through the spar. Couple AN3 bolts just may to the trick along with flox. Course this may be a voodoo hoax from an assembler.............. Dana Overall Still in RICHMOND, KY 1999 & 2000 National KR Gathering host http://rvflying.tripod.com _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 00:15:39 -0500 To: "'krnet@mailinglists.org'" From: "van Rooyen, Hennie(SF02)" Subject: FW: KR> K R ?? Hi Virg, Thanks! Will do. Hennie -----Original Message----- From: virgnvs@juno.com [mailto:virgnvs@juno.com] Sent: Friday, August 02, 2002 2:43 PM To: krnet@mailinglists.org Subject: KR> K R ?? Best of luck. Send flying pic at Christmas time, Virg --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 09:38:37 +0200 To: "Ronald Freiberger" , From: "Serge F. VIDAL" Subject: Re: KR> Vents: don't do it wrong Message-ID: <009201c23d1c$60203fa0$bd0227c4@co.za> Good point, sorry for the slip! Must be too tired.I meant fore of the instrument panel, of course. Serge ----- Original Message ----- From: Ronald Freiberger To: Serge F. VIDAL Sent: Monday, August 05, 2002 7:08 PM Subject: RE: KR> Vents: don't do it wrong > I don't understand; you say they didn't work aft of the IP, and the next > paragraph says put 'em there? > > Ron Freiberger... > mailto:ron.martha@mindspring.com > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Serge F. VIDAL [mailto:svidal@icon.co.za] > Sent: Monday, August 05, 2002 2:55 AM > To: krnet@mailinglists.org > Subject: KR> Vents: don't do it wrong > > > Whatever you do on vents, don't do what I did! > > I bought some NACA airscoops from the Aircraft Spruce catalogue. That was a > good idea. But I had to put them on the fuselage sides, just aft of the > instrument panel. That was a crap idea. No positive pressure there, it is > already after the fuselage taper. So, they don't work, period. > > If you are in the building stage, these NACA vents are a good thing to > install, but put them aft of the instrument panel, and make them open and > close with a piano wire. > > Serge VIDAL > KR2 ZS-WEC > Johannesburg, 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 > ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2002 08:19:54 -0400 To: alamokr2@yahoo.com, krnet@mailinglists.org From: "Dana Overall" Subject: Re: KR> Henny van Rooyen and my Soapbox about SIGNATURE BLOCKS Message-ID: >From: Frank Ross >Hennie, >I think that Ron, and maybe others, thought your posts >were a hoax perpetrated by one of our members in >Richmond, Kentucky, USA. Frank, Hum, just where would I have come up with a signature line of Honeywell.com???? I can take the ribbing from Ron as he and I communicate on a regular basis, with common interests and knowledge. Since you did not reply to a very simple question, it's time to put a few myths to bed. I hope my little tirade about the newsletter injustice helped in Larry's endeavor to keep it alive. The number of subscriptions has grown since my posts. Yes, I knew of the number of people and the exact amount of money in question. My basis for knowledge lies in my doctorial dissertation on just this subject. Income recognition of unamortized subscription income. Tell me you know more. I saw six people post positive on the KRNet, I have 37 private on the other side of the issue. See I can count also, not just a hoax. Hoaxes........... Let's see, I've hosted the KR Gathering for two recent years, hosted (along with Mark) the informal East Coast Gathering. Organized numerous get togetherat SNF and OSH. Got motel package deals for KRNet members at motels for SNF. Gave away enough "stuff" to people over the years to help in construction. Sent out all previous newsletters, prior to Monte, to have them scanned and CD burnt. Sent out the panel planner software on it's venture aroung the KRNet. Helped fund the wind tunnel testing of the new airfoil. Hooked up with Polyfiber to introduce the KR community to Smooth Prime and SuperFil with free samples and forums. Installed and tested the intake nimpling for vacumm on the VW engine in my KR. Mounted the new HS using plans built fuselage.......manufactured in carbon fiber I might add. Built a new rear spar and documented it's construction on the FAQ page. And my largest contribution, documenting a twice yearly IFR training program to keep KR fliers safe and trying my best to keep KRs out of the clouds. Some people post a lot to the KRNet, and have only ordered their wood kit. Ever seen the for and aft flex of the aileron cables with coordinated movements of the stick on a KR? Does it need another pulley? How about a cable guard? Where's the hoax?? Sorry, I won't stop posting to the KRNet when I feel I have knowledge about the issue. I just don't feel the need to reply to every question as some do. Friday pics about to start again:-) Dana Overall 1999 & 2000 National KR Gathering host RICHMOND, KY http://rvflying.tripod.com _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 07:21:00 -0500 To: From: "Mark Langford" Subject: Oshkosh photos Message-ID: <004601c23d43$ba82e980$5f0ca58c@mlangford> Somebody asked for more Oshkosh photos, so: http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford/osh2002/ You "build-it-by-the-plans" guys won't want to miss the KR-360! Mark Langford, Huntsville, AL mailto:langford@hiwaay.net see KR2S project at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 03:56:23 -0500 To: "'krnet@mailinglists.org'" From: "van Rooyen, Hennie(SF02)" Subject: FW: KR> attaching wings at fuselage. Hi Brian, Thanx for the info. My reasoning is this: The inboard wings are no longer that 2 Ft I guess (I'm at work now so can't measure) I see quite few instances where the outer wings are being extended by two feet and that at a empty weight of roughly 650 lbs. My wing spars are now complete at 20 ft. I intend to build removable tip extensions of roughly 2 ft each. My empty weight will definitely not be more than 450 lbs. I've beefed up my forward spar slightly and my rear spar significantly to cope with the extra flap loads. If the wing extensions on existing KR's can withstand the much higher weights and thus loads, I should be safe in my application using the new AS5046 airfoil. Regards, Hennie -----Original Message----- From: Brian Kraut [mailto:engalt@earthlink.net] Sent: Saturday, August 03, 2002 3:22 AM To: krnet@mailinglists.org Subject: Re: KR> attaching wings at fuselage. I did a quick calculation on the moment arm of my wings where it is and where it would be if the WAFs were right at the fusalage side. I roughed it and didn't account for the fact that the wings were tapered. I came up with about an additional 30% increase in the shear load on the bottom fitting and spar member and 30% additional compression load on the top. This is at 1g. Since all the parts need to be designed for at least four times that that comes to a lot more stress. It has been a long time since my high school physics class so I may not be correct in my guestimate so don't use my numbers, but this does illustrate that you must pay attention when you make a change like that. jim @ synergy design wrote: >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? > --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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: Tue, 06 Aug 2002 20:13:44 -0400 To: "van Rooyen, Hennie(SF02)" , krnet@mailinglists.org From: Brian Kraut Subject: Re: FW: KR> attaching wings at fuselage. Message-ID: <3D506638.7040303@earthlink.net> The existing arrangement may be strong enough. I just wanted to point out that you should run the calculations to be sure. There are a lot of factors to figure into this. For one, the lift on the stubs support some of the weight so adding two feet to the wing and keeping the same size wing and moving the attach fittings are not the same, especially since the stub is at full width and longer tips are not. To figure out the foot pounds of torque at the attach point you need to find the mean aerodynamic chord(distance from the root to the center of area) of the wing. For a tapered wing it is (2/3) X (CR+CT-((CR X CT)/(CR+CT))) where CR is the chord at the root and CT is chord at the tip in inches.(I am taking this out of Modern Aircraft Design by Martin Hollmann. I am and electronics engineer, not an aeronautical engineer.) The weight on the wing multiplied by the MAC in inches will give you the torque at the attach point in inch pounds. Divide that by the number of inches and that will give you the force in pounds that is pulling on the bottom fittings and pushing on the top ones. That times the number of Gs you want the fittings stressed for(plus some safety factor) is what you need to look at and compare to the sheer strength of the attach bolts and tensile strength of the attach brackets. Finding the MAC on a wing that is part tapered and part straight is not as straight forward. The general concept is get the surface area and figure out where you would cut the wing to have half the total surface area in each part. The factors that increase your loads are: 1. You will support the whole wing instead of just the outboard portion. Haven't figured it out, but probably 20% more load. 2. You will be moving the MAC further from the atttach point giving more torque at the attach point. Since you are not increasing the distance between the attach fittings(maybee you are if the different airfoil is thicker, be extreemely carefull if it is thinner) you will have more stress on the fittings. You may find out that you are fine with the existing fittings or you may need to go up a bolt size and/or thickness of the fittings. Of course if you increase the just the bolt size you have less material left on a same width fitting. What a viscious circle! Again, I am not an aeronautical or structural engineer so I may be wrong on something here or missing other factors that go into the equation. If there are any engineers out there feel free to correct me. van Rooyen, Hennie(SF02) wrote: >Hi Brian, > >Thanx for the info. My reasoning is this: > >The inboard wings are no longer that 2 Ft I guess (I'm at work now so can't >measure) I see quite few instances where the outer wings are being extended >by two feet and that at a empty weight of roughly 650 lbs. > >My wing spars are now complete at 20 ft. I intend to build removable tip >extensions of roughly 2 ft each. My empty weight will definitely not be more >than 450 lbs. I've beefed up my forward spar slightly and my rear spar >significantly to cope with the extra flap loads. > >If the wing extensions on existing KR's can withstand the much higher >weights and thus loads, I should be safe in my application using the new >AS5046 airfoil. > >Regards, >Hennie > ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 11:02:02 -0700 To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: Hennie.van.Rooyen@honeywell.com Subject: FW: KR> attaching wings at fuselage. Hi Brian, I sat down tonight and gave your mail some serious thought. I really want a single piece of wing only on each side of my fuselage. It would mean that I only have to foam and glass two complete wings instead of four and also that I can have continuous full span flps (yes, I'm now hooked unto this idea and using 4" wide spoilerons for roll control just ahead of the flaps like in the Robertson Bonanza conversions) My total wing span, including the centre spar now sits at 20 feet and I want to keep it that way. I also wan't to build removable wingtips, two feet each, fastened with the same type of attach brackets as the main wings. This I would then use for long range economy flights of which I intend to do a lot of if I can help it. I'm currently built to use the AS5046 throughout. I've decided, in the light of all the cautions presented to me, to add wood on both side of all my spars to use for the AS5048 inboard and AS5046 outboard airfoils as suggested. This will give me a higher (deeper) centre section and also dramatically strenghten all of my spars. It should not set me back more than one week in building time, so I'm going for it with immediate effect. I saw Danny using 4mm steel fittings for his attach brackets and this is the way I'll also go. I'm sure that any calculations will prove that this will be absolutely safe and I expect to end up having stronger wings than the original KR2. Yes, it will mean some added weight, but not too much I think... I want to sincerely thank you and everyone else for all and any positive feedback. I got upset at first because of all the negative posts, but I DO realize that many of you REALLY wanted to help and not critisize only. If anyone would offer to host a picture or two on their site, I'll arrange to have some photos taken with a digital camera and mail them for hosting. Not to worry, I'll no longer connect it to the KR2 except for the construction materials and method of building. It looks much more than the more recent homebuilts like the Lancairs than like the older KR's. Also, I hope that my project will inspire some of you to lay off the critisism towards the KR2 and the modern and much more reliable two stroke engines. It is an ideal match for the KR and you can mount it as far forward as required to maintain your cg. I bet that one could actually built a 350 lbs KR2 going this way and you'll end up having a very nice flying aircraft, guarranteed! I'll try my utmost best to be in the air by end this year and get as many hours logged as possible keeping records of the two stroke's reliability. Yes, I've had quite a few engine outs in microlights, but ALWAYS because of one of two reasons only: Fouled spark plugs and reduction belt failures. Oh yes, and once my plug lead came off the plug. Thus, if you change the plugs at least every eighteen hours and go for a good quality reduction toothed belt drive or even better, a gearbox, these engines should be just as reliable as any others out there. As proven in my earlier postings, the 503 Rotax is more economical on fuel than the VW, so that's no excuse also. Well, enough said. I'm sure that this will stir up another storm, but let me have it, I can take it! Thanks again for your advice and concern. Regards, Hennie -----Original Message----- From: Brian Kraut [mailto:engalt@earthlink.net] Sent: Saturday, August 03, 2002 3:22 AM To: krnet@mailinglists.org Subject: Re: KR> attaching wings at fuselage. I did a quick calculation on the moment arm of my wings where it is and where it would be if the WAFs were right at the fusalage side. I roughed it and didn't account for the fact that the wings were tapered. I came up with about an additional 30% increase in the shear load on the bottom fitting and spar member and 30% additional compression load on the top. This is at 1g. Since all the parts need to be designed for at least four times that that comes to a lot more stress. It has been a long time since my high school physics class so I may not be correct in my guestimate so don't use my numbers, but this does illustrate that you must pay attention when you make a change like that. jim @ synergy design wrote: >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? > --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 10:50:53 EDT To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: AeroPax@aol.com Subject: Re: KR> Monowheel Message-ID: --part1_a.230f81a0.2a813c4d_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Has anyone tried a monowheel on a KR like the one on the Europa or many gliders? On the Hennie thing, I think he's expecting to have his posts mailed back to him. My first post didn't show up in my box, but I checked the web page and there it was. I assume the mail server removes the senders email from the list when it sends the post out. Pax Rolfe Tulsa, OK --part1_a.230f81a0.2a813c4d_boundary-- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 13:31:54 -0400 To: AeroPax@aol.com From: virgnvs@juno.com Cc: krnet@mailinglists.org Subject: Re: KR> Monowheel Message-ID: <20020806.133330.-277915.0.virgnvs@juno.com> Thought about it as a weight saving feature. Would it retract foreward ? To the reaar it is too hard a seat cushion, Virg On Tue, 6 Aug 2002 10:50:53 EDT AeroPax@aol.com writes: > Has anyone tried a monowheel on a KR like the one on the Europa or > many > gliders? > > On the Hennie thing, I think he's expecting to have his posts mailed > back to > him. My first post didn't show up in my box, but I checked the web > page and > there it was. I assume the mail server removes the senders email > from the > list when it sends the post out. > > Pax Rolfe > Tulsa, OK > ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 14:51:00 EDT To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: AeroPax@aol.com Subject: Re: KR> Monowheel Message-ID: <81.1f83cd05.2a817494@aol.com> --part1_81.1f83cd05.2a817494_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Details, details you're bugging me with details, hehe. Seriously, as a retactable I think it could be worked out, but even as a non-retract you have maybe 1/2-3/4 the weight of 2 gear, probably half the drag, and that drag would already be in disturbed air. Ground handling should be improved also since you don't have the friction diferential that starts the ground loop process. In a message dated 8/6/2002 12:38:49 PM Central Daylight Time, virgnvs@juno.com writes: > Thought about it as a weight saving feature. Would it retract > foreward ? To the reaar it is too hard a seat cushion, Virg > Pax Rolfe Tulsa, OK --part1_81.1f83cd05.2a817494_boundary-- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 17:06:00 -0400 To: AeroPax@aol.com From: virgnvs@juno.com Cc: krnet@mailinglists.org Subject: Re: KR> Monowheel Message-ID: <20020806.174406.-497363.1.virgnvs@juno.com> Wing tip wheels ? Virg On Tue, 6 Aug 2002 14:51:00 EDT AeroPax@aol.com writes: > Details, details you're bugging me with details, hehe. Seriously, as > a > retactable I think it could be worked out, but even as a non-retract > you have > maybe 1/2-3/4 the weight of 2 gear, probably half the drag, and that > drag > would already be in disturbed air. Ground handling should be > improved also > since you don't have the friction diferential that starts the ground > loop > process. > > In a message dated 8/6/2002 12:38:49 PM Central Daylight Time, > virgnvs@juno.com writes: > > > > Thought about it as a weight saving feature. Would it retract > > foreward ? To the reaar it is too hard a seat cushion, Virg > > > > Pax Rolfe > Tulsa, OK > ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 18:26:07 -0500 To: , From: "Mark Jones" Cc: Subject: Re: KR> Monowheel Message-ID: <004801c23da0$a42efe00$c5991f41@wi.rr.com> NO WAY !!!! Virg thought about doing a conversion! What is happening here...is Virg getting weak and giving in to modifications? Mark Jones (N886MJ) Wales, WI USA E-mail me at flykr2s@wi.rr.com Visit my KR-2S CorvAIRCRAFT web site at http://mywebpage.netscape.com/n886mj/homepage.html ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Cc: Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2002 12:31 PM Subject: Re: KR> Monowheel > Thought about it as a weight saving feature. Would it retract > foreward ? To the reaar it is too hard a seat cushion, Virg > > On Tue, 6 Aug 2002 10:50:53 EDT AeroPax@aol.com writes: > > Has anyone tried a monowheel on a KR like the one on the Europa or > > many > > gliders? > > > > On the Hennie thing, I think he's expecting to have his posts mailed > > back to > > him. My first post didn't show up in my box, but I checked the web > > page and > > there it was. I assume the mail server removes the senders email > > from the > > list when it sends the post out. > > > > Pax Rolfe > > Tulsa, OK > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 20:02:16 EDT To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: AeroPax@aol.com Subject: Re: KR> Monowheel Message-ID: <1a8.6523224.2a81bd88@aol.com> --part1_1a8.6523224.2a81bd88_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 8/6/2002 4:48:53 PM Central Daylight Time, virgnvs@juno.com writes: > Wing tip wheels ? Virg > Whatever keeps them from scraping, wheels, skids. The Moni motorglider is also a good example of this application, it has wing tip wheels slightly protruding from the aft end of the tips which are slightly drooped. Anyone think that the swingarm and wheel from a salvage 80cc motorbike is too crazy? Just a thought but theres your axle, shock, wheel and brake all in one. mounting would have to be figured out for positioning, but with resources like this list? Pax Rolfe Tulsa, OK --part1_1a8.6523224.2a81bd88_boundary-- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 13:10:19 -0700 (PDT) To: krnet From: Frank Ross Subject: Sorry, Dana Message-ID: <20020806201019.18801.qmail@web21510.mail.yahoo.com> Dana, I am sorry you thought I was accusing you of perpetrating a hoax. Let me be very clear that I was NOT ACCUSING YOU OF ANYTHING. I was responding to something Ron said. I really did think Ron BELIEVED "someone in Richmond KY" was sending the e-mails, even though, as you point out, that would be difficult to do. And, for the record, I do support the newsletter, I was just tired of hearing you beat a dead horse. Of course Monte should either return any money he owes or send it on to Larry. But do we have to keep hashing it out here? I admire your willingness to fight for the rights of people you think are being taken advantage of, but sometimes I think you get way over-board with it. No one is saying you aren't smart, well-educated and very experienced as an airplane builder and pilot. No one is questioning your generosity or the amount of help you provide to other KR builders and flyers. And yes, the weather was nice in Oshkosh, and when I get time I'll send some of my photos to someone who can post them. And, by the way, in case you are worried about it, I do appreciate the time you spend putting your photos of your RV on line for us. There is a lot of good information in there for us, even if it isn't a KR. Sorry I haven't said thank you before. Didn't know you cared. Thanks Frank Ross in San Antonio, Texas, --- Dana Overall wrote: > > > > >From: Frank Ross > >Hennie, > >I think that Ron, and maybe others, thought your > posts > >were a hoax perpetrated by one of our members in > >Richmond, Kentucky, USA. > > > Frank, > > Hum, just where would I have come up with a > signature line of > Honeywell.com???? I can take the ribbing from Ron > as he and I communicate > on a regular basis, with common interests and > knowledge. Since you did not > reply to a very simple question, it's time to put a > few myths to bed. I > hope my little tirade about the newsletter injustice > helped in Larry's > endeavor to keep it alive. The number of > subscriptions has grown since my > posts. Yes, I knew of the number of people and the > exact amount of money in > question. My basis for knowledge lies in my > doctorial dissertation on just > this subject. Income recognition of unamortized > subscription income. Tell > me you know more. I saw six people post positive on > the KRNet, I have 37 > private on the other side of the issue. See I can > count also, not just a > hoax. > > Hoaxes........... > > Let's see, I've hosted the KR Gathering for two > recent years, hosted (along > with Mark) the informal East Coast Gathering. > Organized numerous get > togetherat SNF and OSH. Got motel package deals for > KRNet members at motels > for SNF. Gave away enough "stuff" to people over > the years to help in > construction. Sent out all previous newsletters, > prior to Monte, to have > them scanned and CD burnt. Sent out the panel > planner software on it's > venture aroung the KRNet. Helped fund the wind > tunnel testing of the new > airfoil. Hooked up with Polyfiber to introduce the > KR community to Smooth > Prime and SuperFil with free samples and forums. > Installed and tested the > intake nimpling for vacumm on the VW engine in my > KR. Mounted the new HS > using plans built fuselage.......manufactured in > carbon fiber I might add. > Built a new rear spar and documented it's > construction on the FAQ page. And > my largest contribution, documenting a twice yearly > IFR training program to > keep KR fliers safe and trying my best to keep KRs > out of the clouds. > > Some people post a lot to the KRNet, and have only > ordered their wood kit. > Ever seen the for and aft flex of the aileron cables > with coordinated > movements of the stick on a KR? Does it need > another pulley? How about a > cable guard? > > Where's the hoax?? > > Sorry, I won't stop posting to the KRNet when I feel > I have knowledge about > the issue. I just don't feel the need to reply to > every question as some > do. > > Friday pics about to start again:-) > > Dana Overall > 1999 & 2000 National KR Gathering host > RICHMOND, KY > http://rvflying.tripod.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better http://health.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 21:23:24 -0700 (PDT) To: "van Rooyen, Hennie\(SF02\)" , "'krnet@mailinglists.org'" From: David Hartz Subject: ADDRESS FOR KR NEWS LETTER? Message-ID: <20020807042324.43168.qmail@web14702.mail.yahoo.com> I NEED THE ADDRESS FOR THE NEW KR NEWS LETTER.I NEED TO CHANGE MY MAILING ADDRESS. DAVE > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better http://health.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 00:34:28 -0400 To: , "krnet listing" From: "James Wester" Subject: Re: KR> Able Experimental Engines and Alimizer products Message-ID: <002401c23dcb$b8d64220$6a4f87d1@joflywester> Yes Ron........I can see that you are right into all of this ! I've been trying to follow the whole EFI issue closely for about three years now , and I see only maybe one shining example of how well it can be made to work - in an amateur-built project ! I'm talking about Lynn Elsners Europa with a direct drive legacy .Oh , and the Dragonfly by one Justin Mase ...I learnt that he did have a failure - due to having only one breaker ....Now several builders have had real success with auto engines - in some cases racking up four and five hundred hours - before deciding to go the EFI route ! Well that's fine , but I for one would have to see yet another four to five hundred hrs ! It's like this ; next chance you get , take a good look at the wiring harness on a car some seven or eight years old . I've noticed poor handling of harnesses by mechanics ( and would- be mechanics ) resulting in exposed wires , chaffing , and some times spots of corrosion ! "So what ??! " you might say ; cars take all kinds of abuse from the elements , and from unskilled hands " my project will get nothing but TLC , and will always be hangered " I'm afraid that the truth is that most home builts will spend little time if ever, properly sheltered . They are out in fields with birds, and mice that we all know -tend to chew on things ....Ron , my perception is that each wire in that harness is a separate part of the engine - just like a nut or a bolt , or a pump - and deserves the same regard !......................As I drove by yet another burning car last week , a letter in the WHEELS section of the STAR news paper penned by a retired auto mechanic came to mind .He pointed out that in the good old days , these car fires were very unusual and that - in so many words , he was not impressed with these new systems and their high pressures and computers .That's where I'm coming from , Ron . Now the FEDS may force us all on to that path (EFI ) .I'll just have to get with it then! In the mean time , one should learn to walk before running ! ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Monday, August 05, 2002 12:58 AM Subject: Re: KR> Able Experimental Engines and Alimizer products > Jo: > I was just rereading you original email regarding "Able Experimental > Engines and Alimizer Products". If I am correct, you plan to get rid of the > EFI and use a carb. I think that using the EFI is the best way to go. That > means, keep the computer and adapt the stock intake manifold or buy one set > up for airplane. Am I right? > > Ron > ------------------------------ End of krnet Digest ***********************************