From: To: Subject: krnet Digest 14 Nov 2002 01:32:55 -0000 Issue 549 Date: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 5:33 PM krnet Digest 14 Nov 2002 01:32:55 -0000 Issue 549 Topics (messages 13169 through 13189): Lost e-mail address 13169 by: Bob Sauer Re: KR nose gear 13170 by: Mark Jones Re: HELP! 13171 by: Daniel Heath 13172 by: Ricky Farley Delcom Air 960 hand held aircraft transceiver 13173 by: Louis Staalberg Re: KR2S wing/ increased gross weight 13174 by: Phillip Matheson 13175 by: Mark Langford KR-1 13176 by: Gary W. Haun 13177 by: Mark Langford 13178 by: Steven Eberhart 13181 by: Robert X. Cringely Turtledeck or Money requested 13179 by: Art Bruce Aileron Hinges 13180 by: Bob Sauer 13183 by: Robert X. Cringely Anyone close? 13182 by: David & Jo Ann Lininger KR Plans Pricing.... 13184 by: Fisher, Richard 13185 by: ptpalm 110hp Engines for sale. 13186 by: Mark Jones Re: 145CID Corvair 13187 by: Mark Langford fiberglass landing gear 13188 by: Steve kr> O-200A engine 13189 by: Elva Miller Administrivia: To subscribe to the digest, e-mail: To unsubscribe from the digest, e-mail: To post to the list, e-mail: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 16:10:09 -0800 To: "kr" From: "Bob Sauer" Subject: Lost e-mail address Message-ID: <008701c289df$de456f80$0a96bbd0@home> ------=_NextPart_000_0084_01C2899C.CEC1B520 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Would Kenny Boyers or someone with his e-mail address please contact me = directly. Thank you Bob Sauer Las Vegas From: resauer@softcom.net ------=_NextPart_000_0084_01C2899C.CEC1B520-- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 18:16:33 -0600 To: From: "Mark Jones" Subject: Re: KR> KR nose gear Message-ID: <004b01c289e0$c1d77e00$e3511f41@wi.rr.com> Nose tire: Shin 3.40x3.00x5 page 170 Wicks, part #TR100-22 Nose wheel: Azusa 5" AZ-1144 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: "Bryan and Avril Valentine" To: Sent: Monday, November 11, 2002 5:44 PM Subject: KR> KR nose gear > Greetings All > Just a quick question for those that are using the Diehl > tri gear set up. I need to know what you are using for a > front wheel and what size of tire to go with it. > Thanks in advance Val > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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, 11 Nov 2002 19:30:41 -0800 (Pacific Standard Time) To: From: "Daniel Heath" Subject: Re: KR> HELP! Message-Id: <3DD075E1.000001.01036@dan> --------------Boundary-00=_5R1GQL80000000000000 Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; boundary="------------Boundary-00=_5R1GLVC0000000000000" --------------Boundary-00=_5R1GLVC0000000000000 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Ricky,=0D Why don't you just put a re-inforcing stringer below where you think it broke. If that isn't enough, put one on the top also. I know someone wi= ll=20 flame" me, if I am wrong about this, but you might also be able to glue a plywood "stringer" along the top and bottom of the weak part and if it is= n't where there is a joint, one along the inside. If it is where the joint i= s, re-inforce it with another plywood "gusset" over the top of all the stick= s making up the joint. I would use the same plywood as the skin.=0D I am not suggesting that you do this, but given what you wrote, that is w= hat I would do. =0D See ya in Red Oak --- 2003,=0D =0D Daniel R. Heath=0D =0D See our KR2 at: http://kr-builder.org Click on the Pic.=0D =0D See our EAA Chapter 242 at: http://WWW.EAA242.ORG=0D =0D =20 --------------Boundary-00=_5R1GLVC0000000000000 Content-Type: Text/HTML; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Ricky,

Why don't you just put a re-inforcing stringer below where you t= hink it=20 broke.  If that isn't enough, put one on the top also.  I= know=20 someone will "flame" me, if I am wrong about this, but you might al= so be=20 able to glue a plywood "stringer" along the top and bottom of the w= eak=20 part and if it isn't where there is a joint, one along the inside.&= nbsp;=20 If it is where the joint is, re-inforce it with another plywood "gu= sset"=20 over the top of all the sticks making up the joint.  I would u= se the=20 same plywood as the skin.

I am not suggesting that you do this, but given what you wrote, = that is=20 what I would do. 

See ya in Red Oak --- 2003,

Da= niel R.=20 Heath

See our KR2 at: http://kr-builder.org  Clic= k on the=20 Pic.

See our EAA Chapter 242 at: http://WWW.EAA242.ORG

&nb= sp;=20

=09 =09 =09 =09 =09 =09 =09
____________________________________________________
  IncrediMai= l -=20 Email has finally evolved - Click=20 Here --------------Boundary-00=_5R1GLVC0000000000000-- --------------Boundary-00=_5R1GQL80000000000000-- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 19:43:14 -0600 To: From: "Ricky Farley" Subject: RE: KR> HELP! Message-ID: <00e001c289ec$e28a0b20$6801a8c0@ENTERPRISE> Thanks for all the great advice. I decided to go ahead and cut out the offending spot and splice a new piece of spruce in it's spot. My scarf joint is 10:1 on both sides (some folks were saying 10:1 and others 12:1)and I was careful to try to save the place where the break was so I could "test" it. It looks like about one third of the wood fibers broke and the others were still in good shape. I still think I'll extend the top aux longerones so that it covers the complete scarf joint, but have decided not to add the extra layers of glass (someone pointed out that I don't want to make the part stronger than the area's around it). Thanks again for all the quick replies--you got to love the KRNet! Ricky Farley KR2S San Angelo Tx snip I put too much pressure while trying to force it to bend and heard the top (next to the table) longeron break. There is no outward sign that it broke other than when I pulled it off the table it does not appear to be as strong in that spot (aka it bends with little pressure), but I=92m = sure that it gave. This happened about 2 =BD inches behind station =93I=94 = and there is no sign of damage to the plywood skin or the spruce at station =93I=94... end snip=20 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 20:37:31 -0700 To: From: "Louis Staalberg" Subject: Delcom Air 960 hand held aircraft transceiver Message-ID: <008001c289fd$185d63e0$0200a8c0@toshiba> Am looking for a *non working* Air 960 Radio that might be for sale. Delcom went out of business and I need some spare parts to repair my own radio Would appreciate any comments, Louis Staalberg N9FL@cybertrails.com Payson, Arizona ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 17:27:37 +1100 To: From: "Phillip Matheson" Subject: Re: KR> KR2S wing/ increased gross weight Message-ID: <001601c28a14$99711820$bd97dccb@Matheson> Hi all, I'll stick my nose in hear and say, speed and extra gross weight can be a good thing, but it must come at a price, to me that price is increased landing speed, If you have to put down anywhere other than a airstrip, you may have a less chance of walking away from it. Phil Matheson matheson@dodo.com.au 61 3 58833588 See our engines at: http://www.vw-engines.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 06:27:21 -0600 To: From: "Mark Langford" Subject: Re: KR> KR2S wing/ increased gross weight Message-ID: <009701c28a46$d9ae2e50$5e0ca58c@tbe.com> Phil Matheson wrote: > I'll stick my nose in hear and say, speed and extra gross weight can be a > good thing, but it must come at a price, to me that price is increased > landing speed, If you have to put down anywhere other than a airstrip, you > may have a less chance of walking away from it. Which is why a nice big set of flaps would come in handy too. Another price for a high gross weight is reduced climb speed, obviously. Mark Langford, Huntsville, AL mailto:langford@hiwaay.net see KR2S project N56ML at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 08:50:58 -0500 To: From: "Gary W. Haun" Subject: KR-1 Message-ID: <000001c28a52$87d26860$c78cde0c@haun4> ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C28A28.9EFC6060 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable As I'm reading thru the archives I've noticed the majority of posts reflect a greater interest in the KR-2(S) series. I would like to hear from those who have modified the KR-1 which is = still an excellent choice for a single seat=20 canvas of expression.=20 Many posts exist regarding lengthening the 2, why not lengthen a 1? = So I am. I'm drawing mine so I can build a proof of=20 concept vehicle in quarter scale before cutting big sticks. Lacking any other guidelines I decided that keeping the=20 same percentage of fuselage ahead of/and behind the center of the CG = would be a good starting place. Adding an additional 6 =BC" bay in front of and two 12 =BC" bays after the CG CL results in = the same percentage of fuselage fore/aft as the original. I'm not widening the fuselage as I'm a wide body 5'8" and leaning = down so a cozy cockpit will be okay. Tail feathers will=20 be the TET airfoil shape but I'm not keen on enlarging them. At least = not now. Wing, well, I'm attempting to cover all the bases. Options include = but are not limited to: stock airfoil, TET airfoil,=20 tapered/not tapered, dihedral/no dihedral, washout/no washout, flaps/no flaps. I'm feeling very inclined towards a stock WS, new airfoil Hershey bar wing which would increase the area from 62 to 68 sq. ft.=20 No flaps, no dihedral or washout. Givens: build it light, light, light. Daytime VFR, minimal panel, hand-prop. No sound deadener in the cockpit, bubble canopy, FG lay-ups as per the plans. Tail-dragger with fixed main gear outboard = of the prop disc area ala the AR-1. Side stick with the=20 control enclosure doubling as an armrest. Reclining composite seat = copied from Mark Langford. Engine primary choice for now, 145 cubic inch Corvair. Secondary = choice a Type IV VW, both using Nikasil cylinders. Any comments, tips, pros, cons will be welcome and appreciated. Gary W. Haun KR-1 #5985 ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C28A28.9EFC6060-- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 09:13:07 -0600 To: From: "Mark Langford" Subject: Re: KR> KR-1 Message-ID: <001f01c28a5e$01855770$5e0ca58c@tbe.com> Gary Haun wrote: >>Engine primary choice for now, 145 cubic inch Corvair. Secondary choice a Type IV VW, both using Nikasil cylinders.<< Unless you already have a 145CID Corvair, I'd strive for a 164CID. They weigh the same, and output is considerably higher for the 164, not to mention it probably has better connecting rods, depending on the year of 145 you're talking about. I think the only thing people have against the KR1 is that it's a single seater, that's all. I'd love to have one myself. Mark Langford, Huntsville, AL mailto:langford@hiwaay.net see KR2S project N56ML at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford .bouyea.net/ for the Word files ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 09:23:55 -0600 To: "Gary W. Haun" , krnet@mailinglists.org From: Steven Eberhart Subject: Re: KR> KR-1 Message-ID: <3DD11D0B.8070908@newtech.com> Gary W. Haun wrote: > As I'm reading thru the archives I've noticed the majority of posts > reflect a greater interest in the KR-2(S) series. > I would like to hear from those who have modified the KR-1 which is still an > excellent choice for a single seat > canvas of expression. [big snip] Interresting thought. First, I have not built a KR but I have played in this sand box for a while. If I were starting today here are a few thoughts on where I would start and what I would do. FIRST - I would commit to paper a list of why I wanted an airplane and how I wanted to use it, i.e. I just to play around within 50 miles of home or I want a comfortable cross country airplane I want a plane that can be built in a couple of years or I want to experiment a lot and five to ten years build time is OK I want to optomize performance or I can sacrefice some performance for quicker build time/ lower cost You get the idea SECOND - Decide who I want to play with in my sandbox. After monitoring KRNet for a while and/or spending a lot of time in the archives I would decide who's advice trusted. Advice that is just another opnion without documented test data to back it up would have to be verified before I decided to trust my life on it. Stability is another VERY BIG issue. Just because someone else loves flying a very sensitive airplane doesn't mean that I will love it. A KR is a VERY sensitive airplane, a Cessna 152 isn't. An RV falls somewhere in the middle. I would get a ride in a KR and a ride in an RV. THen, I would ask myself which one would I preffer spending my flying time in while remembering what I answered above about how I am going to fly my airplane. If I answered that I wanted a cross country airplane and that I preffered how the RV flew then I would have some design work to do. If I just wanted a fun airplane to fly close to home and I liked how the KR flew then I would stay closer to the original KR design. THIRD - Now I have something on paper that I work with. A very good starting place would now be to track down the Roncz spread sheets. I would go to Google and search for Roncz and spreadsheet". A few years back John Roncz did a series of design articles for Soprt Aviation in which he developed several excellent design spreadsheets. I would get them and fill in all of the data for the stock KR-1 and see where the KR fell. If I didn't like the answers then I would start making changes until I got answers that were consistant with the mission profile of how I wanted to fly my airplane. FOURTH - If I didn't understand everything in the Roncz articles I would start hitting the libraries until I did understand. I can't imagine how I could be comfortable designing an airplane without understanding the impact of all of the design decisions. If I still wasn't comfortable then I would stay closer to the standard design. At least other people have demonstrated that the standard design does fly. FIFTH - Have fun implementing all of your decisions. What did I end up doing? I got a ride in Marty Roberts' KR-2 and John Crabtree's RV-6. With about 100 hours of Cessna time in my log book I was never successful in stabilizing Marty's KR in streight and level flight. One PIO after another. John's RV was a pleasure to fly. After all of the work I refrenced above, I decided I wanted an airplane that flew like an RV and one that could be built in a couple of years. I felt that these two items were mutually exclusive so I ordered the tail and wing kits from Van's Aircraft for an RV-7. My RV is going to cost me three times what a KR would cost but I will be able to fly it in a third of the time. Everything is tradeoffs. Steve Eberhart Spent a year of my time working on the new airfoil project and ended up building an RV-7A ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 12:57:45 -0800 To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: "Robert X. Cringely" Subject: Re: KR> KR-1 Message-Id: --============_-1174987828==_ma============ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" ; format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Gosh, Gary, that's a pretty exciting project. I have just scrapped my KR-1 that I flew for 25 years and 1300+ hours, so I feel qualified to comment on your plans. I loved my plane but came to suspect the Aerolite glue I used to build it, so I, too, will be building a new KR-1. Your plans to lengthen the fuselage sound just right to me. If you do so, you definitely won't have to increase the size of the tail surfaces, since the longer the fuselage arm the more effect they will have. You might even consider making the elevator (though not the horizontal stabilizer) smaller. Whatever you do I'd urge you to statically balance all control surfaces. You didn't really say what your goal is for this airplane, but by your decision to eliminate dihedral and to use a big engine, it must be for aerobatics. If not, then I urge you to put the dihedral back in. A KR-1 is sensitive enough without trying to make it more so. But for akro work, of course take it out. If akro is your goal, you should probably consider a beef-up of the wing attach fittings, which are the weak point in the design. Best would be a one-piece wing with no fittings at all, but if you want to keep the existing arrangement, you might go one thickness up on the steel used in the fittings and be sure to drill the spar holes oversize and use aluminum bushings. Cad plating the attach fittings is a good idea if you are using the aluminum bushings to prevent an electrolytic reaction between the dissimilar metals. It is great that you are planning to remove the washout. Your plane will fly faster and stall slower for it and whether you use a Hershey bar wing or not it will still stall beautifully. I'm staying with a tapered wing, but then beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Your engine selection is awesome. I've been waiting for someone else to spend the money to try those nikasil cylinders. They ought to bring the weight down so much that a Type IV will have the weight of a Type I and a Corvair should come in at around 170 lbs! I think the Corvair would be the hot ticket. The only further modifications I would recommend are to make your horizontal stabilizer adjustable and your elevator control tunable. We can guess all day long about how to set the horizontal stabilizer, but the truth is that until you fly the plane you won't know for sure. Set it wrong and you either have to do a lot of work to change it or you live with excessive trim tab deflections that only add drag. Making the stabilizer adjustable (on the ground, not generally in the air -- we're just talking about fittings with a few holes to move the leading edge up or down a bit) will let you make a few flights to get it set then lock it down for good. Being able to change the sensitivity of the elevator control is also a good idea (that's making it tunable). The easiest way to do this is to use a short tube. rather than cables, to connect the side stick to a bellcrank mounted behind the rear spar. You can use cables from the bellcrank back. This takes a lot of slop out of the elevator circuit because the cable runs are shorter and don't have to go through any fairleads. And by putting several holes in the bellcrank where the tube attaches with a rod end bearing, you can vary the stick leverage. Most people find that if they gear the stick down a bit the plane becomes much more pleasant to fly because it is somewhat less pitch sensitive. Of course you may not want to do this for akro. That's all I can think of. Good luck in your project. Bob > As I'm reading thru the archives I've noticed the majority of posts >reflect a greater interest in the KR-2(S) series. >I would like to hear from those who have modified the KR-1 which is still a= n >excellent choice for a single seat >canvas of expression. > Many posts exist regarding lengthening the 2, why not lengthen a 1? So = I >am. I'm drawing mine so I can build a proof of >concept vehicle in quarter scale before cutting big sticks. Lacking any >other guidelines I decided that keeping the >same percentage of fuselage ahead of/and behind the center of the CG would >be a good starting place. Adding an additional >6 =BC" bay in front of and two 12 =BC" bays after the CG CL results in the = same >percentage of fuselage fore/aft as the original. > I'm not widening the fuselage as I'm a wide body 5'8" and leaning down = so >a cozy cockpit will be okay. Tail feathers will >be the TET airfoil shape but I'm not keen on enlarging them. At least not >now. > Wing, well, I'm attempting to cover all the bases. Options include but >are not limited to: stock airfoil, TET airfoil, >tapered/not tapered, dihedral/no dihedral, washout/no washout, flaps/no >flaps. > I'm feeling very inclined towards a stock WS, new airfoil Hershey bar >wing which would increase the area from 62 to 68 sq. ft. >No flaps, no dihedral or washout. > Givens: build it light, light, light. Daytime VFR, minimal panel, >hand-prop. No sound deadener in the cockpit, bubble canopy, >FG lay-ups as per the plans. Tail-dragger with fixed main gear outboard of >the prop disc area ala the AR-1. Side stick with the >control enclosure doubling as an armrest. Reclining composite seat copied >from Mark Langford. > Engine primary choice for now, 145 cubic inch Corvair. Secondary choice= a >Type IV VW, both using Nikasil cylinders. >Any comments, tips, pros, cons will be welcome and appreciated. > >Gary W. Haun >KR-1 #5985 > > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >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 -- --============_-1174987828==_ma============-- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 14:29:12 -0500 To: From: "Art Bruce" Cc: "David Hartz" , , , Subject: Turtledeck or Money requested Message-ID: <001001c28a81$c89f69e0$0800000a@tds.net> ------=_NextPart_000_000D_01C28A57.DECD9CC0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Charles Hardin, President EAA Chapter 1027 Willits, CA Sir: As per my phone message to you: Over the past few months, I have = requested (in vain) to speak to David Hartz. In May of this year, I sent = him a check for a used turtledeck for my KR2 project. He has not sent = the turtledeck or the money back. David is not answering his emails or = phone messages. Perhaps, because he is out of town etc. I wanted to see = if anyone in EAA Chapter 1027 might be able to exert some influence on = David to expedite the return of my money.=20 Sincerely Rev. Art Bruce EAA member and KR2 builder=20 kr2flyer@tds.net 912.729.1616 108 Princeton Place Kingsland, GA 31548 ------=_NextPart_000_000D_01C28A57.DECD9CC0-- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 12:50:22 -0800 To: "kr" From: "Bob Sauer" Subject: Aileron Hinges Message-ID: <002f01c28a8d$20ba5760$3096bbd0@home> ------=_NextPart_000_002C_01C28A4A.103AD7E0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I have read somewhere that the 6' long aileron hinge could bind and = perhaps cause problems in flight. What is being used as an alternate-- anyone flying with some other kind = of hinge? I am cutting the ailerons out today! All parts will then be fabricated and nothing but finish work is left, = plus building up my Corvair engine, for which I have all the parts. Thanks for replying. Bob Sauer Las Vegas From: resauer@softcom.net ------=_NextPart_000_002C_01C28A4A.103AD7E0-- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 14:54:59 -0800 To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: "Robert X. Cringely" Subject: Re: KR> Aileron Hinges Message-Id: The most interesting aileron hinge I have seen is on the Zodiac. [http://www.zenithair.com/kit-data/ht-aileron.html] It isn't really a hinge at all, just a strip of 0.016 6061-T6 aluminum that flexes up and down 15 degrees. The result is a hinge that is also a 100 percent effective gap seal. And if you are wondering about metal fatigue, the calculated fatigue life is 120,000 hours and the hinge has been tested for in a special rig at 100,000 deflections per hour simulating 10,000 hours of flight. Then they cut a notch in the "hinge" and simulated another 10,000 hours with no failure. Bob At 12:50 PM -0800 11/12/02, Bob Sauer wrote: >I have read somewhere that the 6' long aileron hinge could bind and >perhaps cause problems in flight. > >What is being used as an alternate-- anyone flying with some other >kind of hinge? > >I am cutting the ailerons out today! > >All parts will then be fabricated and nothing but finish work is >left, plus building up my Corvair engine, for which I have all the >parts. > >Thanks for replying. > >Bob Sauer >Las Vegas >From: resauer@softcom.net -- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 16:40:08 -0600 To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: "David & Jo Ann Lininger" Subject: Anyone close? Message-ID: <3DD12EE8.20910.262AAD8@localhost> Is there anyone building (or, better yet, flying) a KR in southwest Missouri? I'm located about 50 miles north of Springfield on US 65, and tonight will be the first meeting of a 4-H aerospace class that I'm teaching. If there is someone within an hour or so of me perhaps we can arrange a visit. I'll find out tonight how many are in the class. Thanks. -- 73 David, KBOZKE kb0zke @ arrl.net EM37kt home, EM37jv school ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 19:55:09 -0500 To: From: "Fisher, Richard" Subject: KR Plans Pricing.... Message-ID: I am having a problem finding a current price for the KR-1 plans from Rand Robinson. Does anyone know what this might be?? Thanks, Dick Fisher Franklin, PA dick@galacticis.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 18:06:14 -0800 To: From: "ptpalm" Subject: Re: KR> KR Plans Pricing.... Message-ID: <001901c28ab9$3f288c40$5e92ea18@lvcablemodem.com> Dick, As of three months ago they were $80.00 per Jeanette Rand. $10.00 for S&H. Tom Dalby Boulder City, NV > I am having a problem finding a current > price for the KR-1 plans from Rand Robinson. > Does anyone know what this might be?? > > Thanks, > > Dick Fisher > Franklin, PA > dick@galacticis.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: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 06:49:52 -0600 To: "KR-Net" , "CorVaircraft Net" From: "Mark Jones" Subject: 110hp Engines for sale. Message-ID: <000a01c28b13$28de6c20$e3511f41@wi.rr.com> ------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C28AE0.DE00D8A0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable This gentleman has four 110hp Corvair engines for sale. He has two = located at his home in Pell City, Alabama and two more located in = Indiana. His name is Herb and here is his e-mail address. = julieherbert@earthlink.net He also has lots of parts for sale as I think = he told me he has 12 Corvair cars. Please e-mail him direct with any = questions. Mark Jones (N886MJ) Wales, WI USA=20 E-mail me at flykr2s@wi.rr.com Visit my KR-2S CorvAIRCRAFT web site at =20 http://mywebpage.netscape.com/n886mj/homepage.html ------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C28AE0.DE00D8A0-- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 06:58:04 -0600 To: From: "Mark Langford" Subject: Re: KR>145CID Corvair Message-ID: <001301c28b14$4e3295e0$5e0ca58c@tbe.com> Yesterday I wrote: > Unless you already have a 145CID Corvair, I'd strive for a 164CID. They > weigh the same, and output is considerably higher for the 164, not to > mention it probably has better connecting rods, depending on the year of 145 > you're talking about. I talked to William Wynne last night (the "Corvair Authority") and he added two more things to the list. There are no forged pistons available for the 145 CID engine (which is considered a MUST for an aircraft engine), and the engine weighs two more pounds than the 164. So you better jump on one of those 110 hp engines that Mark just mentioned! Mark Langford, Huntsville, AL mailto:langford@hiwaay.net see KR2S project N56ML at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 16:09:50 -0600 To: From: "Steve" Subject: fiberglass landing gear Message-ID: <016201c28b61$63273e40$291e6344@om.cox.net> ------=_NextPart_000_015F_01C28B2F.182FBA20 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable KR Netters I have a question about landing gear. I am about to begin fabrication = of a fiberglass bow landing gear. I got the idea from the dragonfly = page. The profile will be very similar to what Grove aircraft has but = will be made entierly out of fiber glass. My question is about = dimensions. How far forward of the main spar should the centerline of = the axle be? Also, what should the distance from the bottom at the = main spar to the centerline of the axle be? I believe I can adjust the = forward distance by adjusting the angle at attachment. The plans from a Dragonfly builder are very complete and well engineered = I just have to adjust the dimensions to fit my KR.=20 Estimated cost is about $150 to $200 in materials and about 4 hrs layup = time. This does not include the time to build the mold. =20 I am intending to mount the gear inside the fuselage attached to the = main spar. Steve Lemke Omaha, NE ------=_NextPart_000_015F_01C28B2F.182FBA20-- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 18:38:3 -0700 To: "krnet@mailinglists.org" From: "Elva Miller" Subject: kr> O-200A engine Message-Id: <200211140132.gAE1WnWd011634@marsha.pcisys.net> Hello nkrnetetheads In case anyone is interested,an O-200A engine on ebay. http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1872375260 Best regards. Elva Miller elmiller@pcisys.net kr-2s; N701EM ------------------------------ End of krnet Digest ***********************************