From: To: Subject: krnet Digest 30 Jan 2003 03:12:37 -0000 Issue 617 Date: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 7:13 PM krnet Digest 30 Jan 2003 03:12:37 -0000 Issue 617 Topics (messages 14745 through 14763): Re: uncertified wood in aircraft. 14745 by: Kevin 14747 by: Bill Higdon 14749 by: Scott Cable 14751 by: Robert X. Cringely 14763 by: Kevin Re: Is there an easy way to take the wings off? 14746 by: Kenneth L Wiltrout 14754 by: jim . synergy design Re: What plywood? 14748 by: ronald j willliams 14752 by: Rick Wilson 14759 by: Ron Freiberger Re: KR1s and in-line engines 14750 by: Howcroft Re: KR's, Materials and Lee Robbins 14753 by: Sky Rider marine plywood. 14755 by: harold woods 14760 by: Ron Freiberger chipped horizontal stabilizer. 14756 by: harold woods Mark's phone no. 14757 by: Rex Ellington 14761 by: Ron Freiberger 14762 by: Ron Thomas wood 14758 by: jim . synergy design Administrivia: To subscribe to the digest, e-mail: To unsubscribe from the digest, e-mail: To post to the list, e-mail: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 14:03:11 -0500 (EST) To: KRnet@mailinglists.org From: Kevin Subject: Re: Re: KR> uncertified wood in aircraft. Message-ID: <2108650.1043877792610.JavaMail.nobody@daisy.psp.pas.earthlink.net> Robert and all..... Now this is what I have been trying to say. The KR design isn't at all built with FAA certified construction methods or materials! I have heard the Gold bug story before. I have even heard it still exists and is being restored! Kevin. -------Original Message------- From: "Robert X. Cringely" Sent: 01/29/03 03:24 PM To: KRnet@mailinglists.org Subject: Re: KR> uncertified wood in aircraft. > > Bernard (NOT "Bernie") Pietenpol built his planes from hemlock he picked out at the local lumber yard. Flybaby and VJ-22 Sportsman plans both specify marine, not aircraft, plywood. I can buy marine plywood at a local lumber yard, though not at Home Depot. We get all worked-up about non-aircraft materials but forget that the foam and glass construction of our KR's isn't approved and literally CAN'T be approved since there is really no testing procedure for such one-off materials. So the plywood came from Home Depot. Has anyone ever seen a plywood failure in a KR that wasn't caused by a crash? Can anyone here cite a fuselage plywood failure they have EVER seen in ANY plane that came about from anywhere near normal use? I had a fuselage plywood failure but it was caused by a roof leak putting about 80 gallons of water in my KR-1. Should that failure concern me? Should it have held 100 gallons of water? The fact is that the fuselage sides are VERY lightly loaded and you could replace that plywood with stuff from Home Depot and it would probably never fail. That doesn't mean we should all buy all our materials at HD. It just means that Justin made a choice, justified that choice by some testing (not enough testing, but again in this case I don't think it really matters) and is completely within the U.S. Experimental rules. Back at Rockford in the 1960s there was a guy named Merle Replogle who had a VW-powered plane called the Gold Bug. You should have seen this thing. It was a wire-braced high wing design much like an Aeronca C-2. The plane was all wood and the wood was from the local lumber yard. It was fabric covered and the fabric was from Pennys (so, by the way, was the fabric on Pete Bowers' Flybaby). The aileron hinges were from the hardware store as were all the screws and bolts. The plane originally flew with three West Bend go-cart engines, but was later re-engined with a 1200cc VW converted exactly like Kenny Rand's original KR-1 engine. It was painted gold using spray cans with plenty of drips. It was the ugliest, draggiest, sorriest plane you've ever seen, but it made it to Rockford at least twice -- in 1967 from Iowa and in 1968 from Arizona after the builder moved there. The trip from Tucson took 5.5 days!. Now to the moral of this story. When this guy arrived at Rockford for the first time in 1967, the EAA folks didn't want to let him in. They didn't want him on the field at all and they SURE didn't want him among the show planes. Worse still, Merle didn't have enough cash to pay the registration fee, which I think back then was $10. Enter stage left EAA president Paul Poberezny who said, in effect, "Let he who is without squawk cast the first AN bolt." Poberezny made them let Merle into the show and he even pulled out his wallet and paid Merle's registration fee. I was 14 years old, my Dad and I were there with our T-18, and I came to understand then that there is room in this sport for all types. Just because people don't do things your way doesn't mean that they are doing it the wrong way. Merle Replogle returned to Rockford in 1968, this time having fitted Gold Bug with flaps. I had no idea why anyone would put flaps on a plane that cruised at 55 and landed at 30 until one windy afternoon Merle pulled on full flaps while in the fly-by pattern. Back then there was no system, so any plane could do a fly-by at any time as long as the airshow wasn't going on. So here were all these Cassutts and Tailwinds and T-18s blasting around the pattern when Merle Replogle put-put-puts into the wind from one end of the runway to the other, drops full flaps, raises the nose, goes into slow flight,a and flies BACKWARDS the full length of the runway. People just stopped and stared. He was going in reverse at perhaps 5 mph and it took about 10 minutes for him to reach the end of the runway. And it was obvious that Merle had added flaps to the Gold Bug specifically for that one moment. I would have done the same thing. Bob -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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, 29 Jan 2003 14:18:14 -0800 To: KRnet@mailinglists.org From: Bill Higdon Subject: Re: KR> uncertified wood in aircraft. Message-ID: <3E385326.2010401@attbi.com> Folks as I remember, Merle later refitted it with 3 small 2cycle engines. Bill Higdon Kevin wrote: > Robert and all..... > Now this is what I have been trying to say. The KR design isn't at all built with FAA certified construction methods or materials! > I have heard the Gold bug story before. I have even heard it still exists and is being restored! > > > Kevin. > > -------Original Message------- > From: "Robert X. Cringely" > Sent: 01/29/03 03:24 PM > To: KRnet@mailinglists.org > Subject: Re: KR> uncertified wood in aircraft. > > >>Bernard (NOT "Bernie") Pietenpol built his planes from hemlock he > > picked out at the local lumber yard. Flybaby and VJ-22 Sportsman > plans both specify marine, not aircraft, plywood. I can buy marine > plywood at a local lumber yard, though not at Home Depot. We get all > worked-up about non-aircraft materials but forget that the foam and > glass construction of our KR's isn't approved and literally CAN'T be > approved since there is really no testing procedure for such one-off > materials. > > So the plywood came from Home Depot. Has anyone ever seen a plywood > failure in a KR that wasn't caused by a crash? Can anyone here cite > a fuselage plywood failure they have EVER seen in ANY plane that came > about from anywhere near normal use? I had a fuselage plywood > failure but it was caused by a roof leak putting about 80 gallons of > water in my KR-1. Should that failure concern me? Should it have > held 100 gallons of water? > > The fact is that the fuselage sides are VERY lightly loaded and you > could replace that plywood with stuff from Home Depot and it would > probably never fail. That doesn't mean we should all buy all our > materials at HD. It just means that Justin made a choice, justified > that choice by some testing (not enough testing, but again in this > case I don't think it really matters) and is completely within the > U.S. Experimental rules. > > Back at Rockford in the 1960s there was a guy named Merle Replogle > who had a VW-powered plane called the Gold Bug. You should have seen > this thing. It was a wire-braced high wing design much like an > Aeronca C-2. The plane was all wood and the wood was from the local > lumber yard. It was fabric covered and the fabric was from Pennys > (so, by the way, was the fabric on Pete Bowers' Flybaby). The > aileron hinges were from the hardware store as were all the screws > and bolts. The plane originally flew with three West Bend go-cart > engines, but was later re-engined with a 1200cc VW converted exactly > like Kenny Rand's original KR-1 engine. It was painted gold using > spray cans with plenty of drips. It was the ugliest, draggiest, > sorriest plane you've ever seen, but it made it to Rockford at least > twice -- in 1967 from Iowa and in 1968 from Arizona after the builder > moved there. The trip from Tucson took 5.5 days!. > > Now to the moral of this story. When this guy arrived at Rockford > for the first time in 1967, the EAA folks didn't want to let him in. > They didn't want him on the field at all and they SURE didn't want > him among the show planes. Worse still, Merle didn't have enough > cash to pay the registration fee, which I think back then was $10. > Enter stage left EAA president Paul Poberezny who said, in effect, > "Let he who is without squawk cast the first AN bolt." Poberezny > made them let Merle into the show and he even pulled out his wallet > and paid Merle's registration fee. I was 14 years old, my Dad and I > were there with our T-18, and I came to understand then that there is > room in this sport for all types. Just because people don't do things > your way doesn't mean that they are doing it the wrong way. > > Merle Replogle returned to Rockford in 1968, this time having fitted > Gold Bug with flaps. I had no idea why anyone would put flaps on a > plane that cruised at 55 and landed at 30 until one windy afternoon > Merle pulled on full flaps while in the fly-by pattern. Back then > there was no system, so any plane could do a fly-by at any time as > long as the airshow wasn't going on. So here were all these Cassutts > and Tailwinds and T-18s blasting around the pattern when Merle > Replogle put-put-puts into the wind from one end of the runway to the > other, drops full flaps, raises the nose, goes into slow flight,a and > flies BACKWARDS the full length of the runway. People just stopped > and stared. He was going in reverse at perhaps 5 mph and it took > about 10 minutes for him to reach the end of the runway. And it was > obvious that Merle had added flaps to the Gold Bug specifically for > that one moment. > > I would have done the same thing. > > > Bob ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 14:37:47 -0800 (PST) To: KRnet@mailinglists.org From: Scott Cable Subject: Re: KR> uncertified wood in aircraft. Message-ID: <20030129223747.34390.qmail@web40812.mail.yahoo.com> --0-2084763477-1043879867=:33347 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Bob, If you look back through this thread there was a person who built a KR with lumber yard plywood, which crashed after about 100 hours... I'm not disagreeing with you about how other folks have built their different aircraft in the past. There are a couple of things that are different about this situation with Jason: 1.) All of the aircraft that you mentioned below don't have nearly the performance characteristics of the KR. Therefore, don't load the airframe and wings nearly as much. 2.) When Jason first started asking questions on the KR net, he was keenly interested in cruise speed and weight and power. There was a whole bunch of discussion about what real world cruise speeds that could be acheived. Would you want to be anywhere near a corvair powered KR-2S built from substandard plywood and airframe materials? If you do, then you have much bigger 'nads than me. 3.) As airmen, we have a responsibility to operate our craft in a safe and responsible manner, as aircraft constructors, we share the same responsibility and more. It's pretty plain to see that young Jason here does not possess an Engineering degree, and seems to be without the means to build a test fuselage and test it to withstand the anticipated rigors of flight. That all said, the best advise that we can give Jason is to stick with the assembly manual and purchase construction materials from an approved source. I'm not flaming anyone here, but I sure wouldn't want to have on my conscience, that I gave someone some advice to use some unapproved, untested, and untried process or material, then come to find out that that was a contributing factor in the demise of an aircraft and pilot. "Robert X. Cringely" wrote:Bernard (NOT "Bernie") Pietenpol built his planes from hemlock he picked out at the local lumber yard. Flybaby and VJ-22 Sportsman plans both specify marine, not aircraft, plywood. I can buy marine plywood at a local lumber yard, though not at Home Depot. We get all worked-up about non-aircraft materials but forget that the foam and glass construction of our KR's isn't approved and literally CAN'T be approved since there is really no testing procedure for such one-off materials. So the plywood came from Home Depot. Has anyone ever seen a plywood failure in a KR that wasn't caused by a crash? Can anyone here cite a fuselage plywood failure they have EVER seen in ANY plane that came about from anywhere near normal use? I had a fuselage plywood failure but it was caused by a roof leak putting about 80 gallons of water in my KR-1. Should that failure concern me? Should it have held 100 gallons of water? The fact is that the fuselage sides are VERY lightly loaded and you could replace that plywood with stuff from Home Depot and it would probably never fail. That doesn't mean we should all buy all our materials at HD. It just means that Justin made a choice, justified that choice by some testing (not enough testing, but again in this case I don't think it really matters) and is completely within the U.S. Experimental rules. Back at Rockford in the 1960s there was a guy named Merle Replogle who had a VW-powered plane called the Gold Bug. You should have seen this thing. It was a wire-braced high wing design much like an Aeronca C-2. The plane was all wood and the wood was from the local lumber yard. It was fabric covered and the fabric was from Pennys (so, by the way, was the fabric on Pete Bowers' Flybaby). The aileron hinges were from the hardware store as were all the screws and bolts. The plane originally flew with three West Bend go-cart engines, but was later re-engined with a 1200cc VW converted exactly like Kenny Rand's original KR-1 engine. It was painted gold using spray cans with plenty of drips. It was the ugliest, draggiest, sorriest plane you've ever seen, but it made it to Rockford at least twice -- in 1967 from Iowa and in 1968 from Arizona after the builder moved there. The trip from Tucson took 5.5 days!. Now to the moral of this story. When this guy arrived at Rockford for the first time in 1967, the EAA folks didn't want to let him in. They didn't want him on the field at all and they SURE didn't want him among the show planes. Worse still, Merle didn't have enough cash to pay the registration fee, which I think back then was $10. Enter stage left EAA president Paul Poberezny who said, in effect, "Let he who is without squawk cast the first AN bolt." Poberezny made them let Merle into the show and he even pulled out his wallet and paid Merle's registration fee. I was 14 years old, my Dad and I were there with our T-18, and I came to understand then that there is room in this sport for all types. Just because people don't do things your way doesn't mean that they are doing it the wrong way. Merle Replogle returned to Rockford in 1968, this time having fitted Gold Bug with flaps. I had no idea why anyone would put flaps on a plane that cruised at 55 and landed at 30 until one windy afternoon Merle pulled on full flaps while in the fly-by pattern. Back then there was no system, so any plane could do a fly-by at any time as long as the airshow wasn't going on. So here were all these Cassutts and Tailwinds and T-18s blasting around the pattern when Merle Replogle put-put-puts into the wind from one end of the runway to the other, drops full flaps, raises the nose, goes into slow flight,a and flies BACKWARDS the full length of the runway. People just stopped and stared. He was going in reverse at perhaps 5 mph and it took about 10 minutes for him to reach the end of the runway. And it was obvious that Merle had added flaps to the Gold Bug specifically for that one moment. I would have done the same thing. Bob -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Scott Cable KR-2S # 735 Livonia, MI s2cable1@yahoo.com --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now --0-2084763477-1043879867=:33347-- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 16:45:25 -0800 To: KRnet@mailinglists.org From: "Robert X. Cringely" Subject: Re: KR> uncertified wood in aircraft. Message-Id: I'm not arguing for lumberyard materials, but some of the statements below are just plain wrong: 1) A G is a G is a G. How does a KR-1 or -2 in 1-G flight incur higher stresses than a Flybaby? I suppose it might if you chose to subject it to heavy aerobatics, but neither plane is designed for that. And when it comes to a Volmer amphibian, the situation is precisely reversed. Amphibian fuselages are hulls, they smash into the water at least once on every flight. For this reason, they have to be designed to MUCH higher stresses. Read Dave Thurston's books and he explains it all. A Volmer fuselage is MANY TIMES stronger than any KR simply because it has to be. 2) Again, what kind of stresses are you talking about. Take a look at George Pereira's GP-4, a plane that cruises 40 knots faster than any KR yet the longerons are actually SMALLER in cross section and the fuselage plywood is lighter than on a KR. That's because George actually knows what the stresses are in his fuselage, while Kenny Rand just guessed and added a fudge factor. Precisely the same is true for the Falco, another design that is faster than a KR yet uses thinner ply and smaller longerons. So if some guy uses door skins to cover his fuselage, does that mean his Corvair-powered KR is going to fall from the sky? Not intrinsically. I agree that it is better to use aircraft materials, but in this case I just don't see it as an issue. I'd be more worried about preparation of the glue joints. 3) Yes, Jason seems to be a neophyte, but what he has done does not necessarily spell doom, yet we act like it does. It IS usually best to follow the plans, yet how many people on KRnet are doing so? This forum is entirely about modifications, primarily to cover shortcomings in the original design. The fact is that the plans just aren't that good. Talk to Lance Neibauer, who drafted the KR-2 drawings and he'll tell you how bad they were and how much was left to chance. Yet people don't often die in these things because they are over-built. The factory offers almost no technical support simply because there isn't much technical depth there. This is all about mutual support, so rather than tell Justin he's crazy, I'd like someone to tell him how to test his modification. What are the maximum stresses on the fuselage? Maybe it is where the engine mount is attached. Use a hydraulic jack and put a 9-G load on that part assuming a 200 lb. engine, so the total load is 1800 lbs. I knew a guy who got a Continental IO-360 STC for a Globe Swift and that's exactly what the FAA had him do -- the only test they required. I say if Justin tests the modification and it holds, well then via con Dios. What ought to scare us is the fact that nobody ever tested any other KR in this way. How do we know the part would hold on a perfect plans-built KR? We don't, yet we recoil in shock at what Justin is doing. Bob >Bob, >If you look back through this thread there was a person who built a >KR with lumber yard plywood, which crashed after about 100 hours... >I'm not disagreeing with you about how other folks have built their >different aircraft in the past. There are a couple of things that >are different about this situation with Jason: >1.) All of the aircraft that you mentioned below don't have nearly >the performance characteristics of the KR. Therefore, don't load >the airframe and wings nearly as much. >2.) When Jason first started asking questions on the KR net, he was >keenly interested in cruise speed and weight and power. There was a >whole bunch of discussion about what real world cruise speeds that >could be acheived. Would you want to be anywhere near a corvair >powered KR-2S built from substandard plywood and airframe materials? >If you do, then you have much bigger 'nads than me. >3.) As airmen, we have a responsibility to operate our craft in a >safe and responsible manner, as aircraft constructors, we share the >same responsibility and more. It's pretty plain to see that young >Jason here does not possess an Engineering degree, and seems to be >without the means to build a test fuselage and test it to withstand >the anticipated rigors of flight. That all said, the best advise >that we can give Jason is to stick with the assembly manual and >purchase construction materials from an approved source. > I'm not flaming anyone here, but I sure wouldn't want to have on >my conscience, that I gave someone some advice to use some >unapproved, untested, and untried process or material, then come to >find out that that was a contributing factor in the demise of an >aircraft and pilot. > "Robert X. Cringely" wrote:Bernard (NOT >"Bernie") Pietenpol built his planes from hemlock he >picked out at the local lumber yard. Flybaby and VJ-22 Sportsman >plans both specify marine, not aircraft, plywood. I can buy marine >plywood at a local lumber yard, though not at Home Depot. We get all >worked-up about non-aircraft materials but forget that the foam and >glass construction of our KR's isn't approved and literally CAN'T be >approved since there is really no testing procedure for such one-off >materials. > >So the plywood came from Home Depot. Has anyone ever seen a plywood >failure in a KR that wasn't caused by a crash? Can anyone here cite >a fuselage plywood failure they have EVER seen in ANY plane that came >about from anywhere near normal use? I had a fuselage plywood >failure but it was caused by a roof leak putting about 80 gallons of >water in my KR-1. Should that failure concern me? Should it have >held 100 gallons of water? > >The fact is that the fuselage sides are VERY lightly loaded and you >could replace that plywood with stuff from Home Depot and it would >probably never fail. That doesn't mean we should all buy all our >materials at HD. It just means that Justin made a choice, justified >that choice by some testing (not enough testing, but again in this >case I don't think it really matters) and is completely within the >U.S. Experimental rules. > >Back at Rockford in the 1960s there was a guy named Merle Replogle >who had a VW-powered plane called the Gold Bug. You should have seen >this thing. It was a wire-braced high wing design much like an >Aeronca C-2. The plane was all wood and the wood was from the local >lumber yard. It was fabric covered and the fabric was from Pennys >(so, by the way, was the fabric on Pete Bowers' Flybaby). The >aileron hinges were from the hardware store as were all the screws >and bolts. The plane originally flew with three West Bend go-cart >engines, but was later re-engined with a 1200cc VW converted exactly >like Kenny Rand's original KR-1 engine. It was painted gold using >spray cans with plenty of drips. It was the ugliest, draggiest, >sorriest plane you've ever seen, but it made it to Rockford at least >twice -- in 1967 from Iowa and in 1968 from Arizona after the builder >moved there. The trip from Tucson took 5.5 days!. > >Now to the moral of this story. When this guy arrived at Rockford >for the first time in 1967, the EAA folks didn't want to let him in. >They didn't want him on the field at all and they SURE didn't want >him among the show planes. Worse still, Merle didn't have enough >cash to pay the registration fee, which I think back then was $10. >Enter stage left EAA president Paul Poberezny who said, in effect, >"Let he who is without squawk cast the first AN bolt." Poberezny >made them let Merle into the show and he even pulled out his wallet >and paid Merle's registration fee. I was 14 years old, my Dad and I >were there with our T-18, and I came to understand then that there is >room in this sport for all types. Just because people don't do things >your way doesn't mean that they are doing it the wrong way. > >Merle Replogle returned to Rockford in 1968, this time having fitted >Gold Bug with flaps. I had no idea why anyone would put flaps on a >plane that cruised at 55 and landed at 30 until one windy afternoon >Merle pulled on full flaps while in the fly-by pattern. Back then >there was no system, so any plane could do a fly-by at any time as >long as the airshow wasn't going on. So here were all these Cassutts >and Tailwinds and T-18s blasting around the pattern when Merle >Replogle put-put-puts into the wind from one end of the runway to the >other, drops full flaps, raises the nose, goes into slow flight,a and >flies BACKWARDS the full length of the runway. People just stopped >and stared. He was going in reverse at perhaps 5 mph and it took >about 10 minutes for him to reach the end of the runway. And it was >obvious that Merle had added flaps to the Gold Bug specifically for >that one moment. > >I would have done the same thing. > > >Bob >-- > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >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 > > >Scott Cable >KR-2S # 735 >Livonia, MI >s2cable1@yahoo.com > > >--------------------------------- >Do you Yahoo!? >Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now -- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 21:13:00 -0600 To: From: "kevin" Subject: Re: KR> uncertified wood in aircraft. Message-ID: <001c01c2c80d$7f813760$44963841@hppav> Bob, You are my kind of guy. I wish I were as articulate as yourself. You remind me of a wise man I met about 10 years ago who could get more done than any person I have met before or since. This guy could build airplanes so fast, that if I didn't hear from him in a few weeks, I knew I had better get over to his place as he probably had another airplane sitting on the gear. He could go from his own design to this point that fast. In the few years I knew him I learned so much. Cancer took him, and he is truly missed. Kevin Golden Harrisonville, MO ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert X. Cringely" To: Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 6:45 PM Subject: Re: KR> uncertified wood in aircraft. > I'm not arguing for lumberyard materials, but some of the statements > below are just plain wrong: > > 1) A G is a G is a G. How does a KR-1 or -2 in 1-G flight incur > higher stresses than a Flybaby? I suppose it might if you chose to > subject it to heavy aerobatics, but neither plane is designed for > that. And when it comes to a Volmer amphibian, the situation is > precisely reversed. Amphibian fuselages are hulls, they smash into > the water at least once on every flight. For this reason, they have > to be designed to MUCH higher stresses. Read Dave Thurston's books > and he explains it all. A Volmer fuselage is MANY TIMES stronger > than any KR simply because it has to be. > > 2) Again, what kind of stresses are you talking about. Take a look > at George Pereira's GP-4, a plane that cruises 40 knots faster than > any KR yet the longerons are actually SMALLER in cross section and > the fuselage plywood is lighter than on a KR. That's because George > actually knows what the stresses are in his fuselage, while Kenny > Rand just guessed and added a fudge factor. Precisely the same is > true for the Falco, another design that is faster than a KR yet uses > thinner ply and smaller longerons. So if some guy uses door skins to > cover his fuselage, does that mean his Corvair-powered KR is going to > fall from the sky? Not intrinsically. I agree that it is better to > use aircraft materials, but in this case I just don't see it as an > issue. I'd be more worried about preparation of the glue joints. > > 3) Yes, Jason seems to be a neophyte, but what he has done does not > necessarily spell doom, yet we act like it does. It IS usually best > to follow the plans, yet how many people on KRnet are doing so? This > forum is entirely about modifications, primarily to cover > shortcomings in the original design. The fact is that the plans just > aren't that good. Talk to Lance Neibauer, who drafted the KR-2 > drawings and he'll tell you how bad they were and how much was left > to chance. Yet people don't often die in these things because they > are over-built. The factory offers almost no technical support > simply because there isn't much technical depth there. > > This is all about mutual support, so rather than tell Justin he's > crazy, I'd like someone to tell him how to test his modification. > What are the maximum stresses on the fuselage? Maybe it is where the > engine mount is attached. Use a hydraulic jack and put a 9-G load on > that part assuming a 200 lb. engine, so the total load is 1800 lbs. > I knew a guy who got a Continental IO-360 STC for a Globe Swift and > that's exactly what the FAA had him do -- the only test they > required. I say if Justin tests the modification and it holds, well > then via con Dios. What ought to scare us is the fact that nobody > ever tested any other KR in this way. How do we know the part would > hold on a perfect plans-built KR? We don't, yet we recoil in shock > at what Justin is doing. > > > Bob > > >Bob, > >If you look back through this thread there was a person who built a > >KR with lumber yard plywood, which crashed after about 100 hours... > >I'm not disagreeing with you about how other folks have built their > >different aircraft in the past. There are a couple of things that > >are different about this situation with Jason: > >1.) All of the aircraft that you mentioned below don't have nearly > >the performance characteristics of the KR. Therefore, don't load > >the airframe and wings nearly as much. > >2.) When Jason first started asking questions on the KR net, he was > >keenly interested in cruise speed and weight and power. There was a > >whole bunch of discussion about what real world cruise speeds that > >could be acheived. Would you want to be anywhere near a corvair > >powered KR-2S built from substandard plywood and airframe materials? > >If you do, then you have much bigger 'nads than me. > >3.) As airmen, we have a responsibility to operate our craft in a > >safe and responsible manner, as aircraft constructors, we share the > >same responsibility and more. It's pretty plain to see that young > >Jason here does not possess an Engineering degree, and seems to be > >without the means to build a test fuselage and test it to withstand > >the anticipated rigors of flight. That all said, the best advise > >that we can give Jason is to stick with the assembly manual and > >purchase construction materials from an approved source. > > I'm not flaming anyone here, but I sure wouldn't want to have on > >my conscience, that I gave someone some advice to use some > >unapproved, untested, and untried process or material, then come to > >find out that that was a contributing factor in the demise of an > >aircraft and pilot. > > "Robert X. Cringely" wrote:Bernard (NOT > >"Bernie") Pietenpol built his planes from hemlock he > >picked out at the local lumber yard. Flybaby and VJ-22 Sportsman > >plans both specify marine, not aircraft, plywood. I can buy marine > >plywood at a local lumber yard, though not at Home Depot. We get all > >worked-up about non-aircraft materials but forget that the foam and > >glass construction of our KR's isn't approved and literally CAN'T be > >approved since there is really no testing procedure for such one-off > >materials. > > > >So the plywood came from Home Depot. Has anyone ever seen a plywood > >failure in a KR that wasn't caused by a crash? Can anyone here cite > >a fuselage plywood failure they have EVER seen in ANY plane that came > >about from anywhere near normal use? I had a fuselage plywood > >failure but it was caused by a roof leak putting about 80 gallons of > >water in my KR-1. Should that failure concern me? Should it have > >held 100 gallons of water? > > > >The fact is that the fuselage sides are VERY lightly loaded and you > >could replace that plywood with stuff from Home Depot and it would > >probably never fail. That doesn't mean we should all buy all our > >materials at HD. It just means that Justin made a choice, justified > >that choice by some testing (not enough testing, but again in this > >case I don't think it really matters) and is completely within the > >U.S. Experimental rules. > > > >Back at Rockford in the 1960s there was a guy named Merle Replogle > >who had a VW-powered plane called the Gold Bug. You should have seen > >this thing. It was a wire-braced high wing design much like an > >Aeronca C-2. The plane was all wood and the wood was from the local > >lumber yard. It was fabric covered and the fabric was from Pennys > >(so, by the way, was the fabric on Pete Bowers' Flybaby). The > >aileron hinges were from the hardware store as were all the screws > >and bolts. The plane originally flew with three West Bend go-cart > >engines, but was later re-engined with a 1200cc VW converted exactly > >like Kenny Rand's original KR-1 engine. It was painted gold using > >spray cans with plenty of drips. It was the ugliest, draggiest, > >sorriest plane you've ever seen, but it made it to Rockford at least > >twice -- in 1967 from Iowa and in 1968 from Arizona after the builder > >moved there. The trip from Tucson took 5.5 days!. > > > >Now to the moral of this story. When this guy arrived at Rockford > >for the first time in 1967, the EAA folks didn't want to let him in. > >They didn't want him on the field at all and they SURE didn't want > >him among the show planes. Worse still, Merle didn't have enough > >cash to pay the registration fee, which I think back then was $10. > >Enter stage left EAA president Paul Poberezny who said, in effect, > >"Let he who is without squawk cast the first AN bolt." Poberezny > >made them let Merle into the show and he even pulled out his wallet > >and paid Merle's registration fee. I was 14 years old, my Dad and I > >were there with our T-18, and I came to understand then that there is > >room in this sport for all types. Just because people don't do things > >your way doesn't mean that they are doing it the wrong way. > > > >Merle Replogle returned to Rockford in 1968, this time having fitted > >Gold Bug with flaps. I had no idea why anyone would put flaps on a > >plane that cruised at 55 and landed at 30 until one windy afternoon > >Merle pulled on full flaps while in the fly-by pattern. Back then > >there was no system, so any plane could do a fly-by at any time as > >long as the airshow wasn't going on. So here were all these Cassutts > >and Tailwinds and T-18s blasting around the pattern when Merle > >Replogle put-put-puts into the wind from one end of the runway to the > >other, drops full flaps, raises the nose, goes into slow flight,a and > >flies BACKWARDS the full length of the runway. People just stopped > >and stared. He was going in reverse at perhaps 5 mph and it took > >about 10 minutes for him to reach the end of the runway. And it was > >obvious that Merle had added flaps to the Gold Bug specifically for > >that one moment. > > > >I would have done the same thing. > > > > > >Bob > >-- > > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- > >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 > > > > > >Scott Cable > >KR-2S # 735 > >Livonia, MI > >s2cable1@yahoo.com > > > > > >--------------------------------- > >Do you Yahoo!? > >Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now > > > -- > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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, 29 Jan 2003 17:06:55 -0500 To: KRnet@mailinglists.org From: Kenneth L Wiltrout Subject: Re: KR> Is there an easy way to take the wings off? Message-ID: <20030129.170655.2264.3.klw1953@juno.com> I just use the appropriate wrenches. 2ea 9/16 and 2ea 3/8 wrenches. Good Luck! On Wed, 29 Jan 2003 16:45:08 EST Bjbcljdb@aol.com writes: > To whomever: > I am needing to take the wings off of my KR2 and need to know > if there > is any easy way to do it. It seems like the standard ratchet wrench > is too > big to get in there to take off the 8 bolts on each wing. Also, > what do you > use to unscrew the gas cap on the wings? It looks like a silver > dollar would > work, but don't know what else to use. Thanks, George > ________________________________________________________________ Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 18:50:27 -0800 To: From: "jim @ synergy design" Subject: Re: KR> Is there an easy way to take the wings off? Message-ID: <001401c2c80a$59ae0480$0101a8c0@pavilion> George, get a ratcheting box end wrench. Same size as a regular wrench but it ratchets! excellent for tight spots. Try house brand from Wal Mart. I think I paid 20.00 for a set of 4 sizes. Hope this helps. Jim Sporka ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 1:45 PM Subject: KR> Is there an easy way to take the wings off? > To whomever: > I am needing to take the wings off of my KR2 and need to know if there > is any easy way to do it. It seems like the standard ratchet wrench is too > big to get in there to take off the 8 bolts on each wing. Also, what do you > use to unscrew the gas cap on the wings? It looks like a silver dollar would > work, but don't know what else to use. Thanks, George > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 17:22:24 -0500 To: KRnet@mailinglists.org From: ronald j willliams Subject: Re: KR> What plywood? Message-ID: <3E385420.3AD0209C@bellsouth.net> The May 1992 issue of Sport Aviation has a article on Ron Scott's "Old-Ironside" airplane. It is a high wing all wood with fiberglass skin. The skin was built up on a masonite table. It was liberally waxed, two layers of 10 oz. fiberglass woven roving { common boat cloth} were smoothed out over it and saturated with polyester resin. the fiberglass skins were bonded to the wood frames with what was then called "industrial epoxy". The aircraft was built in 1968 and in 1985, Ron decided it was time to put the plane in drydock and go through it from end to end. As it turned out, there were no delaminations of the skin, no failed bonds, no cracking or crazing of the smooth outer surfaces. I though this would of interest to some. Jim Williams Tucker, GA. Tony Rogers wrote: > Justin > > I'm not flaming you, but I feel I've got to let you know a > couple facts I've discovered working with various plywoods over > a number of years. I'm a mechanical engineer and I've build > several plywood boats and am now getting ready to start a > full-size aircraft. > > Several of my boats have used 1/8" plywood and I didn't have > much money to spare, so I tried using exterior grade plywood > instead of the marine grade in carefully selected areas. The > surfaces were both covered with fiberglass cloth to seal. The > results were right off the bench were less than ideal, finish > wise. Over the couse of a year the wood surface began to flake > (not delaminate) and lift off areas of glass (with wood > attached). Then I got a good smack from a sail boat's boom and > the wood failed along a void down the length of the panel. Upon > careful de-construction of the wood, I found several loose knots > as well as the voids (up to 1/2" wide and full length). The > glue never failed, but the wood came apart, taking the > fiberglass with it and under stress, the voids allowed the outer > layers to fail. > > You're doing a good job testing the glue on the wood you're > using, but that's not what will fail. If you want to save a bit > of money, use marine grade plywood. It's not the same quality > as aircraft (no scarf joints), but at least the wood is selected > to take epoxy well and the core layers are solid (not butt-joint > gaps and no knots). > > Additional note: If there's a chance the plane will see moisture > (condensation, rain, etc), seal all surfaces of the wood. > Experience has shown me that moisture will get into "sealed" > compartments and lead to failure of the wood. > > Tony Rogers > Portland, OR > > --- Justin wrote: > > I am using 1/8" plywood from home depot. It is exterier and I > have put it through tests just as i tested the mahogany. The > results will be in tommorow. The homedepot plywood held > together in boiling water over night and still didnt deform. > Though it was weaker when streesed but im sure all wood is? > Give your opinion. > > > Justin > > __________________________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. > http://mailplus.yahoo.com > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To post to the list, email: krnet@mailinglists.org , NOT "reply all" > > To UNsubscribe, e-mail: krnet-unsubscribe@mailinglists.org > For additional commands, e-mail: krnet-help@mailinglists.org > > See the KRNet archives at http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp > or http://www.bouyea.net/ for the Word files ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 16:46:58 -0800 (PST) To: KRnet@mailinglists.org From: Rick Wilson Subject: Re: KR> What plywood? Message-ID: <20030130004658.33138.qmail@web21208.mail.yahoo.com> Justin, You are allowed to use any combination of materials you wish, but there is a reason the FAA strongly suggests the use of aircraft grade materials. You can get an aircraft licensed using low grade material but that's not what is important-building an aircraft that won't come apart around you is. I can guarantee that the $100.00 you saved on plywood won't be what's on your mind at 10,000 ft. doing 200mph. Think about it. Rick Wilson. rwdw2002@yahoo.com --- Justin wrote: > I am using 1/8" plywood from home depot. It is > exterier and I have put > it through tests just as i tested the mahogany. The > results will be in > tommorow. The homedepot plywood held together in > boiling water over > night and still didnt deform. Though it was weaker > when streesed but im > sure all wood is? Give your opinion. > > Justin > > jim @ synergy design wrote: > > >Justin, Please tell us you are not using 1/4 inch > cdx!!!!!!!!!!(that is the thinnest You can get at > H.D. around here) . If you have somehow gotten > hold of 1/8 luan door skins, that is just as bad. > Of course you could just leave the wings off, and > put a sail on it.:-). Are you using A/C spruce for > the framework? What kind of glue? Are you related > to the long lost Hennie ? ( look it up in the net > archives) . All kidding aside, If you can' t afford > to use the proper materials and methods , and you > become a lawn dart, It reflects poorly on all of us. > If you just have the itch to fly, try Hang Gliding. > There is nothing better than looking down on a 182 > from 17,999 ft' ;-) . Good Luck, Jim Sporka > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 > __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 21:31:58 -0500 To: From: "Ron Freiberger" Subject: RE: KR> What plywood? Message-ID: Right Good workmanship will help a lot. Also, the aircraft has probably never been tested to the load limit, which many of us PQ (poor quality) pilots might do on some foggy/snowy day Ron Freiberger mailto:rfreiberger@swfla.rr.com -----Original Message----- From: ronald j willliams [mailto:jwwr@bellsouth.net] Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 5:22 PM To: KRnet@mailinglists.org Subject: Re: KR> What plywood? The May 1992 issue of Sport Aviation has a article on Ron Scott's "Old-Ironside" airplane. It is a high wing all wood with fiberglass skin. The skin was built up on a masonite table. It was liberally waxed, two layers of 10 oz. fiberglass woven roving { common boat cloth} were smoothed out over it and saturated with polyester resin. the fiberglass skins were bonded to the wood frames with what was then called "industrial epoxy". The aircraft was built in 1968 and in 1985, Ron decided it was time to put the plane in drydock and go through it from end to end. As it turned out, there were no delaminations of the skin, no failed bonds, no cracking or crazing of the smooth outer surfaces. I though this would of interest to some. Jim Williams Tucker, GA. Tony Rogers wrote: > Justin > > I'm not flaming you, but I feel I've got to let you know a > couple facts I've discovered working with various plywoods over > a number of years. I'm a mechanical engineer and I've build > several plywood boats and am now getting ready to start a > full-size aircraft. > > Several of my boats have used 1/8" plywood and I didn't have > much money to spare, so I tried using exterior grade plywood > instead of the marine grade in carefully selected areas. The > surfaces were both covered with fiberglass cloth to seal. The > results were right off the bench were less than ideal, finish > wise. Over the couse of a year the wood surface began to flake > (not delaminate) and lift off areas of glass (with wood > attached). Then I got a good smack from a sail boat's boom and > the wood failed along a void down the length of the panel. Upon > careful de-construction of the wood, I found several loose knots > as well as the voids (up to 1/2" wide and full length). The > glue never failed, but the wood came apart, taking the > fiberglass with it and under stress, the voids allowed the outer > layers to fail. > > You're doing a good job testing the glue on the wood you're > using, but that's not what will fail. If you want to save a bit > of money, use marine grade plywood. It's not the same quality > as aircraft (no scarf joints), but at least the wood is selected > to take epoxy well and the core layers are solid (not butt-joint > gaps and no knots). > > Additional note: If there's a chance the plane will see moisture > (condensation, rain, etc), seal all surfaces of the wood. > Experience has shown me that moisture will get into "sealed" > compartments and lead to failure of the wood. > > Tony Rogers > Portland, OR > > --- Justin wrote: > > I am using 1/8" plywood from home depot. It is exterier and I > have put it through tests just as i tested the mahogany. The > results will be in tommorow. The homedepot plywood held > together in boiling water over night and still didnt deform. > Though it was weaker when streesed but im sure all wood is? > Give your opinion. > > > Justin > > __________________________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. > http://mailplus.yahoo.com > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To post to the list, email: krnet@mailinglists.org , NOT "reply all" > > To UNsubscribe, e-mail: krnet-unsubscribe@mailinglists.org > For additional commands, e-mail: krnet-help@mailinglists.org > > See the KRNet archives at http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp > or http://www.bouyea.net/ for the Word files --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 10:45:40 +1300 To: From: "Howcroft" Subject: Re: KR> KR1s and in-line engines Message-ID: <002801c2c7e2$5bc57a00$56d91bca@Margaret> Hello again, Sorry I dont but I will see if I can scratch something up. Regards ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 17:21:35 -0800 (PST) To: KRnet@mailinglists.org From: Sky Rider Subject: Re: KR> KR's, Materials and Lee Robbins Message-ID: <20030130012135.9187.qmail@web11602.mail.yahoo.com> --0-936473836-1043889695=:8874 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Thanks for the tip...I tried Home Depot, and they had a red variety, but not the green I was accustomed to...and I wasn;t sure if it was impervious to gasoline or epoxy as I have been told the green is....what do you find at the uphonstery shops....is it cloth for the fibreglassing? If so, what is it called? thanks for your assistance. Aloha nui loa Tony Sutstoy@aol.com wrote:Tony, The dreaded Home Depot or an upholstery shop is where I would go for foam. Aloha Joe :>}) --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now --0-936473836-1043889695=:8874-- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 20:45:40 -0500 To: From: "harold woods" Subject: marine plywood. Message-ID: <006f01c2c801$4baf5720$03000004@baol.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> ------=_NextPart_000_006C_01C2C7D7.628562C0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable We get used to the idea that an inspector guarantees the results of what = a company is selling. I had an occasion to check a sheet of marine 1/8 " mahogany 3 ply , = plywood. The outside was perfect but the bright spot light in a darkened room revealed many flaws and = knots in the inside.. I could not use it for the purposes of a plane. I do recall seeing an old Wright plane at Oshkosh. It's struts were of = bamboo and the crack in the bamboo were held together with black tape. = It could fly. ( not that I wanted to be in it) I have photos of it some = where. Harold Woods Orillia, ON. Can. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.449 / Virus Database: 251 - Release Date: 1/27/03 ------=_NextPart_000_006C_01C2C7D7.628562C0-- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 21:44:03 -0500 To: From: "Ron Freiberger" Subject: RE: KR> marine plywood. Message-ID: Harold w Woods said; I do recall seeing an old Wright plane at Oshkosh. It's struts were of bamboo and the crack in the bamboo were held together with black tape. It could fly. ( not that I wanted to be in it) I have photos of it some where. This brings up an interesting point .... Bamboo is VERY strong in one direction and nearly useless in the other. Know your materials and use them correctly. Look up the cross grain strength of sitka spuce, and see that it is very weak. Gotta be used right. Of course you can use Home Depot Door skins if you know where to do it. Maybe if we did some structures analysis, we could take even more weight out. Ron Freiberger mailto:rfreiberger@swfla.rr.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 20:50:23 -0500 To: From: "harold woods" Subject: chipped horizontal stabilizer. Message-ID: <009a01c2c801$f42fefe0$03000004@baol.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> ------=_NextPart_000_0097_01C2C7D8.0B1FEC20 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sky Rider You did not tell us where along it's span was the elevator damaged. To = what extent. You must realize that this governs the fix. Harold Woods. Orillia, ON. Canada. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.449 / Virus Database: 251 - Release Date: 1/27/03 ------=_NextPart_000_0097_01C2C7D8.0B1FEC20-- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 20:07:31 -0600 To: From: "Rex Ellington" Subject: Mark's phone no. Message-ID: <00cd01c2c804$5a98c160$f91c3941@D6R1QJ11> ------=_NextPart_000_00CA_01C2C7D2.0E61DF70 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Evening Netters Mayday, Problem. My papers, files, etc. are out of reach for a few = days. I need to get touch with Mark Langford by phone and get some money to = him. Thanks in advance. Rex Ellington Norman, OK rtecg@telepath.com 405 366 8941 ------=_NextPart_000_00CA_01C2C7D2.0E61DF70-- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 21:46:47 -0500 To: From: "Ron Freiberger" Subject: RE: KR> Mark's phone no. Message-ID: Please send it to me, and I will take care of it for you. Ron Freiberger mailto:rfreiberger@swfla.rr.com -----Original Message----- From: Rex Ellington [mailto:rtecg@telepath.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 9:08 PM To: krnet@mailinglists.org Subject: KR> Mark's phone no. Evening Netters Mayday, Problem. My papers, files, etc. are out of reach for a few days. I need to get touch with Mark Langford by phone and get some money to him. Thanks in advance. Rex Ellington Norman, OK rtecg@telepath.com 405 366 8941 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 21:55:15 -0500 To: From: "Ron Thomas" Subject: Re: KR> Mark's phone no. Message-ID: <006001c2c80b$04f73320$c843a8c0@faaguy> http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford/296map.pdf MARK'S LINK TO MAP AND ADDRESS IF THIS DOES NOT WORK TRY HIS EMAIL LANGFORD@HIWAAY.NET ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rex Ellington" To: Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 9:07 PM Subject: KR> Mark's phone no. Evening Netters Mayday, Problem. My papers, files, etc. are out of reach for a few days. I need to get touch with Mark Langford by phone and get some money to him. Thanks in advance. Rex Ellington Norman, OK rtecg@telepath.com 405 366 8941 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 19:30:09 -0800 To: From: "jim @ synergy design" Subject: wood Message-ID: <003801c2c80f$e51330e0$0101a8c0@pavilion> ------=_NextPart_000_0035_01C2C7CC.D5C1D120 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Justin , Being a "professional" woodworker, I would like to say that = although the 1/8 inch door skins seem like a bargain, there is no = CONSISTENCY between sheets. I have used this material for curved work, = and have found "hard" spots( won't bend consistently) . Some sheets = will occasionally fracture , while others can bend far more.This could = create a potential weak area. EAA puts out a good book on wood = construction. It has a section that discusses alternate woods. I = suggest you read it. In solid stock that is not certified, you are more = likely to have stress cracks that are extremely hard to impossible to = spot if you are not specifically trained as a wood grader to look for = the signs. That's why you pay so much for the certified stuff. The = material is documentable all the way back to when it is cut, and been = through countless grading inspections. A/C ply is either African = Mahogany or Birch with a poplar or basswood core.The door skins are Luan = Mahogany( very open grain, weaker), the core is often "white wood" ( = aspen, pine, or other soft species.) Always keep this in mind when = building.. If you have any weakness in the structure, it WILL = eventually fail under stress. This is true whether it is a bad weld, = undersized structural component, undersized hardware, a flaw in the = wood, etc. Planes are designed to be just strong enough at a given = load, plus a safety margin, with the least weight. Therefor the = materials are sized according to their properties. I was once told this = credo.. "You can build it strong , you can build it light, you can build = it cheap. Choose two, you cannot have all three." Hope this helps. = Jim Sporka ------=_NextPart_000_0035_01C2C7CC.D5C1D120-- ------------------------------ End of krnet Digest ***********************************