From: To: Subject: krnet Digest 22 Feb 2003 00:15:14 -0000 Issue 638 Date: Friday, February 21, 2003 5:16 PM krnet Digest 22 Feb 2003 00:15:14 -0000 Issue 638 Topics (messages 15296 through 15320): Re: fuselage 15296 by: virgnvs.juno.com 15300 by: Justin Re: Subject: Mobile Phone Safety Important! 15297 by: RFG842.aol.com 15302 by: Louis Staalberg Firewall Engine mount bracing 15298 by: John Bouyea 15299 by: Mark Langford 15301 by: Bob 15309 by: Dan Heath 15313 by: larry flesner 15317 by: Bob 15318 by: Dan Heath stick to the subject 15303 by: ninecraven.attbi.com RPM 15304 by: Al Friesen 15308 by: Dan Heath 15310 by: Dana Overall 15311 by: Dana Overall 15319 by: Dan Heath Cowling thickness 15305 by: JIM VANCE 15312 by: larry flesner 15314 by: Kenneth L Wiltrout Fuselage KR2S wider than KR2? 15306 by: Justin Dragonfly Canopy 15307 by: Justin 15315 by: Frank Ross 15316 by: Frank Ross Re: KR2S SPORT AVIATION 15320 by: Dan Heath Administrivia: To subscribe to the digest, e-mail: To unsubscribe from the digest, e-mail: To post to the list, e-mail: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 10:22:25 -0500 To: KRnet@mailinglists.org From: virgnvs@juno.com Cc: KRnet@mailinglists.org Subject: Re: KR> fuselage Message-ID: <20030220.154508.-357229.0.virgnvs@juno.com> Been there, Done that. 90Degrees stops the BOAT phenominon, Virg On Thu, 20 Feb 2003 09:00:05 -0500 "harold woods" writes: > Justin asks about the fuselage being wider at the top than at the > bottom. This is true. The bend does not stress the wood too much. Be > sure that you put the side skins on in such a manner that one skin > goes on the underside while the side is on the table and that the > other skin goes on the top side while the side is on the table. Thus > when the two sides are set up to accept the cross members, the > skins will be on the outside of the "boat". > There is a hidden trick that no one seems to mention and that is > when you come to skin the bottom. Since the bottom is narrower than > the top and the side has been bent into a curve the longerons are no > longer "flat ", left and right accross the bottom of the fuselage. > You should sand or plane them using a long straight edge so that the > bottom skin will sit "flat" on both the cross members and the > longerons. > Good luck. > Harold Woods > Orillia, ON. > Canada. > > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.455 / Virus Database: 255 - Release Date: 2/13/03 Virgil N. Salisbury AMSOIL WWW.LUBEDEALER.COM/SALISBURY ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 15:05:03 -0600 To: From: "Justin" Subject: Re: KR> fuselage Message-ID: <001901c2d923$c02f8e20$ed7ba8c0@computer> Thanks guys. I set-up my fuselage and im consitering making it alittle wider. 34" is not acceptable but a 36" wide cockpit is the same as a 150 that I WILL accept. I fit in a 150 with an instructor, no way anythign smaller would be OK with me. Justin ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Cc: Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 9:22 AM Subject: Re: KR> fuselage > Been there, Done that. 90Degrees stops the BOAT phenominon, > Virg > > On Thu, 20 Feb 2003 09:00:05 -0500 "harold woods" > writes: > > Justin asks about the fuselage being wider at the top than at the > > bottom. This is true. The bend does not stress the wood too much. Be > > sure that you put the side skins on in such a manner that one skin > > goes on the underside while the side is on the table and that the > > other skin goes on the top side while the side is on the table. Thus > > when the two sides are set up to accept the cross members, the > > skins will be on the outside of the "boat". > > There is a hidden trick that no one seems to mention and that is > > when you come to skin the bottom. Since the bottom is narrower than > > the top and the side has been bent into a curve the longerons are no > > longer "flat ", left and right accross the bottom of the fuselage. > > You should sand or plane them using a long straight edge so that the > > bottom skin will sit "flat" on both the cross members and the > > longerons. > > Good luck. > > Harold Woods > > Orillia, ON. > > Canada. > > > > > > --- > > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > > Version: 6.0.455 / Virus Database: 255 - Release Date: 2/13/03 > > > Virgil N. Salisbury AMSOIL > WWW.LUBEDEALER.COM/SALISBURY > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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, 20 Feb 2003 16:45:47 EST To: KRnet@mailinglists.org From: RFG842@aol.com Subject: Re: KR> Fw: Subject: Mobile Phone Safety Important! Message-ID: <75.ab150d4.2b86a68b@aol.com> --part1_75.ab150d4.2b86a68b_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bob Appreciate the safety tips. In the past year EAA has also reported the danger from static electricity when refueling from plastic gasoline cans. Understand that at least one ultra lite has been destroyed from this source. Thanks again. Bob --part1_75.ab150d4.2b86a68b_boundary-- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 17:34:56 -0700 To: From: "Louis Staalberg" Subject: Re: KR> Subject: Mobile Phone Safety Important! Message-ID: <005401c2d941$31c9b700$0200a8c6@toshiba> If there is a gasoline explosion, there is a spark that preceded the event. The "energy" involved in reception or transmission is called an Electro Magnetic wave, commonly called RF (Radio Frequency) There is no spark generated by either receiving or transmitting with a cellphone. Try this: Hold your cell phone antenna on a metal object while receiving or transmitting. No sparks are generated. It is much more likely that a person refueling has the nozzle locked, hears the phone and rushed inside, sliding in and out of the seat and get charged with static electricity. With rubber shoes being a very good insulator, a discharge causing a spark will be generated when the person touches the refueling nozzle again. My suggestion is: Hold your key in your hand, touch a metal object away from the pump with your key and you will not feel anything. Never use the locking mechanism, and, under no circumstances leave the fuelling position no matter what. If the phone call is important they will call back. Sorry for using Net space and time but I have heard this nonsense about cell phones so many times that I just had to point out it is the static electricity that can build up. Louis Staalberg N9FL@cybertrails.com Payson, Arizona ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 14:19:33 -0800 To: From: "John Bouyea" Subject: Firewall Engine mount bracing Message-ID: <000c01c2d92e$252bddb0$1900a8c0@bou5100> ------=_NextPart_000_0009_01C2D8EB.16BEC370 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I looked through the archives and cannot locate any specs for the = aluminum reinforcement bar/ angle/ channel referenced in the KR2S = supplement. Can anyone tell me the specs or alternately where to locate this info? Thanks in advance! John Bouyea KR2 - N5391M/ in rebuild KR2 - on the gear KR2S - boat stage http://www.bouyea.net john@bouyea.net ------=_NextPart_000_0009_01C2D8EB.16BEC370-- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 16:42:40 -0600 To: From: "Mark Langford" Subject: Re: KR> Firewall Engine mount bracing Message-ID: <005101c2d931$60732920$0802a8c0@TD310> John Bouyea wrote: >I looked through the archives and cannot locate any specs for the aluminum reinforcement bar/ angle/ channel referenced in the KR2S supplement.< If you're talking about the 4" x 2.5" angle used on the firewall, RR ships you 6061-T6511. For everything else, 6061-T6 is probably assumed (if not explicitly called out), and would work for firewall too. I just remade my elevator bellcranks (as well as the whole rest of the stick system), and took the opportunity to make the new bellcranks out of 3/16" thick 2024-T6, which Wicks sells. But for just epoxying to the back of a spar for backup, 6061-T6 is just fine. Just don't use any 6063 for anything. It's really sorry stuff, except for superficial architectural stuff. Mark Langford, Huntsville, Alabama mailto:langford@hiwaay.net see KR2S N56ML at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 18:38:16 -0500 To: "KRnet \(E-mail\)" , From: "Bob" Subject: Re: Firewall Engine mount bracing Message-ID: <000601c2d939$251658e0$280c0b0a@bubba9> John Bouyea wrote: << "I looked through the archives and cannot locate any specs for the aluminum reinforcement bar/ angle/ channel referenced in the KR2S supplement. Can anyone tell me the specs or alternately where to locate this info?" >> I used 4"x4"x1/4" aluminum angle on the top and 2 1/2"x2 1/2"x1/8" aluminum angle on the bottom. The bottom brace is smaller because the floor adds a great deal of stiffness to the bottom motor mounts. The aluminum pieces were a little on the heavy side so I cut out about half of them with 1" lightening holes. I also mounted nut-plates on the angle to mount the rudder peddle hinges as well as some components on the firewall. You can see what it ended up like at: http://flyboybob.com/images/kr2/n52bl/airframe/boat77.jpg Regards. Bob Lee ______________________________ N52BL KR2 Suwanee, GA 30024 91% done only 51% to go! Phone/Fax: 770/844-7501 mailto:bob@flyboybob.com http://flyboybob.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 06:37:46 -0800 (Pacific Standard Time) To: From: "Dan Heath" Subject: Re: KR> Re: Firewall Engine mount bracing Message-Id: <3E5639BA.000005.01124@dan> --------------Boundary-00=_YYXN6RO0000000000000 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable That reinforcement looks like monster reinforcement. Is this needed because the firewall is wider on the S or because you are going to use a heavier engine?=0D =0D N64KR=0D =0D Daniel R. Heath - Columbia, SC=0D =0D DanRH@KR-Builder.org=0D =0D See you in Red Oak - 2003=0D =0D See our KR at http://KR-Builder.org - Click on the pic=0D See our EAA Chapter 242 at http://EAA242.org=0D =0D -------Original Message-------=0D =0D From: KRnet@mailinglists.org=0D Date: Thursday, February 20, 2003 03:38:19 PM=0D To: KRnet \(E-mail\); john@bouyea.net=0D Subject: KR> Re: Firewall Engine mount bracing=0D =0D John Bouyea wrote:=0D <<=0D "I looked through the archives and cannot locate any specs for the=0D aluminum reinforcement bar/ angle/ channel referenced in the KR2S=0D supplement.=0D =0D Can anyone tell me the specs or alternately where to locate this info?"=0D >>=0D =0D I used 4"x4"x1/4" aluminum angle on the top and 2 1/2"x2 1/2"x1/8" alumin= um=0D angle on the bottom. The bottom brace is smaller because the floor adds a= =0D great deal of stiffness to the bottom motor mounts. The aluminum pieces=0D were a little on the heavy side so I cut out about half of them with 1"=0D lightening holes. I also mounted nut-plates on the angle to mount the=0D rudder peddle hinges as well as some components on the firewall. You can=0D see what it ended up like at:=0D http://flyboybob.com/images/kr2/n52bl/airframe/boat77.jpg=0D =0D Regards.=0D =0D Bob Lee=0D ______________________________=0D N52BL KR2 Suwanee, GA 30024=0D 91% done only 51% to go!=0D Phone/Fax: 770/844-7501=0D mailto:bob@flyboybob.com=0D http://flyboybob.com=0D =0D =0D =0D ---------------------------------------------------------------------=0D To post to the list, email: krnet@mailinglists.org , NOT "reply all"=0D =0D To UNsubscribe, e-mail: krnet-unsubscribe@mailinglists.org =0D For additional commands, e-mail: krnet-help@mailinglists.org=0D =0D See the KRNet archives at http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp=0D or http://www.bouyea.net/ for the Word files=0D =0D =2E=20 --------------Boundary-00=_YYXN6RO0000000000000-- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 07:53:23 -0600 To: KRnet@mailinglists.org From: larry flesner Subject: Firewall Engine mount bracing Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20030221075323.007baa20@pop.midwest.net> >That reinforcement looks like monster reinforcement. Is this needed >because the firewall is wider on the S or because you are going to use a >heavier engin >Daniel R. Heath - Columbia, SC ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The stock firewall on the KR is already extreemly strong and probably needs very little additional reinforcment. If Jean Veron is still on the net maybe he could tell us if Marty Roberts did any reinforcing on his firewall or if he did any reinforcing on "Ol Blue" for the 0-200. Marty is using a Hapi VW mount with his 0-200 that has the firewall mounts closer to center than to the edges and I doubt that anyone has stressed a firewall any more than Marty ! I did some "minor" reinforcing on my firewall. I used 3/4" spruce cross members instead of the 5/8" and placed several extra spruce blocks in the corners at the firewall to fuselage attach points. At the upper engine mount bolt locations I used a 2 1/2" piece of 2 1/2" alum angle with gussets welded in on each end ( picture a cube cut at a 45 degree angle from corner to corner). The side that contacts the firewall has the upper engine mount bolt running through the center and the side that contacts the bottom side of the 1/4" ply on the upper box has four 3/16" bolts through it with wood washers on the top side of the ply. I recall Jeanette Rand making the statement at one of the Gatherings years back that she had an engineer run some numbers on the firewall strength and he indicated it was a 22 G structure. That should be strong enough to hold you pickup truck! How much stronger does it need to be?!! Your results may vary. :-) Larry Flesner ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 13:11:30 -0500 To: "KRnet \(E-mail\)" From: "Bob" Subject: Re: Firewall Engine mount bracing Message-ID: <000001c2d9d4$a93b5fd0$280c0b0a@bubba9> Dan and Larry, I decided to reinforce the firewall for three reasons. First I don't like the fact that the stock engine mount pulls from the center of the firewall. This generates bending moments in the cross members that support the engine mount and flex in the joints that attach to the longerons. A more elegant solution would be to redesign the engine mount to connect to the firewall closer to the longerons. I already had the stock engine mount so I decided to add the firewall brace as a simpler solution for my situation. Second I'm using a turbo TypeIV motor which is heavier than the TypeI. This will increase the loading on the firewall and increase the deflection of the structure under load. Third I have a 25 gallon header tank. My main concern was elimination of flex in the firewall that might generate fuel leaks over the life of the KR. I know KR owners who have experienced header tank failures and I wanted to be extremely conservative with this structure. The top brace is 4"x4"x1/4" which is 2.28 pounds/foot. I've cut away half of the material with lightening holes so that brace is about 3 1/4 pounds. The bottom is 2 1/2"x2 1/2"x1/8" which is .72 pounds/foot. With slightly less rigorous lightening holes it is about 1 1/4 pounds. I agree with the assessment that the firewall is extremely strong. My objective was to increase it's rigidity rather than it's strength. The strength is still no greater than the corner joints that tie the firewall to the longerons. I invested 4 1/2 pounds to increase the rigidity of the firewall structure and protect the integrity of the fuel tank. I hope this helps explain my reasoning for making this addition. Regards. Bob Lee ______________________________ N52BL KR2 Suwanee, GA 30024 91% done only 51% to go! Phone/Fax: 770/844-7501 mailto:bob@flyboybob.com http://flyboybob.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 18:06:49 -0800 (Pacific Standard Time) To: From: "Dan Heath" Subject: Re: KR> Re: Firewall Engine mount bracing Message-Id: <3E56DB39.000005.01124@dan> --------------Boundary-00=_DVTO6RO0000000000000 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sounds good to me. Thanks.=0D =0D N64KR=0D =0D Daniel R. Heath - Columbia, SC=0D =0D DanRH@KR-Builder.org=0D =0D See you in Red Oak - 2003=0D =0D See our KR at http://KR-Builder.org - Click on the pic=0D See our EAA Chapter 242 at http://EAA242.org=0D =0D -------Original Message-------=0D =0D From: KRnet@mailinglists.org=0D Date: Friday, February 21, 2003 10:11:08 AM=0D To: KRnet \(E-mail\)=0D Subject: KR> Re: Firewall Engine mount bracing=0D =0D Dan and Larry,=0D =0D I decided to reinforce the firewall for three reasons.=0D =0D First I don't like the fact that the stock engine mount pulls from the=0D center of the firewall. This generates bending moments in the cross membe= rs=0D that support the engine mount and flex in the joints that attach to the=0D longerons. A more elegant solution would be to redesign the engine mount = to=0D connect to the firewall closer to the longerons. I already had the stock=0D engine mount so I decided to add the firewall brace as a simpler solution= =0D for my situation.=0D =0D Second I'm using a turbo TypeIV motor which is heavier than the TypeI. Th= is=0D will increase the loading on the firewall and increase the deflection of = the=0D structure under load.=0D =0D Third I have a 25 gallon header tank. My main concern was elimination of=0D flex in the firewall that might generate fuel leaks over the life of the = KR.=0D I know KR owners who have experienced header tank failures and I wanted t= o=0D be extremely conservative with this structure.=0D =0D The top brace is 4"x4"x1/4" which is 2.28 pounds/foot. I've cut away half= =0D of the material with lightening holes so that brace is about 3 1/4 pounds= =2E=0D The bottom is 2 1/2"x2 1/2"x1/8" which is .72 pounds/foot. With slightly=0D less rigorous lightening holes it is about 1 1/4 pounds. I agree with the= =0D assessment that the firewall is extremely strong. My objective was to=0D increase it's rigidity rather than it's strength. The strength is still n= o=0D greater than the corner joints that tie the firewall to the longerons. I=0D invested 4 1/2 pounds to increase the rigidity of the firewall structure = and=0D protect the integrity of the fuel tank.=0D =0D I hope this helps explain my reasoning for making this addition.=0D =0D Regards.=0D =0D Bob Lee=0D ______________________________=0D N52BL KR2 Suwanee, GA 30024=0D 91% done only 51% to go!=0D Phone/Fax: 770/844-7501=0D mailto:bob@flyboybob.com=0D http://flyboybob.com=0D =0D =0D =0D ---------------------------------------------------------------------=0D To post to the list, email: krnet@mailinglists.org , NOT "reply all"=0D =0D To UNsubscribe, e-mail: krnet-unsubscribe@mailinglists.org =0D For additional commands, e-mail: krnet-help@mailinglists.org=0D =0D See the KRNet archives at http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp=0D or http://www.bouyea.net/ for the Word files=0D =0D =2E=20 --------------Boundary-00=_DVTO6RO0000000000000-- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 01:18:39 +0000 To: KRnet@mailinglists.org (KR List) From: ninecraven@attbi.com Subject: stick to the subject Hey, can we kill the cell phone sparks and get back to KR stuff on the KR list? Paul O'Reilly Derry, NH Building since the time of Moses and still ain't flyin -- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 18:15:02 -0800 To: From: "Al Friesen" Subject: RPM Message-ID: <002e01c2d958$d141e020$90cb6cce@s8z8i0> ------=_NextPart_000_000A_01C2D90B.FCD859A0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable All, Is this info correct? Somebody asked Robert S. Hoover this on the VW = chat. In order to get good performance and max engine life from a VW in a = plane it needs to turn at least 3500 RPM at full throttle in level = flight. 3600 RPM is better and 3700 is ok also. Cruise at 3150 to 3250 = RPM....usually static RPM will be approximately the same as cruise or = around 3200 RPM. If your particular application is substantially less = than these numbers, your manifold pressure is too high and your engine = is not going to last very long. Mr. Hoover, I welcome your comments on = this one. Al ------=_NextPart_000_000A_01C2D90B.FCD859A0-- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 06:30:02 -0800 (Pacific Standard Time) To: From: "Dan Heath" Subject: Re: KR> RPM Message-Id: <3E5637EA.000003.01124@dan> --------------Boundary-00=_2MXNG6G0000000000000 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Those numbers look good. I think that what he is trying to say is that i= f your manifold pressure is too high, your engine is working against a prop that is too big.=0D =0D He seems to be making two points, one about the RPM you should turn and, = two about the manifold pressure you should have. I never measured my manifo= ld pressure, but maybe RPM is a direct indicator of manifold pressure.=0D =0D This reminds me of a perplexing problem that I had when I began testing m= y first KR. It would run great on the ground, take off and fly great, but once I came in, the engine ran very rough and I could not get the RPM tha= t I needed. After much testing and even changing CAMs, I discovered that the tubing connecting the upper and lower intake manifolds, was too soft a material and was colapsing when hot and the manifold pressure increased. = =0D =0D So what would happen is that after the engine warmed up real good and I lowered the RPM, the manifold pressure would go way up. This caused the connecting tubes to colapse and not allow enough air thru when the thrott= le was opened back up. I corrected this by inserting pieces of bronze P-Tra= p inside the tubes to keep them open.=0D =0D That crappy intake manifold cost me much more that a good one from Steve = and I am sure glad that this time I have a good engine maker backing me up.=0D =0D N64KR=0D =0D Daniel R. Heath - Columbia, SC=0D =0D DanRH@KR-Builder.org=0D =0D See you in Red Oak - 2003=0D =0D See our KR at http://KR-Builder.org - Click on the pic=0D See our EAA Chapter 242 at http://EAA242.org=0D =0D -------Original Message-------=0D =0D From: KRnet@mailinglists.org=0D Date: Thursday, February 20, 2003 07:07:46 PM=0D To: krnet@mailinglists.org=0D Subject: KR> RPM=0D =0D All,=0D Is this info correct? Somebody asked Robert S. Hoover this on the VW chat= =2E=0D In order to get good performance and max engine life from a VW in a plane= it needs to turn at least 3500 RPM at full throttle in level flight. 360= 0 RPM is better and 3700 is ok also. Cruise at 3150 to 3250 RPM....usuall= y static RPM will be approximately the same as cruise or around 3200 RPM.= If your particular application is substantially less than these numbers,= your manifold pressure is too high and your engine is not going to last = very long. Mr. Hoover, I welcome your comments on this one. Al --------------Boundary-00=_2MXNG6G0000000000000-- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 07:05:15 -0500 To: KRnet@mailinglists.org From: "Dana Overall" Subject: Re: KR> RPM Message-ID: If he is trying to make a point that RPMs are a direct indicator of manifold pressure, that is incorrect. Think about it, on a CS prop in gov. the prop setting dictates RPMs and the power setting dictates MP. A change in the power setting either loads or relies the prop load to maintain the RPMs while maintaining the set MP. Only in level flight, and at whatever altitude lowers the BP to match the max MP on a given day will RPMs and MP respond proportionatly. You'd have a hard time finding that altitude on a given day in a KR. Am I incorrect that really the only weak spot in a well inspected case is that thin wall behind #3 that Steve calls for a plate to be welded over? With a VW, just get used to adjusting valves and go with the Force 1 prop hub. Dana Overall Richmond, KY http://rvflying.tripod.com do not archive >He seems to be making two points, one about the RPM you should turn and, >two > about the manifold pressure you should have. I never measured my >manifold >pressure, but maybe RPM is a direct indicator of manifold pressure. > _________________________________________________________________ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 08:13:09 -0500 To: KRnet@mailinglists.org From: "Dana Overall" Subject: Re: KR> RPM Message-ID: Dan, I guess I'm agreeing and disagreeing with the RPM concept put forward, not by your post. The use of RPMs is a very poor indicator of the power being put out by an engine. I am a firm believer that the use a manifold pressure gauge on a fixed pitch propped airplane is the gauge to use. I hear so many people say, "I'm not getting full power out of my airplane",or "My engine is really carnking along". These comments are proceeded with a RPM number. The first guy is hauling a prop around with too much pitch but if he had a MP gauge he would see at 8000 feet the engine is delivering 75% power. The other guy red lines the tach at 8000 but say the MP guage is only indicating 65% power. RPMs are just a very weak determination of the power your engine is putting out, which is the number you want to know. With any given fixed pitch prop, a MP guage will tell you exactly the power your engine is delivering. Without the use of a MP guage, at any given altitude, your MP could be anywhere from 0-3" different at any given RPM setting. It's cheap engine insurance to put a MP gauge in your panel and fly by it in ascent, descent and cruise. In the pattern, fly whatever numbers you need to keep the airplane in it's landing envelope. These things aren't just for constant speed prop airplanes. The tirade may be so far off base of what the poster was actually wanting................... Dana Overall 1999 & 2000 National KR Gathering host. Richmond, KY http://rvflying.tripod.com do not archive _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 18:13:30 -0800 (Pacific Standard Time) To: From: "Dan Heath" Subject: Re: KR> RPM Message-Id: <3E56DCCA.000007.01124@dan> --------------Boundary-00=_I6UOWCW0000000000000 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dana,=0D =0D What indicates 100%, 75%..... on the MP?=0D =0D N64KR=0D =0D Daniel R. Heath - Columbia, SC=0D =0D DanRH@KR-Builder.org=0D =0D See you in Red Oak - 2003=0D =0D See our KR at http://KR-Builder.org - Click on the pic=0D See our EAA Chapter 242 at http://EAA242.org=0D =0D -------Original Message-------=0D =0D From: KRnet@mailinglists.org=0D Date: Friday, February 21, 2003 05:13:18 AM=0D To: KRnet@mailinglists.org=0D Subject: Re: KR> RPM=0D =0D Dan, I guess I'm agreeing and disagreeing with the RPM concept put forwar= d, =0D not by your post.=0D =0D The use of RPMs is a very poor indicator of the power being put out by an= =0D engine. I am a firm believer that the use a manifold pressure gauge on a = =0D fixed pitch propped airplane is the gauge to use. I hear so many people =0D say, "I'm not getting full power out of my airplane",or "My engine is rea= lly =0D carnking along". These comments are proceeded with a RPM number. The firs= t =0D guy is hauling a prop around with too much pitch but if he had a MP gauge= he =0D would see at 8000 feet the engine is delivering 75% power. The other guy = =0D red lines the tach at 8000 but say the MP guage is only indicating 65% =0D power. RPMs are just a very weak determination of the power your engine i= s =0D putting out, which is the number you want to know.=0D =0D With any given fixed pitch prop, a MP guage will tell you exactly the pow= er =0D your engine is delivering. Without the use of a MP guage, at any given =0D altitude, your MP could be anywhere from 0-3" different at any given RPM = =0D setting. It's cheap engine insurance to put a MP gauge in your panel and = =0D fly by it in ascent, descent and cruise. In the pattern, fly whatever =0D numbers you need to keep the airplane in it's landing envelope. These =0D things aren't just for constant speed prop airplanes.=0D =0D The tirade may be so far off base of what the poster was actually =0D wanting...................=0D =0D =0D =0D Dana Overall=0D 1999 & 2000 National KR Gathering host.=0D Richmond, KY=0D http://rvflying.tripod.com=0D do not archive=0D =0D =0D =0D =0D =0D =0D =0D _________________________________________________________________=0D The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* =0D http://join.msn.com/?page=3Dfeatures/junkmail=0D =0D =0D ---------------------------------------------------------------------=0D To post to the list, email: krnet@mailinglists.org , NOT "reply all"=0D =0D To UNsubscribe, e-mail: krnet-unsubscribe@mailinglists.org =0D For additional commands, e-mail: krnet-help@mailinglists.org=0D =0D See the KRNet archives at http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp=0D or http://www.bouyea.net/ for the Word files=0D =0D =2E=20 --------------Boundary-00=_I6UOWCW0000000000000-- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 22:40:14 -0600 To: "kr net" From: "JIM VANCE" Subject: Cowling thickness Message-ID: <003c01c2d963$6910e5e0$0800a8c0@oemcomputer> ------=_NextPart_000_0039_01C2D931.08B99480 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I made my cowling with three plies of BID. It measures 0.038" to 0.040" = (~1.0 mm) thick. Is this about right? I am planning to build up the = edges to about 0.20", plus some reinforcing ribs to help maintain shape. = Am I in the right ballpark? My 1978 KR plans says "Build the cowling", = and little more, so I'm kind of flying blind. Thanks in advance for your help. Jim Vance Vance@ClaflinWildcats.com ------=_NextPart_000_0039_01C2D931.08B99480-- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 07:52:32 -0600 To: KRnet@mailinglists.org From: larry flesner Subject: Re: KR> Cowling thickness Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20030221075232.007b8310@pop.midwest.net> I made my cowling with three plies of BID. It measures 0.038" to 0.040" (~1.0 mm) thick. Is this about right? I am planning to build up the edges to about 0.20", plus some reinforcing ribs to help maintain shape. Jim Vance ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++= Jim, I doubt that you are going to get an answer of thickness in thousands of an inch for thickness. Number of layers, maybe. I purchased my 0-200 cowl from Dan Diehl and it is of the "blown glass" construction so I can't be of much help. Three layers though doesn't sound like much to me unless it is foam backed or sandwiched. I suspect you can best judge your efforts yourself when handling the cowl. How flexable is it? Does it hold it's shape? And the final test after it is fitted and mounted is to grasp the cowl at the air inlet holes and attempt to jerk it off the KR ! Yes, I mean actually try to rip it off the airplane. You could wait and test it later with air loads at 150 /200 mph but I prefer to know ahead of time. I can actually get my "pig" to bouncing and move it sideways on the garage floor and see zero movement in the cowl. Once the cowl halfs are mounted to the aircraft they become incredably strong, like an egg shell. Larry Flesner ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 09:27:47 -0500 To: KRnet@mailinglists.org From: Kenneth L Wiltrout Subject: Re: KR> Cowling thickness Message-ID: <20030221.092747.2280.1.klw1953@juno.com> My RR cowling is on the floor right now as I'm setting valves etc. The thickness appears to be 3/32 uniformly. On Fri, 21 Feb 2003 07:52:32 -0600 larry flesner writes: > > I made my cowling with three plies of BID. It measures 0.038" to > 0.040" > (~1.0 mm) thick. Is this about right? I am planning to build up > the edges > to about 0.20", plus some reinforcing ribs to help maintain shape. > Jim Vance > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++= > > Jim, > > I doubt that you are going to get an answer of thickness in > thousands of an > inch > for thickness. Number of layers, maybe. I purchased my 0-200 cowl > from > Dan Diehl and it is of the "blown glass" construction so I can't be > of much > help. > Three layers though doesn't sound like much to me unless it is foam > backed > or sandwiched. I suspect you can best judge your efforts yourself > when > handling the cowl. How flexable is it? Does it hold it's shape? And > the > final test > after it is fitted and mounted is to grasp the cowl at the air inlet > holes > and > attempt to jerk it off the KR ! Yes, I mean actually try to rip it > off the > airplane. > You could wait and test it later with air loads at 150 /200 mph but > I prefer > to know ahead of time. I can actually get my "pig" to bouncing and > move > it sideways on the garage floor and see zero movement in the cowl. > Once > the cowl halfs are mounted to the aircraft they become incredably > strong, > like an egg shell. > > Larry Flesner > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To post to the list, email: krnet@mailinglists.org , NOT "reply > all" > > To UNsubscribe, e-mail: krnet-unsubscribe@mailinglists.org > For additional commands, e-mail: krnet-help@mailinglists.org > > See the KRNet archives at http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp > or http://www.bouyea.net/ for the Word files > > > ________________________________________________________________ Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 23:44:08 -0600 To: From: "Justin" Subject: Fuselage KR2S wider than KR2? Message-ID: <000a01c2d96c$40dcc220$ed7ba8c0@computer> ------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C2D939.F62B6EC0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In my builders manual I have an hand written and stamped stating=20 " RR: Jeanette Expand cockpit measurments +1 1/8 top + 1 1/2 Bottom" Is this something that was done over the phone or is this something of = the KR2S models? I looked at the 3View drawing the S and it shows a = cockpit width at top longeron 38"=20 Alittle off subject but is there any problem with the process fo = making the fuselage wider blank out the tail ever? Someone from ym EAA = was telling me about his tailwind that he made 2" wider which blanked = out the tail on landing. Justin ------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C2D939.F62B6EC0-- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 00:10:48 -0600 To: From: "Justin" Subject: Dragonfly Canopy Message-ID: <000b01c2d96f$faa80db0$ed7ba8c0@computer> ------=_NextPart_000_0008_01C2D93D.AFF533B0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I was just thinking about the dragonfly canopy I plan to use. It is = 42.5" wide,so I read. How does this fit onto a fuselage that is 38" I = dont have my plans infront of me but how wide does it have to be to fit? = I plotted the sides out to be 1 1/8" wider TOP and 1 1/2" wider at = bottom as instructed by RR for the S model. Does the canopy flew to fit = or whats the secret.=20 Just wanting to make sure this will fit before any glueing is done. = I'll continue to work on the tail until I get responce. Justin=20 ------=_NextPart_000_0008_01C2D93D.AFF533B0-- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 09:15:34 -0800 (PST) To: KRnet@mailinglists.org From: Frank Ross Subject: Re: KR> Dragonfly Canopy Message-ID: <20030221171534.44827.qmail@web40904.mail.yahoo.com> Justin, I'm sorry to say I passed up a GREAT deal on a Dragonfly canopy a few years ago for exactly the reason you mention. I thought it was too wide for my standard-width KR. It's not. Later, I found out that DF canopys are wider and most are just bowed-in at the bottom, sort of like a F-16, and/or adjusted and trimmed to fit. You will have to make your own frame, but it is worth it. Please read Mark Langford's section on making his canopy. Also scroll through some of the other builders listed in his web site for more ideas on using the DF canopy. Frank Ross in San Antonio, TX --- Justin wrote: > I was just thinking about the dragonfly canopy I > plan to use. It is 42.5" wide,so I read. How does > this fit onto a fuselage that is 38" I dont have my > plans infront of me but how wide does it have to be > to fit? I plotted the sides out to be 1 1/8" wider > TOP and 1 1/2" wider at bottom as instructed by RR > for the S model. Does the canopy flew to fit or > whats the secret. > > Just wanting to make sure this will fit before > any glueing is done. I'll continue to work on the > tail until I get responce. > > Justin > __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more http://taxes.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 09:29:32 -0800 (PST) To: KRnet@mailinglists.org From: Frank Ross Subject: Re: KR> Dragonfly Canopy Message-ID: <20030221172932.54893.qmail@web40909.mail.yahoo.com> One other thing, the KR-2S canopy can be used but you'll have to make your own frame. This is a topic that is VERY well represented in past krnet posts and you should look back in the digest at: http://www.escribe.com/aviation/krnet/ to review those comments. FR in SA TX __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more http://taxes.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 19:20:25 -0800 (Pacific Standard Time) To: From: "Dan Heath" Subject: Re: KR> Re: KR2S SPORT AVIATION Message-Id: <3E56EC79.000001.01124@dan> --------------Boundary-00=_1AXOQL80000000000000 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Very nice looking plane. Thanks for pointing it out. I should spend mor= e time reading my Sport Aviation.=0D =0D N64KR=0D =0D Daniel R. Heath - Columbia, SC=0D =0D DanRH@KR-Builder.org=0D =0D See you in Red Oak - 2003=0D =0D See our KR at http://KR-Builder.org - Click on the pic=0D See our EAA Chapter 242 at http://EAA242.org=0D =0D -------Original Message-------=0D =0D From: KRnet@mailinglists.org=0D Date: Tuesday, February 18, 2003 12:10:55 PM=0D To: molan; KRnet@mailinglists.org=0D Subject: KR> Re: KR2S SPORT AVIATION=0D =0D > =0D > Hello Folks,=0D > The Brazilian KR2S featured in Sport Aviation JAN/2003 is mine ! I just= =0D > receive the magazine yesterday FEB 17.=0D > molan@terra.com.br=0D > =0D > =0D =0D =0D =0D ---------------------------------------------------------------------=0D To post to the list, email: krnet@mailinglists.org , NOT "reply all"=0D =0D To UNsubscribe, e-mail: krnet-unsubscribe@mailinglists.org =0D For additional commands, e-mail: krnet-help@mailinglists.org=0D =0D See the KRNet archives at http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp=0D or http://www.bouyea.net/ for the Word files=0D =0D =2E=20 --------------Boundary-00=_1AXOQL80000000000000-- ------------------------------ End of krnet Digest ***********************************