From: krnet-bounces@mylist.net on behalf of krnet-request@mylist.net Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2003 12:00 PM To: krnet@mylist.net Subject: KRnet Digest, Vol 256, Issue 1 Send KRnet mailing list submissions to krnet@mylist.net To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://mylist.net/listinfo/krnet or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to krnet-request@mylist.net You can reach the person managing the list at krnet-owner@mylist.net When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of KRnet digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: Why trailer a KR? (Rick Wilson) 2. RE: Aircraft Parts and substitutions. (Ron Freiberger) 3. RE: Switch Ratings (Ron Freiberger) 4. RE: I've learned a lot! (Ron Freiberger) 5. RE: Why trailer a KR? (Ron Freiberger) 6. Switch Ratings (Martindale Family) 7. Re: airfoil design (RICHARD G ALPS) 8. Re: airfoil design (Dana Overall) 9. New Airfoil (Colin & Bev Rainey) 10. Re: airfoil design (Bob Stone) 11. Aerocarb Engine Test (Mark Jones) 12. Re: Aerocarb Engine Test (Leigh Plymale) 13. Re: Aerocarb Engine Test (Mark Jones) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2003 12:08:47 -0800 (PST) From: Rick Wilson To: tbsr@arctic.net, KRnet Subject: Re: KR>Why trailer a KR? Message-ID: <20031220200847.62485.qmail@web21208.mail.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <3FE4A9B0.B573BC2F@arctic.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii MIME-Version: 1.0 Precedence: list Message: 1 Thomas, One reason that comes to mind is simply to get the plane and your car or truck back home at the same time. Another reason is so that the pilot can familiarize himself with the airplane by flying short trips around the area he knows at his home base. If there happens to be a bug or two that needs taking care of, it would be easier to do at home. Rick Wilson. --- Thomas Brock wrote: > I hope this is not too naive a question, but here > goes: > > In my research, it seems that some very experienced > pilots > have bought their FLYING KR airplanes and trailered > them to > their home locations. Why would anyone want to > disassemble the > wings, buy a trailer, and drive the airplane back > home? Am I > missing something here? I can see if someone is > buying an > incomplete project plane, but a perfectly flying and operating > KR? > > What gives here? > > In addition, you probably already know that there > are some > "silent" folks who are newbies that are learning > lots from > your explanations. I did not know this until people > started > contacting me and sharing their delight in my > questions. So, > please know that you are helping other people as > well, whom > you might not hear from. I will express their thanks > also. > > Thomas > > > _______________________________________________ > see KRnet list details at http://www.krnet.org/instructions.html ===== Rick Wilson, Haleyville, Alabama KR2-0200A -99% rwdw2002@yahoo.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing. http://photos.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2003 17:12:54 -0500 From: "Ron Freiberger" To: "KRnet" Subject: RE: KR>Aircraft Parts and substitutions. Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <010d01c3c6fd$a33d3970$5dcb4944@ROBBINS1> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: list Message: 2 Orma, in his well written dissertation, said; We have the right to install what ever we choose in our home builts. I'd like to expand on that one element. But, we don't have the right to expect the FAA to approve poor practice. The homebuilt movement is based on education and learning. New materials, well founded in the application, are appropriate. Building it too heavy to fly well is your prerogative. The FAA will approve an airplane that may not perform well. Building it unsafe (for others, especially the public) is not accepted, and may not be approved. The fact that an aircraft is flying does not imply that it will fly to the limits you'd like to expect. If you'd like to have a KR that meets the initial G loadings, be aware of the design criteria. Ron Freiberger mailto: r.freiberger at earthlink.net r dot freiberger.... get it? -----Original Message----- From: krnet-bounces+r.freiberger=earthlink.net@mylist.net [mailto:krnet-bounces+r.freiberger=earthlink.net@mylist.net]On Behalf Of Orma Robbins Sent: Saturday, December 20, 2003 8:32 AM To: KRnet Subject: KR>Aircraft Parts Seasons Greatings to all Netters, and may your favorite Santa be kind to each of us and leave a GPS or other Aircraft goodie under our trees. With all the discussion of switches and ratings and such, I offer this reminder. We have the right to install what ever we choose in our home builts, but we must constantly tell ourselves that we are building aircraft and having an operational failures usually occures when we are in the air, which is unacceptable. I have found that it is easier to buy the correct type of part if we stick with aviation supply houses. Even then you must investigate to make sure that the part you want to use is designed for that purpose. I have seen KR with all sorts of non aviation items. In building my KR 19 years ago, even I violated good practice. And today occasionally I find that I must upgrade a part or component in the name of safety and reliability. Orma aka AviationMech 19 Years flying the KR-2 36 Years in Aviation AP/IA _______________________________________________ see KRnet list details at http://www.krnet.org/instructions.html ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2003 17:17:10 -0500 From: "Ron Freiberger" To: "KRnet" Subject: RE: KR>Switch Ratings Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <004101c3c6cf$0e73b5e0$75a0fea9@johnjane> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: list Message: 3 Martindale said; curious about what is causing my 1/2 volt drop across the switches... maybe they are arcing internally and building up a resistance or maybe they're just dirty...either way as Jim suggests, they're headed for the bin. Preindication of failure, either in the switch or connections leading to the switch. The bin is right. I don't follow Aussie slang, but read the as "dustbin" aka trash bin. ;o) Ron Freiberger mailto: r.freiberger at earthlink.net r dot freiberger.... get it? ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2003 17:36:27 -0500 From: "Ron Freiberger" To: , "KRnet" Subject: RE: KR>I've learned a lot! Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <3FE4A7E3.31AF9149@arctic.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: list Message: 4 You say you want to learn to fly. You'll be learning for years, but flying in a hostile weather environment (Alaska) can make you learn some of it real fast. Choose a docile, stable airplane that you can learn in safely. If you can't read between the lines that a lot of people have tried to write for you, then here it is; A KR is NOT AN APPROPRIATE choice for the mission you describe. As you fly and learn, your needs and wants will change many times. If you haven't gotten the message, you may be a slow learner. Ron Freiberger mailto: r.freiberger at earthlink.net r dot freiberger.... get it? -----Original Message----- From: krnet-bounces@mylist.net [mailto:krnet-bounces@mylist.net]On Behalf Of Thomas Brock Sent: Saturday, December 20, 2003 2:50 PM To: KRnet Subject: KR>I've learned a lot! Thanks to all of you veteran flyers and KR owners. I have a much better picture of what is needed for my location. Thanks to you, I was able to contact Bob Jennings in Anchorage, Alaska. Not only do I have his e-mail, but I spoke with him on the phone. I think he has agreed to "adopt" me as a future flyer. After speaking with Bob, I've learned that there are other KR planes in Alaska. I will see if I can locate these owners. Bob is amazing! He has quite a history as a pilot. In addition, his family has spent many years in the region where I live. He is very familiar with the weather, airports, and conditions in this part of the state. I keep you posted on my progress. Anyway, here's what I think is needed for me: 1. A tricycle gear 2. Largest engine I can find 2100 D, Corvair, or similar 3. Dual control, with throttle location in the middle of dash 4. A KR that is widened 5. A KR that will actually carry a flight instructor and a student pilot 6. A KR that has lights for night time VFR flying Bob also told me that Alaska recommends survival gear be carried. If I remember what he said correctly, it was that the survival gear would probably use most of the baggage area. Given the above requirements, do any of you know if such a KR aircraft exists? If not, could one be built that would meet these requirements? Am I still in the ball park as far as being able to realistically buy a KR? Again, I do not want a utility aircraft, but a fast flyer to use for cross country trips to improved airports. On, I forgot to mention in all of my previous posts, that our little town is basically built around our airport. We are a "hub" village and so feed other airstrips. As such, we have a new 5000 foot runway with just about all the bells and whistles: lights, nav aids, IFR capability, etc. We land cargo jets and Hercules aircraft here. It has been paved for about 2 years now. Let me know what you think. I am answering all individual replies as fast as I can. Thanks for slowing down and dampening my wide eyed blindness to the realities of these aircraft. Merry Christmas, Thomas _______________________________________________ see KRnet list details at ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2003 17:45:14 -0500 From: "Ron Freiberger" To: , "KRnet" Subject: RE: KR>Why trailer a KR? Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <3FE4A9B0.B573BC2F@arctic.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: list Message: 5 Thomas Brock said; I can see if someone is buying an incomplete project plane, but a perfectly flying and operating 88888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888 Perfectly??? Now that is the question for every homebuilt. I bought one from a really swell guy, and I found out later that it used to quit on him EVERYTIME he flew it. I flew it home carefully, and after it was home, I flew it aggressively, and it QUIT. It only took a float level correction to fix it, but it made a point with me. Perfectly??? And at a very low price!!! Ron Freiberger mailto: r.freiberger at earthlink.net r dot freiberger.... get it? ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2003 21:55:29 +1100 From: "Martindale Family" To: "KRnet" Subject: KR>Switch Ratings Message-ID: <000a01c3c773$dbacb080$75a0fea9@johnjane> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: list Message: 6 > Hi Larry > > Yeh that's what I thought but something still niggles. > > 125VAC at 3 amps should be roughly equilvalent to 14VDC at 27 amps. I ought > be OK but somehow the latter seems excessive? > > 125VAC at 3 amps relates to 125VDC at only 0.375 amps by Jim's rule of > thumb, that is, voltage being equal, DC current rating is about 1/8 of > AC but it can vary depending on switch quality according to > Aeroelectrics. > > Aeroelectrics also says "in a nutshell, 125VAC ratings equate > favourably and > conservatively to 14VDC ratings -as long as the switch has a healthy > snap action"....the latter to minimise arcing time. > > ...and so I am relieved in some ways but still curious about what is causing > my 1/2 volt drop across the switches... maybe they are arcing > internally and > building up a resistance or maybe they're just dirty...either way as > Jim suggests, they're headed for the bin. > > > See Ya > > The Martindale Family > 29 Jane Circuit > TOORMINA NSW 2452 > AUSTRALIA > > phone: 61 2 66584767 > email: johnjane@chc.net.au ..............Watts are volts X amps. You are talking 375 watts (AC) vs 4+ watts (DC). > > You went the wrong way way with the 1/8...... > ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2003 23:27:03 -0700 From: "RICHARD G ALPS" To: "KRnet" Subject: Re: KR>airfoil design Message-ID: References: <8539000.1071930367305.JavaMail.root@bigbird.psp.pas.earthlink.net><004701c3c70a$92d8d4b0$1202a8c0@basement><3FE47B75.E1D730BA@earthlink.net> <0cf301c3c719$f974d840$1202a8c0@basement> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Precedence: list Message: 7 Mark wrote: ..I can't fathom why anybody would want to reengineer the KR wing when one of the world's sharpest wing specialists = has already designed one especially for this airplane, with reduced drag and increased speed one of the top priorities, while maintaining the docile stall characteristics of the stock RAF48. Just my opinion though... My reply is: "My thoughts exactly" Richard Alps, from the Denver area ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Mark Langford=20 To: KRnet=20 Sent: Saturday, December 20, 2003 9:54 AM Subject: Re: KR>airfoil design Lloyd Schultz wrote:I can't fathom why anybody would want to reengineer the KR wing when one of the world's sharpest wing = specialists has already designed one especially for this airplane, with reduced drag = and increased speed one of the top priorities, while maintaining the = docile stall characteristics of the stock RAF48. Just my opinion though... > of the most docile airplanes out there. I can't help thinking that = making a > "sweet"-flying wing is like baking a really good pastry...it's as = much a result > of the chef's ability as the vitals used. No? I knew somebody would make this point. The aircraft factories that = used this airfoil had a lot more expertise in taming aerodynamic problems = than the guy who asked the question. I get the impression that anybody = asking for airfoil advice probably isn't going to be a "chef" with a lot of ability. Now if he wants to learn all the tricks of the aero = engineering trade, he's welcome to do it. He asked for opinions, I gave mine. He = can do whatever he wants, but I can't fathom why anybody would want to reengineer the KR wing when one of the world's sharpest wing = specialists has already designed one especially for this airplane, with reduced drag = and increased speed one of the top priorities, while maintaining the = docile stall characteristics of the stock RAF48. Just my opinion though... Mark Langford, Huntsville, AL N56ML "at" hiwaay.net see KR2S project at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford _______________________________________________ see KRnet list details at http://www.krnet.org/instructions.html ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2003 07:13:01 -0500 From: "Dana Overall" To: krnet@mylist.net Subject: Re: KR>airfoil design Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed MIME-Version: 1.0 Precedence: list Message: 8 Another case in point about this airfoil. It may or may not apply to the KR but take it as just more information. When we first bought the Bonanza, of course we wanted to explore it's flight envelope. So, up we went one day and decided to try some stalls. Power came in, nose went up...up...up. Very, very suddenly we pitched down probably 70 degrees and rolled about 60 degrees.................Power off, prop full in, left rudder and pull it up. We both looked at each other wondering if the other had hit any flight controls. Nope. So, we got smart and pulled out the ol POH. Guess what, No Power on Stalls. This is a good fast, clean airfoil but it has an very bad bite. Until you experience this airfoil you don't know what a stall is. On final I stay very far away from stall, coming over the fence at 90. Take this a grain of salt or advice. You choose. Dana Overall 1999 & 2000 National KR Gathering host Richmond, KY RV-7 slider, Imron black, "Black Magic" Finish kit Buying Instruments. Hangar flying my Dynon. http://rvflying.tripod.com do not archive _________________________________________________________________ Make your home warm and cozy this winter with tips from MSN House & Home. http://special.msn.com/home/warmhome.armx ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2003 09:24:47 -0500 From: "Colin & Bev Rainey" To: Subject: KR>New Airfoil Message-ID: <001901c3c7ce$2fd38e90$f2452141@RaineyDay> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Precedence: list Message: 9 Netters, I am going to echo Dana's comments, but from other aircraft experience. = And as a side note, this has been the motivation for my comments to new = netters and low hour pilots in reference to buying and owning a KR. I = am a CFI with over 1000 hours and both taildragger and high performance = endorsements, single and multi-engine. I have flown 2 different = aircraft that are billed as being great performers, the Commander 114, = and the Mooney M20J. Both are very exciting to takeoff, as they great = acceleration and exciting level speeds. Like the KR the Mooney = accelerates in the flat very quickly to over 150KIAS, and you have to = plan ahead as the geography zips by very quickly! While transitioning = into this aircraft, and the Commander it is required that you be = familiar with the entire flight regime. Power off stalls in both = aircraft never really happen, except to produce very mushy controls, and = a suprisingly high rate of descent. This is alarming and uncomfortable = for the unknowing due to the fact that one who is unfamiliar could have = engine trouble and be attempting to extend their glide, not paying close = attention to airspeed, causing a much shorter emergency glide than = published. From the NTSB reports of KRs that I read from Mark = Langford's site, this same charcteristic is true of the KR. In = performing power on stalls, the higher horsepower allowed for a much = more severe pitch attitude, as in Dana's case, and consequently a very = dramatic pitch down followed by significant altitude loss, of 300-400 = feet! I attempted these stalls several times, even with restricted = power settings of less than full power, but with the same results. I = have read of several reports of the KR where pilots lost their engine on = takeoff or on approach, and did not manage their airspeed well resulting = in stalls low to the ground. Reports are that the KR is wonderful to = fly, and I can't wait. I have flown these others and can report that = they are a blast to fly, just respect their design. High performance = planes are not designed for the beginner to cut his teeth in, due to = their unforgiving nature when one makes mistakes. Owning one as a low = hour pilot means that you have to do everything by the book, don't = experiment where you are blind, and get additional training to enhance = your knowledge and skill, then begin to experiment in a very logical and = planned way. You will live longer and have more fun. Changing what is = already successful, unless you have the expertise and their desire to = spend years proving it, seems to be a waste to me. To quote William = Wynne from an article he wrote in the Experimenter Magazine, "...what = have you (the new designer, in this case you) discovered that all the = other aerodynamic engineers for the last 100 years have missed." Just = my opinion.... Oh one more thing, the FAA website has the Part 43 D ( I think D) = approved assembly and construction methods advisory circular free of = charge, for a builder to be able to download. It contains all the = approved methods of construction for metal, wood, and composites from = the FAA, for those who need a resource to consult while building, = especially if the KR manual is lacking details. Colin & Bev Rainey KR2(td) N96TA Sanford, FL crainey1@cfl.rr.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2003 10:05:09 -0600 From: "Bob Stone" To: "KRnet" Subject: Re: KR>airfoil design Message-ID: <000e01c3c7dc$35b20ea0$ba21f218@hot.rr.com> References: <8539000.1071930367305.JavaMail.root@bigbird.psp.pas.earthlink.net> <004701c3c70a$92d8d4b0$1202a8c0@basement> <3FE47B75.E1D730BA@earthlink.net> <0cf301c3c719$f974d840$1202a8c0@basement> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: list Message: 10 Gentelmen, I think that old saying is applicable here, "If it aint broke, don't fix it" Bob Stone, Harker Heights, Tx rstone4@hot.rr.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "RICHARD G ALPS" To: "KRnet" Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2003 12:27 AM Subject: Re: KR>airfoil design Mark wrote: ..I can't fathom why anybody would want to reengineer the KR wing when one of the world's sharpest wing specialists has already designed one especially for this airplane, with reduced drag and increased speed one of the top priorities, while maintaining the docile stall characteristics of the stock RAF48. Just my opinion though... My reply is: "My thoughts exactly" Richard Alps, from the Denver area ----- Original Message ----- From: Mark Langford To: KRnet Sent: Saturday, December 20, 2003 9:54 AM Subject: Re: KR>airfoil design Lloyd Schultz wrote:I can't fathom why anybody would want to reengineer the KR wing when one of the world's sharpest wing specialists has already designed one especially for this airplane, with reduced drag and increased speed one of the top priorities, while maintaining the docile stall characteristics of the stock RAF48. Just my opinion though... > of the most docile airplanes out there. I can't help thinking that making a > "sweet"-flying wing is like baking a really good pastry...it's as much a result > of the chef's ability as the vitals used. No? I knew somebody would make this point. The aircraft factories that used this airfoil had a lot more expertise in taming aerodynamic problems than the guy who asked the question. I get the impression that anybody asking for airfoil advice probably isn't going to be a "chef" with a lot of ability. Now if he wants to learn all the tricks of the aero engineering trade, he's welcome to do it. He asked for opinions, I gave mine. He can do whatever he wants, but I can't fathom why anybody would want to reengineer the KR wing when one of the world's sharpest wing specialists has already designed one especially for this airplane, with reduced drag and increased speed one of the top priorities, while maintaining the docile stall characteristics of the stock RAF48. Just my opinion though... Mark Langford, Huntsville, AL N56ML "at" hiwaay.net see KR2S project at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford _______________________________________________ see KRnet list details at http://www.krnet.org/instructions.html _______________________________________________ see KRnet list details at http://www.krnet.org/instructions.html ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2003 12:33:22 -0600 From: "Mark Jones" To: "KR Net" , "Corvaircraft" Subject: KR>Aerocarb Engine Test Message-ID: <000a01c3c7f0$ea656d60$6401a8c0@wi.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Precedence: list Message: 11 Today the temps here reached 40=B0 so I decided to do some engine = testing with a full cowling on the plane. After about two hours of = testing, I determined the following about the Aerocarb. If you remember, = I had installed a pressure regulator between my stock mechanical fuel = pump and the Aerocarb. Today with a very cold engine and using no = primer, the engine started right up. I had the regulator set to 1/2 psi = and was getting hiccups in the engine. I shut the engine down and = changed the pressure to 1 psi. Well, I still got hiccups and actually = had the engine stop running as if it were flooding. I simply was not = able to get a continuous smooth running engine using the pressure = regulator and stock fuel pump. Previously, I had run this set up with = good results. Next, I removed the fuel line to the stock fuel pump and = regulator and placed a gas can on top of my forward deck and ran a fuel = line directly to the Aerocarb for gravity flow. Started the engine and = had absolutely no hiccups at any rpm or mixture setting. I have = determined the mechanical pump to the regulator to the Aerocarb is an = accident waiting to happen. I will not fly that set up. What I will do = is install a small header tank connected to the mechanical fuel pump = with return lines to my wing tanks and a gravity line to the Aerocarb. I = had told a friend of mine down in Alabama that my fuselage was 99% = airworthy an that I only needed to complete the outboard wings. Well, = this will add a little more building time but it will be a safe fuel = arrangement. And I still have set my goal to fly this plane this = summer. Oh yea, with the cowl installed and the engine baffles I have, = the CHT stayed at 280=B0. Mark Jones (N886MJ) Wales, WI USA=20 E-mail me at flykr2s@wi.rr.com Visit my KR-2S CorvAIRCRAFT web site at =20 http://mywebpage.netscape.com/n886mj/homepage.html ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2003 14:15:21 -0500 From: "Leigh Plymale" To: "KRnet" Subject: Re: KR>Aerocarb Engine Test Message-ID: <007701c3c7f6$c8de4d00$67251443@chvlva.adelphia.net> References: <000a01c3c7f0$ea656d60$6401a8c0@wi.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Precedence: list Message: 12 Mark, I also have purchased a Corvair engine for my plane, and as of yet have not settled on carboration. Have you done a pitch up test with the fuel at the lowest level of the header tank? I think this would be appropriate to determine performance during a nose high landing. Also keep us posted on the performance of this carb. All I can say is that there seems to be a lot of trouble getting the right setup. Leigh Plymale flyboy232@adelphia.net ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark Jones" To: "KR Net" ; "Corvaircraft" Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2003 1:33 PM Subject: KR>Aerocarb Engine Test Today the temps here reached 40° so I decided to do some engine testing with a full cowling on the plane. After about two hours of testing, I determined the following about the Aerocarb. If you remember, I had installed a pressure regulator between my stock mechanical fuel pump and the Aerocarb. Today with a very cold engine and using no primer, the engine started right up. I had the regulator set to 1/2 psi and was getting hiccups in the engine. I shut the engine down and changed the pressure to 1 psi. Well, I still got hiccups and actually had the engine stop running as if it were flooding. I simply was not able to get a continuous smooth running engine using the pressure regulator and stock fuel pump. Previously, I had run this set up with good results. Next, I removed the fuel line to the stock fuel pump and regulator and placed a gas can on top of my forward deck and ran a fuel line directly to the Aerocarb for gravity flow. Started the engine and had absolutely no hiccups at any rpm or mixture setting. I have determined the mechanical pump to the regulator to the Aerocarb is an accident waiting to happen. I will not fly that set up. What I will do is install a small header tank connected to the mechanical fuel pump with return lines to my wing tanks and a gravity line to the Aerocarb. I had told a friend of mine down in Alabama that my fuselage was 99% airworthy an that I only needed to complete the outboard wings. Well, this will add a little more building time but it will be a safe fuel arrangement. And I still have set my goal to fly this plane this summer. Oh yea, with the cowl installed and the engine baffles I have, the CHT stayed at 280°. Mark Jones (N886MJ) Wales, WI USA E-mail me at flykr2s@wi.rr.com Visit my KR-2S CorvAIRCRAFT web site at http://mywebpage.netscape.com/n886mj/homepage.html _______________________________________________ see KRnet list details at http://www.krnet.org/instructions.html ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2003 13:42:44 -0600 From: "Mark Jones" To: "KRnet" Subject: Re: KR>Aerocarb Engine Test Message-ID: <001901c3c7fa$9a934500$6401a8c0@wi.rr.com> References: <000a01c3c7f0$ea656d60$6401a8c0@wi.rr.com> <007701c3c7f6$c8de4d00$67251443@chvlva.adelphia.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: list Message: 13 Actually, in a gravity flow situation, I have had no problems running my engine. Besides, the Aerocarb is a gravity flow carb. I was trying to run without gravity (under pressure). I have held the tail to the ground, which is a fairly high pitch and she ran fine. Mark Jones (N886MJ) Wales, WI USA E-mail me at flykr2s@wi.rr.com Visit my KR-2S CorvAIRCRAFT web site at http://mywebpage.netscape.com/n886mj/homepage.html ----- Original Message ----- From: "Leigh Plymale" I think this would be appropriate to > determine performance during a nose high landing. Also keep us posted > on the > performance of this carb. All I can say is that there seems to be a > lot of trouble getting the right setup. ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ See KRnet list details at http://www.krnet.org/instructions.html End of KRnet Digest, Vol 256, Issue 1 *************************************