From: krnet-bounces+johnbou=speakeasy.net@mylist.net To: John Bouyea Subject: KRnet Digest, Vol 338, Issue 1 Date: 3/12/2004 8:53:09 AM 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: keeping it light (joe) 2. Re: keeping it light (Mark Langford) 3. Wainfan article (Mark Langford) 4. Re: Wainfan article (larry severson) 5. WINGS (Ray Fuenzalida) 6. pitch changes with wing tanks is this a problem? 7. SAA Fly-In (larry flesner) 8. Re: SAA Fly-In (Don Woodyatt) 9. Re: keeping it light (Steve and Lori McGee) 10. Re: pitch changes with wing tanks is this a problem? (Brian Kraut) 11. EMI issues (Steve and Lori McGee) 12. Re: keeping it light (Dan Heath) 13. KR-2 seats (Graham & Ruth Strout) 14. WINGS (larry flesner) 15. Wainfan article (larry flesner) 16. Re: KR-2 seats (Bob Stone) 17. Re: KR-2 seats (Mark Langford) 18. Re: pitch changes with wing tanks is this a problem? 19. Re: EMI issues (Ron Eason) 20. Re: KR-2 seats (Ron Eason) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 12:31:15 -0800 From: "joe" To: "KRnet" Subject: Re: KR>keeping it light Message-ID: <002101c407a7$cd35bb40$0a0110ac@o7p4e3> References: <008601c40765$addd7680$5e0ca58c@tbe.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: list Message: 1 Mark, You gave me so many original ideas at one time I think I'm going on overload. However, I see the advantages of each one and am now modifying my plans to reflect just about all of them. The engine is going to cost. Can you tell me your useful load capability. Thanks Joe Ps. Noticed roll bars, but no BRS? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark Langford" To: Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2004 4:37 AM Subject: KR>keeping it light > I was looking through the archives for something else when I stumbled across > this message that I sent July 28th, 2002, and I think it's good enough > to post again... > > KRnetHeads, > > The subject of "keeping it light" is a recurring theme on this list, > and it > certainly has its merits. Building it light allows you to yank and > bank and > generally cut it up in the sky, and to land slowly and climb quickly. There > are those that liken it to a fighter plane or a small sports car, and that's > great if that's what you want. I'm a sports car fan too, but I have to > admit that they'll usually wear you out on long trips. Fortunately, > technology is allowing small cars (like my GTI) to run like a rocket, handle > well, AND track straight down the road with minimal effort, so you CAN have > the best of both worlds, with a little careful thinking. So let me present > the heavier side of the subject. > > Like Don Ried said, doing the wingskin with a layer of glass on the > inside and two on the outside yields a skin that won't delaminate and > flop around in the breeze. Troy tells me that he was happy that he > had to build new wings because his top wing skins had detached from > the foam and they would balloon upwards during flight. This is on a > carefully constructed plane less than ten years old that is always > hangared! So the choice is build it > light, or rebuild it often! Personally, two layers on the outside and > one on the inside is exactly what I did too, and I'm quite happy with > it so far. > My wings have been stashed in every corner of the basement, and don't > have a > scratch on them yet. > > My Corvair engine is probably going to weigh about 60 pounds more than > a typical VW Type 1 engine, but it will also put out almost twice the > power! Adding 50 pounds to double my power to weight ratio is a > worthwhile trade, to me. We've heard testimonials from pilots that > adding a 180 pound passenger cuts maybe 5 mph from top speed, although > I'm sure it impacts climb rate and landing speed more significantly. > With 135 hp engine, I don't think I'm going to have a problem with > climb rate. And I get the peace of mind of knowing that my crank > isn't going to break, my case isn't going to wear out, and if one of > the six cylinders goes dead I probably won't even notice! > > I put an electrical system and a starter on mine, mainly because I > don't want to be one of those guys who shows up on the news explaining > how my plane got away and tore up several hundred thousand dollars > worth of other airplanes, or is expected to crash in Kansas when it > runs out of fuel. > > Another side "benefit" of my heavy plane is that the wing loading will > be higher, making it less susceptible to bouncing around in light > turbulence, yielding a smoother ride at higher speeds. I've also > added a few inches to > (and pounds) to my horizontal stabilizer and fuselage length. The improved > stability will be worth it, in my book, by making long trips less tiresome, > and reading maps less hazardous. On the other hand, you won't catch > me doing any wild aerobatics either, but that's not why I'm building a > KR. > > Right now I'm in the middle of adding "useless" NACA ducts to the > bottom of > the fuselage right behind the cowling. What this "dead weight" will > do for > me is smooth the flow of engine exhaust and cooling air back into the > airstream, making my plane more efficient and faster. Do I need that > that weight? Nope, but I think it's a good tradeoff. > > Both my canopy and aft deck have roll bars built in to provide > protection during a rollover. It's extra weight, but I feel better > having it there. > > My big split flaps will probably cost me 8 or 10 pounds, but they will also > allow me to land my "heavy" 700 pound plane at a slower speed than a > plans-built plane could. This is important to me so I can land at my > father's farm on his very smooth 3600 foot sod strip, or allow a > slower touchdown in the event of an off-field landing. > > I widened mine a few inches, and that will cost me a pound or two, > but now > I can carry a passenger in comfort for long distances. > > I have nav lights, landing lights, and strobes, so I can operate at > night if I want to, and to be more visible to others during the day. > It's just a > safety thing, and I like it that way. I have a transponder so I can operate > in places where I couldn't if I didn't have one. > > I made my forward and aft decks completely removable. In five minutes > I can > have the entire top of the airplane GONE, totally open for inspection > and maintenance. I think I'm going to like that a lot, later on. > > I didn't like fuel in the cockpit, or the way the CG goes aft as it > burns off from a header tank, so I built wing tanks instead. Two wing > tanks weigh > more than one header tank, but I'm happy with the improved fire safety > and the fact that my CG will barely move from full fuel to fumes. And > wing tanks built in the outer wings take the load off the wing attach > fittings, another bonus. > > I have an electric fuel pump as well as a mechanical one. I like the > dependability of a carburetor with a float bowl that runs on a finite > fuel pressure setting, rather than depending on something as fickle as > ambient pressure and gravity. When fuel pressure depends on head > pressure, a small > change in attitude can make a large difference in flow and mixture. > But those pumps cost me a couple of pounds. > > I added Oil*te bushings to my tail hinges, so they'll last much longer than > the steel-on-aluminum design shown in the plans. But that's going to > cost me another few grams. > > I could go on, but I'm sure you get the picture. Like almost > everything else in life, building a KR is a compromise. You decide > which ones to make, > but it doesn't mean that others are building theirs wrong, since they > are not "per plans" and tip the scales a little higher. > > I'm building a personal "time-machine" that will allow me to go long > distances quickly. I want it to last a long time and require little > maintenance, so I can get on with my next project. You're welcome to build > yours to fit your needs as well... > > Mark Langford, Huntsville, Alabama > mailto:N56ML "at" hiwaay.net > see KR2S N56ML at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford > > > > > _______________________________________ > to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to KRnet-leave@mylist.net > please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 15:06:18 -0600 From: "Mark Langford" To: "KRnet" Subject: Re: KR>keeping it light Message-ID: <004201c407ac$b2be45c0$2502a8c0@800Athlon> References: <008601c40765$addd7680$5e0ca58c@tbe.com> <002101c407a7$cd35bb40$0a0110ac@o7p4e3> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: list Message: 2 Joe wrote: > Can you tell me your useful load capability. My plane is going to weigh in at about 720 pounds. It'll hold almost 120 pounds of fuel, and if you put two "standard" 180 pound adults in it, that'd make it a nice round 1200 pounds, which is what I'm going to set my gross weight at. Since I'm sure that's the next question, my spars are stronger than most (a long story), but there are folks flying with stock spars with a higher gross than that. I only weigh 150, and my wife even less, so that leaves plenty for baggage, if there's space. Mark Langford, Huntsville, AL N56ML "at" hiwaay.net see KR2S project at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 15:38:16 -0600 From: "Mark Langford" To: "KRNet" Subject: KR>Wainfan article Message-ID: <11fd01c407b1$29d55870$2502a8c0@800Athlon> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: list Message: 3 NetHeads, I finally got around to reading the February 2004 issue of Kitplanes, and stumbled across Barnaby Wainfan's Wind Tunnel column, "CAUTION! Modifications Ahead". This article is a result of his conversation with Justin, as I recall. His exact words to KRnet were "I was speaking with Barnaby Warfan (incorrect spelling) about the new airfoil today. He did alot of articles about the KR back in the 70's and he isn't for this airfoil very much, but he also stated he didnt know much about it." I should be honored, I guess, to have been mentioned in the resulting article (although not by name), and I'm a little surprised that nobody's brought it up. You guys should read it (part of it's at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford/barnaby.gif ), and I agree with just about every word of it. One thing I'd like to point out though is that I've never said the new airfoil will make your KR more stable, merely that Troy says his is now more stable than before, and I always caveat it with "but he also changed the horizontal stab and elevator at the same time". Anybody that thinks I've misrepresented this is free to let me know, but I don't think I have. Also, in the case of the KR, I still think that "slightly" increased drag at very high angles of attack is a plus. His point of running out of runway while doing a go around misses one fact, and that is that with the higher drag on landing, you wouldn't be as far down the runway in the first place, so you'd have that much more runway left than you'd have had with the stock airfoil anyway. In my book, that's a wash. Of course, if you have a lot of power, it's a non-issue. Otherwise, takeoff distance is rarely a problem with a KR, but landing distance is. If you landed there, you're going to have room to take off from there. Just thought I'd show y'all this article and clarify those two issues he has with it. The article he's mentioning is the one at http://www.krnet.org/as504x/ for you new guys. And to answer the next question, only the two planes mentioned in the article are flying with the new airfoil to date, as far as I know, but that will change shortly... Mark Langford, Huntsville, AL N56ML "at" hiwaay.net see KR2S project at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 15:28:25 -0800 From: larry severson To: KRnet Subject: Re: KR>Wainfan article Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.0.20040311152643.02854810@pop-server.socal.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <11fd01c407b1$29d55870$2502a8c0@800Athlon> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed MIME-Version: 1.0 Precedence: list Message: 4 >I finally got around to reading the February 2004 issue of Kitplanes, >and stumbled across Barnaby Wainfan's Wind Tunnel column, "CAUTION! >Modifications Ahead". His facetmobile is next to my future KR2 in the eaa96 hangar, and I see him at least once a week. If you have any questions, I will try to get answers. Larry Severson Fountain Valley, CA 92708 (714) 968-9852 larry2@socal.rr.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 15:40:16 -0800 (PST) From: Ray Fuenzalida To: KRNET@MYLIST.NET Subject: KR>WINGS Message-ID: <20040311234016.17781.qmail@web42005.mail.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii MIME-Version: 1.0 Precedence: list Message: 5 Hi everybody, I'm getting ready to start my wings. I have the Diehl wing skins and spars. The next step is to actually cut the ribs and start laying up. I had heard that there was a video about wing construction - maybe from Dan Diehl? If so, does someone have a copy that I can borrow? Or where would I get my own? I am also planning wing tanks and I might incorporate the folding wing mechanism, so it could get tricky. Thanks Ray --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search - Find what you’re looking for faster.From rfreiberger@swfla.rr.com Thu Mar 11 16:24:24 2004 Received: from ms-smtp-04-smtplb.tampabay.rr.com ([65.32.5.134] helo=ms-smtp-04.tampabay.rr.com) by lizard.esosoft.net with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1)id 1B1aTP-0002Ip-00 for krnet@mylist.net; Thu, 11 Mar 2004 16:24:24 -0800 Received: from zippersystems (208-28.201-68.swfla.rr.com [68.201.28.208]) by ms-smtp-04.tampabay.rr.com (8.12.10/8.12.7) with SMTP id i2C0GXVt005612 for ; Thu, 11 Mar 2004 19:16:37 -0500 (EST) From: "Ron Freiberger" To: "KRnet" Subject: RE: KR>Ellison Carburetor vs Aerocarb Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 19:16:27 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <196.26d1bf75.2d81364e@aol.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 X-Virus-Scanned: Symantec AntiVirus Scan Engine X-BeenThere: krnet@mylist.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1b3 Precedence: list Reply-To: rfreiberger@swfla.rr.com, KRnet List-Id: KRnet List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: Vapor lock, etcetera is common. On my Tuholer, I found it happened when I parked facing into the wind, which made the carb area hotter. You can hardly force the vapors out with fuel pressure. A return line with a small restriction to return some fuel and VAPOR back to the tank makes these operations easier. Bottom carbs and gravity feed need to allow some cowling ventilation when parked. Some aircraft have a vent gate in the upper cowl that blows shut when flying but allows cooling on the ground. Ron Freiberger mailto: rfreiberger@swfla.rr.com -----Original Message----- From: krnet-bounces@mylist.net [mailto:krnet-bounces@mylist.net]On Behalf Of FIXERJONES@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 10:26 PM To: krnet@mylist.net Subject: Re: KR>Ellison Carburetor vs Aerocarb i am also running a ellison efs-2 now with 75hrs on a 2.6 liter type 4 in my kr2 7 it performs great. but after a flight ,stop the engine for 15-20 min. it heat soaks & gets a little vapor lock, when taking off the second time, loses power for a moment then runs flawless the remainder of the flight. steve jones n212kr _______________________________________ to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to KRnet-leave@mylist.net please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 19:23:43 EST From: Flymaca711689@aol.com To: krnet@mylist.net Subject: KR>pitch changes with wing tanks is this a problem? Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Precedence: list Message: 6 I have a header tank only and i cant see any changes in pitch that i have=20 noticed after a long flight i think i may add 6 gals and that's it you don't= need=20 it with vw. read below by dan deal You have probably already decided to install wing tanks since most of the KR= s=20 now built do have them. However, I have found in many hours of KR flying and= =20 many cross country trips that about three hours is all I can stand to sit in= a=20 KR. Since most of the VW engines burn between 4 to 5 gallons per hour, this=20 indicates that 16 gallons would easily go the 3 hours and have some reserve.= =20 Therefore, it is my opinion that if you have around 15 to 16 gallons in the=20= main=20 tank, that is enough and would not warrant the trouble of installing wing=20 tanks. My own N4DD has only 13=20 5. gallons in the nose. I found that I would often run about 30 minutes short o= f=20 where I wanted to go. When I installed the wing skins on N4DD, I installed=20 the tank from the front spar to the rear spar and between the first two ribs= .=20 This gave me 15 gallons per side; this is not needed. Since I usually only p= ut 6=20 to 8 gallons in these tanks, the constant sloshing from front to rear is=20 continually changing the C.G. and requires constant attention. Please don= =E2=80=99t make=20 the same mistake I did. mac n1055a ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 18:33:08 -0600 From: larry flesner To: KRnet Subject: KR>SAA Fly-In Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20040311183308.007b3100@pop.midwest.net> In-Reply-To: <404FDB9D.50905@illicom.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Precedence: list Message: 7 >Any KRs planning to show up at the Urbana, Il SAA fly-in? Woody >KR# 658 >Buckley, IL +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ I hope to attend. It ought to be a one hour flight for me if I have all my test hours flown. I'm at 19.9 hours right now. Larry Flesner ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 18:53:28 -0600 From: Don Woodyatt To: KRnet Subject: Re: KR>SAA Fly-In Message-ID: <40510A08.8030206@illicom.net> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20040311183308.007b3100@pop.midwest.net> References: <3.0.6.32.20040311183308.007b3100@pop.midwest.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: list Message: 8 larry flesner wrote: >>Any KRs planning to show up at the Urbana, Il SAA fly-in? >>Woody >>KR# 658 >>Buckley, IL >> >> >+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > >I hope to attend. It ought to be a one hour flight for me if I >have all my test hours flown. I'm at 19.9 hours right now. > >Larry Flesner > > > >_______________________________________ >to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to KRnet-leave@mylist.net >please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html > > > > I hope so as I've never seen a "live" one and I'm sure I can learn alot plus it would be great to meet you. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 21:00:34 -0600 From: "Steve and Lori McGee" To: "KRnet" Subject: Re: KR>keeping it light Message-ID: <00c901c407de$3041f6a0$0202a8c0@lori8v5h2xi9m3> References: <008601c40765$addd7680$5e0ca58c@tbe.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: list Message: 9 >Mark Langford said: Troy tells me that he was happy that he had to build new > wings because his top wing skins had detached from the foam and they would > balloon upwards during flight. This is on a carefully constructed plane > less than ten years old that is always hangared! This is something I have been pondering on the method of the micro/epoxy mix before the laying of the glass. I have noticed that the epoxy will seep into the foam a few millimeters making it stiffer and stronger if no micro is used. Perhaps this should be the method on the top of the wing as this is what holds us up in the air! Then use the micro in the other areas for keeping it light? Steve McGee Endeavor Wi. USA Building a KR2S widened. lmcgee@maqs.net ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 22:20:56 -0500 From: "Brian Kraut" To: KRnet Subject: Re: KR>pitch changes with wing tanks is this a problem? Message-ID: <200403112220.AA386007296@mail.engalt.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Precedence: list Message: 10 I had 15 gallons in the header and 5 in each stub wing behind the spar. I = think that is fairly close to the ideal amount of fuel for a KR with a 2180= VW. I could not really tell any difference in pitch no matter what my fue= l situation was with me and my 75 pound son or just me. I did notice that = my cruise speed would go up a few knots if I let the header burn down half = way and kept the wings full. I did notice a big change in controlability once when I was doing initial t= esting with 150 pounds of ballast in the front seat with me and my transfer= pump rufused to prime while my header was getting low. ---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- From: Flymaca711689@aol.com Reply-To: KRnet Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 19:23:43 EST >I have a header tank only and i cant see any changes in pitch that i have = >noticed after a long flight i think i may add 6 gals and that's it you don= 't need >it with vw. read below by dan deal > >You have probably already decided to install wing tanks since most of the = KRs >now built do have them. However, I have found in many hours of KR flying a= nd >many cross country trips that about three hours is all I can stand to sit = in a >KR. Since most of the VW engines burn between 4 to 5 gallons per hour, thi= s >indicates that 16 gallons would easily go the 3 hours and have some reserv= e. >Therefore, it is my opinion that if you have around 15 to 16 gallons in th= e main >tank, that is enough and would not warrant the trouble of installing wing = >tanks. My own N4DD has only 13 > >5. >gallons in the nose. I found that I would often run about 30 minutes short= of >where I wanted to go. When I installed the wing skins on N4DD, I installed= >the tank from the front spar to the rear spar and between the first two ri= bs. >This gave me 15 gallons per side; this is not needed. Since I usually only= put 6 >to 8 gallons in these tanks, the constant sloshing from front to rear is >continually changing the C.G. and requires constant attention. Please don= =E2=80=99t make >the same mistake I did. >mac n1055a >_______________________________________ >to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to KRnet-leave@mylist.net >please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 23:12:57 -0600 From: "Steve and Lori McGee" To: "KRnet" Subject: KR>EMI issues Message-ID: <001501c407f0$af49c790$0202a8c0@lori8v5h2xi9m3> References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: list Message: 11 There are suppliers out there in the plastics industry that make many type of EMI shield materials for use in manufacturing. Basically laminating copper and aluminum foils in acrylic plastics among others. Acrilic is used basically for its stiffness to hold up to manufacturing stresses. We could do the same thing using foils and our epoxy in some light weight fiberglass. Molded to shape on the back of our instrument panels. Do the research and you will find it is quite easy, should you feel you have a problem with EMI interference. You may need to acid etch the foils to get the epoxy to stick. Steve McGee Endeavor Wi. USA Building a KR2S widened. lmcgee@maqs.net ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 05:48:28 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time) From: "Dan Heath" To: "krnet@mylist.net" Subject: Re: KR>keeping it light Message-ID: <4051957C.000001.03620@Computer> References: <00c901c407de$3041f6a0$0202a8c0@lori8v5h2xi9m3> Content-Type: Text/Plain MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Precedence: list Message: 12 RE: Perhaps this should be the method on the top of the wing =0D =0D This is the first and only time that I have ever heard of the skin on the wing ballooning up. It may be just something about the way it was built. = I never had that happen to me on the Little Beast. I wouldn't get too concerned about it and change the way you make the wings, until you get m= ore evidence, unless you just want to.=0D =0D See N64KR at http://KR-Builder.org - Then click on the pics=0D =0D Daniel R. Heath - Columbia, SC=0D =0D DanRH@KR-Builder.org=0D =0D See you in Mt. Vernon - 2004 - KR Gathering=0D =0D See our EAA Chapter 242 at http://EAA242.org=0D =20 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 21:41:05 +1030 From: "Graham & Ruth Strout" To: Subject: KR>KR-2 seats Message-ID: <000a01c40822$b75c3440$260157cb@oemcomputer> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Precedence: list Message: 13 I recently purchased an early model (1987) KR-2 and one of the problems = I'd like sorted is the available head room. I'm not a builder but am = prepared to tackle some smaller jobs. At the moment it is a ply bench = seat and cushion which gives me 31.5" from cushion to top of canopy. = This means having to fly in a bent position and does not allow for = headphones. The plane I usually fly has 35.5' and this is what I'd like. = The bench is supported by longitudinal ribs and there is about 5-6" = under the ply bench. To lower the bench would interfere with the = elevator rod, so now I'm thinking of individual seats. I want to go as = low as I can without my b-m dragging on the ground. What have other = owners done? Is there an 'off the shelf" seat I can purchase? If not has = somebody got a design I could copy or get ideas, especially how it can = be mounted to the spars but be kept as low as possible. It would have to = be light as my C of G is a fair way aft as it is. In fact it wouldn't = hurt for the pilot to go forward 1-2". The other option is to remove the = turtleneck/canopy and start again. This not a good option because it = would be beyond me and my time.Thankyou Graham. strout@riverland.net.au From DanRH@alltel.net Fri Mar 12 03:27:14 2004 Received: from ispmxmta05-srv.alltel.net ([166.102.165.166]) by lizard.esosoft.net with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1) id 1B1kor-0008x9-00 for krnet@mylist.net; Fri, 12 Mar 2004 03:27:13 -0800 Received: from Computer ([151.213.94.82]) by ispmxmta05-srv.alltel.net with SMTP id <20040312111940.NQWW1444.ispmxmta05-srv.alltel.net@Computer> for ; Fri, 12 Mar 2004 05:19:40 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <40519CCD.000007.03620@Computer> Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 06:19:41 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time) Content-Type: Text/Plain X-Mailer: IncrediMail 2001 (2001155.2001155) From: "Dan Heath" References: <000a01c40822$b75c3440$260157cb@oemcomputer> X-FID: PLAINTXT-NONE-0000-0000-000000000000 X-FVER: 3.0 X-CNT: ; Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Priority: 3 To: "krnet@mylist.net" Subject: Re: KR>KR-2 seats X-BeenThere: krnet@mylist.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1b3 Precedence: list Reply-To: KRnet List-Id: KRnet List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: Graham,=0D =0D Check out: http://kr-builder.org/seats/index.html =0D =0D See N64KR at http://KR-Builder.org - Then click on the pics=0D =0D Daniel R. Heath - Columbia, SC=0D =0D DanRH@KR-Builder.org=0D =0D See you in Mt. Vernon - 2004 - KR Gathering=0D =0D See our EAA Chapter 242 at http://EAA242.org=0D =0D -------Original Message-------=0D =0D From: Graham & Ruth Strout; KRnet=0D Date: Friday, March 12, 2004 6:10:34 AM=0D To: krnet@mylist.net=0D Subject: KR>KR-2 seats=0D =0D I recently purchased an early model (1987) KR-2 and one of the problems I= 'd like sorted is the available head room. I'm not a builder but am prepared= to tackle some smaller jobs. At the moment it is a ply bench seat and cushio= n which gives me 31.5" from cushion to top of canopy. This means having to = fly in a bent position and does not allow for headphones. The plane I usually fly has 35.5' and this is what I'd like. The bench is supported by longitudinal ribs and there is about 5-6" under the ply bench. To lower t= he bench would interfere with the elevator rod, so now I'm thinking of individual seats. I want to go as low as I can without my b-m dragging on the ground. What have other owners done? Is there an 'off the shelf" seat= I can purchase? If not has somebody got a design I could copy or get ideas, especially how it can be mounted to the spars but be kept as low as possi= ble It would have to be light as my C of G is a fair way aft as it is. In fa= ct it wouldn't hurt for the pilot to go forward 1-2". The other option is to remove the turtleneck/canopy and start again. This not a good option beca= use it would be beyond me and my time.Thankyou Graham. strout@riverland.net.a= u _______________________________________=0D to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to KRnet-leave@mylist.net=0D please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html=0D =2E ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 06:52:24 -0600 From: larry flesner To: KRnet Subject: KR>WINGS Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20040312065224.007a19f0@pop.midwest.net> In-Reply-To: <20040311234016.17781.qmail@web42005.mail.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Precedence: list Message: 14 I had heard that there was a video about wing construction - maybe from Dan Diehl? If so, does someone have a copy that I can borrow? Or where would I get my own? >I am also planning wing tanks and I might incorporate the folding wing mechanism, so it could get tricky. >Ray +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Give Dan a call. If he doesn't offer you one at no charge I'm sure the price will be reasonable. He has a web site for Diehl Aeronautical. Larry Flesner ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 06:52:33 -0600 From: larry flesner To: KRnet Subject: KR>Wainfan article Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20040312065233.007a19f0@pop.midwest.net> In-Reply-To: <11fd01c407b1$29d55870$2502a8c0@800Athlon> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Precedence: list Message: 15 His point of running out of runway while >doing a go around misses one fact, and that is that with the higher drag on >landing, you wouldn't be as far down the runway in the first place, so you'd >have that much more runway left than you'd have had with the stock airfoil >anyway. >Mark Langford +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Did Troy mention anything about the new wing degrading his takeoff and climbout performance? If not, it's a non issue. On a go-around you'll be operating at the same speeds as a takeoff and climbout. As a side note, I made a landing last week where I wasn't trying to land short, just a normal landing. I was even a bit high on approach and probably 5+ mph fast on the flare. I used moderate braking at the end of the rollout. I asked the tower what the distance to the turnoff was and they replied 1700 feet. I was using my speed brake as always. Larry Flesner ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 07:30:27 -0600 From: "Bob Stone" To: "Graham & Ruth Strout" , "KRnet" Subject: Re: KR>KR-2 seats Message-ID: <000801c40836$2f833280$ba21f218@hot.rr.com> References: <000a01c40822$b75c3440$260157cb@oemcomputer> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: list Message: 16 Graham, If the seat in your KR-2 is plywood, then it must be a straight flat run from the front spar to the rear spar. Things may have changed in the last thirty years but when I built the plans called for a heavy canvas sling seat attached the same way as your plywood seat however the depth can be adjusted up or down simply by lengthing or shortning the canvas. As for your CG problem, the best way I know of to change the CG and make it move forward is to extend the engine forward by installing spacers where the engine mounts to the engine mount. The engine is so heavy that it does not have to be moved very much forward to cause a drastic change in the CG location. It was a long time ago when I built so there may be better ways to solve your problems. I am sure you will get more responses since we have some very sharp experenced people on the net. Bob Stone, Harker Heights, Tx rstone4@hot.rr.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Graham & Ruth Strout" To: Sent: Friday, March 12, 2004 5:11 AM Subject: KR>KR-2 seats I recently purchased an early model (1987) KR-2 and one of the problems I'd like sorted is the available head room. I'm not a builder but am prepared to tackle some smaller jobs. At the moment it is a ply bench seat and cushion which gives me 31.5" from cushion to top of canopy. This means having to fly in a bent position and does not allow for headphones. The plane I usually fly has 35.5' and this is what I'd like. The bench is supported by longitudinal ribs and there is about 5-6" under the ply bench. To lower the bench would interfere with the elevator rod, so now I'm thinking of individual seats. I want to go as low as I can without my b-m dragging on the ground. What have other owners done? Is there an 'off the shelf" seat I can purchase? If not has somebody got a design I could copy or get ideas, especially how it can be mounted to the spars but be kept as low as possible. It would have to be light as my C of G is a fair way aft as it is. In fact it wouldn't hurt for the pilot to go forward 1-2". The other option is to remove the turtleneck/canopy and start again. This not a good option because it would be beyond me and my time.Thankyou Graham. strout@riverland.net.au _______________________________________ to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to KRnet-leave@mylist.net please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 08:07:06 -0600 From: "Mark Langford" To: "KRnet" Subject: Re: KR>KR-2 seats Message-ID: <012001c4083b$4d9a0a50$5e0ca58c@tbe.com> References: <000a01c40822$b75c3440$260157cb@oemcomputer> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: list Message: 17 Graham wrote: >> I want to go as low as I can without my b-m dragging on the ground. What have other owners done? Is there an 'off the shelf" seat I can purchase?<< Rand Robinson (www.fly-kr.com) sells a sling seat for exactly that purpose, but not everyone is happy with the end result, but pilot weight may be the determining factor there. Jeff Scott used something called Herculon from the fabric store that he thought was a big improvement over the RR material. The absolute lightest way to do it is with a thin sheet of aluminum or stainless steel draped between spars, with the ends bent in a 90 degree angle to hang across the top of the spars, fastened on the vertical ends. That's in one of Bengelis' books. A lot of people end up very close to the bottom. I know Troy Petteway and Jim Hill are sitting on sling seats that touch the bottom fuselage skins. That skin is just sitting there, so you might as well use it to full advantage. I'm going to have to lower my seat to that point myself one of these days. Or you could make a seat like the one at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford/seat.html , but that's a lot of work compared to screwing a sling seat in place. As for the back, a thick foam cushion is a light, reversible way to get yourself moved forward. As for elevator cables, if you use a sling or sheet metal, just make two of them and leave a gap in the middle for the cables, or investigate whether or not the cables can be replaced with a single pushrod, like the one shown at the top of http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford/kcontrol.html . Mark Langford, Huntsville, AL N56ML at hiwaay.net see KR2S project N56ML at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 09:35:59 EST From: Steelef@aol.com To: krnet@mylist.net Subject: Re: KR>pitch changes with wing tanks is this a problem? Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: list Message: 18 mac n1055a wrote has problems with fuel sloshing fore & aft in wing tanks----- Question, what baffling was used in the construction of these tanks???? franc s ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 10:28:17 -0600 From: "Ron Eason" To: "KRnet" Subject: Re: KR>EMI issues Message-ID: <001301c4084f$06fa44c0$6501a8c0@Administration> References: <001501c407f0$af49c790$0202a8c0@lori8v5h2xi9m3> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: list Message: 19 I have used very thin gauged aluminum to build the box and then wrapped the box and cover with fiberglass. Next you simply use a sheetmetal screw with some sealtite to attach the ground wire. Ron ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve and Lori McGee" To: "KRnet" Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2004 11:12 PM Subject: KR>EMI issues > There are suppliers out there in the plastics industry that make many type > of EMI shield materials for use in manufacturing. Basically laminating > copper and aluminum foils in acrylic plastics among others. Acrilic is > used basically for its stiffness to hold up to manufacturing stresses. We > could do the same thing using foils and our epoxy in some light weight > fiberglass. Molded to shape on the back of our instrument panels. Do the > research and you will find it is quite easy, should you feel you have a > problem with EMI interference. You may need to acid etch the foils to get > the epoxy to stick. > > > Steve McGee > Endeavor Wi. USA > Building a KR2S widened. > lmcgee@maqs.net > > > > > _______________________________________ > to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to KRnet-leave@mylist.net > please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html > > ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 10:56:18 -0600 From: "Ron Eason" To: "KRnet" Subject: Re: KR>KR-2 seats Message-ID: <004b01c40852$f25e66f0$6501a8c0@Administration> References: <000a01c40822$b75c3440$260157cb@oemcomputer> <012001c4083b$4d9a0a50$5e0ca58c@tbe.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: list Message: 20 I have designed adjustable sling seats. The problem with the narrow seats can be minimized. The design is to lengthy to describe here. But hears what it will do: Adjustable height, adjustable reclining. Basically, the pilot sets more upright while the passinger sets more reclined [ passinger and pilot shoulders staggered]. The assembly is very light and removable just like a sling [a modified sling]. Send me a email off line if you are interested I will send photos of the assembly. KRron ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark Langford" To: "KRnet" Sent: Friday, March 12, 2004 8:07 AM Subject: Re: KR>KR-2 seats > Graham wrote: > > >> I want to go as low as I can without my b-m dragging on the ground. What > have other owners done? Is there an 'off the shelf" seat I can purchase?<< > > Rand Robinson (www.fly-kr.com) sells a sling seat for exactly that purpose, > but not everyone is happy with the end result, but pilot weight may be the > determining factor there. Jeff Scott used something called Herculon from > the fabric store that he thought was a big improvement over the RR material. > The absolute lightest way to do it is with a thin sheet of aluminum or > stainless steel draped between spars, with the ends bent in a 90 degree > angle to hang across the top of the spars, fastened on the vertical ends. > That's in one of Bengelis' books. A lot of people end up very close to the > bottom. I know Troy Petteway and Jim Hill are sitting on sling seats that > touch the bottom fuselage skins. That skin is just sitting there, so you > might as well use it to full advantage. I'm going to have to lower my seat > to that point myself one of these days. Or you could make a seat like the > one at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford/seat.html , but that's a lot of work > compared to screwing a sling seat in place. > > As for the back, a thick foam cushion is a light, reversible way to get > yourself moved forward. As for elevator cables, if you use a sling or sheet > metal, just make two of them and leave a gap in the middle for the cables, > or investigate whether or not the cables can be replaced with a single > pushrod, like the one shown at the top of > http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford/kcontrol.html . > > Mark Langford, Huntsville, AL > N56ML at hiwaay.net > see KR2S project N56ML at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford > > > _______________________________________ > to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to KRnet-leave@mylist.net > please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html > > ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ See KRnet list details at http://www.krnet.org/instructions.html End of KRnet Digest, Vol 338, Issue 1 ************************************* ================================== ABC Amber Outlook Converter v4.20 Trial version ==================================