From: krnet-bounces@mylist.net To: John Bouyea Subject: KRnet Digest, Vol 346, Issue 22 Date: 4/11/2004 9:00:16 PM 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: KR/ fighter like handling (Doug Rupert) 2. RE: "Spit" project (Doug Rupert) 3. RE: tailwheel geometry/ handling (larry flesner) 4. KR/ fighter like handling (larry flesner) 5. Tail wheel endurance stats (j stevens) 6. Re tail wheel geo (Larry) (j stevens) 7. RE: KR/ fighter like handling (Doug Rupert) 8. Cockpit modifications (Graham & Ruth Strout) 9. Re: Cockpit modifications (larry severson) 10. Re: Cockpit modifications (Ross Youngblood) 11. Re: Cockpit modifications (Ross Youngblood) 12. Cams & turbocharging (Colin & Bev Rainey) 13. RE: tailwheel geometry/ handling (Ron Freiberger) 14. Re: AS504x airfoil (intrepid1ac@juno.com) 15. Re: Re tail wheel geo (Larry) (Ray Fuenzalida) 16. airfoil design calculator (joe) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2004 13:05:59 -0400 From: "Doug Rupert" Subject: RE: KR> KR/ fighter like handling To: "'KRnet'" Message-ID: <002b01c41fe7$45133690$213cd0d8@office> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" The Spit is still on the Drawing board so to speak but assembling the required components has already begun. Spoke with Gerry Billing over Christmas and he has put me in touch with the right people to scrounge what is required, both mechanical and engineering expertise. As to the KR, I have a meeting with Bill Kirkland set up for the upcoming week to inspect his project to see if it suits my needs. If not then I'll be starting from plans and closely following the construction process you have laid out for N56ML. The Corvair may present a bit of a challenge as they are becoming increasingly rare. Bill's project has a Subaru engine and I'll have to figure out the power to weight combination there before making a final decision. As a backup plan I've investigated the possibility of a Honda Goldwing motorcycle engine complete with transmission to serve as PRSU as this weighs in very close to that of the VW. The electronic ignition and fuel control are a bonus in this scenario. As a side note, I was also playing around with stretching a BD5 to a 2 place tandem as an alternative but feel the KR offers more bang for the buck. Doug Rupert -----Original Message----- From: krnet-bounces+drupert=sympatico.ca@mylist.net [mailto:krnet-bounces+drupert=sympatico.ca@mylist.net] On Behalf Of larry flesner Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2004 12:18 PM To: KRnet Subject: KR> KR/ fighter like handling By the way, my reason for choosing the KR design in the first place was it's >performance curve and handling characteristics which is pretty close to that >of a fighter aircraft, so as to regain my proficiency without having to >sacrifice the big bird when finished as well as have a truly fun >machine to "play" with. Doug Rupert >Simcoe Ontario. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Doug, If that's what you're looking for and both project handle like my KR, you won't be disappointed !! How close are you to completion on either/both projects? 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 ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2004 13:05:59 -0400 From: "Doug Rupert" Subject: RE: KR> "Spit" project To: "'KRnet'" Message-ID: <002c01c41fe7$4c08fb60$213cd0d8@office> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Thanks for the offer Larry. I've been planning this little goody for years and now that I've finally retired it's time to get down to business. Too damn much time flying heavies has just about driven me round the bend and I feel it's now time to get back to where I started, high speed low drag. Doug Rupert -----Original Message----- From: krnet-bounces@mylist.net [mailto:krnet-bounces@mylist.net] On Behalf Of larry flesner Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2004 12:22 PM To: KRnet Subject: KR> "Spit" project Doug, Are you going to need someone to fly that "Spit" to the KR Gathering someday? I think I could adjust my schedule to open a time slot to help you out! :-) 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 ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2004 12:56:14 -0500 From: larry flesner Subject: RE: KR> tailwheel geometry/ handling To: rfreiberger@swfla.rr.com,KRnet Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20040411125614.007be2a0@pop.midwest.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >When the CG gets forward of the leading edge of the wing ( low wing >aircraft ) then true squirliness begins. On a Pitts, with the axle at >the firewall , true squirliness is achieved. Ron Freiberger ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Ron, My non-engineer opinion here is that it is the relationship of the CG to the main gear ground contact point and not so much it's relationship to the wing lead edge. The more rearward the CG is located from the gear ground contact point the more the aircraft wants to "switch ends". The fact that the CG is usually located in the forward portion of the wing would suggest a relationship to the lead edge. Larry Flesner ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2004 13:00:39 -0500 From: larry flesner Subject: KR> KR/ fighter like handling To: KRnet Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20040411130039.008b8a90@pop.midwest.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > As to the KR, I have a meeting with Bill Kirkland set up for the >upcoming week to inspect his project to see if it suits my needs. If >not then I'll be starting from plans and closely following the >construction process you have laid out for N56ML. Doug Rupert ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Doug, The credit for N56ML goes to Mark Langford, not me. :-) Larry Flesner ------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2004 13:18:53 -0500 From: j stevens Subject: KR> Tail wheel endurance stats To: krnet@mylist.net Message-ID: <40798C0D.1080907@usfamily.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Hi all Lam in the process of enlarging my 3" tail wheel and need to know what the min weight and speed ratings should be for my KR2s. thanks Joel ------ http://USFamily.Net/info - Unlimited Internet - From $8.99/mo! ------ ------------------------------ Message: 6 Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2004 13:46:45 -0500 From: j stevens Subject: KR> Re tail wheel geo (Larry) To: krnet@mylist.net Message-ID: <40799295.4020807@usfamily.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Hi Larry I noticed that brakes added a squirrelly feel to landing also. I have the heel brakes so my feet had to do a lot of work on roll out. However I have found that by getting on the brakes as soon as possible,on touch down, with practice I could almost ignore the rudder factor, using rudder for larger corrections, makes for a much simpler roll out,as well as allowing a significantly shorter roll. It does take a gentle touch but by eliminating the rudder input the learning curve is fairly quick. BTW I have completely solved the oil leak at the push rods w/the use of spring loaded ones which are much easier to install and remove. Regards Joel I've found I NEVER use the brakes for directional control except for tight turns while in the slow taxi mode. The rudder and tail wheel have handled directional control for all encounters to this point. At this point I feel that if I need brake for directional control at speed, I've probably lost it already. I've found the "squirelly" part of ground handling is the time on landing when the tailwheel comes down and I start braking till I come to a stop. The brakes provide too much directional control and if not applied evenly will start you zig zagging as you try to maintain control. When that happens get off the brakes, regain directional control, then get back on the brakes. It works for me. Larry Flesner ------ http://USFamily.Net/info - Unlimited Internet - From $8.99/mo! ------ ------------------------------ Message: 7 Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2004 15:28:06 -0400 From: "Doug Rupert" Subject: RE: KR> KR/ fighter like handling To: "'KRnet'" Message-ID: <003c01c41ffb$1e07b350$213cd0d8@office> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Thanks for the correction, old timers disease. Doug -----Original Message----- From: krnet-bounces+drupert=sympatico.ca@mylist.net [mailto:krnet-bounces+drupert=sympatico.ca@mylist.net] On Behalf Of larry flesner Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2004 2:01 PM To: KRnet Subject: KR> KR/ fighter like handling > As to the KR, I have a meeting with Bill Kirkland set up for the >upcoming week to inspect his project to see if it suits my needs. If >not then I'll be starting from plans and closely following the >construction process you have laid out for N56ML. Doug Rupert ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Doug, The credit for N56ML goes to Mark Langford, not me. :-) Larry Flesner _______________________________________ to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to KRnet-leave@mylist.net please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html ------------------------------ Message: 8 Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 07:52:24 +0930 From: "Graham & Ruth Strout" Subject: KR> Cockpit modifications To: Message-ID: <000001c42019$d6724220$5d0157cb@oemcomputer> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" I'm modifying my seats by lowering the pilots, and the exiting passenger seat will be done away with (no one wants to fly with me any how) and which will be replaced with a deck from the front spar to the aft spar. I'll end with a single seater with room on the passenger side for junk. It will all be done in aluminium The avaliable space for my hips between the left hand wall and the elevator rod is 16". Its a 'comfortable' fit. Does this sound about right? Has any one moved the centre mounted joystick and elevator rod towards the passenger side and once through the aft spar, centralized the movement? If not could it be done? Under the exiting pilots seat (a plywood deck) is a 3 way fuel cock ie left wing / right wing /off and a small electric lift pump which transfers fuel from the wing tanks to the top of the header tank. Both these will have to be relocated to the space under the passenger side. I what to use this opportunnity to consider other options. How do other pilots manage this fuel transfer? Do I need the fuel cock? Could it be replaced with a connecting T peice, hence drawing fuel evenly from both sides.There are no fuel gauges in the wing tanks. Accurate fuel burn records and fuel transfer rates would have to be kept enroute to establish what would be left in the wing tanks. Is this what everyone else does or is there a better way and equipment to manage this fuel transfer? Thanks Graham ------------------------------ Message: 9 Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2004 16:23:36 -0700 From: larry severson Subject: Re: KR> Cockpit modifications To: Graham & Ruth Strout , KRnet Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.0.20040411161926.00b27270@pop-server.socal.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 07:52 AM 4/12/2004 +0930, you wrote: >I'm modifying my seats by lowering the pilots, and the exiting >passenger >seat will be done away with (no one wants to fly with me any how) and >which will be replaced with a deck from the front spar to the aft spar. I suggest that you increase the size of the web seat to allow more droop instead. Depending on how you attach the aluminum in your idea, the risk of going through the bottom of the fuselage in a hard landing will be somewhere between certain and highly probable. Larry Severson Fountain Valley, CA 92708 (714) 968-9852 larry2@socal.rr.com ------------------------------ Message: 10 Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2004 17:21:22 -0700 From: Ross Youngblood Subject: Re: KR> Cockpit modifications To: Graham & Ruth Strout , KRnet , krnet@mylist.net Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=iso-8859-15 Graham, In the USA the FAA requires some type of fuel indicator for each fuel tank, you would have to install either a sight gauge, or a fuel sending unit on each tank. I assumed the Austrailian regulations were tougher than USA, but you may wish to check that plan. On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 07:52:24 +0930, Graham & Ruth Strout wrote: > I'm modifying my seats by lowering the pilots, and the exiting > passenger > seat will be done away with (no one wants to fly with me any how) and > which will be replaced with a deck from the front spar to the aft spar. > I'll end with a single seater with room on the passenger side for junk. > It will all be done in aluminium > The avaliable space for my hips between the left hand wall and the > elevator rod is 16". Its a 'comfortable' fit. Does this sound about > right? Has any one moved the centre mounted joystick and elevator rod > towards the passenger side and once through the aft spar, centralized > the movement? If not could it be done? > Under the exiting pilots seat (a plywood deck) is a 3 way fuel cock ie > left wing / right wing /off and a small electric lift pump which > transfers fuel from the wing tanks to the top of the header tank. Both > these will have to be relocated to the space under the passenger side. I > what to use this opportunnity to consider other options. How do other > pilots manage this fuel transfer? Do I need the fuel cock? Could it be > replaced with a connecting T peice, hence drawing fuel evenly from both > sides.There are no fuel gauges in the wing tanks. Accurate fuel burn > records and fuel transfer rates would have to be kept enroute to > establish what would be left in the wing tanks. Is this what everyone > else does or is there a better way and equipment to manage this fuel > transfer? > Thanks Graham > _______________________________________ > to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to KRnet-leave@mylist.net > please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html -- Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ ------------------------------ Message: 11 Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2004 17:21:22 -0700 From: Ross Youngblood Subject: Re: KR> Cockpit modifications To: Graham & Ruth Strout , KRnet , krnet@mylist.net Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=iso-8859-15 Graham, In the USA the FAA requires some type of fuel indicator for each fuel tank, you would have to install either a sight gauge, or a fuel sending unit on each tank. I assumed the Austrailian regulations were tougher than USA, but you may wish to check that plan. On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 07:52:24 +0930, Graham & Ruth Strout wrote: > I'm modifying my seats by lowering the pilots, and the exiting > passenger > seat will be done away with (no one wants to fly with me any how) and > which will be replaced with a deck from the front spar to the aft spar. > I'll end with a single seater with room on the passenger side for junk. > It will all be done in aluminium > The avaliable space for my hips between the left hand wall and the > elevator rod is 16". Its a 'comfortable' fit. Does this sound about > right? Has any one moved the centre mounted joystick and elevator rod > towards the passenger side and once through the aft spar, centralized > the movement? If not could it be done? > Under the exiting pilots seat (a plywood deck) is a 3 way fuel cock ie > left wing / right wing /off and a small electric lift pump which > transfers fuel from the wing tanks to the top of the header tank. Both > these will have to be relocated to the space under the passenger side. I > what to use this opportunnity to consider other options. How do other > pilots manage this fuel transfer? Do I need the fuel cock? Could it be > replaced with a connecting T peice, hence drawing fuel evenly from both > sides.There are no fuel gauges in the wing tanks. Accurate fuel burn > records and fuel transfer rates would have to be kept enroute to > establish what would be left in the wing tanks. Is this what everyone > else does or is there a better way and equipment to manage this fuel > transfer? > Thanks Graham > _______________________________________ > to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to KRnet-leave@mylist.net > please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html -- Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ ------------------------------ Message: 12 Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2004 20:27:45 -0400 From: "Colin & Bev Rainey" Subject: KR> Cams & turbocharging To: "KRnet" Message-ID: <008801c42024$fa35ae30$99ef0843@RaineyDay> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Orma & netters At one time when I was drag racing in street and stock classes, I was studying about the feasibility of turbo or supercharging, especially when a buddy had a '56 Chevy truck with a B&M street blower or supercharger, pushing about 16# of boost according to the panel gauge. He always had a cutting out/popping back problem due to leaning out during actual acceleration. He had the hardest time understanding the dynamics of how actual acceleration involved more factors than sitting static during a burnout. In the course of studying to understand his situation I came across a test performed by B&M where they used several different cams in the same engine and performed dyno tests to see which worked best. They found that the most dramatic differences in performance increase were made when a cam altered for the artificial aspiration, supercharging, was used. The typical long duration, high lift cams used for most normally aspirated hotrods actually performed at or even below stock cams. They reasoned that the large overlap of the valves caused too much of the air/fuel mix to be pushed out of the exhaust valve and not retained in the cylinder. The cam was designed to help overcome the lack of efficiency of the engine in order to increase its "breathing". With the supercharger this was not necessary, since the blower was providing over 100% of the CFMs capable from the engine to start with. Simply stated the cam needed to help the blower provide more power, by delaying the closing so that more air could be packed in, instead of trying to assist it in moving more air from outside. They found the best cams were cut with this in mind and were quite different from the traditional stock or performance cams. Another interesting fact they discovered was that even though the boost numbers were high with the stock and performance cams, all the pressure was remaining in the intake, not getting into the cylinder. When they changed the cam to one designed more for the blower, the boost number went down, but torque and horsepower went up. Literally more air was being packed into the cylinder, not just into the intake. Also something to consider when selecting your turbo: choose one where the CFMs are higher, not necessarily the pressure capability is high. Especially since you are wanting to add performance over the entire range and extract more horsepower from the engine, you are best to have a turbo that can move alot of air, not one that just makes pressure. Racers have found that high boost numbers are not the whole story. Lowering the boost pressure, but increasing the volume of air delivered to the intake manifold actually puts more air into the cylinder without elevating the intake air temperature as much due to the lower amount of "squeezing". This reduces the possibility of detonation. Orma you may also want to install a blow off valve protection on the intake manifold to prevent over pressurizing, and also consider some form of spark retard at lower RPMs, while under boost, the same as the 2300 motor in the Mustang has. The engine can't tolerate these pressures for long periods in the lower RPMs and will lead to piston, rod or crankshaft failure eventually. Colin & Bev Rainey KR2(td) N96TA Sanford, FL crainey1@cfl.rr.com or crbrn96ta@hotmail.com http://kr-builder.org/Colin/index.html ------------------------------ Message: 13 Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2004 21:15:33 -0400 From: "Ron Freiberger" Subject: RE: KR> tailwheel geometry/ handling To: "KRNET" , "larry flesner" Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" It's a VERY general rule, and those parameters are inter-related. The KR is a bit aft of that generalization, and easy to maneuver, but prone to tipping over onto it's nose. Aircraft with nose roller training wheels are likely to be non-divergent, but less versatile. You haven't really flown a taildragger 'til you've flown a single place Pitts Ron Freiberger mailto: rfreiberger@swfla.rr.com -----Original Message----- From: larry flesner [mailto:flesner@midwest.net] Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2004 1:56 PM To: rfreiberger@swfla.rr.com; KRnet Subject: RE: KR> tailwheel geometry/ handling >When the CG gets forward of the leading edge of the wing ( low wing >aircraft ) then true squirliness begins. On a Pitts, with the axle at >the firewall , true squirliness is achieved. Ron Freiberger ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Ron, My non-engineer opinion here is that it is the relationship of the CG to the main gear ground contact point and not so much it's relationship to the wing lead edge. The more rearward the CG is located from the gear ground contact point the more the aircraft wants to "switch ends". The fact that the CG is usually located in the forward portion of the wing would suggest a relationship to the lead edge. Larry Flesner ------------------------------ Message: 14 Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2004 21:57:29 -0400 From: intrepid1ac@juno.com Subject: Re: KR> AS504x airfoil To: krnet@mylist.net Message-ID: <20040411.215736.-372885.2.intrepid1ac@juno.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > "Ronald Metcalf" writes: > The AS504x airfoil sections appear to be a big improvement over the > RAF48. I am interested in the strange "tuck" underneath the trailing > edge - the last few mm seem to droop down leaving a > concave area right at the back (underneath). FWIW, the old Maloof c/s propeller blades have a similar "tuck" carved into the last 20% or so of the trailing edge of their airfoil underside. I, too, am curious "why?" Art Cacella 1970 American AA-1 N6155L "Dinkie" 1972 KR-1 Plans, still not started ( but four metal homebuilts underway ) Winston-Salem, NC ________________________________________________________________ The best thing to hit the Internet in years - Juno SpeedBand! Surf the Web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER! Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today! ------------------------------ Message: 15 Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2004 20:03:26 -0700 (PDT) From: Ray Fuenzalida Subject: Re: KR> Re tail wheel geo (Larry) To: KRnet Message-ID: <20040412030327.34654.qmail@web42001.mail.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii What do you mean "solved the oil leak"? Are you referring to the Corvair, which I am about to start building? Is this something I need to watch for? I was planning on going to William Wynne's Corvair College in May. Hopefully learn some more at Sun-n-Fun. Ray --- j stevens wrote: > > Hi Larry > I noticed that brakes added a squirrelly feel to > landing also. I have the heel brakes so my feet had > to do a lot of work on roll out. However I have > found that by getting on the brakes as soon as > possible,on touch down, with practice I could almost > ignore the rudder factor, using rudder for larger > corrections, makes for a much simpler roll out,as > well as allowing a significantly shorter roll. It > does take a gentle touch but by eliminating the > rudder input the learning curve is fairly quick. > > BTW I have completely solved the oil leak at the > push rods w/the use of spring loaded ones which are > much easier to install and remove. > > Regards > Joel > > > > I've found I NEVER use > the brakes for directional control except for tight > turns while in the > slow taxi mode. The rudder and tail wheel have > handled directional > control for all encounters to this point. At this > point I feel that if > I need brake for directional control at speed, I've > probably lost it > already. I've found the "squirelly" part of ground > handling is the > time on landing when the tailwheel comes down and I > start braking > till I come to a stop. The brakes provide too much > directional control > and if not applied evenly will start you zig zagging > as you try to > maintain control. When that happens get off the > brakes, regain > directional control, then get back on the brakes. > It works for me. > > Larry Flesner > > > > > ------ http://USFamily.Net/info - Unlimited Internet > - From $8.99/mo! ------ > > > _______________________________________ > to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to > KRnet-leave@mylist.net > please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - File online by April 15th http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html ------------------------------ Message: 16 Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2004 20:27:13 -0700 From: "joe" Subject: KR> airfoil design calculator To: "KRnet" Message-ID: <004101c4203e$0c1e73c0$0a0110ac@o7p4e3> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" There have been several references to what occurs when modifying airfoils. To those who are serious about this subject. There is a proactive calculator available at http://adg.stanford.edu/aa241/airfoils/panda.html read the top and bottom of the page to llearn how to utilize this tool. Don't forget to check the plot box. ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ See KRnet list details at http://www.krnet.org/instructions.html End of KRnet Digest, Vol 346, Issue 22 ************************************** ================================== ABC Amber Outlook Converter v4.20 Trial version ==================================