From: krnet-bounces@mylist.net To: John Bouyea Subject: KRnet Digest, Vol 346, Issue 236 Date: 12/11/2004 8:59:16 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: AS504x wing sections (patrusso) 2. Re: AS504x wing sections (Dan Heath) 3. Adjustable propellers (JIM VANCE) 4. RE: AS504x wing sections (Stephen Jacobs) 5. Re: AS504x wing sections (VIRGIL N SALISBURY) 6. Re: AS504x wing sections (James Leverton) 7. Re: Adjustable propellers (larry severson) 8. RE: AS504x wing sections (larry severson) 9. Prop Bank.....????? (Francis H Severin) 10. Re: ground adjustable props (Orma) 11. Wing - KR2 vs KR2S (Dan Heath) 12. Taxes - I am not your accountant or attorney (Kevin Jarvis) 13. Re: AS504x wing sections (Mark Langford) 14. Re: AS504x wing sections (JAMES FERRIS) 15. Experimental (Dan Heath) 16. Placards (Colin & Bev Rainey) 17. Re: AS504x wing sections (Mark Langford) 18. RE: Taxes - I am not your accountant or attorney (Dana Overall) 19. wing (GavinandLouise) 20. COWLINGS and CORVAIR ENGINES (IFLYKRS@aol.com) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2004 06:58:08 -0500 From: "patrusso" Subject: Re: KR> AS504x wing sections To: "KRnet" Message-ID: <000701c4df78$af1d0240$4ca772d8@3z4xt01> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Nor did I know that the 2S had a different airfoil. Where can I get that supplement? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stephen Jacobs" To: "'KRnet'" Sent: Friday, December 10, 2004 8:37 PM Subject: RE: KR> AS504x wing sections > Ashok designed that airfoil specifically for the KR2S > > ++++++++++++++++++ > > Thank you - it has now finally sunk in that there is a bit more to the > 2S than a fuselage stretch, I had better get the supplement. > > Take care > Steve J > > > > > _______________________________________ > Search the KRnet Archives at http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp > 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: Sat, 11 Dec 2004 07:17:11 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time) From: "Dan Heath" Subject: Re: KR> AS504x wing sections To: "krnet@mylist.net" Message-ID: <41BAE547.00000C.03932@DANHOMECOMPUTER> Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" You 2S guys please adjust my thinking if I am wrong. The 2S is not any different than the 2, just Stretched. Certainly not the airfoil. The new airfoil was designed for the 2S, but has been put on the 2. The new airfoil is not a product of RR. The new airfoil is a mod that you may choose to make, just like all the other mods that people have done to the 2 and 2S. If I were starting from scratch, I would build a 2S and may or may not choose the new airfoil. You must order the supplement from Rand Robinson, but know that this has nothing to do with the new airfoil See N64KR at http://KR-Builder.org - Then click on the pics There is a time for building and a time for FLYING and the time for building has expired. Daniel R. Heath - Columbia, SC See you in Mt. Vernon - 2005 - KR Gathering -------Original Message------- Nor did I know that the 2S had a different airfoil. Where can I get that supplement? ----- Original Message ----- > Thank you - it has now finally sunk in that there is a bit more to the > 2S than a fuselage stretch, I had better get the supplement. ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2004 06:49:26 -0600 From: "JIM VANCE" Subject: KR> Adjustable propellers To: "krnet" Message-ID: <009901c4df82$a7aea680$0100007f@oemcomputer> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Brian asked how adjustable propellers work. The hub is a clamping arrangement where you can loosen the each blade and set it to a new angle using a bubble gauge on the tip of the blade. It takes me about 20 minutes to change all four blades on my Renegade. However, there is a major disadvantage to their use on a KR-2. The blades are constant angle. When there is little difference between takeoff and cruise speeds, this is okay (my Renegade stalls at 38 mph and cruises at 70). With the much wider speed range of a KR, the straight blade cannot be efficient over the whole range. It can be efficient at takeoff and climb, but most of it becomes a rotating speedbrake at cruise. I would suspect it could make a 15 to 20 mph difference in cruise speed. The importance of blade twist is very evident in Ed Sterba's propellers. He has spent a lot of time understanding how the blades work. Jim Vance Vance@ClaflinWildcats.com ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2004 15:23:39 +0200 From: "Stephen Jacobs" Subject: RE: KR> AS504x wing sections To: "'KRnet'" Message-ID: <000001c4df84$a4baa8f0$6564a8c0@stephen> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" You 2S guys please adjust my thinking if I am wrong. The 2S is not any different than the 2, just Stretched. Certainly not the airfoil. +++++++++++++++++ That is what I thought and you are mostly correct Dan, but I gather from Mark L that the wing plan form is also subtly different. (Tip section) The Ashok section were never provided or even accepted by RR coz that precludes the builder buying the pre-fabricated wing skins. Take care SteveJ I guess we should here a big yee haa from other Mark anytime soon?? ------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2004 09:55:23 -0500 From: VIRGIL N SALISBURY Subject: Re: KR> AS504x wing sections To: krnet@mylist.net Message-ID: <20041211.100348.3296.0.virgnvs@juno.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii How about Rand Robinson ?? Virg On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 06:58:08 -0500 "patrusso" writes: > Nor did I know that the 2S had a different airfoil. Where can I get > that > supplement? > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Stephen Jacobs" > To: "'KRnet'" > Sent: Friday, December 10, 2004 8:37 PM > Subject: RE: KR> AS504x wing sections > > > > Ashok designed that airfoil specifically for the KR2S > > > > ++++++++++++++++++ > > > > Thank you - it has now finally sunk in that there is a bit more to > the > > 2S than a fuselage stretch, I had better get the supplement. > > > > Take care > > Steve J > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________ > > Search the KRnet Archives at > http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp > > to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to > KRnet-leave@mylist.net > > > > please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html > > > _______________________________________ > Search the KRnet Archives at > http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp > to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to KRnet-leave@mylist.net > > please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html > > Virgil N. Salisbury - AMSOIL www.lubedealer.com/salisbury Miami ,Fl ------------------------------ Message: 6 Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2004 09:09:53 -0600 From: "James Leverton" Subject: Re: KR> AS504x wing sections To: krnet@mylist.net Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Mark, So if I'm reading this correctly, since i am building a standard kr-2, but using the new airfoil, I need to use waf's for a kr-2s. Is that correct? Also, if I already have kr-2 waf's, can you have the other aft waf's bent to 3 degrees without any problems? Thanks for any help. Jim >From: "Mark Langford" >Reply-To: KRnet >To: "KRnet" >Subject: Re: KR> AS504x wing sections >Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 14:39:20 -0600 >MIME-Version: 1.0 >Received: from mc7-f35.hotmail.com ([65.54.253.42]) by >mc7-s19.hotmail.com >with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6824); Fri, 10 Dec 2004 12:39:29 -0800 >Received: from lizard.esosoft.net ([38.118.200.18]) by mc7-f35.hotmail.com >with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6824); Fri, 10 Dec 2004 12:39:29 -0800 >Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lizard.esosoft.net)by >lizard.esosoft.net with esmtp (Exim 4.43)id 1CcrYz-000IWy-SS; Fri, 10 Dec >2004 12:40:29 -0800 >Received: from bee.hiwaay.net ([216.180.54.11])by lizard.esosoft.net with >esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1CcrYw-000IWm-8Ffor krnet@mylist.net; Fri, 10 Dec 2004 >12:40:26 -0800 >Received: from MLangford2 (nokia-1.tbe.com [192.88.94.254])by >bee.hiwaay.net (8.13.0/8.13.0) with SMTP id iBAKdKTu1167717for >; Fri, 10 Dec 2004 14:39:21 -0600 (CST) >X-Message-Info: HQbIehuYceTG3lK8qEopaSb6G+leUX+kqmatyjOSEH4= >References: <000001c4dedb$69914a30$9064a8c0@stephen> >X-MSMail-Priority: Normal >X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1437 >X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1441 >X-BeenThere: krnet@mylist.net >X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.4 >Precedence: list >List-Id: KRnet >List-Unsubscribe: >, >List-Archive: >List-Post: >List-Help: >List-Subscribe: >, >Errors-To: krnet-bounces@mylist.net >Return-Path: krnet-bounces@mylist.net >X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Dec 2004 20:39:29.0656 (UTC) >FILETIME=[58D0EF80:01C4DEF8] > >Steve Jacobs wrote: > > > The Ashok sections generated and made available by your kind self > > and others offer the 48" section, but offer a shorter section for > > the tip - closer to 30". No doubt a good reason, but I am missing > > it. If you have a moment, maybe talk about the differences in the > > selection of airfoils included in the pdf file. > >Ashok designed that airfoil specifically for the KR2S, but the set of >points >he generated was for a standard "unity" profile, based on the chord length >being 1.000. Not that it won't work just fine on a KR2, but at the time, I >couldn't imagine anybody wanting to build a KR2 wing if they were starting >from scratch, so the templates are also designed for the KR2S, rather than >the KR2, hence the lack of a 36" chord tip template. The S wing planform >is >different, by virtue of the fact that the aft WAFs (wing attach fittings) >are ALL bent 3 degrees, rather than just half, so the aft spar rakes >forward >6 degrees. That makes the template at the end of the spar smaller (33"), >and answers your question. The wing area is compensated for by adding a >hoaky foam extension. The drawings that I made allow for the >forward-thinking builder to make his spars longer, and include a template >(30-11/16") for a tip located way out at 132.75" from the centerline. >There's a dotted outline of a spar and the mention of this option printed >on the template itself. There are a lot of details on these templates that >I put in just to make building them easy and more foolproof. > >Mark Langford, Huntsville, AL >N56ML at hiwaay.net >see KR2S project N56ML at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford > > >_______________________________________ >Search the KRnet Archives at http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp >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: 7 Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2004 07:38:00 -0800 From: larry severson Subject: Re: KR> Adjustable propellers To: KRnet Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.0.20041211073529.02e6faf0@pop-server.socal.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed >However, there is a major disadvantage to their use on a KR-2. The >blades >are constant angle. When there is little difference between takeoff and >cruise speeds, this is okay (my Renegade stalls at 38 mph and cruises at >70). With the much wider speed range of a KR, the straight blade cannot >be efficient over the whole range. It can be efficient at takeoff and >climb, but most of it becomes a rotating speedbrake at cruise. I would >suspect it could make a 15 to 20 mph difference in cruise speed. There is a difference between Ivo and Warp Drive props. With the extra cost "near constant speed" cut, the above is not true for the Warp Drive prop. Larry Severson Fountain Valley, CA 92708 (714) 968-9852 larry2@socal.rr.com ------------------------------ Message: 8 Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2004 07:40:35 -0800 From: larry severson Subject: RE: KR> AS504x wing sections To: KRnet Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.0.20041211073916.02e87870@pop-server.socal.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed >The 2S is not any different than the 2, just Stretched. Certainly not >the airfoil. The published wing area is greater for the S, so the win is clearly changed. Larry Severson Fountain Valley, CA 92708 (714) 968-9852 larry2@socal.rr.com ------------------------------ Message: 9 Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2004 11:00:38 -0500 From: "Francis H Severin" Subject: KR> Prop Bank.....????? To: Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Hi Netters....This is my first posting, hope I get it right...Love reading the mail.... Who runs the 'Prop Bank' and where do I sent my contribution $$s Don't need a prop ...just want to donate... Safe and happy holidays to all ..... N743FS....Frank. ------------------------------ Message: 10 Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2004 11:08:26 -0500 From: "Orma" Subject: Re: KR> ground adjustable props To: "KRnet" Message-ID: <005b01c4df9b$a686e600$4b32d445@ROBBINS1> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Hello Brian and the Net Over the years I have tried to use two different ground adjustable propellers. First was the original one marketed by RR. It had it's problems and was recalled by RR. My experience with it was good, although others had bad experiences including the loss of a blade. As to the changes from a higher pitch to a lower one, my only experience was the removal of my first turbo and the adjustment to compensate for the loss of the turbo. I do not feel that the process is a simple 10 minute process. It was more like an hour. As anyone that has followed me would tell you, I also experienced the IVO prop. I do feel that it was a simple 10 minute pitch change process. I never did make a long flight with mine to determine it's usefulness. I do not recommend this prop to any one based on the company service bulletin requiring constant checking for blade movement, as well as my own experience with the delamination of both blades. As for ground adjustable vs a highly specialized custom prop such as the ones by Ed Sturba, Unless your flying required a lot of 4 hour cross country flights (over 600 miles in the average KR), I would recommend getting a Sturba. The only problem with buying a custom prop is knowing what pitch to order. Each engine, carb, ignition combination is different and requires a different prop. There should be enough examples of engine and prop combinations to make a reasonable guess. Ed Sturba is real good at that. Orma Southfield, MI N110LR celebrating 20 years Flying, flying and more flying http://www.kr-2.aviation-mechanics.com/ ------------------------------ Message: 11 Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2004 11:20:05 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time) From: "Dan Heath" Subject: KR> Wing - KR2 vs KR2S To: "krnet@mylist.net" Message-ID: <41BB1E35.000001.01808@DANHOMECOMPUTER> Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" RE: The published wing area is greater for the S, so the win is clearly changed. Yes, 80 vs 82 sq ft and that is probably because of the length. I do not believe that RR changed the design of the wing for the S. See N64KR at http://KR-Builder.org - Then click on the pics There is a time for building and a time for FLYING and the time for building has expired. Daniel R. Heath - Columbia, SC See you in Mt. Vernon - 2005 - KR Gathering ------------------------------ Message: 12 Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2004 11:26:50 -0500 From: Kevin Jarvis Subject: KR> Taxes - I am not your accountant or attorney To: krnet@mylist.net Message-ID: <41BB1FCA.9010005@comcast.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed KR netters. It seems that forming an LLC or S corporation can have substantial tax benefits, even if the corporation aircraft is a KR and even if the benefits are abusive. Of course any such decisions should only be determined after counsel with professional help. And yes, we should all get out of the shop and vote, always. Dana, you said ....... "Example, you use the corporate airplane for personal use. It doing so you are receiving compensation via usage and must receive a 1099 for income in excess of $600 yearly. So, if you form a corporation to avoid sales tax, whether it is Delaware, NC or Timbucktoo the IRS is still going to see to it you are income taxed at the fair market value of the asset usage. So lets think about this; you use the airplane for 200 hours per year. The average retail rate is $65. You just "earned" in excess of 12000.00 in taxable income on your personal tax return. Now, let think about fuel. If you buy it, it must go into the corporated as donated capital, if the corporation buys it and you use it for personnal usage............income to you. Distributable income, just where did this corporation get it's money to buy all this "stuff" for the shareholder to use.............follow me here......you donate the fuel money, insurance money, property tax money then have to report it as income on your personal tax return just to save some up front sales tax money????? " This article, (please read the whole thing, it's not long) http://www.ainonline.com/issues/02_04/02_04_IRSusep6.html says in part, "Owners and employees who use company airplanes for pleasure instead of business are required to report the value of their trips as taxable income," the Post said, "though under a long-standing formula that does not necessarily reflect the actual cost." That formula is the Transportation Department's own standard industry fare level (SIFL) and is determined by aircraft weight and distance flown. According to the Post, the IRS ruling could result in deductions that are substantially larger than the reported income. In cases of S corporations, which pass profits and losses through to the owners, "That means the owner of such a business could report the income under [the SIFL] formula while receiving an even bigger deduction as his share of the company's gains and losses," it said. As one aviation tax advisor explained to AIN, "I'm the guy using the airplane and I own the company, and so all of the deductions flow through to me. They reduce the amount of taxes that I pay." He admitted that it could lead to abuses and shows that the IRS is willing to countenance that abuse. Keith Swirsky of Galland, Kharasch, Greenberg, Fellman & Swirsky, a specialist in aircraft taxation, told AIN that in the case of an S-corporation shareholder using the aircraft for a very high percent of personal use, those expenses are being deducted by the company although they relate to personal use. "So the net is a huge tax benefit," he said, equating it to tax shelters in the 1980s. In the federal court case that started all of this, there was a high percentage of personal use of a corporate aircraft, which was computed as personal income using SIFL. But the IRS thought the deduction for operating the aircraft should be limited to the SIFL calculation. The federal court disagreed, and ruled that all of the aircraft operating costs could be deducted. The Post claimed that the effect of the memo "could be a substantial windfall" for private jet owners, wealthy families and family businesses. And, while the recent IRS interpretation was specific to an S corporation, it could also reflect the agency's views for other "pass-through entities," such as partnerships and limited-liability companies, he said. According to the article, "it is too early to estimate how much the new interpretation might cost the government, but several attorneys and accountants who advise wealthy clients said they expect personal use of corporate airplanes to rise sharply." ------------------------------ Message: 13 Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2004 11:32:12 -0600 From: "Mark Langford" Subject: Re: KR> AS504x wing sections To: "KRnet" Message-ID: <112601c4dfa7$5b8f58b0$1202a8c0@1700xp> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" James Leverton wrote: > So if I'm reading this correctly, since i am building a standard > kr-2, but using the new airfoil, I need to use waf's for a kr-2s. Is > that correct? Also, if I already have kr-2 waf's, can you have the > other aft waf's bent to 3 degrees without any problems? The 2S supplement consists of several large sheet drawings, and I don't recall seeing any separate drawings for the WAFs, so I can't tell you if you can just bend the KR2 aft WAF fittings to make them work, but my gut feeling would be that you can. I'd take it to an experienced sheet metal shop to have it done by a professional though, personally. You could probably lay out the geometry full scale on paper and see if the bolt holes will all line up to see if it'll work or not. Other differences between the KR2 and KR2S are that the firewall is larger and beefed up with extra support for heavier engines such as the 0-200 and Corvair, the spars are covered with plywood on both faces from one end to the other, the spar tapers are different, the wing planform is different (including longer wings), the horizontal and vertical stabilizers are larger (and probably associated control surfaces), the canopy is taller and less "bubbular", 14" added behind behind the main spar, 2" added in front of it, and probably some stuff that I've forgotten already. If you're going to build an S or an S wing, you'd be wise to invest the $75 for the supplement. More information on the KR2S is available at http://www.fly-kr.com/kr2s.htm . Anyone wanting more information on the new KR2S airfoil should read the stuff located at http://www.krnet.org/as504x/ . I think history has proven it to be a no-brainer if you're starting from scratch and need to build a wing anyway. Anybody that thinks the original KR2 (and KR2S, since they are the same width) doesn't need to be widened should see the photo at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford/pinebluff2001/01092324.jpg . The KR2S is a huge improvement over the KR2, but it should have been made wider if you really want to carry a passenger. This one also answers the question "is it long enough". The tail volume coefficient of the original KR2 is just about off the scale when compared to other airplanes. Anybody that might be considering building a KR2 from scratch rather than a KR2S would be making a mistake, in my opinion (not talking about anybody in particular here, just throwing this out for the benefit of the newbies)... Mark Langford, Huntsville, Alabama see KR2S project N56ML at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford email to N56ML "at" hiwaay.net -------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Message: 14 Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2004 13:41:53 -0500 From: JAMES FERRIS Subject: Re: KR> AS504x wing sections To: krnet@mylist.net Message-ID: <20041211.134154.252.0.mijnil@juno.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii If you are still building the same kr2 wing planform you can still use the WAFs but you need to raise the rear spar about 1 inch to reduce the incidence at the fuselage. ------------------------------ Message: 15 Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2004 14:47:09 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time) From: "Dan Heath" Subject: KR> Experimental To: "krnet@mylist.net" Message-ID: <41BB4EBD.000003.01640@DANHOMECOMPUTER> Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Someone put out on the Teenie forum that if your N number was NX something, then you did not have to put the EXPERIMENTAL inside the cockpit. Does anyone know if this is true? See N64KR at http://KR-Builder.org - Then click on the pics There is a time for building and a time for FLYING and the time for building has expired. Daniel R. Heath - Columbia, SC See you in Mt. Vernon - 2005 - KR Gathering ------------------------------ Message: 16 Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2004 15:10:53 -0500 From: "Colin & Bev Rainey" Subject: KR> Placards To: "KRnet" Message-ID: <001101c4dfbd$84cdf680$2d432141@RaineyDay> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" All placards required are listed in the Advisory Circular and the regs, A/C AFS 600, which is viewable on EAA and AOPA websites. The words Experimental are not required if the aircraft is a replica aircraft, which allows for the substitution of the NX in the N number. The passenger warning placard in the Teenie Two is not necessary because it is single place. You can find all the details in A/C 20-27E part 11 Identification and registration markings. AOPA site allows a search for A/Cs and Regs. You then download as PDF file or Word file (doc). Replicas are also allowed to have 2inch letters/numbers, while all others 3 inch. International use, even if crossing the ADIZ line into say Mexico, or Bahamas, requires 12 inch letters/numbers and a US Customs Decal. Colin & Bev Rainey KR2(td) N96TA Sanford, FL crainey1@cfl.rr.com http://kr-builder.org/Colin/index.html ------------------------------ Message: 17 Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2004 14:48:50 -0600 From: "Mark Langford" Subject: Re: KR> AS504x wing sections To: "KRnet" Message-ID: <115401c4dfc2$d3984e00$1202a8c0@1700xp> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" James Ferris wrote: > If you are still building the same kr2 wing planform you can still use > the WAFs but you need to raise the rear spar about 1 inch to reduce > the incidence at the fuselage. The problem is there wasn't a 36" airfoil template you could use for the tip...until.now. See the bottom of http://www.krnet.org/as504x/templates.html , which is also a place you could download the 36" dxf or dwg version of the template file if you want to scale the outline to make some other odd size. The line that's shown on them is the chord line, and the incidence at the tip will be negative (opposite direction of the root). This is as far as I have time to go with this (killed an hour and a half on it already)... Mark Langford, Huntsville, Alabama see KR2S project N56ML at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford email to N56ML "at" hiwaay.net -------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Message: 18 Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2004 20:52:42 -0500 From: "Dana Overall" Subject: RE: KR> Taxes - I am not your accountant or attorney To: krnet@mylist.net Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Kevin, I did not delete the entire text of the article below as I wanted anyone interested to be able to refer to it in this discussion. One point, and there are several, that is not mentioned in the article is the fact that a shareholders deductable loss pass throughs are limited by his/her capital account of the corporation. Thus, any excess loss generated by the personal use (which I feel certain will be successfully argued by the IRS) is limited to contributed capital or sub S income passed through to the shareholder. So to take this further, it would be very easy for someone to generate taxable income on a 1040 with the use of a corporate airplane and have a zero capital account making the pass through income being treated as suspended loss. I won't even get into alternative minimun tax or liquidation of a sub S with suspended losses. That article leaves out some very, very important ponts. As I replied to Dan off the list, I'm not forming anything for mine. Dana Overall 1999 & 2000 National KR Gathering host Richmond, KY i39 RV-7 slider, Imron black, "Black Magic" Finish kit 13B Rotary. Hangar flying my Dynon. http://rvflying.tripod.com http://rvflying.tripod.com/blackrudder.jpg do not archive >From: Kevin Jarvis >Reply-To: k.jarvis@mchsi.com, KRnet >To: krnet@mylist.net >Subject: KR> Taxes - I am not your accountant or attorney >Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2004 11:26:50 -0500 > >KR netters. > >It seems that forming an LLC or S corporation can have substantial tax >benefits, even if the corporation aircraft is a KR and even if the >benefits are abusive. Of course any such decisions should only be >determined after counsel with professional help. And yes, we should >all get out of the shop and vote, always. > >Dana, you said ....... > >"Example, you use the corporate airplane for personal use. It doing so >you are receiving compensation via usage and must receive a 1099 for >income in excess of $600 yearly. So, if you form a corporation to avoid >sales tax, whether it is Delaware, NC or Timbucktoo the IRS is still >going to see to it you are income taxed at the fair market value of the >asset usage. So lets think about this; you use the airplane for 200 >hours per year. The average retail rate is $65. You just "earned" in >excess of 12000.00 in taxable income on your personal tax return. Now, >let think about fuel. If you buy it, it must go into the corporated as >donated capital, if the corporation buys it and you use it for >personnal usage............income to you. Distributable income, just >where did this corporation get it's money to buy all this "stuff" for >the shareholder to use.............follow me here......you donate the >fuel money, insurance money, property tax money then have to report it >as income on your personal tax return just to save some up front sales >tax money????? " > > >This article, (please read the whole thing, it's not long) > >http://www.ainonline.com/issues/02_04/02_04_IRSusep6.html > >says in part, > >"Owners and employees who use company airplanes for pleasure instead of >business are required to report the value of their trips as taxable >income," the Post said, "though under a long-standing formula that does >not necessarily reflect the actual cost." That formula is the >Transportation Department's own standard industry fare level (SIFL) and >is determined by aircraft weight and distance flown. > >According to the Post, the IRS ruling could result in deductions that >are substantially larger than the reported income. In cases of S >corporations, which pass profits and losses through to the owners, >"That means the owner of such a business could report the income under >[the SIFL] formula while receiving an even bigger deduction as his >share of the company's gains and losses," it said. > >As one aviation tax advisor explained to AIN, "I'm the guy using the >airplane and I own the company, and so all of the deductions flow >through to me. They reduce the amount of taxes that I pay." He admitted >that it could lead to abuses and shows that the IRS is willing to >countenance that abuse. > >Keith Swirsky of Galland, Kharasch, Greenberg, Fellman & Swirsky, a >specialist in aircraft taxation, told AIN that in the case of an >S-corporation shareholder using the aircraft for a very high percent of >personal use, those expenses are being deducted by the company although >they relate to personal use. "So the net is a huge tax benefit," he >said, equating it to tax shelters in the 1980s. > >In the federal court case that started all of this, there was a high >percentage of personal use of a corporate aircraft, which was computed >as personal income using SIFL. But the IRS thought the deduction for >operating the aircraft should be limited to the SIFL calculation. The >federal court disagreed, and ruled that all of the aircraft operating >costs could be deducted. > >The Post claimed that the effect of the memo "could be a substantial >windfall" for private jet owners, wealthy families and family >businesses. And, while the recent IRS interpretation was specific to an >S corporation, it could also reflect the agency's views for other >"pass-through entities," such as partnerships and limited-liability >companies, he said. > >According to the article, "it is too early to estimate how much the new >interpretation might cost the government, but several attorneys and >accountants who advise wealthy clients said they expect personal use of >corporate airplanes to rise sharply." > > > > > > >_______________________________________ >Search the KRnet Archives at http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp >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: 19 Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 14:23:55 +1000 From: "GavinandLouise" Subject: KR> wing To: "KR builders and pilots" Message-ID: <001e01c4e0cb$8f3c67a0$0100000a@vic.bigpond.net.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Hi all, While we are on the subject of the new wing profile, I'm just starting my outer wing panels and though I've followed the plans, it seems that when I get to sanding the ribs and panels down using the outer stub wing ply template as a guide, the area around the join at the WAF's won't work out. The wing template on my stub wing is 11/2" from the end of the stub spar and this means that when I put my sanding board on the outer wing especially on the under side the spar doesn't line up with the stub. It's a geometry thing really, because of the dihedral. What I'm planning on doing is making some more temporary templates to use attached to the very end of the stub spar or outer spars for sanding purposes only. Has anybody done this?? Is this standard practice?? Thanks Gavin ------------------------------ Message: 20 Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2004 23:25:41 EST From: IFLYKRS@aol.com Subject: KR> COWLINGS and CORVAIR ENGINES To: krnet@mylist.net Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" I've just returned from being at William Wynnes place down in Edgewater Florida and wanted to let out a little secret. For those KR builders who are contemplating a corvair engine (which I highly encourage due to my 85 hours and counting... cant be happier) you will be pleased to know that there is a cowling in the works that allows the use of the front starter kit that W.W. has developed and will still stay streamline. Before doing all the modifications for a rear starter..like I have... you may want to see how the new cowling and spinner look on the KR. I think it would be a big time saver and allows the corvair engine to be used with the stock cooler and filter. Some have made comments about the starter being in the front messing with the weight and balance but I can tell you that those issues can be easily dealt with and are not a big deal. This cowling will allow the use of the stock prop hub that W.W. sells without having to install a prop extension and running the risk of more stresses on the crank. Simple and safe is the way to go and put lots of hours FLYING!!! instead of worrying. I am thinking of trying one once they become available, but for now I am flying. I have tremendous respect for William Wynne and the work and labor he has put into the development of a safe and reliable engine. While there we got an engine going for a couple guys from St. Loius IL that are building a 601... They were thrilled to hear that engine purr.... what a sound and big inspiration to get their plane airborne...William spend many hours helping them build their engine. You wont find that kind of help or encouragement from any other engine provider. I truly believe that his help and well made products are a great benefit to the KR builders who chose the corvair engine and to aviation in general. I have flown behind the Revemaster 2180 turbo on my first KR2 and though a good engine and reliable, I can easily say that I feel much more confident behind the corvair. I hope to encourage all you builders to keep at it. Help each other where you can and if I can help by stopping by... I plan to do some friendly flying in to builders to check their progress and show them the corvair installation if so interested...let me know. Well, out to the shop to finish a 172 wing repair - and clean up stuff...... Bill Clapp N41768 - (85.2 hours) ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ See KRnet list details at http://www.krnet.org/instructions.html End of KRnet Digest, Vol 346, Issue 236 *************************************** ================================== ABC Amber Outlook Converter v4.20 Trial version ==================================