From: krnet-bounces@mylist.net To: John Bouyea Subject: KRnet Digest, Vol 346, Issue 34 Date: 7/18/2004 4:34:43 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: stability challenge (jscott.pilot@juno.com) 2. KR - CCI goodies (Stephen Jacobs) 3. Wing incidence with RAF-48? (Duncan) 4. Re: Wing incidence with RAF-48? (Mac McConnell-Wood) 5. Re: Wing incidence with RAF-48? (Mark Jones) 6. Re: Wing incidence with RAF-48? (Bernard McLean Sr) 7. Re: Wing incidence with RAF-48? (Dan Heath) 8. Soldering school (Fritz) 9. Re: Soldering school (Dan Heath) 10. Re: Gathering info (Jim Sellars) 11. Re: Wing incidence with RAF-48? (Ron Eason) 12. Re: Soldering school (JEHayward@aol.com) 13. Re: Fuel flow (Joseph H. Horton) 14. Re: Re: Fuel flow (Jim Morehead) 15. Re: Re: Fuel flow (Joseph H. Horton) 16. RE: Re: Fuel flow (Ron Freiberger) 17. Re: Aerobatics in the KR? (Dene Collett (SA)) 18. Re: Fuel flow (larry flesner) 19. Havelock Flying Club Fly-in (larry flesner) 20. Re: stability challenge (Ray Fuenzalida) 21. RE: Wing incidence with RAF-48? (alphabravo pilot) 22. Troy Petteway's N100TP (Mark Langford) 23. Re: fuel flow, (Joseph H. Horton) 24. Re: Havelock Flying Club Fly-in (Jim Sellars) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2004 22:20:46 -0600 From: jscott.pilot@juno.com Subject: Re: KR> stability challenge To: krnet@mylist.net Message-ID: <20040717.222046.1240.0.jscott.pilot@juno.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Ken, There's nothing special about my KR. See the 2002 gathering photos for pictures of it. It's a -2S that was started before there were -2S plans. Consequently, it is really a stock -2 with a 14" stretch in the fuselage and a streamlined canopy.. The only thing significantly different is that I have my CG farther forward than most. I haven't done a CG calculation on the plane in a couple of years, but can tell you that it will go well over gross before I can get it out of the CG range. I also do not consider the aft 2" of the CG range specified in the plans to be usable. Consequently, since I know that it is always in an acceptable CG range, I don't bother to calculate it. I can tell you that it is normally in the front 2" of the CG range specified in the plans and would have been within that range on this flight. Jeff On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 20:10:08 -0400 "Kenneth B. Jones" writes: > Jeff, > > I would be interested to know what, if any, modifications your KR > has that > might be responsible for its better than average stability? Is it a > KR2 or > 2S? Where was your CG vs the aft face of the forward spar (or some > other > reference) during the recent "hands off" stability check? > > Thanks, > > Ken Jones > N5834 > > Larry, et al, > > > > Just to make sure I wasn't halucinating about having flown my KR > hands > > off, yesterday morning I flew it hands off from Los Alamos to > Taos, NM. > > 50 miles. Could have easily gone much further. I climbed to > 9500', > > trimmed the plane for 150 mph cruise, then flew it hands off for > 50 miles > > using fuel transfer from the wings to the header tank to keep the > plane > > properly trimmed. I was able to maintain within 50' of altitude > for the > > trip. > > > > My CG is a bit more forward than most, which probably enhances > the > > stability. > > > > Jeff > > > > _______________________________________ > to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to KRnet-leave@mylist.net > please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html > > ________________________________________________________________ The best thing to hit the Internet in years - Juno SpeedBand! Surf the Web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER! Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today! ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 07:26:19 +0200 From: "Stephen Jacobs" Subject: KR> KR - CCI goodies To: "'KRnet'" Message-ID: <000601c46c87$c55b5b60$0e64a8c0@home> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Happy Sunday to all netters I went looking for a starter mod I recalled seeing and found some new stuff on Art's site. http://www.computer-certainty.com/ = The brake heat shield may be of some value to those with glass legs. = The speed brake control is for Long /Vary Ez's but offers an interesting concept. = I used his VG's on my PA32 - brilliant. He provides free CAD dwgs for most of the stuff - I found (and downloaded) my ACad drawing for the starter mod Steve J ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 19:18:00 +1200 From: Duncan Subject: KR> Wing incidence with RAF-48? To: krnet Message-ID: <6.1.2.0.2.20040718191507.02464ec0@styx> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Hi, I have been following the discussion occasioned by the AS-family or aerofoils and the 1 degree incidence recommendation, but does this also apply to aircraft fitted (or about to be fitted) with the RAF-48 airfoils (ie the Diehl wing skins)? Regards, Duncan of Devonport Auckland, New Zealand ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 10:45:28 +0100 From: "Mac McConnell-Wood" Subject: Re: KR> Wing incidence with RAF-48? To: "KRnet" Message-ID: <000a01c46cab$f5d4fc00$bc929c51@tinypc> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Ho! -Duncan of Devonport-are you of that ilk,-or just common old Duncan? Ref the RAF incidence,-I would stick to the original 3.5° -It gives you a nice nose down ride and "if it aint bust,why fix it?" Regards Mac McConnell-Wood of Winters hill UK ----- Original Message ----- From: "Duncan" To: "krnet" Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2004 8:18 AM Subject: KR> Wing incidence with RAF-48? > Hi, > I have been following the discussion occasioned by the AS-family or > aerofoils and the 1 degree incidence recommendation, but does this > also apply to aircraft fitted (or about to be fitted) with the RAF-48 > airfoils (ie the Diehl wing skins)? > > Regards, > > Duncan of Devonport > Auckland, New Zealand > > > > _______________________________________ > 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: 5 Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 07:24:19 -0500 From: "Mark Jones" Subject: Re: KR> Wing incidence with RAF-48? To: "KRnet" Message-ID: <001001c46cc2$26862fc0$6401a8c0@wi.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Duncan, I would not use the 3.5° that the plans call for unless you want to go through the air looking like a dolphin with your nose pointed down. There are a lot of things in the plans which should have been well researched before they were published. The RAF48 concept was borrowed from another design. Personally, I would set it somewhere between 1 to 2 degrees. But then that is just my 2 cents worth. Mark Jones (N886MJ) Wales, WI USA E-mail me at flykr2s@wi.rr.com Visit my KR-2S CorvAIRCRAFT web site at http://mywebpage.netscape.com/n886mj/homepage.html ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mac McConnell-Wood" To: "KRnet" Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2004 4:45 AM Subject: Re: KR> Wing incidence with RAF-48? Ho! -Duncan of Devonport-are you of that ilk,-or just common old Duncan? Ref the RAF incidence,-I would stick to the original 3.5° -It gives you a nice nose down ride and "if it aint bust,why fix it?" Regards Mac McConnell-Wood of Winters hill UK ----- Original Message ----- From: "Duncan" To: "krnet" Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2004 8:18 AM Subject: KR> Wing incidence with RAF-48? > Hi, > I have been following the discussion occasioned by the AS-family or > aerofoils and the 1 degree incidence recommendation, but does this > also apply to aircraft fitted (or about to be fitted) with the RAF-48 > airfoils (ie the Diehl wing skins)? > > Regards, > > Duncan of Devonport > Auckland, New Zealand > > > > _______________________________________ > to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to KRnet-leave@mylist.net > please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html _______________________________________ 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: 6 Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 07:46:01 -0500 From: Bernard McLean Sr Subject: Re: KR> Wing incidence with RAF-48? To: KRnet Message-ID: <40FA7109.1010705@northboone.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Discussion of this topic raises a couple of interesting issues for me; I started building my KR 2 in 1986 and completed the wing spars (all...main, front and rear plus outer, front and rear). I also completed the fuselage sides and horizontal stabilizer and elevators before going into a 17 year hiatus! I attended the 2003 Red Oak Gathering and was re-energized to get busy and (after retirement) have done so. I bought the KR 2S plans supplement and have resumed building using the parts I completed earlier. I am close to completion of the "boat" (belly is skinned, spar holes are cut, top cross members installed etc.). I have incorporated what I was able to from the -2S plans (firewall dimensions, top engine rails, main spar gussets etc. and am close to permanent installation of the center spars. Since built the spars to the original -2 dimensions, I assume I should not use any of the -2S wing dimensions and have decided to use the -2 plans and instructions. Now I'm wondering if I should use 3.5 degrees incidence as per the -2 plans or something less as suggested by Mark. What would be the effect on pitch stability (if any) of using less than 3.5 degrees? I don't like the idea of a nose-down attitude in flight if it can be avoided but am hesitant to divert from the plans in this area. I have also decided to discard the retractable gear components I purchased with the original plans (unless someone is interested in buying them...make me an offer) in favor of the fixed gear tail dragger version. I'm about 20% done with about 90% remaining ;-) . I would appreciate any builder comments from the list. Incidentally, we plan to attend the gathering at Mount Vernon in September and will pick brains then too!. Thanks. Bernie McLean Poplar Grove Illinois ------------------------------ Message: 7 Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 08:57:14 -0400 (Eastern Standard Time) From: "Dan Heath" Subject: Re: KR> Wing incidence with RAF-48? To: "krnet@mylist.net" Message-ID: <40FA73AA.000009.02960@COMPUTER> Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Bernard, >From all that I have read and from my experience with my first KR, I >think that the faster you fly, over 130MPH or so, the less incidence you would want to have. Be sure not to confuse the incidence set with the RAF48 with that set with the new wing. I can only tell you that at 135mph, my KR flew nose down and it was a very early plans built.. "There is a time for building and a time for GOING TO THE GATHERING, and the time for building has long since expired." See you in Mt. Vernon - 2004 - KR Gathering http://KRGathering.org See N64KR at http://KR-Builder.org - Then click on the pics Daniel R. Heath - Columbia, SC ------------------------------ Message: 8 Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 13:04:02 -0400 From: "Fritz" Subject: KR> Soldering school To: Message-ID: <004f01c46ce9$3a6c1c80$01fea8c0@MillFritz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" I repaired and calibrated flight computers for the Bendix Corp for six years.When I started they made everyone attend a five day soldering school .We used solder that was about 1/32 diameter that consisted of 95% silver and 5% tin or antimony, Most of the wire was 22 GA.silver plated copper.The insulation was Teflon.On a post terminal they required the wire to be wrapped 5 times and when it was soldered you had to be able to see all of the wraps. The solder was rosin core and you used a 17watt iron. These computers flew in F-105's and just about every type of commercial airliner all around the world.We washed all solder joints with Acetone,I consider this to be ultimate quality. VW-KR-2 in Pa. 80%done40% to go. Fritz ------------------------------ Message: 9 Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 13:36:01 -0400 (Eastern Standard Time) From: "Dan Heath" Subject: Re: KR> Soldering school To: "krnet@mylist.net" Message-ID: <40FAB501.000001.04000@COMPUTER> Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" RE: VW-KR-2 in Pa. 80%done40% to go. I see you are an optimist. "There is a time for building and a time for GOING TO THE GATHERING, and the time for building has long since expired." See you in Mt. Vernon - 2004 - KR Gathering http://KRGathering.org See N64KR at http://KR-Builder.org - Then click on the pics Daniel R. Heath - Columbia, SC ------------------------------ Message: 10 Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 14:45:00 -0300 From: "Jim Sellars" Subject: Re: KR> Gathering info To: "KRnet" Message-ID: <001a01c46cee$f3814c90$8785c345@mainpc> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Larry; Hope no one objects to the following; I would like to invite anyone near enough to make the trip to our Annual Havelock Flying Club Family Barbeque Fly-in. It will be the weekend of July 31, August 1, & 2, (if bad weather) at Havelock Airfield, Havelock NB, Canada. The best little grass strip you ever saw.(2700 feet) Camping, Great food, a country & western band, Satelite spotting, and comradery, friendly folks, flea market and auction. All welcome if by air or by land come and see our neat little airport, and have a fun time, one lady told us last year after her first fly in, "it was just like being in the Great Gadsby." Hope you will come. Best regards Jim Sellars 506-956-7977 KR-2 C-GCJI KR-2 C-GROK ----- Original Message ----- From: "larry flesner" To: "KRnet" Sent: Sunday, July 11, 2004 3:23 PM Subject: KR> Gathering info > > > Some on the KRnet are not aware of or missed the post about the > www.krgathering.org web site. If you haven't already checked it > out please do so now and continue to check back for updates. If you > intend to make the Gathering, please do the "pre-registration" form on > the site to give me a better idea of how many will be attending. > Thanks....... > > "Woopie" for breakfast, fly the KR all morning, chili dogs for > lunch!!! Man, I hope I don't do myself in before the > Gathering!!!!!!!!!! > > Larry Flesner - 2004 KR Gathering host > > > > _______________________________________ > to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to KRnet-leave@mylist.net > please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html > ------------------------------ Message: 11 Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 13:19:23 -0500 From: "Ron Eason" Subject: Re: KR> Wing incidence with RAF-48? To: "KRnet" Message-ID: <006401c46cf3$c077dcb0$6601a8c0@CADENGINEERING> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Make your choice wisely, because you will live with it for a long time. A plane flies at many different speeds. What ever incidence you chose it will be wrong for other speeds / air densities. KRron ----- Original Message ----- From: "Duncan" To: "krnet" Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2004 2:18 AM Subject: KR> Wing incidence with RAF-48? > Hi, > I have been following the discussion occasioned by the AS-family or > aerofoils and the 1 degree incidence recommendation, but does this > also apply to aircraft fitted (or about to be fitted) with the RAF-48 > airfoils (ie the Diehl wing skins)? > > Regards, > > Duncan of Devonport > Auckland, New Zealand > > > > _______________________________________ > 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: 12 Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 14:33:47 EDT From: JEHayward@aol.com Subject: Re: KR> Soldering school To: krnet@mylist.net Message-ID: <1c2.1bc9c060.2e2c1c8b@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" In a message dated 7/18/04 11:04:36 AM Mountain Daylight Time, redseas@epix.net writes: << On a post terminal they required the wire to be wrapped 5 times and when it was soldered you had to be able to see all of the wraps. >> Sounds like the NASA soldering school we had when I was stationed with the AF in Florida. It was amazing how much weight was saved by applying just enough solder to keep the mechanical joint, electrically good. Jim Hayward Rapid City, SD ------------------------------ Message: 13 Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 15:05:04 -0400 From: "Joseph H. Horton" Subject: KR> Re: Fuel flow To: krnet@mylist.net,corvaircraft@mylist.net Message-ID: <20040718.150505.3156.1.joe.kr2s.builder@juno.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Guys I just finished doing a couple fuel flow tests. The first is in level flight attitude from full stock Rand/Robinson header tank with 11.5 gal. gravity feed. The result is 22.75 gal per hour. The second was also from full header tank but with the plane in a 12.5 degree nose up attitude. The result was 19.5 gal per hour flow. Both were gravity only. I would expect to get better than this in real life action as there is a vent tube that faces the prop wash that should pressurize the tank. Any comments or thoughts on these base line results? Joe Horton joe.kr2s.builder@juno.com ------------------------------ Message: 14 Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 12:25:23 -0700 From: Jim Morehead Subject: Re: KR> Re: Fuel flow To: KRnet Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Joe, What size valve do you have on your header tank and what size fuel line do you have running through the gascolator and to the Carb? Thanks, Jim Morehead Cameron Park, CA on 7/18/04 12:05 PM, Joseph H. Horton at joe.kr2s.builder@juno.com wrote: > Guys > I just finished doing a couple fuel flow tests. The first is in > level flight attitude from full stock Rand/Robinson header tank with 11.5 > gal. gravity feed. The result is 22.75 gal per hour. > The second was also from full header tank but with the plane in a > 12.5 degree nose up attitude. The result was 19.5 gal per hour flow. > Both were gravity only. I would expect to get better than this in > real life action as there is a vent tube that faces the prop wash that > should pressurize the tank. > Any comments or thoughts on these base line results? > Joe Horton > joe.kr2s.builder@juno.com > > _______________________________________ > 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: 15 Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 15:39:19 -0400 From: "Joseph H. Horton" Subject: Re: KR> Re: Fuel flow To: krnet@mylist.net Message-ID: <20040718.154338.3736.0.joe.kr2s.builder@juno.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > Joe, > What size valve do you have on your header tank and what size > fuel line > do you have running through the gascolator and to the Carb? > > Thanks, > Jim Morehead > Cameron Park, CA All AN-6 fittings and lines. Joe Horton joe.kr2s.builder@juno.com ------------------------------ Message: 16 Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 15:01:17 -0500 From: "Ron Freiberger" Subject: RE: KR> Re: Fuel flow To: "KRnet" Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Yes, I would do it at 12.5 degrees with low fuel.... That's when you need to know whether to land slow or fast. ;o) Ron Freiberger mailto: rfreiberger at swfla.rr.com -----Original Message----- From: krnet-bounces@mylist.net [mailto:krnet-bounces@mylist.net]On Behalf Of Joseph H. Horton Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2004 2:05 PM To: krnet@mylist.net; corvaircraft@mylist.net Subject: KR> Re: Fuel flow Guys I just finished doing a couple fuel flow tests. The first is in level flight attitude from full stock Rand/Robinson header tank with 11.5 gal. gravity feed. The result is 22.75 gal per hour. The second was also from full header tank but with the plane in a 12.5 degree nose up attitude. The result was 19.5 gal per hour flow. Both were gravity only. I would expect to get better than this in real life action as there is a vent tube that faces the prop wash that should pressurize the tank. Any comments or thoughts on these base line results? Joe Horton joe.kr2s.builder@juno.com _______________________________________ 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: 17 Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 22:19:46 +0200 From: "Dene Collett \(SA\)" Subject: Re: KR> Aerobatics in the KR? To: , "KRnet" Message-ID: <000001c46cf7$d9d121e0$37e5fea9@telkomsa127179> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Hey Serge Yep, got me there. As I have said before WEC is the only KR that I have ever flown in. We did three rolls that day, the third one being the best (If I had closed my eyes, I wouldn't have felt the roll!) Rob did tell me that he has looped it as well, how many times I don't know. Another interesting story he told me was one day while flying alone he rolled it 15 or 19 times in one continuous roll untill he lost all orientation and had to stop. I took delivery of a beautiful set of 5" "Grove" wheels and brakes with 11.400x5 tires as well as two weld-on axles. Now I can really get my retract system going. Only problem is my pro welder (Rob) is off to New Zealand next week Wednesday for up to three months! Cheers Dene Collett KR2S-RT builder Port Elizabeth South Africa mailto: dene.collett@telkomsa.net P.S: checkout www.whisperaircraft.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Serge F. Vidal" To: "'KRnet'" Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2004 12:27 PM Subject: RE: KR> Aerobatics in the KR? > Hi, Dene! Was it my plane (ZS-WEC), by any chance? > > Cheers, > > Serge Vidal > KR2 ZS-WEC > - Taildragger, VW powered (2.4 liter, dual electronic ignition) > - Total aircraft time: 390h > - Aircraft hangared at: Orleans, France > - Pilot moaning in: Tunis, Tunisia > E-mail: serge.vidal@ate-international.com > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: krnet-bounces@mylist.net [mailto:krnet-bounces@mylist.net]On > Behalf Of Dene Collett (SA) > Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2004 21:41 > To: KRnet > Subject: Re: KR> Aerobatics in the KR? > > > Hi Guys > I have done rolls in a KR2 and I know the same plane did loops as well > without any problems. It was powered by a type4 VW 2.0L. Dene Collett > KR2S-RT builder > Port Elizabeth > South Africa > mailto: dene.collett@telkomsa.net > P.S: checkout www.whisperaircraft.com > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Duncan" > To: > Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2004 12:09 PM > Subject: KR> Aerobatics in the KR? > > > > Hi, > > I've searched the archives of this list, and have not really found > > much, > so > > here goes with my question: > > > > Can one perform 'recreational' aerobatics in a Corvair-powered KR2? > > > > Before you dash off a reply pointing out that I should look > > elsewhere for > a > > more suitable aircraft, let me hasten to add that I'm not asking if > > it can > > handle competition type aerobatics, I know it can't. I'm asking > > because I'm about to do a 15-hr aerobatics course, and I would > > really like to > spend > > some of those long summer afternoons practising a few loops and > > rolls. I > > know the Sonex, for instance, (whose airframe is rated to roughly > > the same > > G-forces, and which uses the VW conversion) is certainly rated for > > mild aerobatics. So, what about the KR? > > > > Duncan > > > > > > > > _______________________________________ > > to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to KRnet-leave@mylist.net > > please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html > > > > > _______________________________________ > to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to KRnet-leave@mylist.net > please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html > > > _______________________________________ > 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: 18 Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 15:53:45 -0500 From: larry flesner Subject: KR> Re: Fuel flow To: KRnet Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20040718155345.007dbc70@pop.midwest.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >gal. gravity feed. The result is 22.75 gal per hour. > The second was also from full header tank but with the plane in >a 12.5 degree nose up attitude. The result was 19.5 gal per hour flow. Joe Horton ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Joe, I think the number you're looking for is 1.5 X the max fuel burn for you engine. You would want that in a worst case , i.e., very low fuel in the tank, nose up or down. Make sure you check it right at the carb as any additional fittings may cut the flow rate. Sounds like you're more than good to me if those test were with low fuel in the tank. Larry Flesner ------------------------------ Message: 19 Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 15:58:08 -0500 From: larry flesner Subject: KR> Havelock Flying Club Fly-in To: KRnet Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20040718155808.007e3990@pop.midwest.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > Hope no one objects to the following; I would like to invite anyone >near enough to make the trip to our Annual Havelock Flying Club Family >Barbeque Fly-in. It will be the weekend of July 31, August 1, & 2, (if >bad weather) at Havelock Airfield, Havelock NB, Canada. >Jim Sellars +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim, I don't know why anyone would object. I only wish I were close enough to attend......... Larry Flesner ------------------------------ Message: 20 Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 15:15:47 -0700 (PDT) From: Ray Fuenzalida Subject: Re: KR> stability challenge To: KRnet Message-ID: <20040718221547.47719.qmail@web42003.mail.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Excellent results. Gives me hope for mine. Not that I really need hands off capability, but it's nice to have. Ray --- jscott.pilot@juno.com wrote: > > On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 18:07:24 -0500 larry flesner > writes: > > At 03:22 PM 7/16/04 -0700, you wrote: > > >larry flesner wrote: > > >> ...the stability charactistics of the KR. That > is > > >> all determined by airfoil shape and angle, > distance between wing > > >> and tail surfaces, size of the flying surfaces, > etc. > > >--------------------------- > > >You forgot CG location. When comparing notes on > stability, it is > > >critical to know the CG position. > > >Kris > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > You're right. I guess that was a critical part of > the "etc." that > > should have been stated. Thanks. Mine was (is) > mid-range > > most of the time I fly. > > > > Larry Flesner > > Larry, et al, > > Just to make sure I wasn't halucinating about having > flown my KR hands > off, yesterday morning I flew it hands off from Los > Alamos to Taos, NM. > 50 miles. Could have easily gone much further. I > climbed to 9500', > trimmed the plane for 150 mph cruise, then flew it > hands off for 50 miles > using fuel transfer from the wings to the header > tank to keep the plane > properly trimmed. I was able to maintain within 50' > of altitude for the > trip. > > My CG is a bit more forward than most, which > probably enhances the > stability. > > Jeff > > ________________________________________________________________ > 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! > > _______________________________________ > 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!? Vote for the stars of Yahoo!'s next ad campaign! http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/yahoo/votelifeengine/ ------------------------------ Message: 21 Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 23:03:53 +0000 From: "alphabravo pilot" Subject: RE: KR> Wing incidence with RAF-48? To: krnet@mylist.net Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Take your choise as you like, but every thing has areson.they recomanded the 1 degree because it provides the beter flight situation and beter cruise speed withen that design ...the higher incedance you use the more pitch down you will use for beter cruise speed,then it will effict on every thing specially the vewing and the way that you fly level _ it will be like adolphin as they saide_ how do you solve this problem ? just by changing the design it selfe!! ,and thats deson't mean that the 3.5 is bad ,you can use it but you have to solve the other problems that cosed by the 3.5 degree specially if you were looking for higher cruise speed ... the best is to use 1 or 2 degree...but at the end it will be your choise goodluck NASSER www.uaespaces.om >From: Duncan >Reply-To: KRnet >To: krnet >Subject: KR> Wing incidence with RAF-48? >Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 19:18:00 +1200 > >Hi, >I have been following the discussion occasioned by the AS-family or >aerofoils and the 1 degree incidence recommendation, but does this also >apply to aircraft fitted (or about to be fitted) with the RAF-48 >airfoils (ie the Diehl wing skins)? > >Regards, > >Duncan of Devonport >Auckland, New Zealand > > > >_______________________________________ >to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to KRnet-leave@mylist.net >please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html _________________________________________________________________ Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail ------------------------------ Message: 22 Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 18:07:49 -0500 From: "Mark Langford" Subject: KR> Troy Petteway's N100TP To: "KRnet" Message-ID: <011401c46d1c$0c0543c0$1202a8c0@basement> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" KRnetHeads, I didn't get much building done today, but I DID get some KR stick time in, in Troy Petteway's KR2! We did some general climbs and turns, that sort of thing, and a few runs down the runway in ground effect, and one landing that I almost did myself! The thing flies better the faster it goes, even though it was a tad bumpy today. It climbs like crazy! It's just like they say, just think it and it does it. Landing was actually pretty easy, but Starduster standards, but I'm still nowhere near ready to do it by myself. The torque of that engine is fairly amazing, so I'll need to get used to that before I fly mine. It's awesome how fast it gets around the pattern. He recently finished up all the systems and put a fresh coat of paint on it. He says he's going to make the Gathering, and Jeff Duval is going to try to make it too in his white/orange KR2 that we saw at the Columbia gathering. I took a few photos and posted them at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford/troy/ . There's also some updated info on his wing incidence, washout, stability and sensitivity, and stall speed with the new AS5046 wing. Anybody that wants to hear about the AS5046 wing can hear it from the horse's mouth at the Gathering. Troy says I can still fly mine to the Gathering, so I'm not giving up yet after all. Back on the intake job... Mark Langford, Huntsville, Alabama N56ML "at" hiwaay.net see KR2S project at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford ------------------------------ Message: 23 Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 19:05:23 -0400 From: "Joseph H. Horton" Subject: KR> Re: fuel flow, To: corvaircraft@mylist.net,krnet@mylist.net Message-ID: <20040718.190524.3736.1.joe.kr2s.builder@juno.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Thanks for the replies Guys, I don't know the actual fuel consumption at full power but was at this point guessing at 8 gph. max. I don't find any restrictions in the system but there are more turns than I would have had if I had originally planned on gravity feed. I will do more testing in different fuel tank levels of fuel and at the same two angles. Right now it does not sound like it is to bad. Conservatively There should be 2 times the max power requirement at about half tank and that will be the absolute minimum for take off placard On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 17:27:43 -0400 "Joseph Goldman" writes: > What is the maximum fuel flow GPH possible at full takeoff power. > What is to be expected at 65% and 55% power. > I know there are many factors for more and less usage. but what > should be expected in a plane like Williams. > > Joe G. _________________________________________________________ > to UNsubscribe from CorvAircraft, send a message to > CorvAircraft-leave@mylist.net > Other CorvAircraft list info is at > http://www.krnet.org/corvaircraft_inst.html > > Joe Horton joe.kr2s.builder@juno.com ------------------------------ Message: 24 Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 20:34:36 -0300 From: "Jim Sellars" Subject: Re: KR> Havelock Flying Club Fly-in To: "KRnet" Message-ID: <020c01c46d1f$ca259190$8785c345@mainpc> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Thanks Larry, maybe this year I will make it to the gathering and meet you folks first hand. Best regards Jim ----- Original Message ----- From: "larry flesner" To: "KRnet" Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2004 5:58 PM Subject: KR> Havelock Flying Club Fly-in > > Hope no one objects to the following; I would like to invite > > anyone near > >enough to make the trip to our Annual Havelock Flying Club Family Barbeque > >Fly-in. It will be the weekend of July 31, August 1, & 2, (if bad weather) > >at Havelock Airfield, Havelock NB, Canada. > >Jim Sellars > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > Jim, > > I don't know why anyone would object. I only wish I were close enough > to attend......... > > 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 > ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ See KRnet list details at http://www.krnet.org/instructions.html End of KRnet Digest, Vol 346, Issue 34 ************************************** ================================== ABC Amber Outlook Converter v4.20 Trial version ==================================