From: krnet-bounces@mylist.net To: John Bouyea Subject: KRnet Digest, Vol 346, Issue 67 Date: 5/12/2004 9:03:53 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: Aluminum Speed Brake (Jack Cooper) 2. Re: Aluminum Speed Brake (Joseph H Horton) 3. Re: Aluminum Speed Brake (Mark Jones) 4. Re: forming Lexan lenses (Dan Heath) 5. Re: Final inspection (Linda Warner) 6. Re: Why a 172 RG? (Boeing757mech1@aol.com) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 21:27:58 -0400 From: "Jack Cooper" Subject: RE: KR> Aluminum Speed Brake To: "KRnet" Message-ID: <410-220045413127580@earthlink.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Mark Just my uneducated guess is that .125 would be plenty thick enough. I'm not that far along yet but that is what I plan to use if I use a speed brake. I also searched 27 years of newsletters and on page 67 found some info about speed brake.1/4" plywood was used in the one on the drawing. Jack Cooper > [Original Message] > From: Mark Jones > To: KR Net > Date: 5/12/2004 7:04:58 PM > Subject: KR> Aluminum Speed Brake > > I have searched the archives on "aluminum speed brake" and only got > eight results. I am going to install an aluminum speed brake with three rows of 3/4" diameter holes. I am planning on a 9" x 36" size. My question is...what thickness 6061-T6 aluminum should I use? The only reference I have found stated .060 but personally, I think that is way too thin. I was more inclined to 1/4". What do you guys think? Thanks > > 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 > > _______________________________________ > 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: Wed, 12 May 2004 21:13:05 -0400 From: Joseph H Horton Subject: Re: KR> Aluminum Speed Brake To: krnet@mylist.net Message-ID: <20040512.215352.-536615.0.joe.kr2s.builder@juno.com> Content-Type: text/plain Mark wrote: On Wed, 12 May 2004 18:05:45 -0500 "Mark Jones" writes: > I have searched the archives on "aluminum speed brake" and only got > eight results. I am going to install an aluminum speed brake with > three rows of 3/4" diameter holes. I am planning on a 9" x 36" size. > My question is...what thickness 6061-T6 aluminum should I use? The > only reference I have found stated .060 but personally, I think that > is way too thin. I was more inclined to 1/4". What do you guys > think? Thanks Mark- No experience here, just a couple thoughts. The 1/4" is going to be a pretty heavy piece of metal. The .060 doesn't sound all that unresonable. (I used that as the instrument panel.) It could have hemed edges for some stiffness and/or some formed or applied stiffners to the face of the brake. Joe Horton Coopersburg, Pa. joe.kr2s.builder@juno.com ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 21:11:54 -0500 From: "Mark Jones" Subject: Re: KR> Aluminum Speed Brake To: "KRnet" Message-ID: <007601c4388f$a9810420$6401a8c0@wi.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" I was just at the local Ace and was checking out thickness of metals measuring 12" x 12". I agree that 1/4 is way overkill. 1/8" will provide superior strength. 1/16" just did not sit well with me as I could see it bending under loads. I am going to use 1/8" x 9" x 36". There will be three rows of 3/4" holes. My drawing is on my computer at work but I think I placed 11 holes on the top row, 8 in the middle row with a space in the center row for the push rod attach point and 11 holes in the bottom row. I will pop rivet an aluminum piano hinge to the brake and attach it to the fuselage below the main spar. I have the manual Rand flap handle mounted to the front center of my main spar which will actuate the brake. Thanks for your inputs. 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: "Joseph H Horton" To: Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 8:13 PM Subject: Re: KR> Aluminum Speed Brake > Mark wrote: > On Wed, 12 May 2004 18:05:45 -0500 "Mark Jones" > writes: > > I have searched the archives on "aluminum speed brake" and only got > > eight results. I am going to install an aluminum speed brake with > > three rows of 3/4" diameter holes. I am planning on a 9" x 36" size. > > My question is...what thickness 6061-T6 aluminum should I use? The > > only reference I have found stated .060 but personally, I think that > > is way too thin. I was more inclined to 1/4". What do you guys > > think? Thanks > > Mark- No experience here, just a couple thoughts. The 1/4" is going to > be a pretty heavy piece of metal. The .060 doesn't sound all that > unresonable. (I used that as the instrument panel.) It could have > hemed edges for some stiffness and/or some formed or applied stiffners > to the face of the brake. Joe Horton > Coopersburg, Pa. > 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: 4 Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 22:30:08 -0400 (Eastern Standard Time) From: "Dan Heath" Subject: Re: KR> forming Lexan lenses To: "krnet@mylist.net" Message-ID: <40A2DDB0.00000E.03340@COMPUTER> Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Larry, If you are going to heat form, use Acrylic. Lexan has a lot of moisture in it and clouds up when it is heat formed unless you are able to dry it out first. Try not to heat the acrylic over 220 degrees or it will pick up the pattern of whatever it is touching. 1/8 in. or less, for lenses should work well for you. There is a time for building and a time for flying, and the time for building has long since expired. See N64KR at http://KR-Builder.org - Then click on the pics Daniel R. Heath - Columbia, SC See you in Mt. Vernon - 2004 - KR Gathering See our EAA Chapter 242 at http://EAA242.org -------Original Message------- From: KRnet Date: 05/12/04 18:18:58 To: KRnet Subject: KR> forming Lexan lenses I need to replace a landing light cover. What is the temperature for forming Lexan to the right shape in the oven? 325? use an aluminum form? Larry Severson Fountain Valley, CA 92708 (714) 968-9852 larry2@socal.rr.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: 5 Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 22:54:07 -0400 From: jaslkw@webtv.net (Linda Warner) Subject: Re: KR> Final inspection To: krnet@mylist.net Message-ID: <611-40A2E34F-92@storefull-3134.bay.webtv.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Hi netters. The requirement to have a remote panel switch (as well as a way of determining that the ELT is on... either via a light or by audible tone..... plus a way to silence it from the panel) was by way of a change to F.A.R. 91. This change occurred back in 1995 and was a simple change requiring all new installations to conform to a new TSO C91a. The old TSO (C91) only required that the ELT have a "G" sensing switch. With the increase of false activations etc, the new generation of ELT's needed a way to detect a false activation and to silence the unit. Hence the change in the T.S.O. number. In this respect, it should be pointed out that the older (T.S.O. C91) ELT's should not be considered for new installations. I know of some A/C that have passed inspection with an older unit installed, but only because the DAR was not familiar enough with the regulations to catch it. Besides, most of the newer ones (ACK is my choice) use standard "D" cell batteries and are much more economical to service. John Sickafoose EAA Tech counselor Naples, Fl ------------------------------ Message: 6 Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 23:28:54 -0400 From: Boeing757mech1@aol.com Subject: Re: KR> Why a 172 RG? To: krnet@mylist.net (KRnet) Message-ID: <3AB6D40D.721F6173.83FC6405@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 The 172 rg is under powered. don't plan on flying it in Arizona or any where with high density altitude on a hot day. 6,500 is about as high as I could get in Arizona on a hot July day and i only had 3 people in the airplane. I weigh 160 and the other 2 were lucky if they were 120 each. Chris Theroux Gilbert, AZ ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ See KRnet list details at http://www.krnet.org/instructions.html End of KRnet Digest, Vol 346, Issue 67 ************************************** ================================== ABC Amber Outlook Converter v4.20 Trial version ==================================