From: krnet-bounces+johnbou=speakeasy.net@mylist.net on behalf of krnet-request@mylist.net Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2004 12:00 PM To: krnet@mylist.net Subject: KRnet Digest, Vol 276, Issue 2 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: dodged a bullet(fuel leak) (Dan Heath) 2. Re: Fun Friday KR static system el cheapo (Dana Overall) 3. Re: Engines (Dean Cooper) 4. Re: Engines (Steve and Lori McGee) 5. Re: medicals (bill kirkland) 6. Engines (Colin & Bev Rainey) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 06:36:23 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time) From: "Dan Heath" To: "krnet@mylist.net" Subject: Re: KR>dodged a bullet(fuel leak) Message-ID: <3FFFE3B7.000009.03600@Computer> References: <3.0.6.32.20040109134658.007d8580@pop.midwest.net> Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Precedence: list Message: 1 Larry,=0D =0D That finger crossing works every time. =0D =0D See N64KR at http://KR-Builder.org - Then click on the pics=0D =0D Daniel R. Heath - Columbia, SC=0D =0D DanRH@KR-Builder.org=0D =0D See you in Mt. Vernon - 2004 - KR Gathering=0D =0D See our EAA Chapter 242 at http://EAA242.org=0D =20From DanRH@alltel.net Sat Jan 10 03:55:44 2004 Received: from mta01.alltel.net ([166.102.165.143] helo=mta01-srv.alltel.net) by lizard.esosoft.net with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1) id 1AfHiS-000IDJ-00 for krnet@mylist.net; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 03:55:44 -0800 Received: from Computer ([151.213.95.235]) by mta01-srv.alltel.net with SMTP id <20040110114520.QXSD11508.mta01-srv.alltel.net@Computer> for ; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 05:45:20 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <3FFFE5DF.00000D.03600@Computer> Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 06:45:35 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time) X-Mailer: IncrediMail 2001 (2001155.2001155) From: "Dan Heath" References: <20040109.085349.3440.0.virgnvs@juno.com> X-FID: FLAVOR00-NONE-0000-0000-000000000000 X-FVER: X-CNT: ; X-Priority: 3 To: "krnet@mylist.net" Subject: Re: KR>KR-2S & 150 hp Franklin : These 7 things Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1b3 X-BeenThere: krnet@mylist.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1b3 Precedence: list Reply-To: KRnet List-Id: KRnet List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: Virg,=0D =0D Can you enlighten me as to what your response to this post, means? I rea= d your post, .00005 nano seconds and the original post, 30 seconds, and I cannot figure out what your response means. =0D =0D See N64KR at http://KR-Builder.org - Then click on the pics=0D =0D Daniel R. Heath - Columbia, SC=0D =0D DanRH@KR-Builder.org=0D =0D See you in Mt. Vernon - 2004 - KR Gathering=0D =0D See our EAA Chapter 242 at http://EAA242.org=0D =0D -------Original Message-------=0D =0D From: KRnet=0D Date: Friday, January 09, 2004 8:54:48 AM=0D To: krnet@mylist.net=0D Cc: krnet@mylist.net=0D Subject: Re: KR>KR-2S & 150 hp Franklin : These 7 things=0D =0D NO, Too much, Virg=0D =0D On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 10:46:59 -0800 (PST) Scott Cable =0D writes:=0D > KRNetters=0D > OK, hear me out on this one for one second:=0D > First remembering that the KR is one of the easiest=0D aircraft to >modify, and there has never been a KR=0D crashed due to a structural >failure.=0D =0D > The KR has a double 5/8ths spruce Upper Longerons, a=0D > single 5/8 ths lower longeron. 3/32nd plywood outer=0D > skin, and 1/4 inch plywood firewall support structure.=0D > What if:=0D > 1.) Added an additional 5/8 piece to the upper=0D > Longerons=0D >=0D > 2.) Double the lower longerons aft to behind the rear=0D > spar and add 2 ea 5/8th intercostals from the=0D > firewall to the front spar.=0D >=0D > 3.) Instead of a 3/32 plywood floor between the=0D > firewall (under the rudder pedal support) and the=0D > front spar, use 1/4 inch 45 degree bias plywood.=0D >=0D > 4.) Add a 3/32 plywood inner skin from the firewall to=0D > the instrument panel, and 1/4 inch lower firewall=0D > gusset (like the existing upper gussett in the 2S=0D > plans) and a 1/4 inch plywood doubler on the=0D > inner forward and rear faces of the front spar.=0D >=0D > 5.) Add 18 inches to each wing to increase the wing=0D > span by 3 ft (from 23 to 26) (additional wing area=0D > to handle the increased engine weight)=0D >=0D > 6.) Increase the rudder / vertical stab area by 25%=0D >=0D > 7.) Increase the landing gear strut thickness by 20%=0D >=0D > By doing these 7 things, the KR-2S should be able to=0D > handle the additional loads imposed by a heavier,=0D > more powerful engine.=0D > Essentially, I've created a torque box on the belly,=0D > and fuselage sides. This should come close to=0D > doubling the load carrying ability of the fwd=0D > structure.=0D > The added structural weight would be less than 30=0D > pounds. For a total increase in gross weight of 67=0D > pounds (over a corvair or Subaru).=0D > I think a weight gain of 67 pounds, with the benefit=0D > of 30 more useable horsepower, and a gob more torque=0D > is reasonable. Another benefit is it's a aircraft=0D > engine.=0D >=0D >=0D >=0D > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=0D > Scott Cable=0D > KR-2S # 735=0D > Wright City, MO=0D > s2cable1@yahoo.com=0D >=0D > __________________________________=0D > Do you Yahoo!?=0D > Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes=0D > http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus=0D >=0D > _______________________________________________=0D > see KRnet list details at http://www.krnet.org/instructions.html=0D >=0D >=0D =0D =0D Virgil N. Salisbury - AMSOIL=0D www.lubedealer.com/salisbury=0D Miami ,Fl=0D =0D _______________________________________________=0D see KRnet list details at http://www.krnet.org/instructions.html=0D =2EFrom DanRH@alltel.net Sat Jan 10 04:03:12 2004 Received: from mta02.alltel.net ([166.102.165.144] helo=mta02-srv.alltel.net) by lizard.esosoft.net with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1) id 1AfHpg-000IIY-00 for krnet@mylist.net; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 04:03:12 -0800 Received: from Computer ([151.213.95.235]) by mta02-srv.alltel.net with SMTP id <20040110115248.JJYM15697.mta02-srv.alltel.net@Computer> for ; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 05:52:48 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <3FFFE7A0.00000F.03600@Computer> Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 06:53:04 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time) X-Mailer: IncrediMail 2001 (2001155.2001155) From: "Dan Heath" References: <00a801c3d6a9$a7eba040$b2cf4944@ROBBINS1> X-FID: FLAVOR00-NONE-0000-0000-000000000000 X-FVER: X-CNT: ; X-Priority: 3 To: "krnet@mylist.net" Subject: Re: KR>New KR2S eBay Listing Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1b3 X-BeenThere: krnet@mylist.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1b3 Precedence: list Reply-To: KRnet List-Id: KRnet List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: I looked at this listing. It seems way, way, over priced. You are going= to have to re-do the turtle deck to get any head room, the bubble does not f= it properly, sort of reminds me of the way my first KR was when I first brou= ght her home. The only really good thing that I see here is the wheels and brakes. Unless there are other things like engine and instruments, you c= an do a lot better.=0D =0D See N64KR at http://KR-Builder.org - Then click on the pics=0D =0D Daniel R. Heath - Columbia, SC=0D =0D DanRH@KR-Builder.org=0D =0D See you in Mt. Vernon - 2004 - KR Gathering=0D =0D See our EAA Chapter 242 at http://EAA242.org=0D =0D -------Original Message-------=0D =0D From: KRnet=0D Date: Friday, January 09, 2004 7:11:14 AM=0D To: KRnet=0D Subject: Re: KR>New KR2S eBay Listing=0D =0D Good morning Viet.....Ops I mean Netters=0D If you want a KR project, this one looks good in pictures. Mark, thanks f= or=0D the link.=0D =0D http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI dll?ViewItem&item=3D2453336277&category=3D26428=0D =0D P.S. It seems that the Full Moon has affected the net.=0D Orma aka AviationMech=0D 19 Years flying the KR-2=0D =0D =0D _______________________________________________=0D see KRnet list details at http://www.krnet.org/instructions.html=0D =2EFrom bo124rs@hotmail.com Sat Jan 10 04:13:07 2004 Received: from bay13-f54.bay13.hotmail.com ([64.4.31.54] helo=hotmail.com) by lizard.esosoft.net with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1) id 1AfHzH-000IO1-00 for krnet@mylist.net; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 04:13:07 -0800 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 04:02:44 -0800 Received: from 64.12.96.200 by by13fd.bay13.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 12:02:44 GMT X-Originating-IP: [64.12.96.200] X-Originating-Email: [bo124rs@hotmail.com] X-Sender: bo124rs@hotmail.com From: "Dana Overall" To: krnet@mylist.net Bcc: Subject: Re: KR>Fun Friday KR static system el cheapo Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 07:02:44 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Jan 2004 12:02:44.0739 (UTC) FILETIME=[A80FCD30:01C3D771] X-BeenThere: krnet@mylist.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1b3 Precedence: list Reply-To: KRnet List-Id: KRnet List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: >From: Scott Cable >I love this idea. I assume that you really mean Adel >rivets? Scott, sounds like you may know the terminology better than I do. All I can say is it is listed as a SD-42-BSLF pop rivet. I don't know what the the SD or BSLF signifies as to the components of the rivet. I have people go to great lengths, and some very diminished lenghts, to get satisfactory static ports. Sure, you can come up with something that functions properly. I just looked the prices up at Van's. The rivets cost .05 and are listed as having a large steel head with carbon steel shank. As you can see in prevously posted picture, http://rvflying.tripod.com/static2.jpg , the head is finished somehow which provides an appearance similar to the surrounding alclad alum.........oops, better not say that.........surrounding surface material in which it is fastened:-). So, for a dime you can have static ports that are flying on over 3000 airplanes. The entire static system, which includes 5' of 1/8 clear, 20' of 1/4" OD polypropolene, 2 .25x.125x.125 Tees, 1 elbow, 5 plastic tube inserts and one tube Tee can be had for a whoppin $18.50. Static system run to your KR instrument panel over a cup of coffee!! The thickness of the KR fuselage would be a very good candidate for the use of this rivet. I just about didn't post this as one might think it was too much metal related. If I offended anyone............................screw it:-)...........it's KR related. Like I said, I would have liked to have known I could have had nice dual static ports on my KR for a lowly dime and five minutes work. The phone number of "the company" which will supply you with either the rivets or the entire kit is 1-503-678-6545. Once again, this isn't the only way, just another way. Dana Overall 1999 & 2000 National KR Gathering host Richmond, KY RV-7 slider, Imron black, "Black Magic" Finish kit Buying Instruments. Hangar flying my Dynon. http://rvflying.tripod.com do not archive _________________________________________________________________ Learn how to choose, serve, and enjoy wine at Wine @ MSN. http://wine.msn.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 07:08:51 -0500 From: "Dana Overall" To: krnet@mylist.net Subject: Re: KR>Fun Friday KR static system el cheapo Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed MIME-Version: 1.0 Precedence: list Message: 2 >>>>As you can see in prevously posted picture,<<<< This sentence should have contained the actual word: previously. My between the ears spell check and one cup of coffee missed that one:-) I still agree with Mark!!:-) Dana Overall Richmond, KY RV-7 slider, Imron black, "Black Magic" Finish kit Buying Instruments. Hangar flying my Dynon. http://rvflying.tripod.com do not archive _________________________________________________________________ Let the new MSN Premium Internet Software make the most of your high-speed experience. http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-us&page=byoa/prem&ST=1 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 08:41:27 -0500 From: "Dean Cooper" To: "KRnet" Subject: Re: KR>Engines Message-ID: <02dc01c3d77f$72343b70$0502a8c0@office> References: <180.248cdd89.2d30e45b@wmconnect.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: list Message: 3 LJHusky1 wrote: The Results: > > > > > > ENGINE ACC PCT LOP LOP% > > > ------ --- --- --- ---- > > > Certified 332 51% 57 17% > > > Auto 95 15% 27 28% > > > Non-C/4 70 11% 13 19% > > > Two-Strokes 134 21% 46 34% I do not have enough knowledge in this field to enter the debate, but felt it necessary to state the obvious. This is good information at a high level, but really doesn't support either side simply because "Loss of Power" is far too vague to explain which is a better engine design. For example, what about fuel starvation? This has to explain a number of the accidents and may nothing to do with the engine itself. Also, It's unclear from the email if the study only looked at experimental aircraft. Obviously, when you have Joe Homebuilder building the plane in his garage, it is going to be subject to inconsistent results. Some builders will build the firewall forward wrong and show up on an NTSB report. If the study is not specific to experimentals, then I would expect these results, simply because I suspect you will have a higher number of accidents in training aircraft (certified engines), due to pilot error, which drives your numerator up and your percentage for loss of power accidents down. Another obvious point, the plans call for an auto conversion (VW) engine... This should not be taken to be an attack on the author, Just stating the obvious (at least to me) :-) ps. What about a prop strike which results in loss of power.... :-) Dean Cooper Jacksonville, FL Email me at dean_cooper@bellsouth.net See my KR project at www.geocities.com/djramccoop1/KR2_Home.html ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 10:13:12 -0600 From: "Steve and Lori McGee" To: "KRnet" Subject: Re: KR>Engines Message-ID: <002101c3d794$a53fa850$0202a8c0@lori8v5h2xi9m3> References: <180.248cdd89.2d30e45b@wmconnect.com> <02dc01c3d77f$72343b70$0502a8c0@office> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: list Message: 4 I agree. On the statistics side for the conclusion chosen these numbers mean nothing. You have to get a lot more specific. This is like saying there are a lot more car accidents than motorcycles. No why, what is the percentage on the road, throw in the driver learning curve, yada yada yada ..... ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dean Cooper" To: "KRnet" Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2004 7:41 AM Subject: Re: KR>Engines > LJHusky1 wrote: > > The Results: > > > > > > > > ENGINE ACC PCT LOP LOP% > > > > ------ --- --- --- ---- > > > > Certified 332 51% 57 17% > > > > Auto 95 15% 27 28% > > > > Non-C/4 70 11% 13 19% > > > > Two-Strokes 134 21% 46 34% > > I do not have enough knowledge in this field to enter the debate, but > felt it necessary to state the obvious. This is good information at a > high level, but really doesn't support either side simply because > "Loss of Power" > is far too vague to explain which is a better engine design. For > example, what about fuel starvation? This has to explain a number of > the accidents and may nothing to do with the engine itself. Also, > It's unclear from the email if the study only looked at experimental > aircraft. Obviously, when you have Joe Homebuilder building the plane > in his garage, it is going to be > subject to inconsistent results. Some builders will build the > firewall forward wrong and show up on an NTSB report. If the study is > not specific to experimentals, then I would expect these results, > simply because I suspect you will have a higher number of accidents in > training aircraft (certified engines), due to pilot error, which > drives your numerator up and > your percentage for loss of power accidents down. Another obvious > point, the plans call for an auto conversion (VW) engine... > > This should not be taken to be an attack on the author, Just stating > the obvious (at least to me) :-) > > ps. What about a prop strike which results in loss of power.... :-) > > Dean Cooper > Jacksonville, FL > Email me at dean_cooper@bellsouth.net > See my KR project at www.geocities.com/djramccoop1/KR2_Home.html > > > > _______________________________________________ > see KRnet list details at http://www.krnet.org/instructions.html > > ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 14:05:14 -0500 From: "bill kirkland" To: "KRnet" Subject: Re: KR>medicals Message-ID: <009801c3d7ac$b3809100$02488a3f@lndn.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> References: <009001c3d191$f9232900$6401a8c0@wi.rr.com><003901c3d23e$ace303f0$6601a8c0@mdgwd52jlrmc3l><000601c3d244$3ab5d4f0$6401a8c0@charlesmidkiff><003001c3d258$e6a27f70$8d7ba8c0@oemcomputer><004501c3d26e$af4d2550$6501a8c0@Administration> <007001c3d277$f778dbe0$6401a8c0@charlesmidkiff> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: list Message: 5 Chuck; I think I hold the record. After my first heart attack I waited the required six months then did the treadmill test and echogardiogram (they want a 51% ejection fraction, nothing to do with sex ). You must be a non smoker and have your cholestoral within limits. Got my private licence back. When a clogged artery gave me angina I had an angioplasty with stint I lost my licence again. Six months and a bit I got it back again. When I had my second heart attack I figured my flying days were over. Six months later I again passed the tests and got my licence back. You can't start the tests until five months after the attack and it usually takes more than six months to get the results and all okayed. Mind you this is the Canadian scene but then they pretty much follow the US rules. Bon chance. W.G.(Bill) KIRKLAND wkirkland@rogers.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Charles Buddy & Cheryl Midkiff" To: "Ron Eason" ; "KRnet" Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2004 11:05 PM Subject: Re: KR>medicals > Ron & Ken, > Thanks for the feedback! This is encouraging. I think I'll continue working > on completing my KR in the hope of getting my medical back with no problem. > I'm scheduled for a stress test on Jan 9th, so should know more at > that time. Mine was not a violent attack, but heavy chest pain. I went > in to emergency and their tests showed I was having one. So they did > the angioplasty with dye, found the blocked artery then installed a > coated stint > to correct the problem. I don't think it really did much damage. Three days > after getting home from the hospital I got a call from my employee > laying me > off from my service technician job on Xerox copiers. I think they did > me a favor. I can now concentrate on getting better and put some > quality time on > the KR2. > > Bud > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ron Eason" > To: "KRnet" > Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2004 6:58 PM > Subject: KR>medicals > > > > FYI, I can second that. I had a 5 by-pass in 1995 and had a similar > > > > _______________________________________________ > see KRnet list details at http://www.krnet.org/instructions.html ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 14:10:17 -0500 From: "Colin & Bev Rainey" To: "KRnet" Subject: KR>Engines Message-ID: <00d401c3d7ad$62820cb0$f2452141@RaineyDay> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Precedence: list Message: 6 Scott & netters, Good points well taken. However some are distortions, and some are = responses to my miscommunications, which I will clarify now. First, most cars end up on the roadside not because of bad design or = sudden failure, but neglect by the operator of the "check engine" light = or "service engine soon" light. I have driven down the road and seen = daily the illumination of these advance warnings of parts showing = problems, with the operator continuing on as if nothing needs attending = to. In 15 years of drivability repair, I have lost count of how many = customers came into the shop telling me that weeks to months ago, the = problem indicator lamp was lit, but nothing appeared to be wrong so they = kept driving. Only once it became a problem did they attempt to have it = fixed. Such things would not be allowed to be ignored if used in an = aircraft because the regs would render that aircraft as un-airworthy. = It would have to be fixed. Secondly, pilots would not fly these = aircraft with such warnings on without having them corrected, knowing = the potential consequences. Cars are not faced with such negative = alternatives. I agree Scott that in many cases the auto crankshaft was not = designed for such loads. The Corvair engine, and VW engine are two = examples where there are acceptable applications for their use with = direct drive. This has been done for almost as long if not longer than = the stable of Lycs & Contis. Great Plains, and several other companies = encourage the use of PSRU units on most every application of an auto = engine, for the added insurance of reliability. Belted Air Power has a = very successful V6 & V8 PSRU for use with the Chevy 4.3, & 5.7 engines, = which completely remove the foreign loads from the crankshaft, and = maintain loads that were designed into such engines. Where people mess = up using these engines is inadequate cooling, and attempting to modify = the performance beyond reliable limits for cars, much less aircraft. = Conservatively built, as William Wynne teaches the building of the = Corvair engine, any auto engine can be matched to a PSRU, and turned at = an appropriate cruise rpm for good longevity and performance. Similar = to the turbine powered turboprop aircraft, but with better = affordability. The Jet A burning aircraft engines under evaluation = here, and already certified in Europe, started life as an AUTO diesel = engine, and was successfully converted. I agree with Scott that using the CTS or Northstar engine would be a = nightmare, unless you have a large aircraft, and larger budget! Their = design does not lend itself to easy maintenance and complex programming = makes practical upkeep nearly impossible. However, utilizing a simple = electronic ignition module distributor, which has a simple transistor = trigger to replace the points gains one a great deal of more consistent = operation. I do not encourage the use of multi-point fuel injection for = the unknowing, simply because it has alot of extras that need to be = dealt with. If a second ignition system is desired, one can drill out = the heads as mine are on the VW, or adapt a Nissan or Ford 8 plug head = to their application, and have dual ignitions. Redundancy is as easy as = having a second dedicated battery to just the ignition system. Spark = advance and smoother running, more economical operation, and better = performance for the dollar are good enough reasons for me to stay with = auto engines. Just the purchase of one alternator/regulator combination = for a Lycoming, (which by the way is Motorcraft, same as what is on = their trucks of similar years, except for the yellow tag, & voltage = settings) and I can buy all the parts necessary to completely rebuild = an auto engine. =20 Given apples to apples, if the same care and attention is given to = the auto conversion that certified engines receive, there will be no = contest: the auto engine will far outperform the aviation version. This = is even supported by such companies as Mattituck who openly reports = manufacturing defects of design to the original O-360, which they have = designed out in their experimental version of the O-360 kit engine. The = only reason that Honda, Ford, Chrysler, and GM left the aviation engine = markets after once having been there is due to the major hoops that must = be jumped through for certification versus such a thin market. In = short, it was not profitable to stay, not that they could not design = good engines, or didn't have good engines. I simply want all netters to see both sides and not have a narrowly = presented viewpoint concerning the use of auto engines in aircraft, but = rather see the true strong points and short comings that each has. My = opinions..... Colin & Bev Rainey KR2(td) N96TA Sanford, FL crainey1@cfl.rr.com or crbrn96ta@hotmail.com http://kr-builder.org/Colin/index.html------------------------------ _______________________________________________ See KRnet list details at http://www.krnet.org/instructions.html End of KRnet Digest, Vol 276, Issue 2 *************************************