From: krnet-bounces+johnbou=speakeasy.net@mylist.net on behalf of krnet-request@mylist.net Sent: Monday, January 12, 2004 10:02 AM To: krnet@mylist.net Subject: KRnet Digest, Vol 278, Issue 1 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. Elevator Cable Tension (Kenneth B. Jones) 2. RE: Tank System (Serge F. Vidal) 3. OFF SUBJECT (Justin) 4. Re: OFF SUBJECT (Dan Heath) 5. Re: Elevator Cable Tension (Dan Heath) 6. RE: Category Ratings (Dana Overall) 7. Twins (Colin & Bev Rainey) 8. autopilot for sale (Brian Kraut) 9. Re: Category Ratings (Brian Kraut) 10. RE: GK 1 Aircraft (Serge F. Vidal) 11. RE: autopilot for sale (Dana Overall) 12. Re: Elevator Cable Tension (Kenneth B. Jones) 13. Re: These 7 things: Auto vs Aero Engines for Aircraft (Ron Eason) 14. Re: These 7 things: Auto vs Aero Engines for Aircraft (David Mikesell) 15. RE: These 7 things: Auto vs Aero Engines for Aircraft (Alexander Birca (MD/RMD)) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 23:14:39 -0500 From: "Kenneth B. Jones" To: "KRnet" Subject: KR>Elevator Cable Tension Message-ID: <022d01c3d8c2$98e279a0$8d7ba8c0@oemcomputer> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Precedence: list Message: 1 Can anyone advise me on the correct elevator cable tension setting on = the KR-2? Thanks, Ken JonesFrom Boeing757mech1@aol.com Sun Jan 11 21:46:29 2004 Received: from imo-r03.mx.aol.com ([152.163.225.99]) by lizard.esosoft.net with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1) id 1AfuuD-000MSu-00 for krnet@mylist.net; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 21:46:29 -0800 Received: from Boeing757mech1@aol.com by imo-r03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v36_r4.8.) id g.94.41fb8787 (1320) for ; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 00:36:07 -0500 (EST) From: Boeing757mech1@aol.com Message-ID: <94.41fb8787.2d338c47@aol.com> Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 00:36:07 EST Subject: Re: KR>Twins To: krnet@mylist.net MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: 9.0 for Windows sub 921 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: Colin, Im not recommending any one without a multi engine rating to fly a twin. Chris Theroux Gilbert, AZ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 09:22:01 +0100 From: "Serge F. Vidal" To: "'KRnet'" Subject: RE: KR>Tank System Message-ID: <000a01c3d8e5$27d97920$2c0101c0@ate.com> In-Reply-To: <007c01c3d871$22be3260$6401a8c0@wi.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: list Message: 2 Mark, My setup is a bit different. - Only the header tank has a filler; you fill the wing tanks through the header. - I have one return line going to both wing tanks with a tee. - A 3/8" works well - The header tank is vented through his cap. Remarks: if you have caps on your wing tanks, and if they are vented, the situation is different. You must prevent any flow back to the wing tanks, otherwise they will overflow by gravity. Hope this helps. Serge Vidal KR2 ZS-WEC Tunis, Tunisia (pilot) Orleans, France (aircraft) -----Original Message----- From: krnet-bounces@mylist.net [mailto:krnet-bounces@mylist.net]On Behalf Of Mark Jones Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2004 19:32 To: KR Net Subject: KR>Tank System I have a fuel tank in each out board wing and will be pumping fuel into a header tank so I can have gravity flow to my carb. The fuel lines from the wing tanks to the header and to the carb are all 3/8". I have some questions. 1) Should the header tank have a fill cap? 2) Should I have one return line to each wing tank or would one line with a Tee in it suffice? 3) Should the return line be 3/8" or larger (like 1/2")? 4) Should I vent the header tank? Each wing tank is independently vented. Mark Jones (N886MJ) Wales, WI USA E-mail me at flykr2s@wi.rr.com Visit my KR-2S CorvAIRCRAFT web site at http://mywebpage.netscape.com/n886mj/homepage.html _______________________________________________ see KRnet list details at http://www.krnet.org/instructions.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 01:10:50 -0800 From: "Justin" To: Subject: KR>OFF SUBJECT Message-ID: <002d01c3d8eb$f9727d50$47da1818@computer> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Precedence: list Message: 3 Completely off-subject from KR's but I could resist. I am going for my = private pilot check-ride on Friday Jan 16. Finally after 3 years of = flight training and flying im going for the ride! I have over 100 hours = so flying wont be the problem but the oral is a huge killer. Happy Building, Justin N116JW www.geocities.com/attngrabber14/HomeFrom serge.vidal@ate-international.com Mon Jan 12 01:25:03 2004 Received: from rissala173.outgw.tn ([193.95.17.173]) by lizard.esosoft.net with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1) id 1AfyJj-000Nkn-00 for krnet@mylist.net; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 01:25:03 -0800 Received: from tounes-22.ati.tn (tounes-22.ati.tn [193.95.66.22]) by rissala164.ingw.tn (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i0CBB0Uq025089 for ; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 10:11:00 -0100 (GMT) Received: from smtp1.planet.net.tn (smtp.planet.tn [193.95.123.25]) by tounes-22.ati.tn (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i0C8ALnj018194 for ; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 10:10:21 +0200 (EET) Received: from sergevidal ([213.150.173.238]) by smtp1.planet.net.tn (Switch-3.1.3/Switch-3.1.0) with SMTP id i0CBAt59024352 for ; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 10:10:56 -0100 (GMT) From: "Serge F. Vidal" To: Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 10:08:45 +0100 Message-ID: <000b01c3d8eb$af844020$2c0101c0@ate.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Subject: KR>Throttle quadrants... a few more words X-BeenThere: krnet@mylist.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1b3 Precedence: list Reply-To: serge.vidal@ate-international.com, KRnet List-Id: KRnet List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: Those who asked for pics of my throttle, they are on their way. A few more tips: 1 - Shape My "throttle quadrant" is not really a quadrant. A quadrant is a portion of a disk, right? So, real quadrants (like the Piper ones) have a handle that is articulated at its BOTTOM. The quadrant box and the handle travel follow two arcs on concentric circles, the center of the circles being the axle of the handle. so, the distance between the throttle handle and the throttle body remains the same at all time. I did not like that for my KR, for two reasons: - The friction knob would be at the bottom, and there, it conflicts with my leg; - The quadrant solution requires bends to the cable. Why is that? Well, you want the cable to be pulled when you push the handle forward. So, the cable must be routed at the bottom, around a pulley, and then hang to the handle. A second pulley may even be required close to the top, if a lot of travel is required. So, slightly more complex, less friendly in the cockpit, and it wouldn't look as nice. But if you prefer it that way, you can build it the same way as I did mine. No difference, just make it a quadrant shape, and add a pulley at the bottom, and if the travel ois not enough, add a second one near the top. 2 - Finish I get questions about the nice finish of the aluminium. Well, all my aluminium parts have that beautiful, glazed finish. The secret is a rotary NYLON BRUSH. It looks like your typical electric drill wire brush, except it has got Nylon hair. They do the same job as a wire brush, but don't get distorted, and they last about ten times as much. And to polish aluminium, it's a dream: they polish nicely and quickly without scratching. Mine come from TRIPLEX, I suppose you can find other brands. The second thing I do is once I am finished with all the parts, I dip them in a hot bath of caustic soda solution FOR A FEW SECONDS. Caustic soda is used to unblock drains, it is found everywhere, and is extremey cheap. The idea is it is going to evenly oxidize the surface, giving it a slightly gloss grey finish. The guy who gave me the tip said it prevents corrosion for a very long time. This I don't know. I have been using it for non structural parts for two years, and so far so good. 3 - Bends As you can see, I gave the handle a double bend. What I use for bending blocks is steel profiles (steel square tubes). They cost next to nothing and have nice curves. All you have to do is choose a square tube section (with curves matching the thickness of your part), cut to length, then clamp together with your part in a vise. Then you hammer the part with a rubber mallet until you reach the bend angle. If you have to bend something 90 degrees, you finish the last few degrees by lifting the part a little bit. That's all folks! Serge Vidal KR2 ZS-WEC Tunis, Tunisia (the poor, frustrated pilot/builder) Orleans, France (the neglected, lonely KR2) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 05:35:46 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time) From: "Dan Heath" To: "krnet@mylist.net" Subject: Re: KR>OFF SUBJECT Message-ID: <40027882.00000F.03064@Computer> References: <002d01c3d8eb$f9727d50$47da1818@computer> Content-Type: Text/Plain MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Precedence: list Message: 4 Congratulations and good luck. Don't fly into any restricted zones. That = was our check pilot's favorite thing. Tell you to go into an area that was restricted, to see if you would do it. =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: Monday, January 12, 2004 4:10:52 AM=0D To: krnet@mylist.net=0D Subject: KR>OFF SUBJECT=0D =0D Completely off-subject from KR's but I could resist. I am going for my private pilot check-ride on Friday Jan 16. Finally after 3 years of fligh= t training and flying im going for the ride! I have over 100 hours so flyin= g wont be the problem but the oral is a huge killer.=0D =0D Happy Building,=0D Justin=0D N116JW=0D www.geocities.com/attngrabber14/Home_____________________________________= __=0D to UNSUBSCRIBE from KRnet, send a message to KRnet-leave@mylist.net=0D =0D please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/instructions.html=0D =2E ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 05:40:01 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time) From: "Dan Heath" To: "krnet@mylist.net" Subject: Re: KR>Elevator Cable Tension Message-ID: <40027981.000011.03064@Computer> References: <022d01c3d8c2$98e279a0$8d7ba8c0@oemcomputer> Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Precedence: list Message: 5 How will you measure it?=0D =0D I like them tight without undue strain on the fittings. =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 Mon Jan 12 02:53:40 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 1AfzhU-000OKm-00 for krnet@mylist.net; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 02:53:40 -0800 Received: from Computer ([151.213.95.235]) by mta01-srv.alltel.net with SMTP id <20040112104322.RXHD11508.mta01-srv.alltel.net@Computer> for ; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 04:43:22 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <40027A5C.000013.03064@Computer> Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 05:43:40 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time) Content-Type: Text/Plain X-Mailer: IncrediMail 2001 (2001155.2001155) From: "Dan Heath" References: <6974969.1073880059563.JavaMail.root@thecount.psp.pas.earthlink.net> X-FID: PLAINTXT-NONE-0000-0000-000000000000 X-FVER: 3.0 X-CNT: ; Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Priority: 3 To: "krnet@mylist.net" Subject: KR>Category Ratings 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: RE: FAR 61.31 (d) (1) states that a pilot in command must "Hold the appropriate category, class, and type rating (if a class rating and type rating are required) for the aircraft to be flown." Part (k) Exceptions states "The rating limitations of this section do not apply to- ... (iii) The holder of a pilot certificate when operating an aircraft under the authority of an experimental or provisional aircraft type certificate."=0D =0D Then, that means that no one needs a tailwheel endorsement to fly a conventional gear KR and all the talk about having to have one, is just a bunch of speculation?? =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 =20 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 06:46:13 -0500 From: "Dana Overall" To: krnet@mylist.net Subject: RE: KR>Category Ratings Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed MIME-Version: 1.0 Precedence: list Message: 6 You do not need a tailwheel endorsement to legally fly your properly (tailwheel:-) configured KR. Insurance may be another issue. 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 >From: "Dan Heath" >Reply-To: KRnet >To: "krnet@mylist.net" >Subject: KR>Category Ratings >Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 05:43:40 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time) > >RE: FAR 61.31 (d) (1) states that a pilot in command must "Hold the >appropriate category, class, and type rating (if a class rating and >type rating are required) for the aircraft to be flown." Part (k) >Exceptions states "The rating limitations of this section do not apply >to- ... (iii) The holder of a pilot certificate when operating an >aircraft under the authority of an experimental or provisional aircraft >type certificate." > >Then, that means that no one needs a tailwheel endorsement to fly a >conventional gear KR and all the talk about having to have one, is just >a bunch of speculation?? > >See N64KR at http://KR-Builder.org - Then click on the pics > >Daniel R. Heath - Columbia, SC > >DanRH@KR-Builder.org > >See you in Mt. Vernon - 2004 - KR Gathering > >See our EAA Chapter 242 at http://EAA242.org > > > >_______________________________________ >to UNSUBSCRIBE from KRnet, send a message to KRnet-leave@mylist.net > >please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/instructions.html _________________________________________________________________ Get a FREE online virus check for your PC here, from McAfee. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 07:06:07 -0500 From: "Colin & Bev Rainey" To: "KRnet" Subject: KR>Twins Message-ID: <005201c3d904$75b727e0$f2452141@RaineyDay> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Precedence: list Message: 7 There are alot of things that Experimental allows for that certified = aircraft do not. I just think that if it is allowed, but not allowed in = the certificated side of things that we should emulate them. From a = legal sense one may be ok. But as Dana said, your insurance company may = feel differently. I also would feel very much in the dark if such = endorsements, check out and ratings were required to fly similar = aircraft, and I didn't have one while attempting to fly my own. A well designed centerline thrust twin would be a very practical = thing for low time pilots and offer a great measure of safety. The Adam = aircraft has to have an indicator light tell you you have lost an engine = because there is next to no response from the airplane, except a slight = loss of airspeed. It truly is something worth thinking about... Colin & Bev Rainey KR2(td) N96TA Sanford, FL crainey1@cfl.rr.com or crbrn96ta@hotmail.com http://kr-builder.org/Colin/index.htmlFrom VANCE@claflinwildcats.com Mon Jan 12 05:21:17 2004 Received: from 63-245-139-250.kitusa.com ([63.245.139.250] helo=mail.claflinwildcats.com) by lizard.esosoft.net with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1)id 1Ag20K-000PLP-00 for krnet@mylist.net; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 05:21:16 -0800 Received: from oemcomputer ([]) by mail.claflinwildcats.com (Merak 5.7.4) with SMTP id EYB37074 for ; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 07:10:57 -0600 Message-ID: <00a801c3d90d$eadc1540$0500a8c0@oemcomputer> From: "JIM VANCE" To: "krnet" Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 07:12:11 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1b3 Subject: KR>GK 1 Aircraft 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: At our EAA chapter meeting yesterday, I was given the owner's manual for = a GK-1 aircraft. It is powered by a Honda engine with a reduction = drive. It looks exactly like a KR-1. The registration number on the = aircraft on the cover is ZU-BLJ. Can anyone tell me the lineage of the GK-1? Jim Vance = Vance@ClaflinWildcats.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 08:25:28 -0500 (GMT-05:00) From: Brian Kraut To: krnet@mylist.net Subject: KR>autopilot for sale Message-ID: <19630526.1073913929351.JavaMail.root@kermit.psp.pas.earthlink.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: list Message: 8 I just saw this on the RV list and thought it might be of interest to someone for a KR. I don't know John so don't ask me anything about the autopilot. I do know that 850 is in the Panama City, FL area. Listners, I have decided to sell my Navaid autopilot with GPS coupler. I purchased it two years ago and never used it. Asking $1250. Contact me off line if interested. John Henley, 850-609-3175 henley@seii.net ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 08:37:53 -0500 (GMT-05:00) From: Brian Kraut To: krnet@mylist.net Subject: Re: KR>Category Ratings Message-ID: <22696196.1073914673902.JavaMail.root@kermit.psp.pas.earthlink.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: list Message: 9 That is correct. You don't need a tailwheel endorsement to fly a tailwheel KR. But again, I think it would be completely foolish to try to fly a KR without tailwheel training and if you are going to get enough training to be proficient you should get signed off. Personally, I got about six hours in a Citabria before I dared to taxi my KR with the tailwheel up. The reason that I researched the rule is because I was near a signoff in the Citabria when my instructor took a three week trip to Venezuela. He told me that he would probably sign me off on the next flight and the only thing we still needed to do is wheel landings. I didn't fly my plane until I did about four hours of high speed taxiing and I could keep it perfectly straight on the centerline. When my instructor came back I did some wheel landings with him and got the signoff. Again, I didn't try wheel landings in the KR until I did some with the instructor in the Citabria. Oddly enough, when I called for insurance quotes no one asked me if I had a tailwheel signoff, but I wouldn't be surprised if the policies stated in them that you must have a tailwheel signoff to be covered in a tailwheel plane regardless if you are technically legal. I will state one more time: Don't try taxiing your KR with the tail up until you have been trained by an instructor and are proficient. I also very highly recommend that you have the endorsement in your logbook before you do it. Dan Heath wrote: RE: FAR 61.31 (d) (1) states that a pilot in command must "Hold the appropriate category, class, and type rating (if a class rating and type rating are required) for the aircraft to be flown." Part (k) Exceptions states "The rating limitations of this section do not apply to- ... (iii) The holder of a pilot certificate when operating an aircraft under the authority of an experimental or provisional aircraft type certificate." Then, that means that no one needs a tailwheel endorsement to fly a conventional gear KR and all the talk about having to have one, is just a bunch of speculation?? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 14:53:03 +0100 From: "Serge F. Vidal" To: "'KRnet'" Subject: RE: KR>GK 1 Aircraft Message-ID: <000001c3d913$66bd8bd0$2c0101c0@ate.com> In-Reply-To: <00a801c3d90d$eadc1540$0500a8c0@oemcomputer> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: list Message: 10 Jim, The registration is a South-African experimental registration. As you know, the KR1 and KR2 were success stories in South Africa.The local agent even tried to "mass-produce" parts a while ago. Then, a couple of accidents occurred, and the KR got a bad name. But there is a lot of local knowledge and material on the KR2. I suspect your "GK1" is a modified KR1, and the builder gave it its initials. There also is a SB-2, which is an all-composite KR-2. Serge Vidal KR2 ZS-WEC Tunis, Tunisia -----Original Message----- From: krnet-bounces+serge.vidal=ate-international.com@mylist.net [mailto:krnet-bounces+serge.vidal=ate-international.com@mylist.net]On Behalf Of JIM VANCE Sent: Monday, January 12, 2004 14:12 To: krnet Subject: KR>GK 1 Aircraft At our EAA chapter meeting yesterday, I was given the owner's manual for a GK-1 aircraft. It is powered by a Honda engine with a reduction drive. It looks exactly like a KR-1. The registration number on the aircraft on the cover is ZU-BLJ. Can anyone tell me the lineage of the GK-1? Jim Vance Vance@ClaflinWildcats.com _______________________________________ to UNSUBSCRIBE from KRnet, send a message to KRnet-leave@mylist.net please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/instructions.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 09:53:43 -0500 From: "Dana Overall" To: krnet@mylist.net Subject: RE: KR>autopilot for sale Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed MIME-Version: 1.0 Precedence: list Message: 11 For anyone thinking of putting an autopilot in their KR, the Navaid used to be THE experimental autopilot. That is not the case anymore. Several companies jumped ahead of Navaid. Trutrack autopilots were designed by the primary designer of Stec autopilots when he went out on his own. These experimental autopilots work much better than the certified Stec in my Bonanza. One manufacture is even using the Naviad servos but a different head that is flat out unbelievable. The Navaid listed is about the going rate. I could be easily installed in a KR. Brian I will get that message posted we talked about. 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 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 >From: Brian Kraut >Reply-To: Brian Kraut , KRnet >To: krnet@mylist.net >Subject: KR>autopilot for sale >Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 08:25:28 -0500 (GMT-05:00) > >I just saw this on the RV list and thought it might be of interest to >someone for a KR. I don't know John so don't ask me anything about the >autopilot. I do know that 850 is in the Panama City, FL area. > > > >Listners, > > I have decided to sell my Navaid autopilot with GPS coupler. I >purchased it two years ago and never used it. Asking $1250. Contact me off >line if interested. > > John Henley, 850-609-3175 > henley@seii.net > > > > > >_______________________________________ >to UNSUBSCRIBE from KRnet, send a message to KRnet-leave@mylist.net > >please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/instructions.html _________________________________________________________________ Get a FREE online virus check for your PC here, from McAfee. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 10:39:23 -0500 From: "Kenneth B. Jones" To: "KRnet" Subject: Re: KR>Elevator Cable Tension Message-ID: <024201c3d922$40e87f00$8d7ba8c0@oemcomputer> References: <022d01c3d8c2$98e279a0$8d7ba8c0@oemcomputer> <40027981.000011.03064@Computer> Precedence: list Message: 12 I plan to use a cable gage or tensionometer if I can find the correct value to adjust to. Ken ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dan Heath" To: Sent: Monday, January 12, 2004 5:40 AM Subject: Re: KR>Elevator Cable Tension How will you measure it? I like them tight without undue strain on the fittings. See N64KR at http://KR-Builder.org - Then click on the pics Daniel R. Heath - Columbia, SC DanRH@KR-Builder.org See you in Mt. Vernon - 2004 - KR Gathering See our EAA Chapter 242 at http://EAA242.org _______________________________________ to UNSUBSCRIBE from KRnet, send a message to KRnet-leave@mylist.net please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/instructions.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 09:56:32 -0600 From: "Ron Eason" To: "KRnet" Subject: Re: KR>These 7 things: Auto vs Aero Engines for Aircraft Message-ID: <000801c3d924$a6b3d800$6501a8c0@Administration> References: <20040110021129.78033.qmail@web40807.mail.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: list Message: 13 Very good. Good engineering logic and purpose. This is one for the achieves. When thinking about engines. KRRon Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 8:11 PM Subject: RE: KR>These 7 things: Auto vs Aero Engines for Aircraft > Serge and Colin and KRNetters, > I have really resisted hitting the reply button...But > I feel now is as good a time as any to reply on this > subject. > There are profound General Design differences between automobile > engines, and aeronautical engines. Which make these engines very > application specific. > > Let's start with basic components: > > 1.) Crankshaft-(Load Support) The Automobile engine's crankshaft is > is designed to turn a flywheel, clutch and input shaft of a > transmission(or torque converter). Dynamic Thrust forces are > relatively small. More importantly, look how the automotive > engine handles or supports these loads. The flywheel > (clutch etc.)or torque converter is supported by the > crankshaft main thrust bearings and transmission input > bearings (front pump bearings for the automatic). > This allows the dynamicly loaded power application > device to be supported on both ends. In engineering > we call this simply supported. > > The Aero engine's crankshaft is designed to turn a propeller. > Dynamic thrust forces are enormous. The aero engine doesn't have the > luxury of a transmission bolted to it to support the opposite end of > the load. This is why aero engines have very large thrust > bearing journals. This allows the dynamicly loaded > power application device(propeller) to be supported on > only one end. > In engineering we call this a cantalever. > To illustrate this point, place a board between two > saw horses. Place a weight in the middle of the board. > That's now a simply supported beam. Now remove one of > the saw horses. This is now a cantalevered beam. Keep > the board level. See what it takes to keep the ends > of the board level? This is how an aero engine > handles the load. The closer you get to the load the > easier it is to support it. > This is the same reason why aero engines have such > large thrust bearing surfaces. > > 2.)Cylinder heads. (Tolerances) Automobile engines > combine the combustion chambers into a single unit(s). > Aero engines use one cylinder head /combustion > chamber per cylinder. Automobile engine production > volumes will boggle the mind with the huge amount of > volumes each car company produces every year. Aero > engines volumes are a tiny fraction of what automotive production > volumes are. This isn't the only reason, only part of it. Aero > engines operate in a much harsher environment than automobile engines > operate in. The aero engines tolerances are much closer than > automobile engines in order to get the expected life > from the engine. Tighter tolerances drive up cost. > The aero engine would not survive in it's harsh > environment if automotive production volume tolerances > were applied. The Individual Cylinder head allows the > aero engines deck height and therefore compression > ratio be tightly controlled. Even and smooth power > output is the end result. Automobile engines have > anything but even and smooth power output because the > compression ratio and deck heights cannot be closely > controlled, but rather compromised between the best > and worst deck heights, at best. Bores are typically > within .015 of each other. That's 10 times the > tolerance of an aero engines production bore > tolerance. > Do you know why Chevrolet finally stopped Corvair > production? It wasn't because of Nader, it was > because the engines were too costly to produce in the > needed production volumes. > > Ignition systems: (failure mode, redundancy & Time). > I hear this all the time folks complaining about > magnetoes, and how much better electronic ignitions > are. reliability etc. etc. Ever have a "Check Engine > Light" come on it your car when driving it? There's > plenty of cars on the shoulder because the engine just > quit. There are no shoulders to pull over on if the electronic module > quits on a flight engine. Ask William Wynne, he does not advocate > using an electronic ignition on his Corvair Conversion. > Typically, when an electronicly controlled automotive > engine illuminates, the computer tries to retain the > last know set of variables, and goes into what's > called the "limp-in" mode. In an aircraft, if that > computer ever commanded a limp-in mode, guarrenteed, > you are not staying airborne. Failure mode of a > Magneto is a gradual performance degridation, which > allows the pilot to time to plan where he can make a > landing. Time. > Aero engines have to completely independant, > redundant ignition systems. Mags, wires and Plugs. If > you foul or burn a plug because the pilot wasn't > paying attention to his workload...You are more than > likely to suffer only a small degridation in > performance, again allowing: Time > An auto engine does not have independant, redundant > ignition systems. If you foul a plug, burn a rotor, > or chafe through a coil wire, you are in serious > trouble, and must take immediate action, because you > don't have: > Time > This is referred to in engineering as single point of > failure. There are too many single point of failures > in a single electronic ignition system. The same > thinking can be applied to electronic fuel injection: > Too many single point of failures. > Porsche experimented with a certify-able aero engine > I believe for Mooney?? It was a behemoth weight-wise. > and also a dismal failure. Why? because is had > redundant alternators, fuel injectors, ignitions, > computers and even a cooling fan... To get around the > single point of failure problem. > > An Aero engine operates in a completely different > environment than an auto engine operates in. The > differences in design, weight, systems, and even how > they are manufactured are profound. > Todays auto engines are even more application > specific, and are completely designed and optimsed for > a specific power-output, price range, fuel economy and > class of vehicles, even the kind of terrain they are > intended to operate in. > Aero Engines are designed for a specific output, > aircraft class, and are designed to turn a propeller. > Which means they too are designed to operate in a > specific kind of "terrain". > Because of these profound differences, converting an automobile engine > for aircraft use is possible, maybe sometimes economicly feasable. > But these significant differences should be addressed, good > conversions do, however, a converted automobile engine will never > perform as well in an aircraft, as the aero-specific > designed engine will. Just as an aero engine doesn't > perform as well in a automobile as an automobile > engine will. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 09:40:37 -0800 From: "David Mikesell" To: "Ron Eason" , "KRnet" Subject: Re: KR>These 7 things: Auto vs Aero Engines for Aircraft Message-ID: <006101c3d933$3109ef40$03fea8c0@davids> References: <20040110021129.78033.qmail@web40807.mail.yahoo.com> <000801c3d924$a6b3d800$6501a8c0@Administration> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: list Message: 14 Well the crank shaft on a auto engine in most cases is supported by the use of a reduction drive to get the maximum efficency....and I don't see how good logic comes into play to say single ignition systems are and will fail............be honest with a modern electronic ignition and fuel injection system that is in every car produced, what is the actual failure rate in a direct proportion to aircraft magnetos that are rebuilt every year and I am only counting the ones rebuilt due to failure???? Well all of the shops I have talk to about magneto (since I am always doing business with them for my customers) say 10 out of every 65 mags they send out rebuilt get returned in 2 to 3 years due to failure..........yet I have had 3 cars all with electronic ignition and each one with over 100,000 miles that are sitting outside right now just like millions of other people who have never every had anything done to the ignition or fuel injection system except changing the spark plugs and wires. David Mikesell 23597 N. Hwy 99 Acampo, CA 95220 209-609-8774 skyguynca@skyguynca.com www.skyguynca.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ron Eason" To: "KRnet" Sent: Monday, January 12, 2004 7:56 AM Subject: Re: KR>These 7 things: Auto vs Aero Engines for Aircraft > Very good. Good engineering logic and purpose. This is one for the achieves. > When thinking about engines. > > KRRon > > Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 8:11 PM > Subject: RE: KR>These 7 things: Auto vs Aero Engines for Aircraft > > > > Serge and Colin and KRNetters, > > I have really resisted hitting the reply button...But > > I feel now is as good a time as any to reply on this subject. > > There are profound General Design differences between > > automobile engines, and aeronautical engines. Which > > make these engines very application specific. > > > > Let's start with basic components: > > > > 1.) Crankshaft-(Load Support) The Automobile engine's crankshaft is > > is designed to turn a flywheel, clutch and input shaft of a > > transmission(or torque converter). Dynamic Thrust forces are > > relatively small. More importantly, look how the automotive > > engine handles or supports these loads. The flywheel > > (clutch etc.)or torque converter is supported by the > > crankshaft main thrust bearings and transmission input > > bearings (front pump bearings for the automatic). > > This allows the dynamicly loaded power application > > device to be supported on both ends. In engineering > > we call this simply supported. > > > > The Aero engine's crankshaft is designed to turn a propeller. > > Dynamic thrust forces are enormous. The aero engine doesn't have > > the luxury of a transmission bolted to it to support the opposite > > end of the load. This is why aero engines have very large thrust > > bearing journals. This allows the dynamicly loaded > > power application device(propeller) to be supported on > > only one end. > > In engineering we call this a cantalever. > > To illustrate this point, place a board between two > > saw horses. Place a weight in the middle of the board. > > That's now a simply supported beam. Now remove one of > > the saw horses. This is now a cantalevered beam. Keep > > the board level. See what it takes to keep the ends > > of the board level? This is how an aero engine > > handles the load. The closer you get to the load the > > easier it is to support it. > > This is the same reason why aero engines have such > > large thrust bearing surfaces. > > > > 2.)Cylinder heads. (Tolerances) Automobile engines > > combine the combustion chambers into a single unit(s). > > Aero engines use one cylinder head /combustion > > chamber per cylinder. Automobile engine production > > volumes will boggle the mind with the huge amount of volumes each > > car company produces every year. Aero engines volumes are a tiny > > fraction of what automotive production volumes are. This isn't the > > only reason, only part of it. Aero engines operate in a much > > harsher environment than automobile engines operate > > in. The aero engines tolerances are much closer than > > automobile engines in order to get the expected life > > from the engine. Tighter tolerances drive up cost. > > The aero engine would not survive in it's harsh > > environment if automotive production volume tolerances > > were applied. The Individual Cylinder head allows the > > aero engines deck height and therefore compression > > ratio be tightly controlled. Even and smooth power > > output is the end result. Automobile engines have > > anything but even and smooth power output because the > > compression ratio and deck heights cannot be closely > > controlled, but rather compromised between the best > > and worst deck heights, at best. Bores are typically > > within .015 of each other. That's 10 times the > > tolerance of an aero engines production bore > > tolerance. > > Do you know why Chevrolet finally stopped Corvair > > production? It wasn't because of Nader, it was > > because the engines were too costly to produce in the > > needed production volumes. > > > > Ignition systems: (failure mode, redundancy & Time). > > I hear this all the time folks complaining about > > magnetoes, and how much better electronic ignitions > > are. reliability etc. etc. Ever have a "Check Engine Light" come on > > it your car when driving it? There's plenty of cars on the shoulder > > because the engine just quit. There are no shoulders to pull over > > on if the electronic module quits on a flight engine. Ask > > William Wynne, he does not advocate using an > > electronic ignition on his Corvair Conversion. > > Typically, when an electronicly controlled automotive > > engine illuminates, the computer tries to retain the > > last know set of variables, and goes into what's > > called the "limp-in" mode. In an aircraft, if that > > computer ever commanded a limp-in mode, guarrenteed, > > you are not staying airborne. Failure mode of a > > Magneto is a gradual performance degridation, which > > allows the pilot to time to plan where he can make a > > landing. Time. > > Aero engines have to completely independant, > > redundant ignition systems. Mags, wires and Plugs. If > > you foul or burn a plug because the pilot wasn't > > paying attention to his workload...You are more than > > likely to suffer only a small degridation in > > performance, again allowing: Time > > An auto engine does not have independant, redundant > > ignition systems. If you foul a plug, burn a rotor, > > or chafe through a coil wire, you are in serious > > trouble, and must take immediate action, because you > > don't have: > > Time > > This is referred to in engineering as single point of > > failure. There are too many single point of failures > > in a single electronic ignition system. The same > > thinking can be applied to electronic fuel injection: > > Too many single point of failures. > > Porsche experimented with a certify-able aero engine > > I believe for Mooney?? It was a behemoth weight-wise. > > and also a dismal failure. Why? because is had > > redundant alternators, fuel injectors, ignitions, > > computers and even a cooling fan... To get around the > > single point of failure problem. > > > > An Aero engine operates in a completely different environment than > > an auto engine operates in. The differences in design, weight, > > systems, and even how they are manufactured are profound. > > Todays auto engines are even more application > > specific, and are completely designed and optimsed for > > a specific power-output, price range, fuel economy and > > class of vehicles, even the kind of terrain they are > > intended to operate in. > > Aero Engines are designed for a specific output, > > aircraft class, and are designed to turn a propeller. > > Which means they too are designed to operate in a > > specific kind of "terrain". > > Because of these profound differences, converting an > > automobile engine for aircraft use is possible, maybe > > sometimes economicly feasable. But these significant > > differences should be addressed, good conversions do, > > however, a converted automobile engine will never > > perform as well in an aircraft, as the aero-specific > > designed engine will. Just as an aero engine doesn't > > perform as well in a automobile as an automobile > > engine will. > > > > _______________________________________ > to UNSUBSCRIBE from KRnet, send a message to KRnet-leave@mylist.net > please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/instructions.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 18:49:11 +0100 From: "Alexander Birca (MD/RMD)" To: "'KRnet'" Subject: RE: KR>These 7 things: Auto vs Aero Engines for Aircraft Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain MIME-Version: 1.0 Precedence: list Message: 15 You are right, remember for example Rotax 912, it is typical automotive sized engine with an reduction drive. And that is OK, who will say they aren't perform well? Subaru vs. Rotax, how many differences will find between them? Of course, they are very different from a REAL aircraft engines, I will not complain this. But remember ours aircraft, is not enough for them an Subaru? And finally, there are many failures in any REAL aircraft engines, just read some reports. BR, Alex -----Original Message----- From: krnet-bounces@mylist.net [mailto:krnet-bounces@mylist.net] On Behalf Of David Mikesell Sent: Monday, January 12, 2004 7:41 PM To: Ron Eason; KRnet Subject: Re: KR>These 7 things: Auto vs Aero Engines for Aircraft Well the crank shaft on a auto engine in most cases is supported by the use of a reduction drive to get the maximum efficency....and I don't see how good logic comes into play to say single ignition systems are and will fail............be honest with a modern electronic ignition and fuel injection system that is in every car produced, what is the actual failure rate in a direct proportion to aircraft magnetos that are rebuilt every year and I am only counting the ones rebuilt due to failure???? Well all of the shops I have talk to about magneto (since I am always doing business with them for my customers) say 10 out of every 65 mags they send out rebuilt get returned in 2 to 3 years due to failure..........yet I have had 3 cars all with electronic ignition and each one with over 100,000 miles that are sitting outside right now just like millions of other people who have never every had anything done to the ignition or fuel injection system except changing the spark plugs and! wires. David Mikesell 23597 N. Hwy 99 Acampo, CA 95220 209-609-8774 skyguynca@skyguynca.com www.skyguynca.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ron Eason" To: "KRnet" Sent: Monday, January 12, 2004 7:56 AM Subject: Re: KR>These 7 things: Auto vs Aero Engines for Aircraft > Very good. Good engineering logic and purpose. This is one for the achieves. > When thinking about engines. > > KRRon > > Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 8:11 PM > Subject: RE: KR>These 7 things: Auto vs Aero Engines for Aircraft > > > > Serge and Colin and KRNetters, > > I have really resisted hitting the reply button...But > > I feel now is as good a time as any to reply on this subject. > > There are profound General Design differences between > > automobile engines, and aeronautical engines. Which > > make these engines very application specific. > > > > Let's start with basic components: > > > > 1.) Crankshaft-(Load Support) The Automobile engine's crankshaft is > > is designed to turn a flywheel, clutch and input shaft of a > > transmission(or torque converter). Dynamic Thrust forces are > > relatively small. More importantly, look how the automotive > > engine handles or supports these loads. The flywheel > > (clutch etc.)or torque converter is supported by the > > crankshaft main thrust bearings and transmission input > > bearings (front pump bearings for the automatic). > > This allows the dynamicly loaded power application > > device to be supported on both ends. In engineering > > we call this simply supported. > > > > The Aero engine's crankshaft is designed to turn a propeller. > > Dynamic thrust forces are enormous. The aero engine doesn't have > > the luxury of a transmission bolted to it to support the opposite > > end of the load. This is why aero engines have very large thrust > > bearing journals. This allows the dynamicly loaded > > power application device(propeller) to be supported on > > only one end. > > In engineering we call this a cantalever. > > To illustrate this point, place a board between two > > saw horses. Place a weight in the middle of the board. > > That's now a simply supported beam. Now remove one of > > the saw horses. This is now a cantalevered beam. Keep > > the board level. See what it takes to keep the ends > > of the board level? This is how an aero engine > > handles the load. The closer you get to the load the > > easier it is to support it. > > This is the same reason why aero engines have such > > large thrust bearing surfaces. > > > > 2.)Cylinder heads. (Tolerances) Automobile engines > > combine the combustion chambers into a single unit(s). > > Aero engines use one cylinder head /combustion > > chamber per cylinder. Automobile engine production > > volumes will boggle the mind with the huge amount of volumes each > > car company produces every year. Aero engines volumes are a tiny > > fraction of what automotive production volumes are. This isn't the > > only reason, only part of it. Aero engines operate in a much > > harsher environment than automobile engines operate > > in. The aero engines tolerances are much closer than > > automobile engines in order to get the expected life > > from the engine. Tighter tolerances drive up cost. > > The aero engine would not survive in it's harsh > > environment if automotive production volume tolerances > > were applied. The Individual Cylinder head allows the > > aero engines deck height and therefore compression > > ratio be tightly controlled. Even and smooth power > > output is the end result. Automobile engines have > > anything but even and smooth power output because the > > compression ratio and deck heights cannot be closely > > controlled, but rather compromised between the best > > and worst deck heights, at best. Bores are typically > > within .015 of each other. That's 10 times the > > tolerance of an aero engines production bore > > tolerance. > > Do you know why Chevrolet finally stopped Corvair > > production? It wasn't because of Nader, it was > > because the engines were too costly to produce in the > > needed production volumes. > > > > Ignition systems: (failure mode, redundancy & Time). > > I hear this all the time folks complaining about > > magnetoes, and how much better electronic ignitions > > are. reliability etc. etc. Ever have a "Check Engine Light" come on > > it your car when driving it? There's plenty of cars on the shoulder > > because the engine just quit. There are no shoulders to pull over > > on if the electronic module quits on a flight engine. Ask > > William Wynne, he does not advocate using an > > electronic ignition on his Corvair Conversion. > > Typically, when an electronicly controlled automotive > > engine illuminates, the computer tries to retain the > > last know set of variables, and goes into what's > > called the "limp-in" mode. In an aircraft, if that > > computer ever commanded a limp-in mode, guarrenteed, > > you are not staying airborne. Failure mode of a > > Magneto is a gradual performance degridation, which > > allows the pilot to time to plan where he can make a > > landing. Time. > > Aero engines have to completely independant, > > redundant ignition systems. Mags, wires and Plugs. If > > you foul or burn a plug because the pilot wasn't > > paying attention to his workload...You are more than > > likely to suffer only a small degridation in > > performance, again allowing: Time > > An auto engine does not have independant, redundant > > ignition systems. If you foul a plug, burn a rotor, > > or chafe through a coil wire, you are in serious > > trouble, and must take immediate action, because you > > don't have: > > Time > > This is referred to in engineering as single point of > > failure. There are too many single point of failures > > in a single electronic ignition system. The same > > thinking can be applied to electronic fuel injection: > > Too many single point of failures. > > Porsche experimented with a certify-able aero engine > > I believe for Mooney?? It was a behemoth weight-wise. > > and also a dismal failure. Why? because is had > > redundant alternators, fuel injectors, ignitions, > > computers and even a cooling fan... To get around the > > single point of failure problem. > > > > An Aero engine operates in a completely different environment than > > an auto engine operates in. The differences in design, weight, > > systems, and even how they are manufactured are profound. > > Todays auto engines are even more application > > specific, and are completely designed and optimsed for > > a specific power-output, price range, fuel economy and > > class of vehicles, even the kind of terrain they are > > intended to operate in. > > Aero Engines are designed for a specific output, > > aircraft class, and are designed to turn a propeller. > > Which means they too are designed to operate in a > > specific kind of "terrain". > > Because of these profound differences, converting an > > automobile engine for aircraft use is possible, maybe > > sometimes economicly feasable. But these significant > > differences should be addressed, good conversions do, > > however, a converted automobile engine will never > > perform as well in an aircraft, as the aero-specific > > designed engine will. Just as an aero engine doesn't > > perform as well in a automobile as an automobile > > engine will. > > > > _______________________________________ > to UNSUBSCRIBE from KRnet, send a message to KRnet-leave@mylist.net > please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/instructions.html _______________________________________ to UNSUBSCRIBE from KRnet, send a message to KRnet-leave@mylist.net please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/instructions.html ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ See KRnet list details at http://www.krnet.org/instructions.html End of KRnet Digest, Vol 278, Issue 1 *************************************