From: krnet-bounces@mylist.net To: John Bouyea Subject: KRnet Digest, Vol 347, Issue 154 Date: 4/19/2005 9:00:24 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 (larry flesner) 2. 10G pullout/wing displacement (larry flesner) 3. RE: Flight Hours (Mark Jones) 4. Stability a little long sorry (Colin & Bev Rainey) 5. Flight hrs (Colin & Bev Rainey) 6. Re: Stability (Charles Buddy & Cheryl Midkiff) 7. Re:SNF (David Brandon Sr) 8. Re: FADEC (Richard Green) 9. Re: Stability (Martindale Family) 10. Re: 10G pullout/wing displacement (Bill Starrs) 11. Re: Neighbor....Mr.Cruz (paulwasp@webtv.net) 12. RE: 10G pullout/wing displacement (Jim Faughn) 13. Re: 10G pullout/wing displacement (Mark Jones) 14. Re: 10G pullout/wing displacement (William Jeffries) 15. Re: 10G pullout/wing displacement (Mark Jones) 16. Re: Stability/ N100TP (Steve Bray) 17. 10G Pullout/Wing Stabl (ronevogt@cox.net) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 14:54:14 -0500 From: larry flesner Subject: Re: KR> Stability To: KRnet Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20050419145414.00828690@pop.midwest.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" . Are stability issues limited to the KR and not the slightly larger KR2S? If I have the Diehl wing skins and use those, what should I expect in the future? >Ray >++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++] I think Mark L. covered the subject pretty well. My KR is stretched 24 inches but all wing and tail surfaces are basiclly "per plans" including the 3 1/2 degree incidence on the main wing and my horizontal stab is set as close to "zero" as I could get it. The 2s is not quite as long but the bigger tail surfaces should bring things closer to equal. If your rear spar is not set yet, you might consider reducing the wing incidence by a degree or so. Other than that, build it as true as possible, keep the CG in the right place, and go have a ball when finished. There is nothing about going your way on construction that should cause you any concerns. 136 hours and still grinnin'........................ P.S. I have some 500X5 wheels coming to replace my 600X6's and hope to get wheel covers soon. I'll keep you posted on any speed increase with the smaller wheels. I also have some 138" X 6" vinyl stripe design on order, and hope to get the wings repainted soon. It may not be long before I have a finished KR !! Hummmmm, let's see, the new wing for more speed and maybe................................. Larry Flesner ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 15:00:29 -0500 From: larry flesner Subject: KR> 10G pullout/wing displacement To: KRnet Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20050419150029.0082f100@pop.midwest.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" the acft was good for 4,000 flight hours and "oh by the way" >the wing tips during a 10 G pullout were displaced up 48 inches without >any permanent deformation. Bob Morrissey ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ I recall a time or two in the KR when it seemed like I sucked my seat up almost that far and it retained it's shape also. The coloring may have changed a bit though from the light grey it used to be !!! :-) :-) Larry Flesner ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 15:06:24 -0500 From: "Mark Jones" Subject: RE: KR>Flight Hours To: "KRnet" Message-ID: <26D1C67793459F43BF8DA235F92B1F3549DA09@tulsaexchange.tulsaokmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" -----Original Message----- From: krnet-bounces@mylist.net [mailto:krnet-bounces@mylist.net]On Behalf Of larry flesner 136 hours and still grinnin'........................ Larry Flesner I remember when I was saying "Larry, I'm coming to join you"....now, it is "Larry, I only have 125.8 hours to catch up to you". :-) This KR thing is just way too much fun. Mark Jones (N886MJ....10.2 flight hours) Wales, WI ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 16:33:22 -0400 From: "Colin & Bev Rainey" Subject: KR> Stability a little long sorry To: "KRnet" Message-ID: <001b01c5451f$080c3e50$c7432141@RaineyDay> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" I was always taught that stability in flight depended on several things, some that relate to one another and some that can be considered independently. For instance: a single example of improving aircraft stability that will effect other flight characteristics but can be accomplished singularly is the CG placement relative to the Center of Lift or Center of Pressure. The closer these 2 are the more the plane feels like it is balancing on a fence post. The further they are a part, within reason, the more stable the plane feels and behaves in flight. Close would be like balancing on one foot, vs. spread would be like standing with your feet a full stride a part. I think people are mistaking stability for effectiveness of the surfaces when increasing the arm or distance of a control or stabilizing surface. It sounds like the same thing, but by definition that I was taught, stability has more to do with the plane's response to being upset, where as effectiveness has to do with how good they work. A plane is evaluated for its Static Stability and its Dynamic Stability to determine if it is functioning within its design perimeters, and whether it is safe or not. Static Stability is what the plane does first right after being upset. Dynamic Stability is the plane's response over time. The elevator/rudder is effective due to its arm or distance from a datum point or measuring point decided on before beginning such measurements. This should be the same point used for weight & balance. When this arm or distance is increased, then it is like getting a bigger pry bar, the surface has more leverage over the same plane. If one increases the surface size, it has the same effect but at the penalty of more drag due to a larger area, hence the frame stretch, which is less of a penalty. I believe Troy's larger horizontal stabilizer and reduced elevator was an effort to reduce pitch sensitivity, not increase stability. I personally, and this is my opinion, find it difficult to attribute an increase in aircraft stability either solely, or due to using the new wing. All the planes mentioned have several changes made to them that would all have a part in increasing a plane's stability. My plane has the RAF48 wings with Dan Diehl skins, and when I am solo full of fuel the plane is very stable if the air is smooth. A 1100 pound plane is going to be "active" in bumpy air no matter what wing it has, or who is flying it. As an example Larry Flesner's plane has shorter wings, which will make his plane behave like a heavier KR due to the fact that there is less wing loaded with the same weight causing his to be more stable. The new wing will effect cruise speeds, stall speeds, takeoff and landing speeds directly. The reduced angle of incidence will make for less drag and higher cruise speeds due to the fuselage being oriented into the relative wind better. If you are about to start your wings and have not bought anything but raw materials, by all means use the new airfoil. But if you have already invested in Diehl skins, or like me already have an existing set of wings, fly them. The wings alone are not going to make that much of a difference compared to attentions to details like CG control, and keeping the plane light etc... From my personal flying, and what I am reading from other pilots with both airfoils, they fly enough alike that you would be hard pressed to tell a difference unless you had 2 planes just alike, weighing the same, flown by the same pilots, with each wing. Too many other variables that have been incorporated to improve their planes to say that the new wing is doing it all. Alot of "The Gang" are still flying the old wing and having a BLAST! Just get her finished. To quote Dan, the time for building is long since over.... Corvair engine on the stand beginning teardown... crainey1@cfl.rr.com http://kr-builder.org/Colin/index.html KR2(td) N96TA Sanford, FL Apex Lending, Inc. 407-323-6960 (p) 407-557-3260 (f) crainey@apexlending.com ------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 16:35:27 -0400 From: "Colin & Bev Rainey" Subject: KR> Flight hrs To: "KRnet" Message-ID: <002601c5451f$52841de0$c7432141@RaineyDay> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" I got 104.6 to catch Larry. You got 20.2 to catch me Mark, and I think you will before I get back in the air.... DANG! crainey1@cfl.rr.com http://kr-builder.org/Colin/index.html KR2(td) N96TA Sanford, FL Apex Lending, Inc. 407-323-6960 (p) 407-557-3260 (f) crainey@apexlending.com ------------------------------ Message: 6 Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 13:37:59 -0700 From: "Charles Buddy & Cheryl Midkiff" Subject: Re: KR> Stability To: "KRnet" Message-ID: <00a401c5451f$ad0ab530$6401a8c0@charlesmidkiff> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=iso-8859-1; reply-type=original Thanks Mark & KRNet, I have Rand's wingskins instead of Dan Diehl's, so I'm pretty much locked into the RAF48 airfoil, but I keep toying with the thought of going through the process of raising the rear spar to reduce the incidence some. I probably should just leave it alone and press on so I can get this plane finished. Thanks, Bud > Bud Midkiff wrote: > >> Have you heard of anyone who has used the Diehl wing skins, or stock >> home made wings, with the RAF48 airfoil and has also raised the rear >> spar the 3/4" yet? I'd be curious about the performance differences >> encountered. > > No, I haven't. If I remember correctly, there's a bit of a difference > between the two, so the RAF shouldn't get quite as much reduction in > the incidence angle as as would the new airfoil. I think Dana did > that (and I believe he used the RAF48 Deihl skins), but he told me > over the weekend that whoever bought it had changed it considerably, > and that might have been one > of the changes. I'd be interested in knowing more about the whereabouts > and > modifications that have been made to that plane. > ------------------------------ Message: 7 Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 16:51:35 -0400 From: "David Brandon Sr" Subject: Re:KR>SNF To: Message-ID: <001901c54521$9367ae10$6401a8c0@DBRANDON> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Hi Guys, As an old F4-E jock I can confirm it is an E. I don't know about the wingtips bending like that but I can tell you if you did a 10 g pullout you were in big trouble. The engine mounts on the GE-J79 engines would shear at 10 G's. Not a big deal a the engine kept running, it just fell to the bottom os the engine bay, soyou flew home. However, it truly pissed off the ground crew as they had to pull both engines and replace all mounts etc. It also truly pissed off your flight commander, squadron commander, wing commander et al and you were on the s*** list until someone else really screwed up! Dave Brandon beone@charter.net *Mark/Parley; *The F-4 is one of the later E models. It has the internal 25 mm Gatling gun, t*he IFF system (Identify Friend Foe), the two position leading edge wing *maneuvering slats, and lastly the fatigue improvement wing torque box that *included both thicker materials and Taper Lok fasteners. If my memory serves *me accurately the acft was good for 4,000 flight hours and "oh by the way" *the wing tips during a 10 G pullout were displaced up 48 inches without any *permanent deformation. *Bob Morrissey ------------------------------ Message: 8 Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 14:17:18 -0700 (PDT) From: Richard Green Subject: Re: KR> FADEC To: KRnet Message-ID: <20050419211718.87736.qmail@web81608.mail.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii http://www.fadec.com/availability.html Serge VIDAL wrote:FADEC is a generic term for computer-driven powerplants. Very commonly used in the helicopter world, for piston engines and turbines alike. I believe the term was first used on choppers. "Full Authority" refers to the idea that the pilot just asks for more or less power, and the computer does the rest, freely. The computer will adjust whatever parameter it pleases: mixture, intake quantity, RPM, pitch, or whatever. So, FADECs are "single lever" solutions, and they go farther than just electronic fuel injection. And of course, they have huge safety implications, therefore are extremely costly to certify, hence the price tag. By the way, there is one fabulous homebuilt helicopter, called the Rotorway Exec 162F, which has got a FADEC as standard. The manufacturers make their own engines, since they could not find anything acceptable in the market. The entire kit (helicopter with engine and FADEC) costs less than the FADEC option for a certified helicopter! Serge Vidal KR2 "Kilimanjaro Cloud" Paris, france FADEC = Full Authority Digital Engine Control. It's out there. The Cirrus SR series as well as some other new planes have it. It can be retrofited to some planes depending on how quickly it appears on the Type Certificates or developers are willing to tackle the years of paperwork and testing to satisfy the FAA for a Suplemental Type Certificate. My observation is that it appears to work well in flight and is well liked by the owners, but may be a bit immature for adverse conditions. I've watched several Cirrus run themselves out of batteries trying to start in moderately cool weather. Of course spending $15 - 20K to upgrade my two $20K airplanes just doesn't make financial sense. I'd spend that $$ buying another hanger and another plane instead. -Jeff On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 17:31:05 -0400 "Doug Rupert" writes: > Already do. I believe it's called Fadec on Lycoming engines but could be > wrong. Best check with one of the A&P's re this one. > Doug Rupert > > How long will it be before we accept computer driven fuel injection > in > airplanes? > > Kevin. _______________________________________ Search the KRnet Archives at http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to KRnet-leave@mylist.net please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html _______________________________________ Search the KRnet Archives at http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to KRnet-leave@mylist.net please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html ------------------------------ Message: 9 Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 07:30:01 +1000 From: "Martindale Family" Subject: Re: KR> Stability To: "KRnet" Message-ID: <003c01c54526$f21d2fc0$da26ecdc@athlon2400> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Hi Bud My wings are built that way. It improves forward visibility, reduces that nose down pig look in cruise and provides space under the rear spar to run control rods. My angle of incidence is 2 1/2 at the root reducing to 1/2 at the tip. Rear stabiliser is set at zero. She seems to fly as well as any of the stockers but is definitely not as stable as those with the longer fuselage (KR2S). I think the new airfoil will show its best at the higher airspeeds reached with bigger engines eg., Corvairs, where the RAF48 might approach some sort of limits. At VW speeds perhaps the difference would be less marked. For discussion. John The Martindale Family 29 Jane Circuit TOORMINA NSW 2452 AUSTRALIA phone: 61 2 66584767 email: johnjanet@optusnet.com.au ----- Original Message ----- From: "Charles Buddy & Cheryl Midkiff" To: "KRnet" Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2005 2:45 AM Subject: Re: KR> Stability > Mark, > Have you heard of anyone who has used the Diehl wing skins, or stock > home made wings, with the RAF48 airfoil and has also raised the rear > spar the 3/4" yet? I'd be curious about the performance differences > encountered. Bud Midkiff Lynnwood, WA > email: c.midkiff@verizon.net > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Mark Langford" > To: "KRnet" > Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2005 8:57 AM > Subject: Re: KR> Stability > > > >>Major instability? Please throw out some guidance. > > > > But to answer your question Ray, there is no shame in using the > > Diehl wing > > skins, and that's a great reason to stick with the RAF48, and finish your > > plane quicker. I think if you are building a KR2S, you will be > > quite happy with the stability, whether it has the new airfoil > > system or not... > > > > Mark Langford, Huntsville, Alabama > > see KR2S project N56ML at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford email to > > N56ML "at" hiwaay.net > > > > > > _______________________________________ > > Search the KRnet Archives at > > http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp > > to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to KRnet-leave@mylist.net > > please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html > > > > > > _______________________________________ > Search the KRnet Archives at http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp > to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to KRnet-leave@mylist.net > please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html ------------------------------ Message: 10 Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 17:18:43 -0600 From: "Bill Starrs" Subject: Re: KR> 10G pullout/wing displacement To: "KRnet" Message-ID: <001f01c54536$23b4d010$4dedf004@Bill> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Dinn't 10 Gs pull out your brains ----- Original Message ----- From: "larry flesner" To: "KRnet" Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2005 2:00 PM Subject: KR> 10G pullout/wing displacement the acft was good for 4,000 flight hours and "oh by the way" >the wing tips during a 10 G pullout were displaced up 48 inches without >any permanent deformation. Bob Morrissey ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ I recall a time or two in the KR when it seemed like I sucked my seat up almost that far and it retained it's shape also. The coloring may have changed a bit though from the light grey it used to be !!! :-) :-) Larry Flesner _______________________________________ Search the KRnet Archives at http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to KRnet-leave@mylist.net please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html ------------------------------ Message: 11 Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 21:28:33 -0400 From: paulwasp@webtv.net Subject: KR> Re: Neighbor....Mr.Cruz To: krnet@mylist.net (KRnet) Message-ID: <21929-4265B041-825@storefull-3234.bay.webtv.net> Content-Type: Text/Plain; Charset=US-ASCII Hi; I accidently deleted your email. I wanted to talk off line with you. Please contact me off-line, and we'll discuss our projects. Sorry; Paul http://community.webtv.net/paulwasp/paulwaspspad ------------------------------ Message: 12 Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 20:40:42 -0500 From: "Jim Faughn" Subject: RE: KR> 10G pullout/wing displacement To: "'KRnet'" Message-ID: <000f01c54549$f75b1d80$26d95540@jfaughn> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I must go back in time to years ago when I was younger and much dumber. In about 1993 I was having a great time in Sullivan MO with my KR. I would show the plane and I would enjoy doing missed approaches at 200 mph with about a 3g pull-up and then 800 feet up I would enjoy doing about a 2g push over and my body would rise up and the seat belt would hold me down while my headphones would touch the canopy. This was pretty common during the summer and the group around the airport enjoyed watching this display of (stupidity????) fun. Then one night in my dreams I visualized my fuel and figured out that it must be doing the same thing...... I quit doing the push over on a gravity fed fuel system. Oh well, youth is youth and stupidity is stupidity. Have fun with the positive and avoid the negative. Jim 891JF Jim Faughn St. Louis, MO 63108 Email - sub @ for "at" jfaughn "at" socket.net Web Site http://jfaughn.com -----Original Message----- From: krnet-bounces@mylist.net [mailto:krnet-bounces@mylist.net] On Behalf Of Bill Starrs Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2005 6:19 PM To: KRnet Subject: Re: KR> 10G pullout/wing displacement the acft was good for 4,000 flight hours and "oh by the way" >the wing tips during a 10 G pullout were displaced up 48 inches without >any permanent deformation. Bob Morrissey ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ I recall a time or two in the KR when it seemed like I sucked my seat up almost that far and it retained it's shape also. The coloring may have changed a bit though from the light grey it used to be !!! :-) :-) Larry Flesner ------------------------------ Message: 13 Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 21:04:19 -0500 From: "Mark Jones" Subject: Re: KR> 10G pullout/wing displacement To: "KRnet" Message-ID: <002e01c5454d$49779820$6401a8c0@wi.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Jim, Years ago, as you indicate, I was a lot braver and younger too. I used to fly a Warrior back in my home state of Georgia quite regularly. One of my favorite things to do, along with my regular passenger, was to design our own roller coaster in the sky. It was a pure blast to do as you say. We would put the Warrior in a dive and pull it back into a real hard climb and absolutely love the G forces. Then, as the air speed rapidly bled off, I would push the nose over and we too would float out of our seats. Way too cool.....that is till the engine stopped because of fuel starvation. My heart almost stopped the first time it happened. I did not have to do anything to restart the engine since it was windmilling and as soon as fuel hit the plugs, it fired right back up. Needless to say, this happened more than once. Too young and foolish to know any better. It did teach me a thing or two about unusual attitude. 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: "Jim Faughn" To: "'KRnet'" Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2005 8:40 PM Subject: RE: KR> 10G pullout/wing displacement > I must go back in time to years ago when I was younger and much > dumber. In about 1993 I was having a great time in Sullivan MO with my > KR. I would show the plane and I would enjoy doing missed approaches > at 200 mph with about a 3g pull-up and then 800 feet up I would enjoy > doing about a 2g push over and my body would rise up and the seat belt > would hold me down while my headphones would touch the canopy. This > was pretty common during the summer and the group around the airport > enjoyed watching this display of (stupidity????) fun. Then one night > in my dreams I visualized my fuel and figured out that it must be > doing the same thing...... I quit doing the push over on a gravity fed > fuel system. Oh well, youth is youth and stupidity is stupidity. Have > fun with the positive and avoid the negative. > > Jim > 891JF > > Jim Faughn > St. Louis, MO 63108 > Email - sub @ for "at" jfaughn "at" socket.net > Web Site http://jfaughn.com > > -----Original Message----- > From: krnet-bounces@mylist.net [mailto:krnet-bounces@mylist.net] On > Behalf Of Bill Starrs > Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2005 6:19 PM > To: KRnet > Subject: Re: KR> 10G pullout/wing displacement > > > the acft was good for 4,000 flight hours and "oh by the way" > >the wing tips during a 10 G pullout were displaced up 48 inches > >without > > >any permanent deformation. Bob Morrissey > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > I recall a time or two in the KR when it seemed like I sucked my seat > up almost that far and it retained it's shape also. The coloring may > have changed a bit though from the light grey it used to be !!! :-) > :-) > > Larry Flesner > > > > > _______________________________________ > Search the KRnet Archives at http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp > to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to KRnet-leave@mylist.net > please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html > ------------------------------ Message: 14 Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 19:26:15 -0700 (PDT) From: William Jeffries Subject: Re: KR> 10G pullout/wing displacement To: KRnet Message-ID: <20050420022615.72665.qmail@web90102.mail.scd.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mark, Don't try that in your new jewel as I still looking forward to seeing it in one piece, not in a heap of splinters. Bill Jeffries --- Mark Jones wrote: > Jim, > Years ago, as you indicate, I was a lot braver and > younger too. I used to > fly a Warrior back in my home state of Georgia quite regularly. One of > my favorite things to do, along with my regular > passenger, was to design our > own roller coaster in the sky. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Plan great trips with Yahoo! Travel: Now over 17,000 guides! http://travel.yahoo.com/p-travelguide ------------------------------ Message: 15 Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 21:35:44 -0500 From: "Mark Jones" Subject: Re: KR> 10G pullout/wing displacement To: "KRnet" Message-ID: <003601c54551$ab5ea020$6401a8c0@wi.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Not to worry, I am much older and wiser now. The word fear does reside in my vocabulary now. 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: "William Jeffries" To: "KRnet" Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2005 9:26 PM Subject: Re: KR> 10G pullout/wing displacement > Mark, > > Don't try that in your new jewel as I still looking > forward to seeing it in one piece, not in a heap of > splinters. > > Bill Jeffries > --- Mark Jones wrote: > > Jim, > > Years ago, as you indicate, I was a lot braver and > > younger too. I used to > > fly a Warrior back in my home state of Georgia quite > > regularly. One of my > > favorite things to do, along with my regular > > passenger, was to design our > > own roller coaster in the sky. > > > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Plan great trips with Yahoo! Travel: Now over 17,000 guides! > http://travel.yahoo.com/p-travelguide > > _______________________________________ > Search the KRnet Archives at http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp > to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to KRnet-leave@mylist.net > please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html > ------------------------------ Message: 16 Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 22:26:22 -0500 From: "Steve Bray" Subject: Re: KR> Stability/ N100TP To: krnet@mylist.net Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed >Another part of the stability improvement may be attributed to the >improvement in decalage, lining the wings up with the fuselage so the two >are not "fighting" each other for priority. That's total conjecture on my >part however, and may be total hogwash, but I'm groping for an explanation. >Troy does report a real improvement to his airplane though, and all that >changed was his main wing and it's incidence to the fuselage. His tail >size >is unchanged, I think, but the tail's control surfaces were actually made> >smaller. Hard to say which one caused his improvement. If he did lengthen >his h/s, that would certainly account for some of his improvement. > Mark I visited with Troy last week and got a good look at his airplane. I'm pretty sure he told me his HS is now 6 inches wider per side than it was and he made his VS match. I have some good pictures of his airplane that show the tail if anyone wants to see it. He even gave me a demo flight, him flyin and me on the ramp watchin. That is one fast little airplane. Steve Bray Jackson, Tennessee KR2, third owner and getting closer to completeion. ------------------------------ Message: 17 Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 23:51:10 -0400 From: Subject: KR> 10G Pullout/Wing Stabl To: Message-ID: <20050420035110.KPOZ15592.fed1rmmtao04.cox.net@smtp.west.cox.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Netters; This discussion reminds me of when I was a "nugget", flying T-28s out of Whiting Field, Florida in 1978. Those of us that had survived Fam 1-15 were sent out to solo the mighty Trojan in order to practice our new-found piloting skills. Someone in the group was talking about doing negative G pushovers and watching a pencil float in mid-air. One of our buddies went out to try it the next day when he encountered a control problem. It seems he hadn't secured the parachute in the rear cockpit, as emphasized in the NATOPS Manual. He declared an emergency and landed at an outlying field. After this guy landed, the duty officer climbed up on the wing and saw that the unsecured parachute was leaning on the stick in the rear cockpit. "You're in a heap of trouble, enswine!" He growled. Back at Whiting, he found himself doing a carpet dance in front of the squadron safety officer. He got washed out of advanced training about 6 months later. So let this be a lesson to all KR drivers. Unplanned manuevers can lead to a bad ending. ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ See KRnet list details at http://www.krnet.org/instructions.html End of KRnet Digest, Vol 347, Issue 154 *************************************** ================================== ABC Amber Outlook Converter v4.20 Trial version ==================================