From: krnet-bounces+johnbou=speakeasy.net@mylist.net To: John Bouyea Subject: KRnet Digest, Vol 347, Issue 29 Date: 1/19/2005 8:59:04 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: Canopy questions. Plastic lay ups (Doug Rupert) 2. Re: KR-2 Plans on e-bay (larry severson) 3. Re: Canopy questions. Plastic lay ups (Phil Matheson) 4. cowling molds (Jumpnkd@aol.com) 5. Prop (Colin & Bev Rainey) 6. Re: Canopy questions. Plastic lay ups (F Ross) 7. Re: (no subject) (patrusso) 8. VW Electronic Ignition Module Installation (Dan Heath) 9. turbo (Orma) 10. Corona, CA flooding (Oscar Zuniga) 11. Re: KR-2 Plans on e-bay (Phil Spurr) 12. RE: Corona, CA flooding (Steve Glover) 13. Re: KR-2 Plans on e-bay (larry severson) 14. AS 504X CofG (Dene Collett (SA)) 15. 54 inch chord (rhartwig11@juno.com) 16. Re: Kind of quiet (JIM RALEIGH) 17. Re: Fuel Tanks (Mark Jones) 18. Re: AS 504X CofG (Mark Langford) 19. AS 504X CofG (Oscar Zuniga) 20. RE: AS 504X CofG (Brian Kraut) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 00:45:48 -0500 From: "Doug Rupert" Subject: RE: KR> Canopy questions. Plastic lay ups To: "'KRnet'" Message-ID: <015a01c4fdea$21eecfd0$7304e440@office> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1250" Bloody Colonials! Of course you guys down under know how to build great looking women and brew good beer. Cheers. Doug Rupert -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.7.0 - Release Date: 1/17/2005 ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 22:03:38 -0800 From: larry severson Subject: Re: KR> KR-2 Plans on e-bay To: Wesley Scott , KRnet Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.0.20050118220226.02ed39d0@pop-server.socal.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 10:17 PM 1/18/2005 -0600, you wrote: >KR-2 Plans (circa 1982) on e-bay currently $25.99 with 4 days 15 hours >to go. It is a mistake to buy them. Get the new ones!!!!! I have both - a tremendous difference. Larry Severson Fountain Valley, CA 92708 (714) 968-9852 larry2@socal.rr.com ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 17:03:51 +1100 From: "Phil Matheson" Subject: Re: KR> Canopy questions. Plastic lay ups To: "KRnet" Message-ID: <001601c4fdec$a877cff0$7231ddcb@Office> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Thanks guys, that clears up a simple misunderstanding from a previous email. Now I understand what you Yanks are talking about, it will be easy to get. Amazing, most of us speak English and we still do not know what the other is saying. Phil Matheson matheson@dodo.com.au VH-PKR ( Phil's KR) 61 3 58833588 Australia.( Down Under) See My KR2 Building Web Page at: http://mywebpage.netscape.com/flyingkrphil/VHPKR.html See our VW Engines and Home built web page at http://www.vw-engines.com/ www.homebuilt-aviation.com/ ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 01:43:41 EST From: Jumpnkd@aol.com Subject: KR> cowling molds To: krnet@mylist.net Message-ID: <54.3bfd47c5.2f1f5b9d@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" In a message dated 1/18/05 11:59:17 PM Eastern Standard Time, krnet-request@mylist.net writes: > I talked to Ray last night, and he has packed the cowling molds for > >shipping. The box is oversize for shipping UPS and so will cost about > >$100 > >to ship. Ray is in New Orleans And I'm in Fayetteville NC. Is anyone on the > > >net traveling from near New Orleans east that would be willing to > >transport > > >the cowling molds for me. I would be glad to pay a tank of gas as > >long as > >you are not filling up a 747. > > > Ck with some Truck freight CO. or the bus lines. I can get a motor shipped from cal to VA for 150.00 you can find it cheaper than UPS. let your fingers do the dialing and call the bus terminals, and the trucking co. there has to be some way to do it cheap. "People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it."— George Bernard Shaw, (1856-1950) Irish playwright and winner of the Nobel Prize for Literature 1925 Yours Bill ------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 03:43:58 -0500 From: "Colin & Bev Rainey" Subject: KR> Prop To: "KRnet" Message-ID: <005801c4fe03$04b67580$9c402141@RaineyDay> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Anyone have a 52 x 42 prop to fit a VW? Contact me offline about terms please... Thanks Colin & Beverly Rainey Apex Lending, Inc. www.eloan2004cr.com crainey@apexlending.com 407-323-6960 ------------------------------ Message: 6 Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 02:01:07 -0800 (PST) From: F Ross Subject: Re: KR> Canopy questions. Plastic lay ups To: KRnet Message-ID: <20050119100107.26361.qmail@web40912.mail.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii I'm an American in England and it is also a language thing. The English (and their Australian cousins) use the term "MIL" as slang for MILLIMETER. So, when he asked for plastic 3 mil thick, they were thinking three MILLIMETERS. Try folding that up into a roll three inches thick and two feet long... All this time I thought I was speaking English... Frank Ross A Yank (No matter WHERE you are from in the US) living where Petrol (gas in US) is sold by the liter, but the highway signs are in MILES per hour. --- Ron Butterfield wrote: > At 07:12 PM 1/18/05, you wrote: > >I have been to the Two largest building supplies in > Australia. and they do > >not know what 3 mil thick builders Plastic is. They > all say It CAN NOT BE 3 > >mil (mm) thick. > > Ahh! The dreaded English/Metric wars strike again. > ;-) > > Over here (USA) plastic is commonly sold by it's > thickness in thousandths > of an inch. So, 4 mill plastic sheet here would be > sold there as 100 > microns 3 mill would be 75 microns, etc. > > > Regards, > RonB __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - now with 250MB free storage. Learn more. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250 ------------------------------ Message: 7 Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 06:00:07 -0500 From: "patrusso" Subject: Re: KR> (no subject) To: "KRnet" Message-ID: <002c01c4fe16$09a35050$52a672d8@patrusso> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original No, this was before the streched version debute, but one was widened at the waist by 4 inches....and speeds were reported with only pilot aboard. ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "KRnet" Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 8:54 PM Subject: Re: KR> (no subject) > Hi; > Regarding the KR's with the 1835cc engines that were going 130 145 > mph.....were any of them KR2s's? > > > _______________________________________ > 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: 8 Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 06:14:47 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time) From: "Dan Heath" Subject: KR> VW Electronic Ignition Module Installation To: "krnet@mylist.net" Message-ID: <41EE4127.000007.02092@DANHOMECOMPUTER> Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" You may remember my making several posts, asking for information about the installation of the Electronic Ignition from GPASC. Our real concern was the fear we had in dropping the distributor drive in the hole, and drilling and taping into the case for the set screws. Well, we got over the fear of dropping the drive, because it turned out to be easy, but the issue of drilling and taping the case and putting a set screw into the O ring on the module, kept nagging at us. We looked for another way and found it. The real proof that it works is in the testing, of course, but I tried as hard as I could to turn this module and could not do, it after it was clamped in place. By flipping the stock clamp over and reversing the bend of the hold down bar and using a socket cap screw instead of a bolt, we were able to do it without drilling and the overall installation turned out to be quite easy. The first three pics show it in pretty good detail. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask. http://kr-builder.org/FirewallForward/index.html See N64KR at http://KR-Builder.org - Then click on the pics There is a time for building and a time for FLYING and the time for building has expired. Daniel R. Heath - Columbia, SC See you in Mt. Vernon - 2005 - KR Gathering ------------------------------ Message: 9 Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 08:46:50 -0500 From: "Orma" Subject: KR> turbo To: "KRnet" Message-ID: <002d01c4fe2d$549dfd00$0202a8c0@ROBBINS1> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Hello Net this is an update on the turbo and a test message. The turbo was reinstalled a couple of weeks ago. I need to test run the aircraft, but here in Michigan it is too darn cold or the ground is too slippery. Orma Southfield, MI N110LR celebrating 20 years Flying, flying and more flying http://www.kr-2.aviation-mechanics.com/ ------------------------------ Message: 10 Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 08:56:26 -0600 From: "Oscar Zuniga" Subject: KR> Corona, CA flooding To: krnet@mylist.net Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Pictures of the flooded airport at Corona, CA are at http://www.flysquirrel.net/KR/corona.html courtesy of "Backup Net Mom" Randy Stein. Oscar Zuniga San Antonio, TX mailto: taildrags@hotmail.com website at http://www.flysquirrel.net ------------------------------ Message: 11 Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 15:30:55 +0000 From: Phil Spurr Subject: Re: KR> KR-2 Plans on e-bay To: KRnet Message-ID: <4.1.20050119152727.015be6a8@mail.btinternet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Larry I have a KR2 that would have been built about the time these plans were out. If I buy a new set won't I lose the original spec's relating to how mine was built ? Any amendments would be very useful to look at , I agree, but do the new plans still incorporate notes relating to earlier versions ? Phil ( Scotland ) At 22:03 18/01/2005 -0800, you wrote: >At 10:17 PM 1/18/2005 -0600, you wrote: >>KR-2 Plans (circa 1982) on e-bay currently $25.99 with 4 days 15 hours to >>go. > >It is a mistake to buy them. Get the new ones!!!!! >I have both - a tremendous difference. > > >Larry Severson >Fountain Valley, CA 92708 >(714) 968-9852 >larry2@socal.rr.com ------------------------------ Message: 12 Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 08:35:43 -0800 From: "Steve Glover" Subject: RE: KR> Corona, CA flooding To: "KRnet" Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >Pictures of the flooded airport at Corona, CA are at http://www.flysquirrel.net/KR/corona.html courtesy of "Backup Net Mom" Randy Stein. The end of the field where all you can see is the roof of the hangar is where I am located. Richard is closer to mid field. Steve Glover KR-2 N902G AJO, Ca ------------------------------ Message: 13 Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 08:56:59 -0800 From: larry severson Subject: Re: KR> KR-2 Plans on e-bay To: KRnet Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.0.20050119085528.02144f90@pop-server.socal.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 03:30 PM 1/19/2005 +0000, you wrote: >Larry >I have a KR2 that would have been built about the time these plans were >out. If I buy a new set won't I lose the original spec's relating to how >mine was built ? Any amendments would be very useful to look at , I agree, >but do the new plans still incorporate notes relating to earlier versions ? >Phil >( Scotland ) Plans the same, information vastly improved - still not fantastic, but vastly improved! Larry Severson Fountain Valley, CA 92708 (714) 968-9852 larry2@socal.rr.com ------------------------------ Message: 14 Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 19:35:12 +0200 From: "Dene Collett \(SA\)" Subject: KR> AS 504X CofG To: "krnet" Message-ID: <000901c4fe4d$859cd000$37e5fea9@telkomsa127179> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Hi chaps I know this subject line is old news to some and most will probably know the answer (including me) but I have to be absolutely sure of my facts before I take a hacksaw to this piece of 4130 tube in my hands.Mark L, I think I raised this subject with you some time ago, please bear with me here. So here goes. I am using the AS5048/5045 combination . I know these airfoils were designed to be a direct replacement for the RAF48 but I am not sure if the CG limits are the same. I am particularly interested in the rear limit at this stage.I know that the CG limits are particular to a specific airfoil and not the plane itself (I think). I have to be sure that the mains will be behind the rear limit, by how much I will still have to figure out. I have been given conflicting information locally (Rear limit: from 6mm to 12.6mm behind the rear face of spar with the spar centred on 25% chord. Help!! Dene Collett KR2S-RT builder Port Elizabeth South Africa mailto: dene.collett@telkomsa.net P.S: checkout www.whisperaircraft.com ------------------------------ Message: 15 Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 15:19:23 -0600 From: rhartwig11@juno.com Subject: KR> 54 inch chord To: krnet@mylist.net Message-ID: <20050119.151923.1112.0.rhartwig11@juno.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Does anyone know of a KR wing built with a 54 inch chord? Dick H. ------------------------------ Message: 16 Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 17:20:56 -0600 From: "JIM RALEIGH" Subject: Re: KR> Kind of quiet To: "KRnet" Message-ID: <002c01c4fe7d$87feb400$9ec91b45@HPAuthorizedCustomer> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Mark; what is the capacity of the fuel tanks that dana built ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark Jones" To: "KR Net" Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2005 6:07 PM Subject: KR> Kind of quiet > So I thought I would remind all of you of this KR list site. You need to register. > http://krnet.scottstanton.us/cgi-bin/krnet_list.pl > > Mark Jones (N886MJ) > Wales, WI USA > E-mail me at flykr2s@wi.rr.com > Visit my KR-2S CorvAIRCRAFT web site at > http://mywebpage.netscape.com/n886mj/homepage.html > > _______________________________________ > Search the KRnet Archives at http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp > to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to KRnet-leave@mylist.net > please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html ------------------------------ Message: 17 Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 17:22:22 -0600 From: "Mark Jones" Subject: Re: KR> Fuel Tanks To: "KRnet" Message-ID: <001f01c4fe7d$c0554f80$6401a8c0@wi.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" They will hold 12 gallons each. Currently, mine have 11.5 in each one and have been sitting like that for three weeks. Not a single leak. I love these tanks. 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 RALEIGH" To: "KRnet" Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2005 5:20 PM Subject: Re: KR> Kind of quiet > Mark; what is the capacity of the fuel tanks that dana built ------------------------------ Message: 18 Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 20:48:09 -0600 From: "Mark Langford" Subject: Re: KR> AS 504X CofG To: "KRnet" Message-ID: <001301c4fe9a$7a8a01e0$2802a8c0@2600xp> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Dene Collett wrote: > I am using the AS5048/5045 combination . I know these airfoils > were designed to be a direct replacement for the RAF48 but I am not sure if > the CG limits are the same. Since you mention 4130 tubing, I'm assuming you're thinking about nose gear. I don't know that anybody has done a "real" analysis of the KR2S (and exactly which variation, since they're just about all different), especially with the new airfoil. But for the purposes of KR gear construction and location, I personally would (and have), considered the difference between the RAF48 and the AS504x to be minimal, with respect to almost anything but drag. I don't claim to be an aerodynamicist, however...so somebody that IS and wants to take a look at this and be more specific is certainly welcome to it. It should be mentioned though that in my mind, there are just too many variables for anybody to come up with a good solid answer to your question, at least with enough accuracy to hang your hat on. If you build it like what everybody else has built (using the RAF), you won't be any farther off than they are, I'll bet. Don't forget that both analysis AND experience have proven the aft 2" of the published CG range is an unstable area that is best avoided, so I'd build it to keep the range centered in a 6" range, rather than the 8" range. But I've probably said that before, which is why you asked the question again, so I'll just wait for that "more educated" reply to your question (if it ever comes). And if yours is a basic question about tri-gear location, I'm clueless anyway, having never paid much attention to it, using either airfoil... Mark Langford, Huntsville, Alabama see homebuilt airplane at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford email to N56ML "at" hiwaay.net ------------------------------ Message: 19 Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 21:21:18 -0600 From: "Oscar Zuniga" Subject: KR> AS 504X CofG To: krnet@mylist.net Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed There are certainly plenty of "designer's handbooks" around, as well as rules of thumb, and just as many discussions of how to establish CG range. But here's a snip from a very informative post from Doc Mosher, a regular at Oshkosh and Brodhead (Pietenpol fly-in) events and a frequent contributor to sport aviation magazines: "So if the C.G. limits are not set by the FAA in a TCDS (and of course, on your homebuilt experimental Pietenpol there is no TCDS), how can you know where the limits should be? If you can find an old pre-WWII Manual 18 (my reference is "As amended June 1, 1941), you will find a couple of interesting rules of thumb about Center of Gravity locations. For instance, on page II-5, under "E. APPROVED CENTER OF GRAVITY LIMITS" 1. Current Models - stated on the pertinent aircraft specification in percent of the MAC or in inches aft of a given datum. This information may be obtained from the local Civil Aeronautics Inspector. 2. Older Models - In the case of those models for which approved limits are not given on the specification or listing, it will usually be acceptable to assume the limits to be at 18% and 30% of the MAC for low and mid wing monoplanes and 22% and 34% of the MAC for high wing monoplanes and biplanes." [end quote] There are certainly more modern references than the old CAA manuals, but just using the rules of thumb that the old CAA set out, for a low-wing monoplane such as the KR, a starting point would be to use 18% and 34% of MAC. For a wing with a 48" MAC, that is roughly 8-1/2" to 16-1/2" aft of leading edge. Does this sound vaguely similar to the published 8"-16" CG range for the airplane? Again, experience with the KR has demonstrated time and time again that loading into the aft 2" of that range produces less than comfortable stability. Most prudent KR builders/flyers consider the aftmost 2" of the published CG range to be unusable. But please... if anyone has test-flown their KRs loaded in that range and has documented the flight characteristics, let's hear it. The only things I've heard about flying the plane loaded in the aft 2" of the published CG range was in accident reports or "never again" reports. I myself have no first-hand experience there. Oh, and I would consider the AS50XX-series to be no different than the RAF with respect to the laws of fluid dynamics. Oscar Zuniga San Antonio, TX mailto: taildrags@hotmail.com website at http://www.flysquirrel.net ------------------------------ Message: 20 Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 23:08:25 -0500 From: "Brian Kraut" Subject: RE: KR> AS 504X CofG To: "KRnet" Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I would not dare go into the aft 2", but I can state that 3.4" of the aft limit at near gross weight was downright scary in my standard KR-2. Brian Kraut Engineering Alternatives, Inc. www.engalt.com Most prudent KR builders/flyers consider the aftmost 2" of the published CG range to be unusable. But please... if anyone has test-flown their KRs loaded in that range and has documented the flight characteristics, let's hear it. ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ See KRnet list details at http://www.krnet.org/instructions.html End of KRnet Digest, Vol 347, Issue 29 ************************************** ================================== ABC Amber Outlook Converter v4.20 Trial version ==================================