From: krnet-bounces+johnbou=speakeasy.net@mylist.net To: John Bouyea Subject: KRnet Digest, Vol 347, Issue 476 Date: 11/21/2005 4:40:25 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. Jerry & Dan (Larry H.) 2. Congratulations Dan & Jerry (Frank Ross) 3. Registration Form (Bdazzcamro@aol.com) 4. Re: 44 inch Canopy (Scott Cable) 5. Re: Dragonfly canopy (Mark Langford) 6. Steve Jones (Mark Jones) 7. .....we are airworthy.....at least temporarily..... (The Ainsworths) 8. Re: GPS (Jack Cooper) 9. Geared vs direct drive (Colin Rainey) 10. Re: Geared vs direct drive (Scott William) 11. RE: Geared vs direct drive (Stephen Teate) 12. Re: Congratulations Dan & Jerry (Phil Matheson) 13. Re: Steve Jones (Orma) 14. Re: GPS (Orma) 15. Re: Geared vs direct drive (Orma) 16. Re: GPS (Steelef@aol.com) 17. Maloof constant-speeed propeller (wilder_jeff Wilder) 18. Re: Maloof constant-speeed propeller (IFLYKRS@aol.com) 19. RE: Maloof constant-speeed propeller (Brian Kraut) 20. Trip - vacation - magazine (IFLYKRS@aol.com) 21. Re: Geared vs direct drive (hussein nagy) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2005 23:52:49 -0600 From: "Larry H." Subject: KR> Jerry & Dan To: Message-ID: <006301c5ee5f$ce4465e0$6901a8c0@boss1> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Congratulations You Two ! Great looking plane, great toast over the nose of your plane, now make some great memories flying your plane. Larry H. ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2005 22:27:16 -0800 (PST) From: Frank Ross Subject: KR> Congratulations Dan & Jerry To: KRnet Message-ID: <20051121062717.18241.qmail@web32008.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 --- Dan Heath wrote: > http://krbuilder.org/AirworthinessInspectionComplete/index.html > > As Jerry already posted, the inspection is over and > the WannaBee has passed. Congratulations Dan and Jerry! Beautiful plane, great job. Frank Frank Ross, EAA Chapter 35, San Geronimo, TX RAF Lakenheath, Suffolk, England, UK Visit my photo album at: http://photos.yahoo.com/alamokr2 __________________________________ Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click. http://farechase.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 02:32:54 EST From: Bdazzcamro@aol.com Subject: KR> Registration Form To: krnet@mylist.net Message-ID: <127.68e74f7a.30b2d226@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Hi Ron Smith, I was just looking through your KR site and had noticed that you were doing a composite skin... I was wondering what material you were using? It looks like Carbon fiber but was not sure. If you could E mail me back I would greatly appreciate it thanks. Oh one other thing... have you were heard of a dragonfly canopy stretching out to 44"? David Swason Bdazzcamro@aol.com ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 00:45:13 -0800 (PST) From: Scott Cable Subject: Re: KR>44 inch Canopy To: KRnet Message-ID: <20051121084514.59549.qmail@web53004.mail.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Dave, Check with Todds Canopies, I believe he makes one for that width... Bdazzcamro@aol.com wrote: Oh one other thing... have you were heard of a dragonfly canopy stretching out to 44"? David Swason Scott Cable Jamestown, ND s2cable1@yahoo.com --------------------------------- Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click. ------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 06:41:36 -0600 From: "Mark Langford" Subject: Re: KR> Dragonfly canopy To: "KRnet" Message-ID: <034701c5ee98$e9b17cd0$d004a58c@net.tbe.com> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original David Swason wrote: > Oh one other thing... have you were heard of a > dragonfly canopy stretching out to 44"? 44" is no problem for the Dragonfly. In fact, it's made for a plane about that width, but it's so floppy (before it's built into a frame) that it'd easily go to 48". I know there are a lot of folks who like the Todds canopy, and I suspect price is a big reason, but it simply isn't as streamlined as a Dragonfly, in my humble opinion. If you look at a Dragonfly and a Todd's canopy together from the side, you'll see what I mean. The Todd's has a distinct bubble look to the the front end, and is rounder at the top when viewed from the front. This leads to reduced headroom out near the edges, whereas a dragonfly is more squared off out at those corners. Not just my opinion, really, but obvious from looking at both, side by side. Although I don't have personal knowledge of the Pulsar canopy, it looks like it would be a pretty good fit too. And there's always the RR KR2S canopy, which may now be more economically attractive if the Dragonfly is really now only sold by Acrylform in South Africa, as was recently mentioned. I suspect Aircraft Windshields (or whoever used to make them in the US) would still make one for you though, unless they signed some kind of agreement to the contrary. I guess I need to call them today and find out for sure, because the Dragonfly is a perfect canopy for the KR2S. It is "incredibly similar" to the RR KR2S canopy, but 33% thinner, and therefore 33% lighter, and more flexible before framing... Mark Langford, Huntsville, Alabama see KR2S project N56ML at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford email to N56ML "at" hiwaay.net ------------------------------ Message: 6 Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 09:02:40 -0600 From: "Mark Jones" Subject: KR> Steve Jones To: "KR Net \(E-mail\)" , "CorvAircraft \(E-mail\)" Message-ID: <26D1C67793459F43BF8DA235F92B1F35C10370@tulsaexchange.tulsaokmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" If someone has the address to Steve's parents, I would greatly appreciate having it. I need to send to them the information on the EAA Memorial Wall plaque which is being done in honor of Steve and also the ceremony information. So, if you have their address, please e-mail it to me at flykr2s@wi.rr.com . Thanks, Mark Jones (N886MJ) Wales, WI Visit my "NEW" KR CorvAIRCRAFT web site: http://www.flykr2s.com Email: mailto:flykr2s@wi.rr.com ------------------------------ Message: 7 Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 10:11:55 -0500 From: "The Ainsworths" Subject: KR> .....we are airworthy.....at least temporarily..... To: Message-ID: <000001c5eead$ed1b7640$0d672fd1@computer> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Dan and others, Congratulations Dan!! I met Dan at Gathering 2004 and never met a more determined man to 'get the job done'. Gathering 2005, Dan flew in and was a little more relaxed, as he was on the finishing phases of WANNABEE. It just shows what a determined person(s) can accomplish, and if you go over their website you will see that they didn't take a short route. I hope you keep on publishing on your site as the other recent new KR flyers are upgrading and continuing on helping with their website. Oh yeh , Congrats also to Mark Jones and his bird in this month's EAA SPORT AVIATION, can Langford be far behind to make in the "what our members are building.." Gary PS I'm on Digest and late with my applause! ------------------------------ Message: 8 Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 11:47:37 -0500 From: "Jack Cooper" Subject: Re: KR> GPS To: "KRnet" Message-ID: <410-2200511121164737875@earthlink.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII When your only navigation source is a finger on a map and you are circumnavigating thunderstorms it is easy to get lost. I have circled water towers more than once. Jack Cooper > [Original Message] > From: Jerry Mahurin > To: KRnet > Date: 11/20/2005 11:08:45 AM > Subject: Re: KR> GPS > > .......has anyone besides me ever used a road map....and his eyeballs > on the > ground under him..........or read what is written on water > tanks.....?? > > Keep on keeping on > > On 11/19/05, Pat Driscoll wrote: > > > > With all this talk about GPS and which will take you to your > > destination the easiest way, what ever happened to "Dead reckoning", > > with a chart and a > > "E-6B? > > Anyone remember them? > > Pat Driscoll > > Saint Paul, MN > > patrick36@usfamily.net > > LIFE MAY NOT BE THE PARTY WE HOPED FOR.... > > BUT WHILE WE ARE HERE WE MIGHT AS WELL DANCE!" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- http://USFamily.Net/dialup.html - $8.25/mo! -- > > http://www.usfamily.net/dsl.html - $19.99/mo! --- > > _______________________________________ > > 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 > > > > > > -- > Jerry Mahurin - aka - KRJerry > Lugoff, SC 29078 > _______________________________________ > 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: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 12:51:59 -0500 From: "Colin Rainey" Subject: KR> Geared vs direct drive To: krnet@mylist.net Message-ID: <410-2200511121175159229@earthlink.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Netters This debate about best engines for experimentals, and whether to turbo, whether to Gear drive/PSRU or direct drive has been going on for a while now, and I suspect will probably continue, kind like the Ford/Chevy debate (Chevy is best, LOL ). I am NOT going to take sides of whether a builder should choose auto or aircraft engine, normally aspirated or turbo, or direct drive or PSRU. All these things are in the archives, and found in literal volumes in other writings, both Internet and books like, "Auto Engines for Experimental Airplanes" by Robert Finch, just to sight one example. There are many others. What all Netters, especially you new members need to take to heart is that engine selection is VERY important. Looking at certified aircraft, you will see that it it the single most important factor when considering an aircraft's present value, how many hours on the engine. Of all the expense of owning an aircraft, once it is completed, the most money you will spend will be for the engine, and its up keep/maintenance. Turbo charging is the cats meow for cheap horsepower, but just ask Orma Robbins about how this "enhancement" comes with its own unique set of problems to deal with and overcome. Also, the article sighted states that turbo charging generally adds at least 50% more power. This is out right fiction! The best that I have seen proven by dyno runs is approximately 40%, and this is with associated engine modifications, AND the use of an inter cooler, which is not mentioned in the article at all. B&M, Vortech, Banks Turbo-charging, and Paxton all report similar values for their "bolt-on" systems. I am not saying that a turbo or supercharger cannot add 50% or more power, but that rather that bolt on systems do not give that kind of increase, and do not want builders running out and buying a turbo for their engine expecting to get a 50% increase in power and torque by just hacking the exhaust in order to add the turbo. The same rules hold true for direct drive vs PSRU. There are definite benefits to a PSRU, but to set one up on a 2.2 to 1 reduction, just to achieve maximum horsepower from an engine from a dyno run, and say that is best does not take into account all phases of flight for the engine, only take off. That is the only time you will use max power. This amount of reduction although it makes the max power available according to the dyno, it does not allow for a reasonable rpm for cruise. This is because the prop will be slowed to 2000 to 2100 rpm, which begins putting it below its cruise efficiency speed. Just compare certified props that are made to run in this range of rpms. They produce max thrust at near redline, and produce best cruise thrust at 75 to 80% engine power. This puts the prop at around 2300 to 2400 rpms on a 2750 redline. This puts the engine in the re drive at 5060 rpms for the 2300, and 5280 rpms for the 2400 rpms at the prop. Now your engine is running just like the Rotax family of engines and can expect the same life, or simply 50 to 100 hour maintenance intervals with a major a max of 500 hours out. It also makes the combination "peaky", where basically you spend literally all your time at or near peak rpm. Robert Finch's book details a lot of engines that have been successfully used in direct drive configuration; the Buick V8, the VW family, the Corvairs, and several others mentioned in his book. In larger aircraft that have more generous weight allowances for the engine, the more complicated and heavier engines have a good appeal. BUT for our applications, in order to stay in the RECOMMENDED weight range of engines AND their output, direct drive offers the best answers, and air cooled the simplest installation. Above all, it takes research and study to decide and engine install, and talking to other actual pilots of those engines. Don't get sucked into the trap of some fancy numbers calculations and good advertising on one web page where one engine is presented as the experimental airplanes dream engine. There are a lot of "assumptions" and over generalizations made at the expense of the builder. No quick answers here. It takes years to build a KR, take enough time to study your engine completely BEFORE spending any money. Colin Rainey brokerpilot96ta@earthlink.net EarthLink Revolves Around You. ------------------------------ Message: 10 Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 10:02:20 -0800 (PST) From: Scott William Subject: Re: KR> Geared vs direct drive To: brokerpilot96ta@earthlink.net, KRnet Message-ID: <20051121180220.26501.qmail@web31501.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Not to mention the fact that Colin isn't trying to sell you anything....makes a big difference in the information stream. Scott --- Colin Rainey wrote: > Netters > This debate about best engines for experimentals, > and whether to turbo, whether to Gear drive/PSRU or > direct drive has been going on for a while now, and > I suspect will probably continue, kind like the > Ford/Chevy debate (Chevy is best, LOL ). I am NOT > going to take sides of whether a builder should > choose auto or aircraft engine, normally aspirated > or turbo, or direct drive or PSRU. All these things > are in the archives, and found in literal volumes in > other writings, both Internet and books like, "Auto > Engines for Experimental Airplanes" by Robert Finch, > just to sight one example. There are many others. > > What all Netters, especially you new members need to > take to heart is that engine selection is VERY > important. Looking at certified aircraft, you will > see that it it the single most important factor when considering an > aircraft's present value, how many hours on the engine. Of all the > expense of owning an aircraft, once it is completed, the most money > you will spend will be for the engine, and its up > keep/maintenance. Turbo charging is the cats meow > for cheap horsepower, but just ask Orma Robbins > about how this "enhancement" comes with its own > unique set of problems to deal with and overcome. > Also, the article sighted states that turbo charging > generally adds at least 50% more power. This is out > right fiction! The best that I have seen proven by > dyno runs is approximately 40%, and this is with > associated engine modifications, AND the use of an > inter cooler, which is not mentioned in the article > at all. B&M, Vortech, Banks Turbo-charging, and > Paxton all report similar values for their "bolt-on" > systems. I am not saying that a turbo or > supercharger cannot add 50% or more power, but that > rather that bolt on systems do not give that kind of > increase, and do not want builders running out and > buying a turbo for their engine expecting to get a > 50% increase in power and torque by just hacking the > exhaust in order to add the turbo. > > The same rules hold true for direct drive vs PSRU. > There are definite benefits to a PSRU, but to set > one up on a 2.2 to 1 reduction, just to achieve > maximum horsepower from an engine from a dyno run, > and say that is best does not take into account all > phases of flight for the engine, only take off. That > is the only time you will use max power. This > amount of reduction although it makes the max power > available according to the dyno, it does not allow > for a reasonable rpm for cruise. This is because > the prop will be slowed to 2000 to 2100 rpm, which > begins putting it below its cruise efficiency speed. > Just compare certified props that are made to run > in this range of rpms. They produce max thrust at > near redline, and produce best cruise thrust at 75 > to 80% engine power. This puts the prop at around > 2300 to 2400 rpms on a 2750 redline. This puts the > engine in the re drive at 5060 rpms for the 2300, > and 5280 rpms for the 2400 rpms at the prop. Now > your engine is running just like the Rotax family of > engines and can expect the same life, or simply 50 > to 100 hour maintenance intervals with a major a max > of 500 hours out. It also makes the combination > "peaky", where basically you spend literally all > your time at or near peak rpm. > > Robert Finch's book details a lot of engines that > have been successfully used in direct drive > configuration; the Buick V8, the VW family, the > Corvairs, and several others mentioned in his book. > In larger aircraft that have more generous weight > allowances for the engine, the more complicated and > heavier engines have a good appeal. BUT for our > applications, in order to stay in the RECOMMENDED > weight range of engines AND their output, direct > drive offers the best answers, and air cooled the > simplest installation. Above all, it takes research > and study to decide and engine install, and talking > to other actual pilots of those engines. Don't get > sucked into the trap of some fancy numbers > calculations and good advertising on one web page > where one engine is presented as the experimental > airplanes dream engine. There are a lot of > "assumptions" and over generalizations made at the > expense of the builder. No quick answers here. It > takes years to build a KR, take enough time to study > your engine completely BEFORE spending any money. > > > Colin Rainey > brokerpilot96ta@earthlink.net > EarthLink Revolves Around You. _______________________________________ > 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 > __________________________________ Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click. http://farechase.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Message: 11 Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 12:33:36 -0600 From: "Stephen Teate" Subject: RE: KR> Geared vs direct drive To: , "KRnet" Message-ID: <98DAC793BA09104DA961CAFAA33C79580CC2AA@ccs-svr1.CCS.local> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Fantastic post! All very good information. Turbos can be wonderful, and they can destroy an engine that is not properly set up for one. Be careful of any "bolt on" as the engine was probably not originally designed to handle the extra pressures and temperatures. I was lucky enough to get to discuss my installation with Turbo Tom before he passed and he really opened my eyes. If you are unfamiliar with them get some advice from someone who knows them. They really can make a difference. My opinion. Stephen -----Original Message----- From: krnet-bounces+steate=compositecooling.com@mylist.net [mailto:krnet-bounces+steate=compositecooling.com@mylist.net] On Behalf Of Colin Rainey Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005 11:52 AM To: krnet@mylist.net Subject: KR> Geared vs direct drive Netters This debate about best engines for experimentals, and whether to turbo, whether to Gear drive/PSRU or direct drive has been going on for a while now, and I suspect will probably continue, kind like the Ford/Chevy debate (Chevy is best, LOL ). I am NOT going to take sides of whether a builder should choose auto or aircraft engine, normally aspirated or turbo, or direct drive or PSRU. All these things are in the archives, and found in literal volumes in other writings, both Internet and books like, "Auto Engines for Experimental Airplanes" by Robert Finch, just to sight one example. There are many others. What all Netters, especially you new members need to take to heart is that engine selection is VERY important. Looking at certified aircraft, you will see that it it the single most important factor when considering an aircraft's present value, how many hours on the engine. Of all the expense of owning an aircraft, once it is completed, the most money you will spend will be for the engine, and its up keep/maintenance. Turbo charging is the cats meow for cheap horsepower, but just ask Orma Robbins about how this "enhancement" comes with its own unique set of problems to deal with and overcome. Also, the article sighted states that turbo charging generally adds at least 50% more power. This is out right fiction! The best that I have seen proven by dyno runs is approximately 40%, and this is with associated engine modifications, AND the use of an inter cooler, which is not mentioned in the article at all. B&M, Vortech, Banks Turbo-charging, and Paxton all report similar values for their "bolt-on" systems. I am not saying that a turbo or supercharger cannot add 50% or more power, but that rather that bolt on systems do not give that kind of increase, and do not want builders running out and buying a turbo for their engine expecting to get a 50% increase in power and torque by just hacking the exhaust in order to add the turbo. The same rules hold true for direct drive vs PSRU. There are definite benefits to a PSRU, but to set one up on a 2.2 to 1 reduction, just to achieve maximum horsepower from an engine from a dyno run, and say that is best does not take into account all phases of flight for the engine, only take off. That is the only time you will use max power. This amount of reduction although it makes the max power available according to the dyno, it does not allow for a reasonable rpm for cruise. This is because the prop will be slowed to 2000 to 2100 rpm, which begins putting it below its cruise efficiency speed. Just compare certified props that are made to run in this range of rpms. They produce max thrust at near redline, and produce best cruise thrust at 75 to 80% engine power. This puts the prop at around 2300 to 2400 rpms on a 2750 redline. This puts the engine in the re drive at 5060 rpms for the 2300, and 5280 rpms for the 2400 rpms at the prop. Now your engine is running just like the Rotax family of engines and can expect the same life, or simply 50 to 100 hour maintenance intervals with a major a max of 500 hours out. It also makes the combination "peaky", where basically you spend literally all your time at or near peak rpm. Robert Finch's book details a lot of engines that have been successfully used in direct drive configuration; the Buick V8, the VW family, the Corvairs, and several others mentioned in his book. In larger aircraft that have more generous weight allowances for the engine, the more complicated and heavier engines have a good appeal. BUT for our applications, in order to stay in the RECOMMENDED weight range of engines AND their output, direct drive offers the best answers, and air cooled the simplest installation. Above all, it takes research and study to decide and engine install, and talking to other actual pilots of those engines. Don't get sucked into the trap of some fancy numbers calculations and good advertising on one web page where one engine is presented as the experimental airplanes dream engine. There are a lot of "assumptions" and over generalizations made at the expense of the builder. No quick answers here. It takes years to build a KR, take enough time to study your engine completely BEFORE spending any money. Colin Rainey brokerpilot96ta@earthlink.net EarthLink Revolves Around You. _______________________________________ 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: 12 Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 06:33:12 +1100 From: "Phil Matheson" Subject: Re: KR> Congratulations Dan & Jerry To: "KRnet" Message-ID: <001701c5eed2$6a056b10$d7a0443d@Office> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Great job Dan & jerry, Phil Matheson mathesonp@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/ http://corvair.vw-engines.com/ ------------------------------ Message: 13 Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 15:11:17 -0500 From: "Orma" Subject: Re: KR> Steve Jones To: "KRnet" Message-ID: <00ba01c5eed7$bc9c8200$0302a8c0@ROBBINS1> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Thanks for all your hard work with the Memorial. Orma ------------------------------ Message: 14 Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 15:15:26 -0500 From: "Orma" Subject: Re: KR> GPS To: , "KRnet" Message-ID: <00bd01c5eed8$542f2690$0302a8c0@ROBBINS1> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original I can only say that when the fan quits turning, and Garmin says the nearest is 042 degrees, and you line up drop the nose and there it is. Some of the pucker factor subsides. Orma Southfield, MI KR-2 N110LR 1984 See Tweety at http://www.kr-2.aviation-mechanics.com See other KR spces at www.kr-2.aviation-mechanics.com/krinfo.htm ------------------------------ Message: 15 Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 15:51:10 -0500 From: "Orma" Subject: Re: KR> Geared vs direct drive To: "KRnet" Message-ID: <00c001c5eedd$4f173030$0302a8c0@ROBBINS1> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Well, since you bring up the subject, I'll say a little. My daily driver is now an 87 Mustang LX with a 88 Turbo coupe engine. Depending on who's manual you read, the original 2300cc (Pinto) engine was rated at 88 hp and the Turbo Coupe rated at 145 or 180. I have taken an earlier Turbo Coupe turbo and installed it in my 2366 Type 4 VW. As Colin indicates, I could not just bolt on and run and expect to go from what ever my VW hp was to a level somewhere near the TC (Turbo Coupe) published rated hp. My original goal was to increase my power enough to be able to have a suffiently good climb rate to be able to carry a passenger. I felt that if I could obtain 100 hp from the 70 or so in the Type 4, that the power would be there. I think I have exceeded that. And yes there are problems. So far they involve sealing the head to prevent gas leakage. Finding the correct prop to absorb the power. My current prop is a Sterba 54X52 cut down to 52X52 full blade. I am no where near ready give up on the turbo. All in all the turbo adds complexity to the whole firewall fwd. I would consider a larger engine if just building, If you already too heavy and trying to decide direct drive vs. gear drive. I would go certified if I had it to do over and the money was available. If you are building with a goal of flying at a low cost, I would ensure that my empty was 450 and put on one of Steve's 1835's and go flying. Orma Southfield, MI KR-2 N110LR 1984 See Tweety at http://www.kr-2.aviation-mechanics.com See other KR spces at www.kr-2.aviation-mechanics.com/krinfo.htm ------------------------------ Message: 16 Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 16:55:17 EST From: Steelef@aol.com Subject: Re: KR> GPS To: krnet@mylist.net Message-ID: <22e.210dc26.30b39c45@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" ML said "I can't read the signs from 10,500 feet" ML, do you always fly in a westerly direction? heh,heh,heh! Franc S, Houston ------------------------------ Message: 17 Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 15:20:04 -0700 From: "wilder_jeff Wilder" Subject: KR> Maloof constant-speeed propeller To: krnet@mylist.net Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed The engine I purchased has a Maloof constant-speeed propeller... does anyone know if they are still in business... and if so.. the contact for them. I was unable to locate anything on Google for them. Also, does anyone know the history of these propellers? -Jeff ------------------------------ Message: 18 Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 18:20:46 EST From: IFLYKRS@aol.com Subject: Re: KR> Maloof constant-speeed propeller To: krnet@mylist.net Message-ID: <2b8.237c73.30b3b04e@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" All Maloof prop were red tagged (put out of service) because they were throwing blades. I had one on my kr2 but had to remove it and put on a wood prop. I highly recommend you do the same. The hub is a good design - maybe someone will make better blades. Bill ------------------------------ Message: 19 Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 18:58:46 -0500 From: "Brian Kraut" Subject: RE: KR> Maloof constant-speeed propeller To: "KRnet" Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I assume that you are referring to a Revmaster VW engine. Revmaster recommended removing the Maloof and replacing it with a wood fixed pitch prop. Bill said they threw blades, but I heard that they broke cranks. Either way, they were bad news. Call Joe at Revmaster for the best information. Brian Kraut Engineering Alternatives, Inc. www.engalt.com -----Original Message----- From: krnet-bounces+brian.kraut=engalt.com@mylist.net [mailto:krnet-bounces+brian.kraut=engalt.com@mylist.net]On Behalf Of wilder_jeff Wilder Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005 5:20 PM To: krnet@mylist.net Subject: KR> Maloof constant-speeed propeller The engine I purchased has a Maloof constant-speeed propeller... does anyone know if they are still in business... and if so.. the contact for them. I was unable to locate anything on Google for them. Also, does anyone know the history of these propellers? -Jeff _______________________________________ 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: 20 Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 19:08:30 EST From: IFLYKRS@aol.com Subject: KR> Trip - vacation - magazine To: krnet@mylist.net Message-ID: <9a.320d93cf.30b3bb7e@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" And not in that order....First - Corvair college was a blast. I had a lot of fun meeting friends and new builders. 99% came with good attitudes and a willingness to learn and help each other and that is always encouraging. To those who are of the 1% - please learn to be less selfish. WW works his tail off for this college and does more than 10 of use could do - plus he keeps OUR safety in mine. You cant find anybody more willing to help the experimental folk that also keeps his mind on safety and reliability, and does the college for FREE!. It was nice that to see Dan, Mark, Steve, Chuck, and Mr. Greene show up in their Corvaircraft. The pinical of my time their was the Sat evening flying with Dan and Gus. We tore up the skies pretty good but Dan was "over the top". His experience allows him to do more than I am comfortable with as of yet. - Good thing those who were upset about my flyby at Mark Jones' place weren't there. We simply had FUN! YYEEEEHHAAAWWWW! Second - when I got home I found I had recieved a complementary issue of SPORTMAN PILOT magazine. The editor/owner of this magazine is Jack Cox who was the editor for EAA Sport Aviation for many years. I had met him at Sun N Fun 04 but did not know who he was. Inside the magazine was a very nice three page spread on N41768. It was a humbling experience but a thrill at the same time to see your plane in a magazine. I think Ill get a couple more copies to save. Thank you Jack. Third - Elaine and I left out of Valdosta and flew to Edgewater FL and met up with Glenda McElwee for a trip out to the Bahamas for the weekend. Glenda had reserved a motel and had invited us with. We flew a rented 172 out to the Bahamas and had a real fun time. This trip was more a learning experience for me than anything else. Now that I know the paperwork and flight procedures I will be able to fly there more in the future with the KR. I do have to equip the KR a little better before I can so the flight but it will be a comfortable trip to make. Elaine had a lot of fun out there as well. After spending the week at the Corvair College I owed her a little "daddy time" and I believe it was time well spend. Thank you Glenda for the experience and what I learned. Dont worry too much Mark L.......Not having flown a 172 since 1993 I made two misserable landings and one fair landing - even Elaine complained about them. I wasnt ready to have time to cook an omelete on final.... 300 hours and counting....... Bill Clapp ------------------------------ Message: 21 Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 16:40:09 -0800 (PST) From: hussein nagy Subject: Re: KR> Geared vs direct drive To: brokerpilot96ta@earthlink.net, KRnet Message-ID: <20051122004009.10664.qmail@web33110.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Hello, Colin, I always enjoy you comments on subjects, I am an observer to the KRnet , I bought a KR2 Boat with retractable gear and tail dragger, I have no experience of building A/C but opinion of experienced folks count, Now let ask you , I have the wing center Old aerfoil RAF48, Do you think the new aerofoil is woth it at this stage of the built, and changing to fixed gear better than the retract fo KR2, when the new aerfoil instaaled do you think that the elevator and the rudder will be resized. would like to know your opinion, Best regards Nagy Jacksinville, Florida 904-543-8183 Colin Rainey wrote: Netters This debate about best engines for experimentals, and whether to turbo, whether to Gear drive/PSRU or direct drive has been going on for a while now, and I suspect will probably continue, kind like the Ford/Chevy debate (Chevy is best, LOL ). I am NOT going to take sides of whether a builder should choose auto or aircraft engine, normally aspirated or turbo, or direct drive or PSRU. All these things are in the archives, and found in literal volumes in other writings, both Internet and books like, "Auto Engines for Experimental Airplanes" by Robert Finch, just to sight one example. There are many others. What all Netters, especially you new members need to take to heart is that engine selection is VERY important. Looking at certified aircraft, you will see that it it the single most important factor when considering an aircraft's present value, how many hours on the engine. Of all the expense of owning an aircraft, once it is completed, the most money you will spend will be for the engine, and its up keep/maintenance. Turbo charging is the cats meow for cheap horsepower, but just ask Orma Robbins about how this "enhancement" comes with its own unique set of problems to deal with and overcome. Also, the article sighted states that turbo charging generally adds at least 50% more power. This is out right fiction! The best that I have seen proven by dyno runs is approximately 40%, and this is with associated engine modifications, AND the use of an inter cooler, which is not mentioned in the article at all. B&M, Vortech, Banks Turbo-charging, and Paxton all report similar values for their "bolt-on" systems. I am not saying that a turbo or supercharger cannot add 50% or more power, but that rather that bolt on systems do not give that kind of increase, and do not want builders running out and buying a turbo for their engine expecting to get a 50% increase in power and torque by just hacking the exhaust in order to add the turbo. The same rules hold true for direct drive vs PSRU. There are definite benefits to a PSRU, but to set one up on a 2.2 to 1 reduction, just to achieve maximum horsepower from an engine from a dyno run, and say that is best does not take into account all phases of flight for the engine, only take off. That is the only time you will use max power. This amount of reduction although it makes the max power available according to the dyno, it does not allow for a reasonable rpm for cruise. This is because the prop will be slowed to 2000 to 2100 rpm, which begins putting it below its cruise efficiency speed. Just compare certified props that are made to run in this range of rpms. They produce max thrust at near redline, and produce best cruise thrust at 75 to 80% engine power. This puts the prop at around 2300 to 2400 rpms on a 2750 redline. This puts the engine in the re drive at 5060 rpms for the 2300, and 5280 rpms for the 2400 rpms at the prop. Now your engine is running just like the Rotax family of engines and can expect the same life, or simply 50 to 100 hour maintenance intervals with a major a max of 500 hours out. It also makes the combination "peaky", where basically you spend literally all your time at or near peak rpm. Robert Finch's book details a lot of engines that have been successfully used in direct drive configuration; the Buick V8, the VW family, the Corvairs, and several others mentioned in his book. In larger aircraft that have more generous weight allowances for the engine, the more complicated and heavier engines have a good appeal. BUT for our applications, in order to stay in the RECOMMENDED weight range of engines AND their output, direct drive offers the best answers, and air cooled the simplest installation. Above all, it takes research and study to decide and engine install, and talking to other actual pilots of those engines. Don't get sucked into the trap of some fancy numbers calculations and good advertising on one web page where one engine is presented as the experimental airplanes dream engine. There are a lot of "assumptions" and over generalizations made at the expense of the builder. No quick answers here. It takes years to build a KR, take enough time to study your engine completely BEFORE spending any money. Colin Rainey brokerpilot96ta@earthlink.net EarthLink Revolves Around You. _______________________________________ 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 nagy hussein --------------------------------- Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click. ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ See KRnet list details at http://www.krnet.org/instructions.html End of KRnet Digest, Vol 347, Issue 476 *************************************** ================================== ABC Amber Outlook Converter v4.20 Trial version ==================================