krnet-l-digest Tuesday, April 29 1997 Volume 01 : Number 004 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 27 Apr 1997 12:38:46 -0500 (CDT) From: larry flesner Subject: KR: circuit breakers and switches Fellow builders, I hope one of you are into electronics enough to answer a question I have. I'm trying to finish up my panel with the electrics and am wondering how to compare the ratings on circuit breakers and switches when the rating is given in A.C. and I will be using them with D.C.. My questions are: Can I use A.C. rated switches in D.C. circuits? If so, how do the ratings compare? I've worked on copy machines for 30 years so you would think I would know!! I've heard different things about switches over the years but never knew what to believe as the people giving me the info seldom knew any more about them then I did!! A callback on a copy machine call is a bit different situation then my fuel pump switches failing at 5000 feet!!!.... I would appreciate hearing from an expert if we are fortunate enough to have one on the net. Thanks , Larry Flesner larryfle@midwest.net ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 27 Apr 1997 13:57:15 -0400 (EDT) From: Macsky@aol.com Subject: Re: KR: circuit breakers and switches AC voltage is a sine wave which is rated on the average peak voltage, DC is rated on a straight line voltage. Current following voltage. If you take a DC rate current and multiply it by 1.414 you will have the AC eqivalent rating. Most of the switches and breakers made today give dual ratings on the equipment, ask before you buy, to state it all in one way you need a higher AC rating to handle the same DC current. Pete MacMurray ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 27 Apr 1997 13:33:47 -0500 From: inet@intellisys.net (brian whatcott) Subject: Re: KR: circuit breakers and switches At 12:38 PM 4/27/97, krnet-l@teleport.com wrote: > Fellow builders, > >I hope one of you are into electronics enough to answer a question I have. >I'm trying to finish up my panel with the electrics and am wondering how >to compare the ratings on circuit breakers and switches when the rating >is given in A.C. and I will be using them with D.C.. > >My questions are: > >Can I use A.C. rated switches in D.C. circuits? >If so, how do the ratings compare? > >Larry Flesner >larryfle@midwest.net Any AC switch will handle DC - though at a much reduced rating. The reason is- AC gives the arc between the parting contacts a chance to quench at a small gap, so the plasma dissipates and the current does not restart at the next half cycle. DC contacts will keep arcing until the gap has got much wider. Switches with very fast action have the best chances, so you can see small microswitches with respectable ratings. If you use automotive style switches rather than domestic AC versions, you should avoid problems. Regards brian whatcott Altus OK ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 27 Apr 1997 15:12:10 -0700 From: Bill Reents Subject: Re: KR: wing flaps and ailerons At 08:34 PM 4/26/97 -0800, you wrote: >Ross > >I agree with the roll rate versus the pitch rate but have never had >controls bind up on me. I have never noticed any bulging of the wings >on mine as some have said they have observed. > >Any binding of controls SHOULD BE TAKEN CARE OF IMMEDIATELY before the >next flight. > >Regards >Parley Byington N54PB > >On 22 Apr 97 at 21:12, Ross Youngblood wrote: > >> Donald Reid wrote: >> >> > I talked to a KR builder at a flyin (but did not get a name) who said >> > that he had a low roll rate that was not really in harmony with the pitch >> > rate. He also said that in a high speed, hi G turn, his ailerons would >> > bind up. Does anyone know about this? >> >> Sounds like somthing that should be fixed. Binding controls sound >> nasty. >> >> -- Ross I've never had my controls bind up under any g load. And at times ,I've pulled enough to make me wish I'ed blowen my nose. Sounds like maybe something needs to be secured better,that under a g load is rubbing on something. Bill Bill Reents http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/3050 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 27 Apr 1997 17:41:34 -0600 From: jeb@laintra.com (John Bryhan) Subject: KR: Re: Another Project Update //Web site update Jeff's KR pictures I've added a page to my site with those pictures of Jeff's KR I even made front page picture his KR! I must say - I was thrilled when the engine fired right up after 3 years without running. It ought to be a nice one and hopefully fast!! John jeb@laintra.com http://www.laintra.com/jeb/krpage.htm - ---------- : From: Jeffrey E. Scott : To: krnet-l@teleport.com : Subject: KR: Another Project Update : Date: Saturday, April 26, 1997 10:24 PM : : KR Netters, : : Today was the biggest day so far in the life of this project. Today, we : assembled the airplane, did an almost final weight and balance, : calibrated the fuel tanks, leak tested the fuel system, and finally : breathed life into this project and lit the engine up. With the 60x66 : prop from Performance Props on the C-85, my tach showed it could turn : 2300 RPM static. Tomorrow I'll do another run with an electric strobed : tach to verify whether my tach is reading correctly. If it is, I'll : probably return my prop back to the manufacturer to have the leading edge : protection installed and the final finish applied. : : The only problem noted in the initial run in is that my four point CHT : isn't registering for any cylinders. Also on the leak test, there were : nine fuel fittings undr the headertank that were all loose and seeping : fuel. It was cause for about 20 minutes of acrobatics with me standing : on my head in the cockpit tightening up fuel lines and fittings. : : For weight and balance, my empty weight is now up to 688.5 lbs, which is : a bit heavy for a KR, but not too bad for a Continental Powered KR-2S : with full electric and night capable. With the long RR engine mount and : the heavy Continental up front, the CG comes out at 1.17 inches aft of : the FRONT limit with my 250# frame on board. : : At this point in time, I don't have any parts left to buy before the : plane flies. I will probably lay up the wing attach fairings tomorrow : which is the last of the glass work. I still need to sand the last coat : of primer and do some minor spot filling, then prime again, sand lightly, : and paint. It should be ready for it's trip to the airport sometime in : June, with the FAA inspection shortly after. The goal is still to have : the time flown off in time to take it to Perry. : : If anyone's interested in pictures, John Bryhan was helping with the work : today and shot several pictures with a digital camera. The pictures : should be posted to his web page on Sunday or Monday. Sorry, I can't : remember his URL off hand. Maybe John will post it when he posts the : pictures. : : Jeff Scott : jscott.pilot@juno.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 27 Apr 1997 20:11:00 -0400 (EDT) From: RDefrain@aol.com Subject: KR: Type 4 Turbo Found this on AOL in the engines area. Sounds to good to be true. Wish I was on that side of the US VW engine type 4 turbocharged 1.7L with prop hub, homemade accessory case with alternator, Posa carb, CHT EGT and manifold pressure gauges, KR-2 engine mount, all intake and exhaust, electronic ignition. Taxi tested in the 1970's but never flown. That is about all I know about this engine. $600 Santa Cruz CA If you are interested e-mail me. Hobsons13 I'm ASS-U-ming the e-mail address you need to attach the @aol.com Ralph D ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 27 Apr 1997 20:16:09 -0700 From: Ross Youngblood Subject: Re: KR: potential KR Builder (no archive) Ron, Thanks! I needed that! I shot some primer this weekend. The poor KR, all this did was show up all the lumps that I had missed. Looks like it's sand city for a bit. I hope to order all the goodies to fire the engine up soon. Spinner, Oil Cooler, and an 18" aeroquip hose from the gascolator to the Ellison. Oh, yea, and the throttle cable, I think it would be a good idea to have that in case it actually starts. Can't forget some prop bolts either. -- Ross Ron Lee wrote: > > I'm at about 900 hours and I might finish within another 100 or so. > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > -- Ross > > GO ROSS GO!!!!!!!! > > Ron ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 27 Apr 1997 20:18:19 -0700 From: Ross Youngblood Subject: Re: KR: aileron linkage Robert Lasecki wrote: > > Can anyone advise me regarding the proper angle for aileron belcrank angle > with respect to the main spar at zero deflection? The "construction manual" > is slightly vague :-( > Also, am I correct is seeing that 3/16 hardware is shown for use with the > aileron pushrods yet the pushrod bearings are bored out for 1/4" screws? > Are sleeves required? > Even the new plans aren't much clearer in this area. Geez, I hadn't got to that I bet your right. My aileron pushrods are in the parts cabinet where I put them about two years ago. I will be watching to see what you find. I would probably drill the bellcrank out to 1/4" and use AN-4 hardware, but I would need to look the entire assembly over again. For now my focus is getting my fuselage back together so I can get it back out to the hangar. -- Ross ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 27 Apr 1997 20:44:03 -0700 From: Ross Youngblood Subject: Re: KR: potential KR Builder (no archive) Tom Crawford wrote: > Ross, > > I dont know if you have started the finishing yet, (filling, sanding, > filling, sanding, filling, sanding, etc.) but it is surprising how much time > is spent trying to get it smooth. I dont have the total finishing hours > added up at this point, but mine's probably around 300 or so. Yea 300, and I > have heard some KR flyers mention up to 2000 (!) just on finishing. > Optimism never hurts, but.... #:) Tom, You are 100% right about finishing... I've gotten my tail feathers smooth, but just getting the fuselage bumps ironed out will take some time. I thought I was doing pretty good, then I shot my first coat of primer for the prime/sand prime event. Boy, have I got my work cut out for me. Anyone want to come help sand? -- Regards Ross ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 27 Apr 1997 22:37:43 -0600 From: jeb@laintra.com (John Bryhan) Subject: Re: KR: aileron linkage I noticed that slight discrepency too, I'd drilled the alieron tab and the bell crank for AN3 but pushrod ends are 1/4" - no big deal, I'd planned to just drill 'em out to 1/4. John jeb@laintra.com http://www.laintra.com/jeb/krpage.htm - ---------- : From: Ross Youngblood : To: krnet-l@teleport.com : Subject: Re: KR: aileron linkage : Date: Sunday, April 27, 1997 9:18 PM : : Robert Lasecki wrote: : > : > Can anyone advise me regarding the proper angle for aileron belcrank angle : > with respect to the main spar at zero deflection? The "construction manual" : > is slightly vague :-( : > Also, am I correct is seeing that 3/16 hardware is shown for use with the : > aileron pushrods yet the pushrod bearings are bored out for 1/4" screws? : > Are sleeves required? : > Even the new plans aren't much clearer in this area. : : Geez, I hadn't got to that I bet your right. My aileron pushrods are in the : parts cabinet where I put them about two years ago. I will be watching to see : what you find. I would probably drill the bellcrank out to 1/4" and use AN-4 hardware, : but I would need to look the entire assembly over again. For now my focus is getting : my fuselage back together so I can get it back out to the hangar. : : -- Ross : -- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 23:23:57 +1000 From: ginnwj Subject: Re: KR: RAF48 incidence, trim smithr wrote: > > Forgive me for beating this horse. > Incidence means little when the wing is flying. And we are only talking > about 3.5 degrees anyhow. I suspect that at equilibrium cruise (with 1 > person) the KR needs only a fraction of 1 degree, maybe about 0.5 deg to > generate enough lift. This means the fuselage is pointing down only 3 > degrees. This doesn't seem like much and probably improves visibility. > In a landing descent at 3 degrees, the KR fuselage would appear to be > pointing down 6 degrees (sounds pretty normal to me). I don't see a > problem. > I realize that drag is probably not optimized. But the > important concerns are whether or not enough trim is available (between > a 1 or 2 person load) and the relationship of the wing incidence (3.5 > deg) to the horizontal stabilizer incidence (0 deg ) which hopefully > stabilizes the plane. Will less than 3.5 decalage stabilize the KR? > I will probably lower my incidence very little to 3 deg. > Comments anyone? > > Bob Smith, KR2S , no aerodynamics credentials whatsoever Bob, another small point on incidence: the root incidence is 3 degrees however the tip incidence is of course less. The net result is the average incidence is less than 3 degrees. Also the RAF 48 aerofoil has a zero lift angle of attack of -2 degrees so the wing/body incidence in flight is hard to actually determine theoretically and practically. The required angle of attack (to support the weight will vary according to speed of course so not only has washout, angle of zero lift to be considered, but also the speed that you are setting the wing incidence for. An equally important factor is the engine thrust line. If this is not set optimally to take into account body angle at cruise and upwash in front of the wing, then the efficiency will be reduced affecting cruise speed for a given power setting. Well that's my 2 cents worth. bill ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 26 Apr 97 17:00:10 UT From: "Jane Link" Subject: KR: RE: Flaps I'm very glad this flap discussion went on as it did. I've decided that scrapping them in favor of putting my efforts someplace else is better... Besides, again taking advice offered in this forum, I took my favorite spam can and instructor out to practice slips to landings. No problem. I'd forgotten how much fun they are. Jane_Link@msn.com - ---------- From: owner-krnet-l@teleport.com on behalf of Micheal Mims Sent: Thursday, April 17, 1997 9:57 AM To: krnet-l@teleport.com Subject: KR: Flaps We kicked this flap-horse around a few months ago and most of us (current KR pilots included) decided the flaps were not worth the trouble of installation, after all this airplane has great take off and landing performance without them. When I was flying with Troy in his KR, I saw no need for improved visibility during the landing phase. The runway was right there in front of us! If your worried about floating down the runway, I think a combination of learning how to fly "YOUR" KR (get the speeds nailed down) and using the fixed gear legs (lets you touchdown without the wing getting so close to the ground) will eliminate most of that ground effect problem. This airplane can already take off and land in a 1000 feet, why do you need more performance than that? If you want to add ten more pounds and something else that could wear out and or break go for it, but the best advise I got from several KR pilots was keep it simple and forget the flaps, you just don't need them! Plain and simple! ________________________________ Micheal Mims Just Plane Nutts mailto:mimsmand@ix.netcom.com http://www.netcom.com/~mimsmand ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 15:19:30 -0400 From: smithr Subject: Re: KR: project update Mark Langford wrote: > > Still going with the Type 4... Mark, Sounds like great progress on the fuse. About that type 4 -- I just recently gave up on the idea of type 4. Too many reports of crankshaft failures. Seems there is a resonance problem that cant be overcome. I'm sure you are aware of the problem, so I'm surprised you've recently decided to go that route. Bob Smith ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 14:41:45 -0500 From: "Tim \"KitaruSapien\" Tracey" Subject: Re: KR: potential KR Builder (no archive) Can't forget >some prop bolts either. > > -- Ross > Ya might need those! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 14:00:55 -0700 From: enewbold@sprynet.com Subject: KR: Re: What happened to the KR Builder/Owner Map??? There used to be a KR Builder/Owner Map located at: http://ww.total.net/~nando/krmap/krmap.htm But now the URL is missing! This was a great source of info for me. Any ideas what happened to it? Thanks. Ed Newbold ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 17:36:51 -0600 (MDT) From: Ron Lee Subject: KR: Jeff Scott's Project Update (no Archive) Jeff, I enjoyed seeing your engine running on Jeb's web site. You must have felt GREAT!!! I had a question about the canopy but finally saw the photo that helped. Seems like a neat system. Are you happy with it? I also am curious about your finishing of the turtledeck. When I saw it a few months ago, I did not think that a micro type application was needed. Did you go straight to a buildable primer or us a featherfill like substance to fill the weave before the primer? Of the pictures of your plane running, I liked the one with the canopy closed the best. Perhaps because YOU were not visible ? :) Ron Lee ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 17:26:44 -0700 From: Micheal Mims Subject: Re: KR: aileron linkage At 08:18 PM 4/27/97 -0700, you wrote: >Robert Lasecki wrote: >> >> Can anyone advise me regarding the proper angle for aileron belcrank angle with respect to the main spar at zero deflection? The "construction manual" is slightly vague :-( Also, am I correct is seeing that 3/16 hardware is shown for use with the aileron pushrods yet the pushrod bearings are bored out for 1/4" screws? Are sleeves required? Even the new plans aren't much clearer in this area. I was a little confused about this post, but as we all know that's a common problem of mine! :-) In regards to the 3/16 or 1/4 inch bolts or hardware, I am assuming your tie rod ends have a .250 bore instead of a .1900 bore. In that case I would either drill the bellcrank and aileron bracket to 1/4 inch or send the tie rod ends back for the ones with the correct bore. On the angle thing Im still lost! If you are talking about setting the aileron in the neutral position and rigging your cables, then the belcrank should be 90 degrees or parallel depending on which arm you are aligning with the aft face of the spar (see below), otherwise you lost me! : <- cable to stick : : ______:_______________ <- spar / | ---:-------------------------- <- cable to other belcrank / |__: <--belcrank / / <- pushrod _______________________ Micheal Mims Just Plane Nutts mailto:mimsmand@ix.netcom.com http://www.netcom.com/~mimsmand ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 20:04:12 -0500 From: "R E Dye" Subject: KR: KR-2 for sale Sweetwater Texas, 30 miles west of Abilene, DFW sectional KR-2 with original retracts Revmaster 2100D Dual Bendix mags Approx 80hrs Repaired following taxi gotcha Night VFR Nav/com See at wingsonline $12k E-mail me personally to save bandwidth. redye a0009415@airmail.net ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 18:50:53 From: Austin Clark Subject: KR: Fuselage Widening I have both sides of my fuselage built and am considering widening it by a couple inches to have a little more shoulder room. Some say it needs to be wider and others say the standard width is adequate. I am average build and a wider cockpit may be more trouble than it's worth. I would be interested in some comments from those who have "been there, done that" and what they would do if they could do it over again. Thanks, Austin Clark ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 19:05:33 From: Austin Clark Subject: KR: Fuselage Skin I've noticed some of the KR web pages show photos of the fuselage frame assembled without the plywood skin. There would seem to be several advantages to this method such as better control of the shape of the fuselage and less stress on the bond between the ply skin and the spruce frame. I am thinking of doing the same and was wondering what problems I might encounter. I've built a couple of boats and had no problem fitting the plywood over the frames. I used 3/8 ply and the bends were much more than on the KR. The 2.5mm ply should be a piece of cake with a few c-clamps followed by the staples. Austin Clark ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 19:45:33 -0600 From: Nick Davidson Subject: KR: Fire Detector Fuses May issue of Kitplanes talks about using thermal fuses to sense fire in = the engine compartment. A series of fuses are placed in hotspots and = wired in series to a circuit that activates a buzzer or lamp when the = circuit opens. ie when a fuse opens the lamp turns on. Anyone have some ideas on what value of fuses to use? I would figure on = putting the fuses near fuel lines, pumps, exhaust manifolds, and the = battery. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 21:57:21 -0400 (EDT) From: JEHayward@aol.com Subject: Re: KR: Wood Repair (not a keeper for Archives) In a message dated 97-04-25 03:27:54 EDT, you write: << > like Jim mentioned, I would feel comfortable with injecting epoxy into the > crack. > > Austin Clark I think the injecting epoxy idea is a sound one too. I'm not too sure about super glue, as it doesn't fill gaps as good as epoxy, but given a fresh break, clamping should fill all the gaps. Modern adhesives are wonderful. -- Ross >> I forgot to mention that the superglue was of the thicker variety and the FAA inspector did have me run some breakage tests which all broke the way we want (in the wood). The stuff did squeeze out of the cracks after allowing the wood to return to its natural form. I hadn't heard of the longevity aspect tho. Anyone have any suggestions as to what else I should do? I mean should I additionally epoxy a doubler or something like that along that area? He didn't mention anything about any longevity problems and I surely thought he knew what he was talking about. Jim Hayward ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 22:02:00 -0400 From: jwcox@tc3net.com (Joseph Cox) Subject: Re: KR: west system epoxy Ron Lee wrote: > > I plan on using it along > >with West System epoxy. I will not use it on spars and sutch but it will > >have it's uses. > > happy flying > > Joe Cox > > You are using the west system for fiberglass??? I was not aware that they > made one that was suitable for structural applications. Am I mistaken? > > Ron Lee The way I understand it the west system line is ok to use in all aplications from gluing up the fuse to final finish coat.The system is based on there 105 resin and it's a complete line 403 microfibers,404 high density filler,410 microlight ect. The Air zoo aircraft museum in Kalamazoo Mi uses it for all wooden aircraft restorations,and you can get it at any marine supply. Joe Cox ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 18:56:18 -0700 From: Micheal Mims Subject: Re: KR: Fuselage Skin At 07:05 PM 4/28/97, you wrote: >I've noticed some of the KR web pages show photos of the fuselage frame assembled without the plywood skin. I did not encounter any problems, I used staples and clamps to hold my skin in place until it cured. I assembled my sides as per plans without the skin and then installed the belly skin first before I removed it from the jig. After the belly skin cured I flipped it over and installed the side skins. Piece of cake! _______________________ Micheal Mims Just Plane Nutts mailto:mimsmand@ix.netcom.com http://www.netcom.com/~mimsmand ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 22:04:50 -0400 (EDT) From: JEHayward@aol.com Subject: Re: KR: Wood Repair In a message dated 97-04-25 17:21:24 EDT, you write: << The thinner the cyano, the brittler the glue & the tighter the bond between surfaces that is needed(to my experiences). Some cyano gels have additional components to lend a epoxy-like life to cyano's & reduce brittlness, but invariably they fail before most of the quality epoxies set under proper >> This was a thicker variety of superglue the FAA inspector asked me to use. Maybe I should do some other reinforcing??? Jim Hayward ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 19:02:29 -0700 From: Micheal Mims Subject: Re: KR: Fuselage Widening At 06:50 PM 4/28/97, you wrote: >>>>I have both sides of my fuselage built and am considering widening it by a couple inches to have a little more shoulder room. Some say it needs to be wider and others say the standard width is adequate. I am average build and a wider cockpit may be more trouble than it's worth. I would be interested in some comments from those who have "been there, done that" and what they would do if they could do it over again. >>>> I am average build I guess, 5' 11" 185lbs and my wife is 5'11" 130 lbs and when we both sat in my KR, which is widened 4 inches we fit perfectly. We both consumed about half of the width and were comfortable. If you do not plan on using the pre molded parts make it wider! Two men will still be tight in my KR!! When I got my first ride in a KR2 (standard width) I had to sit sideways and put my arm around the pilot! If you learned to fly in a C-150, imagine subtracting about 5 inches from its width and you and your instructor crawling in! _______________________ Micheal Mims Just Plane Nutts mailto:mimsmand@ix.netcom.com http://www.netcom.com/~mimsmand ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 21:01:17 -0700 From: Ted Jones Subject: Re: KR: Re: What happened to the KR Builder/Owner Map??? enewbold@sprynet.com wrote: > > There used to be a KR Builder/Owner Map located at: > > http://ww.total.net/~nando/krmap/krmap.htm > > But now the URL is missing! This was a great source of info for me. Any ideas > what happened to it? > > Thanks. > Ed Newbold Hi Ed: Carlos moved his site to a new server. You can find the KRmap at: http://www.axess.com/users/wings/krmap.htm Cheers, Ted Jones ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 21:44:01 -0500 From: "Tim \"KitaruSapien\" Tracey" Subject: Re: KR: Wood Repair At 10:04 PM 4/28/97 -0400, you wrote: >In a message dated 97-04-25 17:21:24 EDT, you write: > ><< The thinner the cyano, the brittler the glue & the tighter the bond >between > surfaces that is needed(to my experiences). Some cyano gels have additional > components to lend a epoxy-like life to cyano's & reduce brittlness, but > invariably they fail before most of the quality epoxies set under proper >> > > This was a thicker variety of superglue the FAA inspector asked me to use. > Maybe I should do some other reinforcing??? > >Jim Hayward > If the bond is as tight as possible, I would not reinforce the area...with cyano's, less is better. Just use the thickest compound available, or use the inspector's choice! ;-> KitaruSapien ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 19:53:55 -0700 From: Micheal Mims Subject: Re: KR: west system epoxy At 10:02 PM 4/28/97 -0400, you wrote: >Ron Lee wrote: >> >> I plan on using it along >> >with West System epoxy. I will not use it on spars and sutch but it will >> >have it's uses. >> > happy flying >> > Joe Cox >> >> You are using the west system for fiberglass??? I was not aware that they >> made one that was suitable for structural applications. Am I mistaken? I may have mentioned this already but almost all of the fiberglass parts on a KR are not truly Structural in the sense of composite construction, therefore you should be able to use the West systems for all fiberglass work as well as a wood adhesive. _______________________ Micheal Mims Just Plane Nutts mailto:mimsmand@ix.netcom.com http://www.netcom.com/~mimsmand ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 09:20:28 -0700 From: Donald Reid Subject: Re: KR: Fuselage Widening Austin Clark wrote: > > I have both sides of my fuselage built and am considering widening it by a > couple inches to have a little more shoulder room. Some say it needs to be > wider and others say the standard width is adequate. I am average build > and a wider cockpit may be more trouble than it's worth. I would be > interested in some comments from those who have "been there, done that" and > what they would do if they could do it over again. > > Thanks, > > Austin ClarkI added three inches to the width of a -2S but I am a very large guy at 6' 9" and 235#. If I were to do it again, I would have added 5 instead. If you are going to use to prefab pieces, you are limited in what will fit. With scratch built, you can do almost anything. A Dragonfly canopy fits perfectly on the wider fuselage. If I were to do mine over, I would make the widest point of the fuselage at the shoulders, not at the main spar. The extra room would be nice and the wing/fuselage interference drag would be less. Again, this depends on what you are willing to build vs. buy. Don Reid donreid@erols.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 15:12:48 +0000 From: Robert Lasecki Subject: Re: KR: aileron linkage At 12:26 AM 4/29/97 +0000, you wrote: >At 08:18 PM 4/27/97 -0700, you wrote: >>Robert Lasecki wrote: >>> >>> Can anyone advise me regarding the proper angle for aileron belcrank >angle with respect to the main spar at zero deflection? The "construction >manual" is slightly vague :-( > Also, am I correct is seeing that 3/16 hardware is shown for use with the > aileron pushrods yet the pushrod bearings are bored out for 1/4" screws? >Are sleeves required? Even the new plans aren't much clearer in this area. > > >I was a little confused about this post, but as we all know that's a common >problem of mine! :-) In regards to the 3/16 or 1/4 inch bolts or >hardware, I am assuming your tie rod ends have a .250 bore instead of a >.1900 bore. In that case I would either drill the bellcrank and aileron >bracket to 1/4 inch or send the tie rod ends back for the ones with the >correct bore. > >On the angle thing Im still lost! If you are talking about setting the >aileron in the neutral position and rigging your cables, then the belcrank >should be 90 degrees or parallel depending on which arm you are aligning >with the aft face of the spar (see below), otherwise you lost me! > > : <- cable to stick > : > : >______:_______________ <- spar > / | ---:-------------------------- <- cable to other belcrank > / |__: <--belcrank > / > / <- pushrod > >_______________________ >Micheal Mims >Just Plane Nutts >mailto:mimsmand@ix.netcom.com > >http://www.netcom.com/~mimsmand > Mike: Your response was exactly what I was looking for. Thanks!!! I have written at lease a dozen inquiries for clarification on various issues and have never received a single response from Jeanette at KR. Other questions: Did you mount your rudder pedals on the floor or from the shelf? The "new" plans Jeanette has show the rudder cables routed along the fuselage sides. Using the nylon blocks or other techniques, isn't there a lot of friction when the cables are tensioned? Also, the "construction manual" (using the term very loosely) refers indirectly to adding return springs to the rudder cables to keep the cables tensioned. Any suggestions before I try to re-invent the wheel?> ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 08:43:12 -0700 From: Micheal Mims Subject: Re: KR: aileron linkage At 03:12 PM 4/29/97 +0000, you wrote: Mike: >Your response was exactly what I was looking for. Thanks!!! I have written >at lease a dozen inquiries for clarification on various issues and have >never received a single response from Jeanette at KR. > >Other questions: Did you mount your rudder pedals on the floor or from the >shelf? The "new" plans Jeanette has show the rudder cables routed along the >fuselage sides. Using the nylon blocks or other techniques, isn't there a >lot of friction when the cables are tensioned? Also, the "construction >manual" (using the term very loosely) refers indirectly to adding return >springs to the rudder cables to keep the cables tensioned. Any suggestions >before I try to re-invent the wheel?> I mounted my pedals to the floor, you can go to: http://pw2.netcom.com/~mimsmand/controls.html to see the installation. Springs on the pedals work fine, you can also build a wrap around cable. I have seen it done both ways. My rudder cables go through nylon cable fairleads along the sides of the fuselage, the first fairlead is mounted in the main spar (the cable goes through the center of the main spar) and the rest are mounted on brackets I made from 1/4 inch plywood. The cable riding inside the nylon does not seem to create any friction problems. You may have to replace the nylon after 1000hrs but I will worry about that when my kid owns my KR! Hope this helps! ________________________________ Micheal Mims Just Plane Nutts mailto:mimsmand@ix.netcom.com http://www.netcom.com/~mimsmand ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 10:10:03 -0700 From: Ross Youngblood Subject: Re: KR: Fire Detector Fuses Nick Davidson wrote: > > May issue of Kitplanes talks about using thermal fuses to sense fire in the engine compartment. A series of fuses are placed in hotspots and wired in series to a circuit that activates a buzzer or lamp when the circuit opens. ie when a fuse opens the lamp turns on. > Anyone have some ideas on what value of fuses to use? I would figure on putting the fuses near fuel lines, pumps, exhaust manifolds, and the battery. OK, so you have the fuse, it goes off, then what? How about false alarms? If they don't cost too much they might be worth it, but it depends on how much additional time warning they give. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 12:29:53 -0500 From: inet@intellisys.net (brian whatcott) Subject: Re: KR: Fire Detector Fuses At 10:10 AM 4/29/97 -0700, krnet-l@teleport.com wrote: >Nick Davidson wrote: >> >> May issue of Kitplanes talks about using thermal fuses to sense fire in the engine compartment. A series of fuses are placed in hotspots and wired in series to a circuit that activates a buzzer or lamp when the circuit opens. ie when a fuse opens the lamp turns on. >> Anyone have some ideas on what value of fuses to use? I would figure on putting the fuses near fuel lines, pumps, exhaust manifolds, and the battery. > >OK, so you have the fuse, it goes off, then what? How about false >alarms? If they don't cost too much they might be worth it, but >it depends on how much additional time warning they give. >... > Ross Youngblood If I may respectfully suggest: 1) Throttle idle 2) Full lean. 3) Mags off 4) Master off 5) Land - pronto. Sincerely brian whatcott Altus OK ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 10:48:09 -0700 From: Ross Youngblood Subject: KR: Fire Sensors > > > >OK, so you have the fuse, it goes off, then what? How about false > >alarms? If they don't cost too much they might be worth it, but > >it depends on how much additional time warning they give. > >... > > Ross Youngblood > > If I may respectfully suggest: > 1) Throttle idle > 2) Full lean. > 3) Mags off > 4) Master off > 5) Land - pronto. > > Sincerely > brian whatcott > Altus OK Thanks for the Fire in Flight checklist. I'm more interested in the number of times a false alarm would be given based on the specs for the sensors. I'm assuming an OPEN circuit would trigger the lamp. Given the amount of vibration etc in the engine compartment, I expect the likelyhood of a false alarm would be as high or higher than the likely hood of an engine fire. This of course would depend on the reliability of the sensors, the installation, and the number of sensors installed. I think it's a good idea however, any warning is better than none. But false alarms would be a real pain. Show me a simple installation and I'll put them in my KR. - Ross Ross Youngblood rossy@teleport.com (non-business) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 11:24:18 -0700 From: Micheal Mims Subject: Re: KR: Fire Detector Fuses At 12:29 PM 4/29/97 -0500, you wrote: >> Ross Youngblood > >If I may respectfully suggest: >1) Throttle idle >2) Full lean. >3) Mags off >4) Master off >5) Land - pronto. > >Sincerely >brian whatcott >Altus OK > > Only to find your 10 cent fire warning system has shorted and sent you a false signal,.. as you stand there scratching your head and looking at your FIXED landing gear that is tucked neatly under your wing, you say "I know I put the gear down!" so you wonder why your tire is sticking up through your wing and how the heck are you going to get your airplane over too that highway just over the horizon. ________________________________ Micheal Mims mailto:mimsmand@ix.netcom.com http://www.netcom.com/~mimsmand End of krnet-l-digest V1 #4 ***************************