From - Wed May 21 10:37:06 1997 Return-Path: Majordomo-Owner@lists.teleport.com Received: (from daemon@localhost) by greta.teleport.com (8.8.5/8.7.3) id KAA10080; Wed, 21 May 1997 10:22:01 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 10:22:01 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199705211722.KAA10080@greta.teleport.com> To: rossy@teleport.com From: Majordomo@teleport.com Subject: Majordomo file: list 'krnet-l' file 'v01.n017' Reply-To: Majordomo@teleport.com X-UIDL: 59e171fae91b813da3ab34a67b7a50dc X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 Content-Length: 40546 -- From: owner-krnet-l-digest@ (krnet-l-digest) To: krnet-l-digest@lists.teleport.com Subject: krnet-l-digest V1 #17 Reply-To: krnet-l-digest Sender: owner-krnet-l-digest@ Errors-To: owner-krnet-l-digest@ Precedence: bulk krnet-l-digest Sunday, May 18 1997 Volume 01 : Number 017 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 17 May 1997 12:48:46 -0700 From: David Turley Subject: Re: KR: Floorboard Vince Bozik wrote: > > > I used foam but not for reinforcing, its more of a insulation thing, > > PLEASE don't ever let anyone step on your floor! They WILL go through! The > > only area designed for supporting weight is the seat sling which is > > supported by the two spars. The floor is not designed to carry that kind of > > load! > > Would it not be possible to install a couple extra cross members in the area where a passenger MIGHT step inadvertently? I did this in my Horizon (same floor structure as the KR) and it is very stiff and strong. I also sprayed expanding foam between my floorboards after bonding everything in place, and the expanding foam DESTROYED my floor by prying it apart and splintering the ply. I replaced the floor boards, after sanding the cured expanding foam flush with the support structure. I love learning a lesson . ,. . . . David Turley http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/5774/ mailto:daturley@tscnet.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 May 1997 16:01:11 -0400 (EDT) From: BSHADR@aol.com Subject: Re: KR: KR-2S Test Plan In a message dated 97-05-17 03:18:18 EDT, you write: << Ok, after much gnashing of teeth, I've got the draft test plan Randy mentioned uploaded at http://members.aol.com/eaglegator/kr2srev2.doc This is a preliminary draft, by no means complete, but I'm posting it as food for thought for the folks who are about to enter the flight test phase of their project. I hope you find it useful. It's in MS Word v6.0, and is best viewed in outline mode. Cheers! Rick Junkin EagleGator@aol.com >> Could some of you KR Page guys (Mark, Mike, Ross, Jeff, John, etc.) post a link from your pages to this. I think the value is too high to not share this information with everyone. If not as an actual tool, then it still is very good as an educational medium. Thanks Randy Stein BSHADR@aol.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 May 1997 16:01:21 -0400 (EDT) From: BSHADR@aol.com Subject: Re: KR: Floorboard In a message dated 97-05-17 12:52:29 EDT, you write: << I used foam but not for reinforcing, its more of a insulation thing, PLEASE don't ever let anyone step on your floor! They WILL go through! The only area designed for supporting weight is the seat sling which is supported by the two spars. The floor is not designed to carry that kind of load! >> For what it is worth, since I'm sort of long in the legs (6-2), in the KRs I have climbed into, I could not bend my legs in such a way to ever get close to putting weight on the floorboards. You stand on the seat and use your arms to support your body as you snake your legs under the instrument panel. I wouldn't put too much extra support (fat) in this area, only sound proofing. Randy Stein BSHADR@aol.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 May 1997 14:08:06 -0600 (MDT) From: Ron Lee Subject: Re: KR: KR-2S Test Plan (no archive) > ><< Ok, after much gnashing of teeth, I've got the draft test plan Randy > mentioned uploaded at > > http://members.aol.com/eaglegator/kr2srev2.doc > A link to a Word reader is needed as well. Maybe I am the only person without word. Will check and see if I can find a site with the read only version and report back if I find it Ron ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 May 1997 14:11:25 -0600 (MDT) From: Ron Lee Subject: KR: Free Word Viewer (for test plans) (No archive) Found it very easily. Free Word Viewer (several versions) at http://www.microsoft.com/word/Internet/Viewer/default.htm Ron >><< Ok, after much gnashing of teeth, I've got the draft test plan Randy >> mentioned uploaded at >> >> http://members.aol.com/eaglegator/kr2srev2.doc >> > >A link to a Word reader is needed as well. Maybe I am the only person >without word. Will check and see if I can find a site with the read >only version and report back if I find it > >Ron > > ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 May 1997 16:50:07 -0400 (EDT) From: JEHayward@aol.com Subject: Re: KR: Floorboard In a message dated 97-05-17 15:51:23 EDT, you write: << > only area designed for supporting weight is the seat sling which is > > supported by the two spars. The floor is not designed to carry that kind of > > load! > > Would it not be possible to install a couple extra cross members in the area where a passenger MIGHT step inadvertently? I did this in my Horizon (same floor structure as the KR) and it is very stiff and strong. David Turley >> Hi David....the cross member idea is what I've been thinking about doing since I didn't think the floor by itself would be strong enough in it's present design form even with foam. The only difference is I had figured on running them in the fore/aft direction between the present cross members. I'm using foam around the cockpit area mainly for insulation and sound proofing but don't know how much sound proofing will actually happen. Jim Hayward ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 May 1997 14:01:13 -0700 From: "John Bouyea" Subject: Re: KR: KRs for Sale (No Archive) I just spoke with Jack, the seller. It is not a done deal and is STILL available if someone is interested... tail dragger, HAPI acc case, single Slick mag, 15" stretch OVER KR2S! Logs show 155 mph cruise. Other than the stretch, this is the closest to plans built KR I've ever seen. More details on request bou KR2S - Almost ready to glue the first fuse side together... John/Johnna Bouyea johnbouyea@worldnet.att.net - ---------- > From: enewbold@sprynet.com > To: krnet-l@teleport.com > Subject: Re: KR: KRs for Sale (No Archive) > Date: Saturday, May 17, 1997 6:42 AM > > On Thu, 15 May 1997, Ron Lee wrote: > > >Following from the First May 1997 issue of Trade a Plane > >2. KR-2 Stretch, retractable, 2 place, 44 TT, 1834 cc HAPI, > >Ellison pressure carb, Sterba prop, aux tanks, $6500 or offer > >503-391-0937 > > I just spoke with the owner/seller of this one. He sold it thursday afternoon > (5/15). I didn't get the buyer's name. > > Ed Newbold > Columbus, OH > ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 May 1997 14:54:37 -0600 From: cartera@cuug.ab.ca Subject: Re: KR: inspection covers On Sat, 17 May 1997, ginnwj wrote: >Ross > >The KR has a lot of potential, it is a great shame that Ken Rand isn't >around to continue the work he started. The plans describe a prototype, >the plans themselves are prototype standard. The basic concept is still >the best value for money, however the design needs some improvements, >particularly with regard to the safety issue of stability. > >The seatbelt area also needs addressing as well as a number of other >areas. However the stability is the most pressing problem and I wonder >why someone in the aero business hasn't taken up the challenge. As far >as I can see the first change is to increase the span of the stabilizer >(which will require engineering work on the structural side). Somehow >a safe CofG range has to be determined and a flight test is the best >way to do this. I look forward to hearing from the fellow looking into >a flight manual for the KR-2, particularly as he is basing it on the >FAA's Advisory Circular No. 90-89A. > >I wonder if anyone has done a serious flight test of a KR-2 using >90-89A? > >Bill >Ross Youngblood wrote: >> >> ginnwj wrote: >> > >> > Robert Lasecki wrote: >> > > >> > > I have been concerned since starting to build as to where to place >> > > inspection covers. Last night I went through the entire set of wonderful >> > > plans and instructions which were not included in the price of my "complete" >> > > KR-2S kit. Nowhere in the documents does it say anything about providing >> > > for any inspection access. I like the idea of clear covers as it makes >> > > inspections easier and allows each preflight to be more thorough. Any >> > > further comments on inspection plates would be quite welcomed. >> > >> > These wonderful plans don't even show where to fit seatbelts, so don't >> > expect details of fancy windows no matter how good an idea they are. >> > >> > Just about everything with the KR-2 is builder choice. In other words >> > a poor set of plans. >> > >> > Bill >> >> Well, >> Although I have to agree with you to an extent... you get what you pay for >> in a sense. I haven't priced the other VW or Soob based kits recently but >> at the time the KR was the most economical (or so it seemed). I'd recommend >> a Glastar or somthing like this if you want all the details worked out... these >> kits sound terrific... but they are $$$$. >> >> -- Ross >> >> -- >> Ross Youngblood >> KRNET-L administrator >> mailto:rossy@teleport.com >> http://www.teleport.com/~rossy/N541RY.htm > Hi, What's this "particularly with regard to the safety issue of stability" quite a statement of an non-flyer of a KR2. The KR2 is a stable aircraft, maybe a little sensitive for pitch control, but this can be remedied quite easily with slight revision/modification of the flight controls as I did mine. It is a sleek, fast, comfortable and economical aircraft. If you want a high performance IFR aircraft try the Glasair or RV, but don't knock the KR and call it a safety issue of stability. I have too many hours under my belt and flown many aircraft, built my own KR2 from scratch to read crap like that! Further on the cam shafts, the engines I built a SCAT C20 was used on recommendation of Rex Taylor. On the fifth prop I carved my max RPM was 3600 with cruise at 3000-3200 RPM and 140 MPH, 3.1 US gals/hr. which seemed like a good combination to accept. All my flying was done with this combination. Wanted to keep my prop tips subsonic. Adrian VE6AFY cartera@cuug.ab.ca http://www.cuug.ab.ca:8001/ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 May 1997 15:15:26 -0600 (MDT) From: Ron Lee Subject: Re: KR: Floorboard (Joke: no archive) > I'm using foam around the cockpit area mainly for insulation and sound >proofing but don't know how much sound proofing will actually happen. > >Jim Hayward > Sounds like a phrase I have heard before: "In a KR, no one can hear you scream!" Anonymous ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 May 1997 17:22:57 -0700 From: Bill Reents Subject: Re: KR: Floorboard At 09:45 AM 5/17/97 -0700, you wrote: >At 10:42 AM 5/17/97 -0400, you wrote: >> Anyone using foam or some sort of additional reinforcing between the >>floorboard and the bottom of the fuselage. I have these visions of the >thingbreaking from someone stepping into the cockpit and going thru the >fuselage. I was contemplating using a foam sandwich when installing the >floorboard. >> >>Jim Hayward >> > >I used foam but not for reinforcing, its more of a insulation thing, >PLEASE don't ever let anyone step on your floor! They WILL go through! The >only area designed for supporting weight is the seat sling which is >supported by the two spars. The floor is not designed to carry that kind of >load! > >_______________________ >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >Micheal Mims >Just Plane Nutts >mailto:mimsmand@ix.netcom.com > >http://www.netcom.com/~mimsmand > > Hi I put aluminum on top of the wood where my feet goes,works great. Bill Bill Reents http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/3050 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 May 1997 17:23:04 -0700 From: Bill Reents Subject: Re: KR: HIGH RPM was (Shadbolt Cam Grinders/PC Dyno) At 09:51 AM 5/17/97 -0700, you wrote: >At 11:56 AM 5/17/97 -0400, you wrote: > I may be showing my ignorance here but if the dd soob guys are running >their engines at 3800-4000 rpm then why not run the VW at a little higher >rpm as well? I know that longevity could be a concern but how much would it >be affected? Curt Martin shows a 1918cc VW putting out 98hp @ 4000rpm in his >PC............. > >I think there is major concern about the rubber band popping! Seriously, >the VW has been in the air for a long time, if we could turn it that fast >and get away with it people would be doing it! The Soob is just stronger in >that respect and its water cooled to help dissipate the extra heat from >generating the extra HP. > >_______________________ >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >Micheal Mims >Just Plane Nutts >mailto:mimsmand@ix.netcom.com > >http://www.netcom.com/~mimsmand > > Hi I flew mine at 3800 to 4000 rpm for a few years useing the Rand 3 blade prop, the engine sounded like a 51 coming round the bend. Bill Bill Reents http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/3050 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 May 1997 18:27:31 -0400 (EDT) From: Baleco@aol.com Subject: Re: KR: HIGH RPM was (Shadbolt Cam Grinders/PC Dyno) In a message dated 97-05-17 12:59:28 EDT, you write: << I think there is major concern about the rubber band popping! Seriously, the VW has been in the air for a long time, if we could turn it that fast and get away with it people would be doing it! The Soob is just stronger in that respect and its water cooled to help dissipate the extra heat from generating the extra HP. >> You are correct. Years ago John Monnette and his VW conversions were recommending 1700cc engines to turn 4000rpm. No one recommends that anymore. Wonder why? ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 May 1997 15:27:05 -0700 From: Micheal Mims Subject: Re: KR: KR-2S Test Plan (no archive) At 02:08 PM 5/17/97 -0600, you wrote: >A link to a Word reader is needed as well. Maybe I am the only person >without word. Will check and see if I can find a site with the read >only version and report back if I find it > >Ron Maybe we should start saving these files as .rtf files, anyone with windows (sorry Mr Covington!) can open an .rtf file. _______________________ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Micheal Mims Just Plane Nutts mailto:mimsmand@ix.netcom.com http://www.netcom.com/~mimsmand ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 May 1997 18:39:36 -0400 (EDT) From: Baleco@aol.com Subject: Re: KR: /plans/ inspection covers In a message dated 97-05-17 13:22:58 EDT, you write: << I'd say there is an option to be considered: the Vision, from American Affordable Aircraft... It seems to have been inspired on the KR: >> Carlos, You're probably not making friends with the designers of the Vision by suggesting that it's based on the KR. Besides both being affordable to build from plans, and are low wing side by side two seat taildraggers, they share nothing else in common. The KR is mostly a wood aircraft with tight dimensions and designed around the VW. The vision is much bigger, can't fly on a VW, is all composite and was carefully researched, designed, built, flown and documented. Not to put the KR down, but if I were the guys who brought us the Vision, I'd be offended if someone suggested it was anything but an original design. I like the way they've handled the project so well that even though I don't need another project for along time to come, I'm considering buying the plans and bound manuals just to support their efforts. I think the current price is $450 for the whole set. Marty ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 May 1997 01:33:12 -0700 From: Donald Reid Subject: Re: KR: Floorboard JEHayward@aol.com wrote: > > Anyone using foam or some sort of additional reinforcing between the > floorboard and the bottom of the fuselage. I have these visions of the thing > breaking from someone stepping into the cockpit and going thru the fuselage. > I was contemplating using a foam sandwich when installing the floorboard. > > Jim Hayward I used industrial grade styrofoam in both the floor and the fuselage sides back through the baggage area. On the sides, I covered with 0.8 mm birch plywood. It is very light and doesn't need as much finish work as the glass liner that some people use. - -- Don Reid donreid@erols.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 May 1997 16:16:45 -0700 From: Micheal Mims Subject: KR: KR-2S Test Flight Plan For those of you who are not Adobe Acrobat challenged, you can go to: http://members.aol.com/kr2smazda/kr2srev2.pdf to see and print a beautiful copy of the flight test document! _______________________ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Micheal Mims Just Plane Nutts mailto:mimsmand@ix.netcom.com http://www.netcom.com/~mimsmand ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 May 1997 17:53:00 -0600 (MDT) From: Ron Lee Subject: KR: Re: KR-2S Test Plan I just glanced through this draft version....I like it! Already I know I do not have enough runway to get airborne for five seconds and land (6000' length at 7000' elevation). But it does provide reasoned procedures for determining abort points. Will be interested to see how later sections are completed with regard to specific flight objectives. One book I just read on flight testing homebuilts suggests that 40 hours may be insufficient to adequately test a new plane. This checklist will provide a means to accomplish something other than merely boring holes through the sky. Ron Lee ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 May 1997 17:15:58 -0700 From: R Covington Subject: Re: KR: KR-2S Test Plan (no archive) >At 02:08 PM 5/17/97 -0600, you wrote: >>A link to a Word reader is needed as well. Maybe I am the only person >>without word. Will check and see if I can find a site with the read >>only version and report back if I find it >> >>Ron > >Maybe we should start saving these files as .rtf files, anyone with windows >(sorry Mr Covington!) can open an .rtf file. > >_______________________ >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >Micheal Mims I'll get you for that one, Mike! :) I can open almost any format document you can throw at me. RTF is Rich Text Format. Even I have Word 6 on me deluxe Apple computational megatron. :) Robert Covington ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 May 1997 22:36:25 EDT From: jscott.pilot@juno.com (Jeffrey E. Scott) Subject: Re: KR: Current Plans? On Sat, 17 May 1997 09:42:05 -0700 Micheal Mims writes: >At 10:32 AM 5/17/97 -0400, you wrote: >>In a message dated 97-05-17 09:32:26 EDT, you write: >> >><< Best not put wing tanks in at all as they will place the CofG with two >> up far to far aft for stability. >> >> >> Is this true for the KR2 only or for the 2-S as well? >> >Its not true in either case! BY putting the fuel close or on the CG, fuel >burn will not have any effect on CG, therefor it will not effect stability >. AS far as stability goes, set your CG where it should be by mounting the >engine where it should be, and don't use the last two inches that the manual >calls out for in your CG range. I think the CG range published in the plans >was an error that has never been corrected. Have fun! > >_______________________ >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >Micheal Mims Just plan your CG and mount the engine and heavier accessories accordingly. It's surprisingly simple. In my project, the absolute worst load configuration I can put in it will only go 4 1/2" aft of the front of the CG range. That includes using 7 gallon tanks in each wing. - ---- Jeffrey Scott jscott.pilot@juno.com See construction of KR-2S N1213W at http://fly.hiwaay.net/~langford/kjeffs.html - ---- ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 May 1997 20:47:14 -0600 (MDT) From: Ron Lee Subject: KR: Re: KR-2S Test Plan >Already I know I do not have enough runway to get airborne >for five seconds and land (6000' length at 7000' elevation). > I may have been wrong. I just finished flying a local Tomahawk. It was a nice evening and touch and go's were the order of the day. After a few, I decided to do the take-off, fly a few seconds and land test. Initially I would land as short as possible, then take off, fly for 5 seconds, then land. I always touched done at or before the 3000' point. Since I can land and stop easily within 3000' I felt rather good. Then I went back to the start of the runway and did the take-off, fly a bit, then land. It happened in a few hundred feet less than before. This occurred at a density altitude of around 8000' and may not be directly translated to a KR. Howeve, I consider it beneficial to do these things in a plane I know before doing it in a KR. It would be interesting to get some of these values, such as total distance from take-off, 5 second flight, to touchdown and complete stop. To be semi-consistent, a consistent flight period is needed, such as take-off, reduce power partially, then completely after 5 seconds. Ron ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 May 1997 21:47:13 -0500 From: inet@intellisys.net (brian whatcott) Subject: Re: KR: KR-2S Test Flight Plan At 04:16 PM 5/17/97 -0700, krnet-l@teleport.com wrote: >For those of you who are not Adobe Acrobat challenged, you can go to: > >http://members.aol.com/kr2smazda/kr2srev2.pdf > >to see and print a beautiful copy of the flight test document! > >Micheal Mims Finally: a compact accurate transfer mode that does not rely on the vagaries of microsoft garbage. It prints out beautifully, as advertised.... Regards brian whatcott Altus OK ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 May 1997 22:48:50 -0400 From: "Tom and Martha Warren" Subject: KR: Re: VW Cam Specs/ PC-Dyno Runs: Curt, That program sounds great. And thanks for the run down. Now for my .02 worth. It seems to me that 500 CFM would be way too much. If memory serves me right ( but it's been mighty faulty lately) I used a 500 or 650 CFM Holly on my 350 cu.in. chevy in my T-Bucket and that was with the 350/350 Crane camshaft (750 CFM was slightly to much for the street). Wonder what the troops out there think would be a good number to use? Maybe 250 CFM ? Also, the hp around 3500 rpm looks a bit high for a 1900 vw (IMO), so substituting 250 CFM in the formula might bring it into a 60-70hp range. ?? Tom Warren Sonerai I (on the gear) Part of Curt's post: > Been doing some number crunching using a software package called "Desktop Dyno" > by Motion Software Inc. > I plotted several runs with different cam specs to see how that would effect > the torque and power curves (with all other things remaining constant.) There > are a few items I need clarified on, like the actual CFM ratings on different > carbs in use. I opted for 500 CFM, which may be too large to provide good > idle/smooth carburation on such a small displacement. > > Another unknown is whether the SCAT cam specs provided by Ross are seat-to-seat > or 0.050 lift numbers. I assume them to be seat-to-seat. > > > The common values used: > > The motor: Great Plains 1915cc Type I (116.9cu.in.) > Bore: 94mm (3.701in.) Stroke: 69mm (2.717in.) > Heads: Stock Ports & Valves (no porting) > Compression: 8.0:1 > Induction: 500 CFM, Individual Runner > Exhaust: Small Tube Header/ Open exhaust (i.e. no muffler) > Valvetrain: Pushrod, Solid Flat Tappet Lifters > Timing Advance: 0 > > Run 1: camshaft: SCAT C-20: 0.338" Lift (I&E) > - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - ---- > -- > IO: 31 BTDC IC: 67 ABDC EO: 67 BBDC EC: 31 ATDC > > 2000 RPM, 39 HP, 103 lb.-ft > 2500 RPM, 52 HP, 109 lb.-ft > 3000 RPM, 66 HP, 115 lb.-ft > 3500 RPM, 82 HP, 123 lb.-ft > 4000 RPM, 98 HP, 128 lb.-ft > 4500 RPM, 107 HP, 125 lb.-ft > 5000 RPM, 111 HP, 116 lb.-ft > 5500 RPM, 110 HP, 105 lb.-ft > 6000 RPM, 106 HP, 93 lb.-ft > 6500 RPM, 99 HP, 80 lb.-ft. > snip> ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 May 1997 22:05:24 -0500 From: "Mark Langford" Subject: KR: rtf, Word, Acrobat, HTML, etc... I realize that I'm being petty, and repetitive as well, but isn't one thing that just about all of us have in common HTML? Everyone with a browser can read it (since that's what the web is based upon), and that's about 99.5% of us. Seems like every time somebody posts something somewhere, you gotta go find and download a 10 Meg file just to read it! And you can be reading the HTML file immediately, while the remainder of it is downloading. When you're done reading, you send it to the printer. Only disadvantage I see is that you might not get fancy fonts or stroboscopic animation, but that's fine with me. Sorry, I'll go back to the basement now... Mark Langford langford@hiwaay.net http://fly.hiwaay.net/~langford ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 May 1997 20:18:57 -0700 From: Micheal Mims Subject: Re: KR: rtf, Word, Acrobat, HTML, etc... At 10:05 PM 5/17/97 -0500, you wrote: > >I realize that I'm being petty, and repetitive as well, but isn't one thing >that just about all of us have in common HTML? Everyone with a browser can read it (since that's what the web is based upon), and that's about 99.5%.......... Gee Mark its only a 47k file! I like Acrobat because it preserves the fonts and it compresses all image files to .jpg compression, and its just one file to upload if there are images involved. Its not that hard to get the plugin and it works great! Get back in the dungeon and keep sanding! :-) Im going over to razor cut the inside of my canopy, see yall later! PS I made the windshield template today and it looks pretty cool! _______________________ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Micheal Mims Just Plane Nutts mailto:mimsmand@ix.netcom.com http://www.netcom.com/~mimsmand ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 May 1997 23:58:40 -0400 (EDT) From: EagleGator@aol.com Subject: Re: KR: Re: KR-2S Test Plan In a message dated 97-05-17 22:53:20 EDT, Ron Lee wrote: << It would be interesting to get some of these values, such as total distance from take-off, 5 second flight, to touchdown and complete stop. To be semi-consistent, a consistent flight period is needed, such as take-off, reduce power partially, then completely after 5 seconds. >> Ron - The intent of knowing this distance is actually applicable to the high speed taxi test, and covers the contingency of becoming airborne unintentionally, aborting, and landing again. Therefore the parameters you want to look at are speed dependent, not power dependent. The speed is the minimum smooth lift off speed (i.e. the minimum speed at which the aircraft flies itself off the runway), and at this speed you will not get out of ground effect (theoretically). The five seconds covers reaction time to cut the throttle, establish a landing attitude, and get the airplane back on the ground. Just for grins, the next time you're out in the Tomahawk, try the same thing, only employing a short/soft field takeoff technique. Concentrate on tracking the aircraft and observing the nose wheel lift off speed (as you will be doing during your taxi tests), and try to let the airplane suprise you when it flies itself off the runway. As soon as you recognize you are airborne, chop the throttle to idle and see how long it takes you to settle out of ground effect. Remember, like you said, that the KR is cleaner and won't settle as quickly. I'd be very interested in what you find out. Thanks! Cheers! Rick Junkin EagleGator@aol.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 May 1997 20:35:19 +1000 From: ginnwj Subject: Re: KR: Current Plans? JEHayward@aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 97-05-17 09:32:26 EDT, you write: > > << Best not put wing tanks in at all as they will place the CofG with two > up far to far aft for stability. >> > > Is this true for the KR2 only or for the 2-S as well? > > Jim Hayward Both bill ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 May 1997 20:38:02 +1000 From: ginnwj Subject: Re: KR: Current Plans? Micheal Mims wrote: > > At 10:32 AM 5/17/97 -0400, you wrote: > >In a message dated 97-05-17 09:32:26 EDT, you write: > > > ><< Best not put wing tanks in at all as they will place the CofG with two > > up far to far aft for stability. >> > > > > Is this true for the KR2 only or for the 2-S as well? > > > > Its not true in either case! BY putting the fuel close or on the CG, fuel > burn will not have any effect on CG, therefor it will not effect stability > . AS far as stability goes, set your CG where it should be by mounting the > engine where it should be, and don't use the last two inches that the manual > calls out for in your CG range. I think the CG range published in the plans > was an error that has never been corrected. Have fun! > > _______________________ > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Micheal Mims > Just Plane Nutts > mailto:mimsmand@ix.netcom.com > > http://www.netcom.com/~mimsmand Okay, but where is the CofG of the fuel? The aircraft's CofG should not go past the aft edge of the front spar, the fuel will be between the spars according to my plans so the CofG of the fuel will be well aft of the required aft CofG. When the nose tips up the fuel will run aft anyway consider takeoff, engine dies nose goes up, CofG goes back. Not a good situation to be in. However if you like to live dangerously .... ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 May 1997 20:40:40 +1000 From: ginnwj Subject: Re: KR: Current Plans? Jeffrey E. Scott wrote: > > On Sat, 17 May 1997 09:42:05 -0700 Micheal Mims > writes: > >At 10:32 AM 5/17/97 -0400, you wrote: > >>In a message dated 97-05-17 09:32:26 EDT, you write: > >> > >><< Best not put wing tanks in at all as they will place the CofG with > two > >> up far to far aft for stability. >> > >> > >> Is this true for the KR2 only or for the 2-S as well? > >> > >Its not true in either case! BY putting the fuel close or on the CG, > fuel > >burn will not have any effect on CG, therefor it will not effect > stability > >. AS far as stability goes, set your CG where it should be by mounting > the > >engine where it should be, and don't use the last two inches that the > manual > >calls out for in your CG range. I think the CG range published in the > plans > >was an error that has never been corrected. Have fun! > > > >_______________________ > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >Micheal Mims > > Just plan your CG and mount the engine and heavier accessories > accordingly. It's surprisingly simple. In my project, the absolute > worst load configuration I can put in it will only go 4 1/2" aft of the > front of the CG range. That includes using 7 gallon tanks in each wing. > > ---- > Jeffrey Scott jscott.pilot@juno.com > See construction of KR-2S N1213W at > http://fly.hiwaay.net/~langford/kjeffs.html > ---- The only way to determine your engine mount I agree, however where is the empty CofG and will your aircraft stand on the normal wheel position or do you have a fix for the forward CofG (nosewheel?) bill ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 May 1997 06:47:33 -0500 From: Bobby Muse Subject: Re: KR: Diehl gear geometry At 10:31 PM 5/7/97 -0500, you wrote: >Mark Langford wrote: >> >> KRNetHeads, >> >> You guys that have installed the Diehl fixed gear: I wonder if you would >> change the angle that the gear legs extend from the center main spar, if >> you had it to do over again? >> Are you guys that used it, and have all of the weight sitting on it, happy >> with the camber? I'm about to install my spar/leg adapters, and would >> rather avoid shimming the lower axle attach fittings if I can. >> You know what they say about changing things... >> >> Mark Langford >> langford@hiwaay.net >> http://fly.hiwaay.net/~langford > >I wouldn't change a thing! I can wheel land the plane or 3 point it >without problems. In both cases I can do it with one or two on board. >Once again I have a tail dragger and I think this is one of the best >things that Dan came up with! > >-- >Jim Faughn N8931JF >St. Louis, MO >(314) 652-7659 or (573) 465-8039 > My KR is Trigear. I'm not sure I would change anything, BUT I find that my main tires wear a lot on the outside. I need to shim the toe-in. But if I rotate the tires, they last twice as long. The airplane sits normal on the ground, so why change it. Bobby Muse bmuse@mindspring.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 May 1997 06:47:35 -0500 From: Bobby Muse Subject: RE: KR: /tools/ Progress Report At 11:30 PM 5/10/97 -0400, you wrote: >Complaining about sanding is frequent (maybe you are >supposed to; a ritual thing, maybe...). Mention to >electric sanders is rare. Is there any drawback?? >With so much sanding to do, I would expect most builders >to use electric sanders... What is the scoop? > > >Carlos > Don't use electric sanders if there is any way you can avoid it. The best way to make your KR easier to sand is to begin the finishing process at the begining of your project. Smooth(sand) and shape the foam to perfection before glassing and you wouldn't have as much finish sanding to do. Bobby Muse bmuse@mindspring.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 May 1997 09:23:16 -0500 From: "Mark Langford" Subject: Re: KR: rtf, Word, Acrobat, HTML, etc... Michael Mims wrote: > Gee Mark its only a 47k file! I was talking about the readers. But I was afraid I'd ruffle some feathers. Too many beers I guess...Sorry. Mark Langford langford@hiwaay.net http://fly.hiwaay.net/~langford ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 May 1997 09:45:25 -0500 From: "Mark Langford" Subject: Re: KR: Diehl gear geometry Bobby Muse wrote: > My KR is Trigear. I'm not sure I would change anything, BUT I find that my main tires wear a lot on the outside. I need to shim the toe-in. But if I rotate the tires, they last twice as long. The airplane sits normal on the ground, so why change it. > Bobby, Sounds like the wear might be coming from touchdown, when your wheels go zero to sixty in a quarter of a second. And since there's no weight on them they are exposed to the runway first due to the camber. You probably knew this already though. Thanks to you, Jim Faughn, Jeff Scott and everybody else who answered my question. The least we can do is make sure that we don't make mistakes that others have made, and it looks like you guys are doing it right to start with! Mark Langford langford@hiwaay.net http://fly.hiwaay.net/~langford ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 May 1997 15:45:45 +0000 From: Robert Lasecki Subject: Re: KR: Floorboard At 02:42 PM 5/17/97 +0000, you wrote: > Anyone using foam or some sort of additional reinforcing between the >floorboard and the bottom of the fuselage. I have these visions of the thing >breaking from someone stepping into the cockpit and going thru the fuselage. > I was contemplating using a foam sandwich when installing the floorboard. > >Jim Hayward Jim: I used foam cut to 5/8 thick and layered between the skin and the floorboard. It seems to make a nice solid floor. My original thought was for sound abatement but the stiffer floor is most welcomed. Go for it. The added weight is negligible. Bob Lasecki> ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 May 1997 09:55:59 -0700 From: Micheal Mims Subject: Re: KR: Current Plans? At 08:38 PM 5/18/97 +1000, you wrote: >Okay, but where is the CofG of the fuel? The aircraft's CofG should not >go past the aft edge of the front spar, the fuel will be between the >spars according to my plans so the CofG of the fuel will be well aft of >the required aft CofG. When the nose tips up the fuel will run aft >anyway consider takeoff, engine dies nose goes up, CofG goes back. Nota good situation to be in. > >However if you like to live dangerously .... > Dangerously? Not hardly, (of course my fuel is in a header tank but if I had it to do over again I would build wing tanks only) For a couple of reasons, 1) Buy having the fuel in your wings the aircraft becomes more stable as fuel burns off, and 2) if the engine did quit after take off and there was uncontrolled impact with the ground at least 25 gallons of fuel is out in the wings and not in your lap! In the scenario you mention above, the fuel shifting aft during takeoff will have negligible effect on the CG moving aft because of the lack of arm. Also the shape of the tank (airfoil) doesn't allow the total mass to move aft anyway. (the tank is smaller as you go aft) Do the numbers if you want Living Dangerously to me is having a 22 gallon header tank and taking two 190 pound people on a long X-country and having to land at the other end tired, and battling with an airplane on short final that is out of nose down trim and has a greater possibility of ground looping once you touch down! Piper, Cessna, Beechcraft, Mooney, and hundreds of others cant be wrong! :-) _______________________ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Micheal Mims Just Plane Nutts mailto:mimsmand@ix.netcom.com http://www.netcom.com/~mimsmand ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 May 1997 12:02:13 -0500 From: Paul Eberhardt Subject: Re: KR: Current Plans? You don't need to fill the section between the spars. I calculate (from memory, I'm not looking at the plans) roughly 40 gallons of space in EACH outboard section. I would be happy with about 15 gallons each. I'll put it as close to the front spar as I can, and put the engine in a place that makes it all work. This way I'll be most stable when landing, not like having an empty header tank. Paul Eberhardt ginnwj wrote: > Okay, but where is the CofG of the fuel? The aircraft's CofG should not > go past the aft edge of the front spar, the fuel will be between the > spars according to my plans so the CofG of the fuel will be well aft of > the required aft CofG. When the nose tips up the fuel will run aft > anyway consider takeoff, engine dies nose goes up, CofG goes back. Not > a good situation to be in. > > However if you like to live dangerously .... ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 May 1997 13:16:56 EDT From: jscott.pilot@juno.com (Jeffrey E. Scott) Subject: Re: KR: Current Plans? On Sun, 18 May 1997 20:40:40 +1000 ginnwj writes: >> Just plan your CG and mount the engine and heavier accessories >> accordingly. It's surprisingly simple. In my project, the absolute >> worst load configuration I can put in it will only go 4 1/2" aft of >the >> front of the CG range. That includes using 7 gallon tanks in each >wing. >> >> ---- >> Jeffrey Scott jscott.pilot@juno.com >> See construction of KR-2S N1213W at >> http://fly.hiwaay.net/~langford/kjeffs.html >> ---- >The only way to determine your engine mount I agree, however where is >the empty CofG and will your aircraft stand on the normal wheel position >or do you have a fix for the forward CofG (nosewheel?) > >bill > Mine is a taildragger sitting on the Diehl gear although I have 30" legs rather than the standard 24" legs. My empty CG is 4.4 inches in front of the forward CG limit. It's certainly light in the tail when empty, but won't tip over without some help even with the header tank full. The Diehl gear certainly puts the gear much farther forward than the retractable. I don't know about Rand's springbar gear. You can see several pictures of mine at the web site listed below or on John Bryhan's web site at "http://www.laintra.com/jeb/krpage.htm" if you are interested in seeing the configuration. - ---- Jeffrey Scott jscott.pilot@juno.com See construction of KR-2S N1213W at http://fly.hiwaay.net/~langford/kjeffs.html - ---- ------------------------------ End of krnet-l-digest V1 #17 ****************************