From - Wed May 21 10:37:34 1997 Return-Path: Majordomo-Owner@lists.teleport.com Received: (from daemon@localhost) by greta.teleport.com (8.8.5/8.7.3) id KAA10120; Wed, 21 May 1997 10:22:06 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 10:22:06 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199705211722.KAA10120@greta.teleport.com> To: rossy@teleport.com From: Majordomo@teleport.com Subject: Majordomo file: list 'krnet-l' file 'v01.n019' Reply-To: Majordomo@teleport.com X-UIDL: bfec6b8727a89439031eb0ad46eef46d X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 Content-Length: 40041 -- From: owner-krnet-l-digest@ (krnet-l-digest) To: krnet-l-digest@lists.teleport.com Subject: krnet-l-digest V1 #19 Reply-To: krnet-l-digest Sender: owner-krnet-l-digest@ Errors-To: owner-krnet-l-digest@ Precedence: bulk krnet-l-digest Monday, May 19 1997 Volume 01 : Number 019 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 18 May 1997 21:29:13 -0400 (EDT) From: MikeTnyc@aol.com Subject: KR: Question about Zenith carb Could someone with a Zenith/Great Plains #268 carb tell me the size and thread-pitch of the mixture-adjustment screw? Mike Taglieri ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 May 1997 11:30:05 +1000 From: ginnwj Subject: Re: KR: Wing/Header Tank Ron Lee wrote: > > >All of the above is too true especially if you balance the aircraft > >assuming full wing tanks. However the plans have a fixed engine mount > >length which will give you CofG problems if you build according to the > >plans. The logical way to build is to construct the airframe firewall > >back, retract the wheels (if you have retractables), weigh the airframe > >with full wing tank fuel (if installed as per plans) and then work out > >the engine mount length to put the empty CofG where you want it. With > >the CofG in the right place you will have a stable aircraft. > > > > This is exactly what some people have suggested and it makes sense. > > SNIP The plumbing > >will be more complex (heavier) and you will still need a header tank > >(with about two hours of fuel). > > > >I am trying to design a suitable LE wing tank at the moment, any > >suggestions will be welcome. > > > >Bill > > > > That depends. A mechanical engine pump and backup electric pumps > would eliminate the need for a header tank. Assumes of course that > you can mount an engine driven fuel pump. > > Ron Lee I like the idea of having an hour to decide where to land in the case of electrical or pump failure. Two hours sounds even better. A header tank will at least gravity feed. Bill ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 May 1997 20:37:28 +0000 From: Steve Bennett Subject: Re: KR: HIGH RPM was (Shadbolt Cam Grinders/PC Dyno) i can tell you from experience it is fiction - the hp. steve ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 May 1997 20:38:10 +0000 From: Steve Bennett Subject: Re: KR: HIGH RPM was (Shadbolt Cam Grinders/PC Dyno) i can tell you from experience, it is pure fiction. steve ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 May 1997 11:36:50 +1000 From: ginnwj Subject: Re: KR: Wing fuel tank Paul Eberhardt wrote: > > ginnwj wrote: > > > > Paul Eberhardt wrote: > > > > > > 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 > > > > If you want to have the tanks behind the front spar, why not make it a > > long narrow tank running the length of the outboard wing, this will > > reduce the affect on CofG with the tank full and probably make it easier > > to drain. > > > > Tanks in the Leading Edge may be a better option. > > > > Bill > > That's what I meant by keeping it as close to the spar as I can. A tank > right behind the front spar that is 6.5"(avg) tall by 70" long only > needs to be 9" deep to get over 16 gallons in it. This is plenty for > me. (32 gals, that is). I like the idea of having the fuel lines run on the front of the spar. With the tank aft the fuel lines have to cross over the spar. It is doable of course, just messy. > > My keen sense of safety (coming from a guy whose first - and almost my > last - solo was a 315' hop on a motorcycle) tells me that fuel in the LE > is a bad idea. I can count 4 buggered up LE's on our field alone due to > deer, and one with a duck print on it. > We have plenty of flying ducks down here, however not many flying deer. I take your point, however the RV's don't seem to have a problem. The best idea might be to keep fit the deer with anti collision lights so that you can avoid them. > An old (67) crop duster pilot at our field told me that to stay out of > trouble when entering a wooded area in a forced landing, you try to get > the trees lined up to break off your wings and leave the fuel behind. > He said he had used that method and is still around because of it. An > older (76) crop duster chimed in, saying that if a guy would be more > careful, he wouldn't have such problems. Both pilots retire from crop > dusting this summer. Thanks for the humour Bill ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 May 1997 18:38:46 -0700 From: David Turley Subject: Re: KR: My GPS Wishlist (no archive) Ross Youngblood wrote: > > enewbold@sprynet.com wrote: > > > > Ross wrote: > > >>>We actually are not too far from the Rutan Laptop cockpit, the only > > >>>problem I see is Windows95. wouldn't like to get the following > > >>>response on Final approach: > > >>> "Altimeter: TASK NOT RESPONDING Code 0x3ffb23s at Address 0x823552" > > >>> End Task or SHUTDOWN? > > > > Ron Lee wrote: > > >> Easy solution...use windows 3.1 > > > > Ross responded: > > >Windows 3.1 has other problems in this area. Windows 95 actually > > >has some minor improvements here. > > > > The solution is to NOT rely only on any Windows product in you cockpit as the > > "primary" source of instrumentation. Win 3.1 and Win 95 are far too unstable to > > trust in that environment. I'm a professional PC programmer for Bank One, and > > all too often these products will sieze up for no obvious reason whatsoever. > > Yes, they do *usually* recover after a cold boot (hitting the power switch), but > > in my own aircraft I will continue to rely upon more traditional > > instrumentation. I use a Trimble handheld GPS as my primary navigation source > > and a cheap Garmin as my backup. > > > > However, my REAL source of navigation are my sectionals! > > Ed Newbold > > Columbus, OH > > Ed, > I agree that Win95 based products are not robust. However the hardware that > runs Win95/Win3.1 is robust and cheap. The trick would be to develop a robust > self correcting system based on this cheap hardware and software. Developing > a robust OS in itself is too costly. Much research has been done on fault tolerant > computing, and I think using this technology, a robust system based on cheap > Win95 based PC's could be made to work. However, my panel has all the regular > stuff in it today. > Why not use Windows NT as the environment. It is supposed to be vastly more stable than Win95. I suppose that the commercially available software won't run on NT, though. Not too many LANs in airplanes, yet (other than military and Airforce One. . . . . . - -- David Turley http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/5774/ (for Dave Raun's Horizon Pics) http://www2.tscnet.com/pages/daturley/ (for pics of my Horizon and Subaru EA-81 installation) mailto:daturley@tscnet.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 May 1997 20:39:34 +0000 From: Steve Bennett Subject: Re: KR: VW Cam Specs/ PC-Dyno Runs: most vw carbs flow under 300 cfm. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 May 1997 18:36:58 -0700 From: Micheal Mims Subject: Re: KR: fuel and CG At 11:25 AM 5/19/97 +1000, you wrote: >The CofG of the fuel will also be aft of the 25% MAC position so the >fuel will contribute to a pitch moment on the wing structure (i.e. >twist). > >Like all these changes, they have to be carefully considered. Over >engineering is one option. > >Are there any aero engineers reading this column? Perhaps they would be interested in looking at the problem. > Now we have taken an option that is IN the plans and created a problem! Interesting, Yes, wing tanks are an option not a change. The plans include directions on how to build them, I am done with this!! _______________________ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Micheal Mims Just Plane Nutts mailto:mimsmand@ix.netcom.com http://www.netcom.com/~mimsmand ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 May 1997 20:42:58 +0000 From: Steve Bennett Subject: Re: KR: KR-2S Test Plan (no archive) sorry wrong response but, the soob is only stronger in hp because of the rpm it has to turn. it lacks additioal stroke and bore. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 May 1997 19:52:28 -0600 From: "Larry Jacks" Subject: Re: KR: fuel and CG Pieces from several messages > > Paul Eberhardt wrote: > > > > Ron Lee wrote: > > > > > > At 13:16 97/5/18 -0500, you wrote: > > > >Oh Yeah, > > > >Another good reason to have fuel in the wings is that it takes that much > > > >weight off the spars. The weight of the fuel is supported directly from > > > >the wing skins, rather than adding to the load carried by the spars. > > > > > > > >Paul Eberhardt - "living dangerously" > > > > Response: From a structural perspective, putting the fuel in the wings is a good idea because it reduces the bending moment at the root. As an explaination, consider an airplane with a weight of 1000 pounds with 100 pounts of fuel in the fuselage. If the plane pulls 6 gees, the bending moment is much higher than if the fuel is out in the wings. Since KR wings don't lack in strength, this really isn't a factor. However, putting the fuel in the wings is good from a CG and safety perspective, as others have mentioned. Personally, I would not want to have the fuel tanks laying on the wing skins without reinforcement. In the above example, a 6 gee load will put 600 pounds of force on a relatively small area of the skins. This might prove messy. It seems more reasonable to mount the tanks to the front spar. >>> That's what I meant by keeping it as close to the spar as I can. A tank >>> right behind the front spar that is 6.5"(avg) tall by 70" long only >>> needs to be 9" deep to get over 16 gallons in it. This is plenty for >>> me. (32 gals, that is). Be sure to include baffles or foam inside of your tank to prevent sloshing. If you use the same foam that NASCAR racers use (I forget the name, but it's good stuff and doesn't cost very much either), you'll also reduce any explosion hazard in the event of a crash. The foam will cost you a few percent of your tank capacity. >>> My keen sense of safety (coming from a guy whose first - and almost my >>> last - solo was a 315' hop on a motorcycle) tells me that fuel in the LE >>> is a bad idea. I can count 4 buggered up LE's on our field alone due to >>> deer, and one with a duck print on it. This is a good point. In a recent Kitplanes article about safety, it was pointed out that the leading edge is not a safe place to put fuel because of its vulnerability to punctures. A tank with dimensions as described above mounted immediately aft of the spar will be safer. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 May 1997 20:01:44 -0600 From: "Larry Jacks" Subject: Re: KR: My GPS Wishlist (no archive) > Ross Youngblood wrote: > > > > enewbold@sprynet.com wrote: > > > > > > Ross wrote: > > > >>>We actually are not too far from the Rutan Laptop cockpit, the only > > > >>>problem I see is Windows95. wouldn't like to get the following > > > >>>response on Final approach: > > > >>> "Altimeter: TASK NOT RESPONDING Code 0x3ffb23s at Address 0x823552" > > > >>> End Task or SHUTDOWN? > > > > > > Ron Lee wrote: > > > >> Easy solution...use windows 3.1 > > > > > > Ross responded: > > > >Windows 3.1 has other problems in this area. Windows 95 actually > > > >has some minor improvements here. > > > > > > The solution is to NOT rely only on any Windows product in you cockpit as the > > > "primary" source of instrumentation. Win 3.1 and Win 95 are far too unstable to > > > trust in that environment. I'm a professional PC programmer for Bank One, and > > > all too often these products will sieze up for no obvious reason whatsoever. > > > Yes, they do *usually* recover after a cold boot (hitting the power switch), but > > > in my own aircraft I will continue to rely upon more traditional > > > instrumentation. I use a Trimble handheld GPS as my primary navigation source > > > and a cheap Garmin as my backup. > > > > > > However, my REAL source of navigation are my sectionals! > > > Ed Newbold > > > Columbus, OH > > > > Ed, > > I agree that Win95 based products are not robust. However the hardware that > > runs Win95/Win3.1 is robust and cheap. The trick would be to develop a robust > > self correcting system based on this cheap hardware and software. Developing > > a robust OS in itself is too costly. Much research has been done on fault tolerant > > computing, and I think using this technology, a robust system based on cheap > > Win95 based PC's could be made to work. However, my panel has all the regular > > stuff in it today. > > Why not use Windows NT as the environment. It is supposed to be vastly more stable than Win95. I suppose that the commercially available software won't run on NT, though. Not too many LANs in airplanes, yet (other than military and Airforce One. . . > . . . > -- > David Turley > http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/5774/ > (for Dave Raun's Horizon Pics) > http://www2.tscnet.com/pages/daturley/ > (for pics of my Horizon and Subaru EA-81 installation) > mailto:daturley@tscnet.com Windows NT 3.51 is more robust than 3.11 or 95, but I've managed to crash it at work without too much effort. Of course, I routinely work with video files that average 65 MB, so that does put a strain on a system. I have no experience with NT 4.0. There is another option, especially if the software is Win 3.11 compatible: OS/2. It's more crash resistant than 3.11 or 95 and has lower cost and resource requirements than NT. Getting good drivers for OS/2 (which used to stand for "half an operating system") can be difficult. As for the Mac (called by some a "computer with training wheels"), it's a good machine. However, don't let anyone tell you that a Mac doesn't crash. It can. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 May 1997 21:14:41 -0500 From: Paul Eberhardt Subject: Re: KR: fuel and CG Larry Jacks wrote: > This is a good point. In a recent Kitplanes article about safety, it was > pointed out that the leading edge is not a safe place to put fuel because > of its vulnerability to punctures. A tank with dimensions as described > above mounted immediately aft of the spar will be safer. That was a good article. I remember 2 other suggestions it made: 1) isolate the tank from landing gear, so it doesn't rip a hole on a botched landing. 2) Use aluminum fuel line to enter the fuse, and position it in the shape of a "U" with the bottom of teh U towards the trailing edge of the wing root. The reasoning here is that if the wings get ripped off, the aluminum line will fold back and pinch shut before breaking. A straight-in fuel line will just pull apart and leak fuel much faster. Paul Eberhardt ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 May 1997 22:33:50 -0700 From: Owen Davies Subject: Re: KR: fuel and CG Among other things, herein deleted, Larry Jacks wrote: > Be sure to include baffles or foam inside of your tank to prevent > sloshing. If you use the same foam that NASCAR racers use (I forget the > name, but it's good stuff and doesn't cost very much either), you'll also > reduce any explosion hazard in the event of a crash. The foam will cost you > a few percent of your tank capacity. X-plo-Safe, though I'm not sure that is how they spell it. This stuff really interested me until an engineer friend and former hobbyist-level auto racer told me that it's fairly expensive and tends to pack down over time, so that the fuel tank must be cut open and the packing replaced every few years. No doubt if I ever find myself with flaming gasoline all over my lap, I'll think it would have been worth the effort. However, his report pretty well turned me off on it. Might be justified for the header tank, though, if you knew how long the stuff is good for and had arranged for convenient access. Ditto the under- seat aux tank someone mentioned. (Or was that one of the other lists?) Owen Davies ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 May 1997 21:28:34 -0500 From: inet@intellisys.net (brian whatcott) Subject: Re: KR: fuel and CG was(Current Plans?) At 03:57 PM 5/18/97 -0400, krnet-l@teleport.com wrote: >Ron Lee wrote: >> >> At 13:16 97/5/18 -0500, you wrote: >> >Oh Yeah, >> >Another good reason to have fuel in the wings is that it takes that much >> >weight off the spars. The weight of the fuel is supported directly from >> >the wing skins, rather than adding to the load carried by the spars. >> > >> >Paul Eberhardt - "living dangerously" >> > >> >> Is the normal wing skin sufficiently strong to carry that weight and don't >> the wing loads get transferred to the spars? >> >> Ron > > I think I'll try and butcher this one again. Start with the wing. It >provides the lift and carries the rest of the plane.(I'm not taking into >consideration the lift provided by the stubs and fuselage, etc.) Wings >pull up, pulling up on attach brackets, pulling up on stubs, pulling up >on plane, pulling up on your butt. With the fuel in >"outboard(detachable part of the)wings" the load is DIRECTLY carried by >the wings, vs. wings to fittings to stubs to etc. etc. >... >-- >Vince Bozik I really enjoyed this interchange. - The reason why C310's had tanks perched prettily on the very ends of the wings. The fuselage weight pulling down, the wings bending up in response, then where the bend up would be worst at the tips, a nice heavy tank, to bend that sucker back down towards straightness again. Couple of facets nobody mentioned (nothing like adding a little more confusion factor...) 1)Aeroelasticity. A weight on the end of a springy stick is good for making a 'twang' or a vibration at least. So let's hope the person who puts tanks outboard thinks of what happens when the wing hits a gust. The desired effect is for the wing to twist the right way to SHED air load. (That's why swept-forward wings are kinda rare; they have this bad habit of breaking off in gusts.. and why engine pods like on B707 are strung out forward....) 2) Wing lift on fuel tanks, as you well know, is not just a push from below - - its a pull from the top surface too - so you still have to make sure the skin can transfer the required local lift to support the tank from below AND above. Regards brian whatcott Altus OK ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 May 1997 22:42:57 -0400 (EDT) From: Dennis Ambrose Subject: KR: Retracts removal Hi: I'm about to undetake the task of removing the retracts on my newly aquired KR2. I know that some of you guys have done this, and I was wondering if someone with this experience would e-mail me directly so we could discuss the details!! I would appreciate learning from your experience. Thankyou in advance, guys! Regards Dennis ;-D e-mail: dambrose@ican.net ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 May 1997 22:42:59 -0400 (EDT) From: Dennis Ambrose Subject: KR: Propellor selection Hi: Has there been any consensus as to what propellor is best for the KR2.I know the Ed Sterba prop has had a fairly faithful following but I was wondering if anyone has a new and positive experience with any of the newer props. ie. Warp drive, Ivoprop or others? My particular combo. is a KR2 plans built, 1834 c.c. greatplanes motor and weighing in at about 600 lbs. empty. It had a Props Inc. 52 x 46 on it and reported moderate performance at best (1820' in 3 min. on climb report, 15 deg.C temp. @ 200' ASL) at 900 lbs. gross. What do you guys think of these numbers and what prop would you recomend? Thanks for the input. Regards Dennis. ;-D ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 May 1997 22:54:51 -0400 From: Vince Bozik Subject: Re: KR: My GPS Wishlist (no archive) > As for the Mac (called by some a "computer with training wheels"), it's a > good machine. However, don't let anyone tell you that a Mac doesn't crash. > It can. Yea, I've done it! Well, I've locked them up plenty of times. They just had to be restarted, but what a pain! Anyone know anything about Windows CE.(I think that's right) I believe it's the OS that is used in the palm tops. I don't think that it could be used for our discussion topic though. It would be nice to find a rock-solid OS. - -- Vince Bozik - Athens, Georgia Mailto:ICBM@ix.netcom.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 May 1997 00:21:54 -0700 From: "David M. Gargasz" Subject: Re: KR: fuel and CG ginnwj wrote: > > Micheal Mims wrote: > > > > At 12:20 PM 5/18/97 -0500, you wrote: > > >Right - > > >People seem to be forgetting that 10 lbs of fuel 3" from the cg has the > > >same effect as 1 lb of fuel 30" away. The closer you can get the > > >varying weight of the fuel to the cg, the better off you will be. > > > > > >Paul Eberhardt > > > > THANK YOU! :-) > > > > _______________________ > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Micheal Mims > > Just Plane Nutts > > mailto:mimsmand@ix.netcom.com > > > > http://www.netcom.com/~mimsmand > > The effect of fuel on the CofG will of course vary with the total weight > of the aircraft. A very light aircraft will be more affected by a > given fuel moment than a heavy aircraft. It pays to work out the > effect for the worst case configuration you are expecting. .02 worth, the addition of a 1/4 " washer to the enjine mounts of a 165 lb. wv should about put balance of the fuel within the cg limits, with no noticeable handling in all possible flight conditions, some ultralites carry lead for that purpose, I will use washers. gene % ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 May 1997 00:22:09 EDT From: jscott.pilot@juno.com (Jeffrey E. Scott) Subject: Re: KR: CofG >Thanks for the advice Jeffrey. I enjoyed your photos as well. > >I would be very interested to know: > >1. Where will your loaded CofG be (two people say 170 lbs each, >no >header tank fuel and full wing tank fuel)? > This configuration puts my CG at 4.16 inches aft of the front of the prescribed CG range. This would be about a worst case configuration and is still only at about the midpoint of the CG range. >2. What the load will be on your nosewheel with full header tank of >fuel, empty wing tanks and no passengers/freight/missiles etc. None, I have a tailwheel. :o) > >3. Which datum are you referring to, the LE of the inboard wing >or another? Actually for the purposes of communication with the net, I'm only refering to the CG range rather than my datum point as not everyone uses the same datum point. > >4. How heavy your engine + propellor + fittings will be and how >long you >intend to make your engine mount. Geeze, I don't remember anymore, but my C-85 with the antique accessories is about 225#. I chose to use the Rand Robinson O-200 engine mount for numerous reasons, but one was that it is 2 3/4" longer than the HAPI VW mount that many are using to mount their Continentals to KRs. It also isn't cheap, but I'm glad I bought it. I did a weight and balace data sheet before I mounted power supplies, battery, ELT, etc, so I could plan to balance out the plane better. > >Thanks Pictures of the plane all together with the engine running are on John Bryhan's web page "http://www.laintra.com/jeb/krpage.htm". It should be flying within the next month if all goes well. - ---- Jeffrey Scott jscott.pilot@juno.com See construction of KR-2S N1213W at http://fly.hiwaay.net/~langford/kjeffs.html - ---- ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 May 1997 22:54:28 -0600 (MDT) From: Ron Lee Subject: KR: Cable differences (no archive) I am trying to determine if I got the right cable for my plane. How do you tell the difference between galvanized and stainless steel cable? I know that you use copper sleeves on galvanized but it is required to use a specific thimble (cadmium plated steel or stainless steel) on the different types of cable? Ron Lee ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 May 1997 01:51:50 -0400 (EDT) From: MikeTnyc@aol.com Subject: Re: KR: fuel, CG and G's >I think I'll try and butcher this one again. Start with the wing. It >provides the lift and carries the rest of the plane.(I'm not taking into >consideration the lift provided by the stubs and fuselage, etc.) Wings >pull up, pulling up on attach brackets, pulling up on stubs, pulling up >on plane, pulling up on your butt. With the fuel in >"outboard(detachable part of the)wings" the load is DIRECTLY carried by >the wings, vs. wings to fittings to stubs to etc. etc. > >This just takes load off your spars, fittings, etc., cutting out the >middlemen, and sticking it directly to the wings. Well, I'd think it >would, but then again I'm not all that bright either! Now I'm wondering about something else -- does a design like this where you have as much weight as possible carried directly by the wings (rather than through the fittings, etc.) increase the number of G's the plane can pull or decrease it? Mike Taglieri ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 May 1997 01:51:53 -0400 (EDT) From: MikeTnyc@aol.com Subject: Re: KR: Diehl gear geometry >>> 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... >>> >>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! >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. The question in my mind is where do the wheels wind up in relation to the CG, or does the Diehl gear automatically put them in the right place if your CG is within specs? Mike Taglieri ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 May 1997 02:06:44 -0400 (EDT) From: MikeTnyc@aol.com Subject: Re: KR: Cable differences (no archive) >I am trying to determine if I got the right cable for my plane. >How do you tell the difference between galvanized and stainless >steel cable? I know that you use copper sleeves on galvanized >but it is required to use a specific thimble (cadmium plated steel >or stainless steel) on the different types of cable? SS is very different looking from galvanized, with a bluish appearance. I guess I just know 'em when I see 'em. Also SOME kinds of SS are not attracted by a magnet. If all else fails, galvanized steel has a coating of zinc on it which you can scrape off easily because it's pretty soft. Then, you could wet the area with salt water and see if it rusts. Mike Taglieri ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 May 1997 10:38:53 -0700 From: Donald Reid Subject: Re: KR: BRS for KR-2S? EagleGator@aol.com wrote: > > I'm looking at some of the stability tests (there's that $*%# word again) I'm > writing into our test plan, and can only safely go so far without a spin > chute or ballistic recovery system. Has anyone looked into using a BRS in > their airplane? The weight (I believe about 65 pounds?) may be prohibitive, > but there are some flight test regimes I'm not willing to enter without one. > Thanks for your help. > > Cheers! > Rick Junkin > EagleGator@aol.com The BSR-1050 (1050 lbs rating) is listed as 24 lbs overall, max deployment speed of 155mph, $2695 THe BSR-1200 is listed as 28lbs overall, with a max deployment speed of 145mph, $2995 Prices as of 3/2/97 I am considering installation of a BSR-1200. If anyone is interested, Email direct. - -- Don Reid donreid@erols.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 May 1997 10:56:09 -0700 From: Donald Reid Subject: KR: Wing Design There has been a long thread recently conserning wing tanks, wing skin air loading, spar loading, and related topics. I am an engineer and have studied aircraft design for a long time and it is difficult to respond to all of the questions and comments. Some are correct and some are partly correct, and some are opinions that aren't based on any physical reality. I don't want to try and preach to anyone, but if you don't know what you are doing in making a change to the design, then DON'T DO IT. A KR will work just fine as is. I am making a lot of changes, but I have studied the required engineering for years (and I still worry that I screwed something up). For anyone that is interested, get a book called "Modern Aircraft Design" by Martin Hollmann. Don't bother with Volume II, it isn't worth the price. This is not the best reference material, but it does cover a large variety of A/C design and should answer an lot of questions. (I have no financal interest in the book or publisher). For purchase info, check the reference section in the AS&S or Wicks catalogs. - -- Don Reid donreid@erols.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 May 1997 06:18:20 -0700 From: "John Bouyea" Subject: Re: KR: Re: My GPS Wishlist The PC can be unruly even in a Skyhawk, particularly in if you have a passenger. The primary problems revolve around display quality, "just temporary wiring", and finding a method to secure it safely. My chin still remembers the moment over the Rockies where we hit -1.5g in an RV4 with an IDM Thinkpad resting in my lap. One the other side of the coin, it is absolutely without comparison when you compare GPS positioning accuracy driving a 4 - 12 meg database displayed on a 8" + colour screen. On the same trip home from Oshkosh, an exhaust flange loosened in flight. I found the nearest airport within 3 seconds, followed instantly by all the specs on the facility, CTAF frequency and phone numbers. That data may not be included in other implementations of airborne GPS receivers. I used to advise my customers to evaluate their laptop displays by taking a walk outside with them; turn in all directions relative to the sun, and operate the mouse pointing device while walking about. This gives you an idea of operating a computer while flying solo above a cloud deck (and keeping a high performance aircraft straight & level @ 165 mph!) Ross, verify your GPS can indeed track in excess of 99 mph and supports NMEA 0183 output specs. If both of these are ok, you have a device capable of outputting LAT, LON, GS, and heading. Any good moving map software should be able to take it from there... bou KR2S - Almost ready to glue the first fuse side together... John/Johnna Bouyea johnbouyea@worldnet.att.net - ---------- > From: Ross Youngblood > To: krnet-l@teleport.com > Subject: Re: KR: Re: My GPS Wishlist > Date: Sunday, May 18, 1997 5:23 PM > > Mike, > I don't know if the tripmate will go faster than 99Mph. I > saw that the Garmin will do 999Mph. I just figured for $125 plus > goodies, it was worth it to try and see how gangly the PC would > be for use in the cockpit. I'd rather find this out for $179, then > blow $474 and decide I would rather have a handheld unit. > > I will take it on some rides in a Cessna 152 after I get it and > see how it does. > > -- Ross > > Micheal Mims wrote: > > > > At 10:38 PM 5/16/97 -0700, you wrote: > > >John, > > > Too late... I blew $179 for the Tripmate GPS with Software. It > > >uses standard GPS serial codes, so I'm thinking I can hack a driver > > >to make it happy with other software. > > > > > > What did MentorPlus build? I havent a clue. > > > > Ross will the trip mate track over 99 mph? Most of the cheeper units will > > only track about 99 mph and thats it! > > > > _______________________ > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Micheal Mims > > Just Plane Nutts > > mailto:mimsmand@ix.netcom.com > > > > http://www.netcom.com/~mimsmand > > -- > Ross Youngblood > KRNET-L administrator > mailto:rossy@teleport.com > http://www.teleport.com/~rossy/N541RY.htm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 May 1997 07:00:40 -0600 From: cartera@cuug.ab.ca Subject: Re: KR: pitch sens. fix >Adrian, for the benefit of the latecommers, what was your solution to your >pitch sensitivity concerns and what were the results? > >SORRY if this is a dead horse, but I'm curious, since you have got (some??) >time on the KR. I appreciate your comments. > > Regards Dennis. ;-D > > Hi Dennis, Go into my homepage and follow the construction pages, you will find a plan of my control configuration. I did not like the elevator cables coming directly to the control column. The short coupling of these cables make for small movements of the control column and large movements of the elevator. Although it lends itself to simplicity, but something had to be done to desensitize these movements. With some research I came up with this configuration. I do think that it can be further refined. And of course the futher aft the CG moves the more unstable it becomes. Good Luck! Regards, Adrian VE6AFY cartera@cuug.ab.ca http://www.cuug.ab.ca:8001/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 May 1997 08:25:59 -0700 From: Micheal Mims Subject: Re: KR: BRS for KR-2S? At 10:38 AM 5/18/97 -0700, you wrote: >EagleGator@aol.com wrote: >> >> I'm looking at some of the stability tests (there's that $*%# word again) I'm writing into our test plan, and can only safely go so far without a spin chute or ballistic recovery system. Has anyone looked into using a BRS in their airplane? You could do what real test pilots do (eat nails and drink battery acid), NASA uses a drag chute system that is deployed in case you find yourself in a non recoverable spin situation. During the spin (or whatever else you've gotten yourself into) you deploy a small chute that is connected to the aft of the aircraft (tailwheel spring?) this will cause a little drag and get you pointed back down hill (stop the spin) then you release the chute and recover from the dive. If this fails, you pull the yellow and black striped handle that says "jettison canopy" and get out! _______________________ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Micheal Mims Just Plane Nutts mailto:mimsmand@ix.netcom.com http://www.netcom.com/~mimsmand ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 May 1997 11:37:58 -0700 From: Ross Youngblood Subject: Re: KR: Re: My GPS Wishlist John Bouyea wrote: > > Ross, verify your GPS can indeed track in excess of 99 mph and supports > NMEA 0183 output specs. If both of these are ok, you have a device capable > of outputting LAT, LON, GS, and heading. Any good moving map software > should be able to take it from there... > > bou > KR2S - Almost ready to glue the first fuse side together... > John/Johnna Bouyea > johnbouyea@worldnet.att.net John, I have verified that what I am buying is outputing to NMEA-0183 specs, but I'm not sure about the 99mph limit, I will have to wait and see. I decided to spend the $125, to evaluate what it would be like having the laptop bouncing around in the cockpit with the temporary wiring, before I spent the $474 and discovered I should have bought a handheld unit for $895. $125 is a pretty good bet I think. Worst case, I can give it to my wife to use driving around town, as it has moving map stuff. -- Regards Ross - -- Ross Youngblood KRNET-L administrator mailto:rossy@teleport.com http://www.teleport.com/~rossy/N541RY.htm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 May 1997 12:01:42 -0700 From: Micheal Mims Subject: Re: KR: Re: My GPS Wishlist At 11:37 AM 5/19/97 -0700, you wrote: >John, > I have verified that what I am buying is outputing to NMEA-0183 specs, but >I'm not sure about the 99mph limit, I will have to wait and see. I decided >to spend the $125, to evaluate what it would be like having the laptop bouncing >around in the cockpit with the temporary wiring, before I spent the $474 and >discovered I should have bought a handheld unit for $895. $125 is a pretty >good bet I think. Worst case, I can give it to my wife to use driving around >town, as it has moving map stuff. I have an Apple Newton 120 that I won at Comdex two years ago, pretty much a useless item in my book but I found moving map software and a GPS receiver for less than the aviation hand held units. I will let yall know if I take the plunge and how satisfied I am with the results. ________________________________ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Micheal Mims Just Plane Nutts mailto:mimsmand@ix.netcom.com http://www.netcom.com/~mimsmand ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 May 1997 18:43:13 -0400 From: Carlos Sa Subject: KR: KRnet archive Good evening, folks! The archive files and links have been updated. All those URLs to GPS information has been added, along with all other URLs of interest that were posted during the past three weeks. In that period, we had a total of 465 postings. Actually, more than that: "me too" and other irrelevant stuff is not archived. Many postings with the "no archive" label were archived because they DID contain good info... ========================================================= Info for the newcomers (this part will be repeated with every update): What am I talking about? The KRnet archives. At least, that is how it started. All the KRnet postings (with a some of pertinent content) are archived and made available to anyone equiped with a web browser. The concept has evolved, and now different kinds of info are available. See below. http://www.axess.com/users/wings/ (my personal homepage) http://www.axess.com/users/wings/krindex.htm (gateway to all things KR. From this page you can reach all other pages in the site) The other pages are: Links - URLs of several sites of interest (KR drivers, builders, avionics, engines, parts, info, etc, etc) KR map - a map of N. America allows you to find out where you KR neighbours are (frames support required) KR drivers (in and out of N. America) same info as above, but with no frames. KR archives - KR net postings, in chronological order. Since Jan/96. KR archives, organized - same as above, but organized in several files according to the contents. KR Online links - pointers to all formats of KR Online available: Word, Acrobat, HTML,... ============================================================== Cheers Carlos ------------------------------ End of krnet-l-digest V1 #19 ****************************