From: owner-krnet-l-digest@lists.teleport.com (krnet-l-digest) To: krnet-l-digest@lists.teleport.com Subject: krnet-l-digest V1 #28 Reply-To: krnet-l-digest Sender: owner-krnet-l-digest@lists.teleport.com Errors-To: owner-krnet-l-digest@lists.teleport.com Precedence: bulk krnet-l-digest Monday, June 2 1997 Volume 01 : Number 028 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 01 Jun 97 18:29:26 -0600 From: inet@intellisys.net (brian whatcott) Subject: KR: Thermometer + Permanent Marker Browsing Trade-A-Plane, I ran across a full page ad. It seemed so sensible, I wanted homebuilders to know. It was headed, " How a Thermometer And A Permanent Marker Can Keep Your Engine Running Longer". Nobody will argue with THAT idea! Put your oil temp sender and a decent thermometer in a steel can and heat it slowly. Mark the pointer position in pencil as the thermometer reads 180 degF on the way up and again as it cools. Repeat this two or three times. Then mark the gauge with the average position for 180degF in permanent marker. Justification: the oil hot spot is about 50 deg higher than sump temp in a normally aspirated engine, and 70 degF in a turbo. Cruise below 180 indicated and the moisture doesn't blow off; cruise above this and you get increased deposits and increased wear ( it says here). Makes sense to me. From Aeroshell. No relation. Bet ya sweet BP. Regards brian whatcott Altus OK ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 16:41:36 -0800 From: "Parley T. Byington" Subject: Re: KR: Insufficient Gravity Fuel Flow Ron I was having inconsistant turbo charger problems ie. sometimes I could get up to 40 inches of manifold preasure and other times it would only go up to about 31 inches. A friend and A/P mechanic who owns a varieze N86KM, discussed the problem and decided that due to the many bends in the intake air duct that maybe this was part of the problem. I decided to do a quick and dirty mod the the intake to see if the ducting was affecting the turbo/manifold preasure. I installed a sweeping 90 degree 2 inch section of mufler pipe out the bottom of my cowling and directly into the carb. The fuel starvation occurred on the first flight after making this mod. After declaring a precautionary emergency at Bolder City Airport we took everything apart and drained all the fuel. We didn't find anything which could have caused the engine failure. While talking over the problem with several fellow flyers I got thinking that this was the first time the engine had put out the amount of power I was experiencing. I also thought that the engine quit about 20 seconds after turning off the boost pump. This evidence pointed to the fact that for some reason my gravity flow system couldn't supply the fuel fast enough at full throttle to keep the carb bowl full. I decided to put everything back together and try my theory. After climbing to a safe altitude over the Eldorado Dry lake I tried the following: 1. Climbed to 5000' over a good landing spot. 2. Flew around at full throttle for at least 5 minutes with boost pump on, no problems noted. 3. Flew the same circuit after shutting the boost pump off, engine quit again 20 seconds after switching off the boost pump. 4. Conclusion was the 1/4 inch fuel lines were not big big enough, Changed to 3/8 ID fuel lines. Note that my fuel set up consists of two fuel fed lines each with a separate fuel filter feeding the gascolator. The gravity line has a one way check valve to prevent the pump from pumping the fuel in circles. The gravity line bypasses the pump in case of pump failure. Hope this is a better explanation of the situation, let me know if more info on the subject would be helpful. Regards Parley Byington On 31 May 97 at 7:40, Ron Lee wrote: > At 22:50 97/5/30 -0800, you wrote: > >Marty > > > >I have a 1835 VW KR-2 with a turbo charger. While experimenting with > >the intake system I starved the engine of fuel (due to shutting off the > >electric fuel pump and discovering the gravity flow at full power > >wasn't sufficient). The engine continued to windmill and started up > >as soon as I switched the fuel pump back on. At the time the engine > >quit I was passing through 155 mph and the speed was still increasing. > >I estimate the engine restarted with in 5 seconds of quiting, almost > >before I could get really concerned. Hope this is of some interest. > > > >Parley Byington > > > > Could you elaborate on the fuel starvation problem. I am not sure that > fuel pumps are standard on KRs so I am curious about this occurence. > > Ron Lee > > > ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 01 Jun 1997 17:22:07 -0700 From: Micheal Mims Subject: Re: KR: Insufficient Gravity Fuel Flow At 04:41 PM 6/1/97 -0800, you wrote: >Ron > >I was having inconsistant turbo charger problems ie. sometimes I could >get up to 40 inches of manifold preasure and other times it would only >go up to about 31 inches. A friend and A/P mechanic who owns a varieze............. We used to have this problem with the motorcycles that we installed turbo kits on. When on the boost, the turbo would suck the float bowl dry! We tried larger diameter lines and larger needle and seat assemblies but ended up with a system that incorporated a facet type fuel pump and regulator. The pump was turned on by a hobbs switch that was set to 5 psi. _______________________ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Micheal Mims Just Plane Nutts mailto:mimsmand@ix.netcom.com http://www.netcom.com/~mimsmand ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 18:56:10 -0600 (MDT) From: Ron Lee Subject: Re: KR: NACA Inlet (no archive) Vince, Is that particular side view supposed to be a ventilation inlet? If So, would it make sense to change the square portion just above the vent tube to something that ramps towards the inlet? It seems that the square area may increase turbulence and affect airflow. This is just a bubba thought and may be wrong. As far as putting up with you, if you are one of those Bulldog type students, what we feel is actually PITY! Ron Lee Georgia Tech graduate > > I guess I may be able to contribute something in this area. Check out >the following Address: > >http://pw1.netcom.com/~icbm/NacaCoolingDuct.htm > > There's also a link where I obtained the information from. I'm fairly >positive that It's correct(the cooling duct), and maybe some of you >Aero-Engineers could verify that it is. Some of you "legal oriented >individuals" may want to notify me if I'm breaking any laws here too. >If any of you happen to wander to the rest of the pages, please don't >send me any messages with laughter involved;). (Note the "E-Mail" >animation that I swiped from Mims Man!) > > ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 01 Jun 1997 20:16:08 From: brian whatcott Subject: Re: KR: Elevator Hinge Pins At 12:14 6/1/97 -0400, Jim H wrote: >In a message dated 97-06-01 00:10:32 EDT, Bobby M wrote: > ><< If you closely at the 152, you should find that the bolt is not able to >rotate. Therefore a locknut can be used. > > Bobby Muse >> > > I guess I don't understand how a bolt and locknut assembly that is >tightened up enough so that there are several threads showing but not tight >enough to keep the assembly from turning (so that it can "float" in the hinge >assembly like a pin) is going to be able to turn or back off a locking nut >that needs 20 or 30 inch pounds of torque to put on in the first place. > Could someone please enlighten me? > >Jim Hayward > A whole chorus of people wanted to say that where a part supported by a bolt head can rotate independently of a part retained by a nut, the nut can come off, despite considerable resistance. Jim asks reasonably, why should this be? I suppose I should answer, 'It don't matter a dmn if NOBODY here knows why, they DO know it has cost a few lives.' ...but what kind of answer is that? So, let's try one unlikely scenario. The plane flew thru rain, then thru freezing air. The bolt froze to one hinge, and the nut froze to the other hinge. You apply whatever force is necessary to retain control, and the nut backs out 1/10 turn. Repeat this process until the nut is not gripped in the friction insert.... Or consider hidden rust, or.... Regards brian whatcott Altus OK ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 21:22:23 -0400 (EDT) From: KR2616TJ@aol.com Subject: KR: New KR2 Web Page address!!! I posted the wrong address this morning for my KR2 web page. I guess I didn't have enough coffee this morning prior to typing. If you try these address I'll bet you can see pictures. http://members.iclub.org/~aquaria/kr2/kr2.html I haven't yet put in any wording or page links so to get to my other pages insert the following in place of the second kr2 in the address construction, gathering, flying and other. My plane finally looks like an airplane, and making airplane noises is a whole lot more fun now. Have fun looking. Dana Overall KR2 616TJ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 20:41:16 CDT From: "Rex Ellington" Subject: KR: KR newsletter G'Day I have been wondering about the newsletter. I sent a short item on a quick way to calculate the extension of the verticals on the trapezoidal fuselage sections that would keep the top longerons in a horizontal plane. This would put it in the individual builder's hands and not dependent on a paid service. Nothing seems to have happened. I do want to see it continue. We have petitioned the sponsor on one of our contracts for a laptop. If this comes through, I would be glad to take on an issue even if I had to send somebody a disk to send it out for downloading. Let me know. Rex Ellington Rex T. Ellington ellingto@gslan.offsys.uoknor.edu ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 19:19:49 -0700 From: R Covington Subject: KR: Re:Wood Props and Wing Tanks >In a message dated 97-05-31 18:43:03 EDT, you write: > ><< Maybe one of you could explain to me how ANYONE could fly a KR2 with > 2 adult males and stay legal? Most planes are comming in at closer to > 600lbs. and with 400lbs. of people and 100lbs. of fuel we weigh in at > 1100lbs. or 200lbs. over. Is the 900lbs. just an arbitrary number or is the > max. gross limited by something other than the structure of the plane? The > KR2 has LOTS of wing area for a plane in this weight class, so is it power > or what? > >> > > I talked to a KR2 driver at Oshkosk in '93 who (he said) routinely flew >his at >1200lbs gross. He'd had his for several years and used it for his business >trips around Oregon/California. I was thinking if the KR's were stressed for >+/- 6G's >then why couldn't I license it for 1200 and de-rate the G's to 4 1/2 or even >4 which >puts it in a catagory similar to the Cessna's I've flown. I think I have heard from Jeannette that for every hundred pounds you are over (or even less), subtract a G from the +-7 G <480 pound> original's rating. Robert Covington ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 01 Jun 1997 22:27:38 EDT From: jscott.pilot@juno.com (Jeffrey E. Scott) Subject: Re: KR: Wing Tanks & Fuel Octane Availability On Sun, 01 Jun 1997 09:50:53 -0700 Micheal Mims writes: >At 11:33 AM 6/1/97 -0400, you wrote: > I get the impression 'oxygenated' is not good for airplane gas. What >does that condition do to/for us? Seems like I read somewhere that it was >for lower emissions but other than that, I don't know. >> >>Jim Hayward > > >I have heard nasty rumors about it attacking certain epoxies, rubbers, >gasket material and other commonly used materials in homebuilt construction. > >_______________________ >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >Micheal Mims >Just Plane Nutts Worse yet is that oxygenated fuels are more prone to vapor lock. A truly fun experience while on climbout. The newer cars don't suffer from vapor lock problems due to the recirculating fuel systems, but there is enough heat in many aircraft engine compartments to heat saturate the fuel and cause a vapor lock. - ---- Jeffrey Scott jscott.pilot@juno.com See construction of KR-2S N1213W at http://fly.hiwaay.net/~langford/kjeffs.html - ---- ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 01 Jun 1997 22:58:33 -0400 From: Patrick Flowers Subject: Re: KR: GPS Units (was radio) (NO archive) Hang on there David, you didn't quite follow my logic. Any GPS intended to be mounted in an aircraft panel must be certified for that use. Thus the higher price. I don't think anyone makes a panel mount GPS just for use in homebuilts. The ones that are IFR approach certified cost even more. Patrick David Turley wrote: > > You can put anything you want in the panel of a homebuilt. Whether the > FAA would allow you to file and fly IFR in IMC without a certified > avionics installation might depend on your local GADO. (Does your > Nav/Comm need to be TSO'd and such). For VFR ops, you can put a > microwave oven in the panel and the FAA will look suprised, but they > won't likely stop you! > > > > > Speaking of GPS's, why are the panel mount ones so dang much more > > > >expensive than the handhelds? I'd think it would be just the opposite what > > > >with trying to compact all that stuff. > > > > > > > I agree Jim. Does not make sense to me either. Guess people need to make > > > allowances for one or two handheld units (comm and GPS) when they design > > > the panel and make allowance for cigarette plug ins. > > > > > > Ron Lee > > > > I'll take a wild guess at this one. Anything that you stick in the > > panel must be certified for use in aircraft. Handheld goodies don't > > have to. Probably is the same internally, but the associated federale' > > costs aren't there. > > > > Just a guess, > > Patrick - -- Patrick Flowers Mailto:patri63@ibm.net ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 01 Jun 1997 23:08:02 -0400 From: Vince Bozik Subject: Re: KR: NACA Inlet (no lo archivo, por favor!) Ron Lee wrote: > > Vince, > > Is that particular side view supposed to be a ventilation inlet? Ehhhh, Yep! > If So, > would it make sense to change the square portion just above the vent tube > to something that ramps towards the inlet? It seems that the square area > may increase turbulence and affect airflow. This is just a bubba thought > and may be wrong. > > As far as putting up with you, if you are one of those Bulldog type > students, what we feel is actually PITY! > > Ron Lee > Georgia Tech graduate Ramblin Wreck EH! Actually, I'm considering Tech, and NO I'm no dawg fan, or any athletic sport for that matter... Believe it or not, the basis for all of this was the submerged inlet from a Glasair Manual. Hence its "Stoddard" counterpart. The drawing is nearly identical! Yea, I probably broke a law or two somewhere. I did this drawing a few months ago; and yes, the thought of changing it did cross my mind maybe a curved ramp is in order, as to s m o o t h out the tranfer of airflow. I should also provide a cross-section. O.K. Ron, you convinced me... I guess my drawings are about like my spanish - struggling! Any more suggestions are welcome! I can take a beating, as long as I'm not being affiliated with "The Dawgs," or the Yellow Jackets where that's concerned - RON!;). I've too much to worry about in my life to be painted red(or yellow) and black!Goooo.... Sick'em Woof, Woof, Woof, Woof... Whack, !Arghh!<-(Read as: Whining Fat Dog Noise.) Cheers, Vince - -- Vince Bozik - Athens, Georgia Mailto:ICBM@ix.netcom.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 01 Jun 1997 20:53:16 -0700 From: Micheal Mims Subject: Re: KR: GPS Units (was radio) (NO archive) At 10:58 PM 6/1/97 -0400, you wrote: >Hang on there David, you didn't quite follow my logic. Any GPS intended >to be mounted in an aircraft panel must be certified for that use. Thus >the higher price. I don't think anyone makes a panel mount GPS just for >use in homebuilts. The ones that are IFR approach certified cost even >more. > Yes you are right, The unit we put in the Seneca III that was approved for IFR operations was close to $6,000! _______________________ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Micheal Mims Just Plane Nutts mailto:mimsmand@ix.netcom.com http://www.netcom.com/~mimsmand ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 01 Jun 1997 23:36:56 -0500 From: Paul Eberhardt Subject: Re: KR: VW Revs and Props New Question, Same Topic Is the calculation of prop pitch as simple as dividing cruise speed (in inches / min) by cruise rpm? Seems too easy - but if there is more to it, I'm sure the analytical minds of the krnet will find it! Right now, based on the Wacky Math (engineer talk) I've accumulated here, my hypothetical prop looks like this: First, the assumptions: DD soob with cruise rpm of 3800 180 mph cruise speed (says so right in the catalog) Turboed hp of 65-80 depending on boost From that formula for diameter based on hp, V, and rpm Best Diam = 49.4"@ 65hp, 52.0"@ 80hp This makes a tip speed (yes, including 180 mph component) of ts(49.4")=586.75 mph and ts(52.0")=615 mph Pitch = 190080 in/min / 3800 rpm = 50.0 in/r This all sounds pretty reasonable to me. Any comments? Thanks, Paul Eberhardt ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 23:20:40 -0600 (MDT) From: Ron Lee Subject: KR: KR CG Question I just ran through some CG calculations on Marsh's KR and got some interesting numbers. The empty CG is at 19.3 inches, where the 0.0 datum appears to be the firewall. With one 170 lb pilot and 96 lbs of fuel, the cg is at 23.4". Two folks (340 lbs) and 20 lbs baggage plus 13 lbs fuel yields a cg of 28.6" The allowable CG range is listed as 19.3 to 27.3" although most people would have the aft limit at 25.3". It would appear that carrying two people is out of the question. Am I missing something here or should I plan on moving the engine forward a few inches? Ron Lee ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 02 Jun 97 05:26:31 GMT From: mathewrz@iafrica.com (Rob Matthews) Subject: Fw: Re: KR: Wood Props and Wing Tanks - -- Rob Matthews Have a nice day South Africa email mathewrz@iafrica.com - ----------------------------Forwarded Message-------------------------------- > David and Ross talk about carrying 28 gal and 60 gal of gas. > WOW! puts it lightly. > Consider empty weight of 500lbs, pilot and passenger of 300lbs; this is a > zero fuel weight of 800 lbs. Gross +10% is 990 lbs; this leaves a total of > 190lbs or 32gal for gas. > 32gal @ a fuel consumption of 6gph = a touch over 5hrs in a KR2 > 2 to 3 hrs in a KR2, I think is pushing it or am I missing something here > > Steve in SA > ---------- > From: SMTP1@K1 - Server@Servers[] > To: > Cc: > Subject: Re: KR: Wood Props and Wing Tanks > Date: Friday, May 30, 1997 9:58PM > > David, > I built my wing tanks per plans and got 11.5 gallons in each wing > this coupled with a 5 gal header tank (purposely small) gives me > 28 gal fuel capacity. A lot more than I think I need, havent > done any weight and balance figures yet... that will probably be > in the fall. > > -- Ross > > David Moore wrote: > > > > > > Please correct me if I am wrong, but don't I remember hearing wood > props > > have a habit of shattering at mach speeds, something to do with harmonics? > > And this is why designers went to metal props? > > Maybe this is why, constant speed and military varialable pitch > props, are > > all metal or composite? > > Also, the talk on wing tanks, Ken Rand built the KR with wing tanks > in > > mind. My old plans show and 12 gal. in the header for the stock KR-2, and > > 60 gal. combination wing and header tanks for the Turbo 2100 KR-2 . > Thats > > 24 left and 24 right? WOW! > > These are plans from Feb. 1977 Ser.#6120 Book 59. Now, you want to > talk > > CG? Or the ability of the wing skin to support the weight of 15 gallons? > > Of course these plans show only 12 Gal. in the header tank on the > weight > > and balance sheet, so I guess the builder is still pretty much on his own. > > > > Dave Moore > > > > David Moore > > Hesperia,Calif. 92345 > > Turnkey1@MSCOMM.COM > > -- > Ross Youngblood > KRNET-L administrator > mailto:rossy@teleport.com > http://www.teleport.com/~rossy/N541RY.htm > ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 01 Jun 1997 23:03:40 -0700 From: Micheal Mims Subject: KR: Wood Props and Wing Tanks (no archive) At 05:26 AM 6/2/97 GMT, you wrote: >> David and Ross talk about carrying 28 gal and 60 gal of gas. >> WOW! puts it lightly. Consider empty weight of 500lbs, Whose KR2 only weighs 500 pounds? :-) _______________________ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Micheal Mims Just Plane Nutts mailto:mimsmand@ix.netcom.com http://www.netcom.com/~mimsmand ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 02 Jun 1997 00:07:10 -0700 From: Ross Youngblood Subject: Re: KR: Radios? Transponders Paul Eberhardt wrote: > > I am of the opinion that a handheld radio is sufficient for a kr. I am > also a student pilot and my opinion on this is suspect. > > I-com makes an interesting one with a removable battery pack, ptt input, > headset jacks, VOR display, etc. > > I think one could be mounted to the panel somehow with external power, > ptt, and antenna inputs. This would give you a battery backup and a > handheld to take in other planes. It is also lighter and cheaper than > having both HH and panel mount. > > My only experience at a controlled airport was solo in a rental c-152 > and my radio quit when I landed. > > Any insight from a real pilot? Am I all wet? > > thanks -- Paul EberhardtPaul, I have talked with an Arcoduster pilot who flew for several years with a Sportys pilot shop handheld tranciever. He said that he just recently installed a Terra Com in his plane, and feels foolish over the amount of money he spent to install it. I also flew in a KR like custom plane called the "Firebird" it is a widened stretched KR, of all wood construction, the pilot was using a King KX99 transciever and a panel mounted handheld GPS unit. These seem to be the way to go. In general the avionics installed in most GA aircraft are heavy and probably don't compare to what you can get in a handlheld. Unless of course you've got a new King/Terra/or IIMorrow nav/com/gps unit. The panel mounted units start at $659 for a VALCOM, then $899 or so for the ICOM, might as well go for a Terra at $1100 or so. I'm considering getting a Terra COM and Terra Xponder, I believe unless I'm hosed on the regs, that a Xponder is required since I have an electrical system. Am I correct? - -- Ross Youngblood KRNET-L administrator mailto:rossy@teleport.com http://www.teleport.com/~rossy/N541RY.htm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 02 Jun 1997 00:11:28 -0700 From: Ross Youngblood Subject: Re: KR: Wing Tanks & Fuel Octane Availability Micheal Mims wrote: > > At 05:20 PM 5/31/97 -0700, you wrote: > > Anyone comment on what fuel grades they are running with? > > > > -- Regards > > > >-- > > Brad first thought it would be cool to run on mogas but soon found it is > almost impossible to get at airports in the southwest, not to mention all > of it (mogas) around here is oxygenated! Blahhh.......... Super grade > autofuel is very close to $2.00 a gallon in these parts so there really > isn't a price savings to be had either. I am planning 100ll not matter > which engine I go with. > I'm thinking 100LL is the best idea. I was flying around Memorial Day weekend and a guy on the radio was calling everywhere looking for 80 octane avgas. He settled for 100LL. I set my compression for Auto Fuel, but once I did some flying it appears that 100LL is the fuel of the relm. -- Ross Youngblood KRNET-L administrator mailto:rossy@teleport.com http://www.teleport.com/~rossy/N541RY.htm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 02 Jun 1997 00:17:30 -0700 From: Ross Youngblood Subject: Re: KR: Radios? Paul Eberhardt wrote: > Has anyone done a serious comparison of hh gps's? I hesitate to buy one > quite yet because I think the companies aren't done trying to > out-feature each other yet. I'll probably break down when I get a real > job and start flying a lot. (I get my BSME degree this summer, so soon > I'll be rollin' in it!) > > Paul Eberhardt Paul, So far the NICEST display I've seen is from the Lowarance Airmap GPS which retails for $899 or so. I was looking at them in the outdoors at last years Arlington FLY-IN. Touchy Feely was nice, I haven't flown with any though. Cheap GPS's are out there for less than $200 today. I like the GPS/COM units (panel mount) which update COM frequencies. This is kinda nice, but to use reliabily, you have to buy the periodic updates for $$$. -- Ross - -- Ross Youngblood KRNET-L administrator mailto:rossy@teleport.com http://www.teleport.com/~rossy/N541RY.htm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 02 Jun 1997 00:23:18 -0700 From: Ross Youngblood Subject: Re: KR: Radios? Patrick Flowers wrote: > Buying a GPS is almost as bad as buying a computer. Features and models > seem to change daily. AVweb has a review of several models and a guy > name Gary Craze works for HP has a review of most models on his web > page. I'll see if I can find the URL and post it. > > Patrick > -- > Patrick Flowers Mailto:patri63@ibm.net There is a great GPS URL at http://www.navtechgps.com (I live in Corvallis Oregon, a town where just about Everybody works for HP except me. Even my wife works for HP. Since HP doesn't make GPS recievers I don't know if that is a great recommendation for GPS knowledge, however, if he owns a recumbant bicycle, and powers a bike mounted GPS with pedal powered DC generaters of his own design, that sounds like an HP engineer.) - -- Ross Youngblood KRNET-L administrator mailto:rossy@teleport.com http://www.teleport.com/~rossy/N541RY.htm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 02 Jun 1997 00:24:43 -0700 From: Ross Youngblood Subject: Re: KR: Radios? Paul Eberhardt wrote: > Well, that's two "nay" votes on the VOR. Good enough for me. Thanks > for all the GOOD info. I think I'll get me a hand held com right away. > The biggest problem I'm having with getting my cross country time up > here at my podunk field is finding a plane with both a current annual > and working radios. > > Thanks again -- Paul Eberhardt > I've got you beat, Corvallis (CVO) has two great FBO's with terrific equipment... well one of the C152's had a flakey VOR but that was fixed. My problem is the RAIN. I'm trying to find a sunny day for Check ride prep. -- Ross - -- Ross Youngblood KRNET-L administrator mailto:rossy@teleport.com http://www.teleport.com/~rossy/N541RY.htm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 02 Jun 1997 00:26:00 -0700 From: Ross Youngblood Subject: Re: KR: KROnline resurrection (no archive) Ron Lee wrote: > > >Im the Adobe freak! :-) I have the Distiller and Adobe Exchange for > >creating Adobe files and as always I will make any file into Adobe Acrobat > >for those interested. > > > >_______________________ > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >Micheal Mims > > It seems that Adobe files are mucho smaller than Word. If so, and printing > and reading them is basically the same, I would prefer the Adobe. I have > the FREE viewer which I believe does print. > > Ron Lee I too have the FREE viewer. I was talking about the software to generate the documents. I can (and will) send stuff to Mike. I like to save disk space on the website. -- Ross - -- Ross Youngblood KRNET-L administrator mailto:rossy@teleport.com http://www.teleport.com/~rossy/N541RY.htm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 02 Jun 1997 00:33:11 -0700 From: Ross Youngblood Subject: Re: KR: I am finally a KR owner! (no archive) Bobby Muse wrote: > > At 05:51 PM 5/29/97 -0600, you wrote: > >Just took possesion of Roy Marsh's KR-2S. > > > >Ron Lee > > > > > Ron, > Congradulations. Weclome to the greatest club in the world...... the 'KR Pilots and Owners Association'(KROPA). > > Bobby Muse > bmuse@mindspring.com Shouldn't that be KRPOA ? - -- Ross Youngblood KRNET-L administrator mailto:rossy@teleport.com http://www.teleport.com/~rossy/N541RY.htm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 02 Jun 1997 00:36:07 -0700 From: Ross Youngblood Subject: KR: KR Owners & Pilots Association Ron Lee wrote: > > >Congradulations. Weclome to the greatest club in the world...... the 'KR > Pilots and Owners Association'(KROPA). > > > >Bobby Muse > > Do I owe someone dues now? :) > > Ron Well we have actually discussed that. I would prefer we incorporate as a non-profit, then collect dues to buy out the newsletter rights... or publish a regular newsletter and promote KR flying etc. But I'm too busy as an EAA Chapter President these days to take on any more responsibilities. For now, I think Free membership is working pretty good. Tell someone trys to tell me I can't fly my KR. -- Ross - -- Ross Youngblood KRNET-L administrator mailto:rossy@teleport.com http://www.teleport.com/~rossy/N541RY.htm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 02 Jun 1997 00:37:52 -0700 From: Ross Youngblood Subject: Re: KR: Headsets? Bobby Muse wrote: > I have peltor 7004 and I believe they are great! less than $200 and lightest wieght headset that you can buy in its class. They're perfect for me. Thats the second Peltor Endorsement I've heard today. I will look at them. I'm also looking hard at the Flightcom Blackhawk with the DSP mike. Does DSP stand for (Dummy Special Pricing), or does it really result in clear transmissions? -- Ross - -- Ross Youngblood KRNET-L administrator mailto:rossy@teleport.com http://www.teleport.com/~rossy/N541RY.htm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 02 Jun 1997 00:45:28 -0700 From: Ross Youngblood Subject: Re: KR: KROnline Suggestion Ron Lee wrote: > Is it ethical to use links to other plane web sites. For > example, I am also on the Cozy list, and many of the issues > that affect the KR also affect the Cozy..such as fuel tank > epoxy. > Ron, My take on the internet, is that if you have a free published link it is available for anyone to point to it. Although it would be nice to ask for permission etc. That way you can be told if the link changes. That was the whole point of the html language by the author who worked at the SERNE[sp?] Labs in europe. He thought that people could benefit by pointing at text which would imediately take them to another authors data thereby supporting collabration and an improvement in developing new ideas and technologies etc... (OK I heard him talk on a radio talk show on NPR one night.) -- Ross - -- Ross Youngblood KRNET-L administrator mailto:rossy@teleport.com http://www.teleport.com/~rossy/N541RY.htm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 02 Jun 1997 00:48:50 -0700 From: Ross Youngblood Subject: Re: KR: Headsets? Baleco@aol.com wrote: > I then purchased a pair of Flightcom DX4 or whatever the > unit was called before this current 5 series. As much as I loved my 4 place > Flightcom GSX-2 intercomm, those headsets were lousy with a capital L. The > hardware kept loosening up. We lost a couple peices of the stuff you can't > run down the street to replace and the headbands wouldn't maintain pressure. Marty, I believe I saw several Flightcom headsets at the Arlington Fly-In last year, I want to support them as they are an Oregon based company, but I'm thinking that may have been the reason they were there. Mechanical problems. -- Ross Ross Youngblood KRNET-L administrator mailto:rossy@teleport.com http://www.teleport.com/~rossy/N541RY.htm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 02 Jun 1997 00:59:50 -0700 From: Ross Youngblood Subject: Re: KR: Radios? JEHayward@aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 97-05-31 22:32:13 EDT, you write: > > << Has anyone done a serious comparison of hh gps's? > > Paul Eberhardt >> > > Speaking of GPS's, why are the panel mount ones so dang much more > expensive than the handhelds? I'd think it would be just the opposite what > with trying to compact all that stuff. > > Jim Hayward My guess is that they have to be TSO'd and that costs more. Plus they can charge based on VALUE and not based on COST. The VALUE of a GPS/NAV/COM, is that of all the individual components added together plus a bonus for the reduction in weight. Add another 10% for the CEO's Porsche and I think you can see why they are such a good value. If there were as many GPS/COMS as CD players you can bet they'd come down to under $1000. Say a handheld CB was advertised on QVC last night for $43.00 tell me that CB frequencys are harder to manage than Aircraft band to the tune of $300? No I think it is in the development cost divided by the number of units sold. At $43.00 you can sell more CB's than Aircraft Trancievers. -- Ross -- Ross - -- Ross Youngblood KRNET-L administrator mailto:rossy@teleport.com http://www.teleport.com/~rossy/N541RY.htm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 02 Jun 1997 01:01:37 -0700 From: Ross Youngblood Subject: Re: KR: Elevator Hinge Pins JEHayward@aol.com wrote: > I guess I don't understand how a bolt and locknut assembly that is > tightened up enough so that there are several threads showing but not tight > enough to keep the assembly from turning (so that it can "float" in the hinge > assembly like a pin) is going to be able to turn or back off a locking nut > that needs 20 or 30 inch pounds of torque to put on in the first place. > Could someone please enlighten me? > > Jim Hayward Vi-bra-tion! I think the vibration could tend to loosen it.... or tighten it so that you couldn't use the elevator? Physics are not involved here, it's purely Murphy's law. Anything that can go wrong will go wrong. Buy some drilled bolts and cotter pins, and sleep nights. -- Ross - -- Ross Youngblood KRNET-L administrator mailto:rossy@teleport.com http://www.teleport.com/~rossy/N541RY.htm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 02 Jun 1997 08:15:48 -0700 From: Donald Reid Subject: Re: KR: Elevator Hinge Pins brian whatcott wrote: big snip > > I guess I don't understand how a bolt and locknut assembly that is > >tightened up enough so that there are several threads showing but not tight > >enough to keep the assembly from turning (so that it can "float" in the hinge > >assembly like a pin) is going to be able to turn or back off a locking nut > >that needs 20 or 30 inch pounds of torque to put on in the first place. > > Could someone please enlighten me? > > > >Jim Hayward > > > A whole chorus of people wanted to say that where a part supported > by a bolt head can rotate independently of a part retained by a nut, > the nut can come off, despite considerable resistance. > > Jim asks reasonably, why should this be? > snip > > So, let's try one unlikely scenario. > The plane flew thru rain, then thru freezing air. > The bolt froze to one hinge, and the nut froze to the other hinge. > You apply whatever force is necessary to retain control, and the > nut backs out 1/10 turn. > Repeat this process until the nut is not gripped in the friction > insert.... Or consider hidden rust, or.... > > Regards > brian whatcott > Altus OK This scenario is a good a guess as any other, but the reasons aren't important. Installing a castle nut with cotter pin is cheap, safe, effective, and can save your life. Even though the FAA says you can do almost anything you want on an experimental A/C, they can still refuse to issue the Airworthyness Certficate if they don't like your work. Remember, Murphy says it will go wrong if at all possible. - -- Don Reid donreid@erols.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 02 Jun 1997 07:48:07 -0500 From: ejanssen@chipsnet.com (Janssen Craig) Subject: Re: KR: KR CG Question At 11:20 PM 6/1/97 -0600, you wrote: >I just ran through some CG calculations on Marsh's KR and got >some interesting numbers. > >The empty CG is at 19.3 inches, where the 0.0 datum appears to >be the firewall. > >With one 170 lb pilot and 96 lbs of fuel, the cg is at 23.4". > >Two folks (340 lbs) and 20 lbs baggage plus 13 lbs fuel yields >a cg of 28.6" > >The allowable CG range is listed as 19.3 to 27.3" although most >people would have the aft limit at 25.3". > >It would appear that carrying two people is out of the question. > >Am I missing something here or should I plan on moving the engine >forward a few inches? > >Ron Lee > >As a starter, I would ask Roy. I'm thinking he would have had to do the calc of cg for the inspector to see before he flew it for the first time. He should have passed that information (airplane manual) along with the sale of the airplane. Ed Janssen ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 02 Jun 1997 10:22:08 -0300 From: jsellars@auracom.com Subject: KR: Wheelpants Friends; I recently received my shipment of airframe parts from Rand Robinson. I immediately stuck the turtle deck and front deck on the project with duct tape to see how it looks. I was sitting in the seat fully strapped in, (seatbelts not tape) when it dawned on me that I had no idea how to install the wheel pants that I had received from Rand Robinson. There was no instructions nor any hardware to attach with. Subsequently I have been told that there are special nuts for the axle bolt that allow the wheel pants to be attached. Any advice or info about hopw and where I can get this information would be appreciated. Regards; Jim ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 08:53:45 -0500 (CDT) From: larry flesner Subject: Re: KR: KR CG Question At 11:20 PM 6/1/97 -0600, you wrote: >It would appear that carrying two people is out of the question. > >Am I missing something here or should I plan on moving the engine >forward a few inches? > >Ron Lee > > Ron, Congradulations on your purchase. NICE looking KR !! I have several nice pictures of it. As to the C.G., I wouldn't do anything untill I called Roy and ask him if he has flown it at the rear C.G. configuration you are concerned about and if so, how did it handle. Remember, the C.G. numbers kicked around on the net have,to my understanding, been for an unmodified KR-2. Your KR has the 16 inch stretch, right? I have not seen the KR-2s plans and suspect the C.G. location is much the same but the stretch has to have some effect on handling. Remember, your KR is different then EVERY other KR out there!!! One set of numbers ,while close, is not exactly right for every aircraft. Do your own varification... That's why we have to mark them EXPERMENTIAL !!!!!!!!!!!!!! Some options might be: - -- eliminate baggage with two people (if that is enough of a fix) - -- move battery forward if possible - -- larger battery if small and already far forward - -- consider location and amount of fuel with two people - -- Do your own flight tests and "sneak up" on the rear C.G. and see how the aircraft handles as you approach the limits. Remember, the rear C.G. location is the most dangerous so approach with CAUTION. - -- lead weight forward on engine mount (least desirable fix) - -- combinations of any/all the above Probably more possibilitie that I haven't thought about. Enjoy your new KR !!!!! Larry Flesner larryfle@midwest.net ------------------------------ End of krnet-l-digest V1 #28 ****************************