From: owner-krnet-l-digest@lists.teleport.com (krnet-l-digest) To: krnet-l-digest@lists.teleport.com Subject: krnet-l-digest V1 #39 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 Thursday, June 12 1997 Volume 01 : Number 039 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 06:06:44 -0400 (EDT) From: Baleco@aol.com Subject: Re: KR: Re: prop flange spacer In a message dated 97-06-11 01:53:13 EDT, you write: << I got a response saying that that's a "VW hub" and the SAE1 hub has bigger holes on a bigger pitch circle.... >> That's right, the VW pattern and SAE 1 are NOT the same. I just purchased a true SAE 1 propeller hub and is a bigger pattern. I think they were bigger holes too but I didn't look too closely. Marty ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 03:49:04 -0700 From: R Covington Subject: Re: KR: max firewall HP >Marty asked about max HP that the KR2S is designed for. I believe >Jeannette (proper spelling, I swear) said at the Oshkosh forum last year >that it would handle 100 for sure. Her stress guy said it would handle >more, but didn't elaborate. > >Mark Langford >langford@hiwaay.net >http://fly.hiwaay.net/~langford She told me a while back that it is designed for a max 100 hp or so as you say, but that an 0-235 would be ok too, as an upper limit. Robert Covington ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 08:37:31 -0400 From: Patrick Flowers Subject: Re: KR: N1213W Flies!!! Jeffrey E. Scott wrote: > > Ladies, Gentlemen, and other Netheads, > > This is the other post that it seems that I have been waiting for years > to make. > > > Jeff "it finally flew" Scott Way to go Jeff!!!!!! I am totally green with envy. Congratulations! - -- Patrick Flowers Mailto:patri63@ibm.net ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 06:58:58 -0600 (MDT) From: Ron Lee Subject: Re: KR: N1213W Flies!!! >Jeff "it finally flew" Scott Congrats Jeff. I guess the only smile bigger than the one I had while reading your post was the one you had after you climbed out of your baby. Won't be long before you pop into Meadow Lake to visit! Ron "Not a KR Pilot yet" Lee ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 07:01:13 -0600 (MDT) From: Ron Lee Subject: KR: Re: Non-builder Plane Maintenance (no archive) Actually, I'm not sure most A&P's would WANT to be involved in the >day-to-day maintenance of nontraditional homebuilts, since they can have >engines and construction methods the A&P may never have seen before. > >Mike Taglieri > > I had to ask three A&P types before I found one to do the annual condition inspection on a homebuilt. Ron Lee ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 09:25:04 -0700 From: Owen Davies Subject: Re: KR: max firewall HP Mark Langford wrote: > > Marty asked about max HP that the KR2S is designed for. I believe > Jeannette (proper spelling, I swear) said at the Oshkosh forum last year > that it would handle 100 for sure. Her stress guy said it would handle > more, but didn't elaborate. I always figured the real limiting factor was the weight of the engine. Those aircraft mills start to get heavy once you go beyond an O-200, at least compared with the weight and structure of the KR-2. Owen Davies ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 22:52:48 -0700 From: Ted & Louisa Jones Subject: Re: KR: Finally taxied! (no archive) Ron Lee wrote: > > At 02:02 97/6/10 -0400, you wrote: > >>Squack list: Lengthen the slings so I have more head room and > >>check the brakes. Directional control at low speeds is very > >>good with the tail wheel directly tied to rudder movement (NO > >>spring or slack in cable to tail wheel). > > > >Is this for flying primarily on paved runways? I think I read that if you > >were on grass, etc., and hit a rock with the tailwheel, the springs would > >provide some "give" so nothing gets broken. > > > >Mike Taglieri > > Yes it is primarily for paved runways. However I do have to tow in between > my house and pavement. The small shopping cart tailwheel may get replaced > with something larger in diameter and pneumatic (air). Two reasons: Raise > the tail so I can see better (may not really be a problem) and roll a little > quieter. Any comments from experienced tailwheel manly man fliers. > > Ron (whussie-boy) Lee Ron: Inasmuch as you are still doing taxi testing, I surmise that your tail is down much of the time or, perhaps, you haven't raised it yet. If memory serves (and it's been a long time), once you get the tail up, your visibility is fine. I still have a _vivid_ memory from my first take-off in a T-6 having to keep it straight for those first critical seconds by reference to the edges of the runway as seen out the bottom, front corners of the canopy. I would think that when you go to full throttle for an actual take-off, the nose will be up in no time, and you'll be able to see where you are going. Ted Jones ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 07:33:51 -0700 From: Micheal Mims Subject: Re: KR: Re: prop flange spacer At 06:06 AM 6/11/97 -0400, you wrote: >In a message dated 97-06-11 01:53:13 EDT, you write: > ><< I got a response saying that that's a "VW hub" and the SAE1 hub has > bigger holes on a bigger pitch circle.... > >> > > That's right, the VW pattern and SAE 1 are NOT the same. I >just purchased a true SAE 1 propeller hub and is a bigger pattern. I think >they were bigger holes too but I didn't look too closely. > > Some VWs are SAE, Revmaster for example. > > _______________________ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Micheal Mims Just Plane Nutts mailto:mimsmand@ix.netcom.com http://www.netcom.com/~mimsmand ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 08:55:02 -0600 (MDT) From: Ron Lee Subject: Re: KR: Finally taxied! (no archive) >Ron: > >Inasmuch as you are still doing taxi testing, I surmise that your tail >is down much of the time or, perhaps, you haven't raised it yet. If >memory serves (and it's been a long time), once you get the tail up, >your visibility is fine. I still have a _vivid_ memory from my first >take-off in a T-6 having to keep it straight for those first critical >seconds by reference to the edges of the runway as seen out the bottom, >front corners of the canopy. I would think that when you go to full >throttle for an actual take-off, the nose will be up in no time, and >you'll be able to see where you are going. > >Ted Jones > Ted, No doubt you are correct. It is primarily a learning process for me to get used to the different reference point. I have had other posts about the tailwheel....basically I may be voicing concerns where none are warranted. Ron ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 11:08:31 -0400 (EDT) From: Baleco@aol.com Subject: Re: KR: Re: Non-builder Plane Maintenance (no archive) In a message dated 97-06-11 09:13:11 EDT, you write: << I had to ask three A&P types before I found one to do the annual condition inspection on a homebuilt. Ron Lee >> Yeah, You can pretty much expect that from the more cautious A &P's. That's the kind of guy you want working on your aircraft-you just need to convince him of that! Marty ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 08:25:56 -0700 From: Micheal Mims Subject: KR: Non-builder Plane Maintenance (Ron, do not read!) Well I just got off the phone with the Long Beach FSDO and as I totally expected the information that my friends relayed to me was correct. A builder of at least 51% of the airplane is issued the repairman certificate which is valid only for that plane and not transferable, this allows that person to do anything and everything to that particular aircraft. The FSDO employee said its only common since, why in the world would the FAA allow a person who may have no mechanical ability or knowledge of a certain type of aircraft to buy one and then be free to work on it without any kind of supervision? He said this is just another case of people translating the ruling to their benefit. He says it happens all the time, and or other FSDO's just not wanting to get involved with the "Experimental Thing" in any case I guess legally here in Southern California we can not perform maintenance (only the maintenance allowed under Part 43) on already flying homebuilts unless we built it or we have the appropriate FAA certificate. I wanted to ask the guy how many people get busted on this but I forgot! So Shoot me. And yes I realize your FSDO and or results may vary! PS part 43 is fairly restrictive, you cant even remove a propeller! _______________________ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Micheal Mims Just Plane Nutts mailto:mimsmand@ix.netcom.com http://www.netcom.com/~mimsmand ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 12:51:59 -0400 (EDT) From: SLIMPIDLIN@aol.com Subject: Re: KR: N1213W Flies!!! CONGRATS to you Jeff ,you should be inspiration and incentive for all. Slim ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 13:01:00 -0400 (EDT) From: Baleco@aol.com Subject: Re: KR: max firewall HP In a message dated 97-06-11 11:43:50 EDT, you write: << I always figured the real limiting factor was the weight of the engine. Those aircraft mills start to get heavy once you go beyond an O-200, at least compared with the weight and structure of the KR-2. >> To some extent that probably true. a VW @170# and 4g's is a lot less load than a 240# Soob at the same G force. Look at the basic math 680# vs. 960 then allow for the increased torque and gyro loads, it's a wonder the thing doesn't twist itself right out of there. Well, obviously at some level or hp or g's it will. So, related to this, have some beefed for the bigger engine and the extra bay in the fuselage then built an aotherwise stock KR2? I'd like to setup for the 100hp limit and the stretch fuselage but I really don't want to send Jeannette another $75 for sketches that I have to incorporate (after deciphering) into my KR-2 skectchs, err, I mean plans, that I already bought. I love emulating success, I hate fill in the blank engineering and that's what I feel like I'm trying to do when looking through the plans. Marty ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 12:06:27 From: brian whatcott Subject: Re: KR: N1213W Flies!!! I only wish I could share your moment of supreme satisfaction, without the need for the preceding years of toil and expense. My most sincere congratulations. Brian At 01:34 6/11/97 EDT, Jeffrey E. Scott wrote: >Ladies, Gentlemen, and other Netheads, > >This is the other post that it seems that I have been waiting for years >to make. > >This evening June 10, 1997, after what seems like an eternity of >building, N1213W finally took flight from the main runway at Santa Fe, >New Mexico. As they say, "A day I shall always remember." > >Jeffrey Scott jscott.pilot@juno.com > brian whatcott Altus OK ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 11:50:53 -0600 (MDT) From: Ron Lee Subject: Re: KR: max firewall HP > So, related to this, have some beefed for the bigger engine >and the extra bay in the fuselage then built an aotherwise stock KR2? I'd >like to setup for the 100hp limit and the stretch fuselage but I really don't >want to send Jeannette another $75 for sketches that I have to incorporate >(after deciphering) into my KR-2 skectchs, err, I mean plans, that I already >bought. I love emulating success, I hate fill in the blank engineering and >that's what I feel like I'm trying to do when looking through the plans. > > Marty I understand your concern about the $75 but by making those changes you have the option to go with a bigger engine. Also it is possible that Mark Langford's adjustable horizontal stabilizer might be worth the extra effort. See Jeff Scott's first flight report. Ron "Not a KR builder" Lee ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 13:40:32 -0700 From: Micheal Mims Subject: KR: Another book for your reading pleasure? I just pulled a book off my shelf that I have had for a few years and I think it would be of great value to KR builders. Its "Homebuilts- A Handbook for the First-Time Builder" If someone has already mentioned this I apologize. TAB Book ISBN 0-8306-2375-2 The book covers the construction of a WAR Corsair, which is nothing more than a modified KR! Anyway a lot of the questions presented here on the KRnet are answered in this book. One interesting thing I noticed was that the WAR aircraft use a single row of larger bolts on the wing attach fittings instead of the double row of an3 bolts. He also talks of installing "compression bushings",....after you drill your spar for the fittings you re-drill the hole to a larger diameter to accept a 1/2 inch aluminum bushing that has been cut to the correct length (flush with the shear web skins). This bushing has the appropriate size hole in the center for the mounting bolts. He also talks about FOG (follow on gluing), he says to inspect your gusset joints and if you have any with crevices or gaps to apply enough epoxy to fill the gaps, humm....this would have made it much easier to get those perfect gusset joints _______________________ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Micheal Mims Just Plane Nutts mailto:mimsmand@ix.netcom.com http://www.netcom.com/~mimsmand ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 21:07:11 GMT From: bbland@busprod.com (Brian Bland) Subject: Re: KR: N1213W Flies!!! On Wed, 11 Jun 1997 01:34:31 EDT, Jeffrey Scott wrote: >Ladies, Gentlemen, and other Netheads, > >This is the other post that it seems that I have been waiting for years >to make. =20 > >This evening June 10, 1997, after what seems like an eternity of >building, N1213W finally took flight from the main runway at Santa Fe, >New Mexico. As they say, "A day I shall always remember." =20 > Congratulations Jeffrey !!!!!! I can't wait to hear more about how N1213W flies. I also hope to see it in Perry in September. Brian J Bland bbland@busprod.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 15:22:09 -0600 (MDT) From: Ron Lee Subject: Re: KR: Follow-On Glueing >He also talks about FOG (follow on gluing), he says to inspect your gusset >joints and if you have any with crevices or gaps to apply enough epoxy to >fill the gaps, humm....this would have made it much easier to get those >perfect gusset joints > >Micheal Mims This non-KR builder thinks that using a thin mixture of flox would be better initially. May be a possible weight penalty but if the pieces are close and the mixture is thin AND excess is wiped off, it should be minimal. Any thoughts? Ron ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 16:59:25 +0000 From: Steve Bennett Subject: Re: KR: Follow-On Glueing in the construction of our 2 place AirMaster II airboat we used a glue called Gorilla glue. Great suff, fill gaps etc... about $40.00 for 36 ounces and is water, yes water activated. It is 100% waterproof also. We'll see how it holds up taking a beating on the water. Our new flywheel end drive system is done and just waiting for the airboat to be finished. Next week you can check out greatplainsas.com. Were using a 100% cast 78mm crankshaft to try out the dampner system. steve ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 15:23:50 -0700 From: Micheal Mims Subject: Re: KR: Follow-On Glueing At 03:22 PM 6/11/97 -0600, you wrote: >Micheal Mims > >This non-KR builder thinks that using a thin mixture of flox would be >better initially. May be a possible weight penalty but if the pieces >are close and the mixture is thin AND excess is wiped off, it should >be minimal. Any thoughts? > >Ron Flox is cool and flox is strong! I would think flox would be lighter than pure epoxy, after all you are adding cotton fibers! There is a bit of flox on my KR. ________________________________ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Micheal Mims Just Plane Nutts mailto:mimsmand@ix.netcom.com http://www.netcom.com/~mimsmand ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 15:25:41 -0700 From: Micheal Mims Subject: KR: new flywheel end drive system At 04:59 PM 6/11/97 +0000, you wrote: Next week you can check out greatplainsas.com. Were >using a 100% cast 78mm crankshaft to try out the dampner system. >steve > Very cool! This is what I have been waiting for! :-) ________________________________ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Micheal Mims Just Plane Nutts mailto:mimsmand@ix.netcom.com http://www.netcom.com/~mimsmand ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 18:38:24 -0400 From: Vince Bozik Subject: Re: KR: Follow-On Glueing > Flox is cool and flox is strong! I would think flox would be lighter than > pure epoxy, after all you are adding cotton fibers! There is a bit of flox > on my KR. I thought "Flox" was milled fiber glass. Or, is that just called Mill Fiber? Vince - -- Vince Bozik - Athens, Georgia Mailto:ICBM@ix.netcom.com http://pw1.netcom.com/~icbm/Bozik.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 15:53:33 -0700 From: Micheal Mims Subject: Re: KR: Follow-On Glueing At 06:38 PM 6/11/97 -0400, you wrote: >> Flox is cool and flox is strong! I would think flox would be lighter than >> pure epoxy, after all you are adding cotton fibers! There is a bit of flox >> on my KR. > > I thought "Flox" was milled fiber glass. Or, is that just called Mill >Fiber? > Flocked cotton, milled glass, I don't know? I have read it is flocked <-correct word? cotton. ________________________________ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Micheal Mims Just Plane Nutts mailto:mimsmand@ix.netcom.com http://www.netcom.com/~mimsmand ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 20:09:14 -0400 (EDT) From: Baleco@aol.com Subject: Re: KR: Follow-On Glueing In a message dated 97-06-11 18:50:47 EDT, you write: << I thought "Flox" was milled fiber glass. Or, is that just called Mill Fiber? >> Negative. Flox is cotton. Marty ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 14:57:28 -0700 From: Donald Reid Subject: Re: KR: Another book for your reading pleasure? Micheal Mims wrote: > > One interesting thing I noticed was that > the WAR aircraft use a single row of larger bolts on the wing attach > fittings instead of the double row of an3 bolts. He also talks of > installing "compression bushings",....after you drill your spar for the > fittings you re-drill the hole to a larger diameter to accept a 1/2 inch > aluminum bushing that has been cut to the correct length (flush with the > shear web skins). This bushing has the appropriate size hole in the center > for the mounting bolts. Much more efficient from a structural standpoint. The 3/16" bolts are very long and thin; they will tend to pull the wood fibers apart instead of compress then under a load. - -- Don Reid donreid@erols.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 20:54:16 -0400 (EDT) From: EagleGator@aol.com Subject: Re: KR: Flox vs. Micro (was Follow-On Glueing) In a message dated 97-06-11 19:18:18 EDT, you write: << >> Flox is cool and flox is strong! I would think flox would be lighter than >> pure epoxy, after all you are adding cotton fibers! There is a bit of flox >> on my KR. > > I thought "Flox" was milled fiber glass. Or, is that just called Mill >Fiber? > Flocked cotton, milled glass, I don't know? I have read it is flocked <-correct word? cotton. >> I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe "flox" is made by mixing cotton flock (cut in VERY small pieces, looks like heavy powder) with epoxy/resin, and "micro" is made by mixing micro balloons/quartz/milled glass with epoxy/resin. Flox is structural, while micro is not. Cheers! Rick Junkin EagleGator@aol.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 18:59:04 -0600 (MDT) From: Ron Lee Subject: Re: KR: Follow-On Glueing At 15:53 97/6/11 -0700, you wrote: >At 06:38 PM 6/11/97 -0400, you wrote: >>> Flox is cool and flox is strong! I would think flox would be lighter than >>> pure epoxy, after all you are adding cotton fibers! There is a bit of flox >>> on my KR. >> >> I thought "Flox" was milled fiber glass. Or, is that just called Mill >>Fiber? >> > >Flocked cotton, milled glass, I don't know? I have read it is flocked ><-correct word? cotton. > >________________________________ >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >Micheal Mims Michael is correct. A cotton material. Ron "Loves flox" Lee ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 19:01:34 -0600 (MDT) From: Ron Lee Subject: Re: KR: Flox vs. Micro (no archive) >I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe "flox" is made >by mixing cotton flock (cut in VERY small pieces, looks like heavy powder) >with epoxy/resin, and "micro" is made by mixing micro balloons/quartz/milled >glass with epoxy/resin. Flox is structural, while micro is not. > >Cheers! >Rick Junkin Rick is correct. I am tried to get flox off a concrete floor and did....but it pull away concrete with it. That is why square corners have a triangle area of flox...not micro. Ron "microbubbles" Lee ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 19:16:16 -0600 (MDT) From: Ron Lee Subject: KR: Will test canopy cleaning methods Just picked up some scrap canopy material and will test methods if I have the substance in question. Email privately for your preferred solvent. Ron "HCL" Lee ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 19:29:44 -0600 (MDT) From: Ron Lee Subject: Re: KR: N1213W Flies!!! Jeff, I just looked at the pics from your first flight. VERY NICE! I like the pic (somewhere) of the canopy open. really cool! I also noted the NACA air inlets for ventilation. Do they work well? Where are they in relationship to the instrument panel and how do you have the air ducted? I may have to add some to N133RM since I like air on me while I fly. Ron "Gets airsick easily" Lee ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 18:41:58 -0700 From: Micheal Mims Subject: Re: KR: Flox vs. Micro (was Follow-On Glueing) At 08:54 PM 6/11/97 -0400, you wrote: >I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe "flox" is made by mixing cotton flock (cut in VERY small pieces, looks like heavy powder) with epoxy/resin, and "micro" is made by mixing micro balloons/quartz/milled glass with epoxy/resin. Flox is structural, while micro is not. Your right on the money dude! _______________________ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Micheal Mims Just Plane Nutts mailto:mimsmand@ix.netcom.com http://www.netcom.com/~mimsmand ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 23:16:14 EDT From: jscott.pilot@juno.com (Jeffrey E. Scott) Subject: Re: KR: N1213W Flies!!! If anyone is interested, late this afternoon John Bryhan posted yesterday's first flight air to air pictures on his web page. "http://www.laintra.com/jeb/krpage.htm". He did a fine job as the photographer and gave me a set of photos to treasure forever. The other plane in the background is a "Hummelbird" that has an empty weight of 300# and uses a half VW engine. I think I have him talked into flying to Perry with me in September. Jeff - ---- Jeffrey Scott jscott.pilot@juno.com See construction of KR-2S N1213W at http://fly.hiwaay.net/~langford/kjeffs.html - ---- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 23:57:33 -0700 From: "David M. Gargasz" Subject: Re: KR: max firewall HP Baleco@aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 97-06-11 11:43:50 EDT, you write: > > << I always figured the real limiting factor was the weight of the engine. > Those aircraft mills start to get heavy once you go beyond an O-200, > at least compared with the weight and structure of the KR-2. > >> > > To some extent that probably true. a VW @170# and 4g's is a > lot less load than a 240# Soob at the same G force. Look at the basic math > 680# vs. 960 then allow for the increased torque and gyro loads, it's a > wonder the thing doesn't twist itself right out of there. Well, obviously at > some level or hp or g's it will. > So, related to this, have some beefed for the bigger engine > and the extra bay in the fuselage then built an aotherwise stock KR2? I'd > like to setup for the 100hp limit and the stretch fuselage but I really don't > want to send Jeannette another $75 for sketches that I have to incorporate > (after deciphering) into my KR-2 skectchs, err, I mean plans, that I already > bought. I love emulating success, I hate fill in the blank engineering and > that's what I feel like I'm trying to do when looking through the plans. > > Marty hy Marty, Iv pondered the same thoughts, a ford thunderbird 4cyl w/turbo converted for aircraft wieghs 260 lbs. delivers 185 hp., hp to wieght much more efficient than vw 85 hp @ 165 lbs., or 100 hp more for 95 lbs. of added weight, Beefing up the air frame to accomodate the power will add alot of additional wieght and according to what information Iv gleaned the kr will not perform as well with the big enjine do to its design. I came to the conclusion to keep it light go with the vw 85hp. 125 mph cruise is satisfactory with me, 300' lift off @ 55 mph and a landing stal of 50 mph tail drager is what Im shooting for, about 1000' climb solo will do fine. I prefer the in flight handling qualities to be responsive but not physically taxing, when the aircraft is properly trimed it should fly hands off. I think the kr design will accomodate what I want, and perform better than cesna 150. If you want to get into high performance the kr is the best buy for the money hands down but it has to be built light. Gene Gargasz % dave@erienet.net ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 23:59:05 EDT From: jscott.pilot@juno.com (Jeffrey E. Scott) Subject: Re: KR: Flox vs. Micro vs. Mill Fiber On Wed, 11 Jun 1997 20:54:16 -0400 (EDT) EagleGator@aol.com writes: >>I thought "Flox" was milled fiber glass. Or, is that just called Mill > >Fiber? > >Flocked cotton, milled glass, I don't know? I have read it is flocked > >-correct word? cotton. > >> > >I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe "flox" is made >by mixing cotton flock (cut in VERY small pieces, looks like heavy powder) >with epoxy/resin, and "micro" is made by mixing micro balloons/quartz/milled >glass with epoxy/resin. Flox is structural, while micro is not. > Micro: Hollow glass or quartz micro balloons used in combination with epoxy resins to create a lightweight non-structural filler. Flox: Finely chopped (flocked) cotton used in combination with epoxy resins to create a structural filler and bonding agent. Mill Fiber: Finely chopped synthetic fibers used in combination with epoxy resins to create a structural filler and bonding agent. The Glassair builders generally use mill fiber where most KR builders use flox. They claim that it is stronger due to the synthetic fibers (same as used in fiberglass mat cloths). - ---- Jeffrey Scott jscott.pilot@juno.com See construction of KR-2S N1213W at http://fly.hiwaay.net/~langford/kjeffs.html - ---- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 23:59:05 EDT From: jscott.pilot@juno.com (Jeffrey E. Scott) Subject: Re: KR: N1213W Flies!!! On Wed, 11 Jun 1997 19:29:44 -0600 (MDT) Ron Lee writes: >Jeff, I just looked at the pics from your first flight. > >VERY NICE! Thanks. > >I like the pic (somewhere) of the canopy open. really cool! > >I also noted the NACA air inlets for ventilation. Do they >work well? Where are they in relationship to the instrument >panel and how do you have the air ducted? > They are just NACA openings with a closeable door on them. No ducting. $23 each from Wicks catalog page 175. They are just below and slightly forward from the instrument panel. They move some air and would move quite a bit more if I also had an air outlet from the cockpit. The air that comes in the air inlets, goes out through the small gap between the canopy rail and the longerons, so I have a slight positive pressure in the cockpit, no wind noise, but enough breeze for proper ventilation (like defogging the canopy when I'm sweating up a storm under it waiting for my turn on the runway). My cockpit has no direct openings into the aft fuselage for ventilation. >I may have to add some to N133RM since I like air on me while I fly. > >Ron "Gets airsick easily" Lee > BTW, you asked about the tailwheel in the past, mine is hollow core, but not pneumatic and is very quiet. Jeff - ---- Jeffrey Scott jscott.pilot@juno.com See construction of KR-2S N1213W at http://fly.hiwaay.net/~langford/kjeffs.html - ---- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 00:12:50 -0400 From: Vince Bozik Subject: Re: KR: N1213W Flies/Cooling Inlets > They are just NACA openings with a closeable door on them. No ducting. > $23 each from Wicks catalog page 175. They are just below and slightly > forward from the instrument panel. They move some air and would move > quite a bit more if I also had an air outlet from the cockpit. The air > that comes in the air inlets, goes out through the small gap between the > canopy rail and the longerons, so I have a slight positive pressure in > the cockpit, no wind noise, but enough breeze for proper ventilation > (like defogging the canopy when I'm sweating up a storm under it waiting > for my turn on the runway). My cockpit has no direct openings into the > aft fuselage for ventilation. This reminds me: When I grouped up with Langford, Smart, and Cornelius, we went over to Jim Hill's place to look at his KR. Although I don't know if they're the same ones, but he had the submerged cooling inlets mounted on his KR. He said that he mounted them behind the widest section of the fuselage, and because of this there was a negative flow through them because of the negative pressure there(oops!). I think his last comment was that he will be removing them. After all, what good is a cooling vent if it sucks!(Literally!-Sorry if offensive;) Say Jeff, how are the ducts opened and closed? I havn't had a chance to look at the images, but may have to make a trip over to the page to see them. - -- Vince Bozik - Athens, Georgia Mailto:ICBM@ix.netcom.com http://pw1.netcom.com/~icbm/Bozik.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 21:28:13 -0700 From: Micheal Mims Subject: Re: KR: N1213W Flies!!! At 11:16 PM 6/11/97 EDT, you wrote: He did a fine job as the photographer and gave me a set of photos to treasure forever. > >The other plane in the background is a "Hummelbird" that has an empty >weight of 300# and uses a half VW engine. I think I have him talked into >flying to Perry with me in September. > Outstanding Jeff! Pure motivation dude,.. pure motivation!! You must be totally stoked! Great looking Hummel, bring him along. _______________________ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Micheal Mims Just Plane Nutts mailto:mimsmand@ix.netcom.com http://www.netcom.com/~mimsmand ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 22:56:41 -0600 (MDT) From: Ron Lee Subject: Re: KR: Cooling Inlets >I don't know if they're the same ones, but he had the submerged cooling >inlets mounted on his KR. He said that he mounted them behind the >widest section of the fuselage, and because of this there was a negative >flow through them because of the negative pressure there(oops!). >-- > Vince Bozik - Athens, Georgia I will be sure to mount them in front of the widest point if possible or in the canopy. Ron Lee ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 22:06:55 -0700 From: MARVIN MCCOY Subject: Re: KR: Follow-On Glueing Ron Lee wrote: > > >He also talks about FOG (follow on gluing), he says to inspect your gusset > >joints and if you have any with crevices or gaps to apply enough epoxy to > >fill the gaps, humm....this would have made it much easier to get those > >perfect gusset joints > > > >Micheal Mims > > This non-KR builder thinks that using a thin mixture of flox would be > better initially. May be a possible weight penalty but if the pieces > are close and the mixture is thin AND excess is wiped off, it should > be minimal. Any thoughts? > > Ron - ----------- Mr.Marvin here for what its worth.. When I used to build boats we used a number of different epoxy glues. We would always put a coat of straight epoxy on the wood and then make a mixture with some cotton flox and brush on a light coat of flox. This way the straight epoxy would soak into the wood and if any gaps existed in the joints the joint would have good contact due to the flox. Any excess would squeeze out and would be cleaned up. I never had a glue failure using this method and I have used a lot of different brands of epoxy. It takes a little more time because you are mixing two times for each glue job. And you have a tendency to apply more glue then necessary and the squeeze out is waste. For what its worth. Mr.Marvin@worldnet.att.net - ----------- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 07:12:11 -0500 From: ejanssen@chipsnet.com (Janssen Craig) Subject: Re: KR: Follow-On Glueing At 04:59 PM 6/11/97 +0000, you wrote: >in the construction of our 2 place AirMaster II airboat we used a glue >called Gorilla glue. Great suff, fill gaps etc... about $40.00 for >36 ounces and is water, yes water activated. It is 100% waterproof >also. We'll see how it holds up taking a beating on the water. Our >new flywheel end drive system is done and just waiting for the airboat >to be finished. Next week you can check out greatplainsas.com. Were >using a 100% cast 78mm crankshaft to try out the dampner system. >steve > Steve, A Wisonsin TEAM distributor was using Gorilla glue to glue some Mini-Max ribs together at a demonstration at the NCEAA fly-in. He said it appeared to be "great stuff" and was just giving it a try for the first time. Didn't hear anything further. Could you give us KRneters an address for those who would like to get some for testing? Thanks. Ed Janssen ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 08:49:43 -0600 From: Robert Lasecki Subject: Re: KR: max firewall HP Ron Lee wrote: > > > So, related to this, have some beefed for the bigger engine > >and the extra bay in the fuselage then built an aotherwise stock KR2? I'd > >like to setup for the 100hp limit and the stretch fuselage but I really don't > >want to send Jeannette another $75 for sketches that I have to incorporate > >(after deciphering) into my KR-2 skectchs, err, I mean plans, that I already > >bought. I love emulating success, I hate fill in the blank engineering and > >that's what I feel like I'm trying to do when looking through the plans. > > > > Marty > > I understand your concern about the $75 but by making those changes you have > the option to go with a bigger engine. Also it is possible that Mark Langford's > adjustable horizontal stabilizer might be worth the extra effort. See Jeff > Scott's first flight report. > > Ron "Not a KR builder" Lee I think the added information is well worthwhile considering the end result. For the $75 you get Drawing A (like the KR2 fuselage drawing but with less detail), Drawing B (bracing detail of fwd fuselage, tail section hinge deatil, hor & vert tail templates, error in vert template), Spar detail drawing, Firewall template, Airfoil templates, and a Wing Detail drawing. The documentation for the gear, forward top deck, fuel tank, turtle deck and canopy sections will all be missing as they are supplied when you buy these "standard" 2S sections from RR. My suggestion is to go for it. Bob Lasecki ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 08:38:07 -0500 From: "Mark Langford" Subject: KR: Re: new flywheel end drive system Yep, this could be interesting. I'm probably still going to do my thing anyway, but you never know... Mark Langford langford@hiwaay.net http://fly.hiwaay.net/~langford - ---------- > From: Micheal Mims > To: krnet-l@teleport.com > Subject: KR: new flywheel end drive system > Date: Wednesday, June 11, 1997 5:25 PM > > At 04:59 PM 6/11/97 +0000, you wrote: > Next week you can check out greatplainsas.com. Were > >using a 100% cast 78mm crankshaft to try out the dampner system. > >steve > > > > > Very cool! This is what I have been waiting for! :-) > > ________________________________ > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Micheal Mims > Just Plane Nutts > mailto:mimsmand@ix.netcom.com > > http://www.netcom.com/~mimsmand > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 06:57:17 -0700 From: Micheal Mims Subject: KR: N1213W Flies!!! Jeff you looking good on my web site, check it out when you have the time. Folks we wont be hearing much from Jeff now because he will be out enjoying his new toy! Jeff keep us informed on performance figures, overall weight, etc. Oh Yea and by the way Congrats! I have been working on my KR every night for the past month, I am trying to catch you!! :-) _______________________ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Micheal Mims Just Plane Nutts mailto:mimsmand@ix.netcom.com http://www.netcom.com/~mimsmand ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 07:10:07 -0700 From: Micheal Mims Subject: Re: KR: Re: new flywheel end drive system At 08:38 AM 6/12/97 -0500, you wrote: >Yep, this could be interesting. I'm probably still going to do my thing >anyway, but you never know... > Yea me too, the inline VW is starting to look like a winner! Weight is a slight concern but it will be slightly less than a Soob with redrive (220 to 230 lbs). Why are soobs so darn heavy? They have aluminum cases and heads! Something I didn't consider was adapting the gearbox from a Hirth engine to the 1800 VW. I really doubt if AS&S has one in stock but I plan to call them today to and find out if they have drawings. I think this is something to be considered on the Soobs too, the gear box is $800, that's not a bad price if it can be adapted to other engines. _______________________ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Micheal Mims Just Plane Nutts mailto:mimsmand@ix.netcom.com http://www.netcom.com/~mimsmand ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 11:17:45 -0400 (EDT) From: LVav8r@aol.com Subject: Re: KR: N1213W Flies!!! In a message dated 97-06-11 01:42:33 EDT, Jeff wrote: << This evening June 10, 1997, after what seems like an eternity of building, N1213W finally took flight from the main runway at Santa Fe, New Mexico. As they say, "A day I shall always remember." >> GREAT SCOTT!! What an inspiration. Actually your project was the swift kick in the pants that finally got me going on my project. When I saw your article on weight and balance in KROnline I noticed that your serial number is #586, mine is #585 and felt a little jelousy in the fact that I hadn't even bought the wood for mine at the time. Then I found out that you had actually started on yours before the KR-2S drawings ever came out. Well I felt a lot better then but still was happy that I got off my backside and got to building. Good luck with it and I hope to see you at the gathering in Sept. Tom Kilgore Las Vegas, NV LVav8r@aol.com KR-2S 2%complete ------------------------------ End of krnet-l-digest V1 #39 ****************************