From: Majordomo@teleport.com[SMTP:Majordomo@teleport.com] Sent: Monday, December 08, 1997 12:44 PM To: john bouyea Subject: Majordomo file: list 'krnet-l' file 'v01.n094' -- From: owner-krnet-l-digest@lists.teleport.com (krnet-l-digest) To: krnet-l-digest@lists.teleport.com Subject: krnet-l-digest V1 #94 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 Wednesday, September 10 1997 Volume 01 : Number 094 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 09 Sep 1997 20:45:46 -0700 From: bmsi@ix.netcom.com Subject: Re: KR: 290 Lycoming This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - --------------5FAB5C61A2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Would it be too much to ask if you'd share that url with the group? > > Tom Kilgore > Las Vegas, NV > LVav8r@aol.com > KR-2S 2% complete > __I__ > _______( X )_______ > o/ \o Not too much at all. I thought I did did it already. See if this takes. http://www.compusmart.ab.ca/htilleni/eng.htm Bruce S. Campbell Tampa - --------------5FAB5C61A2 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii; name="eng.htm" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="eng.htm" Content-Base: "http://www.compusmart.ab.ca/htilleni/e ng.htm" AIRCRAFT ENGINE LYCOMING MODEL 0-290-G4

AIRCRAFT ENGINE LYCOMING MODEL 0-290-G4

PRICE: $2000.00 ( $1400.00 U.S. )
CONDITION: used (starts,runs)
TERMS: cash
LOCATION: Onoway,Alberta,Canada

If interested,please contact owner at following E-mail link:

If you have comments or suggestions, email me at htilleni@mail.compusmart.ab.ca

This page created with Netscape Navigator Gold

- --------------5FAB5C61A2-- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 09 Sep 1997 18:21:03 -0700 From: Micheal Mims Subject: Re: KR: fuel guages required At 07:00 PM 9/9/97 -0500, you wrote: My DAR says "Y" the pickup to have an end at each >point, and fuel will be picked up (says that's how Piper and Cessna do it). But I sure can't see how sucking fuel is a path less resistant than >sucking air, and am quite dubious. Maybe on a high wing, but a low wing? I plan a demo to myself soon, unless somebody else corroborates his story first... If air is an option for the pump then I think its gona suck air! On a high wing aircraft fuel will flow down the tube regardless if the other end of the "Y" is exposed to air. Gravity is wonderful! The pick tube in my tanks will be forward up next to the main spar. It is the lowest point and I don't plan on transferring fuel during take off, but if you plan to feed the engine from the tank this location may not work during take off! The BN-2 Islander I flew had a minimum take off fuel level just for this reason. The Islander when rotated and held at best angle of climb speed was pretty spectacular and would cause the fuel to move away from the pick tube and both 300hp Lycs to become silent! Major bummer! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Micheal Mims Just Plane Nutts in Irvine Ca. mailto:mimsmand@ix.netcom.com http://www.netcom.com/~mimsmand \ / _\/\/_ _____/_//\\_\_____ F-117 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 09 Sep 1997 18:26:24 -0700 From: Micheal Mims Subject: Re: KR: fuel guages required At 07:00 PM 9/9/97 -0500, you wrote: My DAR says "Y" the pickup to have an end at each >point, and fuel will be picked up (says that's how Piper and Cessna do it). But I sure can't see how sucking fuel is a path less resistant than >sucking air, and am quite dubious. Oh yea I forgot to mention that all the big Cessnas (185, 206, 207, 210) all have header tanks down below your feet. These are kept full by fuel flowing (via gravity) and the pumps pull fuel from the header tanks. So your DAR was probably right Cessna uses a Y, but only in gravity feed mode! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Micheal Mims Just Plane Nutts in Irvine Ca. mailto:mimsmand@ix.netcom.com http://www.netcom.com/~mimsmand \ / _\/\/_ _____/_//\\_\_____ F-117 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 21:03:09 EDT From: BSHADR Subject: KR: Mike Graves Hey you old time KRNetheads. Check out this message from Mike Graves. (For you newbees, Mike started KRNet. A few of us "oldtimers" had some interesting discussions in the old days. The board has grown to what it is today. I must admit, the quality of posting and the people on KRNet speak volumes to the quality of the KR folks. Geez, it sounds like a commercial for the Marine Corp) <> ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 09 Sep 1997 20:03:39 -0500 From: Bobby Muse Subject: Re: KR: fuel guages required At 07:00 PM 9/9/97 -0500, you wrote: > My DAR says "Y" the pickup to have an end at each >point, and fuel will be picked up (says that's how Piper and Cessna do it). > But I sure can't see how sucking fuel is a path less resistant than >sucking air, and am quite dubious. > I plan a demo to myself soon, unless somebody else corroborates his story >first... but maybe the "Y" thing will work. Any experience on this? > >Mark Langford, Huntsville, AL >email at langford@hiwaay.net >KR2S project construction at http://fly.hiwaay.net/~langford > Mark, Get two straws and put one end of both in your mouth at the same time. Put the opposite end of one in a mug of beer and the opposite end of other straw into the clear air next to the mug. Stuck hard and I don't think you will ever get the taste of beer..... an engineering study in layman's terms. Bobby Muse(N122B) bmuse@mindspring.com Wimberly, TX ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 09 Sep 1997 20:11:00 -0500 From: Bobby Muse Subject: Re: KR: Jacking the KR At 06:22 PM 9/9/97, you wrote: >At 17:27 97/9/09 -0600, you wrote: > >>> >>>By the way, does anyone have a good way to jack-up a KR to work on the >>>brakes or change a tire? Do you use a jack stand? How? >>> >>> Bobby Muse(N122B) >> > >I made up a jack point that is made of two lengths of 2x4 wood They are about >8" long (can measure if you wish). > >Four 3/8" bolts are positioned in pairs at either end. I take out two bolts, >slide the open end around the gear near the bottom, then reinsert and tighten >the four bolts. > >Then using a hand operated floor jack, I raise the leg after placing the jack >lify point under the inner piece of wood. > >Works great and is very cheap...except you need a jack. I assume a regular >car jack would work as well. > >Ron Lee > Thanks Ron, I had forgotten about that method. Excellent idea, except I would be concerned about the paint on the gear leg. Bobby Muse(N122B) bmuse@mindspring.com Wimberly, TX ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 09 Sep 1997 19:38:18 -0700 From: Peter Hudson Subject: Re: KR: Gross weight Don, I've always worked on the assumption of 800 lbs and 6 gs as limit loads. That's what the published figures usually are. That gives: 800lb x 6 = 5600 lbs total divide by your gross weight for g loading or divide by the g load you'll accept for a gross weight. example...5600/1200 lbs = 4.67 g (Still in the FAR 23 range.) Do you have any information to indicate 6 g is ultimate? With a FAR 23 requirement of 3.7g limit load (I know we don't have to comply but it's decades of history that went into those limits) then 1000 lbs gross is not safe and I need to reconsider the whole gross weight problem. - -Peter- Donald Reid wrote: > > It looks to me like 800# gross weight and 6 G's is the ultimate. If that > is true, then the following approximate limits should be appropriate > (these are all approximate) > > Gross Ultimate Safe > 900# 5.3 G 4.0 G > 1000# 4.8 G 3.6 G > 1100# 4.3 G 3.2 G > 1200# 4.0 G 3.0 G > 1300# 3.7 G 2.8 G ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 09 Sep 1997 20:50:01 From: Ron Lee Subject: Re: KR: Jacking the KR >Thanks Ron, I had forgotten about that method. Excellent idea, except I >would be concerned about the paint on the gear leg. > > Bobby Muse(N122B) > bmuse@mindspring.com > Wimberly, TX > I assume that thin rubber sheets..or equivalent...would help Ron ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 09 Sep 1997 19:55:41 -0700 From: Micheal Mims Subject: Re: KR: Gross weight At 07:38 PM 9/9/97 -0700, you wrote: >Don, > >I've always worked on the assumption of 800 lbs and 6 gs as limit loads. >That's what the published figures usually are. That gives: > >800lb x 6 = 5600 lbs total I also thought 6g at 800 pounds was the limit and not the ultimate. Who has their plans handy? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Micheal Mims Just Plane Nutts in Irvine Ca. mailto:mimsmand@ix.netcom.com http://www.netcom.com/~mimsmand \ / _\/\/_ _____/_//\\_\_____ F-117 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 09 Sep 1997 20:36:52 -0700 From: Micheal Mims Subject: Re: KR: Gross weight At 07:55 PM 9/9/97 -0700, you wrote: 800lb x 6 = 5600 lbs total > > >I also thought 6g at 800 pounds was the limit and not the ultimate. Who has their plans handy? Oh yea maybe check the math above. 800 x 6 =???? :o) 4800!! 4800/1200= 4g ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Micheal Mims Just Plane Nutts in Irvine Ca. mailto:mimsmand@ix.netcom.com http://www.netcom.com/~mimsmand \ / _\/\/_ _____/_//\\_\_____ F-117 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 22:27:31 -0600 From: jscott.pilot@juno.com (Jeffrey E Scott) Subject: Re: KR: fuel guages required On Tue, 9 Sep 1997 19:00:03 -0500 "Mark Langford" writes: >Michael Mims wrote: > >>I know the FARs >> require a gauge for each tank but are some flying without gauges? > > >My DAR inspector said that if the tanks are physically connected with no >valves between them, one guage is good enough. Of course, this IS >Alabama... Lionheart is that way, with left and right tanks on each wing >connected directly with tubing. I plan to do the simple thing too, drawing >from the right wing tank always (eliminating the valve, and the possibility >of putting it in the wrong place) and using the left tank to replenish in >flight (555 timer filling it half way in two installments). Are you going to set up a 555 to shut your pump off after a given time so you don't overflow the header? Not a bad idea! I routinely get distracted and forget that I have a transfer pump running. Of course you could have your header overflow back to another tank, then it won't matter if you overflow the header. Wish I would have thought of that about 2 years ago. If you're transfering from one wing to the other, it's easy to remember to shut the pump off as one wing will start to get heavy. > >I've wondered what the best compromise in fuel pickup location is on a >taildragger, the lowest point in flight, the lowest point in climb, or >somewhere in the middle. My DAR says "Y" the pickup to have an end at each >point, and fuel will be picked up (says that's how Piper and Cessna do it). > But I sure can't see how sucking fuel is a path less resistant than >sucking air, and am quite dubious. Maybe on a high wing, but a low wing? > I plan a demo to myself soon, unless somebody else corroborates his story >first... As for sloshing left to right, I'll take Jeff Scott's >recommendation and build a "header" inside the tank, with one way valves ( >in only) to that part of the tank. This could also be used in the fore/aft >battle, but maybe the "Y" thing will work. Any experience on this? > >Mark Langford, Huntsville, AL >email at langford@hiwaay.net >KR2S project construction at http://fly.hiwaay.net/~langford > As a practical matter, if you are pushing the limits of your fuel reserves, it's a case of whether you would rather run out of fuel with the nose up or nose down. **Caution: war story coming** My Starduster drew fuel from the very back of the fuel tank and could literally draw every last drop out of the tank with just a slight nose up attitude. When I was up doing some showoff acro stuff I usually ended with a dive and high speed pass on the airport. It was just a bit embarassing to come diving down on the airport and have the engine die just as I'd get over the numbers at about 170 mph. Of course as soon as I pulled slightly nose up, the engine would restart and allow me to continue my zoomie and a high angle climbout. This happened with 5 gallons usuable left in the tank. The point is, that I would rather be able to pull the last out of a tank with the nose up, which is your attitude when climbing. I just hate having the engine go quiet when climbing away from the airport and I find it difficult to climb with the nose pointed down so I can draw fuel. On my wing tanks, I mounted the fuel pickups at the very back of the tanks and have no problem sucking them dry when transfering to the header tank. I mounted the pickup in the header at the lowest point possible. Of course if I'm running it dry, I have already done something very stupid. :o) Jeff - ------- Jeff Scott - Los Alamos, NM jscott.pilot@juno.com See N1213W construction and first flight at http://fly.hiwaay.net~langford/kjefs.html & http: //www.thuntek.net/~jeb/krpage.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 09 Sep 1997 21:39:55 -0700 From: Micheal Mims Subject: Re: KR: fuel guages required At 10:27 PM 9/9/97 -0600, you wrote: The point is, that I would rather be able to pull the >last out of a tank with the nose up, which is your attitude when >climbing. I just hate having the engine go quiet when climbing away from the airport and I find it difficult to climb with the nose pointed down >so I can draw fuel. > Yep the plans say the pickup for the wing tanks should be at the furthest most aft location. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Micheal Mims Just Plane Nutts in Irvine Ca. mailto:mimsmand@ix.netcom.com http://www.netcom.com/~mimsmand \ / _\/\/_ _____/_//\\_\_____ F-117 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 09 Sep 1997 23:44:38 -0700 From: Micheal Mims Subject: KR: aux tanks drawings Those interested can view drawings of my aux tanks by going to the ideas page and clicking on the appropriate links. http://pw2.netcom.com/~mimsmand/ideas.html Remember if you have an idea you want to share please send it to me and I will post it. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Micheal Mims Just Plane Nutts in Irvine Ca. mailto:mimsmand@ix.netcom.com http://www.netcom.com/~mimsmand \ / _\/\/_ _____/_//\\_\_____ F-117 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 00:23:39 -0700 From: Micheal Mims Subject: Re: KR: aux tanks drawings At 11:44 PM 9/9/97 -0700, you wrote: >Those interested can view drawings of my aux tanks by going to the ideas page and clicking on the appropriate links. > >http://pw2.netcom.com/~mimsmand/ideas.html I forgot to mention the acrylic rod site gauge is there too. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Micheal Mims Just Plane Nutts in Irvine Ca. mailto:mimsmand@ix.netcom.com http://www.netcom.com/~mimsmand \ / _\/\/_ _____/_//\\_\_____ F-117 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 20:24:51 +0700 From: "L.Palaniappan" Subject: KR: Re:Mohawk airplane Hello KR people This is Palani in Malaysia. One of my friend here is interested in building the Nihawk model. This is a scratch build model woth materials available with AS & S. It seems that is is similar to AVids and Kitfaxes. Has any one of you seen, know, buildt or flown this plane. If so my friend needs some infor and advice. Please email me privately. Thank you palani "I know ffff,0000,0000Nuts about 0000,0000,ffffPlanes and Next to0000,8080,8080 ffff,0000,0000Nothing about Soobs" ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 09:26:06 -0700 From: Donald Reid Subject: Re: KR: fuel guages required Mark Langford wrote: > I've wondered what the best compromise in fuel pickup location is on a > taildragger, the lowest point in flight, the lowest point in climb, or > somewhere in the middle. My DAR says "Y" the pickup to have an end at each > point, and fuel will be picked up (says that's how Piper and Cessna do it). > But I sure can't see how sucking fuel is a path less resistant than > sucking air, and am quite dubious. Maybe on a high wing, but a low wing? > I plan a demo to myself soon, unless somebody else corroborates his story > first... As for sloshing left to right, I'll take Jeff Scott's > recommendation and build a "header" inside the tank, with one way valves ( > in only) to that part of the tank. This could also be used in the fore/aft > battle, but maybe the "Y" thing will work. Any experience on this? > > Mark Langford, Huntsville, AL > email at langford@hiwaay.net > KR2S project construction at http://fly.hiwaay.net/~langford > I agree with other postings that the Y will probably not work in the suction mode as opposed to a gravity mode. Tony Bingilis says that climb attitude is fuel critical and I certainly agree. His discussion on fuel flow and fuel reserve is good. Try a fuel flow test at climb attitude. If you don't have 150% of required flow, then you don't have enough. The single most likely cause of a crash is engine loss due to fuel problems. TEST the fuel system in all possible ways prior to flight. - -- Don Reid donreid@erols.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 10:41:29 -0400 (EDT) From: LVav8r@aol.com Subject: Re: KR: 290 Lycoming In a message dated 97-09-09 21:28:44 EDT, you write: << Not too much at all. I thought I did did it already. See if this takes. http://www.compusmart.ab.ca/htilleni/eng.htm Bruce S. Campbell Tampa >> Thanks Bruce. I book marked it so I can come back to it. Looks VERY INTRESTING. I just may have to consider this engine for my project. om Kilgore Las Vegas, NV LVav8r@aol.com KR-2S 2% complete __I__ _______( X )_______ o/ \o ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 11:07:39 -0400 (EDT) From: MikeTnyc@aol.com Subject: Re: KR: Fuel gauge ideas ><< Gauges are another story, I really don't like the idea of spending money >for > gauges and or installing two more holes in my instrument panel just for aux > tanks. Heck they are either full or empty, as they are not used in route. > If I must,.. I guess I will devise some sort of sight gauge for these tanks. > Anyone know what guys are using for gauges in aux tanks? I know the FARs > require a gauge for each tank but are some flying without gauges? >> I've heard of several people in the Newsletter who were flying with aux. tanks that they would transfer to the header tank after it went down to a certain level. They would transfer the entire contents at once, and any excess (if they hadn't used up enough) would go out the vent, so the auxiliary would always be either empty or full. Is it certain that the FARs require a gauge on the aux tank under such circumstances, or that they even consider such an auxiliary a "fuel tank?" I think a "fuel tank" is what supplies fuel to the engine, and there's no point that you're ever running the engine off the aux tank, so it's more like a long-range feeder for the actual fuel tank (i.e., the header tank). Mike Taglieri ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 11:06:22 -0400 From: "Cary Honeywell" Subject: Re: KR: Oil or sump'n Email (repy) to cary@storm.ca Web page http://www.storm.ca/~cary/ KR2 area http://www.storm.ca/~cary/kr2.shtml - ---------- > From: Bobby Muse > > Yes, I believe the MMO helped me make it home! I know Jim Faughn and Troy > Petteway use MMO with every refuel. > I was in New England for the weekend. Went to the local Wal Mart in Portsmouth NH and relieved them of all of their MMO supply. Did the same in Malone NY on the way home. Guess I'll fill up each time I go south. Smells like mouthwash! - - Cary - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 08:35:30 -0700 From: Micheal Mims Subject: Re: KR: Fuel gauge ideas At 11:07 AM 9/10/97 -0400, you wrote: >Is it certain that the FARs require a gauge on the aux tank under such >circumstances, or that they even consider such an auxiliary a "fuel tank?" I >think a "fuel tank" is what supplies fuel to the engine, and there's no point >that you're ever running the engine off the aux tank, so it's more like a >long-range feeder for the actual fuel tank (i.e., the header tank). > >Mike Taglieri > This is a question I asked once before as did a few other builders. I will call the Long Beach FSDO today and see what they say. ________________________________ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Micheal Mims Just Plane Nutts mailto:mimsmand@ix.netcom.com http://www.netcom.com/~mimsmand ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 12:36:48 -0400 (EDT) From: BSHADR@aol.com Subject: Re: KR:Brake Pedals In a message dated 97-09-10 02:52:34 EDT, you write: << What little bar thingies? Please, tell me more. I must have missed that in the 'ole' newsletters. I the main reoccuring problem that I have with my KR is that I wear out main tire so often (about every 125 hrs). >> Bobby: Mote Miller is the writer of the article you are asking about. He'll be at the gathering, so we can get him to describe it for one and all. Tire wear issue. Could you have an alignment problem of is 125 hrs normal? Just a thought. Have you and your dad been practicing your presentation for Saturday morning? :-) Randy ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 09:49:32 -0700 From: Micheal Mims Subject: Re: KR:Brake Pedals At 12:36 PM 9/10/97 -0400, you wrote: >Tire wear issue. Could you have an alignment problem of is 125 hrs normal? > Just a thought. > >Have you and your dad been practicing your presentation for Saturday morning? > :-) > >Randy > Brad goes through tires as often or more, I think the cheep tires just don't last that long. ________________________________ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Micheal Mims Just Plane Nutts mailto:mimsmand@ix.netcom.com http://www.netcom.com/~mimsmand ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 12:44:29 -0700 From: Donald Reid Subject: Re: KR: Gross weight Peter Hudson wrote: > I've always worked on the assumption of 800 lbs and 6 gs as limit loads. > That's what the published figures usually are. SNIP > Do you have any information to indicate 6 g is ultimate? With a FAR 23 > requirement of 3.7g limit load (I know we don't have to comply but it's > decades of history that went into those limits) then 1000 lbs gross is > not safe and I need to reconsider the whole gross weight problem. > > -Peter- > This is a quick but reasonably accurate analysis. A real one would require Finite Element Analysis but it should give something close. I am making the assumption that the main spar is the main load bearing element and the rear spar and wing skin will carry the twisting that the wing generates in flight. This is a standard assumption for simple calculations like this. In a stock KR-2, the span is 20':8" long. Assuming the fuselage width at the main spar is 32" wide, the cantilever portion of the wing is (20":8" - 32")/2 = 108". That is, 108 inches sticking out each side. The air load centroid is 108" X 4/(3 X pi) = 45.84 inches. This assumes a semi-eliptic load distribution. The main spar caps, neglecting the bevel for airfoil shape, are 2 5/32" X 2" = 4.3125 sq inches. Neglecting the bevel is non-conservative. The spruce spar caps will fail in compression. The proportional limit is 3530 psi and the max crush strength is 4700 psi. Total allowable stress in the spar caps are: 4.3125 in^2 X 3530 psi = 15,223 # at proportional 4.3125 in^2 X 4700 psi = 20,269 # at ultimate The distance between the centroid of the spar caps is ~5 3/16" = 5.19" so the limit load for one side of the wing is (15,223# X 5.19") / 45.84" = 1723# Total = 3446# the ultimate load for one side of the wing is (20,269# X 5.19") / 45.84" = 2295# Total = 4590# Assuming the total wing weight is 75# and does not contribute to the bending moment of the main spar, then, at 800# gross weight, the wing will be supporting 725#. Limit load = 3446# / 725# = 4.75 G's Ultimate load = 4590# / 725# = 6.33 G's I neglected the bevel on the spar cap material, which will reduce the total amount of material available to provide strength, so I would call it 6 G's ultimate. If anyone finds any mistakes, please let me know. - -- Don Reid donreid@erols.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 14:30:44 -0300 From: Jim Sellars Subject: Re: KR: Gross weight Regards; I am thinking that I saw in my plans and also on this site some discussions about the gross and the loading limits. I think it was closer to 920 lb @ 7 g's plus and minus. If memory serves, Jeanette was reported to have said that for every 100 pounds of additional weight over the published gross you should reduce the loading limits by one "g". Thus 1020 at 6, 1120 good for 5 g's. What do you think gents ? Jim At 07:38 PM 09/09/97 -0700, you wrote: >Don, > >I've always worked on the assumption of 800 lbs and 6 gs as limit loads. >That's what the published figures usually are. That gives: > >800lb x 6 = 5600 lbs total > >divide by your gross weight for g loading >or >divide by the g load you'll accept for a gross weight. > >example...5600/1200 lbs = 4.67 g (Still in the FAR 23 range.) > >Do you have any information to indicate 6 g is ultimate? With a FAR 23 >requirement of 3.7g limit load (I know we don't have to comply but it's >decades of history that went into those limits) then 1000 lbs gross is >not safe and I need to reconsider the whole gross weight problem. > >-Peter- > >Donald Reid wrote: >> >> It looks to me like 800# gross weight and 6 G's is the ultimate. If that >> is true, then the following approximate limits should be appropriate >> (these are all approximate) >> >> Gross Ultimate Safe >> 900# 5.3 G 4.0 G >> 1000# 4.8 G 3.6 G >> 1100# 4.3 G 3.2 G >> 1200# 4.0 G 3.0 G >> 1300# 3.7 G 2.8 G > > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 12:05:11 -0700 From: Ross Youngblood Subject: KR: RE:Jeff's war story Jeff, Can you contrast the KR flight characteristics against the Starduster. Just somthing like, it's much more fun would be sufficient. -- Ross :) - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 12:25:40 -0700 From: enewbold@sprynet.com Subject: Re: KR: Prop markings Hi guys. I'm thinking about buying a Smyth Sidewinder that has a Sensenich Wood prop on it with the following markings. Does anyone know what the pitch might be, from looking at these markings that are pressed into the wood? W68T 6EM2 78 AB8199 Thanks. Ed Newbold Columbus, OH ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 12:45:44 -0700 From: Ross Youngblood Subject: Re: KR: fuel guages required Donald Reid wrote: > I agree with other postings that the Y will probably not work in the suction mode > as opposed to a gravity mode. It may only work if both tanks have fuel in them, if either tank becomes unported, then you will suck air, probably not a great idea. > > Tony Bingilis says that climb attitude is fuel critical and I certainly agree. > His discussion on fuel flow and fuel reserve is good. Try a fuel flow test at > climb attitude. If you don't have 150% of required flow, then you don't have > enough. > > The single most likely cause of a crash is engine loss due to fuel problems. > TEST the fuel system in all possible ways prior to flight. > I agree with this 385%! - -- Ross Youngblood Pager: (800)SKY-PAGE PIN#895-9073 SABER Engineering voicemail: (800)538-6838 x 1632 Schlumberger SABER Bus Line: (541)714-1754 (Note Area code) Corvallis,Oregon Mailto:rossy@San-Jose.ate.slb.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 19:54:02 -0600 From: jscott.pilot@juno.com (Jeffrey E Scott) Subject: Re: KR: Prop markings On Wed, 10 Sep 1997 12:25:40 -0700 enewbold@sprynet.com writes: >Hi guys. > >I'm thinking about buying a Smyth Sidewinder that has a Sensenich Wood prop on >it with the following markings. Does anyone know what the pitch might be, from >looking at these markings that are pressed into the wood? > >W68T 6EM2 78 >AB8199 > > >Thanks. >Ed Newbold >Columbus, OH > OK, I'll take a guess, but you've probably figured most of it out. W = Wood 68 = Diameter *T = Tip style *6EM2 = Blade style 78 = pitch *AB8199 = Serial Number * denotes a wild guess that might be close to right. 78 pitch on a 68" diameter prop sure seems like alot to me. Must have a 180 or 200 HP engine up front. - ------- Jeff Scott - Los Alamos, NM jscott.pilot@juno.com See N1213W construction and first flight at http://fly.hiwaay.net~langford/kjefs.html & http: //www.thuntek.net/~jeb/krpage.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 19:41:30 -0600 From: jscott.pilot@juno.com (Jeffrey E Scott) Subject: KR: Re: Jeff's war story On Wed, 10 Sep 1997 12:05:11 -0700 Ross Youngblood writes: >Jeff, > Can you contrast the KR flight characteristics against >the Starduster. Just somthing like, it's much more fun >would be sufficient. > > -- Ross :) > Uh, .....probably not without starting another flame war about KR handling characteristics. :o) The KR is fun for different reasons. The KR is fast, inexpensive to fly, handles like a mini fighter, and always draws a crowd. The Starduster would climb like a homesick angel, was very light and quick on the controls, always drew a crowd, and I knew I couldn't break the airframe unless I hit something. :o) It did wonderful spins and snap rolls, and wasn't bad at vertical stuff. Ever see a plane do a 3 rotation climbing spin on it's back? :o) BTW, my Starduster was beefed up significantly from what the plans called for. The Starduster was sold when my wife (who never flies with me) decided we should own a "family" airplane. I've been in mourning for it for 12 years. :o( Anyway, the KR is the right plane for me now as the old body protests doing G's anymore. It's something special to fly and I built it. :o) Jeff - ------- Jeff Scott - Los Alamos, NM jscott.pilot@juno.com See N1213W construction and first flight at http://fly.hiwaay.net~langford/kjefs.html & http: //www.thuntek.net/~jeb/krpage.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 21:31:57 -0500 From: "Mark Langford" Subject: Re: KR: fuel guages required Bobby Muse wrote: > Mark, Get two straws and put one end of both in your mouth at the same > time. Put the opposite end of one in a mug of beer and the opposite end of > other straw into the clear air next to the mug. Stuck hard and I don't > think you will ever get the taste of beer..... an engineering > study in layman's terms. Bobby, I've got a feeling that no mere column of air would be enough to keep me from getting to that beer! Well, like I said, I'm very skeptical of the "Y" scheme, and will take appropriate measures to prevent sucking air rather than fuel. The one-way trap door header tank within the wingtank is still my plan. Thanks for all the advice, NetHeads. Mark Langford, Huntsville, AL email at langford@hiwaay.net KR2S project construction at http://fly.hiwaay.net/~langford ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 21:57:51 -0500 From: "Mark Langford" Subject: KR: kitplanes Here's my two cents worth on Kitplanes. It's certainly better than nothing at all. I really get a lot out of it each month. There's always something that I copy and put in a binder. Either the "Aerodynamics" binder, the "Engine" binder, the "Miscellaneous articles" binder, or the "Avionics" binder (the list goes on). I'm always reminded of some things I should already know from "Wind Tunnel" too. And the annual supplier directory is invaluable. Take this month. I copied the article on flashing recognition lights, radio connections, the latest from Weir on COM antennas, and of course, the Lionheart thing. Not to put down Sport Aviation, because I love it too, but SA seems to concentrate on the "show planes" and blowing EAA's horn, not so much on the nuts and bolts of construction. Maybe I'm one of those idiots who enjoys building, but you won't catch me selling mine when it's finished, just so I can start another one. I may build another one, but I plan to get some use out of my KR2S. You guys are gonna have to put up with me for a long time... As for that Lionheart article, the rendered CAD drawing of Lionheart was one of the first (and worst) that I ever did. I'm not sure why Larry sent it to them, but he sent them a third-rate hardcopy output, which they then scanned in again. There's a knockout version of it on the homepage at http://www.griffon-aerospace.com , especially if you can view the high res version of it. I'm pretty proud of that one. Mark Langford, Huntsville, AL email at langford@hiwaay.net KR2S project construction at http://fly.hiwaay.net/~langford ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 22:46:28 -0400 From: "Jim Daly" Subject: Re: KR: wing tank fuel feeds - a different approach I was going through my hundred or so emails... I'm on another KRnet type of service...reading about how you guys are trying to solve a fuel pickup problem when a thought struck me. I was looking at the original KR2 about 8 years ago and I remember something in the product literature about the KR2 being built just like a big model airplane. Thats when it hit me.... Why don't you do what us R/Cers' do in our fuel tanks.....CLUNKS!!! Have a piece of flexible fuel hose witha brass weight on one end with a hole in it so the fuel flows through. That way when the fuel sloshes from end to end or side to side the clunk will move with it. Maybe someone could test it out. Just a thought from a Scale R/C Modler whose thinking about getting into homebuilts and is still looking around...maybe I'll have to take a closer look at the KR2S...... Jim "Mid-Air" (it's a loooong story, don't ask) Daly Mississauga Ontario Canada mailto:rcscale@interlog.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 22:11:23 -0500 From: Bobby Muse Subject: Re: KR: Mike Graves At 09:03 PM 9/9/97 EDT, you wrote: > >Hey you old time KRNetheads. Check out this message from Mike Graves. > >(For you newbees, Mike started KRNet. > >You guy's keep up the good work and please say hello to all of my old >KRNET buddies for me! > > > Mike Graves>> > > Where is Mike today? Does he live in Austin, TX? Why did he resign? Bobby Muse(N122B) bmuse@mindspring.com Wimberly, TX ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 22:11:25 -0500 From: Bobby Muse Subject: Re: KR:Brake Pedals At 12:36 PM 9/10/97 -0400, you wrote: >In a message dated 97-09-10 02:52:34 EDT, you write: > ><< What little bar thingies? Please, tell me more. I must have missed that >in > the 'ole' newsletters. I the main reoccuring problem that I have with my KR > is that I wear out main tire so often (about every 125 hrs). >> > >Bobby: > > Could you have an alignment problem of is 125 hrs normal? > Just a thought. > >Have you and your dad been practicing your presentation for Saturday morning? > :-) > >Randy > (1) I don't believe I have a alignment problem, except that both main tires wear the the same on the outside. I will shim a little toe out at the axle. With the tire wear being even, I am more concerned with the amount of wear. (2) My plan is to start my Dad to talking and then sit back and watch. If you know my dad and I you'll know what I mean. Bobby Muse(N122B) bmuse@mindspring.com Wimberly, TX ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 22:11:28 -0500 From: Bobby Muse Subject: Re: KR: kitplanes At 09:57 PM 9/10/97 -0500, you wrote: >Here's my two cents worth on Kitplanes. It's certainly better than nothing >at all. > >I really get a lot out of it each month. There's always something that I >copy and put in a binder. >Take this month. I copied the article on flashing recognition lights, >radio connections, the latest from Weir on COM antennas, and of course, the >Lionheart thing. Not to put down Sport Aviation, because I love it too, >but SA seems to concentrate on the "show planes" and blowing EAA's horn, >not so much on the nuts and bolts of construction. You guys are gonna have to put up >with me for a long time... > > >Mark Langford, Huntsville, AL > I agree with you about about both magazines. But I wouldn't do without either. Bobby Muse(N122B) bmuse@mindspring.com Wimberly, TX ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 03:58:11 GMT From: bbland@busprod.com (Brian Bland) Subject: Re: KR: kitplanes On Wed, 10 Sep 1997 22:11:28 -0500, you wrote: >At 09:57 PM 9/10/97 -0500, you wrote: >>Here's my two cents worth on Kitplanes. It's certainly better than = nothing >>at all. >> >>I really get a lot out of it each month. There's always something that= I >>copy and put in a binder. =20 >>Take this month. I copied the article on flashing recognition lights, >>radio connections, the latest from Weir on COM antennas, and of course,= the >>Lionheart thing. Not to put down Sport Aviation, because I love it = too,=20 >>but SA seems to concentrate on the "show planes" and blowing EAA's = horn, >>not so much on the nuts and bolts of construction. You guys are = gonna >have to put up >>with me for a long time... >> >> >>Mark Langford, Huntsville, AL >> > >I agree with you about about both magazines. But I wouldn't do without = either. > > Bobby Muse(N122B) > bmuse@mindspring.com > Wimberly, TX > > > I read every magazine I can that involves homebuilt aircraft. I know that there are things wrong with almost all of them, but it is better than not having anything to read about homebuilts. I'm not interested in alot of articles in most of the magazines I read but there is always on or two that are worth reading. I know that it was Kitplanes that got me interested in homebuilts over 9 years ago and at that time it was the only thing I could find about homebuilts and I was lucky if I could even find it on the newstand. Brian J Bland Claremore, OK bbland@busprod.com ------------------------------ End of krnet-l-digest V1 #94 ****************************