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
****************************