From: Majordomo@teleport.com[SMTP:Majordomo@teleport.com] Sent: Thursday, December 11, 1997 3:30 PM To: john bouyea Subject: Majordomo file: list 'krnet-l' file 'v01.n150' -- From: owner-krnet-l-digest@lists.teleport.com (krnet-l-digest) To: krnet-l-digest@lists.teleport.com Subject: krnet-l-digest V1 #150 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, October 29 1997 Volume 01 : Number 150 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 19:29:21 -0500 (EST) From: TANDEM2@aol.com Subject: Re: KR: limbach engine thanks mike, what about the vw t-4 i here talk about? is it 2000 and what kind of hp? is it any good to use in a kr? tandem2 in holding ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 16:40:19 -0800 From: Micheal Mims Subject: Re: KR: limbach engine At 07:29 PM 10/28/97 -0500, you wrote: >thanks mike, what about the vw t-4 i here talk about? is it 2000 and what >kind of hp? is it any good to use in a kr? > >tandem2 > >in holding > The Limbach version? Sure you could use it in a KR, at least I cant see why not. ________________________________ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Micheal Mims Just Plane Nutts mailto:mikemims@pacbell.net http://home.pacbell.net/mikemims ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 09:22:01 +0800 From: Jed Whitford Subject: Re: KR: main spar holes Hi Guys After reading steve's post again yes it is.he must not have read my second post explaining the things I forgot to include. Sorry steve no offence I hope. Even still if you can get hold of the kit planes article I mention in the second my second post it will complete explain it. seeya Jed Whitford P.S. all the same I would not recomend drilling holes in any load bearing surfaces better safe than sorry. At 08:12 AM 28/10/97 -0800, you wrote: >Isn't that exactly what Steve said? > >At 03:48 PM 10/28/97 +0800, you wrote: >>Steve >> It does not matter that this is the case no matter what type of beam >>the nuetral axis never has a load due to bending on it it may however have a >>load due shear forces, if you still disagree leave another post and I will >>check my engineering text books. >>seeya >>Jed Whitford >> >> >>At 07:08 AM 28/10/97, you wrote: >>>Hi Guys >>>On a beam that has a cap and web; The cap is designed to carry the tensile >>and compressive loads. It is incorrect to assume that there is no load along >>the neutral axis. The neutral axis, in the case of an I or box beam lies on >>the web (the piece of ply joining the top and bottom caps).This carries the >>shear loads as a result of the beam being loaded. >>>Steve in South Africa > >________________________________ >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >Micheal Mims >Just Plane Nutts >mailto:mikemims@pacbell.net > >http://home.pacbell.net/mikemims > > ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 19:47:32 -0600 From: ejanssen@chipsnet.com (Ed Janssen) Subject: KR: Ascii Planes Interested in building Ascii planes while away from your KR shop? Check out the following address: http://www.staff.uiuc.edu/~grunloh/ascii.pln Ed Janssen ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 18:06:22 -0800 From: Micheal Mims Subject: Re: KR: main spar holes At 09:22 AM 10/29/97 +0800, Jed Whitford wrote: >Hi Guys > After reading steve's post again yes it is.he must not have read my >second post explaining the things I forgot to include. Sorry steve no >offence I hope. Even still if you can get hold of the kit planes article I >mention in the second my second post it will complete explain it. >seeya >Jed Whitford >P.S. all the same I would not recomend drilling holes in any load bearing >surfaces better safe than sorry. > I am not arguing with you but you have no choice but to drill holes in the upper and lower spar caps on the KR and you also have to drill numerous holes in the shear web. Thats just the way the plane is built! If you remove the old retract UC I would think you would fill the holes with dowels and epoxy! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Micheal Mims Just Plane Nutts in Irvine Ca. mailto:mikemims@pacbell.net http://home.pacbell.net/mikemims ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 21:07:32 -0600 From: pierce@pat.lgb.cal.boeing.com (Cole Pierce) Subject: KR: main spar holes When I was in grad school in Monterey CA, a local flyer crashed his homebuilt resulting in two fatalities, himself and his passenger. The cause was found to be overstress of the main spar; the failure was at the point where the builder had drilled an unauthorized hole thru the spar for the purpose of routing cables. I wouldn't drill thru the main spar unless I had a detailed engineering analysis showing how the load resistance is changed. gun one ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 19:10:16 -0800 From: Micheal Mims Subject: Re: KR: main spar holes At 09:07 PM 10/28/97 -0600, Cole Pierce wrote: >I wouldn't drill thru the main spar unless I had a detailed >engineering analysis showing how the load resistance is changed. > >gun one > > Then it is safe to say you will never build a KR! :o) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Micheal Mims Just Plane Nutts in Irvine Ca. mailto:mikemims@pacbell.net http://home.pacbell.net/mikemims ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 11:23:15 +0800 From: Jed Whitford Subject: Re: KR: main spar holes Mike I have never actually built one of these so I'm just speaking from my knowledge of engineering. If it's unavoidable than the RR have probably looked into it otherwise they run the risk of liability cases. Anyway if you have to do it you have to do it I'm just saying if you can avoid it then this is a good idea but if you have no choice than that is what has to be done. Jed Whitford At 06:06 PM 28/10/97 -0800, you wrote: >At 09:22 AM 10/29/97 +0800, Jed Whitford wrote: >>Hi Guys >> After reading steve's post again yes it is.he must not have read my >>second post explaining the things I forgot to include. Sorry steve no >>offence I hope. Even still if you can get hold of the kit planes article I >>mention in the second my second post it will complete explain it. >>seeya >>Jed Whitford >>P.S. all the same I would not recomend drilling holes in any load bearing >>surfaces better safe than sorry. >> > >I am not arguing with you but you have no choice but to drill holes in the >upper and lower spar caps on the KR and you also have to drill numerous >holes in the shear web. Thats just the way the plane is built! >If you remove the old retract UC I would think you would fill the holes with >dowels and epoxy! >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >Micheal Mims >Just Plane Nutts in Irvine Ca. >mailto:mikemims@pacbell.net >http://home.pacbell.net/mikemims > > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 11:24:49 +0800 From: Jed Whitford Subject: Re: KR: main spar holes At 09:07 PM 28/10/97 -0600, you wrote: >When I was in grad school in Monterey CA, a local flyer crashed >his homebuilt resulting in two fatalities, himself and his >passenger. The cause was found to be overstress of the main >spar; the failure was at the point where the builder had drilled >an unauthorized hole thru the spar for the purpose of routing >cables. > >I wouldn't drill thru the main spar unless I had a detailed >engineering analysis showing how the load resistance is changed. > >gun one > > > I'd say this is wise advice!!!! Jed Whitford ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 21:46:16 -0600 From: "Mark Langford" Subject: KR: Pauter VW block keith wrote: > All this talk about VW engines got me to thinking about a > version which was built to survive under racing conditions. > It was centered around a new block design from: > Pauter Machine Co., Inc I looked into the a while back, and the case is WAAAY too heavy, something like 50 lbs heavier than stock. Cost of the block alone is about $2000, not to mention all the little things you need to make it work. Scat's parts are similarly priced, and heavy too. I've almost talked myself into going Type 1 rather than Type 4, because I think the shaft drive, flywheel, counterweighted crank, and heavy prop (Precision Props ground adjustable) that I'm using will minimize the beating out of the main saddles. This will also save megabucks on Type 4 parts, and almost 30 lbs. I may be willing to give the Type 1 a try and see how it works, just as a data point. Besides, I've got a well proven 2110cc screamer in my Karmann Ghia that I could borrow for a while, and it's been paid for for 20 years. I have my old spare 1835cc that I could stuff in the Ghia for a while. Mark Langford, Huntsville, AL email at langford@hiwaay.net KR2S project construction at http://fly.hiwaay.net/~langford ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 22:44:53 -0500 (EST) From: N911TB@aol.com Subject: Re: KR: Tom Bagnatto's KR-1 OK you want the whole story! Got a couple of hours? After attending one of Steve Bennett's seminars at Covington in 1988 I came home to find an ad in the local paper for a used Porsche 914 engine. It was a 1700cc model that had about 80,000 miles on it and was just getting tired. The engine had been stored on this guy's patio for about 18 months and his wife wasn't convinced that it would make a good planter. He wanted $200 for the engine complete. After a short conversation with Steve, I was the proud owner of a pile of greasy parts including the original fuel injection unit. I stripped the motor and found the oil had never been drained (that probably preserved the innards) and the crank still turned. After salvaging the case, heads, flywheel and cool tin the whole mess was sent to Steve with the instructions to return a 2600cc TopBug. Steve did all the necessary machine work to install 103mm pistons and 78mm crank. He also machined the case for a mechanical fuel pump since an electric one was used with the F. I. unit. The heads were rebuilt and flycut for the larger sleeves. I had to fabricate the intake manifold since none of the Type 1 models would fit. The exhaust stacks were made using the original headers and 4130 tubing. The carb is an Ellison model 2. Ignition is a single Slick 4130 plugged into the back of a Dhiel supercase housing a 20 amp alternator. The original oil cooler was used in front of the # 1 cylinder just as it was in the car. I rebuilt the engine about 150 hours ago after a "run-in" with a Bonanza (long story). I'm a little more agressive with the compression than Steve and upped it to 9.3:1 and installed a mild cam. A few mods to the heads and a little "tweaking" and I picked up 600 RPM over the original version with the same diameter and pitch prop (56 X 54). Some performance specs: Cyl head temp-----350 Oil press-------------40 to 55 Oil temp--------------200 to 220 ( depends on OAT) EGT--------------------1300 MAX RPM -----------3600 ( inflight ) Fuel Flow ------------6 GPH ( cruise ) Cruise Speed-------185 MPH Top Speed ----------207 MPH Rate of Climb ------WOW! Needless to say the cost of the engine wasn't cheap and it's not going to set endurance records, but I think I get more bang for the buck than the O-200 guys and can probably give them a run for their money. I was sorry to hear Steve say he had dropped the 2600 because of some crank problems that Dan Dheil and I had. It's just my opinion, but my problems were the result of a prop strike and had nothing to do with the design of the crank or mods to the engine. I understand Steve's point of view, however. He is in business and the plaintiff's lawyers are hovering all around just waiting for something to happen to contribute to their retirement fund. Told 'ya it would take a couple of hours, but you just gotta love them "Big Block VW's. Let me hear from you. Tom Bagnetto N911TB ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 22:13:03 -0600 From: "Mark Langford" Subject: KR: 78mm Type 4 crank Tom Bagnetto wrote: > I was sorry to hear Steve say he had dropped the 2600 because of >some crank problems that Dan Dheil and I had. It's just my opinion... Steve may correct me on this, but I think the main reason the 2600 was dropped was because the price on the Scat 78mm Type 4 was approaching $1200, a figure that sends most of us scurrying for cover. I suppose you and Dan running the forged 4340 Scat crank? I'd have thought that sucker would be practically indestructible...but then there's physics, and we certainly don't want to go there... Mark Langford, Huntsville, AL email at langford@hiwaay.net KR2S project construction at http://fly.hiwaay.net/~langford - ---------- > From: N911TB@aol.com > To: krnet-l@teleport.com > Subject: Re: KR: Tom Bagnatto's KR-1 > Date: Tuesday, October 28, 1997 9:44 PM > > OK you want the whole story! Got a couple of hours? > After attending one of Steve Bennett's seminars at Covington in 1988 I came > home to find an ad in the local paper for a used Porsche 914 engine. It was > a 1700cc model that had about 80,000 miles on it and was just getting tired. > The engine had been stored on this guy's patio for about 18 months and his > wife wasn't convinced that it would make a good planter. He wanted $200 for > the engine complete. After a short conversation with Steve, I was the proud > owner of a pile of greasy parts including the original fuel injection unit. > I stripped the motor and found the oil had never been drained (that probably > preserved the innards) and the crank still turned. After salvaging the case, > heads, flywheel and cool tin the whole mess was sent to Steve with the > instructions to return a 2600cc TopBug. Steve did all the necessary machine > work to install 103mm pistons and 78mm crank. He also machined the case for > a mechanical fuel pump since an electric one was used with the F. I. unit. > The heads were rebuilt and flycut for the larger sleeves. I had to > fabricate the intake manifold since none of the Type 1 models would fit. The > exhaust stacks were made using the original headers and 4130 tubing. The > carb is an Ellison model 2. Ignition is a single Slick 4130 plugged into the > back of a Dhiel supercase housing a 20 amp alternator. The original oil > cooler was used in front of the # 1 cylinder just as it was in the car. > > I rebuilt the engine about 150 hours ago after a "run-in" with a Bonanza > (long story). I'm a little more agressive with the compression than Steve > and upped it to 9.3:1 and installed a mild cam. A few mods to the heads and > a little "tweaking" and I picked up 600 RPM over the original version with > the same diameter and pitch prop (56 X 54). > > Some performance specs: > Cyl head temp-----350 > Oil press-------------40 to 55 > Oil temp--------------200 to 220 ( depends on OAT) > EGT--------------------1300 > MAX RPM -----------3600 ( inflight ) > Fuel Flow ------------6 GPH ( cruise ) > Cruise Speed-------185 MPH > Top Speed ----------207 MPH > Rate of Climb ------WOW! > > Needless to say the cost of the engine wasn't cheap and it's not going to set > endurance records, but I think I get more bang for the buck than the O-200 > guys and can probably give them a run for their money. > > I was sorry to hear Steve say he had dropped the 2600 because of some crank > problems that Dan Dheil and I had. It's just my opinion, but my problems > were the result of a prop strike and had nothing to do with the design of the > crank or mods to the engine. I understand Steve's point of view, however. > He is in business and the plaintiff's lawyers are hovering all around just > waiting for something to happen to contribute to their retirement fund. > > Told 'ya it would take a couple of hours, but you just gotta love them "Big > Block VW's. > Let me hear from you. > > Tom Bagnetto > N911TB > > > ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 21:07:23 -0800 From: MARVIN MCCOY Subject: Re: KR: limbach engine TANDEM2@aol.com wrote: what about the vw t-4 i here talk about? is it 2000 and what > kind of hp? is it any good to use in a kr? > > tandem2 > > in holding--------------- I have a Type IV that I am building to 2400cc that I will be using in my KR. Marvin McCoy Seattle, WA. North end of Boeing field Mr.Marvin@worldnet.att.net - ------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 21:16:42 -0800 From: Micheal Mims Subject: Re: KR: main spar holes At 11:23 AM 10/29/97 +0800, Jed Whitford wrote: >Mike > I have never actually built one of these so I'm just speaking from my >knowledge of engineering. If it's unavoidable than the RR have probably >looked into it otherwise they run the risk of liability cases. Anyway if >you have to do it you have to do it I'm just saying if you can avoid it then >this is a good idea but if you have no choice than that is what has to be done. > Jed Whitford I agree you shouldnt go randomly drilling holes in the spar caps and I have drilled as few as possible. If you do drill hold in the caps, its best you fill them with a bolt, dowel or something solid. I think its those unfilled holes that can get you in trouble and the diameter of the hole should be kept to a minimum. I was just teasing you about the comment "I wouldn't drill thru the main spar unless I had a detailed engineering analysis". Detailed Engineering Analysis!!?? What do you think this is an airplane or something? :o) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Micheal Mims Just Plane Nutts in Irvine Ca. mailto:mikemims@pacbell.net http://home.pacbell.net/mikemims ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 01:24:40 -0500 (EST) From: MikeTnyc@aol.com Subject: Re: KR:Rudder Pedals Shelf or Floor In a message dated 97-10-27 01:27:14 EST, you write: >By the way, I mounted my rudder >pedals on the shelf and they work great. Master cyclinders can be a problem >but I mounted the master cyclinders to the front of the main spar. I >activate the cyclinders using Scwinn bicycle cables and a bellcrank. Easy >to service. Could you give more details on this? I saw a design in one of Tony Bingelis's books on how to have MECHANICAL toe brakes with cables. Is this actuation design like that one? Mike Taglieri ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 01:24:48 -0500 (EST) From: MikeTnyc@aol.com Subject: Re: KR: main spar holes >>> With all of the stress analysis being considered for the airframe, has >>> anyone considered the effect of drilling holes in the main spar or spar >>> webs to mount various things such as gear or controls? I suppose it has >>> been proven that the gear holes pose no problem, Would anyone have any >>> suggestions as to how many or how big or where you can make a hole and >>> still stay out of trouble? >>I recall reading in an text book that when a bending force is applied to >>a simple beem, one side is under compression and the other side is >>under tensile > I'm a first year mech engineer and this is part of our statics >course. You seem to have misunderstood this. . . . > It is incorrect to assume that there is no load along >the neutral axis. The neutral axis, in the case of an I or box beam lies on >the web. . . . No offense, but this thread seems to be wandering off course. The questioner was not asking for the correct theoretical understanding of how stresses in the spar compare to the stresses in I-beams, etc., but was asking where is the best place to drill holes and how big can they be? A very good question in my opinion, so I hope one of you engineering folks will address it. Mike Taglieri ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 01:24:43 -0500 (EST) From: MikeTnyc@aol.com Subject: KR: A tip on studying the plans >the builder thanks RR for an excellent set of plans. So, they >must be sufficient for some people. > >Me, I'm still waiting for mine! Bought a set from Ricky Pitman through >a post here, but he's been out of town and unable to send them to me. >The UPS guy is usually here by 3 PM, so if he gets my stuff to me today, >you may not hear from me for a while. Here's a tip I found very useful when studying the manual: Take the pages out of that damn 3-ring binder and fasten the pages with three brass paper fasteners (the kind with the ends that you spread apart. To keep the pages clean, you can get front and back covers from a stationery store or make them yourself from thin cardboard. Now you have a sturdy, portable manual the size of one of Tony Bingelis's books, so you can read it easily and flip pages back and forth without tearing a page. Also, it'll store on a normal bookshelf. The 3-ring binder is better at staying OPEN on a particular page, so I may put them back when I start building, but not till then. Mike Taglieri ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 01:24:55 -0500 (EST) From: MikeTnyc@aol.com Subject: Re: KR: Rotary engines >just talked to david atkins of atkins aviation in puyallup, wa. he has one in >his plane, he said that as you call it a 1/2 which is really a single port >that it wouldn't last long because of the revs mostly in the 120hp models, >but he said he could build me one at 120 hp in a duel port which would be a >lot better, do not know what it would weight but i would guess around 225lbs. >still sounds a bit to heavy but with the hp a kr2s might be able to handle >it. yes that is a ?. does anyone know what is the max weight a kr2s can >handle in a engine. this guy has been building thease engines for a long >time, mostly in race cars. he is doing alot now in birds. will be going down >to see him soon so will report on what i find out then. Perhaps the ideal small rotary engine would be the one Norton, Ltd. recently made for their cutting-edge rotary powered motorcycles. As some people may know the company has had serious financial problems and I think is no longer producing new bikes, but someone else may have taken over the rotary engine development. As I understand, it makes about 100 hp and is so vibration-free that you can balance a nickel on the bike's gas tank while the engine is running. It was an optional engine for Fischer's Tiger Moth, but I don't know if it's flown in other planes. Mike Taglieri ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 22:26:07 -0800 From: Micheal Mims Subject: Re: KR: A tip on studying the plans At 01:24 AM 10/29/97 -0500, MikeTnyc@aol.com wrote: >The 3-ring binder is better at staying OPEN on a particular page, so I may put them back when I start building, but not till then. > >Mike Taglieri > Mike, make a copy of your plans and put the originals away! Make the bound book out of the copies. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Micheal Mims Just Plane Nutts in Irvine Ca. mailto:mikemims@pacbell.net http://home.pacbell.net/mikemims ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Oct 97 9:40:43 ÿÿÿ From: steveb@aviation.denel.co.za Subject: Re: KR: main spar holes Jed No problem. Life is great, my plane is going to stand on its legs this weekend. Steve in South Africa - ---------- From: SMTP1@K1 - Server@Servers[] To: Cc: Subject: Re: KR: main spar holes Date: Wednesday, October 29, 1997 9:22AM Hi Guys After reading steve's post again yes it is.he must not have read my second post explaining the things I forgot to include. Sorry steve no offence I hope. Even still if you can get hold of the kit planes article I mention in the second my second post it will complete explain it. seeya Jed Whitford P.S. all the same I would not recomend drilling holes in any load bearing surfaces better safe than sorry. At 08:12 AM 28/10/97 -0800, you wrote: >Isn't that exactly what Steve said? > >At 03:48 PM 10/28/97 +0800, you wrote: >>Steve >> It does not matter that this is the case no matter what type of beam >>the nuetral axis never has a load due to bending on it it may however have a >>load due shear forces, if you still disagree leave another post and I will >>check my engineering text books. >>seeya >>Jed Whitford >> >> >>At 07:08 AM 28/10/97, you wrote: >>>Hi Guys >>>On a beam that has a cap and web; The cap is designed to carry the tensile >>and compressive loads. It is incorrect to assume that there is no load along >>the neutral axis. The neutral axis, in the case of an I or box beam lies on >>the web (the piece of ply joining the top and bottom caps).This carries the >>shear loads as a result of the beam being loaded. >>>Steve in South Africa > >________________________________ >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >Micheal Mims >Just Plane Nutts >mailto:mikemims@pacbell.net > >http://home.pacbell.net/mikemims > > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 09:28:59 +0100 From: Michele Bucceri Subject: Re: KR: KR newbies Thanks Bob, all the suggestions are good to make decision! You wrote: > ... > The KR2 is probably not a beginners plane. The original KR is not very > stable in the pitch axis, although some builders now are trying to > make changes that will help this. Flying it with 2 onboard is very > different from 1. > ... Does anybody have never performed stability evaluation? I mean evaluating most aft/forward CG limits? Looking at the airplane, my feeling is that the tail volume is not so big. If nobody did, I will, but I have to wait for the drawings! About the pitch stability, is the 2S version better? Michele Bucceri MBMBMBMBMBMBMBMBMBMBMBMBMBMBMBMBMBMBMBMBMBMBMB Michele Bucceri E-mail: mailto:michele.bucceri@italtel.it MBMBMBMBMBMBMBMBMBMBMBMBMBMBMBMBMBMBMBMBMBMBMB ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 04:51:35 -0500 (EST) From: N911TB@aol.com Subject: Re: KR: Tom Bagnatto's KR-1 Don't know what happened to my last reply, but here goes again. The engine was originally out of a 1972 Porsche 914 and was 1700cc. After getting it home and stripping it down, I sent it to Steve Bennett for modification. The case was bored to accept 103mm pistons and fitted with a 78mm crank with Force 1 hub. Steve also drilled out the case for a mechanical fuel pump since the fuel injected models used an electric pump. The heads were rebuilt and flycut to accept the larger sleeves. I had to build the log type intake manifold and exhaust stacks since none of the commercial model would fit either the Type 4 or the KR-1. The carb is an Ellison TBI model 2 and well worth the money. I haven't had to touch it since the original installation. The stacks were made using the original header ports and short pieces 4130 tubing. A Dhiel supercase houses a 20 amp alternator, geared starter and single Slick mag. After a run-in with a Bonanza (long story) I rebuilt the engine and changed a few of Steve's modifications. Steve is one helluva engine guy, but a whole lot more conservative than I am. The compression was raised to 9.3 : 1, a mild cam was added and some tricks were done to the heads. The result was a 600 RPM increase using the same prop (56 X 54). The oil cooler is mounted in the original place in front of the # 1 cylinder. Some perfomance specs: Cyl Head temp-----------350 Oil press-------------------40 to 55 Oil temp--------------------200-220 (depends on OAT) EGT--------------------------1300 Fuel Flow ------------------6 GPH RPM -------------------------3600 (inflight) Cruise speed--------------185 MPH Top speed------------------207 MPH Rate of climb--------------WOW ! I was sorry to hear Steve has stopped developing the 78mm crank because of some problems that Dan Dhiel and I had. In my opinion, my problem had nothing to do with the design of the crank, but was a result of a prop strike (see the part about the Bonanza above). Steve builds some great engines, but I understand. He is in business and the plaintiff's attorneys are always circling. All in all, the engine is too much for the little KR-1. Torque is a real problem during takeoff. Any right crosswind at all and you don't have enough rudder to keep it straight. I only use 2500 RPM until the tail comes up and then graaaaaadually go to full power. Once airborne, however, you have all you ever wanted in performance. You just gotta love them "Big Block" VW's. Tom Bagnetto N911TB ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Oct 97 11:04:48 ÿÿÿ From: steveb@aviation.denel.co.za Subject: Re: KR: KR newbies Michele The tail volumes on the KR2 are small. Increasing the tail arm and tail areas will improve the stability aspects. On my plane I moved the tail back 28", increased the semi-span of the vert stab by 10". I also increased the MAC by 2" on the vertical and horizontal stabs. The area of the main wing was kept the same on the KR2. Steve in South Africa steveb@aviation.denel.co.za - ---------- From: SMTP1@K1 - Server@Servers[] To: Cc: Subject: Re: KR: KR newbies Date: Wednesday, October 29, 1997 9:28AM Thanks Bob, all the suggestions are good to make decision! You wrote: > ... > The KR2 is probably not a beginners plane. The original KR is not very > stable in the pitch axis, although some builders now are trying to > make changes that will help this. Flying it with 2 onboard is very > different from 1. > ... Does anybody have never performed stability evaluation? I mean evaluating most aft/forward CG limits? Looking at the airplane, my feeling is that the tail volume is not so big. If nobody did, I will, but I have to wait for the drawings! About the pitch stability, is the 2S version better? Michele Bucceri MBMBMBMBMBMBMBMBMBMBMBMBMBMBMBMBMBMBMBMBMBMBMB Michele Bucceri E-mail: mailto:michele.bucceri@italtel.it MBMBMBMBMBMBMBMBMBMBMBMBMBMBMBMBMBMBMBMBMBMBMB ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 20:12:00 +0800 From: Jed Whitford Subject: Re: KR: main spar holes At 01:24 AM 29/10/97 -0500, you wrote: >>>> With all of the stress analysis being considered for the airframe, has >>>> anyone considered the effect of drilling holes in the main spar or spar >>>> webs to mount various things such as gear or controls? I suppose it has >>>> been proven that the gear holes pose no problem, Would anyone have any >>>> suggestions as to how many or how big or where you can make a hole and >>>> still stay out of trouble? > >>>I recall reading in an text book that when a bending force is applied to >>>a simple beem, one side is under compression and the other side is >>under >tensile > >> I'm a first year mech engineer and this is part of our statics >>course. You seem to have misunderstood this. . . . > >> It is incorrect to assume that there is no load along >>the neutral axis. The neutral axis, in the case of an I or box beam lies on >>the web. . . . > >No offense, but this thread seems to be wandering off course. The questioner >was not asking for the correct theoretical understanding of how stresses in >the spar compare to the stresses in I-beams, etc., but was asking where is >the best place to drill holes and how big can they be? A very good question >in my opinion, so I hope one of you engineering folks will address it. > >Mike Taglieri > > Well yes and no. In my initial post i did address this, I said that if your going to drill holes they should be through this imaginary line called the neutral axis, I will add however that they should be as small as posible. However before you go this problem has forces that cause both bending and shear, this response only counters for the bending. To accurately tell you were you can and can't drill holes I would need figures and a great deal of time, I have neither, so perhaps the best thing is that some of you guys that have KR's in the air explain were' and how big the holes you drilled were. Jed Whitford ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 04:16:02 -0800 From: enewbold@sprynet.com Subject: Re: KR: Tom Bagnatto's KR-1 On Wed, 29 Oct 1997, N911TB@aol.com wrote: >Don't know what happened to my last reply, but here goes again. Got both the messages. Thanks for all the trouble you went to preparing this response. I (we) really appreciate it. >The engine was originally out of a 1972 Porsche 914 and was 1700cc. After >getting it home and stripping it down, I sent it to Steve Bennett for >modification. The case was bored to accept 103mm pistons and fitted with a >78mm crank with Force 1 hub. Steve also drilled out the case for a >mechanical fuel pump since the fuel injected models used an electric pump. >The heads were rebuilt and flycut to accept the larger sleeves. Wow! Impressive. Now, that sounds like the way to do it! Sounds like Steve's got the best business in town. >I had to build the log type intake manifold and exhaust stacks since none of >the commercial model would fit either the Type 4 or the KR-1. The carb is an >Ellison TBI model 2 and well worth the money. I haven't had to touch it >since the original installation. The stacks were made using the original >header ports and short pieces 4130 tubing. Do you have any type of carb heat installed on the Ellison? I'll keep an eye out for an Ellison carb in my area. >A Dhiel supercase houses a 20 amp alternator, geared starter and single Slick >mag. Cool. At least I have *these* parts on hand! >...I rebuilt the engine and changed a few of Steve's modifications. >...The compression was raised to 9.3 : 1, a mild cam was added and >some tricks were done to the heads. The result was a 600 RPM increase >using the same prop (56 X 54). When you rebuilt, did you remove gaskets to increase the compression or do something else? >I was sorry to hear Steve has stopped developing the 78mm crank... I know what you mean about the damned liability factor. A few greedy, stupid and unconscionable people across the country have ruined things for the rest of us. >You just gotta love them "Big Block" VW's. Ha ha! Tell me about it. I'm working hard towards getting there! :o) Thanks again for all the info about your powerplant. Loved it and will continue striving to get somewhere close to it. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 04:22:25 -0800 From: enewbold@sprynet.com Subject: Re: KR: Type-4 Engine >I have a Type IV that I am building to 2400cc that I will be >using in my KR. Marvin McCoy OK, Marvin, how about a little info about your Type 4 conversion? Parts like crank pistons, sleeves, heads, carb, ignitioin, etc. There are a lot of Type 4s available, and I, for one, am looking for a good combination of safety/cost effectiveness in converting one of these beasties. Ed Newbold Columbus, OH ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 06:50:52 -0600 From: ejanssen@chipsnet.com (Ed Janssen) Subject: KR: New GPS Netters, I see Cabela has a $99.00 GPS (Magellan Pioneer) in their catalog. Tracks 12 satellites. 100 waypoints. One route with ten legs. Altitude and all the rest. Speed to 951 mph. Operates 20 hours on 2 AA. Ed Janssen ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Oct 97 15:34:01 ÿÿÿ From: steveb@aviation.denel.co.za Subject: RE: KR: New GPS Ed Tell more. Contact numbers and or address South Africa is a long way from the USA. Steve in South Africa steveb@aviation.denel.co.za - ---------- From: SMTP1@K1 - Server@Servers[] To: Cc: Subject: KR: New GPS Date: Wednesday, October 29, 1997 6:50AM Netters, I see Cabela has a $99.00 GPS (Magellan Pioneer) in their catalog. Tracks 12 satellites. 100 waypoints. One route with ten legs. Altitude and all the rest. Speed to 951 mph. Operates 20 hours on 2 AA. Ed Janssen ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 06:26:15 PST From: "Oscar Zuniga" Subject: KR: Studying the plans Thanks, Mike and others, for your comments. Here are mine. Yes, I did get the plans which I bought from Ricky. He included everything, even had the original sales receipt from '83, and the inside cover of the manual is autographed by Jeanette Rand. I was impressed! Ricky put each page of the manual in a plastic slipcover, so the pages are clean and easily handled with "shop" hands. The only ones that weren't in slipcovers were the ones on retract gear, so I assume that he hadn't planned to go retract. I don't blame him. I have gone through them hastily (still need to go through slowly and carefully), but see no reason why a KR couldn't be built from them... and many have. Definitely NOT for the non-tech type, in my opinion, because there aren't little "Place tab B into slot A" type of instructions. If you expect to get a hand-holding type of manual/plans, look elsewhere. The pix in the manual are black and white, somewhat vague, very 70's-looking, and there is much to be filled in between the explanations given. I expect no trouble at all, given the ready availability of KRNet, the many hundreds of pages of printouts I've gleaned from you guys' pages on the web, and the invaluable tips and tricks also from you builders/pilots. Then, when Rick and Ross and Mike and the rest of you link all the nifty stuff onto the KRNet.org "online builders' manual", well- what can I say? The "Plans", by the way, consist only of two large fold-out blueline prints, plus a full-size firewall template. I was disappointed, but not very much, given the comments received on Net. I can do this! Oscar Zuniga Medford, Oregon ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 07:37:34 -0800 From: Micheal Mims Subject: Re: KR: New GPS At 06:50 AM 10/29/97 -0600, Ed Janssen wrote: >Netters, > >I see Cabela has a $99.00 GPS (Magellan Pioneer) in their catalog. Tracks >12 satellites. 100 waypoints. One route with ten legs. Altitude and all >the rest. Speed to 951 mph. Operates 20 hours on 2 AA. > >Ed Janssen > Sounds cool! Will be very cool to link to a laptop and have a 13 inch moving map display! I plan to add all that stuff after it flys. I will more than likely have only a handheld radio for the first few flights and after I decide wheather I like it or not then I will add all the whizz bang cool gizmos! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Micheal Mims Just Plane Nutts in Irvine Ca. mailto:mikemims@pacbell.net http://home.pacbell.net/mikemims ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 07:49:14 -0800 From: MARVIN MCCOY Subject: Re: KR: Type-4 Engine enewbold@sprynet.com wrote: > > > OK, Marvin, how about a little info about your Type 4 conversion? Parts like > crank pistons, sleeves, heads, carb, ignitioin, etc. There are a lot of Type 4s > available, and I, for one, am looking for a good combination of safety/cost > effectiveness in converting one of these beasties. > > Ed Newbold > Columbus, OH-------------------------- ED: My type IV is out ot a 914 porsche, 2000 cc. I am using the stock crank which is 71 mm and stock rods. With Great Planes 103mm pistons this will be close to 2400cc. Steve at Great planes tapered the crank for his Force one prop hub and bearing. I am using all of Steve's advise that I can get. I purchased new heads from MOFOCO. I think they were about $300 each with valves and machining for 103mm pistons. RIMCO did most of the machine work on the rebuilt case, crank and rods. They did very nice work. I had a local VW machine shop bore the case for a mechanical fuel pump. Since the fuel injected 2000cc type IV had electric pump and all others have mechanical. The fuel pump pad was there but needed to be drilled out. I plan to use both mechanical and electric fuel pump with the Ellison carb. Since Ellison is only a couple of blocks away from me. I will only have wing tanks, no header tank. I will use a stock hydraulic cam. I have not decided if I will use dual ignition. I want to use some type of electronic ignition but will most likely add a magneto with a second set of spark plugs drilled in the heads. The Type IV has a oil filter and oil cooler on it already. The type IV is a good 20 lbs heavier then the type I, but when I compared the case and crank, the type IV looked a lot stronger and therefore I hope more reliable. I have not put the motor together yet since it will be a while before I am ready to mount it. I hope the extra weight of the Type IV will be off set by the extra power it produces. However it may not be. I still believe that the Type I makes the best combination of power to weight for the KR since it was designed for that motor. I decided to use the Type IV because I think it would be a bit more reliable. Just my opinion. Marvin McCoy Seattle, WA. North end of Boeing field Mr.Marvin@worldnet.att.net - ----------------------- ------------------------------ End of krnet-l-digest V1 #150 *****************************