From: owner-krnet-l-digest@teleport.com[SMTP:owner-krnet-l-digest@teleport.com] Sent: Friday, November 07, 1997 5:56 AM To: krnet-l-digest@teleport.com Subject: krnet-l-digest V1 #161 krnet-l-digest Friday, November 7 1997 Volume 01 : Number 161 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 12:20:59 -0500 From: smithr Subject: Re: KR: model builders > << An interresting pole to take would be the num,ber of KR builders that > were model airplane builders as a kid. After building model airplanes > the KR construction seems like a natural follow on. > Steve >> Count me among the model guys too! I started with a control line 049 mustang when I was 8. Built & flew CL for about 10 years. Then left planes for MG cars (remember Lucas electric) Got a VW bus & pulled the engine but had bad luck with it. Went to RC planes 20 years later & always told myself that before I'd build a quarter scale I'd build the real thing. So here I am building a KR & flying spam cans. Bob Smith, Albany ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 08:51:12 -0800 From: Micheal Mims Subject: Re: KR: Jeff's fuel tank At 06:04 AM 11/6/97 PST, you wrote: > >Jeff wrote: > >>As of right now, the left wing that was already closed when I bought >>this project is sitting on blocks out in my garage while I repair a >>fuel leak. The wing should be back on and the plane flying again >this >weekend. My KR currently has about 75 hours on it since the first >flight in June. >> >>Jeff >>------- >>Jeff Scott - Los Alamos, NM >>jscott.pilot@juno.com > > >AHA! Another reason to have the wings easily detachable! Sorry, Mike. >Evidence is mounting, as far as my project is concerned. > >Oscar > Key words "my project is concerned" and "sitting on blocks out in my garage"! :o) Remember my KR will NERVER come back to my house once at the airport. If you dont beleive me, ask my wife! She has some strange idea about building a power boat (Chris Craft look-a-like) for cruising the harbor. :o) ________________________________ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Micheal Mims Just Plane Nutts mailto:mikemims@pacbell.net http://home.pacbell.net/mikemims ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 09:06:54 -0800 From: Micheal Mims Subject: Re: KR: RE: Steve's Wing At 10:02 AM 11/6/97 -0600, you wrote: >Patrick, > > If you're concerned about the WAF gap on the standard KR wing, there >is a way to strengthen that area. I used one long bolt through each pair >of fittings with a 4130 steel spacer between them on the main spar. > The steel strap WAF is standard construction on many aircraft with >wood spars. > That's one way to do it, I have heard that using eight separate bolts is a better way to go. Maybe the engineer types can tell us why! :o) ________________________________ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Micheal Mims Just Plane Nutts mailto:mikemims@pacbell.net http://home.pacbell.net/mikemims ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 14:27:49 -0500 From: Patrick Flowers Subject: Re: KR: RE: Steve's Wing Micheal Mims wrote: > > > If you're concerned about the WAF gap on the standard KR wing, there > >is a way to strengthen that area. I used one long bolt through each pair > >of fittings with a 4130 steel spacer between them on the main spar. > > The steel strap WAF is standard construction on many aircraft with > >wood spars. > > > > That's one way to do it, I have heard that using eight separate bolts is a > better way to go. Maybe the engineer types can tell us why! :o) My guess would be that the failure of one bolt would be less catastrophic that way. Regarding the bolts attaching the WAF's to the spars, are you just glassing over and forgetting those or are you providing some means of inspection? Patrick - -- Patrick Flowers Mailto:patri63@ibm.net ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 12:07:31 -0800 From: Micheal Mims Subject: Re: KR: RE: Steve's Wing At 02:27 PM 11/6/97 -0500, you wrote: >My guess would be that the failure of one bolt would be less >catastrophic that way. > >Regarding the bolts attaching the WAF's to the spars, are you just >glassing over and forgetting those or are you providing some means of >inspection? > >Patrick >-- I plan to torque them (locking bolts with lock-tight)and glass over them. I also plan to insert the outer spar all the way into the WAFs on the center spar and use one long bolt to go through. (See gathering pictures) ________________________________ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Micheal Mims Just Plane Nutts mailto:mikemims@pacbell.net http://home.pacbell.net/mikemims ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 15:24:19 -0600 From: ejanssen@chipsnet.com (Ed Janssen) Subject: KR: Another neat website Check this one out. A little bit off the KR subject, but still a real neat website. http://www.teleport.com/~dbullard/nurflugel/index.html Ed Janssen ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 16:39:27 -0500 (EST) From: BSHADR@aol.com Subject: KR: Engine for sale KRNetHeads: This came across the DragonFly list yesterday FYI. Randy Stein BSHADR@aol.com Soviet Monica, CA ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ <> ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 15:17:04 -0700 From: cartera Subject: Re: KR: sizing up a project for sale Mark Langford wrote: > > hjfine wrote: > > > What do I look for? > > There is an article in one of the first KROnline newsletters written by > Jeff Scott on how to evaluate a project to buy (or maybe it was how NOT to > size one up!). Those are available from my site (below) and others as well. > It was an excellent article and a MUST read for anyone considering a > "previously owned" KR dream. > > Mark Langford, Huntsville, AL > email at langford@hiwaay.net > KR2S project construction at http://fly.hiwaay.net/~langford Hi Mark, Maybe my eyesight is not so good but where is the pointer for this article?? Went into your construction page too, no luck. - -- Adrian VE6AFY cartera@cuug.ab.ca http://www.cuug.ab.ca/~cartera ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 14:54:51 PST From: "Oscar Zuniga" Subject: KR: KR Chris-Craft >> >Key words "my project is concerned" and "sitting on blocks out in my >garage"! :o) Remember my KR will NERVER come back to my house once at the >airport. If you dont beleive me, ask my wife! She has some strange idea >about building a power boat (Chris Craft look-a-like) for cruising the >harbor. :o) > >________________________________ >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >Micheal Mims Key words here: "Look-a-like"- Mike, I think she was talking about taking the sawzall to YOUR PROJECT, hanging a Ford Interceptor on it, and putt-putting around the harbor... since you don't want to make the wings removable for boating purposes. Oscar ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 14:59:22 -0800 From: Micheal Mims Subject: Re: KR: sizing up a project for sale At 03:17 PM 11/6/97 -0700, you wrote: >Hi Mark, >Maybe my eyesight is not so good but where is the pointer for this >article?? Went into your construction page too, no luck. >-- >Adrian VE6AFY Adrian, here is the HTML to issue # 9 and the article in plain text. http://fly.hiwaay.net/~langford/kronline9.html Shopping for the Partially Built KR. By: Jeff Scott This story starts about twenty years ago when I first started looking at the KR-2 as the plane I'd like to build. The only problem at that time was a lack of money, lack of knowledge, and a lack of job stability. I liked the design, except for the low ground clearance of the retractable gear and that a KR was going to be a tight fit for me to fly. Over the past twenty years I've owned a number of planes, but still always wanted to build my own. I needed one that would fit me, my budget requirements, and have the speed and performance that I wanted. When "KITPLANES" published the article featuring Roy Marsh's new KR-2S, it was the first I had heard of any major modifications or improvements to the same old KR design. I believe that article and Roy Marsh's workmanship have probably been the greatest boon to Rand Robinson (RR) in the last twenty years. It certainly caught my eye! Here was the same design I had decided I wanted to build twenty years ago, with all of the improvements I wanted. It was sitting on fixed gear with some reasonable ground clearance. It had the capability to be built large enough to accommodate me. It has enough prefab parts available that it didn't have to be 100% scratch built if I decided to hurry the project along. And it had the speed I wanted. I knew that Roy's published speeds were probably not realistic expectations for the average KR, but after knocking around for the last three years in my Champ, anything over 90 mph seems pretty fast to me. After purchasing the info kit and the sales video from Rand Robinson, the next step after deciding for sure to build this plane was to order the KR-2 plans and the KR-2S addendum. I finally got my plans and was putting together my first order to start the plane, when my partner in the Champ pointed out that there was a partially completed KR-2S for sale in Trade-a-plane. My initial answer was "No, I don't even want to look at it. I want to build my own from scratch." My partner insisted that for the advertised price and the fact that it wasn't too far away, I ought to at least give the guy a call and investigate it. "No, I don't think I want to buy someone else's problems," I persisted. That night I went home and crunched up some numbers on the calculator and finally came to the conclusion that for the sake of my budget for the next several years, I really should give this guy a call. Three days later, I flew to his place about 400 miles away to take a look at his project. At this point I should probably mention that I consider myself to be fairly knowledgeable about airplane construction, although the vast majority of my experience is with tube and fabric. The rest of this article deals with what I looked for and more importantly what I missed and have had to repair in the last year since I purchased the project. When we went to the seller's house, I found that the left wing was built using the Dan Diehl wing skins and the right wing skins were leaning against the wall inside the house. Also the canopy was in the house with the canopy covered with paper and tape. I wanted to inspect the fuselage first, so off we went to the shop. There I found a fuselage sitting on it's gear painted in primer gray. The first step was to inspect the quality of workmanship of what could be seen as it sat. The interior of the fuselage looked as if it had been built with a great deal of care. The fit and finish of all of the interior wood was very nice. Even the gussets looked like they had been painstakingly perfectly fitted. The glass work on the turtle back also looked very precise and clean. It was evenly faired into the vertical and horizontal stabs. The tail also appeared to be well built with the exception of a depression directly over the front and rear spars in the horizontal stabs. He explained that when he moved recently, that he had shot the plane with gray primer to protect it from the weather since he wouldn't have ready access to a shop to put it in right away. It ended up sitting out in the hot south Texas summer sun for a few weeks before he got a shop rented to work in. That caused the glass (or possibly the foam inside the horizontal stab) to swell, except that it held onto the spar, so it was slightly ballooned in front of and behind the spars. His recommendation was to fill it back smooth with micro. I also found a small linear crack in the lower left wing spar cap on the left wing stub. It appeared to be from over tightening the rear spar wing attach fitting bolts. His explanation was that the crack wasn't important because the rear spars only job is to keep the wings from folding back. I also noticed that the holes for attaching the outer wing to the wing stub were badly rounded out on the rear spar. He explained that the Diehl wing skins require the rear spar to be swept slightly more forward than the stock wings. This won't allow you to use the rear spar attach fittings from RR and that I would need to fabricate a new set of rear spar attach fittings. I also found that the aileron bellcranks were not built or installed as per plans, but found that they looked professional. I couldn't check for function since the right bellcrank and sheeve wasn't installed, the left wing also wasn't installed, and the right wing didn't exist yet. Next we pulled the inspection panels off of the fuselage and tail and looked at everything I could see with a good flashlight. I didn't find anything else that might be questionable about the fuselage except for a cracked elevator trim tab that was damaged when it fell off it's hanging place on the wall. Next we spent some time going over his builders log and builders photo album. I still hadn't seen anything that would dissuade me from buying this project. At this point it was starting to get late and my ride down needed to get airborne for the flight home. I needed to make a decision about whether I wanted this project or not, but I hadn't inspected the wings and canopy yet. I took a cursory look at the left wing and saw lots on micro built up on it and some bubbles in the leading edge, but nothing that looked seriously wrong to my amateur eye. The right wing was only a set of spars in the shop and the Diehl wing skins in the house, so there wasn't much to look at there. The canopy was wrapped in paper and tape, so there wasn't much to look at there either. I decided that even if there were serious problems in the wing that was built, I would be money ahead to go ahead and buy the project. For the advertised price, I could build a new set of wings and still be way ahead financially. We negotiated a final price, shook hands, took my ride to the airport, and started off in search of a U-haul to haul the project home. Now, at this point, some of you are thinking about what I surely must have forgotten to inspect and why didn't I take a local A & P or EAA member along for the ride. First of all, I don't know any mechanics locally that have any experience with glass and our EAA chapter of which I am VP is woefully lacking in fiberglass knowledge. Secondly, as you will see, I missed plenty. Some by ignorance, some by just not looking close enough. Now for a list of the problems that I found over the last year and a few of the fixes that I came up with. I found that the lower set of rear spar attach fittings on the left rear spar were installed backwards with the longer spaced hole towards the fuselage. Since this is the same place that also had the cracked spar cap, it required a major change. Also in the same area he had drilled through the rear spar with a hole saw to create a place for the aileron cable to pass through and managed to cut out the second from the outside vertical brace in the spar. Then he chose to install the aileron bellcranks in front of the rear spar, and cut another hole through the rear spar for the aileron push rod. He also managed to cut out the outside vertical brace in the spar. Since the holes were already drilled through the spar, the choices were to either cut out that section of spar cap and scarf a new piece in, cut the whole rear spar carrythrough out of the fuselage including ruining the left lower wing skin, or do something else creative to reinforce the spar cap and install a custom built set of attach fittings. I also found that after I built and installed the right side wing stub ribs and skin that the aileron bellcrank setup would not work as installed. The cable that crosses between the two bellcranks had a sharp uphill from the sheeve to the bellcrank in the last 12 inches on either side. This combined with the radius that the bellcranks turn caused the cross cable to pull up tight when the ailerons were pushed to either end of their travel, but allowed the cables to go very slack when the ailerons were centered. Also the Aileron pushrods needed to pass directly through the lower set of rear wing attach fittings to attach to the aileron. This whole rear spar and aileron bellcrank setup was going to either have to be redesigned or cut out and built to plans. The bottom line is that the problems I observed when I inspected this part were much more serious than expected when I had to fix it. I decided that I had to remove the rear fittings from the left wing to be replaced with the new set that my neighborhood machinist was cutting out for me. When I put the wing on the work bench to start removing the rear fittings, I thought I had better take a closer look at the bubbles in the leading edge. I found that as I pushed on the leading edge, it delaminated between the glass lay-up on top and the upper and lower wing skin edges that were floxed together underneath. I concluded that that area had to come apart and took a belt sander to the leading edge. What I found was that the leading edge had been floxed together and glassed over, but the mold release had never been scrubbed off the leading edge of the wing. It peeled apart for rebuild quite easily. When I got back to removing the rear spar attach fittings, I noticed that the woodwork inside the wing looked awfully dull. The reason was that the wing had been closed up without varnishing any of the woodwork. This was rectified with a small hole saw, a number of extensions and a modified undercoating sprayer. I also found that the aluminum drain fitting in the bottom of the left wing tank had been glassed into place upside down. The tapered pipe threads were tapered the wrong way to install the draincock into the tank. Retapping the fitting the right direction seemed to be a good fix for that problem. When I finally got around to attaching the wing to the fuselage, I found that the front spar attach fittings were badly misaligned. Although they could be forced into alignment, I didn't think I needed that kind of preload on the main spar fittings. This problem was fixed by calling on my local neighborhood machinist to build me an aligning fixture and reaming the attach holes to the next larger size and ordering the new sized bolts. On the fuselage I found that although it had new Cleveland wheels and brakes on it, one of the brakes had a severe wobble to it. I must complement the manufacturers for taking care of that problem. One call to the Cleveland factory and they shipped me a new set of wheels and brakes even though the receipt for this set was over four years old and in the original builders name. Their only concern was that this set had never been placed in service yet. I chose to sand the load of micro off the left wing to see what it was covering. When I got down to the glass, I found that there was no glass for the aft inch and a half of the underside of the wing in front of the aileron hinge. With the Diehl wing skins, you build the wings, then cut the ailerons out of trailing edge of the wing. He had mismeasured and cut too much material off the bottom side of the trailing edge in front of the aileron. It was filled by floxing a piece of spruce into the gap to fill the space between the back edge of the fiberglass and the aileron mount. I chose to wrap the trailing edge of that wing, and the other wing to match with a couple of lay-ups of glass. When I sanded the primer off the aforementioned damaged trim tab, I found that the hinge was floxed to the leading edge of the foam insides of the tab, but not the glass. I also chose to wrap the front of the trim tab with a lay-up of glass. I decided to pull the paper off the canopy and take a look at it before I'm ready to bolt it on and fly. The original builder had blown his own canopy and after some of the previous problems, I was beginning to have some concerns about not having looked it over closely enough. The canopy turned out to have been blow a little too large. It ended up with a little larger bubble for headroom, which I didn't object to. However, it had more headroom on the right side than the left. Yes, it was just a little bit lopsided. The main problem was that the canopy is stretched thin enough that it can be easily pushed in with one hand when the weather is warm.. My fear was that this is just thin enough that it may decide to lay on my head or in my lap when flying on a warm day. It will have to be replaced. I'm sure that many that are reading this could see several of the potential problems before I mentioned them, but some others may not have and I'm sure that there could have been many other problems that didn't but could have existed on this project. This is also not intended to be critical of the gentleman that started this project as many parts of it, especially the wood work are better than I could have done and much of his work is outstanding. I prefer to think that I'll end up with a better plane with his woodwork combined with my glasswork. This article is intended to feature some of the problems that you may run into in buying someone else's project. The final question is, knowing what I have found over the past year, would I have still purchased this project. The answer is yes, but primarily because the price was right in that I am still money and work ahead of where I would be if I had started the project from scratch. There are a few things that I would have done differently, but nothing that I can't live with. Although I won't be able to say that I built it all from scratch, I have built and rebuild enough of the plane that I should have no problem qualifying under the 51% rule. You can send comments directly to the author via e-mail at "jscott@LANL.GOV". ________________________________ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Micheal Mims Just Plane Nutts mailto:mikemims@pacbell.net http://home.pacbell.net/mikemims ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 17:59:09 -0600 From: cwcrane@why.net (CW Crane) Subject: Re: KR: Dallas KR On Wed, 05 Nov 1997 20:39:26 -0800, you wrote: >>Hank, I'm near Dallas but I don't know anything about KRs yet either. >>I checked the Deja News for the article you are referring to and found >>that the same one goes back to September 1995. If you want to pursue >>this further and send me a name and phone number, I will go check it >>out for you. >> >>CW Crane, Arlington, TX >> >>Hi CW: What's Deja News? Has this kit been for sale since Sept. 95? I >don't have a name or phone# yet. One of the guys is going to check it out >when I get one tho. Please standby. Thanks for the help. Hank. >> > > Deja News at http://www.dejanews.com is a repository for all the newsgroup articles. I'm not sure how far back their articles are dated but it is far enough to do sufficient research to see if anybody in recent history has posted an article on whatever you are interested in. It helps to limit the search since there are probably more than 20,000 newsgroups. In this case I specified "rec.aviation.homebuilt" and the key words "KR + Dallas". This gave me 21 occurrences of articles with both the KR and Dallas somewhere in the article. You can merely specify key words and have it check everything it has if you want but sometimes the results are quite amusing. You probably have used a search engine on the net and the techniques are similar. CW Crane ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 15:01:22 -0800 From: Micheal Mims Subject: Re: KR: KR Chris-Craft At 02:54 PM 11/6/97 PST, you wrote: >Key words here: "Look-a-like"- Mike, I think she was talking about >taking the sawzall to YOUR PROJECT, hanging a Ford Interceptor on it, >and putt-putting around the harbor... since you don't want to make the >wings removable for boating purposes. > >Oscar > HEY!! I never thought of that! Not to mention she took today off and asked where the saw was that she bought me last Christmas! Humm................ Mike "I better go home for lunch" Mims ________________________________ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Micheal Mims Just Plane Nutts mailto:mikemims@pacbell.net http://home.pacbell.net/mikemims ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 08:44:12 +0800 From: Jed Whitford Subject: Re: KR: Models At 09:58 AM 6/11/97, you wrote: > >A little little late but had to put in my two cents. I too have been a >modeler since I was very young. Started with plastic, progressed into >rubber band "Comet" kits, skipped Control Line after watching dad and >Grandpa try to kill the neighbors with a Cox Mustang, but not before >starting the engine on mom's kitchen table. Had to include that traumatic >experience! Progressed right into R/C and been doing that off and on for >15 years. > >So yes, my modeling experience is one of the things that sold me on the >KR's. Materials that I am familiar with and the ability to add my own >personal touches and modifications to the basic design, something I have >always loved to do with my models. > >I think one of the neatest things about KR's is the fact that NO TWO ARE >ALIKE! >The RV's, Glasairs, Lancairs...etc...are beautiful, but they all look the >same. > >Again, just had to add something..... >************************************************************* > >If at first you don't succeed.....so much for skydiving! > >Troy A. Johnson >WYLE Electronics >1955 E. Sky Harbor Circle North >Phoenix, AZ 85034 >(602)-495-9953 >(602)-416-2158 (direct) > >************************************************************* > > > > Add one more to the list of model builders, did control line for a few years then R/C in fact still have all my gear. Recieved my plans yesterday so I'm making sense of the plans rather than studing for exams. Jed Whitford ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 20:50:37 -0800 From: Donald Reid Subject: Re: KR: RE: Steve's Wing Hartman, Malcolm L (New Orleans JRB) wrote: > If you're concerned about the WAF gap on the standard KR wing, there > is a way to strengthen that area. I used one long bolt through each pair > of fittings with a 4130 steel spacer between them on the main spar. > The steel strap WAF is standard construction on many aircraft with > wood spars. > > M. Hartman/N926FW > One long bolt through each pair of fittings, with a compression spacer between the fittings is in fact stronger than the standard KR method of using individual bolts. This is a loading pattern known as double shear, as opposed to the single shear that is shown in the KR plans. Someone suggested that it may be safer to have individual bolts instead of one long one, this is not the case. If a single bolt failed due to an overload condition, the remaining bolt would instantly fail. - -- Don Reid mailto:donreid@erols.com http://www.erols.com/donreid/kr_page.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 21:08:59 -0800 From: Donald Reid Subject: Re: KR: Steven's wing Steven A Eberhart wrote: > > I am taking a completely different aproach to the removable wings. I > have the plans for the Long EZ and really like the wing attach, carry > through spar arangement. I have decided to go with the Rutan wing > design. I am going to use the wing structure and carry through spar > straight from the Long EZ plans. Same structure, shear web, and number > of plies as the EZ. Just not sweeping the wing. big snip > THis seems like a natural to update the KR design as it will simplify the > spar and sub wing construction. Also eliminates a lot of expensive > spruce in the spars. I also prefer hot wired wing cores over the > standard KR construction. The Long EZ has a higher gross weight so if I > use the same construction and number of lay ups should result in a very > strong wing. > > Steve I have made numerous changes to the design on my project, but I did a lot of calculation and thinking on each one (and I still worry that I did something wrong). I can see several areas where this design change might have problems, for instance, the Long-ez single spar, is designed for the particular airfoil and sweep. Each airfoil has a pitch moment that causes twisting under load and the torsion on the wing is also a function of sweep. Simply building a straight version of the Long-ez with the same layup might result in a wing that will fail in torsion under load. For example, a low speed, high G condition causes a combination of primary bending stress due to the fuselage load, a twisting in the (generally) leading edge down due to airfoil pitch moment, and a pull forward due to the forward component of lift. This is usually the worst case loading condition for the wing. In a standard two spar design, the main spar is generally assumed to carry the majority of the aerodynamic loads and the rear spar carries the torsional loading. In a single spar design, the pitch moment, spar placement, and all the rest have to be considered, not just the primary load carring capability. Good luck, but do a LOT of calculations prior to construction. - -- Don Reid mailto:donreid@erols.com http://www.erols.com/donreid/kr_page.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 21:03:27 EST From: TANDEM2 Subject: Re: KR: WHITE PRIMER john, i don't know if there is anything lighter out there are not. not real sure how much #'s the silver would add, maybe not that much as your only apply to just cover up, a very light coat. can anyone else help out on this? tandem2 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 21:10:15 EST From: TANDEM2 Subject: Re: KR: Wood (e.g. KR's etc.) vs. Metal (RV's, etc.) now thats fun , i wonder what fiberglass would be? and foam? i am with you , wood lives, stop cutting that tree, it's mine for my KR!!!!!! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 00:04:46 -0500 (EST) From: MikeTnyc@aol.com Subject: Re: KR: Taxi Testing KR-1 >I actually still have the Posa that came with my Revmaster. It even >includes the card-heat deflector box that the original owner used. I will >not likely ever use it as the RevFlow carb is doing just fine for me. I've been trying to buy a Posa for a long time. Want to sell it? ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 00:54:16 -0500 (EST) From: MikeTnyc@aol.com Subject: Re: KR: Cutting KR in half for real I know this thread has been in jest, but I've been toying with cutting a KR in half in the literal sense. As I've mentioned here before, I'm having a hard time finding a place to build, and even if I could build a plane in my apartment, I'd have a hell of a time getting it out, since the tailfeathers would prevent it from being carried through a normal doorway (not to mention down flights of stairs). Since a long tapered splice is considered to be as strong as the wood itself, however, could the rear end of the boat be sawn-off with suitable tapers and epoxied on again after the plane was removed from the workshop? This would not be necessary for the turtledeck, since it could simply be left unattached, and the tiny bit of length lost in sawing and regluing could be compensated for in building if it were even worth worrying about. I've wondered about the desirablility of sawing everything at the same place compared with staggering the cuts along the body somewhat to prevent the weakness wasn't localized, but I'm not even sure there would be any weakness if the taper were long enough. I'd appreciate hearing what people think of the idea. Incidentally, I got this idea from the recent cartoon in Trade-a-Plane, where the pilot is telling his passenger that he made the plane in two pieces to get it out of the basement, not realizing that the passenger is watches the rear end of the fuselage (held on with nails) departing as he speaks. I think I could do better than that. . . . Mike Taglieri ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 00:54:19 -0500 (EST) From: MikeTnyc@aol.com Subject: KR: Tasteless John Denver parody WARNING: Below is a brilliant but extremely tasteless parody of a John Denver song, which was sent to me by a friend who (needless to say) has a very low opinion of general aviation in general and the sanity of anyone who would build his own plane. I am leaving some blank screens before it starts so people who want to delete this post now will not be forced to see it. Mike Taglieri >Subj: Sung to the tune of Country Boy >Date: 97-11-03 13:05:00 EST > >For all my sick twisted and\or aircraft building friends. > > >Oh God I'm An Ocean Buoy >-not by John Denver > >Took a flight from the farm >and I never came back >Built a plane from a kit >But I didn't have the knack >Jumped in the cockpit >and downed a six-pack >And now I'm an ocean buoy > >Well, I grabbed the controls >And I started to fiddle >Got flames coming up >On my face like a griddle >Air flight ain't nothing >But a funny, funny riddle >So now I'm an ocean buoy. > >Well, my head's chopped in pieces >And my body's full of dents >They'll identify me >By my guitar's fingerprints >I tried to "dry out" >But instead got a rinse >And now I'm an ocean buoy > >Well, it's really farrr out >When you're down 'neath the water >I just ain't been right >Since I started on the bottle >I reach for Jim Beam >But instead grab the throttle >And now I'm an ocean buoy > >Well, I grabbed the controls >And I started to fiddle >Got flames coming up >On my face like a griddle >George Burns appeared beside me >And we prayed just a little >Oh God! I'm an ocean buoy! > >The day's just about over >And I'm sinking kinda low >In the undersea world >of Jacques Cousteau >Calypso can you find me >By the bubbles that I blow >'Cause now I'm an ocean buoy. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 22:50:26 -0800 From: Micheal Mims Subject: Re: KR: Cutting KR in half for real At 12:54 AM 11/7/97 -0500, you wrote: >I know this thread has been in jest, but I've been toying with cutting a KR >in half in the literal sense. As I've mentioned here before, I'm having a >hard time finding a place to build, and even if I could build a plane in my >apartment, I'd have a hell of a time getting it out, since the tailfeathers >would prevent it from being carried through a normal doorway (not to mention down flights of stairs). > I don't see any reason why you couldn't build the fuselage in a way that you would end up with two bulkheads just aft of the aft spar that bolt together. Sorta like two plywood rings, one connected to the rear halve and one connected to the front halve. You could tie them into the longerons sorta like the firewall but not as beefy. If you had a removable aft turtledeck then it would be a matter of using the right cable thimbles that would allow you to take the machine apart anytime you want. Remove t-deck, take control cables apart, unbolt aft section and wha-la you have a KR fuselage cut in half. The Nemesis is built sorta like this and I remember taking the A-4 apart just to change the engine. Plus I believe the Falco has been built like this on occasion. It could easily be done! You may gain two or three pounds but if its what you need then,.. you its what you need! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Micheal Mims Just Plane Nutts in Irvine Ca. mailto:mikemims@pacbell.net http://home.pacbell.net/mikemims ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 04:48:17 -0800 From: enewbold@sprynet.com Subject: Re: KR: KR2 for Flight Simulator Hey folks, i received this message from outside the KRNet forum, but am tossing it into the fray in the hope that someone can't offer the fellow some advice. Ed Newbold Columbus, OH - ---------------------------------------------------------------- "Hi Ed, I love your KR2 page. I am a big fan of the KR2 and have been dreaming of building one for about 10 years. Hopefully within the next ten I can make that dream come true. In the mean time I am trying to find someone who has designed a KR2 for Microsoft Flight simulator. If you have any help for me in that area could you please drop me a line. janes@ns.sympatico.ca. Thanks for the help and the great page. Happy Flying. Dave Jane." - ---------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 07 Nov 1997 06:49:10 -0600 From: brian whatcott Subject: Re: KR: Cutting KR in half for real If the Navy can make wings fold on command - you could certainly make the rear fuselage demount. You accept there is some weight penalty, and aft of the CG too ( where you like it least) but it could be engineered - not to be lightly undertaken. Recall the WW2 prisoners of war who build a glider from nothing in the attic space of their prison... Brian At 00:54 11/7/97 -0500, you wrote: >I know this thread has been in jest, but I've been toying with cutting a KR >in half in the literal sense. As I've mentioned here before, I'm having a >hard time finding a place to build, and even if I could build a plane in my >apartment, I'd have a hell of a time getting it out, since the tailfeathers >would prevent it from being carried through a normal doorway (not to mention >down flights of stairs). > >Since a long tapered splice is considered to be as strong as the wood itself, >however, could the rear end of the boat be sawn-off with suitable tapers and >epoxied on again after the plane was removed from the workshop? This would >not be necessary for the turtledeck, since it could simply be left >unattached, and the tiny bit of length lost in sawing and regluing could be >compensated for in building if it were even worth worrying about. I've >wondered about the desirablility of sawing everything at the same place >compared with staggering the cuts along the body somewhat to prevent the >weakness wasn't localized, but I'm not even sure there would be any weakness >if the taper were long enough. I'd appreciate hearing what people think of >the idea. > >Incidentally, I got this idea from the recent cartoon in Trade-a-Plane, where >the pilot is telling his passenger that he made the plane in two pieces to >get it out of the basement, not realizing that the passenger is watches the >rear end of the fuselage (held on with nails) departing as he speaks. I >think I could do better than that. . . . > >Mike Taglieri > > brian whatcott Altus OK ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 07 Nov 1997 08:55:32 -0800 From: Donald Reid Subject: Re: KR: Cutting KR in half for real Micheal Mims wrote: > > At 12:54 AM 11/7/97 -0500, you wrote: > >I know this thread has been in jest, but I've been toying with cutting a KR > >in half in the literal sense. > > I don't see any reason why you couldn't build the fuselage in a way that you > would end up with two bulkheads just aft of the aft spar that bolt together. > Sorta like two plywood rings, one connected to the rear halve and one > connected to the front halve. > Micheal Mims > Just Plane Nutts in Irvine Ca. > mailto:mikemims@pacbell.net > http://home.pacbell.net/mikemims If I were to need to split the fuselage, this is how I would do it. The forces involved are not too hard to calculate. - -- Don Reid mailto:donreid@erols.com http://www.erols.com/donreid/kr_page.htm ------------------------------ End of krnet-l-digest V1 #161 *****************************