From: owner-krnet-l-digest@teleport.com[SMTP:owner-krnet-l-digest@teleport.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 1997 6:11 PM To: krnet-l-digest@teleport.com Subject: krnet-l-digest V1 #177 krnet-l-digest Tuesday, November 25 1997 Volume 01 : Number 177 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 14:20:00 -0800 From: Micheal Mims Subject: Re: KR: Dual ignition & one set of plugs -- possible problems At 01:16 PM 11/24/97 -0500, you wrote: >Mike, >I think that you're the one with the outdated dual magneto mentality >here by missing my point about pilot workload! I think not, I only offered the idea to those who still feel like they need two ignition sources, I only plan to use one, count it yes ONE ignition. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 12:01:13 -0800 From: Donald Reid Subject: Re: KR: Safe-T-Poxy Michele Bucceri wrote: > > Donald Reid wrote: > > IF YOU ARE ALERGIC TO SAFE-T-POXY, YOU WILL BE ALERGIC TO EZ POXY.... > ... that's what I was scared of ... Does it means that they have only > changed the commercial name ? > > Michele That one I can't talk about. I suspect that it is the same, or very similar chemical formalulation, but I don't really know. - -- Don Reid mailto:donreid@erols.com http://www.erols.com/donreid/kr_page.htm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 20:22:03 -0500 (EST) From: bvermeul@concentric.net Subject: KR: VIDEO IS COMPLETE Hey KRNetters, The Gathering Video is finally completed. It's one and a half hours of the best weekend of the year. You'll kinda get a feel of what it was like to be their this year, with lot's of flybys, the activities in the hangar, a good view of most of the KR's. You'll see Jeff Scott's KR-2S, and enjoy a short interview with him. Mike Ladigo's turbine got some footage this year, along with Tom Bagnetto's beautiful KR-1. You'll experience a wild ride with Martin Roberts. There's footage of the spot landing contest, only a few short exerpts from some of the seminars, (for those who weren't able to attend, the seminars were great), and you'll see the awards given out at the banquet. I also included a few shots of some of the non KR aircraft that joined us. We had a great time and I hope the video helps you keep the memories. The videos are $25 which includes postage. We need a check, money order, or credit card. MasterCard or Visa. Credit card orders, make sure we get the account number, card type (MC or Visa)and its expiration date. You can mail your order to us at: Omega Productions 304 Cedar St. NE Grand Rapids, MI 49503 Call Omega Productions at: 616-774-3913 Or E-mail me at: bvermeul@concentric.net If your nervous about credit card security, just send me two e-mails with half of you account number one time and the other half later. If you call, I give you fair warning, I'm gone a lot and you may have to talk to an answering machine. Make sure you clearly spell your name and don't rush through your address. In another day or so, I'll be able to give you another phone # you can try. By the way, if you ever get a defective tape (yes it does happen) I will gladly replace the video, no questions asked. You guys are the greatest. Thanks for all the support and let the orders begin. Enough for now, I'm off to Clevland to shoot for a day. Video Bob a.k.a. Bob Vermeulen P.S. Don't forget, KR pilots at the Gathering get a free video and when you other guys order, mention KRNet and a part of the purchase price goes to KRNet or next years Gathering. (Wherever it's need most) Stein and Youngblood can fight over the money. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 19:45:45 -0500 (EST) From: KR2616TJ@aol.com Subject: KR: Another New Web Page. Ok guys, enough about applique finishes, Spoilers and Safe-T-Poxy. It's time for new pictures. http://members.iclub.org/kr2616tj/ I finally got that HTML thing figured out. I believe split flaps are easier to figure out than HTML. Anyway, I've finally got some construction pictures, a lot of KR pictures and some goofball pictures. Thanks to Mark Langford, Al Doherty and Brian Bland for sending me all the web page addresses, I've got them all linked. You'll find about 30 pictures and all of these pictures are FULL page pictures, so give them a little time to load. I thought the output would be worth the time. My local server only gave me one meg. and this page turned out to be 1.02, so you will also find a link to my geocities address. This add. is not ready yet, but it will have substantially more pictures on it. I've had fun so go have a look. Do me a favor, if I have you linked, return the favor and put me on yours, I plan on updating this page regularly. I've included a link to my brothers' civil war letter page. This is a page with actual letters my great, great, great, and so on, grandfather wrote to his wife during the civil war. He ended up dying in the war. This page has a counter and I told my brother he would get some hits, it really is pretty interesting. So much for the sale job, back to the octopus, I mean the wiring harness. Dana Overall http://members.iclub.org/kr2616tj/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 22:17:59 -0800 From: bmsi@ix.netcom.com Subject: Re: KR: Dual ignition & one set of plugs -- possible problems smithr wrote: > > Micheal Mims wrote: > > > > At 04:09 PM 11/21/97 -0500, you wrote: > > <<>> > > > > NO! > > > > << > feet over a forest and bang, your ignition craps out. In your panic, do you > > really have presence of mind or time enough to evaluate the problem>>> > > > > Jesus Christ man I can put you in a situation that will guarantee your death > > every time you go flying. Do what you want and I will do the same! This is > > that dual magneto mentality coming through again!.~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Micheal Mims > > Just Plane Nutts in Irvine CA > > http://home.pacbell.net/mikemims > > Mike, > I think that you're the one with the outdated dual magneto mentality > here by missing my point about pilot workload! I realize that there are > inumerable possible bad scenareos. I like the (modern) idea of 2 > ignitions and 1 set of plugs (either 2 electronic or 1 electronic 1 > mag). Its the switchable part I don't like,. I'd like to see them both > run sumultaneously, but I presently don't know how to do this. > > Bob Smith 1997 Don't be too hard on Mike. He makes a few good points that I agree with. One of which is run 'em in series, not parallel. But first a point or two about design. Design can solve a problem or set of problems. Design can exploit an opportunity--not necessarily to fix what's broke but to make it better, faster, prettier, sexier, fit the designer better, or whatever the designer wants to do. Here are a couple of reasons why dual ignition might be attractive to a designer. 1) A problem with a hemispherical combustion chamber and a large valve timing overlap is the loss of air fuel mixture before it ignites and the resultant shortened power stroke. A fix might be to broaden the spark front with two complete ignition systems that could be timed to fire at the same time or slightly staggered. That was, in fact, tried with limited sucess on Mopar Hemis in the late 60's and early 70's. Is timing overlap a problem with the VW? I don't think so, particularly the "Plain Jane" way they are configured for aviation. 2) A security precaution if one system fails is to flip the switch to activate the backup. (Two, mags/CIS's (or one of each, remember Don Ried's coments?), spark plugs per cylinder). A market certainly exists for dual ignitions on certified engines. The free market filled a need, no? How many cars have I seen on the road with electrical problems? Lots. AAA sees them too. I've seen a lot of problems on the drag strip with mags, as well. Another point -- drilling and tapping holes for another set of plugs will not weaken VW heads enough to detect. And I don't think that simple little job will cost "hundreds of dollers" either. GP offers the service. One may want to design two spark plugs per cylender for a similar reason as wanting to try another wing design on a KR :o) I just might want to replace my big tedy bear for a redundant ignition. Kind of depends on the designer and his reasons, doesn't it? Bruce S. Campbell Tampa ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 22:09:18 -0800 From: "John F. Esch" Subject: Re: KR: VIDEO IS COMPLETE check is on its way. Woo hoo! John F. Esch Salem, OR bvermeul@concentric.net wrote: > Hey KRNetters, > > The Gathering Video is finally completed. It's one and a half hours > of the > best weekend of the year. You'll kinda get a feel of what it was like > to be > their this year, with lot's of flybys, the activities in the hangar, a > good > view of most of the KR's. You'll see Jeff Scott's KR-2S, and enjoy a > short > interview with him. Mike Ladigo's turbine got some footage this year, > along > with Tom Bagnetto's beautiful KR-1. You'll experience a wild ride > with > Martin Roberts. There's footage of the spot landing contest, only a > few > short exerpts from some of the seminars, (for those who weren't able > to > attend, the seminars were great), and you'll see the awards given out > at the > banquet. I also included a few shots of some of the non KR aircraft > that > joined us. We had a great time and I hope the video helps you keep > the > memories. > > The videos are $25 which includes postage. > > We need a check, money order, or credit card. MasterCard or Visa. > Credit card orders, make sure we get the account number, card type (MC > or > Visa)and its expiration date. > > You can mail your order to us at: > > Omega Productions > 304 Cedar St. NE > Grand Rapids, MI 49503 > > Call Omega Productions at: > > 616-774-3913 > > Or E-mail me at: > > bvermeul@concentric.net > > If your nervous about credit card security, just send me two e-mails > with > half of you account number one time and the other half later. > > If you call, I give you fair warning, I'm gone a lot and you may have > to > talk to an answering machine. Make sure you clearly spell your name > and > don't rush through your address. > > In another day or so, I'll be able to give you another phone # you can > try. > > By the way, if you ever get a defective tape (yes it does happen) I > will > gladly replace the video, no questions asked. You guys are the > greatest. > Thanks for all the support and let the orders begin. Enough for now, > I'm > off to Clevland to shoot for a day. > > Video Bob > a.k.a. Bob Vermeulen > > P.S. Don't forget, KR pilots at the Gathering get a free video and > when you > other guys order, mention KRNet and a part of the purchase price goes > to > KRNet or next years Gathering. (Wherever it's need most) Stein and > Youngblood can fight over the money. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 09:46:11 CDT From: dboll@newburg.ndak.net Subject: RE: Re: KR: poly fiber? I'm aboyt ready to finish my kr2 and wonder if any one has had experance with poly fibers new 4 step water based process? Don Boll ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 17:52:18 -0600 From: Kerry Miller Subject: KR: Another look at Dual ignitions I know you guys have been discussing dual ignition from the standpoint of safety in a redundant system, but here's another reason why I'm using one. MORE POWER! I think since I'm using the 1834, it might be more important to me than some of you guys with a bigger mill, but I'll take all I can get. Remember when you did a run up on the little Cessna most of us learned in, you got a drop in RPM when you turned one mag off? We used to do this even on dirt bikes when I was much younger and lighter... We would drill the head and put in a second plug. It made a difference, especially on the bigger 1-cylinder bikes. You could tell a difference if you un-hooked one. But then, some guys used the second plug as a backup in case they fouled the first one, just switch the plug wire. I guess the main reason I'm sticking with dual ignition is that my engine already has it! Keep 'em Flying, Kerry Miller Royse City, TX Full owner of 1/2 of a KR-2 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 23:41:59 -0800 From: Micheal Mims Subject: Re: KR: Another look at Dual ignitions At 05:52 PM 11/24/97 -0600, you wrote: >I guess the main reason I'm sticking with dual ignition is that my engine >already has it! > >Keep 'em Flying, >Kerry Miller And that is a darn good reason! One of the best I have heard! :o) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Micheal Mims Just Plane Nutts in Irvine Ca. mailto:mikemims@pacbell.net http://home.pacbell.net/mikemims ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 08:20:51 -0500 From: "Richard Parker" Subject: KR: Re: Another New Web Page. Heres a couple of questions from a new builder: At what frequency did you all have your projects checked out by your EAA technical Counselor? It sounds as if there are a couple of previous D-fly builder on the KR-Net. As someone who serieously contemplated building a D-Fly and chose the KR-2S I am wondering what other peoples logic for switching as well was? Richard Parker Jaffrey, NH ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 06:00:35 PST From: "Oscar Zuniga" Subject: KR: Dual ignition & one set of plugs/Soobs >Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 19:53:25 -0800 >From: Ross >To: krnet-l@teleport.com >Subject: Re: KR: Dual ignition & one set of plugs >Reply-To: krnet-l@teleport.com > >This I think is the best solution, and many are flying. The problem >in my case is getting a set of holes drilled in the heads... maybe >someday I will upgrade to 2180 or soob, and I can get it done then.. >or next winter... > > -- Ross > Hey, Ross- The trend that I've gotten from Soobers is to NOT try to stick two plugs in each combustion chamber. Got all that water-cooling stuff in there, remember, plus there is a better way with Soobs- the dual pickup arrangement in a single distributor(just learned about that this week). I'm still in Soob kindergarten, but at least haven't dirtied my diaper too much by asking dumb questions. BTW- I've talked to Paul & Linda Martin about going back out to their place over the holidays to go over his KR with a flashlight, inspection mirror, and my bifocals (46-year-old eyes)...get some more ideas. I'll try to get Paul & Linda to pose for pictures by their project and scan 'em so you can put 'em on KRNet builder page. Paul watched me _almost_ groundloop the Super Cub in high and gusty winds a couple weekends ago, and then proceeded to get in and go for a ride with me... without his parachute! (Wouldn't have helped much in a groundloop anyway, I guess!! ;o) I'll post a little report on his progress when I get back, maybe embarass him into finishing up so we can fly his KR to the "KRs West" mini-gathering in RENO!!!! Oscar Zuniga Medford, Oregon ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 06:05:59 PST From: "Oscar Zuniga" Subject: KR: Lyc. 0-290 > >Now that I have the airplane in the hanger and the engine sitting next to it >I can tell you one thing,..I wish I would have made my firewall BIGGER! >holy Cow the O-290 is BIG!! If you want to know how big go raise the hood >on a Cherokee,.. because this thing is only a few inches shy of being the >same size as a O-320! >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >Micheal Mims > Hey, Micheal- Well, if you're already set up for a honkin' big engine, is it too late to recontour the firewall to ROUND, and fit a radial with a bump cowl to it? GRRROWL! Oscar ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 06:16:24 PST From: "Oscar Zuniga" Subject: KR: Registering Experimental Acft? > >I think it's a disgrace that aircraft could be destroyed because of >predatory American law practise. > Here is the convoluted path through the jungle. >1) You break up the aircraft. >2) You remove it from the register. >3) You document that you have sold important parts of it. >4) You decide to rebuild. >5) You register to build. >6) You document that you made important parts of it. > >That should do it for you. >It does keep the original owner free of liability as far as I can see. > >Brian >brian whatcott >Altus OK > Isn't it strange- there are some restorers who take just a few of the original parts from a historic aircraft, manufacture or scrounge the other parts, and "restore" and re-register an antique to flying status under the original N-number and owner history. And we are trying to reverse-engineer the process to wipe out the original chain of ownership! Sad, indeed, what the laws have done to us. I would wonder how far down you would have to strip it to where it loses its identity; obviously, you can't dismantle the boat, and if you took it down to that stage, you would be right on the thin "50%" line for claiming to be the new builder, if you kept the firewall forward and wings. Looks like you'd have to scrap a lot of stuff. I think you should just register and fly- after all, what can the original owner do to you? Oscar Zuniga Medford, Oregon ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 06:25:17 PST From: "Oscar Zuniga" Subject: KR: Aileron Modification to work with flaps > >A KR pilot friend of mine says that besides needing drag to land, the KR >needs to get the nose down or you can't see the runway. He always >slipped his in for this reason. I believe that spoilers will only help >with the drag part. > >Bob Smith, KR2S in progress > > > >Bob Smith > Hi, Bob This is my understanding: with glideslope/airspeed control available via spoilers, you can push the nose down to get a better view and descent path, without building up excessive airspeed. Plus, flying a Cub from the back hole (solo), you learn that the view of the straight-ahead isn't important anyway! (Just kidding, safety guys!) Oscar Zuniga Medford, Oregon ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 10:59:23 -0500 (EST) From: KR2616TJ@aol.com Subject: Re: KR: Re: Another New Web Page. In a message dated 97-11-25 08:24:22 EST, you write: << Heres a couple of questions from a new builder: At what frequency did you all have your projects checked out by your EAA technical Counselor? >> My local EAA technical counselor is building his fourth project at the same airport I have my hanger. I believe the bare bones basic inspection requirement is three inspections. I log every visit from my guy, even if he just stops by to talk but he does regularly mail in his inspection reports. My recommendation is not to go with the minimum but get him involved, the more eyes you have look at you project, the better the final product will be. Dana Overall kr2616tj http://members.iclub.org/kr2616tj/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 08:26:53 -0800 From: Micheal Mims Subject: Re: KR: Re: Another New Web Page. At 08:20 AM 11/25/97 -0500, you wrote: >Heres a couple of questions from a new builder: > >At what frequency did you all have your projects checked out by your EAA >technical Counselor? > Haven't, I aint a member of the EAA. >It sounds as if there are a couple of previous D-fly builder on the KR-Net. > As someone who serieously contemplated building a D-Fly and chose the >KR-2S I am wondering what other peoples logic for switching as well was? > Two reasons, 1) I wanted to build from scratch and building a Dragonfly from scratch is a 5 to 8 year project. KR will get me in the air faster. 2) Dragonflies (135 mph cruise is typical) are slow compared to KRs. I have flown both and like the KR MUCH better! ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 11:52:41 -0500 (EST) From: EagleGator@aol.com Subject: KR: Fwd: Your note Hey netters, here's a note I got from Jean Veron. He bought Dan Diehl's airplane, and he and Marty Roberts are doing a little experimenting. Marty originally had stock plans-built wings, so they should be coming up with some interesting data comparing the Diehl wings to stock wings. Both airplanes were at the gathering, but for those of you not familiar with Marty's plane, it's a stock KR-2 with an O-200 on it. Very fast airplane. It's also on the heavy side, I think 760# empty??? I'll forward info as I get it. Cheers! Rick Junkin EagleGator@aol.com St. Charles MO - --------------------- Forwarded message: From: YCGB97A@PRODIGY.COM (MR JEAN R VERON) To: EagleGator@AOL.COM Date: 97-11-24 23:11:21 EST Rick you may want to wait on bonding your wing skins on. Marty and I just flew his airplane with my wings. The results are interesting to say the least. We will have to evaluate them some more before offering an opinion. But his plane got off at less than 40 mph indicated and touched down at about 55 mph. This is a lot different than with the short wings. We are going to do a time to climb run tomorrow. Will let you know the results. Hope you and your family have a happy Thanksgiving. Jean N4DD ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 11:00:03 -0800 From: David Moore Subject: Re: KR: Aileron Modification to work with flaps At 06:23 AM 11/24/97 PST, you wrote: > > >>Has anyone considered spoilers on the stub wings to kill some lift and >allow >>the plane to sink better? >>-Tom >> > >AHA! Somebody else interested in spoilers! I am thinking about the >"precise flight" type of spoiler, which pops up out of the wing with a >scissors action. Sketches in my shirt pocket, and thoughts in my head. >I plan to build a model out of scrap, to see if it can be made to work >reliably, then do some structural head-scratching to see what that does >to the spar. To me, the drooping aileron/flaps/adverse yaw thing seems >to have more problems and complexity than spoilers. > >Oscar Zuniga >Medford, Oregon > Oscar, I think if you use spoilers, like the sailplane guys, they have to be 1/2(?) the way out on the wing, and just behind the main spar. We use to use them when I flew sailplanes and they worked great, a lot like tying a Tappen Range (trademark) onto your undercarriage, and they were adjustable like flaps, great sink rate. Sorry Oscar, I couldn't resist the Doug Fir stab. For awhile there it seemed every thing made of wood was going to be dragged in front of Mike Mims hanger at Chino Airport and torched. Dave Moore David Moore Turnkey1@MSComm.Com Hesperia, Calif. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 12:23:23 -0500 From: Patrick Flowers Subject: Re: KR: Registering Experimental Acft? Oscar Zuniga wrote: > > > > >I think it's a disgrace that aircraft could be destroyed because of > >predatory American law practise. > > Here is the convoluted path through the jungle. > >1) You break up the aircraft. > >2) You remove it from the register. > >3) You document that you have sold important parts of it. > >4) You decide to rebuild. > >5) You register to build. > >6) You document that you made important parts of it. > > > >That should do it for you. > >It does keep the original owner free of liability as far as I can see. > > > >brian whatcott > > > Isn't it strange- there are some restorers who take just a few of the > original parts from a historic aircraft, manufacture or scrounge the > other parts, and "restore" and re-register an antique to flying status > under the original N-number and owner history. And we are trying to > reverse-engineer the process to wipe out the original chain of > ownership! Sad, indeed, what the laws have done to us. The whole concept that the FAA has put together for certified assemblies is ludicrous. An engine data plate can be affixed to nearly any assemblage of parts from the original manufacturer and in the FAA's eyes, it's the same engine. I've heard it referred to as "grandpa's axe" - it's had two new heads and three new handles, but it's still a good axe :) > I would wonder how far down you would have to strip it to where it loses > its identity; obviously, you can't dismantle the boat, and if you took > it down to that stage, you would be right on the thin "50%" line for > claiming to be the new builder, if you kept the firewall forward and > wings. Looks like you'd have to scrap a lot of stuff. I think you > should just register and fly- after all, what can the original owner do > to you? > > Oscar Zuniga It depends quite a bit on the FSDO and DAR you'll be working with, but(in reference to a scheme I had for converting a TriPacer into an amateur-built Pacer with sticks instead of yokes - long story) I was told that you need to break the airframe all the way down to its component parts and remove the manufacturers data plate, which will be replaced by one showing you as the manufacturer. Now, you begin rebuilding with, in effect, salvage parts - no different than if you purchased a pre-welded fuselage from WagAero and used salvaged wings and tailfeathers(this scheme includes recovering the aircraft exterior). Document the process well and, perhaps the biggest issue, be discrete with the DAR. Don't lie, but don't tell him straight out that you started with a whole aircraft. Tell him that you used salvaged parts to construct the aircraft. He will ask if you did 51% of the work. Answer yes and show him the photos to prove it. BTW, don't have any pictures of the original whole aircraft in your log at that time :) Don't know if the same process will work with a KR as it doesn't really have that many parts you can remove. Patrick - -- Patrick Flowers Mailto:patri63@ibm.net ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 12:42:32 -0500 (EST) From: EagleGator@aol.com Subject: Re: KR: Re: Tech Counselor Inspections In a message dated 97-11-25 11:00:48 EST, you write: ><< At what frequency did you all have your projects checked out by your EAA > technical Counselor? > >> > I believe the bare bones basic inspection requirement is three inspections. I log >every visit from my guy, even if he just stops by to talk but he does regularly mail in >his inspection reports. My recommendation is not to go with the minimum but get >him involved, the more eyes you have look at you project, the better the final >product will be. > >> The insurance companies will give you a break if you've had four "inspections", including a final inspection, by an EAA Tech Counselor. But there is no real "requirement" to have any, at least according to the FARs. The best times to have a counselor look at your project is right before you close up something or are getting ready to permanently mount or install something big, like your engine. I had mine looked at when I was finished with the boat and before I closed my wing spars. I'll have it looked at again when I get the engine mounted, and then again when I've got the fuel plumbing done. I'll also have the electrical system looked at once it's all together, as well as the pitot static system and instrument installation. Getting someone else involved with your project can be worth alot, so I'd recommend that also. Cheers! Rick Junkin EagleGator@aol.com St. Charles MO ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 12:52:34 -0500 From: Patrick Flowers Subject: KR: Flaps, spoilers and excess airspeed I've also been thinking about the "Precise Flight" style spoilers, but to me they would be most useful for descending to pattern altitude without picking up a lot of excess airspeed that you would have to bleed off to get down to Vfe. Of course, if you don't have flaps, this is not a concern, but you still have to get the plane down to an acceptable "downwind" airspeed. How do you KR flyers handle the energy management issue, especially those of you without flaps or belly boards? I know we've discussed pattern airspeeds before, but I don't recall much discussion of getting down from, say 3,000'agl to 800'agl without entering the pattern too hot. Patrick - -- Patrick Flowers Mailto:patri63@ibm.net ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 10:25:09 -0800 From: David Moore Subject: Re: KR: Safe-T-Poxy Mike, Now I'm sitting here with about a gallon of T-88, what is your opinion of it? Dave Moore At 09:14 AM 11/24/97 -0800, you wrote: >At 01:24 PM 11/24/97 +0100, you wrote: >>I've read on Aircraft Spruce catalogue that Safe-T-Poxy resin is no >>longer produced by Hexcel, but that E-Z Poxy is the substitute. Does >>anybody knows if the EZ-Poxy is quite the same? What's the best >>hardener? EZ 83, 84 or 87? What about toxicity and easy-to-work? >> >>Michele Bucceri >> > >I have used it a bit on my KR2S and really like it over anything else I have >tried. I have used safe-t-poxy in the past (built a Dragonfly to about 40%) >and there is no noticeable difference in wetout or handling. I switched to >Aeropoxy to avoid toxicity and started getting headaches! I recommend the >EZpoxy over Aeropoxy, hands down! It is a much easier epoxy to work with, >and it should be as fuel proof as Safe-t-poxy was. It also hardens much >faster than the Aeropoxy. Aeropoxy seems to stay flexible for 3 or more >days and EZpoxy gets extremely hard in 24 hours. I plan to build my wings >out of EZpoxy. > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >Micheal Mims >Just "Plane" Crazy in Irvine CA >http://home.pacbell.net/mikemims > > > David Moore Turnkey1@MSComm.Com Hesperia, Calif. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 13:23:19 -0800 From: Donald Reid Subject: Re: KR: Another look at Dual ignitions Kerry Miller wrote: > > I know you guys have been discussing dual ignition from the standpoint of > safety in a redundant system, but here's another reason why I'm using one. > MORE POWER! I think since I'm using the 1834, it might be more important > to me than some of you guys with a bigger mill, but I'll take all I can > get. Remember when you did a run up on the little Cessna most of us > learned in, you got a drop in RPM when you turned one mag off? > Kerry Miller I am not an engine expert, so take this with a grain of salt. I think the second plug will give a more uniform flame front in the cylinder, and will help ensure that the combustion is complete prior to the exhaust valve opening. To accomplish this with one plug would require more advance in the timing. Too much advance is bad for the cylinders, since they are firing while the piston is still moving up. Two plugs give more reliability and more power. I have not heard any definitive comments on it, but I thought that some of the newer auto systems for racing engines use two ignitions into one plug and do not have any kind of switching network, it is some type of electronic module between the coils and the plug. - -- Don Reid mailto:donreid@erols.com http://www.erols.com/donreid/kr_page.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 13:30:35 -0800 From: Donald Reid Subject: Re: KR: Re: Another New Web Page. Richard Parker wrote: > At what frequency did you all have your projects checked out by your EAA > technical Counselor? > Richard Parker > Jaffrey, NH The insurance companies will/can give a discount on hull insurance if you get three or four inspections during the project. You don't need to be a member of an EAA chapter to take advantage of this, but you may need to be an EAA member. I got my first inspection when the boat was finished, the second before closing the wings. The third will be after cockpit systems are finished, and the last when I am at the airport, before the FAA shows up. - -- Don Reid mailto:donreid@erols.com http://www.erols.com/donreid/kr_page.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 13:36:25 -0800 From: Donald Reid Subject: Re: KR: T-88 David Moore wrote: > Mike, > Now I'm sitting here with about a gallon of T-88, what is your opinion of it? > Dave Moore I used T-88 on all of the wood bonding and I think it is great. I also used the T-88 applicator/glue gun. It is a double cartridge dispenser that does a good job. If you use the mixing tips, they can be cleaned by blowing compressed air through them to clean out left-over glue and then putting it in your freezer. The glue residue will not cure at the low temperature and you can use it overr again. - -- Don Reid mailto:donreid@erols.com http://www.erols.com/donreid/kr_page.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 13:41:01 -0600 (CST) From: Steven A Eberhart Subject: KR: making the nlf(1)0115 wind tunnel model I have the templates made to hot wire the foam core and UPS just delivered the foam :-) Ordered enough blue foam from Wicks to hot wire the tail cores for my KR-2S also. So, the model is officially under construction and I can also officially say that I have started my KR :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-):-) :-) :-) :-) Steve ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 13:01:58 -0800 From: Micheal Mims Subject: Re: KR: Safe-T-Poxy At 10:25 AM 11/25/97 -0800, you wrote: >Mike, >Now I'm sitting here with about a gallon of T-88, what is your opinion of it? > >Dave Moore > > T-88 is great! But its not used to wetout cloth only to glue your wood pieces together. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 16:57:01 -0500 From: "Richard Parker" Subject: KR: Fw: > >It sounds as if there are a couple of previous D-fly builder on the KR-Net. > > As someone who serieously contemplated building a D-Fly and chose the > >KR-2S I am wondering what other peoples logic for switching as well was? > > > > Two reasons, > > 1) I wanted to build from scratch and building a Dragonfly from scratch is a > 5 to 8 year project. KR will get me in the air faster. > > 2) Dragonflies (135 mph cruise is typical) are slow compared to KRs. I > have flown both and like the KR MUCH better! These were exactly my reasons as well. What do you think the average (realistic) build time of the KR-2/KR-s is from scratch. Rich Parker KR2S #861 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 17:11:50 -0500 (EST) From: JEHayward@aol.com Subject: Re: KR: Re: Another New Web Page. In a message dated 97-11-25 08:24:22 EST, you write: << It sounds as if there are a couple of previous D-fly builder on the KR-Net. As someone who serieously contemplated building a D-Fly and chose the KR-2S I am wondering what other peoples logic for switching as well was? Richard Parker >> Richard, four years ago I had been away from flying for 17 years. My wife got me interested in it again. She gave me a subscription to Kitplanes for Xmas and the following summer I sent off for (8) any brochure that met my 2-place requirement of 150mph or better cruise on 100hp or less. My choice came down to the Dragonfly and KR2 which were the same two I had been considering in 1980. I was leaning toward the Dragonfly due to looks but she didn't like it's lines, so we decided on the KR2. When we went to Oshkosh in '93 I found they had the 2-S plans and happily bought those. After reading some more about the Dragonfly I'm very satisfied we made the KR decision. Jim Hayward ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 16:56:10 -0800 From: Micheal Mims Subject: Re: KR: Fw: At 04:57 PM 11/25/97 -0500, you wrote: >These were exactly my reasons as well. >What do you think the average (realistic) build time of the KR-2/KR-s is >from scratch. > >Rich Parker >KR2S #861 > 2.5 years at a good "part time" pace! It has been done in as little as 9 weeks. I think Wicks pulled that one off! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Micheal Mims Just Plane Nutts in Irvine Ca. mailto:mikemims@pacbell.net http://home.pacbell.net/mikemims ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 20:21:07 -0500 (EST) From: TomKR2S@aol.com Subject: [none] a message dated 97-11-24 08:58:30 EST, you write: << I think I now know why so many people quit when they complete the boat stage. I'm sufficiently far along that I can visualize everything required to complete the plane. The list comes to almost $12,000! You spend lots of time but comparatively little money building the boat. Then it comes time to take the big leap, and start throwing REAL MONEY at it. This is where some people loose the resolve. Fortunately for me, quitting is not an option. >> Just how many hours does it take to finish the boat? I have not kept track of my hours but I estimate it's 200 hours. I've already bought the engine and all other RR parts except for bellcranks and pulley brackets. - -Tom ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 18:56:43 -0800 From: Donald Reid Subject: Re: KR: Fw: Richard Parker > > What do you think the average (realistic) build time of the KR-2/KR-s is > from scratch. > > Rich Parker > KR2S #861 It can be done in a year, 1200-1500 hours of work. In my case, I am setting some kind of reverse record, I have over 3000 hours in 5 years and still not done. - -- Don Reid mailto:donreid@erols.com http://www.erols.com/donreid/kr_page.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 21:07:37 -0500 (EST) From: jeroffey@tir.com (jeroffey) Subject: Re: KR: Flaps, spoilers and excess airspeed >I've also been thinking about the "Precise Flight" style spoilers, but >to me they would be most useful for descending to pattern altitude >without picking up a lot of excess airspeed that you would have to bleed >off to get down to Vfe. Of course, if you don't have flaps, this is not >a concern, but you still have to get the plane down to an acceptable >"downwind" airspeed. > >How do you KR flyers handle the energy management issue, especially >those of you without flaps or belly boards? I know we've discussed >pattern airspeeds before, but I don't recall much discussion of getting >down from, say 3,000'agl to 800'agl without entering the pattern too >hot. > >Patrick >-- >Patrick Flowers >Mailto:patri63@ibm.net > >Had an opertunity to fly a C210P with the "Precise Flight" spoilers and was very impressed with the opperation. The drill was to "do nothing" and hit the switch for the spoilers and it was 1000 fpm desent in the same configuration at the same airspeed. The switch was thrown back to "off" and the plane just trucked along minus 2000' msl. Just the thing for a turbo with altitude to loose in a hurry. The plane was rock solid with a pronounced rumble at 140kts indicated. I have to admit to being tempted by a lot of gizmos but if you like to cruise high, this is the type of spoilers you want. John Roffey jeroffey@tir.com ------------------------------ End of krnet-l-digest V1 #177 *****************************