From: owner-krnet-l-digest@teleport.com[SMTP:owner-krnet-l-digest@teleport.com] Sent: Saturday, December 06, 1997 6:48 PM To: krnet-l-digest@teleport.com Subject: krnet-l-digest V1 #185 krnet-l-digest Saturday, December 6 1997 Volume 01 : Number 185 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 13:23:48 -0600 From: "Mark Langford" Subject: KR: Re: aluminum channel Bob Smith wrote: > Does anyone know of a supplier of 1" 6061 t6 "c" channel without tapered > edges for KR elev hinges. Bob, Wicks sells it with radiused corners. The catalog isn't clear on this, but last time I ordered some the sides were parallel. It's #CH1x125-T6. If it's the rounds on the outside corners that have you concerned, you could get their 1x1 square tubing and cut one side out. It's #SQ1x125-T6. Believe it or not, T-6 is common everyday aluminum. Like Brian said, if it says 6061-T6, you've said it all. The more exotic stuff is 7075. Mark Langford, Huntsville, AL email at langford@hiwaay.net KR2S project construction at http://fly.hiwaay.net/~langford ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 15:26:51 EST From: BSHADR Subject: KR: Re:Useless retract information in manual In a message dated 97-12-05 12:20:21 EST, Bruce wrote: << Speaking of taking the useless retract information out of the manual . . .. let's get a $999 computer and put the plans (those multi-printed, torn, drawn years ago, almost totally accurate drawings) on paper using CAD. Let's fix the manual - take out the confusing drawings/info that don't match the plans - put in detailed information that's correct. That way all of the new KR2S builders won't have to look at two separate plans, a notice of change in sizes sheet, and an almost accurate manual to make sense of it all. >> Bruce: (This is not a flame!) Sorry, we've been there, done that, bought the TShirt, no thanks. This is known as a "dead horse" item and has been relegated to the archives. If you wish to follow the thread to find where Flicka was buried, go to the corral out back (archives) and look it up. Most of us 'oldsters have beat this one to glue already. Randy Stein BSHADR@aol.com Soviet Monica, CA ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 05 Dec 1997 16:23:27 -0600 From: Jim Faughn Subject: Re: KR: Cockpit width/KR questions Micheal Mims wrote: > At 11:20 AM 12/5/97 EST, you wrote: > add hydraulic brakes. Is this a high-end figure and do you know of other > >options that avoid the dangers of the retract system, get trigear > >conversion and not add a LOT of cost and weight? > > Tthanks for your opioion(s) > >Ron in Atlanta > > > > I don't know what the current price of the DD gear is but if I recall it > didn't add that much weight and hardly any speed was lost converting to the > DD taildragger system. I was able to score the gear legs on my KR for $50. > I have spent about $25 to rebuild them and of course I will spend another > $500 to $600 on wheels and brakes. I priced out the DD gear and compared > the cost to doing it myself and the end result was that I could not > duplicate the DD gear system and save any money. His gear setup is > reasonably priced. > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Micheal Mims > Remember,..Service Guarantees Citizenship > > mailto:mikemims@pacbell.net > http://home.pacbell.net/mikemims From everything I know about the DD gear you actually find it will increase your speed rather than decrease it. I think that is because it is a cleaner design than the retract with holes in the wings. - -- Jim Faughn N8931JF St. Louis, MO (314) 652-7659 or (573) 465-8039 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 05 Dec 1997 17:32:53 From: Austin Clark Subject: KR: Builder near New Orleans >Rich Parker >Jaffrey, NH > >PS I'll be in New Orleans this weekend . Any builders down there? > > Rich, I am building a KR2S 90 minutes east of New Orleans if you care to drive that far. Austin Clark Pascagoula, MS http://www.datasync.com/~itac/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 05 Dec 1997 18:04:52 -0800 From: Donald Reid Subject: Re: KR: Tailfeathers Patrick Flowers wrote: > I like Mark's idea of using the NACA 63009 symmetric airfoil. For > aesthetic('cause I think it would look pretty) reasons, I want to carry > the airfoil contour around the airfoil tip(i.e. the tip will look like > half the airfoil in plan view). Any downside to that(drag?)? I used the 66-009 for the same reason, and I extended it all the way to the tip. No problems at all with the glassing, and it will have a lower drag than the profile shown in the plans. The squaring off out towards the tip will increase drag, however, this is small, so there is no real gain. The 63 thru 66 series airfoils are lower drag in general, so that is good. > What would be the best sequence for glassing these surfaces since the > tips would be a compound curve? I plan to use peelply, if that makes > any difference. I glassed one side (I forget which was first) and after it was partially cured, I trimmed the edge that was to be overlapped, and then tapered it as much as I could. After several coats of dry micro and sanding, it is not possible to tell when the joint is located. > I'm planning to use a trim tab similar to the plans. Where's a good > source for the nyrod? I don't see it in the Wick's or AS catalogs. I'm > not wild about using nyrod. I used the nyrod as shown in the plans. It has not flown yet, but it seems strong enough. I will be using a MAC servo.! > Patrick Flowers > Mailto:patri63@ibm.net - -- Don Reid mailto:donreid@erols.com http://www.erols.com/donreid/kr_page.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 05 Dec 1997 18:11:15 -0800 From: Donald Reid Subject: Re: KR: landing gear Ron DeWees wrote: > I liked his idea of the > Deihl fiberglass fixed gear of either tri or conventional configuration. > He also said that it would run about $2000 to go with the conversion and > add hydraulic brakes. Is this a high-end figure and do you know of other > options that avoid the dangers of the retract system, get trigear > conversion and not add a LOT of cost and weight? > There is someone who advertizes in Sport Aviation, and perhaps other mags, who will custom make an aluminum gear. I talked to him on the phone and he said he gets 7075 aluminum, heat treats it to soften it, bends to your design, and then heat treats it to a T6 or T7 condition so that it is a spring. He said he would help with design. Check out the ad and give him a call. I don't remember the prices. I designed my own gear that is similar to the Diehl, but a little heavier and taller for my larger plane. It was a fair amount of work. - -- Don Reid mailto:donreid@erols.com http://www.erols.com/donreid/kr_page.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 05 Dec 1997 22:02:04 EST From: rdewees@juno.com Subject: Re: KR: Cockpit width/KR questions Hi Mike.. Found your webb site and map today and was happy to see the KR guys in my area. Thanks for the info on the gear legs. I think I will go with the tri gear version but it shouldn't add too much to the all up figures. Neither project had the cneter section glassed over yet so it's a great time to make a change. ron ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 05 Dec 1997 22:02:04 EST From: rdewees@juno.com Subject: Re: KR: Cockpit width/KR questions On Fri, 05 Dec 1997 16:23:27 -0600 Jim Faughn writes: > > >Micheal Mims wrote: > >> At 11:20 AM 12/5/97 EST, you wrote: >> add hydraulic brakes. Is this a high-end figure and do you know of >other >> >options that avoid the dangers of the retract system, get trigear >> >conversion and not add a LOT of cost and weight? >> > Tthanks for your opioion(s) >> >Ron in Atlanta >> > >> >> I don't know what the current price of the DD gear is but if I >recall it >> didn't add that much weight and hardly any speed was lost converting >to the >> DD taildragger system. I was able to score the gear legs on my KR >for $50. >> I have spent about $25 to rebuild them and of course I will spend >another >> $500 to $600 on wheels and brakes. I priced out the DD gear and >compared >> the cost to doing it myself and the end result was that I could not >> duplicate the DD gear system and save any money. His gear setup is >> reasonably priced. >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> Micheal Mims >> Remember,..Service Guarantees Citizenship >> >> mailto:mikemims@pacbell.net >> http://home.pacbell.net/mikemims > > From everything I know about the DD gear you actually find it will >increase >your speed rather than decrease it. I think that is because it is a >cleaner >design than the retract with holes in the wings. > >-- >Jim Faughn N8931JF >St. Louis, MO >(314) 652-7659 or (573) 465-8039 > >THanks.. that's good news.. How about the tri-gear.. does it perform well and not harm the performance? ron > ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 05 Dec 1997 22:02:05 EST From: rdewees@juno.com Subject: Re: KR: Cockpit width/KR questions On Fri, 05 Dec 1997 10:07:31 -0800 David Moore writes: >Ron, >You also might want to contact Dan Diehl, he owns the company that >makes >the fiberglass gear legs for the KR. Try: >http://www.cuttingedge-tech.com/diehl/ >or his phone is 918-299-4445. > >The tail dragger version he lists at $485.00 (USD), and the tri-gear >is an >additional $485.00 (USD). >He also lists wing skins for the KR2 and 2S at $1500.00. >These prices are as of April '97 > >Dave Moore > > > >At 11:20 AM 12/5/97 EST, you wrote: >> >>On Wed, 03 Dec 1997 11:34:52 -0800 Micheal Mims > >>writes: >>>At 01:30 PM 12/3/97 EST, you wrote: >>>>Are you a KR driver and if so what is your selection of models? >>>>see you Ron >>>> >>>> >>>Well I wouldn't consider myself a "KR" driver but I have flown one >or >>>two >>>(regular KR2 models) and a plethora of other aircraft. >>> >>>I am building a KR2S with "minor" mods, longer fuselage, larger >tail, >>>less >>>incidence, NACA 23016 airfoil, wider-larger cockpit (its >BIG),scratch >>>built >>>windshield canopy, hotwired wing cores with tri-ply uni glass, 145hp >>>Lycoming, and other "minor" stuff! :o) >>> >>>See it at my web site if you have access. >>>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>>Micheal Mims >>>Remember,..Service Guarantees Citizenship >>> >>>mailto:mikemims@pacbell.net >>>http://home.pacbell.net/mikemims >>> >>> >>Hi Michael... Still haven't found your map of Kr's yet on the webb >but >>will do so shortly. I had a long discussion with the editor of the KR >>newsletter on the phone several days ago and his opinion is that the >>original retract system is minimal and probobly dangerous at best. I >>don't know if this is shared opinion or not, but liked his idea of >the >>Deihl fiberglass fixed gear of either tri or conventional >configuration. >>He also said that it would run about $2000 to go with the conversion >and >>add hydraulic brakes. Is this a high-end figure and do you know of >other >>options that avoid the dangers of the retract system, get trigear >>conversion and not add a LOT of cost and weight? > >> Tthanks for your opioion(s) >>Ron in Atlanta >> >> > >David Moore >Turnkey1@MSComm.Com >Hesperia, Calif. > Hi David THink I saw your picture on Mike's webb site today.. Thanks for the info. Wow I didn't think a skinny front wheel would be almost $500 but maybe it's real special. I will try the webb page that you listed.. Thanks for the ideas. Ron DeWees rdewees@juno.com Atlanta, Ga 30306 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 22:01:59 -0600 From: "Mark Langford" Subject: KR: Re: Re:Useless retract information in manual Bruce Toscano wrote: > . let's get a $999 computer and put the plans (those multi-printed, > torn, drawn years ago, almost totally accurate drawings) on paper using > CAD. Bruce, Randy and Michael are right. We flogged this horse silly about two years ago. I volunteered to do it, and even got a few volunteers to do some of the details. The problem came when I tried to get the CAD files from RR. Even though she paid for their creation, she apparently couldn't get the guy who did them to send them to her. I talked to him several times and he seemed quite willing to send them to me if only I'd get her permission. I'd call her and ask her to call him and she'd happily agree. But weeks later I'd call him, and he'd say he hadn't heard from her. Then she say she tried, but he was hard to get a hold of... Nobody but me seemed real interested in improving the things. I even conceded not to CHANGE anything structural. Just combine the KR2 and KR2S drawings, fix the dimenisioning, labeling, nomenclature, drawing errors, and add generous amounts of information in the white space to keep you from having to dig it up in the manual or elsewhere. Some of the details are just downright erroneous. And some of the design was trickled down from submissions to the Newsletter. Despite my efforts I haven't heard anything for over a year. And I refuse to redraw the plans from scratch when CAD files already exist. It's the principle of the thing. The drawings that she has could be made presentable in maybe 10 or 15 hours work (which I would have done for free), but to redraw from scratch would be closer to 80 to 100 hours with a good CAD package and a very experienced designer. At my current rate, spending that many hours fixing the plans would put me 6 or 7 weeks later in finishing my KR2S, and I'd rather not do that. I will confess that redrawing the plans would be an excellent way to gain a complete understanding of the design before ever tackling it though, so maybe you should volunteer... I finally decided that she may not really want the plans updated. I'm sure she's worried about the legal aspects, among other things. And you have to realize that there's not much incentive for doing what this plane needs most, widening the fuselage, in the next set of plans. That would mean that the expensive tooling that she just bought to make premolded parts would be useless. Anybody that widens the fuselage more than 1.5" is forced to make their own decks and canopy frame. The same goes double for the wings. With the molds less than a year old (and took 25 years to come about), you can rest assured there won't be any factory blessed airfoil changes for a long, long time... I'd like to think that I talked her into ditching blueline drawings and going to Xerox copies. They're certainly better and probably far cheaper and longer lasting, but I wouldn't be surprised if recently purchased plans are still blue, and fading fast! Mark Langford, Huntsville, AL email at langford@hiwaay.net KR2S project construction at http://fly.hiwaay.net/~langford . . ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 22:57:48 EST From: LVav8r Subject: Re: KR: KR2S drawings In a message dated 97-12-05 22:11:47 EST, you write: << You might also try an email to pilot@fly-kr.com (also from the KR Homepage). >> I once sent an e-mail to them and never got a response. I later called them and inquired about it and was told that the site is maintained by a builder and they didn't find out about my e-mail for a week or two. So the best way to communicate with Jeanette is to use the old-fashioned telephone or snail mail. I've called several times and as long as you call during normal business hours someone will probably be there to take the call. Tom Kilgore Las Vegas, NV LVav8r@aol.com http://members.aol.com/LVav8r/index.html KR-2S 2% complete __I__ _______( X )_______ o/ \o ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 05 Dec 1997 22:47:01 -0500 From: george bell Subject: Re: KR: Re: Re:Useless retract information in manual This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - --------------2A29F6E3DEB4716E1495A848 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mark, I bought plans KR2 plans Edc. 2, 1997. You are right--they are blue line. George Bell Mark Langford wrote: > I'd like to think that I talked her into ditching blueline drawings and > going to Xerox copies. They're certainly better and probably far cheaper > and longer lasting, but I wouldn't be surprised if recently purchased plans > are still blue, and fading fast! > > Mark Langford, Huntsville, AL > email at langford@hiwaay.net > KR2S project construction at http://fly.hiwaay.net/~langford > . . - --------------2A29F6E3DEB4716E1495A848 Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii; name="vcard.vcf" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Description: Card for George P. Bell Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="vcard.vcf" begin: vcard fn: George P. Bell n: Bell;George P. email;internet: gpbell@pacbell.net x-mozilla-cpt: ;0 x-mozilla-html: FALSE version: 2.1 end: vcard - --------------2A29F6E3DEB4716E1495A848-- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 05 Dec 1997 22:46:28 -0500 From: george bell Subject: Re: KR: Re: Re:Useless retract information in manual This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - --------------45A4CA7543B2DFE0C0791B4F Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mark, I bought plans KR2 plans Edc. 2, 1997. You are right--ther are blue line. George Bell Mark Langford wrote: > I'd like to think that I talked her into ditching blueline drawings and > going to Xerox copies. They're certainly better and probably far cheaper > and longer lasting, but I wouldn't be surprised if recently purchased plans > are still blue, and fading fast! > > Mark Langford, Huntsville, AL > email at langford@hiwaay.net > KR2S project construction at http://fly.hiwaay.net/~langford > . . - --------------45A4CA7543B2DFE0C0791B4F Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii; name="vcard.vcf" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Description: Card for George P. Bell Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="vcard.vcf" begin: vcard fn: George P. Bell n: Bell;George P. email;internet: gpbell@pacbell.net x-mozilla-cpt: ;0 x-mozilla-html: FALSE version: 2.1 end: vcard - --------------45A4CA7543B2DFE0C0791B4F-- ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 06 Dec 1997 08:32:40 -0500 From: Tom Andersen Subject: Re: KR: Re: Re:Useless retract information in manual Mark Langford wrote: > I finally decided that she may not really want the plans updated. I'm sure > she's worried about the legal aspects, among other things. And you have to > realize that there's not much incentive for doing what this plane needs > most, widening the fuselage, in the next set of plans. That would mean > that the expensive tooling that she just bought.... I think that with all the known errors and omissions in the current plans, RR's legal exposure grows with every set sold. Isn't the definition of negligence ignoring a known deficiency despite warnings and notifications? Websters says negligent is: "Apt to omit what ought to be done." This may be a dead horse for many netters, but I've only begun to realize the extra time it will take for me to build because I have to second-guess every dimension on the plans. There is no way you can, in good faith, just cut everything according to plans and manual and expect it to all assemble nicely. I'm quite sick of trying to follow the plans and manual. I'm an A&P mechanic so I'll complete my Tom Andersen Special but I would never recommend this plane for anybody to build. RR is probably perplexed that people want to continuously modify the KR-2 but when you already have to re-engineer everything yourself, the modifications are not a giant leap of faith in your own abilities. I would really like a set of plans I could follow to the letter and not have to plan ahead fourteen steps to see how everthing would fit. The real reason why the plans don't get changed is because people continue to buy them just the way they are, because the KR-2 is in a class by itself in terms of economy and speed. However it would be really easy to design a similar plane and be competitive in the current marketplace. There's a real demand for fast economical aircraft. All you have to do to sell plans is say the plane goes 20-30mph faster than it really does and people will send you money, even if you never prove it. Roy Marsh's KR-2S goes 180 mph but he's using a different airfoil, shorter wings, and a lot more than 80 hp to do it. That article in Jan 95 Kitplanes is such BS and misrepresentative of the KR-2S it's a disservice to kitbuilders. Please don't consider this post flamebait, it's just exactly how I feel. When I finish my plane I'm calling it something other than a KR-2S because it won't be a KR-2S anymore. RR will get no credit whatsoever. - -Tom ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 06 Dec 1997 06:07:34 PST From: "Oscar Zuniga" Subject: KR: landing gear Don wrote: >I designed my own gear that is >similar to the Diehl, but a little heavier and taller for my larger plane. > It was a fair amount of work. >-- Yeah- If my perception of Don is correct, this is probably a fairly big understatement! :o) From all that I have read (that's right, Randy), it will be hard to beat the Diehl gear for cost, simplicity, strength, and compatibility with the design. And, of course, no need to hang the extra wheel out on the front of the plane... saves weight needed to offset the weight of the Subaru out there! Oscar Zuniga Medford, Oregon ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 05:59:47 -0800 From: "John Bouyea" Subject: KR: Re: Re: aluminum channel Bob, Van's sent some non-radiused channel out in a few kits a while back. That shipment was -immediately- followed with a recall notice. I believe his brother said the non-radiused channel wasn't fit for towel racks... John Bouyea johnbouyea@worldnet.att.net kr2s - fitting the engine rails Hillsboro, Oregon - ---------- > From: Mark Langford > > Bob Smith wrote: > > > Does anyone know of a supplier of 1" 6061 t6 "c" channel without tapered > > edges for KR elev hinges. > > Bob, > > Wicks sells it with radiused corners. The catalog isn't clear on this, but > last time I ordered some the sides were parallel. It's #CH1x125-T6. If > it's the rounds on the outside corners that have you concerned, you could > get their 1x1 square tubing and cut one side out. It's #SQ1x125-T6. > Believe it or not, T-6 is common everyday aluminum. Like Brian said, if it > says 6061-T6, you've said it all. The more exotic stuff is 7075. > > Mark Langford, Huntsville, AL > email at langford@hiwaay.net > KR2S project construction at http://fly.hiwaay.net/~langford > ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 09:18:15 -0600 From: "Mark Langford" Subject: Re: KR: Re: Re:Useless retract information in manual Tom Anderson wrote: > I think that with all the known errors and omissions in the current > plans, RR's legal exposure grows with every set sold. Isn't the > definition of negligence ignoring a known deficiency despite warnings > and notifications? ............. I agree with every word of your entire post. I just didn't feel like saying it all over again... I particularly liked the part about the "no great leap of faith" in engineering your own plane after having to make so other decisions about matters which are not even addressed in the plans, many of which come under the heading of "plans that you get when you buy the parts from us". Most of the omissions are just that, omissions, for whatever reason. And you're entirely right about another thing. RR's reluctance to improve the breed (or at least publish decent plans for the ones she has) will almost certainly lead to the KR series being replaced by far better planes of similarly inexpensive but faster design. Mark Langford, Huntsville, AL email at langford@hiwaay.net KR2S project construction at http://fly.hiwaay.net/~langford ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 06 Dec 1997 08:46:48 -0700 From: Ron Lee Subject: KR: Improved KR >And you're entirely right about another thing. RR's reluctance to improve >the breed (or at least publish decent plans for the ones she has) will >almost certainly lead to the KR series being replaced by far better planes >of similarly inexpensive but faster design. > >Mark Langford, Huntsville, AL If a guy were to ponder this comment, would this possibly be a KR-2S derivative with mods that an unspecified KRNET dude is incorporating with a possible new wing airfoil? I am not aware of any other planes similar to the KR except maybe the Pulsar. Ron Lee ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 06 Dec 1997 08:22:18 -0800 From: Micheal Mims Subject: Re: KR: Re: Re:Useless retract information in manual At 08:32 AM 12/6/97 -0500, you wrote: >Please don't consider this post flamebait, it's just exactly how I feel. > When I finish my plane I'm calling it something other than a KR-2S >because it won't be a KR-2S anymore. RR will get no credit whatsoever. >-Tom > TOM! I think I am beginning to like you! Well said! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Micheal Mims Remember,..Service Guarantees Citizenship mailto:mikemims@pacbell.net http://home.pacbell.net/mikemims ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 06 Dec 1997 08:28:45 -0800 From: Micheal Mims Subject: Re: KR: Improved KR At 08:46 AM 12/6/97 -0700, you wrote: >If a guy were to ponder this comment, would this possibly be a KR-2S >derivative with mods that an unspecified KRNET dude is incorporating >with a possible new wing airfoil? I am not aware of any other planes >similar to the KR except maybe the Pulsar. > >Ron Lee > I didn't just buy Turbo CAD for nothing! :o) And no its not gona come with the nose dragging option! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Micheal Mims Remember,..Service Guarantees Citizenship mailto:mikemims@pacbell.net http://home.pacbell.net/mikemims ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 10:44:46 -0600 (CST) From: Steven A Eberhart Subject: KR: Wisdom to change what needs to be changed My doctor used to have a prayer on his wall, something like: Give me the knowledge to see what needs to be changed and to know what can't be changed and the wisdom to know the difference between the two. I know I butchered the quote but the message is the same. Put your efforts where you can accomplish something - dragging out dead horses serves no useful purpose - put your efforts where they can do some good. THat is what most of us are doing - fixing what needs to be fixed. Steve ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 06 Dec 1997 16:10:22 -0500 From: Tom Andersen Subject: Re: KR: Wisdom to change what needs to be changed Steven A Eberhart wrote: ... put your efforts where they can do some good. > THat is what most of us are doing - fixing what needs to be fixed. Oh yes! I agree. However, it really feels good to talk about this with people who understand. When I meet other people who are having the same frustrations it makes the difficulties bearable. Here's the Twelve Steps of KR Anonymous: 1: We admitted that we were powerless over RR and that the plans had become unmanageable. 2: Came to believe that a power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity. 3: Made a decision to turn our will and our design over to our Higher Power. 4: Made a searching and fearless inventory of KR's omissions. 5: Admitted to God and other human beings the exact nature of those omissions. 6: Were entirely ready to correct those omissions. 7: Humbly asked our Higher Power to correct those omissions. 8: Made a list of those people who could use some e-mails regarding those omissions. 9: Sent those e-mails. 10: Continued to take personal inventory of KR parts and when they were wrong promptly designed our own. 11: Sought through prayer and meditation and head-scratching to improve our conscious contact with the best design out there. 12: Having had a spiritual awakening as the result of these Steps, we tried to carry this message to others and to practice these principles in all our affairs. The prayer you're thinking of is the Serenity Prayer: God, Grant me the Serenity to accept the things I cannot change, Courage to change the things I can, And Wisdom to know the difference. - -Tom ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 06 Dec 1997 16:12:17 -0500 From: Tom Andersen Subject: Re: KR: Re: Re:Useless retract information in manual Micheal Mims wrote: > > At 08:32 AM 12/6/97 -0500, you wrote: > >Please don't consider this post flamebait, it's just exactly how I feel. > > When I finish my plane I'm calling it something other than a KR-2S > >because it won't be a KR-2S anymore. RR will get no credit whatsoever. > >-Tom > > > > TOM! I think I am beginning to like you! Well said! > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Micheal Mims > Remember,..Service Guarantees Citizenship > > mailto:mikemims@pacbell.net > http://home.pacbell.net/mikemims Wow! You guys are great! Thanks for the affirmations Mike! - -Tom ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 06 Dec 1997 16:20:20 -0500 From: Tom Andersen Subject: Re: KR: Re: Re:Useless retract information in manual Mark Langford wrote: "RR's reluctance to improve the breed (or at least publish decent plans for the ones she has) will almost certainly lead to the KR series being replaced by far better planes of similarly inexpensive but faster design." I think the market is ripe for a new design/company, and the KR will be considered as the stepchild. There have been several successful 1/2 scale warbirds using KR construction techniques so it's only a matter of time. - -Tom ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 06 Dec 1997 16:27:00 -0500 From: Tom Andersen Subject: Re: KR: Improved KR I am not aware of any other planes > similar to the KR except maybe the Pulsar. > > Ron Lee I think they call it the Pulsar because after they tell you how much the kit costs, they have to check your pulse. For all the fiberglass parts in the kit, no time savings over a KR is noticed either. - -Tom ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 06 Dec 1997 13:49:47 -0800 From: Ross Youngblood Subject: KR: Admin Message Hello everyone. I just caught up on some admin tasks. It looks like I won't be getting my engine fired up this December... shooting for January. Had to upgrade the PC this weekend. Ran out of disk space, so decided to buy some more. The rest of my family uses it for school etc, so it got some $$$. UPS has been attempting to ship my Terra Transponder, it would have been just in time, had I been wiring my panel like a good boy, as it is, I'm behind, so it will just stay in the box a bit longer. End result, I didn't notice the delay from Terra one bit. At least I'm assuming that was what is in the box. It needs a signature, and no one has been home to sign for the package. It's from Chief Aircraft. I just added/removed/moved several subscribers so here is the tally: KRNET-L-DIGEST 29 Members KRNET-L 188 Members - -------------------------- Total 218 Members It just occured to me that we might be over 200 KRNET members if I were to include those that get the digest. I hope you are all getting somthing out of this. If not send me a post to krnet@krnet.org with suggestions. We had one member drop the list due to too many jokes, and non building stuff. So although I enjoy jokes/etc, I am trying not to reply to every message I see to help keep the bandwidth down. Rather than rant about some "bandwidth wasting" posts, which I enjoy, I will encourage builders to post KR questions, and KR building status reports etc. Hopefully that will keep the signal/noise ratio high enough for everyone to be happy with the list. I will be in Phoenix over Christmas, and if I had any wits, I would try to get some photos of KR's and builders in the Phoenix area. One I have in mind is I believe the "Gypsy" KR which appeared in earlier KR printed newsletters. I will do what I can as time permits. Drop me a line if you are in the Phoenix area, and I will do my best to stop by and snap a mugshot of you and your project for KRNET. -- Ross ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 17:10:53 -0500 (EST) From: bvermeul@concentric.net Subject: Re: KR: NLF wind tunnel airfoil >In a message dated 97-12-05 07:15:37 EST, Bob wrote: > ><< I've been following the thread with great interest. What has really piqued > my interest is the construction of the airfoil. I think a video of Mike > Mims hotwiring his wing and then doing the glass layups would also make for > interesting video. Maybe I need to make an excuse to get to California. >> > >Heck...I'd pay an admission fee just to watch that "dog & pony" show happen. >Bring a sweater though - it is winter out here (in the mid 60's) and we may >finally see some drizzle... :-) > >Randy > > Shucks Randy, up here in Michigan mid sixties is what we measure as our current snow depth. Mid 60's temperatures are balmy, and I always remember a sweater as being something I had to put on when my mother got chilled. I really think this hot-wired wing idea is a good one. It would be nice if it would work. At least we'd have another option when it comes to build the wings. Bob ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 06 Dec 1997 14:39:27 +0000 From: Bruce Toscano Subject: KR: Vortex Generators Has anyone used/had experience with/or otherwise will express their views on the use of vortex generators? . . . or some form or vortilons? (as it would apply to use on a KR2S of course!) ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 06 Dec 1997 16:52:55 -0600 From: brian whatcott Subject: Re: KR: Wisdom to change what needs to be changed At 16:10 12/6/97 -0500, you wrote: >Oh yes! I agree. > >However, it really feels good to talk about this with people who >understand. When I meet other people who are having the same >frustrations it makes the difficulties bearable. > >Here's the Twelve Steps of KR Anonymous: >1: We admitted that we were powerless over RR and that the plans had >become unmanageable. >2: Came to believe that a power greater than ourselves could restore us >to sanity. >-Tom > > Hallelujah, Brother, Hallelujah: I believe: yes, yes, I believe! brian whatcott Altus OK ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 06 Dec 1997 17:03:44 -0600 From: brian whatcott Subject: Re: KR: Vortex Generators There was quite an intense thread on vortillons on dragon fly list about a year ago. The dragon adopted a Glasgow U laminar foil which (like all the rest) is exceptionally sensitive to flysquash, even the hint of a raindrop. On the canard, this has the extremely disturbing effect of raising minimum speed ( can't call it Vstall exactly) and generally messing up a landing. People mentioned the negative effect on top speed of turbulators but the positive effect of quelling rain effects... Brian At 14:39 12/6/97 +0000, you wrote: >Has anyone used/had experience with/or otherwise will express their >views on the use of vortex generators? . . . or some form or vortilons? >(as it would apply to use on a KR2S of course!) > > brian whatcott Altus OK ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 06 Dec 1997 16:51:32 -0700 From: Ron Lee Subject: KR: Re: Admin Message & Suggestions > >We had one member drop the list due to too many jokes, and non building >stuff. So although I enjoy jokes/etc, I am trying not to reply to >every message I see to help keep the bandwidth down. >Rather than rant about some "bandwidth wasting" posts, which I enjoy, I >will encourage builders to post KR questions, and KR building status >reports etc. Hopefully that will keep the signal/noise ratio high >enough for everyone to be happy with the list. > > -- Ross May I suggest that folks change the subject to something close to the contents. As in many lists, people will read about cake batter, then eventual talk about the mating habits of porcupines (with a cake batter subject!). Ron Lee ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 06 Dec 1997 20:33:02 -0800 From: Donald Reid Subject: Re: KR: Vortex Generators Bruce Toscano wrote: > > Has anyone used/had experience with/or otherwise will express their > views on the use of vortex generators? . . . or some form or vortilons? > (as it would apply to use on a KR2S of course!) This is a subject that needs more discussion from the flyers. I have hopes of trying vortex generators and other boundary layer control ideas, but I need to get in the air first. This sounds like an exciting area. The vortex generators can give extra lift at low speed and go on or in front of control surfaces to increase low speed response. Sport Aviation had an article about 2 years ago on a Lanceair (I think) that put a thin tape along the wing span just in front of the area where the airflow would transition from laminar to turbulent. This caused an increase in airspeed of several knots. The tape created a very low vortex generator that would in turn cause the airflow to re-attach in a laminar form. Result, lower drag. This is what "experimental" means. - -- Don Reid mailto:donreid@erols.com http://www.erols.com/donreid/kr_page.htm ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 06 Dec 1997 20:47:45 -0600 From: brian whatcott Subject: Re: KR: Vortex Generators At 20:33 12/6/97 -0800, you wrote: >Bruce Toscano wrote: >> >> Has anyone used/had experience with/or otherwise will express their >> views on the use of vortex generators? . . . or some form or vortilons? >> (as it would apply to use on a KR2S of course!) > >This is a subject that needs more discussion from the flyers. I have hopes >of trying vortex generators and other boundary layer control ideas, but I >need to get in the air first.... >Don Reid I am taking the liberty of reposting an informative note from Nathan Rambo without permission, because I believe that the dissemination of this information is both in accordance with his wishes and informative when you are considering a step towards a KR configuration from which Nathan took a step in the Dragonfly. (super-laminar sections...) Brian +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++= At 09:23 AM 8/19/96 -0700, you wrote: >Ladies and Gentlemen: > >I'll try to make this as informative as possible. I hope that it is of >interest and helps those who want a new-design canard or more fully >understand their GU canard. > >Nothing I say here is in anyway intended to be derogatory of those who >designed and developed the Dragonfly acft or those who currently own the >data pkg. Many years have gone by since the little ship was designed and we >have learned much during those years. > > ***** Do We Really Have A Problem With The GU ? ***** > >Yes. My personal opinion is that the GU airfoil is unsat and unacceptable >for the pot and brush builders. John Roncz is right. It is a piece of trash. > >Although some of our airplanes fly fine many try to kill their pilots. The >GU section is totally intolerent of builder variables. The worst case acft >can't hold level flight in rain. Heavens, just read Dorothea's latest >posting to the list. > > *****A Little Traveling Music ***** > >It is my opinion that the GU problem should have been fixed years ago. The >fix could have been engineered by one of us builders as well as by the >design authority. I probably didn't do my share but let me tell you that our >own builders (particularly those with little knowledge) were totally >unsupportive by providing misinformation on the subject. > >Our Dragonfly susceptability to rain was well established prior to mid 1984. >When I approached Rex Taylor about the problem at the '84 OSH show I was >still trembling from rain effects in the grand canyon area. Yes, Rex knew >all about the problem and had hired Jerry Gregorek, a well known OSH speaker >and head of the Aero Dept at OSU, to design a new canard. For one reason or >another this never happened. > >In the meanwhile Gene Sheehan and the Q boys had terrible complaints just >like ours. So did the Eze people. The boys down at the Q ranch tried all >sorts of band-aids like reflexers and horizontal tails. Gene finally put the >NASA LS(1) section on a prototype and that was the end of the Q-bird >problem. As far as the Eze goes, Rutan put the Roncz-Melville section on the >canard and that ended the Eze problem. > >As far as the Fly goes .... we argued. Anybody who suggested a real fix was >badgered by members of our group who "knew" that there was no problem. After >all, "our Flys have a lighter wing loading" and so forth. > >Both Don Hewes (my old NASA boss and Fly owner) and I carried out a number >of flight tests for various reasons and amongst other things studied the GU >phenomenum on our acft. These ships weren't the best built Flys in the world >so they exhibited plenty of bad trade-marks of the GU. I still have fotos of >what the flow (tufts do) when the flow is tripped on my old MK I GU. Wierd! >Doctor Richard and others have suggested the sensativity to little things >such as paint lines or water vapor. You betcha! In rain I and others felt >the deceleration and heavy stick before seeing any rain on the windscreen. > > ***** Trip Strip ***** > >Paint lines brings up what I call the "trip strip". If you own a troublesome >GU canard you should be aware of this tool. I used the trip strip to >simulate rain and to study various Band-Aid fixes. > >What I did during explorative testing was take a 6 or 8 inch length of >masking tape (1 to 3 layers thick). I applied this spanwise to the upper >surface parallel to and about 2 inches back from the leading edge centered >about 30 inches out from the fuselage side. (This must be done symmetrically >on both wings or a person can die.) Then I taped a bunch of tufts on the >wing to examine flow and the burbles formed behind the trip strip. On my MK >I the trip strip absolutely destroyed lift in an expanding wake behind the >strip. I could see how my wing acted with and without fixes using the trip >strip method. > > ******** VGs ********** > >I really can't comment on most of the various band-aids that have been >discussed on this list or in the DBFN. But I can talk about VGs (vortex >generators). And I have some NASA info on the subject. > >Not only did VGs make my ship fly peachy-keen good in rain but it flew >slower in dry conditions. This was the subject of much correpondence between >myself and Hewes at the time; I was scared of wing stall.(Beware of wing >stall which can logically occur at aft CG locations.) If it will help Rich >feel better I later added a horizontal tail and the silly Fly would act like >a 1946 Cub. I was really scared about wing stall then but with all the down >wash from the canard trailing vortices it just kept right on flying even at >"M" mph and crazy nose-high attitudes. > >Cruise speed was reduced depending on configuration of VGs. I could never >quantify the decrease exactly but I would say it was about 8 mph for the >final arrangement. In spite of the speed penatlty I never flew cross-country >again without these VGs attached. > >Those pilots who use VGs might try them in the middle part of each panel and >go from there (send SSAE for VG info). The inboard area that is wetted by >the prop wash and the tip areas where the tip vortex gives a lot of inboard >span flow seem to be more tolerent of rain. Be sure to flight test the >installation using normal safety precautions. Again ... beware of aft cg >characteristics. > > ******* The Laughing Canard ******* > >As many of you know I have an LS(1) canard on my ship. There was no >originality on my part in building the canard. It is not the first one >built. Cortney Briant's Fly was the first but it crashed on its first >flight because of engine stoppage. (His Fastglas with LS(1) still exists but >is not directly comparable.) > >Also, at least one other LS canard has been built since mine. Bob Meador >built a retract Fly with an LS(1); it crashed on first flight or on an early >flight because of engine problems. And so it goes. Regretably, today my old >MK II Special is the only one we have to look to for numbers. > >About 1989 I decided to build the new canard for a number of reasons not to >be belabored here. At the time the success of the Sheehan clan application >of the LS(1) was firmly in my mind. The Qs hadn't realized an serious >penalties that I knew. Because airfoils never seemed to interest me I opted >for the LS(1) and proceeded to do quick and dirty design work. I don't even >remember checking the static stability numbers comparing the old Cl slope >with the new. (The second equation for pitch stability says that the >increase in canard lift times its distance to the CG must be less than the >increase in rear wing lift times its distance to the CG.) > >My simplistic work resulted in a canard that laughs at rain. Instead of >picking up about 30% increase in drag coefficient and increasing stall speed >by 35 mph it almost thrives on rain. I could tell no difference in cruise >speed. The stall speed went up an inconsequential 1.5 mph. Pitch trim didn't >change. It just laughs at rain ... the laughing canard. > >Now the bad news. I would estimate that my cruise speed in dry air decreased >about 12 mph from a clean GU with no VGs. I now cruise at a consistent trued >out ias of 115 knots ... maybe a couple more but no less. How much of the >decrease can be attributed to the airfoil is unknown. (We might ask Jon >Finley if he knows if there was any decrease when the Qs adapted the >section.) Part of the decrease was caused by induced drag from increased >weight. Part was caused by big elephant-ear balance tabs at the tips; the >new canard had statically balanced flaps (or elevators). I feel that a very >big part of the decrease was caused by big draggy wheel fairings over the >500 X 5 tires. > >A second problem was that I couldn't get the canard installed at the desired >new angle of incidence without jack-hammering out the platform that lies >between the FW and canard lift BH. I was lazy at the time and elected to fly >2 degrees fuselage nose high. This bothers me to this day because it gives >poor viz over the nose. I just didn't take the time to do the job right and >make the fuse fly at the correct angle. Oh of course, the wing is rigged to >give the correct decalage but some of my penalty could involve the fuse angle. > >The bottom line was that I was disenchanted with the poor performance and >difficult retrofit when I got my canard flying. I was so unhappy that I >abbreviated flight testing and never cleaned up the documentation so others >could follow. The sloppy dwgs that I used are not fit for other's use. So >many have beem loaned to others that I would have to start anew. > > ***** What's Involved In Developing An Improved Canard ***** > >There is little witchcraft involved in what you have to do if you are >willing to cut corners. And it would be a good education. Remember what our >mediator and advocate, John Roncz said. "It is incumbent on each EEAer to >design and build his own airplane." > >I cannot tell you what to do or provide you with dwgs. I can tell you what I >did. But from there it's your show ... your original work and your risk. One >or two guys, willing to do the design work, build canards, and flight test >them, would be the team leader(s). I would hope that the smart guys on this >list would give lots of advice. > >Let's walk through the steps required using what I did as an example. The >first thing I did was order NASA TP 1919 "Wind Tunnel Results for a >"Modified 17-Percent-Thick Low-Speed Airfoil Section" (i.e. the LS(1)-0417 >Mod). This tech pub was very incomplete because it gave no flapped info and >I recommend that nobody order it. It did however give me the two rudimentary >necessities, the ordinates and Cl vs alfa curves needed to calculate the >pitch rigging angle. I will share these with those wishing to use this >airfoil (send SSAE). > >If you wish to use another airfoil you are really on your own. But that's >what EAA is all about. The Roncz/Melville section might work out good. You >will need the coordinates, the lift curve, and special flap hinging details. >It would be interesting to check the lift curve slope for stability >implications or you could use my "dummy-approach" philosophy. The proper >thing would be John Roncz' personal cut at the problem; this could really >put you on easy street. I suspect that such support might be difficult to get. > >Another probably more available section would be one of the GA series. I'm >thinking of a 17% GA 37 or NLF37 or ??? The cusped version might help our >sensativity around neutral. The nice thing here is that I'll just bet that >Harry Riblett would support us. If I wished to select a better airfoil I >would start with Harry's book "GA Airfoils", interpolate between the 15 and >18% data presented there, then go to Harry for confirmation of my decision. > >Either the Roncz or NLF section should reduce drag a little because both >delay transition to further back on the wing. Rob Broberg knows more about >this than I and he might make a good airfoil selection guy for your group. > >The next thing I did was to figure the worst case weight carried by the >canard in cruise condition. If you do this don't use the 60/40 method, send >me an SSAE for some of my stuff and go from there. I have calcs plus all the >dimensions that will drive you nuts trying to look up or measure on the plans. > >Knowing the weight that the canard had to support I calculated the required >Cl (coefficient of lift) for a very slow cruise speed (about 100 mph). To do >this the area of the canard is introduced excluding that area inside the >fuse. Personally feeling that the MK II with a GU was too near the neutral >point in the aft CG condition, I decided on using a little less area ... >i.e. I decided to use a reduced span. This may not have been a good decision >because the LS lift slope should give better stability than the GU. I >figured that one way or another I'd keep the CG well fwd until I had run >static stability flight tests. > >I selected a Cl vs alfa curve for our working Reynolds Number (2 million). >The slope of the (roughness on) curve was corrected for AR. Entering the >previously calculated Cl, I determined the required angle of attack. > >Now I went to my old flight data and looked up what pitch attitude my >fuselage flew. Combining the two angles gave me the angle to install the >canard in the fuselage. Piece of cake .... right guys. No? Okay, I'll run >the numbers for your airfoil if you don't get a pro to do the job. And from >what I see of aero consultant work lately maybe I better check your numbers >or calcs anyway. > > >Then came the drudgery. I drafted the planform figuring where the hinge line >would go and where to make hot wire templates. The full size templates at >the assigned BLs were plotted using the coordinates with the help of a >computer to speed things along. During lay-out it must be remembered to tilt >the spar accordingly so that the lift tabs fit flat on the lift BH. These >new airfoils interface at a cotally different angle because their zero lift >lines are about 7 degrees above that of the GU. > >Calculating the amount of foam to remove for the reinforcement cloth was >not exactly a no-brainer. It wasn't a matter of high theory but just that >you had to keep track of how many layers of what thickness cloth were used >in every place. Lots of sketches help when you do it. > >For reinforcement I strongly recommend that you do not use the plans >schedules for any new canard (or new wings too) if you are going to be >overweight.This brings up the stress calcs. Because a redesigned canard is >not Patrick's domain, he probably won't provide you with special lay-up >info. However I don't see any big differences in the calcs for any 17% >section. Therefore you can wait for Patrick's new schedule for 1300# Flys >coming out soon. If you don't like his selected service limit "G" load you >can have Marty Hollmann or Andy Marshall run the calcs or ..... if you wanna >live dangerously I'll provide any builder with a computer run of recommended >minimum schedule for his estimated flying weight at whatever service limit >load he desires (yeh,yeh, SSAE please). > >Another point I cannot stress enough. When the building is done the flying >starts. And as Ross would say from his bully pulpit, "that's where the >rubber hits the road". Whoever leads the way must do a thorough flight test >series. He can follow Askue or one of the texts. Among other things he must >establish a new CG envelope. (See my story in the next DBFN regarding pitch >stability.) This is true flight testing and not what so many homebuilders do >... i.e. drone around for 40 hours. > >I will support this project all the way providing you go about it properly >and providing you free me of all liability associated with it. I cannot >impress you enough regarding the dangers of small aircraft and particularly >the dangers of experimenting regardless of experience. Eleven card-carrying >members of my EAA chapter have died in the past 14 years. Be careful! > >Respectfully Submitted, > >Nathan Rambo brian whatcott Altus OK ------------------------------ End of krnet-l-digest V1 #185 *****************************