From: owner-krnet-l-digest@teleport.com[SMTP:owner-krnet-l-digest@teleport.com] Sent: Thursday, December 11, 1997 2:07 AM To: krnet-l-digest@teleport.com Subject: krnet-l-digest V1 #189 krnet-l-digest Thursday, December 11 1997 Volume 01 : Number 189 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 08:34:22 -0600 From: pierce@pat.lgb.cal.boeing.com (Cole Pierce) Subject: Re: KR: New KR design > > > Somebody has to be a party-pooper.... > The reason you don't see many swept forward designs, in spite of their > aerodynamic advantages, is that an upgust deflection tends to increase > AoA which is a positive feedback - apt to break the wing right off. > You cope with this feature by making a wing stiff so it doesn't > deflect much or arrange reinforcement to ensure the wing twist is > favorable... > brian whatcott > Altus OK > Party Pooper Part Duh Wings swept aft have a built-in flutter dissipator .. the wingtip. With wings swept forward, the flutter tries to dissipate into the fuselage. Highly stressful and requiring high strength = exotic materials to succeed. Kindergarten explanation of a grad school subject. - -gun one ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 08:37:27 -0600 (CST) From: Steven A Eberhart Subject: KR: NLF project archive I have added a browsable archive to the nlf web page http://www.newtech.com/nlf/nlf.html This archive will be periodically updated so everyone will be able to review information about the NLF(1)0115 wind tunnel tests that has been posted on Krnet. This archive was constructed with Mhonarc and is browsable and threded. Steve Eberhart ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 10:47:39 -0500 From: smithr Subject: Re: KR: Re: aluminum channel Donald Reid wrote: > > JEHayward wrote: > > Bob, I got both of the channels from Wicks. The only thing I found is the > > fit of one inside the other is extremely tight. If I could get a thousandth > > off each channel side, I think that would work just fine. The outsides of the > > inside channel will sand easy enough but I don't know how I'll do the insides > > of the outside channel yet. I'm still thinking about it. > > > > Jim Hayward > > For hinges, consider using the same size pieces for both the stationary and > moveable pieces. I used square stock 2" X 2" and cut the hinges from that. > Refer to the highly detailed drawing below. I also have a light AN washer (half > thickness) between the pieces to prevent galling. > > _______________ > I I > I I I I > I I I I > I I I I > I_____________I > -- > Don Reid > mailto:donreid@erols.com > http://www.erols.com/donreid/kr_page.htm Is there any disadvantage to this type of hinge compared to the stock one? Bob Smith ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 08:55:44 -0600 (CST) From: Steven A Eberhart Subject: Re: KR: British help needed Oscar, Richard Mole is in the UK and is a full $100 contributor to the NLF Visionary Fund. He has a flying Jodel and is considering the NLF for his aeroplane. You can contact him directly at "R.H.Mole -Richard Mole" . He has helped me with my subscription to the British magazine Flyer and would probably be a good resource to help in tracking down the information you are looking for. You can see some of his excellent contributions to the NLF discussions in the NLF archive on http://www.newtech.com/nlf/nlf.html Hope this helps. I would love to hear the results of your evaluation of the design. Steve Eberhart On Wed, 10 Dec 1997, Oscar Zuniga wrote: > Good morning, Netters > > I found the ad I was looking for in Sport Aviation, for plans for the > Taylor Monoplane. They are available for "60 pounds sterling", and I > don't know how much that is in greenbacks. Anybody out there know the > going conversion rate? If it's anything close to 1:1, sixty bucks ain't > too bad for me to settle the KR/Monoplane issue in my mind. I am > willing (and interested) in seeing these plans in order to compare to > KR. > > And yes Randy... I even read the classified ads in the back of Sport > Aviation. > > Oscar Zuniga > Medford, Oregon > > ______________________________________________________ > Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 10:36:09 -0500 From: Patrick Flowers Subject: Re: KR: NLF project archive Steven A Eberhart wrote: > > I have added a browsable archive to the nlf web page > http://www.newtech.com/nlf/nlf.html This archive will be periodically > updated so everyone will be able to review information about the > NLF(1)0115 wind tunnel tests that has been posted on Krnet. Steve, Could you possibly add some background information to this page? Basically what we're doing and why we're doing it. Several homebuilders that I've spoken to and corresponded with are interested in our progress, even if they have no interest in building a KR. After all, this is kind of an historic event. Patrick - -- Patrick Flowers Mailto:patri63@ibm.net ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 09:49:07 -0600 (CST) From: Steven A Eberhart Subject: Re: KR: NLF project archive (hey Mark Langford) On Wed, 10 Dec 1997, Patrick Flowers wrote: > Steven A Eberhart wrote: > > > > I have added a browsable archive to the nlf web page > > http://www.newtech.com/nlf/nlf.html This archive will be periodically > > updated so everyone will be able to review information about the > > NLF(1)0115 wind tunnel tests that has been posted on Krnet. > > Steve, > > Could you possibly add some background information to this page? > Basically what we're doing and why we're doing it. Several homebuilders > that I've spoken to and corresponded with are interested in our > progress, even if they have no interest in building a KR. After all, > this is kind of an historic event. > > Patrick I would be glad to but I am not the most accomplished author, not even close :-( Maybe Mark Langford could find the time to put together a short introduction and some background information that could be included. You listening Mark? Steve ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 16:45:26 +0000 From: Dave Wallis Subject: Re: KR: British help needed In message <199712101428.GAA09803@f111.hotmail.com>, Oscar Zuniga writes >Good morning, Netters > >I found the ad I was looking for in Sport Aviation, for plans for the >Taylor Monoplane. They are available for "60 pounds sterling", and I >don't know how much that is in greenbacks. Anybody out there know the >going conversion rate? 1.64 dollars to the quid at present old chap. 60 quid = 98.4 dollars >If it's anything close to 1:1, sixty bucks ain't >too bad for me to settle the KR/Monoplane issue in my mind. I am >willing (and interested) in seeing these plans in order to compare to >KR. - -- Dave Wallis KR2 G-BMMD Based Hanley William Aerodrome, Herefordshire, England Quote of the week Life is like a dog-sled team. - If you ain't the lead dog, the scenery never changes. - --Lewis Grizzard ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 11:41:12 -0500 From: Patrick Flowers Subject: Re: KR: Re: aluminum channel Mark Langford wrote: > > Patrick Flowers wrote: > > > spar and bolted into a 4130 bracket on the elevator spar. I've thought > > about trying this, but it would be heavier and more expensive. I'll > > probably end up using the aluminum channel and oil*te bushings. > > I didn't think much of the aluminum on aluminum either, which is why I used > oil*ite bushings. I also went to five hinges, rather than just three, > assuming that I would almost cut the loading in half. > Rod end bearings would be a good choice too. I'd like to see somebody > do this and make it work. I'd have done it, but couldn't find a rod end > bearing with a shoulder. I've looked into this, and the biggest problem is finding a 3/16" male bearing with enough reach. Most of them are around 1.5"(could go with a 1/4" bearing, but there's that weight demon rearing its ugly head). For comfort reasons, I wouldn't want the bearing hanging off the front of the spar, so you need to be able to reach all the way through. With .66" needed off the spar plus .625" for the spar, by the time you add the plywood doubler, you're out of reach. Most of the schemes I came up with to make it work just add a bunch of weight. One possibility that has promise is to replace the plywood doubler by enlarging the aluminum backing plate and epoxying it to the spar. I think Wicks has a 1/4" bearing with 1.8" reach. I'll order a couple and report back. More later. Patrick - -- Patrick Flowers Mailto:patri63@ibm.net ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 11:11:49 -0500 From: Patrick Flowers Subject: Re: KR: Re: New Airfoil Test Mark Langford wrote: > > Rex Ellington wrote: > > > What would the spar vertical dimensions have to be if the spars > > were located at the same fuselage positions as presently? > > Spar height for the NLF(1)0115 is around 6.7 for the main spar. Taking > that into effect, I reconfigured my main spar so that it's slightly thicker > (front to back) with a thicker (2.3125") upper spar cap. I left my lower > at the stock 2". My thinking was that I don't plan on doing nearly as many > negative G's as positive G's, so positive is where I want my margin of > safety. Mark, were these spar dimensions a SWAG for comfort or did you have some firm numbers? > Were I just now building my boat, I'd leave an extra 5/16" or more > of extra room for the spar to go through the vertical members. The more I think about it(scary, isn't it?), the more I lean toward building the wing first(at least to the point of assembling the spars and jigging them together with airfoil templates) and then building the boat to fit it. Patrick - -- Patrick Flowers Mailto:patri63@ibm.net ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 12:54:09 -0500 From: Patrick Flowers Subject: Re: KR: Re: aluminum channel Patrick Flowers wrote: > > One possibility that has promise is to replace the plywood doubler by > enlarging the aluminum backing plate and epoxying it to the spar. And maybe not... I was thinking about the small 3/32" doublers. A quick look at the stab plans reminded me that there's a 36" long 1/4" plywood doubler. More chin scratching... Patrick - -- Patrick Flowers Mailto:patri63@ibm.net ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 11:52:55 -0600 From: brian whatcott Subject: Re: KR: British help needed At 06:28 12/10/97 PST, you wrote: >Good morning, Netters > >I found the ad I was looking for in Sport Aviation, for plans for the >Taylor Monoplane. They are available for "60 pounds sterling", and I >don't know how much that is in greenbacks. Anybody out there know the >going conversion rate? If it's anything close to 1:1, sixty bucks ain't >too bad for me to settle the KR/Monoplane issue in my mind. I am >willing (and interested) in seeing these plans in order to compare to >KR. > >And yes Randy... I even read the classified ads in the back of Sport >Aviation. > >Oscar Zuniga >Medford, Oregon > > Closer to a hundred bucks to Mrs Taylor, I think. Regards brian whatcott Altus OK ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 09 Dec 97 16:06:26 GMT From: mathewrz@iafrica.com (Rob Matthews) Subject: KR: Baffle Plates For Revmaster 2100s Hi Krnetters Does anyone have any templates or good pictures on the baffle plates for the Revmaster 2100s. I am wanting to make some and don't know all the various plates needed for this motor. Many Thanx - -- Rob Matthews Have a nice day South Africa email mathewrz@iafrica.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 13:22:27 -0500 From: Patrick Flowers Subject: KR: Manual Errata (was Aluminum Channel) All you old hands probably know this, but for the benefit of my fellow newbies, Drawing No. 48 on page 49 of the manual is very misleading. The hinge bolt center to spar distance is .75" for both channels and the narrower(1") channel is shown attached to the hor. stab. spar. Drawing A and the Hinge Detail on Drawing B show the proper arrangement. Patrick - -- Patrick Flowers Mailto:patri63@ibm.net ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 13:56:24 -0500 From: "Jeremy Casey" Subject: KR: Another Newbie question (or 2) I have been surfing around looking at everybodies web pages and have noticed that the vast majority are tailgraggers. Is there a good reason for this??? (i.e. performance gain,lower const. cost, alignment of the planets??) Are there any cons to either setup? On the tri-gear setup is the main gear mounted to the rear or front spar? Is the nose wheel steerable or caster? The only thing on the KR design that makes me nervous is how you bolt that large piece of shaking metal (i.e. the engine) to the wooden airframe?? (I have not purchased plans yet, I am still in the serious curiosity stage but if anyone has a picture on the web of the attachment I would be interested to see it.) There was a comment about that being a weakness of the KR design. I took the advice given and have ordered info packs and catalogs from everyone mentioned. You guys weren't kidding about R+R being low tech. They couldn't take a credit card over the phone , I've got to send them a check through the snail mail!! One last question and I'll shut up and start listening again. I have heard comments about the KR2/2s being a snug fit for 2 people. I know the cabin width can be custom built , but what is the plan dimensions and what can it be stretched out to without a major redesign? Thanks a ton... Jeremy Casey jrcasey@mindspring.com P.S. I have noticed several people talking about plotting and 3D modeling (i.e. CAD) I am a structural steel draftsmen myself and use AutoCAD R14. Was curious if there are .dwg files out there that I could get with sketchs or whatever of KR's for examination before I throw $165+/- dollars at R+R for a full set of plans. (Not trying to infringe on copyrights or get around buying plans. Just thought there might be something out there for curiousity sake.) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 11:07:00 -0800 From: David Moore Subject: Re: KR: British help needed Oscar, Now understand, that the plans you will get from the U.K. will be for a single seat aircraft, the KR2 is Ken Rand's design. The Taylor I saw at a fly-in in Grass Valley, Mo. (outside K.C.), looked like a RV-3, only made of wood. I believe someone said it was a Titch? But deffently reminde me of a KR1. Dave Moore At 06:28 AM 12/10/97 PST, you wrote: >Good morning, Netters > >I found the ad I was looking for in Sport Aviation, for plans for the >Taylor Monoplane. They are available for "60 pounds sterling", and I >don't know how much that is in greenbacks. Anybody out there know the >going conversion rate? If it's anything close to 1:1, sixty bucks ain't >too bad for me to settle the KR/Monoplane issue in my mind. I am >willing (and interested) in seeing these plans in order to compare to >KR. > >And yes Randy... I even read the classified ads in the back of Sport >Aviation. > >Oscar Zuniga >Medford, Oregon > >______________________________________________________ >Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com > > David Moore Turnkey1@MSComm.Com Hesperia, Calif. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 15:16:09 -0500 From: Patrick Flowers Subject: Re: KR: Another Newbie question (or 2) Jeremy Casey wrote: > > I have been surfing around looking at everybodies web pages and have > noticed that the vast majority are tailgraggers. Is there a good reason for > this??? Well Jeremy, this is a controversial subject anywhere you get more than two pilots together. So before Mike rushes in claiming nosegear is for sissies and Rob Covington retailiates by calling him a facist, I'll try to give my reasoned(IMNSHO) viewpoint: A taildragger will be lighter and have less drag(all other things being equal - which they rarely are) and should be faster for those two reasons. The trigear will offer better landing manners in most conditions, but in high winds and crosswinds, the taildragger will be easier to land due to its ability to wheel land and plant with forward elevator. (I'm sure that one will draw some fire) Taxiing will be slightly easier with the trigear, but since you must use differential braking to steer(castering nosewheel - it will still weathervane), it ain't that much better. Having the mains behind the CG makes it slightly harder to groundloop, but it can be done if you screw up the braking. The taildragger will be better for "unimproved" fields as rough turf and pavement are tough on the nosegear. It's more difficult to prang a prop with the trigear, but it can be done(see above). BTW, mine will be a taildragger(because of the above, but mostly because taildraggers are cool). > On the tri-gear setup is the main gear mounted to the rear or front > spar? Is the nose wheel steerable or caster? Actually, I believe it's mounted to the engine mount/firewall. Castering. > The only thing on the KR design that makes me nervous is how you bolt > that large piece of shaking metal (i.e. the engine) to the wooden airframe?? > (I have not purchased plans yet, I am still in the serious curiosity stage > but if anyone has a picture on the web of the attachment I would be > interested to see it.) There was a comment about that being a weakness of > the KR design. That's the only thing??? Then send RR your money today!! This is really not much of an issue. The wood is actually better in a high vibration environment than metal. Until the 50's, most firewalls were wood with sheet metal covering. > I took the advice given and have ordered info packs and catalogs from > everyone mentioned. You guys weren't kidding about R+R being low tech. > They couldn't take a credit card over the phone , I've got to send them a > check through the snail mail!! Does RR take credit cards? I don't think so, but I'm not sure. Actually many small businesses don't like to run small transactions through credit cards - go figure. > One last question and I'll shut up and start listening again. I have > heard comments about the KR2/2s being a snug fit for 2 people. I know the > cabin width can be custom built , but what is the plan dimensions and what > can it be stretched out to without a major redesign? 38" to the outside of the fuselage plywood. Widening is not an issue unless you want to use the RR canopy and turtledeck. If so, then you're limited to 1.5" wider(if memory serves). > P.S. I have noticed several people talking about plotting and 3D modeling > (i.e. CAD) I am a structural steel draftsmen myself and use AutoCAD R14. > Was curious if there are .dwg files out there that I could get with sketchs > or whatever of KR's for examination before I throw $165+/- dollars at R+R > for a full set of plans. (Not trying to infringe on copyrights or get around > buying plans. Just thought there might be something out there for curiousity > sake.) I don't think a complete CAD file exists, except for the mystical one RR paid to have done. Better to find a builder in your area and go look at their plans and project. Where are you located? Patrick - -- Patrick Flowers Mailto:patri63@ibm.net ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 16:09:01 -0800 From: Donald Reid Subject: Re: KR: Re: aluminum channel smithr wrote: > > For hinges, consider using the same size pieces for both the stationary and > > moveable pieces. I used square stock 2" X 2" and cut the hinges from that. > > Refer to the highly detailed drawing below. I also have a light AN washer (half > > thickness) between the pieces to prevent galling. > > > > _______________ > > I I > > I I I I > > I I I I > > I I I I > > I_____________I > Is there any disadvantage to this type of hinge compared to the stock > one? > > Bob Smith The line of force from the elevator spar to the rear stabilizer spar is off-center by a little over 0.125 inches. A side load would tend to open the gap if applied in one direction and close it if applied in the other. If the hinges are combined in pairs, one offset one direction on one side of the elevator, and the other offset the other direction on the other side of the elevator, the forces should balance. I did not use this method for the center hinge with the control arm, but did that described in the plans. On the rudder, I also did the hinges in pairs like described above. - -- Don Reid mailto:donreid@erols.com http://www.erols.com/donreid/kr_page.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 16:22:21 -0800 From: Donald Reid Subject: Re: KR: Another Newbie question (or 2) Jeremy Casey wrote: > > I have been surfing around looking at everybodies web pages and have > noticed that the vast majority are tailgraggers. Is there a good reason for > for this??? (i.e. performance gain,lower const. cost, alignment of the > planets??) Cheaper, lighter, lower drag, real men don't need the training wheel in the front. Take your pick, it is all personnal preference. > On the tri-gear setup is the main gear mounted to the rear or front > spar? On conventional, the gear mounts on the front of the main spar, and on nose wheel, it is mounted on the back of the main spar. > The only thing on the KR design that makes me nervous is how you bolt > that large piece of shaking metal (i.e. the engine) to the wooden airframe?? Wood is a marvellous engineering material if it is used within its limitations. Not only are there wooden airplanes, but wooden power boats and even cars with wooden frames (Morgan, very British) - -- Don Reid mailto:donreid@erols.com http://www.erols.com/donreid/kr_page.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 16:54:33 -0500 From: "Jeremy Casey" Subject: KR: Home is where you hang your hat! Patrick, do you live on the internet??? I put those questions out and got an answer in about 30 minutes!!! KRNet does not play around....Service with a smile!! 'Nuff chit-chat. I live south of Phenix City, AL./Columbus, Ga. I am about 5 miles off the west end of Lawson Army Airfield's main runway on Fort Benning, Ga.(Largest Army base in the world). I understand Mark Langford is in Huntsville? is anyone closer to me than that? Huntsville is about a 5-6 hour ride from here (I wouldn't mind that though) Anybody willing to answer a bunch of questions from someone who knows next to nothing about a KR (or composite aircraft for that matter!) please drop me a line. I'm not against a steak or something for anyone wanting to be a teacher for a day! (My treat, of course. I'm prone to running to the Outback Steakhouse at the slightest hint of hunger) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 17:24:11 From: Austin Clark Subject: Re: KR: Home is where you hang your hat! At 16:54 12/10/97 -0500, you wrote: > I'm not against a steak or something for anyone wanting to be a teacher >for a day! (My treat, of course. I'm prone to running to the Outback >Steakhouse at the slightest hint of hunger) > > > Jeremy, There's an Outback in Mobile Al and I am only 20 miles west of there! Seriously, You are welcome to come look at my project any time you happen to be in the area. I am in the boat stage, working on the tail group at the time. (pictures on my web page) Austin Clark http://www.datasync.com/~itac/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 18:40:33 -0800 From: Micheal Mims Subject: KR: Re: New Airfoil Test At 11:11 AM 12/10/97 -0500, you wrote: Mark, were these spar dimensions a SWAG for comfort or did you have some firm numbers? > NO SWAGING! Those spar caps sizes give Mark a working limit of 5789 pounds positive and a working limit of 5295 negative. Or somewhere close to that anyway! :o) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Micheal Mims Remember,..Service Guarantees Citizenship mailto:mikemims@pacbell.net http://home.pacbell.net/mikemims ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 22:05:16 -0500 From: mike cochran Subject: Re: KR: Home is where you hang your hat! Jeremy Casey wrote: > > Patrick, do you live on the internet??? I put those questions out and got > an answer in about 30 minutes!!! KRNet does not play around....Service with > a smile!! > 'Nuff chit-chat. I live south of Phenix City, AL./Columbus, Ga. I am > about 5 miles off the west end of Lawson Army Airfield's main runway on Fort > Benning, Ga.(Largest Army base in the world). > I understand Mark Langford is in Huntsville? is > anyone closer to me than that? Huntsville is about a 5-6 hour ride from here > Jeremy, My name is Mike Cochran. I live in Americus, Ga. about 60 miles from Columbus. I am building a KR 2 and am about 3\4 thru. I would be glad for you to come over and see my project or I would like to see yours. I work at South Ga. Tech. in the Avionics program (we are a aviation school in Americus. work # 912-931-2592 or 800-928-0283 in Ga. Where are you at on your project and what type KR 2 or KR 2S ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 21:10:51 -0600 From: Bobby Muse Subject: Re: KR: Baffle Plates For Revmaster 2100s At 04:06 PM 12/9/97 GMT, you wrote: >Hi Krnetters > >Does anyone have any templates or good pictures on the baffle plates for the >Revmaster 2100s. I am wanting to make some and don't know all the various >plates needed for this motor. > >Many Thanx > >-- >Rob Matthews Have a nice day >South Africa >email mathewrz@iafrica.com > > I used templates from 'Great Plains Aircraft Supply Company' on my Revmaster. Bobby Muse(N122B) bmuse@mindspring.com Wimberly, TX ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 21:10:48 -0600 From: Bobby Muse Subject: Re: KR: Tiedown rings At 12:11 AM 12/2/97 -0500, you wrote: >>>My tiedowns are simple eyebolts screwed to a plate that I bonded to the >>main >>>spar. When racing I can remove the tie downs and put plugs in the >>holes or >>>tape over the holes. > > >Unless Bobby hit a squall line during a race, it sounds as though his design >would fill the bill for this. I'm assuming from the description that he >leaves them in place whenever he's just flying around. > >As for the details, does "plate bonded to the main spar," mean a nutplate >glued to the bottom of the spar, something on an angle iron glued to the >front or back, or what? During normal riding, are they Nylocked or >safety-wired in place, or is there not any force that would make them want to >unscrew? > >Mike Taglieri > Any race that I have won or lost was not due to leaving my tie downs in place. By the way....I leave the eyebolt tie downs in place and fly this way all the time.......except when I want to go REAL fast. Bobby Muse(N122B) bmuse@mindspring.com Wimberly, TX ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 22:49:07 -0600 From: "Mark Langford" Subject: Re: KR: NLF project archive (hey Mark Langford) > > Could you possibly add some background information to this page? I'd be glad to. In the meantime, you could read my rantings at http://fly.hiwaay.net/~langford/kopinion.html , which will lead you to http://fly.hiwaay.net/~langford/knlf.html , which shows what both airfoils look like. I've been a little busy lately, as my wife hit a Dodge Intrepid (whose driver ran a stop sign) in the door doing 60 mph. She's doing relatively OK, but I now have a 123 emails that I haven't read yet, so it may be just a little while. Sorry if I've neglected anybody. Mark Langford, Huntsville, AL email at langford@hiwaay.net KR2S project construction at http://fly.hiwaay.net/~langford - ---------- > From: Steven A Eberhart > To: krnet-l@teleport.com > Subject: Re: KR: NLF project archive (hey Mark Langford) > Date: Wednesday, December 10, 1997 9:49 AM > > On Wed, 10 Dec 1997, Patrick Flowers wrote: > > > Steven A Eberhart wrote: > > > > > > I have added a browsable archive to the nlf web page > > > http://www.newtech.com/nlf/nlf.html This archive will be periodically > > > updated so everyone will be able to review information about the > > > NLF(1)0115 wind tunnel tests that has been posted on Krnet. > > > > Steve, > > > > Could you possibly add some background information to this page? > > Basically what we're doing and why we're doing it. Several homebuilders > > that I've spoken to and corresponded with are interested in our > > progress, even if they have no interest in building a KR. After all, > > this is kind of an historic event. > > > > Patrick > > I would be glad to but I am not the most accomplished author, not even > close :-( Maybe Mark Langford could find the time to put together a > short introduction and some background information that could be included. > You listening Mark? > > Steve > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 23:42:09 EST From: EagleGator Subject: Re: KR: British help needed In a message dated 97-12-10 22:02:10 EST, Oscar wrote: << I found the ad I was looking for in Sport Aviation, for plans for the Taylor Monoplane. They are available for "60 pounds sterling", and I don't know how much that is in greenbacks. Anybody out there know the going conversion rate? >> The exchange rate was $1.67 to the pound in late October, you can find a more recent rate in the Wall Street Journal or other financial publication, or call your credit card company, they can tell you what rate they would give you on purchases abroad. Cheers! Rick Junkin EagleGator@aol.com St. Charles MO ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 20:59:07 -0800 From: MARVIN MCCOY Subject: KR: Question on how tight to make wheel nuts I have installed the main gear on the center spars and put the cleavland wheels and brakes on. When I torque the wheel nuts to the proper torque I must either back the nut off a small amount to put the carter pin in or else tighten the nut up a little to align the carter pin hole. If I tighten it up to the next hole the wheel feels to tight and will not roll freely. Anyone have experience with this. Should I back the nut off or tighten it up to the next carter pin hole. And, how freely should the wheel turn.??? Thanks Marvin McCoy Seattle, WA. North end of Boeing field Mr.Marvin@worldnet.att.net ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 00:25:06 -0500 (EST) From: jeroffey@tir.com (jeroffey) Subject: Re: KR: New Airfoil Test >On Tue, 9 Dec 1997, Micheal Mims wrote: > >> At 11:35 AM 12/9/97 CDT, you wrote: >> >G'Day All >> > >> >Jean N4DD raised the question for me. I was just going to start >> >plotting dimensions of the NLF airfoil using the same chord as >> >the RAF48. Since everything affects everything else, however: >> > >> >> Your questions are good ones and I am afraid that the wind tunnel test >> results are needed to answer most of them. The NLF has a drastically >> different shape than the RAF that there is no way you could adapt NLF outer >> wings to RAF stubs. The 48 in chord NLF only allows for a spar depth of >> around 6.75 inches. I don't have my plots with me but I do remember the >> spar will need to be shorter and wider to accommodate the NLF. These are >> just a few of the reasons I decided to use the NACA23016 instead. I think >> we need a lot more data (which is on the way) before everyone starts to >> build their fuselages and spars to utilize the NLF. I could not wait so I >> went with the NACA23016 which allowed me to use the stock KR2S spars. There >> is no doubt that the NLF will be a superior airfoil to the NACA23016, maybe >> next time! :o) > >I will be talking to Ashok today and will try to get a schedule when he >needs the wind tunnel airfoils and when they plan on doing the tests. >Will also get all of the posts relating to the NLF test from the archives >for him to review. Now that his Doctorial reviews are out of the way he >should be starting on the design of the new airfoil as well as sizing the >NLF(1)0115 to the KR-2S. There are several projects here. One is sizing >the existing NLF to the KR-2S using teh existing design as a base line. >Another is the design of a completely new airfoil optimizing the >aerodynamics of the plane and airfoil. I will also discuss the spar >questions and see if we can get some guidance on what the dimensions of a >new spar for the NLF(1)0115 should be to keep the same strength and >construction techniques. > >Steve > >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> Micheal Mims >> Remember,..Service Guarantees Citizenship >> >> mailto:mikemims@pacbell.net >> http://home.pacbell.net/mikemims >> >>Just another quick update on the tube spars Steve, I threaded the 1.75 tube today and will work on threading the 1.0 tube tomorrow. Progress is being made. If by chance I don't succeed in getting them out this weekend, expect delivery sometime next week. John Roffey jeroffey@tir.com > > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 00:35:48 EST From: leperkins@juno.com (Lloyd Perkins,Jr.) Subject: KR: Re: LOEHLE 5151 kit for sale Hello All, I hope everyone had a great Thanksgiving!!! Mine was especially wonderful . We are expecting our third child in July. God is wonderful !!!. My family is truly the light of my life !! ANYway...... I still have this unopened 5151 kit to sell. It was purchased in 1995 and has been in my garage ever since . I would like to get $5000.00 for the whole kit and kaboodle. It has retracts and long range fuel. E-Mail me @ leperkins@juno.com or call me at home at (540)786-2838 until 11:00 pm EST. Thanks, Lloyd ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 00:58:04 EST From: JEHayward Subject: Re: KR: New Airfoil Test In a message dated 97-12-11 00:16:31 EST, you write: << It is not a laminar airfoil by definition but it is more so than the RAF. I guess what I am trying to say is it was designed for 200 mph airplanes not 100MPH airplanes as was the RAF. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Micheal Mims >> Are you able to use the stock spar and just change the wing? I haven't put the Diehl skins on yet and was thinking that maybe I could change to this newer airfoil. Jim Hayward ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 22:08:27 -0800 From: hjfine@wave.net Subject: Re: KR: Re: LOEHLE 5151 kit for sale At 12:35 AM 12/11/97 EST, you wrote: >Hello All, >I hope everyone had a great Thanksgiving!!! Mine was especially wonderful >. We are expecting our third child in July. God is wonderful !!!. My >family is truly the light of my life !! ANYway...... I still have this >unopened 5151 kit to sell. It was purchased in 1995 and has been in my >garage ever since . I would like to get $5000.00 for the whole kit and >kaboodle. It has retracts and long range fuel. E-Mail me @ >leperkins@juno.com or call me at home at (540)786-2838 until 11:00 pm >EST. > >Thanks, >Lloyd > >Hi Lloyd: Yes, God is Great! Praise the Lord that He has blessed you and your wife with another child! Children are truly the greatest blessing The Lord can bestow upon you. My wife and I have three: ages 11, 9 and 5. We are 53 and 51 so we feel truly blessed. I can relate to your joy. Now to the mundane: What is a 5151 kit? Please email details. I've been considering the KR2 but I'm open to something comparable. So anything you care to tell me about the kit would be appreciated. You say it is an unopened kit. Can it then be shipped in its present condition? Do you have an engine? I'll wait to hear from you. Hank ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 23:22:46 -0800 From: Micheal Mims Subject: Re: KR: New Airfoil Test At 12:58 AM 12/11/97 EST, you wrote: > Are you able to use the stock spar and just change the wing? I haven't put the Diehl skins on yet and was thinking that maybe I could change to this newer airfoil. > >Jim Hayward > > Dude, if you already have a set of Diehl Skins,..Use them! I would! REALLY I would! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Micheal Mims Remember,..Service Guarantees Citizenship mailto:mikemims@pacbell.net http://home.pacbell.net/mikemims ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 23:27:42 -0800 From: Micheal Mims Subject: Re: KR: Re: LOEHLE 5151 kit for sale At 10:08 PM 12/10/97 -0800, you wrote: >Now to the mundane: What is a 5151 kit? Please email details. Its a Replica P-51 kit, go to: http://www.interlog.com/~jbrooks/5151mustang.html I think the company has a web site but I can not find it at this time. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Micheal Mims Remember,..Service Guarantees Citizenship mailto:mikemims@pacbell.net http://home.pacbell.net/mikemims ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 23:45:06 -0800 From: Micheal Mims Subject: KR: Scarf Joints Scarfers! Go to: http://www.datasync.com/~itac/scarf.htm this is how I did my joints and found it to be extremely simple! After I did my first one I asked myself what the heck is so hard about this? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Micheal Mims Remember,..Service Guarantees Citizenship mailto:mikemims@pacbell.net http://home.pacbell.net/mikemims ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 23:47:14 -0800 From: Micheal Mims Subject: KR: Clamps? Wow Austin, great minds must think alike! :o) I made a few of these a year or two ago and they worked fantastic! Go to: http://www.datasync.com/~itac/clamps.htm ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Micheal Mims Remember,..Service Guarantees Citizenship mailto:mikemims@pacbell.net http://home.pacbell.net/mikemims ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Dec 97 10:05:00 GMT From: "R.H.Mole -Richard Mole" Subject: Re: KR: British help offered I happen to have a spare set of Taylor Titch drawings looking for a good home. They are old but readable. The Titch was the follow up design by John Taylor of his earlier Taylor Monoplane. They are pretty similar; the Mono is a docile VW powered design and the Titch is usually fitted with 90 or 100 hp Continentals and was produced in a design competition for a low cost racing aircraft. I am desperately keen to get a copy of Bruce Carmichael's Book ' Personal Aircraft Drag reduction' published by Bruce at 34795 Camino Capisteano, Capistrano Beach, Ca 92624 at a cost of $25 US bucks. I would be more than happy to do a straight exchange. Whatd'ya say Oscar? If you want to do a deal let me know your home address for posting Richard Mole R.H.Mole@open.ac.uk ------------------------------ End of krnet-l-digest V1 #189 *****************************