From: owner-krnet-l-digest@teleport.com[SMTP:owner-krnet-l-digest@teleport.com] Sent: Saturday, January 17, 1998 1:32 AM To: krnet-l-digest@teleport.com Subject: krnet-l-digest V2 #16 krnet-l-digest Saturday, January 17 1998 Volume 02 : Number 016 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 05:55:02 PST From: "Oscar Zuniga" Subject: KR: Spins Just a question here, while we're talking about recognizing incipient stalls and such. Has anybody out there spun a KR? Anybody have any experience with spins or spin recovery in the KR? Thanks Oscar Zuniga Medford, Oregon ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 08:14:24 -0600 From: "Woodbridge, Gary" Subject: KR: RE: New Member > BSHADR Wrote: > >Welcome aboard...a Maule huh? Well, I speck we'll get some GREAT KRKosh >video >flight footage in '98!!! Hey Video Bob, got your ears up? I'm going to >motion that Gary be designated the official KR flight camera platform pilot >(with his Maule of course). Do I hear a second? Pleazzzze do it quick >before >he wises up and "unsubscribes" from KRNet! Well, the manual says I can fly with one or both of the rear doors on the right side off so if Video Bob wants a windy ride, we can do it. Know, about a slow flight competition...... >Gary Woodbridge >Senior Systems Engineer - UMI / OKC >Maule M7-235B - N723M >gwoodbridge@datatimes.com > ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 06:33:21 PST From: "Oscar Zuniga" Subject: KR: Tailwheel Landings You wrote: >When the mains touch, reduce power and move the stick forward a bit to plant >the mains and kill some of the wing lift. Keep moving the stick forward per >Jim's comments. > Stick forward to KILL wing lift? Goes against the grain; usually lowering angle of attack means less drag and more lift. Goes against the 'full-stall', stick-in-your-lap, conventional tailwheel training for all but wheel landings. Wheel landings are necessary when the crosswind is blowing (and when doesn't it?), but full stall landing means you're going as slow as possible when you touch it down. Definitely ground effect will be a factor in a low low-winger like the KR, but all of my tailwheel time is in high-wingers and bipes. Oscar Zuniga Medford, Oregon ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 07:46:39 -0800 From: MARVIN MCCOY Subject: Re: KR: Engine Choices Douglas Dorfmeier wrote: > > am leaning either toward a turbocharged Revmaster or the Stratus EA-81. > The Statrus is a 100hp engine at 5900 RPMs and uses a 2.2:1 belt drive > reduction. Its one drawback may be its weight. It weighs 188 lbs. not > including Radiator (5lbs) and coolent (11.8lbs). > > Does anyone have any experience or thoughts on these or any other > engines?----------- I do not believe the stratus weighs only 188 lbs. Marvin McCoy Seattle, WA. North end of Boeing field mr.marvin@worldnet.att.net - ------------------ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 11:07:20 -0500 From: Patrick Flowers Subject: Re: KR: Tailwheel Landings Oscar Zuniga wrote: > > Ron Lee wrote: > >When the mains touch, reduce power and move the stick forward a bit > >to plant the mains and kill some of the wing lift. Keep moving the > >stick forward per Jim's comments. > > > > Stick forward to KILL wing lift? Goes against the grain; usually > lowering angle of attack means less drag and more lift. Nope. Increased angle of attack means more lift and more drag. That's why you land a tri-gear nose high - lowest speed, highest drag and highest lift available. > Goes against the 'full-stall', stick-in-your-lap, conventional > tailwheel training for all but wheel landings. Wheel landings are > necessary when the crosswind is blowing (and when doesn't it?), but > full stall landing means you're going as slow as possible when you > touch it down. It sounded to me that Ron was actually describing a wheel landing. When the mains touch, slight forward stick to pin it down with increasing forward pressure as you slow to keep the tail up as elevator effectiveness diminishes. Just be sure to lower the tail before elevator effectiveness becomes too low to get the tail _down_, otherwise you might noseover and ruin your day. At the higer airspeed/lower AOA, the airplane is more stable which is why you use wheelies for crosswind landings. > Definitely ground effect will be a factor in a low low-winger like the > KR, but all of my tailwheel time is in high-wingers and bipes. Remember the crosswind discussion several weeks ago where I kept trying to point out that regardless of configuration, high wing, low wing or bipe, the taildragger(of the same configuration) will always have the option of landing at a lower angle of attack. That option is just not available to the tri-gear airplane without risking wheelbarrowing, nosewheel/firewall damage and an off-runway adventure. The trigear's advantage doesn't come into play until you slow down below the rudder effective speed. Patrick - -- Patrick Flowers Mailto:patri63@ibm.net ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 06:18:28 -0800 From: Micheal Mims Subject: Re: KR: Tailwheel Landings At 06:33 AM 1/16/98 PST, you wrote: >Stick forward to KILL wing lift? Goes against the grain; usually >lowering angle of attack means less drag and more lift. >>> Kinda makes you wonder what the heck these instructors are teaching these guys huh? Yep wheel landings do work better in lighter tail draggers in crosswinds otherwise I like to three pointer it in. I had mentioned in an earlier post that I noticed guys who come in hot and do wheel landings seem to get them selves in trouble more often, I wanted to add that the same went for those who tried to "horse" the tail around in to doing what they thought it should do on take off. I always seem to have much better luck just setting the trim and letting the tail do what ever it wants. Of course this is on the 185 and Dash-2. Trying to force the tail to come up when it wasn't ready was always counter productive. I was lucky enough to be taught how to fly a tail wheel airplane by a 30+ year tail wheel pilot. We actually conducted experiments on what would give the best short field take off results in our C-185. We found that a flap setting of 20 degrees and trimming the elevator in the neutral position almost always resulted in a take off 100+ feet shorter than horsing the tail around and pooping in full flaps and all that other junk. Landing in a three point almost stalled condition generated VERY short landings rolls and was completely controllable. Not flaming anyones flying technique (except maybe a snot nosed instructor or two) just sharing my experiences. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 08:17:01 -0800 From: MARVIN MCCOY Subject: Re: KR: Re: Cleveland wheels Austin Clark wrote: > > >Austin Clark wrote: > > > Marvin, my nosegear came with 7/8" bushings on a 5/8" axle. Wicks lists a > 5" aluminum wheel kit (set of two) made by Azusa, including brakes (drum > type) for $145.00. These wheels use a 5/8" axle and Wicks states "as used > on the KR-2 aircraft". The 5" wheel alone is about $19.00. I am thinking > now of going with 5" Clevelands for the mains and the 5" Azusa for the > nose. The description also says it has a three bolt pattern and split rim > design. This sounds like what you describe for your nose gear. > >------------------- YA! My main wheels are cleveland. The nose wheel I have looks like an Azusa. It has a 5/8 bearing. The Deihl nose gear I have has a bolt with a 5/8 bushing on it for an axle. Marvin McCoy Seattle, WA. North end of Boeing field mr.marvin@worldnet.att.net - ---------- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 11:27:48 -0500 From: Patrick Flowers Subject: Re: KR: Tailwheel Landings Patrick Flowers wrote: > > The trigear's advantage doesn't come into play until you slow down > below the rudder effective speed. Well let me modify that a bit - the trigear does have the center of mass forward of the mains which gives it more directional stability. Almost never make an absolute statement, patrick - -- Patrick Flowers Mailto:patri63@ibm.net ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 06:37:17 -0800 From: Micheal Mims Subject: Re: KR: Tailwheel Landings At 06:18 AM 1/16/98 -0800, you wrote: >>tail around and pooping in full flaps and all that other junk.>> Should be popping in full flaps, pooping in full flaps became way to messy and was discontinued as normal operating procedures after the first 3 attempts! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 10:37:24 -0600 From: "Woodbridge, Gary" Subject: RE: KR: Tailwheel Landings What is the crosswind component limit for the KR2S? The plane looks so short and with a small tail area, it should be fairly high. My Maule has a 15mph limit. I have landed it in a 15kt. crosswind. Not my idea of fun. Gary Woodbridge Senior Systems Engineer - UMI / OKC Maule M7-235B - N723M gwoodbridge@datatimes.com > ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 10:47:46 -0600 (CST) From: Steven A Eberhart Subject: KR: NLF UPDATE This is the first time I have had a chance to update all on my meeting with Ashok last friday. Ashok took me on a tour of the wind tunnel facility and it was impressive. Got to see Michael Andretti's road course wing, for his Indy car" which is currently in the wind tunnel. This is also the reason for the delay in our airfoils getting into the tunnel. Ford is paying a lot more money for their tests than we are! I will be sending some of the pictures I took to Mark Langford next week for scanning - look for them on the NLF page soon. I was pleased to find that my NLF(1)0115 wing section looked exactly like the other sections there. I guess I am not too far off base in its construction :-) There has been a lot of discussion lately about the NLF airfoil that I think needs comment. Don Reid recently did an analysis of the RAF48 and the NLF and came up with some very good information. As a comment, I have forewarded his results to Ashok as this is the type of information that is greatly appreciated. Don's results reinforce the reason Ashok decided to design an airfoil specifically for the KR-2S. The NLR(1)0115 was designed for higher Reynolds numbers than present on a KR-2S. THis is one of the reasons that the climb performance of the existing NLF isn't as good as it can be. Ashok is using a design CLmax of >= 1.5 with a Cl of 1.0 for the climb and Cl=.1 for cruise at 180 mph. Ashok is also going to go through all of the numbers to size the horizontal stabilizer, or in my case the stabilator, for the new airfoil. At that time we will be able to get some meaningful information. The wind tunnel tests will verify the design decisions and hopefully provide the warm and fuzzies for anyone considering the new airfoil. I am speaking of the new airfoil as if it were a single airfoil where it actually is two airfoils. An 18% root airfoil and a 15% tip airfoil is what is being designed. I brought back several charts and graphs of the preliminary design criteria and have sent them to Mark Langford for scanning and inclusion in the NLF web page. I have also sent Don Reid a private email requesting his FAX number so I can fax them directly to him for his analysis. Damn, isn't it great having access to all of this tallent here on KRNet? I need to do a Bio' section on the NLF page, we have about a half dozen aeronautical engineers and aerodynamicists in addition to the Aeronautical Engineering department at the University of Illinois working on this project - _WOW_. THere has been a considerable amount of correspondence between the engineers and those that have contributed to the NLF Visionary Fund off net. I apologize if this has caused some confusion but I felt that those that put up the money for the wind tunnel tests and the construction of the wind tunnel models deserved to have the loudest voice in the early stages of the project. There will be a survey going out to the contributors this weekend to nail down the "mission profile" to be used in the final design phase of the new airfoil. THis will be used to optomize the new airfoils peformance to the specified "mission profile". THis should result in an airfoil (root and tip) that will result in the best fit to how we will be flying our KR's. After we have a new set of airfoils for our KR's I am planning on making up a set of molds to make premolded leading edges for the KR wing. These leading edges will be vacuum bagged sandwich construction with Divinicell cores. They will bond directly to the forward spar forming a D tube leading edge. There will be a peelplied joggle at the spar edge to facilitate laying up the wing skin and easily bonding it to the leading edge. Since the leading edge is the most critical portion of a laminar flow wing this should help all of us in achieving the best results possible. THere will also be precision CNC machined airfoil templates made available from the same supplier that supplies the UofI. These leading edges will be offered for sale to NLF contributors at a substantial discount over the retail price - no I haven't set the price yet. Hope this helps to being everyone up to date on the happenings here on the cutting edge of Experimental aviation. Steve Eberhart, Evansville, IN newtech@newtech.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 13:44:46 EST From: XZOSTD1 Subject: KR: sawzall etiquette Mike Sawzalls are not only for demolition. To use your sawzall to cut the alum. for hinges, bellcranks, and ornate scrap, do the following: 1 Measure twice. 2Clamp stock solidly. 3 Use fine tooth blade. 4 Use variable saw on low speed. 5 Keep saw tight against stock. I also drilled 1/4" holes wherever a radius was desired. If you are careful and somewhat coordinated you can cut out parts that need very little finishing. Remember You Control The Tool The Tool Does Not Control You!! (3 Finger Bill) Bill Huntley Green Bay, ( Go Pack Go) WI. KR2S That needs its builder to make a engine decision. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 13:27:04 -0600 (CST) From: Steven A Eberhart Subject: KR: need KR stall spd. for NLF project Ashok would like to know the stall speed flying KR-2 and KR-2S's with the RAF48 airfoil. Also, what is the general concensus about what the stall speed of a KR-2S should be with the new NLF airfoil. THis would be an unflapped speed as flaps can be used to lower it if necessary. We are using 180 mph as the target cruise speed. Should this be lower? Steve Eberhart Evansville, IN newtech@newtech.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 14:31:10 -0600 From: Bobby Muse Subject: Re: KR: Choice of Metal for Spar Insert At 11:08 AM 1/6/98 -0500, you wrote: >Not too long ago, there was a discussion about tie-down rings. >Someone(maybe Bobby Muse) has a set that are removable and screw into >inserts in the wing spars. I can't recall whether he used steel or >aluminum for the insert. Which would be preferable? Steel would make >for more durable threads, but what is the potential for rusting of a >piece of steel that's floxed into the spar? > >Patrick >-- >Patrick Flowers >Tyrone, Ga. >Mailto:patri63@ibm.net > I used a steel nut welded to a small steel plate that I drilled multiple holes into and bonded to the main spar about 18 inches in from the tip of the wooden spar. Bobby Muse(N122B) bmuse@mindspring.com Wimberly, TX ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 14:25:33 -0800 From: Robert Covington Subject: Re: KR: Spins >Just a question here, while we're talking about recognizing incipient >stalls and such. Has anybody out there spun a KR? Anybody have any >experience with spins or spin recovery in the KR? > >Thanks > >Oscar Zuniga >Medford, Oregon I think Adrian Cartera spun his pretty much. Post looonnng time ago about this. He liked his alright from what I remember, maybe he can comment again. I think the KR will spin fine if you are single person and have your CG in the right place. I also have heard that it has a fast sort of flat spin. I dunno, I think Rick Junkin should go spin his for us when he gets it done. :) Of course, since no KR is ever alike the data should be pretty much non-transferable. Robert Covington ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 17:55:32 From: Austin Clark Subject: Re: KR: Tailwheel Landings At 06:37 1/16/98 -0800, you wrote: >At 06:18 AM 1/16/98 -0800, you wrote: >>>tail around and pooping in full flaps and all that other junk.>> > >Should be popping in full flaps, pooping in full flaps became way to messy >and was discontinued as normal operating procedures after the first 3 attempts! > > Never pooped in my flaps but I have a grandson who still flops in his poop. I digress, back to building! Austin Clark Pascagoula, MS http://www.datasync.com/~itac/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 20:31:08, -0500 From: YCGB97A@prodigy.com (MR JEAN R VERON) Subject: KR: need KR stall spd. for NLF project My KR-2 stalls at about 45 mph ( 620 lb. empty wt. ) but you have to have your head up and locked to get an inadvertant stall because at speeds lower than 65 mph wou will be sinking at about 1000 fpm. As for wheel vs full stall landings I prefer the wheel landing with 100 mph in the pattern 70 mph on short final power off. You will find the airplane float close to wheels touching a little more than any other plane I have flown. Cub time is about useless. Pitts, Starduster or other short coupled airplane for tailwheel transition would be more appropriate. The hardest thing to judge is the shallow glide unless you really drag it in slow ( 65 mph ) and it gets really mushey. Jean N4DD Broken Arrow, OK ycgb97a@prodigy.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 21:19:19 -0500 (EST) From: jeroffey@tir.com (jeroffey) Subject: KR: members & engines Douglas, Gary, Shane and Ben. Welcome to the foremost sorce of information anywhere in the world on KR construction and a few other subjects as well. Enjoy and respond often. I'm in the beginning thros of construction on my KR2S and the Subaru EA81 is my current choise for power. If this is of interest to any of you, check www.air-ryder.com as a source of info on the Soob. One of the principals of this group is currently flying a Dragon Fly with a Turbo EA81 and his claim is strong on the peformance of this set up with direct drive. He offers a set of tapes (crude) on his preperation of his Soob and there is a lot of good points to learn in the procedure he used. Give it a look and see what you think. John Roffey/KR2S/Subaru ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 20:45:48 -0800 From: Robert Maniss Subject: KR: Metal fittings, etc. Sounds like a Sawzall is great. However, I had pretty good luck on all aluminum parts using a 1/4 inch wide, 10 teeth/inch, metal cutting blade (Craftsman #92624) to rough out. Followed that with an 8" half-round file (Craftsman #31311 K SD) then finally very fine emery paper to polish out any hints of scratches. Bob Maniss Abilene, TX ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 18:58:42 -0800 From: Micheal Mims Subject: Re: KR: Metal fittings, etc. At 08:45 PM 1/16/98 -0800, you wrote: >Sounds like a Sawzall is great. However, I had pretty good luck on all >aluminum parts using a 1/4 inch wide, 10 teeth/inch, metal cutting blade>>>>>>>>> I just used my Makita jig saw with a metal blade and los of WD-40. Worked great and cut through it all like butter. A little touch up on the sanding wheel and then polishing with light wet or dry sand paper and I was in business! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Micheal Mims Oh My,.......Its 1998!! mailto:mikemims@pacbell.net http://home.pacbell.net/mikemims ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 22:14:39 -0500 From: Tom Andersen Subject: Re: KR: 1 deg incidence, no washout, using stall strips in center. Tom wrote: > >Specific changes: > >I am going with 1 degree incidence, no washout, and 6" long stall strips > >on the stub wings. One degree is all that is necessary for the RAF48 > >which could generate a lot of lift even at 0 degrees incidence due to > >it's non-symmetrical shape. I'm increasing the stab 30% with both a 5" > >longer nose rib on the inside of stab, and 5" x 12" triangular strakes > >on the stabilizer. I feel that the washout contributes to pitch > >instability. > > Mike T wrote: > > If this is right, it sounds fascinating, but what do your stall strips look > like, how do you make them and where do you put them? Also, does the 30% > increase in the stabilizer have something to do with having no washout or is > it just because you thing the stabilizer is too small anyway? > > Mike Taglieri > Mike, I think the stabilizer is way too small to begin with anyway, it has nothing to do with having no washout. If you look at the newer breed of small 80hp aircraft, they all have much, much larger stabilizers. I will copy the stall strips commonly seen on GA aircraft. I believe the Grumman Tiger has them, as does some Piper aircraft. They are usually held on with a few pop rivets on the metal aircraft. They are usually 1/2" triangle stock, with the sharp 90 degree corner pointing forward, and the flat side gently shaped to fit the leading edge. They are put on the very front of the airfoil. They "tear" at the airflow at high angles of attack, when the airflow goes up across the leading edge instead of around it. They really don't look like much at all but they're very effective at high angles of attack. - -Tom ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 19:36:04 -0800 From: Micheal Mims Subject: Re: KR: 1 deg incidence, no washout, using stall strips in center. At 10:14 PM 1/16/98 -0500, you wrote: >I will copy the stall strips commonly seen on GA aircraft. I believe >the Grumman Tiger has them, as does some Piper aircraft.>>> These little guys are pretty effective, I have had the unfortunate pleasure of trying to teach someone to fly in a Piper Tramahawk which employs these strips as stall warning devices. One thing you may want to do is take a trip to your local airport and take note as to the location of these units on the wing in relation to the horizontal tail and elevator. Could be a major bummer to start a burble that would upset the flow of air over the elevator! There was a KR that crashed because of a small aluminum inspection plate came loose in flight. This little piece of aluminum caused a uncorrectable roll and blanked out enough of the elevator that the pilot had no pitch control and the aircraft pitched over into the ground! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Micheal Mims Oh My,.......Its 1998!! mailto:mikemims@pacbell.net http://home.pacbell.net/mikemims ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 20:38:14 PST From: "Oscar Zuniga" Subject: KR: Stratus Soob Mike wrote: >I don't think there is a such thing as a Subaru that weighs 188 >pounds! I think the engine alone (without re-drive) weighs 200 >pounds! ...(sigh...) I think Mike's right ;o(. I have been snooping around too, and as much as I want to believe the pretty picture about the lightweight Soob, the numbers don't lie. Now if you're considering an O-200, you're probably in the same ballpark. One other factor about Soob conversions done home-style (not a packaged unit like the Stratus)- there's a lot of weight in the stock bellhousing and stuff that can be milled off to save weight; stuff that was used in the auto that's not needed in the aero. The packaged conversions, the good ones, do remove unnecessary parts of the cases and castings and stuff. And for heaven's sake, don't hang that clunky turbo on your nice light engine! Oscar Zuniga Medford, Oregon ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 20:43:06 PST From: "Oscar Zuniga" Subject: KR: KRKosh video Randy wrote: >I'm going to >motion that Gary be designated the official KR flight camera platform pilot >(with his Maule of course). NO! Please, no! The video was way cooler shot from the right seat of Marty Roberts' KR! Oscar Zuniga Medford, Oregon ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 23:53:09 EST From: RFreibe131 Subject: KR: Spins and Tomahawks I recently rented a Tomahawk, and the instructor was afraid for me to STALL it. I never went back for another flight, even though he signed me off to do so. That baby wallows like a pig and is ugly to fly. If I thought my KR2S would have any relationship to that, I'd burn the project. Ron Freiberger KR2S builder in Fort Myers, FL ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 21:04:33 PST From: "Oscar Zuniga" Subject: KR: Target cruise speed Steve wrote: >We are using 180 mph as the target cruise speed. Should this be lower? > Hey... NO WAY! Don't touch that dial, dude; that's a good factory number. Now let's show 'em it really CAN be designed to cruise there, and without an O-200 or a really cranked Revmaster. Oscar Zuniga Medford, Oregon ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 21:15:38 -0800 From: Douglas Dorfmeier Subject: KR: Instruments I just received an Aircraft Spruce catalog and thought that I would look up some instrument prices. Looking at some of those prices was a real eye opener. I think I may want to look elsewhere for instruments. Any suggestions? ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 21:10:59 -0600 From: Kerry Miller Subject: KR: Stall Strip examples Look at the wing of a Mooney. They stick out from the leading edge, not too far out from the wing root. I asked the guys at Mooney in Kerrville once how they determine where to put the stall strips. He said they just tape them down, go fly, when they get them where they want them (no wing drop) they nail them down right there. I tell everybody my KR is like a baby Mooney with the tail on the right way... Kerry Miller Royse City, TX Sole owner of 1/2 of a KR2 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 22:07:17 -0800 From: Micheal Mims Subject: Re: KR: Spins and Tomahawks At 11:53 PM 1/16/98 EST, you wrote: >I recently rented a Tomahawk, and the instructor was afraid for me to STALL it. I never went back for another flight, even though he signed me off to do so. > > I think the PA-38 would have been a great little plane with a few minor (yea right) mods. For one it is way underpowered and two that T tail thing has got to go! I understand the T tail was purely for marketing, seems a market survey of student pilots showed the T tail looked cool! Oh well that marketing scheme cost a few lives and makes the airplane a little weird in the spin recovery dept. It seems the T tail makes the rudder more effective (none of it is blanked out by the horizontal stab) in a spin, so effective that during spin recovery you can actually start a spin in the other direction if your not on your toes! Other than those two things I liked the cockpit (nice and big) the fighter plane like view out the bubble canopy and the controls, they felt pretty good once you were used to them. In my opinion (and yes its worth every cent you paid) it is not a good trainer and at best with more HP would have been a great primary IFR training platform. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Micheal Mims Oh My,.......Its 1998!! mailto:mikemims@pacbell.net http://home.pacbell.net/mikemims ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 10:17:33 -0800 From: michael@access1.net (michael) Subject: KR: Re: Spins we lost a fellow at brown field south of San Diego, ca. you will take over 500 feet to get out of a spin in a kr2, since he wasn't above five hundred feet , all was over quickly.. - -----Original Message----- From: Oscar Zuniga To: krnet-l@teleport.com Date: Friday, January 16, 1998 5:57 AM Subject: KR: Spins > >Just a question here, while we're talking about recognizing incipient >stalls and such. Has anybody out there spun a KR? Anybody have any >experience with spins or spin recovery in the KR? > >Thanks > >Oscar Zuniga >Medford, Oregon > >______________________________________________________ >Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com > ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 Jan 1998 02:54:56 EST From: MikeT nyc Subject: Re: KR: Spins In a message dated 98-01-16 17:26:26 EST, you write: > >>Just a question here, while we're talking about recognizing incipient >>stalls and such. Has anybody out there spun a KR? Anybody have any >>experience with spins or spin recovery in the KR? >I think Adrian Cartera spun his pretty much. Post looonnng time ago about >this. > >He liked his alright from what I remember, maybe he can comment again. I >think the KR will spin fine if you are single person and have your CG in >the right place. I also have heard that it has a fast sort of flat spin. > >I dunno, I think Rick Junkin should go spin his for us when he gets it >done. :) Of course, since no KR is ever alike the data should be pretty >much non-transferable. There are also a number of reports in the old Newsletters about people spinning their KR, and even mild aerobatics in them. Mike Taglieri ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 Jan 1998 02:54:53 EST From: MikeT nyc Subject: Re: KR: Engine choices >>On a serious note, the O-290 is in the 140-150 HP range. Sounds great. >But is the weight going to cause problems with cg....or will it actually >HELP your cg range? Are you the one planning a tail area weight for that >purpose? >> >>Also, I assume you are going to beef up the engine attach area and >>frame to support >I think this O-290 is of the 125 to 130 hp range but it has torque up the >wazzu! And yes I did beef up the firewall area "a bit". I installed a few >1/4 ply gussets to tie the firewall into the fuselage skin better plus I >added 1/4 inch aluminum angle that connects the two 5/8 top cross members to >the lower plywood shelf. I also custom bent 1/8 aluminum to fit across the >bottom 5/8 member so it would be tied into the floor better. Once my 1/4 >ply firewall is in place I will apply 3 or 4 layers of 10oz bid glass to >the outside skin and onto the firewall. These tapes will go from top >longeron down around the bottom skin and all the way back up the other side >to the longeron. I should be able to hang a Big Block Chevy off the nose! >:o) I don't know whether I'm a cynic or a coward or both, but I think if I were going to hang a 130-odd horspower engine onto an airframe designed originally for 60 (and no one managed to talk me out if it), I'd wrap 3/32" cable completely around the outside of the fuselage from firewall to tailpost and back again, anchoring one end to each side of the engine block. I'd do this at the top and bottom of the fuselage and perhaps also run a cable vertically around the fuselage in the vicinity of the firewall, tying it to the longitudinal cables where they cross. The cables inside the cowling would have to have enough slack for the engine to move around, but the ones on the fuselage could be glassed in place and wouldn't show (particularly if the paint scheme were arranged to put stripes there). Using such a system, if any part of the engine mount, firewall, or fuselage failed in flight and the front end of the plane became detached, it would all be held together to some extent, and you'd have a reasonable possibility that the CG would stay in the controllable range long enough to get to the ground. Mike Taglieri P.S. I do not mean this to be either a joke or a flame. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 Jan 1998 00:09:08 -0800 From: Micheal Mims Subject: Re: KR: Engine choices At 02:54 AM 1/17/98 EST, you wrote: >I don't know whether I'm a cynic or a coward or both, but I think if I were >going to hang a 130-odd horspower engine onto an airframe designed originally for 60 (and no one managed to talk me out if it),>>> Dude you are forgetting I am building an S which is designed for up to 100-115 hp range. Remember the O-200 and O-235 are options on the S model. The firewall is already more substantial then the original KR1 and 2 models. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Micheal Mims Oh My,.......Its 1998!! mailto:mikemims@pacbell.net http://home.pacbell.net/mikemims ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 Jan 1998 01:09:52 -0800 From: Ross Subject: KR: Re: Taylor Monoplane (Was let's just call it a preference) I agree with your point. However I'm thinking that the added stall warning might be a good idea for some pilots. That was my point actually. Regarding the Taylor Monoplane, I keep meaning to research the plane, but haven't gotten around to it. Anyone have some photos? - -- Ross Micheal Mims wrote: > > At 11:51 PM 1/13/98 -0800, you wrote: > >Mike, > > I think that messing with the washout will impact the > >aileron effectiveness. The idea is to have a higher > >angle of incidence at the root so that the root stalls > >first, then give the ailerons a chance to keep flying to > >keep you from the spin situation. > > Well I am not sure it will change the "effectiveness" of the ailerons, > washout is usually a means of stall warning for the pilot. If the root > starts to stall first (as it should in a normal plane with washout) the tips > still fly and allow the pilot to recognize something is wrong before he > loses his ailerons. > > Losing your ailerons is normal procedure in most airplanes when you do a > full stall, remember the control surfaces stall alphabetically, ailerons , > elevator, then rudder. A purely aerobatic ship will have no washout at all. > > You can change the incidence and still have 3 degrees of washout if you want. > > FYI The KR and Taylor Monoplanes were the only GA aircraft I could find with > more then 2.5 degrees washout, I think the only reason the KR has this much > is because the Monoplane did and that's the airplane we are ALL copying. > Something to keep in mind, Ken didn't design the KR he designed the foam and > dynel flying surfaces and installed them on a Taylor Monoplane. Gee I hope > that doesnt start a firefight! :o) > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Micheal Mims > Oh My,.......Its 1998!! > > mailto:mikemims@pacbell.net > http://home.pacbell.net/mikemims ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 Jan 1998 01:13:50 -0800 From: Ross Subject: Re: KR: Re: Dimple tape Richard Parker wrote: > > There was also an article in the December 15 1997 edition of Design News > (see www.designnews.com) on the same subject however the method they used > was very small random chevron patterns. The quoted drag reductions were if > I remember correctly 13% which is collossal in drag reduction terms. The > best thing about it was that it was random! A small roller could be made > out of soft metal and the texture could be rolled into a paint layer. > > Might look better than a flying golf ball. > > Rich Parker Hmmm, so if you have a random irregular surface, this does better than a smooth surface... almost sounds like a hand layup is best. ;) - -- Ross ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 Jan 1998 01:35:24 -0800 From: Ross Subject: Re: KR: Wing Washout EagleGator wrote: > > Don't lose sight of why the washout is there in the first place. Wing stall > is a product of angle of attack, and the washout keeps the angle of attack at > the ends of the wing lower than at the root. What this does for you is keep > the outer portion of the wing flying, including the aileron, while the root of > the wing is entering a stalled condition. The idea is to get some indication > through the seat of your pants that the airplane is entering a stall before > the entire wing stalls and still allow you some roll authority. Reducing the > washout reduces the margin between your first indications of a stall and a > full wing stall. As a matter of fact, loss of aileron effectiveness is an > indication of approach to stall in a wing with washout. While using rudder to > counter wing drop at low speed is a good practice, there are times when a > quicker roll rate is needed, and the washout makes this available. > > The natural reaction for low time or non-current pilots is to counter wing > drop with aileron, not rudder, which we know will impart adverse yaw and lead > to spin entry if not corrected. This doesn't mean you shouldn't mess with the > washout, just be aware of the flight characteristics you will be changing. > You may be able to get more speed with less washout, but you need to be ready > to handle the change in low speed handling characteristics. Personnally, I'm > going to teach my kids to fly in my KR, so I'm going to leave the washout per > the plans. This is my last post RE washout this month .. I promise. I have been trying to imagine how pilots get into the stall/spin situation low to the ground in the first place... here are my thoughts and why I am fond of leaving the washout alone on the KR. * Engine or other power loss forces return to field or forced landing. * Pilot is under stress. * Engine out horizon attitude for approach speed may be different than that with power applied. Pilot's scan may be diverted to focus on finding a landing sight. Best L/D speed is not maintained. * No familiar sound cues to help with airspeed while looking for a spot to land. * A turn is started to line up on a short final on a field, missing that tree. (Did this in a glider in the desert once, but this is another story). * Lack of stall warning causes stall/spin. This is where those nifty little horizontal bars can come in handy I'm told to give some indication of a stall. I belive that many low washout high preformance aircraft have them to help the aces out there from missing the stall signals. (I don't think I will ever make ace... perhaps KR jocky however.) OK, so thats my last two wacks at the washout dead horse. It's been fun, and I learned some new stuff. - -- Ross ------------------------------ End of krnet-l-digest V2 #16 ****************************