From: KR-net users group digest[SMTP:kr-net@telelists.com] Sent: Thursday, January 28, 1999 12:16 AM To: kr-net digest recipients Subject: kr-net digest: January 27, 1999 KR-net users group Digest for Wednesday, January 27, 1999. 1. new tail 2. Re: New Tail, pictures. 3. Re: New Tail, pictures. 4. Re: New Tail, pictures. 5. Re: Canopy 6. Re: new tail 7. Re: new tail 8. Re: new tail 9. Widening Fuselage 10. Re: Widening Fuselage 11. Re: Widening Fuselage 12. Re:Widening Fuselage 13. Re: Help! Soob engine parts 14. Re: New Tail, pictures. 15. Y2K ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: new tail From: "Mark Langford" Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 06:02:14 -0000 X-Message-Number: 1 Mike Taglieri wrote: >It might generate more interest if there were more details on this list >of what this design is and why it's supposed to be an improvement. The tail Dana is putting on his plane was designed by Dr. Richard Mole of the UK. Richard originally did a stability analysis on the KR2 and was shocked at the low stick forces and narrow CG range that resulted. He worked up several iterations on elevator size, aerodynamic balance, hinge line, etc, and came up with this tail. I'll let him elaborate on the design if he wants to, but for liability reasons, he really doesn't want his name associated with it until after it flies. He IS, however, a Ph.D. in aeronautical engineering (if I'm not mistaken), as well as the UK equivalent of Tony Bengelis. This tail is the fix for those who think the KR2 is too pitch sensitive, and will be proof that "pitch sensitive" isn't synonymous with "responsive". After Dana flies, it would be interesting for someone with an already flying stock KR2 to install the new tail and tell us how big the difference is. Once again, KRNet will change this plane for the better... Mark Langford, Huntsville, Alabama mailto:langford@hiwaay.net see KR2S project N56ML at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: New Tail, pictures. From: KR2616TJ@aol.com Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 07:28:59 EST X-Message-Number: 2 In a message dated 1/27/99 2:42:20 AM Eastern Standard Time, miketnyc@juno.com writes: << It might generate more interest if there were more details on this list of what this design is and why it's supposed to be an improvement. I don't get the Web at home, so if all I see is a claim for a "great improvement" with a URL and no reasons explaining why it's an improvement (or test data that it really is), it may be a long time before I'd check the thing out >> Mike, I posted the stability analysis technical numbers of which I thought people might be interested in. The increase of stick force from 1.3lbs. to over 4 lbs. to reason enough. I don't think you will find another airplane out there that has that low (1.3) of an elevator stick force. It's now wonder people say they can't feel the elevator. This improvement will not lesson the responsiveness of the KR but make it more comfortable to fly, especially at cruise. It will address that initial area of porpoising. The other area, of the expansion of the CG range rearward, is an inherent result of the design of the structure itself. Let me say, in no uncertain terms, an extensive stability analysis has been done on the design. If you are interested in all the technical stuff, e-mail me and I will see what I can answer for you. Like I said before, this stuff ain't rocket sciece. Look at the existing KR stab.........................that ain't no airfoil. At least this new on is. I'n going to fly with it and it will be a flat out nice cruiser....and still be responsive. Plus I'll have two more inches of aft CG. Be a little hesitant, I would be too but if I were building from scratch right now, I'd be looking into this. You will spend no more time putting this stab on airplane than the one in the plans. If you don't, your airplane will still fly, maybe a little up and down, up and down, up and down :-). Only kidding, because I know that most fliers of KR say like their KRs. I'm just addressing an area that I can do something about......for me. Dana Overall Richmond, Ky mailto:kr2616tj@aol.com http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/7085/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: New Tail, pictures. From: KR2616TJ@aol.com Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 07:31:55 EST X-Message-Number: 3 In a message dated 1/27/99 2:42:20 AM Eastern Standard Time, miketnyc@juno.com writes: << So if Dean is the inventor of this new tail, >> Dean is not the designer of this tail. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: New Tail, pictures. From: "Doug Peyton" Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 04:48:11 PST X-Message-Number: 4 Dana, Why/how does this new tail configuratuion move the aft CG back by as much as 50%? Or does Dr. Dean expalin all that? Thanks, Doug Peyton. >From: KR2616TJ@aol.com >Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 18:14:11 EST >To: "KR-net users group" >Subject: [kr-net] New Tail, pictures. >Reply-To: "KR-net users group" > >I just posted a new page on my web site where I will document the retro fit of >the tail you see on Dr. Dean's web page to a stock KR2. I just uploaded a >couple of tear off pictures, not much but you will see what 2 hours of work >accomplished. Go to >http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/7085/kr00007.htm > >Once again for you who missed the earlier post, this horizontal stab and >elevator design will increase stick forces from that 1.3 lbs. by a factor of >more than three. the elevator will now have some "feel" to it. Besides that, >it will increase the allowable aft cg back over 2" while keeping the forward >CG in the same location. Stability analysis has been done to arrive at these >numbers, they are not pie in the sky wishes. > >I just love this experimental thing.......................................... > >Dana Overall >Richmond, KY >mailto:kr2616tj@aol.com >http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/7085/ > >--- >You are currently subscribed to kr-net as: doug_peyton@hotmail.com >To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-kr-net-17800J@telelists.com > ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Canopy From: "Jim Sellars" Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 10:24:05 -0400 X-Message-Number: 5 Hello Bob: My name is Jim Sellars, and I'm the fellow that talked about having a canopy built here in New brunswick by a local fabricator. The price was 300 canadian dollarettes, which makes for a very interesting opportunity for the American brother who wants a bargain. quality was first rate, although there was a need to trim the canopy to fit the canopy frame. He would make the bubble to suit your needs I'm sure. Let me know. Jim -----Original Message----- From: Robert Sauer To: KR-net users group Date: January 23, 1999 7:09 PM Subject: [kr-net] Canopy >Some time back, someone mentioned purchasing a canopy thru a Canadian maker >of same. Would you please respond with information about the source, either >on the net or by private email. I am building a KR2S and am at the stage >where I need the canopy. Does anyone out there have a KR2S canopy and frame >they would like to sell??? Bob > > >--- >You are currently subscribed to kr-net as: jsellars@mon.auracom.com >To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-kr-net-17800J@telelists.com > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: new tail From: Kimball Anderson Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 09:42:26 -0500 X-Message-Number: 6 Mark Langford wrote: > The tail Dana is putting on his plane was designed by Dr. Richard Mole of > the UK. Richard originally did a stability analysis on the KR2 . . . I hope I'm not asking this question for the umpteenth time, but where can more detailed information about this tail design (dimensions, etc.) be found? Does anyone have this information posted on a web site? Kimball Anderson isleno@hargray.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: new tail From: "Mark Langford" Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 08:54:25 -0000 X-Message-Number: 7 Kimball Anderson wrote: >I hope I'm not asking this question for the umpteenth time, but where >can >more detailed information about this tail design (dimensions, etc.) be >found? Detailed info isn't published yet. Like the new airfoil, it's a matter of making sure one successfully flies before it's really published. I'd hate to see 25 tails get ripped off and replaced, and then discover that there's some sort of downside to the new tail. Others who worked on this project behind the scenes may disagree, but I think we should wait till Dana flies before we get too many of these started. Just prudence, I guess. I think Dana's point in mentioning this is that if you haven't started (or at least finished) your tail yet, maybe you should hold off for a while. The tail is usually one of the first things people do (after the fuselage), but can easily be put off until later. Mark Langford, Huntsville, Alabama mailto:langford@hiwaay.net see KR2S project N56ML at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: new tail From: KR2616TJ@aol.com Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 14:07:13 EST X-Message-Number: 8 In a message dated 1/27/99 9:54:34 AM Eastern Standard Time, langford@hiwaay.net writes: << I think Dana's point in mentioning this is that if you haven't started (or at least finished) your tail yet, maybe you should hold off for a while. The tail is usually one of the first things people do (after the fuselage), but can easily be put off until later. >> That's the point. Don't go ripping things off you airplanes just yet. Follow my retro fit and we will see what happens. Unless you fully understand "stick free" stability margins as compared to the "stick fixed" margins" it's hard to see how all this works. I'm going to take Mark's guidance here and say I am not an aeronautical engineer in real life or on the KRnet, so I don't claim to know all. I have seen the technical data and it makes sense. Don't go ripping stuff off your planes right now just because I jumped off the cliff, I'll let everyone know how things are coming along and when we can bring it off "the back burner" which is where it needs to stay for right now. I'll relay this: "Technical investigations strongly suggest that the current elevator tends to trail with the relative airflow thus squandering some of the 'stick-free' stability margin as compared to the 'stick-fixed' margins; why is this important? Because it is strange but true that the "stick-free" margin and not the "stick-fixed" margin strongly affects the stick force. The new tail is designed so as to reduce the trailing tendency of the elevator and it is expected to improve the stick free margins and the stick force. There are other changes that furthur improve stability. It is openly acknowledged that claims like these are worthless without systematic flight test evaluations. Only when these have been completed to our full satisfaction and analysed fully will it be possible to be sure that the design aims have been realized. Nevertheless, there is some confidence that the standard methods of analysis that have brought home the bacon for countless designs over the years also have nailed the root cause of the longitudinal sensitivity of this airplane." Now, back to the back burner. I'll post pictures as I attach the various components and you will see what it looks like. Dana Overall Richmond, KY mailto:kr2616tj@aol.com http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/7085/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Widening Fuselage From: "T.Flemming" Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 14:20:02 -0600 X-Message-Number: 9 I am currently cutting trapezoid jigs to use with joining the two fuselage sides. I have decided to widen the fuse 4 inches. I wanted to check and see at what station others widened their fuselage. I'm thinking about 6 inches behind Station H is where my shoulders would benefit from the extra width. Does this sound about right? If so than how much should I add to the bottom of the fuselage in relationship to my addition of 4 inches at the top? Thanks for any help. Trent & Kellie Flemming KR-2S tflemming@texramp.net www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hall/9098 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Widening Fuselage From: "Mark Langford" Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 15:30:50 -0000 X-Message-Number: 10 T.Flemming wrote: > If so than how much should I add to >the bottom of the fuselage in relationship to my addition of 4 inches at the >top? Four inches at the shoulders should be about right. Keep in mind that you should glue in the seat back shear brace at the earliest opportunity, lest chaos will work toward reducing your widening efforts. Mine was once 4" wider at the shoulders, now reduced to 2.75" thanks to temporarily removing that brace one time. I postponed gluing it so that I could check seat back angle after panel and canopy were done, but splitting the 6-8" and making it 7" works about right for my 6' frame. I'd be very tempted to add 2 more inches between main spar and firewall too. It's still a little cramped in there, and I could use a little more rudder pedal room. Personally, I would add about 5" to the bottom so the fuselage taper would be lessened. This would give you less "banana boat" effect on the top longerons, and would be less stressful on the sides, since they would be bending mainly in one direction rather than in two. The down side is slightly less stability, but I would think that would be in the noise. The most important thing to me would be to make the fuselage as long as your longeron material is (within reason). The increase is wetted area is negligible compared to the stability you'll gain. Mark Langford, Huntsville, Alabama mailto:langford@hiwaay.net see KR2S project N56ML at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Widening Fuselage From: Donald Reid Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 20:51:39 -0500 X-Message-Number: 11 T.Flemming wrote: > I'm thinking about 6 > inches behind Station H is where my shoulders would benefit from the extra > width. Does this sound about right? If so than how much should I add to > the bottom of the fuselage in relationship to my addition of 4 inches at the > top? If you are going to build your own turtleback, it definitely pays off to increase the shoulder width. About 42 is not bad, I think. Mine is more like 39-40 and is a bit too skinny. I increase the bottom by the same amount. You can easily increase it more than the top. This has the added benifit of helping to reduce the interference drag between the wing and the fuselage. -- Don Reid Bumpass, Va. mailto:donreid@erols.com KR2XL at http://www.erols.com/donreid/kr_page.htm Ultralights at http://www.erols.com/donreid/usua250.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re:Widening Fuselage From: Robert Covington Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 19:14:31 -0700 (MST) X-Message-Number: 12 > I'm thinking about 6 >inches behind Station H is where my shoulders would benefit from the extra >width. Does this sound about right? If so than how much should I add to >the bottom of the fuselage in relationship to my addition of 4 inches at the >top? >Thanks for any help. > >Trent & Kellie Flemming From what I have read on the net here, the place to check for your widest width is around where the rear spar will be mounted, this is where your hips/shoulders end up (little farther back maybe). I plan to widen mine too, adding about 5. I think an RV-6 is around 41-42 inches at the shoulders. Jeannette Rand told me that is ok to widen the bottom of the stock plane up to 4 inches, 2 per side. She does not recommend widening the top. But since she says doing the bottom is ok, I would go with a proportional amount, or widen it a little more as Mark said to decrease banana effect. I think it would be best to narrow the nose to a point, however, and mount twin VW's on the wings. Just kidding there. Maybe.:) Robert Covington ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Help! Soob engine parts From: "Richard J. Goff" Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 20:32:49 -0600 X-Message-Number: 13 Erik Meisterman wrote: > > > > >I thought losing the circlips would only be a small problem, just a trip to > >the dealer, several dollars, and I could continue with assembly. BUT the > >dealer only has circlips with NEW pistons (and rings). Circlips are not > >available from Subaru as a separate part. > > > >Phil Payne > > > >--- > > High Phil, > I got mine from a mega-hardware store that had lots of fasteners. > My '84 Audi lost a wire circlip; took a good one out of the block and > matched it with a snap-ring circlip - worked OK. If your hardware store > doesn't have any, check a marine hardware store - the internal snap-ring > replaces the wire circlip OK. A hydraulic supply store should also have > them. Cheaper than a set of pistons. > Good Luck, > Erik Meisterman > > --- > You are currently subscribed to kr-net as: rgoff@att.net > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-kr-net-17800J@telelists.com Try Colorado Component Rebuilders in Denver @ (303)293-9230. They've been a life saver for me in rebuilding my Soob. I needed hydraulic valve lifters which ere $125.00 EACH from the dealer. Bought some used (almost new valve lifters from tham @ $1.00 each. Dick Goff ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: New Tail, pictures. From: Mike Mims Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 22:15:53 -0800 X-Message-Number: 14 Doug Peyton wrote: > < Why/how does this new tail configuratuion move the aft CG back by as > much as 50%? >>>> I don't know if anyone answered your question yet but anytime you increase the horizontal tail area you move the allowable CG aft. It basically gives the airplane the ability to handle a further aft CG. -- zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz Micheal Mims SP290 (Sky Pig 290) ,..Building Cowling now mailto:mikemims@home.com http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/4136/ Aliso Viejo Ca ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Y2K From: BSHADR@aol.com Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 02:28:13 EST X-Message-Number: 15 SOME THINGS NEVER CHANGE While browsing through material in the recesses of the Roman Section of the British Museum, a researcher recently came across a tattered bit of parchment. After some effort he translated it and found it was a letter from a man called Plutonius with the title of "magister factorium," or keeper of the calendar, to one Cassius. It was dated, strangely enough, 2 BC, December 3 -- about 2,000 years ago. The text of the message follows: Dear Cassius: Are you still working on the Y zero K problem? The change from BC to AD is giving us a lot of headaches and we haven't much time left. I don't know how people will cope with working the wrong way around. Having been working happily downward forever, now we have to start thinking upward. You would think that someone would have thought of it earlier and not left it to us to sort it all out at the last minute. I spoke to Caesar the other evening. He was livid that Julius hadn't done something about it when he was sorting out the calendar. He said he could see why Brutus had turned nasty. We called in the consulting astrologers, but they simply said that continuing downwards using minus BC won't work. As usual, the consultants charged a fortune for doing nothing useful. As for myself, I just can't see the sand in an hourglass flowing upward. We have heard that there are three wise men in the East who have been working on the problem, but unfortunately they won't arrive until it's all over. Some say the world will cease to exist at the moment of transition. We're continuing to work on the Y zero K problem and I'll send you a parchment if anything develops. Best regards, Plutonius --- END OF DIGEST --- You are currently subscribed to kr-net as: johnbou@timberline.com To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-kr-net-17800J@telelists.com