From: KR-net users group digest[SMTP:kr-net@telelists.com] Sent: Thursday, April 08, 1999 12:24 AM To: kr-net digest recipients Subject: kr-net digest: April 07, 1999 KR-net users group Digest for Wednesday, April 07, 1999. 1. Re: Got my KR-2S Plans today. Help!!! 2. Mike Mims 3. Looking for Tom Marcello @uml 4. Re: Got my KR-2S Plans today. Help!!! 5. Re: Taildragger Endorsement! 6. Re: Got my KR-2S Plans today. Help!!! 7. Re: Got my KR-2S Plans today. Help!!! 8. Re: Got my KR-2S Plans today. Help!!! 9. Re: Great Idea! - epoxy pumps 10. Re: Got my KR-2S Plans today. Help!!! 11. Ground Loops 12. H.U.D. and Automatic Wing Fuel Tank Control Electronics 13. H.U.D. and Automatic Wing Fuel Tank Control Electronics 14. RE: Canopy needed for KR2 15. Plus or Minus 16. Re: Got my KR-2S Plans today. Help!!! 17. Re: Got my KR-2S Plans today. Help!!! 18. flutter 19. Airfoils 20. Wing question from Eduardo Iglesias 21. Re: Mike Mims 22. Re: Mike Mims 23. Wing Tip Lights 24. Re: Shimming the gear further forward 25. Re: Wing Tip Lights 26. Re: Shimming the gear further forward 27. Re: Airfoils 28. The police. 29. Re: flutter 30. letter of consent/approval ??? 31. New Airfoil & $$$ 32. Re: New Airfoil & $$$ 33. Re: Wing Tip Lights 34. Re: Taildragger Endorsement! 35. Re: Shimming the gear further forward 36. Re: Got my KR-2S Plans today. Help!!! 37. Re: Got my KR-2S Plans today. Help!!! 38. Re: New Airfoil & $$$ 39. I Posa de question 40. Negative comments (was Got my KR-2S Plans) 41. Apoligies 42. Re: I Posa de question 43. Re: Ground Loops ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Got my KR-2S Plans today. Help!!! From: "Robert R. Lee" Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 05:45:34 -0400 X-Message-Number: 1 Rick Hubka wrote: I would appreciate some advice(I may not take it) from some of the = seasoned KRNet builders and I pose this question. If you could start over tomorrow (lets pretend you wanted to). How would you do the boat? Would you go with a new air foil? 15%, 16% with stock spars or ??? ******************************************************************************** Rick, the first thing that you must do is define the mission of the aircraft. If it's just for fun then you need: low and slow cheap small engine lots of room (wide fuselage) grass landing capability larger wing (lower stall speed required) short endruance (small fuel capacity) high wing incidence angle (3.5 deg) solo configuration no luggage required If it's long distance cross country then you need: high and fast cost is not an object ifr avionics autopilot required big engine with turbo low drag (narrow fuselage) smaller wing (higher stall speed ok) long endurance (large fuel capacity) low wing incidence angle (2.0 deg) dual configuration modist luggage requirement This is just an example not to reflect anyone's KR, but you can see that what you want to do with the aircraft will make many of the decisions for you. Your question regarding what wing to use falls into this as well. You must know the mission to decide Mach number, Reynolds number, aspect ration, area, taper, thickness, airfoil section and many other variables that will impact the performance of your KR. First decide what you want and then decide if it is reasonable to build a KR that will accomplish your objectives. Regards, Bob Lee N52BL ___________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Mike Mims From: "DAVID STUART" Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 21:46:52 +1200 X-Message-Number: 2 Mike. This is supposed to be a positive KR builders net so how about quiting the negative knocking of Ivo Prop on every post you send. Cheers.......Dave david.stuart@xtra.co.nz ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Looking for Tom Marcello @uml From: "Richard Parker" Date: Wed, 07 Apr 1999 03:39:09 PDT X-Message-Number: 3 Sorry to take up Bandwidth, Tom could you send me the directions to the meeting again I deleted your previous e-mails by mistake. Rich Parker richontheroad@hotmail.com http://top.monad.net/~theparkers/kr.htm Jaffrey, NH _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Got my KR-2S Plans today. Help!!! From: KR2616TJ@aol.com Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 07:37:37 EDT X-Message-Number: 4 In a message dated 4/7/99 12:26:58 AM Eastern Daylight Time, rick@hubka.com writes: << But I look at this a good thing. I need to read the plans over several times and make some initial decisions. My preliminary thoughts are: 1) First I would like to make the seating area 4" wider. ( I'm 6.1 and 220 lb. Lost 15 lb's over the winter. 30 more to go!) 2) Seriously evaluate and consider going with one of the new air foils. This could change the spar dimensions. 3) Consider a laminated air frame like Dr. Dean. I have done a lot of laminating. This changes everything! >> Fine choice of an airplane, just be sure and use some of the information developed by those who have built before you. At this time, I don't feel like there is an airplane out there that will give you more bang for your buck than the KR. Just be sure and read the manual real close. Be sure and look for those one year sentences.......what was that again Ross??? I responded to Rick off the KRNet but will address these three questions online. Widening the airplane by 4" is something numerous people have done and is no problem. Building up the forward deck and rear deck are no problem. Go look at the viking online KR manual, those two chapters are already up. The wing design numbers have already been developed. As has been posted, the 16% uses your standard KR spars, the only difference is the height at which the rear spar is positioned. If you go that route, go ahead and build your boat per plans.........that's a good year job. Dr. Dean is using the 18% as it is considered the optimum KR wing of those funded by the KRNet. Dr. Dean's fuselage................better ask him. Dana Overall 1999 KR Gathering host Richmond, KY mailto:kr2616tj@aol.com http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/7085/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Taildragger Endorsement! From: "Tom Andersen" Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 07:40:06 -0400 X-Message-Number: 5 Could one of our KR taildragger jockeys relate the differences between say an Aeronca Champ and a KR-2? I imaging the KR has lighter pedal forces, a lighter tail, quicker right-now responses, and more stability since a low-wing has a lower center of gravity on the ground. Most taildragger high-wings feel top-heavy and this adds to the tendency to ground loop, no? -Tom 8hrs in Aeronca Defender -----Original Message----- From: Ross Youngblood To: KR-net users group Date: Wednesday, April 07, 1999 1:08 AM Subject: [kr-net] Taildragger Endorsement! >Lets Celebrate! Your admin just completed his taildragger endorsement >today! > >I have been working up in Nampa ID on business, so I decided to take >advantage of the $34.00 hr rental rate on the Aeronca Champ. I did >two wheel and two normal landings solo today! I'm excited about >getting back to work on the KR! > >It turns out that my instructor works across the strip on the V12 >Thunder Mustang. >It's a bit bigger than a KR-2, and has 8 more cylinders, and two blades >more on >the prop, but it's still a taildragger, and it is retract. The downside >is that the >kit runs over $200K. I got a tour of the builder assist hangar today. >There >were two kits, and the second company prototype. (The first crashed >some time >last year). The prefab wing skins look similar to the KR pre-fab skins >except they >are black (carbon fiber). So consider the KR the first kit, then do the >V12 Mustang >next. > >Part of my flight training this week included touch and goes at a little >airport where >the runway was shared by some cattle. Makes me really want to own a >taildragger! > >I was out at the hangar three weeks ago looking at my KR project and >trying >to figure out what to do next, when my boss paged me to go to Idaho for >this >trip. So I decided if I can't build it... at least I can get ready to >fly it! > >Mike, I'm still working on being your wingman this year, but don't hold >your >breath! > >-- Regards > Ross > > > > >--- >You are currently subscribed to kr-net as: tomkr2s@t-three.com >To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-kr-net-17800J@telelists.com > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Got my KR-2S Plans today. Help!!! From: "Mark Langford" Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 07:27:29 -0500 X-Message-Number: 6 Dana wrote: >Dr. Dean is using the 18% as >it is considered the optimum KR wing of those funded by the KRNet. I'd have used it too were my spars not already built and permanently installed into the fuselage. This airfoil should taper towards an AS5045 at the tip. I finally got a chance to fool around with the AS5048 (18%) airfoil and the stock spar locations and determined that optimum spar height (in order to keep the spar at 25% chord position) would have to be 8.17" tall, and the aft spar would need to be 4.56" tall. This in no way should imply that I have any clue as to what I'm doing, only that the stock spar locations would require spars to be this height (disclaimer)... Mark Langford, Huntsville, Alabama mailto:langford@hiwaay.net see KR2S N56ML at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Got my KR-2S Plans today. Help!!! From: "Richard Parker" Date: Wed, 07 Apr 1999 05:52:16 PDT X-Message-Number: 7 Dana Overall wrote: >Go look at the viking online KR manual, those two chapters are already up. What was that address? _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Got my KR-2S Plans today. Help!!! From: Steven Eberhart Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 07:54:47 -0500 (CDT) X-Message-Number: 8 Hi rick, I will tackle items 2 and 3 On Tue, 6 Apr 1999, Rick Hubka wrote: > Hey Guys > > Got my KR-2S plans from RR today (Yippee!!) [snip] > 2) Seriously evaluate and consider going with one of the new air foils. This could change the spar dimensions. One of the main reasons that I have a lot of faith in Michael Selig, PhD is that he has a tremendous amount of experience in designing low Reynolds number airfoils. Ford has the same respect for his expertise. He and the University of Illinois are under contract to Ford and are the designers of the airfoils used on Michael Andretti's Cart race cars and Jackie Stewart's F1 race cars. These are wings that have to operate over a wide speed range. He is also a recognized leader in the design of laminar flow airfoils for everything from model airplane wings through full size aircraft wings. He has made his life's work out of the study of low Reynolds number airfoils. Ashok is an extreamly gifted PhD candidate that has been studying under Dr. Selig. He has already designed the airfoils for several General Aviation aircraft as well as the airfoils for Rutan's new Boomerang II. Ashok likes the 15% AS5045 airfoil and feels that is is a good choice for a single airfoil wing. THe only problem is that you are going to have to design new spars to use it as the airfoil thickness at the KR-2S spar locations are thinner than the KR. THis is why the 16% airfoil was designed, so that you can use the stock spars. Only problem here is that only the 15% and 18% airfoils have been wind tunnel tested. THe 16% has not but it used the same design rules. THe design rules have been proven using the wind tunnel data from the 15% and 18%. THese airfoils very closely matched the computer modeling so it is assumed thet the 16% will behave similarly. Where the advantages for a wing using the 18% root section and 15% tip section come in is that you can design a lighter weight spar because of the greater depth of the spar. THis poses a problem because you either have to use the stock KR spar design but made thicker - resulting in a heavier spar or design a lighter weight spar to achieve the same strength as the stock spar. If you are comfertable with designing a new spar either the one airfoil 15% wing or the 18% root 15% tip airfoil wing would be an option. If you are not comfortable with designing your own spars then the 16% would seem to be a good choice. All of this is based on Troy Petteway's successful test flying of his 16% winged airplane. I am going to start another development project, like the airfoil project, this Summer to design, build and test to destruction new composite spars for the 18% root, 15% tip airfoil wing. THis should give us the lighter weight spars necessary to achieve the advantages possible with the 18% airfoil. > 3) Consider a laminated air frame like Dr. Dean. I have done a lot of laminating. This changes everything! Dean Collette, MD has designed a completely new airplane. It is not just a modified KR. It has a new wing, new fuselage, new tail, etc. THis isn't just a modified KR, it is a completely new airplane. As with all new designs, there are a tremendous number of questions still to be answered and these questions will not be answered untill the completion of a comprehensive test flying program and a number of copies have demonstrated over time that the flying characteristics and structural integrity agree with the engineering predictions. My personal opnion is that Dean has a lot of good ideas and if they prove out in real life he will have a winner on his hands. It is just too early to make that judgment or a commitment at this time to his construction methods. I wish him well as we need new options to choose from. Just remember: One test is worth a thousand expert opinions but a thousand opinions are easier to get. --plagiarized from an unknown author Good luck. You have started down a very rewarding road. Steve Eberhart ------------- http://www.newtech.com/nlf All information, in any of my aircraft related correspondence, is strictly food for thought and is in no way intended to imply that it is anything more than ideas requiring additional, qualified, engineering analysis. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Great Idea! - epoxy pumps From: "Richard Parker" Date: Wed, 07 Apr 1999 05:57:25 PDT X-Message-Number: 9 There are 2 sizes of epoxy pumps from West Systems because they have products with different mixing ratios. Be sure you get the right ones. Rich Parker richontheroad@hotmail.com http://top.monad.net/~theparkers/kr.htm Jaffrey, NH >From: Mike Mims >Reply-To: "KR-net users group" >To: "KR-net users group" >Subject: [kr-net] Great Idea! >Date: Tue, 06 Apr 1999 23:48:27 -0700 > >http://members.aol.com/lee810/pump.html > >-- >zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz >Micheal Mims >KR290S (Sky Pig) ,..Building ailerons and sanding the wings.. >mailto:mikemims@home.com >http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/4136/ >Aliso Viejo Ca >Friends don't let Friends fly behind Ivo Props! >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >--- >You are currently subscribed to kr-net as: richontheroad@hotmail.com >To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-kr-net- 17615H@telelists.com > _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Got my KR-2S Plans today. Help!!! From: Steven Eberhart Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 08:12:08 -0500 (CDT) X-Message-Number: 10 Richard, You can get to it at: http://www.evansville.net/~boeing/project_viking Steve On Wed, 7 Apr 1999, Richard Parker wrote: > > Dana Overall wrote: > >Go look at the viking online KR manual, those two chapters are > already up. > > What was that address? > > _______________________________________________________________ > Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com > > --- > You are currently subscribed to kr-net as: newtech@newtech.com > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-kr-net-17800J@telelists.com > ------------------------------------- http://www.newtech.com/nlf One test is worth a thousand expert opinions but a thousand opinions are easier to get. --plagiarized from an unknown author All information, in any of my aircraft related correspondence, is strictly food for thought and is in no way intended to imply that it is anything more than ideas requiring additional, qualified, engineering analysis. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Ground Loops From: Ron Freiberger Date: Wed, 07 Apr 1999 09:14:09 -0500 X-Message-Number: 11 Tom wrote "Most taildragger high-wings feel top-heavy and this adds to the tendency to ground loop, no?" No. It's because the center of gravity is behind the contact point of the "main Gear". The aircraft is trying to pass itself. The problem really shows up when a (noseroller trained) pilot, who has become accustomed to going to sleep after the touchdown, awakes to the fact that he's about to ground loop (or has ground looped) This is a divergent manuver, and the worse it gets, the worse it gets Keep it straight. A Pitts Special, with the gear right at the firewall is perhapsthe epitome of a mean little airplane( on the ground), (but the flight's worth it). I expect that a KR2, with it's landing gear too far rearward, will be very good in this regard, But VERY easy to put up on it's nose. I Have done this twice, once in a Champ, and once in my Cassutt, so I'm wondering about moving the gear . ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: H.U.D. and Automatic Wing Fuel Tank Control Electronics From: "RONALD R.EASON" Date: Wed, 07 Apr 1999 08:32:59 -0700 X-Message-Number: 12 I have just finished posting final specifications and information about the above. I am using it on my KR2X. I am starting a new builder web site for anyone interested my approach for a KR2 retractable tri-gear with split flaps. Ron ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: H.U.D. and Automatic Wing Fuel Tank Control Electronics From: "RONALD R.EASON" Date: Wed, 07 Apr 1999 08:40:46 -0700 X-Message-Number: 13 I have just finished posting final specifications and information about the above. I am using it on my KR2X. I am starting a new builder web site for anyone interested my approach for a KR2 retractable tri-gear with split flaps. Refer to www.jrl-engineering.com Aircraft Ron ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: RE: Canopy needed for KR2 From: "Eduardo M. Iglesias" Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 00:52:59 -0300 X-Message-Number: 14 If you send me a fax number I can send you a paper from Soaring Revue 1975 where Stan Hall decribes a succefull metod. I beliave iīts credible. Nevertheless i donīt reach canopy yet. Eduardo Argentina ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Plus or Minus From: Ron Freiberger Date: Wed, 07 Apr 1999 09:14:34 -0500 X-Message-Number: 15 David wrote....Mike. This is supposed to be a positive KR builders net I didn't know we were bound to only positive statements. Does Mike have to make two positive to balance, onr can an occaisional negative be allowed? The indications I've heard suggest we ought not use IVO props on VW Cranks... right? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Got my KR-2S Plans today. Help!!! From: Donald Reid Date: Wed, 07 Apr 1999 10:26:15 -0400 X-Message-Number: 16 Rick Hubka wrote: > But I look at this a good thing. I need to read the plans over several > times and make some initial decisions. > > My preliminary thoughts are: > 1) First I would like to make the seating area 4" wider. ( I'm 6.1 and > 220 lb. Lost 15 lb's over the winter. 30 more to go!) > 2) Seriously evaluate and consider going with one of the new air > foils. This could change the spar dimensions. > 3) Consider a laminated air frame like Dr. Dean. I have done a lot of > laminating. This changes everything! I think that no matter what else you do, the increase in width is the best. As long as you are building your own components, go to 38-40 inches at the shoulder. The increased drag due to the increase in cross-sectional area would be counteracted by the decrease in drag due to an improved fillet at the wing/fuselage intersection. -- 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: Got my KR-2S Plans today. Help!!! From: "Mark Langford" Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 10:32:23 -0500 X-Message-Number: 17 Don Reid wrote: >I think that no matter what else you do, the increase in width is the >best. As long as you are building your own components, go to 38-40 >inches at the shoulder. The increased drag due to the increase in >cross-sectional area would be counteracted by the decrease in drag due >to an improved fillet at the wing/fuselage intersection. Like upgrading the airfoils, stretching the fuselage at the shoulders is your basic "free lunch". As for Dr. Dean's fuselage, that change is so dramatic that even though it is far easier to build than the KR boat, the changes required would almost certainly require more time to construct without a good set of plans to go by. Like many of the changes that I'm making (and Don has made), you must have built the whole thing before you know all of the ramifications of what you're doing... Mark Langford, Huntsville, Alabama mailto:langford@hiwaay.net see KR2S N56ML at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: flutter From: "Juergen Esser" Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 18:36:06 +0200 X-Message-Number: 18 I have a general question: what causes flutter and what can I do against it. When I was in Oshkosh last year I listened to a lecture about rudder-balancing to prefent flutter, but I do not know all the details any more (under or over-balancing). Who knows more? Juergen ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Airfoils From: JKM001@aol.com Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 13:02:17 EDT X-Message-Number: 19 Hi guys, I was wondering if any of you know whicj airfoil the Taylorcraft uses. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks Keith ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Wing question from Eduardo Iglesias From: Kimball Anderson Date: Wed, 07 Apr 1999 14:32:34 -0400 X-Message-Number: 20 I'm forwarding the following from KRNet member Eduardo Iglesias in ho= pes that someone can give him a good answer. I've used the term "twist/w= ashout" in the translation due to my own meager knowledge of wing constructio= n. In other words, if I've used the wrong terminology, it's my error, not Eduardo's: I completed my wings using the procedure in the old KR manual, but I = added 60 cm to each side because I'm using an engine that is heavier than t= he VW. What I don't know is how the twist/washout will affect the wing perfo= rmance, since the twist/washout is increased because of the lengthened wing. = In other words, the twist/washout at the ends of the wings is greater th= an the original specification. It would be nice if someone who knows more t= han I do could tell me if I'll have problems, as the wing incidence is the original 3.5 degrees, and it seems that it would be better to reduce = it to 2 degrees. Eduardo also says that he has an article (ca. 1975) from Soaring Maga= zine that has a two-step procedure for fabricating a canopy -- the complet= e procedure, including the proper temperatures -- and has offered to ma= ke it available if anyone is interested. I saw in another post that he's = offered to fax it, but if there's a good deal of interest, it might be better= to get it scanned and post it somewhere. Sure would save on the phone bill,= since Eduardo is located in Argentina. Kimball Anderson isleno@hargray.com -----Original Message----- =46rom: Eduardo M Iglesias To: Kimball Anderson Date: Wednesday, April 07, 1999 9:39 AM Subject: RE: KRNet Estimado Kimball /* snip */ Tengo un art=EDculo de la revista Soaring, creo que de 1975, en el qu= e se da un procedimiento para la fabricaci=F3n de burbujas de cabina -canop= y- en dos etapas, con las temperaturas y el proceder completo. En cuanto pueda = lo mando por el correo. Yo tengo las alas completas con el procedimiento del viejo manual KR2= , pero les agregu=E9 60 cm. en cada lado porque le pongo un motor mas pesado= que el VW. Lo que no se es como se comportar=E1 el ala en cuanto al alabeo -= twist-, ya que =E9ste se aumenta al alargarle el ala, es decir que la punta d= e ala tiene un alabeo algo mayor que el original. Ser=EDa bueno que alguien= que sepa mas que yo me diga si tendr=E9 problemas, ya que la incidencia de ala= es la 3,5=B0, original y parece que es mejor bajarla a 2=B0. /* snip */ Cordiales saludos Eduardo ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Mike Mims From: "Brian J. Bland" Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 15:55:01 -0500 X-Message-Number: 21 > Mike. This is supposed to be a positive KR builders net so how about > quitting the negative knocking of Ivo Prop on every post you send. > Cheers.......Dave david.stuart@xtra.co.nz > This is supposed to be an informative KR builders net. Mike's statements aren't just pulled out of the air. They are based on actual experience with an Ivo Prop. I have personally seen this prop and I would never recommend that anyone use an Ivo Prop. There have also been several incidents in which people have been killed due to malfunctioning Ivo Props. I personally think that the majority of the people on this list appreciate the info that comes from this list. Not everything in the world will be positive. I would hate to see people afraid to speak out when they find something that isn't positive. - Brian J Bland Claremore, OK Mail to: brianbland@netzero.net http://www.flight2000.com/hangar/KR-2S/ ________________________________________________________ NetZero - We believe in a FREE Internet. Shouldn't you? Get your FREE Internet Access and Email at http://www.netzero.net/download.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Mike Mims From: JEHayward@aol.com Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 18:07:21 EDT X-Message-Number: 22 In a message dated 4/7/99 3:47:32 AM Mountain Daylight Time, DAVID.STUART@xtra.co.nz writes: << Mike. This is supposed to be a positive KR builders net so how about quiting the negative knocking of Ivo Prop on every post you send. Cheers.......Dave david.stuart@xtra.co.nz >> A perfect example of the type of mail that could/should be sent off net. Jim Hayward Rapid City, SD ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Wing Tip Lights From: KR2616TJ@aol.com Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 18:38:25 EDT X-Message-Number: 23 Since I am putting new wing skins on 616TJ, could someone repost some information on wing tip lights w/strobes. I have a pair of standard lights, but with no strobes. I wasn't planning on changing anything, so I wasn't paying attention to that thread, seems to me someone posted some home brew lights. In doing so, if anyone knows off the top of their head what size wire they used (hey, Jeff) I'd appreciate it. Dana Overall 1999 KR Gathering host Richmond, KY mailto:kr2616tj@aol.com http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/7085/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Shimming the gear further forward From: KR2616TJ@aol.com Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 18:49:48 EDT X-Message-Number: 24 In a message dated 4/5/99 8:32:45 PM Eastern Daylight Time, tomkr2s@t-three.com writes: << I was thinking of shimming the bottom of the gear castings out about a 1/2" to move the wheels further forward. Are they too far forward already? I would make two pieces about 2" wide and the length of the gear casting directly over the center spar caps, floxed on and sanded to the necessary angle. Any problems to doing this? I'm going to have a further forward CG than KR's with header tanks. >> Tom, I don't know if anyone has answered this for you. The only thing I see is the castings themselves are a pretty tight fit as is. By moving the castings forward, you will probably have to relieve some material from their tops to take into account the curvature of the leading edge. Shouldn't be a problem, I know some people have removed material anyway. As far as your CG and the position of the mains, Jeff Scott has a set of the longer legs, which would position his wheels more forward and he is using a heavier engine. That extra room couldn't hurt, I flown some long footprint taildraggers and some short footprinted ones, I think here length does help!!!! That's only one opinion, what's everyone else think? Dana Overall 1999 KR Gathering host Richmond, KY mailto:kr2616tj@aol.com http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/7085/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Wing Tip Lights From: "Tom Andersen" Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 19:43:15 -0400 X-Message-Number: 25 Dana, Dean recently posted this URL for inexpensive strobes. You could just add these in addition to the standard lights you already have. http://www.kestrobes.com -Tom -----Original Message----- From: KR2616TJ@aol.com To: KR-net users group Date: Wednesday, April 07, 1999 6:38 PM Subject: [kr-net] Wing Tip Lights >Since I am putting new wing skins on 616TJ, could someone repost some >information on wing tip lights w/strobes. I have a pair of standard lights, >but with no strobes. I wasn't planning on changing anything, so I wasn't >paying attention to that thread, seems to me someone posted some home brew >lights. > >In doing so, if anyone knows off the top of their head what size wire they >used (hey, Jeff) I'd appreciate it. > >Dana Overall >1999 KR Gathering host >Richmond, KY >mailto:kr2616tj@aol.com >http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/7085/ > > > >--- >You are currently subscribed to kr-net as: tomkr2s@t-three.com >To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-kr-net-17800J@telelists.com > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Shimming the gear further forward From: "Tom Andersen" Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 19:50:59 -0400 X-Message-Number: 26 Thanks Dana, I didn't think about top clearance. I have an air grinder with a cutting wheel which ought to take care of that. The Pulsars have a similar problem and one owner made brackets to position the wheels 2" further forward. 2" is a lot when you consider the gears are only 7.5" or so ahead of the CG, so I think I'll shim them forward. I never heard anyone complain they're too far forward, but too far back and you go through props. The KR's with the springbar gear seem to be much further forward, but that's just an observation from pics. And Ron, I hear what you're saying about CG behind the gear causing exponential amounts of instability as you veer from neutral. This is the downside to having the gear too far forward, this becomes more sensitive. -Tom -----Original Message----- From: KR2616TJ@aol.com To: KR-net users group Date: Wednesday, April 07, 1999 6:56 PM Subject: [kr-net] Re: Shimming the gear further forward >In a message dated 4/5/99 8:32:45 PM Eastern Daylight Time, >tomkr2s@t-three.com writes: > ><< I was thinking of shimming the bottom > of the gear castings out about a 1/2" to move the wheels further forward. > Are they too far forward already? I would make two pieces about 2" wide and > the length of the gear casting directly over the center spar caps, floxed on > and sanded to the necessary angle. Any problems to doing this? I'm going > to have a further forward CG than KR's with header tanks. >> > >Tom, I don't know if anyone has answered this for you. The only thing I see >is the castings themselves are a pretty tight fit as is. By moving the >castings forward, you will probably have to relieve some material from their >tops to take into account the curvature of the leading edge. Shouldn't be a >problem, I know some people have removed material anyway. As far as your CG >and the position of the mains, Jeff Scott has a set of the longer legs, which >would position his wheels more forward and he is using a heavier engine. >That extra room couldn't hurt, I flown some long footprint taildraggers and >some short footprinted ones, I think here length does help!!!! That's only >one opinion, what's everyone else think? > >Dana Overall >1999 KR Gathering host >Richmond, KY >mailto:kr2616tj@aol.com >http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/7085/ > > > >--- >You are currently subscribed to kr-net as: tomkr2s@t-three.com >To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-kr-net-17800J@telelists.com > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Airfoils From: Mike Mims Date: Wed, 07 Apr 1999 17:03:34 -0700 X-Message-Number: 27 JKM001@aol.com wrote: > > Hi guys, > > I was wondering if any of you know whicj airfoil the Taylorcraft uses. Any help would be appreciated.>>> They used a couple of different ones depending on year and model. What model and or year are you talking about? The F19 and a few others used the NACA 23015. In the beginning they used the same airfoil as the Cub (Clark Y I think). -- zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz Micheal Mims KR290S (Sky Pig) ,..Building ailerons and sanding the wings.. mailto:mikemims@home.com http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/4136/ Aliso Viejo Ca Friends don't let Friends fly behind Ivo Props! ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: The police. From: KR2616TJ@aol.com Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 19:52:51 EDT X-Message-Number: 28 In a message dated 4/7/99 6:32:30 PM Eastern Daylight Time, JEHayward@aol.com writes: << A perfect example of the type of mail that could/should be sent off net. Easy guys we just got Keith reposting, think ice cream.......we're just settling down from the last barrage. Dana ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: flutter From: Donald Reid Date: Wed, 07 Apr 1999 20:53:10 -0400 X-Message-Number: 29 Juergen Esser wrote: > > I have a general question: what causes flutter and what can I do against it. > When I was in Oshkosh last year I listened to a lecture about > rudder-balancing to prefent flutter, but I do not know all the details any > more (under or over-balancing). The real description is much to involved to go into in this type of forum. It involves lots of math and diagrams and hand waving. The simple answer is that balanced is better than not and over-balanced a bit is generally better than balanced. -- 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: letter of consent/approval ??? From: "Rick Hubka" Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 19:10:38 -0600 X-Message-Number: 30 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_00AA_01BE812A.52941AC0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Thanks for the great response to my " Got my KR-2S Plans today Help!!". = I have received 11 responses already. Most of which are very!! helpful = and much appreciated. Thanks... ------------------------------------------------------------- I sent in my Canadian govn't "Letter of Intent" today which is required = to be filed with DOT (Canadian for FAA). They referred me to the = Canadian RAA who deal with home builts in Canada. To make a long story = short. I was told I could not register as a KR-2S builder if I modified the = design( such as adding 4" to width) unless RR provided me with a letter = of consent/approval to my proposed modification. If I cannot get this = letter ( I have a call into Jeanette at RR who is going to Sun & Fun on = Friday) then I can not affiliate my aircraft with a KR in any way and = that it will be considered an original design subject to design = documents and great scrutiny by DOT. I get the feeling I am about to embark on a great journey through the = mountains of red tape. I need to verify what the RAA gentleman was = saying and I need to do this graciously. After all he may be the person = to inspect my K... my... whatever!! I hate to be a newbie to ask too many guestions, but can my KRNet pals = enlighten me here??? Rick Hubka Calgary, Alberta Canada ------=_NextPart_000_00AA_01BE812A.52941AC0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Thanks for the great response to my " Got my KR-2S = Plans today=20 Help!!".  I have received 11 responses already.  Most of which = are=20 very!! helpful and much appreciated.  Thanks...
-------------------------------------------------------------
I sent in my Canadian govn't "Letter of Intent" = today which is=20 required to be filed with DOT (Canadian for FAA).  They referred me = to the=20 Canadian RAA who deal with home builts in Canada.  To make a long = story=20 short.
 
I was told I could not register as a KR-2S builder = if I=20 modified the design( such as adding 4" to width) unless RR provided me = with a=20 letter of consent/approval to my proposed modification.  If I = cannot get=20 this letter ( I have a call into Jeanette  at RR who is going to = Sun &=20 Fun on Friday) then I can not affiliate my aircraft with a KR in = any way=20 and that it will be considered an original design subject to design = documents=20 and great scrutiny by DOT.
 
I get the feeling I am about to embark on a great = journey=20 through the mountains of red tape.  I need to verify what the RAA = gentleman=20 was saying and I need to do this graciously.  After all he may be = the=20 person to inspect my K...   my...  = whatever!!
 
I hate to be a newbie to ask too many = guestions, but can=20 my KRNet pals enlighten me here???
 
 
Rick Hubka
Calgary, Alberta   =20 Canada
------=_NextPart_000_00AA_01BE812A.52941AC0-- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: New Airfoil & $$$ From: "Rick Hubka" Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 19:21:04 -0600 X-Message-Number: 31 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_00C7_01BE812B.C7B29920 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable A great deal of information was posted in the last few days about the = new airfoils. I am not sure if I will use one (Hmmm) but I was curious = about how it was financed. >> THe wind tunnel wing would cost around $8,000. >> Within less than a week we had received over $1,000=20 >> in donations from KRNet members. Where did the other $7,000.00 come from? If I do decide (and am allowed) to use the new airfoil I would certainly = like to pay my fare share if it is needed and appropriate. I realize the new airfoils first test flight is still a month away, but = I would still like to have the math explained. Thanks... This is my 3rd question post in two days. I promise to = dissapear for a while.... Rick Hubka Calgary, Alberta Canada ------=_NextPart_000_00C7_01BE812B.C7B29920 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
A great deal of information = was posted in=20 the last few days about the new airfoils.  I am not sure if I will = use one=20 (Hmmm) but I was curious about how it was financed.
 
>> THe wind tunnel wing would cost around=20 $8,000.
>> Within less than a week we had received over $1,000=20
>> in donations from KRNet = members.
 
Where did the other $7,000.00 come = from?
 
If I do decide (and am allowed) to use the new = airfoil I=20 would certainly like to pay my fare share if it is needed and=20 appropriate.
 
I realize the new airfoils first test flight is = still a month=20 away, but I would still like to have the math explained.
 
Thanks... This is my 3rd question post in two = days.  I=20 promise to dissapear for a while....
 
 
Rick Hubka
Calgary, Alberta   =20 Canada
------=_NextPart_000_00C7_01BE812B.C7B29920-- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: New Airfoil & $$$ From: "Mark Langford" Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 20:32:00 -0500 X-Message-Number: 32 Rick Hubka wrote: >Where did the other $7,000.00 come from? We had a really big beer bash at Steve's house....no, wait, it's coming to me... It turns out that the UUIC folks are quite interested in experimental aviation, and offered to let us use the wind tunnel at a considerable discount, $1000, rather than the usual $8000. Don't worry about asking questions. That's why we hang out here, to ACT like we know it all... Mark Langford, Huntsville, Alabama mailto:langford@hiwaay.net see KR2S N56ML at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Wing Tip Lights From: jscott.pilot@juno.com Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 19:25:33 -0700 X-Message-Number: 33 On Wed, 7 Apr 1999 18:38:25 EDT KR2616TJ@aol.com writes: >Since I am putting new wing skins on 616TJ, could someone repost some > >information on wing tip lights w/strobes. I have a pair of standard lights, >but with no strobes. I wasn't planning on changing anything, so I wasn't >paying attention to that thread, seems to me someone posted some home brew >lights. > >In doing so, if anyone knows off the top of their head what size wire they >used (hey, Jeff) I'd appreciate it. > >Dana Overall Dana, My tip lights are the standard Whelen package of tip and tail lights and strobe all in one unit. The Strobe power supply is mounted under the right seat. If I remember right, the wiring to the lights and strobes is probably 14 gauge with the strobe leads shielded. Jeff Scott - Los Alamos, NM mailto:jscott.pilot@juno.com See N1213w construction and first flight at http://www.thuntek.net/~jeb/krjeff.htm ___________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Taildragger Endorsement! From: jscott.pilot@juno.com Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 19:54:46 -0700 X-Message-Number: 34 On Wed, 7 Apr 1999 07:40:06 -0400 "Tom Andersen" writes: >Could one of our KR taildragger jockeys relate the differences between say >an Aeronca Champ and a KR-2? I imaging the KR has lighter pedal forces, a >lighter tail, quicker right-now responses, and more stability since a >low-wing has a lower center of gravity on the ground. Most taildragger >high-wings feel top-heavy and this adds to the tendency to ground loop, no? >-Tom >8hrs in Aeronca Defender OK, I've owned a couple of Champs and have about 170 hours in my KR now. There are a few major differences. The Champ has much better visibility on the ground and things don't happen quite as fast in the Champ. Also the Champ can transition from cruise to landing speed in about 20 feet and has lots of drag. The KR can be challenging to get slowed down and requires some planning for the approach. A Champ is a relatively ham fisted airplane to fly. The stock KR has extremely light stick forces. The biggest sruprise in the KR is the lack of stick force on the elevator. That is something that could be easily designed out. Dana should have his KR flying with a properly designed tail sometime this summer. Although the KR is a bit more challenging to land, once on the ground it is probably easier to handle than the Champ. It took a little tuning of the tailwheel to get it right, but my KR doesn't display any bad manors on the groundduring take-off, landing, or taxi. Jeff Scott - Los Alamos, NM mailto:jscott.pilot@juno.com See N1213w construction and first flight at http://www.thuntek.net/~jeb/krjeff.htm ___________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Shimming the gear further forward From: jscott.pilot@juno.com Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 19:40:01 -0700 X-Message-Number: 35 On Wed, 7 Apr 1999 18:49:48 EDT KR2616TJ@aol.com writes: >In a message dated 4/5/99 8:32:45 PM Eastern Daylight Time, >tomkr2s@t-three.com writes: > >Tom, I don't know if anyone has answered this for you. The only thing I see >is the castings themselves are a pretty tight fit as is. By moving the >castings forward, you will probably have to relieve some material from their >tops to take into account the curvature of the leading edge. Shouldn't be a >problem, I know some people have removed material anyway. As far as your CG >and the position of the mains, Jeff Scott has a set of the longer legs, which >would position his wheels more forward and he is using a heavier engine. >That extra room couldn't hurt, I flown some long footprint taildraggers and >some short footprinted ones, I think here length does help!!!! That's only >one opinion, what's everyone else think? > >Dana Overall I would recommend trying to find a set of Yankee gear legs in a junk yard and build your own 4130 mounts for the spar. The extra forward length and taller gear is very nice to have, but the Diehl gear legs at 30" long are too soft and sit too wide. Having said that, I still wouldn't consider cutting them down. With the C-85 mounted up front on a longer mount, the CG of my KR is about perfect. But even with the longer gear legs the plane can be tipped over pretty easily during maintenance. I dropped it on it's chin once while lifting it on the scales for a W&B weigh in. Put me in the seat and there's not much chance of nosing over during a landing. :o) Jeff Scott - Los Alamos, NM mailto:jscott.pilot@juno.com See N1213w construction and first flight at http://www.thuntek.net/~jeb/krjeff.htm ___________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Got my KR-2S Plans today. Help!!! From: jscott.pilot@juno.com Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 20:03:56 -0700 X-Message-Number: 36 On Tue, 6 Apr 1999 22:21:45 -0600 "Rick Hubka" writes: >Hey Guys > >Got my KR-2S plans from RR today (Yippee!!) and finished the big work >bench. But ran out of money for wood for a few weeks. > >But I look at this a good thing. I need to read the plans over several >times and make some initial decisions. > >My preliminary thoughts are: >1) First I would like to make the seating area 4" wider. ( I'm 6.1 and >220 lb. Lost 15 lb's over the winter. 30 more to go!) >2) Seriously evaluate and consider going with one of the new air >foils. This could change the spar dimensions. >3) Consider a laminated air frame like Dr. Dean. I have done a lot of >laminating. This changes everything! > >Just these 3 possibilities alone eliminate me buying a standard KR-2S >Spruce Kit. > >Although I know the local Calgary Spruce Kit supplier would modify my >order. I need to decide. > >I would appreciate some advice(I may not take it) from some of the >seasoned KRNet builders and I pose this question. > >If you could start over tomorrow (lets pretend you wanted to). > >How would you do the boat? >Would you go with a new air foil? 15%, 16% with stock spars or ??? > >Rick Hubka >Calgary, Alberta Canada Rick, If I was starting over today knowing what I know now, I would build a GlasAir. If the KR was still the only plane to fit the budget, here are the changes I would make in order of importance to me. 1. Build a proper tail on the plane to cure the stability and lack of feel for the elevator. 2. Widen the fuselage. 3. Build the gear from a set of junkyard Yankee gear legs. 4. Use one of the new AS series airfoils if the flight testing works out as expected. 5. Forget Dr Dean's fuselage design until it has had a thorough flight testing. It looks neat, but hasn't flown and probably won't for some time yet. Just my opinions and worth everything you've paid for them. :o) Jeff Scott - Los Alamos, NM mailto:jscott.pilot@juno.com See N1213w construction and first flight at http://www.thuntek.net/~jeb/krjeff.htm ___________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Got my KR-2S Plans today. Help!!! From: "Dean Collette" Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 21:27:01 -0500 X-Message-Number: 37 >5. Forget Dr Dean's fuselage design until it has had a thorough flight >testing. It looks neat, but hasn't flown and probably won't for some >time yet. >Jeff Scott - Los Alamos, NM Yep, I'll second the motion! Dean Collette Milwaukee, Wisconsin mailto:drdean@execpc.com Web Page at http://www.execpc.com/~drdean/home.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: New Airfoil & $$$ From: Steven Eberhart Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 21:36:24 -0500 (CDT) X-Message-Number: 38 On Wed, 7 Apr 1999, Rick Hubka wrote: > A great deal of information was posted in the last few days about the new airfoils. I am not sure if I will use one (Hmmm) but I was curious about how it was financed. > > >> THe wind tunnel wing would cost around $8,000. > >> Within less than a week we had received over $1,000 > >> in donations from KRNet members. > Where did the other $7,000.00 come from? Rick, The cost for the University of Illinois to have a wind tunnel wing manufactured commercially starts at about $8,000 and goes up from there depending on the complexity, i.e. flaps, etc. There was no way KRNet could afford that kind of money. I was able to talk the University into performing the Wind tunnel tests for a fee of $1,000 which was to help cover the cost of the graduate student that was going to perform the testing. I agreed to build the wind tunnel wings to the University's specifications. I ended up using a total of 30 yards of carbon fiber, two gallons of epoxy, enough blue foam to make twice as many wings, $200 in precision CNC milled profile templates, etc. Because of the extreamly short period of time between getting the final airfoil coordinates and our test window into the wind tunnel I had to use more expensive finishing materials than I would have liked to. Everything had to be low shrinkage and catalyst cured as there wasn't time to allow for shrinkage of the finish cotes. THis added more to the costs. I put in about a total of 200 hours of my time on the three wings. It was my building the wings that saved us the $8,000 x 3 wings. Additional contributions from KRNet covered enough of the material costs that I declared the project paid for about six months ago. I built a total of three wings. The first one for the NLF(1)0115 airfoil was complete with the exception of the final finish when Dr. Selig offered to design completely new airfoils specifically for the KR. I didn't bat an eye - that first wing gave up its spars so that the new airfoils could be born. Hope this helps clear up the picture a little. Steve Eberhart ------------------------- http://www.newtech.com/nlf One test is worth a thousand expert opinions but a thousand opinions are easier to get. --plagiarized from an unknown author All information, in any of my aircraft related correspondence, is strictly food for thought and is in no way intended to imply that it is anything more than ideas requiring additional, qualified, engineering analysis. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: I Posa de question From: "caryh" Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 23:22:13 -0400 X-Message-Number: 39 Reply to caryh@home.com Web http://members.home.net/caryh KR2 http://members.home.net/caryh/kr-2.htm Ottawa Ontario Canada I was going through some KR material and came across another POSA article. This one by Rex Taylor. Pardon my ignorance but I don't recognize the name. The marquee indicates "President HAPI Engines Inc" and seems to be gleened from March 1980 issue of Sport Aviation. If anyone is interested in it (5 pages with PHOTOGRAPHS!) I will dust off the scanner and drop the results in my FTP site this weekend. Can't do it before then as I am doing the "Wrench and Screw" on my 172 for the benefit of the local AME. Yearly thing as I recall. I'll be hapi to do it. - Cary - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Negative comments (was Got my KR-2S Plans) From: Mike Mims Date: Wed, 07 Apr 1999 20:47:26 -0700 X-Message-Number: 40 jscott.pilot@juno.com wrote: > If I was starting over today knowing what I know now, I would build a > GlasAir. >>>>> Yes I have been known to post a negative comment now and then and more lately if I recall. The IVO prop thing is a combination of a couple of things, here in North America the IVO has contributed to the death of a few people and damn near made a mess out of a hanger mate. Its junk, plane (pun) and simple! I added a positive comment to the signature, I hope that helps. As far as the comment I made last night in reference to the question "knowing what you know now what would you do different" and I said "build something else",..well I think I have arrived at the same place Jeff is with his comment above. I should have built something else! I have been eyeing an EZ project that's about 60% done (just the airframe). I may be off this list before LONG anyway if you get my drift! :o) -- zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz Micheal Mims mailto:mikemims@home.com http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/4136/ Friends don't let Friends fly behind Ivo Props! But Ed Sterba Props are GREAT! ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Apoligies From: "DAVID STUART" Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 15:57:02 +1200 X-Message-Number: 41 Mike. I sincerly apologise to you and the KR net. The post was intended for your eyes only. Not the net. To Ron, Brian, Jim and Dana. I totaly agree with all of you. Cheers.......Dave david.stuart@xtra.co.nz ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: I Posa de question From: EveninBrz@aol.com Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 23:56:13 EDT X-Message-Number: 42 Rex Taylor used to build VW conversions, he sold the company several years ago. He is now living in Wyoming the last time that I heard of him. He was a bit before your time I think. LARRY ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Ground Loops From: Michael Taglieri Date: Thu, 08 Apr 1999 01:30:23 EDT X-Message-Number: 43 >I expect that a KR2, with it's landing gear too far rearward, will be very >good in this regard, But VERY easy to put up on it's nose. I Have done this >twice, once in a Champ, and once in my Cassutt, so I'm wondering about >moving the gear . It would seem to be a tradeoff -- the further forward the gear, the less chance of going on your nose and the greater chance of groundlooping. Maybe the solution is to leave the gear rearward and NOT improve on the early style mechanical brakes, which should at least decrease the chance of nosing-over. Mike Taglieri _____________________________________________ "Fundamentally the marksman aims at himself." - from Zen And the Art of Archery ___________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] --- 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