From: KR-net users group digest[SMTP:kr-net@telelists.com] Sent: Monday, May 03, 1999 12:29 AM To: kr-net digest recipients Subject: kr-net digest: May 02, 1999 KR-net users group Digest for Sunday, May 02, 1999. 1. Engine choice dilemma 2. Re: interesting response from first KR1 builder 3. Re: Engine choice dilemma 4. Re: Engine choice dilemma 5. Re: interesting response from first KR1 builder 6. Flip o Matic 7. Re: Flip o Matic 8. Widening of KR-2S 9. Re: Widening of KR-2S 10. re: width 11. Re: Widening of KR-2S 12. vw conversion 13. N541RY Progress report 14. Re: Flip o Matic 15. Re: Engine choice dilemma 16. Re: Engine choice dilemma 17. Need more HP? 18. Love that fiberglass 19. Progress report 20. Re: Flip o Matic 21. Re: Love that fiberglass ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Engine choice dilemma From: "Richard Parker" Date: Sun, 02 May 1999 03:57:41 PDT X-Message-Number: 1 >From: GREG S MARTIN >Now, compare this to a Soob and PSRU combo and I believe I have a little >better deal 95 HP out of 1200 cc's seems a little high. Do you have a picture of that engine? Im having a hard time picturing it having not seen one in a lng time. I'm envisioning a big Harley type head sticking out of the top of your cowl. BTW for you guys looking for an inexpensive soob conversion, I paid $300 for my soob, the direct drive conversion cost $850, which included machining and mounting: the crank shaft and bell housing, a new bell housing seal, direct drive flange, crush plate, starter adapter, starter, flywheel, prop adapter w/hardware (Warp Drive), remote oil filter adapter kit, and tapping all applicable holes from metric to sae to accept A/C grade bolts. Bolts were also drilled to accept safety wire. Plus $28 for a block heater available at your local soob dealer. I'm doing the intake manifold, carburetor, exhaust, alternator, It doesnt have the turbo on it yet which will require me to put in new pistons. I'll probably try it out first without the turbo just to get me in the air faster then install the turbo when I feel I have the need for speed. I have the shops number if you are interested. Rich Parker richontheroad@hotmail.com http://top.monad.net/~theparkers/kr.htm Jaffrey, NH It's easy to make a small fortune in aviation. You start with a large fortune. _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: interesting response from first KR1 builder From: "Tom Andersen" Date: Sun, 2 May 1999 09:13:33 -0400 X-Message-Number: 2 I noticed that too. Did you see the center stick diagram which put the bellcrank to the far right side of the cockpit? The KR1 is one kool looking little plane. The bubble canopy is $2000 cheaper than the premolded parts for the KR-2S too. How about two KR-1 bubble canopies side by side on a KR-2 for the Batmobile look? -Tom -----Original Message----- From: Mike Mims To: KR-net users group Date: Saturday, May 01, 1999 11:34 PM Subject: [kr-net] interesting response from first KR1 builder >Fred Keller said > >"The plans originally called for a 5° angle of incidence but my plane >was built using 3°. After flight tests. I believe that a 1 1/2° angle >would have been better. Those little wings have a great amount of lift. >If the incidence is too much, one will find himself flying with a nose >down attitude" > >zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz >Micheal Mims >Ailerons almost done! >http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/4136/ >Aliso Viejo CA >Give Blood, Play Hockey! >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >--- >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: Engine choice dilemma From: boggyd@webtv.net (D Bogdan) Date: Sun, 2 May 1999 08:47:49 -0500 (CDT) X-Message-Number: 3 --WebTV-Mail-183789955-13490 Content-Type: Text/Plain; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit I suppose all those ponies from half the cubes seems high but he's turning over six grand (viz. rotax). I have read of builders using motorcycle engines (on pietenpol's) and cub's have the heads sticking out, not to mention those with radial engines (Ford tri-motor). I can't wait to see pictures. Regards, dj Milwaukee Success comes in cans.... not in can'ts, --WebTV-Mail-183789955-13490 Content-Disposition: Inline Content-Type: Message/RFC822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Received: from mailsorter-101-1.iap.bryant.webtv.net (209.240.198.97) by postoffice-102.iap.bryant.webtv.net; Sun, 2 May 1999 03:58:17 -0700 (PDT) Return-Path: Received: from lyris.teleport.com (lyris.teleport.com [192.108.254.49]) by mailsorter-101-1.iap.bryant.webtv.net (8.8.8/ms.graham.14Aug97) with SMTP id DAA27944; Sun, 2 May 1999 03:57:17 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: X-Originating-IP: [204.97.23.241] From: "Richard Parker" To: "KR-net users group" Subject: [kr-net] Engine choice dilemma Date: Sun, 02 May 1999 03:57:41 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-URL: X-List-Host: Telelists List Hosting Services Reply-To: "KR-net users group" X-Message-Id: <19990502105741.90818.qmail@hotmail.com> Sender: bounce-kr-net-39469@telelists.com Precedence: bulk X-disclaimer: KR-net assumes no responsibility for the information posted on this list >From: GREG S MARTIN >Now, compare this to a Soob and PSRU combo and I believe I have a little >better deal 95 HP out of 1200 cc's seems a little high. Do you have a picture of that engine? Im having a hard time picturing it having not seen one in a lng time. I'm envisioning a big Harley type head sticking out of the top of your cowl. BTW for you guys looking for an inexpensive soob conversion, I paid $300 for my soob, the direct drive conversion cost $850, which included machining and mounting: the crank shaft and bell housing, a new bell housing seal, direct drive flange, crush plate, starter adapter, starter, flywheel, prop adapter w/hardware (Warp Drive), remote oil filter adapter kit, and tapping all applicable holes from metric to sae to accept A/C grade bolts. Bolts were also drilled to accept safety wire. Plus $28 for a block heater available at your local soob dealer. I'm doing the intake manifold, carburetor, exhaust, alternator, It doesnt have the turbo on it yet which will require me to put in new pistons. I'll probably try it out first without the turbo just to get me in the air faster then install the turbo when I feel I have the need for speed. I have the shops number if you are interested. Rich Parker richontheroad@hotmail.com http://top.monad.net/~theparkers/kr.htm Jaffrey, NH It's easy to make a small fortune in aviation. You start with a large fortune. _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com --- You are currently subscribed to kr-net as: boggyd@webtv.net To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-kr-net-17800J@telelists.com --WebTV-Mail-183789955-13490-- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Engine choice dilemma From: Mike Mims Date: Sun, 02 May 1999 07:07:15 -0700 X-Message-Number: 4 Richard Parker wrote: > > I'm envisioning a big Harley type head sticking out of the top of your cowl. > The Honda Lead-Wing engine is a flat four (or six) like the Sub, Lyc, etc. Great engine but very heavy for it size (220 lbs for 1200cc). Maybe removing all those tranny gears will help in the weight department. My HP program says @6500 RPM and normally aspirated it will make about 87 hp and with 7 pounds of boost about 110. Don't forget with a reduction there will be a drop in HP of about 5 to 15% depending on type. -- zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz Micheal Mims Ailerons almost done! http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/4136/ Aliso Viejo CA Give Blood, Play Hockey! ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: interesting response from first KR1 builder From: Krwr1@aol.com Date: Sun, 2 May 1999 12:26:23 EDT X-Message-Number: 5 In a message dated 5/1/99 11:45:20 PM Eastern Daylight Time,=20 mikemims@home.com writes: > Fred Keller said > =20 > "The plans originally called for a 5=B0 angle of incidence but my plane > was built using 3=B0. After flight tests. I believe that a 1 1/2=B0 angle > would have been better. Those little wings have a great amount of lift. > If the incidence is too much, one will find himself flying with a nose > down attitude" > =20 >=20 Hi-------This is the same as I did on my kr , and it flew level, except, I=20 wished I brought up the stabilizer a couple of degrees , as the Elevator wa= s=20 down a bit in level flight .=20 Bill Reents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Flip o Matic From: RFG842@aol.com Date: Sun, 2 May 1999 12:59:39 EDT X-Message-Number: 6 Mike Have tried and tried for the past month and cannot get to your Web page.. Can get to Geocities but then it breaks down and cannot retrieve your page. Is there a secret or am I doing something wrong (AGAIN). Assuming it's built stron enough, do you thing the fuselage can be flipped with the engine on. After hooking things up, I hate to tear things down Also, FAA requires a guage on every tank. My old BC12D had no guages on the two 6 gal wing tanks. You just turned them on until the wire guage on the main tank indicated full and then shut off the valve. Forgot one time and flew the rest of the trip with gasoline soaked pants. Didn't light up that trip. I hate to cut more holes than needed in a tank. What did you use for guages. FAA around here is telling everybody that KRs are loosing wings because the tanks leak and weaken the wing spars. Thanks for the help. Bob ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Flip o Matic From: Mike Mims Date: Sun, 02 May 1999 11:40:56 -0700 X-Message-Number: 7 RFG842@aol.com wrote: > > I hate to cut more holes than needed in a tank. What did you use for guages. FAA around here is telling everybody that KRs are loosing wings because the tanks leak and weaken the wing spars. > > Thanks for the help. Bob > Depending on what version of AOL your running you may have trouble with all the Geocities sites. My brother could not access it until he upgraded to version 4.0. As far as KRs losing wings, there has never been a KR suffer a structural failure in flight so I think maybe someone is telling a fib! I installed VDO sending units in each tank and plan to hook them up to a single VDO gauge. I can flip a switch left for left and right for right. My main tank has a sight gauge in the instrument panel. The flip-o-matic I built was not strong enough to roll the plane over with much more than the empty airframe weight. I suppose you could build one that would allow you to flip it at the full empty weight, you would want 3 or 4 guys to help you out when flipping it though. -- zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz Micheal Mims Ailerons almost done! http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/4136/ Aliso Viejo CA Give Blood, Play Hockey! ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Widening of KR-2S From: "Rick Hubka" Date: Sun, 2 May 1999 16:18:06 -0600 X-Message-Number: 8 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0040_01BE94B7.5C4B0920 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I am not an engineer so those who are wiser and more = qualified/experienced(most of you) please comment and correct me so I = don't crash some day or worse, have a slow KR!!!! I was emailed some co-ordinates for widening my KR. Don't get me wong, = I really apprecaited this!! The emailed modification consisted of generally widening all stations = from D to G by about 3.25'' and at Station (I), it was back to the = origional plan width and straight back to the tail. After penciling this onto the plans I saw a few problems (I think). 1) A KR-2S pilots shoulders are about 3" aft of (H). close to where we = get back to get back to the origional Station (I) measurement. =20 2) Looking at the sides from (H) to (I) the fusalage would actually be = concave to get back to the origional Station (I) measurement. I think = is that this would create increased drag from the start of concave in = the side and aft of it. My way of thinking(warped) led me to think.... Let's bend over the blue prints and clamp hardwood stips to both end of = some steel banding in an attempt to visually remove any concave effect = on the sides while simulating the natural bending of spruce longerons. = (not very technical but you would be surprised how good it worked). = Keep in mind my goal is to undo the 2 preceived points above and that = these are rough and not final measurments. 1) I wanted only (H) to be wider 2) No concaving of the sides after (H) My best results were: From (A) to (D) no change (leave as specified by the KR-2S plans) At (G) Increase to from 36.75 to 38.000 (The same size as (D)). This = leaves the sides almost flat from spar to spar. I think this is a = performance gain at the wing root??? At Station (I) increase 3" in width and then draw a line straight back = to (O) This gives me about 2.5" extra at the shoulders depending how you bow = your longerons. Now this doesn't sound like a lot more room, but I = forgot to mention: I plan to make the bottom of the fusalage the same dimentions as the = top. Yes! flat untappered sides 5.5" wider at the bottom. This along = with 2.5" at the top gives me a lots more room. Especially for my wide = butt... This way my fusalage will not twist, bend, stress, warp and banana and = can be put together with great ease and have flat/horizonrtal/untappered = upper longerons etc.... Some concerns I have about the wider bottom is that 5.5" of wing is now = missing! Solution??? Make both inner spars 5.5" longer(keeping those = fuel tanks) resulting in 5.5" longer wing span. All this widening will add 2 or 3 lbs to the overal weight. Why do the sides tapper in at the bottom anyway? I can't see any = outstanding aerodynamic gain. Comments ASAP please. Set me straight. I've got my bench, T-88 and I = pickup my spruce in 5 days... Thanks in advance... Rick Hubka rick@hubka.com Calgary, Alberta Canada ------=_NextPart_000_0040_01BE94B7.5C4B0920 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I am not an engineer so those = who are=20 wiser and more qualified/experienced(most of you) please comment=20 and correct me so I don't crash some day or worse, have a slow=20 KR!!!!
 
I was emailed some co-ordinates for widening my = KR. =20 Don't get me wong, I really apprecaited this!!
 
The emailed modification consisted of generally = widening all=20 stations from D to G by about 3.25'' = and at=20 Station (I), it was back to the origional plan width and straight back = to the=20 tail.
 
After penciling this onto the plans I saw a few = problems (I=20 think).
1) A KR-2S pilots shoulders are about 3" aft of (H). = close to=20 where we get back to get back to the origional Station (I) = measurement. =20
2) Looking at the sides from (H) to (I) = the=20 fusalage would actually be concave to get back to the origional = Station (I)=20 measurement.  I think is that this would create increased drag from = the=20 start of concave in the side and aft of it.
 
My way of thinking(warped) led me to = think....
 
Let's bend over the blue prints and clamp hardwood = stips to=20 both end of some steel banding in an attempt to visually remove any = concave=20 effect on the sides while simulating the natural bending of spruce = longerons.=20 (not very technical but you would be surprised how good it = worked).  Keep=20 in mind my goal is to undo the 2 preceived points above and that these = are rough=20 and not final measurments.
 
1) I wanted only (H) to be wider
2) No concaving of the sides after (H)
 
My best results were:
 
From (A) to (D) no change (leave as specified by the = KR-2S=20 plans)
At (G) Increase to from 36.75 to 38.000 (The same = size as=20 (D)). This leaves the sides almost flat from spar to spar.  I think = this is=20 a performance gain at the wing root???
At Station (I) increase 3" in width and then = draw a line=20 straight back to (O)
This gives me about 2.5" extra at the shoulders = depending how=20 you bow your longerons.  Now this doesn't sound like a lot more = room, but I=20 forgot to mention:
I plan to make the bottom of the fusalage the same = dimentions=20 as the top.  Yes! flat untappered sides 5.5" wider at the = bottom. =20 This along with 2.5" at the top gives me a lots more room.  = Especially for=20 my wide butt...
 
This way my fusalage will not twist, bend, stress, = warp and=20 banana and can be put together with great ease and have=20 flat/horizonrtal/untappered upper longerons etc....
 
Some concerns I have about the wider bottom is = that 5.5"=20 of wing is now missing!  Solution???  Make both inner spars = 5.5"=20 longer(keeping those fuel tanks) resulting in 5.5" longer wing=20 span.
All this widening will add 2 or 3 lbs to the overal=20 weight.
 
Why do the sides tapper in at the bottom = anyway?  I can't=20 see any outstanding aerodynamic gain.
 
Comments ASAP please.  Set me straight.  = I've got my=20 bench, T-88 and I pickup my spruce in 5 days...
 
Thanks in advance...
 
Rick Hubka
rick@hubka.com
Calgary,=20 Alberta    Canada
------=_NextPart_000_0040_01BE94B7.5C4B0920-- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Widening of KR-2S From: "Richard Parker" Date: Sun, 02 May 1999 15:52:06 PDT X-Message-Number: 9 I'm 41.5 wide at station G (stock firewall) that was the only real width dimension I controlled. You will have to set up a peice of wood to hold the width. It fits right inside of the 2 rear spars verticals. you mayb be able to see it on my web site I sat in it for the first time last week and was real glad. As far as straight sides they are butt ugly and you dont save much time. The "banana Boat Syndrome" is a non issue as far as I'm concerned and is easily dealt with by a water level. Rich Parker richontheroad@hotmail.com http://top.monad.net/~theparkers/kr.htm Jaffrey, NH >From: "Rick Hubka" >Reply-To: "KR-net users group" >To: "KR-net users group" >Subject: [kr-net] Widening of KR-2S >Date: Sun, 2 May 1999 16:18:06 -0600 > >I am not an engineer so those who are wiser and more >qualified/experienced(most of you) please comment and correct me so I don't >crash some day or worse, have a slow KR!!!! > >I was emailed some co-ordinates for widening my KR. Don't get me wong, I >really apprecaited this!! > >The emailed modification consisted of generally widening all stations from >D to G by about 3.25'' and at Station (I), it was back to the origional >plan width and straight back to the tail. > >After penciling this onto the plans I saw a few problems (I think). >1) A KR-2S pilots shoulders are about 3" aft of (H). close to where we get >back to get back to the origional Station (I) measurement. >2) Looking at the sides from (H) to (I) the fusalage would actually be >concave to get back to the origional Station (I) measurement. I think is >that this would create increased drag from the start of concave in the side >and aft of it. > >My way of thinking(warped) led me to think.... > >Let's bend over the blue prints and clamp hardwood stips to both end of >some steel banding in an attempt to visually remove any concave effect on >the sides while simulating the natural bending of spruce longerons. (not >very technical but you would be surprised how good it worked). Keep in >mind my goal is to undo the 2 preceived points above and that these are >rough and not final measurments. > >1) I wanted only (H) to be wider >2) No concaving of the sides after (H) > >My best results were: > >From (A) to (D) no change (leave as specified by the KR-2S plans) >At (G) Increase to from 36.75 to 38.000 (The same size as (D)). This leaves >the sides almost flat from spar to spar. I think this is a performance >gain at the wing root??? >At Station (I) increase 3" in width and then draw a line straight back to >(O) >This gives me about 2.5" extra at the shoulders depending how you bow your >longerons. Now this doesn't sound like a lot more room, but I forgot to >mention: >I plan to make the bottom of the fusalage the same dimentions as the top. >Yes! flat untappered sides 5.5" wider at the bottom. This along with 2.5" >at the top gives me a lots more room. Especially for my wide butt... > >This way my fusalage will not twist, bend, stress, warp and banana and can >be put together with great ease and have flat/horizonrtal/untappered upper >longerons etc.... > >Some concerns I have about the wider bottom is that 5.5" of wing is now >missing! Solution??? Make both inner spars 5.5" longer(keeping those fuel >tanks) resulting in 5.5" longer wing span. >All this widening will add 2 or 3 lbs to the overal weight. > >Why do the sides tapper in at the bottom anyway? I can't see any >outstanding aerodynamic gain. > >Comments ASAP please. Set me straight. I've got my bench, T-88 and I >pickup my spruce in 5 days... > >Thanks in advance... > >Rick Hubka >rick@hubka.com >Calgary, Alberta Canada _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: re: width From: "Richard Parker" Date: Sun, 02 May 1999 17:16:26 PDT X-Message-Number: 10 Forgot to mention that I widened the bottom by the same amount that I widenened the top. About 5 inches. >From: "Richard Parker" >Reply-To: "KR-net users group" >To: "KR-net users group" >Subject: [kr-net] Re: Widening of KR-2S>Date: Sun, 02 May 1999 15:52:06 >PDT> >I'm 41.5 wide at station G (stock firewall) that was the only realwidth >dimension I controlled. You will have to set up a peice of wood to holdthe >width. It fits right inside of the 2 rear spars verticals. you mayb be >able to see it on my web site> >I sat in it for the first time last week and was real glad.> >As far as straight sides they are butt ugly and you dont save muchtime. The >"banana Boat Syndrome" is a non issue as far as I'm concerned and is easily >dealt with by a water level. >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: Widening of KR-2S From: Mike Mims Date: Sun, 02 May 1999 17:32:42 -0700 X-Message-Number: 11 > Rick Hubka wrote: > > please comment and correct me so I don't crash some day or worse, have a slow KR!!!!>>>>>>> Rich, it sounds like you have put some thought into widening your KR but crashing is much worse than having a slow KR! :o) As far as widening goes, decided on your firewall width and widen it to the width you want at your shoulders and let the rest fall where they may. What I did was pick the two widest points on the plans and add four inches. I wished I would have built a wider firewall but,....... Keep in mind you will need to scratch build everything above the longerons if you widen it as well as use a Dragonfly or scratch built canopy. -- zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz Micheal Mims Ailerons almost done! http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/4136/ Aliso Viejo CA Give Blood, Play Hockey! ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: vw conversion From: SClay10106@aol.com Date: Sun, 2 May 1999 21:36:19 EDT X-Message-Number: 12 when a vw or any engine for that case it converted to fit a kr is it modified much, does it have dual ignition or mags or is it still your stock spark plug engine? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: N541RY Progress report From: Ross Youngblood Date: Sun, 02 May 1999 18:44:55 -0700 X-Message-Number: 13 Hello! Well I've back from vacation. I rented a C-172 and went up with Fritz and got a great tour of the US Virgin Islands. The 172 rented for $95.00/hr solo and $115/hr dual, but I figured, this was a once in a life time chance... if you go bring your headset, and buy your chart before you get here. They charge $8.50 for the charts there and $5.00/hr to rent a headset. Grrrr... Oh, yea, and you have to pay the guy in the "Follow ME" truck $10.00 when you land that's not included in the rental. I made two international landings, and flew over the ocean so it was worth it. I've got pictures, and will put them up on the web at some point. Flying around islands is different from any other type of flying I have done and it was the highlight of my vacation.... OK, getting out of the Oregon rain wasn't bad either. I got back Thursday, so spent about 10 hours Friday, Saturday and Sunday working on the KR. Here are the new accomplishments to date: 1) Calibrated and installed left & right fuel senders! 2) Installed final quick-disconnect plumbing to wings, so I can now fuel up and test the wing tank plumbing. 3) Installed the tailwheel spring linkage and nicopressed it onto the rudder control cable. 4) Beefed up aft rudder fairleads. 5) Cut canopy sill and fit canopy latch brackets. 6) Re-installed battery box. 7) Worked on engine baffle stuff. I've got to purge the air from my brakes, install the canopy latch, and complete two rudder cable pulleys (this is a fix for an area the tech counselor recommended). Then I am ready to play taxi again! -- Ross -- Ross Youngblood Pager: (800)SKY-PAGE PIN#895-9073 Staff Technical Specialist voicemail: (800)538-6838 x 1632 Schlumberger SABER Bus Line: (541)714-1754 Corvallis,Oregon mailto:rossy@saber.slb.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Flip o Matic From: "Linda Bennett" Date: Sun, 02 May 1999 20:10:20 -0500 X-Message-Number: 14 please be more specific about KR'S loosing wing. In 21 years of flying Kr's I have yet to see this happen. Steve Bennett ---------- >From: Mike Mims >To: "KR-net users group" >Subject: [kr-net] Re: Flip o Matic >Date: Sun, May 2, 1999, 1:40 PM > >RFG842@aol.com wrote: >> >> I hate to cut more holes than needed in a tank. What did you use for >guages. FAA around here is telling everybody that KRs are loosing wings >because the tanks leak and weaken the wing spars. >> >> Thanks for the help. Bob >> > >Depending on what version of AOL your running you may have trouble with >all the Geocities sites. My brother could not access it until he >upgraded to version 4.0. > >As far as KRs losing wings, there has never been a KR suffer a >structural failure in flight so I think maybe someone is telling a fib! > >I installed VDO sending units in each tank and plan to hook them up to a >single VDO gauge. I can flip a switch left for left and right for >right. My main tank has a sight gauge in the instrument panel. > >The flip-o-matic I built was not strong enough to roll the plane over >with much more than the empty airframe weight. I suppose you could build >one that would allow you to flip it at the full empty weight, you would >want 3 or 4 guys to help you out when flipping it though. > > >-- >zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz >Micheal Mims >Ailerons almost done! >http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/4136/ >Aliso Viejo CA >Give Blood, Play Hockey! >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >--- >You are currently subscribed to kr-net as: gpasc@earthlink.net >To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-kr-net-17800J@telelists.com > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Engine choice dilemma From: "Linda Bennett" Date: Sun, 02 May 1999 20:26:28 -0500 X-Message-Number: 15 not to be negative, but how many kr flight hours are on a honda engine - total and in a KR? This article mentions over and over - price. What about reliability in aircraft instalations? Is price the only bottom line for an aircraft engine installation? Steve Bennett ---------- >From: GREG S MARTIN >To: "KR-net users group" >Subject: [kr-net] Re: Engine choice dilemma >Date: Sat, May 1, 1999, 2:05 PM > >All this talk about engines and prices has me happy I went with the Honda >GoldWing GL1200. It has the PSRU already in the engine. So when the >engines turning 6200 rpm. Your turning the prop through 2nd gear which >results in about 3300 rpm. And the torque is over 240 ft/lb. The weight >after you dress down the engine for aircraft use is about 228# depending >on the radiator used. I bought my engine for $750 and the material & >work for putting the prop hub extention and thrust bearing on will cost >about $250. I figure that by the time I'm done. I should have about >$2000 total in the engine. And the reliability of this engine by all >accounts (I have talk to over 20 GoldWing owners) found this to be a very >smooth and powerful engine. About 98 hp and real good torque. To me, >that's a good price. > >Now, compare this to a Soob and PSRU combo and I believe I have a little >better deal. And I thiink the torque is a little better but some one may >have to inform me if this is an incorrect statement. > >I would say that finding a GL1200 GoldWing motor is real easy. I would >think the prices are the same or lower depending on where you live. > >If anyone wants more information, contact me direct. > >Greg Martin >Bakersfield, CA > > >On Fri, 30 Apr 1999 23:40:16 -0700 jscott.pilot@juno.com writes: >> >> >>On Fri, 30 Apr 1999 17:25:30 -0700 Mike Mims >>writes: >>>Richard Parker wrote: >>>> >>>> Start building your fuselage now and you'll probably change your >>>mind 2 or three times before you even need to think about a >>>motor.>>>>> >>> >>>This is the best advice I have seen so far. Build your airplane and >>when >>>it comes time that you really need the engine then start worrying >>about >>>it. >>> >>>I noticed that you mentioned a used O-200 is in the "stupid price >>>range". Depending on the engine you select you should plan on >>spending >>>about $4k to $5k minimum. I know this sounds like a lot but no >>matter >>>what engine you decided on its gonna cost you somewhere in this >>>neighborhood, if not more. If your under the impression that it will >>be >>>less you are in for a surprise. A friend of mine just spent $2k on a >>VW >>>upgrade so if you think you can build a entire motor for less, it >>just >>>aint gona happen. >>- >>>zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz >>>Micheal Mims >> >>I wasn't going to mention anything since you had apparently already >>decided against a Continental, but the point above is absolutely >>right. I was vacillating between VW, Soob or A-65 Continental turned >>up to 75hp, when about 6 months before I needed it a friend opted to >>install a larger eingine while rebuilding his plane. I picked up a >>1500 hour C-85 out of a plane that I had been routinely flying for >>$2500, including all accessories ready to bolt on and fly. I doubt >>that you can build an airworthy engine of any type for that. >> >>A typical used O-200 is gonna cost you 6 - 7K. If you watch and wait >>while you build your airframe, the right engine will come along. >> >>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] --- You are currently >>subscribed to kr-net as: idrawtobuild@juno.com To unsubscribe send a >>blank email to leave-kr-net-17800J@telelists.com > >--- >You are currently subscribed to kr-net as: gpasc@earthlink.net >To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-kr-net-17800J@telelists.com > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Engine choice dilemma From: "Linda Bennett" Date: Sun, 02 May 1999 20:31:55 -0500 X-Message-Number: 16 Again, how many covairs are flying and how many in KR's. It's one thing to be a test pilot and another to be a test project. Steve Bennett ---------- >From: "Richard Parker" >To: "KR-net users group" >Subject: [kr-net] Re: Engine choice dilemma >Date: Fri, Apr 30, 1999, 5:52 PM > >I didnt want to hear that Mark. >I'm picking up my converted soob tomorrow! ;-) > >Rich Parker > >>From: "Mark Langford" >>Reply-To: "KR-net users group" >>To: "KR-net users group" >>Subject: [kr-net] Re: Engine choice dilemma >>Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 16:17:52 -0500 >> >> > I have concerns about the Soob because of all the plumbing. The Corvair >> >sounds neat but were can I get one. Is it to heavy, will it decrease my >> >useful load? Will the Soob lower my useful load? >> >>Corvairs are everywhere. Go ask your neighbor. He'll have one in the back >>of his garage, and he'll GIVE it to you! They are lighter than Soobs, with >>100 HP STOCK. The conversion isn't really a conversion, it's an >>installation! Read everything on the site at the top of the list, and >>you'll be converted, I promise... >> >>http://www.omnispace.com/Corvair/ >>http://www.corvairunderground.com/lon.htm >>http://users.aol.com/bpabpa7315/tm.html >>http://www.corvair.org/CSAClad.htm >>http://www.corvair.org/ >>http://members.aol.com/~vairparts/index.html >> >>Mark Langford, Huntsville, Alabama >>mailto:langford@hiwaay.net >>see KR2S N56ML at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford >> >> >> >>--- >>You are currently subscribed to kr-net as: richontheroad@hotmail.com >>To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-kr-net-17800J@telelists.com >> > > >_______________________________________________________________ >Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com > >--- >You are currently subscribed to kr-net as: gpasc@earthlink.net >To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-kr-net-17800J@telelists.com > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Need more HP? From: Mike Mims Date: Sun, 02 May 1999 18:58:35 -0700 X-Message-Number: 17 Go check this out! http://www.team-38.com/ -- zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz Micheal Mims Ailerons almost done! http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/4136/ Aliso Viejo CA Give Blood, Play Hockey! ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Love that fiberglass From: FLYKR2S@aol.com Date: Sun, 2 May 1999 22:04:20 EDT X-Message-Number: 18 I guess this is sort of a progress report. Glassed up a fuel tank this weekend. Never had touched the stuff before. Got me a fiberglass 101 tape from EAA and watched the 2 1/2 hour video three times. It has a world of information on making molds, layups, epoxies, etc, etc. Then I found on Mark Langford's web site (an excellent source of information) a discussion of how he made his tank. Between his info and the video from EAA I turned out one heck of a fuel tank. I estimate 18 gallons. The following steps apply. 1) Use 1" styrofoam. Same foam as used in insulating a house. 2) Form a mold from the foam by gluing together with 5 minute epoxy. Spot gluing does the trick. 3) Contour the shape of the fuel tank to your preference. Mine begins at the firewall and steps down the shelves and will have a sump area in the bottom. Basic shape was derived from Mark Langford's web site. 4) After sanding, cover the entire styrofoam mold with aluminum foil tape. 5) Apply minimun three coats mold release wax to the tank mold. 6) Glass it up with minimun two layers 5.85 BID glass. 7) Run 2" glass tape around all corners, edges, and overlaps. 8) Using a dremel tool with cutoff wheel remove the top leaving a two inch lip inward. 9) Remove all foam and tape. Comes out very easily. 10) Install two baffels inside tank. I used 1/2" polyurethane foam covered with fiberglass. Be sure to leave those openings on the bottom for fuel flow between chambers. 11) Install hardware: fuel strainer, fittings, etc. 12) Glass the top back in place. 13) Flox in place the filler neck. This worked out great for me. What a learning exprience!!!! I found a great deal on a Dragonfly canopy for about half the cost of a new one. It is due to arrive tomorrow. Next step is canopy and decks. Luv to build, can't wait to fly! Mark Jones (N886MJ) Waukesha, WI flykr2s@aol.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Progress report From: HAshraf@aol.com Date: Mon, 3 May 1999 01:11:56 EDT X-Message-Number: 19 Folks, I was able to put a good day of work on my project today. During the last month, I have worked on it off and on as I am travelling a lot for work. Anyway, I have been able to make rear center spar with one shear web gued. The second shear web is scarfed and ready to be glued on. Right rear spar frame is done and the webs scarfed and ready to go. Left rear spar is sitting on the table ready to be glued. I used MEK to thin T-88 and use it for sealing the insides of the spars. It applies really well on the plywood but I did not have good luck on the spruce. Also, it is still tacky after two days. So, today I bilt a small tent abd heated the whole spar assembly to 120 deg F for an hour. That inproved things a little bit.Hopefully it should cured out in few more days. Its has been really cool and damp here in So. Cal. during the last few days. Mybe I'll use EZ-Poxy diluted with Iso Proponol (Mike Mims way) next time. I was also able to install the tail post. But I forgot to add he plywood doubler. So, last week had to install it. Took me over four hours just to do that. The tail post was off by 0.25" from th evertical. So, today when I attached the rear stabalizor bracket (that plywood piece that attaches to second to last station) I twisted the backside of the fuselage before clamping and now things are pretty square. Talking of fuselage, I am all done in the front except the bottom rear engine mount brace and the aluminum pieces that are used to attach the engine mount. rear is mostly done except the torsional braces (the Vee braces) I thought I'll wait until the turtle deck is on. In thin way I can make another adjustment to the fin if needed. During the tme I was doing all this work on the fuselage and spars, I took all the hinges, elevator and stabilizer spars home and was able to clamp all the hinges in place. I used a 72" stainless steel rod to align and C clamp to clamp all five hinges ( I am using five hinges instead of usual three. I had a machinest make two set of hinges). After diddling with the whole assembly for a while I decided to glue the outboard and center hinges first and then the two middle ones. Later I found out that the hinges I bought from RR have about 10 thousandth of an inch misalignment between holes. That is enough to bind the hinges in my setup. So, I may have to have two extra one made or maybe uses some bushing like Mark's setup. Thats where things stand on the elevator. During midweek I plan to finish the rear spars if it is not too cold. I still have about twenty gussetts to glue on. One night I might spend one night grinding and sanding excess epoxy and cleaning the fuselage so I could finally start to seal it. Then maybe I can post some pictures of it. I am hoping to get all woodwork done by mid summer. That all folks, Haris Ashraf ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Flip o Matic From: Bobby Muse Date: Mon, 03 May 1999 02:20:30 -0500 X-Message-Number: 20 At 12:59 PM 05/02/1999 EDT, you wrote: >Mike > > > FAA around here is telling everybody that KRs are loosing wings because the >tanks leak and weaken the wing spars. > >Thanks for the help. Bob > > I have never heard of a KR loosing a wing. Doesn't mean it hasn't happened. Bobby Muse mailto:bmuse@mindspring.com Wimberly, TX ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Love that fiberglass From: Bobby Muse Date: Mon, 03 May 1999 02:20:31 -0500 X-Message-Number: 21 At 10:04 PM 05/02/1999 EDT, you wrote: > >6) Glass it up with minimun two layers 5.85 BID glass. >7) Run 2" glass tape around all corners, edges, and overlaps. > >Mark Jones (N886MJ) When Glassing a non-sandwitch type tank, I would like to suggest two things: 1- After the first two layers of BID has setup and the mold removed, sand the inside of your tank and brush the inside with epoxy in order to seal the pin holes from the inside. 2- After the tank has setup, sand the outside of the tank and apply at least one(prefer two) layer(s) of BID. This will insure that you will have a leak proof tank and added the needed strenght to carry 18 gallons. I believe the second step of glassing an additional layer after the first layup had dried(setup) will insure a non-poros structure. At least I know it has worked for me for the last six years and the construction method that you used is close to the one I used. Bobby Muse mailto:bmuse@mindspring.com Wimberly, TX --- 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