From: KR-net users group digest[SMTP:kr-net@telelists.com] Sent: Thursday, June 10, 1999 12:14 AM To: kr-net digest recipients Subject: kr-net digest: June 09, 1999 KR-net users group Digest for Wednesday, June 09, 1999. 1. Re: Landing gear 2. Re: KR Newsletter 3. Re: Landing gear 4. 51% rule 5. Re: Let the building begin 6. Which belt 7. Re: New KRnet member questions 8. re Spruce Suppliers 9. Re: wich belt 10. re: Brazilian KRs 11. Re: KR Newsletter 12. re: Brazilian KRs 13. Re: Let the building begin 14. john denver and software design 15. Re: Which belt 16. Re: 51% rule 17. Re: Let the building begin 18. Repairman's Certificate 19. Re: Let the building begin 20. Re: KR Newsletter ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Landing gear From: Richard Parker Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 02:46:12 PDT X-Message-Number: 1 >DDTS EA-81 (once again) You've come full circle. You should have kept that engine :-) Rich Parker _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: KR Newsletter From: Rick Armstrong Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 06:29:09 -0700 X-Message-Number: 2 FLYKR2S@aol.com wrote: > > Has anyone received their copy of the May newsletter? I haven't and was just > wondering. > > Thanks, > Mark Jones (N886MJ) > Waukesha, WI > flykr2s@aol.com > > --- > You are currently subscribed to kr-net as: margiandrick@earthlink.net > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-kr-net-17800J@telelists.com May has not arrived yet ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Landing gear From: "Tom Andersen" Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 06:54:10 -0400 X-Message-Number: 3 I still have it! I'm trying to get a prop drive adapter for the EA-81 like the rear drive adapter for the VW. I think I found one. Can you post some pics of your engine? And do you have the contact info for the fella who supplied your parts? -Tom -----Original Message----- From: Richard Parker To: KR-net users group Date: Wednesday, June 09, 1999 5:46 AM Subject: [kr-net] Re: Landing gear > > >>DDTS EA-81 (once again) > >You've come full circle. You should have kept that engine > >:-) > >Rich Parker > > >_______________________________________________________________ >Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com > >--- >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: 51% rule From: "Mark Langford" Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 06:02:26 -0500 X-Message-Number: 4 Mike Taglieri wrote: >The FAA only requires that 51% of it be amateur-built. I don't think >they care about the number of amateurs. Yes, but if YOU didn't do 51% of it, I don't think they'll issue you the Repairman's Certificate, and you'd have to get an A&P to sign off all of the work done on the plane, and do the condition inpections, right? Mark Langford, Huntsville, Alabama mailto:langford@hiwaay.net see KR2S N56ML at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Let the building begin From: KR2616TJ@aol.com Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 07:25:41 EDT X-Message-Number: 5 In a message dated 6/9/99 12:50:08 AM Eastern Daylight Time, miket_nyc@juno.com writes: << The FAA only requires that 51% of it be amateur-built. I don't think they care about the number of amateurs. Mike Taglieri >> According to AC 65-23A and FAR section 65.101, to recieve your Repairman's Certificate, you must be able to show that you were the "primary" builder of the airplane. Always go with the 49% that Mike Mim's listed. I realize that you can get an experimental signed off even if you build 1% of it, but the RC is worth it's weight in gold. Dana Overall 1999 KR Gathering host Richmond, KY mailto:kr2616tj@aol.com http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/hangar/7085/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Which belt From: Oscar Zuniga Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 05:00:43 PDT X-Message-Number: 6 Eduardo; Just consider yourself lucky that Gates is even talking to you in Argentina. Here in the U.S. they have stated that their products are not to be used in any aircraft application (or maybe it's in any homebuilt application). American legal problems. Oscar Zuniga Medford, Oregon website at http://www.geocities.com/Pipeline/Dropzone/5610/ _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: New KRnet member questions From: Donald Reid Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 08:57:33 -0400 X-Message-Number: 7 Gregory K. Harris wrote: > > Greetings to all. I have been on KRnet for about 2 weeks now and I am > very pleased with the professionalism and camaraderie displayed. You must have caught us at a "mild/calm" time. Sometimes it gets a little out of hand. > What should > I expect when I start this project? What seems to be the best way to > obtain the specific materials kits? You can get almost any of the required components from other sources. If you build from scratch, you will save money and be able to modify. If you buy the sub assemblies, you will save time and be restricted in the modifications. > During > those months I also plan to attend a few workshops. Has anyone attended > these and are they worth it for the KR process? Also try and find someone nearby who is building something. It is best if you can find another KR or related project. Even rag wings or aluminum types will help. The more projects you look at, the better. See what other people do and how they do it. Pay attention to what looks right and what looks wrong. Join the EAA and attend some chapter meetings. Buy the Tony Binglis books. Good luck. -- 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 Spruce Suppliers From: "John Bryhan" Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 6:36:41 X-Message-Number: 8 >How come you guys always forget: >Is it because it is not US made??? > >Western Aircraft Supply >623 Markerville Rd. N.E., >Calgary, Alberta, Canada >Phone:403 276-3087 Thanks for posting the address. I'll probably use them when I build my next plane! jeb@thuntek.net http://thuntek.net/~jeb/krpage.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: wich belt From: "lolata" Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 10:41:18 -0300 X-Message-Number: 9 Here in Brazil, we have some homebuilts and ultralights using VW engines with reductions. That reductions are developed by a friend who lives in S= =E3o Paulo, his phone is 55 11 6163-5739. The reduction uses a 640-8M-85GT=20 Power Grip Belt (Gates), and the distance between axles (Prop/crankshaft) approx. 150 mm. I'll post some pictures about this reduction in my site. Luis Lolata (KR2-S 60%) lolata@sercomtel.com.br www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Runway/1227 =20 ---------- De: Eduardo Iglesias Para: KR-net users group Assunto: [kr-net] wich belt Data: Ter=E7a-feira, 8 de Junho de 1999 21:24 Since in Argentina it is almost impossible that the subsidiary of Gates informs me which belt has to use for a reduction gear of 80 hp, 270 mm among axes, 1,8 : 1 rate and with a security factor of 1,5, it is possib= le that some in the net has the information? Or at least, what width has a belt for that power? Here, Gates informed me that it should use a jagged belt with trapezoidal teeth 14 mm deep, when what I see in all the pictures is belts with round teeth of about 8 mm.=20 Eduardo ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: re: Brazilian KRs From: "John Bryhan" Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 6:51:30 X-Message-Number: 10 Nice webpage Luis! jeb@thuntek.net ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: KR Newsletter From: Horn2004@aol.com Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 10:05:11 EDT X-Message-Number: 11 In a message dated 6/8/99 7:00:31 PM, FLYKR2S@aol.com writes: <> Yes, I received mine Tuesday (yesterday). Of course I only live about 10 miles south of where it's mailed. If you haven't received it by the end of the week, you might call Monte. Steve Horn horn2004@aol.com Dallas, TX ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: re: Brazilian KRs From: "lolata" Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 11:34:46 -0300 X-Message-Number: 12 Thanks John, I'll improve it as soon as possible, including translation . Luis Lolata (KR2-S 60%) lolata@sercomtel.com.br www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Runway/1227 ---------- > De: John Bryhan > Para: KR-net users group > Assunto: [kr-net] re: Brazilian KRs > Data: Quarta-feira, 9 de Junho de 1999 03:51 > > Nice webpage Luis! > > jeb@thuntek.net > > --- > You are currently subscribed to kr-net as: lolata@sercomtel.com.br > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-kr-net-17800J@telelists.com > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Let the building begin From: HAshraf@aol.com Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 11:01:43 EDT X-Message-Number: 13 In a message dated 99-06-09 07:27:03 EDT, you write: << According to AC 65-23A and FAR section 65.101, to recieve your Repairman's Certificate, you must be able to show that you were the "primary" builder of the airplane. Always go with the 49% that Mike Mim's listed. I realize that you can get an experimental signed off even if you build 1% of it, but the RC is worth it's weight in gold. >> I agree, there is a fully airworthy Dragonfly sitting in my hangar waiting for its annual. Allan, the, owner does not have the certificate RC for it. Haris Rear spars done. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: john denver and software design From: Steven Eberhart Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 10:28:30 -0500 (CDT) X-Message-Number: 14 I know we have all heard and read way too much about the John Denver accident but the following is worth the read for all of us building "modified" KRs. It could be that I am a software engineer but I still like the comparisons. Steve Eberhart ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 10:55:21 EDT From: MBROWNER1@aol.com Reply-To: QBA@lists.kz To: QBA@lists.kz Subject: Fwd: Fw: john denver and software design I found it interesting that a software engineer would use the following example: In a message dated 6/8/99 9:17:08 AM Central Daylight Time, ecanon@access1.net writes: << >When Interfaces Kill: What Really Happened to John Denver > >On October 12, 1997, John Denver, popular folk singer and amateur pilot, at >the controls of a newly purchased experimental aircraft, died after crashing >into Monterey Bay, in California. He died in an aircraft that had already >done its best to kill two previous pilots, an aircraft with a human >interface flaw so fundamental, so profound, that it finally managed to kill. > >The Long EZ is a kit aircraft designed by Burt Rutan, one of the world's >greatest aerospace designers. Rutan was responsible for the Voyager, the >first aircraft to circumnavigate the globe without refueling. He is >currently working on a reusable spacecraft for commercial and tourist >operations that can fly into space in the morning, be checked out and >refueled over lunch, and fly again that very afternoon. One of his Long EZ >planes, similar to John Denver's, holds the altitude record for conventional >aircraft. It is a brilliant design, and is well respected in the aviation >community. > >Experimental aircraft kits, however, need not be built as the designer >intended. Indeed, the flaws that led to Denver's death were the work of the >builder, and had nothing to do with Burt Rutan. These flaws led from the >builder's sincere desire to improve on Rutan's work, a goal that could >actually be said to have been accomplished from an engineering perspective, >even if it did kill the pilot. > >Background > >Aircraft are designed to be as safe as possible. This sounds pretty obvious, >but if you look back to the history of the motorcar, you can see quite a >contrast with aviation. The car companies required government intervention >before adding, while still kicking and screaming, such esoteric safety >equipment as headlights, windshield wipers, and seat belts. The aviation >community, on the contrary, from the beginning made safety their primary >goal. > >Car fires are a common enough occurrence along America's freeways. A gas >line breaks under the hood and soon the engine is engulfed in flames. The >cure? Pull over, get out, find a long stick, and start roasting >marshmallows. > >That same fire in an aircraft at 10,000 feet is a far more serious affair. >It can take several minutes to "pull over," during which time that fire can >be pouring inky black smoke into the cockpit, blinding the pilot, making a >crash inevitable. As a result, aircraft have full shutoff valves in the >cockpit. Flip the valve and find a nice, friendly field somewhere below >where you can safely land your plane. > >These shutoff valves, on some aircraft, serve a second purpose, letting you >choose between a tank located in the left wing and a tank located in the >right wing. I've never received a lucid explanation for why this is a good >thing, but a lot of planes have it, so I guess it must be good. (I prefer >flying aircraft that have a "Both" position, so all this gas selection can >be avoided.) > >The Bad Interface > >John Denver's aircraft had a fuel selection valve with only three positions: >Off, Left, and Right. Burt Rutan's design called for that valve to be placed >on the front panel of the aircraft, making it easy to switch among the >options. The builder of the aircraft, however, elected to place the valve >back behind the pilot's left shoulder. He did so with the best of >intentions. By placing the valve behind the pilot's compartment, on the >other side of the back firewall, with only a long rod leading to the handle >behind the pilot's left shoulder, he avoided running the gas lines through >the passenger compartment, eliminating any possibility of a gasoline rupture >occurring inside the compartment. > >He did so, however, at a terrible cost to the human interface, because the >only way to switch tanks was to let go of the controls, twist your head to >the left to look behind you, reach over your left shoulder with your right >hand, find the valve, and turn it. As the National Transportation Safety >Board (NTSB) discovered, it was difficult to do this without bracing >yourself with your right foot_by pressing the right rudder pedal all the >way to the floor. And that's what killed John Denver. His plane was seen >veering to the right and plunging into the ocean from only a few hundred >feet up, consistent with the NTSB's reconstruction. > >Making things worse > >The fuel: Denver had three ways to ensure he had enough fuel. Evidence >suggests he made use of two of them: > >1. He had fuel gauges in the rear of the aircraft, behind the pilot, and a >mirror (!) used to look at them. However, the fuel gauges were not linear >and had no markings to indicate that apparently half-full was really >close to empty. >2. He dipped a rod into the fuel tanks while pre-checking the plane before >flight to test the fuel level. He may not have been aware, however, that, >because of the way the Long EZ rests, the fuel tends to slosh toward the >fuel tank filler port, giving a highly optimistic reading. >3. The third method is filling the tanks, which Denver failed to do. I never >fly with anything but full tanks, and most pilots I know act likewise. > >The valve: The builder not only placed the value in a nonstandard location, >he also rotated it in such a way that turning the valve to the right turned >on the left fuel tank. This ensured that a pilot unfamiliar with the >aircraft, upon hearing the engine begin missing and spotting in his mirror >that the left fuel tank was empty, would attempt to rotate the fuel valve >to the right, away from the empty tank, guaranteeing his destruction. > >Lessons to be Learned > >John Denver learned the biggest lesson of all, even if he only had a few >seconds to appreciate it: Let the User Beware! And, indeed, the NTSB, as >per it's long history of ignoring human factors in aviation accidents, >blamed the entire matter on him. Had he bothered to fuel his aircraft, had >he spent the time to thoroughly familiarize himself with the idiosyncrasies >of an experimental aircraft, he would be alive and well today. > >However, to those of us versed in even rudimentary human factors, it is easy >to see that the design of this fuel system was a disaster waiting to happen, >as was borne out not only by what Denver experienced, but by incidents >reported by two previous pilots of this same plane who almost met death >under the same circumstances. Presumably, they had a bit more altitude and, >therefore, a bit more time to react. > >With all of general aviation's emphasis on safety, the human factors of >small planes and the environment in which they fly would be laughable, if >it weren't so dangerous. Why? Because the whole thing is awash in "macho." >Just as with Unix, just as with DOS, the more confounding everything is, >the better it is, because it helps separate the men from the boys_and the >girls. Until that changes, general aviation will continue to experience both >a high fatality rate and a continuing drop in new pilot starts. > >We in the PC and web worlds have a lot to learn from this, too. We have a >lot of bad design floating around that is just as perverse as fuel valves >that face the wrong way, hidden behind firewalls. And it is not all to be >found in freeware and shareware programs, where one might argue that, as >with experimental aircraft, "let the user beware." Indeed, some of the most >egregious examples of design are apparent in the most expensive, mainstream >operating systems and applications. Fortunately for the corporations behind >them, our screw-ups generally don't kill people outright. Instead, we >specialize in driving our users slowly insane. > >If you approach software design the way experts in cockpit human factors >approach their craft, you will end up with designs that are fast, familiar >and forgiving. Such designs would be a refreshing change in the ghastly >world of PC software. > >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Which belt From: Tlongcrier@aol.com Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 14:21:59 EDT X-Message-Number: 15 Oscar and Eurado Ron Everhart, the guy that designed his own PSRU for the Ford, I think, engine in his Stitts Playboy, using Gates belts and pulleys and has given forums on this at Oskosh - you may be familiar with his forums or tapes - says he told Gates he was building a "Sorgum Mill". Says he even talked to home office engineers re what bearings to use to withstand the stresses, etc..... and that they cooperated. You know the rule....... don't ever tell that the parts are going to be used on an airplane. Thurman Longcrier Florence, AL ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: 51% rule From: Michael Taglieri Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 15:26:37 -0400 X-Message-Number: 16 I've seen stories in Kitplanes where, e.g., a whole school class builds a plane and one person gets the certificate because he supervised it. This buyer will presumably check over everything the previous owner did very carefully (or he SHOULD) and he may wind up having to redo some of it, so he's certainly responsible for the quality of all the work by the time the plane is done. Mike Taglieri On Wed, 9 Jun 1999 06:02:26 -0500 "Mark Langford" writes: >Mike Taglieri wrote: > >>The FAA only requires that 51% of it be amateur-built. I don't think >>they care about the number of amateurs. > >Yes, but if YOU didn't do 51% of it, I don't think they'll issue you >the >Repairman's Certificate, and you'd have to get an A&P to sign off all >of the >work done on the plane, and do the condition inpections, right? > >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: miket_nyc@juno.com >To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-kr-net-17800J@telelists.com > ___________________________________________________________________ Get the Internet just the way you want it. Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month! Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Let the building begin From: JEHayward@aol.com Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 19:26:06 EDT X-Message-Number: 17 In a message dated 6/8/99 10:50:08 PM Mountain Daylight Time, miket_nyc@juno.com writes: << The FAA only requires that 51% of it be amateur-built. I don't think they care about the number of amateurs. >> I thought that if you intended to apply for the Repairman's Certificate, you needed to have built 51% of it. Jim Hayward ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Repairman's Certificate From: RFG842@aol.com Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 20:41:00 EDT X-Message-Number: 18 It appears that a Repairman's Certificate will become more valuable as time goes on so again it's best to observe the 51% rule. In this area some local A&E's are refusing to inspect homebuilts to either license or annual because of the perceived potential liability. A couple that come to mind are local EAA members and long time home builders. Last fall I passed up buying a really nice Baby Ace because I wasn't sure I could license it. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Let the building begin From: Mike Mims Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 18:21:37 -0700 X-Message-Number: 19 Michael Taglieri wrote: > > > The FAA only requires that 51% of it be amateur-built. I don't think > they care about the number of amateurs. > Yes but if you want that all important repairman certificate you need to prove you built 51% of the project. -- zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz Micheal Mims Filling and Sanding again! http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/4136/ http://members.home.com/mikemims/ Aliso Viejo CA ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: KR Newsletter From: Jaccoo@aol.com Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 22:48:53 EDT X-Message-Number: 20 Received the KR newsletter today June 8, --- 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