From: KR-net users group digest[SMTP:kr-net@telelists.com] Sent: Friday, July 30, 1999 12:17 AM To: kr-net digest recipients Subject: kr-net digest: July 29, 1999 KR-net users group Digest for Thursday, July 29, 1999. 1. wrong address/magnetos 2. Slamming pilots 3. Re: Posa 4. Re: taxi testing 5. Re: Slamming pilots 6. Taxi 7. weight and balance/sample problem 8. Re: Slamming pilots 9. Re: Corvair Conversion Manual 10. Re: soobs 11. Australian builders? 12. Where am I? 13. Re: taxi testing 14. KR For Sale 15. dumb follow-up 16. Re: KR-2 plans for sale 17. Building time.... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: wrong address/magnetos From: * Flesner * Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 07:32:07 X-Message-Number: 1 Netters, I gave the wrong e-mail address in my e-mail search for a magneto and right wire harness for my 0-200. It should be flesner@midwest.net thanks Larry Tripacer 2917P = official photo ship for the 1998 Gathering ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Slamming pilots From: "Richard Parker" Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 06:14:31 PDT X-Message-Number: 2 Please feel free to respond to the author of this article that is featured today on Microsofts www.msn.com, Slate magazine (letters@slate.com), Chicago Tribune and other syndicated newspapers Rich >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flight Stimulator How the government subsidizes the risky business of private aviation. By Steve Chapman Steve Chapman is a columnist and editorial writer for the Chicago Tribune. Posted Wednesday, July 28, 1999, at 4:30 p.m. PT The deaths of John F. Kennedy Jr. and the Bessette sisters have inspired myriad debates over the safety of private planes, as well as a lot of criticism of Kennedy's decision to brave the night sky over ocean in his Piper Saratoga II HP. Obviously, it's not the government's role to prevent people from taking the sort of risks they think makes life worth living. But should Washington be spending hundreds of millions of dollars each year encouraging the risky business of private air travel? How risky? In 1998, a private plane was 27 times more likely to be involved in an accident and 225 times more likely to suffer a fatal crash than a commercial carrier. Six hundred twenty-one people died in private plane crashes in the United States last year, but only one died on an airliner. Yet the government continues to subsidize general aviation--the catchall category that covers everything from single-engine Cessnas piloted by weekend hobbyists to Learjets carrying corporate execs. Partly due to all this government largess, the United States has more private pilots and aircraft than all the other nations on Earth combined. The biggest direct subsidy is the air traffic control system. According to Richard Golaszewski of the consulting firm GRA Inc., general aviation imposes about $1 billion a year in air traffic control costs on the Federal Aviation Administration, but the fuel taxes levied on general aviation cover only about one-third of that. The shortfall is covered by the 8 percent federal tax on commercial airline tickets. Also, since 1982, the FAA has furnished $4.7 billion in grants to general aviation airports to pay for construction and improvement and has given federally owned land to 450 airports. Heritage Foundation analyst Ron Utt points out that the 70 biggest U.S. airports, which serve 90 percent of commercial air travelers, get less federal money each year than the 3,233 smaller ones that cater almost exclusively to private fliers. When planes go down, the federal government conducts costly search-and-rescue missions. Few victims of light-plane crashes can expect the Coast Guard to spend days trying to recover their corpses under the gaze of TV news cameras, but the bulk of the efforts deployed in the Kennedy accident was not out of the ordinary. About 400 to 500 search-and-rescue operations for missing aircraft are undertaken by the federal government each year, nearly all of them private. (Nearly $370 million is spent annually on all 40,000 federal search-and-rescue missions. The amount spent on general aviation search and rescue is not broken out as a separate category.) Additionally, all private plane accidents, whether they involve a fatality or not, require a costly National Transportation Safety Board investigation. The NTSB conducted 1,907 such investigations last year, but the agency doesn't detail its costs. The Air Force's Civil Air Patrol also gets money to help find downed planes and pilots. Other inducements to general aviation include easy access to airports. Commercial passengers frequently find themselves trapped in holding patterns over the nation's biggest and busiest airports as corporate turboprops carrying a few people land. Increased landing fees and less generous treatment have reduced general aviation traffic at big hubs in recent years, but they haven't eliminated it. At Chicago's O'Hare International, nearly 6 percent of all landings are private planes'. At Los Angeles International, the figure is close to 10 percent. All those corporate planes highlight another reality, which is that general aviation benefits from the abuse of the business tax deduction. Deep in their hearts, the captains of industry know that corporate jets are a rip-off: Warren Buffett once christened his company jet "The Indefensible." Legal fees and photocopying expenses, of course, are just as deductible as the cost of owning and flying a private plane. So why doesn't anyone worry about their being abused? Because traveling on a cushy corporate jet, quite unlike consulting with attorneys, inevitably involves a large component of personal pleasure and comfort-- like staying in the Four Seasons instead of the Marriott. The extra expense required to avoid the sweaty traveling public may yield nothing in terms of higher productivity or profits, but with Uncle Sam footing a third of the cost, top managers may find the perk too tempting to resist. JFK Jr. was pretty normal for a private pilot--a hard-charger who fell in love with the freedom, excitement, and romance of private aviation. But like most of his fellow fliers, he had the resources to finance his pricey hobby without imposing so much on earthbound mortals. While we're free to second-guess his decision to fly to Martha's Vineyard, maybe we should be pondering another question: Why were the rest of us paying him to do it? _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Posa From: RFG842@aol.com Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 09:53:43 EDT X-Message-Number: 3 Ordered a Zenith last month from Great Plains for my Type 4. When I didn't get it in a few weeks I called Steve and he told me to forget the Zenith and buy an Ellison. Said it was a much better carb. Bob ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: taxi testing From: DClarke351@aol.com Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 10:17:46 EDT X-Message-Number: 4 Me too, Don Clarke Hi Guys! Get that thing off the ground. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Slamming pilots From: "Tom Andersen" Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 10:18:34 -0400 X-Message-Number: 5 What I don't understand is how people ignore the tens of thousands of automobile deaths each year and instead focus on the small number of GA deaths? Why aren't they enraged about automobile safety? You cannot make a single cross-country trip in your car without seeing an accident on the side of the road. Can anyone explain why people ignore the risks of driving then go nuts about the risks of flying? I'm serious, I just don't get it. If you compare the safety record of getting to work via a bus driven by a professional driver, I'm sure it's safer than driving a car, too? BTW, If JFK was flying my KR-2S he would have lived after deploying my ballistic chute. -Tom Andersen Orlando, FL -----Original Message----- From: Richard Parker To: KR-net users group Date: Thursday, July 29, 1999 9:13 AM Subject: [kr-net] Slamming pilots > How risky? In 1998, a private plane was 27 times more likely to be >involved in an accident and 225 times more likely to >suffer a fatal crash than a commercial carrier. Six hundred twenty-one >people died in private plane crashes >in the United States last year, but only one died on an airliner. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Taxi From: PatatSt@aol.com Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 10:30:22 EDT X-Message-Number: 6 Johnny Carson (yes, THAT Johnny) claims the most hours spent taxiing when he was learning to fly. said he was scared to take the plane up even with a instructor. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: weight and balance/sample problem From: "Oscar Zuniga" Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 07:35:30 PDT X-Message-Number: 7 Netters; Since I suggested using the tip given in Experimenter about locating moment arms for each component of w&b, I noticed that the formula 'as printed' is not too clear. So I worked up a sample problem for anybody who cares to look further. Let's call CG = Empty weight CG CG'= CG with added weight (pilot, fuel, or-?) CGa= CG of the added weight We = Empty weight Wa = Added weight (pilot, fuel, or-?) W' = Empty weight plus added weight (We+Wa) Then, CGa = CG+[(CG'-CG)xW'/Wa]. As an example, I plugged in some sample numbers straight from the construction manual for my M-19 "Flying Squirrel", thus: CG = 48.69" aft of datum (rear face of prop hub) CG'= 52.06" with pilot CGa= ??? We = 494 lbs. W' = 702 lbs. Wa = 208 lbs. (pilot) Then, CGa = 48.69"+[(52.06"-48.69")x702/208] = 48.69"+(3.37"x3.375) = 48.69"+11.37" = 60.06" Marvin has used 60" as the arm for the pilot and seat, so he was very close (within 1/16"), but sometimes the amount by which we are off in our estimates of centroid can be significant. Oscar Zuniga Medford, Oregon mailto: taildrags@hotmail.com website at http://www.geocities.com/Pipeline/Dropzone/5610/index.html _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Slamming pilots From: "R.W. Moore" Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 12:14:12 -0400 X-Message-Number: 8 Your information is tainted! More people fly in small planes that in airliners.We have about 220.000 planes in this country, most are private planes. R. W. Moore, pilot since 1976 ----- Original Message ----- From: Richard Parker To: KR-net users group Sent: Thursday, July 29, 1999 9:14 AM Subject: [kr-net] Slamming pilots > Please feel free to respond to the author of this article that is featured > today on Microsofts www.msn.com, Slate magazine > (letters@slate.com), Chicago Tribune and other syndicated newspapers > > Rich > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Flight Stimulator > How the government subsidizes the risky business of private aviation. > > By Steve Chapman > Steve Chapman is a columnist and editorial writer for the Chicago Tribune. > Posted Wednesday, July 28, 1999, at 4:30 p.m. PT > > The deaths of John F. Kennedy Jr. and the Bessette sisters have > inspired myriad debates over the safety of private planes, > as well as a lot of criticism of Kennedy's decision to brave the night sky > over ocean in his Piper Saratoga II HP. Obviously, it's > not the government's role to prevent people from taking the sort of risks > they think makes life worth living. But should Washington > be spending hundreds of millions of dollars each year encouraging the risky > business of private air travel? > How risky? In 1998, a private plane was 27 times more likely to be > involved in an accident and 225 times more likely to > suffer a fatal crash than a commercial carrier. Six hundred twenty-one > people died in private plane crashes > in the United States last year, but only one died on an airliner. Yet the > government continues to subsidize general aviation--the > catchall category that covers everything from single-engine Cessnas piloted > by weekend hobbyists to Learjets carrying > corporate execs. Partly due to all this government largess, the United > States has more private pilots and aircraft than all the > other nations on Earth combined. > The biggest direct subsidy is the air traffic control system. > According to Richard Golaszewski of the consulting firm GRA Inc., > general aviation imposes about $1 billion a year in air traffic control > costs on the Federal Aviation Administration, but the fuel > taxes levied on general aviation cover only about one-third of that. The > shortfall is covered by the 8 percent federal tax on > commercial airline tickets. Also, since 1982, the FAA has furnished $4.7 > billion in grants to general aviation airports to pay for > construction and improvement and has given federally owned land to 450 > airports. Heritage Foundation analyst Ron Utt points > out that the 70 biggest U.S. airports, which serve 90 percent of commercial > air travelers, get less federal money each year than > the 3,233 smaller ones that cater almost exclusively to private fliers. > > When planes go down, the federal government conducts costly > search-and-rescue missions. Few victims of light-plane crashes > can expect the Coast Guard to spend days trying to recover their corpses > under the gaze of TV news cameras, but the bulk of > the efforts deployed in the Kennedy accident was not out of the ordinary. > About 400 to 500 search-and-rescue operations for > missing aircraft are undertaken by the federal government each year, nearly > all of them private. (Nearly $370 million is spent > annually on all 40,000 federal search-and-rescue missions. The amount spent > on general aviation search and rescue is not > broken out as a separate category.) > Additionally, all private plane accidents, whether they involve a > fatality or not, require a costly National Transportation > Safety Board investigation. The NTSB conducted 1,907 such investigations > last year, but the agency doesn't detail its costs. > The Air Force's Civil Air Patrol also gets money to help find downed planes > and pilots. > Other inducements to general aviation include easy access to airports. > Commercial passengers frequently find themselves > trapped in holding patterns over the nation's biggest and busiest airports > as corporate turboprops carrying a few people land. > Increased landing fees and less generous treatment have reduced general > aviation traffic at big hubs in recent years, but they > haven't eliminated it. At Chicago's O'Hare International, nearly 6 percent > of all landings are private planes'. At Los Angeles > International, the figure is close to 10 percent. > > All those corporate planes highlight another reality, which is that general > aviation benefits from the abuse of the business tax > deduction. Deep in their hearts, the captains of industry know that > corporate jets are a rip-off: Warren Buffett once christened > his company jet "The Indefensible." Legal fees and photocopying expenses, of > course, are just as deductible as the cost of > owning and flying a private plane. So why doesn't anyone worry about their > being abused? Because traveling on a cushy > corporate jet, quite unlike consulting with attorneys, inevitably involves a > large component of personal pleasure and comfort-- > like staying in the Four Seasons instead of the Marriott. The extra expense > required to avoid the sweaty traveling public may > yield nothing in terms of higher productivity or profits, but with Uncle Sam > footing a third of the cost, top managers may find the > perk too tempting to resist. > JFK Jr. was pretty normal for a private pilot--a hard-charger who > fell in love with the freedom, excitement, and romance of > private aviation. But like most of his fellow fliers, he had the resources > to finance his pricey hobby without imposing so much on > earthbound mortals. While we're free to second-guess his decision to fly to > Martha's Vineyard, maybe we should be pondering > another question: Why were the rest of us paying him to do it? > > > > > _______________________________________________________________ > Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com > > --- > You are currently subscribed to kr-net as: rwmoore@alltel.net > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-kr-net-17800J@telelists.com > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Corvair Conversion Manual From: Jaccoo@aol.com Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 13:39:50 EDT X-Message-Number: 9 I talked to Mr. William Wynne today and ordered a his Corvair Conversion book. He told me that he has just received the latest revision and has just mailed out many back ordered books. Hope everyone who had ordered from him has or will receive their copy soon. Jack Cooper malt: jaccoo@aol.com Fayetteville NC. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: soobs From: Warron Gray Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 16:39:25 -0400 X-Message-Number: 10 Sorry guys that is CAM not cma i got so excited with the info i forgot how to spell Warron Warron Gray wrote: > In case anyone is interested we have found out that the stock cma in the ea-81 > is just as good as any regrind with a redrive . Just some info for you guys > Warron > > --- > You are currently subscribed to kr-net as: WARRONG@BELLSOUTH.NET > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-kr-net-17800J@telelists.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Australian builders? From: "Mark Langford" Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 11:15:08 -0500 X-Message-Number: 11 Would some of you Aussie guys connect up with gary below? Thanks, Mark >Do you know of any KR2S' build in Australia. > > The information on your web site is fantastic. > > Looking forward to hearing from you. > > Yours sincerely, > > Tony Dyson > Hamilton, > Victoria, > Australia. > > Email gary.grey@wdhs.net Mark Langford, Huntsville, Alabama mailto:langford@hiwaay.net see KR2S project N56ML at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Where am I? From: cartera Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 15:20:28 -0600 X-Message-Number: 12 First Flight in a KR ==================== This is a short blurp that I put together for a pilot who was going to do his first flight, edited for the KRnet. A circuit diagram is attached. Hope you have good editor because it is in a graphic format "circuit.jpg". I zipped it to give it a bit more protection. Unfortunately, Lyris will not deliver 52Kb, just 40Kb, luckily my ISP will pass a 1 meg. attachment, so if anyone wants this jpg, mail me directly and I will get it out to you!!!! I am taking the liberty to add some info that you may find of value. I know of which I am talking about because I have many hours of instructional time and I built and flew my KR2. First of all you should check out the engine well, to make sure it will develop full power. Sit in the KR in the 3 point position and know what it looks like in this position do this outside the hanger, then put the tail wheel up on an box with a slight tail down attitude and sit in it again to see what it looks on take off. Get the tail up too high and you'll be making toothpicks. Now to fly, I don't care how much time you have or if you think of yourself as a hotshot but you do not fly it like your last airplane. You do not move the controls, just put pressure on. It's like the light twins, things happen fast. I can GUARANTEE YOUR GOING TO OVER CONTROL !! Now let go over your first flight, be prepared to fly for a hour or so because you need to familiarize yourself with the airplane. Do not attempt to do a circuit because you will not know how it lands. For take-off: get yourself lined up on centerline and put the power to it slowly, just partial throttle until your straightened up and slowly full throttle. Slight forward pressure to get the tail up and just relax and it will fly itself off if you put slight rearward pressure on the control column. Once off the ground get your speed up to about 90-100 mph. Do not try to climb it at too steep because you going to overheat. Cowl flap should be full open. Leave the gear extended on the first flight, if you have a fixed gear, one less thing to think about. Then take off to a practice area, give yourself 2000-3000 ft above the ground. Get straight and level, note your altitude then throttle back and get the nose up to maintain altitude at the lowest power setting - you are now in the slow flight configuration. Do 360 to left and right and get the feel of the slow flight, now go into a mush, throttle back and get the nose up, but do not stall, note altitude loss, add power and get straight and level again, now landing gear is still extended from take off, extend flaps to different positions, leave in full flap position and get into slow flight again do your 360 without losing altitude and relax, relax, RELAX! Now in this configuration is the way you will approach to a landing, get comfortable and let the airplane fly and you just control it. Now get that nose higher and throttle back for a full stall. You may want to do this few times until your comfortable, note the stall speed, this is the speed and attitude you want to be in 3" above the landing strip. Now about the stall, it can be quite sudden, you will feel a buffet and the next thing your looking straight at the ground. Neutralize the stick and pressure back gently, you don't want to take the wings off. Remember, this is nothing like you have flown before, do not let it get into a spin because this is fast and will scare the hell out of you. Take your time with whatever you do get to know the airplane, then it won't scare you. If you do not want to do a full stall, my suggestion would be to park the KR and put a "For Sale" sign in the window. Each aircraft has it's own characteristics, stall speeds vary and it just handles slightly differently. Do this as many times as you have to until you feel comfortable, this familiarization is invaluable to you, even if it takes longer than an hour which will give you confidence to your first landing. Your approach speed over the fence is 1.3 x stall speed. Good Luck to you first landing! And NOW! Back for the "Perfect Landing" by Jim Faughn The "Perfect" Landing - In a KR by: Jim Faughn After my test flight in my KR-2 I thought every landing would be as good. However, it seems that first landing was my best until I sat down to analyze each and every step before touchdown. The purpose of this article is to present the plan I use before each landing in hopes that it will help KR builders getting ready for their first flight and those having problems with consistent landings. Each phase of the landing process must be planned and executed if the successful touchdown will be made. I will try to explain each step along with the speeds and altitudes for each phase of the landing. Please keep in mind that those of us who fly experimental aircraft do not have calibrated airspeed systems and your speeds may and probably will be different. For your information, N891JF has an empty weight of 625 lbs, no flaps, I weigh 190 lbs, and typically carry 15 lbs of stuff in my baggage area. Phase 1 - Approach to the airport - The KR is a very slippery aircraft and you must plan to start slowing down before you reach the downwind leg of the airport pattern. I always try to descend to traffic pattern altitude (800 agl)and obtain a speed of 120 mph on downwind. Phase 2 - Downwind - When I have stabilized my speed on downwind, 120 mph, my RPM on the 2180 VW with a 52 X 52 prop is around 2000. This is a very comfortable speed to check all instruments, ensure the mixture is at full rich, and plan the touchdown point. Don't forget to plan for either a strong head wind or a crosswind component. If you are facing a strong crosswind, this is the time to review what you will do at touchdown. (Which wing you will have low on approach and which wheel you will land on first.) You may not have time for "thinking" later. Phase 3 - Base - The base leg will be flown at 90 to 100 mph. I use the turn to aid in decreasing speed and lower my RPM to around 1600 to 1800. During the base leg, I will descend to an altitude of approximately 500 agl. Phase 4 - Turn to final - This is one of your great opportunities to decrease altitude. I usually slip (if it is a left pattern) on this turn to decrease altitude to 300 agl as I enter the final leg. It is important that you determine your best altitudes for each of the legs and always consider safety. In other words, remember, in case of engine failure, altitude is your best asset! Phase 5 - Final - Your two most important considerations on final are altitude and speed. You can always decrease altitude with a controlled slip. (The KR slips very good.) However, it is extremely difficult to decrease speed once you have let it build up. On final I will fly at 80 mph until I reach mid final, then I will decrease to 70 mph. I will hold this speed until short final (cross the end of the runway) at which time I begin decreasing speed. Phase 6 - Float - The KR is so close to the ground that you will encounter ground effect in a VERY big way. You can and should use this to your advantage in making the "perfect" landing. Patience is a huge virtue during this phase. I will NEVER land my airplane above 60 mph. If I try, and for the first 60 hours I tried all the way up to 80 mph, I WILL bounce!!! The reason for this is very simple. When you touch the main wheels down, the tail will lower, your angle of attack will increase and you will go back up in the air. This will continue until you are at the appropriate speed. What we want to do is make the landing once rather than getting current (bounce 5 times) every time we decide to land. Remember, we had just crossed the end of the runway decreasing speed out of 70 mph. At this time I pull back the throttle all the way and try to hold my KR inches off the runway. The more I concentrate on holding it off by inches the better landing I am able to make. I will glance, VERY quickly, at the airspeed indicator until it is below 60 mph and then I will continue to pull back on the stick concentrating on NOT touching down but instead maintaining the inch or two above the runway. When the stick is approximately one half the way back, we are now somewhere between 50 and 55 mph, I will let it then settle on the runway. Then I will raise the tail to decrease the lift and allow me to see over the nose. I have seen airspeeds, solo, as low as 40 mph before I actually touch the wheels down. I will continue to apply forward pressure on the stick keeping the nose up until I am almost to the limit. Next I will allow the tail to come back to the runway and then apply full back pressure on the stick to ensure the tail wheel stays on the ground as itt akes over directional control from the rudder. If you are landing in a crosswind most experts agree you should wheel land the airplane and raise the tail to ensure the mains are securely on the ground. Ensure you apply the appropriate aileron going all the way to full. These controls of aileron and elevator must be managed as you complete your landing and as you taxi. You will learn how much of a crosswind component you and your KR are capable of over time and I recommend all early flights are with a crosswind component of less than 5 kts. I have found that the crosswind component I am capable of handling is more a function of my piloting ability (practice) than the airplane. If I follow my own procedures, I will make a good landing every time. However, I seem to make exceptions when concentration lapses. For example, if I lower the nose on final I will gain speed very quickly, usually to 100+ mph, and this makes the landing more difficult unless you are very good at using slips to decrease speed. Another point that should be made is that when flying with two people I will raise the speeds on final by 5+ mph compensating for the increase in weight and stall speed. What happens if I bounce? The first thing you have to decide is how bad of a bounce is it? I put bounces into three categories. First is BAD. If this is the case or if everything just doesn't seem right your only good option is to advance the throttle to full and go around. Don't worry about your ego just do it, GO AROUND. Second is a small bounce. If you come back up 6 inches to a foot, then don't over control, just re-land the plane. The reason for the small bounce was probably that you were going too fast when you let the airplane set down. The third bounce is in-between. The recovery from an in-between bounce will depend upon your skill level with your KR. If you have only been flying for 10 hours, you should probably go around. However, as your skills improve there is another option. To recover, apply approximately half throttle, stop the oscillation, and re-land the airplane. This only works if you stay in ground effect and remember you are very close to a stall so DON'T try this unless you are comfortable with your plane, your skills and you have a long enough runway. I certainly hope the information will prove helpful as you think about test flying your KR or are trying to improve your landings. If you can visualize and plan each phase of the landing process you will be able to make "perfect" landings. I am not a flight instructor and only present the information here in hopes you will not make the same mistakes I did in my early flights. If you would like to discuss these phases prior to flying your KR then give me a call. Perhaps we can improve this narrative for others. Good Landings Jim Faughn 4323D Laclede Ave St. Louis, MO 63108 314-652-7659 Cell 573-465-8039 Each one of us have a different approach to flying and landing. Some prefer wheel landings, some three point landings, but the bottom line is "FLY SAFE". Good luck and Happy Flying !! -- Adrian VE6AFY Mailto:cartera@cuug.ab.ca http://www.cuug.ab.ca/~cartera ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: taxi testing From: cartera Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 15:30:19 -0600 X-Message-Number: 13 DClarke351@aol.com wrote: > > Me too, Don Clarke Hi Guys! Get that thing off the ground. > > --- > You are currently subscribed to kr-net as: cartera@cuug.ab.ca > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-kr-net-17800J@telelists.com Hi Guys, hope pretty soon. You can do only so much taxing, if you know it is going to stay straight with the mimumum of correction, no point in heating up the bearings. One does "need" to have an edge on, to fly however, do not fly if you really are scared, it's time to turn it over to another test pilot. It is one thing to be proficient taxing but it's another to be proficient in the air. Best of Luck and Happy Flying!!!! -- Adrian VE6AFY Mailto:cartera@cuug.ab.ca http://www.cuug.ab.ca/~cartera ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: KR For Sale From: Brad Klena Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 17:19:39 -0500 X-Message-Number: 14 I have a KR2 80% complete with Revmaster 2100D, all instruments, all building logs, all pictures scanned on CD, plans, and many other materials. I have recently moved and will not be able to work on this plane for some time and am interested in selling it. You can contact me at Bertelkamp Automation 800-486-7748 x157 or email at bklena@bertelkamp.com. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: dumb follow-up From: WA7YXF@aol.com Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 21:02:32 EDT X-Message-Number: 15 Called PTM+W industries...(1-800 number right on the can) about applying aero poxy at 100/45 instead of 100/27 as it should have been. Scott says he has received calls on this before. (I'm not the only one to have done this) Be careful guys... The extra hardener may actually enhance the quality of the layup . However extra hardener sucks up moisture (sounds like kevlar) which might cause the lay-up to delaminate . So! Keep protected with a good paint job and countiue to inspect paint surface for disruption as we already do. Lynn WA7YXF work shop hangar A7 RDM ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: KR-2 plans for sale From: Ross Youngblood Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 22:51:16 -0700 X-Message-Number: 16 I purchased my plans in 1988, and if I recall they are dated 1986. -- Ross Tim wrote: > > I remember Jeanette telling me the plans were redone/updated in 1982 so > these plans would be the older ones...right? > > Tim > Cold Lake, the weather couldn't be worse! > > --- > You are currently subscribed to kr-net as: rossy@teleport.com > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-kr-net-17800J@telelists.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Building time.... From: Ross Youngblood Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 23:05:43 -0700 X-Message-Number: 17 KMcke19117@aol.com wrote: > > On a different note. If one were to build a KR2-S PER PLANS would it be > possible to finish the plane in a shorter amount of time? I see guys on here > who have been building for many years and still are not finished. I am not > sure if this is due to time constraints(work and family) or if it is all of > the mods. > > Keith > > Ft. Myers, FL. I have been "at it" for about 11 years now, I have "logged" about 1150 hours construction time, and this is only what I have kept track of. My KR is basicly scratch built, that is I used no pre-molded stuff. I think if I had to do it over again, I would be much faster. Two years spent doing nothing, and a couple of years concerned about various issues, but no progress. My KR2 is basicly stock. I would say that today, the wing tanks are my bigest pet peve.... a slow leak is my current problem. Also problems with fuel system routing. Hooking up with KR-net and working with a local EAA chapter here in Corvallis has really helped. I wish I had "connected" with more builders earlier on in the project. Going to Fly-ins and hanging out in other folks hangars has led me to learn a LOT of stuff I should have known before I did anything. Family constraints and travel for work have been my major excuses for not finishing earlier. Also maintaining a "focus" on the project of this size can be hard to do with all the other demands for your attention. I can say that many months would be saved if I didn't get hooked on computer simulation games. -- Regards Ross --- 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