From: KR-net users group digest[SMTP:kr-net@telelists.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 1999 11:15 PM To: kr-net digest recipients Subject: kr-net digest: October 12, 1999 KR-net users group Digest for Tuesday, October 12, 1999. 1. Re: Changing your incidence. 2. Re: Changing your incidence. 3. Re: project update - Langford's flaps 4. Re: project update - Langford's flaps 5. Re: Changing your incidence. 6. Re: project update - Langford's flaps 7. Re: project update - Langford's flaps 8. Re: project update - Langford's flaps 9. Re: field repairs for wood prop nicks 10. Re:Plywood kit 11. Re:Plywood kit 12. Re: project update - Langford's flaps 13. Re: field repairs for wood prop nicks 14. Re: project update -KR Ron's flaps 15. RE: Electronic Compass 16. Brain Fart (cloth Weight) 17. Flap Magic 18. Re: Brain Fart (cloth Weight) 19. Re: Changing your incidence. 20. Re: Changing your incidence. 21. They Jury is out indefinitely 22. Re: The Jury is out indefinitely 23. Re: Looking for Tech Counselor in CA. 24. First bill for '99 in 25. Re: Use of Oil Cooler as Source For Carb Heat 26. Carb Heat ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Changing your incidence. From: KR2616TJ@aol.com Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 07:56:30 EDT X-Message-Number: 1 In a message dated 10/12/99 12:34:14 AM Eastern Daylight Time, bmuse@mindspring.com writes: << WARNING TO ALL! The jury is still out on th new airfoil. That's all I will say but please make sure that you have the piloting skills required. >> Don't quite know where this one came from Bobby, I'm going to have to beg to differ without endorsing any wing, the stall speeds are the same as the RAF48 with a definite pre stall buffet, no nose down tendencies, more stable at high cruise speeds, no adverse aileron tendencies, no special piloting skills required and flies as advertised. Your only drawbacks are you get better range per gallon, higher speeds and 90's technology. I think the jury has delivered it's verdict and it's "guilty as designed", which is a very docile wing. No surgeon general's warning required on packaging on this baby. Dana Overall 2000 KR Gathering host Richmond, KY mailto:kr2616tj@aol.com http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/7085/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Changing your incidence. From: "Mark Langford" Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 07:01:08 -0500 X-Message-Number: 2 Bobby Muse wrote: > WARNING TO ALL! > > The jury is still out on th new airfoil. That's all I will say but please > make sure that you have the piloting skills required. Exactly what does this mean? Do you have some vital information that we should all hear? I would have thought it was enough to hear Troy say that his plane is much more stable than it was before, easier to fly, climbs better, and flies faster. I'll admit that he also made other changes to his plane to make it that way (like extending the horizontal stabilizer), but his CG is in exactly the same place as it was before, and his plane is better all the way around. So what do you base your ominous comment on? The truth of the matter is that you could probably put just about any airfoil on the thing and it would work. I know of at least 5 different airfoils that have been used, and all but the GAW were an improvement. I'd say if you fly a stocker using that last few inches of CG range recommended IN THE PLANS you'd better find some pilot skills! I really don't understand the mentality of poo-pooing real improvements to the design. Enlighten me, please... Mark Langford, Huntsville, Alabama mailto:langford@hiwaay.net see KR2S N56ML at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: project update - Langford's flaps From: "Ronald R. Eason" Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 07:03:00 -0700 X-Message-Number: 3 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_00B0_01BF147F.D2297E40 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -----Original Message----- From: Mike Mims To: KR-net users group Date: Monday, October 11, 1999 6:56 PM Subject: [kr-net] Re: project update - Langford's flaps >"J.R.L. Engineering Consortium Ltd." wrote: >> >> I have designed split flaps for my KR2. Photo at > >> www.freeyellow.com/menbers6/krron Try the above again, should have been members6. ------=_NextPart_000_00B0_01BF147F.D2297E40 Content-Type: text/x-vcard; name="Ronald R. Eason Sr..vcf" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Ronald R. Eason Sr..vcf" BEGIN:VCARD VERSION:2.1 N:Eason Sr.;Ronald;R. FN:Ronald R. Eason Sr. ORG:J.R.L. Engineering Consortium Ltd.;Engineering TITLE:C.E.O., President TEL;WORK;VOICE:816-468-4091 TEL;HOME;VOICE:816-468-4425 TEL;PAGER;VOICE:816-989-9692 TEL;WORK;FAX:816-468-5465 TEL;HOME;FAX:816-468-5465 ADR;WORK:;jrlkc@mindspring.com;7333 North = Brooklyn;Gladstone,;MO.;64118-2329;U.S.A. LABEL;WORK;ENCODING=3DQUOTED-PRINTABLE:jrlkc@mindspring.com=3D0D=3D0A7333= North Brooklyn=3D0D=3D0AGladstone,, MO. 64118-232=3D 9=3D0D=3D0AU.S.A. ADR;HOME:;;7333 N. Brooklyn;Gladstone,;MO.;64118-2329;U.S.A. LABEL;HOME;ENCODING=3DQUOTED-PRINTABLE:7333 N. = Brooklyn=3D0D=3D0AGladstone,, MO. 64118-2329=3D0D=3D0AU.S.A. URL: URL:http://jrl-engineering.com EMAIL;INTERNET:ron@jrl-engineering.com EMAIL;PREF;INTERNET:jrlkc@mindspring.com REV:19991012T140259Z END:VCARD ------=_NextPart_000_00B0_01BF147F.D2297E40-- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: project update - Langford's flaps From: "John Weikel" Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 07:06:21 -0500 X-Message-Number: 4 Still doesn't work.... John W -----Original Message----- From: Ronald R. Eason To: KR-net users group Date: Tuesday, October 12, 1999 9:03 AM Subject: [kr-net] Re: project update - Langford's flaps > >-----Original Message----- >From: Mike Mims >To: KR-net users group >Date: Monday, October 11, 1999 6:56 PM >Subject: [kr-net] Re: project update - Langford's flaps > > >>"J.R.L. Engineering Consortium Ltd." wrote: >>> >>> I have designed split flaps for my KR2. Photo at >> >>> www.freeyellow.com/menbers6/krron > >Try the above again, should have been members6. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Changing your incidence. From: Steven Eberhart Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 07:23:47 -0500 (CDT) X-Message-Number: 5 On Mon, 11 Oct 1999, Bobby Muse wrote: > WARNING TO ALL! > > The jury is still out on th new airfoil. That's all I will say but please > make sure that you have the piloting skills required. > > Bobby Muse > N122B - Wimberley, TX > mailto:bmuse@mindspring.com WOW, that was certainly out of left field - I wasn't expecting that from one of the most respected KR builders around. THe designers of the new airfoil, that Troy is so thrilled with, are Dr. Michael Selig, world renowned low Reynolds number airfoil designer, and Dr. Ashok Gopalarathnam, designer of the airfoils of Bert Rutan's new Boomerang II. Troy Petteway's flying experience and capabilities stand on their own merrit. True, the testing of the new airfoil hasn't been completed but the remaining work is more to determing the relative degrees of excellence. There haven't been any negatives found so far - that I am aware of. So far everything has been as designed. If you have information on any negative aspects of the new wing, I submit it is your DUTY AND RESPONSIBILITY to the KR community to bring it to the attention of everyone envolved. Failure to do so puts the responsibility of any accidents that result from what aparently is knowledge only you have access to, directly on your shoulders. I value your OPNION, just remember: One test is worth a thousand expert opinions but a thousand opinions are easier to get. --plagiarized from an unknown author We have attempted to follow a very professional project plan in designing and testing the new airfoils, our tests our documented for critical review. Steve Eberhart mailto:newtech@newtech.com THE WING FLIES! - http://www.newtech.com/nlf for info on the new, flight tested, KRnet/UIUC airfoils. Good job KRnet, you can be proud of your contribution to Sport Aviation. Special thanks to Dr. Ashok Gopalarathnam and Dr. Michael Selig for some great Sport Aviation airfoils. One test is worth a thousand expert opinions but a thousand opinions are easier to get. --plagiarized from an unknown author All information, in any of my aircraft related correspondence, is strictly food for thought requiring additional, qualified, engineering analysis. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: project update - Langford's flaps From: "Ronald R. Eason" Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 07:32:51 -0700 X-Message-Number: 6 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_01FE_01BF1483.FD8E5CA0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >> >> >>>"J.R.L. Engineering Consortium Ltd." wrote: >>>> >>>> I have designed split flaps for my KR2. Photo at >>> >>>> http://www.freeyellow.com:8080/members6/krron/ >> >>Try the above again, should have been members6. >> >> > > >--- >You are currently subscribed to kr-net as: jrlkc@mindspring.com >To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-kr-net-17800J@telelists.com > ------=_NextPart_000_01FE_01BF1483.FD8E5CA0 Content-Type: text/x-vcard; name="Ronald R. Eason Sr..vcf" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Ronald R. Eason Sr..vcf" BEGIN:VCARD VERSION:2.1 N:Eason Sr.;Ronald;R. FN:Ronald R. Eason Sr. ORG:J.R.L. Engineering Consortium Ltd.;Engineering TITLE:C.E.O., President TEL;WORK;VOICE:816-468-4091 TEL;HOME;VOICE:816-468-4425 TEL;PAGER;VOICE:816-989-9692 TEL;WORK;FAX:816-468-5465 TEL;HOME;FAX:816-468-5465 ADR;WORK:;jrlkc@mindspring.com;7333 North = Brooklyn;Gladstone,;MO.;64118-2329;U.S.A. LABEL;WORK;ENCODING=3DQUOTED-PRINTABLE:jrlkc@mindspring.com=3D0D=3D0A7333= North Brooklyn=3D0D=3D0AGladstone,, MO. 64118-232=3D 9=3D0D=3D0AU.S.A. ADR;HOME:;;7333 N. Brooklyn;Gladstone,;MO.;64118-2329;U.S.A. LABEL;HOME;ENCODING=3DQUOTED-PRINTABLE:7333 N. = Brooklyn=3D0D=3D0AGladstone,, MO. 64118-2329=3D0D=3D0AU.S.A. URL: URL:http://jrl-engineering.com EMAIL;INTERNET:ron@jrl-engineering.com EMAIL;PREF;INTERNET:jrlkc@mindspring.com REV:19991012T143250Z END:VCARD ------=_NextPart_000_01FE_01BF1483.FD8E5CA0-- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: project update - Langford's flaps From: "Stefan B." Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 14:24:12 +0200 X-Message-Number: 7 Try www.freeyellow.com/members6/krron/ It works. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: project update - Langford's flaps From: "Wayne DeLisle Sr." Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 09:31:48 -0400 X-Message-Number: 8 At 09:13 PM 10/11/1999 -0500, you wrote: >Wayne DeLisle wrote: > >> I would like to know the relative merits of the various flap arrangements >in >> the context of the KR2 airframe. > >Well, I've looked at them all, and I almost did the hinged at the bottom of >the aft spar thing. In fact, I posted a drawing of it a couple of years ago >at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford/flap.gif . I think it would work fine. >Using my X-ray 20-20 hindsight, I'd say that might be the ticket! I've been looking at that drawing for a year. It sure can't be beat for simple. >Fowlers require a complex mechanism and don't provide the drag that I really >felt was necessary. Of course you could use a belly board, but now you've >got something else to screw around with while landing, as if you didn't have >enough already. Simple flaps could be built like the flap in the drawing >above, but wouldn't give you the drag either... I've kicked that issue around for several months. The belly board is simple and functional, the flaps should lower landing speed some. I'd like to see lower landing speed as well as more drag, to get the KR out of ground effect sooner. I just got back from a 3 hour ride in a Cherokee 180 this morning, (back seat stowaway with the morning traffic reporter), (-; . While looking over the data sheet for the 180, I found this, approach speed, flaps up, 85 flaps down 76. Quite a difference. I decided a while back that flaps were the way to go, I just need to get some more info on them. Last week I was looking at the flaps on a 172. They weren't that complicated. Shouldn't be that hard to implement either. WD --------------------------------------------------------- Wayne DeLisle Sr. Charlotte, North Carolina USA mailto:dodger@accessnode.net http://accessnode.net/~dodger --------------------------------------------------------- Project Viking "Daring to venture forward from the Dark Ages" online FAQ/manual at http://www.evansville.net/~boeing/project_viking ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: field repairs for wood prop nicks From: tom Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 10:03:04 -0400 X-Message-Number: 9 Steen8751A@aol.com wrote: > > Here is a tip from a lurker. My VariEze traveling toolkit included a piece > of sandpaper and a filler called Marinetex. Anytime I found any nicks in my > Aymar Demuth wood prop, I repaired them on the spot. Marinetex should be > easy to find at boating/marine shops. It has fiber reinforcement built in > and drys fast. > > Doug Steen > Winchester, VA > steen8751a@aol.com > > I think I would be concerned about the prop being out of balance after adding Marinetex. That stuff is awfull heavy. -- Tom Crawford Gainesville, FL N262TC Mailto:toys@atlantic.net http://www.tomshardwoodtoys.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re:Plywood kit From: Kr2cooper@aol.com Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 11:27:11 EDT X-Message-Number: 10 I've been looking for a material list for the plywood kit and can't find it in the plans. Have I overlooked it or is it not included in the plans? Does anyone have a list of plywood needed to build a KR-2s? Should the plywood be 45 or 90 degree plys? Jack Cooper kr2cooper@aol.com Fayetteville, NC. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re:Plywood kit From: "Mark S. Jones" Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 9:4:9 X-Message-Number: 11 Jack, Look in the front of Wicks catalog. They have a breakdown of components they supply including the plywood, listed by part number and size. Hope this helps. Mark Jones (N886MJ) Waukesha, WI mailto:flykr2s@execpc.com http://sites.netscape.net/flykr2s/homepage ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: project update - Langford's flaps From: "Capps Family" Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 13:23:21 -0500 X-Message-Number: 12 Mike, NO Joy Larry ----- Original Message ----- From: Ronald R. Eason To: KR-net users group Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 1999 9:03 AM Subject: [kr-net] Re: project update - Langford's flaps > > -----Original Message----- > From: Mike Mims > To: KR-net users group > Date: Monday, October 11, 1999 6:56 PM > Subject: [kr-net] Re: project update - Langford's flaps > > > >"J.R.L. Engineering Consortium Ltd." wrote: > >> > >> I have designed split flaps for my KR2. Photo at > > > >> www.freeyellow.com/menbers6/krron > > Try the above again, should have been members6. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: field repairs for wood prop nicks From: Steen8751A@aol.com Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 16:46:03 EDT X-Message-Number: 13 In a message dated 10/12/99 8:49:31 AM US Eastern Standard Time, toys@atlantic.net writes: << I think I would be concerned about the prop being out of balance after adding Marinetex. That stuff is awfull heavy. >> I used this repair method 2 or three times and did not notice any difference in prop. It ran smooth before and after the repairs. Of course, the bigger the repair, the bigger the risk of affecting balance. It is a good idea to remove the prop and check and correct the balance if necessary. With the pusher VariEze, we were more prone to picking up stones, etc than you tractor KR guys. A more accurate description of my experience is dents, not nicks. It wouldn't take a very big nick for me to ground the prop. I can attest to the durability of the product. I probably flew 100 hours on one repair. This field repair capability served me well as almost all of my flying is long cross countrys. Doug Steen Winchester, VA ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: project update -KR Ron's flaps From: "Wayne DeLisle Sr." Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 16:58:11 -0400 X-Message-Number: 14 At 01:23 PM 10/12/1999 -0500, you wrote: >Mike, > >NO Joy > >Larry >----- Original Message ----- >From: Ronald R. Eason >To: KR-net users group >Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 1999 9:03 AM >Subject: [kr-net] Re: project update - Langford's flaps I found the web page at: http://www.freeyellow.com:8080/members6/krron/ but I didn't see any flaps. Retractable Tri gear looks interesting though. WD --------------------------------------------------------- Wayne DeLisle Sr. Charlotte, North Carolina USA mailto:dodger@accessnode.net http://accessnode.net/~dodger --------------------------------------------------------- Project Viking "Daring to venture forward from the Dark Ages" online FAQ/manual at http://www.evansville.net/~boeing/project_viking ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: RE: Electronic Compass From: "Eduardo Iglesias" Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 23:55:20 -0300 X-Message-Number: 15 Dear A while ago that I come meditating regarding the threat of compiling different articles to arrive to the on-line Manual of the KR. For what I have seen and read since I arrived to the net, we have people with important quantity of theoretical and practical knowledge. We have a new profile -our profile- that adapts much better than the old RAF 48 to our KR. We have the opportunity then... I believe that it is strange to find a human group of these characteristics and in the quantity that we form the net. Up to now it has taken place a quantity and quality of not very frequent information. It would be a pity not to recapture the making of the Manual. I know that it is supposed when I saying this, that I am loading in some backs the weight of a difficult task.Mainly for those that work and they dedicate good part of the free time to the net. My respect for that people. It would be good to recapture the possibility to reorder knowledge, articles, opinions, experiences that are good for those that come. And so that the KR follows its development. Eduardo emiglesias@cpenet.com.ar ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Brain Fart (cloth Weight) From: "Capps Family" Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 21:12:09 -0500 X-Message-Number: 16 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_004E_01BF14F6.7221EEC0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable To All; When they determine the weight of cloth (i.e. UNI 7.02, BID 8.8), what = do they base this weight on? Is they weight of the cloth based on it's width (whatever that might = be), and it's length? Or is the weight based on 36x36" of the material being used? Your assistance with this would be appreciated. Blue Skies; Larry Larry A. Capps Naperville, IL ------=_NextPart_000_004E_01BF14F6.7221EEC0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
To All;
 
When they determine the weight of cloth = (i.e. UNI=20 7.02, BID 8.8), what do they base this weight on?
Is they weight of the cloth based on it's width = (whatever=20 that might be), and it's length?
Or is the weight based on 36x36" of the material = being=20 used?
 
Your assistance with this would be=20 appreciated.
 
Blue Skies;
 
Larry
 
Larry A. Capps
Naperville, IL
------=_NextPart_000_004E_01BF14F6.7221EEC0-- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Flap Magic From: "Walter Lounsbery" Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 22:03:25 -0500 X-Message-Number: 17 Somebody opened the door by asking what the pros and cons of various flap types are. So here is one viewpoint, hopefully not a blast of blustery opinion. A flap can be a multi-purpose thing. It can create some extra lift at low deflections and extra drag at large deflections. In any case, adjusting the angle of the trailing edge of the wing also directly changes the pitch moment (nose down) created by the flapped part of the wing. This is a very powerful influence, and should be carefully estimated for aircraft of the configuration of the KRs (low wing, maybe short coupled, not very powerful trim capability). Why? Because the extra drag below the center of mass also creates a nose down pitch moment, and the semi-high horizontal tail reduces favorable downwash coupling of the wing and tail. In some extreme cases I have looked at, another complication enters the picture. You would like to achieve higher lift flaps down than flaps up. Ideally, then, you will get the maximum lift out of the flapped part just before stall, while the rest of the wing is somewhat less close to achieving it's maximum lift. This gives you the lowest stall speed. This is not guarenteed. Some flap/wing geometries can't get good lift out of the unflapped part of the wing. If the flap is a powerful type (like a Fowler arrangement), the incidence of the flapped wing can be approximated by the chord line from the dropped trailing edge to the nose of the airfoil. So the flaps can powerfully increase the effective incidence of the flapped part of the wing. In a relative sense, the unflapped part is now operating at a much lower, maybe negative incidence. In some cases this effect limits the chord of the flap more powerfully than any other single factor. Make it too big chordwise and your total maximum lift decreases! Another thing. If you design the flap properly, now the tips of the wing are loaded and may stall. Ailerons at the wing tips mean that leading edge treatment may need to be examined to avoid nasty rolls at low altitude. But a proper design will avoid all this, since the flap for a KR should be there to do two things: 1. Increase drag to provide better landing control, and 2. Lower the nose in landing to provide better visibility. If the plane is built or loaded too heavy, the extra speed on takeoff and landing is the smallest concern. So my vote is with a good, light split flap arrangement. Good drag control, incidence and pitch moment change is equivalent to half the flap deflection of a regular flap (average of top and bottom surface at TE). Fowler is out of the question. Plain flaps likewise not a good idea. Walter Lounsbery POB 54266 Hurst, TX 76054 (817) 285-8520 Walt@Lounsbery.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Brain Fart (cloth Weight) From: Mike Mims Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 19:57:43 -0700 X-Message-Number: 18 > Capps Family wrote: > > To All; > > When they determine the weight of cloth (i.e. UNI 7.02, BID 8.8), what > do they base this weight on? > Is they weight of the cloth based on it's width (whatever that might > be), and it's length? > Or is the weight based on 36x36" of the material being used? Weight per square yard. -- zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz Micheal Mims Sanding and Filling AGAIN! :o( http://www.fortunecity.com/marina/anchor/270/ http://www.evansville.net/~boeing/project_viking/ http://members.home.com/mikemims/ Aliso Viejo CA ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Changing your incidence. From: Bobby Muse Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 22:12:58 -0500 X-Message-Number: 19 At 07:01 AM 10/12/1999 -0500, you wrote: >Bobby Muse wrote: > >> WARNING TO ALL! >> >> The jury is still out on th new airfoil. That's all I will say but please >> make sure that you have the piloting skills required. > >Exactly what does this mean? Do you have some vital information that we >should all hear? I would have thought it was enough to hear Troy say that >his plane is much more stable than it was before, easier to fly, climbs >better, and flies faster. I'll admit that he also made other changes to his >plane to make it that way (like extending the horizontal stabilizer), but >his CG is in exactly the same place as it was before, and his plane is >better all the way around. So what do you base your ominous comment on? > >The truth of the matter is that you could probably put just about any >airfoil on the thing and it would work. I know of at least 5 different >airfoils that have been used, and all but the GAW were an improvement. > >Mark Langford, Huntsville, Alabama Troy and I have been friends for awhile. I had a brief conversation at the KR Gathering with Troy about the new airfoil and I assure you that he he very excited about how it performs for the type of flying that Troy wants to do. Troy has airplane racing in his blood and will do almost anything to go faster and faster.. Troy told me that the airplane is faster, much more stable at high speed and climbs better than the old configuration. Mark is right, Troy made multiple mods at the same time and most all improved the performance of his KR. Also, Troy said that the time to get off the ground was much longer and slow fight perforamnce needed more testing. He really thought that the mods to the tail feathers helped a lot with the way it handled inflight. This is not meant to stop the movement to the new airfoil. All that I am saying is that more testing needs to be done before I will suggest that everyone tear apart their KRs to make the change to the new airfoil. The jury is still out. If the new airfoil does prove itself, I will make the change over to the new airfoil. Yes, I know that this an experimental airplane. Bobby Muse N122B - Wimberley, TX mailto:bmuse@mindspring.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Changing your incidence. From: "Dean Collette" Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 00:15:35 -0500 X-Message-Number: 20 Bobby Muse wrote; > All that I am > saying is that more testing needs to be done before I will suggest that > everyone tear apart their KRs to make the change to the new airfoil. The > jury is still out. If the new airfoil does prove itself, I will make the > change over to the new airfoil. Actually, I think the jury is in, you just missed 'em. The point of the new airfoil, is that Yes, in fact, it does perform better. The numbers will show that it will outperform the RAF at virtually all speeds, but the question becomes "how much better" and "is it worth it." In the process of building an airplane, there comes a point where you define the shape of the wing. It is just as easy to use the new airfoil as it is to use the RAF, and you can take advantage of the increased performance for no additional cost - you have to build the wing one way or another. All the parts are the same - it's just a different shape. But is the improvement worth tearing out an existing wing on an airplane that is flying? - no. I can't imagine that there is one person familiar with the new airfoil that would recommend that you rip out an RAF wing for the new wing, unless you were aiming for the absolute peak performance at any cost. Personally, I don't believe that the increase in performance is worth the time, or cost of building a completely new wing (if you already have an RAF that flies just fine.) But, if you haven't yet built the wing . . . then why not aim for the best. The reason that Troy switched over to the new wing is that he had to build new wings anyway, so it made sense to maximize performance. The "problem" with Troy's airplane is that there were many modifications done to the airplane at the same time that the new airfoil was added, so it makes it difficult to sort out which changes did which things. One could easily surmise that his tail modifications actually destabilized the airplane and the new wing was just so good, that everything worked out despite the tail changes. Perhaps, the reason for the longer take-off run is that the elevator surface area is smaller and he needs a little more wind over it to get it working . . . (just food for thought.) Troy was the first, but others will follow. Over time, some of the finer details of the new wing will come to light. But, as far as the big stuff goes - we've already got that. It's been published to KRNet and the internet - see Steve's website http://www.newtech.com/nlf/ - he did all the work to put it together - read it. Dean Collette Milwaukee, Wisconsin mailto:drdean@execpc.com Web Page at http://www.execpc.com/~drdean/home.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: They Jury is out indefinitely From: Mike Mims Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 22:37:13 -0700 X-Message-Number: 21 Dean Collette wrote: > >>>>One could easily surmise that his tail modifications actually destabilized the airplane and the new wing was just so good, that everything worked out despite the tail changes. >>> How would a larger tail destabilize his airplane? Like you said one could surmise (or guess) that the tail destabilized his plane but what could you base that on? I think when it comes down to it Troy made almost (still needs an O-200) all the right mods to possibly have the perfect KR2. If his plane is taking more runway to get airborne than before that can be because the wing is not making as much lift at the lower speeds. Maybe the engine is not accelerating the aircraft as quickly as before. Maybe there is more drag somewhere. Possibly the AS wing needs more AOA at lower speeds to produce the lift that the RAF did and the short gear legs wont allow it? Who knows? Heck the jury is still out on a lot of things. How will the AS wing work with flaps, or with ailerons like Mark L's, or when someone gets sloppy (as many scratch built KR wings are) and builds a AS wing with all kinds of bumps from micro on the foam or spar caps sticking up too high? As far as that goes all my flight experience tells me the elevator setup that you and Dana are using is wrong but who knows? I guess we are free to do our own thing and if and when someone dies we can all say "gee that was a bad idea". Who do you think would be the first to jump in and say "I told you so"? Us guys that have changed this and that are really sticking a lot on the line. One could go as far to say that the jury is still out on the KR is a properly designed airplane, period. Everybody gets to reserve judgment I guess, and obviously everyone will have an opinion that hopefully is based on past experience or good data they obtained elsewhere. One last thing, everybody remember if someone on this list says your dog is ugly, don't sweat it. Its no big deal! Besides it could be because they just have ugly dog envy or they just don't like your attitude or they just don't like where your going with the good ole KR series! That's OK, they don't have to like it, YOU DO! And no, there are no freaking smiley faces on this post to hide behind thank you! -- zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz Micheal Mims Sanding and Filling AGAIN! :o( http://www.fortunecity.com/marina/anchor/270/ http://www.evansville.net/~boeing/project_viking/ http://members.home.com/mikemims/ Aliso Viejo CA ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: The Jury is out indefinitely From: Ron Lee Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 23:55:19 -0600 X-Message-Number: 22 At 10:37 PM 10/12/99 -0700, you wrote: >One last thing, everybody remember if someone on this list says your dog >is ugly, don't sweat it. Its no big deal! Just a hint for a long life. Do NOT call my dog ugly. Call me butt ugly if you wish but say NADA bad about my boy. Ron Lee PS. troy needs to get some high altitude work in. Meadow Lake airport is just the place. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Looking for Tech Counselor in CA. From: "Ross R. Youngblood" Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 23:18:13 +0000 X-Message-Number: 23 Richard Parker wrote: > so what is the advantage of having one check out your spars? I didnt have it > done. > > Rich Parker 1) If you have a minimum of three EAA technical counsulor visits during construction you can get a break on your aircraft insurance. 2) EAA technical counsolors are either A&P licensed, or have built an aircraft, they could save you time and money, and perhaps your butt, by pointing out somthing that you missed. You are not obligated to any suggestions they make however. 3) You might get a free biplane ride. One of our technical counselors owns a Arcoduster, and I was moaning about the high cost of taildragger instruction last year, and he let me fly his bi-plane. (Although not land it). This is a pretty good item. If a Tech counselor had to build an airplane to become a tech counselor then odds are they have an airplane that flys... unlike the typical builder who sold the last project to start the new one. 4) They might have a tip on a local place to buy epoxy, bolts, or get free tools to help you through that wierd problem you hadn't figured out yet. Otherwise, there aren't too many reasons to have a tech counselor out, you can take longer, make more mistakes and pay more for your insurance, but you still get to do it your way. -- Ross ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: First bill for '99 in From: "Ross R. Youngblood" Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 23:24:57 +0000 X-Message-Number: 24 I checked and we recieved the first bill for the next years service. 12 months basic service for $99.50. This doesn't include our disk quota or domain hosting charges, but does cover the basic kr-net email list. I will be paying it tomorrow. Our domain hosting and archive disk quota fees should come in at another $130-200 for the next year (I have to review past invoices). I'll let everyone know when I've paid everything... this is important since I'm planning on moving from Oregon to Phoenix the first part of November, and we don't want an interuption in KR-net service while I'm busy packing/unpacking stuff. If you are feeling guilty about not contributing to KR-net, hang in there. The effort to keep KR-net running is nothing compared to the tax mess I just cleaned up for our local EAA chapter! Geez I get NO money for that mess, but at least the chapter treasury was big enough to pay all the penalties... OUCH! I'm learning a lot about where to volunteer and where to lay low. -- Ross ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Use of Oil Cooler as Source For Carb Heat From: "Ross R. Youngblood" Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 23:31:59 +0000 X-Message-Number: 25 Might be a good idea, but remember that hot air has fewer molecules in it... less dense, therefore less power. What you want is cold air, unless it has moisture in it (I think), then you pull the carb heat. -- Ross Stickandrudder@cs.com wrote: > It would seem that a winding or two of oil cooler line wrapped about the carb > body should do the trick. Why didn't Witchita think of this. > Paul > Derry, NH > Stickandrudder@cs.com > > --- > 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: Carb Heat From: "Ross R. Youngblood" Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 23:50:45 +0000 X-Message-Number: 26 There was a question on recommended method for making carb heat. Here is an easy one out of Tony Bengellis' book Firewall Forward pp107-109 (picture on page 108) Get a screen door spring and 4 hose clamps. Also get a couple of those aluminum flanges from Aircraft Spruce, and your pop rivit gun. I got some thin aluminum (Tony recommonds .025 2024T3), and get to work. 1) Secure one end of the spring to a hose clamp, and tighten the clamp onto the exhaust stack. 2) S T R E T C H the screen door spring which will make nicely spaced loops, and coil this around and around and around the exhaust stack. 3) Secure the other end of the screen door hinge with the 2nd exhaust clamp. 4) Fabricate an enclosure using the aluminum, and cut some holes for your hose flanges. (In, Out, Carb Heat, Cabin Heat, whatever). Then you can make some tabs on this shroud, and fasten it to the exhaust with the hose clamps. 5) Someone asked what good was a tech counselor. I was on revision 2 of my carb heat muff, and didn't like it, when my tech counselor suggested shaping the ends like a mouse door from a Tom and Jerry cartoon. This way you can make two identical pieces and slide them over each other to make a circular opening. The material from the opening is cut out to make a little "leg" tab for the hose clamps and "viola" I have a nifty carb heat muff.. This wasn't the tech counselor with the Arco Duster biplane, but the tech counselor who built his second bi-plane in 18months, he also owns a furniture factory and knows a bit about airplanes and wood it seems. Turns out he was also born the same year as I was. His second bi-plane was a grand champion at the Star-Duster fly-in, this P.O.ed the Arco Duster biplane who just one first place. Seems that the year before one of the judges noticed that one of the bolts on the tail was a different color than the others on the Star Duster, so this must have been fixed. His current project is a mini Bi-plane which is about the size of a KR. His previous project was a Cassut racer... if I only had the build time this guy makes... -- 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