From: KR-net users group digest[SMTP:kr-net@telelists.com] Sent: Friday, October 22, 1999 11:16 PM To: kr-net digest recipients Subject: kr-net digest: October 22, 1999 KR-net users group Digest for Friday, October 22, 1999. 1. Re: Bailing out? 2. Re: Prop Pitch and Engine spacers (CG) 3. Re: Passing the Torch 4. Re: High Performance Composites 5. Hanger/Garage Sale, I Quit! 6. etiquette 7. C85 8. Re: C85 9. goof up 10. Personal Message 11. Never in my life... 12. Re: C85 13. The latest Net discussion 14. Re: C85 15. Re: Personal Message 16. KR Embroidery 17. Engine for Sale 18. Re: KR Embroidery 19. Re: C85 20. Retract Landing Gear Question 21. Re: KR Embroidery 22. Re: Dead Engine and More 23. Test 24. Stall-Spin Glider Training ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Bailing out? From: Jim Faughn Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999 06:45:48 -0500 X-Message-Number: 1 I left the list for about 2 months about a year or so ago. This was for various reasons but mainly because I couldn't understand why all the e-mail traffic that said nothing. After a while, I resubscribed to the digest and decided that I would only read and reply when I had something substantive to say. It seems that what I am most interested in is safety in the KR and that is what I will typically respond to, CG or flying it. However, I read my message twice and look for things that might piss people off and try to rewrite that part or just don't post it. If I were guessing why people are leaving the list, I would say it was because they have put the information they believe in out for all to see. Most of the time this information comes from research or testing. Sometimes it doesn't. Then someone picks it apart. Well, the problem is, when the someone picking it apart doesn't have the background or the data to support their findings then you have to ask yourself - Why bother. Enough why bothers and then you just go somewhere else. This is in contrast to when someone picks it apart with a well thought out, read that researched, response to add to the body of information we all can use about the KR. This type of response will always be appreciated. These are simply my thoughts. I enjoy getting up in the morning and reading some of the messages out of the digest. I seem to stay connected to the KR community. However, if I didn't create the attitude about this that I did, I would have stayed off-line. -- Jim Faughn N8931JF St. Louis, MO mailto:jfaughn@mvp.net (314) 652-7659 or Cell (314) 346-4038 ----------------------------------------------------------------- From: ejanssen@chipsnet.com (Ed Janssen) Sure wish someone knew the answer for why people are leaving the list. I'm certainly not a psychologist of any sort, but I suggest the word "burnout" is probably pretty close. We have a close network of unselfish guys who have worked extreemly hard to help promote and improve the KR, offer building hints, put on Gatherings, work on the new airfoil, direct newbies, offer helpful videos, etc. After a while, they simply get tired, don't receive enough pats on the back for their great efforts, and simply get irritable. Guess I don't blame them - we all just need a good long nap. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Prop Pitch and Engine spacers (CG) From: tom Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999 09:54:51 -0400 X-Message-Number: 2 garbez wrote: > > Hi Netters, > > I acquired a 52" ground adjustable prop that is nearly new that is made for > VW's that has a pitch range of 30 to 60 degrees. I bought a Warp Drive > protractor to check the pitch adjustments on the blades. I'm going to use > this prop to determine what pitch I need to buy a fixed pitch prop. I need > to know since the prop will go lower than 42 in pitch, should I not exceed a > certain pitch or should I not exceed a certain RPM's? > > I moved my engine 3" forward and you can't get it to far aft unless you put > a lead weight in the tail, I really don't have to worry about putting > someone heavy in the plane because they probably won't fit anyway. > > Mike, Sounds like you have been busy since we saw you and your plane at the gathering. Right now you are in the busiest, most interesting, (and fun) part of your testing- Making all of the small changes that will make your plane dependable and fly the way you want it to. I think that considering the light weight of your engine, you made a good decision with the engine spacers. About the prop pitch and RPM- First, make sure your tach is accurate. I have found no two tachs that read the same. Often there is a 1-300 RPM difference. Most people that I have talked to seem to beleive that the Tiny Tach digital tach that senses voltage off one of your spark plug wires is one of the most accurate. Then just keep changing the pitch until you get the RPM you want at full throttle, straight and level. With your V-dub, popular opinion is that you should be able to turn the prop 35-3600 RPM max in the air. Be advised that with the VW, the RPM (and airspeed) will continue to creep up long after you think you are about topped out. Maybe another 1-200 RPM. There is folklore among KR flyers about the airplane "Getting up on step". But then, that's a thread for another day. -- Tom Crawford Gainesville, FL N262TC Mailto:toys@atlantic.net http://www.tomshardwoodtoys.com (Works Now!) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Passing the Torch From: Steven Eberhart Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999 08:59:00 -0500 (CDT) X-Message-Number: 3 CLOAKING MODE OFF I am remaining on KRnet simply to be able to respond to questions about the new KRnet/UIUC wing. THis post is one of the reasons why I will be lurking around. I am not going to participate in emotional shouting matches just provide documented scientific fact that is open to proper scientific review. On Fri, 22 Oct 1999, Michael Taglieri wrote: [snip my own words] [snip some of Mike's words] > Concerning the new wing, I don't think it's fair to label it "criticism" > to want to see a flying example of the thing before we jump for joy. If > computer models and wind tunnel tests were enough to solve all problems, > aircraft firms wouldn't need test pilots. If I understand right, there's > a single plane now flying with the new wing, and it has so many other > changes that the contribution of the wing to the flight characteristics > is unclear. In addition, the wind tunnel models were constructed to > great precision by the various aeronautical engineers, etc., and as a > laminar flow wing, bumps and other errors of a nonprofessional builder > may affect the results further. We are looking at two issues here. One) safety of flight issues, and two) performance issues. Mike is completely correct in his assertion that all of the information is not in yet. We only have preliminary data on the new wing. But, in defense of the wing project, a lot of the data is in. Harry Riblett sells modifications of existing laminar flow airfoils to clients with nothing more than computer modeling to support his design work. The KRnet/UIUC airfoils have been subjected to this same review in addition to extensive wind tunnel testing. Also, we now have a flying test vehicle that is piloted by one of the most qualified KR test pilots in existance. I will be putting together an interrum report on the KRnet/UIUC wing project for critical, scientific review. I apologize for not doing this sooner. You just have to realize that this is a volunteer operation and we do not always have the resources or time that we would like to have. We have tried to attack the most important issues first, i.e. safety of flight. THe analysis of just how good the new airfoils are will follow after we determine that there are yo hideden "gotchas" (sp?). A lot of the safety of flight and preliminary performance data are available to you on Mark Langfords video tape of the KR Gathering forums. The forum on the airfoils was presented by Dr. Ashok Gopalarathnam, Mark Lougheed, Mark Langford, Troy Petteway and myself. Order the tape for the answers to many of your concerns. I will however, summarize some of what was said here for those of you that were not able to attend the gathering. I do suggest that anyone building the new wing get a copy of the tape, for a $10 copy charge. If you are a contributor to the KRnet/UIUC airfoil fund and feel thet the $10 is too much, just write me off net and I will see that you get a copy of the airfoil forum and I will send mark the $10 for you. > > I'm happy that people continue to experiment with new airfoils, and I'll > be even happier when I hear about the test flights of someone who has > built the new wing from scratch on a fairly stock KR-2 or 2-S and > compares its flying characteristics with another fairly stock plane with > the old wing. > > Finally, KR's have been flying safely for more than 25 years, and it's > pretty well known that the rear of the published CG range should be > avoided. If you're suggesting that the recent stall/spin accident of a > grossly overloaded plane somehow proves that the KR needs a different > airfoil, that's complete nonsense. That was not what I said. What I said was: "How many times have you heard us say that the CG range is not correct on the KR-2? Well, the FAA is implying the same thing in their earliest reports on the latest iteration of the classic KR stall/spin scenario." No reference to the airfoil here. Just pointing out that the CG range is not correct on the plans. Exactly what you said. You are right. > > Mike Taglieri Troy's plane N100TP old wing vis-a-vis new wing: 1. Troy's plane is in fact a great example of a stock KR. THe engine is in the stock location. The tail is in the stock location. THe old wing was in the stock location at the plans specified incidence and with the plans specified washout. THe weight is at the plans specified weight. What is different is that Troy has spent considerable attention to reducing drag where ever possible. I submit that it is the perfect example of a stock KR - possibly one of the best examples. Actually, just about the only non stock thing is the gull wing door. You have to remember that the plans say nothing about cooling ducts for the engine, Fairings around joining surfaces, etc. Troy's plane with the new wing does have a tail modification with 6" greater span and reduced elevator area. This is only going to affect stability not performance or airfoil related handling characteristics. 2. THe old wing stalled at 40 mph with a gentle stall. The new wing stalls at 40 mph with a gentle stall. Neither configuration tended to drop a wing in the stall. 3. With the old wing best rate of climb was achieved at 90 mph. With the new wing the same rate of climb is achieved at 120 mph. Better climb efficiency with implied reduced induced drag on the new wing. 4. With the old wing, at high cruise speeds when you put the nose down it did not tend to increase speed much implying that drag was a limiting factor. With the new wing, at high cruise speeds when you put the nose down it starts picking up speed rapidly implying that the wing is doing exactly what it was designed for..cruise high and fast with low drag. 5. Troy did hop up his engine somewhat so it is developing more power. More power burns more fuel. Troy is experiencing a lower fuel burn at the same cruise speed than before implying that there is less drag than before. Remember power cubed, drag squared? Even though the engine is capable of developing more power he is burning less fuel for the same cruise speed. Ashok calculated a 10% improvement here for the new wing and Troy's flight performance supports this.. 6. Rain and bug guts are a concern for laminar flow wings. A lot of attention was spent to insuring minimal affect on airfoil performance from rain and bug guts. Wind tunnel tests validated this design criteria. Troy has flown in heavy rain with little degredation in airfoil performance. He has not performed a stall series in the rain but will be doing so as soon as he has his plane re-engined with the C85 and it is raining in Columbia, TN. Troy has agreed to do a complete performance test of the new wing as soon as he finishes painting the plane. It is currently in primer and as he says "nothing finer that 180 grit sand paper has touched the wing" There are also some minor depressions over his spars that will be filled before the final paint. THis goes a long way in validating that the new wing can still perform well with a rough finish and with anomolies in the surface contour. A show finish on the plane will only improve things. I don't mind criticism but only when it is based on facts or data. THis is a scientific research and development project. If you see errors in our data tell us. If you see voids in our testing tell us. Just be specific. CLOAKING DEVICE ON 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: High Performance Composites From: "Jim Sellars" Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999 11:52:49 -0300 X-Message-Number: 4 Mike; What a great idea ;and thank you for reminding us. WE have so much to be so very proud of , including the fact that we don't always agree. Good work old Mikee.. Your friend from the cold far North, Jim -----Original Message----- From: Mike Mims To: KR-net users group Date: October 22, 1999 2:45 AM Subject: [kr-net] Re: High Performance Composites >I have to respond cuz thats what I do. Here is a >perfect example of what is wrong with the KRNet. We >misunderstand each other so darn much it isn't funny! >I didn't take that as a cheap shot at all. He (Rich) >was just stating that the guys who left may enjoy the >said publication. Did I miss something or did this >really seem like a cheap shot? Why does this BS >continue to find its way to all 450 of our desktops? >Can we all please just get along! > >--- CHOCTAWCWR@aol.com wrote: >> >> << Rich Parker >> >> To bad some of those guys left I'd bet the would >> like it too >> >> CHEAP SHOT DON'T YOU THINK!! >SOME OF YOU GUYS NEED TO MATURE A LITTLE.>>> > >===== > >__________________________________________________ >Do You Yahoo!? >Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com > >--- >You are currently subscribed to kr-net as: jsellars@mon.auracom.com >To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-kr-net-17800J@telelists.com > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Hanger/Garage Sale, I Quit! From: David Moore Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999 08:56:02 -0700 X-Message-Number: 5 Here is what I got: 1. KR2s spruce kit $600.00 2. Diehl gear (tail dragger, no bottom brackets) $400.00 3. RR WAF still in the box $200.00 4. Homebuilt Dual stick $100.00 5. KR2 set of plans (1996) with -s supplement $200.00 6. A set of KR2 plans in the three ringed binder (unknown date) Stock KR2 fuselage on the retract gear with Matco wheels and brakes, control stick installed ( set up as a single place KR2), spars installed with RR WAF, outboard wing spars built. RR vw motor mount (don't know what kind) KR2 clear canope in the frame, KR2 rear turtle deck, KR2 front turtle deck, And a box of green foam Make me an offer! I'm selling out. All of this is available in Henderson NV. (just outside Las Vegas NV.) or Apple Valley, Calif. I don't do shipping. Come to Vegas pick it up, I got a spare room. Dave Moore David G. Moore mailto:dgmoore1@gte.net Henderson, Nevada ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: etiquette From: "w.g. kirkland" Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999 12:02:19 -0400 X-Message-Number: 6 Think before you post. "A diplomat never unintentionally offends anyone". W.G. KIRKLAND kirkland@vianet.on.ca ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: C85 From: smithr Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999 13:25:52 -0400 X-Message-Number: 7 I am still considering which engine I might use in my KR. How does the C85 compare to the O200 in weight, horsepower,price and reliability? Bob Smith ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: C85 From: "Edwin Blocher" Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999 12:57:22 -0500 X-Message-Number: 8 Nothing personal Bob but I think this is what's wrong with the KRNet. If you had a signature at the bottom (ie: your e-mail address) answers could be sent to you instead of the net 450 people getting answers when only a handful are probably interested in the C85. If more responses were off net we wouldn't be loseing important people from the net. Think before you throw your 2 cents worth out. How many will be interested? I have deleted aroud 200 messages this month without opening them and it irritates me too. Hey guys, am I wrong? ED-----Original Message----- From: smithr To: KR-net users group Date: Friday, October 22, 1999 12:24 PM Subject: [kr-net] C85 >I am still considering which engine I might use in my KR. How does the C85 >compare to the O200 in weight, horsepower,price and reliability? > >Bob Smith > > >--- >You are currently subscribed to kr-net as: ed_blocher@email.msn.com >To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-kr-net-17800J@telelists.com > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: goof up From: "Edwin Blocher" Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999 13:52:55 -0500 X-Message-Number: 9 Boy, did I blow it. Please respond to my earlier comments off net at address below. I just came in from glueing the top engine mount rails, bottom ones follow tomorrow and then next week it will be plywood on the fuselage.Ed Blocher Moody, AL e-mail me at: ed_blocher@msn.com Check out all the latest on my home page. http://homepages.msn.com/Terminus/edsKR/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Personal Message From: David Moore Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999 12:28:52 -0700 X-Message-Number: 10 KRnetters, The way to make a personal message response in your message is to put a mailto:your e-mail address in your signature. Like mailto:dgmoore1@gte.net, now anyone want to flame me they can click on my e-mail address and go direct to me. Private e-mail stays private. Also you guys who list web pages for people to go look at, if you would put a http:// in front of your www. it makes it a lot easier for us with old squirrel powered computers. We then just click on the address. I am sorry for talking computer on this post. It's not what we're are here for. So have at it, click on my name and give me hell, I'm as about far off KRnet subject as you can get. And I do apologize. Dave Moore David G. Moore mailto:dgmoore1@gte.net Henderson, Nevada ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Never in my life... From: "Mark Jones" Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999 12:29:54 X-Message-Number: 11 Never in my life have I seen so much friction in a group of people who supposedly have the same common interest and goals. We are all mature adults with a common mission to achieve the best results we possibly can in building an experimental KR aircraft. What do we have to do to stop all this bull.... which is being posted? Step back and take a look at the last month's net posts. We sound lake a bunch of old gabby women who have nothing better to do than sit around and figure out who can be slammed next. All of this is costing us dearly. We are losing the expertise of several contributors that are highly respected by most of us. Before one of you decide to slam me for this post, please take note that I use we to include myself as I am not pointing any fingers at any one individual. I just simply would like the KR-Net to get back to what it was meant for. The KR-Net is meant to be used as an educational tool to build the KR designed aircraft, nothing else! Stop gabbing like an old wet hen and start building! Let's keep this KR family together. Mark Jones (N886MJ) Waukesha, WI mailto:flykr2s@execpc.com http://sites.netscape.net/flykr2s/homepage ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: C85 From: Donald Reid Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999 15:41:20 -0400 X-Message-Number: 12 smithr wrote: > > I am still considering which engine I might use in my KR. How does the C85 > compare to the O200 in weight, horsepower,price and reliability? It is basically the same engine, with the same overall reliability. It is slightly lighter. I don't think that it has a starter but may be wrong. Some of the parts are interchangeable, for example, I believe that you can use an O-200 crankshaft in a C85 case and save money by doing it. The reference that I have says that the dry weight is 169 pounds for a C85 and 188 for an O200. Add on the accessories and it will be about 185-195 for the C85 versus 205-220 for the O200. Physically, they are almost the same size. The difference is power is because the C85 is a lower compression (6.3 to 1 vs 7.0 to 1) and a slower rated speed (2575 vs 2750). If the price is right, it would be a good choice. They may be more expensive to re-build. The early Goodyear (later Formula) used C85's until they became more expensive and harder to find and then changed to O200's. -- 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: The latest Net discussion From: Donald Reid Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999 16:28:16 -0400 X-Message-Number: 13 I have thought about some of the latest discussions that we have had on the Net, and I am sorry that is has taken place. There have been hurt feelings and lost members because of it. This is a good forum for us; it provides a nice way to get information out to the interested parties. It would be ideal if Rand took an active part in this, but history and circumstances do not allow that. I have been on the net about three years. Some people think that I have made a contribution. I don't respond often, but if I have something of value to add, I try my best to present it in a way that can be understood. My responses tend to be long-winded, perhaps a bit arrogant, often too detailed, but always well reasoned (at least I think so). I am a Professional Engineer by training, experience, and my very nature. In this forum, no one really knows that. I could be just another guy off the street with an opinion. I have studied airplane design and construction seriously for a number of years but I am just a faceless response on your computer screen. At times, I have said something that goes against someone's pet theory or unusual idea and I have gotten flamed because of it. In my case, I don't care very much. I know what I know. I also know when I don't have enough knowledge or training to express an opinion. If I get flamed, I realize that the flamer is an idiot and I am not. Well . . . strike out idiot and replace it with a more politically correct term like misinformed. What I am trying to say is, don't take any of it personal. The guy who said something that irritates you may just be right and then again, he may have the intellect of a garden slug. When the Net was smaller, it was easier to "know" something about the person who wrote the message. It was like a discussion at your workplace, you have an idea of just how informal you can be in a small group where you know everyone. You can say something mildly insulting to a friend and it's OK. Now that we have close to 500 people, we should be a little more formal, and at the same time, try to be a little slower to take offense. Now I am going to climb down off of my lectern and go out in the shop. I opened up a box of Stinson 108 parts yesterday that I need to sort through. That has nothing to do with the KR, but it is airplane stuff and I am happy. I don't think about my KR project as a means to build an airplane, I think of it as recreation. It is supposed to be fun. -- 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: C85 From: Richard Selix Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999 13:41:21 -0700 X-Message-Number: 14 Smithr: You might find this website regarding engines informative. http://www.fortunecity.com/marina/anchor/270/weights.htm Richard smithr wrote: > I am still considering which engine I might use in my KR. How does the C85 > compare to the O200 in weight, horsepower,price and reliability? > > Bob Smith > > --- > You are currently subscribed to kr-net as: rselix@earthlink.net > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-kr-net-17800J@telelists.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Personal Message From: "J.R.L. Engineering Consortium Ltd." Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999 18:07:44 -0500 X-Message-Number: 15 -- > >I am sorry for talking computer on this post. It's not what we're are here >for. So have at it, click on my name and give me hell, I'm as about far off >KRnet subject as you can get. And I do apologize. > > >Dave Moore I'm not offended by any honest sincere question(s) or comments. KRRon ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: KR Embroidery From: NFCKR3@aol.com Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999 19:17:21 EDT X-Message-Number: 16 I still have some KR2 Embroidery disks. I couldn't find one like I liked so I had one made. It is of the highest quality and can be read by most automatic embroidery machines. Some of you may have seen mine at Lake Barkley. I will sell the disks for $10.00 each including postage. I am just trying to recover my cost, (Over $100.00 for the master). If interested contact me at NFCKR3@AOL.COM. Skip Carden 250KB ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Engine for Sale From: "garbez" Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999 18:58:21 -0500 X-Message-Number: 17 Firewall forward. VW 1835 - only 13 hours run time 4 of which are flying hours. Duel ignition, .044 heads with stainless steel valves, Revflow carb, 52-46 Prop by Props Inc. with spinner. Just bolt-up and go fly. E-mail me direct or call. Mike Garbez N998MG Griswold, IA (712) 778-2449 (712) 249-3063 cell phone msgtlg@netins.net ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: KR Embroidery From: David Moore Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999 18:02:36 -0700 X-Message-Number: 18 Skip, What the heck is a KR2 embroidery disk? I'm afraid I haven't a clue, as embarrassing as that might be. Dave Moore At 07:17 PM 10/22/99 EDT, you wrote: >I still have some KR2 Embroidery disks. I couldn't find one like I liked so >I had one made. It is of the highest quality and can be read by most >automatic embroidery machines. Some of you may have seen mine at Lake >Barkley. I will sell the disks for $10.00 each including postage. I am just >trying to recover my cost, (Over $100.00 for the master). If interested >contact me at NFCKR3@AOL.COM. > >Skip Carden >250KB > >--- >You are currently subscribed to kr-net as: dgmoore1@gte.net >To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-kr-net-17800J@telelists.com > > David G. Moore mailto:dgmoore1@gte.net Henderson, Nevada ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: C85 From: jscott.pilot@juno.com Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999 20:16:51 -0700 X-Message-Number: 19 On Fri, 22 Oct 1999 15:41:20 -0400 Donald Reid writes: > smithr wrote: > > > I am still considering which engine I might use in my KR. How does the C85 > > compare to the O200 in weight, horsepower,price and reliability? > > It is basically the same engine, with the same overall reliability. It > is slightly lighter. I don't think that it has a starter but may be > wrong. Some of the parts are interchangeable, for example, I believe > that you can use an O-200 crankshaft in a C85 case and save money by > doing it. > > The reference that I have says that the dry weight is 169 pounds for a > C85 and 188 for an O200. Add on the accessories and it will be about > 185-195 for the C85 versus 205-220 for the O200. > > Physically, they are almost the same size. The difference is power is > because the C85 is a lower compression (6.3 to 1 vs 7.0 to 1) and a > slower rated speed (2575 vs 2750). > Since my KR is flying behind a C-85 and I have owned a slug of small Continental engines, I guess I feel qualified to answer this. There are two models of the C-85 engine. The C-85-8F is kind of rare, but has an accessory plate like the A series Continentals with no place to mount a starter or generator and no gears inside to run them. The most common C-85 you will find is the C-85-12F. It uses the same accessory case as the O-200 with mags, starter, and generator. Mine weighs 235# including all accessories. The weight of the accessories can vary a great deal and none of them are any heavier than the ones on mine. I have the original 1946 Eiseman mags, and the original 20 Amp Delco Generator and Delco starter with the Pull cable to engage the bendix. Often you will find a blank where the starter and generator mount if the engine has been mounted into one of the older non-electric planes. The internal gears for the starter and generator will still be there. The O-200 is essentially the same engine except that the crank is stroked, the pistons have the skirts trimmed for the stroked crank, the case is through bolted rather than all of the studs pulling against the aluminum case, it has a 6 quart sump rather than 4 1/2, and it always had a Marvel Schebler MA3-SPA carb rather than the old Stromberg NAS carb that was often found on the C-85. The O-200 mounts up with different bolts and mounting pads, but does bolt up to the same mount as the C-85. The difference is that the mounting pads will move the engine roughly 1 inch farther forward. The larger mounting cushions are there to absorb the additional stresses that would get passed to the airframe by the higher compression engine. Max RPM on the C-85 is 2575 rpm, while the O-200 turns 26 or 2700. I have 215 hours flying behind the C-85 in my KR and just finished a 2 week tour of the midwest in it. If I lived in the midwest, I can't imagine that I would really need more engine as the performance of my KR with the C-85 and loaded to 1200# gross is very satisfying. However, the C-85 with the weight of my plane and me starts to really labor at climbing around 7000'. Unfortunately, my home airport is at 7200' and most of my flying is well above that altitude. Eventually, I will probably change to the O-200 for that reason. If I was building my KR again, I would grab either a C-85, C-90, or O-200 depending on which one I happened to find at the best price. BTW, my C-85 is mounted on the Rand O-200 engine mount which is roughly 3 1/2 inches longer than the HAPI mount. I would say that the CG on my KR is about as perfect as one can get it. It currently requires a minimum of a 105# pilot to get it into the front of the CG range and you can not get it out of the CG range without busting the 1200# gross limit I set for the plane. Not even close. As for reliability, all of the small Continentals are fine engines. Jeff Scott - Los Alamos, NM mailto:jscott.pilot@juno.com See N1213w construction and first flight at http://www.thuntek.net/~jeb/krjeff.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Retract Landing Gear Question From: GARYKR2@cs.com Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999 23:03:09 EDT X-Message-Number: 20 I need some help from you folks. First, what is the going price for a spring bar (normal KR2 type). Second, I got wind that the bars are being reflexed slightly to help when sitting on the ground. True or false? If true, has this stoped the gear from cracking the glass above it. I plan to replace my spring bar this winter and would like to start getting all my ducks lined up awhile. Thanks. Gary Hinkle Middletown, Pa. garykr2@cs.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: KR Embroidery From: NFCKR3@aol.com Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999 23:20:21 EDT X-Message-Number: 21 This is a disk that contains all of the information to have a piece of clothing embroidered. It is a digitalized image used on automatic embroidery machines. This way you can have a KR2 embroidered in a shirt or jacket or cap. Skip ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Dead Engine and More From: David McKelvey Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999 22:34:09 -0500 X-Message-Number: 22 Good point, a lot of problems w/ wing ice are exasperated because of the pilot's attempt to keep it in the air. An icey wing at a high oag will build ice until it's just too heavey to fly. Speaking of ice, I've seen acft on hot summer days with frosty l/e's. The right combination of alt, moisture, conditions, can cause wing icing. The KR lends a great view of much of the a/c, keep an eye out!! dave, Grapevine TX ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Test From: Michael Taglieri Date: Sat, 23 Oct 1999 02:01:21 -0400 X-Message-Number: 23 Test ___________________________________________________________________ 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: Stall-Spin Glider Training From: "Ross R. Youngblood" Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 19:12:59 +0000 X-Message-Number: 24 One of the things you learn in a glider, is that without an engine, gravity is what provides your forward thrust. And... sometimes you want to push the nose DOWN to go farther with the altitude to get your best angle of glide speed. When I had to ditch a glider in the desert at 14, I do remember having to dodge a tree (briefly lift one wing, and put it back), but I was mainly focused on keeping the airspeed where I was supposed to. I hope that if I was in an engine out situation I would automaticly push the nose down to keep best glidespeed, but it's going to happen suddenly, and might be such a shock that I forget to fly the plane. At least in the glider, I wasn't shocked by the loss of an engine, but by my mis-interpertation of the ridge lift activity as thermal activity... and lost track of minimum safe gliding distances back to the field, so pre-occupation happens. -- 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