From: KR-net users group digest[SMTP:kr-net@telelists.com] Sent: Monday, October 25, 1999 11:29 PM To: kr-net digest recipients Subject: kr-net digest: October 25, 1999 KR-net users group Digest for Monday, October 25, 1999. 1. RE: Stall-Spin Glider Training 2. RE: Admin cranky 3. Making KRnet better 4. Re: Making KRnet better 5. Re: Making KRnet better 6. Re: Making KRnet better 7. Kolka crash update... 8. 0-200/tailwheel spring 9. Pulsar for sale ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: RE: Stall-Spin Glider Training From: "RONALD.FREIBERGER" Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 11:05:38 -0500 X-Message-Number: 1 The first secret is to put the nose down when anything happens, the try to figure out a good plan. 00000000000 :0 Ron -----Original Message----- From: bounce-kr-net-100070@telelists.com [mailto:bounce-kr-net-100070@telelists.com]On Behalf Of Ross R. Youngblood Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 1999 2:13 PM To: KR-net users group Subject: [kr-net] Stall-Spin Glider Training 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. 0000000000 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: RE: Admin cranky From: "RONALD.FREIBERGER" Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 11:05:36 -0500 X-Message-Number: 2 Nice ideas for a cranky-ass :0 PM To: KR-net users group Subject: [kr-net] Admin cranky I like a good email flame war as good as the next web junkie. However I think I'd better lay some ground rules. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Making KRnet better From: smithr Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 11:46:17 -0400 X-Message-Number: 3 I posted the message about the C85 thinking that it was more in line with what was wanted by KRnet, only to be surprised by Ed's response that I shouldn't have posted this question. I do understand his comments but soon I'll be afraid to ask any question. I would be willing to add my email address and receive responses privately, but then the (few??) others that may be interested would not hear the answer. Do we want that? A very important question here is: Who is to decide what is worth talking about on KRnet? Remember that we are all at different stages of construction. It seems obvious that some of us want to talk mostly about the new and exciting developments in KR engineering, while others just want an answer to a question or even a question that has already been answered a year ago. I read KRnet regularly but can't remember the answer to every question on construction stages I wasn't interested in at the time. It seems obvious that beginner builders want to ask questions to the advanced builders.....but the advanced builders can't be bothered with such trivial questions. So my vote goes for complete freedom in KRnet to ask any question at any time or discuss any subject at any time and freedom to use the delete key often. I suggest that we might divide KRnet into two parts: a beginners forum and an advanced forum with no beginners questions allowed in the advanced forum. However private email to the advanced people would be allowed. Obviously a good archive system would help. Bob Smith, reply to rsmith5@nycap.rr.com Edwin Blocher wrote: > 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Making KRnet better From: Mike Mims Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 10:29:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Message-Number: 4 Your C85 question was perfect for KRnet. Screw these people who want to decided what we can and can not talk about. I wish they would all GET OFF THIS LIST! Oddly enough a C85 is a factory recommended engine for the KR so how the hell does that not meet the criteria for posting? I thought about sending this off net but I want everyone to know how I feel about people that have a problem with someone asking questions about a C-85, widened fuselage, different airfoils, other power plants types that will work, etc.,etc.,etc. they can get the hell off this list and do it now. Almost all of the post on the list in one way shape or form has something to do with a KR and I think that there are many people who feel the same way I do in that they want to hear peoples responses to these post. If not let me know and we can just move to our own damn list. BTW, I for one wanted to hear Jeffs response because I had forgotten the differences myself. Also if anyone out there would like me to return my little award that I got at the gathering because my post seem to be nothing but trash and non KR oriented these days, just say the magic word! --- smithr wrote: > I posted the message about the C85 thinking that it > was more in line with what was wanted by KRnet, only to be surprised by Ed's response that I shouldn't have > posted this question. ===== __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Making KRnet better From: Donald Reid Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 13:22:03 -0400 X-Message-Number: 5 smithr wrote: > > I posted the message about the C85 thinking that it was more in line with what > was wanted by KRnet, only to be surprised by Ed's response that I shouldn't have > posted this question. (big snip) I think that this is was a perfect example of the type of questions for the net. A C85 would be a prime choice for a KR, you asked about specifics, I knew a little bit, someone else filled me/us in on the different accessory case that you can have with a C85, and everyone that was interested learned something. If you don't care about the C85 or related topics, just hit the delete key. Everybody should be happy and the net works like it is supposed to. By the way, I noticed this morning that Avweb's auction site has a C85 that is located in California. Go to http://auction.avweb.com/osauction.stm This one came from a Vari-Eze, so I am guessing no starter. The specifics are: Complete with exhaust, airbox, baffles, 6" prop. adaptor, control brackets. 850 SMOH. No logs. Prop. strike with engine NOT turning. Runout checks O.K. Core value is $4000.00. Located east L.A. County. Free delivery within 50 miles -- 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: Making KRnet better From: David Moore Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 10:47:51 -0700 X-Message-Number: 6 Bob, The KRnet was set up to discuss the building tech. used in building the KR2, any question about building, safety, performance, places to get good prices on material or flight testing a KR should be an exceptable question. If it isn't, then all of us are wasting our time sitting here at these computers. Building like flying is a learned experience, you sure aren't born knowing how to build or fly. So, you just keep asking and the ones who can find the time to be bothered will answer, the others don't matter and they can use the delete key. I was going to answer you about that question but I knew, soon as Jeff Scott saw the question on the C85 he'd answer you. He's been flying behind a C85 for, what two years now? The only restriction I can agree with is let's keep KRnet clean. No jokes or personal talk, If someone has a beef, take it off the net. The rest of us don't care, and that should be between the people concerned, not the entire net. Well, before the net mom's yell at me, Good Day and CAVU Dave Moore >I posted the message about the C85 thinking that it was more in line with what >was wanted by KRnet, only to be surprised by Ed's response that I shouldn't have >posted this question. I do understand his comments but soon I'll be afraid to >ask any question. I would be willing to add my email address and receive >responses privately, but then the (few??) others that may be interested would >not hear the answer. Do we want that? > >A very important question here is: Who is to decide what is worth talking about >on KRnet? Remember that we are all at different stages of construction. It >seems obvious that some of us want to talk mostly about the new and exciting >developments in KR engineering, while others just want an answer to a question >or even a question that has already been answered a year ago. I read KRnet >regularly but can't remember the answer to every question on construction stages >I wasn't interested in at the time. It seems obvious that beginner builders >want to ask questions to the advanced builders.....but the advanced builders >can't be bothered with such trivial questions. > >So my vote goes for complete freedom in KRnet to ask any question at any time or >discuss any subject at any time and freedom to use the delete key often. > >I suggest that we might divide KRnet into two parts: a beginners forum and an >advanced forum with no beginners questions allowed in the advanced forum. >However private email to the advanced people would be allowed. Obviously a good >archive system would help. > >Bob Smith, reply to rsmith5@nycap.rr.com David G. Moore mailto:dgmoore1@gte.net Henderson, Nevada ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Kolka crash update... From: "Mark Langford" Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 17:20:58 -0500 X-Message-Number: 7 KRNetHeads, I got the low-down on Leigh Kolka's crash today from Troy. The FAA called him since he was the guy who test flew it for the first time (and SO many others), and helped Leigh get it in shape to fly. I turns out the plane was bought from a builder in North Carolina who'd gotten it signed off but never flew it. It weighed 628 pounds empty, and had a 2100 Revmaster engine. Troy had visited earlier and gave him a LONG list of things to fix before he'd fly it. It didn't take long for Leigh to make all of the fixes, Troy to test it, and Leigh to get it in the air. First thing Troy did is help him convert it from retracts to fixed gear the week prior to the crash. At the same time, Leigh took off one of the wings to help withdraw the spring bar, and to do a little patch work on some delaminations on the bottom of the wing. The Saturday flight was to a breakfast fly-in. He had last refueled in Illinois (on a visit to his girlfriend's) when he landed at Murfreesboro (or Shelbyville, I forget). He met a KR builder (Randall Smith, 52) who wanted to go for a ride to see how it flew. Together they weighed 340 pounds. Leigh bought 5 gallons of fuel for the trip. They flew to a neighboring airport and did a few touch and gos, and then another one back at the fly-in. But on takeoff, the engine quit. Troy says that with a plane that heavy and 340 pounds of passenger, they were probably only climbing out at 70 or 80. When the engine quit, the plane immediately dropped a wing, and went into the flat spin. All the wreckage was in a bout a 20 foot radius, indicating that it went straight down. The aluminum fuel tank was ruptured, but the FAA said that it didin't burst from fluid pressure, but external forces, and there was no fuel found in or near it. The gascolator was empty. The FAA did a weight and balance using the previous W&B, factoring in gear changes (which actually helped move the CG forward in cruise configuration) two guys' weights and no fuel, and ascertained that when the engine quit, the CG was 2.5" AFT of the CG envelope that RR specifies. That would be 4.5" aft of where most people think think the aft CG limit should be. An unexpected spin would be difficult to get out of in such a low altitude, low speed situation, even without a CG problem. The sad thing is that Leigh had run out of fuel a few weeks earlier (in the short life of this aircraft), and landed in a field. He refueled and flew it out of the field. I don't know if the gauges were inaccurate or what, but it's another classic case of pilot error in an unforgiving situation. For another sad crash story, be sure and watch the national news tonight for the Lear Jet hypoxia story.... Mark Langford, Huntsville, Alabama mailto:langford@hiwaay.net see KR2S project N56ML at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: 0-200/tailwheel spring From: "Steven Vitrella" Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 18:46:19 PDT X-Message-Number: 8 I have decided to use an 0-200 in my KR2. My question is: What needs to be done to beef up the firewall to support the 0-200. Other sugestions for the 0-200? Also, where can I find a tailwheel spring bar that will raise the tail 2-3" more than the stock spring. Thanks, Steve builder in N.FL ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Pulsar for sale From: HAshraf@aol.com Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 22:18:54 EDT X-Message-Number: 9 Hi, A month back there was a Pulsar kit that was being advertised on this net. Can the gentleman who did that please e-mail me about it if it is still available. Thanks. Haris --- 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