From: "KR-net users group digest" To: "kr-net digest recipients" Subject: kr-net digest: January 07, 2000 Date: Saturday, January 08, 2000 12:18 AM KR-net users group Digest for Friday, January 07, 2000. 1. Re: Cockpit width 2. Re: t-88 3. Re: t-88 4. Ed Johannson 5. Re: Warmth "Closed and small place" 6. KR building hours and questions 7. Re: Cockpit width 8. Re: Cockpit width 9. Fiberglass cloth deal 10. Re: Cockpit width 11. Re: KR building hours and questions 12. Re: Cockpit width 13. Double Wide Wing 4" Spar 14. Re: KR news letter 15. Re: KR building hours and questions 16. T88 17. Side stick controll 18. Re: Side stick controll 19. Re: Side stick controll 20. EAA and Home Building 21. Engine Cooling Templates ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Cockpit width From: Mike Mims Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2000 08:06:24 -0800 (PST) X-Message-Number: 1 What I am saying is the fuselage itself is making more lift than the 3.5 foot section of airfoil that its occupying. --- Mark Langford wrote: > Mike, would you mind expounding on this a little > bit? I'm having a hard time following you. > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: t-88 From: Mike Mims Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2000 15:37:31 -0800 (PST) X-Message-Number: 2 Should be thick but smooth and clear. --- Vincent Chrisovergis wrote: > Does any one no what is the shelf life of t-88 glue > sitting in a room > not opened at 70 degrees room temp. And what is the > part a resin suppose > to look like? To me when I began my progect I opened > up the resin and it > looks like it's curdled.Is this my emagination or am > I just over > reacting. > > > --- > You are currently subscribed to kr-net as: > kr2sflyer@yahoo.com > To unsubscribe send a blank email to > leave-kr-net-110995W@telelists.com > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: t-88 From: WA7YXF@aol.com Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2000 18:41:36 EST X-Message-Number: 3 The maker of T-88 says the storage life is in excess of one year if the container is kept well closed and stored below 90 degrees. I've had the "A" part settle some and after warming it up and turning the bottle a few times and squeezing it around, it looked and worked OK. Its darn hard to squeeze out if its not warm.. It can cure as low as 35 F but I keep mine warm in my light bulb epoxy oven. Lynn Hyder WA7YXF Redmond, Oregon ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Ed Johannson From: "fly" Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 10:40:20 +1300 X-Message-Number: 4 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01BF58FB.98767980 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Would Ed Johannson please contact me re folding wing pics on the = email address below. Thanks. (unable to access the archives)=20 David J Stuart, Wellington New Zealand. Email: fly@paradise.net.nz Pictures: http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/~fly ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01BF58FB.98767980 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Would Ed Johannson please = contact me re=20 folding wing pics on the email address below. Thanks. (unable to=20 access the archives)

David J Stuart,
Wellington New = Zealand.
Email: fly@paradise.net.nz
Pictures:&= nbsp; =20 http://homepages.paradise.= net.nz/~fly

------=_NextPart_000_0005_01BF58FB.98767980-- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Warmth "Closed and small place" From: "emiglesias" Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 14:59:14 -0300 X-Message-Number: 5 Netters In La Pampa we have warm summers as the current and cold winters. To work with epoxi it is necessary a good temperature during at least 24 hs and this knows we all. What arises but rational it is to have a pleasant temperature in the work enclosure and to elevate it in a "closed and small place" for reasons of economy. We can close up the parts in a store of plastic -an stove?- in which we go up the temperature up to the 25 - 30 °C (+ - 100°F?). The same work table can serve as support for the plastic and under it we can put the heater. This way we bound the place to heat and the expense is much smaller that the necessary one to maintain hot all one garage. To control electric heat is but easy and cheap that other forms. Don't forget to leave space with air above the part to heat. I hope this wil help you. Happy new year for all of you and yours families. Eduardo emiglesias@cpenet.com.ar ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: KR building hours and questions From: "Matt Fulks" Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2000 22:11:38 X-Message-Number: 6 I just recieved my info from KR recently. I have decided that I would like to build one. I am just curious, how many man hours does it take from start to finish when I buy the kit? I will probably buy Group 1 for the KR-2S next month and get started. The KR-2S looks a little better for me since I'm kind of tall and it has a little more room. I don't mind being cramped. I just want a plane to fly that I can afford. Also, when I buy the kit, do the ribs come already cut out? Thanks for any info! Sincerely, Matt Fulks ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Cockpit width From: "Mark Langford" Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 06:57:08 -0600 X-Message-Number: 7 Mike Mims wrote: > What I am saying is the fuselage itself is making more > lift than the 3.5 foot section of airfoil that its > occupying. What I was having a problem with was the part about "If you wanted a spar that could handle the weight you mention adding a 1/2 inch to the top spar cap (from top to bottom) would have been more than enough." I thought you meant that he could have achieved his goal of doubling the gross limit by adding the extra spar cap material. Apparently you meant that the plane could haul two 230 pound people by increasing spar strength by 15% for positive loads. Still, that depends. Assuming this plane would weigh 650 pounds (which I doubt, with a Legacy 2.2 engine) and carry 20 gallons of fuel, it would need a 25% increase in spar strength to carry this 1230 pound load, not to mention a good long look at WAFs, gear, fuselage/wing attach connection, etc. I'm just trying to make sure people don't get the idea that all you have to do to double the spar size to get a plane that will carry twice the load. If you want to double the load, you need to build a whole different airplane... Mark Langford, Huntsville, Alabama mailto:langford@hiwaay.net see KR2S N56ML at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Cockpit width From: Donald Reid Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2000 21:00:30 -0500 X-Message-Number: 8 > Mike Mims wrote: > > > This isn't necessarily true. The little wing area you > > lose in widening the fuselage is more than made up for > > by the fuselage itself. The fuselage creates lift, if > > not by deflection alone then by the same principle as > > any other airfoil shaped object. If you widen your > > fuselage you should NOT lengthen your wings. This only > > puts more stress on the wing spar. In your case it > > sounds as if have a spar that's more than large > > enough. If you wanted a spar that could handle the > > weight you mention adding a 1/2 inch to the top spar > > cap (from top to bottom) would have been more than > > enough. I have been a little out of touch recently and have not gotten to this one 'til now. It is generally true that the fuselage will generate lift. It is also generally true that the fuselage lift is approximately what the lift would be from the area of the wing that is lost to the fuselage (that could be phrased better, but I just got off of night shift and I am a little out of synch). This is not always true; for example, if the wing angle of incidence is grossly out of wack. Without doing a really good 3-dimensional airflow analysis, I think the really early KR would be an example. The wing incidence was originally +5 degrees with a 3 degree washout. I suspect that the fuselage will not be generating a significant fraction of the lift since it is at a much lower angle of attack than the wing. Even in this case, the fuselage should generate some lift. What is not true in Mike's statement, is "If you widen your fuselage you should NOT lengthen your wings. This only puts more stress on the wing spar." The cantilevered length of the wing spar, the weight, and the load factor determine the stress of the wing. If you widened you fuselage by 10 inches, and then lengthened the wing by 10 inches, the stress in the wing outboard of the fuselage will not change, assuming nothing else changes. There will actually be a slight reduction in the stress levels in the spar that is inside the fuselage. The net change is almost nil, again assuming that nothing else changes. This is a dangerous assumption, since any modification will almost always increase the weight. If I remember the original basis of this thread, it was someone (Rich McCall???) who described his main spar as being doubled. I could not find it in the archive and I don't have the original posting. I think that he mentioned that it would theoretically increase his load factor by almost 2 times. If nothing else is changed, then this is naturally not true. The airplane is a total system. As a structure, it is the proverbial chain with a series of links. The next weakest link would fail. If you did nothing but double the strength of the main spar and wing attachment fittings, then something else would fail first. In the case of a KR, I suspect it would either be the horizontal stabilizer or the fuselage at the junction with the main spar. Without a detailed structural analysis, it is hard to say. In its unmodified form, stock KR design, the stabilizer is good for about 6 to 6.5 G's at design gross, assuming FAR Part 23 numbers. The FAR design numbers make a lot of conservative assumptions. The actual failure loading would be somewhat higher. The wing root/fuselage junction is a very high stress area due to both the bending and twisting loads of the wing. This is one area of airplane design where TLAR (that looks about right) is not the best way to go. -- 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: Fiberglass cloth deal From: David Mullins Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2000 09:35:44 -0500 X-Message-Number: 9 Hey KRNetters, I have a couple of deals for you. 1. Brand new Great Planes Force One Prop Hub complete w/spare set of seals paid $365 let someone have it for $300 2. I got a great deal on some 7.5oz fiberglass cloth if I bought the entire stock and now I can pass on the savings to some of you. I have approx 300 yards extra than what I need for my KR2S. So here is the deal: $2 a yard plus shipping specs: 7.5 oz e-glass 44" wide 15 x 15 plain weave Manufactured by Statesville Mills in NC If interested email me privately below. Dave M Nashua New Hampshire Mailto:dmullins@ici.net ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Cockpit width From: Mike Mims Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 07:54:56 -0800 (PST) X-Message-Number: 10 Netters, Mark pointed out that it looked as though I was saying adding a 1/2 inch to the top spar cap would double the positive wing loading. My mistake! What I meant was that adding a 1/2 inch to the top spar cap would safely allow this particular builder to carry himself and his brother (or son). Both were on the large side if I remember right (240+ lbs ea). Sorry for the misunderstanding. > --- Mark Langford wrote: > > Mike, would you mind expounding on this a little > > bit? I'm having a hard time following you. > > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. > http://im.yahoo.com > > --- > You are currently subscribed to kr-net as: > kr2sflyer@yahoo.com > To unsubscribe send a blank email to > leave-kr-net-110995W@telelists.com > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: KR building hours and questions From: Mike Mims Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 07:59:04 -0800 (PST) X-Message-Number: 11 Matt I think this depends greatly on the builder. I see no reason why this airplane can not be built in 2000 hours or less. I am on my 5th year (1500 hours) and should be done sometime around summer. There are many reasons why projects take between 2 and 10+ years. For me I am paying for this as I go with my spare lunch money. :o) As for ribs , no there are no pre-cut ribs that I know of. --- Matt Fulks wrote: > I just recieved my info from KR recently. I have > decided that I would like to build one. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Cockpit width From: "Stefan B." Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2000 18:23:39 +0100 X-Message-Number: 12 I think the best way to verify a modified structure is a well prepared static test at 4 G's (or more). It is also a little bit safer than the first flight at the gross weight... Stefan Balatchev ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Double Wide Wing 4" Spar From: "Richard McCall" Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2000 17:50:24 -0600 X-Message-Number: 13 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0044_01BF586E.826EA780 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable LIFT - The lifting body certainly adds to the lift factor, but not = sufficiently enough to offset the loss=20 of 4 inches of wing span on each side. That's a total loss of 8 inches = which would have the effect=20 of raising the stall speed and landing speed. By ensuring that the wing = area remains constant,=20 you have the benefit of the standard KR2S characteristics plus the added = benefits of the lifting body. Therefore, it is best to add the distance taken out of the wing area = by expanding the cabin area. The bottom line is that the wing spars should be extended by 4" on each = side if the same stall=20 speed characteristics are desired.=20 FORWARD CENTER SPAR - The plans Forward Center Spar is 2 inches wide by = 4 inches high. =20 The RAF48 patterns are all drawn around these specifications. After = much research into weight and spar measurements, I found that by doubling the height of the spar I = could achieve 4 times the weight capacity; whereas, by doubling the width of the same spar, I could = achieve 2 times the weight=20 capacity. Therefore - Following that, an additional 2 inches of width could be more easily = accommodated than an 8 inch high spar could be. An 8 inch high spar would completely distroy the = RAF 48 airfoil, while a 4 inch wide spar would have the effect of adding the wieght of an additional = forward center and outer spars=20 and would not impact on the airfoil. The same results could have been = achieved by adding 2 inches (not a 1/2 inch) to the top of the spar, but again this would adversely = impact the airfoil. This I=20 discussed with several builders in the Dallas area. I elected to widen = my forward center spar=20 rather than raise its height. This also gives me twice as much epoxy = area on the top and bottom glass areas. =20 CABIN WIDTH - Again, research helped determine the desired cabin width = of 44" which is more than that available in a C-152 or a Mooney and equivilant to the cabin in a = Piper (if memory serves me=20 correctly). The Rear Center Spar was strengthened in the center and = several areas around the spar attachments to the fuselage were strengthened methodically. At each of = the annual Fly-Ins, I have often heard that with two large people there was too much weight for a = check ride or demonstration ride which had resulted in my being able to obtain only one demo ride in = a KR (1997) over the past four years; I also plan to do a lot of flying with my son who is over 6' and = 250 lbs and I am 5'11 and weigh in=20 at 220 lbs. Therefore, the desired effect was to create a true KR = trainer, capable of carrying two large=20 people (both of us) comfortably without weight and balance or control = problems. Rich McCall Harker Hts, TX=20 ------=_NextPart_000_0044_01BF586E.826EA780 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

LIFT=20 - The lifting = body=20 certainly adds to the lift factor, but not sufficiently enough to offset = the=20 loss

of 4 inches of wing span on = each=20 side. That's a total loss of 8 inches which would have the effect=20

of raising the stall speed and = landing=20 speed. By ensuring that the wing area remains constant, =

you have the benefit of the = standard KR2S=20 characteristics plus the added benefits of the lifting = body.

Therefore, it is best to add the=20 distance taken out of the wing area by expanding the cabin = area.

The bottom line is that the=20 wing spars should be = extended by 4" on each side if the same stall=20

speed characteristics are=20 desired.

FORWARD CENTER SPAR - The = plans Forward=20 Center Spar is 2 inches wide by 4 inches high.

The RAF48 patterns are all drawn around these=20 specifications. After much research into weight and

spar measurements, I found that by doubling the = height of the=20 spar I could achieve 4 times the weight

capacity; whereas, by doubling the width of the = same=20 spar, I could achieve 2 times the weight

capacity. Therefore -

Following that, an additional 2 inches of=20 width could be more easily accommodated than = an 8=20 inch

high spar could be. An 8 inch high spar would=20 completely distroy the RAF 48 airfoil, while a 4 inch

wide spar would have the effect of adding the wieght = of an=20 additional forward center and outer spars

and would not impact on the airfoil. The same = results=20 could have been achieved by adding 2 inches

(not a 1/2 inch) to the top of the spar, but again = this would=20 adversely impact the airfoil. This I

discussed with several builders in the Dallas area. = I elected to=20 widen my forward center spar

rather than raise its=20 height. This also gives = me twice as=20 much epoxy area on the top and bottom

glass areas. =

CABIN WIDTH - = Again,=20 research helped determine the desired cabin width of 44" which is = more=20 than

that available in a C-152 or a Mooney and equivilant = to the=20 cabin in a Piper (if memory serves me

correctly). The Rear Center Spar was = strengthened in the=20 center and several areas around the spar

attachments to the fuselage were strengthened=20 methodically. At each of the annual Fly-Ins, I have

often heard that with two large people there was too = much=20 weight for a check ride or demonstration

ride which had resulted in my being able to obtain = only one=20 demo ride in a KR (1997) over the past four

years; I also plan to do a lot of flying with = my son who=20 is over 6' and 250 lbs and I am 5'11 and weigh in

at 220 lbs. Therefore, the desired = effect was to create a true = KR trainer, capable of carrying two = large=20

people (both of us) comfortably without weight = and balance or control problems.

Rich McCall

Harker Hts, TX

------=_NextPart_000_0044_01BF586E.826EA780-- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: KR news letter From: "fuller" Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 13:05:10 -0700 X-Message-Number: 14 Last night at my EAA meeting, I got to lay hands on to really cool things. A KR2 about 65% and a stack of KR Newsletters about 4 inches tall, and the builder said he had alot more when I got though with that stack! The builder is also a fellow officer in our chapter, and after taking a 3 yr break, is getting ready to finish it. It was great to actually lay hands on a project and get a good mental on the tasks at hand, and the KR Newsletters! That is price less! Gaylon Fuller ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: KR building hours and questions From: Donald Reid Date: Sat, 08 Jan 2000 05:43:19 -0500 X-Message-Number: 15 Matt Fulks wrote: > > I just recieved my info from KR recently. I have decided that I would like > to build one. I am just curious, how many man hours does it take from > start to finish when I buy the kit? The lowest that I ever saw anywhere was 1200 hours. I am an anal retentive perfectionist and I have over 3500, with more to come. -- 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: T88 From: vjchrisovergis@ns.sympatico.ca (Vincent Chrisovergis) Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2000 20:52:52 -0400 X-Message-Number: 16 A representative called me from system three and told me that the epoxy is good for life if enclosed and sealed propperly.So I decided to order new glue hopfully to save my butt. I'll have to use the old T88 for my back yard projects. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Side stick controll From: vjchrisovergis@ns.sympatico.ca (Vincent Chrisovergis) Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2000 20:57:39 -0400 X-Message-Number: 17 My kr2s is going to be a single seater 34 in.I'm hopping to put side stick controll in my aircraft.Can anyone help me on some info of knowing anyone who installed side stick controll. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Side stick controll From: "Cleo Greenhaw" Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 20:10:52 -0600 X-Message-Number: 18 Vincent: Don Betcham who lives in Perry Oklahoma did this on his KR-2 Cleo at cleo@fullnet.net ----- Original Message ----- From: Vincent Chrisovergis To: KR-net users group Sent: Friday, January 07, 2000 6:57 PM Subject: [kr-net] Side stick controll > My kr2s is going to be a single seater 34 in.I'm hopping to put side > stick controll in my aircraft.Can anyone help me on some info of knowing > anyone who installed side stick controll. > > > --- > You are currently subscribed to kr-net as: cleo@fullnet.net > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-kr-net-110995W@telelists.com > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Side stick controll From: WA7YXF@aol.com Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 22:32:15 EST X-Message-Number: 19 I copied the Lancair side stick in mine.. I haven't flown with it yet... Sure feels good. I'll let you know how it works out. Lynn Hyder WA7YXF Redmond, Oregon ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: EAA and Home Building From: "J.R.L. Engineering Consortium Ltd." Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 21:45:24 -0600 X-Message-Number: 20 Tom Poberezny article in Sport Aviation - homebuilders corner - takes a positive position supporting grass roots home builders and refocuses Sport Aviation articles supporting home builders and economical low cost aircraft building. A new web is available for the home builder at the address www.eaa.org for members only, it looks like they responded our message, the Jan 2000 issue is an example of the new support we are asking for. KRRon ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Engine Cooling Templates From: Mike Mims Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2000 21:19:14 -0800 X-Message-Number: 21 Does anyone know of a source for templates to help in the construction of cooling tin for Lycomings and Continentals? -- zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz Micheal Mims Sanding and Filling AGAIN! :o( http://www.fortunecity.com/marina/anchor/270/ mirror @ http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/4136/ http://members.home.com/mikemims/ Aliso Viejo CA ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ --- END OF DIGEST --- You are currently subscribed to kr-net as: johnbou@ipinc.net To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-kr-net-110995W@telelists.com