From: "KR-net users group digest" To: "kr-net digest recipients" Subject: kr-net digest: February 21, 2000 Date: Tuesday, February 22, 2000 5:10 AM KR-NET Digest2 for Monday, February 21, 2000. 1. Re: plane weight 2. Re: plane weight 3. Re: plane weight 4. Re: plane weight 5. Re: plane weight 6. Re: venturi 7. Re: venturi/vac. pump 8. Re: venturi/vac. pump 9. new construction mateiral... 10. Re: venturi 11. Re: kr-net digest: February 18, 2000 12. Re: kr-net digest: February 18, 2000 13. Re: venturi 14. Re: kr-net digest: February 18, 2000 15. Vaccum 16. Re: venturi 17. Re: venturi 18. Vacuum 19. Re: venturi 20. Re: kr-net digest: February 18, 2000 21. Re: venturi 22. flying with a almost full panel 23. Fw: KR2 RUDDERS . 24. Re: kr-net digest: February 18, 2000 25. Re: venturi 26. hstab attach to fuselage 27. Re: vaccum 28. Re: Vacuum 29. Re: Vacuum ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: plane weight From: ejanssen@chipsnet.com (Ed Janssen) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 06:47:12 -0600 X-Message-Number: 1 Auburn, Just judging by the weight of the wings (they should probably be in the range of 35 +/- lbs each, I think) and if the builder scratched built and stuck to the plans, it may be heavy due to excessive resin or excessive paint. It'll probably fly ok with that engine, but you'll certainly get better climb performance if you can cut the fat somewhere - radios, seat modifications, remove electrical system - whatever. Ed Janssen -----Original Message----- From: Auburn Packwood To: KR-net users group Date: Monday, February 21, 2000 1:16 AM Subject: [kr-net] plane weight >Hopefully someone can help me! I recently purchased a KR2 and have begun >working on it . It supposibly has flown but upon weighing it I have found >it weighs 740 lbs. I have looked it over inside and out and cannot figure >out how it can be over weight. I have torn into the wings which weigh >nearly 60 lbs. a piece but cannot find anything excessive. I know the Rand >Robinson page says it should weigh 480 but mine weighs that without the >engine. Are there many flying at this weight and what is the maximum weight >for the KR? What is the average weight? Can someone give me good advice? I >have a revmaster 2100D for a powerplant. > >--- >You are currently subscribed to kr-net as: ejanssen@chipsnet.com >To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-kr-net-17739N@telelists.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: plane weight From: GARYKR2@cs.com Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 09:54:26 EST X-Message-Number: 2 Mine weights in at 613lbs empty. There are others out there around the weight of yours. If you weigh a gallon of resin you will find out it is heavy. An extra layer of glass here and there will add up fast. The good news is, she will give you a smoother ride in rough air. She also won't float as far when you land. Don't pull a bunch of high "G" maneuvers and you will be OK. Gary Hinkle Middletown, Pa. garykr2@cs.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: plane weight From: "Robert Pyra" Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 07:11:06 -0800 X-Message-Number: 3 HI MY KR IS 525 LB.EMPTY WITH 1835 HAPI YOURS WITH YHIS WEIGH IS SINGLE SEATER WATH C OF G STALL WITH TO MUCH AFT C OF G RESULTED IN FLAT SPIN (DEADLY ONE). ----------------------------------------------------- Click here for Free Video!! http://www.gohip.com/freevideo/ ----- Original Message ----- From: To: KR-net users group Sent: Monday, February 21, 2000 6:54 AM Subject: [kr-net] Re: plane weight > Mine weights in at 613lbs empty. There are others out there around the > weight of yours. > If you weigh a gallon of resin you will find out it is heavy. An extra > layer of glass here and there will add up fast. > The good news is, she will give you a smoother ride in rough air. She > also won't float as far when you land. Don't pull a bunch of high "G" > maneuvers and you will be OK. > Gary Hinkle Middletown, Pa. > garykr2@cs.com > > --- > You are currently subscribed to kr-net as: robertpyra@home.com > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-kr-net-84703W@telelists.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: plane weight From: "Mark Langford" Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 09:37:59 -0600 X-Message-Number: 4 Auburn Packwood wrote: > it weighs 740 lbs. I have looked it over inside and out and cannot figure > out how it can be over weight. This plane was probably built by somebody who "improved" everything in the plans (kinda like I'm doing!) with stuff like two layers of glass on the wings. Double glass on TOP of the wings to help prevent "bubbling" may be a good one, but many of these improvements are unfounded. There are few places in the plans where things need "beefing up", and none in the wooden structure. Often shoddy workmanship (poor fit of joints or insufficient glue) are compensated for by slapping on another layer of plywood or more adjacent wood. There ARE some places where weight can be SAVED, however. Often people use materials that are cheaper, or have laying around (larger wire than necessary, old heavy instruments, steel rather than aluminum), and almost everybody is guilty of thinking that if 20 is good 40 is better. I've seen KRs with 60 screws holding the cowling on, and others with 6 or 8 (and a very light piano hinge). I weigh just about everything I put on my plane, and think long and hard if there's a way I can lighten it. Even heavy bolts and nuts can often be replaced with smaller headed screws (for non-critical applications) to save a few grams. My two VDO fuel sending units weighed 19.1 ounces each when I got them. Just before I installed them, they were about 2.3 ounces each. There are plenty of opportunities for lightening things, if builders will spend the time to do it. It all depends on priorities. Obviously, a lighter plane is one of mine, and getting in the air ASAP is not (as my 2400 hours of construction time will attest). You might get lucky and find a few porky things that you can improve on to save weight (and I would certainly go on THAT witch hunt), but much of it is going to be hard to exorcise. Stuff like wing tanks add weight (and utility) and you're not going to want to lose them. Lightness is built into each and every piece you put in the plane. If it makes you feel any better, mine is probably going to weigh 675 pounds, but then it'll have 135 hp too. If I were to build it again, I'll bet I could shave another 50 pounds off of it... Mark Langford, Huntsville, Alabama mailto:langford@hiwaay.net see KR2S project N56ML at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: plane weight From: Mike Mims Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 08:12:29 -0800 (PST) X-Message-Number: 5 My wings weigh 45 pounds each and are considered heavy because of the construction method I used. They have solid blue foam wing cores that were hotwired and the fiberglass skin is triply glass. Yours weigh 60+? Something is wrong there! I once saw another KR2 (not S) that weighed 750 pounds empty with a 1835 and to this day I can not figure out how the builder added that much weight. I consider my airplane heavy but even with a 260 pound lycoming up front it weighs the same as yours. There has to be places on your plane that the fat can be trimmed. Heck if you double the fiberglass and epoxy used to build a 550 pound KR it would not add 200 pounds. How is your plane configured? Full IFR, strobes, nav lights, battery size?!?!?? What landing gear do you have? Think about the heaviest components of the plane, landing gear, engine, spruce structure, electrical system, and flight instruments and figure out which of these components is adding all the weight. As it sits right now you have a nice wide single seat KR! :o) <<<<--- Auburn Packwood wrote: I have torn into the wings which weigh nearly 60 lbs. a piece but cannot find anything excessive. I know the Rand Robinson page says it should weigh 480 but mine weighs that without the engine. >>>> ===== ........| .......-^- ....-/_____\- ...(O\__o__/O) ...[#]oxxxo[#] ---Y2K Beetle--- __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: venturi From: "Leonardo" Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 15:20:51 -0300 X-Message-Number: 6 -hello everyone!!! this kr group is really something. i intend to install a vaccum gyro and horizon but for this i need a venturi or a pump , i think a vaccum pump is hard to adapt in vw engine and a 8'' venturi causes too much drag , so what to do ? can anyone give a answer ? thanks LEO , BRAZIL , KR2S ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: venturi/vac. pump From: Horn2004@aol.com Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 12:41:28 EST X-Message-Number: 7 In a message dated 2/21/00 11:20:59 AM, adrena.bh@zaz.com.br writes: <> There is a guy on this list who has designed a vacuum pump drive system for VW engines. It's called the Missing Link. It's sold by AS&S, part number 10-00470. Cost is $295.00 US. And the following is the description from the AS&S catalog: "The Missing Link vacuum pump drive system for Volkwagen aircraft engines mounts onto a Diehl/HAPI accessory case in place of the magneto. With this system an electronic ignition must be used. The electronic ignition provides 35,000 spark, versus 9000 on the megneto system, giving a hotter spark and better fuel burn. The electronic ignition mounts in the regular distributor hole. Wt. 3.6 lbs." From what I understand, this is just the drive and does not include the pump. If the inventor wants to step forward and give us a sales pitch or the virtues of the Missing Link vs. a venturi, please do. Steve Horn horn2004@aol.com Dallas, TX ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: venturi/vac. pump From: "R.W. Moore" Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 14:26:24 -0500 X-Message-Number: 8 I am the inventor of the "MISSING LINK" vacuum pump dive system for VE powered airplane engines the price is $295.00 + 15% s&h. R. W. Moore, Inventor POB 622 Toccoa, Ga. 30577-1410 706-779-3446 Mornings are the best time to call RWM ---------- > From: Horn2004@aol.com > To: KR-net users group > Subject: [kr-net] Re: venturi/vac. pump > Date: Monday, February 21, 2000 12:41 PM > > > In a message dated 2/21/00 11:20:59 AM, adrena.bh@zaz.com.br writes: > > < > or a pump , i think a vaccum pump is hard to adapt in vw engine and a 8'' > > venturi causes too much drag , so what to do ? > > can anyone give a answer ?>> > > There is a guy on this list who has designed a vacuum pump drive system for > VW engines. It's called the Missing Link. It's sold by AS&S, part number > 10-00470. Cost is $295.00 US. And the following is the description from the > AS&S catalog: "The Missing Link vacuum pump drive system for Volkwagen > aircraft engines mounts onto a Diehl/HAPI accessory case in place of the > magneto. With this system an electronic ignition must be used. The electronic > ignition provides 35,000 spark, versus 9000 on the megneto system, giving a > hotter spark and better fuel burn. The electronic ignition mounts in the > regular distributor hole. Wt. 3.6 lbs." > > >From what I understand, this is just the drive and does not include the pump. > > If the inventor wants to step forward and give us a sales pitch or the > virtues of the Missing Link vs. a venturi, please do. > > Steve Horn > horn2004@aol.com > Dallas, TX > > --- > You are currently subscribed to kr-net as: rwmoore@alltel.net > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-kr-net-17710K@telelists.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: new construction mateiral... From: "Mark Langford" Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 13:36:10 -0600 X-Message-Number: 9 CompositeHeads, You guys who were impressed with Dr. Dean's fuselage construction method will appreciate this. Mark Lougheed found some stuff called "Parabeam (www.parabeam.com) that has a lot of potential. He's been playing around with it and posted the excruciating details of his experimentation at http://www.fortunecity.com/marina/skipper/388/parabeam/index.htm . I think he's planning to use it to build a fuselage for his latest airplane design. I've got a sample of my own coming shortly. This stuff looks like the EASY (and cheap) way to build a composite KR seat... Mark Langford, Huntsville, Alabama mailto:langford@hiwaay.net see KR2S project N56ML at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: venturi From: AviationMech@aol.com Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 15:23:24 EST X-Message-Number: 10 N110LR has a venturi mounted just aft of the right exhaust stack. It picks up exhaust gas and free air once moving. It weighs less then one pound and I was not able to determine how much drag it caused since it is behind the exhaust. The cost is far far less then the price of the two parts of the engine driven options mentioned. It does not look as good as a totally hidden system. I like having a mag, and a good place to spend the almost $600 would be in dual plug heads and a backup Ignition system. Orma Robbins AviationMech@aol.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: kr-net digest: February 18, 2000 From: SRMAKISH@aol.com Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 15:27:40 EST X-Message-Number: 11 In a message dated 2/19/00 3:04:08 AM Eastern Standard Time, kr-net@telelists.com writes: << Re >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: kr-net digest: February 18, 2000 From: SRMAKISH@aol.com Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 15:34:20 EST X-Message-Number: 12 In a message dated 2/19/00 3:04:08 AM Eastern Standard Time, kr-net@telelists.com writes: << Re >> BRAKES Hi Bobby. Nice to hear from you again. How is Mom and Dad? I replaced the lines because one started to leak. It was not a pressure or age problem, the clamp I had on the gear casting to hold the line straight finally wore through the line. I replaced them with some line I got from aircraft spruce, nyflow I think. My lines run from a tee fitting and then all the way down to the caliper. By the way I think I have about 1200 hrs on the Kr now and I just started a glassair-2 project. I just can't stop building. Thank God my wife is the tolerant sort and realizes my weakness !! Regards: Steve ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: venturi From: KR2616TJ@aol.com Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 15:55:35 EST X-Message-Number: 13 In a message dated 2/21/00 12:20:56 PM Eastern Standard Time, adrena.bh@zaz.com.br writes: << i think a vaccum pump is hard to adapt in vw engine and a 8'' venturi causes too much drag , so what to do ? can anyone give a answer ? >> You need neither. Nipple your intake to accept a vacumm line. Place a regulator between the intake and your instruments to set the vacumm to 8". I did this using a 2180 and it works just fine. The only time you will not have vacuum is at full power. Someone once told me that was dangerous because I won't have my horizon on climbout. Two issues there..........the instruments will still be spinning from your runup and two,.......if I need the instrument to take off, I'm not flying the KR anyway. Precise Flight has a 337 acceptable system for certified aircraft which uses a valve to divert the vacuum between the pump and intake. I have one on the Bonanza. Dana Overall 2000 KR Gathering host Richmond, KY mailto:kr2616tj@aol.com http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/hangar/7085/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: kr-net digest: February 18, 2000 From: Warron Gray Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 16:04:20 -0500 X-Message-Number: 14 Hey Steve good to see you catch you on e-mail later Warron, Sorry guys ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Vaccum From: DClarke351@aol.com Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 16:15:07 EST X-Message-Number: 15 I mounted my 8" venturi on the bottom of the plane at the front of the main spar. It kind of looks like a bomb hanging there but it works fine. I don't think it really put up too much extra resistance. I operate my artificial horizon with it. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: venturi From: cartera Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 14:13:20 -0700 X-Message-Number: 16 Leonardo wrote: > > -hello everyone!!! > > this kr group is really something. > i intend to install a vaccum gyro and horizon but for this i need a venturi > or a pump , i think a vaccum pump is hard to adapt in vw engine and a 8'' > venturi causes too much drag , so what to do ? > can anyone give a answer ? > > thanks > > LEO , BRAZIL , KR2S > > --- > You are currently subscribed to kr-net as: cartera@cuug.ab.ca > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-kr-net-17454M@telelists.com Hello KR Netters, Well after reading all the overweight messages and what we want in my "KR", I think most are losing sight that this is supposed to be a VFR fun airplane. NO IMC just fun. Now why would one want a horizon in a KR, your flying VFR and should have your nose outside the on the real horizon, "see and be seen" and not on the artificial horizon. But, our egos carry us away and it happens to every one of us. I have met many that yesterday "could not spell pelota and now I are one". Remember, you are building an aircraft and not a tank. I know I'll get flamed for this, but 3 layers of fiberglass, why,why,why? Like some will put clark foam into their turtle deck. As an example, I put 5.8 0z. on each side of 4 oz. mat on cowling, front deck and canopy frame, your main concern is a good boat and spars for integrity of the aircraft. You do not need the kitchen sink in it, but we want the best. Maybe, an RV would be more appropriate than a fun KR. It will fly between 140 and 200 mph, but who wants to fly at 200 when it is bumpier than hell, need another airplane. Granted many improvements have taken place, comfort is better and reliability of the engine could be better and that is coming. If you need a little vacuum in the KR, a little 4 incher is more than adequate and one does not need a big 8 in horn sticking out there. This net is the best dam thing that could have happened for the KR, so keep it light and KISS, KISS, KISS! Happy Building and Flying, guys! -- Adrian VE6AFY Calgary, Alberta Mailto:cartera@cuug.ab.ca http://www.cuug.ab.ca/~cartera ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: venturi From: Mike Mims Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 13:54:32 -0800 (PST) X-Message-Number: 17 Adrian, I have seen this time and time again. Especially when the homebuilt is built by a low time or no time pilot. They seem to think that their KR has to have all the stuff the C-172 or F-16 flight simulator airplane has. Guys if your KR is fat this is one of the reasons why. You don’t need these instruments. When you fly VFR you should be looking outside and not at your panel. And don’t give me that “what if I fly into IMC on accident” crap. No one does that on "accident". Besides if you don’t have the gyros it will keep this “accident” from happening. Not trying to be mean here just stating an observation. Low time to no time pilots tend to build HEAVY airplanes. I have a friend who has been building a Dragonfly for about 6 years now. It weighs over 800 pounds and he is not done. It has a full IFR panel, a AM/FM-CD player with full stereo speakers, retractable landing light (this will make it faster), and tons more automotive gismos. This guy has never taken a single flight lesson but the C-130s that he works on has these items installed so his Dragonfly needs them too, RIGHT?? KISS and it will be light! --- cartera wrote:> Hello KR Netters, > Well after reading all the overweight messages and > what we want in my "KR", I think most are losing sight that this is supposed to be a VFR fun airplane. NO IMC just fun>>>>> ===== ........| .......-^- ....-/_____\- ...(O\__o__/O) ...[#]oxxxo[#] ---Y2K Beetle--- __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Vacuum From: KR2616TJ@aol.com Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 17:48:56 EST X-Message-Number: 18 In a message dated 2/21/00 4:55:08 PM Eastern Standard Time,=20 kr2sflyer@yahoo.com writes: << You don=E2=80=99t need these instruments. >> Guys, I installed my artificial horizon when I was "instrument happy". I=20 still do want a DG, just because. I talked with Mark Langford a couple of=20 weeks ago and told him I was taking the horizon out and putting in an=20 electric turn coordinator. For what we use these airplanes for, it is the=20 perfect instrument. Even if you do fly into IMC, the turn coordinator will=20 get you out. Don't get me started again on practicing partial=20 panel.............even though a buddy of mine last week shot an actual=20 partial panel ILS.......because his vacuum pump failed. That's why I have=20 the STC'd intake backup vacuum. Once again, if you are using a VW engine and don't want to carry any=20 additional weight, and do want a vacuum instrument........you can nipple the= =20 intake. It does work. Dana Overall 2000 KR Gathering host Richmond, KY mailto:kr2616tj@aol.com http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/hangar/7085/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: venturi From: cartera Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 17:33:49 -0700 X-Message-Number: 19 > KISS and it will be light! > > --- cartera wrote:> Hello KR > Netters, > > Well after reading all the overweight messages and > > what we want in my "KR", I think most are losing > sight that this is supposed to be a VFR fun airplane. > NO IMC just fun>>>>> > > ===== > ........| > .......-^- > ....-/_____\- > ...(O\__o__/O) > ...[#]oxxxo[#] > ---Y2K Beetle--- AMEN!!!!!! A Glassier would be nice. -- Adrian VE6AFY Calgary, Alberta Mailto:cartera@cuug.ab.ca http://www.cuug.ab.ca/~cartera ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: kr-net digest: February 18, 2000 From: SRMAKISH@aol.com Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 15:34:20 EST X-Message-Number: 20 In a message dated 2/19/00 3:04:08 AM Eastern Standard Time, kr-net@telelists.com writes: << Re >> BRAKES Hi Bobby. Nice to hear from you again. How is Mom and Dad? I replaced the lines because one started to leak. It was not a pressure or age problem, the clamp I had on the gear casting to hold the line straight finally wore through the line. I replaced them with some line I got from aircraft spruce, nyflow I think. My lines run from a tee fitting and then all the way down to the caliper. By the way I think I have about 1200 hrs on the Kr now and I just started a glassair-2 project. I just can't stop building. Thank God my wife is the tolerant sort and realizes my weakness !! Regards: Steve --- You are currently subscribed to kr-net as: boer.reinders@hetnet.nl To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-kr-net-17730S@telelists.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: venturi From: Willard561@aol.com Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 20:00:48 EST X-Message-Number: 21 In a message dated 00-02-21 12:21:01 EST, you write: << hello everyone!!! this kr group is really something. i intend to install a vaccum gyro and horizon but for this i need a venturi or a pump , i think a vaccum pump is hard to adapt in vw engine and a 8'' venturi causes too much drag , so what to do ? can anyone give a answer ? thanks LEO , BRAZIL , KR2S >> Leo: Nasa several years ago did some tests by putting the venturi in the air exit of the cowling using the air exiting the cowl to run the venturi. The net result was very low drag, and no Icing of the venturi. Bill Higdon Willard561@aol.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: flying with a almost full panel From: vjchrisovergis@ns.sympatico.ca (Vincent Chrisovergis) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 21:03:55 -0400 X-Message-Number: 22 Every one seems to be forgetting about our home built that we are building. For example cubs have been flying for years since the 40's never a problem with the weather, they always seem to get out of soup and into vfr conditions.and then land with safety.I've been flying for 24years and I'm building a stretch kr2. hopfully a vfr aircraft.I've never seen a cub do an ILS approach yet.If you wanted a high performance aircraft buy a lancair about 5 times the amount that your spending on your KR.Keep the kr original. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Fw: KR2 RUDDERS . From: "Mark Langford" Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 19:14:29 -0600 X-Message-Number: 23 Would some of you real live KR2 pilots like to illucidate on the topic below? Please copy Colin on any replies to KRNet, since I don't think he's on KRNet... Thanks a lot, Mark Langford, Huntsville, Alabama mailto:langford@hiwaay.net see KR2S project N56ML at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2000 12:51 AM Subject: KR2 RUDDERS . > Dear Mr Langford or KR2 people (whichever is the more accurate), > Hi there , my name is Colin Hales . I started building my KR2 four years ago - > G-BSTL, fitted with a VW 1834 engine, a fixed undercarriage and with a total weight of less > than 600 lbs (which is light after adding all our govening body's extra requirements - > believe me !), but most of it concentrated at the front of the aircraft to help with the > C of G . > The aircraft is finally undergoing flight- testing. My allocated test pilotand I are > about half-way through the test-schedule and the overall performance of the aircraft is > more than satisfactory , but not to say excellent. We have one major concern which is > the cross-wind performance of the aircraft on take off. I have a fully steerable tailwheel > and can easily control the direction as long as the tail is on the ground. The problem > occurs as the tail lifts : at low speed and with a stbd cross wind higher than 5 knots, it > seems practically impossible to keep the aircraft straight. The torque of the engine > contributes mostly to this quite sudden and almost uncontrolable swing as soon as the tail > wheel lifts , and also the gyroscopic effect , but not in as major proportions. After > investigating different ways to overcome the problem (tail wheel springs, etc), my test > pilot and I came to the conclusion that the best solution would probably be to build a > larger rudder. > I had a look at your very impressive website, hoping to find a picture of a KR2 with a > bigger rudder, but couldn't find any... At which point I wonder if I am the only KR2 > builder/pilot to experience this problem and if so - why ?! > I would very much appreciate hearing from you or from other KR2 builders and get your > advice/comments on that issue. I have only just subscribed to the KRnet mailing list but > I understand it could take some time before I can become a member of it. Therefore please >do not hesitate to forward this e-mail to other KR2 builders if it may speed things up a bit . > Thanks very much, > Colin Hales > colin.hales@dial.pipex.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: kr-net digest: February 18, 2000 From: SRMAKISH@aol.com Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 15:27:40 EST X-Message-Number: 24 In a message dated 2/19/00 3:04:08 AM Eastern Standard Time, kr-net@telelists.com writes: << Re >> --- You are currently subscribed to kr-net as: boer.reinders@hetnet.nl To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-kr-net-17730S@telelists.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: venturi From: Mike Mims Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 13:54:32 -0800 (PST) X-Message-Number: 25 Adrian, I have seen this time and time again. Especially when the homebuilt is built by a low time or no time pilot. They seem to think that their KR has to have all the stuff the C-172 or F-16 flight simulator airplane has. Guys if your KR is fat this is one of the reasons why. You don’t need these instruments. When you fly VFR you should be looking outside and not at your panel. And don’t give me that “what if I fly into IMC on accident” crap. No one does that on "accident". Besides if you don’t have the gyros it will keep this “accident” from happening. Not trying to be mean here just stating an observation. Low time to no time pilots tend to build HEAVY airplanes. I have a friend who has been building a Dragonfly for about 6 years now. It weighs over 800 pounds and he is not done. It has a full IFR panel, a AM/FM-CD player with full stereo speakers, retractable landing light (this will make it faster), and tons more automotive gismos. This guy has never taken a single flight lesson but the C-130s that he works on has these items installed so his Dragonfly needs them too, RIGHT?? KISS and it will be light! --- cartera wrote:> Hello KR Netters, > Well after reading all the overweight messages and > what we want in my "KR", I think most are losing sight that this is supposed to be a VFR fun airplane. NO IMC just fun>>>>> ===== ........| .......-^- ....-/_____\- ...(O\__o__/O) ...[#]oxxxo[#] ---Y2K Beetle--- __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com --- You are currently subscribed to kr-net as: boer.reinders@hetnet.nl To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-kr-net-17730S@telelists.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: hstab attach to fuselage From: "Robert Smith" Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 21:46:23 -0500 X-Message-Number: 26 I'm just getting around to making the 3 3/16 ply webs that attach the hstab/elev spars to the fuselage and it seems that the lever arm is kind of long (hstab spar) and the fuse width at the point of attachment is kind of narrow (6 inches or so). This worries me. Does anyone think that a little beefing-up here might be needed? Please, someone, convince me that the plans design is adequate! Bob Smith, Albany, NY mailto:rsmith5@nycap.rr.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: vaccum From: David McKelvey Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 18:08:18 -0600 X-Message-Number: 27 I can't believe nobody brought this up, you can change the shape of the venturi's od to reduce drag. Some have even built them into the wings. The eng manifold is a good idea for a DG but I wouldn't want to loose anything else in the event of a power failure. just my two cents. dave davmck@gte.net -- Dave McKelvey Grapevine TX 817-329-0425 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Vacuum From: "Richard McCall" Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 21:31:29 -0600 X-Message-Number: 28 Dana, can you explain to how you rigged the vacuum to the intake manifold and m= ade it work? I didn't think there was enough vacuum to operate the Artificia= l horizon! Rich McCall Harker Hts, TX -----Original Message----- From: KR2616TJ@aol.com To: KR-net users group Date: Monday, February 21, 2000 6:12 PM Subject: [kr-net] Vacuum >In a message dated 2/21/00 4:55:08 PM Eastern Standard Time, >kr2sflyer@yahoo.com writes: > ><< You don=E2=80=99t need these > instruments. >> > >Guys, I installed my artificial horizon when I was "instrument happy". = I >still do want a DG, just because. I talked with Mark Langford a couple = of >weeks ago and told him I was taking the horizon out and putting in an >electric turn coordinator. For what we use these airplanes for, it is t= he >perfect instrument. Even if you do fly into IMC, the turn coordinator w= ill >get you out. Don't get me started again on practicing partial >panel.............even though a buddy of mine last week shot an actual >partial panel ILS.......because his vacuum pump failed. That's why I ha= ve >the STC'd intake backup vacuum. > >Once again, if you are using a VW engine and don't want to carry any >additional weight, and do want a vacuum instrument........you can nipple the >intake. It does work. > >Dana Overall >2000 KR Gathering host >Richmond, KY >mailto:kr2616tj@aol.com >http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/hangar/7085/ > >--- >You are currently subscribed to kr-net as: planecraft@earthlink.net >To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-kr-net-105534I@telelists.com > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Vacuum From: "Cary Honeywell" Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 23:12:32 -0500 X-Message-Number: 29 Somewhere, in back issues of the KR newsletter, I saw where someone had incorporated a venturi into the wing root. It look ok and, from the writeup, seemed to work too. I will dig it out and post it on my website sometime this week in case someone wants to see it. I also agree that a full gyro panel is probably not needed for a KR unless you are going to fly it to a greater degree of accuracy than is normally required for VFR flight. I have it in mine only because I had the vacuum system and some spare instruments, but when I take the 172 up, I'm generally able to fly without the use of anything other than the Alt, VSI, AS and compass. ATC will correct anything else should I strat from the straight and narrow.. - Cary - -Cary Honeywell - Ottawa Ontario Canada caryh@home.com ve3ev@rac.ca Home page http://24.112.208.98/ KR2 area http://24.112.208.98/kr2/kr2.shtml -----Original Message----- From: KR2616TJ@aol.com To: KR-net users group Date: Monday, February 21, 2000 7:12 PM Subject: [kr-net] Vacuum In a message dated 2/21/00 4:55:08 PM Eastern Standard Time, kr2sflyer@yahoo.com writes: << You don’t need these instruments. >> Guys, I installed my artificial horizon when I was "instrument happy". I still do want a DG, just because. I talked with Mark Langford a couple of weeks ago and told him I was taking the horizon out and putting in an electric turn coordinator. For what we use these airplanes for, it is the perfect instrument. Even if you do fly into IMC, the turn coordinator will get you out. Don't get me started again on practicing partial panel.............even though a buddy of mine last week shot an actual partial panel ILS.......because his vacuum pump failed. That's why I have the STC'd intake backup vacuum. Once again, if you are using a VW engine and don't want to carry any additional weight, and do want a vacuum instrument........you can nipple the intake. It does work. Dana Overall 2000 KR Gathering host Richmond, KY mailto:kr2616tj@aol.com http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/hangar/7085/ --- You are currently subscribed to kr-net as: caryh@home.com To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-kr-net-62695J@telelists.com --- 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