From: To: Subject: krnet Digest 18 May 2000 17:57:46 -0000 Issue 28 Date: Thursday, May 18, 2000 9:58 AM krnet Digest 18 May 2000 17:57:46 -0000 Issue 28 Topics (messages 556 through 584): camera 556 by: James Jasper 557 by: Mark Langford 558 by: Mark McKinley 559 by: Mike Mims 563 by: AviationMech.aol.com 565 by: Richard Parker 571 by: HAshraf.aol.com Assistance needed 560 by: Dave Henderson 561 by: Kenneth L Wiltrout 564 by: AviationMech.aol.com 566 by: Richard Parker Los Alamos Fires 562 by: jscott.pilot.juno.com Magazine articles. 567 by: Mark Jones 569 by: John Esch 574 by: Richard Parker 577 by: Krwr1.aol.com Re: alternator 568 by: GARYKR2.cs.com Troy's AS5046 update 570 by: Mark Langford 572 by: ACMan5548.aol.com 573 by: Mike Mims 576 by: CruzJ12.aol.com New Airfoil for KR1? 575 by: Renken, Jeremy, C1C, CS23 578 by: mdlougheed.juno.com 579 by: virgnvs.juno.com 580 by: virgnvs.juno.com 581 by: Mike Mims 582 by: virgnvs.juno.com 583 by: Mike Mims 584 by: mdlougheed.juno.com Administrivia: To subscribe to the digest, e-mail: To unsubscribe from the digest, e-mail: To post to the list, e-mail: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 10:46:48 -0600 To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: James Jasper Subject: camera Message-id: <003c01bfbf56$540bb7d0$c0b222a6@con01873> Anybody have a suggestion for a digital camera to record progress and details without spending more than needed. Saw one at BestBuy for only $50, but with only 640x480 pixel resolution, probably is a waste of money. The high end ones are over $1000 and out of reach. Any suggestions for best price/performance ratio? What model, price and where to get it?... Jim Jasper mail to: j.jasper@wcom.com Colorado Springs, CO ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 14:03:47 -0500 To: From: "Mark Langford" Subject: Re: KR> camera Message-ID: <001a01bfbf69$78356620$58e6a58c@tbe.com> > Anybody have a suggestion for a digital camera to record progress and > details without spending more than needed. Jim, I highly recommend the Olympus D-340R. It's normally about $300 at Walmart, but can be found on sale for less. All the pictures on my site were done by it's little brother, the D-220L, and I get pretty good reviews for my pictures. One thing this camera allows you to do is use a tripod for time exposures in available light, which is how all of my construction photos are taken. Do yourself a favor and buy a set of NiMH batteries and a charger for it. They'll last longer (before charging) than Alkalines, and will pay for themselves in no time. They can be bought for dirt cheap at OSH or SNF... Mark Langford, Huntsville, Alabama mailto:langford@hiwaay.net see KR2S N56ML at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 14:10:00 -0500 To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: Mark McKinley Subject: Re: KR> camera Message-ID: <39219D08.34D6D33A@ontario.com> JJ, The Sony Mavica FD-X series are wonderful cameras. I 've used three different models. Choose the resolution you need with the features you want (zoom, sound, mpegs) and all of this saved on a floppy disk. This way you have no expensive memory cards, fill up the disk and just pop another one in. No goofy interface cables. Any PC can read the files as they are saved as *.jpg I am happy with mine. The prices start around $200 US and go up from there depending on the features you need. Contact me directly and I'll send you a sample file. Mark M somewhere in Indiana James Jasper wrote: > Anybody have a suggestion for a digital camera to record progress and > details without spending more than needed. Saw one at BestBuy for only $50, > but with only 640x480 pixel resolution, probably is a waste of money. The > high end ones are over $1000 and out of reach. Any suggestions for best > price/performance ratio? What model, price and where to get it?... > > Jim Jasper > mail to: j.jasper@wcom.com > Colorado Springs, CO > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: krnet-unsubscribe@mailinglists.org > For additional commands, e-mail: krnet-help@mailinglists.org ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 12:12:19 -0700 (PDT) To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: Mike Mims Subject: Re: KR> camera Message-ID: <20000516191219.14912.qmail@web1406.mail.yahoo.com> --- Mark Langford wrote: > I highly recommend the Olympus D-340R Check this out>>> http://www.us.buy.com/comp/product.asp?sku=10242443 ===== ........| .......-^- ....-/_____\- ...(O\__o__/O) ...[#]oxxxo[#] -----Y2K Bug--- Yes I drive one! __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 19:41:09 EDT To: J.Jasper@wcom.com, krnet@mailinglists.org From: AviationMech@aol.com Subject: Re: KR> camera Message-ID: <30.52d24f6.26533695@aol.com> Christmas past I recieved a Largan digital the resulation is 640 x 480 to varify what the pictures look like, go to my web page and look at the pictures. They are only published in 60% quality. Take a look and be the judge. The camera will take 32 or 64, has a built in flash, mount for tripod, an auto mode that will allow 5 seconds before taking the picture. Comes with Adobe photo deluxe and works with other programs. It also comes with AC adapter and serial adapter for the computer. It is simple, not a famous brand. It uses an odd battery, available at most drug stores, 3Vdc lith. I have taken over 1000 pictures with no problems. It was purchased from Best Buy and cost 125. Orma aviationmech@aol.com http://members.aol.com/aviationmech ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 17:48:56 PDT To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: "Richard Parker" Subject: Re: KR> camera Message-ID: <20000517004856.4804.qmail@hotmail.com> There are also these compact paper and plastic ones for about $6 that you can get almost anywhere and you dont have to worry about the batteries going dead, they dont require any cables or fancy software, you can still view your picture when the power goes out or when your ISP is having problems, and you can bring the pictures to gatherings or eaa meeting without having to own a laptop or bring an extension cord with you and if it breaks you can afford to get another one. ;-) Rich P ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 01:45:15 EDT To: J.Jasper@wcom.com, krnet@mailinglists.org From: HAshraf@aol.com Subject: Re: KR> camera Message-ID: <26.5c37eb7.26538beb@aol.com> go to http://www.imaging-resource.com/ they have all different cameras reviews and sample photos of almost all cameras available (except the 640x480 ones). I strongly recommend the site for anybody getting into digital photography. Haris ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 12:47:31 -0700 To: "krnet" From: "Dave Henderson" Subject: Assistance needed Message-ID: <007501bfbf6f$98481880$e4404cd1@stormnet.com> ------=_NextPart_000_0072_01BFBF34.E753D9E0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable KR friends, My KR-2 is a partial project I bought probably about 60% complete. The = original builder, whom I have not been able to locate, was the one that = did most of the work. He added one thing to the firewall that has left = me absolutely baffled. There is an aluminum plate approximately 3x3 = inches mounted at the very top center of the firewall with a big AN bolt = protruding 2 inches into the wind. The bolt sits about 1 1/2 inch below = the top of the firewall in the center of the plate on the vertical = center line of the plane. It kind of looks like a unicorn. Does = anybody have any idea what it's for? Thanks. Happy building and flying all, Dave Henderson Red Bluff, CA =20 flyakr2@tco.net ------=_NextPart_000_0072_01BFBF34.E753D9E0-- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 17:51:52 -0400 To: flyakr2@tco.net From: Kenneth L Wiltrout Cc: krnet@mailinglists.org Subject: Re: KR> Assistance needed Message-ID: <20000516.175153.-160725.0.klw1953@juno.com> Well maybe if it didn't fly he was planning to convert it into a boat and that's how he was going to tie it to the dock???????? But really, that bolt serves no purpose, get rid of it. Kenny ________________________________________________________________ YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET! Juno now offers FREE Internet Access! Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 19:41:09 EDT To: flyakr2@tco.net, krnet@mailinglists.org From: AviationMech@aol.com Subject: Re: KR> Assistance needed Message-ID: <77.42cdc6b.26533695@aol.com> Perhaps it was some kind of holding fixture used to hold or rotate the fuse upside down. Orma aviationmech@aol.com http://members.aol.com/aviationmech ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 17:54:50 PDT To: flyakr2@tco.net From: "Richard Parker" Cc: krnet@mailinglists.org Subject: Re: KR> Assistance needed Message-ID: <20000517005450.10142.qmail@hotmail.com> Remember the 51% rule. Since these often are lifelong projects and we all love to think we are further along than we really are, it might be better for registration purposes to specify the projects we bought as "49% complete" regardless of where they are. >KR friends, > >My KR-2 is a partial project I bought probably about 60% complete. ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 16:47:34 -0600 To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: jscott.pilot@juno.com Subject: Los Alamos Fires Message-ID: <20000516.164919.-173025.1.jscott.pilot@juno.com> To the many of you KRNet members who have wished us in Los Alamos well, I want to say thanks. JEB (John Bryhan) and I are both back into our homes. Our homes and airplanes are all undamaged. We do have several friends that lost their homes in the fires. At this time the Los Alamos, Cierra Grande fire is 35% contained and has burned over 46,000 acres. Over 400 homes were lost in the town of Los Alamos. The forest service currently owns all of our airspace so I was unable to take a recon flight around the area this morning. The forest service is estimating that they will be based at our airport fighting this fire for another 4 weeks. For those of you who are familiar with the beautiful mountain vistas around Los Alamos, the view from within town now is that the mountains are burned off from as far south to as far north as the eye can see in the Jemez mountains. Again, I want to say thanks to the many of you who wrote and sent your well wishes to us. Regards, Jeff Scott aka "Net Mom" ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 20:59:43 -0500 To: KR-Net From: Mark Jones Subject: Magazine articles. Message-ID: <3921FD0F.5E4A0C81@execpc.com> Hi Guys, Does anyone have a month/year list of KR related magazine articles for Kitplanes and Sport Aviation magazine? -- Mark Jones (N886MJ) Waukesha, WI USA (soon to be Wales, WI) mailto:flykr2s@execpc.com Visit my KR-2S CorvAIRCRAFT web site at http://sites.netscape.net/flykr2s/homepage ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 20:08:38 -0700 To: Mark Jones From: John Esch CC: KR-Net Subject: Re: KR> Magazine articles. Message-ID: <39220D36.921B3733@home.com> January 1995 Kitplanes has Roy Marsh KR-2S John F. Esch Salem, OR Mark Jones wrote: > > Hi Guys, > Does anyone have a month/year list of KR related magazine articles for > Kitplanes and Sport Aviation magazine? > -- > Mark Jones (N886MJ) > Waukesha, WI USA (soon to be Wales, WI) > mailto:flykr2s@execpc.com > Visit my KR-2S CorvAIRCRAFT web site at > http://sites.netscape.net/flykr2s/homepage > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: krnet-unsubscribe@mailinglists.org > For additional commands, e-mail: krnet-help@mailinglists.org ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 05:34:24 PDT To: flykr2s@execpc.com From: "Richard Parker" Cc: krnet@mailinglists.org Subject: Re: KR> Magazine articles. Message-ID: <20000517123424.25689.qmail@hotmail.com> I have a bunch of them dated and scanned on my web site http://top.monad.net/~theparkers/kr.htm Rich Parker >Mark Jones wrote: > > > > Hi Guys, > > Does anyone have a month/year list of KR related magazine articles for > > Kitplanes and Sport Aviation magazine? > > -- > > Mark Jones (N886MJ) > > Waukesha, WI USA (soon to be Wales, WI) > > mailto:flykr2s@execpc.com > > Visit my KR-2S CorvAIRCRAFT web site at > > http://sites.netscape.net/flykr2s/homepage > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: krnet-unsubscribe@mailinglists.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: krnet-help@mailinglists.org > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >To unsubscribe, e-mail: krnet-unsubscribe@mailinglists.org >For additional commands, e-mail: krnet-help@mailinglists.org > ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 15:13:08 EDT To: richontheroad@hotmail.com, flykr2s@execpc.com From: Krwr1@aol.com CC: krnet@mailinglists.org Subject: Re: KR> Magazine articles. Message-ID: <7a.55920f4.26544944@aol.com> I have an article about my KR in the Homebuilt Aircraft Mag. Of April 1986 , Page 54 and also in the Sportsman Pilot of the Winter 1985 , page 8. Bill Reents Youngstown Ohio krwr1@aol.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 21:59:37 EDT To: AviationMech@aol.com, skypilot@frognet.net, krnet@mailinglists.org From: GARYKR2@cs.com Subject: Re: KR> alternator Message-ID: <7a.5557040.26535709@cs.com> I'm also using the Nippendenso on my "2." I weighted it once, but can't remember how much. Gary Hinkle(A/P) Middletown, Pa. garykr2@cs.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 22:16:10 -0500 To: From: "Mark Langford" Subject: Troy's AS5046 update Message-ID: <003201bfbfae$402478d0$a5f780ce@300emachine> AirFoilHeads, I've gotten a few requests for an airfoil testing update lately, so fortunately Troy called tonight with exactly that. He has his C-85 and Ivo prop installed and has done about 5 hours on that combination, and while he was at it he did some of that testing that we've been hoping for. He tried to be very objective and couldn't remember (off-hand) his RAF48 stall speeds, and came up with a power on stall speed of 43 knots, power off at 49. This was arrived at after 5 or 6 very carefully controlled stalls. He later dug up the numbers that he'd found with the RAF48, which were 42 knots power on and 47 knots power off. So you'd think that the "new airfoil" stalls a little faster, until you remember that his plane now weighs 90 pounds more! Hmmmmm. Looks like the new airfoil goes faster AND stalls slower! Of course some of this can also be attributed to lowering the wing incidence, which he says does indeed decrease visibility on landing (as expected), but you've also got a little more drag from the larger h/s. He also is quite happy with the improved stability that the larger horizontal stab has given him. He says that he can now actually let go of the stick to write things down, which was out of the question before. Before you say "his CG must have been outta whack before" consider that his CG range is now exactly the same as before (he's a meticulous guy, so I'd count on it). There's more info on the airfoil at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford/airfoil.html ... Mark Langford, Huntsville, Alabama mailto:langford@hiwaay.net see KR2S project N56ML at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 02:54:48 EDT To: langford@hiwaay.net, krnet@mailinglists.org From: ACMan5548@aol.com Subject: Re: KR> Troy's AS5046 update Message-ID: <24.5163ed0.26539c38@aol.com> I must have missed something. Why is the aircraft "...90 pounds more" with the new air foil? ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 23:58:53 -0700 To: ACMan5548@aol.com From: Mike Mims CC: krnet@mailinglists.org Subject: Re: KR> Troy's AS5046 update Message-ID: <3922432D.3FA02CBC@home.com> ACMan5548@aol.com wrote: > > I must have missed something. Why is the aircraft "...90 pounds more" with > the new air foil? > Because it has a C-85 now with electrical system. Also larger tail surfaces. It all adds up quick. -- __________________ Micheal Mims Trying to get this thing done! http://www.fortunecity.com/marina/anchor/270/ http://explanes.com/ Aliso Viejo Ca ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 12:16:04 EDT To: ACMan5548@aol.com, langford@hiwaay.net, krnet@mailinglists.org From: CruzJ12@aol.com Subject: Re: KR> Troy's AS5046 update Message-ID: <22.5e67a4a.26541fc4@aol.com> The new airfoil allows for more fuel in each wing tank and I believe the surface area of the wing is larger as well. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 08:57:25 -0600 To: "'krnet@mailinglists.org'" From: "Renken, Jeremy, C1C, CS23" Subject: New Airfoil for KR1? Message-ID: This email is in reguards to the use of a new air-foil for the KR2. I am interested in building a KR1 using the new AS504x (or the NLF(1)-011x) airfoil. This would be for all the usual reasons like higher cruise speeds, better stall charictreristics, fuel efficiency...etc. Here's what I'm wondering - I'll probably be taking the wing area out to about 70'. In general I want to run longer, thinner, and more tapered wings. This plane is going to be built for low drag. (Formula V racing prospects are actually pretty good, but it will probably just be my little speed beast.) In the quest for speed, I'm not at all averted to looking at these new designs as well as some golden oldies like the NACA 65 series "mustang" style wing. I'm wondering if this kind of modification has been done to a KR1. I've looked in the archives, but KR1s don't seem to dominate the conversation. (Is there a seperate KR1 net?) If I'm the first to bring it up, I need to become buddies with the Airfoil gurus!! Here's some stuff I need to know to begin: The AS504x series was designed with the constraints of 180 mph cruise at a wing loading of around 10.5. Stalling in the mid 60's and toping out around 200 mph on 80hp. (Have I read all of the data right on http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford/airfoil.html and http://amber.aae.uiuc.edu/~ashok/kr2/airfoils ?) I know that the NLF airfoils were really designed for higher Re #s, and I figured, hey, "I'd be interested in higher #s!" to the tune of 9.5mil at the root and 4.5 mil at the tip. (And that does put my tip Re a little low for stall speeds - [FAR part 23 concerns?]). I'm looking for assumptions more like 270 mph flat out on 100 hp, and 230mph at 3 g's. (Don't worry, I am well aware of how crazy it sounds...I needed a project for the next 10 years!) Does anyone have a take on good data from the NLF or AS airfoils at this kind of Re? I'm just in the fiddling stages right now. Has this kind of stuff come up on the net before? Sorry I didn't get to contribute dough to all of the airfoil research. Please feel free to reply off net since this is so unrelated to most of the KRNet buzz. Long time lurker - first time contributor Jeremy L. Renken (out at the Air Force Academy) c00jeremy.renken@usafa.af.mil (after June 1 jeremy.renken@hotmail.com) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 12:32:36 -0700 To: krnet@mailinglists.org, langford@hiwaay.net, c00jeremy.renken@usafa.af.mil From: mdlougheed@juno.com Subject: New Airfoil for KR1? Message-ID: <20000517.123346.-914915.1.mdlougheed@juno.com> Jeremy, I have been working on using the AS504x foil sections on (designs similar to) the KR-1 ever since doing the CFD work on the new KR-2(S) wing. The planform I have been using is inspired (and scaled) from the Sequoia Falco and Embraer Tucano designs. For some time I have considered the 6.4 AR wing planform of the Falco (if it's good enough for Frati, it's good enough for me), but when it's scaled down, the wing section becomes too thin to support an internally cantilevered spar design - for the loads I would like to support. While I was reading recently, I was prompted to look up the Midget Mustang, on the web, as a plane with similar characteristics to the KR-1 - and was pleasantly surprised. After further noodling, I came to the conclusion that the Mustang's lower AR wing (around 5.5 - if I remember correctly) would be better suited for the lighter KR-1 than the "U2" 6.4 AR. Longer chords (i.e. higher RN's) mean more room for spars and potentially fuel. Another reason for choosing an AR in the 5.5 ballpark is that it won't have the tendency to float in ground effect as much, while at the same time getting better induced drag performance at altitude. The change in efficiency from AR 5 to AR 6 or 7 is not nearly as dramatic as the change from AR 4.5 (KR-1) to AR 5 or 6. As far as the KR-1 is concerned, I kept the wing area the same as the original (less parasitic drag than larger area wing). Wing span is increased to an even 20 feet. Root and Tip chords are changed to get the same wing area as the KR-1 and increase the AR to the 5.5 range. Incidence angles have not yet been determined. Another KR-1 change on my drawing board was to lengthen the fuselage aft by another 12-1/4" bay, and evening out the stations ahead of the forward spar to 3 bays of 8 inches each. I have kept the spar spacing the same (for now), but did move the station between them, so that it is evens out the spacing in that area. This was done for several reasons. First was to increase the tail arm. Doing so increased the horizontal tail volume to just under 5.0 (very good). This will yield a greater static margin and help increase stability. Second, since I'm planning to use a Corvair powerplant, there needed to be more distance between the pilot and engine to balance the plane. Another change prompted by my calculations was to even the area of the horizontal tail to an even 50/50 split between stabilizer and elevator. Since the KR-1 has a fairly shallow body, I increased the depth to accommodate a 6 foot pilot in a more supine (lying) position (which is another reason for making the stations forward 8" each). Fuselage width has been changed to yield a 24" clear opening at the shoulders. Cockpit dimensions have been verified with a computer generated ergonomic character. The topsides in my take on the KR-1 have been changed to suit my taste - similar (but different) to the 2S. Landing gear is fixed type. I'm not sure that 270 MPH is realistic, but is only my opinion, not a statement of fact. My calculations still revolve around 180 MPH cruise, while extending the top end to 220 to 230 with a speed prop. To design the wing for a 270 top end would yield a low incidence wing with lots of washout. It would be a tall order to design a wing with that speed range in mind while keeping the stall speed within FAR 23 guidelines - you'd need lots of flaps and a larger wing area. This means optimizing around wing area, stall speed, cruise/high speed /landing approach attitudes, CG spread, just to name a few of the variables. You'd have to do this anyway, but I think it would be easier to keep the speed range within a more conservative set of limits. It's all a compromise, but hey, that why they call it experimental!!! Just so you know, I have been number crunching on ideas surrounding the KR-1, but not to the level of detail I have on the 2(S) yet. I have yet to make a CFD or stability model of these design revisions to verify my assumptions. If you are interested I can E-Mail you a JPG copy of my KR-1 planform drawing as it currently exists. Mark D. Lougheed mdlougheed@juno.com > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Renken, Jeremy, C1C, CS23 > To: > Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2000 9:57 AM > Subject: KR> New Airfoil for KR1? > > > > > I'm wondering if this kind of modification has been done to a KR1. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 23:19:57 -0700 To: mdlougheed@juno.com From: virgnvs@juno.com Cc: krnet@mailinglists.org, langford@hiwaay.net, c00jeremy.renken@usafa.af.mil Subject: Re: KR> New Airfoil for KR1? Message-ID: <20000517.233912.-363199.1.virgnvs@juno.com> The KR-1 tail was designed to only 240mph MAX, Virg On Wed, 17 May 2000 12:32:36 -0700 mdlougheed@juno.com writes: > Jeremy, > > I have been working on using the AS504x foil sections on (designs > similar > to) the KR-1 ever since doing the CFD work on the new KR-2(S) wing. > The > planform I have been using is inspired (and scaled) from the Sequoia > Falco and Embraer Tucano designs. > > For some time I have considered the 6.4 AR wing planform of the > Falco (if > it's good enough for Frati, it's good enough for me), but when it's > scaled down, the wing section becomes too thin to support an > internally > cantilevered spar design - for the loads I would like to support. > > While I was reading recently, I was prompted to look up the Midget > Mustang, on the web, as a plane with similar characteristics to the > KR-1 > - and was pleasantly surprised. After further noodling, I came to > the > conclusion that the Mustang's lower AR wing (around 5.5 - if I > remember > correctly) would be better suited for the lighter KR-1 than the "U2" > 6.4 > AR. Longer chords (i.e. higher RN's) mean more room for spars and > potentially fuel. Another reason for choosing an AR in the 5.5 > ballpark > is that it won't have the tendency to float in ground effect as > much, > while at the same time getting better induced drag performance at > altitude. The change in efficiency from AR 5 to AR 6 or 7 is not > nearly > as dramatic as the change from AR 4.5 (KR-1) to AR 5 or 6. > > As far as the KR-1 is concerned, I kept the wing area the same as > the > original (less parasitic drag than larger area wing). Wing span is > increased to an even 20 feet. Root and Tip chords are changed to > get the > same wing area as the KR-1 and increase the AR to the 5.5 range. > Incidence angles have not yet been determined. > > Another KR-1 change on my drawing board was to lengthen the fuselage > aft > by another 12-1/4" bay, and evening out the stations ahead of the > forward > spar to 3 bays of 8 inches each. I have kept the spar spacing the > same > (for now), but did move the station between them, so that it is > evens out > the spacing in that area. This was done for several reasons. First > was > to increase the tail arm. Doing so increased the horizontal tail > volume > to just under 5.0 (very good). This will yield a greater static > margin > and help increase stability. Second, since I'm planning to use a > Corvair > powerplant, there needed to be more distance between the pilot and > engine > to balance the plane. Another change prompted by my calculations > was to > even the area of the horizontal tail to an even 50/50 split between > stabilizer and elevator. > > Since the KR-1 has a fairly shallow body, I increased the depth to > accommodate a 6 foot pilot in a more supine (lying) position (which > is > another reason for making the stations forward 8" each). Fuselage > width > has been changed to yield a 24" clear opening at the shoulders. > Cockpit > dimensions have been verified with a computer generated ergonomic > character. The topsides in my take on the KR-1 have been changed to > suit > my taste - similar (but different) to the 2S. Landing gear is fixed > type. > > I'm not sure that 270 MPH is realistic, but is only my opinion, not > a > statement of fact. My calculations still revolve around 180 MPH > cruise, > while extending the top end to 220 to 230 with a speed prop. To > design > the wing for a 270 top end would yield a low incidence wing with > lots of > washout. It would be a tall order to design a wing with that speed > range > in mind while keeping the stall speed within FAR 23 guidelines - > you'd > need lots of flaps and a larger wing area. This means optimizing > around > wing area, stall speed, cruise/high speed /landing approach > attitudes, CG > spread, just to name a few of the variables. You'd have to do this > anyway, but I think it would be easier to keep the speed range > within a > more conservative set of limits. It's all a compromise, but hey, > that > why they call it experimental!!! > > Just so you know, I have been number crunching on ideas surrounding > the > KR-1, but not to the level of detail I have on the 2(S) yet. I have > yet > to make a CFD or stability model of these design revisions to verify > my > assumptions. > > If you are interested I can E-Mail you a JPG copy of my KR-1 > planform > drawing as it currently exists. > > Mark D. Lougheed > mdlougheed@juno.com > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Renken, Jeremy, C1C, CS23 > > To: > > Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2000 9:57 AM > > Subject: KR> New Airfoil for KR1? > > > > > > > > I'm wondering if this kind of modification has been done to a > KR1. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: krnet-unsubscribe@mailinglists.org > For additional commands, e-mail: krnet-help@mailinglists.org > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 23:12:44 -0700 To: C00Jeremy.Renken@usafa.af.mil From: virgnvs@juno.com Cc: krnet@mailinglists.org Subject: Re: KR> New Airfoil for KR1? Message-ID: <20000517.233912.-363199.0.virgnvs@juno.com> look into the KR-1B Motor Glider wing. Not high speed and watch the stress on the attach fittings. 70ft wing span ? You could over stress the design parameters. Virgil. On Wed, 17 May 2000 08:57:25 -0600 "Renken, Jeremy, C1C, CS23" writes: > This email is in reguards to the use of a new air-foil for the KR2. > I am > interested in building a KR1 using the new AS504x (or the > NLF(1)-011x) > airfoil. This would be for all the usual reasons like higher cruise > speeds, > better stall charictreristics, fuel efficiency...etc. > > Here's what I'm wondering - I'll probably be taking the wing area > out to > about 70'. In general I want to run longer, thinner, and more > tapered > wings. This plane is going to be built for low drag. (Formula V > racing > prospects are actually pretty good, but it will probably just be my > little > speed beast.) In the quest for speed, I'm not at all averted to > looking at > these new designs as well as some golden oldies like the NACA 65 > series > "mustang" style wing. > > I'm wondering if this kind of modification has been done to a KR1. > I've > looked in the archives, but KR1s don't seem to dominate the > conversation. > (Is there a seperate KR1 net?) If I'm the first to bring it up, I > need to > become buddies with the Airfoil gurus!! Here's some stuff I need to > know to > begin: > The AS504x series was designed with the constraints of 180 mph > cruise at a > wing loading of around 10.5. Stalling in the mid 60's and toping > out around > 200 mph on 80hp. (Have I read all of the data right on > http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford/airfoil.html and > http://amber.aae.uiuc.edu/~ashok/kr2/airfoils ?) I know that the > NLF > airfoils were really designed for higher Re #s, and I figured, hey, > "I'd be > interested in higher #s!" to the tune of 9.5mil at the root and 4.5 > mil at > the tip. (And that does put my tip Re a little low for stall speeds > - [FAR > part 23 concerns?]). I'm looking for assumptions more like 270 mph > flat out > on 100 hp, and 230mph at 3 g's. (Don't worry, I am well aware of how > crazy > it sounds...I needed a project for the next 10 years!) > Does anyone have a take on good data from the NLF or AS airfoils at > this > kind of Re? I'm just in the fiddling stages right now. Has this kind > of > stuff come up on the net before? > Sorry I didn't get to contribute dough to all of the airfoil > research. > Please feel free to reply off net since this is so unrelated to most > of the > KRNet buzz. > > Long time lurker - first time contributor > Jeremy L. Renken (out at the Air Force Academy) > c00jeremy.renken@usafa.af.mil > (after June 1 jeremy.renken@hotmail.com) > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: krnet-unsubscribe@mailinglists.org > For additional commands, e-mail: krnet-help@mailinglists.org > ________________________________________________________________ YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET! Juno now offers FREE Internet Access! Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 20:35:28 -0700 From: Mike Mims CC: krnet@mailinglists.org Subject: Re: KR> New Airfoil for KR1? Message-ID: <39236500.CEEEE809@home.com> virgnvs@juno.com wrote: > > The KR-1 tail was designed to only 240mph MAX, Virg > Where do you get information like that? -- __________________ Micheal Mims Trying to get this thing done! http://www.fortunecity.com/marina/anchor/270/ http://explanes.com/ Aliso Viejo Ca ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 05:41:12 -0700 To: mikemims@home.com From: virgnvs@juno.com Cc: krnet@mailinglists.org Subject: Re: KR> New Airfoil for KR1? Message-ID: <20000518.054515.-208523.0.virgnvs@juno.com> On Wed, 17 May 2000 20:35:28 -0700 Mike Mims writes: > virgnvs@juno.com wrote: > > > > The KR-1 tail was designed to only 240mph MAX, Virg > > > > Where do you get information like that? > Ken Rand, personally. Virg > > -- > __________________ > Micheal Mims > Trying to get this thing done! > http://www.fortunecity.com/marina/anchor/270/ > http://explanes.com/ > Aliso Viejo Ca > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: krnet-unsubscribe@mailinglists.org > For additional commands, e-mail: krnet-help@mailinglists.org > ________________________________________________________________ YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET! Juno now offers FREE Internet Access! Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 08:23:23 -0700 (PDT) To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: Mike Mims Subject: Re: KR> New Airfoil for KR1? Message-ID: <20000518152323.26405.qmail@web1402.mail.yahoo.com> --- virgnvs@juno.com wrote: > > > The KR-1 tail was designed to only 240mph MAX, > Virg > > > > > > > Where do you get information like that? > > Ken Rand, personally. Virg You dont happen to remember if he mentioned the limitations do you? I would imagine that going to Dr Deans hinges and adding a second layer of glass (which we do anyway) and a balanced elevator (another thing we do now) would really help. Although once you make the stabilizer stronger the weak link moves to how its attached to the fuselage. Heck if you want to go that fast the KR is the wrong airplane anyway.:O) ===== ........| .......-^- ....-/_____\- ...(O\__o__/O) ...[#]oxxxo[#] -----Y2K Bug--- Yes I drive one! __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 10:15:39 -0700 To: virgnvs@juno.com From: mdlougheed@juno.com Cc: mdlougheed@juno.com, krnet@mailinglists.org, langford@hiwaay.net, c00jeremy.renken@usafa.af.mil Subject: Re: KR> New Airfoil for KR1? Message-ID: <20000518.105622.-501161.2.mdlougheed@juno.com> Thanks for the info. On all my various design noodlings, I'm planning on using laminated stock for all spars, including the H&V tail. The vertical tail (especially) will be better incorporated into the fuselage (similar to a ships stem), so hopefully the design Vne will be better. The recommended Vne will still be within stock limits. All things considered - 240mph is definitely fast enough for me. Mark D. Lougheed mdlougheed@juno.com On Wed, 17 May 2000 23:19:57 -0700 virgnvs@juno.com writes: > The KR-1 tail was designed to only 240mph MAX, Virg > ------------------------------ End of krnet Digest ***********************************