From: To: Subject: krnet Digest 22 May 2000 15:14:33 -0000 Issue 30 Date: Monday, May 22, 2000 7:14 AM krnet Digest 22 May 2000 15:14:33 -0000 Issue 30 Topics (messages 615 through 644): Re: list traffic 615 by: jscott.pilot.juno.com 619 by: Michael Taglieri 620 by: The Muses 622 by: Mark Langford 626 by: w.g. kirkland Re: emergency parachute (very long message) 616 by: Renken, Jeremy, C1C, CS23 emergency parachute 617 by: Eckmstr.netscape.net 624 by: Tim Bellville 636 by: macwood 640 by: Renken, Jeremy, C1C, CS23 642 by: Mike Mims Re:Revmaster mag 618 by: KRkip.aol.com 621 by: Joe Beyer 629 by: The Muses 635 by: KRkip.aol.com Re: simulator for kr-2 623 by: KR2616TJ.aol.com 625 by: N925SG one canopy strut 627 by: Bob Smith 634 by: AviationMech.aol.com Bond test of old T88 628 by: Bob Smith Re: Spinner Question 630 by: Kenneth L Wiltrout 632 by: Rick Human R: KR> emergency parachute 631 by: FLAMINIA PATERNO 633 by: Mark Jones Re: engine change 637 by: Livingstone, Danny (DJ) 638 by: AviationMech.aol.com 644 by: Leonardo Wing Walk 639 by: flykr2s.execpc.com Re: engine change(wing walk) 641 by: Mike Mims 643 by: Richard Parker Administrivia: To subscribe to the digest, e-mail: To unsubscribe from the digest, e-mail: To post to the list, e-mail: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 20 May 2000 10:21:58 -0600 To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: jscott.pilot@juno.com Subject: Re: KR> list traffic Message-ID: <20000520.102159.-191851.2.jscott.pilot@juno.com> On Sat, 20 May 2000 11:29:39 EDT ACMan5548@aol.com writes: > Richard: > > > I'm sorry that langford@hiwaay.net (Mark Langford) is so up set that he wants > to shoot him self. I'll miss his informed input. > > Tony That's kind of the point. I, for one, would be amoung those that have been there, done that. I'm not willing to wade through 50 emails a day of me too and inadvertent replies anymore. Since Mark set up the new list service and I have been doing the administration, we are now charged with being the old guys that aren't interested anymore. No matter what you do, you can't make everyone happy. You want it your way. I'll be glad to leave. But for God's sake stop your whining. If somebody needs something from the administrator, email me directly as I won't be reading the list for a while. I've had my fill for now. Jeff Scott - Los Alamos, NM mailto:jscott.pilot@juno.com See N1213w construction and first flight at http://www.thuntek.net/~jeb/krjeff.htm ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 May 2000 04:03:40 -0400 To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: Michael Taglieri Subject: Re: KR> list traffic Message-ID: <20000521.001040.13790.4.MikeT_NYC@juno.com> > Would somebody just SHOOT ME, please? I give up... > BANG! I guess maybe its time to let the reply to all feature go. I agree with you that I would only want to hear from guys sharp enough to hit "reply to all" (and yes I realize I hit reply to all) but it just doesn't seem to be working out for the masses. No offense, but this is way too simplistic an answer, based on my experience on other technical lists. People often reply only to the questioner not because they "don't know how to hit reply to all," but because they're not sure they know enough about the problem to risk exposing their answers to everyone on the list. Ironically, sometimes the people who know the most are the ones who hesitate to reply to the whole list, because they're the ones who realize how complex the question really is. If everyone answers the whole list (and the people on the list are not flamers, etc.), the result is that the earlier answers may not be entirely right, and later people suggest corrections. The final result is that everyone works together jointly to arrive at the best answer and everyone is educated in the process. By contrast, when people send private answers by e-mail, the person who asked the question gets a bunch of answers, but since none of them are posted to the list, the people who answer never get the chance to critique each others' answers and determine which ones are best. The original questioner can't do that, because he knows less than any of the answerers. The result is that the original questioner gets various answers that may wildly contradict one another, with no way to tell which he should follow, and no one else on the list learns anything. Also, if there's a brilliant answer among the ones he gets, it will never get in the archives because no one else will ever see it. Encouraging replies to go only to the questioner effectively ends the possibility that anyone on this list will learn more about KR's than he already knows now. The solution to chit-chat is to stop the people who chit-chat, not to kill this list as a way to learn about KR's. Mike Taglieri - miket_nyc@juno.com ________________________________________________________________ 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: Sat, 20 May 2000 23:31:31 -0500 To: ACMan5548@aol.com From: The Muses CC: kr2s2000@yahoo.com, miket_nyc@juno.com, krnet@mailinglists.org Subject: Re: KR> list traffic Message-ID: <392766A2.CC7AE22A@ev1.net> ACMan5548@aol.com wrote: > I would like to see the answers too. It seems the people who are long time KR > builders are the controlling force for the site and they don't want the > clutter. If this isn't for the exchange of information where can we go? > > Tony > Mission Viejo I'm a long time builder/flyer and I would like to see the answers too. Bobby ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 06:46:29 -0500 To: From: "Mark Langford" Subject: Re: KR> list traffic Message-ID: <005101bfc31a$34cb2dc0$58e6a58c@tbe.com> Mike, I agree with you absolutely 100% on almost every point you made. But the one point I think you (and everybody else who doesn't like this setup) are missing is that we're NOT discouraging replies to the whole list. We're only discouraging THOUGHTLESS replies to the whole list. If it's got anything at all to do with KRs, it should go to the whole list. If it's purely personal or interests only ONE guy, then it should go to that ONE guy only. I guess my point with the "just shoot me" thing was that I've tried to explain that I really don't think that the technical information IS bypassing everyone. It's just often not getting answered at all. I could have answered that Corvair question in 5 seconds, but I didn't even get a chance to check my email until late last night (even though it's sitting on my desktop at work too) because I'm putting in 15 hour days at work, and there are at least 10 other guys who are on CorvAIRCRAFT that know exactly the same URL and were perfectly capable of posting it. I could answer a large percentage of the questions on KRNet, but then I'd have to rename it to LangfordNet, and people would accuse me of monopolizing the thing and it WOULD become a one sided list. So guys, by all means, don't hesitate to post your answers to builder's questions to the list. That's why it's called a LIST. The more the merrier. And I don't mind if there are 10 replies to every question, as long as they're not some sort of "me too" drivel, a repeat of what the reply before yours said, or a one liner that you think's funny (kinda like "just shoot me"). I really enjoy the ones like "I don't know how to solve your problem, but I wish you luck". This is the kind of stuff we're trying to do away with. The criteria one should ask oneself right before posting is "is there any contribution here", that's all. The "reply to original" thing is PURELY to weed out those who operate on a knee-jerk level, have nothing useful to say, and would require half an hour to figure out how to post to the list. You gotta admit, we've been fooling them for a few months now. And while I'm ranting (again), when you DO hit "reply to all", delete everybody else but KRNet from the TO line, or the original poster(s) will get several copies of the same message, potentially. And if you find out that you screwed up and sent it to original, rather than to the list, dig it up and resend to the list, no problem. I'm going on a much needed vacation in about 2 hours (yes, I came in to WORK at 5AM on a Sunday to get finished up on my part of a multi-BILLION dollar proposal for new work, and left work last night at 11:00) and I won't swear that I'll take my laptop just to read KRNet... Mark Langford, Huntsville, Alabama mailto:langford@hiwaay.net see KR2S N56ML at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 11:11:37 -0400 To: "Mark Langford" , From: "w.g. kirkland" Subject: Re: KR> list traffic Message-Id: <200005211510.LAA27001@dreams.vianet.on.ca> ------=_NextPart_000_01BFC315.550E6700 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mark et all. Je suis d'acord. I miss the answers but I don't miss the flames. Progress report. I am just about finished my forward deck a la M Langford. Thanks for all the how to's on ur website. W.G.(Bill) KIRKLAND kirkland@vianet.on.ca ---------- > From: Mark Langford > To: krnet@mailinglists.org > Subject: Re: KR> list traffic > Date: Friday, May 19, 2000 9:48 PM > > > I would like to see the answers too. It seems the people who are long time > KR > > builders are the controlling force for the site and they don't want the > > clutter. If this isn't for the exchange of information where can we go? > > Would somebody just SHOOT ME, please? I give up... > > Mark Langford, Huntsville, Alabama > mailto:langford@hiwaay.net > see KR2S project N56ML at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: krnet-unsubscribe@mailinglists.org > For additional commands, e-mail: krnet-help@mailinglists.org ------=_NextPart_000_01BFC315.550E6700-- ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 May 2000 10:32:07 -0600 To: "'FLAMINIA PATERNO'" , krnet@mailinglists.org From: "Renken, Jeremy, C1C, CS23" Subject: RE: KR> emergency parachute (very long message) Message-ID: Camillo I've either bailed out of, or simulated bailing out of, a lot of aircraft (although always for training and never in an actual emergency). This is just my experience, but... The first concern is how well can you clear away the canopy/door. How it opens relative to direction of travel of the aircraft is a prima facie concern. Canopies that hinge at the front are almost impossible to get open unless your aircraft is falling at an unusual attitude (on its side/tailsliding/tailspinning), or unless you have a hinge release up front that allows you to separate the canopy from the front in an emergency. You want the wind to help you in ripping the canopy off. As a matter of fact, while forward hinged canopies are the WORST if they DON'T have an emergency forward release (i.e. they are permanently attached by hydraulic struts at the front or a non-releasing hinge), they become the BEST style in any bailout emergency if they DO have a forward release. Next best is a solid canopy that opens to one side WITH an emergency hinge release on it's hinging side. After that, the best is gull-wing style doors with lots of side clearance After that gull-wing style doors without lots of side clearance (In either case, gull-wing doors that can be ejected off of their hinges are great, but they usually put some structure over the pilot/passenger which obstructs good bailout clearance - sometimes a problem) Then side opening solid canopies WITHOUT an emergency side hinge release. Lastly, rear opening canopies without forward release. The reasons for this ordering is that the next most important thing in a bailout emergency is aircraft attitude. A side hinging solid canopy can be opened relatively easily (you'll be amazed how much strength you have when the time comes) in a dive or a spin IF THE SPIN IS IN DIRECTION OPPOSITE THE SIDE OF THE AIRCRAFT WITH THE HINGE. If the spin is "with the hinge" good luck getting a safe bailout. Canopies that open from the front and release both front (emergency release) and rear (normal release) will work in 99% of your aircraft bailout scenarios. This is not true of inverted spins, but if you're in an inverted spin you have the advantage of gravity either breaking you through the canopy or helping you rip it off as you fall. This is however VERY undesirable considering you have to manually activate most commercial emergency parachutes and there is a high chance of being knocked unconscious in this little maneuver. ***As a side note*** USPA - the United States Parachute Association continuously sites skydivers dying because they were knocked out by bad aircraft exits or running into another skydiver and going unconscious and not opening their parachute. Its a real shame to read about someone who rode a working 'chute into the dirt. There are devices called C.Y.P.R.E.S.s (or just Cypres, see: http://chutinggallery.com/products/airtec/index.htm) which will automatically open your chute whether your conscious or not. I'm not sure that these can be installed in all bailout rigs, but that's something you'd want to find out. It is a device which automatically deploys the parachute if you are falling through a preset altitude in freefall velocity (i.e.. if you fall through 1100 feet AGL and are still doing 100 mph, it opens the parachute) They cost about 1000 (cheap life insurance)...but I digress. Gull-wing style doors would be pretty easy to open due to their low surface area in most aircraft emergency attitudes. So...again, due to bailout attitude situations: here's an order of preference - Forward releasable rear opening canopies Both side releasable side opening canopies Gull-wing Single side releasable side opening canopies Rear opening A note should be made about parallelogram opening canopies. I haven't been around any actual or simulated bailouts from them, but I would imagine that their benefit is in offering unobstructed bail-out. Their problem would be that you'd have them moving around on 4 struts and potentially whacking you. It probably would be pretty easy to open in any attitude though. If someone could make this releasable in an emergency it might actually be best of all. If you don't know what type of canopy I mean, see: http://fly.hiwaay.net/~langford/klesterp.html In a most bailout situations pilot (and passenger) want to roll towards their side of the aircraft (pilot bails away low left, passenger low right). You want to get under the horizontal tail. If spinning, leave one at a time with the person who is on the side of the plane in the direction of the spin leaving first (if possible). The change in CG will help the other person get out. If unable to leave in this order, go both at the same time. You don't want the person who is opposite the direction of the spin leaving first, or you'll move the CG into the spin further and risk having an worsened spin, or an inverted spin (very slight chance, but until you've seen an inverted spin you haven't been properly scared). In an inverted situation, things have gone to hell - get out however you can. In a spin, watch out for those wings. KRs probably wouldn't spin fast enough to come around and whack you - but they are your first danger when leaving the plane. This is another reason to leave with the person on the inside of the spin first, relative angular velocity is probably less for them. Use your head though, and the very first concern is just getting out of the aircraft. I haven't heard of emergency exit studies on the KR aircraft - but with most aircraft all that has to be ensured is that no excessive aircraft structure sits over the column of volume which contains a pilot/passenger's hips, shoulders (and parachute,) and which leads to the exit. If any of these areas are obstructed, plan your bailout around it, or change the structure. Next question is can you get out of your harness system. Most harnesses are made to be releasable by one (either) hand. The KR is customizable enough that you must consider these concerns for yourself. Some other notes (sorry this is so long, but I've recently lost even more friends from poor emergency planning, and I take it pretty seriously). Bailout decision altitude is critical. Find out what the parachute manufacturer recommends. (Usually 2000 feet AGL) and bailout before that point in an emergency. If you're lower than that still get out - emergency chutes usually open within 200-400 feet of falling deployment (yes that does translate into a LOT of G's on your little-buddies) but that decision altitude reflects the fact that you can take quite a while getting out of the plane. Remember, at freefall velocity (120 mph) you're covering 1000 feet every 5.7 seconds. Also don't wait to reach free fall velocity before you pull your emergency 'chute - I've done it and let me tell you - it's a 6-9 G kick in the crotch. (Make sure you wear your straps properly - 'chute straps can cut through soft flesh.) As soon as you are clear of the aircraft - pull. Most chutes want you to go into what's called "Standard Military Freefall" (which is a misnomer because it is not how we free fall in the military) which means legs together, both hands on the rip-cord, in a kind of stretched out fetal position, and PUNCH the ripcord away from you (hold it out until you feel the chute save your life). The idea is to get things that can entangle (arms, legs..etc) AWAY from your back, where the spring loaded pilot chute is working very hard to save your but in time. Lastly, give clear instructions to your passenger - tell them "When I say BAIL-OUT, BAIL-OUT, BAIL-OUT want you to.... and I WILL BE LEAVING THE PLANE) Don't worry excessively about complex instructions, K.I.S.S. Just tell them "You roll out right, I'll roll out left. keep your feet together, wait until you clear the plane (3 seconds is usually more than enough and accelerates you to about 1/3 - 1/2 freefall velocity - Ouch) and pull your rip-cord." Make it clear that you aren't screwing around. My first experience with this stuff was hearing "BAIL-OUT!, BAIL-OUT!, BAIL-OUT!" and turning around and saying "what?" and finding a very empty cockpit behind me. SCAAAAARY. (That one was simulated - I still learned my lesson.) OVERALL - Bailing out is dangerous, it does require forethought, and I HIGHLY recommend considering the use of a BRS (Ballistic Reserve System) as opposed to individual parachutes. I don't have personal experience with them, it's just an opinion, but it makes more sense to me. I'd rather fall under a big canopy and save a lot of my plane in a slow descent than allow the unpiloted wreck to auger into schools, houses...etc. A pilots first responsibility in that situation is to the people on the ground and their safety. Your own safety is a luxury. Also, don't fly your aircraft to the limit of what might cause a bail-out. Catastrophic structural failure should be avoidable with reasonable flying and good construction:) If you want a Pitts, buy a Pitts. Know what I mean? Cheers Jeremy Renken c00Jeremy.Renken@usafa.af.mil ------------------------------ Date: 20 May 00 15:05:42 CDT To: "Renken Jeremy C1C CS23" , "FLAMINIA PATERNO" , krnet@mailinglists.org From: Subject: KR> emergency parachute Message-ID: <20000520200542.16512.qmail@ww156.netaddress.usa.net> >>I've either bailed out of, or simulated bailing out of, a lot of >>airc= raft >>(although always for training and never in an actual emergency). This i= s >>just my experience, but... >>The first concern is .... The first concern is NOT waiting until you're in this situation to attemp= t a difficult aircraft exit and the loss of your aircraft without much hope f= or a positive outcome. = Start by choosing a PROACTIVE plan BEFORE HAND rather than a REACTIVE one= in the middle of trouble. The bailout line of thinking is an accident waitin= g to happen. = KR-netters! THINK! There are far more viable options available for us to use that will GREAT= LY enhance our chances in the event of any issue that we can't fly through. = We all know that the first flight rule above all others in the face of troub= le is "FLY THE PLANE"! When there aren't any options left then TAKE CHARGE! Tha= t means by employing safety features that will minimize the risk to all per= sons involved, both in the aircraft and ON THE GROUND and also the aircraft! How can this be accomplished? Simple. 'Chute' the aircraft! When I began thinking about building the KR2S The very first issue on my checklist was= (and always will be) SAFETY! SAFETY! SAFETY! and in that order. I know that I can't ever be sure of how every negative flight issue will transpire and having a contingency plan for each issue. So, I decided ear= ly to be aggressive in my planning for emergencies. That's why I decided to ins= tall a life insurance policy permanently into the aircraft in the form of a Ballistic Recovery Systems (BRS). It's 28# of peace of mind. I also know = that insurance companies will look favorably on builders who have taken the initiative to employ proven safety systems from the start. No I don't rel= y on it for my safety. God gave me common sense and I must make every effort t= o solve the problem without using the BRS knowing it's the last resort. But= knowing that it's available makes a big difference in my attitude and in = many cases attitude and presence of mind in the face of adverse circumstances = can be everything. If you want to argue about the system weight, cost, installation issues o= r any other reason for NOT choosing this your not looking past the end of your = nose very far. Remember, our sport involves other people too. And bailing out = of 650# of an undirected, high speed missile (which may have nearly full tan= ks of fuel) is only thinking of yourself. I asked myself one simple question about the BRS system. "Is there ANY reason NOT to install the BRS?" So far I can't think of a s= ingle one that supercedes my safety and everyone else's as well. Now, I know you're thinking "This guy has a vested interest in putting on= e of these things in every plane." Sorry, I won't make a red cent for this or = any other endorsement of the BRS. I do wish I'd come up with this great idea = and made it happen myself. It's something I could really be proud of. = Having said all that I've included the website for BRS. http://209.238.147.86/ Go and watch the videos. Read the FAQ's, check out= the various options and learn that there is a better way to deal with a very difficult situation and come out ahead. I do hope to get some comments generated by sending this out using REPLY ALL. Thanks for the opportunity= to share my thoughts and as always... BE SAFE AND WATCH YUR 6. ____________________________________________________________________ Get your own FREE, personal Netscape WebMail account today at http://webm= ail.netscape.com. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 09:08:44 -0400 To: , "Renken Jeremy C1C CS23" , "FLAMINIA PATERNO" , From: "Tim Bellville" Subject: Re: KR> emergency parachute Message-ID: <000901bfc325$b3063d00$07276520@default> Just my $.02 worth. I believe it to be immoral,and the most selfish thing a pilot could do to abandon an aircraft, and let it become someone else's problem. The people on the ground didn't have any choice in what or who is flying over their heads and homes, and shouldn't have to deal with an abandoned aircraft slamming in to either one. In my view the only reason to bail out is if it is completely out of control and it is impossible to regain it, and I mean Completely. If you even have a little control you are bound by decency and morality to stay with it and do what you can. This is a high standard to live up to ,I realize ,but that is why the feds want good character in pilots. Notice I said pilots not passengers. Tim ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "Renken Jeremy C1C CS23" ; "FLAMINIA PATERNO" ; Sent: Saturday, May 20, 2000 4:05 PM Subject: KR> emergency parachute >>I've either bailed out of, or simulated bailing out of, a lot of >>aircraft >>(although always for training and never in an actual emergency). This is >>just my experience, but... >>The first concern is .... The first concern is NOT waiting until you're in this situation to attempt a difficult aircraft exit and the loss of your aircraft without much hope for a positive outcome. Start by choosing a PROACTIVE plan BEFORE HAND rather than a REACTIVE one in the middle of trouble. The bailout line of thinking is an accident waiting to happen. KR-netters! THINK! There are far more viable options available for us to use that will GREATLY enhance our chances in the event of any issue that we can't fly through. We all know that the first flight rule above all others in the face of trouble is "FLY THE PLANE"! When there aren't any options left then TAKE CHARGE! That means by employing safety features that will minimize the risk to all persons involved, both in the aircraft and ON THE GROUND and also the aircraft! How can this be accomplished? Simple. 'Chute' the aircraft! When I began thinking about building the KR2S The very first issue on my checklist was (and always will be) SAFETY! SAFETY! SAFETY! and in that order. I know that I can't ever be sure of how every negative flight issue will transpire and having a contingency plan for each issue. So, I decided early to be aggressive in my planning for emergencies. That's why I decided to install a life insurance policy permanently into the aircraft in the form of a Ballistic Recovery Systems (BRS). It's 28# of peace of mind. I also know that insurance companies will look favorably on builders who have taken the initiative to employ proven safety systems from the start. No I don't rely on it for my safety. God gave me common sense and I must make every effort to solve the problem without using the BRS knowing it's the last resort. But knowing that it's available makes a big difference in my attitude and in many cases attitude and presence of mind in the face of adverse circumstances can be everything. If you want to argue about the system weight, cost, installation issues or any other reason for NOT choosing this your not looking past the end of your nose very far. Remember, our sport involves other people too. And bailing out of 650# of an undirected, high speed missile (which may have nearly full tanks of fuel) is only thinking of yourself. I asked myself one simple question about the BRS system. "Is there ANY reason NOT to install the BRS?" So far I can't think of a single one that supercedes my safety and everyone else's as well. Now, I know you're thinking "This guy has a vested interest in putting one of these things in every plane." Sorry, I won't make a red cent for this or any other endorsement of the BRS. I do wish I'd come up with this great idea and made it happen myself. It's something I could really be proud of. Having said all that I've included the website for BRS. http://209.238.147.86/ Go and watch the videos. Read the FAQ's, check out the various options and learn that there is a better way to deal with a very difficult situation and come out ahead. I do hope to get some comments generated by sending this out using REPLY ALL. Thanks for the opportunity to share my thoughts and as always... BE SAFE AND WATCH YUR 6. ____________________________________________________________________ Get your own FREE, personal Netscape WebMail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: krnet-unsubscribe@mailinglists.org For additional commands, e-mail: krnet-help@mailinglists.org ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 12:29:53 +0100 To: , "Renken Jeremy C1C CS23" , "FLAMINIA PATERNO" , From: "macwood" Subject: Re: KR> emergency parachute Message-ID: <002f01bfc3e1$24e97200$c30d3c3e@tinypc> Hi Chums! This emergency parachute debate reminds me of my uncle, who jumped out of a burning Sopwith Camel ,without a 'chute and lived to tell the tale.Allthough parachutes were available in 1918, the RAF decided not to issue them as "it might encourage the pilots to abandon the aircraft prematurely". Strike a chord?! Cheers , Mac Hampshire UK ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Renken Jeremy C1C CS23 ; FLAMINIA PATERNO ; Sent: Saturday, May 20, 2000 9:05 PM Subject: KR> emergency parachute > > >>I've either bailed out of, or simulated bailing out of, a lot of >>aircraft > >>(although always for training and never in an actual emergency). This is > >>just my experience, but... > > >>The first concern is .... > > The first concern is NOT waiting until you're in this situation to attempt a > difficult aircraft exit and the loss of your aircraft without much hope for a > positive outcome. > > Start by choosing a PROACTIVE plan BEFORE HAND rather than a REACTIVE one in > the middle of trouble. The bailout line of thinking is an accident waiting to > happen. > KR-netters! THINK! > > There are far more viable options available for us to use that will GREATLY > enhance our chances in the event of any issue that we can't fly through. We > all know that the first flight rule above all others in the face of trouble is > "FLY THE PLANE"! When there aren't any options left then TAKE CHARGE! That > means by employing safety features that will minimize the risk to all persons > involved, both in the aircraft and ON THE GROUND and also the aircraft! > > How can this be accomplished? Simple. 'Chute' the aircraft! When I began > thinking about building the KR2S The very first issue on my checklist was > (and always will be) SAFETY! SAFETY! SAFETY! and in that order. > I know that I can't ever be sure of how every negative flight issue will > transpire and having a contingency plan for each issue. So, I decided early to > be aggressive in my planning for emergencies. That's why I decided to install > a life insurance policy permanently into the aircraft in the form of a > Ballistic Recovery Systems (BRS). It's 28# of peace of mind. I also know that > insurance companies will look favorably on builders who have taken the > initiative to employ proven safety systems from the start. No I don't rely on > it for my safety. God gave me common sense and I must make every effort to > solve the problem without using the BRS knowing it's the last resort. But > knowing that it's available makes a big difference in my attitude and in many > cases attitude and presence of mind in the face of adverse circumstances can > be everything. > If you want to argue about the system weight, cost, installation issues or any > other reason for NOT choosing this your not looking past the end of your nose > very far. Remember, our sport involves other people too. And bailing out of > 650# of an undirected, high speed missile (which may have nearly full tanks of > fuel) is only thinking of yourself. > I asked myself one simple question about the BRS system. > "Is there ANY reason NOT to install the BRS?" So far I can't think of a single > one that supercedes my safety and everyone else's as well. > Now, I know you're thinking "This guy has a vested interest in putting one of > these things in every plane." Sorry, I won't make a red cent for this or any > other endorsement of the BRS. I do wish I'd come up with this great idea and > made it happen myself. It's something I could really be proud of. > Having said all that I've included the website for BRS. > http://209.238.147.86/ Go and watch the videos. Read the FAQ's, check out the > various options and learn that there is a better way to deal with a very > difficult situation and come out ahead. I do hope to get some comments > generated by sending this out using REPLY ALL. Thanks for the opportunity to > share my thoughts and as always... > BE SAFE AND WATCH YUR 6. > > > ____________________________________________________________________ > Get your own FREE, personal Netscape WebMail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: krnet-unsubscribe@mailinglists.org > For additional commands, e-mail: krnet-help@mailinglists.org > ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 08:25:20 -0600 To: "'Eckmstr@netscape.net'" , "Renken, Jeremy, C1C, CS23" , FLAMINIA PATERNO , krnet@mailinglists.org From: "Renken, Jeremy, C1C, CS23" Subject: RE: KR> emergency parachute Message-ID: It has been mentioned that: There are far more viable options available for us to use that will GREATLY enhance our chances in the event of any issue that we can't fly through. We all know that the first flight rule above all others in the face of trouble is "FLY THE PLANE"! When there aren't any options left then TAKE CHARGE! That means by employing safety features that will minimize the risk to all persons involved, both in the aircraft and ON THE GROUND and also the aircraft! How can this be accomplished? Simple. 'Chute' the aircraft! Tally ho and I couldn't agree more. BRS's are probably your best bet for the money. Spending a few grand on a BRS is the cheapest life insurance you'll ever buy. I hope that I stressed how difficult and dangerouse it is to bail out. BRS. Nuff said. Cheers guys...Its a beautiful Monday Jeremy Renken c00Jeremy.Renken@usafa.af.mil ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 07:55:31 -0700 (PDT) To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: Mike Mims Subject: RE: KR> emergency parachute Message-ID: <20000522145532.25385.qmail@web1402.mail.yahoo.com> --- "Renken, Jeremy, C1C, CS23" > Tally ho and I couldn't agree more. BRS's are > probably your best bet for the money. Spending a few grand on a BRS is the cheapest life insurance you'll > ever buy. I hope that I stressed how difficult and > dangerouse it is to bail out. BRS. Nuff said. > The BRS is probably a great idea but I can only think of two reasons you would need to bail out of an aircraft. One would be structural failure. Two would be in-flight fire. In just about all other cases you would be better off flying the plane. If you had structural failure, would the BRS still work seeing how its mounted the item that has more than likely failed (main spar) and do you want to sit in the airplane slung from a parachute on fire? Like I said at first it’s a good idea but think about what you are trying to accomplish here. I think more than anything you guys are looking for a security blanket. Sure it would be nice to say this plane can never kill me because I have a BRS but you would just be kidding yourself. Another option would be to take the $2500 the BRS would cost to try and prevent structural failure or in-flight fire by investing in better (AN not ACE) hardware. Build it like an airplane and you should be ok. ===== ........| .......-^- ....-/_____\- ...(O\__o__/O) ...[#]oxxxo[#] -----Y2K Bug--- Yes I drive one! __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 May 2000 23:56:11 EDT To: Eckmstr@netscape.net, C00Jeremy.Renken@usafa.af.mil, flapater@tin.it, krnet@mailinglists.org From: KRkip@aol.com Subject: Re:Revmaster mag Message-ID: Just a note here for the guys that are flying behind a Revmaster with a 3000 series mag. I just had the impulse spring let go on my aircraft this evening as i tried to start my engine. I pulled the mag off and took it to my local AP to get it fixed and he told me that it is unusal to see this mag running without the drive end bathed insome kind of oil. You might want to take a close look at this at your next annual so you won,t have an unplesant suprise some day. This one let go at the 455 hr mark. KR Kip Kip Lounsbury Lincoln Maine ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 May 2000 10:13:04 -0700 To: , , , , From: "Joe Beyer" Subject: Re: KR> Re:Revmaster mag Message-ID: <000b01bfc27e$aac888c0$8744b23f@earthlink.net> I'm running a Bendix 20 series with impluse on my VW, and I lube the impluse coupling with grease. They should be checked frequently especially if they normally run dry. The springs are subject to fatigue and corrision. mailto:joejbeyer@earthlink.net Portland, Ore. ----- Original Message ----- From: To: ; ; ; Sent: Saturday, May 20, 2000 8:56 PM Subject: KR> Re:Revmaster mag > Just a note here for the guys that are flying behind a Revmaster with a > 3000 series mag. I just had the impulse spring let go on my aircraft this > evening as i tried to start my engine. I pulled the mag off and took it to my > local AP to get it fixed and he told me that it is unusal to see this mag > running without the drive end bathed insome kind of oil. You might want to > take a close look at this at your next annual so you won,t have an > unplesant suprise some day. This one let go at the 455 hr mark. > KR Kip > > > Kip Lounsbury Lincoln Maine > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: krnet-unsubscribe@mailinglists.org > For additional commands, e-mail: krnet-help@mailinglists.org > > ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 13:40:01 -0500 To: KRkip@aol.com From: The Muses CC: Eckmstr@netscape.net, C00Jeremy.Renken@usafa.af.mil, flapater@tin.it, krnet@mailinglists.org Subject: Re: KR> Re:Revmaster mag Message-ID: <39282D80.7F5F9A80@ev1.net> KRkip@aol.com wrote: > Just a note here for the guys that are flying behind a Revmaster with a > 3000 series mag. I just had the impulse spring let go on my aircraft this > evening as i tried to start my engine. I pulled the mag off and took it to my > local AP to get it fixed and he told me that it is unusal to see this mag > running without the drive end bathed insome kind of oil. You might want to > take a close look at this at your next annual so you won,t have an > unplesant suprise some day. This one let go at the 455 hr mark. > KR Kip > > > Kip Lounsbury Lincoln Maine There are a lot VW conversions flying that way but most of us have the rear seal leaking and I guess that will oil the drive whether we want it to are not. How did your drive end look? Was it worn more than usual? Do you think the impulse spring broke because the drive end was not bathed in oil? Bobby Muse ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 21:15:01 EDT To: bmuse@ev1.net From: KRkip@aol.com CC: krnet@mailinglists.org Subject: Re: KR> Re:Revmaster mag Message-ID: In regard to the shape of the drive end of the mag it was not worn at all but i feel that not having any lubrication inthe impulse spring area was the main cause of failure and my local AP feels the same way. Before the spring failed i could hear a squeaking sound coming from the rear of the engine and after removeing the Mag i found that the source of the sound was the impluse coupling so this might be a good thing to listen for during your preflight. On a positive note the new spring will be here Wed and i will be back in the air later this week. Kip ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 08:28:07 EDT To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: KR2616TJ@aol.com Subject: Re: KR> simulator for kr-2 Message-ID: In a message dated 5/19/00 11:02:09 PM Eastern Daylight Time, virgnvs@juno.com writes: << does anyone know of a simulator > program > that resembles a kr-2? >> Yes, there is a download from a website of a KR-2S simulator for Microsoft Flight Sim. We posted in the KRNet a couple of months ago. The view from the cockpit is something else and the outside view of you flying the KR is fabulous. I downloaded the sim but don't recall the address. I've been trying to find it again but didn't save the address. Someone, somewhere please hit "reply all" and tell us where it is again. Dana Overall 2000 KR Gathering host Richmond, KY mailto:kr2616tj@aol.com http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/hangar/7085/ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 07:46:17 -0700 To: , From: "N925SG" Subject: Re: KR> simulator for kr-2 Message-ID: <003401bfc333$53582fe0$217dbacd@glover> Go to go to the main menu and run a search for kr2. it will take you right to the file to download. Steve Glover KR-1 in progress ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Sunday, May 21, 2000 5:28 AM Subject: Re: KR> simulator for kr-2 > In a message dated 5/19/00 11:02:09 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > virgnvs@juno.com writes: > > << does anyone know of a simulator > > program > > that resembles a kr-2? >> > > Yes, there is a download from a website of a KR-2S simulator for Microsoft > Flight Sim. We posted in the KRNet a couple of months ago. The view from > the cockpit is something else and the outside view of you flying the KR is > fabulous. I downloaded the sim but don't recall the address. I've been > trying to find it again but didn't save the address. Someone, somewhere > please hit "reply all" and tell us where it is again. > > > Dana Overall > 2000 KR Gathering host > Richmond, KY > mailto:kr2616tj@aol.com > http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/hangar/7085/ > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: krnet-unsubscribe@mailinglists.org > For additional commands, e-mail: krnet-help@mailinglists.org > ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 12:34:26 -0700 To: From: "Bob Smith" Subject: one canopy strut Message-ID: <003b01bfc35b$93687540$db9d1918@nycap.rr.com> ------=_NextPart_000_0038_01BFC320.E6BED8A0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I know that many are using dual canopy struts to lift a forward hinged = canopy. Has anyone ever tried using only one gas-strut on the right side = to do the job? It would seem to save some weight and keep a strut out = of your way in the pilots seat. =20 Does anyone know if only one strut would work? Bob Smith (remember, ounces add up to pounds) ------=_NextPart_000_0038_01BFC320.E6BED8A0-- ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 20:45:36 EDT To: rsmith5@nycap.rr.com, krnet@mailinglists.org From: AviationMech@aol.com Subject: Re: KR> one canopy strut Message-ID: Bob I have seen a KR with the lift strut embeded into the canopy frame so that it is not in the way with the canopy closed. As for one strut, it might bind, or it might stress one side of the canopy hinge. The strength required to use only one strut could put additional stress on all the attachment hardware, causing you to add weight to compensate for the extra gas pressure. I modified a pair of old hatch struts, by removing the end and welding another end in its place with a valve stem and core allowing me to pressurize to just suffient pressure to lift the canopy. Orma aviationmech@aol.com http://members.aol.com/aviationmech ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 13:03:33 -0700 To: From: "Bob Smith" Subject: Bond test of old T88 Message-ID: <009a01bfc35f$a44a37a0$db9d1918@nycap.rr.com> ------=_NextPart_000_0097_01BFC324.F7A83C20 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I have some pretty old t88 (about 3 yrs) that I was beginning to not = trust. Part of this reason is that it had gotten cold in the winter and = crystallized and I had to warm it up before use. So at the suggestion of = KRnet, I made up some spruce and spruce/mahog ply test pieces to try to = convince myself that it was OK. =20 I might mention that it is now spring and the t88 stays warm and no = longer appears crystalline. The spruce was sanded with coarse sandpaper = prior to bonding. The t88 was allowed to set up for 3 days before = testing the joint. My Results: I was impressed! The bonds were incredibly strong.=20 On one test I joined two pieces of 2 foot long 5/8 x 5/8 spruce with a = 5 inch overlap joint of t88. The length gave me long lever arms to test = the joint in shear. I clamped one piece in a vice and levered with the = other to try to separate at the t88. I bent the spruce into the shape = of a bow and tortured the joint near the breaking point of the wood. = Finally, with increased force, the wood broke across the grain, leaving = the t88 joint intact. I might mention that West systems says that epoxies do not have to = penetrate far into wood to get excellent adhesion. So it looks like the t88 is working just fine. I am more convinced than = ever that the bonds are stronger than the wood. Bob Smith, Albany, NY (project status: slow going. Working on = vstab/rudder. struggling with canopy hinge design) ------=_NextPart_000_0097_01BFC324.F7A83C20-- ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 15:39:30 -0400 To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: Kenneth L Wiltrout Subject: Re: Spinner Question Message-ID: <20000521.153931.-381029.0.klw1953@juno.com> Does any one know if the rear bulkhead plate on a spinner is recessed into the spinner? The reason for this question is: I think my Revmaster's prop hub sticks out of the cowling a little to far, therefore if the rear bulkhead plate is recessed into the rear of the spinner,it will set back closer to the cowl.(The spinner) If I had my spinner at the onset of the cowl installation I would not be posting this question. Thanks for any response {KENNY W} ________________________________________________________________ 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: Sun, 21 May 2000 17:09:23 -0500 To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: Rick Human Subject: Re: KR> Re: Spinner Question Message-id: <002201bfc371$3af94a40$ca0cc1cf@rahuman> Kenneth - you do understand that the flange of the bulkhead projects back toward the cowling - maybe an inch. The spinner fits over that - In my case it fit even with the spinner, but you might get another 1/8" in some cases. So a spinner will overlap the face of crankshaft flange an inch to an inch and a eight. Hope this helps. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kenneth L Wiltrout" To: Sent: Sunday, May 21, 2000 2:39 PM Subject: KR> Re: Spinner Question > Does any one know if the rear bulkhead plate on a spinner is recessed > into the spinner? > The reason for this question is: > > I think my Revmaster's prop hub sticks out of the cowling a little to > far, therefore if the rear bulkhead plate is recessed into the rear of > the spinner,it will set back closer to the cowl.(The spinner) > > If I had my spinner at the onset of the cowl installation I would not be > posting this question. > > Thanks for any response {KENNY W} > ________________________________________________________________ > 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. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: krnet-unsubscribe@mailinglists.org > For additional commands, e-mail: krnet-help@mailinglists.org > ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 23:27:06 +0200 To: "Renken, Jeremy, C1C, CS23" From: "FLAMINIA PATERNO" Cc: Subject: R: KR> emergency parachute Message-ID: <004c01bfc36b$51259e00$2ccaabd4@oemcomputer> Jeremy thank you for the long reply to my question (probably a bit naive). It looks like BRS is really the solution to increase safety. When I think of safety I think of nothing specific that could cause structural failure but at any little inattention or combination of events that could cause the loss of control. My KR2-S was bought allready assembled up to the firewall by a former builder and though I have been inspecting as much as I could the job he did, once in a while I still go humm.... Going back to BRS, I used to own a Kitfox with a balistic parachute mounted in a very easy way, being the parachute behind the seat and the braces (is that the way you call the linkage of the parachute to the aircraft) over my head around the main wing spar. I does not look so easy to install in the KR2, also considering the weight: I have a O200 Continental engine that keeps the plane very close to MTOW with me and full fuel; but I will study the matter. Ciao Camillo KR2-S Italy ----- Original Message ----- From: Renken, Jeremy, C1C, CS23 To: 'FLAMINIA PATERNO' ; Sent: Saturday, May 20, 2000 6:32 PM Subject: RE: KR> emergency parachute (very long message) > Camillo > > I've either bailed out of, or simulated bailing out of, a lot of aircraft > (although always for training and never in an actual emergency). This is > just my experience, but... ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 19:03:57 -0500 From: Mark Jones CC: krnet@mailinglists.org Subject: Re: KR> R: KR> emergency parachute Message-ID: <3928796D.CE9EBDE9@execpc.com> The BRS Chute on the KR2 and 2S is a very viable option. To mount the chute, the actual chute pod is mounted behind the seat vertically where the chute exits through the top of the rear turtle deck. A hole the diameter of the pod is cut into the top of the rear turtle deck and the pod mounted as flush as possible with the lip of the hole. One layer of very lightweight cloth is used to glass the hole over the pod. The parachute attachment points are to the forward main spar and to the rear of the fuselage. This will give you a three point harness when the chute is deployed and the plane will descend in an upright position. From the pod, the harness is routed on the exterior of the fuselage down the sides and on top of the stub wings to the spar attach point and down the center of the top of the turtle deck to it's attach point. You want to install the harness when building the turtle deck and stub wings in order to recess the harness straps flush under the last layer of glass. When the chute is deployed, the rocket will burst the glass over the pod and as the chute opens, the drag force will pull the harness out from under the glass and give you the three point arrangement. Yes, there will be damage to the fiberglass on the plane as the harness is ripped from underneath. Better to have to do a repair job than to kiss your ass good bye!!! FLAMINIA PATERNO wrote: > Jeremy > thank you for the long reply to my question (probably a bit naive). It looks > like BRS is really the solution to increase safety. > When I think of safety I think of nothing specific that could cause > structural failure but at any little inattention or combination of events > that could cause the loss of control. > My KR2-S was bought allready assembled up to the firewall by a former > builder and though I have been inspecting as much as I could the job he did, > once in a while I still go humm.... > Going back to BRS, I used to own a Kitfox with a balistic parachute mounted > in a very easy way, being the parachute behind the seat and the braces (is > that the way you call the linkage of the parachute to the aircraft) over my > head around the main wing spar. I does not look so easy to install in the > KR2, also considering the weight: I have a O200 Continental engine that > keeps the plane very close to MTOW with me and full fuel; but I will study > the matter. > Ciao > Camillo KR2-S Italy > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Renken, Jeremy, C1C, CS23 > To: 'FLAMINIA PATERNO' ; > Sent: Saturday, May 20, 2000 6:32 PM > Subject: RE: KR> emergency parachute (very long message) > > > Camillo > > > > I've either bailed out of, or simulated bailing out of, a lot of aircraft > > (although always for training and never in an actual emergency). This is > > just my experience, but... > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: krnet-unsubscribe@mailinglists.org > For additional commands, e-mail: krnet-help@mailinglists.org -- 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: Mon, 22 May 2000 14:26:12 +0200 To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: "Livingstone, Danny (DJ)" Subject: RE: KR> engine change Message-ID: <042104686D63D311B51A0000C110B8E4449AA2@sasltd06.sasol.com> Hello Netters Have any of you built in support in the wings were you and your passenger stand when getting in and out of the KR or will glassing the top (2layers BID) and bottom (1 layer BID inside the wing) on the top foam pannel be suffcient? Thanks in advance (I hit reply all -ha ha) Danny Livingstone South Africa E-Mail: livd0124@natref.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 08:21:43 EDT To: LIVD0124@natref.com, krnet@mailinglists.org From: AviationMech@aol.com Subject: Re: KR> engine change Message-ID: Support is required, only the spar can support your weight and what happens when you miss and step on the class. It will crack the foam under it and you could go through. With a tail wheel a step area is optional. With a nose wheel, the side of the fuse is too high to step over. Orma aviationmech@aol.com http://members.aol.com/aviationmech ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 12:12:58 -0300 To: "Livingstone, Danny (DJ)" , From: "Leonardo" Subject: Re: KR> engine change Message-ID: <005401bfc400$498a2ea0$4772fea9@estacao1> -hello there!! in my plane three layers was glassed to hold someone of 200 lbs and below that it has a aluminum tank that make it stronger. anyone can get in and off from both sides, you can even dance on it. Leo,Brazil,Kr2s. -----Mensagem original----- De: Livingstone, Danny (DJ) Para: krnet@mailinglists.org Data: Segunda-feira, 22 de Maio de 2000 09:17 Assunto: RE: KR> engine change >Hello Netters > >Have any of you built in support in the wings were you and your passenger >stand when getting in and out of the KR or will glassing the top (2layers >BID) and bottom (1 layer BID inside the wing) on the top foam pannel be >suffcient? > >Thanks in advance (I hit reply all -ha ha) > >Danny Livingstone >South Africa >E-Mail: livd0124@natref.com > > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >To unsubscribe, e-mail: krnet-unsubscribe@mailinglists.org >For additional commands, e-mail: krnet-help@mailinglists.org > ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 08:24:01 -0500 To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: flykr2s@execpc.com Cc: Subject: Wing Walk Message-Id: <200005221324.IAA32059@mailgw00.execpc.com> For those of you who would like to view the way I built my wing walk, visit my web site http://sites.netscape.net/flykr2s/homepage Mark Jones (N886MJ) Waukesha, WI mailto:flykr2s@execpc.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 07:41:57 -0700 (PDT) To: "Livingstone, Danny \(DJ\)" , krnet@mailinglists.org From: Mike Mims Subject: RE: KR> engine change(wing walk) Message-ID: <20000522144157.22556.qmail@web1402.mail.yahoo.com> --- "Livingstone, Danny (DJ)" wrote: > Hello Netters > > Have any of you built in support in the wings were > you and your passenger stand when getting in and out of the KR or will>>> Just have the person step where the aft spar is. Seems to work for me. Of course you will have to mark it with a "step here" sticker or something. ===== ........| .......-^- ....-/_____\- ...(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: Mon, 22 May 2000 08:09:46 PDT To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: "Richard Parker" Subject: RE: KR> engine change(wing walk) Message-ID: <20000522150946.61591.qmail@hotmail.com> Tom Crawford has a life size sticker of a foot on his wing. It tells you exactly where to step, and which foot to use in order to correctly get in and out of the airplane so your arent shuffling around on the wing trying to figure out which leg to stick in first. Rich Parker > > Have any of you built in support in the wings were > > you and your passenger stand when getting in and out >of the KR or will>>> > >Just have the person step where the aft spar is. Seems >to work for me. Of course you will have to mark it >with a "step here" sticker or something. > >===== >........| >.......-^- >....-/_____\- >...(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/ > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >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 ------------------------------ End of krnet Digest ***********************************