From: To: Subject: krnet Digest 5 Oct 2000 19:36:29 -0000 Issue 101 Date: Thursday, October 05, 2000 11:37 AM krnet Digest 5 Oct 2000 19:36:29 -0000 Issue 101 Topics (messages 2318 through 2347): KRnet email list 2318 by: Mike Mims Hallo all KR-netters 2319 by: Spannie 2325 by: Cary Honeywell 2326 by: Horn2004.aol.com 2334 by: Peter Nauta 2337 by: Robert Stone 2342 by: Frank Ross Re: landings 2320 by: Richard Parker Mass 2321 by: Livingstone, Danny (DJ) Re: lock nuts 2322 by: larry flesner TYPE 4 2323 by: Schmidt, Curtis Introduction 2324 by: Kenneth Burch About the GA(W) Airfoils 2327 by: Walter Lounsbery 2328 by: Guenther Bryce 2331 by: Ron Eason 2332 by: Walter Lounsbery Bent spars 2329 by: Edwin Blocher flaps 2330 by: Mark Langford I don't get it 2333 by: Steven Eberhart 2335 by: Mike Mims 2338 by: Garland, Norm F 2340 by: James Sellars On the new airfoil 2336 by: Dave and Tina Goodman A comment on modifications to the KR, ie: "New Airfoil" 2339 by: ACMan5548.aol.com 2345 by: KR2616TJ.aol.com AIRFOILS/WINGS??? 2341 by: Phil Visconti 2346 by: KR2616TJ.aol.com What am I building??? 2343 by: flykr2s.execpc.com 2347 by: James Sellars Re: New Gear Design 2344 by: Frank Ross Administrivia: To subscribe to the digest, e-mail: To unsubscribe from the digest, e-mail: To post to the list, e-mail: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 21:07:34 -0700 From: Mike Mims CC: krnet@mailinglists.org Subject: KRnet email list Message-ID: <39DAAD06.B79CA9BF@home.com> There has been some concern that I would be leaving the KRNet because I am selling my project. That's just not the case at all! I will be here and who knows, a slightly modded KR1S might just be in the near future. ;o) __________________ Micheal Mims Trying to get this thing done! http://www.fortunecity.com/marina/anchor/270/ http://explanes.com/ Aliso Viejo Ca ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 20:44:35 +0200 To: From: "Spannie" Subject: Hallo all KR-netters Message-ID: <000001c02dbc$1a5edce0$2cbc16c4@span> ------=_NextPart_000_0014_01C02D7A.BD7FC020 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable This is my first attempt to contact fellow KR enthusiasts. I have been = on the KR-net for some time now and I must say that it provides great = entertainment. It's only a month now, since I became the proud owner of KR-2, ZS-WDW. = This plane is on the Southern African register and has logged 275 flying = hours. It does require a bit of work though and I would like to get = straight to it. Having not built the plane it obviously means that I am = way behind in practical experience, so I have plenty questions to keep = you all occupied. 1) Can I use any solvents to "strip" the current paintjob down to the = raw fibreglass, or do I have to go the elbow-grease way and sand it down = by hand? 2) What can I use to make small repairs, eg. to fill nicks on the = leading edge? 3) Who does lightweight, aimed at the homebuilder (affordable), = avionics? Enough for now. Johan de Jong spannie@netactive.co.za Any South Africans on the net? Where are you? ------=_NextPart_000_0014_01C02D7A.BD7FC020-- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 10:32:13 -0400 To: From: "Cary Honeywell" Subject: Re: KR> Hallo all KR-netters Message-ID: <000a01c02e0f$e3702aa0$0205a8c0@server1> Having done what you are attempting, I can add a few comments. First, if you can avoid stripping the paint, do so. It is an onerous and labour intensive job which can be less than successful on certain parts of the KR. It can be done, but should be avoided if possible. Depending on the type of paint, a mild paint stripper can be used provided you minimize the time the solvent actually makes contact with the glass. A heat gun can also be used however it has a tendency to soften the glass if used too intensely. Stripping paint from the wood portions can be accomplished with paint stripper provided you take care when stripping near scarf joints, corners that were glued and wood/glass joints. Take your time. I started mine 4 years ago and am still stripping the paint. Be prepared to find errors in construction, bad repairs and just plain "Age Damage" under the paint. Some builders paint over their mistakes in the hope that it will disappear. Nicks can be repaired by using micro flurry (epoxy/filler combo) where structural integrity is not an issue. Terra used to be the best Avionics supplier for homebuilts. It was small and lightweight. Not sure who has that crown now. Good luck. - Cary - -Cary Honeywell - Ottawa Ontario Canada caryh@home.com ve3ev@rac.ca Home page http://24.112.208.98/ KR2 area http://24.112.208.98/kr2/kr2.shtml ----- Original Message ----- From: "Spannie" To: Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2000 2:44 PM Subject: KR> Hallo all KR-netters This is my first attempt to contact fellow KR enthusiasts. I have been on the KR-net for some time now and I must say that it provides great entertainment. It's only a month now, since I became the proud owner of KR-2, ZS-WDW. This plane is on the Southern African register and has logged 275 flying hours. It does require a bit of work though and I would like to get straight to it. Having not built the plane it obviously means that I am way behind in practical experience, so I have plenty questions to keep you all occupied. 1) Can I use any solvents to "strip" the current paintjob down to the raw fibreglass, or do I have to go the elbow-grease way and sand it down by hand? 2) What can I use to make small repairs, eg. to fill nicks on the leading edge? 3) Who does lightweight, aimed at the homebuilder (affordable), avionics? Enough for now. Johan de Jong spannie@netactive.co.za Any South Africans on the net? Where are you? ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 10:41:53 EDT To: spannie@netactive.co.za, krnet@mailinglists.org From: Horn2004@aol.com Subject: Re: KR> Hallo all KR-netters Message-ID: <4f.1a52ab6.270c9bb1@aol.com> In a message dated 10/3/00 11:49:13 PM, spannie@netactive.co.za writes: <<1) Can I use any solvents to "strip" the current paintjob down to the raw fibreglass, or do I have to go the elbow-grease way and sand it down by hand?>> Under no circumstances should you use a chemical stripper to remove paint from fiberglass. <<2) What can I use to make small repairs, eg. to fill nicks on the leading edge?>> You could use epoxy and microballoons. This would probably be the cheapest method for small repairs. There are other fillers out there, but you may have to buy a larger quantity than you really need. <<3) Who does lightweight, aimed at the homebuilder (affordable), avionics?>> There are a number of manufacturers out there. I'd start by getting an Aircraft Spruce catalog, a copy of Kitplanes magazine, and then check out Mark Langfords web site. He has a good section on his panel and you might get some ideas there. Some of the best information can be had from your local homebuilders. See what they are using and what they find to work best. You'd probably be better off with a local or regional source if possible. Steve Horn horn2004@aol.com Dallas, Texas ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 12:13:45 +0200 To: "Krnet@Mailinglists. Org" From: "Peter Nauta" Subject: RE: KR> Hallo all KR-netters Message-ID: Johan, Is there a possibility that I know you? I stayed in SA from 1963 till '87. I used to know Sakkie Halgreen, who represented RR in SA. I got to fly in his KR, even have a video of the trip. That was back in 84, I think. He had a little farm just behind Lanseria (FALA) with it's own airstrip. I live in Holland, where homebuilding is really picking up. The first KR is about to fly or has flown it's maiden flight recently. Some weeks ago, a Murphy Rebel has crashed here. Aparently there was some issue about maintenance. While there's nothing of a report so short after the crash, someone remarked the lack of control and supervision after building and getting it to fly. This also seems to be a common cause if you look at KR crashes in the NTSB database. So, may I be so bold to hint that you take maintenance seriously, and get yourself informed on construction techniques as if you are about to build it from scratch. You may be so lucky that you bought a craft which has been well maintained WITH a maintence log that's up to date. That log is a point of discussion over here. Good luck. I haven't even started to build, but I'm sucking up everything these guys are telling us, as well as reading all books I can find. Regards, Peter Nauta Zoetermeer, Netherlands p.nauta@wanadoo.nl > -----Original Message----- > From: Spannie [mailto:spannie@netactive.co.za] > Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2000 8:45 PM > To: krnet@mailinglists.org > Subject: KR> Hallo all KR-netters > > > This is my first attempt to contact fellow KR enthusiasts. I have > been on the KR-net for some time now and I must say that it > provides great entertainment. > > It's only a month now, since I became the proud owner of KR-2, > ZS-WDW. This plane is on the Southern African register and has > logged 275 flying hours. It does require a bit of work though and > I would like to get straight to it. Having not built the plane it > obviously means that I am way behind in practical experience, so > I have plenty questions to keep you all occupied. > 1) Can I use any solvents to "strip" the current paintjob down to > the raw fibreglass, or do I have to go the elbow-grease way and > sand it down by hand? > 2) What can I use to make small repairs, eg. to fill nicks on the > leading edge? > 3) Who does lightweight, aimed at the homebuilder (affordable), avionics? > > Enough for now. > > Johan de Jong > spannie@netactive.co.za > Any South Africans on the net? Where are you? > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 09:00:08 -0500 To: "Peter Nauta" , "Krnet@Mailinglists. Org" From: "Robert Stone" Subject: Re: KR> Hallo all KR-netters Message-ID: <002101c02ed4$9372e9a0$0101a8c0@pavilion> Peter: Take a look at the old original news letters published by Ernest (Butch) Kopy back in the 70s and you will find a world of valuable information about the KR Aircraft. www.geocities.com/krnewsletters. This website was established and is maintained by Mark Longheed, mdlough@juno.com. Bob Stone rlspjs@dashlink.com Harker Heights, Texas USA ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Nauta" To: "Krnet@Mailinglists. Org" Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2000 5:13 AM Subject: RE: KR> Hallo all KR-netters > Johan, > > Is there a possibility that I know you? > > I stayed in SA from 1963 till '87. I used to know Sakkie Halgreen, who > represented RR in SA. I got to fly in his KR, even have a video of the > trip. That was back in 84, I think. He had a little farm just behind > Lanseria (FALA) with it's own airstrip. > > I live in Holland, where homebuilding is really picking up. The first KR is > about to fly or has flown it's maiden flight recently. > > Some weeks ago, a Murphy Rebel has crashed here. Aparently there was some > issue about maintenance. While there's nothing of a report so short after > the crash, someone remarked the lack of control and supervision after > building and getting it to fly. This also seems to be a common cause if you > look at KR crashes in the NTSB database. So, may I be so bold to hint that > you take maintenance seriously, and get yourself informed on construction > techniques as if you are about to build it from scratch. You may be so > lucky that you bought a craft which has been well maintained WITH a > maintence log that's up to date. That log is a point of discussion over > here. > > Good luck. I haven't even started to build, but I'm sucking up everything > these guys are telling us, as well as reading all books I can find. > > Regards, > > Peter Nauta > Zoetermeer, Netherlands > p.nauta@wanadoo.nl > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Spannie [mailto:spannie@netactive.co.za] > > Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2000 8:45 PM > > To: krnet@mailinglists.org > > Subject: KR> Hallo all KR-netters > > > > > > This is my first attempt to contact fellow KR enthusiasts. I have > > been on the KR-net for some time now and I must say that it > > provides great entertainment. > > > > It's only a month now, since I became the proud owner of KR-2, > > ZS-WDW. This plane is on the Southern African register and has > > logged 275 flying hours. It does require a bit of work though and > > I would like to get straight to it. Having not built the plane it > > obviously means that I am way behind in practical experience, so > > I have plenty questions to keep you all occupied. > > 1) Can I use any solvents to "strip" the current paintjob down to > > the raw fibreglass, or do I have to go the elbow-grease way and > > sand it down by hand? > > 2) What can I use to make small repairs, eg. to fill nicks on the > > leading edge? > > 3) Who does lightweight, aimed at the homebuilder (affordable), avionics? > > > > Enough for now. > > > > Johan de Jong > > spannie@netactive.co.za > > Any South Africans on the net? Where are you? > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To post to the list, email: krnet@mailinglists.org > To unsubscribe, e-mail: krnet-unsubscribe@mailinglists.org > For additional commands, e-mail: krnet-help@mailinglists.org > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 09:33:42 -0700 (PDT) To: "Krnet@Mailinglists. Org" From: Frank Ross Subject: Re: KR> Hallo all KR-netters Message-ID: <20001005163342.11978.qmail@web4704.mail.yahoo.com> Johan, Bob is right on with this. At the Gathering Marc Lougheed had CDs with the newsletters on it. I made paper copies which I read whenever I want a lift or need to find out something. Marc's cds are indexed so you can look up something quickly, but I just enjoy reading through them. Required reading when you see 1979 answers to questions like "Is anyone using the corvair engine in a KR?" and "Is it okay to use fiberglass cloth instead of Dynel?" and (especially now) "Why should I use the RAF-48 airfoil instead of the GA-W ?". When you know the history, you don't repeat the mistakes others have already suffered through. The KR design gives us all the opportunity to A. Build a perfectly good, inexpensive airplane in a very short time, closely following plans. or... B. Build a prototype adding our own ideas and reflecting our own distinct personality, spending as much time and money as we can spare. Either way, once you get the bug, it's awful hard to shake. Enjoy --- Robert Stone wrote: > Peter: Take a look at the old original news letters Bob Stone rlspjs@dashlink.com ===== Frank Ross, San Antonio, TX, __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos - 35mm Quality Prints, Now Get 15 Free! http://photos.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 12:01:30 GMT To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: "Richard Parker" Subject: Re: landings Message-ID: You know what they say: "Any landing you walk away from is a good landing, and any landing that allows you to use the aircraft again is a great landing" >[snip] > > On a lighter note, I did the lousyest landing of my life in a C 152 on >saturday. I haven't been flying much so I was more rusty than I thought. I >was doing a short field approach to a very difficult runway (tall trees >both sides and far end, steep uphill slope, short and narrow RW, small >cliff on approach end). Things were looking great through short final but >at the last few seconds I got caught a bit low and I gave it throttle too >little and too late. I guess I dropped it in from maybe 6 feet and got >bounced around a lot. No damage except to my ego. My takehome message was >if you haven't been flying then dont overrate your flying ability. > >THere is no more "sinking feeling" than the one from a flare too high. I >just passed the 100 hour mark, on my new PP-SEL ticket, on the trip back >from the Gathering so my ratio of landings to arrivals isn't yet what I >would like it to be. That sinking feeling of a Cessna taking the elevator >ride to the runway is just that, a very sinking feeling. I just thank >Cessna for making such strong landing gear :-) > > >Steve Eberhart >mailto:newtech@newtech.com > >One test is worth a thousand expert opinions but a thousand opinions are >easier to get. --plagiarized from an unknown author > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >To post to the list, email: krnet@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. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 14:24:32 +0200 To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: "Livingstone, Danny (DJ)" Subject: Mass Message-ID: Hello guys For those of you who have tricycle undercarridge I have a couple of questions: 1 What does you KR 2 weigh gross? 2 What is the weight on the nose wheel a) Empty, b) One on board and c) Two on board? ********************************************************************** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. All opinions expressed are the sender's own and not necessarily that of the employer. ********************************************************************** ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 07:59:42 -0500 To: "Bob Smith" , From: larry flesner Subject: Re: KR> lock nuts Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20001004075942.007ddd80@mail.midwest.net> At 07:43 PM 10/3/00 -0700, Bob Smith wrote: >Is it acceptable to use nylon lined lock nuts (AN) for the bolts that hold on the hinges through the spruce spars for hstab, elevator, vstab, and rudder? The plans say its OK but we all know about those plans. =========================================================================== Bob, The generally acceptable practice is: (those more knowledgable can correct me if I'm wrong) - nylon selflocking nuts are acceptable in all locations unless you have rotation, then use castle nuts with cotter pins, or at temperatures above approx 250 degrees (engine area) then use steel lock nuts. If the nylon nuts have been on and off several times and the locking feature is getting weak, use a new one. Use your best judgement. Also, anyone building NEEDS TO HAVE THE TONY BINGALIS BOOKS. It also wouldn't hurt to have a copy of the AC43.13-1A and -2A ------------------------------ Date: 4 Oct 2000 08:05:00 -0700 To: "krnet@mailinglists.org" From: "Schmidt, Curtis" Subject: TYPE 4 Message-ID: <0001D6B2@kaydon.com> HEY MARK LANGFORD/GUYS: I finally had a chance to visit your site (again) this time I was looking t= hrough your info on the type 4 and your rear drive. I know GP is selling a = rear drive BUT, some of us enjoy building things like this! I was wondering= if you had any detailed prints and parts list for this application? Are th= ere any other guy's building there own rear drives? What makes this a littl= e more intriguing is I came across a pair of type 4's from a guy who has a = mini max, there of no use to him, so he said come get 'em one of them is a = fresh overhaul!!!! Does anyone know where to get some reference guides for type 4 modification= s used in an aircraft? I've only found the type1-3 stuff but haven't looked= very hard! Any help is most appreciated!!! CURTIS R SCHMIDT CNC TOOLING & PROGRAMMING LARNED KANSAS USA ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 08:37:53 -0500 To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: Kenneth Burch Subject: Introduction Message-ID: <39DB32B1.490EC6A@bellsouth.net> Hello list. My name is Ken Burch and live in western Kentucky. I am getting to be an old geezer and can't get a medical for a regular ticket. I just found that a motor- glider ticket needs no medical so I am looking for one to build and the KR1B with extended wings will do fine. Has anyone built one of these or know anything of performance or problems? I know it is a 27 foot span with the new airfoil and a 20/1 glide ratio. How about a featherable propeller? Thanks for all the info from the list. That is a big reason why I chose the KR. Ken Burch Owensboro, Kentucky USA ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 10:02:49 -0500 To: "KRnet" From: "Walter Lounsbery" Subject: About the GA(W) Airfoils Message-ID: I did not see a response to Stefan Balatchev's question on the GA(W) airfoils in the last Digest, so I thought I would send in something from the alternate universe of time-delayed digest users :-) I have not seen performance data of KR aircraft with the GA(W) airfoils. I think I have seen some literature that mentioned someone building a KR with that sort of wing. For what it's worth (ahem!), here are some things to consider and an opinion. The GA(W) airfoils were originally designed by the famous aerodynamicist, Dr. Richard Whitcomb. That's the guy that got credit for area-ruling supersonic aircraft, winglets, and several other advances. A lot of people were excited when these were published, since they introduced some fresh thinking and interest in an area that had been ignored for some time. Dr. Gene Wentz of Wichita State University provided additional wind tunnel test data at high (nearly full scale) Reynolds numbers, which helped provide some confidence in the airfoils. NASA produced a lot of collateral work, mainly because of this original work, even re-addressing airfoil classification and designation. As a result, Whitcomb's general aviation airfoils have some other designation now, which I forget. If I thought these airfoils would be useful for the KR aircraft, I would be happy to dig up the original NASA reports that I have (two), scan them in, and make them available. However, I don't think they are appropriate, or worth that much trouble. And definitely not worth making a set of wings just to try out the airfoil. Before addressing the airfoil characteristics, let me assure you that aerodynamicists have really made a quantum leap from the tools of the 70's to today's analysis capability. There is absolutely no comparison between what a genius like Whitcomb could do thirty years ago and what a really sharp engineer can do today with our excellent CFD tools and computers. As a result, the KRnet airfoils are about the best you can find anywhere, for our application. Thirty years ago people could not conceive of designing an airfoil for a specific general aviation aircraft. The GA(W) airfoils demonstrated several things that are not useful for KR aircraft. They achieve a fairly high maximum lift coefficient without flaps, and a very high lift coefficient with a simple single Fowler flap design. The airfoils have fairly low drag, even though they have a very blunt trailing edge. They have excellent interior volume and depth through a good portion of the chord for good structural efficiency and fuel tankage. As I recall, NASA funded modification of a Cessna Cardinal RG with a custom GA(W) wing to demonstrate better performance. The wing had smaller area and the same span compared to the original (I believe it was of composite construction). Naturally, it did much better in some performance areas. The GA(W) airfoils also had characteristics that are not desirable for KR aircraft. They produce a strong nose-down moment (some call this an aft center of pressure) that are typical of airfoils designed for high maximum lift coefficient. This would require a lot of extra load on the horizontal tail, particularly in those high-speed passes down the runway. Early use of these airfoils showed that bugs and rain can drastically affect the performance and pitching moment characteristics of laminar airfoils. Finally, the trailing edge configuration is difficult to build (although the trailing edge is blunt, the cusp and fairly thin structure are challenges). That said, I guess I could still be persuaded to dig up the report if you are really curious about it... Walt Lounsbery ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 09:50:18 -0700 (PDT) To: Walter Lounsbery , KRnet From: Guenther Bryce Subject: Re: KR> About the GA(W) Airfoils Message-ID: <20001004165018.54298.qmail@web9006.mail.yahoo.com> --- Walter Lounsbery wrote: > I did not see a response to Stefan Balatchev's > question on the GA(W) airfoils in the last Digest, > so > I thought I would send in something from the > alternate universe of time-delayed digest users :-) > > I have not seen performance data of KR aircraft with > the GA(W) airfoils. I think I have seen some > literature that mentioned someone building a KR with > that sort of wing. For what it's worth > (ahem!), here are some things to consider and an > opinion. > > The GA(W) airfoils were originally designed by the > famous aerodynamicist, Dr. Richard Whitcomb. > That's the guy that got credit for area-ruling > supersonic aircraft, winglets, and several other > advances. A lot of people were excited when these > were published, since they introduced some fresh > thinking and interest in an area that had been > ignored for some time. Dr. Gene Wentz of Wichita > State University provided additional wind tunnel > test data at high (nearly full scale) Reynolds > numbers, which helped provide some confidence in the > airfoils. NASA produced a lot of collateral > work, mainly because of this original work, even > re-addressing airfoil classification and > designation. As a result, Whitcomb's general > aviation airfoils have some other designation now, > which I forget. > > If I thought these airfoils would be useful for the > KR aircraft, I would be happy to dig up the > original NASA reports that I have (two), scan them > in, and make them available. However, I don't > think they are appropriate, or worth that much > trouble. And definitely not worth making a set of > wings just to try out the airfoil. > > Before addressing the airfoil characteristics, let > me assure you that aerodynamicists have really > made a quantum leap from the tools of the 70's to > today's analysis capability. There is absolutely > no comparison between what a genius like Whitcomb > could do thirty years ago and what a really sharp > engineer can do today with our excellent CFD tools > and computers. As a result, the KRnet airfoils > are about the best you can find anywhere, for our > application. Thirty years ago people could not > conceive of designing an airfoil for a specific > general aviation aircraft. > > The GA(W) airfoils demonstrated several things that > are not useful for KR aircraft. They achieve a > fairly high maximum lift coefficient without flaps, > and a very high lift coefficient with a simple > single Fowler flap design. The airfoils have fairly > low drag, even though they have a very blunt > trailing edge. They have excellent interior volume > and depth through a good portion of the chord > for good structural efficiency and fuel tankage. As > I recall, NASA funded modification of a Cessna > Cardinal RG with a custom GA(W) wing to demonstrate > better performance. The wing had smaller area > and the same span compared to the original (I > believe it was of composite construction). > Naturally, > it did much better in some performance areas. > > The GA(W) airfoils also had characteristics that are > not desirable for KR aircraft. They produce a > strong nose-down moment (some call this an aft > center of pressure) that are typical of airfoils > designed for high maximum lift coefficient. This > would require a lot of extra load on the > horizontal tail, particularly in those high-speed > passes down the runway. Early use of these > airfoils showed that bugs and rain can drastically > affect the performance and pitching moment > characteristics of laminar airfoils. Finally, the > trailing edge configuration is difficult to build > (although the trailing edge is blunt, the cusp and > fairly thin structure are challenges). > > That said, I guess I could still be persuaded to dig > up the report if you are really curious about > it... > > Walt Lounsbery > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To post to the list, email: krnet@mailinglists.org > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > krnet-unsubscribe@mailinglists.org > For additional commands, e-mail: > krnet-help@mailinglists.org > Walter Lounsbery wrote comments of Aerodynamist Whitcomb GA airfoils and made a narrative of NASA and fowler flaps to accentuate their contributions to the technology. I'm an aeronautical engineer and I just can't understand these people who defile RAF48 airfoil function. Rand designed the KR with an excellant choice for wide range of performance for the design without flaps. The KR has nearly 4 times the stall speed for top speed without flaps Cessna couldn't boast that range nor should they compare. I've been an Aeronautical Engineer for several years many years ago and people should understand the parameters of the aircraft intentions to judge. The KR is more bang for the buck and certainly fowler flaps and a big rudder to control yaw at slow speed and more static thrust would make a low end difference and the retracted flap position airfoil would accomodate more fuel and be more efficient at a given airspeed. Now the wisdom of Rands choice should begin to manifest without the technology available today. The KR has a low energy high speed theory basis. Light weight no complicated Flap system that really has contributes very little to performance with a very respectable top speed and fuel header tank with a very resonable duration. These comments a not critical of anyone they only are to corrolate the thinking process of Aerodynamist/Aeronautical Design Engineer compromises to help others understand. Sincerely, Bryce Guenther AE & A&P, KR builder/private __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos - 35mm Quality Prints, Now Get 15 Free! http://photos.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 20:12:41 -0500 To: "Guenther Bryce" , "Walter Lounsbery" , "KRnet" From: "Ron Eason" Subject: Re: KR> About the GA(W) Airfoils Message-ID: <003d01c02e69$5edd9e80$5b7239ce@dana-coe> >> Walter Lounsbery wrote comments of Aerodynamist >Whitcomb GA airfoils and made a narrative of NASA and >fowler flaps to accentuate their contributions to the >technology. I'm an aeronautical engineer and I just >can't understand these people who defile RAF48 airfoil >function. Rand designed the KR with an excellant >choice for wide range of performance for the design >without flaps. The KR has nearly 4 times the stall >speed for top speed without flaps Cessna couldn't >boast that range nor should they compare. I've been an >Aeronautical Engineer for several years many years ago >and people should understand the parameters of the >aircraft intentions to judge. The KR is more bang for >the buck and certainly fowler flaps and a big rudder >to control yaw at slow speed and more static thrust >would make a low end difference and the retracted flap >position airfoil would accomodate more fuel and be >more efficient at a given airspeed. Now the wisdom of >Rands choice should begin to manifest without the >technology available today. The KR has a low energy >high speed theory basis. Light weight no complicated >Flap system that really has contributes very little to >performance with a very respectable top speed and fuel >header tank with a very resonable duration. These >comments a not critical of anyone they only are to >corrolate the thinking process of >Aerodynamist/Aeronautical Design Engineer compromises >to help others understand. Sincerely, Bryce Guenther >AE & A&P, KR builder/private I have a Aeronautical Engineering Degree also and I concur with the above. Even with all the computer modeling and wind tunnel testing available today to model performance the real proof is in the flying of a aircraft. Time is always the arbitrator of relative performance. KRron ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 20:39:36 -0500 To: "KRnet" From: "Walter Lounsbery" Subject: FW: KR> About the GA(W) Airfoils Message-ID: This is an unusual bit of agreement between aero engineers on philosophy. Perhaps we all went to the same school. However, as I read the truisms about "the proof is in the flying", I hope we remember that the builder, no matter what level of creativity, is not always concerned about such philisophical "chicken or the egg" (full scale vs. theoretical) arguments. When we don't have anything flying yet, and it is taking years to get there, we are more concerned about ending up with a turkey than a chicken. And when we are nervous, we look to theory and aero engineers (and certainly flying examples)... Walt -----Original Message----- From: Ron Eason [mailto:ron@jrl-engineering.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2000 8:13 PM To: Guenther Bryce; Walter Lounsbery; KRnet Subject: Re: KR> About the GA(W) Airfoils >> Walter Lounsbery wrote comments of Aerodynamist >Whitcomb GA airfoils and made a narrative of NASA and >fowler flaps to accentuate their contributions to the >technology. I'm an aeronautical engineer and I just >can't understand these people who defile RAF48 airfoil >function. Rand designed the KR with an excellant >choice for wide range of performance for the design >without flaps. The KR has nearly 4 times the stall >speed for top speed without flaps Cessna couldn't >boast that range nor should they compare. I've been an >Aeronautical Engineer for several years many years ago >and people should understand the parameters of the >aircraft intentions to judge. The KR is more bang for >the buck and certainly fowler flaps and a big rudder >to control yaw at slow speed and more static thrust >would make a low end difference and the retracted flap >position airfoil would accomodate more fuel and be >more efficient at a given airspeed. Now the wisdom of >Rands choice should begin to manifest without the >technology available today. The KR has a low energy >high speed theory basis. Light weight no complicated >Flap system that really has contributes very little to >performance with a very respectable top speed and fuel >header tank with a very resonable duration. These >comments a not critical of anyone they only are to >corrolate the thinking process of >Aerodynamist/Aeronautical Design Engineer compromises >to help others understand. Sincerely, Bryce Guenther >AE & A&P, KR builder/private I have a Aeronautical Engineering Degree also and I concur with the above. Even with all the computer modeling and wind tunnel testing available today to model performance the real proof is in the flying of a aircraft. Time is always the arbitrator of relative performance. KRron ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 12:25:44 -0500 To: "KRNet" From: "Edwin Blocher" Subject: Bent spars Message-ID: <001201c020cc$6e8067a0$f6e879a5@computer> ------=_NextPart_000_000F_01C020A2.66DB1B00 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Bent Spar Heads, I measured the angle of my bent center section spar today. It is 2.6 = degrees. How do you measure and lay that out on your table? Very = carefully! I would suggest using a laser pointer (as I did) or a string = line to project to the tip of the outer spars 5" dihedral from the = fuselage side. Great pictires Mark L.=20 ED Ed Blocher e-mail kr-n899eb@mindspring.com ------=_NextPart_000_000F_01C020A2.66DB1B00-- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 19:36:44 -0500 To: "KRnet" From: "Mark Langford" Subject: flaps Message-ID: <01cf01c02e64$571030a0$f2de8e18@300emachine> Guenther Bryce wrote: > The KR has a low energy > high speed theory basis. Light weight no complicated > Flap system that really has contributes very little to > performance with a very respectable top speed and fuel > header tank with a very resonable duration. Although flaps did not come down from the mountaintop with Ken on the first go-round, he is later quoted in issue #39 of the Newsletter (Sept 78) as saying that he didn't know he needed them until he had them. Orma (AviationMech) told me at the Gathering that he originally had no flaps, and added them later (I think that's what he said), for a dramatic difference in landing attitude (improving visibility), if nothing else. The plans state that you are trading a little weight and complexity for improved glide control, slower landing speed, and increased drag during landing. At the same time I've heard other KR owners with flaps call them "useless" and I even heard of one guy glassing them over. Kinda makes me wonder. Of course given the tiny size, I can understand why they might be relatively ineffective. The obvious answer is to make them much larger. The easy way to do that is using the bent spar setup where your center spar bends up right at the fuselage and continues straight from fuselage to tip. My flaps will cost me less than 10 pounds (a little more than the weight penalty of the tiny stock KR flaps), and I'll have a considerably slower landing speed, as well as the other advantages Ken mentioned. Give me a little while and I'll be able to tell you for sure how much difference large flaps make on a KR2S (see http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford/99102912.jpg). Call me goofy, but I figure there's a reason why probably 98% of all airplanes are equiped with flaps, especially the fast ones... Mark Langford, Huntsville, Alabama mailto:langford@hiwaay.net see KR2S project N56ML at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 04:52:47 -0500 (CDT) To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: Steven Eberhart Subject: I don't get it Message-ID: Why did an innocent request for information on an airfoil result in two aeronautical engineers trashing the new laminar flow KR wing project? I can no more understand what happened here than I can understand why Jeanette would wait until Troy Petteway had left the Gathering and then say that he didn't like the new wing when exactly the opposite is the truth. What is the problem here? What has happened to scientific principles? Following accepted scientific principles the entire new airfoil project has been documented and published for peer review. Why, when someone criticizes the new wing, do they not reference the performance specification that does not meet their requirements, or point out which test data are inconsistent with the published design goals? Is the use of, state of the art, inverse design tools sufficient to insure a purpose designed airfoil meets its design criteria? If not, then is CFD analysis sufficient to insure a purpose designed airfoil meets its design criteria? If not, then is wind tunnel testing sufficient to insure a purpose designed airfoil meets its design criteria? If not, than is actual flight testing sufficient to insure a purpose designed airfoil meets its design criteria? If not, please don't criticize the results of so many peoples efforts. Tell us which design criteria are wrong. Tell us which test data are wrong. Tell us which flight test results are wrong. THe stock KR is a good product, but, what is wrong with continuing refinement of a good product to make it better? If the vendor of the plans won't continue to refine the product, what other choices are there for those of us that want a product that is a little closer to the state of the art? Choose another design? I did that but the plans cost me $650. What are the choices for builders that don't want to spend that much for plans but want a KR like airplane with efficiencies un-obtainable with 30 year old technology? Sure the 30 year old technology works and works quite well but we have learned a lot about aircraft design in the past 30 years. Help me out here. I don't get it. From now on my reply to any new wing critic is going to be the same. Which design criteria are wrong?, Which test results are wrong? Which flight test resulte are wrong? Maybe I will finally get it when the errors are pointed out to me. Steve Eberhart mailto:newtech@newtech.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 06:52:02 -0700 From: Mike Mims CC: krnet@mailinglists.org Subject: Re: KR> I don't get it Message-ID: <39DC8782.62C940D2@home.com> Steven Eberhart wrote: > > Why did an innocent request for information on an airfoil result in two > aeronautical engineers trashing the new laminar flow KR wing project? >>>> Steve, didn't you hear? The reason I am selling my project is because I plan to buy a Lancair IVP, rip the wing off and build up a nice RAF-48 from urethane foam and a single layer of fiberglass. I have heard the plane will perform much better and I can remove the wings for easy storage. Something about it being a "spitfire" airfoil is why it works so well. Yep that Ken did a fabulous job designing that plane back in 1969. So well in fact that it can not be improved! But wait, the plane was actually designed in 1957 by a guy in England, that must be the guy who is a real genius! John cam down from the mountain with a pamphlet and said to his people "behold, the Monoplane!" The Monoplane shall rein supreme, forever and ever. Talk of its improvement shall be considered blasphemy and you will surly burn in hell for such ramblings. Hey guys modifications have been performed to the KR in the past with much less (IE NONE!) scientific research than the new airfoil guys utilized and has been accepted. What is so wrong with building a new airfoil? Im with Steve, I don't get it. You know as well as I know the issue is financial. Someone has a major investment in an old airfoil. Is that the fault of the new generation of KR builders? No! Relax enjoy your new airfoil. Those of you with RAF48s, relax and enjoy your old airfoil. Oh yeah those os you with the old 23015 airfoil, relax and enjoy yours too. This is getting out of hand. I am beginning to think that if I build a KR1S with the new airfoil later in life I will NOT be allowed to show up at the gathering. That ridiculous but if it comes to that I wouldn't want to show up either. I will bet anyone on this list right now, the first time a KR with the new airfoil wins something at a gathering it will be disqualified. That's the mentality I see here and it saddens me! __________________ Micheal Mims Trying to get this thing done! http://www.fortunecity.com/marina/anchor/270/ http://explanes.com/ Aliso Viejo Ca ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 09:59:48 -0400 To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: "Garland, Norm F" Subject: RE: KR> I don't get it Message-id: <114EB1876E7BD411AC700008C7E65FB6010DEE9B@emss03m11.orl.lmco.com> I can see it now. At the next Fly in everyone will land and cover their wings. The conversation willl center around - If you show me yours I'll show you mine!!! Norman F. Garland Jr. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 12:58:35 -0300 To: Mike Mims From: James Sellars Cc: krnet@mailinglists.org Subject: Re: KR> I don't get it Message-Id: <4.3.0.20001005125617.00ac8de0@mail.auracom.com> Preach it brother Amen!!! Jokes aside what is experimental about strict dogma ? We all experiment every time we think about one off positive glass molding. Who was who pointed out that every one of these airplanes is unique in some way? Go get em Mike Regards Jim At 06:52 AM 10/5/00 -0700, Mike Mims wrote: >Steven Eberhart wrote: > > > > Why did an innocent request for information on an airfoil result in two > > aeronautical engineers trashing the new laminar flow KR wing project? >>>> > > >Steve, didn't you hear? The reason I am selling my project is because I >plan to buy a Lancair IVP, rip the wing off and build up a nice RAF-48 >from urethane foam and a single layer of fiberglass. I have heard the >plane will perform much better and I can remove the wings for easy >storage. Something about it being a "spitfire" airfoil is why it works >so well. Yep that Ken did a fabulous job designing that plane back in >1969. So well in fact that it can not be improved! But wait, the plane >was actually designed in 1957 by a guy in England, that must be the guy >who is a real genius! John cam down from the mountain with a pamphlet >and said to his people "behold, the Monoplane!" The Monoplane shall rein >supreme, forever and ever. Talk of its improvement shall be considered >blasphemy and you will surly burn in hell for such ramblings. > >Hey guys modifications have been performed to the KR in the past with >much less (IE NONE!) scientific research than the new airfoil guys >utilized and has been accepted. What is so wrong with building a new >airfoil? Im with Steve, I don't get it. You know as well as I know the >issue is financial. Someone has a major investment in an old airfoil. Is >that the fault of the new generation of KR builders? No! Relax enjoy >your new airfoil. Those of you with RAF48s, relax and enjoy your old >airfoil. Oh yeah those os you with the old 23015 airfoil, relax and >enjoy yours too. This is getting out of hand. I am beginning to think >that if I build a KR1S with the new airfoil later in life I will NOT be >allowed to show up at the gathering. That ridiculous but if it comes to >that I wouldn't want to show up either. I will bet anyone on this list >right now, the first time a KR with the new airfoil wins something at a >gathering it will be disqualified. That's the mentality I see here and >it saddens me! > > >__________________ >Micheal Mims >Trying to get this thing done! >http://www.fortunecity.com/marina/anchor/270/ >http://explanes.com/ >Aliso Viejo Ca >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >To post to the list, email: krnet@mailinglists.org >To unsubscribe, e-mail: krnet-unsubscribe@mailinglists.org >For additional commands, e-mail: krnet-help@mailinglists.org ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 06:58:46 -0700 To: From: "Dave and Tina Goodman" Subject: On the new airfoil Message-ID: <001301c02ed4$6244e2c0$86780ccf@oemcomputer> ------=_NextPart_000_0010_01C02E99.B4A72220 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Steve, The problem on the KR net at this point in time is that there are people = out there who think they are the end all be all of aviation and the KR = world in particular. "I'm and engineer" comments are your first = indication that someone is blowing hard and loudly about something that = is opinion, not fact. How many of these folks who are in the attack = mode a) have a flying KR, and b) have flown the new wing? If the answer = to both is no and that person is spouting off about how this and that = will perform, they are likely someone to ignore and move on. Heck, the = person who designed the wing is a Dr. Do you think HE does not know = what HE is doing, especially when the wing is custom built for this = airplane? Jeanette has issues with anything new on the aircraft because it is just = that, new. There will be no updates to this aircraft via RR because she = is satisfied with it in the current form and has no need to upgrade it. = I cannot fault her for that logic, as people are still buying the = product. Comments attributed to someone after they have left are at = best in poor taste and worst wrong, but I was not there. I have spoken = to someone who was there and knows both parties, but his input would be = gossip on my part. If you want sound input on how the wing will perform, talk to the man = who is flying it. Ignore those who are puffing out their chests and = boasting loudly of what they "know". If you want solid information on = building techniques and engineering, listen to Mark Langford or Donald = Reid. These two will give you the best data they have and will not beat = you over the head with how much more they know than you do. We are all = learning here, check the egos at the door. Dave "Zipper" Goodman zipperts@whidbey.net =20 ------=_NextPart_000_0010_01C02E99.B4A72220-- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 11:37:51 EDT To: krnet@mailinglists.org (krnet user group) From: ACMan5548@aol.com Subject: A comment on modifications to the KR, ie: "New Airfoil" Message-ID: <10.3208d5f.270dfa4f@aol.com> It seems to me a lot of people are spending a lot of building time arguing about the "New Airfoil." I also see a lot of people spending a lot of time and extra money on other exotic modifications and high end materials for an airplane that is supposed to be a simple, economical, proven design, with good performance. What is the point? I believe what Jeanette said to me when I was asking her about using Kevlar and Carbon Fiber to build my KR2S, (I am paraphrasing), This is a design mente to be economical to build and fly. Why would you spend several times the cost of standard materials with very little gain for the money spent? This made sense to me, so my project is going to be more or less stock. For me the build time, cost of construction and the performance you get the KR2S is hard to beat. If you want your KR to be something it wasn't designed to be, why are you building a KR? There are a lot of other designs out there. Please don't take this the wrong way. This is a hobby. Every body can do what they want. If redesign is your thing, more power to you but for others like me I like the "KIS" philosophy. Tony Mission Viejo ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 14:09:33 EDT To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: KR2616TJ@aol.com Subject: Re: KR> A comment on modifications to the KR, ie: "New Airfoil" Message-ID: <67.a6eea46.270e1ddd@aol.com> In a message dated 10/05/2000 11:39:46 AM Eastern Daylight Time, ACMan5548@aol.com writes: << I believe what Jeanette said to me when I was asking her about using Kevlar and Carbon Fiber to build my KR2S >> I hope you are not the one who was told that a single layer of glass was appropriate and it didn't have to be laid at a 45............. Now to carbon fiber, one layer of carbon fiber is as strong as 6 layers of "KR cloth", and weighs less............you do the math........and it's ain't "fuzzy math". I don't know how much more KISS you can get. Guys, build your airplane the way you want it and go on. The only people I hear trash mouthing are the ones trashing new technology. I'm yet to hear one of the wing designers trash the RAF48. We all know what opinions are like, we all have one and we usually keep it covered up and too ourselves..............nice little lesson. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 12:13:30 -0400 To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: Phil Visconti Subject: AIRFOILS/WINGS??? Message-ID: <39DCA8A9.3CAC38CD@gis.net> --------------B3987D2169E8EB2F3767A85F Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Stop slamming Rand family. A KR.....is a KR.....is a KR.! ! ! Take a wing from a Piper Tri-pacer and put it on a Cessna Skyhawk. Is it a Tri-pacer mod or a Skyhawk mod ??? Phil Visconti Marlboro, MA --------------B3987D2169E8EB2F3767A85F-- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 14:17:44 EDT To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: KR2616TJ@aol.com Subject: Re: KR> AIRFOILS/WINGS??? Message-ID: <42.b902649.270e1fc8@aol.com> In a message dated 10/05/2000 12:13:23 PM Eastern Daylight Time, vicsani@gis.net writes: << Take a wing from a Piper Tri-pacer and put it on a Cessna Skyhawk. Is it a Tri-pacer mod or a Skyhawk mod ??? >> I couldn't help but reply to this one. The new 172 has a different airfoil, does that make it so he can't go the cessna gathering??????? I'm liable to ruffle some feathers here, but so be it. The person at the gathering, duo from Florida, who made the statement that if it wasn't stock it shouldn't be at the gathering, and further told Jeanette that he stood up at a forum and made that statement out loud (I was at all of the forums and didn't hear him), flat out lie,..........DID NOT buy banquet tickets because it cost more that the meal itself. Furthermore he was more than willing to accept a KR Gathering nameplate, paid for by the "extra" ticket money. If that's supporting the KR, then you can bite my AS!#$%@#$^, and he needs to stand in line and be the first. Dana Overall 2000 KR Gathering host Richmond, KY mailto:kr2616tj@aol.com http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/7085/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 11:52:06 -0500 (CDT) To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: flykr2s@execpc.com Cc: Subject: What am I building??? Message-Id: <200010051652.e95Gq6Q44951@pop2.nwbl.wi.voyager.net> This stems from the airfoil discussion! I bought a Dragonfly Canopy - Am I building a highly modified Dragonfly? I am building a Corvair engine - Must be a new Aerocar I have!!! My landing gear is Diehl - Must be a Diehlaplane!!! My airfoil is AS5046 - Guess I have a no name plane since everyone says it is not proven. Are you getting the point here??? What you put on your plane is your decision and no one elses. If I were to put my landing gear on top of my wings I would still have a KR. But I would have to land upside down! Come on guys, let it die and lets get some productive post going again. Mark Jones (N886MJ) Wales, WI mailto:flykr2s@execpc.com http://sites.netscape.net/flykr2s/homepage ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 16:36:30 -0300 To: flykr2s@execpc.com, krnet@mailinglists.org From: James Sellars Subject: Re: KR> What am I building??? Message-Id: <4.3.0.20001005163534.00ac88e0@mail.auracom.com> Here here!! You want a real question What did I build with a Saturn Engine ? Regards Friends; Jim At 11:52 AM 10/5/00 -0500, flykr2s@execpc.com wrote: >This stems from the airfoil discussion! >I bought a Dragonfly Canopy - Am I building a highly modified >Dragonfly? >I am building a Corvair engine - Must be a new Aerocar I have!!! >My landing gear is Diehl - Must be a Diehlaplane!!! >My airfoil is AS5046 - Guess I have a no name plane since everyone >says it is not proven. >Are you getting the point here??? What you put on your plane is your >decision and no one elses. If I were to put my landing gear on top of >my wings I would still have a KR. But I would have to land upside >down! >Come on guys, let it die and lets get some productive post going >again. >Mark Jones (N886MJ) >Wales, WI >mailto:flykr2s@execpc.com >http://sites.netscape.net/flykr2s/homepage > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >To post to the list, email: krnet@mailinglists.org >To unsubscribe, e-mail: krnet-unsubscribe@mailinglists.org >For additional commands, e-mail: krnet-help@mailinglists.org ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 10:06:37 -0700 (PDT) To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: Frank Ross Subject: Re: KR> New Gear Design Message-ID: <20001005170637.21112.qmail@web4702.mail.yahoo.com> What you put on > your plane is your > decision and no one elses. If I were to put my > landing gear on top of > my wings I would still have a KR. > Come on guys, let it die and lets get some > productive post going > again. > Mark Jones (N886MJ) > Wales, WI Marc, I've looked all through my plans in the last 30 seconds, and I can't find how to mount my gearlegs on top of the wings. Is this a new modification? Does Deihl approve? I'm pretty excited about this idea. The boys "down under" may want this too, as I believe they have to land upside-down. Think it has something to do with water going down the drain counter-clockwise or something. Anyway, I'm not an engineer, but I believe that in the southern hemisphere, you wouldn't have to land upside down with this gear arrangemet. Hope it works with the new airfoil.... ===== Frank Ross, San Antonio, TX, __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos - 35mm Quality Prints, Now Get 15 Free! http://photos.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ End of krnet Digest ***********************************