From: To: Subject: krnet Digest 12 Oct 2000 14:12:55 -0000 Issue 106 Date: Thursday, October 12, 2000 6:13 AM krnet Digest 12 Oct 2000 14:12:55 -0000 Issue 106 Topics (messages 2467 through 2496): ICOM 2467 by: Kr2dream.aol.com 2474 by: Kr2dream.aol.com Re: Limitations 2468 by: Phil Maynard 2471 by: Rick Human 2478 by: macwood 2479 by: Jerry Mahurin 2480 by: Donald Reid 2486 by: James Sellars 2490 by: Krwr1.aol.com Re: Icom radio 2469 by: KR2616TJ.aol.com 2488 by: Tom Crawford 2489 by: Mark Jones Re: Icom radio, or Yaesu! 2470 by: Forrest Erickson British KR-2 ... 2472 by: Albert Pecoraro VW engine 2473 by: Betty & Donald Hamm Re:Dynel vs. Fiberglass again 2475 by: Michael Taglieri Icom 4A 2476 by: Al Friesen Subaru 2477 by: DClarke351.aol.com Mike Mimms Aircraft 2481 by: Robert Stone Attention Ivor Link 2482 by: Spannie Attention JC Marais 2483 by: Spannie Attention Carlton Blandford 2484 by: Spannie Attention Jean Coetzee 2485 by: Spannie International Network 2487 by: Frank Ross Re: Trim tabs 2491 by: AviationMech.aol.com Re: v.s. 2492 by: Phil Maynard Direct Drive Subaru EJ-22 Legacy 2493 by: Jon Finley mazda rotary 2 2494 by: Pieter Vermeulen AILERON BELL CRANK 2495 by: Schmidt, Curtis Q on Revmaster intake 2496 by: Tom Andersen Administrivia: To subscribe to the digest, e-mail: To unsubscribe from the digest, e-mail: To post to the list, e-mail: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 15:33:01 EDT To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: Kr2dream@aol.com Subject: ICOM Message-ID: I have a model IC-4 that I have been using for a year and have been VERY happy with the performance. I think it is a good radio for the price. Bob Lasecki Chicago ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 00:15:52 EDT To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: Kr2dream@aol.com Subject: icom Message-ID: <82.14cceb0.27154378@aol.com> I forgot to mention in my post stating I had an ICA-4 that at Oshkosh a year ago ICOM was giving away the headset adaptors for free if you showed that you purchased a handheld radio. That's how I got my adaptor. They might be doing the same thing at Sun & Fun this coming spring. Bob Lasecki Chicago ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 17:08:36 -0400 To: "KR-POST" From: "Phil Maynard" Subject: Re: KR> Limitations Message-ID: <003001c032fe$41e85100$1b01a8c0@amd500> Like maybe a heavy 100hp motor? ----- Original Message ----- From: Guenther Bryce To: ; KR-POST ; garbez Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 1:48 PM Subject: RE: KR> Limitations > > --- Patrick Driscoll wrote: > > When I took my spars in for FAA check out, the > > examiner told me that a > > person would tear the motor off the mount before the > > wing would break with > > the way the spar was built ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 22:14:08 -0500 To: garbez , KR-POST From: Rick Human Subject: Re: KR> Limitations Message-id: <005301c03331$52fb7840$510bc1cf@rahuman> I asked that same question 3 years ago and Peter Hudson had this reply - as you can see he did some extensive research on the subject. Peter you still out there? Peter Hudson Tuesday, October 07, 1997 11:10 PM hi gang, I've just had some luck on the gross weight issue. While talking about it with some work mates at lunch I found someone with an OLD edition of Bruhn (for the non engineer types Bruhn is the bible of aircraft structural analysis). In fact its a 1949 edition so it still had the section on wood spar design/analysis. The good news bit is that the forest products lab had done extensive testing on exactly our type of box spar for spruce. There are different allowables for the spruce in spars based on some shape factors of the spar caps and webs. The values are stronger than test specimens in pure compression (due to the nonlinearity of wood at failure depending somewhat on the shape) FOR THE KR-2 SPAR the allowables for ultimate compressive rupture are 6670 PSI and for the elastic limit is 4900 PSI. Not counting any contribution from the rear spar that gives the following limits. For 5.7 g ultimate (FAR 23 for normal catagory) the gross weight allowable is 1035 lbs (plus the weight of the wings) for My KR with 100 lbs of wing the gross weight should not exceed 1135 lbs. (ultimate is the driving factor here...limit load works out to 4.2 g) So I plan to use 1100 lbs as my gross weight, leave my spar stock and I'll feel good about it. (I trust Bruhn implicity!) I'll write again with an appropriate set of V-N diagram data soon based on that gross weight and strength. -Peter Hudson- ----- Original Message ----- From: "garbez" To: "KR-POST" Sent: Monday, October 09, 2000 10:24 PM Subject: KR> Limitations > The other day on the KRNet someone was talking about how to register KR's > and this phrase "what if we're building heavy KR's and the wings brake off", > became a concern to me. The KR was only designed at an empty weight of > 480#, now we're building them at 700# to 750# with 100 hp motors. Are the > wings engineered to withstand the extra weight and stresses, or are we > pushing it? This may be a touchy subject and no one would be willing to put > their airplane through the testing so maybe there's a way to calculate what > the design limits are. I would be quite interested in the results of what > this little airplane can put up with. I am not an engineer and don't have > any idea how to figure this out, but I know some of you are. > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 13:46:24 +0100 To: "Rick Human" From: "macwood" Cc: "krnet user group" Subject: Re: KR> Limitations Message-ID: <002701c03381$6305dbe0$f5d5b0c2@tinypc> Rick,- the engineer gurus over this side of the pond were concerned with the WAF to spar conection as the limiting factor. I don't think there was ever any doubt about the spar strength. That was the reason they wouldn't let us go over 900lbs. Cheers Mac England UK ----- Original Message ----- From: Rick Human To: garbez ; KR-POST Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 4:14 AM Subject: Re: KR> Limitations > I asked that same question 3 years ago and Peter Hudson had this reply - as > you can see he did some extensive research on the subject. Peter you still > out there? > > > Peter Hudson > Tuesday, October 07, 1997 11:10 PM > > hi gang, > > I've just had some luck on the gross weight issue. While talking about > it with some work mates at lunch I found someone with an OLD edition of > Bruhn (for the non engineer types Bruhn is the bible of aircraft > structural analysis). In fact its a 1949 edition so it still had the > section on wood spar design/analysis. The good news bit is that the > forest products lab had done extensive testing on exactly our type of > box spar for spruce. There are different allowables for the spruce in > spars based on some shape factors of the spar caps and webs. The values > are stronger than test specimens in pure compression (due to the > nonlinearity of wood at failure depending somewhat on the shape) > FOR THE KR-2 SPAR the allowables for ultimate compressive rupture are > 6670 PSI and for the elastic limit is 4900 PSI. > > Not counting any contribution from the rear spar that gives the > following limits. > > For 5.7 g ultimate (FAR 23 for normal catagory) > the gross weight allowable is 1035 lbs (plus the weight of the wings) > for My KR with 100 lbs of wing the gross weight should not exceed 1135 > lbs. (ultimate is the driving factor here...limit load works out to 4.2 > g) > > So I plan to use 1100 lbs as my gross weight, leave my spar stock and > I'll feel good about it. (I trust Bruhn implicity!) > > I'll write again with an appropriate set of V-N diagram data soon based > on that gross weight and strength. > > -Peter Hudson- > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "garbez" > To: "KR-POST" > Sent: Monday, October 09, 2000 10:24 PM > Subject: KR> Limitations > > > > The other day on the KRNet someone was talking about how to register KR's > > and this phrase "what if we're building heavy KR's and the wings brake > off", > > became a concern to me. The KR was only designed at an empty weight of > > 480#, now we're building them at 700# to 750# with 100 hp motors. Are the > > wings engineered to withstand the extra weight and stresses, or are we > > pushing it? This may be a touchy subject and no one would be willing to > put > > their airplane through the testing so maybe there's a way to calculate > what > > the design limits are. I would be quite interested in the results of what > > this little airplane can put up with. I am not an engineer and don't have > > any idea how to figure this out, but I know some of you are. > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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 > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 13:13:15 GMT To: macwood@tinyworld.co.uk, rahuman@swbell.net From: "Jerry Mahurin" Cc: krnet@mailinglists.org Subject: Re: KR> Limitations Message-ID: All, I have personally examined a crashed standard KR that impacted terra firma at a nearly 90 degree angle. The impact was so forceful that the prop spinner was molded around the prop hub to look like a blob of paint. The outer wing panels were in shards (lots of small pieces), as was all of the plane. All four wing attachment assemblies were still bolted together and held center section and outer wing spar pieces together. All of the bolts in the center section and spars had wood around them; they had not pulled out. And all the wing attach fittings were joined; none of the bolts had sheared. From this observation, I have great faith in the strength of the wing attach method on the KR2. Jerry Mahurin Lugoff, SC >From: "macwood" >To: "Rick Human" >CC: "krnet user group" >Subject: Re: KR> Limitations >Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 13:46:24 +0100 > >Rick,- the engineer gurus over this side of the pond were concerned with >the >WAF to spar conection as the limiting factor. I don't think there was >ever any doubt about the spar strength. That was the reason they wouldn't >let us go over 900lbs. Cheers Mac England UK >----- Original Message ----- >From: Rick Human >To: garbez ; KR-POST >Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 4:14 AM >Subject: Re: KR> Limitations > > > > I asked that same question 3 years ago and Peter Hudson had this reply - >as > > you can see he did some extensive research on the subject. Peter you >still > > out there? > > > > > > Peter Hudson > > Tuesday, October 07, 1997 11:10 PM > > > > hi gang, > > > > I've just had some luck on the gross weight issue. While talking about > > it with some work mates at lunch I found someone with an OLD edition of > > Bruhn (for the non engineer types Bruhn is the bible of aircraft > > structural analysis). In fact its a 1949 edition so it still had the > > section on wood spar design/analysis. The good news bit is that the > > forest products lab had done extensive testing on exactly our type of > > box spar for spruce. There are different allowables for the spruce in > > spars based on some shape factors of the spar caps and webs. The values > > are stronger than test specimens in pure compression (due to the > > nonlinearity of wood at failure depending somewhat on the shape) > > FOR THE KR-2 SPAR the allowables for ultimate compressive rupture are > > 6670 PSI and for the elastic limit is 4900 PSI. > > > > Not counting any contribution from the rear spar that gives the > > following limits. > > > > For 5.7 g ultimate (FAR 23 for normal catagory) > > the gross weight allowable is 1035 lbs (plus the weight of the wings) > > for My KR with 100 lbs of wing the gross weight should not exceed 1135 > > lbs. (ultimate is the driving factor here...limit load works out to 4.2 > > g) > > > > So I plan to use 1100 lbs as my gross weight, leave my spar stock and > > I'll feel good about it. (I trust Bruhn implicity!) > > > > I'll write again with an appropriate set of V-N diagram data soon based > > on that gross weight and strength. > > > > -Peter Hudson- > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "garbez" > > To: "KR-POST" > > Sent: Monday, October 09, 2000 10:24 PM > > Subject: KR> Limitations > > > > > > > The other day on the KRNet someone was talking about how to register >KR's > > > and this phrase "what if we're building heavy KR's and the wings brake > > off", > > > became a concern to me. The KR was only designed at an empty weight >of > > > 480#, now we're building them at 700# to 750# with 100 hp motors. Are >the > > > wings engineered to withstand the extra weight and stresses, or are we > > > pushing it? This may be a touchy subject and no one would be willing >to > > put > > > their airplane through the testing so maybe there's a way to calculate > > what > > > the design limits are. I would be quite interested in the results of >what > > > this little airplane can put up with. I am not an engineer and don't >have > > > any idea how to figure this out, but I know some of you are. > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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 > > > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >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, 11 Oct 2000 11:12:04 -0400 To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: Donald Reid Subject: Re: KR> Limitations Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.20001011105510.00953100@pop.erols.com> --=====================_1829607==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 01:13 PM 10/11/2000 +0000, Jerry Mahurin wrote: >I have personally examined a crashed standard KR that impacted terra firma >at a nearly 90 degree angle. All four wing attachment assemblies were >still bolted together and held center section and outer wing spar pieces >together. All of the bolts in the center section and spars had wood >around them; they had not pulled out. And all the wing attach fittings >were joined; none of the bolts had sheared. >>From: "macwood" >>Rick,- the engineer gurus over this side of the pond were concerned with the >>WAF to spar conection as the limiting factor. I don't think there was >>ever any doubt about the spar strength. That was the reason they wouldn't >>let us go over 900lbs. Cheers Mac England UK The crash impact information is interesting, but not really applicable to the strength to wing spars. The loading in a vertical impact is very different than the loading while pulling G's. The spar is not designed to carry very much load in the fore and aft direction. The wing attachment fittings are marginal where the 3/16" bolts pass through the wooden spar caps. That is the weakest point of the design. If you take a stock KR designed wing, load it to failure in positive G's, the analysis that I did would indicate that the bottom wing attachment fitting will fail by pulling the bolts through the wood. There is nothing inherently wrong with this, it is just a fact of life. Some part of the structure will be less strong than the rest. Don Reid mailto:donreid@erols.com Bumpass, Va KR2XL construction at http://users.erols.com/donreid/kr_page.htm Ultralights at http://users.erols.com/donreid/usua250.html --=====================_1829607==_.ALT-- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 16:44:03 -0300 To: myrddin@usa.net, macwood@tinyworld.co.uk, rahuman@swbell.net From: James Sellars Cc: krnet@mailinglists.org Subject: Re: KR> Limitations Message-Id: <4.3.0.20001011164253.00a7e430@mail.auracom.com> Jerry; You are right, I observed the same thing in my recent hard landing. Wing Attach points were undamaged. The plane was broken but not those hard points. Regards Jim At 01:13 PM 10/11/00 +0000, Jerry Mahurin wrote: >All, > >I have personally examined a crashed standard KR that impacted terra firma >at a nearly 90 degree angle. The impact was so forceful that the prop >spinner was molded around the prop hub to look like a blob of paint. The >outer wing panels were in shards (lots of small pieces), as was all of the >plane. All four wing attachment assemblies were still bolted together and >held center section and outer wing spar pieces together. All of the bolts >in the center section and spars had wood around them; they had not pulled >out. And all the wing attach fittings were joined; none of the bolts had >sheared. From this observation, I have great faith in the strength of the >wing attach method on the KR2. > >Jerry Mahurin >Lugoff, SC > >>From: "macwood" >>To: "Rick Human" >>CC: "krnet user group" >>Subject: Re: KR> Limitations >>Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 13:46:24 +0100 >> >>Rick,- the engineer gurus over this side of the pond were concerned with the >>WAF to spar conection as the limiting factor. I don't think there was >>ever any doubt about the spar strength. That was the reason they wouldn't >>let us go over 900lbs. Cheers Mac England UK >>----- Original Message ----- >>From: Rick Human >>To: garbez ; KR-POST >>Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 4:14 AM >>Subject: Re: KR> Limitations >> >> >> > I asked that same question 3 years ago and Peter Hudson had this reply - >>as >> > you can see he did some extensive research on the subject. Peter you still >> > out there? >> > >> > >> > Peter Hudson >> > Tuesday, October 07, 1997 11:10 PM >> > >> > hi gang, >> > >> > I've just had some luck on the gross weight issue. While talking about >> > it with some work mates at lunch I found someone with an OLD edition of >> > Bruhn (for the non engineer types Bruhn is the bible of aircraft >> > structural analysis). In fact its a 1949 edition so it still had the >> > section on wood spar design/analysis. The good news bit is that the >> > forest products lab had done extensive testing on exactly our type of >> > box spar for spruce. There are different allowables for the spruce in >> > spars based on some shape factors of the spar caps and webs. The values >> > are stronger than test specimens in pure compression (due to the >> > nonlinearity of wood at failure depending somewhat on the shape) >> > FOR THE KR-2 SPAR the allowables for ultimate compressive rupture are >> > 6670 PSI and for the elastic limit is 4900 PSI. >> > >> > Not counting any contribution from the rear spar that gives the >> > following limits. >> > >> > For 5.7 g ultimate (FAR 23 for normal catagory) >> > the gross weight allowable is 1035 lbs (plus the weight of the wings) >> > for My KR with 100 lbs of wing the gross weight should not exceed 1135 >> > lbs. (ultimate is the driving factor here...limit load works out to 4.2 >> > g) >> > >> > So I plan to use 1100 lbs as my gross weight, leave my spar stock and >> > I'll feel good about it. (I trust Bruhn implicity!) >> > >> > I'll write again with an appropriate set of V-N diagram data soon based >> > on that gross weight and strength. >> > >> > -Peter Hudson- >> > >> > >> > ----- Original Message ----- >> > From: "garbez" >> > To: "KR-POST" >> > Sent: Monday, October 09, 2000 10:24 PM >> > Subject: KR> Limitations >> > >> > >> > > The other day on the KRNet someone was talking about how to register >>KR's >> > > and this phrase "what if we're building heavy KR's and the wings brake >> > off", >> > > became a concern to me. The KR was only designed at an empty weight of >> > > 480#, now we're building them at 700# to 750# with 100 hp motors. Are >>the >> > > wings engineered to withstand the extra weight and stresses, or are we >> > > pushing it? This may be a touchy subject and no one would be willing to >> > put >> > > their airplane through the testing so maybe there's a way to calculate >> > what >> > > the design limits are. I would be quite interested in the results of >>what >> > > this little airplane can put up with. I am not an engineer and don't >>have >> > > any idea how to figure this out, but I know some of you are. >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > > 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 >> > > >> > >> > >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > 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 >> > >> >> >>--------------------------------------------------------------------- >>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. > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >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: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 20:23:27 EDT To: donreid@erols.com, krnet@mailinglists.org From: Krwr1@aol.com Subject: Re: KR> Limitations Message-ID: In a message dated 10/11/2000 11:10:02 AM Eastern Daylight Time, donreid@erols.com writes: << The wing attachment fittings are marginal where the 3/16" bolts pass through the wooden spar caps. That is the weakest point of the design. If you take a stock KR designed wing, load it to failure in positive G's, the analysis that I did would indicate that the bottom wing attachment fitting will fail by pulling the bolts through the wood. >> The crash of a KR on my web page, the spars all broke apart, and the metal fittings all were not even bent. I thinking that this was the strongest part of the whole #$^% wing. Bill Reents krwr1@aol.com Youngstown Ohio ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 18:17:59 EDT To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: KR2616TJ@aol.com Subject: Re: KR> Icom radio Message-ID: In a message dated 10/10/00 12:56:54 PM Eastern Daylight Time, taildrags@hotmail.com writes: << I just noticed in the Aircraft Spruce newsletter that they have an Icom IC-A4 (comm only) for about $200 >> Great little radios. Tom Crawford and I each bought one at Sun & Fun a couple of years ago. You will not find a better receiving radio for anything near the price. The only drawback is the lack of a key pad. You must push an up/down arrow key to change freqs. As I recall though, it stores 20 frequencies for use. Dana Overall 2000 KR Gathering host Richmond, KY mailto:kr2616tj@aol.com http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/hangar/7085/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 18:08:51 -0400 To: KR2616TJ@aol.com From: Tom Crawford CC: krnet@mailinglists.org Subject: Re: KR> Icom radio Message-ID: <39E4E4F3.488B@ufl.edu> KR2616TJ@aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 10/10/00 12:56:54 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > taildrags@hotmail.com writes: > > << I just noticed in the Aircraft Spruce newsletter that they have an Icom > IC-A4 (comm only) for about $200 >> > > Great little radios. Tom Crawford and I each bought one at Sun & Fun a couple > of years ago. You will not find a better receiving radio for anything near > the price. The only drawback is the lack of a key pad. You must push an > up/down arrow key to change freqs. As I recall though, it stores 20 > frequencies for use. > > Dana Overall > Dana's right, it's a great little radio. I am sure that I paid a lot more than $200.00 tho. Better grab it for that price. -- Tom Crawford Gainesville, FL N262TC Mailto:toys@ufl.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 19:17:25 -0500 From: Mark Jones CC: krnet@mailinglists.org Subject: Re: KR> Icom radio Message-ID: <39E50315.940109C5@execpc.com> $200 sounds like a good price. Chief Aircraft Inc sells them for $249. Tom Crawford wrote: > KR2616TJ@aol.com wrote: > > > > In a message dated 10/10/00 12:56:54 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > > taildrags@hotmail.com writes: > > > > << I just noticed in the Aircraft Spruce newsletter that they have an Icom > > IC-A4 (comm only) for about $200 >> > > > > Great little radios. Tom Crawford and I each bought one at Sun & Fun a couple > > of years ago. You will not find a better receiving radio for anything near > > the price. The only drawback is the lack of a key pad. You must push an > > up/down arrow key to change freqs. As I recall though, it stores 20 > > frequencies for use. > > > > Dana Overall > > > > Dana's right, it's a great little radio. I am sure that I paid a lot > more than $200.00 tho. Better grab it for that price. > > -- > Tom Crawford > Gainesville, FL > N262TC > Mailto:toys@ufl.edu > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 -- Mark Jones (N886MJ) Wales, WI USA E-mail me at mailto:flykr2s@execpc.com Visit my KR-2S CorvAIRCRAFT web site at http://sites.netscape.net/flykr2s/homepage ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 20:58:18 -0400 To: KR2616TJ@aol.com From: Forrest Erickson CC: krnet@mailinglists.org Subject: Re: KR> Icom radio, or Yaesu! Message-ID: <39E3BB2A.7704C5C4@icx.net> --------------7D44652780D87F978E6ACDC3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit You might want to consider the cost of a second or replacement battery pack. When I looked at Icom radios they were expensive. I purchased a Yaesu. The battery pack is the same as used on amateur radios and so is less expensive. Also look into the cost of other accessories such as cigarette lighter adapter, headphone adapter. Good Luck, Lee KR2616TJ@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 10/10/00 12:56:54 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > taildrags@hotmail.com writes: > > << I just noticed in the Aircraft Spruce newsletter that they have an Icom > IC-A4 (comm only) for about $200 >> > > Great little radios. Tom Crawford and I each bought one at Sun & Fun a couple > of years ago. You will not find a better receiving radio for anything near > the price. The only drawback is the lack of a key pad. You must push an > up/down arrow key to change freqs. As I recall though, it stores 20 > frequencies for use. > > Dana Overall > 2000 KR Gathering host > Richmond, KY > mailto:kr2616tj@aol.com > http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/hangar/7085/ > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To post to the list, email: krnet@mailinglists.org > To unsubscribe, e-mail: krnet-unsubscribe@mailinglists.org > For additional commands, e-mail: krnet-help@mailinglists.org --------------7D44652780D87F978E6ACDC3-- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 23:42:05 -0400 (EDT) To: "macwood" From: Albert Pecoraro CC: krnet@mailinglists.org Subject: British KR-2 ... Message-ID: <384290121.971235725947.JavaMail.root@web622-wrb.mail.com> Mac, I finally got around to putting the picture of your KR-2 on my website. The direct link is: http://home.earthlink.net/~gryphonflier/kr_uk.htm I managed to reduce the file from a 4.75MB TIF file to a 13KB JPEG file using M!cro$@ft PhotoEditor. I read in your TIF file, reduced it to 25% of its original size, and then saved it as a JPG file. (Please ignore the Windows title that says "KR Italiani". I used that page as a template and I forgot to change it to "KR United Kingdom"!) ;-) My site uses frames, so if you want to navigate you have to go to the main page: http://home.earthlink.net/~gryphonflier Take care. Albert Pecoraro ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 19:41:19 -0700 To: From: "Betty & Donald Hamm" Subject: VW engine Message-ID: <000001c03336$f1c76100$e0fe1a3f@oemcomputer> ------=_NextPart_000_004D_01C032F2.0FDBA060 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Ted I though you lived San Luis Obispo?Who built your engine?Do you have = any pictures? When did this engine run last? Please give me a call. Best = time is 6:00p.m.to 8;00p.m. Ca. time Don Hamm (909)652-5429 ------=_NextPart_000_004D_01C032F2.0FDBA060-- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 00:58:05 -0400 To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: Michael Taglieri Subject: Re:Dynel vs. Fiberglass again Message-ID: <20001011.005838.9062.10.MikeT_NYC@juno.com> >I have just received my copy of 'Composite Construction for Homebuilt >Aircraft' by Jack Lambie. What did I read there?!: > >p.140: 'Dynel is fun and easy. It clings like the plastic you use to wrap >sandwiches with, or cover left overs. It has a big open weave and can go >around all kinds of curves, including two directional, without wrinkling. >The open weave takes a lot of resin so the parts may be heavier than for a >fiberglass surface. Thus, fiberglass can be stronger for its weight because >of the tighter weave and less of requirement for resin to fill it...' > >p. 182: 'Dynel Fabric - Dynel fabric as originally used in a 4 oz./sq.yd. >weave in the KR designs is no longer in production...' > >Does it mean the 5.85 oz./sq.yd. fiberglass is may-be 'too strong' for a KR? > >Stefan Balatchev, >Paris, France >mailto:Stefan.Balatchev@wanadoo.fr >Too strong? >is that like being to young or to healthy or to wealthy? I'm sure what he means is "stronger and heavier than necessary for a KR," and it's a good question. For someone building the plane to the design gross weight, it probably is. 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: Sun, 8 Oct 2000 17:57:21 -0700 To: From: "Al Friesen" Subject: Icom 4A Message-ID: <007901c0318b$f7e26b40$47cb6cce@s8z8i0> ------=_NextPart_000_0074_01C03151.34E4DD60 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Netters, I bought the Icom, PPT,8 battery pack adapter and phone adapter. I = modified the 8 pack by wiring in a fuse inside the pack with the wire = exiting at the bottom with about 18" of wire with a cig lighter plug to = go into my cig outlet. The rechargable is then just a spare. Al = Friesen 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 ------=_NextPart_000_0074_01C03151.34E4DD60-- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 08:02:23 EDT To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: DClarke351@aol.com Subject: Subaru Message-ID: <82.14f7995.2715b0cf@aol.com> My EA 81 Subaru is still for sale. Have pictures. Those interested contact me by E-Mail or 915-755-0588. Don Clarke ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 10:39:57 -0500 To: "KRNet" From: "Robert Stone" Subject: Mike Mimms Aircraft Message-ID: <002a01c03399$832c3820$0101a8c0@pavilion> ------=_NextPart_000_0027_01C0336F.997BFCC0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Fellow members: I sent an E-Mail asking Mike some questions about the = KR-2 he has for sale about a week ago and have not received an answer. = Does anyone know, has he left town or what? Bob Stone Harker = Heights, Texas ------=_NextPart_000_0027_01C0336F.997BFCC0-- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 19:00:12 +0200 To: From: "Spannie" Subject: Attention Ivor Link Message-ID: <003701c033a7$a401a4a0$65bc16c4@span> ------=_NextPart_000_000D_01C033B5.7B9A97C0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sorry to clog the net, fellow netters. I don't have a direct line to = Ivor yet. Ivor. At this stage I have already received messages from 4 other South = Africans - I'm quite sure about two more, but have not received any info = from them yet. I do know Steve Boshoff. I've arranged for him to do the pre-purchase = inspection on WDW. I'm close to Lanseria, very far from Steve and = Associates. I am going to install Steve's steerable tri-gear conversion = on WDW - only he does'nt know it yet! Photo's on the net at this stage = is out of the question. I'm still ashamed of the plane. It's painted a = very dull silver/grey colour. I'll publish a before and after photo when = i'm done revamping. Send me your e-mail address Johan de Jong spannie@netactive.co.za ------=_NextPart_000_000D_01C033B5.7B9A97C0-- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 19:03:36 +0200 To: From: "Spannie" Subject: Attention JC Marais Message-ID: <003801c033a7$ab999ce0$65bc16c4@span> ------=_NextPart_000_001E_01C033B5.F5295E00 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sorry again netters. I need to get the direct e-mail address of JC = Marais living in Centurion, Pretoria, South Africa. KR2 reg ZS-VHR ------=_NextPart_000_001E_01C033B5.F5295E00-- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 19:07:17 +0200 To: From: "Spannie" Subject: Attention Carlton Blandford Message-ID: <003901c033a7$ac8dc0e0$65bc16c4@span> ------=_NextPart_000_0025_01C033B6.793A4420 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sorry to clog the net fellow enthusiasts. I'm working on my database and = need the e-mail address of Carlton Blandford from somewhere in South = Africa. I'm in Johannesburg and need to make contact directly with him. ------=_NextPart_000_0025_01C033B6.793A4420-- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 19:19:27 +0200 To: From: "Spannie" Subject: Attention Jean Coetzee Message-ID: <003b01c033a7$ae176e20$65bc16c4@span> ------=_NextPart_000_0033_01C033B8.2C49B180 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sorry netters, It's me again with a private conversation. I need to get = hold of Jean Coetzee, also a South African. We need to do "tea" sometime = and I dont have his direct e-mail Address. Contact me Jean Johan de Jong spannie@netactive.co.za ------=_NextPart_000_0033_01C033B8.2C49B180-- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 14:30:03 -0700 (PDT) To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: Frank Ross Subject: International Network Message-ID: <20001011213003.8968.qmail@web4705.mail.yahoo.com> Hey Albert Pecoraro, Wouldn't it be nice to have all these South African builders and fliers on your web-site? Maybe when Spannie gets his list put together he can forward them to you. That way your international directory will be useful to a much larger group. Not for nothing is it called a network. --- Spannie wrote: > Sorry to clog the net fellow enthusiasts. I'm > working on my database and need the e-mail address > of Carlton Blandford from somewhere in South Africa. > I'm in Johannesburg and need to make contact > directly with him. > ===== Frank Ross, San Antonio, TX, __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere! http://mail.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 20:27:10 EDT To: RFG842@aol.com, krnet@mailinglists.org From: AviationMech@aol.com Subject: Re: Trim tabs Message-ID: In a message dated 10/10/00 10:49:45 PM Eastern Daylight Time, RFG842 writes: << 1. Where did you mount the servo, in the elevator or horizantal stab? 2. What did you use for a cockpit trim indicator? >> The servo's are mounted directly into the elevator and rudder, and use the RC push pull rods to actuate the tab. They are a little fast and can cause me to over trim and hunt for a spot that is just right. It is a matter of finding a voltage that is low enough to slowly turn the motor. The switches are of the center off and momentary on at both ends. I have a diagram for the wiring of the switches. As for the cockpit trim indicator, I use the seat of my pants. On the long trip to Barkley, I added 14 gal of wing fuel which is aft CG. As the fuel load changed, I adjusted trim to meet the weight changes. On the ground, as part of my preflight, I look at and adjust the position on the tabs back to neutral. In the air the position is obvious and relates to stick force to maintain level flight. I can't help you on the canopy lock. I have simple internal latches and have to release three, which release from the inside only. I placed this reply on the net because the info might be help to others and others might have a canopy lock suggestion for you. Orma A&P / IA Builder, 1984 KR-2 N110LR http://member.aol.com/aviationmech ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 22:40:39 -0400 To: From: "Phil Maynard" Subject: Re: KR> v.s. Message-ID: <003501c033f5$dd471080$1b01a8c0@amd500> I don't know if this is helpfull but this is what I found with the KR2 sternpost/rudder/counterweight. If you make the bottom 12" of the stern post 2 1/4" instead of the 1 3/4" the plans show, it fairs more smoothly into the rudder, because the fuselage is coming together at a much sharper angle than the rudder taper. If instead you follow the plans and make the stern post and rudder both 1 3/4", then the rudder appears to be to wide for the fuselage. If you transition the sternpost width to 1 3/4" between the upper surface of the horizontal stabilizer and the lower stabilizer airfoil template, then it gives you an extra 1/4" each side for an internal elevator weight. (I still had a very slight bulge in the vertical stabilizer just above the horizontal stabilizer to hide the weight). Don't forget to carry the straight section of the rudder up as well to match the vertical stabilizer. Phil Maynard Ridley Park PA ----- Original Message ----- From: Mike Mims To: Sent: Friday, September 29, 2000 3:54 PM Subject: Re: KR> v.s. > > --- Mark Langford wrote: > > After thinking about this a little more, I'd have to > > say that the width of > > the bottom at the extreme aft end should probably be > > 1.75" if you're > > building a tail dragger. > > Humm, if I were to do it again I would make the tail > post in that area about 3 inches wide so I would have > room inside of all the things that are missing. IE > Coutner weight! :o) Then just simply fair the rudder > to fit that section of the fuselage with a little foam. > > ===== > ........| > .......-^- > ....-/_____\- > ...(O\__o__/O) > ...[#]oxxxo[#] > -----Y2K Bug--- > Yes I drive one! > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Photos - 35mm Quality Prints, Now Get 15 Free! > http://photos.yahoo.com/ > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 22:06:22 -0500 To: From: "Jon Finley" Subject: Direct Drive Subaru EJ-22 Legacy Message-ID: <000401c033f9$67dd8d20$0a01c80a@win2k> Hi all, I am one of the Quickie/Q2 guys. I am running a direct drive EA-81 turbo Subaru and am considering upgrading to the EJ-22 Legacy engine. Is anyone here running a direct drive EJ-22 in their KR or can you refer me to someone who is?? Thanks! Jon Finley Q1 N54JF - 1835cc VW Q2 N90MG - Subaru EA-81 DD Turbo Apple Valley, Minnesota http://63.90.191.136/Finley/finley-subaru.html ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 15:23:58 SAST To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: "Pieter Vermeulen" Subject: mazda rotary 2 Message-ID: Dear Kr builders My name is Pieter and i'm from South Africa---Pretoria to be precise. I would like to know has anybody out there tried the mazda RX2 13b motor? I did some asking and found that it's a small engine with a big kick!!! Especially with a 1:2 reduction drive one of my friends calculated that it will provide up to 200hp on takeoff. Has anyone tried the engine or is there some hidden aspects. I know for a fact that some re-thinking on the engine cooling will have to be done but for 200hp will I call it an experiment and what the heck isn't this whole game EXPERIMENTAL?????? Have fun flying Pieter _________________________________________________________________________ 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: 12 Oct 2000 08:58:00 -0700 To: "krnet@mailinglists.org" From: "Schmidt, Curtis" Subject: AILERON BELL CRANK Message-ID: <000205A0@kaydon.com> HEY GUYS: I am getting ready to install my aileron bell cranks and after assembling t= hem I noticed that the push/pull motion is a long way from being perpendicu= lar with the aileron! I guess my question is , Is this normal or is there a= modification I don't know about? Thanks for the help! CURTIS R SCHMIDT CNC TOOLING & PROGRAMMING KANSAS USA ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 10:12:55 -0400 To: From: "Tom Andersen" Subject: Q on Revmaster intake Message-ID: <004d01c03456$844637c0$a5e71c18@triad.rr.com> ------=_NextPart_000_004A_01C03434.FCF17440 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi folks, I have a Revflo carb on my VW and in front of that there's a filter and = a butterfly valve. Is there any benefit to connecting the front end of = this thing to the airstream? It seems that the filter would bleed off = any pressure I could get from an air scoop. I guess I could get a = little benefit, but I wonder what other Revflo carb users have = experienced on this setup? Right now it gets air from inside the = cowling, under the oil pan, and the butterfly valve merely changes that = air to filtered air. I guess that's supposed to provide some kind of = carb heat. I think a regular carb heat box would be better, and it = would give me better ram air. Would I be unengineering something that = works though? -Tom Andersen Greensboro, NC ------=_NextPart_000_004A_01C03434.FCF17440-- ------------------------------ End of krnet Digest ***********************************