From: To: Subject: krnet Digest 21 Oct 2000 00:11:31 -0000 Issue 111 Date: Friday, October 20, 2000 4:11 PM krnet Digest 21 Oct 2000 00:11:31 -0000 Issue 111 Topics (messages 2613 through 2642): Re: Fuel Tanks 2613 by: cartera 2615 by: JEAN VERON 2618 by: AviationMech.aol.com Re: wing attachments 2614 by: Mike Mims 2623 by: Robert Stone 2625 by: AviationMech.aol.com 2637 by: GARYKR2.cs.com 2639 by: cartera Re: Propeller Balance, KISS 2616 by: Frank Ross 2624 by: cartera Re: Weight & Balance 2617 by: AviationMech.aol.com 2621 by: Kenneth L Wiltrout Zenith carb 2619 by: Oscar Zuniga Looks like bondo 2620 by: Michael Meyer 2626 by: AviationMech.aol.com Re: carbon or kevlar 2622 by: Mark Langford 2627 by: Albert Pecoraro Videos 2628 by: Mark Jones Undercarriage 2629 by: Dean Mackey 2630 by: Dean Mackey Facet Electronic Fuel Pump 2631 by: John and Janet Martindale Getting their 2632 by: Al Friesen EXPLODING FUEL TANKS 2633 by: Phil Visconti 2634 by: Garland, Norm F 2635 by: cartera 2636 by: Phil Visconti 2640 by: Ron Eason Polyurethane Fillers ... 2638 by: Albert Pecoraro 2641 by: Ron Eason Insurance etc. 2642 by: Kenneth L Wiltrout Administrivia: To subscribe to the digest, e-mail: To unsubscribe from the digest, e-mail: To post to the list, e-mail: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 12:32:50 -0600 To: Robert Stone From: cartera CC: "Carson J. Cassidy" , krnet@mailinglists.org, James Sellars Subject: Re: KR> Fuel Tanks Message-ID: <39EF3E52.D71FBC9F@cuug.ab.ca> Robert Stone wrote: > > cartera: Your idea about the balloon sounds like an effective test for > leaks providing the temperature in the test area is controlled and kept > constant. If not the balloon will change size due to temperature change. > You are correct, air is lighter than any liquid. > > Bob Stone Hello All, Hey, I'm not here to debate the temperature or atmospheric pressure, in my shop I had a controlled environment. Just putting forth some ideas. To try and help to make things simpler, KISS principle! Think about it, if you get any liquid between the layers do you think you will ever get it out from between the layers. Another simple hint, want to make perfect balance for your prop. Use a string in the middle of your prop and see which tip is lighter/heavier. The big boys use this method when field testing rotors for balance on their choppers without sophisticated equipment, KISS, KISS. THAT'S ALL FOLKS!! -- Adrian VE6AFY Calgary, Alberta Mailto:cartera@cuug.ab.ca http://www.cuug.ab.ca/~cartera ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 14:30:27 -0500 To: , , From: "JEAN VERON" Cc: , , Subject: Re: KR> Fuel Tanks Message-ID: <002301c03a03$0b37e7e0$17111b3f@computer> Mike ladigo kept trying to find a leaky fuel tank this way. After a few trys of adding Vynil ester to various places he found that baloon had a leak. Jean ----- Original Message ----- From: Jerry Mahurin To: ; Cc: ; ; Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2000 7:43 AM Subject: Re: KR> Fuel Tanks > And if the baloon gets bigger..... It means that you did the test on a cold > day and then the tank got warm/hot. That actually happened to me. > > Jerry > Lugoff, SC > > > > >From: cartera > >To: Robert Stone > >CC: "Carson J. Cassidy" , krnet@mailinglists.org, > >James Sellars > >Subject: Re: KR> Fuel Tanks > >Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 19:57:46 -0600 > > > >Robert Stone wrote: > > > > > > Netters: A well constructed fuel tank out of composite materiel does > >not > > > need any sort of coating. Like at least two members have advised, you > >are > > > asking for serious problems with some of these rubberized products. I > >have > > > experienced an engine shutdown twice in my flying career and it's a very > > > uncomfortable position to be in. You do not need to use any foam to > >make a > > > tank. Just six sides of thick fiberglass well impregnated with resin > >then > > > tape them together. Use fuel, not water to leak check. Water is too > >thick. > > > If you can fill a tank with gas and find no leaks, install it. > > > >Hello KRNetters, > >Another method of testing for leaks. Place a balloon over one outlet and > >blow up the balloon, seal remaining outlet you used for blowing up the > >balloon. Leave for a few days, if the balloon changes size you have a > >leak > >if size remains the same as first blown up, you have got it, install. > >A lot simpler, cleaner and air is lighter than any liquid. How that? > >Happy Building! > >-- > >Adrian VE6AFY > >Calgary, Alberta > >Mailto:cartera@cuug.ab.ca > >http://www.cuug.ab.ca/~cartera > > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- > >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: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 16:30:43 EDT To: n4dd@email.msn.com, myrddin@usa.net, cartera@cuug.ab.ca, rlspjs@dashlink.com From: AviationMech@aol.com CC: carson.c@home.com, krnet@mailinglists.org, jsellars@auracom.com Subject: Re: KR> Fuel Tanks Message-ID: <61.824e574.2720b3f3@aol.com> 100LL has a blue tint and will stain anywhere it leaks from. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 12:12:18 -0700 (PDT) To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: Mike Mims Subject: Re: KR> wing attachments Message-ID: <20001019191218.12968.qmail@web1406.mail.yahoo.com> << purchase the bolt kit from RR for $108.00>>> RRs price is not that bad, I promise you I spent twice that trying to size them myself. ===== ........| .......-^- ....-/_____\- ...(O\__o__/O) ...[#]oxxxo[#] -----Y2K Bug--- Yes I had one! __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Messenger - Talk while you surf! It's FREE. http://im.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 19:50:00 -0500 To: "KRNet" , "Timothy Brown" From: "Robert Stone" Subject: Re: KR> wing attachments Message-ID: <003601c03a2f$ad84a840$0101a8c0@pavilion> Timothy: There is a tool known as a reamer specifically designed to make holes larger but it will not give you the precision you need for an aircraft part. The best and easiest way to make the holes the proper size is to just put a 3/l6 drill bit into your hand drill or drill press and go through each hole ----- Original Message ----- From: "Timothy Brown" To: "Robert Stone" Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2000 12:29 PM Subject: Re: KR> wing attachments > I don't mean to be a dunce but what is used to ream > the holes. Is there a special tool? > > Tim > > > --- Robert Stone wrote: > > Timothy: The holes in the WAF's you got from RR > > should be 3/l6th inch, if > > they are not this size, what size are they? In any > > event don't get smaller > > bolts, ream the existing holes out to 3/l6th. Why > > do you need a "bolts > > list", Just count the holes and buy accordingly. > > > > > > Bob > > Stone > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Timothy Brown" > > To: "Group KR NET" > > Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2000 11:58 AM > > Subject: KR> wing attachments > > > > > > > I just got off the phone with RR and was told that > > the > > > wing attachment fittings which I purchased from > > them > > > need to have the holes reamed larger a bit. > > > > > > 1) What have you all done re: this. > > > > > > 2) Does any one have a "bolts" list? Rather than > > > purchase the bolt kit from RR for $108.00 I > > thought I > > > would get the bolts from A S & S, but nee to know > > the > > > sizes. If you have a list and could fax it to me > > that > > > would be great (909) 781-0436.....or scan it in > > and > > > e-mail me at timwbrown@yahoo.com > > > > > > > > > Boat just about done and have e-mailed Dan Diehl > > for > > > skin info. Starting to get in the 30s up here in > > Lake > > > Arrowhead so my epoxy days are numbered. > > > > > > Tim > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > > > Do You Yahoo!? > > > Yahoo! Messenger - Talk while you surf! It's > > FREE. > > > http://im.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 > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Messenger - Talk while you surf! It's FREE. > http://im.yahoo.com/ > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 21:59:55 EDT To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: AviationMech@aol.com Subject: Re: KR> wing attachments Message-ID: <24.bf5f9c4.2721011b@aol.com> In a message dated 10/19/00 8:50:14 PM Eastern Daylight Time, rlspjs@dashlink.com writes: << There is a tool known as a reamer specifically designed to make holes larger but it will not give you the precision you need for an aircraft part. >> Tim STOP!!! Hold the press, Don't drill that hole yet..... Drill bits NO NOT Make round holes.!!! The only way to make a precision hole is to start with a hole just like the ones in the WAF''s Jeanette has sold to you. You are supposed to use the correct reamer to step up the hole to the correct size. Don't take my word, talk to a local machinist. Reamer are sold in decimal sizes and can be purchased from good tool stores. They mount in drills like bits, but don't make the wobble hole that a fluted drill does. Please do it right or have a machinist do it for you. If you use a 3/16 drill bit the hole will be anything BUT the correct size for a 3/16 bolt. Eventually the hole will elongate. The Aviation Technical Dictionary by Jeppensen defines Ream " Enlarging and smoothing a drilled hole with a percision cutting tool called a reamer. A hole reamed in prepration for close-toleralce parts" I hope you would want your wing attach to be a close-tolerance fit. Orma Aviationmech@AOL.com Builder and Pilot, KR-2 N110LR, 1984-2000 AP with Inspection Authorization ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 15:42:08 EDT To: rlspjs@dashlink.com, krnet@mailinglists.org, timwbrown@yahoo.com From: GARYKR2@cs.com Subject: Re: KR> wing attachments Message-ID: <5b.cd364bd.2721fa10@cs.com> In a message dated 10/19/00 8:50:23 PM Eastern Daylight Time, rlspjs@dashlink.com writes: << Timothy: There is a tool known as a reamer specifically designed to make holes larger but it will not give you the precision you need for an aircraft part. The best and easiest way to make the holes the proper size is to just put a 3/l6 drill bit into your hand drill or drill press and go through each hole >> I think you have it backwards. The reamer is used to get the exact size hole that you want. The proper method would be to drill the hole several thousands of an inch under size. Then ream to the required size. A drill bit will never give you as good of a hole as a ream will. Gary Hinkle (A/P) Middletown, Pa. garykr2@cs.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 14:55:02 -0600 To: GARYKR2@cs.com From: cartera CC: rlspjs@dashlink.com, krnet@mailinglists.org, timwbrown@yahoo.com Subject: Re: KR> wing attachments Message-ID: <39F0B126.2254265E@cuug.ab.ca> GARYKR2@cs.com wrote: > > In a message dated 10/19/00 8:50:23 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > rlspjs@dashlink.com writes: > > << Timothy: There is a tool known as a reamer specifically designed to make > holes larger but it will not give you the precision you need for an aircraft > part. The best and easiest way to make the holes the proper size is to just > put a 3/l6 drill bit into your hand drill or drill press and go through each > hole >> > > I think you have it backwards. The reamer is used to get the exact size > hole that you want. > The proper method would be to drill the hole several thousands of an > inch under size. Then ream to the required size. > A drill bit will never give you as good of a hole as a ream will. > Gary Hinkle (A/P) Middletown, Pa. > garykr2@cs.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 Gary & KRnetters, You got it right Gary it is a precision tool, all the aircraft engineers I know use it for just that. That's what I did with my WAF's and are friction fit. Time consuming but isn't it fun? -- Adrian VE6AFY Calgary, Alberta Mailto:cartera@cuug.ab.ca http://www.cuug.ab.ca/~cartera ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 13:08:04 -0700 (PDT) To: KRNet From: Frank Ross Subject: Re: Propeller Balance, KISS Message-ID: <20001019200804.23981.qmail@web4704.mail.yahoo.com> --- cartera wrote: Another simple hint, > want to make > perfect balance for your prop. Use a string in the > middle of your prop > and see which tip is lighter/heavier. The big boys > use this method when > field testing rotors for balance on their choppers > without sophisticated > equipment, > KISS, KISS. THAT'S ALL FOLKS!! > -- > Adrian VE6AFY > Calgary, Alberta > Mailto:cartera@cuug.ab.ca > http://www.cuug.ab.ca/~cartera Adrian, I'm sorry, I don't follow your propeller balance test. How does a string attached to the prop hub tell me which tip is heavier? I could understand longer/shorter? Could you elaborate? Thanks ===== Frank Ross, San Antonio, TX, __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Messenger - Talk while you surf! It's FREE. http://im.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 19:11:29 -0600 To: Frank Ross From: cartera CC: KRNet Subject: Re: KR> Re: Propeller Balance, KISS Message-ID: <39EF9BC1.88EEA4B1@cuug.ab.ca> --------------44452AAD78C775CDEA12919F Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Frank Ross wrote: > > --- cartera wrote: > Another simple hint, > > want to make > > perfect balance for your prop. Use a string in the > > middle of your prop > > and see which tip is lighter/heavier. The big boys > > use this method when > > field testing rotors for balance on their choppers > > without sophisticated > > equipment, > > KISS, KISS. THAT'S ALL FOLKS!! > > -- > > Adrian VE6AFY > > Calgary, Alberta > > Mailto:cartera@cuug.ab.ca > > http://www.cuug.ab.ca/~cartera > > Adrian, > I'm sorry, I don't follow your propeller balance test. > How does a string attached to the prop hub tell me > which tip is heavier? I could understand > longer/shorter? Could you elaborate? Thanks > > ===== > Frank Ross, San Antonio, TX, > Hello Frank and KRNetters, Well, I'll try and explain. I have drawn a rough sketch, hope this clarifies it. Balance is the most important. This is the method I used and then checked it out on a friends motorcycle wheel balancer which is very precise, I was right on. So how much simpler can one get. As I have built all of my own props it becomes a lot simpler where just a short spray of varathane on half a blade can make a big difference. And the difference can change when wet or dry. I would always check it out after a week when everything dried well and normalized. Hope this helps. -- Adrian VE6AFY Calgary, Alberta Mailto:cartera@cuug.ab.ca http://www.cuug.ab.ca/~cartera --------------44452AAD78C775CDEA12919F-- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 16:22:04 EDT To: kr2sflyer@yahoo.com, krnet@mailinglists.org From: AviationMech@aol.com Subject: Re: KR> Re: Weight & Balance Message-ID: <4b.24e793a.2720b1ec@aol.com> I would suggest that the weight of an 80 child might not give you accurate moment position for the weight of a 200 pounder. A long legged 200 pounder might have 80 lbs of legs, where a child might not have 10 pounds of legs for forward CG. I would use the real thing especially if you are trying to set the forward and aft CG at Gross Wt. I'm sure the child would give you a ball park figure. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 19:22:24 -0400 To: AviationMech@aol.com From: Kenneth L Wiltrout Cc: kr2sflyer@yahoo.com, krnet@mailinglists.org Subject: Re: KR> Re: Weight & Balance Message-ID: <20001019.192225.-204623.0.klw1953@juno.com> Thanks for the input, I think I'll take the extra time and do the CG with me in it. Now to find some scales.-------------Kenny On Thu, 19 Oct 2000 16:22:04 EDT AviationMech@aol.com writes: > I would suggest that the weight of an 80 child might not give you > accurate > moment position for the weight of a 200 pounder. A long legged 200 > pounder > might have 80 lbs of legs, where a child might not have 10 pounds of > legs for > forward CG. I would use the real thing especially if you are trying > to set > the forward and aft CG at Gross Wt. I'm sure the child would give > you a ball > park figure. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 > ________________________________________________________________ YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET! Juno now offers FREE Internet Access! Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 23:12:31 GMT To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: "Oscar Zuniga" Subject: Zenith carb Message-ID: Zenith carbheads- Jean Veron has been kind enough to steer me in the direction of a very promising mixture control setup for the Zenith. The carb used on VWs has a mixture control adjustment, usually rigged up via a twist knob in the cabin, but the problem is that the adjustment is the main needle, and it's held in the carb bowl body using a compression nut with packing around the stem/shaft. Too much twisting and tweaking and that packing won't be happy. So, Jean pointed me toward Don Betchan (Betcham?)'s setup, which uses a modification of this with an O-ring and a more conventional vernier push-pull mixture adjustment. It sure beats my home-made rack and pinion arrangement, which is quite limited in mixture adjustment range. I'm working on it. Any of you netters who might live near Don- can you get pictures of his mixture adjuster? Jean has described it in good detail so I can reverse-engineer it, but a picture is still worth 1000 words or so... Oscar Zuniga Medford, Oregon mailto: taildrags@hotmail.com website at http://www.geocities.com/taildrags/ _________________________________________________________________________ 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: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 18:25:34 -0500 To: From: "Michael Meyer" Subject: Looks like bondo Message-ID: <001f01c03a23$e2ee2c60$23fe1c3f@o0c8u6> ------=_NextPart_000_001C_01C039F9.F8C0D1C0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable KR types: Just bought a KR project and it appears that the previous owner = slobbered up the glass work with bondo. It doesn't look like too bad, = but I'd like to get it off, if possible. Anyone got any time saving = suggestions? I got the random orbital on it, but it looks to be a = looooong, slow process. Should I live with, or get it off? Also, this baby has some hanger rash on some of the glass (chips, = punctures, etc). Anyone know of a decent website (or other literature) = that might offer some insight on glass repair?=20 Thanks a million, Mike Meyer mpmeyer@earthlink.net ------=_NextPart_000_001C_01C039F9.F8C0D1C0-- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 21:59:54 EDT To: mpmeyer@earthlink.net, krnet@mailinglists.org From: AviationMech@aol.com Subject: Re: KR> Looks like bondo Message-ID: <59.1b59338.2721011a@aol.com> In a message dated 10/19/00 7:20:54 PM Eastern Daylight Time, mpmeyer@earthlink.net writes: << Should I live with, or get it off? >> Bondo is an acceptable filler if used only as a filler and not as repair to glass or structure. Bondo standard is too heavy. Bondo light which is Polyester resin and micro is OK under the above circumstances ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 18:37:05 -0500 To: "kr2s group" From: "Mark Langford" Subject: Re: KR> carbon or kevlar Message-ID: <002201c03a25$7dd20250$f2de8e18@300emachine> > First of all which is better? I have 20 ydrs. of > kevlar 1.2 oz. per yd.I do not have carbon yet.The > kevlar is the same strength as 6 oz. glass. Vincent, The opportunities to save weight using carbon fiber aren't all that great, since most of the plane is covered with one layer of whatever cloth you use, and both KR glass and the CF that I used weigh the same. What you CAN get is much stronger parts. The weight savings will be in places where you use several layers, like the canopy frame or wing walks. I'd also use it on ailerons and elevators for flutter resistance. Below is something I posted a while back, again. I think there's a reason why Kevlar is so cheap. ---------- While I can't lay my hands on any tables of comparative strengths at the moment (I could, but I'm really not in the mood to do any more homework at the moment), from memory I'll say that carbon fiber does fail quickly, but much further up the stress/strain curve than the point at which fiberglass fails, so it is in fact stronger than glass. But you're still talking about force levels like you'd experience in a crash here. The point of using carbon fiber is reduced weight for the same strength as glass, or improved strength with the same weight. Last time I looked, 282 carbon fiber has a strength to weight ratio about 3-5 times higher than regular 7533 "KR" glass, but then it also costs 6 times as much. And let the record show that I'm not saying the KR2S even needs ANY carbon fiber, but it's a great way to make things stronger and stiffer while saving weight in the process. Also, from "Composite Aircraft Design" by Hollman: 1) "Although fiberglass is the least expensive material, graphite fibers are the most promising for aircraft structures because of their low weight, high strength, and high stiffness as shown in Figure 3. The Starship and Voyager are completely built out of graphite and honeycomb and we can expect to see more and more complete aircraft built of this material." 2) "...this is especially true for Kevlar, which has a tensile strength of 60,000 psi and a compressive strength of 23,000 psi. Because of this low compressive strength, Kevlar is almost solely used for fairings, wheel pants, engine cowls, and other fairings in aircraft structures." 3) "However, because of Kevlar's low crompression strength, Kevlar has found limited structural application in aircraft primary structures. Kevlar is difficult to work with and special tools are needed. The above quotes are not where I formed my opinion about Carbon Fiber vs Kevlar, just the first ones I came across to support my argument. Engineering data from many different sources is where I formed my "opinion". You guys are welcome to carry on this debate, but I really need to get back to the basement... ----------------------- Personally, there's no amount of benefits of Kevlar that could possibly offset the frustration of trying to work with it. That one little "tracer" thread on carbon fiber rolls has driven me almost to insanity (well, maybe ALL the way, many would argue). That thread invariably ends up on the overlapping joints where there's a material overlap (like wings). Once you sand that little thread, all the fibers stick up, and refuse to go away. With CF or glass they just sand right off. With Kevlar, you're gonna have to sand that thread entirely away, or have a really ugly joint that looks like a line of fuzz. I eventually buried it under Aeropoxy Lite, but in the future, I'll always ensure that the overlap is ON TOP of that thread, rather than below it... ------------------------ I know an engineer who built a Defiant. He built the first cowling out of Kevlar, and the second out of carbon fiber. He swore he'd never touch Kevlar again. Mark Langford, Huntsville, Alabama mailto:langford@hiwaay.net see KR2S project N56ML at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 22:13:42 -0400 To: "kr2s group" From: "Albert Pecoraro" Subject: Re: KR> carbon or kevlar Message-ID: <001c01c03a3b$5fce2200$30d4b23f@steelcase.com> Vincent, ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark Langford" To: "kr2s group" Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2000 7:37 PM Subject: Re: KR> carbon or kevlar > > First of all which is better? I have 20 ydrs. of > > kevlar 1.2 oz. per yd.I do not have carbon yet.The > > kevlar is the same strength as 6 oz. glass. Read pages 28-32 of the AS&S catalogue - Composite materials. > ... >Below is something I posted > a while back, again. I think there's a reason why Kevlar is so cheap. Page 30 of AS&S - E-glass #7533 5.85oz 60" width - $5.15/yard Page 31 of AS&S - Kevlar 281 5.0oz 38" width - $15.75/yard (60" width is equivalent to $24.87/yard) Page 32 of AS&S - Carbon Fiber 282 5.7oz 42" width - $25.75/yard (60" width is equivalent to $36.79/yard) Compared to standard E-glass (similar weight and area) Carbon Fiber isn't cheap and neither is Kevlar. I was able to find a source of Kevlar for $0.00/yard - local boat company that was throwing it away. > Also, from "Composite Aircraft Design" by Hollman: > ... > 2) "...this is especially true for Kevlar, which has a tensile strength of > 60,000 psi and a compressive strength of 23,000 psi. Because of this low > compressive strength, Kevlar is almost solely used for fairings, wheel > pants, engine cowls, and other fairings in aircraft structures." ... and for offshore racing boats that smack the water numerous times at very high speeds and are subjected to some pretty strong forces and still remain intact. > 3) "However, because of Kevlar's low crompression strength, Kevlar has > found limited structural application in aircraft primary structures. Kevlar > is difficult to work with and special tools are needed. The only special tool you need is a pair of kevlar scissors. They range in price from $20.00 to $60.00, about the price of a low-end power tool. They are made specifically for cutting kevlar and cutting kevlar isn't as bad as people make it out to be. You use the same care and patience cutting kevlar as you would cutting E-glass or carbon fiber. After all, is it a race to see who can cut their glass faster? > Personally, there's no amount of benefits of Kevlar that could possibly > offset the frustration of trying to work with it. Once you > sand that little thread, all the fibers stick up, and refuse to go away. > With CF or glass they just sand right off. With Kevlar, you're gonna have > to sand that thread entirely away, or have a really ugly joint that looks > like a line of fuzz. This is true. Kevlar isn't the type of glass that you want to sand. If you have a layup with a depression, you can fill it with micro or Superfil. But if you have a bump that you have to sand down, the kevlar fibers will fuzz up and you will have to patch/repair the exposed area. That is why it is so important to sand/hotwire your foam to as close to the final shape as possible. > I know an engineer who built a Defiant. He built the first cowling out of > Kevlar, and the second out of carbon fiber. He swore he'd never touch > Kevlar again. > I built a forward deck and a turtledeck out of kevlar. If I were to do it again using kevlar I would have laid a layer of deck cloth on top of the kevlar. That way you don't have to sand the kevlar, just the deck cloth. And it will come out a lot smoother. This will also help fill the weave with epoxy. (My turtledeck layup had some gaps in the weave, but the fibers were completely wetted out). Try making some test pieces on some scrap foam: kevlar, kevlar/deck cloth, E-glass. See which one you are most comfortable with. Let us know what you decide to use. Albert Pecoraro > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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, 19 Oct 2000 22:17:39 -0500 To: CorvAIRCRAFT , KR-Net From: Mark Jones Subject: Videos Message-ID: <39EFB953.1F3EA8CD@execpc.com> Hello Friends, I am making copies of my home videos again and letting them go for $10 each including postage within the USA. I have the following to offer: William Wynne (TCA) 1999 KR Gathering Corvair engine forum. $10 each. This is of William giving a one hour presentation on the Corvair engine. Lighting in the video is a little bright but the audio is good. There is a fifteen minute additional segment of a Corvair engine running on a test stand which is excellent footage. KR Gathering 1999. $10 each. This is a one hour video and shows all the 17 or so KR's which flew in. Almost everyone who attended was captured on this tape. Excellent footage and awesome fly by footage. KR Gathering 2000. $10 Each This is a one hour video. Seven KR's made it this year and I have captured it all on video. The fly by footage on this tape is excellent. Has anyone ever said the KR looks like a small fighter plane in the air? Well, the footage of Marty Roberts and his beautiful KR-2 doing fly bys at what, 175 to 200 mph, will get your blood boiling. There is also very good footage of the awards banquet on this tape and those singing pilots. By the way, I am making these available only as a gesture, not to profit in any way. The $10 each barely covers the cost and labor involved in getting these out to you. If you need motivation, memories of the Gatherings, Corvair engine info or if you were not there and wish you could have been, then these are for you. Email me with your request at mailto:flykr2s@execpc.com or simply mail your request and check to: Mark Jones 615 Wexford Circle Wales, WI 53183 -- 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: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 06:11:52 GMT To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: "Dean Mackey" Subject: Undercarriage Message-ID: Hi eneryone, I have just purchased a KR-2 project and it has the retractable u/c, and I would like to know if there are any problems in changing over to the fixed tricycle u/c? Cheers Dean _________________________________________________________________________ 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: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 06:12:28 GMT To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: "Dean Mackey" Subject: Undercarriage Message-ID: Hi everyone, I have just purchased a KR-2 project and it has the retractable u/c, and I would like to know if there are any problems in changing over to the fixed tricycle u/c? Cheers Dean _________________________________________________________________________ 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: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 17:32:23 +1000 To: "To post messages to the new KRNet" From: "John and Janet Martindale" Subject: Facet Electronic Fuel Pump Message-ID: <006701c03a68$00159c80$a71b2acb@net.au> ------=_NextPart_000_0064_01C03ABB.B52D15A0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi folks I have installed a Facet electronic fuel pump in the lower wing root to = pump fuel from my wing tanks. Problem is that it protrudes a little and = leaves a weeny bump in an otherwise smooth fairing and I cannot get it = to go further down into the root to lie flush. I was thinking of = grinding off one corner of the pump a little. Does anyone have = experience with the internal construction of these pumps?. Could I take = off about 1/8" on one corner only without causing a leak? There seems to = be a fair bit of pressed steel in the pump external cover in that = area...some of which I hope can be safely removed.....how do those = sneaky sealed pumps work anyhow?? See Ya Aussie John ------=_NextPart_000_0064_01C03ABB.B52D15A0-- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 11:02:55 -0700 To: From: "Al Friesen" Subject: Getting their Message-ID: <008101c039f6$e38bc560$5bcb6cce@s8z8i0> ------=_NextPart_000_007E_01C039BC.2262A960 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Netters, Thanks to Oscar the engine I got from Jeff Sterling finally got to speak = to me. I ran it for a minute without prop, took 12 short cranks with = some firings, did it bark. I put the prop on and the bark was reduced. = Ran real nice, no vibration, good prop track even had it to max power. = The hookup for the tack is to the Revmaster book ( to the alt. wires) = but reads off the scale so have to figure that out, the inst. came with = the panel made for the engine. The cowl is built, just have to touch it = up and prime it then finish painting the upper fuse white to complete = the job. Getting so close I to flying makes me a bit nervous. Around = here they all ask me when I am flying this plane and I have to say 1 = month or 2 or three. Made a nice vent with sink drain kit, push the pipe = out about 4" for air or rotate it 180 to exhaust air. Located on each = side 3" forward and about 4" below the panel, easy to get at but not in = the way. Has a disc on outer end to close the hole when pulled in. I ran = it on 92 octane auto fuel but will use avgas for taxi tests and flight.=20 Al Friesen, afriesen@kootenay.com Creston,BC. Canada ------=_NextPart_000_007E_01C039BC.2262A960-- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 11:00:23 -0400 To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: Phil Visconti Subject: EXPLODING FUEL TANKS Message-ID: <39F05E06.D47FBEA8@gis.net> --------------6AA49DCA4BCA5B1BC6C6CE67 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit A few years back, there was an article about internal fuel pumps sparking and causing explosion of tank. I thought the article addressed the Facet pump. Does anyone remember the article ? As an aside...WHY do people write E-mail that takes ten minutes (?) to horizontally scroll, even just one sentence ? --------------6AA49DCA4BCA5B1BC6C6CE67-- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 11:10:15 -0400 To: "'Phil Visconti'" , krnet@mailinglists.org From: "Garland, Norm F" Subject: RE: KR> EXPLODING FUEL TANKS Message-id: <114EB1876E7BD411AC700008C7E65FB6010DEEEF@emss03m11.orl.lmco.com> The article I remember came out of the KR newsletter. Someone had written about using a lowcost electric pump out of a chevette. The problem came in when it was discovered that the pump was designed to be continuousely submerged. If the pump became exposed the brushes would/could arc. Not a good thing in a fuel tank.. Norman F. Garland Jr. Ext 1352 > -----Original Message----- > From: Phil Visconti [SMTP:vicsani@gis.net] > Sent: Friday, October 20, 2000 11:00 AM > To: krnet@mailinglists.org > Subject: KR> EXPLODING FUEL TANKS > > A few years back, there was an article about internal fuel pumps > sparking and causing > explosion of tank. I thought the article addressed the Facet pump. Does > anyone remember the article ? > As an aside...WHY do people write E-mail that takes ten minutes (?) to > horizontally > scroll, even just one sentence ? ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 10:21:25 -0600 To: Phil Visconti From: cartera CC: krnet@mailinglists.org Subject: Re: KR> EXPLODING FUEL TANKS Message-ID: <39F07105.175C7DEE@cuug.ab.ca> Phil Visconti wrote: > > A few years back, there was an article about internal fuel pumps > sparking and causing > explosion of tank. I thought the article addressed the Facet pump. Does > anyone remember the article ? > As an aside...WHY do people write E-mail that takes ten minutes (?) to > horizontally > scroll, even just one sentence ? Hi Phil & KRnetters, That is why they do not set their word wrap at ie: 72 characters or less. See fuel pumps, just another thing to worry about, KISS! -- Adrian VE6AFY Calgary, Alberta Mailto:cartera@cuug.ab.ca http://www.cuug.ab.ca/~cartera ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 14:39:33 -0400 To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: Phil Visconti Subject: EXPLODING FUEL TANKS Message-ID: <39F09164.1F4A9519@gis.net> Exploding fuel tanks safety note appeared in KRNewsletter issue #8 dtd Feb. 1976. The note applied to Vega type fuel pumps. It stated that this type of pump was designed to always be immeresed in fuel. Should it ever pump tank dry, sparking of the brushes could ignite the remaining fumes. Sorry my first E-mail questioned Facet pump. However...... ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 15:57:36 -0500 To: "Phil Visconti" , From: "Ron Eason" Subject: Re: KR> EXPLODING FUEL TANKS Message-ID: <003201c03ad8$64ca4b60$917239ce@dana-coe> The Facet pump is a external pump. KRron -----Original Message----- From: Phil Visconti To: krnet@mailinglists.org Date: Friday, October 20, 2000 9:59 AM Subject: KR> EXPLODING FUEL TANKS >A few years back, there was an article about internal fuel pumps >sparking and causing >explosion of tank. I thought the article addressed the Facet pump. Does >anyone remember the article ? >As an aside...WHY do people write E-mail that takes ten minutes (?) to >horizontally >scroll, even just one sentence ? > ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 16:41:22 -0400 (EDT) To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: Albert Pecoraro Subject: Polyurethane Fillers ... Message-ID: <382561218.972074482264.JavaMail.root@web624-wrb.mail.com> KRNetters, I was reading through the PolyFiber brochure last night (the one that was given free at the KR Gathering composite forum put on by Dana Overall), and I noticed that polyurethane fillers are not recommended over epoxy structures because these fillers shrink over time and could come off, and when they do they come off in chunks, especially in high flex areas. This has me a bit concerned because I had posed the question a while back about the compatibility of polyurethane fillers over epoxy structures. The responses I received indicated that this would/should not pose any problems later on provided that the surface is prepared properly, the filler is mixed thoroughly and is given ample time to dry/set before attempting any sanding. Also, the brochure stressed that filler is for "filling the gaps" in a composite structure and not for "building it up". I assume that 1/16" is the recommended max buildup thickness, but I have heard others say that they have built up to even 1/4" in some cases without any problems. I applied some polyurethane filler to the forward deck last week to practice working with it - before I read the brochure. I have a 4" wide band in the center from front to back, maximum depth 1/16". Q's: If I decide to switch to an epoxy-based filler, should I remove as much of the polyurethane filler as possible and do it over again? Can I switch to an epoxy-based filler and join it with the polyurethane filler? Should I just continue to use the polyurethane filler on the rest of the forward deck since it is not a high flex area of the aircraft? ... Thanks Albert Pecoraro ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 16:05:49 -0500 To: "Albert Pecoraro" , From: "Ron Eason" Subject: Re: KR> Polyurethane Fillers ... Message-ID: <004501c03ad9$88189300$917239ce@dana-coe> I've never heard of polyurethane fillers, polyester base filler yes, is this something new? Bondo is a polyester resin base filler. KRron -----Original Message----- From: Albert Pecoraro To: krnet@mailinglists.org Date: Friday, October 20, 2000 3:41 PM Subject: KR> Polyurethane Fillers ... >KRNetters, > >I was reading through the PolyFiber brochure last night (the one that was >given free at the KR Gathering composite forum put on by Dana Overall), and >I noticed that polyurethane fillers are not recommended over epoxy >structures because these fillers shrink over time and could come off, and >when they do they come off in chunks, especially in high flex areas. > >This has me a bit concerned because I had posed the question a while back >about the compatibility of polyurethane fillers over epoxy structures. The >responses I received indicated that this would/should not pose any problems >later on provided that the surface is prepared properly, the filler is mixed >thoroughly and is given ample time to dry/set before attempting any sanding. > >Also, the brochure stressed that filler is for "filling the gaps" in a >composite structure and not for "building it up". I assume that 1/16" is the >recommended max buildup thickness, but I have heard others say that they >have built up to even 1/4" in some cases without any problems. > >I applied some polyurethane filler to the forward deck last week to practice >working with it - before I read the brochure. I have a 4" wide band in the >center from front to back, maximum depth 1/16". > >Q's: If I decide to switch to an epoxy-based filler, should I remove as much >of the polyurethane filler as possible and do it over again? Can I switch to >an epoxy-based filler and join it with the polyurethane filler? Should I >just continue to use the polyurethane filler on the rest of the forward deck >since it is not a high flex area of the aircraft? ... > >Thanks > >Albert Pecoraro > > > > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >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: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 20:12:06 -0400 To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: Kenneth L Wiltrout Subject: Insurance etc. Message-ID: <20001020.201207.-337203.0.klw1953@juno.com> Since N6399U is complete except for the weight & bal. and the FAA preflight inspection, I was wondering what others paid for Hull insurance. Also,since I haven't really checked into it yet, do most life insurance policy's that were in force prior to the start of building cover the pilot's family in the event of a crash? Thanks-----------Kenny ________________________________________________________________ YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET! Juno now offers FREE Internet Access! Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj. ------------------------------ End of krnet Digest ***********************************