From: To: Subject: krnet Digest 11 Nov 2000 21:48:40 -0000 Issue 122 Date: Saturday, November 11, 2000 1:49 PM krnet Digest 11 Nov 2000 21:48:40 -0000 Issue 122 Topics (messages 2871 through 2897): Re: FAA REFUSAL ? 2871 by: BillStarrs 2872 by: Jerry Mahurin 2874 by: jwells1.impop.bellatlantic.net 2882 by: Ross Youngblood tailwheel endorsement 2873 by: shannon spurgeon 2875 by: Jeff LeTempt 2883 by: Ross Youngblood rudder pedal return spring 2876 by: Bruce Watkins 2886 by: virgnvs.juno.com 2887 by: KR2616TJ.aol.com 2888 by: cartera 2894 by: virgnvs.juno.com 2896 by: larry flesner Longeron Hold Down 2877 by: Peter Johnson Re: small bolts 2878 by: Ross Youngblood Fuel Capacity 2879 by: Ross Youngblood Re: TAILWHEEL FLYING ? 2880 by: Ross Youngblood Re: I need more info....... 2881 by: Ross Youngblood Protection from Viruses and Attachments 2884 by: Michael Taglieri 2893 by: Frank Ross The *real* ballot..Joke 2885 by: KR2616TJ.aol.com KR-2 FOR SALE 2889 by: flyakr2.juno.com Firewall 2890 by: saunders 2891 by: saunders Re: FAA REFUSAL ?] 2892 by: Phil Visconti Web Site Update 2895 by: Mark Jones CG 2897 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, 9 Nov 2000 10:39:22 -0700 To: "Phil Visconti" , From: "BillStarrs" Subject: Re: KR> FAA REFUSAL ? Message-ID: <000f01c04a73$ff9197c0$380b2aa2@starrs> I was told the same thing about two years ago, but after I contacted my congress man and Senators the FAA backed down. I received a phone call from Washington DC, Barbara Catapron 202-267-3345. She said. they were obligated to do the inspection and that if I had any more problems to call her. The inspector had to travel over 100 miles to where I live. He was very polite. The plane passed with no problems. GO for it! Bill Starrs, Prescott, AZ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Phil Visconti" To: Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2000 10:05 AM Subject: KR> FAA REFUSAL ? > After reading the EAA Sport Aviation magazine, I checked with FAA DAR > and I was told that it would cost me $425.00 to have my aircraft > inspected. (Airworthiness certificate) This was done by FAA in the past > but, now you must pay a DAR. > Kind of an indication of the present status of the FAA ? It doesn't seem > like a lot of money unless you're on a fixed income. For some, this may > have been their only way to get back flying without breaking the bank. > Is it the way every FAA office operates or just here in MA ? > > Phil Visconti > Marlboro, MA > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2000 17:47:00 GMT To: bstarrs@cybertrails.com, vicsani@gis.net, krnet@mailinglists.org From: "Jerry Mahurin" Subject: Re: KR> FAA REFUSAL ? Message-ID: All, I believe the fee is set by the DAR. The last time I checked here in SC, they were charging $100. Jerry Mahurin Lugoff, SC >From: "BillStarrs" >To: "Phil Visconti" , >Subject: Re: KR> FAA REFUSAL ? >Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 10:39:22 -0700 > >I was told the same thing about two years ago, but after I contacted my >congress man and Senators the FAA backed down. I received a phone call >from >Washington DC, Barbara Catapron 202-267-3345. She said. they were >obligated >to do the inspection and that if I had any more problems to call her. The >inspector had to travel over 100 miles to where I live. He was very polite. >The plane passed with no problems. GO for it! Bill Starrs, Prescott, AZ > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Phil Visconti" >To: >Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2000 10:05 AM >Subject: KR> FAA REFUSAL ? > > > > After reading the EAA Sport Aviation magazine, I checked with FAA DAR > > and I was told that it would cost me $425.00 to have my aircraft > > inspected. (Airworthiness certificate) This was done by FAA in the past > > but, now you must pay a DAR. > > Kind of an indication of the present status of the FAA ? It doesn't seem > > like a lot of money unless you're on a fixed income. For some, this may > > have been their only way to get back flying without breaking the bank. > > Is it the way every FAA office operates or just here in MA ? > > > > Phil Visconti > > Marlboro, MA > > > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >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: Thu, 09 Nov 2000 15:06:07 -0500 To: krnet From: jwells1@impop.bellatlantic.net Subject: Re: KR> FAA REFUSAL ? Message-ID: <3A0B03AF.ABFE12C3@mailbox.bellatlantic.net> Phi; I had my plane inspected by a DAR last year. The FAA will do the inspection free of charge but you have to wait till it fits their schedule.My choice was to wait 2 months for the FAA appointment or pay the DAR $300. With my plane complete I could'nt wait Jerry Wells Fredericksburg,Pa. Phil Visconti wrote: > After reading the EAA Sport Aviation magazine, I checked with FAA DAR > and I was told that it would cost me $425.00 to have my aircraft > inspected. (Airworthiness certificate) This was done by FAA in the past > but, now you must pay a DAR. > Kind of an indication of the present status of the FAA ? It doesn't seem > like a lot of money unless you're on a fixed income. For some, this may > have been their only way to get back flying without breaking the bank. > Is it the way every FAA office operates or just here in MA ? > > Phil Visconti > Marlboro, MA ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2000 23:06:04 -0700 To: BillStarrs From: Ross Youngblood CC: Phil Visconti , krnet@mailinglists.org Subject: Re: KR> FAA REFUSAL ? Message-ID: <3A0A3ECC.61C39D41@teleport.com> Bill Thanks for this! -- Regards Ross BillStarrs wrote: > I was told the same thing about two years ago, but after I contacted my > congress man and Senators the FAA backed down. I received a phone call from > Washington DC, Barbara Catapron 202-267-3345. She said. they were obligated > to do the inspection and that if I had any more problems to call her. The > inspector had to travel over 100 miles to where I live. He was very polite. > The plane passed with no problems. GO for it! Bill Starrs, Prescott, AZ > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Phil Visconti" > To: > Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2000 10:05 AM > Subject: KR> FAA REFUSAL ? > > > After reading the EAA Sport Aviation magazine, I checked with FAA DAR > > and I was told that it would cost me $425.00 to have my aircraft > > inspected. (Airworthiness certificate) This was done by FAA in the past > > but, now you must pay a DAR. > > Kind of an indication of the present status of the FAA ? It doesn't seem > > like a lot of money unless you're on a fixed income. For some, this may > > have been their only way to get back flying without breaking the bank. > > Is it the way every FAA office operates or just here in MA ? > > > > Phil Visconti > > Marlboro, MA > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To post to the list, email: krnet@mailinglists.org > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: krnet-unsubscribe@mailinglists.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: krnet-help@mailinglists.org ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 12:47:13 -0600 (CST) To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: shanspur@webtv.net (shannon spurgeon) Subject: tailwheel endorsement Message-ID: <25172-3A0AF131-1566@storefull-621.iap.bryant.webtv.net> As a brand new pilot (check ride last Sat.) I'll pull out my still new FAR/AIM. Per FAR 61 (i)(2): The training and endorsement/~/not required if the pilot logged pilot-in-command time in a tailwheel airplane before April 15, 1991. The rest of us have to log time with an instructor and have the sign-off, most likely a notation in the midst of logged time. My Cessna Pilot Center logbook has a special block for this in the back, but few others will. Now that I are a pilot, it's about time to get working on something to fly! RUN FOR YOUR LIFE, I'M STARTING THE ENGINE! Shannon ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 16:59:23 -0600 To: "shannon spurgeon" , From: "Jeff LeTempt" Subject: Re: KR> tailwheel endorsement Message-ID: <003f01c04aa0$b5ddab00$29a7fe3f@default> Shannon, This same topic came up on the Dragonfly list a while back. I assume that you are talking about flying a tail wheel equipped experimental airplane? If so, you need to read a little further down the page to the exceptions. Here is the excerpt that Pat provided from the FARs. Jeff ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The chapter is 61.31. Each chapter will have 2 things for you to look for. One is the applicability, and the other is exceptions. Here's the condensed version: 61.31 TYPE RATING REQUIREMENTS, ADDITIONAL TRAINING, AND AUTHORIZATION REQUIREMENTS (i)Additional training required for operating tailwheel airplanes. (1) Except as provided in paragraph (i)(2) of this section, no person may act as pilot in command of a tailwheel airplane unless that person has received and logged flight training from an authorized instructor in a tailwheel airplane and received an endorsement in the person's logbook from an authorized instructor who found the person proficient in the operation of a tailwheel airplane. The flight training must include at least the following the maneuvers and procedures: (2) The training and endorsement required by paragraph (i)(1) of this section is not required if the person logged pilot-in-command time in a tailwheel airplane before April 15, 1991. (and this is for the money..... gotta read those exceptions) (k) Exceptions. (1) This section does not require a category and class rating for aircraft not type certificated as airplanes, rotorcraft, or lighter-than-air-aircraft, or a class rating for gliders or powered- lifts. (2) The rating limitations of this section do not apply to- (i) An applicant when taking a practical test given by an examiner; (ii) The holder of a student pilot certificate; ******************************** and here it is!! ******************** (iii) The holder of a pilot certificate when operating an aircraft under the authority of an experimental or provisional aircraft type certificate; ********************************************************************** ----- Original Message ----- From: shannon spurgeon To: Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2000 12:47 PM Subject: KR> tailwheel endorsement > As a brand new pilot (check ride last Sat.) I'll pull out my still new > FAR/AIM. Per FAR 61 (i)(2): The training and endorsement/~/not > required if the pilot logged pilot-in-command time in a tailwheel > airplane before April 15, 1991. The rest of us have to log time with an > instructor and have the sign-off, most likely a notation in the midst of > logged time. My Cessna Pilot Center logbook has a special block for > this in the back, but few others will. > Now that I are a pilot, it's about time to get working on something to > fly! RUN FOR YOUR LIFE, I'M STARTING THE ENGINE! > Shannon > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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, 08 Nov 2000 23:07:28 -0700 To: shannon spurgeon From: Ross Youngblood CC: krnet@mailinglists.org Subject: Re: KR> tailwheel endorsement Message-ID: <3A0A3F20.DAA59FCB@teleport.com> Congratulations on your PPL! Thanks for the quote on the regulations... seems if you flew a taildragger to drop your taxes off on 4/15/91 you are set. -- Ross shannon spurgeon wrote: > As a brand new pilot (check ride last Sat.) I'll pull out my still new > FAR/AIM. Per FAR 61 (i)(2): The training and endorsement/~/not > required if the pilot logged pilot-in-command time in a tailwheel > airplane before April 15, 1991. The rest of us have to log time with an > instructor and have the sign-off, most likely a notation in the midst of > logged time. My Cessna Pilot Center logbook has a special block for > this in the back, but few others will. > Now that I are a pilot, it's about time to get working on something to > fly! RUN FOR YOUR LIFE, I'M STARTING THE ENGINE! > Shannon > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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, 09 Nov 2000 22:48:39 -0600 To: "krnet@mailinglists.org" From: Bruce Watkins Subject: rudder pedal return spring Message-ID: <3A0B7E27.91AD8E33@clas.net> Does anyone recall a recent post on a rudder pedal return spring setup. The spring was attached at the base of the pedal. Any info would be appreciated. Thanks, Bruce -- mailto:flyer@clas.net Cape Girardeau, MO -- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 10:00:44 -0500 To: flyer@clas.net From: virgnvs@juno.com Cc: krnet@mailinglists.org Subject: Re: KR> rudder pedal return spring Message-ID: <20001110.100903.-276283.0.virgnvs@juno.com> Rudders attached in a complete loop, no spring needed. Virg On Thu, 09 Nov 2000 22:48:39 -0600 Bruce Watkins writes: > Does anyone recall a recent post on a rudder pedal return spring > setup. > The spring was attached at the base of the pedal. > Any info would be appreciated. > Thanks, > Bruce > -- > mailto:flyer@clas.net > Cape Girardeau, MO > -- > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 13:10:41 EST To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: KR2616TJ@aol.com Subject: Re: KR> rudder pedal return spring Message-ID: <79.bebebf6.273d9421@aol.com> In a message dated 11/10/00 10:10:36 AM Eastern Standard Time, virgnvs@juno.com writes: << Rudders attached in a complete loop, no spring needed. Virg >> Mine aren't in a complete loop so I did use a spring to keep from having to keep applying pressure to the relieved side. I simply used some springs from the hardware store. It doesn't take much of a spring so it shouldn't be much of a deal for you to find something local. Dana Overall 2000 KR Gathering host Richmond, KY mailto:kr2616tj@aol.com http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/hangar/7085/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 12:02:50 -0700 To: KR2616TJ@aol.com From: cartera CC: krnet@mailinglists.org Subject: Re: KR> rudder pedal return spring Message-ID: <3A0C465A.66842B35@cuug.ab.ca> Good Friday Morning Gang, You really don't need it, only personal preference, really does not serve any practical purpose. It is a complete loop or whatever you want to call, how about rudder and peddles, he ;-) KR2616TJ@aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 11/10/00 10:10:36 AM Eastern Standard Time, > virgnvs@juno.com writes: > > << Rudders attached in a complete loop, no spring needed. > Virg >> > > Mine aren't in a complete loop so I did use a spring to keep from having to > keep applying pressure to the relieved side. I simply used some springs from > the hardware store. It doesn't take much of a spring so it shouldn't be much > of a deal for you to find something local. > > 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 -- Adrian VE6AFY Calgary, Alberta Mailto:cartera@cuug.ab.ca http://www.cuug.ab.ca/~cartera ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 22:52:14 -0500 To: KR2616TJ@aol.com From: virgnvs@juno.com Cc: krnet@mailinglists.org Subject: Re: KR> rudder pedal return spring Message-ID: <20001110.230756.-145031.3.virgnvs@juno.com> Do not like the failure mode that could happen with that setup. Loop system is better, Virg On Fri, 10 Nov 2000 13:10:41 EST KR2616TJ@aol.com writes: > In a message dated 11/10/00 10:10:36 AM Eastern Standard Time, > virgnvs@juno.com writes: > > << Rudders attached in a complete loop, no spring needed. > Virg >> > > Mine aren't in a complete loop so I did use a spring to keep from > having to > keep applying pressure to the relieved side. I simply used some > springs from > the hardware store. It doesn't take much of a spring so it > shouldn't be much > of a deal for you to find something local. > > > 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 > ________________________________________________________________ YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET! Juno now offers FREE Internet Access! Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 08:33:25 -0600 To: virgnvs@juno.com,KR2616TJ@aol.com From: larry flesner Cc: krnet@mailinglists.org Subject: Re: KR> rudder pedal return spring Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20001111083325.0083b950@mail.midwest.net> At 10:52 PM 11/10/00 -0500, virgnvs@juno.com wrote: > Do not like the failure mode that could happen with >that setup. Loop system is better, Virg ======================================================================= Virg, I too use the spring system and not the closed loop. Spring system is much simpler. What failure mode do you find unacceptable in the spring system that would not be just as critical in the loop system? I've seen certified aircraft with "no system at all" , spring or loop, and they seem to fly o.k. , not that I'd go that route. Larry Flesner ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 23:02:59 -0800 To: From: "Peter Johnson" Subject: Longeron Hold Down Message-ID: <002501c04ae5$4de826c0$8d09eccf@peter> ------=_NextPart_000_0012_01C04AA1.347EF720 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable So I can now say I no longer have a "KR-2S in a box". Work has = begun!!!! There's nothing I can tell the 'old dogs' on this list, but here's = something that may help someone who is one step behind me, (and that's = not very far!) When using nails to hold the longerons in place on the work bench, you = need to ensure that the longerons are flat and square on the work = surface! I accomplished this with pcs of 3/4" sq., about 4" long, with screw = holes drilled through the middle. I placed one end of the pc on top of = the longeron (at 90 degrees to it), and the other end on top of a short = 3/4" sq pc. I then passed a screw through the 4" long pc and screwed it into the = bench top. This resulted in the longerons being pulled down flat and = square to the bench. I placed these about every 24". Hope this helps someone else. mailto:pjohnson@voyageur.ca ------=_NextPart_000_0012_01C04AA1.347EF720-- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2000 22:50:13 -0700 To: Bob Smith From: Ross Youngblood CC: krnet@mailinglists.org Subject: Re: KR> small bolts Message-ID: <3A0A3B15.79054A7F@teleport.com> Bob, For my canopy hinge, I purchased some MSxxx screws with nylon lock washers... I think it is a 10-32 size (one size smaller than AN3), If you check the tensile strength of these screws I think you will find them plenty strong enough. There are two types, if you are really concerned about strength, use the screws with a 'grip' length similar to AN bolts (i.e. not threaded all the way up), you will find the screws with a 'grip' length have a greater tensile strength than those threaded all the way up. I used these for bolting hinges to my longerons. Another trick, is to epoxy a 5/8" doubler to the longeron with tapered ends, (to reduce stress concentrations) Just put a 30 degree or 45 degree angle on the ends instead of cutting it at 90 deg. Then drill your holes through the doubler viola.. no holes through the longeron. Bob Smith wrote: > I dont see a reference to bolts smaller than AN3 in the Wicks catalog. I was considering using some smaller bolts so I don't have to punch big holes in my longerons. Is it possible to get AN hardware with smaller diameters than this? Does anyone ever use bolts smaller than this? Where would I get smaller AN hardware? > > Bob Smith Albany, NY KR2S ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2000 22:53:41 -0700 To: Dave Bogdan From: Ross Youngblood CC: kae_ar@yahoo.com, holemanj@ucs.orst.edu, krnet@mailinglists.org Subject: Fuel Capacity Message-ID: <3A0A3BE5.AD5C365@teleport.com> I thought I would add to this thread. I was considering using Auto fuel, and while doing S-turn practice in a C-152 a few years back I was listening to a conversation on the radio from someone trying to determine if X FBO had MOGas or 80 octane fuel. That is when I decided that the extra fuel would come in handy if you got to your destination, and discovered you couldn't get MOGAS. (MoGas is Automotive Gas). At any rate, that was the plan... I ended up with WAY more fuel capacity then I will ever use. 11Gal per wing, and 5 gal in the header. I was looking for about 6 gal per wing and 5 header. You really DONT need to go use the extra bay as mentioned in the plans, thats what got me to 11Gal/wing. -- Ross Dave Bogdan wrote: > If you're flying just VFR you should bear in mind that the weather can > change alot in a couple of hours... I plan to have the extra fuel capacity > in anticipation of unexpected changes in plan. I'll stop every couple of > hours for refreshments and weather updates. > > Dave Bogdan > Milwaukee > > >From: Frank Ross > >To: Screwy Squirrel , krnet@mailinglists.org > >Subject: Re: KR> just thinking outloud&online > >Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 19:13:33 -0700 (PDT) > > > >John Holeman asked:... > >not use/use a small header tank in favor of... > >could you extend the wing > > > spars a bit so that you > > > could build bigger wing tanks? > > > |John E. Holeman | > > > OSU Computer Science| > > > |754-3450 | > > > OSU Atmospheric Science| > >John, > >If you are worried about the safety of a > >cowl-fuel-tank, why carry more than 6-8 hours of fuel > >in your wings? Flying safety dictates that you land > >every 4-6 hrs just to keep your reflexes and thinking > >straight. I love flying, but I don't think I want to > >spend over about 4 hours at a stretch in a KR cockpit. > >Why carry 6-8 hrs of fuel? Keep it light, Keep it > >uncomplicated (a long word for simple). > > > > > >===== > >Frank Ross, San Antonio, TX, > > > >__________________________________________________ > >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 > > > > _________________________________________________________________________ > 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, 08 Nov 2000 22:59:44 -0700 To: Phil Visconti From: Ross Youngblood CC: krnet@mailinglists.org Subject: Re: KR> TAILWHEEL FLYING ? Message-ID: <3A0A3D50.7225F0B3@teleport.com> Phil, I believe they had a grandfather clause when they changed the regulations on tailwheel endorsements. If you had your PPL and had flown in tailwheel aircraft prior to the new regulation, you don't need the endorsement. I know that in '88 when I started my project, there was no such regulation but by '98 there was.. BTW I bought my KR tailwheel assy from Wicks... -- Regards Ross Phil Visconti wrote: > I asked the question about tailwheels because I was curious about how > many were staying with original Rand design/parts. There seemed to be > some trepidation amongst some builders concerning tailwheels. > Also....while on the subject. What is a "tailwheel endorsement" ? Is > this a required (FAA) or suggested route ? I haven't flown a taildragger > (J-3) since early 1960s since switching to tri-gears. > > Phil ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2000 23:03:36 -0700 To: Wade Russell From: Ross Youngblood CC: krnet@mailinglists.org Subject: Re: KR> I need more info....... Message-ID: <3A0A3E38.848A4518@teleport.com> Wade, If I had it to do over again... well I'd build an RV Velocity SUV, or a biplane. But thats because I've already done the KR. The Europe looks good to me too. My decision to build a KR was based on Engine cost primarily. I had visions of completing an RV kit in three years, and trying to get the bank to loan me 13K for a Lycoming engine... at the time, they wouldn't have touched me, but now, I think I could talk them into financing the entire airplane. Funny how things change in ten years.. -- Ross Wade Russell wrote: > I'm juggling the decision of going with a Vision > Aircraft that is completely made from Fiberglass as > opposed to wood and fiberglass as the KR. The only > reason being that the design is a newer, more sleek, > and have a more modern look. I ask Steve at Vision > today how this aircraft "stacks-up" to the KR-2S. > This is what he said: > > Question: What is the performance from the airplane? > What is the max altitude it can travel? What about max > speed and flight distance on a tank of gas? I'm > comparing this to a KR-2S. > > Thanks for your question. There is not much > comparison to a KR-2 given the size disparity but I > find the 100 hp version with the SP wing cruised at > 155 > mph while the KR-2 cruise is around 140 which is very > respectable with a Volkswagen engine. With the > Lycoming in Sean Ponsonby's aircraft he cruised at 204 > true at 8,000 feet. Neither of us has been over > 10,000' as there is not much need to in Florida or > opportunity with the airspace here but the climb rate > was still solid. With standard tanks you are looking > at around a > 450 mile range and there is the option of putting in > an additional 20 gal in a header tank as well as 18 > more in the outer wing sections but that is more than > my bladder can handle. The KR-2 is quite economical to > run and is good for people that it fits. I have a fair > amount of time in them but at 5'7" I feel I am a > little too large for it as a two place plane. There > are a lot of good deals on partial KR-2 projects and > that is probably the cheapest single way to get in the > air that can be had. Jeanette has done a good job of > keeping Ken Rand's plane alive and kicking and if the > plane fits your life it is a good one. They are just a > completely different category. You also need to decide > whether you want to build a wood plane or a composite > plane. I > built antique aircraft for many years and find wood > very gratifying. You will be building mostly in wood > and switching to fiberglass at the end of the project > with a KR while the Vision is all composite. There is > no "better" or "worse" as these are just vastly > different aircraft. > > I hope that didn't simply add more confusion but > there is a lot more to be considered than top speed. > Take a look at the wing loading differences alone > and realize the type of ride that entails. Look at the > construction manuals and see how well it will be > explained to you. Ask the builder, ask the builders, > ask the builders. > > Whatever you do, I wish you the best and building > and flying your own plane is a dream that will set you > apart from the rest. > > Steve > > http://VisionAircraft.com > Vision > Some will have it > Some will not > It's that simple > > So I ask you folks...The builders of the KR's. Would > you build a Vision or a KR? Has anyone looked into the > Vision? Any feedback would be a help in my decision. > > Wade Russell In San Antonio, TX. Ya'll! > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products. All in one Place. > http://shopping.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: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 02:05:07 -0500 To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: Michael Taglieri Subject: Protection from Viruses and Attachments Message-ID: <20001110.025812.9382.9.MikeT_NYC@juno.com> BritIron, the biggest mailing list for British motorcycle fans (like me), just made a change to its system so attached files are automatically stripped away from people's posts, thereby preventing people from cluttering the list and also preventing viruses from getting through. I'm semiliterate in computers and have no idea how that was accomplished, but if the people running this list want to do the same thing, the guy who runs Brit-Iron is Chuck Stringer, stringer@pobox.com, and he might be able to advise you. 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: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 14:44:43 -0800 (PST) To: Michael Taglieri , krnet@mailinglists.org From: Frank Ross Subject: Re: KR> Protection from Viruses and Attachments Message-ID: <20001110224443.17634.qmail@web4703.mail.yahoo.com> --- Michael Taglieri wrote: > BritIron, the biggest mailing list for British > motorcycle fans (like me),... > but if the people running this list want to do the > same thing, the guy > who runs Brit-Iron is Chuck Stringer, > stringer@pobox.com, > Mike Taglieri - miket_nyc@juno.com Michael, I have just had my e-mails to the BritIron and Chuck Stringer's e-mail address returned as undeliverable. What's up? I put this on the KRNet because that is where I saw it first and thought others might also run into the same problems. ===== Frank Ross, San Antonio, TX, __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products. All in one Place. http://shopping.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 09:33:56 EST To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: KR2616TJ@aol.com Subject: The *real* ballot..Joke Message-ID: --part1_ca.c9c4e2d.273d6154_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Here's why they're so mad. Hey, it is Fun Friday.........it's a joke:-) http://madaket.netwizards.net/Floridaballot.jpg Dana Overall 2000 KR Gathering host Richmond, KY mailto:kr2616tj@aol.com http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/hangar/7085/ --part1_ca.c9c4e2d.273d6154_boundary Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Return-Path: Received: from rly-xa04.mx.aol.com (rly-xa04.mail.aol.com [172.20.105.73]) by air-xa04.mail.aol.com (v76_r1.19) with ESMTP; Thu, 09 Nov 2000 17:53:52 -0500 Received: from madaket.netwizards.net (madaket.netwizards.net [208.164.216.19]) by rly-xa04.mx.aol.com (v76_r1.19) with ESMTP; Thu, 09 Nov 2000 17:53:46 -0500 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by madaket.netwizards.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA26317 for beech-owners-outgoing; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 14:53:19 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: madaket.netwizards.net: majordomo set sender to owner-beech-owners@madaket.netwizards.net using -f Received: (from hgp@localhost) by madaket.netwizards.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA26302; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 14:53:07 -0800 Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 14:53:07 -0800 From: hgp@madaket.netwizards.net Message-Id: <200011092253.OAA26302@madaket.netwizards.net> To: beech-owners@madaket.netwizards.net, breakfast@kjsl.com, wpage@pcisys.com Subject: [off topic] The *real* ballot.. Sender: owner-beech-owners@madaket.netwizards.net Precedence: bulk Reply-To: beech-owners@madaket.netwizards.net X-Mailer: Unknown Here's why they're so mad. http://madaket.netwizards.net/Floridaballot.jpg I hope this post doesn't violate our ban on politics. Regards, Howard --part1_ca.c9c4e2d.273d6154_boundary-- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 11:18:33 -0800 To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: flyakr2@juno.com Subject: KR-2 FOR SALE Message-ID: <20001110.111838.-123927.0.flyakr2@juno.com> KR-netters and prospective buyers: I have decided to sell my project, because of a change of life's circumstances. I am moving and am not sure if I will have a place to store it for starters, but the main reason is because the sale of my home will put me in a financial position for an upgrade to a 2-4 seat certified aircraft. I have attached a picture of my project with this e-mail. DETAILS: KR-2, 70%, fixed conventional gear, 1835 VW with Ellison fuel injection, new Great Plains five point mount and dual port intakes with crossover tube for Ellison, premolded cowling, Diehl accessory case with electric start, alternator, Slick magneto, four into one tuned exhaust system, dual flight controls, Cessna type rudder pedals with hydraulic brakes, panel, instruments and electrical installed, engine cooling baffles, propeller, plans, drawings, engine log book, over 90% of exterior finish work complete. Major areas of construction left: Install cooling baffles, cowling and propeller, construct and install seats, construct ONLY ONE SIDE of elevator (previous owner damaged in transport), finish sanding, shaping, glassing and installing rudder. Minor areas of construction left: A few odds and ends. Price: $4,750.00 FIRM!!! I will e-mail a picture to all interested parties. All inquiries please respond to: flyakr2@juno.com Thank you. ________________________________________________________________ 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: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 15:02:22 -0500 To: "KR-net users group" From: "saunders" Subject: Firewall Message-ID: <001201c04b51$241eb400$def08fa8@oemcomputer> As this is not directly related to aviation, I've waited to Friday to post this. You can download a free firewall program from this site. It is a real eye-opener to see how often and from where entities can gain access to your machines. The TCP/IP address given by the program can be typed into the URL line in your browser to take you to whoever tries to get into your PC. A free and low-cost versions are available. This has blocked access from Greece, the UK, and yes even M/S.com. zonelabs ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 15:05:04 -0500 To: "KR-net users group" From: "saunders" Subject: Firewall Message-ID: <001a01c04b51$84dbb7c0$def08fa8@oemcomputer> Sorry, I screwed up the URL. http://www.zonelabs.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 15:08:08 -0500 To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: Phil Visconti Subject: [Fwd: FAA REFUSAL ?] Message-ID: <3A0C55A8.612C3CAC@gis.net> --------------7D3CC258323F74F6E091750D Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------1ECD4DF49E02434A7C99E435" --------------1ECD4DF49E02434A7C99E435 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Interesting info for many with less funds and/or medical questions. --------------1ECD4DF49E02434A7C99E435 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Interesting info for many with less funds and/or medical questions. --------------1ECD4DF49E02434A7C99E435-- --------------7D3CC258323F74F6E091750D Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Return-Path: rhansen@eaa.org Received: from mx05.gis.net (mx05.gis.net [208.218.130.13]) by home.gis.net (8.8.8/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA02598 for ; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 13:32:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from exchange.eaa.org ([209.83.100.102]) by mx05.gis.net (8.9.3+Sun/8.8.8+pyrd) with ESMTP id NAA01886 for ; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 13:32:30 -0500 (EST) Received: by EXCHANGE_HQ with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 12:32:08 -0600 Message-ID: <9CF55E217D0AD311A55B0008C79FD37501524C39@EXCHANGE_HQ> From: Randy Hansen To: "'Phil Visconti'" Cc: Earl Lawrence Subject: RE: FAA REFUSAL ? Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 12:32:07 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C04A7B.5D9E1D50" X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C04A7B.5D9E1D50 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Phil, EAA understands your concerns and have been working very hard to ensure the change of inspectors from FAA employees to DAR's will not have too great of an impact on amateur aircraft builders. On the FAA side, they are severely understaffed and their congressionally mandated focus is now on commercial activities. Because of this, DAR's are about the only way to get an amateur-built aircraft inspected these days. In December, EAA is hosting a meeting with FAA Headquarters personnel to discuss and attempt to mediate the impact this shift in FAA focus will have on the citizens the FAA is suppose to serve. We know that doesn't address the primary issue that the FAA should provide services equally to all citizens, but even with the new FAA budget, that won't happen - they are slowly getting out of the individual public service mode. On the plus side, EAA has been working with the FAA to create a new pilot and aircraft category called Sport Pilot. It will allow individuals to fly aircraft with a maximum gross weight of 1,232 pounds that have a maximum stall speed of 39 knots - with only a valid/current state driver's license (no FAA medical). EAA expects the FAA to publish the proposed new rules for the Sport Pilot this January. If approved, EAA expects final approval +/- July 2001. It would be a great and very inexpensive way to get back into the "flight saddle" again. We'll keep you informed as the Sport Pilot rules progress through the approval process. Randy Hansen EAA Government & Industry Relations Specialist rhansen@eaa.org 920-426-6522 920-426-6560 (fax) -----Original Message----- From: Phil Visconti [mailto:vicsani@gis.net] Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2000 11:36 AM To: alexms3@juno.com; govt@eaa.org Subject: FAA REFUSAL ? Alex, After reading the article by Earl Lawrence in the current Sport Aviation magazine, I contacted the FAA. I was told they don't inspect homebuilts anymore and I must contact a DAR. I contacted a DAR and I was told it would cost $425.00 to have the aircraft inspected (Airworthiness certificate) I guess this isn't much for some people, but on a fixed income it could be devastating. Especially if a homebuilt is the only way to get back to flying. Rental is too high a cost. Shouldn't the FAA take up the cost of the DAR ? After all, shouldn't this be their responsibility ? Phil Visconti (EAA #0414934) Marlboro, MA ------_=_NextPart_001_01C04A7B.5D9E1D50 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Phil,
 
EAA understands your concerns and have been working very hard to ensure the change of inspectors from FAA employees to DAR's will not have too great of an impact on amateur aircraft builders.  On the FAA side, they are severely understaffed and their congressionally mandated focus is now on commercial activities.  Because of this, DAR's are about the only way to get an amateur-built aircraft inspected these days.
 
In December, EAA is hosting a meeting with FAA Headquarters personnel to discuss and attempt to mediate the impact this shift in FAA focus will have on the citizens the FAA is suppose to serve.
 
We know that doesn't address the primary issue that the FAA should provide services equally to all citizens, but even with the new FAA budget, that won't happen - they are slowly getting out of the individual public service mode.
 
On the plus side, EAA has been working with the FAA to create a new pilot and aircraft category called Sport Pilot.  It will allow individuals to fly aircraft with a maximum gross weight of 1,232 pounds that have a maximum stall speed of 39 knots - with only a valid/current state driver's license (no FAA medical).  EAA expects the FAA to publish the proposed new rules for the Sport Pilot this January.  If approved, EAA expects final approval +/- July 2001. It would be a great and very inexpensive way to get back into the "flight saddle" again.  We'll keep you informed as the Sport Pilot rules progress through the approval process.

Randy Hansen
EAA Government & Industry Relations Specialist
rhansen@eaa.org
920-426-6522
920-426-6560 (fax)

-----Original Message-----
From: Phil Visconti [mailto:vicsani@gis.net]
Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2000 11:36 AM
To: alexms3@juno.com; govt@eaa.org
Subject: FAA REFUSAL ?

Alex,

After reading the article by Earl Lawrence in the current Sport Aviation magazine, I contacted the FAA. I was told they don't inspect homebuilts anymore and I must contact a DAR. I contacted a DAR and I was told it would cost $425.00 to have the aircraft inspected (Airworthiness certificate) I guess this isn't much for some people, but on a fixed income it could be devastating. Especially if a homebuilt is the only way to get back to flying. Rental is too high a cost. Shouldn't the FAA take up the cost of the DAR ? After all, shouldn't this be their responsibility ?

Phil Visconti (EAA #0414934)
Marlboro, MA

------_=_NextPart_001_01C04A7B.5D9E1D50-- --------------7D3CC258323F74F6E091750D-- ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 00:10:46 -0600 To: CorvAIRCRAFT , KR-Net From: Mark Jones Subject: Web Site Update Message-ID: <3A0CE2E6.A73B9DE5@execpc.com> Hello All, I have added some new photos. A beautiful shot of my Corvair engine and also a KR-2 silhouetted by a Concorde. Check it out at: http://sites.netscape.net/flykr2s/homepage -- 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: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 16:48:55 -0500 To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: Kenneth L Wiltrout Subject: CG Message-ID: <20001111.164855.-329027.0.klw1953@juno.com> Tomorrow the S goes on the scales, I was just wondering if the CG on the KR2S is the same as the KR2? All I have are the Measurements for the KR2, 8"--16" aft of the inboard leading edge. Those numbers came out of the construction manual. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks-----------------Kenny (N6399U) ________________________________________________________________ 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 ***********************************