From: To: Subject: krnet Digest 6 Jan 2001 04:21:37 -0000 Issue 149 Date: Friday, January 05, 2001 8:21 PM krnet Digest 6 Jan 2001 04:21:37 -0000 Issue 149 Topics (messages 3497 through 3526): Re: tri gear 3497 by: Michael Sharp wing attach fittings 3498 by: Oscar Zuniga 3506 by: Ross Youngblood 3507 by: Robert Re: NACA inlets 3499 by: David R. Christensen Re: KR/IFR 3500 by: jshays 3502 by: Steven Eberhart 3503 by: KR2616TJ.aol.com 3504 by: jshays 3508 by: KR2616TJ.aol.com KR Profiles 3501 by: Tuberflora Kwekery/Nursery Subaru EA81 Spares 3505 by: JC Marais Holes 3509 by: shannon spurgeon 3518 by: Ross Youngblood 3519 by: Brian Vasseur Re: IFR, long. 3510 by: Ross Youngblood IFR in the KR 3511 by: Dave and Tina Goodman The IFR decision 3512 by: EagleGator.aol.com 3513 by: KR2616TJ.aol.com Re: egt's 3514 by: AviationMech.aol.com 3525 by: Tom Crawford Scud running 3515 by: Dave and Tina Goodman 3521 by: William J. Starrs Dragonfly canopy 3516 by: Carter Pond 3517 by: Mark Jones Re: Scud running more soap 3520 by: Ross Youngblood KR's at Riverside 3522 by: Jeff Tome 3523 by: Brian J Bland Transponders/alt. encoders 3524 by: Stefan B. Last of the KR/IFR 3526 by: John Roffey Administrivia: To subscribe to the digest, e-mail: To unsubscribe from the digest, e-mail: To post to the list, e-mail: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 07:22:19 -0600 To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: "Michael Sharp" Subject: Re: KR> Fwd: tri gear Message-ID: DITTO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! >From: "Mark Langford" >Reply-To: "Mark Langford" >To: >Subject: Re: KR> Fwd: tri gear >Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 22:18:47 -0600 > >Somebody wrote: > > >no way corvair or o200 is going to be operated out of grass strip > >JUST WATCH ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > >Mark Langford, Huntsville, Alabama >mailto:langford@hiwaay.net >see KR2S project N56ML at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford > > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >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 FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 13:58:55 To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: "Oscar Zuniga" Subject: wing attach fittings Message-ID: Howdy, netters; Well, nobody else mentioned this, but I ain't afraid: If you're thinking of making your own WAFs for the KR, take a few minutes to at least educate yourself to what you're doing so you will do it right. These parts are important! Look at the tech info used by others to develop theirs (thanks to those who offered their tips)... but the best info I've found is at http://www.execpc.com/~drdean/waf.htm and you should read it because it isn't just information on how to fabricate these parts; it's design information about what-why-how. For a good commercial source of WAFs (besides Rand Robinson), go to http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford/tet/ Oscar Zuniga Medford, Oregon mailto: taildrags@hotmail.com website at http://www.geocities.com/taildrags/ _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 12:32:45 -0700 To: Robert From: Ross Youngblood CC: krnet@mailinglists.org Subject: Re: KR> Wing attach fittings Message-ID: <3A54CFDD.B442A1A3@teleport.com> Robert, One newsletter had a jig someone built to drill several at a time. I tried this and had problems. I will say that I spent at least $300 in time and effort building my fittings, and I have several in the garbage can to prove it. Drilling the lightening holes to the proper size was the most difficult, I had a co-worker with the proper bits, and even then it was TOUGH to drill that 4130 stuff.... If I had it to do over.... I'd save the $$ and buy them. However, doing it yourself is part of the fun... discovering what is best to purchase on your next kit project. -- Ross Robert wrote: > KRNetters, > > OK, since there are no stupid questions and this is really bothering me. > Why can't the wing attach fittings be made with a drill press two at a time > to make sure they are matched pairs? I mean to say, I could buy a pretty > good drill press and the 4130 steel for the $395.00 that RR is asking for > them. Even if the drill bit has to be cooled, I could put it out in the > yard and run the hose on it while drilling. There just must be somthing > that I don't understand why these are not home made to save more then > $300.00. I make less then $300 in one week so I could spend a week making > these and still be ahead. Please help me understand why these can't be home > made? Do they have to be so exact that even a fraction of an inch will ruin > them? > > Dumbfounded and still in Michigan, > > Robert > > By the way, are there any builders or KR's in Tucson on the newsgroup? I > will soon be moving there. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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, 4 Jan 2001 11:24:55 -0500 To: From: "Robert" Subject: Re: KR> wing attach fittings Message-ID: <000001c07684$8a465680$d484a6d0@robert> Oscar and KRNetters, I had already read Dr. Dean's article but, went back and reread it several times to make sure I understood it. The distances between the holes of the KR wing attach fitting are all well over the minimum required distances, over a half inch in one case. I guess I'm saying that there is plenty of room for a small error. The place that is very close to the minimums where a small error would be bad is the placement of the fitting on the spar itself. So, the place where an large error can't occur could happen with bought or homemade fittings. One of these fittings will break at an 11g turn at 800 pounds gross. Even if it takes two fittings to withstand the 7g safety factor, I hope that I never ever have to know what 7g's feels like. I guess I brought this up because I'm going to end up fabricating almost all the other fittings and parts, aluminum, steel, wood or fiberglass on the aircraft so, why not the wing attach fittings? I'm not sure how many of you are so poor that your buying potatoes, beans, rice and oatmeal not because you like them but because there cheap. I've been asked or told I should say that if I'm that poor why would I want to spend my money on flying. My answer is, why do you want to fly? I would rather eat oatmeal and then have the money to buy some aluminum then eat steak. The KR is the poor man's, or average man's at least, answer to flying a sport plane. At least that's what it was intended to be. Robert ----- Original Message ----- From: "Oscar Zuniga" To: Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 1:58 PM Subject: KR> wing attach fittings > Howdy, netters; > > Well, nobody else mentioned this, but I ain't afraid: > > If you're thinking of making your own WAFs for the KR, take a few minutes to > at least educate yourself to what you're doing so you will do it right. > These parts are important! Look at the tech info used by others to develop > theirs (thanks to those who offered their tips)... but the best info I've > found is at http://www.execpc.com/~drdean/waf.htm and you should read it > because it isn't just information on how to fabricate these parts; it's > design information about what-why-how. For a good commercial source of WAFs > (besides Rand Robinson), go to http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford/tet/ > > Oscar Zuniga > Medford, Oregon > mailto: taildrags@hotmail.com > website at http://www.geocities.com/taildrags/ > > _________________________________________________________________ > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.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, 4 Jan 2001 07:33:26 -0800 To: "krnet mailing lists" From: "David R. Christensen" Subject: Fw: NACA inlets Message-ID: <000401c07663$c2710300$0d785ad1@davec> Ralph - The Sport Aviation article on NACA inlets is in the December, 1981, issue on pages 38 thru 41. If you don't go back that far I could send you a copy of the article or you could possibly get one from the EAA. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Ralph H Snyder To: davec@favorites.com Date: Thursday, January 04, 2001 12:55 AM Subject: NACA inlets >David >Do you remember in which Sport Aviation magazine you found the article on >NACA inlets? I have been looking through mine and have not been able to >find it. >Thanks >Ralph Snyder ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Jan 01 09:12:21 -0600 To: John Roffey , krnet From: jshays Subject: RE: KR> KR/IFR If you're current, a decent instrument pilot, comfortable with the plane, and it is equipped for it there's no reason to not fly IFR. I always fly IFR on trips, and it is much safer, not to mention keeps you flying on a lot of marginal days. Punching through an overcast into clear blue sky above is way safer than 3 mi. vis at 1500' vfr any day. That being the case I will fly my KR IFR when it's done - If I'm current, if I'm comfortable with it, and if the equipment is up to snuff. Ok, that's my two cents. Jeff Hays. Kitfox IO-240B N85AE just being completed, KR-2S in the works. http://homepage.interaccess.com/~jshays >===== Original Message From John Roffey ===== > >I will not attempt IFR in my KR when its done but I will probably be a >real good scud runner. > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 09:53:26 -0600 (CST) To: jshays From: Steven Eberhart cc: John Roffey , krnet Subject: RE: KR> KR/IFR Message-ID: This discussion has been going on, in various forms, for years on KRNet. I quit fanning the fires long ago but like several of the old timers I will jump in on this one. I am a 110 hour PPSEL pilot with all of my time in Cesna 152 and 172s with the exception of 20 minutes flying right seat in Marty Roberts KR-2 and 20 minutes in a V tailed Bonanza. I am two hours into my instrument training. Of the 172 time about six hours were in "3 mi. vis at 1500'". Like you say, It sure would have been nice to be able to climb through the scud to get on top. On Thu, 4 Jan 2001, jshays wrote: > If you're current, a decent instrument pilot, comfortable with the plane, > and it is equipped for it there's no reason to not fly IFR. I always fly > IFR on trips, and it is much safer, not to mention keeps you flying on a > lot of marginal days. Punching through an overcast into clear blue sky > above is way safer than 3 mi. vis at 1500' vfr any day. I completely agree. THe only problem that I have with the above is "If you are ... comfortable with the plane." Before you commit to the full panel on your KR please beg a ride in a KR-2 or KR-2S, depending on which version you are building. Take the foggles along and with an alert and capable, read current in recovery from unusual attitudes, safety pilot fly a simulated partial panel cross country leg. No cheating here, include all of the navigation, chart work, etc. that is envolved with flying IFR. If after this exercise you are still intent on using the KR-2 for an instrument platform then have at it. You will at least know what your work load is going to be like. I am fully confident that if I were to attempt an in the clouds cross country in a KR-2 that I would have to recover from several excursions into unusual attitudes. THe KR-2S may be a little better suited - I will deffer to the KR-2S pilots on that one. Just try it before you build it. Steve Eberhart Braendli BX-2 Cherry under construction (the Cherry is what the KR would have been if Ken had lived) One test is worth a thousand expert opinions but a thousand opinions are easier to get. --plagiarized from an unknown author ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 10:58:18 EST To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: KR2616TJ@aol.com Subject: Re: KR> KR/IFR Message-ID: <55.f60d4b3.2785f79a@aol.com> Jeff Hays writes That being the case I will fly my KR IFR when it's done - If I'm current, if I'm comfortable with it, and if the equipment is up to snuff. I knew my post would get the ol IFR KR thing started, but the intent of my post was to give the VFR pilot a multi year training guide to practice with. If you follow a plan such as the one I posted, you probably will have difficulty accomplishing the tasks the first time, but isn't it much better to learn in safety than trust your life to luck in actual. I too, will file IFR regularly in the Bonanza, and will not let simply IMC keep me from flying....heck, that's why I have the ticket and stay current, but would not consider IFR in my KR. I could not imagine writing down a new clearance or victor airway reroute in IMC in a KR. Ask a KR driver how hard it is to fold a map in a KR. You better have altitude and not be too worried about how far off course you get. I'll grant you, a cold winter night with a full moon, skimming 5 feet about a smooth cloud layer with clear skies and stars above you is about as good as it gets, but let's keep it is perspective. I could not imagine being able to put enough equipment on board the KR. i.e. electrical and vacuum, with enough redundancy to feel comfortable. Jeff, I'm not raging on you...................just random thoughts. Dana Overall Richmond, KY mailto:kr2616tj@aol.com http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/hangar/7085/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Jan 01 10:09:13 -0600 To: Steven Eberhart From: jshays Cc: John Roffey , krnet Subject: RE: KR> KR/IFR Steven - I participate in a couple of lists, I have seen this argument in this as well as the RV, and Kitfox lists. I'll simply say if you aren't current, aren't rated for it, etc. you shouldn't even fly an 172 in marginal weather. If you are current, rated for it and you're proficient in the plane then why not fly a KR IFR..? I have been instrument rated for about 6 years, I fly IFR all the time on trips. I fly in the weather, and use the rating. I am also very carefull about what type of weather I fly in. The instrument rating is a lot of work, both to get and to maintain. Unfortunately most pilots don't do either. I have lifted off into a 4-500 foot overcast numerous times and been on top 500 ft' later. This type of weather is perfectly safe if you're current and equipped for it. There is no reason to not fly a KR which you're current in in this weather. If however the KR you happen to be flying, is a vicious twitchy beast, and you're not comfortable in it to begin with... You'd be an idiot to fly it IFR. I think it is all a matter of judgement, and ability. I think if you fly a KR exclusively, and a lot, it probably is not a handfull to fly. If you get out of a 172 and into a KR.. It probably is. Regards, Jeff. >===== Original Message From Steven Eberhart ===== >This discussion has been going on, in various forms, for years on KRNet. >I quit fanning the fires long ago but like several of the old timers I >will jump in on this one. > >I am a 110 hour PPSEL pilot with all of my time in Cesna 152 and 172s with >the exception of 20 minutes flying right seat in Marty Roberts KR-2 and 20 >minutes in a V tailed Bonanza. I am two hours into my instrument >training. Of the 172 time about six hours were in "3 mi. vis at 1500'". >Like you say, It sure would have been nice to be able to climb through the >scud to get on top. > >On Thu, 4 Jan 2001, jshays wrote: > >> If you're current, a decent instrument pilot, comfortable with the plane, >> and it is equipped for it there's no reason to not fly IFR. I always fly >> IFR on trips, and it is much safer, not to mention keeps you flying on a >> lot of marginal days. Punching through an overcast into clear blue sky >> above is way safer than 3 mi. vis at 1500' vfr any day. > >I completely agree. THe only problem that I have with the above is >"If you are ... comfortable with the plane." Before you commit to the >full panel on your KR please beg a ride in a KR-2 or KR-2S, depending on >which version you are building. Take the foggles along and with an alert >and capable, read current in recovery from unusual attitudes, safety pilot >fly a simulated partial panel cross country leg. No cheating here, >include all of the navigation, chart work, etc. that is envolved with >flying IFR. If after this exercise you are still intent on using the KR-2 >for an instrument platform then have at it. You will at least know what >your work load is going to be like. > >I am fully confident that if I were to attempt an in the clouds cross >country in a KR-2 that I would have to recover from several excursions >into unusual attitudes. THe KR-2S may be a little better suited - I will >deffer to the KR-2S pilots on that one. > >Just try it before you build it. > >Steve Eberhart >Braendli BX-2 Cherry under construction >(the Cherry is what the KR would have been if Ken had lived) > >One test is worth a thousand expert opinions but a thousand opinions are >easier to get. --plagiarized from an unknown author > >. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 14:31:56 EST To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: KR2616TJ@aol.com Subject: Re: KR> KR/IFR Message-ID: <74.68f16c6.278629ac@aol.com> In a message dated 1/4/01 10:53:51 AM Eastern Standard Time, newtech@newtech.com writes: << Of the 172 time about six hours were in "3 mi. vis at 1500'". Like you say, It sure would have been nice to be able to climb through the scud to get on top. >> Steve, I bet most of that time was on your return flight from Lake Barkley:-) Pucker factor??? Dana Overall 2000 KR Gathering host Richmond, KY mailto:kr2616tj@aol.com http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/hangar/7085/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 17:08:02 +0200 To: From: "Tuberflora Kwekery/Nursery" Subject: KR Profiles Message-ID: <007c01c07660$434e0b20$35bd16c4@adele> ------=_NextPart_000_0078_01C07670.E6086B20 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Can one of the numerous people that responded to my question on KR = profiles please forward some images to Carter Pond. I really received = some great stuff from you guys out there. I would like to help Carter = myself, but I formatted my computer last night. I printed out a set for = myself, but did not keep the relevant e-mails. Johan de Jong tuber@netactive.co.za Johannesburg South Africa=20 ------=_NextPart_000_0078_01C07670.E6086B20-- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 19:49:03 +0200 To: From: "JC Marais" Subject: Subaru EA81 Spares Message-ID: <003701c07676$a1b9c9e0$66b6ef9b@jc> Hi guys, I need some spares to get my engine running, else my KR2 (ZS-VHR) is going to stay a heap of yellow painted wood taking uo space in a garage. I need a set of injectors for a Subaru EA81 Turbo engine. The injectors on my engine stopped working, apparently as a result of not being used for a long time. Shipping will be to South Africa. Thanks. JC ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 13:33:51 -0600 (CST) To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: shanspur@webtv.net (shannon spurgeon) Subject: Holes Message-ID: <20179-3A54D01F-1816@storefull-626.iap.bryant.webtv.net> While we have lots of good advice on how to drill precision holes, no one has addressed why. If you mike a common drill bit, you'll find it is a couple thou under specified size. If you have an inside mike, and check the hole made by this bit, it will be as much as 5 thou oversize. This is why you drill one step small and ream to final. Another caution for the dill press: Run it at slow speed, or click on and off to check for wobble in the bit. If it's not running true, the hole will be bigger and may be out of round. A small wobble can sometimes be fixed by re-positioning the bit in the chuck. With care, anyone can make precision parts. Most of us pay the extra bucks for someone else to do it out of laziness rather than lack of ability. Happy drilling, Shannon ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 21:06:05 -0700 To: shannon spurgeon From: Ross Youngblood CC: krnet@mailinglists.org Subject: Re: KR> Holes Message-ID: <3A55482D.59E73D69@teleport.com> Shannon, Actually, I was told by an x-navy man who knew this stuff, that the issue is that a drill bit doesn't actually drill a round hole, but an oval one, so you drill undersize and ream to get a round hole. -- Ross shannon spurgeon wrote: > While we have lots of good advice on how to drill precision holes, no > one has addressed why. If you mike a common drill bit, you'll find it > is a couple thou under specified size. If you have an inside mike, and > check the hole made by this bit, it will be as much as 5 thou oversize. > This is why you drill one step small and ream to final. Another caution > for the dill press: Run it at slow speed, or click on and off to check > for wobble in the bit. If it's not running true, the hole will be > bigger and may be out of round. A small wobble can sometimes be fixed > by re-positioning the bit in the chuck. With care, anyone can make > precision parts. Most of us pay the extra bucks for someone else to do > it out of laziness rather than lack of ability. > Happy drilling, > 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, 4 Jan 2001 21:08:07 -0700 To: "Ross Youngblood" , "shannon spurgeon" From: "Brian Vasseur" Cc: Subject: Re: KR> Holes Message-ID: <002401c076cd$1c70c660$2c45e4cf@C5477> You're right, you can't drill a round hole with a drill bit. You can get close if the piece is fixed solidly to the drill press and you use a big bit but not quite good enough for the wing attach bolts. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ross Youngblood" To: "shannon spurgeon" Cc: Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 9:06 PM Subject: Re: KR> Holes > Shannon, > Actually, I was told by an x-navy man who knew this stuff, that the > issue is that a drill bit doesn't actually drill a round hole, but an oval > one, so you drill undersize and ream to get a round hole. > -- Ross > > shannon spurgeon wrote: > > > While we have lots of good advice on how to drill precision holes, no > > one has addressed why. If you mike a common drill bit, you'll find it > > is a couple thou under specified size. If you have an inside mike, and > > check the hole made by this bit, it will be as much as 5 thou oversize. > > This is why you drill one step small and ream to final. Another caution > > for the dill press: Run it at slow speed, or click on and off to check > > for wobble in the bit. If it's not running true, the hole will be > > bigger and may be out of round. A small wobble can sometimes be fixed > > by re-positioning the bit in the chuck. With care, anyone can make > > precision parts. Most of us pay the extra bucks for someone else to do > > it out of laziness rather than lack of ability. > > Happy drilling, > > 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 > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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, 04 Jan 2001 12:39:47 -0700 To: KR2616TJ@aol.com From: Ross Youngblood CC: krnet@mailinglists.org Subject: Re: KR> IFR, long. Message-ID: <3A54D183.77A6147D@teleport.com> I just got my IFR ticket last month... would I fly IFR tomorrow... depends on the weather. I haven't flown in a month. Would I fly my KR in IFR... probably not. What Dana says about flying IFR as a lot of work is true. During training, I was always exhausted after a flight trying to keep everything straight, that's where autopilots come in handy. I do have a turn and bank in my KR, and I installed it specificly for the purpose of doing a 1 minute standard rate turn OUT of IMC. This was before I had my rating, but I still think it is a reasonablly good insurance policy had I stayed in Oregon... in Arizona, you have to work pretty hard to find IMC. -- Ross KR2616TJ@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 01/03/2001 11:06:55 AM Eastern Standard Time, > Clay1Pilot@aol.com writes: > > << The interval ranged from 480 seconds > to 20 seconds. The average time was 178 seconds-two seconds short of three > minutes. >> > > I've had a couple of people e-mail me off the net for the thread I posted > last year about hood training so I thought I would repeat it as best as I can. > > Do this in the airplane you will be flying. Get a current licensed pilot to > act as your safety pilot and ATC. Don't move your head much, just scan with > your eyes. It's a wonder how fast you can go vertigo just reaching down to > pick up a pencil you dropped on the floor. On your initial climbout, put the > vision limiting device on and remember no cheating, you won't be able to in > actual. Have your safety pilot instruct you to turn to a heading and climb > to an altitude. Have your safety pilot instruct you to do some turns based > on degrees to the left and right along with turns to headings. Next, find a > good practice area and do some 180 degree turns using a standard rate on your > turn coordinator. Do the turns both to the left and to the right. Be sure > and time these turns, they should come out right at 60 seconds. At the > completion of each turn, fly straight and level for at least 2 minutes. This > is to simulate a 180 degree turn out of IMC and returning to VFR conditions. > Now do climbs to a different altitude with no change in headings, once again > level off to straight and level. Now that you have some altitude, descend to > the initial altitude while maintain heading and airspeed. You don't want to > overspeed the airplane, there have been many examples of Vne crashes because > of this. Once again, level off into straight and level. Now that you have > that, climb back up to that higher altitude but this time turn left 30 > degrees without exceeding a standard rate turn. Using the standard rate > formula, this turn should only take you 10 seconds. A little situational > awareness can relieve a whole lot of misgivings. Once there level off and > catch your breath. Back to work, climb another 1000' and turn right to a > heading at least 60 degrees, try and level off at altitude and heading at the > same time. Repeat this procedure on 1000' descents with turns to headings. > Be sure and have your safety pilot relay these instructions to you in ATC > phraseology. Now comes the fun part. Practice stalls under the hood. It is > not difficult. Remember, nose up, bleed off speed, walk the high wing with > rudder and recover. It is no more difficult than without the hood. What > causing IMC loss of control? Stalls and unusual attitude. Under the hood, > have your safety pilot put your airplane in non aggressive unusual attitudes > and have you recover. Remember, the point of all this is to keep the > airplane from progressing into unrecoverable attitudes. Keep the thing > upright and you'll be fine. Unusual attitude recovery under the hood is of > utmost importance. Remember the old RA approaches you practiced as a > student??, once again have your safety pilot act as ACT and give you vectors > to the final. Remember how it goes, "no repeats, turn > left.................stop, turn left.................stop, descend to 1500, > descend to 1000 etc. At about 500 feet remove your hood and land the > airplane. It will surprise you how long it takes your vision to adjust to > outside references after spending so much time under the hood. What you have > done here is move from simple turns to headings to breaking out with each > step more difficult than the previous one. It will work. This is not meant > to be an introduction to instrument flying but simply a nice training regimen > to keep you alive. Do I practice this, you better believe it. > > Sure it is much easier just to go flying, but is that making you a better > pilot. Practice what is going to save your butt. Let's be honest here, how > many of you out there know your short field final speed, Vx, Vy or Vm. Which > one is most important?? Think maneuvering. With a KR in mind, does an > airplane stall at a faster or slower airspeed as the CG moves aft. It's not > what you might think. Think required down force on the horizontal stab. > > All of this you can do in probably an hour plus. Practice it, especially in > your airplane and you will be a better pilot. There's a reason it takes you > 40 hours under the hood to qualify to take your IFR ride and there is also a > good reason why you must shoot 6 approaches with tracking and holds every 90 > days to stay current. Instrument flying is a learned ability. You can only > stay proficient with practice. Simply saying to yourself that you will never > fly into IMC won't get you out of it when you do fly into it. They call it > "inadvertent" flight into IMC, not intentional. > > Man this is a high soapbox, this may hurt jumping off of this one:-) > > Dana Overall > 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 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 14:20:40 -0800 To: "KR-POST" From: "Dave and Tina Goodman" Subject: IFR in the KR Message-ID: <000d01c0769c$9418c180$4544a6d1@oemcomputer> ------=_NextPart_000_000A_01C07659.83D4C460 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The bottom lines in flying IFR in any aircraft are a) having the rating = and b) being current (or proficient). Without both, you WILL crash at = some point. The KR is no less stable than a military aircraft. The = reason military aviators can fly in the goo without problem is that they = are trained for it and they do it all the time. Heck, I fly IFR all the = time. It is not magic, but I can tell when I have not been in the = clouds for awhile because my scan takes more effort. Only an idiot would fly into the goo without a rating or currency. If = you have both (and your plane is instrumented for it, of course) have at = it. Dave "Zipper" Goodman zipperts@whidbey.net =20 ------=_NextPart_000_000A_01C07659.83D4C460-- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 17:42:37 EST To: From: EagleGator@aol.com Subject: The IFR decision Message-ID: <7f.e6af319.2786565d@aol.com> OK, I can't stay out of this any longer. Soap boxes, please=85. Here is the short of it: flying "hard" IFR in a KR is a bad idea, unless of=20 course you have a two axis auto-pilot. It's possible to do, but the currency= =20 and proficiency required to do it safely more than likely exceeds what most=20 of us are able to maintain. IFR to VFR on top may be an acceptable practice in a KR, but as someone=20 astutely pointed out, it depends on the weather. I'll also add that it=20 depends on how willing you are to bet your life on the weather forecast=20 enroute and at your destination, and how sure you are about the thickness of= =20 the overcast. Here's the long of it. Dana summed up most of the reasons why I wouldn't fly= =20 hard IFR in my KR. This is a great little airplane, but it requires constant= =20 attention to keep it straight and level. You can change your attitude just b= y=20 shifting your weight in the cockpit -- not a good thing when you're heads=20 down in a chart or reaching for an approach plate. (I've only flown in 2 KRs= ,=20 and mine is not flying yet, but I tend to be very observant of aircraft=20 handling qualities) When I first designed my panel, I included only a turn and bank indicator fo= r=20 all of the reasons mentioned in previous posts. In addition, I would not be=20 tempted to do something that I had already decided was a bad idea (hard IFR)= =20 with only a T&B to guide me. But after countless hours of thought and=20 discussion with folks at work, the weight of two more gyros (AH and DG) and=20 the plumbing for a pressure system driven by my engine turbo, all of which=20 amounts to about 4 pounds, was well worth the piece of mind of knowing I=20 would have those familiar instruments to look at when I recover from an=20 unusual attitude. I look at it as insurance. However, I DO NOT intend to use= =20 those instruments for hard IFR. Punching through a deck to VFR on top? Maybe= ,=20 but the conditions will have to be very stable, predictable, and improving. Which brings us to my last opinion for this post. Scud running today is a=20 practice that has a very high probability of scaring you really bad, if it=20 doesn't kill you. The reason is all of those uncharted towers out there, as=20 well as the characteristics of unstable weather close to the ground. It used= =20 to be that you could scud run between local airports, because you literally=20 knew the ground track like the back of your hand. But in today's environment= ,=20 this is not the way scud running is typically done; it's used as a way to ge= t=20 home from somewhere that you may have never been before, flying over a groun= d=20 track that you've never seen before. Please don't do this! If the weather is= =20 too bad for you to climb to a reasonable altitude and still maintain legal=20 cloud clearances, then wait on the ground until things improve. Once again,=20 weigh the risk in terms of whether you are willing to bet your life on what=20 you are about to do. For more info on this, go to avweb.com and look through= =20 the archive of articles. There 's a great one on scud running. Thanks for reading, I'll deposit my two cents on the soap box as I leave=85 Cheers, Rick Junkin St. Charles, MO Eaglegator@aol.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 20:11:55 EST To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: KR2616TJ@aol.com Subject: Re: KR> The IFR decision Message-ID: <8.e7b13fa.2786795b@aol.com> In a message dated 1/4/01 5:46:32 PM Eastern Standard Time, EagleGator@aol.com writes: << Scud running today is a practice that has a very high probability of scaring you really bad, if it doesn't kill you. >> Shoot, Rick I'll climb back up for one last sales pitch of the ol tonic. Are you willing to risk everything you have acquired in your life to have it taken from your estate. Trust me, the major portion of my practice is estate work. OK, on to bigger and better things. Scud running, we have all done it before. But what is legal scud running? Let's refer to airspace and basic VFR weather minimums. Keep in mind that your local FSS and ATC have pilot reports of clouds. These are coming from the IFR pilots who are punching up through and descending down through. If you think you are getting away with something..........wrong. Do they ramp check you for this, nah, but could they........sure. Basic class E airspace starts at 1200AGL with transition areas for instrument approaches into class E airports dropping this floor down to 700'. Weather minimums and cloud separation in class G airspace (under that 1200 or 700, this excludes some desert areas where class G can go higher, you won't find it very often) during daylight hours is clear of clouds and 1 mile (kinda scary). Now, if they are calling 1000' and 1 can you legally fly? Sure, as long as you keep the rotating beacon out of the clouds and are not within the magenta circle around class E airports. Is it safe, that's for you to decide. Now let's move those clouds up to 1500' and increase the vis. to 2 miles where are you legal. You have to be below 1200' to find class G. If you go above that 1200 your cloud separation is 500' below, 1000' above and 2000' horizontal, your vis is now also 3 miles. So you see, you must be flying below 1200' AGL with only 2 miles vis., in this example, to be legal. Let's go cruising at 150 MPH, you are covering 2.5 miles in one minute...............hum, I can't even see that far. Actually you are going to cover what you can see in 48 seconds, and you have 300 ft. above you to play with. You must also remember the rate of turn decreases with speed and the radius increases with speed if the weather goes south (yea, right) 150MPH is clipping along pretty nicely. Throw in real life situations while scud running, like looking at gauges, it's going to dramatically cut into that 48 seconds and the limit of those two miles is pretty indistinguishable. Flying is inherently safe but extremely unforgiving. For those who think IFR flying is unsafe, think again. It is a ticket I would encourage everyone on this list, those lists and all lists to get. OH, Rick how's the F-15 test piloting going (no joke here guys:-). Sorry Rick, I had to place some credence on your post. I'm thinking it's getting almost time to put on the flame proof underware. Guys, I'm not raging on anyone for scud running but just remember your decision making process can sure get put in high gear. My decisions on an instrument approach are pretty straight forward.....this is the decision height or minimum descent altitude....that's it, it's a number I'm not going fudge on............course I might fudge my pants but that's a different story:-) Dana Overall 2000 KR Gathering host Richmond, KY mailto:kr2616tj@aol.com http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/hangar/7085/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 21:02:39 EST To: toys@ufl.edu, krnet@mailinglists.org From: AviationMech@aol.com Subject: Re: KR> egt's Message-ID: <51.5b91901.2786853f@aol.com> --part1_51.5b91901.2786853f_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit If it is installed correctly, close to the head, the effect should be minimal Orma Aviationmech@AOL.com Builder and Pilot, KR-2 N110LR, 1984-2000 AP with Inspection Authorization --part1_51.5b91901.2786853f_boundary-- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2001 18:56:08 -0500 To: AviationMech@aol.com From: Tom Crawford CC: krnet@mailinglists.org Subject: Re: KR> egt's Message-ID: <3A565F18.3ED6@ufl.edu> AviationMech@aol.com wrote: > > If it is installed correctly, close to the head, the effect should be > minimal > > Orma > Aviationmech@AOL.com > Builder and Pilot, KR-2 N110LR, 1984-2000 > AP with Inspection Authorization With a little research, I found that with the Westach, the variation is 1 degree high for every degree under 75 degrees F. So- at 35 degrees, you should read 35 degrees high. Like you said, minimal, but noticeable. -- Tom Crawford Gainesville, FL N262TC Mailto:toys@ufl.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 19:33:00 -0800 To: "KR-POST" From: "Dave and Tina Goodman" Subject: Scud running Message-ID: <003701c076c8$351b6b20$e844a6d1@oemcomputer> ------=_NextPart_000_0034_01C07685.26058DC0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Up here is Washington there is a general aviation graveyard called = Stevens Pass. It seems every year someone thinks he can make it IFR = under the clouds through the Pass, finds out he cannot... too late to = turn around (high altitude, narrow Pass). Last count there are some 30+ = airplanes up there. Having flown as much IFR as I have, I feel as comfortable doing that as = I do VFR. It was my error to post my last message on IFR in the KR = without a) giving more data on my experience and b) having talked to = more folks who have flown the plane in IFR. My mistake. Off my own soap box... Dave "Zipper" Goodman zipperts@whidbey.net =20 ------=_NextPart_000_0034_01C07685.26058DC0-- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 21:56:10 -0700 To: "Dave and Tina Goodman" , "KR-POST" From: "William J. Starrs" Subject: Re: KR> Scud running Message-ID: <003e01c076d3$d3101f00$240b2aa2@starrs> You don't have to apologize for reminding us of a safety issue. We have all been tempted to try to make through an IFR condition when common sense told us otherwise. If we used common sense we are still here. If not we are one of those wreckage's lying on the ground. Bill starrs ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave and Tina Goodman" To: "KR-POST" Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 8:33 PM Subject: KR> Scud running Up here is Washington there is a general aviation graveyard called Stevens Pass. It seems every year someone thinks he can make it IFR under the clouds through the Pass, finds out he cannot... too late to turn around (high altitude, narrow Pass). Last count there are some 30+ airplanes up there. Having flown as much IFR as I have, I feel as comfortable doing that as I do VFR. It was my error to post my last message on IFR in the KR without a) giving more data on my experience and b) having talked to more folks who have flown the plane in IFR. My mistake. Off my own soap box... Dave "Zipper" Goodman zipperts@whidbey.net ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 22:44:08 -0800 To: kr From: Carter Pond Subject: Dragonfly canopy Message-ID: <3A556D38.1F5C7A7@home.com> Looking for a copy of the 2D or 3D autocad file of the digitized Dragon Fly canopy. I had no luck down loading the file from the owners web site. Sorry I can not remember the fellows name. He on Marks list of KR sites. If any one has it would the please email me. Carter KR Dreaming Finial stages of Design before the I start the saw. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 21:48:31 -0600 From: Mark Jones CC: kr Subject: Re: KR> Dragonfly canopy Message-ID: <3A55440E.9A582D24@execpc.com> Here it is, http://www.fortunecity.com/marina/skipper/388/dflycanopysurvey/ Carter Pond wrote: > Looking for a copy of the 2D or 3D autocad file of the digitized Dragon > Fly canopy.-- 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/n886mj/homepage ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 21:42:43 -0700 To: Dave and Tina Goodman From: Ross Youngblood CC: KR-POST Subject: Re: KR> Scud running more soap Message-ID: <3A5550C3.20C58198@teleport.com> Hear Ye Hear Ye! I've got more IFR and Scud running soap to sell.... Daves post reminded me of my first scud running experience.... we were leaving Arlington in '98/'99 in a rented C-172RG. I was traveling with a fellow EAAer (who was pilot) and my daughter. The weather started getting a little nasty just about Olympia Washington, there was terrain obscuration and the ceilings were reported just above minimums, with some rain. As we left Olympia we started to do some scud running. I was watching carefully the altimeter and the visibility, and mentioned to my friend that if he couldn't make out the next airport along our route... (Toledo?) I thought we should turn back and stop at Olympia for the weather to clear up a bit. He indicated that he had the airport in site, so we continued, and when we hit the Columbia river, we broke out into beautiful rays of sunshine... When I got home, I grabbed the FAR's and the sectional, and nope, we didn't bust any regulations, but it sure made me uncomfortable. I decided at that point I would need my IFR rating if I was going to do any significant flying up in the Pacific Northwest. About a year later, I got caught in a pretty bad rainstorm, ASOS was reporting visability as 10 miles but from where I sat in the cockpit things didn't look very good. I could see forward and down, but couldn't judge distance/visability of each wing due to rain. I asked Flight Following if I could leave the frequency to check ASOS reports at two nearby airports and which were both reporting visability 10 miles and ceilings 6,000' but from where I was, there appeard to be a wall of rain between me and the remainder of my route. I decided to leave the airway, and follow what appeared to be a clearer route which also followed the freeway (IFR = I Follow Roads). It was also following the valley, and allowed me to skip the higher terrain on the direct route which was somewhere inside the wall of rain. By the time I got home I realized that the 10NM visibility conditions were reasonably constant, but I think at times it may have gotten down to 5NM.... I don't know if I would really want to go anywhere in 3NM visability with rain or other weather.... and low ceilings.... What it taught me is how the weather can create a "tunnel" for you even with 10NM visability reported high ceilings and heavy rain. If it decides to get worse on you... yuck. At least In my case I knew where the front was coming from (I was flying into it), and I had just crossed the rugged terrain with no airports and entering a region of flat terrain and multiple airports/fields. My major concern was of flying into the wall of rain and getting busted in case the visibility dropped below 3NM near the airport I was going to transit en-route and I entered the Class D airspace. (I needed landmarks on the ground to stay clear). I decided at the time, it was a good thing this desert rat had flown touch and go's in the rain at my field a couple of times, otherwise, at the first sign of a rain drop... I would have been thinking, IFR! What do I do! That was my earlier reaction when as an early solo pilot I spotted a cloud in the sky when I arrived at the airport in Chandler about 10 years ago. When I moved to Oregon, I needed to understand that the first 3000' ceiling may actually be the best flying day you might get that month, Here in Arizona, when you see only one cloud in the sky, you avoid it... not because it will be a dangerous cumulonimbus... but that it will be full of off work CFII's who are trying to get 15 minutes of "Actual" instrument conditions by trying to get a holding circuit that will fit into the cloud. The bigger stuff... you want to avoid... I had an glider instructor who demonstrated this by letting us thermal up into the base of a cloud, just so I could see what it was like, and to avoid doing it on my own later on. So at the top of this terrific 1000 feet per minute thermal, we just rose up into this cloud. Then she pulled the dive brakes/spoilers.... we were still climbing at better than 500fpm, so she kicked the 2-33 into a spin, and we finally saw the ground again. Gee... looks like I've sold all of my soap... -- Regards Ross Dave and Tina Goodman wrote: > Up here is Washington there is a general aviation graveyard called Stevens Pass. It seems every year someone thinks he can make it IFR under the clouds through the Pass, finds out he cannot... too late to turn around (high altitude, narrow Pass). Last count there are some 30+ airplanes up there. > > Having flown as much IFR as I have, I feel as comfortable doing that as I do VFR. It was my error to post my last message on IFR in the KR without a) giving more data on my experience and b) having talked to more folks who have flown the plane in IFR. My mistake. > > Off my own soap box... > > Dave "Zipper" Goodman > zipperts@whidbey.net > > ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 00:03:02 -0500 To: From: "Jeff Tome" Subject: KR's at Riverside Message-ID: <006a01c076d4$caac2ec0$d55dbfa8@v5j1u0> ------=_NextPart_000_0067_01C076AA.DF1E59C0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Howdy all. Anyone know a KR fanatic at Riverside in Tulsa ? I friend = of mine that used to be at Spartan told me that there was a KR mech = there that did some pretty good work on them (many KR's) and how they = used to love watching the screaming low level fly-bys gestimated at 220 = (fish story???). Supposedly there are quite a few KR's there too. = Also, I am here at FlightSafety in Savannah. Anybody know where the = closest KR2S is so I might have a look ? Thanks jt in uncharacteristically cold savannah (22 degrees) yeesh ------=_NextPart_000_0067_01C076AA.DF1E59C0-- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 23:42:57 -0600 To: From: "Brian J Bland" Subject: RE: KR> KR's at Riverside Message-ID: Jeff, There is a hangar full of KR's at Riverside. Jean Veron can tell you more info on them. He is a KRNet subscriber so you should be hearing from him shortly. Brian J Bland Claremore, OK mail to:bruiser@dellepro.com -----Original Message----- From: Jeff Tome [mailto:dobedog@earthlink.net] Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 11:03 PM To: krnet@mailinglists.org Subject: KR> KR's at Riverside Howdy all. Anyone know a KR fanatic at Riverside in Tulsa ? I friend of mine that used to be at Spartan told me that there was a KR mech there that did some pretty good work on them (many KR's) and how they used to love watching the screaming low level fly-bys gestimated at 220 (fish story???). Supposedly there are quite a few KR's there too. Also, I am here at FlightSafety in Savannah. Anybody know where the closest KR2S is so I might have a look ? Thanks jt in uncharacteristically cold savannah (22 degrees) yeesh ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2001 19:41:00 +0100 To: KR-Net From: "Stefan B." Subject: Transponders/alt. encoders Message-ID: <3A56153C.98AD389F@wanadoo.fr> Are the transponders and altitude encoders from different manufacturers compliant to each other? Thanks in advance for your answers. Stefan Balatchev, France mailto:Stefan.Balatchev@wanadoo.fr ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2001 23:18:54 -0600 To: "krnet@mailinglists.org" From: John Roffey Subject: Last of the KR/IFR Message-ID: <3A56AABE.16B2ACE7@tir.com> After getting your IFR ticket there are a few other important decisions to make. The first one is setting your own minimums for weather that you will actually fly in. The second is usually the equipment you will actually fly IFR in. There exists a belief that no-one should fly single engine IFR and no-one should fly single pilot IFR. Many magazine articles are centered around these theories and continue to surface every fall. The reason for this phenomena is the discouraging statistics that pretty much backed up the theory in the past. With the advent of very accurate and reliable GPS nav information, the Weather Channel, personal computers, the internet and DUATS, there has been a significant reduction in these awful stats. This coupled with a greater percentage of the Private Pilot population getting instrument tickets, we are enjoying an improvement in our overall accident rate. The key to remaining out of the accident folder, is primarily in the choice of equipment. A stable IFR platform. For us SEL PPs, that would be 172/182/210 , Bonanza, Cherokee/Arrow, Mooney style of aircraft. The big issue is the ability to accurately trim the plane, and the likelihood of having a good autopilot. Having said all that and hearing the rhetoric about the lack of trimming ability of our KRs, I formulate my own minimum equipment choice that excludes my own KR for IFR. No, I am not going to fly cross country scud running . Any one who has worked hard to get the IFR ticket would realize that. ------------------------------ End of krnet Digest ***********************************