From: To: Subject: krnet Digest 28 Jan 2001 19:53:44 -0000 Issue 162 Date: Sunday, January 28, 2001 11:53 AM krnet Digest 28 Jan 2001 19:53:44 -0000 Issue 162 Topics (messages 3842 through 3869): Re: Belly-flap stall speed 3842 by: w.g. kirkland Re: Rec. Pilot 3843 by: w.g. kirkland Composite Spar? 3844 by: Robert E. Moser 3845 by: Steven Eberhart Re: New Airfoil 3846 by: KR2616TJ.aol.com Airfoil data 3847 by: Phil Maynard Leveling While Sanding 3848 by: Laheze.aol.com Retraction and apology 3849 by: Dave and Tina Goodman 3852 by: Mark Langford 3856 by: Bobby Muse 3857 by: Bruce Watkins 3858 by: KR2616TJ.aol.com 3859 by: KR2616TJ.aol.com COG thinking 3850 by: John and Janet Martindale 3851 by: Tom Crawford 3853 by: Phil Maynard Re: Ideal control set up 3854 by: Bobby Muse Duel Control 3855 by: DClarke351.aol.com RG 142B/U? 3860 by: EagleGator.aol.com Belly Board 3861 by: Carson Cassidy 3862 by: EagleGator.aol.com 3863 by: KR2616TJ.aol.com 3867 by: KR2616TJ.aol.com Mark vs Phil 3864 by: Phil Maynard 3865 by: KR2616TJ.aol.com 3866 by: CHOCTAWCWR.aol.com 3868 by: Steven Eberhart 3869 by: EagleGator.aol.com Administrivia: To subscribe to the digest, e-mail: To unsubscribe from the digest, e-mail: To post to the list, e-mail: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 15:12:45 -0500 To: , , From: "w.g. kirkland" Subject: Re: KR> Belly-flap stall speed Message-ID: <001201c0889d$842600e0$c7905bd1@kirkland> stefan; The extra drag has an added benefit in cold weather. You can carry extra power and still maintain a reasonable rate of descent. Why is this important? When the temperature is well below freezing and you idle an air cooled engine you risk shock cooling the cylinders and possible cracking of the cylinder heads. Been there, done that with my C-150 at a cost of $800 US a crack. (pun intended). Never make the same mistake twice but am working at making all of them once! W.G.(Bill) KIRKLAND kirkland@vianet.on.ca ----- Original Message ----- From: To: ; Sent: Friday, January 26, 2001 1:20 PM Subject: Re: KR> Belly-flap stall speed > Stefan, I'm sorry someone couldn't have come aboard and answered your > question better than I........... If a wing stalls, at say 40 MPH > There's really nothing the speed brake can do to change that. All the speed > brake can do is help you increase the angle of decent without increasing the > airspeed and shorten the floating tendencies in ground effect while landing. > The speed brake is all drag.. Flaps are a whole different ball game. > They change the shape of the wing so it will create more lift therefore > lowering the stall speed. So if you want to lower the stalling speed, flaps > is the way you'll have to do it. > > Lynn Hyder WA7YXF N37LH Redmond, Oregon > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To post to the list, email: krnet@mailinglists.org > To unsubscribe, e-mail: krnet-unsubscribe@mailinglists.org > For additional commands, e-mail: krnet-help@mailinglists.org > ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 15:15:12 -0500 To: , From: "w.g. kirkland" Subject: Re: KR> Rec. Pilot Message-ID: <002101c0889d$dba76e80$c7905bd1@kirkland> Guess what you insurance co. will do if you knowingly make a false declaration? W.G.(Bill) KIRKLAND kirkland@vianet.on.ca ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Friday, January 26, 2001 6:05 PM Subject: Re: KR> Rec. Pilot > In a message dated 1/26/01 12:17:07 PM Eastern Standard Time, > jmoyle1@juno.com writes: > > << 'm in no way a scofflaw, in fact I'm pretty much your > "law and order" candidate, but I recognize stupid laws > when I see them, >> > > No problem at all with me:-). Since you are an AOPA member go to their web > page and search for the Rec. pilot and Sport pilot. The two are different > and cannot be interchanged. The statement I saw in a CFI flier was as > follows: I paraphase "Petitioner furthur states that he has no knowledge of a > medical condition which would preclude petitioner from obtaining a required > medical certificate from a Medical Examiner". I know there is still a lot of > lobbying going on. I too, believe there should be a catagory where you could > fly legally in and I hope this is the one. > > > 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 > ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 16:22:30 -0500 To: "KR Network" From: "Robert E. Moser" Subject: Composite Spar? Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20010127162041.00ae4940@viper> Hi Everyone, A recent post alluded to work previously done on a composite spar for the KR2. Is this anywhere available on the net? I'd be interested on where it went (if anywhere), what the design goals were, were they met, etc. Are any of these flying? TIA, Robert ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 16:26:16 -0600 (CST) To: KR Network From: Steven Eberhart Subject: Re: KR> Composite Spar? Message-ID: On Sat, 27 Jan 2001, Robert E. Moser wrote: > Hi Everyone, > > A recent post alluded to work previously done on a composite spar for the > KR2. Is this anywhere available on the net? I'd be interested on where it > went (if anywhere), what the design goals were, were they met, etc. Are > any of these flying? > > TIA, > > Robert > Robert, Back in the days when all of the activity on the Area 51 list was going fast and furious Mark Lougheed and I were looking at a composite spar, very much like the one on the Europa. In one of Martin Holliman's composite design books he detailed the design and construction of a composite spar. Mark took all of the design equations and made up a MathCalc work sheet that allowed you to input all of the design parameters and it output the complete fiberglass layout schedule for a spar that would meet the design specifications. Mark did a lot of work on validating the original equations and found a couple of errors that he corrected. THe plan was to build a spar using the calculated layup schedule and test it to destruction. I was going to build the test spar but my business started including a lot more travel and we sort of lost interrest in the project. Plus, it was safer to just say "build it to the plans". The original configuration, worked out in the motel room after numerous beers at the Last Oklahoma KR Gathering, was for a straight tappered wing, without WAF's, that plugged directly into the fuselage. the protruding spar ends overlapped inside the fuselage and were pinned together. The carrythrough box carried the loads to the fuselage. Titanium landing gear legs from the Sonex were going to be angled back from the firewall. I still think this would be a neat configuration for a KR abortion. Steve Eberhart ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 18:04:01 EST To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: KR2616TJ@aol.com Subject: Re: KR> New Airfoil Message-ID: <67.ef7579a.27a4ade1@aol.com> In a message dated 1/27/01 2:30:01 PM Eastern Standard Time, newtech@newtech.com writes: << Dana Overall tore the existing horizontal stabilizer off of his KR and replaced it with the new one designed by Dr. Mole. Unfortunatly, shortly after modifying his KR, Dana bought a Bonanza and has been too busy having fun with it to finish up his KR. >> He, He, He.........I just got back from flying the Bonanza from Battle Creek, Mich. to Lexington, KY. Covered 249.9NM in 1:39 stateup, warmup, taxi in Class D, ILS into LEX, taxi in Class C. Cruising at 169.3Kts. (194.70MPH)......He, He, He..............:-) I've had a great day:-) Dana Overall 2000 KR Gathering host Richmond, KY mailto:kr2616tj@aol.com http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/hangar/7085/ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 19:32:22 -0500 To: "KRnet" From: "Phil Maynard" Subject: Airfoil data Message-ID: <001d01c088c1$c8311760$1c01a8c0@amd500> ------=_NextPart_000_001A_01C08897.DEBC5E60 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable It would be helpful to see curves for stall, cruise and top speeds for = engine sizes from 1600vw to 100hp for gross weights from 800 to 1200 lb's for the RAF48, AS504-16% and AS504-18%. It would then be much easier to do some comparisons and see the bottom = lines of what's being debated. It may also reveal "sweet spots" for different combinations. Do such graphs exist? Phil Maynard Ridley Park, PA ------=_NextPart_000_001A_01C08897.DEBC5E60-- ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 23:53:51 EST To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: Laheze@aol.com Subject: Leveling While Sanding Message-ID: Hi All, This may have been discussed before but thought I would throw this in the pile. I have read many messages talking about sanding your airplanes. If you want to get a really smooth surface, an easy way to see low spots is to use two different colors of primer. Paint your plane with grey primer(or color of choice) when you think your plane, wing whatever is pretty close to level. Then paint it with a light coat of red laquer or something compatable with what you are priming with. When you sand the surface the red will disappear and the grey will reappear except in the low areas. Then you have a better picture of what you need to do without wearing out your eyes trying to see low areas in the same color. Hope this helps some of you perfectionists! Larry Howell laheze@aol.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 00:21:42 -0800 To: "KR-POST" From: "Dave and Tina Goodman" Subject: Retraction and apology Message-ID: <001e01c08903$592cf680$a445a6d1@oemcomputer> ------=_NextPart_000_001B_01C088C0.4A04C9A0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Please bear with me and this post fellow builders, it will be my last. "So also the tongue is a small part of the body, yet it boasts of great = things. Behold how great a forest is set aflame by such a small fire." = - James 1:5 God put this verse in stark relief in my life this morning as I started = a fire I cannot put out or undo. I visited Mark last week at his home. He took me into his shop and = showed me hospitality and his project. I enjoyed a great evening of = learning and discussion. But, this morning I overstepped any bounds of = acceptable behavior and have put Mark in a bad position THAT DOES NOT = REFLECT HIS INTENTIONS OR DESIRES with a post that did not indicate his = thoughts or our conversations. Mark is not planning to pirate, clone, or upgrade the KR with any = intention of selling it or making a profit off a "new" KR. HE HAS NEVER = SAID ANYTHING OF THIS NATURE THAT I AM AWARE OF ON THE NET, NOR HAS HE = EVER SAID IT WAS SOMETHING HE WAS EVEN THINKING ABOUT... EVEN WHEN I = SUGGESTED IT TO HIM. My comments came from me alone and to the best of = my knowledge and personal observation of the man have never come from = Mark or even entered his mind. Mark is passionate about two things, building his KR to suit his = personal desires and helping others in building their own aircraft to = fit their personal desires. I cannot express how much help he has been = to me and my building effort. My admiration for his abilities, = patience, desire to help others, and outright humility are immense. =20 I am profoundly sorry for my post and any rumors or ill feelings it may = have generated. AGAIN, MY COMMENTS CAME FROM ME AND NOT FROM ANYTHING = MARK HAS EVER SAID, MUTTERED OR HINTED ABOUT. It is my hope this post = will be read by everyone on the KR-Net and will be forwarded to others = who may have heard any rumor started by my unacceptable behavior. I am = disgusted with myself, my attitude and my actions and wish there were = something more I could do to mitigate their consequences. =20 I will take my leave of the KR-Net at this time. The damage I have done = is more than is acceptable, and my embarrassment and shame will last for = some time. I wish all builders on the KR-Net the very best, and hope = you will accept this retraction and apology. Respectfully and with bitter sorrow, Dave "Zipper" Goodman zipperts@whidbey.net =20 ------=_NextPart_000_001B_01C088C0.4A04C9A0-- ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 08:54:42 -0600 To: "Dave and Tina Goodman" , "KR-POST" From: "Mark Langford" Subject: Re: KR> Retraction and apology Message-ID: <002e01c0893a$3f410c70$561cf618@600athlon> Dave wrote: >I will take my leave of the KR-Net at this time. The damage I have done is more than is acceptable, Wow! I think both of us over reacted. I guess an explanation is in order. Yesterday, in defense of the new airfoil, Dave wrote: >>The truth is that there is going to come a time when someone out there (and you know who you are because we have talked about it offline) is going to take all the improvements that are on the KR-Net, make a new version of the KR and market it, most likely under the name ML-1 or some derivative thereof. At that point the KR as we know it will be dead. I personally look forward to that day. >> This kinda got under my skin because it did several things. First it made it look like I was just hanging around KRNet gleaning information that I could then use to "redo" the KR and market it as my own. And it changes the way people view what I say in the future, because from here on out I'm seen by many as somebody who's only here to try to put RR out of business for personal gain, rather than as someone who's trying to help others build a better airplane. I'd by lying if I said that I'd never thought of designing a whole new airplane incorporating what I've learned building mine. And I (or TET) may very well do that someday, but I need to finish building MY airplane first. Any new design would be started with a clean slate, and would borrow features from every plane that we'd ever seen, not be just a KR "knockoff", and would be a thoroughly thought out design from start to finish, not a patchwork of other designs. The reality of it is that I hang around here and put the effort into my web page for one reason, and that's to keep others from making the same mistakes that I've already made, and to put what I've learned to good use for others. I really don't know why I care, but as Randy's made me realize, I'm practicing perfection "for others" in addition to perfection from myself. This habit is bad enough when all is well (it's pretty time consuming) but can really hurt when people use the information that I've given them to flame me later on (and I'm not talking about Dave here). And the more I post, the more it stirs up, the more time I spend with counterpoints, and the farther my airplane slips from completion. And when somebody says something like "It would be helpful to see curves for stall, cruise and top speeds for engine sizes from 1600vw to 100hp for gross weights from 800 to 1200 lb's for the RAF48, AS504-16% and AS504-18%.", I can only roll my eyes and say "Is that ALL you NEED?". I don't guess we've done enough, have we? Give me a couple of decades and I'll get back to you on that. This reminds me of one on CorvAIRCRAFT where I casually mentioned CIS fuel injection and a guy came back wanting a detailed description of every component and it's function! Dave, I really wasn't fishing for a KRNet suicide from you, just a comment that clarified that those were your words and not mine. Come on back and play, OK? We can use all the "real" pilots we can get here. Sorry that my message to you hit you so hard. Obvously the phrase "poisoned the atmosphere" was just a little too harsh on my part... Mark Langford, Huntsville, Alabama mailto:langford@hiwaay.net see KR2S project N56ML at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 10:04:00 -0600 To: Mark Langford From: Bobby Muse CC: KR-POST Subject: Re: KR> Retraction and apology Message-ID: <3A7442EF.2E45171@ev1.net> Mark Langford wrote: > > > I'd by lying if I said that I'd never thought of designing a whole new > airplane incorporating what I've learned building mine. And I (or TET) may > very well do that someday, but I need to finish building MY airplane first. > Any new design would be started with a clean slate, and would borrow > features from every plane that we'd ever seen, not be just a KR "knockoff", > and would be a thoroughly thought out design from start to finish, not a > patchwork of other designs. > > > Mark Langford, Huntsville, Alabama > mailto:langford@hiwaay.net > see KR2S project N56ML at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford > There is nothing wrong with designing, building or selling plans of your own creation. That is exactly what Lance of Lancair Aircraft did. Lance had built a KR and then designed his own based upon, in part, what he had learned from building the KR. Go for it. There are a lot of builders that the KR does not fit, but there a lot of builders that it does. Bobby Muse ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 10:07:52 -0600 From: Bruce Watkins CC: KR-POST Subject: Re: KR> Retraction and apology Message-ID: <3A7443D8.A65651C3@clas.net> Mark, you are a gentleman's gentleman! Dave, I have not seen an apology that forthright in along time. Now we know why this list is "family". Bruce .+'''+. ,-//# .+'''+. ." ". ." Bruce Watkins http://users.clas.net/~flyer '+,,,+' '+,,,,+' _____________________________________________ Mark Langford wrote: > > Dave wrote: > > >I will take my leave of the KR-Net at this time. The damage I have done is > more than is acceptable, > > Wow! I think both of us over reacted. I guess an explanation is in order. > Yesterday, in defense of the new airfoil, Dave wrote: > > >>The truth is that there is going to come a time when someone out there > (and you know who you are because we have talked about it offline) is going > to take all the improvements that are on the KR-Net, make a new version of > the KR and market it, most likely under the name ML-1 or some derivative > thereof. At that point the KR as we know it will be dead. I personally > look forward to that day. > >> > > This kinda got under my skin because it did several things. First it made > it look like I was just hanging around KRNet gleaning information that I > could then use to "redo" the KR and market it as my own. And it changes the > way people view what I say in the future, because from here on out I'm seen > by many as somebody who's only here to try to put RR out of business for > personal gain, rather than as someone who's trying to help others build a > better airplane. > > I'd by lying if I said that I'd never thought of designing a whole new > airplane incorporating what I've learned building mine. And I (or TET) may > very well do that someday, but I need to finish building MY airplane first. > Any new design would be started with a clean slate, and would borrow > features from every plane that we'd ever seen, not be just a KR "knockoff", > and would be a thoroughly thought out design from start to finish, not a > patchwork of other designs. > > The reality of it is that I hang around here and put the effort into my web > page for one reason, and that's to keep others from making the same mistakes > that I've already made, and to put what I've learned to good use for others. > I really don't know why I care, but as Randy's made me realize, I'm > practicing perfection "for others" in addition to perfection from myself. > This habit is bad enough when all is well (it's pretty time consuming) but > can really hurt when people use the information that I've given them to > flame me later on (and I'm not talking about Dave here). And the more I > post, the more it stirs up, the more time I spend with counterpoints, and > the farther my airplane slips from completion. > > And when somebody says something like "It would be helpful to see curves for > stall, cruise and top speeds for engine sizes from 1600vw to 100hp for gross > weights from 800 to 1200 lb's for the RAF48, AS504-16% and AS504-18%.", I > can only roll my eyes and say "Is that ALL you NEED?". I don't guess we've > done enough, have we? Give me a couple of decades and I'll get back to you > on that. This reminds me of one on CorvAIRCRAFT where I casually mentioned > CIS fuel injection and a guy came back wanting a detailed description of > every component and it's function! > > Dave, I really wasn't fishing for a KRNet suicide from you, just a comment > that clarified that those were your words and not mine. Come on back and > play, OK? We can use all the "real" pilots we can get here. Sorry that my > message to you hit you so hard. Obvously the phrase "poisoned the > atmosphere" was just a little too harsh on my part... > > 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 -- ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 12:17:51 EST To: zipperts@whidbey.net, krnet@mailinglists.org From: KR2616TJ@aol.com Subject: Re: KR> Retraction and apology Message-ID: <28.106e0cc0.27a5ae3f@aol.com> In a message dated 1/28/01 3:22:46 AM Eastern Standard Time, zipperts@whidbey.net writes: << Respectfully and with bitter sorrow, Dave "Zipper" Goodman zipperts@whidbey.net >> Heck, Dave you don't need to go anywhere. All you need to do is occasionally jump into the fox hole with the rest of us:-) and cover your head. Course then again I think you better let that rubber sworn fight end between me and "That Phil guy from PA". Then again Phil and I can't even bruise each other with these darn dime store rubber swords:-) Joke Phil, don't hit me with that RAF48 template.......remember, rubber swords, that's the rules!! Case made here guys, lighten up. We all have enough stress at work, we don't need it here. Hey, Melody Mountains (KR groupee).........show us your @$%#$$% :-) Dana Overall 2000 KR Gathering host Richmond, KY mailto:kr2616tj@aol.com http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/hangar/7085/ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 12:23:00 EST To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: KR2616TJ@aol.com Subject: Re: KR> Retraction and apology Message-ID: <2d.6acd05a.27a5af74@aol.com> In a message dated 1/28/01 12:19:35 PM Eastern Standard Time, KR2616TJ@aol.com writes: << Course then again I think you better let that rubber sworn fight end between me and "That Phil guy from PA". >> A rubber sworn fight...........what the $#%#$%. That's RUDDER SWORD, no RIBBER SWOD ah, what the heck, those rubber pirate things:-) Lighten up guys. Dana ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 22:38:58 +1100 To: "KRnet" From: "John and Janet Martindale" Subject: COG thinking Message-ID: <001e01c0891f$08acaea0$1a93fcd8@JohnMartindale> ------=_NextPart_000_001B_01C0897B.1AA86480 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi folks I've been quiet lately although busy thinking about my Corvair engine = installation. I've done some theoretical weight and balance calcs and = have come across a forward COG problem that I wonder whether other = Corvair workers have/are encountering? Arm is taken from the forward side of the firewall. Fuel is in wing = tanks. Baggage is under front deck. Forward limit per RR manual (8" back from wing root or 520 mm from = firewall) Station Weight (kg) Arm (mm) = Moment (kg.mm) Combined Main axle 170 470 = 79900 Tail axle 20 3430 = 68600 Me 85 1100 = 93500 Min. Fuel unusable 10 870 = 8700 No baggage 0 0 = 0 Engine, prop etc. 115 -371 = -42700 Total 400 520 = limit 208000=20 The engine, with a minus arm, is forward of the firewall....surprise, = surprise!! The problem is that to get it balanced at 371 mm (1 foot 2 = inches) forward means that its rear must actually rest against the = firewall (if not going back into it). This makes construction of the = mount difficult because there is no room for triangulation of the = diagonal members. Its also a strong argument for rear mounted starters = etc. Going for a rear COG, say with full fuel (100 litres) and 10kg baggage, = presents no COG problem but the gross weight becomes then becomes = excessive. I can live with this by placarding weight/fuel limits etc. = but the forward COG is a brain bender. I really don't want to put a = heavy battery down in the tail!!! Any comments from other prospective Corvair installers. Take = care....think about this. Have I made an error??? Regards Aussie John. =20 ------=_NextPart_000_001B_01C0897B.1AA86480-- ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 09:21:25 -0500 To: John and Janet Martindale From: Tom Crawford CC: KRnet Subject: Re: KR> COG thinking Message-ID: <3A742AE5.171E@ufl.edu> John and Janet Martindale wrote: > > Hi folks > > I've been quiet lately although busy thinking about my Corvair engine installation. I've done some theoretical weight and balance calcs and have come across a forward COG problem that I wonder whether other Corvair workers have/are encountering? > >SNIP > The engine, with a minus arm, is forward of the firewall....surprise, surprise!! The problem is that to get it balanced at 371 mm (1 foot 2 inches) forward means that its rear must actually rest against the firewall (if not going back into it). This makes construction of the mount difficult because there is no room for triangulation of the diagonal members. Its also a strong argument for rear mounted starters etc. > > Going for a rear COG, say with full fuel (100 litres) and 10kg baggage, presents no COG problem but the gross weight becomes then becomes excessive. I can live with this by placarding weight/fuel limits etc. but the forward COG is a brain bender. I really don't want to put a heavy battery down in the tail!!! > > Any comments from other prospective Corvair installers. Take care....think about this. Have I made an error??? > > Regards Aussie John. 1) Try putting the battery behind the seat, instead of on the firewall. Makes a big difference. 2) Flying a KR with the CG on, or slightly in front of the published forward limit is no big deal. It actually feels more stable than when the CG is back farther. -- Tom Crawford Gainesville, FL N262TC KR2 T4 VW Mailto:toys@ufl.edu ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 10:01:09 -0500 To: "John and Janet Martindale" , "KRnet" From: "Phil Maynard" Subject: Re: KR> COG thinking Message-ID: <001c01c0893b$26868600$1c01a8c0@amd500> Having built and flown a KR2, I would say that the single biggest weakness to the design is CG management (not the airfoil, UNLESS it can also help with CG/stability). At one point I had a R2100D with turbocharger, oil cooler, 12 ah battery, full electric, and Maloof prop. All this weight was forward. I had a fairly small header tank, but I couldn't fill it without putting fuel in the wings. I had to burn off wing fuel at the same time leaving the forward tank no more than 1/2 full. I ended up concluding that normally aspirated/wood prop was the way to go and that was really for CG and KISS considerations. I would expect that if you actually do the CG calculations you will see this type of CG limitation show up. I came to the conclusion that a battery that could be switched from the tail cone to the firewall depending on if flying 1 or 2 place was the "best" answer. But with that scenario if you forget to switch 1 time, your flying career may come to an abrupt end. I never understood how the KR was going to support heavy engines unless they were always flown 2 place/overgross or had some king of ballast arrangement or flew single place with some HEAVY trim. I came up with my own elevator trim arrangement. Rather than have a trim flap, I put a small arm on my stick that was friction loaded with a small spring. This then pulled either up or down on the stick directly depending on what I needed for trim and I could see readily what neutral was. I didn't like it because if the spring broke above maneuvering speed at heavy trim settings, it might get interesting. When it was in the middle of the cg range the trim was roughly neutral. The point of this is that my trim setup (which I would not recomend) did give me maybe a better indication of what kind of forces were being applied as opposed to a trim flap. Also as a point of reference I set my wing at 2 degrees positive with 1 1/2 degrees washout and used for a level datum a string pulled from the firewall to the tail. I set my elevator to 0 degrees relative to the string. I mention all this trim, AOA stuff as it's relevant to CG discussions. Maybe some of the pilots who've flown the heavier engine planes can comment. ----- Original Message ----- From: "John and Janet Martindale" To: "KRnet" Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2001 6:38 AM Subject: KR> COG thinking Hi folks I've been quiet lately although busy thinking about my Corvair engine installation. I've done some theoretical weight and balance calcs and have come across a forward COG problem that I wonder whether other Corvair workers have/are encountering? Arm is taken from the forward side of the firewall. Fuel is in wing tanks. Baggage is under front deck. Forward limit per RR manual (8" back from wing root or 520 mm from firewall) Station Weight (kg) Arm (mm) Moment (kg.mm) Combined Main axle 170 470 79900 Tail axle 20 3430 68600 Me 85 1100 93500 Min. Fuel unusable 10 870 8700 No baggage 0 0 0 Engine, prop etc. 115 -371 -42700 Total 400 520 limit 208000 The engine, with a minus arm, is forward of the firewall....surprise, surprise!! The problem is that to get it balanced at 371 mm (1 foot 2 inches) forward means that its rear must actually rest against the firewall (if not going back into it). This makes construction of the mount difficult because there is no room for triangulation of the diagonal members. Its also a strong argument for rear mounted starters etc. Going for a rear COG, say with full fuel (100 litres) and 10kg baggage, presents no COG problem but the gross weight becomes then becomes excessive. I can live with this by placarding weight/fuel limits etc. but the forward COG is a brain bender. I really don't want to put a heavy battery down in the tail!!! Any comments from other prospective Corvair installers. Take care....think about this. Have I made an error??? Regards Aussie John. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 09:27:55 -0600 To: Carter Pond From: Bobby Muse CC: kr Subject: Re: KR> Ideal control set up Message-ID: <3A743A7B.991E2C4@ev1.net> Carter Pond wrote: > OK KR Netter What is the ideal control set up for the KR2S. I hope to > fly alot of new want to be pilots and my children as they grow up. I am > favouring dual control sticks. I am guess that side sticks may give the > cockpit a larger feel although i have only seem them in a Velocity. > > I just want to confirm that the KR2S can recover from spins. Is this > true? > > Carter > Designing and Dreaming KR2S I have a center control stick that has a push-to-talk button on top. I were to do it again, I would have dual control sticks with the passenger control having a quick disconnect for when I was flying with a non-pilot. When flying for long periods of time, it is difficult to change hands on the center control stick. Bobby Muse ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 11:01:56 EST To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: DClarke351@aol.com Subject: Duel Control Message-ID: --part1_cc.ff47cd8.27a59c74_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I have a duel control assembly design I borrowed from a friend who is building a Lancair. It looks like it would fit quite well into the KR 2 or KR2S. You can either build it yourself or buy it from Lancair. Your choice. I will scan it in shortly or draw it on my little cad program and make it available to you all in the near future. I am also planning to build another fuselage (and make it a true 2 place) I'm in no hurry as I will be gathering the nessesary wood together etc. I know where to obtain some used wing spars from an old Aeronca which are very good spruce. All I will need to do is rip the needed 5/8 stock and the other parts from these spars. Don Clarke --part1_cc.ff47cd8.27a59c74_boundary-- ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 12:51:26 EST To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: EagleGator@aol.com Subject: RG 142B/U? Message-ID: <15.f14c892.27a5b61e@aol.com> --part1_15.f14c892.27a5b61e_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Gang, I'm working on wiring my panel and my GPS manual says to use RG 142B/U or RG 400/U coax to attach the antenna. How much trouble will I get into if I use RG 58U? Is it too lossy for the GPS receiver? Seeing as how electrical engineering was the only class I got to take twice in college, all I'm looking for is an "it'll work" or "don't do that!" kind of answer, I doubt I'd understand much of anything else... ;o} Cheers, Rick Junkin, St. Charles MO EagleGator@aol.com --part1_15.f14c892.27a5b61e_boundary-- ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 11:00:01 -0700 To: "krnet@mailinglists.org" From: Carson Cassidy Subject: Belly Board Message-ID: <3A745E21.5EC4C319@home.com> I've read a couple of postings recently on the placing of a belly board on the KR2S. As this is what I intend to do on mine I have a question. I had thought that it should be placed aft of the C of G of the aircraft, ideally, I thought in the location of the aft spar. One posting has suggested that it should be forward of the C og G. Is there an ideal location? Carson Cassidy Calgary, Alberta ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 13:20:37 EST To: carson.c@home.com, krnet@mailinglists.org From: EagleGator@aol.com Subject: Re: KR> Belly Board Message-ID: <6e.743289d.27a5bcf5@aol.com> --part1_6e.743289d.27a5bcf5_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 1/28/01 12:01:46 PM Central Standard Time, carson.c@home.com writes: > I've read a couple of postings recently on the placing of a belly board > on the KR2S. As this is what I intend to do on mine I have a question. > I had thought that it should be placed aft of the C of G of the > aircraft, ideally, I thought in the location of the aft spar. One > posting has suggested that it should be forward of the C og G. Is there > an ideal location? > Carson, I'm not sure what Dana was referring to, but most of the installations I've seen and read about are on the aft spar. I think the placement decision rests as much with how you plan to actuate the board as it does with aero and CG effects. The aft spar is a convenient mounting location that allows for a number of different actuation options, whether mechanical, electric, or hydraulic. There are people on the list who are using each of these, time to chime in! Dana, what's the installation forward of the CG? That could have some use in certain instances, and may be easier to retrofit to a completed airplane. thanks for the help! Cheers, Rick Junkin, St. Charles MO EagleGator@aol.com --part1_6e.743289d.27a5bcf5_boundary-- ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 14:01:19 EST To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: KR2616TJ@aol.com Subject: Re: KR> Belly Board Message-ID: In a message dated 1/28/01 1:22:12 PM Eastern Standard Time, EagleGator@aol.com writes: << Dana, what's the installation forward of the CG? That could have some use in certain instances, and may be easier to retrofit to a completed airplane. thanks for the help! >> The slickest and most simple of the installations I have seen were installed mounted to the forward spar. This is much easier to install and operate than one mounted on the aft spar. You are going to get a nose down pitching action whether you place it fore or aft of CG. As Rick and I were talking about, the only time we could see that being an issue would be if the pitching moment would be well away from the landing CG. There are some very nice installations on the aft spar but the "monkey works", with a center stick arrangement, call for some very creative engineering. By installing it on the forward spar, all one needs to activate it is push rod and stop. Pretty easy. I guess I could never figure out a good way to do aft without the weight of the components playing into the aft CG formula. Rick, aren't the speed brakes on an F-16 aft on the fuselage? Slipping works quite well in a KR though, remember you have that flat side with shape edges to cause drag and disturbance. Someone mentioned they wouldn't want one mounted on the forward spar on a taildragger. I guess I don't understand aerodynamically why, would whoever it was please explain. Dana Overall 2000 KR Gathering host Richmond, KY mailto:kr2616tj@aol.com http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/hangar/7085/ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 14:34:46 EST To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: KR2616TJ@aol.com Subject: Re: KR> Belly Board Message-ID: --part1_db.f7a85fb.27a5ce56_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 1/28/01 2:24:00 PM Eastern Standard Time, Horn2004 writes: > I'm no engineer, but deploying a belly board shouldn't really effect the CG > at all, should it? Steve, you sent this directly to me so maybe you should should resend it to the entire net. I'll answer it here though. > Steve, the deployment of the board would, but the placement of the materials > could depending on the intricacy of the hardware. I think the issue here > is what will be the pitching effect with the deployment of the board if it > positioned aft or forward of the CG. I've seen it positioned both ways and > heard no complaints either way. Virg. e-mailed me wondering if the board > placed on the aft spar would interfere with the ground. Most boards are in > the area of 32" x 8" with 1 1/2" holes drilled. Mine had 16 holes drilled > in it. This size board does not interfere with the ground on a taildragger > when mounted on the aft spar. > Dana Overall 2000 KR Gathering host Richmond, KY mailto:kr2616tj@aol.com http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/hangar/7085/ --part1_db.f7a85fb.27a5ce56_boundary-- ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 14:18:08 -0500 To: "KRnet" From: "Phil Maynard" Subject: Mark vs Phil Message-ID: <008601c0895f$0cadf780$1c01a8c0@amd500> ------=_NextPart_000_0083_01C08935.23426640 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable edited from Marks response, And when somebody says something like "It would be helpful to see curves = for stall, cruise and top speeds for engine sizes from 1600vw to 100hp for = gross weights from 800 to 1200 lb's for the RAF48, AS504-16% and AS504-18%.", = I can only roll my eyes and say "Is that ALL you NEED?". I don't guess = we've done enough, have we? Give me a couple of decades and I'll get back to = you on that. This whole mess really got started because I insisted on fair = comparisons between the airfoils. I find it odd that Mark who is = tireless in promoting the new wing or adding new materiel to his web = site is suddenly overworked when it comes to backing up the claims of = the new airfoil with data. It would be so easy for him to discredit me = and the RAF48 with such data. Then why is he so resistant to providing = it? If we had the data then this whole Mark vs Phil thing would be a = dead issue and irrelevant - who cares, let the wings speak for = themselves. When I started my challenge to the new wing I didn't expect = it to be this difficult and damaging. Mark has the most visible web site = which is a tremendous, valuable resource. For that reason he is the = defacto expert. Because of all these conflict of interest issues that = have just come up, it's important for Mark to answer these credibility = issues. What better way than to release data supporting the new airfoil? = If the new wing is better and he incorporates many long overdue = improvements to the KR in a new design along with a corvair engine, I = think that's great. It may end up being so different that it isn't a = replacement but a spin-off to the KR. Some of those ideas could be used = by KR builders as well. I think everybody benefits. I have no idea how = this is going to end up. I think a good place to start would be with = some factual comparison data airfoil. I don't have to choose a wing. I built my plane and it's very unlikly = that I will build another. If this was happening 20 years ago when I was = building my plane, I would be very frustrated reading this ongoing food = fight between these 2 old guys. I would only want to see the data so I = could make my own decision. If the data support the new wing, there must be a small army of = volunteers that could help the cause and would love to rub my face in = the data, SO LETS SEE IT!!! Phil Maynard Ridley Park, PA ------=_NextPart_000_0083_01C08935.23426640-- ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 14:22:20 EST To: pmaynard@bellatlantic.net, krnet@mailinglists.org From: KR2616TJ@aol.com Subject: Re: KR> Mark vs Phil Message-ID: --part1_df.f9b4171.27a5cb6c_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 1/28/01 2:12:55 PM Eastern Standard Time, pmaynard@bellatlantic.net writes: > If the data support the new wing, there must be a small army of volunteers > that could help the cause and would love to rub my face in the data, SO > LETS SEE IT!!! Enough is enough, nobody is saying you wing is bad, there is simply another choice available. The data is there, go rub your own face in it. To heck with rubber swords, enough is enough. Go fly your &*)^(*&^& airplane, just be sure and look between your legs for the destination where I would like to see it go. Dana Overall > > > --part1_df.f9b4171.27a5cb6c_boundary-- ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 14:27:02 EST To: pmaynard@bellatlantic.net, krnet@mailinglists.org From: CHOCTAWCWR@aol.com Subject: Re: KR> Mark vs Phil Message-ID: <61.ae11fd5.27a5cc86@aol.com> it is my understanding there is but one kr flying with the new wing and many changes were made along with the new wing, that plane does not belong to Mark, I personally am very tired of this bickering, it not only wastes my time but 500 other people have to read this JUNK, the archieves have all the data that is available, all one has to do is read it, if that is not enough, then build a set and YOU put the data out, i realize there are some self proclaimed geniuses out there that will want to flame me for this post, i just ask you do it off line, there has been far too many worthless posts to the net in the last few weeks. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 13:45:33 -0600 (CST) To: KRnet From: Steven Eberhart Subject: Re: KR> Mark vs Phil Message-ID: On Sun, 28 Jan 2001, Phil Maynard wrote: > edited from Marks response, > > And when somebody says something like "It would be helpful to see curves = for > stall, cruise and top speeds for engine sizes from 1600vw to 100hp for gr= oss > weights from 800 to 1200 lb's for the RAF48, AS504-16% and AS504-18%.", = I > can only roll my eyes and say "Is that ALL you NEED?". I don't guess we'= ve > done enough, have we? Give me a couple of decades and I'll get back to y= ou > on that. > > > This whole mess really got started because I insisted on fair comparisons= between the airfoils. I find it odd that Mark who is tireless in promoting= the new wing or adding new materiel to his web site is suddenly overworked= when it comes to backing up the claims of the new airfoil with data. It wo= uld be so easy for him to discredit me and the RAF48 with such data. Then w= hy is he so resistant to providing it? If we had the data then this whole M= ark vs Phil thing would be a dead issue and irrelevant - who cares, let the= wings speak for themselves. When I started my challenge to the new wing I = didn't expect it to be this difficult and damaging. Mark has the most visib= le web site which is a tremendous, valuable resource. For that reason he is= the defacto expert. Because of all these conflict of interest issues that = have just come up, it's important for Mark to answer these credibility issu= es. What better way than to release data supporting the new airfoil? If the= new wing is better and he incorporates many long overdue improvements to t= he KR in a new design along with a corvair engine, I think that's great. It= may end up being so different that it isn't a replacement but a spin-off t= o the KR. Some of those ideas could be used by KR builders as well. I think= everybody benefits. I have no idea how this is going to end up. I think a = good place to start would be with some factual comparison data airfoil. > I don't have to choose a wing. I built my plane and it's very unlikly tha= t I will build another. If this was happening 20 years ago when I was build= ing my plane, I would be very frustrated reading this ongoing food fight be= tween these 2 old guys. I would only want to see the data so I could make m= y own decision. > > If the data support the new wing, there must be a small army of volunteer= s that could help the cause and would love to rub my face in the data, SO L= ETS SEE IT!!! > > > Phil Maynard > Ridley Park, PA > THe data has been published for peer review in at least three different locations. Mark Langford's web site, Ashok Gopalarathnam's web sites at both the University of Illinois and North Carolina State University. Everything you are asking Mark to calculate for you can be determined from the published actual wind tunnel test data. If you don't know how to do that it isn't Mark's fault. THe first place I would suggest you look to educate yourself would be the Roncz spread sheets. John Roncz created a set of spread sheets that will let you enter the data about your airplane configuration and the airfoil characteristics and will give you all of the detailed performance data based on the setup parameters. It is unreasonable for you, or anyone else, to expect someone else to do your homework for you (IMHO). There are a number of web sites that have Excel spreadsheet versions of the Roncz spread sheets. Use your favorite search enging and search for Roncz spreadsheet. If you don't have any success let me know off line and I will send you copies as an email attachment. Steve Eberhart mailto:newtech@newtech.com One test is worth a thousand expert opinions, BUT, A THOUSAND OPINIONS ARE EASIER TO GET. --plagiarized from an unknown author ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 14:53:04 EST To: pmaynard@bellatlantic.net, krnet@mailinglists.org From: EagleGator@aol.com Subject: Re: KR> Mark vs Phil Message-ID: --part1_aa.1055cf77.27a5d2a0_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Phil, You could help us out a bit here by providing some empirical data on your airplane's performance throughout the parameters you mentioned. It would be extremely helpful if the rest of the folks with flying airplanes could provide similar data, and include power plant, aircraft configuration, and any modification information. The proof is in the empirical data. Please be specific on things such as altitude, temperature, winds, instrument calibration error, backup data sources (like GPS), parameter deviation during data collection (how steady you held altitude, airspeed, RPM, etc.). I believe the theoretical data has been compiled and published for both airfoils, and with some research, anyone that would like to should be able to perform an independent assessment/comparison of them, at least in theory. I don't have the URLs for any of these sites any more, but it sounds like you have some reference sources, Phil. Can you publish them so that other intersted folks can take a look? Thanks! Cheers, Rick Junkin, St. Charles MO EagleGator@aol.com --part1_aa.1055cf77.27a5d2a0_boundary-- ------------------------------ End of krnet Digest ***********************************