From: To: Subject: krnet Digest 31 Jan 2001 17:11:25 -0000 Issue 164 Date: Wednesday, January 31, 2001 9:11 AM krnet Digest 31 Jan 2001 17:11:25 -0000 Issue 164 Topics (messages 3900 through 3929): Rand Robinson KR cowlings 3900 by: Dave and Tina Goodman Re: GPS, etc. 3901 by: Cary Honeywell GPS 3902 by: Ron Lee 3912 by: KR2616TJ.aol.com Re: Mark vs Phil 3903 by: BillStarrs 3919 by: Mike Mims 3922 by: John Esch engine weight 3904 by: Mark Langford 3921 by: Tom Crawford 3923 by: Mark Langford 3925 by: Leonardo 3926 by: Livingstone, Danny (DJ) New builder 3905 by: George Dorius Wanna piece of this??? (Was Mark vs Phil) 3906 by: Mark D Lougheed 3907 by: BillStarrs 3911 by: Mark Jones Reply to all 3908 by: BillStarrs Cable loss 3909 by: R.H.Mole.open.ac.uk Re: Power Requirements 3910 by: John Gilbert 3914 by: Mark Langford Corvair engine weight 3913 by: Richard Parker 3916 by: Mark Langford Re: Engine weights on KR1-B 3915 by: larry flesner KR List Squabbling - Mark L's 3917 by: jshays On RG-58U again 3918 by: jshays Builder/flyers panama city 3920 by: w.g. kirkland KT-76A Pin-outs? 3924 by: EagleGator.aol.com 3928 by: jshays Fixed gear 3927 by: HEATH, DANIEL R 3929 by: Edwin Blocher Administrivia: To subscribe to the digest, e-mail: To unsubscribe from the digest, e-mail: To post to the list, e-mail: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 18:12:27 -0800 To: "KR-POST" From: "Dave and Tina Goodman" Subject: Rand Robinson KR cowlings Message-ID: <002601c08a62$197e2760$9e44a6d1@oemcomputer> ------=_NextPart_000_0023_01C08A1F.09529440 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Now, does anyone know if the KR cowlings will fit on the front of a -2S = using a Great Plains Rear Drive system? That was Rand Robinson KR cowlings... Dave "Zipper" Goodman zipperts@whidbey.net =20 ------=_NextPart_000_0023_01C08A1F.09529440-- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 21:14:50 -0500 To: From: "Cary Honeywell" Subject: Re: KR> GPS, etc. Message-ID: <004401c08a62$6cf27130$0205a8c0@home1.home> Unless he died laughing! - Cary - Cary Honeywell caryh@home.com ve3ev@rac.ca http://24.112.208.98 KR-2 http://24.112.208.98/kr2.shtml Ottawa Air Traffic http://24.112.208.98/demo3.ram -----Original Message----- From: Frank Ross To: KR2616TJ@aol.com ; krnet@mailinglists.org Date: Monday, January 29, 2001 7:50 PM Subject: Re: KR> GPS, etc. >> > No offense taken. > >And none intended. There's nothing more admirable than >a man who can laugh at himself. > ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 19:15:14 -0700 To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: Ron Lee Subject: GPS Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010129191514.007ab100@pcisys.net> I did not scroll through the entire site but I will add my comments. I have a Lowrance Airmap 100. The moving map capability along with airports and related info (runway configuration and radio frequencies) is great for Situational awareness. GPS is now plenty accurate for non-precision approaches. Add HSI and other capabilities and you should never get lost. We had two folks from next door killed a few days ago. "Rumor" is that they might have been lost. Frankly that is hard to believe since they had VOR (one 3-4 miles from home) and GPS. They crashed 10-15 miles from here. If they had GPS, being lost seems unlikely. But as far as this unit, I would not scrimp if it does not have a moving map capability. Preferably, it should equal the Garmin GPSMAP 295 (color) which can have a moving map AND HSI on the same screen. You also need airport info. I attended an AOPA Safety Foundation briefing on GPS and one point suggested is that people may look at the GPS unit too much while flying. That can be true with commercial handhelds. I suspect that the Palm unit with touch screen selection might help keeping your eyes outside instead of scrolling through different "pages." Ron Lee >That entire system looks real good. I may have to >"requisition" the Palm I got my wife for Christmas. >The prices above are only for the GPS software. The >Palm unit will cost between $250 - $400 and the GPS >adapter is around $150, which is still really cheap >for fantastic moving map with complete GPS capability >and a lot more. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 08:08:27 EST To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: KR2616TJ@aol.com Subject: Re: KR> GPS Message-ID: --part1_bb.b465888.27a816cb_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 1/29/01 9:16:12 PM Eastern Standard Time, ronlee@pcisys.net writes: > GPS is now plenty accurate for non-precision > approaches. > > I have tried my Airmap 100 for non-precision approaches in VFR conditions > and continue to use it for situational awareness on actual IMC approaches. > It's plenty accurate under VNAV for precision approaches if necessary. I > personally find it harder to use numbers than it is to simply look at a > needle to see if it is centered. That said, with the deactivation of the > position limiting of the satellites, the handheld GPS's are quite nice. > Remember, the sensitivity of IFR approved GPSs and handheld VFR GPS are > exactly the same. The only difference is IFR units have to have RAIM to be > able to "look at itself" to figure out and flag if something goes wrong > with it's positioning ability. > > Man, this is longer than I wanted it to be:-). I only posted the Palm GPS > website out of interest. If you have a Palm and want to spend $39.95 to > download the software it's pretty neat. It is not as good, in absolutely > no way, as a handheld GPS. It does not have all of the features as a my > Airmap 100. If you don't have a GPS, buy an aviation one. If you have a > Palm and want to "play", try this. I used it with a receiver I have for my > laptop and it works. I've never used it in the airplane, my partner has. > Heck, I've got enough "stuff" in there anyway. > > Bill and Lynn:-)................I'm not going to bite on those comments. > I've had my vacation I'll have you know. Just got back from flying to the > Bahamas between Christmas and New Years:-). He, He, He.......I just love > time machines........I mean airplanes. Out of KY at 8:00AM in Freeport by > 1:30PM, airlines couldn't get me there quicker, or cheaper, or freeer, or........well, you get the point. Dana Overall 2000 KR Gathering host Richmond, KY mailto:kr2616tj@aol.com http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/hangar/7085/ --part1_bb.b465888.27a816cb_boundary-- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 19:49:42 -0700 To: , , , From: "BillStarrs" Subject: Re: KR> Mark vs Phil Message-ID: <001801c08a67$4da1fc60$0f0b2aa2@starrs> He sure needs something. ----- Original Message ----- From: To: ; ; Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001 5:49 PM Subject: Re: KR> Mark vs Phil > In a message dated 1/28/01 11:23:35 AM Pacific Standard Time, > KR2616TJ@aol.com writes: > > > 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 > > I think Dana needs a vacation............... > > 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: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 07:37:28 -0800 (PST) To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: Mike Mims Subject: Re: KR> Mark vs Phil Message-ID: <20010130153728.29445.qmail@web10810.mail.yahoo.com> Wow good to see the KRNet is alive an well. I think everyone should sell their projects and we can just close this list. Life would be so much better. :o) You guys chill out and do "your" thing, what ever that maybe. __________________________________________________ Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 15:05:08 -0800 To: Mike Mims From: John Esch CC: krnet@mailinglists.org Subject: Re: KR> Mark vs Phil Message-ID: <3A7748A4.B81AC4F3@earthlink.net> Hi Mike Long time no hear. I don't know what is going on, but I more concern of working on the KR and getting questions answered here on the list. John F. Esch KR-2S Taxiway Bonanza, Independence, OR Mike Mims wrote: > Wow good to see the KRNet is alive an well. I think > everyone should sell their projects and we can just > close this list. Life would be so much better. :o) > You guys chill out and do "your" thing, what ever that maybe. > > __________________________________________________ > Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 > a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To post to the list, email: krnet@mailinglists.org > To unsubscribe, e-mail: krnet-unsubscribe@mailinglists.org > For additional commands, e-mail: krnet-help@mailinglists.org ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 21:58:21 -0600 To: From: "Mark Langford" Subject: engine weight Message-ID: <000201c08a73$765bbe50$561cf618@600athlon> Well, I haven't stirred up anything lately so... Somebody said something about a Corvair engine weighing 225 pounds. That may be true for one with no starter, but I have a feeling it would be missing a few other essential components too. Although I've yet to see it with my own eyes, William Wynne once told me that his Corvair engine with starter, intake, carb, exhaust, oil filter and cooler, and everything it takes to make it run (except the battery and fuel tank) weighs 252 pounds wet. His can be lightened by maybe 5 pounds by dumping the cast iron exhaust manifolds, but I'd call it 250 to be safe. Yes, this is a lot of weight. Mine will weigh maybe ten pounds less because the 3100cc conversion's pistons and cylinders weigh less, my starter, flex plate and mounts weigh less, and I won't be using the cast iron manifolds. Still, those are the numbers to go by (for now). That sounds like a lot of weight, but when you consider that I'll be putting out twice the power of a typical 2100cc VW, I think it's a good tradeoff. A 900 pound plane (pilot plus some fuel) with 70 hp has a power to weight ratio of 12.8 to one, while a 975 pound plane with 135 hp (my bored out Vair) is about to 7.2 to one. With that kind of power, you can stick a cruise prop on it and still get off the ground in record short distances! I might add that the weights of the Type 1 (168) and Type 4 VW (188) in the Great Plains catalog don't include carb or exhaust (I believe Steve told me), so let's make sure we compare apples to apples. When I get mine all ready to run, I'll borrow some calibrated scales and let you know what mine weighs for sure. I just weighed my long block (in the picture at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford/corvair/01012827.jpg ) at 180 pounds, but it's missing QUITE a few essentials. I don't want to start any VW/Corvair wars (hey, I'm a VW guy myself), just wanted to clarify that little weight detail. The Corvair is a heavy beast, but power to weight ratio is pretty good. It's a personal decision as to whether or not your KR can handle it, and the extra weight. Part of what makes it work on my plane is that I don't have a header tank, and my tail's control surfaces are balanced with several pounds of lead. A quick and dirty CG guesstimate tells me that I'll have a couple of inches between firewall and flexplate, but your mileage may vary considerably. You can always stick the battery in the tail, I guess... Mark Langford, Huntsville, Alabama mailto:langford@hiwaay.net see KR2S project N56ML at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 15:45:42 -0500 To: Mark Langford From: Tom Crawford CC: krnet@mailinglists.org Subject: Re: KR> engine weight Message-ID: <3A7727F6.4B19@ufl.edu> Mark Langford wrote: > > > I might add that the weights of the Type 1 (168) and Type 4 VW (188) in the > Great Plains catalog don't include carb or exhaust (I believe Steve told > me), This is what I got when I weighed my T4 VW: With everything attatched that it needs to run (carb, intake, exhaust, etc.) mine weighed 175 lbs. This is after separating it from the accessory case. All up, you need to add the weight of the accessory case, starter, and mag. Did I forget anything? I dont have the weights of these things handy, but someone who does could do the math for us and get the all up weight, firewall forward, for comparison. -- Tom Crawford Gainesville, FL N262TC Mailto:toys@ufl.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 17:36:50 -0600 From: "Mark Langford" Cc: Subject: Re: KR> engine weight Message-ID: <003801c08b15$8523e4b0$561cf618@600athlon> Tom Crawford wrote: > With everything attatched that it needs to run (carb, intake, exhaust, > etc.) mine weighed 175 lbs. This is after separating it from the > accessory case. All up, you need to add the weight of the accessory > case, starter, and mag. Did I forget anything? According to the GPASC catalog, the accessory case weighs 3.7 pounds, starter is 4.7, mag is 3.2 pounds. So that's 187 pounds. Not bad! So for 63 more pounds (as far as I can guess) you could go from 78 hp at 3400 rpm (for the 2.4 liter listed in the catalog) to 140 hp at 3400 rpm. Of course, fuel consumption would be higher, but now you've got six cylinders and a whole lot more power. Still, it's a personal decision. Some people don't want to go that fast. I only weigh 135 pounds, so I can take the weight of the Corvair in stride... Mark Langford, Huntsville, Alabama mailto:langford@hiwaay.net see KR2S project N56ML at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 09:54:16 -0200 To: "Mark Langford" , From: "Leonardo" Subject: Re: KR> engine weight Message-ID: <003601c08b7c$89b7bee0$3b0dfea9@estacao1> HELLO GUYS !!! (LEO,BRAZIL) THE PP-XLA TOOK OFF JAN 30 2001, IT WAS IN THE AIR FOR ONLY 10 MINUTES BUT MY FRIEND GLADSTON TOLD THAT IT WAS A VERY DOCILE PLANE ,WHAT LET HIM VERY IMPRESSED CAUSE EVERY ONE THINKS THE KR IS NO FUNNY GAME , I THINK IS BECAUSE OF THE SLICK LOOK IT HAS. I DECIDED NOT TURN DOWN THE ENGINE BECAUSE MANY GOOD MECANICS TOLD ME IT WAS WAST OF TIME AND MONEY. THE ONLY PROBLEM IS ,THE RIGHT BREAK STTIL NO GOOD . PAYING ATTENTION TO THE PEDALS WICH ARE ORIGINALS RAND &ROBSON WE DISCOVERED THAT THE LEFT PEDAL IS CLOSE TO THE RUDDER CABLE, BUT THE RIGHT ONE IS DISTANT WHAT MAKES THE TUBE TO BEND WHEN YOU PRESS THE PEDAL , SO PART OF THE POWER IS LOST WHEN IT BENDS. I THINK I WILL HAVE TO REPLACE THE TUBE FOR A STRONGER ONE. 130 MPH SO FAR AND 800 FPM ...... LEO,BRAZIL.KR2S COMENTS... COMENTS ....????? ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 14:45:14 +0200 To: 'Leonardo' , Mark Langford , krnet@mailinglists.org From: "Livingstone, Danny (DJ)" Subject: RE: KR> engine weight Message-ID: Great stuff Leo Now its not a boat anymore!! Danny > -----Original Message----- > From: Leonardo [SMTP:adrena@brfree.com.br] > Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2001 1:54 PM > To: Mark Langford; krnet@mailinglists.org > Subject: Re: KR> engine weight > > HELLO GUYS !!! (LEO,BRAZIL) > > THE PP-XLA TOOK OFF JAN 30 2001, IT WAS IN THE AIR FOR ONLY 10 > MINUTES BUT MY FRIEND GLADSTON TOLD THAT IT WAS A VERY DOCILE PLANE > ,WHAT > LET HIM VERY IMPRESSED CAUSE EVERY ONE THINKS THE KR IS NO FUNNY GAME , > I > THINK IS BECAUSE OF THE SLICK LOOK IT HAS. > I DECIDED NOT TURN DOWN THE ENGINE BECAUSE MANY GOOD MECANICS TOLD ME IT > WAS WAST OF TIME AND MONEY. THE ONLY PROBLEM IS ,THE RIGHT BREAK STTIL NO > GOOD . PAYING ATTENTION TO THE PEDALS WICH ARE ORIGINALS RAND &ROBSON WE > DISCOVERED THAT THE LEFT PEDAL IS CLOSE TO THE RUDDER CABLE, BUT THE RIGHT > ONE IS DISTANT WHAT MAKES THE TUBE TO BEND WHEN YOU PRESS THE PEDAL , SO > PART OF THE POWER IS LOST WHEN IT BENDS. I THINK I WILL HAVE TO REPLACE > THE > TUBE FOR A STRONGER ONE. > 130 MPH SO FAR AND 800 FPM ...... > > LEO,BRAZIL.KR2S > COMENTS... COMENTS ....????? > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 ********************************************************************** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. All opinions expressed are the sender's own and not necessarily that of the employer. ********************************************************************** ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 20:08:55 -0800 To: From: "George Dorius" Subject: New builder Message-ID: <003d01c08a72$5f076980$9066d6cc@gkdor> ------=_NextPart_000_003A_01C08A2F.4EE4FE20 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable New builder looking for a unfinished KR-2S project and/or plans in the = OR. CA. or WA. area. Thanks ------=_NextPart_000_003A_01C08A2F.4EE4FE20-- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 20:46:44 -0800 To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: Mark D Lougheed Subject: Wanna piece of this??? (Was Mark vs Phil) Message-ID: <20010129.204647.-492357.0.mdlougheed@juno.com> Hey Phil and other Airfoil Naysayers, I don't normally jump into discussions like this, but after tolerating what seems like an eternity of squabbling about which is the superior airfoil (AS .vs. RAF .vs. NACA) and what constitutes a "true" KR, I've read enough. I'm Mark Lougheed (not Langford - so get that straight right now. You can direct your flame mail about this one, to me). You might remember me from such KRNet contributions as "3D Dragonfly Canopy Dimensions" and "The Original KR Newsletter Archive On-line" (I'll talk about the newsletters later). Just when you're about ready to say thank you, you might (but probably don't) remember that I also did the CFD analysis and original KR performance computations for the (at that time unpublished) AS50xx series airfoils as well as spending time addressing the stability issues of the KR. I am astonished at the attitude on display here. Never in my wildest dreams would I treat a colleague, yet alone (literally) a world wide group of enthusiasts with the distain I have witnessed. A slippery slope of "no evidence is good enough, argue the minutia and ignore the broader principle" is apparent. When you insult the work, you insult my colleagues. When you insult my colleagues, you insult me personally AND professionally. When you insult me, you take for granted the months of work spent by both myself and this group to develop something that under different circumstances probably would not have happened. It's not that we had anything better to do. You also discount the depth of the talent pool put together (on the fly) for this exercise - you have no idea. I'm both grateful and astonished that this project happened at all - let alone have the privilege of acquainting myself with the ad-hoc group of professionals and enthusiasts assembled for the task (you know who you are, thank you). They contributed with both their talent and pocketbooks. If all this seems a bit emotional - it is. I poured months of work (as did my peers) into this project. We have attempted to document it's results and ideas objectively and to publicly welcome criticism. Might I suggest that critics of this work have offered no better documentation to support their position other than just dragging the body of work through the mud. I think it's because you just can't understand it - please educate yourself, I think a majority of us who contributed to the project are tired of doing that for you. If you want documentary evidence to support the group's positions, WRITE TO ME - I'll feed your thirst with a firehose. It's already been reviewed by peers so I don't feel I need to defend it - you'll have to decide for yourself. Think about this. If not for OUR body of work, YOU wouldn't have ANYTHING to bitch about - Imagine that - NO, I take that back, you'd just find SOMETHING ELSE. To add further insult, even the energy devoted to writing this e-mail has been a waste of my time. My advice, contribute constructively or don't contribute at all. Unsubscribe me now. (normally a gentleman) Mark D. Lougheed mdlougheed@juno.com P.S. If you think that the project has been a waste of YOUR time,you can thank me later if you happen to be rescued by the U.S. Coast Guard and one of their new fleet of rescue boats - The AS50xx project paved the way for the CFD that helped make those hulls some of the slipperiest and best handling planing hulls in the world - that is if the Coasties don't run you over like a particular whaling protester last summer - Lead, Follow or Get out of the way. To FOLLOW us, you must be BRAVE. To CATCH us, you must be QUICK. To BEAT us, YOU MUST BE KIDDING!!! >n 2001 14:08:45 -0600 >To: >From: "Mark Langford" >Subject: Re: KR> Mark vs Phil >Message-ID: <00b501c08966$1ed5c710$561cf618@600athlon> > >My buddy Phil wrote: > >>>I find it odd that Mark who is tireless in promoting the new wing >or >adding new materiel to his web site is suddenly overworked when it >comes to >backing up the claims of the new airfoil with data. >>> > >You're wrong there. I got tired of promoting the new airfoil (again) >about >a week ago! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 22:15:58 -0700 To: , "Mark D Lougheed" From: "BillStarrs" Subject: Re: KR> Wanna piece of this??? (Was Mark vs Phil) Message-ID: <001501c08a7b$bba5f540$1c0b2aa2@starrs> Mark, Thats just the way the world is . Those that know the least are the first to judge. If you let that get under you skin you will always be frustrated. Cool it. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark D Lougheed" To: Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001 9:46 PM Subject: KR> Wanna piece of this??? (Was Mark vs Phil) > Hey Phil and other Airfoil Naysayers, > > I don't normally jump into discussions like this, but after tolerating > what seems like an eternity of squabbling about which is the superior > airfoil (AS .vs. RAF .vs. NACA) and what constitutes a "true" KR, I've > read enough. > > I'm Mark Lougheed (not Langford - so get that straight right now. You > can direct your flame mail about this one, to me). You might remember me > from such KRNet contributions as "3D Dragonfly Canopy Dimensions" and > "The Original KR Newsletter Archive On-line" (I'll talk about the > newsletters later). Just when you're about ready to say thank you, you > might (but probably don't) remember that I also did the CFD analysis and > original KR performance computations for the (at that time unpublished) > AS50xx series airfoils as well as spending time addressing the stability > issues of the KR. > > I am astonished at the attitude on display here. Never in my wildest > dreams would I treat a colleague, yet alone (literally) a world wide > group of enthusiasts with the distain I have witnessed. A slippery slope > of "no evidence is good enough, argue the minutia and ignore the broader > principle" is apparent. > > When you insult the work, you insult my colleagues. When you insult my > colleagues, you insult me personally AND professionally. When you insult > me, you take for granted the months of work spent by both myself and this > group to develop something that under different circumstances probably > would not have happened. It's not that we had anything better to do. > You also discount the depth of the talent pool put together (on the fly) > for this exercise - you have no idea. > > I'm both grateful and astonished that this project happened at all - let > alone have the privilege of acquainting myself with the ad-hoc group of > professionals and enthusiasts assembled for the task (you know who you > are, thank you). They contributed with both their talent and > pocketbooks. > > If all this seems a bit emotional - it is. I poured months of work (as > did my peers) into this project. We have attempted to document it's > results and ideas objectively and to publicly welcome criticism. Might I > suggest that critics of this work have offered no better documentation to > support their position other than just dragging the body of work through > the mud. I think it's because you just can't understand it - please > educate yourself, I think a majority of us who contributed to the project > are tired of doing that for you. > > If you want documentary evidence to support the group's positions, WRITE > TO ME - I'll feed your thirst with a firehose. It's already been > reviewed by peers so I don't feel I need to defend it - you'll have to > decide for yourself. > > Think about this. If not for OUR body of work, YOU wouldn't have > ANYTHING to bitch about - Imagine that - NO, I take that back, you'd just > find SOMETHING ELSE. > > To add further insult, even the energy devoted to writing this e-mail has > been a waste of my time. My advice, contribute constructively or don't > contribute at all. > > Unsubscribe me now. > > (normally a gentleman) > Mark D. Lougheed > mdlougheed@juno.com > > P.S. If you think that the project has been a waste of YOUR time,you can > thank me later if you happen to be rescued by the U.S. Coast Guard and > one of their new fleet of rescue boats - The AS50xx project paved the way > for the CFD that helped make those hulls some of the slipperiest and best > handling planing hulls in the world - that is if the Coasties don't run > you over like a particular whaling protester last summer - Lead, Follow > or Get out of the way. > > To FOLLOW us, you must be BRAVE. > To CATCH us, you must be QUICK. > To BEAT us, YOU MUST BE KIDDING!!! > > > > > > >n 2001 14:08:45 -0600 > >To: > >From: "Mark Langford" > >Subject: Re: KR> Mark vs Phil > >Message-ID: <00b501c08966$1ed5c710$561cf618@600athlon> > > > >My buddy Phil wrote: > > > >>>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. > >>> > > > >You're wrong there. I got tired of promoting the new airfoil (again) > >about > >a week ago! > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 06:03:48 -0600 To: Mark D Lougheed From: Mark Jones CC: krnet@mailinglists.org Subject: Re: KR> Wanna piece of this??? (Was Mark vs Phil) Message-ID: <3A76ADA3.9165609B@execpc.com> THANK YOU Mark Lougheed, another outstanding achievement here. I would hope this will shut up all. THANKS again for the new wing as I will be riding the winds soon knowing I have the best!!! Mark Jones Mark D Lougheed wrote: > Hey Phil and other Airfoil Naysayers, > > I don't normally jump into discussions like this, but after tolerating > what seems like an eternity of squabbling about which is the superior > airfoil (AS .vs. RAF .vs. NACA) and what constitutes a "true" KR, I've > read enough. > > I'm Mark Lougheed (not Langford - so get that straight right now. You > can direct your flame mail about this one, to me). You might remember me > from such KRNet contributions as "3D Dragonfly Canopy Dimensions" and > "The Original KR Newsletter Archive On-line" (I'll talk about the > newsletters later). Just when you're about ready to say thank you, you > might (but probably don't) remember that I also did the CFD analysis and > original KR performance computations for the (at that time unpublished) > AS50xx series airfoils as well as spending time addressing the stability > issues of the KR. > > I am astonished at the attitude on display here. Never in my wildest > dreams would I treat a colleague, yet alone (literally) a world wide > group of enthusiasts with the distain I have witnessed. A slippery slope > of "no evidence is good enough, argue the minutia and ignore the broader > principle" is apparent. > > When you insult the work, you insult my colleagues. When you insult my > colleagues, you insult me personally AND professionally. When you insult > me, you take for granted the months of work spent by both myself and this > group to develop something that under different circumstances probably > would not have happened. It's not that we had anything better to do. > You also discount the depth of the talent pool put together (on the fly) > for this exercise - you have no idea. > > I'm both grateful and astonished that this project happened at all - let > alone have the privilege of acquainting myself with the ad-hoc group of > professionals and enthusiasts assembled for the task (you know who you > are, thank you). They contributed with both their talent and > pocketbooks. > > If all this seems a bit emotional - it is. I poured months of work (as > did my peers) into this project. We have attempted to document it's > results and ideas objectively and to publicly welcome criticism. Might I > suggest that critics of this work have offered no better documentation to > support their position other than just dragging the body of work through > the mud. I think it's because you just can't understand it - please > educate yourself, I think a majority of us who contributed to the project > are tired of doing that for you. > > If you want documentary evidence to support the group's positions, WRITE > TO ME - I'll feed your thirst with a firehose. It's already been > reviewed by peers so I don't feel I need to defend it - you'll have to > decide for yourself. > > Think about this. If not for OUR body of work, YOU wouldn't have > ANYTHING to bitch about - Imagine that - NO, I take that back, you'd just > find SOMETHING ELSE. > > To add further insult, even the energy devoted to writing this e-mail has > been a waste of my time. My advice, contribute constructively or don't > contribute at all. > > Unsubscribe me now. > > (normally a gentleman) > Mark D. Lougheed > mdlougheed@juno.com > > P.S. If you think that the project has been a waste of YOUR time,you can > thank me later if you happen to be rescued by the U.S. Coast Guard and > one of their new fleet of rescue boats - The AS50xx project paved the way > for the CFD that helped make those hulls some of the slipperiest and best > handling planing hulls in the world - that is if the Coasties don't run > you over like a particular whaling protester last summer - Lead, Follow > or Get out of the way. > > To FOLLOW us, you must be BRAVE. > To CATCH us, you must be QUICK. > To BEAT us, YOU MUST BE KIDDING!!! > > >n 2001 14:08:45 -0600 > >To: > >From: "Mark Langford" > >Subject: Re: KR> Mark vs Phil > >Message-ID: <00b501c08966$1ed5c710$561cf618@600athlon> > > > >My buddy Phil wrote: > > > >>>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. > >>> > > > >You're wrong there. I got tired of promoting the new airfoil (again) > >about > >a week ago! > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To post to the list, email: krnet@mailinglists.org > To unsubscribe, e-mail: krnet-unsubscribe@mailinglists.org > For additional commands, e-mail: krnet-help@mailinglists.org -- Mark Jones (N886MJ) Wales, WI USA E-mail me at mailto:flykr2s@execpc.com Visit my KR-2S CorvAIRCRAFT web site at http://sites.netscape.net/n886mj/homepage ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 22:25:51 -0700 To: "KR-net" From: "William J. Starrs" Subject: Reply to all Message-ID: <004401c08a7d$1eb07600$1c0b2aa2@starrs> ------=_NextPart_000_0041_01C08A42.6FFE8640 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Most of the time when I have a comment to make regarding something = posted on the net I reply directly to the the person, however I notice = that when "Reply to all " it is not posted. What am I doing wrong. Bill=20 Starrs Visit the Arizona Catholic Evidence Guild at = www.cybertrails.com/~bstarrs Find out for yourself exactly what the = Catholic Church teaches. ------=_NextPart_000_0041_01C08A42.6FFE8640-- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 08:28:16 -0000 To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: R.H.Mole@open.ac.uk Subject: Cable loss Message-ID: Hi Forrest, many thanks for your great post on RG142B versus RG58U. I had no idea it was all so complicated. Have I been daft to plumb in a connector at either end of my linking cable? The idea was to allow quick disconnect of the antenna from the cable and quick disconnect of the receiver. Is their a significant loss associated with connectors? Richard Mole ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 00:37:21 -0800 To: KR-Net From: John Gilbert Subject: Re: KR> Power Requirements Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.20010130003721.00711788@mail.blarg.net> Mark, Two problems. First, Doug Peyton said "no starter", not "no alternator." At least that is how I read it. So I think the question is "How much battery do I need to find a place to land?". I agree, no alternator sounds like you are asking to fly a glider. (Not that that is a bad idea, but I get 36:1 in mine. Your KR gets ??) Secondly, for most batteries, I respectfully disagree with your calculation. Your battery may be different. You gotta look at your battery's spec's. For most batteries, the Amp-hour rating is calculated using the rate of continuous discharge at which the battery can maintain a "usable" voltage for 20 hours. (Usable for a 12 V gel cell is something like 10.5 volts- will your equipment work at "usable"?) And quite possibly, the rating was determined at some nice temperature, like room. So a 16 Ahr battery can supply 0.8 amps for 20 hours, 0.8 x 20 = 16 Ahr. And if you use this rate you can expect closer to the number of charge/discharge cycles the manufacturer specifies. If the battery is discharged at a higher rate, the available capacity (in amp-hours) is less. The number of cycles goes down. And the capacity to which it can be recharged can go down. For an example, I looked at a battery vendor online. Lifeline "agm1234", 12 volts, 34 Amp-hours, reserve capacity 50 minutes. This battery can supply 34 amp-hours at a 20 hour rate, or 1.7 amps for 20 hours. Reserve capacity is the time in minutes a 25 amp rate can be maintained. So at 25 amps, it has a capacity of 25 x (50/60)= 20.83 amp-hours. So the battery capacity went to 60% of "rating" depending on rate of discharge. (This brand of battery is a deep discharge variety. Starter batteries may not do as well.) Some manufacturers will have some type of graph that will let you interpolate the battery capacity based on rate of discharge. So it needs to be said, if one is pulling 4 amps from a 16 Ahr battery, one won't get 4 hours. From the above example, you could expect greater than two hours. Three hours? How old is the battery? How cold is it at X,500 feet when the alternator went out? How well was the alternator working before it quit? This is why there is a voltage guage and charge guage. John Gilbert Std. Cirrus - PY Future KR-1B? "mailto:xcsoar@blarg.net" >>From: "Doug Peyton" >>Subject: Power Requirements >>Message-ID: >> >>What size battery to use if there is no starter? I have power requirements >>for one electronic ignition, a Delcom transceiver, a Faucet fuel pump, and a >>strobe light. Is bigger always better? >> >From: "Mark Langford" >Subject: Re: KR> Power Requirements >Message-ID: <001f01c08a56$1b8fbfc0$561cf618@600athlon> > >Doug Peyton wrote: > >> What size battery to use if there is no starter? > >You need to add up the current draw of all components. I'm guessing maybe 6 >amps for the ignition, 3 for the transceiver, 1 for the fuel pump, and 4 for >the strobes, but these are purely shots in the dark. Divide the number of >Ah (ampere hours) that your battery has, and that's how many hours you can >fly with everything turned on before you fall out of the sky. > >I personally think that this is risky business, when an alternator and >brackets would cost only 6 or 7 pounds (see >http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford/corvair/dynamo.html ). On the other hand, >you keep fuel in the tank, so I guess it's not much of a stretch to keep >juice in the battery. This sure would limit your range though, and cross >country flights would be out of the question. > >I have a 16 Ah battery, and my Kettering (points) ignition will use maybe 4 >amps/hour, so I'm good for 4 hours without anything else on, >theoretically... > >Mark Langford, Huntsville, Alabama >mailto:langford@hiwaay.net >see KR2S project N56ML at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford > ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 07:21:25 -0600 To: "KR-Net" From: "Mark Langford" Subject: Re: KR> Power Requirements Message-ID: <002701c08abf$8c877c90$610fa58c@tbe.com> John Gilbert wrote: >Secondly, for most batteries, I respectfully disagree with your >calculation. Your battery >may be different. You gotta look at your battery's spec's. You're right. There are many factors at work, and I was trying to give a rough idea. Another factor is at what voltage does your ignition quit working. Points types can get pretty low before crapping out, while I'm not sure (indeed, have NO IDEA) if the same can be said for electronic ignitions. Somebody who actually knows is welcome to chime in. And you're right, I did think he said no alternator rather than no starter. For some reason I see one and read the other, and vice versa. They look a lot alike don't they? I guess it was the context that threw me. As long as the battery will start the engine in the coldest weather that you expect to fly in, it's not real critical how big it is, except for the extra weight. If it's big enough to start the engine, one would assume that it would keep you up for the few minutes that it takes to find an airport (at least in Alabama), IF you notice it's discharging. > For most batteries, the Amp-hour rating is calculated using the rate of > continuous > discharge at which the battery can maintain a "usable" voltage for 20 > hours. I guess I remember that from back when I was researching batteries, but forgot. Thanks for reminding me how it's really done. I was going to let somebody else answer this question, but a day had gone by without a reply, so I thought I'd help a little. I guess I should follow my own advice and keep quiet if I don't KNOW what I'm talking about. But like a lot of people, I THOUGHT I knew... Mark Langford, Huntsville, Alabama mailto:langford@hiwaay.net see KR2S N56ML at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 13:14:25 To: langford@hiwaay.net, krnet@mailinglists.org From: "Richard Parker" Subject: Corvair engine weight Message-ID: Please feel free to share your cg calculations and recommendations for a motor mount as far as distance from the firewall. (on your web site please as I've already had enough of the krnet - I figure only about 2 of 100 e-mails are worth reading lately) I just pulled my "rebuilt" corvair apart and the crankshaft seem to be the heaviest part. Good thing I did pull it apart, 2 of the bearing were installed upside down which results in poor lubrication. Rich Parker Peterborough NH >From: "Mark Langford" >Reply-To: "Mark Langford" >To: >Subject: KR> engine weight >Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 21:58:21 -0600 > >Well, I haven't stirred up anything lately so... > >Somebody said something about a Corvair engine weighing 225 pounds. That >may be true for one with no starter, but I have a feeling it would be >missing a few other essential components too. Although I've yet to see it >with my own eyes, William Wynne once told me that his Corvair engine with >starter, intake, carb, exhaust, oil filter and cooler, and everything it >takes to make it run (except the battery and fuel tank) weighs 252 pounds >wet. His can be lightened by maybe 5 pounds by dumping the cast iron >exhaust manifolds, but I'd call it 250 to be safe. > >Yes, this is a lot of weight. Mine will weigh maybe ten pounds less >because >the 3100cc conversion's pistons and cylinders weigh less, my starter, flex >plate and mounts weigh less, and I won't be using the cast iron manifolds. >Still, those are the numbers to go by (for now). That sounds like a lot of >weight, but when you consider that I'll be putting out twice the power of a >typical 2100cc VW, I think it's a good tradeoff. A 900 pound plane (pilot >plus some fuel) with 70 hp has a power to weight ratio of 12.8 to one, >while a 975 pound plane with 135 hp (my bored out Vair) is about to 7.2 to >one. With that kind of power, you can stick a cruise prop on it and still >get off the ground in record short distances! > >I might add that the weights of the Type 1 (168) and Type 4 VW (188) in the >Great Plains catalog don't include carb or exhaust (I believe Steve told >me), so let's make sure we compare apples to apples. When I get mine all >ready to run, I'll borrow some calibrated scales and let you know what mine >weighs for sure. I just weighed my long block (in the picture at >http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford/corvair/01012827.jpg ) at 180 pounds, but >it's missing QUITE a few essentials. > >I don't want to start any VW/Corvair wars (hey, I'm a VW guy myself), just >wanted to clarify that little weight detail. The Corvair is a heavy beast, >but power to weight ratio is pretty good. It's a personal decision as to >whether or not your KR can handle it, and the extra weight. Part of what >makes it work on my plane is that I don't have a header tank, and my tail's >control surfaces are balanced with several pounds of lead. A quick and >dirty CG guesstimate tells me that I'll have a couple of inches between >firewall and flexplate, but your mileage may vary considerably. You can >always stick the battery in the tail, I guess... > >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: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 08:19:33 -0600 To: From: "Mark Langford" Subject: Re: Corvair engine weight Message-ID: <001001c08ac7$ac0fde60$610fa58c@tbe.com> Rich Parker wrote: > Please feel free to share your cg calculations and recommendations for a > motor mount as far as distance from the firewall. I haven't done any "real" CG calculations, since my engine's not complete yet, but once it is, I'll let you know. Maybe a month or two. I'm going ahead with my engine mount shortly. The simple bed mount design (like WW's at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford/corvair/00052855.jpg ) will allow me to drill holes in the square tubing where ever I want to mount the engine, so the engine can be slid fore and aft to adjust it perfectly. Then the members are drilled out and the engine's located and bolted. I may build a "learner" mount myself, nail it down, then do the real thing and have a pro weld it while I'm doing body work this summer. I said last night that mine might weigh 10 pounds less the William's but I'll have a remote cooler and filter with hoses and fittings that will probably add that back again. So I'm guessing 250 for mine now too. I'm still waiting on my welder to weld up my starter mounting bracket, and until he does, I might as well work on panel wiring for a while... Mark Langford, Huntsville, Alabama mailto:langford@hiwaay.net see KR2S N56ML at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 07:31:25 -0600 To: "Robert" , From: larry flesner Subject: Re: KR> Engine weights on KR1-B Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010130073125.0089bd70@pop3.norton.antivirus> At 10:58 PM 1/28/01 -0500, Robert wrote: >KRNetters, > >I will be building a KR1-B. It may be that my plane may be the only KR1-B >built besides the prototype, I don't know. Anyway, my question is how much >weight can I hang up front and still have a good flying plane? ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++== Robert, Hanging a Corvair on a KR-1 could definatly create some C.G. problems but I'd be just as concerned about the spars when adding that much weight with the long wings. What is the G-rating of the KR-1B and what would it be at the higher weight. I'm not an engineer so I can't help you but I'd sure get an answer to those questions before moving forward. The KR2 is rated at 7 G's at 800 pounds. Mine is heavy! (can you say pig?) If I fly mine at 1200 pounds, I figure I'm down to 4.67 G rating. I'm using the standard length wing. Jeanette (Rand) told me at one of the Gatherings that the extra length of the Diehl skins drop the rating about .5 G and you'd be adding considerable more length than that. Can you see where this is going? Any of you engineer types feel free to correct any logic errors here !! Larry Flesner ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Jan 01 08:26:26 -0600 To: KR-Net From: jshays Subject: KR List Squabbling - Mark L's Wow! Every single kitplane list I have participated in has had these kind of heated squabbles!!! Hey Guys - This is just email, big deal. Who cares who says what, why get so fired up over it. I scan these every morning with my coffee, and what I don't like I delete. On average I get 100+ emails per day, it is no big deal to delete the stuff I don't want to read. This list like most has some assholes, some really intelligent people as well, and some decent nice folks too! Anyway my point is, to calm down and not get so pissed off over something as trivial as email. Sometimes people you could really feel like killing electronically, are people you might get along with in person. Regards, Jeff. Kitfox Builder, KR plans owner. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Jan 01 08:49:38 -0600 To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: jshays Subject: On RG-58U again Here it is in Chicago, and while riding the train to work again I was thinking about the RG-58U Cable question. The real truth is, between 142, and 58, in an airplane much smaller than a C-5 Galaxy you the radio operator will never be able to tell the difference which one you use. In a past life I was an Avionics technician so I have a bit of experience with this stuff. It is like those arguments the audiophiles have about this device, that device more accurately reproducing sound at 22khz+. To me it's a deaf argument, since I probably can't even hear beyond 16k... If you really want to make your avionics work well, learn how to properly install connectors, and use the proper antenna's for your installation. It is amazing how many people buy the best materials they can find, and then use the sloppiest technique imaginable to assemble the parts. Regards, Jeff. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 13:58:02 -0500 To: "krnet" From: "w.g. kirkland" Subject: Builder/flyers panama city Message-ID: <000601c08aea$c5f63040$4e905bd1@kirkland> ------=_NextPart_000_000E_01C08932.548EF900 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Are there any builders or flyers in the Panama City/Pensacola area? We = will be renting in that area during the month of Mar. and would be = interested in seeing your project and discussing ideas or helping out. = Replies with addresses would be appreciated. The snow birds. W.G.(Bill) KIRKLAND kirkland@vianet.on.ca ------=_NextPart_000_000E_01C08932.548EF900-- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 20:43:19 EST To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: EagleGator@aol.com Subject: KT-76A Pin-outs? Message-ID: <62.b7517d2.27a8c7b7@aol.com> --part1_62.b7517d2.27a8c7b7_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit HELP!! I've managed to mislay the manual for my KT-76A transponder and I am at the point of wiring my radio stack. Does anyone have a copy of the manual? All I really need is a copy of the page with the pin-outs, if someone could scan the page and email it to me I would be most greatful! A typed list of the pin-outs would be completely adequate, come to think of it. Thanks for any help you can lend me! Cheers, Rick Junkin, St. Charles MO EagleGator@aol.com --part1_62.b7517d2.27a8c7b7_boundary-- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 Jan 01 08:23:38 -0600 To: EagleGator@aol.com, krnet From: jshays Subject: RE: KR> KT-76A Pin-outs? Rick - Garmin's GTX-320/327 is a plug and play replacement for the KT-76A. The main difference with the 327 is probably just the squat switch. Anyway they have an install manual online at: http://www.garmin.com/manuals/im327.pdf It has the pinouts you need. Regards, Jeff Hays >===== Original Message From EagleGator@aol.com ===== >HELP!! I've managed to mislay the manual for my KT-76A transponder and I am >at the point of wiring my radio stack. Does anyone have a copy of the manual? >All I really need is a copy of the page with the pin-outs, if someone could >scan the page and email it to me I would be most greatful! A typed list of >the pin-outs would be completely adequate, come to think of it. Thanks for >any help you can lend me! > >Cheers, >Rick Junkin, St. Charles MO >EagleGator@aol.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 09:15:03 -0500 To: "'krnet@mailinglists.org'" From: "HEATH, DANIEL R" Subject: Fixed gear Message-ID: Does anyone know where I can find a fixed for a KR2 that attaches to the bottom of the fuselage? Daniel R. Heath DHeath@SCANA.com 803-217-9984 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 11:06:41 -0600 To: "HEATH, DANIEL R" , From: "Edwin Blocher" Subject: Re: KR> Fixed gear Message-ID: <001301c08ba8$2fb791a0$6ae579a5@computer> Daniel, Grove Aircraft Co. at www.groveaircraft.com sells custom made spring aluminum gear for KR's. or they will custom build for you. Their KR gear is $500 and if you damage it in any way they will or replace it FREE. You can order their catalog from the web site. Ed Ed Blocher Moody, Alabama kr-n899eb@mindspring.com ----- Original Message ----- From: HEATH, DANIEL R To: Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2001 8:15 AM Subject: KR> Fixed gear > Does anyone know where I can find a fixed for a KR2 that attaches to the > bottom of the fuselage? > > Daniel R. Heath > DHeath@SCANA.com > 803-217-9984 > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 > ------------------------------ End of krnet Digest ***********************************