From: To: Subject: krnet Digest 13 Feb 2001 14:27:52 -0000 Issue 170 Date: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 6:28 AM krnet Digest 13 Feb 2001 14:27:52 -0000 Issue 170 Topics (messages 4022 through 4043): Re: FWF Weights 4022 by: Robert Stone Re: another bird 4023 by: Cary Honeywell 4024 by: DennisMingear.netscape.net Learing to Fly 4025 by: Gary Vogt \(T\) 4026 by: Frank Ross 4033 by: Robert Stone Aluminum Landing Gear 4027 by: Peter Johnson 4031 by: larry flesner 4032 by: HEATH, DANIEL R Re: Mixture Problem 4028 by: Bobby Muse 4029 by: Jan Laan 4038 by: GARYKR2.cs.com Re: Leering to Fly 4030 by: HEATH, DANIEL R MARK LANGFORD 4034 by: Schmidt, Curtis Usefull Loads 4035 by: Tim McKinney 4036 by: GARYKR2.cs.com 4037 by: Brian Vasseur 4039 by: RONALD.FREIBERGER Re: Useful Loads 4040 by: Frank Ross One more try on the Prop Hub Extension 4041 by: HEATH, DANIEL R 4042 by: Donald Reid 4043 by: gleone Administrivia: To subscribe to the digest, e-mail: To unsubscribe from the digest, e-mail: To post to the list, e-mail: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 08:20:22 -0600 To: "Jack Lockamy" , From: "Robert Stone" Subject: Re: KR> FWF Weights Message-ID: <001401c09435$c68730a0$0101a8c0@pavilion> The balance point it 4" forward of the center of the main spar. Raise your aircraft using this location for the center of gravity and make adjustments as necessary to achieve a balance. Bob Stone ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jack Lockamy" To: Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2001 7:32 PM Subject: KR> FWF Weights Just curious....what is the maximum Fire-Wall-Forward weight for the KR-2S, if any? Or put another way...what is the maximum engine weight FWF that is allowed (wt. of engine, mount, manifolds, coolers, prop, etc.). Thanks, Jack ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 12:07:41 -0500 To: "Robert Stone" , From: "Cary Honeywell" Subject: Re: KR> another bird Message-ID: <001601c0944d$25166070$0205a8c0@home1.home> Spam, other than the culinary type, is similar to the bulk mail you get from the post office. It is usually unsolicited, unwanted and often commercial. It tends to annoy the receiver and kills trees when the public mail service is used. In the context of this newsgroup, unless someone else has a better description, it is off-topic emails directed at everyone on the list for the purpose of either selling something, or advertising something that doesn't really relate to the topics covered here. Most email systems can eliminate spam, but not effectively. - 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: Robert Stone To: ron.martha@mindspring.com ; Cary Honeywell ; krnet@mailinglists.org Date: Sunday, February 11, 2001 9:16 AM Subject: Re: KR> another bird >Would someone explain to me what SPAM is? > >Bob Stone >----- Original Message ----- >From: "RONALD.FREIBERGER" >To: "Cary Honeywell" ; >Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2001 6:42 PM >Subject: RE: KR> another bird > > >> Looks like spam to me. >> >> Ron Freiberger... >> mailto:ron.martha@mindspring.com >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Cary Honeywell [mailto:caryh@home.com] >> Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2001 12:25 PM >> To: krnet@mailinglists.org >> Subject: Re: KR> another bird >> >> >> I think this is spam? does anyone else think so? >> >> - 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: The Ravivs >> To: krnet@mailinglists.org >> Date: Saturday, February 10, 2001 6:26 AM >> Subject: KR> another bird >> >> >> Gentlemen, >> >> If some of you are interested in a different bird alltogether, visit us at >> the following URL: >> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Barra-buiders >> and see what's going on with those who build/fly the Barracuda. >> >> Best regards >> Mike Raviv >> >> >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To >> post to the list, email: krnet@mailinglists.org To unsubscribe, e-mail: >> krnet-unsubscribe@mailinglists.org For additional commands, e-mail: >> krnet-help@mailinglists.org >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To post to the list, email: krnet@mailinglists.org >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: krnet-unsubscribe@mailinglists.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: krnet-help@mailinglists.org >> >> > ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 16:05:05 -0500 To: caryh@home.com From: DennisMingear@netscape.net Cc: rlspjs@dashlink.com, krnet@mailinglists.org Subject: Re: KR> another bird Message-ID: <6E64D2E4.15D48035.5363BC18@netscape.net> I thought "Spam" was a canned and pressed meat product made from animal parts that you would nomally not eat if served individually. Dennis...;-) "Cary Honeywell" wrote: > > Spam, other than the culinary type, is similar to the bulk mail you get from > the post office. It is usually unsolicited, unwanted and often commercial. > It tends to annoy the receiver and kills trees when the public mail service > is used.  In the context of this newsgroup, unless someone else has a better > description, it is off-topic emails directed at everyone on the list for the > purpose of either selling something, or advertising something that doesn't > really relate to the topics covered here. > > Most email systems can eliminate spam, but not effectively. > > - 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: Robert Stone > To: ron.martha@mindspring.com ; Cary Honeywell > ; krnet@mailinglists.org > Date: Sunday, February 11, 2001 9:16 AM > Subject: Re: KR> another bird > > > >Would someone explain to me what SPAM is? > > > >Bob Stone > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "RONALD.FREIBERGER" > >To: "Cary Honeywell" ; > >Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2001 6:42 PM > >Subject: RE: KR> another bird > > > > > >> Looks like spam to me. > >> > >> Ron Freiberger... > >> mailto:ron.martha@mindspring.com > >> > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Cary Honeywell [mailto:caryh@home.com] > >> Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2001 12:25 PM > >> To: krnet@mailinglists.org > >> Subject: Re: KR> another bird > >> > >> > >> I think this is spam? does anyone else think so? > >> > >> - 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: The Ravivs > >> To: krnet@mailinglists.org > >> Date: Saturday, February 10, 2001 6:26 AM > >> Subject: KR> another bird > >> > >> > >> Gentlemen, > >> > >> If some of you are interested in a different bird alltogether, visit us > at > >> the following URL: > >> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Barra-buiders > >> and see what's going on with those who build/fly the Barracuda. > >> > >> Best regards > >> Mike Raviv > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To > >> post to the list, email: krnet@mailinglists.org To unsubscribe, e-mail: > >> krnet-unsubscribe@mailinglists.org For additional commands, e-mail: > >> krnet-help@mailinglists.org > >> > >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> To post to the list, email: krnet@mailinglists.org > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: krnet-unsubscribe@mailinglists.org > >> For additional commands, e-mail: krnet-help@mailinglists.org > >> > >> > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 own FREE, personal Netscape Webmail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 21:34:05 -0600 To: From: "Gary Vogt \(T\)" Subject: Learing to Fly Message-ID: <001f01c094a4$a6c2b720$c94a1b41@KSCABLE.com> ------=_NextPart_000_001C_01C09472.5BE523A0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I have read about KR2s for longer than I care to admit, I noticed a = couple of KR2s for sale in Trade a Plane. =20 As I am finally taking ground school and learning to fly this summer, is = the KR2 a plane that would be suitable to use to learn to fly. thanks for your time. ~G~ ------=_NextPart_000_001C_01C09472.5BE523A0-- ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 19:46:55 -0800 (PST) To: "Gary Vogt \(T\)" , krnet@mailinglists.org From: Frank Ross Subject: Re: KR> Learing to Fly Message-ID: <20010212034655.13885.qmail@web4705.mail.yahoo.com> No. Find someone else to go in with you on a Cessna 152. Learn to fly in it and sell it for what you paid for it. --- "Gary Vogt (T)" wrote: >is the KR2 a plane that would be > suitable to use to learn to fly. > thanks for your time. ~G~ > ===== Frank Ross, San Antonio, TX, __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 09:23:01 -0600 To: "Gary Vogt \(T\)" , From: "Robert Stone" Subject: Re: KR> Learing to Fly Message-ID: <000e01c09507$b157b9c0$0101a8c0@pavilion> Gary: Learn to fly with a qualified instructor in a Cessna l52 or a like trainer and be sure that after you solo (in about ten hours average)the aircraft you rent is insured. The KR-2 is not an aircraft for a beginner. I have never flown a KR-2S so I don't know about that one. Also, you may have trouble finding an instructor who is willing to teach you in a KR2S. Bob Stone ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gary Vogt (T)" To: Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2001 9:34 PM Subject: KR> Learing to Fly I have read about KR2s for longer than I care to admit, I noticed a couple of KR2s for sale in Trade a Plane. As I am finally taking ground school and learning to fly this summer, is the KR2 a plane that would be suitable to use to learn to fly. thanks for your time. ~G~ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 22:10:19 -0800 To: From: "Peter Johnson" Subject: Aluminum Landing Gear Message-ID: <005c01c094ba$9556de60$4ca5e2d1@peter> ------=_NextPart_000_0059_01C09477.6C104AC0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi. I'd like to ask if anyone is using aluminum landing gear. =20 I've priced out Diehls gear which is fine cost wise State side, but = being Canadian the price almost doubles! So, if anyone is using, or plans to use, aluminum gear legs, I would = sure appreciate comparing notes with you. Thanks. KR-2S structurally complete, controls going in, and a need for gear = approaching. Two RH 110's ready for rebuilding. mailto:pjohnson@voyageur.ca ------=_NextPart_000_0059_01C09477.6C104AC0-- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 06:53:23 -0600 To: "Peter Johnson" , From: larry flesner Subject: Re: KR> Aluminum Landing Gear Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010212065323.007fbd20@pop3.norton.antivirus> At 10:10 PM 2/11/01 -0800, Peter Johnson wrote: >Hi. I'd like to ask if anyone is using aluminum landing gear. >I've priced out Diehls gear which is fine cost wise State side, but being Canadian the price almost doubles! > >mailto:pjohnson@voyageur.ca ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++= Peter, Rand sells aluminum gear and I have seen several KR's with "homebrew" aluminum gear at the Gatherings. Aluminum should work just fine if you can get them sized corretly. The Yankee gear legs are the same material as the Diehl legs but slightly thicker. If you have a salvage yard with some Yankees, go that route. At least one KR in Texas is flying with them. If you plan to use the Corvair, I'd go with about a 30 inch leg instead of the standard Diehl 24 inch. Jeff Scott and I each have a set of 30 inch Diehl legs. I don't think Dan sells that length any more and I think they are a little thin for that length. I added some glass to mine but I think Jeff has over 150 hours on his with no problems. Diehl type fittings and a 30 inch leg will let you turn a 60 inch prop and still have about 9 inches of prop ground clearance in the tail up and level attitude. Sterba recomended a 60 X 68 for my 0-200 so you know what I'm comparing it to. Jeff's KR and mine are both longer than standard (mine 24", his about 16"). The slightly longer leg will allow you to use a slightly larger tailwheel which will help if you plan to fly off of grass. Just my 2 cents (U.S.) worth :) . My project hasn't flown yet. My shade tree engineering tells me that a Yankee leg, 29 to 30 inches long, cut to the Diehl leg size top and bottom , would be as ideal as you could get without and engineer working something up for you. Larry Flesner All my project lacks is finishing it up!! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 08:28:26 -0500 To: "'larry flesner'" , Peter Johnson , krnet@mailinglists.org From: "HEATH, DANIEL R" Subject: RE: KR> Aluminum Landing Gear Message-ID: N886KR fly's with an aluminum gear and has taken some tough hits. However, I don't know how this would work on a KR2S. Daniel R. Heath DHeath@SCANA.com 803-217-9984 -----Original Message----- From: larry flesner [mailto:flesner@midwest.net] Sent: Monday, February 12, 2001 7:53 AM To: Peter Johnson; krnet@mailinglists.org Subject: Re: KR> Aluminum Landing Gear At 10:10 PM 2/11/01 -0800, Peter Johnson wrote: >Hi. I'd like to ask if anyone is using aluminum landing gear. >I've priced out Diehls gear which is fine cost wise State side, but being Canadian the price almost doubles! > >mailto:pjohnson@voyageur.ca ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++= Peter, Rand sells aluminum gear and I have seen several KR's with "homebrew" aluminum gear at the Gatherings. Aluminum should work just fine if you can get them sized corretly. The Yankee gear legs are the same material as the Diehl legs but slightly thicker. If you have a salvage yard with some Yankees, go that route. At least one KR in Texas is flying with them. If you plan to use the Corvair, I'd go with about a 30 inch leg instead of the standard Diehl 24 inch. Jeff Scott and I each have a set of 30 inch Diehl legs. I don't think Dan sells that length any more and I think they are a little thin for that length. I added some glass to mine but I think Jeff has over 150 hours on his with no problems. Diehl type fittings and a 30 inch leg will let you turn a 60 inch prop and still have about 9 inches of prop ground clearance in the tail up and level attitude. Sterba recomended a 60 X 68 for my 0-200 so you know what I'm comparing it to. Jeff's KR and mine are both longer than standard (mine 24", his about 16"). The slightly longer leg will allow you to use a slightly larger tailwheel which will help if you plan to fly off of grass. Just my 2 cents (U.S.) worth :) . My project hasn't flown yet. My shade tree engineering tells me that a Yankee leg, 29 to 30 inches long, cut to the Diehl leg size top and bottom , would be as ideal as you could get without and engineer working something up for you. Larry Flesner All my project lacks is finishing it up!! --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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, 11 Feb 2001 23:55:45 -0600 To: Timothy Bellville From: Bobby Muse CC: "David R. Christensen" , krnet mailing lists Subject: Re: KR> Mixture Problem Message-ID: <3A877AE1.2114A5FE@ev1.net> Timothy Bellville wrote: > Tell him to check the CC volume of the cylinder heads they may not be the > same , and consequently have different compression ratios. > Tim > Sonerai I > N2206X > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "David R. Christensen" > To: "krnet mailing lists" > Sent: Friday, February 09, 2001 12:18 AM > Subject: KR> Mixture Problem > > A friend has an 1835 Volkeswagon engine with Posa carburetor on his KR2. > He says that after running the engine above idle the plug from the back > cylinder on the right side is black while the others are a normal brown > color. If he runs the engine at idle for a period of time the black plug > will foul and the engine will die. This happened on final approach and > resulted in landing short of the runway with considerable damage. He > replaced his single port cylinder heads with dual port from Great Plains > which did not help the problem. He has been told that going to an Ellison > carb would correct this. Another suggestion was to interconnect the left > and right manifolds with a copper tube which he tried and it didn't help. I > am confused on why the one cylinder on the right side would run so much > richer than the other one when they are both being supplied with the same > fuel/air mixture. He also did the air leak test with starter fluid sprayed > around the intake manifolds and detected no change in RPM. Has anyone had > a similar problem with this setup and possible explanation and solution? > Any help on this would be much appreciated. > I agree with Tim about the CC volume tests, but I would check the intensity of the spark in all cylinders. Also, you need to check if the camshaft is worn and if all of the cylinders/pistons are the same size(volume). Somehow, that cylinder is pulling in more fuel that it can burn and then exhaust. Check for restrictions in the exhaust and intake manifolds. Bobby ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 23:13:23 -0800 To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: Jan Laan Subject: Re: KR> Mixture Problem Message-ID: <98196190501@popper-4.vancouver.ipapp.com> >> Any help on this would be much appreciated. Bobby Muse wrote: >> >I agree with Tim about the CC volume tests, but I would check the intensity of >the spark in all cylinders. Also, you need to check if the camshaft is worn and >if all of the cylinders/pistons are the same size(volume). Somehow, that >cylinder is pulling in more fuel that it can burn and then exhaust. Check for >restrictions in the exhaust and intake manifolds. > >Bobby > >Cilinders don't pull in fuel; they pull in mixture which , if you use a carburator is for practical purposes the same for all cilinders. Differing compression ratios as you may get with different size combustion chambers will make the engine run marginally rough; it will not cause fouling at part throttle or idle unless someone can come up with a reasoned explanation why it should. So far I haven't seen one. Jan Laan >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >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, 12 Feb 2001 22:22:25 EST To: davec@favorites.com, krnet@mailinglists.org From: GARYKR2@cs.com Subject: Re: KR> Mixture Problem Message-ID: In a message dated 2/8/01 11:13:06 PM Eastern Standard Time, davec@favorites.com writes: << I am confused on why the one cylinder on the right side would run so much richer than the other one when they are both being supplied with the same fuel/air mixture. He also did the air leak test with starter fluid sprayed around the intake manifolds and detected no change in RPM. Has anyone had a similar problem with this setup and possible explanation and solution? Any help on this would be much appreciated. >> I will try to keep this as short and simple as possible. The intake manifold is a compromise at best. There is no way to get a perfect mixture to all the cylinders. Some will be lean and others will be rich. This is due to the distance that the mixture has to travel. Even thou the difference may only be a 1/4in, this is enough to upset the whole balance. There is a possibility that the valves and cylinders are OK. And the problem is in the manifold, the way it is made. Is it one of Great Planes or a home brew? This needs to be answered before any further trouble shooting can be done. The #3 cylinder is the one that gives me the most problems. At full throttle it runs a bit lean, but at 65% power it runs a bit rich. There is nothing wrong with the engine, it's the intake manifold. How many of you know why it is best to install CYL Head and EGT on ALL cylinders? That's correct. They all get a different mixture at different power settings. When you fly a SPAM CAN that has a factory installed CYL Temp on one head only, this is the cylinder that ran the hottest on the test bird during a portion of the flight. That may have been takeoff, climb, or cruise. NOT ALL THREE. Are you starting to get the idea as to how much of a guessing game this is? For starters, the POSA should be replaced. And don't any one start with "mine works fine." That's not the norm and unless you get lucky and get one that works, your looking to have an accident. That's why POSA went out of business. One of the guys that I fly with owns a business that builds engines and cars for some of the top racers in the country. We would play with aircraft intakes and cylinders on the flow bench, and the were really bad. You can't get an even mixture to any 2 cylinders at the same time if your life depended on it. We got close, but never dead on. The only way to get it correct is to have one carb for each cylinder, mounted at the intake valve. Look at the Jap motorcycles. That's the short of it. I need more info before going any further. Gary Hinkle (A/P) Middletown, Pa. garykr2@cs.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 08:15:46 -0500 To: "'Frank Ross'" , "Gary Vogt (T)" , krnet@mailinglists.org From: "HEATH, DANIEL R" Subject: RE: KR> Leering to Fly Message-ID: Frank, I agree, because I don't think you are going to find an instructor to teach you in the KR. Also, you need to know what flying is all about before you build your plane. You may then want to try to find someone who has a KR and is willing to spend some time with you teaching you how to fly a KR. From my experience, about 6 years in a KR, flying a KR does not resemble flying a Cessna or Champ. Daniel R. Heath DHeath@SCANA.com 803-217-9984 -----Original Message----- From: Frank Ross [mailto:kae_ar@yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2001 10:47 PM To: Gary Vogt (T); krnet@mailinglists.org Subject: Re: KR> Learing to Fly No. Find someone else to go in with you on a Cessna 152. Learn to fly in it and sell it for what you paid for it. --- "Gary Vogt (T)" wrote: >is the KR2 a plane that would be > suitable to use to learn to fly. > thanks for your time. ~G~ > ===== Frank Ross, San Antonio, TX, __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? 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: 12 Feb 2001 11:15:00 -0700 To: "krnet@mailinglists.org" From: "Schmidt, Curtis" Subject: MARK LANGFORD Message-ID: <0004F8FF@kaydon.com> Sorry for the post to everyone, Mark! If you're out there could you send me= your E-mail address? I got a little carried away with the delete button th= e other day!! I'm at work so I can't go to your web sight to get it! You kn= ow how these corporate things work! Thanks! Curtis Schmidt e-mail cschmidt@kaydon.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 02:26:30 -0600 To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: Tim McKinney Subject: Usefull Loads Message-ID: <3A88EFB6.A57923C7@ionet.net> Sorry guys I am sure these discussions are in the archives but I can not seem to find any that work. Ok first I am new to the list and am considering building a KR2. The specifications show the usefull loads to be in the 420 - 460 pound area, (depending on finished weight of the KR2). However, I have read some articles that state you should not carry more than 300 pounds in the cockpit. I am trying to get an idea of how much maximum weight KR2 pilots are carrying aloft. What is the limiting factor in determining the gross weight for an airplane? What is the lightest KR2 that you builders have built? If I build a KR2s as light as possible, with a 12 gallon header tank can I carry 400 pounds in the cockpit? Thanks ahead Tim McKinney (Oklahoma) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 17:19:12 EST To: tmack@ionet.net, krnet@mailinglists.org From: GARYKR2@cs.com Subject: Re: KR> Usefull Loads Message-ID: <3e.75ca999.27b9bb60@cs.com> In a message dated 2/12/01 3:40:14 PM Eastern Standard Time, tmack@ionet.net writes: << However, I have read some articles that state you should not carry more than 300 pounds in the cockpit. I am trying to get an idea of how much maximum weight KR2 pilots are carrying aloft. What is the limiting factor in determining the gross weight for an airplane? What is the lightest KR2 that you builders have built? If I build a KR2s as light as possible, with a 12 gallon header tank can I carry 400 pounds in the cockpit? >> As far as gross weight, that is set by you when you build it. The plans are a guideline. NOT CAST IN STONE. The builder is responsible for setting the limits. Not the designer. Every homebuilt is considered a new design. That's why you are made to fly a period of time to prove the quality of the airplane. If you wanted to set the gross at 5000lbs, you can. You will have to explain to the FAA how you came to this, and you would be nuts, but you have every legal right to do this. The gross on mine is set at 1150lbs. I can put 400lbs in the seats and full fuel(14gal in wings, 5gal in header). When you do the weight and balance, then and only then will you know what you can and can't put in it. Gary Hinkle (A/P) Middletown, Pa. garykr2@cs.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 19:29:35 -0700 To: "Tim McKinney" , From: "Brian Vasseur" Subject: Re: KR> Usefull Loads Message-ID: <003c01c09564$cec8aca0$2c45e4cf@C5477> I reviewed my 15 years of newsletters and remember an article where a new buyer brought his friend with him to inspect a KR2 and then fly it home if they liked it. Both were big guys but the newsletter didn't provide weights that I remember. The takeoff went really badly, the aircraft took off and went nose up because there wasn't enough elevator to keep the nose down. They brought the gear up which was enough to let them increase speed and fly it. They found that the airplane couldn't be controlled under 120 mph. Finally on landing they were able to slow to 100 over the threshold but the airplane got stuck in ground effect and wouldn't land. They ended up off the end of the runway with a wrecked airplane. The KR2S is better with the extra length so people have pushed the gross weights into the 1100-1200 pound range. The bottom line is that at the aft CG position the airplane will be twitchy, and if you load past that you'll have a dangerous airplane. If you're really set on high gross weights build around a bigger engine like the O200 or Corvair to get some weight into the nose and/or move the engine forward a bit more. You're better off to fly near the front CG position then ever near/past aft CG. Brian ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim McKinney" To: Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 1:26 AM Subject: KR> Usefull Loads > Sorry guys I am sure these discussions are in the archives but I can not > seem to find any that work. Ok first I am new to the list and am > considering building a KR2. The specifications show the usefull loads to > be in the 420 - 460 pound area, (depending on finished weight of the > KR2). However, I have read some articles that state you should not carry > more than 300 pounds in the cockpit. I am trying to get an idea of how > much maximum weight KR2 pilots are carrying aloft. What is the limiting > factor in determining the gross weight for an airplane? What is the > lightest KR2 that you builders have built? If I build a KR2s as light as > possible, with a 12 gallon header tank can I carry 400 pounds in the > cockpit? > > Thanks ahead > > Tim McKinney > (Oklahoma) > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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, 13 Feb 2001 00:40:18 -0500 To: "Brian Vasseur" , "Tim McKinney" , From: "RONALD.FREIBERGER" Subject: RE: KR> Usefull Loads Message-ID: I'm not sure I believe an airplane that's so heavy it won't fly, and then won't land!!! There's more to ground effect than I thought. Ron Freiberger... mailto:ron.martha@mindspring.com -----Original Message----- From: Brian Vasseur [mailto:vasseurb@cadvision.com] Sent: Monday, February 12, 2001 9:30 PM To: Tim McKinney; krnet@mailinglists.org Subject: Re: KR> Usefull Loads I reviewed my 15 years of newsletters and remember an article where a new buyer brought his friend with him to inspect a KR2 and then fly it home if they liked it. Both were big guys but the newsletter didn't provide weights that I remember. The takeoff went really badly, the aircraft took off and went nose up because there wasn't enough elevator to keep the nose down. They brought the gear up which was enough to let them increase speed and fly it. They found that the airplane couldn't be controlled under 120 mph. Finally on landing they were able to slow to 100 over the threshold but the airplane got stuck in ground effect and wouldn't land. They ended up off the end of the runway with a wrecked airplane. The KR2S is better with the extra length so people have pushed the gross weights into the 1100-1200 pound range. The bottom line is that at the aft CG position the airplane will be twitchy, and if you load past that you'll have a dangerous airplane. If you're really set on high gross weights build around a bigger engine like the O200 or Corvair to get some weight into the nose and/or move the engine forward a bit more. You're better off to fly near the front CG position then ever near/past aft CG. Brian ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim McKinney" To: Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 1:26 AM Subject: KR> Usefull Loads > Sorry guys I am sure these discussions are in the archives but I can not > seem to find any that work. Ok first I am new to the list and am > considering building a KR2. The specifications show the usefull loads to > be in the 420 - 460 pound area, (depending on finished weight of the > KR2). However, I have read some articles that state you should not carry > more than 300 pounds in the cockpit. I am trying to get an idea of how > much maximum weight KR2 pilots are carrying aloft. What is the limiting > factor in determining the gross weight for an airplane? What is the > lightest KR2 that you builders have built? If I build a KR2s as light as > possible, with a 12 gallon header tank can I carry 400 pounds in the > cockpit? > > Thanks ahead > > Tim McKinney > (Oklahoma) > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To post to the list, email: krnet@mailinglists.org > To unsubscribe, e-mail: krnet-unsubscribe@mailinglists.org > For additional commands, e-mail: krnet-help@mailinglists.org > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To post to the list, email: krnet@mailinglists.org To unsubscribe, e-mail: krnet-unsubscribe@mailinglists.org For additional commands, e-mail: krnet-help@mailinglists.org ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 00:28:24 -0800 (PST) To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: Frank Ross Subject: Re: KR> Useful Loads Message-ID: <20010213082824.10331.qmail@web4703.mail.yahoo.com> can I carry > 400 pounds in the > cockpit? > > Thanks ahead > > Tim McKinney Tim, I haven't built or flown a KR yet, so keep that in mind. At the last KR gathering, Marty Roberts flew constantly with two 200 lb people in his plane. He has an 0-200 engine, not a VW. Others flew with two people but most looked like they were under 200 both for pilot and passenger. This is a small cockpit and two 200 pounders is tight. On the other hand, with a 2100 VW and a KR2S with slightly widened cockpit, I don't think you'd have much trouble with 300lbs in the cockpit - as long as it's not ALL in the left seat... Bottom line, the EASIEST way to take 50 pounds off your plane is to lose weight. I say that knowing how hard it is for ME to lose 50 lbs. And I could stand to. Good luck. ===== Frank Ross, San Antonio, TX, __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 08:11:29 -0500 To: "'krnet@mailinglists.org'" From: "HEATH, DANIEL R" Subject: One more try on the Prop Hub Extension Message-ID: Please help, I need information. I cannot find the aluminum required to make a prop hub extension. All who have replied, have not given me any idea where these can be made. I certainly don't want to trust a local machine shop to build one, if this is the first one they have ever built. I have tried Vans, Diehl, Sterba, and Bennett and the most I can get is that I can probably put a 3" extension on a force one hub on a GP Top Bug. Any and all help will be appreciated. Daniel R. Heath DHeath@SCANA.com 803-217-9984 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 08:48:04 -0500 To: "HEATH, DANIEL R" , "'krnet@mailinglists.org'" From: Donald Reid Subject: Re: KR> One more try on the Prop Hub Extension Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.0.20010213082830.009f4880@pop.erols.com> --=====================_1926138==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 08:11 AM 2/13/2001 -0500, HEATH, DANIEL R wrote: >Please help, I need information. I cannot find the aluminum required to >make a prop hub extension. All who have replied, have not given me any idea >where these can be made. I certainly don't want to trust a local machine >shop to build one, if this is the first one they have ever built. > >I have tried Vans, Diehl, Sterba, and Bennett and the most I can get is that >I can probably put a 3" extension on a force one hub on a GP Top Bug. This one actually sounds like two questions: "cannot find the aluminum required to make a prop hub extension" and "the most I can get is that I can probably put a 3" extension on a force one hub" Almost any aluminum alloy would work. 6061T6 or 2024T3 are probably the easiest to get and they would work. You can get those at any metal specialty supply house. I do not have any names, but they are not that hard to find. You can also use a non-airworthy aluminum prop as a starting point, provided the bolt pattern is correct. Cut the blades off the hub and then machine the hub to make the extension. For a quick and dirty (also correct) design, use a commercially available extension as a pattern. There is nothing magical about the design. The flanges (bolted areas) need to be thick enough, the shaft has to be large enough in diameter, and there MUST be a generous radius between the flanges and the shaft. If you mean how long the extension can be ... that is entirely dependent upon the engine and its bearings. Prop extensions increase the gyroscopic loading on the engine bearings and case. Since you are talking about a VW engine, they generally have automotive style bearings on the pulley end of the engine. Aircraft engines have a really massive bearing on the prop end of the crank case. They can safely use long extensions. A stock VW case is a poor choice for an extension on the pulley end since the bearing is not designed for it. The small racing airplanes with O200 engines can use as much a 14 inches of extension, but they are specially setup for that application. A better alternative is one of the units that mounts the prop on the flywheel end of the engine. It looks kind of like a transmission bellhousing with a prop on the end of it. I think that Great Plains makes one. Check that one out. Don Reid mailto:donreid@erols.com Bumpass, Va KR2XL construction at http://users.erols.com/donreid/kr_page.htm Ultralights at http://users.erols.com/donreid/usua250.html --=====================_1926138==_.ALT-- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 07:26:26 -0700 To: Donald Reid From: gleone CC: "HEATH, DANIEL R" , "'krnet@mailinglists.org'" Subject: Re: KR> One more try on the Prop Hub Extension Message-ID: <3A894412.3F3683B1@tritel.net> --------------B084EE81FB36589A03535008 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit You might want to start your search here: http://www.commercialmetals.com/ You will find links to various outlet sources at this site as well. Donald Reid wrote: > At 08:11 AM 2/13/2001 -0500, HEATH, DANIEL R wrote: > >Please help, I need information. I cannot find the aluminum required to > >make a prop hub extension. All who have replied, have not given me any idea > >where these can be made. I certainly don't want to trust a local machine > >shop to build one, if this is the first one they have ever built. > > > >I have tried Vans, Diehl, Sterba, and Bennett and the most I can get is that > >I can probably put a 3" extension on a force one hub on a GP Top Bug. > > This one actually sounds like two questions: "cannot find the aluminum > required to > make a prop hub extension" and "the most I can get is that I can probably > put a 3" extension on a force one hub" > > Almost any aluminum alloy would work. 6061T6 or 2024T3 are probably the > easiest to get and they would work. You can get those at any metal > specialty supply house. I do not have any names, but they are not that > hard to find. You can also use a non-airworthy aluminum prop as a starting > point, provided the bolt pattern is correct. Cut the blades off the hub > and then machine the hub to make the extension. For a quick and dirty > (also correct) design, use a commercially available extension as a > pattern. There is nothing magical about the design. The flanges (bolted > areas) need to be thick enough, the shaft has to be large enough in > diameter, and there MUST be a generous radius between the flanges and the > shaft. > > If you mean how long the extension can be ... that is entirely dependent > upon the engine and its bearings. Prop extensions increase the gyroscopic > loading on the engine bearings and case. Since you are talking about a VW > engine, they generally have automotive style bearings on the pulley end of > the engine. Aircraft engines have a really massive bearing on the prop end > of the crank case. They can safely use long extensions. A stock VW case > is a poor choice for an extension on the pulley end since the bearing is > not designed for it. The small racing airplanes with O200 engines can use > as much a 14 inches of extension, but they are specially setup for that > application. > > A better alternative is one of the units that mounts the prop on the > flywheel end of the engine. It looks kind of like a transmission > bellhousing with a prop on the end of it. I think that Great Plains makes > one. Check that one out. > > Don Reid mailto:donreid@erols.com > Bumpass, Va > > KR2XL construction at http://users.erols.com/donreid/kr_page.htm > Ultralights at http://users.erols.com/donreid/usua250.html --------------B084EE81FB36589A03535008-- ------------------------------ End of krnet Digest ***********************************