From: To: Subject: krnet Digest 7 Mar 2001 15:56:03 -0000 Issue 185 Date: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 8:26 AM krnet Digest 7 Mar 2001 15:56:03 -0000 Issue 185 Topics (messages 4416 through 4444): Re: horizontal tails 4416 by: Steven Eberhart 4417 by: Frank Ross 4418 by: GARYKR2.cs.com 4420 by: KR2616TJ.aol.com 4432 by: Manager Bill 4433 by: KR2616TJ.aol.com 4437 by: Ron Eason N-299DS Initial Data (AS5048) 4419 by: Dean Selby 4426 by: Steven Eberhart 4428 by: RONALD.FREIBERGER 4434 by: KR2616TJ.aol.com 4443 by: Leonardo New Web Site 4421 by: David Mullins 4422 by: IMA FLYER 4423 by: Ron Eason 4424 by: CS 4425 by: John Bryhan 4431 by: Albert Pecoraro span loading 4427 by: Manager Bill Re: Dual control stick help needed..... 4429 by: michael beck KR 2 want to buy... 4430 by: CS Need some info on Dana Overall's stabilizer design 4435 by: ALTODDKR2.aol.com 4436 by: KR2616TJ.aol.com Question on Kevlar... 4438 by: CS 4439 by: Albert Pecoraro 4440 by: CS WOOD 4441 by: Schmidt, Curtis Re: Dean flies new airfoil 4442 by: Horn2004.aol.com New airfoil on KR 2... 4444 by: CS Administrivia: To subscribe to the digest, e-mail: To unsubscribe from the digest, e-mail: To post to the list, e-mail: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 10:01:25 -0600 (CST) To: Tracy & Carol O'Brien From: Steven Eberhart cc: Frank Ross , Subject: Re: KR> horizontal tails Message-ID: On Mon, 5 Mar 2001, Tracy & Carol O'Brien wrote: > At 07:51 PM 03/04/2001 -0800, Frank Ross wrote: > >Are any of you using the "Lancair" approach to taming > >the "Pitch Problem"? Referring to a solution that > >Lancair used a few years ago by simply moving the > >attach point one inch up the elevator control horn. > >Evidently improved things quite a bit. I found the > >information (with drawing) somewhere in some KR stuff > >and KR people were discussing doing the same thing. > >At first this sounded exactly backwards to me. By > >making the control horn shorter, you make the amount > >of movement necessary to swing the elevator even less. > >In practice, however, it makes it harder to move the > >elevator and gives a much better feel. It would not be > >hard to make a control horn with both attachment > >points and actually decide for myself which feels > >best. Think that's what I'll do. Anyone else familiar > >with this? > > Netters: > > Bud Evans used a control horn adjustment to reduce the pitch sensitivity of > the VP-1 after initial flight testing. What he did was to increase the > distance between the stabilator hinge point and the control cable attach > points. The new setup then required more stick travel for a given amount of > stabilator travel and removed the twitchiness. > > Regards, > > Tracy O'Brien At first blush this looks like a good idea but what happens to the stick force per 'G'. Doesn't it become less due to the longer lever arm of the control horn? Would seem that this is going to reduce the already light control force. 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: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 09:39:55 -0800 (PST) To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: Frank Ross Subject: Re: KR> horizontal tails Message-ID: <20010305173955.6433.qmail@web4704.mail.yahoo.com> At first blush this looks like a good idea but what happens to the stick force per 'G'. Doesn't it become less due to the longer lever arm of the control horn? Would seem that this is going to reduce the already light control force. Steve Eberhart Right Steve, That's why I plan to make mine with the original attachment point and one an inch further up the control horn, so I can see for myself. The page I have from Lancair News shows a picture and discusses the changes they made and their test pilot's comments. "The pitch control feel and harmony with the ailerons is now excellent. According to (test pilot) Chuck Berthe, it couldn't be beter! It has heavier pitch and yet feels more solid at the same time. One might think that it would increase sensitivity but that does not result at all." It sounds wrong, works right, according to the article. My seat-of-the-pants approach would be to do exactly the OPPOSITE, make the control arm LONGER and move the attach point OUT an inch further. But, thinking that through, that would make the effort to move the elevator even lighter and really make it sensitive. Anyway, I'm still interested in finding a KR flying that has tried this approach and see what they found. Thanks ===== Frank Ross, San Antonio, TX, __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 13:07:20 EST To: newtech@newtech.com, tracy@localaccess.com From: GARYKR2@cs.com CC: kae_ar@yahoo.com, krnet@mailinglists.org Subject: Re: KR> horizontal tails Message-ID: <7f.110424b3.27d52fd8@cs.com> In a message dated 3/5/01 11:02:05 AM Eastern Standard Time, newtech@newtech.com writes: << At first blush this looks like a good idea but what happens to the stick force per 'G'. Doesn't it become less due to the longer lever arm of the control horn? Would seem that this is going to reduce the already light control force. >> Stick force isn't the real problem here. It's the fact that all you have to do is think about moving the stick and she moves. By cutting down on the amount of travel in the elevator, the "twicheness" will decrees. Next month when I open up my "2" for inspection, I plan on decreasing the elevator throw some more. Since I haven't come close to running out of elevator authority in a stall or other areas of slow flight, I'll keep going. Gary Hinkle (A/P) Middletown, Pa. garykr2@cs.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 17:46:18 EST To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: KR2616TJ@aol.com Subject: Re: KR> horizontal tails Message-ID: <34.11be909b.27d5713a@aol.com> --part1_34.11be909b.27d5713a_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 3/5/01 1:11:39 PM Eastern Standard Time, GARYKR2@cs.com writes: > Stick force isn't the real problem here. It's the fact that all you have > to do is think about moving the stick and she moves. > By cutting down on the amount of travel in the elevator, the > "twicheness" > will decrees. > By decreasing the "rate" of elevator travel you will affect the response time of the introduction of the flying surface to the wind, which is what you are doing by changing the pivot points. 1.3 lbs of stick force on the 2 and 2.1lbs per G on the 2S are far below the generally accepted amount of stick force. You don't want it too heavy and you don't want it too light, even the 2.1 far too light. Proper stick force, without elevator floating, allows you to fly the airplane with far less attention to the elevator without decreasing the responsiveness at all. I still want to be able to breath on it to make it move, I just want it to be more of a blow than a puff:-) That's why they add stick force to fly by wire airplanes, you want that stick feel. Best of both worlds. Dana Overall 2000 KR Gathering host Richmond, KY mailto:kr2616tj@aol.com http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/hangar/7085/ --part1_34.11be909b.27d5713a_boundary-- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2001 08:08:32 -0700 To: Steven Eberhart From: Manager Bill CC: Krnet Subject: Re: KR> horizontal tails Message-ID: <3AA4FD6E.79AECED8@nm.net> Steve: my point in discussing tail length along with horizontal tail area was just to point out that charts and rules-of-thumb on tail area relative to wing area need to be taken with a grain or two of salt. Just because the area ratio of the KR is not on the chart does not make it bad. Another rule-of-thumb is that the larger the tail area, the wider the cg range can be. The real point I wanted to make with my remarks is that longitudinal stability is determined by the distance between the center and gravity and the aerodynamic neutral point of the configuration. The tail area and length, and other factors, determine where the aerodynamic neutral point is. The designer and the builders determine where the center of gravity is. The KR has more than enough tail area and for the c.g. to be moved forward, but the taildragger configuration limits how far it can go without the airplane falling on its nose on the ground. Tricycle gear gives you more leeway in this regard. See my post to Dana Overall. Bill Marcy ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 14:09:26 EST To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: KR2616TJ@aol.com Subject: Re: KR> horizontal tails Message-ID: --part1_d4.3309111.27d68fe6_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 3/6/01 10:06:33 AM Eastern Standard Time, kids2fly@nm.net writes: > The designer and the builders determine where the center of > gravity is. > > The KR has more than enough tail area and for the c.g. to be moved > Why do we treat generally accepted aeronautical analysis with a grain or two of salt??? I'm befuddled on that one. That's my butt up there. I'm still waiting for Steve's question to be answered. Just where is that aft CG limit on the 2 & 2S, is it the published figure? Of course it has enough for go forward, the size of the horizontal stab doesn't affect the forward CG. Increasing the size of the horizontal stab increases the CG range aft, leaving the forward CG exactly where it was. Aft is the problem here and the size of the plans horizontal stab simply compounds the small CG range. If one increases the size of the HS and it increases the allowable CG range aft without affecting the forward CG...........I fail to see the problem in not increasing the horizontal stab area. Case in point, the original forward deck fuel tank. As you burn fuel you go aft, wouldn't it be better to have available range there. Put a passenger in it, same scenario. I fail to see any imaginable negative result of increasing the area of the horizontal stab. If you can point one out, with documentation, I'll sure listen. Don't worry guys, I'm out of this conversation now. Dana Overall 2000 KR Gathering host Richmond, KY mailto:kr2616tj@aol.com http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/hangar/7085/ --part1_d4.3309111.27d68fe6_boundary-- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 21:15:42 -0600 To: , From: "Ron Eason" Subject: Re: KR> horizontal tails Message-ID: <000b01c0a6b4$e640bba0$a77239ce@dana-coe> OK make it the same size as the wing. Just joking. KRRon -----Original Message----- From: KR2616TJ@aol.com To: krnet@mailinglists.org Date: Tuesday, March 06, 2001 1:10 PM Subject: Re: KR> horizontal tails >In a message dated 3/6/01 10:06:33 AM Eastern Standard Time, kids2fly@nm.net >writes: > > >> The designer and the builders determine where the center of >> gravity is. >> >> The KR has more than enough tail area and for the c.g. to be moved >> > >Why do we treat generally accepted aeronautical analysis with a grain or two >of salt??? I'm befuddled on that one. That's my butt up there. I'm still >waiting for Steve's question to be answered. Just where is that aft CG limit >on the 2 & 2S, is it the published figure? > >Of course it has enough for go forward, the size of the horizontal stab >doesn't affect the forward CG. Increasing the size of the horizontal stab >increases the CG range aft, leaving the forward CG exactly where it was. > >Aft is the problem here and the size of the plans horizontal stab simply >compounds the small CG range. If one increases the size of the HS and it >increases the allowable CG range aft without affecting the forward >CG...........I fail to see the problem in not increasing the horizontal stab >area. Case in point, the original forward deck fuel tank. As you burn fuel >you go aft, wouldn't it be better to have available range there. Put a >passenger in it, same scenario. I fail to see any imaginable negative result >of increasing the area of the horizontal stab. If you can point one out, >with documentation, I'll sure listen. > >Don't worry guys, I'm out of this conversation now. > > >Dana Overall >2000 KR Gathering host >Richmond, KY >mailto:kr2616tj@aol.com >http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/hangar/7085/ > ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 15:17:04 -0600 To: From: "Dean Selby" Subject: N-299DS Initial Data (AS5048) Message-ID: <001801c0a5b9$a1f38dc0$4a5818d0@deans> ------=_NextPart_000_0015_01C0A587.55E03960 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I have had several people ask what kind of numbers I have been = getting with the "new" airfoil. I started not to send this on the net = with all the flaming going on so please, I am not trying to convince = anyone of anything. I saw the expected numbers and made a decision. N-299DS is a 2S with AS5048 (+1 deg. incidence) tapered to AS5046 = (-2deg. incidence) with 8" extension + 4" wingtip on each wing. The = hor. stab. and elevator have had 3.5" added to each side. It is fixed = gear with gear legs 3.5" longer than stock profile. No preformed parts; = I laid up all my own fiberglass. The plane is in primer; no slick = finish and there is some dryspray, overspray, and sand scratches still = left. I'll paint when I'm satisified ther are going to be no major = changes (maybe by the gathering). The engine is a VW 1915 (75HP) with a Tennessee Propellers 5048 = prop. Empty weight is 674 lbs. Cruise @3350Rpm 145mph climbout w/o gap seals 450-500fpm @ 100mph climbout w gap seals 900-950fpm @ 100mph =20 stall power on 55 w/buffet at approx 57 stall power off 59 w/buffet at approx 61 Gap seals made a tremendous difference (almost double) in rate of climb = but had little effect on cruise or top speed.These are early numbers as = the plane has less than 10 hrs. on it but here they are for your = enjoyment. Please no critism if your not interested just delete. Dean Selby deans@usit.net (931)761-8633 ------=_NextPart_000_0015_01C0A587.55E03960-- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 21:38:35 -0600 (CST) To: Dean Selby From: Steven Eberhart cc: Subject: Re: KR> N-299DS Initial Data (AS5048) Message-ID: On Mon, 5 Mar 2001, Dean Selby wrote: > I have had several people ask what kind of numbers I have been getting with the "new" airfoil. I started not to send this on the net with all the flaming going on so please, I am not trying to convince anyone of anything. I saw the expected numbers and made a decision. > N-299DS is a 2S with AS5048 (+1 deg. incidence) tapered to AS5046 (-2deg. incidence) with 8" extension + 4" wingtip on each wing. The hor. stab. and elevator have had 3.5" added to each side. It is fixed gear with gear legs 3.5" longer than stock profile. No preformed parts; I laid up all my own fiberglass. The plane is in primer; no slick finish and there is some dryspray, overspray, and sand scratches still left. I'll paint when I'm satisified ther are going to be no major changes (maybe by the gathering). > The engine is a VW 1915 (75HP) with a Tennessee Propellers 5048 prop. Empty weight is 674 lbs. > > Cruise @3350Rpm 145mph > climbout w/o gap seals 450-500fpm @ 100mph > climbout w gap seals 900-950fpm @ 100mph > stall power on 55 w/buffet at approx 57 > stall power off 59 w/buffet at approx 61 > > > Gap seals made a tremendous difference (almost double) in rate of climb but had little effect on cruise or top speed.These are early numbers as the plane has less than 10 hrs. on it but here they are for your enjoyment. > > > Please no critism if your not interested just delete. > > Dean Selby > deans@usit.net > (931)761-8633 > > CONGRATULATIONS Dean. Glad to see you are having fun with your airplane. The numbers are what we all have been so anxiously awaiting. I think it is going to just get better once you get a nice shiney finish on it. Laminar airfloils like to be carressed with the polishing cloth :-) 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: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 23:40:04 -0500 To: "KRNET" , "Dean Selby" From: "RONALD.FREIBERGER" Subject: RE: KR> N-299DS Initial Data (AS5048) Message-ID: Dean Said, Gap seals made a tremendous difference (almost double) in rate of climb but had little effect on cruise or top speed.These are early numbers as the plane has less than 10 hrs. on it but here they are for your enjoyment. I have seen situations where real problems can occur due to stange stall breaks due to unsealed gaps. If nothing esle, use "DUCK" tape 'til you're ready for a more elegant solution. Ron Freiberger... mailto:ron.martha@mindspring.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 16:39:32 EST To: deans@usit.net, krnet@mailinglists.org From: KR2616TJ@aol.com Subject: Re: KR> N-299DS Initial Data (AS5048) Message-ID: <86.7b605e6.27d6b314@aol.com> --part1_86.7b605e6.27d6b314_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 03/05/2001 4:56:00 PM Eastern Standard Time, deans@usit.net writes: > .These are early numbers as the plane has less than 10 hrs. on it but here > they are for your enjoyment. > > > Dean, the enjoyment of success is obviously yours. Congrats on the flying. You built in record time. Dana Overall 2000 KR Gathering host Richmond, KY mailto:kr2616tj@aol.com http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/7085/ --part1_86.7b605e6.27d6b314_boundary-- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2001 12:55:25 -0300 To: "Steven Eberhart" , "Dean Selby" From: "Leonardo" Cc: Subject: Re: KR> N-299DS Initial Data (AS5048) Message-ID: <000401c0a71f$07797900$bad6fea9@estacao1> HELLO KR BROTHERS !! I'M INTERESTED IN THIS GAP SEALS , HOW CAN IT BE DONE ? THE DIFERENCE IN RATE OF CLIMB IS WHAT I'M LOOKING FOR. THANKS . LEO .BRAZIL.KR2S http://geocities.com/leoadrena/krpage.html -----Mensagem original----- De: Steven Eberhart Para: Dean Selby Cc: krnet@mailinglists.org Data: Terça-feira, 6 de Março de 2001 00:58 Assunto: Re: KR> N-299DS Initial Data (AS5048) >On Mon, 5 Mar 2001, Dean Selby wrote: > >> I have had several people ask what kind of numbers I have been getting with the "new" airfoil. I started not to send this on the net with all the flaming going on so please, I am not trying to convince anyone of anything. I saw the expected numbers and made a decision. >> N-299DS is a 2S with AS5048 (+1 deg. incidence) tapered to AS5046 (-2deg. incidence) with 8" extension + 4" wingtip on each wing. The hor. stab. and elevator have had 3.5" added to each side. It is fixed gear with gear legs 3.5" longer than stock profile. No preformed parts; I laid up all my own fiberglass. The plane is in primer; no slick finish and there is some dryspray, overspray, and sand scratches still left. I'll paint when I'm satisified ther are going to be no major changes (maybe by the gathering). >> The engine is a VW 1915 (75HP) with a Tennessee Propellers 5048 prop. Empty weight is 674 lbs. >> >> Cruise @3350Rpm 145mph >> climbout w/o gap seals 450-500fpm @ 100mph >> climbout w gap seals 900-950fpm @ 100mph >> stall power on 55 w/buffet at approx 57 >> stall power off 59 w/buffet at approx 61 >> >> >> Gap seals made a tremendous difference (almost double) in rate of climb but had little effect on cruise or top speed.These are early numbers as the plane has less than 10 hrs. on it but here they are for your enjoyment. >> >> >> Please no critism if your not interested just delete. >> >> Dean Selby >> deans@usit.net >> (931)761-8633 >> >> > >CONGRATULATIONS Dean. Glad to see you are having fun with your airplane. >The numbers are what we all have been so anxiously awaiting. I think it >is going to just get better once you get a nice shiney finish on it. >Laminar airfloils like to be carressed with the polishing cloth :-) > > >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 > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >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, 05 Mar 2001 19:28:04 -0500 To: krnet From: David Mullins Subject: New Web Site Message-ID: <3AA42F14.64BB0579@ici.net> Well Netters, It's finally ready for public consumption. I have plenty more photos to take, resize, and write about, but, here goes. My website can be viewed at: Http://www.n323xl.iwarp.com Please visit and let me know what you think. Thanks, Dave M Nashua, New Hampshire KR2S N323XL ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2001 20:12:30 -0500 To: dmullins@ici.net From: Eckmstr@netscape.net ( IMA FLYER) Cc: krnet@mailinglists.org Subject: Re: New Web Site Message-ID: <79BB88C1.2F6A0A17.00167451@netscape.net> Well done Dave! We can all benifit from your great effort. Good quality pics and helpful comments. Keep up the good work. And as always be safe and watch yur 6. Jon Minneapolis __________________________________________________________________ Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Webmail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 19:59:34 -0600 To: "David Mullins" , "krnet" From: "Ron Eason" Subject: Re: KR> New Web Site Message-ID: <001201c0a5e1$18b65100$b37239ce@dana-coe> This is the start of a excellent Web page, good work. I will link it to mine. KRRon -----Original Message----- From: David Mullins To: krnet Date: Monday, March 05, 2001 6:27 PM Subject: KR> New Web Site > > >Well Netters, > >It's finally ready for public consumption. > >I have plenty more photos to take, resize, and write about, > >but, here goes. My website can be viewed at: > >Http://www.n323xl.iwarp.com > >Please visit and let me know what you think. > >Thanks, > > >Dave M >Nashua, New Hampshire >KR2S N323XL > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >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, 5 Mar 2001 18:33:00 -0800 (PST) To: David Mullins , krnet From: CS Subject: Re: KR> New Web Site Message-ID: <20010306023300.8362.qmail@web2303.mail.yahoo.com> Hi Dave, Nice site. I will be starting work on my project within 4-6 weeks, and I always appreciate the sites that SHOW what the builder has done/is doing. Me not so bright, words bad, pictures good... I'm sure you've seen Mark Langford's site which is profusely illustrated. I've already downloaded Mark's entire site to my local HDD in case he ever takes it down. Also have downloaded tips/ideas from some other sites, will dl yours when a few more pics go up. Also, I liked your background so much that I stole it. Chuck __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2001 20:34:26 -0700 To: Ron Eason , David Mullins , krnet From: John Bryhan Subject: Re: KR> New Web Site >This is the start of a excellent Web page, good work. I will link it to >mine. > I agree, I added it to my links page. Currently I have: KRNet's homepage
The Green Chile Chapter (671)
KRnet Home Page
Photos of Jeff's KR
Dana Overall's KR2
Austin Clarks Page
Mike Mim's Site
Dr Dean's Page
Albert Pecoraro's project
Rich Parker's KR- 2S Page
Mark Langfords Site
Adrian Cartera's Site
Dana Overall's site
Marty Hammersmith's Page
Don Reid's KR- 2XL
Trent & Kelly's KR2S Project
KR-Ron's new Tri-gear retract page
Mark Jones' KR2-S (N886MJ) Page
Bill Talbot's homepage
newpage!
Dave Mullin's KR webpage

Oscar Zuniga's Flying Squirrel Page
Anybody else out there have a webpage they want a link to? John Bryhan Los Alamos NM mailto:krjeb@qwest.net http://www.users.qwest.net/~bje25/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 07:41:01 -0500 To: "kr2s group" From: "Albert Pecoraro" Subject: Re: KR> New Web Site Message-ID: <000401c0a63a$b48c9540$65d4b23f@steelcase.com> > I agree, I added it to my links page. Currently I have ... > Albert Pecoraro's project
> ... > Anybody else out there have a webpage they want a link to? > Dave's website is very well laid out - and his construction is quite admirable. BTW: John and anybody else out on KRNet ... if you have the above link to my site - it is outdated. Please use: http://home.earthlink.net/~gryphonflier Albert "who-never-updates-his-website" Pecoraro! ;-) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2001 21:19:23 -0700 To: Krnet From: Manager Bill Subject: span loading Message-ID: <3AA46548.39ED26C0@nm.net> To Chris Kugelmann in Austria Hang on, Chris, I am working on a span loading distribution for you, and you will not have to invert your airplane. Will post it on krnet for all to observe and comment. Bill Marcy Occasional Hired Gun ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 21:16:01 -0800 (PST) To: Linda Warner , krnet@mailinglists.org From: michael beck Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: KR> Dual control stick help needed..... Message-ID: <20010306051601.13185.qmail@web3102.mail.yahoo.com> In the April 1979 issue is a good dual stick. I built the one with the aileron cables below the stick and I had the cables flexing and pulling the pulleys. I built the one with the aileron cables going thru the pivot point, thru the pipe that the control horn was on. Mike Beck --- Linda Warner wrote: > Noticed the request for info on dual sticks. I > looked thru my old > newsletters and found several articles on them. One > in issue #14 I don't > care for as it appears that it would cause the > aileron cables to swing > in an arc with cable tension changes during flight. > Another is in issue > #46 and appears to be a good one. I had another > issue marked there > (#186) but can't seem to locate it right now. If > anyone wants a copy of > those, I'd be happy to provide them. My choice is > for a dual stick set > up. But it is a personal choice for each builder. Is > anyone offering a > premade unit? I've seen Rands and it looks good, > but to many would seem > pricey. I'm making my own since I'm widening the > cabin slightly (on the > bottom) & want a little more distance between the > sticks to be centered > between each persons legs a little better. John > Sickafoose, Naples Fl > > > ATTACHMENT part 2 message/rfc822 > From: GARYKR2@cs.com > Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2001 19:02:37 EST > To: ron.martha@mindspring.com, > krnet@mailinglists.org, myrddin@usa.net > Subject: Re: KR> Dual control stick help needed..... > > In a message dated 3/3/01 11:45:23 PM Eastern > Standard Time, > ron.martha@mindspring.com writes: > > << With a single stick, if you're alone (probably > the > most common condition) then you can sit in the > middle, and use the outside > rudder pedals for a comfortable single place. >> > > Yea, and you can also "Floss Your Butt Crack" > while your at it. Stop and > think where the elevator control cable is. > I have flown both single and duel stick "2s" and > the duel is better for > long flights. > Sit where you are supposed to be, and use the > rudder peddles you are > supposed to use. It's too easy to get your feet all > screwed up if something > were to go wrong. If it can, it will. > On long cross countries the seat open next to me > is used for maps,O2 > bottle, water bottle, and food. I have no problem > staying up 3hrs plus. > Except my butt gets tired. > The side stick is great when you want to play > "Fighter Pilot." And I have > noticed that with the legs out straight on the > peddles, it is harder to get > full aileron deflection due to my leg restricting > full movement to the left. > I'm 5' 9," weigh 180 and do not have fat legs. > Remember, Ken was a smerff. And made the plane > to fit him. > My opinion, Install duel sticks with the right > stick removable. > And the KR news letter had the drawings in it to > make the control > assembly you are talking about. > Gary Hinkle (A/P) > Middletown, Pa. > > garykr2@cs.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 > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 22:06:50 -0800 (PST) To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: CS Subject: KR 2 want to buy... Message-ID: <20010306060650.27980.qmail@web2303.mail.yahoo.com> Hi all, Found this ad today... KR-2 • WANTED!! KR-2 in flying condition.vfr panel,vhf, txpr mode c. Would prefer Rotax 914/912 powered.Would also like sale to include crating for shipping to Australia. Contact Stephen Johnstone, Mr located Singleton NEW SOUTH WALES AUSTRALIA. Telephone: 61 65732010. -- Posted 5 March 2001 -- -------------------------- Chuck __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 19:46:54 EST To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: ALTODDKR2@aol.com Subject: Need some info on Dana Overall's stabilizer design Message-ID: It has been fun to view the various ideas about longitudinal stabliity on the KR. Can Dana provide any details on the added stab area, airfoil of choice, etc? Thanks for any info you might be willing to share. altoddkr2@aol.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 20:49:44 EST To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: KR2616TJ@aol.com Subject: Re: KR> Need some info on Dana Overall's stabilizer design Message-ID: --part1_f2.80dd87d.27d6edb8_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 3/6/01 7:48:30 PM Eastern Standard Time, ALTODDKR2@aol.com writes: > Can Dana provide any details on the added stab area, airfoil of choice, > etc? Not to sound like I don't want to let the cat out of the bag but the people involved with the stability analysis, design, CAD and carbon fiber lay-up procedures have asked that specifics about the airfoil and horns be withheld until CAFE type data can be derived. The numbers I mentioned concerning neutral points and lbs. per G are easily derived with current modeling techniques. Take you some time, but it can be easily done. With that said, it is not so much the airfoil, as two were looked at. You can, and will, increase your CG range aft with the introduction to the airframe of more horizontal stab area. You can look at Mark Langford's web site, he has his horizontal stab airfoil out for all to see. Mine is different from Mark's. I have nondestructively tested my elevator to simulate (in real life not on paper) a 6G pull up. The tail area of the 2 is 11.17, the tail area of the 2S is 11.61 and increase of only 3.93912%, to be exact. Yet the distance from wing leading edge to tail hinge increased by 11.288%. Mark's tail area is around 13.5, an improvement of 11.6% over the standard 2S area. An increase of anything near this amount is going to increase your CG range about 20% with the forward CG remaining constant and the increase being the aft part of the envelope. I used Mark's numbers without his permission but I figured it was fair game with his airfoil numbers disclosed on his web site:-). I'm liable to hear about this when he gets off work (lots of overtime in Huntsville). What a lot of people are doing is adding about 5-6" on the outboard portion of the horizontal stab and running this rearward without increasing the size of the elevator. Any amount will help, the numbers are out there. Wouldn't want to add any one or two grains of salt to the wound though (sorry, couldn't resist). PS. Guys, I received an e-mail concerning the non response with Dean's announcement of his KR flying. Are we no longer congratulating someone when he gets his project off the ground? Just because he isn't using the RAF48, does that make it not a KR. Remember, the Rand Robinson poster airplane in all the advertisements doesn't have the RAF48 airfoil. GOOD JOB DEAN!! Dana Overall 2000 KR Gathering host Richmond, KY mailto:kr2616tj@aol.com http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/hangar/7085/ --part1_f2.80dd87d.27d6edb8_boundary-- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2001 03:57:37 -0800 (PST) To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: CS Subject: Question on Kevlar... Message-ID: <20010307115737.9393.qmail@web2304.mail.yahoo.com> Hi all, Found this stuff listed on the web... "10 yards of 0.7 oz/yd Kevlar aramid non-woven cloth, 28" width. Great in epoxy laminates for extreme impact resistance with almost zero weight" Can this be used as a finish over the heavier cloth? Mark L. on his site talks about using 1.95 oz. cloth as a finish, I was wondering if this stuff would do the same... I'm wondering about the "non-woven" part...how do you make cloth out of fibers without weaving it? Any help appreciated. Chuck __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2001 08:17:33 -0500 To: "kr2s group" From: "Albert Pecoraro" Subject: Re: KR> Question on Kevlar... Message-ID: <001101c0a709$14f1a960$abd1b23f@steelcase.com> Chuck/Netters, I feel qualified enough to answer this one (from direct experience with Kevlar - and I know Mark Langford is going to laugh and say "I told you so!" when he reads this. ;-) 1) The cloth that Mark Langford describes on his site is a very light E-glass that he uses to help eliminate gaps in the finish. 2) Kevlar is not the type of cloth you want to use as a finish layer. When you sand it, the fibers fuzz up. If you don't repair the fuzzed-up area and seal it well, you are creating an opportunity for moisture to penetrate the laminate which could lead to delamination of your part. 3) Kevlar is difficult to cut. Even though I have a pair of Kevlar shears, it still requires a bit more effort to cut than other types of glass. 4) Kevlar isn't usually used alone, but is blended with other types of material to augment the strength of the final piece. (toughness, impact resistance). 5) If you really want to use Kevlar to make your composite pieces, I would buy a 4-6 oz BID and lay the deck cloth on top as a sanding shield to protect the fibers. FYI: I built my forward deck, turtledeck, horizontal stabilizer, and elevator using 7.0oz bi-axial Kevlar and 7.0oz bi-axial S-glass tape for reinforcements. I scrapped the forward deck and turtledeck, and with a lot of (unnecessary) filler and "elbow-grease" I managed to salvage the stabilizer and elevator. I received a truckload of Kevlar free from a friend who works at a boat company, but I told him I will be giving it back. I am sticking with E-glass from this point hence - as called for in the plans. Hope this helps. Albert OK Mark ... stop grinning! ;-) ----- Original Message ----- From: "CS" To: Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 6:57 AM Subject: KR> Question on Kevlar... > Hi all, > > Found this stuff listed on the web... > > "10 yards of 0.7 oz/yd Kevlar aramid non-woven cloth, > 28" width. Great in epoxy laminates for extreme impact > resistance with almost zero weight" > > Can this be used as a finish over the heavier cloth? > Mark L. on his site talks about using 1.95 oz. cloth > as a finish, I was wondering if this stuff would do > the same... > > I'm wondering about the "non-woven" part...how do you > make cloth out of fibers without weaving it? > > Any help appreciated. > > Chuck > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. > 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: Wed, 7 Mar 2001 05:42:23 -0800 (PST) To: Albert Pecoraro , kr2s group From: CS Subject: Re: KR> Question on Kevlar... Message-ID: <20010307134223.25304.qmail@web2303.mail.yahoo.com> Hey Al, --> When> you sand it, the fibers fuzz up. -->you are creating an opportunity for> moisture -->lead to delamination of your> part. --> 3) Kevlar is difficult to cut. --> scrapped the forward deck and> turtledeck, -->a lot> of (unnecessary) filler and "elbow-grease" -------------------------- Yeah, well, other than that is it okay to use? Just kiddin', thanks for the heads-up. Also, Al, I hadn't really thought of the "Alpeco, your dog's favorite treat!" thing, but now that ya mention it... Chuck __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: 7 Mar 2001 08:02:00 -0700 To: "krnet@mailinglists.org" From: "Schmidt, Curtis" Subject: WOOD Message-ID: <0005BF9A@kaydon.com> Hey guys/gals, Can anyone recommend a source for aircraft grade Douglas Fir= ? A phone number and e-mail address would be great! Thanks in advance! Curtis Schmidt ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2001 09:42:43 EST To: KR2616TJ@aol.com, krnet@mailinglists.org From: Horn2004@aol.com Subject: Re: KR>Dean flies new airfoil Message-ID: <74.85e5776.27d7a2e3@aol.com> In a message dated 3/6/01 7:51:03 PM, KR2616TJ@aol.com writes: << Guys, I received an e-mail concerning the non response with Dean's announcement of his KR flying. Are we no longer congratulating someone when he gets his project off the ground? Just because he isn't using the RAF48, does that make it not a KR. Remember, the Rand Robinson poster airplane in all the advertisements doesn't have the RAF48 airfoil. GOOD JOB DEAN!!>> Attaboy Dean!! Love to see those initial numbers up. Keep us informed as you explore/expand the envelope. Many of us who are following in your footsteps are anxiously awaiting the details. Again, Kudos! Steve Horn horn2004@aol.com Dallas, TX ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2001 07:55:58 -0800 (PST) To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: CS Subject: New airfoil on KR 2... Message-ID: <20010307155558.29278.qmail@web2305.mail.yahoo.com> Hi all, Is anyone currently flying or building a 2 (not a 2S) with the new airfoil? All I've found so far is on the 2S. On Mark L.'s page he refers to Troy's KR 2 and Dean's (Selby) KR. Is either of these a 2? I can't find a website for Dean and can't tell from the pics of Troy's plane. I'm assuming the wing works okay on either one...? Thanks. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ End of krnet Digest ***********************************