From: To: Subject: krnet Digest 11 May 2001 12:29:28 -0000 Issue 222 Date: Friday, May 11, 2001 5:29 AM krnet Digest 11 May 2001 12:29:28 -0000 Issue 222 Topics (messages 5305 through 5334): Re: Re Fiberglassing 5305 by: CHOCTAWCWR.aol.com 5307 by: Laheze.aol.com 5311 by: Steven Eberhart 5312 by: virgnvs.juno.com 5313 by: Steven Eberhart 5316 by: Frank Ross 5329 by: Ron Eason 5333 by: HEATH, DANIEL R Oh, PLEASE don't take offense... 5306 by: CS Larry, Larry, Larry... 5308 by: CS ignition 5309 by: John and Janet Martindale Re: Trim wheel 5310 by: Dale Baldwin Do not work on KR's on Mother's Day 5314 by: Guenther Bryce 5315 by: William J. Starrs KR Wing Foam 5317 by: Laheze.aol.com 5319 by: Robert X. Cringely 5323 by: Ron Eason 5326 by: Steven Eberhart 5327 by: Hotmail 5330 by: Laheze.aol.com 5331 by: Bill McCraw 5332 by: HEATH, DANIEL R Re: Question 5318 by: JC Marais Elevator gap seal 5320 by: Kenneth L Wiltrout 5321 by: Mark Langford Re: Elevator gap seals 5322 by: Hotmail 5324 by: Hotmail 5325 by: Mark Langford 5328 by: Hotmail KR2 STILL FOR SALE 5334 by: Schmidt, Curtis Administrivia: To subscribe to the digest, e-mail: To unsubscribe from the digest, e-mail: To post to the list, e-mail: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 00:08:40 EDT To: flykr2s@execpc.com, langford@hiwaay.net From: CHOCTAWCWR@aol.com CC: krnet@mailinglists.org Subject: Re: KR> Re Fiberglassing Message-ID: <72.a7bc671.282b6e48@aol.com> finally after many weeks i recieced a post from the net. it is my first in a very long time. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 01:44:57 EDT To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: Laheze@aol.com Subject: Re Fiberglassing Message-ID: <60.e557495.282b84d9@aol.com> OK Everyone, Lets get something straight right now! I am not telling anyone to use anything on their airplane other than what is in the plans from Rand Robinson. As we all know, Ken Rand originally used Dynel fabric soaked in resin to cover the wings of his designs. I think we all know that they flew fine, and that Dynel is probably not structural at all, ( I still have some Dynel if anyone wants a sample of it). I also think we all know that the KR has two pretty strong wooden spars in the wings that a foam and glass wing does not have. Most foam and fiberglass structure wings rely heavily on the surface skins as part of the structure. A KR needs the airfoil shape to be stiff which is what the Dynel fabric originally did for Ken while the spars carried most of the loads. This is my opinion only! When I am explaining how to do something after someone has inquired about a cloth or a technique, that's it, just explaining how to do it or what I know about the subject. I am sure I used the wrong term when I said that using unidirectional cloth was more efficient. I was answering a guys email to me when I said that, he asked me directly about unidirectional cloth, I think I had in mind no edge overlaps, better strength, and things like that when I said efficient. I certainly did not mean you could build your KR faster by using it or that your KR might be lighter weight. When I have stated in earlier posts that unidirectional cloth is stronger than bidirectional cloth, inherently it is, in an ounce to ounce comparison. It is stronger because it is not woven, as I said the little kinks that are put in bid when it is woven weaken it as compared to unidirectional cloth. This is a tested and known fact not something I dreamed up on my own. I think someone mentioned weight, extra resin, torsional strength question. It would be obvious that if you were using a heavier ounce per sqft cloth that it would require more resin and be a heavier weight. As to torsional strength, the unidirectional cloth would be stronger torsionally (if laid up at 45 degree angles to the leading edge of a wing) simply because it is stronger to begin with. As to the putting unidirectional cloth on a wing, fuselage, hot rod car, boat, or what ever here is my technique. When uni is laid on whatever, lets say it comes on rolls 38 inches wide. The way it is applied is like any cloth roll off whatever length you need x 38 inch width. If 38 inches is not wide enough then roll off another 38 in width by the needed length of it parallel to the first run. Lay it down butted up next to the first run not overlapped onto the first run and continue pulling out runs until you have covered what ever. Then put as many other layers as your design requires lain at opposite angle if using two layers and at lesser angles if using some other technique. One more time, if you are putting one layer of 5 or 6 ounce bid on your KR wing, then of course two layers of 5 or 6 ounce unidirectional cloth would be heavier and compared to Dynel, a serious OVERKILL strength wise. If you can find some 3 ounce unidirectional cloth and want to take the time to put two layers ( I WOULD DO THIS ON MINE ) on your wings then it would be stronger than one layer of 5.5 or 6 ounce Bidirectional cloth. I do believe that the Dynel proved we do not need a huge amount of strength in KR wing skins. In being a cautious type of person that I am, a little more strength is good! I hope this explains my position and my opinion and I hope I have not offended anyone with any of my statements. Larry Howell laheze@aol.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 10:05:03 -0500 (CDT) To: From: Steven Eberhart cc: Subject: Re: KR> Re Fiberglassing Message-ID: On Thu, 10 May 2001 Laheze@aol.com wrote: > OK Everyone, > > Lets get something straight right now! I am not telling anyone to use > anything on their airplane other than what is in the plans from Rand > Robinson. This has been one of the better threads. A lot of good information for all builders to think about when making their choices in how they will build their airplane. Some of the issues discussed were 1) how to prepare the surface with micro slurry to insure the best bond possible, 2) how to apply UNI-directional cloth on the bias, 3) the need for two opposing diagnal layers of cloth when using UNI, 4) mixing ratios for micro slurry epoxy, 5) how to prepare BID on plastic sheets to simplify application, 6) Weight of two layers of cloth viv-a-vis one layer when one layer is specified by RR and has proven to be sufficient with over 1,000 KR's flying, 7) various types of peel ply material, 8) hard shelling before applying glass, 9) types of foam and sources, etc. Pretty good discussion if you ask me. A couple of things that were not discussed were 1) the long term durability of a wing with only one layer of BID and 2) why not apply BID straight down the wing rather than on the bias. First, most of us that have been to any number of KR Gatherings can probably remember seeing wings, on high time KR's, that had stress "wrinkles" due partially to skin delamination from the foam. More than one KR has had its wing re-glassed to fix this problem. Some of the things that might help the situation are a good micro slurry application to provide the best possible bond between the glass layer and the foam and possibly a stiffer wing skin, i.e, two layers of uni at 45 degree angles THe second is applying the BID glass cloth straight down the wing rather than on the bias. If we assume that the covering is not structural than it probably doesn't matter but I am not buying that argument. It is a little harder to apply the cloth on the bias but the torsional strength added is significant. We all have heard the term flutter. The fixed portion of the wing contributes as well as the control surface. At last years Gathering a very well respected KR person was telling new builders that it wasn't necessary to apply the wing glass on the bias. The bottom line is why reduce the structural strength span wise, chord wise and torsionally by putting the cloth straight down the wing when it would be stronger in all of the critical directions by putting it ON THE BIAS. Just some things to think about and a thank you for such high quality contributions. 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: Wed, 9 May 2001 17:46:05 -0400 To: langford@hiwaay.net From: virgnvs@juno.com Cc: krnet@mailinglists.org Subject: Re: KR> Re Fiberglassing Message-ID: <20010510.112319.-261423.1.virgnvs@juno.com> Let me in on the RUSTOLEUM thing, Virg On Wed, 9 May 2001 12:20:23 -0500 "Mark Langford" writes: > > The question is when? > > MJ > > Well, I took the afternoon off to work on the cowling, and plan to > do a lot > more of that now that "composite weather" is here, and I have 7 > weeks of > vacation saved up. > > Are you the pot calling the kettle black? What'd you skin your > wings with? > Did you ever get that Rustoleum to stick? > > Mark Langford, Huntsville, Alabama > mailto:langford@hiwaay.net > see KR2S project N56ML at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To post to the list, email: krnet@mailinglists.org > > > To UNsubscribe, e-mail: krnet-unsubscribe@mailinglists.org > For additional commands, e-mail: krnet-help@mailinglists.org > > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 10:38:12 -0500 (CDT) To: Richard McCall From: Steven Eberhart cc: Subject: Re: KR> Re Fiberglassing Message-ID: I don't know what you might have seen but I am using a compresser from an old refrigerator. I got it from the industrial arts department at our local high school. THey even brazed on a brass fitting for the vacuum fitting. I bought the various fittings, vacuum gauge, etc from Fibre Glast, Inc. You can find them on the web. THey are a little pricey but the have everything. Also have several videos of fiberglassing, mold making, etc that are helpful. I am out of town at the moment but will try to get a couple of pictures for you of my "little sucker" vacuum pump when I get home. It does blow a little oil out of the exhaust and will probably run dry some day but it is still going strong. Guess they knew how to make things that last in the good old days. Steve Eberhart On Thu, 10 May 2001, Richard McCall wrote: > I agree, these classes or sections are one of the most > important reasons for attending these Fly-ins! > > Does anyone near the Dallas area know where I might > find a vacuum pump like the one used in the vacuum > bagging demonstration? I ordered a vacuum pump from > Harbor Frieght and it turned out to be a connector to > my air compressor that created vacuum from the air > hose and didn't pull enough pressure to draw down the > bagging on a peice of quarter inch Clark Foam. > > Rich McCall > Dallas KR2SXL Builder > Email: Planecrafter76262@yahoo.com > > --- Steven Eberhart wrote: > > On Thu, 10 May 2001 Laheze@aol.com wrote: > > > > > OK Everyone, Lets get something straight right > now! I am not telling anyone to use anything on their > airplane other than what is in the plans from Rand > Robinson. ...... This has been one of the > better threads. A lot of good information for all > builders to think about when making their choices in > how they will build their airplane. ...... > Pretty good discussion if you ask me.... > > > Steve Eberhart > > > ===== > Richard McCall > Trophy Club, TX > KR2SXL Builder w/Subaru 2.2L > planecrafter76262@yahoo.com > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices > http://auctions.yahoo.com/ > 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: Thu, 10 May 2001 11:57:34 -0700 (PDT) To: Laheze@aol.com From: Frank Ross Cc: krnet@mailinglists.org Subject: Re Fiberglassing Message-ID: <20010510185734.12239.qmail@web4701.mail.yahoo.com> --- Steven Eberhart wrote: > On Thu, 10 May 2001 Laheze@aol.com wrote: > > > OK Everyone, > > > > Lets get something straight right now! I am not > telling anyone to use > > anything on their airplane other than what is in > the plans from Rand > > Robinson. > > > > This has been one of the better threads. A lot of > good information for > all builders to think about when making their > choices in how they will > build their airplane .... and a thank you for > such high quality > contributions. > > Steve Eberhart I want to second that. I have learned a LOT from this thread. I know Larry Howell has extensive experience with composites and ALL the comments have been worth copying to my permanent files. Thanks to all. ===== Frank Ross, San Antonio, TX, __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices http://auctions.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 21:14:09 -0500 To: , From: "Ron Eason" Subject: Re: KR> Re Fiberglassing Message-ID: <005601c0d9c0$10b32ce0$506a1a41@kc.rr.com> Larry, your reasoning is sound. I am using the Unidirectional method. I am applying unidirectional S2 light weight glass and taking advantage of its high tensile strength over E glass. Using lighter weight cloth which equals E glass cloth strength. I brought S2 glass some years ago and it came in 12" wide rolls [ about 300 ft. per roll.] I am also using BID E and S2. Everything is structural on a plane. The stress concentrations is where the strength needs to be. In addition to live load structural strength you also need mechanical strength , i.e.. for those times when you drop a hammer on it and etc. So add more layers where it's needed. Ron Ron ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2001 12:44 AM Subject: KR> Re Fiberglassing > OK Everyone, > > Lets get something straight right now! I am not telling anyone to use > anything on their airplane other than what is in the plans from Rand > Robinson. As we all know, Ken Rand originally used Dynel fabric soaked in > resin to cover the wings of his designs. I think we all know that they flew > fine, and that Dynel is probably not structural at all, ( I still have some > Dynel if anyone wants a sample of it). I also think we all know that the KR > has two pretty strong wooden spars in the wings that a foam and glass wing > does not have. Most foam and fiberglass structure wings rely heavily on the > surface skins as part of the structure. A KR needs the airfoil shape to be > stiff which is what the Dynel fabric originally did for Ken while the spars > carried most of the loads. This is my opinion only! When I am explaining how > to do something after someone has inquired about a cloth or a technique, > that's it, just explaining how to do it or what I know about the subject. I > am sure I used the wrong term when I said that using unidirectional cloth was > more efficient. I was answering a guys email to me when I said that, he asked > me directly about unidirectional cloth, I think I had in mind no edge > overlaps, better strength, and things like that when I said efficient. I > certainly did not mean you could build your KR faster by using it or that > your KR might be lighter weight. When I have stated in earlier posts that > unidirectional cloth is stronger than bidirectional cloth, inherently it is, > in an ounce to ounce comparison. It is stronger because it is not woven, as I > said the little kinks that are put in bid when it is woven weaken it as > compared to unidirectional cloth. This is a tested and known fact not > something I dreamed up on my own. > I think someone mentioned weight, extra resin, torsional strength question. > It would be obvious that if you were using a heavier ounce per sqft cloth > that it would require more resin and be a heavier weight. As to torsional > strength, the unidirectional cloth would be stronger torsionally (if laid up > at 45 degree angles to the leading edge of a wing) simply because it is > stronger to begin with. As to the putting unidirectional cloth on a wing, > fuselage, hot rod car, boat, or what ever here is my technique. > When uni is laid on whatever, lets say it comes on rolls 38 inches wide. The > way it is applied is like any cloth roll off whatever length you need x 38 > inch width. If 38 inches is not wide enough then roll off another 38 in width > by the needed length of it parallel to the first run. Lay it down butted up > next to the first run not overlapped onto the first run and continue pulling > out runs until you have covered what ever. Then put as many other layers as > your design requires lain at opposite angle if using two layers and at lesser > angles if using some other technique. > One more time, if you are putting one layer of 5 or 6 ounce bid on your KR > wing, then of course two layers of 5 or 6 ounce unidirectional cloth would be > heavier and compared to Dynel, a serious OVERKILL strength wise. > If you can find some 3 ounce unidirectional cloth and want to take the time > to put two layers ( I WOULD DO THIS ON MINE ) on your wings then it would be > stronger than one layer of 5.5 or 6 ounce Bidirectional cloth. I do believe > that the Dynel proved we do not need a huge amount of strength in KR wing > skins. In being a cautious type of person that I am, a little more strength > is good! > I hope this explains my position and my opinion and I hope I have not > offended anyone with any of my statements. > > Larry Howell laheze@aol.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: Fri, 11 May 2001 08:13:40 -0400 To: "'Ron Eason'" , Laheze@aol.com, krnet@mailinglists.org From: "HEATH, DANIEL R" Subject: RE: KR> Re Fiberglassing Message-ID: I appreciate your input. I think I would use your method when doing large layups in the future. I would use 2 layers of lightweight UNI at 45 to each other. Thanks, Daniel R. Heath DHeath@Scana.com (803)217-9984 -----Original Message----- From: Ron Eason [mailto:ron@jrl-engineering.com] Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2001 10:14 PM To: Laheze@aol.com; krnet@mailinglists.org Subject: Re: KR> Re Fiberglassing Larry, your reasoning is sound. I am using the Unidirectional method. I am applying unidirectional S2 light weight glass and taking advantage of its high tensile strength over E glass. Using lighter weight cloth which equals E glass cloth strength. I brought S2 glass some years ago and it came in 12" wide rolls [ about 300 ft. per roll.] I am also using BID E and S2. Everything is structural on a plane. The stress concentrations is where the strength needs to be. In addition to live load structural strength you also need mechanical strength , i.e.. for those times when you drop a hammer on it and etc. So add more layers where it's needed. Ron Ron ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2001 12:44 AM Subject: KR> Re Fiberglassing > OK Everyone, > > Lets get something straight right now! I am not telling anyone to use > anything on their airplane other than what is in the plans from Rand > Robinson. As we all know, Ken Rand originally used Dynel fabric soaked in > resin to cover the wings of his designs. I think we all know that they flew > fine, and that Dynel is probably not structural at all, ( I still have some > Dynel if anyone wants a sample of it). I also think we all know that the KR > has two pretty strong wooden spars in the wings that a foam and glass wing > does not have. Most foam and fiberglass structure wings rely heavily on the > surface skins as part of the structure. A KR needs the airfoil shape to be > stiff which is what the Dynel fabric originally did for Ken while the spars > carried most of the loads. This is my opinion only! When I am explaining how > to do something after someone has inquired about a cloth or a technique, > that's it, just explaining how to do it or what I know about the subject. I > am sure I used the wrong term when I said that using unidirectional cloth was > more efficient. I was answering a guys email to me when I said that, he asked > me directly about unidirectional cloth, I think I had in mind no edge > overlaps, better strength, and things like that when I said efficient. I > certainly did not mean you could build your KR faster by using it or that > your KR might be lighter weight. When I have stated in earlier posts that > unidirectional cloth is stronger than bidirectional cloth, inherently it is, > in an ounce to ounce comparison. It is stronger because it is not woven, as I > said the little kinks that are put in bid when it is woven weaken it as > compared to unidirectional cloth. This is a tested and known fact not > something I dreamed up on my own. > I think someone mentioned weight, extra resin, torsional strength question. > It would be obvious that if you were using a heavier ounce per sqft cloth > that it would require more resin and be a heavier weight. As to torsional > strength, the unidirectional cloth would be stronger torsionally (if laid up > at 45 degree angles to the leading edge of a wing) simply because it is > stronger to begin with. As to the putting unidirectional cloth on a wing, > fuselage, hot rod car, boat, or what ever here is my technique. > When uni is laid on whatever, lets say it comes on rolls 38 inches wide. The > way it is applied is like any cloth roll off whatever length you need x 38 > inch width. If 38 inches is not wide enough then roll off another 38 in width > by the needed length of it parallel to the first run. Lay it down butted up > next to the first run not overlapped onto the first run and continue pulling > out runs until you have covered what ever. Then put as many other layers as > your design requires lain at opposite angle if using two layers and at lesser > angles if using some other technique. > One more time, if you are putting one layer of 5 or 6 ounce bid on your KR > wing, then of course two layers of 5 or 6 ounce unidirectional cloth would be > heavier and compared to Dynel, a serious OVERKILL strength wise. > If you can find some 3 ounce unidirectional cloth and want to take the time > to put two layers ( I WOULD DO THIS ON MINE ) on your wings then it would be > stronger than one layer of 5.5 or 6 ounce Bidirectional cloth. I do believe > that the Dynel proved we do not need a huge amount of strength in KR wing > skins. In being a cautious type of person that I am, a little more strength > is good! > I hope this explains my position and my opinion and I hope I have not > offended anyone with any of my statements. > > Larry Howell laheze@aol.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 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 21:15:24 -0700 (PDT) To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: CS Subject: Oh, PLEASE don't take offense... Message-ID: <20010510041524.65081.qmail@web13906.mail.yahoo.com> Hi Netters, PLEASE don't take offense if I use KRNet to espouse my personal beliefs...after all, if I didn't pay for it, it must be free, right? Please don't take offense if I pop in, ask for a bunch of information, and if I don't get it I can complain about what a bunch of mean people KRNetters are. Please understand that if I got something KR-related to sell, this is the place I'm gonna post it, and it's up to you folks to tell me if my ad makes any sense. Please tell me...blah blah... Apologies in advance... Excuse me, but from my understanding KRNet was set up for people who want to build, fly, and talk about KRs...there are a whole lot of "plane for sale" sites out there. Find them...it ain't all that hard. Of course if you've actually CONTRIBUTED to the KR discussion, I'd think you would be more than welcome to post an ad. Chuck __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices http://auctions.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 23:50:19 -0700 (PDT) To: Laheze@aol.com, krnet@mailinglists.org From: CS Subject: Larry, Larry, Larry... Message-ID: <20010510065019.60101.qmail@web13907.mail.yahoo.com> Hi Larry, this is Chuck... Um, could you do me a favor and just RELAX for a minute? Remember, these are KR builders and in the image of our founder, the late great KR, we all dig our own graves. I think we all know that Dynel soaked in resin ain't the way to go. Folks who want to take and twist your words without doing their own background researsch kinda deserve what they get. May I make a point here? EX--PER--I-MENTAL.... You'se on ya own, folks. No one ta blame but ya'selves. You don't like the way Larry does it, do it a different way. Or don't do it. Chuck __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices http://auctions.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 17:23:21 +1000 To: "KRnet" , From: "John and Janet Martindale" Subject: ignition Message-ID: <003d01c0d922$2ee74dc0$3093fcd8@JohnMartindale> ------=_NextPart_000_003A_01C0D975.E9A85CA0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi folks I have a master relay (see Aircraft Spruce part no. 111-226) mounted = next to my battery. Are folks taking their coil ignition power from = before or after this relay? If the relay fails does it default to the on = position via a spring or something similiar? If not, I imagine taking = the power direct from the battery before the relay would be safer. What = about fuel pumps?? Only got lights and avionics left...much more and I = won't need the relay at all!!! John ------=_NextPart_000_003A_01C0D975.E9A85CA0-- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 04:48:33 -0400 To: "KRnet" From: "Dale Baldwin" Subject: Re: KR>Trim wheel Message-Id: <20010510085109.VMFT6429.mtiwmhc28.worldnet.att.net@computername> Dean, Could you tell us how you did the trim wheel. It's got to be more a more accurate method of controlling the trim tab than my current set up. Thanks, Dale Badwin, -2, ATL ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 10:17:09 -0700 (PDT) To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: Guenther Bryce Subject: Do not work on KR's on Mother's Day Message-ID: <20010510171709.45768.qmail@web11102.mail.yahoo.com> It's okay to give your Mother a ride in your KR on Mothers Day though. You know its good to be nice to her because if it wasn't for her you wouldn't be enjoying your KR. Honor your Mother ! __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices http://auctions.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 11:26:15 -0700 To: "KR-net" From: "William J. Starrs" Subject: Fw: KR> Do not work on KR's on Mother's Day Message-ID: <001901c0d97e$b38023c0$270b2aa2@starrs> My mother is going to give me a ride in her KR on Mothers Day. Bill Starrs OPPS! It's not Friday ----- Original Message ----- From: "Guenther Bryce" To: Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2001 10:17 AM Subject: KR> Do not work on KR's on Mother's Day > It's okay to give your Mother a ride in your KR on > Mothers Day though. You know its good to be nice to > her because if it wasn't for her you wouldn't be > enjoying your KR. Honor your Mother ! > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices > http://auctions.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: Thu, 10 May 2001 15:22:44 EDT To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: Laheze@aol.com Subject: KR Wing Foam Message-ID: <23.b7c2a3a.282c4484@aol.com> Hi Gang! I thought that while some of you are mad at me I may as well get another subject started. Urethane Foam. I will say right up front that this is the worst foam in the world to be building airplanes from. It has very poor shear, tensile, and compressive strength when it comes to holding fiberglass to it's self. It is obviously poor just by observing it become destroyed when you accidentally bump it wrong with your squeegee, finger, beltbuckle or whatever. You can shape it with pieces of itself. You can rub two pieces of it together for a very short time and they both will disappear into a pile of dust on your floor, in your ears, in your eyes, in your hair, in your house and everywhere. This stuff is the cause of the delamination of wing skins that have been talked about here before. I am repairing a KR2 that was damaged and while I have been working on the interior of the plane, I have put weight in just the wrong place a few times on the stub wings and hear that awfull sound of cracking, delaminating foam. That is distressing to me in thinking that if a better foam had been used I may not have heard those sounds. I did replace the foam in the bottom of the damaged stubb wings with pvc and the top of one side where all the urethane had delaminated. What a difference in strength. Burt Rutan had us all use the green and tan urethane foams to build the fuselages of the variezes. It worked ok I guess there are still a lot of them flying around. Burt discovered a much superior foam later, PVC then known as klegicell foam, maybe now known widely as divinicell. Burt then had us all use the pvc foams in the Longezes, and Defiants for the fuselages because it has a much higher tensile, compressive, and shear strength. All the premolded kit planes use a form of pvc foam as their cores. The point here is, as technology and knowledge change we are supposed to learn from it. I know a bunch of you guys are using pvc foams in your planes and some are using styrofoam. I think that is great because I believe those foams are better than the urethane. I truly believe that if Ken Rand were alive today he would certainly be using any new technology that was within reasonable cost. There is no doubt that the pvc foams are more expensive, but hey, would you rather be trying to repair those delaminated wings because your urethane gave way when someone accidentally leaned or sat on one of them. I do use urethane foam for forming plugs when I am going to make a mold, and I used it on the nose of my longeze as instructed to shape the point, but that is it. Urethane foam has its place in history and florists love it for sticking flower arrangements into it. Now, some of you can nail me to the cross! Larry Howell laheze@aol.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 13:21:03 -0700 To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: "Robert X. Cringely" Subject: Re: KR> KR Wing Foam Message-Id: The low density foam used in KRs is just as bad as you say. PVC foam is better for everything except shaping. Last-a-Foam is better, too, even though it is a polyeurathane and can be carved. It is also much cheaper than PVC. And Last-a-Foam, not PVC, is the most commonly used foam in molded composites. Lancair used to use PVC but generally now uses Nomex honeycomb. Glasairs, Wheelers, and Velocities all use Last-a-Foam in premolded parts. My Glasair (serial number 102) uses Clark foam, the predecessor to Last-a-Foam, and has had no delamination problems during 22 years of hard use. Bob >Hi Gang! > >I thought that while some of you are mad at me I may as well get another >subject started. >Urethane Foam. I will say right up front that this is the worst foam in the >world to be building airplanes from. It has very poor shear, tensile, and >compressive strength when it comes to holding fiberglass to it's self. It is >obviously poor just by observing it become destroyed when you accidentally >bump it wrong with your squeegee, finger, beltbuckle or whatever. You can >shape it with pieces of itself. You can rub two pieces of it together for a >very short time and they both will disappear into a pile of dust on your >floor, in your ears, in your eyes, in your hair, in your house and everywhere. >This stuff is the cause of the delamination of wing skins that have been >talked about here before. I am repairing a KR2 that was damaged and while I >have been working on the interior of the plane, I have put weight in just the >wrong place a few times on the stub wings and hear that awfull sound of >cracking, delaminating foam. That is distressing to me in thinking that if a >better foam had been used I may not have heard those sounds. I did replace >the foam in the bottom of the damaged stubb wings with pvc and the top of one >side where all the urethane had delaminated. What a difference in strength. >Burt Rutan had us all use the green and tan urethane foams to build the >fuselages of the variezes. It worked ok I guess there are still a lot of them >flying around. Burt discovered a much superior foam later, PVC then known as >klegicell foam, maybe now known widely as divinicell. Burt then had us all >use the pvc foams in the Longezes, and Defiants for the fuselages because it >has a much higher tensile, compressive, and shear strength. All the >premolded kit planes use a form of pvc foam as their cores. The point here >is, as technology and knowledge change we are supposed to learn from it. I >know a bunch of you guys are using pvc foams in your planes and some are >using styrofoam. I think that is great because I believe those foams are >better than the urethane. I truly believe that if Ken Rand were alive today >he would certainly be using any new technology that was within reasonable >cost. There is no doubt that the pvc foams are more expensive, but hey, >would you rather be trying to repair those delaminated wings because your >urethane gave way when someone accidentally leaned or sat on one of them. >I do use urethane foam for forming plugs when I am going to make a mold, and >I used it on the nose of my longeze as instructed to shape the point, but >that is it. >Urethane foam has its place in history and florists love it for sticking >flower arrangements into it. >Now, some of you can nail me to the cross! > >Larry Howell laheze@aol.com > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >To post to the list, email: krnet@mailinglists.org > > >To UNsubscribe, e-mail: krnet-unsubscribe@mailinglists.org >For additional commands, e-mail: krnet-help@mailinglists.org -- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 20:33:34 -0500 To: , From: "Ron Eason" Subject: Re: KR> KR Wing Foam Message-ID: <001d01c0d9ba$65b6d800$506a1a41@kc.rr.com> I agree with everything except Styrofoam, it's very heat sensitive. It is used for house insulation. Higher density urethane is stronger, its the density that determines the compressive and shear strength. PVC foam also has high density. Ron ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2001 2:22 PM Subject: KR> KR Wing Foam > Hi Gang! > > I thought that while some of you are mad at me I may as well get another > subject started. > Urethane Foam. I will say right up front that this is the worst foam in the > world to be building airplanes from. It has very poor shear, tensile, and > compressive strength when it comes to holding fiberglass to it's self. It is > obviously poor just by observing it become destroyed when you accidentally > bump it wrong with your squeegee, finger, beltbuckle or whatever. You can > shape it with pieces of itself. You can rub two pieces of it together for a > very short time and they both will disappear into a pile of dust on your > floor, in your ears, in your eyes, in your hair, in your house and everywhere. > This stuff is the cause of the delamination of wing skins that have been > talked about here before. I am repairing a KR2 that was damaged and while I > have been working on the interior of the plane, I have put weight in just the > wrong place a few times on the stub wings and hear that awfull sound of > cracking, delaminating foam. That is distressing to me in thinking that if a > better foam had been used I may not have heard those sounds. I did replace > the foam in the bottom of the damaged stubb wings with pvc and the top of one > side where all the urethane had delaminated. What a difference in strength. > Burt Rutan had us all use the green and tan urethane foams to build the > fuselages of the variezes. It worked ok I guess there are still a lot of them > flying around. Burt discovered a much superior foam later, PVC then known as > klegicell foam, maybe now known widely as divinicell. Burt then had us all > use the pvc foams in the Longezes, and Defiants for the fuselages because it > has a much higher tensile, compressive, and shear strength. All the > premolded kit planes use a form of pvc foam as their cores. The point here > is, as technology and knowledge change we are supposed to learn from it. I > know a bunch of you guys are using pvc foams in your planes and some are > using styrofoam. I think that is great because I believe those foams are > better than the urethane. I truly believe that if Ken Rand were alive today > he would certainly be using any new technology that was within reasonable > cost. There is no doubt that the pvc foams are more expensive, but hey, > would you rather be trying to repair those delaminated wings because your > urethane gave way when someone accidentally leaned or sat on one of them. > I do use urethane foam for forming plugs when I am going to make a mold, and > I used it on the nose of my longeze as instructed to shape the point, but > that is it. > Urethane foam has its place in history and florists love it for sticking > flower arrangements into it. > Now, some of you can nail me to the cross! > > Larry Howell laheze@aol.com > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To post to the list, email: krnet@mailinglists.org > > > To UNsubscribe, e-mail: krnet-unsubscribe@mailinglists.org > For additional commands, e-mail: krnet-help@mailinglists.org > > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 20:48:21 -0500 (CDT) To: Ron Eason From: Steven Eberhart cc: , Subject: Re: KR> KR Wing Foam Message-ID: I agree with the heat sensitive part but it is what is used on all of the EZ's, Cozy's, Standard Europas plus just about anything else that uses hot wired wing cores. Steve Eberhart On Thu, 10 May 2001, Ron Eason wrote: > I agree with everything except Styrofoam, it's very heat sensitive. It is > used for house insulation. Higher density urethane is stronger, its the > density that determines the compressive and shear strength. > PVC foam also has high density. > > Ron > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: > Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2001 2:22 PM > Subject: KR> KR Wing Foam > > > > Hi Gang! > > > > I thought that while some of you are mad at me I may as well get another > > subject started. > > Urethane Foam. I will say right up front that this is the worst foam in > the > > world to be building airplanes from. It has very poor shear, tensile, and > > compressive strength when it comes to holding fiberglass to it's self. It > is > > obviously poor just by observing it become destroyed when you accidentally > > bump it wrong with your squeegee, finger, beltbuckle or whatever. You can > > shape it with pieces of itself. You can rub two pieces of it together for > a > > very short time and they both will disappear into a pile of dust on your > > floor, in your ears, in your eyes, in your hair, in your house and > everywhere. > > This stuff is the cause of the delamination of wing skins that have been > > talked about here before. I am repairing a KR2 that was damaged and while > I > > have been working on the interior of the plane, I have put weight in just > the > > wrong place a few times on the stub wings and hear that awfull sound of > > cracking, delaminating foam. That is distressing to me in thinking that if > a > > better foam had been used I may not have heard those sounds. I did replace > > the foam in the bottom of the damaged stubb wings with pvc and the top of > one > > side where all the urethane had delaminated. What a difference in > strength. > > Burt Rutan had us all use the green and tan urethane foams to build the > > fuselages of the variezes. It worked ok I guess there are still a lot of > them > > flying around. Burt discovered a much superior foam later, PVC then known > as > > klegicell foam, maybe now known widely as divinicell. Burt then had us all > > use the pvc foams in the Longezes, and Defiants for the fuselages because > it > > has a much higher tensile, compressive, and shear strength. All the > > premolded kit planes use a form of pvc foam as their cores. The point here > > is, as technology and knowledge change we are supposed to learn from it. I > > know a bunch of you guys are using pvc foams in your planes and some are > > using styrofoam. I think that is great because I believe those foams are > > better than the urethane. I truly believe that if Ken Rand were alive > today > > he would certainly be using any new technology that was within reasonable > > cost. There is no doubt that the pvc foams are more expensive, but hey, > > would you rather be trying to repair those delaminated wings because your > > urethane gave way when someone accidentally leaned or sat on one of them. > > I do use urethane foam for forming plugs when I am going to make a mold, > and > > I used it on the nose of my longeze as instructed to shape the point, but > > that is it. > > Urethane foam has its place in history and florists love it for sticking > > flower arrangements into it. > > Now, some of you can nail me to the cross! > > > > Larry Howell laheze@aol.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 > 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: Thu, 10 May 2001 21:58:43 -0700 To: "Ron Eason" , , From: "Hotmail" Subject: Re: KR> KR Wing Foam Message-ID: All, I got all of my polyurethane foam from a firm that built and rebuilt walk in freezers. I just hauled off their scrap from rebuilding a walk in freezer.....! It was strong enough for them to use in the floors of those walk in freezers; so I figure the compression strength is OK..... Besides, it is my understanding that in fiberglass and foam construction the foam only serves as a core to lay the fiberglass over and the only 'strength' that it needs is enough to keep the layers of fiberglass seperated. Of course, there are a lot of other perifiral(sp?) factors to consider such as delamination, etc. I built one of the first original single place Quickies and used several different foams including polyurethane and did my own testing on 'em. I am very comfortable with the foam and fiberglass as specified in the KR2 plans. Having said all that..... on my current KR2 project I am using Dan D's wing skins. Guess I'm just lazy and really hate all that sanding and filling and sanding and filling and sanding and filling and sanding....... Keep on keeping on, Jerry Mahurin Lugoff, SC ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ron Eason" To: ; Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2001 6:33 PM Subject: Re: KR> KR Wing Foam > I agree with everything except Styrofoam, it's very heat sensitive. It is > used for house insulation. Higher density urethane is stronger, its the > density that determines the compressive and shear strength. > PVC foam also has high density. > > Ron > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: > Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2001 2:22 PM > Subject: KR> KR Wing Foam > > > > Hi Gang! > > > > I thought that while some of you are mad at me I may as well get another > > subject started. > > Urethane Foam. I will say right up front that this is the worst foam in > the > > world to be building airplanes from. It has very poor shear, tensile, and > > compressive strength when it comes to holding fiberglass to it's self. It > is > > obviously poor just by observing it become destroyed when you accidentally > > bump it wrong with your squeegee, finger, beltbuckle or whatever. You can > > shape it with pieces of itself. You can rub two pieces of it together for > a > > very short time and they both will disappear into a pile of dust on your > > floor, in your ears, in your eyes, in your hair, in your house and > everywhere. > > This stuff is the cause of the delamination of wing skins that have been > > talked about here before. I am repairing a KR2 that was damaged and while > I > > have been working on the interior of the plane, I have put weight in just > the > > wrong place a few times on the stub wings and hear that awfull sound of > > cracking, delaminating foam. That is distressing to me in thinking that if > a > > better foam had been used I may not have heard those sounds. I did replace > > the foam in the bottom of the damaged stubb wings with pvc and the top of > one > > side where all the urethane had delaminated. What a difference in > strength. > > Burt Rutan had us all use the green and tan urethane foams to build the > > fuselages of the variezes. It worked ok I guess there are still a lot of > them > > flying around. Burt discovered a much superior foam later, PVC then known > as > > klegicell foam, maybe now known widely as divinicell. Burt then had us all > > use the pvc foams in the Longezes, and Defiants for the fuselages because > it > > has a much higher tensile, compressive, and shear strength. All the > > premolded kit planes use a form of pvc foam as their cores. The point here > > is, as technology and knowledge change we are supposed to learn from it. I > > know a bunch of you guys are using pvc foams in your planes and some are > > using styrofoam. I think that is great because I believe those foams are > > better than the urethane. I truly believe that if Ken Rand were alive > today > > he would certainly be using any new technology that was within reasonable > > cost. There is no doubt that the pvc foams are more expensive, but hey, > > would you rather be trying to repair those delaminated wings because your > > urethane gave way when someone accidentally leaned or sat on one of them. > > I do use urethane foam for forming plugs when I am going to make a mold, > and > > I used it on the nose of my longeze as instructed to shape the point, but > > that is it. > > Urethane foam has its place in history and florists love it for sticking > > flower arrangements into it. > > Now, some of you can nail me to the cross! > > > > Larry Howell laheze@aol.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 > > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 23:03:21 EDT To: ron@jrl-engineering.com, krnet@mailinglists.org From: Laheze@aol.com Subject: Re: KR> KR Wing Foam Message-ID: Hi Ron, I was not refering to expanded poly styrene that looks like a beer cooler foam. I was refering to the type as used in EZE and Velocity wings. Larry Howell laheze@aol.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 00:35:01 -0400 To: From: "Bill McCraw" Subject: Fw: KR> KR Wing Foam Message-ID: <005901c0d9d3$bdf12c00$9f70e218@nimc1.on.home.com> ----- Original Message ----- From: Bill McCraw To: Sent: Friday, May 11, 2001 12:33 AM Subject: Fw: KR> KR Wing Foam > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Bill McCraw > To: > Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2001 11:57 PM > Subject: Re: KR> KR Wing Foam > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: > > To: > > Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2001 3:22 PM > > Subject: KR> KR Wing Foam > > > > > > > Hi Gang! > > > > > > > Urethane Foam. I will say right up front that this is the worst foam > in > > the > > > world to be building airplanes from. It has very poor shear, tensile, > and > > > compressive strength when it comes to holding fiberglass to it's self. > > > Now, some of you can nail me to the cross! > > > > > > Larry Howell laheze@aol.com > > > > > > > Hi Larry: > > > > Boy talk about tackling sacred cows!!! I'm not sure that I'd have the > nerve > > to bad-mouth Urethane Foam over the KRNET for fear of being incinerated > but > > I have to agree to a large degree with every bad word you said about the > > stuff. We use it for plugs as well. I was amazed one day when we wheeled > a > > couple of these carefully shaped beauties outside (in the hot sun)during a > > shop cleanup. What a surprise to see after a few minutes in the sun, the > > part swelled up to show all the reinforcement under the skin. Arrrgh. The > > part seemed to return to normal after it was brought inside and it cooled. > I > > can't picture my wings doing this if the aircraft sits too long outside. > > > > Yes, I think that there is far superior core products out there and should > > be thoroughly investigated. > > > > Thanks for listening > > Bill McCraw > > Niagara Falls > > Canada > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > 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: Fri, 11 May 2001 08:09:03 -0400 To: "'Bill McCraw'" , krnet@mailinglists.org From: "HEATH, DANIEL R" Subject: RE: KR> KR Wing Foam Message-ID: Sure is easy to sand and why are all those KRs flying? Daniel R. Heath DHeath@Scana.com (803)217-9984 -----Original Message----- From: Bill McCraw [mailto:bmccraw2@home.com] Sent: Friday, May 11, 2001 12:35 AM To: krnet@mailinglists.org Subject: Fw: KR> KR Wing Foam ----- Original Message ----- From: Bill McCraw To: Sent: Friday, May 11, 2001 12:33 AM Subject: Fw: KR> KR Wing Foam > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Bill McCraw > To: > Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2001 11:57 PM > Subject: Re: KR> KR Wing Foam > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: > > To: > > Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2001 3:22 PM > > Subject: KR> KR Wing Foam > > > > > > > Hi Gang! > > > > > > > Urethane Foam. I will say right up front that this is the worst foam > in > > the > > > world to be building airplanes from. It has very poor shear, tensile, > and > > > compressive strength when it comes to holding fiberglass to it's self. > > > Now, some of you can nail me to the cross! > > > > > > Larry Howell laheze@aol.com > > > > > > > Hi Larry: > > > > Boy talk about tackling sacred cows!!! I'm not sure that I'd have the > nerve > > to bad-mouth Urethane Foam over the KRNET for fear of being incinerated > but > > I have to agree to a large degree with every bad word you said about the > > stuff. We use it for plugs as well. I was amazed one day when we wheeled > a > > couple of these carefully shaped beauties outside (in the hot sun)during a > > shop cleanup. What a surprise to see after a few minutes in the sun, the > > part swelled up to show all the reinforcement under the skin. Arrrgh. The > > part seemed to return to normal after it was brought inside and it cooled. > I > > can't picture my wings doing this if the aircraft sits too long outside. > > > > Yes, I think that there is far superior core products out there and should > > be thoroughly investigated. > > > > Thanks for listening > > Bill McCraw > > Niagara Falls > > Canada > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > To post to the list, email: krnet@mailinglists.org > > > > > > > > > To UNsubscribe, e-mail: krnet-unsubscribe@mailinglists.org > > > For additional commands, e-mail: krnet-help@mailinglists.org > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To post to the list, email: krnet@mailinglists.org To UNsubscribe, e-mail: krnet-unsubscribe@mailinglists.org For additional commands, e-mail: krnet-help@mailinglists.org ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 20:38:52 +0200 To: , From: "JC Marais" Subject: Re: KR> Question Message-ID: <002201c0d989$32981af0$12c6ef9b@jc> Hi Bob, You can expect to get about 25 messages per day, on average. Maybe it is more, but if I don't get all either, how will I know. The nice solution would be to have every message numbered. Then when you see a few numbers were skipped, you just send a mail to the server requesting the lost ones. (sweet dreams) I received today a set of injectors from the USA for my EA81. Within a few days I will know if the heap of metal that came out some car can be converted to an "Off-road vehicle propulsion system". You guys (sorry, people) staying in countries where engine and plane parts are readily available, are very lucky. It took me about a year to locate a set of injectors, and to get them shipped to me in South Africa. Regards. JC Marais Centurion, South Africa ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 17:31:43 -0400 To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: Kenneth L Wiltrout Subject: Elevator gap seal Message-ID: <20010510.173144.-237551.0.klw1953@juno.com> Thanks Mark for the info on gap seals. I was at Grainger today and found the tape used in the article, I just need to get the Mylar yet. It looked like the trailing edge is not taped, it just floats I guess. If both sides were attached then you would have a hell of a wrinkle when the aileron is down. Am I missing something? Thanks-----------------Keny ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 16:57:06 -0500 To: From: "Mark Langford" Subject: Re: KR> Elevator gap seal Message-ID: <001801c0d99c$27cbd810$561cf618@600athlon> > Thanks Mark for the info on gap seals. I was at Grainger today and found > the tape used in the article, I just need to get the Mylar yet. It looked > like the trailing edge is not taped, it just floats I guess. If both > sides were attached then you would have a hell of a wrinkle when the > aileron is down. Am I missing something? Yep, the trailing end just floats. In the picture of Troy's gap, the double sided tape is between the mylar and the wing, and then there's a strip of black electrical tape across the front edge of the seal for insurance. These things make a huge improvement in the climb performance of the AS504x wings, and don't do much at all for the RAF48, other than make roll stick forces higher. For elevator and rudder, just a 2" wide piece of tape might very well do the job. I saw a Jabiru at SNF done exactly that way. Just crank the elevator all the way up or down (max travel) and stick the tape on it. On the Jabiru the tape stayed recessed down, rather than sticking out. This works great with a piano hinge, but might not work very well with our kind of hinge where it rotates about a center that is some distance from the surface. See http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford/01041011.jpg ... Mark Langford, Huntsville, Alabama mailto:langford@hiwaay.net see KR2S project N56ML at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 21:24:38 -0700 To: "Mark Langford" , From: "Hotmail" Subject: Re: KR> Elevator gap seals Message-ID: All, If you use a six foot extruded aluminum piano hing your gap at the top is sealed............... Jerry Mahurin Lugoff, SC ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark Langford" To: Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2001 6:35 PM Subject: Re: KR> Elevator gap seals > Kenny, > > See http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford/tet/as5046inst.html down at the bottom > for material and source. Oscar did the leg work for us, sampling several > materials and tapes, and eventually arriving at this stuff, which is what > Troy and Dean are using on their aileron gaps. > > Mark Langford, Huntsville, Alabama > mailto:langford@hiwaay.net > see KR2S project N56ML at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To post to the list, email: krnet@mailinglists.org > > > To UNsubscribe, e-mail: krnet-unsubscribe@mailinglists.org > For additional commands, e-mail: krnet-help@mailinglists.org > > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 21:43:02 -0700 To: "Hotmail" , "Mark Langford" , From: "Hotmail" Subject: Re: KR> Elevator gap seals Message-ID: All, Sorry I hit the send button before I ment to on this post........... In addition to usingthe full length hinge on the top; building and rigging the ailerons with the differential function (more up than down) will keep the bottom gap to a minimum. Thanks to Mark and ???? for tracking down the mylar specs and source. ..... Keep on keeping on, Jerry Mahurin Lugoff, SC ----- Original Message ----- From: "Hotmail" To: "Mark Langford" ; Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2001 9:24 PM Subject: Re: KR> Elevator gap seals > All, > > If you use a six foot extruded aluminum piano hing your gap at the top is > sealed............... > > Jerry Mahurin > Lugoff, SC > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Mark Langford" > To: > Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2001 6:35 PM > Subject: Re: KR> Elevator gap seals > > > > Kenny, > > > > See http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford/tet/as5046inst.html down at the > bottom > > for material and source. Oscar did the leg work for us, sampling several > > materials and tapes, and eventually arriving at this stuff, which is what > > Troy and Dean are using on their aileron gaps. > > > > 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 > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To post to the list, email: krnet@mailinglists.org > > > To UNsubscribe, e-mail: krnet-unsubscribe@mailinglists.org > For additional commands, e-mail: krnet-help@mailinglists.org > > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 20:43:13 -0500 To: From: "Mark Langford" Subject: Re: KR> Elevator gap seals Message-ID: <006601c0d9bb$be64c240$561cf618@600athlon> > If you use a six foot extruded aluminum piano hing your gap at the top is > sealed............... But we were talking about elevators, I thought. Mark Langford, Huntsville, Alabama mailto:langford@hiwaay.net see KR2S project N56ML at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 22:03:40 -0700 To: "Mark Langford" , From: "Hotmail" Subject: Re: KR> Elevator gap seals Message-ID: As Lucy sez.......... Aagggghhhhhhhhhhh...! Sorry... But things like that happen when you are plowing thru all this email.... Sorry again, Jerry Mahurin Lugoff, SC ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark Langford" To: Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2001 6:43 PM Subject: Re: KR> Elevator gap seals > > If you use a six foot extruded aluminum piano hing your gap at the top is > > sealed............... > > But we were talking about elevators, I thought. > > Mark Langford, Huntsville, Alabama > mailto:langford@hiwaay.net > see KR2S project N56ML at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To post to the list, email: krnet@mailinglists.org > > > To UNsubscribe, e-mail: krnet-unsubscribe@mailinglists.org > For additional commands, e-mail: krnet-help@mailinglists.org > > ------------------------------ Date: 11 May 2001 07:26:00 -0700 To: "krnet@mailinglists.org" From: "Schmidt, Curtis" Subject: KR2 STILL FOR SALE Message-ID: <000874ED@kaydon.com> Hey guys: its Friday so I guess I'll throw this out there again! I haven't = had any offers, maybe I'm doing something wrong! If so, somebody please tel= l me! I am located in central Kansas and you can call during the day at (620) 792= -4368 ext.427 or evenings at (620) 285-7269. They can also e-mail me (prefe= rred) at cschmidt@kaydon.com To see pictures go to http://kr2s.bouyea.net/k= rnet and click on the classified section. If you are in the Larned Kansas a= rea, please feel free to stop and have a look. FOR SALE Rand Robinson KR-2 (standard) (Fuselage) All wood work complete. Horizontal and vertical stabs built, glassed and installed. Rear turtle deck on and glassed. Canopy partially complete. Sitting on custom built gear. (Some pictures show retracts; they are not in the airplane anymore but do g= o with the project) Custom heavy-duty dual sticks. Fiberglass seats Center spars installed Aileron bell cranks built and installed. All control cables installed. (Wing) Spars complete with wing attach fittings in place. Center section ribs cut out and ready to install No foam work done on the wings. (Engine) One complete stock VW type-4 2 liter. One partial VW type-4 with a good 78 mm stroke crank. 2 sets of used heads All engine parts not yet converted for aircraft use. Everything must go together, I will not part it out. Price??? I will consider all offers! Curtis Schmidt ------------------------------ End of krnet Digest ***********************************