From: To: Subject: krnet Digest 28 Nov 2001 15:21:16 -0000 Issue 330 Date: Wednesday, November 28, 2001 7:21 AM krnet Digest 28 Nov 2001 15:21:16 -0000 Issue 330 Topics (messages 7765 through 7794): Re: Elevator hinges 7765 by: ROBERT COOPER fuel quantity 7766 by: Oscar Zuniga 7768 by: Philip J. Visconti Re: KR1 vs KR2 Wings 7767 by: Alex H 7776 by: virgnvs.juno.com Re: Fuel Head Pressure 7769 by: Ross Youngblood Re: Ellison 7770 by: Ross Youngblood Re: Battery 7771 by: Ross Youngblood Bob Hoover VW Seminars! 7772 by: Ross Youngblood Re: Will the Ellison Carb run on gravity feed 7773 by: Ross Youngblood 7774 by: RONALD.FREIBERGER 7792 by: Jerry Mahurin weight on cockpit 7775 by: Aripo 7778 by: Ross Youngblood 7788 by: macwood epoxies 7777 by: dawnpatrol.onemain.com 7779 by: Oscar Zuniga 7781 by: Ross Youngblood 7789 by: Daniel Heath Stub Wing Layup 7780 by: Jim Morehead 7783 by: Ross Youngblood 7784 by: David Mullins 7785 by: Livingstone, Danny (DJ) 7786 by: Robert X. Cringely 7787 by: Stéfan Balatchev 7793 by: Jerry Mahurin Electrical Goodies 7782 by: Ross Youngblood 7791 by: larry flesner 7794 by: Higdon, Bill Re: Aussie CoG 7790 by: John and Janet Martindale Administrivia: To subscribe to the digest, e-mail: To unsubscribe from the digest, e-mail: To post to the list, e-mail: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 22:45:01 -0500 To: "langford" , "krnet" From: "ROBERT COOPER" Subject: Re: KR> Elevator hinges Message-ID: ------=_NextPart_001_0001_01C176CB.FC0047C0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Thanks for the quick reply. This afternoon I visited my friend Gene Byrd = http://www.geocities.com/kr2cooper/Byrdsbirds.html and he was showing me = the play in his eleverator hinges. His hinges are the plans built hinges = and has only about 60 hours on the aircraft. There is enough play that he= is concerned enough to change the hinges. He was thinking about using a = tube within a tube type of hindge and I was telling him about the rod end= bearing hinges. I already have the rod end bearings and am building my e= leverator and stabilizer now. Jack Cooper mailto:kr2cooper@msn.con http://www.geocities.com/kr2cooper/ Fayetteville, NC. ----- Original Message ----- From: Mark Langford Sent: Monday, November 26, 2001 7:55 PM To: krnet Subject: Re: KR> Elevator hinges Jack Cooper wrote: >I was looking for Dr. Deans website so I could show someone the Dr. Dean hinges. Has his website moved >or eliminated? I cant seem to bring it up. Jack, Dean's website's been dead since he changed ISPs to go "broadband". He was kind enough to send it for me, which I threw out there at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford/dean_hinge/ . This is THE way to do KR tail hinges... Mark Langford, Huntsville, Alabama mailto:langford@hiwaay.net see KR2S N56ML at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford --------------------------------------------------------------------- To post to the list, email: krnet@mailinglists.org , or "reply all" To UNsubscribe, e-mail: krnet-unsubscribe@mailinglists.org For additional commands, e-mail: krnet-help@mailinglists.org See the KRNet archives at http://www.escribe.com/aviation/krnet/ . AOL and Compuserve do NOT pass KRNet email, so use some other system! ------=_NextPart_001_0001_01C176CB.FC0047C0-- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 03:52:20 To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: "Oscar Zuniga" Subject: fuel quantity Message-ID: "Sam Sayer" wrote: >we hardly ever flew with a full tank. Sometimes we would take off >for a short flight with only 5 gallons of auto gas >Never did try taking off with less than 2 gal. reserve. Folks, I've run out of fuel while in the air. Trusted the gauges in a C150 (mistake) and happened to luck out and run dry on short final after a X-C flight. Guess what? You start wondering why you would ever avoid topping off the tanks when the fuel is available. You can just add it to the old "runway behind you, altitude above you, fuel in the truck". Check the accident statistics regarding "fuel exhaustion" (quite a large number) and then ask yourself how long you want to try to dodge the bullet on that one, especially if your airplane doesn't have a very good glide ratio or if you fly over anything but the friendliest terrain. Then there's the issue of the CG on (most) KRs. With a header tank, as you burn off fuel the CG shifts aft. Aft CG has been demonstrated (and calculated) to cause concerns in the KR, and most other normal aircraft. Off my soapbox now, but first- "top 'em off for this pilot". Oscar Zuniga Medford, Oregon mailto: taildrags@hotmail.com website at http://www.flysquirrel.net _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 01:09:08 -0500 To: taildrags@hotmail.com From: "Philip J. Visconti" Cc: krnet@mailinglists.org Subject: Re: KR> fuel quantity Message-ID: <20011127.010909.-322043.2.viscan@juno.com> Oscar, I read about that "Top off the tanks" a few years ago in an AOPA issue. The "line-boy" literally left the tops off of the tanks and the pilot did not do a good pre-flight. At takeoff, he noticed fuel being sucked out of wing tanks or the gages showed sudden loss of fuel. I forget exactly which, but it was one of those Never Again stories. Phil ________________________________________________________________ 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/web/. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 20:08:45 -0800 To: From: "Alex H" Cc: Subject: Re: KR> KR1 vs KR2 Wings Message-ID: <002f01c176f9$3675f940$cf44ff18@c1820946a> As I said in the e-mail, I was looking to go the opposite direction - mating a KR2 wing to a KR1 body. I realize that it's probably over-designed for this application, but I like the added factor-of-safety and there is more construction info on the KR2. Would it fit, though? Alex _________________________ Alex Hudspeth alex.h@att.net Seattle, WA ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Cc: Sent: Monday, November 26, 2001 6:30 PM Subject: Re: KR> KR1 vs KR2 Wings > Do NOT try to put the 1B wings on a KR2. The > spar is not designed for the load, Virg > > On Sun, 25 Nov 2001 16:20:22 -0800 "Alex.H" writes: > > I am interested in building a KR1-B Motorglider but I noticed that > > most all of the KRnet traffic is directed toward the KR2 and KR2S. I > > remember that one netter a while back suggested to someone else to > > build a KR2 instead of a KR1 and fly it as a single seater because > > the drawings were so much better for the KR2. Is this the consensus > > among most of the builders? > > > > Forgive me if my questions seem fairly basic to most of the netters, > > but I was wondering how interchangeable are the wings between the > > basic KR1 and KR2? More specifically: > > > > Are the airfoil shapes and chord lengths the same at the root for > > both wings? > > > > Are the spars and attach points the same or similar between the two > > models? > > > > (I know that the KR1-B has wing extensions that use a different > > airfoils, so the above questions are for the basic KR1 vs the KR2) > > > > Has anyone built any hybrids that matches the KR2S wing with the KR1 > > body? > > > > Thanks > > > > Alex Hudspeth > > > > > > _________________________ > > > > Alex Hudspeth > > alex.h@att.net > > Seattle, WA > > ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 13:21:39 -0500 To: alex.h@att.net From: virgnvs@juno.com Cc: krnet@mailinglists.org Subject: Re: KR> KR1 vs KR2 Wings Message-ID: <20011127.135041.-351655.1.virgnvs@juno.com> Narrow down the 2 fus. Virg On Mon, 26 Nov 2001 20:08:45 -0800 "Alex H" writes: > As I said in the e-mail, I was looking to go the opposite direction - > mating > a KR2 wing to a KR1 body. I realize that it's probably over-designed > for > this application, but I like the added factor-of-safety and there is > more > construction info on the KR2. Would it fit, though? > > Alex > > > _________________________ > > Alex Hudspeth > alex.h@att.net > Seattle, WA > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: > Cc: > Sent: Monday, November 26, 2001 6:30 PM > Subject: Re: KR> KR1 vs KR2 Wings > > > > Do NOT try to put the 1B wings on a KR2. The > > spar is not designed for the load, Virg > > > > On Sun, 25 Nov 2001 16:20:22 -0800 "Alex.H" > writes: > > > I am interested in building a KR1-B Motorglider but I noticed > that > > > most all of the KRnet traffic is directed toward the KR2 and > KR2S. I > > > remember that one netter a while back suggested to someone else > to > > > build a KR2 instead of a KR1 and fly it as a single seater > because > > > the drawings were so much better for the KR2. Is this the > consensus > > > among most of the builders? > > > > > > Forgive me if my questions seem fairly basic to most of the > netters, > > > but I was wondering how interchangeable are the wings between > the > > > basic KR1 and KR2? More specifically: > > > > > > Are the airfoil shapes and chord lengths the same at the root > for > > > both wings? > > > > > > Are the spars and attach points the same or similar between the > two > > > models? > > > > > > (I know that the KR1-B has wing extensions that use a different > > > airfoils, so the above questions are for the basic KR1 vs the > KR2) > > > > > > Has anyone built any hybrids that matches the KR2S wing with the > KR1 > > > body? > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > Alex Hudspeth > > > > > > > > > _________________________ > > > > > > Alex Hudspeth > > > alex.h@att.net > > > Seattle, WA > > > > > ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 00:26:14 -0700 To: Oscar Zuniga , krnet@mailinglists.org From: Ross Youngblood Subject: Re: KR> Fuel Head Pressure Message-Id: <20011127072016.MQNC10011.femail13.sdc1.sfba.home.com@cx239334-a> Oscar, I have located a Vacuum/Pressure gauge instrument that might give me some useful data. 1/2psi is kinda small and is right at the accuracy of this gauge, but it will give me a good indication of what is going on. With regards to running the engine without a prop... I too have reservationss about this, but it was recommended to me as a method of setting up the timing safely on KR-net, so I assumed that it would be reasonable to do for a short time. Running to 4000 RPM is not somthing I normally would have done without a prop, but I wanted a quick and dirty way of validating that the RPM gauge was indicating properly. -- Regards Ross 11/26/2001 12:40:52 AM, "Oscar Zuniga" wrote: >Ross wrote: >>Looks like the only way to demonstrate that I don't have a fuel >>pressure issue is to place a pressure instrument at the output of >>the gascolator and run the engine loaded up to 2400 RPM where >>my trouble begins to see what happnes. >>Granted, I can't guarentee that this rate provides a 1/2psi >>pressure at the inlet to the Ellison at full throttle >>I think it will be easier to put a "T" fitting on the gascolator >>and get a pressure gauge in to get some hard numbers. > >I'm not sure what sort of instrument you have in mind, but 1/2 psi is a >pretty small number to be trying to measure. You could do something much >simpler by installing the tee at the inlet to the Ellison and using clear >fuel tubing off the tee and taping it to a yardstick or something so you >could measure pressure in inches. 1/2 psi is about 14" of water, but the >specific gravity of gasoline will vary according to what you are running... >could be maybe 18" of avgas (assuming specific gravity around .74). It >would be easier to read pressure this way than off a gauge. Just make sure >you run these tests outdoors and with a fire extinguisher handy; check your >pressure with everything shut off because you'll have an open-ended tube >with fuel in it and things spinning, sparking, heating up, and good stuff >like that- could ruin your day. Not sure I'd try to do this with the engine >running. Also not sure you should be running your engine without a prop or >other flywheel mass on there. Your post mentioned spinning it to 4000 RPM >with nothing on the hub... > >Oscar Zuniga >Medford, Oregon >mailto: taildrags@hotmail.com >website at http://www.flysquirrel.net > > >_________________________________________________________________ >Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >To post to the list, email: krnet@mailinglists.org , or "reply all" > >To UNsubscribe, e-mail: krnet-unsubscribe@mailinglists.org >For additional commands, e-mail: krnet-help@mailinglists.org > >See the KRNet archives at http://www.escribe.com/aviation/krnet/ . >AOL and Compuserve do NOT pass KRNet email, so use some other system! > > Ross Youngblood rossy65@home.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 00:31:15 -0700 To: Sam Sayer , KR Mailing Lists From: Ross Youngblood Subject: Re: KR> Re: Ellison Message-Id: <20011127072517.DYIM25332.femail14.sdc1.sfba.home.com@cx239334-a> Sam, The small filter screen had been inspected previously when I was having initial starting problems due to the internal fuel valve in the Ellison being stuck closed due to varnish build-up. It was found to be clean and free of debris. The Ellison manual does state that this filter is a "last resort" filter, and if anything is ever found in it, to clean and purge the entire fuel system. 11/26/2001 6:55:48 AM, "Sam Sayer" wrote: Ross Youngblood rossy65@home.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 00:46:17 -0700 To: AL Hawkins From: Ross Youngblood CC: krnet@mailinglists.org Subject: Re: KR> Battery Message-Id: <20011127074020.DVVO230.femail4.sdc1.sfba.home.com@cx239334-a> Al, Thanks for this idea... actually I was thinking of adding an Electrolitic to assist when the battery goes low. It occured to me that an Electrolitic might provide enough charge source to the Comp-U-Fire to make up for the voltage drop that occurs when the battery is low, and the starter is used. Thanks for reminding me how a voltage rectifier works... most AC->DC power supplies have a capacitor across the input to the regulator to filter this current issue you mentioned, and one across the output of the regulator... in my case the battery acts as a capacitor across the output, when I remove the battery... peaks and valleys in the output become an issue. !DOH! Like somone else mentioned here on the 'net. All of these issues must be isolated and resolved... I have been focusing on my engine's RPM, and hadn't considered some basic electrical stuff. Thanks a lot for this tip! -- Regards Ross 11/26/2001 9:17:19 AM, "AL Hawkins" wrote: >Hi Ross > >The reason that the compu-fire will not run off the alternator only, is that >the alternator's output varies in current(AC cycle). The rectifier makes it >into DC but the >current out will change. The only thing that might help is adding a >electrolytic capacitor across the output of the regulator with a 15 amp fuse >going to the cap(incase it fails). >The cap will then supply current to the ignition module when the alternator >can't. >Try starting with a 100uf @ 25V, a larger one may be required. > >Al Hawkins >KR2 builder >Port Coquitlam, B.C. >Canada > > Ross Youngblood rossy65@home.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 01:01:19 -0700 To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: Ross Youngblood Subject: Bob Hoover VW Seminars! Message-Id: <20011127075521.KQAN20693.femail16.sdc1.sfba.home.com@cx239334-a> The Bob Hoover Sermons have been found. osf02.ktu.edu.tr/~ulutas/hoover/ I couldn't purchase the CD, as it is no longer available. You may wish to copy these links, as I don't know how long they will be available on the net. -- RossRoss Youngblood rossy65@home.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 01:06:20 -0700 To: ron.martha@mindspring.com, Daniel Heath , KRNET From: Ross Youngblood Subject: Re: KR> RE: Will the Ellison Carb run on gravity feed Message-Id: <20011127080022.KMLV23187.femail12.sdc1.sfba.home.com@cx239334-a> >No aircraft ought to fly depending on a single ELECTRIC pump to maintain >operations. I guess if we can't know the system will run without electric >power, then we should use the VW engine driven pump with the electric as a >backup. A Schweizer 2-33 I flew did pretty good without an ignition system, electric fuel pumps or even an engine... however, one spent a lot of time learning the minimum safe gliding altitudes for various distances from the gliderport. Ross Youngblood rossy65@home.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 10:48:06 -0500 To: , "Daniel Heath" , "KRNET" From: "RONALD.FREIBERGER" Subject: RE: KR> RE: Will the Ellison Carb run on gravity feed Message-ID: They are all gliders without fuel. It's the advance warning that could be missing. Ron Freiberger... mailto:ron.martha@mindspring.com -----Original Message----- From: Ross Youngblood [mailto:rossy65@home.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2001 3:06 AM To: ron.martha@mindspring.com; Daniel Heath; KRNET Subject: Re: KR> RE: Will the Ellison Carb run on gravity feed >No aircraft ought to fly depending on a single ELECTRIC pump to maintain >operations. I guess if we can't know the system will run without electric >power, then we should use the VW engine driven pump with the electric as a >backup. A Schweizer 2-33 I flew did pretty good without an ignition system, electric fuel pumps or even an engine... however, one spent a lot of time learning the minimum safe gliding altitudes for various distances from the gliderport. Ross Youngblood rossy65@home.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 09:33:43 -0500 To: ,, "Daniel Heath" , "KRNET" From: "Jerry Mahurin" Subject: Re: KR> RE: Will the Ellison Carb run on gravity feed Message-ID: The fuel for a glider is GRAVITY; which seems to be the nemisis of most power plane flyers. Learning to fly a glider will really sharpen all phases of ones landing skills. I speak from experience. Jerry Mahurin Lugoff, SC On Tue, 27 Nov 2001 10:48:06 -0500 "RONALD.FREIBERGER" wrote: > They are all gliders without fuel. It's the advance > warning that could be > missing. > > Ron Freiberger... > mailto:ron.martha@mindspring.com > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ross Youngblood [mailto:rossy65@home.com] > Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2001 3:06 AM > To: ron.martha@mindspring.com; Daniel Heath; KRNET > Subject: Re: KR> RE: Will the Ellison Carb run on gravity > feed > > > > >No aircraft ought to fly depending on a single ELECTRIC > pump to maintain > >operations. I guess if we can't know the system will > run without electric > >power, then we should use the VW engine driven pump with > the electric as a > >backup. > > A Schweizer 2-33 I flew did pretty good without an > ignition system, electric > fuel pumps > or even an engine... however, one spent a lot of time > learning the minimum > safe gliding > altitudes for various distances from the gliderport. > > Ross Youngblood > rossy65@home.com > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To post to the list, email: krnet@mailinglists.org , or > "reply all" > > To UNsubscribe, e-mail: krnet-unsubscribe@mailinglists.org > For additional commands, e-mail: > krnet-help@mailinglists.org > > See the KRNet archives at http://www.escribe.com/aviation/krnet/ > . > AOL and Compuserve do NOT pass KRNet email, so use some > other system! > Jerry Mahurin Lugoff, SC ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 16:53:56 +0100 To: "KRnet" From: "Aripo" Subject: weight on cockpit Message-ID: <001701c1775b$dca1b900$f0a51997@aripo> ------=_NextPart_000_0014_01C17764.1A105F00 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Last sunday, as usual , I've flown with my friend Roberto on his KR2 ( = I-KRLI) without any problem of C.G. and stability. Roberto is 70 Kgs. and I am 90 Kgs. total 160 Kgs. ( about 350 lbs.) = . Roberto Introzzi's KR2 is a standard KR2 with Limbach 2000 engine the = distance between propeller plate and firewall is about 800 mm. (31" 1/2 = ) . Roberto when is alone fly in company of a lead bag. Ciao Franco Negri I-KRFN ITALY www.negri.cjb.net =20 ------=_NextPart_000_0014_01C17764.1A105F00-- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 20:32:07 -0700 To: Aripo From: Ross Youngblood CC: krnet@mailinglists.org Subject: Re: KR> weight on cockpit Message-Id: <20011128032635.SEMA20693.femail16.sdc1.sfba.home.com@cx239334-a> Are you calling his wife a lead bag? -- Ross 11/27/2001 8:53:56 AM, "Aripo" wrote: Ross Youngblood rossy65@home.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 09:54:04 -0000 To: "Aripo" , "KRnet" From: "macwood" Subject: Re: KR> weight on cockpit Message-ID: <000801c05921$3cbd36c0$4a483c3e@tinypc> Hi Aripo, I think I met you at Cranfield some years ago-96? The KR had flown from N.Italy,2 on board and with wing tanks. Did you ever calculate the CofG and total weight in this configuration? We can't use wing tanks as the CAA considers their use would put the Cof G and weight over the limit ! Regards Mac-W England ----- Original Message ----- From: Aripo To: KRnet Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2001 3:53 PM Subject: KR> weight on cockpit Hi Last sunday, as usual , I've flown with my friend Roberto on his KR2 I-KRLI) without any problem of C.G. and stability. Roberto is 70 Kgs. and I am 90 Kgs. total 160 Kgs. ( about 350 lbs.) . Roberto Introzzi's KR2 is a standard KR2 with Limbach 2000 engine the distance between propeller plate and firewall is about 800 mm. (31" 1/2 ) . Roberto when is alone fly in company of a lead bag. Ciao Franco Negri I-KRFN ITALY www.negri.cjb.net ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 21:13:39 -0600 To: From: dawnpatrol@onemain.com Subject: epoxies Message-ID: <001001c177ba$af075400$f111f8d1@matandcat> ------=_NextPart_000_000D_01C17788.62CACCC0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Could someone recomend what kind of epoxy to use on the KRs. There seams = to be a lot to pick from in the supply catalogs but not having built an = aircraft before it is difficult to deside which brand to pick. Also I = would like to get more info on when to pull off the peel ply. while the = epoxy is still wet? after a couple of days?=20 Regarding the micro slurry----how long should it set befor wetting the = surface with the epoxy? =20 Mike ------=_NextPart_000_000D_01C17788.62CACCC0-- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 03:48:17 To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: "Oscar Zuniga" Subject: epoxies Message-ID: Mike wrote: >Could someone recomend what kind of epoxy to use on the KRs. You'll get almost as many opinions as there are brands to pick from. But here's mine: Aeropoxy. It is very easy to mix and work with, little or no odor (at least the females in my house haven't complained yet), isn't fussy, and is well supported by the manufacturer and suppliers. Some brands won't support aviation applications particularly well, but Aeropoxy is obviously marketed for airplanes. >I would like to get more info on when to pull off the peel ply. After the layup dries. It should 'rip' off and leave a nice, even, roughish texture. I don't think it hurts to leave it on a couple of days, unless you use the 'dress liner' fabric from Wal-Mart (no release agent)... it's cheaper than the real stuff but you will have a fight on your hands if you wait too long to try to get it off. If you use any of the peelply material sold through homebuilders' supplies, you'll get a fabric that will peel off like it's supposed to. >Regarding the micro slurry----how long should it set befor wetting the >surface with the epoxy? I'll let somebody else jump in here, but if you're talking about spreading some slurry to fill the pores of the foam before laying up your fiberglass- I've done it both ways. If you let it dry and then quick-sand it to prepare for your layup, it's harder to smooth down the layup, so I just go ahead and slurry the surface, then prepare my layup mat and put it on. I don't wet the surface with epoxy, either- I just put my layup on the micro'd surface and start squeegeeing. Exception would be if you're putting the fiberglass on your spars or other place where you absolutely must transfer the load from the fiberglass to the wood- you have to have an epoxy bond, and you sure don't want any micro in between the glass and the wood. Oscar Zuniga Medford, Oregon mailto: taildrags@hotmail.com website at http://www.flysquirrel.net _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 21:37:23 -0700 To: dawnpatrol@onemain.com, krnet@mailinglists.org From: Ross Youngblood Subject: Re: KR> epoxies Message-Id: <20011128043153.MSKS21585.femail9.sdc1.sfba.home.com@cx239334-a> Mike, onemain.com... I'm sorry I used to be a teleport customer before they became onemain. I think I will eventually get my 32 cent settlement from the class action lawsuit in 2005. Regarding Epoxy. I think that all epoxies are superior to the old glues used for bonding wood. For wood to wood bonding, I use Hexel structural adheasive which if I recall is a few bucks cheaper than the world favorite T-88. As far as I can tell these are VERY similar products. Make some offset test blocks and try to break them and you will never see a epoxy joint break with this stuff. For wetting out glass... there are a variety of products you can use. Wicks Aircraft sells DOW DER 330 which was originally used on the KR, or that they sell as being for the KR. I bought an old KR project from someone once, and saw a bunch of what looked to be brown moonshine jugs which were supposed to contain "KR" epoxy. This stuff seemed to be very thin viscosity, and was used I understand for both wood bonding and glass bonding... so I can understand the confusion. I used both the DOW DER 330 and Aeropoxy for my project. Some folks use West system epoxy. The key is that you want a resin system that bonds well to wood. If you are going to use anything besides fiberglass, such as Kevlar you will want to know how it wets out Kevlar. I wouldn't do Kevlar for flight surfaces as I'm not sure what the Kevlar to wood bond is, and that is critical for the KR design. Regarding the peel ply, the important thing there is that you remove it BEFORE you do the next layup. A really good resource for all this glass work is a book by Rutan "Moldless Composite Homebuilt Sandwich Aircraft Construction" you can purchase it seperatly or as part of the Perido[sp?] skiff practice kit from either Wicks or Aircraft Spruce. It's more like a large pamphlet than a book. It covers building some bookends out of glass with various amounts of resin. Pretty good book. It also covers hot wiring, which you DONT want to do with Urethane foam due to cyanide gas produced. If you use blue styrofoam, then your OK to hotwire. Mike11/27/2001 8:13:39 PM, dawnpatrol@onemain.com wrote: Could someone recomend what kind of epoxy to use on the KRs. There seams to be a lot to pick from in the supply catalogs but not having built an aircraft before it is difficult to deside which brand to pick. Also I would like to get more info on when to pull off the peel ply. while the epoxy is still wet? after a couple of days? Regarding the micro slurry----how long should it set befor wetting the surface with the epoxy? Ross Youngblood rossy65@home.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 06:11:53 -0500 To: "Oscar Zuniga" , From: "Daniel Heath" Subject: Re: KR> epoxies Message-ID: <003701c177fd$7d827f20$f32c5d0c@scana.com> I agree with Oscar. I have use Saf-T-Poxy and Vinyl Ester. I just dumped a gallon of Vinyl Ester because we ordered it before we realized how bad this stuff is. Saf-T-Poxy is OK, but doesn't sand as nicely as Aeropoxy. I have been using AeroPoxy since we returned from the KR Gathering this year. I have been using the methods shown by Mark and doing lay-ups has never been easier. AeroPoxy gives you a long time to work, wets out good, and sands very well. I pull the peel ply off as soon as it cures because I can't wait to see what a great job I have done. Daniel R. Heath WWW.EAA242.ORG www.JerryMahurin.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Oscar Zuniga" To: Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2001 3:48 AM Subject: KR> epoxies > Mike wrote: > >Could someone recomend what kind of epoxy to use on the KRs. > > You'll get almost as many opinions as there are brands to pick from. But > here's mine: Aeropoxy. It is very easy to mix and work with, little or no > odor (at least the females in my house haven't complained yet), isn't fussy, > and is well supported by the manufacturer and suppliers. Some brands won't > support aviation applications particularly well, but Aeropoxy is obviously > marketed for airplanes. > > >I would like to get more info on when to pull off the peel ply. > > After the layup dries. It should 'rip' off and leave a nice, even, roughish > texture. I don't think it hurts to leave it on a couple of days, unless you > use the 'dress liner' fabric from Wal-Mart (no release agent)... it's > cheaper than the real stuff but you will have a fight on your hands if you > wait too long to try to get it off. If you use any of the peelply material > sold through homebuilders' supplies, you'll get a fabric that will peel off > like it's supposed to. > > >Regarding the micro slurry----how long should it set befor wetting the > >surface with the epoxy? > > I'll let somebody else jump in here, but if you're talking about spreading > some slurry to fill the pores of the foam before laying up your fiberglass- > I've done it both ways. If you let it dry and then quick-sand it to prepare > for your layup, it's harder to smooth down the layup, so I just go ahead and > slurry the surface, then prepare my layup mat and put it on. I don't wet > the surface with epoxy, either- I just put my layup on the micro'd surface > and start squeegeeing. Exception would be if you're putting the fiberglass > on your spars or other place where you absolutely must transfer the load > from the fiberglass to the wood- you have to have an epoxy bond, and you > sure don't want any micro in between the glass and the wood. > > Oscar Zuniga > Medford, Oregon > mailto: taildrags@hotmail.com > website at http://www.flysquirrel.net > > > _________________________________________________________________ > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To post to the list, email: krnet@mailinglists.org , or "reply all" > > To UNsubscribe, e-mail: krnet-unsubscribe@mailinglists.org > For additional commands, e-mail: krnet-help@mailinglists.org > > See the KRNet archives at http://www.escribe.com/aviation/krnet/ . > AOL and Compuserve do NOT pass KRNet email, so use some other system! > > ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 20:31:23 -0800 To: KR- Net From: Jim Morehead Subject: Stub Wing Layup Message-ID: Netters: When glassing the stub wings of the KR-2, the RR book, page 75 states that the first layup will be from the top of the forward spar to the trailing edge. Then there is two layers of glass from the main spar forward. Is there any reason that you should not use one layer of glass from the trailing edge all the way forward and around the leading edge with the second layer of glass from below the leading edge to behind the main spar? The only difference would be that there is only two layers of glass over the main spar and not three as described on page 75. Thanks, Jim Morehead Cameron Park, CA ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 21:56:46 -0700 To: Jim Morehead , KR- Net From: Ross Youngblood Subject: Re: KR> Stub Wing Layup Message-Id: <20011128045117.KNIV230.femail4.sdc1.sfba.home.com@cx239334-a> My first reaction is that it is slightly harder to do the lay up with the larger pieces. Working upside down is difficult, and working a large piece and the forward curve is probably tougher than the method specified in the plans. Plus if you cut "on the biase" at 45 degrees, there may be an issue of waste material for the bigger cuts of glass... all of this was off the top of my head. 11/27/2001 9:31:23 PM, Jim Morehead wrote: >Netters: > When glassing the stub wings of the KR-2, the RR book, page 75 states >that the first layup will be from the top of the forward spar to the >trailing edge. Then there is two layers of glass from the main spar >forward. Is there any reason that you should not use one layer of glass >from the trailing edge all the way forward and around the leading edge with >the second layer of glass from below the leading edge to behind the main >spar? The only difference would be that there is only two layers of glass >over the main spar and not three as described on page 75. > >Thanks, >Jim Morehead >Cameron Park, CA > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >To post to the list, email: krnet@mailinglists.org , or "reply all" > >To UNsubscribe, e-mail: krnet-unsubscribe@mailinglists.org >For additional commands, e-mail: krnet-help@mailinglists.org > >See the KRNet archives at http://www.escribe.com/aviation/krnet/ . >AOL and Compuserve do NOT pass KRNet email, so use some other system! > > Ross Youngblood rossy65@home.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 23:04:01 -0500 To: Jim Morehead From: David Mullins CC: KR- Net Subject: Re: KR> Stub Wing Layup Message-ID: <3C046231.62B5B6D7@mediaone.net> Jim, Run one layer from the top of the trailing edge over the main spar and down the leading edge. Run the second layer from the bottom of the trailing edge over the bottom of the main spar and up over the leading edge. This will give you 1 layer over most of the wing and two layers over the leading edge. Dave Mullins Nashua, New Hampshire http://n323xl.iwarp.com Jim Morehead wrote: > Netters: > When glassing the stub wings of the KR-2, the RR book, page 75 states > that the first layup will be from the top of the forward spar to the > trailing edge. Then there is two layers of glass from the main spar > forward. Is there any reason that you should not use one layer of glass > from the trailing edge all the way forward and around the leading edge with > the second layer of glass from below the leading edge to behind the main > spar? The only difference would be that there is only two layers of glass > over the main spar and not three as described on page 75. > > Thanks, > Jim Morehead > Cameron Park, CA > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To post to the list, email: krnet@mailinglists.org , or "reply all" > > To UNsubscribe, e-mail: krnet-unsubscribe@mailinglists.org > For additional commands, e-mail: krnet-help@mailinglists.org > > See the KRNet archives at http://www.escribe.com/aviation/krnet/ . > AOL and Compuserve do NOT pass KRNet email, so use some other system! ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 07:26:16 +0200 To: KR- Net From: "Livingstone, Danny (DJ)" Subject: RE: KR> Stub Wing Layup Message-ID: Jim As far as I know most people are making their wing 2 layers all the way round for better tortional strength. Any other opinions? Danny Livingstone Sasolburg South Africa > -----Original Message----- > From: Jim Morehead [SMTP:kr2jm@d-web.com] > Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2001 6:31 AM > To: KR- Net > Subject: KR> Stub Wing Layup > > Netters: > When glassing the stub wings of the KR-2, the RR book, page 75 states > that the first layup will be from the top of the forward spar to the > trailing edge. Then there is two layers of glass from the main spar > forward. Is there any reason that you should not use one layer of glass > from the trailing edge all the way forward and around the leading edge > with > the second layer of glass from below the leading edge to behind the main > spar? The only difference would be that there is only two layers of glass > over the main spar and not three as described on page 75. > > Thanks, > Jim Morehead > Cameron Park, CA > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To post to the list, email: krnet@mailinglists.org , or "reply all" > > To UNsubscribe, e-mail: krnet-unsubscribe@mailinglists.org > For additional commands, e-mail: krnet-help@mailinglists.org > > See the KRNet archives at http://www.escribe.com/aviation/krnet/ . > AOL and Compuserve do NOT pass KRNet email, so use some other system! ********************************************************************** This e-mail and its attachments, if any, are intended only for use by the named addressee(s) and may contain information that is legally privileged, confidential, or both. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are strictly prohibited from disseminating, distributing or copying this email and its attachments, if any. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any copies of this e-mail, its attachments, and any printed copies of any of them. ********************************************************************** ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 21:45:29 -0800 To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: "Robert X. Cringely" Subject: RE: KR> Stub Wing Layup Message-Id: Is there a history of KR wing failures due in torsion? No. That extra glass is just extra weight. Bob >Jim >As far as I know most people are making their wing 2 layers all the way >round for better tortional strength. Any other opinions? > >Danny Livingstone >Sasolburg >South Africa > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Jim Morehead [SMTP:kr2jm@d-web.com] >> Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2001 6:31 AM >> To: KR- Net >> Subject: KR> Stub Wing Layup >> >> Netters: >> When glassing the stub wings of the KR-2, the RR book, page 75 states >> that the first layup will be from the top of the forward spar to the >> trailing edge. Then there is two layers of glass from the main spar >> forward. Is there any reason that you should not use one layer of glass >> from the trailing edge all the way forward and around the leading edge >> with >> the second layer of glass from below the leading edge to behind the main >> spar? The only difference would be that there is only two layers of glass >> over the main spar and not three as described on page 75. >> >> Thanks, >> Jim Morehead >> Cameron Park, CA >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To post to the list, email: krnet@mailinglists.org , or "reply all" >> >> To UNsubscribe, e-mail: krnet-unsubscribe@mailinglists.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: krnet-help@mailinglists.org >> >> See the KRNet archives at http://www.escribe.com/aviation/krnet/ . >> AOL and Compuserve do NOT pass KRNet email, so use some other system! > > >********************************************************************** >This e-mail and its attachments, if any, are intended only >for use by the named addressee(s) and may contain >information that is legally privileged, confidential, or both. If >you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are >strictly prohibited from disseminating, distributing or copying >this email and its attachments, if any. If you have received >this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender and >permanently delete the original and any copies of this e-mail, >its attachments, and any printed copies of any of them. >********************************************************************** > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >To post to the list, email: krnet@mailinglists.org , or "reply all" > >To UNsubscribe, e-mail: krnet-unsubscribe@mailinglists.org >For additional commands, e-mail: krnet-help@mailinglists.org > >See the KRNet archives at http://www.escribe.com/aviation/krnet/ . >AOL and Compuserve do NOT pass KRNet email, so use some other system! -- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 09:04:12 +0100 To: From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?St=E9fan_Balatchev?= Subject: Re: KR> Stub Wing Layup Message-ID: <00a101c177e3$445fdfe0$1b3380d9@rn1kk> As the KR wing structure is two rigidly fixed spars, the skin is supposed to carry mostly the aeroloads and very small part of the torsional loads. This is also the reason why there are two layers from the leading edge to the main spar and only one between the two spars. The wing torsion is mostly supported by the aft spar bending. However, any significant change in the wing structure (as increasing the ailerons area, flaps on the outer wings, longer wings, etc.) would strongly modify the stress distribution due to torsion and a second biased layer betwen the two spars could help decreasing the shear stress in the skin. Just some thoughts, I'm not an aeronautical engineer... Stéfan Balatchev, Paris, France mailto:Stefan.Balatchev@wanadoo.fr ----- Original Message ----- From: Robert X. Cringely To: Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2001 6:45 AM Subject: RE: KR> Stub Wing Layup > Is there a history of KR wing failures due in torsion? No. That > extra glass is just extra weight. > > > Bob > > > > >Jim > >As far as I know most people are making their wing 2 layers all the way > >round for better tortional strength. Any other opinions? > > > >Danny Livingstone > >Sasolburg > >South Africa > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Jim Morehead [SMTP:kr2jm@d-web.com] > >> Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2001 6:31 AM > >> To: KR- Net > >> Subject: KR> Stub Wing Layup > >> > >> Netters: > >> When glassing the stub wings of the KR-2, the RR book, page 75 states > >> that the first layup will be from the top of the forward spar to the > >> trailing edge. Then there is two layers of glass from the main spar > >> forward. Is there any reason that you should not use one layer of glass > >> from the trailing edge all the way forward and around the leading edge > >> with > >> the second layer of glass from below the leading edge to behind the main > >> spar? The only difference would be that there is only two layers of glass > >> over the main spar and not three as described on page 75. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Jim Morehead > >> Cameron Park, CA > >> ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 09:39:31 -0500 To: "Robert X. Cringely" ,krnet@mailinglists.org From: "Jerry Mahurin" Subject: Re: KR> Stub Wing Layup Message-ID: Amen Brother Bob on the extra weight...!!!! Jerry Mahurin Lugoff, SC On Tue, 27 Nov 2001 21:45:29 -0800 "Robert X. Cringely" wrote: > Is there a history of KR wing failures due in torsion? > No. That > extra glass is just extra weight. > > > Bob > > > > >Jim > >As far as I know most people are making their wing 2 > layers all the way > >round for better tortional strength. Any other opinions? > > > >Danny Livingstone > >Sasolburg > >South Africa > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Jim Morehead [SMTP:kr2jm@d-web.com] > >> Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2001 6:31 AM > >> To: KR- Net > >> Subject: KR> Stub Wing Layup > >> > >> Netters: > >> When glassing the stub wings of the KR-2, the RR > book, page 75 states > >> that the first layup will be from the top of the > forward spar to the > >> trailing edge. Then there is two layers of glass > from the main spar > >> forward. Is there any reason that you should not use > one layer of glass > >> from the trailing edge all the way forward and around > the leading edge > >> with > >> the second layer of glass from below the leading edge > to behind the main > >> spar? The only difference would be that there is > only two layers of glass > >> over the main spar and not three as described on page > 75. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Jim Morehead > >> Cameron Park, CA > >> > >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> To post to the list, email: krnet@mailinglists.org , > or "reply all" > >> > >> To UNsubscribe, e-mail: krnet-unsubscribe@mailinglists.org > >> For additional commands, e-mail: > krnet-help@mailinglists.org > >> > >> See the KRNet archives at > http://www.escribe.com/aviation/krnet/ . > >> AOL and Compuserve do NOT pass KRNet email, so use > some other system! > > > > > >********************************************************************** > >This e-mail and its attachments, if any, are intended > only > >for use by the named addressee(s) and may contain > >information that is legally privileged, confidential, or > both. If > >you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you > are > >strictly prohibited from disseminating, distributing or > copying > >this email and its attachments, if any. If you have > received > >this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the > sender and > >permanently delete the original and any copies of this > e-mail, > >its attachments, and any printed copies of any of them. > >********************************************************************** > > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- > >To post to the list, email: krnet@mailinglists.org , or > "reply all" > > > >To UNsubscribe, e-mail: krnet-unsubscribe@mailinglists.org > >For additional commands, e-mail: > krnet-help@mailinglists.org > > > >See the KRNet archives at http://www.escribe.com/aviation/krnet/ > . > >AOL and Compuserve do NOT pass KRNet email, so use some > other system! > > > -- > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To post to the list, email: krnet@mailinglists.org , or > "reply all" > > To UNsubscribe, e-mail: krnet-unsubscribe@mailinglists.org > For additional commands, e-mail: > krnet-help@mailinglists.org > > See the KRNet archives at http://www.escribe.com/aviation/krnet/ > . > AOL and Compuserve do NOT pass KRNet email, so use some > other system! > Jerry Mahurin Lugoff, SC ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 21:52:17 -0700 To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: Ross Youngblood Subject: Electrical Goodies Message-Id: <20011128044647.MKOV10558.femail21.sdc1.sfba.home.com@cx239334-a> In case you folks were looking for a heftier alternator, these 32A and 40A babies might be worth looking into. http://store.yahoo.com/engine2000/charsys.html Also, in Europe they are beginning to talk about 42V electrical systems for cars. The reasoning behind this is that with all the power windows/door locks etc the costs for running wires is going up... going to 42V lets them use smaller (LIGHTER) wiring to make things go. I'm thinking that this will have some major benefits for experimental airplanes if we can get cheap junkyard 42V stuff. Along with this was someone who told me there is work being done on an auto engine with an electronic valve train. Seems using selonoids similar to that used on fuel injectors will eliminate the cost of a camshaft and with computer control, the valve timing on each cylinder can be varied as needed. This might even make for better gas mileage. This was followed by a discussion on drive by wire technology. It seems that it would be a lot cheaper to replace the steering gear in your car with a joystick and some servos at the wheels. This saves costs on a telescoping steering wheel, and has other benefits... unfortunatly the auto industry changes slowly, and although the technology is available today, it will be a while. Then I was told that there is already drive by wire for the throttle. A petionometer at the gas pedal tells the computer what the driver wants the throttle to do. Smart computers with traction control can even override the drivers lead foot if the wheels tell the computer that this wouldn't help. I got the impression that some of this is already in production autos someplace. I find the implications on experimental aircraft interesting. It was much easier to run a wire for the oil temp sensor than it was to run the throttle cable. Ross Youngblood rossy65@home.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 07:59:23 -0600 To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: larry flesner Subject: Re: KR> Electrical Goodies Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20011128075923.00877e60@pop3.norton.antivirus> unfortunatly the auto industry changes >slowly, and although the technology is available today, it will be a while. >snip It was much easier to >run a wire for the oil temp sensor than it was to run the throttle cable. >>Ross Youngblood +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++= If you think the auto industry is slow to change, Cessna is still building airplanes designed in the late 40's and the entire general aviation fleet is still using engine technology from the 20's and 30's. Look at a Marvel-schebler(sp?) carb on any general aviation aircraft and then look at any farm tractor from the 20's and 30's. If they were any closer in design , I'd be buying my parts at the farm supply store. (as a matter of fact, I've looked there). As to the electronic stuff, that's why I've gone with electric tach, oil temp, oil pressure, hour meter, etc. I didn't want a fuel tank in the cockpit and I wasn't wild about a HOT OIL line to the back of the panel either!! Larry Flesner ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 09:21:00 -0600 To: "'krnet@mailinglists.org'" From: "Higdon, Bill" Subject: RE: KR> Electrical Goodies Message-ID: <0BB09622E5DDD311992F0000D1ECDA7005CDF12D@pkcexv020.sprintspectrum.com> Larry, I saw a 1926 Nash Marvel Dribler the other day looks a lot like the Marvel Dribler under a friends Cherokee. Bill Higdon -----Original Message----- From: larry flesner [mailto:flesner@midwest.net] Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2001 5:59 AM To: Subject: Re: KR> Electrical Goodies unfortunatly the auto industry changes >slowly, and although the technology is available today, it will be a while. >snip It was much easier to >run a wire for the oil temp sensor than it was to run the throttle cable. >>Ross Youngblood +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++= If you think the auto industry is slow to change, Cessna is still building airplanes designed in the late 40's and the entire general aviation fleet is still using engine technology from the 20's and 30's. Look at a Marvel-schebler(sp?) carb on any general aviation aircraft and then look at any farm tractor from the 20's and 30's. If they were any closer in design , I'd be buying my parts at the farm supply store. (as a matter of fact, I've looked there). As to the electronic stuff, that's why I've gone with electric tach, oil temp, oil pressure, hour meter, etc. I didn't want a fuel tank in the cockpit and I wasn't wild about a HOT OIL line to the back of the panel either!! Larry Flesner --------------------------------------------------------------------- To post to the list, email: krnet@mailinglists.org , or "reply all" To UNsubscribe, e-mail: krnet-unsubscribe@mailinglists.org For additional commands, e-mail: krnet-help@mailinglists.org See the KRNet archives at http://www.escribe.com/aviation/krnet/ . AOL and Compuserve do NOT pass KRNet email, so use some other system! ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 22:28:37 +1100 To: "Phillip Matheson" From: "John and Janet Martindale" Cc: "KRnet" Subject: Re: KR> Aussie CoG Message-ID: <01e201c17800$12555580$6a236e40@m1g0x7> Hello Phillip You are partially correct. Under the old Australian amateur-built system (CAO 101.28) KR's could only be built according to the approved plans and amendments. The plans originally called up a CoG range from 8 to 16 inches rear of the wing leading edge. This proved to be unsafe in rear loadings and the CAA consequently approved only a 8 to 12" range. The latter was then difficult to achieve with two heavier people on board because you were not allowed to compensate by altering the engine mount distance. Under the new "experimental category" you can move the engine forward to the point where two people can board and remain within the 8 to 12 inch range provided you don't exceed the recommended 500 kg gross. Many builders in the USA and myself are now using the Corvair (110hp) engine which weighs about 40 lb more than the earlier VW (65-80hp) approved one. This has also helped bring the CoG further forward. When building or designing your mount, aim to have the CoG without any persons ahead of the forward limit (it won't be flying with no fuel and no people!!) then add one person and minimium fuel such that it just moves back into the envelope at 8". Further fuel (assuming wing tanks) and a second person should then stay within the rear limit of 12". Can't go too far forward though or it will tip on its nose, ie., can't go forward of the main axles in a tail dragger. Hope this helps a little. Regards John in Coffs Harbour. SAAA Chapter 6. ----- Original Message ----- From: Phillip Matheson To: Sent: Monday, November 26, 2001 12:20 PM Subject: KR> New member Hi All, Just signed in. I have looked at buying an incomlplete KR2 kit here in Australia. Has mod Tri undercarrage. F/Glass wing skins.Fuse 75% finished.Wings only need to skins puting on. I have been told not to buy because they have a Aft weight problem when two average men get into it.( 70 to 80 Kgs) Help and Comments welcome. Phillip Matheson. ------------------------------ End of krnet Digest ***********************************