From: To: Subject: krnet Digest 29 Jan 2002 20:12:37 -0000 Issue 364 Date: Tuesday, January 29, 2002 12:13 PM krnet Digest 29 Jan 2002 20:12:37 -0000 Issue 364 Topics (messages 8590 through 8619): Re: The stretch 8590 by: dawnpatrol.onemain.com 8608 by: virgnvs.juno.com 8615 by: Frank Ross Re: Experimentals Targeted by Media 8591 by: Serge F. VIDAL Re: The Weigh In !!! 8592 by: Serge F. VIDAL 8597 by: Hafsteinn Jónasson 8598 by: Hafsteinn Jónasson Re: crankcase vent vw 8593 by: Serge F. VIDAL Light Weight 1500-1600 8594 by: Dave King 8595 by: Daniel Heath 8601 by: Tracy & Carol O'Brien 8603 by: Jerry Mahurin 8607 by: virgnvs.juno.com Re: Dynel KR Antique 8596 by: Dale Baldwin 8606 by: virgnvs.juno.com The VW oil mess 8599 by: Serge F. VIDAL for South Africans 8600 by: dene.collett spinner 8602 by: RICK WILSON New as504x airfoil questions? 8604 by: Jerry Morris 8605 by: Mark Langford 8609 by: Steven Eberhart 8611 by: Hafsteinn Jónasson 8612 by: Hafsteinn Jónasson 8613 by: Mark Langford 8618 by: virgnvs.juno.com 8619 by: Hafsteinn Jónasson Re: sport aviation kr2s 8610 by: Chris Gardiner Aluminun Fuel Tank 8614 by: Charles Buddy & Cheryl Midkiff nose gear 8616 by: Flymaca711689.cs.com Jeff Scott's C-85 KR2S engine for sale 8617 by: Mark Langford Administrivia: To subscribe to the digest, e-mail: To unsubscribe from the digest, e-mail: To post to the list, e-mail: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 21:35:34 -0600 To: "nilsen" , "Leo & Gail Dondlinger" , "Larry Schuepker" , , From: Subject: Re: The stretch Message-ID: <002101c1a7ac$f07816a0$c511f8d1@matandcat> Chris, I cut and clamped into place all of the parts for putting it back together. I've settled on the 14" instead of 16". It meets more with the integrity of the rest of the structure. I don't have the bottem skin on yet. By not having it on yet, this allowed me to spread the sides of the "fuslages" in order to get the tapers to line up. The bottem skin you sent won't fit anymore because of the strech, so I cut it up for the 14" of extentions on the sides. I don't think that I would have attempted this strech if the bottem had been in place. Once I had removed the tob and bot. horz. members, the sides from station k going back toward the rear spar both top and bot. had to be spread. The sides from station L going back toward the tail both top and bot. had to be slightly squeezed together. The new set of plans from rand is drawn to 1/4" = 1". So what I did was scale the whole thing right on the drawings. I was pretty sure I could make it work from the way it layed out on the drawings. Your're never quite sure though until it's all cut and fitted. This is my first airplane but I have a theory about building anything, if you can't draw it then you can't build it. It at least helps to avoid errors. I also doubled the top and bot. logerons from station K through station L which is 28" apart now. I added 5/8"x5/8" pieces to the bot of the top logerons and the top of the bot logerons. I will have to add a new station half way between station K and station L, which I will call station K-1. Instead of running plywood all of the way from station K to station L on the inside of the fuslage, I decided to splice a 6" wide piece of 3/32" plywood (3" on each side of the joints behind the four plywood joints. This cuts down on the extra weight and gives a lot of strength. I needed to maintain the ply wood strength because the plywood acts just like a web for a truss which is just what the sides of the fuslage are. I did scarf the plywood and the top and bottem logerons. The reason I doubled the logerons is two fold. #1 extra strength in this area because of the longer arm exerting additional forces on the rear fuslage, because of the streach. In other words the longer fuslage is affected to a greater degree by turblance ect. unless the strength of the fuslage is increased. #2 I will also have to cut a portion of the bottem logeron because when you push the cut off portion back 14" keeping the top logeron in the same plane, the vert. distance does not change at the point where it was cut. Therefore when looking at the side view you can see that not only do you have to blend the sides of the fuslage, you also have to blend the bottem of the cutoff portion with the bottem of the existing fuslage. I also detailed this on the actual drawings. The more you streach the fuslage, the more you have to cut off the bottem and the more strength you have to build back into the fuslage. I think 14" is enough to take of my needs. I think it will inhance the handling qualities greatly. One other item I failed to mention is more control at slow speeds, taxiing, ect. because you have a longer arm acting about the vert. axis with the same surface area of rudder. Hope this makes since....More after I glue it all together... Mike T. ----- Original Message ----- From: "E. Alan Christiansen" To: Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2002 4:51 PM Subject: Re: The stretch > > > dawnpatrol@onemain.com wrote: > > > Part 1.1 Type: Plain Text (text/plain) > > Encoding: quoted-printable > > You caught me by surprise this time! The idea of adding 14 or 16 > inches extra fuselage length has a lot of merit as it definitely will > reduce the pitch sensitivity and I would assume will also make the plane > less sensitive to CG changes. > I would assume you are going to splice the longerons using a minimum > 1 in 12 scarf joint and will use a similar means of joining the 3/32 > fuselage skin. I'm not clear as to exactly what you have in mind for the > "3/32 ply from station K to station L". You will need to put plywood > plates on the longeron splices and I would think that by using a proper > scarf joint when you splice the skin you would not have to worry about > structural integrity. The bottom skin and side skin along with plates on > the upper and inside of the lower longeron splices and plates on the > top, inside, and bottom of the top longeron splices would be entirely > adequate as far as strength of the longeron splice is concerned. > I would probably stick with the 14 inch stretch as it would keep > your uprights and intercostals in harmony with the rest of structure and > I don't think 16 inches would give any noticeable benefit over 14 > inches. It sounds like you have thought the matter of alignment etc. out > rather carefully so you shouldn't introduce any alignment problems. You > mention gaining a bit of shoulder room; as I remember, I had originally > increased the spacing of the upper longerons around 2 inches in the > cockpit area. I doubt if you will have to move the engine forward, > especially if you are going to add a starter and alternator. You might > recall I had mentioned earlier that adding these might mean adding a bit > of lead in the tail. As I said earlier, about the only way I can see to > add a starter and alternator is on the front of the engine as is done > with the current Lycomings and this is a fair amount of weight to be > adding that far forward. forward. Not a big deal at this time as this > will be worked out later on when you get to the engine mount etc. > Looking forward to the photos Have fun. > ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 16:15:41 -0500 To: dawnpatrol@onemain.com From: virgnvs@juno.com Cc: nilsen@clas.net, leodon1@attbi.com, larryd@clas.net, krnet@mailinglists.org, achris@onewest.net Subject: Re: KR> Re: The stretch Message-ID: <20020128.164823.-284103.3.virgnvs@juno.com> Did you scarf the joints ?? Virg On Sun, 27 Jan 2002 21:35:34 -0600 writes: > > Chris, I cut and clamped into place all of the parts for putting it > back > together. I've settled on the 14" instead of 16". It meets more with > the > integrity of the rest of the structure. I don't have the bottem skin > on yet. > By not having it on yet, this allowed me to spread the sides of the > "fuslages" in order to get the tapers to line up. The bottem skin > you sent > won't fit anymore because of the strech, so I cut it up for the 14" > of > extentions on the sides. I don't think that I would have attempted > this > strech if the bottem had been in place. > Once I had removed the tob and bot. horz. members, the sides from > station k > going back toward the rear spar both top and bot. had to be spread. > The > sides from station L going back toward the tail both top and bot. > had to be > slightly squeezed together. > The new set of plans from rand is drawn to 1/4" = 1". So what I did > was > scale the whole thing right on the drawings. I was pretty sure I > could make > it work from the way it layed out on the drawings. Your're never > quite sure > though until it's all cut and fitted. This is my first airplane but > I have a > theory about building anything, if you can't draw it then you can't > build > it. It at least helps to avoid errors. > I also doubled the top and bot. logerons from station K through > station L > which is 28" apart now. I added 5/8"x5/8" pieces to the bot of the > top > logerons and the top of the bot logerons. > I will have to add a new station half way between station K and > station L, > which I will call station K-1. > Instead of running plywood all of the way from station K to station > L on the > inside of the fuslage, I decided to splice a 6" wide piece of 3/32" > plywood > (3" on each side of the joints behind the four plywood joints. This > cuts > down on the extra weight and gives a lot of strength. I needed to > maintain > the ply wood strength because the plywood acts just like a web for a > truss > which is just what the sides of the fuslage are. > I did scarf the plywood and the top and bottem logerons. > The reason I doubled the logerons is two fold. #1 extra strength in > this > area because of the longer arm exerting additional forces on the > rear > fuslage, because of the streach. In other words the longer fuslage > is > affected to a greater degree by turblance ect. unless the strength > of the > fuslage is increased. > #2 I will also have to cut a portion of the bottem logeron because > when you > push the cut off portion back 14" keeping the top logeron in the > same plane, > the vert. distance does not change at the point where it was cut. > Therefore > when looking at the side view you can see that not only do you have > to blend > the sides of the fuslage, you also have to blend the bottem of the > cutoff > portion with the bottem of the existing fuslage. I also detailed > this on the > actual drawings. The more you streach the fuslage, the more you have > to cut > off the bottem and the more strength you have to build back into > the > fuslage. > I think 14" is enough to take of my needs. I think it will inhance > the > handling qualities greatly. > One other item I failed to mention is more control at slow speeds, > taxiing, > ect. because you have a longer arm acting about the vert. axis with > the same > surface area of rudder. > Hope this makes since....More after I glue it all together... > Mike T. > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "E. Alan Christiansen" > To: > Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2002 4:51 PM > Subject: Re: The stretch > > > > > > > > dawnpatrol@onemain.com wrote: > > > > > Part 1.1 Type: Plain Text (text/plain) > > > Encoding: quoted-printable > > > > You caught me by surprise this time! The idea of adding 14 or > 16 > > inches extra fuselage length has a lot of merit as it definitely > will > > reduce the pitch sensitivity and I would assume will also make the > plane > > less sensitive to CG changes. > > I would assume you are going to splice the longerons using a > minimum > > 1 in 12 scarf joint and will use a similar means of joining the > 3/32 > > fuselage skin. I'm not clear as to exactly what you have in mind > for the > > "3/32 ply from station K to station L". You will need to put > plywood > > plates on the longeron splices and I would think that by using a > proper > > scarf joint when you splice the skin you would not have to worry > about > > structural integrity. The bottom skin and side skin along with > plates on > > the upper and inside of the lower longeron splices and plates on > the > > top, inside, and bottom of the top longeron splices would be > entirely > > adequate as far as strength of the longeron splice is concerned. > > I would probably stick with the 14 inch stretch as it would > keep > > your uprights and intercostals in harmony with the rest of > structure and > > I don't think 16 inches would give any noticeable benefit over 14 > > inches. It sounds like you have thought the matter of alignment > etc. out > > rather carefully so you shouldn't introduce any alignment > problems. You > > mention gaining a bit of shoulder room; as I remember, I had > originally > > increased the spacing of the upper longerons around 2 inches in > the > > cockpit area. I doubt if you will have to move the engine > forward, > > especially if you are going to add a starter and alternator. You > might > > recall I had mentioned earlier that adding these might mean adding > a bit > > of lead in the tail. As I said earlier, about the only way I can > see to > > add a starter and alternator is on the front of the engine as is > done > > with the current Lycomings and this is a fair amount of weight to > be > > adding that far forward. forward. Not a big deal at this time as > this > > will be worked out later on when you get to the engine mount etc. > > Looking forward to the photos Have fun. > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To post to the list, email: krnet@mailinglists.org , NOT "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/ > > ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 20:55:05 -0800 (PST) To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: Frank Ross Subject: Re: The stretch Message-ID: <20020129045505.33432.qmail@web14001.mail.yahoo.com> Will you need to lengthen your center spars? Since you'll have slightly less wing with the wider fuselage, and a much larger fuselage, will the same wing do the job? ===== Frank Ross, San Antonio, TX, __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions! http://auctions.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 08:38:26 +0200 To: "gleone" , From: "Serge F. VIDAL" Subject: RE: KR> Experimentals Targeted by Media Message-ID: That rag transport sounds like an Antonov AN-2 biplane. 10 seats, pre-war construction. Talk of a vintage aircraft! Yet, it it still built in Poland, although in very small numbers. Anyway, drug lords are after a quick buck. I can't see them enduring all the pain and suffering we endure through our building. Serge VIDAL KR2 ZS-WEC Johannesburg, South Africa -----Original Message----- From: gleone [mailto:gleone@tritel.net] Sent: 24 January, 2002 5:36 PM To: flykr2s@execpc.com Cc: krnet@mailinglists.org; corvaircraft@usm.edu Subject: Re: KR> Experimentals Targeted by Media As is typical of our illustrious news(-less) media, they're wrong again. The Soviets (Koreans, Chinese and other marxist countries) used a Russian transport which was made of wood and fabric. The designation eludes me right now (no pun intended) but it didn't show up on radar UNTIL the radar operators reset their MTI (Moving Target Indicator). Since these planes flew low and slow, they would "evade" detection because the radar would exclude them. HOWEVER, once the MTI was reset to low speeds, they show up like any other plane. Why high MTI speeds? Birds. Think back to our DEW Line where flocks of geese would clutter the radar screens. Now, if stealth aircraft were as simple as building composite airplanes, I think the Soviets would have built their own years ago. This is why I gave up watching network news years ago. Having grown up both a working and rodeo cowboy, I've seen enough bovine fecal matter to not want any more brought into my home. We could e-mail these network cretins, but why bother? The evil Capitalist who can afford to buy or (horror upon horrors!) BUILD their own plane surely must generally listen to Rush Limbaugh, too! (Sorry if that offends anyone. I'm not making a political statement. I'm just pointing out the idiocy that passes for our news media. No offense meant to anyone on the Right or left or somewhere in between.) Gene, Wyoming flykr2s@execpc.com wrote: > >From AVFlash 8.04b > AVIATION TODAY -- IN THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER... > The media spotlight these days has roamed from commercial aviation > to > general aviation, and now apparently it's time for experimental > aviation > to endure that scrutiny. Tuesday night's CBS Evening News found > cause > to note yet another way light aircraft can be used to terrorize the > public ... through drug trafficking. It seems CBS picked up on the > fact > that investigators with the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration > last > spring discovered five kitbuilt Velocity aircraft in the possession > of > an alleged drug transport chief in Mexico. CBS reported that law- > enforcement and DEA officials found the kitbuilt fiberglass > airplanes > inherently suspicious, because they could theoretically be used as > radar-elusive drug haulers. > > ...THE NEW KITBUILT "STEALTH" AIRCRAFT... > After all, fiberglass (unlike carbon fiber) does not reflect radar, > but > rather absorbs it rather well -- just about all the radar sees is > the > engine. Thus, CBS concluded, the Velocity is tough to track by > drug- > enforcement agencies, especially within Mexico, and theoretically > could > penetrate the U.S. border patrol. Joe Bendig, the director of U.S. > Customs' radar center, told CBS that radar has a problem finding > small > fiberglass aircraft like the Velocity: "The radar pretty much gets > absorbed by the skin." Responding to the CBS report, EAA yesterday > said > repeated research has shown that the metal in the engine of > fiberglass > airplanes is more than enough to easily allow radar tracking -- > unless > the engine has been modified to shield it from radar detection, not > an > easy task. > > ...MIXING INNOCENT DESIGNS WITH EVIL INTENT > While the Velocity got all the attention for having been found in > one > suspected ne'er-do-well's possession, we couldn't help but speculate > that among homebuilt aircraft, the Velocity -- a four-place pusher > canard -- is probably not the best choice for heavy hauling from > short > unimproved airstrips. What a drug trafficker really wants is > something > like an Aerocomp Comp Air 10 XL Turboprop. That aircraft can haul > an > 800-pound load out of a 250-foot airstrip and cruise for near 700 nm > at > close to 200 mph. As scrutiny marches from the most-familiar > aircraft > (airliners) through general aviation and onward to experimental > planes, > it seems, at least to us, that ultralights might be next on the list > ... > provided the Sport Pilot/Light Sport Aircraft rules don't catch the > crosshairs next. Consider this an early warning. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To post to the list, email: krnet@mailinglists.org , NOT "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/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To post to the list, email: krnet@mailinglists.org , NOT "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/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 08:38:30 +0200 To: "Mark Jones" , From: "Serge F. VIDAL" Subject: RE: KR> The Weigh In !!! Message-ID: Nice job, nice figures! How the hell did you manage to make it that light? Serge VIDAL KR2 ZS-WEC Johannesburg, South Africa -----Original Message----- From: Mark Jones [mailto:flykr2s@execpc.com] Sent: 27 January, 2002 12:22 AM To: CorvAIRCRAFT; KR-Net Subject: KR> The Weigh In !!! As my plane sits today with everything I have in place including engine, front deck, canopy, turtle deck, all controls, rudder pedals cables, etc..... Her total weight is 448 lbs. Left main gear 124 lbs. Nose gear 205 lbs. Right main gear 119 lbs. The difference in the left and right is due to a wing walk installed in the left wing stub and most heavy instruments on the panel are on the left side also. You can view a current photo on my web page. http://mywebpage.netscape.com/n886mj/homepage.html -- Mark Jones (N886MJ) Wales, WI USA E-mail me at mailto:flykr2s@execpc.com Visit my KR-2S CorvAIRCRAFT web site at http://mywebpage.netscape.com/n886mj/homepage.html --------------------------------------------------------------------- To post to the list, email: krnet@mailinglists.org , NOT "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/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 12:40:50 -0000 To: , "Mark Jones" , From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Hafsteinn_J=F3nasson?= Subject: Re: KR> The Weigh In !!! Message-ID: <001a01c1a7f9$20b172c0$acdd1ed4@c0g3t9> I think he has only added one thing, lightness. Hafsteinn J. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Serge F. VIDAL" To: "Mark Jones" ; Sent: Monday, January 28, 2002 6:38 AM Subject: RE: KR> The Weigh In !!! > Nice job, nice figures! How the hell did you manage to make it that light? > > Serge VIDAL > KR2 ZS-WEC > Johannesburg, South Africa > > -----Original Message----- > From: Mark Jones [mailto:flykr2s@execpc.com] > Sent: 27 January, 2002 12:22 AM > To: CorvAIRCRAFT; KR-Net > Subject: KR> The Weigh In !!! > > As my plane sits today with everything I have in place including engine, > front deck, canopy, turtle deck, all controls, rudder pedals cables, > etc..... > Her total weight is 448 lbs. > Left main gear 124 lbs. > Nose gear 205 lbs. > Right main gear 119 lbs. > The difference in the left and right is due to a wing walk installed in > the left wing stub and most heavy instruments on the panel are on the > left side also. You can view a current photo on my web page. > http://mywebpage.netscape.com/n886mj/homepage.html > -- > Mark Jones (N886MJ) > Wales, WI USA > E-mail me at mailto:flykr2s@execpc.com > Visit my KR-2S CorvAIRCRAFT web site at > http://mywebpage.netscape.com/n886mj/homepage.html > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To post to the list, email: krnet@mailinglists.org , NOT "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/ > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To post to the list, email: krnet@mailinglists.org , NOT "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/ > ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 12:40:50 -0000 To: , "Mark Jones" , From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Hafsteinn_J=F3nasson?= Subject: Re: KR> The Weigh In !!! Message-ID: <000001c1a818$44481260$d9dc1ed4@c0g3t9> I think he has only added one thing, lightness. Hafsteinn J. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Serge F. VIDAL" To: "Mark Jones" ; Sent: Monday, January 28, 2002 6:38 AM Subject: RE: KR> The Weigh In !!! > Nice job, nice figures! How the hell did you manage to make it that light? > > Serge VIDAL > KR2 ZS-WEC > Johannesburg, South Africa > > -----Original Message----- > From: Mark Jones [mailto:flykr2s@execpc.com] > Sent: 27 January, 2002 12:22 AM > To: CorvAIRCRAFT; KR-Net > Subject: KR> The Weigh In !!! > > As my plane sits today with everything I have in place including engine, > front deck, canopy, turtle deck, all controls, rudder pedals cables, > etc..... > Her total weight is 448 lbs. > Left main gear 124 lbs. > Nose gear 205 lbs. > Right main gear 119 lbs. > The difference in the left and right is due to a wing walk installed in > the left wing stub and most heavy instruments on the panel are on the > left side also. You can view a current photo on my web page. > http://mywebpage.netscape.com/n886mj/homepage.html > -- > Mark Jones (N886MJ) > Wales, WI USA > E-mail me at mailto:flykr2s@execpc.com > Visit my KR-2S CorvAIRCRAFT web site at > http://mywebpage.netscape.com/n886mj/homepage.html > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To post to the list, email: krnet@mailinglists.org , NOT "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/ > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To post to the list, email: krnet@mailinglists.org , NOT "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/ > ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 08:38:32 +0200 To: "Daniel Heath" , From: "Serge F. VIDAL" Subject: RE: KR> crankcase vent vw Message-ID: What vent are you talking about? Is it the oil breather? Serge VIDAL -----Original Message----- From: Daniel Heath [mailto:danrh@att.net] Sent: 27 January, 2002 4:18 PM To: krnet@mailinglists.org Subject: Re: KR> crankcase vent vw You must make an oil collector. I used an upside down Gunk can. Put a fitting on the bottom to take a hose. Run the hose from the vent to the can. Put steel wool in the can. I mounted mine on the firewall. The oil will cool and collect in the can and you can take off the top which is on the bottom and empty it. It is a good idea to have an overflow vent on the can the will vent it to the outside. Without the vent, the oil won't flow to the can. Daniel R. Heath www.EAA242.com See our KR2 at: www.JerryMahurin.com ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2002 6:34 PM Subject: KR> crankcase vent vw > After I fly for 1hr or so the vent hose is letting some oil out not much > just little but It makes a mess on the belly. It was OK with the cruse prop > but now IM turning 3000 3100 at cruse with the sturba 52x44. did you guys > that have dealed with this make a splash baffle or what ?small hose I used > 5/8 heater hose direct fit > > > > > mac > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To post to the list, email: krnet@mailinglists.org , NOT "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/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 03:30:51 -0800 To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: Dave King Subject: Light Weight 1500-1600 Message-Id: <5.0.0.25.2.20020128032331.022ffab0@24.0.95.227> I know this has probably been beat to death on various list's but I am wondering if anyone know just how light you can build a simple 1500 or 1600 conversion. I've asked Steve Bennett but I'm curious what every thinks. I've heard of figures as low as 130lbs for a 1600. Can it be done lighter? No machining, machining, out right hacking off of various bits.... Dave ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 06:42:49 -0800 To: , "Dave King" From: "Daniel Heath" Subject: Re: KR> Light Weight 1500-1600 Message-ID: <000701c1a80a$0fd967d0$762c5d0c@dan> Engine only, probably around 130. I think my 1835 weighed about 165 with accessory case. Take off the mag and put in electronic, or just leave the VW and you could save a few more pounds. Daniel R. Heath www.EAA242.com See our KR2 at: www.JerryMahurin.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave King" To: Sent: Monday, January 28, 2002 3:30 AM Subject: KR> Light Weight 1500-1600 > I know this has probably been beat to death on various list's but I am > wondering > if anyone know just how light you can build a simple 1500 or 1600 conversion. > I've asked Steve Bennett but I'm curious what every thinks. I've heard of > figures > as low as 130lbs for a 1600. Can it be done lighter? No machining, machining, > out right hacking off of various bits.... > > Dave > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To post to the list, email: krnet@mailinglists.org , NOT "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/ > > ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 11:26:38 -0800 To: Dave King ,krnet@mailinglists.org From: Tracy & Carol O'Brien Subject: Re: KR> Light Weight 1500-1600 Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.20020128112638.0085eea0@localaccess.com> Dave, I don't know for sure about the weight, but if you are looking for a 1641cc conversion, I have one! It was professionally built for me using an inspected, used case, reground forged crank, new tappets, new bearings, pistons, rings, jugs and new dual port heads. Included with the engine is a new 4 into 1 exhaust kit (dune buggy style: will have to be modified) new Bosch 009 distributor, and 1.5" SU carb with top mounted manifold. The engine has a Great Plains shrink fit prop hub installed. I'm asking $900 with the carb or $850 without the carb. (I'm building up an EA81 and can use the carb on it) Regards, Tracy O'Brien At 03:30 AM 01/28/2002 -0800, Dave King wrote: >I know this has probably been beat to death on various list's but I am >wondering >if anyone know just how light you can build a simple 1500 or 1600 conversion. >I've asked Steve Bennett but I'm curious what every thinks. I've heard of >figures >as low as 130lbs for a 1600. Can it be done lighter? No machining, machining, >out right hacking off of various bits.... > >Dave > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >To post to the list, email: krnet@mailinglists.org , NOT "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/ > > ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 15:46:30 -0500 To: "Daniel Heath" ,, "Dave King " From: "Jerry Mahurin" Subject: Re: KR> Light Weight 1500-1600 Message-ID: Dan, et al, It would be lighter to use the mag with a simple adapter on the back of the engine. That way, you have no accessory case, alternator or battery all of which is needed for electronic ignition..... The adapter is available from GPAS. Jerry Mahurin Lugoff, SC http://www.jerrymahurin.com On Mon, 28 Jan 2002 06:42:49 -0800 "Daniel Heath" wrote: >Engine only, probably around 130. I think my 1835 >weighed about 165 with >accessory case. Take off the mag and put in electronic, >or just leave the >VW and you could save a few more pounds. > > >Daniel R. Heath > >www.EAA242.com > >See our KR2 at: >www.JerryMahurin.com > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Dave King" >To: >Sent: Monday, January 28, 2002 3:30 AM >Subject: KR> Light Weight 1500-1600 > > >> I know this has probably been beat to death on various >>list's but I am >> wondering >> if anyone know just how light you can build a simple >>1500 or 1600 >conversion. >> I've asked Steve Bennett but I'm curious what every >>thinks. I've heard of >> figures >> as low as 130lbs for a 1600. Can it be done lighter? No >>machining, >machining, >> out right hacking off of various bits.... >> >> Dave >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To post to the list, email: krnet@mailinglists.org , NOT >>"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/ >> >> > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >To post to the list, email: krnet@mailinglists.org , NOT >"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/ > Jerry Mahurin Lugoff, SC http://www.jerrymahurin.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 16:36:02 -0500 To: tracy@localaccess.com From: virgnvs@juno.com Cc: KingDWS@Home.Com, krnet@mailinglists.org Subject: Re: KR> Light Weight 1500-1600 Message-ID: <20020128.164823.-284103.5.virgnvs@juno.com> Pic of top mounted carb? Virg On Mon, 28 Jan 2002 11:26:38 -0800 Tracy & Carol O'Brien writes: > Dave, > > I don't know for sure about the weight, but if you are looking for a > 1641cc > conversion, I have one! It was professionally built for me using an > inspected, used case, reground forged crank, new tappets, new > bearings, > pistons, rings, jugs and new dual port heads. Included with the > engine is a > new 4 into 1 exhaust kit (dune buggy style: will have to be > modified) new > Bosch 009 distributor, and 1.5" SU carb with top mounted manifold. > The > engine has a Great Plains shrink fit prop hub installed. > > I'm asking $900 with the carb or $850 without the carb. (I'm > building up an > EA81 and can use the carb on it) > > Regards, > > Tracy O'Brien > > At 03:30 AM 01/28/2002 -0800, Dave King wrote: > >I know this has probably been beat to death on various list's but I > am > >wondering > >if anyone know just how light you can build a simple 1500 or 1600 > conversion. > >I've asked Steve Bennett but I'm curious what every thinks. I've > heard of > >figures > >as low as 130lbs for a 1600. Can it be done lighter? No machining, > machining, > >out right hacking off of various bits.... > > > >Dave > > > > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- > >To post to the list, email: krnet@mailinglists.org , NOT "reply > all" > > > >To UNsubscribe, e-mail: krnet-unsubscribe@mailinglists.org > >For additional commands, e-mail: krnet-help@mailinglists.org > > > >See the KRNet archives at http://www.escribe.com/aviation/krnet/ > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To post to the list, email: krnet@mailinglists.org , NOT "reply > all" > > To UNsubscribe, e-mail: krnet-unsubscribe@mailinglists.org > For additional commands, e-mail: krnet-help@mailinglists.org > > See the KRNet archives at http://www.escribe.com/aviation/krnet/ > > ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 07:31:36 -0500 To: , "Glasco" From: "Dale Baldwin" Subject: Re: KR> Dynel KR Antique Message-ID: <000901c1a7f7$bbf46000$d8e85b0c@computername> Brad, I've still got the dynel that came with my project if your interested.n Dale Baldwin, KR-2, ATL ----- Original Message ----- From: "Glasco" To: Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2002 9:59 PM Subject: KR> Dynel KR Antique > Anyone interested in building an antique KR per the original plans? > > Brad > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To post to the list, email: krnet@mailinglists.org , NOT "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/ > ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 16:13:19 -0500 To: Glasco@ridgenet.net From: virgnvs@juno.com Cc: krnet@mailinglists.org Subject: Re: KR> Dynel KR Antique Message-ID: <20020128.164823.-284103.2.virgnvs@juno.com> Building KR 1 W/36 hp VW. Original enough ? Virg On Sun, 27 Jan 2002 18:59:46 -0800 Glasco writes: > Anyone interested in building an antique KR per the original plans? > > While looking for fiberglass sources I noticed that John R Sweet, > http://www.johnrsweet.com/Polyester.html sells 5 oz. plain weave > dynel. > The price varies depending on quantity from one to 1000 yards but is > four > dollars per yard for a small roll. > > I have no conection and haven't ordered anything from them, yet... > Prices > look pretty good so I will give them a try and report on their > response. > > Brad > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To post to the list, email: krnet@mailinglists.org , NOT "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/ > > ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 19:11:49 +0200 To: From: "Serge F. VIDAL" Subject: The VW oil mess Message-ID: ------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C1A82F.A347B740 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I really like that oil collector idea, for two reasons: first, it can avoid having to crawl under the KR all the time to wipe out the oil mess on the belly; second, it can help to know how much oil you lose through the breather. My VW engine (2 liter, stock) has flown 300 hours. It leaks oil through the breather, but also by the fuel pump (there is a small nipple on the fuel pump; can't figure out what it is for, but it sure loses oil), the pushrods tubes (surprisingly, only on the one side), and somewhere at the back, where I can't see. The consensus seems to be that oil leaks are part of the VW design, and as long as they don't exceed your capability to refill, you should forget about it. Serge VIDAL KR2 ZS-WEC Johannesburg, South Africa ------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C1A82F.A347B740-- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 20:38:58 +0200 To: "Krnet" From: "dene.collett" Subject: for South Africans Message-ID: <000d01c1a82b$243815c0$3595cba3@dean> Hi guys This is for some of you in the Johannesburg South Africa region. I recently met a chap from the Transvaal who knows of a KR that is based at Wonderboom airport. According to him this plane has a fuel injection system that works really well. Unfortunately he does not know what motor it has in it but I would guess that it is a VW. If anyone knows anything about this plane could you please drop me an e-mail privately. Thanks Dene Collett mailto: dene.collett@freemail.absa.co.za ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 12:34:13 -0800 (PST) To: KRNET@MAILINGLISTS.ORG From: RICK WILSON Subject: spinner Message-ID: <20020128203413.93485.qmail@web21201.mail.yahoo.com> I SHOULD HAVE ADDED TO THE EARLIER NOTE THAT THE SPINNER FOR SALE IS MADE FOR A 3 BLADE PROP. IT IS 7" DIA.X7-1/2" LONG OVERALL. IT IS ALUMINUM BUT NOT POLISHED AND IS IN GOOD CONDITION. ALSO HAS BACKING PLATE WITH WHAT APPEARS TO BE UNIVERSAL HOLE PATTERNS. THANKS, RICK P.S.- IF ANYONE IS INTERESTED, I WILL SELL IT FOR 20.00. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions! http://auctions.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 13:49:45 -0700 From: "Jerry Morris" cc: krnet@mailinglists.org Subject: New as504x airfoil questions? Message-ID: <3C55B969.286DD67@nsc.com> I am curious on some terms and conditions of the new airfoil. I can draw the airfoil and the cord but how do i know the spar location? What is the waf line? (what does it mean) How/Why is it used? How is it drawn? And is the angle between the level line and the cord line the angle of incidence? Ok so does the new airfoil use the same angle of incidence as the old airfoil? And does the main spar go at the thickest part of the airfoil? I assume the distance between the main and rear spars centers are the same as in the kr plans and the location through the fuseloge is the same as in the kr plans? Is this a correct? thanks jerrym ps. Does any one have a X-Plane file of the kr2s? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 15:41:57 -0600 To: From: "Mark Langford" Subject: Re: KR> New as504x airfoil questions? Message-ID: <001201c1a844$9cf8ad30$5f0ca58c@mlangford> Jerry Morris wrote: > I can draw the airfoil and the cord but how do i know the spar location? The planform for the new wing can be exactly the same as for the old airfoil. That keeps things simple. Spars, ailerons, flaps, etc can go in exactly the same place and are constructed in the same manner. The only difference is in the AS5046, where the aileron bellcrank is even tighter than the RAF48 (which really doesn't offer enough room either). Mark Jones fixed this by simply mounting his aileron bellcrank on the front of the aft spar, rather than the rear of the aft spar. The AS5048 has plenty of room behind the aft spar for the stock bellcrank, and the kitchen sink as well. You could also just make the stocker a little shorter and put it in the stock location, I suspect. > What is the waf line? (what does it mean) How/Why is it used? How is it > drawn? I don't know what the WAF line is. WAF stands for wing attach fitting. > And is the angle between the level line and the cord line the angle of > incidence? Yes > Ok so does the new airfoil use the same angle of incidence as the old airfoil? No. It should be somewhat less, but I'd argue the same for the old airfoil too. At high speed the wing takes over in the attitude department, and the fuselage ends up pointed toward the ground like a Huey helicopter, meaning that now your engine is pulling you downward. Visibility over the nose is better with the stock 3.5 degree incidence, but that's the only advantage I can possibly see to it. If you're going to putz around with 60 horsepower, 3.5 degrees of incidence is good enough. > And does the main spar go at the thickest part of the airfoil? No, same place. I'm not saying that it's optimal, but it's the same place as the RAF48. > I assume the distance between the main and rear spars centers are the same as > in the kr plans and the location > through the fuseloge is the same as in the kr plans? Is this a correct? Yes. Most of this stuff is expained in further detail at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford/tet/as5046inst.html (airfoil installation instructions) and http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford/tet/ . Mark Langford, TET, LLC mailto:langford@hiwaay.net see KR2S project at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 15:08:17 -0600 (CST) To: Jerry Morris From: Steven Eberhart cc: Subject: Re: KR> New as504x airfoil questions? Message-ID: On Mon, 28 Jan 2002, Jerry Morris wrote: > > > I am curious on some terms and conditions of the new airfoil. > > I can draw the airfoil and the cord but how do i know the spar location? > > What is the waf line? (what does it mean) How/Why is it used? How is it > drawn? > > And is the angle between the level line and the cord line the angle of > incidence? > Ok so does the new airfoil use the same angle of incidence as the old airfoil? > > And does the main spar go at the thickest part of the airfoil? > I assume the distance between the main and rear spars centers are the same as > in the kr plans and the location > through the fuseloge is the same as in the kr plans? Is this a correct? > > thanks > jerrym > Sounds like you do not have Mark Langfords airfoil templates. Get ahold of Mark ond order a set of his templates and you should be set to go. His templates and his web page should answer most all questions. If you don't know who Mark is or where his web page is are you sure you are a KR builder? :-) Steve Eberhart RV-7A - just a whole bunch of aluminum, in various states of attachment, filling up my half of the garage. Some of it looks like it might belong on the back end of an airplane. The rest looks like it might, some day, help hold it up in the air.... but what do I know. N14SE reserved ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 23:30:47 -0000 To: "Mark Langford" , From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Hafsteinn_J=F3nasson?= Subject: Re: KR> New as504x airfoil questions? Message-ID: <002901c1a853$d16fedd0$14dd1ed4@c0g3t9> Has anyone flown ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark Langford" To: Sent: Monday, January 28, 2002 9:41 PM Subject: Re: KR> New as504x airfoil questions? > Jerry Morris wrote: > > > I can draw the airfoil and the cord but how do i know the spar location? > > The planform for the new wing can be exactly the same as for the old > airfoil. That keeps things simple. Spars, ailerons, flaps, etc can go in > exactly the same place and are constructed in the same manner. The only > difference is in the AS5046, where the aileron bellcrank is even tighter > than the RAF48 (which really doesn't offer enough room either). Mark Jones > fixed this by simply mounting his aileron bellcrank on the front of the aft > spar, rather than the rear of the aft spar. The AS5048 has plenty of room > behind the aft spar for the stock bellcrank, and the kitchen sink as well. > You could also just make the stocker a little shorter and put it in the > stock location, I suspect. > > > What is the waf line? (what does it mean) How/Why is it used? How is it > > drawn? > > I don't know what the WAF line is. WAF stands for wing attach fitting. > > > And is the angle between the level line and the cord line the angle of > > incidence? > > Yes > > > Ok so does the new airfoil use the same angle of incidence as the old > airfoil? > > No. It should be somewhat less, but I'd argue the same for the old airfoil > too. At high speed the wing takes over in the attitude department, and the > fuselage ends up pointed toward the ground like a Huey helicopter, meaning > that now your engine is pulling you downward. Visibility over the nose is > better with the stock 3.5 degree incidence, but that's the only advantage I > can possibly see to it. If you're going to putz around with 60 horsepower, > 3.5 degrees of incidence is good enough. > > > And does the main spar go at the thickest part of the airfoil? > > No, same place. I'm not saying that it's optimal, but it's the same place > as the RAF48. > > > I assume the distance between the main and rear spars centers are the > same as > > in the kr plans and the location > > through the fuseloge is the same as in the kr plans? Is this a correct? > > Yes. > > Most of this stuff is expained in further detail at > http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford/tet/as5046inst.html (airfoil installation > instructions) and http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford/tet/ . > > Mark Langford, TET, LLC > mailto:langford@hiwaay.net > see KR2S project at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To post to the list, email: krnet@mailinglists.org , NOT "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/ > ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 23:39:52 -0000 To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Hafsteinn_J=F3nasson?= , "Mark Langford" , From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Hafsteinn_J=F3nasson?= Subject: Re: KR> New as504x airfoil questions? Message-ID: <002f01c1a855$16242a80$14dd1ed4@c0g3t9> Sorry guys, but I wasn't even started to write when I accidentally pushed the send button! Has anyone of the new AS5048 wing (+KR2S fuselage) flown with the decalage between the h/s and wing root set to 1.75 degrees? And if so, how did it work? Hafsteinn Jónasson, Iceland hafstj@li.is ----- Original Message ----- From: "Hafsteinn Jónasson" To: "Mark Langford" ; Sent: Monday, January 28, 2002 11:30 PM Subject: Re: KR> New as504x airfoil questions? > Has anyone flown > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Mark Langford" > To: > Sent: Monday, January 28, 2002 9:41 PM > Subject: Re: KR> New as504x airfoil questions? > > > > Jerry Morris wrote: > > > > > I can draw the airfoil and the cord but how do i know the spar location? > > > > The planform for the new wing can be exactly the same as for the old > > airfoil. That keeps things simple. Spars, ailerons, flaps, etc can go in > > exactly the same place and are constructed in the same manner. The only > > difference is in the AS5046, where the aileron bellcrank is even tighter > > than the RAF48 (which really doesn't offer enough room either). Mark > Jones > > fixed this by simply mounting his aileron bellcrank on the front of the > aft > > spar, rather than the rear of the aft spar. The AS5048 has plenty of room > > behind the aft spar for the stock bellcrank, and the kitchen sink as well. > > You could also just make the stocker a little shorter and put it in the > > stock location, I suspect. > > > > > What is the waf line? (what does it mean) How/Why is it used? How is > it > > > drawn? > > > > I don't know what the WAF line is. WAF stands for wing attach fitting. > > > > > And is the angle between the level line and the cord line the angle of > > > incidence? > > > > Yes > > > > > Ok so does the new airfoil use the same angle of incidence as the old > > airfoil? > > > > No. It should be somewhat less, but I'd argue the same for the old > airfoil > > too. At high speed the wing takes over in the attitude department, and > the > > fuselage ends up pointed toward the ground like a Huey helicopter, meaning > > that now your engine is pulling you downward. Visibility over the nose > is > > better with the stock 3.5 degree incidence, but that's the only advantage > I > > can possibly see to it. If you're going to putz around with 60 > horsepower, > > 3.5 degrees of incidence is good enough. > > > > > And does the main spar go at the thickest part of the airfoil? > > > > No, same place. I'm not saying that it's optimal, but it's the same place > > as the RAF48. > > > > > I assume the distance between the main and rear spars centers are the > > same as > > > in the kr plans and the location > > > through the fuseloge is the same as in the kr plans? Is this a correct? > > > > Yes. > > > > Most of this stuff is expained in further detail at > > http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford/tet/as5046inst.html (airfoil installation > > instructions) and http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford/tet/ . > > > > Mark Langford, TET, LLC > > mailto:langford@hiwaay.net > > see KR2S project at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To post to the list, email: krnet@mailinglists.org , NOT "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/ > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To post to the list, email: krnet@mailinglists.org , NOT "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/ > ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 19:20:17 -0600 To: From: "Mark Langford" Subject: Re: KR> New as504x airfoil questions? Message-ID: <001d01c1a863$1e242b00$7600a8c0@athlon600> Hafsteinn Jónasson wrote: > Has anyone of the new AS5048 wing (+KR2S fuselage) flown with the decalage > between the h/s and wing root set to 1.75 degrees? And if so, how did it > work? Dean Selby's plane uses the AS5048 root tapering to the AS5046 tip, and I haven't heard any complaints from him. His plane is at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford/dselby/ , but it looks like I need to update it now that it's painted. It's also the top photo at www.krnet.org . I don't know of anybody that's using "pure" AS5048 from root to tip, nor is it recommended. Actually, Dean's is close to an AS5048/AS5045, since the AS5046 that I plotted for him is at the 33" template, tapering down further to something approaching an AS5045. The reason I call the current versions "AS5048/15" is because I designed those templates with the actual tip as an AS5045, with constant taper from the AS5048 root. You can't go too far wrong with something like 2 degrees of decalage. I forget what Dean has, but Troy has one degree and he loves it (he didn't want to cut his tail off and remount it). And the stock KR2 has 3.5 degrees of decalage, so obviously there's wiggle room here. But Troy's is a lot faster than most "strictly by the plans" KRs, and I suspect that less trim drag is part of the reason... Mark Langford, Huntsville, Alabama mailto:langford@hiwaay.net see KR2S project N56ML at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 12:49:12 -0500 To: langford@hiwaay.net From: virgnvs@juno.com Cc: krnet@mailinglists.org Subject: Re: KR> New as504x airfoil questions? Message-ID: <20020129.141355.-202381.1.virgnvs@juno.com> Decalage ???? Virg On Mon, 28 Jan 2002 19:20:17 -0600 "Mark Langford" writes: > Hafsteinn Jónasson wrote: > > > Has anyone of the new AS5048 wing (+KR2S fuselage) flown with the > decalage > > between the h/s and wing root set to 1.75 degrees? And if so, how > did it > > work? > > Dean Selby's plane uses the AS5048 root tapering to the AS5046 tip, > and I > haven't heard any complaints from him. His plane is at > http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford/dselby/ , but it looks like I need > to > update it now that it's painted. It's also the top photo at > www.krnet.org . > I don't know of anybody that's using "pure" AS5048 from root to tip, > nor is > it recommended. Actually, Dean's is close to an AS5048/AS5045, > since the > AS5046 that I plotted for him is at the 33" template, tapering down > further > to something approaching an AS5045. The reason I call the current > versions > "AS5048/15" is because I designed those templates with the actual > tip as an > AS5045, with constant taper from the AS5048 root. > > You can't go too far wrong with something like 2 degrees of > decalage. I > forget what Dean has, but Troy has one degree and he loves it (he > didn't > want to cut his tail off and remount it). And the stock KR2 has > 3.5 > degrees of decalage, so obviously there's wiggle room here. But > Troy's is a > lot faster than most "strictly by the plans" KRs, and I suspect that > less > trim drag is part of the reason... > > 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 , NOT "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/ > > ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 20:12:30 -0000 To: , From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Hafsteinn_J=F3nasson?= Cc: Subject: Re: KR> New as504x airfoil questions? Message-ID: <000501c1a901$4e4e4ba0$64dd1ed4@c0g3t9> Yes, some word that I found on TET site. But when I searched for it in a wordbook I didn't found it!!! Means angular difference ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Cc: Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2002 5:49 PM Subject: Re: KR> New as504x airfoil questions? > Decalage ???? Virg > > On Mon, 28 Jan 2002 19:20:17 -0600 "Mark Langford" > writes: > > Hafsteinn Jónasson wrote: > > > > > Has anyone of the new AS5048 wing (+KR2S fuselage) flown with the > > decalage > > > between the h/s and wing root set to 1.75 degrees? And if so, how > > did it > > > work? > > > > Dean Selby's plane uses the AS5048 root tapering to the AS5046 tip, > > and I > > haven't heard any complaints from him. His plane is at > > http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford/dselby/ , but it looks like I need > > to > > update it now that it's painted. It's also the top photo at > > www.krnet.org . > > I don't know of anybody that's using "pure" AS5048 from root to tip, > > nor is > > it recommended. Actually, Dean's is close to an AS5048/AS5045, > > since the > > AS5046 that I plotted for him is at the 33" template, tapering down > > further > > to something approaching an AS5045. The reason I call the current > > versions > > "AS5048/15" is because I designed those templates with the actual > > tip as an > > AS5045, with constant taper from the AS5048 root. > > > > You can't go too far wrong with something like 2 degrees of > > decalage. I > > forget what Dean has, but Troy has one degree and he loves it (he > > didn't > > want to cut his tail off and remount it). And the stock KR2 has > > 3.5 > > degrees of decalage, so obviously there's wiggle room here. But > > Troy's is a > > lot faster than most "strictly by the plans" KRs, and I suspect that > > less > > trim drag is part of the reason... > > > > 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 , NOT "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/ > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To post to the list, email: krnet@mailinglists.org , NOT "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/ > ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 17:42:56 -0500 To: Flymaca711689@cs.com From: Chris Gardiner CC: krnet@mailinglists.org Subject: Re: KR> sport aviation kr2s Message-ID: <3C55D3F0.7030509@netscape.net> Thanks Mac, and KR Netter's. Makes me proud to see the little KR's making the press , ...anywhere!. KR Power to all.! Cheers Chris Gardiner C-GKRZ Flymaca711689@cs.com wrote: >congratulation Chris gardnier making the magazine and first flight Sept 23 >2001 . this Is a nice looking bird see his bird In Jan issue of sport >aviation . > > > > > > > >mac > ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 20:38:00 -0800 To: From: "Charles Buddy & Cheryl Midkiff" Subject: Aluminun Fuel Tank Message-ID: <002001c1a87e$bc4ea1a0$b0d9243f@cmidkiff> ------=_NextPart_000_001D_01C1A83B.AD04E300 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Does anyone on the network remember a guy who had a business called = AVPRO. This goes back about ten years ago. He advertised a KR-2 15 gal = header fuel tank which he fabricated of 5052H32 .050 aluminum. The = cost was about $190. He sent me drawings, pictures and order forms, But = the envelope which had his address on it got mis-placed some way and = I've not seen him advertise since. Thanks, Bud Lynnwood,WA email: cmidkiff@gte.net --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.309 / Virus Database: 170 - Release Date: 12/17/2001 ------=_NextPart_000_001D_01C1A83B.AD04E300-- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 06:47:53 EST To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: Flymaca711689@cs.com Subject: nose gear Message-ID: <13e.8704ef1.2987e5e9@cs.com> --part1_13e.8704ef1.2987e5e9_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit to all with this gear what your putting your faith In to I just don't understand that you letting somebody till you Its fine just don't land on grass or use the brakes? what about forced landing unproved strips your just going to have to learn the hard way!!!!!..I will be borrowing my buddy scanner to get the photos out just need to here more crap of how great the gear Is as I told you the first design was fiberglass and I was unable to even taxi with that design so I put the stock deli design that fold up just doing taxi test the third one was the charm thicker wall and filled and braced. I fly to all strips now and don't have to worry!!!!!!!!!!!! you do what you what but I can see that some are going to learn the hard way. this is last post on this by me as I said mine flying and some of you are going to just have bust you plane up mark my words!!!!!!! .to bad very nice looking birds have a nice day mac --part1_13e.8704ef1.2987e5e9_boundary-- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 12:38:03 -0600 To: From: "Mark Langford" Subject: Jeff Scott's C-85 KR2S engine for sale Message-ID: <003d01c1a8f4$172a0180$5f0ca58c@mlangford> I got the following from Jeff Scott, who's now building up an 0-200 for his KR2S. "If anyone on the KRNet wants to buy a C-85 for their KR, mine should be coming off in May. Currently has roughly 1850 hours SMOH and good compression 72 - 78 on all 4. It will be sold with all accessories in airworthy condition." You can contact Jeff at jscott@lanl.gov if you're interested. Mark Langford, Huntsville, AL mailto:langford@hiwaay.net see KR2S project at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford ----- Original Message ----- From: "Frank Ross" To: Sent: Monday, January 28, 2002 10:55 PM Subject: KR> Re: The stretch > Will you need to lengthen your center spars? > Since you'll have slightly less wing with the wider > fuselage, and a much larger fuselage, will the same > wing do the job? > > > > ===== > Frank Ross, San Antonio, TX, > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions! > http://auctions.yahoo.com > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To post to the list, email: krnet@mailinglists.org , NOT "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/ > ------------------------------ End of krnet Digest ***********************************