From: To: Subject: krnet Digest 21 May 2002 00:59:37 -0000 Issue 433 Date: Monday, May 20, 2002 6:00 PM krnet Digest 21 May 2002 00:59:37 -0000 Issue 433 Topics (messages 10260 through 10289): Re: O-200, Marty's plane and drag (was - Da pics:-) 10260 by: Jerry Mahurin "About to be KR Owner" 10261 by: James Foster 10263 by: Daniel Heath aircraft covers 10262 by: speeddemon651.cswebmail.com 10264 by: Rick Wilson 10265 by: Rick Wilson KR PEOPLE LIST 10266 by: Ron Thomas 10268 by: virgnvs.juno.com Typo 10267 by: ROBERT COOPER Re: gear 10269 by: virgnvs.juno.com Re: 2002 KR Gathering Red Oak, IA 10270 by: Charles Buddy Midkiff 10271 by: garbez Re: gross weight 10272 by: Linda Warner 10274 by: rfarmer 10275 by: virgnvs.juno.com 10277 by: bstarrs 10278 by: Mark Langford 10279 by: Rick Wilson 10282 by: Daniel Heath 10286 by: Linda Warner 10287 by: Mark Langford Re: finding flat plate 10273 by: George Majewski Screw up of the week 10276 by: ROBERT COOPER 10281 by: Daniel Heath KR-1 instructions 10280 by: Gary W. Haun JPG viewer? what do you guys use? 10283 by: Darren Pond 10285 by: Mark Langford People List 10284 by: Gary W. Haun Re:Fuel tanks 10288 by: Keith S Melvill What is flat plate area drag? 10289 by: Bryan Abshier Administrivia: To subscribe to the digest, e-mail: To unsubscribe from the digest, e-mail: To post to the list, e-mail: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 19 May 2002 19:17:47 -0400 To: From: "Jerry Mahurin" Subject: Re: KR> O-200, Marty's plane and drag (was - Da pics:-) Message-ID: On Wed, 19 May 2004 13:31:13 -0400 "George Majewski" wrote: >> Are you just calculating the flat plate area for the >>prop, or the whole >> airplane...... 'Cause it would be diffrent between tail >>draggers and >> trigear, which I did not see on your form....if you were >>calcing for the >> whole airframe.... Or, educate me..... >> >> Not to be picky, just curious.... >> >> Jerry Mahurin > >Hi Jerry, > >All is based on simple principle Thrust=Drag. It doesn't >matter what >airframe you have. If I know prop geometry used during >test flight and >engine HP I can calculate thrust and later flat plate >area drag of the >aircraft. > >George > Aha.....so now I see (sez the blind man) you are back calculatin' .......... Thanx for the enlightenment..... Jerry Mahurin Lugoff, SC http://kr-builder.org ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 May 2002 19:18:38 -0500 To: From: "James Foster" Subject: "About to be KR Owner" Message-ID: <001001c1ff93$e4760620$241cdfd1@pilgrim1> ------=_NextPart_000_000D_01C1FF69.FACD6BE0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello Everyone,=20 I am new to the Net. I would like to contact KR owners located in the = Gulf Coast area of Texas, preferably West of Houston. Anyone out here? Thanks, Jim Foster Katy, TX ------=_NextPart_000_000D_01C1FF69.FACD6BE0-- ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 May 2002 20:57:52 -0700 To: From: "Daniel Heath" Subject: RE: KR> "About to be KR Owner" Message-ID: James, Welcome to the net. There are people out there who are on the net. Glad to have you. Daniel R. Heath See our KR2 at: http://kr-builder.org See our EAA Chapter 242 at: WWW.EAA242.ORG -----Original Message----- From: James Foster [mailto:pilgrim1@pdq.net] Sent: Sunday, May 19, 2002 5:19 PM To: krnet@mailinglists.org Subject: KR> "About to be KR Owner" Hello Everyone, I am new to the Net. I would like to contact KR owners located in the Gulf Coast area of Texas, preferably West of Houston. Anyone out here? Thanks, Jim Foster Katy, TX --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.325 / Virus Database: 182 - Release Date: 2/19/2002 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.325 / Virus Database: 182 - Release Date: 2/19/2002 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 May 2002 17:35:14 -0700 (PDT) To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: speeddemon651@cswebmail.com Subject: aircraft covers Message-Id: <20020519173515.7661.h005.c014.wm@mail.cswebmail.com.criticalpath.net> ------- Start of forwarded message ------- Subject: Re: KR> gear From: speeddemon651@cswebmail.com Date: Sat, 18 May 2002 21:41:18 -0700 (PDT) To: clappw@bellsouth.net Cc: krnet@mailinglists.org On Sun, 19 May 2002, clappw@bellsouth.net wrote > I wanted to know if there are any compmanies that made or sell covers for a kr2s .if there arn't any does anyone know where i can get material that would work well,being water proof and uv protective so i can make my own covers. thanks joel N71SF (md) ___________________________________________________ The ALL NEW CS2000 from CompuServe Better! Faster! More Powerful! 250 FREE hours! Sign-on Now! http://www.compuserve.com/trycsrv/cs2000/webmail/ ------- End of forwarded message ------- ___________________________________________________ The ALL NEW CS2000 from CompuServe Better! Faster! More Powerful! 250 FREE hours! Sign-on Now! http://www.compuserve.com/trycsrv/cs2000/webmail/ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 May 2002 18:36:32 -0700 (PDT) To: KRNET@MAILINGLISTS.ORG From: Rick Wilson Subject: aircraft covers Message-ID: <20020520013632.28529.qmail@web21204.mail.yahoo.com> Joel, try going to www.coversearch.com they are supposed to have a web site and they make covers for boats, cars, cycles, aircraft, and just about anything. Thanks, Rick Wilson. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience http://launch.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 May 2002 18:50:08 -0700 (PDT) To: KRNET@MAILINGLISTS.ORG From: Rick Wilson Subject: aircraft covers Message-ID: <20020520015008.12047.qmail@web21201.mail.yahoo.com> Hi again Joel, you can also check out kennon aircraft covers at kennoncovers.com They custom make covers for all types of aircraft. Thanks, Rick Wilson. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience http://launch.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 May 2002 21:53:36 -0400 To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: Ron Thomas Subject: KR PEOPLE LIST Message-ID: <3CE85720.16456B57@mindspring.com> What is the possibility of gathering and posting a list of KR interested persons home info. Name ADD TO THIS AND REPLY. ADDRESS ONLY IF YOU WANT TO BE ON LIST. PHONE # E-Mail MODEL KR PROPOSED ENGINE TARGET DATE TO FLY PRESENT STAGE OF CONSTRUCTION. RONALD D. THOMAS 770 603 0160 JONESBORO, GEORGIA 30236 RDTHOMAS@MINDSPRING.COM NOT BUILDING AT PRESENT CORVAIR ENGINE BUILDER ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 May 2002 22:43:40 -0400 To: rdthomas@mindspring.com From: virgnvs@juno.com Cc: krnet@mailinglists.org Subject: Re: KR> KR PEOPLE LIST Message-ID: <20020519.224652.-442901.6.virgnvs@juno.com> On Sun, 19 May 2002 21:53:36 -0400 Ron Thomas writes: > What is the possibility of gathering and posting a list of KR > interested persons home info. > Name > ADD TO THIS AND REPLY. ADDRESS > > ONLY IF YOU WANT TO BE ON LIST. PHONE # > > virgnvs@juno.com E-Mail KR- 1 MODEL KR > 1200 VW PROPOSED ENGINE > When done 1974 start date TARGET DATE TO FLY > Boat, Spars done not in PRESENT STAGE OF CONSTRUCTION. > > > RONALD D. THOMAS > 770 603 0160 > JONESBORO, GEORGIA 30236 > RDTHOMAS@MINDSPRING.COM > NOT BUILDING AT PRESENT > CORVAIR ENGINE BUILDER > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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/ > and at http://www.bouyea.net/ for the older ones > > ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 May 2002 22:30:30 -0400 To: "krnet" From: "ROBERT COOPER" Subject: Typo Message-ID: ------=_NextPart_001_0001_01C1FF84.C83A1460 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable KR Net Please excuse the typo on my previous message about shirts. My keyboard d= oesn't spell well and spellcheck isn't working. Jack Cooper mailto:kr2cooper@msn.com http://www.geocities.com/kr2cooper/ Fayetteville, NC. ------=_NextPart_001_0001_01C1FF84.C83A1460-- ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 May 2002 22:19:21 -0400 To: langford@hiwaay.net From: virgnvs@juno.com Cc: krnet@mailinglists.org Subject: Re: KR> gear Message-ID: <20020519.224652.-442901.3.virgnvs@juno.com> Good info Mark, Virg On Sat, 18 May 2002 21:48:10 -0500 "Mark Langford" writes: > Dan Heath wrote: > > > The higher you get it, the more difficult it will be to make a 3 > point. > If > > you get the nose high enough, which is probably higher than it was > on the > > retract, it will be almost impossible to 3 point. > > You are also correct about the difficulty on take off and > landing. > > Are you sure about this? I'm not a real KR pilot, so I'm open to a > reality > check, but I've always thought that landing attitude for an > almost-full > stall three point landing in a taildragger should be very close to > the stall > angle for the wing, which is something like 14 degrees for a stock > KR2. > With an average of 2.5 degrees of wing incidence, this means the > fuselage > would need to be at an 11.5 degree angle to the ground. > > I checked some KR2s with the original retracts at one of the > Gatherings and > found them to sit on the ground with an angle of about 8 degrees. > That is > probably why they are reportedly hard to three point. The > tailwheel would > hit before the mains. Of course, I've heard one or two guys tell me > that > that's the way they land them, tail first, so what do I know? The > bottom > line is that they are probably all different, for various reasons. > I'd love > to hear from the various pilots on this subject of three-point > landings in > their KRs. > > My KR2S with Diehl hear sits at about 10 degrees (which would be > 12.5 total > if wing incidence were stock) which would still need taller main > gear to get > closer to that 14 degree number. I will probably add another 2" to > my gear > height before I fly it, in an effort to gain more prop clearance and > to > improve the drag qualities of the wheel pants to gear leg situation. > I only > have 8" at the moment with a 54" prop and plan to spend some time on > sod. > > Of course the bigest reason to compromise on this is visibility over > the > cowling, but that also comes at the expense of prop clearance. I > just > crawled into mine with the new cowling installed and I think I'll > have some > decent forward visibility on the ground. From the cockit, the > cowling just > about disappears, so it's as if I'm sitting in my plane with no > engine or > anything out past the firewall. That 2.4" thrustline drop is > paying > dividends. (See http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford/02051818m.jpg , > which I > took about three hours ago). > > I guess this goes back to seating again. My Dragonfly canopy is > located at > exactly the same height as the big RR KR2S drawing's side view > (that's about > the only clue RR gives you as to how tall to make it), with a 17.5" > maximum > height above the longeron. I'm 6' tall, and have about 2 inches > between the > seat the floor, and my hair touches the canopy. I'll lower it to > the floor > (which is not uncommon) shortly after I get it flying, I suspect, so > I'll > have room for foam cushioning. Of course all of this canopy stuff > is > subjective, entirely dependent upon how much frame you have between > the top > longeron and the canopy, the angle you install it (mine is raked a > little > more than most), where you locate it fore and aft, etc... > > 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 , 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/ > and at http://www.bouyea.net/ for the older ones > > ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 May 2002 20:06:00 -0700 To: "garbez" , , "KR Builders \(E-mail\)" From: "Charles Buddy Midkiff" Subject: Re: KR> 2002 KR Gathering Red Oak, IA Message-ID: <000b01c1ffab$465a5460$ca32e341@vzcmidkiff> ------=_NextPart_000_0008_01C1FF70.988BBFC0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mike, Did you ever get the upgraded rear drive for your Type 4 worked out? or = are you switching to Corvair power? Bud Midkiff Lynnwood, WA ----- Original Message -----=20 From: garbez=20 To: lacapps@attbi.com ; KR Builders (E-mail)=20 Sent: Saturday, May 18, 2002 9:22 PM Subject: Re: KR> 2002 KR Gathering Red Oak, IA Larry, We will have hats, t-shirts, and some other goodies available upon = your arrival at the airport. We're glad to hear that you're coming, we = hope to make it a great time for all. Mike Garbez N998MG 2002 KR Gathering Host ----- Original Message ----- From: "Larry A. Capps" To: "KR Builders (E-mail)" Cc: Sent: Saturday, May 18, 2002 9:11 PM Subject: KR> 2002 KR Gathering Red Oak, IA > Hello KRNet, > > Who will be making up the Hats, Shirts (Style =3D football > jersey/T-shirt/Polo/wind breakers) for the up coming 2002 KR = Gathering? > > It has came to my attention, I have nothing to wear related to KR, = or the > KRNet. My lovely wife and I, would like to show up in native = costume, to > better blend with the other tribe members >:) > > The gathering is only 4-short months away! > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > The Red Oak Municipal Airport (RDK) is located 1/2 mile west of town > 1674 200th Street Red Oak, IA 51566 > phone is (712) 623-6523 > > 41 00.63N 95 15.59W > U122.8 > > Motel Reservations: > The Red Coach Inn (712) 623-4864 > Super 8 Motel (712) 623-6919 > 1 1/2 miles from the airport. > > Mike Garbez - 2002 KR Gathering Host > (712) 778-2449 please call after 5:30 p.m. > central time weekdays or weekends > > Any questions e-mail at msgtlg@netins.net > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Best Regards, > > Larry A. Capps > Naperville, IL > > > > = --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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/ > and at http://www.bouyea.net/ for the older ones > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To post to the list, email: krnet@mailinglists.org , NOT "reply all" To UNsubscribe, e-mail: krnet-unsubscribe@mailinglists.org=20 For additional commands, e-mail: krnet-help@mailinglists.org See the KRNet archives at http://www.escribe.com/aviation/krnet/=20 and at http://www.bouyea.net/ for the older ones ------=_NextPart_000_0008_01C1FF70.988BBFC0-- ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 May 2002 23:22:32 -0500 To: "KR-POST" , "Charles Buddy Midkiff" From: "garbez" Subject: Re: KR> 2002 KR Gathering Red Oak, IA Message-ID: <001801c1ffb6$029a9360$bdbefea9@netins.net> Mike, Did you ever get the upgraded rear drive for your Type 4 worked out? or are you switching to Corvair power? Bud Midkiff Lynnwood, WA Yes , Steve and his engineer's have redesigned the rear drive for the type 4 and the corvair. The engine is on the test stand for the KR and we are running it now. Better to test it on the stand than on the airplane. I also did build a corvair but it came after the build of the type 4. I am going to leave the type 4 in the KR, because I believe that the corvair will have no more power than the type 4. The corvair with the rear drive is going on an airboat that my wife and I have designed and we will test it on the water having fun. Hopefully, I'll have the KR flying in time for the gathering, which I see no problem and hopefully we'll see some flying corvairs(?) and we can compare. Mike Garbez N998MG 2002 KR Gathering Host ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 08:08:22 -0400 (EDT) To: rwdw2002@yahoo.com (Rick Wilson), krnet@mailinglists.org From: jaslkw@webtv.net (Linda Warner) Subject: Re: KR> gross weight Message-ID: <29810-3CE8E736-2730@storefull-2176.public.lawson.webtv.net> Hi Rick. I never saw any answers to this post, so I thought I'd reply. I've talked to several KR people (One was Roger Hansen) who have operated theirs up to 1200 lbs. He had a Cont 0-200 engine in his, and stated that the cruise really suffered at that weight. The biggest drawback as I see it would be the reduced safety factor at anything above the published gross wt. Several people have done analysis of the structure of the KR and feel that the wing attach area (not the WAF's themselves, but rather the joining of them to the spars) is the weakest link in the KR design. At the suggested gross wt (by Rand) we should still have a strength safety margin comparable to certified aircraft. However, every pound over that the safety margin comes down. I (like most) want my KR2S to fly farther than most and will want more fuel in it. What I plan on doing is going to all wing fuel tanks and eliminating the header tank. Thus, all of the wt. of my fuel will be outboard of the WAF's and not carried across them in flight. Thus, the extra wt. I carry in fuel should not affect my strength safety margin. I do expect my performance to suffer but I'm building around a Cont 0-200 also, so I'm hoping to not be too bad. I expect to end up around 1100 - 1150 lbs gross. I like to fly at higher altitudes where it's smooth and that should help keep the stress down a little on my airframe. The thing to remember is this, it's your plane and you are the builder. You can set whatever gross wt. you want. Just be prepared to deal with the performance and safety at those wts. John Sickafoose ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 13:25:25 -0400 To: "krnet" From: "rfarmer" Subject: gross weight Message-ID: <001f01c20023$54fe4300$455b62d8@oemcomputer> ------=_NextPart_000_001C_01C20001.CCD873E0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Has anyone put a Hirth engine in a KR2? If the KR2's weight is so = critical to the performance the weight savings might be a big boost. = What is every one using as the forward & aft cg limit on their KR2. The = sonex is using 20%-32% of wing cord, is this about right. Bob rfarmer@naxs.net ------=_NextPart_000_001C_01C20001.CCD873E0-- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 14:31:23 -0400 To: rfarmer@naxs.net From: virgnvs@juno.com Cc: krnet@mailinglists.org Subject: Re: KR> gross weight Message-ID: <20020520.143334.-65789.2.virgnvs@juno.com> Check YOUR plans book for CG computation, Virg On Mon, 20 May 2002 13:25:25 -0400 "rfarmer" writes: > Has anyone put a Hirth engine in a KR2? If the KR2's weight is so > critical to the performance the weight savings might be a big boost. > What is every one using as the forward & aft cg limit on their KR2. > The sonex is using 20%-32% of wing cord, is this about right. > > Bob > rfarmer@naxs.net > ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 11:36:18 -0700 To: "Linda Warner" , "Rick Wilson" , From: "bstarrs" Subject: Re: KR> gross weight Message-ID: <004f01c2002d$3bae4440$9200a8c0@bstarrs> If you are thinking of wing tanks Think twice because, no one to my knowledge has come up with a fiber glass fuel tank that does not leak sooner or later. Aluminum is much more reliable. This may start another war of words but it will be worth it to get the input of so many ceative people. Bill Starrs ----- Original Message ----- From: "Linda Warner" To: "Rick Wilson" ; Sent: Monday, May 20, 2002 5:08 AM Subject: Re: KR> gross weight > Hi Rick. I never saw any answers to this post, so I thought I'd reply. > I've talked to several KR people (One was Roger Hansen) who have > operated theirs up to 1200 lbs. He had a Cont 0-200 engine in his, and > stated that the cruise really suffered at that weight. > The biggest drawback as I see it would be the reduced safety factor at > anything above the published gross wt. Several people have done analysis > of the structure of the KR and feel that the wing attach area (not the > WAF's themselves, but rather the joining of them to the spars) is the > weakest link in the KR design. At the suggested gross wt (by Rand) we > should still have a strength safety margin comparable to certified > aircraft. However, every pound over that the safety margin comes down. > > I (like most) want my KR2S to fly farther than most and will want more > fuel in it. What I plan on doing is going to all wing fuel tanks and > eliminating the header tank. Thus, all of the wt. of my fuel will be > outboard of the WAF's and not carried across them in flight. Thus, the > extra wt. I carry in fuel should not affect my strength safety margin. > I do expect my performance to suffer but I'm building around a Cont > 0-200 also, so I'm hoping to not be too bad. I expect to end up around > 1100 - 1150 lbs gross. I like to fly at higher altitudes where it's > smooth and that should help keep the stress down a little on my > airframe. > The thing to remember is this, it's your plane and you are the builder. > You can set whatever gross wt. you want. Just be prepared to deal with > the performance and safety at those wts. > > John Sickafoose > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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/ > and at http://www.bouyea.net/ for the older ones > > ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 15:36:36 -0500 To: From: "Mark Langford" Subject: Re: KR> gross weight Message-ID: <001901c2003e$0a3c46d0$5f0ca58c@mlangford> Bill Starrs wrote: > If you are thinking of wing tanks Think twice because, no one to my > knowledge has come up with a fiber glass fuel tank that does not leak sooner > or later. Aluminum is much more reliable I vote for aluminum fuel tanks too. You can test them for leaks and then install them into the wing and you're done. With fiberglass tanks that are built in place, you won't know it leaks until after the wing is finished and perhaps even painted... Mark Langford, Huntsville, AL mailto:langford@hiwaay.net see KR2S project at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 15:13:06 -0700 (PDT) To: KRNET@MAILINGLISTS.ORG From: Rick Wilson Subject: gross weight Message-ID: <20020520221306.92630.qmail@web21205.mail.yahoo.com> Hi Linda, I appreciate your response to my question. I have been doing some figuring on this and I've come up with a max gross weight of around 1150 lbs for my kr2 also, if I want to carry a passenger and enough fuel to get anywhere. Like you said, every pound above the planned gross weight takes away from the safety. I may be limited to flying solo. I guess I'll just see how it performs and then go from there adding a little weight at a time and see what kind of difference it makes. Thanks, Rick Wilson. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience http://launch.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 18:48:34 -0700 To: "krnet" From: "Daniel Heath" Subject: RE: KR> gross weight Message-ID: I used 4 inches fore and 2 inched aft. Daniel R. Heath See our KR2 at: http://kr-builder.org See our EAA Chapter 242 at: WWW.EAA242.ORG -----Original Message----- From: rfarmer [mailto:rfarmer@naxs.net] Sent: Monday, May 20, 2002 10:25 AM To: krnet Subject: KR> gross weight Has anyone put a Hirth engine in a KR2? If the KR2's weight is so critical to the performance the weight savings might be a big boost. What is every one using as the forward & aft cg limit on their KR2. The sonex is using 20%-32% of wing cord, is this about right. Bob rfarmer@naxs.net --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.325 / Virus Database: 182 - Release Date: 2/19/2002 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.325 / Virus Database: 182 - Release Date: 2/19/2002 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 20:05:53 -0400 (EDT) To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: jaslkw@webtv.net (Linda Warner) Subject: Fwd: Re: KR> gross weight Message-ID: <29814-3CE98F61-567@storefull-2176.public.lawson.webtv.net> --WebTV-Mail-32048-276 Content-Type: Text/Plain; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Hi Bill & all. You are right. I've never talked to anyone who was happy with fiberglass tanks, and would not go with them for another reason. I don't want any fuel aft of the front spar to avoid moving the C.G. any farther aft than necessary and to keep my fuel on the desired C.G. (the front spar) so that I don't experience any shift in the C.G. as My fuel burns off. I plan on doing this by installing two tubular aluminum tanks, one ahead of, and one aft of the front spar. These will be removable by simply taking the wing off and extracting them toward the inboard end of the wing. This part may go along with the recent post asking for the center of gravity range for the KR's After reading many articles in the KR newsletter and talking to one poor fellow who rode his KR2 down in a flat spin, (yes he lived). I plan on eliminating the last two inches of the Rand published C.G. range. Many horror stories prevail about KR's becoming unstable and uncontrollable following a power loss during climb. I plan on limiting my C.G. range to 3 inches in front of the rear surface of the front spar for the forward limit, to 2 inches aft of the rear surface of the front spar for the rearward limit. My decision to do this was in part prompted by the fine article "DESIGN ANALYSIS", a critical analysis of the KR-2, by Neil Bingham which was published in issue 140 of the KR newsletter. This article is a little technical, but should be required reading for EVERY person aspiring to build/fly a KR. Anyone not having, but wanting a copy of this fine article should contact me off net and I will be happy to provide mine for them to read (see, no copyright infringement). Happy building to all. John Sickafoose --WebTV-Mail-32048-276 Content-Disposition: Inline Content-Type: Message/RFC822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Received: from smtpin-2206.public.lawson.webtv.net (209.240.213.136) by storefull-2178.public.lawson.webtv.net with WTV-SMTP; Mon, 20 May 2002 13:07:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.cybertrails.com (mail.cybertrails.com [162.42.150.35]) by smtpin-2206.public.lawson.webtv.net (WebTV_Postfix+sws) with ESMTP id AE8EDFE25 for ; Mon, 20 May 2002 13:07:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 9452 invoked from network); 20 May 2002 18:36:34 -0000 Received: from mti-aptis-pres-p23.cybertrails.com (HELO bstarrs) ([162.42.11.23]) (envelope-sender ) by 172.16.3.21 (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 20 May 2002 18:36:34 -0000 Message-ID: <004f01c2002d$3bae4440$9200a8c0@bstarrs> Reply-To: "bstarrs" From: "bstarrs" To: "Linda Warner" , "Rick Wilson" , References: <29810-3CE8E736-2730@storefull-2176.public.lawson.webtv.net> Subject: Re: KR> gross weight Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 11:36:18 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 If you are thinking of wing tanks Think twice because, no one to my knowledge has come up with a fiber glass fuel tank that does not leak sooner or later. Aluminum is much more reliable. This may start another war of words but it will be worth it to get the input of so many ceative people. Bill Starrs ----- Original Message ----- From: "Linda Warner" To: "Rick Wilson" ; Sent: Monday, May 20, 2002 5:08 AM Subject: Re: KR> gross weight > Hi Rick. I never saw any answers to this post, so I thought I'd reply. > I've talked to several KR people (One was Roger Hansen) who have > operated theirs up to 1200 lbs. He had a Cont 0-200 engine in his, and > stated that the cruise really suffered at that weight. > The biggest drawback as I see it would be the reduced safety factor at > anything above the published gross wt. Several people have done analysis > of the structure of the KR and feel that the wing attach area (not the > WAF's themselves, but rather the joining of them to the spars) is the > weakest link in the KR design. At the suggested gross wt (by Rand) we > should still have a strength safety margin comparable to certified > aircraft. However, every pound over that the safety margin comes down. > > I (like most) want my KR2S to fly farther than most and will want more > fuel in it. What I plan on doing is going to all wing fuel tanks and > eliminating the header tank. Thus, all of the wt. of my fuel will be > outboard of the WAF's and not carried across them in flight. Thus, the > extra wt. I carry in fuel should not affect my strength safety margin. > I do expect my performance to suffer but I'm building around a Cont > 0-200 also, so I'm hoping to not be too bad. I expect to end up around > 1100 - 1150 lbs gross. I like to fly at higher altitudes where it's > smooth and that should help keep the stress down a little on my > airframe. > The thing to remember is this, it's your plane and you are the builder. > You can set whatever gross wt. you want. Just be prepared to deal with > the performance and safety at those wts. > > John Sickafoose > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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/ > and at http://www.bouyea.net/ for the older ones > > --WebTV-Mail-32048-276-- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 19:40:44 -0500 To: From: "Mark Langford" Subject: Re: Re: KR> gross weight Message-ID: <0b8201c20060$24f06570$0100a8c0@TD310> John Sickafoose (alias Linda) wrote: > My decision to do > this was in part prompted by the fine article "DESIGN ANALYSIS", a > critical analysis of the KR-2, by Neil Bingham which was published in > issue 140 of the KR newsletter. It's on the web, at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford/kopinion.html , fourth paragraph down... Mark Langford, Huntsville, Alabama mailto:langford@hiwaay.net see KR2S N56ML at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 08:48:38 -0400 To: , From: "George Majewski" Subject: Re: KR> finding flat plate Message-ID: <002801c43e68$c6167d20$eb232d42@hh> > I for one, would love to know the equation to generate flat plate drag of an > airframe, based on (Thrust = HP) prop geometry. > Larry A. Capps Hi Larry, I wish it was that simple too. This is how to do it the easiest way: Known fact: *Propeller thrust decreases as cruise speed increases* Therefore we can say that speed will be limited to a point where trust just balances drag. (Thrust=Drag) During our test flight we will note that speed and prop RPM. From engine HP curve we can easily determine horsepower delivered to prop. And finally estimate FPA using this formula: FPA = 146625*HP*Prop efficiency/VMAX^3 (VMAX is maximum SEA LEVEL velocity in mph) Prop efficiency ~ 0.8 - 0.85 Marty's plane: 146625*100*0.8/195^3 = 1.5819 Ol' Blue 146625*100*0.8/165^3 = 2.6112 Of course this is just an estimate. Perhaps some aerodynamicist would enlighten us all. Btw: From the propeller point of view, weight is a drag too - during climb. Hope this helps. George ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 15:13:01 -0400 To: "krnet" From: "ROBERT COOPER" Subject: Screw up of the week Message-ID: ------=_NextPart_001_0000_01C20010.D52D7CC0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Last week was not a very productive week working on the KR. A little here= and a little there and the elevator was about ready to glass. On Saturda= y I only had about an hour to work so I traced the elevator on plastic an= d cut the fiberglass and pelply. On Sunday afternoon I went to the garage= ready to lay up some glass. I microed one side of the elevator and then = started wetting out the glass. When I went to transfer the wet glass to t= he elevator, I discovered I had the wrong orentation. Not wanting to wast= e all this glass I peeled the plastic off and smoothed out the glass and = squeegeed it in and it looked good. Then I noticed that I had forgotten t= o flox the trailing edge so I pulled the fiberglass off, trashed it and s= queegeed as much resin out of the foam as I could. I then took a long bre= ak to collect my thoughts and went out and glassed the other end of the e= levator. =20 Jack Cooper mailto:kr2cooper@msn.com http://www.geocities.com/kr2cooper/ Fayetteville, NC. ------=_NextPart_001_0000_01C20010.D52D7CC0-- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 18:46:45 -0700 To: "krnet" From: "Daniel Heath" Subject: RE: KR> Screw up of the week Message-ID: Jack, You would want to glass one side without flox anyway. When that is cured, turn it over, take out some foam from the trailing edge, fill that area with flox and glass that side. Sorry you screwed up, but thanks for telling us. I am trying hard to remember the really good one I did a little while ago. I am sure Jerry will remember. I meant to post it, so someone else might not make the same mistake. Daniel R. Heath See our KR2 at: http://kr-builder.org See our EAA Chapter 242 at: WWW.EAA242.ORG -----Original Message----- From: ROBERT COOPER [mailto:kr2cooper@msn.com] Sent: Monday, May 20, 2002 12:13 PM To: krnet Subject: KR> Screw up of the week Last week was not a very productive week working on the KR. A little here and a little there and the elevator was about ready to glass. On Saturday I only had about an hour to work so I traced the elevator on plastic and cut the fiberglass and pelply. On Sunday afternoon I went to the garage ready to lay up some glass. I microed one side of the elevator and then started wetting out the glass. When I went to transfer the wet glass to the elevator, I discovered I had the wrong orentation. Not wanting to waste all this glass I peeled the plastic off and smoothed out the glass and squeegeed it in and it looked good. Then I noticed that I had forgotten to flox the trailing edge so I pulled the fiberglass off, trashed it and squeegeed as much resin out of the foam as I could. I then took a long break to collect my thoughts and went out and glassed the other end of the elevator. Jack Cooper mailto:kr2cooper@msn.com http://www.geocities.com/kr2cooper/ Fayetteville, NC. --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.325 / Virus Database: 182 - Release Date: 2/19/2002 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.325 / Virus Database: 182 - Release Date: 2/19/2002 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 17:28:15 -0500 To: From: "Gary W. Haun" Subject: KR-1 instructions Message-ID: Ah ha, and all the time I thought it was me! Gary W. Haun --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.362 / Virus Database: 199 - Release Date: 5/7/2002 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 19:02:57 -0700 To: "krnet" From: "Darren Pond" Subject: JPG viewer? what do you guys use? Message-ID: <000a01c2006b$a1568da0$79469d18@cambr.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> ------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C20030.F4930060 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi All Off topic here. What do you guys use for viewing jpg's=20 I've tried paint/ms and Quick viewer (which is very slow) I use to have = Netscape and it worked great a view. Any thoughts? Darren Pond ------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C20030.F4930060-- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 18:41:08 -0500 To: "krnet" From: "Mark Langford" Subject: Re: KR> JPG viewer? what do you guys use? Message-ID: <0b2701c20057$d18a9430$0100a8c0@TD310> ACDSee is hard to beat. See http://www.acdsystems.com/English/index.htm . Try the trial version. It's about as fast as they come. Make sure you stretch the windows bigger when you get started. Double clicking on the picture makes it full size. Mark Langford, Huntsville, Alabama mailto:langford@hiwaay.net see KR2S N56ML at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 18:39:20 -0500 To: From: "Gary W. Haun" Subject: People List Message-ID: Gary W. Haun 4077 William Ave Franklin, IN 46131-9587 317-535-8120 garyhaun@earthlink.net KR-1 Type IV VW or???? Some day Not started, Busy with a land-speed record MC attempt this fall --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.362 / Virus Database: 199 - Release Date: 5/7/2002 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 17:45:40 -0700 To: From: "Keith S Melvill" Subject: Re:Fuel tanks Message-ID: <001501c20060$d520c430$0200a8c0@zenmods1> ------=_NextPart_000_0016_01C20026.28C1EC30 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit My father has been flying a Long-EZ with fiberglass fuel tanks for over twenty years with no fuel leaks. His is Long-EZ serial #002. So as long as they are built well, no leaks. Keith Bill Wrote: If you are thinking of wing tanks Think twice because, no one to my knowledge has come up with a fiber glass fuel tank that does not leak sooner or later. Aluminum is much more reliable. This may start another war of words but it will be worth it to get the input of so many creative people. "Maturity consists of no longer being taken in by one's self." Reply to keithstile@earthlink.net Keith ------=_NextPart_000_0016_01C20026.28C1EC30-- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 17:59:27 -0700 To: krnet@mailinglists.org, george@highlandsystems.com From: Bryan Abshier Subject: What is flat plate area drag? Message-ID: <20020520175927.A9470@babshier.com> Hello all, I am familiar with the concepts of induced and parasite drag, but I don't know what "flat plate drag" is. Is it what the area of a "flat plate" would be if it had the same drag as the aircraft or propeller or whatever? Is it based on total drag or a component of total drag? It seems to me that a flat plate (vertical) would only have parasite drag at a given speed while other objects might have induced drag. Anyway enough guessing on my part. What is it and what is it used for? -- Bryan Abshier - bryan@babshier.com ------------------------------ End of krnet Digest ***********************************