From: To: Subject: krnet Digest 26 Jun 2002 14:01:35 -0000 Issue 463 Date: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 7:02 AM krnet Digest 26 Jun 2002 14:01:35 -0000 Issue 463 Topics (messages 11120 through 11149): Re: waf loads 11120 by: w.g. kirkland 11121 by: Dana Overall Re: KR weights etc. 11122 by: John and Janet Martindale 11125 by: Donald Blankenship 11126 by: Donald Blankenship 11128 by: virgnvs.juno.com 11129 by: virgnvs.juno.com 11132 by: bstarrs 11133 by: Donald Blankenship 11134 by: Mark Langford 11135 by: ROBERT COOPER 11138 by: Ronald Freiberger Re: My weekly question 11123 by: Jerry Mahurin Re: Question for seller -- Item #1838609185 11124 by: Frank Ross Re: weights etc. 11127 by: virgnvs.juno.com KR plane on EBay 11130 by: Audrey and Harold Woods Canopys 11131 by: Edwin Blocher EA 81 engine weight 11136 by: Phillip Matheson Fiberglassing 11137 by: Mark Jones 11141 by: Donald Blankenship 11142 by: Lynn Hyder 11147 by: Jerry Mahurin 11149 by: Kenny Luter new web page 11139 by: Tim Brown 11148 by: Jerry Mahurin Oops 11140 by: Darrell A Haas Re: Oops, and Simulator Software 11143 by: Donald Blankenship 11144 by: Borrell Joseph C1C CS22 fiberglass 11145 by: rfarmer low time/ tailwheel 11146 by: larry flesner Administrivia: To subscribe to the digest, e-mail: To unsubscribe from the digest, e-mail: To post to the list, e-mail: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 00:47:03 -0400 To: "Rick Wilson" , From: "w.g. kirkland" Subject: Re: KR> waf loads Message-ID: <005a01c21c03$5b200560$41b45bd1@utboopki> Rick. A portion of the lift load would be carried by the aft WAF's. This would result in a bending moment as well as a vertical shearing load. The drag load would result in compression as well as a for and aft shear load. You've got the right idea. W.G.(Bill) KIRKLAND kirkland@vianet.on.ca ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rick Wilson" To: Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 5:47 PM Subject: KR> waf loads > Hi, Does anyone out there know how much of the actual > load is carried by the aft wing attach fittings? They > seem awfully small compared to the front waf's. Is the > pressure on them pulling upwards, or is most of it > pushing in toward the center when in flight? I'm no > engineer by any stretch of the imagination, but it > seems to me that the pressure being applied during > level or climb attitude would be upward and toward the > center section spar. Can anyone tell me if this is > correct or not? Thanks, Rick Wilson. > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup > http://fifaworldcup.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/ > and at http://www.bouyea.net/ for the older ones > ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 06:44:22 -0400 To: KRNET@MAILINGLISTS.ORG From: "Dana Overall" Subject: Re: KR> waf loads Message-ID: Rick, The pressures are pulling in both directions, forward and aft. During climb, the coefficient of lift and center of pressure is actually pulling the wing forward. At cruise there is a more favorable coefficient in relation to the orientation of the wing and now the aft WAF are subject to rearward forces. The size of the listed materials certainly seem to be sufficient to carry the load. The critical aspect of strength here would seem to be the proper placement of the the attach holes in relation to the material remaining laterally of the holes in both the WAFs and the spar material. Wait until you see Fridays pics:-) Dana Overall Richmond, KY 1999 & 2000 National KR Gathering host http://rvflying.tripod.com >From: Rick Wilson >To: KRNET@MAILINGLISTS.ORG >Subject: KR> waf loads >Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 14:47:02 -0700 (PDT) > >Hi, Does anyone out there know how much of the actual >load is carried by the aft wing attach fittings? They >seem awfully small compared to the front waf's. Is the >pressure on them pulling upwards, or is most of it >pushing in toward the center when in flight? I'm no >engineer by any stretch of the imagination, but it >seems to me that the pressure being applied during >level or climb attitude would be upward and toward the >center section spar. Can anyone tell me if this is >correct or not? Thanks, Rick Wilson. > >__________________________________________________ >Do You Yahoo!? >Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup >http://fifaworldcup.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/ >and at http://www.bouyea.net/ for the older ones _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 09:00:58 +1000 To: , "Kenneth L Wiltrout" From: "John and Janet Martindale" Subject: Re: KR> KR weights etc. Message-ID: <000101c21c39$a7185ae0$99de12d2@m1g0x7> Hi Kenny I agree. I quoted the 7G straight from the RR manual. It would be good to know how it was derived and what is the limiting factor, spar cap, WAF, wing root or whatever. I will be using 1200 lb gross unless someone scars me off this with good science. Regards John and Janet Martindale 29 Jane Circuit TOORMINA NSW 2452 AUSTRALIA ph: 61 2 66584767 ----- Original Message ----- From: Kenneth L Wiltrout To: Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 8:16 AM Subject: KR> KR weights etc. > I fly a 2S that I built, according to the info I received when I started > building 6 or 7 yrs ago the Rand #'s were empty wt =520 lbs, gross = > 980, and useful load = 460 lbs. Now we all know that hitting these #'s is > dam hard if not impossible, but I continue to see people talk about this > plane being a 7g airplane. My point is this---------who really knows > factually what this plane can tolerate as far as weight? How did someone > arrive at 6 or 7g's. 6399U tips the scales at 640 dry, with me and a 170 > passenger with full fuel it tops out at 1121 lbs. Lets be realistic, how > many g's will it take to pull the wings off of this thing at this weight. > I love my bird but I fly it with respect.---------------------Kenny > > > ________________________________________________________________ > GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! > Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! > Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: > http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 09:00:31 -0500 To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: "Donald Blankenship" Subject: Re: KR> KR weights etc. Message-ID: <20020625140031.15586.qmail@mail.com> Col. Mike Smith was an attack plane pilot in Nam. You've probably seen his plane many times with the subheading, "Mike Smith's Speedy KR." The most Gs he told me he ever put on his G-meter was 3. Old timers would say the "pucker factor" at 3 gs in a homebuilt wooden plane would be quite high, and they're not referring to your lips. You know that several factors can contribute to a KR wing that is less than 7 gs at design weight, and if the plane is heavier than design weight, then it's less than 7g anyway. Aircraft spruce is good stuff, but if it gets wet repeatedly over many years, it can lose strength to some undeterminable amount. If the plywood faces were not properly glued on or delaminate from the spruce caps at critical places, they may not ever meet perfect design specs. If a spar is chock full of hole fillers, it may also have lost strength. It is also quite possible that even the original design calculations were off a bit someplace so that technically, none even at design weight are exactly 7g plane. I would be surprised if a dare devil didn't write to say they had looped one at really high gs and that everyone should try it. Personally, even though all reports are that it is a strong design, I wouldn't feel comfortable or safe trying to see what its real flying limits are first hand. There is also no way in the world every part of a KR and engine is going to stay attached at positive or negative 7 gs. I would not want to see if the header tank or engine falls off first. One G with bumps sounds very safe to me. The rest just goes in my pocket. --Skutch ----- Original Message ----- From: "w.g. kirkland" Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 00:30:12 -0400 To: , "Kenneth L Wiltrout" Subject: Re: KR> KR weights etc. > Ken; Lets see! 7G's at 1120lb makes for a load of 7840 lb. There are several > ways to arrive at the ultimate load the wing will withstand. > 1. Do the engineering calculations. This just puts you in the ballpark. It's > theory only, not real world. > 2. Test the wing to destruction. Probably the best way but then you have to > build another wing and can you make it exactly like the first one. Hmm > better put in a safety factor for manufacturing errors. > 3. Fly it then pull G until the wing busts, but then you and God only know > and it really won't matter will it? > > Fact is #2 is the only one the FAA will accept and I don't know that it has > ever been done on this aircraft. So the best you probably have is #1 which > is only an estimate so you had best play it safe. I don't trust engineers > anyway cause I r one. > > Just musing. Anyone done any accurate flight tests? > W.G.(Bill) KIRKLAND > kirkland@vianet.on.ca > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Kenneth L Wiltrout" > To: > Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 6:16 PM > Subject: KR> KR weights etc. > > > > I fly a 2S that I built, according to the info I received when I started > > building 6 or 7 yrs ago the Rand #'s were empty wt =520 lbs, gross = > > 980, and useful load = 460 lbs. Now we all know that hitting these #'s is > > dam hard if not impossible, but I continue to see people talk about this > > plane being a 7g airplane. My point is this---------who really knows > > factually what this plane can tolerate as far as weight? How did someone > > arrive at 6 or 7g's. 6399U tips the scales at 640 dry, with me and a 170 > > passenger with full fuel it tops out at 1121 lbs. Lets be realistic, how > > many g's will it take to pull the wings off of this thing at this weight. > > I love my bird but I fly it with respect.---------------------Kenny > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________ > > GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! > > Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! > > Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: > > http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/. > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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 > 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 > > -- __________________________________________________________ Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup Save up to $160 by signing up for NetZero Platinum Internet service. http://www.netzero.net/?refcd=N2P0602NEP8 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 09:08:51 -0500 To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: "Donald Blankenship" Subject: Re: KR> KR weights etc. Message-ID: <20020625140851.31730.qmail@mail.com> Col. Mike Smith was an attack plane pilot in Nam. You've probably seen his plane many times with the subheading, "Mike Smith's Speedy KR." The most Gs he told me he ever put on his G-meter was 3. Old timers would say the "pucker factor" at 3 gs in a homebuilt wooden plane would be quite high, and they're not referring to your lips. You know that several factors can contribute to a KR wing that is less than 7 gs at design weight, and if the plane is heavier than design weight, then it's less than 7g anyway. Aircraft spruce is good stuff, but if it gets wet repeatedly over many years, it can lose strength to some undeterminable amount. If the plywood faces were not properly glued on or delaminate from the spruce caps at critical places, they may not ever meet perfect design specs. If a spar is chock full of hole fillers, it may also have lost strength. It is also quite possible that even the original design calculations were off a bit someplace so that technically, none even at design weight are exactly 7g planes. I would be surprised if a dare devil didn't write to say they had looped one at really high gs and that everyone should try it. Personally, even though all reports are that it is a strong design, I wouldn't feel comfortable or safe trying to see what its real flying limits are first hand. There is also no way in the world every part of a KR and engine is going to stay attached at positive or negative 7 gs. I would not want to see if the header tank or engine falls off first. One G with bumps sounds really really safe to me. The rest just goes in my pocket. --Skutch ----- Original Message ----- From: "w.g. kirkland" Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 00:30:12 -0400 To: , "Kenneth L Wiltrout" Subject: Re: KR> KR weights etc. > Ken; Lets see! 7G's at 1120lb makes for a load of 7840 lb. There are several > ways to arrive at the ultimate load the wing will withstand. > 1. Do the engineering calculations. This just puts you in the ballpark. It's > theory only, not real world. > 2. Test the wing to destruction. Probably the best way but then you have to > build another wing and can you make it exactly like the first one. Hmm > better put in a safety factor for manufacturing errors. > 3. Fly it then pull G until the wing busts, but then you and God only know > and it really won't matter will it? > > Fact is #2 is the only one the FAA will accept and I don't know that it has > ever been done on this aircraft. So the best you probably have is #1 which > is only an estimate so you had best play it safe. I don't trust engineers > anyway cause I r one. > > Just musing. Anyone done any accurate flight tests? > W.G.(Bill) KIRKLAND > kirkland@vianet.on.ca > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Kenneth L Wiltrout" > To: > Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 6:16 PM > Subject: KR> KR weights etc. > > > > I fly a 2S that I built, according to the info I received when I started > > building 6 or 7 yrs ago the Rand #'s were empty wt =520 lbs, gross = > > 980, and useful load = 460 lbs. Now we all know that hitting these #'s is > > dam hard if not impossible, but I continue to see people talk about this > > plane being a 7g airplane. My point is this---------who really knows > > factually what this plane can tolerate as far as weight? How did someone > > arrive at 6 or 7g's. 6399U tips the scales at 640 dry, with me and a 170 > > passenger with full fuel it tops out at 1121 lbs. Lets be realistic, how > > many g's will it take to pull the wings off of this thing at this weight. > > I love my bird but I fly it with respect.---------------------Kenny > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________ > > GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! > > Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! > > Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: > > http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/. > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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 > 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 > > -- __________________________________________________________ Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup Save up to $160 by signing up for NetZero Platinum Internet service. http://www.netzero.net/?refcd=N2P0602NEP8 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 10:36:50 -0400 To: langford@hiwaay.net From: virgnvs@juno.com Cc: krnet@mailinglists.org Subject: Re: KR> KR weights etc. Message-ID: <20020625.105350.-315095.2.virgnvs@juno.com> AAMEN, Virg On Mon, 24 Jun 2002 19:35:43 -0500 "Mark Langford" writes: > Bill Starrs wrote: > > > the CG falls 1 in to the rear of the accpeted envelope. How > > serious is the one inch shift? > > I don't think you need to be an aero engineer to know the answer to > that > one. It's a commonly held opinion on KRnet (and it's been worked > out for > the KR2 by a Phd in AE) that about the aft 1.5 inches of the "given" > CG > envelope is in the "unstable" zone for a typically built plane. > Another > inch past that is just that much more dangerous. I don't think > anybody in > the world would assure you that it's safe to fly it that way without > a > serious analysis or testing. I don't claim to be an expert on the > KR1 or > KR2, but I think they are similar with respect to "given" CG range. > > I guess you could do gradual testing as detailed in recent issues > of > Kitplanes (or maybe it's SA) and establish your own aft CG limit, > and > eventually prove that it's OK. After all, none of these planes are > the > same, due to the ease of modification and potential to "overbuild" > in > whatever area we please. So the safe CG range could end up in > various > places between planes, but I'd be surprised if it worked out that > way. > > That's one beef I have with the header tank built per plans with no > wing > tanks, is the CG moves dramatically from full fuel to empty tank, > and when > you land, it's likely to be approaching the aft limit. Then > somebody throws > a scooter in the back and... > > 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: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 10:34:41 -0400 To: bstarrs@cybertrails.com From: virgnvs@juno.com Cc: krnet@MAILINGLISTS.ORG Subject: Re: Fw: KR> KR weights etc. Message-ID: <20020625.105350.-315095.1.virgnvs@juno.com> Ever been in a FLAT SPIN ? Virg On Mon, 24 Jun 2002 16:27:33 -0700 "bstarrs" writes: > Speaking of weight, I have a question for the Aero Engeneers. in the > group . > My KR1 CG falls well within the perscribed envelope under ordinary > cirmstanstnaces however if I try to loade an Electric scooter > Weight 50 lbs > in the bagage area which is 18 in behind the pilot, after I burn off > most > of the fuel, the CG falls 1 in to the rear of the accpeted envelope. > How > serious is the one inch shift? I havn't tried to fly whith this > loading. All > of this is on paper. Bill Starrs, Prescott, AZ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Kenneth L Wiltrout" > To: > Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 3:16 PM > Subject: KR> KR weights etc. > > > > I fly a 2S that I built, according to the info I received when I > started > > building 6 or 7 yrs ago the Rand #'s were empty wt =520 lbs, > gross = > > 980, and useful load = 460 lbs. Now we all know that hitting these > #'s is > > dam hard if not impossible, but I continue to see people talk > about this > > plane being a 7g airplane. My point is this---------who really > knows > > factually what this plane can tolerate as far as weight? How did > someone > > arrive at 6 or 7g's. 6399U tips the scales at 640 dry, with me and > a 170 > > passenger with full fuel it tops out at 1121 lbs. Lets be > realistic, how > > many g's will it take to pull the wings off of this thing at this > weight. > > I love my bird but I fly it with > respect.---------------------Kenny > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________ > > GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! > > Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! > > Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: > > http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/. > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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 > 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: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 10:09:40 -0700 To: From: "bstarrs" Subject: Fw: Fw: KR> KR weights etc. Message-ID: <000101c21c6c$885961c0$9200a8c0@bstarrs> NO, I Have never been in a flat spin. Thats why all my questions are on paper, but thanks for your concern. ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Cc: Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 7:34 AM Subject: Re: Fw: KR> KR weights etc. > Ever been in a FLAT SPIN ? Virg > > On Mon, 24 Jun 2002 16:27:33 -0700 "bstarrs" > writes: > > Speaking of weight, I have a question for the Aero Engeneers. in the > > group . > > My KR1 CG falls well within the perscribed envelope under ordinary > > cirmstanstnaces however if I try to loade an Electric scooter > > Weight 50 lbs > > in the bagage area which is 18 in behind the pilot, after I burn off > > most > > of the fuel, the CG falls 1 in to the rear of the accpeted envelope. > > How > > serious is the one inch shift? I havn't tried to fly whith this > > loading. All > > of this is on paper. Bill Starrs, Prescott, AZ > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Kenneth L Wiltrout" > > To: > > Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 3:16 PM > > Subject: KR> KR weights etc. > > > > > > > I fly a 2S that I built, according to the info I received when I > > started > > > building 6 or 7 yrs ago the Rand #'s were empty wt =520 lbs, > > gross = > > > 980, and useful load = 460 lbs. Now we all know that hitting these > > #'s is > > > dam hard if not impossible, but I continue to see people talk > > about this > > > plane being a 7g airplane. My point is this---------who really > > knows > > > factually what this plane can tolerate as far as weight? How did > > someone > > > arrive at 6 or 7g's. 6399U tips the scales at 640 dry, with me and > > a 170 > > > passenger with full fuel it tops out at 1121 lbs. Lets be > > realistic, how > > > many g's will it take to pull the wings off of this thing at this > > weight. > > > I love my bird but I fly it with > > respect.---------------------Kenny > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________ > > > GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! > > > Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! > > > Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: > > > http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/. > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > 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 > > 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 > 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: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 13:20:34 -0500 To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: "Donald Blankenship" Subject: Re: KR> KR weights etc. Message-ID: <20020625182034.60383.qmail@mail.com> My set of plans say the aftmost cg limit is to be no more than 16 inches aft of the leading edge of the wing at the root. That IS unstable by approximately a little over 2 inches. Fighter pilots in WWII needed just the slightest instability in air combat, but too much and they fall down go boom. It is not just a matter of stick handling. Too much unstability sets up the complex oscillatory modes to make the plane behave poorly or worse. There is nobody out there that should be espousing aft cg limits farther back than the recommended limits, and no Kitplanes articles or calculating can do anything about that. Neutral stability for the orginal plane occurs shortly ahead of the 14-inch line. A foot and a half stretch improves on that only slightly, but unfortunatey moves the tail weight back also. Best long-distance handling flight qualities are in the 11 to 12-inch cg range. It is obvious Ken Rand was stating the absolute aftmost cg limit, but many pilots would do much better to keep it an inch or two ahead of the aftmost limit. One benefit of adding a big engine is that an overweight engine moves the cg forward. A super light engine and a heavy pilot will translate into having a cg that is always near the aft limit. Big engine usually means needing bigger header tank, which also moves the cg forward. Light engine and a light plane is best, but bigger pilots with light engines may need to seek Jenny Craig. --Skutch ----- Original Message ----- From: virgnvs@juno.com Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 10:36:50 -0400 To: langford@hiwaay.net Subject: Re: KR> KR weights etc. > AAMEN, Virg > > On Mon, 24 Jun 2002 19:35:43 -0500 "Mark Langford" > writes: > > Bill Starrs wrote: > > > > > the CG falls 1 in to the rear of the accpeted envelope. How > > > serious is the one inch shift? > > > > I don't think you need to be an aero engineer to know the answer to > > that > > one. It's a commonly held opinion on KRnet (and it's been worked > > out for > > the KR2 by a Phd in AE) that about the aft 1.5 inches of the "given" > > CG > > envelope is in the "unstable" zone for a typically built plane. > > Another > > inch past that is just that much more dangerous. I don't think > > anybody in > > the world would assure you that it's safe to fly it that way without > > a > > serious analysis or testing. I don't claim to be an expert on the > > KR1 or > > KR2, but I think they are similar with respect to "given" CG range. > > > > I guess you could do gradual testing as detailed in recent issues > > of > > Kitplanes (or maybe it's SA) and establish your own aft CG limit, > > and > > eventually prove that it's OK. After all, none of these planes are > > the > > same, due to the ease of modification and potential to "overbuild" > > in > > whatever area we please. So the safe CG range could end up in > > various > > places between planes, but I'd be surprised if it worked out that > > way. > > > > That's one beef I have with the header tank built per plans with no > > wing > > tanks, is the CG moves dramatically from full fuel to empty tank, > > and when > > you land, it's likely to be approaching the aft limit. Then > > somebody throws > > a scooter in the back and... > > > > 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 > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 > > -- __________________________________________________________ Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup Save up to $160 by signing up for NetZero Platinum Internet service. http://www.netzero.net/?refcd=N2P0602NEP8 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 14:23:04 -0500 To: From: "Mark Langford" Subject: Re: KR> KR weights etc. Message-ID: <001601c21c7d$bc582c20$5f0ca58c@mlangford> I wrote: > > I guess you could do gradual testing as detailed in recent issues of > > Kitplanes (or maybe it's SA) and establish your own aft CG limit, and > > eventually prove that it's OK. After all, none of these planes are the > > same, due to the ease of modification and potential to "overbuild" in > > whatever area we please. So the safe CG range could end up in various > > places between planes, but I'd be surprised if it worked out that way. Somehow I knew that trying to be fair and cover both sides of the argument would come back to bite me, despite the overall message that it would be very dangerous. And you guys wonder why I'm just quiet on certain topics! Some day I'll learn... ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 15:57:34 -0400 To: "bstarrs" , "krnet" From: "ROBERT COOPER" Subject: Re: KR> KR weights etc. Message-ID: ------=_NextPart_001_0000_01C21C61.057BCC80 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable If you must take the scooter along then it would be better to put some we= ight up front on the engine mount or firewall to offset the baggage compa= rtment weight. It will probably fly with the CG 1" aft of limit but I wou= ld not count on a successful forced landing in case of engine failure. Jack Cooper ----- Original Message ----- From: bstarrs Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 7:29 PM To: krnet@mailinglists.org Subject: Fw: KR> KR weights etc. Speaking of weight, I have a question for the Aero Engeneers. in the grou= p . My KR1 CG falls well within the perscribed envelope under ordinary cirmstanstnaces however if I try to loade an Electric scooter Weight 50 = lbs in the bagage area which is 18 in behind the pilot, after I burn off mos= t of the fuel, the CG falls 1 in to the rear of the accpeted envelope. How serious is the one inch shift? I havn't tried to fly whith this loading. = All of this is on paper. Bill Starrs, Prescott, AZ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kenneth L Wiltrout" To: Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 3:16 PM Subject: KR> KR weights etc. > I fly a 2S that I built, according to the info I received when I starte= d > building 6 or 7 yrs ago the Rand #'s were empty wt =3D520 lbs, gross =3D > 980, and useful load =3D 460 lbs. Now we all know that hitting these #'= s is > dam hard if not impossible, but I continue to see people talk about thi= s > plane being a 7g airplane. My point is this---------who really knows > factually what this plane can tolerate as far as weight? How did someon= e > arrive at 6 or 7g's. 6399U tips the scales at 640 dry, with me and a 17= 0 > passenger with full fuel it tops out at 1121 lbs. Lets be realistic, ho= w > many g's will it take to pull the wings off of this thing at this weigh= t. > I love my bird but I fly it with respect.---------------------Kenny > > > ________________________________________________________________ > GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! > Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! > Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: > http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 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 ------=_NextPart_001_0000_01C21C61.057BCC80-- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 20:56:48 -0400 To: "KRNET" From: "Ronald Freiberger" Subject: FW: KR> KR weights etc. Message-ID: Mark, Some of us learn more slowly. I'm always amazed at how foolish people can be after getting sound advice. And, regarding the flat spin question, the answers typically come from someone who has never "been there". Most pilots only go there once; some even survive and learn to respect weight and balance issues. I'm gonna set my gross at 2000 pounds, 'cause I'm NOT a Jenny Craig Fan, and after all, it's EXPERIMENTAL. Ron Freiberger... mailto:ron.martha@mindspring.com -----Original Message----- From: Mark Langford [mailto:langford@hiwaay.net] very dangerous. And you guys wonder why I'm just quiet on certain topics! Some day I'll learn... ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 09:02:20 -0400 To: Peg and Mike Meyer , "KRnet" From: "Jerry Mahurin" Subject: Re: My weekly question Message-ID: Mike, No problem on the questions..... As long as you can be patient with my tardiness in reply...... Anyway; Since the cut apart motors are only 1 5/8" high, we will be mounting our servo in the elevator between the elevator spar and trim tab. This makes for a simpler install with one small push/pull rod going to the trim tab elevator horn and a couple of wires running back up to the cockpit. Those two little wires are a lot easier to deal with than a cable and housing of any type (plastic or steel). The loads that the servo has to deal with are also very light when mounting it in this location. It doesn't have to push or pull a cable around bends and corners. One of the benefits of foam and glass construction is that you can just hog out a hole, install the part, fill the cavity, glass over it and its done... In metal, you have to cut the skin, fabricate brackets for mounting, install the unit and then repair the cut skin. On our 'servos' the little DC motor spins pretty fast, but it drives the output shaft in and out rather slowly. Besides you usually just 'bump' the trim switch a few times to get the adjustment that you want..... The only concern that I have is length of travel on the output. I think it will be enough, but if it isn't I have a couple of ideas on that too. On Mon, 24 Jun 2002 22:25:30 -0500 Peg and Mike Meyer wrote: I got me one of those >fancy GM servos and I'm a little interested on what you >guys are thinking about the output shaft on this thing. I >hooked mine up to a 12 volt battery and I'm guessing that >the output shaft spins about 100-150 rpm. You can lower >the voltage, reduce the rpm, but you concurrently lose >torque. This thing spins way too fast to attach a >bellcrank to (obviously). I'd like to use it as originally >designed (a jackshaft), but I don't think it's possible to >stuff a sliced servo and the necessary threaded jackscrew >into the elevator. Don Reid has positioned his mac servo >in the tailcone of his bird, but boy, this is major work. >I have to ask; what kind of trim arrangement are you guys >thinking of? > >Thank you for being patient with my persistent >questioning. > >Mike Meyer Jerry Mahurin Lugoff, SC http://kr-builder.org http://jerrymahurin.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 06:49:31 -0700 (PDT) To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: Frank Ross Subject: Re: KR> Re: Question for seller -- Item #1838609185 Message-ID: <20020625134931.17824.qmail@web21505.mail.yahoo.com> This plane is also listed on "Barnstromers". Frank in San Antonio, TX --- asavant@notes.state.ne.us wrote: > Hi KRnetters, > > Someone posted the ebay KR2 and I contacted the > seller. I don't know how > many of you have seen the photographs of the KR2 on > ebay but I find it odd > that the tail looks beat up and the fuselage has > been already painted when > the construction is not yet complete. The following __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 10:33:30 -0400 To: rwdw2002@yahoo.com From: virgnvs@juno.com Cc: KRNET@MAILINGLISTS.ORG Subject: Re: KR> weights etc. Message-ID: <20020625.105350.-315095.0.virgnvs@juno.com> All waf's designed to handle the appropiate loads. First plans built KR-2S was within the weight specified. WHAT are the KR builders adding to bring the weight up so high ? Virg On Mon, 24 Jun 2002 15:23:19 -0700 (PDT) Rick Wilson writes: > Hi, I'm not concerned with a weight issue. I've pretty > much decided that my kr2 will also be in the > neighborhood of 1150-1175 lbs. with fuel and a > passenger. I was only trying to figure out what > percentage of the load is carried by the aft waf's. > and in what direction the loads are applied. Thanks > again, Rick. > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup > http://fifaworldcup.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/ > and at http://www.bouyea.net/ for the older ones > > ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 11:47:28 -0400 To: From: "Audrey and Harold Woods" Subject: KR plane on EBay Message-ID: <00f301c21c5f$9c077340$b0046418@baol.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> ------=_NextPart_000_00F0_01C21C3E.14C378A0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I think that this plane has had a bad accident and a poor restoration. = Harold Woods. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.372 / Virus Database: 207 - Release Date: 6/20/02 ------=_NextPart_000_00F0_01C21C3E.14C378A0-- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 11:34:26 -0500 To: "KRNet" From: "Edwin Blocher" Subject: Canopys Message-ID: <003201c21c66$2cea7500$859131cc@cyou.com> ------=_NextPart_000_002E_01C21C3C.42D58460 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Is there anyone in the Ft. Lauderdale end of Florida With a KR2S ( = widened if possible) either completed or far enough along that = measurements coud be taken for a canopy, Also all you guys wanting canopys, could you e=3Dmail me your width at = the front of the rear shelf (back of seat) and width at the instrument = panel location. Thanks, Ed Ed Blocher Santa Rosa Beach, Florida blocher@cyou.com ------=_NextPart_000_002E_01C21C3C.42D58460-- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 06:38:51 +1000 To: "KR Net Listings" From: "Phillip Matheson" Subject: EA 81 engine weight Message-ID: <00de01c21c88$519bf320$f196dccb@Matheson> ------=_NextPart_000_00DB_01C21CDC.22A02A60 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Does any know the engine weight of a=20 Subaru EA81 wet????? Phil Matheson matheson@dodo.com.au 61 3 58833588 ------=_NextPart_000_00DB_01C21CDC.22A02A60-- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 20:05:35 -0500 To: "KR-Net" From: "Mark Jones" Subject: Fiberglassing Message-ID: <005a01c21cad$93ee8ec0$c5991f41@wi.rr.com> ------=_NextPart_000_0057_01C21C83.AABCF940 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I have to glass the bottom of my wing stubs. My dilemma is my engine is = mounted and I would prefer not pulling it to turn the plane over to = glass the bottom of the stubs. Is there a technique for glassing on the = bottom which has worked well for anyone else? Mark Jones (N886MJ) Wales, WI USA=20 E-mail me at flykr2s@wi.rr.com Visit my KR-2S CorvAIRCRAFT web site at =20 http://mywebpage.netscape.com/n886mj/homepage.html ------=_NextPart_000_0057_01C21C83.AABCF940-- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 21:26:38 -0500 To: flykr2s@wi.rr.com, krnet@mailinglists.org From: "Donald Blankenship" Subject: Re: KR> Fiberglassing Message-ID: <20020626022638.61094.qmail@mail.com> Mark, I would carve out the foam from under the wing, then separately glass over some foam the correct shape on your work table. To get the right shape you just need an airfoil on the ends of the new foam. When cured, check the fit, and stick it back in the plane. Then all you have to do is use a couple of strips of glass to epoxy it back onto the underside of the spars. It could require one or two tries to get the shape you want after cure, but it's a lot easier than taking the engine off. As an added tip, the foam is a lot stronger if it is has a layer of glass on the inside, too. So when you're done glassing the shape that fits back into the plane, put a light weight layer on the upper side of your new layup and epoxy it back into the hole. Or skip that part, no biggie. --Skutch ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark Jones" Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 20:05:35 -0500 To: "KR-Net" Subject: KR> Fiberglassing > I have to glass the bottom of my wing stubs. My dilemma is my engine is mounted and I would prefer not pulling it to turn the plane over to glass the bottom of the stubs. Is there a technique for glassing on the bottom which has worked well for anyone else? > > Mark Jones (N886MJ) > Wales, WI USA > E-mail me at flykr2s@wi.rr.com > Visit my KR-2S CorvAIRCRAFT web site at > http://mywebpage.netscape.com/n886mj/homepage.html > > > -- __________________________________________________________ Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup Save up to $160 by signing up for NetZero Platinum Internet service. http://www.netzero.net/?refcd=N2P0602NEP8 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 20:07:12 -0700 To: flykr2s@wi.rr.com, krnet@mailinglists.org From: "Lynn Hyder" Subject: Re: KR> Fiberglassing Message-ID: Mark I waited until I had totally finished the fuselage, finish paint sanding and all. The last thing I did was mount the engine. sure a lot easier that way. Lynn Hyder N37LH > >I have to glass the bottom of my wing stubs. My dilemma is my engine is >mounted and I would prefer not pulling it to turn the plane over to glass >the bottom of the stubs. Is there a technique for glassing on the bottom >which has worked well for anyone else? > >Mark Jones (N886MJ) >Wales, WI USA >E-mail me at flykr2s@wi.rr.com >Visit my KR-2S CorvAIRCRAFT web site at >http://mywebpage.netscape.com/n886mj/homepage.html > > _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 09:14:17 -0400 To: "KR-Net" From: "Jerry Mahurin" Subject: Re: KR> Fiberglassing Message-ID: Mark, There may be something I don't know; but can't you just flip it with the engine on it....??? Jerry Mahurin Lugoff, SC http://kr-builder.org http://jerrymahurin.com On Tue, 25 Jun 2002 20:05:35 -0500 "Mark Jones" wrote: >I have to glass the bottom of my wing stubs. My dilemma >is my engine is mounted and I would prefer not pulling it >to turn the plane over to glass the bottom of the stubs. >Is there a technique for glassing on the bottom which has >worked well for anyone else? > >Mark Jones (N886MJ) >Wales, WI USA >E-mail me at flykr2s@wi.rr.com >Visit my KR-2S CorvAIRCRAFT web site at >http://mywebpage.netscape.com/n886mj/homepage.html > > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 10:04:03 -0400 To: From: "Kenny Luter" Subject: fiberglassing Message-ID: <007e01c21d1a$54b37f00$a2b60ad8@hppav> ------=_NextPart_000_007B_01C21CF8.CCEAC400 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Why not dry the engine and roll the fusalage over with a few friends . = All the obvious things apply about supporting the fusalage . I would = think a plywood support at the firewall and in front of the tail = feathers would suffice Kenny ------=_NextPart_000_007B_01C21CF8.CCEAC400-- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 19:14:11 -0700 (PDT) To: Group KR NET From: Tim Brown Subject: new web page Message-ID: <20020626021411.39072.qmail@web9501.mail.yahoo.com> I have tried a few web page tutorials over the past several days and have landed at geocities. Those of you with links on your pages to my page would you please update my address to: http://geocities.com/timwbrown I am just starting to get the pages together and I am finding that it is taking quite a lot of time. Also, I have not yet figured out how to do links to your pages but I will get there I am sure. If someone with geocities wants to shorten my learning curve on this one I would appreciate the help. Thanks to all. Tim __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 09:21:02 -0400 To: Group KR NET From: "Jerry Mahurin" Subject: Re: KR> new web page Message-ID: Tim, Congratulations on getting started up..... Your website looks good for just getting started on both (the plane and site) and I am sure you will learn and get faster as you go.... Feel free to 'borrow' anything you may want to use from our site(s)..... Jerry Mahurin Lugoff, SC http://kr-builder.org http://jerrymahurin.com On Tue, 25 Jun 2002 19:14:11 -0700 (PDT) Tim Brown wrote: >I have tried a few web page tutorials over the >past several days and have landed at geocities. > >Those of you with links on your pages to my page >would you please update my address to: > >http://geocities.com/timwbrown > >I am just starting to get the pages together and >I am finding that it is taking quite a lot of >time. Also, I have not yet figured out how to do >links to your pages but I will get there I am >sure. If someone with geocities wants to shorten >my learning curve on this one I would appreciate >the help. > >Thanks to all. > >Tim > > > >__________________________________________________ >Do You Yahoo!? >Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup >http://fifaworldcup.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/ >and at http://www.bouyea.net/ for the older ones > ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 19:21:12 -0700 To: From: darrellh@involved.com (Darrell A Haas) Subject: Oops Message-ID: <01cc01c21cb8$24dcde50$5434bbd0@darrellhyov7nx> ------=_NextPart_000_01C9_01C21C7D.77A05080 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I'm a new kid on the block and I have recently been reading the info on = weight and balance, cg, etc. and I can't help to wonder since I am so = new just how fragile, and/or safe is the kr planes. I'm a student with = about 60 hours ( started over several times over 30 years) and I have a = lot of respect for mother nature and what she can do to people who brake = her rules regarding g force, spins, stalls and such. I really like what = the kr planes can offer. Advice? Darrell ------=_NextPart_000_01C9_01C21C7D.77A05080-- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 22:13:57 -0500 To: darrellh@involved.com, krnet@mailinglists.org From: "Donald Blankenship" Subject: Re: KR> Oops, and Simulator Software Message-ID: <20020626031357.27289.qmail@mail.com> Darrell, The KR and the WWII P-51 Mustang behave similarly in many ways. Pilots love their responsiveness but respect their ground handling, especially as tail draggers. Neither plane is a C-150. It's advisable to get 40 hours or so in a Citabria or other tail tragger. There is a good way to get hundreds of hours in similar type, and help you determine whether you think you'll like to fly a KR. People will not believe this, but simulator software at home on your computer can actually make you a better pilot than if you practiced everything in the air. Research has shown that pilots learn more in real aircraft for several hours, but are soon passed in competency by people using simple but accurate simulator software. Even radio handling, ground and tower communications, airport procedures, ADIS weather and advisory checks, flight planning, tailwheel ground handling, and other important steps will improve with a cheap computer program. I use Flight II ($45 or so) and like it a lot. I crash a lot but am getting better. I challenge myself by trying short field landing and takeoffs in mountainous terrain. The software can also simulate bad weather, night flying, sun and moon glare, unexpected engine failure, flying between buildings in downtown San Francisco, on and on. It has a P-51, a C-150, a DeHavilland Beaver float plane, a Piper Cherokee, and others all in the same program. All the instrumentation and cabin sound effects are very representative of the real things. I can even hear the Piper tin canning. Most of all, the studies show it helps train your brain to react to the instruments and what you see, which can be much more reliable than your gut. --Skutch ----- Original Message ----- From: darrellh@involved.com (Darrell A Haas) Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 19:21:12 -0700 To: Subject: KR> Oops > I'm a new kid on the block and I have recently been reading the info on weight and balance, cg, etc. and I can't help to wonder since I am so new just how fragile, and/or safe is the kr planes. I'm a student with about 60 hours ( started over several times over 30 years) and I have a lot of respect for mother nature and what she can do to people who brake her rules regarding g force, spins, stalls and such. I really like what the kr planes can offer. Advice? > Darrell -- __________________________________________________________ Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup Save up to $160 by signing up for NetZero Platinum Internet service. http://www.netzero.net/?refcd=N2P0602NEP8 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 22:37:36 -0600 To: Donald Blankenship , darrellh@involved.com, krnet@mailinglists.org From: Borrell Joseph C1C CS22 Subject: RE: KR> Oops, and Simulator Software Message-ID: <3B8B767CC90AD611A701000347712AA703685596@fsxqpz27.usafa.af.mil> I am in a similar situation as Darrell (low hours w/o any tail dragger experience) and was wondering if there is anyone in the Colorado area that would be willing to take me up for a flight in a tail dragger (preferably a KR-2). Thanks, Joe Borrell Colorado Springs ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 05:23:24 -0400 To: "krnet" From: "rfarmer" Subject: fiberglass Message-ID: <007401c21cf3$212fb300$c14562d8@oemcomputer> ------=_NextPart_000_0071_01C21CD1.97E36540 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Here is a source for lightweight fiberglass cloth .58 oz & up = http://www.deltronix.com/public/acp/acp-fc.htm Bob Farmer ------=_NextPart_000_0071_01C21CD1.97E36540-- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 06:29:06 -0500 To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: larry flesner Subject: low time/ tailwheel Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20020626062906.00952590@mail.midwest.net> >I am in a similar situation as Darrell (low hours w/o any tail dragger >experience) >Joe Borrell +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Anyone not comfortable with flying the tailwheel, you have the option to go with a nose gear..................... Larry Flesner ------------------------------ End of krnet Digest ***********************************