From: To: Subject: krnet Digest 1 Aug 2002 23:14:34 -0000 Issue 486 Date: Thursday, August 01, 2002 4:15 PM krnet Digest 1 Aug 2002 23:14:34 -0000 Issue 486 Topics (messages 11768 through 11791): Re: attaching foam 11768 by: van Rooyen, Hennie(SF02) 11769 by: van Rooyen, Hennie(SF02) 11780 by: Mr. Bryce Guenther flying KR2 11770 by: Deems Herring Lexan Windshield 11771 by: Daniel Heath 11772 by: George Majewski 11775 by: LORDYN1.aol.com 11778 by: Larry A. Capps Re: The AS5046 airfoil 11773 by: Schurr, Larry 11776 by: bstarrs 11786 by: David McKelvey 11787 by: David McKelvey 11791 by: Ronald Freiberger Website update/progress report 11774 by: Donald Reid Re: The Bill Clapp affair 11777 by: Phil Maley 11779 by: Ronald Freiberger attaching wings at fuselage. 11781 by: jim . synergy design build to plans 11782 by: jim . synergy design General (uninformed?) question from a newbie... 11783 by: Piunti, James A. Able Experimental Engines and Alimizer products 11784 by: Thomas Andersen designing airplanes 11785 by: Rick Wilson 11790 by: Ronald Freiberger re design of kr---Hennie van Rooyen 11788 by: M&C 2275cc - 120 Hp 11789 by: Ronald Freiberger Administrivia: To subscribe to the digest, e-mail: To unsubscribe from the digest, e-mail: To post to the list, e-mail: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 00:18:30 -0500 To: "'krnet@mailinglists.org'" From: "van Rooyen, Hennie(SF02)" Subject: FW: FW: KR> attaching foam Hi Dave, No the closest I come to the Bay (my favourite place) is when I fly my own creations in Flight Unlimited III or MSFS2K2! I stay in Sasolburg in South Africa and when I'm done I plan (we'll see about that) to fly this creation of mine to one of your airshows. I've never been to Oshkosh, but sure would like to go there! I'll carry enough fuel for a long stretch and this is just one of the things I motivate myself to try to do. The advantage of light weight coupled with high horsepower should allow one to do just that! Regards, Hennie -----Original Message----- From: David Hartz [mailto:dewrencher@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2002 6:43 AM To: van Rooyen, Hennie(SF02) Subject: Re: FW: KR> attaching foam HENNIE ARE YOU IN THE BAY AREA? DAVE WILLITS CALIF. --- "van Rooyen, Hennie(SF02)" wrote: > Hi Tim, > > I've found that the best way to glue poly urethane > foam is by using liquid > foam. This comes in two parts and when mixed becomes > the same as the foam > sheets themselves. Best way is to bevel all joints > and then simply pour this > liquid foam into the openings. It dries in minutes > to a fully sandable foam > surface and it sticks to ANYTHING! You have to be > quick though and wear > gloves as this stuff you'll wear off your hands - > you do not wash it off, > PERIOD! > > Hennie > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Tim Brown [mailto:timwbrown@yahoo.com] > Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2002 10:40 PM > To: Group KR NET > Subject: KR> attaching foam > > > The manual says to epoxy the foam to the ribs and > spars for the stub wing foam (and outer wings). > > Is this attachment structural? > > Or is this attachment merely to hold the foam in > place for sanding and glassing? > > Is this 3-5 minute epoxy, T-88, or thick micro? > > Or can one just "glue" it in? > > Thanks. > > Tim > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better > http://health.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.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp > or http://www.bouyea.net/ for the Word files > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp > or http://www.bouyea.net/ for the Word files > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better http://health.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 00:27:56 -0500 To: "'krnet@mailinglists.org'" From: "van Rooyen, Hennie(SF02)" Subject: FW: KR> attaching foam Hi Phil, No, but I can take some pics and ask someone to scan them for me - should take a couple of days and I'll send to you. Just take note that they're fixed for now (not retractable) and my phylosophy with this aircraft is to keep things light and simple. In my opinion going heavy and then even increasing the wheight more by installing a heavier engine takes most of the fun out of flying a KR. Light wing loading is what makes microlight flying the fun it is and I definitely intend to stay with that! The only heavy part I've done was using 3mm marine ply for all skins as aircraft ply is just about un-affordable in South Africa. It does make for a more rigid outside surface though. I've also installed 6mm ply to the forward floor side of my main spar and I can now stand and even jump on my floor without any ill results. Compaired to the all up wheight though, it should not have too much of an effect. Regards, Hennie -----Original Message----- From: Philip Maley [mailto:phil@wotech.com.au] Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2002 7:02 AM To: van Rooyen, Hennie(SF02) Subject: RE: KR> attaching foam Hello Hennie Do you have any emailable sketches of your landing gear? Regards Phil Maley Perth Australia mailto:phil@wotech.com.au http://www.wotech.net/vk6ad/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2002 13:10:28 -0400 To: timwbrown@yahoo.com (Tim Brown), krnet@mailinglists.org (Group KR NET) From: flyKRS@netscape.net (Mr. Bryce Guenther) Subject: RE: KR> attaching foam Message-ID: <68236108.7164EA52.0006291F@netscape.net> Tim I'm glad you asked that question, is it structual ? I'd answer Yes The shear load is present on the bond between the foam and spar. Aerodynamic loads exit and torsional loads exit. Ever notice there is no drag link in the structure between the spars. However slight the load is on the foam bond it is necessary. The fact that I used T-88 is because I wanted no dought in the bond integrity. The most disturbing effect was sanding the profile of the wing and then having to chip out the t-88 during the profiling that was making the job alot more difficult. Perhaps abstinance of t-88 in the vicinity of the "to be sanded region" would of been wiser. The alternative adhesives probably would of be just fine. Tim Brown wrote: >The manual says to epoxy the foam to the ribs and >spars for the stub wing foam (and outer wings). > >Is this attachment structural? > >Or is this attachment merely to hold the foam in >place for sanding and glassing? > >Is this 3-5 minute epoxy, T-88, or thick micro? > >Or can one just "glue" it in? > >Thanks. > >Tim > >__________________________________________________ >Do You Yahoo!? >Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better >http://health.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.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp >or http://www.bouyea.net/ for the Word files > > -- Flying is Fun and a Thrill that nearly nothing else can compare. __________________________________________________________________ Your favorite stores, helpful shopping tools and great gift ideas. Experience the convenience of buying online with Shop@Netscape! http://shopnow.netscape.com/ Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Mail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 03:15:43 -0500 To: From: "Deems Herring" Subject: flying KR2 Message-ID: <001501c23933$a1fb9510$6402a8c0@gloriahome> ------=_NextPart_000_0012_01C23909.B8E54FC0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I just signed up for this list and this is my first post. I am looking = at purchasing a KR 2 that is completed to the point that needs just = interior finnish work and hookup of the flight instruments. I have = reseached the airplane and believe that I understand the plane pretty = well from a design and construction standpoint I have no flight = experience in the plane. I am wondering if there is anyone out there = from my area with a flying KR 2 who would be interested in contacting me = offline about flying the KR 2. Deems Herring Baudette, Minnesota mailto:ballross@wiktel.com ------=_NextPart_000_0012_01C23909.B8E54FC0-- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 06:20:12 -0700 To: "Krnet@Mailinglists.Org" From: "Daniel Heath" Subject: Lexan Windshield Message-ID: I really don't want to post this, but I feel an obligation to let you, who are considering using Lexan for your windshield, know what I have discovered. I have found serious fine fissures, crazing, don't really know what to call it, on both sides where the bend is. Right now, I am very sick and don't know where to go with it from here. I hope to find out what caused it, but that may be impossible. My guess is heat. I know that other people have used Lexan, but I don't think that I will try it again. Daniel R. Heath See our KR2 at: http://kr-builder.org See our EAA Chapter 242at: http://WWW.EAA242.ORG --- 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: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 07:46:21 -0400 To: "Daniel Heath" , "Krnet@Mailinglists.Org" From: "George Majewski" Subject: Re: KR> Lexan Windshield Message-ID: <008e01c23951$0f095800$b000a8c0@hh> Daniel, Lexan has ability to absorb water from the air. You should "dry" it in the oven at low temperature prior to applying heat for bending. If you heated it without "drying" then vaporized water bubbles simply burst lexan structure. George ----- Original Message ----- From: Daniel Heath To: Krnet@Mailinglists.Org Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2002 9:20 AM Subject: KR> Lexan Windshield > I really don't want to post this, but I feel an obligation to let you, who > are considering using Lexan for your windshield, know what I have > discovered. > > I have found serious fine fissures, crazing, don't really know what to call > it, on both sides where the bend is. Right now, I am very sick and don't > know where to go with it from here. I hope to find out what caused it, but > that may be impossible. My guess is heat. > > I know that other people have used Lexan, but I don't think that I will try > it again. > > Daniel R. Heath > > See our KR2 at: http://kr-builder.org > > See our EAA Chapter 242at: http://WWW.EAA242.ORG > > > --- > 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 > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp > or http://www.bouyea.net/ for the Word files ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 10:28:35 EDT To: danrh@att.net, krnet@mailinglists.org From: LORDYN1@aol.com Subject: Re: KR> Lexan Windshield Message-ID: <14e.11c103d2.2a7a9f93@aol.com> --part1_14e.11c103d2.2a7a9f93_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit LEXAN is noted for this, The real cause of the crazing is that it was cold formed at a temperature lower than what accrues after you put some stress on the part in the frame that is on the KR. However, this can be avoided, with LEXAN if the part is formed at the right Temperature & Pressure the part will meet the FAA STC guidelines, to do this it will take extra money in tooling. If there were a lot of parts it could be lower cost to the builder when you add in (your EXTRA time spent, materials, cutting, sanding, fitting, sanding, prep, Etc). Hope this HELPS, Rgards, Loren --part1_14e.11c103d2.2a7a9f93_boundary-- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 10:23:42 -0500 To: "'Krnet@Mailinglists.Org'" From: "Larry A. Capps" Subject: Lexan Windshield Message-ID: <002c01c2396f$6c3b64a0$0500a8c0@schpankme> Lexan is difficult to heat form, it is a cast material that contains quite a bit of water vapor, which turns to steam bubbles when heated. Baking the Lexan at low temperature for 20 hours will remove most of the water. Larry A. Capps Naperville, IL -----Original Message----- Lexan has ability to absorb water from the air. You should "dry" it in the oven at low temperature prior to applying heat for bending. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 07:41:52 -0500 To: "'krnet@mailinglists.org'" From: "Schurr, Larry" Subject: RE: KR> The AS5046 airfoil Message-ID: Hennie, No one can fault your spirit, that's for sure :-) In reading your treatise on your upcoming plane, I couldn't help but wonder about some questions, not necessarily issues, but some little 'red lights' in my nay-sayer head -- I'm such a terrible cynic! -- and thought I'd chime in. > So I re-designed everything by: > > 5. The tail feathers have been increased for better control > and low speed > handling. > > 6. Coming from a microlighting background, I know where to > find 60 Hp at > less than half the weight of the VW, so I'll use a proper 2 > stroke like the > 503 Rotax From where will you get the *other* 8hp? A 503 is only good for 52, isn't it? And at cruise, closer to 39-40? >until my finances allow something like the 30Hp Hirth or 6 > cylinder 180Hp Arrow two stroke engines. Having many hours in > the air with > two strokes gives me the total confidence to do this. Hmmm... I'm guessing these are thirsty... 180hp 2stroke? yup, probably pretty thirsty. > - my aircraft should fly the > same with one > or two aboard and wheather no fuel or full fuel. Uhm... an F-16 AND a C-150 demonstrate significant differences with 2up/full fuel conditions, yet yours will not?? This will be interesting. > > 9. I see no benefit in tapering the fuselage at the bottom, > so mine is wider > than the KR and the same width top and bottom. Having located > the seats > forward puts the shoulders at the widest part of the airframe > and my seating > arrangement is extremely comfortable with two aboard. Yes, wonder why that fuse tapers? Hmmm... wonder why EVERY tailcone isn't square at the bottom? Hmmm.. wonder why each and every >200mph plane out there has a rounded tailcone... hmmmm.... oh, except the Mustang2/Thorp t-18, 200hp/200mph... you might wanna check into some aero studies on wing root fairing and fuselage boundary layer. Though true, a flat bottom CAN be shown to produce better ground effect that can *contribute* to lower landing speed, it can also reduce your numbers at cruise with increased boundary layer drag. > > 10. I've used tube push pull control throughout like in most > microlights - > much easier to construct and a lot safer and less complex > than any cable > arrangement. The ONLY easily accessible parts to be inspected on every > preflight are the clearly visible bolts at each end. Though inspection is easier... wonder why EVERY high performance plane doesn't use tubes?? Check into flutter failure modes... Re-examine your item 5. above. Increasing area? >200mph? Be sure to take the necessary steps to prevent flutter. > 15. I'll use the new airfoil with full span flaps, even on > the inboard side. > The flaps will be like the PC Pilatus, which is hinged at the > bottom wing > skin with a curve at the top like yours. Thus there'll be no > gap and by > deploying them, the bottom wing area stays the same but the > top area is > increased making the total wing area larger helping with more > lift for both > take-offs and landings. Landing at 25 - 30 mph should get rid > of most of the > floating in any case. Pilatus-type split flaps (which have holes in them, BTW) are little more than air brakes. They produce very little in the way of useful low speed lift and are considered inefficient for the complexity. Drag=Lift. The trick is to get Lift in a unified and useful direction. Hence, flaps. There is a very big difference between decreasing lift and decreasing stall speed. > > 16. I'll use spoilers on the outboard wings for both roll and decent > control. My life was saved on more than one occasion on > microlights by this > facility by being able to deploy both spoilers > simultaneously, killing a lot > of lift in this way. Once it got me out of cloud suck and in > landings, I > could come down like a parachute. By letting them retract > just above the > ground I could then flare and do a normal landing. Thus, > using spoilers in > this way lets you absolutely control your descent and you can put the > aircraft down anywhere you want! You might remember you're going from about 3#/sq.ft. wingloading to around 6 or more. Unless, with your longer wings, you're increasing the wing area, then your ride gets worse and your handling more microlight-like. "Coming down like a parachute" is no accommplishment -- 'landing like a rocking chair' IS. > > 17. Initially I was going to use the GAW-1 airfoil. I was > going to attach > the wings right at the fuselage so that the brackets of the > outer wings > actually protrude into the fuselage. The wing attach bolt > would then be > inside the fuselage where they could be easily reached. > Because I'm using > longer wings and unsure of the strength of this arrangement, > I came up with > another idea in which the outboard wings simply fold up at > the joint with > only minor modifications to one of the upper main WAFs. So I > built new spars > like the KR and this is the way I'll go. "[U]nsure or the strength of this arrangement"?? "So I built new spars"?? Uhhh.... this has the 'kindergarteners with handguns' sort of feel to it, sorry. Learn to run the numbers. Learn what they mean. KNOW what your vehicle's engineered limits (all of them) are. Are you setting up a stress riser? Do you know what that is? Before you "design" anything, you might want to brush up a bit on some of these lessons (learned the hard way throughout history). Just a thought. > > I made several other changes, but all in all I'm convinced > I'll get what I'm > after and I hope to be flying before this Christmas. Rotsa ruck :-) Let us know how it goes and if we can help. Larry > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 08:00:14 -0700 To: From: "bstarrs" Subject: Fw: KR> The AS5046 airfoil Message-ID: <00bf01c2396c$24d84680$9200a8c0@bstarrs> My thoughs were about the same,but I didn't want to put a damper on such enthusiasm. One gets the impression You think you know a lot more then you do. If you make all of the changes you mentioned at least one of them will kill you. Keep on checking with others who have more experience then "600 hrs in microlites" .Bill Starrs ----- Original Message ----- From: "Schurr, Larry" To: Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2002 5:41 AM Subject: RE: KR> The AS5046 airfoil > Hennie, > > No one can fault your spirit, that's for sure :-) > > In reading your treatise on your upcoming plane, I couldn't help but wonder > about some questions, not necessarily issues, but some little 'red lights' > in my nay-sayer head -- I'm such a terrible cynic! -- and thought I'd chime > in. > > > So I re-designed everything by: > > > > 5. The tail feathers have been increased for better control > > and low speed > > handling. > > > > 6. Coming from a microlighting background, I know where to > > find 60 Hp at > > less than half the weight of the VW, so I'll use a proper 2 > > stroke like the > > 503 Rotax > > From where will you get the *other* 8hp? A 503 is only good for 52, isn't > it? > And at cruise, closer to 39-40? > > > >until my finances allow something like the 30Hp Hirth or 6 > > cylinder 180Hp Arrow two stroke engines. Having many hours in > > the air with > > two strokes gives me the total confidence to do this. > > Hmmm... I'm guessing these are thirsty... 180hp 2stroke? yup, probably > pretty thirsty. > > > - my aircraft should fly the > > same with one > > or two aboard and wheather no fuel or full fuel. > > Uhm... an F-16 AND a C-150 demonstrate significant differences with 2up/full > fuel conditions, yet yours will not?? This will be interesting. > > > > > 9. I see no benefit in tapering the fuselage at the bottom, > > so mine is wider > > than the KR and the same width top and bottom. Having located > > the seats > > forward puts the shoulders at the widest part of the airframe > > and my seating > > arrangement is extremely comfortable with two aboard. > > Yes, wonder why that fuse tapers? Hmmm... wonder why EVERY tailcone isn't > square at the bottom? Hmmm.. wonder why each and every >200mph plane out > there has a rounded tailcone... hmmmm.... oh, except the Mustang2/Thorp > t-18, 200hp/200mph... you might wanna check into some aero studies on wing > root fairing and fuselage boundary layer. > > Though true, a flat bottom CAN be shown to produce better ground effect that > can *contribute* to lower landing speed, it can also reduce your numbers at > cruise with increased boundary layer drag. > > > > > 10. I've used tube push pull control throughout like in most > > microlights - > > much easier to construct and a lot safer and less complex > > than any cable > > arrangement. The ONLY easily accessible parts to be inspected on every > > preflight are the clearly visible bolts at each end. > > Though inspection is easier... wonder why EVERY high performance plane > doesn't use tubes?? Check into flutter failure modes... Re-examine your item > 5. above. Increasing area? >200mph? Be sure to take the necessary steps > to prevent flutter. > > > 15. I'll use the new airfoil with full span flaps, even on > > the inboard side. > > The flaps will be like the PC Pilatus, which is hinged at the > > bottom wing > > skin with a curve at the top like yours. Thus there'll be no > > gap and by > > deploying them, the bottom wing area stays the same but the > > top area is > > increased making the total wing area larger helping with more > > lift for both > > take-offs and landings. Landing at 25 - 30 mph should get rid > > of most of the > > floating in any case. > > Pilatus-type split flaps (which have holes in them, BTW) are little more > than air brakes. They produce very little in the way of useful low speed > lift and are considered inefficient for the complexity. Drag=Lift. The > trick is to get Lift in a unified and useful direction. Hence, flaps. > There is a very big difference between decreasing lift and decreasing stall > speed. > > > > > > 16. I'll use spoilers on the outboard wings for both roll and decent > > control. My life was saved on more than one occasion on > > microlights by this > > facility by being able to deploy both spoilers > > simultaneously, killing a lot > > of lift in this way. Once it got me out of cloud suck and in > > landings, I > > could come down like a parachute. By letting them retract > > just above the > > ground I could then flare and do a normal landing. Thus, > > using spoilers in > > this way lets you absolutely control your descent and you can put the > > aircraft down anywhere you want! > > You might remember you're going from about 3#/sq.ft. wingloading to around 6 > or more. Unless, with your longer wings, you're increasing the wing area, > then your ride gets worse and your handling more microlight-like. "Coming > down like a parachute" is no accommplishment -- 'landing like a rocking > chair' IS. > > > > > 17. Initially I was going to use the GAW-1 airfoil. I was > > going to attach > > the wings right at the fuselage so that the brackets of the > > outer wings > > actually protrude into the fuselage. The wing attach bolt > > would then be > > inside the fuselage where they could be easily reached. > > Because I'm using > > longer wings and unsure of the strength of this arrangement, > > I came up with > > another idea in which the outboard wings simply fold up at > > the joint with > > only minor modifications to one of the upper main WAFs. So I > > built new spars > > like the KR and this is the way I'll go. > > "[U]nsure or the strength of this arrangement"?? "So I built new spars"?? > Uhhh.... this has the 'kindergarteners with handguns' sort of feel to it, > sorry. Learn to run the numbers. Learn what they mean. KNOW what your > vehicle's engineered limits (all of them) are. Are you setting up a stress > riser? Do you know what that is? Before you "design" anything, you might > want to brush up a bit on some of these lessons (learned the hard way > throughout history). Just a thought. > > > > > I made several other changes, but all in all I'm convinced > > I'll get what I'm > > after and I hope to be flying before this Christmas. > > Rotsa ruck :-) Let us know how it goes and if we can help. > > Larry > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp > or http://www.bouyea.net/ for the Word files > > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 17:48:27 -0500 To: From: "David McKelvey" Subject: RE: KR> The AS5046 airfoil Message-ID: With all the proposed changes, please change the name (I hate to see KR in accident reports)! -----Original Message----- From: Schurr, Larry [mailto:LSchurr@bellhelicopter.textron.com] Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2002 7:42 AM To: 'krnet@mailinglists.org' Subject: RE: KR> The AS5046 airfoil Hennie, No one can fault your spirit, that's for sure :-) In reading your treatise on your upcoming plane, I couldn't help but wonder about some questions, not necessarily issues, but some little 'red lights' in my nay-sayer head -- I'm such a terrible cynic! -- and thought I'd chime in. > So I re-designed everything by: > > 5. The tail feathers have been increased for better control > and low speed > handling. > > 6. Coming from a microlighting background, I know where to > find 60 Hp at > less than half the weight of the VW, so I'll use a proper 2 > stroke like the > 503 Rotax From where will you get the *other* 8hp? A 503 is only good for 52, isn't it? And at cruise, closer to 39-40? >until my finances allow something like the 30Hp Hirth or 6 > cylinder 180Hp Arrow two stroke engines. Having many hours in > the air with > two strokes gives me the total confidence to do this. Hmmm... I'm guessing these are thirsty... 180hp 2stroke? yup, probably pretty thirsty. > - my aircraft should fly the > same with one > or two aboard and wheather no fuel or full fuel. Uhm... an F-16 AND a C-150 demonstrate significant differences with 2up/full fuel conditions, yet yours will not?? This will be interesting. > > 9. I see no benefit in tapering the fuselage at the bottom, > so mine is wider > than the KR and the same width top and bottom. Having located > the seats > forward puts the shoulders at the widest part of the airframe > and my seating > arrangement is extremely comfortable with two aboard. Yes, wonder why that fuse tapers? Hmmm... wonder why EVERY tailcone isn't square at the bottom? Hmmm.. wonder why each and every >200mph plane out there has a rounded tailcone... hmmmm.... oh, except the Mustang2/Thorp t-18, 200hp/200mph... you might wanna check into some aero studies on wing root fairing and fuselage boundary layer. Though true, a flat bottom CAN be shown to produce better ground effect that can *contribute* to lower landing speed, it can also reduce your numbers at cruise with increased boundary layer drag. > > 10. I've used tube push pull control throughout like in most > microlights - > much easier to construct and a lot safer and less complex > than any cable > arrangement. The ONLY easily accessible parts to be inspected on every > preflight are the clearly visible bolts at each end. Though inspection is easier... wonder why EVERY high performance plane doesn't use tubes?? Check into flutter failure modes... Re-examine your item 5. above. Increasing area? >200mph? Be sure to take the necessary steps to prevent flutter. > 15. I'll use the new airfoil with full span flaps, even on > the inboard side. > The flaps will be like the PC Pilatus, which is hinged at the > bottom wing > skin with a curve at the top like yours. Thus there'll be no > gap and by > deploying them, the bottom wing area stays the same but the > top area is > increased making the total wing area larger helping with more > lift for both > take-offs and landings. Landing at 25 - 30 mph should get rid > of most of the > floating in any case. Pilatus-type split flaps (which have holes in them, BTW) are little more than air brakes. They produce very little in the way of useful low speed lift and are considered inefficient for the complexity. Drag=Lift. The trick is to get Lift in a unified and useful direction. Hence, flaps. There is a very big difference between decreasing lift and decreasing stall speed. > > 16. I'll use spoilers on the outboard wings for both roll and decent > control. My life was saved on more than one occasion on > microlights by this > facility by being able to deploy both spoilers > simultaneously, killing a lot > of lift in this way. Once it got me out of cloud suck and in > landings, I > could come down like a parachute. By letting them retract > just above the > ground I could then flare and do a normal landing. Thus, > using spoilers in > this way lets you absolutely control your descent and you can put the > aircraft down anywhere you want! You might remember you're going from about 3#/sq.ft. wingloading to around 6 or more. Unless, with your longer wings, you're increasing the wing area, then your ride gets worse and your handling more microlight-like. "Coming down like a parachute" is no accommplishment -- 'landing like a rocking chair' IS. > > 17. Initially I was going to use the GAW-1 airfoil. I was > going to attach > the wings right at the fuselage so that the brackets of the > outer wings > actually protrude into the fuselage. The wing attach bolt > would then be > inside the fuselage where they could be easily reached. > Because I'm using > longer wings and unsure of the strength of this arrangement, > I came up with > another idea in which the outboard wings simply fold up at > the joint with > only minor modifications to one of the upper main WAFs. So I > built new spars > like the KR and this is the way I'll go. "[U]nsure or the strength of this arrangement"?? "So I built new spars"?? Uhhh.... this has the 'kindergarteners with handguns' sort of feel to it, sorry. Learn to run the numbers. Learn what they mean. KNOW what your vehicle's engineered limits (all of them) are. Are you setting up a stress riser? Do you know what that is? Before you "design" anything, you might want to brush up a bit on some of these lessons (learned the hard way throughout history). Just a thought. > > I made several other changes, but all in all I'm convinced > I'll get what I'm > after and I hope to be flying before this Christmas. Rotsa ruck :-) Let us know how it goes and if we can help. Larry > --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp or http://www.bouyea.net/ for the Word files ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 17:58:32 -0500 To: From: "David McKelvey" Subject: RE: KR> The AS5046 airfoil Message-ID: He's got a point, a stock KR does not fly well with no fuel -----Original Message----- From: van Rooyen, Hennie(SF02) [mailto:Hennie.van.Rooyen@honeywell.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2002 9:14 PM To: 'krnet@mailinglists.org' Subject: FW: KR> The AS5046 airfoil Hi Mark, Thanks for the reply. Just as yourself. I also have my own opinions for a perfect KR2 derivative and this is what I'm building: 1. With more than 600 hours of all sorts of microlights behind me, I wanted a plane that has the speed capabilities of the KR, but landing characteristics of the microlights. Thus it should be able to fly at 200+ mph, but also be able to land in the mid 20 mph range. Impossible? Think again - I'm going to achieve this and soon! 2. I've read many articles which states that the actual Hp of a 1800cc VW turning in the lower 3000 Rpm range is closer to 45Hp than the suggested 60Hp everyone quotes. Ken designed this aircraft to fly perfectly with only 60Hp if it is built light. So I re-designed everything by: 3. Moving the seats and firewall forward so that the pilot (me, 6ft tall) and passenger sits comfortably right on the cg. 4. The tail is also stretched, but not as much as the KR2S. 5. The tail feathers have been increased for better control and low speed handling. 6. Coming from a microlighting background, I know where to find 60 Hp at less than half the weight of the VW, so I'll use a proper 2 stroke like the 503 Rotax until my finances allow something like the 30Hp Hirth or 6 cylinder 180Hp Arrow two stroke engines. Having many hours in the air with two strokes gives me the total confidence to do this. 7. I've exceeded all wood dimensions slightly to give me a stronger, yet light airframe. I'll run a tube from the inner rear spar to the outer main spar on the outboard wings to make the wings safe at the higher speed obtained with i.e. the Arrow engine - just imagine a 400+ lbs aircraft with 180 Hp! 8. My fuel will be in both the inner and outer wings ONLY, so I'll have no loading cg problems like most do - my aircraft should fly the same with one or two aboard and wheather no fuel or full fuel. 9. I see no benefit in tapering the fuselage at the bottom, so mine is wider than the KR and the same width top and bottom. Having located the seats forward puts the shoulders at the widest part of the airframe and my seating arrangement is extremely comfortable with two aboard. 10. I've used tube push pull control throughout like in most microlights - much easier to construct and a lot safer and less complex than any cable arrangement. The ONLY easily accessible parts to be inspected on every preflight are the clearly visible bolts at each end. 11. I've designed and fabricated my own lightweight tricycle gear with steerable nose wheel - much lighter than the original KR setup, yet easily strong enough for my purposes. 12. I'll only use a Skydat microlight single instrument with a hand held radio. 13. Initially no electric starter - the start pull rope for the Rotax 503 is mounted at the bottom of the firewall inside the cockpit - so I even save some more weight. 14. The canopy will be like the Swearinham 3000's with a flat wrap around Plexiglas or lexan windshield which is easy to make, lightweight, super modern and with excellent headroom and visibility. 15. I'll use the new airfoil with full span flaps, even on the inboard side. The flaps will be like the PC Pilatus, which is hinged at the bottom wing skin with a curve at the top like yours. Thus there'll be no gap and by deploying them, the bottom wing area stays the same but the top area is increased making the total wing area larger helping with more lift for both take-offs and landings. Landing at 25 - 30 mph should get rid of most of the floating in any case. 16. I'll use spoilers on the outboard wings for both roll and decent control. My life was saved on more than one occasion on microlights by this facility by being able to deploy both spoilers simultaneously, killing a lot of lift in this way. Once it got me out of cloud suck and in landings, I could come down like a parachute. By letting them retract just above the ground I could then flare and do a normal landing. Thus, using spoilers in this way lets you absolutely control your descent and you can put the aircraft down anywhere you want! 17. Initially I was going to use the GAW-1 airfoil. I was going to attach the wings right at the fuselage so that the brackets of the outer wings actually protrude into the fuselage. The wing attach bolt would then be inside the fuselage where they could be easily reached. Because I'm using longer wings and unsure of the strength of this arrangement, I came up with another idea in which the outboard wings simply fold up at the joint with only minor modifications to one of the upper main WAFs. So I built new spars like the KR and this is the way I'll go. I made several other changes, but all in all I'm convinced I'll get what I'm after and I hope to be flying before this Christmas. Regards, Hennie -----Original Message----- From: Mark Langford [mailto:langford@hiwaay.net] Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2002 3:18 PM To: krnet@mailinglists.org Subject: Re: KR> The AS5046 airfoil Hennie van Rooyen wrote: > Where can I find detail on exactly where the outer spars match the outer rib > of the AS5046 airfoil. I see on all the pictures that the main spar seems to > be located closer to the aft section of the outer rib template. (I.o.w the > main spar seems to be pulled backwards at the end) I'll check, but I'm pretty sure the drawings are set up so that the relationships of the spars to the airfoil chord are identical to the setup of the RAF48 shown in the RR plans. That's why we requested the AS5046, because the AS5045 wasn't a perfect match to the existing spars due to the location of the "bulges" being slightly different between the two airfoils. The airfoil "plans" are designed to be used exactly as the RR plans call for, except using a different shape for the template. Planform (and spar location) remain exactly the same. That setup has been proven, and offers the "safest" deviation from the plans. Installation instructions are at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford/tet/as5046inst.html . There is mention of changing the horizontal stabilizer incidence, but that's in improvement that all KRs could stand, in my humble opinion. You could build a KR with new wing airfoil and old horizontal stab and incidence, if you wanted to. In fact, that's exactly what Troy did, because he didn't have the heart to tear into his tail right after he'd rebuilt it with his new smaller elevators and rudder. His plane would probably be a little faster if the two matched. That's why my horizontal stab is ground adjustable, so I can tweak it to perfection by trial and error. Since you mention seeing "all the photos of the new airfoil", you're probably talking about pictures of the AS5046 implementation on MY airplane, so all bets are off. I slid things around here and there, for various reasons, one of which was to be able to use the aft spar as the attach point for my ailerons and flaps, but that kind of talk can start a war here! It might be mentioned though, that that's exactly what Kevin Kelly did with the KR100, which almost made it into "production" at RR. I did it before I knew Keven had done it though. Kevin also changed the wing incidence and horizontal stab incidence to be closer together too, with a total decalage of 2 degrees, if I'm not mistaken. I'm thinking that Larry Capps might do an in-depth article for the Newsletter on that plane, assuming the Newsletter survives. Mark Langford, TET, LLC mailto:langford@hiwaay.net see KR2S project at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford --------------------------------------------------------------------- To post to the list, email: krnet@mailinglists.org , NOT "reply all" To UNsubscribe, e-mail: krnet-unsubscribe@mailinglists.org For additional commands, e-mail: krnet-help@mailinglists.org See the KRNet archives at http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp or http://www.bouyea.net/ for the Word files --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp or http://www.bouyea.net/ for the Word files ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 18:15:31 -0400 To: "David McKelvey" , From: "Ronald Freiberger" Subject: RE: KR> The AS5046 airfoil Message-ID: I think this whole thing is a giant joke, and that it originates in Richmond, KY. Ron Freiberger... mailto:ron.martha@mindspring.com -----Original Message----- From: David McKelvey [mailto:davmck@verizon.net] Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2002 6:59 PM To: krnet@mailinglists.org Subject: RE: KR> The AS5046 airfoil He's got a point, a stock KR does not fly well with no fuel -----Original Message----- From: van Rooyen, Hennie(SF02) [mailto:Hennie.van.Rooyen@honeywell.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2002 9:14 PM To: 'krnet@mailinglists.org' Subject: FW: KR> The AS5046 airfoil Hi Mark, Thanks for the reply. Just as yourself. I also have my own opinions for a perfect KR2 derivative and this is what I'm building: 1. With more than 600 hours of all sorts of microlights behind me, I wanted a plane that has the speed capabilities of the KR, but landing characteristics of the microlights. Thus it should be able to fly at 200+ mph, but also be able to land in the mid 20 mph range. Impossible? Think again - I'm going to achieve this and soon! 2. I've read many articles which states that the actual Hp of a 1800cc VW turning in the lower 3000 Rpm range is closer to 45Hp than the suggested 60Hp everyone quotes. Ken designed this aircraft to fly perfectly with only 60Hp if it is built light. So I re-designed everything by: 3. Moving the seats and firewall forward so that the pilot (me, 6ft tall) and passenger sits comfortably right on the cg. 4. The tail is also stretched, but not as much as the KR2S. 5. The tail feathers have been increased for better control and low speed handling. 6. Coming from a microlighting background, I know where to find 60 Hp at less than half the weight of the VW, so I'll use a proper 2 stroke like the 503 Rotax until my finances allow something like the 30Hp Hirth or 6 cylinder 180Hp Arrow two stroke engines. Having many hours in the air with two strokes gives me the total confidence to do this. 7. I've exceeded all wood dimensions slightly to give me a stronger, yet light airframe. I'll run a tube from the inner rear spar to the outer main spar on the outboard wings to make the wings safe at the higher speed obtained with i.e. the Arrow engine - just imagine a 400+ lbs aircraft with 180 Hp! 8. My fuel will be in both the inner and outer wings ONLY, so I'll have no loading cg problems like most do - my aircraft should fly the same with one or two aboard and wheather no fuel or full fuel. 9. I see no benefit in tapering the fuselage at the bottom, so mine is wider than the KR and the same width top and bottom. Having located the seats forward puts the shoulders at the widest part of the airframe and my seating arrangement is extremely comfortable with two aboard. 10. I've used tube push pull control throughout like in most microlights - much easier to construct and a lot safer and less complex than any cable arrangement. The ONLY easily accessible parts to be inspected on every preflight are the clearly visible bolts at each end. 11. I've designed and fabricated my own lightweight tricycle gear with steerable nose wheel - much lighter than the original KR setup, yet easily strong enough for my purposes. 12. I'll only use a Skydat microlight single instrument with a hand held radio. 13. Initially no electric starter - the start pull rope for the Rotax 503 is mounted at the bottom of the firewall inside the cockpit - so I even save some more weight. 14. The canopy will be like the Swearinham 3000's with a flat wrap around Plexiglas or lexan windshield which is easy to make, lightweight, super modern and with excellent headroom and visibility. 15. I'll use the new airfoil with full span flaps, even on the inboard side. The flaps will be like the PC Pilatus, which is hinged at the bottom wing skin with a curve at the top like yours. Thus there'll be no gap and by deploying them, the bottom wing area stays the same but the top area is increased making the total wing area larger helping with more lift for both take-offs and landings. Landing at 25 - 30 mph should get rid of most of the floating in any case. 16. I'll use spoilers on the outboard wings for both roll and decent control. My life was saved on more than one occasion on microlights by this facility by being able to deploy both spoilers simultaneously, killing a lot of lift in this way. Once it got me out of cloud suck and in landings, I could come down like a parachute. By letting them retract just above the ground I could then flare and do a normal landing. Thus, using spoilers in this way lets you absolutely control your descent and you can put the aircraft down anywhere you want! 17. Initially I was going to use the GAW-1 airfoil. I was going to attach the wings right at the fuselage so that the brackets of the outer wings actually protrude into the fuselage. The wing attach bolt would then be inside the fuselage where they could be easily reached. Because I'm using longer wings and unsure of the strength of this arrangement, I came up with another idea in which the outboard wings simply fold up at the joint with only minor modifications to one of the upper main WAFs. So I built new spars like the KR and this is the way I'll go. I made several other changes, but all in all I'm convinced I'll get what I'm after and I hope to be flying before this Christmas. Regards, Hennie -----Original Message----- From: Mark Langford [mailto:langford@hiwaay.net] Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2002 3:18 PM To: krnet@mailinglists.org Subject: Re: KR> The AS5046 airfoil Hennie van Rooyen wrote: > Where can I find detail on exactly where the outer spars match the outer rib > of the AS5046 airfoil. I see on all the pictures that the main spar seems to > be located closer to the aft section of the outer rib template. (I.o.w the > main spar seems to be pulled backwards at the end) I'll check, but I'm pretty sure the drawings are set up so that the relationships of the spars to the airfoil chord are identical to the setup of the RAF48 shown in the RR plans. That's why we requested the AS5046, because the AS5045 wasn't a perfect match to the existing spars due to the location of the "bulges" being slightly different between the two airfoils. The airfoil "plans" are designed to be used exactly as the RR plans call for, except using a different shape for the template. Planform (and spar location) remain exactly the same. That setup has been proven, and offers the "safest" deviation from the plans. Installation instructions are at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford/tet/as5046inst.html . There is mention of changing the horizontal stabilizer incidence, but that's in improvement that all KRs could stand, in my humble opinion. You could build a KR with new wing airfoil and old horizontal stab and incidence, if you wanted to. In fact, that's exactly what Troy did, because he didn't have the heart to tear into his tail right after he'd rebuilt it with his new smaller elevators and rudder. His plane would probably be a little faster if the two matched. That's why my horizontal stab is ground adjustable, so I can tweak it to perfection by trial and error. Since you mention seeing "all the photos of the new airfoil", you're probably talking about pictures of the AS5046 implementation on MY airplane, so all bets are off. I slid things around here and there, for various reasons, one of which was to be able to use the aft spar as the attach point for my ailerons and flaps, but that kind of talk can start a war here! It might be mentioned though, that that's exactly what Kevin Kelly did with the KR100, which almost made it into "production" at RR. I did it before I knew Keven had done it though. Kevin also changed the wing incidence and horizontal stab incidence to be closer together too, with a total decalage of 2 degrees, if I'm not mistaken. I'm thinking that Larry Capps might do an in-depth article for the Newsletter on that plane, assuming the Newsletter survives. Mark Langford, TET, LLC mailto:langford@hiwaay.net see KR2S project at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford --------------------------------------------------------------------- To post to the list, email: krnet@mailinglists.org , NOT "reply all" To UNsubscribe, e-mail: krnet-unsubscribe@mailinglists.org For additional commands, e-mail: krnet-help@mailinglists.org See the KRNet archives at http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp or http://www.bouyea.net/ for the Word files --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp or http://www.bouyea.net/ for the Word files --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp or http://www.bouyea.net/ for the Word files ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2002 10:26:35 -0400 To: From: Donald Reid Subject: Website update/progress report Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.0.20020801101628.00a2c230@pop.erols.com> --=====================_4275943==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 09:20 PM 7/31/2002 -0500, van Rooyen, Hennie(SF02) wrote: >Hi Don, > >Thanks for the links - I've already been to your site before. Excellent >work! What's that engine hanging so far forward? Is it a two stroke or a >Rotax 912? The engine is a stripped down O-200. No starter, small and light alternator, Slick mags. The engine, as is hanging on the plane, with cooling shroud and 4 inch prop extension, weighs 213 pounds. The mount is a somewhat longer than normal to get my balance point right were I want it without any ballast. It turns out that I should have put the wing about 3 inches farther forward. I think that from some angles, the nose makes it look a little bit like the Polan Special. (look in some fairly recent issues of Sport Aviation if you don't know that one) Several new photos of the cowling work have been posted. Don Reid mailto:donreid@erols.com Bumpass, Va Visit my web sites at: KR2XL construction: http://users.erols.com/donreid/kr_page.htm Aviation Surplus: http://users.erols.com/donreid/Airparts.htm EAA Chapter 231: http://eaa231.org Ultralights: http://usua250.org VA EAA State Fly-in: http://vaeaa.org --=====================_4275943==_.ALT-- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 23:17:54 +0800 To: "KRnet" From: "Phil Maley" Subject: RE: The Bill Clapp affair Message-ID: Hi all Great news! Bill called me tonight and gave me a tracking number. It checks out on the UPS system and shows it was picked up in Valdosta at 6.32pm on 30th July. Great work all those who helped with encouragement, advice and phone calls. I can't wait to see what's in the package. (I do know what SHOULD be in the package.) Regards to you all Phil Maley Perth Australia mailto:phil@wotech.com.au http://www.wotech.net/vk6ad/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 12:03:33 -0400 To: , "KRnet" From: "Ronald Freiberger" Subject: RE: KR> RE: The Bill Clapp affair Message-ID: Bill C contacted me about buying my project, but when I added up all my receipts, we were both disappointed. I think I'm glad he didn't make an offer; sounds like something's fishy. BTW, I wonder why the parts have just now arrived at UPS (30th) if they were already supposed to have arrived? Maybe someone stole his identity? Ron Freiberger... mailto:ron.martha@mindspring.com -----Original Message----- From: Phil Maley [mailto:phil@wotech.com.au] Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2002 11:18 AM To: KRnet Subject: KR> RE: The Bill Clapp affair Hi all Great news! Bill called me tonight and gave me a tracking number. It checks out on the UPS system and shows it was picked up in Valdosta at 6.32pm on 30th July. Great work all those who helped with encouragement, advice and phone calls. I can't wait to see what's in the package. (I do know what SHOULD be in the package.) Regards to you all Phil Maley Perth Australia mailto:phil@wotech.com.au http://www.wotech.net/vk6ad/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp or http://www.bouyea.net/ for the Word files ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 12:06:14 -0700 To: From: "jim @ synergy design" Subject: attaching wings at fuselage. Message-ID: <004201c2398e$83aeb780$0101a8c0@pavilion> ------=_NextPart_000_003F_01C23953.D550B420 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hennie, You may want an engineer to figure out how much extra force is = applied to the WAF's by moving them closer. I may be wrong on this, But = I think you will be increasing the leverage arm(therefor the forces) at = the WAF's by moving them to just inside the fuselage skin, If I = understand you correctly .Also, what is your center spar now attached to = if it doesn't go through the fuselage sides? Good Luck, Jim Sporka = P.S. Can I be the beneficiary on your life insurance policy?=20 ------=_NextPart_000_003F_01C23953.D550B420-- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 13:41:52 -0700 To: From: "jim @ synergy design" Subject: build to plans Message-ID: <001301c2399b$df25b660$0101a8c0@pavilion> ------=_NextPart_000_0010_01C23961.31772CE0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Since I made fun of Virg last week, And he's probably in shock over = Hennies post, Ill say it. Hennie, build it to the plans. :) ------=_NextPart_000_0010_01C23961.31772CE0-- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 15:51:53 -0500 To: From: "Piunti, James A." Subject: General (uninformed?) question from a newbie... Message-ID: <9499A53A0164444B9B9713923DE26445851231@ex0103.firm.kutakrock.com> I've been having a discussion with an friend of mine - a KR builder from 15 years ago - and we're talking about how much different that aircraft is from a decade or so ago, mainly because the improved materials and building techniques. Since a lot(?) of KRs seem to be flown approaching, if not exceeding, Mr Rand's original design limits (900lbs gross), is that balanced by the fact that improved epoxies, adding of carbon fiber, etc., makes for a stronger airframe? At 1100-1200 gross, with improved building techniques, is it possible to determine how far from the original g-ratings (+4/-2?) we are? Do we have a different airplane than we had 10 years ago? Feel free to point me to the FAQs if I missed it... :-) =20 > Jimmer < =20 Omaha,NE jim.piunti@cox.net ###################################################################### The information contained in this electronic mail transmission (including any accompanying attachments) is intended solely for its authorized recipient(s), and may be confidential and/or legally=20 privileged. If you are not an intended recipient, or responsible for delivering some or all of this transmission to an intended=20 recipient, you have received this transmission in error and are=20 hereby notified that you are strictly prohibited from reading, copying, printing, distributing or disclosing any of the information contained in it. In that event, please contact us immediately by telephone=20 (402)346-6000 or by electronic mail at postmaster@kutakrock.com and delete the original and all copies of this transmission (including any attachments) without reading or saving in any manner. =20 Thank you. ###################################################################### ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 17:54:45 -0400 To: From: "Thomas Andersen" Subject: Able Experimental Engines and Alimizer products Message-ID: <003f01c239a6$0cb5f180$0300a8c0@darwin> Hi Netters, Has anyone purchased any products from Able Experimental Engines? This VW looks great for a KR, 2275cc and 120hp. I'm leery of a company that wants to do a lay-away plan for me though. I thought only K-Mart does that? -Tom Andersen Greensboro NC ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ronald Freiberger" To: Cc: Sent: Friday, July 12, 2002 7:04 PM Subject: RE: KR> What I Don't like about KR > I didn't care about Legal, nor did the cops, but getting it onto a trailer, > even ofr a makeshift short trip, was apain in the posterior > > Ron Freiberger... > mailto:ron.martha@mindspring.com > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: virgnvs@juno.com [mailto:virgnvs@juno.com] > Sent: Friday, July 12, 2002 12:47 PM > To: ron.martha@mindspring.com > Cc: krnet@mailinglists.org > Subject: Re: KR> What I Don't like about KR > > > Right. It is just a bit too wide for legal street towing. Built > my KR-2 with the square sides and put only a short tailpost in the fus > area unly. Will use the hinge bolts to fasten the tailpost to it later, > Virg > > On Fri, 12 Jul 2002 09:43:16 -0400 "Ronald Freiberger" > writes: > > I've always thought KR aircraft were excellent, but there are two > > things > > that have annoyed me; maybe I'm getting crotchety. > > > > When I moved last year, I had a real problem getting the fuselage > > moved, > > because the landing gear tread is just a bit wider that almost all > > rental > > trailer and car carriers. I would make it down to 80 inches if I > > did > > another. > > > > I envy those guys who built a plne in the alley in 6 weeks, 'cause > > my > > project runs into years. All this time, I've been working around > > that > > vertical stabiliser post sticking up like a sore ----. If I started > > from > > scratch, I'd pit in a dummy plug and glue that hummer on later. > > > > Ron Freiberger... > > mailto:ron.martha@mindspring.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.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp > > or http://www.bouyea.net/ for the Word files > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp > or http://www.bouyea.net/ for the Word files > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 15:46:17 -0700 (PDT) To: KRNET@MAILINGLISTS.ORG From: Rick Wilson Subject: designing airplanes Message-ID: <20020801224617.87475.qmail@web21203.mail.yahoo.com> Hennie, If you do decide to design and build an airplane please do all of us kr owners a favor and refer to it as something other than a kr, after all, with all the changes you speak of it will bear little resemblance to a kr. When statistics are compiled at least it won't be listed as a kr "incident". Thanks and good luck, Rick Wilson. KR2-0200 rwdw2002@yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better http://health.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 18:13:03 -0400 To: "Rick Wilson" , From: "Ronald Freiberger" Subject: RE: KR> designing airplanes Message-ID: Maybe he could call it a Heinie 1. That's why I named my first plane a RON'S 1. Some say all homebuilts ought to have unique names. Only Virg is building to plans. Ron Freiberger... mailto:ron.martha@mindspring.com -----Original Message----- From: Rick Wilson [mailto:rwdw2002@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2002 6:46 PM To: KRNET@MAILINGLISTS.ORG Subject: KR> designing airplanes Hennie, If you do decide to design and build an airplane please do all of us kr owners a favor and refer to it as something other than a kr, after all, with all the changes you speak of it will bear little resemblance to a kr. When statistics are compiled at least it won't be listed as a kr "incident". Thanks and good luck, Rick Wilson. KR2-0200 rwdw2002@yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better http://health.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.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp or http://www.bouyea.net/ for the Word files ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 18:13:18 -0500 To: From: "M&C" Subject: re design of kr---Hennie van Rooyen Message-ID: <002401c239b1$07105260$5bae4ad1@matandcat> HENNIE, I was reading about your redesign of the KR2 and how you could kill the lift by the use of spoilers. You mentioned in redesign no. 16 that it got you out of a "cloud suck". I've never heard it put that way before. Could you explain this phenomenon or is this a term common to microlights? I must admit I've never flown any sort of microlight but I have been flying aircraft for over 35 years. With this in mind I've never flown an aircraft that performed the same with two people as it does with only one person aboard with no fuel or full of fuel. I'm stumped and I'm from Missouri-- you know, "The show me state" !!!!!!!!!! Mike Turner ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 18:10:39 -0400 To: From: "Ronald Freiberger" Subject: 2275cc - 120 Hp Message-ID: 2275cc - 120 Hp is certainly possible, and done dependant on intended usage. That's not a long life aircraft engine. Also, a good aircraft engine will have a camshaft that provides very good fuel economy at the intended cruise speed. Carefully done, this will result in a lower fuel load for distant trips. Racing of course is different; 6 gallons max for a race, and 10 hours life a season. The Zepplins used diesel engines, because for very long flights, that provided lower weight initially due to less total fuel required. Ron Freiberger... mailto:ron.martha@mindspring.com -----Original Message----- From: Thomas Andersen [mailto:tandersen@triad.rr.com] Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2002 5:55 PM To: krnet@mailinglists.org Subject: KR> Able Experimental Engines and Alimizer products Hi Netters, Has anyone purchased any products from Able Experimental Engines? This VW looks great for a KR, 2275cc and 120hp. I'm leery of a company that wants to do a lay-away plan for me though. I thought only K-Mart does that? -Tom Andersen Greensboro NC ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ronald Freiberger" To: Cc: Sent: Friday, July 12, 2002 7:04 PM Subject: RE: KR> What I Don't like about KR > I didn't care about Legal, nor did the cops, but getting it onto a trailer, > even ofr a makeshift short trip, was apain in the posterior > > Ron Freiberger... > mailto:ron.martha@mindspring.com > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: virgnvs@juno.com [mailto:virgnvs@juno.com] > Sent: Friday, July 12, 2002 12:47 PM > To: ron.martha@mindspring.com > Cc: krnet@mailinglists.org > Subject: Re: KR> What I Don't like about KR > > > Right. It is just a bit too wide for legal street towing. Built > my KR-2 with the square sides and put only a short tailpost in the fus > area unly. Will use the hinge bolts to fasten the tailpost to it later, > Virg > > On Fri, 12 Jul 2002 09:43:16 -0400 "Ronald Freiberger" > writes: > > I've always thought KR aircraft were excellent, but there are two > > things > > that have annoyed me; maybe I'm getting crotchety. > > > > When I moved last year, I had a real problem getting the fuselage > > moved, > > because the landing gear tread is just a bit wider that almost all > > rental > > trailer and car carriers. I would make it down to 80 inches if I > > did > > another. > > > > I envy those guys who built a plne in the alley in 6 weeks, 'cause > > my > > project runs into years. All this time, I've been working around > > that > > vertical stabiliser post sticking up like a sore ----. If I started > > from > > scratch, I'd pit in a dummy plug and glue that hummer on later. > > > > Ron Freiberger... > > mailto:ron.martha@mindspring.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.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp > > or http://www.bouyea.net/ for the Word files > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp > or http://www.bouyea.net/ for the Word files > --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp or http://www.bouyea.net/ for the Word files ------------------------------ End of krnet Digest ***********************************