From: To: Subject: krnet Digest 3 Aug 2002 14:00:06 -0000 Issue 487 Date: Saturday, August 03, 2002 7:01 AM krnet Digest 3 Aug 2002 14:00:06 -0000 Issue 487 Topics (messages 11792 through 11816): Re: re design of kr---Hennie van Rooyen 11792 by: Alex Swavely 11800 by: Jerry Mahurin Re: General (uninformed?) question from a newbie... 11793 by: Piunti, James A. cowling tufting? 11794 by: Mark Langford 11795 by: larry flesner 11807 by: Phillip Matheson KR100/ RAF48 11796 by: larry flesner Re: The AS5046 airfoil 11797 by: bstarrs 11801 by: gleone 11808 by: David McKelvey 11809 by: David McKelvey 11814 by: Alex Swavely Re: designing airplanes 11798 by: Frank Ross Re: attaching wings at fuselage. 11799 by: Dale Baldwin 11811 by: Brian Kraut KR Gathering 11802 by: gpasc looking for flying KR2 11803 by: Oscar Zuniga K R ?? 11804 by: virgnvs.juno.com Re: Kitplanes mag - Spring 2002 11805 by: chris gardiner Re: Chris Gardiner's KR2S in Kitplanes 11806 by: chris gardiner Re: Flaperons 11810 by: Brian Kraut dark paint colors 11812 by: Brian Kraut Aileron dimensions 11813 by: JIM VANCE looking for temporary finish 11815 by: Darren Pond cooling under the canopy 11816 by: Darren Pond 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 17:24:35 -0700 (PDT) To: From: Alex Swavely Subject: Re: KR> re design of kr---Hennie van Rooyen Message-ID: On Thu, 1 Aug 2002, M&C wrote: > 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 am going to play Devil's Advocate here and state that I believe Hennie was most likely referring to avoiding an adverse (toward the rear of the envelope) CG shift when loaded at max by placing as much of the variable load upon the designed CG. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 08:19:00 -0400 To: From: "Jerry Mahurin" Subject: Re: KR> re design of kr---Hennie van Rooyen Message-ID: In the sailplane (and I guess microlights) world; there are heavy, powerful thermals at the base of cumulus clouds that can 'suck' you up into the cloud if you ride them all the way up.... >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 Jerry Mahurin Lugoff, SC http://kr-builder.org http://jerrymahurin.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 19:28:41 -0500 To: From: "Piunti, James A." Subject: RE: KR> General (uninformed?) question from a newbie... Message-ID: <9499A53A0164444B9B9713923DE26445851232@ex0103.firm.kutakrock.com> ------_=_NextPart_001_01C239BB.8D326AC7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I wouldn't go there James!!! Our so called improved materials and building techniques should have expanded the flight envelope if they were improvements. I feel they have not done that. Today's KR weighs more and carries less useful load than Kens KR. Today's heavier KR can be made to go faster but only with a lot more horsepower. Today's heavier KR still relies on the original spruce and plywood primary structure and therefore has a reduced G load capability because of that extra weight. There have been some improvements (engine reliability for one) but nearly all improvements have added weight. So in my book anything that adds weight reduces efficiency and must be carefully weighed in the mind of the builder as to merit. Today's KR are what they are because of builder preference; good or bad. =09I'm sure that's true in general, especially when you take into consideration =09the fact that builders can have widely varying expertise with the materials, =09but maybe I didn't phrase my question correctly, let me try again: =09If a halfway decent builder, say Mark Langford ( ...a joke, I know how revered =09he is :-) , built two identical KR's. And on the first, he used materials only =09available 15 years ago, and on the 2nd he used carbon fiber, Aeropoxy and T-88 =09Epoxy... =09...would we have the same airplane? Would tolerances and g-force ratings be the =09same? =09> Jimmer < =09Omaha, NE ###################################################################### 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. ###################################################################### ------_=_NextPart_001_01C239BB.8D326AC7-- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 20:53:23 -0500 To: "KRnet" From: "Mark Langford" Subject: cowling tufting? Message-ID: <003b01c239c7$633ccf80$0100a8c0@TD310> KRnetHeads, Could one of you "real KR pilots" out there do something for me next time you're out flying? I just talked to Troy Petteway, who's building a new cowling, and plans to use updraft cooling on this one. We'd like to know exactly where the pressure distribution goes from low pressure to high pressure on a typical KR cowling. I have a drawing on my cowling construction website at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford/cowling_flow.gif that shows a "typical" pressure distribution, but there's no telling what this particular airplane is, or what speed it flies at, or if it even remotely resembled the KR's behavior. If somebody would tape some 1" lengths of yarn to their cowling, maybe three rows running fore to aft, and note (or even photograph) the yarn's orientation at cruise, it would be greatly appreciated. We're looking for the point where it goes from standing up to laying down. When I get my KR going, I plan to do a lot of this sort of stuff, but for now, I'm still sanding... Thanks a lot, Mark Langford, Huntsville, Alabama mailto:langford@hiwaay.net see KR2S N56ML at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2002 22:19:09 -0500 To: "KRnet" From: larry flesner Subject: cowling tufting? Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20020801221909.0093dea0@mail.midwest.net> If somebody would tape some 1" >lengths of yarn to their cowling, maybe three rows running fore to aft, and >note (or even photograph) the yarn's orientation at cruise, it would be >greatly appreciated. We're looking for the point where it goes from >standing up to laying down.> >Mark Langford, Huntsville, Alabama ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ If someone brought enough yarn and tape, and the Tripacer makes it to the Gathering, that sounds like one more reason to get together. Sounds alot like, "if we had some ham, we'd have some ham and eggs, if we had some eggs" , doesn't it? Anyway, food for thought. (no pun intended) Larry Flesner ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2002 08:08:59 +1000 To: "KRnet" From: "Phillip Matheson" Subject: Re: KR> cowling tufting? Message-ID: <002a01c23a71$35185de0$3e96dccb@Matheson> Mark, Aub Coote in Australia has a reverse air flow Cowl on his KR2 . The high pressure is at the bottom and the out lets are at the top of the Cowl, It works very well. Phil Matheson matheson@dodo.com.au 61 3 58833588 See our engines at: http://www.vw-engines.com/ ----- Original Message ----- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2002 22:19:44 -0500 To: From: larry flesner Subject: KR100/ RAF48 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20020801221944.0093cbe0@mail.midwest.net> >Doug wrote: >>>In reference to the post"KR100 wing" I check with Kevin and he says that >he didn't change the leading edge or the incidence on the wing or the tail. >The wing then is a RAF48 and all else is the same.<< >snip+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >I went back and checked my notes from that conversation several years ago, >and what he actually said was he thought KRs in general should have been >about 2 degrees of decalage between main and tail surfaces. I guess I just >extrapolated that his was set up that way too. >>Mark Langford, +++++++++++++++++snip++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++= Well, I went back and checked my KR video with the KR100 "pitch" included near the end (Rand-Robinson, ser.#1004) and Kevin Kelly is standing next to the KR100, microphone in hand, video camera running and he says "the wing used is a hybred. It uses the back portion of the RAF48 with a thinner lead edge". (whatever that means). The span and area are less than a KR2 at 66 square feet and (18 or 19 feet, I forgot). It uses half span flaps, the rudder area is approx. 10 percent larger, the elevator is 75 percent internal balanced and 25 percent at the tip, the rudder is 75 percent mass balanced with the rest of the balance coming from internal springs and your feet on the rudder pedals. The elevator is equiped with anti-servo tabs to provide stick forces. Stall speed is 60MPH clean and 52MPH with flaps at 25 degrees. If you want to know more you'll have to buy the movie. :-) I knew I had read or heard that somewhere(about the wing). Someone in my family thinks my memory is going and if I can remember who it was I'll remind them it is just fine. :-) Larry Flesner ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 21:10:57 -0700 To: From: "bstarrs" Subject: Fw: KR> The AS5046 airfoil Message-ID: <003501c239da$9b3cc4e0$9200a8c0@bstarrs> That may be a problem with the KR 2 but the KR 1 does not have that problem ( cg with no fuel ) Bill Starrs ----- Original Message ----- From: "David McKelvey" To: Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2002 3:58 PM 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: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 08:28:29 -0500 To: David McKelvey From: gleone CC: krnet@mailinglists.org Subject: Re: KR> The AS5046 airfoil Message-ID: <3D4A88FD.F98C6E2F@tritel.net> --------------1E78344C7164F858E925467E Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Or better yet: (1) Start with a clean sheet of paper and design your own plane or: (2) Build it to plans. Is anyone building the plane to plans? David McKelvey wrote: > 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 > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 --------------1E78344C7164F858E925467E-- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 17:09:51 -0500 To: From: "David McKelvey" Subject: RE: KR> The AS5046 airfoil Message-ID: My KR2 is to plans in terms of a/c dimentions. I have the Diehl conv. gear and I built a belly brake. I also attached the stick a little different, but my goal is to stay close to plans as I am not an engineer (I never even played one on TV). Oh yeah, I used Dr Deans hinges as I think EVERY KR should!!!!!!!! If you don't know what I'm talking about, find out before you attach your tail feathers. Dave Grapevine, TX -----Original Message----- From: gleone [mailto:gleone@tritel.net] Sent: Friday, August 02, 2002 8:28 AM To: David McKelvey Cc: krnet@mailinglists.org Subject: Re: KR> The AS5046 airfoil Or better yet: (1) Start with a clean sheet of paper and design your own plane or: (2) Build it to plans. Is anyone building the plane to plans? David McKelvey wrote: > 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 > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 17:22:55 -0500 To: From: "David McKelvey" Subject: RE: KR> The AS5046 airfoil Message-ID: Don't know of a single powered aircraft that flies well w/o fuel, except maybe the space shuttle! I know, you're speaking of the effect on CG, but I can't imagine the KR1 not being effected by fuel load. Perhaps I should look at my KR1 plans again, but it too uses a header tank. The change may not be detrimental as it is a single place acft., but I wouldn't ignore the changes to the CG. -----Original Message----- From: bstarrs [mailto:bstarrs@cybertrails.com] Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2002 11:11 PM To: krnet@mailinglists.org Subject: Fw: KR> The AS5046 airfoil That may be a problem with the KR 2 but the KR 1 does not have that problem ( cg with no fuel ) Bill Starrs ----- Original Message ----- From: "David McKelvey" To: Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2002 3:58 PM 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 > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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: Sat, 3 Aug 2002 02:19:17 -0700 (PDT) To: From: Alex Swavely Subject: RE: KR> The AS5046 airfoil Message-ID: I hear tell there are a couple of motorgliders that get on quite well with no fuel... On Fri, 2 Aug 2002, David McKelvey wrote: > Don't know of a single powered aircraft that flies well w/o fuel, except > maybe the space shuttle! ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 23:08:52 -0700 (PDT) To: KRNET@MAILINGLISTS.ORG From: Frank Ross Subject: RE: KR> designing airplanes Message-ID: <20020802060852.46660.qmail@web21510.mail.yahoo.com> He has to, otherwise it won't be a "Virg-un" Frank Ross --- Ronald Freiberger wrote: > Only Virg is building > to plans. > > Ron Freiberger... __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better http://health.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 19:20:57 -0400 To: "jim @ synergy design" , From: "Dale Baldwin" Subject: Re: KR> attaching wings at fuselage. Message-ID: <000001c239ff$a5512f00$41e85b0c@computername> Jim, The Taylor Monoplane (grandfatherof the KR-1)originally had the wings attach at the fuselage and later moved them outbd of the gear for ease of transportation with the wings removed. Dale Baldwin, KR-2, ATL ----- Original Message ----- From: "jim @ synergy design" To: Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2002 3:06 PM Subject: KR> attaching wings at fuselage. 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? ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 21:21:38 -0400 To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: Brian Kraut Subject: Re: KR> attaching wings at fuselage. Message-ID: <3D4B3022.5030208@earthlink.net> I did a quick calculation on the moment arm of my wings where it is and where it would be if the WAFs were right at the fusalage side. I roughed it and didn't account for the fact that the wings were tapered. I came up with about an additional 30% increase in the shear load on the bottom fitting and spar member and 30% additional compression load on the top. This is at 1g. Since all the parts need to be designed for at least four times that that comes to a lot more stress. It has been a long time since my high school physics class so I may not be correct in my guestimate so don't use my numbers, but this does illustrate that you must pay attention when you make a change like that. jim @ synergy design wrote: >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? > ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 09:53:49 -0500 To: From: gpasc Subject: KR Gathering Message-ID: --MS_Mac_OE_3111126830_129689_MIME_Part Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Hi to All! We have literally reserved all of the hotel rooms in Red Oak for the Gathering. I checked with the Managers at both of the hotels in Red Oak to check on reservations. The Red Coach Inn only has 15 rooms left and the Super 8 has 40 left. They are getting anxious because other people want the rooms and I have them booked! We need you to make your reservations now! We have until September 5 to make our reservations and then at that time, the remainder of the rooms will be open to the public! If you lose out, the closest hotel is 23 miles away in Shenandoah. Please make your reservations now! Super 8 in Red Oak at 712 623 6919 Red Coach Inn in Red Oak at 712 623 4864 If you have any questions, please email me or check out the Gathering Web Site: http://www.krgathering.org Remember the dates of the KR Gathering are September 19 (Thurs) thru 22 (Sun). Don't miss out on the fun! Linda Bennett Sec/Treas KR Gathering 2002 Red Oak, Iowa --MS_Mac_OE_3111126830_129689_MIME_Part-- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 12:30:53 -0500 To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: "Oscar Zuniga" Subject: looking for flying KR2 Message-ID: "Deems Herring" wrote: >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 Stick around. Usually about April 1 of each year Mark Langford puts his up for sale ;o) Happy Friday, y'all. I get to play with Corvair engine parts this weekend! Oscar Zuniga San Antonio, TX mailto: taildrags@hotmail.com website at http://www.flysquirrel.net _________________________________________________________________ Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 08:42:54 -0400 To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: virgnvs@juno.com Subject: K R ?? Message-ID: <20020802.142517.-501645.0.virgnvs@juno.com> Best of luck. Send flying pic at Christmas time, Virg ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 17:17:35 -0400 To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: chris gardiner Subject: Re: KR> Kitplanes mag - Spring 2002 Message-ID: <3D4AF6EF.4050109@attcanada.ca> Did anyone see a picture of my KR2S published in kitplanes early this summer? I heard through a friend that Kitplanes finally published my plane in May/June/July issue and I missed it. I would like to order a back issue of it ...if I could figure out which one . Their web page wasn't of much help. Thanks in advance. Also, I hope to see many KR enthusiasts at Red Oak , Ia. There will be two KR's from Canada there ( VFR weather permitting) ! Chris Gardiner KR2S C-GKRZ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 17:29:01 -0400 To: Frank Ross From: chris gardiner Cc: krnet Subject: Re: KR> Chris Gardiner's KR2S in Kitplanes Message-ID: <3D4AF99D.5070502@attcanada.ca> THanks , Frank. Sorry to hear about the flood waters . Hope to see you'all at the Gathering . REgards Chris Gardiner PS Can you tell me which issue of Kitplanes ? Didn't see it. Frank Ross wrote: >Congratulations to Chris Gardiner for getting his >KR-2S photo in Kitplanes, P.49. >That's a beauty, Chris. >Frank Ross in San Antonio, TX >where we are sitting on the roof-tops with our horses >watching the flood waters carry away our pick up >trucks and wives. > >__________________________________________________ >Do You Yahoo!? >Sign up for SBC Yahoo! Dial - First Month Free >http://sbc.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: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 21:06:03 -0400 To: "van Rooyen, Hennie(SF02)" From: Brian Kraut CC: "'krnet@mailinglists.org'" Subject: Re: KR> Flaperons Message-ID: <3D4B2C7B.4090300@earthlink.net> Way back when I also had the idea of using the existing flaps and making the ailerons flaperons also. My biggest concern is with making the wing tips more suceptible to stalling and therefore spinning the plane when you are low and slow. Remember that excesive use of the ailerons when you are very slow can cause a tip stall on the wing with the aileron down. You will have them both down and one very much down if you add aileron to turn. I would rather extend the stub wings another 6-10 inches to give me more flap surface. That would also have the added benefit of decreasing load on the wing attach fittings and give you more area in the stub wings for fuel(where it ought to be, tanks in removable wings can be a pain). I would speak to some people that have flown with both belly boards and flaps first. A belly board may be enough and is a lot easier and less weight. Be advised that I am just throwing out some food for thought. I have not flown my KR yet and have a lot less building experience than a lot of others on this list. van Rooyen, Hennie(SF02) wrote: >Hi all, > >Wow, but I DO have a lot of questions. I'm busy with my wings and I need to >plan ahead for all these things before I apply foam and fiberglass. > >Has anyone actually built and use flaperons - I'm sure I saw something like >this in an old newsletter. If so, I've also read somewhere that by drooping >both ailerons at low speed, does not cause satisfactory roll control by >differentiating there relative positions. I.o.w., at low speed they're fine >as flaps but no good as ailerons. I plan to use full span flaps with >spoilers for roll control or flaperons if they've been proved to be >effective with the latest KR airfoil. > >Regards, >Hennie > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >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: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 21:34:41 -0400 To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: Brian Kraut Subject: dark paint colors Message-ID: <3D4B3331.7020109@earthlink.net> I was just looking at Tommy Waymack's beautiful KR on the KR gathering web page. I love that metalic red on the top. I have been longing for something other than white for the top of my plane. I realize all the problems with dark color and UV rays and heat, etc. How many people out there have had dark colors like this on their plane for a long time? Is it really that much of a no no if it is on the turtle deck and cowl top where it is not that much of a stressed area? Is it going to make that much of a differeence over a long time if the plane is only uncovered when it is flying? Is it that much of a concern on a KR where the spruce carries most of the structural load? Are todays UV Smooth Prime and better paints that much better that it is not as much of a concern anymore? In short, am I looking for trouble putting some red and blue on my fusalage also? ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 21:06:16 -0500 To: "kr net" From: "JIM VANCE" Subject: Aileron dimensions Message-ID: <003b01c23a92$5ab14b40$37000a0a@oemcomputer> ------=_NextPart_000_0038_01C23A68.70F96EC0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The cartoons in my Rand plans says that the aileron should be 7 inches = deep at the root and five inches at the outside. I have seen several = comments in the archives that the roll rate of a KR-2 is sluggish when = compared to the elevator response. Has anyone with the AS5046 wing made the ailerons deeper? If so, how = did it fly? Opinions? Experiences? Jim Vance Vance@ClaflinWildcats.com ------=_NextPart_000_0038_01C23A68.70F96EC0-- ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2002 09:50:03 -0700 To: "krnet" From: "Darren Pond" Subject: looking for temporary finish Message-ID: <000801c23b0d$d072e700$8b969d18@cambr.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C23AD3.23AF59C0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable HI All Well Transport Canada should be finally mailing my = Registration and Airworthiness certificates. A word to the wise for the = Canadian builders make sure all your paper work is up to date and = complete. The inspector was more concerned with the crossing of the T's = and dotting of I's than the safety of the Major mod that was completed = on my Taylor Mono Plane. His Modo " when the Gross weight of the paper = work exceeds the Gross weight of the aircraft than the plane is ok to = fly". Where do we get these people? The inspector himself is actually a = homebuilder and pilot with allot of passion for aircrafts and did call = me several time after 9pm which is pretty good for a government = employee. =20 =20 My cowling is still in bear fiberglass and filler is there a simple = finish that would at least make the cowling the same colour well I fly = off my 25 hours and ensure that the cowling is the correct shape?=20 Darren Pond Cambridge Ontario Canada CYKF Taylor Mono plane C-FVML waiting on Transport Canada=20 PondHopper 2.2 turbo (KR2S Heavy) Early building stages pond27@rogers.com ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C23AD3.23AF59C0-- ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2002 09:59:40 -0700 To: "krnet" From: "Darren Pond" Subject: cooling under the canopy Message-ID: <001c01c23b0f$28768780$8b969d18@cambr.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> ------=_NextPart_000_0019_01C23AD4.7BCB6440 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable HI again I learned a little trick for keeping cool under the large glass = canopies. My local EAA Darryl Gilbert drills 6 5/32 holes several inches = above the front bottom edge of the canopy just below the site line. He = than counter sinks them lightly. Now you have ram air. When the weather = changes or cools off he take a dab of silicon and fills the holes a poke = with a drill bit pops out the plug when the heat returns. He has been = doing this for 14 years with good success. Darren Pond Cambridge Ontario Canada CYKF Taylor Mono plane C-FVML waiting on Transport Canada=20 PondHopper 2.2 turbo (KR2S Heavy) Early building stages pond27@rogers.com ------=_NextPart_000_0019_01C23AD4.7BCB6440-- ------------------------------ End of krnet Digest ***********************************