From: To: Subject: krnet Digest 5 Sep 2002 22:30:46 -0000 Issue 511 Date: Thursday, September 05, 2002 3:31 PM krnet Digest 5 Sep 2002 22:30:46 -0000 Issue 511 Topics (messages 12378 through 12400): Re: Why re-building canopy? 12378 by: gleone 12396 by: Jerry Mahurin Re: Progress report 12379 by: van Rooyen, Hennie(SF02) magneto book 12380 by: Ed Janssen 12381 by: Mark Langford KR range/landing gear 12382 by: larry flesner Re: design questions 12383 by: Donald Reid Re: PRD Hennie van Rooyen Long. 12384 by: WMartensJr.aol.com 12391 by: WMartensJr.aol.com 12399 by: WMartensJr.aol.com Multiple post Apologies. 12385 by: WMartensJr.aol.com unsuscribe 12386 by: John Perry test 12387 by: Kenny Luter trailer 12388 by: Kenny Luter canopy building, any canopy 12389 by: jim wogaman fuel, range etc. 12390 by: jim wogaman auto engines in aircraft 12392 by: jim wogaman Re: KR Issues 12393 by: Mike Mims 12394 by: Dana Overall 12395 by: cartera Re: subaru engines 12397 by: Jerry Mahurin Firewall insulation 12398 by: Art Bruce Re: KR Issues, opinions & expressions 12400 by: jim wogaman Administrivia: To subscribe to the digest, e-mail: To unsubscribe from the digest, e-mail: To post to the list, e-mail: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2002 04:51:03 -0500 To: Daniel Heath From: gleone CC: "Krnet@Mailinglists.Org" Subject: Re: KR> Why re-building canopy? Message-ID: <3D772907.5C9A7843@tritel.net> --------------6A2055587174ED9BCEB95922 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------5693F9BB5CC15AB43A86EA80" --------------5693F9BB5CC15AB43A86EA80 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit How friendly are you with your local Pizza Hut? I say that tongue in cheek, however, a friend of mine makes prosthetic appliances. He uses a pizza oven to heat plastics and then vacuum forms them on a home made vacuum table. If all you need to do is heat the plastic sheet, you might talk with a prosthetics provider or a pizza place. Alternatively, using cinder blocks and heating elements, you could make an oven that should work. That and a Shop Vac would let you make the parts you want. Just a suggestion. No flames, please. Gene, Worland, Wyoming Daniel Heath wrote: > If you are just building the wind shield, The kitchen oven works fine. Bill > Starrs > > Bill, > > That would be really great and I wish it were so, but I can't get a 15" by > 51" piece of Acrylic in my oven. I wish you lived closer, and I could come > over and use yours. > > See you in Red Oak. > > 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: 6.0.381 / Virus Database: 214 - Release Date: 8/2/2002 > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 --------------5693F9BB5CC15AB43A86EA80 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit How friendly are you with your local Pizza Hut?  I say that tongue in cheek, however, a friend of mine makes prosthetic appliances.  He uses a pizza oven to heat plastics and then vacuum forms them on a home made vacuum table.  If all you need to do is heat the plastic sheet, you might talk with a prosthetics provider or a pizza place.  Alternatively, using cinder blocks and heating elements, you could make an oven that should work.  That and a Shop Vac would let you make the parts you want.  Just a suggestion.  No flames, please.  Gene, Worland, Wyoming

Daniel Heath wrote:

If you are just building the wind shield, The kitchen oven works fine. Bill
Starrs

Bill,

That would be really great and I wish it were so, but I can't get a 15" by
51" piece of Acrylic in my oven.  I wish you lived closer, and I could come
over and use yours.

See you in Red Oak.

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: 6.0.381 / Virus Database: 214 - Release Date: 8/2/2002

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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

--------------5693F9BB5CC15AB43A86EA80-- --------------6A2055587174ED9BCEB95922-- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2002 17:03:19 -0400 To: "bstarrs" ,"Daniel Heath" , "Krnet@Mailinglists.Org" From: "Jerry Mahurin" Subject: Re: KR> RE: Why re-building canopy? Message-ID: U must have an awfully big stove in your kitchen....!!! Later, Jerry On Wed, 4 Sep 2002 16:02:38 -0700 "bstarrs" wrote: >If you are just building the wind shield, The kitchen >oven works fine. Bill >Starrs >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Daniel Heath" >To: "Krnet@Mailinglists.Org" >Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2002 5:30 PM >Subject: KR> RE: Why re-building canopy? > > >> Daniel, >> Are you rebuilding the canopy and wind screen you showed >>me pictures of >> (gull >> style)? They really look good, so what's the problem, >>why are you >> rebuilding< >> Charlie >> >> >> >> Charles, >> >> We are only re-building the windshield. We made it by >>cold wrapping >Lexan. >> It crazed badly around each of the bends. We are >>building a new one using >> Acrylic ( Plexiglas) and drape (heat) forming it. I am >>now building the >> mold and the oven. I hope to have at least a test out >>of this oven on >this >> mold before I leave for the gathering. >> >> I will have full pictures and narrative on the site as >>soon as I get some >> results to show. >> >> Later, >> >> See you in Red Oak. >> >> 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: 6.0.381 / Virus Database: 214 - Release Date: >>8/2/2002 >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> 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 >> >> > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >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 > Jerry Mahurin Lugoff, SC http://kr-builder.org http://jerrymahurin.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 03:35:27 -0500 To: "'krnet@mailinglists.org'" From: "van Rooyen, Hennie(SF02)" Subject: FW: KR> Progress report Hi Bob, I REALLY enjoyed browsing around on your site. Keep it up! Is the intercooler a must have for the turbo'd type IV? Also, is it mandatory to, at the very least, move the oil cooler from it's original location? I hope not... Regards, Hennie van Rooyen South Africa "If you're interested in seeing my idea of a Turbo-intercooled VW Type IV engine take a look at my diary pages at: http://flyboybob.com/web_pages/kr2/diary/diary_pages.htm." ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 07:34:11 -0500 To: From: ejanssen@chipsnet.com (Ed Janssen) Subject: magneto book Message-ID: <008d01c254d8$89b67360$0200a8c0@dad> ------=_NextPart_000_008A_01C254AE.A0BED9A0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Saw this link on another list. Good magneto book. Looks like it might = be interesting reading. Ed Janssen http://www.sacskyranch.com/pubsmag.htm=20 ------=_NextPart_000_008A_01C254AE.A0BED9A0-- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 07:38:52 -0500 To: From: "Mark Langford" Subject: Re: KR> magneto book Message-ID: <008c01c254d9$3172aab0$0100a8c0@TD310> Ed Janssen wrote: >>Saw this link on another list. Good magneto book. Looks like it might be interesting reading. Ed Janssen http://www.sacskyranch.com/pubsmag.htm << They also have an "engineering manual" that is a must have, especially if you have an "official" aircraft engine in your airplane, but even if you don't. It's only about 20 bucks, and will take you a month to read it all. Let the record show that I'm not getting into this Subaru fray, but I know two guys that took Soob engines off their firewalls and weighed them, and the REAL number was something like 285 pounds, water and all. I personally think of water cooling as another mode of engine failure, but that's just my twisted logic. They ARE bulletproof, if the water stays in there, but so's the Corvair... Mark Langford, Huntsville, Alabama mailto:langford@hiwaay.net see KR2S N56ML at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2002 07:40:52 -0500 To: Bdazzcamro@aol.com,krnet@mailinglists.org (krnet) From: larry flesner Subject: KR range/landing gear Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20020905074052.00985700@mail.midwest.net> At 12:54 AM 9/5/02 EDT, Bdazzcamro@aol.com wrote: >First, the range differance on the KR-2 and KR-2S is very different why is >that? Second, I want the range on my KR-2S to be 1600 miles like the KR-2, >how do I go about doing that? Third, can I put retacts to make it better >streamline to get my range that I want or at least help it out some? I would >like to be able to fit 35- 40 gallons of fuel on board with retracts. >David Swanson , ( Soon to be flier ) bdazzcamro@aol.com ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Dave, Those are some pretty lofty design goals you are shooting for. The reality is they will be nearly impossible to achieve. Range: The KR2 is advertised as a 180 MPH aircraft burning about 4 gph on fuel. 35 gal of fuel would get you near the 1600 mile range but I'd think you would want someone there to lift you out of the airplane. Nine hours in a KR !! Realisticly, depending on engine used, figure 150/160 MPH cruise (some will say this is optimistic) 4.5 to 7 gph fuel burn, and 25 gal about the max on fuel capacity. I've not seen or compared the ads but it sounds to me like the difference might be "reality check". The original KR numbers were probably based on a 480 lb KR flying high with a turbo. Few builders have been able to match these numbers. Using an 0-200 with 25 gal wing tanks, I'm hoping for a 150+MPH cruise, a three hour endurance with comfortable reserve, and I'll be grinning real big if I get both. My advise, add 30 percent to your estimated building cost, 50 percent to your estimated building time, and cut your estimated performance numbers by 25 percent and end up a happy camper. Your results may vary. :-) As to the gear, most builders report the same or "better" performance with well faired in fixed gear than the retracts. Of course if you are wanting to log retract time, go for it. Given the design and safety record of the retracts, fixed gear is the only way to go. There are some retract designs out there besides the RR unit that might do you some good but you are adding time ,complexity, expense to the project. Given all the above, the KR is still a good "bang for the buck". Good luck and happy building. Larry Flesner Carterville, Illinois, USA ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2002 09:00:59 -0400 To: krnet@mailinglists.org (krnet) From: Donald Reid Subject: Re: KR> design questions Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.0.20020905085609.00a35310@pop.erols.com> --=====================_786293==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 12:54 AM 9/5/2002 -0400, Bdazzcamro@aol.com wrote: >I want the range on my KR-2S to be 1600 miles like the KR-2, >how do I go about doing that? Ken Rand was able to get that kind of range on his KR2 because of several mods that he made. Both outer wing panels were wet between the spars, from wing attachment fittings to wing tip. He also had a turbo and a constant speed prop and cruised at 15 - 20,000 with a true airspeed of over 180. 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 --=====================_786293==_.ALT-- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 09:21:05 EDT To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: WMartensJr@aol.com Subject: Fwd: FW: KR> PRD Hennie van Rooyen Long. Message-ID: <197.c8c5b77.2aa8b441@aol.com> --part1_197.c8c5b77.2aa8b441_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit --part1_197.c8c5b77.2aa8b441_boundary Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Return-path: From: WMartensJr@aol.com Full-name: WMartensJr Message-ID: <17a.dfc4b9a.2aa8b38b@aol.com> Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 09:18:03 EDT Subject: Re: FW: KR> PRD Hennie van Rooyen Long. To: engalt@earthlink.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part2_197.c8c5b77.2aa8b38b_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 10512 --part2_197.c8c5b77.2aa8b38b_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I'd like to come out of lurk mode once again and speak up on this PSRU. I don't have any experience with this particular unit but I'd like to share some experiences behind belted units. First, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of PSRU belted units out there working flawlessly in low horsepower applications, specifically mounted on the front of many two stroke engines happily dragging ultralight fliers around the sky. I know, I was one of them and had a blasted piloting those craft around for almost 700 hours. When I lived in Panama you needed to have a pilots license to fly ultralights and had to document hours the same as for a private pilots. I've even had the pleasure of flying behind a few auto engine conversions with large belted PSRU's. Very stable and reliable with the added advantage of absorbing firing pulse vibrations getting to the prop. There are some caveats with that though. Some engine/prop combinations do not work well together particularly with metal props. Follow the manufacturers recommendations in this area. I personally do not remember a lot that I had learned about in this regard as it's been a few years. Anyway, they run fine, last a long time, just need normal care and feeding like you would any part on your engine if the design is up to the task at hand. Change the belts regularly especially when you see unusual wear, cracks, drying etc. Don't store them outside if at all possible. Keep bearings lubed properly and secured. Change when necessary or establish some interval to do so if the manufacturer has not done so. Normal maintenance. My opinions on this particular unit. I wouldn't worry about the part bolted on the engine ripping out. The major forces of prop thrust are going to be pulling on that prop shaft and the bearings there. Personally I'd like to see the shaft extended back further to a second stabilizing set of bearings which would spread the thrust load. As for the belts, multi-belted units have some advantages over a single broad belt. If one fails or is damaged there are others to take up the load. If the bearing should fail or allow lateral movement multiple belts eliminate transfer of that lateral force across the broad plate side of the belt. A load the belt was not designed for and can cause excess belt heat and failure. The belts also might touch each other but there is little to zero rubbing because there is little to zero movement from one belt relative to another. There is the movement of the belts as sections transition from flat to curve as it rounds the pulleys but again, the belts are in unison and this wear is minimal especially after break in. There might be some initial wearing in then it stabilizes. So the only worry would be if one belt were to slip against the pulley a bit and increase wear. This can't happen with this unit as the belts/pulleys are cogged. So I guess the only possible weakness I see with this unit is the short prop shaft. I can't tell from the photos just how beefy that shaft/bearing juncture is but it does look stout. I'd just prefer an extended shaft to a second bearing station for added shaft stability. Just my opinion on all of this so take it for the cost you paid for it. Just one small story though: The only failure I've ever seen resulted from an individual taking an aircraft out of storage and not replacing the belts or those very same bearings after it had been idle for many years. Flew fine for several months and then one day we were island hopping over near Colombia on the Panama north coast. Edward and I were about two miles out over the water in separate machines with two more aircraft about halfway between us and the coastline. Ed radioed that he was losing thrust every time he advanced the throttle as rpm's ran away and he was turning back to the coast. I raced over right quick and flew right above him about three/four feet away trying to find out how many belts he had left as we'd already figured he'd lost a few of the six. What I saw was the prop shaft pushed forward by about an inch after the rear bearing froze and failed. The lateral force on the belts must have all but immediately caused one belt to fail and the other five to flip on their sides. They were approximately 1/2 inch belts each in individual v-grooves on the pulley wheels. Ed and I made it to the coast but there was no safe place to land with high foliage blanketing the landscape. I was able to find a small stream which I guided him to and he set it down in about six feet of water stopping right at the embankment. Imagine my horror when I flew tight circles twice and never saw Ed appear from underwater! I radioed the other aircraft that I might have to ditch and pull him out of the aircraft fearing he'd banged his head on the dash and was about to do so when he finally popped out. Damned fool scared the hell out of me trying to recover the handheld radio he used strapped to the dash! I could have killed him myself later! Anyway, managed to flay back a few miles to a small village and landed on a small beach strip there. Got the natives to go out in their boats and recover the aircraft. Two guys actually dove in and held the aircraft at the surface while we removed the wings. The small current had washed away remaining petrol that had leaked out. Got the parts back to the beach and they were willing to store the parts till we could get back. Three days later we finally made it through the jungle and arrived there with three trucks. Strapped everything to roofs, trailers, you name it and headed back. We rebuilt the aircraft better than new, recovered the aircraft, replaced the bearings and belts and that PSRU is still flying today eleven years later. And Ed must fly probably three or four times a week for an hour or two each day with most Saturdays being a five or six our affair to the interior. Flying over the canal and both coasts with the islands is like therapy down there. We never did make it to our destination that day. A hotel on the far northeast coast of Panama that is only reachable by air or boat. Best lobster in the Caribbean I'm told. Best regards, Walt In a message dated 9/3/2002 8:31:26 PM Eastern Daylight Time, engalt@earthlink.net writes: > I don't know if I would trust this one. I don't think there is near > enough beef where this is bolted to the engine case. I wouldn't be > surprised at all to see the threads of the bolts tear right out of the > case. I also don't like the idea of the three belts on one pully > either. They can rub against each other and wear. I have seen pulleys > that space multiple belts apart from each other a little and they seem > to work good. If you started to unravel the side of one of these belts > it would tear up the others in no time. If one belt broke it would > cause the others to wander on the pulleys also. Actually, that probably > would not happen because the broken one would wind up tangled in the > others for two seconds before the whole thing came apart. > > Of course, this is just my opinion. If there are a bunch out there with > thousands of hours than I am obviously wrong. > --part2_197.c8c5b77.2aa8b38b_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I'd like to come out of lurk mode once again and speak up on this PSRU.  I don't have any experience with this particular unit but I'd like to share some experiences behind belted units.

First, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of PSRU belted units out there working flawlessly in low horsepower applications, specifically mounted on the front of many two stroke engines happily dragging ultralight fliers around the sky.  I know, I was one of them and had a blasted piloting those craft around for almost 700 hours. When I lived in Panama you needed to have a pilots license to fly ultralights and had to document hours the same as for a private pilots. I've even had the pleasure of flying behind a few auto engine conversions with large belted PSRU's.  Very stable and reliable with the added advantage of absorbing firing pulse vibrations getting to the prop. There are some caveats with that though.  Some engine/prop combinations do not work well together particularly with metal props.  Follow the manufacturers recommendations in this area. I personally do not remember a lot that I had learned about in this regard as it's been a few years.

Anyway, they run fine, last a long time, just need normal care and feeding like you would any part on your engine if the design is up to the task at hand. Change the belts regularly especially when you see unusual wear, cracks, drying etc.  Don't store them outside if at all possible.  Keep bearings lubed properly and secured.  Change when necessary or establish some interval to do so if the manufacturer has not done so.  Normal maintenance.

My opinions on this particular unit.  I wouldn't worry about the part bolted on the engine ripping out.  The major forces of prop thrust are going to be pulling on that prop shaft and the bearings there.  Personally I'd like to see the shaft extended back further to a second stabilizing set of bearings which would spread the thrust load. 

As for the belts, multi-belted units have some advantages over a single broad belt.  If one fails or is damaged there are others to take up the load.  If the bearing should fail or allow lateral movement multiple belts eliminate transfer of that lateral force across the broad plate side of the belt.  A load the belt was not designed for and can cause excess belt heat and failure. The belts also might touch each other but there is little to zero rubbing because there is little to zero movement from one belt relative to another.  There is the movement of the belts as sections transition from flat to curve as it rounds the pulleys but again, the belts are in unison and this wear is minimal especially after break in.  There might be some initial wearing in then it stabilizes. So the only worry would be if one belt were to slip against the pulley a bit and increase wear.  This can't happen with this unit as the belts/pulleys are cogged.

So I guess the only possible weakness I see with this unit is the short prop shaft.  I can't tell from the photos just how beefy that shaft/bearing juncture is but it does look stout.  I'd just prefer an extended shaft to a second bearing station for added shaft stability.

Just my opinion on all of this so take it for the cost you paid for it.  Just one small story though:

The only failure I've ever seen resulted from an individual taking an aircraft out of storage and not replacing the belts or those very same bearings after it had been idle for many years.  Flew fine for several months and then one day we were island hopping over near Colombia on the Panama north coast.  Edward and I were about two miles out over the water in separate machines with two more aircraft about halfway between us and the coastline. Ed radioed that he was losing thrust every time he advanced the throttle as rpm's ran away and he was turning back to the coast.  I raced over right quick and flew right above him about three/four feet away trying to find out how many belts he had left as we'd already figured he'd lost a few of the six.  What I saw was the prop shaft pushed forward by about an inch after the rear bearing froze and failed.  The lateral force on the belts must have all but immediately caused one belt to fail and the other five to flip on their sides.  They were approximately 1/2 inch belts each in individual v-grooves on the pulley wheels.

Ed and I made it to the coast but there was no safe place to land with high foliage blanketing the landscape.  I was able to find a small stream which I guided him to and he set it down in about six feet of water stopping right at the embankment.

Imagine my horror when I flew tight circles twice and never saw Ed appear from underwater!  I radioed the other aircraft that I might have to ditch and pull him out of the aircraft fearing he'd banged his head on the dash and was about to do so when he finally popped out. Damned fool scared the hell out of me trying to recover the handheld radio he used strapped to the dash!  I could have killed him myself later!  Anyway, managed to flay back a few miles to a small village and landed on a small beach strip there.  Got the natives to go out in their boats and recover the aircraft.  Two guys actually dove in and held the aircraft at the surface while we removed the wings.  The small current had washed away remaining petrol that had leaked out.  Got the parts back to the beach and they were willing to store the parts till we could get back.

Three days later we finally made it through the jungle and arrived there with three trucks.  Strapped everything to roofs, trailers, you name it and headed back. We rebuilt the aircraft better than new, recovered the aircraft, replaced the bearings and belts and that PSRU is still flying today eleven years later.  And Ed must fly probably three or four times a week for an hour or two each day with most Saturdays being a five or six our affair to the interior.  Flying over the canal and both coasts with the islands is like therapy down there. 

We never did make it to our destination that day.  A hotel on the far northeast coast of Panama that is only reachable by air or boat.  Best lobster in the Caribbean I'm told.

Best regards,
Walt


In a message dated 9/3/2002 8:31:26 PM Eastern Daylight Time, engalt@earthlink.net writes:


I don't know if I would trust this one.  I don't think there is near
enough beef where this is bolted to the engine case.  I wouldn't be
surprised at all to see the threads of the bolts tear right out of the
case.  I also don't like the idea of the three belts on one pully
either.  They can rub against each other and wear.  I have seen pulleys
that space multiple belts apart from each other a little and they seem
to work good.  If you started to unravel the side of one of these belts
it would tear up the others in no time.  If one belt broke it would
cause the others to wander on the pulleys also.  Actually, that probably
would not happen because the broken one would wind up tangled in the
others for two seconds before the whole thing came apart.

Of course, this is just my opinion.  If there are a bunch out there with
thousands of hours than I am obviously wrong.



 --part2_197.c8c5b77.2aa8b38b_boundary-- --part1_197.c8c5b77.2aa8b441_boundary-- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 10:12:19 EDT To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: WMartensJr@aol.com Subject: Re: FW: KR> PRD Hennie van Rooyen Long. Message-ID: <78.2c377d43.2aa8c043@aol.com> I'd like to come out of lurk mode once again and speak up on this PSRU. I don't have any experience with this particular unit but I'd like to share some experiences behind belted units. First, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of PSRU belted units out there working flawlessly in low horsepower applications, specifically mounted on the front of many two stroke engines happily dragging ultralight fliers around the sky. I know, I was one of them and had a blasted piloting those craft around for almost 700 hours. When I lived in Panama you needed to have a pilots license to fly ultralights and had to document hours the same as for a private pilots. I've even had the pleasure of flying behind a few auto engine conversions with large belted PSRU's. Very stable and reliable with the added advantage of absorbing firing pulse vibrations getting to the prop. There are some caveats with that though. Some engine/prop combinations do not work well together particularly with metal props. Follow the manufacturers recommendations in this area. I personally do not remember a lot that I had learned about in this regard as it's been a few years. Anyway, they run fine, last a long time, just need normal care and feeding like you would any part on your engine if the design is up to the task at hand. Change the belts regularly especially when you see unusual wear, cracks, drying etc. Don't store them outside if at all possible. Keep bearings lubed properly and secured. Change when necessary or establish some interval to do so if the manufacturer has not done so. Normal maintenance. My opinions on this particular unit. I wouldn't worry about the part bolted on the engine ripping out. The major forces of prop thrust are going to be pulling on that prop shaft and the bearings there. Personally I'd like to see the shaft extended back further to a second stabilizing set of bearings which would spread the thrust load. As for the belts, multi-belted units have some advantages over a single broad belt. If one fails or is damaged there are others to take up the load. If the bearing should fail or allow lateral movement multiple belts eliminate transfer of that lateral force across the broad plate side of the belt. A load the belt was not designed for and can cause excess belt heat and failure. The belts also might touch each other but there is little to zero rubbing because there is little to zero movement from one belt relative to another. There is the movement of the belts as sections transition from flat to curve as it rounds the pulleys but again, the belts are in unison and this wear is minimal especially after break in. There might be some initial wearing in then it stabilizes. So the only worry would be if one belt were to slip against the pulley a bit and increase wear. This can't happen with this unit as the belts/pulleys are cogged. So I guess the only possible weakness I see with this unit is the short prop shaft. I can't tell from the photos just how beefy that shaft/bearing juncture is but it does look stout. I'd just prefer an extended shaft to a second bearing station for added shaft stability. Just my opinion on all of this so take it for the cost you paid for it. Just one small story though: The only failure I've ever seen resulted from an individual taking an aircraft out of storage and not replacing the belts or those very same bearings after it had been idle for many years. Flew fine for several months and then one day we were island hopping over near Colombia on the Panama north coast. Edward and I were about two miles out over the water in separate machines with two more aircraft about halfway between us and the coastline. Ed radioed that he was losing thrust every time he advanced the throttle as rpm's ran away and he was turning back to the coast. I raced over right quick and flew right above him about three/four feet away trying to find out how many belts he had left as we'd already figured he'd lost a few of the six. What I saw was the prop shaft pushed forward by about an inch after the rear bearing froze and failed. The lateral force on the belts must have all but immediately caused one belt to fail and the other five to flip on their sides. They were approximately 1/2 inch belts each in individual v-grooves on the pulley wheels. Ed and I made it to the coast but there was no safe place to land with high foliage blanketing the landscape. I was able to find a small stream which I guided him to and he set it down in about six feet of water stopping right at the embankment. Imagine my horror when I flew tight circles twice and never saw Ed appear from underwater! I radioed the other aircraft that I might have to ditch and pull him out of the aircraft fearing he'd banged his head on the dash and was about to do so when he finally popped out. Damned fool scared the hell out of me trying to recover the handheld radio he used strapped to the dash! I could have killed him myself later! Anyway, managed to flay back a few miles to a small village and landed on a small beach strip there. Got the natives to go out in their boats and recover the aircraft. Two guys actually dove in and held the aircraft at the surface while we removed the wings. The small current had washed away remaining petrol that had leaked out. Got the parts back to the beach and they were willing to store the parts till we could get back. Three days later we finally made it through the jungle and arrived there with three trucks. Strapped everything to roofs, trailers, you name it and headed back. We rebuilt the aircraft better than new, recovered the aircraft, replaced the bearings and belts and that PSRU is still flying today eleven years later. And Ed must fly probably three or four times a week for an hour or two each day with most Saturdays being a five or six our affair to the interior. Flying over the canal and both coasts with the islands is like therapy down there. We never did make it to our destination that day. A hotel on the far northeast coast of Panama that is only reachable by air or boat. Best lobster in the Caribbean I'm told. Best regards, Walt In a message dated 9/3/2002 8:31:26 PM Eastern Daylight Time, engalt@earthlink.net writes: I don't know if I would trust this one. I don't think there is near enough beef where this is bolted to the engine case. I wouldn't be surprised at all to see the threads of the bolts tear right out of the case. I also don't like the idea of the three belts on one pully either. They can rub against each other and wear. I have seen pulleys that space multiple belts apart from each other a little and they seem to work good. If you started to unravel the side of one of these belts it would tear up the others in no time. If one belt broke it would cause the others to wander on the pulleys also. Actually, that probably would not happen because the broken one would wind up tangled in the others for two seconds before the whole thing came apart. Of course, this is just my opinion. If there are a bunch out there with thousands of hours than I am obviously wrong. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 18:03:22 EDT To: jwog1@copper.net From: WMartensJr@aol.com CC: krnet@mailinglists.org Subject: Re: FW: KR> PRD Hennie van Rooyen Long. Message-ID: --part1_f7.20e1b9af.2aa92eaa_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cleo, The aircraft was a CGS Hawk two place tandem. Aluminum tube and fabric construction. Real blast to fly and really had a small wing yet climb and stall performance was great. PSRU that was on it was stock from CGS Aviation. I remember speaking up that Ed should change the belts when he was putting it together when he first took it out of storage but I'm not sure that would have helped since it was a bearing failure that allowed the shaft to slip forward and cause loss of power. Nobody thought of tearing those apart and putting in new bearings. As it was the plane ended up much better after the accident than before. We cleaned and powdercoated all the tubes before reassembly. Replaced all the AN fittings/bolts etc. We were really concerned about corrosion after the submersion in salt/brackish water. Found a few ways to lighten the load also although at 5'7" and maybe #130 wet Ed had a decided advantage over the rest of us that flew around there in payload hauling capability. The unit that was on the auto conversion aircraft I flew was another commercially available unit but I don't recall the name of the company that made it. One of these days I'll have to dig out all those old photos which are still in boxes from all the moves over the past decade. Regards, Walt In a message dated 9/5/2002 5:34:41 PM Eastern Daylight Time, jwog1@copper.net writes: > Walt: Was this PRD unit home built? Fantastic story. What type of plane? jim > wogaman jwog1@copper.net --part1_f7.20e1b9af.2aa92eaa_boundary-- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 09:22:20 EDT To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: WMartensJr@aol.com Subject: Multiple post Apologies. Message-ID: <3e.23b90251.2aa8b48c@aol.com> --part1_3e.23b90251.2aa8b48c_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sorry for the multiple posts. Damned html mail replies all to original sender then I fat fingered cut and pasting. Walt --part1_3e.23b90251.2aa8b48c_boundary-- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2002 08:37:17 -0500 To: Krnet@Mailinglists.Org From: John Perry Subject: unsuscribe Message-id: <016701c254e1$5aec5e10$f937fea9@PERRYMR4DOWAVX> ------=_NextPart_000_0164_01C254B7.716B21F0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable ------=_NextPart_000_0164_01C254B7.716B21F0-- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 09:43:24 -0400 To: From: "Kenny Luter" Subject: test Message-ID: <009b01c254e2$356d68e0$c4b50ad8@hppav> ------=_NextPart_000_0098_01C254C0.ADAC4F00 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable test tried two post earlier and it has not showed up=20 ------=_NextPart_000_0098_01C254C0.ADAC4F00-- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 09:45:35 -0400 To: From: "Kenny Luter" Subject: trailer Message-ID: <00b401c254e2$83687bc0$c4b50ad8@hppav> ------=_NextPart_000_00B1_01C254C0.FBA761E0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Figured out I needed a subject DUH Why not rent an enclosed truck and build a vibration damped support structure to fit the fusalage ( 3or4 sets of discarded mattress sets = should do ). Secure from moving around with some rope and padding . . If the = boat cant take this trip I would'nt want to hit CAT at 150 mph at 6000'. = Kenny ----- Original Message ----- ------=_NextPart_000_00B1_01C254C0.FBA761E0-- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 09:05:41 -0400 To: "hennie van `rooyan" From: "jim wogaman" Subject: KR> canopy building, any canopy Message-ID: <001a01c254dc$f0e0d540$3cc429d1@jeannielobell> ------=_NextPart_000_0017_01C254BB.68BB0620 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Netters: There used to be a canopy shop in Fairborn, OH. The owners also = built a Glasair. If anyone is interested, I'll check to see if they are = still in operation. jim wogaman jwog1@copper.net cleo :-) ----- Original Message -----=20 From: gleone=20 To: Daniel Heath=20 Cc: Krnet@Mailinglists.Org=20 Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2002 5:51 AM Subject: Re: KR> Why re-building canopy? How friendly are you with your local Pizza Hut? I say that tongue in = cheek, however, a friend of mine makes prosthetic appliances. He uses a = pizza oven to heat plastics and then vacuum forms them on a home made = vacuum table. If all you need to do is heat the plastic sheet, you = might talk with a prosthetics provider or a pizza place. Alternatively, = using cinder blocks and heating elements, you could make an oven that = should work. That and a Shop Vac would let you make the parts you want. = Just a suggestion. No flames, please. Gene, Worland, Wyoming=20 Daniel Heath wrote:=20 If you are just building the wind shield, The kitchen oven works = fine. Bill=20 Starrs=20 Bill,=20 That would be really great and I wish it were so, but I can't get a = 15" by=20 51" piece of Acrylic in my oven. I wish you lived closer, and I = could come=20 over and use yours.=20 See you in Red Oak.=20 Daniel R. Heath=20 See our KR2 at: http://kr-builder.org=20 See our EAA Chapter 242at: http://WWW.EAA242.ORG=20 ---=20 Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.=20 Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).=20 Version: 6.0.381 / Virus Database: 214 - Release Date: 8/2/2002=20 = ---------------------------------------------------------------------=20 To post to the list, email: krnet@mailinglists.org , NOT "reply all" = To UNsubscribe, e-mail: krnet-unsubscribe@mailinglists.org=20 For additional commands, e-mail: krnet-help@mailinglists.org=20 See the KRNet archives at http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp=20 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=20 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 ------=_NextPart_000_0017_01C254BB.68BB0620-- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 09:48:44 -0400 To: From: "jim wogaman" Cc: "hennie van `rooyan" Subject: fuel, range etc. Message-ID: <005b01c254e2$f4a6a820$3cc429d1@jeannielobell> ------=_NextPart_000_0058_01C254C1.6C348DC0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable netters & bdazz: 1 gal. fuel weighs approx. 6.0 or .026 lb per cu. inc. = ie 40 gal =3D a medium line backer. compute estimate how far one lb of = fuel will take you @ conservative cruise speed. Also perhaps you may = wish to consider sitting in that rather small area for extended periods = of time. It can do wierd things to your mind and reflexes. Remember you = can't pull over and stretch etc. Here's a liquid table that you may = consider. liquid lb/gal lb/cu--in antifreeze 9.4 .040 gas 6.0 .026 =20 hydraulic 7.2 .031 lube-oil 7.5 .033 h2o 8.3 .036 =20 cleo :-) jim wogaman jwog1@copper.net for those long trips put in a = relief tube! ------=_NextPart_000_0058_01C254C1.6C348DC0-- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 10:08:07 -0400 To: From: "jim wogaman" Cc: "hennie van `rooyan" Subject: auto engines in aircraft Message-ID: <007101c254e5$a9d8d900$3cc429d1@jeannielobell> ------=_NextPart_000_006E_01C254C4.215F1D80 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable netters: Several other engines worth considering are honda Civics, = Toyota except for the late model V6s (sludge problems), dodge neons, = etc. The engineering on the auto engines is better than convential A/C = engines. Probably want to remove pollution gear, modify the computer = etc. get PRD. Any of you that have built the plane can do the engine = mods. I saw an old Chev. 4300 V6 in a reworked 4 place Cessna. Owner = said he sold the original engine to help pay back his bank account for = the plane. This was a truck engine. He really liked it. Liked being debt = free too. jim wogaman jwog1@copper.net cleo :-) ------=_NextPart_000_006E_01C254C4.215F1D80-- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 08:16:46 -0700 (PDT) To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: Mike Mims Subject: Re: KR> KR Issues Message-ID: <20020905151647.94382.qmail@web10801.mail.yahoo.com> Hello and welcome to last week. Lets refrain from calling some peoples engine choices "junk". Have you ever flown behind a VW? I’m talking a well-maintained VW made from NEW parts? Unless things have changed in the last couple of years most Subaru powered KRs are about as fast as a PA-18 on floats and weigh darn near as much. As you put it lets “get with the program” and be respectful of other ideas even if they involve something that was designed in the 1930s. BTW how does that make it bad? And FWIW your little airplane that you are building…….designed in the 1950s….must be a bad design huh? Hey don’t get me wrong, I like new things…especially when they get old. --- Ronevogt@aol.com wrote: > Yo KR-2ers; > I've been reading the various postings for a > few months now and have > decided to get in my 2 cents worth. The three main > points I wish to address > are engine type, weight and modern upgrades. > 1) With the advent of the modern Subaru > engines, why are you guys > using VW junk? __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes http://finance.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2002 13:35:57 -0400 To: gti20vturbo@yahoo.com, krnet@mailinglists.org From: "Dana Overall" Subject: Re: KR> KR Issues Message-ID: Boy, that sure is a great way to introduce yourself. Have to respectfully disagree about the "junk" post. Question, whose pic is posted in the next to last KR Newsletter from Monte that claims 1800FPM. The last time I saw Les's airplane fly, it was like a squadran of fighter pilots running to their VW powered KRs to take to the air. Les was doing those wide open 145MPH high speed low passes.........or was that 145MPH low speed high passes, while the 1835 and 2180 VW's buzzed by gloriously (and quite a bit faster). Dana Overall Richmond, KY 1999 & 2000 National KR Gathering host http://rvflying.tripod.com > _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2002 13:20:47 -0600 To: Dana Overall From: cartera CC: gti20vturbo@yahoo.com, krnet@mailinglists.org Subject: Re: KR> KR Issues Message-ID: <3D77AE8F.27C14573@cuug.ab.ca> Hello Dans & KR Gang, Don't be too hard on these know it all ego trippers. We that have done it know what the decision process is and if we choose wrong we just have to live with it. These newbies are not ignorant or stupid, just uninformed. I know the process and investigated the 0200, Hirth, Suburu and finally settled on the 1835cc and with and economy of 3.2 US gals or 3.0Imperial gals per hour, now tell me how you can beat that. And, did not want a 1600 mi range because my kidneys could not take it even with Little John. Three or two hops is much more realistic, think of the extra instruments needed for IMC conditions which will certainly be encountered. Time to think about a RV, hey Dana? Take a look at Robert Patlovany's 493 lb KR url on my website, can be done, can be done. Hey Guys, have a hellva time in Red Oaks and want to see some photos after. To the KR Sqaderon, Thank You! Dana Overall wrote: > > Boy, that sure is a great way to introduce yourself. Have to respectfully > disagree about the "junk" post. > > Question, whose pic is posted in the next to last KR Newsletter from Monte > that claims 1800FPM. The last time I saw Les's airplane fly, it was like a > squadran of fighter pilots running to their VW powered KRs to take to the > air. Les was doing those wide open 145MPH high speed low passes.........or > was that 145MPH low speed high passes, while the 1835 and 2180 VW's buzzed > by gloriously (and quite a bit faster). > > Dana Overall > Richmond, KY > 1999 & 2000 National KR Gathering host > http://rvflying.tripod.com -- Adrian VE6AFY Calgary, Alberta Mailto:cartera@cuug.ab.ca http://www.cuug.ab.ca/~cartera ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2002 17:06:01 -0400 To: "jim wogaman" , From: "Jerry Mahurin" Cc: "hennie van `rooyan" Subject: Re: KR> subaru engines Message-ID: Of course all these figures are on automobile installations......... Jerry Mahurin Lugoff, SC http://kr-builder.org http://jerrymahurin.com On Wed, 4 Sep 2002 20:23:31 -0400 "jim wogaman" wrote: >Several my coworkers have had Subs and they swear by >them. 200K miles is nothing to these cars. Usually the >body is rough by the time 200K but the engine is doing >fine. I did some research on their engines HP output in >Japan, no pollution stuff on engine. The Japanese graphic >charts show a 4 cylinder out of their best car doing >144HP no soup, no blower etc. Probably had the computer >reprogrammed though. I think the engine I researched >weighed 240 out of the car. Perhaps the engine is the >best part of the vehicle and that's the flyer wants. I >seen one in a tri gear KISS. There's a lot of HP in these >new auto engines. My wife has a Toyota Camry 2002, 4 cyl. >2.4 Lt. 157HP stock. At 2300 RPM it going 77MPH not even >working hard. The great auto trans has much to do with >that too.. You all have a safe, great time in IA. jim >wogaman >cleo :-) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 17:37:58 -0400 To: "KRNET" From: "Art Bruce" Subject: Firewall insulation Message-ID: <001101c25524$8d6b5380$a7ce4cc7@abruceeagnet.com> ------=_NextPart_000_000E_01C25502.F9A60DA0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Was re-doing the firewall on my KR-2S. After reading Tony Bingelis' = "FIREWALL FORWARD" I noticed on page 63 that he recommended some stuff = called Zetex800. After a few calls to the manufacturer and some = distributors (most will only sell it to you in 50 yd. rolls) I found a = source which is much more reasonable. VWR International sells this stuff = to insulate tables in labs. It comes in a better size for our use = (60"X36") for only $ 27.78 plus s&h. This should be enough product to do = 2 KR firewalls. See the product at = WWW.vwrsp.com/catalog/product/index.cdi?object_id=3D0006685 If mine = arrives before I leave for Red Oak, I'll bring the remnant for sale. Art = Bruce, Kingsland GA ------=_NextPart_000_000E_01C25502.F9A60DA0-- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 17:47:18 -0400 To: "hennie van `rooyan" From: "jim wogaman" Subject: Re: KR> KR Issues, opinions & expressions Message-ID: <006f01c25525$cf769040$e3c429d1@jeannielobell> Mr. Mike: You are right-on! We should always use smooth language and expressions, if not it could cause a pugilistic encounter where a rare form of fisticuffs would be employed and evolve in an exchange ballistic projectiles! Really no one would put junk on or in their plane. Plus some person that can't afford a completely new, reworked, top of line engine can enjoy what they have. Why throw trash comments? It will not improve the communications! We are all here for the same thing! You people have established a great thing here! It would be a sad, shame to see it become a garbage heap of bad taste comments. The old USMC Korean era jarhead. jim wogaman jwog1@copper.net cleo :-) ----- Original Message ----- From: Mike Mims To: Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2002 11:16 AM Subject: Re: KR> KR Issues > Hello and welcome to last week. Lets refrain from > calling some peoples engine choices "junk". Have you > ever flown behind a VW? I'm talking a well-maintained > VW made from NEW parts? Unless things have changed in > the last couple of years most Subaru powered KRs are > about as fast as a PA-18 on floats and weigh darn near > as much. As you put it lets "get with the program" > and be respectful of other ideas even if they involve > something that was designed in the 1930s. BTW how does > that make it bad? And FWIW your little airplane that > you are building...designed in the 1950s..must be a > bad design huh? Hey don't get me wrong, I like new > things.especially when they get old. > > > > --- Ronevogt@aol.com wrote: > > Yo KR-2ers; > > I've been reading the various postings for a > > few months now and have > > decided to get in my 2 cents worth. The three main > > points I wish to address > > are engine type, weight and modern upgrades. > > 1) With the advent of the modern Subaru > > engines, why are you guys > > using VW junk? > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes > http://finance.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 > ------------------------------ End of krnet Digest ***********************************