From: To: Subject: krnet Digest 2 Jan 2003 15:41:26 -0000 Issue 595 Date: Thursday, January 02, 2003 7:42 AM krnet Digest 2 Jan 2003 15:41:26 -0000 Issue 595 Topics (messages 14167 through 14196): Re: tailwheel landing 14167 by: virgnvs.juno.com 14170 by: David McKelvey 14171 by: Dan Heath 14172 by: kevin 14187 by: Drsavage1.aol.com 14191 by: kevin 14192 by: Jeff York 14194 by: Robert Stone Re: For Sale 14168 by: David Clinthonre 14173 by: LORDYN1.aol.com 14188 by: n886kr.netscape.net 14195 by: Frank Dungan Re: Progress Report 14169 by: David Clinthonre short field t/landings in a kr 14174 by: Flymaca711689.aol.com Cowling weight 14175 by: Rick Wilson 14177 by: Mark Langford 14180 by: James Wester 14182 by: Mark Langford 14183 by: Dan Heath Re: Fuel pump layout 14176 by: Joseph H Horton 14196 by: larry flesner Re:GT propellers and others for 2180 VW 14178 by: Jeff York 14181 by: Jeff York Discovery Wings 14179 by: James Wester 14184 by: Jeff York 14193 by: kevin Re: Center Stick and Limbach Engine Mount Wanted 14185 by: jim . synergy design Fuel Economy 14186 by: Kenneth L Wiltrout 14190 by: larry flesner Re: 3d drawing of KR2S 14189 by: n886kr.netscape.net Administrivia: To subscribe to the digest, e-mail: To unsubscribe from the digest, e-mail: To post to the list, e-mail: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 1 Jan 2003 11:33:56 -0500 To: KRnet@mailinglists.org From: virgnvs@juno.com Cc: KRnet@mailinglists.org Subject: Re: KR> tailwheel landing Message-ID: <20030101.123215.-398531.0.virgnvs@juno.com> Why do you have to see over the nose ? You have a whole runway in front of you. Get e good taildragger instructor and watch the side of the runway to see if you are going straight, Virg On Tue, 31 Dec 2002 22:21:30 EST AviationMech@aol.com writes: > In a message dated 12/30/2002 2:47:24 AM Eastern Standard Time, > gwvandor@mb.sympatico.ca writes: > > > I am thinking to build > > one or the other and i have no clue of the benefits and the > problems using > > them? > > A flap by design adds lift as well as drag. The belly board adds > only drag. > My Rand Flap actually allows me to lower the approach speed while > lowering > the nose for better over the nose vision > AviationMech > KR-2 N110LR > 1984 to Present > www.members.aol.com:/aviationmech > Virgil N. Salisbury AMSOIL WWW.LUBEDEALER.COM/SALISBURY ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 Jan 2003 11:46:35 -0600 To: From: "David McKelvey" Subject: RE: KR> tailwheel landing Message-ID: The reason I went with a belly brake is that it was pointed out to me that lift is not a problem on landing, but this design is so clean that you need to have a way to bleed off airspeed. Now there are many KR's flying w/o either and pilotage is your best tool, I thought the flap would make landings into shorter and obstructed fields easier. That'll be 2 cents! Dave -----Original Message----- From: virgnvs@juno.com [mailto:virgnvs@juno.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 01, 2003 10:34 AM To: KRnet@mailinglists.org Cc: KRnet@mailinglists.org Subject: Re: KR> tailwheel landing Why do you have to see over the nose ? You have a whole runway in front of you. Get e good taildragger instructor and watch the side of the runway to see if you are going straight, Virg On Tue, 31 Dec 2002 22:21:30 EST AviationMech@aol.com writes: > In a message dated 12/30/2002 2:47:24 AM Eastern Standard Time, > gwvandor@mb.sympatico.ca writes: > > > I am thinking to build > > one or the other and i have no clue of the benefits and the > problems using > > them? > > A flap by design adds lift as well as drag. The belly board adds > only drag. > My Rand Flap actually allows me to lower the approach speed while > lowering > the nose for better over the nose vision > AviationMech > KR-2 N110LR > 1984 to Present > www.members.aol.com:/aviationmech > Virgil N. Salisbury AMSOIL WWW.LUBEDEALER.COM/SALISBURY --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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: Wed, 1 Jan 2003 13:12:15 -0800 (Pacific Standard Time) To: From: "Dan Heath" Subject: Re: KR> tailwheel landing Message-Id: <3E1359AE.000003.01004@dan> --------------Boundary-00=_F802G6G0000000000000 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Unless you are using a training wheel, you won't be able to see over the nose on take off, so you get used to it. However, anything that can be d= one to slow the landing speed is a good thing. The thing I don't like about = the flaps/bellyboard, is the weight and complexity.=0D =0D I really like the KISS method used on the KR.=0D =0D Daniel R. Heath=0D =0D DanRH@KR-Builder.org=0D =0D See you in Red Oak - 2003=0D =0D See our KR at http://KR-Builder.org - Click on the pic=0D See our EAA Chapter 242 at http://EAA242.org=0D =0D -------Original Message-------=0D =0D From: KRnet@mailinglists.org=0D Date: Wednesday, January 01, 2003 09:34:27 AM=0D To: KRnet@mailinglists.org=0D Cc: KRnet@mailinglists.org=0D Subject: Re: KR> tailwheel landing=0D =0D Why do you have to see over the nose ? You have a whole runway in=0D front of you. Get e good taildragger instructor and watch the side of the= =0D runway to see if you are going straight, Virg=0D =0D On Tue, 31 Dec 2002 22:21:30 EST AviationMech@aol.com writes:=0D > In a message dated 12/30/2002 2:47:24 AM Eastern Standard Time, =0D > gwvandor@mb.sympatico.ca writes:=0D > =0D > > I am thinking to build=0D > > one or the other and i have no clue of the benefits and the =0D > problems using=0D > > them?=0D > =0D > A flap by design adds lift as well as drag. The belly board adds =0D > only drag. =0D > My Rand Flap actually allows me to lower the approach speed while =0D > lowering =0D > the nose for better over the nose vision=0D > AviationMech=0D > KR-2 N110LR=0D > 1984 to Present=0D > www.members.aol.com:/aviationmech=0D > =0D =0D =0D Virgil N. Salisbury AMSOIL=0D WWW.LUBEDEALER.COM/SALISBURY=0D =0D ---------------------------------------------------------------------=0D To post to the list, email: krnet@mailinglists.org , NOT "reply all"=0D =0D To UNsubscribe, e-mail: krnet-unsubscribe@mailinglists.org =0D For additional commands, e-mail: krnet-help@mailinglists.org=0D =0D See the KRNet archives at http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp=0D or http://www.bouyea.net/ for the Word files=0D =0D =2E=20 --------------Boundary-00=_F802G6G0000000000000-- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 Jan 2003 13:33:21 -0600 To: From: "kevin" Subject: Re: KR> tailwheel landing Message-ID: <001301c2b1cc$a55d6000$0c183941@hppav> In flare to landing, There are very few aircraft you can see over the nose. Even with a "training" wheel. My Grumman Tr2 is blind as can be in a flare. Did anyone catch the RV8 series on Discovery wings? They covered a huge amount of info in a hurry and I thought did a great job. Kevin ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dan Heath" To: Sent: Wednesday, January 01, 2003 3:12 PM Subject: Re: KR> tailwheel landing Unless you are using a training wheel, you won't be able to see over the nose on take off, so you get used to it. However, anything that can be done to slow the landing speed is a good thing. The thing I don't like about the flaps/bellyboard, is the weight and complexity. I really like the KISS method used on the KR. Daniel R. Heath DanRH@KR-Builder.org See you in Red Oak - 2003 See our KR at http://KR-Builder.org - Click on the pic See our EAA Chapter 242 at http://EAA242.org -------Original Message------- From: KRnet@mailinglists.org Date: Wednesday, January 01, 2003 09:34:27 AM To: KRnet@mailinglists.org Cc: KRnet@mailinglists.org Subject: Re: KR> tailwheel landing Why do you have to see over the nose ? You have a whole runway in front of you. Get e good taildragger instructor and watch the side of the runway to see if you are going straight, Virg On Tue, 31 Dec 2002 22:21:30 EST AviationMech@aol.com writes: > In a message dated 12/30/2002 2:47:24 AM Eastern Standard Time, > gwvandor@mb.sympatico.ca writes: > > > I am thinking to build > > one or the other and i have no clue of the benefits and the > problems using > > them? > > A flap by design adds lift as well as drag. The belly board adds > only drag. > My Rand Flap actually allows me to lower the approach speed while > lowering > the nose for better over the nose vision > AviationMech > KR-2 N110LR > 1984 to Present > www.members.aol.com:/aviationmech > Virgil N. Salisbury AMSOIL WWW.LUBEDEALER.COM/SALISBURY --------------------------------------------------------------------- To post to the list, email: krnet@mailinglists.org , NOT "reply all" To UNsubscribe, e-mail: krnet-unsubscribe@mailinglists.org For additional commands, e-mail: krnet-help@mailinglists.org See the KRNet archives at http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp or http://www.bouyea.net/ for the Word files . ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2003 00:15:24 EST To: KRnet@mailinglists.org From: Drsavage1@aol.com Subject: Re: KR> tailwheel landing Message-ID: <18e.141f7a24.2b4524ec@aol.com> --part1_18e.141f7a24.2b4524ec_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Most modern airplanes are made with a tricycle landing gear. There must be a reason for that. With all the difficulties with tailwheel aircraft, it seems to me that most builders would opt for the tricycle configuration. In fact, tricycle landing gear with a speedbrake seems to me like the ideal combo. That's how I built mine and I find it very easy to land. I would also like to add this observation: I've had my CFI for about 15 years. Whenever I give flight reviews or aircraft checkouts, the most obvious weakness of a noncurrent pilot is in the landings. If someone doesn't fly on a regular basis, the skill required to master the taildragger degrades much faster than the currency needed to master a tricycle airplane. Therefore, if you don't have the time or inclination to fly regularly to keep you landing skills sharp, why push your luck? Sure, a taildragger looks better than a tricycle while sitting on the ramp, and it's going to be a few knots faster also. But after putting in all the time and expense of building the neat little airplane, why not play it safe? Because in aviation...safety is where it's at. Any responses? RV --part1_18e.141f7a24.2b4524ec_boundary-- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 02 Jan 2003 06:29:49 -0800 To: KRnet@mailinglists.org From: " Kevin" Subject: Re: KR> tailwheel landing Message-ID: Tailwheel aircraft are neat looking, but when someone gets to talking about the training wheel on some airplanes it would remind me of a comedian that would dress up like an old man and talk about the old days. He would talk about how we used to run with razor sharp knives when we were kids and if we fell down there would be no mamby pamby wining about it. We would jump up, wipe the blood off of the wound and we would be fine! We were just fine and we LOVED IT! Everything we did crazy he would say we LOVED IT! I have flown a Cessna 140 and a Champ a few times, but I am far from an expert at taildraggers, nor would either of these aircraft qualify me to be. I wish I was a better tailwheel pilot. Kevin Golden. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 02 Jan 2003 09:31:40 -0500 To: KRnet@mailinglists.org From: "Jeff York" Subject: Re: KR> tailwheel landing Message-ID: very well said. From someone who knows his limitations and will stick to the nose dragger. I admire those of you that have the tail dragger skill. And I agree the tail dragger classics look better. >From: Drsavage1@aol.com >Reply-To: KRnet@mailinglists.org >To: KRnet@mailinglists.org >Subject: Re: KR> tailwheel landing >Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2003 00:15:24 EST > >Most modern airplanes are made with a tricycle landing gear. There must be >a >reason for that. With all the difficulties with tailwheel aircraft, it >seems >to me that most builders would opt for the tricycle configuration. In >fact, >tricycle landing gear with a speedbrake seems to me like the ideal combo. >That's how I built mine and I find it very easy to land. I would also like >to add this observation: I've had my CFI for about 15 years. Whenever I >give flight reviews or aircraft checkouts, the most obvious weakness of a >noncurrent pilot is in the landings. If someone doesn't fly on a regular >basis, the skill required to master the taildragger degrades much faster >than >the currency needed to master a tricycle airplane. Therefore, if you don't >have the time or inclination to fly regularly to keep you landing skills >sharp, why push your luck? Sure, a taildragger looks better than a >tricycle >while sitting on the ramp, and it's going to be a few knots faster also. >But >after putting in all the time and expense of building the neat little >airplane, why not play it safe? Because in aviation...safety is where it's >at. > >Any responses? > >RV _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8 is here: Try it free* for 2 months http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2003 08:41:13 -0600 To: From: "Robert Stone" Subject: Re: KR> tailwheel landing Message-ID: <003601c2b26c$ffe36560$05d81a18@hot.rr.com> RV, I agree 100% with your analyses and have never been able to understand why some pilots look down on tri-gear drivers. As you say the only advantage I can see in owning and flying a taildragger is, it does look better on the ramp and it does fly a little faster but the possibility of a ground loop and poor forward vision on the ground cancel both of these out as far as I am concerned. When Van's Aircraft first started producing kits they were all taildraggers, as soon as he decided to produce a tri-gear kit his sales went right through the roof. Most people learning to fly today learn on a nose gear airplane and this is what they want when and if they ever buy an airplane or build one. Bob Stone, Harker Heights, TX rstone4@hot.rr.com ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Wednesday, January 01, 2003 11:15 PM Subject: Re: KR> tailwheel landing > Most modern airplanes are made with a tricycle landing gear. There must be a > reason for that. With all the difficulties with tailwheel aircraft, it seems > to me that most builders would opt for the tricycle configuration. In fact, > tricycle landing gear with a speedbrake seems to me like the ideal combo. > That's how I built mine and I find it very easy to land. I would also like > to add this observation: I've had my CFI for about 15 years. Whenever I > give flight reviews or aircraft checkouts, the most obvious weakness of a > noncurrent pilot is in the landings. If someone doesn't fly on a regular > basis, the skill required to master the taildragger degrades much faster than > the currency needed to master a tricycle airplane. Therefore, if you don't > have the time or inclination to fly regularly to keep you landing skills > sharp, why push your luck? Sure, a taildragger looks better than a tricycle > while sitting on the ramp, and it's going to be a few knots faster also. But > after putting in all the time and expense of building the neat little > airplane, why not play it safe? Because in aviation...safety is where it's > at. > > Any responses? > > RV > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 Jan 2003 12:33:50 -0500 To: From: "David Clinthonre" Subject: Re: KR> For Sale Message-ID: <00e301c2b1bb$f2dd8640$8c2a4144@frbgva.adelphia.net> Frank,I need wings. Are they useable? Please let me know. Happy New year. Dave Clinthorne 540-786-9738 Fredericksburg, VA ----- Original Message ----- From: "Frank Dungan" To: Sent: Tuesday, December 31, 2002 4:12 PM Subject: KR> For Sale For Sale - - Two Projects 1. Damaged KR2 built in 1976 Can be returned to flight condition or used for parts. Plane was ground looped and is damaged in various places, but none appear to be structural. It has most of the parts needed to return it to service including a new canopy. Has a converted VW engine & fixed gear. 2. KR2 Project Most of the wood construction complete. No glass work done but has several preformed glass parts. Sitting on retractable gear. Location: near Wichita KS If your serious give me a call... one or both - - I need this stuff out of my barn! Frank Dungan Work: 918-292-1371 Home: 316-744-0106 --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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: Wed, 1 Jan 2003 16:01:09 EST To: KRnet@mailinglists.org From: LORDYN1@aol.com Subject: Re: KR> For Sale Message-ID: --part1_fd.21ae0c37.2b44b115_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit What is the asking price for each project, & what do I need to pick-up Project No. 2? Thanks, Loren --part1_fd.21ae0c37.2b44b115_boundary-- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 02 Jan 2003 04:40:46 -0500 To: KRnet@mailinglists.org From: n886kr@netscape.net Subject: RE: KR> For Sale Message-ID: <030E1C51.40E63E67.0005EAA5@netscape.net> Frank, How much for the canopy? Rick Collins N886KR "Frank Dungan" wrote: >For Sale - -  Two Projects > >1.  Damaged KR2 built in 1976 >     Can be returned to flight condition or used for parts. >     Plane was ground looped and is damaged in various places, but none appear to be structural. >     It has most of the parts needed to return it to service including a new canopy.  Has a converted VW engine & fixed gear. > >2. KR2 Project >    Most of the wood construction complete. No glass work done but has several preformed glass parts.  Sitting on retractable gear. > >Location: near Wichita KS >If your serious give me a call... one or both  - - I need this stuff out of my barn! > >Frank Dungan >Work: 918-292-1371 >Home: 316-744-0106 > > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >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 > > __________________________________________________________________ The NEW Netscape 7.0 browser is now available. Upgrade now! http://channels.netscape.com/ns/browsers/download.jsp Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Mail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 02 Jan 2003 08:56:03 -0600 To: From: "Frank Dungan" Subject: RE: KR> For Sale Message-Id: I prefer not to part out the projects, I just don't have the time. I will take some digital photos this week end, then I would like to take = some offers on=20 each or both aircraft.=20 Frank Dungan >>> n886kr@netscape.net 01/02/03 03:40AM >>> Frank, How much for the canopy? Rick Collins N886KR "Frank Dungan" wrote: >For Sale - - Two Projects > >1. Damaged KR2 built in 1976 > Can be returned to flight condition or used for parts. > Plane was ground looped and is damaged in various places, but none = appear to be structural. > It has most of the parts needed to return it to service including a = new canopy. Has a converted VW engine & fixed gear. > >2. KR2 Project > Most of the wood construction complete. No glass work done but has = several preformed glass parts. Sitting on retractable gear. > >Location: near Wichita KS >If your serious give me a call... one or both - - I need this stuff out = of my barn! > >Frank Dungan >Work: 918-292-1371 >Home: 316-744-0106 > > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >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 > > __________________________________________________________________ The NEW Netscape 7.0 browser is now available. Upgrade now! http://channels= .netscape.com/ns/browsers/download.jsp=20 Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Mail account today at http://webmail.n= etscape.com/=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 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 Jan 2003 12:36:14 -0500 To: From: "David Clinthonre" Subject: Re: KR> Progress Report Message-ID: <00f701c2b1bc$48cda580$8c2a4144@frbgva.adelphia.net> B Wunder, I'm in Fredericksburg, VA and about 85-90% done with my KR-2. Where is Lexington Park, MD? ----- Original Message ----- From: "B Wunder" To: Sent: Wednesday, January 01, 2003 9:44 AM Subject: KR> Progress Report > KR Builders, > Reached another milestone on New Year's Eve...finished all the spars. Now I > have a boat and a set of spars. Took about 3 months and 75 hrs to build the > spars. Got tripped up when I followed the plans to closely and had to > backtrack a little to make the spars conform to the new wing dimensions. > Weight of these new babies are: wing rear spar: 4 lb; aft center spar: 6 lb; > wing forward spar: 9 lb; center forward spar: 18 lb. Total weight for all > spars right at 50 lb. I have posted a few pictures on my website. So to > date I have worked 300 hrs and have a boat and set of spars weighing a grand > total of 100 lbs. > HAPPY NEW YEAR and see you at Red Oak! > r/Bernie > Lexington Park, MD > KR2S Builder > http://mywebpage.netscape.com/n2w6 > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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: Wed, 1 Jan 2003 16:13:09 EST To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: Flymaca711689@aol.com Subject: short field t/landings in a kr Message-ID: <29.34edf2a8.2b44b3e5@aol.com> --part1_29.34edf2a8.2b44b3e5_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit mine is tri gear 1834 vw no flaps they don't work in the Kr anyway so IM told? and seeing for my self this summer watching Joel hackett flying his c85. mine can be landed and stop in 800 ft pavement grass about 500ft.takeoff is hole new game i am spoiled at the home strip 4000ft always crosswind it seams in light wind or down the runway a short soft type works best holding the stick back get nose up relax pressure and stay in ground effect as long as possible or till you hit v/y the speed builds much faster the problem i am having is timing some times relax stick to quick and it sits right back down eating runway other times IM out of ground affect and the airspeeds low so IM trading climb for airspeed more power will cure all but this is what IM working with so IM trying to perfect my technique IM setting the trim neutral it adds drag really!!! it DOS i don't use it till v/y is reached landing you need all of it and more i have been going to va to hummal and tapphanock both are short strips that i used to just circle the food is good at hummul so its a joy to get in and out now the reward for practice!!!!!crabcakes oyster stew Kr life is good all this at 3 gal hr. landing the Kr is ajoy most of the time power on is cakewalk power off is much more rewarding airspeed is the key rate of decent will go way up just like the fly paper good airplane call it a brick if you what i like um control airspeed and the decent will stabilize little burst of power on your round out and you can put it on a dime and not burn the brakes up or worst. tri gear you look out the side too you cant see over the nose on most aircraft anyway plus you will start looking as far down the runway as you can (how can you do this if your trying to look over the nose? the tri gear the nose is very hi on full stall land ing you will see it makes you nerves at first but the reward is your under 40 mph when it touches down PS thanks for all the hospitality that i have received in VA rebels really are gentleman and a lot of them are building and flying kr aircraft happy new year all Mac n1055a --part1_29.34edf2a8.2b44b3e5_boundary-- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 Jan 2003 14:04:36 -0800 (PST) To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: Rick Wilson Subject: Cowling weight Message-ID: <20030101220436.92856.qmail@web21207.mail.yahoo.com> Hi, Has anyone weighed their homebuilt cowl (top& bottom?) or does anyone out there know the weight difference in the prefab cowl vs a homemade one? I would like to know about what the average weight of the homemade cowl is. Thanks, Rick Wilson. rwdw2002@yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 Jan 2003 16:15:07 -0600 To: From: "Mark Langford" Subject: Re: KR> Cowling weight Message-ID: <003e01c2b1e3$3f0acc40$0100a8c0@TD310> Rick Wilson wrote: > Hi, Has anyone weighed their homebuilt cowl (top& > bottom?) or does anyone out there know the weight > difference in the prefab cowl vs a homemade one? My homemade cowling was 3.7 pounds, with hinges installed at the split line, but with no paint. But then it's made of two layers of carbon fiber, and when it's not mounted to the plane, some folks would call it flimsy. It gets pretty nice when the halves are joined and the whole thing is stuck on the plane though. I weighed a stock Revmaster cowling and it was almost 12 pounds without paint, but also without any mounting hardware attached. It was over built, in my humble opinion. See http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford/cowling.html for more details on how I made my cowling... Mark Langford, Huntsville, Alabama mailto:langford@hiwaay.net see KR2S N56ML at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 Jan 2003 18:17:33 -0500 To: From: "James Wester" Subject: Re: KR> Cowling weight Message-ID: <014701c2b1eb$f7494400$5d4f87d1@joflywester> While we are on that , Are the cowlings of the KR-2 , and KR-2 S the same ? Can you swap them ? I know that the KR-2S is a bit wider - in the cockpit area . ( Mark , anybody ? ) ----- Original Message ----- From: Rick Wilson To: Sent: Wednesday, January 01, 2003 5:04 PM Subject: KR> Cowling weight > Hi, Has anyone weighed their homebuilt cowl (top& > bottom?) or does anyone out there know the weight > difference in the prefab cowl vs a homemade one? I > would like to know about what the average weight of > the homemade cowl is. Thanks, Rick Wilson. rwdw2002@yahoo.com > > __________________________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. > http://mailplus.yahoo.com > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To post to the list, email: krnet@mailinglists.org , NOT "reply all" > > To UNsubscribe, e-mail: krnet-unsubscribe@mailinglists.org > For additional commands, e-mail: krnet-help@mailinglists.org > > See the KRNet archives at http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp > or http://www.bouyea.net/ for the Word files > > > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 Jan 2003 17:52:53 -0600 To: From: "Mark Langford" Subject: Re: KR> Cowling weight Message-ID: <006001c2b1f0$e716e560$0100a8c0@TD310> James Wester wrote: > While we are on that , Are the cowlings of the KR-2 , and KR-2 S the same ? > Can you swap them ? I know that the KR-2S is a bit wider - in the cockpit > area . ( Mark , anybody ? ) They are basically the same shape, but the S is 1.5" wider at the widest (at firewall and the upper longerons), 1.75" wider at the bottom of the firewall, and the S cowling is 1.5" taller at the firewall. Other than that, they're exactly the same. It's possible to make an S cowling fit a 2 by grafting in a triangular splice in along the sides, which is probably where the current KR2S cowling originated, I'll bet. That has to be a lot easier than making one from scratch... Mark Langford, Huntsville, Alabama mailto:langford@hiwaay.net see KR2S N56ML at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 Jan 2003 19:07:19 -0800 (Pacific Standard Time) To: From: "Dan Heath" Subject: Re: KR> Cowling weight Message-Id: <3E13ACE7.00001D.01004@dan> --------------Boundary-00=_7OG2UUF1VA4000000000 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The problem with getting a cowl to fit a KR2 is usually in the engine and engine mount set up. I think the KR2 stock cowl is intended to fit a Revmaster engine.=0D =0D I know that a Revmaster and a Hapi cowl will not fit a GPASC engine set u= p with the exhaust we have. The Revmaster would not fit because it has a p= rop extension and the GPASC does not.=0D =0D All you have to do is to have your mount a little higher or lower than intended by the builder of the cowl, and you are going to have to make mo= ds.=0D =0D I know it is a bear to build one from scratch, but sometimes, I think it would be easier.=0D =0D I asked Steve Bennett for the brand of cowl that fit his engine and he co= uld not tell me.=0D =0D =0D Daniel R. Heath=0D =0D DanRH@KR-Builder.org=0D =0D See you in Red Oak - 2003=0D =0D See our KR at http://KR-Builder.org - Click on the pic=0D See our EAA Chapter 242 at http://EAA242.org=0D =0D -------Original Message-------=0D =0D From: KRnet@mailinglists.org=0D Date: Wednesday, January 01, 2003 03:52:42 PM=0D To: KRnet@mailinglists.org=0D Subject: Re: KR> Cowling weight=0D =0D James Wester wrote:=0D =0D > While we are on that , Are the cowlings of the KR-2 , and KR-2 S the sa= me=0D ?=0D > Can you swap them ? I know that the KR-2S is a bit wider - in the cockp= it=0D > area . ( Mark , anybody ? )=0D =0D They are basically the same shape, but the S is 1.5" wider at the widest = (at=0D firewall and the upper longerons), 1.75" wider at the bottom of the=0D firewall, and the S cowling is 1.5" taller at the firewall. Other than=0D that, they're exactly the same. It's possible to make an S cowling fit a = 2=0D by grafting in a triangular splice in along the sides, which is probably=0D where the current KR2S cowling originated, I'll bet. That has to be a lot= =0D easier than making one from scratch...=0D =0D Mark Langford, Huntsville, Alabama=0D mailto:langford@hiwaay.net=0D see KR2S N56ML at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford=0D =0D =0D =0D ---------------------------------------------------------------------=0D To post to the list, email: krnet@mailinglists.org , NOT "reply all"=0D =0D To UNsubscribe, e-mail: krnet-unsubscribe@mailinglists.org =0D For additional commands, e-mail: krnet-help@mailinglists.org=0D =0D See the KRNet archives at http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp=0D or http://www.bouyea.net/ for the Word files=0D =0D =2E=20 --------------Boundary-00=_7OG2UUF1VA4000000000-- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 Jan 2003 16:28:11 -0500 To: KRnet@mailinglists.org From: Joseph H Horton Subject: Re: Fuel pump layout Message-ID: <20030101.170601.-134007.0.joe.kr2s.builder@juno.com> KR Netters, In Firewall Forward Tony shows the gascolator then the electric pump and then the mechanical pump to the carb. It would layout much better for me if it would be acceptable to route the fuel from the tank through the electric pump to the mechanical pump then through the gascolator and to the carb. Any thoughts? Happy New Year -- Joe Horton ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 02 Jan 2003 09:34:41 -0600 To: KRnet@mailinglists.org From: larry flesner Subject: Fuel pump layout Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20030102093441.007b74c0@mail.midwest.net> In Firewall Forward Tony shows the gascolator then the electric pump and >then the mechanical pump to the carb. It would layout much better for me >if it would be acceptable to route the fuel from the tank through the >electric pump to the mechanical pump then through the gascolator and to >the carb. Any thoughts? Joe Horton ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Just make sure your gascolator can handle the pressure without leaking. At the low fuel pressures we work with on the carb's it probably doesn't matter much. The pumps won't produce but a few more pounds of pressure than gravity feed. Whichever way you go make sure to check the fuel flow RATE at the carb under all flight attitudes and system operating conditions. It's the end result you are looking for, fuel pressure and flow rate at the carb. As long as you don't build in any failure modes it probably doesn't matter how you get it. Larry Flesner ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 01 Jan 2003 17:38:36 -0500 To: KRnet@mailinglists.org From: "Jeff York" Subject: Re:GT propellers and others for 2180 VW Message-ID: I just saw the article in Sport Aviation Jan 2003 page 22. Specifically about the new GT propeller for the Sonex 2200 and VW or similar auto conversions. It claims some amazing performance increases over a standard Sensenich prop. ( 170mph in a Sonex vs. 135 mph and 1500fpm vs 700fpm) I know I am probably opening a can of worms here but... Even if these claims are not quite accurate, I can't help but feel that with all the advents in propeller design and composites that there would be a better prop out there for the VW 2180 that would improve performance over a wood prop. But I have heard several times use a wood prop on a VW engine. At Sun N Fun I saw a Sonex with a composite prop and several other VW based engines with other then wood propellers. What is different on these other VW engines that allow them to run other than wood? Has anyone seen a viable higher performance propeller for the GPAC-2180 VW? What was it? signed propeller curious _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8 is here: Try it free* for 2 months http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 01 Jan 2003 18:30:16 -0500 To: KRnet@mailinglists.org From: "Jeff York" Subject: Re: KR> Re:GT propellers and others for 2180 VW Message-ID: I should have mentioned that I actually have a Ed Sterba prop and not a Sensenich prop that I referenced in the article. And that my KR-2 sits on trike gear. I also should mention that it is my understanding the GT propellers are wood - composite in construction. I have sent a request to GT propellers for information on this new prop and it's possible application to VW 2180 and or KR-2 use. Is anyone out there in KR-net world using other then a wood prop on a VW engine that would share information relating to performance and reliablity? signed, prop curious >From: "Jeff York" >Reply-To: KRnet@mailinglists.org >To: KRnet@mailinglists.org >Subject: KR> Re:GT propellers and others for 2180 VW >Date: Wed, 01 Jan 2003 17:38:36 -0500 > >I just saw the article in Sport Aviation Jan 2003 page 22. Specifically >about the new GT propeller for the Sonex 2200 and VW or similar auto >conversions. > >It claims some amazing performance increases over a standard Sensenich >prop. ( 170mph in a Sonex vs. 135 mph and 1500fpm vs 700fpm) > >I know I am probably opening a can of worms here but... Even if these >claims are not quite accurate, I can't help but feel that with all the >advents in propeller design and composites that there would be a better >prop out there for the VW 2180 that would improve performance over a wood >prop. But I have heard several times use a wood prop on a VW engine. > >At Sun N Fun I saw a Sonex with a composite prop and several other VW based >engines with other then wood propellers. > >What is different on these other VW engines that allow them to run other >than wood? Has anyone seen a viable higher performance propeller for the >GPAC-2180 VW? What was it? > >signed propeller curious > > > > > > > > >_________________________________________________________________ >The new MSN 8 is here: Try it free* for 2 months >http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >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 _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 Jan 2003 18:07:24 -0500 To: From: "James Wester" Subject: Discovery Wings Message-ID: <013f01c2b1ea$c71e23a0$5d4f87d1@joflywester> ------=_NextPart_000_013A_01C2B1C0.A3382C80 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I'll second that , Kevin . As long as popular projects are what they = would consider for the program , why not the KR series ? If not , I'd = settle for the GlaStar with an Eggenfellner , or an NSI mill up front . = I hope that future projects will have them going a little slower in the = area forward of the fire wall , though ! ------=_NextPart_000_013A_01C2B1C0.A3382C80-- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 01 Jan 2003 21:40:11 -0500 To: KRnet@mailinglists.org From: "Jeff York" Subject: Re: KR> Discovery Wings Message-ID: James, Just relized that I get Discovery Wings but didn't have it programed in. I didn't see the first part of this message but was curious. Is Dwings currently doing a program on homebuilts or is this a program coming in the future? If it is a current program tell me when this program is aired. Jeff >From: "James Wester" >Reply-To: KRnet@mailinglists.org >To: >Subject: KR> Discovery Wings >Date: Wed, 1 Jan 2003 18:07:24 -0500 > >I'll second that , Kevin . As long as popular projects are what they would >consider for the program , why not the KR series ? If not , I'd settle for >the GlaStar with an Eggenfellner , or an NSI mill up front . I hope that >future projects will have them going a little slower in the area forward of >the fire wall , though ! _________________________________________________________________ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 02 Jan 2003 06:32:40 -0800 To: KRnet@mailinglists.org From: " Kevin" Subject: Re: KR> Discovery Wings Message-ID: Jeff, Sorry, I just read this message. It was on new years eve and new years day. They built a RV8 and took it from tail assembly to flight. I think there are plans to build another airplane, but don't think this one will be aired again. If I see it will be aired, I will post the times. Kevin. On Wed, 01 Jan 2003 21:40:11 -0500 Jeff York wrote: > > > > > James, > > Just relized that I get Discovery Wings but > didn't have it programed in. > > I didn't see the first part of this message but > was curious. Is Dwings > currently doing a program on homebuilts or is > this a program coming in the > future? If it is a current program tell me when > this program is aired. > > Jeff > > > >From: "James Wester" > >Reply-To: KRnet@mailinglists.org > >To: > >Subject: KR> Discovery Wings > >Date: Wed, 1 Jan 2003 18:07:24 -0500 > > > >I'll second that , Kevin . As long as popular > projects are what they would > >consider for the program , why not the KR > series ? If not , I'd settle for > >the GlaStar with an Eggenfellner , or an NSI > mill up front . I hope that > >future projects will have them going a little > slower in the area forward of > >the fire wall , though ! > > > _________________________________________________________________ > Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan > Online > http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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: Wed, 1 Jan 2003 20:19:24 -0800 To: From: "jim @ synergy design" Subject: Re: KR> Center Stick and Limbach Engine Mount Wanted Message-ID: <004001c2b216$2368f1a0$0101a8c0@net> Nick, I can build you a center stick assy. I think my design is the cleanest, smoothest out there. I also designed a method to easily change the "sensitivity" in flight. E-mail, or phone 970-704-0966 for more info. The stick could be set up for cable or pushrod(my personal choice) easily. Hope this helps, Jim Sporka ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Tuesday, December 31, 2002 1:08 PM Subject: KR> Center Stick and Limbach Engine Mount Wanted > Hi > I am in the market for a KR-2 center stick assembly. > Also I need an Engine mount for a Limbach 2000 EO1 . This engine has a > starter, alternator, and one slick magneto mounted on the rear of the engine > so I need about 8 inches clearance to the firewall. > Bolts and rubber bushings are also needed. > > If you know where I can obtain these items, I would be grateful. > Thanks > Nick Davidson > Pocatello, Idaho > KR-2 > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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: Wed, 1 Jan 2003 22:13:32 -0500 To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: Kenneth L Wiltrout Subject: Fuel Economy Message-ID: <20030101.221332.1784.6.klw1953@juno.com> Just wondering what some of you KR drivers are getting with the 2100 Revmaster. I burn 4.5 gal at 3200 rpm, some have posted 3 gal per hr, is this possible? Thanks. ________________________________________________________________ Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 02 Jan 2003 08:17:35 -0600 To: KRnet@mailinglists.org From: larry flesner Subject: Fuel Economy Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20030102081735.00884770@mail.midwest.net> > Just wondering what some of you KR drivers are getting with the >2100 Revmaster. I burn 4.5 gal at 3200 rpm, some have posted 3 gal per >hr, is this possible? Thanks. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ You can't cheat the laws of physics. The fuel burn is determined by how many horsepower you pull from your engine. You will burn approx .5 pound of fuel per horsepower per hour. My 0-200 for example at 65 percent power (65 hp) would be: 65hp X .5 = 32.5 pounds, divided by 6 (pounds per gal.) = 5.4 gal per hour. If I cruise at 70 percent power that fuel burn will be closer to 6 gal per hour. Those claiming a 3 gal per hour burn must be pulling only about 35 hp from their engines in cruise. I'm GUESSING your engine is developing about 54 hp at that rpm. (4.5 X 6 =27 X 2 = 54hp) There are probably some engineers on the net that can fine tune these numbers but they are close enough for KR work. Keep a notebook in the airplane to record your fuel used and you will be able to tell how many minutes of fuel you have onboard at any time. Use that number for flight planning instead of your guages. On my Tripacer it figures: 150hp X .65 (percent power) = 97.5hp X .5 = 48.75 (pound per hour) divided by 6 (pounds per gal) = 8.13 gal per hour. I record every flight with the amount of fuel added and after 425 hours it figures at 8.2 gal per hour. I can fly for several hours and know within a few tenths of a gal how much fuel it will take to fill the tanks. The extra burn on takeoff and climb is generally offset by a good "planned" decent. That takes all the "pucker factor" out of the bouncing fuel guage when under 1/2 tank! Your results may vary! :-) Larry Flesner ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 02 Jan 2003 05:00:28 -0500 To: KRnet@mailinglists.org From: n886kr@netscape.net Subject: Re: KR> 3d drawing of KR2S Message-ID: <27F611F4.2A9E46CE.0005EAA5@netscape.net> Justin, I am really interested in the drawings. I know nothing about "It is open in a 3d program called >>>truespace. DXF format." Is this down loadable? or purchasable? Where might I find it? Thanks Rick Collins N886KR "Little Beast" Justin wrote: > > >KVP wrote: > >>Yes Please. >> >>Best regards >> >>Kjeld Vinkler Pallesen >> >>Justin wrote: >> >>   >> >>>If anyone wnats this file let me know. It is open in a 3d program called >>>truespace. DXF format. >>> >>>Justin >>> >>>  ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>--------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>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 >> >> >>   >> > > __________________________________________________________________ The NEW Netscape 7.0 browser is now available. Upgrade now! http://channels.netscape.com/ns/browsers/download.jsp Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Mail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com/ ------------------------------ End of krnet Digest ***********************************