From: To: Subject: krnet Digest 3 Jan 2003 15:15:42 -0000 Issue 596 Date: Friday, January 03, 2003 7:16 AM krnet Digest 3 Jan 2003 15:15:42 -0000 Issue 596 Topics (messages 14197 through 14226): tri geer/tail wheel 14197 by: harold woods Re: 3d drawing of KR2S 14198 by: Justin 14206 by: n886kr.netscape.net Re: For Sale 14199 by: Justin 14207 by: n886kr.netscape.net Re: tailwheel landing 14200 by: Preben Rafn-Larsen 14204 by: wstarrs 14212 by: AviationMech.aol.com 14214 by: gleone 14218 by: Karl Kleimenhagen 14223 by: Ed Janssen Kitplanes/Great Plains 14201 by: larry flesner Re: Fuel Economy 14202 by: Ron Freiberger 14210 by: Jeff York 14213 by: larry flesner 14224 by: Jeff York Re: Fuel pump layout 14203 by: Brian Kraut 14209 by: Deems Herring 14226 by: virgnvs.juno.com Re: Re:GT propellers and others for 2180 VW 14205 by: Brian Kraut 14208 by: Jeff York Re: KR Virus ALERT 14211 by: Phillip Matheson Re:cowl weight 14215 by: Joseph H Horton Re: Discovery Wings 14216 by: James Wester 14217 by: kevin update 1/2/03 14219 by: Justin Taildragger versus tri gear - my 2 cents worth 14220 by: Serge Vidal My 2 cents worth on "rammed" carburetor air intake 14221 by: Serge Vidal It's Friday......I'm back:-) 14222 by: Dana Overall Alamo City Corvair College 14225 by: Oscar Zuniga Administrivia: To subscribe to the digest, e-mail: To unsubscribe from the digest, e-mail: To post to the list, e-mail: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2003 11:14:16 -0500 To: From: "harold woods" Subject: tri geer/tail wheel Message-ID: <005101c2b27a$01380d00$03000004@baol.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> ------=_NextPart_000_004E_01C2B250.1659B1E0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The visibility on the ground in a tail wheel configuration is not good. = S shaped taxi is the only answer.=20 It is easier to put your nose in the dirt on a tail wheel landing on = soft conditions with a tail wheel than a nose wheel. For all other = conditions I like a nose wheel. Harold Woods Orillia,ON.Can. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.434 / Virus Database: 243 - Release Date: 12/25/02 ------=_NextPart_000_004E_01C2B250.1659B1E0-- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2003 10:24:20 -0600 To: From: "Justin" Subject: Re: KR> 3d drawing of KR2S Message-ID: <000901c2b27b$6758f580$68d91818@socal.rr.com> truespace si NOT free. It is a $300 program but I could send you it if you wanted. It is about 40megs. The 3d drawing is not CAD or anything just more or less for looks. Like you could paint this model and see what it would look like. Justin ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2003 4:00 AM Subject: Re: KR> 3d drawing of KR2S 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/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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, 02 Jan 2003 17:17:27 -0500 To: KRnet@mailinglists.org From: n886kr@netscape.net Subject: Re: KR> 3d drawing of KR2S Message-ID: <28E4D8C3.4F315A28.0005EAA5@netscape.net> Justin, Thanks for the offer to lend me your program. However, I am going to pass. I thought more in terms of the CAD drawings. Sincerely, Rick Collins, N886KR "Little Beast" "Justin" wrote: >truespace si NOT free. It is a $300 program but I could send you it if you >wanted. It is about 40megs. The 3d drawing is not CAD or anything just more >or less for looks. Like you could paint this model and see what it would >look like. > >Justin >----- Original Message ----- >From: >To: >Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2003 4:00 AM >Subject: Re: KR> 3d drawing of KR2S > > >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/ > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >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/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2003 10:24:40 -0600 To: From: "Justin" Subject: Re: KR> For Sale Message-ID: <001001c2b27b$735d2180$68d91818@socal.rr.com> How much for both of the planes frank??? Justin ----- Original Message ----- From: "Frank Dungan" To: Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2003 8:56 AM Subject: RE: KR> For Sale 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 each or both aircraft. 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 >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/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To post to the list, email: krnet@mailinglists.org , NOT "reply all" To UNsubscribe, e-mail: krnet-unsubscribe@mailinglists.org For additional commands, e-mail: krnet-help@mailinglists.org See the KRNet archives at http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp or http://www.bouyea.net/ for the Word files --------------------------------------------------------------------- To post to the list, email: krnet@mailinglists.org , NOT "reply all" To UNsubscribe, e-mail: krnet-unsubscribe@mailinglists.org For additional commands, e-mail: krnet-help@mailinglists.org See the KRNet archives at http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp or http://www.bouyea.net/ for the Word files ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 02 Jan 2003 17:18:56 -0500 To: KRnet@mailinglists.org From: n886kr@netscape.net Subject: RE: KR> For Sale Message-ID: <6912E6B6.29E32968.0005EAA5@netscape.net> Thanks, Frank. Best wishes. Rick Collins N886KR "Little Beast" "Frank Dungan" wrote: >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 >each or both aircraft. > > >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 >>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/ > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >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/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2003 20:37:18 +0100 To: From: "Preben Rafn-Larsen" Subject: Sv: KR> tailwheel landing Message-ID: <006d01c2b296$5d647b60$e524fea9@oemcomputer> Jeg er enig med ham. min KR-1 skal have n=E6sehjul . kh Preben =20 ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Robert Stone To: Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2003 3:41 PM Subject: Re: KR> tailwheel landing > 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. >=20 > 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 >=20 >=20 > > 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 > > >=20 >=20 >=20 > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To post to the list, email: krnet@mailinglists.org , NOT "reply all" >=20 > 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 > or http://www.bouyea.net/ for the Word files >=20 >=20 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2003 14:39:12 -0700 To: "Krnet@Mailinglists.Org" From: "wstarrs" Subject: Re: KR> tailwheel landing Message-ID: <000001c2b2a8$816ab8a0$9200a8c0@bstarrs> Ego! Ego! EGO! That's why some tail dragger pilots put down tri gear pilots. Pure and simple. It takes a little more effort to learn to land a taildragger, and in my opinion it is well worth the effort, but that does not make you Superman. Shortly after soloing in a trigear 37 years ago, I learned to fly tail draggers because they were cheaper to rent. I have a KR1 with a TW now and am very pleased with it, but I know many tri gear pilots who can fly circles around me. Bill Starrs Prescott, AZ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Preben Rafn-Larsen" To: Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2003 12:37 PM Subject: Sv: KR> tailwheel landing Jeg er enig med ham. min KR-1 skal have næsehjul . kh Preben ----- Original Message ----- From: Robert Stone To: Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2003 3:41 PM Subject: Re: KR> tailwheel landing > 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 > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To post to the list, email: krnet@mailinglists.org , NOT "reply all" > > To UNsubscribe, e-mail: krnet-unsubscribe@mailinglists.org > For additional commands, e-mail: krnet-help@mailinglists.org > > See the KRNet archives at http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp > or http://www.bouyea.net/ for the Word files > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To post to the list, email: krnet@mailinglists.org , NOT "reply all" To UNsubscribe, e-mail: krnet-unsubscribe@mailinglists.org For additional commands, e-mail: krnet-help@mailinglists.org See the KRNet archives at http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp or http://www.bouyea.net/ for the Word files ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2003 19:26:58 EST To: KRnet@mailinglists.org From: AviationMech@aol.com Subject: Re: KR> tailwheel landing Message-ID: <8a.220bf613.2b4632d2@aol.com> --part1_8a.220bf613.2b4632d2_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 1/1/2003 12:35:16 PM Eastern Standard Time, virgnvs@juno.com writes: > Why do you have to see over the nose ? Seeing over the nose might be a Luxary on a wide grass field or a good sized paved runway. But, when the runway narrows to 25 ft and 1800 long I personally want to see where all of the runway is. After 18 years of flying the KR, I admit it does not matter as much now, and perhaps I still have some to learn, but if the only visibility I have is over my left shoulder and off the trailing edge of the inboard wing stub, there is a chance I could land with one wheel in the dirt. We were not equally endowed with the same skill and dexterity and our KR's are equally as unique. One last point is that Tail dragger instruction was not required 18 years ago, is still hard to obtain, and even finding a good instructor would probably require luck. Som here's hoping the New Year finds you and your dreams of KR flight, lifting off and touching down just as you Imagine them to be. AviationMech KR-2 N110LR 1984 to Present www.members.aol.com:/aviationmech --part1_8a.220bf613.2b4632d2_boundary-- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 02 Jan 2003 17:36:45 -0700 To: KRnet@mailinglists.org From: gleone Subject: Re: KR> tailwheel landing Message-ID: <3E14DB1D.55F082A8@tritel.net> The "short answer" is: "it's nice to see what you're hitting". AviationMech@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 1/1/2003 12:35:16 PM Eastern Standard Time, > virgnvs@juno.com writes: > > > Why do you have to see over the nose ? > > Seeing over the nose might be a Luxary on a wide grass field or a good sized > paved runway. But, when the runway narrows to 25 ft and 1800 long I > personally want to see where all of the runway is. After 18 years of flying > the KR, I admit it does not matter as much now, and perhaps I still have some > to learn, but if the only visibility I have is over my left shoulder and off > the trailing edge of the inboard wing stub, there is a chance I could land > with one wheel in the dirt. We were not equally endowed with the same skill > and dexterity and our KR's are equally as unique. One last point is that > Tail dragger instruction was not required 18 years ago, is still hard to > obtain, and even finding a good instructor would probably require luck. Som > here's hoping the New Year finds you and your dreams of KR flight, lifting > off and touching down just as you Imagine them to be. > AviationMech > KR-2 N110LR > 1984 to Present > www.members.aol.com:/aviationmech ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2003 22:27:18 -0800 (PST) To: KRnet@mailinglists.org From: Karl Kleimenhagen Subject: Re: tailwheel landing Message-ID: <20030103062718.16845.qmail@web11505.mail.yahoo.com> Actually, the time I spent learning to land a tailwheel aircraft was the most fun I've ever had in an airplane. It is VERY rewarding to nail a full stall landing. The plane seems to stop with hardly any runout. Yes, you can stop almost as quickly in the more stable tricylce layout, but my observation of the average flier (which includes me) is that they rarely do so. It so easy to land hot in a tricycle, that nearly everyone does so. That isn't safe either, but it is done day in, day out by most pilots. This isn't to say a tailwheel KR2 is a good idea. I have no idea how twitchy such a beast is. It does have a very short tail, so I suspect it is not one to baby. Most people who bad mouth the tailwheel configuration have never tried one. Frankly, I thought it was easy to land, and doing so gave a great sense of accomplishment. While dynamically unstable on the ground, it is easier to build, weighs less, and creates a bit less drag. Do learn on grass, though. Karl ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2003 07:25:40 -0600 To: From: ejanssen@chipsnet.com (Ed Janssen) Subject: Re: KR> Re: tailwheel landing Message-ID: <001201c2b32b$9d2c7fa0$92c2fc3f@dad> I've owned and flown two different KR-1 taildraggers. My previous experience was approx. 100 hrs in a 1939 Taylorcraft. One of the the things I learned very quickly about the landing phase of a KR was if I didn't plant the tailwheel (for directional control) as quickly as possible in even a slight crosswind situation, the KR would very quickly weathervane into the wind and, just as quickly, exit off the edge of the runway, if it isn't too wide. Ed Janssen ----- Original Message ----- From: "Karl Kleimenhagen" To: Sent: Friday, January 03, 2003 12:27 AM Subject: KR> Re: tailwheel landing > Actually, the time I spent learning to land a tailwheel aircraft was the most > fun I've ever had in an airplane. It is VERY rewarding to nail a full stall > landing. The plane seems to stop with hardly any runout. Yes, you can stop > almost as quickly in the more stable tricylce layout, but my observation of > the average flier (which includes me) is that they rarely do so. It so easy > to land hot in a tricycle, that nearly everyone does so. That isn't safe > either, but it is done day in, day out by most pilots. > > This isn't to say a tailwheel KR2 is a good idea. I have no idea how twitchy > such a beast is. It does have a very short tail, so I suspect it is not one > to baby. > > Most people who bad mouth the tailwheel configuration have never tried one. > Frankly, I thought it was easy to land, and doing so gave a great sense of > accomplishment. While dynamically unstable on the ground, it is easier to > build, weighs less, and creates a bit less drag. Do learn on grass, though. > > Karl > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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, 02 Jan 2003 14:38:34 -0600 To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: larry flesner Subject: Kitplanes/Great Plains Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20030102143834.008fc5b0@mail.midwest.net> Well, I got off my back (getting bottom of fuselage ready to prime) and went to get the mail. Check out the latest Kit Planes mag for an article on Great Planes and the VW engine. Haven't read it yet, working on KR. :-) Larry Flesner ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2003 16:23:22 -0500 To: From: "Ron Freiberger" Subject: RE: KR> Fuel Economy Message-ID: Larry; good synopsis. Your numbers are right on. My brother in law gets better mileage tho.... Ron Freiberger mailto:rfreiberger@swfla.rr.com -----Original Message----- From: larry flesner [mailto:flesner@midwest.net] Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2003 9:18 AM To: KRnet@mailinglists.org Subject: KR> Fuel Economy > 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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, 02 Jan 2003 17:34:56 -0500 To: KRnet@mailinglists.org From: "Jeff York" Subject: RE: KR> Fuel Economy Message-ID: Just curious, But wouldn't higher fuel burn effecientcy play a part in this. I mean my Lingenfeller modified Corvette ZR1 with 385HP and over 400 ft pounds of torque had more power then I knew what to do with on the street. But it was very fuel effecient. I measured over 25 mpg on the highway. With 5 speed transmission. The newer injected engines seem to produce more power with much better fuel economy. This fuel calculation would not work. And on the other hand the classic mopar convertable I have is on the other side of bad fuel effecientcy. It has no where near the HP of the corvette and drinks twice the gas. All my Mopars drink more gas. OK, they are not airplanes, but My 145hp Skyhawk burned 9.5 plus gallons per hour. My Arrow burned a little less than that but had 200 HP. >From: "Ron Freiberger" >Reply-To: KRnet@mailinglists.org >To: >Subject: RE: KR> Fuel Economy >Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2003 16:23:22 -0500 > >Larry; good synopsis. Your numbers are right on. My brother in law gets >better mileage tho.... > >Ron Freiberger >mailto:rfreiberger@swfla.rr.com > > -----Original Message----- >From: larry flesner [mailto:flesner@midwest.net] >Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2003 9:18 AM >To: KRnet@mailinglists.org >Subject: KR> Fuel Economy > > > 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 > > > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >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 _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 02 Jan 2003 18:23:25 -0600 To: KRnet@mailinglists.org From: larry flesner Subject: Fuel Economy Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20030102182325.00885560@mail.midwest.net> >But wouldn't higher fuel burn effecientcy play a part in this. >I mean my Lingenfeller modified Corvette ZR1 with 385HP and over 400 ft >pounds of torque had more power then I knew what to do with on the street. But it was very fuel effecient. I measured over 25 mpg on the highway. With 5 speed transmission. The newer injected engines seem to produce more power with much better fuel economy. ==== snip ============ ============= >OK, they are not airplanes, but My 145hp Skyhawk burned 9.5 plus gallons per >hour. My Arrow burned a little less than that but had 200 HP. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The .5 pound per hour per horsepower is a ball park figure for aircooled engines of 75 year old technology such as the ones we use in our Cessnas and Pipers. Go look at a farm tractor from the 1930's and you will find the same(similar) mags and Marvel-Schebler carbs we are using today. The fuel burned is for h.p. being produced, not what the engine is capable of producing. Your Vet, when cruising down the highway is probably not producing but maybe 30 to 40 hp. If you ask it to produce the 385 hp continous you won't get 25 mpg. Cars today with water cooled engines and the computer controls are constantly changing the mixture and spark timing to get maximum effeciency from the fuel burned. There are too many other variables between autos to answer your questions on the different mileage gotten by each. I once drove a 1980 Dodge Ram van and it got 10 miles per gallon no matter how you drove it . Go figure. Your C-172 must have the Continental 0-300. A friend of mine has a C-170 with that engine and his fuel burn is a gallon or more per hour more than mine also. Don't know why. Just the engine/induction/carb design or something. It's just not as effecent for some reason. Books have been written on this subject so I couldn't answer all your questions here even if I knew the answers. Besides, I'm off to a college BB game as soon as I hit the send button!!! All that being said, I still urge everyone to know EXACTLY what the fuel burn per hour is for the aircraft you fly, know what tach time was at last fillup and fly by the numbers. Oh, it helps to know the number of gallon your tank holds also. :-) Larry Flesner ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 03 Jan 2003 08:50:44 -0500 To: KRnet@mailinglists.org From: "Jeff York" Subject: Re: KR> Fuel Economy Message-ID: Larry, First I want to say my previous staement was not meant to doubt your statements. I just didn't fully consider the facts and technologies. I hope that nobody out there takes my messages the wrong way. I may for the sake of getting another explaination play devels advocate. I know that the majority of this group knows volumes more about aviation then me. This is my way of learning more and it's great for me. I apoligize if I came off the wrong way. I admit I didn't consider the fact that in cruise mode the vette is actually producing much less horsepower. That would actually make sence because when you get into the gas the fuel milege goes way down , where as in the airplane the fuel setting is pretty constant at a high percentage of the redline figure. Your point on the farm tractor brings to mind the time I rebuilt the carb on my 0-200 Cont. in the Varieze. The carb was a Marvel-Schebler that was the exact same carb used on the Oliver farm tractors I grew up using on the farm. The only difference was the farm version was cast iron, the 0-200 version was cast aluminum bodied. I paid $18.00 for the rebuilt kit I got at the farm store verses several hundred for the aircraft version if I remember right. And yes the C-172 had a 0-300D Cont engine. It and the Arrow where actually club planes. It was and still is the only way I figure I can afford to fly and justify the cost of flying factory iron. Thanks for the formula and the knowledge exchange >From: larry flesner >Reply-To: KRnet@mailinglists.org >To: KRnet@mailinglists.org >Subject: KR> Fuel Economy >Date: Thu, 02 Jan 2003 18:23:25 -0600 > > >But wouldn't higher fuel burn effecientcy play a part in this. > >I mean my Lingenfeller modified Corvette ZR1 with 385HP and over 400 ft > >pounds of torque had more power then I knew what to do with on the >street. >But it was very fuel effecient. I measured over 25 mpg on the highway. With >5 speed transmission. The newer injected engines seem to produce more power >with much better fuel economy. >==== snip ============ ============= > >OK, they are not airplanes, but My 145hp Skyhawk burned 9.5 plus gallons >per > >hour. My Arrow burned a little less than that but had 200 HP. >+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > >The .5 pound per hour per horsepower is a ball park figure for >aircooled engines of 75 year old technology such as the ones >we use in our Cessnas and Pipers. Go look at a farm tractor >from the 1930's and you will find the same(similar) mags and >Marvel-Schebler carbs we are using today. > >The fuel burned is for h.p. being produced, not what the >engine is capable of producing. Your Vet, when cruising >down the highway is probably not producing but maybe >30 to 40 hp. If you ask it to produce the 385 hp continous >you won't get 25 mpg. Cars today with water cooled >engines and the computer controls are constantly changing >the mixture and spark timing to get maximum effeciency from >the fuel burned. There are too many other variables between >autos to answer your questions on the different mileage gotten >by each. I once drove a 1980 Dodge Ram van and it got 10 >miles per gallon no matter how you drove it . Go figure. > >Your C-172 must have the Continental 0-300. A friend of mine >has a C-170 with that engine and his fuel burn is a gallon or >more per hour more than mine also. Don't know why. Just >the engine/induction/carb design or something. It's just not >as effecent for some reason. Books have been written on >this subject so I couldn't answer all your questions here even >if I knew the answers. Besides, I'm off to a college BB game >as soon as I hit the send button!!! > >All that being said, I still urge everyone to know EXACTLY what >the fuel burn per hour is for the aircraft you fly, know what tach >time was at last fillup and fly by the numbers. Oh, it helps to >know the number of gallon your tank holds also. :-) > >Larry Flesner > > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >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 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2003 13:39:29 -0500 (EST) To: KRnet@mailinglists.org From: Brian Kraut Subject: Re: KR> Re: Fuel pump layout Message-ID: <6956950.1041543316142.JavaMail.nobody@daisy.psp.pas.earthlink.net> In either one of my VW manuals or on Great Plains web site they say to put the electric pump before the gascolator. I don't know what the reason is. -------Original Message------- From: Joseph H Horton Sent: 01/01/03 04:28 PM To: KRnet@mailinglists.org Subject: KR> Re: Fuel pump layout > > 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 16:24:49 -0600 To: From: "Deems Herring" Subject: RE: KR> Re: Fuel pump layout Message-ID: <000401c2b2ad$c41c23a0$6400a8c0@BackOffice> A couple of items to consider for placing items in the fuel line. Anything you put upstream of the gascolator should allow sufficient flow for preflight sampling. Electric fuel pumps are much better at "pushing" fuel than "sucking" fuel so that if the gascolator does its job and collects some water or debris the electric pump can push more fuel through it than it could draw through it. That is why on automobiles electric pumps are put in or very close to the fuel tank and fuel filters are down stream of the pump. Deems Herring, Baudette Minnesota mailto:ballross@wiktel.com -----Original Message----- From: Brian Kraut [mailto:engalt@earthlink.net] Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2003 12:39 PM To: KRnet@mailinglists.org Subject: Re: KR> Re: Fuel pump layout In either one of my VW manuals or on Great Plains web site they say to put the electric pump before the gascolator. I don't know what the reason is. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.434 / Virus Database: 243 - Release Date: 12/25/2002 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2003 10:13:00 -0500 To: KRnet@mailinglists.org From: virgnvs@juno.com Cc: KRnet@mailinglists.org Subject: Re: KR> Fuel pump layout Message-ID: <20030103.101600.-459179.0.virgnvs@juno.com> Get the grit out at the gascolator FIRST, Virg On Thu, 02 Jan 2003 09:34:41 -0600 larry flesner writes: > 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 > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 > > > Virgil N. Salisbury AMSOIL WWW.LUBEDEALER.COM/SALISBURY ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2003 14:16:42 -0500 (EST) To: KRnet@mailinglists.org From: Brian Kraut Subject: Re: KR> Re:GT propellers and others for 2180 VW Message-ID: <1698656.1041545549378.JavaMail.nobody@daisy.psp.pas.earthlink.net> A wood prop is more flexible so it dampens the power pulses from the engine better. It also weighs less so it puts less stress on the crankshaft. Both of these are very important when you are using a crank that wasn't really designed for turning a propeller. Of course, these arguments seem valid when comparing a wood prop to a metal one. I really don't know why a composite prop is not recommended. -------Original Message------- From: Jeff York Sent: 01/01/03 05:38 PM To: KRnet@mailinglists.org Subject: KR> Re:GT propellers and others for 2180 VW > > 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 > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 02 Jan 2003 17:22:31 -0500 To: KRnet@mailinglists.org From: "Jeff York" Subject: Re: KR> Re:GT propellers and others for 2180 VW Message-ID: All of the props I have seen on VW engines that are composite are actually wood and composite. So, how does that play in this. Jeff York propeller curious or should I say propeller challenged. Maybe that's the politically correct way to say I am dumb about it. >From: Brian Kraut >Reply-To: KRnet@mailinglists.org >To: KRnet@mailinglists.org >Subject: Re: KR> Re:GT propellers and others for 2180 VW >Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2003 14:16:42 -0500 (EST) > >A wood prop is more flexible so it dampens the power pulses from the engine >better. It also weighs less so it puts less stress on the crankshaft. >Both of these are very important when you are using a crank that wasn't >really designed for turning a propeller. > >Of course, these arguments seem valid when comparing a wood prop to a metal >one. I really don't know why a composite prop is not recommended. > >-------Original Message------- >From: Jeff York >Sent: 01/01/03 05:38 PM >To: KRnet@mailinglists.org >Subject: KR> Re:GT propellers and others for 2180 VW > > > > > 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 > > > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >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 MSN 8 is here: Try it free* for 2 months http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2003 10:26:27 +1100 To: From: "Phillip Matheson" Subject: Re: KR Virus ALERT Message-ID: <000a01c2b2b6$611d5720$0100a8c0@barry> I have just been told of a new Virus. I have not see it or got it. It will come from someone's address book, just like the last worm. It is from hotmail and the subject I think is an attachment called " Check This Out" Hotmail is not working at the moment, and Mcfee did not pick it up. Norton Anivirus does not as yet have a fix, but they can detect it with the latest updates. Phil Matheson matheson@dodo.com.au 61 3 58833588 NSW Australia. See our VW engines at; www.vw-engines.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2003 19:40:30 -0500 To: KRnet@mailinglists.org From: Joseph H Horton Subject: Re:cowl weight Message-ID: <20030102.194030.-226277.3.joe.kr2s.builder@juno.com> KR Netters I had bought the RR KR2S cowl last year and was disappointed in the weight. I am not positive right now but I think it was 15 or 16#. I'm going to pull a mold off it and make a carbon fiber one. -- Joe Horton ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2003 21:13:43 -0500 To: From: "James Wester" Subject: Re: KR> Discovery Wings Message-ID: <003b01c2b2cd$bde47120$5f4f87d1@joflywester> Sorry I'm late Jeff ; What I've seen has been on Sunday nights , and Mondays (repeat) .I just happened to come across the whole business with them building the RV late last winter .It went on for months ; one Sunday at a time , 30 min . a shot .They would also throw in some bits involving older aircraft restoration as well ! - just to keep it interesting for all , I guess . What I really like , though , is the overseas action ; some fellow in England (Popular Flying Ass.?) decides to build a Europa - and at the same time , learn to fly ! He's quite the wit . Last I checked , He's into choppers now !? I'm too busy to keep up ...... ----- Original Message ----- From: Jeff York To: Sent: Wednesday, January 01, 2003 9:40 PM Subject: Re: KR> Discovery Wings > > > > > 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: Thu, 2 Jan 2003 21:55:07 -0600 To: From: "kevin" Subject: Re: KR> Discovery Wings Message-ID: <003201c2b2db$e8897660$98913841@hppav> He put part of the main drive into the chopper this week on the Discovery Wings show. I have never been around helicopters and I thought that show was good too. Kevin. ----- Original Message ----- From: "James Wester" To: Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2003 8:13 PM Subject: Re: KR> Discovery Wings > Sorry I'm late Jeff ; What I've seen has been on Sunday nights , and > Mondays (repeat) .I just happened to come across the whole business with > them building the RV late last winter .It went on for months ; one Sunday at > a time , 30 min . a shot .They would also throw in some bits involving older > aircraft restoration as well ! - just to keep it interesting for all , I > guess . What I really like , though , is the overseas action ; some fellow > in England (Popular Flying Ass.?) decides to build a Europa - and at the > same time , learn to fly ! He's quite the wit . Last I checked , He's into > choppers now !? I'm too busy to keep up ...... > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Jeff York > To: > Sent: Wednesday, January 01, 2003 9:40 PM > Subject: Re: KR> Discovery Wings > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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, 02 Jan 2003 23:59:39 -0600 To: KRnet@mailinglists.org From: Justin Subject: update 1/2/03 Message-ID: <3E1526CB.8030007@socal.rr.com> Having desided to redo my fuselage side. I made a modification while I was there. I beefed up the Rows A and B bottom longeron because I plan to run a corvair rather then the designed for VW. The extra weight is minimal but im sure it helps take off some stress on the airframe. Anyone else doing the same? Next is my wing spars. Has anyone just made them out of fiberglass. I am missing the point of making them from wood when the rest of the wing is fiber glass?? Justin KR2S Eaa 96 Torrance Cali ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2003 11:07:34 +0200 To: From: "Serge Vidal" Subject: Taildragger versus tri gear - my 2 cents worth Message-ID: <000901c2b30c$02ee8240$e100a8c0@sergevidal12> I learnt to fly in 1996, and like most pilots of my generation, I had no choice: only tri gears were available for training. When I considered buying a second hand KR2, well, I had no choice again: the one I wanted to buy was a taildragger. Yet, I think that the look of it had to do with my decision. Since then, I have seen tri-gear KR2s, and my biased opinion is that they are not nearly as pretty. Anyway, it is now more and more difficult to get a taildragger conversion, because both instructors and aircraft are scarce. I was lucky to get 5 hours on a Bellanca Superdecathlon, and guess what? I enjoyed it tremendously. Suddenly, any take-off or landing became very, very interesting. I like challenges, and let's say that I suddenly became "landing-challenged" forever. Wow! What a flying pleasure! You have to interact a lot more with the aircraft on a taildragger. The KR2 proved a much harder plane to land, and it took me 15 hours of hard work to make my instructor happy with my skills. Now, whenever I have a choice, I will rent, buy and fly taildraggers. Of course, people can make other choices for other reasons. But the KR2 was designed as a taildragger. Just consider that on the KR2, the nose wheel brings weight, complexity and cost. so my advice is: before you make a decision on your landing gear configuration, just go for a flight on a taildragger, and see how you feel. Serge Vidal KR2 ZS-WEC Johannesburg, South Africa ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2003 11:07:17 +0200 To: From: "Serge Vidal" Subject: My 2 cents worth on "rammed" carburetor air intake Message-ID: <000801c2b30c$016d6080$e100a8c0@sergevidal12> I gave that rammed air intake going through the air filter some thought. I like the idea, and I think it could certainly improve my engine performance (today, the intake is directly at the carburetor mouth, through a paper filter; therefore, my engine sucks warm air from inside the cowling; I am probably running permanently on the "carb heat" mode). This being said: 1) I think it is a very bad idea to get totally unfiltered rammed air directly in your carburetor, even in altitude. You can encounter dust, insects, birds or what have you even at very high altitude, and any foreign object ingress in the carb could be fatal. You could also forget from time to time to close the valve during take-off and landing, and then, foreign object ingress would become highly probable. Solution to that: put a very basic filter on the air duct (say, a thin metal mesh, and some air conditioner filter material - which is not water sensitive). 2) There will necessarily be a huge difference in mixture richness between the rammed air intake and the air filter intake. So, unless you have a very effective mixture control, you run the risk of killing the engine when you operate the valve. 3) You would run with less power near the ground, that is when you need it most: at take-off and landing. Serge Vidal KR2 ZS-WEC Johannesburg, South Africa ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 03 Jan 2003 07:32:32 -0500 To: KRnet@mailinglists.org From: "Dana Overall" Subject: It's Friday......I'm back:-) Message-ID: After taking a nice reprieve to coach on Friday nights (and not get home until 7PM on week nights from practice) and watch my son play football on Sat., I'm back to building. With that comes Friday pics:-) http://rvflying.tripod.com/wing.jpg http://rvflying.tripod.com/flap_gap.jpg The wing is now complete except for the bottom skins. I will rivet those on when I finally decide on what autopilot and misc. stuff that might go in there. All pushrods are complete including installation ob the bellcrank. Look and near aft portion of the inboard rib. That little round white circle is actually a 5/8" piece of PVC pipe running the entire length of the wing. My wiring will go through there to the wingtip. Neat little idea I was told about was to tie a cotton ball to a string and fire up the compressor. Fire the cotton ball through the PVC with a shot of air.....sounds like fun. I'll try it this afternoon. I posted the flap gap pics to show how the gap seal works. Any way that you can alliviate that gap on the KR aileron, or flaps if you so desire, is an improvement on the design brought down from the mountaintop. I've posted these two to show how computer design, along with match drilling has made tolerances so very tight. http://rvflying.tripod.com/clear.jpg This is a pic showing where three skings come together on the top of the wing. Yes, I took this picture before I put in those final rivets. http://rvflying.tripod.com/wing.jpg This shows how tight the flap/skin brace fits up against a rear spar reinforcement plate. The small hole in that plate is where the aileron pushrods come through the plate. It may not be KR, but it is still aircraft assembling:-) Dana Overall Richmond, KY 1999 & 2000 National KR Gathering host http://rvflying.tripod.com do not archive _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8 is here: Try it free* for 2 months http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 03 Jan 2003 09:13:22 -0600 To: krnet@mailinglists.org, pietenpol-list@matronics.com, sqrlnet@yahoogroups.com, STOL@onelist.com From: "Oscar Zuniga" Subject: Alamo City Corvair College Message-ID: Howdy, Vairheads; I got a call from William Wynne last night. As I suspected, he had left for New Jersey just before Christmas so when he got back to Florida his email account was jammed, his phone answering machine was full, and who knows what he had waiting for him at the post office box. But... we're looking good for the upcoming College and folks who called or wrote to him for parts should be getting action pretty quickly. An important correction to note. William prepared and mailed the most recent Corvair Flyer (his printed newsletter) late at night so he got the dates for the College wrong. If you see something about Jan. 16-17 don't despair... it is still set for Saturday, Jan. 18. William will be arriving sometime around noon on Friday to get set up, but the main workday is Saturday with details and mop-up on Sunday if anyone is still around and wants to do anything further. William will be bringing manuals, prop hubs, oil pans, hybrid studs, and other items that he sells. We will also have a press (for piston pins and crank hubs), compressed air and tools, jigs for holding case halves and cylinders, and assembly lube/form-a-gasket/lubriplate type stuff. Things to bring if you're building an engine (or dismantling, or converting): bring your own hand tools such as wrenches, screwdrivers, and a big hammer ;o) also plenty of carb cleaner and degreaser if you're dismantling or cleaning/prepping. If you have any sort of folding tables or portable workbenches, those will be helpful too. Rags are always needed (such as discarded Texas Aggies shirts) and coffee cans or other containers for dismantled stuff. The CORSA guys might be looking over our shoulders just for fun and general interest, and the local EAA chapter members have all been invited via this month's Chapter newsletter and email. I'll be giving the program on 1/11 to the Chapter and of course it will be on the Corvair. My plan is to have a table up front with the complete, disassembled, painted and prepped engine available for show and tell, as well as the manual available for browsing. There shouldn't be a speck of grease or grime on any of it! Thanks to Mark Langford and Pat Panzera for setting the construction and cleanliness standards high for the rest of us to follow. I will post updates and more detailed directions on getting to San Geronimo Airpark on the http://www.corvaircraft.com main webpage (thanks, Pat!) Oscar Zuniga San Antonio, TX mailto: taildrags@hotmail.com website at http://www.flysquirrel.net _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus ------------------------------ End of krnet Digest ***********************************