From: To: Subject: krnet Digest 31 Jan 2003 22:38:59 -0000 Issue 619 Date: Friday, January 31, 2003 2:39 PM krnet Digest 31 Jan 2003 22:38:59 -0000 Issue 619 Topics (messages 14794 through 14814): Carlton - Changing incidence 14794 by: Dan Heath Re: chipped horizontal stabilizer. 14795 by: Sky Rider 14797 by: Tony Rogers 14800 by: Dan Heath Re: Is there an easy way to take the wings off? 14796 by: Louis Staalberg All fiberglass KR? 14798 by: Justin 14807 by: Scott Cable 14808 by: Bill Higdon 14809 by: Mark Langford Wood test results 14799 by: Justin 14802 by: John Legg 14806 by: Donald Reid Re: Seat Comfort Study 14801 by: Dan Heath 14803 by: JEHayward.aol.com 14804 by: Dan Heath Re: Changing incidence on RAF48 14805 by: Dana Overall 14812 by: Donald Blankenship Re: Sorry men I liked it anyway 14810 by: wstarrs Re: a challenge 14811 by: Donald Reid 14813 by: Donald Blankenship 14814 by: Kevin Administrivia: To subscribe to the digest, e-mail: To unsubscribe from the digest, e-mail: To post to the list, e-mail: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 18:47:39 -0800 (Pacific Standard Time) To: "Krnet@Mailinglists.Org (E-mail)" From: "Dan Heath" Subject: Carlton - Changing incidence Message-Id: <3E39E3CB.00000E.01212@dan> --------------Boundary-00=_F35KXFP0000000000000 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Carlton,=0D =0D I checked and the spars do sit on the lower longerons. The forward spar = is 7 in deep and the rear spar is 4 in deep at the highest point ( foreward = ).=20 This is on our KR2. =0D =0D N64KR=0D =0D Daniel R. Heath - Columbia, SC=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 =20 --------------Boundary-00=_F35KXFP0000000000000-- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 17:22:36 -0800 (PST) To: KRnet@mailinglists.org From: Sky Rider Subject: Re: KR> chipped horizontal stabilizer. Message-ID: <20030131012236.57878.qmail@web11606.mail.yahoo.com> --0-127266946-1043976156=:57784 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Dan...my appologies...I still did not describe the problem adequately...it has not yet been glassed...it's still the bare foam....but it somehow got chipped and cracked all the way through in the area I described earlier...so I wondered what is the best way to repair it..ie:, glue, and what kind, epoxy, or tear it off and foam it again before finishing the shape and glassing it... Sky Dan Heath wrote:From what you describe, I think you could sand it down to get the layer of glass around the break as thin as possible without going through it. Then lay up a new layer of glass over the sanded area. Use finish cloth and peel ply if you have it. Fair it in with super fill and smooth prime and you should be good to go with a little paint. N64KR Daniel R. Heath - Columbia, SC 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: Thursday, January 30, 2003 01:14:01 PM To: KRnet@mailinglists.org Subject: Re: KR> chipped horizontal stabilizer. Correst...my mistake...the crack , or more accurately, break, goes entirely through the foam on the aft portion of the elevator on the port side...and there are small 'pits' in the surface where it may have been chipped slightly by things falling on it or in some other manner before it came into my possession...the break is about 10 inoches in length, and runs from the trailing edge, about a foot in from the port side angling forward to the port edge of the foam...it is still attached, but barely...none of the spruce is affected. Sky harold woods wrote:Sky Rider You did not tell us where along it's span was the elevator damaged. To what extent. You must realize that this governs the fix. Harold Woods. Orillia, ON. Canada. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.449 / Virus Database: 251 - Release Date: 1/27/03 --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now --0-127266946-1043976156=:57784-- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 19:15:18 -0800 (PST) To: KRnet@mailinglists.org From: Tony Rogers Subject: Re: KR> chipped horizontal stabilizer. Message-ID: <20030131031518.47077.qmail@web10105.mail.yahoo.com> --- Sky Rider wrote: > > Dan...my appologies...I still did not describe the problem > adequately...it has not yet been glassed...it's still the bare > foam....but it somehow got chipped and cracked all the way > through Sky That's an easy one. Use 3M Super 77 spray adhesive on both the broken faces (if you can't get to them, finish the break). Let the glue dry 5min and carefully (you get one shot) stick them back together. The foam has little structural contribution aside from transmitting shear between the top and bottom skins and of course holding the shape. Once you hold the pieces so they don't move, lay up the glass as normal and you won't see any difference whatsoever. (This is usually the way splicing foam blocks together is done and it works great in this application.) --TR __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 05:45:10 -0800 (Pacific Standard Time) To: From: "Dan Heath" Subject: Re: KR> chipped horizontal stabilizer. Message-Id: <3E3A7DE6.000001.01160@dan> --------------Boundary-00=_AJZKQL80000000000000 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Then, in my opinion, there is only one really good option. Take out the = old foam, put in a new piece, sand it to shape and glass it before it gets broken again.=0D =0D You are at the surface preparation stage. Anything you do at this stage will be compounded from here to completion. Good surface begets good surface. Patched surface..........=0D =0D N64KR=0D =0D Daniel R. Heath - Columbia, SC=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: Thursday, January 30, 2003 05:22:42 PM=0D To: KRnet@mailinglists.org=0D Subject: Re: KR> chipped horizontal stabilizer.=0D =0D Dan...my appologies...I still did not describe the problem adequately...i= t has not yet been glassed...it's still the bare foam....but it somehow got chipped and cracked all the way through in the area I described earlier..= =2Eso I wondered what is the best way to repair it..ie:, glue, and what kind, epoxy, or tear it off and foam it again before finishing the shape and glassing it...=0D Sky=0D Dan Heath wrote:From what you describe, I think you co= uld sand it down to get the layer of=0D glass around the break as thin as possible without going through it. Then= =0D lay up a new layer of glass over the sanded area. Use finish cloth and pe= el=0D ply if you have it. Fair it in with super fill and smooth prime and you=0D should be good to go with a little paint.=0D =0D =0D N64KR=0D =0D Daniel R. Heath - Columbia, SC=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: Thursday, January 30, 2003 01:14:01 PM=0D To: KRnet@mailinglists.org=0D Subject: Re: KR> chipped horizontal stabilizer.=0D =0D Correst...my mistake...the crack , or more accurately, break, goes entire= ly=0D through the foam on the aft portion of the elevator on the port side...an= d=0D there are small 'pits' in the surface where it may have been chipped=0D slightly by things falling on it or in some other manner before it came i= nto=0D my possession...the break is about 10 inoches in length, and runs from th= e=0D trailing edge, about a foot in from the port side angling forward to the=0D port edge of the foam...it is still attached, but barely...none of the=0D spruce is affected.=0D =0D Sky=0D harold woods wrote:Sky Rider=0D You did not tell us where along it's span was the elevator damaged. To wh= at=0D extent. You must realize that this governs the fix.=0D Harold Woods.=0D Orillia, ON.=0D Canada.=0D =0D =0D ---=0D Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.=0D Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).=0D Version: 6.0.449 / Virus Database: 251 - Release Date: 1/27/03=0D =0D =0D ---------------------------------=0D Do you Yahoo!?=0D Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now=0D =0D =0D ---------------------------------=0D Do you Yahoo!?=0D Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now --------------Boundary-00=_AJZKQL80000000000000-- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 18:52:04 -0700 To: From: "Louis Staalberg" Subject: Re: KR> Is there an easy way to take the wings off? Message-ID: <002801c2c8cb$73f138a0$0200a8c6@toshiba> To Rick Armrstrong, Please put me on your list of interested (very) for information on the folding wings by "the fellow in Georgia" hanks and regards, Louis Staalberg N9FL@cybertrails.com Payson, Arizona ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 22:59:02 -0600 To: KRnet@mailinglists.org From: Justin Subject: All fiberglass KR? Message-ID: <3E3A0296.1030508@socal.rr.com> Has anyone seen an all fiberglass KR2? I was just thinking what it woudl be like to put the top and bottom longerons in and foam the entire inside, then glass it. I know it would be tons of extra work to make cut outs etc... and proubly a complete redeisgn but I bet it would be stronger? ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 07:11:11 -0800 (PST) To: KRnet@mailinglists.org From: Scott Cable Subject: Re: KR> All fiberglass KR? Message-ID: <20030131151111.7812.qmail@web40801.mail.yahoo.com> --0-1928128498-1044025871=:7539 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Justin, Check out Langford's site : http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford/ebarros There are pictures of Edwardo Barros' Argintinian KR2S. Edwardo used a CAD system to design the changes he made on his aircraft. Edwardo is a very skilled and talented craftsman, and the quality of his work is obvious. I would suspect that in order to accomplish this same feat, you would at least need the same amount of tools in your "toolbox". Meaning, do you have a CAD system on your computer or access to the same? Do you have a great deal of experience with fiberglass? If the honest answer is no, then I would encourage you again to stick to the plans/builder's manual. My best advise to you my friend is this: Save your money, buy as many premolded / prefabricated parts as you can. This actually saves money and time. The quality of the parts are also undisputed. Stick to the plans, seek the advise of your fellow KR builders in regards to assembly and build techniques. Pay strict attention to detail. Read, Read, Read, as much as you can, and get as much information as you can stand about building an aircraft, and aircraft building techniques. Seek the advise of an EAA Mentor, or someone in your local area that is familiar with how to build an aircraft to help you and guide you. What will be the end result? You will have air beneath your landing gear faster than you could ever dream, and your craft will be airworthy and safe. Justin wrote:Has anyone seen an all fiberglass KR2? I was just thinking what it woudl be like to put the top and bottom longerons in and foam the entire inside, then glass it. I know it would be tons of extra work to make cut outs etc... and proubly a complete redeisgn but I bet it would be stronger? --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Scott Cable KR-2S # 735 Livonia, MI s2cable1@yahoo.com --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now --0-1928128498-1044025871=:7539-- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 07:16:25 -0800 To: KRnet@mailinglists.org From: Bill Higdon Subject: Re: KR> All fiberglass KR? Message-ID: <3E3A9349.9060700@attbi.com> Also look for the GB-2 in the early neswsletters, it was a Mostly glass KR-2. Bill Higdon Scott Cable wrote: > Justin, > Check out Langford's site : http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford/ebarros > There are pictures of Edwardo Barros' Argintinian KR2S. Edwardo used a CAD system to design the changes he made on his aircraft. Edwardo is a very skilled and talented craftsman, and the quality of his work is obvious. > I would suspect that in order to accomplish this same feat, you would at least need the same amount of tools in your "toolbox". Meaning, do you have a CAD system on your computer or access to the same? Do you have a great deal of experience with fiberglass? If the honest answer is no, then I would encourage you again to stick to the plans/builder's manual. > My best advise to you my friend is this: Save your money, buy as many premolded / prefabricated parts as you can. This actually saves money and time. The quality of the parts are also undisputed. > Stick to the plans, seek the advise of your fellow KR builders in regards to assembly and build techniques. > Pay strict attention to detail. > Read, Read, Read, as much as you can, and get as much information as you can stand about building an aircraft, and aircraft building techniques. > Seek the advise of an EAA Mentor, or someone in your local area that is familiar with how to build an aircraft to help you and guide you. > What will be the end result? > You will have air beneath your landing gear faster than you could ever dream, and your craft will be airworthy and safe. > > Justin wrote:Has anyone seen an all fiberglass KR2? I was just thinking what it woudl > be like to put the top and bottom longerons in and foam the entire > inside, then glass it. I know it would be tons of extra work to make cut > outs etc... and proubly a complete redeisgn but I bet it would be stronger? ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 09:28:54 -0600 To: From: "Mark Langford" Subject: Re: KR> All fiberglass KR? Message-ID: <001101c2c93d$7754cf30$5e0ca58c@tbe.com> Scott Cable wrote: > Check out Langford's site : http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford/ebarros > There are pictures of Edwardo Barros' Argintinian KR2S. Edwardo used a CAD system >to design the changes he made on his aircraft. Edwardo is a very skilled and talented >craftsman, and the quality of his work is obvious. Just to give credit where I'm pretty sure it belongs, Dr. Dean designed this fuselage about three years ago, ironing out the lamination construction process and exact dimensions using CAD. Dr. Dean's former website, the photos that were posted at the time (two of which are at the bottom of http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford/columbia/columbia.html ) , and the discussions about how strong it was and how light it is, gave a lot of folks the idea to copy it. I think Dr. Dean would be the first to tell you that it was a really time-consuming effort, and the finishing the compound curves will take far longer than the flat plywood called out in the plans. But if time is no object and you want a one-of-a-kind KR, then by all means go for it. Eduardo's work is definitely top notch though. There are more details at his new website at http://www.kr2-egb.com.ar/ , if you can read Spanish, but the pictures say it all... Mark Langford, Huntsville, AL mailto:langford@hiwaay.net see KR2S project N56ML at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 23:10:23 -0600 To: KRnet@mailinglists.org From: Justin Subject: Wood test results Message-ID: <3E3A053F.20505@socal.rr.com> This is a test between basswood, homedepot ply, and mahagony. Homedepot ply tested the whorst with after boiling for 6 hours it was easly peeled away once an edge was picked Mahagony was next, once an edge was peeled it came back really easy also but helo togetehr alittle but not much better then home depot ply. Basswood held the best, No peel back at all, It woudl simply just chip just as if it was never wet. Anyone else have wood test results? What is another suitable wood that is not via aircraft spruce etc... Thinking along the lines of marine plywood? Justin ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 05:55:04 -0500 To: From: "John Legg" Subject: RE: KR> Wood test results Message-ID: March 2003 Custom Planes, has an article on using alternate woods, as opposed to Aircraft Grade. The timing is ironic and the article adds input to this popular thread. As a very cheap $%^&!#$ from way back, I only hope everyone uses a careful eye when choosing the wood that they work with. I'm all for bucking the system because there are always multiple ways to do every task. Just because Joe Bob was able to "design" something does not mean that it was the best, the most effective or the most cost effective method. Use your head and think things through. Good Luck. John ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 08:54:54 -0500 To: KRnet@mailinglists.org From: Donald Reid Subject: Re: KR> Wood test results Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.0.20030131083943.00a63040@pop.erols.com> --=====================_4735776==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 11:10 PM 1/30/2003 -0600, you wrote: >This is a test between basswood, homedepot ply, and mahagony. >Homedepot ply tested the whorst with after boiling for 6 hours it was >easly peeled away once an edge was picked >Mahagony was next, once an edge was peeled it came back really easy also >but helo togetehr alittle but not much better then home depot ply. >Basswood held the best, No peel back at all, It woudl simply just chip >just as if it was never wet. Please remember that a boil test will show you how well your plane will last when it is exposed to boiling water. It indirectly shows how well it will hold up to humidity. It does not tell you anything at all about the strength of a normal specimen of the wood in normal circumstances. The main differences between aircraft certificated material and material that is of aircraft quality are the price and the documentation that comes with it. The mahogany that I used is a British aircraft quality grade, cheaper than MIL Spec certificated. All of my birch is Finnish GL-2 and it is very nice. The quality is great and it is significantly cheaper than MIL Spec. Don Reid mailto:donreid@erols.com Bumpass, Va Visit my web sites at: KR2XL construction: http://users.erols.com/donreid/kr_page.htm Aviation Surplus: http://users.erols.com/donreid/Airparts.htm EAA Chapter 231: http://eaa231.org Ultralights: http://usua250.org VA EAA State Fly-in: http://vaeaa.org --=====================_4735776==_.ALT-- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 05:51:09 -0800 (Pacific Standard Time) To: From: "Dan Heath" Subject: Re: KR> Seat Comfort Study Message-Id: <3E3A7F4D.000003.01160@dan> --------------Boundary-00=_9TZKG6G0000000000000 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I am going to have to take some measurements with Jerry's butt and then m= y butt, in the seat first, however, I think I am going to go with the comforfoam. I have been exchanging e-mails with their sales person and I have concluded that my best configuration will be 1" of medium on the sea= t back, and a composite of 1" firm and 1" of medium on the seat bottoms.=20 Cover this with a nice Naugahyde and it could be nice.=0D =0D First I have to make sure we have 2" of head room to spare, but I think w= e have plenty.=0D =0D N64KR=0D =0D Daniel R. Heath - Columbia, SC=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: Saturday, January 25, 2003 08:09:29 AM=0D To: KRnet@mailinglists.org=0D Subject: Re: KR> Seat Comfort Study=0D =0D Okay, I feel qualified to give an opinion on this one.=0D =0D I have the standard sling seat in my KR2S that I flew for 16 hours to =0D the KR Gathering in Red Oak last year. All the way from Toronto , Canada = =0D to RDK in the sling seat with a 2" slab of standard foam cushion.=0D =0D The sling seat is actually pretty good but it puts a pressure point =0D right on your tail bone area and I ended up with an actual friction burn.= =0D =0D My solution is to replace the 2" standard foam with some of the energy =0D absorbing type ( CONFOR) to help distribute my weight ( 195 -200 lbs) =0D better, for the long flight again next year to RDK.=0D This stuff is expensive no matter where you buy it but I believe well =0D worth it .Your butt will thank you.=0D =0D Contact Hi-Tech foams for information ( seatfoam@inetnebr.com)or =0D www.seatfoam.com=0D =0D Regards=0D =0D Chris Gardiner=0D C-GKRZ=0D =0D =0D =0D Scott Cable wrote:=0D =0D >Netters, =0D >I have some questions in regard to the KR Seat in flying KR's. =0D >=0D >I have a hunch from studying the plans, that the plans built "sling" sea= t looks very unsupportive, and uncomfortable, especially in the lower thigh area. Do your legs and feet fall asleep while in flight? =0D >=0D >When flying your KR for long flights, what makes your seat uncomfortable= ? =0D >Lack of support? Pressure points? No lumbar support? Lack of adjustment? Are you sitting on some form of foam pad to augment the sling? If so what= ?=0D >=0D >=0D >=0D >=0D >Scott Cable=0D >KR-2S # 735=0D >Livonia, MI=0D >s2cable1@yahoo.com=0D >=0D >=0D >---------------------------------=0D >Do you Yahoo!?=0D >Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now=0D >=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=_9TZKG6G0000000000000-- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 06:28:09 EST To: KRnet@mailinglists.org From: JEHayward@aol.com Subject: Re: KR> Seat Comfort Study Message-ID: <188.152e5243.2b6bb7c9@aol.com> --part1_188.152e5243.2b6bb7c9_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 1/31/2003 4:50:59 AM Mountain Standard Time, DanRH@AllTel.net writes: > I have been exchanging e-mails with their sales person and I have concluded > that my best configuration will be 1" of medium on the seat back, and a > composite of 1" firm and 1" of medium on the seat bottoms. > Is this the same stuff Wicks sells (blue, pink, etc.)? If it is, I bought some to replace the factory seat cushions in my Challenger UL and it's pretty good comfort-wise. It does get brick hard in cold temps but softens up after you sit on it for a short while. Jim Hayward Rapid City, SD --part1_188.152e5243.2b6bb7c9_boundary-- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 07:31:55 -0800 (Pacific Standard Time) To: From: "Dan Heath" Subject: Re: KR> Seat Comfort Study Message-Id: <3E3A96EB.000008.01160@dan> --------------Boundary-00=_7H4LRN00000000000000 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I think it is the same. AS sells it also. The only benefit in buying it directly, that I can see, is that you can get exactly the configuration y= ou want. =0D =0D N64KR=0D =0D Daniel R. Heath - Columbia, SC=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: Friday, January 31, 2003 03:28:49 AM=0D To: KRnet@mailinglists.org=0D Subject: Re: KR> Seat Comfort Study=0D =0D In a message dated 1/31/2003 4:50:59 AM Mountain Standard Time, =0D DanRH@AllTel.net writes:=0D =0D =0D > I have been exchanging e-mails with their sales person and I have concluded =0D > that my best configuration will be 1" of medium on the seat back, and a= =0D > composite of 1" firm and 1" of medium on the seat bottoms. =0D > =0D Is this the same stuff Wicks sells (blue, pink, etc.)? =0D If it is, I bought some to replace the factory seat cushions =0D in my Challenger UL and it's pretty good comfort-wise. It =0D does get brick hard in cold temps but softens up after you =0D sit on it for a short while. =0D =0D Jim Hayward=0D Rapid City, SD --------------Boundary-00=_7H4LRN00000000000000-- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 07:33:04 -0500 To: KRnet@mailinglists.org From: "Dana Overall" Subject: Re: KR> Changing incidence on RAF48 Message-ID: I hate to start a "I change for the original plans thread" but there was a lot of study done on just what you are being forced into doing. I based by construction on this true research and found the optimal placement of the rear spar was in fact, 3/4" higher than the plans. Dana Overall Richmond, KY 1999 & 2000 National KR Gathering http://rvflying.tripod.com do not archive >From: "Carlton" >Reply-To: KRnet@mailinglists.org >To: >Subject: KR> Changing incidence on RAF48 >Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 00:34:18 -0000 > >Greetings KRnetters, >I'm busy rebuilding a KR1 that was originally fitted with an laminar >airfoil >(44" cord) for which I do not have any specifications. I'm planning on >returning to the original RAF48 but will need to lift the airfoil 1" at >the >rear spar for it to fit over both spars. Unfortunately I cann't lower the >rear spar as it already rests on the lower longeron >If I go this route the wing will only have an incidence of 1.5degrees. >Questions: >- How will this affect take-off and landings? >- What must the washout be set at? >- How many degrees must the tail incidence be set at? > >PS. The main spare has been installed 1" lower, to install per the plans >I'll need to break the main spar from the boat and move it up 1". I'm >reluctant to do this as the spar is well glued in and damage to the boat is >inevitable. > >Any other ideas? > >Thnks >Carlton Blandford > > > > > > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >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 _________________________________________________________________ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 12:18:03 -0500 To: KRnet@mailinglists.org From: "Donald Blankenship" Subject: Re: KR> Changing incidence on RAF48 Message-ID: <20030131171803.66593.qmail@mail.com> Carlton The wing always flies at angles needed to keep the craft in the air for the given weights and speeds. Slower or heavier means the wing flies at higher angles than faster or lighter. So if the wing is mounted at a reduced incidence angle from plans, then the nose of the plane has to point upward to get the wing up and make up the difference. If your wing incidence is lower than plans, your visibility over nose will be reduced, particularly at slower speeds such as during landing or take off. In cruising flight, an extremely heavy KR will appear to fly nose up relative to a much lighter KR flying along side if both have the same wing mounting incidence. Small variations from plans may not matter too much, OR they can be compounded with other variations to cause undesirable results related to trimming the plane in flight. If the last builder modified the wing from plans, it is possible they changed their mind and decided that may not have been the best thing to do, but didn't want to put the work into correcting it. Your decision to remount the wing per plans sounds like the advisable thing to do. If it's a matter of just separating the wing spars from the fuselage, it's not a hard task. I did it once. You just saw the joint between the spar faces and mounting frames with a long, wide, serrated knife, then remount the spar. Once you get the knife between the surfaces, you can put something protective between the knife and the spar as you saw. Wood is easy to work with. As far as washout is concerned, it's best to stick with what's stated in your plans. Regarding the tail incidence, however, you may want to gather feedback from other builders who fly their KR. Someone may eventually be able to provide convincing evidence that they modified the tail incidence angle to trim the aircraft satisfactorily for a similar gross weight range, fuselage length, and stabilizer dimensions as yours will have. Other than that, the plans are your best reference. One last item: If the previous builder made the main or aft wing spar dimensions smaller than plans to fit the airfoil over the spars, you would probably be best off biting the bullet and rebuilding the wing from scratch. Hopefully, that won't be necessary, and remounting the wing should be fairly simple. Good luck and happy building, --Don Blankenship ----- Original Message ----- From: "Carlton" Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 00:34:18 -0000 To: Subject: KR> Changing incidence on RAF48 > Greetings KRnetters, > I'm busy rebuilding a KR1 that was originally fitted with an laminar airfoil > (44" cord) for which I do not have any specifications. I'm planning on > returning to the original RAF48 but will need to lift the airfoil 1" at the > rear spar for it to fit over both spars. Unfortunately I cann't lower the > rear spar as it already rests on the lower longeron > If I go this route the wing will only have an incidence of 1.5degrees. > Questions: > - How will this affect take-off and landings? > - What must the washout be set at? > - How many degrees must the tail incidence be set at? > > PS. The main spare has been installed 1" lower, to install per the plans > I'll need to break the main spar from the boat and move it up 1". I'm > reluctant to do this as the spar is well glued in and damage to the boat is > inevitable. > > Any other ideas? > > Thnks > Carlton Blandford > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 > -- __________________________________________________________ Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 09:22:03 -0700 To: "Krnet@Mailinglists.Org" From: "wstarrs" Subject: Fw: Sorry men I liked it anyway Message-ID: <001801c2c944$e44ff680$9200a8c0@bstarrs> ------=_NextPart_000_0015_01C2C90A.375A0EA0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Friday, too god to pass up. Your wives will love you for it. ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Bob Francia=20 To: Undisclosed-recipients:=20 Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 2:40 PM Subject: Sorry men I liked it anyway In the hospital the relatives gathered in the waiting room, where their = family member lay gravely ill. Finally, the doctor came in looking tired and somber. "I'm afraid I'm the bearer of bad news," he said as he surveyed the = worried faces. "The only hope left for your loved one at this time is a = brain transplant. It's an experimental procedure, very risky but it is = the only hope." "Insurance will cover the procedure, but you will have to pay for the = brain yourselves." The family members sat silent as they absorbed the = news. After a great length of time, someone asked, "Well, how much does a = brain cost?" The doctor quickly responded, "$5,000 for a male brain, and = $200 for a female brain." The moment turned awkward. Men in the room tried not to smile, avoiding = eye contact with the women, but some actually smirked. A man, unable to = control his curiosity, blurted out the question everyone wanted to ask, = "Why is the male brain so much more?" The doctor smiled at the childish innocence and explained to the entire = group, "It's just standard pricing procedure. We have to mark down the = price of the female brains, because they've actually been used." SEND THIS TO A SMART WOMAN WHO NEEDS A LAUGH AND TO THE MEN YOU THINK = CAN HANDLE IT. WALKING IN FAITH=20 Bob Francia, aohiobob@yahoo.com=20 http://www.pilotsforchrist.com ------=_NextPart_000_0015_01C2C90A.375A0EA0-- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 09:04:34 -0500 To: KRnet@mailinglists.org From: Donald Reid Subject: Re: KR> a challenge Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.0.20030131085522.00a62ec0@pop.erols.com> --=====================_5315095==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 09:35 AM 1/30/2003 -0500, you wrote: >I presume that Jason has skinned his fuselage with Home Depot plywood. The >real question is exactly what forces will be exerted on this structure >when it is in flight.The next question is will this structure survive >these forces? >Let the engineers in the net answer the first with accurate numbers. That is not going to happen. This type of analysis requires hours of work. Who pays for the time? I did a portion of it on my plane to check what I wanted to modify and to confirm some of the existing design. The results are my work for my project. If I published them, I would open myself up to liability when someone tried to make the same mods on their project. The Rand-Robinson company currently assumes the liability by publishing a set of plans. Don Reid mailto:donreid@erols.com Bumpass, Va Visit my web sites at: KR2XL construction: http://users.erols.com/donreid/kr_page.htm Aviation Surplus: http://users.erols.com/donreid/Airparts.htm EAA Chapter 231: http://eaa231.org Ultralights: http://usua250.org VA EAA State Fly-in: http://vaeaa.org --=====================_5315095==_.ALT-- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 12:52:51 -0500 To: KRnet@mailinglists.org From: "Donald Blankenship" Subject: Re: KR> a challenge Message-ID: <20030131175251.39058.qmail@mail.com> This is going to sound bad, but aircraft manufacturers are not absolutely required to produce structural analysis of their designs. Stress analyses are comforting and hopefully locate potential problems that could be hazardous or expensive to correct, but testing is usually the bottom line. If one can prove test loads are correct by comparison to other flying aircraft for example, then a test to destruction can normally determine whether the structure is adequate to sustain all possible g loads and weights. The main person you would have to convince is yourself, although it must be conceded that a person that uses Home Depot plywood skins may not be the best judge. The FAA inspectors may be (much) harder to convince. If you did build a replica and tested it to destruction, those results would not apply to the plane to be flown, because Home Depot plywood varies in quality and strength from specimen to specimen and may also deteriorate in unpredictable ways in time, weather, and usage. Analysis would be useless for the same reason of unknown variability. So really, using Home Depot plywood, testing or analysis wouldn't prove anything. Aircraft plywood is called aircraft plywood for its quality controls and predictable nature. I don't mean to be mean, but junk can be made to fly, too, but it's still junk in the best application of Websters definition. Basically, no matter what anyone could or would say, Home Depot plywood would not be considered adequate for aircraft structures. Don Blankenship ----- Original Message ----- From: Donald Reid Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 09:04:34 -0500 To: KRnet@mailinglists.org Subject: Re: KR> a challenge > At 09:35 AM 1/30/2003 -0500, you wrote: > >I presume that Jason has skinned his fuselage with Home Depot plywood. The > >real question is exactly what forces will be exerted on this structure > >when it is in flight.The next question is will this structure survive > >these forces? > >Let the engineers in the net answer the first with accurate numbers. > > That is not going to happen. This type of analysis requires hours of > work. Who pays for the time? > > I did a portion of it on my plane to check what I wanted to modify and to > confirm some of the existing design. The results are my work for my > project. If I published them, I would open myself up to liability when > someone tried to make the same mods on their project. The Rand-Robinson > company currently assumes the liability by publishing a set of plans. > > > > Don Reid mailto:donreid@erols.com > Bumpass, Va > > Visit my web sites at: > KR2XL construction: http://users.erols.com/donreid/kr_page.htm > Aviation Surplus: http://users.erols.com/donreid/Airparts.htm > EAA Chapter 231: http://eaa231.org > Ultralights: http://usua250.org VA EAA State Fly-in: http://vaeaa.org -- __________________________________________________________ Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 14:39:18 -0500 (EST) To: KRnet@mailinglists.org From: Kevin Subject: Re: Re: KR> a challenge Message-ID: <113261.1044052758745.JavaMail.nobody@statler.psp.pas.earthlink.net> Have you seen the "Home Depot" homebuilt plane? Kevin. -------Original Message------- From: Donald Blankenship Sent: 01/31/03 12:52 PM To: KRnet@mailinglists.org Subject: Re: KR> a challenge > > This is going to sound bad, but aircraft manufacturers are not absolutely required to produce structural analysis of their designs. Stress analyses are comforting and hopefully locate potential problems that could be hazardous or expensive to correct, but testing is usually the bottom line. If one can prove test loads are correct by comparison to other flying aircraft for example, then a test to destruction can normally determine whether the structure is adequate to sustain all possible g loads and weights. The main person you would have to convince is yourself, although it must be conceded that a person that uses Home Depot plywood skins may not be the best judge. The FAA inspectors may be (much) harder to convince. If you did build a replica and tested it to destruction, those results would not apply to the plane to be flown, because Home Depot plywood varies in quality and strength from specimen to specimen and may also deteriorate in unpredictable ways in time, weather, and usage. Analysis would be useless for the same reason of unknown variability. So really, using Home Depot plywood, testing or analysis wouldn't prove anything. Aircraft plywood is called aircraft plywood for its quality controls and predictable nature. I don't mean to be mean, but junk can be made to fly, too, but it's still junk in the best application of Websters definition. Basically, no matter what anyone could or would say, Home Depot plywood would not be considered adequate for aircraft structures. Don Blankenship ----- Original Message ----- From: Donald Reid Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 09:04:34 -0500 To: KRnet@mailinglists.org Subject: Re: KR> a challenge > At 09:35 AM 1/30/2003 -0500, you wrote: > >I presume that Jason has skinned his fuselage with Home Depot plywood. The > >real question is exactly what forces will be exerted on this structure > >when it is in flight.The next question is will this structure survive > >these forces? > >Let the engineers in the net answer the first with accurate numbers. > > That is not going to happen. This type of analysis requires hours of > work. Who pays for the time? > > I did a portion of it on my plane to check what I wanted to modify and to > confirm some of the existing design. The results are my work for my > project. If I published them, I would open myself up to liability when > someone tried to make the same mods on their project. The Rand-Robinson > company currently assumes the liability by publishing a set of plans. > > > > Don Reid mailto:donreid@erols.com > Bumpass, Va > > Visit my web sites at: > KR2XL construction: http://users.erols.com/donreid/kr_page.htm > Aviation Surplus: http://users.erols.com/donreid/Airparts.htm > EAA Chapter 231: http://eaa231.org > Ultralights: http://usua250.org VA EAA State Fly-in: http://vaeaa.org -- __________________________________________________________ Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup --------------------------------------------------------------------- To post to the list, email: krnet@mailinglists.org , NOT "reply all" To UNsubscribe, e-mail: krnet-unsubscribe@mailinglists.org For additional commands, e-mail: krnet-help@mailinglists.org See the KRNet archives at http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp or http://www.bouyea.net/ for the Word files > ------------------------------ End of krnet Digest ***********************************