From: krnet-bounces@mylist.net on behalf of krnet-request@mylist.net Sent: Monday, November 24, 2003 12:00 PM To: krnet@mylist.net Subject: KRnet Digest, Vol 229, Issue 2 Send KRnet mailing list submissions to krnet@mylist.net To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://mylist.net/listinfo/krnet or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to krnet-request@mylist.net You can reach the person managing the list at krnet-owner@mylist.net When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of KRnet digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: Ignition 2. Re: Tank Size, bladder size, options (F Ross) 3. Name for KR (JIM VANCE) 4. Re: TANKS 5. Re: Ignition (David Mikesell) 6. Re: Ignition (David Mikesell) 7. Re: TANKS IN OUTER WINGS (David Mikesell) 8. Re: Name for KR (Mike Turner) 9. Type 4 VW Technology (Ron Eason) 10. Re: G load - tank question. (Gary Sprunger) 11. Re: Ignition (cartera) 12. Re: lap belt attach brackets (Scott Cable) 13. Re: fuel tanks in the outboard wings would be easier on the wafs (Scott Cable) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 05:18:34 EST From: Veeduber@aol.com To: krnet@mylist.net Subject: Re: KR>Ignition Message-ID: <64.379a8cab.2cf334fa@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: list Message: 1 In a message dated 11/24/03 1:31:30 AM Pacific Standard Time, cbromero@alltel.net writes: > If you don't have the specified mag drop with a continental O200 on > Cessna 150 don't go flying. B-17's too. But I thought the thread dealt with KR's and car engines. My error. -R.S.Hoover ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 04:50:16 -0800 (PST) From: F Ross To: KRnet Subject: Re: KR>Tank Size, bladder size, options Message-ID: <20031124125016.4463.qmail@web40911.mail.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <003d01c3b251$1c4820d0$47da1818@computer> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii MIME-Version: 1.0 Precedence: list Message: 2 You might want to sit in a friend's KR (a real good friend) and "pee in a cup", before you recommend flying a KR and 'pee in a cup'. It is not a Cessna. Your knees will be higher than your butt. And, you've got to put that cup SOMEWHERE. The desire to make those long trips in one huge bite has gotten a lot of good pilots killed. Besides, if you don't stop on the way to Oshkosh, how are you going to meet all those great people and show them the plane you are flying to Oshkosh? On the other hand, take a look at the Cessna AT-37. What a plane! It has two tanks or bombs under each wing. The possiblities of a couple of tanks under each wing that are about 8" diameter and 16" long would provide some extra baggage or fuel for the KR in the same way. Also, the South African builders in the '70s used wing-tip tanks that worked well. The usual precautions apply... Frank Ross EAA Chapter 35, San Geronimo, TX alamokr2@yahoo.com --- Justin wrote: .... your on your way to Oshkosh? It takes more time and gas to climb up to 10K > ....Pee in a cup. (My KR is the > size of a C150 so i'll be roomy enough) > > Justin > N116JW > www.geocities.com/attngrabber14/Home __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now http://companion.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 06:44:58 -0600 From: "JIM VANCE" To: "krnet" Subject: KR>Name for KR Message-ID: <005601c3b28a$bc6b85a0$0600a8c0@oemcomputer> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Precedence: list Message: 3 Brian, How about "Miss Dapproach."=20 Jim Vance Vance@ClaflinWildcats.comFrom red-bridge@juno.com Mon Nov 24 05:20:55 2003 Received: from m26.lax.untd.com ([64.136.30.89]) by lizard.esosoft.net with smtp (Exim 3.36 #1) id 1AOGe7-000Mx9-00 for krnet@mylist.net; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 05:20:55 -0800 Received: from cookie.untd.com by cookie.untd.com for <"ls4hEsNnkEddqybMuKN9Rp9i9mJ+ma6y1NJ+LjY49igJnA7ZSeaFUg==">; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 05:26:11 PST Received: (from red-bridge@juno.com) by m26.lax.untd.com (jqueuemail) id JFRMRNYG; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 05:26:11 PST To: krnet@mylist.net Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 08:25:41 -0500 Subject: Re: KR>TANKS IN OUTER WINGS Message-ID: <20031124.082541.2464.0.red-bridge@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 5.0.33 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 1-2,7-8,14-16,18-71 From: Clancey D Krumwiede X-BeenThere: krnet@mylist.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1b3 Precedence: list Reply-To: KRnet List-Id: KRnet List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: Before designing your aircraft to carry fuel in the outer wings, here are a couple of issues to consider: 1) When dealing with the issue of loads on the WAF, you must also consider the fact that by adding 60 pounds on the longest possible "arm" from the WAFs, any flexing by the wing will or at least may place enormous torque loads on the WAFs, possibly more than their design could withstand. (read - wing failure) 2) Again, adding sixty pounds of "ballast" on the longest possible arm from the longitudinal axis could greatly complicate spin recovery. Remember, mass times acceleration equals momentum. It is quite possible that after a two or three turn spin, you may not have enough rudder authority to overcome the additional rotational momentum. (read - no spin recovery) On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 21:24:49 -0800 "David Mikesell" writes: > I did some calculations for tube tanks before and came to the > conclusion > that unless you can do a 11 to 12 in tube and it can be atleast 11 > feet long > you won't carry enough fuel to make any real difference. It takes > atleast a > 7 in diameter by 7 in length to make one gal...... > > David Mikesell > 23957 N. Hwy 99 > Acampo, CA 95220 > 209-609-8774 > skyguynca@skyguynca.com > www.skyguynca.com > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Lee" > To: > Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2003 8:58 PM > Subject: KR>TANKS IN OUTER WINGS > > > I read some of the concerns about added fuel. Someone stated(last > week I > think) added fuel adds to the time in the cockpit. (small cockpit). > I have > been looking at options about added fuel. I have a dated KR with > retracts. > No room in the stub wing for added tanks. I have been looking at > options of > adding tanks in the outer wings. CG is a big part of my concern. > My idea > is to take an Aluminum tube 5 -6 inces in diameter and fit it into > the void > on the leading edge of the wing. I would like sone feed back from > the > group. > > Lee Van Dyke > Mesa AZ > lee@vandyke5.com > > > _______________________________________________ > see KRnet list details at http://www.krnet.org/instructions.html > > > _______________________________________________ > see KRnet list details at http://www.krnet.org/instructions.html > > Keith C. Krumwiede Rosedale, IN ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 09:33:45 -0500 (EST) From: paulwasp@webtv.net To: krnet@mylist.net (KRnet) Subject: Re: KR>TANKS Message-ID: <26640-3FC216C9-4672@storefull-2194.public.lawson.webtv.net> In-Reply-To: "Lee" 's message of Sun, 23 Nov 2003 21:58:17 -0700 Content-Type: Text/Plain; Charset=US-ASCII MIME-Version: 1.0 (WebTV) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Precedence: list Message: 4 Hi; I've been thnking about putting a tank, (if needed), just fore of the main spar under my legs. There is ample room there for a good sized tank for long trips. Opinions? Paul Gangemi KR2s...priming bottom fus. wing stubs, elevators. Erie, PA 16503 http://community.webtv.net/paulwasp/paulwaspspad ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 07:47:12 -0800 From: "David Mikesell" To: "KRnet" Subject: Re: KR>Ignition Message-ID: <002801c3b2a2$3ce51cc0$03fea8c0@davids> References: <102.39665f33.2cf323ed@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: list Message: 5 You know to many people have this false idea of dual ignition. When Lyco and Cont designed their engines with dual ignition it was for reliability not a better burn and more hp. Magnetos failed, and did so with great reliability, and points wore out and were not made of the quality material that became standard later on. So the extra mag and plugs were to help give the engine better reliability. Now how many of you perform the maintenance on your car like you should????? I know, I know alot of you will say "I do, I do".......but even then if you look at modern ignition systems and the fact that you change your wires only when you need to, plugs when the engine seems to be running ruff or even every 4000 or so miles that means that in the air that is ruffly 500 hrs of flight time......and your car starts everyday and runs pretty reliably on that single ignition system at a ever changing rpm, ran really hard and hot in the summer and winter.....and yet it does not fail..... You surely don't see car manufactures putting dual ignition on their cars to develop more hp......just stick with what works. If you are using a auto coversion in your plane, don't weaken the heads with dual plugs..besides the cylinder burn pattern was never designed for it. Use a auto waste fire spark system or just a reliable electronic ignition.....odds are you will either sell the plane or over haul the engine without this baby ever giving you any problems. David Mikesell 23957 N. Hwy 99 Acampo, CA 95220 209-609-8774 skyguynca@skyguynca.com www.skyguynca.com ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Monday, November 24, 2003 1:05 AM Subject: Re: KR>Ignition > In a message dated 11/23/03 11:27:28 PM Pacific Standard Time, > cbromero@alltel.net writes: > > > if you have mag drop on run > > up then you know more power is made with dual ignition. > > > > Assuming it isn't a timing problem. > > And what if you don't have a mag drop? > > What if you drop a couple of grand to install a dual ignition system > and discover it doesn't run any better than before? Or perhaps even > worse? > > You fly your race, I'll fly mine. > > -R.S.Hoover > _______________________________________________ > see KRnet list details at http://www.krnet.org/instructions.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 07:47:55 -0800 From: "David Mikesell" To: "KRnet" Subject: Re: KR>Ignition Message-ID: <002e01c3b2a2$53e887e0$03fea8c0@davids> References: <64.379a8cab.2cf334fa@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: list Message: 6 Funny one Robert......as always you are right. David Mikesell 23957 N. Hwy 99 Acampo, CA 95220 209-609-8774 skyguynca@skyguynca.com www.skyguynca.com ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Monday, November 24, 2003 2:18 AM Subject: Re: KR>Ignition > In a message dated 11/24/03 1:31:30 AM Pacific Standard Time, > cbromero@alltel.net writes: > > > If you don't have the specified mag drop with a continental O200 on > > Cessna 150 don't go flying. > > B-17's too. But I thought the thread dealt with KR's and car engines. > My error. > > -R.S.Hoover > _______________________________________________ > see KRnet list details at http://www.krnet.org/instructions.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 07:50:35 -0800 From: "David Mikesell" To: "KRnet" Subject: Re: KR>TANKS IN OUTER WINGS Message-ID: <003a01c3b2a2$b55fb3e0$03fea8c0@davids> References: <20031124.082541.2464.0.red-bridge@juno.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: list Message: 7 One thing to remember about wing tanks....while the nice thing is they don't add to your flying gross weight because the wing is carrying them internally no extra stress is applied to the WAF because they are not in the fuselage, but when landing and the wings quite flying the weight is then added to the stress on the WAF.......on wing tank mods for cert aircraft they tell you this in the STC and give you a maximum fuel landing weight. David Mikesell 23957 N. Hwy 99 Acampo, CA 95220 209-609-8774 skyguynca@skyguynca.com www.skyguynca.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Clancey D Krumwiede" To: Sent: Monday, November 24, 2003 5:25 AM Subject: Re: KR>TANKS IN OUTER WINGS > Before designing your aircraft to carry fuel in the outer wings, here > are a couple of issues to consider: > > 1) When dealing with the issue of loads on the WAF, you must also > consider the fact that by adding 60 pounds on the longest possible > "arm" from the WAFs, any flexing by the wing will or at least may > place enormous torque loads on the WAFs, possibly more than their > design could withstand. (read - wing failure) > > 2) Again, adding sixty pounds of "ballast" on the longest possible arm > from the longitudinal axis could greatly complicate spin recovery. > Remember, mass times acceleration equals momentum. It is quite > possible that after a two or three turn spin, you may not have enough > rudder authority to overcome the additional rotational momentum. (read > - no spin > recovery) > > > On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 21:24:49 -0800 "David Mikesell" > writes: > > I did some calculations for tube tanks before and came to the > > conclusion that unless you can do a 11 to 12 in tube and it can be > > atleast 11 feet long > > you won't carry enough fuel to make any real difference. It takes > > atleast a > > 7 in diameter by 7 in length to make one gal...... > > > > David Mikesell > > 23957 N. Hwy 99 > > Acampo, CA 95220 > > 209-609-8774 > > skyguynca@skyguynca.com > > www.skyguynca.com > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Lee" > > To: > > Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2003 8:58 PM > > Subject: KR>TANKS IN OUTER WINGS > > > > > > I read some of the concerns about added fuel. Someone stated(last > > week I > > think) added fuel adds to the time in the cockpit. (small cockpit). > > I have been looking at options about added fuel. I have a dated KR > > with retracts. > > No room in the stub wing for added tanks. I have been looking at > > options of > > adding tanks in the outer wings. CG is a big part of my concern. > > My idea > > is to take an Aluminum tube 5 -6 inces in diameter and fit it into > > the void > > on the leading edge of the wing. I would like sone feed back from > > the > > group. > > > > Lee Van Dyke > > Mesa AZ > > lee@vandyke5.com > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > see KRnet list details at http://www.krnet.org/instructions.html > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > see KRnet list details at http://www.krnet.org/instructions.html > > > > > > > Keith C. Krumwiede > Rosedale, IN > > _______________________________________________ > see KRnet list details at http://www.krnet.org/instructions.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 09:54:30 -0600 From: "Mike Turner" To: "KRnet" Subject: Re: KR>Name for KR Message-ID: References: <005601c3b28a$bc6b85a0$0600a8c0@oemcomputer> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Precedence: list Message: 8 N-Da-Flesh---with approciate nose art Mike Turner ----- Original Message -----=20 From: JIM VANCE=20 To: krnet=20 Sent: Monday, November 24, 2003 6:44 AM Subject: KR>Name for KR Brian, How about "Miss Dapproach."=20 Jim Vance = Vance@ClaflinWildcats.com_______________________________________________ see KRnet list details at http://www.krnet.org/instructions.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 08:34:19 -0800 From: "Ron Eason" To: Brian Kraut , KRnet Subject: KR>Type 4 VW Technology Message-ID: <200311240834.AA624296210@jrl-engineering.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii MIME-Version: 1.0 Precedence: list Message: 9 Those who are interested in new technology check this out for a update. http://www.aircooledtechnology.com and http://www.lnengineering.com Ron ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 09:57:47 -0700 From: "Gary Sprunger" To: krnet@mylist.net Subject: Re: KR>G load - tank question. Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed MIME-Version: 1.0 Precedence: list Message: 10 My Coupe has a visual float rod in the header cap. If the engine pump failed, I could see the rod go down very early in the flight and know that I was on gravity feed with only an hour to fly. The engine will not stop as gravity feed is used all the time. The engine pump simply feeds the header with the overflow returning to both tanks in the wings. G. Sprunger Ercoupe N26KT and KR2 under construction From: "Justin" Reply-To: KRnet To: "KRnet" Subject: Re: KR>G load - tank question. Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2003 18:16:20 -0600 The Coupe doesn't have an electrical fuel pump to back up the engine driven fuel pump either (I dont think they do atleast). Besides, if your engine driven fuel pump quits your engine would most likly quit also wouldn't it? Justin N116JW www.geocities.com/attngrabber14/Home ----- Original Message ----- From: "larry flesner" To: "KRnet" Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2003 2:39 PM Subject: Re: KR>G load - tank question. > > > >For my fuel setup im thinking something along the lines like a Aircoupe. I > >want both wing tanks R & L and a small 5 Gallon header tank. I want the > >Engine driven pump to pump into the header tank constantly and overflow back > >into the selected tank. Of course I would have an electric fuel pump as > >back-up. My plan of thought is with that 5 gallon header tank I will be able > >to keep that full all the time and for whatever reason I run out of gas in > >the wing tanks I have my VFR reserve already met with that header-tank. > >Justin > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > Aircoupes have been flying since the 40's so who can argue. > Just make sure your system does not allow you to accidently > seclect the return to the full tank and pump one tank overboard. > > The only problem I've heard from "Coupe" drivers is when the pilot > takes off with full fuel and doesn't realize his fuel pump isn't > working and the engine quits about 45 minutes into the flight. > I'm betting that would cause an immediate "deer in the headlights" > look to appear on the pilots face. I'd suggest a "low fuel" warning > system in the header tank that activates with about 4 gal remaining. > > > Larry Flesner > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > see KRnet list details at http://www.krnet.org/instructions.html > _______________________________________________ see KRnet list details at http://www.krnet.org/instructions.html _________________________________________________________________ Has one of the new viruses infected your computer? Find out with a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee. Take the FreeScan now! http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 10:06:10 -0700 From: cartera To: KRnet Subject: Re: KR>Ignition Message-ID: <3FC23A82.3050301@cuug.ab.ca> In-Reply-To: <002801c3b2a2$3ce51cc0$03fea8c0@davids> References: <102.39665f33.2cf323ed@aol.com> <002801c3b2a2$3ce51cc0$03fea8c0@davids> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: list Message: 11 David and KR builders/flyers, What David says is absolutely true, the combustion chamber is not configured for dual burn plugs and this is an archaic technology when mags were hit and miss reliability. It will not give you more power and if it does it is not enough to make it significant to extra cost and just another thing to go wrong. With only coil and points change my KR has been flying for 20 years with one Slick mag. To each his own! Happy building and Flying! Adrian VE6AFY cartera@cuug.ab.ca http://www.cuug.ab.ca/~cartera David Mikesell wrote: >You know to many people have this false idea of dual ignition. When >Lyco and Cont designed their engines with dual ignition it was for >reliability not a better burn and more hp. Magnetos failed, and did so >with great reliability, and points wore out and were not made of the >quality material that became standard later on. So the extra mag and >plugs were to help give the engine better reliability. Now how many of >you perform the maintenance on your car like you should????? I know, I >know alot of you will say "I do, I do".......but even then if you look >at modern ignition systems and the fact that you change your wires only >when you need to, plugs when the engine seems to be running ruff or >even every 4000 or so miles that means that in the air that is ruffly >500 hrs of flight time......and your car starts everyday and runs >pretty reliably on that single ignition system at a ever changing rpm, >ran really hard and hot in the summer and winter.....and yet it does >not fail..... > >You surely don't see car manufactures putting dual ignition on their >cars to develop more hp......just stick with what works. > >If you are using a auto coversion in your plane, don't weaken the heads >with dual plugs..besides the cylinder burn pattern was never designed >for it. > >Use a auto waste fire spark system or just a reliable electronic >ignition.....odds are you will either sell the plane or over haul the >engine without this baby ever giving you any problems. > >David Mikesell >23957 N. Hwy 99 >Acampo, CA 95220 >209-609-8774 >skyguynca@skyguynca.com >www.skyguynca.com >----- Original Message ----- >From: >To: >Sent: Monday, November 24, 2003 1:05 AM >Subject: Re: KR>Ignition > > > > >>In a message dated 11/23/03 11:27:28 PM Pacific Standard Time, >>cbromero@alltel.net writes: >> >> >> >>>if you have mag drop on run >>>up then you know more power is made with dual ignition. >>> >>> >>> >>Assuming it isn't a timing problem. >> >>And what if you don't have a mag drop? >> >>What if you drop a couple of grand to install a dual ignition system >>and discover it doesn't run any better than before? Or perhaps even >>worse? >> >>You fly your race, I'll fly mine. >> >>-R.S.Hoover >>_______________________________________________ >>see KRnet list details at http://www.krnet.org/instructions.html >> >> > > >_______________________________________________ >see KRnet list details at http://www.krnet.org/instructions.html > > > ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 10:35:39 -0800 (PST) From: Scott Cable To: KRnet Subject: Re: KR>lap belt attach brackets Message-ID: <20031124183539.1529.qmail@web40807.mail.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20031122181452.0080ce40@pop.midwest.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii MIME-Version: 1.0 Precedence: list Message: 12 Larry, I would suggest 1/4" bolts instead of 3/16ths. to attach the belt brackets to the spar. I would suggest the same for attaching the belt to the bracket. You do the P/A with a 180 ksi bolt. = 8800 lbs. Ultimate Load. Tension load application, so 8800/1.5 gives you 5867 lbs Limit load. You're using 2 bolts per attachment so assume 1 bolt would carry 60% of the load, or 3520 lbs. Compare that to the 7 G loading 200 lb pilot and a 150 passenger at 7g's plus 1.5 design load= 3675 lbs /4= 919 lbs per attachment. With a 1/4" diameter bolt those brackets attachments are good for about 26 G's (conservative-rough estimate). There are a bunch of ways that you could figure this, in fact you could take the entire load onto one bolt which roughly gives you amount good for 19 G's. --- larry flesner wrote: Use your best judgement there. The attach bolts are 3/16" top and bottom with, I think, a "wood washer" backing plate. I suspect the spar will have to go to pieces before these brackets turn me loose. ===== Scott Cable KR-2S # 735 Wright City, MO s2cable1@yahoo.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now http://companion.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 10:45:10 -0800 (PST) From: Scott Cable To: KRnet Subject: Re: KR>fuel tanks in the outboard wings would be easier on the wafs Message-ID: <20031124184510.61899.qmail@web40809.mail.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <3FBFE9C0.000007.01908@Computer> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii MIME-Version: 1.0 Precedence: list Message: 13 According to my build manual, the KR was designed for +/-7 G's. --- Dan Heath wrote: > Steve, > > Yes, it is easier on the WAFs if the fuel load is > carried by the outboard > wings and not the WAFs. Don't know the rest. > > N64KR > > Daniel R. Heath - Columbia, SC > > DanRH@KR-Builder.org > > See you in Mt. Vernon - 2004 - KR Gathering > > See our KR at http://KR-Builder.org - Click on the > pic > See our EAA Chapter 242 at http://EAA242.org > _______________________________________________ > see KRnet list details at http://www.krnet.org/instructions.html ===== Scott Cable KR-2S # 735 Wright City, MO s2cable1@yahoo.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now http://companion.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ See KRnet list details at http://www.krnet.org/instructions.html End of KRnet Digest, Vol 229, Issue 2 *************************************