From: krnet-bounces@mylist.net on behalf of krnet-request@mylist.net Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2003 4:16 AM To: krnet@mylist.net Subject: KRnet Digest, Vol 230, Issue 1 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. KR tank (Ray Fuenzalida) 2. Re: Ignition (Dan Heath) 3. extended range (Oscar Zuniga) 4. extra fuel (Colin) 5. tanks in the outboard wings would be easier on the wafs (larry flesner) 6. Re: tanks in the outboard wings would be easier on the wafs (Mike Turner) 7. Re: lap belt attach brackets (Scott Cable) 8. Re: tanks in the outboard wings would be easier on the wafs (Scott Cable) 9. TANKS IN OUTER WINGS - Cylindrical Tank (Larry A Capps) 10. TANKS IN OUTER WINGS - Cylindrical Tank Volume Formula (Larry A Capps) 11. Name for KR (Larry A Capps) 12. Re: TANKS IN OUTER WINGS (Justin) 13. Re: TANKS IN OUTER WINGS (David Mikesell) 14. Sanding tip (Jack Cooper) 15. name for Brian's (Colin) 16. TANKS IN OUTER WINGS (larry flesner) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 13:26:22 -0800 (PST) From: Ray Fuenzalida To: krnet@mylist.net Subject: KR>KR tank Message-ID: <20031124212622.18114.qmail@web42004.mail.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii MIME-Version: 1.0 Precedence: list Message: 1 I've been reading the comments about fuel tanks. I have 3 tanks set up - 2 four gallons (for the wings) and a five (header). In seeing all of the comments, I am still leaning towards putting them in the stubs and not the outer wings. Is that still the general consenus? I will also have a pump filling the header and letting it gravity flow (with some kind of visible guage). With expected fuel burn of 3.5 to 4 per hour, I should get 3 hours and still have a decent reserve. I don't think I need anything bigger. I currently fly a Sundowner and always set the time and fly for 3 hours even though I can go over 4 hours safely. I went to Oshkosh and landed twice on the route - Bakersville, ARK and Springfield, ILL. Had a great visit in both. I do want to fly faster, not necessarily longer. Any fuel set up advice will be appreciated. Ray (no "N" number, half a plane, looking for an engine etc.) --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it nowFrom engalt@earthlink.net Mon Nov 24 13:36:41 2003 Received: from turkey.mail.pas.earthlink.net ([207.217.120.126]) by lizard.esosoft.net with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1) id 1AOONt-000PZP-00 for krnet@mylist.net; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 13:36:41 -0800 Received: from bert.psp.pas.earthlink.net ([207.217.78.217]) by turkey.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 1AOOTO-0000bB-00 for krnet@mylist.net; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 13:42:22 -0800 Message-ID: <27715897.1069710142363.JavaMail.root@bert.psp.pas.earthlink.net> Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 16:42:17 -0500 (GMT-05:00) From: Brian Kraut To: KRnet Subject: Re: KR>Ignition Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Earthlink Zoo Mail 1.0 X-BeenThere: krnet@mylist.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1b3 Precedence: list Reply-To: Brian Kraut , KRnet List-Id: KRnet List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: I have found that the drop is barely noticeable when I turn off either the mag or the electronic ignition on a ground runup and impossible to notice in flight at any power setting. However, the engine does idle a little smoother with both ignitions running which is something a few people told me it would do and something I expected. I suppose that you get a 100 RPM drop or more in an engine that is designed for dual ignition, well because it is designed for dual ignition. If I had to take a wild ass guess I would think the difference is that an engine designed for a single plug has the plug closer to the center than one designed for two plugs. I would suspect that it also makes a bigger difference if you have a larger bore cylinder. Again, I am just guessing. I will keep running on both plugs all the time. If you do have a large drop on one system I would suspect that the timing is off. I spent a long time getting my electronic ignition to within a gnats ass of the mag. -----Original Message----- From: Veeduber@aol.com Sent: Nov 24, 2003 4:05 AM To: krnet@mylist.net 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 16:55:31 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time) From: "Dan Heath" To: "krnet@mylist.net" Subject: Re: KR>Ignition Message-ID: <3FC27E53.000005.02804@Computer> References: <002801c3b2a2$3ce51cc0$03fea8c0@davids> Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Precedence: list Message: 2 RE: and your car starts everyday and runs pretty reliably on that single ignition system =0D =0D Just something to ponder and put into your consideration pool:=0D =0D When I talked to the EAA sanctioned insurance agent about getting insuran= ce for this new KR, besides questions about my experience, the asked two questions about the plane were:=0D =0D 1. What kind of engine is it. GPASC -- That is good.=0D 2. Dual or single ignition. Dual -- That is good.=0D =0D So, wether it is really good or not, doesn't justify paying extra premium when $500 worth of dual ignition can save you much more. As far as weakening the head, well, Steve and others have been doing this for a ver= y long time.=0D =0D If I were using a single ignition, it sure would not be a mag.=0D =0D N64KR=0D =0D Daniel R. Heath - Columbia, SC=0D =0D DanRH@KR-Builder.org=0D =0D See you in Mt. Vernon - 2004 - KR Gathering=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 =20From DanRH@alltel.net Mon Nov 24 13:57:10 2003 Received: from mta01.alltel.net ([166.102.165.143] helo=mta01-srv.alltel.net) by lizard.esosoft.net with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1) id 1AOOhi-00002g-00 for krnet@mylist.net; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 13:57:10 -0800 Received: from Computer ([151.213.95.136]) by mta01-srv.alltel.net with SMTP id <20031124220251.GOBS11508.mta01-srv.alltel.net@Computer> for ; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 16:02:51 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <3FC28013.000007.02804@Computer> Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 17:02:59 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time) X-Mailer: IncrediMail 2001 (2001155.2001155) From: "Dan Heath" References: <20031124212622.18114.qmail@web42004.mail.yahoo.com> X-FID: FLAVOR00-NONE-0000-0000-000000000000 X-FVER: X-CNT: ; X-Priority: 3 To: "krnet@mylist.net" Subject: Re: KR>KR tank Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1b3 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: Ray,=0D =0D You are right on. Keep it light and get that CG in the right place. I would put it in the inner wing for simplicity, and behind the spar for CG= =2E=0D =0D N64KR=0D =0D Daniel R. Heath - Columbia, SC=0D =0D DanRH@KR-Builder.org=0D =0D See you in Mt. Vernon - 2004 - KR Gathering=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 =20From DanRH@alltel.net Mon Nov 24 14:19:08 2003 Received: from mta01.alltel.net ([166.102.165.143] helo=mta01-srv.alltel.net) by lizard.esosoft.net with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1) id 1AOP2y-0000Lr-00 for krnet@mylist.net; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 14:19:08 -0800 Received: from Computer ([151.213.95.136]) by mta01-srv.alltel.net with SMTP id <20031124222449.GZUZ11508.mta01-srv.alltel.net@Computer> for ; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 16:24:49 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <3FC28538.00000D.02804@Computer> Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 17:24:56 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time) X-Mailer: IncrediMail 2001 (2001155.2001155) From: "Dan Heath" References: <26640-3FC216C9-4672@storefull-2194.public.lawson.webtv.net> X-FID: FLAVOR00-NONE-0000-0000-000000000000 X-FVER: X-CNT: ; X-Priority: 3 To: "krnet@mylist.net" Subject: Re: KR>TANKS Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1b3 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: Paul,=0D =0D I wouldn't do it, but it is probably as good as a header tank, without gravity feed.=0D =0D How do you get into your web site? =0D =0D N64KR=0D =0D Daniel R. Heath - Columbia, SC=0D =0D DanRH@KR-Builder.org=0D =0D See you in Mt. Vernon - 2004 - KR Gathering=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 =20From engalt@earthlink.net Mon Nov 24 14:30:08 2003 Received: from avocet.mail.pas.earthlink.net ([207.217.120.50]) by lizard.esosoft.net with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1) id 1AOPDc-0000UM-00 for krnet@mylist.net; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 14:30:08 -0800 Received: from fozzie.psp.pas.earthlink.net ([207.217.78.218]) by avocet.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 1AOPJ7-0000Hz-00 for krnet@mylist.net; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 14:35:49 -0800 Message-ID: <27069718.1069713349769.JavaMail.root@fozzie.psp.pas.earthlink.net> Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 17:35:46 -0500 (GMT-05:00) From: Brian Kraut To: KRnet Subject: Re: KR>Ignition Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Earthlink Zoo Mail 1.0 X-BeenThere: krnet@mylist.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1b3 Precedence: list Reply-To: Brian Kraut , KRnet List-Id: KRnet List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: Another thing to ponder: Most of us have found a fouled plug on runup and had to lean the mixture with both mags running to unfoul the plug. Just a few weeks ago during my BFR I had to taxi back and get another plane when me and the instructor were unable to unfoul the plug in a Zenith. I have also had a plug foul and cause a very rough running three cylinder engine on several occasions now in my KR. Just last week it happened over the wrong end of the runway after a touch and go. That is why I have the secondary ignition now. Not saying that anyone is crazy to fly with just one ignition, we just all need to weigh the options in terms of cost, weight, and redundancy. If you fly by yourself in the desert surrounded by alternate landing sites you are in a different sutuation than me flying with my 8 year old son in Jacksonville surrounded by buildings, trees, and other things to crash into. -----Original Message----- From: Dan Heath Sent: Nov 24, 2003 4:55 PM To: "krnet@mylist.net" Subject: Re: KR>Ignition RE: and your car starts everyday and runs pretty reliably on that single ignition system Just something to ponder and put into your consideration pool: When I talked to the EAA sanctioned insurance agent about getting insurance for this new KR, besides questions about my experience, the asked two questions about the plane were: 1. What kind of engine is it. GPASC -- That is good. 2. Dual or single ignition. Dual -- That is good. So, wether it is really good or not, doesn't justify paying extra premium when $500 worth of dual ignition can save you much more. As far as weakening the head, well, Steve and others have been doing this for a very long time. If I were using a single ignition, it sure would not be a mag. 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 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 16:38:32 -0600 From: "Oscar Zuniga" To: krnet@mylist.net Subject: KR>extended range Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed MIME-Version: 1.0 Precedence: list Message: 3 Frank writes- >You might want to sit in a friend's KR and "pee in a cup" >before you recommend flying a KR and 'pee in a cup'. On the other hand, >take a look at the Cessna AT-37. >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 Okay; taking that idea one step further, how about a relief tube piped to each of those tanks under the wings? Extended human element range! You bet, as long as the tanks are below the level of your -er- waste outlet. Hey, we could start a whole new thread on this ("is an equalizer tube between the two waste tanks needed? Should the tanks be vented? Are there any RV waste dumps on any airport ramp you've seen? Should you make the tanks jettisonable in case of emergency? Would you install quantity indicators on the tanks?"). The list goes on and on, but suffice it to say that if you ride in a KR for a couple of hours, you'll be ready to stop and stretch your legs awhile and forget about endurance flying, unless you're a Dick Rutan type by nature. Oscar Zuniga San Antonio, TX mailto: taildrags@hotmail.com website at http://www.flysquirrel.net _________________________________________________________________ Is there a gadget-lover on your gift list? MSN Shopping has lined up some good bets! http://shopping.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 17:53:22 -0500 From: "Colin" To: Subject: KR>extra fuel Message-ID: <004301c3b2dd$c488c4c0$f2452141@Beverly> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Precedence: list Message: 4 Paul and others,=20 If I were considering adding to the fuel capacity of the KR for range, I = would add it BEHIND the main spar, possibly under the seat, or behind = the passenger side, if I am solo, in order to have my worst case CG = while I am heaviest and most stable, and as I burned fuel and got = lighter, the CG would move forward. Take a quick look at the Cessna and = Piper CG charts and you will see how they design them so that as fuel = burns, the CG moves forward, so that their stability stay roughly the = same throughout the flight.=20 Colin & Bev Rainey KR2(td) crainey1@cfl.rr.com http://kr-builder.org/Colin/index.html Sanford, Florida KR Gathering 2004-see ya in Mt VernonFrom flesner@midwest.net Mon Nov 24 15:11:02 2003 Received: from sire.mail.pas.earthlink.net ([207.217.120.182]) by lizard.esosoft.net with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1) id 1AOPrC-0001F9-00 for krnet@mylist.net; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 15:11:02 -0800 Received: from dsc05-cir-oh-199-35-174-219.rasserver.net ([199.35.174.219] helo=larry-flesner) by sire.mail.pas.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 1AOPwh-0001Pa-00 for krnet@mylist.net; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 15:16:44 -0800 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20031124171006.00816100@pop.midwest.net> X-Sender: flesner@pop.midwest.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 17:10:06 -0600 To: KRnet From: larry flesner In-Reply-To: <20031124183539.1529.qmail@web40807.mail.yahoo.com> References: <3.0.6.32.20031122181452.0080ce40@pop.midwest.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: KR>lap belt attach brackets 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: Scott, I have two bolts holding each bracket, two brackets per occupant = 4 each 3/16" bolts holding each occupant. I have 3/8" bolts holding each end of the lap belt. Would you still think I need 1/4" bolts through the spar? If each 3/16" bolt holds 1000 pounds that would give it a 20 G rating at my 200 pounds. Larry Flesner ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 17:14:15 -0600 From: larry flesner To: KRnet Subject: KR>tanks in the outboard wings would be easier on the wafs Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20031124171415.00819a30@pop.midwest.net> In-Reply-To: <20031124184510.61899.qmail@web40809.mail.yahoo.com> References: <3FBFE9C0.000007.01908@Computer> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Precedence: list Message: 5 >According to my build manual, the KR was designed for >+/-7 G's. Scott Cable ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Scott, That's +/- 7 G's at 800 pounds. How many KR's have an all up flying weight of 800 pounds?????? Larry Flesner ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 18:11:33 -0600 From: "Mike Turner" To: "KRnet" Subject: Re: KR>tanks in the outboard wings would be easier on the wafs Message-ID: References: <3FBFE9C0.000007.01908@Computer> <3.0.6.32.20031124171415.00819a30@pop.midwest.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Precedence: list Message: 6 That's =3D/- 4.67 Gs at 1200lbs so it's best to be carefull with those = high speed passes with a 4g pull-up especially if a sharp banking turn = is involved. Mike Turner ----- Original Message -----=20 From: larry flesner=20 To: KRnet=20 Sent: Monday, November 24, 2003 5:14 PM Subject: KR>tanks in the outboard wings would be easier on the wafs=20 >According to my build manual, the KR was designed for >+/-7 G's. Scott Cable ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Scott, That's +/- 7 G's at 800 pounds. How many KR's have an all up flying weight of 800 pounds?????? Larry Flesner _______________________________________________ see KRnet list details at http://www.krnet.org/instructions.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 16:25:06 -0800 (PST) From: Scott Cable To: KRnet Subject: Re: KR>lap belt attach brackets Message-ID: <20031125002506.51792.qmail@web40804.mail.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20031124171006.00816100@pop.midwest.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii MIME-Version: 1.0 Precedence: list Message: 7 Larry, The "added weight" is so negliable that for the extra margin of safety, it's the choice I'd make. To put this into perspective, the US Navy requires all equipment inside a cockpit to be able to withstand a 40 G impact load, and only yeild, not break. The thought here is that they don't want to make a survivable crash, un-survivable by having some piece of equipment dislodge and impact the pilot. One bolt size up gives me another 5+ G's? OK, it's quarters for me. Also, remember because of the angle of the belt, you can expect one bolt to be loaded higher than the other(asymetric loading, so using 60%/40% is fairly conservative. Another conservative sizing approach would be to compare the belt anchor bolt size area, to the attachment bracket bolts. Combined areas of the attachment bolts need to be roughly 100% of the input. Thus a 3/8 bolt diameter area=.110 in sq. compared to 3/16=.028 in sq. A 1/4 inch bolt =.049 in sq, combined it's closer in area to the 3/8 inch bolt area than the 3/16. I use this rough sizing method more often than I care to admit, and find that by the time the strength department does their FEM, and sizing, They usually ask me how I came up with the bolt size. They usually say things like: "Looks like you ran some numbers, because they're exactly what we need...." Then I usually "beat" on them and complain, you're asking for quarters, can I go down to 3/16ths instead? I mean I used a consrvative approach at sizing the fasteners, can't we get some weight out and go with 3/16ths? They usually give me a look that tells me not to push my luck! OK quarters it is! --- larry flesner wrote: > Scott, > I have two bolts holding each bracket, two brackets > per > occupant = 4 each 3/16" bolts holding each occupant. > > I have 3/8" bolts holding each end of the lap belt. > > Would you still think I need 1/4" bolts through the > spar? > If each 3/16" bolt holds 1000 pounds that would give > it a 20 G rating at my 200 pounds. > > Larry Flesner > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 16:35:05 -0800 (PST) From: Scott Cable To: KRnet Subject: Re: KR>tanks in the outboard wings would be easier on the wafs Message-ID: <20031125003505.88032.qmail@web40808.mail.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20031124171415.00819a30@pop.midwest.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii MIME-Version: 1.0 Precedence: list Message: 8 Amen! --- larry flesner wrote: > > > > >According to my build manual, the KR was designed > for > >+/-7 G's. > Scott Cable > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > Scott, > > That's +/- 7 G's at 800 pounds. How many KR's have > an > all up flying weight of 800 pounds?????? > > Larry Flesner > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 18:42:23 -0600 From: "Larry A Capps" To: "'KRnet'" Subject: KR>TANKS IN OUTER WINGS - Cylindrical Tank Message-ID: <000e01c3b2ec$fe793c50$0200a8c0@schpankme> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Precedence: list Message: 9 How To Determine - Cylindrical Tank Volume Using the diameter of the tank, multiply the diameter by the diameter (D x D), and then multiply by .7854. This will equal the square area of a circle. Area of a cylinder: Diameter x Diameter x .7854 (D x D x .7854) Taking the length of the tank multiply the square area of a tank, by the length dimension. This gives you the volume of the tank. Volume of a cylinder: Height x Square area of cylinder (height also = length or depth) To determine the volume in gallons of the tank, divide the volume of a tank by 231. NOTE: There are 231 Cubic Inches in 1 gallon of water Cylindrical Tank Formula: Diameter x Diameter x .7854 x Length, 231 (D x D x .7854 x L, 231) NOTE: When a circles diameter is equal size of a square, the area of a circle consumes .7854 or 78-1/2% of a square. The remaining 21-1/2% is not used in cylindrical calculations. (an 1-foot diameter circle into an 1-foot square) One cylindrical tank 7” x 72”, for each wing will hold a total of 24 gallons. 7" x 7" x .7854 x 72" / 231 = 12 gallons 11" x 11" x .7854 x 12" / 231 = 5 gallons Larry A Capps KR Newsletter Naperville, IL "I wonder how much deeper the ocean would be without sponges." -----Original Message----- a 6" tube x 8" long is 1 gal ( 231 sq. in /gal ), ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 18:49:49 -0600 From: "Larry A Capps" To: "'KRnet'" Subject: KR>TANKS IN OUTER WINGS - Cylindrical Tank Volume Formula Message-ID: <000f01c3b2ee$07edc750$0200a8c0@schpankme> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: list Message: 10 Cylindrical Tank Volume pi * R^2 * H /231 Larry A Capps Naperville, IL -----Original Message----- a 6" tube x 8" long is 1 gal ( 231 sq. in /gal ) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 18:56:39 -0600 From: "Larry A Capps" To: "'KRnet'" Subject: KR>Name for KR Message-ID: <001001c3b2ee$fc909440$0200a8c0@schpankme> In-Reply-To: <005601c3b28a$bc6b85a0$0600a8c0@oemcomputer> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: list Message: 11 Kirk: The horse, bones - HOW IS THE HORSE?? Bones: He's dead, Jim! Spock: It would seem logical, Captain, that we stop beating the horse, given it's current deceased state. It would also be redundant of me to mention the lack of relation between this particular deceased horse and aircraft building, but my 1/2 human side forces me to state that fact..... Kirk: Kirk to Enterprise - three to beam up! Larry A Capps Naperville, IL -----Original Message----- How about "Miss Dapproach." ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 19:19:58 -0600 From: "Justin" To: "KRnet" Subject: Re: KR>TANKS IN OUTER WINGS Message-ID: <004001c3b2f2$3e4d7800$47da1818@computer> References: <20031124.082541.2464.0.red-bridge@juno.com> <003a01c3b2a2$b55fb3e0$03fea8c0@davids> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: list Message: 12 I planned on putting the wing tanks in the stub wings. Outter wing tanks didn't ever get my attention and as stated it add's stress onto the WAF's. If I put 7 gallons in each wing and then my 5 gallon header tank I will have myself a 2 hour airplane with a 45min reserve. My corvair is expected to burn 7GPH @ 75%. The lancair that I have flown in had sight tubes for each wing tank on the line going to the header tank and the normal header tank sight tube. Undecided on how I will rig the wing tanks going to the header tank. Rather I want the engine driven fuel pump to pump it all the time or have a float type deal in the header tank. Im thinking more along the lines of it filling all the time, i can see airbubbles when I know it's empty. Would fuel guages be required in the wing tanks? Justin N116JW www.geocities.com/attngrabber14/Home ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Mikesell" To: "KRnet" Sent: Monday, November 24, 2003 9:50 AM Subject: Re: KR>TANKS IN OUTER WINGS > 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > see KRnet list details at http://www.krnet.org/instructions.html > ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 19:31:23 -0800 From: "David Mikesell" To: "KRnet" Subject: Re: KR>TANKS IN OUTER WINGS Message-ID: <001701c3b304$9a9e1bc0$03fea8c0@davids> References: <20031124.082541.2464.0.red-bridge@juno.com><003a01c3b2a2$b55fb3e0$03fea8c0@davids> <004001c3b2f2$3e4d7800$47da1818@computer> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: list Message: 13 Well, yes the fuel tanks will add stress to the WAF but only on the ground and during landing because in the out board panels they don't count towards the gross weight. With tanks in the stubs you have to watch your weight for take off , flight and landing because the weight is always on the fuselage, atleast in the outboard panels the wing is flying so the weight does not count. I have installed a lot of STC wing and tip tanks and they are a great improvement for range, but if will also make you more fuel concious, because you have to have the tip and wing tanks pretty much empty for landings. David Mikesell 23957 N. Hwy 99 Acampo, CA 95220 209-609-8774 skyguynca@skyguynca.com www.skyguynca.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Justin" To: "KRnet" Sent: Monday, November 24, 2003 5:19 PM Subject: Re: KR>TANKS IN OUTER WINGS > I planned on putting the wing tanks in the stub wings. Outter wing tanks > didn't ever get my attention and as stated it add's stress onto the WAF's. > If I put 7 gallons in each wing and then my 5 gallon header tank I will have > myself a 2 hour airplane with a 45min reserve. My corvair is expected to > burn 7GPH @ 75%. The lancair that I have flown in had sight tubes for each > wing tank on the line going to the header tank and the normal header tank > sight tube. > > Undecided on how I will rig the wing tanks going to the header tank. > Rather I want the engine driven fuel pump to pump it all the time or have a > float type deal in the header tank. Im thinking more along the lines of it > filling all the time, i can see airbubbles when I know it's empty. Would > fuel guages be required in the wing tanks? > > Justin > N116JW > www.geocities.com/attngrabber14/Home > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "David Mikesell" > To: "KRnet" > Sent: Monday, November 24, 2003 9:50 AM > Subject: Re: KR>TANKS IN OUTER WINGS > > > > 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 > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 22:36:44 -0500 From: "Jack Cooper" To: "KR builders and pilots" Subject: KR>Sanding tip Message-ID: <410-220031122533644630@earthlink.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII MIME-Version: 1.0 Precedence: list Message: 14 KR netters I have recently been working on my canopy frame. Today while trying to sand the foam inside the frame I was using a 3" PVC pipe with sandpaper attached to sand a concave surface. The pipe was too long for what I needed so I thought of my inflatable sanding drum. I inflated it until it was bulging then used it as a hand tool. This worked very good and I can see where it would be very good for any concave surface such as wing to fuselage areas. My inflatable sander is from Shopsmith and I used it extensively building my stick grip http://www.jackandsandycooper.com/grip.html and in other woodworking projects and now for sanding foam. I'm sure it would work on any wood lathe. Link below for anyone that may be interested. I have checked one other woodworking supply and it was about the same price as Shopsmith.htttp://www.shopsmith.com/catalog/html/sn_inflatablesander.htm Robert J. (Jack) Cooper kr2cooper@earthlink.net http://www.jackandsandycooper.com/kr2.html Why Wait? Move to EarthLink.From lmcgee@maqs.net Mon Nov 24 20:13:46 2003 Received: from diamond.maqs.net ([66.187.32.14]) by lizard.esosoft.net with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1) id 1AOUaA-0004NW-00 for krnet@mylist.net; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 20:13:46 -0800 Received: from lori8v5h2xi9m3 (oxfo-pvc-133-39.dsl.maqs.net [66.187.41.37]) by diamond.maqs.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 9C58BDB305 for ; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 22:19:27 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <001001c3b30b$5d3bacf0$0202a8c0@lori8v5h2xi9m3> From: "Steve and Lori McGee" To: Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 22:19:48 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2720.3000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2727.1300 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1b3 Subject: KR>Tail post X-BeenThere: krnet@mylist.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1b3 Precedence: list Reply-To: KRnet List-Id: KRnet List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: Anyone familiar with Dr Dean and his project when he was working on it: = Can you tell me why he would have set the tail post at 10 degrees = instead of the 7 in the plans? Anyone out there familiar with what this = setting does or other plane designs that have a different angle? Safe Flying to ya! Steve McGee Endeavor Wi. Building a KR2S widened. lmcgee@maqs.net=20 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2003 07:01:46 -0500 From: "Colin" To: Subject: KR>name for Brian's Message-ID: <006101c3b34b$e67b3860$f2452141@Beverly> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Precedence: list Message: 15 What about "Rising Star" "Shooting Star" "Miss Galaxy" "Kraut's LuftStar" Colin & Bev Rainey KR2(td) crainey1@cfl.rr.com http://kr-builder.org/Colin/index.html Sanford, Florida KR Gathering 2004-see ya in Mt VernonFrom lmcgee@maqs.net Tue Nov 25 04:14:47 2003 Received: from diamond.maqs.net ([66.187.32.14]) by lizard.esosoft.net with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1) id 1AOc5f-0006de-00 for krnet@mylist.net; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 04:14:47 -0800 Received: from lori8v5h2xi9m3 (oxfo-pvc-133-39.dsl.maqs.net [66.187.41.37]) by diamond.maqs.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 11C88DB1F0 for ; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 06:20:30 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <001001c3b34e$90ff0940$0202a8c0@lori8v5h2xi9m3> From: "Steve and Lori McGee" To: "KRnet" References: <006101c3b34b$e67b3860$f2452141@Beverly> Subject: Re: KR>name for Brian's Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2003 06:20:51 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2720.3000 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2727.1300 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: Lttle Miss Glory Safe Flying to ya! Steve McGee Endeavor Wi. Building a KR2S widened. lmcgee@maqs.net ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2003 06:14:42 -0600 From: larry flesner To: KRnet Subject: KR>TANKS IN OUTER WINGS Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20031125061442.0081b680@pop.midwest.net> In-Reply-To: <001701c3b304$9a9e1bc0$03fea8c0@davids> References: <20031124.082541.2464.0.red-bridge@juno.com> <003a01c3b2a2$b55fb3e0$03fea8c0@davids> <004001c3b2f2$3e4d7800$47da1818@computer> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Precedence: list Message: 16 >Well, yes the fuel tanks will add stress to the WAF but only on the ground >and during landing because in the out board panels they don't count towards >the gross weight. With tanks in the stubs you have to watch your weight for >take off , flight and landing because the weight is always on the fuselage, >atleast in the outboard panels the wing is flying so the weight does not >count. >David Mikesell ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ David, I think your statements could easily be misunderstood or lead people to wrong conclusions. Weight ALWAYS counts toward something and has consiquences. Weight ANYWHERE on the airplane counts toward gross weight and will affect the aircraft performance accordingly. The safety margin gained structurally with fuel in the outer wing is THAT weight is not being carried through the WAF. That's it. All other effects of moving weight outboard to the wing panels stated by several netters including yourself must be considered. Larry Flesner ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ See KRnet list details at http://www.krnet.org/instructions.html End of KRnet Digest, Vol 230, Issue 1 *************************************