From: krnet-bounces+johnbou=speakeasy.net@mylist.net To: John Bouyea Subject: KRnet Digest, Vol 346, Issue 135 Date: 9/25/2004 8:34:09 PM 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. G limit - long (Stephen Jacobs) 2. Silence (JIM VANCE) 3. Re: Silence (patrusso) 4. Re: Silence (pole shed) 5. Re: G limit (Martindale Family) 6. Re: G limit (Edward Seaman) 7. Re: G limit (larry severson) 8. Re: G limit - long (larry severson) 9. Re: G limit (Ronald Metcalf) 10. Re: G limit (larry severson) 11. Adjustable Rudder Pedals (Mark Youkey) 12. RE: Kr withe folding wings (Dov(Dubi) Gefen) 13. Re: Adjustable Rudder Pedals (larry severson) 14. G Limit (Colin & Bev Rainey) 15. Seminole (Colin & Bev Rainey) 16. Re: Adjustable Rudder Pedals (Barry Kruyssen) 17. Re: Silence (F Ross) 18. More Gathering photos (Ed Janssen) 19. Re: Adjustable Rudder Pedals (Karl) 20. Re: G limit (Martindale Family) 21. Re: G limit (Donald Reid) 22. Re: Seminole (Martindale Family) 23. RE: G Limit (Doug Rupert) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 09:38:41 +0200 From: "Stephen Jacobs" Subject: KR> G limit - long To: "'KRnet'" Message-ID: <000001c4a2d2$b162f1a0$8f64a8c0@home> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" how and who came up with this rule? Is there any science behind it? ++++++++++++++++++++ No science at all, only BS. Most netters already know this, but just in case ...... If the aircraft weighs 900lb, then 1G (gravity) is 900lbs. The rated load factor of 7G means the relevant part of the structure was tested /calculated to withstand seven times static weight - it can thus handle 7x900=6,300lb - that is what 7G means. You can literally put 6300lbs* of sand bags on the wing (properly spread out to represent the load) to establish the -G limit - or load the inverted airplane to establish the positive load factor. The structural strength does not change if we make it heavier, so the tested or calculated capability is still 6300lbs. If we add another 100lbs of structure, fuel, cargo, passenger etc., the MAUW will be 1000lbs and the G capability will be 6300/1000=6.3G (not 7-1=6G) If we add 400lbs (increase the MAUW to 1300lbs), then 6300/1300=4.85G (not 7-4=3G) Apply this rationale to a Cherokee typical MAUW of maybe 2000lbs and a load factor of +5.6G 2000x5.6=11,200. Apply the BS rule (1G /100lbs) 2100lbs reduces the LF to +4.6G?? The truth: 11200/2100=5.33G When we talk about load factors it is important to know: The aircraft has a CALCULATED load factor of +7G / -7G? Or, the aircraft has a DEMONSTRATED load factor of .......? Tested (loaded) to +7G with no permanent structural damage /distortion? Or, tested to destruction, i.e. failed (or permanent damage) at +7G (often referred to as the ultimate load factor). Everything in /on the airplane is subjected to G forces, not only the wing. A fuel tank could pop out the bottom of a wing if the mountings are not capable of restraining the load of the tank plus fuel at X times its static weight. Counter-balance weights (elevator) were discussed on the net recently - they must also be able to withstand any G loads that the airplane may be subjected to. We generally see G loads as pilot induced - steep turns, pull-ups etc. The discomfort of G forces will keep the pilot aware of the effects - may even cause him/her to black-out. (The blood trying to get to your brain is also subjected to the same G load (acceleration). G loads caused by turbulence scare me, they are invariably unexpected and can be very harsh. They are instantaneous, leaving no time to take any compensating action. That is why store bought airplanes have a placarded manoeuvring speed (* not strictly true - some of the wing weight will be excluded) Have a great weekend Steve J ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 05:18:38 -0500 From: "JIM VANCE" Subject: KR> Silence To: "krnet" Message-ID: <001701c4a2e9$06d4b720$0300a8c0@oemcomputer> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" It is so quiet on the net that you could hear a mosquito fart!! Really sorry that I'm not laughing it up at the Gathering. I WILL fly my KR-2 to the 2005 Gathering. Jim Vance ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 06:53:57 -0400 From: "patrusso" Subject: Re: KR> Silence To: "KRnet" Message-ID: <001d01c4a2ee$0011cfe0$d8b272d8@3z4xt01> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Damn it, me too! Pat from Vt. ----- Original Message ----- From: "JIM VANCE" To: "krnet" Sent: Saturday, September 25, 2004 6:18 AM Subject: KR> Silence > It is so quiet on the net that you could hear a mosquito fart!! > > Really sorry that I'm not laughing it up at the Gathering. I WILL fly > my KR-2 to the 2005 Gathering. > > Jim Vance > _______________________________________ > to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to KRnet-leave@mylist.net > please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 04:41:58 -0700 (PDT) From: pole shed Subject: Re: KR> Silence To: KRnet Message-ID: <20040925114158.35554.qmail@web11004.mail.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii You are missing a good time. (time to rub salt into the wounds..LOL) There are some beautiful craft here, and lots of them, great crowd, great conversation, decent weather, what more could you want? Larry Lipe _______________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! http://vote.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 22:07:38 +1000 From: "Martindale Family" Subject: Re: KR> G limit To: "KRnet" Message-ID: <003b01c4a2f8$4e0ed300$75a0fea9@athlon2400> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Dunno Wolfgang but it's a commonly quoted rule of thumb. As Stephen Jacobs said you could call it BS if you want exact figures. My point was simply that by increasing gross you are decreasing ultimate load and the weakest link in a KR2 is not well defined. Colin, I find it difficult to believe those Seminole figures you quoted. +2 -0 does not sound safe in turbulence, especially if you were +overweight. Those figures are even less than the early 210's and 177's and they had a tendency to lose wing tips in turbulence or steep turns. I maintain my view that to fly a KR2 at 1300lb (nearly 50% more than the original design weight) would be foolish without proper engineering analysis even if it were within CoG. If you wish to fly yours at that weight then fine, that's what experimental is all about. How are your high speed /no fly taxi tests going? Are you airborne yet? John The Martindale Family 29 Jane Circuit TOORMINA NSW 2452 AUSTRALIA phone: 61 2 66584767 email: johnjane@chc.net.au ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wolfgang Decker" To: "KRnet" Sent: Saturday, September 25, 2004 9:21 AM Subject: RE: KR> G limit > John, > > how and who came up with this rule? Is there any science behind it? > > Wolfgang > > -----Original Message----- > From: krnet-bounces@mylist.net [mailto:krnet-bounces@mylist.net]On > Behalf Of Martindale Family > Sent: Friday, September 24, 2004 6:51 PM > To: KRnet > Subject: Re: KR> G limit > > > Joe > > The KR2 is rated at +7/-7 G at a gross of 900lbs. A loose rule of > thumb is to lose 1G per 100 lb thus at 1300lb your're looking at only > +3/-3. Not sufficient margin in my opinion. Further your stall speed > and thus approach > speed is likely to be way up. I don't know just what the G limit > relates to. > It may be the wing attach fittings or it may be the engine/firewall > brackets. No one I know has tested their aircraft to destruction to > find out > :-)). If you want a bigger useful load you would be better going to another > design and probably paying more. > > John > > The Martindale Family > 29 Jane Circuit > TOORMINA NSW 2452 > AUSTRALIA > > phone: 61 2 66584767 > email: johnjane@chc.net.au > > ....At do you know, preferably first hand, about flying the KR2 at > gross weights approaching 1300 pounds?.................... > > > _______________________________________ > to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to KRnet-leave@mylist.net > please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html > > > > _______________________________________ > to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to KRnet-leave@mylist.net > please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html > ------------------------------ Message: 6 Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 16:10:45 +0100 (BST) From: Edward Seaman Subject: Re: KR> G limit To: KRnet Message-ID: <20040925151045.58180.qmail@web25303.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 A loose rule of thumb is to lose 1G per 100 lb thus at 1300lb your're looking at only +3/-3. >> I think steve J is saying that the above statement is a load of 10/100, utter crap with no grain of substance. He went to some trouble to say why and what he says makes sense to me I know where he is coming from coz we spoke off line some weeks ago or months ago. He believes that we should encourage the guys that know to tell us and he said that guys including himself should not express opeionions about stuff they dont know about. his worry before and maybe this time is that he felt it important to set the facts state if no better opinion is offered when someone asks a good question and gets a rubbish answer. The loose rule of thumb is rubbish. Why say it when someone mighte beleieve it. why defend it Ed ___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Message: 7 Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 08:34:12 -0700 From: larry severson Subject: Re: KR> G limit To: KRnet Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.0.20040925083332.0324f168@pop-server.socal.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: RE: KR> G limit Larry, Ken Rand was an electronics engineer and knew nothing of aircraft design. The composit construction however was his idea originaly. Stewart Robinson was the aeronautical engineer and made sure that nothing wrong was done design wise. They were partners in the design of both the KR-1 and 2. Ken bought Stewart out when Stewart left the area.They were both friends of mine Enclosed is a picture of Ken Rand and myself in the front room of my home in Huntington Beach, Calif where I used to live prior to my move to Texas. Ken's home was two city blocks from mine. Bob Stone, Harker Heights, Tx Larry Severson Fountain Valley, CA 92708 (714) 968-9852 larry2@socal.rr.com ------------------------------ Message: 8 Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 08:37:51 -0700 From: larry severson Subject: Re: KR> G limit - long To: KRnet Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.0.20040925083516.0324a8c0@pop-server.socal.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed However, like all "rules of thumb" in aviation, it is conservative. That is why aircraft structure limit loads are ALWAYS at least 25% below their design loads. >No science at all, only BS. > >Most netters already know this, but just in case ...... > >If the aircraft weighs 900lb, then 1G (gravity) is 900lbs. >The rated load factor of 7G means the relevant part of the structure >was tested /calculated to withstand seven times static weight - it can >thus handle 7x900=6,300lb - that is what 7G means. > >You can literally put 6300lbs* of sand bags on the wing (properly >spread out to represent the load) to establish the -G limit - or load >the inverted airplane to establish the positive load factor. > >The structural strength does not change if we make it heavier, so the >tested or calculated capability is still 6300lbs. If we add another >100lbs of structure, fuel, cargo, passenger etc., the MAUW will be >1000lbs and the G capability will be 6300/1000=6.3G (not 7-1=6G) > >If we add 400lbs (increase the MAUW to 1300lbs), then 6300/1300=4.85G >(not 7-4=3G) > >Apply this rationale to a Cherokee typical MAUW of maybe 2000lbs and a >load factor of +5.6G > >2000x5.6=11,200. > >Apply the BS rule (1G /100lbs) > >2100lbs reduces the LF to +4.6G?? > >The truth: 11200/2100=5.33G > > >When we talk about load factors it is important to know: > >The aircraft has a CALCULATED load factor of +7G / -7G? >Or, the aircraft has a DEMONSTRATED load factor of .......? > >Tested (loaded) to +7G with no permanent structural damage /distortion? >Or, tested to destruction, i.e. failed (or permanent damage) at +7G >(often referred to as the ultimate load factor). > >Everything in /on the airplane is subjected to G forces, not only the >wing. A fuel tank could pop out the bottom of a wing if the mountings >are not capable of restraining the load of the tank plus fuel at X >times its static weight. Counter-balance weights (elevator) were >discussed on the net recently - they must also be able to withstand any >G loads that the airplane may be subjected to. > >We generally see G loads as pilot induced - steep turns, pull-ups etc. >The discomfort of G forces will keep the pilot aware of the effects - >may even cause him/her to black-out. (The blood trying to get to your >brain is also subjected to the same G load (acceleration). > >G loads caused by turbulence scare me, they are invariably unexpected >and can be very harsh. They are instantaneous, leaving no time to take >any compensating action. That is why store bought airplanes have a >placarded manoeuvring speed > > >(* not strictly true - some of the wing weight will be excluded) > > >Have a great weekend > >Steve J > > > > >_______________________________________ >to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to KRnet-leave@mylist.net >please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html Larry Severson Fountain Valley, CA 92708 (714) 968-9852 larry2@socal.rr.com ------------------------------ Message: 9 Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 10:42:37 -0500 From: "Ronald Metcalf" Subject: Re: KR> G limit To: krnet@mylist.net Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Dunno Wolfgang but it's a commonly quoted rule of thumb. ---- If you "dunno", why are you propogating this nonsense? Following from an earlier reply, how about a 12000lb Kingair that increases weight by 100lbs - the load factor may change in the second decimal, but NOT BY 1G. I hear what Harry Flesner says about being diplomatic and all working together, but if someone answers a legitimate question with a really misleading and wrong answer and nobody gets involved to set it straight, then what is this fantastic network achieving? It only takes one!! Thank you Stephen? for your reply. I will go with your thinking. It would be nice if the OWT guy would actually address the email with some scientific basis rather than just say "it's a commonly quoted rule of thumb" (that I never heard in 25 years). Really, really do not wish to be on the fighting side, but I must go with what I think, I joined to learn from people that know. Ron _________________________________________________________________ Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfeeŽ Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 ------------------------------ Message: 10 Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 09:04:20 -0700 From: larry severson Subject: Re: KR> G limit To: KRnet Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.0.20040925085843.0325b488@pop-server.socal.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Physics is Physics. If a plane at a given weight will support a given G load, changing the weight changes the G load capability proportionately. The 100 lbs = 1 G is a nice, easy, safe way to calculate capability for planes in the weight/size of the KR2. The same ratio would work for the Q2. No, the plane's max G load does not drop that fast, but safe is better than sorry. It can be applied without the need for a calculator or any deep thought. Larry Severson Fountain Valley, CA 92708 (714) 968-9852 larry2@socal.rr.com ------------------------------ Message: 11 Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 13:22:30 -0500 From: "Mark Youkey" Subject: KR> Adjustable Rudder Pedals To: "KR builders and pilots" Message-ID: <021e01c4a32c$9eb13a80$6500a8c0@blah> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Has anyone built independantly adjustable rudder pedals, and if so how? My wife and I have legs that are 4" different, so I'd like to make my pedals adjust at least that amount. I've thought up many devices that could possibly make this happen, but in this stage of my thinking, they all seem fairly heavy and complex. Thanks. Mark Youkey myoukey@cox.net Oklahoma City (Back in the game after a long time off--almost done with the boat) ------------------------------ Message: 12 Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 20:43:13 +0200 From: "Dov(Dubi) Gefen" Subject: RE: KR> Kr withe folding wings To: 'KRnet' Message-ID: <000001c4a32f$87c8a300$8605a8c0@pcjqkf726kyyv9> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Hello Janssen One of the photos shows KR with folding wings. The color of the aircraft is brown. Could you let me know how the builder is? What is the e-mail of him? Regards Dubi gefen -----Original Message----- From: krnet-bounces@mylist.net [mailto:krnet-bounces@mylist.net] On Behalf Of Ed Janssen Sent: Saturday, September 25, 2004 3:19 AM To: KRnet Subject: KR> Pictures from the Gathering on Friday Netters: For those of you who are chomping at the bit, here are a few pictures from the Gathering, taken today. I didn't take the time to edit them or to consider captions, so far. Of course, there'll no doubt be lots more pictures posted by others in the coming days. Click on the following address and then you can click on any of the pictures for a larger version or you can click on "slideshow" found under the title of the album and to the right side. Enjoy! Address: http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/eros_62546/album?.dir=/2afc&.src=ph Ed Janssen _______________________________________ to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to KRnet-leave@mylist.net please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html ------------------------------ Message: 13 Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 12:03:09 -0700 From: larry severson Subject: Re: KR> Adjustable Rudder Pedals To: KRnet Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.0.20040925115344.03259ad8@pop-server.socal.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed >My wife and I have legs that are 4" different, so I'd like to make my >pedals adjust at least that amount. I've thought up many devices that >could possibly make this happen, but in this stage of my thinking, they >all seem fairly heavy and complex. Definitely heavier and more complex. The best system that I have seen, not on a KR, used an "S" tube tied to the rudder pedals and a drilled connecting tube along the path of possible pedal adjustment. A pin went from the base of the pedals into the tube to lock the pedals at a specific adjustment. Then, the rudder cables came from the rear through the "S" tube and mounted forward either to the floor or the firewall. This required that the rudder cables be separated well aft of the cockpit and run to both sets "S" tubes on the rudder pedals. The "S" tubes allowed the adjustment of the rudder pedals along the rudder cables without losing pedal effectiveness. Larry Severson Fountain Valley, CA 92708 (714) 968-9852 larry2@socal.rr.com ------------------------------ Message: 14 Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 15:45:45 -0400 From: "Colin & Bev Rainey" Subject: KR> G Limit To: "KRnet" Message-ID: <009b01c4a338$403e3050$63472141@RaineyDay> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Not to be insulting in reference to your remarks, but this is the reason that all builders should FIRST be at least a Private Pilot. In your basic aerodynamics you are taught that regardless of the aircraft if that plane makes a 60 degree LEVEL bank turn, meaning that the aircraft is rolled into a 60 degree bank and maintained coordinated and airspeed and altitude are maintained the same as entry speeds and altitude, then the airframe is subjected to a 2 G's load. This is universal regardless of the aircraft. Also, airspeed determines alot of the wing loading of an aircraft. A heavy aircraft has a higher maneuvering speed, that speed at which abrupt full control inputs can be applied, or turbulence penetration can be made without aircraft damage. This is because the heavier aircraft is harder to displace than a lighter one, especially when talking turbulence. This is why the guys with heavier KRs tend to report them to be more stable than others, but lacking in top speed, climb rate, possibly rollrate etc... That is NOT to say that the speeds are radically different. C172s have a design max maneuvering speed around 110knots, but solo that speeds comes down to approximately 85knots. At least for the GA planes I have flown this looks pretty consistent for the spread from solo to being at max allowable weight. I personally have chosen speeds that mimic the C152 and solo my maneuvering speed is 90mph (since my ASI is in mph) and at gross weight 110mph, or about 83knots, and 100knots respectively. I am having my plane certified for ONLY Normal Aircraft Category Operations, even though it is Experimental by specifying only those type of operations are allowed as part of my Experimental Certificate. This prohibits even spins, and some of the more docile maneuvers and definitely prohibits a Marty Roberts arrival! I consider the calculated +5G loading, -3Gloading to be max structural or ultimate loading and expecting damage at these numbers. I consider half those numbers to be safe without damage. A G meter installed in the aircraft would allow one to confirm airspeed estimates actual stay within the allowable limts. Again normal cruise flying and maneuvering should never exceed 2G's unless you doing something wrong. If you want to cut up be SURE to slow down first and apply controls SMOOTHLY! If you don't know what you are doing than don't do it. Colin & Bev Rainey KR2(td) N96TA Sanford, FL crainey1@cfl.rr.com http://kr-builder.org/Colin/index.html ------------------------------ Message: 15 Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 15:59:17 -0400 From: "Colin & Bev Rainey" Subject: KR> Seminole To: "KRnet" Message-ID: <00aa01c4a33a$23ef4310$63472141@RaineyDay> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" John Pickup a Piper Seminole Operating Manual and you will find that max operating G loading is 3.8 positive flaps up & 2.0 positive flaps down and 0 negative. Section 2 in the Limitations Section. All certified aircraft have them published there. If you go over the published weights you then do what Steve Jacobs illustrated and calculate the new limitations, AND then expect to test for ALL new speeds due to the changes that will occur to them due to the higher weight. Colin & Bev Rainey KR2(td) N96TA Sanford, FL crainey1@cfl.rr.com http://kr-builder.org/Colin/index.html ------------------------------ Message: 16 Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 06:15:06 +1000 From: "Barry Kruyssen" Subject: Re: KR> Adjustable Rudder Pedals To: "KRnet" Message-ID: <05a801c4a33c$5b472150$7000a8c0@technologyonecorp.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" lookup up your nearest gliding/soaring club and go and have a look at a glider. Most gliders have adjustable pedals. ----- Original Message ----- Has anyone built independantly adjustable rudder pedals, and if so how? Thanks. Mark Youkey myoukey@cox.net Oklahoma City ------------------------------ Message: 17 Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 13:21:03 -0700 (PDT) From: F Ross Subject: Re: KR> Silence To: KRnet Message-ID: <20040925202103.89950.qmail@web40902.mail.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii --- JIM VANCE wrote: > It is so quiet on the net that you could hear a > mosquito fart!! > > Really sorry that I'm not laughing it up at the > Gathering. I WILL fly my KR-2 to the 2005 > Gathering. > > Jim Vance Sorry I missed you this year Jim. Look forward to seeing you at next year's Gathering. I laughed some for you today. Rick Lanning, who now owns N4DD, the KR Dan Diehl built, took me for a nice ride around the area. Great flying KR and it is OLD. Not as old as me, but few things are... Frank ===== Frank Ross, EAA Chapter 35, San Geronimo, TX RAF Lakenheath, Suffolk, England, UK Visit my photo album at: http://photos.yahoo.com/alamokr2 __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo ------------------------------ Message: 18 Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 16:15:44 -0500 From: ejanssen@chipsnet.com (Ed Janssen) Subject: KR> More Gathering photos To: "KRnet" Message-ID: <004201c4a344$d3dee3c0$ab00a8c0@dad> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" I added about 44 more Gathering pictures (taken today - Saturday) at this address: http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/eros_62546/album?.dir=2afc&.src=ph&store=&prodid=&.done=http%3a//pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph//my_photos Ed Janssen mailto:ejanssen@chipsnet.com ------------------------------ Message: 19 Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 22:10:23 +1200 From: "Karl" Subject: Re: KR> Adjustable Rudder Pedals To: "KRnet" Message-ID: <01c4a21e$b7e9fbe0$LocalHost@doreenba> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-7" +AD4-Has anyone built independantly adjustable rudder pedals, and if so +how? +AD4- Looking at it from a differant angle. In the last few months there was a message regarding adjustable seats, I can not remember any of the details. Check the arcives as it should be there. Karl ------------------------------ Message: 20 Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 09:37:51 +1000 From: "Martindale Family" Subject: Re: KR> G limit To: "KRnet" Message-ID: <002101c4a358$ad213260$75a0fea9@athlon2400> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Ken It is a loose rule of thumb as I stated to support a safety argument I am trying to push. It was introduced on this site by others without criticism such as yours. You can't have been a participant on this site for very long or you would know this (even with 25 years of flying behind you)......search the archives. In my view you should be criticising those (especially flying instructors, with a self proclaimed host of experience) who advocate flying some 50% over weight to newcomers who ask legitimate questions. I have no doubt at all that Stephen's calculations are correct and it is good that he has provided them....but they don't alter the above premise one iota and do not answer the original question about flying at 1300lbs. Here is another rule of thumb: For every 1/2 inch reduction in prop diameter you gain about 100 rpm static...not mathematically correct but close enough for general argument as mine was for aircraft of our dimensions. FLY A KR 50% OVER GROSS AT YOUR OWN RISK BUT DON"T CRITICISE ME IF I CHOOSE NOT TO AND ADVISE OTHERS LIKEWISE. The Martindale Family 29 Jane Circuit TOORMINA NSW 2452 AUSTRALIA phone: 61 2 66584767 email: johnjane@chc.net.au ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ronald Metcalf" To: Sent: Sunday, September 26, 2004 1:42 AM Subject: Re: KR> G limit > Dunno Wolfgang but it's a commonly quoted rule of thumb. > > ---- > > If you "dunno", why are you propogating this nonsense? > > Following from an earlier reply, how about a 12000lb Kingair that increases > weight by 100lbs - the load factor may change in the second decimal, > but NOT > BY 1G. > > I hear what Harry Flesner says about being diplomatic and all working > together, but if someone answers a legitimate question with a really > misleading and wrong answer and nobody gets involved to set it > straight, then what is this fantastic network achieving? It only > takes one!! > > Thank you Stephen? for your reply. I will go with your thinking. It would > be nice if the OWT guy would actually address the email with some scientific > basis rather than just say "it's a commonly quoted rule of thumb" > (that I never heard in 25 years). > > Really, really do not wish to be on the fighting side, but I must go > with what I think, I joined to learn from people that know. > > Ron > > _________________________________________________________________ > Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from > McAfeeŽ Security. > http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- > _______________________________________ > to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to KRnet-leave@mylist.net > please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html ------------------------------ Message: 21 Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 19:51:01 -0400 From: Donald Reid Subject: Re: KR> G limit To: KRnet Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20040925194327.01cce438@pop.erols.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 11:42 AM 9/25/2004, you wrote: >Dunno Wolfgang but it's a commonly quoted rule of thumb. > > >Following from an earlier reply, how about a 12000lb Kingair that >increases weight by 100lbs - the load factor may change in the second >decimal, but NOT BY 1G. The 100 pound increase = 1 G reduction in load that has been thrown out is an approximation for a KR built to plans. In round numbers, a 800-850 pound KR should be able to take 7 Gs. Of that gross weight, approximately 700 pounds is being supported by the wings and contributes to the bending moment on the wings. If the fuselage weight increases by 100 pounds, the wings are now supporting 800 pounds. If the wing structure is unchanged, the ultimate load factor will decrease by approximately 1 G. Don Reid - donreid "at" erols.com Bumpass, Va Visit my web sites at: AeroFoil, a 2-D Airfoil Design And Analysis Computer Program: http://www.eaa231.org/AeroFoil/index.htm 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 ------------------------------ Message: 22 Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 09:55:46 +1000 From: "Martindale Family" Subject: Re: KR> Seminole To: "KRnet" Message-ID: <006d01c4a35b$2db7fb00$75a0fea9@athlon2400> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" This illustrates what I am trying to say, obviously without success. In the Seminole's case the flap strength is a significant factor. In a KR we don't know, therefore to fly above grossly above gross is risky IMHO especially if turbulence is encountered. I think a lot of KR owners fly above gross to some extent but I'd be interested in hearing from any who have gone to 1300lbs...any takers!! The Martindale Family 29 Jane Circuit TOORMINA NSW 2452 AUSTRALIA phone: 61 2 66584767 email: johnjane@chc.net.au ----- Original Message ----- From: "Colin & Bev Rainey" To: "KRnet" Sent: Sunday, September 26, 2004 5:59 AM Subject: KR> Seminole > John > Pickup a Piper Seminole Operating Manual and you will find that max operating G loading is 3.8 positive flaps up & 2.0 positive flaps down and 0 negative. Section 2 in the Limitations Section. All certified aircraft have them published there. > > If you go over the published weights you then do what Steve Jacobs illustrated and calculate the new limitations, AND then expect to test for ALL new speeds due to the changes that will occur to them due to the higher weight. > > Colin & Bev Rainey > KR2(td) N96TA > Sanford, FL > crainey1@cfl.rr.com > http://kr-builder.org/Colin/index.html > _______________________________________ > to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to KRnet-leave@mylist.net > please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html > ------------------------------ Message: 23 Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 23:33:42 -0400 From: "Doug Rupert" Subject: RE: KR> G Limit To: , "'KRnet'" Message-ID: <001301c4a379$a03dee00$1b6cd1d8@office> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Well hell, if anyone really wants to find out what will happen when you grossly overload any of the KR series aircraft without making significant airframe strengthening let them go up and let her rip. By the way, wear a chute, pray and if you survive, report back the numbers where she finally gave up the ghost. This total thread is useless as the figures are posted in many places, but then again every aircraft is different as are those that built them. From years of personal experience working with engineers I can say with all confidence that most are full of s**t. More than a few times I've had to bail from an aircraft that the engineers said could easily handle anything I could throw at her. WRONG.. I am no superhero, nor super pilot but have done my fair share of flying the edge of the envelope and can tell you from experience that stress kills. Too much stress at home or on the job is the same as too much stress on an aircraft. Either way you're just as dead. As for my Kr, I'm building it to take what punishment I can dish out along with navigation, commo and creature comforts. Keeping track of weights of all items and feeding the information into various design software to see what structural changes need to be made along the way. KR2S, well it resembles one and that is the way it started life. Just have to see what finally takes to the air when all the dust and sweat have cleared and she has passed her inspections. One thing is for sure it will be the only "N" numbered aircraft built and registered outside the states unless we got another service person lurking here. Doug Rupert Simcoe Ontario Colin, BE CAREFUL! I don't know what you mean by "60 degree LEVEL bank turn". Just today at the gathering we discussed max stress on the KR. It was established that the KR is max stressed to 7 Gs at 800 #. Meaning a total maximum supported "felt" weight of 5600 #. So if your gross is 1400#, your max G load is just shy of 4 Gs. If at that gross weight you make a turn at 60 degree, your "felt" weight is 2800# IF THIS HAPPENS IN BUMPY AIR, YOU JUST MIGHT EXCEED MAX LOADING, MAKING YOU THE TEST PILOT!!! Caps were not intended, but appeared at the right time! I'm not exactly clear on your intended message but want to warn everyone NOT to exceed the load limits! Joachim ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ See KRnet list details at http://www.krnet.org/instructions.html End of KRnet Digest, Vol 346, Issue 135 *************************************** ================================== ABC Amber Outlook Converter v4.20 Trial version ==================================