From: krnet-bounces+johnbou=speakeasy.net@mylist.net To: John Bouyea Subject: KRnet Digest, Vol 346, Issue 21 Date: 4/11/2004 10:07:30 AM 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: Supercharging vs Turbocharging (Phillip Matheson) 2. Re: (Phillip Matheson) 3. Rudder R.E Bearing (Stephen Jacobs) 4. RE: Elevator Mass Balance mounting (Stephen Jacobs) 5. AS504x airfoil (Ronald Metcalf) 6. Supercharger vs turbocharger (Colin & Bev Rainey) 7. Re: AS504x airfoil (Mark Langford) 8. tailwheel geometry (Mark Langford) 9. RE: Supercharging vs Turbocharging (Doug Rupert) 10. RE: Supercharger vs turbocharger (Doug Rupert) 11. Re: (Orma Robbins) 12. tailwheel geometry/ handling (larry flesner) 13. AS504x airfoil (larry flesner) 14. Re: Supercharger vs turbocharger (Orma Robbins) 15. RE: tailwheel geometry/ handling (Ron Freiberger) 16. Today's Photo (Mark Jones) 17. Re: Today's Photo- tank question (Steve and Lori McGee) 18. Re: Today's Photo- tank question (Mark Jones) 19. tailwheel geometry/ handling (larry flesner) 20. KR/ fighter like handling (larry flesner) 21. "Spit" project (larry flesner) 22. Re: tailwheel geometry/ handling (Mark Langford) 23. Re: tailwheel geometry/ handling (larry flesner) 24. RE: Today's Photo- tank question (Doug Rupert) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2004 14:35:25 +1000 From: "Phillip Matheson" Subject: Re: KR> Supercharging vs Turbocharging To: "KRnet" Message-ID: <00c101c41f7e$69979a60$4e96dccb@ralf> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" I think our KR would look strange with a suppercharger sticking up infront of the windscreen like a hot rod car. Where would you mount a supercharger on a VW in a KR?? Phil Matheson matheson@dodo.com.au Australia 61 3 58833588 See our VW Engines and home built Parts and Kits at: http://www.vw-engines.com/ www.homebuilt-aviation.com ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2004 14:40:46 +1000 From: "Phillip Matheson" Subject: Re: KR> To: "KRnet" Message-ID: <00d401c41f7f$28eaca40$4e96dccb@ralf> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Ross Did you look into the costs involved with using and running and overhauling an 0-200? I'm trying to get some usuful info to show how an 0-200 would compaired to our VW engine Centre engines. all the best Phil Matheson matheson@dodo.com.au Australia 61 3 58833588 See our VW Engines and home built Parts and Kits at: http://www.vw-engines.com/ www.homebuilt-aviation.com ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2004 08:52:43 +0200 From: "Stephen Jacobs" Subject: KR> Rudder R.E Bearing To: "'KRnet'" Message-ID: <000001c41f91$9ab4ddc0$ce64a8c0@homedesktop> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >>> What if I used one KR hinge to carry the weight at the bottom of the >>> rudder,and two REB's, 1 centre, and 1 at the top of the rudder Hey Phil - No reason not to use 3 rod ends as planned? The way Murray worked it out, the rudder could weigh anything up to 16lbs (I don't recall exactly). I doubt that your rudder will weigh half that, finished and painted - my estimate would be closer to 3kg with paint, hinges et al. Assuming you add another 2kg (excessive) somewhere as counterweight and come out at 5kg (11 lbs) - man you are still good for something like 13G's assuming that only one hinge is doing all the work. Do a neat hinge installation and all three will carry. However - do you have a choice here? On my plans (ancient) there are two hinges and the bottom rudder hinge doubles with the control horn. Maybe a RE on the VS post positioned to locate within the gap of the rudder horn /hinge (and some spacers or shims). Steve J ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2004 09:18:16 +0200 From: "Stephen Jacobs" Subject: RE: KR> Elevator Mass Balance mounting To: "'KRnet'" Message-ID: <000701c41f95$2cd91970$ce64a8c0@homedesktop> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >>> I didn't mean to imply that "all" counter balance weights were on the >>> ends. Hey Joe - I had a look at that web site - really interesting. I can see what you mean, there is one weight at either end, joined by a substantial torque tube. It would be difficult to distribute the weight any better than that. We would do well to note how much care they take in balancing the "elevator". Did you build one of these (canard)? Steve J ------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2004 02:36:37 -0500 From: "Ronald Metcalf" Subject: KR> AS504x airfoil To: krnet@mylist.net Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Hello all - my first appearance The AS504x airfoil sections appear to be a big improvement over the RAF48. I am interested in the strange "tuck" underneath the trailing edge - the last few mm seem to droop down leaving a concave area right at the back (underneath). One builder site I visited showed him going to great lengths to get this exactly as per the drawing. _________________________________________________________________ Watch LIVE baseball games on your computer with MLB.TV, included with MSN Premium! http://join.msn.com/?page=features/mlb&pgmarket=en-us/go/onm00200439ave/direct/01/ ------------------------------ Message: 6 Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2004 04:01:14 -0400 From: "Colin & Bev Rainey" Subject: KR> Supercharger vs turbocharger To: "KRnet" Message-ID: <006201c41f9b$2961e550$99ef0843@RaineyDay> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Doug Once again I fall prey to a victim of oversimplification. We are not flying P51 Mustangs with Allison V12, or Rolls Royce V12 engines, nor are we flying Spitfires. Also, the Messerschmidt(?) ME109 also had a supercharged V12 engine but needed water injection to help with detonation as I recall. Still these are not our birds. Our birds have several affordable and available solutions for our engines that can be mounted to enhance them. A roots "blower" or supercharger is typically mounted under a carb assembly and is totally impractical for our configurations. So it is out. The only other supercharger that is available and practical for use are ones like the Vortech, or Paxton superchargers, which are belt driven and operate very similarly to the turbocharger except that they are driven by the crankshaft instead of the exhaust. You are correct when you say that the boost pressure is instant. It is actually rising at a steady rate along with the acceleration of the engine. This is good for power, but as I said earlier causes the internal pressures to grow at lower rpms, which is what leads to increased engine wear, and makes necessary the accommodations of reduced compression, timing retard, intercoolers, and higher octane. To ask any engine to increase its output, decreases its reliability when previously operated at lower settings. In short the same engine non-supercharge boosted will last longer than the boosted one will. In the case where we are using auto conversion engines, shortening their life is not good. Also in the case of the VW, any reduction in horsepower is a negative due to its being on the lower end to begin with. In our case it should not be that we are trying to raise the overall horsepower, but rather to preserve performance to higher altitudes where we can achieve the same aerodynamic benefits of larger aircraft. Given the same airframe studies have shown that beyond a point, horsepower increase do little for the cruise of the aircraft, but help the climb rate tremendously, while getting to thin air up top, and cleaning up the aerodynamics of the airframe really make a difference. Turbos are also designed to operate in a certain range, and can be tuned based on size and impellor area to begin boosting at lower rpms the same as the superchargers of which you speak. The benefit for those of us using VW engines is we don't have to radically change our configurations, nor do we have to give up HP to get the benefits of the turbo. Turbos only have to "spool up" when their designer has them delay for some reason, usually to prevent detonation, or too high engine pressures at lower rpms. Engines at lower rpms cannot handle lots of pressure from the boost system with out help. And it is simply not true that superchargers produce torque and turbos don't. Both produce power the same way, it is the drive mechanism which is different. They both artificially compress the air entering the engine, and that's all. The supercharger does nothing more or less than the turbocharger. And for the record the early superchargers were in fact turbochargers, just referred to as superchargers, then later turbo-superchargers, and finally just turbochargers. My points are not to argue all the different versions of boost devices available to aircraft in general, but to discuss what is practical for use by a KR builder. These boil down to the exhaust turbos, and the few belt driven superchargers on the market. Of these the most practical for most of our configurations is the exhaust turbo, remembering that the goal should be, not to try to increase the engine output, but to "normalize" the engine at altitude. Trying to make the same engine boost up and make more power below 3000feet is just asking for faster rebuilds. Look at the typical race car engine, totally rebuilt after every race, if not several times during one as in drag racing. The more you ask of it, the shorter its life, given you are comparing against someone else with a stock engine configuration. Colin & Bev Rainey KR2(td) N96TA Sanford, FL crainey1@cfl.rr.com or crbrn96ta@hotmail.com http://kr-builder.org/Colin/index.html ------------------------------ Message: 7 Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2004 09:42:05 -0500 From: "Mark Langford" Subject: Re: KR> AS504x airfoil To: "KRnet" Message-ID: <09a101c41fd3$28cab3f0$1202a8c0@basement> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Ronald Metcalf wrote: > I am interested in the strange "tuck" underneath the trailing edge - > the last few mm seem to droop down leaving a concave area right at the > back (underneath). I'm not sure what the question is, but I can tell you that the Lionheart was originally designed using NACA 64 series airfoil with a similar cusp. After the wings were built, it came out that the cusp tended to make the ailerons feel heavy. The upwards pressure also loaded the entire aileron control system to some extent. Larry later retooled them to delete the cusp, and it did lighten the aileron feel some. I have no idea if this has any application to our airfoil or our airplane, but I intend to find out once I'm flying. I'm not planning on painting my wings for a while until I do some serious testing on stuff like this. Of course, on my plane, the ailerons are a fairly small percentage of the trailing edge, but KRs built with the stock planform are are much larger percentage. Still, the fix would be fairly simple to accomplish, if it proves to be something worth doing. Mark Langford, Huntsville, Alabama N56ML "at" hiwaay.net see KR2S project at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford ------------------------------ Message: 8 Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2004 09:53:07 -0500 From: "Mark Langford" Subject: KR> tailwheel geometry To: "KRnet" Message-ID: <09aa01c41fd4$b6b01f60$1202a8c0@basement> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Steve Makish called me yesterday, and mentioned that he'd just ditched his retracts and gone to fixed gear. He said the fixed gear made his plane "squirellier" on the ground because it had a wider stance than the retracts. He started looking at tailwheel geometry, and noticed his bellcrank had only 3"- 4" center-to-center bellcrank. He replaced it with something closer to the plans, which has a 6" c-c distance, and it made a world of difference. Mark Langford, Huntsville, Alabama N56ML "at" hiwaay.net see KR2S project at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford ------------------------------ Message: 9 Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2004 10:53:33 -0400 From: "Doug Rupert" Subject: RE: KR> Supercharging vs Turbocharging To: "'KRnet'" Message-ID: <001701c41fd4$c4441320$213cd0d8@office> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" You sir have obviously not seen many superchargers. They don't like those in days of yore when they adorned the tops of drag cars or hot rods. Those were old GMC blowers taken from Detroit Diesel engines. The newer ones lie flat across the top of the engines much the same as the intake manifolds on some of the newer engines. My Judson Supercharger has the size of a generator and hung off to the side and was driven by a pulley same as the alternator/generator and was plumbed from there to the carburetor intake. Doug Rupert Simcoe Ontario. -----Original Message----- From: krnet-bounces@mylist.net [mailto:krnet-bounces@mylist.net] On Behalf Of Phillip Matheson Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2004 12:35 AM To: KRnet Subject: Re: KR> Supercharging vs Turbocharging I think our KR would look strange with a suppercharger sticking up infront of the windscreen like a hot rod car. Where would you mount a supercharger on a VW in a KR?? Phil Matheson matheson@dodo.com.au Australia 61 3 58833588 See our VW Engines and home built Parts and Kits at: http://www.vw-engines.com/ www.homebuilt-aviation.com _______________________________________ to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to KRnet-leave@mylist.net please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html ------------------------------ Message: 10 Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2004 10:53:33 -0400 From: "Doug Rupert" Subject: RE: KR> Supercharger vs turbocharger To: "'KRnet'" Message-ID: <001a01c41fd4$c7911b40$213cd0d8@office> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" All true and I bow to your insight. Sometimes I get confused between which aircraft I'm working on at the moment. I'm presently negotiating with a list member for acquisition of his partially completed project and have to keep it separate from the other project. I have seen much of this on the list and it would serve many well to go back into the archives and read a post from Larry Fleshner made years back that the KR is a fun project and a fun machine. It is not designed for IFR, hauling the family around or many other things that we seem to conveniently forget. There are many other designs out there that will better serve those needs if that is the requirement. Hell I would take a spam can (Cherokee 140) with run out engine and replace it with a turbo charged Mazda if that is what I desired. The confusion with projects? Simple, I've got a replica Spitfire that I've designed and in the process of building so it is quite easy for me to have one of those "senior" moments and forget what project I'm dealing with at the moment. The Spit is still undergoing the computer simulation mode of ironing out design deficiencies and I'm working with several mechanics who worked on the real animal and Cliff Robertson's Spit pilot, Gerry Billing who I have known all my life. It is set up to be powered by a V12 Jaguar engine, fuel injected and supercharged for high altitude performance as well as cabin pressurization which is another side benefit of the supercharger. None of this of course has anything to do with the KR and I apologize for the confusion on my part. I believe the best combination for the KR would be either the VW or Corvair engines in these fun machines. By the way, my reason for choosing the KR design in the first place was it's performance curve and handling characteristics which is pretty close to that of a fighter aircraft, so as to regain my proficiency without having to sacrifice the big bird when finished as well as have a truly fun machine to "play" with. Doug Rupert Simcoe Ontario. -----Original Message----- From: krnet-bounces@mylist.net [mailto:krnet-bounces@mylist.net] On Behalf Of Colin & Bev Rainey Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2004 4:01 AM To: KRnet Subject: KR> Supercharger vs turbocharger Doug Once again I fall prey to a victim of oversimplification. We are not flying P51 Mustangs with Allison V12, or Rolls Royce V12 engines, nor are we flying Spitfires. Also, the Messerschmidt(?) ME109 also had a supercharged V12 engine but needed water injection to help with detonation as I recall. Still these are not our birds. Our birds have several affordable and available solutions for our engines that can be mounted to enhance them. A roots "blower" or supercharger is typically mounted under a carb assembly and is totally impractical for our configurations. So it is out. The only other supercharger that is available and practical for use are ones like the Vortech, or Paxton superchargers, which are belt driven and operate very similarly to the turbocharger except that they are driven by the crankshaft instead of the exhaust. You are correct when you say that the boost pressure is instant. It is actually rising at a steady rate along with the acceleration of the engine. This is good for power, but as I said earlier causes the internal pressures to grow at lower rpms, which is what leads to increased engine wear, and makes necessary the accommodations of reduced compression, timing retard, intercoolers, and higher octane. To ask any engine to increase its output, decreases its reliability when previously operated at lower settings. In short the same engine non-supercharge boosted will last longer than the boosted one will. In the case where we are using auto conversion engines, shortening their life is not good. Also in the case of the VW, any reduction in horsepower is a negative due to its being on the lower end to begin with. In our case it should not be that we are trying to raise the overall horsepower, but rather to preserve performance to higher altitudes where we can achieve the same aerodynamic benefits of larger aircraft. Given the same airframe studies have shown that beyond a point, horsepower increase do little for the cruise of the aircraft, but help the climb rate tremendously, while getting to thin air up top, and cleaning up the aerodynamics of the airframe really make a difference. Turbos are also designed to operate in a certain range, and can be tuned based on size and impellor area to begin boosting at lower rpms the same as the superchargers of which you speak. The benefit for those of us using VW engines is we don't have to radically change our configurations, nor do we have to give up HP to get the benefits of the turbo. Turbos only have to "spool up" when their designer has them delay for some reason, usually to prevent detonation, or too high engine pressures at lower rpms. Engines at lower rpms cannot handle lots of pressure from the boost system with out help. And it is simply not true that superchargers produce torque and turbos don't. Both produce power the same way, it is the drive mechanism which is different. They both artificially compress the air entering the engine, and that's all. The supercharger does nothing more or less than the turbocharger. And for the record the early superchargers were in fact turbochargers, just referred to as superchargers, then later turbo-superchargers, and finally just turbochargers. My points are not to argue all the different versions of boost devices available to aircraft in general, but to discuss what is practical for use by a KR builder. These boil down to the exhaust turbos, and the few belt driven superchargers on the market. Of these the most practical for most of our configurations is the exhaust turbo, remembering that the goal should be, not to try to increase the engine output, but to "normalize" the engine at altitude. Trying to make the same engine boost up and make more power below 3000feet is just asking for faster rebuilds. Look at the typical race car engine, totally rebuilt after every race, if not several times during one as in drag racing. The more you ask of it, the shorter its life, given you are comparing against someone else with a stock engine configuration. Colin & Bev Rainey KR2(td) N96TA Sanford, FL crainey1@cfl.rr.com or crbrn96ta@hotmail.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: 11 Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2004 10:56:29 -0400 From: "Orma Robbins" Subject: Re: KR> To: "KRnet" Message-ID: <003901c41fd5$2cd68d50$c724d445@ROBBINS1> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" The O-200 produces 100HP at 2700 RPM. The crank has a massive bearing in the nose. Orma L. Robbins Southfield MI 19 Years flying KR-2 N110LR http://www.aviation-mechanics.com ------------------------------ Message: 12 Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2004 10:16:22 -0500 From: larry flesner Subject: KR> tailwheel geometry/ handling To: KRnet Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20040411101622.007d7cf0@pop.midwest.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" He said the fixed gear made his plane >"squirellier" on the ground because it had a wider stance than the >retracts. He started looking at tailwheel geometry, and noticed his >bellcrank had only >3"- 4" center-to-center bellcrank. He replaced it with something closer to >the plans, which has a 6" c-c distance, and it made a world of difference. >Mark Langford, Huntsville, Alabama ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The wider gear track should make it handle better. I'd guess he's headed in the right direction with the wider arm spacing on the tailwheel. As a side note, with 34.5 hours on my KR, I've found I NEVER use the brakes for directional control except for tight turns while in the slow taxi mode. The rudder and tailwheel have handled directional control for all encounters to this point. At this point I feel that if I need brake for directional control at speed, I've probably lost it already. I've found the "squirelly" part of ground handling is the time on landing when the tailwheel comes down and I start braking till I come to a stop. The brakes provide too much directional control and if not applied evenly will start you zig zagging as you try to maintain control. When that happens get off the brakes, regain directional control, then get back on the brakes. It works for me. Larry Flesner ------------------------------ Message: 13 Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2004 10:16:30 -0500 From: larry flesner Subject: KR> AS504x airfoil To: KRnet Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20040411101630.007d9440@pop.midwest.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >Ronald Metcalf wrote: >>> I am interested in the strange "tuck" underneath the trailing edge - >>> the >> last few mm seem to droop down leaving a concave area right at the >> back (underneath). +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >I'm not sure what the question is, but I can tell you that the >Lionheart was originally designed using NACA 64 series airfoil with a >similar cusp. After the wings were built, it came out that the cusp >tended to make the ailerons feel heavy. The upwards pressure also >loaded the entire aileron control system to some extent. >Mark Langford, Huntsville, Alabama ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ It wouldn't hurt the KR to have a bit more "aileron feel" but without making other changes it would throw off the balance between aileron and elevator and you would not have good control harmony. Elevator "feedback" pressure is VERY light as it is. Larry Flesner ------------------------------ Message: 14 Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2004 11:33:03 -0400 From: "Orma Robbins" Subject: Re: KR> Supercharger vs turbocharger To: "KRnet" Message-ID: <004c01c41fda$48895d70$c724d445@ROBBINS1> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Hello Net; I am not going to try to add technical expertise to this discussion, just impressions. In the rebuild project for my KR's engine, my #1 plan is to turbocharge the Type 4 that I am putting together. I am not as interested in normalizing as I am in adding a little horse power. I do plan on lowering the 8:1 compression. My decission to do this is based on my experience with an engine swap in a Mustang that I drive. The car started life as a 2300cc engine with 88 HP @ 4600 RPM. The Ford Thunderbird Turbo Coupe engine that I installed uses the same basic engine, with some differences, namely the heads and crank, added a turbo and boosted the HP to 145 @ 3600 RPM. All I want is to boost my VW, which will be 2366cc to 100 HP. The boosted Ford engine recommends that 93 Octane fuel be used for the maximum boost. I already use 100LL in my KR and should have enough octane to safely boost without detonation. The Ford Turbo system used a vacuum switched waste gate to control boost if 87 octane fuel is used. I will use a manual waste gate to limit boost. I welcome lots more discussion on this subject. Orma L. Robbins Southfield MI 19 Years flying KR-2 N110LR http://www.aviation-mechanics.com ------------------------------ Message: 15 Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2004 11:38:13 -0400 From: "Ron Freiberger" Subject: RE: KR> tailwheel geometry/ handling To: "KRnet" Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Someone said; The wider gear track should make it handle better. I'd guess he's headed in the right direction with the wider arm spacing on the tailwheel. My opinion is; My first homebuilt had a very narrow track, and it was a delight to fly and land. My Jodel D11 had Cessna gear legs mounted to the "standard" gear attach ( extremely WIDE track) , which made it a delight to fly and land. When the CG gets forward of the leading edge of the wing ( low wing aircraft ) then true squirliness begins. On a Pitts, with the axle at the firewall , true squirliness is achieved. Ron Freiberger mailto: rfreiberger@swfla.rr.com ------------------------------ Message: 16 Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2004 10:45:43 -0500 From: "Mark Jones" Subject: KR> Today's Photo To: "KR Net" , "Corvaircraft" Message-ID: <003301c41fdc$0cb0dc40$6401a8c0@wi.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Hello ALL and Happy Easter to everyone. I have just taken a photo of my plane as she sits right now and have inserted the photo on my main homepage. Click on the following link if you would like to see it. http://mywebpage.netscape.com/n886mj/homepage.html Mark Jones (N886MJ) Wales, WI USA E-mail me at flykr2s@wi.rr.com Visit my KR-2S CorvAIRCRAFT web site at http://mywebpage.netscape.com/n886mj/homepage.html ------------------------------ Message: 17 Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2004 11:06:26 -0500 From: "Steve and Lori McGee" Subject: Re: KR> Today's Photo- tank question To: "KRnet" Message-ID: <001b01c41fde$f1a17e70$0202a8c0@lori8v5h2xi9m3> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Looking good mark. Question to throw out to you and any one else with related experience. What is the impression on the wing tanks. Should they be solid mount, or point supported. I got to thinking of the statement of the wing being allowed to flex. My view is it WILL flex, although maybe a small amount. Will this cause potential leak problems in the future by flexing a solid mount tank? Steve McGee Endeavor Wi. USA Building a KR2S widened. lmcgee@maqs.net ------------------------------ Message: 18 Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2004 11:16:57 -0500 From: "Mark Jones" Subject: Re: KR> Today's Photo- tank question To: "KRnet" Message-ID: <006d01c41fe0$69ea13a0$6401a8c0@wi.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Steve, I am installing the tanks by letting them sit on aluminum angle connected from the front spar to the rear spar. There is very little space between the spars and the tank and I will fill this area with a two part foam. This way they are not rigidly mounted and hopefully will not stress as you mention. Mark Jones (N886MJ) Wales, WI USA E-mail me at flykr2s@wi.rr.com Visit my KR-2S CorvAIRCRAFT web site at http://mywebpage.netscape.com/n886mj/homepage.html ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve and Lori McGee" To: "KRnet" Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2004 11:06 AM Subject: Re: KR> Today's Photo- tank question > Looking good mark. Question to throw out to you and any one else with > related experience. > > What is the impression on the wing tanks. Should they be solid mount, or > point supported. I got to thinking of the statement of the wing being > allowed to flex. My view is it WILL flex, although maybe a small > amount. Will this cause potential leak problems in the future by > flexing a solid mount tank? > > Steve McGee > Endeavor Wi. USA > Building a KR2S widened. > lmcgee@maqs.net > > > > > > > _______________________________________ > 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: 19 Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2004 11:17:18 -0500 From: larry flesner Subject: KR> tailwheel geometry/ handling To: KRnet Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20040411111718.007d3ba0@pop.midwest.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 10:16 AM 4/11/04 -0500, you wrote: > He said the fixed gear made his plane >>"squirellier" on the ground because it had a wider stance than the >>retracts. Mark Langford, Huntsville, Alabama >++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Mark, You might suggest to Steve that he recheck his main gear alignment. He can also watch his tire wear to see what he needs. I thought I had mine nailed on "zero" toe-in/toe-out but taxi test and flying has caused tire wear on the inside edges. I shimed one axle and that stopped the wear on that side. I'm about to replace the other tire and shim that axle also. The side I shimmed only needed a .020 shim (I'm guessing) of alum on the front edge of the axle pad. I just cut a small strip from a piece laying in the hangar. I also plan to add more camber. A friend of mine is going to cut me some axle shims on his lathe when he gets back from Sun-N-Fun. Speaking of which, check out his "Harley" powered Zenair 601 if you are there. I think he will have it displayed in the ultralight area, maybe? His name is Brett Ray, company name is "HogAir". That's the one I did the first flight on the day before I did the first flight on my KR. Larry Flesner ------------------------------ Message: 20 Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2004 11:17:51 -0500 From: larry flesner Subject: KR> KR/ fighter like handling To: KRnet Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20040411111751.008b2990@pop.midwest.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" By the way, my reason for choosing the KR design in the first place was it's >performance curve and handling characteristics which is pretty close to >that of a fighter aircraft, so as to regain my proficiency without >having to sacrifice the big bird when finished as well as have a truly >fun machine to "play" with. Doug Rupert >Simcoe Ontario. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Doug, If that's what you're looking for and both project handle like my KR, you won't be disappointed !! How close are you to completion on either/both projects? Larry Flesner ------------------------------ Message: 21 Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2004 11:21:36 -0500 From: larry flesner Subject: KR> "Spit" project To: KRnet Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20040411112136.007d6db0@pop.midwest.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Doug, Are you going to need someone to fly that "Spit" to the KR Gathering someday? I think I could adjust my schedule to open a time slot to help you out! :-) Larry Flesner ------------------------------ Message: 22 Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2004 11:28:57 -0500 From: "Mark Langford" Subject: Re: KR> tailwheel geometry/ handling To: "KRnet" Message-ID: <09d201c41fe2$1f7b49e0$1202a8c0@basement> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Larry, You're right, and I should have mentioned that the gear changeout changed a lot of things, so I'm not convinced it was the wider stance, but that's what Steve said, so I was passing it along. There were lots of opportunities for changing relationships in that deal, and geometry is a biggie. Wiring up some more EIS stuff. Coils are powered, just need some spark plug wires run and a few other little odds and ends (starter wires, cooler shroud, dipstick, etc) and I'll be ready to chase Mark Jones around the neighborhood... Mark Langford, Huntsville, Alabama N56ML "at" hiwaay.net see KR2S project at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford ------------------------------ Message: 23 Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2004 11:29:24 -0500 From: larry flesner Subject: Re: KR> tailwheel geometry/ handling To: KRnet Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20040411112924.008b1100@pop.midwest.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >Wiring up some more EIS stuff. Coils are powered, just need some spark >plug wires run and a few other little odds and ends (starter wires, >cooler shroud, dipstick, etc) and I'll be ready to chase Mark Jones >around the neighborhood... Mark Langford, Huntsville, Alabama ____________________________________________________________ I hope you guys don't leave me and my 0-200 powered "PIG" too far behind! :-) Larry Flesner ------------------------------ Message: 24 Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2004 13:05:59 -0400 From: "Doug Rupert" Subject: RE: KR> Today's Photo- tank question To: "'KRnet'" Message-ID: <002a01c41fe7$438f2ea0$213cd0d8@office> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Steve since I plan on putting my little beast thru it's paces and pushing it to the max of the flight envelope, I believe that cross mounting to front and rear spars would eliminate any problems in that area. Since I have chosen to completely eliminate the fuselage tank and go with wet wings only I believe this would be the best way to go but that is only my opinion. Better to err on the side of caution. Doug Rupert -----Original Message----- From: krnet-bounces@mylist.net [mailto:krnet-bounces@mylist.net] On Behalf Of Steve and Lori McGee Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2004 12:06 PM To: KRnet Subject: Re: KR> Today's Photo- tank question Looking good mark. Question to throw out to you and any one else with related experience. What is the impression on the wing tanks. Should they be solid mount, or point supported. I got to thinking of the statement of the wing being allowed to flex. My view is it WILL flex, although maybe a small amount. Will this cause potential leak problems in the future by flexing a solid mount tank? Steve McGee Endeavor Wi. USA Building a KR2S widened. lmcgee@maqs.net ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ See KRnet list details at http://www.krnet.org/instructions.html End of KRnet Digest, Vol 346, Issue 21 ************************************** ================================== ABC Amber Outlook Converter v4.20 Trial version ==================================