From: krnet-bounces@mylist.net To: John Bouyea Subject: KRnet Digest, Vol 347, Issue 477 Date: 11/21/2005 9:00:16 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. Re: GPS (Jerry Mahurin) 2. New wing on old airframe (Colin Rainey) 3. Re: CorvAircraft> another flight (Joseph H. Horton) 4. Re: Flaps on KR2S (Joseph H. Horton) 5. Saturn engine (Colin Rainey) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 19:41:11 -0500 From: Jerry Mahurin Subject: Re: KR> GPS To: KRnet Message-ID: <3812d7480511211641h3df62062ub0bbdf840f8b42c3@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 ..........now I ain't saying anything against GPSs....... I love 'em, any style or color or not........ But if you punch those buttons and nothing happens..........??? If your fan has quit; what else has quit.....'specially in these electric airplanes.... Do I sound like an old Geezer....??....I shore am.... Keep on keeping on fellers, On 11/21/05, Orma wrote: > > I can only say that when the fan quits turning, and Garmin says the > nearest is 042 degrees, and you line up drop the nose and there it is. > Some of the pucker factor subsides. > > Orma > Southfield, MI > KR-2 N110LR 1984 > See Tweety at http://www.kr-2.aviation-mechanics.com > See other KR spces at > www.kr-2.aviation-mechanics.com/krinfo.htm chanics.com/krinfo.htm> > > > > _______________________________________ > Search the KRnet Archives at http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp > to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to KRnet-leave@mylist.net > please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html > -- Jerry Mahurin - aka - KRJerry Lugoff, SC 29078 ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 20:21:59 -0500 From: "Colin Rainey" Subject: KR> New wing on old airframe To: krnet@mylist.net Message-ID: <410-22005112221215944@earthlink.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Hussein Nagy and netters For the benefit of all new builders I will answer to the net. I asked a similar question to Mark L. some years ago, and his reply was this: If you have not started on your wings yet, then by all means use the AS5046, which mates better to the RAF 48 stub wing, and taper out to an appropriate size, I believe it was AS5044 or something close to that. Read closely the narrative that Mark Langford has on the virtues of the new wing, and it will detail what he did to mate the new wing to the existing stub wing, then just copy what he did. This pattern has been followed by 3 builders that I know of for sure, and I believe as many as 8 or more may be flying with the new wing and are enjoying it. My wings were already complete, so I am still flying the RAF48 wing. Yes get rid of the retracts, especially if you are not commercial/complex rated. Your own plane is not when you need to learn about gear up landings. One happened during the Corvair College that Mark L. reported I believe. The retracts are heavy, hard to use, and known to collapse. A good set of Grove Gear or the Dan Diehl conventional are much better, lighter, and give more ground clearance for a really nice prop. There is alot of bantering about this in the archives. My personal opinion is that if you do not have your tail wheel endorsement yet, and you do not have alot of hours, and do not have a budget that will allow for bi-monthly flying to stay current, then my advice would be to also install a nose wheel and convert to tri-gear. It will be the configuration that you are most familiar with, will train in, and will be easiest for you to transition into your own plane, with its own flight characteristics. Tri-gear will eliminate one additional factor of transition and mistakes that you will encounter while learning your new plane. The sizing of the tail feathers is going to have to be your call. Mine are plans built with a de-tuned elevator actuation through the use of a push tube and bell crank setup that increases the stick required throw, while still preserving the total travel possible. I enjoy it very much and feel that I have much better harmony between the ailerons and elevator now. I also borrowed an idea from Larry Flesner about modifying the aileron bell cranks in order to get full actuation. I moved the cable attach point closer to the pivot point by 1/2 an inch, which allowed for proper movement, and aligned the push tube to be horizontal by using a spacer tube on the push tube bolt. Details on the web page. If you plan to fly solo, or with small passengers ( say under 80 pounds) then 2180 VW power is okay. My personal opinion is that if you desire to carry 2 large people like me and someone else, ( I weigh 195) then you will need closer to 100 hp, and the Corvair, turbo VW, or similar power plants will be necessary. Keep in mind on the STOCK KR2, the recommended power plants are under 250 pounds, and I would definitely plan on an engine under 280 or else plan on mods to the fire wall, relocation of items normally found forward etc... due to the extra weight. Also, do not expect to have an over 180 mph airplane as it will now be very heavy as KRs' go. The fastest are under 650 empty. Good luck building, good questions... Colin Rainey brokerpilot96ta@earthlink.net EarthLink Revolves Around You. ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 19:40:48 -0500 From: "Joseph H. Horton" Subject: KR> Re: CorvAircraft> another flight To: corvaircraft@mylist.net,krnet@mylist.net Message-ID: <20051121.202038.3284.4.joe.kr2s.builder@juno.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 20:19:15 -0800 (PST) Daniel Weseman writes: > Joe sounds like your having fun and have a fast ship there. How is > your air intake on the cowl. since the third flight i had a > intermitent stumble(if thats how to describe it?) at high power , > would do it once a flight or so out of the blue and somtimes not at > all. Carb heat ALWAYS cured it but ive felt it was a effect from the > air intake so close to the prop(1/2 inch). by pulling carb heat the > ram air is not in the system. I moved the air inlet and got rid of > the long scat tube connecting it to the filter box. Ive flown it > twice and actually picked up 30 or so static Rpm and it seems the > same on the top end? also its a little smother in climb and the egts > at high power are almost the same(they were never far off but are > even better now) I thought if you had ram air your stumble might be > somthing similar, may be not though stay safe have fun and keep us > updated Dan > Dan I am not using ram air. The Aerocarb doe snot like it. I am using air from in the cowl and have carb heat off the exhaust via 2" scat tube. Like yours it did occur at a high power setting. I can not remember exactly what the conditions were right now as i was able to log over 2 1/2 hrs at 3 different times this weekend. The 3100 is running great and I get to places that I wasn't even going to before I know it. I have a lot of testing to go yet but here are some early findings First the equipment: KR2S with the new airfoil-trigear-- all fairings and paint complete-724# empty 3100cc corvair aerocarb and just about everything done to the engine that could be done 58" x 64 Sterba prop The numbers: normal climb-90 mph indicated-- 1200'/min best angle climb-- 80 mph -- 1500'/min 75%power cruise -- 2800 rpm-- 145mph WOT--3150 rpm--170mph cruse climb-- 2800 rpm--700'/min stall power off--55mph indicated pattern speeds have been 90 downwind--80 on base, 1 notch flaps--75 finial add last 2 notches of flaps-- 70 over the numbers and just keep holding the nose up to touch down. Total time is 7.5 hours and about 20 landings ( the last 10 could actually be called landings) Joe Horton, Coopersburg, PA. joe.kr2s.builder@juno.com ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 20:07:14 -0500 From: "Joseph H. Horton" Subject: KR> Re: Flaps on KR2S To: flyingb@gmail.com,krnet@mylist.net Message-ID: <20051121.202038.3284.6.joe.kr2s.builder@juno.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii I'll try to answer the best I can right now. I am not fully tested and don't want to mislead anyone. My flaps are my interpretation of an idea that Mark Langford has on his web site. They are split flaps embedded in the stub wings. they are as big as I could possibly make them I think 10" x 20". They are completely flush when closed and you would be hard pressed looking at the plane to know that they even were there. They are mounted to a piano hinge that is mounted to a small spar embedded in the stub wing. They operate by way of a stock RR flap handle to a torque that runs in front of the rear spar to the stub wings just outside of the fuselage. To a linkage rod and to a control horn on the flap. I have 3 positions of roughly 15, 25, and 40 deg. of deflection. The first notch is noticeable in a change in drag. The 2nd is more drag and a slight pitch change. third is noticeable in decent angle. I did the first few landings without the flaps and it was an adventure to say the least. The plane needs something to slow it down and burn off it's extra energy. I did some research before I decided to take Mark's Idea and run with it but it was more work to get it installed than a belly board and the belly board most likely has more effect than my set up does. Even so I may limit the use of the third notch to calm or light wind landings. Thanks Mark L. for the help from your web site. Cris - hope this helps. Joe Horton, Coopersburg, PA. joe.kr2s.builder@juno.com On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 11:11:22 +0100 "Cris." writes: Hi, Joe, I saw your message on the KR mailing list and noticed you were talking about flaps. May I ask you if your flaps are the ones described on the plans? If positive, can you tell me what real advantages they give you? Shorter landings? Additional drag? Better visibility because you can fly the final with nose a little bit more down? Would you advise flaps instead of the belly board? I flew a KR2S three weeks ago and could see thet it tends to eat up a lot of runway during landings (well, my friend landed it on a 600 metres grass strip anyway) and I do not know if those small flaps can do a reasonable work. Thank you and happy landings! Cris. -- Land the airplane, rubber side down, main wheels first. Joe Horton, Coopersburg, PA. joe.kr2s.builder@juno.com ------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 22:21:39 -0500 From: "Colin Rainey" Subject: KR> Saturn engine To: krnet@mylist.net Message-ID: <410-220051122232139528@earthlink.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Ken The problem I see with the use of the new Saturn engine is having the knowledge to modify the existing electronics to aircraft use without losing any of the output or reliability. Also, your engine choice should be one that has as flat of a torque band and as long of a horsepower band as possible. What I mean is that when you look at a graph of the horsepower and torque numbers, the graph shows them to be over as much of the hp and torque band of operation as possible. Example: your operating range is say 0 to 5000 rpms for (a liquid cooled conversion). Your ideal example would be a torque band that stretched from say 1500 to 4500 rpms at nearly the same average amount, and hp that stretched from say 2000 to 5000 rpms, with nearly the same average, and peak prior to your redline. You want a nice buffer between your redline and your peak hp so that you do not have to worry about something getting broken if you accidentally over rev. Example: Small block Chevy has stock redline of 6000 rpms, so I would always shift at 5000 rpms giving me a 1000 rpm buffer against over rev. By having the curve as long as possible, you will get the best chance of having a good combination prop matched to your engine that can give a good climb rate and a good cruise, at a reasonable rpm for long engine life. If using a PSRU, plan on a final weight add-on of approximately 65 pounds (Northwest Aero belt drive weighs this, as does Belted Airpower's version). The reduction needs to match the engine where the planned max redline of MAX ENGINE life is being used, is the max REDUCED rpm for the prop. This SHOULD yield the best overall operation for the engine and prop. If too much reduction is used the engine revs too high for max life and gets peaky in its performance, ie: prop can't produce significant thrust below 3000 rpms. Too little reduction and the engine gets loaded down, so overall performance suffers. Remember the engine still needs a thermostat to operate properly, or all the computer sensors will go nuts. Also the computer needs to be insulated from as much heat as possible, and weather, and it is best if you use a straight shift donor car for the least amount of computer to transmission interaction. Keep the straight shift flywheel as the added weight helps to eliminate some of the harmful harmonics according to Robert Finch. I too am going liquid cooled in the future, but not for this plane or model. Too hard to make the weight limitations... Colin Rainey brokerpilot96ta@earthlink.net EarthLink Revolves Around You. ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ See KRnet list details at http://www.krnet.org/instructions.html End of KRnet Digest, Vol 347, Issue 477 *************************************** ================================== ABC Amber Outlook Converter v4.20 Trial version ==================================