From: krnet-bounces@mylist.net To: John Bouyea Subject: KRnet Digest, Vol 347, Issue 78 Date: 2/21/2005 7:40:05 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. Fwd: [Q-LIST] Fw: CorvAircraft> Re: Interesting court decision (larry severson) 2. Re: Gathering shirts/hats - market for kids - off topic (F Ross) 3. Fwd: [Q-LIST] Fw: CorvAircraft> Re: Interesting court decision (F Ross) 4. Re: Gathering help (F Ross) 5. Fw: [saaa_ch20] Fw: 1) Lycoming Verdict (From AVWeb) (Phil Matheson) 6. Re: Fwd: [Q-LIST] Fw: CorvAircraft> Re: Interesting court decision (Dan Heath) 7. Court post (Colin & Bev Rainey) 8. Re: Court post (F Ross) 9. Court post - Avemco (Kevin Jarvis) 10. RE : KR> Fwd: [Q-LIST] Fw: CorvAircraft> Re: Interesting court decision (jeffyork40@qx.net) 11. Court decision (rhartwig11@juno.com) 12. RE: Gathering shirts/hats - market for kids - off topic (Doug Rupert) 13. Re: Fwd: [Q-LIST] Fw: CorvAircraft> Re: Interesting court decision (Orma) 14. Newbie and starting KR2S (Rod Beam) 15. Re: Newbie and starting KR2S (Dan Heath) 16. Timber top deck (Bavo) 17. Re: Timber top deck (Mark Jones) 18. Re: Court decision (jeffyork40@qx.net) 19. Court decision (Kevin Jarvis) 20. Re: Court decision (Bubba) 21. Major mods and your pilots ticket (Brant Hollensbe) 22. Re: Court decision (Tony Wright) 23. Re: Court decision (Mark Jones) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 21:55:05 -0800 From: larry severson Subject: KR> Fwd: [Q-LIST] Fw: CorvAircraft> Re: Interesting court decision To: kRnet Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.0.20050220215200.00c16380@pop-server.socal.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed I got this from the QList. Must reading for ALL homebuilders! Change props, or even avionics that changes w/b, and this could hit you. >This was posted over on the Corvair list and thought I'd post it over >here. It got me to thinking about some of the things I've done and >assumed they were not considered major. Wander 'bout my auxilary fuel >tank - that's messin' with the fuel system. I suppose the electronic >ignition I would like to install someday is also considered major. >Anybody else recertified their airplanes for things like this? > >LF > > > >I think I posted this before, but it is worth reading. > > > > http://www.ellison-fluid-systems.com/homebuilt_court_decision.htm > > Larry Severson Fountain Valley, CA 92708 (714) 968-9852 larry2@socal.rr.com ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 02:16:30 -0800 (PST) From: F Ross Subject: Re: KR> Gathering shirts/hats - market for kids - off topic To: KR net Message-ID: <20050221101630.71124.qmail@web40912.mail.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii give up flying, sell the kids, or other such irrational actions. :-) Larry Flesner 2005 KR Gathering Host Larry, Is there a market for kids? Wish I'd have known this sooner.... 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!? Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250 ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 02:20:03 -0800 (PST) From: F Ross Subject: KR> Fwd: [Q-LIST] Fw: CorvAircraft> Re: Interesting court decision To: KR net Message-ID: <20050221102003.51896.qmail@web40904.mail.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii That's amazing, especially since he returned his system to the original set-up. I'd have thought that would be acceptable, but, according to the court, once he made the first change, he wasn't covered any longer. Amazing. 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!? The all-new My Yahoo! - What will yours do? http://my.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 02:28:54 -0800 (PST) From: F Ross Subject: Re: KR> Gathering help To: KR net Message-ID: <20050221102854.27069.qmail@web40914.mail.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Last year I got to help at the Sign-In desk and enjoyed every minute of it. I'd encourage all of you to pitch in and help for whatever time you can. It's a lot of work, but if everyone commits a few minutes, it is MUCH more fun for all. Larry did a great job and we all owe him a huge debt of gratitude AND a few minutes of OUR weekend will go a long way to pay that debt. I'm still not sure I'll be able to make the trip from England again this year, but, if I do, count on me to help any way I can. 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: 5 Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 21:29:43 +1100 From: "Phil Matheson" Subject: KR> Fw: [saaa_ch20] Fw: 1) Lycoming Verdict (From AVWeb) To: "KR Builder & Pilots" Message-ID: <001201c51800$4345ed50$39b0dccb@Office> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Sorry But this is important any one with a lycoming engine. This is from our SAAA sport Aviation ASs Australia Phil Matheson matheson@dodo.com.au VH-PKR ( Phil's KR) 61 3 58833588 Australia.( Down Under) See My KR2 Building Web Page at: http://mywebpage.netscape.com/flyingkrphil/VHPKR.html See our VW Engines and Home built web page at http://www.vw-engines.com/ www.homebuilt-aviation.com/ ----- Original Message ----- From: "jhudson" To: Sent: Monday, February 21, 2005 3:07 PM Subject: [saaa_ch20] Fw: 1) Lycoming Verdict (From AVWeb) > > Hi all at Chapter20., received this from Rick Harper. Hard to believe > Lycoming are turning out crook engines eh ! > Pres. John. > > > For everyone's interest !!! > > Biggus > > > Vince Orton wrote: >> >> This just in from AVWeb ... >> >> ********************************************************************* >> * >> >> JURY'S CRANKSHAFT VERDICT HITS LYCOMING HARD... >> In a stunning verdict (the effects of which could ripple through the >> aviation world for years to come) a Texas jury has found Textron >> Lycoming entirely to blame for crankshaft failures in high-horsepower >> engines between 2000 and 2002. What's more, the Grimes County jurors >> found that Lycoming's investigation of the crankshaft failures was >> fraudulent and incorrectly put the blame on the manufacturer of the >> crankshaft forgings, Interstate Southwest, of Navasota, Texas. In >> fact, the FAA also accepted Lycoming's version that Interstate had >> improperly heat-treated the forgings, which weakened the steel and >> led to the failures. What the jury found was that the crankshafts >> were under-designed for high-horsepower engines, and that Lycoming >> changed the recipe for the steel alloy used in the cranks by adding >> vanadium (to make the metal easier and less expensive to work with) >> and that that weakened them. According to court documents obtained by >> AVweb, the jury found that the "sole cause" of the crankshaft >> failures was Lycoming's design. More... >> >> ...REPLACEMENT CRANKS AND INTEGRITY QUESTIONED... >> Now, the legal wranglings have undoubtedly just begun (Lycoming will >> almost certainly appeal) but the Texas decision raises some practical >> and potentially disquieting questions about the whole crankshaft >> issue. These are questions we'd like to pose to Lycoming but we were >> unable to receive a response before our deadline. According to >> Interstate lawyer Marty Rose, the forging company's investigation >> revealed that the design of the crankshafts used in the brawny >> turbocharged 300-plus-horsepower six-cylinder engines in question was >> based on 40-year-old designs for four-cylinder engines with much >> lower horsepower. Rose told AVweb that their investigation revealed >> that even though the vanadium problem was fixed in replacement cranks >> installed in 1,400 engines recalled in 2002, the cranks are still >> under-designed for the stresses created by the big engines. "The >> [replacement] crankshafts don't have any safety margin," said Rose. >> More... >> >> ...THE VERDICT COULD BE JUST THE BEGINNING >> The decision also raises questions about the FAA's handling of the >> crankshaft problem. From the outset, the agency appears to have gone >> along with Lycoming's conclusion that Interstate was to blame for the >> weak cranks. The original Emergency Airworthiness Directive grounding >> Cessnas and Pipers with TIO-540 and LTIO-540 engines cites "a >> variation in the heat treatment process" (the jury did not agree) >> used during production of the cranks. FAA chief spokesman Greg Martin >> said the agency is studying the court decision and there's no word >> yet on further action. More... >> >> ********************************************************************* >> *** >> >> Thought you all would like to know ... >> >> -Vince Orton > > Aircraft piston engines are right on the ragged edge of failure. The > least little thing that goes wrong results in catastrophic failure. > > > Paul Lamar > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor > --------------------~--> Help save the life of a child. Support St. > Jude Children's Research Hospital's 'Thanks & Giving.' > http://us.click.yahoo.com/6iY7fA/5WnJAA/Y3ZIAA/jrDrlB/TM > --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/saaa_ch20/ > > <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > saaa_ch20-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com > > <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > > > > > ------------------------------ Message: 6 Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 06:16:25 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time) From: "Dan Heath" Subject: Re: KR> Fwd: [Q-LIST] Fw: CorvAircraft> Re: Interesting court decision To: "krnet@mylist.net" Message-ID: <4219C309.000001.02848@DANHOMECOMPUTER> Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" I always thought that these were things that you could certify yourself as long as you documented them properly and documented that the appropriate tests were conducted. See N64KR at http://KR-Builder.org - Then click on the pics There is a time for building and a time for FLYING and the time for building has expired. Daniel R. Heath - Columbia, SC See you in Mt. Vernon - 2005 - KR Gathering -------Original Message------- Change props, or even avionics that changes w/b, and this could hit you. I suppose the electronic ignition ............... Anybody else recertified their airplanes for things like this? ------------------------------ Message: 7 Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 06:49:29 -0500 From: "Colin & Bev Rainey" Subject: KR> Court post To: "KRnet" Message-ID: <00aa01c5180b$671f7970$9c402141@RaineyDay> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Not to invite a huge discussion on this, and at the risk of over simplifying the situation, from what I read the decision from the court revolved around 2 factors: first what were the original limitations spelled out by the DAR/FAA certifying authority; second what constituted a modification that required FAA notification. The Avemco policy had an exclusion which allowed them to deny coverage if an unauthorized modification was made, and flight operations continued. The original limitations were so general and all encompassing in scope that virtually no modification could be made to the aircraft without at least getting a field certification from the FAA, if not re-certification inspection. This would also be accompanied by an associated testing period appropriate to the change, that would be required by the inspector. After the combination was once again "proven" by the test period being successful, normal flight operations would then be allowed and Avemco would have to cover. Minor corrective repairs that return the aircraft to its original state at the time of certification are okay, and only need to be logged properly. The addition of avionics equipment for added safety or utility is permitted as long as the ORIGINAL certified equipment is retained, as long as the weight and balance reflects the installation of said equipment, or if substitutions are made, field approval must be granted by an inspector, which alot of times can happen over the phone, if you can clearly communicate the changes, and fax documentation to the inspector for sign off. Your copies then go in your log. As my DAR explained, when in the test Phase I whatever you test for is what you can do as normal operations in Phase II. Major changes cause an automatic return to Phase I to prove that combination, that can then be used in Phase II normal operations. That is the purpose of the Phase I testing to find problems with your combination and correct them so that when you enter Phase II operations you have a proven combination that is safe, and you just maintain from that time forward. Colin & Beverly Rainey Apex Lending, Inc. www.eloan2004cr.com crainey@apexlending.com 407-323-6960 ------------------------------ Message: 8 Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 06:01:32 -0800 (PST) From: F Ross Subject: Re: KR> Court post To: KRnet Message-ID: <20050221140132.95714.qmail@web40901.mail.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii I was surprised that it didn't matter that he returned the plane to it's original, certified condition. Once he made the FIRST change from the certified condition, according to his insurance contract, he lost his insurance coverage until his changes, even putting it back the original way, were re-certified by the FAA. I'm sure a lot of us think that if we try something out, it doesn't work and we go back to the original set-up, everything's okay. This court finding should make us realize that's not the case. Another point that lies between the lines is that the insurance company, no matter who they are, will look for ANY reason to keep from paying off. If you give them one, they're not about to turn it down. 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!? The all-new My Yahoo! - What will yours do? http://my.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Message: 9 Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 12:20:56 -0500 From: Kevin Jarvis Subject: KR> Court post - Avemco To: krnet@mylist.net Message-ID: <421A1878.4070209@comcast.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Guys, This is soooo simple. First, in the contract with Avemco or any other insurer, it's all in there in black and white. (I do not work for them). It is not an issue that you didn't see it or didn't know about it and "well, I thought......" just won't cut it, it just doesn't matter what you thought, only what's written and the fact that you agreed to it. The same goes for the FAR's. You can escape a lot of grief, if every time that you say to yourself, "....mmmm ....I think...." by pausing and then going and documenting what ever it is that you are thinking, whether it is the FAR's or fuel pumps or VE resin, bent spars or whatever. We as builders are the manufacturer and we should be proud of that, but we have to follow some rules and we have them or have the access to them. (I hate rules myself) This is just like what Cessna or Beech or Piper go through only it's probably easier for us. We/they make a change and the airplane is either recertified or issued a "temporary" certification. You/them make the change back and we go through the same gyrations again. You go back and forth twice and that's four configurations, forget the fact that two of them are identical to the other two. You are changing whatever the plane was last, not was once. Imagine that you have a one foot square block of steel that is certified by the FAA. You drill some holes in it, is it the same, no, and that's obvious. You have it recertified with the holes. You grow weary of the holes, weld them up and say that it's the same as the first configuration........ is it ? No, similar, but not the same. The FAA comes to look at it after the welds. You have done such a good job of welding and grinding that they don't know that it's different from the original. Is it the same even though they think so, no. And they (FAA) know that this can happen. Imagine this, you have a spare wheel identical to wheels that fit either your Beechcraft or your Cessna. You have a cracked wheel on one of them. Can you just put this wheel on in replacement of the cracked one ? Yes if it's the part number from the certification of the airplane, however, Beech and Cessna part numbers may be different for identical wheels made by the same vendor. Ask me how I know this. Here's another one. The GO-300 in the 175 Cessna can have a straight drive or angle drive starter. Only one was certified on the airplane. Can you arbitrarily use the other one if it fits, doesn't change the CG or the electrical load ? What if you sign off an inspection with the "wrong" starter on it ? Then what ? Ask me about that one. The FAA regulates these issues as if every change is a new item, it is not all that bad, after all we are operating in a nearly uncontrolled envoirnment, EXPERIMENTAL, we just have to dot the "i's" and cross the "t's". No big deal, after all any accident may ruin your life both physically and financially. We have all of the tools, the regulations and history at our disposal, we should never be caught it the hell of, "...well, I thought..." We even have the internet....(I could have invented it, you know) I know that I would rather do the paper work or research up front than end up in court, that's what my insurance is for. One last point, if you operate an aircraft, any aircraft, that is not deemed airworthy by whatever standards the FAA uses, some as those noted above, you are in violation of the FAR's. If you are found out and the chances are slim that you will be, but it could happen, then you could face suspension or revocation of your license(s). Your insurance company would not look favorably on that if it happened, ...at least I don't think so.................;-) (No, don't ask me about this one, it hasn't happened to me.) Kevin ------------------------------ Message: 10 Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 13:03:48 -0500 From: "" Subject: RE : KR> Fwd: [Q-LIST] Fw: CorvAircraft> Re: Interesting court decision To: krnet@mylist.net Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 OK, This is the kind of stuff, that if you read the whole thing it makes you leary of doing anything to your airplane. I mean, if this guy in this story changed from a standard air filter to a high volume air filter, could this not be said to be a major modification and therefore would result in no insurance coverage. I mean an air filter change can have a direct effect in the air fuel mixture which can result in both short term results to long term engine fialure. Or at least it could be resonably argued in a court of law. ( my family is big in injury law, and no I have nothing to do with it)  This just makes me think. At what point in time do these insurance companies ever say , "Well, we can't take your money" but they will certainly fight to keep from paying a claim. Don't get me wrong, I can see both sides of the story here, but feel that the determining factor of the crash was not relevent to the argument from the insurance company as to their willingness to pay. I guess the bottom line on this makes me wonder. Was his accident a result of a fuel related failure, if so I guess I would say the insurance company had an argument, but if the accendent had nothing to do with a fuel related problem, then I think there point is moot. But this case is based on contractual obligation, not right and wrong. I just wonder, " Does something like this make you stop and wonder and want to think twice about the next time you go flying. And how what you did on your last routine maintenance check on your airplane could effect the finiancial stabilty of your family and the home they live in. It certainly makes me think of the risks I am taking to my childrens way of life each time I drive to the airport. Jeff York Lexington. KY. KR-2 N839BG http://web.qx.net/jeffyork40/ > ------- Original Message ------- >From : larry severson[mailto:larry2@socal.rr.com] >Sent : 2/21/2005 12:55:05 AM >To : krnet@mylist.net >Cc : >Subject : RE : KR> Fwd: [Q-LIST] Fw: CorvAircraft> Re: Interesting court decision > >I got this from the QList. Must reading for ALL homebuilders! Change >props, or even avionics that changes w/b, and this could hit you. > >>This was posted over on the Corvair list and thought I'd post it over >>here. It got me to thinking about some of the things I've done and >>assumed they were not considered major. Wander 'bout my auxilary fuel >>tank - that's messin' with the fuel system. I suppose the electronic >>ignition I would like to install someday is also considered major. >>Anybody else recertified their airplanes for things like this? >> >>LF >> >> >> >I think I posted this before, but it is worth reading. >> > >> > http://www.ellison-fluid-systems.com/homebuilt_court_decision.htm >> > > >Larry Severson >Fountain Valley, CA 92708 >(714) 968-9852 >larry2@socal.rr.com > > >_______________________________________ >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 > ------------------------------ Message: 11 Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 14:24:02 -0600 From: rhartwig11@juno.com Subject: KR> Court decision To: krnet@mylist.net Message-ID: <20050221.142402.1848.0.rhartwig11@juno.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii I hope this sort of mentality in the insurance industry doesn't carry over into other types of insurance. Such as: I buy a car--put a performance chip in it--have a speeding related accident and find that I am not covered.....or....install nonstandard shocks, etc. Dick H. ------------------------------ Message: 12 Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 15:34:46 -0500 From: "Doug Rupert" Subject: RE: KR> Gathering shirts/hats - market for kids - off topic To: "'KRnet'" Message-ID: <001101c51854$cb7fd880$a26cd1d8@office> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1250" Tried that and believe me the cost in the end could buy you your own personal warbird. Doug Rupert. Larry, Is there a market for kids? Wish I'd have known this sooner.... Frank -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.1.0 - Release Date: 2/18/2005 ------------------------------ Message: 13 Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 16:13:57 -0500 From: "Orma" Subject: Re: KR> Fwd: [Q-LIST] Fw: CorvAircraft> Re: Interesting court decision To: "KRnet" Message-ID: <006d01c5185a$42d0ca70$0202a8c0@ROBBINS1> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Hello Net I apologize for continuing a thread that I think ultimately is a dead issue. As both a home builder and an FAA Authorized Inspector, I can see two sides to this issue. Delete at this point or read on if you wish. Firstly when working on any certified aircraft, changing anything on the aircraft requires at minimum a log book notation. The list of things that make an aircraft airworthy, are endless. Owners ( only have limited authority), A&P's, Repairman and Repair Stations are allowed to sign an entry for return to service on everything, with the exception of Annual inspections, and Major Repairs. These two items require the Signature of an Authorized Inspector and in the case of an Major Repairs and Alteration, requires Field Approval from the FAA. If done properly, at the conclusion of the work, the IA is only allowed 3 days to submit documentation to the local FSDO. Once the alteration is made, and the documents submitted and the Field Approval given, the certification records are permanently altered. The FAA at it's option can inspect the aircraft, have you employ a DAR to inspect the aircraft or review the paperwork sign off and process the paperwork. The only way to change back is to submit for another field approval after making another change. As an IA I have found on several occasions modifications that are made and there is no documentation. I can't sign off the aircraft unless the documentation is sent to the FAA and Field approval given. If a licensed mechanic gets caught side stepping the rules, the penalties are stiff. A $10,000 fine is not out of the question. Secondly, with an Experimental, there are some significant differences in the basis for initial certification. The biggest that's important here is that there is no list of manufactures parts which is required initially. The builder may use what ever he wishes, one can literally install a kitchen sink if you wish (Your DAR might not approve). Once the DAR or FAA rep signs off on the aircraft and issues it's certification, that is it. If you make an alteration, i.e. add a flap, add a light, add an extra pump, the basis for certification has changed and documentation is required.. As an AP with an inspection authorization I can perform, inspect and document alterations to the FAA. They only require that the documentation show that this change is accomplished in accordance a technical reference, consistent with the Methods and Practices in their publications and in a manner that insures airworthiness, We have built and fly aircraft that fall under a part of the FAR that requires that they be maintained in a certain manner. If we don't like that we could fly Ultra Lights. But alas, they have some regs too. Don't forget, that the corporate goal of any for profit company is to make money and if you give it away, you don't make as much. You can expect that they will always pull out the rule book before they pay money. In the case cited by Ellison, someone gave them a lot of information to use. Orma Southfield, MI N110LR Tweety, old enough to drink this year Flying and more flying, to the gathering or bust http://www.kr-2.aviation-mechanics.com/ ------------------------------ Message: 14 Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 15:29:16 -0600 From: "Rod Beam" Subject: KR> Newbie and starting KR2S To: Message-ID: <002201c5185c$67bb1960$ca52f0d8@oemcomputer> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Thanks for all the valuable info here on the net and in the sites. got plans fro a kr2 and after joining the krnet didnt take long to decide to go and upgrade to the KR2S . have been doing a bunch of reading from past postand the construction sites very helpful. materials are on the way to start my boat . thanks to every one for making this a great site to help out new builders . Hope to meet many of you in Mt.Vernon this fall being im only 70 miles from there. Thanks again Rod Beam rsbeam"at"shawneelink.net ------------------------------ Message: 15 Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 17:17:16 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time) From: "Dan Heath" Subject: Re: KR> Newbie and starting KR2S To: "krnet@mylist.net" Message-ID: <421A5DEC.000001.02852@DANHOMECOMPUTER> Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Rod, Welcome and we will see you there, hopefully flying a new KR. See N64KR at http://KR-Builder.org - Then click on the pics There is a time for building and a time for FLYING and the time for building has expired. Daniel R. Heath - Columbia, SC See you in Mt. Vernon - 2005 - KR Gathering ------------------------------ Message: 16 Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 11:27:44 +1100 From: Bavo Subject: KR> Timber top deck To: KRnet Message-ID: <830558f90502211627721e3d68@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Has anyone ever tried to build a front deck and/or fuselage top out of ply? It looks to me as though it would be a lot less work, but maybe I missed something? John. -- http://au.geocities.com/johnbavington ------------------------------ Message: 17 Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 18:35:18 -0600 From: "Mark Jones" Subject: Re: KR> Timber top deck To: "Bavo" , "KRnet" Message-ID: <002d01c51876$6721c0c0$6401a8c0@wi.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" John Schaffer's turtle deck is plywood. He is the featured photo on the KR Net right now. Here is the link: http://www.krnet.org/ Mark Jones (N886MJ) Wales, WI USA E-mail me at flykr2s@wi.rr.com Visit my KR-2S CorvAIRCRAFT web site at http://mywebpage.netscape.com/n886mj/homepage.html ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bavo" To: "KRnet" Sent: Monday, February 21, 2005 6:27 PM Subject: KR> Timber top deck > Has anyone ever tried to build a front deck and/or fuselage top out of ply? > It looks to me as though it would be a lot less work, but maybe I > missed something? > > John. > > -- > http://au.geocities.com/johnbavington > > _______________________________________ > Search the KRnet Archives at http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp > to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to KRnet-leave@mylist.net > please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html > ------------------------------ Message: 18 Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 20:42:20 -0500 From: Subject: Re: KR> Court decision To: "KRnet" Message-ID: <033001c5187f$d214f830$6601a8c0@server> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" I think you bring up an excellent point. It is common for people to change tires, rims, carburator or injectors, heads. intake, whatever. but you do not hear about their insurance claim being denied because of this. Jeff York Lexington, KY KR-2 N839BG http://web.qx.net/jeffyork40/ ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Monday, February 21, 2005 3:24 PM Subject: KR> Court decision > I hope this sort of mentality in the insurance industry doesn't carry > over into other types of insurance. Such as: I buy a car--put a > performance chip in it--have a speeding related accident and find that > I am not covered.....or....install nonstandard shocks, etc. Dick H. > > _______________________________________ > 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 ------------------------------ Message: 19 Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 21:39:31 -0500 From: Kevin Jarvis Subject: KR> Court decision To: krnet@mylist.net Message-ID: <421A9B63.5060606@comcast.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed This thread should die.......... We live by the rules (I hate rules) and the contracts that we sign. No one says that we have to, we choose to. We are no different that the FAA or the insurance company. If you where asked to pay for someone's deliberate actions that were contrary to an agreement that you both signed, would you pay ? I don't think so. The FAA just like your local sheriff is confined by the rules. If you are in a speeding accident with your car, regardless of the chip installed, should the Insurance company cover you ? Why ? Remember the movie "Liar Liar ". Jim Carey says on the phone to the bank robber, "STOP BREAKING THE LAW" Ok, you can stop agreeing to the FAR's and your insurance contract, that you willing signed, and get out of aviation, you show no integrity by your FAR lawbreaking and contract breaking actions (addressed to no one in particular). ------------------------------ Message: 20 Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 20:56:56 -0600 From: "Bubba" Subject: Re: KR> Court decision To: "KRnet" Message-ID: <118901c5188a$2bcc2600$0200a8c0@Katana> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original rhartwig11@juno.com wrote: > I hope this sort of mentality in the insurance industry doesn't carry > over into other types of insurance. Such as: I buy a car--put a > performance chip in it--have a speeding related accident and find that > I am not covered.....or....install nonstandard shocks, etc. Insurance companies, ALL of them, will try to find any possible way out of giving you a single red cent. I rarely make broad generalizations, but based on past experience all insurance companies are staffed by scumbags. If anyone reading this is an unscummy insurance agent, I appologize, but I have yet to meet one. My last insurance fiasco involve 127 phone calls in 2 weeks to an adjuster that had a sworn statement from their insured stating she was at fault. They still refused to return my calls until I left a message with them during a conference call with my lawyer. -- Steve N205FT mysticz28@swbell.net He who seeks will find, and he who knocks will be let in. ------------------------------ Message: 21 Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 21:20:46 -0600 From: "Brant Hollensbe" Subject: KR> Major mods and your pilots ticket To: "KRnet" Message-ID: <001d01c5188d$81e68230$0702a8c0@bruntson> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original . If the FAA find you are acting as PIC and flying an airplane without a valid airworthy certificate, you will be in for more that just finacial problems. If the pilot/builder changes/ modifies something in his plane that the feds require paperwork approval or recertification for, THEY BETTER DO IT. Otherwise the airplane is not airworthy. To fly and unairworthy airplane (by FAA standards) will result the revoking of your pilots ticket and perhaps other pentalies. Brant Hollensbe bhollensbe@mchsi.com ------------------------------ Message: 22 Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 22:19:33 -0500 From: "Tony Wright" Subject: Re: KR> Court decision To: "KRnet" Message-ID: <000901c517c4$2a018a20$0202a8c0@Belkin> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Now for a shameless plug.... I am an insurance adjuster in MI, and I get 3 to 4 calls a week by people who think the insurance company is screwing them. Of the cases I have taken, 90% of the time, the insurance company was wrong in their appraisal of the damages and subsequently lost in either the appraisal process or arbitration (if they were stupid enough to go that far!). BE AWARE of what the policy states and covers. Getting what you are entitled during the loss is easy if you know your coverage and you are willing to stand up to them. It is unfortunate that some of us make a living from the misfortunes of others. Tony Wright ------------------------------ Message: 23 Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 21:42:19 -0600 From: "Mark Jones" Subject: Re: KR> Court decision To: "KRnet" Message-ID: <005a01c51890$87460f40$6401a8c0@wi.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" ENOUGH...............GET BACK TO KR BUILDING AND FLYING DISCUSSIONS 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 ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ See KRnet list details at http://www.krnet.org/instructions.html End of KRnet Digest, Vol 347, Issue 78 ************************************** ================================== ABC Amber Outlook Converter v4.20 Trial version ==================================