I would like to know if anyone can provide feedback on the EAA SportAir
Composite Construction workshop.
There is a workshop to be held locally in about a month and I would like to
know if anyone has attended this workshop and if so do you feel it is worth the
$350.00 fee.
The cost seems pretty pricey to me and is up about $70.00 from last year.
To the guys who have gone before me and learned glassing on their own- would it
be smarter to invest the cost of the workshop in cloth & resin and learn it as
I go ?
Any input is appreciated.
Jim Litchfield
Virginia Beach, VA
---- krnet-request at list.krnet.org wrote:
=============
Send KRnet mailing list submissions to
krnet at list.krnet.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://list.krnet.org/mailman/listinfo/krnet_list.krnet.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
krnet-request at list.krnet.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
krnet-owner at list.krnet.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of KRnet digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: FAR Prop clearance (peter)
2. Re: FAR Prop clearance (Ronald Wright)
3. FAR Prop clearance (Larry&Sallie Flesner)
4. Re: Panel ? (Mark Langford)
5. Re: Tail Section Hinge Points (Mark Langford)
6. Re: Foam Ply - parts wanted (Jeff Scott)
7. Re: Tail Section Hinge Points (Dan Prichard)
8. Re: Tail Section Hinge Points (Mark Langford)
9. Re: Cowl Costruction (Sid Wood)
10. Re: Cowl Costruction (Joe. E. Wallace)
11. Re: Tail Section Hinge Points (Dan Prichard)
12. Re: FAR Prop clearance (jon kimmel)
13. Re: Tail Section Hinge Points
(=?utf-8?B?cGsuc21pdGhAYmlncG9uZC5uZXQuYXU=?=)
14. servo in elevator (Larry&Sallie Flesner)
15. Trim servo in elevator (Dan Heath)
16. Prop clearance now extended nose gear (Pierre)
17. Re: Trim tab activation (Mark Langford)
18. Trim tab activation (Larry&Sallie Flesner)
19. Re: Prop clearance now extended nose gear (Robert7721)
20. Re: FAR Prop clearance (brian.kraut at eamanufacturing.com)
21. Re: Panel ? (brian.kraut at eamanufacturing.com)
22. Fw: Prop clearance now extended nose gear
(joe.kr2s.builder at juno.com)
23. FAR Prop clearance (Larry&Sallie Flesner)
24. Fw: Re: Prop clearance now extended nose gear
(joe.kr2s.builder at juno.com)
25. Re: Cowl Costruction (Lawrence Bell)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
List-Post: [email protected]
Date: Sun, 5 Jan 2014 12:56:31 -0500 (EST)
From: peter <jordanruthseto at aol.com>
To: krnet at list.krnet.org
Subject: Re: KR> FAR Prop clearance
Message-ID: <8D0D85699449359-2638-1CAEE at webmail-d281.sysops.aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Free online @ FAA .gov
AC 43.13-1B and AC 43.13-2A.
------------------------------
Message: 2
List-Post: [email protected]
Date: Sun, 5 Jan 2014 10:28:01 -0800 (PST)
From: Ronald Wright <ronwright5 at yahoo.com>
To: KRnet <krnet at list.krnet.org>
Subject: Re: KR> FAR Prop clearance
Message-ID:
<1388946481.99642.YahooMailNeo at web184902.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
This does?not appear to apply to experimentals;? only certified aircraft.
Ron
________________________________
From: Virgil N.Salisbury <facilitator1 at bellsouth.net>
To: KRnet <krnet at list.krnet.org>
Sent: Sunday, January 5, 2014 8:05 AM
Subject: Re: KR> FAR Prop clearance
? ? I? new that the facts would show up, Virg
? ? On 1/5/2014 5:32 AM, Paul Smith wrote:
> http://rgl.faa.gov/regulatory_and_guidance_library/rgfar.nsf/bf94f3f079de2117852566c70067018c/a17c099806a3e38f85256687006f1418!OpenDocument
>
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
>> On 5 Jan 2014, at 12:04 am, Gerald Jones <geraldsjones at att.net> wrote:
>>
>> I recognize that the passage you cite is form 14 CFR part 1 section ? 23.925
>> Propeller clearance.? I don't have this part of the CFRs in my FAR/AIM.? Can
>> you tell me where you found it online?? Does this apply just to LSAs or all
>> aircraft?? I would have never guessed that there was a reg for prop
> _______________________________________________
> Search the KRnet Archives at http://tugantek.com/archmailv2-kr/search.
> To UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to KRnet-leave at list.krnet.org
> please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html
> see http://list.krnet.org/mailman/listinfo/krnet_list.krnet.org to change
> options
_______________________________________________
Search the KRnet Archives at http://tugantek.com/archmailv2-kr/search.
To UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to KRnet-leave at list.krnet.org
please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html
see http://list.krnet.org/mailman/listinfo/krnet_list.krnet.org to change
options
------------------------------
Message: 3
List-Post: [email protected]
Date: Sun, 05 Jan 2014 13:16:15 -0600
From: Larry&Sallie Flesner <flesner at frontier.com>
To: KRnet <krnet at list.krnet.org>
Subject: KR> FAR Prop clearance
Message-ID:
<mailman.51.1389027611.4011.krnet_list.krnet.org at list.krnet.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
:
>This does not appear to apply to experimentals; only certified aircraft.
>Ron
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
While many regulations that apply to "certified" aircraft ( E-AB is
also a class of certification) do not apply to experimentals, they
were applied for a reason, safety. Being certified
"experimental-armature built" does not allow us to escape the laws of
physics. Our props will ding as easily as any other class of
certified aircraft. I added 5 inches to my gear legs to give me 9 to
10 inches of clearance for my 60 inch prop on the 0-200. While we
are not required to follow all the reg's, they should be considered
an excellent guide and consider well the consequences of
non-compliance. You can't fool Mother Nature..................
Larry Flesner
------------------------------
Message: 4
List-Post: [email protected]
Date: Sun, 5 Jan 2014 13:34:31 -0600
From: "Mark Langford" <ml at n56ml.com>
To: "KRnet" <krnet at list.krnet.org>
Subject: Re: KR> Panel ?
Message-ID: <782A6A47048348A990EA2E3D5D3D4FBD at base>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; Format="flowed"
Mike Sylvester wrote:
>I am getting ready to start the panel.... Suggestions would be appreciated.
This may not apply to you, but it's an idea that some builders may benefit
from, especially those who didn't have the foresight to make the front deck
removable for easy access to the back of the panel. The panel in the
enclosed photo was built with removable mini-panels, all of which are
modular and removable with a few screws. It's even angled on the ends for
better viewing, although I'd only do the right side this way, as I'm not
sitting in the middle of the plane. The panel frame (in this case) is made
of carbon fiber, so the angles are easy to build in. But the main point is
to demonstrate that you can build in future flexibility and still make it
look very nice, with just a little extra effort. Steve Anderson built this
panel. It could also be made of aluminum, for those not so talented in
carbon fiber work, but the CF structure looks very professional with the
rounded edges. See enclosed photo.
Another piece of advice I would offer is to use combination breaker/switches
to save panel room and points of failure. I like the Carlingswitch units
that I used in N56ML, but there are plenty of others. Those
breaker/switches are shown on the panel at the bottom of
http://www.n56ml.com/kpanel.html . I'll admit though that this panel leaves
a lot of space sprinkled around, rather than saving a large enough piece of
real estate for future expansion. Another point that you've already seized
on is to use 2.25" diameter radio and transponder, which gives some more
flexibility. My first radio and transponder were Terra "half-width" units.
When the transponder croaked after the first few months, there was no
replacement available, and I was forced to buy a full width radio. I was
left with no place to put the transponder, so I ditched the g-meter and put
a new 2.25" Becker transponder in its place. It turns out that the g-meter
didn't register a lot anyway, except for a hard landing or two! Another
instrument I quickly learned to live without was the vertical speed. The
altimeter works fine for that.
Something that may apply to you is to keep things tightly spaced to maximize
blank space for future expansion. I've seen panels that had everything
spaced widely apart to make a pleasantly proportioned panel, but there was
no blank space for future/evolving equipment. See the picture at the bottom
of http://www.n56ml.com/n891jf/panel/ for an example of leaving some room.
I mounted the IFLY 720 to the front face with only three small holes in the
panel, so it can be swapped out for something else later. And there's
another big blank space on the right that I can mount something else to if I
need it. I have already lived long enough to regret not installing the
combination breaker/switches in this panel though.
And of course the best advice I could give anybody on panels is to make the
front deck removable or with large doors so you have plenty of access to the
backside...
Mark Langford
ML at N56ML.com
website at http://www.N56ML.com
--------------------------------------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: sa_panel.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 104282 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<http://list.krnet.org/mailman/private/krnet_list.krnet.org/attachments/20140105/e6fd6bec/attachment-0001.jpg>
------------------------------
Message: 5
List-Post: [email protected]
Date: Sun, 5 Jan 2014 14:36:32 -0600
From: "Mark Langford" <ml at n56ml.com>
To: "KRnet" <krnet at list.krnet.org>
Subject: Re: KR> Tail Section Hinge Points
Message-ID: <CE8099CE83C14067B02E3B920BF07532 at base>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=original
Dan Prichard wrote:
>Using the DR. Dean hinge assembly will increase
> the distance between the spars by approx 3/8". Any thoughts or has a fix
> already been worked out?
I do remember this coming up earlier, and you're right that the tail
templates were drawn up with the plans-built hinges in mind, not Dr. Dean's.
I think it's just a matter of "winging it" and drawing a new set of lines on
the templates and cutting the spars to those new slightly different
dimensions, rather than what the "new tail" drawing's dimensions show.
Hopefully your spars are not already built, and if they are, I'd probably
just build the hinges like the plans and add the oil-impregnated bushings
instead. They do work rather nicely, I can testify.
I'm sure you've already seen the stuff at http://www.n56ml.com/kht.html,
which may be where the Dr. Dean idea came from. Somebody did report a
"solution" to this dimensional problem though, and it's surely buried in the
archive somewhere...
Mark Langford
ML at N56ML.com
website at http://www.N56ML.com
--------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Message: 6
List-Post: [email protected]
Date: Sun, 05 Jan 2014 15:39:24 -0500
From: "Jeff Scott" <jscott.planes at gmx.com>
To: "KRnet" <krnet at list.krnet.org>
Subject: Re: KR> Foam Ply - parts wanted
Message-ID: <20140105203924.28040 at gmx.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Laminate your own KR plyfoam with a single lay up of KR glass and resin on
either side to build your tanks if you want to use foam and glass. ?While there
seems to be a big kick on building metal tanks, I built my tanks with KR
ply-foam years ago. ?They have been trouble free for 16 years and 1000 hrs of
flight time so far. ?My tanks were built with Saf-T-Poxy (yes, they are that
old), then sloshed with an alcohol resistant sloshing compound. ?
However, if you plan to use or have a chance that you might get alcohol
contaminated fuel, I would recommend aluminum tanks.
-Jeff Scott
Los Alamos, NM
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Phillip Matheson
> Sent: 01/03/14 07:33 PM
> To: KRnet
> Subject: KR> Foam Ply - parts wanted
>
> Any Aussie builders, or anyone know of the following Items I need please?
>
> Kr2 Foam ply to make some wing tanks, ( or good advise on metal tanks)
> Icom A200, or A210 or Microair or even Xcom late model transceiver.( Note I
> purchased an A200 about 5 years ago from Ebay new in box, it now needs a
> repair, but Icom Australia refuse to repair it because unknown to me the
> serial numbers have been removed and replaced, so it could be ?????? stole
> from the USA at some stage.)
>
>
> Phil Matheson
------------------------------
Message: 7
List-Post: [email protected]
Date: Sun, 5 Jan 2014 16:14:18 -0800
From: "Dan Prichard" <dprich01 at comcast.net>
To: "'KRnet'" <krnet at list.krnet.org>
Subject: Re: KR> Tail Section Hinge Points
Message-ID: <000001cf0a74$3e4a3b10$badeb130$@net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mark,
I can't find any information on width of the horizontal stabilizer when
using the AS5048 configuration. The plans show 71" for the spar width. Has
this been carried through to the new shape?
Dan Prichard
-----Original Message-----
From: KRnet [mailto:krnet-bounces at list.krnet.org] On Behalf Of Mark Langford
Sent: Sunday, January 05, 2014 12:37 PM
To: KRnet
Subject: Re: KR> Tail Section Hinge Points
Dan Prichard wrote:
>Using the DR. Dean hinge assembly will increase the distance between
>the spars by approx 3/8". Any thoughts or has a fix already been
>worked out?
I do remember this coming up earlier, and you're right that the tail
templates were drawn up with the plans-built hinges in mind, not Dr. Dean's.
I think it's just a matter of "winging it" and drawing a new set of lines on
the templates and cutting the spars to those new slightly different
dimensions, rather than what the "new tail" drawing's dimensions show.
Hopefully your spars are not already built, and if they are, I'd probably
just build the hinges like the plans and add the oil-impregnated bushings
instead. They do work rather nicely, I can testify.
I'm sure you've already seen the stuff at http://www.n56ml.com/kht.html,
which may be where the Dr. Dean idea came from. Somebody did report a
"solution" to this dimensional problem though, and it's surely buried in the
archive somewhere...
Mark Langford
ML at N56ML.com
website at http://www.N56ML.com
--------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Search the KRnet Archives at http://tugantek.com/archmailv2-kr/search.
To UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to KRnet-leave at list.krnet.org
please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html see
http://list.krnet.org/mailman/listinfo/krnet_list.krnet.org to change
options
------------------------------
Message: 8
List-Post: [email protected]
Date: Sun, 5 Jan 2014 19:55:53 -0600
From: "Mark Langford" <ml at n56ml.com>
To: "KRnet" <krnet at list.krnet.org>
Subject: Re: KR> Tail Section Hinge Points
Message-ID: <7397726D35EC47C88E866298B0882616 at base>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=original
Dan Prichard wrote:
> I can't find any information on width of the horizontal stabilizer when
> using the AS5048 configuration. The plans show 71" for the spar width.
> Has
> this been carried through to the new shape?
I made those templates a long time ago, and I either didn't think to put the
width on them, or left it to the builder to decide. The main intent of
these templates was that anybody following the plans could substitute these
airfoil templates and make no other real changes (other than incidence) to
get a "free lunch" improvement in performance. My advice at the time was to
make the horizontal stab 7' long total, and given my N56ML experience, I
still stand by that. Widening the horizontal stab 6" on each side makes a
big improvement in pitch sensitivity. I'd also make the vertical stab and
rudder longer like N56ML. That thing slips like crazy and can handle some
hefty crosswinds. I forget exactly how much taller mine are, but probably
somewhere around 4"-6". I'll measure them next time I'm at the hangar,
probably this weekend.
While I'm on the subject, I built my horizontal stab adjustable (on the
ground), and set it to .72 degrees. After flying it, I readjusted it to
about 1.4 degrees (doubled it by adding another 3/32" shim to the rear
spar), which was just about perfect.
For those wondering what templates we're talking about, the link to them is
at the bottom of
http://www.krnet.org/as504x/templates.html .
The extra thickness of this horizontal stab has another benefit...you can
mount a trim servo in the elevator. I spent most of yesterday replacing the
broken "nyrod" housing on N891JF, although I'd have just moved the trim
servo to the elevator if I'd thought it would fit. The blue plastic nyrod
housing fatigued and broke because of the flex cycles it endured as the
elevator was moved up and down. I hope I never have to do that again, but
if I do, I know how now...just grit my teeth, grind out the glass and flox
around entrance and exit, reinstall, and glop it back up with glass, flox,
and micro. This morning I sanded it down to shape and it doesn't look half
bad, although I still have some finer sanding and painting to do. Half the
battle is finally committing to do the job, and getting on with it! See
http://www.n56ml.com/n891jf/nyrod.jpg for a photo...
Mark Langford
ML at N56ML.com
website at http://www.N56ML.com
--------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Message: 9
List-Post: [email protected]
Date: Sun, 5 Jan 2014 21:39:57 -0500
From: "Sid Wood" <smwood at md.metrocast.net>
To: <krnet at list.krnet.org>
Subject: Re: KR> Cowl Costruction
Message-ID: <DE55270AE38A431BB2BCA88475C125BB at CORP55THINK>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=original
Here is a picture of the new cowl for my tri-gear KR-2 with fresh
fiberglass, micro slurry and air inlets.
https://s3.amazonaws.com/expercraft/sidwood/158194715052ca11c154220.jpg
Bernie Wunder provided lots of help above and beyond laying up fiberglass
for this project. Thank you Bernie.
Next up is sanding, cutting and fitting.
Sid Wood
Tri-gear KR-2 N6242
Mechanicsville, MD, USA
------------------------------
Message: 10
List-Post: [email protected]
Date: Sun, 5 Jan 2014 20:55:59 -0600
From: "Joe. E. Wallace" <jwallacep51 at gmail.com>
To: KRnet <krnet at list.krnet.org>
Subject: Re: KR> Cowl Costruction
Message-ID: <7F376B0A-A0E3-4090-B93B-9D7A3A1A3C8E at gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Sid
It may need a bit more sanding and understand that is fun.... could you put a
smile on her face???? hehehe Looking good. jw
Joe. E. Wallace
jwallacep51 at gmail.com
On Jan 5, 2014, at 20:39, Sid Wood <smwood at md.metrocast.net> wrote:
> Here is a picture of the new cowl for my tri-gear KR-2 with fresh fiberglass,
> micro slurry and air inlets.
> https://s3.amazonaws.com/expercraft/sidwood/158194715052ca11c154220.jpg
>
> Bernie Wunder provided lots of help above and beyond laying up fiberglass for
> this project. Thank you Bernie.
>
> Next up is sanding, cutting and fitting.
>
> Sid Wood
> Tri-gear KR-2 N6242
> Mechanicsville, MD, USA
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Search the KRnet Archives at http://tugantek.com/archmailv2-kr/search.
> To UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to KRnet-leave at list.krnet.org
> please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html
> see http://list.krnet.org/mailman/listinfo/krnet_list.krnet.org to change
> options
------------------------------
Message: 11
List-Post: [email protected]
Date: Sun, 5 Jan 2014 19:00:42 -0800
From: Dan Prichard <dprich01 at comcast.net>
To: KRnet <krnet at list.krnet.org>
Subject: Re: KR> Tail Section Hinge Points
Message-ID: <957BAC17-B9CA-40CE-8664-20674EA18EBE at comcast.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Thanks for the help.
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jan 5, 2014, at 5:55 PM, "Mark Langford" <ml at n56ml.com> wrote:
>
> Dan Prichard wrote:
>
>> I can't find any information on width of the horizontal stabilizer when
>> using the AS5048 configuration. The plans show 71" for the spar width. Has
>> this been carried through to the new shape?
>
> I made those templates a long time ago, and I either didn't think to put the
> width on them, or left it to the builder to decide. The main intent of these
> templates was that anybody following the plans could substitute these airfoil
> templates and make no other real changes (other than incidence) to get a
> "free lunch" improvement in performance. My advice at the time was to make
> the horizontal stab 7' long total, and given my N56ML experience, I still
> stand by that. Widening the horizontal stab 6" on each side makes a big
> improvement in pitch sensitivity. I'd also make the vertical stab and
> rudder longer like N56ML. That thing slips like crazy and can handle some
> hefty crosswinds. I forget exactly how much taller mine are, but probably
> somewhere around 4"-6". I'll measure them next time I'm at the hangar,
> probably this weekend.
>
> While I'm on the subject, I built my horizontal stab adjustable (on the
> ground), and set it to .72 degrees. After flying it, I readjusted it to
> about 1.4 degrees (doubled it by adding another 3/32" shim to the rear spar),
> which was just about perfect.
>
> For those wondering what templates we're talking about, the link to them is
> at the bottom of
> http://www.krnet.org/as504x/templates.html .
>
> The extra thickness of this horizontal stab has another benefit...you can
> mount a trim servo in the elevator. I spent most of yesterday replacing the
> broken "nyrod" housing on N891JF, although I'd have just moved the trim servo
> to the elevator if I'd thought it would fit. The blue plastic nyrod housing
> fatigued and broke because of the flex cycles it endured as the elevator was
> moved up and down. I hope I never have to do that again, but if I do, I know
> how now...just grit my teeth, grind out the glass and flox around entrance
> and exit, reinstall, and glop it back up with glass, flox, and micro. This
> morning I sanded it down to shape and it doesn't look half bad, although I
> still have some finer sanding and painting to do. Half the battle is finally
> committing to do the job, and getting on with it! See
> http://www.n56ml.com/n891jf/nyrod.jpg for a photo...
>
> Mark Langford
> ML at N56ML.com
> website at http://www.N56ML.com
> --------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Search the KRnet Archives at http://tugantek.com/archmailv2-kr/search.
> To UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to KRnet-leave at list.krnet.org
> please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html
> see http://list.krnet.org/mailman/listinfo/krnet_list.krnet.org to change
> options
------------------------------
Message: 12
List-Post: [email protected]
Date: Sun, 5 Jan 2014 21:04:58 -0600
From: jon kimmel <jkimmel50 at gmail.com>
To: KRnet <krnet at list.krnet.org>
Subject: Re: KR> FAR Prop clearance
Message-ID:
<CAFoZr_r-u6QTcOfB0vz+gMPA9Yr2wKT_OYKtChJEyLUEcPM+yQ at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
I found a used copy on amazon for nearly nothing...looking forward to it.
https://sites.google.com/site/mykr2stretch/
https://sites.google.com/site/mykr2stretch/parts-for-sale
On Jan 5, 2014 10:42 AM, "Ed Janssen" <ejanssen at ctiwireless.com> wrote:
> I couldn't find a discussion of prop clearance in this particular book,
> but just to mention or remind everyone of a book that is an otherwise VERY
> comprehensive source of information for inspection, repair, - and building
> as well - of all types of non-pressurized aircraft. Along with Tony
> Bingelis's series of books - this should be in everyone's library. Many,
> if not most classes on inspection and repair use it as a "bible" for the
> course. It is "ACCEPTABLE METHODS, TECHNIQUES, AND PRACTICES - AIRCRAFT
> INSPECTION, REPAIR & ALTERATIONS". It's an FAA publication (inch and a
> half thick), and includes AC 43.13-1B and AC 43.13-2A. My particular copy
> was reprinted by Aviation Supplies & Academics, Inc. I don't remember the
> exact cost, but it was very affordable. Just as a small example, it has a
> whole chapter (23 pages) devoted to weight and balance.
>
> Ed J.
>
>
> >> On 5 Jan 2014, at 12:04 am, Gerald Jones <geraldsjones at att.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> I recognize that the passage you cite is form 14 CFR part 1 section ?
> 23.925 Propeller clearance. I don't have this part of the CFRs in my
> FAR/AIM. Can you tell me where you found it online? Does this apply just
> to LSAs or all aircraft? I would have never guessed that there was a reg
> for prop
> _______________________________________________
> Search the KRnet Archives at http://tugantek.com/archmailv2-kr/search.
> To UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to KRnet-leave at list.krnet.org
> please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html
> see http://list.krnet.org/mailman/listinfo/krnet_list.krnet.org to change
> options
>
------------------------------
Message: 13
List-Post: [email protected]
Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2014 13:21:30 +1000
From: "=?utf-8?B?cGsuc21pdGhAYmlncG9uZC5uZXQuYXU=?="
<pk.smith at bigpond.net.au>
To: "KRnet" <krnet at list.krnet.org>
Subject: Re: KR> Tail Section Hinge Points
Message-ID:
<20140106032132.KBMY21423.nskntmtas01p.mx.bigpond.com at nskntcmgw07p>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Hi Mark, I have seen the 2 options you describe but dislike both. The servo in
the elevator adds a little weight to the control which adversely affects
flutter susceptiblity. This meanst additional counterbalance weight which in
turn adds mass in the tail, something I'd like to avoid . The nyrod into the
tail option has a couple of 'S' bends which adds a little friction to the
control rod. Have you or anyone reading this seen the servo mounted in the
horizontal stab with a shorter nyrod directly in line with the tab?
Paul, Brisbane Australia.
Sent from my HTC One XL on the Telstra 4G network
----- Reply message -----
From: "Mark Langford" <ml at n56ml.com>
To: "KRnet" <krnet at list.krnet.org>
Subject: KR> Tail Section Hinge Points
List-Post: [email protected]
Date: Mon, Jan 6, 2014 11:55 AM
See http://www.n56ml.com/n891jf/nyrod.jpg for a photo...
Mark Langford
ML at N56ML.com
website at http://www.N56ML.com
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________
------------------------------
Message: 14
List-Post: [email protected]
Date: Sun, 05 Jan 2014 21:56:26 -0600
From: Larry&Sallie Flesner <flesner at frontier.com>
To: KRnet <krnet at list.krnet.org>
Subject: KR> servo in elevator
Message-ID:
<mailman.52.1389027611.4011.krnet_list.krnet.org at list.krnet.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
> The servo in the elevator adds a little weight to the control
> which adversely affects flutter susceptiblity. This meanst
> additional counterbalance weight which in turn adds mass in the
> tail, something I'd like to avoid . ith a shorter nyrod directly in
> line with the tab?
>Paul,
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Your concerns are well founded. Consider, however, if you intend to
counterbalance the elevator, you are placing a mere few ounces
in the elevator and that very near the pivot point. That should
require even less counterweight depending on the arm of the
counterweight installed. I think the very short and stiff actuating
arm, eliminating possible flutter of the trim tab, is a good trade
off. Mine has worked well now for 500 hours of flight time. Go with
what makes you comfortable. It's your a## in the seat............\
Larry Flesner
------------------------------
Message: 15
List-Post: [email protected]
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2014 05:00:23 -0500
From: "Dan Heath" <danrh at windstream.net>
To: "'KRnet'" <krnet at list.krnet.org>
Subject: KR> Trim servo in elevator
Message-ID: <000301cf0ac6$1e6c2540$5b446fc0$@net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
I put a Ray Allen trim servo in my elevator and had no issues with it. In
fact, I have had an electric trim servo in the Black Bird since she was
born.
See N64KR at http://KRBuilder.org - Then click on the pics?
Peoples Choice at 2013 - KR Gathering in Mt. Vernon, Il ? MVN
Best KR at 2013 - KR Gathering in Mt. Vernon, Il ? MVN
Best Interior at 2013 - KR Gathering in Mt. Vernon, Il ? MVN
Best Paint at 2013 - KR Gathering in Mt. Vernon, Il ? MVN
Best Firwwall Forward at 2013 - KR Gathering in Mt. Vernon, Il ? MVN
Daniel R. Heath -?Lexington, SC
-----Original Message-----
Have you or anyone reading this seen the servo mounted in the horizontal
stab with a shorter nyrod directly in line with the tab?
------------------------------
Message: 16
List-Post: [email protected]
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2014 12:13:45 +0200
From: "Pierre" <pierre at drafts.co.za>
To: <krnet at list.krnet.org>
Subject: KR> Prop clearance now extended nose gear
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Hi all.
In response to Stef's comment about extending the nose gear (on a tri-cycle)
to just below take off attitude. I have done just that, but I am still a
fair distance from starting tests on the KR2S. Have lots of glassing,
sanding and painting to do, but I would also love to hear comments on this
nose high attitude on tri-gear KR2. Mine is (Wild guess) approximately 15-20
degrees up. but I will attempt to do some measuring later. It allows me to
see the ground about 20-30 meters in front of the plane when sitting in a
normal sitting attitude, but with my neck stretched forward.
Take care and a blessed 2014 to all.
Pierre
------------------------------
Message: 17
List-Post: [email protected]
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2014 06:53:57 -0600
From: "Mark Langford" <ml at n56ml.com>
To: "'KRnet'" <krnet at list.krnet.org>
Subject: Re: KR> Trim tab activation
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
PK.Smith wrote:
>> Hi Mark, I have seen the 2 options you describe but dislike both. The
servo in the elevator adds a little weight to the control which adversely
affects flutter susceptiblity. This meanst additional counterbalance weight
which in turn adds mass in the tail, something I'd like to avoid .<<
N56ML has the trimtab servo in the elevator, and it's done 240 mph, so I
don't share the flutter concern. The amount of drag in N891JF nyrod is
minimal, I doubt it's an ounce. If I had a fish scale designed for
goldfish, I'd measure it for you. Aerodynamic forces on the trim tab are
far greater.
Since you're so concerned about weight in the tail, consider the fact that
the servo is now 24" behind the pilot's seat mounted solidly to the
fuselage, with the nyrod running back to the elevator from there, so where
Jim Faughn located it answers your aft CG concern, and the drag is not an
issue. This was proven in 320 hours of flight, because most of the time it
was fully deflected because it was a bit nose heavy and he wasn't wild about
fixed trim tabs. I immediately added a trim tab to the opposite elevator to
neutralize stick-free behavior, so the trim tab no longer works so hard. In
the rework, I've likely fixed the nose-heavy situation as well.
There are plenty of ways to do this, but I have to admit that I went for the
way that was easiest...fix what's there, rather than tear into the nicely
painted elevator (while underneath on my back, looking up) to install a
servo. I'm quite familiar with the tab in the elevator, and that's the way
I'll do my next plane. See http://www.n56ml.com/trimtab/index.html for
details. This tiny little trim tab was way more than N56ML ever needed. I
did all my flying in the middle of the band, never seeing full trim. I
could have used it all for full flap operation, but I'm not one to fool
around with the trim all day when there's flying to be done anyway...
Mark Langford, Harvest, AL
ML at N56ML.com
www.N56ML.com
------------------------------
Message: 18
List-Post: [email protected]
Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2014 07:25:33 -0600
From: Larry&Sallie Flesner <flesner at frontier.com>
To: KRnet <krnet at list.krnet.org>
Subject: KR> Trim tab activation
Message-ID:
<mailman.53.1389027611.4011.krnet_list.krnet.org at list.krnet.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
At 06:53 AM 1/6/2014, you wrote:
>I'm quite familiar with the tab in the elevator, and that's the way
>I'll do my next plane. See http://www.n56ml.com/trimtab/index.html for
>details.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The piano hinge Mark used is much heavier than necessary and a bit of
an over-kill. I used the tube within a tube suggested in the plans
and it works quite well. Get some thin wall, light weight tubing
from the hobby or hardware store. We're talking very, very, light
weight. Just insure you don't get any epoxy weeping into the end of
the movable tube. Coat the ends of the movable tube with Vaseline or
something. Cutting the tab from the finished elevator means you only
have to work on the hinge.
Larry Flesner
------------------------------
Message: 19
List-Post: [email protected]
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2014 08:45:37 -0500 (EST)
From: Robert7721 <robert7721 at aol.com>
To: krnet at list.krnet.org
Subject: Re: KR> Prop clearance now extended nose gear
Message-ID: <8D0D8FCB6FAD5F7-1100-22B8D at webmail-vm017.sysops.aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Pierre,
Nose high might cause some excessive drag and extend your take off roll. Mine
is dead level. It accelerates fine then I lift off (at 60 mph) and then go
level again in ground effect to accelerate to 80 mph before I rotate out and
climb. I have taken off in grass using a soft field take off (nose up to keep
it our of the grass), and it seems to take forever for the plane to get up
speed.
Thanks,
Rob Schmitt
N1852Z
www.robert7721.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Pierre <pierre at drafts.co.za>
To: krnet <krnet at list.krnet.org>
Sent: Mon, Jan 6, 2014 4:14 am
Subject: KR> Prop clearance now extended nose gear
Hi all.
In response to Stef's comment about extending the nose gear (on a tri-cycle)
to just below take off attitude. I have done just that, but I am still a
fair distance from starting tests on the KR2S. Have lots of glassing,
sanding and painting to do, but I would also love to hear comments on this
nose high attitude on tri-gear KR2. Mine is (Wild guess) approximately 15-20
degrees up. but I will attempt to do some measuring later. It allows me to
see the ground about 20-30 meters in front of the plane when sitting in a
normal sitting attitude, but with my neck stretched forward.
Take care and a blessed 2014 to all.
Pierre
_______________________________________________
Search the KRnet Archives at http://tugantek.com/archmailv2-kr/search.
To UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to KRnet-leave at list.krnet.org
please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html
see http://list.krnet.org/mailman/listinfo/krnet_list.krnet.org to change
options
------------------------------
Message: 20
List-Post: [email protected]
Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2014 07:59:23 -0700
From: <brian.kraut at eamanufacturing.com>
To: "KRnet" <krnet at list.krnet.org>
Subject: Re: KR> FAR Prop clearance
Message-ID:
<20140106075923.31a5f8c871d0e3389177406b4aec562c.de67289456.wbe at
email04.secureserver.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
I don't want to recommend having less prop clearance because more is
definitely better to a point, but I want to point out a few things.
The FAR is for certificated planes so does not apply to us although it
is certainly a good recommendation.
I think that there are very few KR taildraggers that have 9" of
clearance. I think 7 is more typical.
9" on a Citabria or Cub is not the same as 9" on a KR or other smaller
plane. When you have a larger plane with the prop many feet in front
of the gear you don't need to get the tail up to a very high angle
before that 9" turns into zero as you do with a shorter plane with the
prop not as far in front of the gear.
Again, more is better, but 9" on a KR may not be a realistic goal. My
prop for my Mustang 2 is at the shop now because after almost 150 hours
at five and a half inches of clearance I want another inch.
------------------------------
Message: 21
List-Post: [email protected]
Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2014 08:10:25 -0700
From: <brian.kraut at eamanufacturing.com>
To: "KRnet" <krnet at list.krnet.org>
Subject: Re: KR> Panel ?
Message-ID:
<20140106081025.31a5f8c871d0e3389177406b4aec562c.a0e4fd1186.wbe at
email04.secureserver.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
If you want a GRT EIS I would recommend waiting a little while before
you buy one. I put an EIS and a Sport EFIS in my Mustang last month and
I love the EFIS and can not recommend it highly enough. Although a lot
of people like the EIS I absolutely love all it does, and absolutely
hate the way it presents all the data in a text only format. I only got
it because it interfaces to the EFIS which does present the data in a
very good way. They are working on a replacement for the EIS that is
supposedly going to be the size of the Mini B and will give you data
presented in gauge format, not just the text numbers. If you are not
going to put in an EFIS that will give you a much better display.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: KR> Panel ?
From: Dj Merrill <deej at deej.net>
List-Post: [email protected]
Date: Sat, January 04, 2014 9:22 am
To: KRnet <krnet at list.krnet.org>
On 1/4/2014 11:13 AM, Mike Sylvester wrote:
> Good mourning Guys, I am getting ready to start the panel. I am looking at
> the Flightline Fl-760 comm and basic minimal day VFR gauges ( airspeed,
> altimeter, compass ) as I only intend on fair weather flying. I'll also need
> a transponder. As for engine gauges, I'm going with the Grand Rapids EIS.
> Suggestions would be appreciated. But before you comment, Keep in mind that
> I'd like to do this with minimal spending that the KR name and history
> implies. In other words, the cheaper the better. Hey, if this thing flies,
> I'll upgrade it later.
>
Hi Mike,
Just thinking out loud, but how much will it cost for all of the
round gauges, including installation parts?
The GRT Mini-B is $995, which might be something to consider. It
will be easier to install, offer you more bang-for-the-buck compared to
the round gauges, and you might find that the price difference isn't far
off.
http://grtavionics.com/
Just a thought.
-Dj
--
Dj Merrill - N1JOV - VP EAA Chapter 87
Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118 N421DJ - http://deej.net/sportsman/
Glastar Flyer N866RH - http://deej.net/glastar/
_______________________________________________
Search the KRnet Archives at http://tugantek.com/archmailv2-kr/search.
To UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to KRnet-leave at list.krnet.org
please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html
see http://list.krnet.org/mailman/listinfo/krnet_list.krnet.org to
change options
------------------------------
Message: 22
List-Post: [email protected]
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2014 15:56:54 GMT
From: "joe.kr2s.builder at juno.com" <joe.kr2s.builder at juno.com>
To: krnet at list.krnet.org
Subject: KR> Fw: Prop clearance now extended nose gear
Message-ID: <20140106.105654.7104.0 at webmail11.dca.untd.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Pierre et all, I had done the slight extention of the nose on my trigear right
from inception without ever any real concern. I only cut the amount off the
bottom part of the verticle part of the gear leg before drilling any mounting
holes to get it postioned correctly for prop clearance which incidently I
deemed for myself to be 7" clearance with the trigear loaded and a 60" prop. I
only had the 60" prop for a while and most of the 800 hours have been with a
56" prop so I have 9" clearance. Back to the point - I do not know the actual
slope of the plane in the standing still position but will check tonight with a
smart level but I do know that it is far below the lift off angle of attack and
for the most part I always land as if it was a tail dragger landing in the 3
point stance to bleed speed as quickly as possiable and the nose goes down as
the speed is bleed off. Visibility on landing is more of an issue than taxing
or rotating for lift off will ever be. (for a 2s- a standard kr2 may be a bit
more difficult)Joe HortonCoopersburg PA
---------- Forwarded Message ----------
From: "Pierre" <pierre at drafts.co.za>
To: <krnet at list.krnet.org>
Subject: KR> Prop clearance now extended nose gear
List-Post: [email protected]
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2014 12:13:45 +0200
Hi all.
In response to Stef's comment about extending the nose gear (on a tri-cycle)
to just below take off attitude. I have done just that, but I am still a
fair distance from starting tests on the KR2S. Have lots of glassing,
sanding and painting to do, but I would also love to hear comments on this
nose high attitude on tri-gear KR2. Mine is (Wild guess) approximately 15-20
degrees up. but I will attempt to do some measuring later. It allows me to
see the ground about 20-30 meters in front of the plane when sitting in a
normal sitting attitude, but with my neck stretched forward.
Take care and a blessed 2014 to all.
Pierre
_______________________________________________
Search the KRnet Archives at http://tugantek.com/archmailv2-kr/search.
To UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to KRnet-leave at list.krnet.org
please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html
see http://list.krnet.org/mailman/listinfo/krnet_list.krnet.org to change
options
------------------------------
Message: 23
List-Post: [email protected]
Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2014 10:01:11 -0600
From: Larry&Sallie Flesner <flesner at frontier.com>
To: KRnet <krnet at list.krnet.org>
Subject: KR> FAR Prop clearance
Message-ID:
<mailman.54.1389027611.4011.krnet_list.krnet.org at list.krnet.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
At 08:59 AM 1/6/2014, you wrote:
>9" on a Citabria or Cub is not the same as 9" on a KR or other smaller
>plane. When you have a larger plane with the prop many feet in front
>of the gear you don't need to get the tail up to a very high angle
>before that 9" turns into zero as you do with a shorter plane with the
>prop not as far in front of the gear.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I would agree that there are a number of homebuilts that don't have
the recommended prop clearance. I would , however, respectfully
disagree with the above statement.
9 inches is 9 inches in any type of airplane, nose wheel or tail
dragger, on the ground in a level attitude. The SINGLE variable in
prop clearance is the length of the landing gear, not the length of
the airframe. Marty Roberts had an 0-200 swinging a 60" prop on a
plans built KR2 with the 24" Diehl gear legs and had maybe 4 inches
of prop clearance if he was lucky. My KR, same setup, prop size,
etc., is stretched 24 inches and I have 9+ inches of clearance. The
difference is that I'm using 30 inch gear legs (cut to 29 inches
during fitting).
The Corsair swung a GIANT size prop. Problem was they couldn't make
the gear long enough for ground clearance and remain strong enough to
support the aircraft in landing. Their solution, raise the fuselage
by angling the wing down to the gear which enabled them to use a
shorter gear length.
So, regardless of the length of your airframe, build your gear to
give you the prop clearance you want, whatever that happens to be.
Larry Flesner
------------------------------
Message: 24
List-Post: [email protected]
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2014 16:03:10 GMT
From: "joe.kr2s.builder at juno.com" <joe.kr2s.builder at juno.com>
To: krnet at list.krnet.org
Subject: KR> Fw: Re: Prop clearance now extended nose gear
Message-ID: <20140106.110310.7104.1 at webmail11.dca.untd.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
And Rob's comment is valid but could be a function of power available. I did
have to s turn a bunch taking off behind him and his mom one day so I didn't
run over them. (or maybe he was just flying like a little old lady????)Joe
---------- Forwarded Message ----------
From: Robert7721 <robert7721 at aol.com>
To: krnet at list.krnet.org
Subject: Re: KR> Prop clearance now extended nose gear
List-Post: [email protected]
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2014 08:45:37 -0500 (EST)
Pierre,
Nose high might cause some excessive drag and extend your take off roll. Mine
is dead level. It accelerates fine then I lift off (at 60 mph) and then go
level again in ground effect to accelerate to 80 mph before I rotate out and
climb. I have taken off in grass using a soft field take off (nose up to keep
it our of the grass), and it seems to take forever for the plane to get up
speed.
Thanks,
Rob Schmitt
N1852Z
www.robert7721.com
____________________________________________________________
Odd Carb-Hormone Trick
1 EASY tip to increase fat-burning, lower blood sugar & decrease fat storage
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/52cad4213b6cc542178f0st02duc
------------------------------
Message: 25
List-Post: [email protected]
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2014 08:49:10 -0800
From: Lawrence Bell <lebell8978 at gmail.com>
To: KRnet <krnet at list.krnet.org>
Subject: Re: KR> Cowl Costruction
Message-ID:
<CAL=uNkbOYpp+=MCog24fe3FTPkDH0nv9SRP+iAs+_UUxfsxvFg at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Sid, do you use alcohol in your micro slurry? Does that sand fairly easily?
Thanks, Larry Bell
On Sun, Jan 5, 2014 at 6:39 PM, Sid Wood <smwood at md.metrocast.net> wrote:
> Here is a picture of the new cowl for my tri-gear KR-2 with fresh
> fiberglass, micro slurry and air inlets.
> https://s3.amazonaws.com/expercraft/sidwood/158194715052ca11c154220.jpg
>
> Bernie Wunder provided lots of help above and beyond laying up fiberglass
> for this project. Thank you Bernie.
>
> Next up is sanding, cutting and fitting.
>
> Sid Wood
> Tri-gear KR-2 N6242
> Mechanicsville, MD, USA
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Search the KRnet Archives at http://tugantek.com/archmailv2-kr/search.
> To UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to KRnet-leave at list.krnet.org
> please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html
> see http://list.krnet.org/mailman/listinfo/krnet_list.krnet.org to change
> options
>
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
_______________________________________________
See KRnet list details at http://www.krnet.org/instructions.html
KRnet mailing list
KRnet at list.krnet.org
http://list.krnet.org/mailman/listinfo/krnet_list.krnet.org
------------------------------
End of KRnet Digest, Vol 2, Issue 6
***********************************
--
Jim L.
e.flyer1 at cox.net
