KR> No KR
Fly to a Gathering with a KR, see who has more fun, Virg On 1/9/2012 6:45 PM, Barrett wrote: > Well guys, just wanted to say goodbye. After weighing all the options I have > decided to purchase a Piper Cherokee 180. I should say that I HAVE purchased > it. The deal was too good to pass up, a real cream-puff. ~3000 hours total > on the airframe and 0 hours on a fresh rebuild and needs nothing but some > wax on the paint. I will still probably build a KR on down the line a little > bit, but for now I'm just going to concentrate on flying the Cherokee. > It's been nice and I'll be back later on, and I will keep up with everyone > online. > Good Luck to everyone and Clear Skies! > -Barrett > > > ___ > Search the KRnet Archives at http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp > to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to krnet-le...@mylist.net > please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html >
KR> fuel tank
hi guys...it seems to me that if you ran a line off the roll-over vent to the rear of the plane(out the bottom ) if you put it on its nose the end of the line is higher than the tank (no loss of fuel) and if it went over on its back the check valve should work (hopefully no fuel) brad davis
KR> No KR
I've got a Dakota (PA 28-236) and a KR 2. The Dakota is the station wagon for hauling people and baggage, and the KR is the sports car for when Daddy just wants to have some fun all by himself. I spent many hours in a PA 28-180, they are a great airplane. Keep the KR fire burning, it's a fun machine!! > From: barret...@comcast.net > To: kr...@mylist.net > Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2012 16:45:38 -0700 > Subject: KR> No KR > > Well guys, just wanted to say goodbye. After weighing all the options I have > decided to purchase a Piper Cherokee 180. I should say that I HAVE purchased > it. > > > ___ > Search the KRnet Archives at http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp > to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to krnet-le...@mylist.net > please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html
KR> No KR
Well guys, just wanted to say goodbye. After weighing all the options I have decided to purchase a Piper Cherokee 180. I should say that I HAVE purchased it. The deal was too good to pass up, a real cream-puff. ~3000 hours total on the airframe and 0 hours on a fresh rebuild and needs nothing but some wax on the paint. I will still probably build a KR on down the line a little bit, but for now I'm just going to concentrate on flying the Cherokee. It's been nice and I'll be back later on, and I will keep up with everyone online. Good Luck to everyone and Clear Skies! -Barrett
KR> weight and balance
>Mike wrote: >If it's within the design CG range, all must be well. I'd feel more >comfortable with a smaller change, especially >with a 200+ lb. passenger. >Or a good sized trim tab! If you eliminate the header tank and go with wing tanks you will not have that issue. My CG will move only 3/4 inch with passenger and full tanks to empty tanks. I have never had a CG issue which concerned me. Mark Jones (N886MJ) Stevens Point, WI E-mail: flyk...@charter.net Web: www.flykr2s.com
KR> weight and balance
"...the (acceptable) CG envelope for flight which is 0 to 6 inches aft of the rear face of the forward spar. It is a balancing act." Larry Flesner Thanks, Larry. I don't have plans, just looking at different designs. My question arose from looking at photos of what's been built by others.On a single seater, no problems...but it looked as if the addition of a passenger that far aft of the MAC would cause problems with an already "sensitive" design (KR2). If it's within the design CG range, all must be well. I'd feel more comfortable with a smaller change, especially with a 200+ lb. passenger. Or a good sized trim tab! Mike
KR> No KR2S
Well guys, just wanted to say goodbye. After weighing all the options I have decided to purchase a Piper Cherokee 180. I should say that I HAVE purchased it. The deal was too good to pass up, a real cream-puff. ~3000 hours total on the airframe and 0 hours on a fresh rebuild and needs nothing but some wax on the paint. I will still probably build a KR on down the line a little bit, but for now I'm just going to concentrate on flying the Cherokee. It's been nice and I'll be back later on, and I will keep up with everyone online Good Luck to everyone and Clear Skies! -Barrett
KR> Certificated engines
Jeff Great info on all the engines. As you know I have a lycoming in my kr and I am very pleased with the performance and the fuel burn,but it was along road to get to this point. Lycomings are not a bolt on instillation,the carb hangs down very low, the cowl needs to be extended, valve covers have 1/8 inch clearance each side, prop extension is required, swing out mount is a plus, oil cooler required. However I would do it all again. I believe the O-200 is the best fit for the kr. We are in the process of converting Paul Nunns old kr to a tri gear and putting in a O-200 which seems to be a piece of cake as compared to the lycoming installition. Thanks for the O-200 drawings. The new engine is coming along great I will be taking it down to Doug first week if February. As you know I believe there is no kill like over kill. George McHenry N966G -Original Message- From: Jeff Scott To: krnet Sent: Mon, Jan 9, 2012 1:03 pm Subject: KR> Certificated engines KR builders, With the events of late there seems to be a sudden search for a suitable ircraft engine for the KRs. I am not going to tell people what engine they hould use, but I will walk through a comparison of the series of Continental nd Lycoming engines that *COULD* be suitable. This is not an endorsement or ecommendation, but only a comparison based on my experience with these engines. WIW, I have overhauled and flown behind every engine listed here with the xception of the Franklin 125. For you Corvair and VW owners, this isn't meant to suggest that they are not iable engines. FWIW, the VWs have proved themselves to be reasonably reliable ith proper care and feeding of the valve train. It is my personal opinion that he Corvairs may still be a viable engine if operated conservatively to reduce rank stresses. While they lack some of the toughness found in "certificated" ngines, it really comes down to ones individual choices for risk management and cceptable risk. "A" series Continentals. If your KR is light, why not use an A series engine? he complaint I hear is that they aren't equipped for starter or alternator. We now the Porkopolis Pig was/is a fine flying plane that appeared all over the ountry and I believe it had an A-65 mounted to it. Build your plane light, and t will fly just fine behind an A-65 Continental. Others have used a Lycoming tyle ring gear on the front of the A series engines and mounted an automotove tarter and alternator. While I haven't done so, I know it can be done. The AE-1 ring gear off the O-235-L2C Lycoming will fit the Continental flange. Jeff Scott Los Alamos, NM __ earch the KRnet Archives at http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp o UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to krnet-le...@mylist.net lease see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html
KR> Certificated engines
KR builders, With the events of late there seems to be a sudden search for a suitable aircraft engine for the KRs. I am not going to tell people what engine they should use, but I will walk through a comparison of the series of Continental and Lycoming engines that *COULD* be suitable. This is not an endorsement or recommendation, but only a comparison based on my experience with these engines. FWIW, I have overhauled and flown behind every engine listed here with the exception of the Franklin 125. For you Corvair and VW owners, this isn't meant to suggest that they are not viable engines. FWIW, the VWs have proved themselves to be reasonably reliable with proper care and feeding of the valve train. It is my personal opinion that the Corvairs may still be a viable engine if operated conservatively to reduce crank stresses. While they lack some of the toughness found in "certificated" engines, it really comes down to ones individual choices for risk management and acceptable risk. "A" series Continentals. If your KR is light, why not use an A series engine? The complaint I hear is that they aren't equipped for starter or alternator. We know the Porkopolis Pig was/is a fine flying plane that appeared all over the country and I believe it had an A-65 mounted to it. Build your plane light, and It will fly just fine behind an A-65 Continental. Others have used a Lycoming style ring gear on the front of the A series engines and mounted an automotove starter and alternator. While I haven't done so, I know it can be done. The SAE-1 ring gear off the O-235-L2C Lycoming will fit the Continental flange. If you have an A-65, it can always be upgraded to an A-75. The differences lie in the RPMs, valves & seats, pistons, rod bushings, wrist pins, and oil ports in the rods. The A-75 engine was discontinued at the end of WWII due to the introduction of the C-75, while it's little brother, the A-65 was updated with some more modern parts (like cam ground pistons and larger wrist pins). However, the A-75 at it's essence is an early model A-65 that is turned up from 2300 to 2600 rpms. Any A-65 that has been overhauled in the last 30 years probably has the modern valves and drilled rods. The A-65 uses a modern cam ground piston while the A-75 uses a round piston. Additionally, the A-75 has a waffle pattern cast into the bottom side of the piston crown and uses oil squirted from the opposing drilled rod cap to cool the piston crown. A-80. An A-65 can also be upgraded to an A-80. Like the A-75, the A-80 also turns 2600 rpm, but also has 7.0:1 compression vs the 6.3:1 compression of the A-65 and A-75. However, the A-80 uses a 5 ring piston, which creates a lot of cylinder drag and the pistons can be difficult to find. I don't see any real advantage to building an A-80 vs an A-75. C-85. The C-85 engines are a fine engine. I flew my KR behind a C-85 for the first 350 hrs to finish running out the engine. The down side is that the C-85 cranks are hard to find, although there is an STC to use an O-200 crank as a replacement. However, with the boom in O-200 crank sales, the price has taken a big jump. $3300 last time I checked the price for a crank. Additionally, the A series and C-85 cranks were not nitrided when they were new, so they are almost always worn out when it's time for overhaul. They can be turned -.010 and -.020, then they are done. If you send the crank in to have it ground, it will likely come back nitrided, which will really help with wear resistance and longevity of the crank. Same for the A series cranks (which are dimensionally identical to the C-85 crank). C-90 & O-200. The C-90 is essentially a derated O-200, but there are some minor variances. Both the C-90 and O-200 use a 1/4" longer stroke than the C-85 with a 1/8" shorter piston. Bore is the same as a C-85. I often hear how you can easily put C-85 pistons in an O-200 to make a high compression screamer. I tried it. The pistons hit the spark plug bosses inside the cylinders. I clearanced them to fit and flew with the C-85 pistons for a few years. I had a valve guide issue I wanted to address, so pulled the cylinders off my O-200 to replace the valve guides. I found that the top ring on 2 of the 4 cylinders was overrunning the top of the cylinder bore and was actually hitting the aluminum head. It had caused some really bizzare ring wear and clearly wasn't a good situation. When I honed the cylinders, I allowed the carbide cutter to slightly overrun the end of the cylinder to keep the rings from simply smacking into the head. When I put the cylinders back on, first time the piston went to TDC, the ring expanded out into the head and locked the piston into the top of the cylinder. That was the end of the C-85 pistons for me. I went back to stock O-200 pistons. I actually got a net gain in performance when I reduced the compression by improving the exhaust at the same time. Lycoming O-1
KR> fuel tank
I used a tank like that for a header tank for the EFS system in my BD4, somewhere for the fuel return to go. They are very light, as a matter of fact the straps they give you with the tank probably weigh ALOT more then the tank. I needed the weight in the back anyways so no harm for me. joe On Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 9:09 AM, Margaret Davis wrote: > > > --- On Sat, 1/7/12, Virgil N. Salisbury wrote: > > hi virg...i cant seem to find a weight on the cell but it must be light, > its made of seamless polyethelene...part # 290108 at summit racing brad > From: Virgil N. Salisbury > Subject: Re: KR> fuel tank > To: "KRnet" > Date: Saturday, January 7, 2012, 7:25 PM > > > On 1/7/2012 8:20 PM, Margaret Davis wrote: > > hi guys. i hope everyone had a nice x-mass..im looking at a fuel tank > from summit racing for the kr-2, its a fuel cell with roll over vent-16 > gal-plastic-dual outlet-2inch sump-aircraft foam-with a fuel gauge it > looked like a good way to go to me any input thanks brad davis > > ___ > > Search the KRnet Archives at http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp > > to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to krnet-le...@mylist.net > > please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html > > > How much does it weigh, Virg > > ___ > Search the KRnet Archives at http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp > to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to krnet-le...@mylist.net > please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html > ___ > Search the KRnet Archives at http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp > to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to krnet-le...@mylist.net > please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html > -- Jose Fuentes Founding Father (one of and former Vice Prez) of Capital City.NET User's Group Former Microsoft MVP http://blogs.aspadvice.com/jfuentes
