KR> Ireland KR builder

[Alexander Birca (MD/RMD)]

Hi All,

Is here any KR builder in Ireland? 

BR,
Alex 

KR>Jim Irwin Sign On To Kr Net

[Alexander Birca (MD/RMD)]

I do not know Mr. Irwin since I am from Europe, but it seems to be true about 
his personnel. I do have not so positive experience with AS I did my order 
and requested some small samples of foam but no body read about, and of course 
did not received the samples. Have a promise that samples are sent to me (after 
complain) but so far did not received yet(more than a month). 

Alex Birca,
Moldova

-Original Message-
From: krnet-boun...@mylist.net [mailto:krnet-boun...@mylist.net] On Behalf Of 
Dan Heath
Sent: Friday, November 05, 2004 1:06 PM
To: kr...@mylist.net
Subject: Re: KR>Jim Irwin Sign On To Kr Net

RE: I've been saying all along that Jim Irwin has a sign on to Kr-net. 

I think that it is smart business to know your customers, but I think Jim
made a mistake in making the public statement that he made. That should have
been handled among those concerned. 

I have communicated with him in the past and he is a most reasonable person
who has a sincere desire to satisfy his customers. The problem is, his
employees must not share in his vision because they don't treat his
customers like he does.

KR> Carbon Fibre spars

[Alexander Birca (MD/RMD)]

Hi Duncan,
could you please post Ed Blocher's site URL, I couldn't find it...

Alex Birca,
Moldova



Hi,
I visited Ed Blocher's site, and saw some photos of his laminated spar.  I 
noted with interest his inclusion of a couple of layers of carbon fibre in 
the laminations.  And this got me thinking...

Is this a good/bad/neutral thing to do?

What would be the pros/cons of a completely CF spar?

Duncan of Devonport
Auckland, New Zealand 

KR> Foam type

[Alexander Birca (MD/RMD)]

Dear KR-netters,

After much time spent on the foam issue decided to ask for helping to 
all of you.
Here in my country (Europe) the only available foam for me is Dow blue extruded 
Styrofoam.
It has a VERY-VERY small cell structure and I am not sure if I could use such 
kind of foam 
in wing construction since I am afraid about delaminating. I had seen many 
types of foam 
used by all of you (on your sites), some of you seems to use such kind, but I 
am not sure.
There is no question about other type of foam with relative large cell (1-2mm), 
just fill the cell with micro
and the laminate. How in case of tight cell, the epoxy is not absorbed at all 
by my foam, so the laminate 
Is just glued on. But on the specimens I had done it is very easy to tear off 
the laminated  fiberglass.
May be I am not right, may be in a large an closed structure as wind is every 
thing will be OK?

The question is, may I send to some one of you (who will accept) some 
specimens of my foam
just for appreciation, is it the same type as you have there in USA or not. 
Or may be some one understand me right what type of foam I am referring to and 
will explain me a little bit more about.

With best regards,
Alex Birca,
Moldova

KR> Foam type

[Alexander Birca (MD/RMD)]

Hello Steve,

Would like to thanks you and all the people had answered to my question.
You are right, every builder has it's own best technique, but all together 
will form a more complex answer. 

I now all the negative and positive sides of   polyU and styrofoam. 
Also I agree with you in that styrofoam is much easier to work with
without loosing strength properties. The only thing I wasn't sure just of it's 
very tight cell and as a result the bonding properties. But now I feel 
I could use this foam without problem, on a large area bonding properties 
should be OK.  As about your link to  whisperaircraft, it is amazing for me,
they are using styrofoam which is formed from a small heated and pressed 
spheres. I always was thinking that it is not a suitable material, but it seems 
I was wrong.
In fact in bonding characteristics it is much better than extruded one, but 
there should be used a lot of micro to fill in all the gaps. Should say very 
nice plane and clean workmanship.


BR,
Alex Birca,
Moldova

-Original Message-
From: krnet-boun...@mylist.net [mailto:krnet-boun...@mylist.net] On Behalf Of 
Stephen Jacobs
Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2004 10:04 AM
To: 'KRnet'
Subject: KR> Foam type


Here in my country (Europe) the only available foam for me is Dow blue extruded 
Styrofoam.

I am afraid about delaminating

+++

Hello Alex

You are getting a good response to your question.  Some of the information will 
conflict as each person gives you what they believe is best.  I suspect that 
you may be more confused after this then you were before.

I have been using these products for 20 years (30 years for Styroam
/polystyrene)


My contribution

The negative side of blue foam is:

a) Fuel will dissolve stryrofoam.
b) Blue foam releases harmful gases when it burns.

There are solutions to both of the above.

Other than the above I firmly believe that blue styrofom is as good as polyU in 
every respect (or better) provided that you understand it and use it to its 
best advantage.

Most KR's are built with a "single sided sandwich" using relatively thick 
chunks of polyU foam.  Full attention is given to the outer surface and little 
attention is given to the inner surface.

Have a look at: http://home.hiwaay.net/%7Elangford/swings.html

The builder makes every effort to remove unwanted (surplus) foam from the inner 
surface and then provides a glass skin on the inside - thus a true sandwich 
construction.  This builder uses PolyU (no problem in the
USA) but you can do the same with your blue foam and achieve the same results 
with a THINNER core material if necessary.

I suspect that Mark L is using material of about 1kg per cubic foot, but you 
can use blue foam of double that weight (4lb /cub ft) but cut it to half as 
thick - and still be smiling.  You can also cut your foam with a hot wire (I 
regularly do) provided that you take every precaution NOT TO BREATH THE SMOKE.

There is a particularly good KR web site where the builder used hotwired blue 
foam wing sections (with weight reducing cut-outs) for the wings. I tried to 
find this reference for your benefit, but I cannot remember where I saw it - 
maybe one of the netters will know and tell us.

In the meantime - have a look at http://www.whisperaircraft.com/ website.  I 
think I am correct in saying that all of the work was done with Styrofoam.  
Dene Collet (Port Elizabeth SA) is familiar with this project and may have 
better information.

Take care and good luck

Steve J
Zambia
Askies"at"microlink.zm

KR> Foam type

[Alexander Birca (MD/RMD)]

Peter, thank you a lot for this very comprehensive answer, it really explained 
me the things I just had thought.
Please, pass my wishes to your friend for his helpful letter.

BR,
Alex Birca,
Moldova

-Original Message-
From: krnet-boun...@mylist.net [mailto:krnet-boun...@mylist.net] On Behalf Of 
StRaNgEdAyS
Sent: Friday, June 18, 2004 1:13 AM
To: kr...@mylist.net
Subject: RE: KR> Foam type


Alex,
Here is an answer to your foam query offered by a friend of mine who happens to 
be a well respected aeronautical engineer and manufacturer.

"The answer to your question is simply based on how the foam is used and what 
you hope it will do for you. I am assuming that in the construction you 
describe you are envisioning a construction process similar to that used by the 
Vari-Ezs and others, where the foam acts primarily as the shape plug, which you 
then cover with a structural material.

In that application the purpose of the foam is to provide aerodynamic shaping 
and to provide surface stability for the covering materials, in order to reduce 
the chance of buckling or localized crippling when the structure is under load. 
There will be some loading in shear within the structures and so any 
application should be analysed in order to verify that the application is 
within the realm of the material selection.

As a general answer though, the loads tend to be very small in this case and so 
the bond achieved between the epoxy and the foam should be more than enough. 
There is however a misconception in your post - the strength of this structure 
is not based on the foam "absorbing" the epoxy. As a matter of fact you 
actually do not want this to happen as this will make the structure 
substantially heavier. This is why the extruded foams are preferred to the 
expanded ball styrofoams - they tend to be stronger with more surface 
stability, they shape and/or sand easier, and they do not absorb needless 
amounts of resin.

Yes, the laminate will peel off the surface quite readily, but in service peel 
is not the type of loading you see. If designed correctly, there will be no 
exposed foam edges from which the surface covering could separate - the entire 
foam substructure is enclosed in the composite shell.

But the bottom line in all this is the proper design of the wing. The foam is 
not structural beyond providing surface backing to the structural shell and a 
moderate amount of shear resistance. In a normal wing the shear resistance is 
provided by the ribs so the loads are concentrated just in the area where the 
rib flange contacts the skin. In a foam cored wing, the skin is in full contact 
with the foam interior and thus the large amount of surface adhesion results in 
very low shear loading.

In order for the structure to behave predictably, it will be important to 
design the wing in such a way that the primary loads are absorbed by the skin, 
any intermediate shear webs, and of course the built-in spar caps, and any 
loads transmitted to the foam are kept to a minimum. The details of all of this 
will be a function of the design requirements and the detailed engineering 
analysis."

I hope this helps you, and it should also provide some valuable info to others 
on the list. Cheers, Peter Bancks. stranged...@dodo.com.au 
___
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>These 7 things: Auto vs Aero Engines for Aircraft

[Alexander Birca (MD/RMD)]

You are right, remember for example Rotax 912, it is typical automotive sized 
engine with an reduction drive. 
And that is OK, who will say they aren't perform well? Subaru vs. Rotax, how 
many differences will find between them?
Of course, they are very different from a REAL aircraft engines, I will not 
complain this. But remember ours
aircraft, is not enough for them an Subaru? And finally, there are many 
failures in any REAL aircraft engines, just read
some reports.

BR,
Alex

-Original Message-
From: krnet-boun...@mylist.net [mailto:krnet-boun...@mylist.net] On Behalf Of 
David Mikesell
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2004 7:41 PM
To: Ron Eason; KRnet
Subject: Re: KR>These 7 things: Auto vs Aero Engines for Aircraft


Well the crank shaft on a auto engine in most cases is supported by the use of 
a reduction drive to get the maximum efficencyand I don't see how good 
logic comes into play to say single ignition systems are and will 
failbe honest with a modern electronic ignition and fuel injection 
system that is in every car produced, what is the actual failure rate in a 
direct proportion to aircraft magnetos that are rebuilt every year and I am 
only counting the ones rebuilt due to failure Well all of the shops I have 
talk to about magneto (since I am always doing business with them for my 
customers) say 10 out of every 65 mags they send out rebuilt get returned in 2 
to 3 years due to failure..yet I have had 3 cars all with electronic 
ignition and each one with over 100,000 miles that are sitting outside right 
now just like millions of other people who have never every had anything done 
to the ignition or fuel injection system except changing the spark plugs and!
  wires. David Mikesell 23597 N. Hwy 99 Acampo, CA 95220 209-609-8774 
skyguy...@skyguynca.com www.skyguynca.com
- Original Message - 
From: "Ron Eason" 
To: "KRnet" 
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2004 7:56 AM
Subject: Re: KR>These 7 things: Auto vs Aero Engines for Aircraft


> Very good. Good engineering logic and purpose. This is one for the
achieves.
> When thinking about engines.
>
> KRRon
>
> Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 8:11 PM
> Subject: RE: KR>These 7 things: Auto vs Aero Engines for Aircraft
>
>
> > Serge and Colin and KRNetters,
> > I have really resisted hitting the reply button...But
> > I feel now is as good a time as any to reply on this subject.
> > There are profound General Design differences between
> > automobile engines, and aeronautical engines.  Which
> > make these engines very application specific.
> >
> > Let's start with basic components:
> >
> > 1.) Crankshaft-(Load Support)  The Automobile engine's crankshaft is 
> > is designed to turn a flywheel, clutch and input shaft of a 
> > transmission(or torque converter).  Dynamic Thrust forces are 
> > relatively small.  More importantly, look how the automotive
> > engine handles or supports these loads.  The flywheel
> > (clutch etc.)or torque converter is supported by the
> > crankshaft main thrust bearings and transmission input
> > bearings (front pump bearings for the automatic).
> > This allows the dynamicly loaded power application
> > device to be supported on both ends.  In engineering
> > we call this simply supported.
> >
> >   The Aero engine's crankshaft is designed to turn a propeller.  
> > Dynamic thrust forces are enormous.  The aero engine doesn't have 
> > the luxury of a transmission bolted to it to support the opposite 
> > end of the load. This is why aero engines have very large thrust
> > bearing journals.  This allows the dynamicly loaded
> > power application device(propeller) to be supported on
> > only one end.
> > In engineering we call this a cantalever.
> > To illustrate this point, place a board between two
> > saw horses. Place a weight in the middle of the board.
> > That's now a simply supported beam.  Now remove one of
> > the saw horses.  This is now a cantalevered beam. Keep
> > the board level.  See what it takes to keep the ends
> > of the board level?  This is how an aero engine
> > handles the load.  The closer you get to the load the
> > easier it is to support it.
> > This is the same reason why aero engines have such
> > large thrust bearing surfaces.
> >
> > 2.)Cylinder heads.  (Tolerances) Automobile engines
> > combine the combustion chambers into a single unit(s).
> >  Aero engines use one cylinder head /combustion
> > chamber per cylinder.  Automobile engine production
> > volumes will boggle the mind with the huge amount of volumes each 
> > car company produces every year. Aero engines volumes are a tiny 
> > fraction of what automotive production volumes are.  This isn't the 
> > only reason, only part of it.  Aero engines operate in a much
> > harsher environment than automobile engines operate
> > in.  The aero engines tolerances are much closer than
> > automobile engines in order to get the expected life
> > from the 

KR>These 7 things: Auto vs Aero Engines for Aircraft

[Alexander Birca (MD/RMD)]

Yes, you are right, I know about but didn't mentioned in my prevision post. But 
I heard a little bit different (may be I am not exactly), they didn't designed 
any aircraft engine.
After WW2 they just get an license for aircraft engine and adapted to the car. 
But any case, for sure Subaru engine was born from a REAL aircraft engine. 

Alex

-Original Message-
From: krnet-boun...@mylist.net [mailto:krnet-boun...@mylist.net] On Behalf Of 
Gavin Donohoe
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 1:48 AM
To: KRnet
Subject: Re: KR>These 7 things: Auto vs Aero Engines for Aircraft


How many of you know that Subaru started designing and building aircraft and 
Aero engines before they started to make cars??


Gavin
Australia

> Well the crank shaft on a auto engine in most cases is supported by 
> the
use of a reduction drive to get the maximum efficencyand I don't see how 
good logic comes into play to say single ignition systems are and will 
failbe honest with a modern electronic .krnet.org/instructions.html


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.560 / Virus Database: 352 - Release Date: 1/8/04


___
to UNSUBSCRIBE from KRnet, send a message to krnet-le...@mylist.net please see 
other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/instructions.html

KR>Auto engines-vs Aero Engine Manifesto

[Alexander Birca (MD/RMD)]

Scott, I don't want  to offence you, please understand me right,  just as a 
joke :-)
Your problem is too much knowledge, you probably know that story about 
scientists, all the people 
spend their time to demonstrate that the mission is impossible, but one who 
didn't know about
just did it successfully :-) 
We know the difference between REAL aero engine and auto conversion, of course 
you are right, it is not
correct to compare mileage in the car with flying hours. There are many 
different thin points, but the main conclusion,
they works and works nice, in our small experimental planes of course. 

BR,
Alex

-Original Message-
From: krnet-boun...@mylist.net [mailto:krnet-boun...@mylist.net] On Behalf Of 
Scott Cable
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 6:06 AM
To: KRnet
Subject: Re: KR>Auto engines-vs Aero Engine Manifesto


Dave,
Not trying to come across with anything likened to
hostility...  Please read the whole thread on these
issues, It goes back for almost a week now

  I've decided, because this issue seems dear to so
many out there, to write a Aero Engine vs. Auto Engine Manifesto of sorts, I 
plan on formatting this document on a part by part comparison of the 
differences between the 2 types of engines, and how those differences 
dramatically impact us, the KR builder community.

  In short, to reply directly to your comments Dave:
When you are comparing the automobile engine
application to an Aero engine application, you must
consider the differences in environments that these
engines are: designed for, fabricated in and operate
in.
  Comparing mileage that's allegedly "trouble-free" is
of no importance, because:
1. It doesn't have to operate in the same operating
conditions. and

2. The impact of the engine failing while in service
is without the life threatening, dire circumstances or predicament that an aero 
engine faces. i.e. If the auto engine fails, the operator coasts to the side of 
the road. Systems like redundant, independent ignition systems are a minimum 
safeguard for a powerplant used in this context.

  Now for the rest of the KRNetters who have been
following this over week-long thread on Engines, I
know many of you are just chomping at the bit to hit
the Reply key.  Please resist the temptation to do so,
and be patient, as I am woking on this document fairly dilligently.  The reason 
why I have decided to take on this task is in hopes that with my experience and 
background will benefit this community.
  I also feel that I am somewhat? qualified to do such
a task because:
1.) I served as an US Army Helicopter:
 a.) Turbine Engine Mechanic
 b.) Crew Chief
 c.) Flight Test Mechanic
 d.) Aircraft Systems Technician
2.) I served as an US Army Fixed Wing:
  a.) Crew Chief
  b.) Maintenance Platoon Sergeant
3.) After the Service I was:
  a.) Heavy Duty Line Mechanic
  b.) Cylinder Head Machinist
  c.) Race Engine Builder
4.) After I finished my Degree I worked in:
  a.) Hydraulics, Rotors and Controls at MDHC
  b.) Controls Design on the MD520 Notar, MDX - 
  MD900 Explorer at MDHC
  c.) Aircraft Structural Design on the Swearingen
  SJ-30, including the engine installation.
  d.) Aircraft Jet Engine Design, PW4000.  I
  designed a Hollow Titanium First Stage
  Compressor Blade for the 777 (48,000 thrust
  engine) 
   e.) Aircraft Structural Design on the F/A-18
   C,D, E & F models, Main Landing Gear Pod 
   Redesign Team on the C-17.  Horizontal 
   Redesign Team for the C-17. McDonnell
   Douglas Phantom Works Design Engineer.
f.)Powertrain Design engineer for GM
   Powertrain's High Feature V-6 engine.
g.)Senior Project Engineer for 2nd & 3rd Row
   Seating for the Trailblazer, Envoy and 
   Bravada Program.
h.)Lead Structural Design Engineer for Boeing
   Integrated Defense Systems back in Phantom 
Works.
Considering that I have worked pretty much every
conceivable perspective of this topic.  I'm probably,
maybe just a little qualified to author such a
document? If not, is there another individual who
would be willing to take on a task of this magnitude?


--- David Lininger  wrote: 
We drive our cars up and down mountains with single
ignition systems and don't think anything about it,
but put that same engine in an airplane at the same
altitude and we think we need dual ignition. 

=
Scott Cable
KR-2S # 735
Wright City, MO
s2cab...@yahoo.com

__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes 
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus

___
to UNSUBSCRIBE from KRnet, send a message to krnet-le...@mylist.net please see 
other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/instructions.html

KR>Airfoil Information

[Alexander Birca (MD/RMD)]

Hello All,
Sorry for off topic, just one question, may be some one will help me.
How could I find the info about GA 30U airfoil series? Particularly
Interested in GA 30U 414 foil.

BR,
Alex Birca,
Moldova

KR>rain and the kr

[Alexander Birca (MD/RMD)]

But how about lowering the stall speed? 
Or, may be for better handling high angle of attack situation?

Alex 

-Original Message-
From: krnet-bounces+alexander.birca=ericsson@mylist.net 
[mailto:krnet-bounces+alexander.birca=ericsson@mylist.net] On Behalf Of 
Rick Wilson
Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2003 1:14 AM
To: KRnet
Subject: RE: KR>rain and the kr


Alex, Vortex generators are generally not that
effective except when used on canard airplanes. Rick
Wilson.
--- "Alexander Birca (MD/RMD)"
<alexander.bi...@ericsson.com> wrote:
> They are called Vortex generator, they are the
> rain/bugs contamination fix.
> I had asked before KR-netters opinion about to use
> them on KR, but it seems
> no body know about.  Generally the Quickie and
> Dragonfly owners who have installed them
> reporting not only fixing bugs/rain contamination
> fixing but as well lowering the stall speed.
> 
> BR,
> Alex Birca,
> Moldova
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: krnet-boun...@mylist.net [mailto:krnet-boun...@mylist.net] On 
> Behalf Of Ross Youngblood
> Sent: Saturday, December 06, 2003 10:51 PM
> To: KRnet
> Subject: Re: KR>rain and the kr
> 
> 
> Good thing you don't live in Oregon.
> 
> I've seen some paint damage on spam cans out here
> due to flying in severe rain.  I haven't flown my KR
> out here, but haven't heard from local EAA ers not
> to fly in the rain generally.
> 
> Their was a canard aircraft which had some rain
> issues
> and I think I heard some similar comments from a
> Long-EZ
> pilot who had some canard fix.  I'm open to hearing
> from netters on this, but haven't been "warned" off
> of flying when the wing gets wet.
> 
> I think this is one of those "laminar flow" type
> concerns
> and at the moment, I don't even recall if the KR
> airflow
> RAF-46 (I think) was a laminar flow airfoil.  It's
> older
> so I would bet it is not laminar flow... but I'm a
> hose
> head, and often wrong.
> 
>  -- Ross
> 
> -> each time it drizzles i don't fly i cant find any
> information on the
> -> effects
> > of lite rain other then higher stick pressers with
> the Kr.  it seams that 
> > most wood propped airplanes don't fly anyway do to
> damage with or
> > without
> > urethane edge is what i understand.  i just like
> to know if IM caught in a shower
> > will it do damage to the aircraft i always wipe it
> down if it gets wet or
> > washing i also avoid the hinge points (controls)
> mac.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > n1055a flying
> > flymaca711...@aol.com 
> > ___
> > see KRnet list details at
> http://www.krnet.org/instructions.html
> 
> --
> ___
> Check out the latest SMS services @
> http://www.operamail.com, which allows you to send
> SMS through your mailbox.
> 
> Powered by Outblaze
> 
> ___
> see KRnet list details at http://www.krnet.org/instructions.html
> 
> ___
> see KRnet list details at
http://www.krnet.org/instructions.html


=
Rick Wilson, Haleyville, Alabama KR2-0200A -99% rwdw2...@yahoo.com



__
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing. http://photos.yahoo.com/

___
see KRnet list details at http://www.krnet.org/instructions.html

KR>Vortex Generators

[Alexander Birca (MD/RMD)]

Thanks Larry, good enough explanation do not use vortex on KR and similar.

Alex Birca

-Original Message-
From: krnet-bounces+alexander.birca=ericsson@mylist.net 
[mailto:krnet-bounces+alexander.birca=ericsson@mylist.net] On Behalf Of 
larry severson
Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2003 2:08 AM
To: KRnet
Subject: Re: KR>Vortex Generators



>Perhaps you can explain the vortex generator to me.

Vortex generators prevent separation of the airflow from the wing surface 
by creating turbulent flow. It will help in reducing the effective stall 
speed for most aircraft because they are placed in the area in front of 
ailerons and flaps to guarantee that the airflow will not separate prior to 
hitting those surfaces. The stall becomes more recoverable. With the KR2's 
long aileron and a wing designed to stall at the tips first, they only 
create more drag without impacting stall speeds. {You will recognize the 
loss of lift on a KR2 long before you will be thrown into a spin.} Anything 
that creates turbulent flow creates drag (bad, bad, bad when you want to go 
fast with a small engine).


Larry Severson
Fountain Valley, CA 92708
(714) 968-9852
lar...@socal.rr.com 


___
see KRnet list details at http://www.krnet.org/instructions.html

KR>rain and the kr

[Alexander Birca (MD/RMD)]

They are called Vortex generator, they are the rain/bugs contamination fix.
I had asked before KR-netters opinion about to use them on KR, but it seems
no body know about.  Generally the Quickie and Dragonfly owners who have 
installed them
reporting not only fixing bugs/rain contamination fixing but as well lowering 
the stall speed.

BR,
Alex Birca,
Moldova

-Original Message-
From: krnet-boun...@mylist.net [mailto:krnet-boun...@mylist.net] On Behalf Of 
Ross Youngblood
Sent: Saturday, December 06, 2003 10:51 PM
To: KRnet
Subject: Re: KR>rain and the kr


Good thing you don't live in Oregon.

I've seen some paint damage on spam cans out here
due to flying in severe rain.  I haven't flown my KR
out here, but haven't heard from local EAA ers not
to fly in the rain generally.

Their was a canard aircraft which had some rain issues
and I think I heard some similar comments from a Long-EZ
pilot who had some canard fix.  I'm open to hearing
from netters on this, but haven't been "warned" off 
of flying when the wing gets wet.

I think this is one of those "laminar flow" type concerns
and at the moment, I don't even recall if the KR airflow
RAF-46 (I think) was a laminar flow airfoil.  It's older
so I would bet it is not laminar flow... but I'm a hose
head, and often wrong.

 -- Ross

-> each time it drizzles i don't fly i cant find any information on the 
-> effects
> of lite rain other then higher stick pressers with the Kr.  it seams that 
> most wood propped airplanes don't fly anyway do to damage with or 
> without
> urethane edge is what i understand.  i just like to know if IM caught in a 
> shower 
> will it do damage to the aircraft i always wipe it down if it gets wet or 
> washing i also avoid the hinge points (controls) mac.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> n1055a flying
> flymaca711...@aol.com
> ___
> see KRnet list details at http://www.krnet.org/instructions.html

-- 
___
Check out the latest SMS services @ http://www.operamail.com, which allows you 
to send SMS through your mailbox.

Powered by Outblaze

___
see KRnet list details at http://www.krnet.org/instructions.html

KR>assembly plant

[Alexander Birca (MD/RMD)]

Hi listers, 

As some of you may be know, I am more listener than reader, so rarely I 
try to ask some things here. Some time I have a very good answers, but many 
times just a chatter... Most of you experienced and less experienced builder 
think that every body know all you know (what is the stupid question about 
Fiberglas or epoxy :-)  What I want to say, are you crazy for your neighbour 
just for that you are home builder? Why the general should be crazy for us?  
Sorry, you are great people, just some time we could not listen each other.

There is one science fiction story about a team of scientist, they have 
a task to invent 
some things impossible. The reason for this was a short movie with this 
invention, but unfortunately his inventor crashed and dead. Nothing remains, 
just a short move. While most of scientist  spent all the time to demonstrate 
this is impossible, a couple of them did that. 
But not as in that movie, more expensive and not portable :-) When they 
reported about their progress, they just say sorry, we could not create, at 
list now, more portable and less expensive. What was the answer? Thanks a lot! 
In reality there was nothing, the movie was a fiction, just for though, noting 
more. Our hopes were for people as you, who will try despite the fact that it 
is impossible. Not for those  
scientist who know very good the theory and do not try to think may be there is 
some thing wrong?

BR,
Alex Birca 
Moldova  


-Original Message-
From: gerald locker [mailto:brigadier192...@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2003 8:00 AM
To: KR builders and pilots
Subject: Re: KR>assembly plant



--- Max Hardberger  wrote:
> SORRY, MY LAST POST APPEARED. HERE IS THE TEXT OF A
> PREVIOUS POST:
> 
> The brigadier may have been misguided and have
> approached the project
> bass-ackward, but Sport Plane regulations are
> coming, and, like it or not,
> foreign-manufactured aircraft (completed, not kits)
> are coming. In fact, I
> am now working with a Ukrainian manufacturer who is
> looking to get his
> two-place taildragger approved for import when the
> SP regulations are
> implemented.
> 
> For the same reasons that the members of this group
> have chosen the KR
> design, foreign manufacturers looking for a popular
> design to convert to
> assembly-line production methods will probably
> consider the KR as well as
> other present "homebuilt" designs. The appeal of an
> aircraft for a
> manufacturer lies in its lines and performance, not
> in its construction
> material or methods, which, in any case, would be
> radically altered in the
> process of tooling up for volume manufacturing.
> 
> There are a number of advanced techniques gaining
> acceptance among
> manufacturers of lightweight, high-power vehicles,
> including vacuum-bagging
> and automated panel-lamination. Advances in
> injection molding--and
> particularly in strength-of-materials for
> non-fiber-reinforced
> plastics--will probably allow, in the near future,
> for non-labor-intensive
> construction of molded fuselage panels and perhaps
> even wings and control
> surfaces. Although the tooling and start-up costs
> for this kind of
> manufacturing will probably always be beyond the
> reach of homebuilders, they
> do make sense for manufacturers. Such advances, and
> the advantages of
> pre-tooling and computer-controlled cutting, may
> even make the production
> aircraft lighter and more accurately built than the
> average homebuilt KR.
> 
> Further, the lines of the KR-2/2S appear suitable to
> such techniques, being
> relatively clean and free of protrubrances. The
> questions of quality control
> and commitment to safety are properly answered by
> examining the corporate
> philosophy of the manufacturer and his technical and
> financial resources.
> There are many Russian and Ukrainian aircraft, for
> example, that have stood
> the test of time and have proven safe and reliable
> aircraft, all (gasp!)
> without FAA intervention or regulation.
> 
> Certainly there is nothing improper in a prospective
> manufacturer exploring
> the possibilities of taking advantage of the new
> sport-plane regulations by
> investigating existing designs before reinventing
> the wheel, as long as he
> makes the proper arrangements with the owner of any
> design he decides to
> use. It's just that he should bring aircraft
> manufacturing expertise to the
> project, and not alienate those in a position to
> help him by showing his
> lack of knowledge, i.e., by pronouncing an intention
> to put a fixed O2
> system in a low-altitude aircraft.
> 
> Max Hardberger
> Admiralty Associates LLC
> (877) 732-5298 tel.
> (562) 684-4539 fax

Dear Max,

Let me explain again.  I never said I was going to put
a fixed oxygen system in the plane...only that I
wanted a system (portable) that would be one of the
standard features for our markteting pitch, along with
the BRS, and a transponder.  I am 

KR>assembly plant

[Alexander Birca (MD/RMD)]

Hi Larry,
thanks, but I am just 41 :-) May be already :-)

BR,
Alex Birca
Moldova

-Original Message-
From: larry severson [mailto:lar...@socal.rr.com]
Sent: Friday, September 05, 2003 12:49 AM
To: KR builders and pilots
Subject: RE: KR>assembly plant


Hi Alex:
You are giving away your age. That story was published 50 years ago. Great. 
It is the whole thesis of homebuilding.

A   There is one science fiction story about a team of scientist, they 
have a task to invent
>some things impossible. The reason for this was a short movie with this 
>invention, but unfortunately his inventor crashed and dead. Nothing 
>remains, just a short move. While most of scientist  spent all the time to 
>demonstrate this is impossible, a couple of them did that.
>But not as in that movie, more expensive and not portable :-) When they 
>reported about their progress, they just say sorry, we could not create, 
>at list now, more portable and less expensive. What was the answer? Thanks 
>a lot! In reality there was nothing, the movie was a fiction, just for 
>though, noting more. Our hopes were for people as you, who will try 
>despite the fact that it is impossible. Not for those
>scientist who know very good the theory and do not try to think may be 
>there is some thing wrong?

Larry Severson
Fountain Valley, CA 92708
(714) 968-9852
lar...@socal.rr.com 


___
see KRnet list details at http://www.krnet.org/instructions.html

KR>plywood vs composite skins

[Alexander Birca (MD/RMD)]

Hi all, 
I know, some time ago here was discussed this question. But there were talking 
about sides skins to be laminated. For me here is clear, I will do as Eduardo 
Barros from Argentina.
I would like to ask your opinion about composite sheet which is used 
for Printed Circuit Board, of course without cooper.
This kind of material I am planning to use just on the spars. Why not plywood, 
I simple can not obtain it here (aircraft grade) and I would like to avoid 
using of plywood. But I have this PCB sheet in 2mm thickness, it has about 10 
layers of laminated fibers which is pressed together and cooked. Compared with 
plywood it is much stronger, although there could be some weight penalty (just 
a little), which is not significant. Any idea? I hope you will understand my 
question, sorry for my English.

 BR,
Alex

KR>plywood vs composite skins

[Alexander Birca (MD/RMD)]

Thanks Dan,
I have to say it is not brittle, as about gluing, before it should be sanded, 
as ordinary Fiberglas. In fact it is a Fiberglas, just difference is in that 
the fiberglass layers are pressed and cooked at high temperature vs ours wing 
skins are not pressed and normally cure at room temperature.

I am not from Argentina, I just mentioned Eduardo Barros site. 

BR,
Alex Birca
Moldova


Alex,
I am sure that it is strong, but  I am concerned that it would be brittle
and under stress could crack.  I would not use it on a spar for sure.  I
also question how well it will adhere to another material.

I am not saying "don't use it", what I am saying is "I would not use it".

What material are other builders in Argentina using? 

N64KR
Daniel R. Heath - Columbia, SC

KR>plywood vs composite skins

[Alexander Birca (MD/RMD)]

Hi again,
I found some description of related material that I would like to use:

Flat Stock Laminates, multiple layers of fiberglass 
cloth are impregnated with an epoxy system and hydraulic press cured.



-Original Message-
From: Dan Heath [mailto:da...@alltel.net]
Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2003 1:05 PM
To: kr...@mylist.net
Subject: Re: KR>plywood vs composite skins


RE:  But I have this PCB sheet in 2mm thickness, it has about 10 layers of
laminated fibers which is pressed together and cooked. Compared with plywood
it is much stronger, 

KR>plywood vs composite skins

[Alexander Birca (MD/RMD)]

Thanks Eduardo, good info. 

BR,
Alex Birca
Moldova

-Original Message-
From: Eduardo M. Iglesias [mailto:emigles...@cpenet.com.ar]
Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 6:08 AM
To: KR builders and pilots
Subject: Re: KR>plywood vs composite skins


Dan, Alex.

Eduardo Barros put 3 layers of bid and epoxi in the exterior side and one in
the interior of the fuselage.
Mark Langford has more information about.
Have a good work
Eduardo Iglesias
La Pampa
Argentina


- Original Message -
From: "Alexander Birca (MD/RMD)" <alexander.bi...@ericsson.com>
To: "'KR builders and pilots'" <kr...@mylist.net>
Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2003 7:20 AM
Subject: RE: KR>plywood vs composite skins


>
> Thanks Dan,
> I have to say it is not brittle, as about gluing, before it should be
sanded, as ordinary Fiberglas. In fact it is a Fiberglas, just difference is
in that the fiberglass layers are pressed and cooked at high temperature vs
ours wing skins are not pressed and normally cure at room temperature.
>
> I am not from Argentina, I just mentioned Eduardo Barros site.
>
> BR,
> Alex Birca
> Moldova
>
>
> Alex,
> I am sure that it is strong, but  I am concerned that it would be brittle
> and under stress could crack.  I would not use it on a spar for sure.  I
> also question how well it will adhere to another material.
>
> I am not saying "don't use it", what I am saying is "I would not use it".
>
> What material are other builders in Argentina using?
>
> N64KR
> Daniel R. Heath - Columbia, SC
>
>
>
> ___
> see KRnet list details at http://www.krnet.org/instructions.html
> ---
> [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]
>
>

---
[This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]


___
see KRnet list details at http://www.krnet.org/instructions.html

KR>Isn't that PCB idea great?

[Alexander Birca (MD/RMD)]

Thanks Serge, you understand me right. 
That is, now I am waiting more opinion on this issue.
I do not know how much it cost some where, but for me here it is not expensive 
(~4$ for 1kg), though I can't
find aircraft grade plywood at all. Again, I want to use it just for the spars, 
so, the weight penalty 
is not so important due of small quantity. But I guess it could be used for 
boat as well.

BR,
Alex Birca
Moldova
-Original Message-
From: Serge F. Vidal [mailto:serge.vi...@ate-international.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 12:16 PM
To: 'KR builders and pilots'
Subject: KR>Isn't that PCB idea great?


Netters,

What I really like about the KRNet is the incredible amount of creativity
that we manage to pool together.

I think that PCB idea is a perfect example. Indeed, it is fiberglass, of the
best kind (multiple laminations). And I think it is the first time somebody
tries to use it as an aircraft material, but surely, it can't be worse than
our usual home-made, first-time builder fiberglass!

Now, if somebody with a good knowledge of material properties could study
typical PCB sheets to compare its properties with plywood and fiberglass, I
think it would not be wasted effort.

How much does PCB sheet cost, by the way?

Serge Vidal
KR2 ZS-WEC
Johannesburg, South Africa


___
see KRnet list details at http://www.krnet.org/instructions.html

KR>Isn't that PCB idea great?

[Alexander Birca (MD/RMD)]

Robert, you will not believe, but it is a real country :-)
Just that it is a ve-e-ery small. A exUSSR republic, have a look 
on the map, between Romanian and Ukraine.
Do not ask where is Romania and Ukraine :-)

BR,
Alex Birca
Moldova

-Original Message-
From: Robert Stone [mailto:rsto...@hot.rr.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 2:50 PM
To: KR builders and pilots
Subject: Re: KR>Isn't that PCB idea great?


Where in the world is Moldova?

KR>Isn't that PCB idea great?

[Alexander Birca (MD/RMD)]

Usually is used two type of resin, epoxy or phenolic. In my case it is 
epoxy. 
For PCB production is used only epoxy.

BR,
Alex Birca
Moldova

-Original Message-
From: Mike Turner [mailto:aviato...@msn.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 6:31 PM
To: KR builders and pilots; 'Robert Stone'
Subject: Re: KR>Isn't that PCB idea great?



  I would think the PBC would have the same strength or better than the 
plywood but I would want to know what kind of resin was used in the manafacture 
of the PBC. If it's made from a vinal ester product, then that's what I would 
use to glue it to the wood. If it's made from an epoxy resin I would use an 
epoxy resin glue. It's not a question of the type of glue used for the wood, it 
has to do with the bonding properties between the glue and the PBC.

 Mike Turner
  - Original Message - 
  From: Alexander Birca (MD/RMD) 
  To: 'Robert Stone' ; 'KR builders and pilots' 
  Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 6:57 AM
  Subject: RE: KR>Isn't that PCB idea great?



  Robert, you will not believe, but it is a real country :-)
  Just that it is a ve-e-ery small. A exUSSR republic, have a look 
  on the map, between Romanian and Ukraine.
  Do not ask where is Romania and Ukraine :-)

  BR,
  Alex Birca
  Moldova

  -Original Message-
  From: Robert Stone [mailto:rsto...@hot.rr.com]
  Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 2:50 PM
  To: KR builders and pilots
  Subject: Re: KR>Isn't that PCB idea great?


  Where in the world is Moldova?

  ___
  see KRnet list details at http://www.krnet.org/instructions.html
___
see KRnet list details at http://www.krnet.org/instructions.html