Re: KR> Melting lead

[Mike T via KRnet]

I have melted lead many times on the stove and I think all my brain cells
remain intact. You're melting it, not boiling it, so the amount getting
into the air is insignificant.  Obviously don't ever use the pot again for
food.  A tin can sounds like a good idea.

Mike Taglieri

On Jan 28, 2017 10:59 AM, "Chris Kinnaman via KRnet" 
wrote:

> Maybe you could cut the exact shape & size you need.
>
> On 1/28/2017 8:47 AM, Paul Visk via KRnet wrote:
>
>> Thanks for all the advice from one pothead.  I guess I was a little
>> impatient. I'll cut this hunk down into littler pieces. That will help.
>>
>> Paul ViskBelleville Il.
>> 618-406-4705
>>
>> ___
>> Search the KRnet Archives at http://tugantek.com/archmailv2-kr/search.
>> Please see LIST RULES and KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html.
>> see http://list.krnet.org/mailman/listinfo/krnet_list.krnet.org to
>> change options
>> To UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to krnet-le...@list.krnet.org
>>
>
>
> ___
> Search the KRnet Archives at http://tugantek.com/archmailv2-kr/search.
> Please see LIST RULES and KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html.
> see http://list.krnet.org/mailman/listinfo/krnet_list.krnet.org to change
> options
> To UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to krnet-le...@list.krnet.org
>
___
Search the KRnet Archives at http://tugantek.com/archmailv2-kr/search.
Please see LIST RULES and KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html.
see http://list.krnet.org/mailman/listinfo/krnet_list.krnet.org to change 
options
To UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to krnet-le...@list.krnet.org

KR> Hand propping VW

[Mike T]

Actually, that drawing is right here someplace, because I asked the same
question years ago and someone responded by posting it.  So it must be in
the KRnet archives. It was originally in the KR Newsletter.

Mike Taglieri

On Nov 20, 2016 12:39 AM, "Patrick Driscoll via KRnet" 
wrote:

> Joe, somewhere on the net is a drawing of a tail tie down that you can
> release from the cockpit and take with you. You can pull the chocks, climb
> into the plane and then release the tail tie down.
>
> Patrick Driscoll
> Saint Paul, MN
> patrick36 at usfamily.net
> www.pensbypat.com
> If you can read this, Thank a teacher
> If you are reading this in English, thank a veteran
>
> ___
> Search the KRnet Archives at http://tugantek.com/archmailv2-kr/search.
> Please see LIST RULES and KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html.
> see http://list.krnet.org/mailman/listinfo/krnet_list.krnet.org to change
> options
> To UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to KRnet-leave at list.krnet.org
>

KR> Hand propping VW

[Mike T]

If you tie down the tail, why is it necessary to chock the wheels?

On Nov 14, 2016 11:01 PM, "bjoenunley via KRnet" 
wrote:

>
>
> I hand prop my vw engine with a 54 inch propeller, no problem.  I always
> chock both wheels and tie down the tail (every time).
>
>
> Joe Nunley CW2 US Army RetiredBaker JROTC Instructor Baker Florida
> ___
> Search the KRnet Archives at http://tugantek.com/archmailv2-kr/search.
> Please see LIST RULES and KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html.
> see http://list.krnet.org/mailman/listinfo/krnet_list.krnet.org to change
> options
> To UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to KRnet-leave at list.krnet.org

KR> Selling my VW engine

[Mike T]

I'm interested and will call you privately.  I'm happy to say I found a guy
who's shipping a cyclecar (basically like the old 3-wheeled Morgans) from
the Springfield area and will split shipping costs.

My ambition has always been to build an 1835 VW, so a stock 1600 needs new
pistons and jugs, but the rest of the stuff sounds excellent.

Mike Taglieri

On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 10:06 PM, Mike Arnold via KRnet <
krnet at list.krnet.org> wrote:

> Of course there is the map on my Web page
> ___
> 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
>

KR> Selling my VW engine

[Mike T]

It would be much more helpful if you tell us where you live.

On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 12:16 PM, Mike Arnold via KRnet <
krnet at list.krnet.org> wrote:

> I am selling my VW motor and accessories and giving KR guys or gals 1st
> crack at it before I go to Barnstormers etc. Here is the info.
> Stock 1600cc motor, new bearings and rings. I haven't taken the heads off,
> but I know the guy that put the engine together and he is very good. He
> used it as a "test mule" motor to taxi a crop duster he was building. It
> has never flown in a homebuilt that I know of.
> Comes with hub and Sterba 54x42 prop that is in good shape.
> The Intake needs cleaning up but works with the carb that is on it.
> It was hand prop'd so has no flywheel on it but comes with a new one.
> Includes a complete Diehl accessory case with 35A alternator never
> installed and the new light weight starter all from Great Plains.
> Includes a Comp u fire ignition kit
> and a new bosch blue coil,
> Chrome push rod tubes
> New drive gear installation kit
> I am including a "hapi" type motor mount that fits the Diehl acc. case
> built by me in a jig so it is straight and square.
> I have a never installed German .010 .010 crank I was going to use to
> rebuild the engine they are hard to find so I bought when I could. It is
> perfect
> Including an extra pair intake port
> Everything you see in pics goes with it.
> Price is $3500.00
> While this motor will run and has been installed on an airplane to taxi it,
> I am NOT representing it to be air-worthy, use your discretion, I was going
> to build it to 1835 cc with the 10 10 crank. I am not responsible for what
> you do with the engine. Just selling a lot of stuff for a great price. Call
> for any info you might need. I can get more pics if you need them. Thanks
> btw I am going with a different power plant or it would not be for sale.
>
> www.XtremeAeroMotors.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
>

KR> Flying on Top

[Mike T]

Oh, of course I agree that it was the running out of gas that killed Rand,
but flying VFR on top over a severe storm system is what gave him no
options when he ran out of gas.  I remember a report that the weather was
so bad they couldn't do search and rescue for days, although it didn't
matter because he had died instantly.

And running out of gas isn't the only reason engines stop. Nowadays it
might not be so bad bad to lose the engine flying VFR on top, because GPS
could give you some idea of what's underneath you so you won't crash into a
mountain or something.  If you're IFR qualified, that's even better. But
it's still more risky.

Mike Taglieri

On Aug 20, 2016 9:07 AM, "Paul Visk via KRnet"  wrote:

>
>
> Dan said:   I don't think that "flying on top" is what got him killed.  I
> think that itwas running out of gas
>  Whanever I was doing an IFR cross country flight. I would always get an
> "VFR on top" clearance. This gives me VFR freedom and still be able to
> maintain my IFR flight plan.  My opinion for VFR pilots flying "VFR over
> the top" should have at a minimum an attitude reference device and know now
> to keep the top side up in IMC. Just in case they have an unplanned
> descent.
> Paul Visk Belleville IL  618 406 4705
> Sent on the new Sprint Network from my Samsung Galaxy S?4
> ___
> 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
>

KR> Facet pumps in series

[Mike T]

I've been thinking about this idea of not having a mechanical fuel pump on
a VW aircraft engine. There are several planes that dispense with it in
favor of the electric pump because the pump in the stock position can cause
a bump on the cowling.  This seems dubious from a reliability standpoint,
which is why so many people have multiple electric fuel pumps, backup power
supplies, etc.

But an idea occurred to me.  I had to replace a fuel pump 30 years or so
ago on my VW Beetle, and the pump is operated by a bump on the camshaft. As
the camshaft rotates, a pushrod  is moved up and down by that bump and the
top of that rod operates the pump.

This means there's no need for the stock pump to be located ON TOP of the
engine.  It could be anywhere around the case that would let the pushrod
reach the camshaft.  The pump mounts on a moveable plastic block (and there
may be a bore inside the case to guide the pushrod -- I don't remember --
but it would be fairly easy to cut this out of a junk case).

In this way, you could mount a stock VW pump to one side, allowing a normal
cowling and reliable fuel pumping with just one backup electric pump. When
I had to replace my fuel pump, my car had gone more than 100,000 miles.

Mike Taglieri

On Aug 17, 2016 1:35 PM, "Jeff Scott via KRnet" 
wrote:

> Paul,
>
> That particular configuration has a bit of a safety issue.  You always
> want at least one of your pumps before the gascolator.  Check out any low
> wing carburated Piper. The fuel flow goes from Fuel Tank -> Electric Fuel
> Pump -> Gascolator -> Mechanical Fuel Pump -> Carb.
>
> The reason why you want one fuel pump before the gascolator is that even
> the smallest leak in the gascolator will draw air under suction from the
> pumps and starve the engine for fuel.  If you have a pump before the
> gascolator, you can turn on that pump to restore fuel flow.  You may only
> have a small seep or drip at the gascolator under pressure, but that's
> enough of an air leak under suction to starve the engine.  This was a
> really common problem with the GlassAir series of aircraft.  They were
> designed with the gascolator under suction for the mechanical pump and had
> chronic problems with fuel starvation thanks to an O-ring seal that didn't
> seat well in their gascolator.
>
> Ideally, the first pump should not have to suck fuel up hill, which
> eliminates the same problem should there be an air seep at a fuel line
> junction between the tank and the pump.  But the gascolator can be a real
> problem because it is disassembled and reassembled regularly, so it's easy
> to have an air seep on occasion.
>
> -Jeff Scott
> Los Alamos, NM
>
>
> Here is a picture of my first layout of my duel facet fuel pump design.  I
> got it from flycorvair.com.  I ended up with something diferant with the
> same pumps.
> https://flic.kr/p/AoAMfe
>
> Paul Visk Belleville IL  618 406 4705
> Sent on the new Sprint Network from my Samsung Galaxy S?4
>
>
> ___
> 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
>

KR> Cross Country Planning

[Mike T]

Forget about the oxygen -- what engine and what size fuel tanks do you
have?  I'm planning on a VW, but still wondering a bit whether they're
reliable enough.

Also, are you flying on top of the weather, too?  That's how Ken Rand died.
He was flying VFR on top and ran out of gas.

Mike Taglieri

On Aug 18, 2016 4:20 PM, "Mike Stirewalt via KRnet" 
wrote:

> Someone recently described their cross country flight planning technique
> as basically looking to see if there's anything in the way between
> departure airport and destination, and then hopping in the plane and
> going.   That's my technique as well.  I've never understood what all the
> fuss with "flight planning" is about.  Our task is to go from A to B.
> What could be simpler?   Skyvector is free and is as good as it gets for
> "glimpse and go" flight planning.  I wanted to add to this
> conversation/topic the fact that having oxygen for full-time use when
> travelling gives us another dimension to work with in avoiding
> obstructions between departure and destination, thus making "glimpse and
> go" flight planning even simpler than it already is.  Flying high lets us
> sail right over the top of terminal airspace, no matter how complicated
> or busy.  Same with Restricted airspace, depending on its ceiling.  Same
> with mountains and everything else on the ground, including turbulence on
> bumpy days.  Having a big tank of O2 with a pulse-demand regulator and
> Oxymizer cannula opens up the door to all the advantages that come with
> altitude.  TCA directly ahead?  I just ignore them, although I'll monitor
> approach and be ready to talk to someone in case the engine decides to
> crap out halfway across.  Normally though I'd much rather listen to the
> engine than to radio yakking.
>
> I originally put together an oxygen system (eBay for everything -
> approximately $100 total) to try and prevent the headaches that I used to
> get when going from near sea level to 12.5 or 13.5, especially if I
> hadn't flown for awhile.  Oxygen did indeed fix that problem.
>
> Having a big tank with a demand regulator means I can go completely
> across the U.S. and back to San Diego and still have oxygen left in the
> bottle.  The big tank (E size, 24 cu. ft.) minimizes the hassle of
> getting it re-filled.  I've never had to find an oxygen source when on
> the road.  I always make it back home and to my familiar (and cheap) dive
> shop for refills.  The primary factor regarding long duration is the
> demand regulator though.  With the old constant flow regulators
> traditionally used in aviation, O2 would disappear quiickly no matter how
> big the tanks were.
>
> My "E" tank lies along the right side of the fuselage, braced by the
> bottom and fuselage side and at the bottom of the tank, a styrofoam
> pocket anchored to the bottom of the plane.  The tank portrudes forward
> through a cut-out on my seatback and it's the seatback that braces the
> tank to keep it from coming forward.  My baggage compartment insert sits
> on top of the tank, providing even more bracing to prevent the tank from
> moving.  Mounted this way it isn't in the way at all.  I've lost no
> baggage space.  The regulator sits immediately beside my right hip thus
> allowing access.   It's all very simple and extremely valuable to have.
>
> *
>
> So . . . re cross country planning, using oxygen and going high
> simplifies things even more and makes flying safer in several ways.
> There's less traffic at oxygen altitudes than below them, plus glide
> range is much enhanced in case of a mechanical issue.  It helps
> significantly with fatigue and also improves vision, especially at night.
>  I could go on and on . . . I love my bottle!
>
> Mike
> KSEE
> Laser147 at Juno.com
>
> 
> MaxWay2Profit
> The Royal Bank of Canada Wants This Video Removed for Good
> http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/57b6184b9d53184b7f5cst02vuc
>
> ___
> 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
>

KR> Alternative Engines

[Mike T]

What BMW motorcycle engine are you talking about?  Plenty of their bikes
date back to the era before CPUs and use a pair of Bing carburetors. (And
virtually all old motorcycle engines can be fitted with electronic
ignitions. I have one on my 1972 Norton Commando).

Mike Taglieri
On Mar 4, 2016 10:16 PM, "Mark Langford via KRnet" 
wrote:

> Joe Nunley wrote:
>
> I am in search of an affordable engine, as we all are. My dream is to
>>
> have an O200 because I would like to have 100HP, not much luck finding
> one that I can afford.  What experience do you have with other engines?<
>
> Regarding the Corvair, have you contacted any local Corvair clubs,
> visited, spoken at their monthly meeting that you need an engine to power
> an airplane?  That's what I did, and that's where my first engine came
> from.  Have you joined the CorvAircraft email list and asked there?  Also,
> I don't know if he still does this, but Larry Hudson used to sell core
> Corvair engines and would deliver them to Corvair Colleges.  I think Joe
> Horton either sold or offered a Corvair just a few weeks ago.
>
> Given my checkered record with Corvair crankshafts, it may be a surprise
> that I still think a Corvair is a viable aircraft engine, IF it has a NEW
> 4340 crankshaft from Sport Performance Aviation in it (but they aren't
> cheap!).   Sure...most reground stock crankshafts seem to last as long as a
> fifth bearing is installed, mine being the notable exception so far.  The
> rest of that engine is just about trouble free.  They run a lot cooler than
> a Type 1 VW due to having more fin area, have very few valve issues thanks
> to self adjusting hydraulic valves, and you only adjust the valves one
> time, on the workbench, for the life of the engine.  And the big payoff is
> the safety of six cylinders and gobs more power to get altitude quickly for
> a safer climbout.  Yes, I'm still a big fan of the Corvair.
>
> Having said that, with the money you'll put into a Corvair, or even a new
> VW, you could spend a little more and rebuild an O-200 and have a very
> reliable engine as well. If reliability is your ultimate goal, you should
> keep beating the bushes for an inexpensive O-200.  If they are simply out
> of range, the Corvair is a good runner-up, and statistically, a reground
> stock crank is a pretty good bet, given that only one has failed with a
> fifth bearing, as far as I know...mine!  When you factor in a torn up
> airplane, the playing field is more-than leveled when you start with an
> O-200...
>
> Mark Langford
> ML at N56ML.com
> 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
>

KR> Peter Garrison

[Mike T]

I came along too late for the radio ranges, but I've read about them many
times in old books and articles.  A remarkably simple way to let you figure
out where you were using nothing but an ordinary radio, if you knew what
you were doing.  Now it seems we have more and more sophisticated equipment
that requires less and less skill.  VORs, which replaced the radio ranges,
are mostly obsolete now and scheduled to be shut off in 2025.  Then
everything will depend on GPS.

Mike Taglieri

On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 3:15 PM, Mike Stirewalt via KRnet <
krnet at list.krnet.org> wrote:

> I lived in Tarzana the same time Peter Garrison lived there.  I didn't
> know him then and don't know him now, but I've certainly come to
> appreciate his writing in the ensuing years.  Mr. Garrison was hanging
> around with the Rutans and John Thorpe and Ladislow Pazmany (life member
> of my EAA Chapter here in San Diego, Chapter 14) back then and building
> his first Melmoth.  He kept Melmoth at Whiteman, same place where Sparky
> had his hangar next to John Thorpe.  Garrison flew Melmoth around the
> world several times before a true Orange County clown landed a 172 on top
> of him in the run-up area at John Wayne.  He built another one and
> currently keeps it at Whiteman, just as he did his first one.  Both
> planes carried enough fuel to go 3000 miles.  A lot of us on KRNET are
> old enough to remember the Melmoth days and probably, as I do, look
> forward to reading Garrison's columns in Flying every month.  Some
> months, his writing is about all there is in that magazine that's worth
> reading . . .  but usually not.  I still like Flying Magazine.  Garrison
> often writes both the "Aftermath" column and the "Technicalities" column.
>  I learn something new every time I read him.
>
> I can't remember if I've mentioned it earlier - probably have - but in
> August 2014 he wrote one the best pieces I've ever read by him.  It was
> titled "The Importance of Being Lost".  It's free to read, no
> subscription necessary.  Here's the link below.  As with all of the
> topics that come up on this forum, some netters will be interested in
> some things, especially things pertaining to building, and others will be
> interested in more general aviation topics.  Garrison's articles touch
> upon both since he's not only a builder extraordinaire but also a
> historian and writer with a wide-ranging aviation-inclined mind.
>
> I'm posting the link to that article here in case somebody has a few
> minutes to read some really first rate aviation writing.
>
>
> http://www.flyingmag.com/technique/proficiency/importance-being-lost
>
>
> If Juno breaks the link please just take the space out - either that or
> Google the title of the article and it'll come right up.  His subject in
> this excellent article is a pilot named Jack Knight.  Jack Knight flew
> the mail many years before Lindbergh ever climbed into a cockpit and I am
> really inspired by the lives of people like Knight and the kind of flying
> they did back when airplanes were such crude and dangerous contraptions.
> Just about everything was out to get you back then.  Death was around
> every corner in those days and the pilots who flew back then rarely let
> weather get in their way.  How ironic that Jack Knight, after surviving
> every deadly trick the sky and primitive equipment could throw at him,
> died in bed of malaria he picked up while scouting a route in South
> America.  Garrison doesn't tell us that part, but he does mention one of
> the best aviation books I've ever read.  West With the Night by Beryl
> Markham.  I came across that one in the mid 80's and have recommended it
> to people ever since, just as I have Robert Buck's autobiography North
> Star Over my Shoulder.  Both of these books are supreme examples of
> aviation writing.
>
> For anyone who hasn't read this Garrison piece, you will enjoy it I
> think.  And it's true - it really is important to experience being lost.
> It's such a rare event these days . . . almost impossible really.  Beryl
> Markham's prescient quote in Garrison's article really accurately
> predicted what navigation has become.
>
> Mike
> KSEE
>
>
> 
> Fast, Secure, NetZero 4G Mobile Broadband. Try it.
> http://www.netzero.net/?refcd=NZINTISP0512T4GOUT2
>
> ___
> 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
>

KR> Plane confusion

[Mike T]

Why not have a placard on the dash of each plane with the full name, just
as you'd recite it to tower? I'm an attorney, and when I'm arguing in court
I always write the client's name at the top of the my notes, just in case I
have a senior moment and it slips my mind.

Mike Taglieri
On Oct 24, 2015 8:25 PM, "Mike Stirewalt via KRnet" 
wrote:

> It's becoming a problem, more so as I get older. I've pulled the plane
> out of the hangar and taxiied down the ramp to the entrance to the
> taxiway and realize, too late in some cases, that I'm not flying a
> Griffon-powered Mark XIV Spitfire. I'm actually at the controls of my
> GP2180-powered KR-1?. The two planes are so strikingly alike that
> confusing the two is causing me occasional embarrassment when I'm calling
> ground or the tower and get as far as "Experimental . . . . . uh, stand
> by please." I get no further because I don't have a quick way to identify
> which airplane I'm flying that day. I have the registration numbers
> memorized of course but figuring out which plane I'm flying is the
> problem. How do others on the forum handle this dilemma? I'm sure I'm not
> the only one this happens to. It's easy to get them confused. The props
> turn the same direction. The airfoils are the same. The airframes are
> both made of wood and the tails both sit on the ground. Really, unless
> you're outside and looking at them side by side, how do you tell? You'd
> think I would be able to hear the difference in engine sound except my
> Halo headset is so efficient at blocking external sounds I really can't
> hear anything except the radio. Yes, the N numbers are placarded just in
> front of me on the panel but I often don't think quickly enough to look.
> When I'm sitting there in a quandry and the tower is waiting for me to
> give them more information, if I could remind myself in some quick and
> foolproof way that I don't actually own a Mark XIV Spitfire, that would
> at least help. However, in the heat of operations, when I'm under such
> pressure and stress, I get confused as to whether I do or I don't own a
> Mark XIV Griffon-powered Spitfire.
> As we Baby Boomers age, NextGen is arriving just in time. With all
> communications by automated datalink, aircraft ID will not be dependent
> upon the pilot remembering which plane he's flying. So that'll be a big
> relief. Until then though, what little tricks/memnonics/etc. do you guys
> use to avoid this kind of confusion?
> Thanks,
> Mike
> KSEE
>
> 
> American Express Travel
> Get the Lowest Hotel Rate Guaranteed at Amextravel.com. Terms Apply.
> http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/562c2121f15f421214619st04vuc
>
> ___
> 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
>

KR> Kitplanes 1993 KR Articles

[Mike T]

This is a very good find.  In case anyone doesn't know this, all of the
back issues of Kitplanes prior to February, 2008, were destroyed in a fire.
This, of course, includes virtually all of their articles on older planes
like the KR.  So these copies may be the only ones.

Does KRnet have a file-sharing section? If so, how about putting these
articles there so everyone can access them?

Mike Taglieri

On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 5:34 AM, billjacobs386 at yahoo.com <
krnet at list.krnet.org> wrote:

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks for the effort. Its appreciated.Bill Jacobs
>
>
> -- Original message--From: Chris Prata via KRnet Date: Sat, Oct
> 24, 2015 11:06 PMTo: krnet at list.krnet.org;Cc: Chris Prata;Subject:KR>
> Kitplanes 1993 KR ArticlesFor anyone on the list who is interested, I
> finally obtained those articles without any missing pages and have scanned
> them to PDF. If anyone wants a copy shoot me an email. If you take the KR
> out of the subject and it will end up in my inbox instead of in the krnet
> folder.  I scanned to 150dpi and the file size is 2.5 and 4MB for the 2
> articles which should be easy to email.chris
>___Search the KRnet
> Archives at http://tugantek.com/archmailv2-kr/search.To UNsubscribe from
> KRnet, send a message to KRnet-leave at list.krnet.orgplease see other KRnet
> info at http://www.krnet.org/info.htmlsee
> 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
>

KR> Possible replacement for a whiskey compass?

[Mike T]

The device whose ad I originally posted l is battery powered.  Am I right
to assume that qualifies as "no external power? "

I was planning to have no conventional  instruments,  but to replace the
fight instruments wirh a Dynon EFIS, which has a dedicated battery backup.
(By the time I'm ready for this, they will be available used or NOS).

I also have an old Magellan backpacker's  GPS 300 that I was thinking of
using as a backup.  It's primitive by today's standards as a GPS, but it
gives your altitude and shows your compass direction whenever you're
moving.

Mike Taglieri
On Sep 19, 2015 2:36 PM, "gluejam via KRnet"  wrote:

>
> My understanding is that the intent of a (wet) compass requirement is as a
> last resort/emergency/always available navigation tool - with the fluid
> serving as a dampening influence compared to a dry compass with no
> dampening.  In order for any other type to qualify, there must be no
> external power needed to make it operational. Therefore, unless one of the
> magnetometers you have researched will always operate reliably without
> externally supplied power, then no, I can't agree.
>
> There are probably other views on this topic, though.
>
> George
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
>
> ___
> 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
>

KR> Possible replacement for a whiskey compass?

[Mike T]

http://www.northerntool.com/shop/tools/product_200625537_200625537?utm_source=Email_medium=Liquidation_091415_campaign=eDeals_091415_content=P26_lm=mtaglieri
 at 
legal-aid.org=NY_MEM_CODE==_rid=AAC67k_mid=_BV9sTgB9FdSR1w

KR> Double shear WAFs

[Mike T]

The newsletters are great, but they also show many excited reports of big
modifications that (sometimes years later) turn out to be disasters.  So
you have to be a detective and look ahead to see how something turned out.

Mike Taglieri

On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 10:28 PM, Mark Langford via KRnet <
krnet at list.krnet.org> wrote:

> The analysis of the failure mode of the KR WAFs done by Don Reid starts on
> page 46 of the set of newsletters located at
> http://www.krnet.org/newsletter/nl5.pdf .  He practically wrote the whole
> newsletter that month.
>
> In another analysis he sent to the list in 1998, Don made the following
> comment in answering a similar question about the roll of clamping
> force in holding the WAFs in contact with the spars: "The frictional
> load can not be used in the structural analysis.  The wood will expand and
> contract due to weather, the metal in the fittings and bolts will expand
> and contract with temperature. The ONLY way to calculate the stresses is to
> assume that they are transferred in the bolts bearing on the wood."  This
> is steel on wood, of course, rather than the steel to steel joint that we
> were talking about, but shows that neglecting friction is not uncommon.
>
> The page before Don's article (page 45) was Jim Hill's KR2.  He passed
> away several years ago now, but this plane was my first KR ride, and Jim
> turned out to be one of my very best friends.  I now own his hangar.  A
> lesson learned  was that he hooked up ram air to the front of the carb and
> went for a test flight.  On climbout the more speed he picked up, the
> leaner it ran, until it finally quit on downwind.  Problem was the airport
> was one-way due to high trees on the end, so he landed very long and ended
> up in the cotton field off the end of the runway, breaking the tail off the
> plane.  This was about the time I'd done the tail airfoils, so we outfitted
> his plane with the new horizontal and vertical stabs, rudder, and elevator,
> and added another bay to it to make it "almost" a KR2S.  He reported the
> difference was amazing.
>
> My point though is that even a simple change like ram air can make a huge
> difference.  Our theory was that pressurizing the carb without pressurizing
> the float bowl reduced the gravity fuel flow to a level the engine could no
> longer run on.  There was a little tube hanging around that should probably
> have been connected to the ram air source.  At least I think that was a
> float carb...if not, the tube was an overflow or something...that was a
> long time ago.  But the fact remains that even something as simple as
> adding ram air can be a serious matter with unintended consequences.
>
> For those who haven't looked through the newsletters, you don't know what
> you're missing.  Time spent reading these things will save you more time
> than it takes to read them, and probably answer a lot of questions that you
> didn't know you had.  The rest are at http://www.krnet.org/newsletter .
>
> See y'all in McMinnville...arriving early Thursday afternoon...
>
> Mark Langford
> ML at N56ML.com
> 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
>

KR> Aircraft Spruce's plans (was "Nvaero plans/supplements")

[Mike T]

You mean Aircraft Spruce deliberately modified plans they sell to make them
worse?  What would the gain from that? They explained in a Kitplanes
article awhile back that they don't make significant money on the plans
themselves for these older designs (Some, like the Tailwind, are popular,
but others sell only a few copies per year).  They sell the older plans so
people will build them and buy their raw material from Spruce.   So why
would they waste draftsmen's time changing plans to make them harder to
use?

Mike Taglieri
On Jun 17, 2015 11:06 AM, "Chris Kinnaman via KRnet" 
wrote:

>
> On 6/16/2015 4:34 PM, Mike T via KRnet wrote:
>
>> What's the reason for these extraordinary delays?  Lots of older
>> plansbuilt
>> plane designs (some going back to the 1950s) have let Aircraft Spruce take
>> over the printing and shipping of plans.  If nvaero isn't able to handle
>> it, maybe they should consider that
>>
> Spruce did not "take over" the single aspect of vending the plans. Spruce
> is the owner of the design rights, intellectual property etc of those older
> plans-built designs for which they now sell plans. They bought the rights
> when the opportunities arose. That's how they put themselves into the
> position of being the source of the plans for those airplanes. The business
> strategy was to then offer materials, components, etc to known customers
> who had purchased plans from them. The original designers or subsequent
> supporters of those designs, prior to Spruce, are no longer involved with
> the designs as far as I know.
>
> Spruce has "re-drawn" some of the plans they are selling now. From
> personal experience I know the current revisions of some of "their" designs
> have lost much in translation.
>
> Chris K
>
> ___
> 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
>

KR> Nvaero plans/supplements

[Mike T]

I was asking for the reason for the delay, not trying to blame Steve. It's
obviously Jeanette Rand's fault.  Ken Rand died when the design of the KR
was still evolving and the plans were little more than a first draft.  It's
tragic  there was never anyone else at Rand-Robinson who was interested in
correcting the errors in the plans and improving the KR's design.  (Of
course many people here have done that, but you aren't the official
supplier, so the defective plans keep getting sold and everyone has to
rediscover the errors afresh).

If Ken had been a careful pilot and stuck around awhile, he could have
been another Burt Rutan, and the KR could have been the first of many
brilliant designs.  Instead Rand-Robinson became a printing shop
that did little for 40 years but reprint and sell the same set of plans,
and now they apparently can hardly even do that.

Mike Taglieri
On Jun 16, 2015 10:33 PM, "Virgil N.Salisbury via KRnet" <
krnet at list.krnet.org> wrote:

>
> Lighten up Mike. Walk in Steve's shoes for a while. If you want
> to discourage some from building any KR, you are doing a bang
> up job, Virg
> Broad shoulders, Thick skin !
>
>
> On 6/16/2015 6:34 PM, Mike T via KRnet wrote:
>
>> What's the reason for these extraordinary delays?  Lots of older
>> plansbuilt
>> plane designs (some going back to the 1950s) have let Aircraft Spruce take
>> over the printing and shipping of plans.  If nvaero isn't able to handle
>> it, maybe they should consider that.  (Or are they getting the plans from
>> Jeanette Rand?)  Whoever it is, this could make people give up before they
>> even start.
>>
>> Mike Taglieri
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 8:50 AM, Robert Dunleavy via KRnet <
>> krnet at list.krnet.org> wrote:
>>
>>  I ordered my plans in early Feb. , Emailed nvaero about the status last
>>> week, got a prompt reply which indicated the plans should be shipping out
>>> soonrobert
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
> ___
> 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
>

KR> Nvaero plans/supplements

[Mike T]

What's the reason for these extraordinary delays?  Lots of older plansbuilt
plane designs (some going back to the 1950s) have let Aircraft Spruce take
over the printing and shipping of plans.  If nvaero isn't able to handle
it, maybe they should consider that.  (Or are they getting the plans from
Jeanette Rand?)  Whoever it is, this could make people give up before they
even start.

Mike Taglieri

On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 8:50 AM, Robert Dunleavy via KRnet <
krnet at list.krnet.org> wrote:

> I ordered my plans in early Feb. , Emailed nvaero about the status last
> week, got a prompt reply which indicated the plans should be shipping out
> soonrobert
>
>
>  On Sunday, June 14, 2015 6:58 PM, Kyle Gonterwitz via KRnet <
> krnet at list.krnet.org> wrote:
>
>
>  I ordered and paid for plans last August, and just a few days ago I got an
> email saying my order has been shipped!  I sent multiple, never
> threatening,  emails to nvaero inquiring about status and even asking to
> cancel the order.  Anyways, sounds like my wait is almost over.
> ___
> 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
>

KR> Ballast weight installation

[Mike T]

So you no longer have a balanced elevator?  I know the plans only discuss
balancing the ailerons, but many people do the elevator also.  I assume an
unbalanced elevator must affect Vne, bit does it affect anything else? (And
I know of another VW-powered plane that balances only the elevator and not
the ailerons).

Mike Taglieri
On May 22, 2015 10:24 AM, "Sid Wood via KRnet"  wrote:

> As previously posted, I removed the Elevator Balance Weight for better cg
> on my KR-2.  Here is a picture of the lead balance weight and arms weighing
> 4.71 pounds:
> https://s3.amazonaws.com/expercraft/sidwood/1708901219555f36e849eef.jpg
>
> 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
>

KR> Great stuff expanding foam

[Mike T]

Somewhere in the Newsletters, it says that ALL expanding foam should be
warmed after setting and before sanding to shape. That will cause it to
finish expanding.

Mike Taglieri
On May 18, 2015 12:40 AM, "Paul Visk via KRnet" 
wrote:

> I think I made a mistake.  I had some voids in my turtle deck I wanted to
> fill. 
> Thanks Dan.  After all day in the sun it seemed to stop expanding.  All
> the foam is coming out after I put the outside layer of glass on. So it
> won't be an issue.  But in the future, I will not use that crap again.
>
> Paul Visk
> Belleville Il.
> 618-406-4705
> ___
> 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
>

KR> anyone using a redrive on small VW engine

[Mike T]

VW auto users consider it the "wrong end," but the overwhelming number of
aircraft that use the VW engine have done it this way, ever since the
original Volksplane (which i think was the first VW powered plane).

If you do it the other way, the bolt holes on the crankcase wind up on the
"wrong end" for fastening it to a firewall, and you wind up with the fat
end of the crankcase in front, where most planes try to be narrow. Great
Plains sells a setup for mounting the engine this way, bit they STILL say
you can only use a wood prop.  Only with a redrive do they let you use any
kind of prop you want.

Mike Taglieri
On Apr 28, 2015 2:35 AM, "Chris Prata via KRnet" 
wrote:

> I believe the aerovee turbo uses the "wrong" end of the crank.
> http://www.sonexaircraft.com/news/images/AeroVee_Turbo_5771.jpg
>
>
>
> > thats why people who drive the prop from the wrong end always use a
> > force 1 bearing and only wood props at normally aspirated, derated rpm
> > tune only.
>
>
> ___
> 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
>

KR> The most key VW type 1 aero mods question

[Mike T]

It may already have been mentioned, but the stock VW crankshaft is a forged
crankshaft already -- that's how VW makes them. The problem happen when
people want an aftermarket crankshaft with a longer stroke. This is when
you have to make sure what you're getting.

Mike Taglieri
On Apr 27, 2015 12:03 PM, "Chris Prata via KRnet" 
wrote:

> Hi George, I appreciate the reply, but I really just wanted to simplify it
> by asking of a forged crankshaft, and the front bearing are the main
> updates needed to make a stock VW more appropriate for airplane duty, or is
> there more major items?
>
> Also, is that front bearing something that bolts onto a stock block, or is
> the crankcase modified/machined in any way?
> Thanks!
>
> Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2015 23:58:33 -0700
> From: gluejam at cox.net
> To: chrisprata at live.com; krnet at list.krnet.org
> Subject: Re: KR> anyone using a redrive on small VW engine
>
>
>
>
>
>
> The best way to explain may be to go directly to the Great Plains
> website and do a lot of reading.  Lots to be learned there.
>
> Here's a link to one page with most items arranged alphabetically:
>
>
> http://www.greatplainsas.com/sceparts.html
>
>
>
> George
>
>
>
> ___
> 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
>

KR> Searching for Kr2 Rudder pedals with toe brakes And a familiarization ride in a KR2 in Central Texas (or Dallas or Houston)

[Mike T]

Would it be possible to rig up a video camera in a KR or other small plane
so the viewer would see everything the pilot was seeing -- the view outside
AND the control inputs?  This would make it easier for people who can't get
time in a plane. The pilot could also comment on what he was doing.
On Apr 14, 2015 12:19 AM, "Lawrence Ffrench via KRnet" 
wrote:

> Hello KRnet,
>
> I know a bunch of you have toe brakes on your KRs, and some of you may
> have some extra parts around.
>
> I'm looking for a set of rudder pedals with toe brake fittings or
> maybe a set of experienced plans for the Hegar hydraulic cylinders to
> replace the original brake-less rudder pedals.
>
> I'd also like to witness a couple of KR2 landings from the cockpit in
> preparation for the first flight of N44774.  I do have conventional
> experience but not in a KR.
>
>  Any and all help will be sincerely appreciated.
> --
> Cheers,
> Rene' Ffrench in Austin
>
> lrffrench at gmail.com
> +1-512-547-7164
>
> ___
> 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
>

KR> KR1 LSA QUALIFICATION

[Mike T]

There's another problem that's kind of technical. You can't certify a plane
as LSA compliant if you previously certified it with a higher stall speed
or a faster cruise speed. So get the paperwork right the first time because
it can't be changed.

Mike Taglieri
On Mar 26, 2015 11:19 PM, "Phillip Matheson via KRnet" 
wrote:

> In Australia, The stall speed for LSA is in the LANDING configuration.
> full flap etc.
>
> Phil.
>
>
>
> Easy to meet that constraint, the stall speed is the one you need to be
> concerned about.  And it has to be "clean", no lift devices required.  You
> can have them, but they cannot be used to test the stall speed.
>
> Gross weight will probably be the thing you most have to keep in check to
> be able to meet that requirement.
>
> On Thursday, March 26, 2015 1:47 PM, Sid Wood via KRnet <
> krnet at list.krnet.org> wrote:
>
> ___
> 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
>

KR> Belly Board

[Mike T]

I always suspected that holes would give you more drag, and this confirms
it. But the problems with holes is how do you keep them from causing drag
when you're not using the belly board?  I'm pretty sure a surface parallel
to the airflow that's punched full of holes would have more parasite drag
than a smooth surface, and this would be your condition all the time. Could
you build up the area under the holes with epoxy/flox or something similar
so it would be level with the surface of the belly board when it's tight
against the bottom of the fuselage?

Mike Taglieri

On Fri, Dec 26, 2014 at 1:39 PM, Mark Jones via KRnet 
wrote:

> YHa. I just returned from a 1.2 hour flight around Steven
> Point, WI. This was my first flight since 10/25 due to our shi& weather
> we have up here. So what does this have to do with belly boards? Here is
> how I use mine in the landing sequence. I called left downwind 21 Stevens
> Point and reduced my speed to 125 MPH. Next I called turning left base 21
> Stevens point and am now at 120 MPH. I maintain that speed through base and
> call turning final 21 Stevens Point. I pull back the power to slow her to
> 115 and drop the belly board to full down position. At this point I would
> estimate I am now at 1/4 mile final and slowing fast. I cross the numbers
> looking at 80 MPH and when the wheels touch the pavement I am doing 70 MPH
> and she sets down smooth a silk. The following are two links. The first is
> the web link to the construction of my solid belly board. The second is a
> landing video on runway 21 Stevens Point and note you can see the speed
> brake being lowered. Also note the minor deflection of the gear with
> touchdown and that is loaded up with two people on board.
>
> Belly Board web link:  http://www.flykr2s.com/bellyboard.html
>
> Landing video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfXagjar5IE
>
> Mark Jones (N886MJ)
> Stevens Point, WI
> E-mail: flykr2s at charter.net
> Web: www.flykr2s.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
>

KR> Gear Legs

[Mike T]

So does this discussion about unavailability mean that Diehl won't sell
their products directly to builders (or have they stopped making their
products altogether?)
On Dec 16, 2014 12:49 PM, "Rodger via KRnet"  wrote:

> By chance, does anyone have a set of Diehl brackets for sale?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Rodger
> ___
> 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
>

KR> Fw: RE: Fw: Re: aileron controls

[Mike T]

>> I was actually thinking that the differential deflection had more to do
with not having to use rudder for yaw<<

That's what it's for. Somewhere in the old newsletters is an interview with
Stu Robinson, explaining that they arranged it so the gap under the aileron
that goes up would give you just enough drag to cancel out the drag created
by the aileron that goes down and generates the lift.
 On Dec 11, 2014 3:25 PM, "joe.kr2s.builder--- via KRnet" <
krnet at list.krnet.org> wrote:

> Paul,
> you may be right about that and it is what I was going to try on paper
> first. I never had a rotation problem with the dual control stick set up in
> my flying plane nor in this one. Also never really had a problem getting
> around the gear brackets. My control sticks are 2 7/8" off the rear face of
> the foreward spar to centerline and either cable or push rod should clear
> the stock brackets as well as the shop built ones that Eric made for this
> plane.
>
> Joe  I was told that if you make the bell crank per plans you will come
> out with the right deflection. Then connect the pushrod where the cable
> would go. I did check when using a rod end at the stick.  You do have
> enough rotation for the elevator. Still working out the problem with
> getting around the landing gear bracket Paul ViskBelleville
> I'll618-406-4705  Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S?4
>
>  Original message 
> From: "joe.kr2s.builder--- via KRnet" 
> Date:12/11/2014 1:46 PM (GMT-06:00)
> To: krnet at list.krnet.org
> Subject: KR> Fw: Re: aileron controls
>
> What I should have said is that liniar travel is easy - i.e. 20 deg up and
> 20 deg down on the opposite side. I was actually thinking that the
> differential deflection had more to do with not having to use rudder for yaw
>
>
> I did not have full deflection and by the performance, I could not tell.
> However, I can imagine that under slow flight in windy conditions, it might
> become a problem.
>
> On Thursday, December 11, 2014 12:45 PM, joe.kr2s.builder--- via KRnet <
> krnet at list.krnet.org> wrote:
>
> =
> Morning Guys,How important is the differential aileron deflection in
> anyones opinion.  I am working through the final configuration of a
> push
> pull system and getting 20 deg down and 10 deg. Up on the opposite side is
> a bit
> problematic. (I think)Thanks,Joe Horton,N357CJSecond one under construction
> 
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> 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
> 
> The #1 Worst Carb Ever?
> Click to Learn #1 Carb that Kills Your Blood Sugar Dont Eat
> This!
> http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/5489f4c8799f774c81a52st01duc
> ___
> 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
>

KR> Modifications to Meet Sport Pilot Stall Speeds

[Mike T]

For a sport-pilot compliant plane, it's not enough just to have the stall
speed. You also need a top speed of 120 knots (138 mph).

So with limitations like that, why would you WANT a Corvair engine?  It's
about 50hp too much. (Maybe even a modern bored-and-stroked VW engines
would be too much). I think if you built it light, with a small VW engine,
and a low gross weight the stall speed would be low enough without fiddling
with the wings.

Mike Taglieri
On Nov 17, 2014 9:42 AM, "Brett Loewen via KRnet" 
wrote:

>
>
> I?m interested in starting a KR2S build project, but I have
> a few questions before I start.
>
>
>
> 1.
> Are you able to simply extend the wings to meet the
> stall speed of 51 mph for a sport pilot?
> Mark Langford briefly commented on this being an option in his EAA webinar,
> but I haven?t been able to figure out what?s really involved in doing so.
> Any advice on how to determine the additional
> length required?
>
>
>
> 2.
> Would the additional weight of a Corvair engine
> (compared to a VW) have too much of an effect on stall speed to be able to
> consider?
>
>
>
> 3.
> Can I build the fuselage before making a final
> decision on whether or not I need my aircraft to meet the sport pilot
> operating
> limitations?
>
>
>
> Short self-introduction to the group...  I?m 34 years old living in
> Dallas, TX working
> as a Project Engineer for a large general contractor.  I?m interested in
> the 10,000 projects
> associated with scratch building an airplane and the new skills/knowledge
> I?d
> learn in the process, so I am not looking for the fasted way to complete a
> project.  I do not have my pilot?s
> license yet, and would like to have the option of only being a sport
> pilot.  Ideally, the 3rd class
> medical will either go away or just be easier for me to maintain (I?m type
> 1
> diabetic) so that I can build/fly this aircraft at higher speeds.
> Brett Loewen
> (469) 401-9598
>
> ___
> 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
>

KR> Glassing The Boat

[Mike T]

Take a look at Tony Bingelis's books.  In one of them (either the
Sportplane Builder or Sportplane Construction Techniques), he discusses
protecting wooden planes with an extremely light fiberglass that winds up
hardly heavier than several coats of paint.

Mike Taglieri

On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 7:55 PM, Dan Prichard via KRnet <
krnet at list.krnet.org> wrote:

> Anyone out there have an opinion on glassing the fuselage other than the 2"
> lap recommended @ fillets & turtle deck attachment or just a coat of
> varnish
> and paint?
>
>
>
> Please just an opinion.  No math, my head hurts.  Building wing tanks
> (vinyl-ester resin smell)
>
>
>
> Dan Prichard
>
> Portland Or.
>
> ___
> 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
>

KR> Two questions....

[Mike T]

I've toyed with this idea too, and I'm wondering why pitot tubes go
straight down and have a 90-degree bend. If the tubes came forth at a 45
degree angle and then bent slightly to be parallel an inch or so from the
end, wouldn't this have significantly less drag? And if so, why aren't they
all that way?

Mike Taglieri
On Oct 13, 2014 9:57 PM, "Phillip Hill via KRnet" 
wrote:

> Been toying with the pitot design a little and decided to go as simple ad
> possible.
>
> Been struggling with how to mount the cowl when the time came.  Saw several
> examples using hinge sections, while nice,  looks to me to be a hassle if
> not pretty straight.  I'm not exactly into the impractical.
>
> Phill
> ___
> 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
>

KR> Proseal-fuel tank rivets

[Mike T]

Why not ask Aircraft Spruce?

Mike Taglieri
On Oct 11, 2014 8:31 PM, "cruzj12--- via KRnet" 
wrote:

> How much proseal do i need for sealing the rivets? My fuel tanks are 10"
> wide x 48# long  and tapered
> . I see Aircraft spruce sells 6 oz tubes . Maybe two tubes per wing tank?
>
> Joe Cruz
> cruzj12 at frontiernet.net
> KR1.5 N3151K
> KR2S builder
> ___
> 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
>

KR> KR-2 in "Aftermath"

[Mike T]

I agree with DJ, and I think other kitplane makers do too.  Recently the
designer of the CX4 (an aluminum single-seat design about 10 years old),
discovered the cable attachment method on the rudder was causing fatigue
cracks in the rudder cables of his prototype.  So he redesigned the part
and emailed it as a "MANDATORY DESIGN CHANGE" in big letters to all
registered builders.  Larger kitplane makers like RV make similar
improvements in their plans all the time.

According to some KR-Net posts, Neil Bingham's design review talking about
the unsafe aft CG limit appeared in Sport Aviation in 1986 and also in the
KR Newsletter.  Even if Rand-Robinson claimed they never heard of Sport
Aviation, they can hardly claim they didn't know about the Newsletter
because they occasionally made contributions to it.

So if the family of the dead pilot in this tragedy wanted to sue
Rand-Robinson, they could say Jeanette Rand found out 27 years earlier that
the aft CG limit in the plans was an error that could kill people, but RR
never bothered to change the plans or even mention the problem.

I'm not saying I'm worried about this.  The family probably doesn't want to
sue, and if they did they'd have to prove that the original builder didn't
vary from the plans in this area, which would be tricky.  But if they got a
good lawyer, he'd kept telling the jury  "twenty-seven YEARS


On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 3:10 PM, Dj Merrill via KRnet 
wrote:

> On 09/25/2014 02:32 PM, Sid Wood via KRnet wrote:
> > The principle that will be invoked is: You new something was wrong with
> > your design because you made a change. Therefore, you are now admitting
> > to some liability and must pay for your mistake(s).
>
> The flip side to this is that you knew that something was wrong with
> your design, and you didn't release an update therefore you were
> endangering everyone using your faulty design.  Better to own up and
> release an update for free rather than take the chance on getting sued
> if/when people start getting hurt.
>
> -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
>

KR> KR-2 in "Aftermath"

[Mike T]

I didn't mean writing to me or to the KR group about it. I meant someone
should write to Flying Magazine about it. You sound like that person if you
spin your plane and have advice on how to do it safety.

This also brings up something else I've wondered about.  Why have so many
gross errors in the plans never been fixed? I know there are many areas
where the plane can't be built as the plans show, but an incorrect CG range
that can get people killed is an extreme situation. If the KR community is
doing this in the idea that it somehow honors Ken Rand, I don't think he
would agree. If he had lived, I think he would have totally revised them by
now.

Mike Taglieri
On Sep 23, 2014 7:20 PM, "Jeff Scott"  wrote:

> I meant to post that to the net.  My email automatically puts in the
> original sender rather than the KR group into the address and I often times
> fail to catch it.  Sorry about posting it to you instead.  -Jeff
>
> >
> > Mike Taglieri
>

KR> KR-2 in "Aftermath"

[Mike T]

Flying Magazine's column "Aftermath" is a detailed monthly analysis of an
accident in the NTSB database. October's column is about a KR-2 that went
into an unrecoverable spin in August, 2013. A great deal of info is
available, because he was running a video camera that recorded the whole
thing (and kept running long after his death).

The analysis is good, but someone here who spins his KR may want to reply
to it. I'm mentioning this because Flying Magazine has almost no nothing in
it useful to homebuilders, so people here may not have seen this. (BTW, I'm
not recommending that anyone else subscribe to Flying Magazine. They
offered me a subscription practically free, so I took it, but I don't plan
to renew).

Mike Taglieri

KR> ADS-B Installation

[Mike T]

Could you please go into a little detail about what you had to install to
set up for ADS-B and what it cost? As I mentioned earlier, the cost seemed
so high I was thinking of going without an electrical system so I wouldn't
have to install ADS-B Out (though maybe you mean you have "in" without
"out").  But if it's getting more affordable, that would be great.

Mile Taglieri
On Jul 26, 2014 7:05 PM, "Jeff Scott via KRnet" 
wrote:

> Pardon me if this is a repeat email.  My email program is acting wonky
> today...
>
> I took the KR out again this morning for the express purpose of getting
> some screen shots of the ADS-B traffic as displayed on the iFly 720.  I
> took a number of shots and posted them on my web site along with some
> explanations.
> .  We have some weather moving in tomorrow.  If I
> get a chance, I'll grab some weather screen shots to post to my site
> tomorrow.
>
> -Jeff Scott
> Los Alamos, NM
>
> ___
> 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
>

KR> "Engine-driven alternator?"

[Mike T]

Thanks for all the replies, though I guess I wasn't completely clear about
the situation.  You can't just go without an alternator just until you get
out of the Mode C airspace.  The FAA rule that lets you have a plane
without ADS -B (or even a transponder, actually) is for planes that NEVER
had an engine-drive alternator from the day they got their airworthiness
certificate up to the present.  The plane has to have lived a totally
alternator-free life.

That's why I was wondering whether "engine-driven" meant the big engine in
the front or any kind of engine.  If an alternator driven by some smaller
engine is allowed, then I could have power as needed without a wind
generator, which is a small generator or alternator out in the airstream
with a little propeller on it (If I faired the generator itself, I could
make one with a removable propeller so I could get rid of the drag when I
didn't need the juice, but I don't see how you could put it on or take it
off without landing).

The idea of a high-tech battery sounds interesting, but I wouldn't be
needing it just for the avionics but also for the engine. I plan to have a
regular VW engine, probably Great Plains, and they normally have one
magneto, plus a secondary ignition that's powered by the alternator.  So
either I'd have to fly on one magneto or have a battery system that's able
to put out enough juice to run a VW secondary ignition system for a whole
day's flying.  Maybe a lithium battery could do that, but I'm not even sure
how much juice a VW ignition system uses (or where to find that out).


Finally, concerning the charging finickiness of Lithium batteries that Tony
mentioned, there's an easy solution to keep charging systems from spiking
the voltage too high -- a zener diode.  Older British motorcycles like my
'72 Norton Commando used this system since before I was born.  A zener
diode connected to ground is an insulator until the voltage rises to a
certain level Then it dumps all voltage above that level to ground.

So old British bikes had primitive alternators with voltage that varied
widely with engine speed, but they also had a zener diode that dumped any
voltage higher than 13.75 V (or something like that) to ground.

There are two problems with using a zener diode this way as the only
voltage regulation.  It's wasteful of power compared to a more
sophisticated system that actually regulates the alternator's output.
 Plus, if it has to dissipate many watts it gets hot, so you need a big
zener diode connected to a good heat sink. The Lucas zener diode found on
an old British motorcycle is as big as a 3/4" nut, is made of copper, and
is bolted to a large aluminum plate out in the airstream.

But those systems had to be overbuilt because they're the only voltage
regulation the system used.  If you had a modern automotive system with
occasional pulses high enough to harm a lithium battery, you could use a
smaller zener diode with its zener breakdown voltage a tiny bit higher than
the one the regular system is supposed to maintain. It would then stop any
pulses higher than the breakdown voltage, but the zener wouldn't have to
work too hard or dissipate much heat.

I assume a system designed for lithium batteries already has something at
least this good, but if you plan to drop a lithium battery into a system
designed for lead-acid batteries, something like this would help.

Mike Taglieri

KR> "Engine-driven alternator?"

[Mike T]

Awhile ago, someone asked whether it would be a good idea to have a small
gasoline engine in a plane and use it to keep the battery charged, instead
of having an alternator on the engine. Many people (including me) said this
was impractical and a regular alternator works fine.

Now I may be changing my mind. Where I live you can hardly go anywhere
without being within 30 miles of the gigantic Class B created by Kennedy,
Newark, and La Guardia airports (they're so close together the airspaces
merge).  My house is even under it, although I'm an hour's drive from any
of them.

So in 6 years, I'm going to need "ADS-B out" if I want to fly anywhere near
where I live, even though it doesn't do me the slightest bit of good --
ADS-B out is basically so the $ planes that fly IFR all the time can
see me on their screens without  bothering to look out the window. Planes
like that won't care about the cost, but I will, because it'll probably be
more than a VW engine.

The only exception  is if your plane was certified without an
"engine-driven alternator."  That was in the regs for all the old planes
without an electrical system, but many homebuilts are that way too
(including Ken Rand's original KR-1).

A wind-generator is allowed by those regs, but that's a lot of drag. So I'm
wondering: when the regs say you can't have an "engine-driven alternator,"
do they mean driven by THE engine or by ANY engine? If it means THE engine,
then you could have a small engine driving a little alternator (like the
one Great Plains sells for their flywheel-drive engines, and still fly
within the Mode C veil. (I'd probably have solar panels on the fuselage
too, so I wouldn't need it all the time).

Does anybody know anything about this?  I can't be the only tightwad facing
this problem.

Mike Taglieri

KR> How do you test a transponder?

[Mike T via KRnet]

I'm planning on getting a Dynon D6 EFIS, which is currently $1600.  This
replaces all the primary instruments and several others as well, and its
altimeter is encoding.  I'm waiting on that because the price will only go
down (unless Dynon introduces a new model -- then it will REALLY go down).

So at the moment, I don't have an encoder, an antenna, or anything else.
But the transponder was a Terra 250 D, which I've lusted after for a long
time.  I was flying a few weeks ago with a guy who just put one in his
Kitfox and loves it.

However, it's not so rare that I can't wait awhile, especially if Mode S is
really going to be required.  I wish someone would introduce a cheap
transponder for sport pilot planes and others who only fly VFR.  It would
be fine with me if it only broadcast at 1200.

Mike Taglieri


On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 11:18 PM, via KRnet  wrote:

> Reminds me of something I did on my plane.  As an electronics designer,
> this would be too embarassing to tell this story, but hopefully it will
> save someone else from doing the same thing.
>
> When I bought my M2 I knew that it needed a transponder test before I
> could operate mode C legally.  Wanting to make sure it at least worked
> before I brought it to a shop to pay for a static test I thought I would
> check it first.  Went up a few thousand feet and called a tower to
> confirm that they could read my code.  Then switched on Mode C and they
> had no altitude report.  Tried again the next week and same thing even
> though the guy I bought it from said it worked fine.
>
> Pulled the transponder and brought it to a friend that had the test
> equipment and he confirmed it was fine so must be the encoder.  No
> problem, I had a spare.  Put it in the plane, called a tower, turned on
> Mode C, no altitude.  Arrrgh.
>
> Bought a used one from Wentworth and tried it, no luck.  Had them send
> me another, still no good.
>
> Transponder and all wiring good so I decided that I must be overlooking
> something so I built an encoder test set (fairly easy with just
> resistors and LEDs to read the grey code).  Hooked it up with tubing
> through a T going to the encoder and an altimeter so I could read the
> code and verify it was correct.  Powered up and altitude read something
> like 200' and would not change on all three encoders, weird.
>
> While pondering what could be wrong all of a sudden the altitude changed
> and I verified by pulling vacuum with the syringe that it was correct.
> Turns out that the old style encoders need the temperature to stabilize
> for about two minutes before they start sending altitude.  Not wanting
> to be reporting without knowing if it worked I had been turning the
> encoder on just before asking for an altitude check and the unit was not
> warmed up yet.  Live an learn.  Anyone want to buy three tested good
> encoders?
>
> Brian Kraut
>
> ___
> 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
>

KR> How do you test a transponder?

[Mike T via KRnet]

This is just going to be a simple, VFR plane.  The only reason I'm having a
transponder at all is that in NYC I live under probably the largest Class B
in the country (the three major NYC-area airports overlap one another) and
it's almost impossible to avoid the mode-C veil, so I either have to fly
without an electrical system or have a mode C transponder.  Mode S is the
newest toy, but I hope the FAA isn't going to require it in all planes.

Mike Taglieri
On Jun 3, 2014 1:25 AM, "Mike T via KRnet"  wrote:

> I'll need a Mode C transponder in my plane, and one I wanted is for sale
> used at a decent price from Aircraft Spruce.  If I wind up getting it, I
> could hook it up to a battery and see that the lights go on, etc., but how
> would you actually test a transponder (or any used instrument, really),
> without having a flying airplane to put it in?
>
>
> Mike Taglieri
> ___
> 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
>

KR> How do you test a transponder?

[Mike T via KRnet]

I'll need a Mode C transponder in my plane, and one I wanted is for sale
used at a decent price from Aircraft Spruce.  If I wind up getting it, I
could hook it up to a battery and see that the lights go on, etc., but how
would you actually test a transponder (or any used instrument, really),
without having a flying airplane to put it in?


Mike Taglieri

KR> Carbeuretors

[Mike T via KRnet]

Is the Zenith carb that Great Plains sells NOT suitable for VWs?

Mike Taglieri


On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 12:46 PM, via KRnet  wrote:

> Thought I would change the subject to be the subject.
>
> I have no use for any of the "leaky" carbeuretors.  The best carbeuretor
> that I have ever found for the VW was the Ellison EFS-2, but they quit
> making them a long time ago.  The best that I have used on a Corvair is the
> EFS-3A and they have just now stopped making them.  Why, I really don't
> know.  I discussed this at length with Ben Ellison to no avail.
>
> So, I am thinking that we better be thinking of the Marvels or Strombergs
> or other aircraft carbeuretor that is suitable for the size engine we are
> using.
>
> Dan Heath
> =
> My biggest headache was with the 32mm posa.Too leaky for hand prop and too
> lean on the high end.In all fairness to posa,mine was probably too
> big[32mm] for an 1835.Had good luck with the GPAS zenith and Ellison
> EFS2.The Ellison gave me some problems until I discovered a hole in the
> diaphram.Replaced it with the tillotson diaphram.No problems since.Still
> needs primer for start.Tommy W.
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> 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
>

KR> Different materials

[Mike T]

The basic structure of the KR-1 is that of the Taylor Monoplane, but with
flight surfaces made of foam and glass instead of wood. There are a few
other changes because the Monoplane has fixed gear and exposed cylinder
heads and most of them have an open cockpit.  The similarity between the
two planes is very high, and this is probably the reason why the KR series
uses the RAF 48 airfoil -- that's what the Monoplane has.

So if you really want to go back to wood for some of the flight surfaces,
you should buy the plans for the Taylor Monoplane, which would show you how
to do it right.  The plans aren't expensive and getting them could save you
a lot of trouble down the line.  http://taylortitch.zxq.net/

Mike Taglieri
On Mar 7, 2014 7:45 AM, "Doran Jaffas"  wrote:

>   If you want to look at aluminum bonding one of the best examples is
> the Grumman Yankee.
>   For those of you that do not remember or have never seen that
> aircraft it was built on Honeycomb construction and bonded aluminum skin. I
> tend to agree though that if one is looking to use different materials
> other than what was designed for use in the aircraft one should probably
> consider a different design. I do confess thinking about building a KR 1
> and using marine grade plywood for skinning the wings but again it would
> make it a completely different design parameter. I am sure that skinning
> the wings in plywood correctly would produce a strong structure and cause
> no real problems but again you are no longer dealing with the design as it
> was intended to be and therefore you should be very very careful at best.
> Just my two cents worth.
> Doran
>N186RC
> ___
> 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
>

KR> iPad vs. Android tablet for aviation

[Mike T]

I saw the discussion below and I'm reposting it under the new title above,
because I'm concerned with more than just GPS units.  I'm wondering about
choosing between an iPad and an Android tablet for use in a plane general.
 Does anyone know a lot about this?

I have an Android phone just because it does everything I want and is much
cheaper than an iPhone, but I have no idea whether this is also true with
aviation software.  At one point  Apple had a huge lead in programs, and
the ads I see in Kitplanes magazine, etc., still seem to mention mostly the
iPad, so maybe most of what's available is still Apple.  Has anyone
compared the aviation software available for iPad vs. Android and how do
they stack up?

So far I haven't tried any of the fancy programs, but for a lark I
downloaded an Android VOR app (from Sensorworks at the Android store) onto
my phone and I was amazed.  If this the future, the cost of getting
instruments in a plane is going way down.  This VOR app was free [for a
non-tech-support version], and it perfectly simulates the function and
appearance of a regular panel-mounted VOR. I don't know how reliable this
GPS-based aviation software is or whether it's even usable in "hard" IFR.  (I
tried my fairly old handheld GPS unit in a snowstorm, and it couldn't pick
up satellites).  But in a plane I'd be flying strictly VFR anyway.

Also, if Apple is the best choice, would a mini be better than the
full-size iPad in small cockpit like the KR, or is the difference
significant?

Mike Taglieri

On 2/22/2014 9:49 AM, Larry Flesner wrote:

> With everyone and their brother owning an ipad or tablet now days, I think
> the best deal going on aviation data base units is the IFLY deal for ipads.
>  $69 dollars a year for a VFR subscription with unlimited updates, software
> and aviation data base.
>

I second the recommendation for the iPad.  You can find used ones under
$200. I like WingX which is only a bit more expensive than IFLY, and there
are others such as Foreflight to consider as well. Any of them will give
you a lot more functionality than a used GPS.

If that is still outside the price range, you can buy a new Android tablet
for cheaper.  Something like the Asus HD 7 runs about $150, and I've seen
it on sale for $129.   You can probably find used ones for less.

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1?url=search-alias%
3Daps=asus%20hd%207=asus+hd+%
2Caps=i%3Aaps%2Ck%3Aasus%20hd%207


There are several free moving map aviation apps for Android.

Avare looks like a good one.  I haven't flown with it, but have tried it on
the ground:

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.ds.avare=en


Here are some others to consider:

https://play.google.com/store/search?q=free%20moving-map%
20aviation=apps=en

KR> Building the Wing Off the Plane?

[Mike T]

I'm still trying to decide whether to build a KR-2 or a Thatcher CX4, a
recent single-seat aluminum LSA design.  These two designs aren't as far
apart as they seem, because a KR-2 can also be LSA compliant.  It already
makes the LSA stall speed if you keep it light, and I could use a smaller
VW engine (or just adjust the throttle so the carb doesn't open all the
way) to get it down to the LSA top speed someday.  I think the LSA law
would le me fly the plane fast for now, then slow it down to make it LSA
compliant if I ever get sick of getting medicals. By contrast, he CX4's top
speed is 135 mph and the VNE is 155, so it's not even as fast as the
fastest LSAs.

But whatever plane I build, I want to build it in the living room of my
house. As I mentioned here before, I have woodworking and metalworking
machines in the basement, but that doesn't leave room for the plane down
there.  Also I have a garage, but it has no heat and limited electricity,
and sometimes it's wet.  So for much of the year I'd be unable to work
there, or I'd have to come home from work and fire up a heater for hours to
warm the garage.   But with the plane in the living room, it would be warm,
dry, and staring me in the face whenever I came in the door, so I'd have an
incentive to keep working on it every day.

But there's a problem doing this with a KR: The center spar is so long I'd
never be able to get it out again after the spar was installed, so I'd have
to move it to the garage after the boat stage.  The spar is so long is to
allow for flaps and wing tanks, which I don't want, but trying to change
the design of the spar and wings would be way too complicated.

So I was all set to give up on the KR2 (and I even bought plans for the
CX4) when I saw this article in the KR Newsletter of October, 1984 (#112,
p. 3).  This is a guy who built his wings entirely off the plane. He was
doing it to make a better wing (and I think he's right).  But doing this
would also solve my problem of getting the plane out the door when it's
done.  And it would make it easier to build the wings exactly alike by
clamping the center spar to the worktable and building both wings at once.
(And of course you could flip the spar upside down easily, so you could
foam, glass, and finish both sides easily).  Here's the guy's article,
between the dotted lines.

---
Here's a controversial one!  I am building my wings *out* of the fuselage,
on a separate table, in a jig.  I believe I will get a guaranteed true
wing, with the correct washout.  This again steals from model-building
techniques. To be able to do this at all requires a way to remove the wing
from the fuselage, and to reassemble it to the fuselage after construction.
 You can't obviously, *slide* the wing back into the fuselage spar slots.

Here's what I'm doing.  I completely installed the center spars in the
fuselage *except* that they *aren't glued.*  Turning the fuselage onto its
top, I cut a slot through the bottom of the fuselage so the spars can be
lifted out, rather than slid out through the sides.  When the wing is
finished, I'll just drop it back into the spar slot.  I'll replace the
lower longerons, which had to be cut to replace the spar slot, by gluing a
new 5/8 square sub-longeron alongside the one I cut, with a healthy
overlap, scarf, and plenty of reinforcing glass cloth.

Once the wing is separated in this manner, I can mount the spars on a work
table and be sure they are jigged perfectly into the correct dihedral,
washout, etc.

This technique was worked out by my good friend Charlie North, who is a
licensed A & P, and who feels the end result will be a stronger, more
accurate finished product.  I'll keep you posted on its success.

Bill Thomas
9 Pine Acres Drive
Canton, CT 06019
--

Me again. So what do people think of this idea, and do you know if anyone
else has ever done it?  Adding longeron and plywood reinforcements after
replacing the spar would add some weight to the plane, but I don't think it
would very much.

Unfortunately Bill Thomas didn't keep his promise and never wrote anything
else about how this worked out.  He later had an ad in the Newsletter for
some unused parts, and years later on KRnet he parted out a KR200 he said
he finished in 1989.  He said this was because he was buying an RV and
didn't want the liability of selling the KR, but it sounded as though he
flew it a couple of hundred hours and there was nothing wrong with it.

I'd be interested in hearing people's opinions about this idea, especially
the opinions of any A here.  (Also, of course, if Bill Thomas or the A
who designed this setup 30 years ago are here, I'd like to hear from you,
but that seems pretty unlikely at this point).

Mike Taglieri

KR> gathering

[Mike T]

In addition to the Gathering, is KR going to have a presence at Sun & Fun?
 I'm still undecided about what plane I want to build and hope to go there
to check out several and make a decision.

Mike Taglieri


On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 9:28 PM, Lee Van Dyke  wrote:

> Number one how many days.
> Now that half the country is in the deep freeze let's look forward to a
> warm summer flying to California.  How are the plans for the gathering
> coming together any word yet.
>
> Lee Van Dyke
> ___
> 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
>

KR> Is there a current supplier for KR parts?

[Mike T]

I thought NVaero would be the answer to this question, but apparently not.
 Their website offers only "kits" containing wood, glue, and plans, without
a way to buy just the things you don't already have.  Also, they supply
only premade spars and Diehl wing skins.

I realize providing lots of premade parts is the best way for NVaero to
make money.  But is there also a supplier somewhere for people who wants to
build a KR from scratch?

Mike Taglieri