KR> Useful Load

[Tony King]

Another thing to keep in mind in relation to meeting the LSA performance
criteria is who, besides you, is going to know for sure what the stall
speed (or any other parameter) really is.  If you say the stall speed is 51
mph, as long as that's plausible who's going to even give it a second
thought?  The regulator's certainly not going to get in the plane and
verify it.

I'm not suggesting you falsify your test data or anythig like that, but
aviation is full of optimistic numbers, and the difference between 51 mph
and 55 mph could well be within the margin of error of your instruments in
any case.  ASIs tend to get inaccurate at low speed and high AoA.

Cheers,

Tony

On 30 November 2016 at 00:31, Kayak Chris via KRnet 
wrote:

> thanks, I agree with mark not to misuse our precious time!
>
> my question is related to that I simply may want my bird (KR1) to be
> light sport compliant. 51mph does it, 55 doesnt. but I plan mine to be
> simple and light, so I guess it should be fine.
>
>
>

KR> Mgl, dynon,Garmin

[Tony King]

A variation on "don't let perfect be the enemy of good enough".  Well said
Larry.

Cheers,

Tony

On 23 November 2016 at 11:30, Larry Flesner via KRnet 
wrote:

>
> For builders still looking to get in the air, don't let prices like these
> discourage you.  Round gauges still work just fine and a cheap ipad running
> $69 a year software will get you anywhere you want to go.  If you don't
> have the ADS-B equipment installed just stay out of controlled airspace
> requiring it and look out the window for other aircraft.  Don't let the
> market place kill your dream of building / flying your own airplane.  It's
> too easy to get caught up in "I'd love to have it" rather than "I really
> need it".
>
> Larry Flesner
>

KR> 12° ENCUENTRO DE CONSTRUCTORES DE KR, CHIVILCOY 2016

[Tony King]

Pretty sure Buenos Aires is in Argentina :-)

2016-11-22 9:44 GMT+10:00 Jeff Scott via KRnet :

> For those wondering what Eduardo said:  See the Google translation below:
> Bottom line we are all invited to the 12th annual KR Gathering... in
> Brazil.  Personally, in a couple of years after I have retired, I might
> want to consider it, especially if we can get a group flying down together.
>
> -Jeff Scott
>
>

KR> Aileron Rigging

[Tony King]

Yes, Jabiru use it too.  But I'm pretty sure using push-pull cables with no
bellcranks would eliminate any differental action of the ailerons.  It
might be possible to get some of that back by doing something like what
Mark Langford did with his ailerons (where the front edge sticks up into
the airflow as the aileron goes down) . I guess my question really is what
effect is that likely to have on a KR?

Cheers,

Tony

On 4 October 2016 at 10:51, Larry Flesner via KRnet 
wrote:

>
> Other aircraft designs have used that type of setup.  The Murphy Rebel
> uses such a cable to actuate the "flaperons".
>
> Larry Flesner
>
>

KR> Aileron Rigging

[Tony King]

I've been thinking about using push-pull cables for the ailerons rather
than the conventional arrangement.  Seems to me this could do away with the
need for bellcranks and the like, but I'm not sure what the downsides might
be.

I know push pull cables weigh more than standard aileron cable for a given
length - although that would be offset somewhat by the shorter length and
lower parts count.a push-pull solution would entail (e.g. no need for a
cable running from the left aileron to the right).

What else should I be considering?

Cheers,

Tony

KR> KR2 World Tour

[Tony King]

Colin is in the air again.  Just taken off from Magadan (Eastern Siberia)
headed for the Chinese border.

http://www.kr2worldtour.com/where-am-i-now/

KR> On slime and nitrogen in tires.

[Tony King]

It's remarkable that replacing the 20% of air that's not nitrogen with
actual nitrogen results in such an improvement in desirable properties for
the inflation of aircraft tyres.

TK

On 13 September 2016 at 02:22, Dan Branstrom via KRnet  wrote:

> A note for those using slime in their tires. It is fine on tires that use
> tubes, but if you really want to piss off your local tire dealer, use it on
> tubeless tires. It makes a real mess on the wheel and difficult to work on.
>
> The reasons for using nitrogen to fill tires is that it doesn't migrate
> through rubber as fast as air, it expands and contracts less than air does
> when the tire temperature changes, and it contains less water.
> http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/how-to/a3894/4302788/
>
> ___
> 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> Attach Wood firewall to frame

[Tony King]

I think you have more weight than you need to achieve the required strength.  
It only needs to be strong enough for the task, no more.  Any more than that 
means you're carrying weight (and sacrificing performance) you don't need to.

Cheers,

Tony

Sent from my iPad

> On 9 Sep 2016, at 10:15 PM, Jim Ellison via KRnet  
> wrote:
> 
> If you put a full 1/2 inch pice of 9 ply wood and then. The aluminum  3 inch 
> angle. Behind it. With the 5 attach points engine mount. From great planes. 
> What does the neters  think about this compination ??

KR> Kr2s Engine?

[Tony King]

Hi Stan,

A 70 inch prop on a KR seems unlikely. They're a bit close to the ground.  The 
TBO on a corvair is whatever you (the builder) decide. Comparing engines is too 
difficult for an email response. There are so many variables and some of them 
come down to simple personal preference.  There are fast and economical KRs 
with both those engine choices.

Cheers,

Tony

Sent from my iPhone

> On 18 Aug 2016, at 10:32 AM, Global Solutions via KRnet  list.krnet.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> Based on the above wouldn't the Corvair seem to be the better choice?
> What is the advantage of the o200 vs the Corvair or the Corvair over the o200?
> What is the time between overhaul on a Corvair?
> 
> Thanks
> Stan
> 
> 
> ___
> 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> Ethanol

[Tony King]

The two primary objections to ethanol seem to be corrosion/degradatiion of
fuel system components and its tendency to absorb water.  As you've pointed
out, the corrosion can be dealt with at design stage quite readily - just
specify appropriate materials.

The water issue doesn't seem so straightforward.  While an engine may run
fine on ethanol with a known quantity of water added, when an aircraft sits
idle for weeks at a time, how can you know how much water is in the fuel?
How much water can ethanol absorb?  How do you know how much it's
absorbed?  Is it evenly distributed (e.g. in solution with the ethanol) or
does it accumulate at the bottom of the tank.  Getting a known and
consistent amount seems like a challenge to me.

An then there's the question of where to get 100% ethanol.  Is it as
readily available to the average joe as 100LL or unleaded?

I look forward to hearing of your progress from time to time.

Cheers,

Tony

On 6 June 2016 at 13:06, andrew via KRnet  wrote:

> Here goes the spoon feed ?Don?t use it?.
>
>  As I?m working on blue prints for the KRSuper1, and getting my outside
> research done. I am settled on one huge taboo of the aviation community.
> This bad boy is going to be tuned and built to run primarily on ethanol.
>
> ?But Cessna and the big aviation companies says it?s horrible.? Hold on
> and let me get some hand on acknowledge your way.
>
> Dr. Maxwell Schauck has been flying on ethanol since the 1980?s, and flew
> across the Atlantic in his Velocity back in 1989. While I was attending his
> program at Baylor University I got to participate in his research for 4
> years. In that four years I came to find out a few things.
>
> 1. Ethanol is a superior fuel to 100LL.
> 2. Oil companies will do everything to keep it out of mainstream use
> 3. Ethanol has a natural octane of 113
> 4. Ethanol burns cooler, and will run smooth at 50 degrees past peak EGT
> 5. If you add water, you get a horsepower boost, AND you don?t have to
> worry about it damaging your engine
> 6. Ethanol reduces engine vibrations by 50%.
> 7. Ethanol doesn?t react with oil in the same manor as 100ll or mogas
> 8. Ethanol will eat aluminum and natural rubber. Easily combated by
> anodizing and using Teflon
> 9. If an engine is tuned to ethanol vs. 100LL, you get a significant
> horsepower boost with minimal GPH increase.
>
> This is all based on my personal experience working on our departments
> Pitts S2B, Cessna 152, Cessna 172, Velocity, Piper Aztec, and Max
> Performance Research aircraft prototype. We averaged a horsepower increase
> of roughly 30-35% increase with ethanol vs. avgas, with no changes to the
> mechanical tuning on the engine. To the point we had to order custom props
> for all our aircraft, due to engine overspeed with the standard propellers.
> (The Pitts S2B ran 300HP on 100LL and 350HP on ethanol).
>
> We also did water in fuel testing for the FAA while getting our Cessna?s
> STCs updated (yes, Dr. Schauck owns the STCs for 152s and 172s to be flown
> on 100% ethanol in utility category). We were able to add 10% water to the
> fuel tanks before reaching peak EGTs. Had we tuned the engine this
> percentage would have gone up.
>
> So why am I sharing; I plan on building the first KR that is designed to
> fly on ethanol. And foreseeing the usual arguments I figured I would head
> off most prior to having to repeat.
>
> So a Corvair with 100HP should obtain 130HP simply by tuning to run on the
> 113 Octane ethanol. But we shall see when we get to that part of my build.
>
> What are your thoughts on the matter?
>
> Sent from Mail for Windows 10
>
> ___
> 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> Fuselage sides vertical?

[Tony King]

Plus the wing is completely different

On 1 June 2016 at 12:27, Tinyauto--- via KRnet  wrote:

> RV6 not even close to a KR.  Hand a VW 2100cc engine on an RV and see  how
> it performs.
>
> Kevin Golden
> Streak Shadow .and others.
>
>
>
>
>
> In a message dated 5/31/2016 9:25:11 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
> krnet at list.krnet.org writes:
>
> I'm  waiting to see an all aluminum KR-2. Oh yeah, it's already out. The
> RV6. My  bad
> Dan
> Portland
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On May 31,  2016, at 6:47 PM, brian.kraut--- via KRnet
>   wrote:
> >
> > What happened to "build it to the plans" Virg?
> >
> >
> >  Original Message 
> > Subject: Re:  KR> Fuselage sides vertical?
> > From: "Virgil N. Salisbury via KRnet"  
> > Date: Tue, May 31, 2016 1:25 pm
> >  To: KRnet 
> > Cc: "Virgil N. Salisbury"  
> >
> > Vertical sides mean no banana  boat. Good deal, Virg
> >
> >> On 5/31/2016 3:01 PM, Gary via  KRnet wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> I am planning to widen the  KR2S fuselage 4" with widest point at the
> shoulders. Any known gotchas if I  also make the sides vertical instead of
> an
> inward taper at the bottom? Unable  to get to the archives for a day or
> two.
> >> Thanks
> >>
> >> Gary Wold
> >>
> >>  Original message  
> >> From: Global Solutions via KRnet  
> >> Date: 05/30/2016 7:49 PM  (GMT-06:00)
> >> To: KRnet 
> >> Cc:  Global Solutions 
> >> Subject: KR>  composite vacuum bagging?
> >>
> >> What do you consider the  best book on vacuum bagging setups for dyi?
> >>
> >>  ___
> >> 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
> >>
> >
> >
> >  ___
> > 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
>
>
> ___
> 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> Flight Test Progress

[Tony King]

"found the right leg interfering with left stick movement; removed my
wallet for a fix"

Your wallet must be fatter than mine :-)

Good detail in your reports.  Keep it up.

Cheers,

Tony

KR> C.G location, Engine centerline

[Tony King]

Does dropping the engine centreline create any issues with prop ground
clearance?

Cheers,

Tony

On 31 March 2016 at 11:13, Pete Klapp via KRnet 
wrote:

> KRNetters
> I am in the process of determining the cg on my project. In comparing cg
> location, RR plans show the 8" cg range with the fwd edge of the range
> starting 8" aft of the leading edge of the wing. Based on the profile of
> the 48" rib, the leading edge of the cg range is 2" fwd of the front face
> of the main spar. I have Diehl RAF - 48 skins along with inboard skins that
> Jeannette Rand also produced. With those, the leading edge of the wing is
> 11.5" fwd of the front spar face, an 1.5" fwd of RR plans. Should I move
> the cg envelope fwd by that 1.5" or use the cg range set by RR.
> Next question: Preliminary calculations show my empty cg is approx. an 1"
> fwd of the RR cg location. Knowing that any weight added, passengers, fuel,
> baggage, etc will fall push the flying cg aft, should I fabricate my engine
> mount using this calculated engine position?
> I have done calculations with pilot plus 1/2 fuel and it falls at 2" into
> the RR cg range, and pilot & passenger plus 3/4 fuel and cg falls within 6"
> preferred cg range, the later coming in right at the aft edge of the
> preferred range. I'm thinking that I would like set the engine such that
> with me and 1/2 fuel that the cg falls right at the fwd cg limit.
>
> Next question: The horizontal engine centerline with the temporary engine
> mount is 2.5" below the top of the upper longerons. I'd like to drop the
> centerline a little more, 1/2 to 3/4", for better clearance for engine
> cowling and cooling plenum. Anyone see a problem with that.
> All advise cheerfully accepted,
> Thanks in advance for any and all assistance.
> Pete Klapp
>
> ___
> 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> Wing Extensions

[Tony King]

There's published numbers and then there's reality.  If the published empty
weight, range and cruise numbers are anything to go by, the published stall
speed might be suspect.

Having said that, there are several KRs on the recreational register here
in Oz, and that requires a stall no greater than 45 kts (51.8 mph) in the
landing configuration.  So it can be done without getting too adventurous
with mods.

Cheers,

Tony

On 17 March 2016 at 13:50, Chris Prata via KRnet 
wrote:

> this is interesting. LSA specs say 51MPH max stall speed without using
> flaps.
> I looked up the specs, and the KR1 easily meets the stall speed specs at
> 45MPH stall. (so with fixed gear, modest power and and a climb prop, I will
> be all set to fly under LSA rule)
> The KR2 is published as 52 MPH stall. Thats only one MPH. Couldnt you get
> there with VG's?
> Also, I dont see flaps mentioned one way or the other on the KR2 perf
> spec. Maybe thats the catch?
>
> > To: krnet at list.krnet.org
> > Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 20:56:18 -0500
> > Subject: Re: KR> Wing Extensions
> > From: krnet at list.krnet.org
> > CC: ml at n56ml.com
> >
> >
> > Steve Goosic wrote:
> >
> >  >>Since my wings are already built
> > (RAF48), do I extend both wing spars or is it possible to add additional
> > foam to the existing wing end and shape to form? Also, how much further
> > do the wings need to be extended?<<
> >
> > See http://www.n56ml.com/900hour/ for how I extended my KR2S wings 14".
> >   Also, below is something I posted to KRnet at about the same
> > timeregarding the same question.  I fished this out of the archive, at
> > http://tugantek.com/archmailv2-kr/search.  There's plenty more on this
> > subject there as well, but below is a pretty good summary.  Bottom line
> > is that the plane has to be very light (like same KR2 gross weight) to
> > get away with adding only a few inches to each wing.
> >
> > Subject: Re: KR> longer wing panels, etc.
> > From: Mark Langford 
> > Date: Sat Jul 10 19:37:54 MDT 2010
> >
> > Tom Garner wrote:
> >
> > > My hope is that some young bright engineer will come up with a wing
> > design
> > > to make KR2-s comply with LSA requirements. Outer wing panels of
> > > course, not a total rebuild.
> >
> > That's not as difficult as it sounds. You almost don't need any math to
> get
> > there. If you believe the stall speed numbers published for the KR2,
> about
> > all you have to do is increase wing area by the same percentage you want
> to
> > drop the stall speed to get under LSA requirements. Of course your gross
> > weight may be higher, so you've got to do that twice. And if the
> published
> > numbers are optimistic, you might build in another fudge factor.
> >
> > And then there's just spending an evening doing homework by reading stuff
> > like John Roncz's ""Designing Your Homebuilt" from Feb 1990 Sport
> Aviation
> > magazine or "Sizing Your Wings", or something similar. His spreadsheets
> are
> > floating around on the web also, which make it even easier. Coefficient
> of
> > lift is given in info on one of the links from the AS504x webpage at
> > http://www.krnet.org/as504x/ . There are several variables involved in
> > upsizing the wings for YOUR airplane, so rather than have somebody do the
> > work for you, I'd recommend doing it yourself for your airplane.
> >
> > There's a basic equation the FAA might use to give your design a
> > "reasonable
> > test" for stall speed, and all you have to do is meet that (you'll find
> it
> > in the Roncz works). And I'd name the airplane something other than a KR
> > also, because the KR2 and KR2S already have "hard" stall speed numbers
> > published by the manufacturer, so to keep from muddying the water, call
> > your plane something other than a KR.
> >
> > But the bottom line is that you could almost guess that an extra few
> inches
> > longer than the Diehl wing would get you into LSA territory. You just
> > need to be able to whip out that calculation when the FAA guy asks for
> it.
> > But you might want to use the 18% AS5048 airfoil to get deeper and
> > therefore
> > stronger spars in the deal.
> >
> > And if the plane's already been registered as an experimental, it's too
> > late
> > to call it an LSA, although I believe it can still be flown as an LSA.
> The
> > other part of that is the max speed, so you'd need a small engine or a
> > fine-pitched prop to keep from exceeding it.
> >
> > Gotta get back to the hangar for another round with the vinyl ester fuel
> > tank...
> > _
> >
> > 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> Celebration!! Another KR-2 Has made its First Flight !!

[Tony King]

Congrats Rene.  Sounds like you've had quite a journey.  Well done.  Enjoy.

Cheers,

Tony

On 20 January 2016 at 08:33, Lawrence Ffrench via KRnet <
krnet at list.krnet.org> wrote:

> Hi KR Team,
>
> N44774,  a KR-2 retractable tail-dragger originally built by the great
> hands of Gary Garvin in New Hampshire took its First and Second Flights on
> Jan 17th at the Burnet, Texas Municipal Airport.  (the Second flight is
> important)...
>
> Gary originally finished it in 1986 but a balky 1835cc engine and family
> needs led to the sale.   It switched hands 4 times before becoming mine in
> July 2014.  I believe that at each change of owners, it suffered but Gary
> helped me get it back in shape and he coached me thru the work that I
> invested in it.
>
> I designed and built in a light belly-speed brake following some of your KR
> examples, added a second ignition - electronic from Great Plains, harness
> mods to the magneto from G3ignition (very good), 042 dual plug heads from
> Great Plains (after 2 fouled attempts from other suppliers), crafted my own
> dual port induction manifold using part of the single port manifold that
> Gary built, redid an antique revmaster carb (not finished here), added the
> nav/com, transponder, and ELT with 4 antennas inside the empannage (may not
> be done there) with a re-wire, installed David Witter's spare 52x46 prop
> (after my first one bit the 'dust'), added impromptu carb heat (after
> another owner removed the first one...), and re-sized Ebay stobe parts for
> top and bottom placement. (605 lbs empty-14.5 gal tank)
>
> After 3 flights last weekend totally 2.7 hours, it has a living log book.
> Perfectly balanced as built (every possible weight and balance condition
> was inside the conservative range). Very slick- level flight at 3000 agl
> full throttle at 2980 rpm was 155 mph with gear down (I need to work on the
> carb to get the top around 3400 and I know that the idle isn't right yet
> but I set it high at 1400 for the flights).  The engine loosened up and
> gained rpm after those flights.   I am very happy with the cooling in all
> areas, I am using Quaker State 10-30 DEFY semi-synthetic (API-SL) - not the
> same product by name as API-SN - both are on the shelves-- SL has high zinc
> & phosphorus, where SN doesn't. (API-SN is built to protect catalytic
> converters) also full synthetics can fail using LL100 fuel because
> synthetic oils are not compatible with leaded fuels- that why the
> semi-synthetic is good - especially since I set the compression ratio at
> 7.9 so unleaded 93 octane works well.
>
> Well I could chat forever, but I just wanted to say thanks to all of you
> for the archives and the active support from the KR Net.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Rene' Ffrench
> N44774 (flying now)
> Austin, Texas
> based at Spicewood airport
> 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> Wood For kRs

[Tony King]

I'm using hoop pine in my KR-2S.  It's 10% heavier than spruce but also 15%
stronger.  It was approved as a substitute for spruce and douglas fir
during WW2.  I think they built Mosquito bombers with it.

I buy first grade timber from a boat building supplier and cut it to size.
As John says, you lose a lot in sawdust and shavings and the odd reject,
but it's less costly than ordering the sizes from the plans.

I've used hoop pine marine ply on the fuselage too.  Hoop pine ply is
supposedly the best marine ply you can get - at least that's what the boat
builders claim.  Just a little hard to find in the smaller (thinner)
sizes.  It's great using something that's locally grown or manufactured
though.  Gives us Ozzies a taste of what builders in the US take for
granted :-)

TK

On 20 January 2016 at 05:54, John Martindale via KRnet  wrote:

> I actually imported a rough sawn piece of 8" x 2" spruce to Australia
> through a local lumber yard and cut it down and smoothed to size myself.
> Didn't take very long and worked out heaps cheaper. Had to work around a
> couple of faults in the core of the flitch however and have the results
> inspected. I reckon you lose about a third in sawdust and shavings.
>
> We can now use a local timber called Hoop Pine which seems similar to
> Douglas Fir in properties but it wasn't easily available when I started
> out. It is cheaper again. We also have a ply made from it.
>
> John Martindale
> 29 Jane Circuit
> Toormina NSW 2452
> Australia
>
> ph:61 2 6658 4767
> m:0403 432179
> email:john_martindale at bigpond.com
>
> -Original Message-
> From: KRnet [mailto:krnet-bounces at list.krnet.org] On Behalf Of dfeiger
> via KRnet
> Sent: Wednesday, 20 January 2016 2:40 AM
> To: krnet at list.krnet.org
> Cc: dfeiger
> Subject: KR> Woo For kRs
>
> Back in ?81 when I started my KR2 I thought $3.50 per lineal foot of
> aircraft grade Sitka Spruce was a little high so I went to the one and only
> lumber yard here in John Day and bought a clear edge grain board of
> Douglas-fir snip
>
>
>
> -
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2016.0.7294 / Virus Database: 4522/11439 - Release Date: 01/19/16
>
>
>
>
> ___
> 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> VW + Prop

[Tony King]

At 876 lbs empty I'd be looking for a bigger engine than a VW - especially at 
that altitude and with those temps.  Also, I'm pretty sure 3,000 rpm is a bit 
low - most of the VW guys seem to go for around 3,400 - 3,600.

TK

Sent from my iPad

> On 23 Dec 2015, at 6:36 PM, PIERRE via KRnet  wrote:
> 
> Hi Guys,
> 
> 
> 
> It feels as if I've hit a brick wall. I had a 48(pitch) X 52 prop on my KR2S
> (haven't flown yet). The max revs I got was 2,760rpm static.
> 
> 
> 
> I then bought a 45(pitch) X 54 prop to see if I can get to 3,000rpm, but I
> only got to 1,850rpm. Stripped the 2 Stromberg 175 cd carburetors and had
> them rebuilt - no difference. The main problem with these numbers is that I
> can only get to 65mph IAS and it takes 1,500 feet to get to that speed. The
> main reason for wanting 3,000rpm is that the vw max torque is at 3,000rpm
> and I think I will then jump to heigher rpm and thus more thrust and then
> higher speeds.. What am I missing?
> 
> 
> 
> The KR2S has got wing tanks and tri-cycle gear and is 4" wider in the cabin,
> weight is 876lbs empty, so she is a bit heavier that she should be. (I am
> 176lbs and 5ft 8in) My altitude is 5,500feet ASL and the temps we had is
> between 89 degrees and 108 degrees Fahrenheit. (32 degrees - 42 degrees
> centigrade)
> 
> 
> 
> Hope somebody can help!
> 
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Pierre
> 
> ___
> Search the KRnet Archives at http://tugantek.com/archmailv2-kr/search.
> To UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to KRnet-leave at list.krnet.org
> please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html
> see http://list.krnet.org/mailman/listinfo/krnet_list.krnet.org to change 
> options

KR> Lycoming O235c

[Tony King]

Pretty sure a lot of Corvair installations are in the same weight range too.

TK

On 18 November 2015 at 02:14, Nerobro via KRnet 
wrote:

> I was coming in to make a flippant, hopefully humorous comment regarding
> building a lawn dart due to nose weight.
>
> Turns out... A standard O-200 (something that has been hung on a KR. I
> think...) is 200-225lbs.  245 lbs isn't that much more.  Provided it
> doesn't cause a large gain in frontal area...  You might want to consider
> solid foam wings and balanced surfaces.  If you get my very fast drift.
> And you may also want short legs :-)
>
> On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 6:22 AM, Adam Tippin via KRnet <
> krnet at list.krnet.org
> > wrote:
>
> > o-235c weighs about 245 lbs. vw type IV weighs about 150 lbs.
> > The answer is? The standard kr2 is not designed to carry  that much
> weight
> > on the firewall.
> > This doesn?t mean you can?t beef up the Firewall, Fuselage-to-firewall
> > connections, and the
> > engine mounts to handle it.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Nov 16, 2015, at 8:54 PM, bjoenunley via KRnet <
> krnet at list.krnet.org>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Is a Lycoming O235c engine too big for a Standart KR2?
> > >
> > >
> > > Joe Nunley CW2 US Army RetiredBaker JROTC Instructor Baker Florida
> > > ___
> > > 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
> >
> ___
> 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> Lithium Batteries

[Tony King]

Lithium batteries make great starter batteries because they are capable of
much higher discharge rates than lead acid batteries for a given amount of
energy stored.  This one of the factors that enables users to install a
much lighter lithium battery than the lead acid equivalent - a 10AH lithium
battery might have the same cranking performance as a 20AH lead acid
battery.

Lithium batteries also have other characteristics that need to be
understood and accounted for in the electrical design.  For example, where
a lead acid battery has a fairly smooth discharge curve (in that the output
voltage decreases somewhat linearly as the battery discharges), the
discharge curve for the typical lithium battery has a very sharp drop off
once it discharges beyond a certain point.  One minute it'll be delivering
enough voltage and the next it won't.

This, combined with the smaller amp hours rating for a given cranking
performance (a lithium battery capable of cranking say an O-200 will have
less amp hours than a lead acid battery capable of cranking the same
engine), makes a lithium battery quite a different proposition as a backup
battery.

A further consideration is that lithium batteries are damaged by both
over-voltage and under-voltage.  A couple of incidents will illustrate.

A friend of mine installed a lithium battery in his Zenith CH200.  One day
when he went to fly he found the master had been left on and the battery
was flat.  He checked the aircraft throroughly and then hand propped it.
He confirmed everything was normal, the alternator was charging and then
took off.  15 minutes later (at 4,500ft) the cabin filled with acrid
fumes.  He was able to get the canopy open and perform a forced landing in
a field.  Analysis showed the lithium battery had been damaged by the
complete discharge and reacted badly to being recharged.  He was lucky.

Less fortunate was the pilot of a LSA seaplane where a lithium battery
caught fire in flight (less than an hour after it was installed) and melted
the epoxy/carbon fibre tailboom.  Research into this incident indicates an
issue with lithium batteries in electrical systems that use PWM (pulse
width modulation) voltage regulators (e.g. most Rotax and
automotive installations).

When exposed to voltages above about 14.6 volts lithium batteries start to
develop little crystals inside that can short circuit the cathode and
anode.  When enough of these build up the battery will experience a
catastrophic failure.

Alternators produce something like 22 volts peak.  This is rectified and
then 'regulated' (in a PWM system) by switching the voltage on and off to
produce a waveform that averages the required voltage - usually 13.8V, a
suitable voltage for charging a lead acid battery that's nominally 12V.

The problem is that while the waveform coming out of the regulator is
nominally 13.8V (and averaged over time actually is 13.8V), at any instant
in time it could be any voltage in the range from zero to the peak voltage
of the alternator (around 22V).  Whenever it's over 14.6V it'll be doing
damage if there's a lithium battery in the system.  Lead acid batteries
tolerate this method of regulation.  Lithium batteries much less so.  The
more damage (those little crystals) that accumulates the greater the
likelihood of a catastrophic failure.

In many cases people have used these batteries with no dramas - I had
one in my (Rotax powered) aircraft for 70 hours of incident free flying.
But that was before I knew what I know now.

Although these batteries are marketed as a drop in replacement for the lead
acid batteries that are standard in many recreational vehicles, the
differences can be significant - especially in an aircraft.  I'd now only
use a lithium battery if the charging system can never produce a
voltage higher than 14.6V.  And if the battery was ever fully discharged
(e.g. by leaving the master on) it'd be going in the disposal bin.

Cheers,

Tony

KR> KR Gathering

[Tony King]

Guys, is it really necessary/appropriate to be having this 'discussion' on
a public forum?

TK

On 11 September 2015 at 14:12, Flesner via KRnet 
wrote:

> At 09:31 PM 9/10/2015, you wrote:
>
>> Dan receive the funds in the same timeframe that I received it from you
>> last year. I didn't receive the funds or ask for them for that matter until
>> August of last year which is when the funds were actually needed to pay for
>> items so if Dan is saying otherwise then that's his deal and frankly I
>> really don't care.  Could I have sent them along sooner, probably so if I
>> would've done the final breakdown sooner.
>>
>
>
>
> ++
>
> I informed you early in the year that the funds were available any time
> you determined how much you needed.  You requested them on 7/12/2014 at
> 2:22PM.  I informed you two hours later (4:11PM) that the check would be in
> the mail that weekend or on Monday.  You could have had the funds in March
> if you had requested them.  It's my understanding that the same
> communications did not take place between you and Dan and that a check
> showed up just weeks before this years Gathering.  Waiting nearly a year to
> do a report of $4000 of Gathering funds and mailing the check (as stated
> above) , seems less than responsible.  I'm certainly not critical of you
> coming up a bit short, it happens year to year.  My primary concern was
> your lack of communication with the host of this years Gathering.  The
> situation created has the KR community jumping through hoops suggesting
> solutions to problems I really don't think the group has.  A bit of
> organizing and a healthy dose of responsibility is all that is needed, IMHO.
>
>
> I regret having to call you out on the handling and reporting of the
> Gathering funds but a more responsible approach on your part to that
> responsibility would have avoided it ever becoming an issue.   I had hoped
> that you would have handled the situation in a more mature manner,
> especially when communicating with a group you hope to do business with,
> but I have no control with that.  If I am wrong with any of the facts I
> have stated, please advise and I will publicly apologize to you and to the
> group.  Until then I stand by my post.
>
> Larry Flesner
>
>
>
> ___
> 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> Not pilots, but have a structural question for a KR2S

[Tony King]

That would help with UV degradation, but not with water ingress.

TK

On 8 September 2015 at 11:47, Virgil N. Salisbury via KRnet <
krnet at list.krnet.org> wrote:

> A paint job  every two years  would help, Virg
>
>
>
>

KR> KR Coverage in Oz Flight Safety Magazine

[Tony King]

http://www.flightsafetyaustralia.com/2015/09/into-the-woods/

KR> Not pilots, but have a structural question for a KR2S

[Tony King]

If you came up with a structure that had the aircraft still sitting on its
landing gear (or with brackets of some sort attached to the axles) you'd
have to expect it wouldn't do any damage to the aircraft.  An arrangement
that somehow attached to the upper landing gear mount points probably would
work OK as well, but would be much harder to implement without at least
minor (repairable) damage.

You could potentially hang it from the wing attach fittings and tailwheel
as well.  There's a gap between the outer wing panel and the centre section
(which may have a gap seal over it) where a cable could be attached.  The
front WAFs are probably pretty close to the centre of gravity though, so a
sandbag somewhere down the back might be a good idea in that case.

Also keep in mind that the composite construction doesn't age well if it's
situated outdoors.

Cheers,

Tony

On 7 September 2015 at 07:11, inquire via KRnet 
wrote:

>
>
>
> Hello to All,
>
> Per the subject line, we are not pilots, and until recently had no
> knowledge of this beautiful plane. We do however, have an appreciation for
> beautiful, cool design in anything. Don't know if our situation/question is
> unique for any of you or not.
>
> We have acquired, we were told,  a complete KR2S built by Kenneth
> Rand(no engine). We would love to display this piece of art and for it to
> attract attention to, and entry into, our artist's co-op in an historic
> district of McKinney, TX. We will do NO damage this plane in any display
> decision that we reach. We would like to display it as one would a model
> plane on a desk or shelf, and so that no one could sit or place their
> children on it.
> We would, of course, display a history of the plane to educate visitors.
> Our question is: are there structurally safe ways to mount this plane in
> that manner?
>
> Your response is eagerly awaited by us both,
> Stephen & Jeannette Teel,
> 1408 Marigold Drive
> 214-797-1729
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> 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> Fuel Capacity

[Tony King]

Mike,

I can't tell whether your tougue is firmly in your cheek there - I think it
must be.  I always understood bladder tanks were an alternative approach to
having fuel vents, since the tank expands and contracts according to the
volume of fuel remaining.

For me there's little correlation between fuel capacity/range and bladder
capacity (or other elements of in flight comfort).  I want extended range
(well beyond bladder capacity) so I can go somewhere interesting and come
home again without refuelling.  There are lots of places in Australia where
fuel's not so readily available as it seems to be in the US.

Cheers,

Tony

On 25 August 2015 at 06:20, Mike Stirewalt via KRnet 
wrote:

> There seems to be a lot of concern about having so much fuel capacity
> that the flight will be so lengthy that the pilot's bladder capacity will
> be exceeded.  Pilots & aircraft manufacturers solved this problem in the
> early days of aviation and I'm astonished that some members of the KR
> community are apparently oblivious of this aspect of aviation history.
> For situations where pilot or passenger bladder capacity is exceeded or
> about to be exceeded, there is a nifty thing called a "bladder tank".
> These tanks can be either permanently installed or temporarily installed.
>
>
> From Wikipedia:
>
> > "Many high-performance light aircraft, helicopters and some smaller
> turboprop aircraft use bladder tanks."
>
> Now you know!  You can buy them ready to go or we can build them
> ourselves.  Naturally we would want to build our own bladder tanks.
>
> I don't have one and must confess I've had to make occasional emergency
> descents to strange airports whose residents were startled to see my tiny
> plane appearing unexpectedly out of the blue at high speed only to
> disappear into the bushes.   Putting in a bladder tank has been on my
> to-do list since the beginning but it has so far not become enough of a
> critical issue to actually do it.
>
> 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> brs vs bean field option

[Tony King]

There is a KR on Oz with a BRS.  I haven't seen it up close, but it
belonged to Barry Kruyssen.  I know he had it for sale a while back.  Not
sure where it is now.

Take a look at http://www.athertonairport.com.au/kr2/

Cheers,

Tony

On 29 July 2015 at 02:12, Chris Prata via KRnet 
wrote:

> I live in the northeast (althouh may move west eventually) . we have much
> less emergency landing topography than almost anywhere else
>
> I wonder if anyone has installed a BRS system. they have those which are
> internal and flush (invisible)
>
> the downsides of course in a KR is the loss of cargo area, and adding
> weight behind the CG.  Although maybe it would be possible to address both
> issues with front deck installation... (where the fuel tank used to be in
> the original design)
>
> if nothing else, the peace of mind would seem worth it.
>
>
>
>
> ___
> 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> Secondary leads

[Tony King]

Hi Mike,

I'm intrigued that you determined the coil(s) might be getting weak with
age but decided to address the issue by buying low resistance leads rather
than replacing the coil(s).  What's the thinking there?

Cheers,

Tony

On 14 July 2015 at 15:07, Mike Stirewalt via KRnet 
wrote:

> Last part of May I wrote about an issue with a miss I was experiencing on
> my secondary ignition system.
>


> So, what to buy?  If my coils are possibly getting weak with age (like
> everything else in life), then I might want to buy leads with lower
> resistance than normal leads, something to make life a little easier on
> my aging coils.
>

KR> Gathering 2016

[Tony King]

I'd be keen to understand what killed Jeremy Monnett before I'd go there
(Aerovee Turbo).  The aircraft he was in was a test bed for this engine as
I understand it.

TK

On 3 July 2015 at 14:42, Chris Prata via KRnet  wrote:

> This oughtta fix that...
> http://www.sonexaircraft.com/research/aeroveeturbo.html
>
>
>
> > To: krnet at list.krnet.org
>
>
> My VW really struggled in the high altitude.
> >
> > Rob Schmitt
> >
>
> ___
> 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> 200 mph cruise KR2!

[Tony King]

The standard Jab configuration uses a Bing altitude compensating carb with
no mixture control.  I'm used to litres in this part of the world, but I
know the J160 (same engine) at my local club is documented as burning 18
litres per hour (4.7 US gal per hour) for flight planning purposes.  On
that basis 7 gph could be in the ballpark for takeoff power.

TK

On 22 June 2015 at 13:06, Mark Langford via KRnet 
wrote:

> Colin Hales wrote:
>
> >>My 75 hp 2.2 Jabiru Powered KR2 does 148 mph flat out burning shed loads
> of fuel. 7 Gallons an hour. <<
>
> Don't Jabirus have a mixture control?  Apparently not. My bone-stock KR2
> with a 75 hp VW 2180 burns 4.0 US gph (3.33 UK gph) at 148 mph, throttled
> back a bit to conserve fuel, turning 3150 rpm.  Whether you are talking US
> or UK gallons, the Jabiru appears to be wasting a lot of unburned fuel out
> the tailpipe.  Perhaps your KR2 is  draggier than mine, but double the fuel
> consumption at the same speed seems extreme. I'm talking true airspeed at
> lower medium (maybe 4500') altitudes.  You may be talking about some other
> kind of airspeed.
>
> 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> KR vs similar...

[Tony King]

Be careful buying a temporary ride while you build a KR2(S).  I did that
about 2 1/2 years ago.  Since then I've flown nearly 250 hours in the
'temporary' ride and spent less than 10 hours on the KR2S.  Admittedly
there have been other things in the way as well, but counting flight
planning, maintenance, travelling to and from the airfield, etc., there's
several hundred hours that could have gone into the KR2S.

Cheers,

Tony

On 18 June 2015 at 08:08, Chris Prata via KRnet 
wrote:

> I almost bought (and still might) a Teenie 2 as a temporary ride while I
> build a KR. It's kind of cute, simple, and cheap. About the same size as a
> KR with about the same power, yet substantially slower. I think the sonex
> performs well, just looks terrible like a Pontiac Aztec (my opinion and
> taste), while the KR is something I fell in love with its looks at first
> sight. Also, coming from a boat background, I can appreciate fiberglass
> construction.
> This would be my third attempt to construct a KR and while last time I had
> copies of most newsletters in a giant ring binder, these web resources have
> been invaluable to quickly learn about something.
>
>
> > To: krnet at list.krnet.org
> > Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 09:50:22 -0700
> > Subject: KR> KR builders/pilots around Lakeland
> > From: krnet at list.krnet.org
> > CC: laser147 at juno.com
> >
> >
> > > "The Sonex doesn't have the performance potential and frankly, it's a
> > bit homely."
> >
> > Isn't that the truth.  It "looks" like it makes a lot of aerodynamic
> > sense but it's a turd compared to a KR.  And I wouldn't put an AeroVee on
> > a lawnmower.
> >
> > Mike
> > KSEE
>
>
> ___
> 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

[Tony King]

Mike,

As I understand it, no one has been able to convince Jeanette Rand to allow
them to reproduce the plans for sale (and a number of good people have
tried), so all plans ultimately come from her, and inordinate delays have
always been part of the picture - long before nvaero became involved.  I
think nvaero had hopes of improving the situation, but it doesn't seem to
have turned out that way.

I acquired my plans before nvaero started up.  I chased Rand Robinson for
several months but never got a response.  In the end I came across an
unused set of plans from someone who had decided to build something
different.  Those seem to be pretty rare.  Less rare is the opportunity to
buy a partly completed project including plans.

So this is not a new problem.  And any solution must involve the owner of
the intellectual property.  Unless they're willing to address it nothing
will change.

Cheers,

Tony

On 17 June 2015 at 08:34, 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
> >
> >
> >  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
> >
> ___
> 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

[Tony King]

There'd have to be a limit to how far you can move the engine forward using
spacers.  I'd expect even at 2" spacers would be starting to be prone to a
bit of movement due to torsional forces and the like.  I'd be looking to
redo the engine mount if I needed to move the engine forward by more than
an inch or so.  Of course I say that having not yet experienced the joy of
fabricating an engine mount, so I could be completely misguided.

Cheers,

Tony

On 11 May 2015 at 06:22, jon kimmel via KRnet  wrote:

> Spacers work well.  If you still want to hang weights and you are opposed
> to lead, consider tungsten.  It is quite a bit denser than lead and doesn't
> have the environmental concerns.  A tungsten alloy that is available is
> called fansteel.
>
> https://sites.google.com/site/mykr2stretch/
> https://sites.google.com/site/mykr2stretch/parts-for-sale
> ___
> 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> 15 year life on Control Cable and fittings

[Tony King]

Why would corrosion in swaged stainless fittings be any different in Australia 
to anywhere else in the world?  It's just that CASA (Oz equivalent of FAA) has 
issued an AD when others apparently haven't.  

Of course it's well known that the 'ASA' in CASA stands for 'Against Small 
Aircraft', so it may not be as big a deal as they make out (just look at what 
they did recently in relation to Jabiru), but worth making your own assessment 
of your own situation.

TK

>I thought that this was an Australian problem ? Virg
>> ___
>> 

KR> 15 year life on Control Cable and fittings

[Tony King]

That's good to know Sid.  I've been scratching my head for a few weeks 
wondering if that AD applied to me.  Based on your info it doesn't.  Happy days!

Cheers,

Tony

Sent from my iPad

> On 3 Apr 2015, at 4:48 am, Sid Wood via KRnet  wrote:
> 
> All of the control cable fittings called out in the Australian AD are roll 
> crimped terminations.  The internal areas of the terminals that grip the 
> cable are not visible for corrosion inspection.  Nothing in the AD about 
> Nicopress or similar cable crimps.
> 
> Sid Wood
> Tri-gear KR-2 N6242
> Mechanicsville, MD, USA
> 
> 
> Hi guys
> CASA has released an AD in Australia limiting control cable life to 15
> years, this seem to include building time on some fittings.
> I have added the AD number and link below.
> Does this indicate the parts need a Date of Manufacture stamped on them from
> now on?
> 
> Phil Matheson
> 
> AD/GEN/87
> This Airworthiness Directive became effective on 1 February 2015 and will
> apply to all the amateur built
> aircraft fitted with the stated stainless steel cable hardware. Please read
> the AD carefully to determine
> how/if it applies to your aircraft. Mike Horneman has written an excellent
> article on this subject which will
> appear in the next Airsport edition.
> Although the AD mandates replacement based upon ?time in service?, the SAAA
> recommends that you
> consider the circumstances carefully if you project had a long gestation
> period. If not properly stored, the
> damaging corrosion can be still be occurring whilst your project is under
> construction.
> 
> http://www.casa.gov.au/ADFiles/airgen/gen/GEN-087.pdf
> 
> --
> 
> Time in service is for the cable assembly, not the individual pieces, and is 
> based off the aircraft manufacture date.  The clock starts after the aircraft 
> is signed off as airworthy, and repeats every 15 years. (technically).  If 
> you live on the coast and the project is taking 10 years to complete, 
> consideration of cable assembly deterioration must be taken into account.
> As an alternative, using MSG-3 methodology (maintenance program) will allow a 
> potential extension.  I don't see MSG-3 as an option for the KR builder. Darn.
> Roger Baalman
> rbaalman at cox.net
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> 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> Touchdown speed

[Tony King]

Hi Mike,

How would that help?  When landing an aircraft, surely the appropriate
reference for airspeed (apart from the feel of the aircraft in flight) is
the instruments fitted in the aircraft?  IAS is what you'll have in front
of you when landing.  As long as it's the ASI the aircraft was tested with,
and it hasn't changed much since it was tested, inaccuracy due to pitot
angle or other causes shouldn't matter.  It might be interesting to know
(from a comparison with GPS) that the ASI reads low or high or whatever,
but will it make landings any safer?

Cheers,

Tony


On 16 February 2015 at 15:10, Mike T via KRnet  wrote:

> All this talk about landing speeds makes me wonder whether everyone is
> using true airspeeds. At landing, IAS can be off by quite a bit because the
> pitot isn't parallel to the airstream. If you don't have a GPS, it would be
> worthwhile to try some landings (on a windless day) with a car GPS in the
> plane to see if the speed check out.
>
> Mike Taglieri
>

KR> Fuel injection - megasquirt

[Tony King]

Rotax has clearly decided EFI is the way to go.  But have you seen the
complexity of their implementation on the 912iS?  Running an EFI like
Megasquirt or SDS in an aircraft can and has been done, but it introduces a
lot of new failure modes that you need to understand and make a conscious
choice whether to address them or live with them.  And addressing them
equals time and (frequently) complexity.  That's fine if that's your thing,
and the results should be a smoother running and more economical engine.
But don't underestimate the effort required to get it working well and
reliably.

I'd love to put EFI on my KR2S when I get to setting up the engine.  But
I'd rather fly than tinker, so I probably won't.

Cheers,

Tony

On 29 January 2015 at 06:13, Chris Prata via KRnet 
wrote:

>
> I'm just throwing this out here to see if fuel injection as a way to move
> past carb issues, get more precise fueling and better performance is
> happening on KR's.
> Personally, I'm looking (hoping) to build a near-original KR1, and keep it
> as simple as possible (other than a possible retractable tri-gear,
> in-flight adjustable prop, belted redrive,  and turbocharger system, and
> full autopilot, LOL).
> Anyway, here is the megasquirt info:
> http://www.msextra.com/
>
> -Chris
>

KR> Motus/Viking engines

[Tony King]

As I understand it you can build the Aerovee (which only comes as a kit) with 
either 7:1 compression (for mogas) or 8:1 (for avgas).  The others I think are 
at least 8:1.

TK

Sent from my iPad

> On 23 Jan 2015, at 7:55 pm, Chris Prata via KRnet  
> wrote:
> 
> One confusing things is the differences between the three VW engine 
> suppliers. AeroVee seems to call for much lower octane (90) than the others 
> (96 ot AvGas). If I donty use the Jabiru, I'm leaning toward an aerovee 
> turbo, to normalize at altitude. When I flew my Avid over the Rockies, it got 
> a little anemic from the thin air. Takeoff runs were also surprisingly long 
> at high elev airports. A turbocharger fixes that and you get the double 
> benefit of the less resistance of thin air, plus the normalized power. 
> 

KR> Greetings

[Tony King]

Probably should have said "if you have to travel to a schedule..."

TK

On 22 January 2015 at 10:00, Jeff Scott via KRnet 
wrote:

>
>
> > If you have to travel you're better off using the
> > airlines, The KR is for fun.
>
> Wow.  I'm really bummed to read that.  Apparently I have been misusing my
> KR as I have had it to both coasts as well as the northern and southern
> boarders of the country just in the last 2 years.  :o)  I've rather kind of
> enjoyed traveling in my KR as, weather permitting, I can beat the airlines
> for time to roughly half of the country.  And now after 18 years of fun I
> find that it's not good for travel. :o(
>
> -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> KR-1 Corvair...

[Tony King]

I recall hearing of an O-320 on a KR, but I believe it crashed and killed
the pilot.  Not sure of the details or whether the engine was a factor.

TK

On 21 January 2015 at 11:43, ppaulvsk via KRnet 
wrote:

> I saw that someone put a turboprop on one. I don't know if it ever flew.
> Maybe someone does.
>
> Paul Visk
> Belleville Il
> 618-406-4705
>
>
> Sent on the new Sprint Network from my Samsung Galaxy S?4.
>
>  Original message From: bjoenunley via
> KRnet  Date:01/20/2015  8:32 PM
> (GMT-05:00) To: ppaulvsk via KRnet 
> Subject: Re: KR> KR-1 Corvair... 
> Paul said, Corvair on a KR1, WOW! That would be a lot of engine.
>
> Has anyone ever put more than an O-200 on a KR2?   Say an O-235 or so...
>
> Joe
>
> Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smartphone
>
>  Original message From: ppaulvsk via KRnet
>  Date:01/20/2015  5:23 PM  (GMT-06:00)
> To: John Edwards ,KRnet <
> krnet at list.krnet.org> Subject: Re: KR> KR-1 Corvair...
> 
> WOW! That would be a lot of engine
>
> Paul Visk
> Belleville Il
> 618-406-4705
>
>
> Sent on the new Sprint Network from my Samsung Galaxy S?4.
>
>  Original message From: John Edwards via
> KRnet  Date:01/20/2015  3:01 PM
> (GMT-05:00) To: krnet at list.krnet.org Subject: KR>
> KR-1 Corvair... 
> Does anyone know of a KR-1/Corvair that has flown?
>
> I have a KR-1/VW1835cc that I fly as my daily flyer.
>
> I am considering upgrading to a Corvair 3000cc since this is the
> lightest version in the Corvair line.
> Has anyone flown a KR-1/Corvair combo?
>
> John E
>
> ___
> 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
> ___
> 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> gear legs

[Tony King]

It's pretty simple. From memory I paid about 35 bucks plus delivery for a pair 
of Grumman gear legs.  If I'd found Deihl legs for a similar price I'd have 
been happy to use them.  Also not sure where to get Deihl gear from these days.

TK

Sent from my iPhone

> On 14 Dec 2014, at 9:23 pm, Dan Heath via KRnet  
> wrote:
> 
> I am really curious about the reason for these posts.  Why are not the Diehl
> legs the best for the KR?  I am sure I must have missed something along the
> way.  Or, is it just the overwhelming desire of KR builders to do it
> differently?
> 
> 
> 
> See N64KR at   http://KRBuilder.org - Then click on
> the pics 
> 
> 
> 
> 2015 KR Gathering - McMinnville, OR.  September 3 - 6 -- See U There.
> 
> 
> 
> Peoples Choice at 2013 - KR Gathering in Mt. Vernon, Il - MVN 
> 
> Best KR at 2013 - KR Gathering in Mt. Vernon, Il - MVN 
> 
> Best Interior at 2013 - KR Gathering in Mt. Vernon, Il - MVN 
> 
> Best Paint at 2013 - KR Gathering in Mt. Vernon, Il - MVN 
> 
> Best Firwwall Forward at 2013 - KR Gathering in Mt. Vernon, Il - MVN 
> 
> 
> 
> Best Interior and Panel at 2008 - KR Gathering in Mt. Vernon, Il - MVN
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel R. Heath - Lexington, SC
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> 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> LANDING GEAR LEGS

[Tony King]

Yep.  Just mark them out with a Sharpie, cut them on a sawbench and round
the edges with a router.  Once you've done that just follow the same steps
as for the 'standard' legs - i.e. wrap them with fibreglass, etc.

The Grumman legs are thicker than the 'standard' legs - by about 1/4" I
think.  I'm still thinking about whether to leave them thicker (to make
them a bit stiffer at the 600kg MTOW I'm aiming for) or plane them down to
the normal thickness.

Cheers,

Tony

On 10 December 2014 at 08:23, ol' weirdo via KRnet 
wrote:

> Has anyone cut down and used Grumman Yankee surplus landing gear legs for
> his/her KR2?
> And if you did, how did you do it?
>
> Bill Weir
> ___
> 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> Jabiru

[Tony King]

Just one correction - CASA has proposed the restrictions, they haven't
introduced them yet and hopefully they never will.  Just the proposal alone
has been damaging enough, and the way CASA has gone about addressing this
problem (if indeed there is a problem - which they've acknowledged they
don't actually know) is a classic example of a bureaucracy with too much
power and too little accountability.  Unlike the FAA, the promotion of
aviation is not part of CASA's charter.  Many people joke that CASA regards
only aircraft that never fly as being safe enough, but they could actually
implement such a policy (i.e. ground everything) without violating their
charter.

TK

On 30 November 2014 at 05:39, Mike Stirewalt via KRnet  wrote:

> Someone commented recently on the forum that CASA (Australian FAA) has
> limited Jabiru-powered aircraft to day VFR.  Most Jabiru powered planes
> are already used in that environment as trainers or light sport designs
> but for those who want to use their Jabiru-powered airplane as a normal
> airplane - tough luck if you live in Australia.  CASA's new restrictions
> include no carrying of passengers, no solo students, and no flying over
> populous areas.
>
> http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/newrules/download/spc-cd1425ss
> .pdf
>
> "Seems like the major problems are still the through bolts (rolled vs cut
> threads), valve guides and crankcase fretting."  (from pprune.org forum)
>
> Apparently rings & pistons & exhaust valves are frequent culprits with
> Jab engine failures.
>
> Paul Hanson with my local Chapter 14 finally sold his Wittman Tailwind
> with a Jab 3300 after continually having valve seats come out.  The buyer
> is putting in another, (different make) engine.
>
> It would be interesting to talk to Richard Shirley about his 3300.
>
> Many flight schools who use Jabirus run their engines, at least some of
> them, all the way to TBO.  And Colin has flown lots of miles with his
> 2200 so he would be another person with whom to discuss his thoughts on
> the subject.
>
> What is "crankcase fretting?"  I'm having trouble visualizing this but
> this is when the crankcase "swells" and squeezes the crankcase journals
> so tightly that the engine won't turn after shutdown until it has had a
> chance to cool.  Naturally something like this, besides causing
> horrendous bearing wear, eventually leads to a cracked crankcase.  It
> happens on some runs of the 4-stroke Rotax engine too I'm reading.
>
> Dealing with maintenance issues like these on both the Jabiru and Rotax
> are amazingly expensive for new parts.  Not even on the same planet VW
> and Corvair.
>
> Mike
> KSEE
> 
> What's your flood risk?
> Find flood maps, interactive tools, FAQs, and agents in your area.
> http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/547a213db80da213c2ed1st04vuc
> ___
> 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> cowl hinge mounting

[Tony King]

I have a Fisher FP202 Koala with hinge pins holding the upper cowl on (the
lower cowl is held on with screws).  They work great - takes about 10
seconds to get the cowl off for an engine check, and about the same to put
it back on.  One pin down each side and two much shorter ones across the
front.  They're about 20" long but they just slide in - no need for tools
or equipment.  Each pin has a right angle bend at the end to make a kind of
handle, which makes it much easier to slide the pins in.  There's also a
small stud (basically a screw head sticking out about 1/4") in teh lower
cowl that the right angle bits clip into to stop the pins from sliding in
flight.  It can be nasty if the pins slide out into the prop - and the cowl
coming off is not the worst bit.

Cheers,

Tony

On 26 November 2014 at 05:44, Chris Kinnaman via KRnet  wrote:

> I seem to recall an article in Sport Aviation many years ago about a
> Midget Mustang builder who attached the cheek cowls with piano hinges. When
> installing the wires, he would lube them with something which I have
> forgotten and spin them slowly with a drill while running them in,
> reporting no problem with that method. This was before powered
> screwdrivers. MM cheek cowls are pretty long but the curve is not too
> sharp, so, not sure if the drill technique would work here.
>
> Chris
>
> On 11/23/2014 8:52 PM, Mark Langford via KRnet wrote:
>
>> I found several photos detailing the hinge joint installation, and have
>> put them near the bottom of  http://www.n56ml.com/cowling.html. Looking
>> at the time stamps on the pictures, this process took me four hours from
>> start to finish to fasten the hinges to the top of the cowling (judging
>> from the photo timestamps).  It went somewhat faster on the bottom because
>> the location was predetermined. Something I've learned since then is to use
>> the narrowest hinges available to save weight.  They'll be fine...
>>
>>
>
> ___
> 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> cowl

[Tony King]

Mike you've missed your calling (unless you already are a comedian in your
day job)!!!

Cheers,

Tony



On 26 November 2014 at 05:04, Mike Stirewalt via KRnet  wrote:

> Jeff said,
> >
> > " . . . not many pilots are going to be willing to pull the hinge pins
> to
> > look at the engine regularly before flight."
> >
> > I don't think anybody does that anymore.
> >
> > Mike
> > KSEE
>
> Thank you Mike.  You make a great straight man.
>
> *
>
> What?  I was cereal!  How often do we examine our car/bike engines before
> we drive somewhere?
>
> Cereally, some engines are more touchy about (aboot if Canadian) this
> than others.  My GP 2180 is an easygoing German/Brazilian/American engine
> that doesn't mind being looked at a lot but some others can become
> resentful and interpret being checked before every flight as an
> indication that the pilot suspects they're not trustworthy.  I know it's
> not PC to label the various engines as all being this way or that way,
> but it's widely known that the engines from Austria (R), some models
> in particular, can get quite touchy. Also the J* from down under has
> a reputation for causing trouble when they think they are under
> suspicion.  I realize each engine is an individual and have their own
> personalities so I'm not stereotyping . . . just pointing out that some
> engines, especially the sometimes overly-sensitive immigrant ones, will
> behave better if they feel they are trusted and not given the third
> degree every time we go somewhere with them.
>
> Mike
> KSEE
>
> 
> What's your flood risk?
> Find flood maps, interactive tools, FAQs, and agents in your area.
> http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/5474d2f1608e652f16324st04vuc
>
> ___
> 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> "First" Flight Report

[Tony King]

Hi John,

Congrats on getting your KR into the air.  I'm interested that you're
operating from a 2,000 ft grass strip.  From other discussions on the forum
I've developed the impression that 2,000 ft would be a minimal strip for a
KR.  The reason I'm interested is that my own strip is about 650 metres
(close enough to 2,000 ft) and I've been wondering if I'll be able to
operate my KR from there.

Did you have any concerns about your KR operating from your strip?  Is it
the takeoff or the landing that uses the most real estate?  What are the
characteristics of your KR (engine, weight, flaps, etc.) that might affect
takeoff and landing performance?

Once again, congratulations.

Cheers,

Tony

On 8 November 2014 13:35, John Bouyea via KRnet 
wrote:

> Well, it finally came together for me. N5391M made its second flight this
> afternoon. I'm not counting the "other" first flight a few years ago
> because
> the landing wasn't so good. Anyway after 2 PIO excursions on takeoff, I had
> a pretty nice .9 hour ride from my 2000' grass strip OR81 to MMV, site of
> the 2015 KR Gathering. I had to do a go-around on my first approach but the
> second approach was reasonable and lead to a safe landing. I tucked it into
> a hanger and caught a ride home with Jerry Van Grunsven in his RV8A, 1 of
> my
> 2 chase planes. I now really understand Flesner's YeeHaws! I belted out 2
> of
> those and it sure added to the fun.
>
>
>
> Right now I want to digest a few things more fully before I post what I've
> learned. Until then, I want to express my deep gratitude to everyone on the
> list and especially, Mark Langford, Dan Heath and Oscar Zuniga  for their
> ongoing support for my efforts.
>
>
>
> John Bouyea
>
> N5391M/ KR2
>
> OR81/ Hillsboro, 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> KR2S supplement

[Tony King]

Well said Bob.

Steve, as Bob said, your efforts for the KR community are appreciated,
including by those of us who have not been customers.  I hope that even
though you're no longer planning to run Nvaero your wisdom and experience
will still be available to the KR community in some form.  I wish you well.

Cheers,

Tony

On 13 October 2014 03:24, Robert Miller via KRnet 
wrote:

> Steve,
>
> I don't know all the problems you have had with operation of nvaero and i
> fully understand your frustration with penurious customers wanting fast
> food service: their net messages are indicative of their expectations and
> lack of understanding how nvaero was evolving.  All too often customers are
> a pain in the ass - some cannot be grateful and pleased no matter how hard
> you try. Please don't let a few AHs destroy your dream.  As you know, there
> are a lot of good KR people out here who are appreciative of your efforts.
>
> You and Mark are the base of KR support and it will not take much for the
> kr community to collapse because of lack of direction.  Avoiding the
> problems of selling components may be a good thing - if it can make you a
> comfortable KR guru.
>
> Thank you for your service. Your efforts are appreciated. I hope all this
> works out well for you and all of us
> KR net heads - we need your inputs.
>
> bob miller
>
>
>
> On Oct 12, 2014, at 8:18 AM, Steve G. via KRnet wrote:
>
>  I told him the refund was no problem. Interestingly, he said he had kr2
>> plans so I recently told him he probably just needed the supplement. Now he
>> asks if someone would be so kind as to scan and provide the 2S drawings for
>> "review" he will be all set.
>>
>> It is in fact my goal to sell nothing so I can freely support all KR
>> builders and provide them with all our technical info.  Then you all can
>> build all our components.  I'm done with it. I quit.  Current orders will
>> be filled then doors are closed. Good luck!
>>
>> Steve Glover
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone 6
>>
>>  On Oct 11, 2014, at 19:48, Mark Langford via KRnet 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Gary Wold wrote:
>>>
>>> After more than 2 months of waiting for the plans and a couple notes
>>> from Nvaero saying my order was going to sent I came to the conclusion that
>>> Nvaero is for whatever reason not interested in doing business with me. I
>>> requested they cancel my order and refund the price paid. Guess I'll find
>>> something else to build.Please go back to the archive (URL is listed at the
>>> bottom of every KRnet email) and search for nvAero, and you'll find this
>>> same thread from about two months ago.  KR plans delivery is not something
>>> Steve has control over.   I assure you if he could get them to you, he
>>> would have done it long ago...
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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> Tri-gear main wheel location

[Tony King]

I've been thinking on this as well.  I suppose one could leave them the
full inch thick but make them narrower (i.e. not as wide) if they were too
stiff.  Leaving them longer (which I also plan to do) will offset some of
the stiffness, and additional stiffness will probably be a good thing given
the higher gross weight KRs seem to be built to these days (mine will be
600kg/1320 lbs).

I don't know enough about the engineering of springs to make an informed
decision here, so the experience of others will be welcome.

Cheers,

Tony

On 9 October 2014 14:43, Phillip Matheson via KRnet 
wrote:

> Thansk Sid.
> I got the same legs, but thinking of leaving the same thickness but using
> the full length of the Grumman blanks for prop clearance on my tail wheel.
>
> Just waiting on some cast brackets from Steve so I can finished them off.
>
> Do think the Grumman leg thickness would be too much?
> Mark L commented on  leaving them as is as they are longer, Any finished
> and flying these legs care to comment??
>
> Phil Matheson.  Australia
>
>
> --
> Update on moving the main wheels on my KR-2:
> Removed the main gear fiberglass struts.  These are supposed to be used for
> a tail dragger version.  Obtained Scotch ply Grumman Cougar blanks from
> Fletch Air.
> ___
> 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> Flaps vs Bellyboard

[Tony King]

Except that flaps generally increase lift as well as drag.  As I understand
it a belly board only increases drag.

TK

On 16 September 2014 05:19, Mike Stirewalt via KRnet 
wrote:

> I think the bellyboard could technically be considered a "split flap".
>

KR> rudder pedals

[Tony King]

My builders guide shows the rudder pedals as bent tube rather than welded.
 Has anyone built them this way?  What are the pros and cons?

TK

KR> Larry's IN, and Joe's enroute!

[Tony King]

Envy :-)

TK


On 4 September 2014 04:41, Mark Langford via KRnet 
wrote:

> Although Colin Hales kicked off the journey to the Gathering in Chino, Joe
> Horton is now enroute to my place, and the two of us will meet up with
> Larry Flesner tomorrow at our first fuel stop, H35.  After that, it's on to
> Jeff Scott's place in Las Alamos for the night, where we'll join up with
> Jeff, Terry Chizek and Rob Schmitt for the flight into Chino on Friday.
>
> N891JF is running great, and I borrowed a Stratus ADS-B to get weather and
> traffic on the iPhone.  One half-hour flight with the ADS-B and I'm sold!
> Looking forward to the adventure...
>
> Mark Langford
> ML at N56ML.com
> website at http://www.N56ML.com
> 
>
> ___
> Search the KRnet Archives at http://tugantek.com/archmailv2-kr/search.
> To UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to KRnet-leave at list.krnet.org
> please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html
> see http://list.krnet.org/mailman/listinfo/krnet_list.krnet.org to change
> options
>

KR> lawyers

[Tony King]

Except that Kurt said "attorney general" rather than "attorney" - in other
words a query to the government, not a law suit.  In most Australian states
it's called either the Department of Fair Trading or Consumer Affairs.  Not
sure what it's called in the US.

Essentially Kurt's question was "can I trust this business (NVAero) or
should I start pursuing a complaint".  Now we all know that Steve's
business ethics are exemplary, but for someone new to the community is this
really an unreasonable question?

TK



On 1 September 2014 03:13, Oscar Zuniga via KRnet 
wrote:

> I can certainly relate to Steve's response from NVAero after hearing
> mention of attorneys.

KR> Nvaero

[Tony King]

You know that's all well and good, and I'm certainly hoping Steve's still 
willing to do what he does when the time comes that I need some of his 
products, but at the same time, if someone new to the community asks an 
inappropriate question (and to my mind Kyle's question wasn't entirely out of 
order - three weeks is a long time to go without even an acknowledgment, 
especially if you don't know the business you're dealing with), is it really 
appropriate to be saying "we don't want you building a KR"?  Steve's obviously 
under a lot of pressure to be responding to customers in that way.

Kyle, don't take this experience as representative of how members of the KR 
community are normally welcomed.

TK

Sent from my iPad

On 30 Aug 2014, at 5:18 am, Marc Baca via KRnet  wrote:

Hello KR Netters;

I feel compelled to step in here to give KR Netters some insight into the 
Herculean efforts consistently endeavored upon by Steve Glover of NVAero over 
the last few months   Aside from his arduous labor intensive company and 
primary business that he owns and runs, he operates NVAero as a service to the 
KR Community. I say "service to the KR community" because given the efforts to 
fulfill orders, overhead and cost of materials, there is little or no profit in 
it.  


I (volunteer) assist him on a part time basis in exchange for him imparting 
onto me the skills necessary to build safe aircraft. I get to witness the 
trials and tribulations of getting orders filled for buyers.  As if running one 
and a half businesses, providing technical support to builders and running 
around gathering materials/tools for kit/part orders  and building the parts 
was not enough, he/we took on the task of preparing for and hosting the 2014 KR 
Gathering.  mostly because of his/our enthusiam for KR's.

Steve has overcome quite a few obstacles in preparation for the gathering and 
has done so in an effort to make this gathering successful, memorable and 
comfortable for all of us.  He has planned and coordinated the workshops that 
required extensive amounts of time, effort and material gathering to increase 
KR builder's skill level. He battled with the airport administration for the 
camp ground, he coordinated the awards and the site for the banquet, he sampled 
caterers, we have worked on available KR aircraft to prepare tem for the 
formation flight around So. Cal. etc etc..   Based on the intensity and amount 
of work he has gone through over the last few months, Steve has been quite 
modest ... and as such he hasn't complained even once about leaving his regular 
jobs at the end of the work day to tend to  Hangar and Gathering demands til 
11:00 pm almost every day for the last few months.   


Im proposing that we cut him a break and perhaps offer to lend a hand... If 
you've placed an order please consider just having a little more patience for 
the moment.  If you are not planning to come to the gathering, please 
re-consider & make an effort to attend.   This KR Gathering is expected to be 
memorable and we would be elated to have you here. At the few gatherings I've 
been to I've experienced a strong sense of comradery and enthusiasm as well as 
a very important sharing of information about building.  If you can fly in or 
drag a KR to show or sell, that would be better.  


I use Kayak.com for good deals on airline tickets.  

Below are a couple of short video about past gatherings.

https://vimeo.com/50813916

https://vimeo.com/50812971

Marc Baca
East Los Angeles
N13UG   KR-2

N31SB KR-1



On Friday, August 29, 2014 10:57 AM, Steve G. via KRnet  wrote:



You know. I don't think we want you as a builder. I will be refunding you money 
and be canceling your order. 

Steve Glover

Sent from my iPhone

> On Aug 29, 2014, at 10:51, Kyle Gonterwitz via KRnet  list.krnet.org> wrote:
> 
> I ordered KR2s plans from nvaero about three weeks ago, paid, and have
> heard nothing back yet.  My order status is "waiting to be fulfilled".
> 
> Please advise if this was the appropriate way to obtain official plans and
> if this is a  trustworthy company.  How long should I expect to wait for a
> response or order fulfillment before I contact my attorney general?
> 
> Kyle
> ___
> 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
___
Search the KRnet Archives 

KR> John Denver

[Tony King]

Long Eze - with the fuel selector behind the left shoulder rather than on
the panel.

TK


On 28 August 2014 09:15, peter via KRnet  wrote:

> Larry; I just hated that disaster...what was he flying? I've been diving
> in Monterey Bay and come across a piper that went in on final. Peter
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> 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> KR2 plans required

[Tony King]

Yes

Sent from my iPad

On 13 Aug 2014, at 6:14 pm, "Hennie van Rooyen \[HQP Alloystream\] via KRnet" 
 wrote:

Hi again,

Found this link in the meantime:

http://www.nvaero.com/products/Rand-KR%252d2-Plans-and-Builders-Manual.html

Would this the recommended place to get it from?

Hennie van Rooyen



-Original Message-
From: KRnet [mailto:krnet-bounces at list.krnet.org] On Behalf Of Hennie van 
Rooyen [HQP Alloystream] via KRnet
Sent: 13 August 2014 09:35 AM
To: KRnet
Subject: KR> KR2 plans required

Hi everyone,

I purchased a semi completed KR2S without any plans. In order to register it, I 
need a new set of plans with a serial number. Can anyone give me a direct link 
to the best place I should purchase plans for it. I am from South Africa.

Kind regards,

Hennie van Rooyen


This e-mail is confidential and is for the addressee only. 
Please refer to http://www.exxaro.com/content/main/disclaimer.asp for important 
disclaimers.


___
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


This e-mail is confidential and is for the addressee only. 
Please refer to http://www.exxaro.com/content/main/disclaimer.asp for important 
disclaimers.


___
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> Plans and Serial Number

[Tony King]

My plans have at least 10 -15 sheets and the builders guide is about 100 pages. 
 The serial no is a document included with genuine plans.  Note that the plans 
are licensed (not sold) and entitle the purchaser to build one aircraft only.

TK

Sent from my iPad

On 9 Aug 2014, at 12:57 pm, Neville Sutton via KRnet  
wrote:

I have contacted a fellow that has a halve built KR2 for sale

And he is will to sell me just the plans and builders manual
After a lot of messages on Face Book I have discovered he only has 2 sheets 
(blueprints as he called them) and cannot find a serial number
He also has some form of step by step manual (not sure if its for a KR-2)
He has sent me a photo of unrelated books as part of what he is selling 
thinking they where for the KR-2

How many of these Blueprints?? should there be and where would some form of a 
serial rego number be


___
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> Kit Plans

[Tony King]

Hi Neville,

Best to talk with Steve at NVaero about what comes in a kit.  My
understanding is that the plans and builders manual are sold as a unit -
with or without a kit.  It certainly is possible to buy just the plans
(which include the manual) and build from scratch.  If you decide to do
that (or if you buy a kit) there is heaps of excellent info available from
the websites of various builders.

>From memory the width at the shoulders is about 38" (it might even be less,
I haven't checked what the plans say for a long time).  Most people regard
this as insufficient and widening the fuselage by several inches and moving
the widest point back to where your shoulders will be is probably the most
common modification apart from ditching the original retractable landing
gear for fixed gear.

Cheers,

Tony


On 1 August 2014 11:52, Neville Sutton via KRnet 
wrote:

> Are the plans included in  a kit or just the builders manual
>
> If so Is  the plans and the  builders manual the same for a kit and for
> scratch build (can I scratch build a KR from the plans supplied with a kit)
>
> I know someone trying to sell a half built kit
> Postage for me would be a killer so just wondering if the plans would be
> suitable
>
> Also are you able to tell me the shoulder width of the KR2s cockpit
>
> ___
> 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?"

[Tony King]

Be very careful with any kind of lithium batteries, including LiFePO4, in
aircraft.  I had a Ballistic EVO2 LiFePO4 battery in my aircraft for about
80 hours with no issues, but I have now removed it after the second of two
significant incidents (one fatal) in Australia caused by LiFePO4 batteries.
 I just didn't want to be worrying about it while in the air - especially
since the battery is directly under the seat in my aircraft.

It's true LiFePO4 is a lot safer than LiPo batteries, but their technical
requirements, discharge characteristics and failure modes are quite
different to lead acid batteries and not well understood by most aircraft
owners.  They do not like being heavily discharged and over-voltage during
charging is a definite no no.  Typical solid state regulators use pulse
width modulation to achieve a well regulated average voltage, but the
voltage of the pulses is whatever the alternator puts out - which can be as
high as 22 volts, well above the 14.6V limit of LiFePO4 batteries.

These batteries are being marketed as direct replacements for lead acid and
it's true that for their weight they make great starter batteries.  But the
marketing doesn't address the differences with lead acid in any way and the
potential for a fire or the discharge of toxic gases (e.g. hydrogen
flouride) exceeds my comfort level in an aircraft, although I'd use one in
a car or motorbike or the like without hesitation.

Another aspect that doesn't seem to be well understood is that while a lead
acid battery shows a gradual drop in voltage as it's discharged, lithium
batteries will hold close to the nominal voltage until quite deep in the
discharge cycle and then the voltage will drop very steeply to below useful
levels.  This has implications in the event of alternator failure if you're
counting on the battery to run the panel or the ignition.  By the time a
drop in voltage is noticed, there's very little time left.

You might notice too that the marketing for lithium batteries tends to
focus on the cold cranking amps of lithium compared with lead acid and on
that basis lithium batteries look great.  But the actual amount of energy
stored in the battery is a lot lower (typically around a third) than a lead
acid battery of equivalent cca performance.  This means the lithium battery
won't be able to run a given load (say a glass panel or a radio stack or an
electronic ignition) for as long as a lead acid battery with equivalent
starting performance.

On the surface these batteries are a great development, but the marketing
that says they're a drop in replacement for lead acid batteries is
misleading.  There are several factors that need to be well understood if
you're planning to put one in an aircraft.

Cheers,

Tony


On 16 July 2014 02:08, brian.kraut--- via KRnet 
wrote:

> Lithium Iron Phosphate batteries are the way to go with aircraft.  They
> have near the capacity to weight and size ratio as Lithim Ion and and
> Lithium Polymer, but they are many times safer.  There is a ton of
> information on them on the web a Google search away.  The biggest
> drawback to most of the Lithium varieties after getting over the safety
> factor is that the cells really need to be balance charged correctly.
> EarthX now has batteries that have all of the complicated charging
> electronics built in the battery.  I got one for my avionics backup for
> the Mustang 2.  I have enough capacity in just 1.3 pounds to fly IFR
> until my fuel tank runs dry if I loose my primary battery and
> alternator.  EFIS automatically switches with its built in two power
> source configuration and I have off/main/backup switches for my nav and
> com radios and my EIS engine monitor.  Probably will add the backup
> position switch to my transponder at some point also.
>
> I highly recommend EarthX and many years from now when my PC680 main
> starting battery goes I will replace it with a 2-3 pound EarthX.
>
> http://earthxmotorsports.com/
>
>
>
>  Original Message 
> Subject: Re: KR> "Engine-driven alternator?"
> From: Jeff Scott via KRnet 
> Date: Tue, July 15, 2014 7:52 am
> To: krnet 
>
> If your plan is to operate a Mode-S with ES transponder, or a UAT Out
> along with Mode C transponder to comply with the 2020 mandate, along
> with a low wattage Comm radio, I would suggest that your lightest option
> would be a light weight solar charger and either a Lithium Ion or
> Lithium Polymer battery pack. The solar charged LiPo combination gives
> you a lot of useful time with the avionics necessary to fly in your area
> without a huge weight penalty.
>
> Caveat: The Lithium Ion and especially the Lithium Polymer batteries can
> be a fire danger if discharged too rapidly (heavy loads like a starter)
> or in a crash scenario if they are punctured. However, when I was
> working in the UAV/Drone world we used Lithium Polymer batteries
> exclusively and had some very high G impact crashes. The only damage we
> ever saw with the Li-Po 

KR> [CorvAircraft] KR Webinar

[Tony King]

It was a good presentation Mark.  Well done.  And thanks once again for your 
contribution to the KR community.

Cheers,

Tony

Sent from my iPad

On 10 Jul 2014, at 8:51 pm, Mark Langford via CorvAircraft  wrote:

Phil Matheson wrote:

> Great talk, thanks very much.

I started out a bit rattled because when Timm transferred control to me, a 
control panel showed up and obscured the presentation, so I floundered around a 
minute or two before I finally got it to close.  Of course most people probably 
thought I was hallucinating or something. I should have opened Larry's Amber 
Bock first and I wouldn't have been as flustered. It's funny though...I was 
worried about having enough water and that kind of thing, but once I started 
talking KRs and engines and realized I was going to have to fly through the 
thing to keep it to an hour, I never thought about water or anything else but 
how many slides needed to be covered and how little time I had left (I was 
supposed to keep it to an hour).
I've spent the last several nights annotating a hard copy of the presentation 
for all the comments I wanted to add to each slide, but once I passed the 
second slide and realized I'd killed 7 minutes on two slides that I thought 
were "one minute" slides, I stuck to the presentation and put it in high 
gearthere were almost 60 slides altogether. Unfortunately, that left a lot 
of the last week's "fine-tuning" comments unsaid! I'll fix that by editing the 
PowerPoint with smaller text and try to cover everything, then post it on 
www.krnet.org.

I was out riding my bike this morning (yes, at 4AM), and replaying what I said 
last night, and for some inexplicable reason I said the Corvair was "worth the 
extra hundred pounds of weight", which is completely insane.  If anybody knows 
the difference in a VW and a Corvair weight, ready for flight, it's me, and 
it's about 60 pounds.  I'll fix that in the "amended" version of the 
presentation, however, and add that comment to the EAA's comment section for 
that webinar.  That was really dumb of me and a disservice to the Corvair 
community.

The best thing about this presentation is that it'll be on EAA's website for 
years as a KR "siren" to those who want to fly fast and efficiently, in a 
unique work of art that they created with their own hands.   Let's get back to 
work on these projects...

Mark Langford
ML at N56ML.com
website at http://www.N56ML.com



_
search the CorvAircraft archives at http://tugantek.com/archmailv2-cvr/search.
To change your list options, visit 
http://list.corvaircraft.org/mailman/options/corvaircraft_list.corvaircraft.org
Other CorvAircraft list info is at the top of http://www.corvaircraft.org

KR> landing gear legs and brackets

[Tony King]

Hi Larry,

Thanks for that comprehensive overview.  It was very helpful.

Cheers,

Tony


On 3 July 2014 07:21, Flesner via KRnet  wrote:

>
>
>
>  > Could someone tell me the angle of the Diehl main gear brakets? I
>> intend to make my own. I also remember a post  regarding composite legs
>> that some of you had used. Any idea if they might still be available ? ps
>> at what position are the mounting brackets attached to the main spar?
>> Thanks Mark
>>
> 
> 
>
>> You can find the fiberglass legs on eBay. Aviation parts/ Grumman tiger
>> undrilled. Contact me direct and ill sen you photos of my setup with PDFs
>> of drawings. I'm also using the legs cut down for the front gear.
>> Dprich01 at comcast.net
>>
> 
> +++
>
> The Diehl upper brackets are mounted to the spar with the leg angled at 45
> degrees.  The lower bracket is also 45 degrees.  If you want to increase
>  the camber a bit I'd suggest you modify the lower fitting a bit to the
> angle you want.  I went with 45 / 45 and it has worked out well for me.
>  The Grumman gear legs are made of the same material as the Diehl legs but
> are slightly thicker and wider.  You will have to modify them a bit to get
> similar results, i.e., cut a bit narrower or run through a planner to
> modify the thickness.  Some builders make upper gear brackets using 1/8"
> steel plate. I added about 1/8" of fiberglass to my 30 inch legs for a bit
> more stiffness.  If you use the Grumman legs with more than 24" length I'd
> suggest leaving them a bit thicker than the 24" Diehl leg.  With my 24"
> fuselage stretch I needed longer legs to get the correct 3 point stance.
>
>   https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/32133949/IMG_8669.JPG
>
>  I made my lower brackets using a piece of 2"X6"X1/4" 4130 steel plate.  I
> cut through the plate at center going about 3/4 of the way through the
> metal.  I bent the plate at the cut to 45 degrees with the cut on the
> outside.  I had a gusset welled to the inside and had the cut welded shut
> and then sanded the weld to a nice radius.  I think the Diehl lower bracket
> is 2 1/2 inches wide.  http://myplace.frontier.com/~flesner/21.jpg
>
> Diehl instructions say to mount the upper brackets next to the fuselage.
>  I moved my brackets outboard 4 to 6 inches on each side for a slightly
> wider gear stance.  That and 30 inch legs instead of the Diehl 24 inch legs
> give me a nice 8 foot wide gear track.
>
> There is much discussion about  "toe-in, toe-out".  I set my track at zero
> / zero and love the ground handling and I get zero tire side ware. I also
> run a slightly lower tire pressure (25 pounds) than some and my tires seem
> to last forever.  On an annual once I found them both to have deflated to
> 15 pounds each.  They still looked and  performed perfectly normal although
> I'd not recommend running them below the 25 pound range if possible or
> unusual side loads might cause a problem.  Keep the aircraft aligned with
> the direction of travel when on the ground and that won't be an issue. :-)
>  500+ hours and still wearing the KR grin
>
> Larry Flesner
>
>
>
> ___
> 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> Real numbers for KR's

[Tony King]

Rob,

Are those numbers on grass or pavement?  Is your landing distance from when
the wheels touch the ground, from 50ft or some other height?

Cheers,

Tony


On 23 June 2014 22:32, Robert7721 via KRnet  wrote:

> I use about 800 ft to take off.  Rotate at 60 mph, level out in ground
> effect till I reach 80 mph and then climb out. Hot days with 2 people it is
> going to be 1000 plus.
>
>
> Landing is about 1500 realistically. I have landed on 2000 ft runways.  I
> bet if I had a belly board and better brakes I could get her down to 1000
> ft. One benefit of trigear is you can land her and stand on the brakes to
> slow you down without ruining a propeller.
>
>
> My stall is +-50 mph, but I certainly don't push my approach speed to less
> than 70.
>
> Rob Schmitt
> N1852Z KR2S
> www.robert7721.com
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Flesner via KRnet 
> To: KRnet 
> Sent: Mon, Jun 23, 2014 6:47 am
> Subject: KR> Real numbers for KR's
>
>
> At 06:55 PM 6/22/2014, you wrote:
> >Take off distance   350 ft.
> >Landing distance900 ft.
> >Stall Speed 52 mph
> >Anyone ever see these numbers?
> >John Bouyea
> +++
>
> Yes, on a spec sheet one time.  But in fairness, we have to remember
> Ken's KR only weighed 480 pounds.  Most of ours come in 50% or more
> heavier than that.
>
> I shot some awesome video yesterday in the KR.  Now if I can figure
> how to get it on youtube.
>
> Larry Flesner
>
>
> ___
> 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> can someone reply to this test post

[Tony King]

ok


On 3 May 2014 10:28,  wrote:

> I don't think my emails are getting posted because I'm  not getting an
> email of my post I just made.  But I can see them in  the archives.
>
> 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> Two up?

[Tony King]

To answer your core question, I'm building mine about 4" wider than plans
(KR2 and KR2S are the same width on the plans) and I've moved the widest
point back to where the pilot's shoulders are.  I understand Ken Rand
wasn't a real big fella, so two of him probably would have been OK.  Two of
me (6 ft 105kg) not so much.

TK


On 10 April 2014 14:48, Hennie van Rooyen [HQP Alloystream] <
Hennie.vanRooyen at exxaro.com> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I've asked all South African KR2 owners if anyone flies his KR2 regularly
> with two up and the short answer I received was NO! I find this hard to
> believe and would like the opinion of other KR2 flyers all over the world
> on this so that I can share with those in South Africa.
>
> Please be so kind as to give me your thoughts and feedback on this - Is
> the KR2 a two place machine? If not and you were to build one again with
> this in mind, what would you change to make it so.
>
> Tx for any feedback,
>
> Henni,
> South Africa
>
>
> This e-mail is confidential and is for the addressee only.
> Please refer to http://www.exxaro.com/content/main/disclaimer.asp
> for important disclaimers.
> ___
> 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 up?

[Tony King]

Is the KR2 a two place machine is a different question to 'how often do you
fly two up'.  If the rest of the world is anything like Oz, between 80% and
90% of recreational flights are solo, regardless of the type of aircraft.

TK


On 10 April 2014 14:48, Hennie van Rooyen [HQP Alloystream] <
Hennie.vanRooyen at exxaro.com> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I've asked all South African KR2 owners if anyone flies his KR2 regularly
> with two up and the short answer I received was NO! I find this hard to
> believe and would like the opinion of other KR2 flyers all over the world
> on this so that I can share with those in South Africa.
>
> Please be so kind as to give me your thoughts and feedback on this - Is
> the KR2 a two place machine? If not and you were to build one again with
> this in mind, what would you change to make it so.
>
> Tx for any feedback,
>
> Henni,
> South Africa
>
>
> This e-mail is confidential and is for the addressee only.
> Please refer to http://www.exxaro.com/content/main/disclaimer.asp
> for important disclaimers.
> ___
> 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> Super2

[Tony King]

Hi Neville,

It is possible to get a KR2(S) onto the RA-Aus register in Oz - there are a
few there already.  Keep in mind that the requirement is for stall of 45kts
at MTOW in the landing configuration (and presumably at sea level on a
standard day - 15C 1013 hPa).  There are mods (e.g. bigger flaps, longer
wings, winglets, VGs, etc.) that can help meet the stall criteria.  Making
it as light as possible would help too.

As to why the KRSuper2?  You'd have to ask those involved, but I think the
fully composite design and the slight scaling up from the 'standard'
KR2 might be factors.  As far as I know you're right that none have yet
flown, but that doesn't necessarily mean the whole thing is a bad idea.
Whether one or the other is right for you, only you can say.

Cheers,

Tony

On 31 March 2014 11:42, Neville Sutton  wrote:

> On 24/03/2014 5:56 PM, Neville Sutton wrote:
>
>> Whats he difference between KR2s and the KRSuper2
>>
> Thanks all for replying
> But my Question is more to the point WHY
> While looking to plans build the KRs2 in Australia with the problem it may
> not be able to be registered under Australian Recrational licences (stall
> speed just a tad High)
> I came across the KR super 2  Thought my dreams had come true (Fits into
> the RA-AUS recreational specs for rego)
> Found the plans Free online WOW Bonus
> But why are they free i am very skeptical
> Further investigations relieves this plane has never been flight tested
> Are these free (open Source) plans just someones thoughts or are they real
> I really don't want to spend my time and money on something I cannot get
> in the air
>
> Also are the downloadable  plans and manual complete
> And has anyone downloaded the complete Plans and manual and converted into
> PDF format that could be emailed
>
> ___
> 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> WING SKIN

[Tony King]

Thanks Larry.  That's what I've been doing and I'm sure you're right.  But
the familiar (wood and aluminum) is still a temptation.

TK

On 5 March 2014 11:48, Larry Flesner  wrote:

> Someone famous once said " the only thing we have to fear is fear itself".
>  And so it goes with fiberglass.  The only thing you have to fear is
> developing an allergy to the resin.
>
> Larry Flesner
>
>
>
>
> ___
> 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> WING SKIN

[Tony King]

Thanks Adam.  My concern with fibreglass is not the strength of the
resulting structure but my ability to achieve a high quality finish in a
reasonable timeframe and with a reasonable amount of effort using
fibreglass as opposed to alternative materials.  I'm confident I can
achieve a good finish with wood, aluminum or fabric, but since I've never
tried fibreglass I don't have the same confidence.

Access to an EAA (or any other) class is a bit tricky in Oz - there aren't
many and if you're not in a city you're out of luck.  Easiest way here is
to learn from other builders.  Nearest one I know of (that's not building
an RV) is about 70 miles away.  That's why KRNet is so valuable to guys
like me.

Cheers,

Tony

On 5 March 2014 11:11, Adam Tippin  wrote:

> Tony please allow me to put your mind at ease.
> I went through A school and in that class we had a composite section.
> We all built individual composition wing sections. 12"x18" ( no vacuum
> bagging ).
> I can assure you that ( like every school) there were a few less than
> desirable students.
> During this section even they excelled.
> To prove the point we took the worst specimen and asked Tiny if he would be
> so kind as to stress test it for us. We all gather around and knew it would
> crush.
> Mind you, that we used plain jane  Styrofoam ( like the coffee cup stuff).
> It held up to Tiny ( one foot all 365 lbs). Then he jumped on it trying to
> crush it. The student received his first 100%.
> Also there are a lot of comp classes you can sign up for through EAA .
>  ___
> 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

[Tony King]

Mike,

My advice would be to pick the app (or apps) that suit your flying and the
question of iPad vs Android will probably answer itself.  It's not about
the brand of the hardware, it's about the information the app can provide.

Personally I use an iPad, but that's because of one particular app
(OzRunways) and the fact there's nothing on Android that compares (in
Australia at least).  While the iPad was a lot more costly than an
equivalent Android tablet, the savings in charts and other documentation
(which I no longer need because the data comes with the app) paid for the
iPad in about a year.

Cheers,

Tony

On 23 February 2014 17:36, Mike T  wrote:

> 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
> ___
> 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> Fuel Tanks.

[Tony King]

Polyethylene tanks are common in ultralights.

TK

On 19 February 2014 04:52, Wayne Tokarz  wrote:

> Let's put this one to rest, In all the world of motor sports and vehicles,
> only ONE plastic is used to make fuel tanks and gas cans, polyethylene,
> period. Without any technical backing to this, other than a life time of
> observation, and owning an assortment of vehicles. I only know of 3
> materials used to contain fuel in the aviation world, (must be a reason for
> it), metal, (either aluminum or steel), rubber, (bladders), vinyl-ester
> resins in composite tanks. Pretty sure I'll get corrected on this one! LOL.
> There is only so much we can do to our little planes, but with fuel
> problems
> being the no.1 cause of small plane crashes and home builts in particular,
> I
> sure as heck would not want to be statistic, so I would be very
> conservative
> in my fuel system/tank design.
>
> Rant of the day, LOL
> Wayne
>
> -Original Message-
> From: KRnet [mailto:krnet-bounces at list.krnet.org] On Behalf Of jon kimmel
> Sent: February-18-14 10:54 AM
> To: KRnet
> Subject: Re: KR> Fuel Tanks.
>
> I recently questioned why there was a difference between pvc pipe and pvc
> fence posts...i looked at a site called weatherables.comtheir vinyl
> fence posts are definitely pvc.  I e-mailed them and asked why there might
> be a difference and they didn't know.  I thought that the difference might
> be in the manufacturing process...maybe there's more porosity in the pipe.
>
> https://sites.google.com/site/mykr2stretch/
> https://sites.google.com/site/mykr2stretch/parts-for-sale
> ___
> 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> Building the Wing Off the Plane?

[Tony King]

On 7 February 2014 00:31, Dj Merrill  wrote:

> The prop rule is interesting, too.  LSA specs say you can have a ground
> adjustable prop, but not one that can be adjusted in the air.  Can you
> put an electrically adjustable prop on an LSA aircraft and placard the
> panel switch "Adjust prop pitch only on ground"?  :-)
>
>
In Oz recently a bunch of LSAs with in flight adjustable props were
grounded because the LSA rules didn't allow for an in-flight adjustable
prop.  Turns out the reason was because the LSAs were manufacturer
certified against the ASTM standards (LSA manufacturers can decide which
standards they self certify to - most choose ASTM), and there was no ASTM
standard for in flight adjustable props.  Therefore fitting such a prop was
inconsistent with the standards against which the aircraft was
certified and that in turn invalidated the aircraft's Special Certificate
of Airworthiness.

Rather than take this lying down (and retro-fit fixed or ground adjustable
props) one of the LSA importers decided to approach ASTM to develop a
standard for in flight adjustable props.  A number of manufacturers backed
him up and that standard was ratified at Oshkosh last year.  So now
inflight adjustable props can be used on LSAs, so long as the manufacturer
says it's OK (just like any other change to a factory built LSA).  At least
that's the situation in Oz.

Cheers,

Tony

KR> Pressure testing my wing tanks

[Tony King]

On 31 January 2014 10:37, The Leonards  wrote:

> Gents
> Use a balloon attached to one of the inlets/outlets of you tank.
>
I did the balloon thing on a tank I built recently.  It was a riveted
aluminum tank with lots of pro-seal.  Put the balloon on the vent, put the
air hose on the outlet, inflated the balloon, closed the outlet valve and
left it.  The balloon stayed up.  After about 4 hours I decided that was
good enough and let the air out.

2 days later I decided I wanted to make a dipstick for the tank so I set
the tank at the orientation it would be in the parked aircraft and started
filling it with water from a measuring jug.  I got less than 4 litres in
before water started leaking out.  By the time the tank was full (about 32
litres) I had significant leaks from about a dozen spots.  All this from a
tank that 2 days earlier tested as airtight.

Any suggestions?

Cheers,

Tony

KR> Pressure testing my wing tanks

[Tony King]

On 31 January 2014 10:02, Larry Flesner  wrote:

>
> Gas molecules are smaller than water molecules.
>
> ++
>
> Not sure that's true.  An oxygen atom with two attached hydrogen atoms
(i.e. a water molecule) is not any bigger than two oxygen atoms joined
together (the normal form of oxygen in the atmosphere) or two nitrogen
atoms joined together (the normal form of nitrogen in the atmosphere) or a
carbon with two oxygens (carbon dioxide).

The reason gas leaks when water doesn't (and why fuel flows through a
filter funnel when water doesn't) more likely has to do with the fact that
water molecules tend to stick together due to intermolecular forces that
are much stronger for water than they are for oxygen or nitrogen or carbon
dioxide or fuel.

TK



> ___
> 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> plywood floor

[Tony King]

Woh, now there's something I missed.  In all my perusing of the plans and
the build guide I hadn't noticed the floor extending back past the main
spar.  I'm at the point of fitting my centre section spars so I'm glad this
came up.  KRNet saves the day - again!

Cheers,

Tony

On 13 January 2014 11:52, Mark Langford  wrote:

> Do you mean 5/8" crossmember?  And the 3/32" plywood shouldn't just end
> there, it should be scarfed to another piece or two so that there's a
> continuous floor all the way to the tail.  Ideally I'd run the ply wood
> full length until it ends way back behind the cabin, then scarf on more to
> finish it, but I'm not sure that the plans differentiate that.
>
> Floor installation is prior to spar installation.  Most of us would
> shudder at the thought of stepping on the floor anyway...I'm not sure you
> CAN stand up on the floor.  We enter, stand on the seat, drop ourselves
> down, and don't put much force on the floor...
>
> Mark Langford
> ML at N56ML.com
> website at http://www.N56ML.com 
> 
>
> ___
> Search the KRnet Archives at http://tugantek.com/archmailv2-kr/search.
> To UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to KRnet-leave at list.krnet.org
> please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html
> see http://list.krnet.org/mailman/listinfo/krnet_list.krnet.org to change
> options
>

KR> FAR Prop clearance

[Tony King]

The key here is the attitude of the aircraft.  With the plane level, yes,
9" is 9" regardless of the size or shape of the airframe.  But I think the
previous writer was talking about how that clearance is affected by the
attitude of the aircraft.  He also seems to be thinking the clearance is
measured with the tailwheel on the ground - which I don't think is the
correct way to measure prop clearance, even though most of the time the
plane is on the ground the tailwheel is also on the ground.

When I was learning to fly in a taildragger it used to always worry me that
the prop might hit the ground if I pushed the stick forward too much during
the takeoff roll.  One day during the pre-flight inspection the instructor
picked up the tail and showed me how high it would have to be before the
prop would hit the ground.  I never worried about it after that.

Cheers,

Tony
On 7 January 2014 02:01, Larry Flesner  wrote:

> At 08:59 AM 1/6/2014, you wrote:
>
>> 9" on a Citabria or Cub is not the same as 9" on a KR or other smaller
>> plane.  When  you have a larger plane with the prop many feet in front
>> of the gear you don't need to get the tail up to a very high angle
>> before that 9" turns into zero as you do with a shorter plane with the
>> prop not as far in front of the gear.
>>
> +++
>
> I would agree that there are a number of homebuilts that don't have the
> recommended prop clearance.  I would , however, respectfully disagree with
> the above statement.
>
> 9 inches is 9 inches in any type of airplane, nose wheel or tail dragger,
> on the ground in a level attitude.  The SINGLE variable in prop clearance
> is the length of the landing gear, not the length of the airframe.  Marty
> Roberts had an 0-200 swinging a 60" prop on a plans built KR2 with the 24"
> Diehl gear legs and had maybe 4 inches of prop clearance if he was lucky.
>  My KR, same setup, prop size, etc., is stretched 24 inches and I have 9+
> inches of clearance.  The difference is that I'm using 30 inch gear legs
> (cut to 29 inches during fitting).
>
> The Corsair swung a GIANT size prop.  Problem was they couldn't make the
> gear long enough for ground clearance and remain strong enough to support
> the aircraft in landing.  Their solution, raise the fuselage by angling the
> wing down to the gear which enabled them to use a shorter gear length.
>
> So, regardless of the length of your airframe, build your gear to give you
> the prop clearance you want, whatever that happens to be.
>
> Larry Flesner
>
>
>
> ___
> 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> Year progress update

[Tony King]

Nice work Stef.  I'll be interested to see your progress with the BMW - the 
R1200 is on my list of possible engines.  Good luck.

Cheers,

Tony

Sent from my iPad

On 28 Dec 2013, at 3:24 am, "stefkr2 at kpnmail.nl"  
wrote:

Hi KR friends.
I can tell you all that I am happy with the progress of this year. We made the 
wheel fairings inclusive the attaching brackets. Made the lower stabilo 
fairings, Sended en painted the lower side of the KR( fuselage, stubs and 
stabilizer)  Made the pitot tubes and the tubes for the fuel vent. And just 
finished the wing extensions with the wing tips. In the mean time I am bussy 
with one of the KR guys (No names)  to get an approval for the engine. We 
planned a 110 HP engine. Hopefully it is gonne be the BMW R1200GS. So also 
bussy with the prop, in flight adjustable or not, ect ect. Next year we planned 
to get the wings finished (spayed and balanced)  so the are at the right 
weight. Finish the interior so we can do an weight an balance, and  Yes??..than 
we can start with the engine. This week I did a major update at our website so 
have a look over there. If you have any doubt or questions?.let me know.
Last thing to tell you is have a good new years party, and a happy 2014!
Stef and his Dad Ted
--
Stef and Ted are building the KR-2S see   
http://www.masttotaalconcept.nl/kr2


___
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> KR2S LSA

[Tony King]

It's one thing to make a KR meet the LSA weight and performance specs.  As
I understand it, it's quite another to make it an actual LSA since that
requires the manufacturer to certify (and demonstrate I believe) that it
meets certain engineering standards - usually ASTM.

Is this thread about the former or the latter?  If the former, why would
you want to limit the performance?

Cheers,

Tony

KR> Reason For Questions

[Tony King]

Hi Neville,

There's no perfect aircraft, sadly.  I'm in a similar position to you - can't 
put down a big wad of cash for a kit.  I have heard talk of a folding wing mod 
for the KR but never seen any details.  I'd proceed on the basis that the KR 
needs to live at an airport, not in the garage.  KR plans aren't metric, but 
don't let that stop you.

KRs can be built within the limits for RA-Aus registration, biggest challenge 
will be to get the stall speed (at max weight in the landing configuration) 
down to 45kts.  It's been done (more than once), and as far as I know without 
straying very far from the plans.

If you find a plane that ticks all your boxes, please let me know.

Cheers,

Tony

Sent from my iPad

On 1 Dec 2013, at 11:50 am, Neville Sutton  wrote:

The reason for the previous questions

I'm trying to decide on a plans build

I'm in Australia (not that is relevant)

I'm limited to

1/Limited funds SO I would need to buy materials as I could afford them (so a 
kit is out of the question)
2/Plans would preferably be in Metric
3/Two seater (Cannot see the point in a build just for myself to enjoy)
4/Preferably transportable (removable, Folding wings) (cannot see the point of 
forking out hanger Parking fees when I live so close to local airfield)
5/Most important Must fall into the Australian Ultralight category

Have found a few Planes that tick most of the boxes but not all

Have I found what I am looking for in the KR-2

___
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> Few Questions

[Tony King]

Hi Neville,

There are several KR2S variants under construction in Oz.  I'm in Qld, but 
there are some closer to you - e.g. Phil Matheson at Finley NSW.

Yes, you can build a KR2S from scratch from the plans, although there are some 
websites in the KR community that will make the journey a lot easier, for 
example by helping you avoid mistakes others have learned from.  

Everything you need can be fabricated by anyone with the right skills and only 
fairly basic equipment.  Sourcing materials in Oz is not quite as easy as in 
the US, but plenty of people have done it.

The wings can be removed, but it depends what you mean by easy.  It's not a 
viable option for taking the plane home after each time you go flying if that's 
what you're thinking.

Best place to start to get a feel for the whole thing is Mark Langford's site 
and Darren Crompton's site (both are linked from KRNet).  Darren was building 
in Melbourne but sold his project a while back.  Not sure where it is now.

Hope that helps.  Welcome aboard.

Cheers,

Tony

Sent from my iPad

On 1 Dec 2013, at 8:40 am, Neville Sutton  wrote:

New to the forum and have a few simple questions

Can the KR-2s be completely scratch built from the plans provided (i.e. no need 
to buy components)

How easy it it to remove the wings on the KR-2s and whats involved

Anyone in  Australia (preferable Vic)currently building or flying a KR2s

Regards
Nev

___
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> Wing attachment fittings

[Tony King]

Don't forget the rear spar WAFs

TK


On 22 October 2013 14:39, Adam Tippin  wrote:

> I'm slightly confused. If they are 11 each and there are 16, that's only
> 176. Or was that a typo. Because $100 for shipping is a bit excessive.
> On Oct 21, 2013 11:38 PM, "Dan Prichard"  wrote:
>
> > The laser cutting shop I used made an extra set of forward spar fittings.
> > They charged me about $11 each x 16. If you're needing some or a complete
> > set ($270.00) let me know. I will put you in touch.
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> > ___
> > 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> KR and pilot

[Tony King]

Seems a member of the KR community was lost yesterday in Oz.  Anyone know Ben 
Dumbrell from Tumut NSW?  Sympathies to his loved ones.

Tony

Sent from my iPhone

KR> Stopping distance

[Tony King]

> For those with flying KRs, how much distance would you estimate it takes to 
> stop your KR on grass from the point at which you start to flare.  I'm trying 
> to work out how far back from the threshold I need to knock the trees down 
> (on a neighbouring property) to ensure I can stop before the fence at the 
> other end of the strip I'm building.  
> 
> The strip itself is about 650 metres (bit over 2,100 ft) but the trees are 
> only 50 metres or so from one end.  The other end is clear and I'm assuming 
> 2,100 ft is enough if I cross the threshold at fence height (please tell me 
> if that's too bold an assumption), but I'd like to be able to land from 
> either end.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Tony
> 
> Sent from my iPhone

KR> 3D printing KR airframe molds

[Tony King]

> The materials used for 3d printing is expensive,

Agree.  Very cool toy (3d printer), but dollars (not cents) per cubic inch for 
materials.  Plus, 3d printers capable of making full size KR components/moulds 
are very costly too.

TK

Sent from my iPad

KR> Aileron cable rigging with tricycle gear

[Tony King]

Yeah, that's probably true.  They also might have a bit more slop than
regular cables.  But since there are well known aircraft using them
apparently quite successfully, these obviously aren't showstopper issues.

TK

On 19 March 2013 08:32,  wrote:

> I have always heard they have more friction than cables.

KR> Aileron cable rigging with tricycle gear

[Tony King]

I don't understand why morse/teleflex/push-pull cables aren't more common
in aircraft.  I know Jabiru use them, and I've seen them in some other
aicraft.  I'm planning to use them on my KR.  No doubt they're a bit
heavier than regular cables, but by the time you include the fittings and
brackets you don't need (e.g. every time a regular cable goes round a
bend), and the shorter cable length, the weight difference probably is
minimal.  Not sure the cost would be significantly different either by the
time you include all the brackets, pulleys, etc. for regular cables.  It's
not like they're unproven and it seems to me the time saving during
build would be significant, which is why I don't understand why they're not
more popular.

Cheers,

Tony

On 19 March 2013 07:56, Clayton  wrote:

> Has anyone used morse cables? (I think that is what they are called) like
> the ones used on boats? They bend easy and don't need pulleys. If you have
> a
> fold up wing, no need to even unhook them.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: KRnet [mailto:krnet-bounces at list.krnet.org] On Behalf Of jon kimmel
> Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 8:03 AM
> To: KRnet
> Subject: KR> Aileron cable rigging with tricycle gear
>
> Just wondering if anyone has tried this idea...the diehl tricycle
> installation forces you to reroute the aileron cable...and most folks
> install a long bracket so they can install a pulley midway from front to
> rear spar outboard of the landing gear mount.  Why not install a pulley to
> the front spar inboard of the mount and another pulley to the rear spar
> just
> forward of the aileron bellcrank?
>
> https://sites.google.com/site/mykr2stretch/
> ___
> 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> Reading related to Cranks and flywheels

[Tony King]

Running a type 4 VW with a direct drive prop at the 'right' end (from a car
perspective) is considered by many (and proven by some) to be a recipe for
disaster, however that's considered the correct end for a PSRU.  So to
answer the question, the aircraft equivalent of the auto transmission (in
terms of its effect on dampening pulses) probably is the PSRU.

Cheers,

Tony King
Queensland Australia


On 28 December 2011 06:48, Barrett <barret...@comcast.net> wrote:

> Good article. The L-98 Corvette engine (and LT-1) when coupled to the
> 6-speed tranny also use a dual mass flywheel, for exactly that same reason.
> When switched to an aluminum flywheel- same results. Another thing too-
> when
> the clutch disc with spring dampeners are changed to one without the
> springs, same thing happens, just takes a bit longer. The Corvettes with
> auto tranny's don't have this problem as the transmission acts as the
> buffer
> (shock & harmonics absorber).
> In our case, I'm sure the problem can be fixed by finding and fixing the
> dynamics of the problem rather than the use of just brute strength (heavier
> crankshaft).
>
> With all else being equal, do planes with constant speed props have the
> same
> problem?
> (grasping at straws here- what would our equivalence be to the auto tranny
> vs. manual gearbox)
> Rubber mounted prop huh??
> Self balancing prop huh??
> More mass in the prop hub??
> 2-blade vs. 3-blade prop??
>
> -Barrett
>
> -Original Message-
> From: krnet-boun...@mylist.net [mailto:krnet-boun...@mylist.net] On Behalf
> Of Glenn Martin
> Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2011 1:25 PM
> To: KRnet
> Subject: KR> Reading related to Cranks and flywheels
>
> Might be helpful:
>
> http://www.flat6innovations.com/broken-crank
> --
> Glenn Martin,
> KR2 N1333A,
> Biloxi, MS
>
> ___
> Search the KRnet Archives at http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp
> to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to krnet-le...@mylist.net
> please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html
>
>
> ___
> Search the KRnet Archives at http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp
> to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to krnet-le...@mylist.net
> please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html
>

KR> Fwd: Cranks and flywheels

[Tony King]

What does the damage (as I understand it) is not the rotational forces but
the bending force the propeller imposes along the axis of the crank.  These
bending loads are practically non existent in an automotive application and
I'm not sure a flywheel of any weight would make much difference.

The problem arises from fact that the centre of lift of each propeller
blade is quite a way off the axis of the crank.  Averaged over time the
'lift' (perhaps more commonly called thrust) generated by each blade is
close enough to the same, but at any instant, the lift generated by each
blade is not the same as the other blades (due the angle of the propeller
to the airstream - which is not always a right angle, imperfections, slight
differences between blades, etc.), resulting in a force that imposes a
bending load on the crank.

Based on the experiences of those who've been there, it seems the big fifth
bearing now being implemented by Corvair builders moderates but doesn't
completely eliminate the effect of the crank bending forces imposed by the
prop.  Having dismissed the flywheel at the start of my email, it's just
occurred to me that a flywheel at the prop end might help reduce the
bending force by way of the gyroscopic effect of the flywheel acting
against the bending force of the prop.

Sadly I don't have the theoretical background to work out whether a
flywheel of tolerable weight and dimensions could make a useful
contribution.  Any takers?

Cheers,

Tony King
Queensland Australia


> On a theoretical note: Isn't the flywheel meant to store the energy
> imparted to the crank between the power pulses? And if that is the case,
> doesn't a lighter flywheel tend to cause the torsion differential
> between the pulses on the crank to increase versus a heavier flywheel
> which will tend to store the energy longer. This is comparable to what a
> filter circuit does in electronics. If I reduce the capacity of a
> filter, then the ripple voltage will increase, especially under heavy
> loads. Perhaps  a heavier flywheel should be considered, especially in
> an engine which is being increased in its power output. I'd be
> interested in hearing the science on this.
>
>

KR> REALLY DUMB CRANK QUESTION

[Tony King]

Hi Barrett,

One significant factor, regardless of which end it's being driven from, is
that the torsional loads imposed on the crank in an automotive application
are vastly smaller than those imposed by a propellor spinning at 3000 rpm.
 I know there is plenty of experience in the VW world as to the pros and
cons of driving the prop from one end or the other.  I suspect the same
factors would apply to Corvairs, except probably more so due to the longer
crank.

They're clearly getting better, but Corvair engines are still very much at
the experimental end of the spectrum - with a capital E!  For some people
the experimentation is why they do it.  Fortunately for me, some of the
benefits of the Corvair (parts availability, low cost, etc.) don't apply in
Oz since they were never sold here, so I'm not tempted to follow that path.

Cheers,

Tony King
Queensland Australia

On 27 December 2011 11:28, Barrett <barret...@comcast.net> wrote:

> Ever since I have given real thought to using a Corvair engine in my
> project
> and looking thru everything about them that I can find, I've had one really
> burning question that I have WANTED to ask, and haven't. In light of Mark's
> 3rd engine failure, I just HAVE to ask this question now-
>
> Q:-Why is everyone attaching the prop to the wrong end of the engine? The
> engine was obviously meant to "drive" the transmission (in the car) from
> the
> other end. The crankshaft was designed to impart it's forces towards the
> back of the engine, not the front. The crankshaft was designed to run a few
> rather light accessories on the front, but the real work is out the read of
> the engine.
> Q:-Has anyone used the other end to power a prop?
> Q:-Are we trying to go "in" thru the "out" door?
>
> I guess it was fate or whatever, but as soon as I made my post today about
> having picked up my two Corvair engines today, then Mark posted about his
> third broken crank. I had been looking closely at using an O-235 engine
> instead, but after listening to all the pro's and con's, I passed on the
> O-235 engines and someone else got them. Had I known about Mark's engine 2
> weeks ago, I might have had the 0-235 engines instead of the Corvair
> engines.
>
> Marks point about maybe getting someone to manufacture a crank for the
> 'Vair
> engine is a good and valid one, and I think is one that should be looked
> into. On the other hand- IF SOMEONE developed an adapter to run the prop
> from the other end of the crank, wouldn't this be essentially the same
> thing?
>
> OK-OKI will admit to being "new" to the use of a Corvair engine in a
> plane and new to the list. I'm sure this topic has already come up at least
> once before, but may I ask to be humored on this topic and bring it up for
> a
> discussion? I mean all of our lives depend on this, so it seems it would be
> a viable topic?? Oh yeahI am "new" to Corvair engines in aircraft, but
> I
> have a WHOLE LOT of experience in building (high powered supercharged)
> Corvette engines, so I'm not an engine dynamics dummy.
>
> -Barrett
> (Shields raised and awaiting incoming fire! :-)
>
> +++
> I've got a flying story for you, but I'm not sure if it'll be
> inspirational!
>
> If nothing else though, it shows how lots of deadstick landing practice
> (and
>
> prior experience) can pay off .  See http://www.n56ml.com/corvair/break3/
> for the details.  My apologies in advance for the disconcerting content.
>  No
>
> condolences required...I'm over it.
>
> Again, my apologies to the Corvair Community...
>
> Mark Langford
> ML at N56ML.com
> website at http://www.N56ML.com
>
>
> ___
> Search the KRnet Archives at http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp
> to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to krnet-le...@mylist.net
> please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html
>

KR> flying stories ?

[Tony King]

Glad to hear you're OK Mark.  I'm sure I won't be the only one watching
with interest to see what your next experimental is like - and what ideas
we can incorporate into our own projects.

Cheers,

Tony King
Queensland Australia

I've got a flying story for you, but I'm not sure if it'll be inspirational!
> If nothing else though, it shows how lots of deadstick landing practice
> (and
> prior experience) can pay off .  See http://www.n56ml.com/corvair/break3/
> for the details.  My apologies in advance for the disconcerting content.
>  No
> condolences required...I'm over it.
>
> Again, my apologies to the Corvair Community...
>
> Mark Langford
> ML at N56ML.com
> website at http://www.N56ML.com
> 
>
>

KR> Spring trim system

[Tony King]

Can you buy parts from Sonex?  For some reason I'm under the impression
they'll only sell parts to plans holders.  Love to be wrong about that.

Cheers,

Tony King
Queensland Australia

On 10 December 2011 03:44, Craig Williams <kr2seaf...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>
> http://www.sonexaircraft.com/orders/trimfaq.html
>
> Has anyone used the Sonex trim system in their KR?  I have convinced
> myself that the this is a good system and want to try it.
>
> Craig
> www.kr2seafury.com
> ___
> Search the KRnet Archives at http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp
> to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to krnet-le...@mylist.net
> please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html
>

KR> Fuel tank sealer

[Tony King]

Not too bad yet - it's still possible in Oz to get regular unleaded with no
ethanol if you shop around, and premium unleaded generally has no ethanol,
but there's talk of mandating it, so not sure how long the current state of
affairs will last.

Cheers,

Tony King
Queensland Australia

On 2 November 2011 18:38, Dave_A <dave.a.kr...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Yeah, our pump gas has 10% ethanol in it, thanks to the green movement &
> the corn-farmer's lobby
>
> I imagine it's the same or worse down under...
>
>

KR> Fuel tank sealer

[Tony King]

Pump gas is a different story though - and it's not methanol either.

Cheers,

Tony King
Queensland Australia

On 2 November 2011 09:49, Dave_A <dave.a.kr...@gmail.com> wrote:

> IIRC there is no alcohol of any kind in 100LL.
>
>

KR> Purchased a KR-2, want to change the landing gear config....

[Tony King]

" simply 'flipping around' the main gear so that it angles backwards and is
mounted to the back of the spar, and then adding a nose wheel "

Sounds easy doesn't it?  That is how you create a tri-gear KR2, although my
understanding is that sentence probably covers a couple hundred hours
of work.

Welcome to the group.  I'm sure you'll find lots of help here as you
progress through your conversion.

Cheers,

Tony King
Queensland Australia

KR> wingspan

[Tony King]

The information I have is that the KR is designed/specified for 6g at 900lbs
gross.  Given that, my understanding is that an increase in gross should be
OK as long as it's accompanied by a corresponding reduction in maximum g's.
For example, 6g at 900lbs represents the same load as 4g at 1350 lbs.
Therefore, in that example, so long as there are no maneuvers that exceed 4g
(still higher than the 3.8g for aircraft certified in the Normal category),
a gross of 1350lbs would still be safe.  Have I got that right or are there
other factors that need to be considered?

Cheers,

Tony King
Queensland Australia

On 12 October 2011 19:42, Dan Heath <da...@windstream.net> wrote:

> Oscar,
>
> Here goes...  I don't know many KR's that meet the designers "gross weight"
> limit.  There may be some and it would be good to know if there are.  When
> I
> saw Marty Roberts, back when he was "big", put another person as large as
> he
> was, at least, and fly off like the KR did not even know it had a load, I
> figured that if you can fit it into a plans size KR, it can handle it.  Now
> you won't be doing any aerobatics in it, but, I think ( definitely my
> "personal opinion" and your results will vary ), that the KR is way "over
> designed".
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

KR> Landing gear and brakes.

[Tony King]

Hi Brian,

The only commercially available landing gear for KR2's I'm aware of is Grove
(aluminium one piece) and Diehl (composite).  Cost wise I don't think
there's much difference between the two.  There are KR's with different gear
(e.g. there's one in Australia that has Jabiru landing gear - although
buying that from Jabiru won't save you anything compared with the other
options).  There are also some who have made their own composite gear - a
search of the KRNet archive will turn them up.  Whichever way you slice it,
you're up for a fair chunk of money (and time if you decide to make your
own).  I'm looking at buying some Scotchply and fabricating the mounting
brackets for a replica of the Diehl gear, but that's driven by the added
cost of getting an off the shelf kit shipped to Australia.  If you're in
North America I'd suggest the best option is to go with the Diehl gear (or
Grove if that's your preference).

Cheers,

Tony
Queensland Australia

On 29 September 2011 12:55, Brian Coss  wrote:

> Hello again,wonderin if theres other availiable fixed gear systems with
> good
> performance? Thx
> On Sep 28, 2011 9:02 PM, "Prototype Mech"  wrote:
> ___
> Search the KRnet Archives at http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp
> to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to krnet-le...@mylist.net
> please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html
>

KR> Engine Failure on Take OFF.

[Tony King]

Glad to hear you're safe Phil.  Hope you'll be back in the air soon.

Cheers,

Tony King

On 26 September 2011 20:26, Phil Matheson <phillipmathe...@bigpond.com>wrote:

> Well, it can happen to you.
>
> Last night 1730 at 500 ft Engine stopped dead. Lack of landing spots. Had
> to
> make 150' turn to safe ground.
>
> Check, tanks pumps NO start, but engine wind milling. A bit hot and ran out
> of field, had to lift over fence, then channel, stall, O S*#T - ground.
> Bugger.
>
> Walked away. KR home in my workshop.
>
> Damage,
> Prop, nose wheel collapse, L main collapse. Under inner wing whole from
> wheel. But main leg undamaged, the main bolts Sheared OFF, as did the nose
> wheel to fire wall bolts. NO cowl damage only paint. Engine mount bent.
>
> FOUND the cause this morning, the coil lead came out of the distributor
> Cap.
> No wonder it would not start.
> Did I seem Mark Jones make a cover or his dist. cap, Should listen to Mark.
>
> Impact point Google Earth  145 32.527 E 35 39.681S only 400m from my home.
>
> Phil Matheson
>
> VH PKR.  KR2.
>
>
> ___
> Search the KRnet Archives at http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp
> to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to krnet-le...@mylist.net
> please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html
>
>
> ___
> Search the KRnet Archives at http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp
> to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to krnet-le...@mylist.net
> please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html
>

KR> RE: Selling Marty Roberts' KR-2 with an O-200

[Tony King]

Hi Joe,

Marty's plane has been the wallpaper on my laptop for the past couple of
years - ever since I found a picture of it in flight on KR Net.  It's a
great looking example of a KR2.  How much are you asking?

Do you have any detail pictures (interior, engine installation, etc.)?  How
much life is left in the engine?

Cheers,

Tony King
Brisbane Australia

On 10 September 2011 14:29, Joe and Mary Ferraro <skygo...@live.com> wrote:

>
> To all the KR folks, I'm selling Marty Roberts' KR-2 with an O-200
> Continental.  Any and all offers are welcome.  Still in great condition. The
> wings are off and aircraft is ready to ship.  Please reply to my e-mail
> address and I'll send some photos.
>
> Thank you and have a great time at the gathering.
>
> Joseph from Spokane, Wa
> skygo...@live.com   > From: krnet-requ...@mylist.net
> > Subject: KRnet Digest, Vol 353, Issue 248
> > To: kr...@mylist.net
> > Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2011 21:00:13 -0700
> >
> > Send KRnet mailing list submissions to
> >   kr...@mylist.net
> >
> > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> >   http://mylist.net/listinfo/krnet
> > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> >   krnet-requ...@mylist.net
> >
> > You can reach the person managing the list at
> >   krnet-ow...@mylist.net
> >
> > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> > than "Re: Contents of KRnet digest..."
> >
> >
> > Today's Topics:
> >
> >1.  Passwords (laser...@juno.com)
> >2.  Gathering Weather (Dan Heath)
> >3. Re:  Passwords (Larry Flesner)
> >4. Re:  Gathering schedule (Larry Flesner)
> >5.  Gathering weather (Larry Flesner)
> >6. Re:  Gathering Weather (Patrick Driscoll)
> >7.  6 DAYS (Mark Jones)
> >8. Re:  6 DAYS (Rudi Venter)
> >9. Re:  Passwords (Dj Merrill)
> >   10. Re:  6 DAYS (Matt May)
> >   11.  (no subject) (jmelvin...@aol.com)
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Message: 1
> > Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2011 21:38:29 -0700
> > From: laser...@juno.com
> > Subject: KR> Passwords
> > To: kr...@mylist.net
> > Message-ID: <20110908.213904.950.1022...@mailpop06.vgs.untd.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> >
> > > To subscribe, e-mail krnet-j...@mylist.net . It's completely FREE,
> > period.
> >
> > Krnet may be free but over the years many happy customers have taken
> > advantage of my password service that costs $5 for each custom password I
> > provide.  Yes, members can make up their own but I have many years of
> > experience in designing and implementing passwords, each one backed by a
> > guarantee of either money back or replacement.  If anyone wanting a
> > custom password would please email me directly, for $5 U.S. (pesos also
> > accepted - no dracmas or lira though)  I will be happy to provide a
> > password tailored to your needs that will work on krnet and many other
> > aviation sites.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Mike
> > KSEE
> >
> > P.S.  All of San Diego County is without mains current tonight.  It's
> > very spooky driving around a place where 1.5 million people live and
> > there be no street lights, store lights, house lights, etc.  Except for
> > headlights, the brightest light around tonight is the Moon.
> >
> > If this were Oakland or LA, the rabble would be hauling TV sets out of
> > the stores.  Here all is calm.
> >
> > If anyone is after the Greatest Distance Flown Award this year they won't
> > have me to compete with.  I'm seeing my mom through final days and weeks
> > of life and haven't had time to get the plane tuned up for any long
> > trips, or even short ones for that matter.  Have fun.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 
> > Hyatt Summerfield Suites
> > All Suites Hotel with a Full Kitchen. Free Breakfast & Wi-Fi. Book Now
> > http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/4e69989f1f80f115332st04vuc
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Message: 2
> > Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2011 05:59:43 -0400
> > From: "Dan Heath" <da...@windstream.net>
> > Subject: KR> Gathering Weather
> > To: "'KRnet'" <kr...@mylist.net>
> > Message-ID: <01cc6ed7$332c3160$99849420$@net>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> >
> > Acc

KR> Jabiru 3300 weight vs corvair

[Tony King]

Hi Stef,

According to Jabiru, ramp weight for the 3300 is 83.5 kg (184 lbs).  This
includes exhaust, propellor (2 blade wood), starter, alternator, carburetor,
regulator, etc. Pretty much everything FWF except the mount and cowling.
Not sure on teh corvair but from what I've read a typical installation looks
like well over 240lb for the same items.

Cheers,

Tony King
Queensland Australia

On 28 August 2011 01:14, <stef...@kpnmail.nl> wrote:

>
> kr friens.
> What is THE weight of both ?
>
>
> Stef
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Stef and Ted are building the KR-2S see
> http://www.masttotaalconcept.nl/kr2
>
>
>
> -Oorspronkelijk bericht-
> Van: krnet-boun...@mylist.net namens Larry Flesner
> Verzonden: vr 26-8-2011 19:35
> Aan: Ronald Wright; KRnet
> Onderwerp: Re: KR> Jabiru 3300
>
>
> >
> >
> >Regardless of the number of Corv / O320 examples flying,
>
> ++
>
> I don't know of any KR's flying with an 0-320.  The 0-235 and 0-290
> are the largest Lycombings I'm aware of.  The only "KR" flying with
> the larger engine was a TOTALLY re-designed airframe that was no
> longer a KR.  It made the Gathering at Red Oak, Iowa back about  2002
> or so and really wasn't all that fast for the horsepower.   The
> 0-320, in my opinion, is way over the top for a KR and would be
> totally unsafe, in firewall weight and CG problems, if nothing
> else.  If there are no reliability problems, I think the J3300 would
> be a great engine for a well built KR.  Personally, I'd LOVE to drop
> a Continental  IO-240 in my KR.  125 hp fuel injected with basically
> the same weight as my 0-200.  I don't have that kind of money but at
> least I can dream. :-)
>
> Larry Flesner
>
>
>
> ___
> Search the KRnet Archives at http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp
> to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to krnet-le...@mylist.net
> please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html
>
> ___
> Search the KRnet Archives at http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp
> to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to krnet-le...@mylist.net
> please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html
>

KR> Jabiru 3300

[Tony King]

Jabiru engines seem to have a pretty mixed reputation in Aus.  During a
factory tour at Brumby Aircraft (Australian designed and built certified
LSA) last year I spoke with the senior engineer about their experience.  He
told me they had delivered 10 aircraft with Jabiru 3300's and 3 had major
failures within the first 50 hours.  Their preference is now strongly for
Rotax, despite the lower power and they'll only install a Jabiru now if the
customer insists.

On the other hand, there are plenty of people who love Jabirus and have had
no issues - although it does seem rare to see a Jabiru for sale whose engine
hours match the airframe hours.  One recent development that looks very
promising is Rotec's liquid cooled heads.  Too soon to know whether they
make a big difference but their claim is they will enable a Jabiru engine to
reach its stated TBO.  They also claim the heads are lighter than the
original so the overall solution doesn't add any weight (although it clearly
adds complexity).  I'm thinking seriously about taking this direction.  By
the time I'm ready for the engine they should have a bit of a track record.

I really want arond 120HP since I've widened and lengthened the fuse, bumped
up the MTOW and want to operate off a relatively short grass strip.  The
Corvair story doesn't add up outside North America (in my opinion) due to
parts availability, local support, etc. and it's heavier than I'd like as
well.  The budget won't stretch to a Rotax 914 or the UL Power engine and
Subaru's too heavy as well.  That doesn't leave many choices and the Jab
3300 really fits the bill - if only there weren't so many horror stories
about reliability.  I'd really like to hear some success stories from Jabiru
owners.  Unfortunately happy customers are usually a lot quieter than
unhappy ones so it's a bit hard to tell what's the real likelihood of
getting a lemon.

Tony King
Queensland Australia

On 26 August 2011 06:58, Vaughan Thomas <v...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:

> I dont understand the  "excess" power thing, but down under ( New Zealand),
> the Jabarus are treated as a bad joke, beautiful , light, have the grunt
> sure. But how many issues do they have? valve & head failures, (known to
> have dropped valves through pistons) causing engine outs, probably the wost
> are the poor flywheel dowling design which has caused countless flywheels
> to
> part company with the crank (great for ignition timing!) These engines have
> had hundreds of mods from original & have they got it right yet?  Vaughan
> Thomas
> Hamilton
> NewZealand
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "phil brookman" <pjb1234...@yahoo.co.uk>
> To: "KRnet" <kr...@mylist.net>
> Sent: Friday, August 26, 2011 7:58 AM
> Subject: Re: KR> Jabiru 3300
>
>
> that seems on the face of it ridiculous 
> powerfull and what would that cause .
> what effects does he think will happen 
> phill
>
>
>
>
>
> 
> From: Peter Drake <p...@kingsland.uk.com>
> To: KRnet <kr...@mylist.net>
> Sent: Thu, August 25, 2011 5:19:16 PM
> Subject: Re: KR> Jabiru 3300
>
> Hi
>
> I have just had an email from the cheif engineer of the LAA and he has
> refused to let us use a Jabiru 3300 in a KR2S because he says it is too
> powerful!
> Has anyone got any stress data that I can hit him back with?
>
> A frustrated Peter Drake
> Hereford UK
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Peter Drake" <p...@kingsland.uk.com>
> To: "KRnet" <kr...@mylist.net>
> Sent: Monday, August 22, 2011 3:22 PM
> Subject: KR> Jabiru 3300
>
>
> Hi All
>
> There has been some discussion about Jabiru engines.
>
> I am in the process of purchasing a Jabiru 3300 for my KR2s
> We feel we need the extra grunt of 120hp to get out of some of the tiny
> farm
> strips we have in the UK.
> Is there anyone flying a KR with one out there?
>
>
>
> --
> I am using the free version of SPAMfighter.
> We are a community of 7 million users fighting spam.
> SPAMfighter has removed 2575 of my spam emails to date.
> Get the free SPAMfighter here: http://www.spamfighter.com/len
>
> The Professional version does not have this message
>
>
>
> ___
> Search the KRnet Archives at http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp
> to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to krnet-le...@mylist.net
> please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html
> ___
> Search the KRnet Archives at http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp
> to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to krnet-le...@mylist.net
> please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html
>
>
&

KR> Planning my build

[Tony King]

Hey Seth,

Those PVC clamps sound like a great idea.  I'll definitely give those a go!
I'll be going with the 5048 - 45 airfoil too and also plan to delete the
foam spar extensions in favour of extending the wooden spars.  A full size
drawing of the spars on the workbench is another good tip.  Thanks :-)

Tony King
Brisbane Australia

On 12 August 2011 13:35, Seth and Karen Jersild <jersi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Tim and Tony,
> I'm just a few months ahead of you two.  I added the extra 14" bay
> behind the rear spar and 1" total to the front two bays.  I'll add 1" of
> width to the firewall.  The boat will be widened to 42" (outside edge of
> longerons) at the shoulders which will necessitate adding some width to
> all dimensions forward and aft of that point.  I'm also considering
> using width dimensions proposed by Gunnar Olson here:
> http:/go-design.no/images2.html (scroll to bottom of the page) which
> would mean the longerons would run in a straight line from the "K"
> station back to the tail instead of from the "I" station.  Not sure of
> that yet and would appreciate any input.  This would obviously diffuse
> stress from around that tricky area just aft of the rear spar while
> bending the boat.  His computer drawings sure make it look good.  Sean
> Duggan, who started about a month before I did, had to make the
> frustrating decision to start all over again recently because of cracked
> longerons at that point and it's spooked me a little.
>
> I've made all my spars to the 5048-45 dimensions and am scarfing plywood
> to cover them.  I eliminated the foam-and-glass extensions from the tips
> of the spars by extending the wood portion of the spars.  At first I was
> concerned that doing this might make the spar caps too thin to work with
> at the tips, but it turned out to be a non-issue.  The final product is
> very solid.
>
> If you go with the 5048-45 airfoil, where all the outboard spar
> verticals have to be different lengths, I found it helpful to do a
> full-scale drawing on my work table of the outboard spars, fore and aft,
> so I could get the exact angle of incline for both, and exact
> measurements for the length of all the verticals.  The drawings also
> served as very useful templates while gluing the verticals and planing
> the caps down to size.
>
> An extremely helpful tip I got from Jodel and Falconar builders'
> websites was to use PVC clamps for the gussets and some of the diagonals
> on my fuselage trusses.  Cut a 4" PVC pipe into narrow rings on your
> miter saw and then slice the ring at one point.  This gives you a lot of
> very CHEAP, versatile clamps.  Thicker rings make clamps with more
> pressure and rigidity, while thinner rings make clamps with less force
> and more flexibility.  They've worked great for me so far and I hope to
> use as many of them as I can while completing the boat.
>
> Best wishes,
> Seth Jersild
> jersi...@gmail.com
>
>
> ___
> Search the KRnet Archives at http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp
> to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to krnet-le...@mylist.net
> please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html
>

KR> Planning my build

[Tony King]

Tim,

Good to hear you're finally getting into it!  Sounds like I'm about 2 weeks
ahead of you.  I have my fuselage sides laid out, gussetts cut, etc. and
this weekend I plan to glue it all together.  I've gone for the extra 14"
bay behind the spar and added an inch to each bay in front of the main spar
(3" total over the 2S).  I think this is pretty much what Mark L suggests he
would do if he was to build another one.  I'm planning to make mine 43" wide
and to make the widest point at the shoulders of the occupants (can't
remember how far that is behind the standard position for the widest
point).  I'm planning to build to the standard firewall dimensions so I
can retain the option of using any off the shelf components (e.g. cowl,
engine mount, etc.) firewall forward.  I'm hoping the extra length will
offset the extra width and reduce the tendency for cracking when bending the
sides in which a lot of people seem to experience with the longerons.  I'm
using hoop pine (an Australian species) which is about 10% heavier and 15%
stronger than spruce.  I haven't yet found any info on how it compares for
resistance to cracking when bent, but I expect I'll know soon :-)

Good luck with your build.

Tony King
Brisbane Australia

On 12 August 2011 05:36, Tim Caughron <caugh...@bak.rr.com> wrote:

> Hi all, I've been lurking here for a while trying to push myself over the
> wanting stage to the doing stage. I've a set of 2S plans for several years,
> and since coming home from Oshkosh last week, I am eager to get doing. Had
> an opportunity to talk to and look at Joe Horton's plane - thanks Joe, good
> job on the impromptu class. Was really hoping to have a chance to talk to
> Mark L, but the weather delay and my having to babysit 3 kids didn't quite
> work out.
>
>
>
> I want to start laying out my fuselage. After reading most of Mark's site,
> I
> have a couple questions. Should I plan to add 1 more 14" bay aft of the
> spars to increase stability? If so, it seems I should add forward of the
> spars to cancel out the extended arm - if so any recommendations? Lastly
> today, I'd like to increase the width by 3-4 inches. Should I add that to
> all the width dimensions, or just in the area of the cockpit? I plan to
> slide the widest part of the fuselage back to the shoulder area as Mark
> suggested as well.
>
>
>
> Any info, suggestions or ideas welcome. I would love to hear from anyone
> having incorporated any of these changes. Am starting to layout on CAD now
> -
> boy are those plans lacking some needed info!
>
>
>
> Enjoyed following this forum, look forward to participating, building and
> flying. Thanks all.
>
>
>
> Tim Caughron
>
> caugh...@bak.rr.com
>
> ___
> Search the KRnet Archives at http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp
> to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to krnet-le...@mylist.net
> please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html
>

KR> Question about ailerons

[Tony King]

All,

The standard (as per plans) ailerons appear to have a differential action
(i.e. one side goes down less than the other side goes up).  I notice on
Mark Langford's site he's built Frise type ailerons to counteract adverse
yaw.  Is this instead of or as well as the differential action?

I'm considering using a simple push-pull (Teleflex) cable to operate the
ailerons (similar to the arrangement in a Jabiru), but this would make a
differential action difficult to achieve.  If I can eliminate the need for
differential ailerons by doing something similar to what Mark has done, I
may go that way.

Any advice or comparative flying experience would be appreciated, as would
'non-religious' (i.e. it's bad because it's bad) views on the idea of using
push-pull cables.

Cheers,

Tony King
Brisbane Australia

KR> Removable Turtle Deck

[Tony King]

I was one of those bystanders.  It was an impressive demonstration of how
easy it can be to access various normally nearly impossible to get to parts
of the aircraft.  I'll definitely be taking that approach.

Cheers,

Tony King
Queensland Australia


On 12 May 2011 07:25, <phillipmathe...@bigpond.com> wrote:

> The turtle deck comes completely off in a few mins. I removed it at the
> Natfly a few weeks ago in Temora and bystanders could not believe their
> eyes. (thanks Mark L for your ideas).
>
>
>