KR> Great plains
So, the question is, who owns Great Plains now, and where are they located?
KR> Cleveland brake questionJoe
Joe, Assuming you have already checked brake pad condition, check to ensure the caliper is floating free on the torque pins. If all is well there, drain and replace the 5606 hydraulic fluid. I have worked on 1 plane that needed to have the hydraulic changed in the brakes every 10 years or so. It would degrade and turn a to a dark brown. Brakes also didn't work very well until the fluid was replaced when it looked like that. -Jeff Scott -Original message- Subject: KR> Cleveland brake question Hey Guys, I have had a developing issue with the right brake. It has continually been degrading in its effectiveness. There is plenty of pressure at the pedal but is not working well. The left brake can just about spin me around if I hold it. The right brake I have to just about stand on to get a little right turn. There is no spongy or soft feeling and the fluids are full. I have not taken the wheel off yet to check the pads and i do have new pads that I can install. It just seems like it something else like maybe the caliper hanging up Any suggestions before I tear into it. I am working on the annual so I am ready for OSH. But I would like to be able to stay on the runway this year Joe Horton Coopersburg, PA ___ 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> B-Nuts
Usually when all the various models of something are out of stock like that, it means the vendor that manufactures these parts has either folded or has to tool up to make another run of parts. I use an alternate part for some applications. For the carb heat box I use 05-16100. In high stress applications (starter pull cable) I have used their wire grip threaded into an AN665 Terminal Assembly. -Jeff Scott -Original message- Sent: Sunday, 26 June 2016 at 15:12:05 From: "Larry Flesner via KRnet" To: KRnet Subject: Re: KR> B-Nuts At 07:07 AM 6/26/2016, you wrote: >It seems that AS no longer sells the B-Nuts that many of us use at the ends see http://list.krnet.org/mailman/listinfo/krnet_list.krnet.org to change options
KR> Piston rings
I'll make a call this morning. A friend of mine knows who is holding a large inventory. -Jeff Scott -Original message- Sent: Friday, 15 January 2016 at 08:33:35 From: "BOB ROBERT via KRnet" To: KRnet Subject: KR> Piston rings This is a shot in the dark I am in need of piston rings for a 4 ring 0290 Lycoming Also engine mount rubber bushings Can anyone help ?? Thanks BOB Lalonde in British Columbia Canada I have a KR2 and a Jodel D11 ___ 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> major change or minor change
Any change in hp or even engine model designation is considered to be a major change in the eyes of the FAA. One of my phase 1, 5 hr test periods was for a change from a C-85 to an O-200, a virtually identical engine. In your case, the testing was completed already with an O -235-C, so it should only require a log book entry and an updated W to change back. To the FAA, it would be like putting the original engine model back into a Cessna after having run out a higher hp engine that had been installed under an STC. That would require nothing more than a logbook entry and an uodate to the W -Jeff Scott -Original message- Sent: Saturday, 24 October 2015 at 22:14:59 From: "CraigW via KRnet" To: KRnet Subject: KR> major change or minor change Ok, its best to let the FSDO decide. Here is one that will cause some discussion. My Smith Miniplane was built with an O-235-C. At some point it was changed to an O-290-D. I am now putting in an O-235-C again. We are talking a 10 Hp change...Is this a major or minor change? Craig
KR> Phase 1 and Phase 2 flight testing
-Original message- Sent: Saturday, 24 October 2015 at 13:17:10 From: "CraigW via KRnet" To: KRnet Subject: Re: KR> Phase 1 and Phase 2 flight testing Interesting...I never thought you ever would go back to Phase 1. So let me pose a question. If that is true and you make a major change like going from a VW to a Corvair do you have to go back to Phase 1? Craig I have had my KR back in phase 1 testing several times following an engine change, new tail, etc, etc. Time is set at the descretion of FSDO, but they have never assigned me more than 5 hrs. -Jeff Scott
KR> Maximum weight
In the US, we are allowed to set the gross weight to whatever we choose. I chose 1200# gross for my KR. I fully tested and have routinely flown it at that weight for well over 1000 hours now. That's only anecdotal data and not engineering data, but demonstrates that the airframe is capable of flying at that weight over the long term. Best regards, -Jeff Scott Los Alamos, NM -Original message- Sent: Sunday, 15 February 2015 at 00:44:04 From: "John Martindale via KRnet" To: 'KRnet' Subject: KR> Maximum weight Hi folks I have had my KR2 on the civil register over here since 2002 under our experimental category and for the first time our authority has asked me to justify my MTOW of 1200lbs (545kg). They are arguing that the max they have on record is only 408kg (900lbs). I would greatly appreciate if people could email me their approved MTOW so I can provide them with reasons why today?s KRs frequently fly at weights above 900lbs. I?ll then post a summary of the replies. I think they are getting the 900lb from the original approval given to the KR2 over here prior to experimental coming in over ten years ago. Under the latter my understanding is that we can nominate whatever MTOW we like. Regards John John Martindale 29 Jane Circuit Toormina NSW 2452 Australia ph:61 2 6658 4767 m:0403 432179 email:john_martindale at bigpond.com web site: http://john-martindale-kr2.zxq.net - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2015.0.5646 / Virus Database: 4284/9114 - Release Date: 02/14/15 ___ 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> FAA Rule Correction Opens Door for Lower Cost ADS-B
FAA Rule Correction Opens Door for Lower Cost ADS-B OK, We have been seeing the headlines in all the aviation rags today. So what does this mean to us folks that are building or flying Experimental Amateur Built aircraft? >From the KitPlanes Article: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) today >published a technical correction in the Federal Register that allows future >installations of ADS-B ?out? equipment to meet performance standards of the >appropriate Technical Standard Order (TSO) specifications without meeting the >complete TSO requirements. What this really means is that if the unit performs to TSO standards, it will not necessarily be required to have TSO certification for the unit. This opens the door for manufacturers to start producing inexpensive units similar to the SkyGuard TWX unit for sale to the Experimental market. As long as it performs to standards, it will be legal to use in an amateur built aircraft to meet the 2020 ADS-B rule without the need to the TAA TSO Stamp of approval. With today's correction to the FAA's 2020 rule, the cost of installing ADS-B out for E-AB aircraft just dropped from $5000 to less than $1000. The Skyguard web site says: "Plan to meet FAA 2020 ADS-B OUT requirement once TSO-C154c certification has been completed." So, at this time they make no claim to performance to TSO standards. However, I would expect that to change in the near future now that the FAA has cleared the way for them to be 2020 "legal" in E-AB aircraft without the need for TSO certification. This change of rule is consistent with other avionics commonly installed in E-AB aircraft that are typically labeled as meeting TSO standards, but don't actually have the TSO certification. This would include most of the Dynon avionics, MicroAir and X-Com radios, and many others not mentioned that are commonly used in E-AB aircraft, but can't be legally installed in Certificated aircraft do to the lack of TSO certification. I have been enjoying having the on screen traffic so much that I will likely upgrade my Experimental SuperCub from weather only to the full ADS-B in and out once the fallout from today's announcement has completed and the manufacturers get a chance to figure out how to work within the new rules. But the big thing to take away from this is that the price to equip with ADS-B for an E-AB aircraft just took a huge nose dive. -Jeff Scott Los Alamos, NM
