KR> KR2 ARTICLE-KITPLANES NOV 2010

I think people may be getting too concerned about that line about the wing-attack bolts. On the whole, the article was VERY favorable, and it should encourage many people to look into the KR who weren't considering it before. But if you write to the magazine, I would also mention that most

KR> KR2 ARTICLE-KITPLANES NOV 2010

From: Michael Taglieri Mike, I am not sure anyone on this list is concerned about the wing attach fittings and bolts, we know better. I think what some are aggrevated about is the mis-information or mis-representation about the wings in general. The

KR> KR2 ARTICLE-KITPLANES NOV 2010

I'm not sure if anyone has said this yet but we can always submit an article with know examples of how well the wing attachments work. Right now we are preaching to the choir and need to get the message out to the masses, Todd On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 9:10 AM, Larry H. wrote: >

KR> Looking to trade a TriQ200 project for a KR2s project.

Hello KR netters I am looking to trade my TriQ200 project for a KR2s project. The TriQ is complete but for the instruments, plumbing and engine. Next weekend, the 9th of Oct. I will be able to take photos of the TriQ. The canard, wings, tail section, fuel tanks and lines to firewall are in. I

KR> Article

Did you ever think that someone would write an article and include a controversial item just to see how many were reading and would pop up and defend an opposite view, Virg

KR> Lengthen Horizontal Stabilizer?

Mark, I could not tell for sure what Troy did from his pictures so good to get the scoop. Now that I look again, I see the word "extended" on the caption so must have been my learning disability rearing its head again! ;-) So, to be really clear. It is "acceptable" to extend the per-plans

KR> progress

Picked up my 64 Corvair 110 in Chicago today.  Headed to Minneapolis tomorrow to get the plane.  Will post some pics after I get back to KC. Craig

FW: KR> KR2 ARTICLE-KITPLANES NOV 2010

Hi Mark A long time ago before "experimental" came along (like in the 1980s), the Australian authorities did mandate a change to the bolt arrangement that specified a spacer tube between each pair of WAFs and a longer single through bolt instead of two short independent bolts. I think this

KR> KR2 ARTICLE-KITPLANES NOV 2010

My copy of KITPLANES came today and I did a quick read of the article. With the exception of that one statement, I thought the article was quite positive overall and cast a good light on the KR. I guess we'll see what the public reaction is long term. Larry Flesner

FW: KR> KR2 ARTICLE-KITPLANES NOV 2010

John Martindale wrote: > A long time ago before "experimental" came along (like in the 1980s), the > Australian authorities did mandate a change to the bolt arrangement that > specified a spacer tube between each pair of WAFs and a longer single > through bolt instead of two short independent

FW: KR> KR2 ARTICLE-KITPLANES NOV 2010

It's the addition of the tube spacer that adds the strength not the length of the bolt. What it effectively does is take an area that has two potential failure modes and replaces it with one. Cheers. Peter Bancks. Ballina, Oz. On 3/10/2010 12:49, Glenn Martin wrote: > I can see how a thicker

FW: KR> KR2 ARTICLE-KITPLANES NOV 2010

Pete wrote: >It's the addition of the tube spacer that adds the strength not the > length of the bolt. What it effectively does is take an area that has > two potential failure modes and replaces it with one. > Cheers. > O k..but that is not SHEAR STRENGTH we're talking about, and I cant

KR> WAF spacers

Replacing the two bolts with one longer one and a spacer replaces two bolts in single shear (not the best) with one bolt in double shear, which is far better. Although I knew it already, I relearned that lesson when I checked my flaps after 930 hours and found the oilite bushings elongated

KR> WAF spacers

Thank you Mark. I was actually in the process of drawing up the WAF's in SolidWorks to illustrate the difference, but you nailed it right there. Cheers. Pete. On 3/10/2010 13:30, Mark Langford wrote: > Replacing the two bolts with one longer one and a spacer replaces two bolts > in single

KR> WAF spacers

Thank you Mark. With your info, I did a short Google search and came up with this article: http://www.pirate4x4.com/tech/billavista/NutsandBolts/Nuts_signed.pdf So the point is that with one bolt on each fitting, only that one fitting must lose friction in order to load its bolt in shear. With

KR> WAF spacers

OK, this isn't the greatest picture, but check out http://www.n56ml.com/900hour/100717140m.jpg . It shows a thin aluminum angle used to position a 3/8" nutplate for each WAF bolt, and one continuous WAF bolt for what was a place for two (in single shear). Astute viewers will notice there's

KR> WAF spacers

OK Guys..bear with me. the concept of the Experimental Aircraft program is for Personal Education, and I am certainly learning something I had not considered before. A slightly different way for me to view this is that the spacer between them tends to make the two separate WAFS act more like a

KR> WAF spacers

Hi Mark, Did you use steel spacers; or would aluminum work or will it "crush" over time? Thanks, Ron --- On Sat, 10/2/10, Mark Langford wrote: > From: Mark Langford > Subject: KR> WAF spacers > To: "KRnet" > Date: Saturday, October 2,

FW: KR> KR2 ARTICLE-KITPLANES NOV 2010

Hi Glenn Yeh. I think you did but I don't just what :-) I'm pretty sure a bolt in double shear apparently is proportionately stronger than two single ones in single shear of the same dia. I presume the Australian authorities knew what they were on about when they insisted on thisbut then