Larry,Mark and others.
I sent in a request to not be notified from this site anymore so I
won't waste anymore of your bandwidth? C'Mon kids. Your terse response
just made the points made. Good luck. Fly for the joy and gift that it is.
Selfworth really has no part of your experience.
I have met a couple of good friends and we all have experience we
bounce off each other with good friendships be made stronger and knowledge
being gained without the arrogance that appears.
When technical exceeds fun and ensuring the excitement then it has
outlived its worth.
I am better qualified in more types than many but I choose to believe
in the magic of flight and the joy of sharing the experience with other's.
Best regards to all flying kids.....no matter what your
stage or station in life.
Doran
.kr2owner at gmail.com
On May 11, 2014 12:03 PM, "via KRnet" <krnet at list.krnet.org> wrote:
> Send KRnet mailing list submissions to
> krnet at list.krnet.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://list.krnet.org/mailman/listinfo/krnet_list.krnet.org
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> krnet-request at list.krnet.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> krnet-owner at list.krnet.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of KRnet digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Fw: Re: Propellers (Jeff Scott via KRnet)
> 2. Larry Flesner please contact me (Ronald Wright via KRnet)
> 3. Re: Drag???? Whoa! (Doran Jaffas via KRnet)
> 4. Re: Drag???? Whoa! (Carl Dow via KRnet)
> 5. Re: Drag???? (Carl Dow via KRnet)
> 6. Drag???? Whoa! (via KRnet)
> 7. Re: Drag???? (via KRnet)
> 8. Re: Drag???? Whoa! (ppaulvsk at aol.comviaKRnet)
> 9. Re: Drag???? Whoa! (Mark Langford via KRnet)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 10 May 2014 13:10:02 -0400
> From: Jeff Scott via KRnet <krnet at list.krnet.org>
> To: "KRnet" <krnet at list.krnet.org>
> Subject: Re: KR> Fw: Re: Propellers
> Message-ID: <20140510171002.12310 at gmx.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Jeff L.
>
> Yes, I think we are dancing around the same elephant. ?When I say I
> respectfuly disagree, I mean exactly that as I know you are really into
> aircraft performance and measurement with a lot of first hand knowledge. ?I
> have a lot of respect for your work.
>
> My only point was that as a general statement, a longer prop will usually
> contribute significantly to both take off and initial climb. ?As you
> stated, aircraft drag becomes the more predominant factor with speed as
> more drag is generated with more speed. ?Prop length becomes much less of a
> factor in a small slick aircraft, especially at speed. ?In fact, for high
> cruise performance, too long of a prop becomes a real detriment. ?But, if
> you calculate your prop tip speed and find that it is running down in the
> .6 - .7 mach area, you can usually improve your take off, climb and cruise
> performance with a bit longer of a prop. ?If your prop tips are making
> close to .7 mach static, a longer prop is likely to help with take off and
> initial climb, but may hinder cruise. ?If you're making .8 mach or more
> with your prop tips at cruise, then chances are you'll probably increase
> your speed by going to a shorter prop. ?When calculating the mach number of
> the prop tip, you have to factor the aircraft speed into the calculation.
> ?.75 mach static may be over .8 mach at high cruise. ?For prop tuning, a
> faster plane may require a slightly shorter prop.
>
> Wish I could tell you the measurements from the prop I had on the VW
> powered Avid Flyer, but that's been 15 years ago and all that information
> was long ago lost. ?Additionally, since this was all done at over 7000'
> altitude, the numbers probably would not be useful for near to sea level
> operations.
>
> -Jeff Scott
> Los Alamos, NM
>
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: JL
> > Sent: 05/09/14 11:12 PM
> > To: Jeff Scott, KRnet
> > Subject: Re: KR> Fw: Re: Propellers
> >
> > Jeff,
> >
> > Since I don't disagree with almost everything you posted, I suspect we
> are commenting about the same elephant, but from different ends ; )
> >
> > Sounds like you found the minimum diameter prop for your airplane. May I
> ask what that prop was and at what rpm you saw no further gains?
> >
> > The only thing I would not agree with is the lumping of static thrust,
> takeoff roll and rate of climb together. I tend to view them as three
> separate phases of flight. I think that there are certainly relationships
> there, but just because a plane has a short takeoff distance does not make
> it a good climbing airplane. Climb is a function of excess thrust and lift,
> where takeoff distance is less influenced by airframe drag and more
> influenced by raw mass flow past the cowl and anything else directly behind
> it.
> >
> > That being said, your comment about finding the right compromise is spot
> on. Same elephant ; )
> >
> > Jeff
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> > > On May 9, 2014, at 9:53 PM, Jeff Scott via KRnet <krnet at list.krnet.org>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > After a fair amount of experimenting with props over the years, I will
> respectfully disagree with you, Jeff, and agree with Tommy. But I will also
> state that the statement about longer props equals better climb is only
> true within limits until you reach a point where the engine HP gets used up
> by the tip drag as I'll discuss further down in this post.
> > >
> > > One specific instance that comes to mind was a propeller I had on my
> KR for a number of years from Performance Propellers. It performed
> reasonably well, but after checking and finding that my Tach was reading
> 200 rpm high, I knew that with a bit less pitch, I should be able to turn
> the engine up another 200 rpm improving both climb and cruise performance.
> I pulled the prop off and sent it back to the manufacturer to be repitched
> to a lower pitch to allow it to turn another 200 rpm. When I got the prop
> back and flew it, I knew without even measuring it that he had cut the tips
> off the prop rather than repitching it. It took a lot more RPM to do
> anything, but the takeoff and climb performance was seriously off. When I
> called the manufacturer, he confirmed that he decided to be lazy and cut 2"
> of diameter off the prop rather than repitching it as I had requested (and
> paid) him to do. For use on my plane, the prop was essentially ruined.
> > >
> > > On an Avid Flyer that I built using a VW engine, I simply could not
> get it to perform at our 7000' elevation here in Los Alamos. I returned the
> prop to Ed Sterba for some adjustment to the pitch. When I got it back, it
> really didn't perform any differently, nor did the engine turn up any
> better. I called Ed and discussed the issue with him and we formulated a
> plan. The issue was that the prop was simply too long for the engine as the
> tip drag was using up all the horsepower rather than generating thrust. I
> took a ruler and marked the prop tips in 1/8" increments. I would take the
> plane out for a test ride, then come back and saw 1/8" off both prop tips,
> reducing the diameter of the prop by 1/4" increments. With each pass, the
> engine turned up more, with some gain in performace through about 3 or 4
> iterations. The next iteration I saw more rpm, but no change in
> performance. Then the next iteration the engine again gained rpm, but the
> take off and climb performace was showing a definite decrease. I would have
> loved to have continued cutting on the prop to see how much more it would
> drop off, but since I couldn't add back onto the prop, decided to stop
> there.
> > >
> > > I also built and fly a SuperCub. It's pretty common knowledge and has
> been demonstrated over and over that if you want a 160 HP SuperCub to get
> off the ground short, you take off the stock 74 x 58 McCauley prop and
> install an 84 x 43 McCauley prop. The rpms are about the same, but the
> plane will get off the ground much quicker (roughly half the distance!) and
> climb significantly better. It's pretty obvious that the longer prop pulls
> better. The thrust difference is quantifyable by pulling static against a
> scale. A number of the SuperCub guys have done just that to prove it out.
> Craig Catto is in the process of develping an STC to use his long 82 - 84"
> props on certificated SuperCubs. However, everything with a prop is a
> compromise. To get that super take off and climb performance out of a
> SuperCub, the tip drag is high enough at cruise speeds that the SuperCubs
> lose roughly 10 mph off the top end of their cruise. Why not go to a 93"
> prop? The tip speed is high enough that the tips are creating so much drag
> that all of the HP gets used up just driving the tips around in a circle,
> so the thrust drops off.
> > >
> > > From Valley Engineering (Culver Props): The efficiency of a propeller
> is reduced as the tip speed approaches the speed of sound. Beyond 80% of
> the speed of sound, further increases in RPM has little effect on thrust.
> Thus, it is important to keep tip speeds below 75%-80% of Mach.
> > >
> > > Bottom line, you tune your prop for the performace you want.
> Everything on a prop is a compromise. Within reasonable limits a lower
> pitch, longer prop will provide more thrust for initial take off and climb.
> > >
> > > -Jeff Scott
> > > Los Alamos, NM
> > > <http://jeffsplanes.com>
> > >
> > >> ----- Original Message -----
> > >> From: schmleff . via KRnet
> > >> Sent: 05/09/14 11:39 AM
> > >> To: tommy waymack, KRnet
> > >> Subject: Re: KR> Fw: Re: Propellers
> > >>
> > >> Not to start an argument, but I have to disagree ; )
> > >>
> > >> How a prop works on a particular airplane is based on the amount of
> > >> air moved (past the cowl, not smashing into it) and the velocity of
> > >> that air. I have never been able to find a real reference to the
> > >> ?large diameter prop=better climb? theory nor have I seen it work in
> > >> real life.
> > >>
> > >> On Pete?s KR, the Cloudcars 52x54 out climbs the 56x52 Sterba. Lots of
> > >> factors there, but to sum up, the smaller diameter allows the engine
> > >> to spin up more and make more power. The increased pitch makes up for
> > >> the lesser disk area.
> > >>
> > >> On my SI, I have tried about 2 dozen prop variations from a 54x42 down
> > >> to a 47.75x50. Climb performance between the two are about the same,
> > >> but the top speed is radically more with the later. I?m not saying
> > >> that a prop that small would work on a KR since the frontal area is
> > >> greater. I would be curious to hear from someone that has experimented
> > >> to find just how small of a prop is still effective on a KR.
> > >>
> > >> I recently put up some prop, climb and speed data on my blog here:
> > >> http://schmleff.blogspot.com/2014/04/skye-racer-history-part-1.html
> > >>
> > >> Jeff Lange
> > >> Race 64 - Skye Racer
> > >> Blog: http://schmleff.blogspot.com
> > >> Youtube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/schmleff
> > >>
> > >> On May 9, 2014, at 10:47 AM, tommy waymack via KRnet
> > >> <krnet at list.krnet.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Search the KRnet Archives at http://tugantek.com/archmailv2-kr/search.
> > > To UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to
> KRnet-leave at list.krnet.org
> > > please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html
> > > see http://list.krnet.org/mailman/listinfo/krnet_list.krnet.org to
> change options
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sat, 10 May 2014 20:20:03 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Ronald Wright via KRnet <krnet at list.krnet.org>
> To: KRnet <krnet at list.krnet.org>
> Subject: KR> Larry Flesner please contact me
> Message-ID:
> <1399778403.36549.YahooMailNeo at web184904.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
> Larry,
>
> Please contact me off list at: ?ronwright5 at yahoo.com. ?Need to discuss
> the KR2 donation from Tom Garner.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ron
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Sat, 10 May 2014 22:51:11 -0700
> From: Doran Jaffas via KRnet <krnet at list.krnet.org>
> To: krnet at list.krnet.org
> Subject: Re: KR> Drag???? Whoa!
> Message-ID:
> <
> CAD02MK8mbS2xGvaiz0MYjxTB+B__qDe66z8QO+wrr4-TNhVAtA at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> I DID NOT MEAN TO IMPLY THAT ALL MODS ARE BAD.
> I MAY END UP ADDING A BELLY FLAP AS WELL. I HAVE A SIMPLE LINKAGE
> DESIGNED THAT WILL BE EASY TO INSTALL.
> SOMETIMES THOUGH THE LESS EXPERIENCED COULD GET THE WRONG IDEA FROM
> SOME OF US THAT DO HAVE EXPERIENCE.
> SIGNING OFF. FEEL FREE TO CONTACT ME PERSONALLY BUT I FEEL TOO MUCH
> HEAT IS BEING GIVEN PUBLICLY.
> COUNTER IDEAS AND CORRECTIVE WORDS GIVEN TO ASSIST ARE ONE THING. OPEN
> REBUKE IS ANOTHER.
> THERE ARE A LOT OF GOOD AND KNOWLEDGEABLE FOLKS HERE.
> Doran
> N186RC
> .kr2owner at gmail.com
> On May 9, 2014 2:43 PM, "Doran Jaffas" <kr2owner at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Maybe I AM blowing smoke and will inhale it later but I AM curious about
> all the talk of adding drag to the KR to slow it down.
> > I have flown several low drag / clean aircraft without flaps and
> never had any unnerving problems with landing.
> > My personal opinion banded on some experience is to fly the airplane
> as intended. Get comfortable with the SLOWER SPEEDS and then determine what
> / if anything else one needs or wants to add. THERE IS NO FREE LUNCH IN
> AERODYNAMICS.
> > All aircraft have speeds that work best as they are intended.
> Whether a larger engine or a set of drag inducing flaps or belly board one
> MUST ALWAYS REALIZE THE CHANGE will affect something else.
> > Doran
> > N186RC
> > kr2owner at email.co.
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Sun, 11 May 2014 01:09:30 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Carl Dow via KRnet <krnet at list.krnet.org>
> To: Doran Jaffas <kr2owner at gmail.com>, KRnet <krnet at list.krnet.org>
> Subject: Re: KR> Drag???? Whoa!
> Message-ID:
> <1399795770.72653.YahooMailNeo at web162804.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
> The egos,,,,, the drama,,,,, the over reactions,,,,, the
> perfectionism,,,,, WOW I am sick, Mr. Langford, get over yourself.? Life is
> short!!!!? Just stop and be likeable it is enough to make me puke!? Your
> plane is awesome, your knowledge and experience are beyond reproach, but my
> dear sir you take yourself waaaaaaaaaay too seriously as do others on this
> site.? No one is better than any other in this world, no one has the right
> to belittle others, especially for trivialities.? Think what you will of
> this email, slam me as you do others, but this is truly for your own good
> and of those around you.? It is well intentioned as I have nothing to gain
> or lose from this.? I enjoy the vast amount of excellent information, but
> the truth is the egos and attitudes are a bit much.? We all do well in
> taking a long look at ourselves with a neutral view to see ourselves as
> others perceive us.? If this means nothing to you, then the loss is your
> own.
>
> Sincerely,
> Carl Edward Dow
> On Sunday, May 11, 2014 12:51 AM, Doran Jaffas via KRnet <
> krnet at list.krnet.org> wrote:
>
> ? ? I DID NOT MEAN TO IMPLY THAT ALL MODS ARE BAD.
> ? ? I MAY END UP ADDING A BELLY FLAP AS WELL. I HAVE A SIMPLE LINKAGE
> DESIGNED THAT WILL BE EASY TO INSTALL.
> ? ? ? SOMETIMES THOUGH THE LESS EXPERIENCED COULD GET THE WRONG IDEA FROM
> SOME OF US THAT DO HAVE EXPERIENCE.
> ? ? ? SIGNING OFF. FEEL FREE TO CONTACT ME PERSONALLY BUT I FEEL TOO MUCH
> HEAT IS BEING GIVEN PUBLICLY.
> ? ? COUNTER IDEAS AND CORRECTIVE WORDS GIVEN TO ASSIST ARE ONE THING. OPEN
> REBUKE IS ANOTHER.
> ? ? ? THERE ARE A LOT OF GOOD AND KNOWLEDGEABLE FOLKS HERE.
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Doran
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? N186RC
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? .kr2owner at gmail.com
> On May 9, 2014 2:43 PM, "Doran Jaffas" <kr2owner at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Maybe I AM blowing smoke and will inhale it later but I AM curious about
> all the talk of adding drag to the KR to slow it down.
> >? ? ? I have flown several low drag / clean aircraft without flaps and
> never had any unnerving problems with landing.
> >? ? ? My personal opinion banded on some experience is to fly the airplane
> as intended. Get comfortable with the SLOWER SPEEDS and then determine what
> / if anything else one needs or wants to add.? THERE IS NO FREE LUNCH IN
> AERODYNAMICS.
> >? ? ? All aircraft have speeds that work best as they are intended.
> Whether a larger engine or a set of drag inducing flaps or belly board one
> MUST ALWAYS REALIZE THE CHANGE will affect something else.
> >? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Doran
> >? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? N186RC
> >? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? kr2owner at email.co.
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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.orgto change
> options
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Sun, 11 May 2014 01:14:56 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Carl Dow via KRnet <krnet at list.krnet.org>
> To: Jeff Scott <jscott.planes at gmx.com>, KRnet <krnet at list.krnet.org>
> Subject: Re: KR> Drag????
> Message-ID:
> <1399796096.97996.YahooMailNeo at web162803.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
>
> Today at 3:10 AM
> The egos,,,,, the drama,,,,, the over reactions,,,,, the
> perfectionism,,,,, WOW I am sick, Mr. Langford, get over yourself.? Life is
> short!!!!? Just stop and be likeable it is enough to make me puke!? Your
> plane is awesome, your knowledge and experience are beyond reproach, but my
> dear sir you take yourself waaaaaaaaaay too seriously as do others on this
> site.? No one is better than any other in this world, no one has the right
> to belittle others, especially for trivialities.? Think what you will of
> this email, slam me as you do others, but this is truly for your own good
> and of those around you.? It is well intentioned as I have nothing to gain
> or lose from this.? I enjoy the vast amount of excellent information, but
> the truth is the egos and attitudes are a bit much.? We all do well in
> taking a long look at ourselves with a neutral view to see ourselves as
> others perceive us.? If this means nothing to you, then the loss is your
> own.
>
> Sincerely,
> Carl Edward Dow
> On Friday, May 9, 2014 10:25 PM, Jeff Scott via KRnet <
> krnet at list.krnet.org> wrote:
>
> > ----- Original Message -----
> >
> > Maybe I AM blowing smoke and will inhale it later but I AM curious about
> > all the talk of adding drag to the KR to slow it down.
> > ?I have flown several low drag / clean aircraft without flaps and
> > never had any unnerving problems with landing.
> > ?My personal opinion banded on some experience is to fly the airplane
> > as intended. Get comfortable with the SLOWER SPEEDS and then determine
> what
> > / if anything else one needs or wants to add. THERE IS NO FREE LUNCH IN
> > AERODYNAMICS.
> > ?All aircraft have speeds that work best as they are intended. Whether
> > a larger engine or a set of drag inducing flaps or belly board one MUST
> > ALWAYS REALIZE THE CHANGE will affect something else.
> > ?Doran
> > ?N186RC
> > ?kr2owner at email.co.
>
> I was thinking the same way when I built my KR. ?I flew it 500 hrs with no
> flaps, belly board, or any other deployable drag. ?What I found over the
> years is that as I kept improving the plane with incremental drag
> reductions, the plane was getting more difficult to land. ?I was spending
> too much time over the runway transitioning from flying to rolling. ?At 500
> hours, I did some major renovations to the plane <http://jeffsplanes.com/>
> to include a significantly larger tail and the addition of flaps. ?To me,
> it was shocking as to how much easier this plane is to land with some kind
> of deployable drag. ?I have put another 500 hours on the plane since I
> added the flaps and have continued with my drag reduction improvements. ?It
> is really rare that I ever land this plane without flaps now that they are
> on there.
>
> I don't think there was much question that I could fly the plane well in
> it's original configuration. ?(OK, some of you may think I suck as a pilot
> :o) ?What I discovered after adding flaps and a larger tail is that the
> plane was much easier to land. ?By making it easier to land, I found that I
> was much more comfortable landing the plane in more challenging wind
> conditions. ?Since I could land under more challenging conditions, I was
> flying the plane a lot more and was very comfortable flying off to other
> places without having to worry about changing wind conditions at my
> destination airport or the often times challenging wind conditions getting
> back into my one way in, one way out, 7000' high on a mesa home airport.
> ?Adding flaps and a larger tail to my plane simply made my plane so I could
> use it a more.
>
> -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.orgto change
> options
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Sun, 11 May 2014 07:29:34 -0500
> From: via KRnet <krnet at list.krnet.org>
> To: KRnet <krnet at list.krnet.org>
> Subject: KR> Drag???? Whoa!
> Message-ID:
> <mailman.22.1399824008.11887.krnet_list.krnet.org at list.krnet.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
>
> At 03:09 AM 5/11/2014, you wrote:
> >The egos,,,,, the drama,,,,, the over reactions,,,,, the
> >perfectionism,,,,, WOW I am sick, Mr. Langford, get over yourself.
>
>
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> The KR net is usually a very civil exchange of ideas so I have no
> idea of where this crap came from. Someone asks a question about
> flaps or belly boards on a KR and a half dozen builders / fliers with
> a combined flight time of 3000+ hours respond with their
> opinion. Where is the drama, the ego, the over reactions, the
> perfectionism? Your personal attack on Mark Langford is totally out
> of line and I'm calling you out on it. I strongly suspect that those
> that take offense at the opinions given by those with experience have
> never taken flight in a KR. If you ask a question on the net and a
> consensus of experienced builders / fliers disagree with you, don't
> take it personal but put the information in your pocket for later
> use. If you're not willing to accept the advise of those with actual
> experience then you're wasting band width.
>
> Have a nice day.......
>
> Larry Flesner
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Sun, 11 May 2014 07:33:58 -0500
> From: via KRnet <krnet at list.krnet.org>
> To: KRnet <krnet at list.krnet.org>
> Subject: Re: KR> Drag????
> Message-ID:
> <mailman.23.1399824008.11887.krnet_list.krnet.org at list.krnet.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
>
> At 03:14 AM 5/11/2014, you wrote:
> >no one has the right to belittle others, especially for trivialities.
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> P.S. With 500+ hours flight time in a KR, there is nothing "trivial"
> about deployable drag for landing. Our strong opinions are based on
> reality, not theory.
>
> Larry Flesner
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Sun, 11 May 2014 09:56:23 -0500
> From: ppaulvsk at aol.com via KRnet <krnet at list.krnet.org>
> To: "=?utf-8?B?dmlhIEtSbmV0?=" <krnet at list.krnet.org>
> Subject: Re: KR> Drag???? Whoa!
> Message-ID:
> <mailman.24.1399824008.11887.krnet_list.krnet.org at list.krnet.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
> I totally agree Larry. I have the utmost respect for Mark and all the
> other builders that have a hell of a lot more experience than I do. Mark I
> think I can speak for everyone. You keep doing what you're doing a great
> job. Keep it up .
>
> Paul Visk
> Belleville Il
> 618-406;4705
>
> Sent from my HTC on the Now Network from Sprint!
>
> ----- Reply message -----
> From: "via KRnet" <krnet at list.krnet.org>
> Date: Sun, May 11, 2014 7:29 am
> Subject: KR> Drag???? Whoa!
> To: "KRnet" <krnet at list.krnet.org>
>
> At 03:09 AM 5/11/2014, you wrote:
> >The egos,,,,, the drama,,,,, the over reactions,,,,, the
> >perfectionism,,,,, WOW I am sick, Mr. Langford, get over yourself.
>
>
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> The KR net is usually a very civil exchange of ideas so I have no
> idea of where this crap came from. Someone asks a question about
> flaps or belly boards on a KR and a half dozen builders / fliers with
> a combined flight time of 3000+ hours respond with their
> opinion. Where is the drama, the ego, the over reactions, the
> perfectionism? Your personal attack on Mark Langford is totally out
> of line and I'm calling you out on it. I strongly suspect that those
> that take offense at the opinions given by those with experience have
> never taken flight in a KR. If you ask a question on the net and a
> consensus of experienced builders / fliers disagree with you, don't
> take it personal but put the information in your pocket for later
> use. If you're not willing to accept the advise of those with actual
> experience then you're wasting band width.
>
> Have a nice day.......
>
> 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
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Sun, 11 May 2014 09:57:04 -0500
> From: Mark Langford via KRnet <krnet at list.krnet.org>
> To: "KRnet" <krnet at list.krnet.org>
> Subject: Re: KR> Drag???? Whoa!
> Message-ID: <61E3C536DF7E440B8EDB362171421EAE at base>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
> reply-type=original
>
> Carl Dow wrote:
>
> >>The egos,,,,, the drama,,,,, the over reactions,,,,, the
> >>perfectionism,,,,, WOW I am sick, Mr. Langford, get over yourself. Life
> is
> >>short!!!! Just stop and be likeable it is enough to make me puke! <<
>
> There was a time when I'd let this bother me, but no longer. I know that
> what I said was purely in the interest of answering Doran's post, which
> appeared to have been made without actual KR experience. And although I
> could have said it in a "you are so wrong" way, instead I responded to his
> concerns with a simple explanation from the standpoint of my experience to
> the contrary. And I did it as nicely as I possibly could have.
>
> I think it's the duty of experienced builders and pilots to cry "foul" when
> somebody comes up with something from left field that has the potential of
> leading others down the wrong path. I have zero regrets regarding my
> reply, and will continue to stand my ground when it's in the best interest
> of builders and pilots.
>
> One of the rules of this list is to try to take comments from others as
> constructive, rather than destructive, and with the best possible
> interpretation. I'm not sure that either you or Doran read my post with
> that
> rule in mind. I'm fine with what I said yesterday, and will spend the day
> working on my plane, rather than second guessing myself...
>
> Mark Langford
> ML at N56ML.com
> website at http://www.N56ML.com
> --------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> See KRnet list details at http://www.krnet.org/instructions.html
> KRnet mailing list
> KRnet at list.krnet.org
> http://list.krnet.org/mailman/listinfo/krnet_list.krnet.org
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of KRnet Digest, Vol 2, Issue 121
> *************************************
>
