KR> Experienced with Solid Works at the Gathering
Are you sure he's talking about Solid Works? That's a 3D CAD and modelling tool. I'm trying to imagine how a presentation about registering an aircraft might be delivered using that tool. Sent from my iPhone > On 18 Aug 2016, at 10:30 AM, Paul-Visk via KRnet > wrote: > > > I'll talked to Charlie Becker from EAA today. He is doing a forum Saturday > afternoon at the gathering on how to register you home built. He asked me > if I could check if anyone knows how to use Solid Works. His presentation > that he's going to do at the Gathering is on that program. That software > program is relatively new to him and he's not comfortable with using it yet. > He was hoping someone would be there to rescue him if it crashed. > > 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> Kr2s Engine?
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> Kr2s Engine?
As Mark says, it mostly boils down to personal preference. A more realistic view of the fuel burn was when Joe Horton and I flew side by side from Los Alamos,NM to Chino, CA and back, he in his Corvair powered KR and me in my O-200 powered KR. We flew the whole trip within sight of each other. There are differences between our planes to be sure, but we are very closely matched in speed and performance. Joe burned 1/2 gal/hr less than I did with my O-200 for the trip. On the other hand, in 1150 hrs, my KR has never fallen from the sky. Not many Corvair powered KRs can make that claim. For sure, I have abused and broken things in my engine. But the O-200 is stout where it counts. It has never missed a beat, and things like a broken rocker shaft boss were found while performing routine maintenance in the hangar. If you're going to build a Corvair to try to match an O-200 for reliability, it's going to cost as much to build as the O-200. -Jeff Scott Los Alamos, NM ? ? Sent:?Wednesday, August 17, 2016 at 6:55 PM From:?"Mark Langford via KRnet" To:?KRnet Cc:?"Mark Langford" Subject:?Re: KR> Kr2s Engine? "Stan" 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? The difference between the two boils down to the O-200 is a real airplane engine, designed for the job, with compromises to make it last. This includes lower compression for reduced stressed, and a more primitive carb for simplicity. The biggest thing with the O-200 is that it's purpose made for the job, with giant bearing near the prop to handle prop loads. The Corvair was not designed to run wide open all the time, but if you put a $2000 crankshaft in it and add a $1000 front bearing, the crank becomes pretty reliable and there are few weak links left, one of which is the semi-rare cam gear failure (and we know what to watch for on that now). Rebuilds on a Corvair are pretty cheap, compared to the O-200, and heads and cylinders survive rather well. Corvair parts are rather plentiful, and simple stuff like gears are still made and cheap, rather than rare and expensive. Having said that, if reliability is your number one goal, the O-200 is the way to go. If efficiency and performance is your goal, the Corvair may be the way to go. Cost is probably about the same either way, as far as initial installation, depending on luck and scrounging ability. It's too early to tell what the TBO is on the Corvair...there just aren't enough hours on them yet. I'd bet serious money that it's longer on the Continental than the Corvair though! I don't think anybody would disagree with that. I have a lot invested in Corvairs, and will stick with them. They are far better than VWs, both in reliability and safety. And I have two of them ready to run already. No, I'm not trying to sell either of them. If I were starting over and an O-200 presented itself for a reasonable price, I'd seriously considering buying it. With a new 4340 crank in my Corvair though, I'm good with that option too, especially since they are both paid for. Mark Langford ML at N56ML.com http://www.n56ml.com ___ Search the KRnet Archives at http://tugantek.com/archmailv2-kr/search[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[http://www.krnet.org/info.html] see http://list.krnet.org/mailman/listinfo/krnet_list.krnet.org[http://list.krnet.org/mailman/listinfo/krnet_list.krnet.org] to change options
KR> KR2S gross weight question
I've been researching this for a little while but am not finding any real info. What are KR2S builders using as their gross weight? I'm looking at tri-gear and Corvair engine. Thanks Gary Wold Pilotgary at charter.net
KR> KR2S gross weight question
Gary Wold wrote: > I've been researching this for a little while but am not finding any real > info. What are KR2S builders using as their gross weight? I'm looking at > tri-gear and Corvair engine. I would think the average is probably between 1100 and 1200 on the data plate. Mark Langford, Harvest, AL ML "at" N56ML.com www.N56ML.com
KR> KR2S gross weight question
You can take Mr. Langfords word as golden. He knows. On Aug 18, 2016 10:04 AM, "Mark Langford via KRnet" wrote: > Gary Wold wrote: > > > I've been researching this for a little while but am not finding any real > > info. What are KR2S builders using as their gross weight? I'm looking > at > > tri-gear and Corvair engine. > > I would think the average is probably between 1100 and 1200 on the data > plate. > > Mark Langford, Harvest, AL > ML "at" N56ML.com > 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> Experienced with Solid Works at the Gathering
Here is Charlie Becker reply.?I misunderstood him. ?PaulI am talking about Solidworks but I was thinking we could have a workstation set up with it to let someone who really knows (I don?t) it show it off.? I was not planning to do it during my talk on certification. ? Thanks,Charlie? Original message From: Tony King via KRnet List-Post: krnet@list.krnet.org Date: 08/17/2016 7:34 PM (GMT-06:00) To: KRnet Cc: Tony King Subject: Re: KR> Experienced with Solid Works at the Gathering Are you sure he's talking about Solid Works? That's a 3D CAD and modelling tool. I'm trying to imagine how a presentation about registering an aircraft might be delivered using that tool. Sent from my iPhone > On 18 Aug 2016, at 10:30 AM, Paul-Visk via KRnet > wrote: > > > I'll talked to Charlie Becker from EAA today. He is doing a forum? Saturday > afternoon. > > > ___ > 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> Kr2s Engine?
Sounds like Ill stick with the venerable VW. The 0200 is a good engine and a good midtime one can be had reasonably. On Aug 17, 2016 11:46 PM, "Jeff Scott via KRnet" wrote: > As Mark says, it mostly boils down to personal preference. A more > realistic view of the fuel burn was when Joe Horton and I flew side by side > from Los Alamos,NM to Chino, CA and back, he in his Corvair powered KR and > me in my O-200 powered KR. We flew the whole trip within sight of each > other. There are differences between our planes to be sure, but we are > very closely matched in speed and performance. Joe burned 1/2 gal/hr less > than I did with my O-200 for the trip. > > On the other hand, in 1150 hrs, my KR has never fallen from the sky. Not > many Corvair powered KRs can make that claim. For sure, I have abused and > broken things in my engine. But the O-200 is stout where it counts. It > has never missed a beat, and things like a broken rocker shaft boss were > found while performing routine maintenance in the hangar. If you're going > to build a Corvair to try to match an O-200 for reliability, it's going to > cost as much to build as the O-200. > > -Jeff Scott > Los Alamos, NM > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 at 6:55 PM > From: "Mark Langford via KRnet" > To: KRnet > Cc: "Mark Langford" > Subject: Re: KR> Kr2s Engine? > "Stan" 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? > > The difference between the two boils down to the O-200 is a real > airplane engine, designed for the job, with compromises to make it last. > This includes lower compression for reduced stressed, and a more > primitive carb for simplicity. The biggest thing with the O-200 is that > it's purpose made for the job, with giant bearing near the prop to > handle prop loads. > > The Corvair was not designed to run wide open all the time, but if you > put a $2000 crankshaft in it and add a $1000 front bearing, the crank > becomes pretty reliable and there are few weak links left, one of which > is the semi-rare cam gear failure (and we know what to watch for on that > now). Rebuilds on a Corvair are pretty cheap, compared to the O-200, > and heads and cylinders survive rather well. Corvair parts are rather > plentiful, and simple stuff like gears are still made and cheap, rather > than rare and expensive. > > Having said that, if reliability is your number one goal, the O-200 is > the way to go. If efficiency and performance is your goal, the Corvair > may be the way to go. Cost is probably about the same either way, as > far as initial installation, depending on luck and scrounging ability. > > It's too early to tell what the TBO is on the Corvair...there just > aren't enough hours on them yet. I'd bet serious money that it's longer > on the Continental than the Corvair though! I don't think anybody would > disagree with that. > > I have a lot invested in Corvairs, and will stick with them. They are > far better than VWs, both in reliability and safety. And I have two of > them ready to run already. No, I'm not trying to sell either of them. > If I were starting over and an O-200 presented itself for a reasonable > price, I'd seriously considering buying it. With a new 4340 crank in my > Corvair though, I'm good with that option too, especially since they are > both paid for. > > > Mark Langford > ML at N56ML.com > http://www.n56ml.com > > > ___ > Search the KRnet Archives at http://tugantek.com/ > archmailv2-kr/search[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[http://www.krnet.org/info.html] > see http://list.krnet.org/mailman/listinfo/krnet_list.krnet.org[ > 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> Cross Country Planning
Someone recently described their cross country flight planning technique as basically looking to see if there's anything in the way between departure airport and destination, and then hopping in the plane and going. That's my technique as well. I've never understood what all the fuss with "flight planning" is about. Our task is to go from A to B. What could be simpler? Skyvector is free and is as good as it gets for "glimpse and go" flight planning. I wanted to add to this conversation/topic the fact that having oxygen for full-time use when travelling gives us another dimension to work with in avoiding obstructions between departure and destination, thus making "glimpse and go" flight planning even simpler than it already is. Flying high lets us sail right over the top of terminal airspace, no matter how complicated or busy. Same with Restricted airspace, depending on its ceiling. Same with mountains and everything else on the ground, including turbulence on bumpy days. Having a big tank of O2 with a pulse-demand regulator and Oxymizer cannula opens up the door to all the advantages that come with altitude. TCA directly ahead? I just ignore them, although I'll monitor approach and be ready to talk to someone in case the engine decides to crap out halfway across. Normally though I'd much rather listen to the engine than to radio yakking. I originally put together an oxygen system (eBay for everything - approximately $100 total) to try and prevent the headaches that I used to get when going from near sea level to 12.5 or 13.5, especially if I hadn't flown for awhile. Oxygen did indeed fix that problem. Having a big tank with a demand regulator means I can go completely across the U.S. and back to San Diego and still have oxygen left in the bottle. The big tank (E size, 24 cu. ft.) minimizes the hassle of getting it re-filled. I've never had to find an oxygen source when on the road. I always make it back home and to my familiar (and cheap) dive shop for refills. The primary factor regarding long duration is the demand regulator though. With the old constant flow regulators traditionally used in aviation, O2 would disappear quiickly no matter how big the tanks were. My "E" tank lies along the right side of the fuselage, braced by the bottom and fuselage side and at the bottom of the tank, a styrofoam pocket anchored to the bottom of the plane. The tank portrudes forward through a cut-out on my seatback and it's the seatback that braces the tank to keep it from coming forward. My baggage compartment insert sits on top of the tank, providing even more bracing to prevent the tank from moving. Mounted this way it isn't in the way at all. I've lost no baggage space. The regulator sits immediately beside my right hip thus allowing access. It's all very simple and extremely valuable to have. * So . . . re cross country planning, using oxygen and going high simplifies things even more and makes flying safer in several ways. There's less traffic at oxygen altitudes than below them, plus glide range is much enhanced in case of a mechanical issue. It helps significantly with fatigue and also improves vision, especially at night. I could go on and on . . . I love my bottle! Mike KSEE Laser147 at Juno.com MaxWay2Profit The Royal Bank of Canada Wants This Video Removed for Good http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/57b6184b9d53184b7f5cst02vuc
KR> Cross Country Planning
I see his point and going direct has its merits at altitude but myself...I like to see scenery and deviating around the airspace isn't a big issue for me but then again I also own a Tri Pacer and even with the mode s installed I avoid "big" airspace. On the other hand regarding weather a long time 747 Captain once said regarding weather. " I never check weather. The weather that's there is the weather your gonna get". Sums it up. Happy flying. D. Jaffas On Aug 18, 2016 4:20 PM, "Mike Stirewalt via KRnet" wrote: > Someone recently described their cross country flight planning technique > as basically looking to see if there's anything in the way between > departure airport and destination, and then hopping in the plane and > going. That's my technique as well. I've never understood what all the > fuss with "flight planning" is about. Our task is to go from A to B. > What could be simpler? Skyvector is free and is as good as it gets for > "glimpse and go" flight planning. I wanted to add to this > conversation/topic the fact that having oxygen for full-time use when > travelling gives us another dimension to work with in avoiding > obstructions between departure and destination, thus making "glimpse and > go" flight planning even simpler than it already is. Flying high lets us > sail right over the top of terminal airspace, no matter how complicated > or busy. Same with Restricted airspace, depending on its ceiling. Same > with mountains and everything else on the ground, including turbulence on > bumpy days. Having a big tank of O2 with a pulse-demand regulator and > Oxymizer cannula opens up the door to all the advantages that come with > altitude. TCA directly ahead? I just ignore them, although I'll monitor > approach and be ready to talk to someone in case the engine decides to > crap out halfway across. Normally though I'd much rather listen to the > engine than to radio yakking. > > I originally put together an oxygen system (eBay for everything - > approximately $100 total) to try and prevent the headaches that I used to > get when going from near sea level to 12.5 or 13.5, especially if I > hadn't flown for awhile. Oxygen did indeed fix that problem. > > Having a big tank with a demand regulator means I can go completely > across the U.S. and back to San Diego and still have oxygen left in the > bottle. The big tank (E size, 24 cu. ft.) minimizes the hassle of > getting it re-filled. I've never had to find an oxygen source when on > the road. I always make it back home and to my familiar (and cheap) dive > shop for refills. The primary factor regarding long duration is the > demand regulator though. With the old constant flow regulators > traditionally used in aviation, O2 would disappear quiickly no matter how > big the tanks were. > > My "E" tank lies along the right side of the fuselage, braced by the > bottom and fuselage side and at the bottom of the tank, a styrofoam > pocket anchored to the bottom of the plane. The tank portrudes forward > through a cut-out on my seatback and it's the seatback that braces the > tank to keep it from coming forward. My baggage compartment insert sits > on top of the tank, providing even more bracing to prevent the tank from > moving. Mounted this way it isn't in the way at all. I've lost no > baggage space. The regulator sits immediately beside my right hip thus > allowing access. It's all very simple and extremely valuable to have. > > * > > So . . . re cross country planning, using oxygen and going high > simplifies things even more and makes flying safer in several ways. > There's less traffic at oxygen altitudes than below them, plus glide > range is much enhanced in case of a mechanical issue. It helps > significantly with fatigue and also improves vision, especially at night. > I could go on and on . . . I love my bottle! > > Mike > KSEE > Laser147 at Juno.com > > > MaxWay2Profit > The Royal Bank of Canada Wants This Video Removed for Good > http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/57b6184b9d53184b7f5cst02vuc > > ___ > Search the KRnet Archives at http://tugantek.com/archmailv2-kr/search. > To UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to KRnet-leave at list.krnet.org > please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html > see http://list.krnet.org/mailman/listinfo/krnet_list.krnet.org to change > options >
KR> KR2S gross weight question
Gary, I'm using 1100 lbs on my data plate for my KR2S. It has a VW 2180. Empty weight is 740 lbs dry. Right within the range suggested by Mark L. Some are fLying closer to 1200 lbs in the US. Centre of gravity position when loaded is a critical factor to maintaining control . Regards Chris Gardiner Sent from my iPad > On Aug 18, 2016, at 9:13 AM, Gary Wold via KRnet > wrote: > > What are KR2S builders using as their gross weight? > > ___ > 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 gross weight question
Mine is at 1300 and I have flown it at every bit of that weight Mark Jones (N886MJ) Dunedin, FL Sent from my iPhone 6
KR> Cross Country Planning
Forget about the oxygen -- what engine and what size fuel tanks do you have? I'm planning on a VW, but still wondering a bit whether they're reliable enough. Also, are you flying on top of the weather, too? That's how Ken Rand died. He was flying VFR on top and ran out of gas. Mike Taglieri On Aug 18, 2016 4:20 PM, "Mike Stirewalt via KRnet" wrote: > Someone recently described their cross country flight planning technique > as basically looking to see if there's anything in the way between > departure airport and destination, and then hopping in the plane and > going. That's my technique as well. I've never understood what all the > fuss with "flight planning" is about. Our task is to go from A to B. > What could be simpler? Skyvector is free and is as good as it gets for > "glimpse and go" flight planning. I wanted to add to this > conversation/topic the fact that having oxygen for full-time use when > travelling gives us another dimension to work with in avoiding > obstructions between departure and destination, thus making "glimpse and > go" flight planning even simpler than it already is. Flying high lets us > sail right over the top of terminal airspace, no matter how complicated > or busy. Same with Restricted airspace, depending on its ceiling. Same > with mountains and everything else on the ground, including turbulence on > bumpy days. Having a big tank of O2 with a pulse-demand regulator and > Oxymizer cannula opens up the door to all the advantages that come with > altitude. TCA directly ahead? I just ignore them, although I'll monitor > approach and be ready to talk to someone in case the engine decides to > crap out halfway across. Normally though I'd much rather listen to the > engine than to radio yakking. > > I originally put together an oxygen system (eBay for everything - > approximately $100 total) to try and prevent the headaches that I used to > get when going from near sea level to 12.5 or 13.5, especially if I > hadn't flown for awhile. Oxygen did indeed fix that problem. > > Having a big tank with a demand regulator means I can go completely > across the U.S. and back to San Diego and still have oxygen left in the > bottle. The big tank (E size, 24 cu. ft.) minimizes the hassle of > getting it re-filled. I've never had to find an oxygen source when on > the road. I always make it back home and to my familiar (and cheap) dive > shop for refills. The primary factor regarding long duration is the > demand regulator though. With the old constant flow regulators > traditionally used in aviation, O2 would disappear quiickly no matter how > big the tanks were. > > My "E" tank lies along the right side of the fuselage, braced by the > bottom and fuselage side and at the bottom of the tank, a styrofoam > pocket anchored to the bottom of the plane. The tank portrudes forward > through a cut-out on my seatback and it's the seatback that braces the > tank to keep it from coming forward. My baggage compartment insert sits > on top of the tank, providing even more bracing to prevent the tank from > moving. Mounted this way it isn't in the way at all. I've lost no > baggage space. The regulator sits immediately beside my right hip thus > allowing access. It's all very simple and extremely valuable to have. > > * > > So . . . re cross country planning, using oxygen and going high > simplifies things even more and makes flying safer in several ways. > There's less traffic at oxygen altitudes than below them, plus glide > range is much enhanced in case of a mechanical issue. It helps > significantly with fatigue and also improves vision, especially at night. > I could go on and on . . . I love my bottle! > > Mike > KSEE > Laser147 at Juno.com > > > MaxWay2Profit > The Royal Bank of Canada Wants This Video Removed for Good > http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/57b6184b9d53184b7f5cst02vuc > > ___ > Search the KRnet Archives at http://tugantek.com/archmailv2-kr/search. > To UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to KRnet-leave at list.krnet.org > please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html > see http://list.krnet.org/mailman/listinfo/krnet_list.krnet.org to change > options >
KR> Cross Country Planning
As far as the VW goes. I have flown behind several. They have basic maintenance requirements but I trust them as much as a Lycoming or Continental. Time between overhaul is significantly (500hrs for a starting point) shorter but as long as they are not overbuilt they will serve you well. With the VW...simple is the watch word. Good crank. High quality cylinders. Accepted and proven carburetors. Magnetos or solid state ignition both work but again...use whats been proven. Fly safe but have fun. Doran On Aug 18, 2016 5:43 PM, "Mike T via KRnet" wrote: > Forget about the oxygen -- what engine and what size fuel tanks do you > have? I'm planning on a VW, but still wondering a bit whether they're > reliable enough. > > Also, are you flying on top of the weather, too? That's how Ken Rand died. > He was flying VFR on top and ran out of gas. > > Mike Taglieri > > On Aug 18, 2016 4:20 PM, "Mike Stirewalt via KRnet" > wrote: > > > Someone recently described their cross country flight planning technique > > as basically looking to see if there's anything in the way between > > departure airport and destination, and then hopping in the plane and > > going. That's my technique as well. I've never understood what all the > > fuss with "flight planning" is about. Our task is to go from A to B. > > What could be simpler? Skyvector is free and is as good as it gets for > > "glimpse and go" flight planning. I wanted to add to this > > conversation/topic the fact that having oxygen for full-time use when > > travelling gives us another dimension to work with in avoiding > > obstructions between departure and destination, thus making "glimpse and > > go" flight planning even simpler than it already is. Flying high lets us > > sail right over the top of terminal airspace, no matter how complicated > > or busy. Same with Restricted airspace, depending on its ceiling. Same > > with mountains and everything else on the ground, including turbulence on > > bumpy days. Having a big tank of O2 with a pulse-demand regulator and > > Oxymizer cannula opens up the door to all the advantages that come with > > altitude. TCA directly ahead? I just ignore them, although I'll monitor > > approach and be ready to talk to someone in case the engine decides to > > crap out halfway across. Normally though I'd much rather listen to the > > engine than to radio yakking. > > > > I originally put together an oxygen system (eBay for everything - > > approximately $100 total) to try and prevent the headaches that I used to > > get when going from near sea level to 12.5 or 13.5, especially if I > > hadn't flown for awhile. Oxygen did indeed fix that problem. > > > > Having a big tank with a demand regulator means I can go completely > > across the U.S. and back to San Diego and still have oxygen left in the > > bottle. The big tank (E size, 24 cu. ft.) minimizes the hassle of > > getting it re-filled. I've never had to find an oxygen source when on > > the road. I always make it back home and to my familiar (and cheap) dive > > shop for refills. The primary factor regarding long duration is the > > demand regulator though. With the old constant flow regulators > > traditionally used in aviation, O2 would disappear quiickly no matter how > > big the tanks were. > > > > My "E" tank lies along the right side of the fuselage, braced by the > > bottom and fuselage side and at the bottom of the tank, a styrofoam > > pocket anchored to the bottom of the plane. The tank portrudes forward > > through a cut-out on my seatback and it's the seatback that braces the > > tank to keep it from coming forward. My baggage compartment insert sits > > on top of the tank, providing even more bracing to prevent the tank from > > moving. Mounted this way it isn't in the way at all. I've lost no > > baggage space. The regulator sits immediately beside my right hip thus > > allowing access. It's all very simple and extremely valuable to have. > > > > * > > > > So . . . re cross country planning, using oxygen and going high > > simplifies things even more and makes flying safer in several ways. > > There's less traffic at oxygen altitudes than below them, plus glide > > range is much enhanced in case of a mechanical issue. It helps > > significantly with fatigue and also improves vision, especially at night. > > I could go on and on . . . I love my bottle! > > > > Mike > > KSEE > > Laser147 at Juno.com > > > > > > MaxWay2Profit > > The Royal Bank of Canada Wants This Video Removed for Good > > http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/57b6184b9d53184b7f5cst02vuc > > > > ___ > > Search the KRnet Archives at http://tugantek.com/archmailv2-kr/search. > > To UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to KRnet-leave at list.krnet.org > > please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html > > see http://list.krnet
