KR> rear outer spar caps
I can splice .25 on > each of the cap pieces or I can glue a .25 piece > over the end of the 2 caps > before I glue the webs >> Maybe stating the obvious but as per ML - just make sure whatever you do is at the outboard end where it will make no difference anyway. The inboard end of each cap has a critical distance from the end of the spar to the first holes of the WAF - the RR design has very little spare here - certainly less than 1/4" ___ ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
KR> rear spars
But wouldn't this > effect the washout with a lot of movement in them? > I was surprised that they were called flimsy - particularly after the web was added - this should become a (relatively) sturdy structure. Alook at the WAF's gives some indication of the load that they were designed to bear. I was more surprised at the coment that they were there for fore /aft support - they are even weaker in this direction. I think they are perfectly adequate for the portion of the load (vertical) delegated to their location (.75c) if they are built to plane with the correct materials and adhesive. The rotational (torsional) forces are in the shear capacity of the skin - very important to consider when adding /changing flap or aileron sizes or proportions that differ from the design and impose different "twisting" forces to the wing. ___ ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
KR> Eureka - I found it
The KR as such is nothing much, but the concept generally results in a stunning wee bird - it offers wonderful potential and brings out the best in the "experimental" component amongst us. Witness N19MMR, N41768, N891JF, N4DD, N902G, N1213W, N??TP. The jury is still out on 53ML, but my guess is that this variant will do the fleet great justice. Add the Yeehaa of them all, old big foot (N211LF) and what do we have - anything but a KR - we have a collection of brilliant airplanes that have ALL been inteligently adapted to suite a variety of tastes and desires. There are many, many more. In short - the KR is a concept, the resultant airplanes are the innovative expressions of imaginative and creative craftsmen. Sounds a bit poetic, but it is true. Sadly, 90% of the aggro around a KR stems from the need for changes. We all agree that the stock KR2 or even 2S, built as per plan and within the weight, would be a great day, VFR, hand start, around the patch airplane. Adrian Carter (C-FAFY) demonstrated this (and some)- he even made good use of the original RR folding legs (and no KR nett). However, as evidenced by everything I have seen, the typical KR builder wants something else (more). Yes - we need to lean over sometimes and we need to "experiment" sometimes, but when one of the respected members of the group makes a statement like: The only potential good result that I can see coming from this recent set of discussions is that most of the planes will never be finished. Well that essentially screws that discussion - not so? Not sure hoe he differentiate between the guy /gal that runs out of cash, looses a job, someone dies, divorce - any one of a hundred reason for quitting - and then pegs the cause to a modified mainspar. This is sad. I know where the guy is coming from and he is mostly correct in a world of litigation and in the world of "minding my own business" - a world that the pioneers of aviation would never understand - ask Wilbur (or Orville). The other part of minding my own business is really doing exactly that. If you feel safe in your ivory tower and you have no need for help from anyone, why do you read the posts - if not to seek an opportunity to contribute? With great respect, I know that you shared your composite u/c design with those that are planning a 1400lb airplane. Not much help coz none of us have a 1400lb main spar (like you do). Yes, you exonerated yourself, but I call that a cop out. This will probably cost me dearly, but what have you actually contributed lately - criticism does not count. The brief bio does not for count much either. Even the insufferable Colin (and Beverly) Rainey tries to contribute - poor misguided soul. Never mind, at least he tries. I take my cue from LF, ML, MJ, TP, DH and the like - they are the backbone of the KR as it stands today. They wil hedge, duck and dive - but eventually they will help. Actually, that is not true - only applies to the the guy with the over-active Labrador - but he will always be constructive if you are honest with him (and patient) Some of them hold you in awe, so I followed suite. I want to build an airlane. I am a 500 hout PPL and an engineer (certified, degreed - whatever) so I fully appreciate your concerns. I have the money ready - even for a QB RV8/9 kit, but that would be a bit like having haemerroids - every other asshole has them. (Sorry Dana - I suspect that you may stiil be around) The last comment from the esteemed member (with the brief bio) really canned it for me. Eureka, I have found my way forward - same price, same performance, same media, the only snag is that the support group is foreign - so no KRnett. It is not a KR, but all the variants are close - Anything from a single seat, 2 in tandem, two side-by-side, VW /Vair /0-200 or even IO-360. No mods required, the cabin (on the side-by-side models) is wider than a C172 and most of them offer conventional gear, or the training gear, or folding legs. Plans cost a few bob more, but then they are the creations of Claude Piel (or Giuseppe Vidor) - no mods required. (simmilar pedigree to the SF260, Ferrari, Masserati) Incidently: Quote: "Ken Rand and Stu Robinson where not experts in airplane structures, but they did not need to be. They copied an existing design and did not screw around with it" end quote. Wow - from a 35hp single seat to a 65hp two seater without screwing with the design - fuck me gently George. At your mercey ML - a man must do what a man must do. ___ Moving house? Beach bar in Thailand? New Wardrobe? Win £10k with Yahoo! Mail to make your dream a reality. Get Yahoo! Mail www.yahoo.co.uk/10k
KR> GPSMAP 296 @ Discount prices (AC Spruce)
I noticed your posting to the KR group >> Interesting that you should be a member Mr. Irwin - what are you building? KR1? KR2? KR2S? Or do you just hang out to make sure that nothing untoward happens? I know where you are coming from, but I also know that you have just blown infinitely more business out your ear that you may ever have made by selling a few GPS's - trust me on that. Silly man, you were well on your way to getting ACS back up there. Maybe you just got out of the wrong side of the election? Ed ___ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
KR> Glass fuse
I don't know, but my hopes are that one of the > netters has an informed > opinion and will share it with us. Don't hold your breath on that. This leo guy is sure a messy builder - surprised that you say he made a nice kr. I see what you mean stephen - if the two meterials dont take the load together then one of them is technically just not there. I have read some of zeke Smith somewhere and remember that it was interesting. You seem to just ask questions all the time, are you making a kr or what I must soon choose between a kr or maybe a Fisher airplane - I want two seats. Thanks Edward --- Stephen Jacobs wrote: > You worry me when you say it is not good !!! > > who is zeke Smith > > + > > Hey Ron - As the man always says, your results may > differ. > > I discussed my concerns with Eduardo (this took some > time as he speaks > Spanish and I speak English). He certainly is a > bright guy and appears > to have done his homework. Everything else he has > done is near perfect, > including anodizing his ali parts and making up his > own legs and leg > attachments, fuel tanks etc. One other South > American (Leo, he speaks > English) is doing similar things with a GP4, in this > case the wing was > originally designed for a ply skin, but Leo is doing > a KR wing type > skin, but staying with the original design spars. > http://www.geocities.com/leoadrena/GP4.html > > Leo built a nice KR before, so he has been around > DIY airplanes for a > while. > > Zeke Smith has written various books and articles on > composite > structures - I see him as knowledgeable in these > matters. If he > perceives a problem with mixing E-glass and Carbon > fibre in the same > lay-up due to the differences in stiffness (as > suggested in the extract > I included) - I must wonder to what extent the same > problem will be > present in Eduardo's Structure - he is mixing ply > with glass. > > For that matter, how wise is it for Leo to build the > wing sub-structure > (spars /ribs etc.) according to the plans and then > completely change the > wing skin from ply to mould-less composite (not even > a true sandwich)? > > > > My strong interest is with Eduardo's way - I suppose > the question really > is which is "stiffer", the spruce frame or the > foam/glass composite. > > If the Composite component of Eduardo's airplane is > stiffer and takes > the initial load, all is well (if the glass bit is > spec'd to do the > job.) The spruce frame goes along for the ride. > > If the spruce frame is stiffer and loads up first - > it may not be strong > enough without the ply skin and fail. > > We both seem to like his approach, so let me know if > you learn any more. > > Take care > Steve J > > > > ___ > to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to > krnet-le...@mylist.net > please see other KRnet info at > http://www.krnet.org/info.html > ___ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
KR> Glass fuse (and other nonsense)
Steve you have to think about what you just wrote there. Not much difference between foam and ply except for density and weight. If the skin is properly laid up per manufacturers spec the resulting structure will be the same. Mahogany ply is widely available around the world and has been used for years in aircraft construction the same as spruce. Reinforcing these woods with glass, whether E, S (my preference due to it's low cost and higher resistance to heat), Kevlar or Carbon will only make the resulting structure stronger. None of this is engineering but only logic as both wood and foam absorb resin during the lay-up process. Edwardo's idea allows a much easier fuselage construction in my humble opinion as the wood formers definitely take the guesswork out of sanding the foam to shape and assure that both sides are identical. It also allows an infinite choice of shapes as witnessed by the War Replica designs that follow the KR type box boat with wooden formers added to allow the builder to replicate what ever design he/she has chosen. Doug Rupert Simcoe Ontario >> >>> >> Steve - I hope you get the answer and also tell me as this is exactly what I would like todo. The one thing between me and a KR is the boat structure. I realize that many have been made like that and most of them look very good. I helped someone do this and the plywood was creaking when he pulled the sides together. the plywood was already stressed nearly to breaking before the thing even looked like an aeroplane never mind started bearing flight loads. As said many times before the sides bow to a banana shape even more when you increase the seat width. This is an interesting and valid KR topic. at least one KR is being built this way and if ron and steve and me are interested in eduardos way then help us get it right or stay away. Doug - lets look at some of what you say and maybe you must also think about what you say. "Not much difference between foam and ply except for density and weight" Well - also not much difference between lead and feathers, just the colour. Oh and the weight. "If the skin is properly laid up per manufacturers spec the resulting structure will be the same." The manufatures spec calls for ply so anything else is not properly done and not as per the manufacturers spec - that is the whole point of this discussion. "Mahogany ply is widely available around the world and has been used for years in aircraft construction" I dont think anyone will dispute that it is widely used for aircraft. Steve J, you have been caught out telling fibs - you said good ply was a problem for you in africa, shame on you. "Kevlar or Carbon will only make the resulting structure stronger" Steve, better tell this zeke fella he has it all wrong - you can mix and match carbon and even kevler with spruce, ply, lead and feathers. no problem. (BTW My brief experience with kevlar was definitely the last. It may be good for bulletproof vests but not good for composite work. trust me.) "None of this is engineering but only logic" Phew - I was starting to worry. im no Engineer but I amok with logic "both wood and foam absorb resin during the lay-up process" I had this one all wrong. I figured that the whole idea behind a micro slurry (paste?) over the core was to prevent any unwanted weight build up from absorbed resin. "War Replica designs that follow the KR type box boat with wooden formers added to allow the builder to replicate what ever design he/she has chosen." Total agreement with this one - the WAR replicas have a complete KR type boat with the plywood and all - complete and competent being the point, no deviations or material substitution. The moldless foam appendages are non-structural fairings to achieve a given appearance. i think this is a bit different from the present topic that is all about glass foam as an integral part of the structural integity of the boat. Sorry gang - maybe unneccessary to say it this way, but it is an interesting and relevantKR topic and it would be magic if we had some informed input as why this is OK or not Ok or how to better do it. I did feel obliged to state point for point why I dont see any contribution value from dougs input. Edward ___ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
KR> G limit
A loose rule of thumb is to lose 1G per 100 lb thus at 1300lb your're looking at only +3/-3. >> I think steve J is saying that the above statement is a load of 10/100, utter crap with no grain of substance. He went to some trouble to say why and what he says makes sense to me I know where he is coming from coz we spoke off line some weeks ago or months ago. He believes that we should encourage the guys that know to tell us and he said that guys including himself should not express opeionions about stuff they dont know about. his worry before and maybe this time is that he felt it important to set the facts state if no better opinion is offered when someone asks a good question and gets a rubbish answer. The loose rule of thumb is rubbish. Why say it when someone mighte beleieve it. why defend it Ed ___ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
KR> Re: N995BG is cranked up - KRnet World Record
Tommy Very pleased about your engine - really, but not so pleased to tell you that you have broken the all time idiot record. Not by much mind you - you pipped out a few close contenders. It pains me greatly to do this, but I will force myself in order to (hopefully) make a point. Please scroll down (all the way) and see how much utter useless Charlie Romeo trails below your few meaningful words. All this will now be archived for ever more. I have read some folks say - "Don't archive" - I am not sure that there is anyone sitting anywhere allocating each posting - I think it all just gets cast in. Why am I butting in? - Coz I would hate to see this group fall over due to some avoidable reason. Besides, ML is probably about ready for his bi-annual eruption - he really needs to spend more time in the Shop NOW READ ON, AND ON, AND ON. (and ask the kid next door about the delete key) --- Tommy Waymack wrote: > Good news from Pine Bluff.Installed a new case last > week end and the engine > came to life yesterday.Now maybe Ihave a chance to > FLY into the gathering > after 6 years of ups and downs,bad weather,broken > studs,and terror > attacks.Tommy W. > - Original Message - > From: > To: > Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2004 4:38 PM > Subject: KRnet Digest, Vol 346, Issue 112 > > > > 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. RE: polystyrene (Stephen Jacobs) > >2. Re: polystyrene (Phillip Matheson) > >3. Re: PVC Fuel tanks/ alum tubes > (GavinandLouise) > >4. RE: polystyrene down under (Stephen Jacobs) > >5. Canopy hinge (GavinandLouise) > >6. Re: Canopy hinge - drilling 1/4 holes (Dan > Heath) > >7. Re: RE: KR plans (Dan Heath) > >8. Re: Canopy hinge - drilling 1/4 holes > (GavinandLouise) > >9. Re: Canopy hinge - drilling 1/4 holes > (GavinandLouise) > > 10. (no subject) (rparker) > > 11. "explosafe" foam (rparker) > > 12. Re: polystyrene (patrusso) > > 13. RE: Insurance (Mark Jones) > > 14. Re: polystyrene (Steve Eberhart) > > 15. Re: polystyrene (Mark Langford) > > 16. PVC Fuel tanks/ alum tubes (larry flesner) > > 17. Re: RE: Insurance (larry flesner) > > 18. slow progress (Mark Langford) > > 19. micro (Eric Evezard) > > 20. Re: To cool or not too kool (Al Friesen) > > 21. Urethane Foam (Dean Cooper) > > > > > > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2004 06:50:42 +0200 > > From: "Stephen Jacobs" > > Subject: RE: KR> polystyrene > > To: "'KRnet'" > > Message-ID: <01c49628$97be8400$b464a8c0@home> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > > > If you put fiberglass over foam without first > squeegeeing in SOMETHING, > > the fiberglass will not stay attached to the foam > for long... > > > > > > > > With respect - I am not convinced the above is > correct when it comes to > > polystyrene (Styrofoam?). > > > > This is something I have been trying to understand > for months now - what > > are the salient differences between styrofoam and > polyurethane foam in > > terms of their respective characteristics - > strength in shear and > > surface competence (for adhesion of a skin). > > > > Take some duct tape and try to stick it to a sheet > of poly-u. The tape > > will readily come off (fall off) with a thin layer > of urethane "dust" > > coating the adhesive of the tape. I have no > difficulty understanding > > that polyurethane needs something to "bind" and > seal the surface in > > order to achieve any degree of competent surface > (suitable for attaching > > a skin). > > > > The same tape attached to a sheet of Styrofoam > will take much more > > effort to remove and will actually tear out > individual beads - it has a > > substantially more competent surface (for sticking > things to) - will a > > slurry mix benefit this in any way? > > > > I have built model airplanes up to 40lb (some are > now 25 years old) with > > a variety of wing skins (balsa wood, veneer, glass > cloth) attached to > > styrofoam directly with epoxy. As any modeller > will know, these birds > > are subjected to G loads many times higher than > real airplanes - I have > > never had a failure in the skin attachment. > Before I could afford epoxy > > (1972) I sealed the Styrofoam with a coat of > watered down PVC white > > (wood) glue and used general purpose polyester > resin and glass cloth. > > Very often these wings had no spars so the > skin-to-foam bond w
KR> KRnet World Record
We have no "idiots" on the krnet, only the uninformed. Please offer your advise and guideance in a positive way. Thank you. >>> You are absolutely right - sincerest apologies to all. I knew I was pushing it, but hoped to make general point re trimming the excess. I would have felt just a bit better if it had any good effect, but it gas sadly made zero difference. Ed ___ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
KR> DAR visit
I have been watching this aeroplane progress for several months now and I am honestly not all that surprised, it is already an incredible achievemnt - but I am very pleased for your sake. The very best of luck Mark Ed Everybody else - lets give him a present and go read the netiquette - even the old hands. In particular, delete the trail on your reply. He was due to fling all his toys against the wall anytime soon, but I guess he will be Ok for a while now. Nobody out there is doing this deliberately, so I assume you simply do not understand the problem - I got the kid next door to explain it to me !!! ___ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
KR> Getting ready to fly
Ouch Orma - I think I am more frustrated about the last minute hang ups than you are - I am dead keen to see how she goes. Maybe this is obvious, but boost is not neccessarily directly related to rpm - en engine can also be over boosted at low rpm. In fact, I think high MAP at low rpm is worse - that's the reason we are taught to increase rpm before we increase power when throttling up. Good luck mate Ed ___ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
KR> New Guy
I'll be there in spirit >>> The idea is to get people together, not spooks. Ed ___ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
KR> Type 4 Engine Bulidup
Hey Orma I am really pleased for you - I check my mail 3x daily hoping to hear some more. I suspect you will crack it over the weekend - unless you actually need to change something (for a bigger something). I will copy what you have done so I am all ears (except I will drive of the other end of the VW). Good luck Ed ___ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
KR> Plan #'s
I agree with mark jones - drop the knittting talk. I do think that what stephen j said needed to be said - i agree with him in everyway. I seldom post because I have nothing constructive to contribute - but in this case I feel oblidged to drop a stitch and support stephen - I doubt that any netters are thieves, but i do know that rr needs a serious wakeup call - the kr society will ultimately turn their backs Ed ___ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
KR> flaperons
--- Jack Cooper wrote: > Russ > I was at one time thinking of a flaperon system > but found I was using too > much time and resources to accomplish it. That is > when I decided to go with > a plans aileron system and possibly a belly board. > First thing to think of > is that you will need additional downward travel of > the ailerons to still > have full aileron travel when both are extended as > flaps. I don't think > plans ailerons will allow this much travel so you > will have to have wider > gaps on the bottom of the wing to aileron. Langford > style ailerons would > probably work best. I think I have a drawing of the > flaperon control that I > was planning on using which consisted of torque > tubes and a moveable > (forward and rear) bell crank. I'll see if I still > have it and post it to > my website. > > Jack Cooper > > > > [Original Message] > > From: francis fenlason > > To: KRnet > > Date: 8/22/2004 6:30:59 PM > > Subject: KR> flaperons > > > > > > > > I would like to use flaparons(SP?). Does any one > who has done it have > > drawings as to how it is accomplished? Russ > Fenlason > > asir...@702com.net > > > > > > to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to > krnet-le...@mylist.net > > please see other KRnet info at > http://www.krnet.org/info.html > > > > > > ___ > > to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to > krnet-le...@mylist.net > > please see other KRnet info at > http://www.krnet.org/info.html > > > > ___ > to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to > krnet-le...@mylist.net > please see other KRnet info at > http://www.krnet.org/info.html > ___ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
KR> flaperons
Flaperons on a short coupled, low wing aeroplane with very little dihedral is definitely NOT a good idea. Why? Not me that wants to do this so not my function to defend the crazy notion - give me your logic and I will reply. Eddie ___ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
KR> Cheper Down Under
>You guys should keep an eye on the exchange rate. > The Aust$ is up at thew moment and that should make imported goods from there cheper >> A great engine in three usefull sizes - starting to bridge the engine Rubicon Last year this time the AUD cost US$0.66. It has steadily risen and now costs US$0.73. Yes Pudnic, it has gone "up", but that means it costs more for folks buying with US$. Maybe that is what cheper means in under the long white cloud. Who left the gate open - the sheep are confusing some folks? ___ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - so many all-new ways to express yourself http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
KR> Height of landing gear?
Duncan The undercarriage height is influenced by a few things, but the two issues in this case: The Original KR1 and 2 had a low tech, low cost, very simple retract system that was almost great. Many KR's are still flying with these folding legs(taildragger). The simplicity of the design dictated that they were pretty short (stubby) and thus a the very low sit on the ground. No other reason. For what it is worth, I thought this was a great concept until it became clear that there was no real speed advantage in this particular case. Pity. coz that is the whole idea behind a retractable u/c. So - the original KR's were squat simply coz it suited the landing gear as designed and supplied by Kenny Rand. The next issue is propeller ground clearance. With the original direct drive VW engines it was neccessary to let them step out a bit (rev up) to develop the hp. We never want our propeller (tips) to go supersonic (or even close) so the faster we turn the prop, the smaller the diameter needs to be. The smaller the diameter, the smaller the circumference, the less feet travelled during one rotation, the less feet travelled per minute, the lower the tip velocity (for a given rpm) As a consequence, prop diameters were relatively modest and the squat landing gear was not really an issue. Some builders used different motors like the C65/85 and O-200/235 that needed a bigger prop. Similarly, redrives emerged that facilitated slower prop rpm on auto engines, so bigger (longer) propellers were back in fashion. The folding legs soon gave way to the variety of attractive and effective (rugged) u/c configurations we see today. Even if the original folding legs had been popular, they would have presented a problem for the new breed of power plants. The u/c simply needed to be taller. A fixed u/c presents drag in proportion to its size (and length)-so most builders will only accept what they need for enough propeller clearance. Ed ___ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - so many all-new ways to express yourself http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
KR> Some basic questions...
Ello!! ___ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - so many all-new ways to express yourself http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
KR> Wes Scot - Drilling Holes in Spars
>>the vertical shear force on the spar inside the >>fuselage is zero Aw shucks man, why did I not know that before - I need to rip out the ply shear webs in the fuselage to fit my rubber tank - now I can. Silly KR, why did he put them there in the first place - just extra weight. ___ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - so many all-new ways to express yourself http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
KR> Speed Brake
mounting it from the front spar is fine, but mounting it from the rear spar has the added benefit of pitching the nose down a little to give you better visibility. > Mounting the speed brake further fwd has advantages: = more space for a longer brake. = wee bit more height on a tail dragger = thicker wing to work with. If these are of any value, move it to the big spar. As regards changing the pitch angle - this is obviously a highly desirable effect, but it is not an aerodynamic reaction to the speed brake or where the speed brake is located. The lower nose is a consequence of increased drag - no matter where the drag source is located(flap /brake /spoiler /parachute)- even on top of the wing for that matter. A windmilling propeller has exactly the same effect (steeper glide) - we have seen a turbo Porter with the propeller in B range - now that is getting the speed brake really far forward - it comes down like an elevator. The attitude (pitch) that the aircraft asumes in the glide (or mapproach) is a function of maintaining the speed you require under a particular power /drag configuration. If you add drag (and do not add power to compensate) the bird will slow up unless you add something else to keep it moving at the required speed - i.e. lower the nose for a steeper down hill ride. I am very aware of this (on appraoch) when deciding when to push the propellers through to full fine - the VSI shows the extra drag immediately and the nose needs to be lowered to stay north of the blue line. The propellers are well fwd of the front spar. ___ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - so many all-new ways to express yourself http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
KR>Spar lamination direction - Oops
I was expecting a boffin (like him) to step up and declare this to be as good as (or better). You should notice that in my original answer, I said "should not go through the glue line". I did not say "must not". .. And then gods came down from the heavens and the gods spoke. Listen to what I say my son and don't utter what I have said lest you do it as I did it an no other way. Now go forth and spread the truth to brother Langford. Amen ___ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - so many all-new ways to express yourself http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
KR> X-45 NEWS
It's a very exciting time right now for the X-45 team I know that I should really look in the archives first but my curiosity is killing me - what on earth is the X 45? Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html
KR> spar cap width
Outer spars taper to 1" in plan view and 11/16 in side view (front view) For what it is worth, I think that is crazy - reduces attachment area for wing surfaces (skins). Mine will taper in front view only - constant 1-15/16 thickness in plan view for max glue area. Need the rear spars? Ed Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html
KR> spar cap width
> Stupid question... Is the height of the root end of > the outside spar the same as the height of the > center spar? From what I can tell it is. The only stupid question is the one you have, but don't ask. No - they are not the same - the centre section cap is 2" deep and the outer is 1-7/8" (not sure how this will look in print - it is 1/8" less than 2"). Cheers Ed Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html
KR> Posting Plans
Thanks Ron - the pics came out great. What version of autocad are you using? - I may have what you are looking for. (Remember that they use ply on the plans, not foam /glass). I doubt that the weight of decent folding legs are worth the hassle on a small bird - word is that a clean bird with good wheel fairing is no different (and a lot lighter). There is one guy (netter) from S Africa that appears to be planning retracts Ed Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html
KR> Justin - KR2 VS KR2S
Hi Justin I was amazed at the quality of the pictures you posted on the plans. I only have KR2 plans and always thought the only difference was the fuselage stretch and maybe the under cart. I note from your plans that there are extra ply gussets and doublers on the top of the boat. In some foto' I have seen extra diagonals accross the top etc. Would you please consider posting a picture of the rear half of the 2S top view and maybe the side view (if there are ant differences). Thanks Ed Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html
KR> Type 4 buildup
Good day Orma I have been following your engine history with great interest - particularly the excellent service you had in round one. (500+ hours?) Is it correct to say that the suspected missing #4 bearing has emerged in the form of the rear part of the hub and that this is in fact an intrinsic part of the design? It appears to have worked very well. Are you not bothred by the recent utterings re the potential for failure at the non-drive end - even if the hole /threads are taken beyond the weak point in the crank. You seem to have the knowledge and experience in engines, why have you not taken this opportunity to drive off the drive-end of the VW. My comments are not intended as criticism, I am asuuming that there will be serious answers to these questions. Edward Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html
KR> R.S.Hoover
I have heard great reports from everyone about steve > benet - would be real > sad f this is true. Hey Ronnie - I would not worry too much. I also like the GPA ream mount system - makes for a sleek cowl, turns the right way, can mount a starter (maybe an alternator??) and has some gizmo between the engine and hub that absorbs the power pulses - should also be OK for props other than wood. Better go talk to the man that makes them - at least check it out. This guy sounds very bitter and real cranky, has nothing good to say about anything or anybody - big block on his shoulder. Whilst some great guys are doing all they can (for free) to help folks on the net - this guy gets his lawyers to make sure they DON'T benefit from what he may have said - if I understood him right - hard to believe, Hope our intrepid Mark L never throws his toys away and does a duck - Mr. H, well he sure was an expert somewhere way back - now I fear he is an ex spurt - (has-been drip under pressure). Ed Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html
KR> Elevator Mass Balance mounting / Bingelis
+++ I agree the vne would seem balancing the elevator is overkill +++ when it's on the side of safety, I tend to shoot for overkill Wise man. Surely we already know enough to appreciate that dynamically and statically balanced CTL surfaces are the way fwd - particularly when we are aspiring to 150 mph plus. Put another way - we know enough to know that there is a great deal more to know. In 19 seventy something I stood and watched in utter amazement as a ragwing rudder started to flutter just before take off. It was bizzare, the whole vert stab was eventually in a slow motion oscillation - this all occered in seconds. I doubt that the old girl had reached 40 mph. Wisely, the driver gave it a miss and taxied back. Ed Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html
KR> Declaration of ignorance.
I would really like to know /see more. We are in a world of dreamers, experimenters, talkers and thinkers. (and Joe) Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html
KR> Elevator Mass Balance mounting
Joe says Weight on the ends distributes more effectively when dynamic forces are applied. I have used this method on the last aircraft I built(not a KR). Ed says - Weight on the "ends" is at an extremity - very far from evenly distributed. This extremeity is the furthest possible distance from the input force (control rod) and will thus precipitate the max torsional load - not a good idea. Steve J - please copy me on the info by Tony B - the guy that talks from the right end. Edward (edpsea...@yahoo.co.uk) Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html
KR> Aircraft parts of steel
next time try and drill through successive thicknesses of aluminum, when you give up use that thickness instead of steel. You should be surprised. Pardon? ___ WIN FREE WORLDWIDE FLIGHTS - nominate a cafe in the Yahoo! Mail Internet Cafe Awards www.yahoo.co.uk/internetcafes
KR> Aircraft parts of steel
However, I was indicating to someone the strength of aluminum. From an experience of mine in trying to drill through an aluminum aircraft hinge. Pardon? ___ WIN FREE WORLDWIDE FLIGHTS - nominate a cafe in the Yahoo! Mail Internet Cafe Awards www.yahoo.co.uk/internetcafes
KR> Spar Design
--- Stephen Jacobs wrote: > > Hi Stve Been watching for a while and joined recently - hope to start a KR2S this summer. +++My plans are very old (circa 1976/77) No kidding - that is nearly 30 years - how long has this little airplane been around? +++Maybe spar breathing? I have seen pictures where a hole was drilled in each post (pillar) for ventilation (pressure equalization). On this spar all pillars were full depth (width?) in contact with the ply front and back. all the way out (through the joiners at half span). Why continue with a laminated spar after the joiners - no more bends. Is there and engineering reason /principle that makes this a bad idea? Can't see why - if anything it will make the calculations easier - BUT I AM NOT QUALIFIED TO COMMENT I opted for the P51 wing P51 like in WW II NA Mustang?? Where did you find this - can I have the details? Ashok 15% ??? Ed Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html
