KR> Temporary partial loss of power
Hi John I think this is fairly typical. My tail dragger KR2 turbo 2180 also acts this way if I allow it to. I just run it up long enough to insure that the bubble has worked its way out after any fuel system work. - Original Message - From: "John Gotschall" To: "KRnet" Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 7:12 AM Subject: Re: KR> Temporary partial loss of power > My kr2 is a tail dragger. When I do this test, I do it tail down with > only 1 gallon of fuel in the 12 gal header tank, my system is gravity > fed. > > I know that my fuel system will deliver 15 gal/hr using only the last > gallon of fuel (worst case). > > I have also noted that after that one gallon has run out and the fuel > system is dry, it then vapor locks (or something like that) because when > I put another gallon into the dry system the fuel will not flow until > after I open the fuel line at the carb and let the air out. It takes 15 > to 30 seconds before the fuel appears at the carb end of the hose. Has > any one else noticed this delay? GPAS 2180 w/revmaster turbo setup, > revmaster carb under the engine. Gascolater low on engine side of > firewall. This worries me because at times the fuel outlet in the > bottom of the aluminum tank is sure to suck some air when the fuel is > sloshing about when the supply is low. > > John Gotschall > N611GB > > Puyallup, wa > > > > > > On Tue, 2009-04-07 at 06:27 -0700, Rich Seifert wrote: > > In your case; I would shoot for 15 gallons per hour > > "at the carb float bowl" as a minimum. > > > >
KR> Temporary partial loss of power
Hi Mark Definately fuel related. Do your best to eliminate all the sources of fuel restrictions on the ground. My bet is "vapor lock". Insolate you fuel lines, and route cool air to your gascolater. If you have done that and still have the problem; bad tank vent location as already mentioned is another strong possability. Another is your ram air installation ( if it appears to be air speed related). Ram air can pressurize the floatbowl and reduce your fuel flow. All three of these fuel flow restrictions have affected me and my VW powered KR2. A good first step is to verify you have at least three times your maximum, engine required, fuel flow in nose high and nose low attitudes. In your case; I would shoot for 15 gallons per hour "at the carb float bowl" as a minimum. Let us know what you find. Good luck Rich Seifert N56SR - Original Message - From: "Mark Moody" To: Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 7:39 PM Subject: KR> Temporary partial loss of power KRNet I need help in trying to identify a problem. I fly a kr-2s with a 2100 revmaster with a revflow carb and ram air. My airplane has always been very sensitive to mixture while flying. If I didn't have it set in that magic spot I may get a slight hiccup. It's never that sensitive on the ground though as I can do a full static runup (3000 rpm) on the ground while never missiing a beat while playing with the mixture. mmo...@telus.net
KR> Part numbers for Float valve for HAPI Ultra Carb
Hi Guys Jack at V. E. Petersen just provided the part numbers for the HAPI Ultra Carb based on the Tillotson carburetor Model number OM41A 2 provided by another fellow here on the net. These are current part numbers. Gasket Kit GS-189 provides the correct gaskets. $3.87 Needle & Seat Kit 233-683 provides the correct needle and seat. $3.50 But, before you order verify the seat jet diameter as there are several different seat jet diameters available for the carb. Jack is mailing me a copy of the service manuel and I will make it available to the KR Net. The company name is V.E. Petersen, 28101 East Broadway, WalBridge, Ohio, 43465. You can call in an order for parts at 1-800-537-6212.
KR> FW: Float valve for HAPI Ultra Carb?
I believe you will find that HAPI used a slightly modified Tillotson "OM" carburetor. That is what I bought from HAPI and I love it. HAPI's modified the Tillotson "OM" by adding their own mixture control. I ditched the float valve in question and used a GROSE-JET ball check valve in its place inorder to get the required fuel flow. The GROSE-JET No. 901 T-son .145 HD Alky. I much prefer the GROSE-JET. The Grose-jet is or at least was manufactured by the D & G Valve manufacturing company in Massachusetts. USA. I have not been able to reach them in several years. Maybe you will have better luck. Good Luck Rich Seifert KR-2 N56SR - Original Message - From: "Mark Langford" To: "KRnet" Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2009 3:18 PM Subject: KR> FW: Float valve for HAPI Ultra Carb? Anybody know where Willie Wilson can get a float valve for his HAPI Ultra Carb? Or do you recognize the one shown at http://www.krnet.org/misc/hapi_valve.jpg . Or maybe have a whole carb you could sell him? See his message below: >>We are surviving OK over here although sadly I have not been able to fly my KR lately due to a frustratingly small fault. A u/s float needle valve in my HAPI Ultra Carb. The trouble was lack of full power correctly diagnosed as a faulty [sticking] float needle valve. My long search for a replacement in the UK has fallen on stony ground. I tried the Sonex Aero Carb but found it unsuitable. Try as we might, it was impossible to get an equal fuel mixture to both sides of the VW. The right hand cylinders insisted in running too hot! I was advised that turning the carburetor through 90 degrees on the inlet manifold would solve the problem. Unfortunately there is insufficient room in the cowling to do that without ugly modification so I have decided to try repairing the Hapi Carb instead as it has given years of satisfactory service. The real problem I have had trying to replace the 'float valve' is there is no part number on it. I did try Great Plains but they were unable to help. I measured the jet diameter to 2.95 mm. That might be called 3 mm. <<< Thanks, Mark Langford, Huntsville, AL mail: N56ML "at" hiwaay.net website: www.N56ML.com - Original Message - From: William Wilson To: 'Mark Langford' Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2009 5:01 PM Subject: An illusive spare Hi Mark, How are you? I hope not too much affected by the financial mess the banks have got us all into! We are surviving OK over here although sadly I have not been able to fly my KR lately due to a frustratingly small fault. A u/s float needle valve in my HAPI Ultra Carb. The trouble was lack of full power correctly diagnosed as a faulty [sticking] float needle valve. My long search for a replacement in the UK has fallen on stony ground. I tried the Sonex Aero Carb but found it unsuitable. Try as we might, it was impossible to get an equal fuel mixture to both sides of the VW. The right hand cylinders insisted in running too hot! I was advised that turning the carburetor through 90 degrees on the inlet manifold would solve the problem. Unfortunately there is insufficient room in the cowling to do that without ugly modification so I have decided to try repairing the Hapi Carb instead as it has given years of satisfactory service. Knowing HAPI I'm sure it will have come off an American motorcycle or car carburettor somewhere! Maybe even a tractor! Have you any idea where I could buy a replacement or indeed something compatible? I have attached the valve dimensions for info. Sorry to bother you, but of all the folks I know in the 'States', I guess you are the most likely to know. Otherwise life is good! To pass those cold winter days happily under cover I have been restoring my father's old tractor which he bought in 1956 when I was 16 years old. [Picture attached.] Dad was a bit reluctant to part with things but I persuaded him to change a habit of a life time. It was lying rusting in the barn back at the old homestead but now it is in my garage looking like new. The old obsolete single cylinder two stroke diesel had to be restored too and ran for the first time in a decade this week!! It was very noisy as I still have no silencer!! I remember when I first ran the KR2 [at the same place] someone complained to the noise abatement people who sent an officer round to see me. The tractor is much noisier so I'm keeping my head down and off to make a silencer asp.!! We hope you and the family are well and we look forward to meeting you again one day. Indeed, if you're ever over here you must come and enjoy our Scottish hospitality. I know we live in England, but like I tell my neighbours, I bought a bit of it and Scotland starts as you pass the gate! Margaret sends her love, me too, Willie Wilson
KR> Elevator travel
Hi dr jay Elevator travel is up 30 degrees down 20 degrees. You can find it on KR-2 Drawing No. 7 which is page 29 in my KR Plans book. Have a great one. - Original Message - From: "dr jay" To: "kr2 kr2" Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 2:35 PM Subject: KR> Elevator travel > Netters > > I need to know how many degrees the elevator needs to be able to travel both up and down on a KR2. I can't seem to find it anywhere in the plans. > > drjay in sunny arizona > > > - > Looking for a deal? Find great prices on flights and hotels with Yahoo! FareChase. >
KR> gap seals
I installed gap seals, and would have to agree; I saw no aerodynamic benifit, but in my case they flutter at stall speed and so they are now my stall warning device. You results my vary. :-) - Original Message - From: "Larry&Sallie Flesner" To: "KRnet" Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 4:59 AM Subject: Re: KR> gap seals > > Larry said: but I recall that there is no aerodynamic gain in covering the > >opening with the RAF48 airfoil. > > > >It is my understanding that regardless of airfoil, that the primary benefit, > >and reason for the wing gap seals for ailerons is for the benefit to climb > >rate. > >Colin Rainey > > > What I said was: > > "The bottom needs to be open when using the piano hinge > to get the correct downward deflection. Some have covered > the opening with a gap seal (easily done) but I recall that > there is no aerodynamic gain in covering the opening with > the RAF48 airfoil." > > It's the bottom opening that I was talking about. The hinge > closes the top and provides the aileron gap seal to eliminate > airflow from bottom to top or vise versa at the wing trail edge. > > I recall someone testing both the RAF48 and the new airfoil > and found no aerodynamic benefit when closing the bottom > aileron gap on the RAF48 airfoil. There was, as I recall, a > benefit with the new airfoil in the climb rate. > > It's been a while so I could be in error. If so, someone will > correct me. > > Larry Flesner > > > > > > >
KR> comment
It's an interesting comment and there is much truth in it. I can't speak for the KR-2S Plans since I built a KR-2; but when I was building it was virtually impossible to build a KR-2 exactly to the plans. There were several gray areas, and quite a few down-right mistakes in the plans. The plans were difficult enough to interpret that only the builders with a fair amount of Engineering skill and a strong desire to fly, ever completed them. And we all know Engineers can not leave well enough alone. I beleave someone commented that builders who stuck closely to the plans were most likely to suceed and I agree. I've found you can plan on a task taking a minimum of three times longer if you don't have plans to follow. I really admire guys like Mark L. who have made so many changes yet have still completed and flown their KRs. They are a rair breed indeed, as many people that deviate significantly from the plans lose confidence and drop, or sell the project to someone else. Non-Flying KR PROJECTS that have deviated significantly from the plans are difficult to sell and are often scrapped instead. I think you will find that the vast majority of FLYING KR's were built pretty close to the plans. When Ken Rand first built the KR1 the VW was still a very experimental engine. He used to claim that he had more glider time in a KR1 than powered flight time. Since he was using junkyard engines I'm surprised he had any powered flight time at all. Since then much has been learned about aero VW conversions and the engine is quite safe if built correctly. Im sure that Corvair engines will also reach that reliability. In conclusion the basic KR design is far more reliable than many of the "improvements" that we make and most of our PROBLEMS are 100% OUR fault. From my own perspective, an improvement has to not only improve relaibility, but must also weigh LESS than the original design. Needless to say I haven't made very many improvements. Just my view. Thanks - Original Message - From: To: "KR-2" Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 2:44 PM Subject: KR> comment > After reading, and also hearing about the kr2 and all if it's problems..from engine..to landing gear ...fuel system..etc > I am surprised that after all of the years that have past, the kr2 still hasn't yet been refined , as to have one being built with all of it's problems being resolved, from past builders and also flyers as well. > It seems to me that something is always going wrong when changes are made. > > New builders should take the time to actualy read the plus side and the negative side of the kr2 before building one. 90 % of builders have not built one according to plans, without making some sort of modification to the kr2, maybe thats why they are having so much trouble later in the final phases when it comes to flying. ( want speed ? keep it simple and light ) > Maybe you should stick with the original design that has been proven for many years >
KR> Tough Old Bird
Hi Netters, I just thought you might like to hear a testimonial on the KR-2. January 1, 2007: I joined Rich Shirley for a flight from our home base at Corona Airport up to California City Airport. CA. City airport is about 90 miles North and out in the high desert. We were to meet several other members of his EAA Chapter for New Years breakfast; an annual tradition. The weather was cool and clear once the ground fog burned off at Corona. Our 9:00 AM takeoff was uneventful and both KR's climbed like homesick angels until we reached our cruising altitude of 7500". As we climbed out we experienced some buffetting, but nothing serious. We headed out of the LA basin through the Cajon Pass where it is usually gets a little rough, but still nothing too serious. Santa Ana winds were forecast and on the other side of the mountains we started picking them up. They were blowing up the rising terrain of the mountains and were mildly turbulent. We were getting about 300 to 500 FPM free elevator ride so we just pointed the nose down with trim and were cruising along at 165 MPH indicated. INDICATED! Ground speed was down around 120 mph. By the half way point we were at 8500" and bumpy but nothing serious. Just too much for formation flight. As we began to let down West of Edwards AFB things smoothed out again and we sailed into CA. City airport where everything was calm for a landing. We had a great breakfast and BS'd for about two hours. As we broke up and all headed out it was still very calm for take off. We quickly were back at 7500" for the trip home. It was still bumpy at altitude and we were still picking up the the 300 -500 fpm rising Santa Ana wind but this time we were sailing along at over 200 mph ground speed, Back at the pass with no problems but as we crossed over Pomona we started picking up some serious stuff. The rate of climb began searching for the peg in both directions. It finally pegged at 2000"fpm in both directions at almost the same time. Then we hit something way off the scale. Everything: 2 hand held radios, my hand held GPS, a small metal tool box, and a headset bag full of gear, along with one KR pilot hit the top of the canopy with a thud. The gear up-lock tripped and the gear partially extended which wasn't a bad thing as It started slowing the KR down immediately. When I figured out which way was up; I went ahead and locked the gear in the down position and started letting down near Chino airport. As we passed over the Chino airspace we started letting down in earnest from the 6000" to 2000" preparing to enter Corona pattern for runway 7. Corona is a great airport. It has cheap gas, It is usually the first to clear and the last to cloud over. It does have tall trees on the North side of the runway which can cause a severe down-draft when touching down during a Santa Ana wind but I've landed here in these Santa Ana conditions many times. So No Fear.. Right?... As I entered the 45 from the south I had to crab at 45 degrees to the 45 which means I'm pointed directly at the runway all the way in to down-wind leg. I turned down-wind and with the wind behind me was at base leg almost immediately. Confidence starting to wane I started Base at almost a 45 degree crab and was soon ready for final. I dropped the bellyboard to my standard mid-position but maintained power trying to get to the runway. Halfway down final Ithe KR stopped in mid-air as it was hit by a very strong gust. That was very unsettling so I reduced the bellyboard setting to first position and we started gaining on the runway again. Getting close to the runway I noticed that each of the four wind socks was pointed straight out in a completely different direction and they were changing directions by the second. As we entered the dreaded downdraft of runway 7, I heaved back on the stick and the KR settled firmly on the runway without a bounce ( well.. maybe a small one). We coasted to the center turnoff witout braking because with those wind socks I was afraid to take my feet off the rudder pedals. I looked over and saw the professional Corona CFI & Test Pilot just shake his head and walk away. Rich landed right behind me and we were soon trying to hold our KRs down while filling the fuel tanks. The wind got to Rich's KR1 and tried to flip it over once as we carefully walked them to the hanger, while hanging on to the tail feathers. It wasn't until we were in the hanger with the doors closed that we finally quit flying. ATIS said we had 45 degree crosswinds of 20 mph with gusts of 38 mph. N56SR is 23 years old now, it's one tough old bird, and it always gets me home.
KR> Retracts
Hi Colin and netters. A Very good argument. I think you are right that it all boils down to weight and drag. The faster airplane will be the one with the lower weight and drag penality. The faster of two identical KRs (except one with fixed gear and one with retracts) will depend on gear system weight and upon gear system drag. Now compare the simple and light KR retract system weight, to the KR fixed gear system weights. They are nearly the same weight, so then it boils down to drag. Now you have to argue that a properly faired fixed gear system has less drag than a properly faired KR retract. There is one other factor I just thought of. The drag on the fixed gear tends to tip the nose down more because of its lower center. If the angle of attack of the wing is already at optimum; the pilot will counter by trim, which will increase drag again. So now it's gear weight & drag penality plus angle of attack efficiency. Im sure we could analyize this to death, but without accurate numbers we are just wasting band width and hell; it's a lot more fun to just fly, or race. By the way; I'll bet mine is faster. He. He. - Original Message - From: "Colin Rainey" To: "KRnet" Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 9:17 PM Subject: KR> Retracts > I feel a contest coming on.. But how to do it... These things must be done > > delicately.. I mean scientifically. > > Rich and netters, > > I have already illustrated a factual circumstance of a certified plane > (which some believe is the benchmark we are all measured by), that were > identical except for the systems and equipment necessary for retractable > gear: The Piper Archer PA28, constant speed prop with 201 hp Lycoming > engine, and The Piper Arrow constant speed prop with 201 Lycoming engine, > and retracts. More fuel, more empty weight, and better speed due to lower > weight for same load, and longer range. No one can argue that lighter climbs > better, goes farther, and cruises faster, given the same fuse, engine, > etc... The same thing applies to the guys that have an RV7 or 8 and install > a Lycoming IO-540. They cannot go faster due to design limits, but they > climb better, and cruise at a lower rpm. They have more hp, but carry the > same or more weight, so cruise is not higher, but the engine turns less > rpms. A KR2 or S model given retracts and then fixed gear with proper > attention, and the same engine will cruise faster at the same power output > rpm, and climb faster, due to lower overall weight. > > Why do you think that your plane performed s much better with the > instructor out during solo? Harder to land yes, because he was not there so > you were lighter and floated more! IF the same size and weight wheels are > used, and brakes, installing fixed gear will ALWAYS result in better climb, > and if FAIRED in properly for drag reduction (same idea of the retracts), > will yield a higher cruise. This is due to the lower weight with the same > drag component to the available thrust. > > Look at the typical lower class air racer, running under say 150 hp, and 1 > or 2 seat airplane; ALWAYS fixed gear are the fastest. They know what makes > speed. Clean lines and light weight. NO RETRACT system is as light as a > fixed gear. Same thing applies to the tail wheel vs. the tri-gear; ALL the > tailwheel designs are 5 to 20 mph faster depending on how clean they are > over similar trig-ear models. > > Now if you retract guys took the time to design a FULLY retracted model with > DOORS, similar to the Lancair IV or Cirrus, then you might be able to come > close to convincing me with under 200 mph aircraft like ours. Where > retracts really come into their own is over 250 knots. Then you are talking > BIG benefits, but that is a whole 'nother story... > > Colin Rainey > brokerpi...@bellsouth.net > > >
KR> Revmaster 2100 Engine TBO
The Revmaster and Great Planes engines all use a standard VW case and are no more subject to cracking than the automotive VW case. My case was a runout automotive case before I converted it to a turbo 2100 for my KR. It now has almost 600 hours of aircraft use, in addition to what it saw as a car and no cracks. I credit the Rimco shuffle pin machine work for its long life. - Original Message - From: "Benjamin Copeland" To: "KRnet" Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2006 1:17 PM Subject: KR> Revmaster 2100 Engine TBO > > Does anyone have any experience with the Revmaster 2100 engine? I just heard they are prone to case cracking > problems around 300 hours. Anyone else heard this? Can anyone share how their 2100 Revmaster has faired > including the total time before major overhaul/work. > > Does a 2100 Revmaster with 210 hours, oil cooler, and good maintenance have a lot of time left before > work can be expected? I looking to buy it (with a KR2S behind it) and want to know what I might expect. > > Thanks, > Ben > > > Benjamin F. Copeland IV > just2...@together.net > >
KR> Retracts
I Very Much Agree. - Original Message - From: "Larry/Sallie Flesner" To: "KRnet" Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2006 7:29 AM Subject: Re: Re: KR> Retracts > The drag on the fixed gear tends to tip the > nose down more because of its lower center. If the angle of attack of the > wing is already at optimum; the pilot will counter by trim, which will > increase drag again. So now it's gear weight & drag penality plus angle of > attack efficiency. > ++ > > I started with 6:ooX6 wheels on 30 inch gear legs. When I went > to 5:00X5's with RV wheel pants I could not tell any difference > in the handling, only in the speed. Also, weight will have it's > greatest penalty on takeoff and climb and it's least effect on > speed. Check the accident reports on KR's to see the number of > gear related failures. To date, I've not heard ofr a single > fixed gear collapse, other than nose gear. The early Diehl lower > fittings were recalled for cracks / failure, that's all. > > After 17 years of attending KR Gathering and being a member > of the KR community, I've heard nothing but satisfaction from > those builders / fliers that have converted to fixed gear. > If you like the retacts and want to log retract time, go for it. > No one is forcing any changes on anyone. This is just another > one of those cases where we call each others baby ugly. Beauty > is in the eye of the beholder. > > Larry Flesner > > >
KR> retracts
Given a free set of fixed gear I would not convert from my retracts. Just as there are no two KR's exactly alike; it is not fair to say that all retracts are alike. My retracts are based on the stock RR KR-2 design but have been beefed up to accomodate my KR. The original design is probably OK for a very light KR but add a 100 pounds to the empty weight and carry a passenger and make a hard landing and you will have problems. I've seen a lot of KR's and I still don't believe that any fixed gear design (no mater how well faired in) creates less drag than the retracts; but that's another story. If you want to use stock type retracts; there are some upgrades you may want to consider. Most KR-2s upgrade to a 1.00 inch thick spring bar. Many replace the cast aluminum spar attach fittings with 3/16" welded up chromoly fittings (three times the strength and equal weight). And the mouse trap springs are weak and should be replaced with coil springs attached at the forward end of the locks. There are some suttle design improvements you can do to eliminate bolt bending also. Bottom line; If you want retracts; you can make them very safe, very reliable, and much less expensive than fixed gear without sacrificing speed. - Original Message - From: To: Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 6:42 PM Subject: KR> retracts > can someone please give me some info regarding, retractible configuration..how sturdy is that landing gear???. I am just wondering if it's a forgivin on hard landings and the possibility of callapse. I sometimes get lucky on landings and make some real nice ones,,but in off days bad. > > also if I decide to turn it into fixed gear, how difficult is it to do ??? do you recommend the change ?? > thank you GUS > > airb...@comcast.net >
KR> Re: retracts
Often stated,, but documented... Hardly; - Original Message - From: "Stephen Teate" To: "KRnet" Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 11:34 AM Subject: RE: KR> Re: retracts "I don't see how Diehl's gear, or any gear, hanging in the wind can make a plane faster than one with nothing hanging down at all." The "stock" RR retractable landing gear does not retract flush with the bottom of the wing. It rotates straight back until the tire almost touches the top surface of the wing. This leaves a substantial portion of the tire and stubby gear leg exposed as well as a large opening for the tire to reside in. All of this adds up to a very dragy situation. A properly faired Diehl gear with wheel pants will actually produce a slight increase in speed over the stock KR retracts. In addition, the overall ruggedness of the Diehl gear has been well documented on this site. Stephen Teate Paradise, Texas
KR> Re: retracts
I feel a contest comming on.. But how to do it... These things must be done delicately.. I mean scientificly. - Original Message - From: To: "KRnet" Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 11:05 AM Subject: Re: KR> Re: retracts > If you could completely close up the hole into which the gear retracts, it would be faster, but all that stuff still hanging out there with that big open hole, is what makes it about 5mph slower. > - > I don't see how Diehl's gear, or any gear, hanging in the wind can make a > plane faster than one with nothing hanging down at all. > > > >
KR> discouraging
Rick
Don is correct, and I can tell by you attitude you will make a good KR
pilot. I only had about 45 hours total time when I began flying mine, and I
don't consider myself to be above average in the skill department. The best
advice I can offer is to find and get to know a few flying KR pilots in your
area. There are more around than you would think. Carefully look over their
aircraft and ask them to critique yours. They will be a far better resource
than your dynosaur.
Rich Seifert N56SR KR-2 pilot for 20 years now.
- Original Message -
From: "Don Chisholm"
To: "KRnet"
Sent: Saturday, December 09, 2006 7:45 PM
Subject: Re: KR> discouraging
> What you ran across was a dynosaur, I had one tell me one time that they
had a homebuilt at their airport one time fortunately it crashed and then
proceeded to lecture me as you got lectured, meanwhile he had a ratty old
Cessna 172 that looked like it hadn't been flown in years. He reached his
height, don't take what he said to heart and don't let him bring you down.
When Ken Rand did his first flight on his KR1 he only had 35 hrs. total time
>
> Rick and Pam wrote: Heres my story to date. I bought a
KR2 last month from grand rapids Mi
> (Im in Defiance Ohio). basicly it needed a seat and all the small things
> that these planes need. so Ive been working on it for a month now and I
> figured I would take it to the local airport and rent a small hanger so
> I could mount the wings and do some taxi testing, well as luck would
> have it 2 hangars down is THE local eaa guy,(white beard,eaa tech rep,
> ap mech, 2 taildraggers sitting in his hangar) basicly the whole
> package, so Im thinking man what a great resource 2 hangars down from
> me. I go down and introduce myself and tell him my story and he proceeds
> to tell me in short that unless I have 5 to 10 thousand hours of
> taildragger time that I shouldn't attempt to fly the kr2. He then went
> on and on about why I should buy a cessna 150 cause as a certified
> aircraft. I would be able to just "fly it" (that would be the only thing
> I could do to it) To top it all off he then lets me know that the last
> thing we need is someone crashing on the runway.wouldn't do our
> Image any good he says, Now Im no idiot and I know that Im not Tom
> Cruise in top gun, as a matter of fact Im not even a pilot as of yet
> {although Im working on it} I know when Im talking to someone with a
> lot more experiance than me to listen but I got to believe that this guy
> really doesn't like home built aircraft ,which is what I thought the eaa
> was all about.He practicly had me talked intoselling it before I left.On
> the way home I realized that this was the type of guy that made me look
> at experimentals to start with...I understand I need some taildragger
> time , I understand it will require maintenance, I understand that
> things go wrong, I accept these as challenges to be overcome. WHAT I
> DONT EXCEPT IS PEOPLE TELLING ME I CANT DO IT. anyways I just had to vent
>
> ___
> Search the KRnet Archives at http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp
> to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to krnet-le...@mylist.net
> please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html
>
>
>
KR> Tail Wheels
It's nearly Annual Inspection time and my baby needs a new tail wheel. I have been using a wheel sold by Dan Diehl, but he no longer sells it. It was a 3.5" hard rubber tread on an aluminum core using roller bearings and has held up nicely compared to all the other wheels I've used. I've been using it for about 4 or 5 years. Does anyone have a recommendation for a really good 3.5 to 4.0" diameter by 1.5" wheel. I looked through McMaster Carr and ACS without finding anything that I thought would work well. I would like ball or roller bearings with an aluminum core and hard rubber tread. Thanks Rich Seifert KR-2 N56SR
KR> "Shreg" went off the end of the runway
Hi Virgil Congratulations on a good landing. I take it you can still fly it again. You really do need to get some confidence in your KR's slow flight charactoristics as another KR flyer suggested. Too much speed can be as dangerous as too little speed (PIO). You should feel confortable crossing the fence at 70 mph. Keep practicing untill you are. Remember these KR's don't slow down unless you get the nose up. You have to rely a lot on periferal vision. On an asfalt runway, just stay between the grass. On a grass strip stay between the fences. Good luck and keep at it. - Original Message - From: "VIRGIL N SALISBURY" To: Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 11:11 AM Subject: Re: KR> "Shreg" went off the end of the runway > Reduce your approach speed !! If it wanted to fly at 60, then > approach near there. > Your choice of speed, not mine, Virg > > On Mon, 6 Nov 2006 20:16:07 +0200 "Willie van der Walt" > writes: > > Today was the 4th flight with "shreg" and it ended in the felt on the > > extended runway. I came in on finals and did a side slip in a 75 > > degree X-wind. The speed was down to 90 mph when I crossed the fence > > and I was about 1m above the runway over the numbers. I was hoping > > to loose the extra 10 mph but no way. The throttle was closed at > > idle about 1000 rpm but the plane kept on floating. I then put the > > wheels onto the runway and held it firmly on the ground. The speed > > was indicating 60 while running with the tail up. There was still > > about 600m of runway left. I pulled back slightly to apply brakes > > but then the wheels hardly touched the ground and I could feel The > > KR wanted to get airborne again. At 40mph I could pull back on the > > stick and apply enough brakes to almost lift the tail. I had no > > direct forward visibility over the nose and was shocked to see the > > loop entrance, at the holding point, coming past at about 20mph. I > > went off the tar into the long grass and almost flipped over as the > > grass grabbed the wheels, spats and wings all at the same time. This > > was a quick stop. Even the engine stopped. Hennie repaired the prop > > well because the tips held up well against the grass. Only some > > marks on the red tip paint. I pushed the plane back to the hanger > > and left it there for the night as I had enough excitement for one > > day. > > > > In summery. I need to get the speed down to 80 over the fence or go > > around and try again if I am still above over the numbers. Wish I > > could fit airbrakes like we had on the gliders when I sailed at > > Donaldson Dam. > > > > If I can not get landings right within the next 3 or 4 times I am > > going to fit a belly plate brake or something. > > > > What can I do to loose the lift after round out? > > > > Regards Willie www.riversafaris.co.za > > > > touri...@intekom.co.za > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ___ > > Search the KRnet Archives at > > http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp > > to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to krnet-le...@mylist.net > > please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html > > > > > > >
KR> "Opps Sorry Virgil"
You're right too! Good to hear from you. - Original Message - From: "VIRGIL N SALISBURY" To: Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 8:13 PM Subject: Re: KR> "Shreg" went off the end of the runway > Rich, It was not my landing. The numbers comment was mine, Virg > > On Mon, 6 Nov 2006 18:00:14 -0800 "Rich Seifert" > writes: > > Hi Virgil > > Congratulations on a good landing. I take it you can still fly > > it > > again. You really do need to get some confidence in your KR's slow > > flight > > charactoristics as another KR flyer suggested. Too much speed can > > be as > > dangerous as too little speed (PIO). You should feel confortable > > crossing > > the fence at 70 mph. Keep practicing untill you are. Remember > > these KR's > > don't slow down unless you get the nose up. You have to rely a lot > > on > > periferal vision. On an asfalt runway, just stay between the grass. > > On a > > grass strip stay between the fences. Good luck and keep at it. > > - Original Message - > > From: "VIRGIL N SALISBURY" > > To: > > Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 11:11 AM > > Subject: Re: KR> "Shreg" went off the end of the runway > > > > > > > Reduce your approach speed !! If it wanted to fly at 60, > > then > > > approach near there. > > > Your choice of speed, not mine, Virg > > > > > > On Mon, 6 Nov 2006 20:16:07 +0200 "Willie van der Walt" > > > writes: > > > > Today was the 4th flight with "shreg" and it ended in the felt > > on the > > > > extended runway. I came in on finals and did a side slip in a > > 75 > > > > degree X-wind. The speed was down to 90 mph when I crossed the > > fence > > > > and I was about 1m above the runway over the numbers. I was > > hoping > > > > to loose the extra 10 mph but no way. The throttle was closed > > at > > > > idle about 1000 rpm but the plane kept on floating. I then put > > the > > > > wheels onto the runway and held it firmly on the ground. The > > speed > > > > was indicating 60 while running with the tail up. There was > > still > > > > about 600m of runway left. I pulled back slightly to apply > > brakes > > > > but then the wheels hardly touched the ground and I could feel > > The > > > > KR wanted to get airborne again. At 40mph I could pull back on > > the > > > > stick and apply enough brakes to almost lift the tail. I had no > > > > direct forward visibility over the nose and was shocked to see > > the > > > > loop entrance, at the holding point, coming past at about 20mph. > > I > > > > went off the tar into the long grass and almost flipped over as > > the > > > > grass grabbed the wheels, spats and wings all at the same time. > > This > > > > was a quick stop. Even the engine stopped. Hennie repaired the > > prop > > > > well because the tips held up well against the grass. Only some > > > > marks on the red tip paint. I pushed the plane back to the > > hanger > > > > and left it there for the night as I had enough excitement for > > one > > > > day. > > > > > > > > In summery. I need to get the speed down to 80 over the fence or > > go > > > > around and try again if I am still above over the numbers. Wish > > I > > > > could fit airbrakes like we had on the gliders when I sailed at > > > > Donaldson Dam. > > > > > > > > If I can not get landings right within the next 3 or 4 times I > > am > > > > going to fit a belly plate brake or something. > > > > > > > > What can I do to loose the lift after round out? > > > > > > > > Regards Willie www.riversafaris.co.za > > > > > > > > touri...@intekom.co.za > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ___ > > > > Search the KRnet Archives at > > > > http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp > > > > to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to > > krnet-le...@mylist.net > > > > please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ___ > > Search the KRnet Archives at > > http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp > > to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to krnet-le...@mylist.net > > please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html > > > > > > >
KR> Leaning
I agree with your statements 100 % Colin. I did not want to go into detail on the proper leaning proceedure. The purpose of my post was to explain that a numerical EGT reading is worthless. Now if we all had identical EGT installations with our EGT probes at identical distances from the exhaust valves, and had identical exhaust systems and all the systems were calibrated reciently; then a numerical reading would mean something. But it aint gona happen, and it's just as well; because that would take all the experiment out of Experimental. The real message of the post was that any pilot that fixates on a numerical EGT reading is very likely to cause an engine failure and shorten his aviation carear. I think it is a downright dangerous practice. Please forget numerical values when talking EGT. - Original Message - From: "Colin Rainey" To: Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2006 6:31 PM Subject: KR> Leaning > Rich > Couple of discrepancies with your statements about leaning while flying. > First nearly all manuals I have read about carb operation in aircraft recommend leaning the carb anytime you reach a DENSITY altitude of 3000 feet or more, INCLUDING while in a climb. Waiting until you reach a cruising altitude, especially a high one, can foul the plugs, use way more fuel than the pilot calculated, and carbon up the engine. Part of pre-flight planning should always include calculating what the density altitude is at your field and your field of desitnation. This can have a big effect on takeoff and landing speeds. I normally don't have to worry about it at Sanford with 3 runways over 3500 feet long, but Mark L. is going into a 2000 foot long strip, and so are many others. You may find that you can land but not take off until the density comes back down. > > Secondly, you DO NOT enrichen to full rich when descending, but rather reverse your leaning procedure to match your density altitude. This can be done by just paying attention to the tach and making adjustments as you descend. Even landing is not required to be full rich. The reason it is taught by most instructors that way is to eliminate one step if you need to go around. But, a blind habit can actually cause more harm if the field elevation is higher than 3000 feet density altitude. A full rich go around can actually have poor performance due to an overly rich mixture, and the pilot would have to lean for best rpm to get full power available. This happens to us quite frequently here on hot and humid days, even at or near sea level. We must be a thinking part of the equation, not a blind unthought procedure in order to not cause more problems then the procedure was supposed to prevent... > > > Colin Rainey > First National Mortgage Sources > Lending Solutions in All 50 States > brokerpilot9...@earthlink.net >
KR> High EGTs
- Original Message - From: "Stanley Mello" To: Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 7:45 PM Subject: KR> High EGTs > As was asked, I do have and inflight adjustable mixture conrtrol and an > Air-Fuel Ratio meter. Everything seemed fine except for the EGT. Also the > reason for the 6.9 to 1 compression ratio is to allow for the 91 Octane auto > fuel here in Calif. The plugs look OK. I was richening the mixture until the > engine would start to run rough and missfire and the lean until the missfire > would stop, thinking that the mixture would be rich enough to cool the EGTs. > Any comments on intake systems? > > _ > Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! > http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/ > > > >
KR> High EGTs (Ignore the Numbers)
If you adjust your mixture by leaning to a numerical EGT reading, you are just asking for an engine failure. Exhaust Gas Temperature readings are something that few pilots seem to understand. Unless the EGT sensors were installed at the factory where they can be calibrated and where each installation is identical you should ignore the numbers. There are enough variables in our installations that numerical degree readings are useless, unless each installation is calibrated often. There is a a tool for (in the field) calibration of EGT's if you really want to do this; but most mechanics realize that the system would need to be re-calibrated often. Many certified EGT gauges do not even have numbers on them; just an adjustable red line. If you learn the proper leaning proceedure which includes going to full rich when decending for a landing; you don't need to have your EGT system calibrated even once and you never need to care about the numerical EGT value. If you are buying an EGT system; look for a EGT gauge with an adjustable red line and forget about numerical degree values. After you have your engine jetted properly on the ground; forget about adjusting mixture until you reach your crusing altitude; then lean to peak needle reading and set you red line at that position. I was taught to enrichen the mixture by 50 rpm to be on the safe side (as too lean a mixture will burn holes in pistons). I understand some pilots were taught to run 50 rpm on the lean side, but I suspect that training was for a specific set of engine paramitors (MAP, RPM, Altitude). - Original Message - From: "Stanley Mello" To: Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 7:45 PM Subject: KR> High EGTs > As was asked, I do have and inflight adjustable mixture conrtrol and an > Air-Fuel Ratio meter. Everything seemed fine except for the EGT. Also the > reason for the 6.9 to 1 compression ratio is to allow for the 91 Octane auto > fuel here in Calif. The plugs look OK. I was richening the mixture until the > engine would start to run rough and missfire and the lean until the missfire > would stop, thinking that the mixture would be rich enough to cool the EGTs. > Any comments on intake systems? > > _ > Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! > http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/ > > > >
KR> Experimental Amateur Built Certification/Repairman
I am not a big fan of the FAA but a good many of their rules were made to protect the aviation industry in general from people doing things that reflect negatively upon the industry. When unqualified people are permitted to endanger themselves and the general public; That is pretty negative. The repairmans certificate is one of the rare gifts of the FAA. It helps the lisenced mechanic, the aircraft builder, and the industury. It relieves the mechanic of the liability of working on an aircraft he is unfamilure with and upon which there is little documentation on. Home built aircraft are not built on an assembly line, there are no two exactly alike, and they don't come with service manuals. Heck parts are not even interchangable. The repairmans certificate was ment to put the person who is intemently familure with the aircraft, and has the most to loose, responsible for its safe operation. In the end, it doesn't take a smart person to find a way around the rule. It takes a smart person to know his limitations, to protect his butt, and not become another statistic. Just my opinion - Original Message - Subject: Re: KR> Experimental Amateur Built Certification/Repairman > My thoughts are that taking a KR-2 (or other) that is 99.99% complete and > then completing it does not preclude certificating the aircraft as > experimental amateur built. AC20-27F Appendix 1, definition of Major > Portion, makes it crystal clear that you can count the construction efforts > of previous builders. This definition, although it does not specifically > apply in AC65-23A, might be used as part of an arguement that you are the > primary builder in your pursuit of the repairman certificate for this > aircraft. If you won this arguement, you would still have to "demonstrate > to the certificating FAA inspector (your) ability to perform > condition inspections and to determine whether the subject aircraft is in a > condition for safe operation." I think this is normally "demonstrated" by > showing your builder's log, but it seems this could be demonstrated some > other way, for example, you built most of another KR and then sold it (and > have evidence supporting that fact). I don't know if there is anything > that requires that you have built 51% to get the repairman certificate > (Apparently not, because, if a group of people build a plane, one may be > considered to become the repairman for that plane.) It is clear, however, > that you can get the airworthiness certificate without having built 51% > yourself. Much depends on your FAA office as well as the individuals > supporting that office, especially if you are not armed with a knowledge of > the regulations and other guidance material. >
KR> Experimental Amateur Built Certification/Repairman
Thanks for the explanation Ken. Sorry I didn't pick that up the first time. - Original Message - From: "Kenneth B. Jones" To: "KRnet" Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2005 6:59 AM Subject: Re: KR> Experimental Amateur Built Certification/Repairman > >In the end, it doesn't take a smart person to find a way around the > > rule. It takes a smart person to know his limitations, to protect his > > butt, > > and not become another statistic. > > Rich, > > I agree with your statements above and I apologize for not expressing my > thoughts more clearly. For the record, I in no way intended to encourage > anyone to "find a way around the rule". To the contrary, I encourage > reading and studying the rules and other regulatory guidance, such as > Advisory Circulars, so you know what you're allowed to do as well as what > you're required to do. After that, you can make your decisions based on the > requirements and allowances, tempered by your own personal limitations. > > You included part of my original message. The next few lines of my message > included: > > "Read AC 65-23A & AC 20-27F (You should read these documents if you are > contemplating building and becoming the repairman for an experimental > amateur built airplane.)" > > Regards, > > Ken Jones, kenbjo...@cinci.rr.com > Sharonville, OH > N5834, aka The Porkopolis Flying Pig > > > - Original Message - > From: "Rich Seifert" > To: "KRnet" > Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2005 1:17 AM > Subject: Re: KR> Experimental Amateur Built Certification/Repairman > > > >I am not a big fan of the FAA but a good many of their rules were made to > > protect the aviation industry in general from people doing things that > > reflect negatively upon the industry. When unqualified people are > > permitted > > to endanger themselves and the general public; That is pretty negative. > > The > > repairmans certificate is one of the rare gifts of the FAA. It helps the > > lisenced mechanic, the aircraft builder, and the industury. It relieves > > the > > mechanic of the liability of working on an aircraft he is unfamilure with > > and upon which there is little documentation on. Home built aircraft are > > not built on an assembly line, there are no two exactly alike, and they > > don't come with service manuals. Heck parts are not even interchangable. > > The repairmans certificate was ment to put the person who is intemently > > familure with the aircraft, and has the most to loose, responsible for its > > safe operation. > >In the end, it doesn't take a smart person to find a way around the > > rule. It takes a smart person to know his limitations, to protect his > > butt, > > and not become another statistic. > > Just my opinion > > - Original Message - > > > > Subject: Re: KR> Experimental Amateur Built Certification/Repairman > > > > > >> My thoughts are that taking a KR-2 (or other) that is 99.99% complete and > >> then completing it does not preclude certificating the aircraft as > >> experimental amateur built. AC20-27F Appendix 1, definition of Major > >> Portion, makes it crystal clear that you can count the construction > > efforts > >> of previous builders. This definition, although it does not specifically > >> apply in AC65-23A, might be used as part of an arguement that you are the > >> primary builder in your pursuit of the repairman certificate for this > >> aircraft. If you won this arguement, you would still have to > >> "demonstrate > >> to the certificating FAA inspector (your) ability to perform > >> condition inspections and to determine whether the subject aircraft is in > > a > >> condition for safe operation." I think this is normally "demonstrated" > > by > >> showing your builder's log, but it seems this could be demonstrated some > >> other way, for example, you built most of another KR and then sold it > >> (and > >> have evidence supporting that fact). I don't know if there is anything > >> that requires that you have built 51% to get the repairman certificate > >> (Apparently not, because, if a group of people build a plane, one may be > >> considered to become the repairman for that plane.) It is clear, > >> however, > >> that you can get the airworthiness certificate without having built 51% > >> yourself. Much depends on your FAA office as well as the individuals > >> supporting that office, especially if you are not armed with a knowledge > > of > >> the regulations and other guidance material. > > > > > >
KR> my first flight in N56ML report
You Did GREAT Mark! My first flight was unplanned 2 minutes earier and ended in a crash costing me a gear leg, cowling, and a prop. It just gets better from there on. Don't get discouraged. - Original Message - From: "Kevin Farley" To: "KRnet" Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2005 8:40 PM Subject: Re: KR> my first flight in N56ML report > Regardless of how "pretty" it might have been... You did it! > > Congrats Mark. > > On May 22, 2005, at 22:26, Mark Langford wrote: > > I'm not sure whether to call it a flight report or a narrow escape, but > it's at > http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford/first_flights/second.html > > Mark Langford, Huntsville, Alabama > see KR2S project N56ML at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford > email to N56ML "at" hiwaay.net > -- > > ___ > Search the KRnet Archives at http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp > to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to krnet-le...@mylist.net > please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html > > > > >
KR> vw reliability
Unfortunately it all depends... 2180cc VW's are as reliable as any engine; however the biggest factor in their reliability is the knowledge and skill of the mechanic. I have a turbo 2180 with 550 hr's on the bottom end and it still carries 55 psi oil pressure. The engine is on its third set of barrels and first set of heads. Turbos are hard on valve seats and prone to cylinder warpage if cooled to quickly. I believe if I had stayed with normally asperated, the top end would have held up much better. I picked up a lot of secrets to building up a good VW from RIMCO in Santa Ana, CA. Anyone into hi-performance VW's will vouch for them. Rich Seifert N56SR - Original Message - From: "Ivan & Ilse Miller" To: Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2005 10:58 AM Subject: KR> vw reliability Hi All Can some one tell me how reliable the 2180 VW engine is and what the avarage TBO is? What is the highest engine time on the VW2180 that is known to this list? Thanks Ivan Miller mille...@lantic.net
KR> Retracts
Retracts?? My entire RR retract with 1" Aluminum Bar instead of the stock .75" bar, all brackets, bolts, wheels, tires, brakes, and fairings weighs exactly 40 pounds. It also has 550 hours on it. How much does your entire fixed gear weigh?? Rich Seifert N56SR
KR> Turbo KR operators
Orma I've only seen a few Turb installations besides my own and they have all been the same as mine. I use a draw through system and control boost by throttle alone. The turbo must be properly sized to be effective. I have 560 hours on my installation and would not bother with other methods unless you plan to let a lot of inexperianced pilots fly your machine. Blowoff systems would be my last choice because of the danger of fire. It works for me! - Original Message - From: "Orma" To: "KRnet" Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2004 5:36 PM Subject: KR> Turbo KR operators Hello Net As I requested yesterday, I would also like to hear from all operators that have a homebuilt plane with a Volkswagen with a turbo. I want to know how you use and or control the boost in your plane. Orma Southfield, MI N110LR celebrating 20 years To the gathering or bust
KR>rudder pedals
This might be a little late but I've seen it mentioned several times in the old KR news letters. You don't use brakes attached to stock RR rudder pedals. You are not the first and will not be the last to find this out the hard way. The stock RR rudder pedals are not strong enough for the extra breaking force no matter how they are welded. For that matter the rudder horn is also a weak point depending on how much you had to grind away to give proper rudder travel. That is why I chose to use heel breaks. Just another reason the test period is tough. Hope you didn't break anything important. Happy landings. - Original Message - From: "Brian Kraut" To: Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2003 5:44 PM Subject: KR>rudder pedals > I was doing some high speed taxi testing today and almost took out the lights at the end of the runway when my left rudder pedal snapped off. My pedals are .035" wall 5/8" steel tube per the plans. They are made of pieces cut at a 45 degree angle and welded instead of being bent like some are. A weld with hardly any penetration that was also ground smooth by the original builder broke right by the pedal. The extra stress of the hydraulic brake and pedal brought out a problem that never surfaced before it had brakes on the pedal. Are other people using the same size tubing with brakes on the pedals? > > I will add half sections of 3/4" tubing over all the joints and reweld everything to keep it from happening again. I also plan on shortening the arms that go to the master cylinders to give me more leverage with less pedal pressure. Can anyone with effective brakes that don't require a lot of pressure tell me what distance your master cylinder attaches from the fulcrum point of the pedal? > > You can see my current arrangement at http://www.engalt.com/flight1.htm > in the first picture. The attach point of the master cylinder end is 1 3/8" above the center of the rotating point on the pedal and about 1 5/8" back. The straight line distance is about 2 1/4" from the rotation point of the pedal to the master cylinder clevis end point. I think I need to shorten that to closer to 1 1/2" to have effective braking without overloading the pedals or the rudder horn. Comments? > >
