If you go to my webpage you can see pictures of the fixture I just built for my
O-235. They are listed under the 3/11/15 update.
Craig
http://www.kr2seafury.com/
> On September 23, 2015 at 5:58 PM Mike Arnold via KRnet list.krnet.org>
> wrote:
>
>
> So, no one wants to wade in on the thrust l
Thanks Larry and those that responded. The plane is already built but no
engine or mount. It was originally built with a 0-200. I am putting a VW
1835 on it. Insert sad emote here. I am going to build an adjustable jig.
You thought I was going to say "engine mount" didn't you. Ha ha ha, . .
Hummm
At 04:58 PM 9/23/2015, you wrote:
>So, no one wants to wade in on the thrust line on the fire wall for a KR2
>huh. No Aeronautical engineers out there.
++
I'm sure there are. I'm not an engineer but my opinion is very
affordable. The plans
If I recall correctly (from about 1989) I tried to get the engine thrust line
at center of crankshaft to line up with the top longeron. I did not offset the
engine laterally to compensate for p factor like I have read that some planes
do. Too much math for me.
-- next part -
So, no one wants to wade in on the thrust line on the fire wall for a KR2
huh. No Aeronautical engineers out there.
I'm not an engineer but I've been in the presence of a few. I was told the
thrust line is typically in plane with the top longeron. I set mine at 2.5"s
below to accommodate the Corvair and the starter. Check out the KRnet Archives.
Type "thrust line " in the email body section and watch the wel
How do you locate the thrust line on the fire wall. Makeing my own motor
mount.
der as the power increases?
Cheers
Martin
Martin Pearce
KR2 19 - 7814
rocketdri...@optusnet.com.au
-Original Message-
From: Barry Kruyssen [mailto:k...@bigpond.com]
Sent: Tuesday, 10 April 2012 10:49 AM
To: 'KRnet'
Subject: RE: KR> Thrust line offsets
Hi Mar
Put washers on one side of the mount until satisfied with the results,
Virg
On 4/10/2012 6:27 AM, Mark Langford wrote:
> I guess I scanned Martin's email too quickly before, and missed that he was
> talking about the horizontal plane, rather than the vertical. I built my
...@mylist.net] On Behalf
Of Martin Pearce
Sent: Monday, April 09, 2012 4:59 PM
To: kr...@mylist.net
Subject: KR> Thrust line offsets
Does anyone have thoughts / experience with the best thrust line offset to
use for the KR2?
I have a suby motor with Redrive so the prop turns clockwise vi
...@mylist.net] On Behalf
Of Martin Pearce
Sent: Tuesday, 10 April 2012 7:59 AM
To: kr...@mylist.net
Subject: KR> Thrust line offsets
Does anyone have thoughts / experience with the best thrust line offset to
use for the KR2?
I have a suby motor with Redrive so the prop turns clockwise viewed from
Good to know the aircraft works fine with the crank centreline on a
plane parallel with the top longerons, but I think Martin's question
was about the alignment of the engine in relation to the vertical
plane along the aircraft's centreline. In other words, is the mount
configured so as to positio
Martin Pearce wrote:
>Does anyone have thoughts / experience with the best thrust line offset to
>use for the KR2?
I doubt anybody's done testing with various thrust lines to know what works
best, and they are essentially all different anyway, but apparently the
plans work fine (crank centerli
This has been discussed in the past and I know of no offset being
recommended. I have a 100HP Corvair on mine and unless WW built in an
offset, which I am sure he did not, there is no offset for that awesome
power.
See N64KR at http://KRBuilder.org - Then click on the pics
See you at the 2012 -
Does anyone have thoughts / experience with the best thrust line offset to
use for the KR2?
I have a suby motor with Redrive so the prop turns clockwise viewed from the
cockpit. My engine mount appears to have close to 1 deg offset to the right
built into it, but I have heard that 3 deg is likel
can anyone informed tell me what the thrust line is supposed to be on a
standard kr 2
where is it measured from
tia
phill
At 05:21 PM 5/22/2007, you wrote:
>can anyone informed tell me what the thrust line is supposed to be
>on a standard kr 2
>where is it measured from
>tia
>
>phill
+
Without looking back at the plans I believe it should fall in the ar
Phil.
The Top of the longerons ???is the normal thrust line. I do remember a
number of builder changing , including me. I lowering my thrust line about 1
1/2 inches below the longerons to allow the twin top mounted carbs to fit
under the cowl line.
But One of the Famous Mark's Brothers, sorry (
phil brookman wrote:
> can anyone informed tell me what the thrust line is supposed to be on a
standard kr 2
> where is it measured from
Below is a post from 2005 that I found in the archives
(http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp) that pretty much sums it up. I
had always thought it was in
Phil.
> The Top of the longerons ???is the normal thrust line.
>
> But One of the Famous Mark's Brothers, sorry (Mark L and Mark J ) would be
> a
> much better adviser than I.
>
Famous, ha...maybe crazy..mine is set 1 1/2 inches below the longeron.
Mark Jones (N886MJ)
Wales, WI
Visit my web
Don and netters
Something else came to mind the other day when considering the effects of
raised or lowered thrust line. During flight training to become CFI's we
were always told that the reason the Piper Seminole was made with a high "T"
tail as compared to its sister plane the Piper Seneca which
prop wash.
I learned long ago that the dumbest questions are the ones not ask!
Don
- Original Message -
From: "Colin Rainey"
To: "KRnet"
Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 12:07 AM
S
Funny, my instructor called them the "Trauma - hawk" because of the T
tail being less responsive to prop wash when you need it the most -
stall recovery.
Raising the trust-line I would think increases the loads on the upper
half of the firewall. Maybe not enough to worry about, but I sure like
n issue. This was not clearly spoken but it is
my inferance to what he said.
Don
Burlington IA 52601
- Original Message -
From: "Dave Arbogast, CISSP"
To: "KRnet"
Sent: Tuesday, Febru
I learned to fly in a Tomahawk. Didn't realize landings were easy till I
began flying a 172 !!!
Pete Klapp, KR-2S, Canton, OH
From: "Dave Arbogast, CISSP"
Reply-To: KRnet
To: KRnet
Subject: Re: KR> Thrust Line issues
List-Post: krnet@list.krnet.org
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2
to fly in a Tomahawk. Didn't realize landings were easy till I
>began flying a 172 !!!
>
>Pete Klapp, KR-2S, Canton, OH
>
>
>From: "Dave Arbogast, CISSP"
>Reply-To: KRnet
>To: KRnet
>Subject: Re: KR> Thrust Line issues
>Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007
Rumor has it that it was called a "Trauma-hawk" because it was "spin
friendly". :-)
-Original Message-
From: krnet-boun...@mylist.net [mailto:krnet-boun...@mylist.net] On Behalf
Of Dave Arbogast, CISSP
Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 11:46 AM
To: KRnet
Subject:
I have been looking for info on the correct thrust line, Others have talked
about the
T/L being equal to the top longerons, If I fit my engines cowls and sort out
he centre of the prop outlet, the T/L seems to be approx 1 - 3/4 inches
below the T/L.
Can anyone add to this.
Phil Matheson
mathe...@d
Phil Matheson wrote:
> I have been looking for info on the correct thrust line, Others have
talked
> about the
> T/L being equal to the top longerons, If I fit my engines cowls and sort
out
> he centre of the prop outlet, the T/L seems to be approx 1 - 3/4 inches
> below the T/L.
> Can anyone add
, September 01, 2004 6:57 AM
To: KRnet
Subject: Re: KR> Thrust Line
Phil Matheson wrote:
> I have been looking for info on the correct thrust line, Others have
talked
> about the
> T/L being equal to the top longerons, If I fit my engines cowls and sort
out
> he centre of the prop
Mark..sent the headsets Monday..They were 45 each..the venturi were 25
each..bob
Mark Langford wrote:
>
> Steve McGee wrote:
>
> >> I know I have seen this mentioned before both here and noticed it in
> >> web
> to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to kr
I know I have seen this mentioned before both here and noticed it in web sites,
but have not noticed it in the manual or on the drawings. I take it I am
missing something here as everyone that has built their plane had to figure
this out. Langford mentions being high or low from the main l
Steve McGee wrote:
>> I know I have seen this mentioned before both here and noticed it in web
sites, but have not noticed it in the manual or on the drawings. I take it
I am missing something here as everyone that has built their plane had to
figure this out. Langford mentions being high or
I guess I should have answered your question, which is that it's generally
considered to be in the same plane as the top of the top longeron. That's
been arrived at by the fact that if you buy an RR or Revmaster cowling,
that's where the center of the prop hole ends up, blah, blah, blah...
Mark L
34 matches
Mail list logo
