Fred, you and Bob make very good points. You are correct about changing dimensions and such. I think this design is evolving as others have stated here before. My basic point is, it would really be great to have a basic standard for building the skeleton, wing spars and such. I guess I am talking about adhesives as much as anything. I recently sold Bob a KR2 that I had purchased several years ago and had in storage. It had Diehl wing skins already bonded onto the spars. I told Bob from the beginning that the skins were not put on properly because I could see clearly right through the spar area of the skins and could see the nice wood grain in the spar caps. I knew when I purchased the plane that they were on wrong immediately. First off, if I had put the skins on I would have rough sanded the inside surface of the wing skins where they meet the spar caps. Since I could see through them so clearly, I knew that had not been done. Second if wetted out and floxed on properly I would not have been able to see the beautifull wood grain. I told Bob that the best thing in the world would be for the two halves of the skins just peel right off then he could redo them properly. That is precisely what happened. He was able to seperate them easily. They had a little liquid epoxy, dark brown in color like the old Safety Poxy kinda sticking them down along the top edgees of the spar. Let us say the guy that put these wings together had painted them, then what? The new owner-me at the time or Bob now would think they had been built/assembled the way Dan Diehl says to build them, right? I think basic structures like wing spars, Diehl skins, fuselage skeletons might be safest using WELL KNOWN adhesives like T88 for wood, vinylester resins for Diehl Skins etc. Save the experimenting for things that will not kill you or the next guy that purchases your stuff. There was a guy near me in Mesquite Texas who purchased a partially built Wittman Tailwind. The Tailwind has an all wood wing. It includes wooden spars, wooden made up ribs, plywood skins and then plans say cover with dope and fabric. Now days most cover plywood with fiberglass cloth. When this fellow purchased the plane the wings were supposedly finished. They were glued closed so he just finished them out with covering and paint. He had a really nice plane, he spent a lot of time hopping up the 0200 to get more horsepower out of it. Not sure how many times he flew it on short hops, maybe less than half a dozen but the last time was fatal. On takeoff and a couple hundred feet off of the ground the wings came apart, of course the pilot didn't have any choices left at that point. In looking at the remains, the wings were not glued together properly, there were a lot of nails and some glue holding things in place. This is what I mean about basic common building practices. People need to know that you built the basic airframe properly from materials and adhesives that are KNOWN to be of high quality. Larry H.
Fred Johnson <f...@renotruss.com> wrote: Can I say something here as a new to the KR airplane guy? I agree that workmanship needs to be better than average, but every KR I see listed on the KR website has been "experimented" with beyond what Ken Rand designed. Whether it was materials, or playing with the design, I can't find ONE that was built to the original prints, Mark Langfords included. We have played with engines, we use fiberglass instead of Dynel, we make them wider, longer taller, and WAY HEAVIER that the original. WE ARE ALL EXPERIMENTERS tweeking a great airplane to fit us, our pocketbooks, our ego's, our flying style, you name it. So a comment about doing whatever we feel like seems very inappropriate. If a builders feels the need to substitute a material based on availability and has tested to ANC-18 standards and believes he has a product worthy and safe to use than that is HIS (or her) decision. After all they are the ones who ultimately must trust this aircraft to support them. Now if there is anyone out there that actually has a built exactly to the plans KR I would surely like to see it. I've yet to see any homebuilt built exactly to the plans in the umpteen years I've been in this. Point is we are not Cessna nor do we want to be. We are those magnificent men and there flying machines that WE built. Period! Fred Johnson Product Manager T.E. West, LLC. -----Original Message----- From: krnet-bounces+fred=renotruss....@mylist.net [mailto:krnet-bounces+fred=renotruss....@mylist.net] On Behalf Of bearlk...@aol.com Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 11:46 AM To: kr...@mylist.net Subject: KR> COMMON BUILDING PRACTICES My friend Larry makes some very good points. "experimental" does not mean do whatever you feel like. It means apply rigorous research and testing to your original work so that it is safe and exceeds identifiable standards of construction. If you are not willing to do that research and testing and defend your work as worthy, then stick to the proven plans for all our sakes. I love to experiment in the true sense of the word to try and prove the applicability of something new. Without the proof it is worthless. For an example of such testing and proof look at Langford's work. If you can meet those types of standards, experiment away and we will all learn from it. Bob Polgreen Boat and Parts Nowthen MN _______________________________________ 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
