The EFS2 is probably one of the best options ou there for a vw.... It's also out of production.
The aeroinjector by aerovee is not an Ellison product. A company called rotec makes Ellison clones. On Jul 2, 2012 7:50 AM, "Eduardo Barros" <edua...@kr2-egb.com.ar> wrote: > People > > I will like install a carb with control mixture in my engine, what is your > opinion of the ELLISON and AEROIJECTOR? > Saludos > > Eduardo Barros > San Pedro, Bs. As., Argentina > > Mail: edua...@kr2-egb.com.ar > Visite el proyecto de construcción del avión experimental "Kr2 EGB": > www.kr2-egb.com.ar > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Mark Langford > To: KRnet > Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2012 12:53 AM > Subject: Re: KR> Structural Analysis > > > Larry Flesner wrote: > > >>Using the performance numbers directly from the Rand sales literature > >>indicates to me that very little research was done to verify actual > >>performance of the KR before they were used to make his assumptions or > >>calculations. That's were I lost total faith in his conclusions. I'm > even > >>wondering about the qualifications of the three professors signing the > >>cover page. But hey, that's just me. Your conclusions may vary. :-) > << > > > Regarding the paper at > http://www.engr.sjsu.edu/nikos/MSAE/pdf/Bravo.F11.pdf, I agree with > everything Larry says. But I managed to read the whole thing (except for > the half of the paper that was standard derivations), and I also found a > lot > of it very "interesting". One thing that really sticks in my mind is > the 35 > pounds of stick force is required during takeoff, according to the > control > analysis. I'll bet just about all KRs would perform an instant > half-loop to > stall and crash if you really did that. When Troy Petteway was coaching > me > to fly my plane for the first time, he said "set the trim to neutral and > when it's ready to fly it'll take off all by itself". My plane is that > way > as well. 35 pounds of stick force isn't anywhere near reality, and could > get somebody killed in a hurry. > > And I found the following piece of advice to be truly amazing...the only > advice given regarding CG of the aircraft: "The recommended CG range for > the original KR2 is 15 to 35% of MAC. Acknowledging the pitch > sensitivity > issue of this airplane, the CG position needs to be chosen very > carefully. > Therefore the most forward CG position should be avoided." No mention of > aft CG at all. This is completely backwards from reality as > well...forward > CG is very stable, aft CG is UNstable, and not just for the KR! > > Regarding airfoil selection, selecting a "cruise speed" of 180 mph at > 15,000' while powered by an 85 hp engine for comparison purposes is > wishful > thinking. I suspect (at least hope) this guy knows something about > aerodynamics, but his choice of beginning with "published numbers" for KR > performance was just his first mistake. I sincerely doubt that he knows > more about airfoil design than Dr. Ashok Gopolaranthnam , who > specializes > in airfoil design and designed the AS504x series specifically for the > KR2S, > and is now an aerodynamics professor ( see > http://www.mae.ncsu.edu/faculty-staff/profile/ashok-gopalarathnam/) at > NCU. > Do a Google search for Ashok Gopalarathnam and you'll get 4200 > aerodynamically leaning hits. With a name like that, they're probably > all > his. Do a Google search for Boris Bravo and you'll get ONE hit that is > probably be him. My money's on Ashok when it comes to airfoil design > and > comparison. > > I notice one of the references listed is "Verification of Airworthiness > of a > Modified KR-2 Aircraft" by his "project partner". It's at > http://www.engr.sjsu.edu/nikos/projectsMSAE.htm , along with the current > subject report. These two reports are very similar and contain some of > the > same mistakes and factual errors. If I were Nordin, I'd feel violated! > I > have to wonder why the Bravo analysis is "secure" and can't be printed, > unlike the other reports listed on that page. The document security is > also > set to make it "invisible" to search engines, and therefore less likely > to > be found by those interested in such things. I wonder why. And given > Larry's comment about not doing much research was done to verify actual > KR > performance, he's had five years to do a little research on that, and has > obviously been to both www.krnet.org and www.n56ml.com but didn't learn > much > . > > I could go on, but why bother? This "analysis" is a complete "red > herring" > from the KR pilot's and builder's standpoint. I should have been doing > something constructive tonight rather than wasting my time on this... > > Mark Langford > ML at N56ML.com > website at http://www.N56ML.com > -------------------------------------------------------- > > > _______________________________________ > Search the KRnet Archives at http://tugantek.com/archmailv2-kr/search. > To UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to krnet-le...@mylist.net > please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html > > > ----- > Se certificó que el correo no contiene virus. > Comprobada por AVG - www.avg.es > Versión: 2012.0.2193 / Base de datos de virus: 2437/5105 - Fecha de la > versión: 01/07/2012 > > _______________________________________ > Search the KRnet Archives at http://tugantek.com/archmailv2-kr/search. > To UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to krnet-le...@mylist.net > please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html >
