prompt_front: Now, answer the following question based on the text below, only give me the answer and do not output any other words.

Question: What is the maximum radius of the emitting region for the black body model?

Read the following text and answer briefly.

Context 1: \section{Introduction}

The publicly available XMM-Newton slew data covers to date around 35\%
of the sky  The soft band (0 2$-$2 keV) sensitivity limit of the slews
(6$\times10^{-13}$\,ergs cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$) is close to that of the
ROSAT All-Sky Survey (RASS; Voges et al \ 1999), and in the medium
(2$-$12 keV) band, the slew data goes significantly deeper
(4$\times10^{-12}$\,ergs cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$) than all other previous
large area surveys  Over 7700 individual sources have so far been
detected to a positional accuracy of 8\arcsec   For details on the
the construction and
characteristics of the first released XMM-Newton slew survey
catalogue, see Saxton et al  (2008)  For details of the initial
science results from the slew survey, see Read et al  (2006) 

The comparison of XMM-Newton slew data with the RASS is now giving,
for the first time, the opportunity to find exotic, extreme
high-variability X-ray bursting objects, e g  tidal disruption
candidates (Esquej et al  2007), and also Galactic novae, flare stars,
and flaring white dwarfs, plus eclipsing binaries, AGN and blazars  It
is only with such a large-area survey as the XMM-Newton Slew Survey,
that transient events as these have a chance of being caught 

One such rare event, XMMSL1~J060636 2-694933, which we here show to be
a new Classical Nova, was discovered in an XMM-Newton slew from 18th
July 2006 at a very high count rate of 23 3\,ct s$^{-1}$ (EPIC-pn:
0 2$-$2\,keV)  

Classical novae (see Bode \& Evans 2008 for a review) occur in
interacting binary systems consisting of a white dwarf primary star
and a lower-mass secondary star  The nova itself is a cataclysmic
nuclear explosion caused by the accretion of material (via Roche Lobe
overflow or wind accretion) from the secondary star onto the surface
of the white dwarf; here the pressure and temperature at the base of
the accreted material becomes sufficient to trigger a thermonuclear
runaway  A recent review of the thermonuclear processes powering
classical novae can be found in Starrfield et al \ (2008)   The
accreted material is partially expelled, obscuring the X-ray emission
from the surface of the white dwarf  At later stages, the ejected
material expands further and becomes optically thin, revealing the
nuclear burning on the surface of the white dwarf   This emission
peaks in the soft X-ray regime and it is known as the super-soft
source (SSS) state (Krautter 2008)  Models of the classical nova SSS
state can be found in Tuchman \& Truran (1998) and Sala \& Hernanz
(2005) 

Though many classical novae have been observed in X-rays in their SSS
states (Ness et al \ (2007) for example discuss several examples observed with
Swift), it is in the optical band, early in their outbursts, that
classical novae are almost always discovered  This is because they are
intrinsically optically bright and easily found in inexpensive
wide-area shallow surveys   XMMSL1~J060636 2-694933 is very unusual
therefore in that it has been discovered, as we shall see, later in
its evolution, in the SSS X-ray state 

In this paper we describe the XMM-Newton slew observations
(Section~2), and the follow-up X-ray observations by the Swift XRT
(Section~3) and XMM-Newton (Section~4)  Multiwavelength observations
with Swift-UVOT, Magellan and ASAS are described in Section~5  We then
present a discussion of the results (Section~6), and conclusions 



\begin{table*}[t]
  \caption[]
  {Details of the four XMM-Newton Slew observations and the single (Rev \,1378) 
    dedicated XMM-Newton pointed observation  XMM-Newton revolution, date and observation ID 
    are tabulated, together with the 0 2$-$2 0\,keV X-ray properties of XMMSL1~J060636 2-694933;  
    position, background-subtracted counts, exposure, count-rate, and detection likelihood  For the 
    Rev \,1378 dedicated observation, these properties are given for all the EPIC cameras combined   
    For the slew observations, only the EPIC-pn values are given  In the first two slews the source 
    was not detected, and upper limits are shown in the table }
  \centering
\begin{tabular}{lccccrrrr}
\hline
Rev  & Date & Obs \,ID & RA(J2000)   & Dec(J2000) & Counts         & Exposure & Count rate  & Lik  \\ 
     & (UT) &        &     &            &                & (s) & (s$^{-1}$)  &      \\ \hline 
 351 (slew) & 07/11/01 &  9035100003  &        &               & $<$3 6     & 8 8 & $<$0 41 & $<$$\sim$8      \\
 750 (slew) & 12/01/04 &  9075000003  &        &               & $<$3 2     & 17 3 & $<$0 18 & $<$$\sim$8      \\  
1210 (slew )& 18/07/06 &  9121000003  & 06:06:36 2 & -69:49:33 & 228 8$\pm$14 1 & 9 8 & 23 4$\pm$1 4 & 1777 1   \\ 
1246 (slew) & 28/09/06 &  9121460003  & 06:06:36 5 & -69:49:38 &  12 9$\pm$2 4  & 3 4 &  3 8$\pm$0 7 &   54 7   \\
\vspace{-3 5mm}\\
\hline 
1378 (pointed) & 19/06/07 &  0510010501  & 06:06:36 5 & -69:49:37 & 1511 0$\pm$44 8 & 8940 0 &  0 20$\pm$0 01 & 4630 4          \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{slewtable}
\end{table*}

\section{XMM-Newton slew observations}

XMMSL1~J060636 2-694933 was discovered in XMM-Newton slew 9121000003
from revolution 1210 on 18th July 2006  Details of the standard
XMM-Newton slew data reduction and analysis used, plus the
source-searching and catalogue cross-correlation etc , are presented
in Saxton et al   (2008) 

The source passed through the EPIC-pn detector in 14\,s, at a small
off-axis angle, such that an effective vignetting-corrected soft band
(0 2$-$2\,keV) exposure time of 9 8\,s was achieved   A total of 229
source counts lie within a radius of 20\arcsec, yielding a (EPIC-pn:
0 2$-$2\,keV) count rate of 23 4\,ct s$^{-1}$ 

The source is seen to have no cross-correlation identifications in the
RASS, and no other multiwavelength candidates within 30\arcsec\ in
Simbad\footnote{http://simbad u-strasbg fr/simbad/},
NED\footnote{http://nedwww ipac caltech edu/index html}, and
HEASARC\footnote{http://heasarc gsfc nasa gov/}  The position of the
source in the sky is such that it lies apparently at the outer eastern
edge of the LMC 

XMM-Newton has slewed over this region of sky a number of times, and
though nothing was detected in previous slews from 7th November 2001
and 12th January 2004, the source was seen again on 28th September
2006 (rev \,1246, 72 days after the rev \,1210 discovery), at the same
position, but at a reduced flux level (3 8\,ct s$^{-1}$; EPIC-pn:
0 2$-$2\,keV)   i e  it had reduced in flux by a factor of $\approx$6
in 72 days  XMM-Newton has not slewed over this area of sky since
rev \,1246  Details of the relevant XMM-Newton slews, together with
the (0 2$-$2\,keV) EPIC-pn source position, detected source counts,
count rate and detection likelihood are given in
Table~\ref{slewtable} 

The fact that XMMSL1 J060636 2-694933 is detected in the total-band
(0 2$-$12\,keV) and the soft-band (0 2$-$2\,keV), whilst effectively
zero counts are seen in the hard-band (2$-$12\,keV), is immediately
indicative of the source being very soft  

The moderately high count rate indicates that the spectrum is affected
by pile-up (the on-axis limit is 6\,ct s$^{-1}$ for EPIC-pn full-frame
mode
\footnote{http://xmm esac esa int/external/xmm\_user\_support/documentation
  /uhb\_2 5/index html})  This distorts the spectrum and makes
quantitative spectral analysis of the slew data difficult  We
minimized these effects by following the standard procedure, i e 
ignoring the central part of the Point Spread Function (PSF), and
extracted an event spectrum (containing single and double events) of
the source from within an annulus of 5\arcsec$-$30\arcsec\ radius,
centred on the source position  Unresolved problems associated with
the motion of sources across the detector still exist within slew
data, and approximations currently have to be made when calculating
the associated effective area and detector response matrix files  In
order to perform qualitative spectral analysis, an effective area file
was generated by averaging the individual core-removed effective area
files at 9 different positions along the detector track made by the
source  This accounts for the removal of the piled-up core, and takes
the vignetting and PSF variations into account to a good
approximation   Individual BACKSCAL values have been set by hand, as
have the EXPOSURE values, estimated by calculating the distance
travelled by the source in detector coordinates and finding the time
taken to do this, given a 90\,deg\,hr$^{-1}$ slew speed, then
subtracting the appropriate fractions for chip gaps and bad pixels 
For the response matrix, we used the equivalent canned detector
response matrix for the vignetting-weighted average source position,
for single plus double events and for full-frame mode:
epn\_ff20\_sdY6\_v6 9 rmf  A background spectrum was extracted from a
much larger circular region close to the source and at a similar
off-axis angle 

To fit the slew spectral data, and indeed all the high-energy spectra
in the present paper, the
XSPEC\footnote{http://heasarc gsfc nasa gov/docs/xanadu/xspec/}
spectral fitting package has been used  As $\chi^2$ minimization is
not valid when fitting spectra of low statistical quality, for the
fitting of the slew spectrum (and all the spectral fitting in the
present paper), C-statistics have been used  To take into account the
absorbing column along the line of sight, the {\em wabs} model with
the {\em wilm} cosmic abundance table (Wilms et al \ 2000) has been
used throughout the paper  All the errors quoted in the present paper
are 90\% confidence intervals, unless otherwise stated 

The rev \,1210 slew spectrum shows that the source is very soft, and
appears consistent with a 63$_{-10}^{+12}$\,eV black body, absorbed by
a hydrogen column density of
8 2$_{-4 1}^{+5 4}\times10^{20}$\,cm$^{-2}$  The fit is good, with a
P-statistic value of 0 11, obtained via the XSPEC {\em goodness}
command for this fit, based on 5000 random simulations  The best-fit
hydrogen column is equal to the full Galactic hydrogen column in the
direction of the source (8 0$\pm{1 1}\times10^{20}$\,cm$^{-2}$; Dickey
\& Lockman, 1990, calculated via the FTOOL {\em
  nh}\footnote{http://heasarc gsfc nasa gov/lheasoft/ftools/fhelp/nh txt}) 
The slew spectrum, plus the best fit simple black body model and the
deviations from the model, are shown in Fig \,\ref{slewspec}  The
observed count rate corresponds to a (0 2$-$2\,keV) flux, corrected
for the removal of the saturated PSF core, of
4 8$^{+2 7}_{-1 6}\times10^{-11}$\,ergs cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ (an
increase in flux over the RASS upper limit, assuming the same spectral
model, by a factor of more than 500) 

Simple power-law, thermal Bremmstrahlung, and other optically thin hot
plasma models are unable to fit the spectrum adequately well   Given
that we later are able to identify the source as a nova (Section~5 2),
then the black-body model will likely be a good approximation 
Furthermore, as we have obtained here a moderate number of slew
counts, the more physically realistic, though more complex atmosphere
model for CO white dwarfs of MacDonald \& Vennes (1991), provided by
K \,Page (private communication), was attempted   This model, used
e g  to model the nova V1974 Cyg (Balman et al \ 1998), yielded a
marginal fit (and not formally a more statistically significant fit;
P-statistic = 0 03, based on 5000 random simulations), with an
effective temperature of 70$^{+8}_{-6}$\,eV, an $N_{\rm H}$ of
3 7$^{+3 2}_{-2 5}$$\times$$10^{20}$\,cm$^{-2}$, and a PSF-corrected
(0 2$-$2\,keV) flux of 4 5$^{+1 3}_{-1 8}\times10^{-11}$\,ergs
cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$  Note that a smaller $N_{\rm H}$ (though perhaps
still consistent with the full Galactic hydrogen column) is now
obtained using the white dwarf atmosphere model  (Note that the
MacDonald \& Vennes (1991) ONe white dwarf atmosphere model was also
attempted, but yielded a marginally worse fit than the CO white dwarf
atmosphere model; only the CO atmosphere model has been used in the
subsequent analysis) 

It is well known (e g  Krautter et al \ 1996) that, because of the
energy-dependent opacity in the white dwarf atmosphere, fits to super
soft source novae spectra with black body models give larger fluxes
and lower temperatures than atmosphere models fit to the same spectra,
and this is seen in the present case  Thus the black body model
requires a larger $N_{\rm H}$ to fit the same data than the atmosphere
model, as is seen  

The model normalizations, corrected for the removal
of the saturated PSF core, can be used to derive an approximate
distance to the source   If we assume a typical emitting region for
the white dwarf atmosphere to be of spherical radius 10$^{9}$\,cm,
then, for the black body model, this distance turns out to be
20$^{+31}_{-10}$\,kpc  The effects discussed above however can lead to
usage of the black body model giving rise to an underestimation of the
distance   For the white dwarf atmosphere model, a larger distance of
71$^{+27}_{-23}$\,kpc is obtained  Both estimates are consistent with
the distance to the LMC ($\sim$50\,kpc, see Section~6), and assuming a
distance of 50\,kpc, the black body derived flux corresponds to a
(pile-up corrected) 0 2$-$2\,keV X-ray luminosity of
1 4$^{+0 8}_{-0 5}\times10^{37}$\,ergs s$^{-1}$ 


\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[bb=100 20 575 700,clip,width=6 0cm,angle=270]{12082f1 ps}
\caption{XMM-Newton Slew spectrum of XMMSL1 J060636 2-694933 from
  XMM-Newton revolution 1210   The data points (crosses; adjacent data
  bins having been grouped together for the plot to have a significance of at least
  3) have been fitted with a black body model (kT=63\,eV; see text) 
  The solid line shows the best fit to the spectrum  The ratio of the
  data to the best fit model is shown in the lower panel }
\label{slewspec}
\end{figure}


\section{Swift XRT X-ray observations}

We requested and received a prompt observation with Swift of this
source before it moved out of the Swift visibility window in April
2007  We received over 14\,ksec of Swift-XRT time in 7
separate observations and the details of these observations are listed
in Table~\ref{xrttable}  All of the observations were in photon
counting mode and none of the observations showed any times of
significant high-BG flux  In none of the observations did the source
position coincide with any of the dead (micrometeorite-induced)
detector columns  The analysis has been performed using HEASOFT
v6 1 2  The individual XRT observations were astrometrically-corrected
and then stacked to ascertain a best Swift-XRT position $-$ this was
found to be 06 06 37 00 -69 49 33 9 (with a 90\% error radius of
4 0\arcsec)  Source counts were then extracted from each observation
from a circle of radius of 40\arcsec\ at this position  Background
counts were extracted from each observation from large-radius
off-source circles close to the source position  Source counts and
count rates for the individual XRT observations are given in
Table~\ref{xrttable} 


\begin{table}
  \caption[]{Details of the Swift-XRT observations (observation ID, observation date and 
    cleaned exposure time) are tabulated, together with the total (0 2$-$2 0\,keV) background-subtracted 
    counts and count rate from XMMSL1 J060636 2-694933 (see text) }
  \centering
\begin{tabular}{ccrrr}
\hline
ID          & Date     & Exp  & Counts       & Count rate       \\ 
            &   (UT)   &  (s) &              & (s$^{-1}$)        \\ \hline 
00030895001 & 28/02/07 & 1955 & 23 9$\pm$5 1 & 0 0122$\pm$0 0026  \\
00030895002 & 07/03/07 & 1796 & 15 8$\pm$4 2 & 0 0088$\pm$0 0024 \\
00030895003 & 08/03/07 & 1651 & 10 9$\pm$3 6 & 0 0066$\pm$0 0022 \\
00030895004 & 08/03/07 & 2547 & 20 6$\pm$4 8 & 0 0081$\pm$0 0019 \\
00030895005 & 10/03/07 & 2550 & 29 5$\pm$5 7 & 0 0116$\pm$0 0022 \\
00030895006 & 20/03/07 &  552 &  8 6$\pm$3 2 & 0 0156$\pm$0 0057 \\
00030895007 & 22/03/07 & 3391 & 24 4$\pm$5 4 & 0 0072$\pm$0 0016 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{xrttable}
\end{table}

The observation naturally fell into three time-separated groups, those
of obs \,1, obs \,2-5 and obs \,6-7  A similar analysis applied to
these groups (where the statistics are improved) gives rise to source
counts and count rates of 76 7$\pm$9 3\,counts and
0 0090$\pm$0 0011\,ct~s$^{-1}$ (for obs \,2-5), and
33 0$\pm$6 2\,counts and 0 0084$\pm$0 0016\,ct~s$^{-1}$ (for
obs \,6-7)  (Analysis of all the data together yields
133 6$\pm$12 3\,counts and 0 0092$\pm$0 0009\,ct~s$^{-1}$)  

A spectrum was extracted from all the Swift-XRT data from a 40\arcsec\
radius circle, using grades 0$-$12, centred on the Swift-XRT position 
A background spectrum was extracted again from all the Swift-XRT data,
from large-radius off-source circles close to the source position  An
ARF file was created using {\em xrtmkarf} and the appropriate RMF
(swxpc0to12\_20010101v008 rmf) from the Swift-XRT Calibration Database
was obtained 

Standard spectral models were again fit to the spectral data using
XSPEC  Again, C-statistics were used, as was the {\em wabs} absorption
model with the {\em wilm} cosmic abundance table  It was again 
obvious that only a very soft spectrum would be appropriate for the
data, and the only simple model that was able to fit the data
adequately was a black-body model of temperature
$kT$=$59^{+14}_{-10}$\,eV, with an absorbing hydrogen column of
9 5$^{+5 0}_{-3 9}$$\times$$10^{20}$\,cm$^{-2}$  No sufficiently constrained parameters could
be obtained using the CO white dwarf atmosphere model (MacDonald \&
Vennes 1991)  The Swift-XRT spectrum, together with the best-fit black
body model is shown in Fig \,\ref{xrtspec}  The corresponding
(0 2$-$2 0\,keV) flux is 2 7$^{+0 7}_{-1 2}\times10^{-13}$\,ergs
cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ (i e  a reduction by more than a factor 100 from
the XMM-Newton slew discovery flux), and the X-ray luminosity, for the
assumed distance of 50\,kpc, is 8 0$^{+2 2}_{-3 5}\times10^{34}$\,ergs
s$^{-1}$ 

\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[bb=100 15 580 710,clip,width=6 0cm,angle=270]{12082f2 ps}
\caption{Swift-XRT spectrum from XMMSL1 J060636 2-694933  The data
  points (crosses; adjacent data bins having been grouped together for
  the plot to have a significance of at least 3) have been fitted with
  a black body model (kT=59\,eV; see text)  The source has faded by a
  factor of $>100$ since the XMM-Newton revolution 1210 slew
  discovery  The solid line show the best fit to the spectra   The
  ratio of the data to the best fit model is shown in the lower panel 
}
\label{xrtspec}
\end{figure}

A cautious estimate of the size of the emitting region can be obtained
from the model normalization; the assumed distance of 50\,kpc yields a
maximum radius of 4 5$\times$10$^{8}$\,cm (the fit normalization is
essentially unconstrained at the lower bound)   Though great care
should be taken in interpreting this result, as the black body model
is possibly overestimating the luminosity, this obtained radius is
still consistent with that of moderately massive ($>$1 1$M_{\odot}$)
white dwarfs (Hamada \& Salpeter 1961), i e \,the whole white dwarf
surface may still be emitting at 59\,eV 

\section{Dedicated XMM-Newton observations}

We were granted an XMM-Newton Target of Opportunity (ToO) observation,
once the source became again visible to XMM-Newton, and a 10\,ks
XMM-Newton EPIC observation was made on 19th June 2007 (see
Table~\ref{slewtable})  All the XMM-Newton EPIC data, i e   the data
from the two MOS cameras and the single pn camera, were taken in
full-frame mode with the thin filter in place   These data from the
three EPIC instruments have been reprocessed using the standard
procedures in XMM-Newton SAS (Science Analysis System) $-$ v 7 1 0 
Periods of high-background, of which there were very few, were
filtered out of each dataset by creating a high-energy 10$-$15\,keV
lightcurve of single events over the entire field of view, and
selecting times when this lightcurve peaked above 0 75\,ct s$^{-1}$
(for pn) or 0 25\,ct s$^{-1}$ (for MOS)  This resulted in
$\approx$9 4(8 0)\,ks of low-background MOS(pn) data  Details of this dedicated
XMM-Newton observation, together with source position, and
(0 2$-$2\,keV) all-EPIC combined (pn, MOS1, MOS2) detected source
counts, count rate and detection likelihood are given in
Table~\ref{slewtable} 

Source spectra, containing single and double events, were extracted
from the datasets from circles (none of the data were now piled up)
centred on the source position  An extraction radius, estimated from
where the radial surface brightness profile was seen to fall to the
surrounding background level, was set to 30\arcsec  Background spectra
were extracted from each cleaned dataset from a 40\arcsec$-$80\arcsec\
annulus centred on the source position  Point sources seen to
contaminate these larger-area background spectra were removed from the
background spectra to a radius of 60\arcsec  ARF files were created
for the source spectra, and were checked to confirm that the correct
extraction area calculations had been performed  Finally RMF response
files were generated 
 
Standard spectral models were again fit to the spectral data using
XSPEC  Once again it was obvious that only a very soft model would fit the data; the only
simple model that was able to fit the data well (a P-statistic = 0 17,
based on 5000 random simulations) was a black-body model of
temperature $kT$=70$^{+3}_{-4}$\,eV, with an absorbing hydrogen column
of 6 9$^{+1 0}_{-1 6}\times10^{20}$\,cm$^{-2}$  The spectrum, together with this best-fit
model are shown in Fig \,\ref{xmmspec}  The corresponding
(0 2$-$2 0\,keV) flux is only marginally less than the Swift-XRT value
at 2 2$^{+0 8}_{-0 9}\times10^{-13}$\,ergs cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ and the
X-ray luminosity (for the assumed distance of 50\,kpc) is
6 7$^{+2 5}_{-2 8}\times10^{34}$\,ergs s$^{-1}$ 

\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[bb=110 15 570 705,clip,width=6 0cm,angle=270]{12082f3 ps}
\caption{XMM-Newton ToO spectrum from XMMSL1 J060636 2-694933  The
  data points (crosses; adjacent data bins having been grouped
  together for the plot to have a significance of at least 3)) have
  been fitted again with a black body model (kT=70\,eV) (see text) 
  EPIC-pn data is shown in black, with EPIC-MOS1 in red and EPIC-MOS2
  in green  The solid lines show the best fit to the spectra   The
  ratios of the data to the best fit model are shown in the lower
  panel }
\label{xmmspec}
\end{figure}

Given that, in this XMM-Newton ToO observation, we had obtained a
larger number of counts ($\raisebox{-1mm}{$\stackrel{>}{\sim}$}$1500 over the 3 EPIC cameras), the
physically more realistic CO white dwarf atmosphere model (MacDonald \&
Vennes 1991) was also attempted  This yielded a marginal fit (and formally
a no more statistically significant fit; P-statistic = 0 04, based on
5000 random simulations), with an effective temperature of
73$^{+3}_{-2}$\,eV, and an $N_{\rm H}$ of
3 4$^{+0 8}_{-0 8}$$\times$$10^{20}$\,cm$^{-2}$  Again, usage of the black body model results
in a larger fitted $N_{\rm H}$ and a lower fitted temperature than
with the atmosphere model  


As before, the model normalization can be used to obtain a cautious
estimate of the size of the emitting region  For the assumed distance
of 50\,kpc, then the black body model returns an emitting region
radius of only 1 3$\pm$0 2$\times$10$^{8}$\,cm   Again care should be
taken, as this may be an overestimation, the black body model having
perhaps overestimated the luminosity  For the white dwarf atmosphere
model, a smaller radius of 0 4$\pm$0 1$\times$10$^{8}$\,cm is
obtained  Note further that the assumption of a larger distance (see
Section~6) would result in a proportionally larger emitting radius 
The range in allowed radius therefore is quite large, and it is not
impossible for for the whole of the white dwarf surface to be emitting
at 70\,eV  If this is the case, then the white dwarf would have to be
at the high end of the mass range ($>$1 2$M_{\odot}$; Hamada \&
Salpeter 1961)  It may be the case then that we are at this point at,
or close to the end of the SSS phase, where the effective temperature
has reached a maximum (Sala \& Hernanz 2005), as is tentatively seen
in the spectral fitting results, and where the photospheric radius has
reached a minimum, close to the white dwarf radius 


\subsection{X-ray variability}

The full (XMM-Newton slew plus Swift-XRT plus XMM-Newton ToO) X-ray
lightcurve of XMMSL1 J060636 2-694933 is shown in
Fig \,\ref{lightcurve}  The calculated (0 2$-$2 0\,keV) flux values
are shown plotted against the number of days since the rev \,1210
XMM-Newton Slew discovery  The first two data points are the
rev \,1210 and the rev \,1246 XMM-Newton Slew observations  Then the
three nested Swift-XRT points are shown and finally the XMM-Newton ToO
observation  The level of RASS upper limit is shown to the bottom
left  The (0 2$-$2 0\,keV) X-ray flux is seen to have dropped by more
than two orders of magnitude in 230 days since the discovery, but is
then seen to have levelled off for the next 120 days, at a level still
$\approx$3 times that of the RASS  Finally, no evidence for any
short-term variability (using time bins down to 100\,s) is seen in the
highest statistic continuous X-ray lightcurve (the $\approx$8 0\,ksec
background-filtered EPIC-pn lightcurve) obtained from the 19/06/07
XMM-Newton observation 

\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[bb=60 60 550 454,clip,width=8 7cm]{12082f4 ps}
\caption{The full X-ray lightcurve of XMMSL1 J060636 2-694933  Plotted
  are the calculated (0 2$-$2 0\,keV) flux values versus time  The
  first point is the rev \,1210 XMM-Newton Slew observation, then the
  rev \,1246 XMM-Newton Slew observation  The three nested Swift-XRT points
  are shown next and finally the XMM-Newton ToO observation  The RASS upper
  limit is shown bottom left  }
\label{lightcurve}
\end{figure}


\section{Multi-wavelength Follow-up}

\subsection{Swift UVOT}

For the Feb/Mar 2007 Swift observations, we arranged for both the
Swift UVOT-B filter and the UVOT-UVW2 filters to be used in an
approximate exposure time ratio of 1:5, thus ensuring roughly equal
numbers of counts in the two bands (though there is a spectral type
dependency here)  Swift UVOT images in these two filters of the area
of sky around XMMSL1 J060636 2-694933 are shown in Fig \,\ref{uvot} 

Prior to the Swift UVOT observations, a `best-guess' to the possible
candidate optical/IR counterpart would have been the USNO-A2 0 source
0150-04066298 (B~mag: 17 4, R~mag: 16 1), seen 4\arcsec\ south of the
XMM-Newton slew position  The UVOT images however immediately showed
that the optically fainter source at position RA, Dec (J2000) = 06 06
36 4, -69 49 34 3 (error radius: ~0 5\arcsec) was a very strong UVW2
source and very blue, and was very likely the true counterpart to
XMMSL1~J060636 2-694933  (The UVW2 filter spans approximately
800\AA\,, centred at $\approx$1900\AA)

\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[bb=-82 210 695 585,clip,width=8 7cm]{12082f5 ps}
\caption{Swift UVOT images of the field around XMMSL1 J060636 2-694933 from observation
  00030895002  Left shows the UVOT B-filter and right shows the the
  UVOT UVW2-filter  The large circle is a 20\arcsec\ radius circle around
  the XMM-Newton Slew position  The small circle in the UVW2 image around the
  bright source is reproduced in the B image, indicating that a faint
  optical source is also visible at this position }
\label{uvot}
\end{figure}

The Swift UVOT pipeline processed data were analysed using the UVOT
photometry package {\em uvotsource} released with
FTOOLs\footnote{http://heasarc nasa gov/lheasoft/ftools/ftools\_menu html} 
This package performs aperture photometry on pre-specified source and
background regions, accounting for photometric- (via PSF fitting) and
coincidence loss- effects using the UVOT calibration files  Source
counts were extracted using a 5\arcsec\ radius aperture centred on the
source, while for the background we used a 10\arcsec\ radius aperture
located in a nearby source-free region   We used a larger background
aperture to effectively smooth over the modulo-8 fixed pattern noise
present in UVOT observations and to improve the statistics of the
background counts  Source counts were converted to UVOT UV-magnitudes
using the UVW2 zero-point calibration released with version~2 8 (Build
22) of the CALDB  The source is seen (see Fig \,\ref{uvotlc}) to be
roughly constant over the short duration of the Swift observations,
with a suggestion of a decline towards the end  This is in keeping
with the general form of the X-ray lightcurve (Fig \,\ref{lightcurve})
at this time 

\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[bb=80 70 535 380,clip,width=8 7cm]{12082f6 ps}
\caption{Variation of the UVW2 magnitude of the bright UV source
  during the Swift observations  The same time axis as
  Fig \,\ref{lightcurve} has been used to aid comparison, and a zoom
  is also shown  The UVW2 filter was only employed during observations
  00030895002, 00030895004, 00030895005, 00030895006 \& 00030895007
  (hence the points span the dates 07/03/07 to 22/03/07)  The errors here are 1-$\sigma$  }
\label{uvotlc}
\end{figure}

It is possible to include the UVOT-detected flux with the XRT spectrum
described in Section~3  UVOT files, created using {\em uvot2pha} for
the five observations (00030895002, 00030895004, 00030895005,
00030895006 \& 00030895007) where the UVW2 filter was employed, were
incorporated into {\em xspec}, along with the appropriate response
file (swuw2\_20041120v104 rsp) from the Swift-XRT Calibration
Database  We attempted to fit a single black-body spectrum to the
Swift-XRT+UV data (again using C-statistics, the {\em wabs} absorption
model and the {\em wilm} cosmic abundance table, plus the inclusion of
the {\em xspec-redden} component to model the absorption in the UV
band)  The best fit however, with a much lower temperature of
$kT$=$36^{+3}_{-4}$\,eV, is a very poor fit to the data; we obtain a
{\em goodness} P-statistic value of 0 00, based on 5000 random
simulations  This notwithstanding, a flux in the UVW2
(1 57$-$7 77\,eV) band of 3 5$\pm{0 2}\times10^{-13}$\,ergs cm$^{-2}$
s$^{-1}$ can be obtained, corresponding to a UVW2 luminosity, for the
assumed distance of 50\,kpc, of 1 0$\pm{0 1}\times10^{35}$\,ergs
s$^{-1}$ 

The very poor single black-body fit above, plus the large change in
fitted temperature is strongly suggestive that a model other than, or
in addition to the XRT-derived kT=59\,eV black body model (Section~3)
should be used to describe the UVW2 data  As we have no UV data other
than in the UVW2 filter, all that can be done is to apply the
XRT-derived black body model to the UVW2+XRT data, and in doing this,
a large flux excess with respect to the XRT-derived black body model
is seen in the UVW2 band  This is shown in Fig \ref{xrtuvotspec}  This
excess in UV emission (most of the $10^{35}$\,ergs s$^{-1}$ discussed
above) is likely due to a combination of residual post-nova nuclear
burning on the surface of the white dwarf, plus accretion in the disk,
including from emission lines  The situation is likely to be rather
complex, depending on the structure of both the ejecta and the
accretion disk, and is beyond the scope of the present work, where we
only have sparse UV data   For a review of the UV emission from
classical novae, see Shore (2008) 


\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[bb=100 15 580 710,clip,width=6 0cm,angle=270]{12082f7 ps}
\caption{Swift-XRT spectrum (black) from XMMSL1 J060636 2-694933, plus
  the best-fit black-body model to this spectrum (Section~3; Fig \,2),
  but extending into the UV to the Swift-UVOT UVW2 flux points (coloured)
  (see text)  The data points are plotted such that adjacent data
  bins have been grouped together to have a significance of at least
  3  The solid line show the best fit to the Swift-XRT spectrum  The
  ratio of the data to the best fit model is shown in the lower
  panel }
\label{xrtuvotspec}
\end{figure}


\subsection{Magellan optical observations}

On Nov ~13, 14, and 15, 2007, XMMSL1~J060636 2--694933 was observed
with the Low--Dispersion Survey Spectrograph 3 (LDSS3) mounted on the
Magellan Clay telescope  Images were obtained through the Sloan
$g^\prime$, $r^\prime$ and $i^\prime$ filters  On Nov ~15, 2007
conditions were photometric and the Landolt field RU 149A was observed
to flux calibrate the data in the $g^\prime$, $r^\prime$ and
$i^\prime$--bands   The Landolt (1992) magnitudes of the standards
were converted to Sloan magnitudes using the transformations presented
in Smith et al \ (2002)  All the images were debiased and flatfielded
using dome flatfield frames  We applied aperture photometry on each of
the images using DAOPHOT in \textsc{IRAF}\footnote{\textsc {iraf} is
  distributed by the National Optical Astronomy Observatories} to
compute the instrumental magnitudes of the stars  Differential
photometry of the optical counterpart to XMMSL1~J060636 2-694933
(marked by an arrow in Fig ~\ref{magellan}) was performed with respect
to the field star (marked with a `c' in Fig ~\ref{magellan})  This was the
brightest isolated and unsaturated star common to all frames   The
calibrated brightness of this comparison star is $g'= 18 42 \pm 0 04$,
$r'= 17 85 \pm 0 06$ and $i'=17 58 \pm 0 07$ 

\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[bb=35 215 575 575,clip,width=8 7cm]{12082f8 ps}
\caption{Magellan Clay LDSS3 finder chart  The counterpart to
  XMMSL1~J060636 2-694933 (and the bright Swift-UVOT UVW2-filter
  source; Figs \ref{uvot}\&\ref{uvotlc}) is marked with an arrow  The comparison star is
  shown marked with a 'c' }
\label{magellan}
\end{figure}

In addition to the imaging observations described above, we have
obtained spectroscopic observations on Nov ~13, 14, and 15, 2007 using
the VPH All grism, which has 660 lines per mm, and employing a
1\arcsec\ wide slit  This set-up provides a mean dispersion of 2\AA\,
per pixel  For a slit width of 1 arcsecond and a mean seeing close to
1\arcsec, the mean spectral resolution is $\approx$10\AA  On Nov ~13, 2007
we took 4 exposures of 450\,s each, on Nov ~14, 2007 we took 2
exposures of 900\,s each, and on Nov ~15, 2007 we took one 1200\,s
exposure with the slit at the parallactic angle  The spectra were bias
and flatfield corrected, and extracted in \textsc{IRAF}  The
instrumental response was corrected using the spectrophotometric flux
calibrators LTT 3218 (Nov ~13), H600 (Nov ~14) and LTT 9293 (Nov ~15) 
Significant differences in the flux around H$\alpha$ are apparent with
the flux being 50\% higher during the Nov ~15, 2007 with respect to
the Nov ~13, 2007 observations  Since there is no evidence for
brightening in the $r^\prime$ images we attribute the difference to
the fact that the source was not observed at the parallactic angle on
Nov ~13 and 14, 2007  We exported the one dimensional spectra to the
spectral analysis software package \textsc{molly} for further
analysis 

\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[bb=70 30 600 800,clip,width=6 8cm,angle=270]{12082f9 ps}
\caption{Magellan Clay averaged optical spectrum of the optical source
  associated with XMMSL1 J060636 2-694933  The flux scaling is
  approximate  The prominent strong emission lines are marked (see
  text)  }
\label{optspec}
\end{figure}

We have averaged all spectra (see Fig ~\ref{optspec})  We find several
strong emission lines  The strongest of these emission lines are best
interpreted as due to [OIII] 4958 9\AA\, and 5006 9\AA\,, He~II at
4685 8\AA\, and a blend of the H$\alpha$ plus the [NII] at 6548 1\AA\,
and 6583 4\AA\,, lines found often in novae (Williams 1992)  In this
case the main [OIII] lines appear redshifted by approximately 2000\,km
s$^{-1}$  We interprete this as due to clumpy outflows in the nova
shell  The integrated light from different outflowing parts can also
explain the substructure that is present in the [OIII] lines  The
outflow velocities that we obtain for the H$\alpha$ and H$\beta$ lines
is $\approx$350\,km s$^{-1}$, hence less than that for the [OIII]
lines   Note that, if XMMSL1~J060636 2-694933 does reside within the
LMC, then the systematic line-of-sight recession velocity of the LMC,
262$\pm$3 4\,km~s$^{-1}$ (van der Marel et al \ 2002), should be taken
into account; i e \,a good fraction of the observed H$\alpha$ and H$\beta$
recession would then be due to the recession of the LMC itself 

\subsection{Long-term Optical light curve}

Analysis of archival robotic optical survey data from 3-minute CCD
exposures (pixel size 14\arcsec 8), obtained with a 70\,mm (200\,mm
focal length) f/2 8 telephoto lens in the course of the All Sky
Automated Survey (ASAS; Pojmanski 2002) show that the visual magnitude
of this source rose from m$_{V}\raisebox{-1mm}{$\stackrel{>}{\sim}$}$14 to m$_{V}$$\approx$12 between
Sep ~18, 2005 and Sep ~30, 2005, and then declined rapidly thereafter (see
Fig \ref{optlc})  ASAS did not detect any significant emission from
the source after around November 2005, the source having dimmed below
the limiting magnitude of ASAS 

The decline from the brightest data point ($\approx$2 2 magnitudes in
10 days, then a further $\sim$1 3 magnitudes in 46 days) suggests that
this is a nova of the 'very fast' speed class (Warner 1995, Downes
et al \ 2001)  We estimate that the time that the light curve takes to
decline 2 magnitudes below maximum observed brightness is
8$\pm$2\,days (see Section~6) 

\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[bb=30 78 453 549,clip,width=7 8cm,angle=270]{12082f10 ps}
\caption{All Sky Automated Survey V-band magnitudes of the optical counterpart 
to XMMSL1~J060636 2-694933, during outburst (late September 2005) and afterwards }
\label{optlc}
\end{figure}



\section{Discussion}

The optical spectrum, showing lines of [OIII] 4958 9\AA\, and
5006 9\AA\,, He~II at 4685 8\AA\, and a blend of the H$\alpha$ plus
[NII] at 6548 1\AA\, and 6583 4\AA\, suggests that
XMMSL1~J060636 2-694933 was a nova, observed (in Nov 2007) in the late
A$_{0}$ auroral phase  The fact that the observed [OIII] lines are not
in the more usual, optically thin 3:1 ratio, can be explained in terms
of a clumpy outflow scenario, whereby individual clumps of both
rest-frame and redward-shifted material are observed, and the
superposition of these account for the observed [OIII] ratio (note
further that density enhancements can change observed [OIII] ratios to
more like $\sim$1:1)  Clumps of material are often seen in nova ejecta
(e g  Shara et al \ 1997), and outflows of speeds around 2000\,km
s$^{-1}$ are not uncommon in novae (e g  in nova LMC 1991; Schwartz
et al \ 2001) 

XMMSL1~J060636 2-694933 was likely at its onset (in Oct 2005) a very
fast, Fe~{\sc ii} nova (Section~3 and Williams et al \ 1991; Williams
et al \ 1994)  An accurate classification now however is not possible,
so late after maximum brightness  The soft ($kT_{\rm
  eff}$$\approx$60--70\,eV) X-ray spectrum indicates that the nova was
in a super-soft source (SSS) state (Krautter 2008) during its
discovery (in July 2006), and throughout its X-ray decline (by more
than two orders of magnitude) in the observations of Sept 2006, March
2007 and June 2007   Such a state originates from nuclear burning on
the surface of the white dwarf, and measurements of the intensity,
duration, and temperature can be used to estimate the distance to the
nova and the mass of the white dwarf (e g  Balman et al \ 1998; Lanz
et al \ 2005)  Indeed, we believe (Section~4) that the white dwarf
within XMMSL1~J060636 2-694933 may be quite massive
($>$1 2$M_{\odot}$) 

As discussed earlier, classical novae are almost always discovered
optically in the early phases of their outbursts 
XMMSL1~J060636 2-694933 is very unusual therefore in that it has been
discovered first in X-rays  As such, it is useful to compare it with
XMMSL1~J070542 7-381442 (also known as V598 Pup; Read et al \ 2008),
another nova recently discovered (in X-rays) in the XMM-Newton slew
survey  With a peak $m_{V}$ of $\ltsim12$, XMMSL1~J060636 2-694933 is
not a particularly bright nova (c f  V598 Pup, which reached an
m$_{V}$ of $\raisebox{-1mm}{$\stackrel{<}{\sim}$}$4), and so it is not surprising that it went
unnoticed, only being discovered in X-rays during the later (here
291\,days after the outburst), optically thin nebular phase, when
classical novae are typically observed as soft X-ray sources  Though
this delay should be taken as a upper limit, it is long when compared
to V598 Pup ($\raisebox{-1mm}{$\stackrel{<}{\sim}$}$127 days), but may instead be more similar to the
delays of $\sim$200 days seen in V1974 Cyg (Krautter et al \ 1996),
$\sim$6 months of V382 Vel (Orio et al \ 2002), and 6$-$8 months of
V1494 Aql (Drake et al \ 2003)  In their X-ray monitoring of optical
novae in M31, Pietsch et al \ (2007) detect 11 out of 34 novae in
X-rays within a year after their optical outbursts  Seven novae are
seen to be X-ray bright, several (3$-$9) years after outburst, and
three novae showed very short X-ray outbursts, starting within
50\,days of outburst, but lasting only two to three months 
XMMSL1~J060636 2-694933 therefore is not particularly unusual 

A method to estimate the distance to the nova is to use the relation
between the absolute magnitude at maximum brightness and the time that
the light curve takes to decline 2 magnitudes below maximum
brightness, $t_{2}$ (Della Valle \& Livio 1995)  We have no
information over the 12 days between the data point of maximum
brightness and the lower limit prior to this (Fig \,\ref{optlc}), and
therefore we have no exact outburst date, nor exact apparent
magnitude at outburst   Assuming for the moment though that we have
caught the outburst exactly in the Sep ~30, 2005 observation, then we
can estimate (Sect ~5 3) $t_{2}$ to be 8$\pm$2\,days, and using this,
we can estimate (Della Valle \& Livio 1995) the absolute magnitude at
maximum brightness $M_{V}$ to be --8 7$\pm$0 6  An absolute magnitude
of $M_{V}$=--8 7 implies a peak luminosity $\sim$7 times the Eddington
luminosity for a 1\,$M_{\odot}$ white dwarf  This is quite typical of
novae 

With $A_{V}$=0 39$^{+0 05}_{-0 09}$ (90\% error), as derived (Predehl
\& Schmitt 1995) from $N_{\rm
  H}$=6 9$^{+1 0}_{-1 6}\times10^{20}$\,cm$^{-2}$ (from the highest
statistic spectral fit; the XMM-Newton ToO observation), and with
$M_{V}$=--8 7$\pm$0 6, and a peak $m_{V}$ of 12 0, we can derive a
distance to XMMSL1~J060636 2-694933 of 115$^{+43}_{-30}$\,kpc   As
discussed above however, we are unsure as to the exact outburst date
and the maximum brightness at outburst  Our assumed peak $m_{V}$ of
12 0 is almost certainly an underestimation  Although we have no
information in the 12 days prior to Sep ~30, 2005, a simple linear
extrapolation of the early October lightcurve back prior to Sep ~30,
2005 suggests that the actual peak $m_{V}$ was somewhere between 9 and
12  The corresponding distance estimates are then between 29 and
115\,kpc (with a mid-point $m_{V}$=10 5 value yielding a distance
estimate of 58\,kpc)  Many methods have been used to estimate the
distance to the LMC (e g   Kovacs 2000, Nelson et al \ 2000), but a
value of around 50\,kpc appears to be quite robust  Our distance
estimate is certainly consistent with that of the LMC, though the
errors are quite large   It does appear to be the case however, that
our distance estimate places the source far outside of our own Galaxy 
This, together with the source's position on the sky (at the eastern
edge of the LMC) and the sizable ($\sim$Galactic) X-ray hydrogen
column densities obtained from the spectral fits, suggest strongly
that XMMSL1~J060636 2-694933 lies within the LMC itself   Note further
that the (pile-up corrected) spectral model normalizations to the
initial Slew discovery data (Sect ~2) also imply an approximate
distance to XMMSL1~J060636 2-694933 of $\sim$50\,kpc 

The source had, at the time of the slew detection, an absorbed
(0 2$-$2\,keV) X-ray flux of 4 8$^{+2 7}_{-1 6}\times10^{-11}$\,ergs
cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$, corresponding to a 0 2$-$2\,keV X-ray luminosity
(at 50\,kpc) of 1 4$^{+0 8}_{-0 5}\times10^{37}$\,ergs s$^{-1}$ 
Assuming instead for the moment a distance more like 100\,kpc (though
this is thought to be well beyond the LMC, e g  Kovacs 2000), then the
(0 2$-$2\,keV) X-ray luminosity of
5 7$^{+3 0}_{-1 9}\times$$10^{37}$\,erg s$^{-1}$ obtained is at the high end of the X-ray luminosities of
classical SSS-phase novae discussed e g \,in Orio et al \ (2002) and
Ness et al \ (2007)  As discussed though, we have very likely missed
the outburst peak, and as such, our more probable assumed distance of
50\,kpc gives rise to a more typical SSS-phase X-ray luminosity   The
luminosities of 7$-$8$\times$$10^{34}$\,erg s$^{-1}$, obtained during
the Swift and pointed XMM-Newton observations, are more typical of
novae at later times, when the emission can also sometimes be
described by a thermal plasma, rather than a black-body type spectrum,
or a more mixed spectrum, due to the complex structure of the ejecta
and the accretion disk (Krautter 2008, Shore 2008) 


\section{Conclusions}

A bright X-ray source, XMMSL1~J060636 2-694933, was detected in an
XMM-Newton slew on 18 July 2006 at a position where no previous X-ray
source had been seen  The XMM-Newton slew data, plus follow-up dedicated
XMM-Newton and Swift observations, plus optical imaging and
spectroscopic data acquired with the Magellan Clay telescope and 
All-Sky Automated Survey (ASAS) data were used to classify the new object
as a nova, and to examine its properties  The primary conclusions are
as follows:

  \begin{itemize}

  \item The soft X-ray spectrum indicates that the nova was in a
    super-soft source (SSS) state at its discovery in July 2007
    (XMM-Newton slew) and through its X-ray decline (by over two
    orders of magnitude) in September 2006 (XMM-Newton slew), March
    2007 (Swift) and June 2007 (XMM-Newton) 

  \item The Magellan optical spectrum (Nov 2007) of the source
    indicates that it was very likely then a nova in the late
    A$_{0}$ auroral phase 

  \item The very fast optical decline (ASAS) during the nova's onset
    (Oct 2005), indicates that the initial nova was likely of speed class
    'very fast' 

  \item The very fast speed, together with the absolute magnitude at
    maximum brightness and the X-ray absorption, give rise to a
    distance to the source far beyond our own Galaxy  The large
    distance, together with the source's position in the sky, at the
    eastern edge of the LMC, and the spectral information from the
    X-ray data, are very suggestive that the nova is situated within
    the LMC itself 

  \item Analysis of XMM-Newton slew data is continuing to provide a
    powerful means of finding new X-ray transient objects 

\end{itemize}

\begin{acknowledgements}

  The XMM-Newton project is an ESA Science Mission with instruments
  and contributions directly funded by ESA Member States and the USA
  (NASA)  The XMM-Newton project is supported by the Bundesministerium
  f\"ur Wirtschaft und Technologie/Deutsches Zentrum f\"ur Luft- und
  Raumfahrt (BMWI/DLR, FKZ 50 OX 0001), the Max-Planck Society and the
  Heidenhain-Stiftung  AMR and PE acknowledge the support of STFC
  funding, and PGJ of the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific
  Research  The ASAS project is supported by the N2030731/1328 grant
  from the MNiSzW  We thank the referee (G \,Sala) for very useful
  comments and several references that have improved the paper
  notably  We thank Kim Page for providing the white dwarf atmosphere
  model, and we thank her and Graham Wynn for useful discussions  The
  use of the spectral analysis software package \textsc{molly} written
  by Tom Marsh is also acknowledged  MM acknowledges support by a
  Miller Institute Research Fellowship during the time in which part
  of the work was completed 

\end{acknowledgements}


Context 3: Probably one of the most frustrating things about building experimental aircraft, especially when starting with a minimum of pre-fabricated parts, is to start building and ending up with an unexpected result  Every builder starts a new project by wanting it to go "perfectly " So when things aren't going well, especially at the beginning, the frustration can lead to an unfinished airplane 
This is the first article in a series dedicated to helping builders of the Rand Robinson KR series planes build a straight and true fuselage -- the first part of the construction process  Borrowing from modern boatbuliding techniques, focus will be on the KR-2S, but the principles apply to the entire lineup of KR-1 & KR-2 series planes 
While building the KR-2(s) a common surprise is encountered by builders when the completed fuselage sides are laid into position to form the fuselage box section  With many hours spent building the sides flat, finding the once straight longerons that now bow up from the building surface, form a most dissatisfying "banana" shape  Especially when using the preformed fiberglass parts, this curve in the top longeron is not acceptable  The builder is left wondering what went wrong and no amount of clamping or brute force forming will solve the problem to any degree of satisfaction  The problem is not the builder's fault  The solution starts by understanding the three dimensional relationship of the assembled parts being built 
First understand that the plans show the finished form of the plane  They show the "projected" form as you would expect to see it if viewing an actual plane from the top, ends and from the side  Since the sides are sloped (flared) outward, looking from the side, the distances given by measuring the profile drawing are "foreshortened" and don't give the proper shape for building the fuselage with a flat top longeron  What needs to be done is to "develop" the "true" distances and shape of the flat panel so that when it is curved into position, the longerons lay flat 
Second, understand that the dimensions called for in the plans put a twist in the sides that tends to work the panel in two directions of curvature  This twist makes the panel "undevelopable" meaning that that shape cannot be unrolled into an equivalent flat shape  This is important when laying out the side and bottom panels onto flat plywood  To illustrate this, try forming a piece of paper around a soda can  The paper can be formed flat around the can either straight or at a diagonal to it's length  It has only one direction of curvature and is by definition "developable"  Now try to form the same piece of paper around a baseball  It won't lie flat on the surface without some deformation (folding, wrinkling or tearing) of the paper  The ball has curvature in more that one direction and is a "compounded" shape  Paper (or plywood) can only be readily formed in developable shapes as opposed to aluminum or other metal which can accept in plane deformation  A developable surface is needed to lay out a curved surface when the materials used can't be deformed with any degree of in-plane strain 
Initially, the fuselage sides are laid out flat with reference to the top longeron measured to a straight chalk line  The bowing problem starts when the side panels are bent and sloped to form the fuselage box section  If the sides were not sloped (tumbled home), the section formed would be cylindrical and the longerons would lie flat  Since the sides are tumbled home, the section formed is now conical  When a conical shape is cut with a plane (building surface) not perpendicular to it's axis, the shape formed is elliptical -- exactly what happens with the top longeron  When it's built flat, bent to form a cylindrical section, and sloped to form a conical section, it takes on an elliptical shape firewall to tailstock 
This method borrows heavily from proven techniques used in the marine trades  It should be stressed at this point that although the layout procedure is not complicated, it is important to take your time  If the layout is not going well initially, start over! Better to erase layout errors now than to have them built it and cause surprises later 
Layout to ensure a fair and true fuselage starts by drawing a reference line (baseline) on the building surface  Refer to figures 2 & 3 and use a wire guide to draw a very straight baseline  About 500 lbs  Of tension should be adequate  One could use a chalk line, but we're talking airplanes here, not house framing 
The main layout difference is that the baseline isn't used as a reference for the top longeron  The baseline references the mid point of the firewall for the developed (and true dimensioned) side panel  Although the baseline will still be the reference, the top and bottom longerons will be laid separately 
Layout differences don't end there  Each of the stations (vertical members) will be laid out with a calculated separation so that when the panels are formed into position, they land on the spacing called for in the plans  Another major difference is that the bottom & side panels are applied after forming the fuselage box section  This is mainly to obtain the ability to "fair" the side and bottom surfaces and insure a straight and true shape 
Refer to figure 1 for the layout of the new developed side panel  The firewall (station a) is layed out perpendicular to the baseline  Longitudinal (station) measurements are given along the length of the baseline from the firewall  Vertical dimensions are given to reference the angle and breadths of the station at the baseline 
Notice that the top longeron is bowed outward and that the stations are spaced slightly greater than called out in the plans  When the panels are formed into the box frame section ,they will work into the dimensions specified in the plans 
Strike a centerline, longer than is needed on the building surface using a wire guide  Draw off the firewall line perpendicular to the centerline at one end 
Using the distances listed in the balloons, mark them off on the centerline  Distances are measured to the nearest sixteenth of an inch  Take time to mark them off carefully  Don't mark off the distances in a cumulative fashion  Use the firewall as a common reference 
Using the angles listed at each station, mark off a station line longer than is needed  The angles are measured to the nearest hundredth of a degree  Take time to mark them off carefully 
At each station, start by marking off each short (bottom longeron) line distance from the centerline  Use your set of trammels or beam compass for doing this  Mark the intersection of the short line with the station line 
At each station, mark off each long (top longeron) line distance from the intersection of the short line distance and the station line  Again the trammels or beam compass is best for completing this step  Mark the intersection of the long line distance with the station line 
Using the longeron as a batten, trace out the inside and outside curves of the longeron  After the batten is secure, in between each station, fasten a keeper block inside and outside to preserve the shape of the longeron taking care to avoid potential future interference with the diagonal members to be installed later  The fairing blocks can be removed or left in place if they won't interfere with building  The vertical station members and their diagonals can now be measured and positioned  Remember to refer to the plans for the material thickness direction 
After vertical and diagonal members are cut and fitted, take time to draw their outlines on the building surface to cut down on time and confusion when laying out the opposite side 
Finishing the side panel is accomplished in a manner similar to that called for in the handbook with the exception that the side and bottom skin panels will be attached later 
The next article in the series will discuss jigging and building techniques to ensure alignment and straightness of the flat built side panels  Also covered will be building a "strongback" jig to assure alignment of the side panels when they are formed into their final shape 
Part 3 in the series will cover assembly of the side panels using the jigs  Some joint details will be discussed that will ensure a stronger and more fair fuselage assembly  Also covered will be the layout & attachment of the side and bottom ply skins 
U S  Mail: Densmore Associates, inc 
ANSI "D" size, computer generated plots of all the layout drawings in this series are available from the author for $30 plus postage & handling  Full (true size) scale plots may be made available depending on demand 
"Scarfing" is the practice of splicing plywood so that short pieces of plywood can be used to span long distances  On the KR, it is required on both the fuselage skins and spar webs  The angle of the splice should be 10 to 12 degrees to maintain strength across the joint  Also, joints should coincide with structural members, such as spar webs or fuselage truss members 
This scarfer is made by mating a regular plunge router (this one costs about $50) to a table saw  Obviously, you really only need a table saw to cut the chamfer, but it does make a nice heavy table for scarfing  You could just as easily use a large work table as the base First, set the table saw for a 5 5 degree cut (for a 1:12 joint, or 6 5 degree cut for a 10:1 joint), and run a 1 x 6 through on edge to chamfer a corner on the board  Then drill the board for three router mounting holes (two are countersunk) and connect the assembly to the table saw with two 1/4 inch bolts  Use a long (2-3 inch) straight cutting bit to do the cutting  Adjust the bit so it doesn't interfere with your table top, and go to town  Keep pressure on the plywood to ensure contact with the table while you're scarfing  Make sure you feed your material from the same end as you would if you were sawing, or the router will take your plywood away from you and put a big dent in your garage door 
In the late 60's Ken Rand and Stuart Robinson were working as flight system engineers for Douglas Avionics  Ken was working as an electrical engineer, having previously worked for Sperry as an autopilots project engineer, while Stu's degree was in aeronautical engineering from Northrop University  They were two of the guys at the end of the DC-8,9, and 10 assembly lines responsible for correcting some of the nits and picks in various systems before delivery to the customer 
They both wanted to build a fast, inexpensive airplane which was also economical to maintain  Several designs were considered, and plans were bought first for the Jeanie's Teenie and then the Taylor Monoplane  The Monoplane was more to their liking, but would require some modification to fit their needs  A cooperative redesign effort ensued, with virtually no dimensions left untouched  Only the basic fuselage structure, airfoil, and powerplant were retained  The tail shape was Stu's, and came directly from the big DC-8s parked on the ramp outside his office window  The landing gear was designed by Ken, after seeing the gear on a Dewey Bird at Santa Paula airport 
Ken was killed in his KR2 a short time later while flying over Cajon Pass in what was apparently a bad weather / low fuel accident



ground_truth: 4.5x10^8 cm.

prompt_front: Now, answer the following question based on the text below, only give me the answer and do not output any other words.

Question: Who compiled the 88-page letter to the HHS regarding vaccine safety?

Read the following text and answer briefly.

Context 2: A special tribute to Del Bigtree (pictured) and his team at ICAN for his stunning 88 page letter to the HHS regarding vaccine safety  As Del reported - in the latest edition of Highwire - the letter, in response to an earlier reply from the then acting Director National Vaccine Program Office, Melinda Wharton, took virtually a year to compile, and is a meticulous piece of research  Most sensationally they researched the HHS claim through US government archives that at least some pediatric vaccines had been trialed against genuine placebo, and came to a negative conclusion  Not only that, they established that none of the vaccines those vaccines had been trialed against had ever been trialed against genuine placebo either  At the end of the line the toxic products were only being compared with other toxic products, rather than against saline 
Leave aside the sceptics, for any believer in the vaccine program as a necessary intervention in public health, this should be a devastating finding  Fundamentally, the research into the safety of any of the products before marketing was simply not there  The manufacturers apparently had no faith that their proto-products could withstand this scrutiny, and for the rest they just did not care: under the alleged imperative of protecting the population it seems anything went  So even before all the sham monitoring procedures and reviews which Del and his team dismantle in forensic detail we are left with the proposition that none of the present products being given to US children – and frequently other children across most of the developed world – have any meaningful pre-marketing safety data all  If you are believer in the program you have been let down: if you wanted a program with any pretensions to safety - supposing such a thing to be possible - it looks like you would have to start from scratch  The manufacturers did this: the governments, the politicians and the regulators (internationally) let it happen 
This damning document is published simultaneously with a demand in the UK from the Royal Society for Public Health (which I had never heard of) to shut down comment about vaccines on the web  It echoes calls from Seth Berkley of GAVI, Heidi Larson of the Vaccine Confidence Project and the European Parliament  The pamphlet airily dismisses concerns that vaccines have side effects or that you could possibly have too many  It is pure public relations, and if the RSPH claims to be "independent" it also admits that the publication was paid for by Merck, a detail which was reported by British Medical Journal and the Guardian, but not true to form by the BBC  We have, in truth, been building to this moment for two decades: as the evidence piles up that every single aspect of the program lacks integrity or is simply rotten to the core all the perpetrators can do is call for the silencing of their critics, and maintain the products are safe because they say so 
Please help give the ICAN letter the widest possible distribution, particularly to politicians 
"The outcome of disease always depends both on the virulence of the pathogen and the health of the individual immune system "
Nope  This makes no sense  Lots of people who seemed vibrant will get a very severe case of the same illness that a vulnerable baby overcomes in a day 
And under the germ theory it doesn't matter how strong your immune system *was*  Once it's been overcome by the pathogen it is every bit as weak as anybody else's with that pathogen 
What you say makes no sense  There's no reason for me to reply to you again 
"Why do you think that within a few years (not many) of the introduction of the vaccines for them, pertussis, measles, mumps, rubella, tetanus, diphtheria, Hib disease, and chickenpox (and others) almost entirely disappeared?"
Why do you keep asking this question when I've already provided the answer hundreds of times? Why are you so desperate to believe the people who you already recognize are harming our children?
Why would Walter Reed be any more trustworthy than Paul Offit or Senator Pan? Why would Jenner or Pasteur?
And you went no way to explaining my arguments against germ theory  If we are attacked by billions of viruses every day then if even a tiny fraction of them are pathogenic then we couldn't possibly survive  And even if we could, we would already be immune rendering every vaccine pointless  Once we had survived our first few days on earth, then we could never get sick again 
If that's wrong then we must conclude that precisely 0% of germs are pathogenic 
Plus your comment about the immune system completely misunderstood my point  The immune system does not allow us to overcome our math problem  In fact, it makes it worse 
You did provide one solitary example of a patient with what are presumably yellow fever symptoms but you didn't say whether they had been given any toxic medical treatments 
And like I said before, the whole "incubation period" is more than a little suspicious  Clearly they never found what they thought they would and just rigged the results to tell them what they want to hear 
Like every other germ theorist/vaccine promoter in history 
Many kinds of bacteria are constantly evolving and changing, like flu viruses  Others are more stable over time, like the yellow fever virus  Those that change develop new ways of infiltrating the cells of the organism being attacked (from our point of view, from its unconscious point of view, it's just carrying out its need to replicate, which it can only do inside the cells of its host)  The changes which allow it to better infiltrate are more successful and result in more viruses with those traits 
Our immune system is designed to detect and destroy potentially dangerous invading pathogens  Many bacteria are usually harmless and absolutely necessary  The minority are dangerous, and most people's immune systems do a good job of analyzing them and killing them, often with no signs of disease  Others experience a clinical infection, and the immune system usually mounts a successful attack on them 
The outcome of disease always depends both on the virulence of the pathogen and the health of the individual immune system  Vaccines are usually effective in giving immunity to the targeted diseases  They also have many dangers which everyone should be aware of, and vaccines should be avoided whenever possible  But in the case of the most dangerous diseases, everyone should learn about them and think about what he wants to do to protect himself and his children from them, considering all the factors involved  And no one can have 100% certainty that he has made the right decision, but that's life  But if you live in the Congo and many people around you are currently dying of yellow fever, then that means that you yourself are at risk of being bitten by a loaded mosquito and getting, often dying, of yellow fever  The yellow fever vaccine is very effective at preventing yellow fever  From there, each person must make a choice 
At the end of this stage there is a remission of two or three days  About 80% of those with clinical disease recover at this point, with permanent immunity  The other 20% enter the toxic stage, with a return of the fever, black vomit (coffee-ground emesis), diarrhea, a slowing of the pulse (Faget's sign), jaundice, yellow eyes, yellow skin, and failure of the kidneys, liver, and heart  The patient gets a strange hiccup (like with Ebola, a related disease), falls into a coma, and dies  About half of those patients who enter the toxic stage dies, even now, even with the best of hospital care  The Faget's sign can also occur at the end of the first stage 
You asked specifically about the symptoms of the Americans on Dr  Reed's team who got yellow fever in Cuba in 1900  I'll give the passage from The American Plague (162-5), which describes the course of Jesse Lazear's illness  "In his logbook, Lazear wrote an unusual entry on September 13  In all cases before those, page after page of records, Lazear had used the soldier's name and simply the date he was bitten, with no other attention to the mosquito  A one-line entry with a name and a date  On that day, however, in his elegant hand, Lazear did not write the soldier's name, but instead wrote 'Guinea Pig No  1 ' He went on to write that this guinea pig had been bitten by a mosquito that developed from an egg laid by a mosquito that developed from an egg laid by a mosquito that fed on a number of yellow fever cases: Suarez, Hernández, De Long, Ferández  It was a precise, detailed history that proved beyond doubt that the mosquito was loaded with the virus when it bit a healthy soldier   (If he had entered his name, then his death would have been considered medical suicide by the insurance company, and his wife and two children would not have gotten any payment ) For the next few days, Lazear's life continued much as it had over the last few months in Cuba  He fed and cared for the mosquitoes in the lab    Then he began to lose his appetite  He skipped a few meals in the mess hall  He didn't mention it to anyone, nor did he ask to see one of the yellow fever doctors; instead, he worked hard in the lab trying to ignore the oncoming headache 
"On September 18, he complained of feeling 'out of sorts,' and stayed in his officer's quarters  His head pounded and L  decided to write a letter    (he wrote to his mother, and referred to his one-year old son Houston and the baby his wife Mabel was about to have: they were staying with his mother in the US)    That night, L  started to feel chilled as the fever came on  He never went to sleep but worked at his desk all through the night, trying to get all the information about the mosquitoes organized  By morning, he showed all the signs of a severe attack of yellow fever  The camp doctors made the diagnosis, and L  agreed to go to the yellow fever ward    L  was carried by litter out of the two-room, white pine board house in which he had lived since he and Mabel first arrived in Cuba    (In the yellow fever ward, in a separate one-room building), Lena Warner (the immune nurse who had survived the yellow fever in 1878, when she was nine, and was found in her boarded-up house by a former slave who first thought she was dead, and carried her to safety) nursed J L , recording his vitals  (I put up a link to his case record and vital signs last week  The surgeon general required that this record be made for every yellow fever patient )    (On September 25,) Lena Warner braced L's arms with all of her weight, shouting for help  Still he bolted from the bed, darting around the small frame-wood room as wildly as a trapped insect beating against glass  Two soldiers ran into the ward, pinning L to his bed, tying restraints around his wrists and elbows    Warner sponged his body with iced whiskey and water  She recorded his temperature, which had held at 104 degrees for days, on the chart beside his bed    (Warner watched him sleep ) But the quiet did not last  L's body began to lurch, and black vomit rolled from his mouth; through the bar hanging above his hospital cot  He writhed in the bed, and his skin grew deep yellow  His 104 temperature slowly fell, leveling out 99 degrees, and JL died at 8:45 p m  at the age of thirty-four "
As is obvious, there are many problems with vaccines  But, that being said, most of them usually work for a period of time to prevent the targeted diseases  The basic science behind vaccines is correct  Why do you think that within a few years (not many) of the introduction of the vaccines for them, pertussis, measles, mumps, rubella, tetanus, diphtheria, Hib disease, and chickenpox (and others) almost entirely disappeared? In the case of the routine childhood diseases, this was a bad thing, but it is a true thing 
Vaccines usually don't cause any obvious reactions  While they usually prevent the diseases, and that's why people continue to get them  With the increasing vaccination schedule, more and more are severely and permanently damaged, and it is immoral to mandate any vaccine for anyone for this reason  But it would also be immoral to prohibit vaccines for those who want them enough to take the risk 
Your article said as though it had any probative value that 90% of those who get pertussis had been vaxxed  The old DPT vaccine was MUCH more effective at preventing pertussis, but it was so dangerous (again, not to most, but to many), that developed countries replaced it with the acellular version, DTaP  From the beginning about twenty years ago, it was clear that it was not very effective and that huge numbers of vaxxed people got pertussis anyway, including my daughter who got pertussis at eight month old after having gotten three DTaPs  The pertussis vaccine continues to be very dangerous, and I do not recommend that anyone get it  It used to be a killer disease, but evolved to become much milder, to the extent that the disease is very rarely dangerous (usually only to newborns under three months old), while the vaccine is very dangerous  And they're trying to see how they can go back to the old DPT  This does not show that vaccine science has collapsed, but rather that the vaccine they developed to replace the DPT turned out to be much less effective than they first thought, while continuing to be much more dangerous than they first thought 
Your article extrapolated from that that modern medical science in general has collapsed, but that, again, is going too far  A older woman in Mexico City who is like my mother to me had a pacemaker inserted about two months ago to aid her failing heart, and it has restored her to optimism and energy, when she was despondent, weak, and close to death  I took my daughter to the dentist yesterday, who said she has three wisdom teeth coming in and that she said that the lower right one was sore  So, although I am cautious about X-rays, I made an appointment for a panoramic X-ray in a month to assess the wisdom teeth, and, if it seems appropriate, I'll take her to an oral surgeon to have one or more extracted under IV sedation, in his office, if possible (the dentist thought that it would be)  And I am confident that there will be no serious problems, but this is thanks to technology and training in modern medicine that haven't been available for that long 
I think that everyone should inform himself on all medical procedures before agreeing to anything, but I also think that he should have access to any medical procedure which is reasonable (and opinions can differ as to that) 
One problem is that you have not said how you think people should protect themselves against tetanus, bacterial meningitis, and yellow fever in the relevant cases, for example  These are diseases which healthy, well-nourished people used to die from very readily 
If most people stopped vaxxing and the mortality from these diseases rose to something like pre-vaccine levels, do you think they should just accept dying from them?
I put that in a separate paragraph because it is the crucial issue 
balinaheuchter Air Traffic Control You Tube - Colin Campbell example of - How to "Fudge a Nudge" -"Deal" or "No Deal" "Not in a month of Sundays" "No exceptions/no compromise?" -make a trade off -do an exception- everyone get's a good deal /good outcome!
Hans, you are right that we are looking at one of the biggest crimes in all history  When I read the story of that poor girl who was so healthy and is now confined to a wheelchair after getting her third Gardasil shot I could not believe that Merck could produce such a toxic vaccine and give it out to girls like it was something they absolutely had to have only to be mislead and made into cripples  Merck should be prosecuted for the damage they have done to so many girls who got the Gardasil vaccine and were physically debilitated for life  There is a place for the people who perpetrated this crime on young girls and women and it is called hell  They have destroyed people's lives and gotten away with it  My heart goes out to those who have suffered this damage for no damn good reason except to help make huge profits for Merck!
Here is the reason that the germ theory is nonsense 
1) Everyday we are bombarded with billions of germs  Presumably at least some of them are of the kind that germ theorists believe are dangerous (otherwise we would have to conclude that none of them are dangerous)  So how do we survive?
2) Let's just say that we ignore 1 and imagine that, by way of magic, none of the billions of viruses we get bombarded with are pathogenic but all those that are are tucked away somewhere  Ok  But presumably they reside in sick people right? So where are there lots of sick people? Doctor offices and hospitals! So everybody must be dying the moment they enter these places right?
3) I love this one because I have never seen anybody else ever raise it  Under the germ theory there are no negative feedbacks  This makes a stable biological system by definition impossible  The immune system is *not* a negative feedback it is the opposite  It actually reinforces our math problem because the immune system will weaken as the number of pathogens increase 
There is no way of resolving this problem without a discontinuity  A Deus ex Machina as The Almighty Pill so beautifully put it  So the germ theory is quite literally, mathematically impossible 
There is as much chance of it being true as 2+2 = 5 
There are plenty of other massive problems with germ theory such as why did things like SARS and bird flu magically disappear? Why do we have the symptoms that we do? Is our body controlling the symptoms to help fight the germs and if so, why would suppressing the symptoms with antibiotics or Tamiflu be considered a good idea? If the virus is causing the symptoms then why would it cause these kinds of things?
Context 3:  Ken's wife Jeanette became owner of RR overnight, and stepped up to keep the plans and parts coming  Much of the engineering needs are handled by Bill Marcy of Denver, who's been helping out since early '79 
To date, almost 6000 KR1, 9200 KR2, and 760 KR2S plan sets have been sold  1200 KR2s are estimated to be flying, with 5 KR2Ss now in the air  Much of the development work done on KR's is now done by the builders themselves  KR builders tend to be innovative, which leads to some interesting modifications  Some of the mods that work eventually creep into the plans  The KR2S is a case in point  Many builders who'd heard of the pitch sensitivity and tight cabin of the KR2 began to build an enlarged version, with the length determined by the most commonly available longeron material  The result is a KR2 that is stretched 2" between firewall and main spar, and 14" behind the main spar  Higher gross weights dictated more wing area, with the new standard becoming the Diehl wing skin  Those who plan to carry passengers commonly stretch the cabin width a few inches, although 1 5 inches is the limit if you still want to use RR's premolded parts 
Mike Stearns addresses the KR Forum crowd 
This year's KR Forum featured guest speakers Mike Stearns, Steve Trentman, and Bill Marcey  Mike Stearns spoke on several topics, including the many sources for KR and homebuilding information available on the Internet  He also mentioned KRNet, the list server devoted entirely to KR aircraft, as well as several notable World Wide Web home pages  He also brought a sample of the new Rand Robinson wing skins with him, and discussed their high temperature core prepreg construction  His KR2S will receive the first set, which is currently being installed at Hinson Composites 
Steve Trentman spoke on his turbine installation  It uses a turbine engine which saw duty as an A7 attack jet starter engine  Total weight is about 85 pounds, while putting out around 90 horsepower  There is a small stockpile of these engines available from government surplus  sources  This engine can only be throttled back to 52% power, which leads to some pretty interesting landings  One inflight failure has been logged so far, with very little damage to the aircraft  More on this exciting development in next month's issue of KROnline 
Les Palmer's KR2 N202LP won Best KR2, Best Engine Installation, and People's Choice awards at the 1995 KR Gathering at Columbia, TN  After researching the KR series, and reading Neil Bingham's "A Critical Analysis of the KR2" (Jan 88 Sport Aviation), Les decided to build his as a single seater, stretched 24" in the tail, while maintaining a stock width firewall  His fuselage is made from Douglas fir, which weighs in at 4 lbs heavier than if constructed from spruce  It is skinned with 1/8" birch plywood  Spars are covered with plywoood on both fore and aft sides, ala KR2S  Diehl wing skins provide the lift  Horizontal stabilizer and elevator were stretched 7" longer on each side, while the vertical stabilizer and rudder were stretched 8" taller    The fuselage to cowling junction was made more graceful by adding 1 5 inches to the height of the firewall end of the fuselage sides 
Les's canopy is a Dragonfly, using a four linkage system to swing forward when opening  The canopy frame fits snugly into a recess in the foward deck, providing an excellent wind and water seal  The fiberglass work is exemplary 
Seating is luxurious for one 
The cowling is also a work of art, and uses NACA ducts for efficiency  Female molds were made for all the fiberglass parts on Les's plane, so he could proabably be persuaded to make more, if demand dictates  Les also machines a multitude of KR aluminum and steel parts which he now offers for sale 
The firewall was reinforced with aluminum brackets and angles bolted between the longerons in anticipation of the 200 lb Subaru EA-81 engine installation  His 100 HP Asian version is outfitted with an American Holley 5200 caburetor and manifold  It uses a PSRU of Les's own design, featuring two spur gears with a 1 69:1 reduction ratio and a toothed belt  Other than tapping the crank for larger bolts to mount the redrive, no other engine modifications were required  Also, this is probably the only air conditioned KR2 on the planet  The prop is a 60/63 Hegy 
Originally built as a taildragger, the fixed gear is made from 4130 steel tubing  Custom cast 6 00x6 aluminum wheels and steel rotors are mated with 6" Cleveland calipers for braking  An early taxi test accident damaged the main gear, and prompted Les to change to tricycle gear  Again, he designed his own fiberglass main gear, and uses a Diehl nose wheel fork with a 4130 strut and 6" wheel up front 
Early tests revealed cooling problems, which prompted a radiator move from the firewall to a lower cowling location 
The first flight was almost a disaster, as test pilot Randy Smith lost power right after takeoff  He managed a 180 with a safe downwind landing with only minor nosewheel pant damage  The culprit proved to be a spark plug with too much reach, which was quickly remedied  Subsequent flights have shown water temp to be about 210 degrees, oil temp is 220-230, and airspeed is about 180 mph 
Shopping for the Partially Built KR 
This story starts about twenty years ago when I first started looking at the KR-2 as the plane I'd like to build  The only problem at that time was a lack of money, lack of knowledge, and a lack of job stability  I liked the design, except for the low ground clearance of the retractable gear and that a KR was going to be a tight fit for me to fly 
Over the past twenty years I've owned a number of planes, but still always wanted to build my own  I needed one that would fit me, my budget requirements, and have the speed and performance that I wanted  When "KITPLANES" published the article featuring Roy Marsh's new KR-2S, it was the first I had heard of any major modifications or improvements to the same old KR design  I believe that article and Roy Marsh's workmanship have probably been the greatest boon to Rand Robinson (RR) in the last twenty years  It certainly caught my eye! Here was the same design I had decided I wanted to build twenty years ago, with all of the improvements I wanted  It was sitting on fixed gear with some reasonable ground clearance  It had the capability to be built large enough to accommodate me  It has enough prefab parts available that it didn't have to be 100% scratch built if I decided to hurry the project along  And it had the speed I wanted  I knew that Roy's published speeds were probably not realistic expectations for the average KR, but after knocking around for the last three years in my Champ, anything over 90 mph seems pretty fast to me 
After purchasing the info kit and the sales video from Rand Robinson, the next step after deciding for sure to build this plane was to order the KR-2 plans and the KR-2S addendum  I finally got my plans and was putting together my first order to start the plane, when my partner in the Champ pointed out that there was a partially completed KR-2S for sale in Trade-a-plane  My initial answer was "No, I don't even want to look at it  I want to build my own from scratch " My partner insisted that for the advertised price and the fact that it wasn't too far away, I ought to at least give the guy a call and investigate it  "No, I don't think I want to buy someone else's problems," I persisted  That night I went home and crunched up some numbers on the calculator and finally came to the conclusion that for the sake of my budget for the next several years, I really should give this guy a call 
Three days later, I flew to his place about 400 miles away to take a look at his project  At this point I should probably mention that I consider myself to be fairly knowledgeable about airplane construction, although the vast majority of my experience is with tube and fabric  The rest of this article deals with what I looked for and more importantly what I missed and have had to repair in the last year since I purchased the project 
When we went to the seller's house, I found that the left wing was built using the Dan Diehl wing skins and the right wing skins were leaning against the wall inside the house  Also the canopy was in the house with the canopy covered with paper and tape  I wanted to inspect the fuselage first, so off we went to the shop 
There I found a fuselage sitting on it's gear painted in primer gray  The first step was to inspect the quality of workmanship of what could be seen as it sat  The interior of the fuselage looked as if it had been built with a great deal of care  The fit and finish of all of the interior wood was very nice  Even the gussets looked like they had been painstakingly perfectly fitted  The glass work on the turtle back also looked very precise and clean  It was evenly faired into the vertical and horizontal stabs  The tail also appeared to be well built with the exception of a depression directly over the front and rear spars in the horizontal stabs  He explained that when he moved recently, that he had shot the plane with gray primer to protect it from the weather since he wouldn't have ready access to a shop to put it in right away  It ended up sitting out in the hot south Texas summer sun for a few weeks before he got a shop rented to work in  That caused the glass (or possibly the foam inside the horizontal stab) to swell, except that it held onto the spar, so it was slightly ballooned in front of and behind the spars  His recommendation was to fill it back smooth with micro 
I also found a small linear crack in the lower left wing spar cap on the left wing stub  It appeared to be from over tightening the rear spar wing attach fitting bolts  His explanation was that the crack wasn't important because the rear spars only job is to keep the wings from folding back  I also noticed that the holes for attaching the outer wing to the wing stub were badly rounded out on the rear spar  He explained that the Diehl wing skins require the rear spar to be swept slightly more forward than the stock wings  This won't allow you to use the rear spar attach fittings from RR and that I would need to fabricate a new set of rear spar attach fittings 
I also found that the aileron bellcranks were not built or installed as per plans, but found that they looked professional  I couldn't check for function since the right bellcrank and sheeve wasn't installed, the left wing also wasn't installed, and the right wing didn't exist yet 
Next we pulled the inspection panels off of the fuselage and tail and looked at everything I could see with a good flashlight  I didn't find anything else that might be questionable about the fuselage except for a cracked elevator trim tab that was damaged when it fell off it's hanging place on the wall 
Next we spent some time going over his builders log and builders photo album  I still hadn't seen anything that would dissuade me from buying this project



ground_truth: Del Bigtree and his team at ICAN.

prompt_front: Now, answer the following question based on the text below, only give me the answer and do not output any other words.

Question: What is the purpose of the baseline in the layout procedure?

Read the following text and answer briefly.

Context 3: 
At this point it was starting to get late and my ride down needed to get airborne for the flight home  I needed to make a decision about whether I wanted this project or not, but I hadn't inspected the wings and canopy yet  I took a cursory look at the left wing and saw lots on micro built up on it and some bubbles in the leading edge, but nothing that looked seriously wrong to my amateur eye  The right wing was only a set of spars in the shop and the Diehl wing skins in the house, so there wasn't much to look at there  The canopy was wrapped in paper and tape, so there wasn't much to look at there either  I decided that even if there were serious problems in the wing that was built, I would be money ahead to go ahead and buy the project  For the advertised price, I could build a new set of wings and still be way ahead financially  We negotiated a final price, shook hands, took my ride to the airport, and started off in search of a U-haul to haul the project home 
Now, at this point, some of you are thinking about what I surely must have forgotten to inspect and why didn't I take a local A & P or EAA member along for the ride  First of all, I don't know any mechanics locally that have any experience with glass and our EAA chapter of which I am VP is woefully lacking in fiberglass knowledge  Secondly, as you will see, I missed plenty  Some by ignorance, some by just not looking close enough 
Now for a list of the problems that I found over the last year and a few of the fixes that I came up with 
I found that the lower set of rear spar attach fittings on the left rear spar were installed backwards with the longer spaced hole towards the fuselage  Since this is the same place that also had the cracked spar cap, it required a major change  Also in the same area he had drilled through the rear spar with a hole saw to create a place for the aileron cable to pass through and managed to cut out the second from the outside vertical brace in the spar  Then he chose to install the aileron bellcranks in front of the rear spar, and cut another hole through the rear spar for the aileron push rod  He also managed to cut out the outside vertical brace in the spar  Since the holes were already drilled through the spar, the choices were to either cut out that section of spar cap and scarf a new piece in, cut the whole rear spar carrythrough out of the fuselage including ruining the left lower wing skin, or do something else creative to reinforce the spar cap and install a custom built set of attach fittings 
I also found that after I built and installed the right side wing stub ribs and skin that the aileron bellcrank setup would not work as installed  The cable that crosses between the two bellcranks had a sharp uphill from the sheeve to the bellcrank in the last 12 inches on either side  This combined with the radius that the bellcranks turn caused the cross cable to pull up tight when the ailerons were pushed to either end of their travel, but allowed the cables to go very slack when the ailerons were centered  Also the Aileron pushrods needed to pass directly through the lower set of rear wing attach fittings to attach to the aileron  This whole rear spar and aileron bellcrank setup was going to either have to be redesigned or cut out and built to plans  The bottom line is that the problems I observed when I inspected this part were much more serious than expected when I had to fix it 
I decided that I had to remove the rear fittings from the left wing to be replaced with the new set that my neighborhood machinist was cutting out for me  When I put the wing on the work bench to start removing the rear fittings, I thought I had better take a closer look at the bubbles in the leading edge  I found that as I pushed on the leading edge, it delaminated between the glass lay-up on top and the upper and lower wing skin edges that were floxed together underneath  I concluded that that area had to come apart and took a belt sander to the leading edge  What I found was that the leading edge had been floxed together and glassed over, but the mold release had never been scrubbed off the leading edge of the wing  It peeled apart for rebuild quite easily 
When I got back to removing the rear spar attach fittings, I noticed that the woodwork inside the wing looked awfully dull  The reason was that the wing had been closed up without varnishing any of the woodwork  This was rectified with a small hole saw, a number of extensions and a modified undercoating sprayer 
I also found that the aluminum drain fitting in the bottom of the left wing tank had been glassed into place upside down  The tapered pipe threads were tapered the wrong way to install the draincock into the tank  Retapping the fitting the right direction seemed to be a good fix for that problem 
When I finally got around to attaching the wing to the fuselage, I found that the front spar attach fittings were badly misaligned  Although they could be forced into alignment, I didn't think I needed that kind of preload on the main spar fittings  This problem was fixed by calling on my local neighborhood machinist to build me an aligning fixture and reaming the attach holes to the next larger size and ordering the new sized bolts 
On the fuselage I found that although it had new Cleveland wheels and brakes on it, one of the brakes had a severe wobble to it  I must complement the manufacturers for taking care of that problem  One call to the Cleveland factory and they shipped me a new set of wheels and brakes even though the receipt for this set was over four years old and in the original builders name  Their only concern was that this set had never been placed in service yet 
I chose to sand the load of micro off the left wing to see what it was covering  When I got down to the glass, I found that there was no glass for the aft inch and a half of the underside of the wing in front of the aileron hinge  With the Diehl wing skins, you build the wings, then cut the ailerons out of trailing edge of the wing  He had mismeasured and cut too much material off the bottom side of the trailing edge in front of the aileron  It was filled by floxing a piece of spruce into the gap to fill the space between the back edge of the fiberglass and the aileron mount  I chose to wrap the trailing edge of that wing, and the other wing to match with a couple of lay-ups of glass 
When I sanded the primer off the aforementioned damaged trim tab, I found that the hinge was floxed to the leading edge of the foam insides of the tab, but not the glass  I also chose to wrap the front of the trim tab with a lay-up of glass 
I decided to pull the paper off the canopy and take a look at it before I'm ready to bolt it on and fly  The original builder had blown his own canopy and after some of the previous problems, I was beginning to have some concerns about not having looked it over closely enough  The canopy turned out to have been blow a little too large  It ended up with a little larger bubble for headroom, which I didn't object to  However, it had more headroom on the right side than the left  Yes, it was just a little bit lopsided  The main problem was that the canopy is stretched thin enough that it can be easily pushed in with one hand when the weather is warm   My fear was that this is just thin enough that it may decide to lay on my head or in my lap when flying on a warm day  It will have to be replaced 
I'm sure that many that are reading this could see several of the potential problems before I mentioned them, but some others may not have and I'm sure that there could have been many other problems that didn't but could have existed on this project  This is also not intended to be critical of the gentleman that started this project as many parts of it, especially the wood work are better than I could have done and much of his work is outstanding  I prefer to think that I'll end up with a better plane with his woodwork combined with my glasswork  This article is intended to feature some of the problems that you may run into in buying someone else's project 
The final question is, knowing what I have found over the past year, would I have still purchased this project  The answer is yes, but primarily because the price was right in that I am still money and work ahead of where I would be if I had started the project from scratch  There are a few things that I would have done differently, but nothing that I can't live with  Although I won't be able to say that I built it all from scratch, I have built and rebuild enough of the plane that I should have no problem qualifying under the 51% rule 
You can send comments directly to the author via e-mail at "jscott@LANL GOV" 
Here is an brief explanation of how I built my turtledecks  The jig was constructed from scrap plywood and a few 1x4s that I ripped into stringers  I made two temporary bulkheads from the plywood, one for each end  Remember the forward bulkhead needs to be shaped in a way that will closely match the aft end of your canopy frame  Make an aft bulkhead by placing a straight edge at the top of your forward bulkhead and the trailing edge of your horizontal stabilizer  This will give you an idea of how tall your aft bulkhead needs to be  As far as location, I placed my aft bulkhead just forward of the lower/front of my vertical fin  I constructed the jig on the fuselage, it is glued together with automotive bondo 
After the bulkheads were bondoed to the fuselage I used the stringers that I ripped from the 1x4s and bondoed them to the bulkheads  This gave me a male form to cover with thin plastic or posterboard  I stapled two layers of posterboard to the jig(thin plastic would work better)  The posterboard wraps down two inches onto the fuselage  After I was satisfied with the way it looked, I then covered the entire thing with duct tape (fiberglass will not stick to duct tape) On top of this I wetout one layer of tri-ply cloth (22oz) that I had left over from an earlier project, and one layer of 8oz  bid  Remember to mask off your fuselage so you don't get epoxy on it  If you are not familiar with composite lay-ups, you should plan on razor cutting your lay-ups 4 to 6 hours after wetout while the lay-up is still soft enough to cut with a razorblade 
After the lay-up cured (2 or 3 days) it was removed from the jig, and the jig was removed from the fuselage and discarded  (be careful, the bondo sticks very well to the spruce, you could splinter your wood during removal) I now have a fiberglass skin that tends to hold the shape of the jig but is still flexible enough to work with  I made two bulkheads out of 1/4 last-a-foam (AS&S) using the plywood formers from the jig as a guide  I covered these foam bulkheads with one 8oz layer of glass on each side, with a glass to glass edge on the bottom  After cure these bulkheads were bondoed into place (to the fuselage)and the fiberglass skin was pulled down tight and floxed to the bulkheads  When the flox cured the bondo joints were broken, again being careful not to harm the wood  The turtledeck was removed from the fuselage and 2 inch tapes added to the bulkheads inside and out 
At this point the turtledeck looked great and only weighed about 5lbs  but I noticed you could deform the skin by pushing hard on the outside  So I flipped the turtledeck over and from 1/4 inch last-a-foam, I cut two inch wide strips that would run the entire length, forward and aft inside the turtledeck  In effect these would act as composite stringers, I made enough of these two inch wide strips to make up three stringers  One down the center (sort of a backbone) and one on each side of the "backbone" half the distance to the edge of the turtledeck  I sanded the edge of the foam so that when covered with a layer of bid @ 45degrees there would be a nice transition from the turtledeck skin up onto the foam and then back onto the turtledeck I scuff sanded and glued the foam stringers in with micro  I covered the foam stringers with one layer of 8oz bid @ 45degrees 
You can also send me email at: mikemims@pacbell net if you have any questions or want to share your ideas 
KROnline is an online KR Newsletter devoted to sharing KR information with other builders and pilots in a timely manner  The first issue (September 96) is now available as a zipped MicroSoft Word file at http://members aol com/bshadr or as an html document at kronline9 html  If you'd like to submit articles or photos, email Randy Stein at BSHADR@aol com ------------------------------------------------------------ Don't bother to email Randy though  KROnline has been retired since the KR Newsletter has improved 



ground_truth: The baseline is used as a reference for the mid point of the firewall for the developed side panel.