Hi gents,
Thank you for your reply. Mark, I hear your point & will give it some serious thought. When you look at my pics, you'll notice the builder made the ailerons inboard only and full width to the rear spar. I'm sure I can convert that into flaps and ad outboard ailerons. This would not be so much to lower the stall speed, but to add drag during landings. Peter, I'll keep in mind what you've said. If I could have the ABSOLUTE engine of my choice, it would have been the 6 cyl Jabiru. Unfortunately those do not come cheap. Fact is, IF I can get this deal, it would be just too good to let it pass. Never in my wildest dreams did I think for a moment that I could lay my hands on such an engine. IF!!! this deal goes through, I'm willing to adapt. I'll say no more for now as everything depends on the outcome. I was caught completely off guard today and my mind is still spinning endlessly. I just wanted to know the pros & cons to make a more educated decision for the moment. This would be the closest thing to REAL flying I've yet come to in my life. Yes, I have a great many hours in ultralights, but as you know you can go nowhere in those. The odd Koala (Fischer FP404) and Mizer I had were the closest and then they could only do 75mph max in cruise. Anyways, all the best everyone, Hennie van Rooyen Peter wrote: Hennie; Continentals need to be run at 75% at cruise, or they can burn oil. I added a quart an hour in my IO-470 because I ran at low power too much of the time. Also, how will you transfer that much torque to the airstream if you are limited to a 55 inch prop? HP=T x RPM Peter Mark wrote: Hennie van Rooyen wrote: >>I am able to lay my hands on a good 160hp Continental engine, complete with prop & running. What is the heaviest & most powerful engine ever put in a KR2? I see it weighs 297 lbs compared to the 227 of the Corvair.<< The "world's lightest KR" project sure didn't last long! I had this same conversation with a newbie on the list a few weeks ago. His goal, like so many other of us cheapskates who build KRs, was to fly in and out of a short strip on his own property, dodging expensive hangar rent. The problem with the KR is that it's a very slippery plane, so landing burns up at least twice as much runway as takeoff, if not more. You can get out of places that you can't even land at, which is problematic. Being light is good...it means a low stall speed, but if you add an extra hundred pounds of engine, you're stall speed will climb, and your landing glide will extend due to the higher speeds you'll have to land at, and you'll need even more runway to land. If getting in and out of short strips is a concern, you need the lightest engine you can live with (and afford), not to mention "real" flaps and a bellyboard. Landing is your limiting case, not takeoff, so the extra power hurts your overall mission goal, not helps it. Having said that, I'm a big fan of more power, but short strips demand compromises, and engine weight is one of them. If you have several thousand feet of runway at your disposal, it's not so much of a concern...unless you have to dead-stick it in a small hayfield someday... Mark Langford, Harvest, AL ML at N56ML.com www.N56ML.com<http://www.N56ML.com>
