Steve and Netters, I'll take a few minutes and try to answer some of the questions I never got to in this earlier post.
>I am trying to find the correct balance (of mods) for my venture - your >airplane seems to be in the direction that I am headed - please put me >straight on a few things. >Is the 24" stretch over the 2 or 2S? +++++++ My stretch is over a standard KR2. All other dimentions are standard. >I note that you have Aerodynamic balance area on the elevator and rudder >- did you add weight as well for static balance? Did you change the HS >in any other way? +++++ The aerodynamic tabs have weight in them. The elevator also has a weight attached inside the fuselage. I did move the elevator and horizontal stabilizer forward 2 inches in relation to the plans to give me more clearance for the elevator control horn and better streamlining. All size dimentions are the same. Moving the HS and elevator forward did give me some additional area on the vertical stabilizer which I wanted with the 0-200. >What did you do regarding the fuse width? ++++++ Standard KR2. A couple more inches of width would be nice. > >You talk of a 4" tip instead of an 8" tip - not sure what this means but >it does appear to be relevant to the performance? > ++++++++ As I recall the plans call for adding 8 inches to the end of the standard wing when building the tip. I limited my tip to 4 inches. My thinking was less wing span would hurt my climb but the 0-200 would compensate. In cruise, less span would increase my wing loading and give me a better ride and less span would mean 2 or 3 mph more speed. I have no way of knowing if any of this is true in my case as I have nothing to compare it to. >Can you say anything encouraging about your empty weight - I tried to >peek through the canopy on one of the pictures - hoping to see if the >panel reveals lots of heavy goodies. >If you built another - could you (would you) make it lighter? > +++++++++++++ The only encouraging thing I can say about my empty weight is that it still manages to fly. You don't pick up 200 extra pounds in any one spot. It's 5 pounds here, 10 pounds there, and before you know it you have a pig on your hands. My target empty weight was 700 pounds and I even blew right by that. My extra weight came from things like 30" gear legs, 600X6 wheels and brakes, 0-200 with all accessories, 5" prop extention, second small backup battery and large main battery, a Cessna flap motor to run my speed brake, fiberglass seat instead of a cloth seat, 12.5 gal fuel tank in each wing with all the plumbing and two fuel pumps, etc., etc., etc. I think you get the point. >Reason for asking Larry - I figured that 230lbs over the plans weight of >a 2S should be enough to accommodate my changes, so I targeted 750lb >empty with an 0-320 and some IF capability, possibly even a training >wheel out front. Maybe I need to learn from you that this is not a >realistic target >I plan to use the 18% AS airfoil section for a deeper (stronger) spar so >we can get back to +6G at 1450lb MAUW). The right time to consider >changes to the wing area would be now. +++++++ If you plan on going with an 0-320 you probably need to look at a different airplane entirely. With that much weight and horsepower you are looking at an extensive redesign of the KR. I'd suggest you look at something like the "Vision". Check it out at: http://visionaircraft.com/ >>From your comment you are using the RAF48 - on the pics it looks like >you have flat plate tail feathers? +++++++++++ HS, elevator, VS and rudder are plans shape. >Do you feel the need for a header tank with the 0-200? > +++++++++++++ No, I have a 12.5 gal tank in each outer wing panel. >I am still worried about the under carriage configuration - I have very >little tail dragger time - 0:35 on a Tiger Moth 27 years ago - Ok I have >no tail wheel time. How much tail wheel time did you have to start with >- what is your advice on this? >>Kind regards >Steve >Zambia - Africa ++++++++++++++++ I had 13 hours tailwheel time over a 30 year period when I started to taxi test the KR and teaching myself to fly the tailwheel. My KR has an eight foot wide main gear track and with the fuselage extention it is probably one of the best handling KR taildraggers going. If you don't want to learn to fly the tailwheel go with the nose gear. If you aren't comfortable flying the airplane you build it most certainly will turn out to be a "hangar queen". >From my 14 years exposure to the KR and having just finished building mine and with about 10 hours of air time now I would offer the following observation on what I think would make the "perfect" KR for the "average" builder. It would be a KR2S, plans built, with an engine of approx 100 hp, modest panel with one gyro instrument (artificial horizon), 20 to 25 gal of fuel, Diehl tricycle gear or equivelant, no sound proofing or upholstery, (use a noise cancelling headset) a speed brake or equivelant, with an empty weight of approx 675 pounds. Several builders have hinted at doing IFR work in a KR. With just 10 hours in the air I'd say FORGET IT. I had trouble just re-attaching my four point seat belt that popped open in flight. I can't even imagine trying to fly IFR in KR. The more I fly my KR the more I enjoy it but it is strictly a FUN machine. Expect no more than that from your KR when it's finished. I hope my rambling hasn't burst anyone's bubble but I prefer to call it like I see it and not give anyone any unrealistic expectations. I wouldn't trade my KR for a BMW. There is great satisfaction in seeing, touching, and flying something you've built from scratch. Looking around at all the detail in your KR, seeing each piece that you designed, built, and/or assembled, all flying in formation, with your body strapped to the finished product, and the landscape drifting by 5000 feet below you is something that few people get to experience. All I can say is YEE HAA........................ Larry Flesner
