on the exhaust subject, my picture of Ken Rand original shows short
stub pipes. Obviously these take up the least real estate, and get
more heat out of the cowl. assuming backpressure needs can be
addressed with baffles (?) whats the downside?
___
Searc
How light is it?
>
> At the moment, Richard is finishing up construction of one of the
> world's lightest internal combustion powered airplanes for human pilots.
> He meticulously designed every aspect of it. Now he's building a
> trailer to haul it to the airport...
to change options.
> To UNsu
this is test of gmail krnet subscription
___
Search the KRnet Archives at https://www.mail-archive.com/krnet@list.krnet.org/.
Please see LIST RULES and KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html.
see http://list.krnet.org/mailman/listinfo/krnet_list.kr
I think this lightest aircraft is not a KR. It looks to me like a
clean sheet project and I'd like to know more about it.
As to reinventing the KR, even ken rand "reinvented" the plane in a
number of way including creating the KR2, and other major and minor
developments. many see experimental air
Actually, someone here mentioned Tony Bingelis blue book, and I had
never heard of him or his books. So I ordered the blue book, without
knowing about the other three. So I did benefit from a KRNet post
about these.
___
Search the KRnet Archives at https
why do you think the original fuselage design is not strong? I dont
recall any of these breaking except in a "hi-g landing" (crash)
> I am wondering if there have been any fuselages built that have the plywood
> as well as fiber glass over the top of it?
> I k. now that would add weight but am cu
actually, the opposite may be true. I just went through this with an
antique engine I am working with. my machinist had installed customer
provided custom aluminum pistons in a big very old liquid cooled car
engine. the clearances were too tight and they seized. I was
considering replacing my cast
Tommy what did you do in those two cases?
On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 11:59 AM, Tommy Waymack via KRnet
wrote:
> Good video.Reminds me of the time I saw fuel running down the passenger
> window in a 182.And oh yeah,the fuel running on to my boot in the tcraft.
> Thanks for the reminder. The video has
way to go larry!
> I received my rebuilt rods this past week and between the overhaul manual
> and Mark Langford I was convinced I understood the correct orientation and
> location on the crank. I installed the rods and torqued them according to
> the manual. As nothing ever goes exactly to pla
hi all, I am hoping to replicate the first KR1. one major asthetic
change seems to be from the engine in that was mounted to two alum
channels at the firewall, allowing for short nose. looks like about a
5" space from rear case to fw.
the magneto was belt driven and mounted high and I am sure
I never liked header tank in the KR and planned to leave it out. I
also vote to get the fuel way out in the wings. And wear a chute.
> reaffirms my decision to eliminate a header tank and put all fuel in the
> outboard wing tanks.
>
> I wish your friend a speedy recovery.
>
> Larry Flesner
>
> __
Thats really nice to hear Larry about your flight, maybe someday I'll
be able to say the same. As to the Toyota, we BOUGHT my wife's at that
kinda mileage if not higher, and not the least concerned about it. All
cars today last much much longer than 20 years ago (with a little
maintenance and no ab
oops, re:my last reply, gmail doesnt make it aparent the old text is
still there. testing to see if this one was cleaned properly...
___
Search the KRnet Archives at http://tugantek.com/archmailv2-kr/search.
Please see LIST RULES and KRnet info at http:/
very cool! question, I think you said it had retracts, if so where
does the nosegear retract to?
___
Search the KRnet Archives at http://tugantek.com/archmailv2-kr/search.
Please see LIST RULES and KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html.
see http:
ok no retracts, duh, shoulda gone back and looked. ideally I'd like
to build a tri-retract, original size KR1, with engine back against
the firewall as original, and with a normalizing turbocharger. the
main retracts are easy. the nose can swing back halfway into a center
pocket (I think). as to a
what is the estimated empty weight, did he mention a number?
___
Search the KRnet Archives at http://tugantek.com/archmailv2-kr/search.
Please see LIST RULES and KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html.
see http://list.krnet.org/mailman/listinfo/krn
with all this talk about pitch sensitivity, one common mention is
using forward CG. What is up with that? My last plane really liked aft
CG (within the envelope obviously) and flew MUCH better there. What
happens to a KR at aft CG?
___
Search the KRnet A
> Could you go into further detail about "how" it flew better with a forward
> CG than an aft CG?
Sure, the plane under normal conditions (no baggage) would require
significant up trim to unload the stick, and when pulling power, would
drop the nose unless you held onto the stick. "Lawn dart"is a
18 matches
Mail list logo
