KR> FAA Calculated Gross
My experience on this is the same as Larry's. I have built 2 KR2, and have set the Gross Weight on both. I believe that everyone does and have never heard of an FAA calculated Gross. Mine is set at 1200 # by me. Now, I just have to finish the weight tests, to certify that it will operate properly at that weight. I am curious to know how they did that calculation. See N64KR at http://KRBuilder.org - Then click on the pics? See you Oct. 4 and 5, 2013 - KR Gathering in Mt. Vernon, Il ? MVN Daniel R. Heath -?Lexington, SC -Original Message- FAA calculated gross is 1178 pounds for a useful load of 397 pounds.
KR> Weight & Balance
The FAA has a procedure where you put in "standard" pilot and passenger weights (170 pounds each), full fuel and max baggage on the weight and balance work sheet. The total weight is then your max gross weight. It is a calculated number. You also have to show that the CG is in the allowable design range at that weight. That procedure was required for a signed airworthiness certificate. Sid Wood Tri-gear KR-2 N6242 Mechanicsville, MD, USA At 09:32 PM 5/21/2013, you wrote: >FAA calculated gross is 1178 pounds for a useful load of 397 pounds. +++ Sid, Glad to hear you're making progress toward the next flight. Please explain "FAA calculated gross". I set the gross on my KR and I don't recall the FAA having anything to say about it. I seem to recall setting my gross at 1300 pounds with normal flights in the 1050 to 1100 pound range. Larry Flesner
KR> Weight & Balance
I wish they would update their standards.? The only 170 lb pilots are in Ethiopia.? I'm gonna fly over gross every time if they apply that to me. CW From: smwood To: krnet at list.krnet.org Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 8:58 AM Subject: Re: KR> Weight & Balance The FAA has a procedure where you put in "standard" pilot and passenger weights (170 pounds each), full fuel and max baggage on the weight and balance work sheet.? The total weight is then your max gross weight.? It is a calculated number.? You also have to show that the CG is in the allowable design range at that weight.? That procedure was required for a signed airworthiness certificate. Sid Wood Tri-gear KR-2 N6242 Mechanicsville, MD, USA At 09:32 PM 5/21/2013, you wrote: > FAA calculated gross is 1178 pounds for a useful load of 397 pounds. +++ Sid, Glad to hear you're making progress toward the next flight. Please explain "FAA calculated gross". I set the gross on my KR and I don't recall the FAA having anything to say about it. I seem to recall setting my gross at 1300 pounds with normal flights in the 1050 to 1100 pound range. Larry Flesner ___ Search the KRnet Archives at http://tugantek.com/archmailv2-kr/search. To UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to KRnet-leave at list.krnet.org please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html see http://list.krnet.org/mailman/listinfo/krnet_list.krnet.org to change options
KR> Weight & Balance
At 07:58 AM 5/22/2013, you wrote: >You also have to show that the CG is in the allowable design range >at that weight. + I'll buy showing different loadings remain in the CG range. I seem to recall that being the second "off the wall" requirement your FAA rep demanded. Sounds like a rouge agent to me. He has essentially made your KR a single place airplane. Larry Flesner
KR> Weight & Balance
At 07:58 AM 5/22/2013, you wrote: >The FAA has a procedure where you put in "standard" pilot and >passenger weights (170 pounds each), > full fuel and max baggage on the weight and balance work > sheet. The total weight is then your max gross weight. Seems to me the gross weight is more a determination of the aircraft structure design and how that weight is distributed around the CG. Your "assigned" number makes your KR a 4.75 G airplane. A cessna 172 is designed to 3.8 G positive. I wonder how his method would work out on a Cessna. Larry Flesner
KR> Weight & Balance
I've got to agree with Larry and others on this. ?I have built and licensed 3 planes over the last 16 years. ?In each case, I set the gross weight and it was a function of structural design and flight testing to that weight with me being the final authority on what that number was. ?But you do have to demonstrate that the aircraft has been weighed and that it meets W&B standards for any loading you may wish to haul in it. ?For my airworthiness inspections, I came with 4 spreadsheets printed out with empty weight, wost case forward CG loading, worst case aft CG loading, and normal loading. ? The only input the DAR has on the gross weight is that it meets the CG requirements. ?In fact, it is not a requirement to submit a gross weight to be issued an airworthiness certificate. ?You only have to demonstrate that the plane is within CG and that you know how to do a proper W&B calculation for it. ?The actual gross weight can be determined later during flight testing. -Jeff Scott Los Alamos, NM > - Original Message - > From: Larry&Sallie Flesner > Sent: 05/22/13 07:25 AM > To: KRnet > Subject: Re: KR> Weight & Balance > > At 07:58 AM 5/22/2013, you wrote: > >The FAA has a procedure where you put in "standard" pilot and > >passenger weights (170 pounds each), > > full fuel and max baggage on the weight and balance work > > sheet. The total weight is then your max gross weight. > > > Seems to me the gross weight is more a determination of the aircraft > structure design and how that weight is distributed around the > CG. Your "assigned" number makes your KR a 4.75 G airplane. A > cessna 172 is designed to 3.8 G positive. I wonder how his method > would work out on a Cessna. > > Larry Flesner
KR> Corvair engines
I wrote something yesterday about more powerful engines being "safer" than lower powered ones in a given plane. This was from a "gain altitude as quickly as possible on takeoff" standpoint. I'm a little surprised that nobody called me out on using the Corvair as an example, given that I've broken three Corvair crankshafts, the last one on takeoff. There is no denying that the Corvair has crankshaft issues, at least in my mind. In contrast, the VW-based engines such as the Great Plain Aircraft 2180 have essentially mitigated that problem by use of high quality 4340 crankshafts and the Force One hub. VWs tend to fail more slowly, with valve or crankcase issues, whereas the Corvair has had more than its share of instantaneous crankshaft failures of the variety that will ruin your day, at least in my experience. There is now limited production of 4340 crankshafts for the Corvair, but they are pricey, and there's only one flying so far. I do have one on order. I'm not bringing this up for any other reason than to be fair to the VW. They are reasonably reliable engines and there are a lot in service in the small homebuilt world. Steve Bennett told me a few months ago, that none of his engines have broken a crank that has been running his Force One hub, and that's a lot of years and a lot of engines! Mark Langford ML at N56ML.com see experimental N56ML at www.N56ML.com
KR> Corvair engines
Because I"m a bit out of the loop, has anyone built a bearing section to bolt to the end of the crankcase to take flight loads? is that what the "5th bearing" is? and has anyone tried to design one that completely removes everything but torque loading from the crankshaft? On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 9:49 AM, Mark Langford wrote: > I wrote something yesterday about more powerful engines being "safer" than > lower powered ones in a given plane. This was from a "gain altitude as > quickly as possible on takeoff" standpoint. I'm a little surprised that > nobody called me out on using the Corvair as an example, given that I've > broken three Corvair crankshafts, the last one on takeoff. There is no > denying that the Corvair has crankshaft issues, at least in my mind. In > contrast, the VW-based engines such as the Great Plain Aircraft 2180 have > essentially mitigated that problem by use of high quality 4340 crankshafts > and the Force One hub. VWs tend to fail more slowly, with valve or > crankcase issues, whereas the Corvair has had more than its share of > instantaneous crankshaft failures of the variety that will ruin your day, > at > least in my experience. There is now limited production of 4340 > crankshafts > for the Corvair, but they are pricey, and there's only one flying so far. > I > do have one on order. > > > > I'm not bringing this up for any other reason than to be fair to the VW. > They are reasonably reliable engines and there are a lot in service in the > small homebuilt world. Steve Bennett told me a few months ago, that none > of > his engines have broken a crank that has been running his Force One hub, > and > that's a lot of years and a lot of engines! > > > > Mark Langford > > ML at N56ML.com > > see experimental N56ML at www.N56ML.com > > > > > > ___ > Search the KRnet Archives at http://tugantek.com/archmailv2-kr/search. > To UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to KRnet-leave at list.krnet.org > please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html > see http://list.krnet.org/mailman/listinfo/krnet_list.krnet.org to change > options >
KR> Weight & Balance
781 lbs! is that not a bit on the heavy side? What do other planes "typically" come in at? The spread sheet on the net is a bit dated and not very complete. Not criticizing, just curious. Wayne -Original Message- From: KRnet [mailto:krnet-bounces at list.krnet.org] On Behalf Of Sid Wood Sent: May-21-13 8:33 PM To: krnet at list.krnet.org Subject: KR> Weight & Balance Empty weight is 781 pounds; FAA calculated gross is 1178 pounds for a useful load of 397 pounds. With my tender body onboard the CG ranges from 12.4" full fuel to 11.2" Empty. Sid Wood Tri-gear KR-2 N6242 Mechanicsville, MD, USA ___ Search the KRnet Archives at http://tugantek.com/archmailv2-kr/search. To UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to KRnet-leave at list.krnet.org please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html see http://list.krnet.org/mailman/listinfo/krnet_list.krnet.org to change options
KR> Corvair engines
Mark, Ok, I'll call you out on it - VWs rule! Corvairs suck! Just enjoying my KR as much as anyone. I gave 5 more Young Eagles ride in mine last weekend. Got a hat from EAA the other day for going over 50. But I'm sure some other KR flyer can beat that. Rob Schmitt N1852Z On May 22, 2013, at 9:49 AM, "Mark Langford" wrote: > I wrote something yesterday about more powerful engines being "safer" than > lower powered ones in a given plane. This was from a "gain altitude as > quickly as possible on takeoff" standpoint. I'm a little surprised that > nobody called me out on using the Corvair as an example, given that I've > broken three Corvair crankshafts, the last one on takeoff. There is no > denying that the Corvair has crankshaft issues, at least in my mind. In > contrast, the VW-based engines such as the Great Plain Aircraft 2180 have > essentially mitigated that problem by use of high quality 4340 crankshafts > and the Force One hub. VWs tend to fail more slowly, with valve or > crankcase issues, whereas the Corvair has had more than its share of > instantaneous crankshaft failures of the variety that will ruin your day, at > least in my experience. There is now limited production of 4340 crankshafts > for the Corvair, but they are pricey, and there's only one flying so far. I > do have one on order. > > > > I'm not bringing this up for any other reason than to be fair to the VW. > They are reasonably reliable engines and there are a lot in service in the > small homebuilt world. Steve Bennett told me a few months ago, that none of > his engines have broken a crank that has been running his Force One hub, and > that's a lot of years and a lot of engines! > > > > Mark Langford > > ML at N56ML.com > > see experimental N56ML at www.N56ML.com > > > > > > ___ > Search the KRnet Archives at http://tugantek.com/archmailv2-kr/search. > To UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to KRnet-leave at list.krnet.org > please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html > see http://list.krnet.org/mailman/listinfo/krnet_list.krnet.org to change > options
KR> Weight & Balance
Well since you had the FAA do your inspection it doesn't do much good to argue, but that's not right. That's a minimum suggested way to do w&b, but the manufacturer (you) sets the "design" gross weight limits. Using the logic of you local FSDO I technically wouldn't be able to fly my single place one off design because I'm a lot heavier than 170 lbs, which by the way that plane is flying. They've jerked you around quite a bit between that and the instruments but as I said... it is the FAA, so right or wrong the local FSDO has jurisdiction for rule interpretation. I will say that it is true that it is a requirement to show that the cg is in range through the entire weight envelope yes... it is extremely important...but the manufacturer just gets to pick what that is! The FAA, in my observation, doesn't like us. They are concerned about safety, which is good, but the best way to have no experimental accidents is to make it difficult to get awc's. Planes that don't fly technically can't crash. Its a case of you get what you pay for. My DAR was 400 last year and he helped me immensely, both with the laws and getting through the process. I even had his cell phone so he was on sort of a retainer for a year after and frequently called to see how I was doing with phase 1. It doesn't help you now Sid, bit I suggest to anyone else to spend the extra money and do the DAR route. You get so much more out of it. I do know people that had good luck with the FAA... you just have almost zero recourse with them if they decided to make you dance. Just my opinion of course. Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID smwood wrote: >The FAA has a procedure where you put in "standard" pilot and passenger >weights (170 pounds each), full fuel and max baggage on the weight and >balance work sheet. The total weight is then your max gross weight. It is >a calculated number. You also have to show that the CG is in the allowable >design range at that weight. That procedure was required for a signed >airworthiness certificate. > >Sid Wood >Tri-gear KR-2 N6242 >Mechanicsville, MD, USA > > >At 09:32 PM 5/21/2013, you wrote: >>FAA calculated gross is 1178 pounds for a useful load of 397 pounds. >+++ > >Sid, > >Glad to hear you're making progress toward the next flight. Please >explain "FAA calculated gross". I set the gross on my KR and I don't >recall the FAA having anything to say about it. >I seem to recall setting my gross at 1300 pounds with normal flights >in the 1050 to 1100 pound range. > >Larry Flesner > > > >___ >Search the KRnet Archives at http://tugantek.com/archmailv2-kr/search. >To UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to KRnet-leave at list.krnet.org >please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html >see http://list.krnet.org/mailman/listinfo/krnet_list.krnet.org to change >options
KR> Resin Wars.
An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://list.krnet.org/mailman/private/krnet_list.krnet.org/attachments/20130522/96499877/attachment.html>
KR> [FWD: Save 5% on Building Materials thru Memorial Day!]
An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://list.krnet.org/mailman/private/krnet_list.krnet.org/attachments/20130522/f2b46ac5/attachment.html>
KR> Weight & Balance
781 pounds does exceed my self-assigned goal of 650 set many years ago. However, adding a 2180 VW, Diehl adapter and electric, mechanical fuel pump, oil filter, carb heat, cabin heat, Diehl skins, bigger spar, three batteries (main and two backups), extra airspeed and wet compass, ELT, panel mount comm, 250-watt transponder, intercom, GPS, cabin lights, seat belt anchors, hydraulic brakes (that really work), upholstery, fiber glass seats, welded fuel tanks, strobes and nav lights, landing lights, wheel fairings, 30 inspection panels, cockpit access doors, Dynon D10A, electronic magnetic compass, electronic OAT, bull ring tie downs and a Mixture Meter does bump up the empty weight somewhat. There are some safety and utility tradeoffs. I fully intend to fly this airplane at night and in the system. How much remains to be seen. However, it will be legal - always. Sid Wood Tri-gear KR-2 N6242 Mechanicsville, MD, USA - >> there's no reason to disparage the KR2S and the improvements that have >> been gained in the twenty years since the "most recent" plans were >> published...unless you have some KR-2s you want to sell... >> >> Mark Langford > > You have a good point Mark, some improvements are good, and needed in some > things. There are people out there that will 100,000 plus for a legend > Cub, but you can find a good referb Cub or Super Cub and they could save a > ton of money. I will never discourage a person on this net for wanting > the best for themselves. I will also not discourage a person who wants to > build a "stock KR". The first big expense to build a KR is the wood. > Like I said I have projects for sale and it is not to make money. The > sole purpose was to save projects from the fire pit, and to help people. > I guess my point is there are still people that would like to build a > stock KR and it would fit their needs. I have a good example, there are > no piston engine powered Lancair Evolutions built or sold. We have a 4P > customer who purchased the first one to be built. My question is why > would you need a piston powered pressurized airplane? Answer he does not > make long trips and does not need a turbine.! > My question what about resale. Answer, he does not care. This guy will > fly the wings off this plane. The point I'm trying to make is there are > all kinds of people out there who want what they want. I hope they can > get unbiased opinions and they can make a choice. > On a lighter note my engine is ready to go on and I still need to fix my > VE cowl. I'm looking at making the gathering this year to take my > whippings.Period > -- > 781 lbs! is that not a bit on the heavy side? What do other planes > "typically" come in at? The spread sheet on the net is a bit dated and not > very complete. Not criticizing, just curious. > > Wayne -- >> > Empty weight is > 781 pounds; FAA calculated gross is 1178 pounds for a useful load of 397 > pounds. > With my tender body onboard the CG ranges from 12.4" full fuel to 11.2" > Empty. > Sid Wood > >
KR> KRnet Digest, Vol 1, Issue 79
Still cant get Brian's emailswhat am I doing wrong ? Steve Bray Jackson, Tennessee...PLEASE REMOVE! All email addresses before you forward and use the B.C.C.
KR> Corvair engines
Yes, VW is a good reliable engine, but why do you say "Corvairs suck". What are your qualifications for making such a statement? See N64KR at http://KRBuilder.org - Then click on the pics? See you Oct. 4 and 5, 2013 - KR Gathering in Mt. Vernon, Il ? MVN Daniel R. Heath -?Lexington, SC -Original Message- Ok, I'll call you out on it - VWs rule! Corvairs suck! Rob Schmitt N1852Z
KR> Weight.
750 with wing tanks, auto pilot, heavy canopy, lots of stuff and a Corvair engine. Heavy and quite stable. A nice airplane to fly cross country. W&B given that 4 is center, 0 is 4" forward, and 6 is 2" aft (most allowed) 188 pilot, 172.2 fuel = 1065 EW and 3.876 CG Add 135 passenger = 1200.2 EW and 5.546 CG Fuel and people are .5" of the same station, so trading fuel and people weight is OK. I could have a 175 passenger and 13 gallons of fuel. So the spread sheet tells me. See N64KR at http://KRBuilder.org - Then click on the pics? See you Oct. 4 and 5, 2013 - KR Gathering in Mt. Vernon, Il ? MVN Daniel R. Heath -?Lexington, SC -Original Message- 781 lbs! is that not a bit on the heavy side? What do other planes "typically" come in at?
KR> Weight.
N886MJ Final Empty Weight on 3-13-2005. Left Main Gear 284 lbs. Nose Gear 214 lbs. Right Main Gear 273 lbs. Total empty weight 771 lbs Gross weight was set at 1350. Max flown weight 1231 LBS (400 lbs pilot and passenger, 10 gallons fuel) give or take a pound or two. The plane flew like a charm with the only adverse effect being a slow climb rate. This was done on a very cool day with temps in the low 40's Mark Jones (N886MJ) Stevens Point, WI E-mail: flykr2s at charter.net Web: www.flykr2s.com
KR> Weight.
My original KR2S weight was 600 pounds at inspection in 2006. I was pretty happy with that. Probably up to about 625 pounds by now. Max weight is 1100 pounds - that was calculated to keep the C.G. from going aft of the limit - no other reason. VW Revmaster 2100 engine, just a header tank, no flaps or belly board. Just basic VFR instruments at 1st flight. Since then I've added lights, Dynon D6, Transponder, and MGL V6 radio. Over 480 hours flight on it since 2006. Rob Schmitt N1852Z www.robert7721.com -Original Message- 781 lbs! is that not a bit on the heavy side? What do other planes "typically" come in at? ___ Search the KRnet Archives at http://tugantek.com/archmailv2-kr/search. To UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to KRnet-leave at list.krnet.org please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html see http://list.krnet.org/mailman/listinfo/krnet_list.krnet.org to change options
