KR> Tri-Gear Retracts?
Look what I found in the 1979 Newsletter archive! Should I call the first one and send a "SASE" to the other? ha! Retractable tri-cyle landing gearconversion plans by Bill DeFreze.Uses many of Rand?s parts, includinggear legs & spring bar.32o.ooBill DeFreze7530 Ironwood DriveDublin, CA 94566Ph.415-828-2111 Retractable tri-gear for KR-1 or KR-2.Stress analyzed to 3x gross by MarshallWood, senior design engineer at Rocketdyne.Plans are now available @i 340.00for complete system. material kit, excludingwheels $250.00. Ready to installassemblies $800.00. Freeisometric view with S.A.S.E.Don Land906 Manzani taLos Angles, CA 90029MINATURE > Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 14:49:42 -0700 > From: gliders at spinn.net > To: chrisprata at live.com; krnet at list.krnet.org > Subject: Re: KR> Tri-Gear Retracts? > > There are a couple of retractable trigear setups shown in the newsletter > archives. > > Chris > > On 1/25/2015 10:23 AM, Chris Prata via KRnet wrote: > > not to mention "the unlikely event of a water landing" lol > > thanks all info appreciated while I try to explore which way to go. > > > >> To: ml at n56ml.com; krnet at list.krnet.org > >> Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2015 18:06:02 +0100 > >> Subject: Re: KR> Tri-Gear Retracts? > >> From: krnet at list.krnet.org > >> > >> Hi, check the website http://members.upc.nl/a.gremmen61/ At the pics 2005 > >> you can see the gear system of the cherry bx2. It is nice but also wat > >> mark just noted, it will be add weight. The only positif I think is the > >> dead engine outfield landing. It will save you from a tip over. > >> Stef > >> > >> -- > >> Steph and his dad are building the KR-2S see > >> http://www.masttotaalconcept.nl/kr2 > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>> Origineel Bericht > >>> Van : krnet at list.krnet.org > >>> Datum : 25/01/2015 16:23 > >>> Aan : krnet at list.krnet.org > >>> Onderwerp : Re: KR> Tri-Gear Retracts? > >>> > >>> Oh, and the most important reason to go with fixed gear (I can't believe > >>> I left this one out) is the GEAR-UP landing! I built mine fixed because > >>> I knew if I had retracts, my first landing would be a gear-up landing, > >>> and my third, and my 10th...etc. I later proved that theory, although I > >>> made it to 93 landings in my 68 year-old Swift before actually > >>> fulfilling that prophecy! > >>> > >>> There's another school of thought that if you have to land in a field > >>> because of an engine out, damage will be minimized. In a smooth field > >>> big enough to pull that off, it's true. But in the case of my hayfield > >>> landing, I needed all the friction I could get. Without it I was going > >>> to hit a stand of trees that would have totaled the plane, if not me. > >>> > >>> I'm not trying to discourage you from building retracts or tri-gear > >>> retracts, but you've come to the table with lots of ideas on how to do > >>> things different, and they will all increase building time accordingly, > >>> perhaps exponentially. That's fine, and I'm a poster child for the > >>> concept, but be prepared to spend a long time accomplishing all your > >>> goals. I'm certainly not saying to "build is by the plans", because the > >>> plans are lacking in many ways. But choose your modifications > >>> carefully. As William Wynne likes to say, every day spent building is > >>> another day you are closer to losing your medical. Hopefully that issue > >>> will be relaxed soon, but you get the point. > >>> > >>> But as much as I enjoyed building and proving that I can improve the > >>> design and persevere to the end, I can tell you that flying is a lot > >>> more fun than building, at least for me! > >>> > >>> Mark Langford > >>> ML at N56ML.com > >>> http://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 > >>> > >> ___ > >> 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 > > > > ___ > > 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> Tri-Gear Retracts?
There are a couple of retractable trigear setups shown in the newsletter archives. Chris On 1/25/2015 10:23 AM, Chris Prata via KRnet wrote: > not to mention "the unlikely event of a water landing" lol > thanks all info appreciated while I try to explore which way to go. > >> To: ml at n56ml.com; krnet at list.krnet.org >> Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2015 18:06:02 +0100 >> Subject: Re: KR> Tri-Gear Retracts? >> From: krnet at list.krnet.org >> >> Hi, check the website http://members.upc.nl/a.gremmen61/ At the pics 2005 >> you can see the gear system of the cherry bx2. It is nice but also wat mark >> just noted, it will be add weight. The only positif I think is the dead >> engine outfield landing. It will save you from a tip over. >> Stef >> >> -- >> Steph and his dad are building the KR-2S see >> http://www.masttotaalconcept.nl/kr2 >> >> >> >> >>> Origineel Bericht >>> Van : krnet at list.krnet.org >>> Datum : 25/01/2015 16:23 >>> Aan : krnet at list.krnet.org >>> Onderwerp : Re: KR> Tri-Gear Retracts? >>> >>> Oh, and the most important reason to go with fixed gear (I can't believe >>> I left this one out) is the GEAR-UP landing! I built mine fixed because >>> I knew if I had retracts, my first landing would be a gear-up landing, >>> and my third, and my 10th...etc. I later proved that theory, although I >>> made it to 93 landings in my 68 year-old Swift before actually >>> fulfilling that prophecy! >>> >>> There's another school of thought that if you have to land in a field >>> because of an engine out, damage will be minimized. In a smooth field >>> big enough to pull that off, it's true. But in the case of my hayfield >>> landing, I needed all the friction I could get. Without it I was going >>> to hit a stand of trees that would have totaled the plane, if not me. >>> >>> I'm not trying to discourage you from building retracts or tri-gear >>> retracts, but you've come to the table with lots of ideas on how to do >>> things different, and they will all increase building time accordingly, >>> perhaps exponentially. That's fine, and I'm a poster child for the >>> concept, but be prepared to spend a long time accomplishing all your >>> goals. I'm certainly not saying to "build is by the plans", because the >>> plans are lacking in many ways. But choose your modifications >>> carefully. As William Wynne likes to say, every day spent building is >>> another day you are closer to losing your medical. Hopefully that issue >>> will be relaxed soon, but you get the point. >>> >>> But as much as I enjoyed building and proving that I can improve the >>> design and persevere to the end, I can tell you that flying is a lot >>> more fun than building, at least for me! >>> >>> Mark Langford >>> ML at N56ML.com >>> http://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 >>> >> ___ >> 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 > > ___ > 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> Tri-Gear Retracts?
I guess I should add to this topic since I am rebuilding a tri gear retract. I attached a couple photos and would like to find history on this plane if possible. The KR2 I have is a standard and has a retract conversion by Bill DE Freze. The mains are normal KR but installed on the back side of the spar. The nose gear is steerable and fully reacts into the fuselage. In my rebuilding I am putting this plane on a diet. I have reconfigured the Tri-Q2 nose gear and plan to build a hoop gear unless I can come across the mounts and legs for a KR2 for a reasonable price. The tri gear on this plane is heavy and with a single stick about impossible to operate. I don't know if these plans are still out there from Bill but I would be happy to make copies for anyone who wants a copy as long as it doesn't create issues as far as copyrights. Richard Kaczmarek Fast Little Airplanes LLC 937-243-7303 On Jan 25, 2015 1:47 PM, "Chris Prata via KRnet" wrote: > yup, I had a KR1 kit 25 years ago and had all that stuff (long since > sold). It was a cool looking and a cool simple system. IIRC, early designs > had some bolt breakage issues, and the spring bar would flex on hard > landing and pop through the top of the wing. so it wasnt perfect, but > stringer bolts and other adjustments seemed to make it a reliable, simple > gear system if I recall. Cant argue with the coolness factor. Ken Rand was > quite clever. > I'm not too confident in a taildragger. I have hundreds of hours in > trigear aircraft and would like to stick with the much less risky landings > with trigear. > In reality, I may just end up with a simple, fixed trigear project, but > retracts would be nice. > > > Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2015 10:37:42 -0800 > > To: bjoenunley at gmail.com; krnet at list.krnet.org > > Subject: Re: KR> Tri-Gear Retracts? > > From: krnet at list.krnet.org > > > > The original KR landing gear system was a main-gear retracting > taildragger. > > > > I've actually got a full set of it lying around in my hangar, as when I > > bought my project it had the original gear (and I wanted a fixed-tri)... > > > > On 1/25/2015 9:56 AM, bjoenunley via KRnet wrote: > > > These guys have excellent advice and experience. > > > > > > In regards to your retractable nose gear; how about a tail dragger > configuration? Eliminate the weight and complexity while maintaining > aerodynamic efficiency. If you are not familiar with tail wheel configured > aircraft they are not too scary when you get used to them. > > > > > > Joe Nunley > > > Baker Florida > > > > > > > > > Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smartphone > > > > > > Original message From: Chris Prata > via KRnet Date:01/25/2015 2:01 AM > (GMT-06:00) To: krnet at list.krnet.org Subject: KR> > Tri-Gear Retracts? > > > Hey All, > > > I have been pondering the possibility of tri-gear retracts on a KR1. > (This is experimental aviation after all!). > > > First, before I search the archives, has this been done? > > > If not, I'm assuming that since fixed tri-gear KR's exist (which is > probably what I'll end up doing!), the rear spar is strong enough to attach > main gear to. I am thinking that the gear can simply retract forward, > reverse of what the original KR had. I *think* the main gear is not going > to be a problem at all. > > > That leaves the nose wheel. I have a couple ideas. One is to establish > a straight pipe which goes up and back at an angle through the strong > firewall, with the castering nosewheel leg sliding into and out of that. > Not sure how to actuate that without too much weight, a big screw actuator? > Pneumatic? Since that pipe will be coming up through between the rudder > pedals, perhaps some kind of a slot and a lever? The wheel could be pulled > straight back up into a well beneath the back part of the cowling. It > wouldnt have to go all the way in, 1/3 of the tire could still be showing. > > > The other method would be a swing back, or swing forward arrangement. > > > This is a light plane and the nose carries the least weight. Although > it will slam down a bit on landing. > > > Any info or ideas appreciated. > > > > > > -C > > > ___ > > > 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> Tri-Gear Retracts?
Hi, check the website http://members.upc.nl/a.gremmen61/ At the pics 2005 you can see the gear system of the cherry bx2. It is nice but also wat mark just noted, it will be add weight. The only positif I think is the dead engine outfield landing. It will save you from a tip over. Stef -- Steph and his dad are building the KR-2S see http://www.masttotaalconcept.nl/kr2 >Origineel Bericht >Van : krnet at list.krnet.org >Datum : 25/01/2015 16:23 >Aan : krnet at list.krnet.org >Onderwerp : Re: KR> Tri-Gear Retracts? > >Oh, and the most important reason to go with fixed gear (I can't believe >I left this one out) is the GEAR-UP landing! I built mine fixed because >I knew if I had retracts, my first landing would be a gear-up landing, >and my third, and my 10th...etc. I later proved that theory, although I >made it to 93 landings in my 68 year-old Swift before actually >fulfilling that prophecy! > >There's another school of thought that if you have to land in a field >because of an engine out, damage will be minimized. In a smooth field >big enough to pull that off, it's true. But in the case of my hayfield >landing, I needed all the friction I could get. Without it I was going >to hit a stand of trees that would have totaled the plane, if not me. > >I'm not trying to discourage you from building retracts or tri-gear >retracts, but you've come to the table with lots of ideas on how to do >things different, and they will all increase building time accordingly, >perhaps exponentially. That's fine, and I'm a poster child for the >concept, but be prepared to spend a long time accomplishing all your >goals. I'm certainly not saying to "build is by the plans", because the >plans are lacking in many ways. But choose your modifications >carefully. As William Wynne likes to say, every day spent building is >another day you are closer to losing your medical. Hopefully that issue >will be relaxed soon, but you get the point. > >But as much as I enjoyed building and proving that I can improve the >design and persevere to the end, I can tell you that flying is a lot >more fun than building, at least for me! > >Mark Langford >ML at N56ML.com >http://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> Tri-Gear Retracts?
yup, I had a KR1 kit 25 years ago and had all that stuff (long since sold). It was a cool looking and a cool simple system. IIRC, early designs had some bolt breakage issues, and the spring bar would flex on hard landing and pop through the top of the wing. so it wasnt perfect, but stringer bolts and other adjustments seemed to make it a reliable, simple gear system if I recall. Cant argue with the coolness factor. Ken Rand was quite clever. I'm not too confident in a taildragger. I have hundreds of hours in trigear aircraft and would like to stick with the much less risky landings with trigear. In reality, I may just end up with a simple, fixed trigear project, but retracts would be nice. > Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2015 10:37:42 -0800 > To: bjoenunley at gmail.com; krnet at list.krnet.org > Subject: Re: KR> Tri-Gear Retracts? > From: krnet at list.krnet.org > > The original KR landing gear system was a main-gear retracting taildragger. > > I've actually got a full set of it lying around in my hangar, as when I > bought my project it had the original gear (and I wanted a fixed-tri)... > > On 1/25/2015 9:56 AM, bjoenunley via KRnet wrote: > > These guys have excellent advice and experience. > > > > In regards to your retractable nose gear; how about a tail dragger > > configuration? Eliminate the weight and complexity while maintaining > > aerodynamic efficiency. If you are not familiar with tail wheel configured > > aircraft they are not too scary when you get used to them. > > > > Joe Nunley > > Baker Florida > > > > > > Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smartphone > > > > Original message --------From: Chris Prata via > > KRnet Date:01/25/2015 2:01 AM > > (GMT-06:00) To: krnet at list.krnet.org Subject: KR> > > Tri-Gear Retracts? > > Hey All, > > I have been pondering the possibility of tri-gear retracts on a KR1. (This > > is experimental aviation after all!). > > First, before I search the archives, has this been done? > > If not, I'm assuming that since fixed tri-gear KR's exist (which is > > probably what I'll end up doing!), the rear spar is strong enough to attach > > main gear to. I am thinking that the gear can simply retract forward, > > reverse of what the original KR had. I *think* the main gear is not going > > to be a problem at all. > > That leaves the nose wheel. I have a couple ideas. One is to establish a > > straight pipe which goes up and back at an angle through the strong > > firewall, with the castering nosewheel leg sliding into and out of that. > > Not sure how to actuate that without too much weight, a big screw actuator? > > Pneumatic? Since that pipe will be coming up through between the rudder > > pedals, perhaps some kind of a slot and a lever? The wheel could be pulled > > straight back up into a well beneath the back part of the cowling. It > > wouldnt have to go all the way in, 1/3 of the tire could still be showing. > > The other method would be a swing back, or swing forward arrangement. > > This is a light plane and the nose carries the least weight. Although it > > will slam down a bit on landing. > > Any info or ideas appreciated. > > > > -C > > ___ > > 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 > > ___ > > 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 > > > ___ > 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> Tri-Gear Retracts?
not to mention "the unlikely event of a water landing" lol thanks all info appreciated while I try to explore which way to go. > To: ml at n56ml.com; krnet at list.krnet.org > Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2015 18:06:02 +0100 > Subject: Re: KR> Tri-Gear Retracts? > From: krnet at list.krnet.org > > Hi, check the website http://members.upc.nl/a.gremmen61/ At the pics 2005 > you can see the gear system of the cherry bx2. It is nice but also wat mark > just noted, it will be add weight. The only positif I think is the dead > engine outfield landing. It will save you from a tip over. > Stef > > -- > Steph and his dad are building the KR-2S see > http://www.masttotaalconcept.nl/kr2 > > > > > >Origineel Bericht > >Van : krnet at list.krnet.org > >Datum : 25/01/2015 16:23 > >Aan : krnet at list.krnet.org > >Onderwerp : Re: KR> Tri-Gear Retracts? > > > >Oh, and the most important reason to go with fixed gear (I can't believe > >I left this one out) is the GEAR-UP landing! I built mine fixed because > >I knew if I had retracts, my first landing would be a gear-up landing, > >and my third, and my 10th...etc. I later proved that theory, although I > >made it to 93 landings in my 68 year-old Swift before actually > >fulfilling that prophecy! > > > >There's another school of thought that if you have to land in a field > >because of an engine out, damage will be minimized. In a smooth field > >big enough to pull that off, it's true. But in the case of my hayfield > >landing, I needed all the friction I could get. Without it I was going > >to hit a stand of trees that would have totaled the plane, if not me. > > > >I'm not trying to discourage you from building retracts or tri-gear > >retracts, but you've come to the table with lots of ideas on how to do > >things different, and they will all increase building time accordingly, > >perhaps exponentially. That's fine, and I'm a poster child for the > >concept, but be prepared to spend a long time accomplishing all your > >goals. I'm certainly not saying to "build is by the plans", because the > >plans are lacking in many ways. But choose your modifications > >carefully. As William Wynne likes to say, every day spent building is > >another day you are closer to losing your medical. Hopefully that issue > >will be relaxed soon, but you get the point. > > > >But as much as I enjoyed building and proving that I can improve the > >design and persevere to the end, I can tell you that flying is a lot > >more fun than building, at least for me! > > > >Mark Langford > >ML at N56ML.com > >http://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 > > > > ___ > 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> Tri-Gear Retracts?
These guys have excellent advice and experience.? In regards to your retractable nose gear; how about a tail dragger configuration? ? Eliminate the weight and complexity while maintaining aerodynamic efficiency. If you are not familiar with tail wheel configured aircraft they are not too scary when you get used to them.? Joe Nunley Baker Florida Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smartphone Original message From: Chris Prata via KRnet Date:01/25/2015 2:01 AM (GMT-06:00) To: krnet at list.krnet.org Subject: KR> Tri-Gear Retracts? Hey All, I have been pondering the possibility of tri-gear retracts on a KR1. (This is experimental aviation after all!). First, before I search the archives, has this been done? If not, I'm assuming that since fixed tri-gear KR's exist (which is probably what I'll end up doing!), the rear spar is strong enough to attach main gear to. I am thinking that the gear can simply retract forward, reverse of what the original KR had. I *think* the main gear is not going to be a problem at all. That leaves the nose wheel. I have a couple ideas. One is to establish a straight pipe which goes up and back at an angle through the strong firewall, with the castering nosewheel leg sliding into and out of that. Not sure how to actuate that without too much weight, a big screw actuator? Pneumatic? Since that pipe will be coming up through between the rudder pedals, perhaps some kind of a slot and a lever? The wheel could be pulled straight back up into a well beneath the back part of the cowling. It wouldnt have to go all the way in, 1/3 of the tire could still be showing. The other method would be a swing back, or swing forward arrangement. This is a light plane and the nose carries the least weight. Although it will slam down a bit on landing. Any info or ideas appreciated. -C ___ 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> Tri-Gear Retracts
"As William Wynne likes to say, every day spent building is another day you are closer to losing your medical." Not to worry. There will soon be relatively inexpensive out-of-the-box solutions enabling us to remotely pilot our KR's. With remotely controlled hangar doors, we won't even have to go to the airport to go flying. I can't imagine we'll need a medical to operate our flight consoles. If we have a heart attack while flying the plane will automatically return to base or land at the nearest airport. Remote/autonomous piloting is the direction all of aviation (and trucking and trains and ships etc.) is headed, so no need to worry about medicals except for the very near future and in any event, if AOPA and EAA are successful the 3rd class medical will soon be gone. For small planes like ours, power will be electric. I know a lot of guys amuse themselves with the building process but for others, those wanting a KR will be able to have one made exactly the way they want it using 3-D printing. I'm pretty sure this is something that's possible as I write this, just not common yet. Mike KSEE The Next Big Thing 3 Companies Running Big Cable Out of Business http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/54c545bc8d3a545bc2c99st02vuc
KR> Tri-Gear Retracts?
The original KR landing gear system was a main-gear retracting taildragger. I've actually got a full set of it lying around in my hangar, as when I bought my project it had the original gear (and I wanted a fixed-tri)... On 1/25/2015 9:56 AM, bjoenunley via KRnet wrote: > These guys have excellent advice and experience. > > In regards to your retractable nose gear; how about a tail dragger > configuration? Eliminate the weight and complexity while maintaining > aerodynamic efficiency. If you are not familiar with tail wheel configured > aircraft they are not too scary when you get used to them. > > Joe Nunley > Baker Florida > > > Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smartphone > > Original message From: Chris Prata via KRnet > Date:01/25/2015 2:01 AM (GMT-06:00) > To: krnet at list.krnet.org Subject: KR> Tri-Gear > Retracts? > Hey All, > I have been pondering the possibility of tri-gear retracts on a KR1. (This is > experimental aviation after all!). > First, before I search the archives, has this been done? > If not, I'm assuming that since fixed tri-gear KR's exist (which is probably > what I'll end up doing!), the rear spar is strong enough to attach main gear > to. I am thinking that the gear can simply retract forward, reverse of what > the original KR had. I *think* the main gear is not going to be a problem at > all. > That leaves the nose wheel. I have a couple ideas. One is to establish a > straight pipe which goes up and back at an angle through the strong firewall, > with the castering nosewheel leg sliding into and out of that. Not sure how > to actuate that without too much weight, a big screw actuator? Pneumatic? > Since that pipe will be coming up through between the rudder pedals, perhaps > some kind of a slot and a lever? The wheel could be pulled straight back up > into a well beneath the back part of the cowling. It wouldnt have to go all > the way in, 1/3 of the tire could still be showing. > The other method would be a swing back, or swing forward arrangement. > This is a light plane and the nose carries the least weight. Although it will > slam down a bit on landing. > Any info or ideas appreciated. > > -C > ___ > 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 > ___ > 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> Tri-Gear Retracts?
Oh, and the most important reason to go with fixed gear (I can't believe I left this one out) is the GEAR-UP landing! I built mine fixed because I knew if I had retracts, my first landing would be a gear-up landing, and my third, and my 10th...etc. I later proved that theory, although I made it to 93 landings in my 68 year-old Swift before actually fulfilling that prophecy! There's another school of thought that if you have to land in a field because of an engine out, damage will be minimized. In a smooth field big enough to pull that off, it's true. But in the case of my hayfield landing, I needed all the friction I could get. Without it I was going to hit a stand of trees that would have totaled the plane, if not me. I'm not trying to discourage you from building retracts or tri-gear retracts, but you've come to the table with lots of ideas on how to do things different, and they will all increase building time accordingly, perhaps exponentially. That's fine, and I'm a poster child for the concept, but be prepared to spend a long time accomplishing all your goals. I'm certainly not saying to "build is by the plans", because the plans are lacking in many ways. But choose your modifications carefully. As William Wynne likes to say, every day spent building is another day you are closer to losing your medical. Hopefully that issue will be relaxed soon, but you get the point. But as much as I enjoyed building and proving that I can improve the design and persevere to the end, I can tell you that flying is a lot more fun than building, at least for me! Mark Langford ML at N56ML.com http://www.n56ml.com
KR> Tri-Gear Retracts?
Joe Horton wrote: > When ever this comes up it always brings John Schaffer's plane to my mind as what I think is the most successful retract KR. There are several flying pictures from the 2004 Gathering page. By John's own admission it is a lot of extra work just something that he wanted to do and actually completed. And a there are a lot more on the ground with some closeups of the gear at the 1993 Red Oak gathering at http://www.krnet.org/redoak2003/, near the bottom. There was also a retract gear setup being sold through the newsletters back in the early days. But just FYI Chris, conventional wisdom is that retracts are not worth the trouble, weight, or complexity until you get over 150 mph, assuming you properly fair in fixed gear. This is likely why RVs don't have retracts, and another reason why they are so successful. Don't stack the odds against your completion of the airplane... Mark Langford ML at N56ML.com http://www.n56ml.com
KR> Tri-Gear Retracts?
>, the rear spar is strong enough to attach main gear to. I am >thinking that the gear can simply retract forward, reverse of what >the original KR had. +++ On a fixed tri-gear, the main gear is attached to the main spar. I would not consider attaching the main gear to the rear spar. It's not designed for those types of loads. Larry Flesner
KR> Tri-Gear Retracts?
Chris, When ever this comes up it always brings John Schaffer's plane to my mind as what I think is the most successful retract KR. There are several flying pictures from the 2004 Gathering page. By John's own admission it is a lot of extra work just something that he wanted to do and actually completed. Joe Horton - Original Message - From: "Chris Prata via KRnet" Subject: KR> Tri-Gear Retracts? Hey All, I have been pondering the possibility of tri-gear retracts on a KR1. (This is experimental aviation after all!). First, before I search the archives, has this been done? ___
KR> Tri-Gear Retracts?
Hey All, I have been pondering the possibility of tri-gear retracts on a KR1. (This is experimental aviation after all!). First, before I search the archives, has this been done? If not, I'm assuming that since fixed tri-gear KR's exist (which is probably what I'll end up doing!), the rear spar is strong enough to attach main gear to. I am thinking that the gear can simply retract forward, reverse of what the original KR had. I *think* the main gear is not going to be a problem at all. That leaves the nose wheel. I have a couple ideas. One is to establish a straight pipe which goes up and back at an angle through the strong firewall, with the castering nosewheel leg sliding into and out of that. Not sure how to actuate that without too much weight, a big screw actuator? Pneumatic? Since that pipe will be coming up through between the rudder pedals, perhaps some kind of a slot and a lever? The wheel could be pulled straight back up into a well beneath the back part of the cowling. It wouldnt have to go all the way in, 1/3 of the tire could still be showing. The other method would be a swing back, or swing forward arrangement. This is a light plane and the nose carries the least weight. Although it will slam down a bit on landing. Any info or ideas appreciated. -C
