KR> W and CG's
And I forgot to mention the extremely high $$$ annuals. On 12/07/2015 03:31 PM, david via KRnet wrote: > Thanks, and I'm looking at them, but spam cans are like "the last > resort." Adequate utility, slower speeds, even lower fun rate. > > David M. > > > > On 12/07/2015 01:51 PM, Dj Merrill via KRnet wrote: >> On 12/07/2015 02:36 PM, david via KRnet wrote: >>> Thatcher 5 looks good except it also has the max front of 250 lbs. >> You might look at some used Cessna 172s or similar which can be had >> fairly cheaply these days. Not as cheap as a KR, for sure, but offer a >> lot more utility in terms of CG and weight carrying capacity, and lots >> of dogs per trip. >> >> Many older GA aircraft from $20 - $40k on Barnstormers.com. >> >> I think there are plenty of options available to you. Poke around on >> Barnstormers and "window shop" for a bit. >> >> -Dj >> > > ___ > 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> W and CG's
Thatcher 5 looks good except it also has the max front of 250 lbs. On 12/07/2015 01:09 PM, Dj Merrill via KRnet wrote: > Thatcher CX5
KR> W and CG's
That's what the Challenger was for as it is tandem seating, too. Have to look up a Thatcher. On 12/07/2015 01:09 PM, Dj Merrill via KRnet wrote: > On 12/07/2015 01:49 PM, david via KRnet wrote: >> That's not good news. I don't mind sitting in the middle but then I >> couldn't do the Pilots thing. > > Have you considered something like the Thatcher CX5 that has two seats > in tandem? You'd have to confirm the CG limits but may be a better > layout for carrying the dogs in the rear seat. > > -Dj > >
KR> W and CG's
One reason I am looking at the KR2-S is that my current plane is a Challenger II. I have gained weight (for reasons beyond my control but doesn't everyone say that?) and at 310 lbs sans clothing, I am way beyond the spec for pilot in the CII, which is set at 250 lbs. So it is for sale, too. :) So what I'd like to know from you guys, is are my W and CG calcs accurate? I did them with (a) me, full fuel, and no one else, (b) me and passengers up to gross allowable, (c) me and 3 gallons of fuel, and (d) me with pax and 3 gallons of fuel. All were with 35 lb baggage, and all were using Mark Langfords owners manual numbers as published on his web page. Ok, physical part: even at 310, all my weight is forward, in the gut. Very little sideways widening. I'm 5'11". Can I comfortably and safely do long cross-countries? Or will I be unsafe and/or unhappy? :( My primary goal is to do the Pilot thing, and of course visit people and places over time. Not sure how practical it will be, due to just room on the pax side, to take anything but a few puppies. Thanks, David M.
