KR>Larry's Lady reply (long)
On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 11:04:18 -0600 "Mark Langford" writes: > Virg wrote: > > > Or Try a Turner T-40A, Virg > >O K Ole virg stepped in it again. Now for the LOONG answer. Many are trying to make the K R what it could not possibly be If you want a wood airplane to take the HUMONGUS engine then YOU look for the plans that will handle same. THE K R WILL NOT, NOT DO IT accept it for what it is only. Do not make more than cosmetic changes, or Design your own!!Knowing of the Turner T-40 and T-40A, it MAY handle the power you specify. O K Back to the FACT mode and concise answers.Virgil N. Salisbury 5445 S.W. 89th Place Miami, Fl 33165 305-271-3608 STANDING TALL AS USUAL
KR>Larry's Lady reply (long)
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 h
KR>Larry's Lady reply (long)
Or Try a Turner T-40A, Virg On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 20:51:49 -0600 larry flesner writes: > > 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 abou
KR>Larry's Lady reply (long)
Virg wrote: > Or Try a Turner T-40A, Virg OK, this one does it. I just don't understand, Virg. I have no idea what this means, or what it's about. Why is it that some people steadfastly refuse to follow the rules of this list? Every few months I beg y'all to read the "KRNetiquette" at http://www.krnet.org/info.html , but the very people I'm talking to never read it, or simply don't care if they're inconvenciencing a few hundred people. How long does it take to delete 240 lines of old text below your post? Takes me about two seconds. How long does it take 400 people to sift through 240 lines of text looking for your reply to Larry's post? Took me about 10 seconds to find your one-liner at the time, after visiting the bottom trying to find it. 10 seconds times 400 people is 67 minutes of other people's time spend trying to find something that you could have fixed in two seconds. Can you see where I'm going with this? I still don't know what you were trying to say, and at this point, I don't even care. Was I supposed to go back and read every word of Larry's post to see where your tidbit of wisdom applied? Sorry, but I'm not going to waste that kind of time. Larry spent a lot of time carefully cutting, pasting, and answering all of those posts in one concise message. I hung on every word. It was great stuff, delivered by one of the few KR pilots who will actually open up and tell us the real story. You sent a message that was every bit as big, but I didn't get a single thing out of it other than frustration. All your message is going to do is overinflate the archives. I'm sure you're a great guy Virg, but when it comes to contributing to KRnet, you're just not gettin' it. If you really want to help us out, PLEASE spend an extra few seconds and make your posts informative (not cryptic) and easy to read, not painful. Once again, PLEASE READ and at least humor us with an attempt at following the rules posted at http://www.krnet.org/info.html . If you need instructions on how to cut and paste text, email me offline and I'll do my best to teach you. Why did I post this to the net instead of sending it direct to Virg? Because it applies to a lot more folks than just him, and public humiliation is about the only thing that shows any sign of working at all! Mark Langford, Huntsville, Alabama N56ML "at" hiwaay.net see KR2S project at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford
