op off the fuel tank.
> Your results may vary.--I'm 240lbs and the last passenger was
> 135 lbs.
>
> Kenny 6399U
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Colin Rainey"
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2005 7:24 AM
> Subject: KR> CG
Kenny and Bobby
My initial post was in response to a question posed by a builder in reference
to whether or not the CG location and limits were different from the original
KR2 and the KR2S. I had stated that they were not if both aircraft were built
to plans. Kenny your plane being flown within
The problem with these things is that everything you do changes the
CG-including leaning forward. Somebody needs to invent a sliding
counter weight. ( just kidding)
- Original Message -
From: "Colin Rainey"
To:
Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 7:24 PM
Subject:
weight. ( just kidding)
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Colin Rainey"
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 7:24 PM
> Subject: KR> CG and the KR2S
>
>
> > Kenny and Bobby
> > My initial post was in response to a question posed b
At 06:42 PM 1/4/2006, you wrote:
>The problem with these things is that everything you do changes the
>CG-including leaning forward. Ken
+
That's true on any aircraft. I once flew the Tripacer on a clear
, smooth night for 25 minutes w
page http://web.qx.net/jeffyork40/
My KR-2 http://web.qx.net/jeffyork40/Airplane/ to see my KR-2
Email jeffyor...@qx.net
- Original Message -
From: "Larry&Sallie Flesner"
To: "KRnet"
Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2006 7:00 AM
Subject: KR> CG a
.
www.engalt.com
-Original Message-
From: krnet-bounces+brian.kraut=engalt@mylist.net
[mailto:krnet-bounces+brian.kraut=engalt@mylist.net]On Behalf Of
jeffyor...@qx.net
Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2006 5:19 PM
To: KRnet
Subject: Re: KR> CG and the KR2S
OK, all this CG talk has got
Kenny, Colin, Mark, Mark, Dan and group,
This is exactly the factor which made me decide to build the KR- the
availability of hard, specific data from educated and experienced folks who
have
the desire to help. This thread will be fied in my wt/bal file. If you have it
available, could you
I am not exactly sure, but I can tell you that from firewall to the axle of
the tailwheel is 136.125. You can take 4 to 6 inches off that to get back
to the rudder post. If I remember, I will measure the difference for you
tomorrow, if you need an exact number. Remember, this is a stock KR2.
Th
Dan,
Thanks, I streatched my KrS2 a bit (156" firewall to post) I am looking for
the plane with similar dimensions. This entire issue is so critical to
stability that all related info is of help.
I want to fly two with a certain degree of safety and comfort. I have used
the stock dimensions
Bob
I do not believe that the CG limits were changed for the KR2S from those
already designed for the KR2. They are still the same, which is why the
standard modification is to add one bay forward and one bay rear for the total
stretch. Others are going alittle longer and enlargening the tail f
>> I do not believe that the CG limits were changed for the KR2S from those
already designed for the KR2. They are still the same, which is why the
standard modification is to add one bay forward and one bay rear for the
total stretch.<<
There's only 2" added to the front of the S as opposed to th
at www.flykr2s.com
- Original Message -
From: "Mark Langford"
To: "KRnet"
Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2005 7:54 AM
Subject: Re: KR> CG and the KR2S
> >> I do not believe that the CG limits were changed for the KR2S from
those
> already designed f
s may vary.--I'm 240lbs and the last passenger was
135 lbs.
Kenny 6399U
- Original Message -
From: "Colin Rainey"
To:
Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2005 7:24 AM
Subject: KR> CG and the KR2S
> Bob
> I do not believe that the CG limits were changed
op off the fuel tank.
> Your results may vary.--I'm 240lbs and the last passenger was
> 135 lbs.
>
> Kenny 6399U
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Colin Rainey"
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2005 7:24 AM
> Subject: KR> CG
15 matches
Mail list logo
