I made my gear legs 1/4-inch wider than the stock Diehl gear legs and 1-inch
longer than the tail dragger version. My theory is the extra length is
needed to compensate for the extra angle to get the needed 3-inch set back
and to get a more level stance on the ground. The 1/4-inch extra width
Thansk Sid.
I got the same legs, but thinking of leaving the same thickness but using
the full length of the Grumman blanks for prop clearance on my tail wheel.
Just waiting on some cast brackets from Steve so I can finished them off.
Do think the Grumman leg thickness would be too much?
Mark L
I've been thinking on this as well. I suppose one could leave them the
full inch thick but make them narrower (i.e. not as wide) if they were too
stiff. Leaving them longer (which I also plan to do) will offset some of
the stiffness, and additional stiffness will probably be a good thing given
Dan Pritchard wrote:
>I have installed the Grumman legs on my KR2-S. I kept them the
original length and thickness but trimmed them down in width.
That is exactly how I would do it. Our planes are heavier these days
anyway, so some extra thickness is not a bad thing.
Mark Langford
ML at
I have installed the Grumman legs on my KR2-S. I kept them the original length
and thickness but trimmed them down in width. Minor deflection as the plane
sets now. Fuselage, tail, controls and motor mount (weighs 198 lbs). I have
also used the fiberglass leg for the front gear. With me in the
Update on moving the main wheels on my KR-2:
Removed the main gear fiberglass struts. These are supposed to be used for
a tail dragger version. Obtained Scotch ply Grumman Cougar blanks from
Fletch Air. Planed these blanks from 1-inch down to 0.750-inch on my
Craftsman wood power planer.
6 matches
Mail list logo
