Mark, Thank you for your omnipresent all knowingness. Is the 5% increase in aircraft weight that use of the corvair engine causese the max gross, empty or what weight are you thinking of? and of that weight increase, is it all the weight of the engine or are there other weight increases in other systems. thank you jiro
> From: ml at n56ml.com > To: krnet at list.krnet.org > Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 19:39:16 -0600 > Subject: Re: KR> KR2 Useful Load with 3100cc Corvair > > Chris Davis wrote: > > > Well I'll be building on a pretty tight budget, and the airframe kit is > > $2,000 cheaper for the KR2 than the KR2S. I also like the look of the KR2 > > more than the KR2S...just a personal preference thing. > > I'm not sure why a KR2S airframe kit would cost $2000 more than a KR2S. I'm > guessing there may be a $500 difference in the two, mostly in the form of > extra plywood and spruce. After all, we're only talking about a 16" > fuselage extension and wings/surfaces that are longer mostly by virtue of > foam and glass. Another biggie is likely the canopy, as there is a > substantial difference in the cost of a molded S canopy as opposed to the > KR2 bubble. I would guess that even if you DID build a standard KR2, you'd > still want the same equipment (above and beyond the airframe) or level of > completion that you'd buy for a KR2S, so I wouldn't take that $2000 > difference as a real differentiator between the two. > > I certainly concur with other assessments...I think you'd be crazy to build > a KR2 now that we have plans for the KR2S, and flying experience to > demonstrate the improvement between the two. > > Also: > > >The site lists 420lbs as the useful load for the KR2, but with my wife and > >I flying, along with 95lbs of fuel, we'd be at 485lbs useful load. Well if > >I were flying with that 2100cc VW engine at that weight, yeah I'd be a > >little concerned, but with such a stronger engine, is it really a problem > >going over the gross weight by 65-75lbs? > > On the matter of gross weight, 1245 pounds is pushing the limit, but with a > forward CG (use of wing tanks rather than header tank, for example) and only > doing it a few times a year, that's doable. I've certainly exceeded that on > many occasions, and other than the plane suffering in climb and stability, > it's not a problem. I routinely fly at about 1000 pounds, and when I carry > a heavy passenger I get pretty close to your 1245 pound goal, and it's > mostly climb rate that suffers. As I've said many times, getting 50% more > power far exceeds the 5% total aircraft weight increase that a Corvair > brings over a VW, not that there's anything wrong with the VW. People think > the fuel consumption will go up with the bigger engine, but it's only slight > due to the 5% increase in weight. If the two engines are putting out the > same amount of power, the fuel consumption of the engine will be about the > same. > > Mark Langford > ML at N56ML.com > website at 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
