I converted a KR 2 from a taildragger to a nose dragger for a friend of mine many years ago. I wrote about it at the time. That plane then became mine temporarily. I described his losing power we were pretty sure of at the time from vapor lock. He thought he was going to die but at the last second he managed to get the nose up some before he hit hard. It broke both Diehl fiberglass landing gears and the wheel on one of them came through the bottom of the stub wing. If fuel had been there I hate to think what might of happened. He had a header tank. My point is when he bought the new Diehl main and nose gear and wanted me to convert the plane for him. The Diehl gear has a taper on one side of it. If you put that taper against the Diehl aluminum gear casting it makes the fiberglass gear really go aft as it should be if you want a nose wheel. Sid did you use the straight side or the tapered side of the fiberglass landing gear towards the aluminum fitting and spar and did you place the aluminum fitting on the aft side of the spar. If you didn't do both these things then this may be your problem. If you did both then you may need heavier shoes ! Larry H
> On Jul 5, 2014, at 5:19 PM, smwood via KRnet <krnet at list.krnet.org> wrote: > > A retractable pogo stick on the tail does not seem to practical for my KR-2 > at this time. > This morning with just myself onboard and half fuel, the cg is at 12.6 > inches. I tried raising the nose on a fast taxi down the runway. With an > estimated steady ground speed of 25 knots, I can easily raise the nose wheel > off the pavement with back stick about two inches. I estimate the speed > because the ASI does not register until 40 knots. I think I have the cg > about correct for flight, but the cg is only 3.4 inches ahead of the main > wheels. Hence the tendency to dump on the tail. > If I used longer gear legs, that would move the main wheels further aft. But > then there would be spring or stiffness issues, along with level stance on > the ground. If I angled the gear legs further aft, then the bottom of the > leg would need rework to get the toe in correct; that would also need extra > length on the legs with spring and stance considerations. Mr. Pazmany shows > lots of math to design the gear geometry to properly comply with Part 23. I > am trying to avoid re-designing my KR-2. I want a practical machine I can > fly now without another year or two down time. > So, not dropping bombs yet, anyone have any other suggestions? > > Sid Wood > Tri-gear KR-2
