Thanks for the input Larry. Most of the information I am working
with has been gleaned from the archives as well as various magazine articles
regarding the KR. It's better getting first hand information from a pilot
that has built and is actually flying the aircraft. What I said with regards
to Jeanette was in no way meant to be derogatory, only an observation of
what I have read here on the list. Not interested in pursuing further
development (refinements of the breed), lack of parts, seeming indifference
to prospective buyers of plans are some of the comments I have read posted
by some of the long time builders along with a few of the newer ones. This
may be due in part from the constant reminder of Ken and that has to be
hard, or maybe she was only having a bad day when contacted, who knows.
I have no problem with control sensitivity as am quite used to
helicopters with well over a thousand hours in them. BTW the Bell has a
hydraulic control actuation system to help keep it under control. Want some
real fun, turn off the system and try keeping that fool thing in the air. I
do however want a stable bird and not have to fight her every damn minute. I
know, find another aircraft but that is not what I want to do. One I cannot
afford it and two, I love the challenge. Many of the builders are on the
right track with extending the fuselage towards the rear and increasing
control surface area. All these changes have in my opinion at least made for
a better machine.
Larger engine or reduce weight, well engine seems the most sensible
way to go here as I don't believe we can further reduce Ken's published
empty weight. Let's face it when Ken flew the original times were far
different and we were somewhat free to roar the skies with little or no
instrumentation or radios. Today we have a whole new ballgame unless you
plan on flying off your own property and drilling holes in the immediate
area till you get tired and land. We fly for fun, we go places in our
aircraft and we need instruments (at least the bare minimum) and we need
radios and navigation equipment. This equipment has come a long way in the
last few years but still adds precious weight to the bird. This brings us to
the engine. The VDub while quite reliable in its original form tends to lose
that reliability as we demand more and more from it. The Corvair is a better
choice but cores are getting harder to find without spending large dollars.
I believe that they are a wise choice for those lucky enough to get them.
Soobs/ Hondas/ and others all have water cooling and require PRSUs. What
makes the Mazda stand out among the auto engines is it's outstanding
reliability, ease of maintenance and overall cost to replace should that
become needed. Add the fact that the rotary has no valve train to cause
vibration or failure, Gobs of horsepower and torque, the overall weight of
the engine itself and it seems the best candidate for aviation needs.
Aviation engines are good but are pricey to buy and even pricier to maintain
and repair, although some of the older engines can be had for a song they
still have the high maintenance bill.
I'm open to any and all ideas here folks as I'm still in the process
of changing from the RAF 48 to the AS series airfoil.
Doug
