KR> Canopy hinge
Paul Visk wrote: >> I'm trying to decide on which way to hinge my canopy. I know the currant trend is to mount it from the front. But I can't get over the inability to open the canopy in flight if you need to jump out. Is anyone putting with a side hinge in or is everyone hinging from the front?<< Are you going to wear a parachute every time you fly? I doubt it. I couldn't wear a parachute in N891JF if my life depended on it (and I don't think it does). Keep in mind that inflight structural or control failures in these planes are VERY rare. You'd do far better to concentrate on how to get the plane on the ground safely, or at least under control, rather than trying to bail out. Consider that if you take off with one latch disconnected (or even both) the forward hinging canopy will almost close itself...it'll hover maybe an inch over the longeron at the rear, but it will be in equilibrium and stay more or less closed. if you take off with a side hinged canopy unlatched, it will likely slam open, killing lift on the right wing, and stall, if on takeoff. This is basically what happened to Allen Buzza in Australia. Fortunately he survived and went on the rebuild the plane, and is working to finish another. I almost lost the side-hinged canopy on N891JF the first time I started the engine and didn't have it latched. That's when I decided to make it front hinged. Just some food for thought. I could go on, but it's past my bedtime... Mark Langford ML at N56ML.com http://www.n56ml.com
KR> Canopy hinge
Paul, Here is my version : http://flykr2s.com/gullwing.html http://flykr2s.com/gullwingdoor.html http://flykr2s.com/doorspring.html Mark Jones (N886MJ) Stevens Point, WI E-mail: flykr2s at charter.net Web: www.flykr2s.com -Original Message- From: Paul Visk via KRnet Sent: Monday, May 11, 2015 9:44 PM To: KR EMAIL BOARD Cc: Paul Visk Subject: KR> Canopy hinge I'm trying to decide on which way to hinge my canopy. I know the currant trend is to mont it from the front. But I can't get over the inability to open the canopy in flight if you need to jump out. Is anyone putting with a side hinge in or is everyone hinging from the front? Paul Visk Belleville Il. 618-406-4705 ___ 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
KR> Canopy hinge
I'm trying to decide on which way to hinge my canopy. I know the currant trend is to mont it from the front. ?But I can't get over the inability to open the canopy in flight if you need to jump out. Is anyone putting with a side hinge in or is everyone hinging from the front? Paul Visk Belleville Il. 618-406-4705
KR> Ballast weight installation
Sid brings up a good point here, especially for builders that are early on in their projects. I think sometimes we forget that the original KR design tended to be a tail heavy design that was balanced by a large header tank in the nose. That didn't work out so great as it left the pilot landing in an aft CG configuration when low on fuel. 20 years ago, there were lots of stories about guys taking a friend for a ride and experiencing an exciting landing with low fuel and an aft CG at the end of the flight. With the advent of the -2S design nearly 20 years ago, many of those lessons have been forgotten. But as Sid points out, the wings were essentially moved forward in the -2S to help balance the plane. Additionally, most builders are putting their fuel in the wings to avoid the large CG shift, as well as for other safety reasons. My KR has the extended tail, but was not stretched in the nose (started before the release of the -2S plans). I knew when I was building it that this plane wanted to be tail heavy, so made a concerted effort throughout the build process to move weight forward. I used the Rand Robinson designed O-200 motor mount and a C-85, then eventually an O-200 with the heavy accessories to help keep that weight forward. I also mounted my battery on the front of the firewall. When completed, my CG came out where I wanted it without the need to move more things around or the need for ballast. However, as I said, I made an effort through out the build to move weight forward. As for Sid's checklist of modifications to move the CD forward, I did them all to get the plane right: 1) Move the engine forward (used a longer mount than what was normally used). 2) Hung Battery on the firewall. 3) Installed a heavier engine. That's what it took to get a nicely balanced plane with the shorter KR-2 firewall placement. -Jeff Scott Los Alamos, NM > > John, > If I knew the actual answer to why so tail heavy, I would have fixed that > long ago and would not be having all this discussion. The only plausible > explanation I have is: The designer, Stu Robinson, set the RAF-48 wing > 2-inches farther forward in the stock plans than it should have been. That > is a moot point with the advent of the KR-2S. > I know there are hundreds of KR-2 aircraft flying. It seems they either > have moved the engine forward, hung batteries on the the firewalls, > installed heavier engines and/or fly them onto the runway at 70+ knots and > never ever stall them. That or the builders are not around to tell about > their last flight. > > Sid Wood > Tri-gear KR-2 N6242 N6242 > Mechanicsville, MD, USA > -
KR> Ballast weight installation
The counter balance for the elevator could be adding to the problem with Sid's KR-2. That is addition weight aft of CG that isn't in the plans that I have. Kr-2 builder C-FKRN Ken Nathan On 5/11/2015 3:02 PM, Jeff Scott via KRnet wrote: > Sid brings up a good point here, especially for builders that are early on in > their projects. I think sometimes we forget that the original KR design > tended to be a tail heavy design that was balanced by a large header tank in > the nose. That didn't work out so great as it left the pilot landing in an > aft CG configuration when low on fuel. 20 years ago, there were lots of > stories about guys taking a friend for a ride and experiencing an exciting > landing with low fuel and an aft CG at the end of the flight. > > With the advent of the -2S design nearly 20 years ago, many of those lessons > have been forgotten. But as Sid points out, the wings were essentially moved > forward in the -2S to help balance the plane. Additionally, most builders > are putting their fuel in the wings to avoid the large CG shift, as well as > for other safety reasons. > > My KR has the extended tail, but was not stretched in the nose (started > before the release of the -2S plans). I knew when I was building it that > this plane wanted to be tail heavy, so made a concerted effort throughout the > build process to move weight forward. I used the Rand Robinson designed > O-200 motor mount and a C-85, then eventually an O-200 with the heavy > accessories to help keep that weight forward. I also mounted my battery on > the front of the firewall. When completed, my CG came out where I wanted it > without the need to move more things around or the need for ballast. > However, as I said, I made an effort through out the build to move weight > forward. > > As for Sid's checklist of modifications to move the CD forward, I did them > all to get the plane right: > 1) Move the engine forward (used a longer mount than what was normally used). > 2) Hung Battery on the firewall. > 3) Installed a heavier engine. > > That's what it took to get a nicely balanced plane with the shorter KR-2 > firewall placement. > > -Jeff Scott > Los Alamos, NM > > >> John, >> If I knew the actual answer to why so tail heavy, I would have fixed that >> long ago and would not be having all this discussion. The only plausible >> explanation I have is: The designer, Stu Robinson, set the RAF-48 wing >> 2-inches farther forward in the stock plans than it should have been. That >> is a moot point with the advent of the KR-2S. >> I know there are hundreds of KR-2 aircraft flying. It seems they either >> have moved the engine forward, hung batteries on the the firewalls, >> installed heavier engines and/or fly them onto the runway at 70+ knots and >> never ever stall them. That or the builders are not around to tell about >> their last flight. >> >> Sid Wood >> Tri-gear KR-2 N6242 N6242 >> Mechanicsville, MD, USA >> - > ___ > 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 > >
KR> 5 bladed prop
Just got of the phone with Darryl @ Warp Drive. I initially used their online quote form to get a price on a 5 bladed prop. Because if your building a Seafury you gotta have a 5 bladed prop. RIGHT? Anyway, the response from HoverHawk Corp that sells the props was that its too heavy and they quoted me a 3 bladed prop for an O-235. After calling the factory I am excited to say I am still good to use a 5 bladed prop. The Sensenich used was 24 lbs and the 5 blades with hub will be about 20 lbs. SO the plan is to start with 60 inch blades and cut them down from there as I experiment with the performance. I suspect I can go as small as 52-55 inches if need be. It will not be my daily flyer but when going to an airshow the 5 blades are the choice for sure. Excited Builder Craig
KR> Ballast weight installation
John, If I knew the actual answer to why so tail heavy, I would have fixed that long ago and would not be having all this discussion. The only plausible explanation I have is: The designer, Stu Robinson, set the RAF-48 wing 2-inches farther forward in the stock plans than it should have been. That is a moot point with the advent of the KR-2S. I know there are hundreds of KR-2 aircraft flying. It seems they either have moved the engine forward, hung batteries on the the firewalls, installed heavier engines and/or fly them onto the runway at 70+ knots and never ever stall them. That or the builders are not around to tell about their last flight. Sid Wood Tri-gear KR-2 N6242 N6242 Mechanicsville, MD, USA - Agreed, a new mount seems to be the preferred solution and if it has to be so be it but.why is this particular girl so tail heavy to start with? How is it built so differently from the KR2 design plans to require such a change? John Martindale 29 Jane Circuit Toormina NSW 2452 Australia
KR> Ballast weight installation
Agreed, a new mount seems to be the preferred solution and if it has to be so be it but.why is this particular girl so tail heavy to start with? How is it built so differently from the KR2 design plans to require such a change? John Martindale 29 Jane Circuit Toormina NSW 2452 Australia ph:61 2 6658 4767 m:0403 432179 email:john_martindale at bigpond.com web site: -Original Message- From: KRnet [mailto:krnet-bounces at list.krnet.org] On Behalf Of Dan Heath via KRnet Sent: Monday, 11 May 2015 7:56 AM To: 'KRnet' Cc: Dan Heath Subject: Re: KR> Ballast weight installation 2" not a problem. But, yes, if you can do the mount over, that would be ideal.snip - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2015.0.5863 / Virus Database: 4342/9744 - Release Date: 05/10/15
KR> Ballast weight installation
There'd have to be a limit to how far you can move the engine forward using spacers. I'd expect even at 2" spacers would be starting to be prone to a bit of movement due to torsional forces and the like. I'd be looking to redo the engine mount if I needed to move the engine forward by more than an inch or so. Of course I say that having not yet experienced the joy of fabricating an engine mount, so I could be completely misguided. Cheers, Tony On 11 May 2015 at 06:22, jon kimmel via KRnet wrote: > Spacers work well. If you still want to hang weights and you are opposed > to lead, consider tungsten. It is quite a bit denser than lead and doesn't > have the environmental concerns. A tungsten alloy that is available is > called fansteel. > > https://sites.google.com/site/mykr2stretch/ > https://sites.google.com/site/mykr2stretch/parts-for-sale > ___ > 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 >
