I never liked header tank in the KR and planned to leave it out. I
also vote to get the fuel way out in the wings. And wear a chute.
> reaffirms my decision to eliminate a header tank and put all fuel in the
> outboard wing tanks.
>
> I wish your friend a speedy recovery.
>
> Larry Flesner
>
>
with all this talk about pitch sensitivity, one common mention is
using forward CG. What is up with that? My last plane really liked aft
CG (within the envelope obviously) and flew MUCH better there. What
happens to a KR at aft CG?
___
Search the KRnet
> Could you go into further detail about "how" it flew better with a forward
> CG than an aft CG?
Sure, the plane under normal conditions (no baggage) would require
significant up trim to unload the stick, and when pulling power, would
drop the nose unless you held onto the stick. "Lawn dart"is a
oops, re:my last reply, gmail doesnt make it aparent the old text is
still there. testing to see if this one was cleaned properly...
___
Search the KRnet Archives at http://tugantek.com/archmailv2-kr/search.
Please see LIST RULES and KRnet info at
very cool! question, I think you said it had retracts, if so where
does the nosegear retract to?
___
Search the KRnet Archives at http://tugantek.com/archmailv2-kr/search.
Please see LIST RULES and KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html.
see
ok no retracts, duh, shoulda gone back and looked. ideally I'd like
to build a tri-retract, original size KR1, with engine back against
the firewall as original, and with a normalizing turbocharger. the
main retracts are easy. the nose can swing back halfway into a center
pocket (I think). as to
what is the estimated empty weight, did he mention a number?
___
Search the KRnet Archives at http://tugantek.com/archmailv2-kr/search.
Please see LIST RULES and KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html.
see
7 matches
Mail list logo
