KR> Ballast weight installation

[Mike T]

So you no longer have a balanced elevator?  I know the plans only discuss
balancing the ailerons, but many people do the elevator also.  I assume an
unbalanced elevator must affect Vne, bit does it affect anything else? (And
I know of another VW-powered plane that balances only the elevator and not
the ailerons).

Mike Taglieri
On May 22, 2015 10:24 AM, "Sid Wood via KRnet"  wrote:

> As previously posted, I removed the Elevator Balance Weight for better cg
> on my KR-2.  Here is a picture of the lead balance weight and arms weighing
> 4.71 pounds:
> https://s3.amazonaws.com/expercraft/sidwood/1708901219555f36e849eef.jpg
>
> Sid Wood
> Tri-gear KR-2 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> Ballast weight installation

[Sid Wood]

As previously posted, I removed the Elevator Balance Weight for better cg on 
my KR-2.  Here is a picture of the lead balance weight and arms weighing 
4.71 pounds:
https://s3.amazonaws.com/expercraft/sidwood/1708901219555f36e849eef.jpg

Sid Wood
Tri-gear KR-2 N6242
Mechanicsville, MD, USA

KR> Ballast weight installation

[bjoenunley]

Congratulations.?

Joe


Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smartphone

 Original message From: Sid Wood via KRnet 
 Date:05/13/2015  4:24 PM  (GMT-06:00) 
To: krnet at list.krnet.org Cc: Sid Wood  Subject: Re: KR> Ballast weight installation 

Just now got back from the airport working on my KR-2.  I removed the 
elevator balance weight and the associated mounting arm and hardware.  The 
lead weight was indeed 2.6 pound, but with the rest of the hardware, 
including bolts, the total; was 4.5 pounds.  That weight was centered at 78 
inches from the cg datum.  Doing the math (4.5 x 76/23 = 14.8 pounds) would 
be needed at the engine mount to meet my cg move goal.  Put another way: By 
removing the elevator balance weight and hardware I would not need the 14.8 
pounds in the nose and the aircraft would be 19.3 pounds lighter compared to 
what I had started out to do.
Next I removed the ELT bolted to the baggage shelf.  The weight was 3.0 
pounds including the mounting bracket and bolts.  Mine is a two-place 
airplane, so have to have an ELT.  I found a spot on the floor of the 
cockpit 8-inches forward of the main spar.  This is very close to the cg 
datum.  So, that would be a 0" arm.  Still have to carry the weight, but 
have lost the cg arm: 3.0 x 54/23 = 6.9 pound not needed for ballast.  So, 
the net ballast weight reduction now is 21.7 pounds.  That means the current 
ballast needed to get the cg at 9.0 inches with me and half fuel onboard is 
27.3 pounds at the nose wheel braces.  Not declaring victory yet, but that's 
better than adding that 49 pounds of ballast as first advertised.  There may 
yet be some ways to shave more weight off the tail.
Now have to put the airplane back together for a Weight and Balance to see: 
"Does it really do that?"

Sid Wood
Tri-Gear KR-2 N6242
Mechanicsville, MD, USA

KR> Ballast weight installation

[Dan Heath]

I feel much better now!



See N64KR at   http://KRBuilder.org - Then click on
the pics 



2015 KR Gathering - McMinnville, OR.  September 3 - 6 -- See U There.



Peoples Choice at 2013 - KR Gathering in Mt. Vernon, Il - MVN 

Best KR at 2013 - KR Gathering in Mt. Vernon, Il - MVN 

Best Interior at 2013 - KR Gathering in Mt. Vernon, Il - MVN 

Best Paint at 2013 - KR Gathering in Mt. Vernon, Il - MVN 

Best Firwwall Forward at 2013 - KR Gathering in Mt. Vernon, Il - MVN 



Best Interior and Panel at 2008 - KR Gathering in Mt. Vernon, Il - MVN





Daniel R. Heath - Lexington, SC







-Original Message-



Not declaring victory yet, but that's better than adding that 49 pounds of
ballast as first advertised.  There may yet be some ways to shave more
weight off the tail.

Now have to put the airplane back together for a Weight and Balance to see: 

"Does it really do that?"

KR> Ballast weight installation

[John Martindale]

Geday Larry

That's because moving a wing around as per the discussion is complicated!!!.
Just moving a weight around is simple by comparison as you say but with 49
lbs in the nose involved in this case I reckon it should be looked at by a
professional.anyhow that's it from me.

Regards John

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 Flesner via
KRnet
Sent: Tuesday, 12 May 2015 10:31 PM
To: KRnet
Cc: Flesner
Subject: Re: KR> Ballast weight installation

At 03:23 AM 5/12/2015, you wrote:
>I reckon it's bit more complex than just moving the wing.  As a weight
>alone, moving the wing back away from the CoG increases weight on the tail
>for sure. To this extent Mike was correct in his comments on 10th May about
>moving the wing forward to offset the tail heaviness.
>
>However, the centre of lift is also moved backward which could act
>aerodynamically to counteract this which I think is what Sid was getting
at.
++

This issue of W is being made much more complicated than 
necessary.  Kids figure it out every day on the play ground on the 
tedder toter.  The fat kid moves in toward the pivot point or the 
skinny kid moves away from the pivot point to achieve balance.

In our case we want to achieve balance slightly ahead of the Center 
of Lift for stability in the air and then position our landing gear 
to achieve balance on the ground.  In the case of a tail dragger we 
place the gear to give us tail weight and a nose wheel configuration 
we want nose weight on the ground.

Moving the wing back would in fact move weight to the tail but we 
also move the C of L to the rear, thus adding mass forward to the C 
of L, decrease mass aft of the C of L, and making the airplane more 
nose heavy in the air.  Gear placement would have to be considered 
with such a change.  In our case, with the airplane built, we don't 
move the wing but we move other items to get our center of mass 
slightly forward of the C of L, engine, battery, etc.

In case of a gross error in the design or building, balance may not 
be achievable without radical changes.  In our case we know that 
moving the engine mass a few inches forward of the C of L is usually 
enough to correct the problem.  That was with the standard KR with a 
VW engine.  As builders make changes , lengthen fuselage, heavier 
engines, fuel tank changes, balanced elevators, etc., they must take 
in to account this balancing act.  The further you get in to the 
project and realize an error, the harder it is to correct.

So, if the fat kid is setting on the tail, move the skinny kid 
further out on the nose, or make the fat kid lose weight, or make the 
skinny kid gain weight, the options are numerous.  It's as simple as 
that. :-)  Just remember, it's the C of L we need to work around, 
that being basically the C.G. spec's given in the plans.

Larry Flesner 


___
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


-
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2015.0.5863 / Virus Database: 4342/9756 - Release Date: 05/12/15



-
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2015.0.5863 / Virus Database: 4342/9760 - Release Date: 05/12/15

KR> Ballast weight installation

[Mac McConnell-Wood]

I built a standard KR2 in the '80's -No elevator balance weights -front
fuel tank-Revmaster on a standard mount. The c of g worked out OK-even with
empty fuel tank.
Mac G-BVZJ

On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 2:11 AM, Adam Tippin via KRnet  wrote:

> Sid is there any other electronic devices?. ant. ELT, etc aft of cg, that
> can  move forward?  Inches make a difference. Feet will make leaps.
>
> > On May 12, 2015, at 8:53 PM, Sid Wood via KRnet 
> wrote:
> >
> > I have been doing the annual condition inspection, oiling the hinges,
> making sure nuts are tight everywhere including the elevator balance
> weight, and not once considered that it may be an unnecessary item.
> Consensus appears to be that indeed the balanced elevator on a KR-2 is not
> needed.  Doing a little weight and balance math on my moving the cg issue,
> if this 2.6 pound elevator balance mass is removed, then I could remove 8.8
> pounds of ballast from the engine mount and still get the same cg that I
> was working towards. And the airplane would be 11.4 pounds lighter.  Thanks
> all for the reality check.
> >
> > Sid Wood
> > Tri-gear KR-2 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> Ballast weight installation

[Adam Tippin]

Sid is there any other electronic devices?. ant. ELT, etc aft of cg, that can  
move forward?  Inches make a difference. Feet will make leaps.

> On May 12, 2015, at 8:53 PM, Sid Wood via KRnet  
> wrote:
> 
> I have been doing the annual condition inspection, oiling the hinges, making 
> sure nuts are tight everywhere including the elevator balance weight, and not 
> once considered that it may be an unnecessary item.  Consensus appears to be 
> that indeed the balanced elevator on a KR-2 is not needed.  Doing a little 
> weight and balance math on my moving the cg issue, if this 2.6 pound elevator 
> balance mass is removed, then I could remove 8.8 pounds of ballast from the 
> engine mount and still get the same cg that I was working towards. And the 
> airplane would be 11.4 pounds lighter.  Thanks all for the reality check.
> 
> Sid Wood
> Tri-gear KR-2 N6242
> Mechanicsville, MD, USA
> 

KR> Ballast weight installation

[Sid Wood]

I have been doing the annual condition inspection, oiling the hinges, making 
sure nuts are tight everywhere including the elevator balance weight, and 
not once considered that it may be an unnecessary item.  Consensus appears 
to be that indeed the balanced elevator on a KR-2 is not needed.  Doing a 
little weight and balance math on my moving the cg issue, if this 2.6 pound 
elevator balance mass is removed, then I could remove 8.8 pounds of ballast 
from the engine mount and still get the same cg that I was working towards. 
And the airplane would be 11.4 pounds lighter.  Thanks all for the reality 
check.

Sid Wood
Tri-gear KR-2 N6242
Mechanicsville, MD, USA


Hi Ya Jeff

I reckon it's bit more complex than just moving the wing.  As a weight
alone, moving the wing back away from the CoG increases weight on the tail
for sure. To this extent Mike was correct in his comments on 10th May about
moving the wing forward to offset the tail heaviness.

However, the centre of lift is also moved backward which could act
aerodynamically to counteract this which I think is what Sid was getting at.

The extent to which these two interact and are then influenced by the other
two vectors of thrust and drag is what ultimately determines whether the
nose or the tail hits the ground first and whether the elevator has the
authority to control it before it happens.

Sid has added 49 lbs at about say 24" in front which suggests he has about
say 20 in the tail at about 60". It may well be those elevator weights are a
significant part of the problem.

It all seems academic now. Sid will either fly or he won't.

Cheers John

John Martindale
29 Jane Circuit
Toormina NSW 2452
Australia
-

Hi John,

You are correct in that the fuselage was extended to address elevator
sensitivity and the firewall moved forward to move the engine forward to
make the plane easier to balance.  Sid just stated it a different way by
saying the wing was moved back by 2".  Either statement is correct.  I don't
think the CG envelope changed at all between the 2 and 2S as far as CG range
relative to the wing cord.

I don't know why Sid's plane is so terribly tail heavy, but adding a ton of
weight to it isn't the way I would go about fixing it.  As someone pointed
out, he has balance weights on the elevator.  Those are really unnecessary
on the KRs.  I'd lose those in a heartbeat.  When I rebuilt the tail on mine
to a much larger elevator and stab, I designed it to accommodate a set of
balance weights, but when it came down to it, I couldn't convince myself to
add 4# of lead to the tail.

Sid seems determined to fly his plane as equipped.  That seems fool hardy to
me and others have implied the same on the net.  Hopefully he won't hurt
himself in it.

Best regards,

-Jeff

>I reckon it's bit more complex than just moving the wing.  As a weight
>alone, moving the wing back away from the CoG increases weight on the tail
>for sure. To this extent Mike was correct in his comments on 10th May about
>moving the wing forward to offset the tail heaviness.
>
>However, the centre of lift is also moved backward which could act
>aerodynamically to counteract this which I think is what Sid was getting 
>at.
++

This issue of W is being made much more complicated than
necessary.  Kids figure it out every day on the play ground on the
tedder toter.  The fat kid moves in toward the pivot point or the
skinny kid moves away from the pivot point to achieve balance.

In our case we want to achieve balance slightly ahead of the Center
of Lift for stability in the air and then position our landing gear
to achieve balance on the ground.  In the case of a tail dragger we
place the gear to give us tail weight and a nose wheel configuration
we want nose weight on the ground.

Moving the wing back would in fact move weight to the tail but we
also move the C of L to the rear, thus adding mass forward to the C
of L, decrease mass aft of the C of L, and making the airplane more
nose heavy in the air.  Gear placement would have to be considered
with such a change.  In our case, with the airplane built, we don't
move the wing but we move other items to get our center of mass
slightly forward of the C of L, engine, battery, etc.

In case of a gross error in the design or building, balance may not
be achievable without radical changes.  In our case we know that
moving the engine mass a few inches forward of the C of L is usually
enough to correct the problem.  That was with the standard KR with a
VW engine.  As builders make changes , lengthen fuselage, heavier
engines, fuel tank changes, balanced elevators, etc., they must take
in to account this balancing act.  The further you get in to the
project and realize an error, the harder it is to 

KR> Ballast weight installation

[John Martindale]

Hi Ya Jeff

I reckon it's bit more complex than just moving the wing.  As a weight
alone, moving the wing back away from the CoG increases weight on the tail
for sure. To this extent Mike was correct in his comments on 10th May about
moving the wing forward to offset the tail heaviness.

However, the centre of lift is also moved backward which could act
aerodynamically to counteract this which I think is what Sid was getting at.

The extent to which these two interact and are then influenced by the other
two vectors of thrust and drag is what ultimately determines whether the
nose or the tail hits the ground first and whether the elevator has the
authority to control it before it happens.

Sid has added 49 lbs at about say 24" in front which suggests he has about
say 20 in the tail at about 60". It may well be those elevator weights are a
significant part of the problem.

It all seems academic now. Sid will either fly or he won't.

Cheers John 

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 Jeff Scott
via KRnet
Sent: Tuesday, 12 May 2015 12:35 PM
To: krnet at list.krnet.org
Cc: Jeff Scott
Subject: Re: KR> Ballast weight installation

Hi John,

You are correct in that the fuselage was extended to address elevator
sensitivity and the firewall moved forward to move the engine forward to
make the plane easier to balance.  Sid just stated it a different way by
saying the wing was moved back by 2".  Either statement is correct.  I don't
think the CG envelope changed at all between the 2 and 2S as far as CG range
relative to the wing cord.  

I don't know why Sid's plane is so terribly tail heavy, but adding a ton of
weight to it isn't the way I would go about fixing it.  As someone pointed
out, he has balance weights on the elevator.  Those are really unnecessary
on the KRs.  I'd lose those in a heartbeat.  When I rebuilt the tail on mine
to a much larger elevator and stab, I designed it to accommodate a set of
balance weights, but when it came down to it, I couldn't convince myself to
add 4# of lead to the tail.  

Sid seems determined to fly his plane as equipped.  That seems fool hardy to
me and others have implied the same on the net.  Hopefully he won't hurt
himself in it.

Best regards,

-Jeff



>
> Hi Jeff
> 
> I thought the -2S had the rear fuselage extended to reduce elevator
> sensitivity and had the firewall moved forward to compensate by altering
the
> engine mount position. I can well understand then why you correctly needed
> to add weight up front in various ways without building the firewall
> extension. I wasn't aware that RR changed the CoG envelopes as well to
> reflect any changes to wing position.
> 
> I sincerely hope Sid has a successful flight but I don't understand his
> reluctance to get his conclusions verified by a professional given the
> stakes. To me it's a no brainer given the magnitude of the weights
> apparently needed.
> 
> Regards John
> 
> 
> 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 Jeff Scott
> via KRnet
> Sent: Tuesday, 12 May 2015 4:03 AM
> To: krnet at list.krnet.org
> Cc: Jeff Scott
> Subject: Re: KR> Ballast weight installation
> 
> Sid brings up a good point here, especially for builders that are early on
> in their projects..snip
> 
> 
> 
> -
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2015.0.5863 / Virus Database: 4342/9752 - Release Date: 05/11/15
> 
> 
> ___
> 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
> 

___
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


-
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2015.0.5863 / Virus Database: 4342/9753 - Release Date: 05/12/15



-
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2015.0.5863 / Virus Database: 4342/9753 - Release Date: 05/12/15

KR> Ballast weight installation

[Ken]

Hi Jeff

That is exactly the point I was aiming to yesterday.  The addition of a 
single pound in the tail would require perhaps five times more in the 
nose due to the differences in distance from the CG to the tail than the 
the distance from CG to the nose.  It is quite likely the balance weight 
on the elevator is good to have but unnecessary for the KR-2 since much 
of it's top speeds have shown that most of the KR-2 have exhibited 
little or no concern.

Adrian Carter and I were both building our own KR-2 at the same time in 
Calgary and we were always concerned with how to keep our projects 
light.  That needs to remain the principle target with the KR-2.  I am 
getting close to finishing my plane many years after Adrian's.  I 
haven't commented on anything over the years but perhaps I should rather 
than just reading.

Thank you
Ken R Nathan  KR-2  C-FKRN

On 5/11/2015 11:34 PM, Jeff Scott via KRnet wrote:
> Hi John,
>
> You are correct in that the fuselage was extended to address elevator 
> sensitivity and the firewall moved forward to move the engine forward to make 
> the plane easier to balance.  Sid just stated it a different way by saying 
> the wing was moved back by 2".  Either statement is correct.  I don't think 
> the CG envelope changed at all between the 2 and 2S as far as CG range 
> relative to the wing cord.
>
> I don't know why Sid's plane is so terribly tail heavy, but adding a ton of 
> weight to it isn't the way I would go about fixing it.  As someone pointed 
> out, he has balance weights on the elevator.  Those are really unnecessary on 
> the KRs.  I'd lose those in a heartbeat.  When I rebuilt the tail on mine to 
> a much larger elevator and stab, I designed it to accommodate a set of 
> balance weights, but when it came down to it, I couldn't convince myself to 
> add 4# of lead to the tail.
>
> Sid seems determined to fly his plane as equipped.  That seems fool hardy to 
> me and others have implied the same on the net.  Hopefully he won't hurt 
> himself in it.
>
> Best regards,
>
> -Jeff
>
>
>
>> Hi Jeff
>>
>> I thought the -2S had the rear fuselage extended to reduce elevator
>> sensitivity and had the firewall moved forward to compensate by altering the
>> engine mount position. I can well understand then why you correctly needed
>> to add weight up front in various ways without building the firewall
>> extension. I wasn't aware that RR changed the CoG envelopes as well to
>> reflect any changes to wing position.
>>
>> I sincerely hope Sid has a successful flight but I don't understand his
>> reluctance to get his conclusions verified by a professional given the
>> stakes. To me it's a no brainer given the magnitude of the weights
>> apparently needed.
>>
>> Regards John
>>
>>
>> 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 Jeff Scott
>> via KRnet
>> Sent: Tuesday, 12 May 2015 4:03 AM
>> To: krnet at list.krnet.org
>> Cc: Jeff Scott
>> Subject: Re: KR> Ballast weight installation
>>
>> Sid brings up a good point here, especially for builders that are early on
>> in their projects..snip
>>
>>
>>
>> -
>> No virus found in this message.
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>> Version: 2015.0.5863 / Virus Database: 4342/9752 - Release Date: 05/11/15
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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
>>
> ___
> 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> Ballast weight installation

[tommy waymack]

My KR2 is a first generation model having been started in 1977.It started
out as a no electric retract at 550lbs.Through the years and mods,it is now
an electic start fixed gear taildragger and the fuel is still in the header
at 650lbs.The engine,a VW moved forward about 2 inches and the battery
12lbs. is mounted behind the aft spar just behind the passenger seat.To
date the largest passenger has been 230lbs..Pilot is 180lbs.and fuel
capacity 24 gallons in the header.Only in the case of long xcountry flights
would I ever put more than 15 gallons in.I have only experienced aft cg
issues with a passenger but even then were manageable not recommended.The
aircraft flies best in the middle not forward or aft.Tommy W.

On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 8:24 AM, Ken via KRnet  wrote:

> Hi Jeff
>
> That is exactly the point I was aiming to yesterday.  The addition of a
> single pound in the tail would require perhaps five times more in the nose
> due to the differences in distance from the CG to the tail than the the
> distance from CG to the nose.  It is quite likely the balance weight on the
> elevator is good to have but unnecessary for the KR-2 since much of it's
> top speeds have shown that most of the KR-2 have exhibited little or no
> concern.
>
> Adrian Carter and I were both building our own KR-2 at the same time in
> Calgary and we were always concerned with how to keep our projects light.
> That needs to remain the principle target with the KR-2.  I am getting
> close to finishing my plane many years after Adrian's.  I haven't commented
> on anything over the years but perhaps I should rather than just reading.
>
> Thank you
> Ken R Nathan  KR-2  C-FKRN
>
>
> On 5/11/2015 11:34 PM, Jeff Scott via KRnet wrote:
>
>> Hi John,
>>
>> You are correct in that the fuselage was extended to address elevator
>> sensitivity and the firewall moved forward to move the engine forward to
>> make the plane easier to balance.  Sid just stated it a different way by
>> saying the wing was moved back by 2".  Either statement is correct.  I
>> don't think the CG envelope changed at all between the 2 and 2S as far as
>> CG range relative to the wing cord.
>>
>> I don't know why Sid's plane is so terribly tail heavy, but adding a ton
>> of weight to it isn't the way I would go about fixing it.  As someone
>> pointed out, he has balance weights on the elevator.  Those are really
>> unnecessary on the KRs.  I'd lose those in a heartbeat.  When I rebuilt the
>> tail on mine to a much larger elevator and stab, I designed it to
>> accommodate a set of balance weights, but when it came down to it, I
>> couldn't convince myself to add 4# of lead to the tail.
>>
>> Sid seems determined to fly his plane as equipped.  That seems fool hardy
>> to me and others have implied the same on the net.  Hopefully he won't hurt
>> himself in it.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> -Jeff
>>
>>
>>
>>  Hi Jeff
>>>
>>> I thought the -2S had the rear fuselage extended to reduce elevator
>>> sensitivity and had the firewall moved forward to compensate by altering
>>> the
>>> engine mount position. I can well understand then why you correctly
>>> needed
>>> to add weight up front in various ways without building the firewall
>>> extension. I wasn't aware that RR changed the CoG envelopes as well to
>>> reflect any changes to wing position.
>>>
>>> I sincerely hope Sid has a successful flight but I don't understand his
>>> reluctance to get his conclusions verified by a professional given the
>>> stakes. To me it's a no brainer given the magnitude of the weights
>>> apparently needed.
>>>
>>> Regards John
>>>
>>>
>>> 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 Jeff
>>> Scott
>>> via KRnet
>>> Sent: Tuesday, 12 May 2015 4:03 AM
>>> To: krnet at list.krnet.org
>>> Cc: Jeff Scott
>>> Subject: Re: KR> Ballast weight installation
>>>
>>> Sid brings up a good point here, especially for builders that are early
>>> on
>>> in their projects..snip
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -
>>> No virus found in this message.
>>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>>> Version: 2015.0.5863 / Virus Database: 4342/9752 - Release Date: 05/

KR> Ballast weight installation

[n357cj]

I am in full agreement with Larry especially in the reasoning that it has to be 
considered from the start. N357CJ was built from the start with an eye on 
weight and location of that mass. I know places that I could have improved and 
actually saved some weight but over all it turned out pretty dang good. My 
battery is in the front and no extra weight had to be added to get weight and 
balance in the foreword part of the range. The Dr. Dean plane that I am working 
on now is another story. While it has some very nice looking parts they are 
incredibly heavy, like the horizontal stab and elevator assembly, fully 
completed when I got it. It weighed just over 21# which is 2 ?times what N357CJ 
has in the whole tail assembly. Consider that all of that is as far back as it 
can get. I managed to reduce that part alone by nearly 7# but it is still going 
to give me trouble latter. Even with some experience under my belt I still am 
lacking in my planning as I have not fully calculated things out for the Dr. 
Dean plane. Actually just working with gut feelings right now til I get to 
where I can mount the engine and get some real feel for where it is headed. I 
have an over all goal of bring it in at or below 700# empty weight.
?? ?Still the under laying thought with every part that I make and install is 
where it is in relation to the wing and can I do better. Most times the answer 
is yes it can be ?lighter or located differently.
Joe Horton,
1 in the hanger - 1 in the shop



?As builders make changes , lengthen fuselage, heavier 
engines, fuel tank changes, balanced elevators, etc., they must take 
in to account this balancing act. ?The further you get in to the 
project and realize an error, the harder it is to correct.

?Just remember, it's the C of L we need to work around, 
that being basically the C.G. spec's given in the plans.

Larry Flesner 


___
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> Ballast weight installation

[John Martindale]

Hi Jeff

I thought the -2S had the rear fuselage extended to reduce elevator
sensitivity and had the firewall moved forward to compensate by altering the
engine mount position. I can well understand then why you correctly needed
to add weight up front in various ways without building the firewall
extension. I wasn't aware that RR changed the CoG envelopes as well to
reflect any changes to wing position.

I sincerely hope Sid has a successful flight but I don't understand his
reluctance to get his conclusions verified by a professional given the
stakes. To me it's a no brainer given the magnitude of the weights
apparently needed.

Regards John


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 Jeff Scott
via KRnet
Sent: Tuesday, 12 May 2015 4:03 AM
To: krnet at list.krnet.org
Cc: Jeff Scott
Subject: Re: KR> Ballast weight installation

Sid brings up a good point here, especially for builders that are early on
in their projects..snip



-
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2015.0.5863 / Virus Database: 4342/9752 - Release Date: 05/11/15

KR> Ballast weight installation

[Adam Tippin]

Sid i know that you moved the engine forward 2? to compensate for the tail 
heavy.
   But you also moved the landing gear Aft to keep from tail tipping while 
getting into it.
I don?t know any thing else about your aircraft but it seems that that selling 
your 2180 is
a lot more of a loss than removing the balance weights in the tail.
Your plane your decision.
Just my 2 cents.

Adam

KR> Ballast weight installation

[Flesner]

At 03:23 AM 5/12/2015, you wrote:
>I reckon it's bit more complex than just moving the wing.  As a weight
>alone, moving the wing back away from the CoG increases weight on the tail
>for sure. To this extent Mike was correct in his comments on 10th May about
>moving the wing forward to offset the tail heaviness.
>
>However, the centre of lift is also moved backward which could act
>aerodynamically to counteract this which I think is what Sid was getting at.
++

This issue of W is being made much more complicated than 
necessary.  Kids figure it out every day on the play ground on the 
tedder toter.  The fat kid moves in toward the pivot point or the 
skinny kid moves away from the pivot point to achieve balance.

In our case we want to achieve balance slightly ahead of the Center 
of Lift for stability in the air and then position our landing gear 
to achieve balance on the ground.  In the case of a tail dragger we 
place the gear to give us tail weight and a nose wheel configuration 
we want nose weight on the ground.

Moving the wing back would in fact move weight to the tail but we 
also move the C of L to the rear, thus adding mass forward to the C 
of L, decrease mass aft of the C of L, and making the airplane more 
nose heavy in the air.  Gear placement would have to be considered 
with such a change.  In our case, with the airplane built, we don't 
move the wing but we move other items to get our center of mass 
slightly forward of the C of L, engine, battery, etc.

In case of a gross error in the design or building, balance may not 
be achievable without radical changes.  In our case we know that 
moving the engine mass a few inches forward of the C of L is usually 
enough to correct the problem.  That was with the standard KR with a 
VW engine.  As builders make changes , lengthen fuselage, heavier 
engines, fuel tank changes, balanced elevators, etc., they must take 
in to account this balancing act.  The further you get in to the 
project and realize an error, the harder it is to correct.

So, if the fat kid is setting on the tail, move the skinny kid 
further out on the nose, or make the fat kid lose weight, or make the 
skinny kid gain weight, the options are numerous.  It's as simple as 
that. :-)  Just remember, it's the C of L we need to work around, 
that being basically the C.G. spec's given in the plans.

Larry Flesner 

KR> Ballast weight installation

[Jeff Scott]

Hi John,

You are correct in that the fuselage was extended to address elevator 
sensitivity and the firewall moved forward to move the engine forward to make 
the plane easier to balance.  Sid just stated it a different way by saying the 
wing was moved back by 2".  Either statement is correct.  I don't think the CG 
envelope changed at all between the 2 and 2S as far as CG range relative to the 
wing cord.  

I don't know why Sid's plane is so terribly tail heavy, but adding a ton of 
weight to it isn't the way I would go about fixing it.  As someone pointed out, 
he has balance weights on the elevator.  Those are really unnecessary on the 
KRs.  I'd lose those in a heartbeat.  When I rebuilt the tail on mine to a much 
larger elevator and stab, I designed it to accommodate a set of balance 
weights, but when it came down to it, I couldn't convince myself to add 4# of 
lead to the tail.  

Sid seems determined to fly his plane as equipped.  That seems fool hardy to me 
and others have implied the same on the net.  Hopefully he won't hurt himself 
in it.

Best regards,

-Jeff



>
> Hi Jeff
> 
> I thought the -2S had the rear fuselage extended to reduce elevator
> sensitivity and had the firewall moved forward to compensate by altering the
> engine mount position. I can well understand then why you correctly needed
> to add weight up front in various ways without building the firewall
> extension. I wasn't aware that RR changed the CoG envelopes as well to
> reflect any changes to wing position.
> 
> I sincerely hope Sid has a successful flight but I don't understand his
> reluctance to get his conclusions verified by a professional given the
> stakes. To me it's a no brainer given the magnitude of the weights
> apparently needed.
> 
> Regards John
> 
> 
> 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 Jeff Scott
> via KRnet
> Sent: Tuesday, 12 May 2015 4:03 AM
> To: krnet at list.krnet.org
> Cc: Jeff Scott
> Subject: Re: KR> Ballast weight installation
> 
> Sid brings up a good point here, especially for builders that are early on
> in their projects..snip
> 
> 
> 
> -
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2015.0.5863 / Virus Database: 4342/9752 - Release Date: 05/11/15
> 
> 
> ___
> 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> Ballast weight installation

[Jeff Scott]

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

[Ken]

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> Ballast weight installation

[Sid Wood]

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

[John Martindale]

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

[Tony King]

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
>

KR> Ballast weight installation

[Dan Heath]

My question as well.  



See N64KR at   http://KRBuilder.org - Then click on
the pics 



2015 KR Gathering - McMinnville, OR.  September 3 - 6 -- See U There.



Peoples Choice at 2013 - KR Gathering in Mt. Vernon, Il - MVN 

Best KR at 2013 - KR Gathering in Mt. Vernon, Il - MVN 

Best Interior at 2013 - KR Gathering in Mt. Vernon, Il - MVN 

Best Paint at 2013 - KR Gathering in Mt. Vernon, Il - MVN 

Best Firwwall Forward at 2013 - KR Gathering in Mt. Vernon, Il - MVN 



Best Interior and Panel at 2008 - KR Gathering in Mt. Vernon, Il - MVN





Daniel R. Heath - Lexington, SC





-Original Message-



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?

KR> Ballast weight installation

[Dan Heath]

2" not a problem.  But, yes, if you can do the mount over, that would be
ideal.



See N64KR at   http://KRBuilder.org - Then click on
the pics 



2015 KR Gathering - McMinnville, OR.  September 3 - 6 -- See U There.



Peoples Choice at 2013 - KR Gathering in Mt. Vernon, Il - MVN 

Best KR at 2013 - KR Gathering in Mt. Vernon, Il - MVN 

Best Interior at 2013 - KR Gathering in Mt. Vernon, Il - MVN 

Best Paint at 2013 - KR Gathering in Mt. Vernon, Il - MVN 

Best Firwwall Forward at 2013 - KR Gathering in Mt. Vernon, Il - MVN 



Best Interior and Panel at 2008 - KR Gathering in Mt. Vernon, Il - MVN





Daniel R. Heath - Lexington, SC





-Original Message-



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.  

KR> Ballast weight installation

[jon kimmel]

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

KR> Ballast weight installation

[Dan Heath]

Yes.  I moved my VW 2" forward on spacers and I know that many more builders
have done something the same or similar.



See N64KR at  <http://krbuilder.org/> http://KRBuilder.org - Then click on
the pics 



2015 KR Gathering - McMinnville, OR.  September 3 - 6 -- See U There.



Peoples Choice at 2013 - KR Gathering in Mt. Vernon, Il - MVN 

Best KR at 2013 - KR Gathering in Mt. Vernon, Il - MVN 

Best Interior at 2013 - KR Gathering in Mt. Vernon, Il - MVN 

Best Paint at 2013 - KR Gathering in Mt. Vernon, Il - MVN 

Best Firwwall Forward at 2013 - KR Gathering in Mt. Vernon, Il - MVN 



Best Interior and Panel at 2008 - KR Gathering in Mt. Vernon, Il - MVN





Daniel R. Heath - Lexington, SC





-Original Message-
From: KRnet [mailto:krnet-bounces at list.krnet.org] On Behalf Of Mark Wegmet
via KRnet
Sent: Sunday, May 10, 2015 3:12 PM
To: 'KRnet'
Cc: Mark Wegmet
Subject: Re: KR> Ballast weight installation



Don't some of the guys move the engine forward? I've read posts where
spacers were added to the engine mount at the firewall to accomplish this.

Of course, you would need to modify the cowl, but that approach sounds more
predictable and least painful.



Mark W

N952MW (res)



-Original Message-

From: KRnet [ <mailto:krnet-bounces at list.krnet.org>
mailto:krnet-bounces at list.krnet.org] On Behalf Of Sid Wood via KRnet

Sent: Sunday, May 10, 2015 11:54 AM

To:  <mailto:krnet at list.krnet.org> krnet at list.krnet.org

Cc: Sid Wood

Subject: Re: KR> Ballast weight installation



Moving the wing forward would exacerbate the problem.  The aerodynamic fix
would be to move the wings 2-inches aft from the KR-2 plans callout.  That
is essentially what was done with the KR-2S.  In the case of my already
built (and flying) KR-2, moving the wings would amount to building another
fuselage and stub wings.  I chose bolting on some steel weights.  Granted
not the most elegant solution.  As Larry recommends, perhaps a bigger engine
installation would indeed be the best choice.  Anyone interested in a
firewall forward package for a Great Plains 2180 VW, Diehl case, Zenith
carb, RR engine mount with 2" extension blocks, Sterba 52x52 prop, Revmaster
oil cooler, Grand Rapids engine monitor with all probes and 10.6 engine
operating hours, turning 3150 RPM static WOT.



Sid Wood

Tri-gear KR-2 N6242

Mechanicsville, MD, USA









I'm no aerodynamicist but seems to me the proper way to fix this problem is
simply to move the wings forward.  Either that or shorten the tail.



Using hydrogen or helium instead of air in the tires will help with
buoyancy, which might help.  This has the side benefit of increasing the
service ceiling.



Keep in mind when playing around with lead that it is highly toxic.  It's
against the law to use lead even for wheel weights, at least in California.

If your plane is loaded with lead it's possible you'll be stopped at the
state line and have to take a bus the rest of the way.

Lots to consider here.



Mike

KSEE









___

Search the KRnet Archives at  <http://tugantek.com/archmailv2-kr/search>
http://tugantek.com/archmailv2-kr/search.

To UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to
<mailto:KRnet-leave at list.krnet.org> KRnet-leave at list.krnet.org please see
other KRnet info at  <http://www.krnet.org/info.html>
http://www.krnet.org/info.html see
<http://list.krnet.org/mailman/listinfo/krnet_list.krnet.org>
http://list.krnet.org/mailman/listinfo/krnet_list.krnet.org to change
options





---

This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.

 <http://www.avast.com> http://www.avast.com





___

Search the KRnet Archives at  <http://tugantek.com/archmailv2-kr/search>
http://tugantek.com/archmailv2-kr/search.

To UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to
<mailto:KRnet-leave at list.krnet.org> KRnet-leave at list.krnet.org please see
other KRnet info at  <http://www.krnet.org/info.html>
http://www.krnet.org/info.html see
<http://list.krnet.org/mailman/listinfo/krnet_list.krnet.org>
http://list.krnet.org/mailman/listinfo/krnet_list.krnet.org to change
options

KR> Ballast weight installation

[Mark Wegmet]

Don't some of the guys move the engine forward? I've read posts where
spacers were added to the engine mount at the firewall to accomplish this.
Of course, you would need to modify the cowl, but that approach sounds more
predictable and least painful.

Mark W
N952MW (res)

-Original Message-
From: KRnet [mailto:krnet-bounces at list.krnet.org] On Behalf Of Sid Wood via
KRnet
Sent: Sunday, May 10, 2015 11:54 AM
To: krnet at list.krnet.org
Cc: Sid Wood
Subject: Re: KR> Ballast weight installation

Moving the wing forward would exacerbate the problem.  The aerodynamic fix
would be to move the wings 2-inches aft from the KR-2 plans callout.  That
is essentially what was done with the KR-2S.  In the case of my already
built (and flying) KR-2, moving the wings would amount to building another
fuselage and stub wings.  I chose bolting on some steel weights.  Granted
not the most elegant solution.  As Larry recommends, perhaps a bigger engine
installation would indeed be the best choice.  Anyone interested in a
firewall forward package for a Great Plains 2180 VW, Diehl case, Zenith
carb, RR engine mount with 2" extension blocks, Sterba 52x52 prop, Revmaster
oil cooler, Grand Rapids engine monitor with all probes and 10.6 engine
operating hours, turning 3150 RPM static WOT.

Sid Wood
Tri-gear KR-2 N6242
Mechanicsville, MD, USA




I'm no aerodynamicist but seems to me the proper way to fix this problem is
simply to move the wings forward.  Either that or shorten the tail.

Using hydrogen or helium instead of air in the tires will help with
buoyancy, which might help.  This has the side benefit of increasing the
service ceiling.

Keep in mind when playing around with lead that it is highly toxic.  It's
against the law to use lead even for wheel weights, at least in California.
If your plane is loaded with lead it's possible you'll be stopped at the
state line and have to take a bus the rest of the way.
Lots to consider here.

Mike
KSEE




___
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


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com

KR> Ballast weight installation

[Sid Wood]

Moving the wing forward would exacerbate the problem.  The aerodynamic fix 
would be to move the wings 2-inches aft from the KR-2 plans callout.  That 
is essentially what was done with the KR-2S.  In the case of my already 
built (and flying) KR-2, moving the wings would amount to building another 
fuselage and stub wings.  I chose bolting on some steel weights.  Granted 
not the most elegant solution.  As Larry recommends, perhaps a bigger engine 
installation would indeed be the best choice.  Anyone interested in a 
firewall forward package for a Great Plains 2180 VW, Diehl case, Zenith 
carb, RR engine mount with 2" extension blocks, Sterba 52x52 prop, Revmaster 
oil cooler, Grand Rapids engine monitor with all probes and 10.6 engine 
operating hours, turning 3150 RPM static WOT.

Sid Wood
Tri-gear KR-2 N6242
Mechanicsville, MD, USA



I'm no aerodynamicist but seems to me the proper way to fix this problem
is simply to move the wings forward.  Either that or shorten the tail.

Using hydrogen or helium instead of air in the tires will help with
buoyancy, which might help.  This has the side benefit of increasing the
service ceiling.

Keep in mind when playing around with lead that it is highly toxic.  It's
against the law to use lead even for wheel weights, at least in
California.  If your plane is loaded with lead it's possible you'll be
stopped at the state line and have to take a bus the rest of the way.
Lots to consider here.

Mike
KSEE

KR> Ballast weight installation

[tommy waymack]

Perhaps Sid has been giving the KR community a good example of experimental
aviation.Thank you Sid.Many of us,including myself,can be a bit reluctant
to discuss our ideas on a really important subject,weight and balance,and
how it relates to safely flying a home built aircraft.My experience tells
me how important it is in keeping the pilot alive.Not going to make a book
about it.Keep up the good work.Good engineering makes good use of all parts
of the plane.Tommy W.

On Sun, May 10, 2015 at 11:53 AM, Sid Wood via KRnet 
wrote:

> Moving the wing forward would exacerbate the problem.  The aerodynamic fix
> would be to move the wings 2-inches aft from the KR-2 plans callout.  That
> is essentially what was done with the KR-2S.  In the case of my already
> built (and flying) KR-2, moving the wings would amount to building another
> fuselage and stub wings.  I chose bolting on some steel weights.  Granted
> not the most elegant solution.  As Larry recommends, perhaps a bigger
> engine installation would indeed be the best choice.  Anyone interested in
> a firewall forward package for a Great Plains 2180 VW, Diehl case, Zenith
> carb, RR engine mount with 2" extension blocks, Sterba 52x52 prop,
> Revmaster oil cooler, Grand Rapids engine monitor with all probes and 10.6
> engine operating hours, turning 3150 RPM static WOT.
>
> Sid Wood
> Tri-gear KR-2 N6242
> Mechanicsville, MD, USA
>
> 
>
>
> I'm no aerodynamicist but seems to me the proper way to fix this problem
> is simply to move the wings forward.  Either that or shorten the tail.
>
> Using hydrogen or helium instead of air in the tires will help with
> buoyancy, which might help.  This has the side benefit of increasing the
> service ceiling.
>
> Keep in mind when playing around with lead that it is highly toxic.  It's
> against the law to use lead even for wheel weights, at least in
> California.  If your plane is loaded with lead it's possible you'll be
> stopped at the state line and have to take a bus the rest of the way.
> Lots to consider here.
>
> Mike
> KSEE
>
>
>
>
> ___
> 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> Ballast weight installation

[laser147 at juno.com]

I'm no aerodynamicist but seems to me the proper way to fix this problem
is simply to move the wings forward.  Either that or shorten the tail.  

Using hydrogen or helium instead of air in the tires will help with
buoyancy, which might help.  This has the side benefit of increasing the
service ceiling.  

Keep in mind when playing around with lead that it is highly toxic.  It's
against the law to use lead even for wheel weights, at least in
California.  If your plane is loaded with lead it's possible you'll be
stopped at the state line and have to take a bus the rest of the way. 
Lots to consider here.

Mike
KSEE


Old School Yearbook Pics
View Class Yearbooks Online Free. Search by School & Year. Look Now!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/554ebdc1d755f3dc15ba5st04vuc

KR> Ballast weight installation

[John Martindale]

Get it weighed and balanced professionally!!!

Why is it so tail heavy...there has to be a reason??

It's your life mate.

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 Sid Wood via
KRnet
Sent: Saturday, 9 May 2015 10:35 AM
To: krnet at list.krnet.org
Cc: Sid Wood
Subject: KR> Ballast weight installation

Completed the installation of 26 pound ballast on the nose gear support 
struts and 23 pounds ballast on the right side engine mount, clamped in 
place with AN4 bolts.  Total ballast is 49 pounds..snip

___
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


-
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2015.0.5863 / Virus Database: 4342/9727 - Release Date: 05/08/15



-
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2015.0.5863 / Virus Database: 4342/9727 - Release Date: 05/08/15

KR> Ballast weight installation

[peter]

I think I would add fuel capacity instead of ballast. Emergency fuel would be a 
real safety advantage in my world. Peter

KR> Ballast weight installation

[jon kimmel]

The problem with using fuel as ballast is that human nature makes you think
of that fuel as a reserve...it's not.  If you require fuel to maintain cg
then it has to be considered unburnable...burn it and you die.

https://sites.google.com/site/mykr2stretch/
https://sites.google.com/site/mykr2stretch/parts-for-sale
On May 9, 2015 8:31 AM, "peter via KRnet"  wrote:

> I think I would add fuel capacity instead of ballast. Emergency fuel would
> be a real safety advantage in my world. Peter
>
>
> ___
> 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> Ballast weight installation

[Flesner]

At 08:31 AM 5/9/2015, you wrote:
>I think I would add fuel capacity instead of ballast. Emergency fuel 
>would be a real safety advantage in my world. Peter
>

If the fuel is needed for ballast to keep the CG correct, than you 
can can't burn it off for "emergency".  You'd be better off to carry 
lead which is heavier by volume and placed on a longer "arm" so less 
weight is required.  If ballast is the "only" answer, I'd go for lead.

Larry Flesner

KR> Ballast weight installation

[Flesner]

At 08:07 AM 5/9/2015, you wrote:
>Ballast isn't necessarily a bad thing...many commercial airlineers have
>ballast or provisions for ballast.

+

And high performance sail planes sometimes carry water ballast for 
better performance but functioning weight outweighs dead weight any 
day, no pun intended.

Larry Flesner

KR> Ballast weight installation

[jon kimmel]

Ballast isn't necessarily a bad thing...many commercial airlineers have
ballast or provisions for ballast.  I have finally sold the air force on
installing 1000 lbs of ballast on the AWACS.  Saves carrying 5000 lbs of
dead weight in the form of unburnable fuel.

https://sites.google.com/site/mykr2stretch/
https://sites.google.com/site/mykr2stretch/parts-for-sale

KR> Ballast weight installation

[Flesner]

At 07:35 PM 5/8/2015, you wrote:
>Completed the installation of 26 pound ballast on the nose gear 
>support struts and 23 pounds ballast on the right side engine mount, 
>clamped in place with AN4 bolts.  Total ballast is 49 pounds.
+++

That is just about equal to the difference in weight of a VW and say, 
a Corvair or an 0-200.  Hum,  let's see..., dead weight 
or more power? :-)

Larry Flesner 

KR> Ballast weight installation

[Sid Wood]

Completed the installation of 26 pound ballast on the nose gear support 
struts and 23 pounds ballast on the right side engine mount, clamped in 
place with AN4 bolts.  Total ballast is 49 pounds.  Weights are painted red. 
No changes were made to the engine mount or nose gear support struts.  The 
2180 VW had already been moved 2-inches forward from KR-2 plans call-out and 
flown.
https://s3.amazonaws.com/expercraft/sidwood/30127830554d4d2790ba9.jpg
https://s3.amazonaws.com/expercraft/sidwood/1839866186554d4dbd2a315.jpg
Will do weight & balance next week.  My goal is to have cg at 9 inches with 
me and half fuel on board.  Last flight in August 2014 same loading with cg 
at 12 inches was definitely unsatisfactory!

Sid Wood
Tri-gear KR-2 N6242
Mechanicsville, MD, USA

KR> Ballast weight installation

[Paul Visk]

Good luck Sid. You did a lot of rework on this bird. ?I hope it all works out.?


Paul Visk
Belleville Il.
618-406-4705

 Original message From: Sid Wood via KRnet 
 Date:05/08/2015  7:35 PM  (GMT-06:00) 
To: krnet at list.krnet.org Cc: Sid Wood  Subject: KR> Ballast weight installation 

Completed the installation of 26 pound ballast on the nose gear support 
struts and 23 pounds ballast on the right side engine mount, clamped in 
place with AN4 bolts.  Total ballast is 49 pounds.  Weights are painted red. 
No changes were made to the engine mount or nose gear support struts.  The 
2180 VW had already been moved 2-inches forward from KR-2 plans call-out and 
flown.
https://s3.amazonaws.com/expercraft/sidwood/30127830554d4d2790ba9.jpg
https://s3.amazonaws.com/expercraft/sidwood/1839866186554d4dbd2a315.jpg
Will do weight & balance next week.  My goal is to have cg at 9 inches with 
me and half fuel on board.  Last flight in August 2014 same loading with cg 
at 12 inches was definitely unsatisfactory!

Sid Wood
Tri-gear KR-2 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