KR> Fuselage weight question

[Mike johnson]

Does anyone know of any builder that ended up with an unusually light weight 
fuselage? I searched 
the archives and had some trouble finding any isolated information on what to 
expect for weight 
with no engine. I would like to beat the average if I could. 

Thanks a bunch, Mike Johnson

KR> Fuselage weight question

[Myron (Dan) Freeman]

Try this

http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford/ebarros/


- Original Message - 
From: "Mike johnson" <kr...@yahoo.com>
To: <kr...@mylist.net>
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2006 10:05 PM
Subject: KR> Fuselage weight question


> Does anyone know of any builder that ended up with an unusually light 
> weight fuselage? I searched
> the archives and had some trouble finding any isolated information on what 
> to expect for weight
> with no engine. I would like to beat the average if I could.
>
> Thanks a bunch, Mike Johnson
>
> ___
> Search the KRnet Archives at http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp
> to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to krnet-le...@mylist.net
> please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html 

KR> Fuselage weight question

[Red]

My question is, Has anyone tried to reduce (lower) the
turtledeck in size...i.e. more like the KR1?  It seems
logical that you should be able to lower the taper,
give more bubble effect (increase rearward visibility)
from the canopy and reduce weight?



--- "Myron (Dan) Freeman" <mfreem...@indy.rr.com>
wrote:

> Try this
> 
> http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford/ebarros/
> 
> 
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Mike johnson" <kr...@yahoo.com>
> To: <kr...@mylist.net>
> Sent: Monday, October 23, 2006 10:05 PM
> Subject: KR> Fuselage weight question
> 
> 
> > Does anyone know of any builder that ended up with
> an unusually light 
> > weight fuselage? I searched
> > the archives and had some trouble finding any
> isolated information on what 
> > to expect for weight
> > with no engine. I would like to beat the average
> if I could.
> >
> > Thanks a bunch, Mike Johnson
> >
> > ___
> > Search the KRnet Archives at
> http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp
> > to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to
> krnet-le...@mylist.net
> > please see other KRnet info at
> http://www.krnet.org/info.html 
> 
> 
> ___
> Search the KRnet Archives at
> http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp
> to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to
> krnet-le...@mylist.net
> please see other KRnet info at
> http://www.krnet.org/info.html
> 


 RED  


__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

KR> Fuselage weight question

[Jamie Duff]

My personal thoughts are that there is virtually nothing to the fuselage
structure anyway, and certainly nothing which can be safely omitted from the
plans which are fairly minimal anyway. The fuselage structure as drawn
weighs very little as it is - the problem is everything that gets bolted to
it!

Jamie
(Weight challenged UK builder who's determined to get his 2 seat cert!)


-Original Message-
From: krnet-bounces+jamieduff1981=btinternet@mylist.net
[mailto:krnet-bounces+jamieduff1981=btinternet@mylist.net] On Behalf Of
Red
Sent: 24 October 2006 18:28
To: KRnet
Subject: Re: KR> Fuselage weight question

My question is, Has anyone tried to reduce (lower) the
turtledeck in size...i.e. more like the KR1?  It seems
logical that you should be able to lower the taper,
give more bubble effect (increase rearward visibility)
from the canopy and reduce weight?



--- "Myron (Dan) Freeman" <mfreem...@indy.rr.com>
wrote:

> Try this
> 
> http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford/ebarros/
> 
> 
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Mike johnson" <kr...@yahoo.com>
> To: <kr...@mylist.net>
> Sent: Monday, October 23, 2006 10:05 PM
> Subject: KR> Fuselage weight question
> 
> 
> > Does anyone know of any builder that ended up with
> an unusually light 
> > weight fuselage? I searched
> > the archives and had some trouble finding any
> isolated information on what 
> > to expect for weight
> > with no engine. I would like to beat the average
> if I could.
> >
> > Thanks a bunch, Mike Johnson
> >
> > ___
> > Search the KRnet Archives at
> http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp
> > to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to
> krnet-le...@mylist.net
> > please see other KRnet info at
> http://www.krnet.org/info.html 
> 
> 
> ___
> Search the KRnet Archives at
> http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp
> to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to
> krnet-le...@mylist.net
> please see other KRnet info at
> http://www.krnet.org/info.html
> 


 RED  


__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

___
Search the KRnet Archives at http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp
to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to krnet-le...@mylist.net
please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html

KR> Fuselage weight question

[Don Chisholm]

and composite work that needs lots of filler to make it look good

Jamie Duff <jamieduff1...@btinternet.com> wrote:  My personal thoughts are that 
there is virtually nothing to the fuselage
structure anyway, and certainly nothing which can be safely omitted from the
plans which are fairly minimal anyway. The fuselage structure as drawn
weighs very little as it is - the problem is everything that gets bolted to
it!

Jamie
(Weight challenged UK builder who's determined to get his 2 seat cert!)


-Original Message-
From: krnet-bounces+jamieduff1981=btinternet@mylist.net
[mailto:krnet-bounces+jamieduff1981=btinternet@mylist.net] On Behalf Of
Red
Sent: 24 October 2006 18:28
To: KRnet
Subject: Re: KR> Fuselage weight question

My question is, Has anyone tried to reduce (lower) the
turtledeck in size...i.e. more like the KR1? It seems
logical that you should be able to lower the taper,
give more bubble effect (increase rearward visibility)
from the canopy and reduce weight?



--- "Myron (Dan) Freeman" 
wrote:

> Try this
> 
> http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford/ebarros/
> 
> 
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Mike johnson" 
> To: 
> Sent: Monday, October 23, 2006 10:05 PM
> Subject: KR> Fuselage weight question
> 
> 
> > Does anyone know of any builder that ended up with
> an unusually light 
> > weight fuselage? I searched
> > the archives and had some trouble finding any
> isolated information on what 
> > to expect for weight
> > with no engine. I would like to beat the average
> if I could.
> >
> > Thanks a bunch, Mike Johnson
> >
> > ___
> > Search the KRnet Archives at
> http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp
> > to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to
> krnet-le...@mylist.net
> > please see other KRnet info at
> http://www.krnet.org/info.html 
> 
> 
> ___
> Search the KRnet Archives at
> http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp
> to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to
> krnet-le...@mylist.net
> please see other KRnet info at
> http://www.krnet.org/info.html
> 


RED 


__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

___
Search the KRnet Archives at http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp
to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to krnet-le...@mylist.net
please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html



___
Search the KRnet Archives at http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp
to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to krnet-le...@mylist.net
please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html

KR> Fuselage weight question

[Mark Langford]

Red wrote:

> My question is, Has anyone tried to reduce (lower) the
> turtledeck in size...i.e. more like the KR1?  It seems
> logical that you should be able to lower the taper,
> give more bubble effect (increase rearward visibility)
> from the canopy and reduce weight?

Reducing the taper to resemble a bubble will cost you in performance in the 
form of drag on the back of the canopy.  That's probably why the KR2 went to 
the straight turtledeck.  And plexiglas is probably heavier than your 
average turtledeck material per square foot.

Mark Langford, Huntsville, Alabama
see KR2S project N56ML at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford
email to N56ML "at" hiwaay.net 

KR> Fuselage weight question

[Fred Johnson]

I agree with Mark, look at the RV4 series and the Harmon Rocket

Fred Johnson
Product Manager
T.E. West, LLC.

-Original Message-
From: krnet-boun...@mylist.net [mailto:krnet-boun...@mylist.net] On
Behalf Of Mark Langford
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 11:03 AM
To: KRnet
Subject: Re: KR> Fuselage weight question

Red wrote:

> My question is, Has anyone tried to reduce (lower) the
> turtledeck in size...i.e. more like the KR1?  It seems
> logical that you should be able to lower the taper,
> give more bubble effect (increase rearward visibility)
> from the canopy and reduce weight?

Reducing the taper to resemble a bubble will cost you in performance in
the 
form of drag on the back of the canopy.  That's probably why the KR2
went to 
the straight turtledeck.  And plexiglas is probably heavier than your 
average turtledeck material per square foot.

Mark Langford, Huntsville, Alabama
see KR2S project N56ML at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford
email to N56ML "at" hiwaay.net 


___
Search the KRnet Archives at http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp
to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to krnet-le...@mylist.net
please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html

KR> Fuselage weight question

[D F Lively]

I also agree with Mark from my exp. in Cessna 150's.  The older ones, say '61 
modles and B-4, were faster that the newer ones with the "Bubble Cabin" with 
the same 100 hp. Continental Engine.

Don



- Original Message - 
From: "Fred Johnson" <f...@renotruss.com>
To: "'KRnet'" <kr...@mylist.net>
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 2:42 PM
Subject: RE: KR> Fuselage weight question


>I agree with Mark, look at the RV4 series and the Harmon Rocket
> 
> Fred Johnson
> Product Manager
> T.E. West, LLC.
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: krnet-boun...@mylist.net [mailto:krnet-boun...@mylist.net] On
> Behalf Of Mark Langford
> Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 11:03 AM
> To: KRnet
> Subject: Re: KR> Fuselage weight question
> 
> Red wrote:
> 
>> My question is, Has anyone tried to reduce (lower) the
>> turtledeck in size...i.e. more like the KR1?  It seems
>> logical that you should be able to lower the taper,
>> give more bubble effect (increase rearward visibility)
>> from the canopy and reduce weight?
> 
> Reducing the taper to resemble a bubble will cost you in performance in
> the 
> form of drag on the back of the canopy.  That's probably why the KR2
> went to 
> the straight turtledeck.  And plexiglas is probably heavier than your 
> average turtledeck material per square foot.
> 
> Mark Langford, Huntsville, Alabama
> see KR2S project N56ML at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford
> email to N56ML "at" hiwaay.net 
> 
> 
> ___
> Search the KRnet Archives at http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp
> to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to krnet-le...@mylist.net
> please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Search the KRnet Archives at http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp
> to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to krnet-le...@mylist.net
> please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html
>

KR> Fuselage weight question

[Charles Burgoon]

Did they see this on the P-51?  Or did they do an engine swap along with the 
redesign?

> From: riksh...@interl.net> To: kr...@mylist.net> Subject: Re: KR> Fuselage 
> weight question> Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 15:41:42 -0500> > I also agree with 
> Mark from my exp. in Cessna 150's. The older ones, say '61 modles and B-4, 
> were faster that the newer ones with the "Bubble Cabin" with the same 100 hp. 
> Continental Engine.> > Don> 
> >
>  > > - Original Message - > From: "Fred Johnson" 
> <f...@renotruss.com>> To: "'KRnet'" <kr...@mylist.net>> Sent: Tuesday, 
> October 24, 2006 2:42 PM> Subject: RE: KR> Fuselage weight question> > > >I 
> agree with Mark, look at the RV4 series and the Harmon Rocket> > > > Fred 
> Johnson> > Product Manager> > T.E. West, LLC.> > > > -Original 
> Message-> > From: krnet-boun...@mylist.net 
> [mailto:krnet-boun...@mylist.net] On> > Behalf Of Mark Langford> > Sent: 
> Tuesday, October 24, 2006 11:03 AM> > To: KRnet> > Subject: Re: KR> Fuselage 
> weight question> > > > Red wrote:> > > >> My question is, Has anyone tried to 
> reduce (lower) the> >> turtledeck in size...i.e. more like the KR1? It seems> 
> >> logical that you should be able to lower the taper,> >> give more bubble 
> effect (increase rearward visibility)> >> from the canopy and reduce weight?> 
> > > > Reducing the taper to resemble a bubble will cost you in performance 
> in> > the > > form of drag on the back of the canopy. That's probably why the 
> KR2> > went to > > the straight turtledeck. And plexiglas is probably heavier 
> than your > > average turtledeck material per square foot.> > > > Mark 
> Langford, Huntsville, Alabama> > see KR2S project N56ML at 
> http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford> > email to N56ML "at" hiwaay.net > > > > > 
> > ___> > Search the KRnet Archives at 
> http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp> > to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send 
> a message to krnet-le...@mylist.net> > please see other KRnet info at 
> http://www.krnet.org/info.html> > > > > > > > 
> ___> > Search the KRnet Archives at 
> http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp> > to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send 
> a message to krnet-le...@mylist.net> > please see other KRnet info at 
> http://www.krnet.org/info.html> >> ___> 
> Search the KRnet Archives at http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp> to 
> UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to krnet-le...@mylist.net> please see 
> other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html

KR> Fuselage weight question

[Fred Johnson]

Charles,

The P-51 did change on the "D" model to a bubble canopy, not for speed
though, for pilot visibility. Plus the Merlin was added to the "C" model
for speed and then they tweaked it all through production. 

Fred Johnson
Product Manager
T.E. West, LLC.

KR> Fuselage weight question

[Brian Kraut]

And look at Kent Paser's Mustang II.  He wrote "Speed with Economy" after
many years of fine tuning his plane and getting almost unbelievable
increases in speed and fuel economy, all backed up with tons of awards.  One
of the big things he did was to add a a turtle deck coming off the top of
the canopy like the KR.  He put the new sheet metal over the old fusalage
top so probably increased weight, but still had a dramatic effect on speed.

Brian Kraut
Engineering Alternatives, Inc.
www.engalt.com

-Original Message-
From: krnet-bounces+brian.kraut=engalt@mylist.net
[mailto:krnet-bounces+brian.kraut=engalt@mylist.net]On Behalf Of
Fred Johnson
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 3:42 PM
To: 'KRnet'
Subject: RE: KR> Fuselage weight question


I agree with Mark, look at the RV4 series and the Harmon Rocket

Fred Johnson
Product Manager
T.E. West, LLC.

-Original Message-
From: krnet-boun...@mylist.net [mailto:krnet-boun...@mylist.net] On
Behalf Of Mark Langford
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 11:03 AM
To: KRnet
Subject: Re: KR> Fuselage weight question

Red wrote:

> My question is, Has anyone tried to reduce (lower) the
> turtledeck in size...i.e. more like the KR1?  It seems
> logical that you should be able to lower the taper,
> give more bubble effect (increase rearward visibility)
> from the canopy and reduce weight?

Reducing the taper to resemble a bubble will cost you in performance in
the
form of drag on the back of the canopy.  That's probably why the KR2
went to
the straight turtledeck.  And plexiglas is probably heavier than your
average turtledeck material per square foot.

Mark Langford, Huntsville, Alabama
see KR2S project N56ML at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford
email to N56ML "at" hiwaay.net


___
Search the KRnet Archives at http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp
to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to krnet-le...@mylist.net
please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html



___
Search the KRnet Archives at http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp
to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to krnet-le...@mylist.net
please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html

KR> Fuselage weight question

[Bob Branch]

unsubscribe me please

KR> Fuselage weight question

[Steve Jacobs]

> Reducing the taper to resemble a bubble will cost you in performance in 
> the
> form of drag on the back of the canopy.  That's probably why the KR2 went 
> to
> the straight turtledeck.  And plexiglas is probably heavier than your
> average turtledeck material per square foot.

+++

Not sure that's right Mark - refer the 240 mph (2,000lb) GP4, T18 and 
Mustang II plus any number of modern designs that have concave curves in all 
planes.  (Apogee??)

KR> Fuselage weight question

[Steve Jacobs]

> Try this
>
> http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford/ebarros/

++

Even better - go to his site direct (http://www.kr2-egb.com.ar/) - and 
translate the pages, it is almost as good as Langford's site and better than 
most construction manuals.

His complete fuse excluding spars and legs weighs 27.2 kg (59.8lbs)

KR> Fuselage weight question

[Mark Langford]

>> Reducing the taper to resemble a bubble will cost you in performance in 
>> the
>> form of drag on the back of the canopy.

> Not sure that's right Mark - refer the 240 mph (2,000lb) GP4, T18 and
> Mustang II plus any number of modern designs that have concave curves in 
> all
> planes.  (Apogee??)

It's a known fact, not up for debate, as far as I'm concerned...

Mark Langford, Huntsville, Alabama
see KR2S project N56ML at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford
email to N56ML "at" hiwaay.net

KR> Fuselage weight question

[Randy Smith]

I wasn't going to say anything about the canopy, But
when you say Mark is wrong and you are not flying yet
I can't resist. I had a KR-2 With a bubble canopy that
you could see out the back(if you could figure out how
to turn around in a KR) and I was about 10 mph slower
than the KRs with the high back. We taped yarn on the
back of the canopy and turtle deck and the yarn went
everyway but back. My KR-2 weighed 525 lbs with an
O-200.

--- Steve Jacobs  wrote:

> 
> > Reducing the taper to resemble a bubble will cost
> you in performance in 
> > the
> > form of drag on the back of the canopy.  That's
> probably why the KR2 went 
> > to
> > the straight turtledeck.  And plexiglas is
> probably heavier than your
> > average turtledeck material per square foot.
> 
> +++
> 
> Not sure that's right Mark - refer the 240 mph
> (2,000lb) GP4, T18 and 
> Mustang II plus any number of modern designs that
> have concave curves in all 
> planes.  (Apogee??)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Search the KRnet Archives at
> http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp
> to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to
> krnet-le...@mylist.net
> please see other KRnet info at
> http://www.krnet.org/info.html
> 


__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

KR> Fuselage weight question

[VIRGIL N SALISBURY]

Again, Brian Paser's book, Virg

On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 08:49:11 +0200 "Steve Jacobs"
 writes:
> 
> > Reducing the taper to resemble a bubble will cost you in 
> performance in 
> > the
> > form of drag on the back of the canopy.  That's probably why the 
> KR2 went 
> > to
> > the straight turtledeck.  And plexiglas is probably heavier than 
> your
> > average turtledeck material per square foot.
> 
> +++
> 
> Not sure that's right Mark - refer the 240 mph (2,000lb) GP4, T18 
> and 
> Mustang II plus any number of modern designs that have concave 
> curves in all 
> planes.  (Apogee??)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Search the KRnet Archives at 
> http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp
> to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to krnet-le...@mylist.net
> please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html
> 
> 

KR> Fuselage weight question

[Brian Kraut]

Actually, Kent Pasers book.  http://speedwitheconomy.com/  Everyone should
own a copy.

Brian Kraut
Engineering Alternatives, Inc.
www.engalt.com

-Original Message-
From: krnet-boun...@mylist.net [mailto:krnet-boun...@mylist.net]On
Behalf Of VIRGIL N SALISBURY
Sent: Friday, October 27, 2006 4:08 PM
To: kr...@mylist.net
Subject: Re: KR> Fuselage weight question


Again, Brian Paser's book, Virg

On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 08:49:11 +0200 "Steve Jacobs"
<st...@johnmartin.co.za> writes:
>
> > Reducing the taper to resemble a bubble will cost you in
> performance in
> > the
> > form of drag on the back of the canopy.  That's probably why the
> KR2 went
> > to
> > the straight turtledeck.  And plexiglas is probably heavier than
> your
> > average turtledeck material per square foot.
>
> +++
>
> Not sure that's right Mark - refer the 240 mph (2,000lb) GP4, T18
> and
> Mustang II plus any number of modern designs that have concave
> curves in all
> planes.  (Apogee??)
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Search the KRnet Archives at
> http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp
> to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to krnet-le...@mylist.net
> please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html
>
>

___
Search the KRnet Archives at http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp
to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to krnet-le...@mylist.net
please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html

KR> Fuselage weight question

[Pete Diffey]

Hi

Mark is absolutely right, to mimimise drag through flow separation, any 
object should be streamlined at as shallow an angle as possible, so the 
tail should resemble a long cone, but like all these things, there is a 
compromise, the cones are always kept shorter than ideal. A long 
aeroplane would be difficult to land, and would tend to have a rearward CG.

Having a cone tail is stronger weight for weight than a tadpole type 
design, as far as I can see the only reason to build a tadpole would be 
to give better rearward view, but seeing as most KR owners tend to be 
older than your average contortionist, twisting to see over your 
shoulder is irrelevant.

Pete

>>
>> Not sure that's right Mark - refer the 240 mph (2,000lb) GP4, T18 
>> and 
>> Mustang II plus any number of modern designs that have concave 
>> curves in all 
>> planes.  (Apogee??)
>>
>>
>>