KR>Larry's Lady II / vertical stab
>This surprised me - somehow the dihedral break on your airplane is not >as pronounced - almost looks like a constant dihedral all the way from >the root out. Maybe just the pictures that I saw. (STEVE) REPLY - My wings are basiclly stock, 5" rise at the tip. I think the wider gear stance gives it a different look. (LARRY) (EARILER POST) > Moving the HS and elevator forward did give me some additional area >on the vertical stabilizer which I wanted with the 0-200.(LARRY) > >I have been staring at the pics hoping to figure this one out (and avoid >asking)- trying to see the connection between moving the stab and more >fin area.(STEVE) REPLY - My vertical stab REAR spar is per plans. When I moved the horizontal stab forward two inches that moved the vertical stab FRONT spar forward two inches also. That gives me 2" X (height) of additional area for the vertical stab. I looked for some pictures already on the net showing the relationship of my elevator spar in relation to the rear vertical stab spar and found none but my elevator/horz stab is moved forward two inches from plans. Questions? Larry Flesner
KR>Larry's Lady II / vertical stab
>>> My wings are basically stock, 5" rise at the tip. I think the wider gear stance gives it a different look. (LARRY) that moved the vertical stab FRONT spar forward two inches also. Roger that Larry - thanks. Steve ask...@microlink.zm
KR>Larry's Lady II
My stretch is over a standard KR2. All other dimensions are standard. This surprised me - somehow the dihedral break on your airplane is not as pronounced - almost looks like a constant dihedral all the way from the root out. Maybe just the pictures that I saw. Moving the HS and elevator forward did give me some additional area on the vertical stabilizer which I wanted with the 0-200. I have been staring at the pics hoping to figure this one out (and avoid asking)- trying to see the connection between moving the stab and more fin area. A couple more inches of width would be nice. I guess the two questions are: a) if we are not to fussy about the drag, what is ideal. B) at point are we compromising the structural integrity of the boat. I am headed for 1200mm (47.25"). Take care Steve
KR>KR - Larry's Lady reply (even longer )
For fuel injected VW's check out www.vw-engines.com Sid Wood, KR-2 N6242 Mechanicsville, MD sidney.w...@titan.com The rationale behind the engine thing is that I am hooked on GAMI nozzles, I had them in my PA32 and want them in any airplane I ever own. The choice of engine is thus the smallest aircraft engine that is fuel injected - no other reason. Steve J ___ 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>KR - Larry's Lady reply (even longer )
O K Guys. I have seen that ALL engines with wood props will stop. If you want it to windmill, put on a metal prop. Pointing a plane with a wood prop straight down MAY get it to windmill, Virg Virgil N. Salisbury - AMSOIL www.lubedealer.com/salisbury Miami ,Fl
KR>Larry's Lady reply (long)
On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 11:04:18 -0600 "Mark Langford" writes: > Virg wrote: > > > Or Try a Turner T-40A, Virg > >O K Ole virg stepped in it again. Now for the LOONG answer. Many are trying to make the K R what it could not possibly be If you want a wood airplane to take the HUMONGUS engine then YOU look for the plans that will handle same. THE K R WILL NOT, NOT DO IT accept it for what it is only. Do not make more than cosmetic changes, or Design your own!!Knowing of the Turner T-40 and T-40A, it MAY handle the power you specify. O K Back to the FACT mode and concise answers.Virgil N. Salisbury 5445 S.W. 89th Place Miami, Fl 33165 305-271-3608 STANDING TALL AS USUAL
KR>Larry's Lady reply (long)
Steve and Netters, I'll take a few minutes and try to answer some of the questions I never got to in this earlier post. >I am trying to find the correct balance (of mods) for my venture - your >airplane seems to be in the direction that I am headed - please put me >straight on a few things. >Is the 24" stretch over the 2 or 2S? +++ My stretch is over a standard KR2. All other dimentions are standard. >I note that you have Aerodynamic balance area on the elevator and rudder >- did you add weight as well for static balance? Did you change the HS >in any other way? + The aerodynamic tabs have weight in them. The elevator also has a weight attached inside the fuselage. I did move the elevator and horizontal stabilizer forward 2 inches in relation to the plans to give me more clearance for the elevator control horn and better streamlining. All size dimentions are the same. Moving the HS and elevator forward did give me some additional area on the vertical stabilizer which I wanted with the 0-200. >What did you do regarding the fuse width? ++ Standard KR2. A couple more inches of width would be nice. > >You talk of a 4" tip instead of an 8" tip - not sure what this means but >it does appear to be relevant to the performance? > As I recall the plans call for adding 8 inches to the end of the standard wing when building the tip. I limited my tip to 4 inches. My thinking was less wing span would hurt my climb but the 0-200 would compensate. In cruise, less span would increase my wing loading and give me a better ride and less span would mean 2 or 3 mph more speed. I have no way of knowing if any of this is true in my case as I have nothing to compare it to. >Can you say anything encouraging about your empty weight - I tried to >peek through the canopy on one of the pictures - hoping to see if the >panel reveals lots of heavy goodies. >If you built another - could you (would you) make it lighter? > + The only encouraging thing I can say about my empty weight is that it still manages to fly. You don't pick up 200 extra pounds in any one spot. It's 5 pounds here, 10 pounds there, and before you know it you have a pig on your hands. My target empty weight was 700 pounds and I even blew right by that. My extra weight came from things like 30" gear legs, 600X6 wheels and brakes, 0-200 with all accessories, 5" prop extention, second small backup battery and large main battery, a Cessna flap motor to run my speed brake, fiberglass seat instead of a cloth seat, 12.5 gal fuel tank in each wing with all the plumbing and two fuel pumps, etc., etc., etc. I think you get the point. >Reason for asking Larry - I figured that 230lbs over the plans weight of >a 2S should be enough to accommodate my changes, so I targeted 750lb >empty with an 0-320 and some IF capability, possibly even a training >wheel out front. Maybe I need to learn from you that this is not a >realistic target >I plan to use the 18% AS airfoil section for a deeper (stronger) spar so >we can get back to +6G at 1450lb MAUW). The right time to consider >changes to the wing area would be now. +++ If you plan on going with an 0-320 you probably need to look at a different airplane entirely. With that much weight and horsepower you are looking at an extensive redesign of the KR. I'd suggest you look at something like the "Vision". Check it out at:http://visionaircraft.com/ >>From your comment you are using the RAF48 - on the pics it looks like >you have flat plate tail feathers? +++ HS, elevator, VS and rudder are plans shape. >Do you feel the need for a header tank with the 0-200? > + No, I have a 12.5 gal tank in each outer wing panel. >I am still worried about the under carriage configuration - I have very >little tail dragger time - 0:35 on a Tiger Moth 27 years ago - Ok I have >no tail wheel time. How much tail wheel time did you have to start with >- what is your advice on this? >>Kind regards >Steve >Zambia - Africa I had 13 hours tailwheel time over a 30 year period when I started to taxi test the KR and teaching myself to fly the tailwheel. My KR has an eight foot wide main gear track and with the fuselage extention it is probably one of the best handling KR taildraggers going. If you don't want to learn to fly the tailwheel go with the nose gear. If you aren't comfortable flying the airplane you build it most certainly will turn out to be a "hangar queen". >From my 14 years exposure to the KR and having just finished building mine and with about 10 hours of air time now I would offer the following observation on what I think would make the "perfect" KR for the "average" builder. It would be a KR2S, plans built, with an engine of approx 100 hp, modest panel with one gyro instrument (artificial horizon), 20 to 25 gal of fuel, Diehl tricycle gear or equivelant, no sound proofing or upholstery, (use a noise cancelling h
KR>Larry's Lady reply (long)
Or Try a Turner T-40A, Virg On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 20:51:49 -0600 larry flesner writes: > > Steve and Netters, > > I'll take a few minutes and try to answer some of the questions > I never got to in this earlier post. > > >I am trying to find the correct balance (of mods) for my venture - > your > >airplane seems to be in the direction that I am headed - please put > me > >straight on a few things. > >Is the 24" stretch over the 2 or 2S? > > +++ My stretch is over a standard KR2. All other dimentions > are > standard. > > >I note that you have Aerodynamic balance area on the elevator and > rudder > >- did you add weight as well for static balance? Did you change > the HS > >in any other way? > > + The aerodynamic tabs have weight in them. The elevator also > has a weight attached inside the fuselage. I did move the elevator > and > horizontal stabilizer forward 2 inches in relation to the plans to > give me > more clearance for the elevator control horn and better > streamlining. > All size dimentions are the same. Moving the HS and elevator > forward > did give me some additional area on the vertical stabilizer which I > > wanted with the 0-200. > > >What did you do regarding the fuse width? > > ++ Standard KR2. A couple more inches of width would be nice. > > > >You talk of a 4" tip instead of an 8" tip - not sure what this > means but > >it does appear to be relevant to the performance? > > > As I recall the plans call for adding 8 inches to the end > of the standard wing when building the tip. I limited my tip to 4 > inches. > My thinking was less wing span would hurt my climb but the 0-200 > would compensate. In cruise, less span would increase my wing > loading and give me a better ride and less span would mean 2 or 3 > mph more speed. I have no way of knowing if any of this is true in > my case as I have nothing to compare it to. > > >Can you say anything encouraging about your empty weight - I tried > to > >peek through the canopy on one of the pictures - hoping to see if > the > >panel reveals lots of heavy goodies. > >If you built another - could you (would you) make it lighter? > > > + The only encouraging thing I can say about my > empty weight is that it still manages to fly. You don't pick up > 200 > extra pounds in any one spot. It's 5 pounds here, 10 pounds there, > > and before you know it you have a pig on your hands. My target > empty weight was 700 pounds and I even blew right by that. My > extra weight came from things like 30" gear legs, 600X6 wheels > and brakes, 0-200 with all accessories, 5" prop extention, second > small backup battery and large main battery, a Cessna flap motor > to run my speed brake, fiberglass seat instead of a cloth seat, > 12.5 gal fuel tank in each wing with all the plumbing and two fuel > pumps, etc., etc., etc. I think you get the point. > > >Reason for asking Larry - I figured that 230lbs over the plans > weight of > >a 2S should be enough to accommodate my changes, so I targeted > 750lb > >empty with an 0-320 and some IF capability, possibly even a > training > >wheel out front. Maybe I need to learn from you that this is not > a > >realistic target > >I plan to use the 18% AS airfoil section for a deeper (stronger) > spar so > >we can get back to +6G at 1450lb MAUW). The right time to > consider > >changes to the wing area would be now. > > +++ If you plan on going with an 0-320 you probably need to > look at a different airplane entirely. With that much weight and > horsepower you are looking at an extensive redesign of the > KR. I'd suggest you look at something like the "Vision". > Check it out at:http://visionaircraft.com/ > > >>From your comment you are using the RAF48 - on the pics it looks > like > >you have flat plate tail feathers? > > +++ HS, elevator, VS and rudder are plans shape. > > >Do you feel the need for a header tank with the 0-200? > > > + No, I have a 12.5 gal tank in each outer wing panel. > > > >I am still worried about the under carriage configuration - I have > very > >little tail dragger time - 0:35 on a Tiger Moth 27 years ago - Ok I > have > >no tail wheel time. How much tail wheel time did you have to start > with > >- what is your advice on this? > >>Kind regards > >Steve > >Zambia - Africa > > I had 13 hours tailwheel time over a 30 year > period when I started to taxi test the KR and teaching myself to > fly > the tailwheel. My KR has an eight foot wide main gear track and > with the fuselage extention it is probably one of the best handling > KR taildraggers going. If you don't want to learn to fly the > tailwheel > go with the nose gear. If you aren't comfortable flying the > airplane > you build it most certainly will turn out to be a "hangar queen". > > >From my 14 years exposure to the KR and having just finished > building mine and with abou
KR>Larry's Lady reply (long)
Virg wrote: > Or Try a Turner T-40A, Virg OK, this one does it. I just don't understand, Virg. I have no idea what this means, or what it's about. Why is it that some people steadfastly refuse to follow the rules of this list? Every few months I beg y'all to read the "KRNetiquette" at http://www.krnet.org/info.html , but the very people I'm talking to never read it, or simply don't care if they're inconvenciencing a few hundred people. How long does it take to delete 240 lines of old text below your post? Takes me about two seconds. How long does it take 400 people to sift through 240 lines of text looking for your reply to Larry's post? Took me about 10 seconds to find your one-liner at the time, after visiting the bottom trying to find it. 10 seconds times 400 people is 67 minutes of other people's time spend trying to find something that you could have fixed in two seconds. Can you see where I'm going with this? I still don't know what you were trying to say, and at this point, I don't even care. Was I supposed to go back and read every word of Larry's post to see where your tidbit of wisdom applied? Sorry, but I'm not going to waste that kind of time. Larry spent a lot of time carefully cutting, pasting, and answering all of those posts in one concise message. I hung on every word. It was great stuff, delivered by one of the few KR pilots who will actually open up and tell us the real story. You sent a message that was every bit as big, but I didn't get a single thing out of it other than frustration. All your message is going to do is overinflate the archives. I'm sure you're a great guy Virg, but when it comes to contributing to KRnet, you're just not gettin' it. If you really want to help us out, PLEASE spend an extra few seconds and make your posts informative (not cryptic) and easy to read, not painful. Once again, PLEASE READ and at least humor us with an attempt at following the rules posted at http://www.krnet.org/info.html . If you need instructions on how to cut and paste text, email me offline and I'll do my best to teach you. Why did I post this to the net instead of sending it direct to Virg? Because it applies to a lot more folks than just him, and public humiliation is about the only thing that shows any sign of working at all! Mark Langford, Huntsville, Alabama N56ML "at" hiwaay.net see KR2S project at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford
KR>KR - Larry's Lady reply (even longer )
Thanks for the detailed reply Larry - much learnt and much obliged. If you plan on going with an 0-320 you probably need to look at a different airplane entirely. In a way I am looking at a "different" airplane. Ken Rand left us something special in his airplanes, but he left something substantially more valuable when he used some readily available materials and showed us a very real construction technique - something that is affordable, easy-to-do and friendly to modification. This is an approach that almost anyone can relate to. If Ken was still around, we would probably be up to the KR2 Mk10 by now and one of them would be exactly what I wanted. Sadly he is not. Resourceful builders have maintained the evolution with the inherent (and inviting) flexibility of the construction method. As a result, most have a bird that suits them and there is an unbelievable variety of stunning KR's all around the world - of which no two are alike. I also want to do that. I have accepted that the KR2S is not exactly what I want, but it is close enough to form the basis of what I do want. The changes I wish to make exceed the limits of simple mods to the existing design - the stress numbers must be run again to ensure that everything is kosher. It remains for me to find qualified help in checking my proposed structure before I start. I'd suggest you look at something like the "Vision". I did bwana, I looked at many, many designs, including the Vision. Compare the numbers that count and we really have an overweight KR2sx with a swept fin and 100% composite structure (and no KRnet). It deviates from my preferred construction method and offers nothing above a KR except that the stock design will accept my engine - BUT: A key element of any airplane is the wing spar(s). I am totally comfortable making a wood spar (from a good design /plan). I know that the finished spar will be right and I will be comfortable sitting on it at 5000' in heavy turbulence. I would however be hesitant to brew a composite spar (that's me Larry). A factory spar is available for $3,400 - but that would be losing the KR plot before I even start. I bet $3400 will keep an average KR builder busy for a year - should buy him (her) all the wood, foam, glue and a hardware kit, maybe even the plans. I flew Sakkie Halgreens KR2 (ZS-UHU) many years ago in South Africa and did not feel comfortable. 20 years later I see a handsome new breed of stretched, widened, taller, fixed gear airplanes made by folks like Marty Roberts and Chris Gardiner. I read many excellent reports (critiques), ideas, suggestions etc. by folks like Jim Marcy; Neil Bingham; Mark Langford; Don Reid etc. - and I know that this is where I want to be. The rationale behind the engine thing is that I am hooked on GAMI nozzles, I had them in my PA32 and want them in any airplane I ever own. The choice of engine is thus the smallest aircraft engine that is fuel injected - no other reason. I prefer airplane engines for one reason only - they windmill - VW's don't, they stop dead if there is a second's interruption in the fuel. I presume that Corvair engines also don't windmill (if they do please let me know). Take care and have a great week - mine has already started. Steve J
KR>Larry's Lady
Hey Larry Congrats with your new lady - wish you good luck and all the good hours you can find the time for. I may be confusing two airplanes (two guys) here? My first knowledge of your bird came via a link of Mark Langfords site - a bird called N211LF with ver nice gull wing doors (door?) and a really neat cowl line. On this site there are pictures of her first flight. In your recent flight report your words - "still can't get over how smoothly the KR flares" suggests that this may have been your first KR experience. Did you rebuild something or have a mishap? I am trying to find the correct balance (of mods) for my venture - your airplane seems to be in the direction that I am headed - please put me straight on a few things. Is the 24" stretch over the 2 or 2S? I note that you have Aerodynamic balance area on the elevator and rudder - did you add weight as well for static balance? Did you change the HS in any other way? What did you do regarding the fuse width? You talk of a 4" tip instead of an 8" tip - not sure what this means but it does appear to be relevant to the performance? Can you say anything encouraging about your empty weight - I tried to peek through the canopy on one of the pictures - hoping to see if the panel reveals lots of heavy goodies. Everything else looks pretty standard, where did another 245lb come from. I know that weight tends to accumulate as we go along - I ask the question because you may know exactly where most of it came in. If you built another - could you (would you) make it lighter? Reason for asking Larry - I figured that 230lbs over the plans weight of a 2S should be enough to accommodate my changes, so I targeted 750lb empty with an 0-320 and some IF capability, possibly even a training wheel out front. Maybe I need to learn from you that this is not a realistic target I plan to use the 18% AS airfoil section for a deeper (stronger) spar so we can get back to +6G at 1450lb MAUW). The right time to consider changes to the wing area would be now. >From your comment you are using the RAF48 - on the pics it looks like you have flat plate tail feathers? Do you feel the need for a header tank with the 0-200? Your test flying is at 765+200+100 = approx. 1065lbs - I expect she must be very nice at that weight with the longer tail moment and enough grunt to climb out at the cruising speed of C150 and still see 1000fpm - not too shabby Mr. Flesner. I don't have HP curves handy for your engine, but I suspect that 2570 is providing something less than 80%. I did not pick up an altitude, but at 0 degrees C you are not giving away much (anything) to DA. That 0-200 has a lot more to give when you let her spool up to 2700. You are doing the right thing to first figure out if this will require a top overhaul, then consider a re-pitch. I really like the looks of the one in the pictures I have seen - chubby wheels and all, but some wheel /brake fairings will obviously make big difference. I am still worried about the under carriage configuration - I have very little tail dragger time - 0:35 on a Tiger Moth 27 years ago - Ok I have no tail wheel time. How much tail wheel time did you have to start with - what is your advice on this? I will appreciate any time you have to talk about the above and any changes you have made. Kind regards Steve Zambia - Africa
KR>Larry's Lady
>I may be confusing two airplanes (two guys) here? >My first knowledge of your bird came via a link of Mark Langfords site - >a bird called N211LF with ver nice gull wing doors (door?) and a really >neat cowl line. On this site there are pictures of her first flight. + Lots of questions in this post and I'll try to answer to them over the next few days. The KR in question is the one with pictures on the krnet site under my name. N number 211LF. First flight was on December 12 and I got four flights in before sending the prop back for a re-pitch. During the downtime I put all new parts on the induction system and chased some other minor details. I also developed a leak in my left wing tank that took me several attempts to eliminate. I finally took the wing home, cut open the bottom side, removed the foam, cut out the bottom of the tank, re-sealed the tank, replaced the bottom, repaired the wing, and got it flying again on Feburary 13. I now have 14.3 hours on the hour meter. A tip from "been there - done that". I'm using a handheld radio and I have it wired to aircraft power. I got in the habit of not shuting it off for engine shutdown and startup. Yesterday I "cooked" it ! That's going to be a $200 to $300 dollor mistake. Larry Flesner
KR>Larry's Lady
Lots of questions in this post and I'll try to answer to them over the next few days. Thanks Larry - standing by. >From your other email - I've seen my life flash before my eyes so many times it's like watching re-runs on T.V. Gulp!! - are you fast, good or just lucky - please say more. Steve J
