From: krnet-bounces@mylist.net To: John Bouyea Subject: KRnet Digest, Vol 346, Issue 63 Date: 8/8/2004 11:12:26 AM Send KRnet mailing list submissions to krnet@mylist.net To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://mylist.net/listinfo/krnet or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to krnet-request@mylist.net You can reach the person managing the list at krnet-owner@mylist.net When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of KRnet digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: KR2S Sport pilot eligible??? (Wesley Scott) 2. RE: KR-2 (sort of) on e-bay (Brian Kraut) 3. Re: KR2S Sport pilot eligible??? (Dan Heath) 4. Re: KR2S Sport pilot eligible??? (StRaNgEdAyS) 5. Re: KR2S Sport pilot eligible??? (Dan Heath) 6. O200 prop (larry flesner) 7. KR2S Stretch (larry flesner) 8. Re: O200 prop (GavinandLouise) 9. Re: KR2S Stretch (StRaNgEdAyS) 10. Re: KR2S Sport pilot eligible??? (Wesley Scott) 11. Re: KR2S Stretch (Wesley Scott) 12. Re: KR2S Stretch (Mark Langford) 13. Re: KR2S Sport pilot eligible??? (David Mikesell) 14. Re: KR2S Sport pilot eligible??? (StRaNgEdAyS) 15. Spar strength was Re: KR> KR2S Sport pilot eligible??? (Wesley Scott) 16. KR Sport pilot eligible??? (larry flesner) 17. KR2S Sport pilot eligible??? (larry flesner) 18. Re: KR2S Stretch (larry flesner) 19. Re: New BLOG (Parley Byington) 20. Re: @SPAM+++++ Re: KR> KR2S Sport pilot eligible??? (gleone) 21. Re: KR2S Sport pilot eligible??? (Joachim Saupe) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Sat, 7 Aug 2004 23:16:18 -0500 From: "Wesley Scott" Subject: Re: KR> KR2S Sport pilot eligible??? To: "KRnet" Message-ID: <002201c47cfe$75e97cb0$7ea70a04@pbrain> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Empty weight doesn't make any difference (other than how many sandbags you put in the second seat during testing) since you have to meet the stall speed at max takeoff weight. The wing area needs to be increased by about 30 percent to get the stall speed down from 59 mph to 45 knots (or since the 59 mph assumes 1050 lbs gross, a lower gross weight). New starts may want to consider increasing the wing area, or NOT. Depends on how comfortable the builder is with aircraft design and test piloting. What we really need is a "standardized" wing design change and proof of concept plane. If the current version actually meets LSA, that means there will shortly be a (hopefully large) increase in the number of available purchasers, with a corresponding increase in sales price. -- wesley scott kr2@spottedowl.biz ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dan Heath" > Wesley, > > Put in a 1700cc engine and build it as light as possible and you might > get the stall speed down. No problem getting the VH with that power > plant. Don't > even think about it with the bigger engines. > > But why not build one that is designed for that in the first place. > ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Sun, 8 Aug 2004 00:29:20 -0400 From: "Brian Kraut" Subject: RE: KR> KR-2 (sort of) on e-bay To: "KRnet" Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I had to go back to a 5 hour flight test phase on my KR, but I just gave the suggested area to the FSDO and they said O.K. It was originally built near Chicago somewhere and I am in Florida. Sounds like your FSDO just didn't know what they were doing. Brian Kraut Engineering Alternatives, Inc. www.engalt.com -----Original Message----- From: krnet-bounces@mylist.net [mailto:krnet-bounces@mylist.net]On Behalf Of jscott.pilot@juno.com Sent: Friday, August 06, 2004 10:49 PM To: kr2@spottedowl.biz; krnet@mylist.net Subject: Re: KR> KR-2 (sort of) on e-bay On Fri, 6 Aug 2004 21:21:37 -0500 "Wesley Scott" writes: > http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=248581 2241&category=63679 > > This plane is in the middle of being converted from conventional to tri-gear > after groundlooping on the first test flight two years ago. Wouldn't the > FAA require a reinspection for a plane that has had that type of > modification? The short answer to this is no. The repairs to the plane as well as the modifications would require the sign off of the holder of the mechanic's certificate or any qualified A&P. It would require a call to the local FAA FSDO office to notify them of the modifications and they may assign a test time typically ranging from 5 - 25 hours. The FSDO will tell you to note in the logbook that the plane has been placed back into Phase 1 testing. One problem that you can run into with this situation is that you are not assigned a new test area when the plane is placed back into Phase 1 testing. As those that have been through licensing a plane probably know, Phase 1 testing has a specified test area assigned for that plane. If you move the plane somewhere else, you have to request FSDO to assign a new Phase 1 flight test area. If you move the plane to an area under a different FSDO it can get even more complicated. While that may seem like a simple request, it is rare enough that our FSDO didn't have a clue how to handle the request. It took several months to get a new Phase 1 test area assigned to an Avid Flyer that a friend bought that didn't have all the Phase 1 test time flown off. Jeff Scott Los Alamos, NM ________________________________________________________________ The best thing to hit the Internet in years - Juno SpeedBand! Surf the Web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER! Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today! _______________________________________ to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to KRnet-leave@mylist.net please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Sun, 8 Aug 2004 06:23:23 -0400 (Eastern Standard Time) From: "Dan Heath" Subject: Re: KR> KR2S Sport pilot eligible??? To: , "krnet@mylist.net" Message-ID: <4115FF1B.000005.01528@COMPUTER> Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" RE: Empty weight doesn't make any difference Does it not make a difference in the amount of speed you have to carry to stay in the air? RE: What we really need is a "standardized" wing design Who is WE? "There is a time for building and a time for GOING TO THE GATHERING, and the time for building has long since expired." See you in Mt. Vernon - 2004 - KR Gathering http://KRGathering.org See N64KR at http://KR-Builder.org - Then click on the pics Daniel R. Heath - Columbia, SC ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Sun, 8 Aug 2004 20:42:30 +1000 From: "StRaNgEdAyS" Subject: Re: KR> KR2S Sport pilot eligible??? To: "KRnet" Message-ID: <03eb01c47d34$68ede8d0$0101a8c0@server> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" RE: Empty weight doesn't make any difference Does it not make a difference in the amount of speed you have to carry to stay in the air? Actually, if I read the LSA regs right, it doesn't matter, as long as the gross weight and tyhe stall speed are OK, then it really does not matter how heavy the plane is empty. ------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: Sun, 8 Aug 2004 06:46:54 -0400 (Eastern Standard Time) From: "Dan Heath" Subject: Re: KR> KR2S Sport pilot eligible??? To: "krnet@mylist.net" Message-ID: <4116049E.000007.01528@COMPUTER> Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" That is my point exactly. You will not be able to get the stall speed on a KR with a liftoff weight of 1300#, down to the required speed. I guess what the persons who want a KR that is Sport Pilot Eligible, need is another new wing that is the opposite of the old new wing. One designed for high lift and low speed. Anyway, I'm off to the shop for another day of building....... however..... "There is a time for building and a time for GOING TO THE GATHERING, and the time for building has long since expired." See you in Mt. Vernon - 2004 - KR Gathering http://KRGathering.org See N64KR at http://KR-Builder.org - Then click on the pics Daniel R. Heath - Columbia, SC -------Original Message------- From: KRnet Date: 08/08/04 06:42:08 To: KRnet Subject: Re: KR> KR2S Sport pilot eligible??? RE: Empty weight doesn't make any difference Does it not make a difference in the amount of speed you have to carry to stay in the air? Actually, if I read the LSA regs right, it doesn't matter, as long as the gross weight and tyhe stall speed are OK, then it really does not matter how heavy the plane is empty. _______________________________________ to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to KRnet-leave@mylist.net please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html ------------------------------ Message: 6 Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2004 07:54:41 -0500 From: larry flesner Subject: KR> O200 prop To: KRnet Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20040808075441.00827730@pop.midwest.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >I've just overhauled an O200 Continental for it, and am wondering what >the final prop selection any of you using them have come up with is?? I've checked the archives but the information on there is mostly speculation of what people are going to use. >Gav ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ I'm running an Ed Sterba 60D X 64P on my 0-200. I think it's a bit more tired than other 0-200's in KR's as it has 1850 hours since factory overhaul. I started with a 68 pitch but couldn't get the RPM I wanted. I had it repitched to a 64. I get 2650 rpm full throttle at cruise and generally cruise at that power setting. When I get wheel covers install I'll probably get another 10 mph and some additional rpm. My 0-200 is "stock" the way it came from the C-150. Many of the KR's running 0-200's have them putting out 120+ hp and thus need more prop. They have upped the compresson and advanced the timing and "require" 100LL. I'm running 87 oct auto fuel. I figured "stock" and simple was more reliable. I also like the price differance between the two fuels. Start on the high end with the pitch. You can repitch it flatter but you can't add pitch later. Larry Flesner ------------------------------ Message: 7 Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2004 07:55:37 -0500 From: larry flesner Subject: KR> KR2S Stretch To: KRnet Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20040808075537.0082a440@pop.midwest.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >Hi Netters, > I want to buy, or complete a KR2S project that has been "STRETCHED" as >follows: 4" forward of the front spar, 14" aft of the rear spar, cabin >width of 40" (inside), and raised 3". Are any available? >Dick Goff dcgoff@webtv.net +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ If you find a used KR "exactly" as you want as stated above, I want you to buy me a loto ticket. :-) The only way to find a KR "exactly" as you want is to build it that way. Someone recently mentioned a 9 inch stretch forward of the spar. Unless they are using a very light engine or a very short mount, which will make the engine less servicable, I'd say 9 inches is a bit much for W & B. I'd suggest that builder compare their numbers to some "flying" KR's. Tail heavy is not good but you can go too far nose heavy also. Larry Flesner ------------------------------ Message: 8 Date: Sun, 8 Aug 2004 23:13:54 +1000 From: "GavinandLouise" Subject: Re: KR> O200 prop To: "KRnet" Message-ID: <00a701c47d49$8e52eb60$0100000a@vic.bigpond.net.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Thanks Larry, we were thinking about 60" D x 66" P so I guess we'll go with that for now. Gav > > I'm running an Ed Sterba 60D X 64P on my 0-200. I think it's a bit > more tired than other 0-200's in KR's as it has 1850 hours since > factory overhaul. I started with a 68 pitch but couldn't get the RPM > I wanted. I had it repitched to a 64. I get 2650 rpm full throttle > at cruise and generally cruise at that power setting. When I get > wheel covers install I'll probably get another 10 mph and some > additional rpm. My 0-200 is "stock" the way it came from the C-150. > Many of the KR's running 0-200's have them putting out > 120+ hp and thus need more prop. They have upped the compresson > and advanced the timing and "require" 100LL. I'm running > 87 oct auto fuel. I figured "stock" and simple was more reliable. I > also like the price differance between the two fuels. > > Start on the high end with the pitch. You can repitch it flatter but > you can't add pitch later. > > Larry Flesner > > > > _______________________________________ > to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to KRnet-leave@mylist.net > please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.735 / Virus Database: 489 - Release Date: 06/08/2004 ------------------------------ Message: 9 Date: Sun, 8 Aug 2004 23:20:57 +1000 From: "StRaNgEdAyS" Subject: Re: KR> KR2S Stretch To: "KRnet" Message-ID: <002301c47d4a$93360760$0101a8c0@server> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" That would have been me. Was looking at possibly a rotary engine, and I'll be including some pretty substantial tail mods which would bring the W&B back a bit. Cheers. Peter Bancks strangedays@dodo.com.au http://www.homebuiltairplanes.com http://canardaviationforum.dmt.net ----- Original Message ----- From: "larry flesner" To: "KRnet" Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2004 10:55 PM Subject: KR> KR2S Stretch > >Hi Netters, > > I want to buy, or complete a KR2S project that has been "STRETCHED" > >as > >follows: 4" forward of the front spar, 14" aft of the rear spar, cabin > >width of 40" (inside), and raised 3". Are any available? > >Dick Goff dcgoff@webtv.net > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > If you find a used KR "exactly" as you want as stated above, I want > you to buy me a loto ticket. :-) > > The only way to find a KR "exactly" as you want is to build it that > way. > > Someone recently mentioned a 9 inch stretch forward of the spar. > Unless they are using a very light engine or a very short mount, which > will make the engine less servicable, I'd say 9 inches is a bit much > for W & B. I'd suggest that builder compare their numbers to some > "flying" KR's. Tail heavy is not good but you can go too far nose > heavy also. > > Larry Flesner > > > > _______________________________________ > to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to KRnet-leave@mylist.net > please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html > > ------------------------------ Message: 10 Date: Sun, 8 Aug 2004 09:13:23 -0500 From: "Wesley Scott" Subject: Re: KR> KR2S Sport pilot eligible??? To: "KRnet" Message-ID: <001701c47d51$e001bdd0$7ea70a04@pbrain> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" A 1300# KR isn't the point. The wing spar won't support that much of a weight increase. The question is: Will a KR2 AT THE RR MAX WEIGHT OF 900 POUNDS stall at 51.785 mph or less and will a KR2S at the RR max weight of 980 pounds? Given the RR published stall speed is 52mph. And lest we forget: Will the KR1 at a max wt of 750 pounds? It also has a published stall of 52mph. -- wesley scott kr2@spottedowl.biz ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dan Heath" To: Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2004 5:46 AM Subject: Re: KR> KR2S Sport pilot eligible??? > That is my point exactly. You will not be able to get the stall speed > on a KR with a liftoff weight of 1300#, down to the required speed. > > I guess what the persons who want a KR that is Sport Pilot Eligible, > need is > another new wing that is the opposite of the old new wing. One > designed for > high lift and low speed. > > ------------------------------ Message: 11 Date: Sun, 8 Aug 2004 09:30:58 -0500 From: "Wesley Scott" Subject: Re: KR> KR2S Stretch To: "KRnet" Message-ID: <008601c47d54$542a4e00$7ea70a04@pbrain> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Isn't this a description of a completed / all most completed plane? Like maybe Mark L.s? or yours Larry? -- wesley scott kr2@spottedowl.biz ----- Original Message ----- From: "larry flesner" To: "KRnet" Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2004 7:55 AM Subject: KR> KR2S Stretch > >Hi Netters, > > I want to buy, or complete a KR2S project that has been "STRETCHED" > >as > >follows: 4" forward of the front spar, 14" aft of the rear spar, cabin > >width of 40" (inside), and raised 3". Are any available? > >Dick Goff dcgoff@webtv.net > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > If you find a used KR "exactly" as you want as stated above, I want > you to buy me a loto ticket. :-) > > The only way to find a KR "exactly" as you want is to build it that > way. > > Someone recently mentioned a 9 inch stretch forward of the spar. > Unless they are using a very light engine or a very short mount, which > will make the engine less servicable, I'd say 9 inches is a bit much > for W & B. I'd suggest that builder compare their numbers to some > "flying" KR's. Tail heavy is not good but you can go too far nose > heavy also. > > Larry Flesner > > > > _______________________________________ > to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to KRnet-leave@mylist.net > please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html > > > ------------------------------ Message: 12 Date: Sun, 8 Aug 2004 09:55:29 -0500 From: "Mark Langford" Subject: Re: KR> KR2S Stretch To: "KRnet" Message-ID: <02f901c47d57$bfa2a2b0$1202a8c0@basement> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > > I want to buy, or complete a KR2S project that has been > > >"STRETCHED" as > > >follows: 4" forward of the front spar, 14" aft of the rear spar, cabin > > >width of 40" (inside), and raised 3". Are any available? > > >Dick Goff dcgoff@webtv.net > Isn't this a description of a completed / all most completed plane? > Like maybe Mark L.s? or yours Larry? Mine is not stretched at all forward of the spar, only 4" aft of the spar, has a cabin width of 38.5" at the widest point, and is (from what I can tell from side views in the plans) stock canopy height. The chances of finding that exact plane (not to mention whether or not the builder would sell it) is absolute zero. This reminds me of some posts where the question is specifically posed to such a small segment of builders that there is nobody that is qualified to answer it, so therefore it's never answered. I think the requirements need to be reworded to allow some flexibility... Mark Langford, Huntsville, Alabama N56ML "at" hiwaay.net see KR2S project at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford ------------------------------ Message: 13 Date: Sat, 7 Aug 2004 21:55:55 -0700 From: "David Mikesell" Subject: Re: KR> KR2S Sport pilot eligible??? To: "Wesley Scott" , "KRnet" Message-ID: <004501c47d56$c0663640$03fea8c0@davids> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" The way I read sport pilot, you can not change a aircraft design to meet the requirements, the aircraft must be designed to be with in the range. Just like no sport pilot aircraft can have a inflight adjustable prop or retractable gear (unless it is a amphibian) because it will allow it to go faster without airframe modifications or engine modifications. This is a totally different regulation than everyone wanted or the EAA lobbied for and don't let anyone tell you, really read this terrible piece of legislation that you all wanted. For you guys who lost or denied a medical, you can never apply for a sport pilot license...it plainly says it in black and white...and if you think you are not in the computer........well go to the FAA pilot registry online and do a search on your name and it will pop up if you were denied or revoked a medical. David Mikesell ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wesley Scott" To: "KRnet" Sent: Saturday, August 07, 2004 9:16 PM Subject: Re: KR> KR2S Sport pilot eligible??? > Empty weight doesn't make any difference (other than how many sandbags > you put in the second seat during testing) since you have to meet the > stall speed at max takeoff weight. > > The wing area needs to be increased by about 30 percent to get the > stall speed down from 59 mph to 45 knots (or since the 59 mph assumes > 1050 lbs gross, a lower gross weight). > > New starts may want to consider increasing the wing area, or NOT. > Depends on how comfortable the builder is with aircraft design and > test piloting. What we really need is a "standardized" wing design > change and proof of concept plane. > > If the current version actually meets LSA, that means there will > shortly be > a (hopefully large) increase in the number of available purchasers, > with a corresponding increase in sales price. > > -- > wesley scott > kr2@spottedowl.biz > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Dan Heath" > > Wesley, > > > > Put in a 1700cc engine and build it as light as possible and you > > might get > > the stall speed down. No problem getting the VH with that power > > plant. > Don't > > even think about it with the bigger engines. > > > > But why not build one that is designed for that in the first place. > > > > > > _______________________________________ > to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to KRnet-leave@mylist.net > please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html ------------------------------ Message: 14 Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2004 00:58:23 +1000 From: "StRaNgEdAyS" Subject: Re: KR> KR2S Sport pilot eligible??? To: "Wesley Scott" , "KRnet" Message-ID: <003701c47d58$92c9cfb0$0101a8c0@server> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Actually, that spar will support that and a fair bit more. My KR2SD is going to be right on the 1200lb MTOW allowable in the AU ultralight category. Fortunately we don't have the same kinds of restrictions in that class as you in the US have in the LSA category. I may yet bite the bullett and make it a GA reg, but I'd prefer to keep it in the Ultralight category if I can. I'll have to do some fairly interesting work to keep the CG in check but the numbers I've got so far (until my usual comp that I do all my design and analysis work on went down) check out OK. One of the mods is a variable incidence horizontal instead of the standard trim tab to give a wider trim range and increase the CG limits which will add a little bit of extra weight right at the back to help counteract the longer nose. I'll also be looking at a shorter engine mount, and possibly a smaller engine. I may still go with a corvair engine, but I'm also looking favorably at a rotary or maybe even an all alloy EFI Rover V8 which weighs in at only 18lbs heavier than the corvair (wet) for a lot of extra neddies. I will not be using a header tank, but I'll be making fairly substantial wing tanks, and any cargo will go in the back. I'm shooting for having the CG envelope with minimum load (one person, no gear, no useable fuel) to be right at the front of the CG envelope. Fuel is to load around the CG to have minimal shift with burn. Crew sit on the CG line and baggage loading is to bring the CG aft. According to the preliminary calcs, at full load, fuel, 2 NATO people and 35lbs of baggage, I'm still in front of the aft CG limit. Fortunately I'm lucky enough to fit nicely into the standard person parameters. Cheers. Peter Bancks strangedays@dodo.com.au http://www.homebuiltairplanes.com http://canardaviationforum.dmt.net ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wesley Scott" To: "KRnet" Sent: Monday, August 09, 2004 12:13 AM Subject: Re: KR> KR2S Sport pilot eligible??? > A 1300# KR isn't the point. The wing spar won't support that much of > a weight increase. > > The question is: Will a KR2 AT THE RR MAX WEIGHT OF 900 POUNDS stall > at 51.785 mph or less and will a KR2S at the RR max weight of 980 > pounds? Given the RR published stall speed is 52mph. > > And lest we forget: Will the KR1 at a max wt of 750 pounds? It also > has a published stall of 52mph. > > -- > wesley scott > kr2@spottedowl.biz > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Dan Heath" > To: > Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2004 5:46 AM > Subject: Re: KR> KR2S Sport pilot eligible??? > > > > That is my point exactly. You will not be able to get the stall > > speed on a > > KR with a liftoff weight of 1300#, down to the required speed. > > > > I guess what the persons who want a KR that is Sport Pilot Eligible, need > is > > another new wing that is the opposite of the old new wing. One > > designed > for > > high lift and low speed. > > > > > > > > _______________________________________ > to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to KRnet-leave@mylist.net > please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html > > ------------------------------ Message: 15 Date: Sun, 8 Aug 2004 11:05:04 -0500 From: "Wesley Scott" Subject: Spar strength was Re: KR> KR2S Sport pilot eligible??? To: "StRaNgEdAyS" , "KRnet" Message-ID: <001e01c47d61$796fdb50$7ea70a04@pbrain> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" What g factor are you using for the analysis? RR used +4/-2 as the design limit load factors (FAA requires an ultimate load of 1.5x the limit load). At a gross weight of 1050 pounds, there is an approximate margin of safety of 16% per Bill Marcy's analysis. -- wesley scott kr2@spottedowl.biz ----- Original Message ----- From: "StRaNgEdAyS" To: "Wesley Scott" ; "KRnet" Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2004 9:58 AM Subject: Re: KR> KR2S Sport pilot eligible??? > Actually, that spar will support that and a fair bit more. > My KR2SD is going to be right on the 1200lb MTOW allowable in the AU > ultralight category. Fortunately we don't have the same kinds of > restrictions in that class as you in the US have in the LSA category. > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Wesley Scott" > To: "KRnet" > Sent: Monday, August 09, 2004 12:13 AM > Subject: Re: KR> KR2S Sport pilot eligible??? > > > > A 1300# KR isn't the point. The wing spar won't support that much > > of a weight increase. > ------------------------------ Message: 16 Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2004 11:32:51 -0500 From: larry flesner Subject: KR> KR Sport pilot eligible??? To: KRnet Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20040808113251.007b2d70@pop.midwest.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Just like no sport pilot aircraft can have a inflight adjustable prop or >retractable gear (unless it is a amphibian) because it will allow it to >go faster without airframe modifications or engine modifications. David >Mikesell +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ My take on those two items is that they are more to eliminate complexity than eliminate speed. Certified aircraft with the above items help to put them in the "complex aircraft" catagory and require a check ride and endorsement. The Leolhe 51, or however it is spelled, has retractable gear and even with an inflight adjustable prop I doubt the Rotax would give it a speed to disqualify it from the sport pilot class. Just my humble opinion. Larry Flesner ------------------------------ Message: 17 Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2004 11:33:06 -0500 From: larry flesner Subject: KR> KR2S Sport pilot eligible??? To: KRnet Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20040808113306.007b67f0@pop.midwest.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >And lest we forget: Will the KR1 at a max wt of 750 pounds? It also >has a published stall of 52mph. wesley scott ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ You might consider getting the KR1-B motorglider plans and building the wings a bit shorter to get the stall speed you're looking for. As the builder you could assign a Vne of whatever is required on the max speed. This may or may not fly with the Fed's but it being a single place, how are they going to prove your numbers are not right? I wouldn't let anyone other then me, the builder, fly it for "liability" reasons. Larry Flesner ------------------------------ Message: 18 Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2004 11:32:56 -0500 From: larry flesner Subject: Re: KR> KR2S Stretch To: KRnet Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20040808113256.007b4c60@pop.midwest.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >> Isn't this a description of a completed / all most completed plane? >> Like maybe Mark L.s? or yours Larry? >++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >Mine is not stretched at all forward of the spar, only 4" aft of the >spar, Mark Langford +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Mark can correct me if I'm wrong but when he said his is not stretched forward of the spar, he started with the KR2S plans that did add some length forward of the spar over a standard KR2. My KR is standard KR2 measurements EXCEPT for the 24 inch stretch aft of the rear spar. I wish I had an extra 2 or 3 inches forward. With the 0-200 on the HAPI mount, the CG would have been approx 2 inches behind the forward limit with me and full fuel (wing tanks only). As is, my CG falls almost exactly in the middle of the published range with me and full fuel. A passanger puts me close to the rear limit so I'm inclined not to do anything stupid in that situation like stalls or spin test. My canopy height is more than most and I think I posted it in the last couple of months. Check the archives. Like all KR flyers, I wish for three or four inchs more width in the cockpit, 20 more hp, 30 more mph cruise, an extra 500 fpm climb, and the list goes on...................! First thing you know you're building a Glassair. :-) Larry Flesner ------------------------------ Message: 19 Date: Sun, 8 Aug 2004 10:33:14 -0700 From: "Parley Byington" Subject: Re: KR> New BLOG To: "KRnet" Message-ID: <00a801c47d6d$cb07a680$14eae404@Parley> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Duncan et all One thing to remember, concerning your wife, many individuals who start a project such as the KR, get so engrossed that they forget that they have a wife and family. Sadly, the project ends up being sold in the divorce settlement. Take a bit of advice from someone who has built a kr, flown it, and raised five children at the same time and is still married to the one and only women of my life, put your wife and family first. Remember that the kr is a hobby but your family is your live. I enjoy my kr and it is alot of fun to fly but I couldn't have completed it without the support of my wife and family. I made a rule while I was building mine, and that was to always put the needs of my wife and family first and the kr second. This rule is a good one to follow no matter what your hobby is. This rule served me well when I needed to purchase tools, parts, and spend time on my hobby, I also made it a point to set aside a date night for just my wife and I every week. I don't mean to preach to anyone, but if you don't think this is important, just look at the many different aircraft projects that are up for sale and note the reason why they are for sale. I enjoy reading about those of us who have successfully started and finished these projects and would like to see more added to the list. Thanks for the attention and may I wish all of you out there good luck with your projects and enjoy safe flying. Thanks Parley Byington (married 31 years on Aug 11 ) KR-2 N54PB (first flown Dec.7, 1991) Henderson NV parley@anv.net ------------------------------ Message: 20 Date: Sun, 8 Aug 2004 11:45:43 -0600 (Mountain Standard Time) From: "gleone" Subject: Re: @SPAM+++++ Re: KR> KR2S Sport pilot eligible??? To: Message-ID: <411666C7.000001.03944@YOUR-FD6NVJCER4> Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" For those who want to find the link mentioned by David, it's a little convoluted getting there, but here's the link: http://162.58.35.241/aadatabase/login.asp Gene Leone, Worland, Wyoming When you give a lesson in meanness to a critter or a person, don't be surprised if they learn their lesson. -------Original Message------- From: KRnet Date: 08/08/04 08:54:45 To: Wesley Scott; KRnet Subject: @SPAM+++++ Re: KR> KR2S Sport pilot eligible??? The way I read sport pilot, you can not change a aircraft design to meet the requirements, the aircraft must be designed to be with in the range. Just like no sport pilot aircraft can have a inflight adjustable prop or retractable gear (unless it is a amphibian) because it will allow it to go faster without airframe modifications or engine modifications. This is a totally different regulation than everyone wanted or the EAA lobbied for and don't let anyone tell you, really read this terrible piece of legislation that you all wanted. For you guys who lost or denied a medical, you can never apply for a sport pilot license...it plainly says it in black and white...and if you think you are not in the computer........well go to the FAA pilot registry online and do a search on your name and it will pop up if you were denied or revoked a medical. David Mikesell ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wesley Scott" To: "KRnet" Sent: Saturday, August 07, 2004 9:16 PM Subject: Re: KR> KR2S Sport pilot eligible??? > Empty weight doesn't make any difference (other than how many sandbags > you put in the second seat during testing) since you have to meet the > stall speed at max takeoff weight. > > The wing area needs to be increased by about 30 percent to get the > stall speed down from 59 mph to 45 knots (or since the 59 mph assumes > 1050 lbs gross, a lower gross weight). > > New starts may want to consider increasing the wing area, or NOT. > Depends on how comfortable the builder is with aircraft design and > test piloting. What we really need is a "standardized" wing design > change and proof of concept plane. > > If the current version actually meets LSA, that means there will > shortly be > a (hopefully large) increase in the number of available purchasers, > with a corresponding increase in sales price. > > -- > wesley scott > kr2@spottedowl.biz > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Dan Heath" > > Wesley, > > > > Put in a 1700cc engine and build it as light as possible and you > > might get > > the stall speed down. No problem getting the VH with that power > > plant. > Don't > > even think about it with the bigger engines. > > > > But why not build one that is designed for that in the first place. > > > > > > _______________________________________ > to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to KRnet-leave@mylist.net > please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html _______________________________________ to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to KRnet-leave@mylist.net please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html ------------------------------ Message: 21 Date: Sun, 8 Aug 2004 13:11:33 -0500 From: "Joachim Saupe" Subject: Re: KR> KR2S Sport pilot eligible??? To: "KRnet" Message-ID: <410-22004808181133125@earthlink.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII << For you guys who lost or denied a medical, you can never apply for a sport pilot license...it plainly says it in black and white...and if you think you are not in the computer>> Not so, you have to meet the medical ONCE after you were denied. After that you can self certyfy! Joachim > [Original Message] > From: David Mikesell > To: Wesley Scott ; KRnet > Date: 8/8/2004 9:57:34 AM > Subject: Re: KR> KR2S Sport pilot eligible??? > > The way I read sport pilot, you can not change a aircraft design to > meet the > requirements, the aircraft must be designed to be with in the range. > Just like no sport pilot aircraft can have a inflight adjustable prop > or retractable gear (unless it is a amphibian) because it will allow > it to go faster without airframe modifications or engine > modifications. This is a totally different regulation than everyone > wanted or the EAA lobbied for and > don't let anyone tell you, really read this terrible piece of > legislation that you all wanted. For you guys who lost or denied a > medical, you can never apply for a sport pilot license...it plainly > says it in black and white...and if you think you are not in the > computer........well go to the FAA pilot registry online and do a > search on your name and it will pop up if > you were denied or revoked a medical. > > > David Mikesell > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Wesley Scott" > To: "KRnet" > Sent: Saturday, August 07, 2004 9:16 PM > Subject: Re: KR> KR2S Sport pilot eligible??? > > > > Empty weight doesn't make any difference (other than how many > > sandbags you > > put in the second seat during testing) since you have to meet the > > stall speed at max takeoff weight. > > > > The wing area needs to be increased by about 30 percent to get the > > stall speed down from 59 mph to 45 knots (or since the 59 mph > > assumes 1050 lbs gross, a lower gross weight). > > > > New starts may want to consider increasing the wing area, or NOT. Depends > > on how comfortable the builder is with aircraft design and test piloting. > > What we really need is a "standardized" wing design change and proof > > of concept plane. > > > > If the current version actually meets LSA, that means there will > > shortly > be > > a (hopefully large) increase in the number of available purchasers, with a > > corresponding increase in sales price. > > > > -- > > wesley scott > > kr2@spottedowl.biz > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Dan Heath" > > > Wesley, > > > > > > Put in a 1700cc engine and build it as light as possible and you > > > might > get > > > the stall speed down. No problem getting the VH with that power > > > plant. > > Don't > > > even think about it with the bigger engines. > > > > > > But why not build one that is designed for that in the first > > > place. > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________ > > to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to KRnet-leave@mylist.net > > please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html > > > _______________________________________ > to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to KRnet-leave@mylist.net > please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ See KRnet list details at http://www.krnet.org/instructions.html End of KRnet Digest, Vol 346, Issue 63 ************************************** ================================== ABC Amber Outlook Converter v4.20 Trial version ==================================