Those are the numbers I use when landing except I am in my C310 I am at 70 across the fence and my kr weighs 925 empty.
Sent from my iPhone > On Feb 15, 2015, at 11:00 AM, krnet-request at list.krnet.org wrote: > > Send KRnet mailing list submissions to > krnet at list.krnet.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://list.krnet.org/mailman/listinfo/krnet_list.krnet.org > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > krnet-request at list.krnet.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > krnet-owner at list.krnet.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of KRnet digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. try again...test with rst copperstrip antenna (jon kimmel) > 2. Re: Touchdown speed (Robert7721) > 3. Megasquirt (Glenn Martin) > 4. Re: Touchdown speed (Flesner) > 5. Re: Hanger Time (Flesner) > 6. Touchdown speed (laser147 at juno.com) > 7. Re: Touchdown speed (Chris Prata) > 8. Re: Touchdown speed (Mark Jones) > 9. Re: Hanger Time (bjoenunley) > 10. Re: Touchdown speed (bjoenunley) > 11. Maximum weight (John Martindale) > 12. Touchdown speed (Oscar Zuniga) > 13. Re: Maximum weight (Dan Heath) > 14. Re: Maximum weight (jscott.planes at gmx.com) > 15. Re: Maximum weight (Flesner) > 16. Re: Touchdown speed (Flesner) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2015 11:26:52 -0600 > From: jon kimmel <jkimmel50 at gmail.com> > To: KRnet <krnet at list.krnet.org> > Subject: KR> try again...test with rst copperstrip antenna > Message-ID: > <CAFoZr_qcT1OJ=BDCmMJCc5Wnx8Wsg=hckTNUqxa8VusNrzO62Q at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Oops...thought I was sending a compressed picture. > > I had a somewhat successful test with my rst engineering copper strip > antenna. Tried to talk to my friend who lives about 6 miles away and has a > handheld...we couldn't talk but we both heard chatter on 123.45 so we > decided to talk to the. I could talk to them, but he couldn't and he was 6 > miles closer...so a somewhat successful test. I can hear OKC's tower which > is about 22 miles away though I don't dare try to talk to them. > -------------- next part -------------- > A non-text attachment was scrubbed... > Name: 20150212_205139.jpg > Type: image/jpeg > Size: 25124 bytes > Desc: not available > URL: > <http://list.krnet.org/mailman/private/krnet_list.krnet.org/attachments/20150214/517378a0/attachment-0001.jpg> > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2015 13:49:02 -0500 > From: Robert7721 <robert7721 at aol.com> > To: john at bouyea.net, krnet at list.krnet.org > Subject: Re: KR> Touchdown speed > Message-ID: <8D2169E08FADA93-26A0-4B59E at webmail-m294.sysops.aol.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > Depending on the wind, but probably about 500 ft. I am off the runway to the > taxiway by 2000 to 2500 ft, no issues. I have neither flaps nor belly board. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: John Bouyea <john at bouyea.net> > To: robert7721 <robert7721 at aol.com>; 'KRnet' <krnet at list.krnet.org> > Sent: Sat, Feb 14, 2015 9:49 am > Subject: RE: KR> Touchdown speed > > > Rob, > This data is very helpful to me, thanks. I see the same thing; especially > pitch stability decreasing rapidly with slower indicated airspeed. > > Question: If you cross the numbers @ 80, what distance passes from the > numbers to your touchdown point? > > John Bouyea/ N5391M/ KR2 > OR81/ Hillsboro, OR is 2000' grass... > > -----Original Message----- > From: KRnet/Rob Schmitt > Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2015 6:04 AM > ... > I use 80 mph over the numbers, and then flare. I really am not exactly sure > the exact landing speed, but it is probably closer to 70, then 60. This is > how I was taught by Terry Chezik and it works well. If you run below that > speed, the airplane get more unstable and is harder to control. It works > well for me on my Trigear. > ... > Over 620 hours now. No crashes, replaced landing gear, or other damage to me > or airplane. I don't think I'm going to change anything I'm doing now. > Rob Schmitt > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2015 13:06:20 -0600 > From: Glenn Martin <kr2pilotbiloxi at gmail.com> > To: krnet at list.krnet.org > Subject: KR> Megasquirt > Message-ID: > <CANOHUP6V52qAo245dT6QAsdRw97FQ9-bWSQ9mTyfK5=aGHCXAQ at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > I think it would be a good improvement if there were an auxiliary ring on > the prop hub which would allow us to attach a trigger wheel closer to the > case. Also, for those who want to go Coil on Plug, the crank trigger wheel > can be placed on the prop hub and a cam position sensor built into Bosch > 090 distributor body. The mechanical advance is not needed. > > http://www.thesamba.com/vw/classifieds/detail.php?id=1412137 > > Glenn Martin > Biloxi, MS > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2015 13:06:11 -0600 > From: Flesner <flesner at frontier.com> > To: KRnet <krnet at list.krnet.org> > Subject: Re: KR> Touchdown speed > Message-ID: > <mailman.32.1424019609.21555.krnet_list.krnet.org at list.krnet.org> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed > > At 08:47 AM 2/14/2015, you wrote: >> So, if we use 70 mph low over the numbers to minimize ground role, >> brakes on touchdown, get big tires for traction, > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > I don't think you need bigger tires for traction but for the better > brakes. I went with the 500X5's over the original 600X6's low > profile tires to get a wheel pant that covered the entire wheel and > brake assembly that was proportional in size to the KR. I'm using > the RV pressure recovery pant. If you're needing the extra braking > power of the 600X6's you're flying too close to the edge. > > Larry Flesner > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2015 13:09:34 -0600 > From: Flesner <flesner at frontier.com> > To: KRnet <krnet at list.krnet.org> > Subject: Re: KR> Hanger Time > Message-ID: > <mailman.33.1424019609.21555.krnet_list.krnet.org at list.krnet.org> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed > > At 09:52 AM 2/14/2015, you wrote: >> Today being Valentines day I plan to spend the entire day with my >> beautiful wife who I love very much. > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > Today I hit the big 70 and I'm doing both. 4 hours of hangar time > this morning, a college basket ball game this afternoon, and out to > dinner this evening with the honey. Life is good........ > > Larry Flesner > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2015 12:31:31 -0800 > From: <laser147 at juno.com> > To: krnet at list.krnet.org > Subject: KR> Touchdown speed > Message-ID: <AABLP9NG8ARTTYES at smtpout04.vgs.untd.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > Yesterday after sending off my brief and unhelpful comment on this > subject, I followed up with a second response about 30 minutes later. It > went out just fine but didn't for some reason show up in my digest-mode > KR newsletter today. So here it is below. I think it's important to > explain why I would 43 > > ********************** > >> "Touchdown should be at about 70 mph" > > For a KR that's just plain ridiculous. > > ***************** > > Sorry that was rather blunt. Most KR's stall around 50 MPH or a little > under. Unless countering strong crosswinds, touchdown should be as close > to the stall as possible. Excessive speed at touchdown is the primary > reason for bounced landings and the various accidents which follow as the > pilot tries to force an airplane back onto a runway after bouncing when, > due to excessive speed, it wants to keep flying. That results in bent > nosegears, groundloops, stalling out of one of the bounces and all sorts > of other possible bad en ndings - all of which will ruin your day and > damage the airplane. This isn't true just of KR's. Excessive speed on > landing when doing first flights is a perennial major problem and is > almost always the reason for the landing accidents that occur. > > Since I've never gone into a 1200 ft. strip with a KR I'd certainly be > using brakes on roll-out as well - but that would be after touching down > in as close to a full stall as possible. Truly full stall landings are > difficult and perhaps impossible with KR's since the tail droops way down > and hits first, even with tri-cycle gear KR's. The optimum KR landing > procedure is best described in Jim Faughn's article on the subject found > on KRNET. > > If one is very familiar with their conventional gear KR, doing a wheel > landing at 70 MPH and using brakes against the aerodynamic forces you are > keeping balanced with the stick can be done with time and practice but is > more an exercise than it is a practical procedure. There's no real-world > reason other than very strong crosswinds that anyone would ever land this > way. Builders are not going to be doing their first flights with strong > crosswinds. Suggesting to builders that 70 MPH is an appropriate > touchdown speed is really irresponsible. Sorry. > > Mike > KSEE > > > ____________________________________________________________ > How Old Men Tighten Skin > 63 Year Old Man Shares DIY Skin Tightening Method You Can Do From Home > http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/54dfb0de8cd4230de19ddst04vuc > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 7 > Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2015 17:47:09 -0500 > From: Chris Prata <chrisprata at live.com> > To: bjoenunley <bjoenunley at gmail.com>, "krnet at list.krnet.org" > <krnet at list.krnet.org> > Subject: Re: KR> Touchdown speed > Message-ID: <BLU179-W1230DDC97030CF6016846FB6200 at phx.gbl> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > This for Takeoff:http://youtu.be/JlZ0wo_pTxg > And this for landing:http://youtu.be/etzqmtYcpCQ?t=57s > > > > > > > put a net at the end of the runway, we could operate out of a 1200 foot > strip.... >> >> Anybody think that it can't be done? Is so then I need to know so that I >> can start building another hanger on a bigger runway before my KR2 is ready >> to fly. > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 8 > Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2015 16:47:34 -0600 > From: "Mark Jones" <flykr2s at charter.net> > To: <laser147 at juno.com>, "KRnet" <krnet at list.krnet.org> > Subject: Re: KR> Touchdown speed > Message-ID: <CBF4C51C2B6347E596E7A7D5FE8E29A7 at flykr2sPC> > Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; > reply-type=original > >> Original Message from Mike: > >> "Touchdown should be at about 70 mph" >> For a KR that's just plain ridiculous. >> If one is very familiar with their conventional gear KR, doing a wheel >> landing at 70 MPH and using brakes against the aerodynamic forces you are >> keeping balanced with the stick can be done with time and practice but is >> more an exercise than it is a practical procedure. There's no real-world >> reason other than very strong crosswinds that anyone would ever land this >> way. Builders are not going to be doing their first flights with strong >> crosswinds. Suggesting to builders that 70 MPH is an appropriate >> touchdown speed is really irresponsible. Sorry. > >> Mike >> KSEE > > I have to disagree with the above statements. I made my first flight March > 20, 2005. Back then everyone had drilled into my head that the KR had to be > landed just above stall speed especially on your first landings in order to > make a safe first landing. Taking everyone's advice, I made some practice > approaches at altitude and then headed in for my first landing. The first > landing will be your second most intensive pucker factor after the first > takeoff. Your adrenaline will be pumping and you will be tense. Since I was > told by many to make a high approach just above stall speed that is exactly > what I did. That first landing was absolutely the worst landing I have ever > made (except when I hit a deer) and by being so slow it almost caused me to > crash my KR on touchdown. Everything was going well until I got too slow. > Have you ever seen a duck making an approach to land and it's wings start > rocking back and forth as it prepares for touchdown? That is the way I felt > as my KR quickly lost lift and slammed down on the runway. Fortunately I did > not do any damage but that was as close as I have ever come to making a > crash landing. I am not saying that you must do 70 mph at touchdown but you > better make sure you have sufficient speed to maintain a safe flight > throughout the landing process. For me, I find that touchdown at 70 mph is > ideal and I consistantly make baby butt smooth landings at that speed. The > following is a post I recently made on December 26, 2014 on a "Belly Board" > thread. > > ----- > YeeeeHaaaaaaaaaaaaa. I just returned from a 1.2 hour flight around Steven > Point, WI. This was my first flight since 10/25 due to our shi&&y weather we > have up here. So what does this have to do with belly boards? Here is how I > use mine in the landing sequence. I called left downwind 21 Stevens Point > and reduced my speed to 125 MPH. Next I called turning left base 21 Stevens > point and am now at 120 MPH. I maintain that speed through base and call > turning final 21 Stevens Point. I pull back the power to slow her to 115 and > drop the belly board to full down position. At this point I would estimate I > am now at 1/4 mile final and slowing fast. I cross the numbers looking at 80 > MPH and when the wheels touch the pavement I am doing 70 MPH and she sets > down smooth a silk. The following are two links. The first is the web link > to the construction of my solid belly board. The second is a landing video > on runway 21 Stevens Point and note you can see the speed brake being > lowered. Also note the minor deflection of the gear with touchdown and that > is loaded up with two people on board. > > Belly Board web link: http://www.flykr2s.com/bellyboard.html > > Landing video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfXagjar5IE > ----- > > > Mark Jones (N886MJ) > Stevens Point, WI > E-mail: flykr2s at charter.net > Web: www.flykr2s.com > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 9 > Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2015 17:05:49 -0600 > From: bjoenunley <bjoenunley at gmail.com> > To: Flesner via KRnet <krnet at list.krnet.org> > Subject: Re: KR> Hanger Time > Message-ID: <offmyup96nwulgc8ojbgq91w.1423955149944 at email.android.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > Happy birthday Larry! > > Larry Flesner, "today?I hit the big 70"? > > Joe > > Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smartphone > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 10 > Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2015 17:11:15 -0600 > From: bjoenunley <bjoenunley at gmail.com> > To: Mike Stirewalt via KRnet <krnet at list.krnet.org> > Subject: Re: KR> Touchdown speed > Message-ID: <y4xiovpv422cx359p7hrwx0y.1423955475560 at email.android.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > Mike,? > We knew what you meant.? > > "Yesterday after sending off my brief and unhelpful comment on this > subject,?" > > Joe > > > > > Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smartphone > > <div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: Mike Stirewalt via > KRnet <krnet at list.krnet.org> </div><div>Date:02/14/2015 2:31 PM > (GMT-06:00) </div><div>To: krnet at list.krnet.org </div><div>Subject: KR> > Touchdown speed </div><div> > </div>Yesterday after sending off my brief and unhelpful comment on this > subject, I followed up with a second response about 30 minutes later. It > went out just fine but didn't for some reason show up in my digest-mode > KR newsletter today. So here it is below. I think it's important to > explain why I would 43 > > ********************** > >> "Touchdown should be at about 70 mph" > > For a KR that's just plain ridiculous. > > ***************** > > Sorry that was rather blunt. Most KR's stall around 50 MPH or a little > under. Unless countering strong crosswinds, touchdown should be as close > to the stall as possible. Excessive speed at touchdown is the primary > reason for bounced landings and the various accidents which follow as the > pilot tries to force an airplane back onto a runway after bouncing when, > due to excessive speed, it wants to keep flying. That results in bent > nosegears, groundloops, stalling out of one of the bounces and all sorts > of other possible bad en ndings - all of which will ruin your day and > damage the airplane. This isn't true just of KR's. Excessive speed on > landing when doing first flights is a perennial major problem and is > almost always the reason for the landing accidents that occur. > > Since I've never gone into a 1200 ft. strip with a KR I'd certainly be > using brakes on roll-out as well - but that would be after touching down > in as close to a full stall as possible. Truly full stall landings are > difficult and perhaps impossible with KR's since the tail droops way down > and hits first, even with tri-cycle gear KR's. The optimum KR landing > procedure is best described in Jim Faughn's article on the subject found > on KRNET. > > If one is very familiar with their conventional gear KR, doing a wheel > landing at 70 MPH and using brakes against the aerodynamic forces you are > keeping balanced with the stick can be done with time and practice but is > more an exercise than it is a practical procedure. There's no real-world > reason other than very strong crosswinds that anyone would ever land this > way. Builders are not going to be doing their first flights with strong > crosswinds. Suggesting to builders that 70 MPH is an appropriate > touchdown speed is really irresponsible. Sorry. > > Mike > KSEE > > > ____________________________________________________________ > How Old Men Tighten Skin > 63 Year Old Man Shares DIY Skin Tightening Method You Can Do From Home > http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/54dfb0de8cd4230de19ddst04vuc > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 11 > Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2015 10:44:04 +1100 > From: "John Martindale" <john_martindale at bigpond.com> > To: "'KRnet'" <krnet at list.krnet.org> > Subject: KR> Maximum weight > Message-ID: <A5DC0A7F76B84BE2BB761DBC281798C4 at Desktop> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Hi folks > > > > I have had my KR2 on the civil register over here since 2002 under our > experimental category and for the first time our authority has asked me to > justify my MTOW of 1200lbs (545kg). They are arguing that the max they have > on record is only 408kg (900lbs). > > I would greatly appreciate if people could email me their approved MTOW so I > can provide them with reasons why today?s KRs frequently fly at weights above > 900lbs. I?ll then post a summary of the replies. > > > > I think they are getting the 900lb from the original approval given to the > KR2 over here prior to experimental coming in over ten years ago. Under the > latter my understanding is that we can nominate whatever MTOW we like. > > > > 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: http://john-martindale-kr2.zxq.net > > > > > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 2015.0.5646 / Virus Database: 4284/9114 - Release Date: 02/14/15 > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 12 > Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2015 17:35:41 -0800 > From: Oscar Zuniga <taildrags at hotmail.com> > To: "krnet at list.krnet.org" <krnet at list.krnet.org> > Subject: KR> Touchdown speed > Message-ID: <COL127-W28B1926895D835B40584F7BC210 at phx.gbl> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > John asked about how far the airplane will have traveled down the runway at > different touchdown speeds. The best way to determine that is to find videos > of KRs landing on hard-surfaced runways that have standard runway markings. > Better yet, see if you can find videos that KR pilots may have posted where > they have a camera mounted on the airplane or elsewhere, looking out at the > runway as the approach and landing are made. Best of all would be if you > could see the instrument panel (airspeed indicator) as well as the runway > markings during the approach and landing. I'm sure there are some out there, > but I'm not sure where. > There are many places on the web (and in the AIM) where you can find the > spacing and length of standard runway markings and get a good idea of > distances covered during the approach and landing. > Oscar ZunigaMedford, OR > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 13 > Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2015 21:55:11 -0500 > From: "Dan Heath" <danrh at windstream.net> > To: "'John Martindale'" <john_martindale at bigpond.com>, "'KRnet'" > <krnet at list.krnet.org> > Subject: Re: KR> Maximum weight > Message-ID: <000f01d048ca$d0d35990$727a0cb0$@net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Here, we can set the MTOW. I set mine at 1200 pounds. > > > > 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----- > > > > > > I would greatly appreciate if people could email me their approved MTOW so I > can provide them with reasons why today?s KRs frequently fly at weights above > 900lbs. I?ll then post a summary of the replies. > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 14 > Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2015 04:07:57 +0100 > From: jscott.planes at gmx.com > To: "John Martindale via KRnet" <krnet at list.krnet.org> > Subject: Re: KR> Maximum weight > Message-ID: > <trinity-d5d010bb-f06e-4672-960f-74a46d1ea010-1423969674636 at > msvc-mesg-gmx002> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > In the US, we are allowed to set the gross weight to whatever we choose. I > chose 1200# gross for my KR. I fully tested and have routinely flown it at > that weight for well over 1000 hours now. That's only anecdotal data and not > engineering data, but demonstrates that the airframe is capable of flying at > that weight over the long term. > > Best regards, > > -Jeff Scott > Los Alamos, NM > > > -----Original message----- > Sent: Sunday, 15 February 2015 at 00:44:04 > From: "John Martindale via KRnet" <krnet at list.krnet.org> > To: 'KRnet' <krnet at list.krnet.org> > Subject: KR> Maximum weight > Hi folks > > > > I have had my KR2 on the civil register over here since 2002 under our > experimental category and for the first time our authority has asked me to > justify my MTOW of 1200lbs (545kg). They are arguing that the max they have > on record is only 408kg (900lbs). > > I would greatly appreciate if people could email me their approved MTOW so I > can provide them with reasons why today?s KRs frequently fly at weights above > 900lbs. I?ll then post a summary of the replies. > > > > I think they are getting the 900lb from the original approval given to the > KR2 over here prior to experimental coming in over ten years ago. Under the > latter my understanding is that we can nominate whatever MTOW we like. > > > > 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: http://john-martindale-kr2.zxq.net > > > > > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 2015.0.5646 / Virus Database: 4284/9114 - Release Date: 02/14/15 > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 15 > Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2015 22:46:28 -0600 > From: Flesner <flesner at frontier.com> > To: John Martindale <john_martindale at bigpond.com>, KRnet > <krnet at list.krnet.org> > Subject: Re: KR> Maximum weight > Message-ID: > <mailman.34.1424019609.21555.krnet_list.krnet.org at list.krnet.org> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed > > >> for the first time our authority has asked me to justify my MTOW >> of 1200lbs (545kg). > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > I licensed my KR for 1300 pounds gross. At that weight the design is > rated at 4.3 G's (7 G's X 800=5600 pounds / 1300 = 4.3G's). While > the structure is designed to handle that weight it may not be > aerodynamically capable of flying at that weight because of the CG > location at that weight. Do a careful W&B to see what weight keeps > you in the CG range. When Mark Langford and I flew to Oshkosh at > very near that weight it was as far aft CG as I would care to fly and > my KR is a 24 inch stretch. A standard KR is probably not capable of > being loaded to that weight due to aft CG range. A KR with fuselage > tanks of 16 or more gallon, be careful as CG will shift rearward > noticeably with fuel burn. A normal flight for me (500+ hours to > date) is in the 1050 to 1100 pound range. My KR has the RAF48 > airfoil and is actually 8 inches shorter than planned wing > span. Wings with the Diehl wings or wings longer than standard, the > design G rating will be slightly less due to the longer span. The KR > is one tough bird but it does have it's limits. Check the design CG > rating of a Cessna or other spam cans. I think you'll find they are > in the 3.5 range or close to that. Ask your authority why they let > them fly at the weights they do. :-) > > Larry Flesner > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 16 > Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2015 22:59:46 -0600 > From: Flesner <flesner at frontier.com> > To: KRnet <krnet at list.krnet.org> > Subject: Re: KR> Touchdown speed > Message-ID: > <mailman.35.1424019609.21555.krnet_list.krnet.org at list.krnet.org> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed > > >> Best of all would be if you could see the instrument panel >> (airspeed indicator) as well as the runway markings during the >> approach and landing. > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > Video I shot showing my ASI on approach and landing indicates I touch > down, tail low wheel landing, right at 60 IAS. I fly downwind at > whatever speed I happen to be going, 110 mph on base, go to speed > brake down on final holding 90mph, slow to 80 mph on short final and > hold that into the flare. Once the decent rate is zero in the flare > it quickly slows to 70, 65, and 60 at touch down. With very little > head wind and only moderate braking, I can do a 180 turn and back > taxi on the runway. My normal roll out with little or no braking is 2000 > feet. > > Larry Flesner > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > _______________________________________________ > See KRnet list details at http://www.krnet.org/instructions.html > KRnet mailing list > KRnet at list.krnet.org > http://list.krnet.org/mailman/listinfo/krnet_list.krnet.org > > > ------------------------------ > > End of KRnet Digest, Vol 3, Issue 46 > ************************************
