With regards to, "I fail to understand what exactly is the benefit of an aircraft engine over an automotive conversion."
The greatest disadvantage is insurance. There was a recent post about someone trying to insure their KR and found insurers are not fond of most auto conversions. Gene Leone Worland, Wyoming "This is a great day for France!" --President Richard Nixon while attending Charles De Gaulle's funeral. Truer words were never spoken! -------Original Message------- From: serge.vi...@ate-international.com; KRnet List-Post: krnet@list.krnet.org Date: Friday, January 09, 2004 8:29:10 AM To: 'KRnet' Subject: RE: KR>KR-2S & 150 hp Franklin : These 7 things It beats me. I fail to understand what exactly is the benefit of an aircraft engine over an automotive conversion. Certified aircraft engines are overpriced, fuel-guzzling, noisy, tricky and unreliable beasts. They lag 70 years behind automotive technology, and due to the cost of certification that prevents anything better from showing up, these engines will keep contributing to the high cost of flying. Any car manufacturer producing engines that heavy on cost, maintenance and fuel, and so unpractical and unreliable, would be out of the engine business pretty soon. The next step in general aviation engines is coming now: turbo-diesel engines. Extremely low on fuel, burning Jet-A1 rather tha Avgas, torque at any RPM, low revs...What a dream! And if you think this is not good enough for aircraft, well, two have already been certified: one made by Renault (France), the other by Thielert (Germany), two very well known names in the Formula 1 car racing industry... There is also a successful amateur conversion in France: the Dieselis, that has been happily flying for 5 years now. Engine taken from an Opel Corsa. So successful that I have read somewhere that it is now produced as a kit somewhere in Eastern Europe. My KR2 is just powered by a 2.4 liter VW based engine, but at least, I have dual electronic ignition (taken from a motorcycle), rather than magnetos borrowed from our great-great-grandfather's cars. Go Diesel, my son! Serge Vidal KR2 ZS-WEC 400 hours flown on VW power Tunis, Tunisia -----Original Message----- From: krnet-bounces+serge.vidal=ate-international....@mylist.net [mailto:krnet-bounces+serge.vidal=ate-international....@mylist.net]On Behalf Of VIRGIL N SALISBURY Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 20:48 To: kr...@mylist.net Cc: kr...@mylist.net Subject: Re: KR>KR-2S & 150 hp Franklin : These 7 things NO, Too much, Virg On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 10:46:59 -0800 (PST) Scott Cable <s2cab...@yahoo.com> writes: > KRNetters > OK, hear me out on this one for one second: > First remembering that the KR is one of the easiest > aircraft to modify, and there has never been a KR > crashed due to a structural failure. > > The KR has a double 5/8ths spruce Upper Longerons, a > single 5/8 ths lower longeron. 3/32nd plywood outer > skin, and 1/4 inch plywood firewall support structure. > What if: > 1.) Added an additional 5/8 piece to the upper > Longerons > > 2.) Double the lower longerons aft to behind the rear > spar and add 2 ea 5/8th intercostals from the > firewall to the front spar. > > 3.) Instead of a 3/32 plywood floor between the > firewall (under the rudder pedal support) and the > front spar, use 1/4 inch 45 degree bias plywood. > > 4.) Add a 3/32 plywood inner skin from the firewall to > the instrument panel, and 1/4 inch lower firewall > gusset (like the existing upper gussett in the 2S > plans) and a 1/4 inch plywood doubler on the > inner forward and rear faces of the front spar. > > 5.) Add 18 inches to each wing to increase the wing > span by 3 ft (from 23 to 26) (additional wing area > to handle the increased engine weight) > > 6.) Increase the rudder / vertical stab area by 25% > > 7.) Increase the landing gear strut thickness by 20% > > By doing these 7 things, the KR-2S should be able to > handle the additional loads imposed by a heavier, > more powerful engine. > Essentially, I've created a torque box on the belly, > and fuselage sides. This should come close to > doubling the load carrying ability of the fwd > structure. > The added structural weight would be less than 30 > pounds. For a total increase in gross weight of 67 > pounds (over a corvair or Subaru). > I think a weight gain of 67 pounds, with the benefit > of 30 more useable horsepower, and a gob more torque > is reasonable. Another benefit is it's a aircraft > engine. > > > > ===== > Scott Cable > KR-2S # 735 > Wright City, MO > s2cab...@yahoo.com > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes > http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus > > _______________________________________________ > see KRnet list details at http://www.krnet.org/instructions.html > > Virgil N. Salisbury - AMSOIL www.lubedealer.com/salisbury Miami ,Fl _______________________________________________ see KRnet list details at http://www.krnet.org/instructions.html _______________________________________________ see KRnet list details at http://www.krnet.org/instructions.html .
