In a message dated 4/23/2004 7:46:59 AM Pacific Daylight Time, drup...@sympatico.ca writes:
> Sic em Bob. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ You may have mistaken me for a junk-yard dog :-) Bottom line is that I like to fly; I enjoy it. Toward that end I'd like to see millions of people flying rather than the dwindling tens of thousands we're presently down to. More airmen means a bigger voice. The politicians listen -- with their hand out -- and a bigger voice is easier for them to hear. Alas, flying has become too expensive for the majority of Americans. The bean-counters that have taken over general aviation discount that simple truth by citing fallacious statistics reflecting Average Income or Household Income when the reality of economic survival is reflected by the nation's median income, presently somewhere around $28k based on adjusted Census 2000 data. That's the folks I want to get into the air. And there's about sixty-eight million of them out there. I've found they are just as eager to go flying as the fat cats and far more attuned to the realities of grass roots aviation. When you're talking powered flight one of those realities is a reliable powerplant. In that regard the best bet for the lo-buck builder is probably an industrial engine from Ford or GM but their use dictates a substantial airframe such as a Piet, the cost and size of which is often beyond the means or facilities of such builders. A smaller airframe, such as a Teenie Two or KR tends to be among the first considered by lo-buck builders and that concept is valid so long as the powerplant doesn't break the bank. Putting the prop on the clutch-end of the crank and a coaxially mounted PM dynamo on the other converts the VW engine into a reasonably reliable powerplant at minimum cost. Best of all, the required skill-level for such a conversion is low. Nothing promotes progress so well as success. Based on my mail, about half of which comes from other countries, the simple, inexpensive yet reliable method of conversion I've been advocating since the 1970's offers a higher probability of successful flight for the newbie. Not high-speed flight nor long-range flight but simply hauling their ass into the air at a price they can afford. Seems like a good idea to me. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > The KR was originally designed for low cost > and excellent cruising speed. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- I'll go with the low cost but the open cockpit on Kenny's Original Receipe is fair evidence speed was not a major consideration. (Yeah, I noticed the retractable gear and the canopy :-) The KR is fairly clean right out of the box. The wide speed range (ie, cruz vs stall) is simply the dividend of a light, aerodynamically efficient airframe. Fact is, if you clean up a Teenie Two -- or any of the other lo-buck one-holes (S-22, Windwagen, etc.) -- you'll see a nice improvement in your cruise speed. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------- Now before the flaming starts remember one > > thing, we are aiming for performance and reliability. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ - Not me. Maybe forty years ago. Now I'm more interested in getting there than in how fast I do so. Reliability. Durability. AFFORDABILITY. Then maybe performance. I like dull engines. No excitement at all :-) -R.S.Hoover
