On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 15:50:09 -0400 "Colin & Bev Rainey" <crain...@cfl.rr.com> writes: > Jeff Scott just mentioned about increasing stability by making the > horizontal stab longer but still having issues with the pitch > sensitivity of the plane. I cannot say for other pilots, but I have > flown more than 15 different models of aircraft and find that there > are quite a few aircraft that could be considered to be pitch > sensitive depending upon what part of the flight regime you are > referring to. ALL planes are sensitive at speeds above 120 mph or > approx 105 knots. I think where the KR seems to get a bad rap is > that by comparison to a basic trainer, i.e.: J3 Cub, or Cessna > 152/172, the KR is much more sensitive. However, there is a whole > list of planes that display the same sensitivity and increased > elevator authority that the KR has. The Extra 300, Pitts S1 & S2, > Glasair I, Thorp T-18, Sidewinder, Mustang II, just to name a few.
Actually, that's not what I said. While you have improvised a workaround that is serviceable for you, it is not a fix for a pitch sensitive aircraft. Why do you suppose Troy and Dana modified the tails on their KRs? Why do you think these other guys have gone to a larger tail? Check the numbers on static margin and tail volume. Everyone that has flown both has nothing but good things to say about the larger tail. Check with Bill Clapp. He's flown both, as has Troy. I have also flown most of the planes you listed above and a fair number of other high and low performing aircraft. The KR is one of the less harmonious aircraft to fly. If one is building the plane, why build in a well known problem, then devise a work around for it? If I was building mine again, it would have substantially more horizontal stab. Does that mean I don't enjoy flying the plane or can't fly it safely? Not in my opinion. But if I was going to let others start flying my KR, I would want to make it handle better than it does. -Jeff
