Robin: I concur with your comments completely even though I wish to move the fuel to wings except for a small header tank so as to remove most of the fuel from the cabin area.
I want a craft with good range with room for two and working on getting a respectable range for lengthly trips and plan to set it up for a range potential that is somewhat in excess of kidney range to facilitate the occasional 1000 to 1500 mile trips. As many of these trips are to the SW I have found from experience that the 450 to 500 mile practical range of the 172s & 150s with in my experience to be awkward in a way that adds extra stops for fuel or the forcing very indirect routing and I wish the capability to fly chords of the great circle routings on long trips to the extent possible even though most flying would without doubt be but a couple of hours or so. Mine is being built as a fixed tricycle gear and will have a power plant not larger than than the 1915 Great Plains mill. I never did like the the design of gear up-down locking mechanics of the RR retract system for the exact reason you experienced because of the effect of potential wear on the latch mechanizm as well as the fact that my intent is to meet the "LSA" requirements. The small engine is to guarentee that I have a craft that I build meets the 138 mph(120 kts) max requirement and it will have the long wings to facilitate meeting the 51 mph(44 kt/hr) maximum stall at an 886# gross just 14# shy of the plans stated design Gross wt. I am counting on the additional drag of the nose gear plus a carefully sellected prop pitch to get the speed down. I am towing with the notion of using solor panels for electrical and quite probably a venturi system for any Vac. driven instruments but the craft will have Nav?com radios, GPS & a transponder to meet the requirements associated with controlled airspace. The craft is not just for the jor of flight but a practical tool to facilitate travel with a companion cost effectively which extends to the reduction of overhead travel cost as well. I do accept the limitations involved but many on here wish to continue to fly as they get older and find that the LSA-sport pilot rout is the only practical way of staying in the air with out a lot of jumping through regulatory hoops. Don Burlington IA 52601 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Robin Wills wrote: > G'day Dave. > > You are as tall as me, but about 100Lbs heavier. I manage to fit in a > bog-stock KR2 but I fly(flew - before the gear retracted on landing) in > socks, no shoes. > > Just going by your figures, you would be very close to a 1200Lb Gross > Weight, assuming a 600Lb Empty weight, which is difficult, although not > impossible to achieve. > > There is an article by Neil Bingham about the KR2 and weight issues, > which basically states that the heavier the KR, the worse it flies. And > the more aft your CG, the touchier it is. His recommendation, along with > RR and countless others is to keep the plane as light as safely > possible, and enjoy what you have, ie a day VFR sport aircraft. If you > try to turn it into a long-range tourer you may well be disappointed > with its performance, both climb, cruise and stall. > > If you were to fit your baggage locker in the forward deck, you need > wing tanks, which need pumps which add weight. Then you have your > Corvair engine, at 200Lbs, battery at 20, see how it adds up and eats > into your operating weight? > > I can't help you with speed reduction vs width, although there are many > on here who can, but in all honesty, for the type of flying you want, > the KR2 would be marginal at best. > > My KR2 is nearly 23 years old, I didn't build it, but am re-building it > after drastic surgical procedures instigated after the gear collapse, > and have removed many small items to get the weight down. Wing tanks > went, T+B and VSI went, fuel gauge is going (replaced with sight glass), > starter and alternator are going, to be replaced with a small battery > powered by a solar cell. Diehl gear in place of the original retracts, > to save me 15 lbs. > She weighed in at 630Lbs before the makeover and flew "well" and I am > hoping to have her weigh in at around 580lbs and fly "great" when she is > next airborne. > > My personal opinion is if you want a fantastic little VFR plane that > will blow the doors off a 150, you would be happy with the KR, but, you > need to decide what it is you will use it for, how often you will use it > for that, and what performance compromises you are prepared to accept to > achieve that mission. > > Cheers, > Rob > > Robin Wills > Second Person, Pacific National > KR-2 19-4594, Ser# N111 > > krvia...@bigpond.com > > _______________________________________ > Search the KRnet Archives at http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp > to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to krnet-le...@mylist.net > please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html
