KR1-B is E-LSA compliant. On another list a builder modified his low-wing aircraft with 24" longer wings and flaps to bring the stall to 51mph then he found out that the aircraft was very hard (spell dangerous) to land in gusty conditions.
But I digress, the KRn aircraft were designed to be speedy small planes (except the KR1-B). E-LSA has a MAX speed of 138mph. I don't see the point in making a speedy small plane into a slow small plane, there are already plenty of slow small planes. -----Original Message----- From: krnet-boun...@mylist.net [mailto:krnet-boun...@mylist.net] On Behalf Of Rick Human Sent: Friday, July 28, 2006 6:58 PM To: KRnet Subject: Re: KR> Making KR ELSA - rebuttle Pardon me but I didn't snip the note below because it confuses me a great deal - first I don't understand why 3 or 4 members of the list seem so dead against a discussion of the KR being able to be configured as to be LSA compliant. If we had taken this attitude in the past there would not be anything but the old swing gear, VW's and RAF48's. I've been studying the KR's since the mid 70's, bought the plans in '84, started building in '85 and have 8 hours flight time on N202RH . I only bought the landing gear, canopy, engine and prop, everything else I built. Currently I am flight testing to see if it can be LSA compliant - so it would seem that there is at least one on the list that has built a KR to completion and is actively testing the possibility of being able to comply with the LSA rules. Here's a photo http://www.eaa774.org/projects.php The only real hurdle I see is the 45k stall speed but I am not yet convinced that is out of reach. When my testing is finished I'll publish all the data - good or bad. Until then I prefer to not keep a blog of my activities. And who know something may come of this activity that may benefit the go fast at any cost crowd. And let's set some facts straight - let's quit misusing the term ELSA - an ELSA designation is to be used for kits where the builder performs less than 51% of the assembly - any aircraft built from plans or a 49% kit will be registered as an Amateur Built. So a KR would still be an amateur built but if that aircraft can show compliance with the LSA rules it can be flow by a Sport Pilot or a Private Pilot with a Drivers Lic. rather than a medical. You can gather from all above I don't agree, as stated below, that any agreement was ever reached that an LSA KR would not still be a KR - I don't remember taking a vote! BTW Dana is building a RV-7 not a 8. Now can we play nice and quit trying to divide the list into opposing camps? Rick Human Houston, Texas ----- Original Message ----- From: <beverlyrai...@bellsouth.net> To: "KRnet" <kr...@mylist.net> Sent: Friday, July 28, 2006 10:01 AM Subject: Re: KR> Making KR ELSA > Rich > Checking the archives will let ANYONE know about the literal months of dicsussion that has already gone on about trying to make the KR whatever fit a category it was not designed for. Everyone that is arguing in favor of building a KR to meet ELSA standards has never built a KR to completion, or owns a flying KR. Most are not designers, with the exception of a few that comment. > > It is not that Mark L or Mark J is putting a damper on appropriate threads or not, but this list is supposed to be devoted to just KR building and flying. We all contribute things from time to time that are not strictly KR material, maybe just pilot material, but aimed at safety or preventing similar mistakes, etc... Friday's are reserved for the off the wall remarks. > > What I am bringing up is that I am not trying to squash a thread that has merit, but rather to encourage an interested builder to do his research, and then consult with those that are doing directly. It has been agreed upon here that an ELSA legal KR 1 or 2 would not remotely be a KR anymore, and so it would really be more appropriate to have their own list and discussions. The topic got beaten up BAD just last year, with nothing more that alot of supposition about what could be done, yet no one has done that yet. But what is known is that discussing an ELSA KR which would really deserve its own new name at that point, would be like discussing the Taylor monoplane here; similar design (the blueprint for Ken for this plane) but different plane. > > Case in point is Dana Overall: Dana is building an RV8 so he doesn't discuss things here that apply to metal airplanes, or RVs unless it is generic and also applies to us, then he gladly shares it. An ELSA legal KR is no longer a KR but a new design. Discussing building processes would be the same, and so in my mind would be on target, but certification issues, and design modification parameters and the like would be more appropriate to another list for the new design. > > I am not trying to push anyone out or hurt anyone's feelings, but it seems that once or twice a year we have to rmeind everyone that this list is NOT a general discussion list for any and all. It is a KR builders and pilots list for sharing wisdom and experience directly related to building and flying KR's, not other aircraft development, what happened to my sister, etc... and issues that threaten us like Brian's Case in Jacksonville. > > If Mark L or Mark J feel I am off target then I conceed. But I have watched thme have to make such remarks time and again to knock things back on track for THIS list. > > Colin > N96TA > Ormond Beach, FL > > > > _______________________________________ 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
