I can load mine to 1200 # without exceeding the max aft, which I have set at 2" aft of center.
Go here: http://krbuilder.org/WeightAndBalance/index.html And click on Final Spread sheet, in the space for the first thumbnail. There is also a link to several that were supplied by other builders. Just enter the passenger and pilot weights along with gallons of fuel, my tank only holds 12. See N64KR at http://KRBuilder.org - Then click on the pics See you at the 2009 - KR Gathering in Mt. Vernon, Ill There is a time for building and a time for FLYING and the time for Flying has begun. Daniel R. Heath - Lexington, SC -------Original Message------- From: rdrace...@aol.com List-Post: krnet@list.krnet.org Date: 01/03/09 13:41:51 To: kr...@mylist.net Subject: Re: KR> almost check it out ride - TN After ready this thread about moving the firewall to get more room, it leads me to think there is concern about the CG moving too far forward. This confuses me because I have gotten a couple of EXCEL type weight and balance programs off the KR Net and every one I have tried to plug numbers into has made it look like it is impossible to load a KR2 to max gross weight without exceeding the aft CG limitations. Since I am entertaining the idea of buying a flying KR2, and carrying passengers with me occasionally, I was a little concerned with the numbers I kept coming up with when I plugged in what seemed like reasonable numbers. My first thoughts after playing with these W & B programs was that maybe adding an extra battery or something up front would shift the CG forward and solve the problem, but for someone building their own airplane, moving the firewall forward seems like it would be a great solution. Now I read about concerns with the CG being too far forward and am wondering if I missed something. Along different lines, I see some discussion about using a KR2 for instrument flying, and stability problems. I have talked to a number of homebuilt flyers in the past who told me their airplanes made excellent IFR platforms because the "fairly high wing loading" made them very stable in the clouds. I was under the impression that the KR2 also had fairly high wing loading, and am a little concerned about everyones comments on not using them for IFR operations. And I'm sorry, but I'm not sure I understood the comments about night flight. Was everyone reluctant to fly at night period? I can't see what the difference between having to do a forced landing in a KR2 vs. any other aerial platform at night. It's going to be just as painful to have an engine failure at night in a Bonanza or Mooney as in a KR2 isn't it? Todd Thelin Spanaway, WA "The older I get...The faster I was!" Todd Thelin rdrace...@aol.com 912-596-8057 **************New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000026) _______________________________________ 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
