Probably because you haven't seen anyone use the conventional gear for a tri gear configuration. It makes it harder to rotate with higher speeds needed. The use of the conventional gear caused the nose gear to shimmy and break. That also is one of the factors why Dan changed the gear leg profile and went to the 4130 strut. Mark's data would be interesting to have or see if there are still people out there with this configuration. Dan recalled all the fiberglass struts they sent out.
The design of the conventional gear leg placed the axle point at the same location where Ken designed the retract gear to be. When on the back side of the spar it places the wheels too far aft. The gear leg profile for the trigear (like Jones' KR) placed the wheels farther forward allowing easier rotation on take-off. For those still not sure of which leg is which, the gear leg pictured on nV Aero is the conventional leg. I may be pulling the plug on the website soon. Steve Glover -----Original Message----- From: KRnet [mailto:krnet-boun...@list.krnet.org] On Behalf Of Mark Langford via KRnet Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2018 12:19 AM To: KRnet Cc: m...@n56ml.com Subject: Re: KR> Gear legs - G loading That's the first I've heard of issues with the nose dropping abruptly on the tri-gear versions, so it looks like a bit more investigation is in order. I've seen drawings in the aircraft design books regarding recommended gear angles with respect to CG for both conventional and tri-gear installations, and will fish those out when I get I chance. Pazmany did some especially good work in this area, with fairly precise descriptions for the geometry of both gear types. Any anecdotal information from KR pilots (with reasonable CGs and some hours of KR flying experience) who've noticed the nose dropping suddenly on their tri-gear KR would be appreciated. I'll try to add some of this increased gear knowledge to my gear site in the next few weeks. This is also a reminder to me that I need to update www.krnet.org also, so we can pass on this useful information to aid future builders. I'll probably be asking for some dimensions from tri-gear guys who are satisfied with their landings in that process, as well as any who feel their nose drops abruptly, if there are any still flying. Also, it's worth pointing out that the gear was either designed/tested, or both to 3 g's. That's presumably for a 900 lb KR2. My first landing was 5.5 g's as felt by the panel-mounted meter, at what was probably 950 pounds, so it's pretty safe to say that my first landing proved that the standard Diehl conventional gear legs of the mid-nineties is good for 5.8 g's! I dropped it in from what seemed like 8'....at least 5'. That was my first lesson on sudden full throttle excursions from idle....the engine quit dead, just when I desperately needed a few hundred RPMs. At the time I felt quite lucky I didn't tear the gear off entirely (it was quite a jolt), although I did finally manage to tear one off in a terraced hay field dead-stick landing 1130 hours later! Thanks, Mark Langford, Harvest, AL ML "at" N56ML.com www.N56ML.com _______________________________________________ Search the KRnet Archives at https://www.mail-archive.com/krnet@list.krnet.org/. Please see LIST RULES and KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html. see http://list.krnet.org/mailman/listinfo/krnet_list.krnet.org to change options. To UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to krnet-le...@list.krnet.org _______________________________________________ Search the KRnet Archives at https://www.mail-archive.com/krnet@list.krnet.org/. Please see LIST RULES and KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html. see http://list.krnet.org/mailman/listinfo/krnet_list.krnet.org to change options. To UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to krnet-le...@list.krnet.org
