I’m aware of the CG issues with two aboard. Prior to any training being done steps will be taken to move that CG to the forward end of the envelope with about 325 lbs of people aboard. We don’t need it to perform great, after all it’s just a trainer. I totally agree that it’s an easy airplane to fly. My first solo in a KR was Martin Robert’s O-200 powered standard tail dragged. Awesome airplane to say the least. I felt as if I had flown it my whole life even though Steve Alderman was standing there telling me that I should be afraid. After that Steve started letting me fly his hotrod KR solo. My background in similar type aircraft was there though. I had a lot of Glasair tail wheel time. For people without similar type aircraft time though it will make them much more comfortable just getting time in type. Also consider that as time goes on it won’t be builders as much as buyers of KR’s that are doing first flights. Having available type training will increase the value of every KR that’s for sale out there. It may also lower insurance rates. And last but not least it may reduce your liability as a seller if you demand training prior to the buyers first flight. If they fly it without getting training and crash it you have covered your rear end very well. Other things that we will cover during transition training are things like adjusting valves, re-torquing wooden props, basic fiberglass repair, removal of wings, center of gravity calculation etc. How does a newbie know if things are OK if he or she has nothing to compare it to? They will leave transition training with confidence. Even though training may not necessarily be required for all pilots to the KR’s; getting professional type specific training is a big boost in peace of mind for those going solo in the KR for the first time. Time will tell but I think there will be hurdles to overcome but we will do our best to make it happen. I’m putting up money that I will likely never get back to address the lack of training issues in the KR community.
Victor Taylor CFI > On May 11, 2021, at 02:33, krnet-requ...@list.krnet.org wrote: > > Send KRnet mailing list submissions to > krnet@list.krnet.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via email, send a message with subject or > body 'help' to > krnet-requ...@list.krnet.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > krnet-ow...@list.krnet.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of KRnet digest..." > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Trainer idea (MS) > 2. Re: Trainer idea (n357cj) > 3. KR2 C of G range. (colin hales) > 4. Re: Trainer idea (Kayak) > 5. Re: KR2 C of G range. (Chris Pryce) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Mon, 10 May 2021 09:05:34 +0000 (UTC) > From: MS <propbala...@att.net> > Subject: KR>Trainer idea > To: "krnet@list.krnet.org" <krnet@list.krnet.org> > Message-ID: <812293774.571167.1620637534...@mail.yahoo.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > I very much agree with the idea of not stuffing two people in a KR for > training purposes. My previous standard KR was WAY out of CG with just two > normal-sized people in it and my KR wasn't badly built - an engineer with > McDonnell Douglas built it - built three of them in fact - and had the added > weight of the Maloof prop out front but was still very tail heavy with two > people. Most early KR's tended to go tail heavy with two people. Trying to > develop familiarity with a plane that has such a tendency toward aft CG > doesn't sound like a good idea. Not to mention, two people each with heads > canted toward the center because the canopy had such poor headroom made for > an unpleasant ride for both pilot and passenger, quite aside from trying to > do any flight familiarization. > > With the many improvements that have been made to the standard design - wider > cockpits, longer fuselages, problems the original design had with two up have > been eliminated of course but still . . . with two people and marginal > horsepower seems asking for trouble. It's never been a two-place plane . . > . really. It's a very cool one person plane. Long runway to eliminate > concern of running off the end, either with an abort or with a long landing, > plus no controller distracting things . . . if a person has any skill at all > at flying, the KR is not quirky or difficult. 90% of newbie problems are > simply from trying to touch down while the plane still wants to fly. That > ends up with bent nosewheel struts and broken props . . . happens all the > time, not just with KR's. Speed control is so important and finding that > comfortable spot with a new plane is always a bit nervewracking. It takes a > lot of self-discipline those first few flights while getting a feel for where > the approach speed should be. This isn't just with KR's. I think everyone, > flying a new plane for the first time, has a hard time keeping their approach > speed down. > > Slow flight with a few stalls is a great thing to do on that first flight. > Neither of my KR's did anything in the stall except mush. It's a gentle > wing (if built correctly and nothing is out of whack) with no bad habits. > Generations of KR builders/flyers have gone through this and gained the > benefit of true stick and rudder skills with this forgiving airplane. > There's no need to treat the KR like it requires some special training. It's > about as honest an airplane as any of us will ever fly. Just slow down > before the wheels. If you have to wait for it to slow down, just wait. > That's exactly the reason to use an extra long runway while in the > familiarization phase. > > Putting two people in a KR for training purposes seems a recipe for an > unpleasant experience . . . although, come to think of it. familiarization > flying with Jim Morehead was not uncomfortable at all . . . so I'm all wet. > Depends on the plane I guess. Jim's tri-gear plane was just as comfortable > with the two of us in it as a Piper Cherokee 140. > I sure had some unpleasant experiences with my first (standard design) KR > when I had another person in the cockpit though. With such an aft CG, if one > doesn't die first, one learns to become a pretty good pilot. > > MikeKSEE > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Mon, 10 May 2021 09:25:02 -0400 (EDT) > From: n357cj <n35...@ptd.net> > Subject: KR>Re: Trainer idea > To: MS <propbala...@att.net>, KRnet <krnet@list.krnet.org> > Message-ID: <584061120.17507525.1620653102123.javamail.zim...@ptd.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > Hi Mike, > > I just wanted to comment to make sure that your referring to a KR2 in all the > comments. My experience in my 2S and a couple others I have been in has been > all good. I have well over a hundred hours of XC with passengers. I fondly > remmeber one passenger from the Kentky gathering that flew my plan better > than I could ever hope to... > A would make the clain that a KR2S is a very easy plane to launch, fly and > land. At least with the training wheel in the front. > Thanks, > Joe Horton, > N357CJ > 1050 hrs > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "MS" <propbala...@att.net> > To: "KRnet" <krnet@list.krnet.org> > Sent: Monday, May 10, 2021 5:05:34 AM > Subject: KR>Trainer idea > > I > With the many improvements that have been made to the standard design - wider > cockpits, longer fuselages, problems the original design had with two up have > been eliminated of course but still . . . with two people and marginal > horsepower seems asking for trouble. It's never been a two-place plane . . > . really. It's a very cool one person plane. > > Putting two people in a KR for training purposes seems a recipe for an > unpleasant experience . . . although, come to think of it. familiarization > flying with Jim Morehead was not uncomfortable at all . . . so I'm all wet. > Depends on the plane I guess. Jim's tri-gear plane was just as comfortable > with the two of us in it as a Piper Cherokee 140. > > ________________________________ > -Please see LIST RULES and KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html > -Change list delivery options at > https://list.krnet.org/list/krnet.list.krnet.org/ Affinity List Info Board > -Search recent KRnet Archives at > https://list.krnet.org/empathy/list/krnet.list.krnet.org/ > -Search John Boyea's decades of archive at > https://www.mail-archive.com/krnet@list.krnet.org/ > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Mon, 10 May 2021 23:03:43 +0000 > From: colin hales <colinha...@hotmail.com> > Subject: KR>KR2 C of G range. > To: "krnet@list.krnet.org" <krnet@list.krnet.org> > Message-ID: <du2pr07mb8174bbb57f9be3823bc84cc7db...@du2pr07mb8174.eur > prd07.prod.outlook.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > I read recently that a KR2 pilot was worried about "stuffing a 2nd std pilots > in a KR." > > There is no need to worry about stuffing any payload onboard a KR2 if the > aircraft remains within the C of G range. That is what the C of G range is > for after all. > > In the UK we did extensive tests of aircraft stability at the aft C of G > limits. All the KR2 aircraft involved became neutrally stable at the 6 inch > aft point. Beyond that the aircraft became divergent and it was decided not > to continue the flight program of deep stalls, (Stall with full backstick > applied to see if aileron control was still possible) and other manoeuvres in > that divergent state. From the conclusion of these tests, It was then decided > by the UK CAA or LAA to remove the last two inches of range of C of G from > all KR2's in the UK. I totally agreed with this stance, having tried flying a > KR2 on the 6 inch aft point. It was not fun. > > So if you have an 0-200 or Corvair or something similarly heavy up front and > your C of G range works out ok and permits your flight and you don't mind > flying above the original 900lb MAUW allowed, then do not worry, the aircraft > will fly just fine. Top pilots with bigger balls than us, flew the C of G and > weight envelopes so that we don't have to worry. > > You only have to worry if you decide to load up and go fly a KR2 without a > clue what the aircraft C of G actually is. Then you and everyone at the > airfield definitely should be worried. > > Of course, those with fuel tanks above your feet, as the fuel burns off the C > of G moves further aft, so you might take off ok, but the aircraft will > become more divergent during the flight. All food for thought... > > CH. > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Mon, 10 May 2021 20:42:48 -0400 > From: Kayak <kayak1...@gmail.com> > Subject: KR>Re: Trainer idea > To: MS <propbala...@att.net>, KRnet <krnet@list.krnet.org> > Message-ID: > <CAF6k7fSyDkr0Ap5nG=wb1gzyan54ot-1deecptu1d+8ml7d...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > would adding a BRS to a trainer KR add a margin of safety against the CG > issue when slow flight training (at altitude of course) ? > > (remember the solo pilot who spun his all the way down and never recovered, > all caught on gopro) > >> On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 5:05 AM MS <propbala...@att.net> wrote: >> >> I very much agree with the idea of not stuffing two people in a KR for >> training purposes. My previous standard KR was WAY out of CG with just two >> normal-sized people in it and my KR wasn't badly built - an engineer with >> McDonnell Douglas built it - built three of them in fact - and had the >> added weight of the Maloof prop out front but was still very tail heavy >> with two people. Most early KR's tended to go tail heavy with two people. >> Trying to develop familiarity with a plane that has such a tendency toward >> aft CG doesn't sound like a good idea. Not to mention, two people each >> with heads canted toward the center because the canopy had such poor >> headroom made for an unpleasant ride for both pilot and passenger, quite >> aside from trying to do any flight familiarization. >> >> With the many improvements that have been made to the standard design - >> wider cockpits, longer fuselages, problems the original design had with two >> up have been eliminated of course but still . . . with two people and >> marginal horsepower seems asking for trouble. It's never been a two-place >> plane . . . really. It's a very cool one person plane. Long runway to >> eliminate concern of running off the end, either with an abort or with a >> long landing, plus no controller distracting things . . . if a person has >> any skill at all at flying, the KR is not quirky or difficult. 90% of >> newbie problems are simply from trying to touch down while the plane still >> wants to fly. That ends up with bent nosewheel struts and broken props . . >> . happens all the time, not just with KR's. Speed control is so important >> and finding that comfortable spot with a new plane is always a bit >> nervewracking. It takes a lot of self-discipline those first few flights >> while getting a feel for where the approach speed should be. This isn't >> just with KR's. I think everyone, flying a new plane for the first time, >> has a hard time keeping their approach speed down. >> >> Slow flight with a few stalls is a great thing to do on that first >> flight. Neither of my KR's did anything in the stall except mush. It's a >> gentle wing (if built correctly and nothing is out of whack) with no bad >> habits. Generations of KR builders/flyers have gone through this and >> gained the benefit of true stick and rudder skills with this forgiving >> airplane. There's no need to treat the KR like it requires some special >> training. It's about as honest an airplane as any of us will ever fly. >> Just slow down before the wheels. If you have to wait for it to slow down, >> just wait. That's exactly the reason to use an extra long runway while in >> the familiarization phase. >> >> Putting two people in a KR for training purposes seems a recipe for an >> unpleasant experience . . . although, come to think of it. familiarization >> flying with Jim Morehead was not uncomfortable at all . . . so I'm all >> wet. Depends on the plane I guess. Jim's tri-gear plane was just as >> comfortable with the two of us in it as a Piper Cherokee 140. >> I sure had some unpleasant experiences with my first (standard design) KR >> when I had another person in the cockpit though. With such an aft CG, if >> one doesn't die first, one learns to become a pretty good pilot. >> >> MikeKSEE >> ________________________________ >> -Please see LIST RULES and KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html >> -Change list delivery options at >> https://list.krnet.org/list/krnet.list.krnet.org/ Affinity List Info Board >> -Search recent KRnet Archives at >> https://list.krnet.org/empathy/list/krnet.list.krnet.org/ >> -Search <https://list.krnet.org/empathy/list/krnet.list.krnet.org/-Search> >> John Boyea's decades of archive at >> https://www.mail-archive.com/krnet@list.krnet.org/ > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Mon, 10 May 2021 18:27:10 -0700 > From: Chris Pryce <vr6chri...@gmail.com> > Subject: KR>Re: KR2 C of G range. > To: KRnet <krnet@list.krnet.org> > Message-ID: > <cachs_qvrobwmvt00jtfskkog0u3e-4lasudr4-b++jkgj9l...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > The safe thing to do is test your CG range with moveable ballast. I > initially operated in the recommended 6 inch range. I decided to test and > expand that range with moveable weights. I've successfully tested my range > to 6.75 inches aft using 100 lbs of rocks in the seat and 30 pounds of > weights that I took off with in front of the spar and then moved to behind > the rear spar. This gave me an opportunity to take off in a known stable CG > and then test it farther aft at a safe altitude. After feeling out the > controls, I was able to verify that I could land at that CG. This allowed > me to test the controls before taking on a bigger passenger. After testing, > I have successfully flown with two American sized adults and a reasonable > amount of fuel for cross country. > > That being said, I have a strecthed KR-2S with a Corvair...as Larry says, > your results may vary. > > Chris Pryce > Vacaville, CA > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > ________________________________ > Search the KRnet Archives at <A > HREF="https://list.krnet.org/empathy/list/krnet.list.krnet.org/";> KRnet > Empathy Archive administration </A>. > Please see LIST RULES and KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html . > To change list delivery options visit the <A > HREF="https://list.krnet.org/list/krnet.list.krnet.org";> KRnet Affinity List > Info Board</A> . > <A HREF="https://www.mail-archive.com/krnet@list.krnet.org/";>John Bouyea's > KRnet Searchable Email Archive (recent, as well as decades old)</A> > > ------------------------------ > > End of KRnet Digest, Vol 14, Issue 1 > ************************************ ________________________________ -Please see LIST RULES and KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html -Change list delivery options at https://list.krnet.org/list/krnet.list.krnet.org/ Affinity List Info Board -Search recent KRnet Archives at https://list.krnet.org/empathy/list/krnet.list.krnet.org/ -Search John Boyea's decades of archive at https://www.mail-archive.com/krnet@list.krnet.org/
