KR> Lets try that again...

list.krnet.org Cc: colin hales Subject: KR> Lets try that again... As I said, I read what is written and mostly stay stub. That is until I read something that I know myself is 100% factually incorrect and that might effect the decision of someone trying to make a very personal choice. The

KR> Lets try that again...

t: Re: KR> Lets try that again... How ironic that the very next e-mail I received after my post was the following: Larry Flesner +++ You can solve them. How? By entering your design, concept, or idea into the EAA Founder?s Innovation Prize challenge. The

KR> Lets try that again...

This is the P51 low-altitude bailout I previously mentioned and which Colin also described. https://youtu.be/xctYWSuwoYA I'm not sure how robust the weight argument against a parachute is against a context of many builders having already reconciled a near 50% increase in empty weight for their K

KR> Lets try that again...

How ironic that the very next e-mail I received after my post was the following: Larry Flesner +++ You can solve them. How? By entering your design, concept, or idea into the EAA Founder?s Innovation Prize challenge. The 2016

KR> Lets try that again...

At 10:31 PM 5/11/2016, you wrote: > That is 60 feet for a paraglider >chute and 400 ft for a normal emergency chute operated by a complete novice, >not the staggering 4,000 ft that was quoted. The chutes we use hear >at the gliding club are 12 lb and they indeed have a rated >minimum deployment

KR> Lets try that again...

As I said, I read what is written and mostly stay stub. That is until I read something that I know myself is 100% factually incorrect and that might effect the decision of someone trying to make a very personal choice. Then I just think it not proper or correct that miss information is bantered aro