Does anyone know of any builder that ended up with an unusually light weight
fuselage? I searched
the archives and had some trouble finding any isolated information on what to
expect for weight
with no engine. I would like to beat the average if I could.
Thanks a bunch, Mike Johnson
Try this
http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford/ebarros/
- Original Message -
From: "Mike johnson"
To:
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2006 10:05 PM
Subject: KR> Fuselage weight question
> Does anyone know of any builder that ended up with an unusually light
> weight f
te:
> Try this
>
> http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford/ebarros/
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Mike johnson"
> To:
> Sent: Monday, October 23, 2006 10:05 PM
> Subject: KR> Fuselage weight question
>
>
> > Does anyone know o
t: Re: KR> Fuselage weight question
My question is, Has anyone tried to reduce (lower) the
turtledeck in size...i.e. more like the KR1? It seems
logical that you should be able to lower the taper,
give more bubble effect (increase rearward visibility)
from the canopy and reduce weight?
--
f1981=btinternet@mylist.net] On Behalf Of
Red
Sent: 24 October 2006 18:28
To: KRnet
Subject: Re: KR> Fuselage weight question
My question is, Has anyone tried to reduce (lower) the
turtledeck in size...i.e. more like the KR1? It seems
logical that you should be able to lower the taper,
give mor
Red wrote:
> My question is, Has anyone tried to reduce (lower) the
> turtledeck in size...i.e. more like the KR1? It seems
> logical that you should be able to lower the taper,
> give more bubble effect (increase rearward visibility)
> from the canopy and reduce weight?
Reducing the taper to re
: KR> Fuselage weight question
Red wrote:
> My question is, Has anyone tried to reduce (lower) the
> turtledeck in size...i.e. more like the KR1? It seems
> logical that you should be able to lower the taper,
> give more bubble effect (increase rearward visibility)
> from the
---
- Original Message -
From: "Fred Johnson"
To: "'KRnet'"
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 2:42 PM
Subject: RE: KR> Fuselage weight question
>I agree with Mark, look at the RV4 series and the Harmon Rocket
>
> Fred Johnson
> Product
Did they see this on the P-51? Or did they do an engine swap along with the
redesign?
> From: riksh...@interl.net> To: kr...@mylist.net> Subject: Re: KR> Fuselage
> weight question> Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 15:41:42 -0500> > I also agree with
> Mark from my exp. in C
Charles,
The P-51 did change on the "D" model to a bubble canopy, not for speed
though, for pilot visibility. Plus the Merlin was added to the "C" model
for speed and then they tweaked it all through production.
Fred Johnson
Product Manager
T.E. West, LLC.
t
[mailto:krnet-bounces+brian.kraut=engalt@mylist.net]On Behalf Of
Fred Johnson
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 3:42 PM
To: 'KRnet'
Subject: RE: KR> Fuselage weight question
I agree with Mark, look at the RV4 series and the Harmon Rocket
Fred Johnson
Product Manager
T.E. West,
unsubscribe me please
After all the great feedback from the kr club, and talking to a couple of
engineers I came up with only
one discovery, do nothing!
The "boat" is the best part of the kr design. I talked it over with a
structural engeneer, and let
him no what all your thoughts were as well, and he was quick to s
Mike Johnson wrote:
> After all the great feedback from the kr club, and talking to a couple of
> engineers I came up with only
> one discovery, do nothing!
As had been mentioned before, the finish work on that balsa or foam or
whatever composite surface would be a real chore compared to the si
Hi Mike,
What I did on my KR boat 15 years ago: I made the sides like plans call for
except longer and a little taller because I am tall. Once they were flipped
upside down on the work table ready for the bottom skin. I took a 1 inch thick
piece of Divyncell foam cut close to the bottom shape, l
There cannot be a solution when there is not a problem. But, if you
want it a bit bigger or wider, do so. The plans are good for guidance,
and innovation is one of the pleasures of building an airplane where not
every rivet hole is pre-defined.
Ron Freiberger
mail to ronandmar...@earthlink.net
One more thing I almost forgot, my sides are almost perpendicular to the
bottom, I do not have the slanted out side walls plus my seat back and firewall
are wider than the original KR2. My seat back is divinycell foam covered on
both sides with one layer of biaxial cloth, it is glassed in perman
> Reducing the taper to resemble a bubble will cost you in performance in
> the
> form of drag on the back of the canopy. That's probably why the KR2 went
> to
> the straight turtledeck. And plexiglas is probably heavier than your
> average turtledeck material per square foot.
+++
> Try this
>
> http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford/ebarros/
++
Even better - go to his site direct (http://www.kr2-egb.com.ar/) - and
translate the pages, it is almost as good as Langford's site and better than
most construction manuals.
His complete fuse excluding spars and legs weighs 2
>> Reducing the taper to resemble a bubble will cost you in performance in
>> the
>> form of drag on the back of the canopy.
> Not sure that's right Mark - refer the 240 mph (2,000lb) GP4, T18 and
> Mustang II plus any number of modern designs that have concave curves in
> all
> planes. (Apogee
I wasn't going to say anything about the canopy, But
when you say Mark is wrong and you are not flying yet
I can't resist. I had a KR-2 With a bubble canopy that
you could see out the back(if you could figure out how
to turn around in a KR) and I was about 10 mph slower
than the KRs with the high b
Again, Brian Paser's book, Virg
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 08:49:11 +0200 "Steve Jacobs"
writes:
>
> > Reducing the taper to resemble a bubble will cost you in
> performance in
> > the
> > form of drag on the back of the canopy. That's probably why the
> KR2 went
> > to
> > the straight tu
, 2006 4:08 PM
To: kr...@mylist.net
Subject: Re: KR> Fuselage weight question
Again, Brian Paser's book, Virg
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 08:49:11 +0200 "Steve Jacobs"
writes:
>
> > Reducing the taper to resemble a bubble will cost you in
> performance in
> > the
Hi
Mark is absolutely right, to mimimise drag through flow separation, any
object should be streamlined at as shallow an angle as possible, so the
tail should resemble a long cone, but like all these things, there is a
compromise, the cones are always kept shorter than ideal. A long
aeroplane
Thank you for the reply on the one unit wing spar. It looks great and just what
I had in mind. The reason I asked was not to reinvent the KR but because I
built a wing for a GP-4 and that design used a box spar one unit spar and and
less chance for failure.Scott William wrote: Try this:
http:/
I just weighed my Sidewinder fuselage and it weighs 58 lbs
I should be getting my plans this week.My question is,has anyone built the spar
as one unit?If so please lit me know.
Don Chisholm wrote:I just weighed my Sidewinder
fuselage and it weighs 58 lbs
___
Search the KRnet Archives at http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrc
Try this:
http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford/lhyder/
Scott
--- Robert Pesak wrote:
> I should be getting my plans this week.My question
> is,has anyone built the spar as one unit?If so
> please lit me know.
>
> Don Chisholm wrote:I
> just weighed my Sidewinder fuselage and it weighs 58
> lbs
>
Thanks Don ... Denny
--- Don Chisholm wrote:
> I just weighed my Sidewinder fuselage and it weighs
> 58 lbs
> ___
> Search the KRnet Archives at
> http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp
> to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to
> krnet-le...@mylist.ne
- Columbia, SC
---Original Message---
From: Scott William
List-Post: krnet@list.krnet.org
Date: 10/15/05 18:02:33
To: KRnet
Subject: Re: KR> fuselage weight
Try this:
http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford/lhyder/
30 matches
Mail list logo
