At 06:04 PM 1/5/06, JAMES C FERRIS wrote:
>I have looked at this also, and on the list of performance of the flying
>KR-2's started by Orma about half of them have performance in the sport
>aircraft rules,
I suspect these numbers are either light, or with flaps, or both. LSA
requires stall at gro
n's U-2.
Maybe bicycle mains with wing protection gear. As we age, it's time to plan
ahead.
Ed J
- Original Message -
From: "Ron Butterfield"
To: "KRnet"
Sent: Friday, January 06, 2006 8:19 AM
Subject: Re: KR> kr2 sport pilot
> At 06:04 PM 1/5/06,
Why not build a Sonex or some other recognized ELSA compliant aircraft and
save yourself a lot of grief?
See N64KR at http://KRBuilder.org - Then click on the pics
See you in Mt. Vernon - 2006 - KR Gathering
There is a time for building and a time for FLYING and the time for building
is OVER.
Would a Tucker CX 4 do the job? I think that whats it's called, sharp
little airplane.
Steve Bray
Jackson, Tennessee
>From: "Dan Heath"
>Reply-To: KRnet
>To:
>Subject: Re: KR> kr2 sport pilot
>Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2006 18:32:16 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
I don't think it is a lot of grief, thats all I did for thirty years is
redesign aircraft to make them fly at transonic speeds or increase the
drag rise Mach number from speeds like 0.82 to as high as 0.98. The
KR-1B is a good idea, but single place and the Sonex has all those rivit
head turbulato
im forwarding the bad news i received from eaa this is BS the stock Kr
speeds are higher then advertised how can we change this? .I like the vw
and i
like to start a new kr that will meet the rules if it can be done or reg it
as a taylormonplane or twitch if possible . maybe this is a
Hello Bill,
When you say your aircraft was "upgraded" to the fixed tricycle landing
gear, what was it upgraded from? If the aircraft ever had the standard KR-2
retractable landing gear installed, it is not eligible for operation by sport
pilots no matter what it's current configuration is
I have looked at this also, and on the list of performance of the flying
KR-2's started by Orma about half of them have performance in the sport
aircraft rules,however it would be better if we redesigned the aircraft
to fit the rules and called it something else only useding the Ken Rand
constructi
>I have looked at this also, and on the list of performance of the flying
>KR-2's started by Orma about half of them have performance in the sport
>aircraft rules,however it would be better if we redesigned the aircraft
>to fit the rules and called it something else only useding the Ken Rand
>cons
Your right Larry, I was thinking of a 10 or 15 percent increase in the
wing span and area and the same with the tail and increase the fuselage
length also, and may decrease the elevator area like Steve Jones and some
of the others did.
Jim
It's been done already. It is called Cherry BX-2, it has the same
building techniques and fits the sport aircraft rules of course.
GeorgeM
JAMES C FERRIS wrote:
>...however it would be better if we redesigned the aircraft
>to fit the rules and called it something else only useding the Ken Ra
George,
the Cherry BX 2 does NOT fit the rules!
- Stall speed too high
- Retract gear
Joachim
> [Original Message]
> From: George
> To: KRnet
> Date: 1/5/2006 6:13:35 PM
> Subject: Re: KR> kr2 sport pilot
>
> It's been done already. It is called Cherry BX-2,
12 matches
Mail list logo
