e Telstra 4G network
- Reply message -
From: "Mark Langford"
To: "KRnet"
Subject: KR> KR G rating
List-Post: krnet@list.krnet.org
Date: Thu, Aug 22, 2013 8:23 PM
Dan Heath wrote:
>>Would you not have to divide by the gross weight rather than the weight
ewall.
>
> Sent from my HTC One XL on the Telstra 4G network
>
> - Reply message -
> From: "Mark Langford"
> To: "KRnet"
> Subject: KR> KR G rating
> Date: Thu, Aug 22, 2013 8:23 PM
>
>
> Dan Heath wrote:
>
> >>Would
>
>
>>>Would you not have to divide by the gross weight rather than the weight of
>your KR.
+
You are right. That's what I meant, I just didn't say it that
way. Divide by the gross weight. When Mark and I made the trip to
Oshkosh we
On Aug 22, 2013, at 5:18 AM, Larry&Sallie Flesner wrote:
>
>>
>>
Would you not have to divide by the gross weight rather than the
weight of
>> your KR.
> +
>
> You are right. That's what I meant, I just didn't say it that wa
Would you not have to divide by the gross weight rather than the weight of
your KR. At a gross weight of 1200 #, mine comes in at 4.66, as would any
KR at 1200, I suspect.
I also never say anything that stated a 9G rating for the KR.
See N64KR at http://KRBuilder.org - Then click on the pics?
Se
Dan Heath wrote:
>>Would you not have to divide by the gross weight rather than the weight of
your KR. At a gross weight of 1200 #, mine comes in at 4.66, as would any
KR at 1200, I suspect.<<
I'm sure Larry meant "gross" weight. He definitely knows how this works!
Mark Langford
ML at N56ML.c
>I would like to say that the AS5048 spar size conformed the KR
>advertised 9 G rating more accurately
>than the RAF48 size.
> guentheraviator at yahoo.com
I don't recall ever seeing the KR rated at 9G. My plans say "
At 04:03 AM 9/21/2006, you wrote:
>It doesn't really matter, but keep in mind, those G numbers are at the
>design" weight. I read a long time ago, that the KR specs were +7 and -4 G.
>Daniel R. Heath
++
My plans state "plus / minus 7G's at 8
>
>Gross 1100 lbs
>Maneuvering speed 134 MPH
>Flight Load Factor + 4.4 -1.76 G
>
>Robin.
+++
If you don't have a set of plans, find someone that does and
check out the specifications in the front of the manual.
Your numbers appear to com
Larry said: If you don't have a set of plans, find someone that does and
check out the specifications in the front of the manual.
In the front of the manual here on my desk it says " Design stress loading
is + or - 7 g's at 800 lbs and redline is 200mph indicated" The date on my
set is May 1986
Larry et al:
I did some checking onn this a while back and compared the Official KR rating to
prod. spam cans, particularly cessna 172s & 177s which is around 4 g according
to
what I was told by a 177 owner.
That said we should remember that certified aircraft will have a much more
consistent le
>Orma,
>Isn't it +7 -4?
>Daniel R. Heath
+++
And I'm thinking it's + / - 7G's at 800 pounds. Don't forget
to always state the gross weight it's rated at. It doesn't
carry the same G rating at 1200 pounds !! :-)
Larry Flesner
One thing you need to keep in mind if you want to do aerobatics in the KR,
or any other plane, is that the G rating is one little piece of the puzzle.
Most KRs meet the G requirements just fine, but the other factors are just
as or more important.
Some things to consider:
Your aerobatic experienc
>Isn't it +7 -4?
>>Yes Dan. I took a look at my book and it does say Plus 7
>Thanks
>Orma
+++
The following is scanned from page 6, "Introduction" of the plans.
I've inserted an X where the plans have a "plus" sign atop
a "minus" sign. The OC
Brian you left one out, anyone using the Frise aileron setup is definitely
out of the picture since they are strictly a non-aerobatic item whereas the
plans built ones are. Personally if I wanted aerobatic capabilities as well
as high performance I think I would have gone with the Steen Skybolt a
sage]
> From: Doug Rupert
> To: KRnet
> Date: 3/22/2005 11:10:44 AM
> Subject: RE: KR> g rating
>
>
>
> Brian you left one out, anyone using the Frise aileron setup is definitely
> out of the picture since they are strictly a non-aerobatic item whereas
the
> pla
Doing it in helos is old hat. At Sikorsky (before my time) they took an
S-52, (now being sold by a FL firm as the "Hummingbird" as a kit) put a
small turbine in it, called it the S-59 and at one point did 17 (or was it
19) consecutive loops in it. I've seen an 8mm movie one of the mechs. made,
>
>I believe that the advertised G loading is +- 4, although I know that I read
> many years ago, that it was +7 -4, so who really knows for sure.
>I do believe that I have seen some 4+ G pull ups at some of the gatherings.
>Plan on being in Mt. Vernon is September.
>Daniel R. Heath -
++
18 matches
Mail list logo
