From: To: Subject: krnet Digest 9 Nov 2000 17:05:36 -0000 Issue 121 Date: Thursday, November 09, 2000 9:06 AM krnet Digest 9 Nov 2000 17:05:36 -0000 Issue 121 Topics (messages 2852 through 2870): lessons learned 2852 by: SLemke1.aol.com 2857 by: Horn2004.aol.com Re: TAILWHEELS ? 2853 by: Gognij.aol.com 2855 by: Jerry Mahurin 2863 by: virgnvs.juno.com Re: tail wheel 2854 by: Jim Faughn adjusting the Revflow 2856 by: Oscar Zuniga 2861 by: AviationMech.aol.com TAILWHEEL FLYING ? 2858 by: Phil Visconti 2859 by: larry flesner 2860 by: Frank Ross 2864 by: virgnvs.juno.com Retract problem 2862 by: The House of D's 2869 by: KRkip.aol.com I need more info....... 2865 by: Wade Russell 2866 by: Jim Payne 2867 by: Robert Stone 2868 by: virgnvs.juno.com FAA REFUSAL ? 2870 by: Phil Visconti Administrivia: To subscribe to the digest, e-mail: To unsubscribe from the digest, e-mail: To post to the list, e-mail: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 23:52:29 EST To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: SLemke1@aol.com Subject: lessons learned Message-ID: --part1_b2.cc15e26.2738e48d_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi netters Thought I would pass on a lesson I learned tonight. A little history first, I am building two kr2s at the same time. One is for my brother who will be helping out. I've been building for only one month and have started to lay up the plywood. The layup system developed by Rand Robinson worked great until I tried to remove the staples. I install the 1/2" staples with an electric stapler and used the sting method as discribed in the plans. The problem I ran into is that the staples take over 70 lbs ( I tested) of pressure to remove each. The string I used also breaks at about 70 lbs but is easily cut on the staples. I just spent 2 1/2 hours digging out 500 staples from one side. Here is the fix use 1/4" staples! I still have three sides to lay up, I will let you know if it works. P.S. I am looking for a couple of Canopies on the cheap. I would like to use Dragonfly Canopies. If you know of a supplier please let me know. Thanks for all of your help in the past Steve Lemke Omaha NE --part1_b2.cc15e26.2738e48d_boundary-- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 09:46:35 EST To: SLemke1@aol.com, krnet@mailinglists.org From: Horn2004@aol.com Subject: Re: KR> lessons learned Message-ID: In a message dated 11/6/00 10:53:28 PM, SLemke1@aol.com writes: <> Another method which works good is using that plastic strapping they use in warehouses to secure items to skids. It has good strong fibers running the length of the strap. If you staple across the strap with your staples running perpendicular to the length of the strap, you'll have no problems removing the staples. Steve Horn horn2004@aol.com Dallas, TX ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 01:29:33 EST To: vicsani@gis.net, krnet@mailinglists.org From: Gognij@aol.com Subject: Re: KR> TAILWHEELS ? Message-ID: Phil I do! Is there something that I should know about it? My tailwheel arm is made from aluminum, and came from Reese Daniels. I also have retracts on my airplane. I think I am the last person in the world building a KR with this gear. I do have my own latches on the gear though! I love the way the original KR2 looks. I have to admit though, Marti Roberts airplane sure looks and flys good. I flew it when he had Dans 2180cc engine in it a long time ago. Jim Gogniat ......Gognij@aol.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 13:39:42 GMT To: Gognij@aol.com, vicsani@gis.net, krnet@mailinglists.org From: "Jerry Mahurin" Subject: Re: KR> TAILWHEELS ? Message-ID: You are not the last..... I have retracts and the only mod is two mousetrap springs on each side and I use nylon cord through eye bolts to lift the latches. I picked up these mods from Bob Muse, Sr. And the tailwheel is pure stock.... Jerry Mahurin Lugoff, SC >From: Gognij@aol.com >To: vicsani@gis.net, krnet@mailinglists.org >Subject: Re: KR> TAILWHEELS ? >Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 01:29:33 EST > >Phil > > I do! Is there something that I should know about it? My >tailwheel >arm is made from aluminum, and came from Reese Daniels. I also have >retracts >on my airplane. >I think I am the last person in the world building a KR with this gear. I >do >have my own latches on the gear though! I love the way the original KR2 >looks. I have to admit though, Marti Roberts airplane sure looks and flys >good. I flew it when he had Dans 2180cc engine in it a long time ago. > Jim Gogniat ......Gognij@aol.com > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >To post to the list, email: krnet@mailinglists.org >To unsubscribe, e-mail: krnet-unsubscribe@mailinglists.org >For additional commands, e-mail: krnet-help@mailinglists.org > _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 22:02:55 -0500 To: vicsani@gis.net From: virgnvs@juno.com Cc: krnet@mailinglists.org Subject: Re: KR> TAILWHEELS ? Message-ID: <20001107.223535.-396875.0.virgnvs@juno.com> YES, RR, Virg On Mon, 06 Nov 2000 23:25:12 -0500 Phil Visconti writes: > Doesn't anyone have the original KR tailwheels anymore ? > > Phil > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To post to the list, email: krnet@mailinglists.org > To unsubscribe, e-mail: krnet-unsubscribe@mailinglists.org > For additional commands, e-mail: krnet-help@mailinglists.org > ________________________________________________________________ YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET! Juno now offers FREE Internet Access! Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 06:46:46 -0600 To: "KR Net Response" From: "Jim Faughn" Subject: Re: KR> tail wheel Message-ID: Does someone have the paper I wrote on landing a KR posted? If so, he may be interested in where. I had about 120 hours when I first flew my KR. - - - - - - - > 1) Is it extremely difficult for a low time spam can pilot to learn > to safely land a KR taildragger or can any bozo with half a brain > (me for example) learn to do it? Jim Faughn 4323D Laclede Ave. St. Louis, MO 63108 (314) 652-7659 mailto:jfaughn@mvp.net N891JF ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 13:40:29 GMT To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: "Oscar Zuniga" Subject: adjusting the Revflow Message-ID: Don wrote: >From: DONAN5@aol.com >Anybody got a step by step method on adjusting this carb(revflow) >for a VW....2180 >Not having luck getting it much lower than 900 RPM and not quitting Well, I doubt that tuning the carb is any different for a 2180 than for any other VW. I'm not sure what a good idle speed is, but 900 RPM sounds like "fast taxi"! I'm also not too sure how close the Revflow is to the Posa, but for what it's worth I have Paul Martin's copy of the "Tuning the Posa" video and it's a step-by-step walk-through of how to do it. Also quite a bit of footage of how the carb is made and how it works, test stand running, etc. (Of course my family thought I was nuts when I popped it in the VCR and watched an hour of engine sounds and tech talk). Email me off-net if you are interested in borrowing the video, but let's see if anybody on the Net here has any comments regarding how similar or dissimilar the idle speed screw, needles, or anything else is between the two carbs. Or non-carbs, some might say. Oscar Zuniga Medford, Oregon mailto: taildrags@hotmail.com website at http://www.geocities.com/taildrags/ _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 15:19:36 EST To: taildrags@hotmail.com, krnet@mailinglists.org From: AviationMech@aol.com Subject: Re: KR> adjusting the Revflow Message-ID: I have a revmaster carb and indeed it is simular to the posa in tuning. Revmaster aviation supplies both a set of needles and instructions for the installation and tuning of the carb. I talked to a tech person at revmaster named Joe. He is extremely knowledgeable and can help you. Sorry I don't have the phone # handy. Orma Aviationmech@AOL.com Builder and Pilot, KR-2 N110LR, 1984-2000 AP with Inspection Authorization ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 12:22:26 -0500 To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: Phil Visconti Subject: TAILWHEEL FLYING ? Message-ID: <3A083A51.F016CB62@gis.net> --------------89CF97D6DD1190B005582AD6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I asked the question about tailwheels because I was curious about how many were staying with original Rand design/parts. There seemed to be some trepidation amongst some builders concerning tailwheels. Also....while on the subject. What is a "tailwheel endorsement" ? Is this a required (FAA) or suggested route ? I haven't flown a taildragger (J-3) since early 1960s since switching to tri-gears. Phil --------------89CF97D6DD1190B005582AD6-- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 11:38:09 -0600 To: Phil Visconti ,krnet@mailinglists.org From: larry flesner Subject: Re: KR> TAILWHEEL FLYING ? Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20001107113809.007d5350@mail.midwest.net> >Also....while on the subject. What is a "tailwheel endorsement" ? Is >this a required (FAA) or suggested route ? I haven't flown a taildragger >(J-3) since early 1960s since switching to tri-gears. >Phil >================================================================ Phil, Prior tailwheel time may eliminate the need for an "endorsement" (tailwheel checkout with instructor). Check the reg's or talk to an instructor who should know. Basiclly, I think the reg's require a checkout if you don't have prior tailwheel time. Any competent instructor should be able to point you in the right direction (no pun intended) . Larry Flesner ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 09:48:53 -0800 (PST) To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: Frank Ross Subject: Re: KR> TAILWHEEL FLYING ? Message-ID: <20001107174853.21298.qmail@web4705.mail.yahoo.com> --- Phil Visconti wrote: > I asked the question about tailwheels ... What is a "tailwheel endorsement" ? Phil, My project (we won't call it a plane yet) has a Midget Mustang tailwheel because the previous builder had easy access to one and it will work fine. Rand supplies a tailwheel that is close to what Ken R. designed, but many use whatever they have or, like just about everything else on the thing, come up with their own design. The "Tailwheel endorsement" refers to those of us who got our ticket more recently when the only instruction was in tri-gear and we need an instructor to check us out in a tailwheel (conventional) plane and indicate that in our log-book. I don't think it is listed or indicated anywhere on your license or anyplace else. ===== Frank Ross, San Antonio, TX, __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products. All in one Place. http://shopping.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 22:13:58 -0500 To: vicsani@gis.net From: virgnvs@juno.com Cc: krnet@mailinglists.org Subject: Re: KR> TAILWHEEL FLYING ? Message-ID: <20001107.223535.-396875.1.virgnvs@juno.com> Prior to a certain date, any tailwheel time is counted as tailwheel qualified, Virg On Tue, 07 Nov 2000 12:22:26 -0500 Phil Visconti writes: > I asked the question about tailwheels because I was curious about how > many were staying with original Rand design/parts. There seemed to > be > some trepidation amongst some builders concerning tailwheels. > Also....while on the subject. What is a "tailwheel endorsement" ? Is > this a required (FAA) or suggested route ? I haven't flown a > taildragger > (J-3) since early 1960s since switching to tri-gears. > > Phil ________________________________________________________________ YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET! Juno now offers FREE Internet Access! Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 20:44:28 -0600 To: From: "The House of D's" Subject: Retract problem Message-ID: ------=_NextPart_000_0008_01C048FB.8630A520 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The last time I flew my KR1, I had a problem getting the gear to unlock to extend them for landing. After about 3 or 4 minutes of trying different things and then retrying, they came down like they were supposed to. I jacked up the plane and cycled them up and down numerous times without any sign of a problem. I have looked for something binding or wedged and cannot duplicate the experience. The retraction is so simple that it is hard to believe such a problem would be able to hide, but.... Has any one else seen a similar problem or have any recommendation on where I can look? Darryl KR1 in the Ozarks. ------=_NextPart_000_0008_01C048FB.8630A520-- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 22:03:14 EST To: durosset@fidnet.com, krnet@mailinglists.org From: KRkip@aol.com Subject: Re: KR> Retract problem Message-ID: Darryl I fly a KR2 with the retracts and have had the problem that you describe before. Everything would work fine on the ground when i tested the gear after i had the problem in the air and it took quote a while to find out what my problem was. The uplock that held the gear in the retracted position would not fully release when i went to put the gear down even though the cable that was attached to it would travel through its normal range of movement. I finally found that there was some flexing in the pulley brackets on the side of the fuselage that did not allow the locks to release fully. a modification of the brackets to stiffen them up ended the problem with no occurances since that time. I found that the pucker factor increases in relation to how much fuel you have left when you diccover that you have this problem. I hope that this helps Kip ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 21:35:58 -0800 (PST) To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: Wade Russell Subject: I need more info....... Message-ID: <20001108053558.28401.qmail@web6202.mail.yahoo.com> I'm juggling the decision of going with a Vision Aircraft that is completely made from Fiberglass as opposed to wood and fiberglass as the KR. The only reason being that the design is a newer, more sleek, and have a more modern look. I ask Steve at Vision today how this aircraft "stacks-up" to the KR-2S. This is what he said: Question: What is the performance from the airplane? What is the max altitude it can travel? What about max speed and flight distance on a tank of gas? I'm comparing this to a KR-2S. Thanks for your question. There is not much comparison to a KR-2 given the size disparity but I find the 100 hp version with the SP wing cruised at 155 mph while the KR-2 cruise is around 140 which is very respectable with a Volkswagen engine. With the Lycoming in Sean Ponsonby's aircraft he cruised at 204 true at 8,000 feet. Neither of us has been over 10,000' as there is not much need to in Florida or opportunity with the airspace here but the climb rate was still solid. With standard tanks you are looking at around a 450 mile range and there is the option of putting in an additional 20 gal in a header tank as well as 18 more in the outer wing sections but that is more than my bladder can handle. The KR-2 is quite economical to run and is good for people that it fits. I have a fair amount of time in them but at 5'7" I feel I am a little too large for it as a two place plane. There are a lot of good deals on partial KR-2 projects and that is probably the cheapest single way to get in the air that can be had. Jeanette has done a good job of keeping Ken Rand's plane alive and kicking and if the plane fits your life it is a good one. They are just a completely different category. You also need to decide whether you want to build a wood plane or a composite plane. I built antique aircraft for many years and find wood very gratifying. You will be building mostly in wood and switching to fiberglass at the end of the project with a KR while the Vision is all composite. There is no "better" or "worse" as these are just vastly different aircraft. I hope that didn't simply add more confusion but there is a lot more to be considered than top speed. Take a look at the wing loading differences alone and realize the type of ride that entails. Look at the construction manuals and see how well it will be explained to you. Ask the builder, ask the builders, ask the builders. Whatever you do, I wish you the best and building and flying your own plane is a dream that will set you apart from the rest. Steve http://VisionAircraft.com Vision Some will have it Some will not It's that simple So I ask you folks...The builders of the KR's. Would you build a Vision or a KR? Has anyone looked into the Vision? Any feedback would be a help in my decision. Wade Russell In San Antonio, TX. Ya'll! __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products. All in one Place. http://shopping.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 15:00:12 -0500 To: From: "Jim Payne" Subject: RE: KR> I need more info....... Message-ID: Wade, It's nice to see the vision people (Steve) being so positive on The KR-2S. I looked into the Vision aircraft, and Steve is right it's difficult to compare the two. The Vision was designed to use modern composite methods to build a "full size" plans built airplane. It's certainly not a quick build method and the construction of the vision will take longer than an unmodified KR-2S. Look at the builders web pages for the vision and you can see that you could probably build the KR-2S fuselage in the same amount of time it would take to construct the wooden fame for the "Moldless" composite constructed fuselage on the vision. So if time build time is an issue the KR-2S is the better choice. But I think we all know their are so many factors determining our aircraft choice. The vision is larger/roomier uses modern construction methods and takes longer to build and from what I've heard you couldn't begin to compare the Vision plans to KR-2/S plans (vision's are much better). But if you want the most performance for the best price and don't mind a small cockpit and VW power the KR2/S is great! Because of the vision's larger size and weight I can't see it stacking up on a HP to HP comparison of performance. Make a list of all the pro's and con's of each design, and decide based on which aircraft contains more of the pro's your looking for, look at how you'll use the aircraft, how important is passanger comfort the KR encourages hugging during flight. How large are you and your passanger. My criteria was as small an airplane as I could find for best performance, VW power to keep costs down, detachable wings and a simple/quick build time from a plans built plane, something fun to fly on sunday mornings and I'm not picky about comfort.....I weigh 150 lbs and am 5'8".The KR was a no brainier for me. That's not to say I didn't speed 2 years looking at everything from a BD-5 to a Pitts Model 12 but once nailed down the critera I was looking for, the KR was the best choice. I think some of the builders that are modifying the KR-2S to make it larger and putting in bigger engines may have been more suited for the Vision if it had been available at the time they started their KR projects, that's probably where the vision concept evolved from. A Modern KR for bigger pilots :) The vision looks like a nice airplane.... maybe my next project after I wear out the KR. Jim Payne jim@manufacturingconcepts.com -----Original Message----- From: Wade Russell [mailto:warm31@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2000 12:36 AM To: krnet@mailinglists.org Subject: KR> I need more info....... I'm juggling the decision of going with a Vision Aircraft that is completely made from Fiberglass as opposed to wood and fiberglass as the KR. The only reason being that the design is a newer, more sleek, and have a more modern look. I ask Steve at Vision today how this aircraft "stacks-up" to the KR-2S. This is what he said: Question: What is the performance from the airplane? What is the max altitude it can travel? What about max speed and flight distance on a tank of gas? I'm comparing this to a KR-2S. Thanks for your question. There is not much comparison to a KR-2 given the size disparity but I find the 100 hp version with the SP wing cruised at 155 mph while the KR-2 cruise is around 140 which is very respectable with a Volkswagen engine. With the Lycoming in Sean Ponsonby's aircraft he cruised at 204 true at 8,000 feet. Neither of us has been over 10,000' as there is not much need to in Florida or opportunity with the airspace here but the climb rate was still solid. With standard tanks you are looking at around a 450 mile range and there is the option of putting in an additional 20 gal in a header tank as well as 18 more in the outer wing sections but that is more than my bladder can handle. The KR-2 is quite economical to run and is good for people that it fits. I have a fair amount of time in them but at 5'7" I feel I am a little too large for it as a two place plane. There are a lot of good deals on partial KR-2 projects and that is probably the cheapest single way to get in the air that can be had. Jeanette has done a good job of keeping Ken Rand's plane alive and kicking and if the plane fits your life it is a good one. They are just a completely different category. You also need to decide whether you want to build a wood plane or a composite plane. I built antique aircraft for many years and find wood very gratifying. You will be building mostly in wood and switching to fiberglass at the end of the project with a KR while the Vision is all composite. There is no "better" or "worse" as these are just vastly different aircraft. I hope that didn't simply add more confusion but there is a lot more to be considered than top speed. Take a look at the wing loading differences alone and realize the type of ride that entails. Look at the construction manuals and see how well it will be explained to you. Ask the builder, ask the builders, ask the builders. Whatever you do, I wish you the best and building and flying your own plane is a dream that will set you apart from the rest. Steve http://VisionAircraft.com Vision Some will have it Some will not It's that simple So I ask you folks...The builders of the KR's. Would you build a Vision or a KR? Has anyone looked into the Vision? Any feedback would be a help in my decision. Wade Russell In San Antonio, TX. Ya'll! __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products. All in one Place. http://shopping.yahoo.com/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To post to the list, email: krnet@mailinglists.org To unsubscribe, e-mail: krnet-unsubscribe@mailinglists.org For additional commands, e-mail: krnet-help@mailinglists.org ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 15:29:33 -0600 To: , From: "Robert Stone" Subject: Re: KR> I need more info....... Message-ID: <000f01c049ca$fe19d0a0$0101a8c0@pavilion> Members of the net: I agree in total with the comments made by Jim Payne. The KR2S is the best deal on the market. There are many kit airplanes that are easy to build. Maybe more so than the KR types, but look at the cost. The kit manufactures seem to do more so the builder has to do less every year and still stay within the 51% rule but every time they make it more easy to build, the price goes up. Pulsar is a good example. They started in San Antonio, Texas about l55 miles south of where I live and it cost about half to build than it does now. The original owners/designers sold out to Skystar, then they sold out to another outfit that redesigned the thing and made it wider and longer and a hell of a lot more expensive. They are heading in the direction of Glassair and Lancair. The Pulsar could be built complete ready to fly for just under $30,000 three years ago. Now it's $37,820 with a Rotax 912 or $41,l59 with a Rotax 9l4. Then there is the instruments, upholstering, and radios. It's a very nice airplane if you can afford it. Bob Stone . ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Payne" To: Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2000 2:00 PM Subject: RE: KR> I need more info....... > Wade, > > It's nice to see the vision people (Steve) being so positive on The KR-2S. > > I looked into the Vision aircraft, and Steve is right it's difficult to > compare the two. The Vision was designed to use modern composite methods to > build a "full size" plans built airplane. It's certainly not a quick build > method and the construction of the vision will take longer than an > unmodified KR-2S. Look at the builders web pages for the vision and you can > see that you could probably build the KR-2S fuselage in the same amount of > time it would take to construct the wooden fame for the "Moldless" composite > constructed fuselage on the vision. So if time build time is an issue the > KR-2S is the better choice. > > But I think we all know their are so many factors determining our aircraft > choice. The vision is larger/roomier uses modern construction methods and > takes longer to build and from what I've heard you couldn't begin to compare > the Vision plans to KR-2/S plans (vision's are much better). > > But if you want the most performance for the best price and don't mind a > small cockpit and VW power the KR2/S is great! Because of the vision's > larger size and weight I can't see it stacking up on a HP to HP comparison > of performance. > > Make a list of all the pro's and con's of each design, and decide based on > which aircraft contains more of the pro's your looking for, look at how > you'll use the aircraft, how important is passanger comfort the KR > encourages hugging during flight. How large are you and your passanger. > > My criteria was as small an airplane as I could find for best performance, > VW power to keep costs down, detachable wings and a simple/quick build time > from a plans built plane, something fun to fly on sunday mornings and I'm > not picky about comfort.....I weigh 150 lbs and am 5'8".The KR was a no > brainier for me. That's not to say I didn't speed 2 years looking at > everything from a BD-5 to a Pitts Model 12 but once nailed down the critera > I was looking for, the KR was the best choice. > > I think some of the builders that are modifying the KR-2S to make it larger > and putting in bigger engines may have been more suited for the Vision if it > had been available at the time they started their KR projects, that's > probably where the vision concept evolved from. A Modern KR for bigger > pilots :) The vision looks like a nice airplane.... maybe my next project > after I wear out the KR. > > Jim Payne > jim@manufacturingconcepts.com > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Wade Russell [mailto:warm31@yahoo.com] > Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2000 12:36 AM > To: krnet@mailinglists.org > Subject: KR> I need more info....... > > > I'm juggling the decision of going with a Vision > Aircraft that is completely made from Fiberglass as > opposed to wood and fiberglass as the KR. The only > reason being that the design is a newer, more sleek, > and have a more modern look. I ask Steve at Vision > today how this aircraft "stacks-up" to the KR-2S. > This is what he said: > > Question: What is the performance from the airplane? > What is the max altitude it can travel? What about max > speed and flight distance on a tank of gas? I'm > comparing this to a KR-2S. > > > Thanks for your question. There is not much > comparison to a KR-2 given the size disparity but I > find the 100 hp version with the SP wing cruised at > 155 > mph while the KR-2 cruise is around 140 which is very > respectable with a Volkswagen engine. With the > Lycoming in Sean Ponsonby's aircraft he cruised at 204 > true at 8,000 feet. Neither of us has been over > 10,000' as there is not much need to in Florida or > opportunity with the airspace here but the climb rate > was still solid. With standard tanks you are looking > at around a > 450 mile range and there is the option of putting in > an additional 20 gal in a header tank as well as 18 > more in the outer wing sections but that is more than > my bladder can handle. The KR-2 is quite economical to > run and is good for people that it fits. I have a fair > amount of time in them but at 5'7" I feel I am a > little too large for it as a two place plane. There > are a lot of good deals on partial KR-2 projects and > that is probably the cheapest single way to get in the > air that can be had. Jeanette has done a good job of > keeping Ken Rand's plane alive and kicking and if the > plane fits your life it is a good one. They are just a > completely different category. You also need to decide > whether you want to build a wood plane or a composite > plane. I > built antique aircraft for many years and find wood > very gratifying. You will be building mostly in wood > and switching to fiberglass at the end of the project > with a KR while the Vision is all composite. There is > no "better" or "worse" as these are just vastly > different aircraft. > > I hope that didn't simply add more confusion but > there is a lot more to be considered than top speed. > Take a look at the wing loading differences alone > and realize the type of ride that entails. Look at the > construction manuals and see how well it will be > explained to you. Ask the builder, ask the builders, > ask the builders. > > Whatever you do, I wish you the best and building > and flying your own plane is a dream that will set you > apart from the rest. > > Steve > > http://VisionAircraft.com > Vision > Some will have it > Some will not > It's that simple > > > So I ask you folks...The builders of the KR's. Would > you build a Vision or a KR? Has anyone looked into the > Vision? Any feedback would be a help in my decision. > > Wade Russell In San Antonio, TX. Ya'll! > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products. All in one Place. > http://shopping.yahoo.com/ > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To post to the list, email: krnet@mailinglists.org > To unsubscribe, e-mail: krnet-unsubscribe@mailinglists.org > For additional commands, e-mail: krnet-help@mailinglists.org > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To post to the list, email: krnet@mailinglists.org > To unsubscribe, e-mail: krnet-unsubscribe@mailinglists.org > For additional commands, e-mail: krnet-help@mailinglists.org > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 16:58:53 -0500 To: warm31@yahoo.com From: virgnvs@juno.com Cc: krnet@mailinglists.org Subject: Re: KR> I need more info....... Message-ID: <20001108.173301.-145757.0.virgnvs@juno.com> Did not know about the Vision, Virg On Tue, 7 Nov 2000 21:35:58 -0800 (PST) Wade Russell writes: > I'm juggling the decision of going with a Vision > Aircraft that is completely made from Fiberglass as > opposed to wood and fiberglass as the KR. The only > reason being that the design is a newer, more sleek, > and have a more modern look. I ask Steve at Vision > today how this aircraft "stacks-up" to the KR-2S. > This is what he said: > > Question: What is the performance from the airplane? > What is the max altitude it can travel? What about max > speed and flight distance on a tank of gas? I'm > comparing this to a KR-2S. > > > Thanks for your question. There is not much > comparison to a KR-2 given the size disparity but I > find the 100 hp version with the SP wing cruised at > 155 > mph while the KR-2 cruise is around 140 which is very > respectable with a Volkswagen engine. With the > Lycoming in Sean Ponsonby's aircraft he cruised at 204 > true at 8,000 feet. Neither of us has been over > 10,000' as there is not much need to in Florida or > opportunity with the airspace here but the climb rate > was still solid. With standard tanks you are looking > at around a > 450 mile range and there is the option of putting in > an additional 20 gal in a header tank as well as 18 > more in the outer wing sections but that is more than > my bladder can handle. The KR-2 is quite economical to > run and is good for people that it fits. I have a fair > amount of time in them but at 5'7" I feel I am a > little too large for it as a two place plane. There > are a lot of good deals on partial KR-2 projects and > that is probably the cheapest single way to get in the > air that can be had. Jeanette has done a good job of > keeping Ken Rand's plane alive and kicking and if the > plane fits your life it is a good one. They are just a > completely different category. You also need to decide > whether you want to build a wood plane or a composite > plane. I > built antique aircraft for many years and find wood > very gratifying. You will be building mostly in wood > and switching to fiberglass at the end of the project > with a KR while the Vision is all composite. There is > no "better" or "worse" as these are just vastly > different aircraft. > > I hope that didn't simply add more confusion but > there is a lot more to be considered than top speed. > Take a look at the wing loading differences alone > and realize the type of ride that entails. Look at the > construction manuals and see how well it will be > explained to you. Ask the builder, ask the builders, > ask the builders. > > Whatever you do, I wish you the best and building > and flying your own plane is a dream that will set you > apart from the rest. > > Steve > > http://VisionAircraft.com > Vision > Some will have it > Some will not > It's that simple > > > So I ask you folks...The builders of the KR's. Would > you build a Vision or a KR? Has anyone looked into the > Vision? Any feedback would be a help in my decision. > > Wade Russell In San Antonio, TX. Ya'll! > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products. All in one Place. > http://shopping.yahoo.com/ > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To post to the list, email: krnet@mailinglists.org > To unsubscribe, e-mail: krnet-unsubscribe@mailinglists.org > For additional commands, e-mail: krnet-help@mailinglists.org > ________________________________________________________________ YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET! Juno now offers FREE Internet Access! Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2000 12:05:17 -0500 To: krnet@mailinglists.org From: Phil Visconti Subject: FAA REFUSAL ? Message-ID: <3A0AD94C.B14D390@gis.net> --------------F10EDD78C5170FEAADDC8CFC Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit After reading the EAA Sport Aviation magazine, I checked with FAA DAR and I was told that it would cost me $425.00 to have my aircraft inspected. (Airworthiness certificate) This was done by FAA in the past but, now you must pay a DAR. Kind of an indication of the present status of the FAA ? It doesn't seem like a lot of money unless you're on a fixed income. For some, this may have been their only way to get back flying without breaking the bank. Is it the way every FAA office operates or just here in MA ? Phil Visconti Marlboro, MA --------------F10EDD78C5170FEAADDC8CFC-- ------------------------------ End of krnet Digest ***********************************