From: krnet-bounces+johnbou=speakeasy.net@mylist.net To: John Bouyea Subject: KRnet Digest, Vol 347, Issue 506 Date: 12/10/2005 9:00:10 PM Send KRnet mailing list submissions to krnet@mylist.net To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://mylist.net/listinfo/krnet or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to krnet-request@mylist.net You can reach the person managing the list at krnet-owner@mylist.net When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of KRnet digest..." Today's Topics: 1. KR2 or KR@S For sale (Bill Zink) 2. Re: ELSA & LSA (Ed Janssen) 3. RE: ELSA & LSA (Doug Rupert) 4. Re: ELSA & LSA (Ed Janssen) 5. Re: ELSA & LSA (Dan Heath) 6. RE: ELSA & LSA (Doug Rupert) 7. LSA (Colin Rainey) 8. KR certification; was Re: KR> LSA (Ed Janssen) 9. Re: ELSA & LSA (JAMES C FERRIS) 10. Another Yuma flight (Lee Van Dyke) 11. Re: ELSA & LSA (Steve Bray) 12. RE: LSA (Brian Kraut) 13. RE: Another Yuma flight (Brian Kraut) 14. A fun day at the airport (Larry&Sallie Flesner) 15. LSA (Colin Rainey) 16. Re: LSA (Dennis Mingear) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 04:43:28 -0500 From: "Bill Zink" Subject: KR> KR2 or KR@S For sale To: Message-ID: <001401c5fd6e$30405700$b9901e44@admind1765786b> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" I am looking for a completed and flying KR2 or KR2S to purchase. Not too picky on engine types but would like electrical equipped with basic VFR instruments and transponder. Bill Zink w-zink@sbcglobal.net ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 08:32:51 -0600 From: ejanssen@chipsnet.com (Ed Janssen) Subject: Re: KR> ELSA & LSA To: , "KRnet" Message-ID: <000c01c5fd96$99ae0ed0$c000a8c0@dad> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Colin, I agree with you that there are plenty of other planes out there to build, leading to an E-LSA category, however, for those who REALLY like the KR design and building cost, I doubt whether there would be any modification/re-designing necessary. We mostly read about the higher performance KRs on this net, but there're quite a few KRs out there experiencing maximum speeds of 138mph or slightly under, depending on engine and prop config. If a builder really wants to go the ELSA route with a previously unregistered and uncertified KR, it appears that it could be done rather easily, regardless of the performance figures found in the R/R literature. Ed Ed Janssen mailto:ejanssen@chipsnet.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Colin Rainey" To: Sent: Friday, December 09, 2005 10:28 PM Subject: KR> ELSA & LSA > Ed > I believe that the final concensus that was stated here was that there were enough design people who felt that the Kr could be modified into the LSA, ELSA being production type aircraft built to LSA specs. The question was why modify and go through all the trouble when there were already so many designs approved and ready to build, with less effort, and all the documentation already done. There is enough that gets re-made, or corrected on a standard KR to keep a builder busy for a few extra years without complicating things with fitting into a new category. > Your choice. Just that there are other paths of lesser resistance > already out there... > > > Colin Rainey > brokerpilot96ta@earthlink.net > EarthLink Revolves Around You. _______________________________________ > Search the KRnet Archives at http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp > to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to KRnet-leave@mylist.net > please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html > ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 14:45:08 -0500 From: "Doug Rupert" Subject: RE: KR> ELSA & LSA To: "'KRnet'" Message-ID: <001a01c5fdc2$3bfe6e20$5704e440@office> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1250" Longer wings, speed brake and flaps would surely do the trick by lowering the stall speed to qualify under LSA. Possibly the KR motorglider wings with beefed up spar BUT I have to agree with Colin on the other designs. The Zodiac XL with a Corvair for power comes to mind. Doug Rupert I agree with you that there are plenty of other planes out there to build, leading to an E-LSA category, however, for those who REALLY like the KR design and building cost, Ed -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.13/197 - Release Date: 12/9/2005 ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 14:13:22 -0600 From: ejanssen@chipsnet.com (Ed Janssen) Subject: Re: KR> ELSA & LSA To: "KRnet" Message-ID: <001e01c5fdc6$2c28f200$c000a8c0@dad> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1250" Doug, How fat your billfold looks is still an important factor though, for many KR enthusiasts. Most of the "other" designs are pretty pricey. For example the Zodiac XL airframe kit alone is about $16K , nearly 3 times the cost of a KR kit, I think. With a nicely built-up Corvair it'll probably be in the neighborhood of $20K. I have a friend who just recently completed a CH601 XL with Rotax 912S. He has $36K+ in it right now. Ed Ed Janssen mailto:ejanssen@chipsnet.com BUT I have to agree with Colin on the other designs. The Zodiac XL with a Corvair for power comes to mind. Doug Rupert ------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 15:46:23 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time) From: "Dan Heath" Subject: Re: KR> ELSA & LSA To: Message-ID: <439B3E9F.000001.03540@DANHOMECOMPUTER> Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" You ELSA people should take a look at the Sonex. The prices will surprise you. http://sonex-ltd.com/ For the short time that it has been on the market, there are a lot of them completed. The KR is tough enough if you build it to plans. I have a friend who is building a CH601 ELSA and I would not touch it. It will cost him as much as his RV6 when he is finished and he won't have anything close to what his RV is, except that it will qualify for Sport Plane. 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. Daniel R. Heath - Lexington, SC -------Original Message------- How fat your billfold looks is still an important factor though, for many KR enthusiasts. Most of the "other" designs are pretty pricey. For example the Zodiac XL airframe kit alone is about $16K , nearly 3 times the cost of a KR kit, I think. With a nicely built-up Corvair it'll probably be in the neighborhood of $20K. I have a friend who just recently completed a CH601 XL with Rotax 912S. He has $36K+ in it right now. ------------------------------ Message: 6 Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 20:10:46 -0500 From: "Doug Rupert" Subject: RE: KR> ELSA & LSA To: "'KRnet'" Message-ID: <003f01c5fdef$b9ea7a90$5704e440@office> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1250" Rotax is pricey and way out of my league. Given your desire for the KR I would talk with Mark Langford or one of the guys that knows more about the KR motorglider. The long wings will slow the top speed as well as lower the landing speed but are not recommended for the KR2 due to increased stress. Maybe the motorglider wing built with the Ashok airfoil which will allow for a larger main spar. Doug I have a friend who just recently completed a CH601 XL with Rotax 912S. He has $36K+ in it right now. Ed -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.13/197 - Release Date: 12/9/2005 ------------------------------ Message: 7 Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 20:48:33 -0500 From: "Colin Rainey" Subject: KR> LSA To: krnet@mylist.net Message-ID: <410-220051201114833460@earthlink.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Ed I can almost bet money that a KR2 or KR2S built to plans with no modifications to accomodate the requirements of LSA for flight, stall speeds, etc... will be rejected for certification under the rules, JUST BECAUSE there are so many other examples of higher performing aircraft out there built that way. The part of the FAA commentary that I read stated that they were watching for aircraft previously certified in one category being modified slightly to now acommodate the new category to be re-certified. Simply making a prop change onto an existing airframe, and then testing it and saying it is now LSA qualified is not going to cut it. Building an existing design, WITH NO CHANGES, and then saying it qualifies because it has never been certified is saying the same thing. As Doug pointed out, using BOTH flaps, and speed brake, longer wings (more than just Dan Diehl - I can do better than 145 mph with them now) would be changes that you could then demonstrate make the aircraft now conform to LSA standards when previously it would not. Remember, dealing with the FAA is like being in the dark fumbling around. They only turn the light on AFTER you fall. Meaning, they will let you build it believing that it conforms, and then came back and ask questions that make it obvious when you answer them, that they are rejecting your bid, and making you certify it differently. One of the netters called the local FSDO about an answer to a question, and had to answer the "Well, what do you think?" question/answer. Once an answer was offered the inspector then agreed with the netter. Also, remember that the ELSA and LSA is all about gaining control over a previously un-regulated portion of the industry. Getting you certified with limits, is still certified and regulated. Also, better check ALL the regs about flight operations as LSA. You might not like the limits. Back to cowling mods for the Corvair engine.... Colin Rainey brokerpilot96ta@earthlink.net EarthLink Revolves Around You. ------------------------------ Message: 8 Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 21:04:42 -0600 From: ejanssen@chipsnet.com (Ed Janssen) Subject: KR certification; was Re: KR> LSA To: , "KRnet" Message-ID: <001b01c5fdff$a244e8c0$c000a8c0@dad> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Colin, Yup, and if you check my previous post, I did qualify my comments by saying that the KR must not have been previously registered or certified, such as a KR in the building stage. My understanding is that once an aircraft has been registered and certified, it can't be re-certified into a different category, eg. "Experimental Amateur-Built" to an "Experimental Light Sport Aircraft". Ed Ed Janssen mailto:ejanssen@chipsnet.com Colin wrote: The part of the FAA commentary that I read stated that they were watching for aircraft previously certified in one category being modified slightly to now acommodate the new category to be re-certified. Simply making a prop change onto an existing airframe, and then testing it and saying it is now LSA qualified is not going to cut it. > Colin Rainey > brokerpilot96ta@earthlink.net ------------------------------ Message: 9 Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 22:20:46 -0500 From: JAMES C FERRIS Subject: Re: KR> ELSA & LSA To: krnet@mylist.net Message-ID: <20051210.222047.1796.0.mijnil@juno.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1250 Someone posted on here before that Bill Clapp built his KR for about 7 or 8K including the corvair engine and I notice that in Orma's list of performance charistics that 7 out of 18 listed have stall speeds of 51 MPH or less this is the biggest problem and many of these stall speeds may not be at gross weight as required by the FAA. However I don't see this as a problem if the design is modified somewhat, I have looked at this and if the wing span and the wing area is increased about 10 to 20 percent and streach the fuselage about one and a half feet it could easly qualify. In my last few years at NASA we tested a 21 percent airfoil that was a spin iff fron the Supercritical airfoil that would let the spars thickness increase and thus decrease the weight for the same strength. The increase in wing span would increase the climb rate so a smaller engine could be used and the increased wing area would decrease the stall speed so that all aircraft with these modifications would qualify. So you could build one in 6 months for less than 10K if you diden't get carried away trying to make it perfect, you know build it like Ken Rand would do it fast and light Jim. On Sat, 10 Dec 205 14:13:22 -0600 ejanssen@chipsnet.com (Ed Janssen) writes: > Doug, > > How fat your billfold looks is still an important factor though, for > many KR > enthusiasts. Most of the "other" designs are pretty pricey. For > example > the Zodiac XL airframe kit alone is about $16K , nearly 3 times the > cost of > a KR kit, I think. With a nicely built-up Corvair it'll probably be > in the > neighborhood of $20K. I have a friend who just recently completed a > CH601 > XL with Rotax 912S. He has $36K+ in it right now. > > Ed > > > Ed Janssen > mailto:ejanssen@chipsnet.com > > > BUT I have to agree with Colin on the other designs. The Zodiac XL > with a Corvair for power comes to mind. Doug Rupert > > > > ------------------------------ Message: 10 Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 20:31:11 -0700 From: "Lee Van Dyke" Subject: KR> Another Yuma flight To: "KRnet" Message-ID: <008f01c5fe03$54f00420$6401a8c0@SNAKEBITE> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Netters, I have photos of another great flight to Yuma. With the ability to fly to Yuma, I don't mind Going to some work on a weekend. Again the flight over was uneventful, but the retur home well.... I have little tail wheel weight with a full tank so I have a 8 lb weight that hook on the tail by the tail wheel. Yes I don't have it on the check list and Yes I took off with an 8 lb weight on the tail of the plane. It flew great, a little sensitive on the elevator. By the time I figured it out I was over the dunes in CA. I went back to YUMA to look at the damage. Well not only was there no damage, the weight was still there. I removed it, placed it behind the seat and took off again. I flew back with no other issues. Just look at the photos http://vandyke5.com/Yuma.htm Lee Van Dyke Mesa AZ Lee@vandyke5.com ------------------------------ Message: 11 Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 21:41:17 -0600 From: "Steve Bray" Subject: Re: KR> ELSA & LSA To: krnet@mylist.net Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed If you want to fly a KR get a PPL. If you have medical problems that is one thing but if you just don't want to go to the trouble to get a PPL you may not be a KR pilot. These are NOT ultralites. If you don't have what it takes to get a PPL you do not need to set your butt in one of these. This IS a high performance aircraft ! Things happen fast and if your to slow for a PPL you are to slow for a KR. Sometimes the truth hurts, deal with it. Steve Bray Jackson, Tennessee >From: "Dan Heath" >Reply-To: KRnet >To: >Subject: Re: KR> ELSA & LSA >Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 15:46:23 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time) > >You ELSA people should take a look at the Sonex. The prices will >surprise you. http://sonex-ltd.com/ For the short time that it has been >on the market, there are a lot of them completed. The KR is tough >enough if you build it to plans. I have a friend who is building a >CH601 ELSA and I would not touch it. It will cost him as much as his >RV6 when he is finished and he won't have anything close to what his RV >is, except that it will qualify for Sport Plane. > >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. >Daniel R. Heath - Lexington, SC >-------Original Message------- > >How fat your billfold looks is still an important factor though, for >many >KR >enthusiasts. Most of the "other" designs are pretty pricey. For example >the Zodiac XL airframe kit alone is about $16K , nearly 3 times the cost of >a KR kit, I think. With a nicely built-up Corvair it'll probably be in the >neighborhood of $20K. I have a friend who just recently completed a CH601 >XL with Rotax 912S. He has $36K+ in it right now. > >_______________________________________ >Search the KRnet Archives at http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp >to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to KRnet-leave@mylist.net >please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html ------------------------------ Message: 12 Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 22:42:51 -0500 From: "Brian Kraut" Subject: RE: KR> LSA To: "KRnet" Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I have found that most people at the FAA are just like the regulatory people in the ship building industry that I deal with at work all the time. You never want to ask them for an interpretation of a regulation that is not 100% clear. They will always give you the more restrictive intrepretation of the rule. The best way is to state your interpration and ask if they concur. Obviously if this is something that you need backed up later you need to ask in writing and get back a response in writing. Brian Kraut Engineering Alternatives, Inc. www.engalt.com -----Original Message----- From: krnet-bounces@mylist.net [mailto:krnet-bounces@mylist.net]On Behalf Of Colin Rainey Sent: Saturday, December 10, 2005 8:49 PM To: krnet@mylist.net Subject: KR> LSA One of the netters called the local FSDO about an answer to a question, and had to answer the "Well, what do you think?" question/answer. Once an answer was offered the inspector then agreed with the netter. Colin Rainey brokerpilot96ta@earthlink.net EarthLink Revolves Around You. _______________________________________ Search the KRnet Archives at http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to KRnet-leave@mylist.net please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html ------------------------------ Message: 13 Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 22:49:16 -0500 From: "Brian Kraut" Subject: RE: KR> Another Yuma flight To: "KRnet" Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I looked at my weight and ballance spreadsheet and 8 pounds on the tailwheel would move the C.G. back almost exactly 1" on my KR. It would be a more on a 2S. A weight that was a combination chock so you would be dragging it around and know about it would probably be a good idea. Leaving on the weight with a passenger or a more aft condition due to fuel or loading might give you some major problems. Brian Kraut Engineering Alternatives, Inc. www.engalt.com -----Original Message----- From: krnet-bounces@mylist.net [mailto:krnet-bounces@mylist.net]On Behalf Of Lee Van Dyke Sent: Saturday, December 10, 2005 10:31 PM To: KRnet Subject: KR> Another Yuma flight Netters, I have photos of another great flight to Yuma. With the ability to fly to Yuma, I don't mind Going to some work on a weekend. Again the flight over was uneventful, but the retur home well.... I have little tail wheel weight with a full tank so I have a 8 lb weight that hook on the tail by the tail wheel. Yes I don't have it on the check list and Yes I took off with an 8 lb weight on the tail of the plane. It flew great, a little sensitive on the elevator. By the time I figured it out I was over the dunes in CA. I went back to YUMA to look at the damage. Well not only was there no damage, the weight was still there. I removed it, placed it behind the seat and took off again. I flew back with no other issues. Just look at the photos http://vandyke5.com/Yuma.htm Lee Van Dyke Mesa AZ Lee@vandyke5.com _______________________________________ Search the KRnet Archives at http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to KRnet-leave@mylist.net please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html ------------------------------ Message: 14 Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 21:47:27 -0600 From: Larry&Sallie Flesner Subject: KR> A fun day at the airport To: KRnet Message-ID: <6.2.5.6.0.20051210214205.03901198@verizon.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed For a photo of what a fun day at the airport looks like, check out http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford/flesner/ The Yak in the picture is being flown by it's owner, a student at Southern Illinois University in Aviation Maintenance, and the Decathlon is being flown by another student that happens to be the current National Sportsman Aerobatic Champion. This was taken back in October as I recall. Man, I have to get a smoke system installed !!!!!!! Larry Flesner ------------------------------ Message: 15 Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 23:20:23 -0500 From: "Colin Rainey" Subject: KR> LSA To: krnet@mylist.net Message-ID: <410-220051201142023929@earthlink.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Ed You missed MY point when I stated that I am referring to an UNMODIFIED KR is the same as a completed KR already certified. That is my point. If you build the KR2 or KR2S per the plans, you will NOT be able to conform to LSA, period. There is too many examples and too much information available about this design to say mine will with no changes. Changing the design as suggested by Jim Ferris will probably result in one that does conform, but then it is not a KR2 or KR2S, but some other derivative (hey you get to name it). Based on my research prior to owning one, and after owning one, I am convinced that these changes would be absolutely necessary. Built to plans, you will be in Experimental Category only, not LSA. I don't want to discourage anyone from building what you want, as we all customize our KR's to our needs and wants, but rather to temper the excited pendulum swing of growth in General Aviation with wisdom of dealing with the FAA. As Brian pointed out, they tend to be more strict in the application of the Regs then most realize when interpreting them. Colin Rainey brokerpilot96ta@earthlink.net EarthLink Revolves Around You. ------------------------------ Message: 16 Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 20:36:41 -0800 (PST) From: Dennis Mingear Subject: Re: KR> LSA To: brokerpilot96ta@earthlink.net, KRnet Message-ID: <20051211043641.8947.qmail@web35405.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 You could build per plans if you wanted to limit gross weight to something less than 950 pounds and fit into the eLSA rule. This would bring the wing loading into line with the Sonex and Waiex sLSA's. Then you would need to limit prop pitch too, to limit the top speed. That would probably make it a single place plane for many people though. Denny ... Colin Rainey wrote: Ed You missed MY point when I stated that I am referring to an UNMODIFIED KR is the same as a completed KR already certified. That is my point. If you build the KR2 or KR2S per the plans, you will NOT be able to conform to LSA, period. There is too many examples and too much information available about this design to say mine will with no changes. Changing the design as suggested by Jim Ferris will probably result in one that does conform, but then it is not a KR2 or KR2S, but some other derivative (hey you get to name it). Based on my research prior to owning one, and after owning one, I am convinced that these changes would be absolutely necessary. Built to plans, you will be in Experimental Category only, not LSA. I don't want to discourage anyone from building what you want, as we all customize our KR's to our needs and wants, but rather to temper the excited pendulum swing of growth in General Aviation with wisdom of dealing with the FAA. As Brian pointed out, they tend to be more strict in the application of the Regs then most realize when interpreting them. Colin Rainey brokerpilot96ta@earthlink.net EarthLink Revolves Around You. _______________________________________ Search the KRnet Archives at http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to KRnet-leave@mylist.net please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html http://www.onelook.com/ The very best on-line dictionary. --------------------------------- Yahoo! Shopping Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ See KRnet list details at http://www.krnet.org/instructions.html End of KRnet Digest, Vol 347, Issue 506 *************************************** ================================== ABC Amber Outlook Converter v4.20 Trial version ==================================