Forrest
December 9th 03, 03:32 AM
My wife normally does the computer stuff. So if some of my posts come off
as novice, well, guess what.....
I will post a couple of responses and pull out some of the repeated stuff as
follows.
On Sunday 7 Dec. 03 Big John wrote;
"You didn't say how experienced you are. Don't think the bird is the
best for a low time pilot?
You need to trace your bird back and find out who built and get their
plans assuming they have a set of legal ones?
Have read that some had a problem with the retracting gear.
Originally was kind of mickey mouse.
Get an old time KR2 pilot as a Guru.
Don't let my negativism turn you off. Just do your home work and fly
safe.
Big John"
Hi Big John,
My experience is that I've had just over 20 hours of student instruction in
a 152.
This plane has fixed gear. As for a local guru, the local EAA treasurer
reportedly built a couple of these back in the day. At this point I am
getting done what I can, studying what I can find out, and learning my bird
before I have him drive all the way out to my shop. The plan is to become
somewhat less dim witted prior to wasting his or anyone else's time.
I looked the tail number N14527 up on the FAA web site and their information
is way out of date with relation to what there is of the aircraft and the
seemingly barely attended logs. The plane has apparently been through some
mods and engines. As mentioned before I think the engine I received it with
was a 100hp continental. But then, I don't know what I'm looking at. I
have several really nice digital photos of the engine but have not figured
out how to post them yet.
Actually, I got two engines with the plane but one is missing a cylinder and
mags. Maybe it is smaller too. Maybe.
Never mind the worry of negativism, I have created a fairly stable delusion
that I am fairly stable. The warnings are good fodder for thought. Thank
you.
On 7 Dec. 03 Peter wrote;
"Phone: (714) 898-3811
and their (then new) web address was: http://www.fly-kr.com/
Remember that the KR is a very small airplane and that Ken Rand was only
a little bigger than the Wright brothers. If I recall correctly, Ken
Rand was around 5'6" and 125 to 130 pounds. If you are much taller than
5'7", the rounded canopy and turtle deck will not give you adequate
headroom. In addition, shoulder width will be a problem if you are much
larger, or even if you are broad shouldered at 5'7" or so..."
and;
"A final note of caution. Forrest should be really careful about too
much sanding! Especially, be careful about sanding the leading edges
and skin attachment areas such as near the spar caps! Some years ago,
a 5/8 scale FW-190A self destructed on the way home from OSH. IIRC,
the builder had done a lot of surface work to achieve a near perfect
contour and grand champion finish; and a leading edge split while in
flight ... :-(
Peter "
Hi Peter,
I'm 5'7 1/2" and about 175 lbs. and my test flights of fantasy did reveal
the canopy to be barely adequate. The forward hinge was large, bulky and
breaking the deck over the instrument panel so I'll be doing some repairs to
the canopy as soon as I figure that out.
Well, better I get the **** scared out of me now. The wings used to look
like a wash board. I've sanded the hell out of those wings. Mighty nice
looking tops on those spars too! I'm currently studying a manual on
fiberglass repair. Thanks for the heads up. I didn't see the need to put
the belt sander to the leading edges other than paint removal though. After
patching things up I'll add a full surface layer of glass then I will be
sure to have an expert look at my glass work prior to paint.
Incidentally, I found that the control bracket on the starboard flap had all
but torn loose from the flap when I was sanding what was left of a
fiberglass patch over the connection. Glad I didn't decide to get inspected
and try to fly the rig prior to overhauling it. Actually, I am somewhat of
a cautious person.
Thanks for the address. I'll break my latest piggy bank and order a book.
James R Freeman wrote the weights of a KR-2 range from 480 to 540 lbs.
Since mine is all broken down now it will take a while before I know what
mine will come in at. Over the next couple of days I'll measure and post
some dimensions. For now it will be a bit difficult to gather weight data
since the airplane is currently inverted and bolted to stands.
Geez you guys, thanks. I'm starting to feel a little less dim witted
already. And now I have a clue as to what my next homework assignment is.
Forrest
as novice, well, guess what.....
I will post a couple of responses and pull out some of the repeated stuff as
follows.
On Sunday 7 Dec. 03 Big John wrote;
"You didn't say how experienced you are. Don't think the bird is the
best for a low time pilot?
You need to trace your bird back and find out who built and get their
plans assuming they have a set of legal ones?
Have read that some had a problem with the retracting gear.
Originally was kind of mickey mouse.
Get an old time KR2 pilot as a Guru.
Don't let my negativism turn you off. Just do your home work and fly
safe.
Big John"
Hi Big John,
My experience is that I've had just over 20 hours of student instruction in
a 152.
This plane has fixed gear. As for a local guru, the local EAA treasurer
reportedly built a couple of these back in the day. At this point I am
getting done what I can, studying what I can find out, and learning my bird
before I have him drive all the way out to my shop. The plan is to become
somewhat less dim witted prior to wasting his or anyone else's time.
I looked the tail number N14527 up on the FAA web site and their information
is way out of date with relation to what there is of the aircraft and the
seemingly barely attended logs. The plane has apparently been through some
mods and engines. As mentioned before I think the engine I received it with
was a 100hp continental. But then, I don't know what I'm looking at. I
have several really nice digital photos of the engine but have not figured
out how to post them yet.
Actually, I got two engines with the plane but one is missing a cylinder and
mags. Maybe it is smaller too. Maybe.
Never mind the worry of negativism, I have created a fairly stable delusion
that I am fairly stable. The warnings are good fodder for thought. Thank
you.
On 7 Dec. 03 Peter wrote;
"Phone: (714) 898-3811
and their (then new) web address was: http://www.fly-kr.com/
Remember that the KR is a very small airplane and that Ken Rand was only
a little bigger than the Wright brothers. If I recall correctly, Ken
Rand was around 5'6" and 125 to 130 pounds. If you are much taller than
5'7", the rounded canopy and turtle deck will not give you adequate
headroom. In addition, shoulder width will be a problem if you are much
larger, or even if you are broad shouldered at 5'7" or so..."
and;
"A final note of caution. Forrest should be really careful about too
much sanding! Especially, be careful about sanding the leading edges
and skin attachment areas such as near the spar caps! Some years ago,
a 5/8 scale FW-190A self destructed on the way home from OSH. IIRC,
the builder had done a lot of surface work to achieve a near perfect
contour and grand champion finish; and a leading edge split while in
flight ... :-(
Peter "
Hi Peter,
I'm 5'7 1/2" and about 175 lbs. and my test flights of fantasy did reveal
the canopy to be barely adequate. The forward hinge was large, bulky and
breaking the deck over the instrument panel so I'll be doing some repairs to
the canopy as soon as I figure that out.
Well, better I get the **** scared out of me now. The wings used to look
like a wash board. I've sanded the hell out of those wings. Mighty nice
looking tops on those spars too! I'm currently studying a manual on
fiberglass repair. Thanks for the heads up. I didn't see the need to put
the belt sander to the leading edges other than paint removal though. After
patching things up I'll add a full surface layer of glass then I will be
sure to have an expert look at my glass work prior to paint.
Incidentally, I found that the control bracket on the starboard flap had all
but torn loose from the flap when I was sanding what was left of a
fiberglass patch over the connection. Glad I didn't decide to get inspected
and try to fly the rig prior to overhauling it. Actually, I am somewhat of
a cautious person.
Thanks for the address. I'll break my latest piggy bank and order a book.
James R Freeman wrote the weights of a KR-2 range from 480 to 540 lbs.
Since mine is all broken down now it will take a while before I know what
mine will come in at. Over the next couple of days I'll measure and post
some dimensions. For now it will be a bit difficult to gather weight data
since the airplane is currently inverted and bolted to stands.
Geez you guys, thanks. I'm starting to feel a little less dim witted
already. And now I have a clue as to what my next homework assignment is.
Forrest