question KR-2 or KR-2s construction

[BA]

hi,

I am seriously looking into getting my pilots license and building a
homebuilt airplane (via purchase of a kit....preferably a fastbuilt kit or
one with low construction time (around 1000 hrs or less).

anyway, I love a lot about the KR-2 (mostly the kit price and the fuel
economy). I have read on the KR2 web site that this plane is constructed of
wood and composite. could someone tell me what part (s) of the plane is
made out of wood and what part is make out of composite? is the reason the
kit so cheap (in price) is because it is made partly out of wood. I'd
prefer to build a plan that is all or mostly composite (but would consider
metal). also does anyone know if the KR-2 might eventually be sold in a
kit that is all composite.

all responses are much appreciated.

Blyth

[Kyle Boatright]

"BA" > wrote in message
...
> hi,
>
> I am seriously looking into getting my pilots license and building a
> homebuilt airplane (via purchase of a kit....preferably a fastbuilt kit or
> one with low construction time (around 1000 hrs or less).
>
> anyway, I love a lot about the KR-2 (mostly the kit price and the fuel
> economy). I have read on the KR2 web site that this plane is constructed
> of wood and composite. could someone tell me what part (s) of the plane
> is made out of wood and what part is make out of composite? is the reason
> the kit so cheap (in price) is because it is made partly out of wood.
> I'd prefer to build a plan that is all or mostly composite (but would
> consider metal). also does anyone know if the KR-2 might eventually be
> sold in a kit that is all composite.
>
> all responses are much appreciated.
>
> Blyth

The basic structure of the KR is constructed from wood. That isn't likely
to change, although Rand Robinson Engineering does offer some composite
parts (wing skins for example) which can save you some work. Once you're
finished with the woodwork, certain portions are covered with fiberglass,
and other portions get foam attached to the wood, then the foam gets shaped
and covered with fiberglass.

There is a lot of information on the web about the KR series. You should
educate yourself and decide if the KR is the right set of compromises for
you. The bottom line is that it is fairly skittish during takeoff and
landing, and with the VW engine, it is very marginal for two normal sized
people (> 150 lbs).

If you are interested in a KR, look on EBAY. There are usually several
projects for sale for not a lot of money.

KB

[Peter Dohm]

"Kyle Boatright" > wrote in message
...
>
> "BA" > wrote in message
> ...
> > hi,
> >
> > I am seriously looking into getting my pilots license and building a
> > homebuilt airplane (via purchase of a kit....preferably a fastbuilt kit
or
> > one with low construction time (around 1000 hrs or less).
> >
> > anyway, I love a lot about the KR-2 (mostly the kit price and the fuel
> > economy). I have read on the KR2 web site that this plane is
constructed
> > of wood and composite. could someone tell me what part (s) of the plane
> > is made out of wood and what part is make out of composite? is the
reason
> > the kit so cheap (in price) is because it is made partly out of wood.
> > I'd prefer to build a plan that is all or mostly composite (but would
> > consider metal). also does anyone know if the KR-2 might eventually be
> > sold in a kit that is all composite.
> >
> > all responses are much appreciated.
> >
> > Blyth
>
> The basic structure of the KR is constructed from wood. That isn't likely
> to change, although Rand Robinson Engineering does offer some composite
> parts (wing skins for example) which can save you some work. Once you're
> finished with the woodwork, certain portions are covered with fiberglass,
> and other portions get foam attached to the wood, then the foam gets
shaped
> and covered with fiberglass.
>
> There is a lot of information on the web about the KR series. You should
> educate yourself and decide if the KR is the right set of compromises for
> you. The bottom line is that it is fairly skittish during takeoff and
> landing, and with the VW engine, it is very marginal for two normal sized
> people (> 150 lbs).
>
> If you are interested in a KR, look on EBAY. There are usually several
> projects for sale for not a lot of money.
>
> KB
>
>
In addition to Kyle's comment about weight, I would add that the stock
canopy will be very dissapointing if you are much taller than about 5'7".
If you are 6'+ and around 200#, as I am, fuggeddaboudit!

Further, if you choose the VW engine, take Veeduber's comments to heart
regarding maximum sustained power. And, if it was mine, I would also choose
one of the conversions that takes power from the flywheel end--even though
it is almost certainly heavier and more tedious to mount. Great Plains
calls theirs "rear drive" and Steve Wittman's plans for the engine in his
VeeWitt racer may still be available from either Wicks or Aircraft Spruce.

Peter

[Joaquin]

It's the same old stuff. Most homebuilders want an airplane that will
carry 6 people, go 300 knots, burn 4 gallons/hr and is easy to build
in less than 3 months. There is no such animal.

Hey, Richard, Where's Vicki now?

JM


>hi,
>
>I am seriously looking into getting my pilots license and building a
>homebuilt airplane (via purchase of a kit....preferably a fastbuilt kit or
>one with low construction time (around 1000 hrs or less).
>
>anyway, I love a lot about the KR-2 (mostly the kit price and the fuel
>economy). I have read on the KR2 web site that this plane is constructed of
>wood and composite. could someone tell me what part (s) of the plane is
>made out of wood and what part is make out of composite? is the reason the
>kit so cheap (in price) is because it is made partly out of wood. I'd
>prefer to build a plan that is all or mostly composite (but would consider
>metal). also does anyone know if the KR-2 might eventually be sold in a
>kit that is all composite.
>
>all responses are much appreciated.
>
>Blyth
>

[BA]

thanks

I"ll be honest. for some reason a plane made out of wood scares me?
wouldn't it suffer much more damage (than a metal or composite) plane if a
hard landing was neccessary? if the fuel tank leaked during flight could
the wings easily catch on fire? that may be a stupid question. I'm still
learning about this stuff.

what I'd really like is to get a composite kit for a plane that has the same
performance and fuel efficiency as the KR-2. the only kitplanes I am aware
of that compare in fuel efficiency to the KR-2 is the quick quickie
aircraft and the varieze (rutan style) airplane. those are both fairly
funky designs if you ask me. I'm looking more for a normal looking airplane
(low wing, 2 place side by side, tri-gear).

by the way, are the fuel efficiency numbers on the kr-2 accurate (cruise at
180 and only burn 3.8 gph)? thats like 47 mpg.
I'm not aware of any other homebuilt (with a similiar style as the KR-2)
that even claims to get 40 mpg. pulsar aircraft claims the SP 100 will
cruise at 200 mph while burning 5 gph but I have yet to find an SP 100 owner
verify that.




"Joaquin" > wrote in message
...
> It's the same old stuff. Most homebuilders want an airplane that will
> carry 6 people, go 300 knots, burn 4 gallons/hr and is easy to build
> in less than 3 months. There is no such animal.
>
> Hey, Richard, Where's Vicki now?
>
> JM
>
>
>>hi,
>>
>>I am seriously looking into getting my pilots license and building a
>>homebuilt airplane (via purchase of a kit....preferably a fastbuilt kit or
>>one with low construction time (around 1000 hrs or less).
>>
>>anyway, I love a lot about the KR-2 (mostly the kit price and the fuel
>>economy). I have read on the KR2 web site that this plane is constructed
>>of
>>wood and composite. could someone tell me what part (s) of the plane is
>>made out of wood and what part is make out of composite? is the reason
>>the
>>kit so cheap (in price) is because it is made partly out of wood. I'd
>>prefer to build a plan that is all or mostly composite (but would consider
>>metal). also does anyone know if the KR-2 might eventually be sold in a
>>kit that is all composite.
>>
>>all responses are much appreciated.
>>
>>Blyth
>>

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Sun, 03 Sep 2006 05:37:18 GMT, "BA" > wrote:

> I"ll be honest. for some reason a plane made out of wood scares me?
> wouldn't it suffer much more damage (than a metal or composite) plane if a
> hard landing was neccessary?

Depends more on construction and design than materials. Planes designed to the
same limits withstand the same loads, no matter what they're made of. A metal
or composite airplane might be *lighter* than a wood airplane, but if they're
designed to the same stresses, they'll withstand those hard landings equally as
well.

I once got too slow and landed my wood airplane hard...over 4 Gs, as measured by
my pegged G-meter. My back hurt for days...but the plane shrugged it off.

> if the fuel tank leaked during flight could the wings easily catch on fire?

Only if the fuel catches on fire. :-)

A fire in *any* kind of structure is bad news. Composites will quickly soften
(manufacturers prefer builders paint the planes white because *solar* heating is
a concern). Aluminum will soften eventually, too. In-flight fires are generally
pretty rare, and they're most-often engine related. On those, the type of
construction really doesn't matter.

> by the way, are the fuel efficiency numbers on the kr-2 accurate (cruise at
> 180 and only burn 3.8 gph)? thats like 47 mpg.
> I'm not aware of any other homebuilt (with a similiar style as the KR-2)
> that even claims to get 40 mpg. pulsar aircraft claims the SP 100 will
> cruise at 200 mph while burning 5 gph but I have yet to find an SP 100 owner
> verify that.

You'll probably have trouble finding a KR-2 owner to verify 180 MPH, too. Go
to:

http://www.kr-2.aviation-mechanics.com/data1.htm

....and you'll see most owners reporting significantly lower than that.

Don't get too hard over on fuel efficiency. Yes, it's certainly nice to burn
less gas for the speed, but in all likelihood, your other expenses will be
higher than your fuel bill for these small engines. Heck, my annual fuel bill
is about a quarter of my hangar rent.

Pick an airplane that does what you want, and that you're comfortable both
*with* and *in*. If two planes meet your mission, then feel free to pick the one
that gives the best fuel efficiency. But fuel efficiency doesn't mean a damn if
you're not happy with the way the airplane flies, how much it carries, the
hassle it takes to keep operational, or how comfortable it is to ride in.

Ron Wanttaja

[Kyle Boatright]

"Joaquin" > wrote in message
...
> It's the same old stuff. Most homebuilders want an airplane that will
> carry 6 people, go 300 knots, burn 4 gallons/hr and is easy to build
> in less than 3 months. There is no such animal.
>

Don't tell Jim Bede that. He introduces a new one every couple of years.
;-)


> Hey, Richard, Where's Vicki now?
>
> JM

KB

[Cy Galley]

Wooden spars even when on fire retain about 80% of their strength. Even
steel spars will collapse long before the wood spars from the temperature
softening. Don't even ask about aluminum as it is the worse when it comes to
losing strength due to temperature.




"BA" > wrote in message
...
> thanks
>
> I"ll be honest. for some reason a plane made out of wood scares me?
> wouldn't it suffer much more damage (than a metal or composite) plane if
> a hard landing was neccessary? if the fuel tank leaked during flight
> could the wings easily catch on fire? that may be a stupid question. I'm
> still learning about this stuff.
>
> what I'd really like is to get a composite kit for a plane that has the
> same performance and fuel efficiency as the KR-2. the only kitplanes I am
> aware of that compare in fuel efficiency to the KR-2 is the quick quickie
> aircraft and the varieze (rutan style) airplane. those are both fairly
> funky designs if you ask me. I'm looking more for a normal looking
> airplane (low wing, 2 place side by side, tri-gear).
>
> by the way, are the fuel efficiency numbers on the kr-2 accurate (cruise
> at 180 and only burn 3.8 gph)? thats like 47 mpg.
> I'm not aware of any other homebuilt (with a similiar style as the KR-2)
> that even claims to get 40 mpg. pulsar aircraft claims the SP 100 will
> cruise at 200 mph while burning 5 gph but I have yet to find an SP 100
> owner verify that.
>
>
>
>
> "Joaquin" > wrote in message
> ...
>> It's the same old stuff. Most homebuilders want an airplane that will
>> carry 6 people, go 300 knots, burn 4 gallons/hr and is easy to build
>> in less than 3 months. There is no such animal.
>>
>> Hey, Richard, Where's Vicki now?
>>
>> JM
>>
>>
>>>hi,
>>>
>>>I am seriously looking into getting my pilots license and building a
>>>homebuilt airplane (via purchase of a kit....preferably a fastbuilt kit
>>>or
>>>one with low construction time (around 1000 hrs or less).
>>>
>>>anyway, I love a lot about the KR-2 (mostly the kit price and the fuel
>>>economy). I have read on the KR2 web site that this plane is constructed
>>>of
>>>wood and composite. could someone tell me what part (s) of the plane is
>>>made out of wood and what part is make out of composite? is the reason
>>>the
>>>kit so cheap (in price) is because it is made partly out of wood. I'd
>>>prefer to build a plan that is all or mostly composite (but would
>>>consider
>>>metal). also does anyone know if the KR-2 might eventually be sold in a
>>>kit that is all composite.
>>>
>>>all responses are much appreciated.
>>>
>>>Blyth
>>>
>
>

[Rich S.[_1_]]

"Cy Galley" > wrote in message
news:KcMKg.168545$1i1.142267@attbi_s72...
> Wooden spars even when on fire retain about 80% of their strength. Even
> steel spars will collapse long before the wood spars from the temperature
> softening. Don't even ask about aluminum as it is the worse when it comes
> to losing strength due to temperature.

Is that why they call it a woody?

Rich S.

[Joaquin Murrieta]

On Mon, 04 Sep 2006 02:30:02 GMT, "Cy Galley" >
wrote:

>Wooden spars even when on fire retain about 80% of their strength. Even
>steel spars will collapse long before the wood spars from the temperature
>softening. Don't even ask about aluminum as it is the worse when it comes to
>losing strength due to temperature.

Yep...what he said!

I built an all wood airplane once. I loved it. Wood never fatigues.
It will flex forever. Plus, aluminum and composites real good at 100
knots when the fuel is on fire. Don't kid yourself. Carbon fiber
airplanes will burn to a cinder in the sky if they catch fire.

Wood and fabric are my choice of building materials actually. The
airplanes simply fly real nice. Like Want a Jaw's Baby Ace. You can
feel the fabric begin to fill up on the tko roll and provide lift. The
fabric flexes more in turbulence too and soaks up some of the bumps.
Go fly a Bellanca Scout or a Citabria, a Stinson, an old Super Cub, or
even an old piece of **** Ercoupe with the fabric wings. They all
have that nice "fabric" feel to them that no metal spam can airplane
ever will attain.

JM

[Monkey Duck]

"Joaquin Murrieta" > wrote in message
...

> Wood and fabric are my choice of building materials actually. The
> airplanes simply fly real nice. Like Want a Jaw's Baby Ace.

Can you say FLYBABY, Mr. Jokin, F_L-Y-B-A-B-Y !

>You can
> feel the fabric begin to fill up on the tko roll and provide lift. The
> fabric flexes more in turbulence too and soaks up some of the bumps.
> Go fly a Bellanca Scout or a Citabria, a Stinson, an old Super Cub, or
> even an old piece of **** Ercoupe with the fabric wings.

So an ALL METAL RV-6 is a bigger POS than a ragwing Coupe???

> They all
> have that nice "fabric" feel to them that no metal spam can airplane
> ever will attain.
>
> JM

Yep.
Just what we need.....
Sweet flyin' fabric 747's.

Capt Monkey Duck

[[email protected]]

Ron Wanttaja wrote:
>
> Don't get too hard over on fuel efficiency. Yes, it's certainly nice to burn
> less gas for the speed, but in all likelihood, your other expenses will be
> higher than your fuel bill for these small engines. Heck, my annual fuel bill
> is about a quarter of my hangar rent.

A KR-2 doesn't need a hangar. A big rural mailbox will do:-)

These are tiny airplanes. Pictures don't really make the point;
you have to see it to believe it. Because of that, their usefulness is
limited. And because of that tiny size, they get good fuel mileage.
Can't have everything, you see.

Wooden airplanes are nice (I have a Jodel D-11) but you have to
keep them out of the weather. Damp does them no good at all. The sun
destroys the fabric and finish. The Jodel was left out in the weather
for a very few years, and I had to rebuild it extensively.

And wood has gotten so expensive (and hard to find in some
places) that metal looks better all the time. Especially for someone
like me who, early on, developed a nasty reaction to the epoxies used
in composite construction as well as a wood glue. Totally screwed up my
immune system and I wound up with allergies I'd never had before.

Dan