wrote in message
oups.com...

Jim wrote:
...
Man this thread deteriorated quickly didn't it. Seems there are a lot
of
people looking for confirmation.

In that regard, do you care to comment on the earlier assetion that the

tail is too short, so that the nose drops precipitously if the engine
quits?

I forget - I haven't posted here for a long time - am I supposed to top
post
or bottom..........

Bottom Post.

:-)

--

FF



To begin with by deteriorated I meant went off on a tangent instead of
talking about the flying qualities of the HR2. No offense intended to
anyone.

I guess I got in a little late - I didn't see anything about a short tail or
the nose dropping. I haven't experienced either one of those. The tail
being short is subjective - it seems fine to me. It's four inches longer
from the rear spar back than the -4 and -6 (of which I've owned both). The
engine has never quit on me but I have pulled the power and it does glide
fairly steep but I believe that is due to an 80" prop out front acting like
a piece of plywood face into the wind. I'm not a hotshoe F15 pilot or a
multi-thousand hour airline pilot but I have managed to put 65 hours on an
HR2 that I built by myself (wife included) without crashing so it must not
be too hard to handle. I have only flown a 150, 172, 182, Pacer, Cub,
Champ, RV4, and RV6 but my HR2 is the sweetest one yet on takeoff, climb,
cruise, aerobatics, and landing. In fact to me the only negative is fuel
usage if you want to go fast, and you can feel the heavy nose at extreme
forward cg (not a problem to me).

If a person wants to find fault with the HR2 without flying one and
therefore decides not to build one I feel sorry for them and what they will
be missing.


Jim
2005 HR2