question KR-2 or KR-2s construction

"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

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