Making revisions to aircraft designs that have already been sold will invite law suites from predatory types. The principle that will be invoked is: You new something was wrong with your design because you made a change. Therefore, you are now admitting to some liability and must pay for your mistake(s). A vendor can make all manner of disclaimers as to use at your own risk, experimental aircraft, etc. That may help to fight the court case, but anyone can bring a liability suite against anybody else for any reason. Even if the judge throws out the case in the first five minutes, you will still incur substantial legal fees. That said, looks like the viable way to make a design change is to leave the original plans as is, and develop another supplement similar to the KR-2S supplement. Based on my extremely limited experience as a test pilot on my KR-2, another KR-2 supplement is long over due.
Sid Wood Tri-gear KR-2 N6242 Mechanicsville, MD, USA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I didn't mean writing to me or to the KR group about it. I meant someone should write to Flying Magazine about it. You sound like that person if you spin your plane and have advice on how to do it safety. This also brings up something else I've wondered about. Why have so many gross errors in the plans never been fixed? I know there are many areas where the plane can't be built as the plans show, but an incorrect CG range that can get people killed is an extreme situation. If the KR community is doing this in the idea that it somehow honors Ken Rand, I don't think he would agree. If he had lived, I think he would have totally revised them by now. Mike Taglieri
