Thanks Colin for that advice - yes I have been looking at the web sites - all very interesting. As I live in Australia - also known as God's Great Garden - I might just have to pass on the gathering, but thanks for the offer - the old C172 won't go that far.
I just wish all you guys would give your measurements in real terms, ie millimeters, kg, Newtons, etc, instead of these ancient english imperial things. Pity you didn' t throw the imperial system overboard with the tea in Boston, all those years ago! Makes my head ache, having to do the conversions. (Please note - last para is my attempt at humour :-)) At 09:39 AM 7/09/2003 -0400, you wrote: >Fraser, >You said: >Hi - I am new to this net, so bear with me please! I am looking for a >suitable plane to build, and the KR2 of KR2S seems to fit the bill for me >so far. Do the current plans available have these later refinements and >improvements that you mentioned,? If not, is there a source of these, or >is it simply that these refinements etc are what individuals have done to >their planes while building them? >To answer your question, please do not think that I am the authority here, >as there are some long time builders that have way more knowledge of this >aircraft than I. I guess I just tend to be alittle more vocal! HaHa. >The KR2 is a wonderful airplane, but a new builder should not consider the >older KR2 without including the "S" supplement. If you will "cruise" over >to the KRnet construction site and search through the archives, you will >find a HUGE amount of information on modifications and improvements that >builders have made to this little plane. Also, lots of builders' sites >have great ideas and improvements that they have made to overcome >different building challenges that they have experienced. The KR2S plans >are reported to be the clearest and easiest to use, as well as the >supplement including the refinements of re-enforced firewall for larger >powerplants, and longer fuselage. Mark Langford's site talks about >several good refinements and hiper links you to other sources of >additional studies and mods. The original KR2 had a neat idea for >retracts, but over the years, virtually every builder with them has done >away with them in favor of a less drag inducing well faired fixed gear, or >some other version of retract (Loehle Replicas has a good system that >swing inboard, but requires alot of work to fit onto a KR2). Also you >cannot forget to put the gear down on fixed gear! I had a student >recently, over 300 hour pilot take me down an instrument approach in a >twin engine aircraft and forget the landing gear, all the way down to 400 >AGL when I took over and lowered the gear. If he had been solo that would >have been an expensive mistake. >What I recommend is for you to take several afternoons and read through >the different builder websites and finished aircraft, and learn all you >can from the ones out there building, or flying. They know what is >working for them, and will save you literally hundreds of hours trying to >solve problems. Then when you have questions, and you can't find the >answer in the archives, ask it here. Go to the Gathering this year and >look at the KR2, and KR2S up close and compare. I am told the materials >cost is virtually the same, and you will be much happier with the plane >when it is complete. Any other builders' thoughts please don't hesitate >to chime in here.... :) > > >Colin Rainey KR2(td) >crain...@cfl.rr.com >Sanford, Florida >FLY SAFE!!!!_______________________________________________ >see KRnet list details at http://www.krnet.org/instructions.html
