It's an interesting comment and there is much truth in it. I can't speak for the KR-2S Plans since I built a KR-2; but when I was building it was virtually impossible to build a KR-2 exactly to the plans. There were several gray areas, and quite a few down-right mistakes in the plans. The plans were difficult enough to interpret that only the builders with a fair amount of Engineering skill and a strong desire to fly, ever completed them. And we all know Engineers can not leave well enough alone. I beleave someone commented that builders who stuck closely to the plans were most likely to suceed and I agree. I've found you can plan on a task taking a minimum of three times longer if you don't have plans to follow. I really admire guys like Mark L. who have made so many changes yet have still completed and flown their KRs. They are a rair breed indeed, as many people that deviate significantly from the plans lose confidence and drop, or sell the project to someone else. Non-Flying KR PROJECTS that have deviated significantly from the plans are difficult to sell and are often scrapped instead. I think you will find that the vast majority of FLYING KR's were built pretty close to the plans. When Ken Rand first built the KR1 the VW was still a very experimental engine. He used to claim that he had more glider time in a KR1 than powered flight time. Since he was using junkyard engines I'm surprised he had any powered flight time at all. Since then much has been learned about aero VW conversions and the engine is quite safe if built correctly. Im sure that Corvair engines will also reach that reliability. In conclusion the basic KR design is far more reliable than many of the "improvements" that we make and most of our PROBLEMS are 100% OUR fault. From my own perspective, an improvement has to not only improve relaibility, but must also weigh LESS than the original design. Needless to say I haven't made very many improvements. Just my view. Thanks
----- Original Message ----- From: <airb...@comcast.net> To: "KR-2" <kr...@mylist.net> Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 2:44 PM Subject: KR> comment > After reading, and also hearing about the kr2 and all if it's problems..from engine..to landing gear ...fuel system..etc > I am surprised that after all of the years that have past, the kr2 still hasn't yet been refined , as to have one being built with all of it's problems being resolved, from past builders and also flyers as well. > It seems to me that something is always going wrong when changes are made. > > New builders should take the time to actualy read the plus side and the negative side of the kr2 before building one. 90 % of builders have not built one according to plans, without making some sort of modification to the kr2, maybe thats why they are having so much trouble later in the final phases when it comes to flying. ( want speed ? keep it simple and light ) > Maybe you should stick with the original design that has been proven for many years >
