You can save quite a bit scratch building. And by the way you can put a KR2 canopy on a KRS2 fuselage. I did it to save Money.
Rob Schmitt N1852Z Www.robert7721.com On Nov 19, 2013, at 7:39 PM, "Mark Langford" <ml at n56ml.com> wrote: > Chris Davis wrote: > >> Well I'll be building on a pretty tight budget, and the airframe kit is >> $2,000 cheaper for the KR2 than the KR2S. I also like the look of the KR2 >> more than the KR2S...just a personal preference thing. > > I'm not sure why a KR2S airframe kit would cost $2000 more than a KR2S. I'm > guessing there may be a $500 difference in the two, mostly in the form of > extra plywood and spruce. After all, we're only talking about a 16" fuselage > extension and wings/surfaces that are longer mostly by virtue of foam and > glass. Another biggie is likely the canopy, as there is a substantial > difference in the cost of a molded S canopy as opposed to the KR2 bubble. I > would guess that even if you DID build a standard KR2, you'd still want the > same equipment (above and beyond the airframe) or level of completion that > you'd buy for a KR2S, so I wouldn't take that $2000 difference as a real > differentiator between the two. > > I certainly concur with other assessments...I think you'd be crazy to build a > KR2 now that we have plans for the KR2S, and flying experience to demonstrate > the improvement between the two. > > Also: > >> The site lists 420lbs as the useful load for the KR2, but with my wife and I >> flying, along with 95lbs of fuel, we'd be at 485lbs useful load. Well if I >> were flying with that 2100cc VW engine at that weight, yeah I'd be a little >> concerned, but with such a stronger engine, is it really a problem going >> over the gross weight by 65-75lbs? > > On the matter of gross weight, 1245 pounds is pushing the limit, but with a > forward CG (use of wing tanks rather than header tank, for example) and only > doing it a few times a year, that's doable. I've certainly exceeded that on > many occasions, and other than the plane suffering in climb and stability, > it's not a problem. I routinely fly at about 1000 pounds, and when I carry a > heavy passenger I get pretty close to your 1245 pound goal, and it's mostly > climb rate that suffers. As I've said many times, getting 50% more power > far exceeds the 5% total aircraft weight increase that a Corvair brings over > a VW, not that there's anything wrong with the VW. People think the fuel > consumption will go up with the bigger engine, but it's only slight due to > the 5% increase in weight. If the two engines are putting out the same > amount of power, the fuel consumption of the engine will be about the same. > > Mark Langford > ML at N56ML.com > website at http://www.N56ML.com > -------------------------------------------------------- > > > _______________________________________________ > Search the KRnet Archives at http://tugantek.com/archmailv2-kr/search. > To UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to KRnet-leave at list.krnet.org > please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html > see http://list.krnet.org/mailman/listinfo/krnet_list.krnet.org to change > options
