> I AM curious about >all the talk of adding drag to the KR to slow it down. > I have flown several low drag / clean aircraft without flaps and >never had any unnerving problems with landing. > Doran >++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
On the first flight in my KR, I felt the landing approach was very "unsettling" in that it was not stable , hard to hold a constant airspeed, poor visibility over the nose, etc.. If you try to peek over the nose you could easily pick up 5 mph. I went back to altitude and tested the belly board for control, etc. The second approach, with board fully deployed, was steady as a rock, carrying just a touch of power to control vertical decent. I've never again intentionally landed without it deployed except when playing at the home airport with an 8000 foot runway. You can slip the KR down to the runway but when you straighten it out to flare, in ground effect, you'll eat up 1000 feet of runway unless you hold something considerably less then 1.3 above stall. And if you do that, the approach gets real "uncomfortable". I suspect that the older, lighter KR's, have a bit more drag when the retracts are thrown out in the air stream. The newer KR's are coming in 250 pounds heavier, and slicker with the fared gear, and I suspect pick up speed quicker if the nose is lowered a bit. Just a guess on my part. I'm convinced that a lot of KR's become hangar queens simply because they lack drag to make a "comfortable" approach to landing. It probably scared a low time or not so current pilot and they just parked it. Having just passed the 500 hour mark in my KR I'm convinced that deployable drag is a great thing. I wouldn't enjoy flying it nearly as much without it. Larry Flesner
