Most KR-2 builders acknowledge that the VW engine installation needs to have the engine moved forward 2-inches from the plans callout. Does not matter either conventional gear or tri-gear. The KR-2S supplement moves the firewall forward 2-inches more than the KR-2 plans. The above 2-inch move assumes the builder is going to use the "standard" VW engine mount. There was mention on the KRnet that the VW engine mount should be modified to add the 2-inches so builders would not need to resort to using 2-inch spacer blocks at the fire wall. All this engine moving to get better cg for flight stability indicates to me that the KR-2 plans are flawed in the first place. Hold that thought and consider this: Most builders acknowledge that the last 2-inches of the cg range (of 8 to 16-inches) should not be used for flight operations due to lack of stability and possible loss of control in stall situations. Creating an adverse cg situation by loading the airplane is an operator issue; creating an airplane with an adverse cg is a builder issue. A combination of these issues can become deadly for pilot and passenger. So, my questions to the KRnet: Are the KR-2 Plans flawed? Where is the flaw and what should the true number be? Is the drawing for the sidewall "ladder" where the main spar location is set wrong? Is it an error in locating the firewall with respect to the main spar? Is the airframe in need of a larger heavier engine?
Sid Wood Tri-gear KR-2 N6242 Mechanicsville, MD, USA
