Sid Wood wrote: >Are the KR-2 Plans flawed?
I believe the KR2S' additional 2" up front was a direct compensation for the extended tail length behind the main spar, rather than a cure for the short engine mounts or CG range issues. Really, the engine mount should be built to get the CG in the right place for each particular plane (or "fixed" with spacers), rather than assuming that any given KR mount should be a good fit. After all, some folks mount VWs, some Continentals, and others Jabirus. Richard Mole did a very detailed stability analysis "by the book" on the KR2S (not the KR2), and his comment about the last two inches was something like "I sure hope nobody's flown it back there". He put the last nail in that issue, in my mind. A properly set up KR should have no problem flying any reasonable passenger/baggage/fuel configuration, full to empty, and still avoid that aft 2". But if you start out aft with just the pilot, it's not going to get any better! Why is the CG range given as it is. Got me... Mark Langford ML at N56ML.com website at http://www.N56ML.com --------------------------------------------------------
