At 09:00 AM 3/26/2015, you wrote: >Guys, go back and re-read the article. The number "40 or so" was in >reference to the number of attendees, not the number of planes. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I stand corrected on the "40 KR's" but I stand behind the rest of my "nit picking". Someone not familiar with the KR aircraft and reading the article might go away with the impression that it may well cost $35,000 to build, it will fall out of the sky when it stalls, that they can build a 180 mph KR that will weigh 540 pounds. In reality, the KR is not a good two place cross country aircraft unless widened at the shoulders and the CG managed well, that the typical KR2s now being built, with a 100 hp engine and electrical system, will probably come in at 700+ pounds, that the 980 gross in the USA is not a limit, that you're not going to get 180 cruise unless you demand that most of your 100 horses help pull the wagon and, that in fact, a well built KR is a safe, sporty, nice flying airplane as anyone that has any time in a KR will attest to. Without re-reading the article, I don't recall anything about the new airfoil and the efforts of the KR community to bring it to reality. Those of us that have been part of the KR community for 25 years or more easily read past and discount the half true or untrue information in the article based on 40 year old company supplied marketing information used in the article. Only factual information based on KR's being built today will help bring more builders to our community and would help to eliminate the many abandoned projects we see posted on the net weekly. Anyone starting a KR needs to have a realistic idea of what the final results of thousand of hours of effort and dollars will produce. Larry Flesner
