Hi all, I am normally a quiet sideline type person as I have not built the KR yet but am trying to get more planning done. I am wondering if it would be possible to give Dave Prizio the praises he deserves by attending the gathering and writing the article but also have the experts like Larry Flesner, Mark Langford, Mark Jones and others write a followup that highlights the realities of this beautiful aircraft to include a realistic data sheet that would be an average of the current planes.
I know I have many questions but am researching the archives first. My plan is to build the KR2S but to fit under the LSA category. This goes along with my dad's, and my, philosophy of "Fair Weather Sunday Pilot" and keeping cost down as I cannot afford the commercial LSA aircraft. Just my 2 cents. Hope to see some of you at Sun 'n Fun. Earl Klinker Tampa, FL On 3/27/2015 8:52 AM, Flesner via KRnet wrote: > At 11:21 PM 3/26/2015, you wrote: >> Very few KRs "cruise" at 180 mph. Very few KRs make a 980# gross >> weight. Very few KRs are 520# empty weight. Over the last 20 years, >> the members of this forum have made great strides in improving the >> handling characteristics and safety of the plane. Adrian Carter's >> quote of a sudden hard breaking stall then pointing straight down is >> inconsistent with the gentle stall I see in my KR and others report >> as well. The $35,000 finished aircraft number will likely generate a >> lot of discussion. I hear some pilots claim unbelievably low costs >> like they are reporting to the local tax board. I know I had mine >> flying 18 years ago for $15K, but likely have around $30+K in it by >> now, but that includes 1050 hrs of wear and tear, maintenance and >> upgrades. > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > Thanks, Jeff. That's exactly what I saw negative about the article. > You didn't mention that it is a sweet flying , economical airplane. > My apologies to Dave Prizio. I guess he did his job by attending and > asking questions. It appears I should be beating up on the KR > community for not telling about todays KR's. Todays KR's are not the > KR that Ken Rand built. Ken was 5'4" and weighed maybe 130 pounds. > The most poplar shirt size at the Gatherings I hosted was Large and > Extra Large. The KR's we're building today are coming in nearer the > 750 pound range than 480 and really need 100 hp to perform well. I > guess after 25 years in the KR community I'm getting tired of the > mythical data sheet still being laid on the unsuspecting future > builder. T.O. distance 350 feet, landing distance 600 feet, cruise > 180, empty weight 520 pounds, gross 980 pounds, 1080 mile range (with > 35 gallon tanks). Really, how many KR's being built have 35 gallon > tanks. When full, that's the equivalent of a 210 pound passenger. And > all this is typical performance using a 2180 VW??? Us in the know > just say "yea, right" and move on. Those not in the know looking at > these numbers would say " awesome, I'm going to build a KR and fly it > out of the field behind my house". I'd just like to see an up front > honest article about todays KR's and how they are a great "bang for > the buck", nice flying, sweet little airplane. Anyway, that's my story > and I'm sticking to it. No hard feelings on my part over any > disagreements. > > Larry Flesner > > _______________________________________________ > 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
