There is a spreadsheet in the archives with about a dozen and a half KR's and their specs including performances. I plan to build a bare bones KR1 (although with retracts), using the "new" airfoil and either my Jab 2200 or more likely, a smaller VW with a turbo. Since I like X-C flying, it will have plenty of wing tank capacity. Would like to build it as light as possible other than the retract and turbo weight penalty. Also, there is an in-flight adjustable prop option available. Now, regarding cruise speed, the turbo really bends the curve the right way. Sea level power in the thin, low drag air up high. One other performance item little discussed is a redrive. Redrives really make a difference when you can swing a big prop.
As to the original specs, yes they totally conflict with each other. (and dont forget the impossibly light empty weight!) In fact I see this a lot in the military aircraft arena, a F4 Phantom can climb 35,000 fpm. But I highly doubt that is with a bomb load, missiles, jamming pod, and drop tanks! Same for range and speed. Those military jets have a speed range spec which I am sure is in clean configuration. I bet a heavily loaded 5th gen fighter might not even break mach. (Not sure, would have to ask someone who has flown much faster than I). My Avid with jab 2200 and "speed wing" gets off in 850ft at gross (~1150lbs), sea level, does about 100 wide open and climbs at 900-1000 fpm with my Tenn 64x36 prop. At 11,500 at gross, summer, with the old prop climb was 200fpm wot. At a 5000ft elevation field at about 950lbs, it took seveal thousand ft to get up and climbed like crap, but aagin that was with the old prop. Fuel consumption on a 3000mi X-C (coast to coast) was about 5.25GPH but with the old "rich" carb needle. Should be more like 4GPH. I haven flown the plane in a number of years (its apart) and still remember the performances. BTW, the 56x44 fiberglass clad prop was way worse performer than the gorgeous, light 64x36 Tennesee prop. So props really matter, apparently! The archives DO have a good number of flight reports on performance. All that being said, it would be great for our members to do some testing and report it, not even at next gathering, how about at next time at the airport? Would love to see some empty weight, gross weight, take-off, landing, climb rate, and top speed reports! > To: krnet at list.krnet.org > Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 00:14:47 +0100 > Subject: Re: KR> KRnet Digest, Vol 3, Issue 237 > From: krnet at list.krnet.org > CC: colinhales at hotmail.com > > Hi there, the following was quite funny and made me laugh. Can we have more > humour on here please:
