VIRG wrote: > So many were stretching the "2" that she had the REDISIGN > done to protect herself. This was not a modification but a REDISIGN.
I really don't know how you could call the S plans a "redesign" of the KR2. The differences are minor, mostly involving the strengthening of the firewall to accomodate larger engines (and I believe that was done by a newsletter subscriber much earlier), changing the sweep of the wing to accomodate the Diehl skins (and I believe Dan did that himself, years before), stretching the fuselage 2" in front of the main spar and 14" aft of the main spar (and this was accomplished by others earlier by simply stretching it), etc. Best I can tell, Roy Marsh built the first "KR2S", and the plans were updated (with the "supplement") to document it. But Marsh used KR2 sized tail surfaces (but an entirely different main wing airfoil). I think Kevin Kelley "designed" the larger S tail surfaces that now appear in the supplement to improve pitch stability. It's my understanding that Roy's plane was used as the plug from which RR's premolded parts molds were pulled from (excluding wings). I have made no "definitive" statements above because I don't have any info in front of me and am running on memory, but that's what I remember of the sequence of events, mostly having talked to the folks mentioned above. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong in the details. It seems to me that the S evolved from within the builder community, improving one area at a time until we had the S. KRnet has continued the evolution, and now all one has to do is start at www.krnet.org and look at the websites to see how to make the bird of your dreams, taking your pick of engines, canopy styles, gear, panels, control systems, etc. KRnet is far better than a set of drawings. I'm convinced that very few new KRs would be under construction were there no KRnet. As a mechanical design engineer who's quite familiar with CAD work, I've been tempted to create a new set of drawings that are accurate and detailed enough to remove all guess work (I even volunteered to do that once for RR), but I'm now at the point that I would build the plane differently in a lot of ways. I plan to build another plane that is similar in size and construction to the KR, but will by my own design in every way. Many folks would argue that I've already built that plane, but now that I've built and flown it, I know what I would do differently, including the best ideas from other KRnet builders. I will create models and drawings for it as I go, and after successful flights I'll make them available to others (for sale), as well as parts, including composite parts, although I realize that most builders prefer to make many of these parts themselves. That will be several years from now, however, but at least nobody will be able to complain about not being able to buy plans, parts, or obtain technical support. This is not an effort to get rich off the builder community (just take a look at how many experimental aircraft companies actually succeed), but more of an attempt to continue the evolution, as well as my own aerodynamic and mechanical education... Mark Langford, Huntsville, Alabama KR2S N56ML @ www.N56ML.com email to N56ML "at" hiwaay.net
