I had skimmed over this before, but have just read the entire article. I'll bet that we all agree with most everything in this article, yet, we all ignore it. And while we agree, we love reading about all the fun the Marks, Joe, and Larry have in their KRs that are around 800# empty, not the 450 that Neil writes about.
My first KR was 620# and a bit difficult to handle. This KR is closer to 700# and much easier to handle. The difference is the CG being forward. I have found that what he says on that subject to be absolutely true. Now, I am really having to give more thought to adding another 80+ pounds for the Corvair engine that Roy is building for me????? I disagree with his statement about the engine being the easy decision as I am still having issues, now regarding the intake system. You have to look at what engines are doing all the flying on KRs. It seems to be that they are Corvairs and Continentals. Continentals don't have the intake issues, and neither will give you a 450# KR. Does anyone flying a KR today, fly one that is 450#, or does anyone even have that, as one of the criteria for their KR? It would be interesting to know. It is great to read articles like this because it helps to bring us down out of the design clouds and makes us think about what the most important criteria are for our KR. See N64KR at http://KRBuilder.org - Then click on the pics See you at the 2010 - KR Gathering in Richmond, Ky - I39 There is a time for building and a time for FLYING and the time for Flying has begun. Daniel R. Heath - Lexington, SC -----Original Message----- Steve Bennett wrote: > In the "Gone West" section, I see that Neil Bingham is listed. He had > built a KR 2 and had several articles in Sport Aviaiton about the > aircraft. Neil wrote the treatise that sent a lot of people down the road of lengthening KR2s, leading to the S. His great KR article is at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford/neilb.html .
