Brian Deveson wrote: >>So with all the knowledge in the group, why do we not do a proper analysis of the KR aircraft, and dispel or the myths and wrong things said or printed.<<
The short answer from me would be "that would be nice, but given my workload it won't be me that does it". And besides, analysis is great for designing an airplane, but once it's flying, you have the perfect tool to TEST and EVALUATE flying characteristics, rather than make assumptions and use generalizations and generic formulas to approximate what it MIGHT fly like. We have hundreds of flying examples from which to draw experience, and they've been pretty well quantified over the 40 years of KR flying. I've done my best to help with that effort, as have many other reports from pilots that are there for the asking or searching the archives at http://tugantek.com/archmailv2-kr/search. The current generations of KR2Ss are being built as safe, known quantities that are a joy to fly and very efficient. Even the original KR2 with a forward CG is safe and predictable, although tight for a passenger. If you haven't seen http://www.n56ml.com/kopinion.html , you should check it out if you're looking for generic guidance on how to build a stable yet efficient KR. Although I wrote it 18 years ago and before my plane was even built, I still stand by the conclusions and how I arrived there (with the exception of the bent-up spar, which I hear ain't easy to do!). I need to update that page a bit, as my attitude toward the 0-200 has improved significantly over the last few months as well. Looks like I just found something to do tonight... Mark Langford ML at N56ML.com website at http://www.N56ML.com --------------------------------------------------------
