Wow Colin, I couldn't have stated any better, in fact it's like you took the words right out of my (feeble) mind! Thank-you.
It was my intent of this whole thread, not to try to get someone to give up their dreams, but rather edify the group about the inherent risks of flight, accepting the risks involved, when choosing any flight intended hardware, hopefully with a clearer or better understanding of the possible consequenses of their choices. The bottom line here is create a mission statement for your airplane. Research everything that goes into that mission statement. Build your airplane to satisfy the requirements of your aircraft mission statement. Refer OFTEN back to your mission statement when building / modifying your airplane. When you think, geez, I'd really like to put this wiz-bang auto-pilot and weather avoidance radar system on my KR, the answer will become obvious to you that it's not needed to fulfil your Daytime VFR Requirement that you put in your mission statement. FYI: As a reminder, the KR was originally designed to use a auto-conversion engine..... Keep buildin' --- Colin & Bev Rainey <[email protected]> wrote: > Scott & netters, > I hope all have enjoyed and more importantly gained > from this debate/discussion. I don't see Scott & I > at odds concerning engines but rather applying our > different types of experience to our craft in the > hopes of making the safest aircraft possible. Both > Scott & I have fallen prey to attempting to discuss > a very complicated subject in limited space, so as > not to bore or overwhelm everyone else, but also > dominate it. I hope some of the whys' everyone has > have been answered by one or the other of us, or at > least prompted those who still have questions to > research them instead of giving up on their > dreams/goals. ===== Scott Cable KR-2S # 735 Wright City, MO [email protected] __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus
