I won't get into the engine debate other than to say that the Continental won't cost any more than a Corvair once it's ready to fly. Also, you won't get away with less Phase 1 test time with a Continental as there is no way you're going to get a certificated prop on a KR due to the shorter prop requirement. You must have a certificated engine/prop combination to have your phase 1 test time reduced to 25 hours. (I was able to do that on the SuperCub that I built).
There are some Subarus flying in KRs. There are one or two others that flew with Subarus (EA81), then removed them in favor of other engines. I think Eduardo Barros has been pretty pleased with his Subaru thus far, but I also believe it is a larger variant of the Subaru engine. Check his web site linked off KRNet.org web site for more details. The engine debate gets to be more like politics and religeon, so I'll respectfully leave it at that. Jeff Scott Los Alamos, NM ----- Original Message ----- From: Dave Acklam Sent: 09/12/12 01:53 PM To: KRnet Subject: Re: KR> subaru I think theres at least one other example on the list... Personally, a water cooled motor isnt the best idea for a plane as small and light as the KR... Remember: 8lbs/gal of water, plus radiator, overflow tank, and hoses..... On top of an already heavy motor... The Corvair or a small Continental (more expensive but less phase 1 test time) are better ways to address the more-power situation.... On Sep 12, 2012 10:19 AM, "Clayton" <[email protected]> wrote: > Is anyone flying behind a Subaru engine? > > My KR2 is plans built with the retracts. > > I am thinking of trading out my VW for one. > > Any information including weight of engine and accessories would be great. > > > > Thank you all for the inspiration and information. > > > > Clay
