I think this lightest aircraft is not a KR. It looks to me like a clean sheet project and I'd like to know more about it.
As to reinventing the KR, even ken rand "reinvented" the plane in a number of way including creating the KR2, and other major and minor developments. many see experimental aircraft as an opportunity to learn, as they are described in the regs, and so we try things. You make tradeoffs. you want less cost, you may add weight, or vice versa. I am trying to make my project as faithful to the first KR1 as possible but it will need to be a trigear because thats what i know how to land best and its safer. a good example of worthwhile reinventing the wheel. also, the original had a short nose due to the c-channel engine mounting system right against the firewall. however that necessitated the belt driven magneto which is why there is a shelf at the top of f/w. do you really want a belt driven mag? that was resolved by moving the engine forward onto a traditional tubular mount. I may have other options including electronic ignition. more reinventing. maybe I will never even build this thing to completion. but as long as I am trying, reinventing the 46 year old(!) design will be a part of it to some extent. On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 1:33 PM, larry howell via KRnet <krnet@list.krnet.org> wrote: > > I am surprised how many late comers to the party try to reinvent the wheel, > use $5.00 cheaper lumber for the whole project but adds 20 lbs etc. I >> >> How light is it? >> >>> >>> At the moment, Richard is finishing up construction of one of the >>> world's lightest internal combustion powered airplanes _______________________________________________ Search the KRnet Archives at https://www.mail-archive.com/krnet@list.krnet.org/. Please see LIST RULES and KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html. see http://list.krnet.org/mailman/listinfo/krnet_list.krnet.org to change options. To UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to krnet-le...@list.krnet.org
