n 8/22/2021 1:25 PM, Jeff Scott wrote:
I flew my KR for 500 hrs without any drag producing devices. Then I
added flaps and significantly modified the tail. I don't think I ever
landed without flaps again other than for training purposes. The
larger tail and deployable drag greatly expanded the operating
envelope of my KR with much improved crosswind performance. My KR
suddenly changed from a calm day flyer to a plane that I could fly in
almost any VFR weather.
It's unfortunate that the KR's have the reputation they have based on
the original KR2. The 2S built now days is a sleeper on the market.
When Jeff moved up to a larger air frame (RV6) he sold one of the best
equipped KR's on the market, 50% faster on the same fuel burn, than a
C150 for less than $20K. The Wisconsin KR2S just auctioned off is
another example of a great bargain.
The major problem with the KR is that people have out grown the design.
A 200 pound pilot wants to carry a180 pound passenger in a small air
frame using 75 h.p. If the 200 pound owner would consider the airplane
to be a great single place, and make a few mods to improve the flying
characteristics if desired, they would enjoy owning and flying the KR.
Mark Langford, being the size person the KR was designed for 50 years
ago, flies one of the most stock KR2's all over the Midwest on a regular
basis. The flying characteristics are acceptable enough so that he is
not yet motivated to repair the 2S he flew prior to that and put it back
in the air.
The KR has it's flaws but all are well know and can be designed out to
have a great flying, economical airplane. That's why it still has it's
-Please see LIST RULES and KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html
-Change list delivery options at
https://list.krnet.org/list/krnet.list.krnet.org/ Affinity List Info Board
-Search recent KRnet Archives at
-Search John Bouyea's decades of archive at