Rand KR-1

shangalaing · Post by **shangalaing** » Mon Sep 28, 2009 4:38 pm

I am looking for a plane to build in a fairly small garage and the Rand KR-1 seems to fit the bill, however Im suprised that there seems to be a lack of them flying in the world whereas its big brother the KR-2 is one of the most popular plans built aircraft... Is there a fatal flaw in the KR-1 or is it just that a similar design that carries 2 people is available?
Regards, Matt Summers

Ian Melville · Post by **Ian Melville** » Mon Sep 28, 2009 4:58 pm

Don't think the KR1 is approved by the LAA?

I am currently building a Thatcher CX4, which must be close to your requirements. Only partial approval at the moment, and progress is slow while we resolve some stress issues.

Ian Melville

shangalaing · Post by **shangalaing** » Mon Sep 28, 2009 5:14 pm

The CX-4 looks a nice aeroplane however I was wanting to do something in composites. IF the KR-1 isnt approved, is it because no-one has built one before or that it couldnt get a permit?

Bill McCarthy · Post by **Bill McCarthy** » Mon Sep 28, 2009 7:13 pm

Many KR2's, although two seaters, are limited to one seat use due to all up weight limitations. It does all a KR1 can do, and can be utilised to carry that bit of extra kit for overnight stops.

Ian Melville · Post by **Ian Melville** » Mon Sep 28, 2009 7:27 pm

shangalaing wrote:The CX-4 looks a nice aeroplane however I was wanting to do something in composites. IF the KR-1 isnt approved, is it because no-one has built one before or that it couldnt get a permit?

I would ask Francis Donaldson that, if I were you.(He may be on his hols at the moment)
If you are thinking of getting the approval. You will need to be or have access to an aircraft stress engineer, or you will need to build an airframe that can be tested to destruction. It would help if you could convince the LAA that the KR1 fleet worldwide has more than 2500 hours, and no known issues.

shangalaing · Post by **shangalaing** » Mon Sep 28, 2009 8:26 pm

Thanks for the responces, I dont have the room to build a KR-2 and I dont have the funds to build 2 KR-1's....
Should I look more towards the aluminium or wood/fabric designs, I just thought in my limited experience that the composite over wood construction looked the simplest to built for a beginner, and it is a lot prettier than the VP-1.

macconnacher · Post by **macconnacher** » Mon Sep 28, 2009 8:45 pm

The KR1 was derived from the British Taylor Monoplane which it is why bits of it; like spar plates are virtually the same. I once saw a picture of Ken Rand in an early Sport Aviation proudly showing his Monoplane main spars. I guess he must have modified it so much with his use of early composites such as Dynel fabric that it became the KR1.
If you want a single seater there are projects about. The Menestrel II and the Jodel D.18 are two seaters and not much bigger tasks than the single sesters. The Corby Starlet, Taylor Monoplane, Brugger Colibri and Flitzer, are all approved single seaters which fly well on a VW.

Bill McCarthy · Post by **Bill McCarthy** » Tue Sep 29, 2009 9:06 am

The KR aircraft are not composites as such. They are basically of wood construction with the flying surfaces "shaped" from slabs of everyday insulating foam. An awful lot of KR2 projects were started in the early eighties and I guess there will be a whole host of unfinished ones just waiting to be taken over if you put an ad in the magazine. It would not take up all that much room as the wings are detachable.

Rob Swain · Post by **Rob Swain** » Tue Sep 29, 2009 10:00 am

shangalaing wrote:... and it is a lot prettier than the VP-1.

Flippin' cheek!

http://www.caa.co.uk/applicationmodules ... mgtype=jpg

As the picture shows there are a number of options with the VP-1. I do take your point that as basically built it is rather rudimentary, though.

Have you also considered the Tipsy Nipper or Druine Turbulent?
The Nipper is as aerobatic as you want to make the engine, I believe. (Inverted systems etc).

None of the alternatives mentioned are especially expensive to buy ready built and flying, and probably will be cheaper than building from scratch, depending on how you value your spare time.
There is always the "halfway house" of buying a project and completing it - there's been a Turbulent project being hawked around the last few months, for example.

Steve Brown · Post by **Steve Brown** » Tue Sep 29, 2009 11:46 am

Matt - what do you primarily want to do with your a/c once completed - S&L or aero, local or long distance?

shangalaing · Post by **shangalaing** » Tue Sep 29, 2009 12:03 pm

Hi Steve, Im looking for a plane that I can go long distances in, thats one reason that puts me off the VP-1. After reading up about small single seaters it seems that the KR-1 has one of the higher cruise speeds on a VW as well as seeming cheap and easy. I would like to build the plane myself preferably, Im not in a hurry.
Thanks,
Matt

Bill McCarthy · Post by **Bill McCarthy** » Tue Sep 29, 2009 2:12 pm

A British built KR2 went round the world a couple of years back - was the subject of an excellent article in a past PFA magazine. If you want to go places you would be a bit limited as to what you could take with you in a KR1. A "single place only" KR2 would have similar performance and range to a KR1 with the added advantage of having stowage space in the spare seat.

Rod1 · Post by **Rod1** » Tue Sep 29, 2009 3:18 pm

Colomban Luciole any good?

Rod1

shangalaing · Post by **shangalaing** » Tue Sep 29, 2009 3:31 pm

The Luciole looks nice, what is the cruise speed for it? The KR-1 is quoted at being 180mph (maybe this is optimistic but it still seems good even if generous) Also how difficult is the translation of the plans, I did GCSE French but I don't know how well that will stand me...

Ian Melville · Post by **Ian Melville** » Tue Sep 29, 2009 7:36 pm

The Colomban Luciole builder at Sywell said that Richard Mole was involved with a translation of the build manual. He also mentioned Liability issues if the translation was wrong

KR1 performance figures look optimistic to me