Yes
No
No way to tell, from the NTSB database. Landing gear up, per se, is not a reportable event unless someone gets hurt or serious damage occurs. Egos don't count. :-)Originally Posted by martymayes
A gear-up accident not meeting the criteria of NTSB 830 would be considered an "incident." The FAA does maintain a database of incidents, but I've never fiddled with it.
Ron Wanttaja
Perhaps that could be a 'collision', and 'crash' could be a subtype. According to Merriam-Webster, a crash as related to aviation, is "to damage (an airplane) in landing".
Last edited by tdm; 01-14-2012 at 06:42 PM.
We had a fairly active KR community here in the 70's. Before my time, but when I first got into the EAA, the KR guys were pretty much winding down, but they did share a few stories. With that in mind, yes, most of 'em had a gear up at one time or another. Eventually, several of the retractables were converted to fixed gear, with minimal performance loss.
And for the OP: My belief is that the KR is a dated design. If I was looking for something light and sporty, Bruce King's BK-1 would be on my list. That, or the Thatcher CX-4. Here is a link that will take you to several VW powered designs:
http://www.greatplainsas.com/chooseaircrft.html
Last edited by Kyle Boatright; 01-19-2012 at 09:16 PM.
Just about all KR series aircraft recently built or being built have fixed gear. The original retract design was very short and not very sturdy, having folded up on several pilots upon landing.
I'm building a KR2S, which is the stretched version of the KR2. Mine is also stretched even further, which will contribute to stability. The KR2S is inexpensive to build and very durable. Being completely plans built, it is also easy to customize. Mine is going to be a few inches wider and be powered by a .060 Corvair 2700 engine.
I'm a survivor of a KR-2 crash. Prop strikes on landing disabled us so that a climb proved difficult. Struck a 60 foot pine tree on go around and nosed into trees. The structure of the KR was intact all the way to the ground. Subsequent fire destroyed the entire aircraft after pilot & I had walked away from scene. Helo flight to trauma center was less fun than my first and only ride in a KR. Still building mine and hope to finish in another 20 years! Check out WWW.KRNET.org for lots of free info, advice and support. KR forum at AirVenture Oshkosh is a good place to meet and quiz pilot/builders. There is an annual gathering of KR's at Get all the info you can before buying the plans or the first piece of spruce.
Copied from the KRNET.ORG site: The "Official" 2012 KR Gathering will be held at Mt. Vernon, Illinois (MVN), and will be hosted by airport manager Chris Collins, with help from various KRnetters including Larry Flesner, September 20th-21st. More details can be found at www.KRGathering.org a few months before. Usually you can expect about 10-20 KRs to fly in for the Gathering, depending on the weather. 2007 was a record, with 21 flying KRs in attendence. 2012 will be even better, as even more KRs are flying for the first time, and more importantly, it'll be the 40th year of flying KRs! Our goal is to have 40 KRs fly in, so this could be an all time record, and the opportunity to see KRs that have never been seen at the Gathering before. This is THE place to put your hands on real KR aircraft so don't miss it! If you're light and lucky, you might just get a ride in one. You won't likely forget it soon either. The die-hards will arrive on Thursday, the 19th.
Wow....talk about unnecessary use of aeromedical transport.pilot & I had walked away from scene. Helo flight to trauma center was less fun than my first and only ride in a KR
Unfortunately in science what you believe is irrelevant.
"I'm an old-fashioned Southern Gentleman. Which means I can be a cast-iron son-of-a-***** when I want to be."- Robert A. Heinlein.
He might have had an onset of STS (Sudden Tourette's Syndrome) where one begins to swear uncontrollably after having a wreck that sees the aircraft reduced to cinders and slag.
Glad to hear you were okay!
The opinions and statements of this poster are largely based on facts and portray a possible version of the actual events.
The KR does, theoretically (and perhaps too literally) give you a lot of "BANG" for your buck. That "bang" could be the sound of impact.
Compared to you, I have high-performance stick time in bigger/hotter stuff than an RV-7. But, though tempted, I'm not eager to fly a KR. Like the BD-5, it's a seductive little hot-rod that makes you think you can zoom away for pennies, joyously into the wild blue yonder, without a care. And, like the BD-5, several people have died in them.
While maybe one out of 20 or 30 or so sets of KR plans actually turns into a real flying plane, those 2,000 or more flown KRs have some blood in their history, according to the Aviation Safety Database of the Aviation Safety Network (a service of the Flight Safety Foundation), there have been:
KR-1 - 26 crashes (approx. 11 fatal), http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/...ype=KR1&page=1
KR-2 - 111 crashes (approx. 57 fatal). http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/...ype=KR2&page=1
But that's probably not the whole story. FSF data probably groups by manufacturer's name (in this case: "Rand Robinson"), but the FAA registration of homebuilts commonly uses (at least partly) the name of the builder in the "Manufacturer" name. This can result in official accident data not disclosing all the accidents associated with a type of homebuilt, at least not grouped under one readily identifiable name. Add in variations of the model name (e.g.: "KR-1" or "KR1" or "KR 1"), and you could get further scattering of the data.
The NTSB Aviation Database ( http://ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/index.aspx ) reports:
KR-1 - 30 crashes (8 fatal) -
http://ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviati...0-a0c42f54954f
KR-2 - 126 crashes (40 fatal) -
http://ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviati...6-33529bcc41f4
KR-2S - 4 crashes (1 fatal) -
http://ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviati...6-33529bcc41f4
Again, I doubt that's the whole story in the U.S., let alone abroad. But reading the accident reports could be very educational about KR issues.
SOME THINGS TO WATCH FOR on the KR PLANES:
Choose your engine as if your lifle depends on it; with the KR, it apparently does.
According to the FSF report on one of the KR-2 crashes, the builder had used a certified aircraft engine which was bigger than the Corvair engine that the designer had spin-tested the KR-2 with. The homebuilder decided to spin-test his own KR with the bigger engine (that the plans apparently said was OK). Not good. The plane never got out of the spin, and that was the end. The FSF report seems to suggest that the KR plans supplier / designer just shrugged it off, saying he hadn't spin-tested with that engine, only the smaller one.
Remember that the KR is a TINY airplane with short-coupled controls, and is reputedly twitchy in pitch response (longer body KR-2S adds 16" or so, possibly calming the twitch a bit). That's a common complaint about micro airplanes (like the BD-5). See KR enthusiast Mark Langford's "KR2S Opinions" at http://www.n56ml.com/kopinion.html
The stubby, pitch-twitchy KR may have a narrower safe CG range than the plans suggest. See KR enthusiast Mark Langford's "KR2S Opinions" at http://www.n56ml.com/kopinion.html
The KR puts you close to the ground (and its obstacles) with less time for you to respond to any problem while zooming along (or just above) the surface. And the KR offers little-to-nothing between you and the dirt to crush, absorb and soften impacts. (Compare that to a Cessna 150, or any fixed-gear, strut-winged Cessna, and you can see why Cessnas have top ratings for safety among gen. av. planes -- and the KR perhaps a bit less.)
CRASHES AREN'T PAINLESS:
Don't comfort yourself with the assumption that a crash will be instantly fatal, and thus painless. Crash fatalities in general aviation very often result from the impact-mangled victims burning to death, slowly. Some stats have suggested fatal fires kill about half of fatality victims.
And while about half of KR crashes are fatal, over 85% are "w/o" (write-offs, which is to say: "totaled"). In such crashes, when "survived," pilots (and passengers, if any) are commonly severely injured and/or burned, often with resulting severe and permanent disabilty and/or disfigurement.
A first-time project for an inexperienced young pilot probably would be more wisely chosen from among the tamer, more tested, safer planes out there. That, frankly, is true for everyone, but especially for those who have so much to lose, and so little experience dealing with the dangers of flight, and the passions of youth.
No plane is worth dying for.
You can't get any of the joy of flight in a coffin.
Fly safe, fly more.
Last edited by Roger1; 09-16-2015 at 02:52 AM. Reason: Add details, Improve wording.
Much of what has been said about the KRs here is true. Unfortunately, Ken Rand died decades ago, so on paper, the the plane never evolved. However, in the builder community, the plane has indeed evolved into a better performing safer aircraft. The allure of the KR series of aircraft is the low cost and pay as you go build it all from scratch. Thus, many of the KR builders are trying to scrimp and save pennies. That was my situation 20 years ago when I built one. At this point in time, I have nearly 1100 hours on my KR with nearly 20 hours in the last 2 weeks, and can truthfully say it is one of the most enjoyable planes I have ever flown. I fall in love with it all over again with every flight. I should also note that over the years I have made substantial modifications to the plane to improve it's handling and performance.
The KR-1 and KR-2 were both dynamically unstable in pitch with an extremely light elevator that often times lead to over-controlling on the first flight. If you really want to build a single seat KR, build a -2S, then narrow the fuselage down to whatever width you desire. Join the builders forum KRNET.org and by all means check out Mark Langford's and many other builders web sites linked from krnet.org. There are a lot of significant improvements documented on these web sites that make for a much safer aircraft. The most significant that is in the plans is a larger tail and longer fuselage of the -2S. That makes a significant contribution to stability. On the web sites, you will also find other improvements. Fixed gear is almost a must as it is lighter and more durable than the original retracts, and properly faired, is less drag. That's a winner all the way around. There are plans for a different wing that is cleaner than the original wing design. There are plans for a different tail that has a real airfoil to it and should be built to be significantly larger than the -2S plans tail, which really tames the aircraft. There are plans for flaps and/or belly board for deployable drag, which makes the aircraft significantly easier to land. You will see KR aircraft sporting all kinds of engines, VW, Corvair, Jabiru (both 2200 and 3300), Continentals, Lycomings, and nearly anything else you can name. I'm not a big fan of auto engines in these aircraft as the number of forced landings with them seems to be higher than acceptable to me, but many are flying them reliably.
As for the crashability of the aircraft, many are badly damaged and written off following a crash. However, the wooden structure does a good job of absorbing impact forces while the airframe breaks apart. I personally have not tried that yet, but have seen the after results of a few.
Also, don't be drawn in by the advertising. There are KRs that will go 180 mph (mine is one of them, but that's not cruise), and not on a VW engine. There are some that can get off short and land short, but those are very light and not long distance cruisers. There are some with long cruise range, but they aren't going 180 mph either.
As designed, it's not a great aircraft. But with the help of the builder community, it can be built to be a nice flying, fast and sporty, inexpensive aircraft.
-Cub Builder
Last edited by cub builder; 09-16-2015 at 12:14 PM.
Good work Roger1. I lost a friend in his Miller Rand Robinson KR-2. He installed a Solar T-62 turbine of about 120 HP. It was pretty hot and he had less than 100 hrs. It was over quickly. See NTSB DFW 05LA129, event date 5/21/2005.
I looked it over in his shop prior to the accident and thought (to myself) that it was highly unlikely that I would ever strap into a KR-2 especially a T-62 powered one I am not a low time pilot and have lots of turbine time. The ship had just been converted from conventional gear to tri-gear. He had lots experienced mentoring during the months prior to the flight. So sad.
Bob
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote