I respectfully disagree. When sitting on the ground, the "1g" weight of the fuel is supported by the landing gear and everything else when the tanks are located in the stub wings. When the fuel is located in the outer wings, the weight, multiplied by the arm of the fuels cg, is supported as torque on the WAFs. I am not saying, nor have said in the past, that this alone invalidates the idea of tanks in this location. I simply suggested it as something that must be considered when making such a design change. As a number of people on this forum have expressed concern about the WAFs in a number of threads, they are obviously something to not take lightly. I, for one, am not intending to make large scale changes on my own to a good proven design. That being said, and risking the beginning of an entire new thread, I am curious if anyone has examined the possibility of replacing the WAFs with a "spar box" similar to those utilized on certified aircraft designs.
On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 10:08:47 -0600 "Mark Langford" <n5...@hiwaay.net> writes: > > And just where do most airplanes spend a vast majority of their > time? > > I should have just let this go, but it is not a valid comment. The > 1g > experienced by an airplane sitting in a hangar is simply not a load > case of > any significance, and has no bearing on anything in this > discussion. > > Mark Langford, Huntsville, AL > N56ML "at" hiwaay.net > see KR2S project at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford > > > > _______________________________________________ > see KRnet list details at http://www.krnet.org/instructions.html > > Keith C. Krumwiede Rosedale, IN
