I understand the concern of the others. They are the first to be emptied of fuel, but as always we have to be concerned about the emergency that may arise on the initial take off, requiring a return to base landing with full fuel in the wing tanks. I believe this would be the maximum stress the WAF's would have to carry. However, as it has been pointed out, the plans do call for building such outboard wing tanks-placing them in the bay closest to the WAF's. If kept reasonably sized, and figured into the total gross weight of the aircraft during a potential landing, they are safe, and have been used for years without being implicated as causing any kind of operational difficulties.
A review of KR accidents and their causes on Mark Langford's site indicates many different causes for accidents, one of the most often recurring themes was fuel starvation. I would be more concerned about this than if my wings were going to fall off-which has never been implicated in any accident. Les Criscillo Tampa, FL lcris...@tampabay.rr.com http://groups.msn.com/LesLifeandfriends/homepage ----- Original Message ----- From: David Mikesell To: KRnet Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2003 13:22 Subject: Re: KR>TANKS IN OUTER WINGS As I stated in the begining, wing tanks are great because they don't figure in the gross weight of a flying airplane, the weight only becomes a issue during landing and on the ground. AS stated in the begining seeing this in several STC wing tank and tip tank installation you burn fuel in those tanks first so that ground time and landings are not a issue and you only put fuel in them if you are planning a long trip where the fuel is needed. David Mikesell 23957 N. Hwy 99 Acampo, CA 95220 209-609-8774 skyguy...@skyguynca.com www.skyguynca.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Clancey D Krumwiede" <red-bri...@juno.com> To: <kr...@mylist.net> Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2003 10:06 AM Subject: Re: KR>TANKS IN OUTER WINGS > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > see KRnet list details at http://www.krnet.org/instructions.html _______________________________________________ see KRnet list details at http://www.krnet.org/instructions.html
