I would imagine that back in the 70s it was a bunch of hand written data and calculations. I suspect that even if you had it you would need to be a structural engineer to understand it and in that case you could probably redo it on a computer in less time than reviewing what Ken did.
I would also not be surprised to find that the spars and a few other major items were calculated and a lot of the rest was eyeballed and fudge factored. I am not criticizing the design at all by saying this. I am sure that a lot of homebuilts are designed this way and we know that the KR is very structurarly sound. ---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- From: "Dan Heath" <da...@alltel.net> Reply-To: KRnet <kr...@mylist.net> List-Post: krnet@list.krnet.org Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 17:47:49 -0400 (Eastern Standard Time) >Did you ask her why you can't get the complete analysis? Can you get any >part of the analysis? > > > >See N64KR at http://KR-Builder.org - Then click on the pics > >"There is a time for building and a time for flying, and the time for >building has long since expired." > >Daniel R. Heath - Columbia, SC > >See you in Mt. Vernon - 2004 - KR Gathering > >See our EAA Chapter 242 at http://EAA242.org > > > >_______________________________________ >to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to krnet-le...@mylist.net >please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html >
