Ducan & Mark: A little correction for Duncan: My project (that you're in-process of buying) has the Rand-Robinson Wing Skin Kit, not the Diehl wing skins. My plan was to use the 1 degree angle of incidence, not the 3.5 degrees called for in the plans. For Mark J and Others: For my project, I sorta copied / improved Mark Langford's adjustable horizontal stabilizer / elevator internal balance arm specificly to be able to adjust the angle of incidence to reduce drag. The possibility of elevator flutter was of concern for me because I was planning on a high output Vair powerplant. Other mods were a larger sq. in. rudder, and lower canopy height. Scott
<flyk...@wi.rr.com> wrote: Duncan, I would not use the 3.5° that the plans call for unless you want to go through the air looking like a dolphin with your nose pointed down. There are a lot of things in the plans which should have been well researched before they were published. The RAF48 concept was borrowed from another design. Personally, I would set it somewhere between 1 to 2 degrees. But then that is just my 2 cents worth. > Hi, > I have been following the discussion occasioned by the AS-family or > aerofoils and the 1 degree incidence recommendation, but does this also > apply to aircraft fitted (or about to be fitted) with the RAF-48 airfoils > (ie the Diehl wing skins)? > > Regards, > > Duncan of Devonport > Auckland, New Zealand Scott Cable KR-2S # 735 Wright City, MO s2cab...@yahoo.com --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
