Pat
Increasing the outer sections would be yet another modification and knowing 
the PFA they would have required the WAFS to be stronger still, along with 
the spars!

Peter
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "patrusso" <patru...@sover.net>
To: "KRnet" <kr...@mylist.net>
Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 7:09 PM
Subject: Re: KR> WAF


> Pete
> Gotta agree with larry on this one, but I have another question; why 
> bother
> to decrease the lenght of the outer panels?  A little extra lift wont 
> hurt.
> Would the accompanying drag more than off set this?
> Pat
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "larry flesner" <fles...@midwest.net>
> To: "KRnet" <kr...@mylist.net>
> Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 8:27 AM
> Subject: Re: KR> WAF
>
>
>>
>>>I have increased the centre section of the wing by 6" overall and
>>>shortened
>>>the outboard sections by the same amount.
>> . To gain approval
>>>from the PFA (UK inspection organisation) we had to use a modified WAF
>>>Peter
>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>
>> Peter,
>>
>> I think I'm missing something very basic here.  If you increased the span
>> of the center section and decreased the span of the outer panels, 
>> wouldn't
>> that make the load on the WAF LESS, not more?  If so, why did they
>> have you increase the strength?
>>
>> Curious minds want to know !!  :-)
>>
>> Larry Flesner
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________
>> Search the KRnet Archives at http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp
>> to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to krnet-le...@mylist.net
>> please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html
>
>
> _______________________________________
> Search the KRnet Archives at http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp
> to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to krnet-le...@mylist.net
> please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html
> ---
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.9.2/55 - Release Date: 21/07/2005
>
> 


Reply via email to