Span vs cord is defined as aspect ratio. My interpretation of your first question would be, how does the aspect ratio of a wing affect the flight characteristics?
Wikipedia give an excellent definition and it's effect on the flight characteristics at <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspect_ratio_(wing)> My observation from flying a number of comparable short and long winged planes is that the lower aspect ratio planes tend to become dogs at higher altitudes. As a couple of comparisons, a 150 hp '59 Piper Tripacer vs a 145 hp '59 Cessna Skyhawk. At low altitude, the TriPacer is the faster of the two planes. At 8500', the Skyhawk smokes the TriPacer in climb and speed. Another comparison would be the Piper Tomahawk vs the Beech Skipper. Both planes sport the same airfoil and the same wing area, use the same engine, and weigh roughly the same. The Skipper is definately the more comfortable and nicer flying of the two. Near sea level, they fly virtually the same. At 8500 feet, the Tomahawk can fly circles around the Skipper. Why? The only significant difference is the aspect ratio of the wing. The Skipper has a longer cord, but 4 foot less span to make exactly the same wing area and a high altitude dog. Flying out of SLC, UT, a high aspect ratio wing is your friend. I'm based at KLAM, at a mere 7171'. On a warm day, our Density Altitude is often hovering around 10,000. I like the extra wing area provided by the Diehl wings vs the original designed wings. However, I haven't flown a KR with the shorter wings for comparison. Wing area vs overall length of the aircraft. Generally speaking, the more wing area you have, the more tail volume you need. The shorter the distance from the wing to the tail, the more tail volume you need. In quite general terms, many amateur built designs have notoriously small tails, including the KR Series. This leads to pitch instability issues and lengthy email discussions about the Sporty feel of a marginally controllable aircraft. ;o) (No need to flame me, I'm poking fun at all of us including myself.) Conversely, increasing the distance from the trailing edge of the wing to the tail allows one to use a smaller tail. (Take a look at the long fuselage and comparitively small tail on a Navion some time.) KRP-51? There are lots of variables there. The old WAR series aircraft used similar construction to the KRs, then bonded slabs of foam on the sides to get the shape they wanted. Most wouldn't begin to perform with a similarly powered KR. But the beauty here is that you get to build it, so you can make it into whatever you want it to be. -Jeff Scott Los Alamos, NM ----- Original Message ----- From: Barrett Sent: 12/15/11 01:28 PM To: 'KRnet' Subject: KR> A=L*W Ok, guys- I've got a question that I have not found a good answer to online. If you were to keep the AREA of the wing the same, what effect does the wing length Vs width make? AND- then what does the wing area vs overall length of the aircraft make? I was just comparing the dimensions of the KR2S to the P-51D Mustang and there is a GREAT big difference, especially in the wingspan vs overall fuselage length ratios. In other words, has anyone tried to make a KR into a P51? >:-) That's where my thinking is headed. KRP-51? lol -Barrett SLC, UT _______________________________________ 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
