Rich wrote: > The increased aircraft weight and the increased stall > speed / landing speed of the newer airfoils quickly overwhelms the KR > mechanical brakes leading to longer runway requirements.
I'm not sure where you got the impression that the newer airfoils increase stall speed and landing speed. As I wrote yesterday, the most basic design point for the AS504x airfoils was that the stall speed remain the same as the RAF48. I don't know that we have any corroboration of that fact in real airplane form, apples to apples, except for Troy Petteway's plane. He flew with the RAF48 for quite a few hours, and then changed to the AS5046 after suffering wing damage in a forced highway landing. After talking to him immediately after his testing, my writeup from back then was "These improvements came with no penalty, as stall speed remained the same as before, with power off stall coming at 48 knots. The stall was gentle with no tendency to drop a wing."
There's a lot more on this at http://www.krnet.org/as504x/ and the links from that page to other design information.
It's worth noting that Troy's forced landing happened because he had no starter installed, and when the engine quit, he had no way to restart it. It happens. I mistook my mixture knob for the mixture knob and pulled the mixture out enough to stop the engine on climbout during crosswind (during my third flight), and the engine stopped immediately. Stuffing it back in and hitting the starter fired it right back up.
Mark Langford m...@n56ml.com http://www.n56ml.com _______________________________________________ Search the KRnet Archives at https://www.mail-archive.com/krnet@list.krnet.org/. Please see LIST RULES and KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html. see http://list.krnet.org/mailman/listinfo/krnet_list.krnet.org to change options. To UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to krnet-le...@list.krnet.org
