Does the 'new' airfoil offer anything in the area of CG range or is it the same
as the old one in that regard?
Cheers,
Tony
Sent from my iPad
On 18/08/2013, at 9:50 PM, "Mark Langford" wrote:
Jon,
It occurred to me that although the KR wing planform may not be perfect,
there's certainly no
/jpeg
Size: 27527 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<http://list.krnet.org/mailman/private/krnet_list.krnet.org/attachments/20130818/ac9e5f68/attachment.jpg>
I'm not recreating the wheel...when I bought the partially complete
fuselage the original owner had already done the steps to extend the
wings...the stub wing spars are slightly longer...the spar caps are thicker
and the spars are longer...basically taking advantage of the inherent
increase in stre
Tony King wrote:
> Does the 'new' airfoil offer anything in the area of CG range or is it the
> same as the old one in that regard?
No change there. It's just an airfoil swap. The drawings do have an
incidence change built in, but that's unrelated. The "real" usable range is
big enough, esp
Jon,
It occurred to me that although the KR wing planform may not be perfect,
there's certainly nothing badly wrong with it or it's stall characteristics
that should keep anybody from forging ahead and getting a KR built and in
the air. It might be past the point of diminishing returns to try
5 matches
Mail list logo
