...@telkomsa.net
P.S: checkout www.whisperaircraft.com
- Original Message -
From: "Matthew Elder"
To: "KRnet"
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2005 12:46 AM
Subject: Re: KR> AS 504X CofG
> Actually it's the other way around.
>
> The designer of the airfoil comes up
There are certainly plenty of "designer's handbooks" around, as well as
rules of thumb, and just as many discussions of how to establish CG range.
But here's a snip from a very informative post from Doc Mosher, a regular at
Oshkosh and Brodhead (Pietenpol fly-in) events and a frequent contribut
I would not dare go into the aft 2", but I can state that 3.4" of the aft
limit at near gross weight was downright scary in my standard KR-2.
Brian Kraut
Engineering Alternatives, Inc.
www.engalt.com
Most prudent KR builders/flyers consider the aftmost 2" of the
published CG range to be unusabl
... for a low-wing monoplane such as the KR, a starting point would be
to use 18% and 34% of MAC. For a wing with a 48" MAC, that is roughly
8-1/2" to 16-1/2" aft of leading edge .
+++
When someone starts asking questions about CG location, he or she may be
pretty close
>OZ's statement is correct: "a wing with a 48" MAC, that is roughly
>8-1/2" to 16-1/2" aft of leading edge".
>
>However, the mean chord on a KR /KR2 is not 48". (and the planform is
>not symmetrical)
I guess that, more than anything, I was trying to figure out how Rand and
Robinson arrived at th
I guess that, more than anything, I was trying to figure out how Rand
and Robinson arrived at their published CG range
+++
Hey Oscar
I found it interesting that your extrapolation came out within 1/2" of
the RR numbers - almost as it they had also ignored the influence of the
tapered
... for a low-wing monoplane such as the KR, a starting point would be
to use 18% and 34% of MAC. For a wing with a 48" MAC, that is roughly
8-1/2" to 16-1/2" aft of leading edge .
+++
Some interesting points from some of the more recent emails I decided to
work out the
Hi guys
Thanks to everyone that tried to stear me in the right direction regarding
CG location. I have really very limited knowledge of aerodynamics and have a
few questions of how the CG is determined. The way I see it is this : After
the "designer" has finished designing his aerofoil, he does som
Actually it's the other way around.
The designer of the airfoil comes up with (emperically usually)
a point known as the center of lift. The aircraft designer uses
that information based on the mission of the aircraft.
Assume that we are talking about conventional aircraft here (big
wing in fron
>Does aerial extraction imply what I think?
Sure. It means it was grabbed out of the air. We engineers do it all the
time.
>Would anal extraction be more correct or precise?
I don't know. I don't grab much from there and I certainly wouldn't accuse
Ken Rand or Stu Robinson of doing it eithe
Hi chaps
I know this subject line is old news to some and most will probably know the
answer (including me) but I have to be absolutely sure of my facts before I
take a hacksaw to this piece of 4130 tube in my hands.Mark L, I think I
raised this subject with you some time ago, please bear with me h
Dene Collett wrote:
> I am using the AS5048/5045 combination . I know these airfoils
> were designed to be a direct replacement for the RAF48 but I am not sure
if
> the CG limits are the same.
Since you mention 4130 tubing, I'm assuming you're thinking about nose gear.
I don't know that anybody h
12 matches
Mail list logo
