Does anyone know of any builder that ended up with an unusually light weight
fuselage? I searched
the archives and had some trouble finding any isolated information on what to
expect for weight
with no engine. I would like to beat the average if I could.
Thanks a bunch, Mike Johnson
Try this
http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford/ebarros/
- Original Message -
From: "Mike johnson"
To:
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2006 10:05 PM
Subject: KR> Fuselage weight question
> Does anyone know of any builder that ended up with an unusually light
> weight f
te:
> Try this
>
> http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford/ebarros/
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Mike johnson"
> To:
> Sent: Monday, October 23, 2006 10:05 PM
> Subject: KR> Fuselage weight question
>
>
> > Does anyone know o
t: Re: KR> Fuselage weight question
My question is, Has anyone tried to reduce (lower) the
turtledeck in size...i.e. more like the KR1? It seems
logical that you should be able to lower the taper,
give more bubble effect (increase rearward visibility)
from the canopy and reduce weight?
--
f1981=btinternet@mylist.net] On Behalf Of
Red
Sent: 24 October 2006 18:28
To: KRnet
Subject: Re: KR> Fuselage weight question
My question is, Has anyone tried to reduce (lower) the
turtledeck in size...i.e. more like the KR1? It seems
logical that you should be able to lower the taper,
give mor
Red wrote:
> My question is, Has anyone tried to reduce (lower) the
> turtledeck in size...i.e. more like the KR1? It seems
> logical that you should be able to lower the taper,
> give more bubble effect (increase rearward visibility)
> from the canopy and reduce weight?
Reducing the taper to re
: KR> Fuselage weight question
Red wrote:
> My question is, Has anyone tried to reduce (lower) the
> turtledeck in size...i.e. more like the KR1? It seems
> logical that you should be able to lower the taper,
> give more bubble effect (increase rearward visibility)
> from the
---
- Original Message -
From: "Fred Johnson"
To: "'KRnet'"
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 2:42 PM
Subject: RE: KR> Fuselage weight question
>I agree with Mark, look at the RV4 series and the Harmon Rocket
>
> Fred Johnson
> Product
Did they see this on the P-51? Or did they do an engine swap along with the
redesign?
> From: riksh...@interl.net> To: kr...@mylist.net> Subject: Re: KR> Fuselage
> weight question> Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 15:41:42 -0500> > I also agree with
> Mark from my exp. in C
Charles,
The P-51 did change on the "D" model to a bubble canopy, not for speed
though, for pilot visibility. Plus the Merlin was added to the "C" model
for speed and then they tweaked it all through production.
Fred Johnson
Product Manager
T.E. West, LLC.
t
[mailto:krnet-bounces+brian.kraut=engalt@mylist.net]On Behalf Of
Fred Johnson
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 3:42 PM
To: 'KRnet'
Subject: RE: KR> Fuselage weight question
I agree with Mark, look at the RV4 series and the Harmon Rocket
Fred Johnson
Product Manager
T.E. West,
unsubscribe me please
> Reducing the taper to resemble a bubble will cost you in performance in
> the
> form of drag on the back of the canopy. That's probably why the KR2 went
> to
> the straight turtledeck. And plexiglas is probably heavier than your
> average turtledeck material per square foot.
+++
> Try this
>
> http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford/ebarros/
++
Even better - go to his site direct (http://www.kr2-egb.com.ar/) - and
translate the pages, it is almost as good as Langford's site and better than
most construction manuals.
His complete fuse excluding spars and legs weighs 2
>> Reducing the taper to resemble a bubble will cost you in performance in
>> the
>> form of drag on the back of the canopy.
> Not sure that's right Mark - refer the 240 mph (2,000lb) GP4, T18 and
> Mustang II plus any number of modern designs that have concave curves in
> all
> planes. (Apogee
I wasn't going to say anything about the canopy, But
when you say Mark is wrong and you are not flying yet
I can't resist. I had a KR-2 With a bubble canopy that
you could see out the back(if you could figure out how
to turn around in a KR) and I was about 10 mph slower
than the KRs with the high b
Again, Brian Paser's book, Virg
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 08:49:11 +0200 "Steve Jacobs"
writes:
>
> > Reducing the taper to resemble a bubble will cost you in
> performance in
> > the
> > form of drag on the back of the canopy. That's probably why the
> KR2 went
> > to
> > the straight tu
, 2006 4:08 PM
To: kr...@mylist.net
Subject: Re: KR> Fuselage weight question
Again, Brian Paser's book, Virg
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 08:49:11 +0200 "Steve Jacobs"
writes:
>
> > Reducing the taper to resemble a bubble will cost you in
> performance in
> > the
Hi
Mark is absolutely right, to mimimise drag through flow separation, any
object should be streamlined at as shallow an angle as possible, so the
tail should resemble a long cone, but like all these things, there is a
compromise, the cones are always kept shorter than ideal. A long
aeroplane
19 matches
Mail list logo
