.
>
>> Because you have added to the length of the wing you have added to the
> bending moment at the fuselage (the lift loads are farther from the
> fuselage).
>
I disagree that lift loads are much larger farther from the fuselage on the
new 504xx wing designs!
Maybe someone can shed some light
Gav wrote-
>Also it is important to remember that the wing (in the case of the standard
>KR wing design with a constant chord) doesn't lift the plane at the tip
>thus
>producing a huge leverage moment at the tip, the lift is evenly distributed
>over the span thus trying to lift the wing almost ve
At 04:12 AM 9/30/04, Gavin wrote:
>I disagree that lift loads are much larger farther from the fuselage on the
>new 504xx wing designs!
>Maybe someone can shed some light on this? the chord of the wing decreases
>as the wing tapers to the tip, therefore reducing the available lift as the
>wing tap
Hey all..
I'm new to the list, though I've been building for about a year. You may have
stopped by my site already, and I've pestered quite a few of you on occasion,
so some know who I am :-)
I had some thoughts on the G-limit questions, and it sounds like the discussion
is heading more towar
For a few pictures and info on a test that was done on some alternatives for
the main spars of my "KR construction trainer", see
http://flysquirrel.net/wing/spartest.html . Granted, the wing design is
considerably different from the KR and it's a strut-braced wing, but if
anybody wants to buil
RE: Regardless, as many have pointed out on this list, I don't believe
anyone
has ever broken a wing spar on a KR or had the wings fail, so what are we
analyzing?
Oscar Zuniga
San Antonio, TX
I am with you Oscar, what is the point of this? And how much more analysis
is required?
"There is a t
how and who came up with this rule? Is there any science behind it?
No science at all, only BS.
Most netters already know this, but just in case ..
If the aircraft weighs 900lb, then 1G (gravity) is 900lbs.
The rated load factor of 7G means the relevant part of the st
orne yet?
John
The Martindale Family
29 Jane Circuit
TOORMINA NSW 2452
AUSTRALIA
phone: 61 2 66584767
email: johnj...@chc.net.au
- Original Message -
From: "Wolfgang Decker"
To: "KRnet"
Sent: Saturday, September 25, 2004 9:21 AM
Subject: RE: KR> G limit
> John,
&g
A loose rule of thumb is to lose 1G per 100 lb thus at
1300lb your're looking at only +3/-3.
>>
I think steve J is saying that the above statement is
a load of 10/100, utter crap with no grain of
substance. He went to some trouble to say why and what
he says makes sense to me
I know where he is
Subject: RE: KR> G limit
Larry,
Ken Rand was an electronics engineer and knew nothing of aircraft design.
The composit construction however was his idea originaly. Stewart Robinson
was the aeronautical engineer and made sure that nothing wrong was done
design wise. They were partners
However, like all "rules of thumb" in aviation, it is conservative. That is
why aircraft structure limit loads are ALWAYS at least 25% below their
design loads.
>No science at all, only BS.
>
>Most netters already know this, but just in case ..
>
>If the aircraft weighs 900lb, then 1G (grav
Dunno Wolfgang but it's a commonly quoted rule of thumb.
If you "dunno", why are you propogating this nonsense?
Following from an earlier reply, how about a 12000lb Kingair that increases
weight by 100lbs - the load factor may change in the second decimal, but NOT
BY 1G.
I hear what Harr
Physics is Physics.
If a plane at a given weight will support a given G load, changing the
weight changes the G load capability proportionately. The 100 lbs = 1 G is
a nice, easy, safe way to calculate capability for planes in the
weight/size of the KR2. The same ratio would work for the Q2.
N
Not to be insulting in reference to your remarks, but this is the reason that
all builders should FIRST be at least a Private Pilot. In your basic
aerodynamics you are taught that regardless of the aircraft if that plane makes
a 60 degree LEVEL bank turn, meaning that the aircraft is rolled int
johnj...@chc.net.au
- Original Message -
From: "Ronald Metcalf"
To:
Sent: Sunday, September 26, 2004 1:42 AM
Subject: Re: KR> G limit
> Dunno Wolfgang but it's a commonly quoted rule of thumb.
>
>
>
> If you "dunno", why are you propogating
At 11:42 AM 9/25/2004, you wrote:
>Dunno Wolfgang but it's a commonly quoted rule of thumb.
>
>
>Following from an earlier reply, how about a 12000lb Kingair that
>increases weight by 100lbs - the load factor may change in the second
>decimal, but NOT BY 1G.
The 100 pound increase = 1 G reductio
Well hell, if anyone really wants to find out what will happen when
you grossly overload any of the KR series aircraft without making
significant airframe strengthening let them go up and let her rip. By the
way, wear a chute, pray and if you survive, report back the numbers where
she final
6", does that add
2" to the actual wingth length or 6" ?
Ray Goree
raybeth...@sbcglobal.net
- Original Message -
From: "larry severson"
To: "KRnet"
Sent: Saturday, September 25, 2004 11:04 AM
Subject: Re: KR> G limit
> Physics is Phy
ment numbers he
calculated are too low.
--
wesley scott
k...@spottedowl.biz
- Original Message -
From:
To: "KRnet"
Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2004 10:19 AM
Subject: Re: KR> G limit
> If I remember correctly, figures from Jeannette Rand, stated that each 6"
>
At 12:33 PM 9/29/2004, you wrote:
>I've just decided I don't trust the Marcy analysis. When he did it, he
>assumed the section of the wing inside the fuselage was producing lift just
>like the stub wings do. That means that the lift produced by the outer
>wings is undercalculated and therefore th
Joe
The KR2 is rated at +7/-7 G at a gross of 900lbs. A loose rule of thumb is
to lose 1G per 100 lb thus at 1300lb your're looking at only +3/-3. Not
sufficient margin in my opinion. Further your stall speed and thus approach
speed is likely to be way up. I don't know just what the G limit relate
Joe & Jim
I disagree. The Piper Seminole twin engine aircraft is rated at +2 -0 G's and
is a wonderful crusing aircraft for normal category operations. For most
people who fly KRs normal category type maneuvers is very common. I am willing
to bet that most KRs never see more than 1.5 G's the
John,
how and who came up with this rule? Is there any science behind it?
Wolfgang
-Original Message-
From: krnet-boun...@mylist.net [mailto:krnet-boun...@mylist.net]On
Behalf Of Martindale Family
Sent: Friday, September 24, 2004 6:51 PM
To: KRnet
Subject: Re: KR> G limit
Joe
The
Ken Rand was an engineer who worked, I believe, for Northrup. His design.
His numbers. The rule of thumb is "common practice" in the aviation
community, which is conservative. However, how much risk do you want to
take 2 miles above the ground?
KR built his VFR KR2 to plans with a 2100 VW engin
time! I'm not exactly clear on your
intended message but want to warn everyone NOT to exceed the load limits!
Joachim
> [Original Message]
> From: Colin & Bev Rainey
> To: KRnet
> Date: 9/24/2004 5:08:42 PM
> Subject: KR> G Limit
>
> Joe & Jim
>
> I dis
25 matches
Mail list logo
