Looks a lot like my old textbooks I've been going through lately. Just
like collegeI read a couple of pages then woke up in the middle of
Saturday night live.
On Aug 17, 2013 4:42 PM, "Mark Langford" wrote:
> jon kimmel wrote:
>
> Great informationand correlation with my theory about th
jon kimmel wrote:
> Great informationand correlation with my theory about the mac and the
> corresponding cg range. My wings are going to be stretched so I have to
> be
> very careful with the cg and that is causing me to relook at what was done
> before.
Here's some more reading to keep yo
Great informationand correlation with my theory about the mac and the
corresponding cg range. My wings are going to be stretched so I have to be
very careful with the cg and that is causing me to relook at what was done
before.
On Aug 16, 2013 10:39 PM, "Mark Langford" wrote:
> NetHeads,
>
>
NetHeads,
Here are two messages I fished out of the KRnet archive from 2001. I just
killed an hour sifting through that whole conversation. Quite interesting.
For those interested, this thread will take you off the streets for a few
days. I remember it well!
Richard Mole is a good friend an
I agree with that assessment...the point I was trying to make is that it
doesn't appear that the mac was ever recalculated for the kr2s. The mac in
the plans are for the kr2not the kr2s. What makes matters worse is I
tried to recreate the mac in the plans and couldn't get it to correlate so
I
The aft two inches of the CG range for KR2 or KR2S is a danger zone. Early
fliers realized this and sent out the warning via the Newsletter, but
Richard Mole, English Aeronautical Engineer, studied it in detail and I
believe his comment was something like "I hope nobody's tried to fly it
like
6 matches
Mail list logo
