LOL, guess I forgot that was on my site. Other good stuff I have accumulated
is there also.
http://www.kr2seafury.com/8.html
Craig
From: Harold Wagenknecht
To: KRnet
Sent: Sunday, July 1, 2012 9:05 AM
Subject: Re: KR> Structural Analysis
h
Try the Newsletter C.D., Virg
On 7/1/2012 7:07 AM, Brian and Sue Deveson wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> So with all the knowledge in the group, why do we not do a proper analysis
> of the KR aircraft, and dispel or the myths and wrong things said or
> printed. I am sure all the info is al
So with all the knowledge in the group, why do we not do a proper analysis
of the KR aircraft, and dispel or the myths and wrong things said or
printed.
Brian
+++
>http://kr2seafury.com/resources/1988_01_05.pdf
>
>Here is one.
>Harold
>
http://kr2seafury.com/resources/1988_01_05.pdf
Here is one.
Regards,
Harold
--- On Sun, 7/1/12, Brian and Sue Deveson wrote:
From: Brian and Sue Deveson
Subject: Re: KR> Structural Analysis
To: "KRnet"
List-Post: krnet@list.krnet.org
Date: Sunday, July 1, 2012, 7:07 AM
Brian Deveson wrote:
>>So with all the knowledge in the group, why do we not do a proper analysis
of the KR aircraft, and dispel or the myths and wrong things said or
printed.<<
The short answer from me would be "that would be nice, but given my workload
it won't be me that does it". And beside
To: "KRnet"
Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2012 1:53 PM
Subject: Re: KR> Structural Analysis
Larry Flesner wrote:
>>Using the performance numbers directly from the Rand sales literature
>>indicates to me that very little research was done to verify actual
>>performance of
Larry Flesner wrote:
>>Using the performance numbers directly from the Rand sales literature
>>indicates to me that very little research was done to verify actual
>>performance of the KR before they were used to make his assumptions or
>>calculations. That's were I lost total faith in his concl
Yes, there were quite a few analysis done on the KR and references and part
excerpts can be found in the KR newsletter. I also know that the plans in the
past have been slightly updated to reflect the "weak" points (as found in the
analysis) in the design, which were a reinforced web structure a
Harold Wagenknecht wrote:
>KR 2 S is different and beyond my experience.
The KR2S is designed to accept the 100 hp 0-200, and I heard Bill Marcy
(contracted structural engineer for RR) say that it could handle more at the
Oshkosh KR forum one year. Maybe I'll see if he can drop by this year too.
Thanks for clearing that up Mark. If you see Stu see if she'll handle 180 HP
please. Weight wise that 13B Mazda is real hard to turn my back on. Yeh I
know increased weight with reduction unit but with that kind of power I
can't see it as much of a problem since if I decide to go that route the
sea
nment [taxed money].
Stu Robinson should have had all the engineering knowledge tools to do the
job.
KRron
- Original Message -
From: "Mark Langford"
To: "KRnet"
Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2004 10:16 PM
Subject: Re: KR> KR structural analysis
> Harold Wagenknecht
Larry said:
"The KR is a radio control model scaled up to one carrying people. It was
not "engineered" at any time."
I beg to differ, I was under the understanding that the KR was actually a
scaled down version of a larger GA aircraft, right down to the RAF airfoil.
(I think this info came from Mr
bracing
between the longerons to control where the failure occurs so you don't end
up with an engine in your lap?
--
wesley scott
k...@spottedowl.biz
- Original Message -
From: "cartera"
To: "KRnet"
Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2004 1:52 PM
Subject: Re: KR> KR struc
t
> k...@spottedowl.biz
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Brian Kraut"
> To: "KRnet"
> Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2004 4:58 PM
> Subject: Re: KR> KR structural analysis
>
>
> > I would imagine that back in the 70s it was a bunch of h
Did you ask her why you can't get the complete analysis? Can you get any
part of the analysis?
See N64KR at http://KR-Builder.org - Then click on the pics
"There is a time for building and a time for flying, and the time for
building has long since expired."
Daniel R. Heath - Columbia, SC
Se
I would imagine that back in the 70s it was a bunch of hand written data and
calculations. I suspect that even if you had it you would need to be a
structural engineer to understand it and in that case you could probably redo
it on a computer in less time than reviewing what Ken did.
I would a
KRnet"
Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2004 4:58 PM
Subject: Re: KR> KR structural analysis
> I would imagine that back in the 70s it was a bunch of hand written data
and calculations. I suspect that even if you had it you would need to be a
structural engineer to understand it and in th
I have a comprehensive design analysis application, if anyone wants to get a
copy contact me off the list for the details.
Cheers.
Pete.
stranged...@dodo.com.au
At 05:47 PM 6/23/2004 -0400, you wrote:
>Did you ask her why you can't get the complete analysis? Can you get any
>part of the analysis?
The KR is a radio control model scaled up to one carrying people. It was
not "engineered" at any time. The critical factor in the design is the wing
spars vs t
Hello KRnetters,
You want to see analysis, take a look at my web site ;).
larry severson wrote:
>At 05:47 PM 6/23/2004 -0400, you wrote:
>
>
>>Did you ask her why you can't get the complete analysis? Can you get any
>>part of the analysis?
>>
>>
>
>The KR is a radio control model scaled up
>Bottom line, don't waste time looking for a structural analysis - it
>doesn't exist, at least not from Rand Robinson and Jeanette isn't trained
>to do one.
>Larry Severson
+++
I don't know about the structural analysis but I'm becoming quite
v
21 matches
Mail list logo
