t;KRnet"
Sent: Friday, July 16, 2010 8:26 AM
Subject: RE: KR> forward sweep
Forward sweep has been used on Amateur built aircraft before. The Cygnet has
a touch of forward sweep as does the Schleicher K-8 glider. A small amount
of forward sweep does not require sophisticated computer
To: KRnet
Subject: Re: KR> forward sweep
To Bill:
Mooney's are not unstable, and their wings do not have forward sweep. They are
great aircraft. Their leading edge is straight (perpendicular to the CL of the
fuselage) and their trailing edge is swept forward which gives the appearance
of
edge that matters.
Hal
--- On Fri, 7/16/10, Tim wrote:
From: Tim
Subject: Re: KR> forward sweep
To: "KRnet"
List-Post: krnet@list.krnet.org
Date: Friday, July 16, 2010, 10:11 AM
Back around 1988, Mike Sacoutis bought a wood wing Mooney off a Grass
Airstrip. It had sat there &
Back around 1988, Mike Sacoutis bought a wood wing Mooney off a Grass
Airstrip. It had sat there 'outside' for years.
After some maintenance, he talked 'Serge' German war Test Pilot, to fly it
back to our Airport, approx 10 miles..Serge did, uneventfully.Within
a week a huge wind stor
To match the lift distribution over the wing with weight distribution over
the wing. Most aircraft have all their weight in the centre (eg. fuselage).
The ideal match is actually an eliptical shaped wing planform but tapering
is easier to build and is a good compromise.
If a plank flying wing a
Mooneys don't have forward swept wings, they have forward swept trailing edges
on the main wing and the horizontal tail and both have straight leading edges ,
except the Mooneys inboard first 3 feet are tapered rearward, then outboard of
that they are straight perpendicular to the fuselage cente
I talked to a hot shot NASA Aeronautical Engineer some years back who had been
involved heavily in studying and testing different wing shapes on real
airplanes. He said if your airplane design would not exceed 250 miles per hour
that tapering a wing might look cool but it gained you absolutely n
homebuilds along these lines. It has
been many years so my observations may be all wet.
Joe
From: J L
To: KRnet
Sent: Mon, July 12, 2010 11:47:44 AM
Subject: Re: KR> forward sweep
I have a model airplane that has about 10 degrees of forward sweep.
Flies norma
must be much stronger to handle the forces caused by the
> negative stability.
> 2. It generally requires a computer controlled flight system to handle the
> bending moments.
> Not recommended.
> Hal Dantone
>
> --- On Mon, 7/12/10, Mark Langford wrote:
>
> From: M
much stronger to handle the forces caused by the
negative stability.
2. It generally requires a computer controlled flight system to handle the
bending moments.
Not recommended.
Hal Dantone
--- On Mon, 7/12/10, Mark Langford wrote:
From: Mark Langford
Subject: Re: KR> forward sweep
I'll put my two cents on this;
Perhaps if we were talking 15 or 20 degrees of forward sweep you guys would
be correct, but I would like to point out that there have been several
sailplanes with forward sweep, the "Genesis" is one and Jim Marske has
designed several too. they have less than 5 degre
/12/10, Mark Langford wrote:
From: Mark Langford
Subject: Re: KR> forward sweep
To: "KRnet"
List-Post: krnet@list.krnet.org
Date: Monday, July 12, 2010, 2:38 PM
I don't remember the exact reason, but I read in a Raymer aircraft design
book that any kind of forward sweep
I don't remember the exact reason, but I read in a Raymer aircraft design
book that any kind of forward sweep was a bad idea on general aviation
aircraft, for various reasons including stability and stall characteristics.
We're talking forward sweep though, not just "no" sweep.
Below is somethi
13 matches
Mail list logo
