Wing area includes the bottom of the fuselage. Save a
lot of work and make ths sides at right angles to thr bottom, Virg
On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 20:49:51 +1000 "Darren Crompton"
writes:
> Hi Russ.
>
> My understanding about widening the fuselage is that you leave the
> bottom
> the same wi
I have noticed that the comfort zone for "netters" seems to be higher here
than on the new (albeit better) forum. I asked this there two days ago and
have had no response, so I'll try here. (Hell, maybe you are all flying!)
My subject was Dihedral, where is better. I phrased it that way to try t
Hi everyone,
I'm widening the fuselage to 40". Which got me to thinking, I should also
lenthen the main spars to compensate for the for the loss in wing area. Which
got me to thinking about going even wider, say an extra 12" on each side. Since
I'm going with a Trigear setup, the Diehl main
Hi Russ.
My understanding about widening the fuselage is that you leave the bottom
the same width and widen the top of the fuselage only. This in turn creates
the "banana boat" effect. By doing it this way, you have no real loss in
wing area.
Cheers
Darren Crompton
AUSTRALIA
On 3/31/07, Russ
Darren Compton wrote:
> My understanding about widening the fuselage is that you leave the bottom
> the same width and widen the top of the fuselage only. This in turn
creates
> the "banana boat" effect. By doing it this way, you have no real loss in
> wing area.
No, the "banana boat" is what y
NOT recommended by R R, Virg
On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 03:33:22 -0800 "Russ Kendall"
writes:
> Hi everyone,
> I'm widening the fuselage to 40". Which got me to thinking, I
> should also lenthen the main spars to compensate for the for the
> loss in wing area. Which got me to thinking abou
6 matches
Mail list logo
