maybe it would be O K if you left the outboard sections
the same length, Virg
On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 14:32:53 -0400 Ron Butterfield
writes:
> As drawn, the KR has wing stubs coming straight out from the
> fuselage, then
> the dihedral is built in at the joint between the stub wings
Here's another idea for the "grist mill". Some glider guys have tapered the
spars in their wings so that they overlap inside the fuselage. Then depending
on how you want to hold the wings in place you can use one pin in tne center of
the wing overlap. Or two pins, one each just inside of the fus
KRnet
Subject: Re: KR> of wings, stubs, and attachments
It's do-able but you'd have to attach the landing gear to the fuselage
...would'nt you? Might be adding weight cuz to get the same wheel base
you'll need a bigger gear spring.
- Original Message -
From: "Ron B
Doug wrote:
> The beauty of this arrangement is that all wing components stay with the
> wing (gear, flaps, ailerons, gear, etc).
The Midget Mustang is is like this (with the gear attached to removeable
wings). The biggest problem is the wing attached fittings are so big and
heavy. I'm sure it c
ss.
Doug
-Original Message-
From: krnet-boun...@mylist.net [mailto:krnet-boun...@mylist.net] On Behalf
Of Dean Cooper
Sent: Saturday, October 09, 2004 2:34 PM
To: KRnet
Subject: Re: KR> of wings, stubs, and attachments
The Midget Mustang is is like this (with the gear attached to removeable
w
RE: the purists among us will claim it's not a KR.
Doug,
Why would you let that stop you? It is your plane, build it anyway you want
and call it anything you want. But you are right about one thing, it wouldn
t.
There is a time for building and a time for FLYING, and the time for
building has ex
My point exactly Dan. I haven't been around KR's long but long
enough to know that very few if any are built exactly to spec. Most seem to
be variances of the original built to suit each person's preferences. Ken
developed the idea of using tried and true modeling techniques in the
construc
Doug wrote:
> The best reason I can think of Dean is that by doing it that way the
> builder would be able to go with one piece laminated spars and eliminate
the
> WAF's altogether.
Doug,
I agree, a one piece wing (or two piece bolting in the middle) is defintiely
an option. As Dan put it, buil
And, I may have mis-spoke, who knows when a KR quits being a KR and starts
being something else. Where is the line? Are any of the new KRs, actually
KRs?
There is a time for building and a time for FLYING and the time for building
has expired.
See N64KR at http://KR-Builder.org - Then click on t
Thanks and see it you will. If I can't find a way around this spar problem
that I posted earlier and have to start again, I'll go with the one piece
wing rather than redoing 4 spars. Easier and faster to go that way and deal
with the associated problems that will cause than tear the whole plane
apa
As drawn, the KR has wing stubs coming straight out from the fuselage, then
the dihedral is built in at the joint between the stub wings and the outer
wings.
What would be the problems with moving the wing attach point in to the
fuselage, then having straight wings all the way out?
The advanta
Ron,
You answered your own question. Greater stress on the WAF's. A safer
solution would be to build a one piece laminated spar with the bend inside
of the fuselage. There are a couple of builders doing this.
-Original Message-
From: Ron Butterfield [mailto:rbutterfi...@mebtel.net]
Wha
It's do-able but you'd have to attach the landing gear to the fuselage
...would'nt you? Might be adding weight cuz to get the same wheel base
you'll need a bigger gear spring.
- Original Message -
From: "Ron Butterfield"
To:
Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004
13 matches
Mail list logo
