Joe;
If you'll check the archives you'll find that this has been discussed
before. The wing area is traditionally (?) taken by using the wingspan
(wingtip-to-wingtip distance), which also takes in the area included in the
fuselage. It is said that the fuselage contributes some nominal amount
It is said that the fuselage contributes some nominal amount to
>the overall lift, so it could be considered to be somewhat of a "lifting
>body" itself.
>I don't buy it either ;o)
>Oscar Zuniga
+
Oscar and other disbelievers,
If you remind me,
bad
thing.
Kevin.
No KR, but interested in a KR1 with one piece wing and Geo driveline.
-Original Message-
From: larry flesner [mailto:fles...@midwest.net]
Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2005 8:07 AM
To: KRnet
Subject: Re: KR> wing area
It is said that the fuselage contributes s
At 10:15 AM 2/17/05 -0500, you wrote:
>Seems I read somewhere recently that the lifting fuselage is a bad thing. I
>believe the article I was reading was about the Hyperbipe. If you look at a
>Hyperbipe fuselage, it is very airfoil shaped. I always thought that was a
>good idea, but maybe on par
--- "Golden, Kevin"
wrote:
> Seems I read somewhere recently that the lifting
> fuselage is a bad thing. I
> believe the article I was reading was about the
> Hyperbipe.
Yea you read that sorta right. Anything that creates
lift creates induced drag. It's tough to say if it's
a good thing t
With a wing being a 3D shape I wonder if another figure is being
included in the wing area. If you look at a wing from above and use this
as an area to be measured that is one figure. If you were to look at an
airfoil along its axis you would find that in most cases the bottom of
the wing has some
--- "B. Ferguson" wrote:
> With a wing being a 3D shape I wonder if another
> figure is being
> included in the wing area. If you look at a wing
> from above and use this
> as an area to be measured that is one figure. If you
> were to look at an
> airfoil along its axis you would find that in mos
7 matches
Mail list logo
