>So what model are you using?
My own KR-2.
Posted - Tuesday, 02/06/07 2:33 pm
Regards
Myron (Dan) Freeman
Indpls, Ind. 46203 USA
mfreem...@indy.rr.com
The only advantage that I can see to make the changes suggested is if the
airplane was going to be a dedicated high altitude flyer. This suggested set
up would eliminate the situation Mark L is describing of having his plane
nose up at high altitude.
The problem is that based on what I am hearing
Well, the new airfoil series, designed by Dr. Michael Selig and Dr.
Ashok Gopalaratham with consulting assistance by Dr. Richard Mole and
Mark Lougheed and many other contributors around the world was
extensively modeled and then real time wind tunnel tested. I still have
the thousands of e-ma
From: krnet-bounces+markwegmet=charter@mylist.net
[mailto:krnet-bounces+markwegmet=charter@mylist.net] On Behalf Of Mark
Jones
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 8:12 AM
To: KRnet
Subject: RE: KR> Wing incidence and washout
-Original Message-
>Behalf Of Myron (Dan) Freeman
>Sen
Netheads,
I have been following the discussion on the wing incidence & washout & found it
very interesting.
One thing, everyone has used the AS 5046 at the root & the AS 5045 at the tip.
There has been no mention of the AS 5048, Why not & what characteristics would
the AS 5048 give? & what i
Robin wrote:
> One thing, everyone has used the AS 5046 at the root & the AS 5045 at the
tip.
>
> There has been no mention of the AS 5048, Why not & what characteristics
would the AS 5048 give? & what is the shape of the tip rib when using the
AS5048 at the Root.
I think the stuff at http://krn
Hi Robin;
Well, from my standpoint, I have an existing KR-2 that uses the RAF-48
airfoil. The AS-5046 airfoil will fit the existing spars so that I won't
have to replace them even though I will have to cut loose and raise my rear
spar about 3/4" to match the new incidence angle of +1.75degrees
Mark,
Are you saying that using the 48 at the root is bad? Im using the
48/15 templete. Is this bad? Was shooting for distance here. Let me know.
David Swanson
bdazzca...@aol.com
the AS5048 is not recommended from root to tip. Ok disreguard my last post.
read too fast and didnt notice TIP.
David Swanson
I forgot who said it but would like to run it by the Mark's and Larry's.
Someone was using a 1.0 degree of washout instead of the 3.5... is this ok? He
mentioned that it would bring the nose up a bit in flight. Just wanted to
find out if it would make things better or worse?
David Swanso
>I forgot who said it but would like to run it by the Mark's and Larry's.
>Someone was using a 1.0 degree of washout instead of the 3.5... is
>this ok? He
>mentioned that it would bring the nose up a bit in flight. Just wanted to
>find out if it would make things better or worse?
>David Swans
Larry&Sallie Flesner wrote:
>> I forgot who said it but would like to run it by the Mark's and Larry's.
>> Someone was using a 1.0 degree of washout instead of the 3.5... is
>> this ok? He
>> mentioned that it would bring the nose up a bit in flight. Just wanted to
>> find out if it would make
s, WI
Visit my web site: www.flykr2s.com
E-mail: flyk...@wi.rr.com
- Original Message -
From:
To:
Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 4:18 PM
Subject: Re: KR> Wing Incidence & Washout
>I forgot who said it but would like to run it by the Mark's and
>Larry's...
Hi Guy's;
I'm beginning to feel sorry that I brought up this subject, it sounds like
it is starting to cause some confusion. Please go to this web site and read
it slowly and carefully. http://www.krnet.org/as504x/ Do not deviate from
them.
Posted Wednesday, 02/07/07 7:39 pm
Regards
Myron (Da
l: flyk...@wi.rr.com
> - Original Message -
> From:
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 4:18 PM
> Subject: Re: KR> Wing Incidence & Washout
>
>
>
>> I forgot who said it but would like to run it by the Mark's and
>> Larry's.
Hi Guy's;
I made a discovery today that many of you may already be aware of. I'm planning
on using the AS-5046 airfoil on my new wings (I'm replacing the RAF- 48
airfoil) and I noticed that with an incidence of +1.75 degrees on the root wing
airfoil and a washout of 3 degrees on the outer wing
Myron (Dan) Freeman wrote:
>> I made a discovery today that many of you may already be aware of. I'm
planning on using the AS-5046 airfoil on my new wings (I'm replacing the
RAF- 48 airfoil) and I noticed that with an incidence of +1.75 degrees on
the root wing airfoil and a washout of 3 degrees o
I wrote:
> Also, if you reduce the washout by 1 degree, you're probably
> going to go nose up about a half a degree. Personally, if I changed
> anything it'd be to LOWER the incidence by a half a degree at both root
and
> tip, because I find myself cruising at high altitudes in a nose up
conditio
...@optusnet.com.au
web: www.members.optusnet.com.au/johnjanet/Martindale.htm
- Original Message -
From: "Mark Langford"
To: "KRnet"
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 3:03 PM
Subject: Re: KR> Wing incidence and washout
>I wrote:
>
>> Also, if you red
Hi Mark;
OK, I'll try increasing the root wing incidence from 3-1/2 degrees as per
plans, to 4 degrees but keep the 3 degree washout and see what happens to
the lift.
Posted - Tuesday, 02/06/07 7:17 am
Regards
Myron (Dan) Freeman
Indpls, Ind. 46203 USA
mfreem...@indy.rr.com
Myron (Dan) Freeman wrote:
> OK, I'll try increasing the root wing incidence from 3-1/2 degrees as per
> plans, to 4 degrees but keep the 3 degree washout and see what happens to
> the lift.
I didn't say I'd go back to the plans' 3.5 degrees, and certainly didn't
imply that I'd go even further t
I wrote:
> The wind tunnel results output shown at
> http://www.krnet.org/as504x/repeat_1m.gif shows that at zero incidence,
> the
> AS5045 (which is what the airfoil templates use at the tip) still has a
> lift
> coefficient of .3,...
Now that I look at it closer, it's closer to .2, but still
I'm sorry, yes, I realized I had said 3-1/2 degrees after I sent the e-mail
and that was wrong. Starting over again, I went back to 3 degrees washout
but increased the root wing incidence to 2-1/2 degrees which helps forward
veiwing. The result is that the wing does well up to 150 mph, there is
-Original Message-
>Behalf Of Myron (Dan) Freeman
>Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 6:59 AM
>I went back to 3 degrees washout but increased the root wing incidence
to 2-1/2 degrees which helps forward
>veiwing.
Myron,
I was the third person to fly the new airfoil. Troy Petteway being f
Mark Jones wrote:
> I followed the instructions of the designers of
> the airfoil and set the incidence at 1? at the root and set the washout
> per their specs.
1.75 degrees at the root, -1.25 degrees at the tip, for a total of 3 degrees
of washout. I'd include a link to the drawings, but it l
:16 AM
To: KRnet
Subject: Re: KR> Wing incidence and washout
Mark Jones wrote:
> I followed the instructions of the designers of
> the airfoil and set the incidence at 1? at the root and set the
washout
> per their specs.
1.75 degrees at the root, -1.25 degrees at the tip, for
Thanks Guy's I appreciate your input. Before I start tearing down my plane
and cutting new wood, I want to be absolutely certain that I know where I'm
going and why.
Posted - Tuesday, 02/06/07 10:25 am
Regards
Myron (Dan) Freeman
Indpls, Ind. 46203 USA
mfreem...@indy.rr.com
According to my Compufoil2000 program, the zero lift angle of attack for
the AS series airfoils is -2.13 degrees. Quite a difference from what
everyone is saying. With a 2.5 degree AOA at the root there would have
to be over 4-1/2 degrees washout (4.63 to be exact) to get the tip at a
zero lift ang
Hi Fred;
The problem that got me into this is that as speed increases, the wing angle
of attack into the airflow lessens to the point that at 180 - 190 mph the
wing tip area is showing negitive lift and not just a little. But the bottom
line I believe is that few KR's cruise at this speed anywa
Dan,
I'm not sure I completely understand why at higher speeds your wing
angle of attack will be less. If you are trimmed for level flight at
150MPH going to 180MPH should only require a small amount of trim
adjustment (less than 1 degree I think)
I truly believe that an AOA of 2.5 degrees at the
Hi Fred;
>I'm not sure I completely understand why at higher speeds >your wing
>angle of attack will be less.
Yeah, I know what you mean. That's where this model is a big help because
you can see the results. As speed increases, so does lift. Therefore you
have to add down trim to stay level, b
So what model are you using?
Fred Johnson
Reno, NV
-Original Message-
From: krnet-boun...@mylist.net [mailto:krnet-boun...@mylist.net] On
Behalf Of Myron (Dan) Freeman
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 11:24 AM
To: KRnet
Subject: Re: KR> Wing incidence and washout
Hi Fred;
>I'
Ok I know some of these are old, but I just realised my webmail server was
adding a graphic to the text, and as such, the mail was not going through, so
here they are.
>From what I can gather, the wings were part of the aircraft that were
>"borrowed heavily" from the early Taylor Mono.
This air
Hi,
I have been following the discussion occasioned by the AS-family or
aerofoils and the 1 degree incidence recommendation, but does this also
apply to aircraft fitted (or about to be fitted) with the RAF-48 airfoils
(ie the Diehl wing skins)?
Regards,
Duncan of Devonport
Auckland, New Zealan
uot;Duncan"
To: "krnet"
Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2004 8:18 AM
Subject: KR> Wing incidence with RAF-48?
> Hi,
> I have been following the discussion occasioned by the AS-family or
> aerofoils and the 1 degree incidence recommendation, but does this also
> apply to air
-
From: "Mac McConnell-Wood"
To: "KRnet"
Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2004 4:45 AM
Subject: Re: KR> Wing incidence with RAF-48?
Ho! -Duncan of Devonport-are you of that ilk,-or just common old Duncan? Ref
the RAF incidence,-I would stick to the original 3.5° -It gives you a nice
no
Discussion of this topic raises a couple of interesting issues for me;
I started building my KR 2 in 1986 and completed the wing spars
(all...main, front and rear plus outer, front and rear).
I also completed the fuselage sides and horizontal stabilizer and
elevators before going into a 17 year h
Bernard,
>From all that I have read and from my experience with my first KR, I think
that the faster you fly, over 130MPH or so, the less incidence you would
want to have. Be sure not to confuse the incidence set with the RAF48 with
that set with the new wing.
I can only tell you that at 135mph
uly 18, 2004 2:18 AM
Subject: KR> Wing incidence with RAF-48?
> Hi,
> I have been following the discussion occasioned by the AS-family or
> aerofoils and the 1 degree incidence recommendation, but does this also
> apply to aircraft fitted (or about to be fitted) with the RAF-48
e 3.5 degree
specially if you were looking for higher cruise speed ... the best is to use
1 or 2 degree...but at the end it will be your choise
goodluck
NASSER
www.uaespaces.om
>From: Duncan
>Reply-To: KRnet
>To: krnet
>Subject: KR> Wing incidence with RAF-48?
>Date:
Ducan & Mark:
A little correction for Duncan: My project (that you're in-process of buying)
has the Rand-Robinson Wing Skin Kit, not the Diehl wing skins. My plan was to
use the 1 degree angle of incidence, not the 3.5 degrees called for in the
plans.
For Mark J and Others:
For my project, I so
What
>I did see was validation of exactly what I've been saying about the KR
>having too much incidence for the high speeds that we are now running at,
>and too much decalage which leads to even more drag.
>Mark Langford,
=
The article ga
Larry Flesner wrote:
> The article gave me a perfect mental picture that explains the reason
> I need more and more back stick pressure, with neutral trim, as the
> speed builds in cruise. I'd sure like to get an in-flight closeup picture
> of the KR at cruise to check out the elevator deflection
>I didn't see the words "KR2" or "0-200" anywhere in that article,
Caught me! And, here I thought that I was adding useful info.
Larry Severson
Fountain Valley, CA 92708
(714) 968-9852
lar...@socal.rr.com
>
>>I didn't see the words "KR2" or "0-200" anywhere in that article,
>(Mark Langford)
++
>Caught me! And, here I thought that I was adding useful info.
>Larry Severson
+++
You did add useful info. It prompted me to go to my reading room
Mark,
Last time I flew a "Pacer" was in 1958. Do they still fly the same way?
Pat Driscoll
patric...@usfamily.net
Saint Paul, MN
-- http://USFamily.Net/info - Unlimited Internet - From $8.99/mo! --
Larry Severson wrote:
> The latest issue of Kitplanes (August 2004) has a "Wind Tunnel" article by
> Barnaby Wainfan that explains the importance of angles in aircraft design
> and flight performance. It talks about stall indirectly, but mentions
> directly the reason why a number of the faster O-
KRnet members and KR builders,
Before this goes any further I wish to apologize for a stupid mistake I
made in my letter re. wing incidence as given in the RR plans. Kenneth Jones
very diplomatically pointed out my error. I had used the radius instead of
the circumference in my calcula
48 matches
Mail list logo
