Samuel Ajayi wrote:
>> Hi all, is there any noticeable speed difference between having
AS5048 and AS5046 at the root. Also, how do the stall speeds compare? I
know it is something quite difficult to quantify because no 2 aircraft
are the same. Lastly, has anyone used thinner than 15%. Would th
I installed my aileron bellcranks per plans with a little change in the
pulleys to fix the angle difference with the wing incidence. You can see my
installation at mykitlog.com/vr6chris
Chris Pryce
This topic brings me to a question I hadnt thought of.
I have a kr2 plans built boat stage with outer spars made and all the
wafs attached.
Does the new style airfoil match the spars positions? What changes would be
needed to the shape of the spars of any (shaved down, chamfered etc) ?
Also as
>
>I'd have to do some research (measuring) but it seems to me the
>aileron bellcrank assembly could be compressed
>a bit without causing cable interference and be made to fit inside
>the new wing assembly.
>Larry Flesner
>+
At 09:05 PM 10/3/2016, you wrote:
>my boat has the rigging out to the bellcranks
>on the rear center spar ends so it looks from these messages that those
>will be too "thick" and have to be redone.
>+++
I'd have to do some research (measuring
Kayak Chris wrote:
> I have a kr2 plans built boat stage with outer spars made and all
> the wafs attached.
>
> Does the new style airfoil match the spars positions? What changes
would be
> needed to the shape of the spars of any (shaved down, chamfered etc)
> ?
Go check the airfoil templates at
ould definitely build it with the AS airfoil.
?
-Jeff Scott
----
Subject:?Re: KR> new airfoil modifications
If a person has Diehl wing skin's with the Raf 48 airfoil and mounted
AS5046 rib's, Will the skin's fit?
?
>Mark Langford wrote:
>A lot of folks have opted for the new airfoil and managed to alter the
>bellcrank to work successfully, so would those that have, please post a
>link as to how they did it?
I also built the AS5048 airfoil and had to devise a bellcrank system since
the stock was too large
At 07:17 PM 10/3/2016, you wrote:
>>Mark Langford wrote:
>>A lot of folks have opted for the new airfoil and managed to alter
>>the bellcrank to work successfully, so would those that have,
>>please post a link as to how they did it?
+++
"If a person has Diehl wing skin's with the Raf 48 airfoil and mounted
AS5046 rib's, Will the skin's fit?"
Hello Don,
I have built my wings with the Diehl skins and my first reaction would be to
say no. The skins themselves are fairly flexible cord wise as far as airfoil
shape is concerned but
Donald,
> If a person has Diehl wing skin's with the Raf 48 airfoil and mounted
> AS5046 rib's, Will the skin's fit?
Mark L had a lot of comments about this at the gathering but not everyone
got to hear.
Reference: http://www.krnet.org/as504x/
and
http://www.nvaero.com/categories/Aircraft-Comp
At 08:50 AM 10/3/2016, you wrote:
>Probably so. Few people build KR1's anymore (it's usually a KR2S
>that's narrowed a bit), so nobody's built a KR1 with the new
>airfoil, but it is interchangeable with the RAF48, but with more
>efficient performance.
+++
If a person has Diehl wing skin's with the Raf 48 airfoil and mounted
AS5046 rib's, Will the skin's fit?
On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 8:50 AM, Gary via KRnet wrote:
> On 10/3/2016 5:58 AM, Mark Langford via KRnet wrote:
>
>> Kayak Chris wrote:
>>
>> Dumb question, can I assume this suggestion applies
On 10/3/2016 5:58 AM, Mark Langford via KRnet wrote:
> Kayak Chris wrote:
>
>> Dumb question, can I assume this suggestion applies to the kr1 kr1.5
>> etc (all kr variants) as well?
>
> Probably so. Few people build KR1's anymore (it's usually a KR2S
> that's narrowed a bit), so nobody's built a
Kayak Chris wrote:
> Dumb question, can I assume this suggestion applies to the kr1 kr1.5
> etc (all kr variants) as well?
Probably so. Few people build KR1's anymore (it's usually a KR2S that's
narrowed a bit), so nobody's built a KR1 with the new airfoil, but it is
interchangeable with the R
"I think it's pretty safe to say that if you are building a new KR2 or
KR2S, you should be using the new airfoil."
Dumb question, can I assume this suggestion applies to the kr1 kr1.5 etc
(all kr variants) as well?
KRnetHeads,
At the Gathering, it was brought up that a downside to the "new airfoil"
is that the aileron bellcrank has to be modified (due to the thinner
airfoil cross section at the bellcrank location, I assume). One look at
that bellcrank was enough to tell me that I needed something entirel
total of .250
ajustment to make the outboard waf side between the inboard waf.?
Paul ViskBelleville Il618-406-4705
Original message From: jon kimmel via KRnet Date: 8/19/2015 7:01 AM (GMT-06:00) To: KRnet Cc: jon kimmel Subject: Re: KR> "new"
airfoil sweep
I d
I didn't mean to imply there is anything wrong with the templates. I
really appreciate the templates. ..I am using the as 5048 templates
myself. I was just answering the question about what they do to the cg
range and how easily that range can be changed. My spar caps are thick
enough that I thi
Jon Kimmel wrote:
>>Unfortunately the reduction in sweep changes the location of the
mac. I did the calculations a few months ago...and I can't decipher my
post it notes...but the change moves the usable check range forward
about a
half inch. <<
These airfoil templates were drawn up at a time whe
I understand the reason...it is a great thing to have the laminar flow
airfoil. Unfortunately the reduction in sweep changes the location of the
mac. I did the calculations a few months ago...and I can't decipher my
post it notes...but the change moves the usable check range forward about a
half
Duh...504x, not 405x! At least I got RAF48 right.
For more on this airfoil, including free template download, see
http://www.krnet.org/as504x/
Mark Langford
ML at N56ML.com
http://www.n56ml.com
Jon Kimmel wrote:
>> Something I found interesting with the new airfoil is that it
looks like the sweep is different than what is in the plans.<<
The sweep is different because the airfoil shapes (AS405x and RAF48) are
different with regards to thickness vs coordinates, so to make the
airfoil f
Does the 'new' airfoil offer anything in the area of CG range or is it the same
as the old one in that regard?
Cheers,
Tony
Sent from my iPad
On 18/08/2013, at 9:50 PM, "Mark Langford" wrote:
Jon,
It occurred to me that although the KR wing planform may not be perfect,
there's certainly no
I'm not recreating the wheel...when I bought the partially complete
fuselage the original owner had already done the steps to extend the
wings...the stub wing spars are slightly longer...the spar caps are thicker
and the spars are longer...basically taking advantage of the inherent
increase in stre
Tony King wrote:
> Does the 'new' airfoil offer anything in the area of CG range or is it the
> same as the old one in that regard?
No change there. It's just an airfoil swap. The drawings do have an
incidence change built in, but that's unrelated. The "real" usable range is
big enough, esp
Jon,
It occurred to me that although the KR wing planform may not be perfect,
there's certainly nothing badly wrong with it or it's stall characteristics
that should keep anybody from forging ahead and getting a KR built and in
the air. It might be past the point of diminishing returns to try
Since Dan Diehl already is equipped to do it and that's his trade why
not see if he will do it for a price.
- Original Message -
From: Mark Langford
List-Post: krnet@list.krnet.org
Date: Thursday, February 16, 2006 2:10 pm
Subject: KR> new airfoil wing skins
> >I bel
Sounds like the plan Mark. Thought of doing it here but all the crap
involved with customs would be a pain since most builders are in the =
lower
48. What we have to contend with building the Corvair is bad enough. =
Free
trade my butt. If a Canadian builder wants to keep costs down he'd have =
to
I don't think Dan would do it because the MOD is not endorsed by RR, that I
know of.
Eric Pitts
Terre Haute IN
KR2S
http://home.att.net/~e.j.pitts/
Mike Freeman wrote:
> Since Dan Diehl already is equipped to do it and that's his trade why
> not see if he will do it for a price.
I talked to Dan at length this morning, and not only is he pretty sure he'd
lose money doing it, he might have convinced me not to do it either!
Without going into
If anyone is interested I may be coming up with an easier way to make the
wings yourself. It may cost the same or slightly more than a regular wing but
take less time to make. More info down the road. Flew around for an hour
todayHave to reinstall my gascolator blast tube...Having fun.
Last time I looked Dan owned the company and was not affiliated with Rand,
just happens to make parts for KR's. He also makes accessory cases for VW's
so that mean he's part of Great Planes as well?
Doug Rupert
Simcoe Ontario
I don't think Dan would do it because the MOD is not endorsed by RR, th
"
To: "KRnet"
Sent: Saturday, February 18, 2006 5:12 AM
Subject: Re: KR> new airfoil wing skins
> Mike Freeman wrote:
>
>> Since Dan Diehl already is equipped to do it and that's his trade why
>> not see if he will do it for a price.
>
> I talked to Dan at
USA
E-mail me at flyk...@wi.rr.com
Visit my NEW
KR-2S CorvAIRCRAFT web site at www.flykr2s.com
- Original Message -
From: "Tim Haynes"
To: "KRnet"
Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 7:27 PM
Subject: Re: KR> new airfoil wing skins
> Hi Guys
>
> Can anyone t
ect!
Tony
> ---Original Message---
> From: ifly...@aol.com
> Subject: Re: KR> new airfoil wing skins
> Sent: 17 Feb '06 23:59
>
> If anyone is interested I may be coming up with an easier way to make the
> wings yourself. It may cost the same or slightly more t
>I believe I smell a good idea brewing here. Anyone feel like
building a set of solid core stub and outer wings with the new airfoils? <
Several people have rumbled that they "might" do it, but I guess it's time
for somebody to actually do it. I guess I'll plan on doing it, since it
needs to be
I was wondering if there has been any of you documenting accurate data on the
new airfoil as compared to the old original airfoil. I know there has been a
lot of talk about it over time. Just wondering if there is documented
comparisons that anyone is keeping up with over an extended time period
http://www.kr-2.aviation-mechanics.com/krinfo.htm
Mark Jones (N886MJ)
Wales, WI USA
E-mail me at flyk...@wi.rr.com
Visit my NEW
KR-2S CorvAIRCRAFT web site at www.flykr2s.com
- Original Message -
From: "Larry H."
To: "KRNET"
Sent: Friday, February 03, 2006 9:
>As far as I know, there are only five of us actually flying the KR with the
>new airfoil. The problem with documentation comparison is the fact all of
>these planes are new and did not fly the RAF48. Unless someone who has a KR
>with the RAF48 that has flight documentation on that wing, then remo
John: these airfoils would work on the KR1 as well as the Kr2 but there
iann even better that has laminar flow as far back as 70% chord and was
flight tested in the late eighties by NASA an was considersd to be the
major advancement of the year it was testsd. I am not sure but I think
it was the N
>From: JAMES FERRIS
>
>John: these airfoils would work on the KR1 as well as the Kr2 but there
>iann even better that has laminar flo
Jim,
The big questions are, was that NASA airfoil designed with the KR in mind
and was that airfoil wind tunnel tested per KR flight envelope?
We who donated t
Dana it shouldn't be hard to find out with a quick search of the NACA
database and review of test conditions. They are usually quite thorough and
who knows the airfoil in question may just have some merit for those that
have specific missions in mind for their particular project. (i.e. top speed
or
The airfoil was designed for the VK-30 but was tested on a cessna 210,
its true the Reynolds number is higher, but in the Reynolds number range
from R=1.000,000 to R=12.000,000 the results between a turbulent flow
airfoil (RAF48) and the laminar flow airfoils (NLF 10414F) and AS5048
would be simila
know the answers to those two questions:-).could be we
>wasted our time and money
>
>
I knew the answer...I was only kidding. I just hate to see people
reinvent the wheel, although that is what a lot of RAF48 drivers thought we
were doing with the new airfoil.so
Actually I made a gross error in my last transmission. I wrote that the
drag coefficient for the RAF48 was 50 counts when it is really 60 counts
compared to the 40 counts of the AS5048, a 40% reduction which is
fantastic, I got to thinking of what I had written and I could not think
of any turbule
mber 09, 2004 1:34 PM
Subject: Re: KR> New Airfoil on KR-1
> >From: JAMES FERRIS
>>
>>John: these airfoils would work on the KR1 as well as the Kr2 but there
>>iann even better that has laminar flo
>
>
> Jim,
>
> The big questions are, was that NASA ai
correction Roncz R1145MS
- Original Message -
From: "James R Freeman"
To: "KRnet"
Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2004 6:21 PM
Subject: Re: KR> New Airfoil on KR-1
> Dana:
>
> No money was wasted on the AS airfoils!
>
>The NLF(1) 0414F was w
At 06:21 PM 11/9/2004, you wrote:
> Don Reid may chime in as he did a lot of modeling on the ELF(1) 0414F.
>But he went with the NACA747A314 on his KR-SXL.
>
> Several weeks back I did stop at the K.S.P. post in Richmond and got
>direction to Your house but no one was home. I was going to c
Netters-
I'm planning on building a KR-1 sometime in the future, and the new airfoil
occurred to me as an alternative to the dated RAF48. I know the new wing has
been successfully used on a KR2S, but I've never heard of it being used on the
-1. I believe the RAF48 came off the -1 and went to th
John Lindner wrote:
>> I'm planning on building a KR-1 sometime in the future, and the new
airfoil occurred to me as an alternative to the dated RAF48. I know the new
wing has been successfully used on a KR2S, but I've never heard of it being
used on the -1. I believe the RAF48 came off the -1 and
Zero Lift Line (indicated) for the AS5046 = 1.16
Larry A Capps
Naperville, IL
-Original Message-
Mine is set up for 1 degree
of incidence, and 2 degrees of washout, using the AS5046.
Airfioil installation instructions are at
http://www.krnet.org/as504x/as5046inst.html .
Mark Langford, Huntsville, Alabama
N56ML "at" hiwaay.net
see KR2S project at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford
Mark or anyone who wishes comment.
I'm no aircraft engineer or I will ask what may be a silly question.
What would happen if the rear main spar was moved to the position noted for
the new
AS5048 ( 1 inch above the longerons) but still used the standard KR2 wing .
Phil Matheson
mathe...@dodo.com.a
Phil Matheson wrote:
> What would happen if the rear main spar was moved to the position noted
for
> the new
> AS5048 ( 1 inch above the longerons) but still used the standard KR2 wing
.
I think what you are asking is do I think the KR2 (or even 2S) has too much
incidence, and I personally think
Mark Wrote
Somebody needs to build an adjustable h/s and
prove the best angle, kinda like I'm going to do with the AS5046.
I had a look at a newly finished Corby Starlet a few weeks ago, it is just
about to have its Cof A done.
They have a beaut Adjustable H/S, it has four alum bracket
ginal Message---
From: KRnet
List-Post: krnet@list.krnet.org
Date: 05/10/04 03:59:54
To: KRnet
Subject: Re: KR>new airfoil instructions- Adjustable H/S
Mark Wrote
Somebody needs to build an adjustable h/s and
prove the best angle, kinda like I'm going to do with the AS5046.
I ha
Can anyone tell me how to get in touch with Troy Petteway or Dean Selby.
Also, are there any other planes flying now with the new airfoil?
Brian Kraut
Engineering Alternatives, Inc.
www.engalt.com
Netters,
I am going to echo Dana's comments, but from other aircraft experience. And as
a side note, this has been the motivation for my comments to new netters and
low hour pilots in reference to buying and owning a KR. I am a CFI with over
1000 hours and both taildragger and high performance
Has anyone built the new airfoil on vertical yet. I have already glued in my
tail post and its tapered down to the .500 in that the original plans called
for. The new airfoil calls for the vertical at the tip to be .760 at the fwd
spar and .850 at the aft spar. The only idea I have come up with
> Has anyone built the new airfoil on vertical yet.
Yes, I have!
> I have already glued in my
> tail post and its tapered down to the .500 in that the original plans
called
> for. The new airfoil calls for the vertical at the tip to be .760 at the
fwd
> spar and .850 at the aft spar. The only ide
...@wi.rr.com
Visit my KR-2S CorvAIRCRAFT web site at
http://mywebpage.netscape.com/n886mj/homepage.html
- Original Message -
From:
To:
Sent: Friday, September 26, 2003 1:44 AM
Subject: KR>New Airfoil
> Has anyone built the new airfoil on vertical yet. I have already glued in
my
> tail
mounted.
Rick Hubka
r...@hubka.com
http://www.hubka.com
Calgary Alberta Canada
-Original Message-
From: krnet-boun...@mylist.net [mailto:krnet-boun...@mylist.net] On
Behalf Of kr2sn50...@aol.com
Sent: Friday, September 26, 2003 12:44 AM
To: kr...@mylist.net
Subject: KR>New Airfoil
Justin,
Keep in mind that the RAF 48 airfoil is not tried or proven, especially for the
KR2. There is no documentation on its performance in a wind tunnel, just
homebuilders reports. The AS5048 wing has been tested and then used in a couple
of KR2 aircraft and found to be superior in cruise, as
RE: Keep in mind that the RAF 48 airfoil is not tried or proven, especially
for the KR2.
Colin,
I agree with all of the points that you made, with the exception of the one
above. I wonder how many KR have tried and proven the RAF 48 in actual
conditions. Would you guess, several thousand. I w
I'd like to point out that the RAF48 is a very good airfoil and many have
flown thousands of accumulated hours with it.
The AS50xx series of airfoil provides for a Laminar Wing, which allows for
increased performance through drag reduction. The other benefits offered by
the AS50xx is the ability
67 matches
Mail list logo
