You bought accepted KR Plans. Build to plans. Want to change something, YOU prove that it will work as it is NOT a KR any more, Virg
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 20:23:41 -0500 "Wesley Scott" <[email protected]> writes: > Jeanette did say that she would be willing to provide a summary. I > didn't > ask what it would cost. She also said if you had a specific > question about > a small area, such as the firewall (her choice of part) she might be > willing > to extract that section of the analysis. > > It sounded a lot like she paid for it and doesn't think anyone else > needs > it. She did say that the KR planes have been analyzed several times > and > alway found to be overbuilt. I think a lot of it is a matter of not > wanting > to be helpful to design changes. Her opinion was that if you were > going to > be making changes then you should be willing to pay an engineer by > the hour > to analyze the changes. > > She also said that it was a lot easier to do now with computers than > the way > they had to do it in the old days. > > For those of us who don't have access to a finite element analysis > program, > the hand written data and calculations would be useful. This should > be a > case of, "it may take a structural engineer to perform the analysis, > but any > engineer should be able to understand the results." > > -- > wesley scott > [email protected] > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Brian Kraut" <[email protected]> > To: "KRnet" <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2004 4:58 PM > Subject: Re: KR> KR structural analysis > > > > I would imagine that back in the 70s it was a bunch of hand > written data > and calculations. I suspect that even if you had it you would need > to be a > structural engineer to understand it and in that case you could > probably > redo it on a computer in less time than reviewing what Ken did. > > > > I would also not be surprised to find that the spars and a few > other major > items were calculated and a lot of the rest was eyeballed and fudge > factored. I am not criticizing the design at all by saying this. I > am sure > that a lot of homebuilts are designed this way and we know that the > KR is > very structurarly sound. > > > > ---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- > > From: "Dan Heath" <[email protected]> > > Reply-To: KRnet <[email protected]> > > Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 17:47:49 -0400 (Eastern Standard Time) > > > > >Did you ask her why you can't get the complete analysis? Can you > get any > > >part of the analysis? > > > > > > > > > > > >See N64KR at http://KR-Builder.org - Then click on the pics > > > > > >"There is a time for building and a time for flying, and the time > for > > >building has long since expired." > > > > > >Daniel R. Heath - Columbia, SC > > > > > >See you in Mt. Vernon - 2004 - KR Gathering > > > > > >See our EAA Chapter 242 at http://EAA242.org > > > > > > > > > > > >_______________________________________ > > >to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to > [email protected] > > >please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html > > > > > > > _______________________________________ > > to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to > [email protected] > > please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________ > to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to [email protected] > please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html > > Virgil N. Salisbury - AMSOIL www.lubedealer.com/salisbury Miami ,Fl
