Obviously I'm missing something here John. Kindly explain the difference between a properly baffled fuel tank in the stub wings versus the same = tank in the outer wing panels. It would seem to me that if wing drop is your concern that the same weight further out would have more of a = detrimental effect for spin recovery, not that anyone in their right mind would intentionally spin a KR. In any event, spin recovery maneuvers are = identical no matter where the fuel is located. I'd be more worried about the c.g. shift associated with the header tank. As for extending the stub wings, = it would be a snap with the AS 5048 airfoil as the spar is deeper. Using = the stock per plans spar and airfoil I think the added stress would easily = be overcome by wrapping both inner spars with a couple of layers of CF. I'm = not an engineer by any means but it seems to make sense should one want to attempt such a change. If it were me I would go with the 5048 airfoil = and build the sucker. I would have absolutely no hesitation on taking it = into the air as with the added depth of the spar I think the WAF would now be = the weak link in such an arrangement. Doug Rupert
Caution. Spin recovery can be affected if the extra distance is used for = tanks. My view....Stick to what is proven, that is, stock stub length. John =20 --=20 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.21/236 - Release Date: = 1/20/2006 =20
