----- Original Message ----- From: Larry&Sallie Flesner Sent: 06/27/12 06:28 AM To: KRnet Subject: KR> KR Aerobatics/Structural Analysis
At 02:38 AM 6/27/2012, you wrote: >Just found this 110 page research paper on the KR Structural Analysis. I >don't know anything about the author's credentials, but the research was >done for his Master's thesis. > >http://www.engr.sjsu.edu/nikos/MSAE/pdf/Bravo.F11.pdf > >Rodger +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ I found enough errors / misstatements/ and misconceptions by page 19 that I've discounted the rest without reading. I may go back and read more if I have time. This individual took a Rand Robinson flyer, a half built KR, and wrote a paper. I'd bet a ride in my KR that he never spoke to a builder / flier even once. Larry Flesner I read through the bulk of the paper. While there are numerous typos and errored statements (like stating to avoid the most forward CG when he clearly means aft CG), for the most part, the paper is pretty good work and spot on with the testing and modifications I've done over the years. However, it is in bad need of a final editing and rewrite. I hope this wasn't his final version to turn in for his PHD, as his adviser will tear him apart with some of the glaring errors. Since the concepts in this paper seem to match very closely with my plane (originally a C-85 with additional wing area and operating out of a high altitude airport), I can make a 1:1 comparison with his predicted performance numbers. I have 6 more sq ft of wing area than his proposed plane and fly at significantly heavier gross weights. My stall speed is a bit lower than his prediction and my cruise with the C-85 was actually a bit faster than his prediction. I won't touch his analysis of the AS series vs the RAF series wings. That would be more like arguing politics and religions. The analysis of the tail performance appears to be accurate, although that seems to get some folks on here stirred up as much as arguing politics and religion. If you are looking for a structural analysis of the plane, it's not in here and specifically states that it is not the intent of the paper. This paper is strictly about aerodynamics. I do agree with Larry in that he took some of the obviously incorrect numbers (200 mph cruise on 65 hp VW) from the KR advertising and tried to use them as a base line in some of the analysis. Bad data in makes for in bad data out after the analysis, so his data based on the sales literature is a bit skewed. -Jeff Scott Los Alamos, NM
