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 thinner mean more speed?<<

I doubt that there is a significant difference in the speed of the AS5048 airfoil over the AS5046, but generally speaking the thicker airfoil will be a bit slower, and thinner will be faster. The coefficient of lift is slightly lower for the AS5048. But I would not let this be a factor in choosing the airfoil. The reason we chose the AS5046 over the originally designed AS5045 is because it fit the standard KR2S spar and the 48" chord wing better, when trying to fit the main and aft spars within the cross-sectional envelope. The AS5048 was born when considering that a thicker wing could house larger fuel tanks, with the side effect being a lighter spar if properly designed (as Oscar noted).

All of this (and a lot more) is at It's a bit confusing going through the charts, as they started life as the "GA" series, later renamed to "AS", with AS being the initials of the designer, and the last digit "x"being the second digit (5 of 15%, 6 of 16%, 8 of 18%). The AS5045/AS5048 tapered airfoil was a compromise between fuel carrying capability and wing thickness, with the thickest part inboard, where you'd want to carry the fuel. Ashok (the designer) cautioned that he had seen some kind of anomaly with the stall characteristics with the AS5048, but whatever it was wasn't a major effect. I'm pretty sure somebody out there is flying one, or at least building a plane using one.

Downloadable templates are available at

Mark Langford

Search the KRnet Archives at
Please see LIST RULES and KRnet info at
see to change 
To UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to

Reply via email to