I've been following the airfoil thread and would like to add one thing.
Almost every modification you make to the original design will have an
up-stream or down-stream effect. Decisions on which airfoil you plan to use
will likely effect the type landing gear you will be happy with.
I chose the retracts because that was the only airfoil used when i was
building and I liked the challenge of flying a tail dragger.
The RAF 48 airfoil provided well documented flight characteristics with a
low stall speed. I found that airlfoil worked well with a light weight
KR-2's retract system with mechanical brakes.
However almost everyone in the KR community (including myself) made
modifications to the original design, which almost always increased the
aircraft weight. The increased aircraft weight and the increased stall
speed / landing speed of the newer airfoils quickly overwhelms the KR
mechanical brakes leading to longer runway requirements.
The KR retract gear system does not accept hydralic brakes easily, and I
believe that was the primary reason builders started switching to fixed
gear with hydraulic brakes.
I believe most successful builders will agree, the most challenging part
of the KR building process is improving the design, without adding weight
and reducing usefull load.
I guess the moral of my story is don't expect a Cadillac to perform like a
Mini Cooper in a slalom race.
_______________________________________________
Search the KRnet Archives at https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/.
Please see LIST RULES and KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html.
see http://list.krnet.org/mailman/listinfo/krnet_list.krnet.org to change
options.
To UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to [email protected]
