So I happened to be the guy that posted on Facebook about reducing the flex of the fuselage. I agree with Larry that there have not been any that have torn apart but we all know an airframe has some flex designed onto it. No I am not an Aeronautical Engineer, but as stated by others there has not been any airframe failures but I would also bet most if not all do not add strength to the airframe.
I just wanted to have the builder put some thought into what he might be changing. As Larry eluded too, you strengthen one point you move those stresses to another point. My thoughts go to, is that part strong enough to handle the new loading. I am an Architectural Engineer and the same thing happens to beams when loading changes, you have to be certain that the area that takes on the new load can handle that load. That was my intent. And by the way there are knowledgeable people on Facebook also. I choose not to use this forum often because I have an iPhone that doesn’t really play well with this forum. It’s probably operator error and I really don’t care to dig in and find the issue. I won’t be responding any more to this thread either. Ralph DeFrain > On Apr 2, 2023, at 16:01, MS <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I've had it in my head for years that the KR is somehow "modeled upon" or > somehow closely related to the Taylor Monoplane. Finally taking a close look > at a Taylor Monoplane, other than them both using VW engines and having the > same same overall dimensions, I don't see any similarities in particular. > Wing loading on the Taylor is just over 9 lbs/sq.ft whereas my 1½, when it > had the original 1835 engine, was something over 13. Fully developed KR-2's > could easily be into the 15's, especially with Corvairs or O-200's. Just > from its eagerness to get off the ground and its reluctance to get back on > it, my KR has always seemed to have a very light wing loading. A 9 > lb./sq.ft. loading would be light as a feather. Building materials comparing > the two planes are completely different, other than where wood is used in > some places. It has an open cockpit with a windscreen, like Ken's original > KR, but other than these three things - VW engine, wingspan & fuselage > length, and open cockpit . . . I'm left wondering how the KR ever got > associated with the Taylor Monoplane? The Monoplane even has a different > airfoil, and RAF 35. > > Mike > KSEE > > -- > KRnet mailing list > [email protected] > https://list.krnet.org/mailman/listinfo/krnet
-- KRnet mailing list [email protected] https://list.krnet.org/mailman/listinfo/krnet
