KR> new airfoil modifications
? I can't give an authoritative answer, but I would have to agree with what Stephen says.? If you want the AS Airfoil, sell your Diehl Skins. While the AS series air foil is a nice design and undoubtedly a much better refined airfoil, there's nothing wrong with the RAF-48 if you want to go that route. My KR has the Diehl Skins and RAF airfoil since it predates the development of the AS series airfoil.? It's no slouch in performance even with my heavyweight lard butt in the seat. However, if I was building a new KR today and had no parts on hand for the wings, I would definitely build it with the AS airfoil. ? -Jeff Scott Subject:?Re: KR> new airfoil modifications If a person has Diehl wing skin's with the Raf 48 airfoil and mounted AS5046 rib's, Will the skin's fit? ?
KR> new airfoil modifications
KR> new airfoil modifications
>Mark Langford wrote: >A lot of folks have opted for the new airfoil and managed to alter the >bellcrank to work successfully, so would those that have, please post a >link as to how they did it? I also built the AS5048 airfoil and had to devise a bellcrank system since the stock was too large to mount on the rear of the spar. What I did was to reverse engineer the bellcrank and I mounted it on the forward side of the rear spar. Take a look at the following link especially the photos toward the bottom of the page. http://flykr2s.com/stubwing1.html Mark Jones (N886MJ) Dunedin, FL E-mail: flykr2s at gmail.com Web: www.flykr2s.com
KR> new airfoil modifications
"If a person has Diehl wing skin's with the Raf 48 airfoil and mounted AS5046 rib's, Will the skin's fit?" Hello Don, I have built my wings with the Diehl skins and my first reaction would be to say no. The skins themselves are fairly flexible cord wise as far as airfoil shape is concerned but the skins have built in recesses for the main and aft spars. If I recall these spar locations change with the new airfoil. Also the leading edge radius is not going to match the new airfoil and obviously you will have to come up with the correct airfoil templates. I think it would be a lot more work to try and retrofit the RAF48 skins to fit the new airfoil then to just go ahead and start with the new airfoil and build it from scratch. However, as I am very close to finally finishing my baby there is no way I am going to add any more time to my build. I am sure I will be very happy with the wing I have and the amount of time that it saved me. Stephen Teate Paradise, Texas The information in this email is confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not an intended recipient, you should delete this message. Access to this email by anyone else is unauthorized, and any disclosure, copying, distribution or action taken or omitted in reliance on it is prohibited and may be unlawful.
KR> new airfoil modifications
Donald, > If a person has Diehl wing skin's with the Raf 48 airfoil and mounted > AS5046 rib's, Will the skin's fit? Mark L had a lot of comments about this at the gathering but not everyone got to hear. Reference: http://www.krnet.org/as504x/ and http://www.nvaero.com/categories/Aircraft-Components/Wings/KR%252d2S-Wing-Components/ I would imagine they would not fit, but there are two designs to the new airfoil, one that fits the spars per the kr plans, and another that has shorter spars for the new design. I have no idea what nVAero has built to. I'm no expert on these airfoils. Regards, Tucker
KR> new airfoil modifications
At 08:50 AM 10/3/2016, you wrote: >Probably so. Few people build KR1's anymore (it's usually a KR2S >that's narrowed a bit), so nobody's built a KR1 with the new >airfoil, but it is interchangeable with the RAF48, but with more >efficient performance. + Are there new airfoil drawings scaled to the KR1 fuselage? If anyone is building a KR1 scaled up to the KR2 fuselage I'd sure go with the new airfoil. I'm flying the RAF48 but after a 13 year build I'm not about to build new wings. My 48's have given me 600 hours of fun flying. Larry Flesner
KR> new airfoil modifications
If a person has Diehl wing skin's with the Raf 48 airfoil and mounted AS5046 rib's, Will the skin's fit? On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 8:50 AM, Gary via KRnet wrote: > On 10/3/2016 5:58 AM, Mark Langford via KRnet wrote: > >> Kayak Chris wrote: >> >> Dumb question, can I assume this suggestion applies to the kr1 kr1.5 >>> etc (all kr variants) as well? >>> >> >> Probably so. Few people build KR1's anymore (it's usually a KR2S that's >> narrowed a bit), so nobody's built a KR1 with the new airfoil, but it is >> interchangeable with the RAF48, but with more efficient performance. >> >> I shouldn't even have said "new KR2"having flown KR2S and the KR2 for >> hundreds of hours each, and the fact that building an S is almost exactly >> the same labor and cost as a KR2, I think you'd be crazy to build a new KR2 >> when the KR2S is so much better. >> >> See more on this kind of stuff at http://www.n56ml.com/kopinion.html ... >> >> Mark Langford >> ML at N56ML.com >> http://www.n56ml.com >> >> >> ___ >> Search the KRnet Archives at http://tugantek.com/archmailv2-kr/search. >> 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 KRnet-leave at list.krnet.org >> >> > Eat those words. I have just finished my KR1 with the 5048 airfoil. > > -- > *Gary * > /Soli Deo Gloria/ > ___ > Search the KRnet Archives at http://tugantek.com/archmailv2-kr/search. > 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 KRnet-leave at list.krnet.org >
KR> new airfoil modifications
On 10/3/2016 5:58 AM, Mark Langford via KRnet wrote: > Kayak Chris wrote: > >> Dumb question, can I assume this suggestion applies to the kr1 kr1.5 >> etc (all kr variants) as well? > > Probably so. Few people build KR1's anymore (it's usually a KR2S > that's narrowed a bit), so nobody's built a KR1 with the new airfoil, > but it is interchangeable with the RAF48, but with more efficient > performance. > > I shouldn't even have said "new KR2"having flown KR2S and the KR2 > for hundreds of hours each, and the fact that building an S is almost > exactly the same labor and cost as a KR2, I think you'd be crazy to > build a new KR2 when the KR2S is so much better. > > See more on this kind of stuff at http://www.n56ml.com/kopinion.html ... > > Mark Langford > ML at N56ML.com > http://www.n56ml.com > > > ___ > Search the KRnet Archives at http://tugantek.com/archmailv2-kr/search. > 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 KRnet-leave at list.krnet.org > Eat those words. I have just finished my KR1 with the 5048 airfoil. -- *Gary * /Soli Deo Gloria/
KR> new airfoil modifications
Kayak Chris wrote: > Dumb question, can I assume this suggestion applies to the kr1 kr1.5 > etc (all kr variants) as well? Probably so. Few people build KR1's anymore (it's usually a KR2S that's narrowed a bit), so nobody's built a KR1 with the new airfoil, but it is interchangeable with the RAF48, but with more efficient performance. I shouldn't even have said "new KR2"having flown KR2S and the KR2 for hundreds of hours each, and the fact that building an S is almost exactly the same labor and cost as a KR2, I think you'd be crazy to build a new KR2 when the KR2S is so much better. See more on this kind of stuff at http://www.n56ml.com/kopinion.html ... Mark Langford ML at N56ML.com http://www.n56ml.com
KR> new airfoil modifications
"I think it's pretty safe to say that if you are building a new KR2 or KR2S, you should be using the new airfoil." Dumb question, can I assume this suggestion applies to the kr1 kr1.5 etc (all kr variants) as well?
KR> new airfoil modifications
KRnetHeads, At the Gathering, it was brought up that a downside to the "new airfoil" is that the aileron bellcrank has to be modified (due to the thinner airfoil cross section at the bellcrank location, I assume). One look at that bellcrank was enough to tell me that I needed something entirely different, so I did it my own way anyway (well documented at http://www.n56ml.com/owings.html, but not really relevant to my point). To me, the advantages of a wing with less drag, longer range, higher speeds, longer glide distance, and similar stall characteristics out-weigh the advantage of "just follow the plans" when it comes to the bellcrank. A lot of folks have opted for the new airfoil and managed to alter the bellcrank to work successfully, so would those that have, please post a link as to how they did it? This should remove any issue with building the new wing, for those who are concerned. My guess is that the result was simpler and more elegant than the bellcrank shown in the plans. The old newsletters show several ways to improve on the old bellcrank, so I'm not the first guy to think it was a bit convoluted. Also mentioned at the gathering was that there was no real discussion of the differences between the three versions of the airfoil, so I edited that to point out the it's all about thickness-to-chord length ratio. See http://www.krnet.org/as504x (near the bottom) for that, and even more at http://www.krnet.org/as504x/templates.html . I think it's pretty safe to say that if you are building a new KR2 or KR2S, you should be using the new airfoil. Templates are free and located at the bottom of the previous link. With many years of "testing" by lots of KR pilots, it is well proven at this point. -- Mark Langford ML at N56ML.com http://www.n56ml.com
