KR> lengthening main spars

Wing area includes the bottom of the fuselage. Save a lot of work and make ths sides at right angles to thr bottom, Virg On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 20:49:51 +1000 "Darren Crompton" writes: > Hi Russ. > > My understanding about widening the fuselage is that you leave

KR> lengthening main spars

I have noticed that the comfort zone for "netters" seems to be higher here than on the new (albeit better) forum. I asked this there two days ago and have had no response, so I'll try here. (Hell, maybe you are all flying!) My subject was Dihedral, where is better. I phrased it that way to try

KR> lengthening main spars

Hi everyone, I'm widening the fuselage to 40". Which got me to thinking, I should also lenthen the main spars to compensate for the for the loss in wing area. Which got me to thinking about going even wider, say an extra 12" on each side. Since I'm going with a Trigear setup, the Diehl main

KR> lengthening main spars

Hi Russ. My understanding about widening the fuselage is that you leave the bottom the same width and widen the top of the fuselage only. This in turn creates the "banana boat" effect. By doing it this way, you have no real loss in wing area. Cheers Darren Crompton AUSTRALIA On 3/31/07,

KR> lengthening main spars

Darren Compton wrote: > My understanding about widening the fuselage is that you leave the bottom > the same width and widen the top of the fuselage only. This in turn creates > the "banana boat" effect. By doing it this way, you have no real loss in > wing area. No, the "banana boat" is what

KR> lengthening main spars

NOT recommended by R R, Virg On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 03:33:22 -0800 "Russ Kendall" writes: > Hi everyone, > I'm widening the fuselage to 40". Which got me to thinking, I > should also lenthen the main spars to compensate for the for the > loss in wing area.