KR> Dihedral

[ttcse/Tom]

Mark wrote: "Actually, the dihedral isn't measured from the bottom of the spar, 
generally 
speaking.  It's more of a centerline angle thing,"
 
That's what I was thinking too, it's based on the 'spar-centerline'.  
 
Also I believe another way to determine that value is to take the average of: 
"top of the spar dihederal" and "bottom of the spar dihederal".   For example 
if your (not really that smart) Smart-Level gave numbers like Gunars below and 
you averaged them...  
 
( Dihedral at top of wing: 2.21 deg..plusDihedral at bottom of wing:  
3.64 deg.) / 2 = 2.925 deg.  
 
Compares well with  "Dihedral at wing center: 2.93 deg."
 
Tom


--- On Wed, 6/30/10, Gunnar Olsen <gun...@online.no> wrote:
From: Gunnar Olsen <gun...@online.no>
Subject: Re: KR> Dihedral
To: "KRnet" <kr...@mylist.net>
List-Post: krnet@list.krnet.org
Date: Wednesday, June 30, 2010, 5:24 AM



KR2 standard wing with RAF48 airfoil.

Dihedral at bottom of wing:  3.64 deg.
Dihedral at wing chord: 3.05 deg.
Dihedral at wing center: 2.93 deg.
Dihedral at top of wing: 2.21 deg.

;o) Gunnar


\

KR> Dihedral

[Oscar Zuniga]

Also not trying to beat a dead horse here, but I believe what Mark is doing is 
replacing the "hokey" glassed-foam wing extensions with real wing extensions.  
Mark's wings were originally made a foot shorter than stock, and the wingtips 
were formed out of shaped and glassed foam with no spars.



You can read more about the wings on his webpage, and also comments about 
Hoerner-style tips on his 'performance' page, here:

 http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford/performance/

Oscar Zuniga
Air Camper NX41CC
San Antonio, TX
mailto: taildr...@hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net

KR> Dihedral

[Mark Langford]

You guys sure don't give me much credit!  Yes, I'm bringing my wings up to 
stock KR2S length, so dire predictions of my demise might be premature...at 
least due to WAF or spar failure.  Besides my spars are beefier than  most 
anyway (for reasons I dare not go into).  I said when I built my wings it'd 
be interesting to try it both ways and quantify the difference, and after 
900 hours it's probably time.  I seriously underestimated the effort 
involved to add a few inches to the wingtips though.  Maybe someday I'll get 
around to optimizing the horizontal stab incidence also (I have a feeling 
I'll regret bringing that up as well...).

All I really need to know about the KR spar capability is that Marty Roberts 
routinely pulled 6g's at the Gathering with a 1400 pound gross weight in his 
KR2.   The extra fuel I'm adding is in the outer wing, which poses no flying 
stresses on the WAFs except during really hard landings.  With my usual 
1000-pound full-fuel flying gross weight and rarely pulling more than 2g's, 
it won't be spar or WAF failure that gets me.

As far as actual dihedral on the KR2 and KR2S, it's 2.98 degrees.

Mark Langford
N56ML "at" hiwaay.net
website at http://www.N56ML.com

KR> Dihedral

[Fred Johnson]

Not to beat a dead horse here, but one thing I think someone is missing is
that though you increased the wing area, you are decreasing wing loading,
and I believe that in itself would be compensate for the shear and bending
moments mentioned earlier.



Fred Johnson
Reno, NV


Dan Heath wrote

I know this has been noted before, but I will repeat it.  The Diehl wing
skins are significantly longer than the stock wings, and there is no
"beefing" required, and I know of NO incidents attributed to the longer
wings.  I have them and the wing span is 23'6".

Mark, you don't have to worry.

KR> Dihedral

[Dan Heath]

I know this has been noted before, but I will repeat it.  The Diehl wing
skins are significantly longer than the stock wings, and there is no
"beefing" required, and I know of NO incidents attributed to the longer
wings.  I have them and the wing span is 23'6".

Mark, you don't have to worry.

See N64KR at http://KRBuilder.org - Then click on the pics 
See you at the 2010 - KR Gathering in Richmond, Ky - I39
There is a time for building and a time for FLYING and the time for Flying
has begun.
Daniel R. Heath - Lexington, SC


-Original Message-

I am wondering what
you are doing about the extra bending moment and shear they will create.  
You must be careful with wing extensions as they increase the bending moment
at the wing root significantly.  Also consider the extra load it will put on
the wing attachment fittings.

Fw: Re: KR> Dihedral

[joe.kr2s.buil...@juno.com]

Hey Guys,
Before you get carried away please remember that Mark Lankford was 
flying with clipped wings and I don't believe that he is adding anything to the 
designed length of the wings. He is just bring them to the original designed 
length. I'm just happy he is making the needed repairs to the plane. Hanger 
rash is a terrible disease and really should be federally funded.
Joe Horton

-- Forwarded Message --
From: "Virgil N. Salisbury" <virg...@bellsouth.net>
To: KRnet <kr...@mylist.net>
Subject: Re: KR> Dihedral
List-Post: krnet@list.krnet.org
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 09:53:50 -0400

   R R ALWAYS said not to increase the wing length. The
   spar is designed for just what you have, no more, Virg


   The Leonards wrote:
> Mark
> Interesting to read about your wing extensions.  I am wondering what
> you are doing about the extra bending moment and shear they will create.  
>
> If my calculations are correct (assuming no increase in your AUW, 1200lbs)
> Your Bending moment will go from 68,000 inch pounds to 93,500 inch pounds.
> And the shear will go from 1858lbs to 2180lbs.  From your e-mail below it
> also sounds like you're increasing the AUW.  If so then these figures will
> increase even further.  
>
> Eg if you increase the AUW to 1300lbs (an extra)100lbs the BM goes to 101350
> inch pounds and shear to 2362lbs
>
> You must be careful with wing extensions as they increase the bending moment
> at the wing root significantly.  Also consider the extra load it will put on
> the wing attachment fittings.
>
> I'm curious to know if you plan on beefing up the spar or wing attach
> fittings.
>
> Regards
> Peter Leonard
> Brisbane, Australia
>   


___
Search the KRnet Archives at http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp
to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to krnet-le...@mylist.net
please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html

LCD 42 TV for $26.42? Macbook Pro for $91.73?
Are these prices real? You WON'T Believe What We Found!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/4c2b5e5878198cffc0st03duc

KR> Dihedral

[jack.cooper2009]

Peter Leonard wrote 


You must be careful with wing extensions as they increase the bending moment 
at the wing root significantly.  Also consider the extra load it will put on 
the wing attachment fittings. 

Aren't the Diehl skin wings longer than the stock plan wings? Guess I could 
look it up but so many KRs flying with the Diehl wings I know its good. 



Jack Cooper 

Chuckey TN. 
___ 
Search the KRnet Archives at http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp 
to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to krnet-le...@mylist.net 
please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html 

No virus found in this incoming message. 
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
Version: 9.0.829 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2971 - Release Date: 06/30/10 
04:35:00 


___ 
Search the KRnet Archives at http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp 
to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to krnet-le...@mylist.net 
please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html 

KR> Dihedral

[jack.cooper2009]

Just checked mine with a digital level and also got 2 on the right wing and 1.8 
on the left. Is that close enough for KR work. Maybe I should consider aileron 
trim. Naw, not until it flies. 

Jack Cooper 

Chuckey TN. 


- Original Message - 
From: "Dan Heath" <da...@windstream.net> 
To: "KRnet" <kr...@mylist.net> 
Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2010 5:48:16 AM 
Subject: RE: KR> Dihedral 

That is interesting.  I assumed that it I put a digital level on the stub 
and set it to 0, then put it on the outboard wing, it would give me the 
angle of dihedral.  Surprise, I got 2.  I never gave it any thought, since 
it had already been set when I started on the project.  No wonder, I wander 
all over the place. 

KR> Dihedral

[Virgil N. Salisbury]

Always use the plans for determining these things.
The example from the plans is correct, 5" up at
the tip, Virg


Mark Langford wrote:
> Actually, the dihedral isn't measured from the bottom of the spar, generally 
> speaking.  It's more of a centerline angle thing, so measuring off the 
> bottom of the spar isn't an accurate representation of the "real"  dihedral. 
> The real dihedral isn't even as high as 3.7 degrees...it's a little lower. 
> I used to know exactly what it was, but obviously it's less than simply the 
> inverse tangent of 5/78 because of the taper angle of the outboard spars. 
> It would only take a few minutes to recalculate it using the vertical 
> centerlines of the spars or the chord lines.  I need to get out to the 
> airport right now, so somebody with a little time on their hands is welcome 
> to do that.  Otherwise I'll do it tonight...
>
> The KR2 has the same dihedral as the KR2S.
>
> Mark Langford
> N56ML "at" hiwaay.net
> website at http://www.N56ML.com
> 
>
>
> ___
> Search the KRnet Archives at http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp
> to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to krnet-le...@mylist.net
> please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html
>
>   

KR> Dihedral

[Virgil N. Salisbury]

R R ALWAYS said not to increase the wing length. The
spar is designed for just what you have, no more, Virg


The Leonards wrote:
> Mark
>   Interesting to read about your wing extensions.  I am wondering what
> you are doing about the extra bending moment and shear they will create.  
>
> If my calculations are correct (assuming no increase in your AUW, 1200lbs)
> Your Bending moment will go from 68,000 inch pounds to 93,500 inch pounds.
> And the shear will go from 1858lbs to 2180lbs.  From your e-mail below it
> also sounds like you're increasing the AUW.  If so then these figures will
> increase even further.  
>
> Eg if you increase the AUW to 1300lbs (an extra)100lbs the BM goes to 101350
> inch pounds and shear to 2362lbs
>
> You must be careful with wing extensions as they increase the bending moment
> at the wing root significantly.  Also consider the extra load it will put on
> the wing attachment fittings.
>
> I'm curious to know if you plan on beefing up the spar or wing attach
> fittings.
>
> Regards
> Peter Leonard
> Brisbane, Australia
>   

KR> Dihedral

[Gunnar Olsen]

KR2 standard wing with RAF48 airfoil.

Dihedral at bottom of wing:  3.64 deg.
Dihedral at wing chord: 3.05 deg.
Dihedral at wing center: 2.93 deg.
Dihedral at top of wing: 2.21 deg.

;o) Gunnar


On 30.06.2010 12:12, phillip matheson wrote:
> What is the degree of dihedral on the KR2?
>
>
> Dan page 26 ( Jan 90 Blue book)   Drawing No21- with spars on a flat table
> 5 Inches above the table with the tip of the bottom spar
>
>
> Phil Matheson
> SAAA Ch 37
> http://www.philskr2.50megs.com/
>
>
> ___
> Search the KRnet Archives at http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp
> to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to krnet-le...@mylist.net
> please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html
>
>
>
>

KR> Dihedral

[Mark Langford]

Actually, the dihedral isn't measured from the bottom of the spar, generally 
speaking.  It's more of a centerline angle thing, so measuring off the 
bottom of the spar isn't an accurate representation of the "real"  dihedral. 
The real dihedral isn't even as high as 3.7 degrees...it's a little lower. 
I used to know exactly what it was, but obviously it's less than simply the 
inverse tangent of 5/78 because of the taper angle of the outboard spars. 
It would only take a few minutes to recalculate it using the vertical 
centerlines of the spars or the chord lines.  I need to get out to the 
airport right now, so somebody with a little time on their hands is welcome 
to do that.  Otherwise I'll do it tonight...

The KR2 has the same dihedral as the KR2S.

Mark Langford
N56ML "at" hiwaay.net
website at http://www.N56ML.com

KR> Dihedral

[The Leonards]

Mark
Interesting to read about your wing extensions.  I am wondering what
you are doing about the extra bending moment and shear they will create.  

If my calculations are correct (assuming no increase in your AUW, 1200lbs)
Your Bending moment will go from 68,000 inch pounds to 93,500 inch pounds.
And the shear will go from 1858lbs to 2180lbs.  From your e-mail below it
also sounds like you're increasing the AUW.  If so then these figures will
increase even further.  

Eg if you increase the AUW to 1300lbs (an extra)100lbs the BM goes to 101350
inch pounds and shear to 2362lbs

You must be careful with wing extensions as they increase the bending moment
at the wing root significantly.  Also consider the extra load it will put on
the wing attachment fittings.

I'm curious to know if you plan on beefing up the spar or wing attach
fittings.

Regards
Peter Leonard
Brisbane, Australia

-Original Message-
From: krnet-bounces+pamks=bigpond.net...@mylist.net
[mailto:krnet-bounces+pamks=bigpond.net...@mylist.net] On Behalf Of Mark
Langford
Sent: Wednesday, 30 June 2010 1:33 PM
To: KRnet
Subject: Re: KR> Dihedral

OK, I dug out the plans, and the outboard spar is 78" long rather than 79" 
(what was I thinking), so it's actually 3.7 degrees rather than 3.8.

I killed another day of vacation working the stub to outboard wing gaps 
again.  One thing I've learned in the last three weeks is that it feels like

it takes a lot longer to get something done when you know there's a 
perfectly flyable airplane there and you're missing some killer 
sunsets.if only the wings were attached to the thing!  The big stuff is 
done, adding 13.5" of wing tip for an increase of 8% wing area, flap 
geometry improved from 23 degrees to 40 degrees, Hoerner tips, and many 
other little details addressed.  Hopefully a new 7.5 gallon aux wing tank 
will commence construction tomorrow, but if it gets as long and drawn out as

the wingtips did, it may have to wait another 900 hours to get completely 
finished.  Today I relearned how valuable a heat gun is when it comes to 
altering fiberglass parts in a hurry.

See http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford/900hour/100629083m.jpg for the current 
state of affairs regarding the wings.  More on all that later...

Mark Langford
N56ML "at" hiwaay.net
website at http://www.N56ML.com



___
Search the KRnet Archives at http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp
to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to krnet-le...@mylist.net
please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
Version: 9.0.829 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2971 - Release Date: 06/30/10
04:35:00

KR> Dihedral

[phillip matheson]

What is the degree of dihedral on the KR2?


Dan page 26 ( Jan 90 Blue book)   Drawing No21- with spars on a flat table
5 Inches above the table with the tip of the bottom spar


Phil Matheson
SAAA Ch 37
http://www.philskr2.50megs.com/

KR> Dihedral

[Dan Heath]

That is interesting.  I assumed that it I put a digital level on the stub
and set it to 0, then put it on the outboard wing, it would give me the
angle of dihedral.  Surprise, I got 2.  I never gave it any thought, since
it had already been set when I started on the project.  No wonder, I wander
all over the place.

See N64KR at http://KRBuilder.org - Then click on the pics 
See you at the 2010 - KR Gathering in Richmond, Ky - I39
There is a time for building and a time for FLYING and the time for Flying
has begun.
Daniel R. Heath - Lexington, SC

-Original Message-


It's just the inverse tangent of the "rise over the run".  Without looking 
at the plans, and running on memory alone (always a bad idea), I think it's 
5 inches over a distance of about 79 inches (to the end of the outboard 
spar), so that'd be the inverse tangent of .0633, which is 3.6 degrees. 

KR> Dihedral

[Mark Langford]

OK, I dug out the plans, and the outboard spar is 78" long rather than 79" 
(what was I thinking), so it's actually 3.7 degrees rather than 3.8.

I killed another day of vacation working the stub to outboard wing gaps 
again.  One thing I've learned in the last three weeks is that it feels like 
it takes a lot longer to get something done when you know there's a 
perfectly flyable airplane there and you're missing some killer 
sunsets.if only the wings were attached to the thing!  The big stuff is 
done, adding 13.5" of wing tip for an increase of 8% wing area, flap 
geometry improved from 23 degrees to 40 degrees, Hoerner tips, and many 
other little details addressed.  Hopefully a new 7.5 gallon aux wing tank 
will commence construction tomorrow, but if it gets as long and drawn out as 
the wingtips did, it may have to wait another 900 hours to get completely 
finished.  Today I relearned how valuable a heat gun is when it comes to 
altering fiberglass parts in a hurry.

See http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford/900hour/100629083m.jpg for the current 
state of affairs regarding the wings.  More on all that later...

Mark Langford
N56ML "at" hiwaay.net
website at http://www.N56ML.com

KR> Dihedral

[Larry Flesner]

At 09:30 PM 6/29/2010, you wrote:
>which is 3.6 degrees.
>That's not enough, in my humble opinion, at least not based on my
>"wanderings" in my KR2S.  I'll build my next one to 5 degrees of dihedral...


Your next one?  And are you sure you want it to fly like 
a "Cherokee. :-)

Larry Flesner

KR> Dihedral

[Virgil N. Salisbury]

I think it was 5 Deg, Virg


Dan Heath wrote:
> What is the degree of dihedral on the KR2?  I see how it is set in the
> plans, but don't see the degrees documented anywhere.  I could figure it,
> but my math is rusty.
>
>  
>
> Daniel R. Heath
>
> da...@windstream.net
>
> See N64KR at   http://KRBuilder.org - Then click on
> the pics 
>
> See you at the 2010 - KR Gathering in Richmond, Ky - I39
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
> ___
> Search the KRnet Archives at http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp
> to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to krnet-le...@mylist.net
> please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html
>
>   

KR> Dihedral

[Mark Langford]

Dan Heath wrote:

> What is the degree of dihedral on the KR2?  I see how it is set in the
> plans, but don't see the degrees documented anywhere.  I could figure it,
> but my math is rusty.

It's just the inverse tangent of the "rise over the run".  Without looking 
at the plans, and running on memory alone (always a bad idea), I think it's 
5 inches over a distance of about 79 inches (to the end of the outboard 
spar), so that'd be the inverse tangent of .0633, which is 3.6 degrees. 
That's not enough, in my humble opinion, at least not based on my 
"wanderings" in my KR2S.  I'll build my next one to 5 degrees of dihedral...

Mark Langford
N56ML "at" hiwaay.net
website at http://www.N56ML.com

KR> Dihedral

[Dan Heath]

What is the degree of dihedral on the KR2?  I see how it is set in the
plans, but don't see the degrees documented anywhere.  I could figure it,
but my math is rusty.



Daniel R. Heath

da...@windstream.net

See N64KR at   http://KRBuilder.org - Then click on
the pics 

See you at the 2010 - KR Gathering in Richmond, Ky - I39

KR> dihedral

[Dene Collett (SA)]

Hi Again guys
Can someone tell me what the dihedral angle is from the horizontal. I know
you set it up with 5" blocks at the tip but I am using the 5048-5045
combination which means the wing will be a slightly different thickness at
same span. I need the angle formed by a line drawn spanwise down the
centreline of the outer forward spar and the horizontal.I suppose I could
work it out by drawing the old wing in CAD but I'm sure someone has that
information at their fingertips.
Thanks guys
Dene Collett
KR2S-RT builder
Port Elizabeth
South Africa
mailto: dene.coll...@telkomsa.net
P.S: checkout www.whisperaircraft.com

KR> dihedral

[StRaNgEdAyS]

You can use the same measurement, as the difference would be negligible. I
did draw the both out in CAD to check, but that comp's down (still) but the
difference was way under 1°.
Cheers.Peter Bancks
stranged...@dodo.com.au
http://www.homebuiltairplanes.com
http://canardaviationforum.dmt.net

- Original Message - 
From: "Dene Collett (SA)" <dene.coll...@telkomsa.net>
To: "krnet" <kr...@mylist.net>
Sent: Saturday, August 07, 2004 6:09 AM
Subject: KR> dihedral


> Hi Again guys
> Can someone tell me what the dihedral angle is from the horizontal. I know
> you set it up with 5" blocks at the tip but I am using the 5048-5045
> combination which means the wing will be a slightly different thickness at
> same span. I need the angle formed by a line drawn spanwise down the
> centreline of the outer forward spar and the horizontal.I suppose I could
> work it out by drawing the old wing in CAD but I'm sure someone has that
> information at their fingertips.
> Thanks guys
> Dene Collett
> KR2S-RT builder
> Port Elizabeth
> South Africa
> mailto: dene.coll...@telkomsa.net
> P.S: checkout www.whisperaircraft.com
>
>
>
> ___
> to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to krnet-le...@mylist.net
> please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html
>
>

KR>Dihedral angle from centerlines.

[Phillip Matheson]

For those that are interested.  The diehedral works out to extremely close
to 3 degrees on centerlines of the spars.

Just something slightly different

The Dan Diehl video and instructions say to sit two 3 1/2inch blocks on the
top of each inner main spar, extend a string line or level to the main spar
tip, and that's your dihedral requirement.
If you wanted to change the amount of dihedral, and the BLOCK height

very easy.




Phillip Matheson
mathe...@dodo.com.au
Australia
VH PKR
See our engines  and kits at.
http://www.vw-engines.com/
http://www.homebuilt-aviation.com/
See my KR at Mark Jones web
http://mywebpage.netscape.com/n886mj/pmkr2.html

KR>Dihedral Question

[Barry Kruyssen]

Mark,

Is ther any doco and/or photos of Dan's gear legs.

Barry Kruyssen
k...@bigpond.com

AUF Registered 19-3873

- Original Message - 
From: "Mark Langford" <n5...@hiwaay.net>
To: "KR builders and pilots" <kr...@mylist.net>
Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 12:34 PM
Subject: Re: KR>Dihedral Question


> Bob Glidden wrote:
>
> > I have a set of the gear brackets you made up and they are great.I
forget
> > how much exactly,but they do weigh less then the Diehl brackets...And
they
> > look great on the taller spar...
>
> I really can't take credit for that one.  That was Dr. Dean's "product".
> We probably got the idea from Troy Petteway's plane, which he had already
> "crash tested".  Broke the aluminum leg, but left the 4130 mount in fine
> shape.  Dean did an amazing amount of research on the subject, including a
> stress analysis of the 3M Scotchply vs aluminum.  I believe he concluded
> that the 3M stuff had some superior damping qualities over aluminum, which
> may be why Dan chose it as the gear leg material for his gear setups.
>
> Mark Langford, Huntsville, AL
> N56ML "at"  hiwaay.net
> see KR2S project at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford
>
>
>
> ___
> see KRnet list details at http://www.krnet.org/instructions.html
>

KR>Dihedral Question

[Scott Cable]

Gavin & Colin,
Colin is correct about starting the Dihedral at BL0.0
as opposed to starting the dihedral somewhere
outboard.
I'm not a loads engineer, but I did a "sanity " check
with one here at work.
Here are some issues that you may encounter by
starting the dihedral at BL0.0:
1.)Kick Loads.  How do you handle the additional kick
loads? obviously you must make the spar larger in both
height and width.

2.)Landing gear attachment.  If you are or plan to use
the Diehl gear, you are faced with 2 choices:
a.) use a smaller prop
b.) Make the spar taller 

3.) Wing Fillets.  Wing fillets are always larger and
more complex for a BL0.0 dihedral as opposed to a
straight spar/wing

4.)Spar / Wing to fuselage attachment complexity.  The
dihedral really complicates this attachment scenario.

5.) Occupant packaging.  KR pilots and passengers are
seated between the spars, with the occupant knees
directly over the front spar.  Having the wing
dihedral start at BL0.0, causes occupant packaging
issues.  Do you think you will be comfortable as a
pilot with the outbd knee higher than the inbd knee?

So to answer Gavin's question, yes, there are plenty
of low wing aircraft with the dihedral starting at the
center.  There are far and above many more examples of
low wing aircraft where the dihedral starts outbd of
the center, reasons for which are stated above.

Good luck and happy building!


=
Scott Cable
KR-2S # 735
Linden, MI
s2cab...@yahoo.com

__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com

KR>Dihedral Question

[Justin]

2.)Landing gear attachment.  If you are or plan to use
> the Diehl gear, you are faced with 2 choices:
> a.) use a smaller prop
> b.) Make the spar taller

Thats not true. The orginal retracts had the least amount of ground
clearance and the Diehl gear gave you more clearance.

Justin


- Original Message -
From: "Scott Cable" <s2cab...@yahoo.com>
To: <kr...@mylist.net>
Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 9:04 AM
Subject: KR>Dihedral Question


> Gavin & Colin,
> Colin is correct about starting the Dihedral at BL0.0
> as opposed to starting the dihedral somewhere
> outboard.
> I'm not a loads engineer, but I did a "sanity " check
> with one here at work.
> Here are some issues that you may encounter by
> starting the dihedral at BL0.0:
> 1.)Kick Loads.  How do you handle the additional kick
> loads? obviously you must make the spar larger in both
> height and width.
>
> 2.)Landing gear attachment.  If you are or plan to use
> the Diehl gear, you are faced with 2 choices:
> a.) use a smaller prop
> b.) Make the spar taller
>
> 3.) Wing Fillets.  Wing fillets are always larger and
> more complex for a BL0.0 dihedral as opposed to a
> straight spar/wing
>
> 4.)Spar / Wing to fuselage attachment complexity.  The
> dihedral really complicates this attachment scenario.
>
> 5.) Occupant packaging.  KR pilots and passengers are
> seated between the spars, with the occupant knees
> directly over the front spar.  Having the wing
> dihedral start at BL0.0, causes occupant packaging
> issues.  Do you think you will be comfortable as a
> pilot with the outbd knee higher than the inbd knee?
>
> So to answer Gavin's question, yes, there are plenty
> of low wing aircraft with the dihedral starting at the
> center.  There are far and above many more examples of
> low wing aircraft where the dihedral starts outbd of
> the center, reasons for which are stated above.
>
> Good luck and happy building!
>
>
> =
> Scott Cable
> KR-2S # 735
> Linden, MI
> s2cab...@yahoo.com
>
> __
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
> http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
>
> ___
> see KRnet list details at http://www.krnet.org/instructions.html
>

KR>Dihedral Question

[Mark Langford]

Scott Cable wrote:

> So to answer Gavin's question, yes, there are plenty
> of low wing aircraft with the dihedral starting at the
> center.  There are far and above many more examples of
> low wing aircraft where the dihedral starts outbd of
> the center, reasons for which are stated above.

I don't have time to find the original question (this message is not a RE),
but a lot of people might think that you're saying not to bend the spars at
all, when I believe what you are saying is not to bend them from the
centerline of the aircraft going outwards, but instead start bending them
right after they exit the fuselage, which is the way I've advocated doing
it.  If you do it "my" way, all of these concerns are mininized into
insignificance.  And where I've recommended doing this, we'd be using the
AS5048 at the root, which is something like 20% stronger than stock spar if
the same spar cap dimensions are used...

Mark Langford, Huntsville, AL
N56ML at hiwaay.net
see KR2S project N56ML at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford

KR>Dihedral Question

[Scott Cable]

The original message was subject line: Spar and glue.
and was the response from Colin Rainey dated 14 Sep
2003.  The intent of my message was advocating the
dihedral outboard of the fuselage.
--- Mark Langford  wrote:
> Scott Cable wrote:
> 
> > So to answer Gavin's question, yes, there are
> plenty
> > of low wing aircraft with the dihedral starting at
> the
> > center.  There are far and above many more
> examples of
> > low wing aircraft where the dihedral starts outbd
> of
> > the center, reasons for which are stated above.
> 
> I don't have time to find the original question
> (this message is not a RE),
> but a lot of people might think that you're saying
> not to bend the spars at
> all, when I believe what you are saying is not to
> bend them from the
> centerline of the aircraft going outwards, but
> instead start bending them
> right after they exit the fuselage, which is the way
> I've advocated doing
> it.  If you do it "my" way, all of these concerns
> are mininized into
> insignificance.  And where I've recommended doing
> this, we'd be using the
> AS5048 at the root, which is something like 20%
> stronger than stock spar if
> the same spar cap dimensions are used...
> 
> Mark Langford, Huntsville, AL
> N56ML at hiwaay.net
> see KR2S project N56ML at
> http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> see KRnet list details at
http://www.krnet.org/instructions.html


=
Scott Cable
KR-2S # 735
Linden, MI
s2cab...@yahoo.com

__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com

KR>Dihedral Question

[William Clapp]

- Original Message - 
From: Scott Cable <s2cab...@yahoo.com>
To: KR builders and pilots <kr...@mylist.net>
Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 2:45 PM
Subject: Re: KR>Dihedral Question


> The original message was subject line: Spar and glue.
> and was the response from Colin Rainey dated 14 Sep
> 2003.  The intent of my message was advocating the
> dihedral outboard of the fuselage.
> --- Mark Langford <n5...@hiwaay.net> wrote:
> > Scott Cable wrote:
> > 
> > > So to answer Gavin's question, yes, there are
> > plenty
> > > of low wing aircraft with the dihedral starting at
> > the
> > > center.  There are far and above many more
> > examples of
> > > low wing aircraft where the dihedral starts outbd
> > of
> > > the center, reasons for which are stated above.
> > 
> > I don't have time to find the original question
> > (this message is not a RE),
> > but a lot of people might think that you're saying
> > not to bend the spars at
> > all, when I believe what you are saying is not to
> > bend them from the
> > centerline of the aircraft going outwards, but
> > instead start bending them
> > right after they exit the fuselage, which is the way
> > I've advocated doing
> > it.  If you do it "my" way, all of these concerns
> > are mininized into
> > insignificance.  And where I've recommended doing
> > this, we'd be using the
> > AS5048 at the root, which is something like 20%
> > stronger than stock spar if
> > the same spar cap dimensions are used...
> > 
> > Mark Langford, Huntsville, AL
> > N56ML at hiwaay.net
> > see KR2S project N56ML at
> > http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > ___
> > see KRnet list details at
> http://www.krnet.org/instructions.html
> 
> 
> =
> Scott Cable
> KR-2S # 735
> Linden, MI
> s2cab...@yahoo.com
> 
> __
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
> http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
> 
> ___
> see KRnet list details at http://www.krnet.org/instructions.html
> 
> 

KR>Dihedral Question

[larry flesner]

If you are considering starting the wing dihedral at the fuselage
instead of the wing attach fittings as called for in the plans and
are using the Diehl type gear,  the wing dihedral angle will carry
through to the camber of you main gear wheel.  You will have
to shim or modify the attach brackets to allow for this.

Your results may vary!! :-)

Larry Flesner 

KR>Dihedral Question

[Mark Langford]

Larry wrote:

> If you are considering starting the wing dihedral at the fuselage
> instead of the wing attach fittings as called for in the plans and
> are using the Diehl type gear,  the wing dihedral angle will carry
> through to the camber of you main gear wheel.  You will have
> to shim or modify the attach brackets to allow for this.

Really, if you build the "bent up spar" thing using the AS5048 (the thicker
of the bunch) airfoil at the root, it would be advisable to make your own
gear leg to spar brackets, because the spars are taller than the stock
spars.  See the drawing in the middle of
http://www.krnet.org/as504x/as5046inst.html for more details, but note that
TET no longer sells these brackets, so you'll have to whip up your own out
of .125" thick 4130 steel.  Making them to the same dimensions (but taller)
as the cast Diehl brackets should work fine, at least Troy made some that he
ripped the aluminum gear legs off of and the brackets weren't bothered by
it.  These are probably no heavier than the Diehl castings.  Don't ask me
for dimensions though.  Mine are kind of buried now.  So when you weld these
up, just change the angle a tad (seems like it's about 3 degrees) to
compensate, and you won't have a camber problem...

Mark Langford, Huntsville, AL
N56ML "at"  hiwaay.net
see KR2S project at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford

KR>Dihedral Question

[robert glidden]

Mark L.
I have a set of the gear brackets you made up and they are great.I forget
how much exactly,but they do weigh less then the Diehl brackets...And they
look great on the taller spar...

Bob Glidden
KR2S N181FW
- Original Message - 
From: "Mark Langford" <n5...@hiwaay.net>
To: "KR builders and pilots" <kr...@mylist.net>
Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 8:13 PM
Subject: Re: KR>Dihedral Question


> Larry wrote:
>
> > If you are considering starting the wing dihedral at the fuselage
> > instead of the wing attach fittings as called for in the plans and
> > are using the Diehl type gear,  the wing dihedral angle will carry
> > through to the camber of you main gear wheel.  You will have
> > to shim or modify the attach brackets to allow for this.
>
> Really, if you build the "bent up spar" thing using the AS5048 (the
thicker
> of the bunch) airfoil at the root, it would be advisable to make your own
> gear leg to spar brackets, because the spars are taller than the stock
> spars.  See the drawing in the middle of
> http://www.krnet.org/as504x/as5046inst.html for more details, but note
that
> TET no longer sells these brackets, so you'll have to whip up your own out
> of .125" thick 4130 steel.  Making them to the same dimensions (but
taller)
> as the cast Diehl brackets should work fine, at least Troy made some that
he
> ripped the aluminum gear legs off of and the brackets weren't bothered by
> it.  These are probably no heavier than the Diehl castings.  Don't ask me
> for dimensions though.  Mine are kind of buried now.  So when you weld
these
> up, just change the angle a tad (seems like it's about 3 degrees) to
> compensate, and you won't have a camber problem...
>
> Mark Langford, Huntsville, AL
> N56ML "at"  hiwaay.net
> see KR2S project at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford
>
>
>
> ___
> see KRnet list details at http://www.krnet.org/instructions.html
>

KR>Dihedral Question

[Mark Langford]

Bob Glidden wrote:

> I have a set of the gear brackets you made up and they are great.I forget
> how much exactly,but they do weigh less then the Diehl brackets...And they
> look great on the taller spar...

I really can't take credit for that one.  That was Dr. Dean's "product".
We probably got the idea from Troy Petteway's plane, which he had already
"crash tested".  Broke the aluminum leg, but left the 4130 mount in fine
shape.  Dean did an amazing amount of research on the subject, including a
stress analysis of the 3M Scotchply vs aluminum.  I believe he concluded
that the 3M stuff had some superior damping qualities over aluminum, which
may be why Dan chose it as the gear leg material for his gear setups.

Mark Langford, Huntsville, AL
N56ML "at"  hiwaay.net
see KR2S project at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford