From: krnet-bounces@mylist.net To: John Bouyea Subject: KRnet Digest, Vol 346, Issue 15 Date: 7/6/2004 3:08:27 PM Send KRnet mailing list submissions to krnet@mylist.net To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://mylist.net/listinfo/krnet or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to krnet-request@mylist.net You can reach the person managing the list at krnet-owner@mylist.net When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of KRnet digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: @WL KR> Harleys and auto engines (gleone) 2. Re: Angle of attack (Colin & Bev Rainey) 3. CL eqns available ?? Stall speeds (Wesley Scott) 4. Angle of attack (long) (larry flesner) 5. gathering travel (Brian Kraut) 6. the "killer turn" (larry flesner) 7. gathering travel (larry flesner) 8. Re: the 'killer turn' (rparker) 9. Re: the 'killer turn' (rparker) 10. Re: CL eqns available ?? Stall speeds (Wesley Scott) 11. the 'killer turn' (larry flesner) 12. The 'killer turn' (Ron Freiberger) 13. RE: forming plexiglass (Ron Freiberger) 14. Killer turn (Colin & Bev Rainey) 15. Re: The 'killer turn' (larry flesner) 16. RE: The 'killer turn' (Ron Freiberger) 17. Re: list members dropped, or can't post! (John Esch) 18. Re: Goldwing engines (idrawtobuild@ncinternet.net) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2004 22:22:23 -0600 (Mountain Standard Time) From: "gleone" Subject: Re: @WL KR> Harleys and auto engines To: Message-ID: <40EA28FF.000001.02724@YOUR-FD6NVJCER4> Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" The BMW motorcycle engine is being used for light aircraft. Actually, BMW was making aircraft engines before they began building motorcycles. The BMW logo represents a spinning propeller. Anyway, here are a couple of links worth looking at: http://www.ultralightnews.com/engineinfo/bmwconversion.htm http://www.homebuiltaircraft.com/classified/AdDetail aspx?itemid=153&directory=+160 When you give a lesson in meanness to a critter or a person, don't be surprised if they learn their lesson. -------Original Message------- From: KRnet Date: 07/05/04 20:35:22 To: KRnet Subject: @WL KR> Harleys and auto engines Doug I was not saying the motorcycle engines were a bad choice, just that a noted author stated them too heavy for their output. The transmissions on them are to allow for mechanical advantage so that they can accelerate they way they do and perform, like any transmission. In all engine families there will be exceptions to the rule. And as a side note when your Harley dies on the side of the road, it will be me on my Yamaha cruiser riding by still going. On you statement about auto manufacturers going down in power and output, that is false. They have not only gone up in the last 10 years, but have done so while still burning cleaner. I aplaud Hog Motors and hope they are successful because I can't stand the apparent monopoly that the aircraft engine people have. I am running a VW engine, but have another engine in the skunk works to replace it that will stay in secret until the firewall forward package is proven and complete. Colin & Bev Rainey KR2(td) N96TA Sanford, FL crainey1@cfl.rr.com http://kr-builder.org/Colin/index.html _______________________________________ to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to KRnet-leave@mylist.net please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2004 01:09:57 -0400 From: "Colin & Bev Rainey" Subject: Re: KR> Angle of attack To: "KRnet" Message-ID: <001401c46317$7b0ddc00$34442141@RaineyDay> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Ken I know this sounds like I am talking out of both sides of my mouth, but no the critical angle of attack does not change, but the speed at which you will reach that angle does change if the wing loading is increased due to excess weight or maneuvers etc... If you think about a turn, you are using some of your vertical component of lift to turn, so you have to add back pressure to increase the angle of attack to replace the lost vertical lift that you are turning with. As the bank angle increases this replacement angle of attack gets to be quite excessive, and the load increases on the wing causing you to increase the lift even more by pulling back. This continues until you reach the critical angle of attack, but it will happen at a higher speed than in level flight attitude say in slow flight. The same thing occurs if you fly solo and note the stall speed and then load past your gross weight. You will see the speed at which you stall higher because you will reach the critical angle of attack sooner since it is requiring more lift to handle the higher weight to start with. The danger is approach speeds are higher, and landing speeds are higher, and if you do not take the increased weight into account when making your appoach, you could end up coming up short.... Colin & Bev Rainey KR2(td) N96TA Sanford, FL crainey1@cfl.rr.com http://kr-builder.org/Colin/index.html ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2004 02:59:48 -0500 From: "Wesley Scott" Subject: KR> CL eqns available ?? Stall speeds To: "krnet" Message-ID: <005101c4632f$370d7ca0$a62e0704@pbrain> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Did Ashok publish an equation or a set of tabular data for the wind tunnel results? I hate trying to read data off of graphs. (See http://www.krnet.org/as504x/repeat_1m.gif ) Looking at the graph it appears the best CL to operate at is approx 0.72. The point where Cd starts to increase with increasing CL. That gives an angle of attack of 5 degrees. The max CL that is achievable is approximately 1.2 somewhere around 14 degrees AoA (see table 2 on http://www.krnet.org/as504x/design.html) As the light bulb goes on, that CL is going to be the best CL/Cd ratio so it can be used to calculate the best glide speed. Lift = Weight = (1/2) rho V^2 CL S solving for V V = Sqrt(2W/ (CL rho S)) solving for CL CL = 2W / (S rho V^2) Assuming the stall speed is computed at Sea level rho = 0.0023769 lb s^2/ft^4 For the KR2, CL = 1.67 based on gross = 900 lbs, stall = 52 mph, wing area 78 ft^2 (from the manual, the RR site says 80 ft^2) For the KR2S CL = 1.73 based on gross = 980 lbs, stall = 52 mph, wing area 82 ft^2 Since they both use the same airfoil, it makes sense that CL should be 1.7 and we only have 2 significant digits anyway. This seems very high compared to the new airfoil. It looks like the new airfoil is going to have a stall speed about 10 miles per hour faster than the standard KR2 airfoil. Hopefully the data below is readable I copied and pasted from excel. All data were computed using a wing area of 78 sq ft. The first row is gross weight of the airplane * load factor. The first set of columns are predicted best glide for the new airfoil. The second set are predicted stall speed for the new airfoil. The last column is stall speed for a standard KR2 with the original airfoil. The airspeeds are true airspeeds not indicated speeds and are based on the standard atmosphere. altitude rho lb s^2/ft^4 900 1200 1800 2400 900 1200 1800 2400 900 0 0.0023769 79.2 91.4 112.0 129.3 61.3 70.8 86.7 100.1 51.5 1000 0.0023081 80.3 92.8 113.6 131.2 62.2 71.9 88.0 101.6 52.3 2000 0.0022409 81.5 94.2 115.3 133.2 63.2 72.9 89.3 103.1 53.1 4000 0.0021110 84.0 97.0 118.8 137.2 65.1 75.1 92.0 106.3 54.7 8000 0.0018685 89.3 103.1 126.3 145.8 69.2 79.9 97.8 113.0 58.1 ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Tue, 06 Jul 2004 08:04:43 -0500 From: larry flesner Subject: KR> Angle of attack (long) To: KRnet Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20040706080443.008da9a0@pop.midwest.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 11:16 PM 7/5/04 -0400, you wrote: >So, does the critical angle of attack change or not? > >Which is it, "This angle is known as the critical angle of attack, and this >does not change for a particular wing." or "That changes the critical >angle of attack for that wing loading, referred to as an accelerated >maneuvering stall. "? (Colin Rainey) > >Ken Jones +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ There is a key phrase that is being left out of this discussion that will help all to understand better. That phrase is "while maintaining altitude". Let's start a square one. A wing will only produce lift at an angle 90 degrees to it's span or straight up when the wing is level. It will also produce a given amount of lift depending on the speed through air and it's angle of attack (cord line to oncoming air). The air traveling across the top of the wing will always separate at a given angle or as we say, stall. If we bank the aircraft we take some amount of our vertical lift and vector it in a horizontal plane. This causes the aircraft to turn. At some point we vector enough vertical lift to the horizontal that the aircraft starts to lose altitude. As a pilot we increase the pitch angle (angle of attack) to create more lift to hold altitude. The additional lift creates more drag and the airspeed drops. We add more power to overcome the increased drag. As the bank angle increases the forces of the turn keep adding additional down forces that the wing lift must offset. To keep adding lift we can only add speed or increase the angle of attack. They each have their limit. The "angle of attack" is limited by when the air will separate on the top surface. The "speed" is limited by the wing structure and when the air loads would cause it to fail. I can put my wing at a bank angle of 90 degrees and low airspeed and not stall the wing if I keep the A of A below the speed where the air separates on the top surface. I can't maintain altitude with that bank angle but the wing won't stall. I'm sure you've all seen an airplane do "knife edge" flight. The wing is not stalled because it's being kept at or near a "zero" lift angle and the aircraft is kept in the air by lift generated by the fuselage and engine thrust and stored energy of speed. The reason you see a higher indicated airspeed at stall in a high banked turn is because you started at an airspeed higher than the stall speed for that bank angle " while trying to maintain altitude". The A of A at which it stalls is still the same. You reached that angle at a higher airspeed because you were trying to "maintain altitude". If I roll in to that same bank angle at five miles per hour indicated above level stall speed "and try to maintain altitude" I would get a stall immediatly but at a much lower indicated airspeed. The wing still stalled at the same A of A. Thus the advantage of the A of A indicator. I can fly every approach at the same A of A. My airspeed may be higher or lower depending on the aircraft weight on that flight and I can adjust rate of decent with power. The key is I won't be flying my approach at a fixed airspeed so when I'm really heavy I increase the A of A to generate enough lift at that airspeed and put the wing at near the stall A of A. In that situation if I increase my bank angle "and try to maintain altitude" by increasing the A of A of the wing it stalls, the ground rushes up to grab your a** and someone is left to pick up the rubble. Bottom line: The wing always stalls at the same A of A. One of my favorite maneuvers in the KR is what I call a wingover. I do a low G pullup into a rather steep climb. As the airspeed slows to about 80 mph indicated I roll into a near 90 degree bank. I release all back pressure on the stick so I don't feel any weight on the seat and let the nose fall through. I do a low G pullup from the dive and I've done a 180 degree turn. Some call this a "cotton patch" or "duster" turn. That's basicly how they do those fast turn-arounds without stalling when they are low and slow. They use stored energy of speed to keep them in the air and unload the wing in the turn. Once back to straight and level they increase the A of A to generate the lift they need to check their decent rate and return to level flight. If they don't have sufficent speed in the dive that A of A will be greater then the stall angle and the ground will reach up and grab their a** too. THE END Larry Flesner ------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2004 09:14:23 -0400 From: "Brian Kraut" Subject: KR> gathering travel To: Message-ID: <200407060914.AA122421558@mail.engalt.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Southwest has good rates for a different featured city each week. This weeks special is St Louis. I can book a flight to there and back from Jacksonville, FL for $160.00 including all taxes. Check them out this week if you will be flying an airline to the gathering. www.southwest.com ------------------------------ Message: 6 Date: Tue, 06 Jul 2004 09:28:28 -0500 From: larry flesner Subject: KR> the "killer turn" To: KRnet Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20040706092828.008e3d00@pop.midwest.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" After my novel on the "A of A / stall" post I visited my "reading room" and realized I should have touched on one more thing, the "killer turn" and how it relates to A of A / stall. That's generally the turn from base to final where we find ourselves overshooting the runway centerline. I've done it many times when not allowing for wind or not starting the turn soon enough. Our reaction is generally to increase the bank angle to vector more lift forces in the direction of the turn to increase the turn rate. This requires more lift to maintain our current rate of decent so we increase the back pressure (more pitch for more A of A). We usually are adding more "inside the turn rudder" also which causes us to be "cross-controlling" which really bites us if we stall. Anyway, the further off centerline we drift the more we bank to correct and we keep adding back pressure (increasing the A of A) to maintain our rate of decent and increase the rate of turn. At some point we will exceed the ability of the wing to generate enough lift at that indicated airspeed to do what we want because we have reached the stall A of A. Our over use of "inside the turn" rudder will generally cause the "inside the turn" wing ( the low wing) to stall first and it tucks under, rolling us inverted and turning us into a dust ball. When you find yourself in that situation you have two options. With either option you must keep the A of A below the stall angle. #1 (and generally not the best one) is to increase your speed so you can generate more lift at a lower A of A. You can do this with power, usually a slow response, or lower the nose to pick up speed. When you lower the nose (less A of A) there is less lift being generated and thus less drag so the aircraft accellerates. At a higher airspeed we can return to a higher bank angle and increase our A of A to save the turn if we had enough altitude for the maneuver and don't go beyond the stall A of A. When low to the ground this thought seldom crosses our mind. That's why you've been pulling back on the stick (yoke) to begin with. # 2 (the best if terrain is not a concern) is to forget trying to save the turn and the approach. Roll to wings level so that all lift generated can be used to check the rate of decent. With all lift generate at 90 degrees to the ground we don't need such a high A of A to generate enough lift to check our decent at the slower airspeed. Fly out of the situation and do a better job on the approach next time. Keep the A of A below the stall angle and you won't find youself eating dirt. Terrain and/or brain lock are the killers. We either go brain dead and keeping pulling back on the yoke until we reach the stall A of A /OR/ we have flown into a situation where terrain keeps us from rolling level and vectoring all lift to check our rate of decent. That could be lack of altitude or landing below surrounding terrain. The key is to not get yourself into that situation to begin with and ,if you do, take corrective action before you run out of options. Keep the A of A below the stall angle and if you don't hit the ground you can try it again. Question: Can you stall an airplane, while inverted, by pulling back on the stick. Answer: Yes, with enough pitch forces to place the wing at a higher A of A then the stall angle will cause the wing to stall, even if inverted. This can happen easily, such as the top of a loop, if some of the initial back pressure on the stick is not released. This of course differs from airplane to airplane and is dependent on speed of entry, G forces applied, etc., etc., etc................ Point is it still stalls at the same A of A. Larry Flesner ------------------------------ Message: 7 Date: Tue, 06 Jul 2004 09:30:40 -0500 From: larry flesner Subject: KR> gathering travel To: KRnet Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20040706093040.008e8320@pop.midwest.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >Southwest has good rates for a different featured city each week. This weeks special is St Louis. I can book a flight to there and back from Jacksonville, FL for $160.00 including all taxes. >Check them out this week if you will be flying an airline to the gathering. www.southwest.com +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Brian, Thanks for the "heads up". Now I need to get off the computer and do something, even if it's go fly the KR! :-) Larry Flesner ------------------------------ Message: 8 Date: Tue, 06 Jul 2004 09:49:21 -0500 From: "rparker" Subject: Re: KR> the 'killer turn' To: KRnet , "KRnet" , Message-ID: <20040706144921.20475.qmail@server278.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" You forgot option 3: if you are turning base to final, you probably dont have enough altitude to recover so bend over and kiss your a@% goodbye. Although its no longer mandatory training, I'd recommend stall spin training. If you've never done spins, the first one you ever do will give you a much better appreciation for stalls than just recovering from a little wing buffetting. the first time I spun, I was practicing take off stalls and started from too fast of a simulated takeoff speed and put my 172XP on its back, then went into a spin. Although I verbally went through my spin recovery - opposite rudder, retrard throttle, forward stick, I was hauling back on the stick as hard as I could while repeating "forward stick" as the ground was spinning faster and faster in my windscreen. Fortunately my buddy (a CFI) told me to let go of the stick. Rich Parker Peterborough,NH -------Original Message------- > From: larry flesner > Subject: KR> the 'killer turn' > Sent: Jul 06 2004 09:28:28 > > After my novel on the "A of A / stall" post I visited my "reading room" > and realized I should have touched on one more thing, the "killer > turn" and how it relates to A of A / stall. > > That's generally the turn from base to final where we find ourselves > overshooting the runway centerline.  I've done it many times when > not allowing for wind or not starting the turn soon enough. > > Our reaction is generally to increase the bank angle to vector more > lift forces in the direction of the turn to increase the turn rate.  This > requires more lift to maintain our current rate of decent so we > increase the back pressure (more pitch for more A of A).  We usually > are adding more "inside the turn rudder" also  which causes us to > be "cross-controlling" which really bites us if we stall.  Anyway, > the further off centerline we drift the more we bank to correct and > we keep adding back pressure (increasing the A of A) to maintain > our rate of decent and increase the rate of turn.  At some point > we will exceed the ability of the wing to generate enough lift at > that indicated airspeed to do what we want because we have reached > the stall A of A.  Our over use of "inside the turn" rudder will generally > cause the "inside the turn" wing ( the low wing) to stall first and > it tucks under, rolling us inverted and turning us into a dust ball. > > When you find yourself in that situation you have two options.  With > either option you must keep the A of A below the stall angle. > > #1 (and generally not the best one) is to increase your speed > so you can generate more lift at a lower A of A.  You can do > this with power, usually a slow response, or lower the nose > to pick up speed.  When you lower the nose (less A of A) there > is less lift being generated and thus less drag so the aircraft > accellerates.  At a higher airspeed we can return to a higher > bank angle and increase our A of A to save the turn if we had > enough altitude for the maneuver and don't go beyond the stall > A of A.  When low to the ground this thought seldom > crosses our mind.  That's why you've been pulling back on the > stick (yoke) to begin with.   > > # 2 (the best if terrain is not a concern) is to forget trying to > save the turn and the approach.  Roll to wings level so that > all lift generated can be used to check the rate of decent. > With all lift generate at 90 degrees to the ground we don't > need such a high A of A to generate enough lift to check > our decent at the slower airspeed.  Fly out of the situation > and do a better job on the approach next time.  Keep the > A of A below the stall angle and you won't find youself > eating dirt. > > Terrain and/or brain lock are the killers.  We either go brain > dead and keeping pulling back on the yoke until we reach > the stall A of A  /OR/  we have flown into a situation where > terrain keeps us from rolling level and vectoring all lift > to check our rate of decent.  That could be lack of altitude or > landing below surrounding terrain.  The key is to not get yourself > into that situation to begin with and ,if you do, take corrective > action before you run out of options.  Keep the A of A below the > stall angle and if you don't hit the ground you can try it again. > > Question:  Can you stall an airplane, while inverted, by pulling back > on the stick.   > Answer:  Yes, with enough pitch forces to place the wing at a higher > A of A then the stall angle will cause the wing to stall, even if > inverted.  This can happen easily, such as the top of a loop, if > some of the initial back pressure on the stick is not released. > This of course differs from airplane to airplane and is dependent > on speed of entry, G forces applied, etc., etc., etc................ > Point is it still stalls at the same A of A. > > > Larry Flesner > > > > > _______________________________________ > to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to KRnet-leave@mylist.net > please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html -------Original Message------- ------------------------------ Message: 9 Date: Tue, 06 Jul 2004 09:49:21 -0500 From: "rparker" Subject: Re: KR> the 'killer turn' To: KRnet , "KRnet" , Message-ID: <20040706144921.20475.qmail@server278.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" You forgot option 3: if you are turning base to final, you probably dont have enough altitude to recover so bend over and kiss your a@% goodbye. Although its no longer mandatory training, I'd recommend stall spin training. If you've never done spins, the first one you ever do will give you a much better appreciation for stalls than just recovering from a little wing buffetting. the first time I spun, I was practicing take off stalls and started from too fast of a simulated takeoff speed and put my 172XP on its back, then went into a spin. Although I verbally went through my spin recovery - opposite rudder, retrard throttle, forward stick, I was hauling back on the stick as hard as I could while repeating "forward stick" as the ground was spinning faster and faster in my windscreen. Fortunately my buddy (a CFI) told me to let go of the stick. Rich Parker Peterborough,NH -------Original Message------- > From: larry flesner > Subject: KR> the 'killer turn' > Sent: Jul 06 2004 09:28:28 > > After my novel on the "A of A / stall" post I visited my "reading room" > and realized I should have touched on one more thing, the "killer > turn" and how it relates to A of A / stall. > > That's generally the turn from base to final where we find ourselves > overshooting the runway centerline.  I've done it many times when > not allowing for wind or not starting the turn soon enough. > > Our reaction is generally to increase the bank angle to vector more > lift forces in the direction of the turn to increase the turn rate.  This > requires more lift to maintain our current rate of decent so we > increase the back pressure (more pitch for more A of A).  We usually > are adding more "inside the turn rudder" also  which causes us to > be "cross-controlling" which really bites us if we stall.  Anyway, > the further off centerline we drift the more we bank to correct and > we keep adding back pressure (increasing the A of A) to maintain > our rate of decent and increase the rate of turn.  At some point > we will exceed the ability of the wing to generate enough lift at > that indicated airspeed to do what we want because we have reached > the stall A of A.  Our over use of "inside the turn" rudder will generally > cause the "inside the turn" wing ( the low wing) to stall first and > it tucks under, rolling us inverted and turning us into a dust ball. > > When you find yourself in that situation you have two options.  With > either option you must keep the A of A below the stall angle. > > #1 (and generally not the best one) is to increase your speed > so you can generate more lift at a lower A of A.  You can do > this with power, usually a slow response, or lower the nose > to pick up speed.  When you lower the nose (less A of A) there > is less lift being generated and thus less drag so the aircraft > accellerates.  At a higher airspeed we can return to a higher > bank angle and increase our A of A to save the turn if we had > enough altitude for the maneuver and don't go beyond the stall > A of A.  When low to the ground this thought seldom > crosses our mind.  That's why you've been pulling back on the > stick (yoke) to begin with.   > > # 2 (the best if terrain is not a concern) is to forget trying to > save the turn and the approach.  Roll to wings level so that > all lift generated can be used to check the rate of decent. > With all lift generate at 90 degrees to the ground we don't > need such a high A of A to generate enough lift to check > our decent at the slower airspeed.  Fly out of the situation > and do a better job on the approach next time.  Keep the > A of A below the stall angle and you won't find youself > eating dirt. > > Terrain and/or brain lock are the killers.  We either go brain > dead and keeping pulling back on the yoke until we reach > the stall A of A  /OR/  we have flown into a situation where > terrain keeps us from rolling level and vectoring all lift > to check our rate of decent.  That could be lack of altitude or > landing below surrounding terrain.  The key is to not get yourself > into that situation to begin with and ,if you do, take corrective > action before you run out of options.  Keep the A of A below the > stall angle and if you don't hit the ground you can try it again. > > Question:  Can you stall an airplane, while inverted, by pulling back > on the stick.   > Answer:  Yes, with enough pitch forces to place the wing at a higher > A of A then the stall angle will cause the wing to stall, even if > inverted.  This can happen easily, such as the top of a loop, if > some of the initial back pressure on the stick is not released. > This of course differs from airplane to airplane and is dependent > on speed of entry, G forces applied, etc., etc., etc................ > Point is it still stalls at the same A of A. > > > Larry Flesner > > > > > _______________________________________ > to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to KRnet-leave@mylist.net > please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html -------Original Message------- ------------------------------ Message: 10 Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2004 10:01:07 -0500 From: "Wesley Scott" Subject: Re: KR> CL eqns available ?? Stall speeds To: "krnet" Message-ID: <001c01c4636a$1319fd10$a62e0704@pbrain> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" It wasn't readable so this time I pasted into notepad to convert it to plain text and then still had to add formatting. It should be in straight ascii now. The numbers are based on the CL values of the AS5045 airfoil taken from the graph http://www.krnet.org/as504x/repeat_1m.gif The predicted best glide is CL = 0.72 at AoA of 5 degrees. The predicted stall is CL=1.2 at AoA of 14 degrees. Predicted best glide Predicted stall std KR2 predicted stall altitude rho lb s^2/ft^4 900 | 1200 | 1800 | 2400 | 900 | 1200 | 1800 | 2400 | 900 0 | 0.0023769 | 79.2 | 91.4 | 112.0 | 129.3 | 61.3 | 70.8 | 86.7 | 100.1 | 51.5 1000 | 0.0023081 | 80.3 | 92.8 | 113.6 | 131.2 | 62.2 | 71.9 | 88.0 | 101.6 | 52.3 2000 | 0.0022409 | 81.5 | 94.2 | 115.3 | 133.2 | 63.2 | 72.9 | 89.3 | 103.1 | 53.1 4000 | 0.0021110 | 84.0 | 97.0 | 118.8 | 137.2 | 65.1 | 75.1 | 92.0 | 106.3 | 54.7 8000 | 0.0018685 | 89.3 |103.1 | 126.3 | 145.8 | 69.2 | 79.9 | 97.8 | 113.0 | 58.1 > > Hopefully the data below is readable I copied and pasted from excel. > All ------------------------------ Message: 11 Date: Tue, 06 Jul 2004 10:50:31 -0500 From: larry flesner Subject: KR> the 'killer turn' To: KRnet Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20040706105031.007c3990@pop.midwest.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 09:49 AM 7/6/04 -0500, you wrote: > >You forgot option 3: if you are turning base to final, you probably >dont have enough altitude to recover so bend over and kiss your a@% goodbye. > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Richard, You are right. If you exceed the A of A at which the wing stalls, and you are close to the ground while landing, you probably don't have enough altitude to recover but I think you missed my point. My point, and the two options, are to keep you from reaching the stall A of A - flying out of the situation with the aircraft under control, and living to tell about it. Generally, the aircraft we fly don't have a lot of excess power. They usually can not accelerate the aircraft to the speed needed to complete the turn we want and/or the airframe can not handle the lift generated at the higher speed we need. Again, this assumes we keep the wing below the stall A of A so we can maintain contol. Rolling wings level is the quickest option we have to generate the lift we need to check our rate of decent while keeping the wing below the stall A of A and keeping us from making dust clouds. That's why I consider it the best option when terrain permits. If terrain doesn't permit, you can only hope you have enough altitude so you can lower the nose and go to full power to get the necessary airspeed to complete the turn without reaching the stall A of A and/or the airframe failing ( wings coming off ! ) Accidents are usually the result of someone running out of options or not using all the options they had available. Thus the common phrases after an accident: " Man, there was nothing more I could do" or " Man, if I had just .............". It's usually the second one that we hear the most. Larry Flesner ------------------------------ Message: 12 Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2004 11:26:26 -0500 From: "Ron Freiberger" Subject: KR> The 'killer turn' To: "KRnet" Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" The real answer to the killer turn is spin training. (and practice). After you are proficient in spinning the aircraft, and can sit and watch it spin, observing the altitude when you initiate recovery to wings level flight, you'll be a much better pilot, and you will never allow a spin entry close to the ground. All "killer turns" ought to be recovered 1500 feet AGL. Spinning is not an unpleasant maneuver, and not dangerous when done correctly. Take spin training, starting with someone's old Champ or Cub for a docile action, and then work your way up. Pushing the stick forward needs to be a reflexive response. Ron Freiberger mailto: rfreiberger@swfla.rr.com ------------------------------ Message: 13 Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2004 11:32:43 -0500 From: "Ron Freiberger" Subject: RE: KR> forming plexiglass To: "KRnet" Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Larry said, I got a product from Home Depot called Crystalite (??) that ran about $1.75 for 11x14". It started drooping at 250 degrees in about 5 minutes. _______________________________________ That wasn't plexiglass ( methyl metacrylate), it was a styrene product, with poor scratch resistance and sunlight resistance. However, it may be adequate for the landing light cover, and easier to work with. Ron Freiberger mailto: rfreiberger at swfla.rr.com ------------------------------ Message: 14 Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2004 13:23:26 -0400 From: "Colin & Bev Rainey" Subject: KR> Killer turn To: "KRnet" Message-ID: <006401c4637d$f321ffd0$34442141@RaineyDay> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Larry and netters, One discrepancy: If a true descent is being achieved the cross controlled stall will not occur at all as you have explained in your post. The stall situation occurs as a buildup of mistaken choices that an inexperienced pilot makes while close to the ground. The base to final turn is late, so we increase bank angle to try and rollout lined up, and we add significant rudder to stay coordinated. This is not a problem yet. But the aircraft tries to increase the angle of bank more due to the over banking tendency of a steep turn, so we correct this just like in our flight training by OPPOSITE aileron, and now we are cross controlled. This still would not be a bad problem except that our descent rate has nearly doubled due to the lost lift in the vertical being applied to the high angle of bank. When we apply back pressure to attempt to arrest the excessive rate of descent, we have laid all the ground work for a stall spin close to the ground that is usually un-recoverable. All can be avoided if we just allow the aircraft to over shoot with normal maneuvers , and either go around, or make adjustments upon rollout if the runway is long enough. Cross controlled by itself is not going to cause a stall/spin. Look at when we choose to slip the airplane. A proper slip is cross controlled on purpose, but the nose is kept down, and the descent is allowed to continue, so no stall. The base to final is typically deadly due to the fact that most aircraft/pilots need 200-300 feet of loss of altitude to recover from a stall initiated as a "surprise", and there just is not enough altitude on final to keep from hitting something. The faster aircraft need more than this. Otherwise I agree with all you have presented and appreciate you taking the time to explain it... Colin & Bev Rainey KR2(td) N96TA Sanford, FL crainey1@cfl.rr.com http://kr-builder.org/Colin/index.html ------------------------------ Message: 15 Date: Tue, 06 Jul 2004 12:23:36 -0500 From: larry flesner Subject: Re: KR> The 'killer turn' To: KRnet Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20040706122336.008e4dc0@pop.midwest.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 11:26 AM 7/6/04 -0500, you wrote: >The real answer to the killer turn is spin training. (and practice). >After you are proficient in spinning the aircraft, and can sit and >watch it spin, observing the altitude when you initiate recovery to >wings level flight, you'll be a much better pilot, and you will never >allow a spin entry close to the ground. Ron Freiberger ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Ron, You're right. AVOIDANCE is the ONLY option at very low altitudes as RECOVERY is NEVER an option when the altitude is not available. Training will help a pilot to recognize an impending stall and, hopefully, use options #1 and/or #2 that I stated eariler to fly safely out of the situation. But even with training, it is too easy to fly right past everything the airplane is telling us and stall the wing anyway. Maybe an A of A indicator that has a warning device that is a big fist that comes out of the panel and smacks us between the eyes to get our attention is the answer. :-) Larry Flesner ------------------------------ Message: 16 Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2004 16:08:40 -0500 From: "Ron Freiberger" Subject: RE: KR> The 'killer turn' To: "KRnet" Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Maybe an A of A indicator that has a warning device that is a big fist that comes out of the panel and smacks us between the eyes to get our attention is the answer. :-) Larry Flesner ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~` Perfect answer Larry; where can I get one? Ron Freiberger mailto: rfreiberger at swfla.rr.com ------------------------------ Message: 17 Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2004 14:27:07 -0700 (GMT-07:00) From: John Esch Subject: Re: KR> list members dropped, or can't post! To: KRnet Message-ID: <13636364.1089149227546.JavaMail.root@gonzo.psp.pas.earthlink.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mark I just checked my email today. Been 5 days since I last checked and now I have over 200 emails. Do I need to unsubscribe then re-subscribe to get the digest version? I have tried to check and change my settings but I get and email stating privacy issues. John Esch Independence, OR -----Original Message----- From: Mark Langford Sent: Jul 2, 2004 2:20 PM To: KRnet Subject: KR> list members dropped, or can't post! Several folks have emailed me that they couldn't post to the list. I went to check on it and discovered that there were ZERO members of KRnet. I notified the ISP and they recovered a backup file from three months ago and now we're working again. Only problem is that all of the settings were from three months ago as well, and any changes in settings and passwords has now reverted to what it looked like three months ago, so you need to go back and make the same changes that you've made in the last three months, if any. And now there will be a bunch of new subscribers that will be really irrate with me... Mark Langford, Huntsville, AL N56ML at hiwaay.net see KR2S project N56ML at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford _______________________________________ to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to KRnet-leave@mylist.net please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html ------------------------------ Message: 18 Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2004 15:08:08 -0700 From: Subject: Re: KR> Goldwing engines To: "KRnet" Message-ID: <002701c463a5$b9025cf0$0f00a8c0@greg> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" I have a Goldwing 1200 and the planes for the conversion. Part of the reason I selected the 1200 was that the transmission has an impulse dampener. You just take out gears 1 & 2, 3,4 & 5 leaving 3rd. gear and your set. You just have to set the engine 4" off center to get the drive line to center positions. It sure sounds and looks like a good idea to me. Who has a project for sale that just needs an engine and instruments set in and on it for $1,500 or less. Greg Martin ----- Original Message ----- From: "Colin & Bev Rainey" To: "KRnet" Sent: Monday, July 05, 2004 3:46 AM Subject: KR> Goldwing engines > Netters, > > According to Richard Finch who authored the book about auto engines > for aircraft, the Honda Goldwing engines ended up too heavy for their output in most applications attempting to use them. A PSRU will help, but most motorcycle engines operate like a turbo prop, relying on alittle torque applied alot of times to get the job done. > > Colin & Bev Rainey > KR2(td) N96TA > Sanford, FL > crainey1@cfl.rr.com > http://kr-builder.org/Colin/index.html > _______________________________________ > to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to KRnet-leave@mylist.net > please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ See KRnet list details at http://www.krnet.org/instructions.html End of KRnet Digest, Vol 346, Issue 15 ************************************** ================================== ABC Amber Outlook Converter v4.20 Trial version ==================================