The way Bill Marcy did the wing analysis it would increase the wing length 1 inch per side (total 2 inches). The failure modes he examined were failure of the wing attach fitting and failure from bending where the wing meets the fuselage.
Since you haven't changed the outer wings the load on the wing attach fittings would be unchanged (unless you used a gross weight different from the 1050 pounds used in the analysis [that assumes a 100HP O-200]). Because you have added to the length of the wing you have added to the bending moment at the fuselage (the lift loads are farther from the fuselage). I've just decided I don't trust the Marcy analysis. When he did it, he assumed the section of the wing inside the fuselage was producing lift just like the stub wings do. That means that the lift produced by the outer wings is undercalculated and therefore the bending moment numbers he calculated are too low. -- wesley scott k...@spottedowl.biz ----- Original Message ----- From: <raybeth...@sbcglobal.net> To: "KRnet" <kr...@mylist.net> Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2004 10:19 AM Subject: Re: KR> G limit > If I remember correctly, figures from Jeannette Rand, stated that each 6" > added to the wing length, > decreases the "G" load factor by 1/2 G. (please this my re-call and not > necessarily accurate). > This being true, and I increased my fuselage width by 4", and my center spar > by 6", does that add > 2" to the actual wingth length or 6" ? > > Ray Goree
