Steve Loebs wrote:
>>And that brings me to my question for Mark or anyone else that has the answer. I found your page, Mark, http://www.krnet.org/as504x/design.html and there is some great info there. Do you or anyone else have the raw data from the wind tunnel tests? Is that something that can be shared? <<
Steve, the only data I can share is on the website that you mentioned above. We took up a KRnet collection to pay for the wind tunnel time, and couldn't afford the luxury or the time frame required to use the high speed wind tunnel. It was decided that was all we could reasonably afford, and that the data gained from the low speed tunnel was sufficient for our purposes....it had to be. I don't have the full blown details of the wind tunnel data, and never have, so I can't help you there. As mentioned on the website, the expert opinions were that the tunnel simulation software was "close enough for KR work". It's worth mentioning that there are a LOT of KRs now flying with the new airfoils, and all indications that there is no issue at all with them.
Despite all the effort I put into making my N56ML as fast and aerodynamically efficient as possible, I quickly learned to throttle back and save fuel when flying long distances. I still do that today, casually doing around at 140 mph or so, rather than wide open throttle, unless I got a late start and have to run faster. It turns out I enjoy the extra time flying, like the low fuel cost, and spew less lead into the atmosphere. I have to use a bit of 100LL mixed in with ethanol free fuel due to the construction material of N891JF's fuel tank and relatively high compression ratio of the engine.
Thanks for the kind words on the KRnet email list and website. m...@n56ml.com http://www.n56ml.com Huntsville, AL -- KRnet mailing list KRnet@list.krnet.org https://list.krnet.org/mailman/listinfo/krnet
