24 kg times 6g is 144 kg....times8g is 193kg ...these are static loads when we hit tubulance we can get shock loads

i belive balistic reserve is too heavy for this aircraft,i recomend a hand thrown reserve.

one newton is the force of one kg droped from one metre.

the forces that an aircraft goes through does not necisarily equll how much weight in sand bags a spar can carry.

mass times velosity squered is the equasion for force.

the velosity of the mass has the bigest influence of the resulting force.

the arkopterex has failed doing airobatics,there are real stories of sailplanes being broken up in rotor tubulance.

look to another aircraft for power flyte i think is good advice...the monerai perhaps.
russell wilson.


On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 10:21 AM, KarlS <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.> wrote:


This rolled in today.

www.ruppert-composite.ch/en/aktuell/237-...n-archaeopteryx.html

Karl



--- In This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., russell wilson wrote:
>
> hi i forgot yesterday to mention in relation to electric power.....royobi
> and other manufacturers are making mowers and chain saws 36 v now and are
> using lithium ion batteries and chargers to suit...i dont think they have
> power controllers though.(the gnome engine on the focka try plane...red
> barron....had no speed controller/throttle....it was contrilled when taxing
> by an on off switch:)
> i dont know much about this side of things.
> props are generally 80% eficient.
> weight devided by glide ratio is a rough calculation for thrust required
> for level flight.
> a large slow diameter prop seems better for low power.
> folding prop joints get hammered by single cylender motors.
> thats about all i got on this subject.
> russ.