kepEZ

Try John dot Griffiths at ca dot rr dot com

sorry this didnt work either

just visited their website: did they really buy the company just to convert the berkut in a UAV???

i think the company did not change hands, just same people developing UAV platforms, this is not substantiated though.

e-mail address for john griffiths is not operative and i tried emailing new berkut company beanddi.com, and i am told there are no plans no parts no nothing related to berkut. it sounds like they want to totally blanket berkut past and they are a little angry at berkut loving mob.

Rutan will be addressing a group of engineering students on wednesday which i will be attending too, should someone have a question lingering in his mind, i am willing to ask.

Well I asked them over and over again, whether the material is suitable for use with epoxy and they assured me it is. I didnt tell them I intend to use it in aviation since they would back right off citing liability. They also told me they export it to a finnish wind turbine manufacturer on a regular basis, they manufacture special "tension controlled" fabrics for them. The only problem is their lightest fabric is %30 heavier than what the plans call for.

Most of the time plans call that bid fabrics be cut in 45 degree fashion for lay-up as I see it. Since my supplier can supply +45 / - 45 degree multiaxial fabrics for a very small premium over 0/90 degree fiber orientation, does it make more sense to buy this instead?

does anyone use stitched non-crimp fabrics instead of woven fabrics the plans call for? I am told they display better mechanical properties since they are crimp free but not easy to work with under wet lay-up conditions. I am also told when used with vacuum bagging it is possible to attain high fiber/resin ratios which results in lighter stronger structures. They are available in various fiber orientations as well. any comments?

there are several designs by republic aerospace of this sort but it looks they didn't even made it to prototype stage

i am sure it doesn't serve any purpose other than vastly improved aesthetics but is there any issue with swept back canards, structural or aerodynamic vise?

I dont think I will access to spruce approved for aircraft structurel use, and -not being a wood expert- I wont be able to tell if a strecth of spruce has flaws that prohibits it as a structurel member. what is the longeron made of in berkut anyway?

I know it is not without its reasons but what is the rationale behind a spruce longeron?Is it for fighting stress concentrations? In a fully molded composite fuselage as is the case with berkut, I assume there must be alternative solutions to this.