Re: more rudder?


David J. Gall
 

Al,

You apparently don't even know what mass balancing is. There is no increase
in control surface size resulting from mass balancing. A larger rudder is a
completely different issue. And we're not talking about static balancing,
we're talking about dynamic balancing.

I'm not sure what your reason is for including the list of "downside" items
to be checked. If you and your secret inner circle of friends think it is
worth chuckling over, then you obviously missed something in your extensive
engineering education. One ALWAYS makes a list of benefits and detriments
associated with any proposed design or design change. You asked for and
received the "detriments" side of that list, and it looks like a fairly
thorough list, too. Whoever prepared it should be commended. That does not
mean that the author of that list "thinks" they can have it both ways,
merely that these are items to be considered or checked when deciding on a
course of action. Its the engineer's equivalent of the lists of items an
airline captain is supposed to consider when faced with an engine fire or
bad weather....

Since this list of "downside" items was an answer to a specific request of
yours yet you choose to deride it with chuckling, I'd have to compare it to
the non-answers you've given to Ryan the last few days and say that you have
definitely received better than you have given on this list.

Next, Al, you're either ignorant or a hypocrite: You recommend using a
bigger rudder, and you recommend that it be balanced. You obviously don't
know WHY it should be balanced. Neither do you give any guidance on where
the size cutoff might be between the doesn't-need-balancing stock size and
the should-be-balanced bigger one. Would you please just stay out of issues
that you don't know anything about?

Like I said before: you've expressed your opinion, and WE GET IT. Now, with
apologies for my bluntness, butt out. You're starting to drag more and more
irrelevant stuff into the hole with you, and you just keep digging it deeper
and deeper. You're in danger of burying yourself, Al, and, to use your
famous phrase, you're "trashing up the server."


David J. Gall

-----Original Message-----
From: Allen F. Kittleson [mailto:alfranken@...]
Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2003 2:26 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: [Q-LIST] more rudder?


Leon,

Your point is well taken, and if I were in the building
stage, I would consider a balanced rudder...not for the reasons we've
so far discussed, but rather for improving low speed
handling (on the ground or near TO speed). The balancing,
itself, would be of no particular help, but part of an overall
improvement in a larger rudder, like James P.s

I still stand by my opinion that a well constructed Q2,
with proper rigging and tailwheel set-up, will probably never
have a rudder flutter problem. (If flown with respect to Vne) Of
the two experiences shown this past week, if nothing worse
occured in my flight testing, than a rudder "buzz" close to Vne,
and if the fix was as simple as what guys have done, jumping to
the balancing issue is pretty silly. If the rudder was static
balanced, nothing would ensure that it would perform flawlesslly
if the cable tensions and tailwheel setup went afoul, so you may
be back to square one, without any improvements in high speed
characteristics.

Funny you should quote a point from one of our members, who
has been empatically against modifications. A couple of years
ago when I suggested the larger rudder (which I would suggest one
balance), I received the following famous response that many of
us have chuckled at for a LONG time:

After I suggested it, I asked, What's the downside? I
received the answer:

"let's count the ways,

Increased torsional load on fuselage, ( known weak spot)

Increased torsional load on fin

Increased bending on fin

increased loads on rudder

Increased loads on hinges ( not designed for)

Increased control forces

C of G change rearward

Flutter implications

Stability implications

Increase in yaw envelope required

Reestablishment of maximum manoeuvre speed required"

Looks like they want it both ways, kind of like agreeing
with the FAA and not agreeing with the FAA....still scratching my
head on that one.
Don't forget the FAA doesn't endorse spin training for
anyone other than CFI's.....25 years ago wouldn't let anyone SOLO
without spin training. So much for good ideas from the FAA.

If you're saying that a redesign of the rudder would be a
good idea, I couldn't agree with you more, only for reasons other
than the "buzz" that's already been cured..

Al


.

ADVERTISEMENT


In a message dated 11/2/03 06:01:40 AM Mountain Standard Time,
alfranken@... writes:


> David,
>
> I thought MAYBE you would have a theoretical fix to your
> theoretical problem...guess not.

Opinions below not intended to incite anything - except
thought and civilized
debate
==============================
I've got no degree and not near the experience of some
others on this list,
but I can still see with crystal clarity the point David
and John are making.

This is NOT a theoretical problem. It is very real and has been
demonstrated. It has killed in other planes. The fact that
it has not yet in
25+ years
become a significant operational problem, does not mean
that the phenomena is
not real, or that it will not become a problem as the fleet
ages. The fact
that there is a known, and reliable method of preventing
the problem, inspire of

poor maintenance should not be over looked. Should we wait
spite the average
speed of the Q fleet rises another 10 knots and someone is
actually killed to
act?

For those of us yet building maybe it would be worth the
time to counter
balance our rudders. QAC apparently found the original q-2
elevator design
marginal enough at Q-200 speeds to add counter balances.
Now that we are seeing
speeds of some Q's exceed those of the QAC prototype maybe
we should heed the
warnings we have heard?

If one doesn't plan to exceed the speed where by experience
we have found the
rudders to be relatively flutter free (nothing is 100%)
than I'd vote for
saving the weight and build per plans. But not all builders
are satisfied with
"plans" speed. And I see no compelling evidence (again
keeping in mind my lack
of qualifications) to rush right out and add counter
balance to rudders on
flying planes that have been properly flight tested.

As for actually adding weight to the rudder to counter
balance - that's not a
significant chore, either from an engineering standpoint or
the actual
implementation It could even be done to the stock rudder
while still on the
plane in
an afternoon. One can even invision a method that would not
require the
cutting of a bit of structure or having to break out the
paint gun. It may not
be
pretty but.................

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Leon McAtee
Q-1 "super sized"...............Flight time 0 hrs.
Looking for Aeronca C-3 Factory drawings/copies
i
~~~~(^)~~~~
_____l__ __I_____








To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Q-LIST-unsubscribe@...

Quickie Builders Association WEB site
http://www.quickiebuilders.org



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Join main@Q-List.groups.io to automatically receive all group messages.