Re: More on flutter/ New designs


David J. Gall
 

Jim,

You'll note that I was ONLY trying to answer Ryan's specific request
for information on HOW to balance a rudder. Not whether it was a good
idea or anything else. This IS specific information to help a builder
move forward with HIS project, whether or not that project conforms to
some strict definition of "Quickie."

All the "teeth gnashing" about flutter that followed was the result of
Mr. Kittleson opening a debate as to whether these planes are
susceptible to flutter, a debate from which I believe you, personally,
have benefitted. You did say something about monitoring the condition
of your rudder control cables more closely, didn't you?

In fact, it is the "newbie," Mr. Gregory, who is bringing all the stuff
about redesigned structures and morphing wings to the table. Thank
goodness Klaus Xavier(sp?) didn't cave in to similar pressure to
conform when HE was the newbie touting the benefits of unproven new
technology like lean-burn and electronic ignition. Otherwise, you, Jim,
might still be stuck with magnetos.

C'mon, Jim, you're weighing in on the wrong side of the issue. You were
encouraging me to design a "new Q200" just last year. What, do you
expect that to happen in secrecy or in a vacuum? Somebody needs a forum
to discuss such ideas and their details and features; if this Q-LIST is
not it, then the Quickie design lineage might as well come to an end.

Damian is young and enthusiastic. He'll soon enough learn of the
downsides of the emerging technologies. But through discussions such as
occur on this list, he, and a lot of other people who never type in but
only read these lists, will learn a LOT about why certain design
decisions and features are -- or are NOT -- on our planes.

So, if you're not particularly interested in wing morphing, hold us to
the standard of properly labeling our subject lines so that you can
avoid the messages you don't want to read. But, please, don't ask us to
censor our conversations because they range a bit far afield from
"Quickies" as defined by QAC. If we were limited to that narrow
definition, you'd be the outlaw for exceeding Vne and having a
non-standard rudder control system, tailwheel, and brakes!

Finally, you'll also note that the "us" I refer to in the last
paragraph does not even include me; I have not participated in the wing
morphing discussion or the new structures discussion because I, like
you, consider it a waste of time. But to the participants, it is not a
waste of time. They need to spend the time weighing the costs and
benefits so that they, too, can come to the realization that its a
waste of time -- or surprise the hell out of us all by solving the slow
landing-fast cruise balance that is the holy grail of airplane design
and blow your doors off!! :-)

Respectfully,


David J. Gall

On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 19:32:15 -0000, "Jim Patillo" wrote:



P.S. This sounds like the same shit they built the space shuttle out
of.
Jim P.

--- In Q-LIST@..., "Jim Patillo" <patillo@a...> wrote:
David, Damian, Peter & all,

Not to be a dick head but please tell me how all this verbal
spewing, diatribe and tooth nashing (regarding wing morphing,
redesigning structures, balancing things that until now appear to
have been working satisfactorily per many many test hours) helps
any
of us complete and fly our planes.

What has any of this contributed to helping a new builder
understand
the logic of it all and moving forward on his project? If you guys
are so capable of such complicated stuff, why do you not give
simple
answers (i.e.; one sky dog)that alot of these guys are looking
for.
I for one feel information on this list is becoming a waste of
time.
I am not particularly interested in wing morphing and I suspect
alot
of the other guys aren't either. Why in the world don't you guys
spend your time finishing and flying your creations so you can
ligitimately contribute test phase and the future of a really nice
flying bird. I realize opinions are like you know what and
everybody
has at lease one but "can't we all just get along"?

Jim Patillo N46JP Q200




--- In Q-LIST@..., damiantwinsport@a... wrote:
Yes, Yes Yes, "more rigid" A carbon reinforced superstructure
would do just
that. The discussions as well about making sure the flap surface
was correct
and flat on bottom would be an argument for a correct female
mold.
A rudder
constructed with advanced methods would be light and rigid
allowing minimal weight
needed for balance
Regards,
Damian Gregory.

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