Re: Lay up sched?
Jason Muscat <fifty101fifty@...>
Thanx Sam. I did read your site on the auto pilot and point well taken. But with that, who do i believe with the wing sweep then, the plans or the guy that has a mill + hours in type that says something different? Take it easy guys, sorry to offend you.
Sam Hoskins <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: Hold on there, Jimbo. I have a feeling that Jason may be a multitalented
person. I think it may be great if someone were to create a true
representation of the plane. Sure, it is slowing down his building time,
but someone may benefit in the long run.
Having said that, I wonder if he read the story about my autopilot?
From: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006 12:16 PM
Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: Lay up sched?
Why in the world are you trying to make building this airplane more
difficult or complicated than it has to be. Do you currently own a Q
kit or plane you're rebuilding? Are you starting from scratch? Give
us a little insight. Remember we've only been at this 25 years.
I bought my plans/kit in 1981 like a lot of others, built it per
plan and added the enhancing mods package now commonly known as
the "Jim/Bob Six Pack" (to tame the handling characteristics). Guess
what, IT FLEW FINE! I didn't have do any rework because I
misinterpeted QAC's simplistic plans or didn't understand them. BTW,
this was all done without any internet or support from anyone as the
factory was defunct and dealers weren't that supportive. I didn't
even know Farnam was building his plane 15 miles away. Today you
simply a keystroke away from an answer.
I had no prior building experience and didn't know anything about
glass layups. If you think you're as much an aeronautical engineer
as Bert Rutan or Tom Jewett then by all means create something new,
just don't try calling it a Quickie. If you are serious about this
plane, then get on with it. Help is out here but you won't get any
help from this group comming off as an authority on something you
haven't done. There are already to many of us that have!
Jim Patillo N46JP Q200 800 hours in type.
--- In Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com, Jason
your CD (it will be the 5th cd on the q i have purchased now)
to know whetherBTW, if you follow the instructions and plans you don't need
the sweep is 3.5" or 3.79"!>you don't need ...." however, i have heard over a dozen instances of
people having to cut off there canard because it didn't have the
correct incidence in it (a tinny 2* diff) or they had to tear there
canard apart because it didn't have the proper sweep in it, or cut
of the wing because the incidence stall characteristics poor. Why is
every one so reluctant to hard numbers so they can Q&A there work?
It is obvious that the plans have holes, and are very hard to
fallow. And if one were use them as a means of Q&A, one would have
to rejig all his assemblies the way they were originally assembled
and then re measure. Ridicules. Just to put it in perspective
this .3* diff in spar discrepancy can case a 1.25" shift of the
canard tips moving the CG .5" as well as changing the weight
distribution on the gear (detrimental if you have the t-dragger
design). Doesn't look like much but if this is the norm (and i am
seeing it is) and there are as little as 3 (normally 5-10)discrepancies like this, the CG (or any other parameter) can change
as much as 2-3". Look at the history of home builds, it is plagued
with builders not putting in the correct sweep, incidence, washout,
etc and I would pose that its not just from the builders lack
of "fallowing the plans," but it is very hard to Q&A an aircraft
during assembly if you have no useful measurements just a pile of
foam blanks and some profiles.
with the words "Dear Builder." The complete LS(1) plans includethis
document, but are also composed of seven more pages of textentitled
"Construction of LS(1)-0417MOD Canard," plus four(?) appendixsheets. The
Quickie (not Q2/200) LS(1) plans are the same, plus another threepage
document entitled "Construction of LS(1)-0417MOD Quickie Canard."Note
inclusion of the word "Quickie."but without
any of the full-size templates (appendix sheets). It is availableat
http://QuickieSourc <http://QuickieSource.com.> e.com.for both
the Q200 and the Quickie I'd happily digitize them and return themto their
owner, then publish them in .pdf and .dxf format. I already haveall the
other appendix sheets but have not included them on the CD's. LeonMcAtee
has done an excellent job of recreating the Quickie appendices andeven
correcting some errors along the way, but no one has yet done thesame for
the Q2/200.)but Peter
Harris reverse engineered them (with the help of John ten Have)and will
gladly sell you a new set.know whether
the sweep is 3.5" or 3.79"![mailto:Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com]
Great rates starting at 1¢/min.On Behalf Of Jason Muscat
Stay in the know. Pulse on the new Yahoo.com. Check it out.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]