Re: "Exponential" differential via mechanics


Mike Perry <dmperry1012@...>
 

To Peter Harris, but also for anyone overseas: Why do you say "But I am in
favour of most ideas as long as they are not compulsory." What do you
mean? These are EXPERIMENTAL aircraft. In the USA we can do almost
anything we can talk the inspector into, which is almost anything except
hardware store bolts without safety wire. The word "compulsory" just
doesn't make sense -- how could it be compulsory, or who could make it
so? Is this some legal or licensing issue in your country?

Otherwise, Peter, I don't understand the vehemence with which you oppose
the six-pack. There is now a lot of experience with these airplanes and a
lot of it is bad. You should have heard the reaction at my local EAA
chapter when I said I was building a Q-200. The general reaction is "how
do you land something that lands so fast and is so squirrely on the
runway?" These guys have seen a Q-2 land and they are not impressed. The
fact that a few people have mastered landing bird doesn't mean the design
is reasonable.

Mike Perry



At 05:07 PM 10/24/2006 +1000, Peter Harris wrote:

Thanks Larry.

To me it seems like an awful lot of complication for a dubious result. The
sensitivity of the tailwheel steering increases as the speed reduces. At
first touchdown the aircraft momentum and tail makes it stay straight and
any attempt to deflect it is limited by the flex of the tailspring and the
grip of the tyre, so at first it will skid rather than deflect the tail.
Later in the ground roll the plans ratio seems right for the job to me. I
think it is just something we learn to do and get the feel with familiarity.

But I am in favour of most ideas as long as they are not compulsory.

Cheers

Peter
At 25 Oct 2006 11:29:44 +1000 Peter Harris wrote


Trouble is now a whole bunch of people are out on a diverting tedious,
complex hair splitting exercise when I really do think that it is
unnecessary.

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