Re: Oops [was "Exponential" differential via mechanics]


Peter Harris <peterjfharris@...>
 

Mike when I say "as long as it is not compulsory" it is a form of Aussie
humour like irony. I said it because people get upset if I do not agree with
everything or anything to do with the sixpack. They want me to join the
queue . I have explained my ideas about the diferential dual pivoting
rudder/tailwheel splitter before and won't repeat it now. I am qualified as
an engineer and I take a critical look at anything before it goes into my Q.
It is also a matter of time and priorities that are mine to decide.

I do not oppose all of the 6 pack and if it sounds a bit vehement that is
because I do get tired of having to repeatedly justify my decisions not to
use each and every item. I have a modified tailwheel with vertical axis, a
pneumatic tyre and reflexed aelerons and I am very happy with my Q. That is
fine for me at the age of 68 so it can't be too bad for anyone else.

I may make other changes when time and priorities permit.

Cheers,

Peter





_____

From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...] On Behalf Of
Mike Perry
Sent: Wednesday, 25 October 2006 1:40 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: [Q-LIST] Oops [was "Exponential" differential via mechanics]



in the last sentence I meant to say: The fact that a few people have
mastered landing THIS bird doesn't mean the design is reasonable. (caps
only to show correction) (and I'm having trouble typing the correction so
it is time for bed!)

Mike Perry

At 07:33 PM 10/24/2006 -0700, you wrote:

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

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