toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
I think the ability to adjust camber and toe as you have done is nice, but
overkill. The only real requirement is that the worst-case scenario -- max
weight, forward CG, steeply crowned runway -- be met with positive camber
and toe. Even slightly negative camber has proved to be manageable, but
more-positive camber and toe is not an issue. If you get zero-zero at max
gross weight, there's nothing wrong with three degrees positive camber at
lighter weight. (The inverse is not true, however.) The tire serviceabilty
that your change provides is definitely convenient, but at what weight
penalty? And how often - really - do you expect that you'll actually adjust
your camber for any particular flight once the airplane is in daily service?
I'm sure you know the term "drill on assembly."
Regarding a larger rudder, no need, but "no harm-no foul" if you do it. Just
keep in mind that putting on a larger rudder is not addressing the problem
of an ineffective tailwheel. You can choose to make the tailwheel effective
or not and still overpower it with a bigger rudder. If you're gonna make a
bigger rudder, you might as well just get a locking tailwheel and be done
with all the complexities of a steerable one. Line it up, lock the
tailwheel, and go. Lock the tailwheel, land, then unlock and use rudder and
differential brakes to steer the castering thing. No more belcranks and
springs and such, just one cable to pull the lock lever. Better not forget
it on landing, though! :)
David J. Gall
From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...]
On Behalf Of Ron Triano
Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 7:54 AM
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] "Exponential" differential via mechanics
David and Peter, I sincerely hope my ramblings on the way I
went about my tailwheel control and wheel alignment has not
offended anyone, I simply was not pleased with the way others
have attacked the problems. I have been a building contractor
for over 40 years and have worked very close with engineers
of all types so I possibly understand much more than the
average Q builder as far as structural items are concerned.
Each time I do something that is not per plans or what
everyone else is doing I spend much time in research until I
accept something or abandon it.
I do agree with your points of the rudder bellcrank or horn
as you call it.
I also think the two cables you stated would solve any
questions and could have the springs inside out of the
airstream. Also I feel the rudder horn is plenty stout for
the use it will get. I would like to insert other questions
for your suggestions if I may.
Since most agree that the high speed taxi at landing or
takeoff seams to be where less tailwheel would be better, why
not a larger rudder as I have heard on this list by several.
Due to the elevators on the canard I can see why a 3 point is
the way for takeoff and landing, not being able to lift the
tail. These are the areas I would like to hear others chat about.
With you two being engineers, I would like to hear any
remarks about the way I have done my wheel alignment. I
really feel very strongly about being able to adjust the
wheels for alignment rather than a fixed point alignment,
because no two Q's are the same. Please state exactly what
you think, I will not be offended. We all need to work
together to improve the design.
South Lake Tahoe, CA
The Sonerai is finished and flying
finishing the Q200