Re: Bad news - good news


Isaksson Roger <scratchdeeper@...>
 

Thankyou Larry,

There was no need for an accident, but we all got better. We all know better now.

We won the war over the bad guys, people died, even innocent, they didnt have to die, but the world got better.

We have the freedom to drive a car, we can go anywhere we want.

Well over 40.000 of our citicens will die every year for that freedom.

So our society accepts the loss of 40.000 citicens every year for such a simple right as being able to drive a car.

We balance our freedom with our sacrifice.

Freedom is never free.

You want to smoke...you have the freedom to that too, as long as you understand that you have a 15% chance of dying of it.

It can even be a bit bizarre when a smoker is smoking his cig, sitting in his car, commenting about the dangers of flying a homebuilt.

A solution would be to forbid, smoking, homebuilts, war, and cars.

That would be very responsible, and very safe.

It would for sure be very irresponsible to own a pool in your backyard, 200 kids a year drown in those.

We sure want to approach this in a responsible and safe manner.

Larry, believe me , we know better, you have to quit smoking, fill your pool with cement, junk your car, join the anti war movement, and when it comes to your homebuilt, I'm sorry, your competence is on the line, and you have to cut it up, and go home , assume the lotus position and seriously have a seance with yourself considering your faulty decisions about it, while you are intensively studying your navel.

If not, you will destroy it for everybody else.

Roger :)









larry severson <larry2@...> wrote:

Do not take this wrong, I'm in the building stage, and trying to learn.
I think a lot of the problems with the Q2 may well be that people have
not been open enough when things went wrong. The safty record of what
to me seems to be the craft of my dreams scares the bgesis out of me.
The Human Factors society was formed 60 years ago because there were
too many dumb accidents like the one I had. It's goal was to see how
humans react to various situations to avoid having aircraft designs
and instruments that would lead the pilot to make an error.

I will be posting on the QList web site solutions to design problems
that I discover. I knew that the reflexer design put out by QAC (and
on 33LQ) was a problem waiting to happen. It incorporated a knob in
the center console that had to be pulled to reflex and pushed to
level. It is both out of the normal pilot sight. But more important,
it requires the pilot to reach across with his left hand at a
critical point in the take off and remember to push, not pull, if
there is a trim problem. Even the push/pull are opposite from the way
most systems operate.

A better solution (which I will post in pictures) is a lever on the
left side that is next to the throttle. I installed it on my other Q2
such that It is at zero reflex when the handle is flush with the
instrument panel extension. Pulling it up to the design [max of 6
degrees] aft (like the elevator) reflexes the ailerons upward which
decreases the lift on the main wing. Pushing it forward [max 2
degrees of reflex] increases the lift on the main wing. My standard
landing procedure is to pull the throttle to idle, and at Td, pull
the reflexer handle full aft. A simple procedure. This installation
would undoubtedly salvaged both my flight and plane.

The plane is basically safe. However, have a few tricks that can bite
when least expected. I intend to go through and remove them. Another
one discussed a lot is the single brake handle. The plane definitely
needs separate mechanisms for left and right brakes given that they
are 18.5 feet apart. After much thought, I like the design of finger
brakes that are placed directly behind the throttles because it makes
a great no brainer landing: throttle idle. reflexer full aft, slide
the hands aft and be ready foor braking as desired.

I'm not questing your skill, or even why you did not finish all of your
changes before trying to fly it. What I want to know is:
was that "T" that you removed from the tail a flying foil. that is did
it provide a little lift?
In the crash prior to my purchase, the tail was broken below the T
Tail installation. Now having the plans for the installation at that
time, I rebuilt the tail without it. And yes, it acted as a mini
elevator the handle of which was located optimally on the left pilot
wall for such an action. It would have also done the job, if it had
not been destroyed. (I just got the plans and planned to install it
tomorrow [Thursday])

Could there have been a problem with a
temperary repair?
No

From what you describe, or what I have read. I may
have done the same thing. Do you have an idea as to why the craft
handeled the way it did?
Yes, adding the passenger moved the CG aft which had a greater impact
than I thought. As soon as I got airborne, the plane pitched up. The
action was so fast that I did not react properly for what in effect
became an aft of CG situation because of the way I had rigged the
trim. A rapid reflexer movement, or T Tail lever, would have turned
it into a simple "Why did I make such a sloppy" take off".

Or did I missunderstand? Removing the "T" made
it act tail heavy?
No, see above.

Again, I plan to go through the plane from stem to stern to remove
the biters. This is a wonderful plane that can be made better. I
resent those on who spend all of their time talking down to others
trying to make and fly the best thing since sliced bread.
Unfortunately, this piece of sliced bread does not have the
perfection of butter and cinnamon yet, in spite of the time since its design.

It only hurts the community when scarries are covered up by the
pilots "who never make a mistake"..

Larry Severson
Fountain Valley, CA 92708
(714) 968-9852
larry2@...






---------------------------------
Building a website is a piece of cake.
Yahoo! Small Business gives you all the tools to get online.

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