Re: Canard mounting

Fisher Paul <FisherPaul@...>

I think my canard is mounted slightly "down" as well (same problem - I don't
have the tools to measure it accurately!). I have to keep the ailerons
reflexed up slightly to keep it straight and level. I've got ~815 hours
now, so I don't see the need to change the incidence of the canard at this
point. It does pitch buck - depending on the weight and reflexor setting,
but I suspect it is costing me some speed at the top end (especially at
lighter weights).

I don't know if the different airfoil on your canard might also change the
characteristics from Larry, Sam or myself. Certainly the T-tail and
reflexor will change things.

Is the Subaru heavier than the Revmaster? More weight on the nose may have
just made a marginal problem much more noticeable.

Paul A. Fisher
Q-200, N17PF

-----Original Message-----
From: Jon Finley []
Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2000 07:54
To: Q-List
Subject: [Q-LIST] RE: Canard mounting


Sounds like I better explain myself so I don't sound like I'm dreaming up
some hair brained idea!!

My Q2 has over 400 hours. It flew almost all that time with a Revmaster.
flying with the Subaru. It flies pretty well. However; it does not pitch
buck. Rather, it starts downhill (mushes) at 85mph and full down elevator.
The down elevator stop is greater than the plans (first thing I tried
ago). I must be over the numbers at 90mph and a little power if I hope to
land (otherwise there is no elevator authority). I have tufts on the
elevator (canard) and they exhibit some interesting behavior during climb.
If I use the elevator to pitch for climb the tufts start going wild (side
side, up, and occasionally FORWARD) when deflected more than 1/4" - 3/8"
(haven't measured it exactly but it isn't much). To avoid this I have
started using my reflexor and t-tail to pitch for climb and keep the
elevator "in-trail". I don't have a VSI so I cannot accurately determine
there is any difference in rate of climb (between the two methods of pitch
change). I am currently flying at the forward end of the CG limit but I am
within the limits. My Q1 pitch bucks normally so I am familiar with what
feels like. This problem has never been a big deal but am becoming more
interested in at least knowing what the problem is even if I don't fix it.

I made a set of "outside" airfoil templates using the core cutting
(the BL 48.8 template for wing and BL50 for canard). I transferred the
water line from the template. My new templates match the airfoil pretty
well. I raised the tail until the main wing was level and then checked the
canard, it was slightly nose down. I didn't measure how much as I didn't
have a digital level and couldn't remember how without one (no need to
up instructions - I have them, just need to dig them out). The original
intent of my question was to find out if a Q2 would even fly with a nose
down canard and if so, would it behave like mine does. Sam, mentions
needing lots of nose up trim. I don't need much but I do have a t-tail
could be masking my problem.


-----Original Message-----
From: []
Sent: Monday, August 07, 2000 9:27 PM
To: ''
Subject: RE: Canard mounting

Point of clarification Jon, please. Are you asking what would happen if
the AOA of the canard was reduced relative to the AOA of the
wing? If so,
by how much?



-----Original Message-----
From: Jon Finley []
Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2000 12:05 PM
To: QBA (E-mail)
Subject: Canard mounting

Hi all,

A not so hypothetical question: How would a Q2 act in the air if
the canard
(WL) were mounted nose down relative to the wing (WL)?

Jon Finley
N54JF Quickie - Volkswagen 1835cc
N90MG Q2 - Subaru EA-81 DDT
Apple Valley, Minnesota

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

Join to automatically receive all group messages.