Re: Electrical Questions


Mike Perry
 

Hello Charlie:

I think the T-tail in the Q functions more as a trim surface than a lifting surface. The Q T-tail can produce upward or downward force, unlike the Piaggio Avanti or some of the ideas on the Q-Performance list.

In cruise, the T-tail is much different than the reflexor but in landing, the function of the T-tail is similar: it lets you set the angle of attack so you get the tail on the ground as you touch down. That is one of the critical elements in improving the Q's ground handling.

After touchdown, the reflexor lets you reduce lift from the main wing and increase downward force on the tail wheel; the T-tail can increase the downward force but does not change the lift of the main wing.

Overall, I prefer the reflexor to the T-tail (simplicity, less weight, less drag) but I'm not sure I would change a plane that had a T-tail.

Mike Perry

oneskydog@... wrote:


Mike and Jeff,

In my opinion th "T" tail does not do the same thing as the reflexer. The
reflexer adjusts the rear wing lift force to move the center of lift forward
and back which changes the attitude of the plane. A "T" tail adds an
additional lifting surface that fights the fixed lift distribution between the
canard and the wing. This complicates the aerodynamics vs simply reducing or
increasing the total lift of the wing to change attitude.

I believe the reflexer is much easier to incorporate than a "T" tail
simplifying and saving weight is not a bad thing.

Regards,

Charlie Johnson a.k.a. One Sky Dog


In a message dated 9/25/2009 10:53:32 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time,
dmperry1012@... <mailto:dmperry1012%40att.net> writes:

I think you are correct about the T-tail. I wouldn't chose to build a
T-tail (more complex than the reflexor) but if it was there I would use
it. Details on the T-tail are in old newsletters which I haven't read
in years so take my comments with a large grain of salt.

Mike Perry


__
___

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