Jay Scheevel <scheevel@...>

Hi guys,

I finally made it home today, and none too soon because it is my wife's
birthday. Spent two days weathered in at Canon City (west of Pueblo), but
did enjoy it because I got to hang out at the airport with some interesting
guys and I always bring my work along on my computer, so I actually got some
work done. I could have done without the two additional days of hotel,
though.

Thanks many times over to Doug for putting up such a great show and to all
of you guys who work so hard to bring your beautiful planes out to this
event. Your enthusiasm really inspires me (and Alan too).

During my layover in Canon City, I did a little reduction of the some of the
data that I gathered (with some help from everyone on all of your planes). I
will assemble a complete technical report, and will send a short advance
newsletter report to Doug, if he will let me know when he needs it to get it
into the next newsletter. I want to thank all the people who let me paw
over your plane. I also want to stress that, since all of the Q's I
measured are successfully flying and the pilots are not afraid to take them
cross country in challenging conditions, we must conclude that the
population of data I have gathered is a reasonable demonstration of
acceptable, minimum demonstrated ranges of airworthy tolerances. Just a few
early highlights: I gave up measuring all BL's on both sides after doing
several airplanes, in order for me to use the limited time to add more
aircraft to the sample, but the ones that I did measure (left versus right)
tell me that we can successfully fly with as much as 1 degree of incidence
difference between left and right wings. Of course this means a roll
tendency, but that can be successfully handled with rig and trim after the
fact. As far as wing to canard relative incidences, I do not have absolute
numbers, but it looks like the variation of relative incidences is almost 6
degrees. This is to say that if you hold the canard angle of incidence as
constant, then the range of incidences of the wings that I measured varies
by as much as 6 degrees from aircraft to aircraft. This is a much larger
range than I expected and once again indicates that a successfully flying Q
can has a large tolerance for relative angle of attack. I will be able to
comment more on this in a full article and hopefully correlate the numbers
with performance. I did not get a chance to measure Bruce Crain's (wing or
canard), Jon Finley's (wing or canard), Dave Dugas' (wing or canard) or Paul
Spackman's (canard), so there is plenty more to do. I will try to bring my
device to each fly-in and gather more data. For now it looks pretty
interesting.I'll keep you posted.

Cheers,

Jay

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