Re: Q-talk 155 - Stay Safe. . . .

Allan Farr

I say it's more efficient. From what I have read the only reason it was changed for the Ls1 is because of the contamination issues which can mainly be solved with VG's anyway. I agree that the LS1 is stronger (because of the carbon spar), but that's not an issue with a Tri Q.

--- In Q-LIST@..., "SammyQ2" <sam.hoskins@...> wrote:

Hold on there cowboys. Who says the GU is "more efficient"? What does that mean? Where does that evidence come from?

Just some anecdotal evidence:

Look at the planes flying into the fly-ins. Most of them have the GU canard.

All of the mid-span canard breaks I have seen were GU canards. These were from hard landings. Even saw it happen at oshkosh. Check the old newsletters. Over the last 25+ years, I have proven to myself the LS canard holds up well to hard landings.

The LS doesn't need the hard-to-clean dragon's teeth.

I win races with my LS canard.

For what it's worth, if I was to build a new plane, I wouldn't even consider a GU canard. If I was building a new plane and someone GAVE ME a GU canard, I would politely thank them, donate it to the local A&P school, then build an LS canard.

Sam Hoskins
(Married to a hurricane named Sandy)

--- In Q-LIST@..., "johnogr300" <johnogr@> wrote:

Hi Trevor.
I also are about to start cutting foam for my Q2 wing and canard.
I`m interested to see the replies, as I am about to use the LS1 profile with out the carbon-fibre spar I have been told that the GU is more efficient, but I don`t want to put vortex generators on the canard, starts looking like an unprofessional and ugly surface. I would like to know how much more efficient the GL profile is compared to the LS1.
I`m looking to use the blue foam rather than the old orange.

--- In Q-LIST@..., Trevor Fernihough <spilligans@> wrote:

Hi folks,
Two question for the group of folk who have built and are flying / have flown their Q's.

I have cut the foam previously (years go in fact) to build the Canard as a Q2. Subsequently I decided to go in the direction of the Tri-Q
and bought the kit including the new templates for the LS wing, carbon fibre spars and undercarriage. The undercarriage is now fitted to the fuselage. When looking to recut the foam for the canard, it is evident that the new profile just goes outside of the already cut foam, leaving me to have to get new foam blocks (no simple matter here in Australia).

First question: Listening in on your chit chat, leads me to believe that the GU is a more efficient wing than the LS canard, and that by installing vortex generators on the GU, I would have the more efficient canard without the contamination deterioration issue.

Have I interpreted the facts correctly in that regard ?

If so, then the second question is: To use the previously cut GU foam, is it simply a matter of squaring off the inside ends of the innermost cores and laminating the wing just exactly as though it were for the Q2 with the shear web etc just as per plan. This was obviously built to take landing loads and begs the question that if now not doing so, it could be / should be laid up with less cloth saving unnecessary weight ?

Any thoughts and advice greatly appreciated



Join to automatically receive all group messages.