Hi Gary, thanks a lot, I appreciate your support - the key words being: Land gently and safely....
Merry Chrismas
________________________________
From: Gary McKirdy <gary.mckirdy21@...>
To: Q-LIST@...
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 4:30 AM
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] VORTEX Generators..still no clear picture... but thanks for the feedback
Hi Alfonso, The VG's work very well on the GU. I understand your reasoning
but I doubt there will be any benefit on the LS1.
The trick in landing the Qs applies to all taildraggers but the Qs
especially. Assuming the approach is set up properly and you have arrived
at the right position at the right speed then the answer is not to even so
much as kiss the ground until all the airspeed has bled off whilst flying
level just above the runway with the throttle closed. The flare is where
success lies. When physics determines the aircraft can no longer fly it
stalls on and at minimum speed and therefore energy. You may know that
energy is related to the square of the speed so get rid of it safely and
there is less to handle on roll out. It is this energy that, if it becomes
uncontrolled, leads to all the damage to you and the aircraft. A PIO- pilot
induced oscillation during the flare and landing is not only possible in
both the taildragger and the Tri Q but guaranteed if it starts to bounce
around with too much energy. Each amplitude is bigger with each bounce even
though the energy is reducing. The short coupled configuration tries to
turn horizontal velocity in to a vertical amplitude. The way out is to go
arround after the FIRST bounce until you know what can safely be handled.
It is therefore important to treat each landing as a go around until you
are sure you can let her stall, or be just about to, and drop in gently and
safely.
Hope that helps you and others.
Gary McKirdy
1000+hrs on all Q configurations including flight testing new and rebuilds.
On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 7:38 PM, alfonsflatscher
<alfonsflatscher@...>wrote:
**
Thanks to all of you who shared theirs thoughts on VGs.
My understanding is, that VGs actually do not reduce cruise speed - they
would not turn a sports car in to a SUV, to use Bernhardts analogy- they
prevent the separation of airflow from the wing and thereby decrease stall
speed - if properly applied. And that is the tricky part: how to properly
apply those things on a canard plane to make sure they have the intended
effect.
My issue is simple: I bought a wonderful TriQ200 six month ago from a very
well respected builder. I am a low time pilot and I work carefully on the
transition. I spent lots of hours taxiing, I flew about 20 hours in the
plane and I take my time. I feel pretty confident with take offs and air
work and less confident with my landings. (Earnest Martin, the builder and
experienced pilot is wonderful and helps me to fly the Quickie and he so
far kept me from getting hurt...)
For somebody who learns how to fly this plane, a reduction of landing
speed is much more important than it is for an experienced Quickie pilot.
It would add an additional safety cushion in the crucial entry stage. I
heard more than one story about terribly hard landings of Quickie newbies.
So I look out for all options and try to get as much useful information as
possible.
The feedback so far to my simple question about VGS was interesting, but
did not help to clear the picture. Some claimed they wanted to save my life
and did so by providing fatal accident reports, that did not have anything
to do with VGs. I feel sorry for every loss, it is tragic, but I am old
enough to be aware of my mortality. If I had to choose, I would much rather
die in a Quickie than in a Cessna 172, but: "Dying is the last thing I
would do", Groucho Marx said and I agree. I plan to be on the planet for
quite a while, and an analytic approach to things might help.
Sam Hoskins, who I highly respect for his thoughtful and fact based
comments, - recommended to experiment with VGs at a later stage. But: Once
I am used to a higher landing speed, my interest in lowering speed probably
decreases.
There is no compelling evidence that VGs work on the Quickie, even though
their efficiency is well documented on all kinds of other airplanes. Thats
the summary of the feedback I got.
Quickie pilots, once they survive the initial flight stage, obviously
loose their interest in systematically testing technical aids that are
mainly beneficial to newbies.
So I will have to learn how to fly the TriQ200 with what I have got: A
nicely built plane and an experienced pilot, that is willing to fly with
me...thanks Earnest!!!
I consider myself lucky as I probably start from a better position than
most Quickie pilots did...
Thanks to all of you for your helpful input.
--- In Q-LIST@..., "Bernie" <bernhardt.jansen@...> wrote:
Hi Alfonso
I do not comment on the forum a lot, but my Q2 is getting closer to
completion, and I followed this conversation from the start, pondering
about it all the time, so I just thought I would share my thoughts. The
aircraft was designed to be fast, and that it is. . .always, in the air, on
the runway, and if you make the wrong modification it is going to come down
fast too.
The cannard, and main wing does not have the same airfoil, and therefor
I doubt will have the same reaction to vortex generators, and you might
just create a cannard aircraft of which the main wing stolls before the
cannard . . .It's not a good sight.
Fly the plane as it is . . .I have never heard about someone who bought
a Lamborghini, and then fit SUV wheels on it afterwards because he wants
more groud clearence. . .
As I said it is just my thoughts, and I trust you will put your safty
first in whatever you decide to do.
Bernhardt
Quickie Q2 almost there.
--- In Q-LIST@..., JMasal@ wrote:
Beware of those single data points!
-----Original Message-----
From: false <t.noyes@>
To: Q-LIST <Q-LIST@...>
Sent: Thu, Nov 29, 2012 6:38 am
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Re: VORTEX Generators
Al,
I'm replying to your e-mail in the hopes of saving your life. A little
over a
year ago my good friend Jerry Brinkerhuff was killed in the crash of
his newly
completed Q-200. He was current in a Cessna 182 and could land it on a
dime
every time. Jerry and his Q-200 struck a runway clearance light while
landing
on a 7000 ft. runway where his Q-200 was temporarily based. The
aircraft hit
the ground nose first and flipped over on it's back and slid for about
150
yards. I do believe Jerry was trying to land on the numbers in
anticipation of
moving his Q-200 to a airport with a 4300 ft. runway.
Please, take all the help Earnest is willing to give and if the
aircraft is
flying good "DON'T MESS WITH IT" or TRY TO MAKE IT DO SOMETHING IT
JUST CAN'T
DO!!!
Best wishes for a long and healthy life.
A friend of the family
________________________________
From: alfonsflatscher <alfonsflatscher@>
To: Q-LIST@...
Sent: Tue, November 27, 2012 7:06:19 AM
Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: VORTEX Generators
I am the guy that bought Earnest Martins TriQ200 and he is very
helpful in
transition training. We built in a second set of rudder pedals, so he
can
interfere from the right seat when I screw up.
We flew together for about ten hours last weekend and plan to do so
again before
I take the plan to my home Airport, which has a fairly short runway of
3800feet.
So I look for ways to reduce landing speed. RIGHT NOW WE ARE AT 100
across the
threshold, and landing at 80...
And I hoped to be able to reduce by 10percent, maybe vortex generators
can help
BEST REGARDS
--- In Q-LIST@..., Sam Hoskins <sam.hoskins@> wrote:
Why do you ask?
Sam
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 1:33 AM, alfonsflatscher
<alfonsflatscher@>wrote:
**
Has anybody experience or information on vortex generators on a
Q200?
Please share..
THANKS
a
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
