Re: Q2 LS1 Carbon spar?

David J. Gall


You're right, I'm not capable of reading the three sentences you wrote on the topic of LS-1 vs. GU canard without coming to wrong conclusions and inferring that you were, in context, defining what constitutes a "Waddelow canard." I'm positive that your intent was different, but what I read  from your words on the page was apparently not what you meant to say by those words.

That is my point exactly. Anyone not familiar with the topic might have misread the way I did, and if they acted on that misreading, they would have an unsafe airplane. Hence my post -- I'm trying to raise a flag of caution for anyone else who might misread your words the way I misread them. I know that you know the difference, but I don't know that Joey New-Guy has that historical context. So, again, I ask you to be more careful in your choice of words and phrasing so as not to imply something you did not intend to say.

As for Mr. Waddelow's canard design, as I tried to say previously, I am not familiar with it (I've never seen the drawings and documentation) but I have seen the Weishaar canard drawings and documentation. This is not to deny the existence of the Waddelow canard or to demean its quality of engineering, only to declare that I, David J. Gall, have no first-hand knowledge of it (although I have known of it for a long time). Further, I mis-spoke in my previous post when referring to Mr. Waddelow's submissions to Q-Talk, in that the articles I was referring to were, in fact, regarding the main wing structure and not the GU canard structure. So now I have to say that I know nothing of Mr. Waddelow's canard, other than that it is, apparently, an available option. At no time did I refer to the amount of glass or carbon required to build a Waddelow canard -- I am sorry if you suffered a misreading of my post such as I suffered with yours.

My comment about 10 span-wise plies of UNI to repair the cut was made with specific reference to the conversion of an original GU canard per the Tri-Q construction plans posted on under "Tri-Q Plans" and was not a reference to the Waddelow canard.

As to my paragraph six on root bending moments vs. landing gear loads: If you think my generalized analysis of root bending loads is faulty then I suggest you consult with another aerospace engineer. I will refund my fee in full.

David J. Gall

Join { to automatically receive all group messages.