Jon,
Look back through the archives. I have written this up in some detail at
least three times, and Tom Moore has an article I wrote for the Q-Talk
which he will probably be publishing soon. Basically, Jim and I have
Q200's which are pussycats on the ground. Jim Patillo has about 20 or so
hours into his flight test and has never had problem with steering, and
I have about 250 hours on mine. Both airplanes have good manners. Mine
is much better than the Piper Pacer I used to own with Jim Ham. Neither
airplane has the Gall modification - both have plans alignment (about
0.6 degree toeout, zero camber with no load). We both have La Rue brake
mods with toe brakes, reduced throw full swiveling tailwheels, and tail
wheel steering springs. Basically, we threw out the odd steering lashup
that Quickie designed and made the airplane like all the other
taildragges in the world. No magic! For the two of us, it works fine.
Incidentally, I see nothing wrong with changing the camber alignment,
but I don't believe that camber is the problem. After all, lots of
spring gear taildraggers have camber change under load. I think the
problem with a standard Quickie is lack of effective steering power
under some conditions. No taildragger wants to roll straight on its own.
Setting it up like other taildraggers gives it the steering power it
needs. The reduced tailwheel throw calms down the twitchiness at high
speed, and the tailwheel springs soften the steering and help prevent it
from darting to the side if landed crossed up in a crosswind. A side
benefit is that breaking the tailspring doesn't cause the complete loss
of all the steering. If anyone wants a demo, come to the Mountain States
flyin. I'll be glad to give rides. As far as the Livermore contingent is
concerned, we consider the steering to be a problem no longer.
Bob Farnam
N200QK
Jon Finley wrote:
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Jim,
We have seen the list of things that you and Bob did differently with your
planes (specifically the tail wheel). Please tell us how you installed the
main gear and axles? Did you use the old sight through the axle holes while
upside down method?? Where are your axles set (camber/toe)?
Given the lack of response to this question the last couple times that I
asked I assume you know what I am after and are not willing to provide the
information. You may be one of the lucky ones that got your axles set
"right" the first time. I don't understand how you can claim (implied in
this message) that the "Gall Mod" and main gear alignment have nothing to do
with how your aircraft behaves on the ground when you don't know how your
gear is set?? What if you ran an alignment test and found that your axles
were set exactly per David's suggestions - what would you say then?? If you
were to run the test and they were far different than David's suggestion
then we might sit up and listen. For now, without information on how your
gear is set, we are forced to say "Yah sure, you just got lucky and got the
gear alignment right the first time!".
Jon Finley
N54JF Quickie - Volkswagen 1835cc
N90MG Q2 - Subaru EA-81 DDT
Apple Valley, Minnesota
http://63.90.191.136/Finley/finley-subaru.html
-----Original Message-----
From: James Patillo [mailto:patillo@...]
Sent: Saturday, September 30, 2000 9:55 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] GU Canard Wax
James,
I beg to differ! I have several thousand hours flying time,
X-Navy, United Airlines and many different types of AC and I'm here to
dispel what your saying. My plane behaves just like any other tail dragger
possibly even easier to handle especially in cross winds. I have not made
"The Gall Mod" and don't intend to. It may be "that mod" is a patch covering
up more serious problems with the airframe itself. Bob Farnum and I keep
telling anyone one interested that there a few mods that make these aircraft
takeoff, land and fly beautifully and docile! New builders just realize
there is another side to this story. Build your plane to the latest plans
available, make the few necessary mods and go have a blast!
Regards,
Jim Patillo Q200 N46JP
----- Original Message -----
From: James Postma
To: Q-LIST@...
Sent: Friday, September 29, 2000 9:19 AM
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] GU Canard Wax
Thanks Jon,
This is precisely what I was saying. I covered the "unstick test" in a
previous email. I recommend going to lift off speed at low power
settings
and once the canard lifts off, pull the throttle and let it settle back.
The point is to note the lift off speed, not to make it fly. If it is
85
mph, you will have trouble keeping it in the air. Another point is that
the
water may dry off during the take off run if your humidity is low.
Tests in
Arizona might not work too good. No way I want to be at more than 1
foot
AGL with wet wings in an unknown situation. Also I have 4,000 and 6,000
feet runways at Chino so can take my time approaching lift off. The
data I
am looking for is with water and with and without Rain-X or other
slippery
stuff. As I say the newsletter said it was effective, but no
quantitative
data. My current unstick speed is 63 mph without VG's.
This is how I first learned ground handling and landing characteristics.
My
first flights were at 1 foot. The roll outs were definitely unstable
and
barely controlable. So I have gone to a large rudder and can now
control
the roll out with it. I have also done the zero camber David Gall mod.
It
looks promising but needs more testing.
Which brings up another point. We read here all the time about
subjective
flight tests such as "came around the pattern once and landed O.K." Or
my
configuration works good. But every high time pilot I have talked to,
some
with extensive military turn and burn time, admit that this bird is
difficult to get to roll out straight and will not land on narrow
runways.
The exception is those who have done the camber mod.
James Postma
james@...
(253) 584-1182 9:00 to 8:00 PDT (GMT-8) voice
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jon Finley" <finley@...>
To: <Q-LIST@...>
Sent: Friday, September 29, 2000 4:37 AM
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] GU Canard Wax
> James,
>
> Please, please, please be careful with this sort of testing. Water on
a
GU
> canard is a bad thing. Water on one side of a GU canard attempting to
> take-off is a very, very, very bad thing. I'm not telling you not to
do
it,
> just make sure you at least have LOTS of runway (like 12,000').
>
> It only takes one flight where you are still at 20' AGL, two miles
from
the
> airport to make you realize how dangerous this can be. :-)
>
> Jon Finley
> Q1 N54JF - 1835cc VW
> Q2 N90MG - Subaru EA-81 DD Turbo
> Apple Valley, Minnesota
> http://63.90.191.136/Finley/finley-subaru.html
>
>
>
>
>
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Q-LIST-unsubscribe@...
Quickie Builders Association WEB site
http://web2.airmail.net/qba321tm/q-page1.html
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Q-LIST-unsubscribe@...
Quickie Builders Association WEB site
http://web2.airmail.net/qba321tm/q-page1.html
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Q-LIST-unsubscribe@...
Quickie Builders Association WEB site
http://web2.airmail.net/qba321tm/q-page1.html
|
