toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Glad all went well Sammy! You gotta’ nice fast Q! Probably would have been a 7 hr trip on the ground?
On Mar 21, 2021, at 7:14 PM, smeshno1@... wrote:
The G280 NACA on the lower outboard wing surfaces add about 4lbs of pressure to the wing tanks at max cruise (which is much greater speed than any Q will see). G280 NACA is about 1 inch deep from the lower wing skin surface. They are also the wing vents when
fuel is pumped in. I will be adding this feature to my fuel system.
The wings were tested at that amount (except once when the gauges were changed out and the tech didn't realize until too late that he went well over 4,, more like 40lbs!.. Wing became instantly bloated like a week long drowned cow and went BOOM!... Disposition:
Scrap; repair not economically feasible, Ouch..there went a few million down the drain).
Jay is 100% correct. The bugs making nests become a concern..at least in these parts they are. Mud daubers.
From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> on behalf of Jay Scheevel <jay@...>
Sent: Sunday, March 21, 2021 5:31 PM
To: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Header tank pressure line
I think I remember seeing this proposed in the past, but I have not seen it in any of the planes I have seen flying. One thing to consider: The reason a NACA duct works is because it causes the flow near the skin to de-pressurize slightly, so it changes direction
and into the duct. On the other hand, you want maximum ram air pressure to the tank, so you need to extend the ram tube far enough away from the surface of the fuselage to get full velocity airflow. This is why the header ram air tube and also the pitot tube
have stand-offs from the fuselage and/or wing surface. Suggest you keep that design. It is not much drag and it has valuable benefit to fuel flow.
From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> On Behalf Of Nick Wright
Sent: Sunday, March 21, 2021 4:05 PM
Subject: [Q-List] Header tank pressure line
I saw (forget what website) the header tank pressure line was ran through the NACA opening on the side of a Q200. Does anyone have any we experience with this? Is the airflow adequate in this location?
Good flight report Sam. I'm surprised the B2 hangars are all in a nice straight line. Is to make it easy to bomb them all in one pass?
Time to get back to flying!
After a crazy cold winter it was about time to get in the air again. So I made a day-trip from
Carbondale, IL, KMDH to
Topeka Billard, KTOP. A gorgeous day, for the 355 mile trip. A nice little tailwind made me scoot along so I made the trip in just two hours. Groundspeed was usually around 180+ kts. I had a
great visit with my daughter, grand and great grand kids, then it was back to the airport, all too soon.
One interesting thing about the route of flight, it takes me directly over
Whiteman AFB, the primary base for B-2 bombers. Whiteman is kind of in the middle of Missouri. According to the sectional, the top of their controlled airspace is just 3,400 feet, so going west I was at 4,500 feet and east was 5,500 feet. On one trip I
saw a couple of B-2s on the ramp, a few F-16s and some helicopters, but today it was completely empty. It always make me wonder who's watching as I fly over at such a low altitude. In the photo, you can see the row of the 14 or so B-2 hangars. I try to not
make any deviations as I pass over.
The winds on departure at KTOP were around 20 kts, but the takeoff was just fine. Of course with every tailwind there is a corresponding headwind. Fortunately, the winds aloft had shifted more out of the south and it wasn't too bad, I was still able to make
a little better than 150 kts groundspeed and I got back in less than two and a half hours. There was barely any wind at Carbondale, which I hate.
I'm not very current and if the guy in the tower was watching, he might have been amused by the number of bounces I made.
Great trip and it was nice to be back the same day, in time for a couple of cocktails with Sandy.