toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Do the Jim-Bob six-pack (all six), do the alignment, and don't worry about the "ground angle of attack." That was a Gene Sheehan red herring that never made any sense except to deflect customer complaints. As long as your nose isn’t so high in the air as to cause the canard to be stalled while rolling with full aft stick you'll be fine.
David J. Gall
From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> On Behalf Of Troy Zawlacki
Sent: Thursday, January 6, 2022 11:10 AM
To: main@Q-List.groups.io Group Moderators <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Ground AoA/ tailwheel angle
Well I guess I can interpret this as nobody really having a strong opinion on the topic. I’ll proceed with my setup and my ground aoa at 11 degrees and see how she goes!
On Jan 4, 2022, at 10:04 PM, Troy Zawlacki <troyzc3@...> wrote:
I have a question about the ground angle of attack note in the Q2 appendix "plans changes.” The note calls for setting WL15 level, and measuring from the ground to the bottom of the tailwheel. It gives a recommended range of 25-28.6” for this measurement.
I am well versed in the Gall wheel alignment, and have just completed that on my plane. I am also pretty sure this note pre-dates the issues that were solved with the Gall alignment, but the Gall paper also doesn’t give an adjusted range for this tailwheel measurement.. There must still be a range right?
Plus, too much AoA on the ground would mean more drag during takeoff and longer runway required right?
I read your blog post about changing your tailwheel angle back shallower for reduced drag (and since you have a proper alignment now). Do you have any idea what this measurement ended up being on your plane (ground to wheel)? My plane right now with the tail spring sitting in what looks right (parallel to top fuselage shell) has a measurement of 33” or 4.5” higher than the plans note.
I’m excited to hear some thoughts on this before I bond my tail spring in.