When we created the bell crank in good old KLVK, it was so that you could remove some of the twitchy- ness out of the tail wheel on landing, and ditto for the toe brakes (during the transition from flight to ground handling). This is where Q pilots can get into trouble. 

 

 By using a 6” bell crank you can create proportional differential between the rudder and tail wheel.  Sam’s splitter solves the broken tail spring issue but does not address the twitchy issue. Correct me if I am wrong Sam, I'm getting old. 😊

IMHO, properly doing the Gall Alignment takes care of the handling issues. In the history of the Q-2/Q-200, there were a lot of handling issues because the plans didn't takke into account the weight of the aircraft.  If you compare the Q-1 plans with the Q-2 plans you will see that the lifted the wheel pant installation as a cut and paste from the Q-1 plans.

Way back when, the community tried all sorts of fixes for instance, changing deck angles, changing the geometry of the tailwheel bracket, changing the position of the axle in the wheel pants, and most radicaly, converting it to a tricycle gear.  Then David Gall came along and nailed the true problem - the wheel alignment was wrong once the engine was installed and the aircraft was loaded.  He published the fix.  I think he did a white paper on it as well.  When I built a new cannard I incorporated the Gall Alignment at the get go.  It's somewhere here: https://q-list.groups.io/g/main/files/Canard%20-%20%20LS-1%20for%20Q-200/Improved%20LS1%20Instructions-1.pdf

My aircraft handles better than it ever has and the rudder pedals are responsive. At this point, who's aircraft is twitchy or not?  I guess the way we could only tell is to have a meet-up sometime.

Sam