Date   

Re: : Rudder balancing

alfranken2001 <alfranken@...>
 

O.K David, so...

If it's such a good idea why:

Hasn't anyone found it necessary to do it to their Q (in the past 25
years or so)?

How would you suggest one do it, if they so desired...without a
major design change to the rudder?

By the way, there are a whole lot of things that the FAA thinks is a
good idea, that a whole lot of people who fly airplanes don't agree
with...I just flew with a guy who insisted on turning on the
WHEELWELL LIGHTS, because, AS THE FAA SUGGESTS...for collision
avoidance ALL lights be on...just another one of their bad ideas...
every try to taxi next to a guy in a lineup with all his lights and
strobes on?...BA used to do this and it is a real pain...They must
be right though, no one has run into them yet...but of course, we
haven't run into anyone else either...how about security...since
they started searching flight crews years ago NONE of us have
hijacked an airplane...amazing isn't it...?

Yes, try to keep up...with what? Give me a break and please try
answer my 2 questions with some common sense suggestions, please?

Al





--- In Q-LIST@..., "David J. Gall" <David@G...> wrote:
Al,

Sam's account is a classic description of flutter, not just buzz.

In answer to your question, "...anyone still think that balancing
it is a
good idea?" Yes, the FAA does in FAR 23.629. I already posted
that; try to
keep up.


David J. Gall


-----Original Message-----
From: alfranken2001 [mailto:alfranken@m...]
Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2003 4:49 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: : Rudder balancing


Sam,

Welcome back and congrats.

Now that we have the owner's verson of the story, it like Larry's
version certainly indicates that there is nothing in the design
of
the rudder of the Q2-Q2XX airplanes, that has shown iself worthy
of
change...certainly no cause for figuring out how to balance one.-
--

David G's info was certainly interesting, maybe in practical
terms
he could suggest, if someone really wanted to waste their time,
how
one could come up with a plan to redesign the rudder to make it
easy
to balance...I do like James P's idea, but many think that a
change
to the rudder is unnecessary, just like the same uniformed idea
that
a reflexor is a bad thing...

Well, two for two in world of cable slop and bad springs causing
some rudder chatter, buzz or vibration, or some distant cousin of
flutter...anyone still think that balancing it is a good idea?

I you're not flying yet and still think so...it's probably better
time spent building, rather than fixing something that ain't
broke.

I does bring up the point that as our planes age, as things wear,
checking the slop in the hinges and cables is a big deal. I
remember, years ago, being with Bob M. when he was working on his
aileron hinges, replacing the outboard bushing. He had noticed
his
ailerons vibrating a lot on the ground and found a lot of slop in
them. He found at some RPM taxiing, that some frequency in the
airframe hit resonance with the ailerons and they shook,a lot.

I suspect the rudder hinge is subject to the same wear, being
made
the same way...


Al

N200AL

In Q-LIST@..., "Sam Hoskins" <shoskins@g...> wrote:
Buzz, flutter, call it what you will, but it shook the crap of
the
aircraft
and it scared the crap out of me. At least till it stopped.

I had this happen on about three occasions on my Q-200, all
around
the 190+
mph range. It shook so much I thought I lost a part of the
prop
tip or a
cylinder. Throttling back was no direct help, but slowing
down to
about 175
stopped it.

Root cause was the cable tension between the rudder bellcrank
and
the
tailwheel was too loose. I tightened the cable turnbuckles a
turn
or two
and it never occurred again.

Newlywed Sam



-----Original Message-----
From: David J. Gall [mailto:David@G...]
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 10:44 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Re: Rudder balancing


Ryan,

While I was busy researching and typing, I guess everyone else
was
busy
answering off-the-cuff. Had I seen these replies, I would have
remarked more
heavily on the parts of the text covering irreversibility of
the
controls
and the application of artificial damping. I also would have
mentioned that
the speed range referenced in the text is for anything above
150
mph, and
that the simplified methods outlined in AC 63.629 are only for
use
BELOW 200
mph, implying that flutter is certainly a possibility below
that
speed.

I would suspect (no evidence -- wasn't there) that the flutter
Larry refers
to was merely control surface "buzz," a related but far less
harmful cousin
to flutter. However, it certainly could have been flutter,
possibly due to
slop in the hinges and controls, well-lubricated hinges, and/or
the typical
Quickie-style slack rudder cables. I think it is equally
plausible
that it
promptly stopped just by putting feet on the rudder pedals or
by
applying
slight pressure with feet that were already there. Any change
in
the dynamic
will shift the natural flutter frequency, and any stiffening of
the controls
will shift the natural flutter frequency higher requiring more
energy --
higher airspeed -- to keep it fluttering. No need to slow down
to
make the
flutter stop in that case.

I'm more inclined to believe ONE pilot who says, "hey, I got
flutter in
mine" than I am to believe a hundred guys who say it can't
happen.
Flutter
(okay, "aeroelasticity") was the subject of the great WWI
George
Peppard
flick "The Blue Max." Lest we forget, NOTHING flew 150 mph in
WWI.
The great
Tony Bingelis almost lost his life to flutter in his Piel
Emeraude
at about
80 kts. When Larry Koutz and Dave Ekstrom both say it happened
to
them in
Q's, I believe them. The next logical item on the agenda is
not to
bark
about how "it can't be," but to find out why it almost bit them
and whether
it could happen to the rest of us.

Please carry on,


David J. Gall

-----Original Message-----
From: Tri-Q1 [mailto:rryan@s...]
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 10:48 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: Rudder balancing


Al, What about this one?

Ryan

From: "L Koutz" <koutzl@b...>
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Tail Wheel and Bellcrank Mods

I got rudder flutter approaching 200 MPH in a dive.

Larry


--- In Q-LIST@..., "alfranken2001"
<alfranken@m...>
wrote:
When balancing "a rudder"?.....forward of the hinge
point...

When balancing a "Quickie rudder"....forgedaboutit!

Unless you plan to fly a lot faster than any other Q on the
planet,
that is.

Al
N200AL


To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Q-LIST-unsubscribe@...

Quickie Builders Association WEB site
http://www.quickiebuilders.org



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/



To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Q-LIST-unsubscribe@...

Quickie Builders Association WEB site
http://www.quickiebuilders.org



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/



Re: Q vs. Tri-Q speeds

Tri-Q1 <rryan@...>
 

--- In Q-LIST@..., "Tri-Q1" <rryan@s...> wrote:
Group,

Please add your, before/after, numbers to the list.
This is not an official list but I believe will benifit all.

Ryan
ps. I will make corrections when information is avaliable.
============================
Here are some numbers. Remember the airspeeds are usually all out
throttle. Not cruise.

Name Plane MPH
Sam Hoskins Q200 198.546
Jim Patillo Q200 204.50
Ernest Martin Tri-Q200 180.068
Paul Fisher Q200 173.043
Lynn French Tri-Q200 158.560
Jerry Marstall Tri-Q2 142.810
Charlie Johnson Dragonfly MK-II 137.519
Terry Crouch Quickie 101.602
Ryan 1.6L Q1 140
Ryan 1.6L Tri-Q1 133

==================================


Re: : Rudder balancing

Bruce Crain
 

Just set your V-max at 175 and don't go over that. Finish the plane per rudder plans and enjoy it. Keep the tail wheel to rudder springs adjusted correctly and then go over 175. You don't have to have the fastest Q flying to enjoy it.
Bruce


-- "David J. Gall" <David@...> wrote:
Al,

Sam's account is a classic description of flutter, not just buzz.

In answer to your question, "...anyone still think that balancing it is a
good idea?" Yes, the FAA does in FAR 23.629. I already posted that; try to
keep up.


David J. Gall

-----Original Message-----
From: alfranken2001 [mailto:alfranken@...]
Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2003 4:49 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: : Rudder balancing


Sam,

Welcome back and congrats.

Now that we have the owner's verson of the story, it like Larry's
version certainly indicates that there is nothing in the design of
the rudder of the Q2-Q2XX airplanes, that has shown iself worthy of
change...certainly no cause for figuring out how to balance one.---

David G's info was certainly interesting, maybe in practical terms
he could suggest, if someone really wanted to waste their time, how
one could come up with a plan to redesign the rudder to make it easy
to balance...I do like James P's idea, but many think that a change
to the rudder is unnecessary, just like the same uniformed idea that
a reflexor is a bad thing...

Well, two for two in world of cable slop and bad springs causing
some rudder chatter, buzz or vibration, or some distant cousin of
flutter...anyone still think that balancing it is a good idea?

I you're not flying yet and still think so...it's probably better
time spent building, rather than fixing something that ain't broke.

I does bring up the point that as our planes age, as things wear,
checking the slop in the hinges and cables is a big deal. I
remember, years ago, being with Bob M. when he was working on his
aileron hinges, replacing the outboard bushing. He had noticed his
ailerons vibrating a lot on the ground and found a lot of slop in
them. He found at some RPM taxiing, that some frequency in the
airframe hit resonance with the ailerons and they shook,a lot.

I suspect the rudder hinge is subject to the same wear, being made
the same way...


Al

N200AL

In Q-LIST@..., "Sam Hoskins" <shoskins@g...> wrote:
Buzz, flutter, call it what you will, but it shook the crap of the
aircraft
and it scared the crap out of me. At least till it stopped.

I had this happen on about three occasions on my Q-200, all around
the 190+
mph range. It shook so much I thought I lost a part of the prop
tip or a
cylinder. Throttling back was no direct help, but slowing down to
about 175
stopped it.

Root cause was the cable tension between the rudder bellcrank and
the
tailwheel was too loose. I tightened the cable turnbuckles a turn
or two
and it never occurred again.

Newlywed Sam



-----Original Message-----
From: David J. Gall [mailto:David@G...]
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 10:44 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Re: Rudder balancing


Ryan,

While I was busy researching and typing, I guess everyone else was
busy
answering off-the-cuff. Had I seen these replies, I would have
remarked more
heavily on the parts of the text covering irreversibility of the
controls
and the application of artificial damping. I also would have
mentioned that
the speed range referenced in the text is for anything above 150
mph, and
that the simplified methods outlined in AC 63.629 are only for use
BELOW 200
mph, implying that flutter is certainly a possibility below that
speed.

I would suspect (no evidence -- wasn't there) that the flutter
Larry refers
to was merely control surface "buzz," a related but far less
harmful cousin
to flutter. However, it certainly could have been flutter,
possibly due to
slop in the hinges and controls, well-lubricated hinges, and/or
the typical
Quickie-style slack rudder cables. I think it is equally plausible
that it
promptly stopped just by putting feet on the rudder pedals or by
applying
slight pressure with feet that were already there. Any change in
the dynamic
will shift the natural flutter frequency, and any stiffening of
the controls
will shift the natural flutter frequency higher requiring more
energy --
higher airspeed -- to keep it fluttering. No need to slow down to
make the
flutter stop in that case.

I'm more inclined to believe ONE pilot who says, "hey, I got
flutter in
mine" than I am to believe a hundred guys who say it can't happen.
Flutter
(okay, "aeroelasticity") was the subject of the great WWI George
Peppard
flick "The Blue Max." Lest we forget, NOTHING flew 150 mph in WWI.
The great
Tony Bingelis almost lost his life to flutter in his Piel Emeraude
at about
80 kts. When Larry Koutz and Dave Ekstrom both say it happened to
them in
Q's, I believe them. The next logical item on the agenda is not to
bark
about how "it can't be," but to find out why it almost bit them
and whether
it could happen to the rest of us.

Please carry on,


David J. Gall

-----Original Message-----
From: Tri-Q1 [mailto:rryan@s...]
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 10:48 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: Rudder balancing


Al, What about this one?

Ryan

From: "L Koutz" <koutzl@b...>
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Tail Wheel and Bellcrank Mods

I got rudder flutter approaching 200 MPH in a dive.

Larry


--- In Q-LIST@..., "alfranken2001" <alfranken@m...>
wrote:
When balancing "a rudder"?.....forward of the hinge point...

When balancing a "Quickie rudder"....forgedaboutit!

Unless you plan to fly a lot faster than any other Q on the
planet,
that is.

Al
N200AL


To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Q-LIST-unsubscribe@...

Quickie Builders Association WEB site
http://www.quickiebuilders.org



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/



To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Q-LIST-unsubscribe@...

Quickie Builders Association WEB site
http://www.quickiebuilders.org



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Q-LIST-unsubscribe@...

Quickie Builders Association WEB site
http://www.quickiebuilders.org



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!


Re: Sparrow Strainers

David J. Gall
 

Ron,

I don't have a flying Q, but I'll try to answer your question. Sparrow
strainers are like big, fixed trim tabs. They make it possible for you to
pull enough up elevator to fly. They also increase "stick-free" pitch
stability. They are mandatory for flight if you have the LS-1 canard. Flying
without them could leave a permanent mark....


David J. Gall
BSAE, Comm Inst ASMEL, AGI, CFIAI (expired)
Quickie kit owner

-----Original Message-----
From: rondefly [mailto:rondefly@...]
Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2003 8:31 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Sparrow Strainers


They are part of the origional design and necessary. Since I did not build
this from zero, My understanding is they aid the airflow over the
elevator's. Maybe some of the flying Q's will give us the exact
job they do.


Re: : Rudder balancing

David J. Gall
 

Al,

Sam's account is a classic description of flutter, not just buzz.

In answer to your question, "...anyone still think that balancing it is a
good idea?" Yes, the FAA does in FAR 23.629. I already posted that; try to
keep up.


David J. Gall

-----Original Message-----
From: alfranken2001 [mailto:alfranken@...]
Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2003 4:49 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: : Rudder balancing


Sam,

Welcome back and congrats.

Now that we have the owner's verson of the story, it like Larry's
version certainly indicates that there is nothing in the design of
the rudder of the Q2-Q2XX airplanes, that has shown iself worthy of
change...certainly no cause for figuring out how to balance one.---

David G's info was certainly interesting, maybe in practical terms
he could suggest, if someone really wanted to waste their time, how
one could come up with a plan to redesign the rudder to make it easy
to balance...I do like James P's idea, but many think that a change
to the rudder is unnecessary, just like the same uniformed idea that
a reflexor is a bad thing...

Well, two for two in world of cable slop and bad springs causing
some rudder chatter, buzz or vibration, or some distant cousin of
flutter...anyone still think that balancing it is a good idea?

I you're not flying yet and still think so...it's probably better
time spent building, rather than fixing something that ain't broke.

I does bring up the point that as our planes age, as things wear,
checking the slop in the hinges and cables is a big deal. I
remember, years ago, being with Bob M. when he was working on his
aileron hinges, replacing the outboard bushing. He had noticed his
ailerons vibrating a lot on the ground and found a lot of slop in
them. He found at some RPM taxiing, that some frequency in the
airframe hit resonance with the ailerons and they shook,a lot.

I suspect the rudder hinge is subject to the same wear, being made
the same way...


Al

N200AL

In Q-LIST@..., "Sam Hoskins" <shoskins@g...> wrote:
Buzz, flutter, call it what you will, but it shook the crap of the
aircraft
and it scared the crap out of me. At least till it stopped.

I had this happen on about three occasions on my Q-200, all around
the 190+
mph range. It shook so much I thought I lost a part of the prop
tip or a
cylinder. Throttling back was no direct help, but slowing down to
about 175
stopped it.

Root cause was the cable tension between the rudder bellcrank and
the
tailwheel was too loose. I tightened the cable turnbuckles a turn
or two
and it never occurred again.

Newlywed Sam



-----Original Message-----
From: David J. Gall [mailto:David@G...]
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 10:44 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Re: Rudder balancing


Ryan,

While I was busy researching and typing, I guess everyone else was
busy
answering off-the-cuff. Had I seen these replies, I would have
remarked more
heavily on the parts of the text covering irreversibility of the
controls
and the application of artificial damping. I also would have
mentioned that
the speed range referenced in the text is for anything above 150
mph, and
that the simplified methods outlined in AC 63.629 are only for use
BELOW 200
mph, implying that flutter is certainly a possibility below that
speed.

I would suspect (no evidence -- wasn't there) that the flutter
Larry refers
to was merely control surface "buzz," a related but far less
harmful cousin
to flutter. However, it certainly could have been flutter,
possibly due to
slop in the hinges and controls, well-lubricated hinges, and/or
the typical
Quickie-style slack rudder cables. I think it is equally plausible
that it
promptly stopped just by putting feet on the rudder pedals or by
applying
slight pressure with feet that were already there. Any change in
the dynamic
will shift the natural flutter frequency, and any stiffening of
the controls
will shift the natural flutter frequency higher requiring more
energy --
higher airspeed -- to keep it fluttering. No need to slow down to
make the
flutter stop in that case.

I'm more inclined to believe ONE pilot who says, "hey, I got
flutter in
mine" than I am to believe a hundred guys who say it can't happen.
Flutter
(okay, "aeroelasticity") was the subject of the great WWI George
Peppard
flick "The Blue Max." Lest we forget, NOTHING flew 150 mph in WWI.
The great
Tony Bingelis almost lost his life to flutter in his Piel Emeraude
at about
80 kts. When Larry Koutz and Dave Ekstrom both say it happened to
them in
Q's, I believe them. The next logical item on the agenda is not to
bark
about how "it can't be," but to find out why it almost bit them
and whether
it could happen to the rest of us.

Please carry on,


David J. Gall

-----Original Message-----
From: Tri-Q1 [mailto:rryan@s...]
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 10:48 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: Rudder balancing


Al, What about this one?

Ryan

From: "L Koutz" <koutzl@b...>
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Tail Wheel and Bellcrank Mods

I got rudder flutter approaching 200 MPH in a dive.

Larry


--- In Q-LIST@..., "alfranken2001" <alfranken@m...>
wrote:
When balancing "a rudder"?.....forward of the hinge point...

When balancing a "Quickie rudder"....forgedaboutit!

Unless you plan to fly a lot faster than any other Q on the
planet,
that is.

Al
N200AL


To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Q-LIST-unsubscribe@...

Quickie Builders Association WEB site
http://www.quickiebuilders.org



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/



To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Q-LIST-unsubscribe@...

Quickie Builders Association WEB site
http://www.quickiebuilders.org



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/



Re: Sparrow Strainers

rondefly <rondefly@...>
 

They are part of the origional design and necessary. Since I did not build
this from zero, My understanding is they aid the airflow over the
elevator's. Maybe some of the flying Q's will give us the exact job they do.

Ron Triano, Quickerone
http://bld01.ipowerweb.com/contentmanagement/websites/rtrianoc/page3.html

-----Original Message-----
From: damiantwinsport@... [mailto:damiantwinsport@...]
Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2003 5:25 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Sparrow Strainers


In a message dated 11/1/2003 5:13:41 PM Pacific Standard Time,
rondefly@... writes:

>
http://bld01.ipowerweb.com/contentmanagement/websites/rtrianoc/page3.html
>

Ron I appreciate the postings and progress pics . What is the purpose of
the
"Sparrow Strainers"
Regards,
Damian Gregory





Yahoo! Groups Sponsor



To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Q-LIST-unsubscribe@...

Quickie Builders Association WEB site
http://www.quickiebuilders.org



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


Sparrow Strainers

rondefly <rondefly@...>
 

Now they are in place, I am starting to detail all the little spots
everywhere to get ready for paint. You can see the strainers on my web link
below and I also will upload them to the Q list photo's under (Changing)

Ron Triano, Quickerone
http://bld01.ipowerweb.com/contentmanagement/websites/rtrianoc/page3.html


Re: New design?

Bruce Crain
 

Wasn't the Dragonfly the next evolution after the Q?
It does have a larger cockpit. It could probably benefit from the LS1 canard or something better. Butch Hernandez had a nice Tri-Dragonfly with a Continental 0200. It is probably in line for a hp increase along with a strenghtening of the flying surfaces. Justin Mace has an O200 on his Dragonfly. Maybe 150 hp or more. I love my TriQ200 but a Dragonfly might be stretched and pumped easier. Just a suggestion. I love to stir it up!
Bruce


-- BD5ER@... wrote:
In a message dated 11/1/03 03:40:46 PM Mountain Standard Time,
alfranken@... writes:


My Q200, does fly well when you get up a head a steam, but I really
think the QAC didn't do a very good job in the conversion.
While I've got some reservations about the Q-2, I wouldn't go so far as to
say that QAC didn't do a very good job. For it's time the Q-2 was a pretty good
plane, just maybe not as good as their add copy implied. Still is a good
design compared to some. We've hopefully learned a little bit since then. I'd
hope that if someone "updates" the Q they actually make some improvements.

<<Hope your "supersized" works well, I bet it will.>>

Time will tell. I know my mods to accommodate my girth have added a bit of
drag. But that's what the ~30 snarling Hp is there for <G>

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Leon McAtee
Q-1 "super sized"...............Flight time 0 hrs.
Looking for Aeronca C-3 Factory drawings/copies
i
~~~~(^)~~~~
_____l__ __I_____






To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Q-LIST-unsubscribe@...

Quickie Builders Association WEB site
http://www.quickiebuilders.org



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!


New design?

alfranken2001 <alfranken@...>
 

Leon,

"To really make a good plane I think you need to start with a clean
sheet of
paper and design something that just looks like the original Q.
To be honest,
I can't think of a single part of the original Q-2 kits, other
than hardware
that could/should be used on an updated version."
I laughed out loud reading this...how true!

I do think that some sharp individual could come up with a better
set of airfoils, or entire wing design, for the Q2XX series, as
there's surely a better way to do it...

My Q200, does fly well when you get up a head a steam, but I really
think the QAC didn't do a very good job in the conversion. I think
that probably the Q1 is a heck of a lot better designed bird (except
for the engine) and that the guys that put a good engine on it
probably have a better machine...design wise.

Hope your "supersized" works well, I bet it will.

Al
N200AL

PS I changed the subject line...








--- In Q-LIST@..., BD5ER@a... wrote:
In a message dated 11/1/03 03:11:14 PM Mountain Standard Time,
damiantwinsport@a... writes:


Do you have any ideas or source info for a
better airfoil than the LS1?
This all depends on the "mission profile" of your updated Q. This
is the
first thing to get nailed down before you spend any time poking
the calculator,
much less processor time for FEA. IMHO the main wing is the
limiting factor in
improving the Q's performance. It worked well for the original
Quickie but I
think there may be better solutions for a 200+ MPH craft. The
lifting
surfaces on a tandem wing plane are not discrete entities. They
need to be
considered collectively as part of a system.

To really make a good plane I think you need to start with a clean
sheet of
paper and design something that just looks like the original Q.
To be honest,
I can't think of a single part of the original Q-2 kits, other
than hardware
that could/should be used on an updated version.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Leon McAtee
Q-1 "super sized"...............Flight time 0 hrs.
Looking for Aeronca C-3 Factory drawings/copies
i
~~~~(^)~~~~
_____l__ __I_____



Re: : Rudder balancing

alfranken2001 <alfranken@...>
 

Damian,

Not quite sure of the question,
"That is Qs are not
reguired to have a passive or active anti flutter control surface
devices . "

but, there is, of course, no "requirement" to do really anything to
the airplane...

There has never been a plans inclusion for ANY type of rudder
balancing. The Q200 plans change included aileron balancing. I
know that the Q200 also had some sort of elevator balance, but it
may have been on the Q2, also, I can't remember.

You may be right on the topic of loose cables causing the same
problem, regardless of balancing...I don't know about that either. a

I do know, that the plans design on the rudder works OK for
flying...ground handling is another issue.

What plane are you building? Stage of progess, etc?

AL
N200AL

--- In Q-LIST@..., damiantwinsport@a... wrote:
So as I understand it and please correct me if I am wrong. That is
Qs are not
reguired to have a passive or active anti flutter control surface
devices .
Rudder balancing would or would not stop flutter or "Buzz" if the
control
cables were loose?
Respectfully,
Damian Gregory ( newbie)



Re: : Rudder balancing

alfranken2001 <alfranken@...>
 

Sam,

Welcome back and congrats.

Now that we have the owner's verson of the story, it like Larry's
version certainly indicates that there is nothing in the design of
the rudder of the Q2-Q2XX airplanes, that has shown iself worthy of
change...certainly no cause for figuring out how to balance one.---

David G's info was certainly interesting, maybe in practical terms
he could suggest, if someone really wanted to waste their time, how
one could come up with a plan to redesign the rudder to make it easy
to balance...I do like James P's idea, but many think that a change
to the rudder is unnecessary, just like the same uniformed idea that
a reflexor is a bad thing...

Well, two for two in world of cable slop and bad springs causing
some rudder chatter, buzz or vibration, or some distant cousin of
flutter...anyone still think that balancing it is a good idea?

I you're not flying yet and still think so...it's probably better
time spent building, rather than fixing something that ain't broke.

I does bring up the point that as our planes age, as things wear,
checking the slop in the hinges and cables is a big deal. I
remember, years ago, being with Bob M. when he was working on his
aileron hinges, replacing the outboard bushing. He had noticed his
ailerons vibrating a lot on the ground and found a lot of slop in
them. He found at some RPM taxiing, that some frequency in the
airframe hit resonance with the ailerons and they shook,a lot.

I suspect the rudder hinge is subject to the same wear, being made
the same way...


Al

N200AL

In Q-LIST@..., "Sam Hoskins" <shoskins@g...> wrote:
Buzz, flutter, call it what you will, but it shook the crap of the
aircraft
and it scared the crap out of me. At least till it stopped.

I had this happen on about three occasions on my Q-200, all around
the 190+
mph range. It shook so much I thought I lost a part of the prop
tip or a
cylinder. Throttling back was no direct help, but slowing down to
about 175
stopped it.

Root cause was the cable tension between the rudder bellcrank and
the
tailwheel was too loose. I tightened the cable turnbuckles a turn
or two
and it never occurred again.

Newlywed Sam



-----Original Message-----
From: David J. Gall [mailto:David@G...]
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 10:44 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Re: Rudder balancing


Ryan,

While I was busy researching and typing, I guess everyone else was
busy
answering off-the-cuff. Had I seen these replies, I would have
remarked more
heavily on the parts of the text covering irreversibility of the
controls
and the application of artificial damping. I also would have
mentioned that
the speed range referenced in the text is for anything above 150
mph, and
that the simplified methods outlined in AC 63.629 are only for use
BELOW 200
mph, implying that flutter is certainly a possibility below that
speed.

I would suspect (no evidence -- wasn't there) that the flutter
Larry refers
to was merely control surface "buzz," a related but far less
harmful cousin
to flutter. However, it certainly could have been flutter,
possibly due to
slop in the hinges and controls, well-lubricated hinges, and/or
the typical
Quickie-style slack rudder cables. I think it is equally plausible
that it
promptly stopped just by putting feet on the rudder pedals or by
applying
slight pressure with feet that were already there. Any change in
the dynamic
will shift the natural flutter frequency, and any stiffening of
the controls
will shift the natural flutter frequency higher requiring more
energy --
higher airspeed -- to keep it fluttering. No need to slow down to
make the
flutter stop in that case.

I'm more inclined to believe ONE pilot who says, "hey, I got
flutter in
mine" than I am to believe a hundred guys who say it can't happen.
Flutter
(okay, "aeroelasticity") was the subject of the great WWI George
Peppard
flick "The Blue Max." Lest we forget, NOTHING flew 150 mph in WWI.
The great
Tony Bingelis almost lost his life to flutter in his Piel Emeraude
at about
80 kts. When Larry Koutz and Dave Ekstrom both say it happened to
them in
Q's, I believe them. The next logical item on the agenda is not to
bark
about how "it can't be," but to find out why it almost bit them
and whether
it could happen to the rest of us.

Please carry on,


David J. Gall

-----Original Message-----
From: Tri-Q1 [mailto:rryan@s...]
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 10:48 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: Rudder balancing


Al, What about this one?

Ryan

From: "L Koutz" <koutzl@b...>
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Tail Wheel and Bellcrank Mods

I got rudder flutter approaching 200 MPH in a dive.

Larry


--- In Q-LIST@..., "alfranken2001" <alfranken@m...>
wrote:
When balancing "a rudder"?.....forward of the hinge point...

When balancing a "Quickie rudder"....forgedaboutit!

Unless you plan to fly a lot faster than any other Q on the
planet,
that is.

Al
N200AL


To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Q-LIST-unsubscribe@...

Quickie Builders Association WEB site
http://www.quickiebuilders.org



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Re: templates

Peter Harris <peterjfharris@...>
 

Damian ,
A 2 place and a 4 place Q from a pre fab kit would make a big impression.
Peter

----- Original Message -----
From: damiantwinsport@...
To: Q-LIST@...
Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2003 3:13 PM
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Re: templates


"Better suited" Where would one start looking for such a design? And what
characteristics would be more desired? Lift? Lower drag?
I have always loved the look of the Q since day 1 and since studying
advanced composites for the last 5 years I would love to build the "Ultimate Q."
I look at the success that Lancair has had and the differential in costs as
well as what a finished aircraft Q. Vs Lancair are. Makes me wonder if it
would be worth it to invest some time in developing a "better " Q.
I would like to pose a general query to the Q populace. What would be the
"Ideal" Q?
Features that are a must etc..
Thanks in advance,
Damian Gregory





Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT




To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Q-LIST-unsubscribe@...

Quickie Builders Association WEB site
http://www.quickiebuilders.org



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


Re: templates

Peter Harris <peterjfharris@...>
 

Damian,
If this means a possible source for ready built pre formed wings and canard this could be the way to find a new generation of builders and to ensure the future for the Q.
Construction of the wing and canard is a negative for many potential builders.
Peter

----- Original Message -----
From: damiantwinsport@...
To: Q-LIST@...
Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2003 1:02 PM
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Re: templates


I have read about the lineage of the LS1 and noted that one of the benefits
to that foil shape was that it was tolerant of builder variances. It would be
useful though to establish the optimum surface shape. One way to assure that
surface would be to create Female surface templates and construct a male plug
that a female mold could be pulled from then one could work backwards with the
skin. This would allow one to build a hollow wing (less weight no inner laminar
shear on flexion) would be a superior wing structure.
Question is as always, cost. Does the collective Q community think it would
be justified? I.e... If such a proven structure was available would anyone
consider retrofitting?
Regards,
Damian Gregory





Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT




To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Q-LIST-unsubscribe@...

Quickie Builders Association WEB site
http://www.quickiebuilders.org



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


Re: : Rudder balancing

heandjrbass@...
 

Hi any of you guy's need a Q 2 I still have my project w/Revmaster 2100 D and
demuth prop, come on to Atlanta Ga and get it . Thank's Randy Bass.


Re: : Rudder balancing

Sam Hoskins <shoskins@...>
 

Buzz, flutter, call it what you will, but it shook the crap of the aircraft
and it scared the crap out of me. At least till it stopped.

I had this happen on about three occasions on my Q-200, all around the 190+
mph range. It shook so much I thought I lost a part of the prop tip or a
cylinder. Throttling back was no direct help, but slowing down to about 175
stopped it.

Root cause was the cable tension between the rudder bellcrank and the
tailwheel was too loose. I tightened the cable turnbuckles a turn or two
and it never occurred again.

Newlywed Sam

-----Original Message-----
From: David J. Gall [mailto:David@...]
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 10:44 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Re: Rudder balancing


Ryan,

While I was busy researching and typing, I guess everyone else was busy
answering off-the-cuff. Had I seen these replies, I would have remarked more
heavily on the parts of the text covering irreversibility of the controls
and the application of artificial damping. I also would have mentioned that
the speed range referenced in the text is for anything above 150 mph, and
that the simplified methods outlined in AC 63.629 are only for use BELOW 200
mph, implying that flutter is certainly a possibility below that speed.

I would suspect (no evidence -- wasn't there) that the flutter Larry refers
to was merely control surface "buzz," a related but far less harmful cousin
to flutter. However, it certainly could have been flutter, possibly due to
slop in the hinges and controls, well-lubricated hinges, and/or the typical
Quickie-style slack rudder cables. I think it is equally plausible that it
promptly stopped just by putting feet on the rudder pedals or by applying
slight pressure with feet that were already there. Any change in the dynamic
will shift the natural flutter frequency, and any stiffening of the controls
will shift the natural flutter frequency higher requiring more energy --
higher airspeed -- to keep it fluttering. No need to slow down to make the
flutter stop in that case.

I'm more inclined to believe ONE pilot who says, "hey, I got flutter in
mine" than I am to believe a hundred guys who say it can't happen. Flutter
(okay, "aeroelasticity") was the subject of the great WWI George Peppard
flick "The Blue Max." Lest we forget, NOTHING flew 150 mph in WWI. The great
Tony Bingelis almost lost his life to flutter in his Piel Emeraude at about
80 kts. When Larry Koutz and Dave Ekstrom both say it happened to them in
Q's, I believe them. The next logical item on the agenda is not to bark
about how "it can't be," but to find out why it almost bit them and whether
it could happen to the rest of us.

Please carry on,


David J. Gall

-----Original Message-----
From: Tri-Q1 [mailto:rryan@...]
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 10:48 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: Rudder balancing


Al, What about this one?

Ryan

From: "L Koutz" <koutzl@b...>
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Tail Wheel and Bellcrank Mods

I got rudder flutter approaching 200 MPH in a dive.

Larry


--- In Q-LIST@..., "alfranken2001" <alfranken@m...> wrote:
When balancing "a rudder"?.....forward of the hinge point...

When balancing a "Quickie rudder"....forgedaboutit!

Unless you plan to fly a lot faster than any other Q on the planet,
that is.

Al
N200AL


To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Q-LIST-unsubscribe@...

Quickie Builders Association WEB site
http://www.quickiebuilders.org



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Re: Sparrow Strainers

damiantwinsport@...
 

In a message dated 11/1/2003 5:13:41 PM Pacific Standard Time,
rondefly@... writes:

http://bld01.ipowerweb.com/contentmanagement/websites/rtrianoc/page3.html
Ron I appreciate the postings and progress pics . What is the purpose of the
"Sparrow Strainers"
Regards,
Damian Gregory


Re: Mono wheel

damiantwinsport@...
 

On a Q200 one could on first thumbnail hinge it off the firewall and nest it
under the center console with a blister on the bottom of the fuselage. the
wing tip wheels would have to change to smaller stabilizer wheels and
retractable gear. I would be comfortable utilizing the end of spar as a hinge point.
Looks good on sketches .
Dman


Re: New design?

Hot Wings
 

No really major mods for me. I still have hope of actually finishing the
thing. The new canard and non Onan engine is enough Experimenting for now. I
don't see my mods as really improving the Quickie, just making it a bit more
personalized. (IMHO the Onan is unflyable at my altitude) And if I had known
that the spars for an LS-1 Quickie canard were again available 6 months ago I
probably would have built a stock QAC LS-1 rather then the thing I came up with.

Just like my opinion about an updated Q-2, to significantly improve the
Quickie would take a clean sheet of paper. That task I will leave to another.
After all if I didn't think the Quickie would do for me what I wanted I would
have chosen another design.

In a message dated 11/1/03 04:00:01 PM Mountain Standard Time,
damiantwinsport@... writes:


Leon, Thanks for your response. Is that what you are doing with your Super
sized Q? If so how far along are you? What is you target speed ? 4 seater?
What
powerplant? What payload? Fixed gear or retractable? Taildragger or tri?
I was hoping to not make such a long trip to flying, rather just update a
cool design maybe lighter and stronger with a shorter TO and Landing.
Fowlers?
Retractable tail dragger? Mono wheel?
If I could figure out where to put the fuel a retractable mono wheel could
become a reality someday. Always thought the Europa's was an elegant solution.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Leon McAtee
Q-1 "super sized"...............Flight time 0 hrs.
Looking for Aeronca C-3 Factory drawings/copies
i
~~~~(^)~~~~
_____l__ __I_____


Re: New design?

Hot Wings
 

In a message dated 11/1/03 03:40:46 PM Mountain Standard Time,
alfranken@... writes:


My Q200, does fly well when you get up a head a steam, but I really
think the QAC didn't do a very good job in the conversion.
While I've got some reservations about the Q-2, I wouldn't go so far as to
say that QAC didn't do a very good job. For it's time the Q-2 was a pretty good
plane, just maybe not as good as their add copy implied. Still is a good
design compared to some. We've hopefully learned a little bit since then. I'd
hope that if someone "updates" the Q they actually make some improvements.

<<Hope your "supersized" works well, I bet it will.>>

Time will tell. I know my mods to accommodate my girth have added a bit of
drag. But that's what the ~30 snarling Hp is there for <G>

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Leon McAtee
Q-1 "super sized"...............Flight time 0 hrs.
Looking for Aeronca C-3 Factory drawings/copies
i
~~~~(^)~~~~
_____l__ __I_____


Re: : Rudder balancing

damiantwinsport@...
 

Al, thanks for reply. I am currently looking at several options from complete
kits w/o powerplants to a crashed Q with a broken wing.( I have a soft spot
for wounded animals)
I do not like the idea of wearing a cooking pot on my head for safety when I
ride my motorcycles so instead wear an expensive Simpson
(Carbon/kevlar/epoxy. ) That is one reason I have selected an all composite plane. Like I said in
an earlier post esthetically I have always loved the Q since day one. I need a
plane and just can't bring myself to buying a 172 or the ilk. My last
personal plane was a Funk if you know what that is. Fun to rebuild but a little too
creaky and slow for me. Lancairs I don't like the look of and I think they are
a bit pricey.
So it is a Q warts and all. Just want to get an idea from guys flying them
what improvements I could make. Composites and design as well as engineering
are my forte/curse so of course everything I touch is Stronger,Lighter,Faster
LOL . Today I am finishing up a carbon/kevlar epoxy body for my Pop's Lotus FF.
Why? Knock off 80 lb. and I can.
I appreciate advice and opinions rendered here.
Thanks,
Damian Gregory