Date   

Re: CAD LS-1

Larry Severson
 

At 07:26 AM 10/22/2004 -0800, you wrote:

Dave,

Want me to scold? I can do that: Larry, your airplane is broke. Quit trying to redesign it and just fix it! There, he's been scolded.
I could slap it together and be done. Unfortunately, each solution creates new problems. When I am satisfied that I have optimized within the existing framework, I will carefully put it together. I ain't rebuilding what ain't broke, but I do want my changes to prevent the problem that I had without making other things more difficult. Unfortunately, I am going to have to handle the caster/camber problem with differential finger brakes at this time. I am also hoping that the VGs will get me airborne before the ground looping speed (assuming that the camber debate has any merit). However, hope and actual seldom match. And, landing speed is not the same as initial fly speed.

One thing that no one has mentioned in the caster camber debate is the fact that a plane does not suddenly fly. As speed increases, lift is developed. The camber on the tip gear due to canard droop changes during T/O roll. Just prior to lift off, the gear will match the no weight camber. As a former B-52 pilot, I well remember how the wing started out with the tip drooping and the tip gear on the ground. As the plane accelerated the TG slowly lifted up until the wing tips were well above the wing roots before the plane left the ground.

What is fascinating in all of this is that my plane tracked very straight up to 62 MPH in repeated testing, prior to the problem. Maybe, as I said before, the problem was not caster/camber.


Larry Severson
Fountain Valley, CA 92708
(714) 968-9852
larry2@...


Re: CAD LS-1

damiantwinsport@...
 

Larry, one thing you failed to address with the use of carbon is it's strength is derived not only from the modulus of the material but in the process that one utilizes in applying it.
Carbon cloth in a wet layup without vacuumbagging has very little improvement over glass and is prone to fracture and delamination when intermixed with glass and not consolidated properly.(Partly due also to the extreme differences in moduli)
Your concept would require either male or female molds be made with sufficient strength to resist collapsing under vacum pressure. Foam will not accomplish this.
Ron Triano's adjustable caster/camber adjusters are simple and an excellent idea IMHO but as Ron wrote me "they haven't been tested yet".
I am replacing the damaged LS1 on our Q200 with an LS1. The only deviation I intend to include is a carbon spar cap that will be bonded to original Carbon tube spars. The spar caps will be nomex cored and constructed from high modulus pre-preg carbon with a protective skin of aramid and glass. The trailing edge of the assembly will have a stepped two inch bond strip included so that the rest of the wing skins will lay-up flush with trailing edge of caps.
The result will be a stiffer and lighter Canard (all good).A little daunting for those without the facility and material at their disposal.But for me it is one of the perks of what I do.
Regards,
Damian Gregory N8427 (under repair)


Re: CAD LS-1

Larry Severson
 

Larry, Well thought out and stated! If I were you, I would go with the LS-1
just so I would not have to have the VG's to look at. I wonder if the
flying Q's with the GU have a better stall speed?
Refer back to Jim Postma's VG#3 test report where he did fly bys and 30 degree bank turns at 60 MPH.


Larry Severson
Fountain Valley, CA 92708
(714) 968-9852
larry2@...


Re: CAD LS-1

David J. Gall
 

Dave,

Mine WAS a considered comment. Why do you use my post as your jumping-off point? John tenHave's post came much closer to a "scolding" referring to Larry's advice as "half-assed" and such, but I must say that Larry got exactly what he asked for from everyone so far: considered advice.

There is nothing more considered than the overall safety of the community and the reputation of the airplane and preservation of its resale value as evinced by John's comments, the preservation of the heritage of innovation through cataloguers such as myself (bet you had forgotten about the Weishaar/Doyle carbon LS-1 that pre-dates the QAC LS-1, hadn't you!) and advice from the likes of Sam Hoskins recommending the LS-1 and an O-200, etc.

What Larry is positing is twofold: 1) That the GU canard is somehow more aerodynamically efficient and therefore worthy of having its structure upgraded to carry the loads of the O-200 in a Q200 type configuration; and 2) That the wheels should be mounted on cantilevered Cessna-style axles to permit convenient adjustment to the wheel alignment.

The latter is not merited. There is no need for frequent readjustment or micro-fine control over the initial alignment of the main wheels. Close enough is good enough.

The idea that the GU canard is preferable to the LS-1 is also not supported by evidence.

Proposing a major structural change to the GU canard in order to beef it up for the landing gear loads of a cantilevered axle and an increased gross weight when a suitable alternative is in the field flight tested and successful for over twenty years is just a waste of time.

Want me to scold? I can do that: Larry, your airplane is broke. Quit trying to redesign it and just fix it! There, he's been scolded.

Wanna redesign the Q200? There's a whole other Yahoo Group devoted to exactly that over on the Quickie Performance Group website. Let's talk about carbon spars and debate the efficiency of the LS-1 vs. GU canard over there, and leave the builder-advice for relatively stock and proven modifications here on Q-LIST.

As for your Q1 delemma, I'd rather have a Roncz Long-EZ airfoil on the canard of either a Q1 or Q200, but I'll keep any speculative engineering advice along those lines to myself on this list. That's what the Q-Performance Group is for. Meet me there!


David J. Gall

----- Original Message -----
From: Dave Klingler <voronwae@...>
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] CAD LS-1
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 01:03:31 -0700 (PDT)



Folks, Larry started his post with "For your
considered comment". He's throwing out an idea which
on its face has some merit and he's asking for
intelligent discussion rather than a knee-jerk
scolding. Surely there are people on this list who
might like to talk about it?

Second, Larry also mentioned that his post was for
"those who are about to start cutting foam for the
canard". I fall into that category, so naturally I've
wondered about using carbon and better grades of foam
rather than the original Quickie materials (I have a
Q1, especially "primitive"). I'd like to see some
discussion on using modern materials on planes
currently being built. In addition, I'm re-engining
my plane with a considerably stronger engine (haven't
decided which one yet) and I keep wondering about the
disadvantages of using carbon versus e-glass.

I'm preparing to prepare to prepare to get my plane in
the air again after fourteen years of storage; the
previous owner ground-looped it and decided God had
sent him a message not to fly. I'm amazed and pleased
by the progress in materials since my Quickie was
designed (and since I spent three years building a
Seahawk). I've been spending a lot of time attempting
to decide whether I should be building an LS-1 or GU
canard, and of what materials it should be. I'm
willing to take as much time as it takes to be sure,
but please let the discussion continue in a civilized
and friendly tone so that everybody can benefit.

Btw, is there a general consensus that a new Q1 canard
should be LS-1? Or should it be a GU with VGs? The
GU issue was a big part of what made me store my
Quickie in the first place.

Thanks!
Dave Klingler
Albuquerque, New Mexico
(505) 255-0653
voronwae@...
Quickie N2LQ


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

Larry,

Don't bother! To quote Rutan: "Simplicate and add
lightness. If you're
considering adding something to your airplane, throw
it up in the air. If is
comes down, it's TOO HEAVY -- leave it out."

By the time you do all that structural stuff in
order to support a
cantilevered axle, you could have cut off the old
pants, sanded a five or
six degree bezel on the top, ground down all the old
structural glass (to
save the weight) and reattached the pants at the new
camber angle. No
re-engineering required. The stock pants have plenty
of room for the stuff
that goes in 'em, or you could section the pants and
widen them while you
have them off the plane. You mention the aerodynamic
efficiency as a reason
for wanting to retain the GU canard, how about
giving equal "weight" to the
structural efficiency (lightness!) inherent in the
original pants?

I do not agree with the assertion that the GU canard
is "more efficient" or
whatever your argument is for using it instead of
the LS-1 canard. Stick
with tried and true and get it flying first. If you
absolutely, positively
gotta do the re-engineering thing, either copy the
built-up carbon spar that
Weishaar and Doyle built twenty years ago (for an
LS-1, but usable for a
GU), or call Jim Marske and get a professionally
engineered graphlite rod
spar and landing gear SYSTEM designed from scratch.
That'll cost you about
$20,000 in development costs and consulting fees (or
more!) but the
aerodynamics is already proven....

Hmmmm. Back to plan A: Fix the broken wheel pant,
fix the alignment, do the
Jim-Bob six-pack, consult with your tech counselor
and HEED his advice, get
a pro to test fly it, then go fly....


JMHO,
David J. Gall
PS Main wing winglets = drag, drag, drag! There is
NO need to "increase the
efficiency" of the main wing. It does not EVER stall
so reducing the stall
speed of the airplane means reducing the CANARD's
stall speed.... Also, the
canard carries the brunt of the airplane's weight at
cruise, so if winglets
were needed anywhere it would be on the canard! Of
course, that would be
directionally destabilizing, so increasing the
canard SPAN would be the
preferred method... But either canard winglets or
increasing the canard span
will require increasing the main wing span so that
the main wing remains
protected from EVER stalling... The circle of logic
then puts you squarely
in the Waddelow increased-span camp, or taken to
extremes gives you a
slow-ass Dragonfly instead of a Fassssst Q200....
It's ALL been discussed
here before, see the archives I'm too tired to
re-hash it all again. The
Q200 continues to be one of the aerodynamically BEST
airplanes EVER! Don't
think you can improve it without a Jon Roncz AND a
Jon Sharp on your team!
Again, JMHO!

-----Original Message-----
From: larry severson [mailto:larry2@...]
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2004 3:40 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] CAD LS-1


Anyone who disagrees, feel free to flame me on my
personal
e-mail address.
For considered comment use the net.

A thought for those who are about to start cutting
foam for
the canard on a
Q2 ( based on the published results of the VGs on
a GU canard
by JimP).

If you create the GU canard, then:
1. Cut off both tips (width of pants) (for gear
inside, or
not for gear
outside)
2. Cut out the center (3" wide) of the canard foam
full span
and round edges for the next step 3. Carbon fiber
glass the
cut out foam 4. reattach foam to new carbon fiber
spar and
fill the remaining grooves with flox 5. create a
3" wide X 1"
deep carbon fiber gear leg at the end of spars 6.
cut the end
tips to fit the gear legs (unnecessary for outside
geat) 7.
finish the wings per the plans 8. create the pants
per the
plans, except for the cutout for the gear legs.

9. Add the VGs per Jim P's #3 format tests when
ready

Would add 3 hours to the construction time and
$150 (carbon
fiber and VGs) to cost, but increase GW to/above
the LS1
while maintaining efficiency.
Adding winglets to the wing would help reduce
stall speed
further while increasing cruise speed by
effectively
increasing wing span and reducing drag.

Larry Severson
Fountain Valley, CA 92708
(714) 968-9852
larry2@...


Re: CAD LS-1

Ron <rondefly@...>
 

Larry, Well thought out and stated! If I were you, I would go with the LS-1
just so I would not have to have the VG's to look at. I wonder if the
flying Q's with the GU have a better stall speed? That would mean plenty if
you are at a shorter strip. Minden, NV where I base mine has more than 7000'
runway so for me that was not a consideration.



Ron Triano
http://bld01.ipowerweb.com/contentmanagement/websites/rtrianoc/page8.html

_____

From: larry severson [mailto:larry2@...]
Sent: Friday, October 22, 2004 8:15 AM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] CAD LS-1




Second, Larry also mentioned that his post was for
"those who are about to start cutting foam for the
canard".
The Q2's wings and canard are hot wire cut solid core foam blocks that are
joined together and glassed. They are more than strong enough for flight;
but with the gear at the tips (done for drag reduction), they are at risk
of break with a hard landing. My suggestion of cutting out a spar and
carbon fiber glassing was merely to create a wing within a wing using
identical building methods. Rejecting this concept requires rejecting the
whole concept of the Q2 construction. The canard will be significantly more
able to take gear impact stresses with the carbon fiber wrapped spar added.

I've been spending a lot of time attempting
to decide whether I should be building an LS-1 or GU
canard, and of what materials it should be.
The LS1 canard was added to the Q2 design to eliminate the problems of lift
loss in rain. (VGs have proven to be a viable alternative.) It had the
carbon fiber spar added for strength because the thinner canard would be
more subject to breaking. An additional benefit came when the extra
strength also allowed the additional weight required to put on the O-200
engine. It is not as efficient as the GU.

The LS1 and O-200 are popular due to the increased power and speed
available over the Revmaster. However, at over 8,000 feet altitude the
Turbo Revmaster has more power than a stock O-200, and burns less fuel. If
you want to do a high speed pass over the farm, the O-200 is better. If you
want to make long trips with the wife, the turbo Revmaster is better.

In any case, to have a plane with the ability to change the caster and
camber of the gear, you need a separate glassed spar, or Dragonfly type
gear. Why expensive carbon fiber? It is 3-4 times stronger for the same
weight. 6-8 layers of E glass will get the same strength, and cost the same
for the glass. However, it will be more work, and be significantly heavier
(between the extra cloth and epoxy, I estimate 16 times the added weight.

Why consider messing with all of this? Everyone wants more - which is why
Q200s are so popular. More means changing the original design, but it also
means careful consideration of what the changes entail. More is not
necessarily best for you. The first question that should be asked is: what
function do I want to achieve - speed, range, added weight carrying
capability, etc?

Larry Severson
Fountain Valley, CA 92708
(714) 968-9852
larry2@...



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








Yahoo! Groups Sponsor



ADVERTISEMENT

<http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=129ac2rvq/M=294855.5468653.6549235.3001176/D=gr
oups/S=1705065618:HM/EXP=1098544502/A=2376776/R=0/SIG=11ldm1jvc/*http:/promo
tions.yahoo.com/ydomains2004/index.html> click here



<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=294855.5468653.6549235.3001176/D=groups/S=
:HM/A=2376776/rand=930816203>



_____

Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Q-LIST/


* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Q-LIST-unsubscribe@...
<mailto:Q-LIST-unsubscribe@...?subject=Unsubscribe>


* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Service.


Re: CAD LS-1

Larry Severson
 

Second, Larry also mentioned that his post was for
"those who are about to start cutting foam for the
canard".
The Q2's wings and canard are hot wire cut solid core foam blocks that are joined together and glassed. They are more than strong enough for flight; but with the gear at the tips (done for drag reduction), they are at risk of break with a hard landing. My suggestion of cutting out a spar and carbon fiber glassing was merely to create a wing within a wing using identical building methods. Rejecting this concept requires rejecting the whole concept of the Q2 construction. The canard will be significantly more able to take gear impact stresses with the carbon fiber wrapped spar added.

I've been spending a lot of time attempting
to decide whether I should be building an LS-1 or GU
canard, and of what materials it should be.
The LS1 canard was added to the Q2 design to eliminate the problems of lift loss in rain. (VGs have proven to be a viable alternative.) It had the carbon fiber spar added for strength because the thinner canard would be more subject to breaking. An additional benefit came when the extra strength also allowed the additional weight required to put on the O-200 engine. It is not as efficient as the GU.

The LS1 and O-200 are popular due to the increased power and speed available over the Revmaster. However, at over 8,000 feet altitude the Turbo Revmaster has more power than a stock O-200, and burns less fuel. If you want to do a high speed pass over the farm, the O-200 is better. If you want to make long trips with the wife, the turbo Revmaster is better.

In any case, to have a plane with the ability to change the caster and camber of the gear, you need a separate glassed spar, or Dragonfly type gear. Why expensive carbon fiber? It is 3-4 times stronger for the same weight. 6-8 layers of E glass will get the same strength, and cost the same for the glass. However, it will be more work, and be significantly heavier (between the extra cloth and epoxy, I estimate 16 times the added weight.

Why consider messing with all of this? Everyone wants more - which is why Q200s are so popular. More means changing the original design, but it also means careful consideration of what the changes entail. More is not necessarily best for you. The first question that should be asked is: what function do I want to achieve - speed, range, added weight carrying capability, etc?

Larry Severson
Fountain Valley, CA 92708
(714) 968-9852
larry2@...


Re: kt-76

Jeff Cox <coxjj@...>
 

Wow! What a great WEB site.

Do you have any others?

_____

From: Sam Hoskins [mailto:shoskins@...]
Sent: Friday, October 22, 2004 5:40 AM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] kt-76


Mike,

The AeroElectric Connection has radio pinout guides. Here's the link:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/

If you need more info, join the AeroElectric Connection e-mail list. Of,
and you should buy the book also.

Sam



_____

From: mikeenviropest [mailto:enviropest@...]
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2004 11:45 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: [Q-LIST] kt-76




Anyone have access to or know where to get a king Kt-76 wiring
diagram ??

Mike Leary
Atlanta, GA





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








Yahoo! Groups Sponsor



ADVERTISEMENT

<http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=129diohfs/M=294855.5468653.6549235.3001176/D=gr
oups/S=1705065618:HM/EXP=1098506716/A=2376776/R=0/SIG=11ldm1jvc/*http:/promo
tions.yahoo.com/ydomains2004/index.html> click here



<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=294855.5468653.6549235.3001176/D=groups/S=
:HM/A=2376776/rand=714546933>



_____

Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Q-LIST/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Q-LIST-unsubscribe@...
<mailto:Q-LIST-unsubscribe@...?subject=Unsubscribe>

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Terms of Service.







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





Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

ADVERTISEMENT

<http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=129hqo3eb/M=295196.4901138.6071305.3001176/D=gr
oups/S=1705065618:HM/EXP=1098527996/A=2128215/R=0/SIG=10se96mf6/*http://comp
anion.yahoo.com> click here

<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=295196.4901138.6071305.3001176/D=groups/S=
:HM/A=2128215/rand=617092993>

_____

Yahoo! Groups Links


* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Q-LIST/


* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Q-LIST-unsubscribe@...
<mailto:Q-LIST-unsubscribe@...?subject=Unsubscribe>


* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .


Re: kt-76

Mike Leary <enviropest@...>
 

Sam:

What a great website ! Thanks for your help.

Mike Leary

-----Original Message-----
From: Sam Hoskins [mailto:shoskins@...]
Sent: Friday, October 22, 2004 6:40 AM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] kt-76


Mike,

The AeroElectric Connection has radio pinout guides. Here's the link:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/

If you need more info, join the AeroElectric Connection e-mail list.
Of,
and you should buy the book also.

Sam



_____

From: mikeenviropest [mailto:enviropest@...]
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2004 11:45 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: [Q-LIST] kt-76




Anyone have access to or know where to get a king Kt-76 wiring
diagram ??

Mike Leary
Atlanta, GA





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








Yahoo! Groups Sponsor



ADVERTISEMENT

<http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=129diohfs/M=294855.5468653.6549235.3001176/
D=gr
oups/S=1705065618:HM/EXP=1098506716/A=2376776/R=0/SIG=11ldm1jvc/*http:/p
romo
tions.yahoo.com/ydomains2004/index.html> click here



<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=294855.5468653.6549235.3001176/D=group
s/S=
:HM/A=2376776/rand=714546933>



_____

Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Q-LIST/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Q-LIST-unsubscribe@...
<mailto:Q-LIST-unsubscribe@...?subject=Unsubscribe>

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Terms of Service.








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


Yahoo! Groups Links


Re: CAD LS-1

britmcman99
 

Larry:

"...will get me airborne before the ground looping speed ..."

Sounds to me like you achieved ground looping speed (GLx) all right! Folks
who fly conventional tailgraggers find that it becomes necessary to assume a
two wheel take-off. Try this with a Quickie and you may discover GLx. Is it
possible that you lost directional control upon takeoff as a result of
allowing the tailwheel to lift off during take-off roll? I ALWAYS take-off from a
three-point stance. I ensure this with a little help from my reflexor
control setting. The LS1 canard flies off at about 75 mph in this configuration.
I want my canard wheels to lift off just before the tailwheel.

GIve me a call and let's go flying!

Cheers,

Phil
N870BM
San Marcos, CA


Re: CAD LS-1

Sam Hoskins <shoskins@...>
 

Dave, I guess "general consensus" could be defined by the actual aircraft
flying. Judging what I see at the fly-ins, such as Oshkosh and Tandem Wing
Field of Dreams general consensus would indicate that the most successful
design is a LS-1 canard with an O-200. That is what I would recommend.
Yes, there are others but most of the ones that actually arrive have the
LS-1 and O-200.

Sam Hoskins

Q-200 flying (off and on) for 18 years and 1,440 hrs.



_____

From: Dave Klingler [mailto:voronwae@...]
Sent: Friday, October 22, 2004 3:04 AM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] CAD LS-1



Folks, Larry started his post with "For your
considered comment". He's throwing out an idea which
on its face has some merit and he's asking for
intelligent discussion rather than a knee-jerk
scolding. Surely there are people on this list who
might like to talk about it?

Second, Larry also mentioned that his post was for
"those who are about to start cutting foam for the
canard". I fall into that category, so naturally I've
wondered about using carbon and better grades of foam
rather than the original Quickie materials (I have a
Q1, especially "primitive"). I'd like to see some
discussion on using modern materials on planes
currently being built. In addition, I'm re-engining
my plane with a considerably stronger engine (haven't
decided which one yet) and I keep wondering about the
disadvantages of using carbon versus e-glass.

I'm preparing to prepare to prepare to get my plane in
the air again after fourteen years of storage; the
previous owner ground-looped it and decided God had
sent him a message not to fly. I'm amazed and pleased
by the progress in materials since my Quickie was
designed (and since I spent three years building a
Seahawk). I've been spending a lot of time attempting
to decide whether I should be building an LS-1 or GU
canard, and of what materials it should be. I'm
willing to take as much time as it takes to be sure,
but please let the discussion continue in a civilized
and friendly tone so that everybody can benefit.

Btw, is there a general consensus that a new Q1 canard
should be LS-1? Or should it be a GU with VGs? The
GU issue was a big part of what made me store my
Quickie in the first place.

Thanks!
Dave Klingler
Albuquerque, New Mexico
(505) 255-0653
voronwae@...
Quickie N2LQ


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

Larry,

Don't bother! To quote Rutan: "Simplicate and add
lightness. If you're
considering adding something to your airplane, throw
it up in the air. If is
comes down, it's TOO HEAVY -- leave it out."

By the time you do all that structural stuff in
order to support a
cantilevered axle, you could have cut off the old
pants, sanded a five or
six degree bezel on the top, ground down all the old
structural glass (to
save the weight) and reattached the pants at the new
camber angle. No
re-engineering required. The stock pants have plenty
of room for the stuff
that goes in 'em, or you could section the pants and
widen them while you
have them off the plane. You mention the aerodynamic
efficiency as a reason
for wanting to retain the GU canard, how about
giving equal "weight" to the
structural efficiency (lightness!) inherent in the
original pants?

I do not agree with the assertion that the GU canard
is "more efficient" or
whatever your argument is for using it instead of
the LS-1 canard. Stick
with tried and true and get it flying first. If you
absolutely, positively
gotta do the re-engineering thing, either copy the
built-up carbon spar that
Weishaar and Doyle built twenty years ago (for an
LS-1, but usable for a
GU), or call Jim Marske and get a professionally
engineered graphlite rod
spar and landing gear SYSTEM designed from scratch.
That'll cost you about
$20,000 in development costs and consulting fees (or
more!) but the
aerodynamics is already proven....

Hmmmm. Back to plan A: Fix the broken wheel pant,
fix the alignment, do the
Jim-Bob six-pack, consult with your tech counselor
and HEED his advice, get
a pro to test fly it, then go fly....


JMHO,
David J. Gall
PS Main wing winglets = drag, drag, drag! There is
NO need to "increase the
efficiency" of the main wing. It does not EVER stall
so reducing the stall
speed of the airplane means reducing the CANARD's
stall speed.... Also, the
canard carries the brunt of the airplane's weight at
cruise, so if winglets
were needed anywhere it would be on the canard! Of
course, that would be
directionally destabilizing, so increasing the
canard SPAN would be the
preferred method... But either canard winglets or
increasing the canard span
will require increasing the main wing span so that
the main wing remains
protected from EVER stalling... The circle of logic
then puts you squarely
in the Waddelow increased-span camp, or taken to
extremes gives you a
slow-ass Dragonfly instead of a Fassssst Q200....
It's ALL been discussed
here before, see the archives I'm too tired to
re-hash it all again. The
Q200 continues to be one of the aerodynamically BEST
airplanes EVER! Don't
think you can improve it without a Jon Roncz AND a
Jon Sharp on your team!
Again, JMHO!

-----Original Message-----
From: larry severson [mailto:larry2@...]
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2004 3:40 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] CAD LS-1


Anyone who disagrees, feel free to flame me on my
personal
e-mail address.
For considered comment use the net.

A thought for those who are about to start cutting
foam for
the canard on a
Q2 ( based on the published results of the VGs on
a GU canard
by JimP).

If you create the GU canard, then:
1. Cut off both tips (width of pants) (for gear
inside, or
not for gear
outside)
2. Cut out the center (3" wide) of the canard foam
full span
and round edges for the next step 3. Carbon fiber
glass the
cut out foam 4. reattach foam to new carbon fiber
spar and
fill the remaining grooves with flox 5. create a
3" wide X 1"
deep carbon fiber gear leg at the end of spars 6.
cut the end
tips to fit the gear legs (unnecessary for outside
geat) 7.
finish the wings per the plans 8. create the pants
per the
plans, except for the cutout for the gear legs.

9. Add the VGs per Jim P's #3 format tests when
ready

Would add 3 hours to the construction time and
$150 (carbon
fiber and VGs) to cost, but increase GW to/above
the LS1
while maintaining efficiency.
Adding winglets to the wing would help reduce
stall speed
further while increasing cruise speed by
effectively
increasing wing span and reducing drag.

Larry Severson
Fountain Valley, CA 92708
(714) 968-9852
larry2@...



_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.com


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








Yahoo! Groups Sponsor



ADVERTISEMENT

<http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=129o47amk/M=315388.5500238.6578046.3001176/D=gr
oups/S=1705065618:HM/EXP=1098518612/A=2372354/R=0/SIG=12id813k2/*https:/www.
orchardbank.com/hcs/hcsapplication?pf=PLApply&media=EMYHNL40F21004SS> click
here



<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=315388.5500238.6578046.3001176/D=groups/S=
:HM/A=2372354/rand=622266891>



_____

Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Q-LIST/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Q-LIST-unsubscribe@...
<mailto:Q-LIST-unsubscribe@...?subject=Unsubscribe>

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Terms of Service.


Re: kt-76

Sam Hoskins <shoskins@...>
 

Mike,

The AeroElectric Connection has radio pinout guides. Here's the link:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/

If you need more info, join the AeroElectric Connection e-mail list. Of,
and you should buy the book also.

Sam



_____

From: mikeenviropest [mailto:enviropest@...]
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2004 11:45 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: [Q-LIST] kt-76




Anyone have access to or know where to get a king Kt-76 wiring
diagram ??

Mike Leary
Atlanta, GA





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








Yahoo! Groups Sponsor



ADVERTISEMENT

<http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=129diohfs/M=294855.5468653.6549235.3001176/D=gr
oups/S=1705065618:HM/EXP=1098506716/A=2376776/R=0/SIG=11ldm1jvc/*http:/promo
tions.yahoo.com/ydomains2004/index.html> click here



<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=294855.5468653.6549235.3001176/D=groups/S=
:HM/A=2376776/rand=714546933>



_____

Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Q-LIST/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Q-LIST-unsubscribe@...
<mailto:Q-LIST-unsubscribe@...?subject=Unsubscribe>

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Terms of Service.


Re: CAD LS-1

Dave Klingler
 

Folks, Larry started his post with "For your
considered comment". He's throwing out an idea which
on its face has some merit and he's asking for
intelligent discussion rather than a knee-jerk
scolding. Surely there are people on this list who
might like to talk about it?

Second, Larry also mentioned that his post was for
"those who are about to start cutting foam for the
canard". I fall into that category, so naturally I've
wondered about using carbon and better grades of foam
rather than the original Quickie materials (I have a
Q1, especially "primitive"). I'd like to see some
discussion on using modern materials on planes
currently being built. In addition, I'm re-engining
my plane with a considerably stronger engine (haven't
decided which one yet) and I keep wondering about the
disadvantages of using carbon versus e-glass.

I'm preparing to prepare to prepare to get my plane in
the air again after fourteen years of storage; the
previous owner ground-looped it and decided God had
sent him a message not to fly. I'm amazed and pleased
by the progress in materials since my Quickie was
designed (and since I spent three years building a
Seahawk). I've been spending a lot of time attempting
to decide whether I should be building an LS-1 or GU
canard, and of what materials it should be. I'm
willing to take as much time as it takes to be sure,
but please let the discussion continue in a civilized
and friendly tone so that everybody can benefit.

Btw, is there a general consensus that a new Q1 canard
should be LS-1? Or should it be a GU with VGs? The
GU issue was a big part of what made me store my
Quickie in the first place.

Thanks!
Dave Klingler
Albuquerque, New Mexico
(505) 255-0653
voronwae@...
Quickie N2LQ


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

Larry,

Don't bother! To quote Rutan: "Simplicate and add
lightness. If you're
considering adding something to your airplane, throw
it up in the air. If is
comes down, it's TOO HEAVY -- leave it out."

By the time you do all that structural stuff in
order to support a
cantilevered axle, you could have cut off the old
pants, sanded a five or
six degree bezel on the top, ground down all the old
structural glass (to
save the weight) and reattached the pants at the new
camber angle. No
re-engineering required. The stock pants have plenty
of room for the stuff
that goes in 'em, or you could section the pants and
widen them while you
have them off the plane. You mention the aerodynamic
efficiency as a reason
for wanting to retain the GU canard, how about
giving equal "weight" to the
structural efficiency (lightness!) inherent in the
original pants?

I do not agree with the assertion that the GU canard
is "more efficient" or
whatever your argument is for using it instead of
the LS-1 canard. Stick
with tried and true and get it flying first. If you
absolutely, positively
gotta do the re-engineering thing, either copy the
built-up carbon spar that
Weishaar and Doyle built twenty years ago (for an
LS-1, but usable for a
GU), or call Jim Marske and get a professionally
engineered graphlite rod
spar and landing gear SYSTEM designed from scratch.
That'll cost you about
$20,000 in development costs and consulting fees (or
more!) but the
aerodynamics is already proven....

Hmmmm. Back to plan A: Fix the broken wheel pant,
fix the alignment, do the
Jim-Bob six-pack, consult with your tech counselor
and HEED his advice, get
a pro to test fly it, then go fly....


JMHO,
David J. Gall
PS Main wing winglets = drag, drag, drag! There is
NO need to "increase the
efficiency" of the main wing. It does not EVER stall
so reducing the stall
speed of the airplane means reducing the CANARD's
stall speed.... Also, the
canard carries the brunt of the airplane's weight at
cruise, so if winglets
were needed anywhere it would be on the canard! Of
course, that would be
directionally destabilizing, so increasing the
canard SPAN would be the
preferred method... But either canard winglets or
increasing the canard span
will require increasing the main wing span so that
the main wing remains
protected from EVER stalling... The circle of logic
then puts you squarely
in the Waddelow increased-span camp, or taken to
extremes gives you a
slow-ass Dragonfly instead of a Fassssst Q200....
It's ALL been discussed
here before, see the archives I'm too tired to
re-hash it all again. The
Q200 continues to be one of the aerodynamically BEST
airplanes EVER! Don't
think you can improve it without a Jon Roncz AND a
Jon Sharp on your team!
Again, JMHO!

-----Original Message-----
From: larry severson [mailto:larry2@...]
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2004 3:40 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] CAD LS-1


Anyone who disagrees, feel free to flame me on my
personal
e-mail address.
For considered comment use the net.

A thought for those who are about to start cutting
foam for
the canard on a
Q2 ( based on the published results of the VGs on
a GU canard
by JimP).

If you create the GU canard, then:
1. Cut off both tips (width of pants) (for gear
inside, or
not for gear
outside)
2. Cut out the center (3" wide) of the canard foam
full span
and round edges for the next step 3. Carbon fiber
glass the
cut out foam 4. reattach foam to new carbon fiber
spar and
fill the remaining grooves with flox 5. create a
3" wide X 1"
deep carbon fiber gear leg at the end of spars 6.
cut the end
tips to fit the gear legs (unnecessary for outside
geat) 7.
finish the wings per the plans 8. create the pants
per the
plans, except for the cutout for the gear legs.

9. Add the VGs per Jim P's #3 format tests when
ready

Would add 3 hours to the construction time and
$150 (carbon
fiber and VGs) to cost, but increase GW to/above
the LS1
while maintaining efficiency.
Adding winglets to the wing would help reduce
stall speed
further while increasing cruise speed by
effectively
increasing wing span and reducing drag.

Larry Severson
Fountain Valley, CA 92708
(714) 968-9852
larry2@...



_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.com


Re: CAD LS-1

Tim <tlc2@...>
 

Ron wrote: Mite as well go out and buy a tin can bird.

Ron T
I'd rather grow roots ;-)............Hi my name is Tim Cramb, some may
know me from my other homebuilt Yahoo groups.....I picked up the Quickie
CD-Rom off of David Gall in Dec and the and the Templates planes from
Leon McAtee last Jan......Amazed at the amount of information & fine
work you guy's have done to preserve the Q1/2. Always loved this 'kinda'
low powered hotrod.

With fuel prices heading for the sky, I figured a quickie could do the
same and as I've lost 30 lbs in the last year maybe the time is right to
lay up instead of laying around. Besides I need the practice for a Leze
;-)

For fun see photo's>
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/Q1-Quickiebuilders/

Tim Cramb
Cold Lake AB


Re: CAD LS-1

Larry Severson
 

do you have any engineering analysis to back up this recommendation?
Well, Rutan says that the thicker the foam box is, the stronger, more rigid
the composite structure becomes. Also, a carbon fiber wrap around the
rounded edges of the resulting spar box will be equivalent to 3-4 layers of
E glass. The resulting spar would become extremely rigid with 2 layers of
carbon fiber (=6-8 layers of E glass) around the spar with a minimum of 3
inches in the smallest direction.

Without it, this is potentially dangerous advice and it should not be
followed.
You are right, the spar might be too rigid, but I doubt it. Using this spar
with the glass structure called for in the construction manual would
greatly strengthen the canard and add lots of support for the canard tip gear.

For instance, what provision has been made for the difference in
compressive strength for the carbon?
That is the same risk that you face every day with the carbon fiber spar of
the LS1, except this spar should be stronger.

How much Carbon and where? Let me ring the same old bell again here
guys. This sort of half assed advice dooms us to mediocrity and somebody
might be silly enough to follow it....
Maybe Rutan and the EAA glass training course that I took are really quite
stupid, or I have failed to understand simple engineering.

I am not planning to do this unless I have to replace my GU canard. At the
present time I do not think that I will. I am not an EAA Tech Counselor and
my Mechanical Engineering was 41 years ago, before composites. However,
everything that I have read and experienced has backed up what the Rutan
glass instruction materials that came with my Q2 say.

As Ron T says in a later post, he attached his gear to the LS1 carbon fiber
spar. His design will NOT work on the GU without the spar that I have
mentioned.
Building to the plans is safe, most of the time. But the highly touted 6
pack is not per the plans, even if the changes are for the better.
As has been said, "trust, but verify."


Larry Severson
Fountain Valley, CA 92708
(714) 968-9852
larry2@...


kt-76

mikeenviropest <enviropest@...>
 

Anyone have access to or know where to get a king Kt-76 wiring
diagram ??

Mike Leary
Atlanta, GA


Re: trailer OH (I69) -> CA (OAK)

Steve <sham@...>
 

I have a trailer in Indy, It has hauled 5 different birds over 4100 miles.. You arre welcome to put a few more on it. E mail me with you phone # and I will contact you.
Steve Ham

----- Original Message -----
From: fionapple
To: Q-LIST@...
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2004 5:57 PM
Subject: [Q-LIST] trailer OH (I69) -> CA (OAK)



Hi all -

I'm considering a Q200 project near Cincinnati (at I69) and would need
to trailer it (without engine) to Oakland (which you might know as the
commercial airport near the Livermore quickies). If anyone has a
trailer to borrow/rent/buy or would like offer delivery services,
please let me know.

(And thank you for the discussions to date - quite helpful.)

Wes at california dot com

P.S. - Also looking for hangar space...






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




Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT





------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Q-LIST/

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

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


Re: trailer OH (I69) -> CA (OAK)

Bruce Crain
 

Wes,
My trailer is for sale. It will carry a tail dragger Q or a Tri-Q.
$500 in Oklahoma.
Bruce

-- "fionapple" <fionapple@...> wrote:



Hi all -

I'm considering a Q200 project near Cincinnati (at I69) and would need
to trailer it (without engine) to Oakland (which you might know as the
commercial airport near the Livermore quickies). If anyone has a
trailer to borrow/rent/buy or would like offer delivery services,
please let me know.

(And thank you for the discussions to date - quite helpful.)

Wes at california dot com

P.S. - Also looking for hangar space...







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


Yahoo! Groups Links






________________________________________________________________
Speed up your surfing with Juno SpeedBand.
Now includes pop-up blocker!
Only $14.95/ month - visit http://www.juno.com/surf to sign up today!


Re: CAD LS-1

David J. Gall
 

Larry,

Don't bother! To quote Rutan: "Simplicate and add lightness. If you're
considering adding something to your airplane, throw it up in the air. If is
comes down, it's TOO HEAVY -- leave it out."

By the time you do all that structural stuff in order to support a
cantilevered axle, you could have cut off the old pants, sanded a five or
six degree bezel on the top, ground down all the old structural glass (to
save the weight) and reattached the pants at the new camber angle. No
re-engineering required. The stock pants have plenty of room for the stuff
that goes in 'em, or you could section the pants and widen them while you
have them off the plane. You mention the aerodynamic efficiency as a reason
for wanting to retain the GU canard, how about giving equal "weight" to the
structural efficiency (lightness!) inherent in the original pants?

I do not agree with the assertion that the GU canard is "more efficient" or
whatever your argument is for using it instead of the LS-1 canard. Stick
with tried and true and get it flying first. If you absolutely, positively
gotta do the re-engineering thing, either copy the built-up carbon spar that
Weishaar and Doyle built twenty years ago (for an LS-1, but usable for a
GU), or call Jim Marske and get a professionally engineered graphlite rod
spar and landing gear SYSTEM designed from scratch. That'll cost you about
$20,000 in development costs and consulting fees (or more!) but the
aerodynamics is already proven....

Hmmmm. Back to plan A: Fix the broken wheel pant, fix the alignment, do the
Jim-Bob six-pack, consult with your tech counselor and HEED his advice, get
a pro to test fly it, then go fly....


JMHO,
David J. Gall
PS Main wing winglets = drag, drag, drag! There is NO need to "increase the
efficiency" of the main wing. It does not EVER stall so reducing the stall
speed of the airplane means reducing the CANARD's stall speed.... Also, the
canard carries the brunt of the airplane's weight at cruise, so if winglets
were needed anywhere it would be on the canard! Of course, that would be
directionally destabilizing, so increasing the canard SPAN would be the
preferred method... But either canard winglets or increasing the canard span
will require increasing the main wing span so that the main wing remains
protected from EVER stalling... The circle of logic then puts you squarely
in the Waddelow increased-span camp, or taken to extremes gives you a
slow-ass Dragonfly instead of a Fassssst Q200.... It's ALL been discussed
here before, see the archives I'm too tired to re-hash it all again. The
Q200 continues to be one of the aerodynamically BEST airplanes EVER! Don't
think you can improve it without a Jon Roncz AND a Jon Sharp on your team!
Again, JMHO!

-----Original Message-----
From: larry severson [mailto:larry2@...]
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2004 3:40 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] CAD LS-1


Anyone who disagrees, feel free to flame me on my personal
e-mail address.
For considered comment use the net.

A thought for those who are about to start cutting foam for
the canard on a
Q2 ( based on the published results of the VGs on a GU canard
by JimP).

If you create the GU canard, then:
1. Cut off both tips (width of pants) (for gear inside, or
not for gear
outside)
2. Cut out the center (3" wide) of the canard foam full span
and round edges for the next step 3. Carbon fiber glass the
cut out foam 4. reattach foam to new carbon fiber spar and
fill the remaining grooves with flox 5. create a 3" wide X 1"
deep carbon fiber gear leg at the end of spars 6. cut the end
tips to fit the gear legs (unnecessary for outside geat) 7.
finish the wings per the plans 8. create the pants per the
plans, except for the cutout for the gear legs.

9. Add the VGs per Jim P's #3 format tests when ready

Would add 3 hours to the construction time and $150 (carbon
fiber and VGs) to cost, but increase GW to/above the LS1
while maintaining efficiency.
Adding winglets to the wing would help reduce stall speed
further while increasing cruise speed by effectively
increasing wing span and reducing drag.

Larry Severson
Fountain Valley, CA 92708
(714) 968-9852
larry2@...


Re: CAD LS-1

Ron <rondefly@...>
 

Larry, I just realized you were planning this with the GU, I take back
everything I said as mine is the LS-1. Mine is like a 16' hoop gear I would
think. If you are planning to deviate from the straight and narrow, John is
right. You need engineering help. But please don't stop sharing ideas and
dreams on this site, Would hate to think how boring it would be if everyone
built theirs exactly alike. Mite as well go out and buy a tin can bird.



Ron T



Ron Triano
http://bld01.ipowerweb.com/contentmanagement/websites/rtrianoc/page8.html

_____

From: Ron [mailto:rondefly@...]
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2004 6:03 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] CAD LS-1



Larry, that is very close to what I have done, I just extended the spar to
look like a gear leg, then surrounded it with the pant. That is why I don't
need bearing on the outside of the wheel pant.



Ron T



Ron Triano
http://bld01.ipowerweb.com/contentmanagement/websites/rtrianoc/page8.html

_____

From: HawkiDoug [mailto:hawkidoug@...]
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2004 5:11 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] CAD LS-1



What you are proposing here Larry is very radical and would need significant

design analysis and testing. Why are you wanting to do this? Why not just
build an LS1 or Wadlow canard? If you don't like the outboard gear, inboard

gear have been mounted ala the Dragonfly style inboard gear.

Doug "Hawkeye" Humble
www.asignabove.net
Omaha NE
N25974
----- Original Message -----
From: "larry severson" <larry2@...>
To: <Q-LIST@...>
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2004 5:40 PM
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] CAD LS-1



Anyone who disagrees, feel free to flame me on my personal e-mail address.
For considered comment use the net.

A thought for those who are about to start cutting foam for the canard on
a
Q2 ( based on the published results of the VGs on a GU canard by JimP).

If you create the GU canard, then:
1. Cut off both tips (width of pants) (for gear inside, or not for gear
outside)
2. Cut out the center (3" wide) of the canard foam full span and round
edges for the next step
3. Carbon fiber glass the cut out foam
4. reattach foam to new carbon fiber spar and fill the remaining grooves
with flox
5. create a 3" wide X 1" deep carbon fiber gear leg at the end of spars
6. cut the end tips to fit the gear legs (unnecessary for outside geat)
7. finish the wings per the plans
8. create the pants per the plans, except for the cutout for the gear
legs.

9. Add the VGs per Jim P's #3 format tests when ready

Would add 3 hours to the construction time and $150 (carbon fiber and VGs)
to cost, but increase GW to/above the LS1 while maintaining efficiency.
Adding winglets to the wing would help reduce stall speed further while
increasing cruise speed by effectively increasing wing span and reducing
drag.

Larry Severson
Fountain Valley, CA 92708
(714) 968-9852
larry2@...




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


Yahoo! Groups Links










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








Yahoo! Groups Sponsor



ADVERTISEMENT

<http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=129j0paj6/M=294855.5468653.6549235.3001176/D=gr
oups/S=1705065618:HM/EXP=1098490234/A=2376776/R=0/SIG=11ldm1jvc/*http:/promo
tions.yahoo.com/ydomains2004/index.html> click here



<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=294855.5468653.6549235.3001176/D=groups/S=
:HM/A=2376776/rand=834111633>



_____

Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Q-LIST/


* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Q-LIST-unsubscribe@...
<mailto:Q-LIST-unsubscribe@...?subject=Unsubscribe>


* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Service.







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








Yahoo! Groups Sponsor



ADVERTISEMENT

<http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=129bbeea9/M=294855.5468653.6549235.3001176/D=gr
oups/S=1705065618:HM/EXP=1098494406/A=2376776/R=0/SIG=11ldm1jvc/*http:/promo
tions.yahoo.com/ydomains2004/index.html> click here



<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=294855.5468653.6549235.3001176/D=groups/S=
:HM/A=2376776/rand=701382852>



_____

Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Q-LIST/


* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Q-LIST-unsubscribe@...
<mailto:Q-LIST-unsubscribe@...?subject=Unsubscribe>


* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Service.


Re: CAD LS-1

Ron <rondefly@...>
 

Larry, that is very close to what I have done, I just extended the spar to
look like a gear leg, then surrounded it with the pant. That is why I don't
need bearing on the outside of the wheel pant.



Ron T



Ron Triano
http://bld01.ipowerweb.com/contentmanagement/websites/rtrianoc/page8.html

_____

From: HawkiDoug [mailto:hawkidoug@...]
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2004 5:11 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] CAD LS-1



What you are proposing here Larry is very radical and would need significant

design analysis and testing. Why are you wanting to do this? Why not just
build an LS1 or Wadlow canard? If you don't like the outboard gear, inboard

gear have been mounted ala the Dragonfly style inboard gear.

Doug "Hawkeye" Humble
www.asignabove.net
Omaha NE
N25974
----- Original Message -----
From: "larry severson" <larry2@...>
To: <Q-LIST@...>
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2004 5:40 PM
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] CAD LS-1



Anyone who disagrees, feel free to flame me on my personal e-mail address.
For considered comment use the net.

A thought for those who are about to start cutting foam for the canard on
a
Q2 ( based on the published results of the VGs on a GU canard by JimP).

If you create the GU canard, then:
1. Cut off both tips (width of pants) (for gear inside, or not for gear
outside)
2. Cut out the center (3" wide) of the canard foam full span and round
edges for the next step
3. Carbon fiber glass the cut out foam
4. reattach foam to new carbon fiber spar and fill the remaining grooves
with flox
5. create a 3" wide X 1" deep carbon fiber gear leg at the end of spars
6. cut the end tips to fit the gear legs (unnecessary for outside geat)
7. finish the wings per the plans
8. create the pants per the plans, except for the cutout for the gear
legs.

9. Add the VGs per Jim P's #3 format tests when ready

Would add 3 hours to the construction time and $150 (carbon fiber and VGs)
to cost, but increase GW to/above the LS1 while maintaining efficiency.
Adding winglets to the wing would help reduce stall speed further while
increasing cruise speed by effectively increasing wing span and reducing
drag.

Larry Severson
Fountain Valley, CA 92708
(714) 968-9852
larry2@...




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


Yahoo! Groups Links










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








Yahoo! Groups Sponsor



ADVERTISEMENT

<http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=129j0paj6/M=294855.5468653.6549235.3001176/D=gr
oups/S=1705065618:HM/EXP=1098490234/A=2376776/R=0/SIG=11ldm1jvc/*http:/promo
tions.yahoo.com/ydomains2004/index.html> click here



<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=294855.5468653.6549235.3001176/D=groups/S=
:HM/A=2376776/rand=834111633>



_____

Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Q-LIST/


* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Q-LIST-unsubscribe@...
<mailto:Q-LIST-unsubscribe@...?subject=Unsubscribe>


* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Service.